Anti-Baal-Berith justified and Zech. Crofton tryed and cast in his appearance before the (so called) prelate justice of peace in an answer to his seditious pamphlet entituled, Berith-anti-Baal : wherein his anti-monarchial principals are made manifest and apparent, to deserve his just imprisonment : together with an answer and animadversion upon the holy-prophane league and covenant : wherein, according to their own words and ways of arguing, its proved to be null and invalid, and its notorious contrariety to former legal oathes, is in several particulars plainly demonstrated / by Robert Cressener ... Cressener, Robert. 1662 Approx. 289 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 46 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2014-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A34962 Wing C6888 ESTC R4964 12703483 ocm 12703483 65994

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online text creation partnership. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A34962) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 65994) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 686:6) Anti-Baal-Berith justified and Zech. Crofton tryed and cast in his appearance before the (so called) prelate justice of peace in an answer to his seditious pamphlet entituled, Berith-anti-Baal : wherein his anti-monarchial principals are made manifest and apparent, to deserve his just imprisonment : together with an answer and animadversion upon the holy-prophane league and covenant : wherein, according to their own words and ways of arguing, its proved to be null and invalid, and its notorious contrariety to former legal oathes, is in several particulars plainly demonstrated / by Robert Cressener ... Cressener, Robert. [8], 83 p. Printed by Tho. Johnson, and are to be sold by Fr. Kirkman and Wm. Marsh ..., London : 1662. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Crofton, Zachary, 1625 or 6-1672. -- Berith Anti-Baal. Gauden, John, 1605-1662. -- Anti Baal-berith. Solemn League and Covenant (1643) Church and state -- England. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2013-07 Assigned for keying and markup 2013-08 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2013-11 Sampled and proofread 2013-11 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2014-03 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

Anti-Baal-Berith JUSTIFIED, AND ZECH. CROFTON Tryed and Caſt in his Appearance before the (ſo called) PRELATE-JƲSTICE of PEACE; In an Anſwer To his ſeditious Pamphlet, Entituled, BERITH-ANTI-BAAL.

Wherein his Anti-monarchical Principles are made manifeſt and apparent, to deſerve his Juſt Impriſonment.

Together with an Anſwer and Animadverſions upon The Holy-Prophane League and Covenant, Wherein, according to their own words and ways of Arguing, its proved to be null and invalid, and its notorious contrariety to former Legal Oathes, is in ſeveral particulars plainly demonſtrated.

Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, Luke 19. 22. Circumferamus oculos per omnem Hiſtoriam, quod unquam ſaeculum tot vidit ſubditorum in Principes bella ſub Religionis Titulo? & horum Concitores ubique Reperiantur Miniſtri Evangelij ut quidem ſe vocant. Grot. de Antichriſto. p. 71

By ROBERT CRESSENER, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Licenſed and entred, according to Order.

London, Printed by Tho. Johnſon, and are to be ſold by Fr. Kirkman, and Hen. Marſh, at the Princes Arms in Chancery-lane. 1662.

A Paraeneſis to the Reader.

THe Guiſian Leaguers in France having ſworn their Aſſociations and Leagues (which they blaſphemouſly termed, The Confraternities of the Holy Ghoſt) and in 1588. having tormented and vexed the Dukedom of Bovillon with their troubleſom Military Suitors, The principal of the Pack aſſembled at Nancy in Lorrain, where there was great conſultation held how they might advance themſelves, and overthrow the King. There they agreed to preſent certain Articles to the King, which they would have him agree to, and thoſe were ſuch as tended to the utter deſtruction of the King and the Ancient Nobility of France, and the ſafety of themſelves. Firſt, They requeſted the King to joyn more nearly with the League. 2. To eſtabliſh the Spaniſh Inquiſition. 3. To put ſuch Caſtles and ſtrong Townes into their hands, as they ſhould name unto him. The King conſidering how wonderfully they did derogate from his Crown and Dignity, and that they tended directly to the weakning of himſelf, and ſtrengthning of the League, would by no means be induced to condeſcend unto them. And as the Leaguers ſought by ſuch devices to weaken the King, ſo they would not be quiet till the King of Navarre and Prince of Conde were both diſpatcht out of the way; the latter whereof they murthered, but the firſt for the time eſcaped. Guiſe, the principal Head of thoſe Monſters, had in the mean time cauſed ſuch infamous rumors to be raiſed of the Kings Actions, and by ſecret practiſes had ſo diſgrac'd him among his ſubjects, that he was almoſt grown into contempt with the Commonalty, and was counted no body in compariſon of Guiſe: who knowing that he had ſtollen away the peoples hearts from the King, away poſtes he to Paris, and notwithſtanding the King had truly miſtruſted his miſchievous deſigns againſt his perſon, and therefore commanded him not to come upon pain of his diſpleaſure, and being lookt upon as a Traitor, and the Author of all thoſe miſeries wherewith the Land was ſo incumbred at that inſtant, yet he not regarding the Meſſage, followed the Meſſenger cloſe at his heels, and was almoſt at Paris as ſoon as he; and not long after went very confidently to ſee the King, and with all humble reverence with his knee to the ground, ſaluted him; but the King being diſpleaſed with his coming, frowned on him: He ſeeing that, ſtays not long at Court, but into the City runs he, and by his and his Companies inſtigations, the City roſe up in Armes, and down they went to the Louvre to take the King, either alive or dead; which he ſeeing, and having not forces to reſiſt ſuch a rabble, determined to leave the Louvre, at the perſwaſions of ſundry his moſt faithful Councellors, who adviſed him to give place to that deſperate Rebellion, and to ſeek his ſafety ſome other where, and ſo incontinently he went from Paris. Hereupon Guiſe conceiving that the King would ſeek to be revenged of ſo great an indignity offered to his perſon, forthwith ſeized upon the Arſenal, and his Treaſure, removed Perrenſe the Provoſt of the Merchants there, from his Office, and the reſt of the chiefeſt Officers which he knew to be affectionate to the King, and placed ſuch as were the moſt factious and ſeditious Leaguers in their rooms; wrote ſundry Letters to his friends abroad, and to the principal Towns, requiring them to joyn with him, and be in a readineſs when he ſhould have need. When he had taken this courſe for himſelf and his friends, he wrote Letters to the King to diſguiſe all his Actions, and to perſwade him that he had no evil meaning againſt his Majeſty, but had always been, and ſtill remained his moſt dutiful Subject, and therefore beſought the King to be his Gracious Lord, and to accept of him as his moſt faithful and loyal Subject; whoſe damnable hypocriſie and villanous practiſes had their juſt reward given them ſoon after, by ſome of the Kings ſervants, in their ſetting upon and ſlaying him. But yet having left others of his Leaguing Conſpirators behinde him, men of the ſame trayterous Regicidian Principles with himſelf, they never left contriving and hatching of miſchief, till their murthering ends were accompliſhed in James Clement (the See the mutability of France. Dominican Fryer) his ſtabbing of their King with a poiſoned knife. He that ſhall well mark this Breviate of the Leaguing Story, and conſider with me of the actions of thoſe (whom ſome are pleaſed to call The long Parliament) how after they were once got into their Den, and the King had unfortunately Enacted their Continuance, they began to preſent their Nineteen deſtructive Propoſitions to His Majeſty, utterly derogatory to His Crown and Dignity, That all ſuch as they were pleaſed to miſcall Delinquents and diſliked, ſhould be put out of their Offices. That the Militia (that ancient Flower of the Crown) ſhould be pluckt off thence, and put into the hands of ſuch perſons as their ſeditious humors ſhould agree with. That they murthered Strafford, and took away the life of the Archbiſhop of Canterbury; How by infamous Rumors of the Kings actions, they thereby leſſened His Subjects affections to him, and made Him ſo contemptible in the eyes of the people, that ſome had the audacity to throw ſeditious Pamphlets into Witneſs that, To thytents, O Iſrael. His Coach as He paſſed along the ſtreets; how by their own inſtigations they cauſed the Citizens of London to come down to Whitehall in tumultuou Companies, ſaying, No Biſhops, no Biſhops, no Popiſh Lords, and ſo audaciouſly too, that they ſet a Bill upon Whitehall-gate, to give the people notice that it was to be let; that the King was thereupon perſwaded to leave the place, and give way to that popular Commotion, and did leave it accordingly. How after his departure, they raiſed an Army to ſend againſt Him, ſeized upon his Treaſury, as well as Militia, and ordered it which way they pleaſed themſelves. How they removed Sir Richard Gourney then Lord Major of London from his Office, and put in a fiery perſecutor of the Loyal Clergy, (whoſe name, as one ſaith, ſhould more properly Iſaac Pennington. have been Julian) in his place; as well as others who they knew, or ſuſpected to be affectionate to the King and his Legal Cauſe, and placed others of the moſt factious and ſeditious Covenanting Extirpaters in their rooms. How they wrote their Letters to the French Proteſtants abroad, and ſent their Agents into all parts of the Nation at home, deſiring the one, and requiring the other to joyn with and aſſiſt them. How they ſet up a Diſciplinarian Inquiſition among us, that caſt out more Miniſters in three or four years, then all the Biſhops had done in fourſcore years before. How before, and after all this, they wrote their Letters, and ſent their printed, demonſtrating, declaratory Knacks to the King, to diſguiſe their actions, That they had no ill meaning againſt His Majeſty, but had been, and ſtill remained his dutiful and loyal Subjects. How yet by their leaguing together, and proſpering in their wickedneſs, they came at laſt to a peerleſs act of Regicide, of murthering their Sovereign before His own Palace windows, Shall quickly and eaſily perceive, that they were ſworn Leaguers together in one and the ſame Cauſe of Extirpating Reformation, and Covenanted Rebellion, and yet both hypocritically pretending their Loyalty and Allegiance, which manifeſts the Serpents art in beguiling people into the ſnares of wickedneſs, and into the ways of impiety and profaneneſs, and then ſhowing his ſervants the way to delude others, to diſguiſe their Villanies with the ſhew of Godlineſs; and their ſeditious actions with the vizard of faithful Obedience and Subjection; for there is no more difference between our Covenanters here, and their Deer Leaguing Brethren of France, as to the main end and ſcope of their Leaguing Deſigns, then there is between Guy Faux with his Myne and dark Lanthorn, and Bradſhaw and his execrable Confederates in Weſtminſter-Hall; both whoſe intentions we know well enough, was clearly the Murther of Kings, though upon different grounds. The firſt endeavoring to blow up the Father for being too much an Enemy to the Popiſh Ribaldry, and Maſſing Trinckets; The latter actually cutting off the Son, becauſe they thought him in their cauterized conſciences to be a Popiſh Tyrant: but murther we ſee was the aim of both.

The world (ſaith See his Survey of the pretended holy diſcipline. p. 7. Archbiſhop Bancroft) now adays is ſet all upon Liberty. Everyman almoſt is of their humour, which thought ſcorn that any ſhould be lifted up above the Congregation, Numb. 16 1. Crofton at leaſt hath wedded himſelf to their murmuring fancy for Eccleſiaſtical parlty, and is very well pleaſed with his confuſed thoughts of it, or elſe we ſhould certainly have never found him affronting his Epiſcopal Antagoniſt, with his Jangling Diſcourſe of Falſhood and Sedition; more particularly aſſerting this palpable whimſie againſt the general current of Venerable Antiquity, viz. That See p. 25. of his book. that which was charged upon Aerius by Epiphanius, for Hereſie, was an undeniable univerſal truth. Knowing man! Excellent Diſputant! that can daub over his own errors with the untempered morter of confidence and falſhood! There's no meddling with ſuch kind of people, who (with the men of China) conceit two eyes to themſelves, and that leave all the reſt of the world in arrant blindneſs; No hopes of ever prevailing with fanciful creatures, who will (for no other reaſon but becauſe they wil) be in the right order and way, and have voted all their Antagoniſts to lie, and ſtick faſt in a muddy ditch of error. Its very ſtrange to me I muſt needs ſay, that an Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorian ſhould not know what he wrote, at the ſame time he wrote it, better then one of his Juniors at many hundred years diſtance, that ſhould at that time point blanck affirm, That what he ſaid was falſe; but when men are reſolved once to have their wills, no Truth nor Hiſtory muſt dare to controul them, for fear of being taxed of ſpeaking untruths: But ſeeing its an Affirmation without proof, 'tis but anſwering No, to his Ay, and then where is he? He hath a wiſh behinde ſtill, a requeſt to the Biſhop, to eaſe him of his unprofitable, unlucky pains, which is this that follows.

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 Maſter Crofton. Its Page 45. no marvel indeed Mr. Croftons Dictates are of ſuch profound depth; that the Dr. ſhould want them to enlighten his underſtanding: Its the unhappieſt man (one of them) that ever I met with, to bring Dictators to overthrow his own dictates. I wonder what he can get by his Citation of ſuch a Reverend Prelates Works? What profit or advantage is there in thoſe learned Writings, for the upholding of his Covenanting Spell? The Reaſons of the University of Oxford, declares him to be a perſon of admirable parts, and himſelf to be a grand Antagoniſt againſt their ſacred Covenant. The Reverend Prelate cited by that faithful Royaliſt Mr. Roger L'eſtrange, in his Holy Cheat, tell us, That no man can binde himſelf Page 35. in things wherein he is ſubject, without leave of his Superior. And again, The Oath of one who is under the power of another, without the others conſent is neither firm nor valid. Now unleſs our Presbyter can prove, that a ſon or ſervant can do any thing without the Father or Maſters conſent. That a part of the Two Houſes (who themſelves were but part of a Parliament) can lawfully, (i. e. by the Laws of God or this Land) order and change the Affairs of the Church, and thruſt out, and put in what, and whom they pleaſe, without the Kings conſent, the learned Dictates of that excellent Biſhop, clearly proves the nullity of the Covenant, and the rottenneſs and weakneſs of Mr. Crofton's Dictates; how imperiouſly ſoever they are uſhered in with his I deny, and I averr, and ſuch like examples of his brother, the Scotch Confuter of the Learned Cardinal Bellarmin.

Dr. Gauden having affirmed, He took no Oathes, but thoſe appointed by Law. Crofton tells him, Page 63. He might reckon the Covenant to be of this nature. And why ſo? Pray Reader, do but obſerve his pitiful reaſon; for the Authority of Parliament is by the Petition of Right, the legal appointment of an Oath: And what then? I cannot but laugh methinks at his folly, and wonder how he keeps his proſelytes in his noſe, how he leads them by the noſe to believe his fooleries to be unanſwerable! The Petition of Right deſired no Oath might be impoſed upon the people of this Land, but by Act of Parliament: Ergo, The Covenant impoſed by an illegal Ordinance made by a part of a part of a Parliament, is appointed by Law. What a Non ſequitur is here? What an illerate Dolt as to the Laws of England, have we got here? He might as truly argue thus: The Petition of Right declared no Oath to be lawful, but what ſhould be framed and impoſed by Authority of Parliament: Ergo, The Engagement made by a part of one, to be Qui ſemel modeſtiae fines tranſilierit, oppor et ut ſit gnaviter impudens. Cicero. Page 182. true and faithful to the Commonwealth, without a King or Houſe of Lords, is of the nature of thoſe Oathes appointed by Law. What the Authority of Parliament is, will be eaſily perceived in the ſubſequent Diſcourſe, wherein you will finde the Opinions of the Reverend Judges, and Learned Sages of the Land concerning it, more a great deal to be minded then Ipſe Dixits, then the Chymaerical Dictates of little Mr. Crofton; who, what he wants in knowledge, profoundly ſupplies with a petty large meaſure of confidence.

The Biſhop having ſpoken of what happy days there were before the Covenant came, Sure (ſaith Pa. 53 Crofton) thoſe happy days were not real, but ſeeming. And why were they ſeeming? For the Covenant (he ſaith) doth naturally make for what is truly good. What man? The Covenant naturally make for what is truly good? What, have you eaten ſhame, and drunk after it? Truly good? Sure the goodneſs that is in it, is not real, but ſeeming; for the Serpent and your party laid their noddles ſo together, that they would be ſure it ſhould tend to nothing but to raiſe ſedition in the State, and diviſions and ſub-diviſions in the Church, for the Enlargement of the kingdom of your Grand-father the Pope. I perceive a lie will not choak theſe men; but a Surplice and a Tippet will make their ſtomachs wamble. The happy days we enjoyed (before the devil began to appear in the likeneſs of an Angel of light, and ſent forth his ſacred Covenant to trap people in his deluſions) was the envy of all Europe, and glory of our Engliſh Nation, and an everlaſting Monument of a gracious Monarch, and made evident in the vaſt maſs of Treaſure, which was ſo profuſely ſpent afterwards for the maintenance of an horrid and odious Rebellion againſt His Sacred Majeſty, and ſwearing this truly evil Covenant, in proſecution thereof; which though it was impoſed by See his Speech, 5. Dec. 1648. p. 33. 39. a bare Ordinance of part of the two Houſes onely, without the Kings Royal Aſſent thereto; which by (Croftons profound Lawyer Mr. Prynne himſelf) is conſeſſed to be a new Device of that preſent Parliament (as he called it) never known nor uſed in any former Parliaments, what ever hath been conceived to the contrary; yet our profound Pulpit-prater would needs have us believe that it was impoſed by Authority of Parliament. And thoſe very words of Mr. Prynne too, doth clean overthrow his Brother Claſſicks dream of the Two Houſes Supream Legiſlative Power. What the goodneſs of that Covenant is (which the Iriſh Parliament declared to be a grand Incentive of Rebellion) what Schiſms, Separations, Diviſions, and Sub-diviſions it naturally produced, will be pretty well ſeen in the following Sheets; and what the purity of that Diſcipline and Reformed Religion is (which the Covenant was taken for the maintenance of) will appear amongſt many other Letters that were wrote by this of Gantois, a grave and learned Foreigner in the time of that Phaenix Queen Elizabeth, who being requeſted to write his Opinion what effects the Presbyterian Diſcipline had brought forth in Holland, returns this following Anſwer, which is but a part of the whole ſet down at large by Archbiſhop Bancroft, in his Survey of the Holy Diſcipline: Is any man able (ſaith he) to repeat the monſtruous Page 456. Hereſies and Errors that Holland doth nouriſh under the ſhadow of Reformed Religion? This is aimed at, viz. That the Turpitude of all blaſphemies being covered with this cloak, may lie hid, and that it may be lawful without controulment (if any liſt) to recall the old Paganiſm, or to profeſs Mahome s Religion, or what worſe is, if there be any thing worſe. Here's rare effects of that godly Babe, that muſt be brought forth into the world with a bloody Covenant, enough I warrant you to make a man in love with it over the left ſhoulder. Ay but this is not all neither, for he tells us, That the Magiſtrates there did ſuſpect this Form of Eccleſiaſtical Government, why? becauſe (ſaith he, pray mark their reaſon for it) they fear leſt it may degenerate into a worſe Tyranny then the Spaniſh Inquiſition. The Genevians themſelves were ſo hampered with the imperious courſes of Calvin and his Companions, that they were forced to baniſh them, and after their expulſion, they gave this reaſon for it: Tyranni eſſe voluerunt in Liberam Civitatem; voluerunt novum Pontificatum revocare. They would have been Tyrants over a free City; they would have recalled a new Papacy, (Calvin ad Farel. Epiſt. 6. p. 11.) And Carter one of the Diſciplinarian Gang, writing to his friend Field from Embden, in the time of Qu. Elizabeth, tells him, That if he did ſee the confuſed ſtate of the Churches of thoſe Countreys, he would ſay that England (how bad ſoever) was a paradiſe in compariſon. What a damnable Diſcipline is this, that its very Idolizers, as well as others, ſhould ſo terribly exclaim of the miſchievous effects of it? And that we may ſee with what wonderful wiſdom, and with what grave Divines it was at firſt brought forth into the world, Calvin himſelf (the Father of it) will give us a clear Teſtimony, (f) In illa promiſcua colluvie ſuffragiis fuimus ſuperiores. In that confuſed off-ſcouring of the whole multitude, we had the moſt voices. Calvin to Bullinger. Epiſt. 107. Here was the firſt riſe and product of it in a confuſed multitude, onely Calvin and his party got the upper hand for it by moſt voices, which makes me throw in this one query amongſt the party, Where is the divinity, or divine inſtitution of that Eccleſiſtical Government, which is clearly beholden to moſt voices in a confuſed multitude for its Eſtabliſhment?

What the genuine reſult of Eſtabliſhment of this confuſed Diſcipline (ſo much contended for by the Covenanting party with us in England) hath been in forein parts, their ſeveral Teſtimonies have made apparent. What it hath been in Scotland, the Primates Fair Warning hath ſhown as manifeſt; and what it hath been here in England, ſince they removed the Prelatical Yoke from off their ſhoulders by their Covenanting endeavors, their own ſerious Confeſſion hereafter inſerted, is a moſt convincing teſtimony againſt themſelves.

If any ſhall now demand or enquire why this ſubſequent Diſcourſe no ſooner ſaw the light, Let them be pleaſed to ſatisfie themſelves with that which follows; That the Author having diſpatch'd the firſt part thereof, was by extraordinary occaſions in the country, diverted from further proſecuting of it the laſt ſummer ſeaſon, and coming up this Winter time to the City again, his worldly Concernments for a pretty ſpace took him off from any immediate further proceeding, till being ſomewhat at leiſure again, the buſineſs entred into his thoughts, and then made a final end of it; but yet notwithſtanding kept it ſo finiſhed by him, till the thoughts thereof prevailed with him to ſhow it to a Reverend Perſon (his much honored Friend) for his peruſal, who ſuddenly after deſired its publication; and though his deſire I preſume, proceeded from the ſubject matter of the Diſcourſe, and not from any worth that is in it, which cannot well iſſue from ſuch poor abilities wherewith the Author is endued, yet he cannot but crave pardon for appearing in publick, hoping that the Judicious will be pleaſed to pardon his frailties in the management of it, and accept of his well-meaning mind for the grand defects of his underſtanding; who humbly conceives, that Diſcourſes of this nature are at all times ſeaſonable, to antidote the contagion of thoſe perſons ſeditious principles and practiſes, whoſe Motto will be always this, Of being ſeditious in the State, and ſchiſmatical in the Church, and conclude with that remarkable Obſervation of Archbiſhop Bancroft, in his admirable Survey of the pretended Holy Diſcipline: That Page 6. It hath been an ancient practice of the Adverſaries of the Church of God, then eſpecially to be complotting of ſome miſchief both againſt Sion and Jeruſalem, when in outward ſhew they have pretended moſt of all to be deſirous to repair them, and to ſeek their glory.

Die Lunae. 20. May, 1661.

THe Lords in Parliament having conſidered of a paper ſent unto them from the Houſe of Commons, for burning of the Inſtrument or Writing called, The Solemn League and Covenant, by the hands of the common Hang-man, Do Order, That the ſaid Inſtrument or Writing, called, The Solemn League and Covenant, be burned by the hand of the common Hang-man, in the New Palace at Weſtminſter, in Cheap-ſide, and before the Old Exchange, on Wedneſday the Twenty ſecond of this inſtant May. And that the ſaid Covenant be forthwith taken off the Record in the Houſe of Peers, and in all other Courts and places where the ſame is recorded: And that all Copies thereof be taken out of all Churches, Chappels, and other publick places in England and Wales, and in the Town of Berwick upon Tweed, where the ſame are ſet up.

Anti-Baal-Berith juſtified, &c.

NOthing can be the matter of a Vow or Covenant which is evidently unlawful, but it is evidently unlawful for a Subject or Subjects, to attempt to alter the Laws eſtabliſhed by force, without the concurrence, and againſt the Commands of the Supream Legiſlator, for the Introduction of a foreign Diſcipline, ſaid the See his Fair warning to take heed of the Scottiſh diſcipline, pag. 30. now moſt Learned and Reverend Primate of Armagh. Upon conſideration whereof, and finding that Jugling Oath, Entituled, A Solemn League and Covenant, to be the ſubject matter of Debate between the Reverend Epiſcopalians and the Presbyterians at this day, I reſolved with my ſelf (how unlearned ſoever) to make a ſerious Enquiry into the nature of that Covenant, and ſet down my Animadverſions on it. And upon ſuch Enquiry, I found it not at all to portend any good to this Nation; and by an impartial Search into the genuine fruits, and bloody villanous effects thereof (which as Springs from that venemous Fountain, have run forth over the Nation,) I finde that it deſerved rather to have been buried like Corah and his Complices, in everlaſting oblivion and forgetfulneſs (except it were for a deteſtation and perfect abhorrency of it) then to be revived again as an Achan amongſt us, to involve and keep us ſtill in blood and confuſion: I ſpeak not this out of paſſion or partiality, but out of a ſerious conſideration of the evil matter contained in it, part of the very Preface whereof ſounds very ſtrangely in mine ears, where they tell us, That according to the commendable practice of theſe Kingdoms in former times, and Gods people in other Nations, they have reſolved to enter into a Solemn League and Covenant, &c.

I have read a Saying ſomewhere, That its ominous to ſtumble at the threſhold, and that theſe Abſolonians ſhould ſtumble ſo groſly againſt the Truth at the very entrance of their League, argues their being filled more with Puritaniſm, then Purity; more with frantick zeal, then that according to knowledge; for had they had any regard to truth, the world had never then been made acquainted with ſuch a groundleſs Fiction; for let them make appear by true Evidences and Hiſtories (if they are able, and if not, let them renounce their bold Aſſertion) that ever ſuch a League (as this of theirs) was ever framed, deviſed, and put in execution within this Nation, for the extirpation of all Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, and the reſt of that glorious Hierarchy, whoſe Liberties and Priviledges are eſtabliſhed by the great Charter, and other good Laws of this Land) and that ever there were ſuch a Combination againſt their Prince for no other end, but to defend him. If this were the Practice of former times, What meant the Olivarian Covenanting-Metropolitan Nye, when he point blanck affirmed, That it was Covenant with Narrative, p. 12. ſuch an Oath, as for Matter, Perſons, and other Circumſtances, the like hath not been in any Age or Oath we read of in Sacred or Humane Stories? Now can any one that hath read any thing of the Engliſh Chronicles, be ſo mad and frantick as to think that to be the Practice of former Ages, which was never viſible, never done by any within this Kingdom: nay, and which one of the profound Swearers themſelves affirms cannot be parallel'd, That the like hath not been in any Age? Either the one or the other, muſt lie with a witneſs. If what the Preface ſaith, be true, then Nye is notoriouſly deceived; then farewel truth it ſelf, and all the noble Aſſertors of it: if what Nye affirms be true, (as undoubtedly it is, and cannot be denyed) then that part of the Preface (which ſets ſuch a fraud and deceit to catch the eyes and hearts of ſome credulous poor mortals) muſt abſolutely appear to be a damnable falſhood, and the proper effects of a Serpentine infatuation, and their Covenant-building it ſelf, to be like that of the fools, ſpoken of by our Saviour in the 7. of Saint Matth. and the latter end. Nay, that's not all neither; for they call it a commendable practice: what, and never done, nor performed by any in this kingdom? Surely, if I ſhould go and do a thing (which was never before viſible, or acted by any) and ſay, It is according to the commendable practice of others, I might well be eſteemed void of any ſenſe or reaſon; in a meer diſtracted condition: fitter for an inhabitant of Bedlam, then any ſober place amongſt thoſe who were able to diſtinguiſh betwixt Sobriety, and Frenzy: betwixt an Orthodox Chriſtian, and a Guiſian Leaguer. But ſuppoſe there had been ſuch practiſes heretofore, in the times of Popiſh Egyptian darkneſs, ſhall any pretending to true Proteſtantiſm (which ſeverely declaims all ſuch perfidious Antichriſtian courſes) be found to be ſo far approvers of ſuch infamous actions, as to commend them for examples to others to tread in the ſame ſteps? Can Subjects combining and ſwearing together to extirpate the legal eſtabliſhed Church-Government of a Nation (as Biſhops were, and are ſtill here, though the leg) exerciſe of their Coercive power in the Star-Chamber, and High Commiſsion Courts was taken away by the Act in 1641. to prevent the ſubſequent Rebellion, and Jeſuitical-Combinations of Leaguing Presbyters) and vowing to aſſiſt one another in their Covenanted Rebellion, with their lives and fortunes, againſt the expreſs command of the ſupream Governor, for the attaining of their Leaguing ends, be called and ſtiled Commendable by any one, pretending ſome affinity to Loyalty or Chriſtianity (which are inſeparable, and the conſtant attendants upon a true fearer of the Lord)? It's a brave time with Rebels, when their Treaſon and diſloyalty are enrolled amongſt the Records of Fame and Honour, and their obedient oppoſites to the commands of their lawful Prince, are in the very act of Loyalty tearmed, and Recorded for terrible Delinquents againſt the thing which Nick-named it ſelf ſo often, A Parliament: Halcyon daies for Sacrilegious Schiſmaticks, when that which is condemned by the word of God (nothing more) ſhall be garniſhed forth with an Epethite of Commendable, though, what the Prophet, by God's expreſs command, ſaid ſo long ago, that do I ſay now unto theſe ſtrangers to Truth and Loyalty, Iſaiah 5. 20. Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil.

§. 2. They tell us too, It was according to the practice of Gods people in other Nations. Aha! What, Gods people, and Covenanting Rebels too? What, Reformers, and ſwearing Extirpaters of the Epiſcopal promoters of the Reformation? Saints, and yet Schiſmaticks! Chriſtians, and yet Traytors! Surely our Covenanters were put to extream hard ſtraits, to make lies their refuge for their carrying on of their extirpating Reformation? No other way to catch people into the black Road with them, but by blinding their eyes with Errors and Contradictions? A ſad geneneration of Merozians: Its true indeed, the Guiſian Leaguers in France, went directly in the ſame impious courſes before them, & unleſs they be their Gods people, I know none: for they alone were the Monſters that our Leaguers could properly ſay they were imitators of, becauſe they went to their helliſh work with an Oath (like ours) and yet Guiſe himſelf (like ours too) had the face to tell his Prince, That he was his faithful ſubject, for all that, Who (as the Tranſlator of a Pariſians Work tells us) living under See the right of Kings, and duty of ſubjects. Pref. a milde and peaceable Prince, ſlandered their King that he was an enemy to the Roman Catholick Religion (as our Covenanters did the late Carolian Martyr, to be an enemy to the Proteſtant) and under the fair pretence of Religion, ſcrewed themſelves into the favour of the Common people (who are uſually deceived by ſuch pretences) raiſing a ſtrong party againſt the King, by the name of the holy League, which cauſed much confuſion in that kingdom, (as by too ſad and lamentable experience we have found to be the effects of our Engliſh Leaguers in this.) And now I appeal to the conſcience of any man living, whether they that can firſt Rebel againſt their For ſo they ſwore the King was. only Supream Governour, and then have the confidence to tell us of a thing which never was (like that of the man in the Moon) and ſet it down with ſuch a poſitive Aſſeveration (as making it a pattern for their illegal traitorous undertakings) and ſtile that Commendable, which (if any ſuch thing had ever been) ought to be abhorred, as much as hell, by him that deſires the Rules of Chriſtianity: I ſay, I appeal to the Conſcience of any man living, who deſires not to be enſnared (and kept ſo) with the See Mr. Reynell's Panegyrik intituled, The unfortunate Change. Caledonian Boar, which was the cauſe of our diſtempers, whether they that ſpeak theſe lies and juglings, theſe palpable falſhoods and deceits, could poſſibly have (according to their aſſertion) Before their eyes the glory of God, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt (whoſe See Mr. Quarrel's Loyal Convert, P. 5. glory will not be vindicated by ſuch unlawful means, and unwarrantable proceedings, and whoſe kingdom is endeavoured to be pulled down by ſuch a peerleſs Covenant)? But whats it they ſwear, that muſt have a juggling Preface to ſet it forth? Why, they tell us in their firſt Article, That they will ſincerely, really, and constantly through the grace of God (as though that would ever ſquare with ſuch proceedings) endeavour in their ſeverall places and callings, the Preſervation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland, in Doctrine, Worship, Diſcipline and Government, according to the word of God, and the example of the beſt Reformed Churches.

§. 3. What have I to do with the reglement of Foreign Churches? See his Fair warning, P. 1, ſaid the Reverend Primate, and ſo ſay I too, What had Engliſh men to do, to ſwear to preſerve the Doctrine, and Diſcipline of another Countrey? Let them ſtand or fall to their own Master. Ay, but here was the Myſtery, We have an earneſt longing deſire to have Biſhops extirpated, and we, having followed the pattern of our dear Scottiſh Brethren, in riſing up in arms againſt our King for that purpoſe, and being not well able and ſufficient of our ſelves, to carry on our deſign againſt them, we muſt call in the other to our aid, and they will not come to us, unleſs we will ſwear to ſet up their Church-way amongſt us; and therefore, rather then Biſhops ſhall ſtand, we will do it: For (as the late Martyr ſaid upon the Covenant) nothing will induce them to engage, till thoſe that called them in, have pawned thier ſouls to them by a ſolemn League and Covenant: I am verily perſwaded, that there was not one amongſt a hundred that ſwore that League to preſerve the Scottiſh Diſcipline, that knew no more what their Diſcipline was then a horſe, and ſo they ſwore with a blinde implicite faith to preſerve they knew not what themſelves: Pure good ſwearing, (is it not)? Was this ſworn in Truth, Judgement, and Righteouſneſs, as the Prophet ſaith, an Oath ſhould? Jer. 4. 2. If not, (as it was not) Is not therefore ſuch mens ſwearing unlawful, and ſo to be renounced, and repented of? Is it not an abominable wickedneſs in any one to ſwear to preſerve the Scottiſh Diſcipline (or when ſworn, to keep ſuch a wicked Oath) when the Reverend Primate hath made it appear by ſuch cogent and undeniable Arguments of truth, and ſound Divinity (beyond the reach and power of a Crofton, or any Presbyterian adverſary to anſwer without palpable cavilling, & declaring of their own folly) That See his fair warning, p. 2. this diſcipline (which the Croftonians ſo much adore) is the very quinteſſence of refined Popery, or a greater tyranny then ever Rome brought forth, inconſiſtent with all forms of civil Government, deſtructive to all ſorts of Policy, a rack to the conſcience, the heavieſt preſſure that can fall upon a people, and ſo much more dangerous, becauſe by the ſpecious pretence of Divine inſtitution, it takes away the ſight, but not the burthen of ſlavery. Reader, peruſe that ſmall book, and i'le undertake it ſhal give thee full ſatisfaction what this Cockatrice egge, the Scottiſh diſcipline is, and what a precious jewel it is to be preſerved. But how will they preſerve this Pandora's box? why, according to the word of God, & the example of the beſt reformed Churches: that's brave indeed! to ſwear to preſerve that according to the word of God, which knows nothing of it (as it is ſingular by it ſelf)? Suppoſe I ſhould ſwear to preſerve a thief in his pilfering courſes, according to the word of God, would that make the thieves actions good, becauſe it is expreſſed according to the word of God? or would it not rather aggravate and heighten the bloody nature of my ſins, to ſwear with ſuch a ſtrange ſelf-contradiction? Juſt as if I ſhould ſay, I would do a thing according to the will and deſire of another, who hath openly made his proteſtation againſt it: I am ſure the thieves actions cannot be more oppoſite to the Sacred Canon of Scripture, then ſome part of the Scottiſh Diſcipline is, (which the Reverend Primate hath well informed us of, to which I refer the doubtful for ſatisfaction) and therefore notwithſtanding that expreſſion, the Oath for preſervation of ſuch an Anti-Monarchical Diſcipline, cannot but be very wicked, and therefore unlawful to be ſworn or kept. And as for the beſt Reformed Churches, the Church of England, by all impartial, unbyaſſed, ſober Proteſtants, was wont to be accounted the beſt Reformed Church in the world; and, See the fair warning, p. 2. before theſe unhappy troubles in England all Proteſtants, both Lutherans and Calviniſts, did give unto the English Church the right hand of fellowſhip: which made the moſt Reverend Doctor Hammond (of renowned memory) to affirm, That See his View of the new Directory, and vindication of the ancient Liturgy, P. 7. the Church of England, as it ſtands eſtablished by law, is avowable againſt all the Calumniators in the world, to be the beſt, and moſt exemplary Reformed: ſo far (ſaith he) that if I did not gueſs of the ſenſe of the Covenant, more by the temper, then words of the Covenanters, I should think all men that have Covenanted to Reform, after the example of the beſt Reformed Churches, indiſpenſably obliged to conform to the King-Edward, or Queen-Elizabeth-English Reformation, the moſt regular, perfect pattern that Europe yieldeth. Thus that indefatigable Defender, and Propagator of Catholick truths, againſt the novel inchroachments of the then Julianizing times, whoſe memory will be precious, and his name ſmell as ſweet odour in the noſtrils of all true hearted Chriſtian Proteſtants, when the name of an Aſſembler will hardly be thought on, without immediate branding him for Treaſon and diſloyalty. And ſo now, having briefly diſpatched the firſt, I ſhall proceed on to the ſecond, and there they ſpeak out what their Covenant for Reformation is; for they tell us there too, in their Rebellious language,

§. 4. That they shall in like maner, without reſpect of perſons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, (that is, Church-Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, Commiſſaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-Deacons, and all other Eccleſiaſtical Officers depending on that Hyerarchy) Superſtition, Hereſie, Schiſm, Profaneneſs, and whatſoever shall be found to be contrary to ſound Doctrine, and the power of godlineſs, leſt we partake in other mens ſins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues. In good time! Excellent Deformers! They that were the grand Promoters, and carriers on at firſt of the Regular Engliſh-Reformation (though indeed, not by Sedition and Rebellion againſt their Soveraign, nor by making uſe of curſing-Merozian Texts, to ſtir up the people to aſſiſt them in ſuch filthy courſes, but by obedience and ſubjection to the unjuſt puniſhment of Majeſty, and freely offering their bodies to the fire) muſt now be extirpated by our Deformers of Truth and Chriſtianity, under a ſly pretence of a deteſtable Reformation. A good requital to them for their incomparable defences of the true Proteſtant Religion againſt the Jeſuits, and others of the Babylonian Romiſh rout, to be now caſt out, as unprofitable branches, by a pack of holy Leaguers, not worthy to be named with them: but what ſaid our own late moſt noble Sovereign? See Eikon Baſilike upon the Covenant. Many Engines of religious and fair pretenſions are brought, chiefly to batter or raſe Epiſcopacy: This (ſaith he) they make the grand evil Spirit, which (with ſome other imps, purpoſely added to make it more odious and terrible to the vulgar) muſt by ſo ſolemn a charm and exorciſm, be caſt out of this Church, after more then a thouſand years poſſeſsion from the firſt plantation of Chriſtianity in this Iſland, and an univerſal preſcription of time and practice in all other Churches, ſince the Apoſtles times, till this laſt Century. But no antiquity muſt plead for it: Presbytery, like a young heir, thinks the father hath lived long enough, and impatient, not to be in the Biſhops chair and authority, all art is uſed to ſink Epiſcopacy, and lanch Presbytery in England, which was lately boyed up in Scotland by the like artifice of a Covenant. And therefore for that Apoſtolical-Primitive Univerſal Church-Government of Epiſcopacy (ſo Univerſal, That See Eikon Baſilike, in 24. P. 103. (as the Martyr ſaith) ſince the firſt Age, for one thouſand five hundred years, not one example can be produced of any ſetled Church, wherein were many Ministers and Congregations, which had not ſome Bishop above them, under whoſe Juriſdiction and Government they were: and ſo, by conſequence unavoidable, the damnable infamous nature of the Covenant for extirpation thereof. There hath been ſo much ſaid by our Reverend Epiſcoplains, and by our late Joſiah, of moſt bleſſed and glorious memory, that I ſhall forbear to ſay any thing more of it, but refer them that deſire ſatisfaction, to their reſpective writings; (and I wonder when the Preſbyterian will anſwer them: I do not mean by cavillings, and railings (for there have been too much of that already) but by true, good, ſolid, ſound arguments and reaſons; ſuch as may carry truth in their fore-head, which people ſhall eaſily perceive, when they can once have the happineſs to ſee the Swans turn black.

§. 5. But is this all that theſe Leaguers ſwear to extirpate in this Article? No, they joyn with the former (juſt as if a man ſhould joyn a Scottish Presbytery with a Monarchy, which (in the wiſe experienced judgement of King James See the Conference at Hampt. Court. p. 81. as well agreeth as God and the devil) Superſtition, Hereſie, Schiſm, Profaneneſs, and whatſoever shall be found contrary to ſound Doctrine, and the power of godlineſs. A good hearing! I like this part of the Article extreamly well; and the better, for that hereby they muſt endeavour to extirpate, as much as poſſibly they can, (under the danger of perjury) their very Extirpation. Down Covenant, down: What doſt thou hold up thy head for? Thy Fathers that begot thee, have knock'd thy brains out, and have ſworn to do it by their Sacred Covenant (as they call it) in ſwearing to extirpate Hereſie, Schiſm, and Profaneneſs: this I will make appear by their own confeſſion (and let them deny it if they are able) which they unanimouſly ſet forth to the view of all the world, no leſs then 52 of the party, See the Teſtimony to the truth of J. C. ſubſcribed by the Miniſters within the Province of London, p. 30. p. 29. p. 30 p. 26. That in ſtead of true Piety and power of Godlineſs, they had opened the very flood-gates to all Impiety and Profaneneſs, and after they had removed the Prelatical yoke [mark] from their ſhoulders, by their covenanted endeavors (i. i. by vertue of their League) Well! what then? What followed their extirpating Oath againſt the Prelacy? They tell us, There was a rueful, deplorable, and deformed face of the Affairs of Religion—ſwarming with noiſom Errors, Hereſies, and Blaſphemies in ſtead of Faith and Truth; torn in pieces with deſtructive Schiſms, Separations, Diviſions and Sub-diviſions, in ſtead of Ʋnity and Ʋniformity. page 31. That in ſtead of a Reformation, they might ſay with ſighs, what their enemies ſaid in ſcorn, they had a Deformation in Religion; and in ſtead of extirpation of Hereſie, Schiſm, Proſaneneſs, &c. they had an impudent and general inundation of all thoſe Evils. A fair Confeſſion, and an ingenuous ſelf-condemnation! Obſerve Reader, what theſe Changers of our times, and deforming Leagueing-Reformers have publickly confeſſed, to the ſhame and diſgrace both of themſelves and their graceleſs Covenant. Here they tell us, that they have opened the very flood-gates to all Impiety and Profaneneſs, (by vertue of that very Covenant whereby they were ſworn to extirpate it) and that after they had removed the Biſhops, Religion ſwarmed with noiſom Errors, Hereſies and Blaſphemies, torn in pieces with Schiſms and Diviſions: Very good; Was not this very Covenant (by force whereof theſe mad exploits have been done, and the terrible effects thereof are ſo ſadly complained of) taken and ſworn without, yea againſt the conſent and expreſs Command of the onely Supream Governor, (and ſo by conſequence abſolute rebellion) to whom theſe Swearers before by a legal eſtabliſhed Oath, had ſolemnly ſwore to bear true faith and allegiance? Is not then that League which was the Inſtrument and Means for the producing of theſe horrible Impieties and ſad Effects, both in the form and matter of it, extreamly unlawful, naught and wicked, and therefore not to be kept, but damned eternally? Our bleſſed Savior ſaith, Matth. 7. 18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit: And can this Covenant (whereby the Swearers thereof have acknowledged (for that was it they were ſpeaking of when they confeſſed) they have opened the very flood-gates to all impiety and profaneneſs) be a good tree that hath brought forth ſuch venemous deadly fruit? or not rather a very corrupt tree that cannot bring forth that which is good? Certainly that League muſt be a League and Covenant with hell and death, that ſhall produce ſuch helliſh fruits and effects, as by the printed Confeſsion of the Swearers themſelves was too evident and palpable (it ſeems) to be with any truth denied. What remains then, but that it ſhould have the deſerved fate of a corrupt tree, even to be ver. 19. hewn down and caſt into the fire by the hands of the common Hang-man? The bleſſed Apoſtle St Paul told his Romans, that he would have them to Rom. 16. 17, 18. mark them which cauſed diviſions contrary to the doctrine they had learned, and avoid them; for they that are ſuch (ſaith he) ſerve not our Lord Jeſus Chriſt but their own belly, and by good words and fair ſpeeches (like our unſacred Leaguers with their According to the word of God, and the example of the beſt Reformed Churches) deceive the hearts of the ſimple, who are not able to ſee into the depth of their deluſive Cheats. And in another place asked his Corinthians, that 1 Cor. 3. 3, 4. whereas there was among them diviſions, (and what they were, he tells us other where 1 Cor. 1. 12, 13. were they not carnal, and walked as men? And therefore again I Quaere, Can this League (from whence ſuch deſtructive Separations, Schiſms, Diviſions, and Sub-diviſions have naturally flown) be any other then extreamly abominable and wicked, when the very cauſers of ſuch diviſions, by what wayes or means ſoever, are branded by the Apoſtle with this black mark of not being ſpiritual, but carnal; of ſerving not our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, but their own belly? Qui vult decipi, decipiatur; He that will be deceived, let him. But its impoſſible to catch any other with their deſtructive ſchiſmatical courſes, then thoſe who are either ignorant, or wilfully ſhut their eyes that they might not be enabled to ſee the miſchiefs and villanies of their ſolemn League and Covenant; which being ſo extreamly ſinful both in the form and matter of it, and by filling Religion with noiſom errors, hereſies, and blaſphemies, in ſtead of faith and truth, and cauſing an impudent and general inundation of all thoſe evils, to be vehemently, contrary to ſound doctrine on the one hand, and by opening the flood-gates to all impiety and profaneneſs, to be notoriouſly oppoſite to the power of godlineſs on the other hand, (for there were none of theſe things heard, or to be complained of in the Biſhops time, till Iſaiah. 14. 29. out of the ſerpents root this Cockatrice (the Covenant) came forth, whoſe fruits have proved no better to us then a fiery flying ſerpent.) I do here warn and conjure them in the preſence of God, Angels, and men, and as they will anſwer it before the Judgement-ſeat of Chriſt, not onely to renounce, but (as much as in them lie) to endeavor to extirpate ſuch an impious, profane, and faithleſs Covenant for extirpation of the Prelacy (the noble Hedge againſt all thoſe Schiſms, Separations, Diviſions and Sub-diviſions, ſo much complained of by them) according to the reality of the laſt Clauſe of this their ſecond Article which they ſwore. Return, return (O ſacred Covenanter) return, return into thoſe ways of truth, plainneſs and loyalty toward God and your King, which by your peerleſs Covenant you have ſo deeply apoſtatized from, into the ungodly ways of falſhood and ledition, ugling and deceit, diſloyalty, treaſon, and true malignancy, leſt (according to your own Covenanting words) you partake matter mens ſins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues.

§. 6. But becauſe my intentions are to be brief in my Animadverſions. I ſhall paſs from this ſecond to the third Article, where they tell us, That they hall with the ſame ſincerity, reality and conſtancy in their ſeveral vocations, endeavor with their eſtates and lives mutually, (to ſet the cart before the horſe, and the tayl of a man above his head) to preſerve the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, and the Liberties of the Kingdoms, and to preſerve and defend the Kings Majeſties perſon and Authority (with a Jugling Jeſuitical King-deſtroying limitation) in the preſervation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms, that the world may bear witneſs with our conſciences of our Loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminiſh His Majeieſties juſt Power and Greatneſs. This very Article, and the notorious Jugling in it, were enough to make an underſtanding perſon abhor the League eternally, and deteſt the very thoughts of having any thing to do with it; and that will appear if we do but conſider well their limited defence of their noble Sovereign, which in the whole amounts to no defence at all, but rather a direct imperious oppoſition and reſiſtance againſt His Regal Power and Authority.

§. 7. I have read many of the Leaguers indeed exclaim againſt the Royaliſts, for aſſerting, That the Covenant tended to the deſtruction of the King. What (ſay they) the Covenant tend to the deſtruction of the King! Is there not a particular Clauſe in it for preſervation and defence of the Kings Majeſties Perſon and Authority? Yes, there is ſo; and ſo far the words ſound ſome what like Loyalty: But what of that? Tell me (O ye holy Leaguers) did you defend the Kings Perſon in Leaguing together to ſend Armed men againſt Him? and were you not bound by a ſubſequent Article of this very Covenant, to aſſiſt and defend them in ſuch actions? Was that the defence of the Kings Perſon, when thoſe rebellions Forces (raiſed and ſent by the illegal power of a factious party of the Two Houſes then uſurping the Supream Authority) ſhot at thoſe (who were really riſen up in His Majeſties defence, according to their bounden duty and allegiance, and amongſt whom in ſeveral Battels He had His reſidence) with a Cannon and a Muſquet Bullet, which makes no difference between a King and Subject, the Superior and Inferior? Was fighting againſt him, ſeeling and cloſe impriſoning of him, preſerving of his Authority? Was it not by vertue of this Covenant that Treaſon before begun, was carried on by dint of ſword ſo long againſt the pretended Malignants, by true Delinquents, till the Martyrs Forces (through Gods Divine permiſſion) were wholly defeated and overcome? Did not that force him to ſurrender himſelf to a pack of Scottiſh Presbyterian Judaſſes? Did not their ſelling him into the hands of Leaguers at Weſiminſter, cauſe his Impriſonment? I ſay, was not this done by vertue of the Covenant? Is not impriſoning of his ſacred Perſon by force of Armes, abſolute The Law interprets it as a ſeeking the Princes life, when any one ſeeketh to force the Prince, Cook. in E of Eſſexs Caſe. high Treaſon by the Lawes of this new-riſen Kingdom? And was not his Impriſonment the true underiable conſequence of this Cainiſh League and Covenant? and is it not therefore evil and treaſonable, and ſo abominable, and not to be kept? And was not His Majeſties traiterous Impriſonment, the immediate Harbinger to his bloody devilliſh murther? Did not one ſucced the other? What then is it leſs then what the Aſſertors of Truth and Loyalty ſaid, That it tended to the deſtruction of our Martyred Sovereign? and ſhall that now dare to be pleaded for, and aſſerted for to be ſtill kept by any that fears God or reverences man?

§. 8. But ſome have ſaid, (and others may ſay the ſame ſtill) That though we roſe up in arms againſt the King, yet we kept our Oath ſtill, for it was with this limitation, In the preſervation and defence of the true Religion, &c. and he not following of the one, nor maintaining of the other, though we fought againſt him, yet we are true Swearers ſtill; Oh helliſh Clauſe and Regicidian Limitation! what! Is that your Loyalty to ſwear to your King with a Juggle? From ſuch Loyalty and all its abettors, O Lord deliver all Kings and Princes, and more eſpecially and peculiarly, Lament. 4. 20. The Breath of our noſtrils, our now incomparable Sovereign; For what Traytors or Rebels wil not ſwear any oath whatſoever with ſuch a curſed limitation as that, to defend their Prince, whileſt their Prince defends that which ſuch ſhall pleaſe to term the true Religion, whileſt he preſerves that which ſuch Sav . 10. 27. children of Belial may call the Liberties of the Kingdom? The Jeſuitical Papiſts will without any ſcruple take an Oath to the King with ſuch a limitation as that, whereby (though afterwards they murther their Prince for not upholding Popery, either by powder, poiſon, or ponyard) they may juſtifie the true keeping of their oath notwithſtanding, becauſe he not maintaining their Popes Supremacy, nor the abominable Maſs of their Romiſh trumperies, their defence of him ceaſed, by ſuch his actual maintenance of another Religion contrary to that which they account the true? Nay, did not the Sectarian party (who took this Covenant which See Feaks Beam of Light, p. 13 in Marg. was magnified moſt blaſphemouſly when it came into England firſt, as the very Ark of Gods preſence, and) who notwithſtanding that, afterwards brought their pious Sovereign (whom they had ſwore to defend) before their Court of higheſt Injuſtice, and condemned and executed Him moſt barbarouſly before the windows of his own Royal Palace, yet pleaded they were not perjured or forſworn, becauſe of this remarkable Reſtriction, or ſpecial Limitation (In deſence of the true Religion, &c. And he being (as they moſt impudently with faces of braſs affirmed) Page 29. a deſperate enemy to the Lord Jeſus his true ſeed and kingdom, and a great friend to Antichriſt, and the carnal and perſecuting Church in all his Kingdoms, their murther of Him was no breach of Covenant ſeemingly made for his defence; I am confident he that is a true Chriſtian Proteſtant, will deteſt ſuch limited Loyalty, ſuch jugling deſtructive defences of his Prince, as favouring too much of Jeſuitical venome, and Anti-monarchical deſigns, wherein a Kings preſervation ſtands altogether upon peoples fancies; when they fancy a Religion or the Liberties of a Kingdom to be ſuch as he doth not maintain, then farewel Loyalty, down goes true Faith and Allegiance, and up goes Treaſon and Rebellion, and yet pretend to be his dutiful, loyal Subjects too for all that (which ſome may ſay is impoſſible; but yet ſuch blinde pretences have been made by thoſe who had nothing elſe to ſay for themſelves and their illegal courſes, being aſſiſted too by ſuch a Learned Aſſembly of ſo many Divines, who after a Three years Conference, moſt profoundly voted God to be the Father.)

§. 9. And yet notwithſtanding this Anti-monarchical limitation, they declare they did ſet it down that the world might bear witneſs of their Loyalty, (they might have ſaid Jugling and Rebellion, for that is the true engliſh of ſuch a limited Loyalty) and that they have no thoughts to diminiſh His Majeſties juſt power and greatneſs; No queſtion but the world would, did, and have ſufficiently taken notice of that which they call their Loyalty, and have found it to be ſuch as their Guiſian Leaguing Brethrne practiſed, who under pretence of 2 Sam. 15. 7, 8. maintaining w See The Right of Kings, in Marg. the Roman Catholick Religion, (as theſe did for that which they uſually miſ-called the Reformed) undermined the Kings Authority, and ſought to advance themſelves; the very ſame which Abſalom (the Beautiful Rebel) ſhowed to his Father, when under a fair colour of Evil Councellors at Court, and under a plauſible pretence of paying his vow he made to the Lord in Hebron, he verſe 6. ſtole the hearts of the men of Iſrael from their due allegiance to their King, and drew them verſe 11 in their ſimplicity into a damnable Rebellion with him; and therefore he that is loyal in practiſes and works, will never approve of theſe Weſtmonaſterian Leaguers loyalty, which onely conſiſts in words, whileſt their actions declares nothing elſe but Treaſon and Rebellion, unleſs See A Vindication of King Charls, by noble Mr. Symmons. p. 40. when they are in Cathedris, in their ſeats as Parliamentmen, they are all as infallible as the Pope, and have a power as well as he to do what they pleaſe, to make evil good, and good evil, to make Rebellion and Treaſon to be Duty and Loyalty, and duty and loyalty to be Rebellion and Treaſon; to vote ſacriledge, murder and theft to be no ſins; killing, ſlaying and deſtroying to be acts of zeal and chriſtian duty, Till then their loyalty will appear in the eyes of all judicious men to be no better then a Wolf in Sheeps clothing; As for their diſclaymer of diminiſhing His Majeſties juſt power and greatneſs, upon ſearch and inquiry after it, we ſhall find it to be a chip of the old block, a parcel of contradictions like the other of preſerving the Kings perſon with a deſtructive limitation, and therefore I again thus Quaere, Is the taking the Antient right of the Militia from him (which was never for See The Royaliſts Defence, p. 97. the ſpace of 1700. years paſt queſtioned or diſputed until by theſe uſurpers injuriouſly wreſted from the Crown, but hath been time out of mind inherent in the King, See Iudge Jenkins Lex Terrae, p. 37. The practiſe of all times and the cuſtom of the Realm) no diminiſhing his Majeſties juſt power? Was the juſtifying the war by a party of the two Houſes (the Kings ſworn Subjects) againſt the Martyr to be warrantable, both in point of law and conſcience, and making a deforming Reformation without the conſent, and againſt the expreſs prohibition of their Dread Soveraign, and not onely ſo, but juſtifying for a commendable practiſe, the iniquity of Witchcraft (which Rebellion is termed by the Prophet) was this no diminiſhing His Majeſties juſt greatneſs? What do they think Engliſh men are made of? What are all made up of a bundle of contradictions that they impoſe ſuch juglings upon us? Surely the power of the Militia in the King was a very juſt, neceſſary power, (and he being See A Letter to a Member. p. 5. under God the Protector of the Law, I wonder how he could could defend it, and the d Priviledges of Parliament without the power of the ſword) and the greatneſs of His Majeſties over all in his dominions was very juſt too, if either the laws of God, or of this Land, or an oath of Supremacy are able to make it ſo; And yet forſooth people muſt be forced, by vertue of an illegal Anti-parliamentary League, not onely to be See The Animadverſions upon General Monk's Letter to the Gentry of Devon, p. 4. ingaged in the wars againſt the King, (and ſo thereby become perjured and faithleſs perſons) and to ſwear to aſſiſt all thoſe that ſhall do ſo too, in order to the taking away the Kings Negative voice, and the power of the Militia from him, which was one of thoſe juriſdictions, priviledges, preeminencies and authorities belonging to the Kings Highneſs, His Heirs and ſucceſſors, and united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, which every one of the Parliamenteers (as they were called) had by a ſolemn legal Sacred oath of Supremacy ſworn to aſſiſt and defend to his power) but alſo hipocritically (to ſay no worſe) to ſware too, that for all that they have no thoughts of diminiſhing His Majeſties juſt power and greatneſs? Was there ever ſuch jugling ſeen, that men ſhould endeavour to take away that from their King (which is his juſt right) and yet ſware with their right hands, lifted up to the moſt high God, that they have no thoughts to diminiſh it? Ay and ſware too that they had before their eyes at this preſent, the honor and happineſs of the Kings Majeſty and his poſterity? in what part of the world can theſe mens peers be found, as to the art of jugling and contradictions in their oaths? Where may we find a pattern of their venemous courſes, but among the damned Guiſian leaguers in France, who murdered their King with a promiſe of fidelity, and of their being his true and faithful Subjects? And yet this, this is that Covenant (God wot) that notwithſtanding it ſet us together by the ears, and put us all in blood and confuſion, muſt be ſtill kept to inrol us amongſt mad men for ever; This jugling and contradictions in this ungodly Covenant, cannot but be contrary to the nature of a true oath, which as the Prophet ſaith muſt be made in Truth, righteouſneſs, and in Judgement, and therefore unlawful and not to be kept by any, without an evident diſobedience to the command of the Lord, expreſſed by the ſaid Prophet to the men of Iſrael.

§. 10. And though they can tell us in their ſixth Article, That this Cauſe and League of theirs, ſo much concerns the glory of God, the good of the kingdoms, and the honor of the King; yet I demand (and they may anſwer me if they can) Was is it ever heard ſpoke before by men that pretend a fear towards God, that that which is a moſt horrible breach of the Laws of God, could ever tend to his glory? and was not this Rebellions Covenant, and covenant Rebellion againſt the Martyr, directly a breach of the Divine Precept ſpoken by the mouth of his bleſſed St. Peter, 1 Pet. 2. 13. To ſubmit our ſelves to the King as Supream, and that for the Lords ſake? and did they not ſwear his Supremacy? yea, that he was the onely Supream Governor (thereby implicitely denying upon Oath any Co-ordinates with him in the exerciſe of the Supremacy)? and therefore can perjury and diſobedience to the Laws of our Creator be affirmed by any one (not poſſeſſed with a deep frenzy) to concern the glory of God? Its true indeed, when the Jews crucified our Savior, it was out of a pretended tenderneſs to the glory of God, and when our Engliſh-Jewiſh Tygres had murthered their lawful Sovereign, it was meerly (as they pretended) for the advancement of Chriſts kingdom; but that ſuch actions as either of thoſe, concerned either the glory of God, or the advancement of his Sons kingdom, is onely a demonſtration of the Aſſertors ſtrong deluſions; for it plainly intimates unto us, See the Right Rebel, p. 121. That there is a ſpecial work of Satan in it, when ſuch a ſtrong deluſion is ſent unto men, that they ſhould believe ſuch an Antichriſtian Lie, tendred unto them under the colour of a Chriſtian truth, as the Doctrine of Rebellion is. But this is juſt like the Second, of the good of the kingdoms: and therefore to that I again thus Quaere, Was there not a War begun by a pack of true Delinquents got into the Houſe of Commons, (and that they were ſuch, I appeal to the judgement of the Law?) Did not that war (as all wars do) tend to impoveriſh and oppreſs the Kingdom? Was not this League ſworn to carry it on, and not to leave off (whether to make defection to the contrary part, or to give themſelves to a deteſtable indifferency, or neutrality in this cauſe of rebellion) till they had fulfilled their miſcheivous traiterous ends? Can then that Covenant which binds people (as this certainly did and doth) to continue the imbroyling of a Nation or Kingdom in blood, confuſion, perjury and Rebellion, concern ſo much the good of it? Can that which ſtirs up people to purſue the impoveriſhing, taxing, and inſlaving of a kingdome, (for whither did the Rebelling and riſing up in Arms, and ſwearing men to continue therein tend, but to that?) be affirmed by any except Frantick bedlamers to concern the good and benefit of it? And laſtly for the honor of the King, (for he and his honor are put at the fag end of all in this perfidious League) I further again Quaere, Is it for the honor of the King to have his ſubjects rebel againſt him? Is it for the happineſs of the King and his Poſterity, to have all his Aſſiſtants and Adherents deſtroyed, as much as their fellow-ſubjects can, under the black falſe notion of Evil Councellors and Malignants? Did not the Covenant binde the takers to ſuch things as thoſe? Let them deny it with truth if they can. Can that Covenant which binds men to diſloyalty and treaſon, (though hypocritically and lyingly pretending loyalty which doth not better the evil, nor antidote the venome in it; The devil though he appeares as an angel of light ſometimes, to enſnare men the more eaſily in his deluſions, yet he is but a black devil ſtill for all that; and therefore I may juſtly and truly make my Queſtion thus, Can that Covenant which binds men to diſloyalty and treaſon) and to break the Laws of this Land, be any thing leſs then Antichriſtian? And is it not therefore damnable and abominable, and to be abhorred of every one that deſires to obſerve the dictates of Gods good Spirit, in the ſacred Canon of Scripture? Undoubtedly every one that underſtands the true ways of advancing the glory of God, the honor of the King, and the good of the kingdoms, will hold himſelf obliged and bound to deſie this Covenant, as the very ſink of Jeſuitiſm, and high-way to hell it ſelf; and he that hath ever read, and conſidered well the Sacred Canon, and the undeniable truth of what our Carolian Martyr bid the Scotch Parliament always See Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae, the laſt printed Letter. remember, That as the beſt foundation of Loyalty is Chriſtianity, ſo tr e Chriſtianity teaches perfect Loyalty; for without this Reciprocation, neither is truly what they pretend to be, will finde cauſe enough to refuſe the taking of, and if taken, to renounce and abjure ſuch a ſeditious Vow and Covenant, which ties men to continue Rebels all the days of their lives; for he that ſhall ſwear to extirpate a ſort of men (whoſe Function is eſtabliſh'd by the great Charter of our Liberties) in abſolute breach of the Law, and againſt the Command of his Prince, and endeavour to bring to paſs his extirpation by force of Arms, (which is high Treaſon) and ſwear that he will all the days of his life, zealouſly and conſtantly continue therein againſt all oppoſition, That man by any reaſonable perſon will be concluded a ſworn Rebel, and to continue by vertue of his Oath (without a juſt renunciation) a Traitor to his King, as long as breath remains in his body to enable him to carry on the intentions and purpoſes of it. And yet this is the League that ſuch a ſtir and clutter is kept about ſome mens Chriſtian and loyal breaking of it: and though ſome of its unlucky Patrons are pleaſed to alledge for its goodneſs, that part of the Clauſe of the firſt Article, wherein it is ſaid, according to the word of God, and the examples of the beſt Reformed Churches, yet I affirm, That that doth no more prove what they intend, by bringing of that Allegation, then the 2 Cor. 11. 14. devils being transformed into an angel of light, doth prove that he was in reality that into which he was transformed, then the Matth. 7. 15. falſe prophets coming to us in ſheeps clothing, doth prove that they are not inwardly ravening wolves; then the Phariſees Matth. 23. 21. appearing outwardly righteous unto men, is a convincing Argument to prove that within they were not full of hypocriſie and iniquity.

§. 11. But laſtly, they tell us, That they profeſs and declare before God and the world, their unfeigned deſire to be humbled for their own ſins, and for the ſins of theſe Kingdoms, eſpecially that they have not as they ought valued the ineſtimable benefits of the Goſpel, that they have not laboured for the purity and power thereof, and that they have not endeavored to receive Chriſt in their hearts, nor to walk worthy of him in their Lives. No, it's very true, for if they had, we ſhould never have ſeen an ungoſpel-like, unchriſtian Rebellion raiſed and ſworn to be upholden againſt our gracious King, painted over with a plauſible pretence againſt ſome pretended evil Councellors, nor an Anti-legal jugling ſelf-contradictory League ſworn for the Dathanian extirpation of the great upholders of Monarchy and it's juſt Rights, Priviledges, Preeminencies, and Authorities, againſt the ſeveral Incroachments of Papiſts and Presbyters, of Jeſuites and Sectaries. They complain there indeed that they have not endeavored to receive Chriſt in their hearts, and are they fit to be Reformers of Religion, and ſetters up of the ways and worſhip of our bleſſed Lord, when they have not ſo much as endeavored to receive him in their hearts? Doth the devil begin to make a Reformation of Chriſtian Religion? Do Atheiſts go about to ſet up Chriſtianity? What may we then expect the fruits of it to be, but a diſmal cloud of darkneſs and confuſion, which indeed doth ſuit well with theſe extirpating Leaguers Reformation they have made amongſt us, See A Vindication of king Charles. p. 88. ſuch a one as Nebuzaradan ſteward to Nebuchadnezar made at Jeruſalem, when he threw down the walls both of the City and Temple; They make it matter of humiliation it's true, that they have not walked worthy of him in their lives; and is this Baal-berith the way to do it? What ſhall we think of that man that ſhall out-face the Sun with his Treaſon, and ſeemingly repent for his wicked courſes, and yet at the ſame inſtant ſwear to carry on his rebellion ſtill? A ſerious man will give judgement, that ſuch a one hath nothing to do with God or Chriſtianity, but is wholly poſſeſſed by an evil ſpirit, which haunts him to his everlaſting deſtruction; And yet this is directly the caſe of our Engliſh Baalims of the Covenant; they firſt raiſe a war (which the Law of the Land calls Rebellion) againſt the Kings evil Councellors, to remove them from him, which is abſolute high Treaſon, & then pretend to humble themſelves that they have not endeavored to receive Chriſt in their hearts, nor walked worthy of him in their lives, and yet in the very act of this feigned humiliation ſwear too that they wil zealouſly continue in ſuch their filthy courſes all the days of their lives; was there ever ſuch grand hypocrites, and mockers of God ſince the world began, among thoſe that pretended a fear of his name, as theſe Leaguers are? The Scribes and Phariſees were but pigmies to them in this matter; Firſt pretend a ſorrow for their ſins, and yet in the very act of their temporary repentance bind themſelves by an oath, to proceed in them as long as ever they can; Go about to perſwade ſome credulous heady mortals, that they are very ſorry they have not walked worthy of Chriſt in their lives, and at the ſame time with their right hands lift up to the moſt high God, ſwear to break his Laws and Precepts, even to Rebel againſt their King, to whom he hath commanded all men to yeild a due ſubjection and obedience, and if that be the way to walk worthy of him, Libera me Domine, the Lord deliver me from any walking with them; If the way to walk worthy of Chriſt, be to turn Rebels and Traitors to the Prince we live under, and out of pure love to God, profane his Sanctuaries, break his Laws, and run directly counter to his ſacred Precepts, I know none that walked more worthy of God and of his Chriſt, then the blind Jews on the one hand that ignorantly crucified our bleſſed Lord for a Blaſphemer, and the helliſh wilful Regicides on the other hand that knowingly murthered his Anointed for a Tyrant; For my part, I am in ſuch diſorder of ſpirit whileſt I am thinking upon their deceipts and juglings, that I ſhall haſten (as much as confutation of rebellion will permit) to eaſe my ſelf of their puddle of contradictions, and for that end and purpoſe I ſhall proceed to the next that follows, where I finde them to let fall theſe goodly expreſſions; And are true and unfeigned (how ſhall any man beleeve the truth of it?) purpoſe (ſay they) in publique and private, in all duties we owe to God and man, is to amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the example of a Real Reformation.

§. 12. Here's a fair Proteſtation we ſee; Plauſible language again (as the former) to delude the hearts and minds of thoſe that take up all things upon truſt without any examination, but every whit as much jugling in it, as was in that which went before; which will eaſily appear by a few more Queries which I thus ſet down; Was it not a duty they owed to God to obſerve his commands? And did not he command by the mouth of St. Paul, That Rom. 13. 1. every Soul ſhould be ſubject to the higher powers, (which the oath of Supremacy and what another Apoſtle hath 1 Pet. 2. 23. ſaid, doth plainly evident to be the Kings moſt excellent Majeſty) and that too under pain of eternal Damnation? And was that a Real Reformation in the duty they owed to God to walk in oppoſition to his Injunctions? Again, for their duty towards man, Let them remember the Caſe of the Earl of Eſſex, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, who (in compariſon of Edge-hill Battel) gathered together but a handful of men, nor was that Queen fought with, (as our late renowned Sovereign was) nor her perſon in danger (as the Martyrs was) The Earl upon his Arraignment proteſted his intentions were onely to remove from the Queen ſome evil Councellors about her, yet notwithſtanding he raiſing force to do this without the Queens warrant, his plea was not available, but his action was judged Treaſon, and he and his Adherents executed as Traytors for it; Now mind, Was our Leaguers fighting againſt the King (for their declaring to fight for King and Parliament, at the very ſame time when they ſent Armed men againſt thoſe where he was in perſon, ſerves onely for a record and to eternize the memory of their damnable jugling and hipocriſie, but I ſay, Was their fighting againſt the King) a real Reformation of their duty towards man? Was their walking in the direct ſteps of the Trayterous Eſſex (who left an ungrateful ſon behind him, to follow the ſame curſes with himſelf) which was judged high Treaſon, the going before one another in the example of a Real Reformation? Was their actual See judge Jenkins's Lex Terra p. 12. incountring ſuch as came to ayd the King in his wars (which is Treaſon too) a Reformation of their duty towards man? Was ſwearing to commit Treaſon a Real Reformation? Obſerve Reader, They confeſs themſelves faulty in duty towards God and man (for what do they talk elſe of a Reformation?) and then leſt it ſhould be thought to be feigned, their purpoſe is, they ſay (but we have but their bare word for it) to make a Real Reformation, and what (trow we) is this Real Reformation of their default, but ſwearing together to break the Laws both of the Sacred Canon, and this land, in the wilful actual proceeding on to the commiſſion of Treaſon and Rebellion? Thus their Reformation of their lives is ſo like that of Religion, that it muſt needs proceed from one and the ſame treacherous mouth and jugling lips, that are altogether uſed in this League for the advancing of falſhood and depreſſing of the truth: alas our Covenanters made it appear, that their words and actions are two diſtinct things (and people are very ready always to paſs ſentence upon men, (not according to their fair words and pretences, but) according to their actions, and when they find a contrariety between them, to faſten upon them their proper deſerved name of hypocrites) Nay their very words do not agree one with another, (and ſuch ſurely muſt be accounted ſelfcontradictory juglers with a witneſs) for they had no ſooner told us of making a Real Reformation of their lives in all duties they owed to God and man, but preſently after they ſhut up their Baal-berith with this Antichriſtian, rebellious, infamous (and never enough to be deteſted) prayer and concluſion, beginning with a Moſt humbly beſeeching the Lord to ſtrengthen us by his holy ſpirit for this end, and to bleſs our deſires and proceedings with ſuch ſucceſs, as may be deliverance and ſafety to his people, (as though Rebellion could ever produce ſafety long to the undertakers) And which ſurely proceeded either from the inſtigation of the Devil, or elſe was the plot and deviſe of ſome Romiſh Jeſuitical Emiſſaries to make the true loyal Proteſtant Religion (which teaches men according to Chriſts Rule, rather to ſuffer and flee, then to fight with and kill our enemies) to ſtink as unſavoury ſtuff in the noſtrils both of God, and all truly pious men, elſe certainly we ſhould never have heard of an helliſh lewd League made for) encouragement to other christian churches (if they be truly Chriſtian they'l abhor our Leaguers courſes) groaning under or in danger of the yoake of Antichriſtian Tyranny (what, for very Titus 3. 1. fear of a yoke muſt Chriſtians rebel againſt Principalities and powers to diſobey Magiſtrates, which Titus had a command from St. Paul to put the then Chriſtians in mind to be ſubject to, though really groaning then under a ſad yoke, of Jewiſh and heatheniſh tyranny on the one ſide, and the other? certainly the Covenanters mind not what a neerneſs their feet are to be the very brink of hell, when they laid down theſe Antichriſtian Articles for others) to joyn in the ſame or like aſſociation and Covenant to the glory of God, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt (Suppoſe a man that hath cut himſelf, to ſtop it from bleeding, ſhould afreſh with a knife make the wound wider, would you not think him frantique?) and the peace and tranquillity of chriſtian kingdoms and Commonweals (Its a brave art to perſwade people that wars and bloodſheds, confuſions and diſorders, tend to the peace and tranquillity of a kingdom, and that this Covenant bound the takers to purſue their reſolutions by the ſword is plain beyond contradiction, and we have not been deluded and cheated by our Leaguing Abſaloms long enough (it ſeems,) but we muſt continue hampered ſtill in the nooſe of a Regicidian, Antichriſtian, leud, impious, profane Covenant for fear of being perjured forſooth, if we draw our ſelves and necks out of it, whereas true Chriſtianity will not ſuffer a man to tranſgreſs ſo far the bounds of loyalty, as to keep that, nor true loyalty permit a man ſo far to go beyond the limits of the Engliſh Laws, as to turn a Rebel to his King to ſtand to ſuch a faithleſs Covenant, which teaches men to See Eikon Baſilike, His Majeſties words upon the calling in of the Scots. build their piety on their ruines of Loyalty, to make bankrupt of their Allegiance under pretence of ſetting up a quicker trade for Religion; But to their concluſive prayer, a particular anſwer I ſhall give in ſuch following terms as theſe.

§. 13. We read in the 58 of Eſa. 1. verſe, the Lord commanding the Prophet in this manner, Cry aloud and ſpare not, lift up thy voice like a Trumpet, and ſhew my people their tranſgreſsion, and the houſe of Jacob their ſins; Yet they ſeek me daily and delight to know my ways as a Nation that did Righteouſneſs, and forſook not the Ordinance of their God, they ask of me the Ordinances of Juſtice, they take delight in approaching to God; Wherefore have we faſted (ſay they) and thou ſeeſt not? But what ſaid God to them? Behold (ſaith he) ye faſt for ſtrife and debate, and to ſmite with the fiſt of wickedneſs. Here was fair pretences; who could make better? but that did but aggravate the ſinful nature of their Crimes, we have had ſuch mock-faſts too in our times by our Leaguers (God bleſs us from any more ſuch) and promiſes to reform themſelves, that the Lord might turn away his wrath from us, and yet make it a part of their reformation preſently to purſue their rebellious intentions againſt their lawful onely Supream Governour; They pretended indeed to faſt for their ſins, but their ſubſequent actions declared to all the world their faſting to be like that of their Jewiſh Brethren, even for ſtrife and debate, for proſperity in Treaſon, and to ſmite with the fiſt of Rebellion, to cut and ſlay all the aſſiſtants of their King, becauſe they will not forſake their vertuous Soveraign, renounce their ſworn faith and allegiance, and become joynt actors with them in their unclean beaſtly courſes; The Jews ſought God daily and delighted to know his ways, yet that excuſed them not, So our Holy Leaguers pretend to ſeekafter God, and to delight in approaching to him, yet that ſerves not for an extenuation of their crimes, nor for the leſſening of their offences; Obſerve Reader theſe Leaguers prayers, how devoutly they can pray for ſucceſs in their Treaſons and Conſpiracies, nay, and to have it for this end too that other people in forrain Nations may Covenant in like manner to rebel and riſe up in Arms, for the extirpation of the ſettled Church Government of the Nation, without and againſt the conſent and precept of their reſpective Princes, and to follow our Leaguers peerleſs practices in it; But I demand, Is not ſuch a prayer as this extreamly ſinful in the matter of it? do they not as good as pray for proſperity in their breach of the Law of God? When I read it, methinkes I cannot but admire at theſe Covenanters confidence, and ſtupidity, that they ſhould firſt break the Laws of God in a moſt notorious manner by their perjury and diſobedience to their Prince, and then Covenant and bind themſelves to proceed in the carrying on of their evil Treacherous deſigns, and yet pray to God to proſper them in their villany, when they might more juſtly according to Gods dealing with Corah, and his holy-conſpirators for Church-paritie, have expected to have found the fate of thoſe murmuring Saints againſt the Supremacy of the Prince and Prieſt (the true and exact picture to me of our Covenanting Jack Presbyters) to be ſwallowed up alive for their Extirpating Covenant, and the earth whereon they trod to ſink under them: For See his Pious votary, p. 47, 48 a Rebel (ſaith the learned Hardy) who goeth forth to fight againſt his lawful Sovereign, to pray that God would be with him, were not a Petition, but a Preſumption: for though it be true that Almighty God doth ſometimes ſuffer (for reaſons beſt known to himſelf) ſuch wretches to proſper in their wicked ways, yet they cannot either juſtly expect, or religiouſly deſire it, and by how much the more devoutly they ſeem to undertake ſuch attempts, by ſo much the more abominable they are in the eyes of God, who never more abhorreth Rebellion, then when it is masked with Religion and Devotion. Do they think it was no ſin in them for to make ſuch an horrible concluſive prayer, as that which is here made for a cloſe to their Covenant? If they ſay no, then a pack of thieves, who lye in wait for to ſpoil men of their goods and eſtates, and ſometimes of their lives, may pray to God too for proſperity in their pilfering courſes, (that is, in plain Engliſh, to bleſs them in their diſobedience to him with ſucceſs for it) and count their prayer in ſuch caſe lawful too; and ſo Abſalom, and his deluded confederates, might moſt humbly beſeech God to bleſs them with ſuch ſucceſs againſt King David, that they might not onely uſurp his Authority, and caſt him out of his Throne, but that other of their neighbour Nations might be encouraged by their example to do the like to their own Kings; and ſo of any other whatſoever in the commiſſion of any villany: if they can but firſt have the courage to do the thing without fear of puniſhment, and in expectation of praiſe for it, and then can have but the confidence moſt humbly to beſeech God (as our Leaguers Cant it) to bleſs them with ſucceſs in it, if they ſay, yes, then I hope their Covenant ought to be aboliſhed and renounced, as being (what it is undoubtedly) ſinful in the matter of it.

I remember (Mr. Croftons profound Lawyer) Mr. Prynne in his printed Treatiſes hath told us, That the unparallel'd proceedings of thoſe who unjuſtly uſurped the title of Parliament, (though their title was onely in nomine, non re, in name, not in reality) in relation to their barbarous murther of their Lord and Sovereign (to whom they had ſworn to bear true faith and allegiance) and to their traiterous baniſhing of his incomparable Heir, through a quaternary of perjuries, have given occaſion See his Republicans, and others Spurious good Old Cauſe, briefly and truely Anatomized, p. 17. to all our Popiſh adverſaries, not onely to traduce, deride, reproach, blaſpheme our Proteſtant Profeſsion, as ſome of them have done in print, as a meer Seminary of Treaſon, Rebellion, Sedition, Hypocriſie, Perjury, Diſloyalty, and all ſorts of villany, but to combine together in a HOLY LEAGUE to extirpate it, and all Profeſſors of it out of the world; And See his True and perfect Narrative. p. 55. to maſſacre, eradicate, them as a company of Traitors, Antimonarchiſts, Regicides, Hypocrites, Rebels, and ſeditious perſons, And made it great matter of lamentation (as it is undoubtedly to every good Chriſtian) that men pretending to fear God, ſhould ever give ſuch an irrepairable ſcandal to Chriſtianity; And I have no ſooner ſet down that Gentlemans words, but I preſently finde that there was occaſion enough given by their warlike Covenant, to turn the edge of theſe Covenanters words upon themſelves; for they having rebelled againſt their Sovereign, as it were for Gods ſake, for the further ſtrengthning of themſelves in their wicked courſes, combined by League and Covenant, not onely to proceed on further in their riſing up in Arms againſt their ſupream Legiſlator for the glory of God, (a practice (as a loyal Scotch Miniſter See Scotlands late miſery bewailed, p. 14. ſaith) inconſiſtent with ſound divinity, againſt all orthodox doctrine, a practice contrary to Scripture, contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church, and their practice contrary to the Confeſsion of Faith; No King upon the accompt of his intellectuals, morals, or religion, being to be ſuſpended from the exerciſe of his Government, or denied ſubmiſsion too by his Subjects) but alſo to continue therein all the days of their lives, againſt all lets and impediments whatſoever, for the peace and ſafety of the three kingdoms; which as they are notorious contradictions in themſelves (like the reſt of their Jugling League) by being inſtrumental to the diſhonor of God in the horrible breaking of his Laws, and directly oppoſite to the peace of this kingdom (as well as all others where ſuch Antichriſtian prayers are put in practiſe) in being acted ſo rebelliouſly to the praiſe and glory of the man of ſin, to the pulling down of the kingdom of our moſt bleſſed Savior, and to the everlaſting diſgrace of true Chriſtianity (even of the true Proteſtant Religion, which vehemently exclaims againſt all ſuch ſeditious Antimonarchical ways and principles:) So with every rational man that knows there muſt be a flame kindled, before a houſe can be burned, that the King had never bin murthered by proſperous Rebels, if the flame of Sedition and Treaſon had not firſt ſet the kingdom a burning, (and for a man to make a flame in a houſe, and by that flame at length that houſe is burned and deſtroyed, and then to ſay he never intended the houſe ſhould have been deſtroyed, ſavours of little leſs then frenzy, and will hardly ever excuſe his innocency in it. Theſe Leaguers had firſt raiſed a war, and vowed and ſwore the proſecution thereof againſt the Martyr, and the ſword-men taking advantage of the Military power which by the Covenanters means they had obtained, executed their villany in their villanous act of Regicide, and yet the former would perſwade the world that they never intended it; which if the riſing up in arms had not firſt bin practiſed, the murther would then have never bin heard of; which being ſo evident to any mans underſtanding) this concluſion naturally flows from the premiſes, That their rebellious Actings againſt the King in the behalf of a Faction of the Two Houſes, (that had renounced all allegiance ſave in order to that which they called Religion) do give as great occaſion (as the murther) to foreign Princes to extirpate, as much as in them lies, the profeſſors of the Proteſtant Religion, to prevent them from riſing up in arms againſt them, leſt their proſperity in ſuch ways of darkneſs, ſhould invite them at length to attempt to ſerve them there, as the renowned Martyr was here, after he had been by vertue of this helliſh black Covenant fought againſt, and all his Forces overcome, and (as the immediate fruits, iſſues, and effects thereof) firſt ſold, then impriſoned, and afterwards delivered to his perjured Subjects to be crucified. Finally, for a concluſion to this Covenanting Prayer, which the famous Univerſity of Oxford affirmed, their hearts trembled to think that they ſhould be required to pray it, I ſhall here ſubjoyn the judicious and memorable thoughts of that then loyal conſcientious Univerſity, which I finde expreſſed in the following words; See their Reaſons. p. 15, 16. To pray (ſay thoſe reverend perſons) to the purpoſe in the concluſion of the Covenant, ſeemeth to us all one in effect, as to beſeech Almighty God, the God of love and peace, 1. To take all love and peace out of the hearts of Chriſtians, and to ſet the whole Chriſtian world in a combuſtion. 2. To render the Reformed Religion, and all Proteſtants odious to all the world. Mark the third, To provoke the Princes of Europe to uſe more ſeverity towards thoſe of the Reformed Religion; if not (for their own ſecurity) to root them quite out of their ſeveral Dominions. 4. The tyranny and yoke of Antichriſt (if laid upon the ſubjects necks by their lawful Sovereigns) is to be thrown off by Chriſtian boldneſs, in confeſſing the truth, and patient ſuffering for it, not by taking up arms, or violent reſiſtance of the higher Powers; and yet forſooth this is that ſacred Covenant that muſt be ſo ſtrictly kept, to ſet the whole Chriſtian world in a combuſtion. This is that League which muſt be ſo zealouſly continued in, to render the true Proteſtant Religion and profeſſors thereof, odious and deteſtable to all the world, yes and for the enlargement of the kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt too they tell us.

I remember a very good obſervation of one upon this very account, See the Right Rebel. p. 145. That as none of the Diſciples denyed, curſed, and forſwore his Maſter, but Peter onely, who alone without his leave, drew a ſword in his defence, ſo neither is it ſaid of the reſt, that they forſook him and ſted, till after that Peter had raſhly attempted to defend him by force; as if the Holy Ghoſt would have Chriſtians obſerve, That fighting for Chriſt without warrant from him, is the next fore-runner of forſaking him: That Pag, 139 if there be any one thing above others, which The Antichriſt may properly challenge, as peculiar to himſelf, it is the profeſſed practiſe of Rebellion, of purpoſe to promote pretended Religion: for nothing can be more directly oppoſite, both unto the Doctrine and Practiſe of Chriſt himſelf, and his Apoſtles, of Orthodox Chriſtians in the times of the Primitive Church, and of all genuine Proteſtants ſince the Reformation, and yet that was the abſolute tenour of the Covenant, to reſiſt King Charles, to fight with a pretence for the advancement of King Jeſus, which how contrary to his Will, Practiſe, and Command, may very well be gathered out of what hath been already ſet down, as well as what Croftons profound Lawyer, Mr. Prynne himſelf, hath ſaid upon that ſubject, in his True and perfect Narrative, Pag. 68, 74, 75, 76. In which laſt page he ſets down one of the expreſs affirmations of the Jeſuits, (plainly declaring the great union between them and our Engliſh Leaguers, in that unchriſtian Practiſe) That their Goſpel and Religion is to be propagated, ſet up; the Heroticks, and Evangelical Sectaries, who reſiſt them, Refuted, (how?) Extirpated, Aboliſhed with Fire, Sword, and War (like holy Leaguers) and therefore upon all that hath been ſaid in my Animadverſions upon the ſeveral Articles of the Sacred Covenant (ſo called) I hope there is no man of any ingenuity, or underſtanding, but will conclude with me, the damnable ſinfulneſs thereof, both in the Form, and matter of it; and ſo, according to the Leaguers own Aſſertions, in the number of thoſe unlawful Oathes, which muſt at no hand be kept by any takers of them.

§. 14. Having thus diſpatcht my Animadverſions on this illegal League, I ſhall now proceed to ſet down their own words, to prove the unlawfulneſs, and ſin of keeping of their ſo much idolized Diana, and ſo the neceſſity of repentance from all its takers; Their words are theſe in their exhortation to take the Covenant; That if there ſhould any oath be found, into which any Miniſters or others have entred not warranted by the Laws of God, and the land, in this caſe they muſt teach themſelves and others, that ſuch oathes call for repentance, not pertinacy in them; which words being ſuitable to what the Reverend Dr. Hardy ſaid I ſhall here adjoyn his words, That See his Pious Votary, p. 16. thoſe Covenants which ingages men inſtead of keeping the Laws of God, injuriouſly to violate both the Laws of God, and perfidiouſly to break their own former oaths, are no better then Leagues with hell, and Covenants with the Devil; Now mark, will the Law of God warrant any perſons whatſoever in the ſwearing a Reformation againſt their Kings conſent? will that Law, which commands me to yeild obedience to the King as Supream, warrant me in my diſobedience and rebellion againſt him for to carry on my work of reformation? Can that Law which enjoyns me to be ſubject to Principalities and Powers, warrant my throwing that ſubjection off becauſe I have the face to affirm, and pretend it is for the fulfilling of it? That this is the tenour of this impious Covenant, we need no other witneſs then it ſelf, which plainly teſtifyeth to all the world, that the ſwearers thereof took up arms meerly to alter Religion, And that diſobedience to God in the rebellion againſt the King, was the very matter and ſubject of the Covenant, is exceeding plain to any who conſider the famous aſſertion of the now moſt learned Primate of Armagh (one of whoſe words weighs more in the judgement of any underſtanding perſon, then ten thouſand of of ſuch bablings as our wily factious Presbiters keep ſuch a chatting in the Nation with) See his fair warning. p. 30. Subjects (ſaith that moſt accompliſhed Speaker) vow to God and ſwear one to another to change the Laws of the Realm, to aboliſh the diſcipline of the Church and the Liturgy lawfully eſtabliſhed, by the ſword (which was never committed to their hands by God or man) without the King, againſt the King, which no man can deny in earneſt to be plain Rebellion. So that unleſs they can make the Law of God to warrant that which it no where commands, but ſeverely condemns, Their League and Covenant according to the exhorters own affirmation, calls for repentance, and not continuance in the keeping of that, which the ſeveral takers had either the confidence at firſt rebelliouſly to ſwear or through the horrible ſeductions or threats, and menaces of the Delinquent Impoſers, took it (not conſidering the venom in it) without, and againſt the Carolian Martyrs conſent in perfect defiance of his legal ſworn onely ſupream authority; And as for its being warranted by the Laws of the Land, hear in the firſt place what the reverend Judge Jenkins ſaith in general; It is an oath (ſaith See his Lex Terrae p. 158. that famous Lawyer) againſt the Laws of the Land, againſt the Petition of Right, and he gives us a reaſon for it preſently after thus, No man (ſaith he) by the Law can give an oath in a new caſe without an act of Parliament, and therefore (ſaith he again) the impoſers thereof are guilty of the higheſt crime; Now can that oath be ſaid by any man in his right wits, to be warranted by the Laws of the Land, which is directly oppoſite and contrariant to them, and for which the impoſers may be hanged at Tyburn (for the gallows have commonly been the immediate fate and conſequence of that higheſt crime of Treaſon)? This Covenant was thruſt down the Throats of many people, not by an Act of Parliament (which muſt have been made (as the Petition of Right, and all other Laws and Acts have been) by the King, and all the Lords and Commons, but by an Ordinance (as it was called) of a packt black faction of the then never to be forgotten two Houſes (which ſerves for nothing but to p. 84. record to poſterity a lawleſs & diſtemper'd time) A thing ſo far from being warranted by the Laws of the Land, that ſuch a thing was never heard of, till theſe latter times of Treaſon and Sacriledge, Rebellion and Confuſion, when mens brains began to be poſſeſſed of the effects and virtues of a Midſommer-moon. Again, can that be warranted by the Laws of the land which is ſo far a breach of thoſe laws as its eſteemed high Treaſon? p. 22. 40. Ariſing to alter religion eſtabliſhed or any Law is Treaſon, ſaith the reverend Judge. And did not the thing which Crofton will needs have to be a Parliament, ariſe to alter the religion? and was not this league deviſed to keep men under an oath for the doing and aſſiſting of them in it? Let Jack Presbyter deny it if he can. In the ſecond Article of this Covenant, the takers ſwore to endeavour to extirpate Arch-biſhops, Biſhops, &c. which is abſolute contrary to Magna Charta (which in the 25th of Edw. 3. chap. 1. 2. is declared to be the common Law of the Land) chap. 1. and the laſt, Salvae fint Epiſcopis omnes libertates ſuae, That the Biſhops ſhall have all their whole Rights and Liberties inviolable, and this great Charter the Judge tells us p. 62. is confirmed by no leſs then 32 Acts of Parliament, and in the 42th of Edw. 3. The firſt chapter enacts, That if any Statute be made to the contrary, it ſhal be holden for none, and therefore their impious, lawleſs League in this reſpect is far enough from being warranted by the Laws of this Land, being ſo notoriouſly againſt the very Charter of our Liberties. Again, the Leaguers declared (as Crofton himſelf told us lately, for I am ſcarce old enough to remember the doing of it) That they Aboliſhed the Common-prayer Book in purſuance of their Covenant. Very good; This very book (which they pretended to aboliſh with the power of an illegal ordinance) was not onely compiled by true Martyrs, and Reformers, and practiſed in the times of four Princes, but was (and is ſtill, p. 62. notwithſtanding their Rebellious Ordinance) ſetled by no leſs then five Acts of Parliament; And therefore their Covenant being in that act alſo contrary to the Lawes, All Miniſters and others that have taken this Oath, muſt teach themſelves and others, (according to the exhorters own aſſertion, for I love to take men at their words) that ſuch oaths call for repentance and not pertinacy in them, it being proved to be ſo far from being warranted by the Laws of the Land, that it is an abſolute breach of above 26 of them.

§. 15. I remember, The Leaguers in their Diſputes and Arguments againſt the wearing of the Surplice, and performance of other commendable Ceremonies of our beſt Reformed Church of England, do out of their wiſe Noddles ſend forth ſuch doughty windy Affirmations, as will excellently wel ſerve to prove the unlawfulneſs of their Covenant. Let a man go and ask them why they will not wear the Surplice, and live in conformity to the Rites and Cuſtoms of the Church, they'l tell him, becauſe they are unlawful: and why are they unlawful? becauſe God hath no where commanded them to be done in the Scripture; though in any wiſe mans judgement, there can be no unlawfulneſs in a thing, without it be a breach of ſome Law which hath forbid it, and where they will finde that Law againſt the Surplice and Ceremonies, its poſſible they'l tell us when they are able, and their ability for that end will be I believe Ad Grecas Calendas, but not well before. Now according to their own ways of arguing, I ſhall make this retortion; That God hath no where in the Scripture commanded ſubjects (in caſe of a default made by the Prince, or that he will not conſent to any Reformation) to riſe up in Arms, and rebel againſt him, and ſwear an Oath to do it themſelves without any Royal Conſent at all; and let any of the Pack make it appear if they can. For, for them to ſet down the examples of the Oaths and Covenants, Kings and Subjects joyntly made for a Reformation, when they are demanded to ſhow a pattern for their Covenant, is no more to the purpoſe, then to ſay, Queen Elizabeth and her Nobles made a Reformation in this kingdom, to pull us out of the miſt of Popiſh darkneſs; no more ſatisfaction to a Quaeriſt, then (as the Reverend Dr. Pierce told one of his Antagoniſts) for a man when he is asked what's a Clock, To anſwer a windmil, or a pump? for the queſtion is not, whether Kings and Subjects may joyntly ſwear a Reformation of Abuſes, either in Church or State, (for there is no body I think wil ſtand to diſpute that) but whether in caſe a King will not make that extirpating Reformation his Subjects would have him, whether they may do this without his conſent, by Oaths and riſing up in Armes, which is palpable rebellion? See the League illegal p. 17. Where doth God command the Engliſh to ſwear to preſerve the Scotch Diſcipline and Liturgy, which they themſelves have often varied? Or to abjure Epiſcopacy, which was the onely Government of the Church for more then 1500 years, and under whoſe ſhade Chriſtian Religion moſt flouriſhed, and the Church ſtretched forth her branches to the Rivers, and her boughs to the ends of the earth? Where doth the Scripture warrant (much leſs command) the aſſociation of two kingdoms, and joyntly taking up Arms in the Quarrel of the Goſpel, and defending and propagating Religion by the ſword? And let them anſwer that, or let their ſilence conclude their being convinced: I ſay again, God never commanded Subjects any where in the Scripture, to make a Reformation without their Princes conſent by arms. And therefore to deal with them with their own weapons, according to their own ways of diſputations againſt the Ceremonies, I affirm, that their Covenant is wicked and unlawful, and being an unlawful ſinful Oath, by the reſolution and judgement of all Caſuiſts, it ought not to be pleaded for, nor taken, or if once taken, to be kept by any that ever took it, becauſe See The Fair Warning, p. 30. To obſerve a wicked engagement, doubles the ſin, according to the found determinations of the Reverend Primate; And ſo my Argument herein, I am ſure, ad hominem, is unanſwerable.

§. 16. The next thing that will come under examination, will be the unlawfulneſs of the Covenant, in reſpect of its contrariety to the two former legally eſtabliſhed Sacred Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, and the Proteſtation; and to that end I commend to the conſideration of my Readers, the excellent Determination of the Iriſh Primate in relation to this point, in his incomparable Fair Warning to take heed of the Scottiſh Diſcipline, p. 31. Where (after he had affirmed That a Supervenient Oath or Covenant either with God or man, cannot take away the obligation of a juſt Oath precedent) he immediately addes, But ſuch is the Covenant, a ſubſequent Oath, inconſiſtent with, and deſtructive to a precedent Oath, that is, the Oath of Supremacy; which all the Church-men throughout the kingdom, and all Parliament men at their Admiſsion to the Houſe, and all perſons of quality thoughout England have taken. The former oath acknowledgeth the King to be the only Supream Head (that is, Civil Head, to ſee that every man do his duty in his calling) and Governor of the Church of England. The ſecond Oath or Covenant to ſet up the Presbyterian Government as it is in Scotland, denieth all this virtually, makes it a Political Papacy, acknowledgeth no Governors, but onely the Presbytery. The former Oath gives the King the Supream Power over all perſons, in all cauſes. The ſecond gives him a power over all, as they are Subjects, but none at all in Eccleſiaſtical cauſes. This (ſaith he) they make to be Sacriledge. And therefore I Quaere, 1. Whether he that hath taken the legally eſtabliſhed Oath of Supremacy to His Sacred Majeſty, which (as a Paraphraſt very well noteth) See The Oathes of Supremacy & Allegiance, which have layen dead many years, &c. p. 10. Admits of no Rival in the Throne, but doth exclude all others from the Supremacy, from being enabled to act above His Majeſty, or contrary unto Him, or without Him, or his allowance, in any acts of Government, can take this illegal Covenant, whereby he ſwears, according to his utmoſt power, not onely to carry on the Rebellion then already begun, (for that it was ſo, needs no further demonſtration) but alſo to aſſiſt all other perſons that ſhall take it, in what they ſhall do in purſuance thereof (thereby implicitly owning the power of the then two Houſes, and diſowning the Onely Supremacy of the King, ſo clearly aſſerted in that Oath) I ſay, whether he that hath taken the former, can ever ſwear the latter, without a notorious guilt of apparent Perjury? If not, (as no man I think upon ſerious conſideration will affirm he may) then it neceſſarily follows that the one is an oppoſition to the other.

Again, The Oath of Supremacy bindes the takers to their power, to aſsiſt and defend all Juriſdictions, Priviledges, Preheminences, and Authoritys, granted, or belonging to the Kings Highneſs, and united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm: And the famous Univerſity of Oxford have told us, That See their Reaſons, p. 38. the whole power of ordering all matters Eccleſiaſtical, was by the Laws of the Land in expreſs words, For ever annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, (citing the Statute for it in their Margin:) whence I Quaere, Secondly, Whether he that hath once taken the Oath of Supremacy, and afterwards ſwallowed down this Regicidian League, was not deſperatly forſworn in taking upon them the ordering of Eccleſiaſtical matters (which is one of thoſe Juriſdictions and Priviledges granted to the Kings Highneſs) ſo far as to ſwear the Extirpation of the Legally eſtabliſhed Eccleſiaſtical Government, without, and againſt his Majeſties Royal aſſent? one while ſwearing to defend the Juriſdiction and Preeminence granted, or belonging to the King, and another while vowing the performance of that which is abſolutely contrariant unto it? And Perjury attained by taking of two Oaths, in my ſhallow judgement, doth unavoidably imply, the vaſt proportion of difference and contrariety that is between them. Since the writing of theſe laſt words, I heard of the burning of the Solemn League and Covenant, by the hands of the Common Hangman, according to the Noble Order of the truely Honourable two Houſes, May 22. 1661. now at this preſent aſſembled in Parliament, by vertue of his Majeſties Gracious Writ; which, as it is no more then its deſerts, in having bewitched people into an odious Rebellion againſt their Prince, which (as one ſaith well) See the Right Rebel, p. 72. Muſt needs be acknowledged a ſin of Sodom, eſpecially ſince the Sodomites are the firſt that the Holy Ghoſt in Scripture hath taxed for the practiſe thereof: So I ſhall deſiſt from ſaying here any more of this Loyal Vote, concerning that monſtrous League, but ſhall now go on to the finiſhing of what I have here intended, to ſhow the ſinfulneſs thereof in its contrariety to former Legal Oaths; and to that end and purpoſe ſhall again Quaere: Thirdly, Can that Oath, Which * was deviſed onely to ** See his Majeſties Proclamation prohibiting the taking of it. prevent peace, and to engage the Kings good ſubjects in the maintenance of an horrid and odious Rebellion againſt him (as this wicked League did) any way accord with an Oath of Allegiance, which ſolemnly bound all its takers to bear true faith and Allegiance to his Majeſty, and to defend him to the uttermoſt of their power, againſt all attempts and conſpiracies whatſoever (therefore againſt that damnable one of the then two Houſes) which ſhall be made againſt his Perſon, Crown, and Dignity? Fourthly, Can this ſubſequent, ſeditious, and trayterous Vow and Covenant, which endeavours to withdraw the ſubjects from their natural Allegiance, which they owe unto their Prince (they are his * Majeſties own words) and engages them in acts of High Treaſon, by the expreſs letter of the Statute of the 25. of King Edward the 3. be any way conſonant, or agreeable with two preceding Oaths, which expreſly obliges them to bear to the King truth, and faith of life, members and earthly honour, and to See the oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy, &c. p. 15. appear for the defence of him, of his Perſon and Government, againſt all attempts againſt them, by any whatſoever, upon any pretences ſoever? Can any be ſo wilde and frantick, as to make ſuch an affirmation? Fifthly, How can that Oath which bindes men abſolutely to bear true faith and Allegiance to the King, without any relation to his good, or bad Government, ſute with an Apoſtate that is ſworn with a curſed deſtructive limitation, to defend him ſo long as he ſhall continue in the preſervation of that, which the ſwallower thereof ſhall fancifully call, the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom, and no longer? See more of this in the excellent Scotch-Covenant condemned; That the one is the intention of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, and the other, the purpoſe of the Covenant, needs not to be demonſtrated with any illuſtration, ſeeing the doubters may be ſatisfied in the Oaths themſelves: And therefore I conclude the contrariety between the one and the other, in the words of the learned Paraphraſt, when he ſet down his minde with a Neither can that limitation in the Covenant, wherein they oblige Page 8. themſelves to the preſervation of the King, in the maintenance of the true Proteſtant Religion, the Priviledges of Parliament, and the Liberty of the ſubject, limit or abate the force of thoſe abſolute obligations, whereby all ſubjects are obliged to the King, and his lawful Heirs and Succeſſors, which are upon them by the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance; but as ſuch limitations look very unhandſomly, ſo they have not at all any force of abatement in them, but ought to be abhorred, diſclaimed, and rejected by all honeſt Subjects and Chriſtians, as an evil gapp opened to Rebellion and Sedition to thoſe that have a minde to make ſuch an evil uſe thereof, under pretence that the King doth (that which indeed he ought not to do) either depart in any thing from the true Religion, or violate the Priviledges of Parliament, or the Liberties of the ſubject.

§ 17. Laſtly, For this League and Covenants contrariety to the Proteſtation, I ſhall firſt ſet down in general, the words of a Right Reverend perſon upon it, who hath told us, That See the Ima e unbroken. the Proteſtation was confined to eſtabliſhed Law, but the Covenant to deſtroy Law, and what was eſtabliſhed by it; the Protestation to defend the Doctrine, the Covenant to deſtroy the Government, which is comprehended in the Doctrine: How do theſe two hang together? Reconcile them, and it will be as eaſie to make light and darkneſs, order and confuſion, vertue and wickedneſs, lawful & unlawful acts, to appear one & the ſame thing to every perſons eye and ear; And therefore how ſhallow and weak ſoever my judgement is in every thing, yet I hope thoſe that are judicious, will excuſe me, though I preſume for once to commend, what I ſay now, to their, and every mans ſerious conſideration; becauſe if I am erroneous, its not through wilfulneſs, or obſtinacy, but meerly for want of underſtanding to diſcern that which is better, (upon ſuppoſition that I am in an errour, which I cannot ſay, till I be convinced of it) and that which I have to ſay upon this account, ſhall come dreſſed to peoples eyes in no other terms then theſe which I have now ſubjoyned: Every one that took this Proteſtation, did Vow and Proteſt to maintain and defend (as far as lawfully he might, obſerve that well, Sir John) with his life, power, and eſtate, the true Reformed Proteſtant Religion, expreſſed in the Doctrine of the Church of England: Now minde, the Thirty nine Articles (as they are uſually called) have been alwaies hitherto wont to be accounted, The Doctrine of the Church of England: the Thirty ſixth Article whereof is ſo far from ſpeaking againſt the Biſhops for the advancing and promoting of a dogged, ſurly, Anti-Monarchical, Scottiſh Diſcipline, that the very book of Conſecration of Arch-Biſhops, and Biſhops, and ordering of Prieſts and Deacons, (which had the Royal Civil ſanction at the making thereof) is affirmed there to have nothing in it that is ſuperſtitious or ungodly: and this is a part of that, which in this Proteſtation was termed, The true Proteſtant Religion: Nay, and this muſt not be defended neither, but as far as lawfully I may, ſo that if there had not been the leaſt mention of Epiſcopacy in any of the Articles, yet confining themſelves in their Proteſtation, to the rules and orders of the Laws, the Supremacy of the King over all perſons, Clergy and Lay, in all cauſes, Eccleſiaſtical, and Civil, and Epiſcopacy, its ſtout propp and defender, (both undermined, ſubverted, and deſtroyed by a Scottiſh Diſcipline) ſtand as ſafe, and firm by the very Proteſtation, as they were before that was ever made or taken. Now comes a Solemn League and Covenant, and bindes its takers, by force of Arms, to beat down Epiſcopacy, comprehended in that very doctrine (which the Presbyters had ſworn to maintain and defend with their lives, powers, and eſtates) and eſtabliſhed by Law, to turn their neighbours (as the Revered Primate See his Fair Warning, page 2. ſaith) out of a poſſeſsion of above one thouſand four hundred years, to make room for their Trojan horſe of Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline (a practiſe never juſtified in the world, but either by the Turk, or by the Pope) I, and do this too, not as far as lawfully they may, but any way in the world, by hook or by crook, per fas, aut ne fas, ſo that they can but attain at the ends aimed at in their extirpating noddles, to beat down the firm brazen walls of Epiſcopacy, to rear up the muddy, noiſom ones, of an unwholſom factious Presbytery in their rooms. And therefore once again, I Quaere, Can that Proteſtation (whereby I A. B. do promiſe, vow, and protest to maintain and deſend, as far as lawfully I may, with my life, power, and eſtate, the true Reformed Proteſtant Religion, expreſſed in the Doctrine of the Church of England (wherein the lawfulneſs of Biſhops is expreſly comprehended) any way agree with an illegal League, which bindes me to extirpate Biſhops (in direct oppoſition to that Doctrine) as contrary unto the power of godlineſs Our Leaguers, I know, would fain be accounted true and good Proteſtants, and yet ſwear to extirpate that which is a main propp of the true Proteſtant Religion; and therefore in this caſe the definition holds very firm and true, which was long ſince given of ſuch, at the Conference at Hampton Court, That they are Pag. 38. Proteſtants frayed out of their wits.

Again, part of that doctrine which by the Proteſtation, the takers vowed to defend is, that † The Kings Majeſty hath the chief power in his Realm of England and other his dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all ſtates of this Realm whether they be Eccleſiaſtical or Civil in all cauſes doth appertain. And by the Covenant the takers ſwore to preſerve and maintain all the days of their lives the thing called the Scottiſh diſcipline; Now nothing can be more oppoſite to the Supremacy of the King aſſerted in the Article, and vowed to be defended with life, power, and eſtate, in the Proteſtation, then this very Scottiſh diſcipline, which our Baal-Berithiſts by an after oath ſwore to preſerve: Yea light and darkneſs, God and the Devil, heaven and hell, the ſerving of Chriſt and the worſhipping of Baal, will aſſoon be brought to agree with each other, as the Scottiſh Presbytery will with Monarchy (King James told us it by a ſad doleful experience) as the diſcipline of Scotland wil accord with the Regal Supremacy over all perſons, in all cauſes, as well Eccleſiaſtical as Civil; he that hath once read, and reading, well conſidered the Primates Fair Warning, to beware, and take heed of this Scottiſh Cockatrice, he will find cauſe enough to perceive a vaſt contradiction between the Proteſtation and this: Yea, and as different a ſound between them both, as there is betwixt two bells in a ſteeple, and ſo by good conſequence ſee too the horrible impiety of their ſolemn League and Covenant; The Proteſters vow too according to the duty of their Allegiance to maintain and defend His Majeſties Royal Perſon, Honor, and Eſtate, without any curſed deſtructive Limmittation of that defence; All which are diminiſhed decreaſed and taken away by Sir Johns Holy League, which therefore can admit of no accord between them; The late Carolian Martyr in his diſcourſe upon the covenant profeſſes he could not See Eikon Baſilike. See how they wil reconcile ſuch an innovating (obſerve that, O Leaguer!) oath and Covenant with that former Proteſtation, which was ſo lately taken to maintain the Religion eſtabliſhed in the Church of England, ſince they count diſcipline ſo great a part of Religion, But if all that hath been ſaid, cannot (which in my weak judgement hath ſufficiently) prove the oppoſition of the one to the other, That there is a great deal of difference between them, may be eaſily perceiv'd by his Majeſties deep ſilence, when the Proteſtation was taken under his noſe, (as we uſe to ſay) when they were hard by him at Whitehal, as well as by his Publick Printed proclamation as far as Oxford, againſt the taking of that Seditious and Traiterous Vow and Covenant (as he called it) in the day he heard thereof, and his prohibition of all people upon their Allegiance, not to ſwear it, as ingaging the takers in Acts of high Treaſon; yea, and by the late order of the Lords and Commons for the Hangmans burning of it, when they did not ſo much as mention the Proteſtation, which if it had agreed with the Covenant, ſure enough thoſe Loyal Houſes would never have ſuffered it to have lain ſtill, but had ſent them both one way together; Upon conſideration of all that hath now bin ſaid by way of evidence, to prove the great contradiction between the two Legal Sacred Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, the Proteſtation and this jugling League and Covenant; for my own part I cannot but ſubmit to the Primates truth, See his Fair Warning. p. 31. That this Covenant is neither valid, nor lawful, nor conſiſtent with our former oaths, but deceitful, invalid, impious, rebellious, and contradictory to our former ingagements, and conſequently obligeth no man to performance, but all men to repentance; And therefore the difference being ſo great between them, I appeal to any Caſuiſt living, whether the former muſt not be kept, as well as the latter rejected; the one ſtood to, and maintained for fear of its true conſequence, Perjury, as well as the other to be renounced, and diſclaimed for the very ſame cauſe by thoſe that took any of the three former; and ſo (according to the exhorting Leaguers own words) it calls for repentance and not pertinacy in it; which makes alſo palpable and manifeſt, the great neceſſity and juſtneſs, of that memorable Vote of the two now moſt Honorable Houſes, when out of a noble diſdain to all Religious Rebellion, and Seditious Leaguing principles, as well as out of a true fear of God and the King, they ordered this Presbyterian Scotland whore to be burnt by the hands of Smectymnus the common hangman.

§. 18. Having now gone through this peerleſs Covenant, and proved (as far as my poor underſtanding enables me to ſee,) the great ſinfulneſs thereof, both in the form and matter of it; and alſo its jugling contradictions in it ſelf, as well as its abſolute oppoſition to former Legal Oaths, (and ſo by conſequence, undeniable, the great neceſſity of every takers ſad and ſerious repentance, renuntiation, and abhorrence thereof.) I ſhall deſiſt from ſaying any more now of it, but ſhall from hence proceed to the conſideration and examination of a certain ſeditious Paper-book (entituled BERITH ANTI-BAAL) ſet forth by one ZECHARY CROFTON, (a Presbyter of the Right ſtamp) whoſe contradictions, and ſhallow Arguings therein againſt the reverend Lord Biſhop of Exeter, made it ſo much the fitter task for me to ſet down my Animadverſions on it; I know indeed the man is looked upon as the Diana of the party amongſt the Brethren, and the ableſt to deal with ſuch unlearned Ceremonialiſts, as the ſhort-ſighted proſelites Judge the Profound Epiſcopalians (how learned ſoever they be.) But certainly they are either deceived in their Judgements of his parts, or elſe the man was ſo hampered with what the Biſhop replyed to him, that (as he affirmes of the Biſhop) in this Rejoynder of his See the fifth ſide of his preface. Having looſed from the Haven of Reaſon, true Religion, and the fear of God, he runs a drift wherever the wind of his own words can hurry him, and leades his Reader into a Wilderneſs, where he hears no ſound but the ſhrieks of Satyrs, barking and howling of beaſts, at beſt; raging and rayling of men, or wild and improper diſcourſes that tend to no certain end; For in my judgement, (which is none of the wiſeſt I am ſure, but nevertheleſs what I write, I commend to the cenſure of the impartially Judicious) this book of his (for a great part thereof) contains nothing but ſedition and juſtification of rebellion, to the debaſing of the Regal Supremacy, & power of making Laws, or of giving his conſent thereunto (for Crof;ton tell us the two Houſes may exerciſe their Legiſlative power without the Royal conſent) and ſneaking away from the queſtion in hand, like a meer ſhifter, and acting in ſome places the part of a pitiful Caviller. And by that time I have ſet down what I have to ſay of it, I leave it to every Readers judgement to make anſwer whether it be not ſo in his; And to that end and purpoſe I ſhall ſet down what in my ſhort curſory peruſal of the Book, I found worth taking notice of to be anſwered; He (good man!) in a fit of piety cries out, The Lord deliver me from rendring railing for railng, And yet (to Page 8. give the world a ſpecimen of his breeding, and manners, and good words) in the ſecond ſide of his Preface, he ſaith, he fears nothing more then to be bound to his good behavior, for misbehaving himſelf ſo much as to anſwer a fool according to his folly, (meaning the learned Prelate) and to ſhow his meekneſs, humility and averſation to rayling (for he tells us p. 8. he doth not delight to rake in that puddle,) In the very firſt ſide of his Preface, he compares the Biſhop to the Devil, in the fifth and ſixth, to the Heretiques, and Harding the Jeſuit, Pag. 62. to an envious, and cruel Vulture: the book he ſtiles, a Pag. 3. ſwoln Toad, the Biſhop himſelf he calls Pag. 42. a proud Paſhur, and ſhameleſs Semaiah, a Pag. 49. Runegado, an Apoſtate Presbyter, a Pag. 51. man of Fancy: Pag. 61. An envious Runegado and Apoſtate, Pag. 63. A ſhifting Runegado, and a Pag. 67. ſubtile Sophiſter: and yet behold, and wonder! this is the man that cries, The Lord deliver him from rendring Railing for Railing. The Biſhop having ſaid in his Anti-Baal-Berith, Page 191. That the late Primate of Armaghs Reduction of Epiſcopacy, was propounded, not in order to binde the hands of, or limit Biſhops in England and Scotland, but as a condeſcenſion, and expedient to diſarm and binde the hands of Presbyters and People. Crofton, in anſwer thereunto, thus profoundly Quaeres: Pag. 13. Sir, Who told you that this was the politick ſtratagem of that pious Biſhop? Did not Biſhop Wren? It would make a man mad, and t'would make a man laugh, to ſee ſuch pitiful arguings uſed in a rejoynder to an Antagoniſt, and yet to be believed as excellent, and invincible by ſome people, to hugge themſelves up in their deluſions? Juſt as if a man ſhould make ſuch a like Quaere to him, Who told people that it was little Mr. Croftons Politick ſtratagem, not onely to whipp his maid behinde, but before too? Did not the Church-Wardens, and ſeveral other of the Pariſhioners of that Pariſh, where that noble Miniſterial act was done, to adminiſter ſomewhat to the maids neceſſities? So again, The Biſhop having ſaid, That the League which Joſhua, and the Rulers of the people made with the Trappanning Gibeonites, was to the damage of no honeſt men, but themſelves: Crofton cries out, Pag. 48. Was the Oath of the Gibeonites no way to the injury of honeſt men? Was it no injury to Iſrael to looſe four Cities out of their inheritance given them by the Lord? Whereas the Biſhop had ſaid, It was to the injury of no honeſt men, but themſelves, which two laſt words, Crofton very cunningly leaves out, to make his Readers believe the convincing force of his Arguments: But alas! he knew to ſet down the whole Propoſition, was not for his turn of diſputing, but would have broke the neck of his cauſe and deſign, and made it evident to every one, that he was a meer ſhifting caviller; one that was minded more to quarrel with an Antagoniſt, then to anſwer him by good Reaſons and Arguments; which practiſe of his brings to my remembrance, the like cavilling tricks and ſhiftings, of the moſt learned Biſhop Mountagues Puritanical Informers in the very ſelfſame caſe; who thereupon told them, that the ſetting down of his whole paſſage and Propoſition See his Appeal to Ceſar. p. 145. Stood not with their prime purpoſe of calumniating; directly it gave check to their detraction in chief, and ſo they paſſed it ſlightly over.

§. 20. So again, The Biſhop having ſaid, That See his Anti-Baal-Berith, p. 146. a King, though never ſo Supream and Free, yet may not Vow and Covenant to the diminution of his own juſt Sovereignty, and Authority and Power, which is his by Law: Crofton thinks fit to give no other anſwer but this Pag. 32. Which all people of the world muſt, and will contradict; and leaving out (like a wrangling Sophiſter) the principal Clauſe, and Hinge of the Biſhops Sentence, on which hangs the force of the preceding words, which is this: And neceſſary for his high calling, to protect the Church and State, himſelf, and his good Subjects. And doth he, or any one in his wits, think that any Prince may Vow to diminiſh that, whereby his Subjects are defended? to extenuate and give away that Power he hath given him by God, to Preſerve and Protect thoſe people, over whom, by the ſame God, he is ſet as Ruler and Supream? To caſt his Subjects, in a maner, out of his Protection, and give leave to others to Domineer, and Tyrannize over them, and do them what rapine and miſchief they will, and he himſelf ſit ſtill, as a Cipher? Certainly thoſe people that are in ſuch a caſe, may well cry out of an Egyptian ſlavery, and ſadly proclaim, to their great grief and ſorrow both of heart and minde, That every man doth that which ſeems right in his own eyes, as though there were no King at all in Iſrael; That a Prince may vow the diminution of his own juſt Sovereginty and power (which is too hard for his Subjects to bear, and when ſuch diminution tends to their eaſe and benefit) no body indeed in the world I think will deny; but that is nothing at all to what the Biſhop ſaith: But that a Prince may not Covenant the diminution of his own juſt Soveraignty and Power neceſſary for his high calling, to protect his Subjects (which, and which alone is what the Biſhop ſays) is a truth as cleer as the Sun, and in that caſe our Presbyters, all people in the world that muſt and will contradict it, muſt beyond diſpute be ſuch people as belong to the world in the Moon.

§. 21. Again, the Biſhop having ſet down p. 149. That the two Houſes alone, no nor the King alone, or with them, have any Legiſlative power to decree or execute what is unrighteous againſt God or man: The Shifter anſwers with a p. 32. 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; not at all caring to conſider, that what the Biſhop ſaith in thoſe words, muſt needs have reference to the Law of God; and his meaning thus, that by that Law neither King nor two Houſes, joyntly or ſeverally have any lawful power to decree or execute what is unrighteous: for its impoſſible that that Reverend Prelate ſhould ever forget what he hath read in the Scriptures of wickedneſs eſtabliſhed by a Law, and the poſſibility of Governors Legiſlative power to execute Iſa. 10. 1 unrighteous decrees by the Woe, that by God himſelf is pronounced unto them that decree ſuch: Nay, the very language of the Biſhop in that aſſertion of his, doth convince me cleerly that he was wholly guided by this very Scripture in what he ſaid (which Crofton ſo much carps at) and ſo (as I juſt now ſaid) muſt needs have reference to the lawfulneſs of ſuch power for ſuch ends, and purpoſes by the Law of God which expreſly hath prohibited it, and pronounced a woe againſt the Actors of it. But hark what the man makes a matter of complaint of! why, that Rebellion by the Biſhops ſaying (oh how loyal he is all of a ſudden, and fearful of maintaining any Rebellious principles, not above eight lines before he hath point blanck affirmed (nay, and as though it were a convincing truth too) what I ſhall prove before I have done with him, not onely to be ſedition and rebellion, but an open denial of the Supremacy, Power, and Authority of His Moſt Sacred Majeſty: but lets hear what he can ſay for himſelf, why ſentence of condemnation ſhould not be paſſed againſt him for a wrangler; he ſaith, that by the Biſhops aſſertion it follows, that Rebellion) againſt authority is acquitted by the iniquity of the command; Pray Mr. Caviller tell me, whether an impious decree muſt be done or performed at the Command of any Prince whatſoever, by any one that hath the fear of the King of Kings before his eyes? Is not rebellion in that caſe againſt man, loyalty and true Allegiance towards God, and ſo by Sacred Rules Juſtifiable and acquitted? What think you of that Antichriſtian Acts. 5: 27, 28, 29. ſtrait command and decree, that the Jewiſh high Prieſt and Councel once gave unto the Apoſtles, not to teach in the name of Jeſus? And of their ſtout noble Chriſtian anſwer, we ought to obey God rather then men? Was not their Rebellion (if it muſt needs be ſo called) here againſt the Jewiſh Governors juſtifiable, and acquitted by their loyalty towards God, in performing of that which he had commanded them to do, & miraculouſly inſpired them with his holy ſpirit for that end? Certainly the man is either out of his wits in this complaint, or elſe an evident Rebel againſt his Savior, as his party (if not his own ſelf) have bin formerly againſt their Prince; for where the Laws of God and man, run counter, and come in competition one with another, I conceive its no Rebellion at all to obſerve the former in what he commands, & not at all the latter, and he that ſhall make it a matter of complaint of a mans Chriſtian refuſing in ſuch a caſe and terming it by the odious name of Rebellion, he muſt certainly be an Atheiſt, one that regards not the injunctions of the 1 Tim. 6. 15. bleſſed & onely Potentate, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; I remember an obſervable ſaying of one of His Majeſties Loyal Subjects to this purpoſe, though he tels us that See the right Rebel p. 28. It appeares, that that which ſometimes is eſteemed and termed Rebellion by men may be, and is in truth, and in Gods accompt, not onely lawful, but neceſſary alſo, and ſo not rebellion indeed, but duty; As when (ſaith he) the commands of inferiors in authority, are diſobeyed in obedience unto the lawful commands of thoſe that in authority are their Superiors; So the Sovereignty of God, being abſolutely Supream, as himſelf is the moſt high over all, if men (though the higheſt upon earth) command that which is forbidden by God, or forbid that which is commanded by him, it is not unlawful, but neceſſary Rebellion (if it may be ſo called) to obey him, though they thereby be diſobeyed.

§. 22. Again, The Biſhop having ſaid, page 146. That the King may not Covenant to diminiſh or deſtroy any honeſt ſubjects, in any of their juſt Rights, much leſs to extirpate or expel out of his Dominions, any Rank, Order, and Degree of men that are uſeful, and in ſome ſenſe neceſſary for the being, and well being of his people: Nay, neither Prince, or any party of the People may Vow to extirpate the meaneſt Calling, which ſerves the body Policick, any more then men may Vow to cut off their feet or toes, (for I love to ſet down the words as I find them in the clear Fountain, and not as they run in the unclean, muddy Streams of the Wranglers giddy brains.) The Shifter contents himſelf with one of his merry whimſies, to laugh out his Reverend Antagoniſt, rather then to give out a ſolid anſwer to the Biſhops Aſſertion, and ſaies, (behold, Reader, the profound quality of his Argument!) Pag. 32. Tinkers, and Pedlers, and men of the like Order, will certainly cleave cloſe to this Conſervator of their Liberty; where the man wants ability to anſwer, there he he affords his Readers one of the marks of his Crazy Brain, as conceiving that his Proſelites, See his Preface. doting on the bare ſay-ſo of an holy Leaguer, will the ſooner perſwade them to believe the ſtrength of his cavilling Objections; when he wants wherewith to convince an Opponent, he thinks its enough if he can but give him a Jeer, and afford him matter of laughter; which in a wiſe mans judgement, redounds to the diſcredit and ſhame of none, but the pittiful gaſping Aſſerter, who being deſtitute of ſound Reaſonings, for the ſupporting of his Sandy Building, and the holding up of his tottering Cauſe, thinks it ſufficient if he can but get ſo much breath as may enable him to ſling a Jeer at his Antagoniſt, before he, and his Covenant, do joyntly breath their laſt. He reſolved, it ſeems, to ſay ſomthing, rather then be thought to want wherewith to gainſay; and therefore laid down the preceding Poſition, to ſooth up his Proſelites with a belief of his Abilities, when (if they are no better then that I have hitherto taken notice of) they may well be compared to thoſe of fools, the upſhot of whoſe wiſedom is to be wiſe in their own conceits: and were he any more then See p. 8. of his book. The ſhadow of a Diſputant, we ſhould never have ſeen ſuch ſhallow anſwers made to convince his Reverend Antagoniſt of his ſuppoſed Error about the Holy League: but ſuch Pittiful evaſions in Argumentations, well becomes, indeed, the men of his ſtamp, in the defence of their peerleſs Oath; which as it ingaged men in Acts of High Treaſon, can certainly be maintained by no other means, then either by ſuch ſneaking cavilling tricks as theſe, or by Pag. 40. Stating of damnable Doctrines of Sedition, yea Rebellion.

§. 23. Again, the Reverend Prelate, having according to the tenor of thoſe words in Numb. 30. ſhaken the force and validity of the Covenant, as to its binding force upon the takers of it, becauſe of our Onely Superiours Prohibition of it, Crofton very cunningly (to ſhow the excellent skill he hath in the Art of cavilling, and running away from the queſtion in debate) that he might be thought to be ſome body in the eyes of his Claſſical Admirers, is pleaſed to ſet down what he would have, in this maner, Page 34. Will Doctor Gauden pleaſe to frame his Argument a Pari, for little Mr. Croftons reſcue, he conceives it muſt run thus: Numb. 32. directeth that the Oath or Vow of a Daughter, Wife, or other Inferior, made without the knowledge of Father, Husband, or Superiour, ſhould be at the pleaſure of the Superior confirmed, or made void; Ergo, No Scandalous, Diſgraceful, Diſhonorable Oath may be taken, if taken, muſt not be kept, if kept, it muſt be well interpreted. No, Mr. ſhifter, your Ergo is rotten, and invalid, and ſerves for nothing but to ſtir up peoples laughter and admiration of your cunning Sophiſtry; for if you had acted the part of a Scholar, and a ſound Diſputant, we ſhould have found your Ergo according to the Biſhops Arguings, to have been thus expreſſed, Numb. 30. Directeth that the Oath or Vow of a Daughter, Wife, or other inferior, made without the knowledge of Father, Huſband, or Superior, ſhould be at the pleaſure of the Superior confirmed or made void, Ergo this unſacred Covenant being taken without the conſent or knowledge of our Regal Superior, (or as the Biſhop alledges, by the See the 144 page of his book. Subjects of England, who were by Law and Oaths inferior to, and dependents on the King, obliged to duty and allegiance) by his open Proclamation againſt it, according to that Scripture, is fruſtrate, void, and of none effect: but ingenuons Arguings would have quite and clean ſpoiled the deſign of ſuch a Page 232 Sophiſtical Caviller, and therefore he craftily forbore the purſuit of true Diſputations (not quarrellings and envious cavillings) with his Reverend Adverſary, leſt thereby his 2 Tim. 3. 9. See p. 10. of Croftons book. folly ſhould have been made manifeſt to all men, yea even to his Presbyterian proſelytes, who are pleaſed with a ſound againſt the Biſhops book, and conſider not the certainty of it, and are ready jurare in verba Presbyteri, be they never ſo groundleſs, with whom the Say-ſo of a godly Presbyter is eſteemed a ſufficient reaſon of their Faith; And yet the man thinking how bravely he had drawn the Biſhops Arguings to ſerve the baſe ends of his own vain talking, he preſently begins to crow and vapour, and cries out of a Syllogiſm, Currens quatuor pedibus, running of four feet, and tells his Readers a Tale of a tub, a ſtory of his godly Brethren, the Jeſuits Conference at Ratisbone, who (juſt like his own Argument here againſt the Biſhop) ſet down thus their profound Determinations of the Articles of their Faith, Qui negat articulum fidei eſt hereticus, ſed hereticus eſt qui negat Tobiam habuiſſe Canem: Ergo, (juſt like our matchleſs Diſputer) ſequitur articulum eſſe fidei quod Tobias canem habuerit; He that denies an Article of Faith, is an heretick: But he is an heretick that denies Tobit had a dog; Therefore it follows, that it is an Article of Faith, that Tobit had a dog; Not conſidering that in his Parallel he fights with nothing but his own ſhadow, that he utters his minde for the diſgracing and vanquiſhing of no body but his own dear ſelf, not at all of the Biſhop, who hath no ſuch rotten Arguments in all his Book. And that we may perfectly ſee the mans deſign in Writing (even to fill up his Book with cavilling) he tells us in his Preface (ſide 3.) of the Biſhops writing Mr. Grafton, as if he ſhould anſwer Dr. Gaudie, when as one that could not reade, he takes no notice of what the Biſhop had ſet down at the latter end of his book to read Crofton for Grafton through the whole Diſcourſe; If his eyes were ſo dim he could not ſee it, he ſhould have ſaid ſo, and then I ſhould have done my beſt to have got a clear pair of Spectacles for him, that he might by that means have read what the Doctor had ſaid for him to correct, as well as others, ſeeing he was one of his Readers: but alas, he wanted ſomewhat to ſay to fill up his Preface, and therefore ſets down this for a part of it, to make appear his invincible ways of diſputing; His quotations of the Biſhops words are ſuch, that (beſides thoſe imperfect un-ſcholar-like ones I have already ſet down) there are no leſs then fifteen or ſixteen ſeveral other quotations, which are either imperfect like the former, or elſe abſolute falſe ones, as upon a true examination I have found them, and ſuch as leads his Readers into a wilderneſs for to ſee the truth of them: but I conſider his cavilling Diſcourſe was made in a great deal of haſte, and his mad-brain'd tricks have made his Book good for nothing, but to be the ſubject of ſome mens laughter and indignation; for my part, Mr. Crofton, I See the 8. page of his book. will excuſe you for your wrong, imperfect, falſe quotations (though not for your Antimonarchical, ſeditious Principles and Aſſertions up and down your Book) if your very friends do not with blame to you, ſay, You are come a great deal too ſoon, and have verified the old proverb upon your ſelf, The more haſte, the worſt ſpeed. And truly I am afraid it had been better for your outward and inward ſafety both, that your Book had been like the Biſhops, which you madly profeſs and ſay, contrary to the judgements of many ſober underſtanding men, Page 5. whoſoever in his right mind doth but read, will finde it a Rudis indigeſtaque moles, a meer Chaos of Confuſion, (where by the way, whoſoever is not of the ſame judgement therein with you, is cenſured to be out of his wits, like your ſelf, whoſe Wits run a wool-gathering) rather then that which you are pleaſed to ſtile methodical exceptions, which denies the onely Supremacy of the King; Its but a ſad merriment to play with edge-tools, to laugh at your Adverſary with Rebellion in your mouth, and (if the mercy of our moſt Gracious Sovereign prevent not, which I know no reaſon in the world for) you will finde it ſo to your coſt, before you are let looſe from the reins of your Juſt deſerved Impriſonment.

§. 24. Again the Biſhop ſaid (pag. 196.) That he peremptorily determines, that the King, Lords, and Commons have no prudent, moral, religious, and lawful power, to change an ancient, univerſal, and excellent Government by Biſhops, To any that is (AS new and Schiſmatical, SO) far worſe, and unſutable to England every way. Chriſtian Kings and their Parliaments, are obliged to the Laws of God, and Rules of Chriſtian Piety, and Polity too, of which the whole Church in its Primitive example, and conſtant cuſtom, is the beſt interpreter; As no Legiſlative power, is impowered by Gods Laws to bring in Hereſie, and Error, and Superſtition, ſo nor Schiſm, Faction, or Confuſion, by cauſeleſly nuding or taking from the Eſſentials of ſound Doctrine, or Chriſtian Communion, ever owned and maintained in the Church of Chriſt; Here's the Docters whole ſentence, word for word, as I took it out of his own Book, and not as its mangled by our Presbyters paultry deluſive falſe quotation, where he makes the words run thus: Doctor Gauden peremptorily determineth, That Parliaments, Kings, Lords, and Commons, have no Prudent, Moral, Religious, and lawful Authority, to change the Ancient, Univerſal, and excellent Government by Biſhops, for Chriſtian Kings and Parliaments are obliged, &c. leaving out thoſe words of the Doctors, which made his learned Aſſertion unanſwerable, and true beyond any ſound contradiction, which are theſe, (To any, that is, AS new and Schiſmatical, SO far worſe and unſutable to England every way) that ſo his own arguings might thereby appear the better, and ſound more pleaſingly to the ears of his factious brethren (a practiſe ſomewhat like unto one that pictures a man with the greateſt deformity of body he can, for no other end, but to make his own naturally deformed one, appear the neater and beautifuller.) But I conſider, otherwiſe he could not hide his folly from being palpable and open to every perſon (that is not poſſeſſed of a Bedlamers underſtanding) nor his Book from being thrown into the fire by ingenuous perſons, rather then they would vex themſelves ſo much as to read his lies and juglings, his cavillings and ſedititon, his falſe quotations, and confident language, both of the judicious Aſſertions, and perſon of that Learned, Reverend Prelate, whom this Holy Leaguer may well put to ſilence after the uſual Presbyterian ways of Diſputing: for indeed it will ſoon make any wiſe man leave off medling with ſuch notorious Salamanders, who loves to live in peace and quietneſs, and endeavour to advance the Unity of the Church, and delights not to live in contention with them, to kindle the fire of Combuſtion and Sedition, both in Church and State. But we will ſee, however, what the man conceived fit in his Scotized noddle, to ſay for himſelf, and make it the matter of his Anſwer to the words of the Biſhop, as he had filthily mangled them in his falſe quotation of them; and that I finde, upon ſearch, to be this learned one that follows, with a P. 25. of his Book. But Sir, have you not ſtretch'd 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 be 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 Carliſle, and 25. of Edward the 3. Declaring againſt the Pope, That holy Church was founded in Prelacy by their own Donation, Power, and Authority, and ſo by the ſame way changeable. Where is, Sir, the Kings Prerogative (why not Supremacy? Would not that word have choak'd you?) 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 with your Covenant? Hath a gracious King lately advanced you to debaſe, nay, dethrone him, and his Parliament too? And then tells his Readers a ſtory, How it hath been obſerved to be the fatall chance of the Biſhops of England, to run themſelves into a Premunire.

The man would fain make people believe that Biſhops are Seditious perſons, and in particular his Reverend Antagoniſt, and therefore the beſt courſe will firſt be to conſider what the Biſhop hath ſaid, and then ſee whether it amount to the Sedition ſuppoſed by the Leaguing Rhodomantado, and in order thereunto I ſhall begin with the firſt particle of the Biſhops words, That Kings, Lords and Commons, have no prudent, moral, religious, and lawful authority, to change an ancient univerſal Church-Government by Biſhops, to any that is (As new and ſchiſmatical So) far worſe and unſuitable to England every way, and ſee whether they may be found to be either contrary to truth or a derogation to His Majeſties legal Supremacy, and therefore firſt, that they have no prudential authority to change Epiſcopal Government, (much leſs ſwear to extirpate them root and branch) is evident, not onely by the deſperate excommunicating antimonarchical braſen tricks and practiſes of the Godly partie (forſooth!) in Scotland againſt the excellent King James, in walking direct contrary to his Royal Commands, and ſtirring up the people in Rebellion againſt him, becauſe he did not ſubmit himſelf to their traiterous imperious humours, and making him for his own ſafety to flie out of his own capital City of Edinburgh, but alſo by that Kings famous Motto; No Biſhop, no King, and by the ſad woful experience of the truth thereof, by the late never to be forgotten Rebellion in 1642, and the Regicidian genuine iſſues and effects of it; knoweſt thou not Sir John Presbyter, the undeniable truth of that Aſſertion of the noble L'eſtrange, which he put forth to the view of the world, That See his Intereſt miſtaken: or, The holy Cheat, pag. 88. by thoſe very Troops that cryed down Biſhops, was the King murthered? Knoweſt thou not Sir John, what the wiſe King James ſaid to Dr. Reynolds's deſire at the conference at Hampton Court, for the rearing up a (domineering Tyrannical) Presbytery within this Kingdom? if not, then I ſhall for once declare it unto your Honor, the Royal Anſwer ran thus: See the Conference at Hampton Court, p. 81. Stay I pray you for one ſeven years before you demand that of me, and if then you finde me purſey and fat, and my wind-pipes ſtuffed, I will perhaps harken to you, for let that government be once up, I am ſure I ſhall be kept in breath, then ſhall we all of us have work enough both our hands full, but Dr. Reynolds, till you finde that I grow lazie, let that alone; If Kings and Parliaments have a mind never to be quiet, and to be alwaies in a combuſtion, I know no better advice can be given them, then for to ſet and rear up this Presbytery, but if they deſire to keep themſelves in reſt, peace and unity, they'l find I am confident no prudential authority to extirpate Epiſcopacy by a Baal-Berith, and bring an headleſs curriſh Presbytery in its room, but will abandon the Covenant, that See Mr. L'eſtrange his Intereſt miſtaken, p. 35. popular Sacrament of Religious diſobedience, as the very poiſon of hell, and the ſecret underminer of the Regal Authority and Supremacy, but then

§. 25. Again ſecondly, that they have no religious authority (for as for moral authority, that is an authority ſecundum morem, according to former cuſtom, their authority is ſo altogether in the negative there, that its in vain to blot any paper with an anſwer: but I ſay that they have no religious authority) to change Epiſcopal government, is evident too in regard of the Apoſtolicalneſs, and primitive uſe thereof by the Apoſtles while they lived, in commanding obedience, and controuling the ſubordinate governors, and their diſorders as well as the peoples in the ſeveral Churches they planted, and enjoyning the ſame to be done by his Epiſcopal deputies at Epheſus and Creet, (and in them all their ſucceſſors in the Epiſcopal office) in thoſe ſeveral Churches over whom they had their juriſdiction; Certainly he that tells me, that 1 Tim. 3. 1. he that deſires the office of a Biſhop deſires a good work, gives me no religious nor lawful authority to vow and ſwear with an Anti-regal Oath to extirpate it, and make an exchange for one of the plagues of Egypt to overwhelm us inſtead of that; That the Apoſtle ſaid the one, and that therefore for that very reaſon Kings and Parliaments have no religious authority to do the other, None but a Crofton and his crafty companions would ever have had the confidence to deny it, which makes me proceed to the next thing, and that is,

§. 26. That they have no lawful authority to change it, which muſt needs have reference to the Laws of God according to the ſubſequent words of the Biſhops, where he explaines his meaning by judiciouſly aſſerting, That Chriſtian Kings and their Parliaments are obliged to the Laws of God, and rules oſ Chriſtian piety and polity too, of which the whole Church in its primitive example is the beſt interpreter, and ſo his poſition in ſhort is this, That they have no lawful authority by the Laws of God, and rules of Chriſtian piety, and polity to change Epiſcopal Government, which is a cleer evident truth to me, for I conſider with my ſelf, that thoſe Laws and Rules will admit at no hand of any ſchiſm, ataxy, confuſion, or diviſion in the Church, which are contrary to true Chriſtianity (for the abounding whereof amongſt the Corinthians, they were ſo often taxed of their too much carnality) and that Biſhops were ſet up by the Apoſtles themſelves in remedium Schiſmatis, for the preventing of ſchiſmes and diviſions, and that none of thoſe errors and hereſies were ſo prevalent or apparent to humane eyes in the Biſhops times, as ſince their Julian extirpation for the ſetting up of Prsbyterian practical-jeſuitiſm, was the ground of a day of faſting, and humiliation amongſt the Godly rebels, and a Sermon thereupon preached by our unſacred Covenanter; What ſhall we ſay to thoſe things, that men ſhould ſhow ſo much pretence of goodneſs in appointing a day to humble themſelves for the errors and hereſies of the times (the true proper effects, of their arrogant ways of Rebellion, in ſetting up Presbytery as a diſtinct Government by it ſelf, without Epiſcopacy, in direct oppoſition to the practiſe of the Catholick Church, as well as to the King and his Laws, which is, and hath bin the head and fountain from whence the unclean muddy ſtreames of hereſies and blaſphemies have had their riſe and product) And yet forſooth, muſt have the means ſtill kept for the production of the ſame ends of diſorder and confuſion, Ʋpon the conſideration of the whole, I cannot but ſubſcribe to the great truth of the Biſhops words, That as no legiſlative power is impowered by Gods Laws to bring in either Hereſie, Error, Superſtition, Schiſme, Faction, or Confuſion, ſo neither have the King, Lords and Commons any prudent, moral, religious, or lawful Authority by thoſe Laws or thoſe of this Engliſh Nation, and Rules of Chriſtian Piety and Polity, to change the Ancient, univerſal, and excellent Government by Biſhops to any that is, As new and ſchiſmatical, ſo far worſe and unſuitable to England every way. If one part of the ſentence be true (which by Croftons ſilence is abſolutely concluded.) No man need fear to affirm the other without any derogation to the legal, rightful, Supremacy of the King; That which ſpeakes againſt Schiſme and faction, confuſion and diſorder, will not ſurely give me any lawful power to extirpate Biſhops, the main preventers of it, by being the conſtant promoters of love and unity.

§. 27. Thus I have examined the words as I found them imperfectly quoted in Croftons Diſcourſe, without that additional clauſe which I have ſet down in my true Citation of them, which he moſt unworthily and baſely had left out, that ſo he might have ſome what to fill up his rambling diſcourſe with; for a true Citation would have fo confounded his underſtanding, as immediately to have commanded him into a becoming ſilence and ingenuous conviction of the Biſhops truths: but rather then he would depart from his cavilling art and ſhiftings, he'l mangle the words of an Antagoniſt to make his own way the ſmoother, for credulous poor mortals to ſet their ſteps in; which hath brought to my remembrance the anſwer of a moſt Reverend perſon to the Miltonian Juſtifier of Regicide and Rebellion, depraver of verity and breaker of the Kings Image, That he See the Image unbroken, p. 153. broke ſentences and truths, leſt he ſhould breake for want of matter; And the words of the Biſhops with that additional clauſe in it, is ſo cleer a truth as can no waies be darkned by a Presbyters Argumentations (which was ſeen evident enough by Crofton himſelf, and ſo very craftily left it out) and therefore needs no other defence but the bare words themſelves which carry truth in their forehead, to the convincing of any oppoſer, which I have no ſooner done but I took a reſolution to follow the mans pattern for once, and turn Quaeriſt too,

Where's the Premunire that the Biſhop hath ſtept into now? Is ſpeaking of a known Truth, confronting of King and Parliaments? Suppoſe the Biſhop had lived in Queen Maries days, and had ſaid, That neither Queen nor Parliament had any lawful power by the Laws of God, and Rules of Chriſtian Piety and Polity, either to change the King Edward-Reformation, or to ſet up and eſtabliſh Popery in the kingdom, Was it fit for any mans mouth but a curſed Jeſuits, to charge him with ſedition and treaſon againſt the Queen, in confronting her and her Parliaments, by ſaying black is black, and white is white, by aſſerting a known truth? Bleſſed be God, we live under a Prince that deſires not to have His Supremacy ſtretcht ſo, as to make it an Inſtrument of Juſtification of the Lawfulneſs of His Actings, either againſt God, or his Truth, or the Defenders of true Chriſtianity; that deſires to have His Supremacy carryed on, and maintain'd for no other ends and purpoſes, then thoſe for which it was firſt eſtabliſhed, To make Clergy-men as well as Lay, know that he is their onely Supream Governor, and in caſe of offence, that His Power will reach to the puniſhment of both; that they ſhall not be exempted from the Civil Magiſtrates ſword of Juſtice, either by the wicked pretence of a foreign, Papal, ſuperior Juriſdiction, or Antimonarchical Sentence or Determination of the traiterous ſeditious Conſiſtorians, if they do that which is not juſtifiable either by the Laws of God, or this Land? Where's the Biſhops ſedition, I wonder? Where's his treaſon, that he needs to fear to be made leſs by the head for (as this Leaguer cants it)? Why he ſaith, in affirming the defect of the Kings and Parliaments prudent, moral, religious, and lawful power to change Epiſcopacy to one that is worſe, and far unſuitable to England every way (for that is it which the Biſhop ſaith, which our unſacred Covenanter hath dared to contradict with his ſhabbed pratling). Ay but, ſaith Crofton, The Statutes of the Kings declare againſt the Pope, That Holy Church was founded in Prelacy by their own donation, power and authority, and ſo by the ſame way changeable: Ergo, What? That they have any prudent, moral, religious, and lawful authority to change it to a worſe? After what rate doth this wily Covenanter argue? Can they that ſwear to govern a people well, and according to the Laws of the Land, have any of that quaternary Power, to change one Government for a worſe? Will the people in ſuch a caſe think (or can they?) that they are well governed, or that their Prince mind their peace and ſafety? If I may be ſo bold with the world as to tell them my ſimple judgement of thoſe words of the Kings, I humbly conceive (with ſubmiſſion to thoſe that are wiſer) That thoſe Statutes were made meerly to cut off the ſpring of the Popes univerſal Supremacy, and as much (as in them lay) to caſt out his bold, unwarrantable, antichriſtian Encroachment upon the Engliſh Liberties, and to give acheck to his Lordly domineering over them, that the Kings (as now) might have their due rightful Supremacy over all perſons in all cauſes within their dominuous, Over Clergymen (who were humble ſervants, to the principles and injunctions of the Papal Ʋſurper) as well as over Common people (who were led by the noſe by them,) In all cauſes Eccleſiaſtical, to reform Abuſes in the Church, and puniſh Clergy-men for their Errors, Hereſies, and Seditious principles, aſwel as Civil, To execute wrath upon thoſe that do evil, either by Rebellion, or Treaſon, or Speaking, or bellowing out from Preſs, or Pulpit their damnable poſitions againſt their Perſons Crowns Dignities, or Governments upon any accompt with any perſon or perſons joynt or ſeperate whatſoever; This I underſtand to be the grounds of that Royal ſaying, That holy Church was founded in prelacy by their own donation power and authority, and not for any intentions of theirs to extirpate Epiſcopal Government, or the manifeſtation of the lawfulneſs of their power by the Laws of God, and Rules of Chriſtian Piety and Polity for the doing of it.

§. 28. But the man hath not done yet, but hath ſome more queſtions (ſuch as they are) to be anſwered ſtill, and therefore Ile haſten to the conſideration of them, and what ſhould they be but theſe paultry impertinent ones that follow (which are as proper Queries for the Biſhops true poſition, as if he ſhould have put his pen in's tail, and held them both up to the Sun to look at,) 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? Weighty queſtions indeed, but ſuch as are more worthy of laughter at his folly, then of any anſwer to his proud boaſting Quaeries, but ſeeing the Scotized Presbyters aim therein (if I hit him right, if not, let him or any of the gang inform me how I ſhot amiſs,) is to make the learned Biſhop by his ſaying, to ſavour of the guiltineſs of perjury by his pretended contradictory aſſertion to the noble Oath of Supremacy, which he like a true Chriſtian and faithful Subject had ſworn, its high time to look about us, and ſtand up in defence of this vilely ſlander'd Prelate againſt this Covenanting Goliath of the City of London, and make anſwer to his ſorry (though inſolent) Quaeries, which though they ſeem to be of a ternary quality, yet in ſum, the three amount but to one: and firſt he asks, Where is, Sir, the Kings Prerogative over all perſons, in all Cauſes Eccleſiaſtical? Good lack! what a great Upholder of the Regal Supremacy you are become, Mr. Caviller? What Sir, do you turn Quaeriſt after it? Do Presbytery begin to ſhake hands with the Supremacy of His Sacred Majeſty? Doth the devil plead for God? and Baal for the worſhipping of Chriſt? Certainly then there needs no great fear of danger from the Apoſtatical Calvinian Hierarchy, or of Letters of horning from the Scotized Presbytery; But good now, Sir Presbyter, Why Prerogative? Why not Supremacy? Was that word like a Biſhops Lawn Sleeves to your party, that it would have choaked you to have named it? In all my little reading did I never meet with that word Prerogative joyned with that ſentence before, put in in ſtead of the rightful word Supremacy, which makes me think of a tacit denial of the thing, at that very time he ſaucily corrects the Biſhop for his ſeeming contradictory Poſition to it, as giving a back-blow to the Kings Supremacy in his ſeeming paultry defence of it, elſe ſurely he would have made uſe of the uſual word Supremacy, and not impotently ask Where is the Kings Prerogative over all perſons in all cauſes Eccleſiaſtical? Come, come, Mr. Zechary, you are a cunning companion, and lie altogether upon the catch, to ſee how you can take away a Prelates credit from him, but all wont do, you are horribly deceived if you think to meet with any unbyaſſed perſons, to trap them into your cheating Snare with you; for there's none that compares one Book with the other (as I have done) but will ſee your cunning Sophiſtry, and infamous ways of arguing, and thereby learn to deteſt the Leaguing Author of the one, and honor the reverend Writer of the other. If he that ſaith, That the King hath no prudent, moral, religious and lawful Authority by the Laws of God, and Rules of Chriſtian Piety and Polity, to change Epiſcopal Government unto any one elſe that is AS new, and ſchiſmatical, SO far worſe and unſuitable to England every way, (and ſo not to bring in Schiſm or Hereſie) denies the Supremacy of the King, certainly the great and invincible maintainers of it againſt the joynt encroachments of Papiſt and his brother Presbyter, will be quickly found to be againſt it (and ſo indeed every one elſe that underſtands Chriſtianity, ſenſe, or reaſon); Take the Supremacy in that notion for which it was firſt eſtabliſhed, and this Aſſertion of the Prelates may very well conſiſt with the Oath; but if this Calvinian prater for a little cavilling ſport, (for its for no other end be be ſure, for he is either no Presbyter, or if he be, he is no more a friend to, or pleader for the Kings lawful Supremacy, according to the true intent and meaning of the Framers of the Oath, then the rigideſt Jeſuit at Rome) will take it to reach to every thing, that he that denies the Kings lawful power to do that which is unrighteous by the Laws of God, is preſently againſt His legal Supremacy, Then not onely the reverend Prelates and Epiſcopal Divines (the onely conſtant Aſſertors of it all along, againſt the ſeveral wilde fancies of Jeſuits and Scotized Presbyters) but the Kings Sacred Majeſty himſelf wil be found to be vehement oppoſers of it. I'm confident His Highneſs deſires no ſuch thing, but that His Supremacy might onely reach ſo far, as he may lawfully exerciſe it without breach of the Laws of God.

§. 29. But this is not all, for there is one Queſtion ſtill behinde (a ſhrewd one indeed) which follows immediately upon the back of the former, and that's this: Hath a Gracious King lately advanced you, to debaſe, nay dethrone Him and His Parliament too? What a huge careful man this Presbyter would fain make himſelf appear to be of his Princes honor, ſo far as to queſtion a learned Prelate for his ſeeming ſedition and irreverence? How now Mr. Zechary? Whereabouts are you? What, will you never leave fighting with the Sun? never leave ſtriving, and preſenting the people of this Nation with See p. 18 of his book. the foggy fancies of your own giddy brain, and run away with them by your fluid and gliding tongue or diſcourſe, as if the ſtate of your queſtion were granted by underſtanding perſons for the truth? you crake hugely methinks, but I doubt I ſhall marr your ſport with what follows, and to that end let me intreat this favour of your Kirkifi'd Holineſs, as to ſpeak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to theſe few queſtions I have ſubjoyned here, for an anſwer either from your ſelf, or godly partakers; Doth the Biſhop go about to debaſe and dethrone his Sovereign, as to follow your religious pattern ſo far, as to ſay any where in his learned Writings (which you ſo much ſnarl at) that See his Preface to the Conſiderator conſider'd The Common-Prayer Book was expelled by a lawful Authority, which if it be not Treaſon (as the Noble L'eſtrange ſaith in his Holy Cheat) Scot and Peters were no Traytors? Doth the Biſhop talk any where of See p. 51. of his book. The Two Houſes Supream Legiſlative power without His Majeſty, and ſo give the lie to the Oath of Supremacy and Laws of the Land, which aſcertains it to be the peculiar Prerogative of the King? Or doth he in any of his Writings (like you) Page 31. averr, That neither the place of His Majeſties retirement, nor reaſon of his abſence, doth adde or abſtract to the authority of Parliament? Or fourthly, Doth the Biſhop any where bid His Majeſty keep that damnable traiterous and ſeditious Oath (called, The Solemn League and Covenant) and tell him, He ſhall be delivered from, that diſtreſs, which Page 42. may too late engage His Majeſty to ſend to (you for ſooth!) his faithful Monitor, to pray for him? Oh Mr. Crofton, you are a notable fellow at feminine ſcourges; feminine do I ſay! I am a little too ſhort there, for male and female are both alike to you, nay and not every ordinary one neither; for the King himſelf muſt not be exempted from the diſtreſs you threaten him with, for not performing of a bloody treacherous Oath; but the beſt on't is, Curſt Cows have ſhort horns, and its very fit you ſhould be ſo ſhort kept, leſt being left to your ſelf, you ſhould be apt to ſtray out of the pathes of loyalty and obedience, and get into the by-pathes of religious Rebellion, and playing the devil for Gods ſake, puſhing and goring at every one, nay at your own Sovereign himſelf, if he will not fulfil your whimſical humours; Its like you would be good enough, if you were but once throughly cleanſed from the Kirkiſh leaven of Hypocriſie and Treaſon, Sedition and Rebellion, but till then, they that truſt to you and your party for exact loyalty and obedience, will ſoon finde upon any opportunity for Tumults and Sedition, that they have truſted to a broken reed, to their own fancies and chimaeraes. The Biſhop might well fear I muſt needs confeſs (and that moſt juſtly too) to be made leſs by the head, as guilty both of Treaſon and Sedition, ſhould he ſo confront his Prince and his Supremacy, as to ſet down ſuch treaſonable & ſeditious Affirmations as you have done: but you Presbyters have been ſo always conſtant (as Mr. L'eſtrange ſaith in his Holy Cheat) to the rule and method of doing your own buſineſs in the Kings Name, that you can plead your being His Majeſties true Subjects at that very time, when you your ſelves are debaſing and diſallowing of His legal Supremacy, and ſo ſetting a fair ſtep for the dethroning of him, when your deſired opportunities of doing miſchief, ſhall unhappily fall out for the performance of your Antimonarchical Conſultations. And now to conclude this particular, I ſhall put his own queſtion to him, and all the godly Generation of Scribes and Phariſees, Hath a gracious, and (I wiſh he be not in the mean while too) merciful a King out of His own Princely Goodneſs paſſed an Act of Indempnity, (by which He pardons the long continued Rebellion, begun by a Club of Running Lecturers (as Mr. L'eſtrange calls them) and their Adherents in 1642. againſt His Royal Father, for the doing whereof He might by the Statute have cut off the heads, as well as ſeized on the eſtates of hundreds of thoſe primary Rebels, who yet by the mercy of a Princely Patron of Epiſcopacy, enjoy both the one and t'other; I ſay, hath a Gracious King out of His own ſweet Chriſtian Nature done this) for you and your party to debaſe, nay and dethrone him by your denial of His Supremacy, and ſetting on foot the doctrine of the devil, who was a Rebel and a Murtherer from the beginning?

§. 30. Ay but ſaith Crofton, Page 29 30. Dr. Gauden being well conſidered, will be found to be no leſs erronious in his Politicks, then in his Eccleſiaſticks, So then, who ever concludes for the truth of the Doctors Aſſertions in his Book, he is by your heady ſuppoſitions adjudged to be one that hath not well conſidered them: But we'l ſee your reaſon for't firſt before we believe you (good Mr. Zechary) and that is I perceive the Biſhops true ſaying, that The Hierarchy or Epiſcopacy is eſtabliſhed by the Laws of England, which you (you ſay) have in your Analepſis Analephthe denied. At this rate its in vain to meddle with you, That a mans expreſſions ſhall be true or falſe, according to what they ſeem to be in your giddy brains, That your Ipſe dixit onely ſhall be proof enough to overthrow the arguments of your Reverend Antagoniſt; But ſuch things as theſe (Mr. Zechary) muſt not be allowed of, and therefore the examination of your Denial will in this caſe be ſomewhat needful. You ſay, You deny that Epiſcopacy is eſtabliſhed by the Law; The more ſhameleſs man you, to deny that which is ſo apparent; For what think you of the very firſt Article of the Great Charter (which is not onely declared to be the Common Law of the Land, (as I have already ſaid) but is confirmed by 32 Acts of Parliament) which runs thus: Salvae ſint Epiſcopis omnes Libertates ſuae; Let the Biſhops have all their whole Rights inviolable. What think you now, Mr. Presbyter? Is the Great Charter no Law? or are Biſhops and their Liberties expreſly named in the very firſt Article, and yet Epiſcopacy not eſtabliſhed by the Laws of England? What a grand Cheater is this high-flown Presbyter, that ſhall have the face to condemn his Superiors, and give them the Lie for ſpeaking ſuch a notorious truth as this, That Epiſcopacy is eſtabliſhed by the Laws of England.

§. 31. But he'l Print Errors, and give a Reaſon for it when he hath done. I do averr (ſaith he, like an arch Presbyter) That the Engliſh laws finding Epiſcopacy converſant about the Church, doth reſtrain its exorbitances, 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; That neither Canon, nor Common Law doth eſtabliſh Epiſcopacy, is notoriouſly falſe, by your good leave, Mr. Shifter: And that neither do, in terminis, declare it to be the Government of the Church of England, is clearly beſide the purpoſe. Tis not your (I averr) nor mine neither, will weigh any thing, in the way of Argumentation; but good ſolid Grounds and Reaſons, raiſed upon a Foundation of Truth, muſt be the way and Method for the ſatisfaction, as well as conviction of an opponent; and I am ſure there is none at all in this: and mine (I am ſure) is as good a proof of the truth of my expreſſion, as your (I averr) is of yours, but are both of the ſame mettal, both a kin to the Scotchmans confutation of Bellarmine, Bellarmine ſaith thus, but I ſay the contrary, where is he now? You ſay, That neither Canon, nor Common Law do in terminis, declare and authorize Epiſcopacy to be the Government of the Church of England. Well, What of that? Becauſe neither do in expreſs tearms name Epiſcopacy to be the Government of the Church of England, to ſay preſently, its not eſtabliſhed by the Law (notwithſtanding the expreſs mention of Biſhops, and their Liberties in the very firſt Article of Magna Charta) ſignifies little to me, but onely the ſhallowneſs of the Authors brains; and yet his proud confidence too, to ſtrive with a Father of the Church, with an ipſe dixit, who avers nothing but his own folly, mixed with a Turbulent and Seditious ſpirit.

I had not read much further beyond theſe laſt words, but I meet with a Trayterous expreſſion of his, in his venemous Anſwer to the Reverend Biſhop, which makes as clear as the Sun, what a Factious, Seditious ſpirit a Sacred Covenanter is compoſed of; even ſuch, That if the Law makes once a ſtrict enquiry, will ſend his head to accompany his Brethren in Iniquity upon London Bridge; and to that end, obſerve the words of this factious Pulpiteer.

§. 32. The Biſhop having ſaid, That the Parliament (he means the the two Houſes) can Act, Vote, Determine, and Execute nothing under the Kings withdrawing from them into any part of his own Countrey, Who may yet (ſaith Pag. 31. Crofton) do all things in his infancy, or while in a Forreign Countrey, As if the place of his Retirement, or reaſon of his Abſence, did add or abſtract to the Authority of Parliament. A right Rebellious Covenanter! One ready for the work of Treaſon! Perfectly opinionated of the Sovereign power of the two Houſes over the King, and ready prepared for a Second Rebellion upon the old falſe thredbare grounds of Loyalty and Religion! He offers firſt, as an argument againſt the Legiſlative power of his Sovereign, for that feigned ſuppoſitious one of the two Houſes, That they may do all things in his infancy, or whileſt in a Forreign Countrey. Either the man is very ſhort ſighted, and ſimply verſed in the Royal Engliſh Laws (and yet before we finde him pretending to it) or elſe he is a wilful Sophiſticator: If he is not knowing in our Laws, Why is he ſo arrogant and preſumptuous, as to offer his ſhallow Arguments againſt the Biſhops undeniable Aſſertion, and to ſtand to contradict him in that, wherein he hath no skill? If he doth know the Laws, he is the blindeſt of all Beetles, by being wilfully blinde, and ſpeaking contrary to his knowledge (I do not mean contrary to his deſire, or his Trayterous Seditious ſpirit) for its a thing too well known and evident to be denied by any (whoſe face is not perfect mettal, and free from all the ſparks of Modeſty) That in the infancy of a King, there is a Protector appointed in the Princes Supream Legiſlative place of Calling, Proroguing, and Diſſolving of Parliaments; of ſetting the Stamp of the Regal Sanction upon the Writings and requeſts of the Two Houſes for the making of them Laws (for without the Royal conſent, no Law) and Repealing of old Laws, if it be thought convenient; and this that I ſay, is confirmed by that learned and Reverend Judge Jenkins, who tells us, That Lex terrae, p. 52. the Protector, aſsiſted by the Counſel of the King at Law, his twelve Judges, the Counſel of State, his Attorney, Sollicitor, and two Serjeants at Law, his twelve Maſters of the Chancery, hath in the Kings behalf, and ever had a Negative voice. And whileſt the Prince is in a Forreign Countrey, there are certain Noble men Commiſſioned under the great Seal of England, to ſupply his place, while he comes himſelf, as the Hiſtories of our Kings (whileſt in Forreign parts) do atteſt, as well as the practiſes of our preſent Prince (whom God long preſerve out of the juggling, murdering Clutches of Presbyterian Judaſſes) in relation to Scotland and Ireland, by appointing a Lord Commiſsioner in the one, and a Lord Lieutenant in the other, to ſupply the place of Majeſty in both Kingdoms; So that his (may yet do all things in his infancy, or whilest in a Forreign Countrey) without either Protector at the one time, or Deputed Nobles at the other, is nothing elſe but a meer fiction, a deluſive Cheat, (the effects of his Crazy brain) endeavoured to be put into peoples belief, and therefore I'le trouble my ſelf no further with it.

§. 33. But behold, the ſpirit of the man! That neither the place of his Majeſties Retirement, nor reaſon of his Abſence, doth add or abſtract to the Authority of Parliament, Is the iſſue and fruits of his wilde ſeditious humor. He (without whom there can be neither Parliament nor Law) is concluded by this hair-braind Presbyter, to be but as a Cypher, and that the two Houſes are a compleat Parliament of themſelves alone, without his Sacred Majeſty, their Only Supream head and Founder. By what Warrant were they at firſt called together? Was it not by vertue of his Majeſties Writ? And was not the tenor of that Writ, the Treating, and Adviſing with the King? And did they perform the ends, for which they were ſummoned together, when they raiſed Tumults againſt their Prince, and forced him away from them, and at laſt had the confidence to declare by their Votes of non-Addreſſes, that they would neither Treat, nor Adviſe with him? If not, then tis clear they ſate to no purpoſe in the world, but ingraved the name of Rebels upon their foreheads, and made themſelves to be no Parliament, by deſtroying the ends for which they were called together. But becauſe Crofton is ſo arrogant in denying the Kings Preſence or Abſence to be of any force or validity in adding or diminiſhing the Authority of a Parliament, I ſhall make bold to preſent him with this one Example, Queen Elizabeth ſummoned 3. Eliz. Dyer. 203. her firſt Parliament to be held the 23. of Jan, in the firſt year of her Majeſties Reign; the Lords and Commons aſſembled by force of the ſame Writ, the 21. day the Queen fell ſick, and could not appear in her perſon in Parliament that day, and therefore Prorogued it until the 25. of the ſame month of January; Reſolved by all the Judges of England, That the Parliament began not the day of the Return of the Writ, viz. the 23. of January, when the Lords and Commons appeared, but the 25. of the ſaid moneth when the Queen came in perſon. What think you now, Sir Presbyter? You ſee the Queens preſence, and the reaſon of her abſence was ſo far looked upon, and eſteemed in thoſe daies, in relation to the Authority of a Parliament, that her abſence but for two daies, by the reſolution of all the Engliſh Judges, was enough to degrade them of their Parliamentary title, till her Perſonal appearance amongſt them gave them the denomination of a Parliament: And unleſs this man can make it out, That the late bleſſed Carolian Martyr, had not the ſame place and Authority over theſe Nations, as that noble Queen had, the ſame Concluſion will follow upon his Aſſertion, That the place of his Royal retirement, and reaſon of his abſence, did ſo far add and abſtract to the Authority of that, which our Presbyterian Jugglers ſo often miſcal, a Parliament, that they were neither Titular, nor Real, neither Name, nor Thing without him, For See Lex terrae. p. 51 the King is the head of the Kingdom and Parliament, How then can a body act without a head? There hath one long ſince told us (to whom for knowledge in the Laws and Cuſtoms of the Realm, our Caviller is not worthy to be compared) That Pag. 156 157. the two Houſes are no more a Parliament, then a body without a head a man. Two Houſes, and a Parliament, are ſeveral things, Cuncta fidem vera faciunt; all circumſtances agree to prove this truth: Before the Norman Conqueſt, and ſince to this day, the King is holden Principium caput & finis, the Beginning, Head, and chief end of the Parliament, as appeareth by the Treatiſe of the maner of holding Parliaments, made before the Norman Conqueſt; by the Writ of Summons of Parliament, whereby the Treaty and Parier in Parliament is to be had with the King onely; by the Common Law, by the Statute Law, by the Oath of Supremacy taken at this, and every Parliament, it doth manifeſtly appear, that without the King there can be no colour of a Parliament See the Royal Buck ler, p. 62. The two Houſes (ſaith Mr. Duncomb) frame the body, the King giveth the ſoul, for without him, it is but a dead Carcaſe. Nay further, ſaith the learned Judge in the Table of his Book concerning Parliaments, This became no Parliament, when the King with whom they ſhould parley, was driven away. By what hath been ſaid, and many more inſtances, that I could produce for this purpoſe, I leave it to every underſtanding perſon to conſider, whether His Preſence or his Abſence (without whom there can be no colour of a Parliament) doth add or detract the Authority of Parliament: And leaving Crofton to the juſt deſerved cenſure and puniſhment of Majeſty for his Rebellious, Malignant Principles, I ſhall proceed on to his next Arrogant, and yet Ignorant pratling for his Seditious Vow and Covenant, which hath been the cauſe of ſo many direful plagues amongſt us.

§. 34. Whatever the Libeller (i. e. Dr. Burges his ſweet-tooth'd Sacrilegious Brother) did, Mr. Crofton (he Pag. 37. ſaith) allowed the Doctor this Text (i. e. Numb. 30. before mentioned) in its Latitude, and referred him to be judged by it, and now granteth, That the inferior in things not ſui juris may have the action vowed ſuperſeded by the declared pleaſure of the ſuperior, and that whether it be ſon or ſervant. Doth he ſo? Doth Mr. Crofton grant then the truth of the Doctors Arguments? What doth he keep a kackling for then? What doth he make ſuch a buzzing then in the peoples ears with his perjurious Covenant? Doth he firſt confeſs his Antagoniſts Arguments to be good by granting what the Doctor wrote for, and yet ſet out another vain glorious diſcourſe againſt them, ſo far as to run into ſeditious principles to keep his faithful Covenant on foot? Ay but in our caſe he then affirmed (he ſaid) The Parliament ſitting had over us a Legiſlative power to which we owed ſubjection; They were (in their National capacity) the Nation Collective and ſui juris, and to be obeyed during their ſeſſion by thoſe whom they repreſented.

The Parliament? What is that? It is the King, the Lords, and the Commons, ſaith the Covenant at the trial of the Regicide Harriſon. That the world may not be abuſed by the inſinuations of a man, who acts as if he had a ſpirit, and in truth is poſſeſſed, I will ſay (ſaith his Majeſties Learned Councel) That the Lords and Commons are not a Parliament, That the King and Lords cannot do any thing without the Commons, Nor the King and Commons without the Lords, Nor the Lords and Commons without the King, eſpecially againſt the King, if they do, they muſt anſwer it with their heads: See judge Jenkins Lex Terrae p. 80. The Lords and Commons make no more a Parliament by the Law of the Land, then a body without a head makes a man, for a Parliament is a body compoſed of a King their Head, the Lords and Commons the Members. All three together (ſaith Judge Jenkins) make one body, and that is the Parliament, and no other; The Two Houſes are not the Parliament, but onely part thereof, and by the abuſe and miſunderſtanding of this word Parliament, they have miſerably deceived the people. So then we ſee what is become of our zealous Presbyters Parliament conſiſting of Two Houſes without a King, (for its clear by the preceding words he meanes them, and them onely when he prattles of the Parliaments having a Legiſlative power over us) Here we finde the judgement of the Reverend Judges and learned Sages of the Law to be cleerly againſt him and his Titular Parliament, and telling us, how the faction miſerably deluded the people with the name (when they were deſtitute of the true nature) of a Parliament, by applying it to them, to whom it no more belonged, then the title of a man appertaines to him, who wants the conveniency of a Head.

As for their Legiſlative power; Its huge like their empty title of Parliament, and both Phantaſmes of their own braines, and that it may apppear to be ſuch, I ſhall bring in Croftons profound Lawyer Mr. Prynn in the front to bear witneſs againſt him, for he tells us, That See his plea'gainſt illegal Taxes. p. 5. the Parliament Rolls, and the Printed Prologues to the ſtatutes of, &c. (and names a great many) run all in this form, At the Parliament holden, &c. By the advice and aſſent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and at the ſpecial inſtance and requeſt of the Commons of the Realm, our Lord the King hath cauſed to be ordained, or ordained certain Statutes; where the adviſing & aſſenting to Laws, is appropriated to the Lords, the ordaining of them to the King, and nothing but the requeſting of, and petitioning for them, to the Commons. Thus he.

Other Statutes (ſaith See his impartial inquiry into the nature of ſin. p. 211. See his Lex Terrae, p. 26. the Reverend Doctor Peirce) which have the force of Acts of Parliament, are known to be directed as private Writs with a Teſte Meipſo. And the Common ſtile of most others is found to run in this form, The King with the advice of the Lords, at the Humble Petition of the Commons, Wills this or that, (where by the way take notice of the ſaying of Judge Jenkins, That Conſilium non preceptum, Confiliarii non preceptores, Counſel is not a command, nor to be Counſellors is not to be Commanders:) So the form of paſsing Bills is ſtill obſerved to be this, Le Roy le vieult, The King will have it, And Soit fait il comme eſt deſire, Let it be done as tis deſired; plainly ſpeaking by way of grant to ſomething ſought or petitioned for; (from whence (ſaith he) by ſome it hath bin gathered, That Rogation of Laws doth rightly belong to the two Houſes, but the Legiſlation to the King, that their Act is preparative, his only juſsive.

The Acts of Parliament (ſaith the learned Mr Duncomb) are called the King Laws. And why not the Kings Laws? Doth not he make See his Royal Buckler. p. 306. 307 308. them? The whole body, and volumes of the Statutes proclaim the King, the ſole Legiſlator. What is Magna Charta but the Kings Will and gift; The very beginning of it will tell you tis no more, viz. Henry by the grace of God, &c. Know yee that we of our meer, and free will have given theſe Liberties; In the ſelf ſame ſtile runs Charta de forreſta. But wherefore evidences to prove that which no man can deny? The ſtiles of the Statutes and Acts printed to the 1 of Henry VII. are either, the King willeth, the King ordaineth, the King provideth, the King grants, the King ordains at his Parliament, or the King ordaineth by the advice of his Prelates, and Barons, and at the humble petition of the Commons, &c. But in Henry VII. his time, the ſtile altered, and hath ſithence continued thus; It is ordained by the Kings Majeſty, and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this preſent Parliament aſſembled. And why do the Lords and Commons ordain? Is it not onely becauſe the King doth? It is ſo; they do, becauſe the King doth, which onely denotateth their aſſent, for the Kings Majeſty giveth life to all, as the Soul to the body; For did ever the Lords and Commons make an Act without the King? Never; They cannot; The Lords adviſe, the Commons conſent, but the King makes the Law; Their Bills are but Inanimate ſcriblings, until the King breaths into their Noſtrils the breath of life, and ſo that which was mould before, becometh a Law, which ruleth living ſouls. And as Sir Edward Cook obſerveth, In ancient times all Acts of Parliaments were in form of petitions, which the King anſwered at his pleaſure; Now if it be the duty of the Parliament to petition, and in the power of the King to receive or reject their petitions at their will, Judge you who hath the ſupream power. Thus far he.

§. 35. By what hath been ſaid, I leave it to any underſtanding perſon to judge, where the Legiſlative power lies, whether in the Two Houſes, who moſt humbly beſeech His Majeſty (under the notion of dutiful and loyal Subjects) for making new Laws, Or in the King, who grants their petitions, makes the Law, and ordains it to be obſerved, who both by the Law and a Sacred Oath, is declared and ſworn to be the onely Supream Governor of the Land.

That there is no difference between a Son and Servant, to his Father and Maſter, and the Two Houſes to the King, is clear by one oath they took, wherein they ſwear To bear true faith and allegiance to our Sovereign Lord the King, and by the other they acknowledge (cutting off all pretences of Co-ordination) His Majeſty to be the onely Supream Governor of the Land; which implies His Lordſhip and Dominion over them; And they in all their Addreſſes and Declarations, ſtile themſelves His dutiful and loyal ſubjects, (and ſo ſervants) and in relation to the Kings ſtile of Pater Patriae, may be very well called ſons too. And ſeeing the Two Houſes imaginary Legiſlative power by the Laws of this Land, is not able to impower and authorize them, either to make new Laws, or to repeal old ones, without the Royal Conſent of Majeſty, it clearly follows, That their vowing to extirpate Biſhops, eſtabliſhed by Magna Charta (confirmed by 32 Acts of Parliament, and irrepealable) was not ſui Juris, it lay not in their power, nor had no right to do it without His Majeſties conſent, and ſo having not that, according to Croftons own grant, the Action vowed was ſuperſeded, (and might very well be ſo) by His Majeſties publick Proclamation, (his declared pleaſure) againſt the taking or impoſing of it, in regard it was a traiterous and ſeditious Vow and Covenant, and therefore null and void to all intents and purpoſes. But further, our Leaguer affirms, That

§. 36. Their power in this Covenant was no leſs Legiſlative, then in the Proteſtation of May, 1641. What doth he Jabber thus for, of non entities, of things that never had a being? of a Legiſlative power in the Two Houſes, which they never had, which neither Divine nor Engliſh Lawes ever gave them? If I ſhould for once allow of his non-ſenſe, and lawleſs Aſſertions, yet I ſhould ſpoil his ſport there too; for their power in the Covenant was not ſo Legiſlative (I ſpeak according to the Presbyters canting tone) upon theſe grounds:

The Proteſtation was made and taken in the preſence of all the Members of both Houſes, and giving their free conſent, it was confined to eſtabliſhed Laws, had a Parliamentary authority (as it were) by His Majeſties deep ſilence (though nigh at hand) and thereby implying His tacit conſent to the doing of it, many thouſands took it, who yet utterly damned the wretched Covenant, deteſting it as the venome of hell, and not without juſt cauſe; But when by the Midwifery of Tumults and Armies, this devouring Brat of Abiram was brought forth, See Iudge Jenkins Lex Terrae p. 126. All men know, That of 120 Peers of the kingdom, who were Temporal Peers before the Troubles, there were not above thirty left in the Lords Houſe, and in the Houſe of Commons about 200 of the principal Gentlemen of the kingdom, left the Houſes and adhered to His Majeſty. The Covenant it ſelf deſtructive to the former, directly contrary to above 30 Acts of Parliameat, The King himſelf proteſting againſt it as far as Oxford, by his publick Proclamation, as engaging the takers in Acts of high Treaſon; Doth our Leaguer think, that when 290 Voices are taken away out of 600, that the remaining part hath as great a power as when they were all together? Or doth he think that the Kings ſilence, or his Proteſtation doth not adde or diminiſh the authority of the thing ſworn? But I muſt needs ſay indeed, See Croftons Berith-Anti-Baal, p. 51 Suppoſitions are ſufficient ſupports to a man of fancy, who all along this Diſcourſe plays at Bo-peep, begging what muſt never be granted while his Noſe is between his eyes; which I leave him to ſee at large his ignorance and folly, his ſeditious and treaſonable Principles againſt His Gracious Sovereign.

§. 37. Crofton citing out of his Analepſis, p. 12. That the two Houſes of Parliament are Co-ordinate and Sharers in the Legiſlation of England, and the Biſhop asking (p. 148.) What, and can they legally exerciſe this power without, yea againſt the Kings conſent, being out of his nonage, and not out of his wits? This furious offſpring of Smec cries out, (p. 9.) 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 declare to have been Authoritative; The Votes, Reſolves, Orders and Ordinances of one or both Houſes do proclaim it; And the Priviledges of Parliament, That the King can take no notice of what is debated or voted, ordered or acted by them, until it be by themſelves formally preſented unto His Majeſty. And the very nature of Co-ordinate power (if the Doctor underſtands it) with their Actings, in caſe of his abſence by minority, or otherwiſe, doth determine it; As to the exerciſe of it againſt the Kings conſent, I ſhall conclude nothing, but commend Mr. Prynn's Sovereign Power of Parliaments, to your ſerious ſtudy. And the Legiſlative power of their Votes, Debates, Reſolves, Orders, or Ordinances, were never gainſaid by His Majeſty.

O Lump of wickedneſs and ſedition! What do, or can none deny that the Two Houſes may exerciſe (that Ʋtopian Fiction, their fancied, imaginary) Legiſlative power without the Kings conſent? Why is your lawleſs Aſſertion ſo true, think you, that it is paſt all contradiction? Alas poor Presbyter! why do you hug up your ſelf ſo in your own deluſions? Its pity you ſhould go on uncontroul'd in your wild poſitions, and therefore Ile try for once what I can ſay againſt it: Are the Two Houſes any better then the Kings Subjects? If you ſay otherwiſe, the Law affixes the deſerved name of Traytor upon your forehead; Can they convene and aſſemble together in the Houſe, without the Regal Summons? Are they any more then the Kings own creature? Can they ſtay one minute there (when met together) to debate or conſult of any thing, without His Majeſties free leave? Can the creature do any thing what he pleaſe, without the Creators conſent? Suppoſe they ſhould (as your Long-Parliamentidol did) reproach their Sovereign, maintain five trayterous Antimonarchiſts in their treaſon and villany, hatch a Conſpiracy, and bring forth Rebellion, cannot the Creator have ſo much power over his forlorn creatures, as with the breath of his mouth immediately to command their ſpeedy departure by a diſſolution? Oh Crofton, Crofton, beware of the perjurious conſequence, and ſtop your mouth, left the Ax for your treaſon, make no difference between your own and thoſe heads of your fellow-rebels on London-bridge. But this is a Scotized Aſſertion, an opinion of See Biſh. Garden's Anti-Baal-Berith, p. 151. Seminary Presbyters, who have been the Protoplaſticks of a rebellious generation both in Church and State, & agreeable to their all along rebellious practiſes, & by vertue of their legiſlative power (which our profound Lawyer ſaith they have) and which they may, he averrs, exerciſe without the Kings conſent; and ſo by conſequence they may rebel againſt their Head, kill and murther His loyal Subjects, impriſon and impoveriſh others, take away His Imperial Dignities and Pre-eminences from Him, ſeize upon His Forts, Ports, Magazines and Towns, and plague and oppreſs their fellow-Engliſh-men, by ſeizing on their goods and eſtates, how and in what proportion and maner they pleaſe, ſend armed men through perjury, to fight againſt their lawful Sovereign, leave out the defence of his perſon out of their Commiſſions, impoſe what curſed Leagues and Covenants they pleaſe (all actions of high treaſon by the known Laws of this Land) without His Majeſties conſent; ſell and impriſon Him, until He agree to their imperious humors and demands, and Chriſten their Actions too (like a pack of diſſembling falſe hypocrites) with the title of Reformation, Loyalty, Advancing the Glory, and promoting the kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt, yea play the devil for Gods ſake, and all this they claim a right and lawful authority to do, by force and vertue of their Idoliz'd Diana, their new Goddeſs lately come down from Jupiter, their phanatick, frenzical whimſie of Legiſlative power. And becauſe theſe things have been done, and juſtified with impudence beyond example, by See Preſbytery Popiſh, not Epiſcopacy, p. 6. a Tumultuary Rabble that pretended to be a Parliament, and their graceleſs adherents, therefore this Leaguer concludes the Lawfulneſs of the Act done, and the Juſtifiableneſs of re-acting the ſame again; But A facto ad jus, non valet argumentum, is an old and a true Poſition, To argue from the Action done, the lawfulneſs thereof, becomes a ſubtile Sophiſter, a Trappanner and Cheater, more then a ſound Scholar or a Diſputant.

As for the Two Houſes Legiſlative power (ſo called) or their Co-ordinacy therein with their (by them ſworn) ONELY Supream Governour, I have ſaid ſo much already concerning that grand deluſive Cheat and Fiction, that a queſtion will now be enough againſt it; How can the two Houſes be affirmed by any (having regard to the Rules and Cuſtomes of the Realm) to have the whole, or a Co-ordinacy, or ſhare in that, which the very Prologues to the Acts and Statutes denies them to have any right or claim to, either in Poſſeſſion, or Reverſion?

As for the Proteſtation, I told you before, Silence gives conſent, and his Majeſties ſuffering ſuch a thing to be done by them, under his noſe, without a Prohibition, argues plainly his Tacit fiat to it, but yet proves not at all their ſuppoſed Legiſlative power, or Coordinacy in the ſame with their Head, nor the legality of their exerciſe of it, without the Kings conſent. It's true, the Biſhop tells you; It was precarious and perſonal, upon this juſt Ground and Foundation, P. 278. That the two Houſes had not power to make, or take, or impoſe any Oath contrary to the Laws of England, which they were truſted to obſerve, not break, nor yet to abrogate or change, without his Majeſties conſent: And that the Houſe of Commons have not power to require an Oath of any (except perhaps of their own Members.) And you in oppoſition to him affirm, That the Reſolves of the Houſe declare it to have been Authoritative; very good. I pray anſwer me then, Was not the deteſtable Rebellion againſt the Carolian Martyr, Reſolved to be Authoritative too, and (O ſtrange parcel of non-ſenſe!) to be Loyalty, and Obedience, and in the then blinde Conſcience of your profound Lawyer, to be lawful and neceſſary, both in point of Law and Conſcience? Was not their Votes of Non-Addreſſes to be made or had, to or from their Supream Lord and Governour (with its immediate attendant, unmatchable perjury) Reſolved to have been Authoritative too? Did they not Reſolve all the Villanies, Murthers, Blaſphemies, Sequeſtrations, Impriſonments, and utter Ruine of his Majeſty, and his Noble Adherents; and in fine, all their Actions from beginning to end, to be Authoritative too? Was not his execrable and perfidious Murder, Declared to have been Authoritative, when that Perjured, perjured, perjured, Infamous Lower Houſe (next door to Hell) Declared and Adjudged, 10. January, 1648 for a New-years-gift to the Nation, That by the Fundamental Laws (which was the creator of the two Houſes fictious Legiſlative power) it is Treaſon in the King of England for the time being, to levy War againſt the Parliament and Kingdom? Was not the lawfulneſs of their Perjuries, and violent Murthers, Oppreſſions, and lawleſs Actings Juſtified, and Declared to be Authoritative too, when by a couple of Trayterous Votes three daies after they had the impudence to tell the Nation, 1. That themſelves being choſen by, and repreſenting the people, had the Supream power in the Nation; and 2. That whatſoever was Enacted or Declared for Law by the Commons in Parliament, hath the force of a Law, and the people concluded thereby, though conſent of King and Peers be not had thereunto? Alas, Mr. Crofton! Its not the Reſolve, or Vote of a Party (much leſs of that diſmal black Faction in the long Parliament) that can make their Treaſon and Rebellion, their Perjuries and Blaſphemies, their unparellel'd Murthers, Violence, and Oppreſſions, ſeem the leſs wicked and abominable, or pretend to be more lawful and Authoritative, either by the Divine, or Engliſh Royal Laws. It is not the Thieves juſtification of his action, that will any whit the more extenuate the nature of his horrid crimes, nor the Turbulent ſpirit's applauding his Faction and Sedition, ſpeaking evil of Dignities, and declaiming againſt the Legal Supremacy of his Prince, and then cry out with his Brother Jehu, See my zeal for the Lord of hoſts, and think that all this while he is beating down the enemies of the Lord Jeſus, that will make his Rebellion leſs odious, or his blinde zeal without knowledge, to be ever a whit the more rewardable; but the Laws of God and man muſt be the Touchſtone, the Judge to juſtifie or condemn their reſpective actions, according to their different waies of obedience, or neglect and refuſal to obey: So that to conclude this particular, I ſay, Its not the Reſolves of the two Houſes that will make that to be lawful and Authoritative, which neither the Laws of God, nor of this Land declare to be juſtifiable and blameleſs; their Votes and Reſolves you ſpeak of, do proclaim nothing elſe but their matchleſs Treaſon and Rebellion.

You tell us further, That the Priviledges of Parliament, That the King can take no notice of what is debated or voted, ordered or acted, until it be by themſelves Formally preſented unto his Majeſty; And the very nature of Co-ordinate power (if the Doctor underſtands it), (What, do you think the Doctor to be ſuch a learned Coxcomb, ſuch a Legiſlative dreamer as your ſelf, that you queſtion his underſtanding of a Co-ordinate power, with an If?) with their actings, in caſe of his abſence by Minority, or otherwiſe, doth determine it. What It, doth it determine? Oh! you mean, I ſuppoſe, your ſo much adored Diana, the Legiſlative Fiction, placed in the two Houſes. You are an egregious Arguer, but like all the reſt of the Scotized party, arguing from the momentary proſperity of an execrable Rebellion, the Legality of the Traytors actions: and becauſe in the contriving, and deviſing of a Statute, the two Houſes have a Priviledge excluding the Kings taking notice of them, till ſuch time as it is finiſhed, and preſented for the Royal aſſent; (for without that, its no Law) Therefore this wilful Sophiſticator concludes, or would have others believe that from thence it follows, by good conſequence, That the Rebellious two Houſes, after they had taken the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy, (which bound them to aſsiſt and defend the King againſt all his enemies) might by vertue of their Legiſlative whimſie, take and impoſe a Negative Oath, and ſtoutly ſwear (with Perjury in their brazen brows) not to aſſiſt the Forces raiſed by their Gracious Sovereign, for his own defence, againſt his Rebels, againſt the Treaſons and villanies of themſelves, who had the face without his preſence or conſent, to call themſelves A Parliament; That they might by vertue of ſuch Priviledges raiſe a Rebellion, and ſwear to extirpate the Legal eſtabliſhed Government of the Church, juſtifie their Members in their Conſpiracies and miſchiefs, ſend armed men againſt their Prince, to fight with, and ſhoot at him and his Loyal Subjects, and other Abominations not to be parellelled (like their Matchleſs Covenant) and all this without, and againſt the Kings conſent; becauſe, as I have ſaid, they have a Priviledge to be free in their debates and conſultations about the deviſing of a New, or repealing of an Old Law, without the Kings taking notice of it, until ſuch time as they preſent it to him for his Fiat. Truely, Sir Preſbyter, you are fitter a great deal to diſpute with Females, with a rod of Correction in your hand, then to prate with a Reverend Prelate with ſuch ſhallow arguments as theſe, which diſcovers nothing elſe, but the Authors folly on the one ſide, as well as his high imperious ſpirit on the other. As for their Co-ordinacy in the Legiſlative power, (which our godly Rebel jabbers ſo much of) and their actings, in caſe of his Majeſties abſence, by Minority, or otherwiſe, which he fondly ſuppoſeth doth determine the truth of his bold frantick aſſertion: If the (I ſay ſo) of himſelf will be taken for a ſufficient proof thereof, the buſineſs then I muſt confeſs is clear, beyond any contradiction; but that they cannot Legally act any thing (for I do not come here to contradict the proſperous Rebels actions when they hold the murthering ſword of lawleſs Treaſons and murthers in their hands, inſtead of the ſword of Juſtice, but I ſay, that they cannot Legally act any thing) in the time of the Regal Minority, without a Protector, nor in the interim of his abſence, without Deputed Nobles under the great Seal (both which are purpoſely appointed to ſupply the place of ſuch Regal abſence for the time) is manifeſted plainly by what I have already ſaid, and, in my weak judgement, ſo clear a truth, that it is not in the power of any Factious Presbyter to contradict me, that keeps in the way of verity; and therefore I ſhall not trouble my Reader with any further anſwer of it.

Well; We have ſeen now the Presbyters Allegations concerning the two Houſes exerciſe of the Legiſlative Fiction, without the Kings conſent; and weighing them in the ballance of right Reaſon, and Laws, and Cuſtomes of the Realm, have found them to be too light and weak to bear that ſtreſs and burthen, which our filthy Dreamers lay upon them. I'le now try what he ſaith of thoſe Long-Parliament-Legiſlative Thieves exerciſe, of their whimſie againſt the Kings conſent: and here we finde him foreſeeing a palpable Treaſon, in aſſerting an Affirmative Propoſition; and yet that we may perceive his willingneſs to have an Affirmative maintained, he thus breaths forth his doubtful fancy: As to the exerciſe of it againſt the Kings conſent, I shall conclude nothing, but commend Mr. Pryn's Sovereign power of Parliaments to your ſerious ſtudy. What a Seditious minde, and Treacherous heart this Crofton is poſſeſſed of? We are beholding to a wiſe King, and a lawful Parliament, for his avoiding of his Cackling, and concluding of nothing in the caſe at this time. His faint-hearted ſeeming Negation of the Legality of thoſe Rebels exerciſe of their Uſurpation, is juſt like the Olivarian-Machiavelian-Pro-Traytors denial of the Kingly Title, even full ſore againſt his will: He would not ſay AY, for fear an Ax, or an Halter might preſently attend him; nor won't ſay NO neither, leſt his ſeared Conſcience ſhould look him in the face, and contradict him with a Truth, That a Negative, was by No means agreeable with his Claſſical rebellious ſpirit; and therefore very cunningly commends another mans unreaſonable Jangling (as full of Treaſon and Rebellion, as a Toad is of poyſon) to the Biſhops ſtudy. If he had commended it to the Biſhops, and every mans ſtudy, and deteſtation, and abhorrency thereof, when they had read it, as well as indignation againſt the Treaſonable venome of the Authors heart, he had ſpoke more truth, then a Presbyter is wont to do. What that book is, and how worthy to be Commended to a Biſhops reading and ſtudy, I leave to every one to conclude ſomething (ſeeing Crofton will conclude nothing) by that juſt Sentence and Condemnation, which the learned Mr. Duncomb (upon ferious ſtudy thereof) paſt in theſe words againſt both the Author, and the Book it felf. His book (ſaith he See his Royal buckler, or a Lecture to Traytors p. 240.) is ſuch a Rhapſody of non-ſenſe, a bundle of Rebellion and Treaſon, a Pamphlet ſo Seditious, Pernicious, Sophiſtical, Jeſuitical, Trayterous, and Scurrilous, that I want Mr. Pryn's Epethites to give his own book its deſerved odium. Truely, I muſt needs ſay, That the Author of that heady, Trayterous diſcourſe, (who (as the ſame judicious perſon ſaith) ſetteth P. 243. the body above the head, maintaineth that the two Houſes, or the Major part, have the Sovereign power, may act without the King, levy War againſt him, and kill him too, by defending themſelves) hath very little or no cauſe to return thanks to his Seditious Brother, for the courteſie he hath done him, to conclude nothing in the argument himſelf, but commend the others Book to his Reverend Antagoniſts ſerious ſtudy, the true Engliſh whereof, amounts but to this concluſion, I dare not maintain ſuch a Treaſonable Poſition as that my ſelf, for fear of having my reward on a block, or a Triple tree; but I'le commend a book to you, wherein it is aſſerted and juſtified, and made known to the world by a deluding Trap-door of the Sovereign power of Parliaments. Its but a ſad commendation of Mr. Prynne (eſpecially from a Brother of the Sacred Covenanting Tribe too) to do as good as tell the world, that his Book is the Store-houſe of Seditious, and Treaſonable Principles; The Shop to furniſh others with what, and as much as the Rebel pleaſes; For if the juſtification of an Affirmative in the controverted point, be not to be found in that putrid, loathſom hoſpital of Trayterous diſeaſes, in that which the deluding Author was pleaſed to term, The Sovereign power of Parliaments, To what end or purpoſe do we hear of a Citation, or Commendation thereof to the ſerious Study of his Reverend Opponent? And if it be therein juſtified, (as who doubts but it is?) the Concluſion that I have made, doth naturally flow from the Premiſſes; and therefore I ſay, how much the one is bound to thank the other, I leave to both their conſiderations to decide the controverſie between themſelves at their next meeting; and in the mean time ſeeing this man of fancy, our windy Croftonian diſputant, doth as it were in the dark, confeſs the truth of a Negative herein. I ſhall proceed to his next Dream, where he Magiſterially affirms, That

The Legiſlative power of their Votes, Debates, Reſolves, orders, or Ordinances were never gainſaid by His Majeſty. Here's a rare ſpiritual man for you now, one that peremptarily determines a notorious falſity for a truth; And what an incomparable miſtake it is, His Majeſties own words ſhall make appear: In his noble Anſwer to the 19 Tyranical Propoſitions of thoſe Legiſlative Traytors, p. 1. (who ſo often have made it their Godly work to eſtabliſh iniquity by a Law) we finde him declaring, and telling of the Engliſh Nation of thoſe pious Theives having thought fit to remove a troubleſom Rub in their way, The Law; To this end (ſaith he) (That they might undermine the very foundations of it) A new Power hath bin aſſumed to interpret and declare Laws without us by extemporary Votes (mark) without any caſe judicially, before either Houſe (which is in effect the ſame thing as to make Laws without us) Orders and Ordinances made onely by both Houſes, (tending to a pure Arbitary power) were preſſed upon the people as Laws, and their obedience Required to them; Their next ſtep was to erect an upſtart authority without us (in whom, and onely in whom the Laws of this Realm have placed that power) to command the Militia, by a See his Majeſties Speech to them, July 21. 1642. In Reliquiae ſacrae Carolinae. pretended Ordinance, which His Majeſty told the Knights, Gentry, and Freeholders of the County of Lincoln, That as the ſame was againſt the known Laws, and an invaſion of his unqueſtionable right, and of their liberty and property, ſo I do now declare (ſaith the Sacred Speaker) That the ſame is impoſed upon you, againſt my expreſs conſent, and in contempt of my Regal Authority, And I doubt not, but you will ſadly conſider, That if any Authority without, and againſt my conſent, may lawfully impoſe ſuch burthens upon you, it may likewiſe take away all that you have from you, and ſubject you to their lawleſs arbitrary power and government; At another time telling the Gentry, &c. of Leiceſter of his defending their Religion, their Liberties, their Laws with his life, I mean ( See his Majeſties Speech to them, July 20. 1642. ſaith he) the good known Laws of the Land, not Ordinances without my conſent, which till within theſe twelve moneths was never heard of from the foundation of this kingdom) In his meſſage from Oxford to thoſe inſinuating ſerpents at Weſtminſter of the 12th of April 1643, he juſtly terms the Declarations, Ordinances or Orders of one or both Houſes illegal: And laſtly (not to tire my readers patience too much) His Majeſty was pleaſed to tell the inhabitants of Flint and Denbigh at Wrexham, That See his Speech to them, Sep. 27. 1642. By their power (i. e. that of the houſed Rebels) the Law of the Land (their birth-right) is trampled upon, and inſtead thereof (ſaith he) they govern my people by Votes and arbitrary Orders. Theſe I finde in thoſe very few pieces of his late Glorious Majeſty, which I have had the happineſs to take a curſory view of, and yet enough to ſet forth Crofton in his proper dark colours, to evince the Regal gainſaying of the Legiſlative power (as our Presbyters nickname the Chimaeraes of their braines) of the Two Houſes illegal, extemporary, and arbitrary, lawleſs Votes and Orders, which as it was the ſole intent in my Citation, ſo they are an apparent proof of the notorious falſhood of Croftons heady affirmation, and perverſe diſputings; Who ſees not that his Seditious, and 2 Tim. 6. 5 Rebellious principles declare him to be a man of a corrupt mind? Who perceives not that his emitting to the Engliſh Nation his Legiſlative falſhoods, do make apparent, that he is alſo deſtitute of the truth, and too much inclined to dreames and fancies?

§. 38. The Doctor having juſtly termed Croftons urging by a Presbyterian pertneſs the preſent Kings taking the Oath in Scotland, p. 149. bold and odious, no leſs then fallacious: Crofton cries out, p. 24. How bold and odious ſoever it may ſeem, none but a proud Paſhur and ſhameleſs Shemaiah (Who is the Raker in the puddle of Rayling now O Presbyter?) could count it odious in Jeremiah to ſay to the King, Keep the Oath, and thou ſhalt be delivered (Obſerve his Traiterous and ſhameleſs addition) from that diſtreſs, which may too late ingage His Majeſty to ſend to his faithful Monitor to pray for him; Goodly! Goodly! how delicate ſweet rebellion ſmells in the noſtrils of a Covenanter? What damnable Seditious ſpirits poſſeſſes them with the impudence of threatning diſtreſs to his Sacred Majeſty for not keeping of that National plague, the Covenant? He that can make any other of this, then Sedition, let him lend me his ſpectacles; I wonder what day or hour it is, wherein theſe Sacred Covenanters may be found deficient in their endeavors of See the ſlight healers of publique hurts p. 29. drawing on Rebellion, perjury, innocent bloodſhed and Sacriledge with the ſhoeing-horns of Religion and Reformation, of ſetting up the Goſpel of Peace with unguentum armarium, the ſword of war? Our Canting Presbyter not onely threatens His Majeſty with diſtreſs, but alſo by his venemous ſpeeches implies the approach of miſchief, when it will be too late for His Majeſty to ſend to him to pray for him; Nothing is to be looked for here but deſtruction, and damnation hereafter it ſeemes, if that brat and ſpawn of the ſerpent (that primary deluding rebel) the Covenant (which being hatched in Sacriledge and Rebellion, was at length brought forth into the world in blood and confuſion) be not carefully looked to and provided for; See Archbiſhop Bancrofts, dangerous poſitions. p. 51. Thoſe Kingdoms and States, who defend any Church-Government ſave this of Paſtors, Doctors, Elders, and Deacons, are in danger of utter deſtruction, ſays Martin Junior in the time of Queen Elizabeth. The Parliament in her time, for tolerating of Biſhops in ſtead of their new Government, were told by others of the then factious party, p. 50. That they ſhall be in danger of the terrible maſs of Gods wrath, both in this life, and in the life to come, and that if they did not then abrogate the Government by Biſhops, well they might hope for the favor and entertainment of Moſes (that is the Curſe of the Law) but the favor and loving countenance of Jeſus Chriſt, they ſhould not ſee, nor never enjoy. Birds of a feather will flock together, all Cuckoe-like ſinging the ſame tune of deſtruction & diſtreſs to their Sovereign Princes, if they will not bow down and worſhip the Golden Calf of their Presbytery; But why too late, Mr. Crofton? Is not the Murther of one King enough, but you muſt harp upon the Rebellion againſt, Impriſonment, and godly conſequential murther of another? Satia te ſanguine Cyre; More Gun-powder Mines ſtill to blow up Regality? Is there another Rebellion a contriving amongſt the Saints, that muſt needs have Sata as canonizing ſtamp upon't? Too late! Are you in ſerious Combination with the party, to ſtir up an execrable Rebellion againſt the Son for his ruine in this world, as formerly your Curſing party did againſt His Martyr'd Father? And all for not keeping of an Antimonarchical horrid Confederacy and Conjuration, called, The Solemn League and Covenant, Theſe expreſ-preſſions deſerve a ſharper Anſwer then my Pen is able to make, being filled brim-full of covenanting-rebellious Malice.

But why Faitful Monitor? You live far from neighbors ſure, that you are fain to crown your ſeditious pate with laurels of praiſe for a Faithful Monitor, which is as fit for you, as a Saddle is for a Sows back, or the Epethite of Godly was for the peerleſs Cut-throats of the Carolian Martyr; He that was ſo impudent as to tell the King to his face, He was a Tyrant, Traytor, Murderer, and a publique and implacable enemy to the Common-wealth, was juſt ſuch another Faithful Monitor as your ſelf: But for what? meerly for the chaſtiſing and crucifying of both. But what muſt His Majeſty ſend to him for? why it ſeems to pray for him. Alas gude Covenanter! what are all your prayers but for the deſtruction of Princes, and ſtirring up their ſubjects to rebel againſt them, if they will not preſerve your helliſh Trap-door, and as the ends of that, ſet up and maintain your Trojan Horſe of Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline? Their worth are weighed down with a nut-ſhel, if they be like thoſe which are in your Book; which prayer of yours, and your practiſe (like true religion, and your irreligious deſtructive Covenant) at at drawn ſwords with each other, even in the very writing of a few ſheets of paper? They had need of a bird (as the ſaying is) that give a groat for an Owl; They muſt needs be in great want of prayers ſure, who ſend to ſuch a bold confident Kirker as you for that end, who can one while cry, The Lord deliver me from rendring rayling for rayling, and yet rayl your ſelf for ſeveral times, in ſeveral pages, againſt that very perſon whom you ſo ſtrangely exclaim againſt for the very ſame thing, which clearly manifeſts an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a notorious ſelf-condemnation, and brings you within the reach and laſh of the Apoſtles ſentence, which in his Epiſtle to the Romans he pronounces with a Therefore thou art inexcuſable, O man, who ever thou Rom. 2. 1. art, that judgeſt, for wherein thou judgeſt another, thou condemneſt thy ſelf, for thou that judgeſt, doſt the ſame things.

§. 39. But Crofton hath not done yet, but continues belching forth his own wickedneſs and folly againſt the Reverend Prelate, with a Page 51. Thus he ſuppoſeth the Two Houſes into a non-entity as to their Supream Legiſlative power by the temper they were Page 52 then in, and the abſence of the King, though they were animated by an expreſs Statute Law, which ſome upon good grounds and 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 profeſsion of their National capacity, was a perſonal Covenanting. Bleſs me! what doth this Presbyter prattle thus for of things (he lets us know by his fanciful jabbering) he hath no more skill or knowledge in, then his neer acquaintance, the Aſs? The man is out of his element ſure; he is got into a wrong way, and fancies to himſelf that he's going the direct right way on to his journeys end, and therefore Ile do what lies in my power to manifeſt his error and miſtake unto him; And therefore firſt, Doth the Doctor ſuppoſe ſuch a thing? Doth he ſuppoſe nothing to be nothing, that to be a non-entity which never had a being! A terrible cauſe indeed of a Presbyters exclamation! for we finde, that the Supream Legiſlative Bauble of the Two Houſes, is the very, very Loadſtone that draws up a ſanctified Puritans zeal and affection to them, to ſhew us a Presbyters inclinations more to fictions and whimſies, then to thoſe which are viſible undoubted Truths; Supream! What Gimcrack, or New-nothing have we got here? That the Body ſhould be affirmed to be above the Head? The Legs, Arms, and Trunk of the Body indeed (as Judge Jenkins See his Lex Terrae p. 49. ſaith) are greater then the Head, and yet not above, nor with life without it. Certainly the man hath a mind to ſhow the profound depth of his skill in Corah's art of murmuring and rebellion againſt the Supremacy of the Prince and Prieſt. He tells us of an Obſervation in his Book, That it hath been the fatal chance of the Biſhops of England, Page 25. to run themſelves into a premunire. If he ſpeak of any ſince the Reformation, I defie him to ſhow me one example of any Proteſtant Biſhop that ever ſince then proved diſloyal, either in words or actions, to either King or Queen, except Biſhop Williams, when he began in his old age to dote, and lean too much on that rotten prop of Preſbytery, which taught him to fortifie his Houſe againſt his Gracious Sovereign; I do not mean thoſe pretended premunire's for which the incomparable Laud was ſo infamouſly murthered, nor by which ſundry others of the Royal Adherents were the very ſame way dealt withal, as Traytors againſt His Majeſty, and the Bauble (which they call'd The Parliament) for aſſiſting him, by that Black Cabale, that Aſſembly of Treacherous Men before, in, and after the year 1644. But certainly there's none but can obſerve, the Preſbyters Loyalty is good enough, when they are deficient in power, that is to ſay, when they cannot help it; for it is as clear as noon-day, that a Puritan never wants a will to rebel, if he hath at any time any power and opportunity, and that the Magiſtrate refuſe to ſet up the Conſiſtorian Slavery, which made the Learned Dr. Pierce cry out, See his Self-Revenger exemplified, p. 100. Bleſſed and happy is that Nation, where ſuch mens Loyalty conſiſteth in their want of power or opportunity to make reſiſtance. In good earneſt Mr. Crofton, Ile for once make anſwer by a retortion, and ask you your own queſtions (you ſo weakly and impertinently (to ſay no worſe) propounded Page 25. to the Biſhop) Sir, have you not ſtretcht too far, and ſtept into a premunire? I ſhould fear to be made leſs by the head, as guilty of Treaſon, Sedition at the leaſt, ſhould I thus confront the King and Loyal Parliaments, in what all their Statutes and an Oath of Supremacy declare to be the peculiar Prerogative of the King? And that they do ſo, need no further demonſtration then that which follows, even the words of the Lord Chief Baron (now Lord Chief Juſtice) Bridgeman, in his Speech to the Grand Jury at the Regicides Tryal, where we thus finde his learned Language; Gentlemen, Let me tell you what our Law-books ſay, for there's the ground out of which (and the Statutes together) we muſt draw all our concluſions for matter of Government. How do they ſtile the King? They call him, The Lieutenant of God, and many other expreſſions in the Book of Primo Henrici Septimi. Says that Book there, The King is immediate from God, and hath no Superior. The Statute ſays, That the Crown of England is immediately ſubject to God, and to no other power. The KING (ſay our Books) He is not onely Caput Populi, the Head of the People, but Caput Reipublicae, the Head of the Commonwealth, the Three Eſtates; And truly thus our Statutes ſpeak very fully; common experience tells you, when we ſpeak of the KING, and ſo the Statutes of Edward the Third, we call the King, Our Sovereign Lord the King: Sovereign, That is, Supream. And when the Lords and Commons in Parliament apply themſelves to the King, they uſe this expreſſion, Your Lords and Commons, your faithful ſubjects humbly beſeech; I do not ſpeak any words of mine own, but the words of the Laws: Stat. 24. Hen. 8 cap. 12. Whereas by divers, ſundry, old, authentique Hiſtories and Chronicles, it is manifeſtly declared and expreſſed, That this Realm of England is an Empire, and ſo hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supream Head and King, having the Dignity and Royal Eſtate of the Imperial Crown of the ſame, &c. 25 Hen. 8. cap. 21. There it is the people ſpeaking of themſelves, That they do Recognize no Superior under God but the Kings Grace. Thus that learned Perſon.

To the Judge, let me add Mr. Duncomb, who telling us, See his Royal buckler, or a Lecture to Traytors p. 108. That the Law of Nature ſhall periſh, and the heavens and earth ſhall paſs away before Lex Terrae, the Law of the Land ſhall deny this Oracle, Omnis ſub Rege, & ipſe ſub nullo niſi tantum ſub Deo, All men are under the King, and the King is under none but God. This (ſaith he) is that divine Sentence, Quod nec Jovis ira nec ignis, nec poterit ferrum, nec edax abolere vetuſtas, which neither angry Jove, nor fiery Vulcan, neither devouring Age, nor bloody ſword, a worſe devourer then that, ſhall ever expunge out of our Law-books, or explode out of the memory of every pious man. Thus he.

Bracton cited by the Reverend and Learned Judge Jenkins, tells us, Rex non habet parem in Regno ſuo, That the King hath not an equal in his kingdom; if not an Equal, then certainly no Superior, and ſo by conſequence ſhows the fiction of the Two Houſes Supremacy. There hath been ſo much already cited for the Supremacy of His Sacred Majeſty over all perſons in his Dominions, by Judge Jenkins, Mr. Diggs, and ſeveral others, that I need not trouble the Reader with any more repetitions thereof, but refer the disſatisfied to their ſeveral Writings, and conclude this point with a word or two concerning the Oath of Supremacy, which every Member of the two Houſes muſt take before he ſits in the Houſe, or elſe according to Law, he ſtands a perſon to all intents and purpoſes, as if he had never bin elected or returned; which clearly declares the King to be the onely Supream Governor of this Realm, and of all other His Highneſs Dominions and Countreys, as well in all Spiritual and Eccleſiaſtical things (or cauſes) as temporal, and ſo certainly by undeniable conſequence, over the Two Houſes in Parliament cauſes; For why was the excluſive Particle Onely inſerted, but to cut off all pretences of co-ordinacy or ſhare in the Regal Supremacy? And truly if he be Supream, there is neither Major, nor Superior, ſaith the Learned Lord Bridgeman in his Speech aforeſaid. Was this Oath (think you Mr. Crofton) compoſed by the Lords and Commons in Parliament, in the time of Qu. Elizabeth, and at their ſuit by Eliz. c. 1 Act of Parliament made high Treaſon 5 Eliz. c. 1 for a ſubject to deny to take it, for to be evaded and treaſonably denied, & the ſubject matter thereof aſcribed to the Subjects themſelves, who were fain to take it, ere they could have the leaſt colour or pretence, perjuriouſly to claim or uſurp it from the rightful owner, and this too by ſuch a Shadow of a Diſputant as your fanciful ſelf, who have armed your ſelf with ſo much confidence, to bawl out theſe ſeditious Aſſertions, which deſerve nothing elſe but the utmoſt rigor of the Law for a confutation? Nothing but ſelf-condemnation? No other way left you to ſave your credit, but by writing ſedition, and throwing your poiſon'd darts of malice againſt your Superiors, for the pretended denial of that, the truth whereof your own whimſical ſelf is found to be a real diſclaimer? Cannot you dig a pit for another, but you muſt preſently fall into it your ſelf? Theſe ſhabbed courſes of yours, forces me to deal with you by a retortion, and ask you once again ſome more of your own queſtions, Where is, Sir, the Kings Prerogative over all perſons in all cauſes? What is become of the Oath of Supremacy? Hath a Gracious King lately pardoned you, and your Delinquent party for your former miſdemeanors, really to debaſe, nay dethrone Him by your impudent and traiterous entituling his ſworn Subjects with His Onely Supremacy? Truly, Sir, I cannot blame you much now for your words in your Preface, where you tell us, That ſide 2. having animadverted this Anti-Baal-Berith (i. e. the Biſhops Book) you finde a neceſsity to apologize for the very act of your Animadverſion, and fear nothing more then to be bound to your good behavior, in miſbehaving your ſelf ſo much as to anſwer (not according to what your confidence helped you to prate, A fool according to his folly, wherein you may ſeem like unto him, but) a learned reverend Prelate with whole mouth-fuls of ſedition and rebellion, wherein you are the perfect image of all the traiterous Conſpirators that have been before you; why elſe do you divide non dividenda? make a diviſion in that wherein none without perjury, ought or can be? make two ſharers and partners in the Supremacy, which the legal Oath and Statute-Laws of this Realm (by which we muſt ſteer our courſe, and not by your horrible frightful dreams) declare to centre, and to be the peculiar right and Sovereignty of one alone, and that inſeparable from his perſon too? The goodly aim and end of all your Jabbering for the Two Houſes co-ordinacy in the Supremacy, is but to fulfil the Martyrs words, See Eikon Baſilike in 24. P. 47. That the Majeſty of the Kings of England might hereafter hang like Mahomets Tomb by a Magnetick charm, between the power and priviledges of the Two Houſes in an airy imagination of Regality.

But the Two Houſes uſurpation of the Supremacy, it ſeems will not ſerve Mr. Croftons turn, if they cannot ſwallow up the Legiſlative power too from the Royal Owner; In his Analepſis p. 12. he called them then onely Co-ordinate and Sharers in the Legiſlation of England, now he graſps for the Suprem Legiſlative power alone for thoſe long Parliament Legiſlative theives, (that made it their precious ſaintly work to make their ſtrength the Law of Juſtice,) robb and pillage and murder the Subjects of their Soveraign, by their curſed illegal Orders, quirkes and devices: and then ſhow them the Law of their uncontroulable atheiſtical wills for it, ſic volo, ſic jubeo, ſtat proratione voluntas; I am perſwaded the man hath a huge fancy to go higher and higher in his Seditious and treaſonable language, till he comes to make his laſt aſcent at the Sacred Gallowes, or elſe he dreams with the Fifth kingdom Rebels, That notwithſtanding any thing he ſaith or doth, yet that not a hair of his head ſhall periſh. I ſhall not ſtand long upon anſwering him in this fiction and dream of his, but ſhall quickly diſpatch him, by adding to what I have upon this point already ſaid, that which now immediately followes; And therefore for that which he termes the Legiſlative power, (and becauſe he is juſt like the Cuckoe repeating over and over, one and the ſame thing to lengthen his Book) Let's hear a little what Juſtice Hide told the Blackening Regicide Hariſon, at his Tryal in the Old Bayly. I am ſorry (ſaith he) that any man ſhould have the face and boldneſs to deliver ſuch words as you have. You and all muſt know That the King is above the Two Houſes; They muſt propoſe their Laws to him; The Laws are made by him and not by them; by their conſenting, but they are His Laws.

That either or both Houſes, or any aſſembly or people in this, or any other Nation Governed by Monarchy, hath, or ever claimed (ſaith See the Royalliſts defence. p. 39. another in 1648.) to have a Legiſlative power, or ſo far to repreſent the Kingdom, as to make new Laws, and change the old, without the perſonal conſent of the King (as they muſt certainly have, if what Croftons dreaming fancy ſuggeſts to him be true, That they have the Supream Legiſlative power) is ſuch a ridiculous Bull, as never was heard or thought of until this frantick Parliament: Therefore when either or both Houſes, without the King, take upon them to make Laws, they extend beyond the bounds of their Commiſsion, they thereby act of their own head, not as Repreſentatives. And as he ſaith in another place, p. 109. Theſe things are done by the Members, not in their Politick, but in their Natural capacities; they are not Acts of Parliament, but unlawful Facts of Parliament men. Thus that Author.

If he be King of a kingdom (ſaith g Mr. Duncomb) then all the people joyntly or ſeverally in his kingdom, are under his command, and if under his command, then he onely hath power to give them Laws, be they in one Collective body, as in Parliament at the Kings Houſe, or Simple bodies, at their private dwellings. Le Roy fait les Leix avec le conſent du Seigneurs et Communs, et non pas les Seigneurs et Communs avec le conſent du Roy, Is the voice of the Common Law, the King makes Laws in Parliament, with the conſent of the Lords and Commons, and not the Lords and Commons, with the conſent of the King.

Virg. 7. Aeneid. Hoc priami geſtamen erat, cum Jura vocatis More daret Populis.— And 5. Aeneid. —Gaudet Regno Trojanus Areſtes Indicitque forum & patribus dat Jura vocatis.

The Lords and Cowmons have power onely to propound and adviſe, it is onely the Kings Le Roy le vieult, which makes the Law; their Propoſitions and advice ſignifie nothing, if the King ſaith, Le Roy ſe Aviſera. It would be ſtrange if the Aſſembly of the Subjects together, ſhould make them Maſters over their Sovereign, who gave them power to aſſemble, and hath power to turn them home again when he pleaſeth. Legum ac Edictorum probatio aut publicatio, quae in Curia vel Senatu fieri ſolet, non arguit imperii Majeſtatem in Senatu vel Curia ineſſe, ſaith Bodin, De Repub. lib. 1. cap. 8. The publiſhing and approbation of Laws and Edicts, which is made ordinarily in the Court of Parliament, proves not the Majeſty of the State to be in the ſaid Court or Parliament; It is the Kings Scepter which giveth force to the Law, and we have no Law, but what is his will. Thus far he.

That there is enough already cited to prove, that all our Presbyters prating about the two Houſes Co-ordinacy and ſhare, (and yet their Supremacy too) in the Legiſlative power, Obſerve this puddle of Treaſonable, Lawleſs contradictions, but Sharers in a thing, and yet Supream, which admits of no Co-ordinacy. are meer nullities (as King James told Cardinal Perron See his Defence of the Right of Kings, p. 14. upon another account) Chimerical projects, matters of a floating imagination, and built upon falſe pre-ſuppoſitions, is evident enough to my ſhallow underſtanding, whatever it may be to thoſe of deeper reach; and unleſs Mr. Crofton thought he ſhould meet with none but Notorious blockheads P. 195. more blunt witted then a Whetſtone (as King James tells the Presbyters Compeer the Cardinal upon the Common account, for the Popes and Diſcipliniarians power over Kings) he would never have endeavoured to draw people to believe by his perſwaſion, that the two Houſes are not onely Co-ordinate and ſharers, but alſo rightful owners of the Supream Legiſlative power. But that I may haſten to a final period of my diſcourſe, I ſhall in order thereunto conſider Mr. Croftons ready conſent to that Seditious Book, which the Dreaming Author entituſed, The long Parliament revived, ſet forth by his Sacred Malignant Brother Drake, under the diſguiſed name of Thomas Phillips; which firſt implies the Seditious and Treaſonable nature of the ſubject matter of it, and his being aſhamed, or at leſt fearful to own or avow, by ſetting his right name to it. And then Secondly, his carrying on his Factious ends and purpoſes with colourable pretences of Loyalty, according to the conſtant practiſe of the Covenanting Party, (See Pres. bytery Popiſh, not Epiſcopacy P. 7. The credit of whoſe falſe Doctrine (is well enough known from Dan to Beerſheba) was the very leaven, wherewith the people were firſt moulded into a ſour lump of armed malice againſt their Sovereign;) for he knew well enough, nothing could be more deſtructive to his Majeſties intereſt, then that Peſtiferous Pamphlet he then ſet forth, which being Examined by the Lords and Commons in Parliament in the moneth of November, 1660. was found (as the Journal ſaith) to be Scanda'ous and Seditious, and a charge by them ordered to be drawn up againſt the Author, and the Book to be burned by the hand of the Common Hangman. So eaſie and uſual is it for Presbyters to gainſay the truth of what upon ſerious conſideration of the whole loyal body of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, was voted Seditious, and to be burnt by the hands of Sacred Doctor Dunne, (the only Phiſician for a certain infallible cure of a Covenanters brainſick diſeaſe of Sedition and Rebellion:) and yet ſo ready to brand others with the black mark of Malignant, Popiſh vipers, Illiterate, Ignorant, Injudicious Court Doctors and Lawyers, and Anti-Parliamental Momuſſes, who ſhould ſo far dare to be honeſt, as to reſiſt a Covenanter, in ſtanding up in the defence of the good old Engliſh Laws, and rejecting and diſalowing of the Legiſlative power (ſo called) of the Illegal Arbitrary Votes and Orders of that unparellel'd Rebellious Faction in the two Houſes of that Long Parliament, which is ſo Seditiouſly affirmed to be Revived, to embrew the Nation again in Treaſon and Rebellion, in Murther and King-killing, for the enlargement of the Kingdom of Jeſus Christ. As for his diſloyal fancy of the Long-Parliament-Rebels continuance (nothwithſtanding the Murder of their Onely Supream Head and Governour) let him but read Judge Jenkins at large proving before the Regicide, what I ſhall give now but the heads of in brief, k That the two Houſes did not then act by the Kings Writ, but contrary unto it, and ſo their Acts were null. That the Act for continuing the Parliament ſo long as both houſes pleaſe, is void; becauſe it is, Firſt, Againſt Common right, for thereby Parliament men will not pay their debts; and they may do wrong to others Impune: beſides the utter deſtruction of all mens actions who have to do with Parliament men, by the Statute of Limitations, 21. Jac. Secondly, Againſt Common reaſon; for Parliaments were made to redreſs publick grievances, not to make them. Thirdly, Impoſsible, the death of his Majeſty For the King was then alive. (whom God long preſerve) diſſolving it neceſſarily. Fourthly, Repugnant to the Act for a Triennial Parliament, and to the Act for holding a Parliament once a year: That the end of continuing that Parliament, was to raiſe Credit for three purpoſes. That thoſe ends were ended: take away the end, and the means thereto are to no purpoſe; and therefore the three ends of the Act being determined, it agreeth with Law and Reaſon, the Act ſhould end, the Law rejecting things unprofitable and uſeleſs. That the Writ of Summons, was the Baſis and Foundation of the Parliament; that thoſe men would be called a Parliament, having abated, quaſhed, and made nothing of the Writ whereby they were Summoned and Aſſembled; that if the Writ be made void, the Proceſs is void alſo. That that houſe muſt needs fall, where the Foundation is overthrown; that Sublato Fundamento, opus cadit, the Foundation being taken away, the work falls, is both a Maxime in Law and Reaſon. And let him but ſeriouſly meditate on the Arguments uſed by the learned Author of the Royaliſts defence, to prove, that The perſons at Weſtminſter, who call themſelves the Parliament of England, are not the two Houſes, nor ſo much as Members of the Parliament, and then tell me whether he is of Drakes minde ſtill, That the Long-Oppreſsive Tyrants, are yet in continuance, and not legally diſſolved by their curſed Regicide. Nay, Mr. Prynne himſelf (whom he ſtiles by an Emphaſis, That Profound Lawyer) is clearly againſt him, and Drake too, not onely holding with Judge Jenkins, their Legal diſſolution by the Kings Martyrdom, but alſo tells us, That the Kings Perſonal abſence from his Parliament heretofore, and of late, was reputed very prejudicial to it: and his calling away ſome Lords, great Officers, and other Members from it, in his life time, a high way to its preſent Diſſolution, which alſo gives a Baſtinado, and word of Correction to Croftons frantick denial of the Kings Preſence or his abſence, to add or abſtract to the Authority of Parliament. Mr. Prynne, Lawyer-like, tells us alſo in another place, That the Act for the continuance of the Long-Perjured Treaſonable Plotters, and Contrivers of Murther, Sacriledge, Treaſon, and Rebellion, was made by the King, as their Sovereign Lord, Declaring and Enacting (mark that) and the Lords and Commons as joyntly aſſenting thereunto, which abſolutely confounds Croftons other Whimſie of the two Houſes Supream Legiſlative power. See his True and perfect Narrative, Page 27, 37. Buzze! Buzze! Mr. Crofton, Where are you? Do you honour a perſon ſo far, as to adorne him with the Epethite of Profound, and yet not believe him, but go on in your ſimplicity, breathing forth deceit (the folly of fools) when he hath done you the honour of a Profound Confutation? Surely, you minde ſo much his Sovereign power of Parliaments, which he wrote in the time that his Zeal without knowledge had overpowred him, (becauſe pleaſant and delectable reading for your Seditious minde) that you care not for conſidering his ſubſequent Treatiſes, which be ſent forth into the world, when the Puritanical zeal began to leave him. And thus Mr. Crofton ſuppoſeth the two Houſes into a Non-Entitie, as to their damnable Treaſons, and Enormous Practiſes by the temper they were then in; by their being Parliament men, and having ſome certain Priviledges, which were not time after time anſwered by the Royal Grant, to learn them Abſaloms Trepan of Rebellion againſt their King, with a Sacred Covenant betwixt their teeth, nor yet to teach them to be unparellel'd Seditious Corah's, under a viſard and maſque of Sanctity: And thus he ſuppoſeth the two Houſes into an Entitie, as to their yet Legal continuance by vertue of their being animated by an expreſs Statute Law, which one openly averring to continue them yet in being, was immediately ſought after and caught, and by an Order of the whole Body of the two Houſes, was Voted Seditious, and his openly averring to be burnt by the New-turn'd Presbyter, Doctor Dunne.

But Crofton hath another dart to ſhoot at the Biſhops, but its ſo pittiful blunt and dull, that let him aim never ſo well at his mark, yet there's no great fear of hurt to be received by it, and what ſhould it be but this; And thus he (i. e. the Biſhop) profoundly ſuppoſeth a Parliament ſwearing qua Parliament in the fulleſt formality, and profeſsion of their National Capacity was a perſonal Covenanting:) Say ye ſo? The Biſhop did but (as you ſay) plainly ſuppoſe the former, but you tell us he doth profoundly ſuppoſe this latter; And why pray now is it ſuch a profound ſuppoſition? Becauſe the Biſhop affirmes the ſwearing of the Abſolonian Tribe, the factious part of the Two bloody Houſes without and againſt the conſent of Majeſty to be but a perſonal Covenanting (for that the true Engliſh of the Biſhops undeniable aſſertion?) Tis a profound cavil indeed of yours, I muſt confeſs; Certainly the Biſhop might well ſuppoſe your black Cabale into a non-entity by that one Law, The Petition of Right as to their legal ſwearing without his Majeſties conſent as eaſily and truly, as aſſert this irrefrageable propoſition that the Body cannot act without the Head; But becauſe the prattles of a Parliament ſwearing qua Parliament (as if he would out face the Sun with his miſtakes and juglings) I ſhall bring this ſubſequent counter-poyſon, as an Antidote againſt the venom infuſed by an ungodly ſeditious pack of Puritanical knaves, into the peoples minds to keep them faſt to themſelves againſt their Prince, with Treaſonable deluſive principles, and that is, firſt, The Two Houſes when every one met together and aſſembled in the Houſe (much leſs your remaining half of them) are not a Parliament (but onely a part thereof) without the Kings preſence or concurrence; And ſecondly, That this Belials brat (the Covenant) was ſworn and taken by but a part of them too, when the reſt were (like Loyal Subjects) gone out of their bloody denns to the ſervice of their Maſter, and ſo the meaning of his words bears but this diminutive concluſion, That the Covenant was taken, and ſworn but by a ſad part of a part of a Legal Parliament, which verifies the words of the learned Judge Jenkins, That by the abuſe and miſunderſtanding of this word Parliament you and your croſs grain party, have miſerably deceived the people. That the Biſhop ſuppoſeth the ſwearing of the rotten putrified members, the ſtinking part of a part of a rightful Parliament (who were tainted above meaſure with Treaſon and Rebellion) without the conſent, and concurrence therein of the Onely Supream Legiſlator, to be but a perſonal Covenanting, (and what can we term a Covenant ſworn without, and againſt authority but perſonal, and with the due Epethite Rebellious annexed unto it?) I am ready enough to grant you; See p. 51. of Crofton Book. But that the Biſhop doth any where affirm a Parliament ſwearing qua Parlialiament (that is the King and all the Lords and Commons) to be but a perſonal Covenanting, Is the Sophiſtical groundleſs inference of him who knoweth the Biſhop doth not ſo much as mention it; but give a Presbyter an inch, and he will be ſure to take an ell; If the King gives him but Liberty of Conſcience in the wearing, or not wearing of a Surplice in all Churches, and places throughout the Nation, excepting his own Royal Chappel, Cathedrals, and both the Ʋniverſities, they muſt have the Cuſtomary Rigor ſuſpended, and Liberty of Conſcience allowed them there too, or elſe all the fat's in the fire, their queazy ſtomachs cannot bear it, and their Conſciences (poor harmleſs lambs!) they think wilbe thereby over burdened and oppreſſed, but let truth come ſomewhat might them for once (which hath bin ſuch a ſtranger to them) and tell them to their faces, That they have poſſeſſed themſelves of Cauterized Conſciences, that are oppreſſed with the ſight of a garment, and eaſed with the practice of ſedition, which ſtumble at ſtrawes and ſwallow a Camel, that cannot away with a piece of Holland, and yet make no bones of Rebellion, who can by no meanes endure to bow at the name of Jeſus, and yet fall down and worſhip their own Inventions; And thus Mr. Crofton profoundly ſuppoſeth, That a bloody faction of the Two Houſes ſwearing an Oath without, and againſt the concurrence of their Princely Head, had a Parliamentary Authority to make their Oath legal, and themſelves that took it, to be no Rebellious Covenanters.

§. 40. Errors (ſaith Squire See his Hiſtory of K. Charls, p. 268. Saunderſon) grow faſteſt in hot brains; and the moſt reverend Archb. Bancroft in his excellent Survey of the pretended holy diſcipline hath alſo told us of Beza's Pag. 53. applying himſelf altogether to ſtrengthen and incourage his factious old acquaintance, (i. e. The Diſciplinarian Canker-wormes then here in England) in their froward and perverſe obſtinacy. The firſt is made evident by the frightful language of this Hot-brain'd Sheba, The ſecond is alſo proved by the open averring of one of the near Allies of thoſe Puritanes, and raſh Heady Preachers, that King James of bleſſed memory hath well informed us of) who think it their honor to contend with Kings, and to perturb whole kingdomes; And to what end can any man think was the See his preface to his Baſilicon Doron. wicked errors of his ways made publick by a preſs, but to encourage his factious proſelites, and Holy-prophane Leaguing brethren to perſiſt in their froward and perverſe obſtinacy in their old crooked pathes of Schiſm and Sacriledge, of blood and confuſion? And all this under a colour and pretence to advance the power of Godlineſs too; But what ſaid one once; Men (ſaith See the Subjects ſorrow or lamentations upon the death of Britains Joſiah, K. Charles, p. 40. he) profeſs they know God, yet in their works they deny him; uſing the name of God and Religion (as Conjurers in their incantations) to perpetrate thoſe things which are moſt contrary unto God, and deſtructive unto Religion; for as the devil never doth more hurt then when he appears in the likeneſs of an Angel of Light, ſo are men never ſo miſchievous, as when they drive on wicked Deſigns under the ſhew of Godlineſs.

And thus have we found this Covenanting Corah, firſt praying to be delivered from rendring railing for railing, and yet rake in that puddle himſelf for ſeveral times together, after he had told us he did not delight to rake in it; Mangling, and Clipping the words of his Reverend Antagoniſt, ſo long, till he made his own way the more eaſie to catch others in; to make his Puritanical Gang to believe him to be ſome rare kinde of Phenix, at the very time when a faithful Monitor will ſooner compare him to a Pratling Cuckoe, for his idle repititions, and leaving out, like a perverſe Diſputer, the Principal Verb, the chief words of the Biſhops Sentences, See King James his Preface. for ſpeeds ſake putting in the one half of the purpoſe, and leaving out the other; not unlike the man that alleadged that part of the Pſalm, Non eſt Deus, but left out the preceding words, Dixit inſipiens in Corde ſuo. Stating of damnable Doctrines of Sedition and Rebellion, for the Honour and Happineſs of the Kings Majeſty and his Poſterity, That the Common-Prayer-Book was expelled by a lawful Authority; That neither the place of his Majeſties retirement, nor reaſon of his abſence, doth add or abſtract to the Authority of Parliament; That the two Houſes are not only Co-ordinate, and Sharers in the Legiſlation of England, and may exerciſe it without the Kings conſent, but alſo have the Supream Legiſlative power, directly contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Nation, and to the Oath of Supremacy, which by the Particle Onely, cuts off, and excludes all Rivals and Sharers therein; and which by an expreſs Statue Law, is made High Treaſon for a Subject to deny to take, and this affirmed by him, That the world may bear witneſs, that he hath no thoughts or intentions to diminiſh his Majeſties juſt Power and Greatneſs, Threatening diſtreſs, and that ſo ſudden too, for not keeping of the Covenant, as may too late engage his Majeſty to ſend to his faithful Monitor to pray for him, and no leſs then twice affirming, with an If, the yet legal continuance of thoſe long Athenian Tyrants at Weſtminſter, notwithſtanding their undoubted Diſſolution by their unparellel'd Murther of their Prince, That the world may bear witneſs alſo, with his Conſcience of his Loyalty; This, this is the perſon that would bewitch the world with the Biſhops premunires, and Sedition againſt their Sovereign Princes. But Quis tulerit Gracchos de Seditione Quaerentes? Who can with patience endure to hear the devil correcting ſin? Traytors, & ſeditious perſons, exclaiming againſt the fictitious Sedition of others; Sacrilegious Rebels, againſt the Sacriledge of others: I ſay, Quis tulerit? Who can without indignation entertain any thoughts of a Covenanters ſpeaking againſt Sedition, Sacriledge, Treaſon, King-Depoſing, and Rebellion? For See the Biſhop of Canterburies Speech at the cenſure of Burton, &c. p. 5. tis moſt apparent to any man that will not wink, That the intention of theſe Fiery, Turbulent Presbyterians, and their Factious abetters, was ever, and is ſtill, to raiſe a Sedition, being as great Incendiaries in the State (where they get power) as they have ever been in the Church. The thoughts of whoſe Seditious Principles, and Anti-Monarchical Practiſes, made one in 1574. cry out, See The defence of the Eccleſiaſtical Regiment, p. 40. God of his mercy abridge their power, and continue the ſhortneſs of their horns, or elſe grant them greater meaſure of his grace, and moved another to commend to his Readers conſideration, this one Caution, See the Poſt-ſcript to the Right Rebel, p. 164. That as ever they deſire, intend, and expect to eſcape, they withdraw themſelves from the Society of Rebellious perſons, and take heed they give no entertainment unto any Rebellious Opinions, or Principles, whatſoever extraction they be of, whether Popiſh, Presbyterian, or Popular, if it be not more proper to refer them all to one Original, the Myſtery of Iniquity, as their Common Mother; For I make account (ſaith he) That Popery, Presbytery, and Popularity, (rightly underſtood with reſpect to their rebellious Principles) are but as ſo many ſeveral Dialects in the language of that Beaſt, which Rev. 13. 11. had two horns like a Lamb, and ſpake as a Dragon. And this likewiſe was the reaſon of that Concluſion of the moſt Reverend Primate of Armagh, to his excellent Fair warning to take heed of the Scottiſh Diſcipline, which ſhall alſo put a period to this diſcourſe; I would to God (ſaith he) we might be ſo happy, as to ſee a general Council of Chriſtians, at leaſt a General Synod of all Proteſtants, and that the firſt Act might be to denounce an Anathema Maranatha, againſt all broachers and maintainers of Seditious Principles, to take away the ſcandal that lies upon Chriſtian Religion, and to ſhew that in the ſearch of Piety, we have not loſt the principles of Humanity: In the mean time, let all Chriſtian Magiſtrates (who are principally concerned) beware how they ſuffer this Cockatrice Egge to be hatched in their Dominions, much more how they plead for Baal, or Baal-Berith, the Baalims of the Covenant; It were worth the enquiring, whether the marks of Antichriſt do not agree as eminently to the Aſſembly General of Scotland, as either to the Pope, or to the Turk; This we ſee plainly That they ſpring out of the Ruines of the Civil Magiſtrate; They ſit upon the Temple of God, and they advance themſelves above thoſe whom the holy Scripture calleth Gods.

Vivat in eternum Rex Carolus Secundus, quem Deus nunc & in ſecula ſeculorum defendat, oro.
Lectoribus, Doctis & Indoctis.

INdocti non damnent, quod ipſi neſciunt; Docti non invideant, quod ipſi novum putant; ab utriſ que peto, ſi alicubi Erratum ſit, illud Caſtigent, non Culpent; ſi quid ab illis merui, ut Deo, non mihi, gratias rependerent. Apud Aditus ad Logicam.

Page 57. l. 40. for Covenant, r. Court. p. 80. l. 3. for the, r. he. l. 40. for might, r. nigh.

FINIS.