The PREFACE of Analepsis
James Dodson
ΑΝΑΛΗΨΙΣ ΑΝΕΛΗΦΘΗ,
The Fastning of
St. PETERS FETTERS.
By SEVEN Links, or Propositions.
OR,
The Solemn League and Covenant,
and its Conscience-binding Power
Asserted and Vindicated, &c.
in an Epistle to the Right Worshipful Sir Lawrence Bromfield, Knight and Colonel in LONDON.
The PREFACE.
Right Worshipful,
IF, (without suspicion of blasphemy, and irreverence towards Sacred men, and Sacred writ,) I may pursue Dr. John Gauden’s Metaphor, I cannot but tell you, men’s profane neglect and contempt of the Covenant did not a little perplex me; but that Solemn and Sacred Oaths, should be deemed S. Peters Bonds; and that Protestant Divines, (dreaming of an Apostolical Priority,) should by Popish Arguments, attempt his Release, to the Re-establishment of the Papatus alterius mundi [a papacy of another world] (as it was, is, and must be owned) of Episcopacy in Lawn Sleeves, exercising Paternal Authority over their brethren, as the people’s equals and inferiors,* because in black coats, did much more afflict my spirit.
Sir, in sense hereof, I did send out my Analepsis [Taking up again] after the Doctor’s Analysis: and made bold to withstand St. Peter to his face;
_____
* “Dr. John Gauden’s Analysis of the Covenant. p. 17.”
[Page 2]
for he was to be blamed; and indeed condemned, (as the word [κατεγνωσμένος] in Gal. 2.11. doth signify,) and brought him back to prison, if it must be so esteemed, with silence hearkening for his joyful songs under Christ his Masters Yoke; and in those holy Stocks; and resolved, submissively to wait on God, to perfect the peace and purity of his Church in England; and plead the quarrel of the Covenant; but the Grating Files of some, (more willing than able to dismiss my prisoner,) have disturbed my rest.
Truly Sir, I love S. Peter better in bonds, than in the Pope’s Lordly Chair: and was never yet reputed a Sceptic; and therefore cannot now brook to have my Analepsis [Taking up again] out-run, and derided with an ἀκαταληψία [incomprehensibility], a scornful escape from my due and diligent pursuit: and therefore must once more make bold, under your Worshipful name, to send this Ahimaaz after Cushi [2 Sam. 18.23.], though on the same errand; whereunto I am no little encouraged, for that the Doubts and Scruples concerning the taking the Solemn League and Covenant [A book so called.], which are by the Dr., my Antagonist, and his Nephew No-body, commended to my consideration, hath done me the honour to couple you with me: and you the honour, as to tell the world, you abide as stedfast in the Covenant, as they found you in their first assaults.
Noble Colonel, I will not fear to be, (in my place,) your Second, under so holy an Ensign as is the Solemn League and Covenant; nor once doubt your courage in so good a Cause, which I wish may appear in Common-Council, not Champian Fields: For Sir,
—Tutius est contendere verbis,
Quam pugnare manu.—
[—It is safer to contend with words
than to fight with the hand—]
Sanctified words uttered from a sound mind, may subdue profaneness; and settle His Majesty’s Throne in Righteousness; and no way disturb the peace of these too-long distracted Nations: rather than which, I desire never to put pen to paper.
Sir, Since my Answer to Dr. Gauden’s Sence and Solution of the Covenant, many Pamphlets have started into the world, to raise a dust, and make a noise in the streets, that the Vulgar may think, something may be said against the Covenant; but when
[Page 3]
they come to be considered, they appear like the Apples of Sodom, or out-cries of affrighted women, who cry, Stop, Stop; Hold, Hold; but cannot stretch one hand whereby to hold or stay the pursuit.
A Rejoinder to Mr. Rowland’s Reply.
The first of these, was John Rowland, a right Sir John Suckling in his pretended Reply to the Anonymous Answer to the Dr., wherein, more like a Sir John Countrey Curate, than Rector of Footscray in Kent, he answereth all matters of moment, as to fact or notion, as if to a Quis fuit hic sepultus [Who was buried here?] in his Churchyard, with I know not, I cannot tell, I have not read, I have not the Book, and the like: meriting to himself Ignoramus Motto, Per verbum Nescio Resoluitur omnis quæstio [By the word ‘I do not know,’ every question is resolved]. Yet he giveth Mr. Crofton, (the meanest dwarf, but) in his monstrous eye the Goliath of the Covenanters, a most Capital confutation: Like a well-skill’d Pick-pocket, writing his name in such Capital Letters, that men may run and read, and sucklings stand still, and gaze at them; but throughout his whole book meddleth not with him or his answer; and therefore my Rejoinder to his Reply, must be that of Sir Thomas Moore [More] to the silly Friar,
Tu bene cavisti, ne te ulla occidere possit
Litera; nam nota est litera nulla tibi.
Thou tak’st good care, the letter kill thee not,
Thy skill is such, thou know’st not B from Bot.
But yet in fine, by a Hocus-Pocus Postscript, he conjured Mr. Crofton into a Synonymy with Anonymous, and profoundly concluded, Answer one, answer all.
Mr. Russell’s discharge discharged.
The next was a paper of the like stamp, but more immediately directed unto me; yet not to any thing of my Arguments; This was, The Solemn League and Covenant discharged by John Russell of Chinkford in Essex: This man pretends not only to loosen, but to annihilate, St. Peter’s bonds; and for his strength and skill, was attested by John Gauden D.D. and yet he meddleth not with one of those Arguments he pretendeth to discharge; but starts a new notion; which, because it so well pleased the Doctor, shall, (though not worth it,) come in its place to be considered: I owe
[Page 4]
this man thanks for his good opinion of the modesty and perfection of my answer, which he saith [In his Epistle.], was only defective in point of memory, for that I did not remember the King’s Concessions which were voted a ground of peace, were with continuance of Episcopacy; but by his leave I remembered it, though my Argument led not to repeat it: and though he seem to forget, I remember the Concessions were to suspend Episcopacy, and the Liturgy, and admit Presbytery and the Directory, for three years: to him I say then,
Turpe est doctori, cum culpa redarguit ipsum.
[It is shameful for a teacher when his own fault reproves him].
And wish him, who so minds my memory, to look well to his Intellectuals: For, the last qualm of sadness made him half mad, to rage and rave [He so calls it himself in p. 8.], That Mr. Crofton had urged the Ligne de saint [Ligue Sainte]* in France as the President [precedent] of the Covenant; who only rescued the Covenant from the odium of that comparison cast upon it by the Dr. and that, by the same Argument which himself granteth: (viz.) That though the Ligne de Saint were sinful in the matter, yet it was lawful enough in the abstracted form of it: And here also he Rampantly braggeth, that he could produce an hundred precedents to square with the conditions of the times when the Covenant was taken; which, considering the Religion professed, the Kingdoms confederated, the Reformation pursued, the Authority directing it, and the like; if he find ten of his hundred, I will go to Bedlam; on condition, he lie there till wise men discern the parallel: the common out-cry of others is, The like time was never seen; but this was to ease his mind, as himself professeth.
The Bastardy of the League Illegal.
The third was the Spurious League Illegal, falsely fathered on Dr. Daniel Featly, by the dignity of his name to deceive the World: but the feature of it is every way unlike a man so acute and Logical as was this Dr. as is evident in its arguing idem per idem, in the 8. and 11th Arguments, generals from particulars, Argument 8. page 26. its Contradiction to the Dr. who, in his Epistle to the Parliament, prefixed to his Dippers Dipt, denominateth the two Houses Beauty and Bonds, and owns the Commons as Legislators, the Lords as Executors, and determined their War, a repairing the Temple with their Swords in their hands:
_____
* [This is almost certainly a printer’s error in spelling. Historically, la Sainte Ligue was the Roman Catholic League in France, especially associated with opposition to the Huguenots and with the house of Guise. The charge is probably that Crofton appealed to a questionable or Popish French league as a precedent for the Solemn League and Covenant.]
[Page 5]
whom this Book, (pretending to be written the same year with that Epistle,) denieth to be any Lawful Authority, and denominateth fomenters of that unnatural civil war; nay, it is contradictory to it self; affirming, No people may make a Covenant in any case without the King’s consent, in page 15. Arg. 3. and yet affirmeth, that in sundry cases a people may covenant not only without, but against the consent and command of the King [Page 20.]: unto which I might add an heap of non-sense observable in it, as, That the Covenant is not a virtue; for Aristotle saith, virtus est habitus Electivus, pag. 26. This piece looking asquint at me, is loaded with such railing Language, that it seems to have come from beneath: and must be owned as Dr. Featly’s Ghost, raised by the circle of his Executors fancy, to clear his way to preferment; it gives us arguments by number, not by weight: the force of any of them, is in the Oxford Reasons, (that fountain that feeds, and Fort that guards all exceptions against the Covenant,) and shall in its place be considered.
The doubts and scruples concerning the Covenant weighed.
The fourth and last Pamphlet, no less ridiculous than the rest, as scarce having a grain of true Religion, or a scruple of Right Reason, is the Doubts and Scruples against taking the Solemn League and Covenant, published by an aliquis Nemo [some Nobody], a man in the Moon, and so like to be resolved by Nuper Nunquam [Lately Never]; but this is ushered into the world at its new birth [Being reprinted.], by the learned Epistle of Dr. John Gauden: and is offered to the consideration of Sir Lawrence Bromfield, and Mr. Zachary Crofton: and so makes the Exchange ring, and streets roar with Dr. Gauden’s Reply to Mr. Crofton’s answer about the Covenant; and so calls for regard, which otherwise was as fit Ware for the Tobacco-shops, as any the rest.
Truly Sir, I could not read this Epistle without astonishment; for that instead of those clear, pregnant, and constant beams of right reason, and true Religion, which shineth with the brightness and stability of Divine and human Laws; and might be the pillars of this truth, firm support of duty, sure bounds of obedience, and safe repose of conscience, which he promised in his Analysis, and I demanded in my Analepsis [Taking up again]; he doth idem iisdem verbis asserere [to assert the same thing in the same words], affirm the same thing without distinction, in the same terms without variation, or other demonstration; only, (as having obtained his fancied paternal autho-
[Page 6]
rity,) he doth something more Magisterially prescribe the performing of the Covenant against Schism, (which he would have us take on his word to be Presbytery, to which Dr. Usher would have reduced Episcopacy,) and Superstition, before we consider its obligation against Episcopacy, and in a grave passion, brandeth the Covenant, (himself hath sworn,) with the Epithet of a Lawless unnational Covenant; and stigmatizeth the exactors thereof, as Covetous, crafty men, engaged in the sacrilegious depredations of the Church, and unstable souls: which cannot be found in me: My 8. l. per annum [my £8 per year], will not more acquit me from the one, than my sequestration for adhering to the Covenant, will acquit me from the other: But he addeth, Or silly souls, and such an one I may be; yet will play the fool in glorying in such godly simplicity: In this heat he chargeth all Civilians and Casuists with foolish and fanatic Superstition, as well as mad and violent Schism in teaching men to avoid what is good, honest, just, and lawful, because of a supposed and confessed abuse thereof; not so much as favouring Hezekiah, who demolished the brazen serpent, nor Paul in his resolution, Never to eat flesh in his future diet: we may be assured, he will never be so superstitious or schismatical, as to cut off his right hand, or pluck out his right eye, (which are good, honest, just, lawful members,) in case they offend him, though the Lord Christ himself hath so directed.
But Sir, with what face think you can Dr. Gauden again urge against the Covenant, the defect of authority, its sad effects, the obscurity, ambiguity, and seeming discrepancy of the Covenant, for the discharge of its obligation, whilst he hath been fully and soberly answered as to these things, and hath made no Reply? How is it that he presseth forward his Episcopacy without distinction? and yet I have told him there is Papal Episcopacy to be extirpated, and a Presbyterial Presidency, (pointed unto by the Primate of Armagh [i.e., Archbishop James Ussher],) to be advanced. Knoweth he not qui bene distinguit bene docet [He who distinguishes well teaches well]? or doth he disdain to take truth from so mean an hand? He is a Minister; so am I, though my poor estate, numerous family, or want of the King’s Grace, will not allow me to write D.D.
But seriously Sir, though Popish do, methinks Protestant Bishops should not disdain a Reformation in a Luther’s hand: Let
[Page 7]
him then consult Dr. Sanderson De Juramento, and if he square with, or I differ from his divinity, let him be burn’d, and me be hist, & contra. I believe he would not have us think him so ambitious of his Episcopal Sea, (to which some say he is promoted,) as for it, to break his Covenant; and brow-beat his brethren, and rage against the Oath of God with a non amo te [I do not love you]——and being demanded a reason, can say no more than Non possum dicere quare [I cannot say why]: Sure he is not so stout a Sophister, as to pass the premises, and stand to the denial of the Conclusion. If he have attained to a Papal-Episcopal-Chair, I hope he will not pretend to the infallibility of it, and bind our faith on his ipse dixit [bare assertion]. Verily Sir, I cannot but say to the Dr. concerning his Analysis, and this Epistle, as Erasmus to Faber of Vienna,
Mente cares, si res agitur tibi seria; rursus
Fronte cares, si sic ludis, amice Faber.
[You lack sense, if the matter you are handling is serious; but, on the other hand,
you lack shame, if you are jesting in this way, friend Faber.]
Whether he be proudly mad, or foolishly pertinacious, I will not judge; but must yet call on him to remember the Covenant, and consider from whence he is fallen, and repent; he had need to run to the Common Refuge, the Oxford Reasons; but it is well, if they prove not a broken Reed, more to wound, than defend him.
Sir, notwithstanding these and the like Squibs and Crackers flung out against the Solemn League and Covenant, to make profane men sport, and expose it to vulgar scorn, more than satisfy conscience, the Covenant keeps the field in its full force and vigour, and St. Peter’s bonds abide. I shall not therefore wast time and paper, to trace their follies, and tire my Reader with an Answer to words without weight; but in pursuit of (the Edification of souls,) the end of my Ministerial Writing, as well as Preaching, Fasten St. Peter’s Fetters, and secure my prisoner by a Chain made of these seven Links or Propositions; which, being cleared and confirmed, will extend the influence, and enforce the obligation of the Covenant, against that profane opposition which is made unto it, (viz.)
1. The asserting the Solemn League and Covenant, and its obliging force, is a duty indispensably incumbent on every man in
[Page 8]
his place; but especially on the Ministers of the Gospel.
2. The irregularities in first making the Covenant, will not discharge its obligation, now it is made and sworn.
3. The matter sworn in the Solemn League and Covenant, is just and lawful; to be maintained and pursued.
4. The form and manner of making the Solemn League and Covenant, was good and allowable.
5. The Ambiguities and Contradictions of the words in the Solemn League, are imagined, and not real.
6. The Covenant in its quality, and for its obligation, is public and National, as well as private and personal.
7. The Solemn League and Covenant is in the nature of it permanently binding, and no way to be absolved or discharged.
Of these then particularly, and in their order: And first of the first of them.