The True Non-Conformist, Part 4

The True Non-Conformist · Part 4

p. 164The fourth DIALOGUE Answered.

SIR, since you have said nothing that I have not to my self (and I hope to all rational and impartial men) satisfyingly answered, and seing I can say it in Gods sight, that in all the matters hitherto treated, I finde in my heart a serious desire to please him in all things; and also to comply with his Church, and obey the Laws of the Kingdom, in what I judge agreeable to his will, with as much distrust of my self, and charity towards others, as humane frailtie doth permit: In this perswasion truely, and by your own verdict, conscientious, without either noticing the pitiful shift of a blind conscience, which you make your N C. pretend, or charging you with that arrogance, whereupon you make him weakly to exclaime, I shall proceed to consider the grounds which in this place you lay down, You say then, Private persons have nothing to do with Government; submission and not judging is their part. I cannot stand to discusse all the ambiguities that may be latent in this General; but it is strange. 1. That the Government of Gods house (…or that is the point betwixt us) should be instituted by him, for the Edification and Salvation of private persons, and his own Glory, as you cannot deny; and yet they to have nothing to do with it. 2. You say, Submission i… their p. 165dutie. And would you have it blind, and not rational, and conscientious? 3. Our Lord hath defined the Government of his Church, and did establish the same among us, engaging us thereinto by a perpetual Covenant, is it then nothing of our concernment? But may we breake these sacred tyes, and abandone our selves to an implicite compliance, with every humane invention? I grant that private persons are neither, under a righteous constitution, to usurpe the part of the Governours; nor yet under a sinful, unlawfully to solicite, and endeavour an alteration: but as in the former case, both Reason and Religion, specially where an Oath hath interveened, doth oblige to maintenance, so in the latter, I am assured that all active owning and approving (the thing whereunto we are pressed) beyond a providentiall acquiescence, is utterly sinful: If you require my reasons, there is none like your own, viz. first, because, I am perswaded that, what ever may be the comparative innocencie of an erring, but well-meaning opinion; Yet of every Soul, who hath seen the Glorious light and work of God in the Lands, and engaged himself thereto by solemn Covenant, and now of late, hath broken these bonds, and concurred to change Christs pure Ordinances, and set up, establish or countenance Prelacie, and its wicked Hierarchie, God will surely either in this life, as we have already seen, in the convictions of many, or in the last and great Judgement, openly require it. 2. Because not only perjury, manifestly ingredient in the active submission and compliance which you exact, hath a plain and direct tendencie to the blotting of the Soul; but as the Gospel and all its Ordinances, are designed to purify the heart; So, this of Government, so clearly therein appointed, and of so necessaire and effectual p. 166influence, for the conserving of truth, edifying of the body of Christ, and perfecting of the Saints, doth undeniably contribute to the same end: And by these two easie rules it is whereby I heartily wish, that both you and I, and all men may examine our Conscienc…s.

In the next place you tell your N. C. That we have no rationall ground to think you wrong, in Matters of Religion: do you then think that obedience to the Lords Command, against swearing falsely, and adhering to, and owning the Kingdom, and Ordinances of Jesus Christ, are no Matters of Religion? or have you already answered the full and just account, that I have given of our differences? But, supposing there may be error on your side, you adde, that unless the error be of greater importance, then the Communion of Saints is, it ought not to unty the bond of the unity of the Catholick Church. This is the rule which you gave us before, in your first Dialogue, and therefore I shall say little to it, only if your meaning be, that except the conjunction with the erring partie, be of greater prejudice, then separation upon that account, we ought not to unty the unitie of the Church, I willingly assent: but if there be any other latent sense in your strange weighing the import of error, with an article of Faith, things quite opposite, without all communication of degrees; when you explain your self, I shall consider it. To this you subjoin many things of Pauls conforming both to Jews and Gentiles, in matters of greater scruple, then what we contend about, and thence conclude, That if Paul did so freely and out of Charity, then are we much more bound, from whom the dutie of obedience to Law doth also exact it: Now, because in this place, it is, that you not only abuse Pauls practice, but go about to intricate p. 167and destroy, by a new knack of pitiful Court Sophistry, the privilege of Christian liberty, I shall therefore endeavour briefly to give you a distinct and adequat return. And I say that Paul's conformity doth no wayes enforce the compliance required of us; because that all we finde in the Apostle, is a free and prudent accommodation of himself, in things wholly externall and indifferent, for the gaining of such, with whom he conversed; whereas the compliance demanded of us, is plainly to owne and approve unwarranted, wicked and accursed Prelacie, and its abominations: which, both by the Command, and Oath of God, we are bound to extirpate: If Paul, notwithstanding of the accomplishment of the… Mosaick dispensation, at first institute by the Lord, and not then expresly antiquat, did neverthelesse continue some of its observances, that by shewing a respect to, and not despising of these shadows, though already evanished, he might the better convince the Jews, of the fulfilling of what they prefigured; can any man thence inferre, that therefore we ought not only to relinquish the true Ordinances of Christ, but acknowledge the inventions of men, such as Prelacie, and its vain Ceremonies, although the samine be found contraire both to the word of God, and power of Godliness, and therefore are by us solemnly abjured. As for Pauls freedom of converse toward the Gentiles, admitting that there appeares a seeming excess in it, obnoxious to misconstruction: yet, was it not in meat and drink only? And is not its principall design of asserting, in these things, such an absolute liberty, as might warrant the deed in it self, notwithstanding the possibility of some mens mistakes, wholly opposite to your purpose? so that, without question, the outmost advantage you can draw from this matter, p. 168is, that we have the liberty to do materially many of these externall things, by you enjoined, without homologating your intention in the imposing, which, whether you would accept of, or account consistent with sincere dealing, I leave to your self to judge? But 'tis like your meaning is, that all the things whereunto we are pressed, passing from our Covenant, relinquishing of our sent and sealed Ministers, owning and active submitting to abjured Prelats, and the like, are in themselves things wholly externall, insignificant, and nothing; wherein we may as lawfully complement Authority, by our obedience, as Paul, by a free exercise of his liberty, in washing, shavings, circumcising, eating, and drinking did complacently insinuat upon Jews, and Gentiles: And if in these there be any parity, let the meanest capacity discerne 2. Although the things required of us, were indeed in themselves wholly indifferent; Yet we cannot be urged with Pauls conformings, because the reason and design of Pauls practice, being diametrally repugnant to yours, instead of confirming, plainly subverts the compliance by you demanded: Paul's practice, did flow from liberty, and the reason and warrant of that, was, because that Christ hath made us free, and called us unto liberty, blotting out the hand-writting of Ordinances that was against us: dare you then, or any mortall else, offer to write and fixe another, and again intangle us with a yoke of bondage, and subjecte us to, or judge us concerning Ordinances, after the Commandments and Doctrines of men? What reasoning can be more absurd then that of yours? Paul did these things freely, therefore, you are bound to obedience: Do contraries, that remove, establish one another? I grant that, if in charity to our equals, even Aliens, we are bound to a compleasant and gaining p. 169acting or forbearance, in things indifferent, and in our power; much more doth the same charity bind us, to the like compliance toward our Superiors; but by what consequence can you extend this obligation of charity, to a plain surrender of our Liberty; and turn the praise of a free benevolent exercise, unto a bondage of obedience, wherefrom our Lord hath so clearly liberat us, as to all these externals, which you so much plead for? But as to this point, you tell your N. C. That he bewrays great simplicitie; because forsooth Paul did not re…use compliance by reason that the things were commanded by Authority: But because certain false Brethren came to spy out his liberty, to whom he gave place by subjection, no not for an hour. Really, Sir, your N. C. must indeed be very simple, that he could indure such imposing. You say, Paul did not re…use compliance, by reason that the Ceremonies were commanded, and yet his own words by you cited, say plainly, that though at other times, in the free and edi…ying exercise of his liberty, he hath in charity ceded to the weaker; Yet, to give place by subjection (mark it) the correlat and homologation of command, he would not, no not for an hour, Is not then to repeat only your discourse, to redargue it? I might tell you further, that by the context, it is evident, that the Apostle speaks in this place, of these that would have brought Gentiles under the Law of Moses, and the observance of the Jewish ceremonies, who certainly did pretend Divine Authority for their Doctrine: And therefore, and for this only reason, were in the vindication of Christian liberty opposed by Paul, and Barnabas: but let us hear what Stilling-fl…et hath put in your Mouth as to this Matter: You say then that, If an… require of us compliance, as if it were necessarie of it self, we p. 170have reason to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. But it is unsufferable peevishness, if the Magistrat enjoin a thing, declaring it free in it self, and only necessary because commanded, upon that score to refuse obedience. To this it is answered 1. That it is unsufferable boldness for you, to alledge a peevishness in a practice, so exactly parallel to that of the Apostles, who, as they understood the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, to consist in that reall relief and freedome granted to them from the yoke and burden of the Jewish ceremonies; so, they do exhort believers to stand fast to it, which certainly imports a nonsubmission, and resisting to the imposition, either of these antiquat Jewish observations, or any other of Mans invention, seing that these are indeed contrarie, and not only an astrictedness, in opinion, unto the liberty purchased: 'Tis true, the false Apostles pressed their observance from divine Authority; but seing the Christians then did except, upon the liberty which Christ hath obtained, and thereby proclaimed to us an exemption even from the old Divine Law of Ordinances, is not the same much more forcible against Mens usurpation of an unwarranted tyrrany; or think you, that our Lord hath only freed us from Moses impositions, that we might fall into the hands of more severe Task-masters, who not only take upon them to appoint, without Gods warrant into the house and matters of God, and introduce will-worship, which he abhorres; but after they have urged our obedience, as only Civill, and out of respect to Authority, and not from Conscience, do then tell us, that by a generall and supervenient Law of God, their statutes become to reach even the Conscience also? But 2. you say, if the Magistrat declare the thing to he free in it self, and only necessary because commanded, Christian liberty is p. 171not thereby lessened. 'Tis answered, is not Christian liberty alwayes opposed to the Jewish bondage? Now, Sir, I demand wherein did this bondage consist, was it in the Authority only, whereby these ordinances were enjoined, and which did indeed immediatly reach the Conscience, and not rather in the obligation to that burthensome practice, which thence did ensue? And certainly, you, and all men, must grant the latter; seing the speciality of Divine Authority, is so far from rendering an imposition, otherwayes light, to be burthensome; that without question, as its precepts are the perfect law of liberty; So the clearnesse of its warrant, is the greatest relief of Conscience: Nay, this is a truth to certain, and apposite to our present purpose, that I am sure you are convinced, that if the Prelats could produce Divine commands for their injunctions, these would quickly satisfy all our scruples, and make Non-conformists, the most conformable of the Nation. Give over then your empty quibling, in telling us, that you exact not our compliance, as necessaire in it self by divine prescript, for though I could shew, how that notwithstanding you pretend not to any immediate divine warrant, for your imposings; you not the less alleage that Divine Authority, whence Magistracy doth descend, for astricting our obedience; Yet this is so far from being our exception, that plainly on the contraire, your ceremonies commanded in the Matters of God, against that liberty purchased unto us, are not in themselves, or in any other respect, so much a burthen, as for lack of that very same authority, whereof you do most inadvertently pretend, that the want should be our solution. But 3. what can be more manifest, then that, as the hardship of the Jewish Pedagogie, did consist in the multitude of their Ceremonies, p. 172and Observances, whereunto they were tyed in practice, and neither in the obligation of Divine Authority, whereby they became bound, nor yet in their opinion of things, which, notwithstanding of their being injoined by the Lord, they knew to be in themselves free, and were not in the least, by this liberty of opinion, delivered from the rigour of that Pedagogie, so the releasement, which our Lord hath purchased, consists in freeing us from that yoke, and burthen, which the Jews were not able to bear, and in liberating us from the Law of Ordinances, and the rudiments of the world? Pray Sir, is this only to change the opinion of things, and leave us as much ob…oxious, to be subjected in obedience as ever the Jews were? who can admit it? If you be still unclear, answere this demand with your self in sobriety: If the false Brethren had said to the Christians of old, we acknowledge with you, that the Jewish dispensation is accomplished; but since the Lord hath not expressly discharged the continuance of its observations, and they are but things external, and of themselves free, let us in the recognizance of his Authority, or for peace sake, still be subject in a conformable obedience: would not the Apostle have returned the same answere? It is the Lord who hath made us free, let us not again be brought unto bondage: the sun of righteousness is arisen, and hath obscured all the former shadowing lights, we have no need either of these, or the more pitiful tapers of mens blind invention: And here I must tell you by the way, that as I have drawn out my answere on purpose, to meet with your significant rites introduced in Gods service; So, as to the first part of it, anent the liberty purchased to us by Christ, I further adde, that it is a groundless conceit, to think that the only reason of abolishing p. 173the Jewish ceremonies, was, because they did prefigure our Lords coming, seing it is most certain, that although the whole complexly, was indeed a Pedagogie to lead unto him, and make that People to wait and long for his redemption; Yet a great many of them did not properly prefigure, such as the observation of dayes, distinction of meats, and the like, to which no such relative signification can be attribute, without a groundless and violent straining: and therefore, as I grant, that many of these rites, as being only shadows of the good things to come, did evanish upon their appearance, and consequently could not have been kept up, without a tacite hint, that the things thereby typifyed were still expected; Yet I am very assured, that as to a great part of these Mosaick Ordinances, our Lord did remove them, as a yoke and burthen, by the gracious concession of that Liberty, wherewith he made us free, and that to bring back that servitude, or to introduce the like, is plainly to bring us back again to the rudiments of the world, from which we are dead with Christ, to disown the liberty which he hath purchased, and consequently, and as plainly as in the former case, to deny that our deliverer is come. 4. Having shewed that the liberty of thinking the things to be free in themselves, the practice nevertheless being strictly injoined, is not Christian liberty, and that it is irrational to affirme, that an observance commanded by the Law of God, becomes o… this account more burthensome, then if mans authority only did make it binding: And seing on the other hand I easily grant, that in things in themselves free, and in our power, no reason of Religion or Righteousness gainstanding, it were peevishness to decline the request of an Equal, let be the command of a Superior: I shall here shortly p. 174declare wherein it is that Christian liberty stands, and consequently what the injury is of your invasion: As then Christian liberty, is neither a licentiousness to sin against God, nor to rebel against the Powers that are over us; So I plainly understand it, to be that free…dome of serving God in Spirit and in truth, whereunto our Lord Iesus, by releeving us of all outward observances, either as media in our worship, or for themselves requisite to the acceptation of our service, other then he himself hath expressly appointed, hath redeemed, and restored his Church. That the circumstances of time, place &c. and their due regulation for Decencie, and Order, are not here rejected, the quality, for themselves, that is, for some respect, by special command, peculiarly to them appropriat, sufficently holds out; it being very certain, that, under this consideration, the matters of Decencie, whereof both the conveniencie and use flows only from the common exigence of all humane actions, do not fall: And that this is the true notion of Christian liberty, the Scriptures whence I take it, and wherein it is so clearly distinguished, from the Jewish bondage, there also described, Iohn 4. 21. Gal. 3. 4 and 5. Col. 2. are so plain, that nothing can be added. Only I observe, that because by this liberty, we are delivered from these performances, whereunto the exercise of Religion, requiring, in every act of worship or service toward God, the Faith and Conscience of a Divine prescript, without which it is impossible to please him, was formerly by Moses Law astricted: Therefore it is indeed and is rightly termed, liberty of Conscience, which while you and others do conceive, to be nothing else then a freedom to think things to be free in themselves that are not commanded by the Lord, you do not only grossly mistake it, p. 175as distinguished from the Jewish servitude; but open a door to humane lust, and invention, to incumber and deprave the whole body of Religion, and the worship of God, with whatsomever fopperies they please to devise: seing that, in your opinion, it is impossible, that Christian liberty of Conscience, can be thereby prejudged. Now, to prove that your exactions are high impingements upon this freedome, I need not mention these compliances, which you crave, and are in effect directly opposite to the will of God; but even your other ceremonies, all added as in and by themselves significant, to the worship and service of God, without the warrant either of his word, or of the common exigence of all performances, and so thereby made Religious in their use, and object; and therefore certainly belonging to Conscience, needeth no other argument to evi…ce it, then the subsumption of a condescendence. Having thus in some measure cleared what I proposed, lest you or any other should account these things, to be matters of meere doubtfull disputations, I must adde, that as it hath alwayes been observed, that the greatest urgers of conformity in the externalls of humane invention, have been very little, if at all, serious, in the life and substantials of Religion; so the great prejudice thence ensuing, to the power and practice of Godliness, partly by reason of the imposers evill lusts and ends, partly by reason of that spirit of delusion, to which they are given up, and partly by reason of the vanity of the things imposed, and the Lords abhorrence of them, doth both discover that Mysterie of Hypocrisie, and Wickedness, which secretly worketh under these vain formes, and should ever render them most odious, to all the lovers of truth and holiness. I might here further adde, that as your impositions p. 176are invasive of Christian liberty, injurious to Conscience, and corruptive of the pure and acceptable worship of God, and consequently such, as no power on Earth can lawfully command them, or we therein obey; so, were it but for the offence that may thence redound, to the stumbling of the weak, and hardening of the imposers, to proceed from small beginnings to the grossest mixtures, all conscientious Men may very justly be therefrom deterred; but to this I shall speak at greater length. 5. Having shewed that Paul's Christian civility, doth make nothing for your imposed conformity, and that to turne the free exercise of a charitable compliance, unto a yoke of bondage, is a perversion intolerable, I shall summe up the whole matter with this brief reflection, viz. that admitting the things required of us, were only such externals and nothings as you would groundlessly perswade, and that our forbearance had, in it, more of weakness then sound reason; yet the free Spirit of Christianity, which you alleage, and Paul describeth Rom. 14. is, so farre from urging us to your desired compliance; that I am very confident to affirme, that if the severest Non-conformist, had had the rule to dictate (pardon the supposition, blessed be the Dictator) he could not more manifestly and directly have condemned your rigid exactions in thir matters, then the Apostle doth in this place: I need not insist upon particulars, the whole chapter is most expresse, Let not him that eateth (and you think all the points of the controverted conformity of no greater moment) despise him that eateth not. How do you then vex them with hard Laws, and grievous pains, more then you do heynous Malefactors: Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? Is a demand which one day will concerne Kings and Rulers, more then any of their p. 177Subjects: Why do they then judge? Why do they set at nought their brethren? for all shall stand (and that on even ground) before the judgement seat of Christ: Let us not therefore judge one another, but let us judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall in his brothers way: You assure us, and seem perswaded, that the things pressed are of themselves nothing; but to him that esteemeth them unlawfull, to him they are unlawfull, and he that doubteth is damned if he do, because he doth not of faith; How then can you require this conformity? and of how different a temper, was the free and charitable Spirit of the Apostle, who not only indulgeth the weak Non-Conformist; but becometh such himself to evite his offence? If thy brother be grieved with thy meat (or with any of the matters now in debate, for you make no difference) now walkest thou (spoken in my opinion to the Prince as well as Peasant) not according to charity, destroy not him with thy meat (or your acknowledged humane inventions) for whom Christ dyed: Say not that the things in controversie being concluded by Law, are no more free, or in the condition of the things here mentioned; for, if not only judging and despising the Forbearer be here forbidden; but even the con…raire practice, when to him offensive, how much more must the designed framing, and strick executing of Laws, for no other visible end, then the violenting of scruplers, and racking of their Consciences, (acknowledged by your self for the widest step to Atheism that can be made) be in this Scripture condemned? If you urge, that to carry this indulgence so high, is to frustrate all humane Laws, seing the person unwilling to obey, may alwayes pretend, from Conscience, the privilege of forbearance; And as de facto you reason, Any offender may decline Discipline, and say that the thing being indifferent, by p. 178command it becomes necessary, and so a burthen of Conscience. 'Tis answered, that as the burthen of Conscience, doth not stand in a necessity, by Divine precept, of the things imposed, otherwayes the Lords commandments, that are certainly most easie, should thence become most grievous; but, in effect, in a forced obligation to practice, in things wherein Conscience, requiring the Lords warrant in order to his acceptation, cannot at all finde it so; the liberty and privilege here spoken to, is only in order to Conscience, viz. That Christians ought not to press, or judge one another in the performance, or forbearance of things in themselves indifferent, as acceptable and well-pleasing to God, without his warrant: and therefore the force and effect of humane Laws, ordering and commanding things in order to the Politick ends of Government, and, in so farre, by the Lord commanded to be obeyed, are not by this Doctrine in the least demurred: Now that your Ceremonies and other impositions, being all relative to the service and worship of God, wherein as every thing is to be observed, with the faith of the Lords acceptation, so nothing can be acceptable without his warrant, are not of the nature of things, as objected to civill commands; but plainly such, wherein Paul pleads for liberty, is manifest: Nay, you your self know so well, that the very things scrupled at by us, as enjoyned toward a religious observance, would be readily complied with upon any other reasonable occasion; and that thousands, who detest the Surplice, would chearfully engadge in a Camisado, for their Prince's service, that I add nothing: If you say, that the things in debate, though commanded for religious uses, are never the less enjoyned not as acceptable to God and under this formality; but are only necessary p. 179because commanded; You bewray, not only a sinful gaudie licentiousness, of doing things for, and in the house of the God of Heaven, not commanded by the God of Heaven; wherein even Heathens, let be Christians, have been tender; but expose the purity and simplicity of Religion, to all the corruptions of mans vain imagination: As to what you adde anent the pretext, which this liberty may give to offenders, to decline Discipline, it is yet less to the purpose, in as much as submission to Discipline, doth in effect flow from the Lords Authority, whereby it becomes necessary, and Mens part therein is only a naked ministerial application. Lastly if you object, that publick Peace and Order require your conforming obedience: Your opinion and method in this point, is much different from the Apostles, he makes it his great argument, not only for not judging and censuring Non-conformists; but also, in the case of offence, for complying with them in their forbearance, That we ought to follow the things which make for peace, and wherewith one may edisie another: But you and your partie, for all the noise you make for publick Peace; before you tolerat a Non-conforming in the greatest indifferencies, and howsoever tender and innocuous; will sooner both deprive your Brethren of Peace, and for your vain trifles destroy the work of God: whereas though you had faith in these things, yet you ought to have it to your selves before God: But, Sir, it is already too manifest, that as in practice you know not the way of Peace, so, in this discourse, by pressing a strict obedience from the free Spirit of Christian liberty, which you seem to commend, you palpably condemn your self in that which you appear to allow.

Having thus farre, in the pursute of your reasonings, digressed, in the explanation of true Christian p. 180Liberty; because of its after use, in the perusal of your remaining purposes, I shall not stick in the considering of what you make your N. C. add, That we forbear the things pressed, for avoiding the scandal of others: I have already told you, that the reasons of our forbearance have no less then the indispensable motive of the will and Oath of God: Yea, suppose the things required were meere externals, and indifferent, as they are not; yet I have so clearly proven that your abridging of our Christian liberty therein, by vertue of your commands, is in it self repugnant to the Apostles Doctrine, and in its effects pernicious, that your requiring to make the restraint of Authority, abused to these impositions, the warrant of Practice to the forcing of Conscience, and the offending of a Christian Brother, is a Sophisme, no better, then if the hardie practiser, or proud imposer, who is expressly commanded in Christian tenderness to regard his Brothers offence, should by a vain pretending of his own offence, taken from the others indulged forbearance, or recusancie, thereby turne the Argument, and elude the exhortation, to the very scorne of Scripture: That which I rather observe, is, that seing that to give Scandal is not ill defined by you, to be a stretching of our liberty to practice, to the drawing of others to the like (or grieving or making them weak) who have not the same clearness, why do you not begin your application at Prelats, Who having first streatched their practice, to the ens…aring, do also frame unjust decrees to the forcing of such who have no clearness to conform? And on the other hand, ought you not to indulge such, who only desire to re…uge their Conscience, in the Sanctuary of an allowed forbearance? But these are the men, whom having first sinfully spoiled of liberty, you scornfully p. 181abuse, by telling they may now act, without regard to Scandal, since you do permit them no liberty to the contraire: But I hasten to your more closs examination of the matter of Conformity.

And first you ask, why do not our Ministers join with your Courts for Church-discipline? It's answered, it were tedious to examine the follies of you, and your N. C. in this point; we join not in your Courts, because they are not the Courts of Jesus Christ; but of the King, and Prelates: If this you deny read the Act Par 1. 1661 Sess… 1. Concerning Religion and Church-Government, the proclamation of Councel thereafter, discharging all Presbytries untill Authorized by the Bishops, and the Act Par. eod. Sess. 2. For the restitution of Bishops, where, as you will finde that Presbytries were made Precarious; as to their continuance (not as to their right, which is indeed Divine) by the first Act, and then simpliciter discharged, and broken up by the Proclamation; so that which returnes, in their place, by the last Act and what ensued, is not the former Presbyteries, but only the Exercises of the Brethren, having both their regulation and authority from the Bishops, who have all their Church-power and Jurisdiction in a dependance upon, and subordination unto the soveraign power of the King as Supream. So that the Kings Authority and Prerogative Royal, is plainly the proper fountain, and last resort of all the power and jurisdiction to be found, either in your Church, or its Meetings: Nay further, this … so certain, that as his Majesty doth not so much as pretend a Commission from Jesus Christ, as the anointed King of his Church, for this effect (which yet the Pope, in his most wicked usurpation, did alwayes Judge necessary) so, if it be Treason, as it is dict. sess. of the same Parliament, act. 3. to derogat p. 182from the prerogative of the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and if absolute supremacie in Ecclesiasticks, incapable either of superior or conjunct, do thereto by the late Act of Supremacie appertain, certainly to make our Lord so much as a sharer with the King, in this matter, would fall under the compasse of this crime: However, not to rake into this abysse of wickedness, that Act of Supremacie, giving to the King, over all Persons, Meetings, and in all Causes of the Church, all the power, that Christ as head of the Church, in these things hath or can acclame, (a piece of such desperat solly, that I am assured, that as he that sitteth in the Heaven doth laugh, so shall he one day have all its contrivers, and abettors in dirision) in this I am very positive, that according to the present legall establishment made in these matters, to derive the power of your Courts from, or connect the same with, the power and headship of our Lord Jesus, is utterly impossible. That we then, who as Ministers of the Gospel, do take upon us, and exercise no power, save that which is our Lords, cannot join and partake with your Meetings, your self may judge.

But you say, That all that is Divine in Discipline, is, that scandalous persons be noted, and separated from worship; but how this shall be administred, can be no matter of Religion, or of the concernment of Souls, providing it be done: 'Tis answered, to argue thus, all that is Divine in Preaching, is that the truth of the Gospel be declared: but how this shall be performed can be no matter of Religion, or of the concernment of Souls, providing it be done, would it not be false and weak reasoning. 2. As your Providing it be done viz. rightly, is a salvo, whereby a man may as pertinently argue against all means whatsomever, which certainly p. 183are nothing useful, providing the end for which they are appointed be rightly done, so this quality hath such an exigence even of these midses, which you suppose to be of no import, that it plainly subverts your Argument: But 3. Your position, that all that is Divine in Discipline, is, that scandalous persons be noted, &c. Is false, in as much as this is no more clearly to be found in Scripture, then the Persons and Officers therewith incharged, are evidently thereby ordained, yea this matter is so certain, that there is scarce one place to be seen in Scripture, for the warrant of Discipline, which doth not with the same evidence, hold out the persons intrusted with its administration: And I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven: Whose sins soever ye remit they are remitted unto them: Feed, Over-see, Rule the slock, are Commissions so full, ordaining the persons, as well as designing their work, that I can hardly impute the laxeness of your reasoning, to your oversight.

In the next place (for as for your quibling with your N. C. anent the foolish answere which you put in his mouth it is altogether frivolous as shall be shewed in your 7. Dial.) you urge, That, seing that Presbytries do by Divine right acclaime a power o… jurisdiction, they ought to meet in these Courts, let the Law call it what it will, even as i… the King should abrogate all Laws for the worship of God, and declare, that all that assemble to worship God, shall be understood to worship Mahomet, and thereupon command all to meet; though we meet not on that ground, yet you hope we would s…ill meet to worship God, how ever it be interpret: 'Tis answered, If the jurisdiction competent to Presbyteries by Divine right were in these Courts, your Argument might have some weight; but seing they are not the former Presbyteries, but new Courts set up, as I have already p. 184declared, no more deriving power from Jesus Christ, then your late High-commission, how can you think in reason, that either the right and power of Presbyters, or his Majesties call, should oblige Ministers to com to the one more then the other: For my part, as I esteem it a less sin upon the Kings call to come to a Court of his own erecting, then to abuse Christs warrant to the establishing of a Court, as his, which by its institution manifestly disowns him; So, I should sooner resolve, upon the Kings command to meet in the High-Commission, then, by coming from the motive of our Lords warrant, acknowledge your Exercises of the Brethren for his Courts, which are so palpably setled upon the basis of another Authority: As for your Similitude, not to insist upon such claudicant Arguments, it is like to the legs of the lame which are not equall, but make it straight, thus, the King dissolves all Christian Churches, and erects Mahometan Mosches, charging all to repaire there to worship, and declaring that he will account th…ir so doing, a testimony of their compliance with the change by him made: Now if one should stand up, and for the perswading of just recusants, say, that they may safely go there, and worship God, without either owning of Mahomet, or regarding the construction may be made of it: Pray, Sir, how would you understand it? And what ever you, or any reasonable man think should be the practice or Christians in this case, I am content the N. C. be thereby judged: I confesse the termes of the Similitude are hard; But remember they are of your own choosing, and my work is only to make them just; to conclude therefore, it is not Mens interpretation or mis-interpretation (although in many cases these homologations, whereby either Enemies may be hardened, or friends p. 185stumbled, require also a very weighty consideration) that we regard in this matter: but the reall state of things, whereby as Christ's power is ejected forth of your Courts; So the Divine jurisdiction of Presbyters cannot possibly therein have place: To this you subjoin that suppose Episcopacie were Tyrannie, and Bishops were Tyrannes in the Church; Why ought you not to submit to them, as well as you did to the late Tyrannes in the State? It is answered, if I did think there were any Emphasis, more then the strain of your discourse, in this your urging Our submission to the late Usurpers, I could tell you that though the cases were parallel, as they are not, all the submission made by us to Oliver would not make out your inference: And that it is Your, and not Our submission which only can serve your turn; I need not mention that Mr. Sharp Now of St. Andrews, was the first, if not the only Minister in Scotland, that took the Tender, and thereby, deserting his Fellow-prisoners, procured his own liberty: Nor how the late introductors of Episcopacie, were most or many of them such as by subscriving the Tender, abjuring the King, and the like compliances, had wholly deboshed their Consciences unto the perfidious re-establishing of your abjured Prelacie: whereas the tenacious honesty of the faithfull of the Land, was both then, and is now, accounted their bigotrie and folly. But to the purpose. 1. If Bishops had only been intruded upon Presbytries as they were in former times, it is not questioned, but Faithfull Presbyters, not Outed of their possession founded on Divine right, might have continued the same with a due Testimony, and opposition against unlawfull usurpations, conforme to the old practice of Gods Servants among us in the like case; but seing in the late revolution, not only Presbytries were broken, p. 186and discontinowed, but the very foundations razed, a new foundation of the Kings Supremacie laid, and a new superstructure thereon built, Our compliance now, as you require it, would not be an act of Submission, but a plain partaking in this wickedness. 2. The case of mens usurpation in the State is so vastly different from that of your usurpations in the Church, that it greatly alters the latitude of these submissions, which you go about to equiparat, for though, in Civils, the aspiring and usurpation of wicked men, be a hainous transgression, before God; Yet, such is the nature, and condition of the Kingdoms of the Earth, in themselves mutable, and at the disposal of the most high, who ruleth therein, and giveth them to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over them sometime the basest of men, that the attaining thereto becometh such a providentiall title, as may sufficiently warrant, not only necessary submission, and obedience in things lawfull, but even these other acts of seeming compliance, that do directly acknowledge the Usurper to be in titulo; providing that they proceed no further, either to anticipate Divine Providence, in the establishment, or homologate the wickedness of the usurpation. If of this you have any doubt, I remit you to Scripture-practice, the customes of all Nations, the opinion of most Casuists, and Reason it self, whereby the taking and exercising of inferior offices, under undeniable Usurpers, is most certainly confirmed: And this is plainly the case, both of State-usurpations, and of the largeness of that submission, which it admittes. Now as for Church-usurpations, the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus, not being mutable and perishing, like unto the Kingdoms of this world; but his dominion of it self extra Commercium, as Lawyers speak, of things not acquirable, p. 187and by Divine decree, an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed: As it is therefore incapable of all acquisition, and his Crown such whereunto (however the great ones of the Earth may bandie together and boast themselves against it) neither violence nor possession, can intitle; So, in case of a pretended usurpation, though Providence may order a passive submission; yet most certain it is, that in this case, where there neither is nor can be any title, all deeds, so much as of simple recognizance, are utterly unlawful: And therefore albeit that under the late Usurpation it was Lawfull to partake, in the capacity of inferior Magistracie, of that power, whereunto the Usurper had in providence attained; yet, in the case of our present Church-usurpation, to acknowledge it in the least, by partaking of a jurisdiction founded in the pretended Supremacie, and not derived from Christ, to which neither the events of of Providence, nor immemoriable possession, can give the least shadow of title, is altogether unlawfull.

Thus I have unfolded to you the disparity that invalidates your Argument, and have also granted the passive submission, which Providence and Christian patience do alwayes recommend: If the grounds here insinuate do not so easily engage you assent, when you shall add thereto these certain truths, 1. That in Civils, though the manner of purchasing may be in many cases injurious and unlawful; yet it may be sufficient to acquire the dominion. 2. That whereever the length of time, or prescription may superinduce a Right, there, even from the beginning, naked possesion is quasi titulus, & qui pro suo possidet potest usucapere. 3. That although Lawyers speak of certain p. 188vitia, that in private rights hinder definite prescription; Yet all Polititians grant, that immemorial possession, or even that of three ages, is sufficient to confirme over any people the most violent usurpation. And lastly, that on the other hand, our Lords Throne and Scepter are everlasting, and such as can never be moved, I doubt not but all your difficulties will evanish.

You proceed to say, that our Ministers are content to Preach and quite Discipline, a part of their Rights, why may they not aswell exercise Discipline, though not with a full liberty? 'Tis answered, 1. As I have already told you, that to sit in your Courts, is not at all to exercise Christs Discipline, but a pretended power dependent upon another head; so, you do not truely accuse our Ministers of quiting Discipline: it is well known, that, in so farre as is permitted, they do not separate Doctrine and Discipline, which our Lord hes conjoined: And if full liberty be not permitted, and they necessitat to acquiesce to what the Powers will allow, it is very disingenuous in you, to misconstrue this force, which they suffer, unto a voluntaire quiting. 2. Though by the manner of your proposing the objection, you would have us to believe, that the cases are parallel, and that in the case urged, as well as in that instanced, there is only a restraint laid upon a more full liberty; yet the disparity is most manifest in this, that in the matter of Preaching, without the exercise of Discipline, we are by force debarred from doing full dutie, in which case, the doing of a part permitted, cannot be censured; whereas in the compliance you require, the very act is sinful, and is therefore, and not because we are denied a more full liberty, very justly by us refused: but having vainly concluded, upon the poor arguments which we have, p. 189heard, our Ministers to be Peevish, and made your pitiful N. C. confess himself non-plust by his general pretence of Conscience; You ask him, what he can pretend for the peoples withdrawing from your Churches, since there is only a small alteration made in point of Government. 'Tis answered, if all the matter be a small alteration in point of Government, it had farre better become that charitable, healing and free spirit, whereunto you so often pretend, to have reflected thus; since the change lately made, by its previo…s perjury, and subsequent deluge of profanity; the desolating of Churches, and dispersing of Shepherds and flockes; the disquieting, and vexing of thousands, unquestionably Godly and Loyal; the fiering and filling all the corners of the Land with contention and discontent; the burdening of a Countrey, formerly exhausted and now expecting relief, with heavie impositions, and strange exactions; And lastly, the necessary and worst result of all these evils, the provocking the Lord to Anger, and rendering his Majesties Government less comfortable, and desireable, hath occasioned so great a perturbation, and yet, is in it self, and imports so small a matter, why do not our King and Nobles consider for what the Land perisheth? Wherefore do not all men bend their knees and pour out their prayers to God and the King, that so seen destructive, and easily remedied a cause, may be removed? but seing for all your sparingness in passing judgment; yet you cease not scornfully to censure a poor people, needlessly and unchristianly, by you ensnared, and thereafter more cruelly persecute, and oppressed, not repeating what hath been said by others in their vindication, I shall briefly run over what you here subjoin.

You say then That Separation being a tearing of the Body of Christ, to forsake the unity of the Church, when p. 190there is scarce a colour of pretence for it, must be a great sin, 'Tis answered, I will not stand to descant upon the nature and several degrees of Separation, and how that non-conforming to, and compliance with a prevalent backsliding partie, in effect the worst of Separatists, which is our present case, is very different, from the case of Separation, from a Church formerly acknowledged, and joined with; nor love I to inquire how farre a mans entrie into the Ministrie, by open perjury and violence, and his profane and flagitious deportment therein, notourly known, may in the perturbed state of the Church, supply the want of a declarative sentence, making void his mission; Nor lastly, will I make use of your own plain laws, viz. the Act anent the restitution of Bishops, and the late Act of Supremacie, whereby all Church-power (mark it) is made dependent upon, and subordinat unto the Kings Supremacie, to prove your Ministers, to be but Court Curats: But in this I am plain and confident, that if the Prophets, who, by their lyes and lightness, cause the people to erre, and speak peace to such as despise the Lord, and strengthen their hands, who walk in the imagination of their own heart, be not to be hearkened unto; if we ought to bewarre and flee from false Prophets, whose fruits (of ungodliness as well as heresie, as is clear from the context) do discover them, to be but ravening wolves, destroying Souls, under the sheeps cloathing of an exterior call, and hypocritical composure; if such who cause divisions and offences, contraire to the received truth, and who serve not our Lord Jesus, but their own belly, are to be avoided; and lastly, if these Destroyers, and Offenders be the only persons guilty of all the Separation, and other inconveniences, which ensue, then are your Curates (as dignoscible by all, or one or other p. 191of these characters, as the night is by darkness) justly, yea necessarily, to be disowned, fled from and avoided, and only chargeable with that schisme whereof you endeavour to make us guilty.

But you add, That, in a schismatical time-serving humour, we come sometimes to Church, to …vite the punishment of Law; but seldom, that we may retain our interest with our partie; that we hear some of you but not others; that some go to Churches in the Countrey, but not in the City; and finally some join with you in the ordinary Worship of Prayer and praise, yet will not join in the Eucharist, which is but solemn praise. Sir, if you had been candid in this reflection, in place of imputing this variety to humour, and faction, it would indeed have moved you to pity the strait of so many good people, redacted to such a multi…arious perplexity; which yet, in its outward appearance, is but light, in comparison of these inward inquietudes, wherewith the contraire workings of the fear of God, love of truth, abhorrencie of wickedness, tenderness toward Authority, respect to union and peace, and fear of punishment, do continually sollicite them: If I might presume so farre upon your credite, I could tell you that, in my certain knowledge, some have been, against their Consciences, forced by violence and spoill to hear your Curates, who therefore have mourned many Moneths thereafter, and certain of them even unto death; That others whom the generality of your Curates did either offend, or, according to the Lords prediction Ier. 23. v. 33. after long triall not profite at all, have searched by a choise to remedy the evill; (for, that there are better and worse not only as to private, but also as to Publick transgressions, you groundlessly deny) and lastly, that some have prevailed with themselves to hear and join with you p. 192in prayer and praise, who have yet still scrupled in their Consciences to communicate with you, in that Sacrament; which, beside the adjunct of solemn praise, is designedly institute to signify and confirme our communion in, as well as our union with Christ, from whom, we have reason to apprehend, that many of you, according to Scripture-rules, and the grounds which your conversations hold out, are at great distance: If then these things be so, let it satisfy you in this point, that, as the Generality of the whole land would account it a great reliefe to be delivered of all your Tribe, and many of the godly are convinced, that your Ministery being neither of nor for our Lord Jesus, is not to be owned; so all these umbrages of compliance, which you observe, are only the effects of curiosity, fear, or some other humane frailty, wherewith by you we can, neither in Charity nor ingenuity, be urged: But you are so desireous to win us to this conformity of owning your Curates, that you are willing to suppose them to be but Intruders occupying the places of our faithfull shepherds violently torn away; and yet you argue, that although the high priest-hood was in our Lords dayes violently invaded by the Romans, and by them exposed to sale, and those Symoniacks, did also usurp th… right of others; yet we find Cajaphas, as high Priest, Prophes…ing, and our Saviour answering to his authoritative adjuration; and though the Pharisees were wretched teachers, and very guilty persons; yet our Saviour saith, hear them; for they sit in Moses chair: which you sa… is unanswerable and was the doctrine of our own Teachers? 'Tis answered, not to insist upon the particular, and full answere already made by others, for dissolving the apparent force of this objection, it is to be considered. 1. That as this argument doth proceed upon parallel instances, and similitudes p. 193for the most part lame, and unequal; so the Jews their particular customes and observances, in the examples adduced, are to us so hid and unknown, and the Jewish constitution in General, of a Church and Nation joined in one special people, unto God, by virtue of a Divine Law, for matters both Civil and Religious, committed, even in its Civil part, to the custody and interpretation of their Religious Officers, is so manifestly different from that of the Christian Church, gathered in one, out of all and every Nation, only for things Religious, without any alteration in their Civil State, under Jesus Christ their Head and King, and the Ministers by him sent forth, that little light as to our present purpose, can be thence concluded. 2. That not only in the point of the Churches Ministerie but also in its worship and other ordinances, to reason from the dispensations of Soveraigne Providence, in the decline of Churches, the lawfull compliance of good men with these Churches, in owning them in things found, and bearing with corruptions, which they could not remedy; and lastly from the Lords assistance and presence, that never the less hath therein appeared, For the declaring of what is dutie, or not dutie, in the exigence of the first innovations, tending and leading unto the setlement of these abuses, is very deceitfull and dangerous. If in this ye be doubtfull, my charity, I hope, shall give you satisfaction: what, before the Reformation, were the gross corruptions of the Romish Church, both in its Ministers Worship and Sacraments, is to you well enough known: And yet, that many pious and devout Souls, and some of them convinced and mourning for its abominations, did nevertheless therein sincerely seeke and serve the Lord, and found the strength and joy of his presence, shall never be by me denied: If then it should happen, that p. 194in your high pretensions for Union & Peace, a Popish Ministerie, or other abuses should be set up, and enjoyned among us, would you think it just to require our conformity, and to offer to square dutie, in such a case, to any of these particular precedents to be found in the times of the former darkness? I am confident you would not: If our Lord, when on Earth, did for a while connive at certain corruptions, in a dispensation drawing to its period, and if at the times of ignorance God sometime wink, and according to the obscurer light, and witnessing thereof, do allow the endeavours of such, who happily may feel after him, and finde him; for any man thence to conclude, that the change unto the Gospel administration, made no alteration in dutie; or that in a greater measure of revelation, whereby we are commanded either to repent of former, or to resist returning corruptions, we ought to be stinted to the old rule, and make no further advance, are wide mistakes: It ought to be the study of Gods Servants, to discerne times, and to know, in this their day, the things which belong unto their dutie, as well as unto their peace: to ty up practice, that ought to be advertent unto, and hath a dependence upon every circumstance, unto generals abstracted and concluded from the particular instances of other times, is altogether fallacious. 3. Let me remember you of what I have already hinted at, viz. That seing Separation is a departing from an Union once acknowledged, even in these things which are not in themselves condemned, which certainly is of great importance, and of a very weighty and various consideration; whereas non-conforming to, or non-compliance with the introduction of things that are clearly sinfull and unlawfull, hath a manifest warrant, and is of no such extent: from instances p. 195of not Separating, to conclude against Non-compliance; and from denying the Majus of Non-separation, to deny the Minus of a tender forbearance, is bad Logick: nay, so ill doth this parity hold, that on the contraire, the very aversion that every true Christian ought to have for Separation, doth mostly recommend this Non-compliance, which being a soveraigne and prescribed antidote against these evils, which, if once received, may go on to greater corruptions, and necessitat a sadder division, is therefore to be timeously adhibite. For clearing of this, let me but ask you this one Question: The allowed Separation of the reformed Churches from that of Rome, doth it not plainly inferre, that it had been better, and was the dutie of these informer ages, to have seasonably resisted, and not complied with the first beginnings of these errors, and evils, which afterward did procure the rent? And however you may judge, that the causes of that Separation were no more then sufficient, and could have laked nothing; yet I am assured, that you and every rationall man will say, that a timeous Non-conforming, warrantable upon lesser motives, might have proven the better course. I shall not enforce this consideration by suggesting the evill tendencie of your way; nor do I tell you that it is a reviving of the same causes, that in processe of time did produce all Romes abominations, and that these floods of Error, and Superstition, had their visible rise from smaller aberrations; so that, if God should suffer the course of your defection to prosper, and weare out the present opposition, the Ages to come might more justly take up against us the complaint of our not timeous resisting; then we can regret the too easie compliance of these, who should have withstood the beginnings of Romes backsliding. On p. 196these things, I say, I do not insist; but, that you may the more plainly understand the difference that I conceive to be betwixt Non-compliance, and Separation, I freely acknowledge, that if God had permitted this whole Church, to slide into the present evils of your Prelacie and corrupt Ministers; and thereafter had blessed us with a discovery; yet I would not, in that condition, allow the same necessity, and expediencie of a Separation, that now I finde, to plead for a Non-compliance; in as much as our present Non-compliance, is not only a more certain, seasonable, and safe dutie; but is also attended with a faithfull and edifying adherence to our true and sent Teachers, who though removed to corners, do still remain the Lords Ministers, and our Pastors: which things do much difference it, from the case of a proper separation, as above descrived, and do not a little justify these more tender practices which you would disprove.

Now, though these few things premised do obviously satisfy the difficulty objected; yet, to render the application more full and easie, you may further consider, that your instance from these corrupt High Priests, set up by the Rom…ns, doth not help you. 1. Because that the high Priest was ordained by the Lord, as in order to Sacrifice, so also for Rule and Judgement, and that not only in matters purely Religious; but also in all things determinable by Moses Law: at least as to the Ministerial declaring of the Ius, which, albeit in a great part meerly civill, are yet, in this respect, termed the matters of God, and jubjected to the high Priest his judgement, in the respect mentioned. 2. There is no statute in Moses Law, affixing, as you alleage, the high Priest-hood to the Eldest Son of Aaron's line, who possibly might p. 197have happened to be an Infant, or legally incapable; but only to his race in generall, so that there was a necessity that the determination of the choise should be in the hand of the Sanhedrin, thus Eli, Abiathar and Ahimelech were all of Ithamar, and not of Eliazer his branch. As for the promise made by the Lord to Phineas, it is neither made to the eldest Son of his posterity, nor did it give any proper right; but only an assurance, whereof the accomplishment is sufficiently performed in the return of the Priest-hood to Zadock, and his line, notwithstanding the preceeding interruption. 3. Not to enter into a particular debate anent the form and power of the Jewish Church, as distinct from the State, and wherein the differences did consist; this is the received opinion of the Orthodox, that though at the first institution, their supreme Church-sanhedrin was, as to causes and several other particulars, distinguished from their supreme Civil-sanhedrin; yet through process of time, and many revolutions of affaires, a confusion of the two grew more and more, and at length the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, whereof the High Priest was President did degenerate into a mixed Court, and having the advantage of enjoying their Religion under their civil mutations, and keeping their High Priests and his Courts, when they lost their King and civil Courts, for their greatest matters, did exerce by their Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin all the civil power they could be permitted to exerce. 4. Particularly it is evident that, from the dayes of the Maccabees, the High Priest-hood was much changed from its primary institution; and as more extended to and busied in civil Rule, then conversant in holy things; so much exposed to frequent invasions at home, and at length, with the whole Nation, swallowed up by a forraigne p. 198dominion: Which things being d…e…y perpended, it clearly appears, that neither the practice of the Romans, founded in the right (though an abuse of the exercise) of their conquest, nor the symony of the purchasers, a clandestine crime, did make void their Priesthood: How much less then do Cajaphas his prophesying, a Providential Dispensation, or our Lords free answering and confession to his adjuration, whether authoritativè made by him as a Judge of the Nation, or otherwise, scarce sufficient to prove a Non-separation, militat against our Non-compliance, with your re-introducing of abjured Prelacie, and its corrupt Ministery. As for your instancing of the Pharisees, our Lords words in this matter Math. 23. 2, 3. are, the Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe & do; but do not ye after their works, &c. And that hereby you have no advantage appears,

1. Because it doth not manifestly appear, that the Scribes and Pharisees here spoken of were Intruders; but, on the contraire, it is most probable that they were Doctors of the Law, lawfully appointed according to the use of that people.

2. The Scribes & Pharisees, sitting in Moses chair, did teach the Law, not as appertaining meerly to the Soul… & Religion toward God; but as the Municipal Law of that Nation containing also the rules of external righteousness and policie; and therefore are to be regarded not so much as Ecclesiastick Teachers, but rather as Doctors of the Law: whereby it is evident, that your argument from our Lords command, is as farre, in this respect, from concluding our compliance with your intruding Preachers, as these National Doctors, with whom our Lord was not to medle further, then to vindicat the Law of God from their corrupt glosses p. 199and practices, are different from out Spiritual Pastors, who being sent by Jesus Christ, cannot by Man be discharged.

3. If it be urged that the Scribes and Pharisees were also the Teachers and Directors of all matters of Religion; and even in civils did only respondere de jure from the law of God, although this do no way remove the disparity, immediatly assigned; yet this is further to be observed, that as our Lord in this regard did expressly warn his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and in many things correct their vain and perverss doctrines; so his tolerance of them in Moses chair was only temporarie, as of many other things, until the then approaching end of that dispensation, which he would not anticipate: during which time, if our Lord do command a well-cautioned observance, for the best improvement of that which was shortly to be abolished, can you rationally thence inferre, that we ought, at the pleasure of men, both deserte his sent Ministers, whom he hath not recalled, and comply with and owne Intruders, so lightly violating, and abusing his Ordinance?

But 4. Admit that the Scribes and Pharisees their entrie to that office, were not in every point justifiable, and that they truely were very wretched Teachers; yet, their occupying of that charge, seing our Lord did not send forth and establish his perpetual Gospel Ministerie, until after his resurrection, was not circumstantiat with, and peccant in the violent exclusion of others, lawfully setled in that chair, which they possessed. Sir, this is so casting a difference, that I nothing doubt, but if you will only pose your self, what you think our Lord would have determined, in case that, there being among the Iews, an established order of lawful Teachers, the Pharisees had risen up, p. 200and by open perjury and violence ejected them, and that the business being still recent, and many of the Teachers remaining on life, and by all acknowledged for such, whom man could not exauctorate, the people had firmly adhered to them. Let your Conscience, I say, in these suppositions, sincerely resolve the question, and, I am most assured, the verdict of your own breast will be, that whatever was our Lords connivance for a time, at a Non-separation from a course, whereunto he was shortly to put a period: yet, in the case here stated, he would not have commanded the people to deserte their lawful Guides, and follow Intruders, and thereby countenance such a wickedness.

5. Although I love not to play the Critick, and do grant, that the observance here enjoined, doth indeed inferre Hearing not to be prohibite; yet your exhibiting of the command in these words, not found in Scripture, hear them, for they sit in Moses chair, doth found so like to that heavenly voice, this is my beloved Son, &c. and that Emphatick hear ye him there commanded; whereby, the old letter and typical shadows of Moses Law being antiquat, life and immortality were brought to light; that I cannot but account (that, however our Lord permitting the hearing of the Pharisees so long as that dispensation did stand not abolished doth here directly aime only at its right improvement,) the two, hear ye him, and hear ye them, in the same signification, to be inconsistent; and this representation, a Stretch savouring more of favour to your cause, then tendernesse of Truth and Scripture-phrase. But I am tedious in a matter, so obvious, the summe, wher in I would have you and all to fixe, is this, that whatever may have been or may be the various dispensations of Providence, in p. 201the overcloudings of Churches, and decline and corruption of Ordinances, wherein no doubt the holding the foundation Jesus Christ, by sound Faith, and sincerity in Gods sight, have gone a great length; yet as the instancing of such times, cannot, with any shew of reason, or measure of honesty, be alledged for a tacite, and toward compliance, with the re-introducing of the evils of these dark times, in Doctrine or Worship, contraire to the revelation of a more full and pure light; so no more can it be made use of, after the manifest and sealed blessing of a sent and faithful Ministery, to perswade a voluntaire abandoning, at the lust and arbitriment of Man, of our true Pastors, and a willing and tame imbracing, and owning of manifest and profane Intruders. According to which Rules, if you will be pleased to re-examine your instances, I doubt not but you will find them, neither to be unanswerable, nor that the Doctrine of our Teachers, against causeless Separatists, doth homologate your inference. As to what you add, That it is a great cruelty, if a Minister be put from his place, whether justly or unjustly, that the people should be starved. Sir, I am verily of your opinion; and therefore, as I wish our outed Ministers, had testified more love, in despising hazards for the relief of Souls; so I cannot but remember you, how dreadful a charge this driving away of Pastors, and starving of Souls will one day amount to, against such who have been its direct Authors: However, seing the love and faithfulness of Christ, the Great Shepherd, hath secured the event, they that believe need not make haste, for verily they shall be fed.

Your N. C. next Argument, is, That your Curates are naughtie men, and weak preachers. Sir, such is the notoriety of this charge, and so afflicting ought it to p. 202be to every one, concerned in the credit of the Gospel, and honour of its Ministery; that, I am assured, all sober men will rather impute it to tenderness, then want of matter, that I incline not either to inlarge the objection, or insist in the examination of your answere. You think it an odd piece of Religion, for us to reproach our Pastors by the name of Curats, a designation not to be ashamed of: but though the name Curate, ows its invention, only to the vanity of men, by whom the lowly Scripture-stile of Minister was disdained, and be of no proper origination, and in effect the product of the corruption, both of the Churches humility, and purity of the Latine Tongue; yet, seing you account it honourable, and I and many others do rather use it for distinction, I heartily wish that you and others, who do appear so sensible of an apprehended reproach, may be as serious in reflecting upon that important aggravation, it shall furnish in the last Judgement, against these who, in stead of caring for Souls, do visibly destroy them. As for what you insinuat, that the Curats are our Pastors, and over us in the Lord, pardon me to say, that I cannot finde the relation, either in their office or exercise, and that, if Scripture-marks do intitle to Scripture-names, these Intruders, entering not by the door, are liker to Theeves, these false Teachers are but revening Wolves, and these Prophets, who teach lies, are but the taill: Nay, every one, who rightly considers, how that in place of minding the Lords Work, whereunto they pretend, and honouring him before the people, they have made his offering and Sanctuary to be abhorred, and his name to be prophaned, in liew of that honour which you acclaime, may justly conclude, that they that despise the Lord, shall be lightly esteemed. Say not where is Christian Charity? to call p. 203the manifest lewdness and lies of these pitiful Miscreants, whose gross abominations are, almost every where, the grief of the godly, and the very scorn of all, nay such, whereof your self pag. 30. doth abhorre the patrociny, and for which, you pretend to be a bitter mourner in secret, Slight grounds, and to bid men be slow to take thence an impression, is plain mockery; Charity that beleeveth all things, resteth and rejoiceth only in the Truth, and rejoiceth not in iniquity: neither can you alleadge, our grounds being good, your Church, in our not complaining, to be neglected; it were strange charity to beleeve, as the proverb runs, that Satan will reprove sin. As for your alledging, that to separate upon the personal …ailing, much more weakness of a Preacher, will open a wide door to Separation. Whatever danger may be in your smooth generality; yet, I am confident, not to owne (for, as to separation, I have already cleared how the practice of these you do condemn doth differ from it) for Ministers, such vitious intruders, and flagitious livers, as your Curates are, is a Soveraign expedient for preserving both of Truth and Christian Unity: and that as to ty the good of Worship to the sincere intention of him that manageth it, is an error; so, to think that Gifts and a suitable converse in a Minister, are of no influence or regard as to the work of his Ministery; and that because, not to hear Sermons only, but the solemn worship of God is the chief end of our meeting (wherein you are mistaken, if you think that you and we do not agree) which we can do, be the Minister what he will, is irreligion unmixed, which your jejune commending of the reading of good Scriptures, and singing of good Psalmes, doth not palliate. Be the minister what he will: What? be he Socinian, Arminian, notoriously flagitious, an Adulterer, or Incestuous p. 204Person, a despiser of Discipline, a strengthener of the hands of the Wicked, and sander of the hearts of the Godly, a Symoniack, is nothing but what he may will, and many of yours do, de facto, will: nay, be he Popish, Mahumetan, Pagan or Atheist, all are but what he may will: O execrable latitude! But you conclude this point, that our crouding to hear such weak men, now in Conventicles, who formerly were of no esteem among us, sayes we are not so zealous for good Preachings, as we would make the world beleeve. Pray, Sir, if a man in plenty, make choise, and in penury make a shift, will you thence inferre, he is not desirous of the best, this is too weak: but, to be ingenuous with you, I question not, but some Curats make constantly more able, and frequently better Sermons, for the matter, then weaker Non-conformists; and vet, the just grounds of our exceptions, do still conclude, that they are neither so good men, nor acceptable Preachers, as these whom we preferre. As for what you add, That the way to make a man popular among us, is to rail against Church and State, It is a malitious calumny, wherewith you endeavour to slander us unto our Rulers, and which they, who ought to be as the Angels of God, may easily discerne and repell.

Your N. C, in the next place objects to you, the obligation of the Covenant: wherein the whole Nation and the posterity are engaged, to maintain our former Presbyterian Ministery, extirpat your Prelacie and all depending on that Hierarchie, and whatsoever shall be found con…raire to …ound Doctrine, and the power of Godliness. I shall not improve this argument, being of such an obvious evidence, in any further explication; but briefly review what you answere, on the contraire: p. 205And 1. Your evil Conscience foometh forth your indignation against the Covenant, in your reproachfull calling it, our Goliah, alwayes brought out by us, to defy the Armies of the living God, whose strength, like Sampsons, lay in its hair, the Armies that fought for it, and not in any innate vigour. But as, notwithstanding all the arrowes of malice, blasphemy, and rage, that you and your party, have shot at it, it still abideth in strength, and the Armies of its followers have been made strong, by the hands of the mighty God of Iacob, and, even in their most desperat extremity, did by the bloud of the Lamb, and the word of their Testimony, obtain the most signall victory; So, the Virgin, the Daughter of Zion, hath despised thee and laughed thee to scorn; Whom hast thou reproached? And against whom hast thon exalted thy voice? even against the holy one, the God of truth (…or what are men or their doings, that you murmure against them) the swift Witness against such, as sweare …a…sly: He it is that it regardeth the rage, and tumult of your partie, and will turne you back: and as the inconsistencie, of your assimilations to Sampson, a Worthy of the Lord and to Goliah, a Champion of the Philistines, do plainly discover the unreasonableness of your spite; so the Lord who hath already proved the innate vigour of his Covenant, in the bloud and suffering of his Martyres, can also, in his good time, make its hair to grow, and strength to returne, to the utter ruine of your Prelacie, and all its adherents. But 2. You proceed to tell us, that it is a ridiculous fancie, to say, Children can be bound by their Fathers Oath, which is to make us the Servants of men, and give them Authority over our Consciences, Gods peculiar power: Sir; I perceive that whether you rage or laugh there is no rest: just now we heard you railing, and certainly here you p. 206are rallying: but first, I am glad to find your assert so plainly, the liberty of our Consciences from mans imposing, and shall only remember you, that if a Father, in respect of this liberty, may not, at his arbitriment, bind his Son by an Oath, requiring a conscientious performance, undoubtedly farre less can Rulers, whether Civil or Ecclesiastick, perscribe at their arbitriment in matters of Religion, which, without question, do exact a conscientious observance. 2. Though, the Lords Authority over Conscience do indeed exempt it from mans usurpation; yet, in so farre as it hath pleased the Lord, to vest any person with this power over another, all usurpation ceaseth, and the Lords reserved dominion doth rather establish it: for example; therefore it is, that the righteous and necessary commands of lawfull Rulers, do even in conscience bind their Subjects; because in so farre as they observe the limits of their power, by him appointed, their authority is understood to be of God, and by him approved and allowed. 3. It is manifest that the Lord hath, in many things, given to Fathers, by virtue of his precept, a Power of Command, reaching even unto Conscience, without an interveening Oath: Honour the Father and thy Mother, is that which God hath enjoined; and doth certainly require a sutable obedience; If then this Authority be not impugned by your alledged reason, that we are not the servants of men, can the interposing of an Oath, or the Fathers adjuration, in things otherwayes under the compass of his power, render your objection more effectuall? But 4. That I may returne you a round and full Answere: I say, that in many cases, whereof our present case of the Covenant is of all the most probable, Children, by virtue of the paternal authority given and allowed by the Lord, can be, and de facto p. 207are bound, by their Fathers Oath: And first, whereever the Fathers command doth engage to a perpetuall obedience, there can be no question, but, in that case, an accessory adjuration doth greatly intend the obligation: I need not confirme this by the parallel instance of Saul's adjuring the People, while in the pursuite of his enemies; the reason of this position is above exception, viz. That if a simple command, flowing from the paternall power which God hath established, be therefore binding, the solemn invocking of the same God to be an avenger of the contempt of that authority, by himself approven, cannot but add to the obligation: but if you desire to know in what things, and how farre the command of a Father, even of it self, without the consent and acceptation of the Children, (which I grant, when intervenient, doth alter the case) doth oblige? Take the instance of the Rechabites, who for obedience to their Father Ionadab…s command, who lived some Ages before, 2. Kings 10. 15. not to drink wine (a thing free in it self, and not under any Divine precept) they nor their sons for ever, have therefore the Lords express commendation, sealed with a perpetuall blessing: If then a Father's command in things free, and arbitrary, may be confirmed by the accession of an oath, and, in the case adduced, doth perpetually bind, how much more, must the sworn engagement of the Father for himself and his posterity in things commanded by the Lord, be everlastingly obliging. 2. In what case soever, a Father's Bond or Contract is binding to himself and his posterity, if he confirme the …amine by an Oath, the force and vertue thereof doth also reach all the off-spring, cocerned in the obligement. For explication of this truth, it is not needful that I determine particularly, what Contracts are perpetual, p. 208and what only personall: If these be perpetual, whereof the subject matter being either under the necessity of an express perpetual command, or having an evident and lasting conveniencie, agreeable to the principles of Truth and Righteousness, the party contracter doth expressly thereby engage for himself and his posterity: as it is short of the true and full extent of perpetuall contracts, which cannot in reason be restricted within the limits of paternal commands, so it is more then necessary for my purpose, and more then proven by the instances subjoined.

Now that there are such obligations, as perpetual of their own nature so, carrying along with them the virtue of that accessory Oath, whereby at first they were established, is clear, not only from that Covenant and Oath Deut. 29. 10 & 14. whereunto Moses did engage the people of Israel, and which he declareth to be made with them that stood there that day, and also with him that was not there; to with the Generations to come, as appears by the sequele of that Chapter, specially, v. 29. an example whereof the exceeding evidence can only expose it to exception; but also from these more controverted instances 1. of that Promissory oath taken by Ioseph of the Children of Israel, for carrying up his bones from Egypt, Gen. 50. 25. which the after-generation in the Conscience of its Religion did punctually observe, Exo. 13. ver. 19. 2. From the Oath sworne by the People of Israel to the Gibeonites, Iosh. 9. 15. for the breach whereof, we find, the Lord severall ages thereafter, severely animadverting against all Israel, and Sauls house in particular: 2 Sam. 2: 1, 2. For these you may add, the sworne Leagues, and Agreements of all Nations among themselves, which do undoubtedly, with the same force and quality, descend to p. 209their Posterity. But wherefore should I insist in a matter so evident, and, at least as to the difference betwixt us, universally acknowledged? If your meaning, in affirming that Children can not be bound by their Fathers Oath, were only, that however, a promissory Oath, may be binding upon the Posterity, in the nature of a promise, and for performance; yet the religion of the Oath, is not so transmitted, as to render the Posterity, in case of a breach, perjured; there might possibly appeare to be some ground of debate betwixt us; (of which afterward) but seing it is apparent both from your proposition, explication subjoined, and design aimed at, that you deny a Fathers promissory Oath, even in the substance, viz. so much as a promise, let be in the quality of an Oath, to be obliging as to his Children, you manifestly repugne, not only to the instances given; but to the common opinion, reason, yea and sense of all Men, Nations and Ages, whereby it is most constant, that such is, and hath been alwayes repute, the power and representation of Fathers quoad their Children, that their pactions and contracts, not only in matters determined by divine precept; but also in things in themselves free and indifferent, viz. their condition in order to the Society civil, whereof they are members, yea even their state, as free men of slaves, have, without the least challenge of Usurpation over Conscience, seing founded in that Authority which God approves, been holden perpetually binding. But that I may immoveablie establish the obligation of this Covenant, which I am perswaded God will require, for ever: I shall not content my self with these common concessions. 1. That the sworne Pactions and Covenants of a Nation or People incorporate in one Body Politick, do, even in the quality of Oaths, p. 210descend to after Generations; because, while the same civil form of their constitution remains, they are still understood to be the same People, notwithstanding of the change whether partial or total of the individual constituents, which doth no more alter the formal identity of the Nation, then the fluxe and change of parts in our bodies, waters in a channel, or boards in a Ship, do change the samness of the Person, River, or Ship. 2. That the promissory Oaths of Fathers, in all things, whereunto the sphere of their Authority doth extend, do at least bind the Children, as promises, and to the implement: which concessions granted by all, do nevertheless, above all scruple, confirme the obligation of our Covenants, which you impugne: yet, seing that I do apprehend, both the disparity placed betwixt a Nation and a private person, to be narrow and groundless, and the second position, to fall short of Truths full extent in this matter; to remove from you all ground of scruple, I shall reduce the whole matter to these certain positions.

1. That though assertory Oaths, being only accessory for further security, do indeed intend, but cannot extend, the force of any Obligation, either as to its subject matter, or the persons thereby bound, beyond its rational import; yet such hath alwayes been the Religion, and Reverence of promissory Oaths as, (nothing impeding either from the peculiarity of the subject, or other circumstances, or from the declared will of the person engaging) ever to ampliat, and extend the interpretation, and make the successors, as well as the promiser himself, understood to be therein comprehended.

2. That the true ground and measure, both as to the determination of the subject, and extent of the p. 211obligation, whereby the force of the Fathers contract, expressly binding himself and his posterity, may be known and defined; is, this Paternal power and authority, it being in it self evident, that, as by reason hereof the Children follow the state and condition of the Father, (unless in so farre, as the favour of liberty, or positive Law hath made an alteration) so, where the Father by command may oblige to obedience, if by his obligation he do bind to performance, he is thereby truly to be understood much more, de facto, to exercise all the power he hath, whereby he may render his engagement effectual: Now in what things, and how farre Fathers may both dispose upon and command their Children, is sufficiently known, and their undoubted Authority, not only to command obedience to the Law of God; but also to determine them in matters free, are, by the examples of Pious Parents, and that of Ionadab upon record, much more cleared, then is necessary to our hypothesis.

3. Seing it is from the virtue and influence of this paternal power, that the Contract of Society, whereby Politick bodies do at first coalesce, doth descend unto the posterity, and so continue the Society, and its constitution to after-generations; the reason wherefore the other Contracts, either simple or sworne, engaged into by these associat people, do bind their successors, must of necessity resolve into the same cause; and to referre it to an imaginary samnesse, having no other reality then the first intercession, and continuance of the fundamental Contract of Society, is but an emptie Notion, importing no real difference: for, as the perpetual obligation of the original Contract, constituting the Society, can have no other cause then what is assigned; and it were irrational to attribute its continuance, to a samness, which it produceth; p. 212so, it is only in the force and power thereof, that all other after-National-Contracts, are binding upon the whole, and propagat to the succeeding race.

4. This third position being certain, it necessarily follows, that the oath taken by Ioseph, of the Children of Israel, anent his bones, and that given by them to the Gibeonites, both, by Scripture declared to be binding, as Oaths, upon the Posterity, have no proper and peculiar reason, but do unanswerably conclude, that whereever the Father's obligation, otherwayes binding to his off-spring, is confirmed by an Oath, it is transmitted to them with the same accessory force, to …ender them guiltie in God's sight, not only of breach of Promise, but breach of Oath: which argument is so much the more evident, in the first case of Ioseph, that the Children of Israel were not, when they sware to him, imbodied in a Politick state; but did only stand in their natural Relation of Consanguinity.

5. Seing we finde in Scripture the Lord Covenanting with Fathers, for themselves, and their Posterity; as in the case of Abraham: Fathers engaging to the Lord in the same manner, as Ioshua for himself and his house; the above-mentioned import, and extent of Ionadab's command, and (not to mention the Fathers power of devoting their Children, and of making void their vowes) even the adjuration and curse of Rulers, taking effect, many Ages thereafter; as that of Ioshua against the Rebuilders of Iericho: with what shew of reason, can we deny (the matter, or other argument of a contraire intention, not prohibiting) that the sworne obligations of Fathers, are binding upon their Children, aswell for the Religion of the Oath, as the Truth of the Promise? I know that, as to mans tribunal and judgement, it is thought p. 213hard poenam perjurij illi irrogari, qui ipse Deum testem ac vindicem non invocaverit, that one should be punished as perjured, who hath not himself invocated God as witness and avenger. But as we do clearly see, the Lords judgement in the contraire; doth not the same reason, which, by making the Father's promise, for himself and Children, also their promise, and therefore binding, by transmitting the Oath in like manner, confirme its righteousness. I need not here precaution, against the Children their invincible ignorance of the Fathers Promise, and Oath; their innocencie in this case, descending from a clearer distinct head, and purging from breach of Promise, as well as breach of Oath, doth neither inferre the liberty, which you plead for; nor impugne the transmission of a sworne Promise, in its Religion, as well as in its Obligation

6. Our Covenant, being in the matter necessary and righteous; for the manner, made with and before God, to be perpetually binding; and for its solemnity, unanimously sworne, by almost the whole Nation, and confirmed by all the Authority in it, hath, such a concurring evidence, of all arguments, and opinions, for its perpetuity, as an Oath, that your nibling at it, upon this head, is not a greater proof of your perfidie, then testimony of your inconsiderate ignorance; but if you be ignorant your self, you do well to make your N, C… no better: and therefore you make him objecte against your assertion, that Children cannot be bound by their Fathers Oath: doth not the Fathers debt oblige the Son? and why not his Oath? But to give you the advantage you designe: I willingly turne the Argument to make for you, thus: The Father's debt doth not oblige the Son, unless he be also his Heir, and in this respect, only as Possessor of p. 214his goods: therefore &c. To which I answere, that as by the tenor of written Bonds for debt, it is clear, that the Debtor doth only oblige himself, & his Heirs, and Successors in his Lands and goods, so, both Law and Reason do interpret, all ordinary promises for debt, to be of the same nature, viz. to bind the person himself, and to follow and affect his Estate, together with the person, who, enjoying, by universal title, the promiser his estate, is, by the interpretation of Law, understood to accept of the same, with that burthen, and no further; so, that, if a Son, as Son, be not liable, it is evidently from the restriction of the obligation, according to the meaning of the parties; which I already told you, that an accessory Oath doth not exceed; and maketh nothing for a Son's freedome in Conscience, as to such other engagements, whereunto both the Father's power, and intention, do concurre to make him liable.

In the next place, I confess you do your N. C. reason, and as just now we have heard, the ridiculous objection you put in his mouth; so, in this place, to his unanswerable argument, for the Childrens obligation by the Parents Oath, from the dutie of our allegeance, descending from our Fathers their swearing the same; you returne as ridiculous an answer: viz. That we are not at all obliged to the King by their Oath, but because the right of the Crown is in his Person: who can forbear to laugh? are you a Doctor in Israel, and also a high pretender for the King, and understands no better? You say the right of the Crown is in his person, but supposing it came there by the originall consent, and allegeance sworne to his first Predecessor, (which I am sure is a title which, in this place, you will not quarrel) is not the same that is the cause of his Kingship, also the reason of our subjection? Or will you p. 215admit it to be the Creating, and not also the Conserving cause? How do the most common maximes of reason militat against you? You add, and we are born his Subjects: but, pray, doth our birth as men, or as men born in such a place, bring us forth with this character? then should all men, or at least even strangers, casually born in the place, be also born Subjects: whereunto then can it else be ascribed, unless it be, that we are the off-spring of such, who for themselves and their posterity, did submit to the King, by a perpetuall surrender, transmitted upon us, passivè with the same obligation? If these things do not satisfy, I intreat you to reflect, upon the ordinary strain of all impeachments: where you will finde, the person accused of Treason, though he never actually swore, or promised allegeance; yet constantly, and very congruously, charged, with breach of Faith, Failty, and Allegeance: nay, I nothing doubt, but if you were describing to us the crime of Rebellion, you would at great length prove, it, to be both falshood and perfidy.

Your N. C. proceeds to argue thus: How was Adam obliged for his Posterity, if Parents cannot binde their Children? And in return you say, This is strange dealing: and because you will have the instance an inapplicable mystery, therefore, you recurre to secret Divine transactions, without either warrant, or necessity: but, Sir, is not this a strange stupiditie in you; be it so, that God's Covenanting with Adam, as the common Head of Mankind, so as upon his deed, to make their standing or falling depend, is a difficulty, which only Gods Soveraignity can explicat: is this therefore also a mysterie, that Adam might have been, any other father may be obliged, both for himself and his posterity; so as to ty them to p. 216obedience, and upon their own … obedience (not their Fathers, which is the singularity o… Gods Covenant with Adam) to render them guilty? or can there be any thing more plain, both in Scripture and Reason, then that not only the Lo…ds command, according to his will, should be perpetual to the Posterity; but also a Peoples Covenant, made with him to observe the same, doth oblige both them and after-Generations, to continuall obedience? as the 29. of Deut. most convincingly holds out. But you go on still stumbling, thus: I Parents can binde duties upon their Children, they may as well binde sins, and this is to make way… or more Originall sin then Adams. Who would not pity such impertinencies? The thing asserted, is, that a Parent may oblidge for his Children to dutie: and you subjoin, he may as well bind sins upon them: Certainly, Sir, these are not the words of sobriety: A Parent may command his Son to dutie, may he also command him to sin? the ignis fatuus that seduces you, is that you appear to be dazled, by an imagination of your own, that we go about to im…ute to Children, not the Parents obligation; but their deeds, their duties, or failings, which, truly we as little dream of, as certainly you will finde your present dream, about Originall sin, when you returne to your self, wholly extravagant.

But the next lapse you make, is, in the person of your N. C. whom you cause in place of adducing an obligement by a Father, binding himself and his posterity, to bring in the instance of the Baptismal vow, undertaken by the Father, in Name of the Child, which seing it meets not our Question, you both objecte, and answere to no purpose.

The next demand your N. C. makes, is, How then is Saul charged, and his Children punished, for killing p. 217the Gibeonites? And to this you make a very pleasant return, not unlike your answere made to our obligation of Allegeance, viz Shat Saul is taxed for bloud, and killing the Gibeonites, who by the Lords rati…ying the Princ…s their Oath to them, had got a right to their lives; and not for perjur… against that Oath, which the Princes swore: Before I consider this answere, let us first hear the Scripture. 2 Sam. 21. 2. [Now the Gibeonites were not of Israel; but of the Amorites, and the Children of Israel had sworne unto them, and Saul sought to stay them, &c. Wherefore David said to the Gibeonites, what shall I do for you?] do not these words clearly intimate, that the injury done them, was contraire to that former Oath, whereby they were secured? To this you say, The Oath is only here mentioned, to reminde the Reader of the former History; but doth not at all say, that the Oath was still binding: But, if the words be set down to reminde the Reader, certainly, it is in order to some apposite purpose; and the blind account that you make, is scarce worthy of your self, let be the Scriptures of Truth. Next, what can be more evident, then, that the Oath is first mentioned, to shew their right, thence derived; and Saul's injury, being thereto subjoyned, it is manifest, that for his breach thereby incurred, a reparation for an attonement is offered: and seing the Scripture saith enough, if it say not expressly, that the Oath was still binding, it seems only to be omitted, because in that Age, there was none who doubted, much less of your opinion… to deny it: Now as to your answer, I must take notice of what you seem to insinuat, that the Gibeonites were spared, not by reason of their Covenant, made with the Princes; but by the Lords ratisying of it, whereby they became to be excepted, from the rest of the devoted Canaanites; But Pray, Sir, do you not p. 218in so supposing con…adict your Fellow-brother the Surveyer of Naphtaly who ranteth (as you use to do) against his Adve…sary the Author of the Apologetical Relation, who asserted the same which you here suppose. 2. You speak of a ratification of this Oath of the Princes, by virtue of which, abstracted from the Oath these Gibeonites were spared, which you would do well to explain and cleare. Seing then you cannot but grant that the Gibeonites were spared, and enjoyed their lives, by the right of that peace sworne unto them, my next reply is most evident, viz. that your answere, alledging Saul's killing the Gibeonites, to have been cruell, and bloudy against their Right; but not perfidious against that Oath and Covenant, whereby their Right was granted, can no more be said of Saul, then it might have been said of the Princes, who at first swore, if so be they had, the very next hour, brocken their Oath, and destroyed these, whom they had saved, it being a truth most certain, that as every violation of Faith, is, an injurious invasion of that right, which was thereby secured; so, it is impossible for a right, arising from a Contract or Covenant, to subsist, unless its cause do still stand, & be repute to be in force: You add, that Saul is taxed of bloud and not of perjury: A poor shift; But I have already shewed him to be noted for both; & bloudy & deceitfull are of too near a conjunction, to allow of your negative inference, of the exclusion of the other, because one only expressed. And now, Sir, I have ended this point: only let me say it without vanitie that as I judge, your folly in this last discourse to be such, as no sober man could lightly fall into, without a judicial desertion; so, I am confident if there be any ingenuity in you, the return which I justly make you of the Epilogue, which in this place you so vainly p. 219use, will cover you with blushes, viz. Thus I have taken more pains, then was needfull, to shew the ridiculous fondnesse of your absurd notion. viz. That Children can not be bound by their Fathers Oath; and have said more to disprove it then ever you will be able to answere.

What follows in this Dialogue is a meere rapsodie of railing, and in the first place to decline your N, C. too pungent demand, that for all you have said, you cannot deny but the Covenant binds these who tooke it, you make a hydeous noise, of that Little noise, which, you say, we made in breaking it in some things: viz. In our silence, and not declaring against the Apostacy, Tyranny, and Perjury of the Usurpers, and in our faint giving over to Pray for the King, Sir, contemning your calumny, I answere, were not the Usurpers sufficiently opposed in their evill courses, while there was hope? And is this all you can say, that the Lord having broken us, and brought us under their feet, in the humbling sense of his dreadful displeasure, we did not madly declaime against such, to warn whom, after their rejecting of our brotherly admonition, the Lord did not further require us: We love not to vye with you, or any other, either in stedfastness in the Covenant, or faitfulnes to the King, in these confused and calamitous times; but of this one thing I am most confident, that his Majesty was more obliged to the Covenant, and these who to this day, adhere to it, for the continuance of his remembrance, both with God and men, in the dayes of his Exile, and in disposing to, and preparing the way of his return; then to all the present high and false pretenders who are not ashamed, in their flattering impudence, to averre, that the most notorious and base acts of Compliance, whereof they were then guilty, were p. 220yet the effects of a pure and constant loyalty: As for the thundering, you say, was in your Pulpits, against your course, before we were silenced, and is at this day in our Conventicles: is it not enough, that you mock at the warnings of the Lords Servants, whom for no other cause, then true Zeal for God, and tender Love to your Souls, and just indignation at your sin, you have beaten and expelled; but you must also thereto add falshood, in your alledgeance anent what you call Conventicles, and insolent insulting over our undeniable short-coming, in due admonition, after his Majesties Restitution; whereunto an excessive desire, by faireness and moderation, to stop the precipitant current of your late defection, did too generally tempt us, before we were ejected: but the Lord hears, and regards…

You tell us, in the next place, That the Tyrann's cruelty did formerly terrify us, and now we presume upon the King's clemencie. If I had ever professed the hundred part of that respect for Oliver that the Chief of your way did, I would say, and say it truely, that what ever he was Titulo, he was no Tyrannus Exercitio; however, I am farre from justifying the Usurpers their practices, or denying altogether his Majesties Clemencie, whereof the indemnity given to the same Usurpers doth exhibite so faire an evidence; but this I must say, that as I do wholly impute the withholding of much of the Kings goodness and favour from us, to the malign influence of the unlucky conjunction of accursed Prelates, whereby some even of the great and most solemn acts of his Maiesties intended bountie have been frustrat and depraved; so such hath been, and is, the implacable spite and rigour of their Malice, and Persecution, that not only it hath surmounted their resentment of the Sectarian invasion, p. 221and made them ascribe all these Mischiefs to us, who were their most constant Enemies; but by many degrees exceeded all the violences, wherewith the Englishes, during their Domination among us, can be charged: If you require a proof; instead of a long condescendence that I might adduce, the case of the then Tories in the North, and late Risers in the South, with the respective measures, where with they have been treated, being impartially pondered and compared, is an irrefragable instance. As to the trip, you mention, of these who ceased, for fear of loss of Stipend, publick praying for the King, which they had in print owned for a dutie: As at the worst you can call it but a trip, which I think, if not the respect you owe to your Arch-master Sharp, who, at that time, not only desisted whith others; but, as he may remember, did overture it to his Brethren, to pray in publick for the then Protector; yet, the many horrid lapses whereof, upon smal…er temptations, yours are guilty, might have made you forbear to mention it, so, all circumstances being examined, and the practices of the Prophets and People of God in old times duely considered, a Prudent correction of an over-zealous assertion, will be found its more just censure.

But your N. C. adding oyl to your flame, by telling you, that for our particular failings, you have renounced all, you go on in your accusation, and laying aside our private faults, as if our publick alone were more then your indignation can decipher, and expressly waving all design of reflection, that by this smoothing unguent, you may render the spears of your envy better pointed, you tell us, That all you do, is, but to let us see, we are but as other men; and not such wonders as we would have the world believe? Sir, though the world knowes, that this is but your accusation, p. 222and not our arrogance; yet I must add, that so strangely hath the apostasie, and wickedness of your course prevailed in this Land, that a very small measure of Faitfulness, is enough, without any miracle to make any man both a sign & a Wonder: but you proced to tell us of Monstruous faults we committed in exacting the Oath of the League, over & above that it was a bond of Rebellion, as you hinted in your first Dialogue, & I have fully there refuted: And as to the Nationall Covenant, you say, it was a cruell imposing upon Consciences, to make a Nation sweare, what they could not understand: A man would think that you having turned us from being wonders o… piety to be Monsters of Cruelty, and after so high a charge given… that you were big with some amazing discovery to ensue; but behold the ridiculus Mus; you made the Nation renounce all the articles of poperie, and amongst the rest Opus operatum a Latine word, and abstruse conceit; with many other niceties that simple people did not understand: and to mend the jest, you add, was it not a contr…diction, to make them sweare against Worship in an unknown Tongue, and yet in the Oath, which is an act of Worship, to use it? yea, you made them preface this, with a great l…e, that it was after full & mature consideration, of all particulars whereof they were not capable, beside the Tyranny of making men sweare in matters, whereof some were debetable: &c. Before I enter upon this weighty challenge of words: I cannot but note the ingenuity that hath escaped you: Your Brethren commence our work from the 37, and tell us, that we were false pretenders to old foundations; but you by a plain impugnation of the National Covenant, as it was first contrived, and sworne, in the 1580. 81. and 90; do clearly intimate, the true consequentiall extent of your common prejudice and very plainly signify, that Malignancie and Poperie, p. 223for all the industrious dissembling of your Partie, are nevertheless of a near cognation: nay forgetting, that this Covenant was framed at first by King Iames his speciall command, and by his reiterat authority and example, very solemnly confirmed, and even by King Charles, in the beginning of the troubles expressly ordained to be renewed; so prevalent is the malice of your errour, that all the regard to the powers, whereof at other times you do so vainly boast, doth not here in the least restrain you from staging these two Kings with us, as Monstruous imposers. But to the objection it self, 'Tis answered, first, that it is indeed a cruell imposing upon Conscience, to make a Nation sweare an Oath, they could not understand; but do you think that because opus operatum is a Latine word, that therefore the people, who, under Poperie, had been too much acquainted with Latine termes and phrases, and at the first breaking up of the light o… Reformation amongst us, had often, both in private and Publick, heard the Popish errors of Justification by works, Opus operatum, &c. fully explained and refuted, neither did, nor could understand its meaning? Or because to you, the opinion of Opus operatum, appeares an abstruse conceit, and many other Popish tenets, renounced in that Covenant, seem to be but niceties: must they therefore be so to all? And was it impossible for these Servants of the Lord, who where imployed in the conversion of the Nation, and did at first tender that Oath, to make the grossness of these popish falshoods, and of this in particular, though under a Latine name, sufficiently plain, even to the meanest capacities? Certainly, Sir, the very simple ones, whom you despise, do laugh at the weakness of this arguing. 2. As you do not remember, that this Covenant p. 224was first taken, u…on the back of our Reformation from Poperie, when all the errors, therein renounced, were recent in mens memories; so, you consider not, that thereby we first declare, the true Christian Religion, to be that which is revealed to the world, by the Preaching of the blessed Evangell, and received and beleeved, by the Kirk of Scotland, &c. And therefore do abhorre, and detest, all contrarie Religion and Doctrine; but chiefly all kinde of Papistrie in generall, and particular Heads as they are damned by the word of God, and in speciall the Usurp…d Authority of that Roman Antichrict, &c, and finally, all his vain Rites, and Traditions, brought into the Kirk, without, or against the word of God, and Doctrine of this reformed Kirk. Now I would inquire, if these general clauses, clearly referring to the word of God, as the only binding rule of Truth, may not be la…fully sworn to, without a distinct knowledge of all the Particulars, that possibly may therein be included? And if the condescending upon Particulars, doth import any thing more, then our sincere profession, that we judge the same to be comprised under the generall Rule, and therefore as such, do renounce them: seing then, that this enumeration, when omitted, doth not invalidate; and when expressed, doth require rather a sincere acknowledgement, then a dilucide and through knowledge; your arguing against it, from the possibility, nay even from the probability of an incident mistake, while in the mean time the perswasion of the truth of the blessed Gospel, as the regulating Rule is held firme and sure; is nothing solid nor concludent: but because the two Latine words, Opus operatum, are the great ground of your quibling, I suppose that the Oath, after the p. 225positive part, and generall abjuration of Papistrie, had only begun to enumerate particulars, thus, [and in special, the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist, all his tyrannous Laws,] and in place of the rest, had given us a faire et caetera: certainly as the premised, and subjoyned qualification of this & caetera, would have fully salved its generality; so no doubt the known signification of the words, had prevented the offence of their being Latine: If in this you be doubtful, let me only reminde you, by way of Argument ad hominem, of the Prelatick Oath ex officio, with its blind & caetera which, though for its illimited laxeness, joined with its evil tendencie, did give to all sober men, just ground of seruple; yet upon the account of the Latine, was never quarrelled, by either Man or Woman.

But you say it was a contradiction, to make them sweare against Worship in an unknown Tongue; and yet in that very Oath so to use it: A wittie knack indeed; if you were arguing with the Apostle, against worship in a strange language, because the unlearned cannot thereto say Amen, would you not account this reply, viz. that it is a contradiction, to bring an argument from the unlearned, not being in case to assent to a strange Language, when that very assent is, as to us, so expressed, absurd and ridiculous? Why then doth this vain subtilty so pitifully delude you? And why do you not advert, that a Tongue in general may be unknown, and yet, many of its words and phrases, not only transferred to our Vulgar with a suteable accommodation (as is manifest in all our speech) but also simply borrowed, and by custome rendered to all significant? Seing therefore, it is the Tongue, as unknown, and not as Latine, Greek, or the like, that is the ground of the abjuration, p. 226against Worship in an unknown Tongue; and yet in that same Oath to use a word from it, of a known signification, is no contradiction.

Next you add, That we made the people preface this Oath with a great lye, of full and mature consideration of all particulars, whereof we nevertheless knew they were not capable: but why do you in fixing lyes upon others, impinge so manifestly your self? The Covenant doth only preface, Long and due examination of our own Consciences, in matters of true and false Religion: as to your mature and full consideration of all particulars, it beares nothing: 2. As every Oath is to be made in Truth, Righteousnes, and Iudgement; so, certainly, the examination mentioned, is both every ones capacity, and dutie; and no doubt, in all times, when this Oath was taken, was not only recommended, but sufficiently warned of, instructed, and promoved by these faithful men, by whom it was administrate: but 3. Think you it so hard a matter, for any person serious in matters of Religion, according to the truth revealed in Scripture, to be able from mature consideration, to reject all these vain Popish Inventions, and Superstitions, enumerate in this Covenant; whereof, as there are a great many that, without any curious scrutiny into their nature, meerely for want of warrants and through Scripture-silence, come to be renounced; so, in special, the conceit of, opus operatum, being contrary to the very life and spirituality of Religion, must to every one, who knows that God requires the heart, and is to be served and worshiped in Spirit and in Truth, certainly appear to be most detestable? Sir, your scrupulous doubting and mincing in these matters, do sadly intimate a greater measure of unsoundness, then I am willing to express: p. 227But you tell us, that many of the things sworne against, are disputable: Pray, Sir, tell us which, that you may be known? There are now nintie years since they were all abjured, as Popish Errors and Superstitions, without the least doubt in the contrary by any Protestant among us: If you judge otherwayes, it were better you were known, by a condescendence, then by your generall and subdolous hints, left to render mens mindes unstable. But you plead only charity… and think it hard, that no man may be of our communion, except he be of our opinion in all things: Sir, this is a groundless accusation, seing it is sufficiently plain, that, whatever tenderness we are to exercise toward such, as in points less materiall, do modestly differ from us; yet this Covenant, being entered into, in obedience to that command, Come out of her (that is Babylon) my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins: and be ye separate saith the Lord: and touch not the unclean thing: the totall abjuration of Poperie, as opposite to the blessed Evangell, the summe and end of this Oath, doth not in the least interfere, with that Christian forbearance, which persons of the same communion, are mutually to shew, in matters doubtfull and of less moment: And where you compare this Covenant, for rigor, to the bloudy and cruell conjuration of Trent, thereby interminis renounced, it is too plain, that your turning of the adequate extent of a just and necessary opposition, designed by this Covenant, to that wicked & impious Bond, to be a ground of an invidious likeness, is only a demonstration of your calumnie and malice.

Having thus vindicate the Nationall, Covenant, as it was first taken, I shall only put you in minde, that the renewing thereof, in the 1638. and making the people to stand to it, is so consonant to Reason and p. 228Scripture-practice, that it needeth not my Patrociny. But you say, it was a great trepane to make the Nation sweare it in the 38. and then by an after-game to declare that Episcopacie was abjured in it. I might tell you that your so frequent use of the termes of Art, do not a little insinuate, how expert a Jugler you are, in the matter of Oaths: But it is answered, the Nation swore it in the 1638. in the same termes wherein it was first taken, in the year 1591; but because that some doubts, whether the Innovations of Prelacie, and the Perth Articles, thereafter introduced, were by this Oath condemned; Notwithstanding that its obvious meaning doth abundantly import the same, both in the particular abjuration, of the Popes corrupt Doctrine, anent the nature, number, and use of the holy Sacraments, his unwarrantable dedication of Dayes, and his worldly Monarchie, and wicked Hierarchie; and also in the generall detestation, which it contains, of all Rites, and Traditions, brought into the Kirk, without, or against the word of God; And that the generality of the Godly in the Land did so understand it; yet, such was the tenderness then used, that the practice was only at first agreed to be forborn, and the determination of the Question, for the gaining of the doubtfull and refractory, referred to a lawfull Assembly. Now, if this Assembly, in the light of the reasons, already touched, and others mentioned in their Act, did clearly determine this matter, and the Covenant was thereafter taken, with an agreeable Declaration, where can you fixe your challenge? To alledge, after an Oath is taken, that to be thereby abjured, which doth no where appear in it, is certainly, as false, as the termes you use are scurrilous; but to declare from undeniable grounds, these things to be contained, in a p. 229prior Oath, which only the temptation, and darknesse, of an after-defection did make to be questioned; is nothing els then a just vindication and application, requisite to a faithfull pursuance, and whereof the instance of Nehemiah his renewing Covenant with God, with a more large declaration of the manner of the Sabbaths observance, then is to be found in the Law, is an undeniable warrant.

But reason failing, your passion and big words must be made use of, to supply that de…ect: for you say, what violence did we use, to oblige all to bow on this Idole? Church-men refusing were deposed; yea both they and Lay-men also excommunicat. 'Tis answered, A faithfull, and zealous prosecution, of the Lords Oath, from the Conscience of his holy jealousie, is only the just and laudable effect of his fear, and no wayes to make it an Idol: But seing you love such expressions, to sweare and forsweare, as your partie hath done, without either constancie or repentance, is certainly to make an Idol not of the Covenant only; but of the Great God thereto invocked, who infallibly will one day avenge it: As for the Censures you speak of, if the perfidie of that refusall, with the other transgressions and delinquencies, whereof, the persons particularly censured, were, for the most part if not all, notoriously known and found to be guilty, be duely pondered, they will rather be found to fall short of, then exceed the proportions of righteousness: And though I deny not, but the heats, prejudices, and other temptations, inevitable, in such changes, to humane infirmity, may possibly have rendered the lot of some few (and these very few) recusants (rather obstinate then malitious) a little hard and apparently rigid; yet, this is most obvious, that the late revolution, hath so infinitly exceeded, p. 230not only for iniquity; but also in the measure of its oppressions, all the excesses chargeable on former times; that nothing less then an impudence, sutable to the late perjury, could prompt you, or any of your partie, to move such an objection: but let us hear your conclusion: What man of common sense can think this the Cause of God, which had such monstruous errours in its first conception? Sir, though I think that in the matters of God, you do appeal to an ill Judge yet I am so little diffident of the cause, which I maintain, that only wishing you to be more sparing, in obtruding your own ridiculous delusions for monstruous errours, I heartily referre our discourse, to my greatest Opposite.

In the next place, making a step of your N C. weak and groundless concession, That there were faults in the imposing of the Covenant, and taking it up at your own hand. That the matters of the Covenant are in themselves indifferent: you go on to argue, that seing in these things, a man is not his own Master; but by the command of God obliged to obey the Magistrat, in all things lawfull, a tye before all Oaths; as by no act of ours, we can be bound to break the Command of God; so no more can we oblige our selves to do any thing, in prejudice of anothers right, our Soveraign's Authority; and therefore, since the King and Parliament, have by Law annulled the Covenant, and required submission to Episcopacie, our antecedent Oath, a voluntary deed of our own, can no longer …ind us, against the commands of the Powers, which are the mediat… commands of God. I have set down this argument of yours more fully, to the effect, you may perceive, that if I have not so much of your common sense, as to comprehend it, as a clear demonstration; yet it is not for want of a just and true apprehension; but really from the greater evidence p. 231of the answeres subjoined: and first, I say, your foundation fails, the matters of the Covenant are not things indifferent; but in themselves true, righteous, and holy, importing such an antecedent obligation, as, in the occurrence of the preexistent circumstances, did render the taking and requiring of that Oath, an indispensable dutie: And this when you think good to quarrell, I am most ready to make out. 2. Supposing with you, that the matter of the Covenant is indifferent, and that in such things, the Magistrates power of commanding cannot, by any Oath or deed of ours, be prevented or prelimited; yet, Sir, think you, that your Omission, must so farre charme us to oblivion, as to make us forget, that as King Charles the first, did in plene Parliament, An. 1641. under his hand-writing, ratifie the Nationall Covenant, with the explication, and Bond thereto annexed, and prior Acts made anent it, with such solemnities and concurrent considerations, as it is impossible to question it; so, his Son, who now Reigns, did, in the year 1650. and 51. take and confirme both it and the Solemn League and Covenant, with such Oaths, Subscriptions, (as well private and unrequired, as publick) Declarations and Acts, that greater grounds of assurance, were never heard of, amongst men: if then this was the case of the obligation of these Covenants, at his Majesties returne (admitting all that you suppose) dare you, or any say, that the King and Parliament had power, either to resile, or to loose others, from the Bonds, which they themselves had thus established? If a Fathers silence, and non-contradiction, to a Daughters vowing, and whose vowes he may disannull, do make her vowes to stand; so that he cannot thereafter make them void; how can the express, solemn, p. 232and sworne confirmation of King and Parliament, in favours of a Covenanting people, with any colour of reason, be thought to be either, in it self ambulatory, or toward others less effectual? But 3 to undeceive you, of the vain esteem you have for this argument, the very grounds of it, are manifestly fallacious: For, granting that, in things indifferent, we are by the command of God obliged to obey the Magistrat; yet this subjection is nothing so absolute, as is requisite to the inferring of your conclusion: viz. that therefore he hath such a right, as no antecedent deed, or Oath of ours, can stand in the case of a subsequent annulling command: But, the solid principles whereby this matter is clearly resolved are 1. That, as the Magistrat is vested from above with power, requisite and proportional to the ends of Government, whereunto he is appointed; so such is his right by virtue thereof, that no Subject can either decline his lawful Commands, or yet bind himself in all events, by any such antecedent Oath or other deed, as, being inconsistent with the condition of a Subject, may fall to interfere with a supervenient rational command: for example, sitting, standing, walking, are certainly things indifferent, and in a mans power; if then, in these things, a man should bind himself, by an Oath, as never to stirre from such a place, or walk without certain bounds, though, without question, the man left to his own liberty be rather to observe his Oath; yet it is as little to be doubted, that in opposition to, or for exemption from the Magistrat's lawful and rational command, it could neither be binding, nor relevantly alledged: I say, Rational Command, because I am of the opinion, that if the Magistrat, without any necessity, should for meer o…tentation of his power, command the person contrary to his Vow, p. 233on purpose to make it void; such an injunction would be both sinful in the Magistrat, and no liberation to the poor Votarie. The 2 principle, I lay down is, That, as the Magistrat's lawful power doth indeed grant him a large right over a mans liberty, in manner just now explained; so it is most certain, that there are many things, still left to himself, and at his own free dispose, wherein he may freely vow, and having vowed, must not break his word; but do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth, and which are plainly of that nature, that the Magistrat's countermand would be only an accession, and no excuse to a breach: I need not adduce examples, every passage of our life, doth obviously exhibite them: if a man vow the Tenth of his substance to the Lord, it is evident, that the Magistrat's power cannot discharge the performance: and the Lord's expresse and well-cautioned concession of this dissolving power, only to a Husband over his Wife, and a Father over his Daughter in familia, and that by way of exception, to the general command, whereby all other free Vowes and Bonds are ratified, is such a confirmation, and extension of the Rules, to the case in hand, as admits no evasion? But to give you entire satisfaction in this point, the summe is, first, That God hath bestowed upon men a faire liberty, suted to their dignity: Next, He hath also ordained the Powers, and cloathed them with authority and right, requisite to the ends of their appointment; whereof the preservation of our just liberties, is not the meenest: as therefore, by virtue of the former, a man, in recognizance of the Lord's bountie, so farre as his liberty is not restrained, either by a lawfull command, or by a visible inconsistencie of the thing vowed to any other dutie, may freely vowe, and ought to performe; p. 234so all the effect of the latter, is only to make void such vowes, as are directly, or designedly made to frustrate its right; and to suspend the execution of others, in so farre as the famine doth eventually cross its lawful exercise: if you had perpended these things, you would not have obtruded on us, such a raw discourse, for a clear demonstration: the Magistrat hath right to command, and, it is the will of God that we obey him, in all things lawful; and this tye is before all voluntary Oaths: but, doth it therefore so swallow up our Liberty, that it leaves a man no power in the same things, to binde himself by a vow, unto the Lord? or may the Magistrat annul, and make void the same, at his pleasure? I am certain, your own Common sense tells you, these things are too laxe, and liable to another regulation. No act of ours can indeed oblige us to do any thing in prejudice of anothers right, neither can any Covenant binde to deny obedience to the Kings just Laws: but as I have already told you, that the Magistrat hath no such right, as doth wholly evacuate our liberty, and leave us no power in things indifferent, of binding our Souls by an Oath to the Lord: and that the outmost extent of his power, in these things, is only to make void the Vow, or restrain the execution, which is inconsistent with his Government, or doth check its lawful exercise: So I allow no such Covenant as bindeth directly to deny lawful obedience; but such a Covenant, such a Vow, such an Oath, yea such a Promise, as being freely taken, without any direct or designed inconsistencie to the Magistrat's lawful power, and whereof the performance doth not eventually thwart any of his rational commands, I affirme to be so binding, that it is neither in the Prince his power, at his Pleasure, to dissolve it; nor can a p. 235supervenient Law enacted, expressly for that purpose, make void its obligation: And this is the true and plain account, of the nature and obligation, both of Vows and Laws, which while you, in your design to exalt the power of the late Acts, above the Bond of the Covenant, do so iniquously ballance, as to make laws, the mediate commands of God, and Oaths, only our own voluntarie deeds, to which we are not bound, by any Divine precept, you grossly forget, that he who hath commanded Rulers to be obeyed in all things, committed to their trust, hath, on the other hand, not only ratified the Subjects their reserved liberty, but also, by his own sanction, confirmed all the Vowes, and Oaths, that by virtue thereof, they do freely make: whereby it is most manifest, that as the obligation, and binding virtue of Lawes and Vowes, is coordinate, and not subordinate; so, nomore can an arbitrary after-law dissolve our Vowes, at first freely and lawfully made, then our voluntary prior Oaths can impaire or prejudge the Magistrat's righteous Power, and Edicts. As for the application of these things, to the case in hand, viz. whether the Covenant, being once sworne, in matters at present supposed to be indifferent, the Magistrat could thereafter, by an after-act, render the matter unlawful, and so make the obligation to cease? It is very easie to expede: for, seing all the laws which you plead for its dissolution, and submission to Episcopacie, are such as do most arbitrarily condemn it, without the least conviction to any serious person, of the unlawfulness of our entering into that Oath, either from its matter, or inconsistencie with Government, and its righteous ends; it is evident, that to admit such as sufficient to make it void, were to destroy all liberty, and render men in every Oath, how free and p. 236voluntary soever, obnoxious to the Magistrat's absolute control, and plainly to ranverse both the freedom of making, and necessity of keeping all vowes; which nevertheless the Lord hath most expressly allowed, and confirmed. Sir, as I have, with you, supposed the matters of the Covenant to be in themselves indifferent, and taken this pains for no other end, then to rectifie your Common sense, and refell your pretended Demonstration, notwithstanding of so faire a concession: so, give me leave again to remember you, and all concerned, that, seing the matters in these Covenants, were antecedently true and righteous, and are now concluded under the great Oath of God, your pitiful quibling, upon the Kings power in matters free and indifferent, is so far from licensing us to the least violation, that, though we do further unanswerably alledge his Majesties supervenient ratification; yet it is more for your redargution, then our own confirmation, whose Consciences are, by the former ground, most satisfyingly established: And here I might put a period to my reflections, on this Dialogue; seing, that what remaines doth nothing convel these sure grounds, whereupon we are founded; but because, in pursuance of your conceit of the Magistrats power, of rendering the matter of Vowes, antecedently free, unlawful; and thereby making their obligation to cease, you, in returne to the Question, What could move the King to preferre Episcopacie to Presbyterie? pretend to many strong inductives, whereby you suppose the change to be undeniably authorized: This calumny must also be removed. And before I enter upon this matter, I cannot but commend your providence, who, fearing that your allegations would be found false, do prudently provide a refuge, in the profound and recluse p. 237deepth of Princes their secrets, which you think should put a stop to the inquirie: which indeed neither you, nor all men beside, are able to answere; but as the strange wickedness and folly of this Act is such, as all the devices imaginable cannot so much as vernish it, with any apparent colour, and its consequences have been so pernicious, as have left no Subject in the Nations unconcerned in their smart; so, I hope, without the imputation of a mutinous curiosity, I may take the liberty to tell you, that it was not our Leaders, which occasioned the work, you hint at, to the King's Grand-father, his Father, and Himself; Art thou he that troubleth Israel? is an old and royall accusation of the Lord's Ministers: I wish the answer now a dayes, were as improper, as I am tender to use it: we have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy Fathers house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed thy own inventions: I need not put you in minde of K. Iames his engagements to defend the Gospel, and maintain the true and pure Ordinances and Discipline of God's house, and how he thereafter turned, and corrupted his way, by no less then a direct invasion of Christ's Throne, manifest perversion of his Ordinances, designed subjection of the liberty of the Gospel and its Ministery, to his lust and pleasure, and open persecution of many faithful Ministers and Professours; These things, if you were ingenuous, you should rather have essayed to answere, as being already objected and proven by others, then provoked me to the repetition: As to what you objecte, from latter times, I am sorry that by so rude and false an accusation, viz. You involved the Nations in bloud, and not satisfyed with all the security you could demand; you engaged with the King his Enemies in England: and opposed the design of p. 238his deliverie An. 1648, you should engage me to reflect upon a worthy, but abused, Prince, all whose faults I think both may, and ought to be buried under his mis-fortune; but seing this you will not suffer, I shall only desire you and others to consider these sad grievances, which are elswhere undeniably cleared viz. 1. The Prelatick Tyranny and impositions of these times. 2. The rage and fury wherewith they endeavoured to inflame and stirre up all against this Kingdome, after that they had first constrained us to just defence. 3. Their notorious and reiterate persidies, whereby they rendered all securitie desperate: And lastly the sin of that backsliding course 48. now so evidently unmasked, by the 9 Act of the late Parliament, 1661 which, instead of delivering, did visibly precipitate his Majestie's sad fate: these things are so manifest, even from the publick Records of the Nation, that I can not but admire the effronterie of your confidence, that can so overly pass them.

But you add a Question, In a word, what jealousies had you justly raised in the hearts of Princes, of your Government? Sir, I wish you had deigned your self with another word of answere; for really I know none, except these old and endless ones, the temptation, and sin of all worldly Powers, against the Lord and his Anointed. As for our Tyranny 1649. against the Nobility, you should first have answered for their breach of trust, 1648: But since they themselves have publickly, by the Act above mentioned, avowed it; your charge of Tyranny against the moderately disproportionate censures, then inflicted, merites no answere.

In the last place, you say: our Ministers divided shamefully among themselves, I grant, and sinfully also, p. 239though that all engaged were not equally guilty, and this was a great triall; but since, that an excess of charity toward your party, on the one hand, and a sounder judgement of your principles or rather looseness, on the other, was the only cause of the difference, is it not invidious in you, not only to have dissappointed your favourers; but to taxe the greater number, whom you have since so fully justified, as men of maximes incompatible with Government: Sir, this is the summe of the account, you make us, of the reasons of his Majesties change, with what evidence, the Reader and not you, must judge? If he miss your Sun in its Meridian, and finde your light to be but darkness, a more simple eye and heart, may be both his satisfaction and your remedy: If I might enlarge in a more full returne, I could easily demonstrate, that, all things being considered, both before, at, and since the Kings restauration, his adhering to the Covenant, and owning that interest, had been not only his safety and peace; but his most certain establishment and Glory: if the favour and countenance of the most High, the firme love and loyalty of all good men, and the undoubtedly equal compliance and submission of the other parties, may be fit media, in such an argument; the conclusion is obvious: But lest you say, art thou made of the Kings Councel? Forbear; leaving events to God I shall be silent.

Having all along endeavoured to burne, in the close of this Dialogue, you go about to blowe us: I am not for triffling with you, in such unsincere and mixed complements: the Lord purge both you and us from all dross, and restore to the Land Truth and Purity, and then shall we certainly enjoy Peace and Unity. p. 240As for the liberty you taxe in our discourses, and writings, I hope no right discerner, will finde it to be an invective; but the native, genuine, and well-becoming freedom of Truth and Uprightness: whether the license that you usurp, in your pretended justifications of the King, the Laws, and your Consciences, be indeed uncharitable, bitter and malicious, I neither say nor judge; he whose glory is concerned he also judgeth: But for the allowance of your defence by Tongue and Pen, which you would appear to plead, from our asserting of defensive armes; you cannot be so serious in the demand, as I am free to accord it; seing I am perswaded, that if the defensive armes, which we maintain, were no better warranted, and as little to be feared, as the self-defence, which you pretend, neither you, nor any other, would have accounted them to be worthy of the opposing.