I Read the Books you sent me with some heed, pretending, some for the Interest of England, others for the Safety of the King and Kingdome, all for the publick Good, which every good man would readily imbrace. But in perusing the several Pleas, I found the Question to be, Whether the present Uniformity or former Toleration, the pre­sent Order or former Confusions, or at least a Mixture of these, were the happiest Constitution for England. So that what I expected to be an Olive-branch of Peace; proved but a pricking Thorn, fitted into a Crown, to expose our Saviour and his Church a second time to vexation and pain.

'Tis strange that men should think a Parliament so glorious for forming a golden Scepter for Jupiter, would be diverted to hammer out an iron Trident for Neptune. Their Counsel (like Praise-God Barebone's Petition) had suited another Rump, whose Interest lay in breaking; [Page 2] but not this present Parliament, whose glory is to be Healers of their Nation.

Who-ever will search into the bottome of most of these mens Design, shall find them (while Cromwell and Vane are silenced with a Rope) bold Advocates for the Good old Cause. Some indeed speak the King fair, but in as ambiguous language as the Covenant spake his Fa­ther: as may be instanced in the Relative [His,] and [Le Roy le veult,] in the 87. page of the Proposition; be­ing (when a keen sword shall be brought to decide the sense) as intelligible of Deliverance onely expected from God, as from the King. And haply this and other Slip-knots were left on purpose, to take the benefit of a Comma when time shall serve.

Others avouch plainly the Democratick Principles, That Government rises from the People's Consent, and is radically founded in them; as the Authour of Liberty of Conscience asserteth, p. 42. Not considering, that in Adam's many hundred years Monarchy he never asked his Subjects Consent: and had he not fallen, he had prevented the French Design, and continued Universal Monarch to the World's end. And though the King hath prudently forbidden all publick Disputes concer­ning Prince and People's power; this Authour ventures in many pages to circumscribe his Prince.

And for the Parliament, though they are beholden to them for an Act of Oblivion, whereby their forfeited Lives are secured: yet so unkind are they, that one of them professes himself not very carefull how he carries him­self towards them, Prop. pag. 4. he upbraids them for passing Acts against Innocent men, p. 5. calling them Murtherers, p. 74. and men of a hardy Conscience, ('twas [Page 3] too broad to say brawny) p. 76. that esteemed trouble for sin a Romance, and accusing them for incompetent Judges of a wounded Conscience, as never acquainted with such things, p. 77. he tells them the damned will cry out on their Acts as made to damn men, p. 75. under­takes to convince the Parliament, p. 19. And all of them strive to persuade them that their way will never doe, with such like Rhetorick, of which these Books are full.

Now for the Church; besides their usual Crackers, they constantly brand them with a formal spirit, as may be seen in D. P. p. 16, 73, 106. not considering Saint Paul's description of formal men, to be such as are traitorous, heady, high-minded, creeping into widows houses, and conventicling there: of which (I suppose) none have confidence enough to charge the Episcopal Divines, but these tender Consciences. 'Twas those he say 2 Tim. 3. 5. had a form of Godliness, without the power. But one of them runs a stranger Risque, and accuses the great States-men, or his Majestie's Privy Council, for not wise in several particulars. 1. For not committing Sacrilege, P. p. 48. That is, for not taking Church-Revenues from Church-men. 2. For not burying the Covenant (fetched out of the Paw of the Northern Bear, who first whelped it) as honourably as the Jewish Worship, that came from God, P. p. 51. Thus is the Northern Thistle mated with the Olive of God's Temple. 3. For not compounding for Episcopacy: as if they had retrived the Com­mittee for Sequestrations at Haberdashers-Hall. And for the Bishops, their sentence of Extirpation is past by him, P. p. 51. who are farther threatned by them [Page 4] all, but especially the Prop. p. 86. 'Tis matter of sor­row to me, that so sober a man as that Authour is should run out into such intemperate expressions a­gainst Authority; especially, the Presbyterians ha­ving declared, in their Address to the King, that every good man (in things he conceives to be sins) will be very tender of the honour of Superiours. In a word, all that advise the King, compared to them, are judged per­sons of mean counsell, as the Prop. phrases it, p. 46. You see these Icarus's upon the wing; they hope to kiss the Sun, if their wings be but fastned by an Act of Parliament.

Nor is their kindness to all these great Interests toge­ther much larger then to them distinct. For they most scandalously reckon Church and State, King, Lords and Commons, (the true Representative of every in­dividual person in England) to be but a Party, and match them with Presbyterians, Independents, Quakers, or what other Party will pretend to Conscience. Nay, D. P. p. 57. affirms the Non-conformers to out-balance (that is his word) the Conformers: so trifling a thing to them is a King in Parliament. And farther, D. R. p. 5. calls it an unhappy Errour, when Parties (speaking of the Episcopal) take themselves to be the whole, or equi­valent, and act accordingly. Such ill Logick these men conceive it, that the Legislative power of a Nation should swell into a conceit of being equivalent to some mushrome Sect. Surely thus to libell Governors is not the way to convert them to our humour; unless we conceive them to be Spaniels, made pliable by Abuses.

Can we guess these Writers of the Scottish Foot­mark, [Page 5] that plead so hard for Syncretism, a thing so hatefull to that Party, that Love at Vxbridge- Treaty would have no Peace, for fear lest they should mix Light and Darkness, Christ and Belial, together; that is, King and Parliament? And the sagacious Sectaries generally conclude them to be of an Imposing spirit; in regard Father Beza, in his Haereticis morte mulctan­dis, hath sentenced Hereticks to death; and that Cal­vin took care to see Servetus safe into another world, at Geneva, by the light of his funerall Fire and Faggot: which made poor Bellius, Eleutherius, and their fel­lows, to style him virum sanguinarium, a bloudy Edo­mite; and Erastus to contrive another way for a Pry­nian Government. Marquess Huntley, Angus and A­tholl, will be Scottish evidence of their enmity to To­leration: and no less speaks their glorious attempt for outing Bishops, Root and Branch, out of this King­dom. Besides, they Covenant to bring the Churches of the three Kingdoms to the nighest Uniformity they can. And in 1645. their Assembly gave the Parliament their Testimony against Toleration. Not to omit, that Rigid and Presbyterian are almost convertible terms in the vulgar Dictionary. Nor indeed do some of them speak clear for a full Toleration: for D. P. tells us, p. 58. A Toleration not stated will break us more to pieces, and doe nothing else: and D. R. p. 87. pleads onely for a well-managed and limited Toleration: yea he tells you, p. 43. that the Non-conformers will never endure a Toleration that brings in Popery; and M. I. p. 14. utterly excludes Papists from this fair Haven, to sink in the Seas of Oppression. Onely L. C. A. deals in­genuously, and speaks out for all, upbraiding the [Page 6] rest, for consulting private Interest.

'Tis farther observed by many learned men, That the Calvinisticall Party have ever strongly affected a Papal Dominion over mens Lives and Consciences. And the Remonstrants observe, in their Preface ad Antidotum, That no man ever opposed that Party im­punè, nisi cum ei potestas opprimendi defuit; like a Li­on, never guiltless but when his Nails are pared. Which note haply caused Dr. Prideaux, in his Fascicu­lus Controversiarum, to propose that weighty Questi­on, An Suprematus Papalis vel Presbyterialis sit tolera­bilior. Which one of these Proctors for Liberty of Conscience justifies in English thus, P. p. 63. I know no more danger in prevailing Popery, then prevailing Presbyterianism, as to mens Lives and Souls. It seems, he fansies both to be but Sampson's Foxes tied by the tails with Fire-brands, to burn down the Harvest of Christ. And surely, while thy cry out against Prelaticall Oppression, the Lordly Bishops onely con­victed and confuted Servetus the Spaniard in S. Paul's Church, and so dismissed him to Divine Justice; but the Geneva Discipline found Fire and faggot for him as soon as he came thither. Which made Montfort draw Calvin's Picture, not in a Gown and Cassock, (robes of Peace,) but in a Helmet, Back and Breast, belted and armed like a man of War. So little doth Patience rule those sacred breasts, when they have the Over-rule. Which farther shews these zealous ob­servers of Truth are but Time-servers, while their Principles warp with their Condition.

But, alas! the Devil would turn Monk when he was sick and low. A Scottish stomack is not so great, that [Page 7] it scorns to ask for mercy. Mr. Love's Submission and Mr. Jenkins's Petition both shew, the Elephantiasis (like the Gout) never troubles them but when they are rich and great. The Rump-Act of Aug. 1650. for Liberty of tender Consciences was against the Presbyterians Conscience and Preaching too, and pronounced a great Sin in those daies: yet now these Consciences can tack about, and plead for that they once condemned: why may they not tack a little farther, to a compliance with the Laws under which they live? If their Bread be wholesome, being mixed in the Episcopal Batch, why may they not (without danger of poisoning) eat all of the ancient and national Baking? unless they will have something granted, to make the world believe there was some colour for the late Rebellion; which yet one of them confesses to be nothing, and that Cause stark naught, Prop. p. 45. though soon after, to wit p. 65. (as if he had offended his weak brethren) he licks that Confessi­on up again with a flat Contradiction, averring the great Causes of it.

But to return: what would these men have? First, and in general, the establishment of the Protestant Religion in its full latitude, as D. R. p. 3, &c. onely L. C. A. seems to be more equal to all Religions, and thinks p. 52. a limited Toleration pleaded for, infers no more then that none are to be indulged but such as are punctually of their own belief and persuasion. Yea so general is M. I. p. 10. that he would have no distinction used, but that of Pro­testant and Papist, in this Kingdom. But what need this trouble? 1. Is any other Religion established in this Kingdom, then Reformed Christianity in D. R. p. 3. his sense? or any thing settled beside the Protestant [Page 8] Religion? True it is, Accommodation or Toleration may settle something else, but the present Establishment doth not. For the settled Doctrine (I think) none will question it: and for the Rites and Ceremonies; none other are required but such as were settled by Law in the time of King Edward the Sixth, as is positively ex­pressed in the Rubrick before the Common Prayer: and we think 'twas not Popery he settled. Indeed 'tis true, Imposition it self is look'd upon, by some of these Pleaders for Liberty, as Popish: for M. I. tells us, p. 12. That he that is for Imposition is a Protestant by mistake, and will find himself at home in his Principles no-where but at Rome. Now if this be justified, then was Calvin a Papist, who in his known Epistle to the Protector of England advises, for the confining of desultory wits and brain-sick people in this Kingdom, that one Form of Doctrine and Order should be drawn up, to which every Parish-Priest should declare his full consent, yea be bound by an Oath to follow inviolably. Then was Luther a Papist, who every-where pleads for a Form of Doctrine and Discipline to be established and imposed against the wild Sectaries of that Age. Melanchthon, in his Church-Policy, is so earnest for these Impositions, that he thinks, if these Church-Ordinances be taken a­way, the Church it self is in danger. And little less is confessed by D. R. p. 23. A Settlement must have all things needfull to Faith, a good Life, and godly Order; who therefore pleads for a limited Toleration, p. 8. Yet he would not take it well, if you say he is at home onely at Rome. And D. P. p. 16. grants the Church power to impose Ceremonies, and thinks himself bound to submit to the Churche's judgement what Ceremonies are most [Page 9] convenient, p. 17. yet esteems himself a Protestant. 'Tis well if that Synod Act. 15. can clear themselves from this Gentleman's imputation of Popery, for offering to impose burthens upon the Church of Antioch in things indifferent, verse the 28. A Principle equally imbra­ced by Protestants and Papists is very unreasonably called a Popish Principle. But this is the old trick of the Puritan, and too successfull, (as the late King and Church most sadly experimented) to brand with the mark of Popery what-ever they had a mind to render odious to the People. 2. Are they so kind to the Pro­testant Interest as they pretend to be? See what a wipe another of them hath given it, D. P. p. 109. affirming that the Protestant Principles lead directly to Separation: a blacker stroak then which was never given it by the Pen of the most rancorous Papist. Yet let him be par­doned for it, since he doth but servire thesi: For how can a Separatist prove himself a Protestant, unless Pro­testantism lead to Separation? Thus the AEthiopians paint the Apostles black, that they may not seem unlike the Saints. 3. What Settlement is that to Protestantism, when Toleration shall muster up all its Sects to beard it in every Parish? As well might Job's eldest Son's House stand steddy, when the violent Gusts wreak'd their spleen upon the four corners of it; or the Ship be safe, when winds and waves are permitted to toss her at their pleasure. 4. 'Tis strange Presumption, and savours of but too large a stock of spiritual Pride, to think they can settle Protestancy better then the most accurate Diligence of the great Council of this Land. 5. Whom will they comprehend under the name of Protestants? If all that protest against the Errours of [Page 10] the Church of Rome; such are the Greek Churches, such are the Muscovites, yea such is the Turk himself. If our Sects onely; let them know that the most sober Pro­testants have esteemed them but as the Ascarides bred out of our Bodies, but as Vermine on the Body Eccle­siastick: they are reckoned amongst the ill humours with which our crazy Body is distempered. Nor is it so heavily to be charged upon our Constitution, since the purest bodies are not secured from the like Corruption. The very Angelical State produced the blackest Devils. If they mean the bulk of Protestants, they are compre­hended already. If all this pother is made for a few silenced Ministers, do they think the Protestant Religion lies choak'd while they are silenced? is it so interwoven with their well-being, that it cannot survive them? Or are they such ill Sons, that they will never let their Mo­ther sleep, till she hugs them in her arms? Must not the Father of their Countrey rest, till he hath given them satisfaction? Must Parliaments withdraw their Acts, to give these men their wills?

For, as for the deluded People that follow them, what can they scruple at? Are they obliged to Oaths or Sub­scriptions? are they tied to use any other Ceremony then what these Ministers acknowledge they may law­fully use? and do they not many of them allow the imposition of those things that are for Decency and Order under Penalties, so they be but small? Hear D. R. p. 27. granting Governours authority to use humane Prudence, the light of Nature and general rules of Scripture, in ordering of their Church; not requiring express Scrip­ture for every Posture about Religious Worship. And D. P. p. 85. acknowledges the Magistrate may be bold [Page 11] in exacting Conformity by lighter punishment, which may serve to deterre the Factious, and are not like to tempt a man truly consciencious to act against his Conscience, if it boggle at all. So that the Prop. did well observe, the people's heads were onely filled with empty fears, with Pa­nick surprizes, and childish frights.

It remains therefore that these Ejected Ministers are in a great measure the Troublers of our Israel, as was their Father's house ever since the Reformation. God grant them a timely sight of it, and true Repentance for it. But, alas! how can that be, while they hug them­selves in the arms of their own Praises? See how affe­ctionately they commend each other for godly, Prop. p. 79, 80. and declare themselves the slain Witnesses, and affirm themselves the most serious and painfull men of the Nation, D. P. p. 87. and bestow their richest Gar­lands of Rhetorick upon each other, ubi causa est, ubi causa non est, as Blondel says Ignatius pleads for Bishops.

Surely, 'tis not without contrivance, that these men now fill the Press with their Pleas. They well know how ridiculous it would render the Parliament, (yea and Government it self,) to withdraw an Act settled with so much care and consultation, back'd with prin­ted Reasons, and deep Resolutions to stand by it; and therefore can have but little hope to obtain its Repeal, without which notwithstanding D. P. declares all Re­conciliation impossible. If I may therefore have leave to guesse the cause, it is to chear up the spirits of gasping Factions with vain hopes of what the subtil con­clude to be hopeless. Much artifice hath been used already to this purpose. At first, if great numbers would [Page 12] leave their places, they promised that the Powers would soon restore them. Then being willing to uphold their Party, (for want of better things) they catch at the Rush of a fond Prophecy,

• MDLLLVVII 1662. BarthoLo MaeVs fLet qIa DesIt Pres­byter AngLVs.
• MDLCVVVI 1666. ADVentV Laeta est sanCta MarIa tVo.

During the operation of this Prophecy they remained pretty silent; till the time elapsed, and nothing effected, they saw it necessary to spread a false report all the Country over, of a Toleration prepared for them. But words soon vanishing, they turn to Printing, to uphold languishing expectation. So that they hold each other from Conformity by these Stratagems, and call them Conscience: but if the Parliament crouch not to them, they must consult the Brazen head again, what to say next.

I conceive not all these Advocates for Liberty of Con­science Presbyterians, but some act under a vizard, per­suading themselves, that if they can get in the Presbyte­rian Needle, the long thred of Sectaries must necessari­ly follow after. However they know, that if pretence of Conscience can foil one Law, it will at length foil every one it pleases to decry: and that if a man can't save his Arm from cutting off, nor can he save his Head. When the Out-works are taken, the rest can't long hold out. If the royal Globe in the hand of Majesty be once struck out, it will tumble to the bottome of the Throne.

And indeed they give occasion to suspect no less, some of them pleading for the free admission of all persons to [Page 13] Government. M. I. p. 17. desires that no man's opinion may advance him, nor no man's opinion may prejudice him. Another pleads for the restauration as well of Civil Mini­sters as Ecclesiastical, P. p. 89. And whether he means the Rump-Parliament, or the proscribed or pardoned Sword­men, or fanaticall and disaffected Aldermen, is a Question: for you will find him to justifie that Cause, p. 65. and highly to commend Cromwell, as a Mortal eternallized, p. 45. he esteems the Covenant, as the Jewish Worship, from God, p. 49. and judges the Rumpers more publick-spirited men then this present Parliament. And D. R. p. 47. desires a new Act for Sequestring scandalous, ignorant and insufficient Ministers. So that at least they are Latitudi­narians, some of them, that is, of Henry Marten, Henry Nevile, Thomas Challoner, or Aug. Garland's Foot-mark, with the rest of that sort of Rumpers, whose Atheism, joyned with Religious Canting, made them look like Ghosts with bright Tapers in their hands; true Non-conformists to all that ever did believe a Deity.

2. But now, for the Settlement of Protestantism, they conceive it necessary that the Act for Uniformity be withdrawn, and some larger way proposed. This D. P. calls an Accommodation, D. R. an established Order, L. C. A. Comprehension. Whether the Act for Uni­formity may be prudently withdrawn, shall be spoken to anon: for the present we may observe, First, That these Pleaders are divided in their desires so far, that to please one would necessarily displease the other. D. P. and D. R. both think the Settlement must be by turning the King's De­claration into an Act. But L. C. A. p. 52. would not have the Civil Sanction at all; because such things are onely cognisable in aliena Republica; and that Civil [Page 14] Powers have onely right to judge of things concerning the natural good of mankind, not the spiritual good of Christians, p. 49. that they must not use the Civil Sword about ought but the light of Nature, (ferè per totum.) Thus are the Powers accused by him for acting out of their Sphere, and meddling with things they have nothing to doe withall. Besides, he will acknowledge nothing to be the Rule of Christian Communion (as far as I can judge) but the Creed: which I gather from those words L. C. A. p. 51. How unmercifull a thing is it, and how unlike the Primitive Christians, to make such Ceremonies a Rule of the Churche's Communion, which used to be nothing but the Creed! I shall not digress so far as to examine the truth of this saying, though I know the Authour hath more Learning then to believe it. But secondly, why is so great a Noise made about these Non-conformers? Can they force the Government? I may say as Cicero of Antony, he could never obtain that Power but by evil Arts: so that 'tis their shame, not their glory, to be popular. And lest they should swell in conceit, S. Hierom to Nepotian tells you, Admirationem sui facere celeritate dicendi apud imperitum vulgus, indoctorum ho­minum est; and adds, (to confute mens bold ignorance) attrita frons interpretatur saepe quod nescit: yea, to shew the levity of winning the Vulgar, he adds, Nihil tam facile quàm vilem plebeculam & indoctam Concionem lin­guae volubilitate decipere, quae quicquid non intelligit plùs miratur. He could not more exactly have described these Rabbies, had he lived to have seen them on the Stage in Querpo. Yet will you hear them bear record of themselves? One R. A. in his [...] p. 55. tells you, Invenimus Ecclesiam Christi lateritiam, reliquimus [Page 15] marmoream. You hear him bellow like a Bull, 'tis pity he should prove weaker then a Bulrush. Surely these Megabyzi sermones will prove but swelling words of vani­ty. I appeal to the sober of this Land, what is the Conver­sion there talked of, which these so much glory in, but a turning men from the King to that which was then nick-named the Parliament? I have heard two or three of that Party say, (whose names I suppress in charity) that they understood no Conversion for the first seven years, but turning men from King to Parliament. That they should boast of this success of their Ministry, is as much Impudence as Imprudence. 'Tis Perversion rather then Conversion, to turn men from Religion to Rebellion, or from Debauchery to Disloyalty. Such Proselytes are more the Children of darkness then before. Nor was God long in Retaliating: for they soon found, to their sorrow, Conversion signified turning men from Presby­terian to Independent, from thence to Anabaptist, and so on from one corrupted Opinion to another. And the Apostates thus gloried in the name of Converts and Inlightned, even when changed to the grossest Errours. What Thraso would thus glory in his shame? Faction hath well thriven under them, but so hath not Faith; Rebellion prospered, but not Religion. Let the world judge, whether Honesty and Devotion have been more practised since the Wars then before.

And since these men thus trouble their Countrey with the loud noise of their Merits; let them answer that sad, but serious, Charge laid on them by the Au­thour of the Modern Policy in the Pref. ‘That our flouds of Miseries were swelled by Clergy holy-water; That their Torches of saving Light were turned to [Page 16] destroying Fire-brands;—Their Trumpets should have sounded Retreats, but they sounded Alarms to fury.’ I am persuaded, would these Ministers lay their hands upon their hearts, and impartially consider the effects of their former Preaching, their just indignation at their own sins would justifie any Act for their future Silence, unless in a Recantation. The Consciences of all grave and moderate men are ready to charge them with preaching Unity out of the Church, Peace out of the State, Obedience to Superiours out of mens Con­sciences, themselves out of countenance with all lawfull, and out of maintenance with all usurped Powers. What remains farther to compleat the measure of evils, may be left to Cromwell, Phocas, or [...]ontius Pilate: for Judas the Disciple of Christ hath done his part already. Who­ever will reade their Volumes of Fast-Sermons, preached before the Long Parliament, shall find Pope Hildebrand outshot in his own Bow by English Presbyterians. Nor needs there any other Picture then what they have there drawn of themselves, to shew these men of God are in truth but men of War.

Should these men be again admitted, what security will they give (that seruple at Obligations) that they will not fall to their old work again of converting Sub­jects from their Allegiance, and filling their hearts with variety of Scruples? especially since 'tis doubted they are not purged clean from that bitter Opinion, That Subjects, seeing their Sovereign to erre, (of which them­selves will be judges) may lawfully enter into a Cove­nant, to stand by each other, (as the late Army several times, by their example, did against their Rump) and contend, till they have brought Sovereignty into due [Page 17] Order. Which is not onely a School-point, but an Ar­ticle of Faith that makes up a Presbyterian Creed, aver­red by most of their learned Writers. For which Opi­nion Paraeus's Book died a Martyr in Cambridge by the hand of the common Hangman. Yet sure, ‘Mergi, non uri, debuit iste Liber,’ that flamed so hot in Fanatick zeal against Christian Ma­gistrates.

'Twas Roman prudence, not to permit any man to preach to the people, nisi authoritate Magistratuum priùs habitâ, Cic. Ep. l. 4. ad Att. ep. 1, 2. where also potestas Ciceroni & Clodio concessa est to have a publick Sermon before the Vulgar. I know not whether our Gover­nours see cause for so strict a course or no: but some Demagogues make an ill use of their Liberty, praying for Authority in such scandalous language as they would be loath to be prayed for themselves; poisoning Auditors hearts with holy Bread, and their Prince's Reputation with religious Tears. They pray God to bring their Prince to a right mind, that they may religiously from the Pulpit proclaim him perverse; and onely ask for­giveness of his sins, that the Vulgar may take notice how sinfull he is. It would behove Princes to command such Libellers to leave them out of those Devotions, whose flames burn rather then warm.

Thirdly, What do these men presume they are, that the English Nation must come to Accommodation with them? Are they grown Hoghen, Moghens, that strive to make Acts of Parliament to strike sail to their Toleration? Shall the unparallel'd Confidence of 300 men rule the Laws, rather then the Laws them? Satìs pro imperio: God bless their Majesties. How strangely (think they) [Page 18] are Parliaments cow'd, that fear the Black coat as well as the Red? But why so? Are they Christians? then there is no fear of them. Nunquam Christiani inventi sunt Cassiani: There is no danger in a Sheep of Christ: Christians may be Martyrs, but can't be Murtherers. Are they Antichristians? Pereat proles Babylonica. Who will make much of nought? who would yoak his Teem to fetch a Wren home from the Woods?

3. To make way for this Accommodation several things are declaimed against. As 1. the Act of Uni­formity. Thus D. P. p. 14. No Reconciliation can be, till the Act of Uniformity be down. But of this more anon. 2. The requiring more as the Conditions of exer­cising the Ministry, then things necessary to Salvation, after Examination and Approbation. D. P. p. 95. P. p. 82. 'Tis unmercifull, says L. C. A. p. 51. to make Ceremonies the Rule of the Churche's Communion: yea he decries all Impositions but in moral things. So that the things de­cried by some of them (for they most irreconcilably differ amongst themselves about this part) are 1. the imposition of Oaths and Subscriptions. P. p. 18. declares Oaths useless and provoking men to fall foul on the Imposers, p. 22. when their Conscience smites them for them: and D. P. p. 27. makes a loud outcry against the Oath in the Act of Uniformity, as it was modelled at Oxford, and contrived on purpose to comply with these mens Weak­ness or Peevishness. The Covenant is not so much as na­med in it, that the Covenanters might find nothing to boggle at; yet are their Complaints as great as before: which may well discourage Authority from striving to gratifie them for the future. How diligent that Authour hath been in picking holes in the Oath, may appear [Page 19] to any that will reade the place cited. Yet we are told by the Non-conformers, in their account to his Majesty concerning the Review of the Liturgie, That they are misrepresented, if they are represented causelesly or prag­matically inquisitive into the Reasons of Superiours Com­mands. That he is causelesly and pragmatically scru­pulous, appears by this, (D. P. p. 25.) that notwith­standing the many faults he charges upon the Oath, to affrighten others, he is ready to write a Book for taking this very Oath.

But will you hear his Exceptions? 1. 'Tis against the freedom of the Subject, to be tied from endeavouring Alte­ration, D. P. p. 27. His Reason is, because Subjects have power to chuse Parliament-men, who are to consult about Grievances, &c. For answer, First, It seems by this Plea, that the Government is a Grievance, else the Argument concludes nothing. Secondly, Their Writs will tell you they are called to consult de arduis Regni, not to alter the Government. And thirdly, Mr. Pryn thinks, to consult is but to advise as Counsellors, not to enact as Le­gislators distinctly. And fourthly, The man brings a sword with him to stab this exception in p. 44. where he asks, What have men in a private capacity to doe with Government? Either the Electors are private, and then what have they to doe with Government? or publick, and then who are the private Subjects? Fifthly, The Go­vernment is recognised, as a previous qualification to all the People's Representatives; and what Alteration can they then make in it without Perjury?

2. His second Exception is against that Clause, that declares it traitorous to hold we may take up Arms by the King's Authority against his Person, or any commissionated [Page 20] by him; putting the Case of a Sheriff's using the Posse Comitatûs by Writ against any commissionated by the King to the contrary. For answer, First, He confesses that he believes the Parliament never intended by this Clause to advance the personal will of the King above the Law, D. P. p. 28. nor do the words enforce any such sense: therefore (it seems) he never intended by the Ex­ception to prove the Oath unlawfull; but the Par­liament weak, that could not see the Objection, or not so word the Oath as to exclude that one Case. Second­ly, The Sheriff is made by Commission from the King; therefore to take Arms against him is to take Arms against one commissionated by the King. The Law requires a Sheriff, but 'tis the King's personal will that declares and individuates the Sheriff. So that the whole Exception is groundless. Thirdly, It bespeaks great suspicion, of and little charity to, Su­periours, to imagine they will issue forth two directly­contrary Commissions, and suffer both to be prosecuted to bloud. But it well accords with these mens former carriage to Authority. But fourthly, Let Authority look to it, they are fairly warned: they may see the Roots of the hemlock are still in the ground, and who knows how soon they will bud forth? The King's Per­sonal is still distinguished from his Legal or Regal will: And Armies may be raised against the King's Commissi­oners, though not against the King. Which were the ge­nuine Principles of the late Rebellion.

3. Now for his Exception against the word [ I ab­horre,] which he calls Mr. Calamie's Scruple, D. P. p. 28. First, He confesses he may say'tis unlawfull, when he can­not say he abhorrs a thing. But, sure, every honest man [Page 21] abhorrs all unlawfull things. 'Tis true, there is in e­very Christian a regenerate and unregenerate part, an outward and an inward man, flesh and spirit, the carnal mind and the spiritual part: Now the flesh lingers after what the spirit abhorrs; and this comes up full to his instance, (that a man may say 'tis unlawfull to accompany another woman as his Wife, when he can't say he abhorrs it.) 'Tis true, the carnal minde, judging it unlawfull, may yet hanker after her: but the mind as far as 'tis spiritual utterly detests the sin. If this were Mr. Calamy's Scru­ple, the judicious will be tempted by it, to think him more versed in the Scruple-house then the Universi­ty. Secondly, His instance persuades me, that, as the carnal mind hath some inclinations to his neighbour's Wife, so have they to a fresh Rebellion.

4. His next Exception against the Oath is, That it affirms it unlawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King; alledging several Authours to determine it lawfull, in some cases, to take up Arms against their King. D. P. p. 30. First, The Authour acknow­ledges he is not like to say any thing against the sense and meaning of the Oath, id. p. 31. So that his quarrell is against the Composers, (viz. the Parliament) for their weakness in expressing their sense. Secondly, The Authours cited speak with respect to the Laws under which they live: but sufficient Authority hath decla­red it unlawfull in this Land, upon any pretence what­soever, to take up Arms against the Sovereign, and ac­cordingly hath imposed this Oath. Thirdly, Holy Scriptures, that supersede all humane Laws, allow no Opposition upon any pretence whatsoever: if they do, the Authour may take his own time to shew where, [Page 22] that we may see God's Anointed murthered by God's command, and our holy Religion to countenance a holy Rebellion. Fourthly, Admit it lawfull to rebell on any pretence, and Traitors will not want a pretence for any Rebellion. No Treason shall be unreasonable, because some Reason may be given for Treason. This Truth hath been most lamentably experimented in our past Commotions, where the same reasons were given for outing the Secluded Members that were used for reje­cting the King, (viz. they were a corrupt Interest, that strived to ruine the good People;) and the same Sword that cut off the Bulk lopp'd off the Rump of that Parlia­ment. The Army found no Sword like it, to overturn what-ever carried any face of Authority. Being taught by such fatal instances, 'tis time to break that Sword that hath been the death of so many Powers. Fifthly, To suppose a Case in which Opposition may be lawfull; who shall be judge of the matter of Fact? nor Gover­nours nor Governed, for both are parties; and unus­quisque sua in lite judex est corruptus. It remains then that the senseless Sword must be the sole Arbiter of the Con­troversie; and then the Sentence must needs be a keen one, let it fall which way it wil. How much better is it for this man to consent with those Non-conformers in their Address to the King, cited D. R. p. 16. That the publick judgment, Civil or Ecclesiasticall, belongs to publick persons onely, and not to any private man?

5. His last Exception is, That men are forced to swear to a doctrinall Proposition, which we can't be sure of, be­cause man is not infallible. To which we say, first, Ma­ny things are infallibly true, though delivered by a fal­lible man: as that Twice five is ten; that there is a [Page 23] Deity, &c. Secondly, A man may lawfully swear what he certainly believes to be true, and this the Authour seems to do. Thirdly, His Exception would prevent Oaths in matters of fact as well as doctrinall Conclusions; for his Eyes are no more infallible then his Brains, as a Juggler would soon convince him. So that this Oath would never have choak'd him, had it been swallowed without so much chewing.

Having done with the Exceptions of D. P. because the rest seem to oppose all Impositions of this kind, I shall farther say, Their Opinion may be that of the Anabap­tists and Quakers, that there is no jus jurandi, no Oaths lawfull: To which I mean not a Plea for Swearing, but onely tell them that God swears by himself, the Angel by him that lives for ever, S. Paul by the rejoycing of Christians, which is the Gospel, and most School-Divines make Oaths a part of that Honour and Worship that is due to God, when upon just occasions and reverently taken. If Wickliff and Hus were of another opinion, (as the Council of Constance affirms) yet the evidence of Di­vine truth hath led the Protestants (not to say the whole Catholick Church) this way. The Christians were not accused by Saturnius for refusing to swear at large, but for refusing to swear per genium Caesaris, (as Tert. Ap. c. 32. plainly proves.) Yet I would not be thought a Patron to common Swearing, the Gentleman's sin, who thinks his Coat can't be well emblazoned but by a field of Oaths; as if his Oratory were not pungent un­till he stabb'd his God; as if 'twere impossible for him to be damned, till he had pray'd God damn me. I could wish that the Groans of Christians might drown the Oaths of these Antichristians.

[Page 24] But now, allowing Oaths lawfull, what reason can these men have to rob Authority of this Bond, by which Inferiours are linked to Superiours? They say, indeed, they are useless; but they have the concurrent judge­ment of all Ages past to the contrary, and that too glossed with perpetual practice; so that anciently Sacra­mentum militare was the form of listing a Souldier. And can they believe all men deceived rather then them­selves? If Oaths be no Tie, why do they refuse them? if a good Bond, why do they refuse to give it to their Prince? 'Tis a strange Paradox, That the way to settle a Government in peace is to take away all Ties and Ob­ligations of Fidelity to it.

If they mean less then they say, and so confine their thoughts to Oaths and Declarations about Religion one­ly; I reply, That it would accuse the Licensers of hor­rible negligence, should they admit a man to guide the Flock of God, yet not require him to declare before-hand which way he would lead them. Then may the Fox be set to keep the Goose, and the Wolf appointed to direct the Lamb. S. Paul, Gal. 6. 16. would give his blessing to none but such as [...] would walk by his Canons. Woe be to the Souls of the un­discerning Vulgar, when men shall be bid to speak be­fore we know what they will say; when vent shall be given to their Commodity, though it be Poison. What safety is a City in, when any one is permitted to enter the Gates? The best Ties fail of holding all from evil; and what will be done where is none at all?

Yet were these mens Pleas ever lawfull, 'tis so now: for they have learned (like masterless Swine) to run through Quick-set-Hedges with Yoaks about their [Page 25] Necks. How nimbly did they skip from Allegiance and Protestation to the Covenant, from thence to the Ingage­ment, without Scratch or Prick complained of in their Consciences? As if the Fishes in Christ's Net were all Eels, you could have no hold of them: As if Christ's Free­men could not be bound with Word nor Wax. No doubt they were good Graecians, that practised so much Graecâ fide; the Fathers fideles Infideles, that had so well studied the Art of fast and loose; Brothers to Severus, of whom Herod. l. 2. says, [...], rather then fail, he made his Conscience serve under his Projects, the better to effect them. They preserve Kings by their Oaths as Ladies do Apricocks, plucking them from their tree of life, and boiling them in scalding water. They swear to advance him to a Throne, and interpret it a Scaffold; [...], (as Pertinax tells his Souldiers;) they new drew their Covenant in red Letters, dipping their Pens in Royal Bloud. But whist! one of them silences me with the Act of Oblivion; with­out which themselves had sat very mute.

Now for their Clergie, as Mr. Calamy, Case, &c. yea all Ordained before 1640, they swore Canonical Obedi­ence to their Bishop for the time being; and about three years after expounded it by a Covenant to root them out. How can we call that a tender Conscience that can digest two-edged Oaths, Oaths of an ell long, Oaths that speak Daggers to each other, and that too without the least wince or haesitation? I think a man may have better hold of them by their Purse-strings then Consci­ence-ties. And therefore I should think Authority far more secure against that Party by a Bond for their [Page 26] Good behaviour, then the exactest Oath.

As for an Objection brought in against taking the Oath by P. that it binds not to a Duty more then before, 'tis very pretty: for, First, Oaths are taken for a stricter Tie; and how comes that to be an Objection against imposing Oaths, that they do not bind us more then be­fore? Secondly, Is it not a contradiction to say, Oaths bind no more to the thing then we were bound before they are taken, yet presently to say, they bind by more de­grees? What is more, but a degree? Without the Pa­renthesis there wants truth, and with it 'tis scarcely sense.

But 'tis urged, The Cavaliers formerly complained of the many Oaths imposed, and esteemed it a great Oppression. 'Tis very true, and methinks Clem. Rom. ep. ad Cor. 1. p. 72. doth think so too, for he puts [...] for Oppression, (if I understand him.) But then, First, The Cavaliers found them contrary to each other. The Oaths of Al­legiance and Supremacy bound them to preserve the King in his Civil and Ecclesiasticall capacity: the Cove­nant would bind them to preserve the King, but against his Ecclesiasticall capacity: the Ingagement bound them to preserve the Government without the King. Second­ly, They were imposed as Traps to ensnare them, and put them out of their paternal Inheritance. Thirdly, They were imposed by insufficient Authority; which left them that knew it so, yet took them, without ex­cuse. Now neither of these is our present Case.

That this Party hath holes to creep out of Oaths is no doubt. M. I. p. 6. acknowledges the juggling of that Par­ty, and you may take his word, for he well understands them. And indeed without this skill in Picklocks, how got they out of the Oaths of Allegeance and Supre­macy, [Page 27] Protestation and Covenant, &c? I am sure they never had the Golden Key of Authority to unlock the door. They are something like Philoctetes, who swea­ring to Hercules, that he would never discover where his Arrows or Reliques were, nor the place of his Buriall; yet being urged by the Graecians to reveal, he thought to save his Oath by his Silence, yet pointed out the place with his feet. I will not say the Covenanters did so; seeming to dislike the King's Death by their Silence, yet made way for it by treading him under their feet: let their Consciences make application. But having taken the Oaths, let them creep out of what holes they will, it must be a hole in their Consciences, and that will make another in their Reputations, and that again a great hole in all honest mens opinions concerning them. But enough of this.

They farther desire leave to take the Oath in their own words, some of them, as D. P. p. 45. So may they for me, for being Non-conformers, how could the Parlia­ment hope they would swear in a form? And they have too great a conceit of themselves, to think a Parlia­ment could not find out fitter words then they. In a word, such great Speakers ought not now to be taught to speak.

2. They decry Rites and Ceremonies, and a Subscrip­tion to them, as tyrannicall, and would have nothing as the condition of Communion for Ministers and people, but what is necessary to Salvation; as is proved before. But, first, Why should the Presbyterians plead thus, since they judged other things necessary to be subscribed, in their attempts for Association, then merely necessaries to Salvation? They then thought it no Oppression, to [Page 28] urge the Episcopal and Independent Brethren to sub­scribe their printed Books, the bulk of which did exceed that of the Church-Canons, and contained in them a thou­sand things not necessary to Salvation. Secondly, S. Paul thought it no Oppression, to oblige the Ministers of the Church of Corinth to a publick acknowledgment of those Canons he gave them, 1 Cor. 14. 37. yet sure they were not necessary to the being of a Christian, but the well-being of a Church. Thirdly, I am of L. C. A's. mind, that in the Primitive times the Creed might have sufficed, and now may for the Communion of Churches; but not so for Communion in Churches. Faith is a good foundation of the Catholick Union; but Union of par­ticular Christians must be grounded on an obligation to observe certain Rites and Canons, which ought to be owned and submitted to, yea and subscribed, if the Church shall think fit. How else can men know the time and place and posture, the Order and Decency of Wor­ship, that is required 1 Cor. 14. 40. which Calvin con­fesseth to be required in that place? Fourthly, S. Paul praises the Church of Corinth for keeping certain Ordi­nances that he delivered unto them, 1 Cor. 11. 2. of which one was, that men should sit bare-headed in the Church; concerning which Ceremony he spends no less then the 14 following verses to enforce it. Now all the Arguments almost of the Non-conformers against Ceremonies, do as strongly militate against this Cere­mony of S. Paul's Institution, as against any now impo­sed. And 'tis observable, that the last Reply the Apo­stle thinks good to make against these Non-conformers contentions is this, 1 Cor. 11. 16. that the Apostles used no such customes (as covering of heads in the Church,) [Page 29] no nor the Church of God. Now let the Authour of L. C. A. consider, whether the Arguments for Ceremonies can be traced no farther then Bellarmine and Suarez; and let the Authour of D. P. consider, whether S. Paul be not as much to be blamed for defending this Ceremony, as B ^p. Whitgift for defending [...] of his time. 'Tis surely an easie way to conquest, to persuade men not to defend those necessary Rites that these men please to assault. Fifthly, It seems to me that some of these Pleaders are not so heartily ingaged against Rites and Ceremonies, how-ever they are pleased to affrighten their deluded admirers with the danger of them: for D. R. p. 24. tells us, Comprehension excludes not Decency, but would have in no more Ceremonies then needs must. And pray who shall be judge what are needfull? D. P. p. 17. thinks very honestly that the Church must judge: if so, they have judged already, and so we may end this Dispute in a friendly agreement.

Having thus discharged the General cry of this deep­mouthed Pack, come we to consider the Particulars. Let them but enumerate what they would have, and be their own Carvers, and 'twill amount to no less then the Good old Cause; or rather more, for they desire a Positive Law for Toleration, as P. p. 69, 70. L. C. A. p. 11. D. R. p. 8. &c. while a general Praeterition served be­fore. And certainly that great Roman Orator was right; Non enim idem est, ferre, si quid ferendum est, & probare, si quid probandum non est. Cic. fam. Ep. l. 9. ep. 6. Nor is this all, but one of them would have all things taken away for which the people rebelled, P. p. 65. judging it more reasonable that the Sovereign should conform to the Subject, then the Subject to the Sovereign. Which [Page 30] produces that Libyan Serpent Pareas, Luc. Phars. 1. 10. that leads with the Tail. That Authour quarrells with the Age, for striving to root out people's ill Principles, ra­ther then Princes ill practices. God knows what the people may call ill Practices: but we know a Roman sued at Law, for not tak [...] a Dagger deep enough into his Bowels, with which his adversary strived to stab him. It may in time be laid to the Prince and Parlia­ment's charge, that they buried not the Murther of the late King in honour and silence; as well as now 'tis, that the Covenant was not so buried. I will pursue this no farther, lest it whet the Sword of justice too keen against this kind of Pleaders.

Now pray hear them branch their desires (with some confusion) into these ensuing Heads.

1. They would have Tithes taken away, or at least altered. Israel was chidden for robbing God of Tithes and Offerings: if these be Israelites, let them apply it to themselves. 'Tis strange that hypocriticall Phari­sees should boast of paying them, and these strive against them. Surely these mens Consciences grow in their Purse or Field, that scruple at payments: and so the Poet was right, ‘ [...] &c.’ How likes Cornelius Burges these Presbyterians, that strive to baffle his whole Divine right with one Act of Parliament? 'Twas hard for a man to commit Sacri­lege before, according to Burges's notion; but (if these mens motions take place) it will be impossible for the future: so wise are these Pleaders to prevent sin. Euseb. l. 4. praep. and Dion. Halic. l. 1. tell us that the Pelasgi, (the Offspring of Phaleg, as Bochartus well proves) [Page 31] being under great Judgments, sent to inquire of the Ora­cles, whether they would be pacified with the Tenths of Men: The Oracles answered, they would. But these men think to remove our Judgments by taking away the Tenths of Goods from God. Where the Con­science scruples payments, 'tis a sign 'tis tender of Pro­fit rather then Piety; and that People aim at saving their Purses rather then their Souls. But this is the old complaint: and Tithes are like the Chaldaeans in Rome, alwaies proscribed, yet alwaies there. Thus Dogs of Scyrum alwaies bark against the Moon, yet it still abides. Tithes, like the Church they sustain, semper concussae, nunquam excussae. Yet let it be confessed, that Tithes and Landlords Rents are the two great Grievances of this Nation.

2. To prosecute the Good old Cause, in Rank with Tithes are servile Tenures, called Copy-holds. O rare Saturnalia! Lords must cease to be Lords, that Tenants may be Free-holders. Their ancient Rights must be parted withall, not for Coyn, but Clamour. In other cases Causes make Complaints, but here Complaints make Causes. They hope to get Free-holds as Chil­dren do Rattles, by crying for them. Unjust men like not to continue their Lands on the Conditions they came by them. Time (that makes all things worse) must make their Tenures better. I may say of this Cause as Cicero did of Caesar's, 'tis causa sine causa. The business is, Jack will be a Gentleman: as if a man could make a silk Purse of a Sow's ear. 'Tis pity these Saints throw not up their Estates, as their Ministers their Livings, be­cause being Christ's free-men, 'tis against their Conscience to hold their Lands on humane Constitutions, and servile Conditions.

[Page 32] 3. The third branch of the Good old Cause that the Pro­position requires is, the Register of Estates. A thing often attempted, but never effected: the onely single thing that looks like just, of all they plead for: in which I wish them success. Yet wants it not its Inconvenien­ces, that may make it unpassable. Tacitus prefaces his Annals with a Story, that the world was first oppressed with Tyrants, at length with Laws. A Court of Re­cord in every County newly erected would increase Lawyers and Fees good store: but whether Honesty would be increased, time must shew. This way leaves little room for Charity, and cuts the sinews of Com­merce; which is Credit. In a word, humane Affairs are the Game; Dealers are Gamesters; and the design of Registring is to let the adversary over-see one's hand, which spoils the Play. I look on the design as hopeless, because four hundred men will scarcely ever be found so intire, but some will halt on that sore, and can no more consent, then proclaim themselves bankrupt.

4. The fourth thing pleaded for by them is, the dam­ning all Pluralities, that is, silencing those Laws that stint Chaplains to Kings, Dukes, Earls, Bishops, &c. in shovel­ling up (as they phrase it) Church-Livings. I confess, I believe the Clergie get more envy then profit by it; besides that it doth much narrow their Interest. Yet let it be considered, that these Laws must be silenced, to make a Non-conformist speak, P. p. 54. Laws are such trifling things with them, that they are as easie re­pealed as scribbled against. These men think it no oppression to out men of a legal possession, without their personal consent. But why do these things now trouble? Can't they remember their own practice but a [Page 33] while since? Were not all the taking Preachers about London Pluralists, that could procure entertainment? Did not Mr. Vines spread his branches from Laurence Jury to Watton in Hertfordshire, till he went off on a gol­den Bridge? How much was Mr. Case noted for heap­ing Church-Living together? Mr. R. V. held seldome fewer then S. Olave's Southwark and S. Edmond's Lom­bardstreet. Mr. Jenkins, Black-Friers and Christ-church. Mr. Mayhew, Kingston upon Thames and White-Chappel. Mr. Griffith, a modest man, held the Charter-house and S. Bartholomew's behind the old Exchange. But see the subtilty of these men; to avoid the imputation of Pluralists, they called themselves Lecturers: as if that employment were neither a Cure of Souls, nor a catering for the Purse. 'Tis well their Conscience and Credit both can be salved with a new word. But ‘Turpe est Doctori cum culpa, &c.’ The English Church brought not in Pluralities: for be­fore the Reformation no Pluralities were admitted nisi dispensatione Apostolicâ, v. Lyndwood; and since, none were induced but by Act of Parliament.

And what forbids the Legislative Power (to wit, King, Lords and Commons) to allow the King, Dukes, Earls Chaplains, &c. more then one Living, for the better managing that part they are to act about their Master's affairs, and for the state of the Kingdome; especially where the Lay-Gentry are so plentifully instated in Church-Livings, for the upholding their Greatness? Is a man onely therefore uncapable of more Church-Pre­ferments, because a Clergy-man? But else the Non-conformers cannot find Livings. Are they sure, the pre­sent Occupiers being disseised, that the Patrons will [Page 34] pin them on their backs? Are not the Universities full of deserving men? and must they be put by till God knows when? or must they turn Non-conformers to get a Living? 'Tis pity such vast numbers of Expe­ctants (who may doe well) should be slighted for those that have done ill.

5. The fifth thing desired is, that all may be allowed to preach and officiate that are in any Orders. Here is a door opened to the Enthusiast, whom the Spirit orders; to the Quaker, whom George Fox orders; to the Inde­pendent, whom the people order durante placito; to the Presbyterian, whom Aerius orders, &c. Here Nadir and Zenith are made to shake hands: the two terms of Contradiction are here reconciled, to wit, po­testas à Christo descendendo, and à plebe ascendendo. Eng­land must have a publick Ministry with private Orders, or onely fansied ones. Then must the Church prove a Poly-cephalist, more dreadfull then the Stygian Cerberus. 'Twas judged malice in Sergius the third, to re-ordain those that Formosus had advanced to holy Orders; be­cause he was Episcopus Portuensis, and onely deprived of his Bishoprick by John the ninth, not of his Episcopal Function. But the Church in her great Synod judged the Presbyters of Colythus making, in the Church of Alexandria, to be no Presbyters, and the Ordination a nullitie, (as is instanced in the case of Ischiras) be­cause he was no Bishop, though he pretended himself to be one, as also do these Non-conformers. So likewise for the same cause were those Presbyters ordained by Maximus pronounced no Presbyters, by all the Fathers in the Council of Constantinople. And 'twere high temerity to establish that for good by a Law that [Page 35] hath been so often condemned by Law.

But here is nihil ad rhombum still, for what peace can be expected from contrary Orders? Is it not listing the Clergy in several battalia's one against another? And what satisfaction will that give to the Scruple-house, where five Parties are still forced to scruple at one? Do not the whole Episcopal Church account Ordination by Presbyters, or people, or vain pretensions to the Spirit, or by a Se-ordainer, utterly uncanonicall? And can their Conscience chuse but take offence at the al­lowance of it? Or are they thought so tame, that be­ing offended they will make no noise about it? 'Tis pity they should fare the worse for their peaceableness. Again, Is the Presbyterian satisfied in Conscience to hear a Gifted Brother officiate that pretends to a Ple­beian Ordination? Do not both send a Quo Warranto after a wandring Star, that says he was lighted by the Holy ghost? Nor will this please the wild Sectarie, who esteems Episcopal and Presbyterian Ordination (in John Simpson's language) the greasie Palm of Antichrist, and fansies a Priest in Orders the English Edition of the Pope. Yet Luther in Com. in Galat. tells us, men with­out Ordination, quanquam quaedam salutaria afferunt, nihil tamen aedificant: for laborem eorum nunquam for­tunat Deus. And S. Cyp. unit. Eccles. tells us, that by the Sacraments of unordained men, non tam purgantur quàm fordidantur, i. e. the water of Baptizing fouls, and the Bloud of the Supper stains. I dread to think what [...] the Church our Mother will shed, when more then a Jacob and Esau shall be permitted to struggle in her womb.

D. P. p. 36. hath found an expedient here; con­senting [Page 36] that the Bishops should impose hands on the Presby­terians, already ordained, to commend them, non ad mi­nisterium, sed ad exercitium ministerii, in any Parish to which they shall have a Title. I conceive the missive words in Ordination may be so formed, as to admit to Orders in the Episcopal sense, and yet onely to emit in this Authour's sense: but then, first, This provides but for a few Ministers, and so is scarce worth the trouble. Secondly, 'Tis very probable, though the Non-confor­mers agree in this, they will quarrell in something else. Let me therefore remember them, that Theodore Arch­bishop of Canterbury being sent by Vitalian to King Egbert, about the year 668, and finding Ceadda not law­fully Ordained; the good man, understanding the er­rour, said, Si me nôsti Episcopatum non ritè suscepisse, li­benter ab officio recedo: upon which Submission, bene tandem consecratus, in sedem Dorovernensem provehitur. Bed. Hist. Eccl. l. 4. c. 2. An excellent example of true Christian meekness.

6. Their sixth Plea is for Liberty of Conscience: a prin­cipal branch of the Good old Cause, and intended to open the door of legal Restraint to those Legions of Devils that inhabit the fanatick Soul. To effect which, all these Authours strive eminus cominus, trying every key in the bunch of their subtilties. Not all of them so ingeniously as Bellius, Clebergius, or Sir H. Vane have done before them; yet no less earnestly: for aequa tentant & iniqua, they try by hook or by crook to break the door open. And why not? tentantes ad Trojam tandem per­venere Graeci. He that never speaks, never speeds. They therefore bring a whole troup of Arguments to make room for it.

[Page 37] If you would know what this Liberty of Conscience is, L. C. A. (who most discreetly handles it) tells you, 'tis A freedom to doe or omit as Conscience shall direct, p. 11. so that his Question to be debated is, How far men may be obliged to doe what they say is against their Conscience; and, How far men may be suffered to doe what they say their Conscience obligeth them to doe, id. ib. Now the granting this freedom by the Magistrate is called Tolera­tion: which D. R. p. 8. defines to be A permission of different waies of Religion without the line of the approved way. So that in this latitude Liberty of Conscience looks like Hobbs his Leviathan, a masterless Monster. This one Law would make the world lawless, and doe what is right in their own sight, not in God's nor the Magistrate's: therefore its Advocates shackle and trammel this wild beast, some more, some less. First, To save the King's life, L. C. A. p. 14. conceives the Ma­gistrate not bound to tolerate any thing destructive to his being. But that if the Magistrate shall believe To­leration it self will destroy him? The Authour of the Proposition plainly affirms, that Liberty of Conscience mur­ther'd the late King; and the Abettors of it were the greatest Enemies to this Prince's Return and settlement. And 'tis to be feared, it hath not yet evaporated its ve­nemous qualities. Secondly, Nor must the Magistrate tolerate moral Evils, L. C. A. p. 50. Thirdly, Nor any thing against common Light, common Interest, and natural good of mankind, L. C. A. p. 49. We thank him for nothing: without these Concessions the Magistrate, like Serapis the AEgytian God, might stand and hold his finger in his mouth, and all Government were dissolved. But fourthly, D. R. p. 9. is more liberal, and acknowledges [Page 38] the Magistrate not bound to tolerate dissensions, nor any thing against the general Rules of Scripture in ordering the Church, p. 27. But fifthly, D. P. p. 85. exceeds all his Bre­thren, and acknowledges the Magistrate may punish with lighter penalties any practice he esteems erroneous in Religion.

Having thus set down these mens Concessions, which are onely to leave some work for the Magistrate, that he may not, like Epicurus's God, sleep in intermundiis; let me observe to you, that these men jeast with us when they plead for Liberty of Conscience; a thing so in­separable from the rational creature, that no Padlock can confine it. Conscience is so far out of gun-shot, that the most murthering Cannon cannot reach it. Consci­ence is subject to no Exile nor Imprisonment, nor can a Rape be committed upon it. The birds in the air or fishes in the sea are not more free. So that the matter of our inquiry is Liberty of Action, rather then Liberty of Conscience. And so the Question will be, whether the Magistrate be bound to let men doe in matters of Religi­on what they say their Consciences oblige them to; or to let them forbear what they say their Consciences bind them to forbear. In answer to which we say, The Magistrate may not permit men to walk by the light of their private Consciences in matters of Religion.

First, Because the Magistrate ought to be a terrour (not a tolerator) of evil-doers, Rom. 13. but a man may pretend himself bound in Conscience to doe evil; as the Jew most conscienciously blasphemes the name of Christ. To this L. C. A. p. 15. answers, the Magistrate is onely authorized to punish moral evils. The vanity of which will appear, First, by that Logical Rule, Pro­positio indefinita in materia necessaria aequipollet univer­sali. [Page 39] Now all evils deserve a punishment, as well spi­ritual as moral: and many times spiritual evils are the greater; therefore he is to be a terrour to them as well as to moral evils. Secondly, S. Paul justifies this explica­tion, 1 Tim. 1. 9. telling us the Law was made to punish not onely what is contrary to sound Reason, but to sound Doctrine too. Thirdly, The Roman Magistrate, though a Heathen, had right to judge all Causes, as well spiritual as civil; as appears by S. Paul's appeal to him concerning the Resurrection of the dead, about which he was called in question, and referred the exami­nation to Caesar.

Secondly, If a man may follow the dictates of his Con­science without controul, he may kill Saints for God's cause, John 16. 2. and believe himself bound in Con­science so to doe: which haply was the case of Vennor and his Complices. And 'twas once S. Paul's, who says, He verily thought (to wit, in his Conscience) that he ought to doe many things contrary to the way of Christ, and did persecute from City to City. But no Magistrate can discharge his Conscience by permitting men to kill their Neighbours for God's cause, and questions in Re­ligion. 'Twas Gallio's scandal, that he drave men from the Judgment-seat, and would not meddle in such matters.

Thirdly, Every man is indispensably oblig'd to promote the glory of God, and the Salvation of men, with such talents as he hath received: But the Magistrates talent is the civil Sword: Therefore with it is he to propagate God's Worship, and stop mens sins. Advice and Admo­nition belong to every Christian; Reproof and Cen­sures to Church-officers; but Correction of sin by the civil Sword is the Magistrate's propriety. L. C. A. p. 24. [Page 40] acknowledges this Argument in the main, but thinks he may serve God as a Magistrate by other powers then by the Sword, yet confesses no instance can fully reach the explica­tion of his notion, p. 27. And no wonder, since it must deny the Proposition or Assumption of this Syllogism, both yet which are most evident Truths.

Fourthly, The Magistrate's power is confessed by L. C. A. p. 12. to be paternall: But a Father is bound to use the Rod to keep his child from damnation: There­fore is the Father of the Countrey bound to use the Sword to keep his Subjects from damnation. Magistrates govern not men as brute beasts, but as indued with im­mortal Souls; and therefore must use their power not onely for the safety of mens bodies, but the Salvation of their Souls.

Fifthly, The Magistrate is God's Shepherd as well as the Minister: But Shepherds must destroy the Wolves that strive to break in to the Flock to devour it, in their proper sphere; the Minister by Church-Censures, the Magistrate by temporal punishment.

Sixthly, To multiply no more Arguments, the last shall be ad hominem: If these men believe 'tis the will of God, that every man should enjoy the practice of his Conscience, why do they resist the will of God by de­nying this to the Papist? Yet this they doe, M. I. p. 14. D. R. p. 43, &c. Hath God, upon this general Charter for Liberty, expresly excepted against the Papists? or rather do not these Pleaders privately confess they be­lieve not their own Arguments, which haply prove stronger for the Papists then themselves, as may be seen anon? Indeed M. I. p. 14. says three things for the ex­cluding Papists from this Privilege. First, Their giving [Page 41] no assurance of Fidelity. But surely they have been more faithfull then these Sects in the late Rebellion: and the Quakers and Anabaptists refuse to swear Fidelity as well as they, &c. Secondly, By their Principles they can never be good Subjects. 'Twere well if these mens Principles were better. If we are urged to it, we shall make it appear, that both halt on the same lame side. Thirdly, They themselves allow no Toleration. D. P. p. 102. shall an­swer it: O thou Argument! thou art a vile naughty Ar­gument: the Lord rebuke thee. Do not these men re­member themselves guilty in the like kind, that allowed no Toleration of Prelacie? I am weary of these fooleries.

Can a man truly love God, and yet sit patiently to hear his Name dishonoured, when he hath power to suppress it? Shall a Magistrate punish the injuries done to himself with all legal severities, yet be so cool in God's Cause as not to unsheath his Sword? Surely men never were permitted to doe what was right in their own sight, but in times of Confusion, when there was no King in Israel. But when Asa had obtained the Crown, a Vote was made, That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman; as you reade 2 Chron. 15. 13. And why should the Jew be more zealous for the honour of his God then is the Chri­stian? Moses, that saw the Looseness contracted by Israel's bewildred estate, tells them plainly, You shall not doe as you doe this day, every man what's right in his own eyes, or seems good in his own Conscience. Is Conscience such a [...]nct [...]uary to damnable Doctrines, that being got in there, the Holiness of the place must defend them? Can it be imagined that Head and Hand-sins must receive [Page 42] their punishment, and onely Conscience-sins pass under Protection? S. Paul says, Rom. 13. 4. If thou dost evil, be afraid of the powers: but these men say, (If the grea­test Blasphemies be committed against God) be not afraid, for the Magistrate hath no power to punish thee. Be not afraid to bring in Doctrines of Devils, for the Powers are bound to tolerate thee. Break what Laws thou wilt, and pretend 'tis thy Conscience obliges thee to it, and 'tis a safe Plea, that can't be over-ruled.

But well fare Charles the fifth, that engraved on his Sword Custos utriusque Tabulae; judging himself obliged to see the Laws of God executed as well as the Laws of the Land; and to take care that Christ have his due, as well as caesar his.

If you object, That then the Magistrate (if his Con­science should hap to be erroneous) might persecute Pie­ty: I answer, first, So may he in civil Causes punish an innocent man, if his judgment errs; but that doth not annihilate his authority. Secondly, And we may as reasonably suspect an Angel will erre as the Magistrate, since the Apostle's charge is to believe Angels no more then men, in teaching another Gospel, Gal. 1. 8. And thirdly, If any be possessed with the spirit of in­fallibility, 'tis the Magistrate, since the Scripture speaks more favourably of him then of the Jesuites Pope, or the Quakers Spiritual man: for Solomon saith, Prov. 16. 10. A divine sentence is in the lips of a King; his mouth trans­gresseth not in judgment. He may be ignorant in some truths in Divinity, but not in the weighty things of the Law. And if his commands proceed about circumstan­tials and lesser things, be they according to or dissonant from the truth, the believer is obliged to be silent, upon [Page 43] S. Paul's rule, who saith, Rom. 14. 22. Hast thou faith? have it to thy self before God. He must not flash his light in his brother's eyes, and much less may he set a Church or Kingdom on fire with the scattering of it about. And thus much D. P. p. 101. acknowledges, The tolerated must not broach principles to the scandal of others: much less then to the scandal of a Church. And farther, fourth­ly, In some cases we are obliged to force our Conscien­ces, rather then resist Authority; that by once passing that River of which it was so fearfull, it may at length goe more boldly forward when commanded, without many blows to make it enter. Christ's sheep may be forced into green pastures, where else they will stand boggling at the gate. 'Tis the Doctrine of a great Pa­triarch in these mens account, I mean Ames. l. 1. de Consc. in recollectionibus ad calcem libri additis, Sect. 27. Licitum & consultum est, aliquando, agere contra scrupu­lum aliquem Conscientiae. And then, methinks, where Authority appears, 'tis a considerable circumstance to enforce: especially considering that of Plin. to Tra­jan, A Te exigetur ratio; nos excusabit obsequium. And Cassiodore speaks but the mind of the civil Law, when he tells you, Nimis iniquum est ut ipse patiatur dispendium qui imperium fecit alienum. But then, fifthly, If Liberty must be granted, then inclusivè, as P. p. 62. grants, Sove­reigns must have their Liberty of Conscience as well as Subjects. And then if their Consciences tie them to punish Errours, what room is left for others Liberty? Princes (if consciencious) are or may be as really ob­liged to the making and executing, as others to the transgression of the Laws: and then whose Conscience shall take place? The Scripture enjoyns the Prince to [Page 44] punish Disobedience, as well as it forbids the Subject to obey: so that either the Consciences of Governours, or governed, must be oppressed. Sixthly, What should Secta­ries doe with Liberty of Conscience, that preach them­selves a poor, afflicted, despised Flock, and make Afflicti­ons the note of a Child of God, if not a note of the Church? To grant them liberty were to divert their Afflictions, and so unchurch them, yea to stop up their way to Heaven, which (by false application of Scripture to all persons and times) they hold must be through ma­ny tribulations. Now to justifie their Doctrine they will find something else to quarrell with Authority a­bout, if you grant them Liberty; and so pro thesauro carbones, by long fishing you get a frog. Seventhly, The common Principles of the Sectaries can endure no Accommodation: for they hold God's Flock a little Flock, whom the Powers of this world must oppress, and they must have a World to rail at; and should you conform to them in every thing, there needs no other argument for their deserting their own way: as one of these Authours well observes, in the instance of wearing short hair, which the Non-conformers Consciences much urged them to, till they saw Bishop Laud to commend it to all the Clergy; then they changed, their Conscien­ces tackt about, and wore all long hair. The Sectaries are men of narrow spirits, and love a little way. They think multitudes can't go together, but to doe evil; and fansy huggling together, like a Covy of Par­tridges in a field, to be the onely Christian way. Like John the Baptist, they love to be in a desert; or, like a Hare, to sit trembling alone in a bush: and can't be brought, like Doves or Sheep, to feed in great Flocks. [Page 45] Besides, they have an irascible appetite in them, which is naturally trained up, like a true Bull-dog, to bait Au­thority: so that Oliver, their great God-a-mighty, could not save his Nose from their reproaches. In a word, Tacitus observes that, evulgato Imperii Secreto, alibi Im­peraetorem fieri posse quàm Romae; it taught every Legion to proclaim an Emperour for the future. 'Tis well if Obstinacy and Scrupling, prevailing to overthrow one Law, do not at length strive to overturn all, and translate the whole Government to themselves. I am of Nich. Scomberg's mind, (though in a far better cause) That he that sees he can force any thing, will at length believe he can force all; and so is, by Concession of one, but invited to contend for another. Now they try your patience, the next time they will try their own courage.

But stay, let us hear their Reasons for Liberty of Con­science. The First is that in the Proposition, p. 3, 5, 6. That God hath witnessed his displeasure against the sharp dealings of Authority by manifold Judgments: he instan­ces in burning Ships, burning London, &c. But, first, Is he sure that this Government is worse then all Govern­ments, because England suffered such great things? Christ says, I tell you nay: but they say, Yea, or nothing, Luke 13. 1, 2. Secondly, Solomon thinks a man cannot know good or evil by what happens under the Sun: but these know the Government evil by these Accidents. Thirdly, Did that Authour's familiar that he speaks of p. 86. give him a dark notice of the Interpretation of these Providences? Fourthly, Do not these men turn Poly­pus's, and servire scenae? having formerly told us Afflicti­ons were a note of God's people, are they now a note [Page 46] of the Devil's? Well, let them hear the Poet's curse, Careat successibus opto, &c. 'Tis a brave thought of Lucan, ‘Victrix causa diis placuit, sed victa Catoni.’ Sure a man may justifie God, without condemning poor Abel for his misery. Job's Piety should not be condem­ned because of his Misery. Let him reade Eccl. 7. 10. and he must acknowledge it a foolish Argument.

2. The second Reason common to them all is, that Toleration must be granted to unite us, and make us strong in War. For answer, first, A combined Interest recon­ciles all men of Estates so far as to prosecute a just War, in defence of life and estate, and to secure themselves from forein Oppression. Secondly, Crouching to Male-contents at home disspirits Authority, and hinders forein Conquests. Thirdly, Advancing dissenting Sectaries is a civil War, where Ring-leaders are Gene­rals, Preachers Captains, Congregations Camps, and words at length proceed to blows. Fourthly, Toleration would increase both Papists and Fanaticks; and being let loose, and both increasing, who can assure us they will not fall on both King and Parliament, sooner then on any forein adversary, especially while they smell so strong of Hacket's Principles, to destroy Authority, to make way for the Fifth Monarchy? Fifthly, All sober Protestants are reconciled already in the Act of Unifor­mity: if other mens Consciences keep them from Obe­dience, what will keep them from Disobedience but Laws duly executed? Sixthly, 'Tis insolent for Subjects to stand on terms of Accommodations with Sovereigns, especially the meanest of Subjects with the best of Prin­ces. No language so well becomes their mouths as Submission.

[Page 47] 3. The third Reason is, There is no hurt in Conventi­clers, P. p. 10. Non-conformers are serious and painfull men, D. P. p. 87. They are like Christ, P. p. 69, 70. Yea Christ 's brethren, P. p. 71. Therefore grant them Liber­ty. For answer, first, I hold my self excused from med­dling with this Argument, because these mens too late crimes have proclaimed a confutation to the world al­ready. Nor am I willing to rake into so stinking a dung­hill, being much more delighted in Charientisms then Sarcasms. Onely I take leave to vindicate my Saviour from these foul aspersions. Let these Authours shew me where or when Christ murthered his (even tyranni­call) Superiours. Against what Authority did he take arms? where did he teach Christians to turn from Pray­ers and tears to Sword and buckler? when did he preach Subjects into the field against Sovereigns, upon pain of Damnation, cursing Meroz for being back­ward to set out, &c. as most of these Ministers here re­sembled to Christ did? What incouragement did Christ ever give to Factions amongst those that professed Chri­stianity? My just zeal demands a blush from that Au­thour, for belying our Saviour, and saying he was like these Sectaries. Besides, Conventicling against Law is a sin of it self, if they sinned not in their Conventicles. For 'tis a transgression of the Law of God mediately, of man immediately. The Civil Conscience is obliged by the Civil Law, as well as the Spiritual by the Divine Law. Nor is this a fansying two Consciences, but one distinguished by its several Objects about which 'tis exercised; for the Conscience is mixta persona as well as the King, and must be judge in all causes.

If you object, that if Conscience be so bound to the [Page 48] Laws, they must be just: I answer, first, Untill they are clearly proved otherwise, praesumptio est pro autho­ritate imponentis. Secondly, They that see them unjust, presume themselves to have more wit then the Autho­rity of the Nation that made them, which cannot be said without pride. D. P. p. 85. says well, An Act passed on a thing doubted unlawfull, makes it not presently law­full: yet sure, the judgment of so many grave men may be a glorious Taper to illuminate, and a strong Cable to bind the scrupling Conscience. Thirdly, The Laws are most probably just when the generality of good men practise them; who have Inspection to discern, Consci­ences to scruple, Courage to oppose, if they see cause, and Curiosity enough to examine them. The Scruplers therefore must esteem their Notions either Inspirations from God, or Demonstrations quibus non potest subesse falsum; or else must judge themselves infallible: other­wise 'tis notorious Insolence, to prefer their own opini­ons of a Law before the Law it self, and the common judgment of man; especially since Res judicata pro ve­ritate accipitur is a necessary Rule in all Laws; and sure­ly to erre with Authority is to erre on the safer side. Fourthly, Admit the Law were unjust, yet it binds: for it binds not as just, but as a Law; it binds to suffe­ring, if not to doing. Oaths may be Perjuries, yet the Judge passes sentence upon them without scruple: so that the Magistrate's Conscience is secured in the ex­ecution of the Laws upon Offenders, resigning his judgment of the justice of those Laws to the Legislative power. Fifthly, Nor are Laws in a politick considerati­on such trifling things as these men fansie. Petilius found a Book in Numa's grave expounding the Roman [Page 49] Superstitions; but because by the Praetor's Oath they were found contrary to the present Establishment, the Senate adjudged the Book to the flames: so carefull were they to uphold the reverence of their Laws. Demosth. orat. in Aristog. tells us [...], &c. and therefore not lightly to be contemned. Du Moulin tells the in­genious Balsac, though something in Laws be unjust, 'tis just to obey them; for some States have thriven in obeying unjust Laws, others in not obeying just have perished. I wish these men of Aurelius the Emperour's modesty, who reasonably resolves, AEquius est me tot & talium amicorum consilium, quàm tot, tales, meam unius voluntatem sequi. But how then shall these men answer S. Jude's description of Separatists, v. 8. that they are despisers of Dominion, and speak evil of Dignities? 'Twas once said, Turpis est pars quae cum toto non convenit: but now 'tis the highest pitch of Piety to oppose Autho­rity.

But secondly, Is there no hurt in Conventicling? Are they not the Trojan horses whence armed men issu­ed forth to sack great Priam's Territories? Are they not like the Jesuites Order, the very nurseries of Re­bellion? Are they not the seed-plot of damnable Do­ctrines? Do they not slay the Souls of men with the Sword of the Spirit? Is not verbum Domini amongst them (as Bishop Laud observed) but verbum diaboli? Do they not poison the streams of the Sanctuary? Yea doth not their very Advocate confess, P. p. 57. that in them they speak against the Government, and revile the Ru­lers of the people? But this with him may deserve a bles­sing.

[Page 50] And thirdly, Doth not their best Champion L. C. A. p. 48. judge that they ought to be compelled to Church to hear Sermons? So that, by their own confession, the Ma­gistrate may be bold to execute his Laws to that pur­pose. Yea and doth not D. P. p. 20. declare, they may lawfully be punished for disturbing the Ecclesiasticall order, to the disquieting of the State?

4. Their fourth Reason is, They must have a To­leration because many thousaends, P. p. 75. great num­bers, M. I. p. 9. the Non-conformers out-balance Confor­mers, D. R. p. 28. and D. P. p. 57. I doubt these men are drunk with their opinion, and see double or treble. They swagger as if the Town were their own. May they not be troubled with the Athenian Thrasylaus con­ceit, that all they see is their own? But, first, Themselves, in their harangues amongst their feminine troups, call themselves a despised little Flock. Secondly, The late Army alwaies held the spirit of this Nation (to use their Cant) an imposing spirit: and therefore one Major Creed resolved, in one of their Junto's, to draw his Sword a­gainst a free Parliament, as the common enemy to that Army-darling, Liberty of Conscience. Thirdly, The most part of them are the Riffe-raffe of the Nation: yet I say upon my conscience, that I believe not above a seventh part of the people are inclined to Liberty of Conscience. Fourthly, If their Patron may be a wit­ness in the Case, L. C. A. p. 21. says, The greatest part of men desire a visible Judge, to save them the pains of tedi­ous Enquiries. Fifthly, They have often tried, and never could chuse a Parliament for that purpose; which is a convincing evidence that they are not the major Vote. Sixthly, They carry great animosities against each other. [Page 51] Seventhly, The argument is a poling argument, where Sententiae numerantur, non ponderantur, says Plin. l. 2. ep. 12. Eighthly, Is it prudent to forbear the Cure, because the Leprosie is spread all over the body? A great Politician indeed advises, Vir sapiens nunquam direxit brachia con­tra Torrentem: but sure that advice is more Christian, Tu nè cede malis, &c. Faction is a fire kindled in City and Country, and P. p. 37. tells us the way to quench it is to let it alone: thus also counsells M. I. p. 5. and D. P. p. 6. Well; the Rump did so: did that quench, or rather increase it much more? that is a convincing Experiment. Errour is a Gangraene, and will spread, if permitted. When these flouds break out, they must be banked up. Ninthly, Neutrality loses both parts: as Hen. 4. of France found to his sorrow. He that hath no Enemy, hath no Friend. How should any think him­self obliged for that favour that is given to all? Bats are most despised, because a middle between birds and beasts. Tenthly, Be the Sectaries never so many, yet if Christians, they must not disturb the Government. Ter­tull. found Christians to fill the Armies, Markets, Senate, Courts and all; yet they never opposed the then-per­secuting Emperours. To conclude, I ever took King in Parliament to be the Strength as well as most capa­cious Interest of the Nation. So that to affrighten them with numbers is a Bug-bear, a threat to the Government, and deserves correction.

5. You must tolerate men, for force will doe no­thing upon Christians. P. p. 13. Restraint makes Bed­lams: p. 30. A mere Command makes Disobedience: p. 25. Violence unites them: p. 38. Indulgence onely makes them throw off Errours: p. 53. Conscience can't be touched: [Page 52] L. C. A. p. 10. Force doth no good: p. 29. Sword can't hinder Opinions: M. I. p. 18, 20. Force is an odious Su­perintendency over Consciences. For answer, first, God appointed the Sword to be a terrour to evil-doers, Rom. 13. 3. and I do not think these Authours can prove his Institutions frivolous or useless. If the Sword can doe nothing, S. Paul is mistaken, who thought it would terrifie wicked men. I hope, notwithstanding their dis­course, they will avoid sin for fear of Hell. Secondly, That setting a Law forces Disobedience, is an Objection that flies in the face of God, as well as of the Parliament; for God hath set a royal Law to mankind, which he would never have done, if the mere setting a Law for­ces Disobedience. Thirdly, Say that it did, yet the Law may be holy, just and good, Rom. 7. 12. the Chain may be Gold though the Dog break his teeth on it. Fourthly, If they believe Indulgence will destroy the Sectaries, why do they deny Liberty to the Papists? Do they desire to make the Papists more obstinate by Persecution? or will they use those weapons against them that they con­fess can't work upon Conscience? will they unite them closer by acts of violence? or are they so unmercifull, as to deny the Papists the gentle means of recovery from their Errours? or will Restraint onely cure Papists, and Liberty Sectaries? If Liberty would diminish num­bers, why must not the Papists be this way diminished? At this Peep-hole one may see these men plead what they do not believe. Fifthly, If force will doe nothing, how comes one of them to say, the King of Japan rooted Chri­stianity out of his Country by violence. Sixthly, But 'tis too certain that force upon Conscience will doe much. The ingenious Authour of the Inconveniences of Toleration [Page 53] gives two sad instances of it in Love and Jenkins. But to avoid envy, we will instance in S. Peter, who abjured his Lord through fear of a Crucifixion. And if force was so prevalent on so great a Saint, what may it be on this giddy Rout, whose tongue is their hardiest part? Seventhly, To feed the humour with Liberty can never be the way to cure it. Eighthly, The Heathen obser­ved, that Anaxagoras being fined five Talents, and ba­nished, for asserting the Sun to be [...], a globe of fire, none ever affirmed it after. Tully observes, in his Nat. deor. l. 1. that when the Philosophers saw Prota­goras punished for saying, De Diis neque ut sint, neque ut non sint, habeo dicere, they were all for the future tar­diores ad sententiam suam profitendam, quippe cum poenam nec dubitatio effugere potuisset. And who knows not but the death of Socrates laid the foundation of the Aca­demicks and Scepticks? So that none dar'd positively to assert the unity of the Godhead for a long time after. Christ says, in tribulation many will fall from the Truth; and (think we) will none fall from their Er­rours? Should the Powers take that wicked example of the Rump, and set up Committees and Sequestrations, we should soon find our richest Zelots shrink. Ninthly, Beza openly protests coram Deo & ipsius Angelis, quas ho­die corruptelas passim in Ecclesia Dei maximo cum luctu ferre cogimur, eas omnes ab hac tanquam scaturigine exor­tas, quòd Principes, &c. in his Haeret. mort. puniendis, pag. (mihi) 160. He found all the Schisms and Heresies of the Church to spring from the negligence of Princes, in not taking care to punish them. And doth not England see them to be the product of licencious times, when there was no Rod of Discipline in the Magistrate's hand? [Page 54] Tenthly, 'Tis true, the Sword cannot force the Con­science proximately, but it may remotely. It cuts the body, and thereby frights the Soul. It works on the outward man by Passion, but on the inward by Com­passion. It cannot keep men from believing, but it may from publishing Errours. It can confine the In­fected from communication, though it cannot drive out the Contagion. L. C. A. p. 29. says, we must not punish men for want of the Holy Ghost, and supernatural Gifts: True, but we may for striving to poison their own Souls, by coveting the Rats-bane of Heresies; or for distil­ling their poison into other mens breasts. But of this more anon.

6. Their next Argument is, The English Religion hath been under an ill name. Serious men have ranked it with Popery, P. p. 31. Non-conformers believe it, because you persecute, &c. p. 34. To this I say, I esteem it not wor­thy an answer, being rather Railing then Reasoning; and may be used against any way of Worship whatso­ever. Was Christianity the worse, because Julian the Apostate called it [...]? or Christ the worse, because ranked with Publicans and sinners? or did not the Pha­risees that reproached him look as grave as these serious men? What if Pilate's malice will rank Christ with two Thieves on the Cross? was he not therefore a child of God? What if Cyprian be called Koprianus? They that reckoned Popery and Prelacy all one, reckoned also their Prince a Papist: God grant they doe so no more. Plato in Cratylo tells us, [...]. He that gives a name ought first fully to understand the thing: but most of them that ranked Popery and Prelacy to­gether [Page 55] neither knew one nor the other. May not the Papists as well judge them and us both, that we hate the power of godliness in them, because we persecute them, as these do us? Yea and may not the Quaker ar­gue from the same Topick? Yet 'tis Idolatry we dislike in the Papist, Atheism in the Quaker, and Obstinacy in both. Were these men true Gold, yet may they be cast into the fire, to purge out remaining Dross. I know not what Protection God hath given to Errour, Schism, Pride, Self-conceit, Rebellion, &c. in the breast of an Hypocrite, yea or real Saint, more then in any other. If the Magistrate must be a terrour to evil-doers, then sure to spiritual evils, because the greatest of all evils. Nor are any the less to be punished, because they call themselves the Godly Party; since Authority proceeds on matters of fact and palpable evidence. I leave this Objection as trifling, and proceed to their

7. Which is, That Liberty of Conscience raises Courage in Souldiers, P. p. 45. It breeds generous spi­rits, M. I. p. 8. The Sectaries Obstinacy is England 's best Courage: It wrought all our Changes, Prop. p. 46. It makes men for ever irreconcilable to all Impositions, M. I. p. 13. To which I reply, First, It appears by the Omnipotency ascribed to Liberty of Conscience, that it is the Sectaries God, whom they adore not for his Ju­stice, but for his Power. It is the best overturning Tool in nature; and therefore its Advocates ought to be carefully looked to, and timely suppressed. Thirdly, An Argument drawn from Strength against a Govern­ment is no better then a Threat. I hope tonant sine ful­mine, their Threats are but Crackers. Fourthly, To grant all that is true in this Argument, it amounts to no [Page 56] more, then that the Devil is strongest when he fights from that Fort called Conscience. Men thus possest with a spiritual frenzie are alwaies stronger and more mischievous then at other times. But must we make a League with the Devil, to be of the stronger side? Fifthly, I confess this Liberty is a terrible thing; for no man knows what to call his own, while this Freedom is in use. So true is that Maxime, Cui plus licet quàm par est, vult plus quàm licet. Give the Slave a Sword, and he will slash his Master. Sixthly, The Pleaders are deceived with that usual fallacy of non causa pro causa: For 'tis a strong presumption of being God's people, and favoured by him, that raises valour to so great a pitch: and this is a stale trick in the world. All Nations con­sulted their Gods; by Birds, Intrails, &c. gave their Souldiers some Omen or other of divine favour, which made them presume of Victory, and so to run any ha­zard whatsoever. What made Severus's Souldiers so un­daunted, but the [...] and [...] that he told them he had? The [...] made Constantine to be the Great, and his Souldiers invincible. 'Twas Cato's errour, that he would not deceive himself and Souldiers with a fine story brought from the Oracle of Delphos, where he was, and much urged by his Army to inquire; for want of which they were conquered before they fought: whereas some pious cheat would have made them more terrible then Bellona her self. Curtius observes, that it much furthered Alexander's Conquests, that he was voi­ced to be the Son of Jupiter Hammon. 'Twas the strong conceit of Saintship in Oliver and his deluded Army, grounded on these Ministers encouragements, their Of­ficers frequent and fiery Prayers, and their high pre­tence [Page 57] to Responses from Heaven, that (joyned with good Suits of Armour and the City Purse) made that Army so mettlesome. Toleration was scarcely pretended in their most bloudy conflicts; but was the Itch of an in­solent Army, too highly pamper'd with Loyal bloud. Again, seventhly, The Turks are a valiant people in War, and Cromwell was but a Pygmy to Mahomet the great: yet none will say Turks are for Liberty of Conscience. And surely the Roman valour hath left monuments of its Greatness in a very large tract of the world; yet none opposed Liberty of Conscience more then they in their most flourishing times, if you will believe Liv. Dec. 4. l. 9. who says, A Romanae reip. initiis negotium fuisse Ma­gistratibus datum, ut sacra externa fieri vetarent—Sacri­ficulos vatésque foro, circo, urbe prohiberent; vaticinos li­bros conquirerent combureréntque; omnem disciplinam sa­crificandi, praeterquam more Romano, abolerent. If these mean it restrictively of England, let them tell us whether we deserved the name [ gentis bellicosissimae] better when the Rebellious Army was on foot, or 400 years before, when Ireland, Wales, France, Scotland, &c. were subdued by us. But, eighthly, These men rightly account for Liberty of Conscience, shewing that it is a more successfull device for the blowing up any Govern­ment then the Powder-Plot was. But 'tis a strange ar­gument to commend it to the King, because it murthered his Father; and to the Parliament, because it overturns Government. 'Tis certain, 'tis the most fatal Wild-fire of a Nation, and a sworn enemy to all Government; and its genuine issue are Factions and Dissensions, whilst each party struggles to promote his way. It distracts the vulgar, who tend strongly to a Settlement; and in­vites [Page 58] the Gentry into Faction, to become the Head of that Party are most like to receive them. It cuts off the Magistrate at the half, leaving him no more of the Sub­ject but the outward man. And could we but see the face of it without a vizard, we should discern it to be Vngovernableness. One of these Advocates calls it the mad Earl of Warwick: then Bedlam is fittest for it; and thither the Honourable House of Commons having vo­ted it, for me let it goe.

Here I cannot but observe the pretty Artifice of the Prop. p. 60. persuading us to believe, that if Liberty of Conscience be granted, Episcopacie would drain all the Sects. If Episcopacie could drain the Sects without an Act of Uniformity to assist it, why not with it? But, alas! a disease is infectious, but so is not health: we may get Heresies by contagion, but seldome Truth. S. August. tells Boniface, experientiâ edoctus, nullâ re magìs quàm Severitate Donatistas & Circumcelliones in officio conti­neri. Sure these Seas of Errours never so much over­flowed their Banks, till the Rumpers pull'd up the Sluces: and whether Liberty made our Factions dwindle, let the world judge. 'Tis too true a Proverb, Opportunity makes the Thief. To set open the door, is not the way to keep Errours out.

8. Their eighth Reason is, 'Tis a sin to make men act against Conscience: for Force either debauches Con­science, or brings Persecution on mens bodies or estates; either of which do make the Forcer guilty, L.C.A. p. 45. 'Tis a greater sin then lying, stealing, whoring, &c. P. p. 74. You were better stab him, p. 73. He is damned that is made to doe what he thinks not lawfull, and he may never recover his Conscience again, p. 75. To this we answer, [Page 59] first, All this Argument is as strong for Toleration of Papists as for any else; yet these men do unitedly deny liberty to them. So that certainly they conceive it not a sin; or else are content to damn themselves, to sup­press the Papists. Secondly, They know that Pa­pists, Quakers and Anabaptists do declare it against their Consciences to come to our Churches, and hear our Sermons: yet L. C. A. pag. 48. and else­where asserts that the Magistrate may without sin compell men to hear Sermons. Did he therefore be­lieve himself, and this Argument to be true, it did ill be­come him to give the Magistrate that direction. If you force the Quaker to come to Church, according to this Argument you debauch his Conscience, &c. Thirdly, This Argument we are not concerned in; for we plead not against liberty of believing or loving, but of professing and practising Errours. We say with Cic. to Marcel­lus, l. 4. ep. 9. Dicere fortasse quae sentias non licet, tacere planè licet. Were their Case that of the Roman Senate, Senatus ad otium summum, vel ad summum nefas vocare­tur, Plin. l. 8. ep. 14. they might save their Consciences by doing nothing. If the Libertines fansy it a false Doctrine they are required to believe, let them hold their peace, and all is well. Laws can make men hide, though not hate, their Errours. 'Tis true, Conscience ought not, no nor cannot, be touched; but yet mens practices must not be allowed. Thus Beza determines this Case, Vt non sit punienda animi opinio, neutiquam tamen ferenda est pestilens & impia professio. Conscience is that [...] that can't be bound; but mens lips may be sealed, their tongues may be tied, and their bodies moved from Con­venticles to Church, &c. and that is all intended. Fourth­ly, [Page 60] If the Powers could, or some men would make them­selves act against the false suggestions of their Conscien­ces, they would find it a saving rather then a stabbing Act. For 'tis a false suggestion that of M. I. p. 7. That he that is true to an erroneous Conscience is true to God: for then are all the worshippers of Sun, Moon and Stars true to God: then was Adam true to God, when he was beguiled to eat the forbidden fruit. The truth is, Conscience is indeed God's Officer; but the Devil hath bribed it to his devotion: and 'tis no felony to thrust the Devil out of what he hath no right to. But I have spo­ken to this part elsewhere. Fifthly, Say that Persecu­tion were great Cruelty to them that are in Errour; yet 'tis better one then all to perish. Surgeons never scru­ple cutting off one member to save all the rest. 'Tis certain, Kindness to Errour is Cruelty to Truth; Cha­rity to the Wolf is Murther to the Sheep; Permission to Conventicles is Persecution of the Church. Indeed D. P. p. 114. tells you, he pleads the Cause of our Lord: i. e. that his Name may be blasphemed without fear of punishment; that any Worship, be it never so anti­scripturall, may be offered him without controul. He farther adds, that he and his Partner plead for mer­cy, &c. to wit, that the Wolf may be gently dealt with who worries the Lambs in Christ's fold; that the Serpent may be protected to seduce Adam to his Dam­nation. Yet certainly, 'tis a sinfull patience, to suffer God's Vineyard to be rooted out. What glory is it to shew tenderness to the Weed that suppresseth the Corn? He is no cruel Shepherd that kills the incurable Sheep, to save the Flock from infection. Haereseos (says Erasmus in praef. ad Hieron. ep.) ea est insimulatio, in [Page 61] qua tolerantem esse impietas sit, non virtus. Sixthly, For Gamaliel's advice to let men alone, Beza says, ex veris principiis falsam elicit consequentiam: and Calvin on the place upbraids him for a doting and deceitfull Counsel­lor. Whose answers I leave with these Pleaders, sup­posing they will be more gratefull then any I can give. Seventhly, to conclude, This very Argument in the Magistrate's mouth rises up in judgment against all our opposers: for supposing the Magistrate's Con­science commands him (as it ought to doe) to take care of the Honour of God, to punish Blasphemy, to nurse the Church, to be a terrour to evil-doers, to lay out his talent of Power for God, to endeavour God's glory, and the suppressing of sin; If he should observe his Consci­ence, he must punish these men; if not, he sins against his Conscience, and so wasts it, that he may never reco­ver it more. So that these men were better stab him to the heart, then thus to force him upon Damnation for neglect of his Duty. Thus are trifling disputes returned upon the head of undiscerning, and therefore forward, men. See this Case in Edw. 6. who being urged vehement­ly by Cranmer and Gardiner, with Charles the Emperour, to permit the Mass to his Sister Mary, he would not for his life: they press the Suit; he wept, and de­sired them to forbear: they also wept, saying, He had more Religion in his little finger then they in their whole bodies; as Sir Richard Baker reports in Vita Ed­vard. 6. The occasion of this trouble to the young King was, a Resolution given by Cranmer, before he for­bad the Mass to his Sister, That to wink at sin in hope of return with patience, was no sin; but wholly to wink after long patience, or to give permission to sin, was sin. [Page 62] And indeed 'twas very true, for demisè ac facilè pati, pro­bantis speciem habeat, says Cic. ep. 3. ad Brutum. If now our adversaries Argument stand good, it con­cludes stronger for the Magistrate then for the Sub­ject.

9. Their next reason is, Force is no weapon of Christ's in­stitution, L.C.A. p. 30. and therefore not to be used. 'Tis unproportionate to the malady, to beat the body for the Soul's fault: a Lion or a Dog may thus convert as well as men, L. C. A. p. 36. The Apostles never took this way, id. p. 40. nor is any service acceptable to God but willing service, id. p. 39. nor can force ever settle the Gospell, id. p. 47. To this I answer, first, Force may be law­fully used, (though not commanded) if it be not for­bidden; else nothing were indifferent. D. R. p. 15. denies Non-conformers to hold indifferent things unlaw­full. Secondly, That the rod of Correction is not of Divine institution, I think no sober man will assert. David ventures to call it God's Rod, Ps. 23. 4. and Mic. 6. 9. tells us 'tis a preacher of God's mission, Hear ye the Rod, and who hath appointed it. S. Ber. will tell them the will of God is, that the Priest should smite gladio oris, and the Prince ore gladii. Thirdly, That the Rod should doe no good is yet more strange, since the Scripture every­where asserts, that in mens affliction they will seek God early: and certainly one way (and the best) to chastise men is by the Sword of the Magistrate. Fourthly, That Lions and Dogs may thus reduce men to better man­ners, is no question, when God shall sanctifie a danger that shall befall men by those Beasts: an instance of which you have 2 King. 17. 25. the Lions that ravaged in Samaria made the people inquire out the true God. Fifthly, This [Page 63] thour acknowledges, the Magistrate's Sword may drive men from moral evils; and then what colour can there be to deny it in spiritual evils? Sixthly, We must remem­ber them, that this Argument is as true in the Papist's mouth against them, as in their mouth against the Ma­gistrate. Seventhly, They allow the body may be pu­nished for the moral evils that the Soul commits; yet think it unsuitable for spiritual evils. Eighthly, It was not (in an ordinary way) the Apostles duty to use the civil Sword in settling the Gospell, for that was to invade the Ma­gistrate's right: yet we find S. Peter sentencing Ananias and Sapphira to death. To which our Pleaders reply, 'twas extraordinary, L.C.A. p. 3, 4. I answer, 'tis true it was so, in the manner of the punishment, 1. because inflicted by a Priest, 2. without visible means: but in the matter it was not so, for Lying is a moral evil. And therefore 'tis to be admired why the Authour should op­pose it, and so swerve from his own principles: but I take it to be the product of a spirit of contradiction, or the effect of sleepie oscitancy. But had the offence been an errour in Conscience, the punishment had been equal­ly defensible. Ninthly, The Civil Sword is most proper to settle the Gospel, as to the publick profession of it, (which is all contended for:) but 'tis the Holy Ghost must assist, to erect a throne for it in the heart. Tenth­ly, That forced service is unacceptable to God, is very false: for God sends afflictions upon men to force them into obedience; he scourges his children to bring them home to him, and then accepts their Devotions. Thus Manasseh's chains bound him to his duty; and yet God rewarded it with eternall life. And though the service of compulsion be not so candid as that of a springing [Page 64] spontaneity; yet 'tis not so drossie as to be rejected. But say it were, yet is there ground enough for Force; as S. August. to Gaudent. Ep. 2. l. 2. c. 17. Quòd autem vobis videtur, invitos ad veritatem non esse cogendos, er­ratis, nescientes Scripturas, nec virtutem Dei, qui eos vo­lentes facit, dum coguntur inviti. If the Magistrate's power bring their bodies, God's power will bring their Souls. If the Magistrate's Pole drive the Fish together, God will encompass them in his Gospel-Net.

I see nothing more (that is considerable) left unan­swered in either of these Authours; unless it be, That men are bound to follow an erroneous Conscience, where the Director or Imposer is not infallible in his Prescripti­ons; and therefore they ought to have their Liberty. This is urged by L.C.A. p. 41, 42. and proved by these parts. 1. That we must try all things our selves. 2. We must doe all things in Faith. 3. That God will judge us ac­cording to our own talent of knowledge, not the Magistrate's. 4. A man's judgment is useless, if he may not follow his own light. 5. If we must follow the Magistrate's light, all Idoll-worshippers will be excused, id. p. 43, 44, 46. To which I reply, first, These men do not believe this Argument to be true; for if they did, the Papist must follow an erroneous Conscience: why then is he ex­cluded from Toleration? Yea it argues as strongly for the profession of Turcism, Judaism, Heathenism, or any thing else, as for Presbyterianism. Secondly, It argues as strong­ly for permission of Fifth-monarchists to murther the King, if they believe in Conscience the destruction of earthly Powers is the way to advance the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. Thus is Hugh Peters justified for binding his King in chains, and the Nobles in fetters of iron; for in [Page 65] the execution of that Scripture-command he must have liberty to follow his Conscience. Nay, thirdly, This Argument would justifie poor men in seising on the Estates of the rich; if once their Consciences persuade them, that the meek ought to inherit the earth. Fourthly, Who doubts but the Scripture is an infallible Director, especially in the mouth of a Priest, from whom God hath commanded us to inquire the Law, Mal. 2. 7. be­cause he is a messenger of the Lord of Hosts? and who can tell the mind of the Prince better then his Em­bassadour? And therefore S. Paul charges the Hebrews, c. 13. v. 7. to follow their faith that have the charge over them. Fifthly, The Jew was under the obligation of Conscience as well as the Christian; yet no Liber­ty was granted to him to publish or practice what Opi­nion he pleased: for Heb. 10. 28. he that despised Moses Law died without mercy, under two or three wit­nesses: and is the Gospell of less moment then Moses's Law? But L. C. A. p. 33. replies, a greater punishment, even Damnation, is inflicted for contempt of the Gospell. Very true, but so was it for contempt of the Law of Moses too. The temporal Judge kills for Murther, and the eternall Judge damns; and so did they then, for damnable Doctrines that murthered Souls. Sixthly, Men may use their judgment, and follow their own light, and try what they will; onely let them keep it to them­selves: as Hester did her Religion in the Court of King A­hasuerus. Seventhly, This Argument is no less strong for the Magistrate to prosecute Dissenters; if he believe in his Conscience that he is bound to promote the Glory of God, to propagate Truth, and to destroy those Boars and Foxes that strive to root up the Vine, or to pick off the [Page 66] Grapes. In a word, to follow an erroneous Consci­ence is sin; and for the Magistrate to indulge a man in sin, is no less cruelty then that of King Philip, to bring up his Wife's brother Alexander in all kind of De­baucheries, that he might effeminate him, and so de­prive him of his Kingdome. In this case S. Hieron. Com. in Ezek. 18. would cry out, and every good Chri­stian with him, Nolo talem misericordiam, Domine.

Now then, manum de tabula, 'tis time to conclude. Onely I pray leave to propose to this present and Ho­nourable Parliament the ensuing particulars: which if they conduce not to quiet, yet certainly not to quarrell; if they have little of Mercury, they shall have nothing of Mars in them: and therefore (I presume) will be patiently heard by a Parliament whose Discretion vies with their Justice, and both seem to be Conquerours. A true Parliamentum pacificum, Antipodes to the Par­liamentum insannum. Never any met with a more dread­full Disease; never any made a more perfect Cure. A Parliament that have been infinitely provoked, yet know no Passions but by their Names. A Parliament that is like to verifie Lucian's Character of England, Ver. hist. l. 2. that 'tis Insula fortunata & Campi Elysti. When Julius Caesar entered it, captus amoenitate loci redire noluit: He resolved to live and die here. With such a Parliament what Caesar would not take up the same Resolution? Yet Carneades tells us, wise men contrive Laws, and fools judge of them; and therefore no wonder if some repine, that doat onely on Liberty of Conscience. Let such hear that discreet Heathen telling them, 'Tis optimus Reip. status, ubi nihil deest nisi licentia pereundi. 'Tis a happy want, to be without tem­ptation [Page 67] to sin. Caesar, in l. 3. Com. de bello Gallico, observes every man to be a Rebell by nature, Omnes homines naturâ libertati studere, & conditionem ser­vitutis odisse. In English, No man would be ruled, if he could rule: Obedience is not of nature, but of grace: therefore 'tis, In bonos facile est imperium. It must be Gold, if superlatively ductile. Which proves our see­ming spiritual men to be too natural, their temper is so ungovernable. Authority had need wear Hedging-gloves, when they meddle with these scratching Thorns. These discontented spirits breath so hot in the face of Authority, that they make the cheeks of their repu­tation blister. But all sober men will consider how ma­ny and wide Differences this Parliament hath composed, how many Swords they have sheathed, how many Grie­vances they have removed, how gently they have touched the strings of our Concord, what pains they have taken to modell Oaths, so as men might disown nothing but opposition to the Government; and must needs declare, That this Parliament (under his MA­JESTIE's influence) have been the Healers of our Breaches, and Restorers of paths to dwell in.

To continue the Parliament's candour and fidelity, 'tis humbly conceived necessary, 1. To discountenance for the future (as they have now done) all attempts for the Lawlesness the Authours here answered plead for. I need adde no Reasons; their own in 1662. given to the KING are the Quintessence of the Nation's Rea­son, and therefore must be eternal. Yet I may say, 1. If Scrupling and Faction repeal Laws, then are they ac­knowledged stronger or honester then the Govern­ment. Secondly, If Subjects see that Coyn pass for cur­rant, [Page 68] they will bid it for what-ever Law they take distast at. 3. If the Parliament be unconstant to themselves, men will judge their Acts not to be the product of great Judgment, grave Counsels, and good Conscience, but rather of Levity and Humour; especially when an Act shall be repealed that was settled with great de­bate, printed Reasons, and deep Resolutions to stand by it. I conceive, though a Parliament be acknowledged fallible, yet an Act so carefully formed comes near an In­fallibility.

2. 'Tis absolutely necessary for the Parliament to stand by the Liturgie. 1. Because they have solemnly declared in their Act of Uniformity, that it is comfortable to all Christians, profitable to this Realm, fruitfull in pro­curing God's blessings, an honour to the Reformed Re­ligion, and the neglect of it scandalous and dangerous. If this were true in 1662, 'tis no lesse in 1668. 2. In respect of the People's happiness, who have the same means and way to Heaven with their Prince, their Nobles, the reverend Judges, the most reverend Bishops, Doctors and Learned men of the Land. The mea­nest man sails to Heaven in the same Bottome with the greatest and wisest. So that if men conscienciously use it, all must swim, or all sink together. 3. In respect of the Ministry, whose tender Consciences must needs otherwise be filled with great anxieties, for fear lest their private parts, skill, reasoning, wisedom and direction, should not be sufficient to convey so many Souls (as they have charge of) safely to Heaven: from which they are in a great measure delivered by the Li­turgy; the studied assistence of the whole Church of England, by which their Flock is fed and guided in the [Page 69] same manner, in their Devotions, with the best accom­plished man of the Kingdome: men of the greatest parts having no higher way for the daily Sacrifice then they. 4. In respect of the Papists, who may justly complain of our Persecutions in this last Century of years, for their not coming to our Worship, since we our selves at last think it unfit for use. Yea in so doing this Parliament would declare their Predecessors Persecutors, and con­demn all former Parliaments, (except the Rump) as well as themselves, for unconscionable Acts; yea and with them condemn the very Reformed Religion in this King­dome. 5. In respect of the Consequences of such a change; the sharpest Eye-fight being not able to reach the end of such an attempt. It will well become a sober Parliament, constituted of the most substantial and honest Gentry, to leave the Church in such a Constitution as she had in the most flourishing times of our former Princes: leaving it to Rumpers, and others of the like audacious Consciences, to bring in Sacrilege, Confusion, Errours, Schisms, Blas­phemies, Civil wars, &c. and so to entail Tortures to their Consciences, Stains on their Reputations, Curses on their Families, and Consumptions on their Estates. Which God avert.

3. The Parliament will find all Salvo's, to make way for an Accommodation, utterly pernicious. 1. Because they accuse the Laws as too rigid. 2. Salvo's oblige none to obey but Quicunque vult. 3. The disobedient seem equally innocent with the obedient, and more con­sciencious. 4. They permit a Party against the Laws, and proclaim variety of judgments. 5. Changing men from compliance with the Law to the benefit of a Salvo, will be called Conversion in a little time by scrupling [Page 70] Preachers. 6. All Salvo's are virtual Repeals of a Law.

4. 'Tis certainly necessary thatx the Parliament stand fast to the Government of the Nation, according to their own Explications. 1. Because without them men had some pretences to justifie a Civil War, which was a strong temptation to the raising of it. 2. Because if a Prince cannot wrong, nor can he right his Subjects: if he could doe no hurt, he could doe no good. 3. Because Rebells find alwaies hands too strong for the best Laws, and just Princes generally find the Laws too weak to protect them; especially in this Island, where old Gildas long since observed, the people were fortes ad Bella civilia. Yea he adds, Si quis Principum mitior & veritati aliquatenus propior videretur, in hunc, quasi Britanniae subversorem, omnium odia teláque sine respectu torquebantur. I groan when I reade it; yet our late Times have most emphatically Englished it. 4. 'Tis certain, what Odium they can receive from Male-con­tents, they have received already; being judged (by so freely declaring the Law) Propugnators of Laws, Religion, Settlement, the Prince's Rights, and People's Interests, and thereby of the Loyall Party: for which the Factious are their implacable enemies. 5. Because the Parties that would be gratified are true enemies to all Government. The dispute being not what Govern­ment, but what Governours, with them. They could no more endure the Long Parliament with their Aristo­cracie, nor the Rump with their Oligarchie, nor the Protector with his Olivarchie, then their lawfull Prince with his regular Monarchie. In a word, what they are in Church they are in State; alwaies Reforming, but never Reformed.

[Page 71] 5. The late vote of the Honourable House of Com­mons, for putting penall Laws in execution, is most just 1. Because every Magistrate ought to punish injuries done to God, as well as those done to men. 2. To distin­guish the good Subject from the Rebell. 3. To take away temptations from others to grow Factious. 4. To draw the Factious to Repentance by momentany affliction, for the saving of their Souls. 5. To bank up the floud of Errours from overflowing an Island aliquid semper audire volente, & nihil certi stebiliter retinente, as Gildas observes of us, and Bede confirms Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 8. in the self-same words. An Itch after new Factions being as natural to us, as after the new Fashions of the French: a bad new way being in all Ages more welcome to us then the good old way. 6. If the Law given be neg­lected, the Law-giver can't be respected. 7. A dormant Law serves onely to increase transgression, both in them that swear to execute the Laws, and in them that diso­bey. 8. By this means a Constable or Church-warden in a Parish may void the best-contrived Sanctions of Parliament. 9. If it be not possible to execute a Law, the Contrivers wanted wisedome; if not lawfull, they wanted Justice. 10. If former Laws be voided by neglect of Execution, future Laws will not be fear'd; which tends to dissolve all Government.

6. 'Tis humbly proposed to consideration, whether the Church-wardens Tax for repair of Churches ought not to be levied as the Over-seers of the Poor is, by Justices Warrant; yea and Vicarage-Tiths be declared positive in favour of Vicars, (who have commonly the greatest work and least wages) and made to be sued for at Common Law. 1. Because Sectaries stand willingly [Page 72] excommunicate, and are tempted so to doe, by saving their money. 2. The heavy sentence of Excommuni­cation is unproportionable to the detaining a Groat. 3. An Act may be so drawn as not to be Derogative, but Accumulative to Church-Franchises, leaving the Plain­tifi to take what way he pleases. 4. It would prevent a thousand clamours against Spiritual Courts, for too frequent Presentments, buying of Time, Excommuni­cating for Trifles, &c. 5. If all Irregularities were punished with Penalties, and onely Crimes with Excom­munication, it would remove a great deal of offence; especially if Excommunication be executed with that Conscience and Gravity a Censure of Christ ought to be, and by those hands in which Christ left it. I know that Contumacie (as the learned D. Hammond, Power of Keys, hath proved) is the onely sin that Excommu­nication punishes: but 'tis pity to buoy men up into that stubborn Posture for every Trifle; since men may guesse from the equality of punishment, that the Church em­braces that Stoicall conceit, that Omnia peccata sunt e­qualia.

Lastly, That Liberty may be yet more confined, I hum­bly beg that common Swearing and common Travel­ling on the Lord's Day may be stopp'd by Parliamentary Authority; lest their general practice should make them (in mens opinions) degenerate from Crimes to Vertues. I would that our Scruplers had set their stomachs against these Vices, and we should soon have been Brethren.

Now (to turn the Tables a little) I become a Peti­tioner for Liberty of Conscience, to wit, That it may be lawfull for Priest and People (without fear of Bailiffs [Page 73] or common Arrests) to repair to and retire from their Parish-Churches upon Sundays: lest while your Acts command attendance on Divine Service, and Arrests for­bid them, they be forced upon transgressions.

NOw, Sir, by this you may see my sense of these Au­thours and their Designs, and what I imagine to be more wholesome Counsell. If you wonder at my style, as too biting for my temper; I alledge, that the spirit of Meekness can be but of little use against a Party that want Modesty. Besides, the nature of this Case is such, that the discovery of these mens Crimes is a confutation of their Cause. And our Sa­viour (though meek and lowly) found a whip for the Temple-beasts, never using bitterer expressions then to the Saint-like Hypocrites. Wolves in Sheeps cloa­thing are double-skinn'd, and must not be whipp'd with a Nosegay. They cry, with the Donatists, Nos soli homines, caeteri canes & sues; proclaim each other godly and serious men: so that to have smothered the truth, had been to conspire with the Devil to their Damnation. Upon these Reasons I stand at the Bar of your candid Censure for my Severity, rejoycing that your Honour will be concerned in the Interest of Christ's Church, and not, like the Gallio's of our Age, care for none of these things.

What now remains for me, but to lay down my Pen, and take up my Prayers, That God would grant England to speak the same things, and think the same things, and doe the same things; and that (at length) all Animosities laid aside, we may all [Page 74] with one heart and one mouth glorifie the God of our Fathers; so that, maugre all opposition, England may again appear a Nation at unity within it self? Which shall be the daily prayer and endeavour of