I. Proposition.

The Doctor himself doth admit the Covenant to be in some sense lawful and good.

2. Here is evidence enough against the Doctor, that the Covenant is lawful and good, or how else could he give a sober sense of it?

Men that are ready to sink, will lay hold of any thing to save themselves: You may see an example of it, 1 Reg. 20.33. Now the man did diligently observe whether any thing would come from him, and did hastily catch at it: And they said, Thy Brother Benhadad: This is meer sophistry to conclude à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. The Doctor doth admit the Covenant in some sense to be lawful and good; it seems it hath many sen­ses, and I think so too, that it was an equivocal Compact; but in what it may be admitted to be lawful and good, I consess I could never yet understand, for the best you can make of it, 'tis no better but an invention of factious Novelists, contrary to the rule of all Antiquity, to subvert and cast down an ancient, primitive Apo­stolical Government by Bishops, and to set up a new fangled up­start Presbytery in the room thereof, which hath strangely be­witched ignorant and illiterate men taken with novelties: and I have heard how that Philip Earl of Pembroke fell in love with it, yet being asked what Classical was? He said, Presbyterial: and what was Presbyterial but Synodical? a man doubtless of a strong faith to believe as the Church believes.

3. He quotes the Doctors words, That he believes few took it in any sense against primitive, reformed, regular Episcopacy, &c. as the reverend Primate of Armagh proposed in his Reduction of Epis­copacy, and hence he infers, If this Reduction be necessary, the Government cannot be unlawful, but good.

England God be praised, hath yet store of able Divines to de­fend Episcopacy, as it was first regulated by the Apostles, by Scri­pture, Fathers, Councels, and Reason, against all the Adversaries of it; who pretending some Errors in it, and inveighing against personal faults of some Bishops, would fain extirpate the frame of primitive Ecclesiastical Government, as it was here established by Edw. 6. Qu. Elizabeth, King James, and King Charls, of blessed memories, and they that do it, we have reason to believe would do it, to accomplish some sinister end of their own, to revenge private injuries they suppose they underwent, or for some ex­pectations which it may be they deserved not, which they think they lost by the Bisliops: for it can be nothing else but malice in the more learned Presbyters, and delusion in those that are of [Page 8]weaker judgements, to oppose a received Truth for sixteen hundred years and upward, in continuance whereof the Church of England hath been so happy, to the amazement and envy of all other National Churches, under the most pious Kings and Queens this Land ever bred; and they that labour to dissolve this form, must condemn all our best Princes of ignorance and superstition, and our greatest and learnedst Bishops and Ministers (whom the world admired for learning and piety) of all the faults they would fain charge this Government with, and must extol their own Wisdom and Zeal before theirs, under a notion of new Lights and further Revelation. I have not seen the Reverend Primate of Armaghs Reduction, yet I have reason to believe that the learned Primate did not attempt to divest himself of his honors and preferments in the Church (you did that for him, and for the rest of the Bishops and eminent Divines) but held it fit that Bishops should keep a nearer conjunction with Presbytery, than they have done of late years; and in that respect I know none of the Clergy that are against it, but hold it very fit, and necessary that it should be so observed.

The Doctor had reckoned up some evils, defects, and dangers incident to Episcopacy; as Pride, Ambition, &c. Is not (saith he) all this enough, to prove from his own pen, that such a Covenant pre-extirpating such Episcopacy, is lawful and good?

The learned Doctor Gauden, unwilling to break the bonds of peace and unity, if it were possible to keep them, explained their Covenant in the calmest sense, to the supporting of moderate E­piscopacy: But this Anonymus will not away with any qualisica­tion, it must sound of nothing but extirpation of Episcopal Go­vernment; and to speak plainly, I dare say that was the true in­rent of it, and the Doctor is mistaken, to think it will ad­mit of any sober construction; for it was doubtless another Trojan horse, devised by the Politick Sinons of the latter Age, full of armed men, and when the walls of Episcopacy were broken down, to let it in, it had doubtless proved, if God had not been more merciful to us, the utter ruine of Monarchy and Episco­pacy, and overthrown at once both King, Church, and State; for though there were many necessary and pious things couched [Page 9]in it, yet I know not any one of them that they have kept sincere­ly, but the rooting out of Episcopacy; nay, they rather chuse to break all the rest, that they might fully reak their spleen to abol­lish that.

II. Proposition.

Herein all sober Christians who understand themselves, agree with him.

1. He after his scurrilous manner falls upon a discreet Gen­tleman Sir L. B. (as appears by that prudent saying of his to the Doctor) That many sober and honest men are by their once taking the Covenant, so scared from all complyings with any Church Go­vernment under any name of Bishops, or notion of Episcopacy, never so reformed and regulated, that they fear by looking back to the pri­mitive, catholick, and universal Government of this and all other ancient Churches, to be turned into pillars of Apostacy, as Lots wife was into a pillar of salt.

And can you deny this to be true? Many honest men who had been sworn to the King, could at first hardly be charmed by you to accept of your enchanted Covenant, and they strained as much to swallow it down, as I have seen some do at a Pill, who never took any before. Was it not so with many tender con­scienc'd men, you had much ado to bring them to it, but you dealt with them as Farriers do with their horses, to put it down their throats with a horn, but when they had been caught by you, as if they had sworn by the Stygian-lake, or drank of the Lethean Cup, they forgat all Allegiance to the King, and fell down fast bound hand and foot with the fetters of your Cove­nant: nay, you still go on to perswade them, as you seem to be­lieve your self, that it is Apostacy to depart from it, and that there is no remission for those that shall break it, but they must perish everlastingly; yet there were multitudes that cast off the Covenant as a thing of no value, after they had been accustomed by you to several Covenants, New Engagements, Negative Oathes, and what not? and could easily take as many of them as you will, without any remorse of conscience at all.

2. He enlargeth his second point against the Doctor, who said that the admitting of some Church Government under the name of [Page 10]Bishops reformed and regulated, according to the primitive, Catho­lick, and Apostolick Institution, &c. is not against, but very consist­ent, &c. with the Solemn League and Covenant, and the true inten­tion of it, &c. allowable by God, and all good men that rightly under­stand themselves, who thus far concur with the Doctor.

To this he opposeth the second Article of the Covenant, which he saith runs thus: You shall sincerely, really, and constantly (through the grace of God) endeavor the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy, that is, Church-Government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chan­cellers and Commissaries, their Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch­deacons, and other depending on that Hierarchy; superstition, here­sie, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound Doctrine, &c. this expresly relates to the Prelacy or Episcopacy then in being, or in use in England, which was far from apostolick and primitive, &c. as the Dr. hath confessed, &c. if there be any other E­piscopacy truly apostolick and primitive, free from all these evils, and agreeable to sound doctrine, &c. it is far from the sense of this Cove­nant to extirpate it, that it plainly includes a binding of all Covenan­ters to promote it. The Episcopacy you would promote, is Pres­bytery: is that truly Apostolick, and free from all those evils? may not a Presbyter lord it as much in his Parish, as a Bishop in his Diocess? may not as much pride be coucht under a Presby­terian Cloak, as under a Bishops Rocket? examine your selves.

The Doctor, and all others that would bring these men to their right understanding, do but labor in vain, and may as well wash the Blackmoor white. I alwayes thought they stood more in need of Hellebore to purge their brains, than of reason to con­vince them. Where the Bee gathers honey, they Spider-like suck venome: they are incorrigble, and it is not convenient for sober honest-minded men to go about to convert them; every man may do well to spare his pains to undertake to perswade them to come home to their due obedience. Solomon said right, Proverbs 27.22. Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a morter among wheat with a pestel, yet will not his foolishness depart from him. But as the Romans gave them over with a conclamatum est, who did not re­vive in seven days, we may rather despair of these mens return, who have had almost thrice seven years to understand themselves [Page 11]better, and yet continue their former obstinacy; and become more obdurate and hardned in their opinions by any yieldings or concessions that are made to them by the Episcopal party. Hen­ry the Fourth of France, whom most knew to be a Protestant in his heart, (and I wish the Presbyters were but so well opiniona­ted of Episcopacy, as he was of the Reformed Churches) called an Assembly of Protestants and Papists, to see if he could make some reconcilement between them. He propounded a question to the Protestants, whether a Papist might be saved? They in their judgement of charity said, that he might. Then he demanded of the Papists, whether a Protestant might be saved? They in their ri­gid and uncharitable opinion replyed, A Papist might but a Pro­testant might not. His determination was, Let me have no more Religions within my Dominions than that wherein all Christians may be saved. The Popish Priests and Jesuits went away triumphing, as if they had got the day; and so do the Presbyters, by reason of the Doctors sober sense of the Covenant, as if they had wan the Goal, whereas all discreet men must confess it is more his Christian charity, than their desert.

He repeats what the Doctor said of Mr. Marshal and others, (who had a great hand in pennning and promoting the Covenant, (and they own'd it to some foreign Divines, that the Covenant was levelled at the (despoticum Tyranicum Regimen) mis-govern­ment, not the Government by Episcopacy: I am of opinion that Mr. Marshal that penned and promoted the Covenant, Badger­like kept one hole open for himself to pass forth at; this expo­sition of it was but a reserve for him; and its probable he would never have said so much against Bishops, if he might have been one, or rather the chief amongst them: But how moderate and meek a Bishop he would have been, and free from tyranny over his brethren, let those that have seen his proceedings all these turbulent times, judge.

In the next place, he undertakes to disprove what Dr. Gauden saith in these words, That it was the sense of those, who with himself, had as much right to sit among them (that is, in the As­sembly) I know not whether this gloss be true or not, as any others; but were not permitted either by popular Faction or cu­mults, [Page 12]or by other shufflings and reasons of State, who took care to exclude all the excellent Bishops of the Church, and the most able Episcopal Divines, &c.

He that can have a face of brass to deny this, and to call it a very great slander, which almost every man can justifie, should be confuted as he that denies a God, or snow to be white. Argumen­to baculino non Aristotelico. It would be too tedious for me to tra­verse the whole matter from the beginning, I shall therefore give you but one example for all, the proceedings being all alike. I pray what was the reason that the reverend Prelare John Wil­liams Lord Bishop of Lincoln, with as many Bishops as durst joyn with him, at least twelve in number, drew up a Solemn Protesta­tion against the Violence that was offered to those eminent Clergy-men that were called by His Majesties Writ to serve in the Upper-House, who durst not come thither for fear of being murthered by popular tumults raised against them?

He saith, The Doctor was not chosen.

What right Doctor Gauden had to sit there by Election, I am not able to say, but this I may say, that he and such well-affect­ed persons to the Government of the Church of England, had more right to sit there than many that did, who sate onely to stir up Contentions in Church and State, to uphold Factions, and overthrow the best Governments formerly setled by the Laws of the Land, such as no other part of the world is able to parallel: had he not reason then (taking the Denomination synechdochi­cally, from the greater and not the better part, who were but few in number in respect of the other) to call it a Sequatious As­sembly, A grand Inquest, &c. as you say. And had he not cause enough to desire to sit there, that he might by his judicious ad­vice, help those that were too few to stop the fury of the Pres­byterians against the Bishops?

He quarrels with him, about being Parson of the Deanery of Bocking in Essex, worth 4, or 500 pound per Annùm, who to his shame, and little honor to those employed him, is non resident from it, and preacheth at the Temple.

If his Parsonage had been better worth (though I can hardly believe you that it is worth so much) it is like he well deserved [Page 13]it, for those who preach at the Temple, must be men of more then ordinary gifts: it is not fit for such who have but mean parts, to attempt to teach the learned Judges and Lawyers of the Land, who know as much as most men can instruct them: But for Essex was chosen Mr. Stephen Marshal of Finchingfield. I have heard that Finchingfield is a great Benefice, and I cannot tell whether it be not as good as Bocking. But why might not Doctor Gauden as well be non-resident as Mr. Stephen Marshal, and preach in London, and was so long absent from his Parish, that they petitioned the Parliament against him, that he might either live there with them, or leave them to choose another; But they could get no other answer from the Parliament, but they had left him to his choice; and had the times continued, he would have stayed upon that choice, for ought I know, until the day of his death.

What you say of D. B. his second Edition of the Tract of Sa­criledge, which you think cannot be answered; I say, it is not my business now to reply to it, but I believe that if Doctor Gau­den hath promised to confute it, he will be no worse than his word.

2. Others having right to sit, were not admitted by Popular Fa­ction, &c.

Is a most gross and malicious untruth: For amongst those were chosen, and summoned to fit in that Assembly, what say you to Dr. Richard Love? nay what say you to Mr. Christopher Love, I think he sat in the Assembly too, who suffered him to be behead­ed at Tower Hill, for endeavoring to return to his Loyalty? Dr. Ralph Browning Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Samuel Ward, Dr. John Harris, Dr. Robert Saunderson, Mr. Robert Cross, James Arch-Bishop of Armagh, Dr. Matthias Styles, Dr. Featley, Dr. Chri­stopher Pashly, Dr. John Hacket, Dr. Thomas Westfield, Bishop of Bristol, Dr. Henry Hammon, Dr. Richard Oldsworth, and many more. I suppose you named almost all that were worth naming, to give a handsom lustre to the Assembly, and indeed there is scarce one of those recorded here, but was worth your whole As­sembly besides. I would you had set down a Catalogue of the rest, I think you are ashamed of it; but you had enough to out­vote [Page 14]them, and they were meetly brought thither to serve your turns, or else they should have been laid aside, as they were soon after. Yet he makes a confusion in setting down their names, as if there were no priority and order to be taken notice of; then he demands, Where can you pick out three Bishops more excellent for learning and piety, or other Episcopal Divines more able? He is such a Sophister in this way of Questions, that no man can give any certain Answer: he saith those fourteen were chosen and summoned, but whether they all sate there, he saith not: and for their learning, piety and abilities, his words seem to imploy something compared amongst themselves, but yet relating to the Presbyterial Divines, they were not to be compared with them.

Now he hath another frolick to save himself that he be not ta­ken in a lye; For of 121 Divines chosen to sit, twenty four never appeared. And were none of those you speak of before, to be reckoned amongst those twenty four? it is certain if some of them did appear, they durst not appear often; there were enough of them in the first Catalogue to have defended Episcopacy, if they might have had liberty, against all the Presbyterians in the world. It should seem their Arguments wrought so estectually with Mr. Herbert Palmer, that he protested against Extirpation of primitive Episcopacy: and Doctor Burges was suspended from sitting there by the House of Commons, for declaring and pro­testing against the first Draught of the Covenant brought into the Assembly; for that, amongst other things, there was required an Extirpation of Prelacy without limitation.

I would fain know, to what end men late there in the Assem­bly? was it to do drudgery for the House of Commons, that they must not vote freely according to their conscience, but they must be suspended for sitting there. According to this rule, so many carved images might have made up an Assembly of able Divines, if Albertus Magnus might have sitted them to be in a possibility to Vote as the Parliament would have them: but I doubt you have injured the House of Commons, to charge them with such an absurdity; and if it be true as you say, you might have done well to conceal it now for both your reputations.

As for these that came not, who excluded or deter'd them? they [Page 15]were all summoned as appears by the Books of the Assembly; who hindred them? was it not either because they liked not the Election, or the persons chosen to sit with them? or that being for the late King, durst not sit, either for fear of molestation by the Parlinment, or dis­pleasure of the King.

Who can desire more than this man granteth? magna est ve­ritas & pravalebit: he confesseth that they were hindred and sca­red by the Parliament, and he knowes what popular Tumults waited upon them then, being ready at their beck to ruine, if need were, all that did not run the same risque with them.

For the manner of Election, it was no other for his end (although more solemn and warrantable) then antecedanious choice, &c.

If you count canvassing and making of parties, and all sinister ways used to bring things about, be more solemn and warrant­able, then when every man is left to his liberty, to act according to his conscience, then you are right.

For the persons chosen to sit with them, they were all of them re­puted to be able and pious, so far beyond many that sate in the usual Convocations: were they all reputed to be so? by whom? wherein sometimes Lay-men (as Chancellors and Registers) were admitted.

I suppose Chancellors and Registers were admitted, that if need were, they might resolve such questions as should arise be­longing to the Canon Law, and other things depending upon their places, that Divines were not bound not indeed could with­out diverting of their studies of Divinity, take so full cognizance of: whether that were the cause that some Members of both Here­ses sate in the last Assembly, or not rather to carry on what the design in hand was with a stronger hand, I will not undertake to resolve.

As for any fear or trouble from the Parliament, or of the displea­sure of his then Majesty, it was but a Pannick fear without ground; for being called by the Parliament, the Parliament was bound to pre­tect them: you said enough before, and durst not sit for fear of molest­ation by the Parliament, and is it now come to be but a pannick fear without ground, and the reason why it is so, is, because being called by the Parliament, the Parliament was bound to protect them.

In right reason it should be so, nor will I be so hard to accuse [Page 16]the Parliament, or to censure what they do, whether it be just, or no, some were so confident to affirm at the beginning of the Long-Parliament, that a Parliament can do no injustice. The Lawyers say indeed the King cannot, but whether they will say the same of the Parliament, I am not assured; but we will let that pass, and speak of Councels that have been held as free from error as a Parliament can be, yet you know that John Hu [...], and Jerom of Prague were summoned to the Councel, and had their protections from that Councel which summoned them, yet were they burnt for Hereticks when came there.

Yea, had they not been so chosen, but continued quiet, sober, and peaceable, they needed not to fear the Parliament, witness that quiet, sober, prudent Doctor Juxon Bishop of London, who lived quietly, and without all danger of violence or imprisonment in the Parliaments Quarters, yet was he a man known to be firm to the King in the greatest divisions, &c.

We all grant that Doctor Juxon Lord Bishop of London is very quiet, sober, prudent man, and of singular parts; he was so prudent to preserve his own quiet, that he was con­tent (as Naturalists write of the Bever, who knoweth wherefore, he is hunted) to leave all he had for a prey to you; and 'tis pro­bable many others might have done, and did so too, yet not all; for there was a more vigilant eye upon some men, whom you found to be likely not long to endure your tyranny, unless you had them fast lockt within your prison Walls. Were that rever­end Prelate to answer you now, I think he would give you but small thanks for the liberty he enjoyed in the Parliaments Quar­ters.

He addes, That the King was not displeased with the Bishop of London's abode here, and therefore there could be as ltttle fear of the Kings displeasure, &c. It is true, the Bishop of London never sate in the Assembly, because not chosen a Member of it; yet the Prince Elector Palatine sate there without offence to His Majesty; and albeit His Ma esty first disliked the Calling and Sitting of that Assembly, yet afterwards he liked it, and approved of what they had done, &c.

It is evident enough that you cared not much for the Kings [Page 17]displeasure, and therefore he was as good to let you do what you pleased, for he could not help himself; what you were resolved to do, you would do without him, yet for fashion sake, and to delude the people, you would ask his consent in the most hum­ble way of petitioning that might be, We your Majesties most humble and obedient subjects. As for the Lord Bishop of Lon­don's not being chosen, and therefore not sitting there, it had been more trouble for him, if he had, for should he have offered to cross your faction, I scarce believe he should have escaped im­prisonment, or lived so quietly in the Parliaments Quarters, as you say he did; but the Prince Elector Palatine sate there: he did your Assembly a great deal of honor, but what honor he got by it himself, I know not: If Prince Robert and Prince Maurice might have been admitted to sit there too, they would doubtless have given you great thanks for it; and they were ever ready and willing to have waired upon you, to have guarded you from all popular tumults; but you thought you were safer without them.

III. Proposit on.

That notwithstanding all that he had spoken touching the sense of the Covenant, and so great a Concurence in it, he endeavoreth to vilifie, make odious, and destroy the Covenant it self, as his main de­sign.

You say he calls his answers oblique, and that they are so in­deed. As oblique as they are they fall directly upon you; yet sometimes a slanting blow may do as much effect, as if it were down-right. He boasteth, that he can shrewdly batter the Co­venant by urging the defectiveness and invalidity of it to bind either in Conscience, or in any Judicatory, because without the Kings consent, for it binds no more then the vow of a servant, son, daughter, or wife could binde them without, yea against the declared consent of their master, father, husband under whose protection they were.

And is not his Battering-ram as you call it, able to break your Covenant in pieces? is not this good Scripture that he quoted for it, Numb. 30.2. how doth that make against him? you say you shall demonstrate that after, but I know not when that after will be; mean while take notice that his instances of sons and ser­vants, [Page 18]is a Tale of a Tubbe, there is no such thing.

Not in express words you will say: are not consequences drawn immediately from Scripture of any force with you? but present­ly it is a Tale of a Tub, and he that doth use it is a false man, and not to be trusted; as if he did dare to salsifie an express text of Scripture. The Chapter you say, mentions daughrers in their fa­thers houses, and wives under husbands, when the Vow is made, what would you have plainer? Doth not his Argument hold wa­ter, if there were not such Scripture for it? Reason it self will evince what he contends for, either in Monarchical, Aristocra­tical, or Aeconomical Policy: Do but judge whether it be fit for such servants or wives to vow a Covenant without, nay against the consent of those under whose charge they are, would you be content your Relations should deal so with you? when they are to be guided by you, to resolve to do what they please? are you not ready to shake hands with the Church of Rome now, which you would have us to believe you are such a great enemy to? you run away from them you think, and yet for want of discretion you run almost always in their mouthes. Let your wife, son, or daughter vow to leave you, and go into a Monastery, and ask a Roman Priest or Jesuite whether they may do it without your consent, and he shall tell you it is not in your power to hinder them, though it be against your express prohibition. And do you not see now that your Covenant made without the Kings con­sent, was first forged in the Popes Consistory? The way you go is to make divisions in all Countreys and Families, to cause all that should obey, to rebel against their Governours. But how doth that Text make against Doctor Gauden? you say the Text speaks onely of a vow made by a man, and that all such vows are binding, If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, &c. Here is not the least exception, no not of a son under his father, but all men that vow, are by God holden unto it, whether the chief Governour consent or not; it is onely the vow of a woman in her minority or matrimony which may be made void.

But what if they vow things unlawful, & contrary to the will of him who hath the rule over them, as the Covenant is said to be? I understand not your Divinity. What if a woman being a Pagan, [Page 19]vow to serve God, who can make her Vow void? surely no man: so then the more ado you keep to justifie your un-warrantable Covenant, to destroy the Church-Government amongst us, of which the King is, and ought to be the chief Overseer and Ru­ler, you do but hamper and intangle your self the faster: You would fain justifie your Covenant, though it were taken and prest upon your fellow subjects, over whom I know no authority you have without the Kings consent, is not this to wrest the Scepter out of the Kings hand? will you make Kings like the Log you speak of, which fell from Jupiter, that such croaking frogs may leap upon at pleasure? Are Kings placed by God, to let those that should obey, rule over them? Kings are called [...], The Shepherds of the People: Now what if the sheep should co­venant to run away to the wolves, as you did, do you think it is fit for the shepherd to let them do it, if he can stop them? But you will needs make your selves supream Governors, and the King and the rest of his subjects must be under you. But why I pray, must not the kings consent be first ask'd & obtain'd by lawful means be­fore you obtruded your Covenant upon his subjects, which was to maintain the true Protestant Religion and his Majesty? was the King so bad a Christian as not to suffer his subjects to joyn together to maintain the true Protestant Religion? or was he so careless of his own safety, that he would deny them leave to covenant for his defence? no such matter. But the King saw the Hook, though your Bait was cunningly laid: he discerned the sad and tragick Effects were like to follow it, if Episcopal Govern­ment should be ruined by you, & would not consent; whereupon you had no way to effect your purpose but by the eccho and noise of the times, and the midwifery of tumults and Armies. You call this notorious untruths, nothing but impudence, and therefore you will pass through this mire without answering. Answer him indeed you cannot, and if you think to pass through, let me tell you plainly you will stick fast, and are in danger to be drowned in it; and therefore my advice is that you make haste back again before you pass any further.

The Covenant interpreted against all Episcopacy, must needs grieve some, and pierce to the quick those former lawful Oathes [Page 20](where he takes it for granted, that the Covenant is not lawful: and think you that others do not take it so as well as he?) not onely of Allegiance and Supremacie, and Canonical obedience, but that of the King a his Corona ion, and there can be no su­perfetation of such a cont any Vow and Covenant without appa­rent perjury. And what have you to say against this? You say suppose the Covenant were against all Episcopacy. All Episcopa­cy? what against primitive Episcopacy which you allow of, and think it to be Presbyterie? But what need that supposition now, if you take Episcopacy as it was here established, which you vowed to extirpate? But you will never leave your equivocati­ons. What is that to the Oath of Supremacie and Allegiance to his Majestie? can no man be true to Kings; but he that is for Bi­shops? Surely it is something to the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacie, for subjects to rule, and to make the King stand for a cypher. But why to Kings? it seems you were stumbled, and would shift it off upon the ubjects of other Kings that have no Bishops; but you have left it inde inite, which answers to a uni­versal, and therefore it includes the King of Great Brittain, as well as the rest; so then he that takes your Covenant, cannot in that be true to Kings, that is to say, all Kings, unless he be for Bishops; because it is a Church-Government confirmed by the Kings Laws here. In other kingdoms where Bishops are not, the case is not the same; yet I wish all Protestant Kings and Princes were so happy as to erect Episcopacy within their Dominions. The valiant King of Denmark's resolution was when the Swede besieged Copenhagen (if I rightly understand the meaning of what I read) that he then promised, that if it pleased God to give him the Victory, he would make his Scholars bear their proportion with his Nobles, I can give it no other interpretation but serting up of Lords Bishops in his countrey. But as for the kingdom of England, you know what King James spake prophetically, No Bishop, no King; and it proved too true, for no sooner were my Lords the Bishops cast down, and the Archbishop beheaded, but immediately it fell sore upon the King himself, even to the loss of his life, though the Covenant ran for his preservation.

Dr. ‘Doubtless the sense of the Covenant hath lately quick­ned [Page 21]many mens cosciences in their Allegiance to the King, so to bring him (as David) home with infince joy and triumph.’

I think the Doctor hath pleased you now, for you grow pre­sently very high in your own commen sacion Who acted most in re­introducing the secluded Members, in procuring a free Parliament, ara in bringing home His present Majesty (whom God bless and pre­serve) and let all the people say Ameny but Covenanters?

But was this the fruit of your Covenane? we know what effect it had upon his so mer Majesty Charles the I. can the same foun­tain b [...]ing forth bitter water and sweet? We know God drawes light out of darkness, and makes use or contrary means sometimes to bring about his purposes: By accident the Covenant hath made many deluded men more sensible of their duty, but I cannot finde that it wrought any thing directly to the Kings preservation and establishment, more then the Jewes murthering our blessed Savior obliged all men to be thankful to them for mans Redem­ption: where then is the Blasphemy to be abhorred of all sober Christians, in saying the Covenant is contradictory to former oaths?

Touching the Oaths of Canonical Obedience to Bishops, they took upon them to impose such a tyrannical yoke upon many of their bre­thren, sed quo jure, and how far were such Oathes obl gatory?

The Bishops took no more upon them in this, than they had authority from the Kings and Parliaments, (whatsoever you say to the contrary) and that is right enough: (it will be too long to fearch Antiquities for Oathes Canonical, used in the primitive times, and to compare them with this) and therefore such Oathes are as obligatory as other Oathes are; and had your Covenant been so established, what would you have said for it then, that say so much for it now, that all other Oathes must give place to it? The Oath of obedience to the Diocesan, which many of you in Orders have taken, is wilfully broken by you: why do you not renounce your Orders to which you received from the Bishops, and be ordained again after your new model? You think to lick your selves clean with such pitiful shifts as these, pretending your Covenant to be sacred and obligatory, as if it were another Pal­ladium, the image that fell from Juniter, your great Diana of the Ephesians, that you, like Demetrius, plead so strongly for, seeing [Page 22]your Craft is in danger to be set at nought, and your Diana to be destroyed, whose magnificence you would have to be worshipped by the Christian world? Yet I know not why you should quarrel with the Bishops Oath, which you grant requires obedience onely in licitis & honestis, you say is needless, because the Laws tye men to things lawful and honest: By this reason all Oaths are needless, for no Oaths ought to be made, but for to binde mens obedience in things lawful and honest. Had your Covenant been onely so, we would not have made a question about it. You say the Doctor hath furnished you with an Argument strong enough to retort upon himself, by which he argues the needlesness of the Cove­nant, and so do you the unwarranted Oath of Canonical Obedi­ence; you band it upon him, and it flies back in your own face.

If this Oath should be extended to obey such Bishops as Wren and Pieroe, as you unreverently style them without their due ho­nor you owe unto them and others, in all they late enjoyned, what have you to say against those reverend Prelates and others? not one word as I finde here but a flourish of your own, as if you had some greater matters against them, and then inferre, that be­cause of them you have more cause your Covenant be extended to extirpation of all Episcopacy, and so farewel such an Oath: nay, ra­ther farewel such a Covenant, that there is more reason for it to be abolished for ever.

Touching the Kings Oath, there is nothing obliging him further than to preserve that Government, so far as it is agreeable to, and warranted by the holy Scripture and primitive Institution, so far he condescended at the Isle of Wight, and who requires more?

We say so too, who requireth more? so far do all the Episco­pal party condescend with him, and you are forced to yield to it: wherefore let me tell you, and I hope His Majesty that now is will not be offended if I speak my conscience in it, that it is nei­ther honourable, safe, nor lawful for Him to break this Oath of His Coronation; nor indeed can it be disanulled, but there must follow a wonderful and dangerous metamorphosis in the whole frame of the Government of England. I shall give you my rea­sons for all this, when you can pretend any thing that hath but the shew of Reason, Law, or Religion against it. Though you say [Page 23]this also may be changed by His Royal Assent to the counsel and desire of the two Houses of Parliament, as this Doctor doth more then tacitely admit. How more then tacitely doth the Doctor admit it? I believe it is no more but your own fancy: But we hope the two Houses will never counsel, nor desire any such thing, and if they should, you know that King Charles the First would never yield His Royal Assent, and I know not why you should look for more from King Charles the II. who will doubt­less make use of his pious Fathers Advice to Him in His [...]? and it were not Christian like for you to attempt to divert him from it. But where hath His Majesty and His two Houses been these many years, to do it? the way you propound to change it, was not to be had, and I believe never should have been if you could have helpt it: you had a shorter cut by your Covenant, to effect it without the Royal Assent and Upper-House, for you would have none; and I cannot tell how you like it now.

Cannot the Legislative Power change Government by Bishops, as well as abrogate other Laws?

This is to charge some with perjury whom he dares not name, to fright others with men of clouts, and to condemn all the Chur­ches of Christ which have laid Episcopacy aside. Hath the Legi­slative Power such Authoritie, and yet may not abrogate your Covenant, but it must be like the Laws of the Medes and Persians that alter not? No Royal Assent, nor two Houses must meddle with that, but you scare all with bug-bears, and men of clouts, pretending that God will revenge the breach of that, and yet you break the rest and fear no revenge, as if your Covenant were another Pope that can absolve you from them all. We know it is proper for Parliaments to abrogate and alter such Lawes as are not good and useful. Who I pray doth this charge with per-jury, that the Doctor should fear to name? But Episcopacie is not to be numbred amongst things unlawful or useless, that it should be abrogated to bring in your Presbytery in the place, which is ten times worse. The errors and evils Episcopacy lieth open to, are not more not greater than Presbytery hath, and the benefits of it are infinitely beyond yours. Lot the Presbyters [Page 24]draw up a List of all they can object against Episcopal Govern­ment, and back what they say by Scripture, good Authority, by Reason and Examples, and we shall draw the parallel against Presbytery, and then let every man be judge which of the two hath most cause to be covenanted against: and if they please to enumerate the Benefits of their Presbyterial Government, we shall do the like for Bishops, the work would be large, and worth the while to be undertaken, to reconcile the Differences in Church Discipline, and to give better satisfaction to the Chri­stian world. I shall now, to avoid prolixtry speak a word or two only of the benefits of Episcopacy; for the faults it is obnoxious to, are not essential to the Government, but meerly accidental.

First then, it is more orderly, regular, and uniform, and by con­sequence more free from schisms, sects, heresies, and whatsoever mischief may gather to a head for want of good order. 2. It is more decent, graceful, and more consistent with Monarchy: a poor creeping Clergy is not comely in Christian Princes Courts, who will seem always to upbraid them to their faces, as if they were not willing to be at any cost for the preaching of the Gospel; whereas the best Kings and Emperors, as Constantine, Theodosius, and others, sought still how with rich endowments to beautifie and adorn them. Moses and Aaron must be together, the King and the Priest, the Crown and the Miter, the Princes Scepter and the Bishops Crosier, or else the Scepter will be soon made to stoop to the Presbyterian Ferula. 3. It is greater encouragement to Learning and Religion: Take away the reward of Vertue, and you do what you can to take away Goodness itself: Pramia si tollas, tollitur virtus; but I must not let my pen run to a volumn, 4. Consider that many Reformed Churches are in misery, and ready to be swallowed up continually by Popish and cruel Ad­versaries, what can the Presbyterian party do to afford them any help? surely little or none; whereas when our Church flourish­en under the Bishops, the Protestants abroad in all places lived in more repose and quiet, and found continual assistance from them insomuch that their foes did hardly dare to make any head against them: and I doubt not but they will conress how sensible they have been since these troubles, of the great loss they have of [Page 25]Prelacy in England, by whose wariness and continual care of them, as well as of their charge at home, they were always foste­red and preserved since the Reformation. What horrid persecu­tions have fallen upon them since the expelling of our Bishops here, let the Waldenses, and the Albigenses, and the poor Prote­stants living about the Valleys of Piedmont, whom the Duke of Savoy and others endeavored with all their might to take away from the earth, speak. The like cruelties were used lately upon the Reformed Cantons in Switzerland, also in Poland and Ger­many, and the French Protestants fearing daily to be rooted out, and what remedy could they sinde with you? I will not speak too bad of the great Collections made by you here for them, and how they were employed for their relief. Also of the monstrous blasphemies, damned heresies, shameful adulteries, and many other villanies which have sprung up since Presbytery bore the sway, the names whereof were scarcely known when Episcopacy ruled. Let some more able pen proceed.

And however some Churches of Christ expelling Popery, in heat of zeal have thereby laid lawful Episcopacy aside, that is, have not had since the opportunity to restore it to its primitive Institution, yet many of them desire to conform to the plat-form of the Church of England, which they suppose to come the near­est of any to the Apostolick form.

His next quarrel is: ‘If the Covenant abjure all Episcopacy, it runs upon a rock of novelty and schism, and dasheth us in opinion and practice against the judgement and custom of the Catholick Church in all Ages and places (till of latter years) from the Apostles days.’

You call this a Magisterial and traditional way: Surely such traditions as these are not to be under-valued, the Histories and Monuments of the Church are a great light to us in many things, especially such as are circumstancial, and without them we should wander in the dark.

But once prove that your abol shed Episcopacy was of so ancient and universal observation.

Abolished we praise God you cannot say, but that you did your best to abolish it, the antiquity of it hath been often proved to your shame.

Whoever shall read the Judgement of Dr. John Reynolds concer­ning Episcopacy, expressed in a Letter to Sir Francis Knolls, and Dr. Ushers Reduction, will finde this mans bold assertion, &c.

I have not means nor opportunity to see that Letter, nor any of his Quotations: but I remember when I was a Scholar in Cor­pus Christi Colledge in Oxford, whereof some years before Doctor John Reynolds had been President, I was told he was once much given to be a Roman Catholick, and that his brother a Prote­stant converted him, whom I knew in Glocester-Hall, but he fell shortly after himself to the Church of Rome, wherein he died: now though Doctor Reynolds was a very learned and pious man, who by a kinde of Antiperistasis because of his brothers fall, might be more violent against the Discipline of our Church, than perhaps otherwise he would have been; yet he met with as pious and learned men as himself at the Conference at Hampton Court, 2 King James, that maintained it, and carried it against him and all that were of his judgement. The same cause that provoked Dr. Reynolds, may be, prevailed with an eminent person in this Land to favour your Covenanters so much at first, because his brother was revolted to Popery; But this was not the Bishops fault, it had been more honorable for them both to have followed the example of their Reverend Uncle James, Lord Bishop of Winchester, Prelate of the Garter, and my most honored Patron during my minority, who knew better how to direct in Church affairs than they ever did: but for want of his Compass they ran a great hazard, to fall upon those two dangerous Rocks that lay on either hand, of Popery and Presbytery. As for Dr. Ushers Re­duction, if that be the meaning of it, we grant it is not held fit that the Bishops should keep too great a distance, and estrange themselves too much from their brethren: it is acknowledged to have been a fault in some of them, and it is proper it should be amended. But pray give me leave to referre you to Dr. Down­hams Defence of Episcopacy, and when you can answer him, I shall say that you have answered the Doctor.

Under colour of propounding the loy land religious sense of it, he dasheth it with unlawfulness to be taken at all, because not imposed by due Authority.

This hath been so often repeated, that it is crambe saepius cocta, and needs no answer.

Dr. ‘The Jews sometimes solemnly renewed their Covenant with God, &c. which God himself had made with them in Ho­reb and mount Sinai, punctually prescribed to God to Moses, and by Moses (as the supream Governor or King) imposed up­on them; but this was not the case of the Church of England, nor was there need of such a Covenant, or any Moses, &c. as chief Governor commanding it.’

Here you keep a fearful quoil and whiffle about, making a great cry, but there is little wooll, calling the Doctor Deceiver, Revi­ler; and that in his Writings there are falshoods enough, and yet shew none. First you say it is false that there was no Covenant but of Gods own prescribing: and secondly that he prescribed but one. I do not finde that the Doctor saith any such thing; for ho quoted that spontaneous Vow, Numb 30.2. You are still fighting with your own shadow, yet you must say something, lest the Rea­der should think you were at a non-plus, as Sergeant Green did, who would undertake to overthrow all Episcopacy, but being worsted by the learned Selden, cryed out, But Archbishops are no Bishops; then said Selden, Judges are no Lawyers, and Aldermen no Citi­zens. You instance in the Covenant of Moses, and the Princes of the Congregation, with the cheating Gibeonites, as you call them, Josh. 9.15. But there was Moses the chief, whose consent you never had, and therefore are less excusable than the Gibeo­nites were. But because you are so much taken with the Gibeo­nites example, and bring it in so often, as if it served your turn well, I shall say more to it, when I meet with it again.

The chief Covenant indeed was that which God made with his people upon mount Sinai, and all lawfull Covenants which man makes with God are but branches of that, as when we renew our obedience by serious repentance, as the children of Israel, and the children of Judah did, vowing to keep Gods Commandments. But I know not that God gave you any such command to vow against Episcopacy, and I doubt you never asked his counsel when you entred into it, what ever your heady zeal might suggest to you; for it is not a good intention, (fi we may be so charitable as [Page 28]to think you intended no harm it) that makes a good action; but you must have sufficient warrant for it from Gods word, shew but that, and we have done.

It is false that the Covenant was imposed by Moses, or that Mo­ses was supream Governor; for Moses was no more supream Gover­nor or King than Samuel.

You love to move questions: Samuel no doubt whilest he was the sole Judge over Israel, was their supream Governour until Saul was anointed King. But Samuel was never in Scripture called King as Moses was, as King in Jesurun. The like blu­stering he keeps, who imposed the Covenant of the Law, God or Mo­ses? Doubtless God principally, but ministerially it was done by the hand of Moses: this is to amuse his Covenanters, and such as will be taken with shadows; for what of all this? here is great stir to little purpose, unless you wil conclude aright as you should do: the King in his kingdom is next under God, as Moses amongst the Israelites, and his subjects must be guided & directed by him.

He blesseth God as one would bless an idol: ‘That Apostacy to strange gods was not the Church of Englands case, that they should enter into a Covenant.’

Tell me what meant the falling off of several Bishops to too much Popery in doctrine, witness all their Arminian Tenents, and also their general practice in Cathedrals, and elsewhere, seiting up Altars, Tapers, Candles, &c. devised by mans fancies; which last is, (with many other things) in the Queens Injunctions, Injunct. 3. af­firmed to tend to idolatry and superstition, &c. the like may be said of Church Musick Anthems, &c. a thing which the judicious Hoo­ker censured and condemned, and the late Queen Elizabeth provi­ded against, Injunct. 49. and if any Hymn were sung, care must be taken that it be so done, as to be understood and perceived, and where this is not so done, see the Censure of the Homily of the place and time of Prayer, Part 2.

To answer to every particular would require a large volumn; but you have answered your self, and justified the Doctor, that Apostacy to strange gods, was not the Church of Englands Case. You quote judicious Hooker condemning something; let him be the Umpire, if you please, between the Bishops and the Presby­ters: [Page 29]and you say Queen Elizabeths Injunctions have made pro­vision against such things; and the Books of Homilies condemns other things: well, what would you have then? you see there is good provision made against all exorbitancies in Ceremonies, and the Doctrine of the Church of England is comprehended in the 39 Articles, if any man have transgressed, and done more then he can answer, he is lyable to be questioned for it; and I think so may you for your contempt, and covenanting contrary to all former Laws or Examples, only what you have labored to procure since for your own security.

As for Popish families crept into England, with swarms of Priests and Jesuites.

There have more crept in since these civil Wars began with your Covenant, than ever were since the Reformation, yet you would charge all upon the Bishops. The Lawes made against Priests and Jesuits were they put in practice, were good enough; and had there been as good provision made against your Cove­nanting, it had bin well for the Church of England. You are very pettish, because the Doctor speaks what others believe to be true, that the Covenant was but the petty composition of a few poli­tick men, &c. Lawyers or Ministers, no great Clerks or States­men, &c. adding, that their heads rather than their hearts, and State-correspondencies more than their Consciences brought it forth: we finde a great deal of pretended zeal in it, but he that shall use St. Pauls [...], and hold it against the Sun, shall quickly perceive many flaws and foul spots that it hath, and be­sides the rottenness of their hearts, the idleness of their heads that made it, by mustering up clean and unclean together, ma­king no difference betwixt things lawful, and those that are for­bidden by the Law of God.

The Doctor said, ‘There is no pattern for any such Covenant in the New Testament nor in all succeeding ages, &c. no Co­venanting Christians until the holy League,’ ( meaning, say you, that of the bloody Papists to destrey the Hugonots, so they termed the Protestants in France, that is but an ill president for you to follow:) ‘except that of Baptism, the new and Evangelical Co­venant of all true Christians.’

You answer, If there were no Precept nor Pattern in the New Testament, it is sufficient if there be any in the Old; if not Levi­tical or meerly typical, unless the Doctor be turned An inomian.

I wish you were as sound in both Testaments as the Doctor is. The Evangelical Covenant of Baptism in the New Testament is vastly different indeed from your Scorch Covenant; that hath made such a rent in the Church for the devil and all his works to enter by, against which we covenanted in Baptism; and being you can finde no shelter for it in the New Testament, you have re­course to the Old; and there you are in as bad a case, for unless you will make use of Korah and his Conspiracy, I know not what precept or pattern you finde for it, for you produce none: onely you make a question, Is there no precept nor pattern for covenan­ting against our English Episcopacy? and you make your own an­swer. (There is not any for it I say) nor is it much material that he hath found none against it; for we can finde no such Episcopacy in the New Testament, nor warranted by it.

But we can finde patterns of Episcopacy both in the Old and New Testament, that were not barely typical, but an excellent form of Church-Government by High Priests, Priests, and Levites, by the apostles extraordinary, in whose room our ordinary Bishops succeeded, under whom were the 70. the Presbyters in a large sense sometimes called Bishops also, and under them the Deacons. This is as clear from the New Testament as noon day, in the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul to Titus and Timothy, &c. and he must wil­fully shut his eyes that sees not the distinction of these Offices in the Church, which continued from the primitive times, until this late Covenanting way pat the Church of God into a confusion, and sought to destroy all order and uniformity; and I think they are no little proud of it, that without either Precept or Pattern were the first inventers of it, and would fain propagate it to future times, but I hope they will be deceived; for it hath cost men so dear already, that it is probable they will take warning, and learn to be wiser hereafter. We have shewed you ground enough for establishing Episcopacy, shew us as much if you can, for your Piesb terial Government.

The Covenant is not onely against his adored Episcopacy, but in [Page 31]the full latitude extended against Popery, heresie, schism, &c. (how chance then you break it by being so schismatical?) profaneness, and whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine, &c. and for Preserva­tion and Reformation of Religion, &c.

Its well you put Preservation first, and we wish you had done so, for where you begin to resorm you destroy all, witness your information of the Liturgy, casting it quite out of doors: You say it was not made onely against Episcopacy; but it was princi­pally, as if that were worse then Popery; for you must it seemes stretch it in its full latitude to take in Popery, heresie, or any thing else; and had it not been that Episcopacy stood in your way, which you knew not how to remove, your Covenant had ne­ver been made against any of the rest, or else surely you would, as there was always cause enough, have entred into it long before: but Popery, heresie, schism, and all that you were pleased to make to depend upon Episcopacy in the Covenant, were onely added to perswade the people who understood no better, that Episcopa­cy was the foundation of them all. You have put in also many sweet ingredients to make it go down the better: to maintain true Religion. You have maintained it fairly. Defence of His Majesties person. And did you not well defend him? Ad populum phaleras. And why are you so offended with the Doctor, to throw off and a­bominate the Covenant meerly for onely one single Clause for extirpa­ting the late Hierarchy, if so intended?

You did intend it sure enough, and therefore is that single Clause sufficient; were it not safer to throw the Covenant away than to take it, when the poison lies close in it is discovered? Speak I pray you, or else let some men of more reason and reli­gion answer for you. For the Doctor to desor be particularly what Episcopacy he would have retroduced, I think you under­stand his meaning, or let me tell you, such as it was before your Covenant drove it out, onely with this limitation, that particu­lar mens errors should not be imputed to the Government which allows them not, but declaims against them. You say you might leave it to all sober Christians, how little your Covenant differs from the Covenant of Baptism, &c. wherein every man stipulateth to deny all ungodliness, and to live soberly, &c.

If you will leave it so, I am certain you will be condemned by them for it, for they were no sober Christians that penned the Covenant, but hot-spurs and fiery zealots, who will force all men to be guided by what they please to set up, as Nebuchadaezar did his golden image, that every man must fall down and worship it: do you say how little your Covenant differs from the sacred Covenant of Baptism? You gave that Epithere Sacred to your Covenant before, and do you th [...]nk they are so much of a kinde because of that? they differ toto coelo, they are no more like, as the Proverb is, than chalk and cheese, and I believe I may safely call it blasphemy to compare the factious Contrivances of sedi­tious men, to Gods sacred Ordinances. And what you insist up­on concerning the Baptismal Covenant to strengthen yours, is but vain babling, for it signifies nothing to any understanding man.

‘Do true Christians truly entred in o the Baptismal Covenant, break it by wilful and presumptuous sins?’

Because the Doctor said, we break our Covenant in Baptism by wilful and presumptuous sins, did you never sin wilfully since you were baptized? is all weaknesses with you? who I might say have wilfully and maliciously contrary to Gods Law, fallen away from your due obedience to your Governors, and erected a Cove­nant, a Calf in Horeb, to make your selves famous amongst the congregation, and to exalt your selves above your Superiors, you take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi.

You say you have insisted upon this the longer, because of the Do­ctors words, That by repentance we renew our Covenant in Bap­tism: surely, say you, no more then it renews the remission of our sins, which no repentance but Christ in Baptism hath bestowed upon us once for all. Thus you trifle away the time by sinister interpreta­tions, of what will admit a very safe and Orthodox construction; for without Christs merits all Baptism and Repentance is of none effect; yet you have a very acute nose that you can smell here a strong savour of Arminianism and Popery. I shall make amends by brevity in the rest: You need not have croubled us with so much idle discourse as you have done.

Whereas the Doctor saith, That there is neither Law of God or man requiring, or comprobating any such Covenant, at the [Page 33]best it is but a matter of Will-worship, of human, private inven­tion, &c. an Engine framed of purpose to batter down Episcopa­cy, to seize their Estates, and the Church-patrimony, to the great enrichment of some sacrilegious Protestants, to the great joy of the Romish party and Jesuits, &c. who were thought to be, if not the Sires of it, yet the Sibs.

You say it is so full of rayling, that no wise man will hold it other­wise than folly to bestow a line in answering to it. If this be not blas­phemy, I know not what is.

It is in vain for you to attempt to answer it, for you never can, who call that which is the manifest Truth, and you know it well enough, Blasphemy: having indeed nothing to say against it, you are galled, and kick, and fling terribly, and are forced to shuffle off the business again to Dr. Burges, whose Book, you say, making it out that it is no sacriledge to buy such Lands, still lies un­answered: but you say further, Dr. G. hath promised it, and then you may not doubt but it will be answered. But did any of you buy them of the Bishops? that had bin some qualification to your sa­criledge, but you took them by force from them, and then sold them to one another; and would have men believe it is so far from sacriledge, that you will not admit that it is any sin at all.

But whereas the Doctor saith, This Age is the first Parent of that Prodigy, wherein Orthodox and reformed Christians, either Presbyters or people did persecute Godly Bishops, &c. yea and Episcopacy it self. You deny that any Orthodox and reformed Christians, &c. did persecute any Godly Bishops of this age.

That many of our Bishops were Godly, you cannot deny, for you say afterwards that no doubt but some of those Bishops which he commendeth, were learned and pious: And all know that they were severely prosecuted, plundered, and imprisoned by you, and ma­ny of them persecuted unto death, for the troubles they endured doubtless shortned their days. I would I had by me a perfect Ca­talogue of them to set down, that the Reader might be his own Judge; but it is yet so fresh in memory, that every man almost will say you speak a great untruth to deny it: yet I believe you, they were no Orthodox and reformed Christians did it, but rather Jews, Turks, Infidels, and yet it is possible such would have shew'd [Page 34]them more mercy. You grant it is true, that some Orthodox and reformed Christians did exhibit and prosecute Archbishop Laud, Bi­shop Wren, and Bishop Pierce; two, if not all of them, being charged with no less than high Treason, the first whereof being found guilty, was executed Jan. 10. 1644. Were they Orthodox and reformed Christians that did exhibit and prosecute, how do you prove that? and as for your high Treason, you made any thing high Treason that you pleased to call so in your High Courts of Injustice: you know it is not the charging any man that makes him guilty; to say nothing of many eminent loyal subjects that suffered in the same cause. Was not his sacred Majesty Charles the I. of blessed me­mory charged, prosecuted, condemned, and executed, for that you call High Treason, by the same power that ruled? was He therefore guilty, what say you? As for the Archbishop, because there are others better able to write in his defence than I am, I shall pass it by, leaving him and his prosecutors and Judges to the most righteous Judge of heaven and earth. But the other two never answered the Articles exhibited against them to this day.

I pray whose fault was that? was not the reverend Lord Bi­shop Wren kept in prison by you 14 or 15 years, and never suffer­ed to come to his Answer? which is argument sufficient to prove him not guilty, and your selves to be cruel and barbarous, and un­christian, contrary to law, reason, or conscience, had not then Dr. Gauden cause to plead as an Advocate in his behalf, since doubt­less he hath been exceedingly injured by you? who endured it with much Christian patience, being not brought to his Trial, but kept prisoner, that upon any emergent occasion, when you knew not how to go on, you might bring him forth to sacrifice him, to appease the fury of the people? how would you have cried out at persecution, if the Bishops had served any of you so? but they are of a nobler minde, and abhor such cruelty.

You say again, When Dr. Gauden' s hand was in, he bestowes a Vindication or Apology upon a known Papist, the late Bishop of Glo­cester, Dr. Goodman.

I have not seen that Apologie, but I am perswaded Dr. Gauden is a Gentleman of that wisdom and integrity, that he will give you or any man else a good account of what he hath said of him.

But he could finde nothing to say for Dr. Pierce, who so devontly thanked God he had put down all the Locturers in his Diocess.

If I may believe your report, for your tongue is no slander, the Doctor could have found enough to say for him; for it is well known Lord Bishop Pierce, who was Vice-chancellor of Oxford in my time, was held to be as Orthodox and able a Preacher, as most in the University; and if he did give God thanks for put­ting down Lecturers in his Diocess, I presume it was because the people grew so head-strong and disorderly, that they brought in Lecturers, not so much to hear them preach the word of God, as to oppose their Parsons, and to raise schisms and factions in their Parishes: but no sober and quiet Orthodox Minister was, or would have been hindred by him, or any of the other Bishops, from following his calling, and from preaching the Gospel; yet if any were hindred, it was not the Bishops fault that they suf­fered: but to make use of your words, it was the other ruffling violent Ringleaders that were the cause of it, who were adored by the vulgar, as the Barbarians did St. Paul, and were ready almost to say of them that they were Gods, sacrificing all they had in feasting them, until many families were undone by them; you are not ashamed to deride our learned Bishops reverend for their age, by the name of Old Episcopalians, what were your Lecturers many of them, but young beardless Boys of 16 or 17 years old, more fit to have been whipt at school, or to be priests to Jupiter or Bacchus, then Teachers of the people.

Let him name one of those Bishops, unless it were such as were tra­pan'd by Williams, and other caprisious Pragmaticks, to have their hands in that high and un-Parlamentary Petition and Prorestation to the late King and House of Peers, 1641. that were in the least per­secuted, and not rather savoured (if indeed learned and godly) by Orthodox and reformed Christians, either Presbyters or people. If any of those suffered with the rest, they may thank those ruffling, ce­remonious &c. and not blame others who could not help it, nor longer endure the slavery and persecution those Amaziah- like Priests and Tyrants had exereised over them.

That they were under persecution all the time your Power la­sted is most certain, witness that famous Divine, the Reverend [Page 36]Doctor Featley, and others of great worth, but that they who per­secuted them were Orthodox and reformed Christians I cannot grant, rather wolves and tygers, men void of humanity, and much more of Christian Piety. But you have such fine acute ways to play sast and loose, and to shuffle oft a Charge, unless those that were persecuted, (you grant there was a persecution) were such as were trapann'd by Williams, (if they were indeed learned and godly) if any of those suffered with the rest, they may thank their fel­lows: but you spared no such men as you except here, for those suffered most that were the most pious, and of greatest wisdom and learning, &c. for their eminent parts were the greatest ob­stacle to your growing designs; if any of them stood in your way they must become the objects of your fury, who had such tender consciences, that rather than fail of your aim, the best must suffer with the worst, and you spared none though you knew them to be persons of great desert, which are onely hypothetically excepted by you. Who then, I pray you, were the Amaziah-like Priests and Tyrants, your Presbyters, or our Bishops, who were men of nobler spirits, and scorn'd and abhorr'd such unreasonable and un-christian proceedings? But why are you so much displeased with the Lord Bishop Williams, a man long since dead, and mau­gre all your envy, died peaceably in his own countrey? what you speak of his trapanning, it is well known it was not used here in England, until you trapann'd the whole Nation by your new Covenant, but I know where your shoe rings you. It is that un-Parliamentary Petition and Protestation, so you call it, that he had the chiefest hand in, and a great many more honest cordial Bi­shops as well as himself. This gallant Person hath obliged all the Clergy of the three Nations by this memorable Act, to have a good opinion of his Loyalty to the King; had the Bishops then held their peace for fear or favour, their silence would have been interpreted consent; and I know not what they could have pleaded now in defence of their Baronies, and for their restitu­tion into the Upper House of Parliament, that we may once more have, as it ought to be, Lords Spiritual and Temporal: I speak not to the honor of that reverend Prelate, as if I meant to set forth a Panegyrick of his Gallantry, for any favor or benefit I was obli­ged [Page 37]to him for, I may truly say I was never more beholding to him than I was to the rest, but I desire to give every man his due character; had he not been a Person of great learning, and noble parts, surely King James, so wise a Prince, would never have rai­sed him to so great preferment in Church and State. How he came to fall into disgrace with some great Persons, I cannot say; but I believe it was by his too much leaning to that totten Prop of Presbytery, hoping thereby to support himself against those who laid violent siege to his honor and preferment, and as it is conjectured by some, to his life also; which fierce dissentions amongst the Bishops themselves, and the Clergy that sided with their divisions, made such breaches in the Church, that the Pres­byters entred upon them, and had well-nigh routed them all: but the best and learnedst men in the world are subject to failings, as St. Paul and St. Peter were divided, which make them the less able to resist the common enemy. I hope it wil be a warning to the re­verend Bishops to take care to agree as brethren among themselves

IV. Proposition.

That, maugre all this mans calumnies, and malicious aspersions, the Covenant (even as to the point of Hierarchical Episcopacy lately laid aside) is to be constantly and conscientiously observed and kept in the right sense thereof, by all that have taken it, as they will avoid de­struction, and damnation hereafter.

It should appear that the Presbyterians finde it best fishing in troubled waters: they mean (it seems) that we shall never be at peace in the Church of England, for all those that have taken their Covenant, are bound constantly and conscientiously to observe and keep it in the right sense thereof, (that is, as he hath interpre­ted it all this while, to the extirpation of Episcopal Hierarchy) as they will avoid destruction here: destruction here, this smells strong­ly of some mischief hatching by them against us, and damnation hereafter. I pray God they do not fall into the pit themselves, which they are digging for others: but if some must fall into it, we shall pray in the words of the Psalmist, Let them fall into their own net together, and let us ever escape them. They that have taken it, must you say, constantly keep it, and what must, or will they do that have not taken it? do you suppose they will let you domi­neer [Page 38]over them? they have as good reason, and better, to main­tain their former Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy to His Majesty, and of Church-men for their obedience to the Bishops: you put all into a confusion.

You say destruction here, and damnation hereafter, is a hard say­ing, but you will make it out.

I would fain know how: you shall never make it out by your example of the Gibeonires, Josh. 9.15. you are very much taken with that pattern, you repeat so frequently what a lye they told to children of Israel, how crafty and wily they were to obtain their pur­pose, how they cheated Joshua and all the Princes. I am perswaded you laugh in your sleeves, to think you have done so too with the whole Nation; but I cannot finde that this makes any thing for that you would conclude from it, because your Covenant was made and imposed, as I told you before, without Joshua, and ma­ny of the Princes consent. It's true, the Gibeonites to save their lives, did this in fear; but your Covenant was made in subtilty to usurp authority over others, & to destroy a legal, ancient Church-Government, and to take away the lives of all that should resist you, under pretence of a Vow made to Almighty God, which you say you are bound to perform. Now if you are pleased to ob­serve the scope of the Text you alledge, although the Gibeonites came with their old shooes and ragged garments (as your bre­thren of Scotland some say, did at first to gain their ends) [when you hired them] yet there it seems to intimate a secret permis­sion of God, that Joshua and the Princes should be deluded by them, because they did not first ask counsel from him (as men ought to do in all that they go about) whose command was to de­stroy them all: (I am certain you had no such command to de­stroy us.) But God did so highly favor his people Israel, that he would have them all free men, and none of them to be employed in any servile work; wherefore the Gibeonites were suffered by their Covenant to escape, that they might be made hewers of wood and drawers of water, for the children of Israel. I consess your Covenanters have plaid the wily Foxes as much as ever the Gibeonites did; and by pressing their example, you seem to com­mend their policy and cheat they put upon the Israelites. You [Page 39]are yet as free as any men amongst us, and were so before you entred into your Covenant, but I would wish you to take heed that you be not the cause of your own slavery, and receive the same reward as the Gibeonites did of their cheating covenant.

But you still go on, If God were so severe for the breach of such a deceitful Covenant between man and man, when they that procured it were so base and false (as the Doctor would make the late Cove­nanters) how sinful and dangerous must it needs be for men, upon any pretence whatsoever, &c. willfully to break any Covenant with God himself?

I cannot acquit you for your fraud in contriving the Covenant, and as to the performing of it, since you say you made it with God, whose counsel I believe you never asked, you ought to have kept it better; for I have shewed already that you have falsified your Vow in every Article of it, except in that which was not fawful for you to make or keep, to extirpate the best Form in the world of Church-Government. What you say farther of Zede­kah's breach of covenant with the King of Babylon is against you; as is also the Text you cite, Eccles. 8.2. I counsel thee to keep the Kings Commandment, and that in regard of the Oath of God; for you had the Kings Commandment, and your former Oathes to the King against it: so then you have more cause to repent, and ask God forgiveness for the great sin you have committed, than to go forward in it, adding pe severance to your impiety; which if you do, surely God will never suffer you to pass unpunished, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

Nor will the imposing, or not the imposing of it by supream Autho­rity, alter the Case; for it is observable, that in all such National Vows and Covenants, neither the supream Magistrates imposition, or so much as consant, is at all recorded in Scripture, or mentioned; which shews there is no necessity of either.

Surely a lye will never choke you, you have eaten shame, and drank after it: See Genes. 35.2. Jacob makes a Vow, and all that were with him, to put away stra ge Gods. See King Josiah's Cove­nant, 2 Chron. 34.31, 32. And the King made a Covenant, and caused all that were present in Jerusalem and Beniamin to stand to it. Be assured that all those instances you pick out of the Cove­nant [Page 40]of Israel in the wilderness, Num. 21.2. or of Judah, 2 Chr. 15. do either tacitely insinuate, or openly express the consent of the supream Magistrate, as Moses was visibly employed in the first Covenant as King, or Supream. I will not cavil about Titles as you do with the Doctor; but there was nothing done of pub­lick concernment without him, although his Command is not alwayes set down, for that were needless. If Moses was not Su­pream, I pray who was? were they without a Chief Comman­der? He was their General, and what can be done in an Army but by the Generals Commission, shall the Soldiers covenant to do what they will without him? As for your second Example of the Covenant made by Judah, 2 Chron. 15.8, 9. to that I refer the Reader, and as he findes you to deal there, so let him trust you another time.

Nor can any one instance be given throughout the whole Word of God, that any Oath or Covenant, to which the King or Supream Magistrate would not, or did not consent, was upon that reason or ground made null and void, &c.

You are still importunate, and will not be beaten off: I thought enough had been said; your high animosity and proud spi­rit proceeds from Baal-zebub the god of flies; for let slies be driven away never so oft, they will return to be nibling. I know you cannot finde it in Scripture, and I think in no Histo­ry, that Subjects did attempt to make a Covenant, unless they went to rebel without the Princes consent: you are the first ex­ample that ever I read of.

It is no other but blaspheming the Gods, to term the late Parlia­ment Bungling Reformers.

All is blasphemy with you that is not for your Covenant, A­nathema, Maranatha; but the late long Parliament were surely no such perfect work-men, to destroy one Government that was good, and yet never be able to set up any thing but confusion in the place of it; and therefore I cannot think it any blasphemy to call your Gods Bungling Reformers.

Farliaments indeed may advise and consult with whom they think sit in matters of Religion and Ecclesiastical Affaires, and vote, and pass them before they offer them to the King; did not they so in this? [Page 41]and did not his then Majesty take them into consideration, and con­descend to so much as they gave him time to consider of.

It is wisely spoken: They gave him but short time it appears to condescend, if he would not do it presently, they would afford him no longer time to consider.

But without declaring against the rest, but onely suspending con­sent till his conscience might be better satisfied.

And did you ever satisfie his conscience in it? you never stay­ed for that, and had he deolared against the rest, as it is palpable that he did, all that he declared stood for nothing in your ac­count. Parliaments indeed may, and do well to advise and con­sult, vote and pass things before they offer them to the King, but what is that unless it be consirmed by his Royal Consent with Le Roy veult. What he did condescend to, is lawfully Enacted, but all the rest is of no force; for it is the Kings Prerogative to consider of it Le Roy s [...]advisera. What the King opposed not, may imply his tacite consent, but if there were then violence or fear upon him, as at that time, that he must do it velens nolens, as King Charles the II. condescended to your Covenant when He was crowned in Scotland, I know not how the Laws do interpret Oathes of that nature that are forced: but I believe no Deeds or Obligations made by men in prison, when they cannot help themselves, can he pleaded in any Court of Judicature.

The Protestation May 5. 1641. which was never offered to His Majesty at all (being no way contrary or contradictory to the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance) was never opposed or contradicted by him, &c. Good: you do as much as grant that the Covenants that followed, were both contrary and contradictory, and con­tradicted by him, but you cared not for that.

And what ails the man to make such a noise about the imposing the Solemn League and Covenant without the then King, who was then absent? &c. You allow that he was then King, but he was then absent. How absent was he, was he gone out of his Domi­nious? and who was the cause of his absence? did you not drive him away with your popular Tumults, and all the affronts you could or then durst put upon him? and what ail you to produce such impertinent proofs of Ezra and Nehemiah, saying, That [Page 42]they made a Covenant without special Commission from the Persian Monarchy. The Tezt is clear, that they were more obedient to the Heathen Persian Monarchy, than you have been to King Charles a pious Christian King, and shall rise up in judgement a­gainst you; for they asked leave, and had their Commissions granted from Cyrus and Artaxerxes, to do what they could for the service of the most High God, and to build his Temple; but you took leave without his consent to dishonor God, and defile his Temples: had Ezra and Nehemiah for all their Commissions for Gods service, entred into a Covenant to have taken up arms, and to have destroyed the idolatrous priests in Babylon, as you did to destroy a Christian well-ordered Church-Government here, and those that were better Christians than your selves; you may be assured the Persian Monarchy would never have endured such Rebellion against them. Whether his late Majesty did ever command the renouncing of your Solemn League and Covenant, as you say he did not, I cannot tell, or whether there were any Proclamation or Declaration against it, yet as I remember there was: but be it so, or so, it is all a case with you.

He did publish a Proclamation June 21. 1643. against that other Vow and Covenant, which was about that time taken by the Lords and Commons, and by them appointed to be takeu by every man in the Cities of London and Westminster, and suburbs thereof, and through the whole kingdom; the administring and taking whereof (by such as had not taken it) were by that Proclamation, and the reasons therein contained, forbidden, &c.

It should seem that your Solemn League & Covenant was ta­ken by both Kingdoms Sept. 11. 1643. but it is very strange that both Kingdoms should take it in one day, you made haste for fear of the Kings Proclamation to forbid it, but that is most for your purpose, because there was no Proclamation against that, yet they that had taken the former Covenant, were not forbid­den by the Proclamation, because the Proclamation came too late, and they had taken it before it came. I doubt not but the reasons therein contained were sufficient to convince them who had taken it before, that they had not done well in taking it without the Kings consent; and will you tye them that had taken [Page 43]that Covenant which was forbidden by the King afterwards, as well as you do to the Solemn League and Covenant, supposing they may one contradict the other: but if they were both of the same mettal, certainly the Kings Proclamation that forbad the one, did expresly forbid the other, and argues you to have pro­ceeded to a great height of impudence that durst go on further, being forbidden by him; and you hold those that took the Co­venant after the Proclamation, as much bound to perform it, as those that took it before; for you say in many places that the Kings consent is neither necessary nor requisite, nor is there any ex­ample in Scripture for it, and to what end then do you make such a stir about the reprinting of this Covenant without warrant, (you mean your warrant) by one who was an enemy to the other So­lemn League and Covenant, (to one as well as the other) as if it had been an interdicting and prohibiting of those that had taken it, to perform it. To retort your own words upon you, This is but a meer cheating and gullery of yours, of which it behooves all honest men and sober Christians, to take heed and beware.

Nor are Oathes and Covenants once solemnly taken, to be cast off and disclaimed upon any pretence whatsoever, be there never so many defects and failings in the imposing or making of them, unless the matter of them be sinful, as the Jews was to kill Paul, Acts 23.14.

You say, you have said enough already, and too much too I think to little purpose; for you run round in a circle until your brains are giddy, and know not what you say. Those that took the Covenant before the Kings Proclamation are bound to per­form it, and those that took it after the Kings Proclamation are bound to perform it, what then do you talk of the Kings Pro­clamation? all the question is, if the matter of the Covenant be sinful, and in some clauses of it you need not question that, for we have proved that already, whatsoever saered Title you be­stow upon it. But your absurdity for want of the Kings consent, you would make up by a Book you say you since met withal, concer­ning the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance, which have been laid aside so many years.

Its true, they have been laid aside ever since the Covenant justled them out of doors, but I pray by whom but by those that [Page 44]were perverted by your Covenant? Now you would apply the words of that Book to your purpose, which as well fit you as a sowe doth a saddle. The words are, That though there be many infirmities and misearriages committed in the making and taking of publick Oathes, &c. yet no pretence can make such Oathes void, &c. Those Oathes I say were confirmed by King and Parliament, and the matter of them is just and equal, which your Covenant wants; and there were so many infirmities in the contriving, pressing, and taking of it, that many wise men held it utterly un­lawful to be taken at all, and that those that did take it should repent of their errour, being restrained by the Law of God and man from the performance of it. The reasons, you say, alledged by the University of Oxford in a full Convocation, June 1. 1647. why they could not take this Covenant, and another Negative Oath, no way concern the present Case; for those reasons tend onely to their own justification for their not taking of the Covenant then tendred to them, but not to fall upon others who had already taken it.

What irrational evasions are you forced to? They that took it, are bound to perform it; but the University of Oxford had reasons to justifie them why they should not take it: was it not calculated for the Meridian of Oxford? if it had been lawful, what reasons could they have to justifie them more than the o­ther Subjects had? so then it seems some simple Proselytes that you made, because they wanted reason to defend themselves, are hampered in your net, and there they must stay upon pain of hell fire, and eternal damnation. I have heard of a fool tied by the leg with a pack-thread, who would stand, and roar and cry as if he had been bound with iron bonds. You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel; you that were bound with legal Oathes before, as strong as the wit of man could devise, and snapt them asunder as if it had been but a twine thread, what do you then prattle so much of the strength of your Covenant, which is far better bro­ken than kept? and if the Covenanters had brought His Maje­sty to his Crown, they could have been no more importunate for their Covenant than they are; when as it is manifest that it was not the Presbyterians that effected this great Work, but it was the apparent hand of God, by making use of such Instruments as [Page 45]he thought good, the Noble, Valiant, & Discreet General Monk, and the prudent and well-advised Lord Major of London, Sir Tho. Alleyn, Sir Geor. Booth, Sir Tho. Middleton, Alderman Robinson, and some other persons of note and eminency, who were no ill friends to the Episcopal Government, that the Presbytery have no rea­son to lay all the claim to what they did, but they must needs allow us to have as great an interest in them as themselves; for these are persons of a sublimer judgement, and are equally en­clined to do justice to all, not byassed by any factions, or surely God would never have prospered the work in their hands.

Rex Jupiter ommibus idem.

In your Covenant there was contained renouncing of Popery and Superstition, Preservation of His Majesties Person, &c. and what Reasons then could the Scholars of Oxford give that they should not take this? If, as the words sound in common appre­hension of them they are very good, but if they must be read backward, or be construed another way, and signifie nothing else but a trapanning of Subjects to disobedience against their lawful Soveraign, and breaking of his Laws, why should any man that had unadvisedly taken it, be so strongly obliged to keep it?

In casting dirt upon that Covenant which His present Gracious Majesty hath so highly honored, &c.

You are resolved it seems, to hold His Majesty to it; but if it shall not stand with His Majesties Honor, you are none of the best Subjects to press it upon him, taking advantage of his then sad condition; but we hope that you returning to your due O­bedience, to which you are strongly bound by the Laws of God, and man; and calling to minde your former Loyal Oathes, that you will confess that you had no lawful Authority to impose such a Covenant upon his Gracious Majesty, and therefore will of your own accord freely absolve him from it; or you know (and then it will be no thanks to you) that the King and Parlia­ment (as you grant before) can disanul and abrogate former Oathes and Contracts, or else you will charge some with perju­ry which you dare not to name.

You tell us that the Kingdom of Scotland entred into a Solemn Covenant amongst themselves, without their King, before their [Page 46]joyning with England in this, and the King and Parliament of Eng­land upon a through Debate theneof, declared, though at first they resolved to chastise them with a puissant Army, That our Brethren of Scotland had done nothing but what became Loyal and Obedient Subjects, &c.

It is very credible that some of your Brethren of Scotland first taught you this Covenanting way, and there were too many in England confederate with them; and if the King and Parlia­ment, at first so highly offended, did afterwards to avoid civil Dissentions, and shedding of blood, compose the Differences in an amiable way, yet God who sees the hearts of all men, would not suffer such Rebellion to go long unpunished, but chastised them severely soon after, by the hand of Oliver Cromwel, who made a full Conquest, wasted and ruined what he pleased, and brought them into irrecoverable bondage, had it not pleased God at length to set them free by the most happy Return of His Excellent Majesty Charles the Second, to His just Inheritance; and therefore I hope the Scots will not prove so ungratefull to Him, but as good Subjects, being now set at liberty by Him, leave off their Covenanting amongst themselves without His consent, and submit to His Royal Government, as their duty bindes them.

You tell us of Queen Elizabeth and King James, both of bles­sed memories, assisting the Netherlands, (combined not onely without but against the unjust violence of Philip the Second of Spain, first and chiefly in matters of Religion) and entring into League with them as Free States; which was afterward continued by His late Majesty, And why not of blessed Memory, as you said of the two former Princes? in his Expedition for the Relief of Rochel, and Alliance with the Prince of Orange.

That Queen Elizabeth, King James, and King Charles, all of blessed Memories, did assist the Netherlands, being then poor di­stressed States, oppressed in their Consciences by the King of Spain, all the world knows sufficiently, for by this means they are grown from a poor contemptible condition, to be the Potent Hoogen Mogens, the High and Mighty Lords of Holland and West-Friezland, &c. which hath cost the best blood of Subjects [Page 47]that England had, besides multitudes of Gentry and Commons that lost their lives in their defence. The Netherlands were un­der Philip King of Spain indeed, but they state the Case far otherwise than it was, or is with us in England, how rightly they best know. But how far, and upon what grounds of Religion and Policy Princes may afford Relief to Subjects of other Princes that are oppressed and enslaved by them, especially for Consci­ence sake, is too long to dispute now; certain I am, that the Netherlands were bound in the sight of God and man, to a great measure of thankfulness to the Kings and Queen of England for their Assistance, and by consequence to their Successors and sub­jects; but whether they did shew it to His late Majesty during the Wars in England, or to His Royal Issue in their exile amongst them, and to such poor subjects as followed them, I know is a question easily to be resolved.

Thus I have given you some Pattern of Covenanting Christians, besides the holy League in France.

Why Sir, what Patterns are they? when you speak of the Ne­therlands, you mention no Covenant they took, but say they combined together; but your Patterns are, you say, the two Hou­ses of Parliament in England, and your Brethren in Scotland.

Surely the man is besides himself: The Doctor complains of your Scotch Covenant, and that which was set forth by the two Houses of Parliament without the Kings consent; and he saith further, that there were never any such Covenanting Christians heard of untill the Papists covenanted together to destroy the French Protestants; and if you have any other Patterns to pro­duce, he challengeth you to do it. In answer whereto you say idem per idem: your Patterns are the two Houses of Parliament, and our Brethren of Scotland: the Boys in the streets will hiss at you.

You adde, that you forbear to mention Germany, the Cantons the Albigenses, and others, because you had said enough already, when as you had said just nothing; and what you now say is as ri­diculous as the former. You will not mention Germany, &c. when as you do onely mention it and no more; but for any Covenants they entred into without their Princes consent, if you knew of [Page 48]any you should have mentioned that, or else hold your peace, but it is clear you could finde none, which is sufficient to shew your falshood and folly, and blasphemy in the close, who dare com­pare your Covenant with our sacred Covenant made with God in Baptism, wherein we are sprinkled with the blood of Christ, and spiritually washed from the guilt of original sin.

Give me leave to make a short digression, if it be any, to shew how hurtful it is to binde the King and his Subjects to stand to the Covenant: We honor our Kings here, as Christs Vice-ge­rents upon earth, and although they are compassed with human infirmities, and are restrained by good Laws from doing wrong, because of the largeness of their power, yet they ought not to be bound with Saint Peters bonds, or hindred from doing any good they can. You know that God hath given to the Kings of Eng­land a miraculous Gift of Healing most scroffulous Tumors, cal­led The Kings Evil, (for every good gift comes from God) and that many hundreds have been healed by His Majesties touching of them since His happy Return, who could finde no remedy be­fore from Chyrurgions or Physicians, and divers perished for want of help; and if the Christian Kings of France can do the like, it is but a farther Confirmation of the certainty and law­fulness of it: now when they perform these Cures, some wor­thy Bishop or Episcopal Divine waiteth on them, repeating the Promise of our blessed Saviour to his Church (over which the King is held by us to be Supream in his Dominions) They shall lay their hand upon the sick, and they shall recover, Mark 16.18. If your Covenant will not allow this to be done by them, but that poor people must perish for want of Cure, when God hath so graciously provided it for them, how do you think it possible the people will endure such a Covenant?

I have been told that some sons of Belial should speak evil of it, who would speak no better of Saint Pauls Napkins, or of the shadow of Saint Peter passing by. I do not finde that this way of healing was practised here, at least so frequently, before Edward the Confessor's dayes, who is well represented on the Royal Exchange, under a double capacity of King and Priest, with a Crown on his head, and a Bible in his hand; and from [Page 49]him it descended to his Successors; yet if I forget not, I have read something of King Lucius to this purpose, who was the first Christian King here, when Joseph of Arimathea lived in this Island. But should any man ask a reason why the King doth not cure all Diseases as well as that, or why it was not practised so often at least, in former days? it would be to, tedious to dis­course of Sympathies and Antipathies, of Thora and Antithora, or of such providential wayes wherewith our good God doth al­ways supply mankinde with helps against all defects and inconve­niences where we stand in need: One may as well forbid the use of the Mariners Compass, as if it were performed by sorcery or inchantments, because we cannot give a certain reason why the Loadstone should attract iron as it doth; or the Needle should point alwayes to the North. I shall onely assign two reasons of His Majesties curing the Evil. The first shall be, that it is very pro­bable that this Evil is more frequent, and increaseth more now than it did of old, by reason of change of Diet, or from what cause soever it may proceed wherein we differ from the Ancients, and therefore God hath furnisht us with this remedy against it. And secondly Christianity waxing cold, and men being more sub­joct to rebel against the Supream Magistrate than of elder times; for so Saint Paul writes to Timothy, That in the last dayes pe­rillous times should come, that men should be Traytors, heady, high­minded, &c. 2 Tim. 3.4. And Saint Peter saith, 2 Pet. 3 3. There shall come in the last dayes scoffers, walking after the rown lusts, such as despise Government, chap. 2.8. presumptuous, not being afraid to speak evil of Dignities, and therefore 1 Pet chap. 2.13. he commands all, Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man, to the King as Supream: and verse 17. Fear God, honour the King.

Now that Subjects might live more peaceably in obedience to the King, this may be none of the least occasions, God having hereby discovered unto us, that he hath bestowed upon the King this divine Vertue of Healing some of the most general and sprea­ding Diseases amongst the people, more than he hath given to any other men.

I would we knew the extent of your Covenant, if we must [Page 50]obey it, I do not see but most degrees of Honor, the Nobles as well as of the Clergy, must be levelled by it. It may be the Order of the Garter will be allowed for no better than an old Popish Ceremony, fit to be abolished, if you may tanquam ex cathreda, interpret the sense of your Covenant, which you hold to be as infallible as Rome doth her Church, all must believe it under pain of damnation, call but your Covenanters the Church, and I find no difference. But to return to Episcopacy, methinks it is high time Bishops should be restored with more power than formerly, which will be but moderate Episcopacy, in regard of the great increase of Schisms and Heresies, and the dangerous times we are fallen into.

But whom do you call your dear Mother of the Church of Eng­land? Pray what is she?

Here according to your scurrilous way of jeering, you proceed to speak non-sense, it seems you are but an ungracious, disobe­dient son, your Mother is grown poor by many of your plunder­ings and sequestrings, and now you will not know her. Doth not St. Paul call himself the Father of those Churches he had begot­ten in Christ? and why then cannot the Church of England spi­ritually and metaphorically be called our Mother, whose breasts we suck in the two Sacraments of Baptism, and the Holy Eucha­rist. The Scripture saith, That Kings shall be the Churches Nur­sing Fathers, and Queens Nursing Mothers: Are you such a Cri­tick, and understand not that, or will you quarrel with the Scri­pture for it?

As for your Post-script of Doctor Ʋshers Model of Reformed Episcopacy, the Learned Doctor Bernard being now living, is able to give the best account of that; but I hope I have given you a good account of all the rest.