Saint Peters Bonds Abide

TO THE HONOURED Sir LAWRENCE BROMFEILD, Knight, and Colonel in LONDON.

Y OU have been pleased (in order to composure of our unhappy differences) to suggest unto a grave and learned Divine, a considerable case of conscience Relating to Church-Discipline, (viz.) The consistency of Episcopacy with the Solemn League and Covenant, and you have thereby produced his Resolution unto the loosing of Saint Peters Bonds, as he is pleased to Entitle it: You may Sir, remember, it is Solomon's experienced Rule, It is a snare (or stumbling stone) to devour holy things, and after vows to make enquiry: (How to keep or retract them (saith Mercer) for that, indeed, many times, the Resolution proveth more entangling than the Obligation; I wish that this were not found the unhappy fate of Dr. Gawden his sense and solution of the Covenant in point of Episcopacy.

Truly Sir, according to that little skill that I have in things of this nature, this Resolution to your enquiry is so sadly shipwrecked on the uncertainty of the object, in advertency of expression and imbecility of answer and Argument, those three Rocks that lay-way conscience-satisfaction; that it cannot arrive at its desired haven; but notwithstanding its Angelical voice will leave Saint Peter as fast fettered as it found him: If Sir, I may do it without offense, I would make bold to discover it that some other attempt for Saint Peters rescue may be undertaken.

First, Sir, there is not a greater danger to be shunned by a Casuist, than a mistake, or uncertain proposal of the object, or Ratio formalis of the obligation scrupled and to be discharged, whereby the scrupulous conscience doth easily start from the most pinching Conclusions that are put upon it; and herein Sir, if I mistake not, the Dr. is very unhappy; for he propounds the object, or Ratio formalis of the Covenant, under the general term Episcopacy; the which he well knoweth, is owned as an appellation common to all, and every the Governors of the Church, who are in Scripture denominated Bishops, and by good demonstration Bishop and Presbyter have been asserted to be synominous titles of Church-Officers, and are found to have been so used in the Primitive times of the Church, and Writings of the Fathers; and in this sense the Episcopacy▪ which he supposeth to be the object of the Covenant, intends only the Government of the Church by the Ministers and Officers thereof, who may, and must in their several Assemblies (ordinis causâ) have a President or Moderator to Regulate and dispose all things which belong to order; as in all policy to the Chair belongeth; and if this be it he means by his Episcopacy, Primitive, Regular, Reformed, and paternal Episcopacy: which I could easily imagine when I observe the Emphasis of his universal discretive All Episcopacy, page 9. and elsewhere oftenmentioned, and that in an opposition▪ to some Episcopacy abjured and fit to be extirpated; and that it is explained by the adjuncts, Reformed and Regulated as it ought to be, as page 8. and opposed to an Episcopacy the confessed Subject of abusive excesses and defects not only in the execution of its authority, through the faults, and infirmities of some Bishops, and their instruments; who possibly were not so worthy and good; or not so wise, and discreet, as became Christian Bishops, and Ecclesiastical Governors of Christ's Church; but also in the very inconveniency of its constitution and Customs in England. p. 10. In both which he confesseth, page 21. there needeth an honest and ingenuous Reformation of Episcopacy, beyond the former excessive, or defective constitution, or execution of it: And more particularly by that Explication which is annexed in page 14. The efficacious conjunction of it with Presbyterie according to the Reduction of the most reverend Primate of Armagh, and the considerations of the Lord Verulam offered to King James: if I say this be the Episcopacy he means; I humbly conceive in his Book he doth sudare de nugis, labor to little purpose; for so far is any intelligent Covenanter from looking on their looking back, to the Primitive, Catholic, and Universal government, of this, or any other ancient Churches; to endanger the turning of them into Pillars of Apostasy, as Lots wife was into a Pillar of Salt, that they judge an arrival at it, to be their Zoar in their escape from Sodom; and hereof he might have assured himself by what page 22. he professeth himself to know to have been the sense of the Learned men in the late Assembly of Divines, and by Mr. Marshal 's Declaration that the Covenant was levelled at the Despoticum Tyrannicum Regimen; there are no Covenanters that know anything of the true nature of Presbytery, but they will embrace this Episcopacy as not only consistent with, but the very complement of the Covenant as to that point and Article; and will confess this is not only the honest, but literal and complexive meaning of it, and with him will condemn them for rigid Bigots and virulent spirits, to be slighted, not striven with, who conceive themselves bound against such a Primitive, Reformed, and Regular Episcopacy under such a reduction as I conceive would prove the formal corruption of the Episcopacy covenanted against, and I hope he will find few, very few such Covenanters in England.

But if Sir, by Episcopacy he mean (as I must confess I am jealous he doth) that frame and fabric by which the man of sin was made manifest, did advance himself in the Temple of God, above (not only all his fellow Ministers or Bishops) but even Magistrates, all that were called God; which was, by his appearance and exaltation, innovated into, and obtruded on the Churches of God in these Nations, on the fall of the Monks of Bangor, and was so exercised, that Anselm (whom Laude succeeded, as in place, so in property, and almost power) did appear papa alterius mundi; wherein Bishops as a species or kind of Ministers different and distinct from Presbyters; and so Superior to them, not only in point of Order, but Office and Authority, together with all that Hierarchy by which it was executed; all which his terms do too plainly suggest when he speaks of the Episcopacy which England sometimes had; was lately desproyed, the legal Episcopacy, pa. 19 an Episcopacy wherein the Bishops are distinct from Presbyters, pag. 21. arrogate unto themselves the sole power of Ordaining Ministers, and to be the chief Conservators, Cisterns, and Conduits of Ecclesiastical authority, and Ministerial power. page 12. who have not only Precedency and Order, but paternal authority; page 18. and that not only over people, but their Pastors; who are by this antithesis fraternal with them, and so fillial to the paternal power of the Bishops; and make up the paternal, fraternal, and filial unity of Bishops, Presbyters, and people, pa. 5. Nay, in opposition to whom the ordinary Minister or Presbyter, is divested of all power, and degraded of all dignity among the people; and the Bishop, as dignified above him, so distinguished from him by his Lawn sleeves, which is plainly suggested when he tells us, The people of England are not to be governed by their equals and inferiors, because they are in black Coats. page 17. All these expressions, with many of the like nature, do seem to set up and point out such an Episcopacy, as is not Primitive and Regular: And I say, if this be the meaning of his Episcopacy, as the word (in the vulgar acceptation by the too long appropriation of it to such an unjust and Anti-Christian frame of Government) may be understood: Truly Sir, then I must be free to tell him the sense and very Letter of the Covenant is clear against it, and binds the taker in terminis to the extirpation of Prelacy, that is to say, the Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors, and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-Deacons, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy: So that it is the thing, not its abuse; the subject, not its adjuncts; the Fabric, not its defects and excesses, is covenanted against, nor will the Covenant be accomplished, or the conscience be satisfied by the removal of the pride, presumption, dullness, covetousness, and tyranny of Bishops, whilst the preeminence, prerogative, paternal power, and juridical authority, assumed by them as distinct from and above all other Ministers of the Gospel, as the only immediate Successors of the Apostles, and enforced by their High Commission and starchamher with other imperial Courts, Officers, and proceedings are continued and established; nor must he think by his Sophistical comparison, to deceive and delude the conscience, telling us, page 17, 18. That, they that Covenanted against Popery, cannot think they did abjure, or must abhor all those saving truths, and duties of Christianity; which are mixed with Popery; for whatsoever is formal popery, though it be an English Mass or Altar, that, all that, though only that, must be abhorred; and I conceive it yet remains to be proved that the paternal authority of Episcopacy is a saving truth or Christian duty, or not of the formality of prelacy, and that government covenanted against. It is no hard case of conscience to resolve whether a man may use the good and substantial materials of a destroyed Fabric; but I conceive it an high fallacy, from thence to impose the very form resolved against.

You see Sir at what uncertainty we are left, whilst the object of the obligation is propounded under a general term, whose proper, primitive, and genuine signification, suggests one thing, and the vulgar and long-used acceptation suggests another: and our resolution is darkened by the multitude of expressions, concluding sometimes one, and sometimes the other thing; which of these shall a conscientious Covenanter embrace? You cannot Sir but know, the work of a Casuist, is, to be full, and clear in the discovery of the Ratio formalis, thing or matter; concerning which the conscience conceiveth itself obliged; and that it is a great unhappiness in an Interpreter, and much greater in a Casuist, to resolve obscura per obscuriora.

But, Sir, that I may testify my willingness to understand him, and cement, what in me lieth, the sad differences in the Church: Shall I entreat you, will please to provoke the Dr. and his Anti-covenant brethren, such as seem to advance and promote an Episcopacy scrupled by Covenanters; to speak out and clearly to declare, whether they will admit the removal of the Government by Arch-Bishops, and that late Hierarchy; which he concludes, page 18 is dead, and must rise in another quality; and (according to what is suggested in the Reduction by him urged) consent to the establishment of Congregational, Classical, Provincial, and National Assemb • ies, o • Synods of Church-Officers; Communi concilio Presbyteror • m, to debate and determine the affairs of the Church, and exercise all Acts of discipline and Ecclesiastic power: In each of which if there be Ignatius his Angel, Tertullian his Summus sacerdos, or Armagh's Bishop or Super-intendent, for order-sake to call Assemblies, propound questions, gather suffrages, require Order and composure in audience, and debate, pronounce sentence, and sign Decrees, and to be fixed in that place, enjoying all the dignities thereto belonging, and to be distinguished by some special denomination from his Chorepiscopi or Colleagues; they shall not only enjoy my consent (who I hope make conscience of the Covenant) but also endeavor (which I think will not much need) that all the Covenanted Ministers may join with them in a Petition to His Majesty, that by a Synod (by His Majesty's Authority) called, it may be speedily consulted and concluded on; under which I doubt not but the Peace of the Church will be preserved, and power, truth, and godliness promoted.

But if nothing will serve them but Bishops, distinct in Office from Presbyters, and exercising over them a paternal authority; appropriating to themselves the power of ordaining Ministers, and the succession ro the Apostles, and the Jurisdiction before noted; we must entreat him to produce those clear, pregnant, and constant beams of right reason, and true Religion, which shineth in the brightness and stability of Divine and Human Laws; which may be the pillars of this truth, firm supports of duty, sure bounds of obedience, and safe repose of conscience in this point; greatly darkened by the many disputes of Bishops and Presbyters; Papists and Protestants; nay, by the positive assertions of both Papists and Protestant Divines, and determinations of Schoolmen, who have concluded Bishops and Presbyters to be Ministers ejusdem ordinis, equal in Office and authority, and in this very case of government; all which his very Reduction proposed doth not obscurely suggest. Sir, the conscience is by him confessed, to be more tender, than to be deluded with Sophistry, or silenced by a pretence of Regulation and Moderation, which intends no other, save a Reduction of Episcopacy to its pristine and corrupt estate, not unto Presbytery.

Thus Sir I have noted the first Rock, and the Doctor's unhappy dashing against it; which must needs render ineffectual, whatever he after writeth.

The inadvertency of his expressions will appear no less evident, than his ambiguous state of the Scruple, and its resolution; if we either observe its fierceness or falsehood: The fierceness of it is much manifested in those multiplied invectives uttered against the Covenant and authority which did enjoin it; and persons who did compose it; in these and the like intemperate terms,

These and many the like Railing, Taunring, and Intemperate terms, much below the expected sobriety of a so publicly professed healer; yet as an evidence of his fury, he falsely chargeth the Covenant with most sad and unblest effects, and to have been the cause of all the One of the great rocks I cannot but wonder to find Dr. Gawden thus audacter calumniare! for can any considerate Reader, or competent observer of the transactions of our Nations in these last years, read these reproachful speeches, and not conclude them a most positive and public calumny? Let the Covenant itself be considered, and can it, by reason of any tendency in itself, be charged to be the proper cause of such prodigious effects? Is it not the most fervent profession of piety towards God, Loyalty to the King, and Justice towards men, that can be made? Is it not the most firm tie to Religion that can be fastened? and the fullest security of all kind of Interests, the prerogative of the King, the privileges of Parliament, and Liberty of the Subject, which can be given? can anything but ill-will represent to the world such unblest effects as the natural products of it? and if some persons engaged in it, have engaged in and acted such horrid impieties, inhumane and barbarous actions, under the false cry of the Covenant, shall a man of justice, charge the bastard-brood of such profaneness, to be the natural issue of so Solemn and Sacred an Oath!

But Sir, will not an observation of the time, when these sad and unblest effects fell upon us, acquit the Covenant from being in the least accessory unto the production of them? If my observation fail me not, and I be not mistaken in my account, the

all which were not only begun, but carried to some considerable progress before it had its being; how then could these be the black shadows of its appearing and prevailing in England?

Some have observed, that from the time of the taking of the Covenant, success fell on the side of the Parliament, and things did thenceforward grow into a tendency to peace, and rested not until it effected the Resolves that His Majesty's Concessions were satisfactory and sufficient ground of peace: And here let it be noted that it was so far from being watered with the King's blood, that when the debate (relating to His Majesty) engaged the Contests in the House, which run the Armies on those high insolencies against the Parliament, as to pull out violently 120. Members, who in conscience of the Covenant, did pursue and struggle for His Majesty's Restitution with honor and happiness: And the Covenant was by that perfidious pack openly declared useless, an Almanac out of date, and violated with the highest impiety imaginable, to make way to that execrable murder of His most Sacred Majesty: Nay Sir, can the clamours of the Covenant which were so loud in Press and Pulpit, by the Ministers of London in their Representation to the Armies at Saint Albans (before they perpetrated their horrid designs) in their public Vindication Printed with their names subscribed, witnessing to the World the inconsistency of that Barbarous proceeding with the Solemn League and Covenant, be so far out of the Doctor's remembrance, as to charge the Covenant (so Eminently approved the pillar of witness against it) to have been the Rock of the King's shipwreck, and watered with his blood: Your Casuist was willing to have all the world to know his innocence as to that inhumane wickedness; methinks Sir, he should not quite overlook others no less innocent than himself.

Moreover Sir, many that are no Rigid Bigots, or virulent spirits, and have considered the concurrence of affairs in this Church and Kingdom, think, that without breach of charity or sobriety, they may conclude the arrogancy of Prelates, the alterations of publi • k worship, the innovated Ceremonies and Superstitions, the Oath (with its etcaetera) binding to Canonical obedience, the excommunications, banishments, stigmatizing, Confiscations, imprisonments, and high Commission-Censures against pious Non-conformists, with the silencing and suspending painful, powerful, and pious Preachers, with the Arbitrary, Illegal imposition of the new Service-Book in Scotland, look much more like the natural parent, and proper cause of our late Confusions, Commotions, War, and Bloodshed, then doth the Solemn League and Covenant; but I intend not to retort or recriminate.

I shall Sir, leave wise men to judge, how unlikely a course it is, by such unadvised expressions, to satisfy conscience; which is so tender and tickle, that all offenses should be avoided; passion is not only a perturbation to the mind, but also a prejudice to the understanding of what is propounded; the answer had need be clear, and arguments convincing, that follow such provocations unto prejudice; which would make a sober (much more a scrupulous) conscience turn aside and read no further; when conscience is so tender that reason is ready to pinch it into passion, how little need is there to provoke it by Railings and reflection of just miscarriages? (much less unjust calumnies) Though Ironies and Satyrs may become Orators in reproof; they beseem not Casuists in the resolution of conscience-doubts.

But I proceed to consider his answer and Arguments, purposing, by God's grace, to yield to the power of Reason that is in them, though they come under so great disadvantages as have been noted.

His Answer is as himself suggesteth, double, indirect, and direct.

His first Answer is indirect, an oblique stroke at the whole body of the Covenant, which work, how prudently it is undertaken, considering the universal obligation of the Covenant on all men f • om His Sacred Majesty, to the meanest Subject, let wise men judge? and how proper to him; who (if my information fail not) is himself engaged in it. It is indeed a notable piece of policy under pretence of Reconciling the Covenant in one Article to Episcopacy, to invalidate the whole, and expose it to vulgar contempt; but if it be sinful, let it go: His Rhetoric is Angelical, but let us try the strength of his Reasons, unto the loosing of St. Peters bonds.

The main strength of what he doth suggest against the Covenant, lieth in the miscarried Circumstances which do relate unto the imposing, and taking of it; (viz.) its defect in point if imposing power; the terror and tumults with which it was enforced; the policy and humor from whence it did arise; and the novel • y or unacquaintednesse of it as to our English Laws and Constitutions, or the like: Unto all which I shall only desire the Dr. on serious and second thoughts, to give a candid, clear, rational, and Scriptural resolve, to this general case of conscience; (viz.) if an Oath, Vow, or Covenant, containing in it matter good and lawful (though not necessary and positive duty) be imposed by fraud (as was that of the Gibeonites) or force, and factions, Army, and tumults (as that of Zedekiah to Nebuchadnezzar) without any formal authority, other than a man's or people's own voluntary Act and submission, which is new unto, and unacquainted with the Laws and Constitutions accustomed in the place, and to the people, be by reason of any, or all these miscarried Circumstances, void and null? I am much mistaken if he cross not the common resolution of Divines and Casuists, if he conclude the affirmative; but let us consider his suggestions singly, and so we shall best try their strength.

And his first on-set begins with an I might shrewdly batter the Covenant, and so he assaults it with that, which (I must confess) is indeed a battering Ram; and being admitted, will endanger to beat down all that hath been done in this Kingdom since 1641. arraigning, censuring, and condemning all the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament; in which, I shall leave his prudence and discretion to be judged, by such, as are sensible, how far His Majesty's Honor, the Kingdoms satisfaction, and establishment in the desired peace, is endangered by so much as a dispute thereof: But the strength of it lieth in this, the def • ctiveness of (and so the invalidity of the Covenant) as to any lawful, constant, or complete authority; capable to bind the Sub • ects, and people of England, in any Court of Con • cience or Judicature, in which, nothing can have any permanent bond, or tie in Law, except God's Word; as the vow of a servant, son, daughter or wife, &c.

This I must confess is a fierce assault, and specious argument; yet methinks I find a Covenanter fortified against its force, by the Wool-sacks of these considerations.

First, The The two Houses of Parliament (and those two had more than ordinary power) are co-ordinate, and sharers in the Legislation of England; and so a constant, lawful authority: It is Sir, worth you observation, how warily in p. 18. your Casuist binds the King, to protect and preserve his Episcopacy, but bars His change of it, without the counsel and desire of the two Houses whom he judgeth Propitious to it.

Secondly. This Covenant was ordered by the Parliament during their Session: And although I will not determine, that an Order or Ordinance of one, or both Houses, can have the force, and permanent tie of a law (which yet among us will admit a dispute by the ablest Lawyers, and many purchasers will plead for with vigor) yet I think, it will not be ordinarily denied, that it may lay the Subjects under a permanent bond; and I conceive, these are terms very different; that is a bond on Conscience, which is not a Law and Tie in Judicature: Orders of Parliament, directing an Act presently to be executed, will not I hope be denied obedience; or the execution be voided by the after-dissolution of it, especially where it is in its own nature permanent and abiding. An Oath is in itself, naturâ Rei, a permanent bond; once laid it ever binds; a Parliament are a power sufficiently complete to impose and enjoin it; if they see cause to bring a College or Corporation under any special Oath, by an Order during their Session, I hope no Englishman will question their Authority; nor Divine deny the Obligation of the Oath; nor the one or other determine this tie to be discharged, when the Parliament is dissolved.

Thirdly, The supposed defect hath been since supplied; and His Majesty's consent or assent fully expressed, by His swearing the same Solemn League, and by Oath promising His Royal assent to all Acts and Ordinances enjoining the same; and by His Royal Declaration of the 16 ^th of August, 1650. declaring His full persuasion of the justice and equity of every the Heads and Articles of the Solemn League and Covenant; and so far, justifying the taking of it by His Subjects, that He graciously professeth to know no friends but the friends of the Covenant; and no enemies but the enemies of the Covenant: Hereby, whatever defect was in the first imposing of it, is fully made up to fasten it on the people now it is taken; so that by reason of this subsequent Act, I may say▪ if by Moses he will be judged, to Moses he shall go; and admitting his parallel (which some doubt, will not in this case square) if the Father, Master, Husband, in the day that he heareth the vow of the Wife, Child, or Servant, and hold his peace, (contradict it not) much more if He justify, allow, and commendit, as His most Sacred Majesty, hath done, on most serious and deliberate though in a most public and solemn Declaration, it shall stand, and be established.

But Sir, suppose the Dr. can pull down this defense, and manage his battery, so as to make a breach on the Covenant; yet before he enter, I must sound a parley with him; and desire him to tell us whether the quod fieri non debuit, factum valet, pleaded to defend the wanton Baptism of Children, and hasty Baptism of Women, be not more really pleadable in our case: To make the worst of it, a tumultuous Assembly convene, and come before us with sword and Scepter, and say they are a Parliament, and have lawful, constant, and complete authority, to command us; and therefore will put an Oath and Covenant upon us; and silly, inconsiderate we, are not so well skilled in politics, or acquainted with the constitutions of our Country, to detect their fallacy, but think all authority is within those walls, and obedience must be yielded to what is there commanded, and so we are beguiled into the Oath; May we thence cry out A Cheat? and so cast off the Covenant? and conclude it cannot bind? I doubt such Doctrine embraced, will expose us to a three years Famine.

His first battery was so fiercely made, that it recoileth with a more than ordinary Rumour; and makes him enforce it, pa. 6. with an I might Echo (as indeed he hath, for I find no certain sound in what he saith) the violence and noise of those times in which it was hatched in England, and brought forth by the midwifry of tumults, and Armies, of engaged, yea, enraged parties and factions; All which, it is well known, was not so great or loud, but that the Lord's and Commons in Parliament, the Commissioners of the Kirk and Kingdom of Scotland, with an Assembly of Grave and Learned Divines, did after Solemn Humiliation, and seeking God, serious consultation, and sober debates, digest and determine the Covenant; and both matter and form doth bespeak it to have been no rash or preposterous product of fancy: But suppose the worst; will the violence of the times, put a nullity and non-obligation on the Oath? how comes the sentence to be so severe against Zedekiah? He hath despised the Oath, and broken the Covenant, he shall not escape, Ezek. 17. 18. Was not this Oath extorted by Armies without, and tumults within? and yet is it so austerely binding? whatever Turks, Papists, or Politicians say, shall a Christian and Protestant suggest a nullity of the Oath, because of the violence of the times in which it was taken?

His next suggestion is a sound no less uncertain; he saith he might urge the novelty and partiality of the Covenant as to the English Laws and Genius: That he might, and might when he hath urged it, explain it; for the matter of it is neither new, nor partial; it hath been often heard, and endeavored in England; in the very point of Episcopacy, the removal of England's Hierarchy hath been sued for from Queen Elizabeth's time, downward unto this day: and the Covenant secures all Interests without partiality; his surmise of foreign influence, inv • ntion, and obtrusion, calls for proof; and then it will but little relieve him; for an Oath enforced by foreign Con • uest, or cozenage; new to the Nation, and contrary to its Laws, binds the conscience; and the supposed contrariety of the Law, is of no force to them, who conclude a power in the Parliament to put a period to those Laws; and a Solemn Oath or Covenant sworn by the Legislators, and by them put on the people, seem to be the most full discharge of all seeming-contrary Laws that can be imagined; especially when the Royal assent is publicly given to it.

He proceeds, It might seem odious, to reflect upon the Covenant, as to the effects, and unblest consequences, which like black shadows, have attended its appearing and prevailing in England; what havocks improsperities, &c. as before we have noted: This Reflection I confess, cannot but seem odious; but not to the Covenant, unless these sad effects, and unblest consequences, be found to attend it, as its proper brood and natural issue, not accidental sequels; produced by its genuine tendency to them, not by wicked men's reluctancy to order and piety, or perfidy as to what they had covenanted; but the odium will of its own accord reflect on him who is a Covenanter, and yet exposeth his Solemn League and Covenant to vulgar scorn and contempt; who is a man of justice and sobriety, and yet calumniateth the Covenant with those sad effects which had their being and progress before the Covenant itself. Sure he dreams, that seeth the shadow, before the substance is in being; and who is a Divine detesting the plea of success as the Judge or Rule of any cause, and yet maketh it the measure of the Solemn League and Covenant.

Nor can his next suggestion be considered unto the increase of his credit; in which he tells us, He will not insist on the bafflings of the Covenant, before it was adult or many years old; how it was soon made a Nehushtan, and reduced to nothing, by counter and cross engagements after it had served as one of the great Rocks for the King's shipwreck, and been watered with the King's blood, &c.

Truly Sir, had I been at your Doctors elbow when he wrote this, I would have advised him to have been so far from insisting, that he should not have inserted this, which he calls Baffling of the Covenant: For Sir, will not everyone cry shame, that shall hear him say the Covenant was one of the great Rocks which shipwrecked the King? and the Covenant was watered with the King's blood? Who can consider the King's reluctancy to the Covenant was not so much as inserted into His charge, nor once taken notice of by Bradshaw, amongst those many reasons by him produced, to justify that most execrable Sentence pronounced against Him? Who observeth the Resolves of the Parliament, that His Majesty's Concessions (though He refused the Covenant) were satisfactory? and that until the faithful Covenanters were pulled out of the House by military violence, and the Band of the Covenant broken by the raging lusts of some proud perjured Apostates, there neither was nor could be the least proceeding against His Most Sacred Majesty, and yet conclude Him shipwrecked by the Covenant? because some that had taken the Covenant did perpetrate that wickedness, will any Rules of Justice or Religion charge it on the Covenant? because the Covenant was violated by force, suppressed by power, and slighted by policy, was it therefore vacated? when? by whom? or with what Arguments of Right reason, or Religion, was it ever bafled? was not its vigor made visible by the London Ministers Representation and Uindication? and its bond on conscience made legible by the Lancashire and Cheshire plea for Non-subscribers? and the testimonies of the Ministers in the several Counties of England, published with their names subscribed, and indeed Imprinted by the invasion and divastation of Scotland? the Sequestrations and Sufferings even unto imprisonment and death of many in England, pursuing His Majesty's restitution on the account of the Covenant? How can the Doctor confess, Doubtless the sense of the Covenant hath lately quickened many men's consciences in their allegiance to the King, so as to bring Him (as David) home with infinite joy and triumph, page 25. and yet here complain that it was so easily vacated in point of its express Loyalty for the King's preservation? If it were ever vacated, when, or how was it renewed and re-enforced? If I may speak it without vanity, had not the firm bond of the Covenant vigorously contended in the point of Loyalty, against the violent powers which bare it down, His late Majesty's Martyrdom had not broken forth with such luster; not His now Majesty (whom God long preserve) been restored to that estate of Honor in which we now enjoy Him; so that the Antecedent of this suggested Argument will be most positively denied.

But if we should admit it, I cannot but wonder to hear a Divine say and infer upon it; If it were so easily vacated in point of Loyalty, I do not see, how it can be so binding against Episcopacy: I think it to be no good Logic, and worse Divinity, from some men's evasion, and violation, to infer a vacation and non-obligation; or from a vacation of it in one point, to infer its non-obligation as to others; sin, indeed is apt, but it must not be allowed to engender sin; by God's grace gradual violation shall not effect in me a total rejection of the Covenant.

His sixth suggestion seems indeed to be of more force than the former (viz. ) The Covenant (if so interpreted) must needs grate sore upon, and pierce to the quick those former lawful Oaths, which had prepossessed the souls and consciences of most of us in England; not only of Subjects, as those of Allegiance and Supremacy, besides that of Ministerial, Canonical obedience to our lawful Superiors, but even the conscience of the late King, as bound by his Coronation-Oath, &c. From which Oaths, as we know no absolution, so neither can there be any superfetation of such a contradictory vow and Covenant without apparent perjury: To all which I offer to consideration, That the dissatisfaction of His late Majesty of Blessed Memory, (and in nothing more blessed, than in the conscience He made of the Oath of God upon Him, and the charge He hath left His now glorious Majesty, That if God brought Him to His own Right on hard conditions, He should be careful to perform what He should promise) that is now beyond dispute; and His Majesty that now is, not only free from those Fetters which restrained His Royal Father, but also is engaged in the same League and Covenant, and this supposed contradiction cast out of doors; and as to the contradiction of the Covenant to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, non constat, it appears not; nor would it ever (as it hath done) have quickened the hearts of some, to suffer for, and to struggle under their Loyalty, until His Majesty's Honorable Restitution, if it were so repugnant to them: Let its contradiction in this point be noted, and we shall speak to it: and as to that of Canonical obedience to our lawful Superiors, its contradiction is suggested with an If it be so interpreted; Let the interpretation be cleared, before the contradiction be concluded and argued; for if that Oath did bind an obedience to Bishops as invested with paternal authority, and as a distinct and superior order of Ministry, and its unexplained etcaetera included more; a grating upon, and piercing to the quick this Oath, was no other but duty; and then the Argument is of no more force, save to speak the fretting of their spirits, who foolishly sware they know not what, and now desire to maintain it, more for fancy, than conscience; for it is not yet proved that such are lawful superiors in Church or State,

His seventh Answer or Argument, is ab incommodo, the inconvenience (which must be very great and visible if it discharge an Oath) And here he tells us, It must needs run us upon a great Rock of not only Novelty but Schism, &c. unto which I desire Sir, you will please to observe

1. The loss we are at by the uncertainty of the object; he urgeth this Argument with his universal discretive, all Episcopal order and government. We must Sir, have a clear Notion of Episcopal Order and Government, before we can with care shun the Schism; nor is it explained to us by the general terms of Practice and Judgment of the Catholic Church in all ages and places till of later days; for we know, that superiority and paternal power over other Bishops and Ministers did too soon appear, and too universally spread after the Apostles days, unto the advancement of the man of sin, though it prevailed not without great reluctancy, and its removal hath been aimed at and endeavored by the Reformation.

Again, must we take it for granted, that conformity is essential to communion with the Church? and agreement in discipline unavoidally necessary to union? Certai • lie if so, we must make the very form of Discipline an Article of our Creed: And truly Sir, the jus divinum, or Apostolical institution of the form he seems to plead for, lieth too much in the dark for such a conclusion; and therefore the most himself tells us of, it is, That it looks like an immediate institution of Christ, preceptive and explicit, or tacit and exemplary, pag. 13. but he knows not whether; yet well knows, simile non est idem; and therefore he here calls it but an ancient tradition and universal observation; and then the 34 th Article of the Church of England secureth us from this Rock of Schism, whilst it teacheth us, It is not necessary that traditions be in all places one and utterly alike, &c. In Politicks (we well know) different forms of Administration are consistent with union in the same Kingdom, and Communion in the same Government; It is no strange thing to see Corporations in England governed by their twelve Jurors, without a Mayor and Court of Aldermen, but it would be thought very strange from thence to charge them with sedition! and it must be a jus divinum, and immediate institution, not Apostolical tradition, or Universal observation, must bar us from the privileges, anymore than the dictated properties common to all policy.

Moreover Sir, if this form of Discipline (which he noteth some few Reformed Churches of later days want, though they do not contemn, but approve and venerate in others) be so necessary a Nerve, that the abjuration and exclusion of it runs us on such a Rock of Schism, I see not how those Churches (though their want be through necessity of times, and distress of affairs, put upon them) can be owned in the union of the Catholic Church; for essentials unto union must not only be reverenced in others, but enjoyed by themselves.

It is Sir, worth enquiry, what he means by the Catholic Church; for besides the vulgar appropriation of it to Rome, and affection our late Prelates had to that term, his Note That the abolishing of Episcopacy, is no small wall of partition newly set up to keep all Papists from due Reformation, makes me jealous the Cassandrian accommodation is yet in the Bishops intention and endeavor; upon which they would not put that reproach, scandal, scruple, or affront, as to be without Bishops of paternal authority; but if so, happy is that Church whose Reformation carrieth them furthest off Rome's Superstition, in discipline, and worship, as well as doctrine.

His eighth Answer or Suggestion is a Rhetorical swada, and insinuating plea, which hath wholly lost its force by the uncertainty of the object: If conscience be erroneous, we shall easily grant that it is equal, and ingenuous, Loyal, and Religious, to red • ce and confine it; which yet must not, and will not be straiter than the proper and genuine sense of the Covenant will admit; but as for that extravagant, disloyal, unlawful, enormous, and Schismatical sense, against which he declaimes, in which it could neither be lawfully taken, nor honestly kept; it must be determined by an Explication of his All Episcopacy, and full demonstration of a sense so qualified, before there can be anymore strength in his Rhetoric, than in his Reasons: I must Sir, be free to tell him, the Covenant doth expressly bind against the Fabric, and very form of the late Hierarchy in England, not its abuses, exccesses, or defects only: though not against the use of anything which was good, and fit to be used in the succeeding form to be established; nor do I understand it to be such an unreasonable and irreligious (Ametrie) transport for men to Covenant against all the right use of things that are good (but not necessary) because of the abuse incident to them, as he doth suggest, though the Covenant is not guilty of such obligation: But more of this in his direct Answer.

Having assaulted the Covenant with his fierce battery, and alarummed it with his frightful Ecchoes, he proceeds to level to the ground all those fair, but fallacious pretences (as he deems them) drawn to fortify the Covenant from Scriptures examples, wherein the Jews sometimes solemnly renewed Covenant with God, &c. And the main and only Morterpiece he lets fly, is, That it was that express Covenant which God himself had first made with them in Horeb and Mount Sinai, punctually prescribed by God to Moses, and by Moses (as their Supreme Governor or King) imposed upon them; this they sometime renewed after they had broken it by their Apostasy to false and strange gods: Unto the enforcement whereof, we must desire the Doctor to demonstrate, That the Law of Moses or Covenant in Horeb was not only the Rule and Dictate of what matter they should Covenant, but the express Covenant which was, or did consist in the exact recital, and Repetition of that Law of the ten Commandments, as the very form thereof; so as that they never varied or altered it, according to their special defections, in the particular points of their l • ves; and that this was the formal Covenant between God and the people in the times of Joshua, and before Israel's defection on from God; or that this was the Covenant between God, the people, and King, and between the people and their King, in the days of Jehoiadah: Or that this was the express Covenant made in the point of the Sabbath, and the putting away strange wives in the times of Nehemiah. These several occasions, and special obligations, do bespeak them to have been Covenants, conformed as to the matter of them, to some part of the ten Commandments; but as to their form and manner of expression, to have been squared by themselves.

But whatever was the matter or form of their Covenanting, I imagine it will not be denied, that the taking or renewal thereof was their own political Act, done by their own will and power at the time, and on the occasion their own condition did require and dictate; and so our Covenant (warranred for matter by the Word of God) is by their example justified, to have been a pious and prudent action within our own power to perform; though for the form of it, it be not any Divine dictate, or Sovereign prescription, yet better to be esteemed, than the petty composition of a few politick men: Nor is there any strength in that; we were not Apostatized to false and strange gods; unless he will affirm no defection short of Apostasy from the true, to false gods, is a sufficient ground or occasion on which to renew Covenant; which I think neither right reason or Religion will allow; shall not gradual defections be restrained, and total Apostasy be superseded by a seasonable Solemn League and Covenant? Surely then Joshua was too preposterous, in working Israel into Covenant with God, on a jealousy or rational conjecture of their future Apostasy; and had England no need to Covenant, when they were posting in doctrine, especially in worship and discipline, to Rome's Superstition and Tyrannie? Can any man consider the corruptions continued in England since the Reformation, and so defended, that nothing but a sovereign Remedy could remove them? nay, the very Retrogradations of the Reformation, by a return of many expelled Rites, and Prelatical power, and say, because she yet owned the true God, she had no need to Covenant? If covenanting be an Act within man's own power and choice; and defection from God and his ways inchoated or suspected be a just ground and occasion, England's covenanting is fully fortified by Scripture and Reason, and the pretences thereof no way found fallacious.

His last Suggestion in his indirect Answer is of no force; for admit that there is no precept or pattern for such a Covenant in all the New Testament (which directs us as Christians, and leaveth us to the D • ctates of Nature, and discoveries of the Old Testament, in more public and political Acts which concern us as a Kingdom, or Church National) or in the succeeding ages of the Church: Will it therefore follow, that such covenanting is sinful? the Primitive Churches never were of such extent in the enjoyment of such power, under such public defections, and in such capacity of covenanting as we have been. Must we inquire what hath been done in the Christian Churches, to do that and no more, without regard to what may be done, the condition of the Church requiring it? may not the very Ligue de Saint in France, and Oath et caetera in England, though sinful in their matter, be good Spurres and Directions in Christian-policy? May not the same means used to corroborate impiety, be lawfully and prudentially used to strengthen true Religion and Reformation? Why may not Popish policy teach Protestants to combine by Covenant, as Protestant piety and prudence did dictate to them a Confirmation in Religion by Chatechising? Courses common to men are not to be condemned, because used by wicked men to wicked ends.

None Sir, do deny the Covenant made in Baptism to be the only new evangelical Covenant to all Christians, broken by willful and presumptuous sins, and renewed by repentance, and the participation of the Lord's Supper: But it seems unto me a strange transport of so grave and serious a Divine, to oppose it unto the Solemn League and Covenant (that piece of policy, rather than piety, as he is pleased to term it) The inconsistency of them I must confess is not to me visible; sure I am Baptismal Vows are no bar, but may be provocations to Solemn covenanting to and with God; Let the matter of this Covenant be exactly scanned, and if it be in any one Article found repugnant to, or different from the Covenant made in Baptism, we will renounce the whole: I hope it will not be denied, that Baptized Nations and Churches may (in their public and politique capacities) renew and amplify that Covenant which was made in Baptism: And truly Sir, the Solemn League and Covenant seems to me so little to differ from our Baptismal Covenant, that it is no hard matter to resolve it into those three grand Heads we are (instructed) were promised in our names when we were Baptized; and then all the difference will be in this; the Baptismal Covenant was personal and private; this public and politique. But I pray let us note his specification of the difference he suggesteth, and the Reasons of this inconsistency he urgeth; which he supposeth to be a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , crying out How vastly different from this Sacred covenant this late piece of policy, more than piety is; and how little the true Covenant of a Christian binds him by his Baptism or Repentance, or the Eucharist against all Episcopal government, I leave all sober-minded Christians to judge. Truly Sir, his universal particle All, may make something look like a vast difference, if we could but understand the species he would pitch upon, as excepted by his discretive term; but the uncertainty of the object is that we cannot but stumble at in all the conclusions of his suggested answers: Methinks such an out-cry of vast difference should have been warranted by a clear antithesis; Opposites cannot appear but by their opposition; and yet he specifies no one Article different from our Baptismal Covenant; but sophistically evades with an How little do Baptismerepentance, or the Eucharist, bind against all Episcopal government: These may Sir, very little bind against it, and yet the Covenant and they be at no vast difference; for the question is not, how little the true Covenant in them agitated binds against all Episcopal government; but how much it binds to any? He is the first Divine I have found to plead our Baptism as the bond of Canonical obedience, and defense of Episcopacy; I never did imagine Discipline and order to be the express positive condition of Baptism, and the Christian-Covenant thereby made qua Christian, the only new Evangelical Covenant; but especially this species of it, Episcopacy. I hope his jus divinum will be made as clear as the Doctrine of the Trinity, whilst it is and must be owned as the absolute condition of Baptism, and nerve of union with the Church: Yet Sir, give me leave to tell the Doctor, if the late Hierarchy or Episcopacy of England (which he seems to advance as the late honor of the Ministry, and encouragement of Learning and Religion) be (as on an easy discussion it may be) found to be of the pomps and vanities of this wicked world; we are not only a little, but very much bound against it; for our God-fathers and God-mothers did promise in our behalf, That we should forsake them, as the Devil and all his works; and then he may well imagine, all sober-minded Christians must judge, there is a vast difference between Baptism and such Episcopacy, and that he is acted with a strong zeal that will by our Baptism bind unto it, who yet declared it to be but a tradition and universal observation.

But he adds a reason to enforce it, and that is, Since both the power of ordaining Ministers, and by them to consecrate and celebrate both Sacraments, was ever derived from, and by Bishops of the Church, as the chief Conservaters, Cisterns, and Conduits of all Ecclesiastical authority, and Ministerial power, from the very Apostles the first Bishops of the Church, Acts 1, &c. But Sir, is it determined and agreed on without controversy, that the power of ordination was ever derived by and from Bishops (in his sense, paternal Bishops) above, and distinct from Presbyters? that so it must be concluded No ordination by Bishops, no Minister, no consecration or celebration of either Sacrament? and so where these Conservators, Conduits, Cisterns, were never laid, or have been any way cut off, Ecclesiastical authority and Ministerial power never came, or is removed and quite gone; for without doubt this water must run in its own Pipes: Were it not for that subordination and dependence of ordinary Ministers, Shepherds, and Rulers unto and upon the Angels, Presidents, and chief Fathers of his Episcopal authority; he at after noteth, I should by his adjunct Chief, have conceived that he would grant, Some small Pipes had run from the Apostles times in union with Christ our chief Bishop, and drived Ecclesiastical authority and Ministerial power in the vacancy of his Bishops: which, if he deny, the Church of Rome will triumph in his Episcopal union with her; but the Reformed Churches can give him little thanks for this Church annihilating Notion.

Again is it clear that Episcopal and Apostolical Ministry is idem ordo, the same kind, distinct from that of Pastors and Teachers? it must be imagined so to be, whilst Bishops only as Bishops, lay so much claim to the immediate succession of the Apostles: That the Apostles had an Episcopacy, we cannot deny, for we read of it in Acts 1. 20. Nor I think can it be reasonably denied that the feeding-Ruling Elders at Ephesus were Bishops; for so Saint Paul called them, as consecrated by the Holy Ghost. Acts 20. 28. and immediate successors to the Apostles; yet it is not evident that they were all Angels, Presidents, and chief Fathers; and such as set Timothy over them as their Bishop, must needs deny them so to have been; and then Sir, some that wanted this paternal authority, must be confessed Cisterns of Ministerial power, and Ecclesiastical authority, and immediate successors to the Apostles: and so the Bond of Baptism binds to Gospel-Ministers, as the explicit and preceptive institution of Christ; whilst Episcopal order can claim no more but tradition; and that very disputable; the Prelatical Divines of our Nation would not be thus tied to the observation of the Lord's day; nor I to the observation of Easter; yet both these (especially the first) look as like an immediate institution of Christ, preceptive and explicit, or tacit and exemplary, as any order or kind of Episcopacy he suggesteth to be upheld by the bond of baptism.

As to what the Doctor addeth concerning the signal and intolerable injuries offered to the persons of such excellent Bishops as England lately had, and still may have, and the abatement of the honor of this whole Church and its Ministry, &c. I wish it may be considered, That the Covenant is not levelled against any Real Excellency in the Bishops, but an unwarrantable greatness, power, and authority, assumed by them, or attributed to them; which conferred an unfitting honor on the Church, and then the exclusion of it is no injury; and the mighty abatement thereof is a positive duty: I cannot think but that learning, and the due honor of the Church, may and will be best encouraged by the vailing of that pompous, worldly state, and wicked superiority her Governors had obtained; the Churches perspicuity seems not to me so necessary, that it must needs shine in Lawn Sleeves, and succession of Bishops of paternal authority over their brethren; nor know I to what Churches, save those of Rome (who make the Succession of their Bishops the sole and singular Note of the true Church) a Supersedeas of such Episcopal order (how ancient or venerable soever it be deemed) can be so scandalous as is suggested; I am sure few of the Reformed Churches see cause so to judge it; and then Sir, we find little force in this his complicated Answer.

Thus Sir, I have made bold to consider the Doctors indirect answer and arguments, wherein he endeavoreth to shake and subvert the whole fabric of the Solemn League and Covenant, and in them (to my judgment) there is so little strength of Reason, or true Religion, that it affords but a poor ground for his insulting and triumphant discharge in page 13. These things being thus premised, are sufficient (as I conceive) to abate the Edge and Rigour of the Covenant, and to ravel that cabel and bond of Religious obligation: For Sir, notwithstanding his supposal (asserted) in good earnest there is neither Law of God or man requiring, imposing, or comprobating any such Covenant: The Boanergesses will find cause to thunder out terror against Covenant-breaking, lest Rhetorical flourishes without strength of Reasons, should release the consciences of the vulgar from the power of religious bonds.

It may be Sir, we shall find more strength in the Doctors down-right strokes, than in his back-blows: His batteries in his indirect answers attempted, have bespoken his purpose to break in sunder the Sacred bond of the Covenant: His power to effect it in point of Episcopacy, must appear in his direct Answer: wherein (we thank him) he looks on the Covenant in the softest sense that can be made, as it is a voluntary vow, or Religious bond, which private men spontaneously took upon themselves, &c. But yet he suggesteth it was taken by very few, not one fourth part of the Nation now living; and those few made to take it by the terrors of prison, plunder, sequestration, and the like wracks: Unto which (before we observe his particular reconciling Answers, relating to the special point of Episcopacy) I propound to consideration, that

The paucity of Covenantets will not discharge its obligation; be there never so few, I hope those few may be free in asserting, and must be faithful in adhering to the Covenant; in which their confidence may be the greater, for that His most Sacred Majesty comes in to make up the number.

But if the Doctor saw with my eyes, he would not suppose the number to be so small; if all Tables were as legible as those of the Lord's and Commons, I believe their number would be found many more than the fourth part of the Nation. But can any considerable observer take notice the Covenant was imposed on, and submitted unto, by all sorts and degrees of men, in all Counties, Cities, and Towns tendered (and since testified by their public subscriptions) by the most Ministers in the several Counties, unto their individual Congregations; and that under the success of War, which usually extendeth a Covenant unto all who come under its influence, and yet (without the supposal of a very great mortality) imagine, not the fourth part of the Nation to have taken the Covenant? The Doctor sure judgeth by such with whom he converseth; and I easily believe they are not a fourth part of the Nation; yet methinks he himself being to be reckoned into the number, might well conjecture them to be more.

But again Sir, the capacity of the Covenanters, is more considerable than the number; and will make it a question well worth consideration, Whether it be not obligatory to the whole Nation? When I consider the Lord's and Commons in Parliament assembled, and under that notion and capacity swearing the Covenant, as the collective body of the Nation, though not near a fourth part in number, I am apt to think it looks very like a National Obligation: For I know not how they can take pardons, if they may not make promises in our names; especially when the assent of His Most Sacred Majesty is made so legible by His Royal Subjection to the same Solemn League and Covenant. I am much mistaken if the Oath of Zedekiah and the Princes (without popular delegates) did not bind the people of Israel: I hope the Doctor will be more wary, than to plunge the whole Kingdom into perjury: That there was any such Logic as Prisons, Plunder, and Sequestrations, to enforce the Covenant, I am not well-pleased; I hope he had more fortitude than to suffer his Reason and Religion to be so captivated; he knoweth the will cannot be compelled; and I imagine he will not make extortion by force, anymore than fraud absolve the Obligation, and warrant the recession or violation of an Oath; he knows that Nature and Scripture do teach the contrary, whatever was Cicero 's affection to him, he knows wherein he commends Pomponius the Tribune as to his extorted Oath; nor will a Casuist deny, Juramentum metu extorium, to bind; greater force can besiege none to the making of an Oath; nor greater fury from God follow any for breaking the oath so forced, than that which befell Zedekiah to the King of Babylon.

But let us see by what strength of Reason he worketh out release from this voluntary vow, that we may be also free-men; and it is produced by several suggestions; where of

The first is a clear sophism or charm to vulgar conception; They are not (saith he) the bare words of the Covenant, which as charms, can bind any man's conscience to, or against anything: It is very true; for they may be historically read, or repeated by such who are not capable of, or concerned in the obligation: But Sir, if (as in our case) the words be uttered as expressions of the mind, and declarations of the purpose and resolve of the heart to engage God and men to expectation of performance, I hope they then bind; and that, not only because the matter is just, true, and good, but also because declared: Is not engagement of expectation in others unto the Obligation of ourselves the end of speech in Promises and Oaths? whence else is that Caution of Casuists, That the words of an oath be plain, and clear, and commonly used and understood, that the fallacy thereof may fall? I wonder at the Doctors Antithesis of words unto the Reason, Justice, Truth, Religion, and Duty, which we deny not morally and really to oblige men either by God's generalor particular precepts: but yet I cannot believe them to be as

This sounds in my ears like new Divinity, and morality too; oh the folly of Nations, who confide more in the Withs and Cords of words, promises, Covenants, than in the Iron and Adamantine bonds of Truth, Justice, and Duty! I must confess, I was so foolish, as to fancy myself bound to an Act, because good, just, true, duty; but much faster bound, because promised or sworn; and I have known many men boggle at an Oath or Promise, and fear to break it, who would make no bones of Reason, Truth, Justice, Duty, but snap them in sunder like a single tie; and methinks the Scripture placeth a great deal of firength in the words of a Vow or Oath, Deut. 23. 23. That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; as thou hast vowed it willingly unto the Lord thy God; for thou hast spoken it with thy mouth: And sure there was most Adamantine strength in the words of Jephthah, which put him into that agony, and constrained that Out-cry, I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and cannot go back! Judges 11. 35. If Oaths and Promises are but withs and cords, I marvel at the course and customs of Nations to lay them each on other as the only grounds of confidence; and I much more wonder, men's faith should be more fixed in God's promises than properties; and God, though under the Iron bonds of his own mercy, justice, truth, yet, for assurance-sake, should bring himself under the withs and cords of Promise and Oath, and then tell us by two immutable things wherein it is impossible God's should lie; we should have strong consolation, Heb. 6. 18.

His second suggestion is to me no less strange than the first, (viz.)

I am sure it can never bind him by the power of another man's imagination: Oaths ought to be in words significant, whose sense may be obvious to every common capacity; shuffling and shifting the sense, and signification of an Oath, is the snare and perplexity of conscience, policy of Hell, and Sophistry of the Devil: Men must be careful to understand every Religious tie, and bond; and not list to conceive by prejudice and presumption; yet if his own imagination be not that which must guide and bind him, I am mistaken; I expect men to see with their own eyes, and be saved by their own faith; and did ever conceive discourse, interpretation, instruction, and argumentation, to intend, not a Magisterial imposition, but information of the mind, which might engender a right imagination for men to follow. I know not Sir, what your Casuist may make of an erroneous conscience, but Dr. Ames hath taught us Conscientia quamvis errans, semper ligat; & ill peccat qui aegit contra conscientiam; an erroneous conscience doth always bind, so that he sins who acts contrary thereunto; which cannot be, unless the Covenant bind by the power of a man's own imagination.

His third Answer I do confess is drawn with some considerable strength; for no Covenant can bind us to the injury of another's right, liberty, power, or lawful authority, private or public; except such as are sui juris, involved in himself, and so per accidens are hindered, and hurt in and by them, which I believe he understands: for Sir, it loseth its strength in the assumption; for it appears not that the xtirpation of Prelacy as it is expressed in the Covenant, doth take away the liberty▪ power, and lawful authority of King, Bishops, or Parliament; himself tells us, the Covenant was levelled against the despoticum tyrannicum Regimem; and I have before noted, that it is the unwarrantable pomp and power, and unlawful authority, and superiority of the Bishops above other Ministers, which is excluded, and to be extirpated by the Covenant, untell the Object is agreed on, the force of this Argument may well fall.

Yet give me leave to tell the Doctor, it is worth his enquiry, whether the power of the King for restitution, and of the Bishops for execution and administration of Episcopacy (lately acted in England, and now endeavored to be restored) be not fully, and actually, by a just, lawful, and complete Authority, abolished and taken away by the statute of 17 Caroli, repealing that whole branch of the statute primo Elizabethae, which authorized the jurisdiction of Episcopacy; and barreth his most sacred Majesty from giving Commissions thereunto, and forbidding all Ranks and Orders Ecclesiastical from acting upon any such Commission, in any matter or thing whatsoever: Sir, most men think that this power was lawful, and the Hierarchy of England was sui juris too, and within the power of King, Lord's, and Commons; and this discharge of Episcopacy to have been no injury, and to have been acted long before the Covenant did exist; and so the Covenant was but an enforcement of this Law; and then Sir, if there be a Parliament which may look upon Bishops and Episcopacy with a more propitious eye, than those who beheld it through the Presbyterian spectacles, it will be worth enquiry, whether the Covenant (as is before noted) be not a National Covenant, and bindeth not the Parliament from propounding, and praying, and his most sacred Majesty from assenting unto the re-establishment thereof? and so whether the present actings of some Bishops and Deans be not without Legal and just authority; and the imposing or endeavoring to return that (by Statute) abolished, and (by Covenant) excluded Fabrik, be not a transgression of the Law, and plunging the Nation into perjury? which how consistent it is with the honor of King or Kingdom, let wise men judge.

The Doctors fourth, fifth, and eighth Suggestions do relate unto the good of Episcopacy; concerning which, he supposeth a good, which I must confess I am not clear to admit; as for that good in this, which is common to all Governments (viz.)

Subordination, and Government, we shall not deny it, only conceive it is not here pleadable; for, it may he continued in the Government which shall be established; but

it is under dispute, and not yet obvious, and so not of force to conclude for it; and as to England's experience of the much good done by it, since the Reformation, it is very obscure, whilst the best of benefit imaginable to have been reaped by it, hath been to preserve the Reformation in the state and degree in which King Edward the sixth, and Queen Elizabeth left it; for wherein hath Episcopacy promoted it? nay rather wherein hath not Episcopacy (by its silencing and suspending zealous Ministers, excommunicating, imprisoning, banishing, and stigmatizing pious Christians, for no fault at all save endeavonring it) retarded the progress and perfection of the Reformation? nay, hath not Episcopacy (by its turning our Chancels into rails insancta sanctorums, our Communion-tables into adored Altars, our glass windows into popish pictures, and changing our common and est ablished Liturgy into a more complete conformity to the Popish Mass-book for form of administration, Order of worship, Rites and Ceremonies) brought the Reformation into a most palpable and apparent Retrogradation? and hath not then your Doctor cause to tell us it were extreme folly, and madness, profaneness, and blasphemy to cry it down as evil, and engage in Covenant against it as such? truly Sir, to all his supposed good whereby it is so beneficial (in his eye) to the being complete, and regular being of any Church, and none more than England, I shall only oppose that one evil, for which (were there in it no more) it deserveth to be decried, and extirpated by the Covenant, and that evil I find so inherent to Episcopacy, that this very moderate man cannot divide them, (viz.) the not only degrading all ordinary Pastors and Ministers in the sight of the people (making their Ministry greatly ineffectual) but also divesting them of all authority, and superiority over the people, preferring the people to, and above them, as their equals and superiousr; whereby all their administrations whilst in black Coats, are represented to be mere Cyphors, to which the Bishops Lawn sleeves must be the only figure significant: Sir, can it be less than duty, to extirpate that which doth engross to its self, and so enervate in others, all Gospel Ministry? if Cephas and Apollo be not Ministers of Jesus Christ, as well as Paul the Apostle, I see no cause to chide the Corinthians for their Schism; but passing his Hypothesis, let us try the strength of his Propositions by which he would bind the Covenanter to his Episcopacy, and they sound very strangely in my ears.

1.

this is unto me a lesson of new Divinity; for Sir, be pleased to note, that the good he speaks of is natural, not moral, much less Theological good; it is a good which is not in itself necessary, but may be necessary in its time and place; so that it is a plain Adiaphoron, a thing indifferent: that to bind men to what is morally evil, is a Covenant of hell, I can easily be convinced; but, that to bind them against what is allowed of God as good and lawful (but not duty necessary until circumstanced with time and place) should be so, is sure but one Doctors opinion. I did ever conceive Adiaphorous to be subject to the Magistrates command, and a man's own Covenant, and so distinct from Divine prescription; the eating of flesh is in its nature good, and not morally evil; the Apostle is apt to Covenant with a weak brother never to eat flesh; is this to bind himself beyond God's eternal bonds of righteousness, or in a Covenant with hell? I mistake such Casuists as I have read, if they conclude not the contrary.

2.

Truly Sir, I must confess not only judicial (such as is his instance of the Jndge of all the earth in his righteous destribution towards Sodom, and so impertinent to his case) but also rational, and Religious discrimination of objects is good, and necessary, but that a Covenant involving good and usefulness, whilst it is intended against evil and abuse, is therefore void, and not to be kept, I cannot believe: I have read, Juramentum non esse illicitum aut obligandi vim non amittere praecise ab hoc, quod videtur esse impeditivum majeris boni, an oath is not therefore void, because it hinders a greater (that is, more than simple) good: I shall willingly wish men may not be so transported as to swear against a good when it can be separated from the evil; nor yet to discharge the Oath, because the good (which might have been divided) is involved: It is a man's duty to distinguish between the Superstructures of men, and foundation of Christ and his Apostles (of which order his Episcopacy doth not yet appear:) And it is a man's liberty to restrain himself from the thing that is in its own nature good and useful, when attended with plain and positive, nay, accidental evil. I knew a man passing through an old rotten house, got a knock on his pate, and in his passion, sware he would pull it down and burn it every stick; his work-men advised him to use some of the materials good and useful in his new Fabric; the good man is conscious of his Oath (though rash and unadvised) Will the Doctor please to resolve his conscience? Or again, Hezekiah observes the brazen serpent (the sometimes means, and now Memorial of Israel's remedy, and type of the Redeemer) abused to Idolatry, sweareth he will destroy it, and accordingly executes his Oath: Suppose it at that time (as it had its good) to be as useful as before, it will puzzle me to charge him with iniquity for so doing.

Thirdly,

Truly Sir, this is to me such strange divinity, that I cannot but wonder D. D. should be attendant on the assertor of it; I am sure if it be admitted, one reason produced by no mean Casuist to defend the Obligation of an Oath extorted by fear, must fall to the ground, Elegit id quod tunc visum est sibi melius, he chose that which he then conceived to be the best; but according to our Casuist, he might on an after-view discern hurtful, and so retract: How happy and cheering would such a resolution as this have been unto Jephthah in his anguish and out-cry, I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and cannot go back! Why man, can you not on second thoughts and an afterview see the goodness and usefulness of your daughter? Retract the rashness and unadvisedness of thy vow; and act according to thy present evidence; Nay, how advantageous had this resolution been to Israel, when Joshua and the Princes preserved the Gibeonites to be pricks in the eyes, and thorns in the side of Israel? To what end do they plead, We have sworn unto them by the Lord, now therefore we may not touch them? Why, must they needs act to the latitude of their presumptions and mistakes? could they not on second thoughts and an after-view discover their craft, and discern them to be of the people commanded by God to be destroyed, dangerous to disturb their peace, and divert them from their Religion? How sad was the fate of the sons of Saul in the want of such a solution as this which might have saved them all from hanging? for the Scripture witnesseth, That Saul slew the Gibeonites in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah, 2 Sam. 21. 2. Without doubt on second thoughts and an after-view of the good which might ensue on the violation of that Covenant caught by fraud, I hope our Prelates will take care in the next Impression of the Common-Prayer-Book, to make the words in Psalm 15. ver. 5. conform to Psalm 105. verse. 28. it is but the expunction of a Negative particle, and for disobedient, we read obedient; and for repenteth not, we read repenteth; and so the Character of a man for heaven shall be conform to our Casuists resolution and Scripture-Text, He that sweareth to his own hurt, and repenteth: I cannot but commend the correction of this verse to the Drs. care; for as it is now read, it is not only different from the Original, but also dissonant to his doctrine whilst it is read in the Old CommonPrayer-Book, He that sweareth to his neighbor, and disappointeth him not, though it were to his own hindrance.

Thus Sir, I have tried the strength of the Drs. Arguments; and find in them very little force to rectify conscience, release St. Peter, and reconcile the Covenant with Episcopacy. Truly Sir, were Episcopacy in itself never so good, yet it must appear necessary before it break through the bond of the Covenant: It is now indeed high time to learn righteousness and wisdom; the which works not more in anything, than a conscientious cleaving to the Covenant, and paying the vows made to God in the day of affliction: I freely consent with him, that the cautious and conscientious covenanter take a calmer view, and exacter measure than perhaps he did at the first. But methinks he should not leave them to rules of so great latitude, that will not only discharge the Covenant, but all Sacred Religiousties: What Oaths can bind, if words are of no force, or but withs and cords? his own imagination of no influence? no good may be excluded or involved? and second thoughts discovering usefulness will discharge it? where shall be the certainty of human contracts or force of Religious bonds, if these principles be admitted? who shall ever scruple to make, or care to keep a Covenant, if other men's interpretations must direct it, and our own retraction on sense of rashness, may discharge it? If Sir, these propositions be the Doctors props for Episcopacy, it will appear too profane for pious men to meddle with.

Sir, I doubt not but he and all men shall find every conscientious Covenanter enjoy the comfort of his accomplished oath, when

to remove England's old Hierarchy; and to restore such an Episcopacy, to be exercised by the Officers of the Church in Common, and good order, as is ne •• st the Scripture, primitive practice and persuasion of sober, grave, pious, and learn •• men, such as was the late Primate of Armagh; but if either His Most Sacred Majesty, or any other in authority fail in the exercise of their capacity (as he seems to hope) to effect the ends of the Covenant, I hope it shall be no offense to mourn for their iniquity, and the iniquity of the Land▪ nor will it be inconsistent to that humble submission, active or passive, I confess we all owe unto His Most Sacred Majesty: whatever shall be the establishment in the Church (though never so corrupt, yet) whilst consistent with salvation, though it may occasion to me suffering, and a suspense of my Ministry, by God's grace it shall not effect in me, or such on whom I have an influence, Schism from the Church, or Resistance of His Majesty's just Right and Authority; for whom as I have not suffered the least, so if God should so far leave Him (which God forbid) I am ready, by Him, to suffer the utmost, in adherence to the Solemn League and Covenant, until it be discovered Yet I cannot but most heartily pray for which I doubt not will effect the corruption and extirpation covenanted.

I confess every conscientious Covenanter oweth this Justice and duty

1. To God,

not being within his own power, and excluded by his oath or covenant; may, and must, are things very different.

2.

3. To pity

and pull down all proud Prelates and paternal authority over Presbyters, which abuse their brethren, and debase their Ministry, because in a black Coat.

4. To encourage Ministers, and endeavor the rescue of them from dividing factions and popular insolencies which have befallen them for want of the King, and Ecclesiastical order, but may be enjoyed without a Bishop advanced in power above his Brethren.

5. Love to the Church, in endeavoring its unity, peace, and prosperity in the ruin of Prelacy and establishment of an Episcopacy and over-sight duly constituted and carefully executed.

6. Care to his own soul, inward and eternal peace, not to be cozened by glosses, courted by Rhetorical flourishes, nor cudgelled out of his Covenant by most bitter sufferings, but to cleave unto it with care, constancy, and diligence, and take heed of all sophistical solutions, and subtle reconciliations, which endeavor to baffle the Covenant, and break in pieces the very power of all Religious bonds.

Sir, Knowing how under and dclicate a thing Conscience is, yet fearing it might be baftled and deluded by Sophistry and scovered; I have presumed to surveigh your Doctors Solution of the Covenant, and give an account of my apprehensions of it; Covenant-breaking is so direful a God-provoking sin, that I tremble to think of England's least tendency to it; whatever men fancy to themselves of the Covenant being the Rock of his late Majesty's shipwrark, it is visible that the violation of it hath been the destru •• ion of our late Ilsurpers, who laid i aside that▪ they might leap into their Chair o • State: and it cannot be denied to have been the chief and only means of his Majesty's most just and honorable Restitution; and an adherencie to it (I doubt not) will prove the establishment of his Royal Throne; I cannot therefore but be grieved to find contempt poured on the Covenant, not only by the vulgar, but such whose rank and gravity should make them more sensible of the weight and worth of an Oath.

When Sir your Doctors Solution came first into my hands, the Speech of Julian Cardinal of Saint Angelo concerning the League of uladislaus King of Hungary with Amurath the Turk, came into my memory; and one observation seems too much alike unto it (I pray you pardon the comparison) the pretended principle of the one was Zeal for the Church, and love of Religion, and so of the other; the scope of the one was to discharge the Oath, and so of the other: the method of the one was to absolve by color and pretence of binding under the Oath; so of the other: the Arguments of the one were defect of authority from God's Vicar on earth, consent of Confederates, contrariety to former Covenants, exclusion of greater good, exposal to reproach and scandal, rashness and unadvisedness in making, and the like; and such are the arguments of the other: the one was by a man of eminency; and esteem, and engaged in the same Oath; so is the other▪ such is Sir the agreement in every point, that it would much better have become a Jesuit or Popish Cardinal than a Protestant Doctor. I cannot but pray they may not agree in their intended end, the breach of the Covenant; lest God make them agree in the miserable effect, the loss of the Christian Cause, ruin of King and people, and their perpetual infamy.

I shall Sir trouble you no longer, save to tell you this answer was dispatched in two days; and had waited on you much sooner, but that I hoped some more eminent and able pen would have pleaded the Cause of the Covenant, and matched the Doctor suitably to himself; such as it is you now have it; I desire it may be weighed in the balance of Reason and Religion, without respect unto the person; who by his meanness and many calumnies (which yet he weareth as his crown) is obnoxious to no little prejudice; but if he prove a Tailors Goose, hot and heavy, but blind and dark, will be contented to wear the Cap: whilst resolved to approve himself no less zealous in the Religious than he hath appeared in the Political or Civil part of the Solemn League and Covenant; and make it his care to give God the things that are God's, as Caesar the things that are Caesar's.