The true NONCONFORMIST In Answer To the Modest and free Conference Betwixt a CONFORMIST And a NONCONFORMIST, About the present Distempers Of SCOTLAND. By a Lover of Truth, And Published by its order.  HEBR. XII. Ver. XIV, XV. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord, looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled. 
Printed in the Year 1671.   

To the AUTHOR OF THE CONFERENCE.  
ALthough I judge it no less of my concernment then of yours, to be concealed and unseen in this undertaking; Yet seeing, that I do not captate the empty praise of an affected modesty, I am resolved in lieu of your Stationer to the Reader and Friend to the Stationer, to give the following Sheets this direct and immediate address.  
And to begin with myself, as your Friend doth with you, really I think I should have had nothing to say of such a nothing, were it not in opposition to that Character wherewith he pretends to honour you. He says, You are a person of extraordinary Moderation and Peaceableness; And no doubt these qualities understood in their due mediocrity and subordination, are of notable value: But that you can allow any difference of opinion but such as is incompatible with the peace & quiet of the Church, is an ampliation so little favourable to truth's preference, & so inconsistent with these Scripture intimations of Heresies and divisions through man's corruption inseparably attending it, that I cannot otherwise esteem it to be extraordinary, then as it is excessive. If truth do allow, nay require a synathletick zeal, which error doth no wise warrant; to accommodate their contradictions by an easy indifferency, is more agreeable to the love of this World, than the love of God. And verily your Friends excusing the tartness of some of your expressions, from a zeal that he allows against that uncharitable Spirit, which can suffer nothing that is not exactly of its own way, is not more calumnious in its insinuation against us, who desire utterly to disclaim self conceit in all their matters, then unjustly restrictive of the true zeal of God, no less enemy to an irreligious lukewarmness, the apparent measure of your latitude, and the extreme now so dreadfully prevalent, than an humorous severity so little at present to be apprehended. But let all who desire to be found of a true Christian temper seek first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and as his peace and the love of the Brethren cannot be wanting, so the quiet of the Church is best submitted to his good pleasure.  
For the occasion of my writing, the account which your Friend gives of the occasion of yours doth equally justify it. The English Dialogues please you, and I assure you, both they and their answer are displeasing to me. I reflect not upon the method of Dialogues; Nay I am so far from censuring it, though I relish it not in their matters, that I am confident, that had you and your English pattern managed it sincerily, it had proven the ruin, and not the support of your design. But finding the English man so insolently scornful, as not to rest satisfied with an answer, which by taking sanctuary in the Act of Indemnity, & other such fearful & fainting shifts, did rather bewray, then vindicat the commoun cause, and perceiving, by your little essay, the humours of the unquiet Spirit in both Nations (as you are pleased to speak evil of the uprightness of such who run not with you to the same excess of ungodliness) not to be more the same, than it is the same strange Spirit of Hypocrisy and irreligion that at present abounds so much in these Lands, to the perverting of both truth and righteousness, I was moved by these considerations to make you this free and round reply. Your Friend says, you designed not vanity by your few sheets, written almost as hastily as they could be transcribed: And the truth is, I am so much convinced of it, that I am more inclined to apologise for the seriousness that I have used in confuting such a trifling babble, then to purge my endeavours of any such suspicion. Only, because he saith, You wish that every one may see the weakness of these grounds upon which such specious structures are built, which, when they come to be examined, prove but painted sepulchres, I thought it worth my pains, by clear descriptions, & firm demonstrations, both of the solidity of the foundations, and beauty of the superstructure of the work of God, to check the tumour of this insinuat boasting.  
But in the next place, we have your great design in your small Book, and it is, To let some well-meaning People, who have a love, to godliness, see that Religion is not at all concerned in things wherein they do concern themselves very much, and that in contending for the shell, we are like to lose the Kernel of Religion. Why herein is a marvellous thing, if I may use the blind man's words, since I think you would almost have me to lose that sight which he had then lately received, while the things wherein we did concern ourselves were sincerily owned and improven, Religion flourished, holiness was in request, profanity was ashamed, & iniquity stopped its mouth; and since by you and your partakers, they were subverted and decried, wickedness only hath exalted itself, and its blasphemous Impieties and violences have abounded, to the very horror of every ingenuous man: And yet we must believe that Religion is not at all concerned in the change. And your Friend doth attribute to you the confidence, not only to write, but to direct your writing to well-meaning People, Lovers of godliness. For this effect, I shall not anticipate my performance in the ensuing answer; only, as I have singly aimed at the establishment of the Lord's faithful remnant in this hour of great & manifold temptations; so I am hopeful, that eternal life, and the means thereof, the Gospel and its Ordinances, shall never be so divided in this Land, as to separate the things that they and I do contend for, from Religion's real and true interest: Your Friend says, They are but the shell, and not the Kernel of Religion. And if I may press his lame similitudes, I would inquire, whither he calls them so because of their use for conservation, or their superfluity when broken off? And though it be manifest, that this later sense can only warrant his undervalue, and is indeed a proper allusion for such who have not stood to devour that which is holy, and after vows to make enquiry; Yet I am assured, that unto his second thoughts its absurdity will appear so palpable, as by forcing him to the first meaning, it will constrain him rather to contradict his asserting of Religious inconcernment in these matters, being the special means of its preservation, then profanely to despise them as rejectaneous trifles.  
The language and manner of my writing is such, as I conceived to be most proper for my purpose; if the prosecution of your particularities, specially in an essay, pretended indeed to be equally managed, but without question unequally designed, for the parties therein contending, prove irksome and tedious to others, as it hath been to myself, I have no Apology, but the necessity of a full reply, aswel to deliver the true Nonconformist from your disingenuous imposings, as to refute your Conformist's Objections. As for other matters, I refer all to the Reader. There is one thing only I would entreat, and that is, that if in the perusal of what I have written, you do find any thing that may move you again to take up your pen, you would not employ it in any further continuation of this dramatic way of scribbling: But seeing truth's interest is that which both of us aught to regard, let the differences in controversy be fairly stated, propositions clearly drawn forth, and by you either defended or impugned, according to the exigence of your cause, and I promise you either my assent, or the reasons of my dissent without passion or partiality. Now as to your language and manner of writing, your Friend says, It is accommodated to these meaner capacities, who are most apt to be abused, by such as care not, nay, which is very sad, but too true, wish not Religion nor godliness to prosper in the hands of those who differ from them in opinion about external things, which are not of great moment. Sir, this is a charge of too high an import to be let fly at random. There are, I confess, amongst us, who do apprehend, that both the opinions and practices of you and your Associates do directly tend to the debauching of Conscience, by the false pretences and undue extensions of Civil Obedience and Allegiance, the perverting and destroying of Gospel Ordinances, not only of Church-government and a sent Ministry, but even of the two Sacraments, by turning their divine institution into ecclesiastic custom, and lastly, to the subverting of the very foundation, Justification through faith in Jesus Christ, by the superadding of our own to his righteousness, and who therefore justly fearing that your colouring and covering of these most momentous points, as if different opinions about things external were all the controversy, to be only a turning of things upside down, and a seeking deep to hide your Counsel from the Lord, do wish that the Lords people may beware of such deceivers, specially, seeing their universal perjury and intrusion, their common profanity and ordinary insufficiency, are obvious to all men: But that there are any of us, who care not, nay, wish not Religion to prosper, even in the manner here represented, is not more groundless, than it is most certain, that the prospering of Religion and godliness would be the most effectual mean both to ruin your course, and establish what me maintain.  
But let us hear how your Friend makes out his accusation; and he saith, it may appear from their persuading poor souls to take for a mark of zeal that which in all christian Nations is looked on as a very great mark of impiety, to wit, not going to Church. A mighty conviction, and worthy to be write in greater letters. But where did he learn, that not going to Church, in the meaning only pertinent to his reflection, viz, our not going to the house appointed indeed for public divine worship, but invaded and usurped by perjurious Intruders, for the most part, as palpably wicked and naughty as their intrusion is undeniable, is looked on in all Christian Nations as a great mark of impiety? Or how will he make it out, that we persuade not going to Church, that is, to the assembling of ourselves together for the more solemn worship and adoration of God, and hearing of our lawful Pastors, though in corners, as God gives opportunity, which is most certainly all whereunto Christianity doth oblige? Let him prove either, and then let him boast himself: But seeing either of these demands must of necessity sink him into perpetual silence, how foolishly doth he second his allegeances? He subjoins, that you mean no prejudice to any person in writing of it (viz.) your DIALOGUES, & that it is only published to inform sincere people. Whither it be so or not, let the work bear witness; As for my intention in answering, I have already declared it, and I hope the answer itself will not contradict, I wish indeed it had been more timous: But as I affect not hasty productions, so there are many other reasons, easily supposible for the delay: If it may give any light for establishment in this evil time, I know it is not yet unseasonable: And in this single and earnest desire, I recommend it to all that love our righteous Cause, and wait for the Lords appearance.   

A short INDEX Of the chief things handled in this Treatise.  

DIAL. I.  
Non-conformists' vindicated from some groundless and odious charges suggested in the entry. Pag. 2, 3, etc.  
The sound & clear rule for Christian practice in the point of Separation, with the true reason why Non-Conformists cannot join with Curates. 6, etc.  
The work of God which Non-Conformists own no Rebellion. 9  
Whether that argument, taken from the Prophets their not exhorting to Popular Reformation doth militat against Subjects their fight for Religion. 10  
Positive grounds from Scripture warranding Subjects to defend Religion by arms 11, 12, etc.  
The People's obligation to Popular Reformation cleared. 16  
The example of the Maccabees a good ground for People's maintaining Religion by arms. 18, 19  
The invalidity of these Objections, taken from the mortifying design of Religion and our Lords beginning the Gospel with suffering, discovered. 20, 21, etc.  
Whether that injunction of our Saviour's to his Disciples not to draw for him, and his words to Pilate, john. 18. 36. doth militat against the defending of Religion by Arms. 24, etc.  
Whether the Practice of the Primitive Christians be a sufficient argument to condemn fight for Religion. 29, 30  
Why N. C. cannot keep the Anniversary day. 32  
The Public course against the adversaries of the Covenant & Work of Reformation vindicated from the Calumny of Cruelty and rigour, and proven to be most rational and righteous. 34, 35  
A short account of the barbarous and inhuman Cruelty of the Prelates and their party, against innocent Non-Conformists. 36  
Ministers cleared from that charge of Meddling in State or Public affairs. 39  
Superstition how unjustly charged upon N. C. 41, etc.   

DIAL. II.  
A discovery of the evil of the new convenient contrivance of Religion. 52  
Kirk-Sessions vindicated. 54, 55  
Their excellent use for suppressing ungodliness. 57  
The Ministers liberty and manner of reproving sin vindicated, also their carriage toward the late King. Ibid.  
Their Preaching vindicated. 60  
Communions vindicated. 67  
Of the posture in time of public Prayer. 70  
Family Worship and private meetings vindicated. 71, etc.  
The Divisions charged upon N. C. whence they did proceed. 75   

DIAL. III.  
PResbytery and Prelacy how falsely said to be only mere distinguishing names. 78  
The present looseness most unjustly charged upon Non-Conformists. 79  
Unanswerable arguments against Episcopacy. 84  
Whether this Title of Lord be due to Bishops. 85  
That Scripture 1. Pet 5. 3. cleared from the false Glosses of Adversaries. 87, etc.  
The Ius Divinum that Presbyterians plead for, together with these things that do fairly exhibit the Platform of Presbyterian Government. 90, etc.  
Of Lay-Elders. 96, etc.  
Of Deacons. 99  
Of Diaconesses. 102  
Of Evangelists. 103  
Of the Classical Subordination of Sessions to Presbyteries, etc. 104  
Of Discipline and whether the Penitence of Lent, the Table altar-wayes, and officiating in a surplice may be as lawfully appointed by the Church, as the circumstances of public repentance to wit, so many days, a place of repentance and the use of Sackcloth for scandalous persons. 109, etc.  
Of the decree of the first Council at jerusalem. 113  
Of the washing of Feet, where you have the Conformist's design of resolving the necessity of Sacraments into the arbitrement of the Church discovered. 115, etc.  
Anointing the sick with oil why not used by N. C. 117  
Of the change of the Sabbath. 119  
Whether the Scriptures contain direct Rules for the Church's Policy which is wholly Ecclesiastic. 121  
Of the Kingdom of Christ, & how the Officers, Laws, Censures and Orders of his House are by himself established. 126, etc.  
Whether the Angels of the Churches assoord any ground for Bishops. 144  
The plea of Antiquity for Bishops, together with a short delineation of the rise, progress and product of Prelacy in the first Churches. 144, etc.   

DIAL. FOUR  
SUbmission to, and compliance with, the present Prelatic Government cannot be without sin. 165  
Whether Pawles conforming to jews and Gentiles doth enforce Compliance with Prelacy. 166, 167, etc.  
Whether it be unsufferable Peevishness, if the Magistrate enjoin a thing, declaring it free in itself, and only necessary because commanded, upon that score to refuse obedience. 170  
Of Christian Liberty, and wherein it stands. 174  
Prelatic exactions high impingements upon Christian Liberty. 175  
Why Nonconformist's cannot join in Prelatic Courts for Church Discipline. 181, 182, & 376, etc.  
The Conformist's reasoning for joining answered, where that Question, why ought we not to submit to the Bishops, as well as to the late Usurpers in the State? Is fully answered. 182, etc.  
The just ground People have of disowning Curates, and charging them with that Schism whereof they would make N. C. guilty. 189, 190  
The Conformists arguments for owning and hearing Curates fully answered. 192, etc.  
How and in what cases Children are bound by their Father's Oath. 205, etc.  
That charge of breach of Covenant in some things, viz. silence and not declaring against the Apostasy, Tyranny and Perjury of the Usurpers, and a faint giving over to pray for the King, answered. 219, 220  
The National Covenant vindicated. 222 etc.  
Whether the Laws annulling the Covenant doth lose its obligation, where you have a plain account of the Nature & obligation both of Vows and Laws. 230, etc.  
The Conformist's allegations for justifying the King's setting up of Prelacy false and calumnious. 236   

DIAL. V.  
THe grossness of the Conformist's persuasion of extemporary prayer redargued. 244  
That Question about the composing and imposing Set-forms fully handled, 246, etc.  
The Conformists reasoning against extemporary Prayer answered. 258  
Whether singing Psalms and Scripture-songs be a restraining of the Spirit. 272●  
Why all David's Psalms is used in Praising, together with the right way of singing Psalms-prayers. 274  
Of the English Liturgy. 285, etc.  
Of the 5. Articles of Perth. 288, etc.   

DIAL. VI  
ANent the name and Principles of Latitudinarians. 305, 306  
The opinion of the Author of the Dialogues anent Justification examined and found unsound. 313, etc.  
The men of the Latitude more inclineable to favour Papists. Arminians or any Sect or party, rather than Conscientious Non-Conformists. 345, 346, etc.   

DIAL. VII.  
WHether the Conformist doth sufficiently purge himself of Socimanisme, Popery and Arminianism. 365, 366  
Non-Conformists unjustly charged with the progress of Quakerism. 369, 370  
Whether the Prayers and actions of the Prelatic Conformists evidence any tenderness of Love towards Non-Conformists, 378, etc.  
Naphtali's Doctrine vindicated, specially his Doctrine upon Phineas his Act. 382, etc.  
The Surveyer's calumnies and objections against Naphtali removed. 393, etc.  
That Doctrine concerning private Persons their punishing of Crimes in case of the Supinnels of the Magistrate cleared. 401, 402  
That Religion was maintained by resistance, is no vulgar error, but a thing undeniable, 1. From the Waldenses their resisting of the King of France. 418, etc.  
2. From the Bohemian wars under Zisca. 424, etc.  
3. From the wars in Germany. 427, 428  
4. From Sweden. 441  
5. From the Practice of Helvetia and Genev●. 442  
6. From the Practice of Basile. 444  
7. From the wars in the Netherlands. 446, etc.  
8. From the Civil wars of France. 454  
That allegiance, that the Church of Scotland was condemned by the Churches abroad, for her maintaining Reformation by Arms, shown to be false. 460, 461  
That the Pop's usurpation is not abolished in Britain and Irland, but in effect only transferred from him to the King.  
Of the Supremacy, and whether it takes away the Church's intrinseck power. 472, 473  
Arguments for the Supremacy answered. 479  
What account is to be had of the Indulgence as flowing from the Supremacy. 487  
Whether there can be an accommodation with the present Prelatic party. 493, 494  
Whether Peace, Love and Charity be due to Conformists. 496    

READER, Ere thou read correct with a pen these Errata as followeth.  
PAg. 9 Lin. 6. read mightily. p. 17. l. 18. r. directions. ibid. l. 19 r. out. p. 23. l. 17. r. it is. p. 25. l. 12. Peter. r. Pilate. p. 26. l. 19 is r. it. p. 31. l. 12. r. off. p. 33. l. 22. r. stipend. p. 34● l. 30. r. suffering. p. 37. l. 22. r. in. p. 38. l. 24. r. into, in. p. 41. l. 22. r. thought. p. 45. l. 28. r. place. p. 50. l. 33. r. poenitentem. p. 56. l. 6. r. the. ibid. l. 32. r. are. p. 62. l. 12. r. your. p 65. l. 5. r. Preachers. p. 66. l. 20. r. acknowledge. p. 82. for first Dialogue, r. third Dialogue. p. 87. l. 16. r benches. p. 90. l. 33. r. lest. p. 97. l. 1. r. inconsistence. p. 101. l. 12. r. lest. p. 102. l. 1●. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 103. l. 3. r. do p. 112. l. last. r. continued. p. 127. l. 12. r. Kingdoms. p. 130. l. 29. deal whrest. p. 133. l. 9 r. purity. p. 135. l. 4. r. the. p 137. l. 7. r. appointment. p. 146. l. 22. r. contrary. p. 147. l. 32. r. perceive. p. 154. l. 21. r. thing. p. 162. l. 28. r. restless. p. 196. l. 32. r. subjected. p. 199. l. 1. r. out. p. 207. l. 33. r. concerned. p. 208. l. 32. For, r. To. p. 215. l. 17. r. fealty. ibid. l. 34. r. and any. p. 217. l. 3. r. That. p. 220. l. 2. r. our. p. 228. ●l. 9 r. 1590. ibid. l. 10. r. doubted. p. 242. l. 8. r. on. p. 252. l. 9 r. one. p. 253. l. 7. r fervent. p. 269. l. 29. r. pattern. p. 284. l. 17. r. ridiculous. p. 341. l. 16. r. mostly. p. 387. l. 6. r. mitigated. p. 391. l. 31. r. ashamed. p. 572. l. 14. r. this. p. 496. l. 8. r. maintained. p. 502. l. 17. r. convinced. ibid. l. 18. r. qualifies.  
Reader, what others thou may find through a letter wanting, or redundant, or one for another, or through a comma, colon, or the like misplaced or wanting thou mayest correct as thou readest.   

The first DIALOGUE Answered.  
SIR, If I premise, that your modest and free conference doth obviously appear to me, to be rather a fantastic rancountre of a mocking Conformist, and a Mock-Non-conformist, it is not from any design to preoccupy, by so severe a character; but only to relieve both you and myself, of the fruitless observation, and tedious prosecution of the many impertinencies incident to such a practice: and therefore, as you are not to expect my particular noticing of the high pretensions, weak replies, faint ceding, ridiculous evasions, plain concessions and flattering insinuations, whereunto you prompt your Puppet-non-conformist, either for your own advantage, or diversion; so, in the tracing of these things that seem to be more serious and important, in your Dialogues, I promise you all the candour and calmness whereof I am capable: Yea, though your double dealing in this cause (which not content to impugn as a Conformist, you go about also as a Nonconformist to betray) might well warrant a more sharp and large animadversion, both upon your end and method; yet, being only desirous of truth's vindication, and in the occurrence of so many temptations justly jealous of my own infirmity, I do here frankly cease from, and lay aside all wrath and bitterness, that I sin not; and shall, as sincerely & distinctly as I can, review and answer your reasonings, as they lie.  
Before you fall to your direct accusations, you suggest 1. That the Non-conformists do boast of their way as the Glory. 2. That, their Ministers tell them only of Christ's death, which is not to preach him. 3. That they study more to convince them of the need of Christ's Righteousness, then of having an● of their own. 4. That Non-conformists think they may quite the Communion of the Church, if, in their opinion, no● in the truth, in every point. 5. That in former times they repressed some sins, specially of the flesh, but scarcely in a Gospel way: and as for other sins, were very gentle to them; Nay were themselves guilty of them. Sir, were I not very loath to irritate you in the entry, I would tell you, that to commence your conference, with such groundless, odious and incoherent hints, which you dare not positively affirm, is more agreeable to a design of prejudice, then to the charity you so amply profess. But to particulars, & to the first, that the Non-conformists do boast of their way as the Glory. 1. We bless our God our Glory, who hath made all the manifestations and means of his Grace Glorious: these are the overflowings of the excellent Glory, by the streams whereof all our gloryings and praises ought to be carried back to, concentred in, and swallowed up of the Ocean-fountain, whence they proceed. 2. The Scripture is plain, that Jesus Christ the Prince of Glory, in the revelation of his Glorious Gospel, hath made the ministration thereof so far to exceed in Glory, that, even he himself accounteth the Messengers thereof his Glory. Whether these things be not sufficient to justify both the Non-conformists boasting and regrete, needeth not my assertion. Sure I am, if a pure Ministry, not modelled by the policy and pride of man, but singly squared to our Lord's institution; if able Ministers of the New Testament declaring all the Counsel of God, and imparting the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel; And lastly, if the growing and Multiplying of the word of God, and his people's desire after, and rejoicing in it, have any lustre of this Glory, the present sad catastrophe, whereby all these have been so wickedly and woefully changed to their contraries, may more justly move every concerned & serious soul to a lamentation for the departed glory, than these occasions that first produced that complaint. If you judge these to be swelling words of vanity, remember that, as I do speak the true Nonconformist, so it is your part, by this your conference more solidly to redargue him.  
The second thing you suggest, is, that the Nonconforming Ministers tell us only of Christ's death which is not to preach Christ. Sir, this allegiance, short as it is, presents itself with a disgust, that I can scarce express; Not that I think the Non-conformists are thereby in the least noted: Nay, on the contrary, I am confident that, in whatsoever sense you are able to render the accusation pertinent, the Non-conformists are most free to deny it, and that with the universal evidence of all their unprejudicate hearers, and the unanimous testimony of all their confessions and writings extant: And whether this be more to their advantage, or your dishonour, I hope you will consider: But that which in my heart I detest, is to hear the glorious subject of the precious death of Christ so both slighted, and narrowed within its Scriptural acceptation, by such a Cold restrictive. If the Apostle Paul desired to know nothing but Christ and him crucified, and Gloryed only in his Cross, If the death of Christ doth necessarily suppose; and did certainly confirm his preceding Testament; nay, if in the Gospel it be often mentioned, as the substance and root of all, had you no fitter words for your intended accusation of N. C. then that they tell us only of Christ's death? I know your meaning viz. That to tell people only of an interest in Christ, while they are strangers to his Laws and Gospel, is to deceive them, is as sound, as it is untruly charged upon the Non-conformists. Neither would I have taxed an innocent lapse in the phrase observed; but it's too visible tendency to the discredit of the doctrine of Justification by the blood of Christ, and to the new rational Method of more exalting our righteousness, to an equality with his merit, then pressing it in Conformity to his life and love, is the cause of my aversion. The Non-conformists therefore do indeed tell us of the death of our Lord Jesus, not with your ill appropriate and restringent only; but do preach to us always and principally this doctrine of his Cross, as that whereby, both the great mean of our reconciliation ● and the strongest motive, best pattern, and most certain assurance of our dying unto sin and living unto God (wherein our Sanctification consists) are held forth.  
3. You say, that you fear the Non-conformists do study more to convince us of the need of Christ's Righteousness, then of having any of our own. 'Tis answered, this your suggestion is a great confirmation of my reflection on your last passage: I have already showed, that the fear whereby you usher it in, hath no real nor palpable ground, none were more serious, sound and powerful, in the pressing of holiness, than the men you would accuse: Neither do I stand to appeal to the fruits of their Ministry, notwithstanding of your cavilling at our practice; but I have a greater fear of your fear, that it prove only proud reason, spurning at the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and aspiring to add a Mantissa, an addition of your own, to his sole purchase: If I could conceive you a man to propose fears, both groundless and designless, I might be judged uncharitable; but the certainty of the first, by removing the second, too plainly justifies my apprehension: beside your fear is so solicitous for your own righteousness, that it doth not so much as allow the righteousness of Jesus Christ to be more pressed; and yet you know that not only his righteousness, as being the price, spring and acceptation of ours, doth therefore acclaime an infinite preference, but that the conviction of its necessity, by reason of the untoward reluctancy of the pride of reason, and blindness of unbelief, doth require a more powerful persuasion. And therefore I must again tell you that I almost suspect your insinuation of a very deep tincture of a greater Sophistry then that which you give warning against; but seeing you do profess to believe that Christ came to lay down his life a ransom for our sins: and Non-conformists are persuaded, that without holiness we shall never see the face of God, it is certainly the better part for me to applaud your good agreement: Only that you may be assured of this necessary holiness, and also of its acceptance, see that you hold fast Jesus Christ as the sole foundation; for he it is who of God is made unto us Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption. And remember, that although Non-conformists love not to talk much of their own righteousness, at best both freely bestowed, and, as in us Viatores, while we are in the way, such, as of itself, can no ways endure the consuming fire of divine jealousy; yet they not only subscribe to your necessity of holiness, but further do believe with joy, that it is impossible for any man to lean truly and entirely unto Christ, who doth not embrace him, and have him both his Redeemer, Lawgiver and Sanctifier.  
4. You suggest, that Non-conformists think, they may quite the communion of the Church, If, in their opinion, nor in the truth, in every point: at least you will have this to be the case, betwixt you and your Nonconformist. Really might it not offend your reverence, I would remit you to Eph, 4. 25. and abide the reproof of the 26. without more answer, but, because 'tis like the sottishness of the person you confer with, hath induced you to this mistake, believe me in name of all true Non-conformists, that as they do not think they may quite the Communion of the Church, if in their opinion, not in the truth, unless the difference be both real, & in profession & practice; so it is not every real difference, in profession or practice, that they hold to be a sufficient cause; Nor do they judge that, even the cause being sufficient, the separation should be always carried to the extremity; but the sound and clear rule which they propose for Christian practice in this matter is, that where the controverted difference is such, as would render a conjunction therein either sinful or contagious, than a just and proportionat separation, precisely and with all tenderness, Commensurate to the exigence, is the safer course. As for your conceit, stating the cause of Separation, upon difference of opinion, in a truth of greater importance than the article of our faith, the Catholic Church, the communion of Saints; the examining of it, by what I have said, plainly discovers both its mistake and ambiguity. In the next place let me tell you in behalf of honest Non-conformists, that the true reason of their present withdrawing is none other than what you allow: That they account themselves bound to obey God, in adhering to their true Pastors, and disowning Intruding-hirelings, rather than man commanding the contraire. I will not digress to a more particular inquiry, since you are pleased to carry your Non conformist by it: but if you had made him give this answer together with a clear condescendence, I doubt not but either he or I had made it out: I might here take notice how smoothly and persuadedly you suppose, that Non-conformists do separate from the Church, although they for the most part think your conceiting your party to be the Church, no better founded then the rest of your usurpations, but because this point will again occur I proceed to your 〈◊〉 hint, that in former times Non-conformists repressed some sins specially these of the flesh, but fc●rce in a Gospel way, and for other sins, were very gentle to them, nay, were themselves guilty of them. Sir, your suggestion being so general and groundless, I only wish that its latter part were as void of malice, as its former is far from truth: I know that all men are sinners, and heartily desire that all Non-conformists may be serioussly warned, throughly and impartially to search, and examine their ways, and unfeignedly to repent of their transgressions. Nay, though the frequency and high import of your general accusations render the sincerity of your meekness, in forbearing particulars, many ways suspected; yet I urge it not: Only remember, that as I disown the Patrociny, either of men's failings or infirmities, so I do as little hold the work of God chargeable with any such extrinsic and accidental objections, but should thy impudence make men hold their peace, and when thou mockest shall no man make thee ashamed, When you offered to reflect upon the infirmities and failings of former times, might not, and should not, the present irreligion and wickedness, every were abounding, which are not only connived at by your Churchmen, but do visibly go forth from them into all the Land (for they commit lewdness and walk in lies, they strengthen also the hands of evil doers, that none doth return from his wickedness) have confounded you unto silence? Certainly this your procedure cannot but suggest to all sober men, that too applicable passage of the Gospel, And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.  
And thus, Sir, I am arrived at your plain and set impugnation of the N. C. courses: And to begin the matter, you make your N. C. in place of a solid representation of the truth controverted, rap out an indigested heap of Pompous titles, and, by this personat blustering, you take the occasion, very kindly to commend your own personal modesty: whether this be not more invidious than ingenuous dealing let others judge; certainly if you had used that candour which you profess, your N. C. would have told you, that the work of God we desire to own, is that enlightening grace, and assisting presence of God, whereby, after that the Lord had caused his people to receive the truth in its power, he mightly stirred them up, and enabled them to resist the growing corruptions, and shake off the heavy yoke of wicked Prelacy; to restore and establish his ordinances, specially the Ministry, and Government of his Church, in purity; to maintain and defend the same against the violence of Adversaries; and to direct all these endeavours and attainments to the advancement of our Lord's Kingdom, over the hearts and consciences of men, and the prospering of his pleasure in these Lands, and that by such righteous means and methods, as are clearly warranted and approven, by Scripture, Reason and many uncontroverted precedents: This is the truth your Nonconformist aught to have witnessed, not more confirmed by the public writings and actings of these times, then indelebly sealed in the hearts, and by the experiences of many thousands of the seekers of God; but seeing I am astricted to follow you, I return to your objections.  
And first, you say, Rebellion was the Soul of our whole work, & our Covenant a Bond to cement us in it, &, in an excess of fair dealing, not questioning the particular merit of the hypothese of our cause, you demand one place in both the Testaments, warranting Subjects their fight for Religion, & say plainly you can bring many against it. Sir, if you had thought it convenient, I judge it was proper for you, to disprove, from Scripture, Subjects their fight for Religion, & not to require your Nonconformist to prove it, for seeing you know that quae sunt juris permissivi, such things as law and right permit, if not prohibited, 〈◊〉 sufficiently understood to be permitted, any N. C. by an undeniable subsumption may easily evert your argument. If a miserable Melancholian, falling in disgust with certain necessary means of 〈◊〉, should affirm that it is unlawful to use them, because he finds not one place in either Testaments expressly warranting it, would you account his reasoning conclusive? I am confident you would not: wherefore then do you urge us with his dreams? Now your negative objection a Testimonio negato, from a negative Testimony, as they say, being such a notorious fallacy, I need say nothing to what you add of the Scriptures silence, of the Jews & Israelites their not rising up against their apostate idolatrous Princes, much less can their omitting what they might and ought to have done be of any import. If you could bring an example from Scripture of a King polluting the Sanctuary, and the people offering to oppose him, restrained either by rational persuasion, or the Lords plain prohibition, that only were apposite to your purpose. But you say, The faithful Prophets their not exhorting to popular Reformation, or resisting Princes, doth evidently show that the omission of it was no sin. 'Tis answered, to make this argument better than your last, it is not enough to allege, that the Prophets did not provock to such courses, unless you add, that they did industriously forbear so to do, even in its season. You know so well the necessity and beauty of tide and season to every purpose and work, that your inconsiderateness in this point is scarcely excusable. The Scripture tells us most frequently of the perverseness and bentness of that people's heart to Idolatry and Rebellion against God; And no doubt in public defections they were either the King's entisers, as Hos, 7. 3. or did willingly walk after the Commandment. Host 5. 11. What wonder then if the Prophets did forbear to ply them with any such express exhortation, let be, that you should account their simple omission, as you love to speak, or rather the Scriptures silence in the thing, of any force: And here I cannot but note the unequal dealing of the men of your persuasion, who notwithstanding of their clamorous arguings from the silence of the Prophets, against Subjects their taking Arms; Yet, when, in the case of the ten Tribes their falling away from Rehoboam, by them condemned for Rebellion; by others justified as warrantable, they are pressed, not with a bare negative silence, which is all that you object, but with a silence of reproof, circumstantiat with all that could render it significant, they wave it as of no strength. But lest you should think me too rigid, in insisting only against your methods, I proceed to give you, though not obliged, a positive return to your demand, and to show you some of the positive warrants that I find in Sripture, for Subjects their sighting for Religion, and although, as doubtful of the old Testament, you seem to alleviat its testimony by terming its dispensation more carnal and fiery; yet, I hope, you are persuaded, that change of dispensations doth no ways alter the truth and righteousness of God.  
The first ground therefore which I take from Scripture, is, from the Law of Moses, where I find the keeping of the Lords Covenant not only enjoined to the People of Israel, as one body incorporate, under the highest persuasives, and strongest Sanctions that can be conceived, and established to be their supreme Law; but also its vindication and execution recommended to them, in such a manner as doth clearly evince, that it was the constant duty of the faithful amongst them, all other regards set aside, even by force, to have asserted and maintained it: If salus populi, the safety of the people, under the interpretative notion and force of Suprema Lex, Sovereign Law, have in all just exigences, in all ages, amongst all Nations, licenced and warranted a defensive resistance and control against their King and Rulers, can Religion, infinitely preferable in itself, and confirmed by such an express Law, be thought destitute of this prerogative? It is in vain to allege a disparity from the inconsistency of carnal weapons with the spirituality of Religion, this is already obviate by the Lords own determination Deut 13. 12. If Israel was to animadvert with the sword against any city turning aside to Idolatry, can we doubt that it was lawful for them, in the same manner, to defend the true worship? Do not recurre and say it was certainly lawful in many cases, but not against the Prince? For, if you allow Religion this weapon, I have already proved its right and privilege, by a higher title, and clearer evidence, than any other received cause of defence can pretend to: But if you utterly disallow defensive arms against the Powers, you destroy Nature, deny Reason, contradict Scripture, pervert the subordination of Laws, prefer midses to their end, and repugn to the unanimous consent of all Nations, as you may elsewhere understand.  
The next ground I allege, is from Deut. 17. vers 18. 19 Where you have the Law of the Kingdom delivered and committed to the people, and in it an express provision, that the King to be set up, should keep all the words of this Law; and these statutes to do them: whence I infer, that, as the delivering of the Law to the people doth undeniably import, that they were to be its keepers and exactors; so the Prince his deportment, in conformity to this part of it, did in such manner belong to their cognition and oversight, as he could not, impunè, without danger of punishment, mal-verse, much less subvert Religion, and persecute its true Professors without control. The only difficulty in this argument is, whether the tuition and custody of this Law be, by its address, entrusted to the people? I may not stand upon long elucidations, but if you consider 1. That there is not an jota of the Law of God in vain. 2. That this directing of the Law to the people can have no other signification. And 3. That both the continued tenor of the words, and the just Analogy of reason, must make the oversight appertain to them, to whom the election, and setting up is so expressly given, your hesitation, if prevalent, can only appear obstinacy.  
3. As the frequency or infrequencie of instances doth wholly depend upon matter of fact; so one clearly found in Scripture, I know, will be to you as a a thousand: I shall therefore content myself with the case and practice of Libnah. This city being a city of judah, and also of Priests, jos. 21. 13. in the reign of jehoram, a wicked and idolatrous Prince, and one who compelled judah to the like abominations, revolted from under his hand, because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers. Say not as the Suru. of N. profanely allegeth, that this was a city of Priests seditiously inclined, or that the revolt was only providential, like to that of Edom, and not lawful, byreason of the King's apostasy. If you but read the Text, bearing that Edom's revolt was from under the hand of Judah, without any motive annexed; And then, in a distinct Period, mentioning Libnahs to have been from under Iehorams hand, (not judah's, intimating plainly their resistance to an Idolatrous Tyrant, without any Apostasy from the Commonwealth, which Edom did make) and because he had forsaken the Lord, you will discover both his unsincere handling of Scripture, and the clear evidence of this passage, specially if you remember, that thereafter under better Kings, we find Libnah returned to her subjection, and afforded a wife to good josiah. If it were needful to superadded more examples, I might add another Scripture, 2 Chron, 25. 27. Where you may read how after that Amaziah did turn away from following the Lord, they made a conspiracy against him in jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish: but they sent to Lachish after him, and treated him more severely than I love to mention: and really were not this story too tragical for me to dip in, the justice of the cause, the generality of the concurrence, and the impunity of the actors, specially adverting to the difference of this case from that of the Father's exit, may be so evidently held out from Scripture, to the advantage of my assertion, that any reply, which you could make from the application of a dubious word, Conspiracy, would prove a poor relief. With these might also be remembered King Vzziah's elevation in a pretended Supremacy, and his invasive attempt of the Priest's office, with the noble resistance made by Azariah and the fourscore valiant Priests, who went in after and withstood him. 'Tis true it broke out into force upon a second occasion, which I think I cannot so fairly urge, yet if you consider their number, character, and peremptory manner of speech, so particularly noted by the Spirit of God, I doubt not but you will grant that the same force was very agreeable to, if not influenced by, their first resolution, but it is enough.  
4. Though I have already told you, that the Prophets their not provoking unto popular Reformations is no argument for you, unless you could represent their omicron in an opportune season, as well as a clear exigent, yet now I further add, that the frequent exhortations made by the Prophets to both King and People, as, in the first place, they have a respect to every one's proper station, so, by reason of their principal intendment of the great end, to which all Politic degrees and their order are subordinate and do refer, in the deficiency or perversion of the more immediate midses, they must of necessity lay a subsidiary obligation upon the people, as succedaneous, in that exigence. If the nature of this discourse did allow me to enlarge, I could confirm this position 1. From Nature, which, in the perturbation of its established harmonic, forcing things, for the good of the whole, contraire to their proper tendencies, exhibite●a clear emblem of these vicarious assistances. 2. From things rational, wherein the prevalency of the end, and its obligation, doth always overrule the order and regard of the midses, to a convenient subserviency. 3. From the received acknowledgement of a twofold calling, appertaining to every man, one General, flowing immediately from the end, and exerting itself in extraordinary emergents: another Particular, aranging to a certain fixed station, in the regular course of ordinary events. 4. From the approven instances of many extraordinary stretches, in the case either of our own, or others their unforeseen, and imminent dangers, specially from that most apposite example of the noble effort of Saul's Soldiers in rescueing jonathan from his father's unreasonable violence, without the least imputation of a transgression. 5. From this plain supposition. A certain King commands a body of Soldiers to choose their own General and other Officers, and march against one of his Provinces apostatised to Idolatry, severely injoining unto both General officers and soldiers the execution of his pleasure, under pain of death: In the expedition, the General chosen and others with him, forgetting duty, fall away and join with the Idolaters, whereupon the remaining part of the Army, although in a sufficient capacity to have effectuate their Prince his Command, yet desert and return, making no other pretence then that they were not free to exceed their private vacations, whereunto they held themselves absolutely confined: Would this be sustained for a good defence, and not rather looked upon as a cowardly, and lazy shift, taking refuge in the words, contraire to the certain meaning of the orders? Let any man judge and apply. But leaving all these grounds to your better improvement, the plain and obvious reading of the Scripture is my entire satisfaction: And really when with these warnings generally made, I also take a view of the commensurat threatenings wherewith they are enforced, and the suitable execution ordinarily ensuing, I almost marvel that the obvious connexion, adequating the guilt and punishment, doth not discover unto all this secondary obligation incumbent to the people, in its punished and therefore sinful, omission. I know the Sovereignty of the most high, & the nothingness, & noughtiness of all flesh in his sight, will be alleged sometime to justify the extent, not only of his judgements, but also of his threatenings, beyond the desert of the formal express provocation, whereby they are occasioned, without the least shadow of unrighteousness. But (that I may forbear launching forth unto that unsearchable depth) to recurre to these Mysteries, when both the strain, and reason of the exhortation do lie so fair for the obligation pleaded, is visibly to enervat the aw● and dread of the Lords Commandments. Do not allege, that to persuade this subsidiary call and engagement to Popular Reformations, is not only to put tender Consciences upon the rack, of a continual scrutiny into public affairs; but to draw them altogether out from the inward and most important duties of Christianity, unto an overcurious search, and consequently a sinistrous jealousy, of the actions of their Rulers, of all practices the most pernicious, both to Religion and Peace: for as at best, these are only the pretensions of men, upon the other extreme sunk into themselves, and wholly devoted unto their own ease, so, the very consideration of Man's Politic as well as private capacity, with the many incontroverted precepts and directions pertaining to it, do necessarily hold on't a laudable Mediocrity● I have already told you, that these exhortations do, in the first place, oblige every man to procure the trust of his own proper assignment, and you cannot be more desirous than I am consentient, that private men abstract from officious meddling, forbear presuming censures, and render unto their Rulers, with their due obedience, all the honour, esteem, submission, charity and tenderness, that both their high dignity, insuperable infirmities, and manifold temptations call for, But as these duties have their proper limits, in matters secular, known and acknowledged by all, so, I am confident, that to hold them illimited in matters of Religion, no less privileged and defined, by most certain and evident rules, is a most manifest inconsequence, either of Ignorance or Malice. Then indeed is a Kingdom truly happy; when all, in their several Orbs, do observe their proper motions about the same common Centre of, the glory of God, and good of the Public, without any other communication then that of benign influences, and due assistances, and this though without the reach of hope, ought not the less to be our wish, and the pattern of our endeavours: and therefore in these inevitable jarrings, whereunto we are subject, the next remedy is certainly in the applications of Charity, first, covering as much as is possible, then by its gentle means of Entreaty and Counsel, curing these disorders, that cannot be hid; but if the evil proceed to the endangering of the whole, and all the more moderate courses become desperate; As it were vain, in that case, to allege men's visible and felt discoveries, to be curiosities and jealousies; so the extraordinary and resolute interpositions of the sounder part, is assuredly the only probable safety of the Commonwealth. To these grounds adduced from the Old Testament for Subjects their fight for Religion and Popular Reformation, I take leave to add one more from the Apocrypha: and that is the Example and History of the Maccabees. I need not narrate the matter of fact, how the King polluted the Sanctuary, and persecuted the poor People of the Jews unto a conformity with his abominations; and how Mattathias, first resisted, then killed the King's Commissioner, with the whole sequel of these wars, all is evident upon record. That it exactly quadrates to the case of our Controversy, is apparent from the single proposal. If you deny it, it is your part, and I am sure, will prove your singular wit, to show a disparity. These ordinarily objected by the men of your opinion, are either that Antiochus was not the Jews Lawful King, or that the opposition was made in the Spirit, and under the dispensation of the Old Testament, and is not approvable by the New. As to the first, Grotius thinks the contraire so clear, from the plain phrase of the Books of the Maccabees, wherein Antiochus is frequently termed the King, that he addeth no further confirmation: If this do not satisfy it may be considered that Antiochus his title to Jury, is not obnoxious to any particular exception, which doth not equally implead his right to all his other Dominions: for seeing the Land of Judah was first by the Lord's gift, jer. 27. 6. 12. 16. 29. 2. Zedekiahs' Covenant with Nebuchadnezar, ratified and confirmed by the Lord, whereby the Kingdom became base, Ezek. 17. vers. 12. to 22. 3. By right of Conquest upon the revolt, jer. 39 and 4. by Cyrus his restitution, restoring the jews to their own Land, Religion and Laws, but only with a provinciat liberty, as Ezek: had prophesied, and is most apparent from the Books of Ezrah and Nehemiah, unquestionably an annexed part of the Babylonish Monarchy, Antioc hus his claim to it and his whole Realm, is evident by the same; Nay though you could prove him an Usurper of the principal Monarchy, as you cannot, the violence of the first Conquest, being by long Prescription, and a fair succession wholly purged; yet you must remember, that, that would not al●er the condition of the dependent Provinces, nor render the Usurpers right, as it respecteth them, in the least debetable. Let not the Law of the Kingdom, delivered by Moses, demur your persuasion: it excludes indeed a Foreigner from the People's free Election, but doth no way limit the disposition of Divine Sovereignty. As to the second objection made, that the resistance of the Maccabees was Old Testamentaire, and now antiquate, seeing it hath no contingence, either with the nature, or reason of the things innovate by that change, you cannot allege it, without express warrant, which notwithstanding Grotius his attempt, is yet undiscovered. What your invention will further add against this passage, I cannot conjecture. I know you think it marvellous dealing in your N. C. to tell you of the Law of Nature, and possibly may call it Monstruous for me to use the Apocrypha: But not to trifle, either with your quibblings, or the respect that your Prelatic Church beareth to these Books, when I consider, that the History of these worthies, is not only honourably pointed at by the Prophecy of Daniel, cap. 11. 32. 33. But also appears to be with applause commemorat by the Author to the Heb. chap. 11. 33, 34. I look upon it as an Argument, not more strongly founded in Reason, then firmly established by the unite Testimony of both Testaments. Here I might take notice of what you say of the New Testament, viz. that its whole strain runs upon suffering: but seeing your insinuation is General and inconcludent, and that afterward, you do more particularly object from it, I proceed.  
Having thus at some length supplied your N. C. omission, in the next place I come to the Argument where with you furnish him, viz. That the law of Nature teacheth us to defend ourselves, & therefore there is no need of express Scripture for it: In Answer to this, having broke your jest, You begin very Magisterially with your N. C. & tell him, that he is a stranger to the very design of Religion, which is to mortify Nature; that it is a thing Super natural, that the Scriptures are strangely contrived, ever telling us of suffering, without the exception of resistance, if in a capacity; you appeal to Conscience if either ●ighting, which a carnal man may do, or suffering, which he cannot do, be the likelier way to advance Religion? whence you conclude; That it is not to be defended or advanced by rules borrowed from Nature, but from Grace. Fie upon you M. Conformist, where is ingenuity? Your N. C. says that Nature teaches us, To defend against injuries, though inflicted for Religion, & you tell him that Religion's desig●● is to mortify Nature, & that it is not to be defended or advanced by nature's rules. Is not this strangely contrived reasoning? The N. C. is as persuaded as you are, that the Grace of God bringing Salvation, hath appeared unto all, teaching us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and so to mortify corrupt Nature; but doth it therefore contradict pure Nature's light; or warrant us to destroy ourselves? If any private Person should injuriously impose upon and invade another for Religion's sake, were it not lawful for the Person thus injured to defend himself? Or were this contraire to the design and nature of Religion? you cannot say it.  
I know the Magistrate invested with authority, is no private Person: but remember, that you now argue from the Supernatural quality of Religion, and not from the character of the Magistrates power: and therefore as upon this subject I would tell you, that notwithstanding the Magistrate, by reason of his place, may deserve a greater (though no illimited) forbearance, yet he hath as little warrant for, and greater sin in persecuting then a private person; so in the case in hand, it is evident, that if the mortifying design of Religion reject all Nature's assistances, in must of necessity do so as well against a private as a public person. And verily if this be your understanding of the design of Religion, you are too forward to teach others: but what you lack in skill, you endeavour to make out by cunning. The N. C. asserts Natures warrant only for defence which you perceiving Religion not to control, draw out a fair conclusion, not against Defending, but against Defending and Advancing of Religion by Nature's rules. Sir you know so well the difference of these two, Defending and Advancing; and that Non-conformists are no Turks, that I wish my charity could hide your calumny. Setting aside therefore this your foisted in, Advancing, which all Non-conformists do disown, let us hear what you add against Defending? You say The Scriptures do ever tell us of suffering without the exception of resistance when in a capacity, I grant the Scriptures do speak of many and great sufferings, according to the holy Counsel of God, and frequent lot of his Saints; that all that will live godly, must suffer persecution. They contain also many precepts, and excellent encouragements to Patience under Suffering: but that they do hold out any direct Command to men simply to Suffer, abstracting, from patient suffering, or the least insinuation, that, though in a full capacity, they should not at all resist, which in effect doth little differ, the many passages adduced by me in the contraire, with the advice of Flight often given, show to be as remote from Truth, as requisite to your inference. As for your appeal to Conscience, Whether fight or suffering be the likelier way to advance Religion? I appeal to common Sense, if it be pertinent to contest for that, which your Adversary doth not deny. The glorious power of the grace of God, in propagating Religion by the weakness and sufferings of his Servants, is the great miracle of the Gospel, and the praise of all Saints: and yet if at any time, the Lord in pity to his afflicted, did raise them up a Saviour, or give them a banner for Truth, was this blessing therefore despised, or the means of it condemned's God forbid. The works of the Lord are all holy, beautiful and well consistent, and in this the Non-conformists do experimentally joy. As to your close of this passage, That a carnal man can fight, we know that spiritual men have done it also, Heb. 11. 33. And where you add, that he cannot suffer, it is no further my concernment, then to bid you be more advertent, seeing you tell us in the very next leaf, of some Murderers that suffered gallantly, and that the seal of a Martyr's blood is not always the seal of God; and to ponder the native import of 1 Cor, 13. 3.  
Now, as if you had demonstrate the unlawfulness of fight, you still your N. C. regrate, for the neglect and ruin of the work of God, by the Consideration of God's Power and Providence; and tell him, that to defend Religion by force, is but the wrath of man; that Religion was first propagate by suffering, whereas fight hath been ever fatal to it. It's answered, as it is but to tempt and mock God and his Providence, to neglect the means of preservation allowed by him? So in the love of his Glory to appear for his interests against Persecuters and Subverters, with the hazard of all our worldly concernments, is not the sinful and selfish wrath of man, but the very power and zeal of God. That Religion hath been much propagated by suffering, is already acknowledged: but that fight hath been ever fatal to it, is manifestly contradicted, by the establishment of almost all the Reformations in Europe. But you go on and tell your N. C. that our Lord did begin the Gospel with Suffering, when he could have commanded Legions in his defence, and when you have made him to mutter out, That Christ knew it was his Father's will, you proceed to tell, with compassion for his ignorance, of Christ's injunction to his Disciples, not to draw for him, and add his words to Pilate, not only as an evident assurance of what you assert, but as a manifest conviction of the coldness of your Adversaries. Sir, such is the height & severity of your conceitedness in this place, that if the aversion I have for all things like it, did not restrain; I should hardly forbear to give you a humbling retaliation: But all I desire is, that by descending a little from it, you may be in case to receive a sober answer. That our Lord, did not only begin, but found the Gospel upon his most Voluntary, free and desired, as well as commanded suffering, is a Truth so high and precious, and justly accounted inimitable in substance, that I strange you should debase it, by making it a part of your Argument, when you know that Christ came into the world, that he might freely give himself a ransom; and that therefore he neither would be diverted, nor use the flight which he had formerly both commanded and practised, do you rationally argue, that because he thus suffered, so ought we to do: or because he refused his Disciples endeavours of rescue, that therefore Christians in persecution should neither give nor admit of assistance. I grant, that if God so order it, in suffering, we ought to imitate his patience, 1 Pet. 2. 21. But what maketh this for you? You insinuate, as if his not commanding Angels to his defence, had been a mere effect of his patience; but as this opinion is not countenanced by the description thereof given by the Apostle in the place cited, so, I pray you hear our Lord himself, Thinkest thou that I cannot (which I am certain soundeth plainly May not) pray to my Father, & he shall presently give me etc. but ho● then shall the Scripture be fulfilled, that thus it must be? here than is the reason of our Lord's forbearance, presume not to fancy another. But you say he forbade his Disciples to draw the sword in his defence, which a severe threatening, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword, Take you this to be a threatening against the Disciples? which for their comfort is so plainly spoken against the traitorous band that came against him, upon whom also it was most dreadfully accomplished. Thus Grotius upon the place, though in the point of defence he be very inconsequent; if you cannot understand it thus from the context, I desire you only to read it in a parallel application, Rev. 13. 10. He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword; here is the Faith and Patience of the Saints? are you not then ashamed to make it their threatening and fear? Next you add, that what our Lord said to Peter, my Kingdom is not of this world, etc. is so Plain language, that you wonder it doth not convince all. If I were to oppose confidence to confidence, I should make no other reply, then that this is indeed so plain language, that I wonder what Conviction you mean; but because this is the ground of your proud and vain boasting which you are not afraid to seal with the veracity of God, let us hear the words at length john. 18. where our Lord being questioned by Pilate, art thou the King of the jews ver. 33. returns the direct Answer. ver. 16. thus, My Kingdom is not of this world if my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the jews: but now is my Kingdom not from hence. In which words, as he witnesseth his Kingdom, so, to remove the jews accusation, and Pilat's jealousy, he declareth the quality of it viz. That it is not of this world, that is, a worldly Kingdom, to be exercised as other Kingdoms of the world are in out ward power and splendour, and therefore can neither interfeere with, nor diminish Caesar's Empire and grandour; and this he confirmeth by a most plain and convincing argument, If my Kingdom were of this world than would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the jews: that is, if I designed a worldly Kingdom, I would have gathered followers; or rather (according to the assistance mentioned by him at his first taking) called Angels my servants, to fight for my rescue● but since I employ no relief, but willingly give myself unto the death, now is it plain that my Kingdom is not from hence. Thus I have set down both the plain language, and I hope the plain meaning of the place but whence it is that you derive your advantage, I protest I cannot divine. If the Lord prove his Kingdom not to be a worldly one, because he employed no aid for his rescue from the Jews, doth it therefore follow, that all persecute Christians should reject all assistance, and deliver themselves up to suffering after the same example? Are you not yet satisfied that the manner only, and not the act of our Lords suffering, is proposed to our imitation. Believe me Sir, I have been often serious to find out wherefore this text is so much talked of by the men of your persuasion; but unless is be that men who would be content that Christ's Kingdom were not in the World, do love to hear a phrase so near it, that it is not of the World, or that the great Devotionaries of ease, without adverting to the reason, and making an Emphasis in that which is a clear speciality, would force from the words, contraire to their plain tenor and scope, this general Rule, that his Servants fight not, no not (as they would read it) for his rescue. I could never attain to a better conjecture. It comes in my thought while a writing, that it is possible, that in reading the words forward, you may understand them backward; As if our Lord in saying, If my Kingdom were of this World, then would my Servants fight, had reasoned thus; because my Kingdom is not of this World, therefore my servants do not fight: But seeing his Argument is evident as the Meridian Sun, My servants do not fight for my rescue, therefore I pretend to no worldly Kingdom, the force of the inference is no more clear than it is certain, that the spirituality of his Kingdom neither is in this place, nor can be at all used to astrict his followers to his unimitable example, in this his free and voluntaire suffering: But because I am resolved to constrain you to an acknowledgement, that the Non-conf. Answers to your Scriptures, are neither irrational nor ridiculous as you allege, I shall enlarge a little more upon this subject: Some men of your way say, that seeing Christ doth here declare his Kingdom not to be of this World for the clearing of Pilate and all Powers of the Jealousies, which such a thing might raise, of necessity the inconsistency and prohibition of fight (the great fear of the Princes of the Earth,) must be imported: It's answered, our Lord's answer is no doubt framed and suited to the Jews accusation, which beyond question; both in Pilat's and in their understanding, was his affecting an outward Kingdom in prejudice of Caesar, and, as of this he doth unanswerably purge himself, and, thereby fully satisfy all the just fears that could be objected, so, to imagine that his purpose was to remove all the false apprehensions, and restless inquietudes, which only the wickedness and violence of Tyrant's do suggests and thereby to gratify Tyranny, is, both groundless and impious: But to convince you plainly, that the spirituality of Christ's Kingdom doth not restrain Fight for Religion● I ask you in a word, what is the reason that the Christian world, doth not patiently stretch out its neck to the Turkish Cruelty? Sure you are not ignorant that the pretended cause of his invasions, hath often been to destroy the Christian Faith: if then the spirituality of Christ's Kingdom doth altogether prohibit his Servants fight, wherefore do not Christian States and Princes lay down their Carnal defensive weapons, and rest quietly in this, that God who governs the world can maintain his own right, and the wrath of man doth not work his righteousness, as you are pleased to Cant to your N. C. I know the only reply you can make, is, that the case of free Estates and Sovereign Princes against foreiners is very different, from that of Subjects against their Rulers; but doth not this plainly discover the Sophistry of your Method, you tell us, first, that Subjects may not fight for Religion against their persecuting Prince, because the spirituality of Christ's Kingdom forbids all fight upon that account. And then when you are urged with the incontrovertible practice of Christian Kingdoms, you just recurre & say, that the instance not being of Subjects against their Prince, doth not quadrat, and not remembering that this is the very quaesitum, you make the vain and empty assertion of the irresistibility of Princes, without any proof, both head and tail of all your reasonings: I may not insist to tell you, that if the spirituality of Christ's Kingdom did cause the King of Kings, and him, who even on earth owned himself greater than Solomon, to suffer without resistance; The Sovereignty of Christian Princes cannot give them a contrary privilege. I know these of your way, and many others also, carried away with their error, forgetting both the Authority which Christ exercised, and for which he was questioned by the jewish Rulers, and also his own most express words, no man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again, stick not to make an obligation of subjection to the then Tyrant's & Murderers, an ingredient in his submission: but I am tedious, More consideration of the worth and wonderful love of our Lord Jesus Christ, would teach you no doubt, both a better understanding in the Truth of God, and more reverend and tender vindications then these you make of the True and Faithful Witness.  
You proceed in the next place, upon occasion of your. N. C. alleging that you condemn our first Reformation, carried on by Fight, to tell us, that the ages immediately after Christ afford the best examples, in these the Christians, though sufficiently numerous, and cruelly irritate, did only increase by suffering, and not by fight: the force used in our Reformation was the enemy's tares, and no precedent of men is to be opposed to the expresse● word of God. Sir, to begin where you leave, I hope I have already fully cleared, that the express word of God is against you, and not for you: neither will I expatiat upon the undeniable Necessity, Righteousness, Reason and evident blessing of that Force used in our first Reformation, by which our Religion, Liberty, yea the Royal line and Crown, were under God only preserved● Nay your reproachful likening of it to the devils tares, is so far from lessening the evidence of that Spirit, which after having resisted unto blood, and wrestled through many great and strong persecutions, did animate the Lord's people to a very noble defence, countenanced by all the then Reformed Churches, that it doth not so much as demurie my charity, that if you yourself had been in these days, you had taken part with the Congregation: That which I shall stay a little upon, is the practice of the Primitive Christians, whereby you think fight for Religion, to be as much condemned, as suffering is highly commended. And because this objection doth lead unto the delightful search and vindication of the works of God, for answer, I observe first, that as in the holy and determinate Counsel of God, it became the Captain of our Salvation to be made perfect through suffering, so it pleased him for the greater manifestation of the power of his Grace by the Foolishness of Preaching, and Weakeness of Suffering, to render the propagation of his Truth more glorious, and thus in the first times of the Gospel, the greater the cruelty, and the more ineluctable that the necessity of the suffering was, the more inexpressible was the glory of that presence and the joy of that consolation, whereby the Church in its deepest distress did most highly triumph. 2. So unspeakeablie did the power of this assistance prevail, to the dispelling of the fear, and removing of the horror, of all these torments and afflictions, that many instead of flying, incontrovertibly lawful, did directly run to suffering; and to a great part, the Garland of Martyrdom became a most Ambitionat Crown; by the mistake of the exuberance of which assisting grace, not only many odd practices in precipitating themselves unto suffering and death, but Opinions also then held, such as that of the unlawfulness of all resistance for Christians, even against Robbers and Murderers, can only be excused. 3. But if the beauty and splendour of this grace did in some measure dazzle the eyes of its more immediate witnesses, how much more did it astonish its more remote and after admirers, who receiving the report with fame's increase, and taking their measures, more from their own good design, than the exact simplicity of truth, by their pious and affectionate Rhetorications, stopped not to strain matter of fact, sometimes beyond probability. If you be a stranger to this truth, advert how the almost immediate after Age magnifies their Patience and Sufferings, such as veflra omnia reple●i●us, with more than one grain of allowance. 4. As this was the dispensation of the first ages of the Gospel, so, when the Lord advanced the Church to a certain and visible capacity of defence, peruse Histories, and you will find plenty of instances of Christians their fight for Religion. The Armenii very early even before Constantine his Empire, Libertatem exercendi Christianismi Armis vindicant, Called afficiunt Maximinum as the History bears, and how the persecuted Christians, under the Persian and Arrian, did implore and receive the aid of the Roman and Orthodox Emperors, would be superfluous to narrate.  
By these few reflections as I have cut of from your argument all the necessary suffering and strained capacities of the Primitive Christians, so I have given you such a full and evident account of their not searching after, or improving sooner, any real measure of sufficiency for defence, which probably they did but little mind, that this their omission cannot without manifest calumny, be adduced to disprove, either their immediate after● practices, or the agreeable and universally approven examples of our late reformations. Now if for proving their more early capacity for, or express dissent from Defensive Arms, you do further urge particular Authorities, when you have answered all my just scruples against the former, and satisfied me in all their other opinions in the matter of Arms, than you shall have my Answer: but in the mean time pardon me, if while I do indeed admire and praise the Grace and Glory of these Primitive sufferings, I be neither too credulous of the mistakes of men, nor do condemn the diversity of the operations of the same God, which worketh all in all, specially seeing that by the same sufferings whereby you go about to impugn, he hath so signally confirmed these practices, which I do maintain.  
But to this last you answer, that you are far from thinking the better of a Cause because some die handsomely for it: Neither Atheis●, Heresies nor Murders want their pretended Martyrs. Sir, I neither approve your too much magnifying. pag. 7. nor your too much undervaluing, pag. 9 of men's sufferings: And therefore as at best I account them only a confirming and accessary, and not a principal and leading argument; so I must tell you that I conceive the force of its inference to flow from a certain lustre and insinuation of grace, which your jejune Epithets of handsomeness and gallantry do but meanly express; whether or not this appeared in our late Sufferers, I wonder nothing that you deny it: but sure I am that all the sincere lovers of the Truth, have to their joy both acknowledged it, & been established by it.  
After this by a transition of your own framing, making your N. C. faintly and childishly disown and wave bygones, whereof, to deal plainly, I do as little fear the odium, as I account your Apologies, taxing them of Rebellion, to be most odious, you come to inquire wherefore we keep not the day of thanksgiving for the King's restauration? and seeing you are not pleased with your N. C. answer I will give you mine. And first, it is not because you make it a holy day; I know this is as much above your power, as your act is presumptuous in ordaining it to be observed, and your practices are far from keeping it as a holy day; Nor do I now debate the Magistrates power in appointing pro re nata days of solemn thanksgiving, wherein it is more than certain, that the apparent abuse that hath been in institutions of this kind, and the end and design of the appointment, do give the Church a very necessary interest of advice. Nor last will I detain you in the application of the difference of designing a day as a Circumstance for thanksgiving to be performed on it, and dedicating a day to be kept as Holy in Commemoration; a Popish error, expressly by us abjured and by you revived; he who desires a full clearing in this matter, with a satisfying answer to all objections, may find it in the English popish ceremonies; but the great reason wherefore N. C. neither do nor aught to keep that day, is because you have assigned for the cause of it, not only the mercy of the King's return, but also the wicked overturning of the work of God; and that with such a libeling preface of blasphemies against God and his cause, and vile reproaches upon the whole Nation, that no true hearted man can read the Act, without abhorrency. Now before you reject this my answer, I only desire you to peruse and consider the Act, and I am almost certain that although perhaps, you will not come the length of the character I have made of it, yet you will think it strange that men accessory to many of these Righteous things, against which it so foully rails, should have been on the one hand indulgently indemnifyed without any acknowledgements and on the other obliged, under the pain of losing their stipends, to a thanksgiving, expressing the highest recantation. Are these ways equal? Think not that my indignation against this Act, is all and only from my disaffection to your establishment, that is indeed one cause, sufficient to produce a just detest; but ingenuously I have so much of true Loyalty to my Prince and affection to my Country, that the disservice done to the King, in rendering the celebration of that day (which in its righteous and proper use might have been an acceptable & kindly warming of his Subjects affection) a very odious provocation to aversion and alienation, is to me not a more just than powerful incentive: but such were the healings of these violent Physicians, and such have been and will be the effects.  
Again, making a stepping stone of both your N. C. and his cause, after you have made him confess disloyalty, because you are not able to prove it, you hold out his way to be evil, because of its cruelty and rigour in forcing men to take the Covenant, and punishing such as refused. and your N. C. granting this to be a fault also, you charge it home very odiously against our Leaders. as Men unacquainted with the meek spirit, and obstinate in those severities. It's answered, whether these things be objected or not in a meek spirit is more your concernment than mine, who regard not your bitterness in any dress? That which you call cruelty, if counterbalanced with the guilt of the recusancy, will quickly be alleviat to moderation: If the Covenants (for I shall touch both) pressed, had been new Oaths arbitrarely imposed; there were some ground for your challenge: but as to the first, was it not the same, wherein the Nation stood engaged from the first beginning almost of the Reformation; and if after a great and visible defection it was, upon our returning, renewed, and with a more express application against these corruptions, whereunto we had backslidden, required to be taken by all, who could not decline without a manifest declaration of both their unsoundness and insincerity in the Oath of God? call you this Rigour? And as to the second, the League, if the Communion of Saints, and that sympathy we ought to have with all Christ's sufferings Members, did persuade it as a duty, and if your then ejected Prelates, did by their restless instigations, and the breaches of Faith, and Hostile invasion from England thereby procured, render it convincingly a most necessary mean, for the preserving and prosecuting the ends of the first, was it not both rational and righteous that they, who stood thus obliged, by virtue of the first Covenant, to take the Second, upon their recusance, should be proceeded against as Deserters: And the truth is, as they were not many that were troubled simply, for not taking the Covenants; so there were but few, if any, who refused the second, who either before were not, or thereafter became not, directly opposite to the First; Nor did these few refusers subsist in a quiet dissatisfaction; but for the most part turned violent and bloody Enemies, or at least partakers with such Adversaries, Notwithstanding of all which perjury and wickedness, the procedure against these recusants, or rather Apostates, was so little adequate, either to their guilt or number, that upon a considerate and impartial review, I am assured, all the excess that can be qualified will not suffice to purge your objection of Cruelty against the public courses of these times, of plain Calumny: I say the Public courses; for as to the particular practices of private persons, although the corruption inherent to the best, and the many and rapid Temptations of times of division and wars, do offer me large matter of Apology; yet I do rather wish that the outbreakings which we have seen, and felt, of the Lords holy jealousy, may make both the Lovers of his work to remember their provocations, and tremble before this holy Lord God, who will be Sanctified in them that come nigh him: And also the haters of his Name to consider how much more upon such he will be Glorified: But you, not content to pervert the Righteous ways of God, go about mainly to represent his Ministers as bloody men, rejoicing and obstinate in blood; certainly such a grievous and horrid accusation ought to have been evidently instructed; but since it is impossible to imagine the least shadow of ground for it, unless that sometimes his Servants, either in the more eminent and signal appearances of God's vengeance upon his bloody and perfidious Adversaries, have joined their praises with Heavens Alleluiahs, for the manifestation of his true and righteous judgements, or that when the Lord called to punish, they have regreted an unseasonable and partial excess of Lenity: Are not these arrows, firebrands and death, which you throw in your pretended meekness, like to the symptoms of Madness?  
And now Sir, since you will have it so, give me leave to manage the retortion for your N. C. You accuse our times of cruelty, for forcing men to take the Covenant; though in effect it was only to make them stand to an Oath, whereby all were antecedently obliged; but have not you and many of you, such as formerly were very forward to press it upon others, Now, without either reason given, or repentance so much as pretended, been most violent to have all men to renounce it? I will not mention the exclusion of all Non-renouncers from Public Trust, and the first Arbitrary fining, and remitting or abating, upon condition of the Declaration, Temptations not only unjust, but no less powerful, and a hundred fold more extensive, than all the certifications execute upon simple Noncovenanters: the very instances by you given shall also serve my turn: Are not to concur in the present Church-Government, and to promise submission to Episcopacy, certain reductive disclamations? And yet you cannot deny, that for the refusing of these things many hundred, of Ministers have been thrust out, and in such manner vexed and tossed with imprisonments, banishments, consinements, and proclamations upon proclamations, that if the Lord had not provided, your mercy in sparing their Lives, had been only the compliment of your Cruelty: It's true that Ministers are not made to swear to Maintain the present Establishment; but if they be required to break a former lawful and approven Oath, where is the disparity? As for the People, you tell us they are desired to do nothing, but live peaceably, and join in worship: And verily though this were all, and though your Public Peace were not so perverted, as it cannot be subscribed unto, and your Worship so polluted, and profaned, as may give too just occasion of scruple, it were easy to demonstrate, that such hath been the Rigour, and violence of your Methods, that it is a wonder that a hundred to one have not been thereby irritate to more unpeaceableness, and greater desertion: but because you have brought against us and our leaders, the odious accusation of Blood, although I have already removed it; yet in pursuance of the parallel I must further tell you, that the Blood of the former Times, abstracting from its justice, was in a manner the Blood of War i● War: but in your Times we have seen; over and above its injustice, the blood of War shed in Peace, and that of such Persons, for such Causes, and with such Circumstances, as time doth only increase and not diminish its astonishment: next, the tragedy of these poor harmless persons, who by your insufferable insolences and exactions were provoked to take Arms, is yet recent. I shall not resume particulars but I am confident, their cause, their number, their condition and their rout being considered, the tortures and bloody executions that ensued, not upon the chief Actors and instruments, but upon the inferior yea meanest of these Innocents' led out to the slaughter, without choice, are hardly to be matched: what hand your Lords of the Clergy had in these things; how suift their feet were to shed blood, and how Burnet the A. P. of Glasgow, taught the Executioner to truss him up with a pulley, who for weakness could not be otherwise execute, and the Army Officers commanded drums to be beaten to drown the Testimony of the Lords dying witness, is well known. Nay it is more than probable that if the King had not put a stop to that but cherry, and these oppressions and barbarities wherewith the West was afterward afflicted, your Prelates had not given over, until that party had been utterly cut off, and that whole Country laid desolate for their cause: I might further tell you of your other severities, and how by your rigid exceptions and other ensnaring Acts, not only the intended favour of the King's Indemnity was corrupted; but also its very design and effect frustrate: But what need of many words, let the fervent and conspiring desires of the 1659., and the more ex●lting joys of the 1660. with the many disappointments, grievances and exactions that ensued, together with the present Universal coolness, dissatisfaction and distraction, and unsettled condition of the Kingdom be considered, and impartially searched into their proper cause, and if Prelacy be not found the only marrer of our joy and quiet, ferment of our distemper and moth of our Loyalty, then rejoice ye in the Bishops, and let them also rejoice in you: but if thus it be, then etc. Thus you have forced me to retaliat your provocation, and I am more than wearied of the subject.  
In the next place you tax the N. C. of great height and insolency, in assuming the big Names of the Godly Party, and the People of God, and calling their way the cause and Kingdom of Christ. Sir if they did indeed contend for the Ministry and Ordinances of Christ; And that for the vindication of his Power and Government over his Church, and the Prospering of his pleasure, I think truly they had good right to all these names: but that they did vainly and arrogantly use them, it is more than you have proven, or I do remember: And really I am in the opinion that upon search, it will be found, that the Titles of the People of God, and of the Godly Party, were at first not so much assumed by the asserters of our cause, as appropriate unto them by the reproach and mocking of their Adversaries: As for after contests (if any were) among their own subdivisions, they were no doubt the sad consequents of other evils, wherewith it pleased the Lord that his own should be tried; but if you think that for all the competition the Titles, are still vacant, I wish from my heart that both you and your party may be thereby animat to put in, and to shame and exclude all loud Pretenders, by real demerit.  
To this you subjoin another great Article, that Our Ministers who complained, of Bishops, their meddling in matters of State, when the scene turned, did therein absolutely Govern: And to this challenge you make your N. C. return the Pope's Answer for his Usurpations: viz: that all was done in order to Religion, on purpose that you may make the reply, That the Pope and Presbiterians do much agree in Politics. Sir, waving the immodest term of impudence and other arrant peccancies against truth, where with you set forth your Modest representing of faults, as you are pleased to call it. I return shortly for answer this clear and certain position, wherein I am sure we cannot disagree viz. that as the direction of Conscience appertains to the Pastoral charge, so the Ministers of God's Word ought both to advise, exhort and warn thereanent, according as in every occurrent, the circumstances of the thing which make its season, do thereto clear their call and access: This truth is evident in its own light: whoever owneth Conscience, the Word of God to be its Rule, and its Ministers to be our Teachers and Guides, cannot deny it. All the difficulty is in the right performance; the exceeding goodness and rare beauty of a word in season, is no ordinary attainment; because to every purpose there is time and judgement; therefore the misery of Man is great upon him. If I should ascribe the exactness of this observance to our Ministers, I should forget them to be Men: but as to the instances, which you allege of their warnings given against the Engagement 1648 and all deeds directly relating to it, And of their Ministerial accession to a prudent exclusion, in the year 1649 of such as had proven Unfaithful: their singular importance as to the very sum of the work of God, hath been so signally comprobat by after events, that if upon the matter, you do condemn these practices, you in effect do adjudge Ministers to absolute silence, at least in opposition to State determinations, whatever be the concernment of the Cause of God, or good Conscience: It were superfluous to mention the difference of Prelatic meddlings, or what are the Pope's invasions: the meanest capacity may easily distinguish a Ministerial advice in point of Conscience, all, either attribute to, or assumed by Ministers in State, or any other extrinsic affair, from these corrupt practices: And with the same facility join Prelacy and Papacy in their common pride and usurpation. You add a particular reason wherefore Ministers should not meddle with war and matters of blood, because of its contrariety to the Pastoral duty, which obligeth to feed and not to kill. But as none hath been more guilty of this Sanguinary meddling then, these who with most ceremony would appear to observe the letter of the Rule; so, considering what I have lately touched of your Clergy, and who did principally direct the suppression and executions of the late Risers in Arms, I am in the opinion you designed this reflection more for your own Lords, than our Leaders: but it is enough I agree with you fully, that Pastors ought not to be Criminal Judges, far less instigators to war and blood; yet if in these matters you allow to Conscience any place, they are no doubt Subjects proper both for Ministerial warning and advice.  
For a conclusion of your charge, ye surprise both your N. C. and me with a challenge of Superstition, whereof you say we are in many things guilty: sed quis tulerit Gracchos de Seditione querentes. Sir ye are not so witty in this anticipation as ye trow; for though ye have taken the first word of flitting; yet the success is rather a foaming out your own shame, than the fixing of that reproach upon us, which was the mark ye yought to hit. What? Sir, did ye dream by this device to terrify your N. C. into a forbearance to charge you with the guilt of Superstition? or did you think by this artifice to vindicat your party, and be avenged at once on these great Worthies, who have so manifestly laid open unto the World the Superstition of the men of your Kidney and Gang; that though they have traveled to Rome to fetch water to wash these spots, and have put their invention upon the rack to palliate them with all imaginable pretences; yet the shame of their Nakedness was so unfolded by these searching Seers, that it could never be hid. But Sir, are ye in good earnest? or have ye been in the foregoing lines so transported with rage in fight against Defensive Arms, and wresting the sword of just defence out of the hands of poor Innocent and oppressed Subjects, that in this paroxysm ye have forgotten to be honest and rational at once? Did you believe that you spoke truth when you represented us as such? If I thought ye did, and continued to do so still, I profess I am so little your enemy that I would pity you, as one who walketh in the darkness of gross delusion, and knoweth not whether he goeth, because the darkeness hath blinded his eyes. But I would gladly know how ye make out the charge: Ye did wisely only in one thing, to condescend upon none of these many things, wherein you say we are guilty of Superstition, when ye make your charge good ye will be admired for your invention; till then, it will neither be shame nor reproach to the N. C. to be silent, or laugh at the audacity of such a Novice. But to be serious with you, Sir, if ye would not take it amiss to be Catechised in the Chair, do ye understand what Superstition is, that ye call us so? Are we such to you in many things, because in every thing we own the Scriptures as the Rule of Faith and manners, and assert that there is a sufficiency in these to make wise to Salvation, and that, without the wild mixture of humane inventions, they are able to make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work? Is it because we own no Office-bearers in the house of God, save such as are of his own appointment? Is it because we judge the Episcopal Hierarchy Apocryphal, and cannot acknowledge the Prelate and his juncto for the Courts and Officers of Jesus Christ? Is it because we maintain that all things in the house of the God of Heaven ought to be done according to the will of the God of Heaven, and because we stand fast in the liberty where with Christ hath made us free, and will not suffer ourselves to be imposed upon or entangled with a Yoke of bondage? Is it because we maintain that no power upon Earth can make things Necessary which God hath made Indifferent, more than they can make things, indifferent, which he hath made Necessary? Is it because we know or will acknowledge no Lawgiver or Lord in the house of God, beside our Lord Jesus Christ, and are bold to put all pretenders to produce our Masters warrant when they call for our obedience to their Commands, as not daring to make the will of a poor frail fallible creature the Law of our Conscience? In a word is it because we dare not with you homologat all the impieties of that Party, who have burst these holy bonds for Reformation and Righteousness, wherewith together with us they had so solemnly bound their Souls, and are now returned to their former vomit? Is our esteem of, and adherence to, the ways of righteousness, an overrating of things more than we ought? and are we only guilty of Superstition because we cannot be Metamorphosed into a detestable neutrality and Gallio like indifferency in the matters of God? Truly Sir providing our Zeal for these things were such as our own heart did not reproach us for a sinful short coming and defect in, (as alas it is not) we could bind all your reproaches, for what ye count excess and over-rating, unto us as a crown, and indulge you a liberty to lay to our charge things that we know not, and cast iniquity upon us, without taking further notice of what ye have said, then thereby to be stirred up to pour out our complaint before God, and Pray him that he would not hold his peace, since the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful is opened against us, and have spoke against us with a lying tongue. But I know ye follow your old Leaders D. Mortown, D. Burgess etc. who had the same unhappiness to go before you in accusing the Brethren, who could not be cudgeled into a compliance with, nor cast in the mould of your Ceremonies, that you have in following of such, who in this did not follow the Lord fully, and had not the lamp of the word to shine in their way: They did plead innocent, asserting they were not guilty of Superstition in using and imposing Ceremonies, but the N. C. were in refuseing. But Sir, ye should either have had the head to have made the insuficiencie of these great men's vindication manifest, or not have had the forehead to renew the same challenge, without taking notice of their replies which stand unanswerable to this day: your over-rating 〈◊〉 the Doctor's reason, such as it is, couched in it: they alleged the N. C. guilty of Superstition, why? because, forsooth, the N. C. (say they) place a special piece of Religion in not using of these Ceremonies, and teach others to abstain from using them for Conscience sake, and this is the vermiculation of your pu●se too, But what would these Gentlemen have said, or what will the altitude of your invention suggest to the Apostles words, why are ye subject to Ordinances, touch not, taste not, handle not, etc. i. e. Keep you● selves free from these things which are after the commandments and doctrines of men, be ye not subju●●● as the servants of men to the observation of such things, which are obtruded upon you as a piece of Religion, being mere human inventions without any warrant from the Word of God? was there nothing of Religion in abstaining from these? Sir ye and your Fellows have the unhappiness to be of a different mind from th● Apostle who had the mind of Christ. Are me●s Consciences nothing concerned to stand fast in the liberty where with Christ hath made them free, and to withstand, while a Dominion over their Faith is usurped, and the thing intended is to wreathe a Yoke of bondage to the Doctrines of men about the neck of the Conscience? 2. If this be good arguing, may not the profane multitude have the same plea against all who abstain from fleshly lusts that war against the Soul? May not these I say be prompted by your logic to flout at all who run not with them to the same excess of riot, as superstitious fools, because they place any thing of Religion in these negatives, and suppose that conscience is concerned in that abstinence? Hence 3. we say that we look upon our abstaining from a compliance with the Commands and Doctrines of men, from foolish and vain Ceremonies, from whatsoever is obtruded upon us in the matters of God without his warrant, as acts of common obedience, and as service to our Lord and Master; but we no more fancy this abstinence to be an act of immediate and formal worship (as you would make the world believe we do, to the end that believing us they may believe ye speak truth and reason) than we do a keeping of ourselves unspotted from these pollutions and corruptions, which come not within the compass of worship; so that we may be aswel said to over-rate things Superstitiously, because we do not drink, who●e, lie, steal, break Covenants, persecute the People of God, who desire to hold fast their integrity, while broken in the place of dragons and covered with the shadow of death; as, because we cannot we dare not comply with abjured and wicked Prelacy, Lording it over God's inheritance, and recuiring obedience to their vain inventions. I must tell you moreover that I do not admire your definition of Superstition, ye had it, I grant, from your friend Doctor Hamond, and to make it your own, you have supplied the Doctor's Nimiety with your over-rating: But if you think it not an honour to err, and be put to a disadvantage with the Doctor, you should have guarded yourself and your party from the rebound of your own blow. Sir, what your over-ratings of foolish Traditions and vain Ceremonies are, hath been at a very dear rate experienced, by the bleeding and weeping People of God, in whose blood, exile, bonds, spoilings, persecutions and affliction, you have made your mind and exorbitant esteem of these things legible: Your most bigot and fond Conformist must grant, that the things ye plead for, Patronise and press, are not necessary in themselves, and have no connexion with the Salvation of the Soul, by way of midse, or by virtue of divine precept; and that all the degrees of necessity they can pretend to, is only from the will of the imposer. Now Sir, may a man ask you without putting you in●o a chaff, what an over-rating of these things is it, for you to debar, eject, vex and smite faithful Shepherds, scatter the Flocks, turn such Labourers out of the Vine-yard who have a seal of their being the sent Ambassadors of Jesus Christ upon the Souls of many, and a Testimony of faithful servants in the Consciences of some of their grand Opposites, as hath been found when their Conscience began to speak, and they saw themselves ready to be sisted before the righteous Tribunal of God, and that for no other cause, but because they durst not do as you would have them, in adoring your Dagon; and upon the other hand, to complete your wickedness, thrusting in Men upon these Flocks, who were bereft of such as did stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, without any thing else to commend or qualify them, save that ye knew them to be of such metal and complexion, as they would not decline nor dispute your impositions, which is certain as to matter of fact, that I might here appeal to your own Conscience & to the Conscience of the chief men who are chief in the transgression, persecuting them who adhere to their Covenant, keep the Commands of God, and have the Testimony of Jesus Christ, because they will not acknowledge and submit to such obtruded Intruders as the scent & called Ministers of Jesus Christ, if they would commit the keeping of their dogs, the caring for their swine, or the feeding of their horses to persons who had so little skill to do, and faithfulness to perform it, as most of these have, to whom, the flock of God purchased with his own Blood is committed. Sir, this is an over-rating with a witness, and such as, if ye will rate right and reflect upon it, may, and certainly will, f●ll your Soul, with horror: if the wrath of God be come upon them to the uttermost, who forbid his Sent Servants to speak unto his people these words, by which they must be saved, it only argues a judicial blindness of mind & benumnedness of Conscience, in the chief of your party and promoters of that interest, that their lyableness to the wrath of God Almighty, for the desolations made in his Sanctuary by them, doth not make them roar by reason of the disquietness of their heart, and cry out as persons against whom the terrors of God have set themselves in array. I might tell you of an over-rating also, of which ye (as we have in part heard already) and your companions glory, wherein the very foundation of our Salvation is struck at, viz such an over-rating of works and our pitiful performances, as advances them to the altitude of being the condition of the justification of a sinner before God, and is utterly inconsistent with the teno● of the Covenant of Grace; the unhappy Author, whom we last named, hath led you and your companions into this ditch also, and ye glory in this shame; but I shall forbear the discovery of your dangerous folly and falsehood, about this great foundation of Salvation by you put out of course, till I come to examine your sixth Dialogue. It was only fit here to give the Reader an hint, and let him see what over-raters ye are. But Sir, why are ye so shy as to shun the true known, and common definition of Superstition given by Godly and Learned Men: ye know that that excellent definition, given by Zanchy, and followed by other great men, makes Superstition to consist in the addition of Ceremonies in the worship of God not instituted by Christ, as well as in the addition of more substantial matters; but, easily foreseeing that this would not serve your evil design of loading the Servants of Christ with reproach and calumny, and that the bulk of your burdensome Ceremonies must be rejected as reprobate metal, if nothing pass for current as a part of worship in the Church, but what hath the Seal and impress of God upon it, ye substitute in its place one wherewith ye are at present better pleased, but with what advantage to your cause I leave it to be judged. But sir, since you do not engage further upon the head of Superstition, than first to cast it into such a mould as may suit your design, and having done so, then to cast the iniquity of it upon us, I shall at present satisfy myself with what is said, and for your further satisfaction I will give you all the assurrances you can require, both in my own name, and in the name of all the N, C. that when ever you are able to instruct your challenge, we will thank you for your charity; And if your evidence as to proof answer your confidence in the charge, ye shall find us so far from a pertinacious obstinacy, that we will abandon with a blush, whatsoever of Superstition we might through ignorance have indulged in our way, and in the mean time rest confident that, as, in demonstration of my reality in what I undertake, I shall endeavour henceforth to affect my own heart more and more into a deep abhorrence at, and detestation of, all your abjured usurpations, Antiscriptural methods, and Episcopal impositions, in the matters of God, and, so far as I am able, shall interpose with all the People of God to do the same; Yet Sir, there is one thing more before we part; I must tell you that when I consider your strain thorough the whole, by the superstitious over-rateing of things, imputed unto us in your first, and our being charged with our overprizing of Ordinances in the next, with the neglect (as you say) of your Morality, and your stretch of charity for Papists, with your insinuat censures of all who have stood up in the defence of the absoluteness and immutability of the Decrees of God, the efficacy of his Grace etc. against Arminians, which is to your moderation and latitude but a digladiation about niceties and curiosities; I say Sir, when I consider these things, and grant you the common Privilege acclaimed by every man, to be optimus interpres suorum verborum, the best expounder of his own words, I must take this to be your meaning, that we are superstitious over-raters of things in standing at so great a distance from Papists, and in contending with Arminians, about these things in controversy betwixt them and u●: and because we are not cast into that new convenient mould of yours, whereby you can couch under and comply with any mutation in the matters of God, and in your profound heights, deep silences, abstractions and novel latitude, ●ush at all these things as not to be contended for, and despise all the men who are not cast in the new mould of your perfection, as pitiful Puntes of the lowest size; this we see is manifestly your meaning, and truly Sir, I only regrate we are so little worthy of your indignation, and that the truths of God are not more dear to us, and that the Zeal of his house doth not more eat us up. And while you contemn these things as not to be contended for, to make the world believe your holy fire is not extinguished, though nothing of its flame appear, about the conservation of these, (to us precious things though to you despicable,) ye would make all these stir for them, and striveings about them, to be the sparkles of a superstitious wild fire, and not a flame of God. I cannot remember how Pliny, in his Epistle to Trajan, does paint the tender and conscientious Practice of the Primitive Christians with the same vermilion of Superstition; but I am apt to think, it is still the same Spirit of opposition to the Purity of Ordinances, power and practice of Godliness, which prompts men to these unjust representations of such, as dare not run the same course with them, or who are constrained by the love of Christ to hold fast that, which is below their Lukewarm temper to contend for. But I need not be further solicitious in this vindication; being, confident that you are not able to proselyte into a belief of this reproach any sober or rational men, nor will I envy you the advantage you are like to reap as a just retribution from every unprejudiced Reader; and that is, not to be believed afterward when ye speak the truth, having with so much calumnious confidence solicited them into the belief of what they know to be a falsehood. But Sir, to shut up this Dialogue with you, though raro vidi Clericum penitentem I have seldom seen a Clergy man a repenter hath been mostly verified in the men, who have perverted the right ways of the Lord; yet the Calumny is so gross and groundless, that I would willingly ●latter myself into a hope, that when ye think on what ye have said, ye will smite upon your thigh, and be brought to an acknowledgement of the sin of unjust accuseing the brethren: And I assure you Sir, our joy would be almost equal with your advantage, to see you weep over the falsehoods, and calumnies, and evil design, of this first borne of your strength.   

The Second DIALOGUE Answered.  
YOu begin with a question, What great goodness it was which so commended our Party? and having made your N. C. make a pitiful simple vaunt, that you may out-vaunt him, you proceed to accuse and censure, as you list. Sir if we dared to make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with them that commend themselves, we want not matter wherein we might indulge a little to the foolishness of boasting; but seeing that he whom the Lord commendeth, and not he who commendeth himself is approved, we will not boast of things appertaining to ourselves; but endeavour that all our Glorying may be in the Lord. I have already told you, how God blessed us with his Ministry, and that Ministry with Power and Presence: It was he who gave the word, and great was the company of these that Published it; it was he who clothed his Priests with Salvation, and made his people to shout for joy: It was he who in the more special times and shinings of his love, made the Graces of his People to flow, and Souls were ravished with these discoveries: And if not only in the Public Assemblies Gods fear was Great, but Families also did seek him apart; If the vulgar whom you undervaluingly so name, did greatly delight in the Law of the Lord, and the Sabbath was called a delight, the holy of the Lord honourable, we cannot but account these great matters, and the very paths and Methods which do most assuredly lead to the great heights of Christianity; Yea surely these Gospel Ordinances do lead unto the living God, and to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, and unto Communion with him, and the Participation of all Graces.  
I know there is a shorter way, which too many take, who forming unto themselves fair Ideas, and words of Self-denial, resignation, abstraction of mind, and the like, do entirely and pleasantly rest in the fancy, and talk of these things, and as much of a specious outward converse as may in some sort salve their reputation, from these many forfeitures, which by the sinful accommodations of their love of ease, they manifestly incur: and these men commonly in their self-elevation, do not only slight the true Ordinances, and from the infirmities of ●raile men entrusted therewith, do take advantage to mock; but licence themselves unto an absolute compliance with every mode and dress, in Church-Government and worship, which humane policy, or Satan's Malice please to invent, nothing regarding how much thereby they may make themselves partakers of the Perjury, Blood and Violence, which promove, and the Profanity, that followeth the courses that they approve; but as they prudently provide for their own advantage and credit, by the abused pretext of an illimited respect to Authority, so they easily quiet all the reluctancies of their inward Light, with any verbal, slender, and inoffensive dissent. This is the New convenient contrivance of Religion, which indeed desires to be admired, for its pretended Mortifications, high attainments, and peaceful enjoyments; but in effect, doth only recommend itself, by a lukewarm and quiet indifferency in the Matters of God, a flattering and safe deference to Authority, and a sinful and sweet veneration of outward peace, Whether your discourse and practice do ●avour or not of this way, I do not judge: I hope the serious seekers of God will still see and ask for the Old Paths, and do know that it is the Good way, wherein neither by a Pharisaic show of external devotion, not yet by vain and notional pretendings, but by humble and sincere waiting upon God, in the means of his own appointment, they have really attained to these graces in the names whereof you boast, and so do find rest to their Souls: And certainly if to such the present sad alteration (which, for the former light, power and frequency, observed in the Assemblies of the Lords People, hath covered his house with darkeness, death and desolation) doth minister suitable reflections, it can be no matter of wonder: When David remembered these things, and did consider the like changes, he poured out his soul in him, because he had gone with the multitude, and went with them to the house of God, with the voice of joy and praise: for this jeremiahs' heart di●d faint, for these things were his eyes dim because of the Mountain of Zion which was desolate, the foxes walking upon it: O what want had they of you for a comforter, who could have carried them far above these external shadows, and taught them Resignations and abstractions, in such a height, that neither the corruption, nor the removing of God's Ordinances, should have overclouded their Easeful Serenety?  
But you insinuat, that N. C. do overprize Ordinances, and undervalue Morality. I have already told you, that this is but a calumny, and that an holy and pure conversation, is the greatest and best part of Religion, is not by us in the lest questioned; without the endeavour of holiness; the other parts may possibly in Hypocrisy be pretended, but cannot indeed have any reality, only remember that Christ Jesus who is our all, is also our Sanctification, and let your Morality be indeed Christianity.  
In the next place, you fall upon Particulars and allege, That our Discipline was wholly different from the rules of the Gospel, and far short of that of the Ancient Bishops; This you instance in our Kirk Sessions, which you say were like Birlaw Courts. I will not examine your expressions, but your reasons. You tell us first that the Church should only Meddle with Sins as they are scandals, and not as they are injuries; whereas our Sessions cognosced upon wrongs which belonged to the Magistrate. But pray Sir, May not the same Offence be both as a wrong cognoscible by the Magistrate, for the reparation of the Plaintiff, and punishment of the Delinquent, and as a scandal appertain to Church censure, for the reproof and amendment of the Offender, reconciling of the offended, and instruction of all? Certainly it cannot be denied: Now seeing our Sessions did only meddle with Sins, under the second formality, what doth your challenge amount to? This matter is to me so plain, that I incline to think, that the too Narrow acceptation of Scandal, for the offence of one Brother against another, without any external injury, must be the only ground of your scruple; but as all injury is attended with a very sensible Scandal, and every open sin hath also a General harding Scandal in it, for which it is to be rebuked before all, that others also may fear, so it's necessarily previous trail, cannot in reason be separated from its commanded rebuke. But your next objection carping at the dilations made to these Courts, because not preceded by private Admonition made by the party offended, shows more plainly your mistake, in as much as the Gospel order of Admonition can only have place in private offences, in the which case it was also by us observed. But to require the like Method in Public offences, is manifestly to exempt from their censure all open sins, which being equally offensive unto all, render this procedure wholly improper. 3. You object That our Church Sessions did exact Fines: but if you consider, that these Fines which you mention are particularly imposed and determined by Statute, and thereby appointed to be applied to pious uses: And therefore the demanding and uplifting thereof only, aswell for the more summare and effectual restraint of sin, as for the end whereto they are destined, in use to be exercised by Kirk Sessions, or rather by their Officers and Bedels' in deficiency of the Magistrate, who should have been appointed in every Paroche for that effect, this your scruple must quickly cease: but if you still think that notwithstanding both the manner and conveniency of this practice, the ●amine is unsuitable to a Church judicatory, do ye not strain at a G●at, and swallow a Camel: nay a monstruous one Viz your Spiritual Lords in the highest temporal Courts where both civil and capital punishments are irrogated and inflicted. 4. You say that we forced people to stoop to our Discipline by threatening them with the Temporal sword. Sir, this is a great untruth, we never owned nor exercised High Commissions, And if obstinate transgressors were then, and still be, punishable by the Laws of the Land, wherefore seek you to make this our burden? 5. You say that the the time of our penance was short; the ancient Bishops did separate offenders as many years, as we did weeks. Just now you accused us of rigour, and here you complean of our lenity, And not remembering that the Ancient Bishops, did not more exceed us in strictness of Discipline, than we do exceed the Modern, You are not ashamed to make your own sloth the Charge of our Mediocrity. However, the lawful, though various, regulations of Prudence (whereof according to the diversity of times and circumstances, things undetermined by Scripture are acknowledged to be capable) may sufficiently reconcile any apparent discrepancy in our practice, from that of the Ancients, 6. You say, we used Discipline to put a temporal shame upon Offenders. Again we are too Rigid: but wherefore may not Discipline be used to shame Offenders, as well as the disobedient are commanded to be noted and separated from, that they may be ashamed? 2. Thes. 3. 14. And the Incestuous person is ordained to be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, 1 Cor. 5. 5. As for your Fancy, that Penitents are more Gazed at, as you phrase it, upon the high place you mention, then at the Church door, we are not of your Opinion, and the Church door was ever thought a place of more obvious observance, and severe penance, 7 You say we wretchedly abused Discipline by subjecting people to Censure for trifling matters; and that Ministers were more Zealous against opposition to their courses, then against opposition to the Everlasting Gospel. But Sir as these trifling matters, which I suspect you hint at, were no less than the whole import of the present differences; so, whether the opposition you make so light of, hath not in the event proven a most pernicious opposition to the Everlasting Gospel let any serious Soul judge?  
This vindication, whereunto ye have engaged me for our Kirk sessions, obliges me to add in their behalf, that although these Courts be very low, and plain in themselves; yet hath their excellent use, for the suppressing of all ungodliness, been always very observable. I need not go back to former times, nor adduce, as I may, even, K. james his express Testimony; to represent the notable and effectual influence of their right exercise; the present increase of Profanity, through the ceasing of this remedy, and the most ordinary jeer of dissolute Persons, taxing one another for their exorbitancies, with this sco●●ing regrate, Oh for a strike Kirk! are too obvious confirmations: And truly, as, I have o●ten marveiled to see a thing so mean in appearance, so much the eye sore and scorn of Proud licentious Persons; So I doubt not but this consideration alone; by pointing out the reason, may abundantly satisfy all serious scruplers.  
From your dissatisfaction with our Kirk Sessions you go to tax our Ministers their Liberty and Manner of reproving sin. And as to the first, you do so invidiously exaggerate their dealing in order to the late King, and him who now Reigneth, that I cannot dissemble my surprisal, at your so excessive and abusive Railing on the Ministers of Christ, and some whereof you your self say, within two leaves, are very good men, fearing God, but all are here reproached without distinction, as Unnatural Hams, Incendiaries, open Liars, inhuman, unchristian and malicious Persecutors of the memory of a pious dead Prince and that with the height of insolency and barbarity: Deliver my Soul o Lord from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue. Sir I pretend not to your Privilege to scold in a meek spirit, and to lie walking in the Spirit and falsehood? But as I cannot but commend your wisdom, in tristing the vent of your rage and malice against the Lords Ministers, to such a subject, not more advantageous against a retribution, then apt to point the keen arrows of your spite, with a most mortal odium; so were it not for the real and high respect, that I bear to the Person, and many excellent qualities of our deceased Prince; and the duty I owe the now King, nothing else could refuge you from the full returns of a just resentment. Passing therefore the many horrid Blasphemies, Lies and Reproaches, wherewith your Clergy during these unhappy wars did not cease continually to proscind the Cause and People of God, more precious to him then all the Monarches on Earth, and did most instantly labour to render both detestably hateful unto the Prince, until they brought all to ruin: I shall in a few sober words, vindicat the Lords servants from all these umbrages● and appearances, whereby you endeavour to set off your reproach. That the late King by evil Counsel, specially that of unconscionable and ungrate Prelates, wickedly abusing, for their own ends, a Conscientious Prince unto a fatal obstinacy, was precipitat into many gross errors of Government, such as an excessive indulgence to Papists, illegal and violent exactions, many unusual and high attempts against fundamental Laws and Liberties, a strange connivance at the Irish Rebellion, and at length, a bloody and pertinacious war against his Parliaments, his greatest and best friends and Counselors; it was not the invention of evil affected men or Ministers, as you allege, but the sad evidence of plain deeds, and the unanimous verdict of these most capable and proper to discern. Now if in this state of things, the Lords Ministers, favouring his righteous Cause, did endeavour, by a true representation, both to avert the People from, and animat them against evil courses, destructive to Religion and Right; wherein are they to be reprehended? You say they charged the King with all; But know you not that as whatever passed upon the King's side, did bear the impress of his Name and Authority, so they did continually charge the guilt and wickedness of all, mostly upon bad Counsel, praying the Lord uncessantly, with much tenderness to the King's Person, that the Wicked might be removed from about the Throne, that so it might have been established. And as to what you allege, That contraire to Humanity and Christianity they did Persecute the memory of that Prince after his death and that with the height of insolency and barbarity, in the presence of his Son, who now reigneth. It is a calumny, which you are not able to justify: It's true they wished and moved the King to repent, of his accession to, and mourn for the opposition to the work of God, violence and blood, wherein his Father was unhappily engaged, and from which the Throne, except by serious Repentance, will never be purged. If this be the Inhuman, Insolent and Barbarous raking into his ashes which you lay to their charge, you remember little, and fear less, the jealousy of God, who ●isiteth the iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children to the third and fourth Generation: Neither do you consider, that the stain of Blood is such, specially upon a Throne, that the unfeigned tears, even of the Author, do not wash it away. Ezrah and Nehemiah mourned and repent for the Provocation of Kings and Princes, many Ages past, without the least reflection upon their memories. Seeing therefore, that the practices whereupon you found these high accusations, were altogether consonant to the Word of God, and the Principles then acknowledged both by King and People, and to which in Conscience, we do, and must still adhere, doth not your apparent bearing with us in the main, and yet so virulently inveighing against a clear dependency, manifestly discover more than an inveterate malice?  
As to our Ministers their manner of reproving sin, you say they reproved not in secret, but triumphed in the Pulpit without control, and against absents, and that either out of Malice, or ostentation. Thus the tumour raised by the poison of your last calumny doth still swell, and you forget that you yourself are vainly triumphing in Print against a Mock-adversarie: But as you cannot verify, that ordinarily, or allowedly, secret reproof was omitted, where there appeared reason, and access for it; so, I am confident, your allegiance hath no better ground, then, that Ministers for the strengthening of the Lords people, did freely hold out the Apostasy and wickedness of his declared Enemies for whom such a reproof had been but in vain intended.  
In the next place you tell us, that the Sermons of our Ministers, were no Extraordinary things. Sir I will not compare, I am no lover of Extraordinary things; but I heartily wish that such Preaching were now more Ordinary: to believe, and therefore to speak, though with speech contemptible, is certainly infinitely more graceful, then to speak, even Seraphickly, and in practice to counter-act. There is a Foolishness of Preaching commended by Paul, above the wisdom of man: Whether you would value it as an Ordinary or Extraordinary thing I know not? But this Epithet of Extraordinary, which you seem to desiderat, is very little consonant to Luther's Opinion, Hi sunt optimi ad Populum, Conc●onat●res, qui pueriliter, populariter, & quam simpli●issime docent. These are the best Preachers unto the People, who teach in a plain, homely, and most simple way, You add, that their Sermons were half stuffed with Public Matters, nothing concerning Souls: Why do you Hyperbolise so widely in prejudice of Truth? You know public Matters were not meddled with, but in a clear exigence, and if some did exceed, others were defective; and these were the infirmities of both; but you tell us, That these things concern not Souls. This is a touch of your Convenient Religion. Pray Sir, are Public Matters transacted without private men's accession? or in this accession, hath Conscience no concernment? Nay are not the solid practices of Christianity, such, as the contempt of the World, for the most part, most necessaire and conspicuous in Wrestling with, and overcoming the great and frequent temptation of a public sinful course? But O the rare temper of this New device, that both inwardly elevates to the highest Spiritual abstractions, and outwardly smooths to a most easy temporising compliance?  
You say further, that the solid Practices of Christianity were scarce ●ver named, and that virtue was little Preached by us, and far less Practised: but why do you make so little Conscience of truth? Your often touching upon this string, with the presumption of Common ingenuity, which I have and desire to retain for all men, have made me apply to all conjectures, to find out your ground for this allegiance; but in the end I see it is a plain forgery. The Lord knows that I am far from boasting of former Practices, but that in this so visible a change, attending the present Establishment, from the General restraint and awe of Sin, that before did oblige even the most profligat, unto a seeming conformity, unto these confessed aboundings of all manner of profanity, which do now fill the Land, you should have the confidence to say● that virtue was by us little Preached and far less Practised, is that, which, I am sure, these of your own way do laugh at, and which, if ever ye return to the right way ye will weep at.  
And yet you proceed, to oppone to us our Saviour's Sermons, Particularly that upon the mount: I will not contend with your Mockeries. I wish that both yours and ours may reflect on short-coming, and endeavour amendment according to that pattern. Next you say, That the true heights of Spirituality were as little preached as the living in abstraction, silence, solitude, and the still contemplations of God, the becoming dead to all things, and being much in Secret fastings. Sir you are so much upon your heights, that you see nothing about you. Pray descend a little and consider that your own Ministers are as great strangers to these fine expressions of yours, and you and they to the things signified, to say no worse, as ours are, and much more: And in effect seeing that you only measure yourself by yourself, you are not wise; and this affected novelty of words doth argue little sincerity. But if Communion with God, fellowship with the Father and with his Son jesus Christ, a heart and conversation in heaven. Christ our Life, dying daily, victory over the World, and the like, may relish with you, in this, if Courser, yet Scriptural style, our Ministers, I am sure, were not unfrequent in pressing of them, and secret prayers and fastings also, and, I am confident, their Ministry hath a seal yet abiding, which may witness that it hath not been unfruitful.  
I cannot follow you in your again repeated accusation, as if our Ministers had only preached a Pharisaic observance of Ordinances, and a bare reliance on Christ without obedience to his Gospel. These are only your allegeances destitute of truth. Your next charge is that our Ministers handled nice subtleties, which they called Cases of Conscience. But Sir, as you grant that some devout people may be under doubtings, and fears; so in reason, you must allow, not only a private application for their remedy, but also Public Doctrine, both necessaire for prevention, and conducible for cure: that in this there was an excess, I believe few would have imagined, unless you had said it; Yet when I call to mind, what men of Conscience the generality of your Party are, and how in effect, unacquainted with, nay declared Enemies to, all tenderness thereof, if you had termed Conscience itself, & Melancholy Imagination, as well as Cases of Conscience, nice subtleties, it had added but little to my wonder. As for what you add That it is unsufferable to hear people who led but common lives talk of such things: It is a truth which I have often heard our Ministers assert, as also, that the best way of silencing all doubts, is, as you speak, to act Faith, renew Repentance, study Holiness, Humility, and the other great practices of Christianity: Why then are you so Divisive, as to object things to us, wherein we do not differ? But alas the reason is too evident; the design to render us Odious must be observed, and pursued by all Arts; And therefore, when you cannot contradict the Power, that appeared in, and the fruit of Conversion and Edification, which accompanied our Ministers preaching, Yet your eye being evil, by carping hints at Methods, and by unnecessary cautions, you suggest the things, which you have not the confidence to object: Thus you bid your N. C. See that by Power, he do not mean a Tone in the voice, A Grimace in the face etc. and by Conversion a change in Opinion, or outward behaviour, influenced by Interest; But Sir, as both in Power and the fruit of Conversion, our Ministers have been thoroughly made manifest amongst us; so I must add for their Voice and Gesture, that although some of them might have been rude in speech, yet not in knowledge: And if your better breeding, and sight of the Scene, have modelled your Tone and action, above the rate, as you fancy, of both yours and ours, you but the more mar its ridiculous gracefulness, by undervaluing others. And as for the Conversions attending our preachings, many of them are tried and cannot be blasted by your mocking. I Grant some were proselyted, in whom the Evil Spirit having by Apostasy re-entered with seven more, they are become more the Children of the Devil than they were before; but seeing they are now yours, make them not our reproach.  
Your next challenge, is, that we termed our Preachings the word of God, and you tell us that to call them so, and yet to confess that Ministers may be mistaken in them, is a Contradiction; But why do you not rather accuse us plainly, for terming our Ministers the Ministers and Ambassadors of Christ? If their Preachings be not his message, no doubt they are not his Ambassadors: and if they be his Ambassadors, how can you deny their preachings in his Name, to be his Message? These things have such an evident, and convertible coherence, that I am in a suspense whether to impute this passage, to your mistake, or not rather to a design to subvert the Ministry: And as many of your way would have it, to turn all Christ's Preaches unto Royal Orators. As for your Contradiction, it doth no more impugn Preachings than Preachers: for to call Preachers the Lords Ambassadors. And their Embassy the Word of God, have the same appearance of inconsistency, with the infirmity of Mistaking, wherein you fancy your repugnancy to lie; the truth is then first, that Ministers are the Lords Messengers; Next that their Preachings in his Name, and conform to the Warrant of his Word, have not only that derived Authority, which the Scripture equally imparts to all Rational and sound deductions made from it, but also, a particular superadded obligation from the Lords Commission, wherewith the Preacher is Ministerially clothed, whence it clearly follows, that, as all true Ministers, their Preachings are in his Name, and aught to be agreeable to his Truth, so, the Preachers their admixed mistakes, are of no more force, either to deprive Preaching of the name, or these things therein, that are sound and true, of the special Authority of the Word of God, than the accidental miscarriage of an Ambassador, to make void his mission, in other things consonant to his instructions. How unsound then is your insinuation that The text indeed is the Word of God, but Ministers Glosses, (by which term you mockingly understand all Preaching or Expounding) the words only of fallible men, as if a Ministers sound interpretation and application did partake of Nothing special from the Character which he sustains, whereas you know that not only his Mission, doth impress his words, with his Master's Authority; but hath also many and great Promises of a suitable assistance: Having thus cleared the Common Cause of the Ministry, and that their Preachings when sound, are from a special ground the Word of God: That which you subjoin of Ministers their usurping this name to their Preachings by Way of Artifice, that thereby they might procure the credit of the Infallible and Inspired Prophets, is as far from truth, as their diligence in searching of, and their care of confirming all their Doctrine by the Scriptures, with their frequent and continual intimations, that the People ought to build all their Faith upon that sure foundation, are notourly known.  
But you have not yet done with our Ministers, you tell us again, that our great Men were meddling Men, and most of them were very little spiritual in their conversation, and Seldom in the Commendation of God and Religion to the People. Sir, omitting your insinuate distinction of Greater and Lesser Ministers amongst us, which you know we acdnowledge, no further, or otherways, than the Lords free Grace & gifts do make it: and passing your accusation of Meddling, which I have already answered: As to Spirituality of converse, it is indeed a thing so excellent, and beautiful, that it can never be enough studied, never enough practised, and never enough pressed; but the manner and design of your reflection considered, it is so void of truth and charity toward Non-conformists, whereof so many have been burning and shining Lights, and so sadly applicable to your Clergy, the very scume of Men, let be of Christians, that I can only marvel at, and regret the excess and confidence of your Malice. Pardon me, if the strangeness of your procedure force me to such expressions: I protest sincerely, your Methods are so perverse, that I have no greater difficulty than how to find civil terms, sufficient to detect them: Thus after you have delivered a groundless and calumnious challenge of our Leaders, their want of Spirituality, in ordinary discourse, you hold out its singular usefulness: And falling to question us, as wholly strangers to these great things of Devotion, and holiness, which you enumerate, you falsely conclude, truly these things are as little among you, as any party I know: Well Sir, as I wish heartily that they were more, and that they may still increase, even to your conviction, which, I am certain, requires a degree equal to, if not beyond perfection; so, my prayer is, that God who both knows all the daring and open wickedness and ungodliness of these of your way, and sees your heart, and weighs your words, may discover unto you the sin of speaking wickedly, and talking deceitfully against him and his servants.  
In the next place, telling us, that we seem very desirous to be noticed in our Religion, You charge our Communions as tumultuary, disorderly, and talkative. It's Answered, that sometime they were numerous, is not denied; but if you censure Great multitudes their following of Christ as tumultuary, and disorderly, it is more than the jews ever did: That our running many miles to them shows us to be Idolisers of Men, your objected opporrunity of the Sacrament nearer hand, does not prove it: for as we were far from neglecting nearer occasions, or undervaluing any of the Lords sincere Servants; so, to acknowledge also and improve the difference of Gifts, which the Lord hath dispensed, savours nothing of Idolising, and cannot, without palpable envy, be dissallowed: If in other things I were satisfied, and in the liberty of a free election, I am confident, that without slighting the call of nearer invitations, I might choose rather to go ten miles to your Communion, than five to another's, and yet you cannot say that I Idolise you. As to what you object That at our Communions, all our business, both in preparation and Participation, was to hear and talk. it is but your misinformation or mistake, I am su●e previous self-examination (whether by the names or Inward stillness and recollection I do not indeed well remember) was always most seriously pressed, and also much practised, and in the action itself, a short convenient silence, was the more general custom. As for your other alleged inconveniences of Crowd and Distraction, these are but the peculiar aversions of your particular Genius, other more strong and less delicate and nice Spirits did easily overcome these difficulties.  
You further say, that You cannot think them very devout, who love rather to hear one talk, then to retire inwardly and commune with their own hearts; but what esteem have you for him, who disliking the hearing of others, and pretending to inward retirements, maketh the talk of these things all his work? And why do ye without ground accuse us of a preference, whereof we are not guilty? As we hold both Hearing and Meditation to be duties, and beautiful in their seasons; so, we endeavoured to practise, without either the Partiality which you object, or its contrary which you incur, O but you add that some of us will be many hours in Public worship, and perhaps not a quarter of an hour in secret. That there may be such amongst us, and worse, I nothing doubt; but if you intent this for an accusation, either against our way, or the Generality that own it, it is an allegiance, for which our Father who seeth in secret will in due time rebuke you.  
Another fault which you find about our Communions is their i●●requencie as being brought by us from the daily practice of the Apostles, and the after frequent custom of the whole Church, to once a year. Sir, you know so well the Church's power, and the differing observations that have been in use, as to this circumstance of time, that I think although your disatisfaction had been founded on better grounds; Yet you should have been tender to make of it an objection. That the Primitive Church did soon f●ll from the first daily celebration, your own Argument grants: what was the after practice, and is at present your custom, I need not mention: it is certain that neither the one, nor the other, do agree to your rule of Weekly Communions. Suppose then our Church had by a suitable regulation of this matter, designed the greater solemnity of God's Ordinance, had this been a licentious admixing● four own devices, as you are pleased to term it: but the plain account of the thing, is, that there was no positive Prescription, as to the times of this observance, known amongst us. Only, as the Churches of old did Ordain that all Christians should Communicate, at least once a Year; so our Church did appoint that at lest once, if not tuice, in the year this Sacrament should be administrate: Now if we liking better a joint than a separate participation of the people of the same Parish, and knowing that the particular exigences and desires, possibly incident to private Christians, might be easily supplied in other places, none being tied to any fixed time, did therefore not so often celebrate, and for the most part but once a Year, truly I think that the variation from the former frequency, was visibly compensed with a greater advantage of Solemnity● As for your demands why the Communion was not kept every Lord's day? It's answered, as there is no command for it, so you have already heard, that we wanted not reasonable considerations, which did persuade the contrary. For the hint you give of the strict notice should be taken of receivers, I have often heard our Church charged with the excess, but never before with the defect in this particular.  
You fall next to censure the posture of sitting in time of Public prayer, as very irreverent. Sir, not to detain you I am not far from your opinion: For my own part, and I have many of our way assenting, I dislike sitting in prayer, (if infirmity and other great inconveniences do not hinder it) and for proof of it, I add to your answer made to the instance of David's sitting before the Lord. 1 Chron. 17. 16. That he who considereth the occasion of David's address, even the gracious and high exalting message that the Prophet had delivered to him, with the tenor of his words, expressing rather an astonishing Meditation of wonders, not able to form itself at first into either direct prayer, or praise, than any thing else, will find no difficulty to acknowledge that the decent enough propriety, yea almost the necessity of sitting in such an oppressing amazement, cannot rationally be drawn in consequence: but as in this we agree, so I cannot but disagree from you in your overprising and exacting the postures that you plead for: for though I am convinced that there is an indecency, and other inconveniences in sitting, for which I wish, that wherever it may be, it were wholly disused; Yet I am far from offending at, let be imposing upon, these who of no intended irreverence, but for the most part from a just disgust of the too great weight hath been laid upon such circumstances, do innocently practise It. I confess that kneeling and standing in prayer, are in the Scriptures very frequently mentioned: but as thereby the thing is only circumstantially noted, and no where, no not in these invitations, O come let us worship and bow down (where the Gesture is only mentioned as the more Ordinary, and the substance exhorted to) designedly pressed; So there are also upon record, such clear instances of an undetermined liberty in these matters, apparent enough in our Lord his Disciples and Company, their Ordinary sitting down to meat, and blessing and giving thanks in that posture, that I cannot bu● strange at your bringing any of these practices under an obligation: But that which I do most admire, is, that you who just now were telling us that even heavenly Public prayers, ●asts, Communions, keeping the Sabbath, and the like, are but external devotion p, 16. And spiritual things of a very lo● size and degree● such as cannot car●●on to perfection p 20. should on a sudden descend so far below your spiritual heights and great Christian Practices, as to debate about Sitting or Standing, as the Cardinal points of Religion Nay to such a heat, that though you do not say, you would separate upon this ground from these Sisters; Yet in substance you say no less, then that you would be content that they did separate from You, and so do both approve and wish for a separation: Sir, you are discovered beyond the disguising of all your shifts: God grant you to consider it. And also how near this doth approach, to what our Lord sayeth, in almost the like case, This people honoureth me with their Lips, but their heart is far from me, howbeit, in vain do they worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men: for laying aside the Commandments of God, ye hold the Tradition of men.  
Your next reflection is upon the Family-Worship that was so frequent in former times, and here you tax Masters of Families, For Expounding Scripture, and wish that we do not overvalue other lawful exercises. Sir, as to what you make your N. C. say of Expounding Scripture, I look upon it as a mere suggestion of your own, that you may find something to reprehend even in our best performances: You know all that was allowed in the directions for Familie-Worship, was, that Masters with their Families should read the Scriptures with understanding, and by mutual conference Edify one another, neither are you against Expounding by Masters, who are very intelligent: And for the practice, it was in effect so rare, and imperfect, that I am confident your accusation of excess to most N. C. will only prove a check for their deficiency. As for your Wish I verily think it good, but no good wish. When the calling upon the Name of the Lord in Families is now so universally and irreligiously slighted, and by many openly mocked at, think you it a season for such over-cautelous advices? Nay Sir, in the so sad and Lamentable decline of this duty to the extreme of neglect and contempt, groundlessly to caution against the other, of an over-value, is but to harden the wicked, who forget God, and weaken the hands of such as seek his face in sincerity.  
From this point, in the eagerness of your pursuit of the people of God, you pass to private meetings. And with you I can grant, that they have had both their use and abuse, I can grant also that, in the settled plenty of pure Ordinances, to bring Church-exercises to Chambers; or private conference to a public confluence, is (in my opinion) superfluous and affected; Not that I would have Religion wholly astricted in its exercises, to Churches, Families, or to men's Closets: but ●s I acknowledge a communication and speech always with Grace, to be the very ●alt of Christians their converse, & would judge nothing more becoming then to see Religion so seriously & constantly minded, that men were pursuing & observing its occasions more than these, either of bussiness or recreation; so I think to contrive & keep particular meetings with a visible affectation of singularity were a thing justly to be avoided; & thus in our better times, it was commonly both held & followed. But Sir, ye must suffer me withal to tell you, that as Satan had a special envy at these, perceiving how much, when in singleness and sincerity gone about, and performed with just caution, they did contribute to the growth, comfort, and mutual edification of the Saints; and therefore to make the thing itself odious, he abused the well-meaning honesty of some, and used the sinister designs of others to a turning of these out of their proper channels, that so they might miss of their just ends: though I must tell you, that to talk so much of these justly reprehensible escapes, without encouraging to the duty, whereby so many have reaped advantage, seems to be a fault no less challengeable in a Minister of the Gospel, one part of whose work it is, if he be a worker together with God, to exhort his hearers to comfort themselves together, and edify one another, than any of these abuses amongst private Persons in such meetings, against which you with so much eagerness exclaim: it would no question much better become one caring naturally for ye flock of Christ, and carrying as a faithful Feeder, to be assiduous in pressing the duty, careful in directing, and deeply affected with any advantage that Satan got over the Saints, in the use of such a mean, then to publish to the world his victories, that the thing itself might pass for a vice. As for the practice of Private Meetings in evil times, all your supposed and accidental inconveniences, to which even the best of things are obnoxious, are far from making me condemn that, which to the Lord is very acceptable, and to his People profitable, Mal. 3. 16. So that, if the intendiment and application of your Discourse be leveled at our latter customs, seeing you cannot truly charge them with any of these evils which you mention, and since your opinion doth clearly depend upon your different judgement as to the main. I must take liberty to descent from you, with the same confidence wherewith you assert it, and withal tell you that I wish their frequency did keep a proportion with the deep distress of the People of God, in this penury of pure public preaching; and then, I am sure, we should have ten for one, and if so, there were ground of hope that they might, in these Private Meetings, pray your Intruders out of their public capacities, that so these, who now dare not be overheard in their meetings to mourn for the desolation of the Sanctuary, and the departings of the Glory, might bless him together in these Assemblies, out of which they are thrust and kept, and might once more, as of old, be made glad in his house of Prayer.  
For a close to this Dialogue, you make your N. C. boast of the glory of our Unity, to the effect that you may the more foully set out the divisions that fell out amongst us, and to do it with the greater advantage, you endeavour prudently to remove by a preface, the suspicion of what you are resolved to practise; and therefore you tell us, You love not the Spirit of detraction; but whether you be acted by it or not, let these Epithets you give us, of Unchristian, Malicious, Brethren in Cruelty, and Implacable, bear witness: for my part, though I do so much detest divisions, that I am content to let your representation pass, with all its excess, on purpose, that to all concerned they may appear more odious, and that if it be the Lords will, even your reproachful tongue, may smite the guilty into Repentance; yet for the vindication of the truth, I must say, that such hath been its bad fate, and worse reception in the Earth, that I should sooner judge Division; then Unity, to be the sign of Orthodoxy, to be found among a party; Perfect unity in truth, is a blessing so great, that it is reserved for Glory: If you think that our Lord came to send peace on Earth, remember his own words; I came not to send peace but a sword, and to set a man at variance against his Father, etc. Schisms must be, nay were the very first temptations and trial of the Church, against which all the Light and Power of the Apostles could not guard it. As therefore Sir, you do falsely make us to glory in our Unity, so, take head lest by making division our charge, you do not far more calumniously reproach the Christian Faith. Do not imagine that I do hereby patronise divisions; Nay I know and am persuaded, that because there is nothing more repugnant to the Genius, and hurtful to the progress of Truth, than Contentions, therefore it is, that the Devil hath even laboured most to infest it: with these temptations; but I would have you to understand, that seeing these strifes, whereof you accuse us, did certainly proceed from the remaining dreg, and adventitious mixture of ane Evil Spirit, relaxing former Engagements, remitting the first Zeal, and not a little bending to your way, and from men's corruptions on all hands, although that you could say that our course did take away Peace, and in place thereof being War; yet it would no more infer the Spirit that moved therein to be contentious, than you can justly object against the blessed Gospel of Peace, these Schisms, hatred, and tumults, wherewith in all Ages it hath most innocently filled the World. As therefore our Lord doth make it the great characteristic of himself, blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me, so let not the heats and contests about Tru●●, affright you from its search, or foolishly induce you, unconcernedly, without disstinction, to condemn all Contenders; but rather more engage you to seek and hold it fast, and highly to esteem all its zealous adherents, where ever you perceive the Devil to best●●re himself most actively against it: Surely if this disposition were in you, the offence you seem to take, either at the greater oppositions betwixt the Friends & Adversaries of the Lords work, or these humane infirmities wherewith his Servants amongst themselves happened to be exercised, would soon be removed. As for you● Veneration, whereof you judge us unworthy, we acclaime it not, we wish your Most Reverend and Right Reverend did truly merit it, which is all the Scolding wherewith I repay your Malice.   

The third DIALOGUE Answered.  
SIR, you cause your N. C. begin this conference with so just an animadversion upon your ●eeming pretences to some extraordinary sublime thing and real deficiencies, not only in being guilty o● our common evils, but also in ●ou● want o● these good things, which you acknowledge were amongst us, that I cannot but wi●h you had reserved as much ingenuity to yourself in your answer, as you make, and acknowledge him to speak truth in his alledgance. But in place of considering his challenge, of the ev●ls of your Way, and the sad and strange alteration it hath procured, in this poor Church, you subtly labour to evade, by telling, That you are not so engaged, as blindly to descend any interest: you are so far Episcopal, as to love the Order, and submit to it, but you have not sworn fealty to any Sect: your prayer is, that all distinguishing names were buried: you do not patronise, but mourn in Secret, for the sins, that are amongst you, adding That Non-conformists are guiltier of the present looseness then perhaps they think. And thus, after that in your second Dialogue, you have not only riped up, misconstrued, and exaggerated to the height, the infirmities of the Men o● our side; but employed all the invention of calumny, to render them odious, and then charged all these things directly upon our Way; when you see a retortion appear, you instantly decline it, by insinuating the evils to be the faults of men, and no ways chargeable upon your cause. I will not complain of this unequal measure, neither shall I take notice, that, when you apprehend a stress, for all your inveighing against the one, and love to the other, you can for a shift alleviate both Prelacy and presbytery to Empty names, & shrewd yourself in the Sanctuary of ease the convenience of your new divised latitude.  
But I must remember you, that as the thing we contend for is an Ordinance of Jesus Christ, both institute for, and greatly commended by the effectual propagation of the Gospel, and conspicuous advancement of holiness; so the ignorance and licentiousness, which (as the shadow doth the body) do attend the prevailing of your Order, are not more the imputation of men, than the bitter and corrupt fruits, that undeniably demonstrate the corruptness of that plant of Prelacy, not planted by God, whereby they are produced. ye shall know them by their fruits is a Test for Courses, as well as People, and that a good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit, is no less applicable to, and clearly verified in, the one then in the other. The pure ordinances of a Gospel Ministry, and Church-Government, according to our Lord's appointment; as they have his warrant and promise; so they may expect his blessing; but Lordly Prelacy the unwarrantable invention of man, accommodate to a politic or worse design, and carried on by palpable avarice, pride and falsehood, for the reducing of the just liberty of preaching, and due respect to Conscience, unto a subserviency to men's lusts, and secular interests, cannot be more attended, with the evil effects of ignorance, profanity, and irreligion; than it hath a peculiar influence, directly productive thereof: and therefore Sir, as you say that you are so far Episcopal as to love the order (I suppose because it is Ordered) and submit to it, because you see that rest is good; so ● entreat you to be so far Rational, as to consider that Presbytery and Prelacy are not mere distinguishing names; but such realities as have even in our experience produced most Important and different effects, and then I question not, but the sad and woeful consequences of that abounding Sin, and Profaneness, which from your Prophets are gone forth into all the land, will render you so far Christian as to know by such fruits, the corruptness of your Episcopacy, that hath brought them forth● and without adjuring you to any Sect, turn you not only to be a mourner for the sins of your parti● but a serious supplicant, that the accursed cause thereof may be removed,  
But you say that Non-conformists are guilty of the present looseness who. 1. By making Religion a cloak to so many State-designes, make too many suspect Religion to be but a design o● itself. 2. by driving people to an outward compliance in forms, cause them to nauseat at all Religion: but. 3. and mostly, by their waxing cold in love, to which our Saviour plainly knits the abounding of iniquity. Sir, as to your two first reasons, If I should as lightly deny them, as you do affirm them, you should be fully answered; but this your accustomed confidence of objecting to Non-conformists these things, whereof their Adversaries are mostly, if not only, guilty, obliges me to a further reflection: That Religion may be made a cloak to State-designes, nay, to the greatest villainies, is certainly one of the most grievous of these offences, because of which a woe is pronounced to the world; but that this hath not been so much the accidental practice of any Person of our way, as the very substance of your whole course, is obvious to the meanest Consideration. How austerly our first Reformers were denied to all Worldly advantages, and how faithful to the Crown, and then infant King, I leave it to the candid and impartial consideration of all sober Men, not preferring the vain pretences, made for perverted, yea profaned Authority in Odium of Truth, to the most convincing evidences, of all impotency and wickedness, that can be instanced from any History: The next passage that occurs of these who on our part in a most steadfast simplicity, did assert, and establish presbytery, until the year 1596. & of others, who on your part, by Fraud, Perjury and Violence, did, in compliance with King james, his design of Complementing the English Clergy, on the one hand, and attaining to a greater freedom, of indulging and gratifying the Popish party, on the other (both supposed necessaire for assuring, the then much courted Succession) endeavour, the overthrow of presbytery, as being too strait for such crooked courses, is an instance against your first reason, which I am bound in Charity to think, you did not call to mind: sure I am, that which you object, of our aiming at State-designes, change but State, into Court, and you will find it was so far from being our guilt, that it was King james his regret, on our behalf, that honest Men would not be thereby tempted. But it is like, the times you hint at, are these of our late Troubles: Wherein, though I acknowledge, that the feigned concourse, and corrupt designs of some, did in their occasion discover themselves; Yet, it cannot be denied, that such was, and is, the truth of the work of God, and steadfastness of its faithful Adherers, that even unto this day, through all the various temptations of malignancy, on the one hand, and Sectarianisme on the other, both it, and they, do retain their integrity. Really Sir, when I consider, that neither the tempting terror of the prevailing Malignant interest in the Years 1645. and 48. nor the succeeding victory, usurpation and very plausible and insinuating offers of the Sectarians, with all these strange revolutions that have since happened, have moved the Lords faithful remnant in the Land, from that well tempered, and justly balanced fear of God, and honour to the King, which from the beginning they professed, and do hold forth in the Covenant, and all their Public actings, Your accusation of the work of God, as a State design, appears to me a very palpable inconsistency, and ridiculous calumny; to design State changes or advantages, and yet, to omit and slight all the probable, yea and possible opportunities, of compassing them, are things, which Malice itself cannot affirm to be compatible. As for these, who not being upright, nor stable in the Lord's Covenant, have, according to the impulse of their own worldly designs, turned and figured themselves, unto every sort of compliance, they are now so unexpectedly, and wholly almost, become of your way, that there needs no other evidence, of the eàsie accommodation, that all self●seekers, and time-servers do find in it: but wherefore do I seek to retort? Can there be any thing more certain, then that as corrupt Court designs, have only imposed this heavy Yoke of Prelacy, upon the Lord's Church, and People amongst us; so such have been, and are the wicked and ungodly practices of its Lords, and their dependants, & the vast dissonancy of their lives, even from their own Canons and profession; that I do not so much wonder at your impudence, in objecting against our course; The tempting of many to suspect Religion to be but a design of itself, as that the monstrousness of your Hierarchy hath not scandalised the whole world to account all Religion but a cheat. 2. You say by driving of people to an outward compliance in forms, we have caused them to Nauseat at all Religion. Who would think that this were the accusation of Non-conformists, who from the very beginning of Reformation, have been continually vexed, by your impositions; and not rather conceive, the objection to be made by them, against your violent pressing of Cross, Surplice, Service-book, Book of Canons, and other ●rash, wherewith the Lords people have been uncessantly urged, as the main, yea only things of Religion? But I cannot stand upon every one of your calumnies, the Lord deliver you from this perverse spirit: Only if by the driving objected, you do understand our causing the people of the Land to stand steadfast, and adhere to the Lords Covenant, whereby they were formerly obliged, it is already fully answered.  
But, that which you say is of greatest weight, is, that we are guilty of the waxing cold in Love, to which our Saviour knits the abounding of Iniquity: And this challenge you qualify, by our judging you in Matters which are doubtful disputations, spreading tattles● of you, as you call them, carrying sowrly toward you, and casting odious aspersions upon you, as Apostates and the like, with petulant rail, and this you add, is a greater persecution, than any little suffering of ours in the World. Sir, though I cannot soothe you as you do your self, by the mouth of your N. C. (whose tongue you teach to speak lies) in your smooth words of deceit, by telling you, that too much of what you speak is true; Yet I heartily wish, there were more Charity on all sides; but where you accuse us, of waxing cold in Love, and thence would infer our accession, to the present abounding iniquity, I would first have you to read the text aright, which runeth thus, And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold, which is a plain inversion of your causality. 2. Admitting your ground to be good, I seriously wish, without vanity, that the waxing cold in love, both toward God and your Neighbour, were not more your sin, than ours; then had we not been scorched into a blackness, and consumed almost into ashes, by these fiery trials, kindled, blown and kept into a flame, by the Grandees of your way (pourtrey them as you please) whose heat speaks them to be set on fire, against the Work, People, and Interests of God. 3. To call the causes of our Differences matters which are doubtful Disputations, when both by Scripture, Reason, and Solemn Engagements, and many sad experiences, they are so fully determined, is indeed, to put false glosses upon things; and to pretend to be a good Christian, and to acclaime the charity and kindness of others, in an avoved persistence, in open Perjury, Opposition to the Cause of God, and persecution of his People, is it not to wipe your mouth, and say you have done no wickedness?  
But you say it is from the spirit of the Devil to fasten the brand of Apostasy upon the leaving of a party, and that to grow wiser is not to play the changeling, nor is a conscientious obedience to standing Laws time-serving. Sir, as I love neither to irritate, nor prejudicated by hard words; so I approve not either your or your N. C. tattles; but if to leave God, and not a Party, be Apostasy? if to forsake the way, and Truth of God, be to play the changeling? and if to obey, and conform to mischief, framed by a Law, be time-serving? I am sadly apprehensive, that, what you account to be, but the Malice of the spirit of the Devil, shall one day be found, the Verdict of the Spirit of God; Whether it be thus or not, in our controverted differences, let the things themselves, and the issue of our discourse declare? What you tell us of the primitive application, of the word Apostasy, is no restriction of its proper acceptation: And for your other petty conceits, in this place, with your mock-complaint, of the persecution of a just, but disdained censure, they are not of that moment, to stop my procedure, to that part of your conference, which concerns Episcopacy.  
This head you say falls asunder in two, the one a general consideration of that Government, the other, supposing it were amiss, how far it ought to be separated from: And for the Government, in place of all these weighty and unanswerable objections, viz. the want of our Lords Warrant. 2. Repugnancy to his, and his Apostles Precepts and practice of restless labour, simplicity, equality, humility and contempt of the world, etc. 3. Disconformity to the first, and purer times of the Primitive Church. 4. The pride, avarice, usurpation, and cruelty, to which, it naturally tends, and hath been depraved: And lastly, these evil and bitter fruits, of profanity, ignorance, and superstition, that it hath ever in its prevalency produced, which have been charged upon, and made out against it, by many of the Lords faithful Witnesses; you make your N. C. faintly and poorly to allege, I cannot think that Churchmen should be called Lords, and be great Persons; that this is a desingenuous prevarication, is obviously manifest. Yet such is the weakness of your cause, that the meanest argument, you could put in your N. C. mouth, is stronger than your answer, wherein you tell us, That this belongs not to the thing itself; but is an addition of the Christian Magistrate. But I must remember you first, that Churchmen and Ministers, are not capable of every addition: Civil offices, and administrations, are very lawfully bestowed by the Magistrate, upon fit Recipients: but as for Ministers, they are not only an intolerable distraction, many degrees above that charitable employment which the Apostles could not bear, but so inconsistent with the nature, manner, and end of their Ministry, that, even our Lord, while in this capacity, doth bruskly decline, to be so much as an amicable trister: And therefore to justify Bishops titles, from this ground, that they are extrinsic additions, or from their civil place, and voice in Parliament, is no ways concludent. 2. Though this were not; yet, I am confident, that who ever considers, the received use, and import of this title of Lord amongst us, will find it an addition, as full of fastuous vanity, for Ministers, as the title of Rabbi, (even admitting that its excess did lie another way) therefore excepted against, and prohibited by our Lord, was unlawful for the Apostles: but 3. This title is not an addition flowing from the Christian Magistrate, as you pretend; but the very product, of that pride, and usurpation, that at first exalted Prelacy, which, as as first, it was assumed by the connivance of, if not, rather forced from the Civil Magistrate; so now, by the Bishops, it is only derived from him, in consequence of that Supremacy, which both falsely against our Lord Jesus Christ, and traitorously to the Pope, in this respect their proper head, they have, for their own conveniency, transferred upon him.  
But you add, that we consider not that, Sir, and Lord, Gentleman and Nobleman, differ but in degree: since therefore, a Minister by Office, ●hes the temporal ●onour of a Gentleman, why may not the temporal honour of a Lord, be as well put upon a Bishop? Sir, if you were as innocent of the vanity, as you seem to be ignorant of the Nature of these titles, Our controversy were at an end: a Faithful Minister, truly minding his work, values not himself upon points of Heraldry; to acquit himself as becometh an Ambassador, for the Glory of Christ, is all his ambition, and truly honourable, beyond the accession of all temporal dignity, If it were not so, I could further inform you, that a Gentleman and Nobleman, do not only gradually differ, but are prorsus disparata wholly different. The King, we say, can make the one, but cannot make the other. I grant the privileges of a Gentleman, are commonly supposed to belong to Ministers, and decent civility may respect them, as of that rank, but really, there appears to me such a disparity, betwixt these things, and a Bishops receiving, let be the usurping, of the temporal, and more eminent honour or Lord specially as above his Brethren, that if a Minister as such, should but tenaciously lay claim to the title of a Gentleman, I would think it not only very misbecoming his Profession, but a plain forfeiture of the pretended privilege.  
But, your N. C. urges to better purpose, that Bishops should not Lord it over God's heritage: And you for Answer, tell us, That by Lording, is meant a tyrannical domination, and not a tittle. Next, That God's Heritage, applied by us to the Clergy, is not in the Text, bearing only not Lording over their Lots or Divisions, to which you add That Whatever argument we use to put down Bishops from being as Noblemen, will also prove Ministers not born such, not to be Gentlemen. Sir, to put this foolish trifling about titles, first by hand, Bishops neither are Noblemen, nor aught to be esteemed quasi Noblemen: because 1. The thing is altogether incompetent, and the title without the thing is a vanity. 2. Either title or thing, as it exalts them above their Brethren, is sinful, and the very reverse of our Lords Command: Whosoever will be chief among you let him be your Servant not your Lord. He that is chief, let him be as he that Serveth not as a Nobleman: How then can ye acclaime either thing or title? 3. The title of Lord in its Ecclesiastic usurpation, hath been, and is so grossly abused by Churchmen, above all that our Lord reprehends, in the pride of the Pharisees, not only to the pretending to the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the Synagogues; but the chief places in States, and the first banches in Parliaments, not only to Greetings in the Merca●s, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi, but to ride next to the Honours, and be called Grace, Grace, that, seriously I marvel how you or any Christian, regarding our Lords express words, can justify it? That these reasons do not militate against the civil, and ordinary respect commonly paid to all Ministers, and men of any fashion, without either a vain usurpation in the receivers, or any other thing, than that courteous mutual preference, commended by the Apostle in the givers, & which without falling into the rave of the Quakers, their austerity, you cannot from our Lords words redargue, I think it needless to resume. Now you say that by Lording, prohibit to Churchmen, a Tyrannical domination is only meant, why do you thus offer to impose, contraire both to the import of the word, and tenor of the Scripture? the word used by Peter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the very same used by our Lord Math. 20. Whence Peter himself learned the Prohibition, that it signifies not to Tyrannize, bu● simply authoritative Dominari, to rule with Authority, all Lexica attest; Neither doth the proposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joined to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import more of force, than what doth more expressively denote, and distinguish the dominion of Empire and Authority, from that of propriety: As for the tenor of Scripture, that it repugns to your exposition is manifest 1. Because that where Math. in this passage useth the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luke doth indifferently use the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as of the same import to the present purpose, by which your gloss, of a tyrannical domination is deprived of all shadow of ground. 2. Because our Lord by both words, doth only prohibit such a domination, and authority amongst his Disciples, as was exercised amongst the Gentiles by their Princes, and which they who were called their Benefactors did use over them, but certain it is, that neither was the dominion of the Princes of the Gentiles, allowedly or commonly tyrannic; nor is it our Lord's purpose in this place, to brand them with such a character. 3. The positive Command plainly set down, and enforced by our Lords own example, is too evident, to leave any man hesitant, as to the Prohibition: But it shall not be so among you, but whosoever will be great among you● truly great in virtue and reward, let him be your Minister: Let him exercise the Ministry committed to him, by way of humble and painful service, denied to all worldly advantages, and neither affect, nor assume the Grandour, and Authority of Civil Governors. Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to Ministere, and to give his life, etc. and made himself of no reputation (contemning his Gentility, and not valuing his Nobility) but took upon him the form of a Servant: Sir, do we indeed believe that this is commanded, and proposed for a pattern to Gospel Ministers? And yet it is not only most certainly so, but also undeniable, that if there were in Ministers and Churchmen, that same Spirit of Obedience to God, and love to Souls, which was in him, who accounted it his meat and drink to do the will of him that sent him, and to finish his work, and if they had the same eye, and regard, to the joy set before them, which he had, who is the Author and finisher of our Faith, it could not be other ways. For my part, I think a serious reflection on these things, is not only enough to confound for ever, the ease, vanity, and pomp of aspiring Prelates, but to make the best of Ministers ashamed, to appear so much above their Master, even in their indulged honesties, and conveniencies. But 4. Because the place that you touch is taken from Peter, see how it also agrees with that of Math. Feed the flock of God etc. Not as being Lords or Lording, over God's heritage, but as being Ensamples: where it is evident, that the adversative, doth not only reject your Gloss, of a tyrannic domination; But by commanding rather to lead and instruct by example, then to rule by Authority, hold forth the same humble and simple Ministry, to be enjoined here, which by our Lord was before recommended. The next thing you answer, is, that God's heritage applied by us to the Clergy, is not in the Text, Pray you Sir, how came this in your head, that we apply the title of God's heritage to the Clergy, or own them under this name? Know you not, that the usurping of this prerogative, both by your, and the Popish Churchmen, hath been always esteemed by us, an high arrogance? As for your pretending to correct our Translation, Pray Sir, be sober, and remember the respect which you bear to the Authors. 2. I grant the Greek Verbatim ●●ndered seemeth to sound, neither as exercising Lordly authority over the Lots by which as your interpretation of a tyrannical domination is disproved, so, even your pretended exactness (Your being wanting● is exceeded. 3. Since the Lord's People are certainly here meant, whether you understand them to be termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lots, in order to their respective Pastors, who●e ●ortitions, and divisions they are, or as being God's heritage, according to the usual signification of the singular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heritage's and the clear Synonymous import of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the following part of the verse, but being Ensamples to the flock it matters nothing, as to our present business, but plainly shows your impertinent curiosity. However, I wish you to consider, that as we condemn the worldly, and pompous usurpations of Prelates, above their own degree, and over their Brethren, so, we most of all condemn their spiritual Tyranny, in Lording over the Consciences of God's People, whom they cease not now, as always, to vex with their Pharisaic imposing, and exacting of implicit obedience to vain Traditions and humane inventions, more than obedience to the Commandments of God, as will afterward appear.  
Your N. C. proceeds to say that his chief quarrel against Bishops, is, that they are a function of man's devising, and no where instituted by God. To this you think fit to answer, by way of retortion, telling us of our great, but vain pretences, to a jus divinum in several things: As first, in the matter of Lay Elders, thus Sir you deal wittily, when you can do no betters seeing you cannot confirm your own opinion, you endeavour at lest to subvert your adversary; but before I enter with you upon particulars, I must tell you first, that Presbyterians in pleading for a jus divinum, do not pretend to a posi●tive, and express prescription from Scripture, of all the smaller points and circumstances, either of decency or order, requisite to their Government and Discipline, in as much, as, the regulation of these, being abundantly provided for, by the general rules revealed, and the things themselves, and their use, such as ingenuous persons cannot probably mistake, the want of express warrants, in all or any such particulars, cannot be justly cavilled at as a defect: 2. That it had better become the sobriety, that you require of your N. C. for you to have answered, what many worthy Men have written, for the jus divinum of Presbytery, then to have passed all with the empty censure of your own airy character of big talking, and minding it as little, as any could, to the effect, you may amuse your poor N. C. with a fear of your conceited quibblings; but leaving these things with as confident an estimation, as your undervaluing is vain, and groundless, to the impartial perusal of judicious Readers, I do only here premise, that, whoever abstractly and seriously considers, the clear light, and obvious project of the Gospel, will of necessity find. 1. That our Lord Jesus by virtue of that Kingdom, and All Power given to him, in Heaven and in Earth, did, for the carrying on, and prospering of his pleasure, the Salvation of sinners, appoint, in the Persons of his Apostles, a perpetual Ministry in his Church, the sum of whose charge, is both severally & jointly, to take heed, to oversee, and feed the Church of God, and the chief part and duty of which office, is, to Preach and Teach, and consequently to reprove, rebuke, exhort, remit and retain, bind and lose etc. in which things, the heads of Doctrine, and Discipline, with their immediate power, and warrant from Jesus Christ, and their connexion, and dependence betwixt themselves, do certainly consist, and are clearly held out. 2: As the Apostles were all the Ministers (waving the matter of the seventy, whose mission and employment was only local, and preparatory, unto every City, and place, whether he himself would come, and to say the Kingdom of God is come nigh unto you, and de facto, ended at their return, Luke 10. 1. 9 & 17.) appointed by Christ, and in them, the order, office, and full pattern of the Gospel Ministry established, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even unto the end of the world, so they are by our Lord vested with such equal power, so expressly prohibited the aspiring to, or usurping these degrees, lawful and allowed in secular dignities, and so enixely commanded the lowliest humility and submission conceivable, not only in their personal conversation, but in their Ministry, that to introduce an imparity, either of Power, Dignity, or stated Pre-eminence, amongst Gospel Ministers, is plainly to reject, and deny our Lord's institution, and ordinance. 3. That although the Apostles were singular above their successors, in many respects, such as an infallible assistance in the discharge of their Ministry, eminency of Gifts, an unconfined exercise, an universal oversight, and the privilege, not only of our Lords peculiar and chosen Witnesses, but of being the spiritual Fathers, and Authors of conversion, to almost the whole Christian Church; yet were these prerogatives only temporary, and necessarily requisite, and suited to, or depending upon the particular exigence of the Gospel's first propagation, and so far from changing, or innovating that equality, parity and lowliness of Ministers, most manifest from our Lords command and appointment, that on the contraire, these other advantages, hindered not the Apostles, to respect and acknowledge the Pastors of particular Churches, as partakers with them of the same Ministerial power, their fellow-labourers, Brethren (not in the bare name, as your Prelates scorn their Curates, and the Pope in his pretended sevus servorum Dei, the whole Roman Church) Compresbyters, and in the Pastoral charge, altogether their equals. 4. As the power of Government, consisting in the Authoritative deciding of Controversies, according to the word of God, the due application of Ecclesiastic Discipline, and Censures, and the right regulation of all other things, pertaining to the Ministerial function, is clearly imported in the Command of Feeding, and Over-seeing, beside its natural inseparability from the conduct of every rational, let be Christian, institution and Society, and consequently only assistant, and secondary to the other offices of the Ministry; so, the Lords command of that most lowly submission, and simplicity, incapable of the very notion of imparity, which he opposeth even to that lawful Authority, and dignity allowed in civils', doth in such a peculiar manner, regard the exercise of this Governing Power, that whether it be more absurd, to introduce a stated degree of Superiority and Dignity among Ministers, in the point of Government, or to separate and exalt Government, from and above the office of Preaching, to which it is subservient, and to appropriate it to certain Ministri-prelati, above others, can hardly be determined, I need not here caution concerning ruling Elders, seeing the more full description of Ecclesiastic Government, is here given, in order to Ministers, in which these Elders being only partial sharers, it is not more agreeable to their warrant, then suitable to this position, 5. As the grounds of the equality and parity of Ministers by us asserted, are by these truths plainly held out; so that superiority of Power, though still Ministerial, competent to the meetings of the Brethren, as well over the several constituent members, as over the Church according to their warrant hereafter declared, is thereto very consistent, and thereby mostly established: whether these things, all evident in the Doctrine, and practice of Christ and his Apostles, do not fairly exhibit, the principles and platform of a Presbyterian Ministry and its Ministerial parity, Let men judge.  
Really Sir, when I consider Preaching, to be the main office, even our Lords own commission, & great errand into the world, Discipline to be dependent upon it, and wholly referable to its end, and a simple Ministerial Government, only allowed for the regulation and advancement of both, and when I do remember, that neither the glorious excellency of the Lord Jesus, hindered him to be amongst his Disciples, as he who served; nor did the many advantages of the Apostles, and others extraordinarily gifted, and accordingly employed and sent out, as their assistants, requisite in the Church's infancy, make them assume to themselves, or endeavour to settle in the Church, any superior Order, above the degree of preaching Elders, and Overseers, whom they always respected as their equals, in the work of the Gospel: And thirdly when I call to mind, that wherever a Church came to be gathered, the Apostles did either by themselves, as at Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, or by their fellow labourers (as Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete; there left and appointed by Paul for the work, and charged to leave the place when called) therein ordain Elders, without any imparity, or higher order, and that Paul after, having testified that he had keep back nothing profitable, nor shuned to declare all the Counsel of God; but showed them all things, did commit to the Elders of Ephesus, the full charge and oversight of the Church of God, without appointing any Angel. Prelate over them: And lastly when I reflect how that in the beginnings of the Gospel at jerusalem, all things almost were acted by Common counsel: that where, and when, the Christian name did first take place, there and at the same time, we find a Presbytery of Prophets and teachers assembled, and acting jointly, and by the Command of the Holy Ghost, sending out even the greatest of the Apostles, as subject to them, that Paul imposeth hands with the Presbytery, & termeth it their deed, & Peter exhorts Elders, as his fellows & their Compresbyter; when I say I ponder these things● they do make me assuredly conclude, the Ministry & Government of the Church in the way of Presbytery, to be as much juris Divini, as it is opposite to, and removed from your Hierarchy. Having thus discovered the foundation, and traced the undeniable lineaments of Presbytery in the Word of God, I may not insist upon the inconsonant deformities of Prelacy, only this I must say, that though Prelacy were not attended, with many and great corruptions, and in its exaltation (mark it lest you think me injurious to good men) had not been always enemy to Religion, and Godliness; Yet a superior Order of Churchmen, usurping from the Pastors of the flock of God, the Ministerial Power of jurisdiction, and the only right of Ordination, and acclaiming to themselves the sole management of Government, as their proper work, with dignity and authority over their Brethren, hath neither warrant, nor vestige in the Scripture of the New Testament: but is so palpably the invention of man, that, it is not a greater wonder, that the Devil should have improved it to all that pride, avarice, wickedness and villainy, which it hath produced, than it is a mystery, how the world should have been thereby imposed upon, and have endured, all its rapine, sacrilege and usurpation, under the pretext of Religion, to which it is so repugnant.  
I come now to try how you impugn the jus divinum, which we assert for Lay elders, and other matters condescended up on by you, and therefore hitherto by me not touched: You say Lay-Elders are founded on no Scripture, as the most judicious amongst us acknowledge; And you wonder, that when we urge from the Apostles giving rules only for Bishops, and Deacons, that Diocesans must be shuffled out, how we do not also see, that ruling Elders, are not there. Who these most judicious amongst us in Scotland, may be, who deny Lay or rather Ruling Elders, to have any Scripture warrant, seeing your own N. C. is none of the Number, I cannot apprehend; but for your wonder, I think it may be easily satisfied, if you will but consider, that it is not from the simple omission of Diocesans, in this Text, that we exclude them from the Church: but since it is manifest from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus that the true Apostolic Bishop was no other, either in name or office, than a Presbyter: Nay, that by the rules to him set down, your Diocesans is plainly cast, and rejected, like as both in Acts Chap. 20. and Titus the names of Bishop and Presbyter are promiscuously used, is it not clearly concludent, that your Diocesan hath no Scripture warrant, whereas the ruling Elder, as he is not in these places confounded, and made the same with the preaching Elder, but may justly enough share both in the general names of Elder, and Overseer, and also in their rules without any incosistence; so his liquid warrant, as a distinct officer, is elsewhere obviously extant.  
In the next place you add, that the Brethren in the Council at jerusalem prove too much, viz. That our Elders are judges o● Doctrines but if their concurrence, both in the me●ting and in the decree, may be fairly understood of an assisting and approving suffrage, without attributing to all unanimous assenters, the same power and Authority of deciding, as is very casible, in any other heterogeneous Assembly, whether our argument conclude from the Brethren, as distinguished from the Apostles, and preaching Elders, and therefore to be taken for ruling Elders, or from the Elders there mentioned, as including both the preaching and ruling Elders, your absurdity doth not follow, and our argument is nothing convelled: But you say, it is absurd to think, that, that was a Church judicature: Pray Sir, not so fast, you would say, that, that meeting was not a General Synod; for that it was a Church judicature its decree doth evince: As to the Arguments taken for ruling Elders from the exhortation to rule with diligence, and the enumeration of Helps, and Governments, amongst other Gifts bestowed on the Church, seeing they are not adduced as by themselves, so convincingly concludent, but as accessary to these other places, whereby the distinct office being proved, the promise and gift agreeable, cannot but add a considerable light: Your terming them Sandie foundations is as foolish, as your calling Helps, and Governments, extraordinary gifts, is groundless.  
But both your N. C. and I inquire what you say to that Scripture let the Elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, Especially they who labour in the word and doctrine, That here both the Preaching and ruling Elder are included, in the word Elder, as I hinted before, and that a distinction is made, of him who both Preaches, and Rules, from him that only Rules, is manifest, from the words; and you are so far thereby convinced, that you acknowledge the office controverted to be spoken of, but you say the Text supposeth its being, but doth not bear its institution, this is truly exact and strict; it seems you remember not, that although all that was ever pleaded in behalf of your Bishops, and the fair likelikood for them, which you would draw from the Angels of the Churches, proceeds only upon a supposition, of the thing in being; Yet none of our side, do redargue your arguing, from that place only, for want of an express institution: Consider therefore Sir, that, if the being of our Elders office, be in this Scripture supponed, and commended, its institution is also thereby supponed, and commended, and this nicety of yours, is no evasion; but adding that there are five or six glosses put on these words, which you protest (without any reason) to be better than ours, you give us your own, thus: [Let such among you, as are fixed to rule particular charges, be doubly honoured; but specially these Evangelists, who meddle not in rule, but labour in word and doctrine.] Sir, I am sorry that having plenty, you have made choice of one, so many ways peccant, as importing, first, that at the time of the writing of this Epistle, there were Elders fixed to particular charges or Parishes within Ephesus, whereof the contraire is most commonly and probably held, 2. That either there were at the same time, beside your fixed Elders unfixed Evangelists, belonging properly to Ephesus; or that the Apostle speaks here of these Catholic Evangelists, who belonged not to timothy's inspection, but which is worst of all, your Gloss plainly destroys the Text, for whereas Paul doth first deliver a General, that all well-ruling Elders be doubly honoured, and adds a special ampliation, d● Natura regulae of the Nature of a Rule, in favours of these, who also Preach, you expressly say, that these Preachers meddled not with rule, and flatly deny them to be of the number of these well-ruling Elders, which are to be honoured: Next, where the Text makes labouring in the word, an additament to well ruling, and therefore deserving a special allowance, you prefer the sole merit of Preaching to the double deserving, of both Preaching and well-ruling: but I pursue your raveries too far, the words are plain, well-ruling Elders, Preachers or not Preachers, are to be doubly honoured; but such who do both Preach and rule well, have the pre-eminence: Now whether or not you have shown, our Elders to be ill grounded I leave it to your second thoughts.  
But you proceed to surprise your N. C. with a how want you Deacons? and than you tell him, That we had indeed somewhat called Deacons, but they were not Scripture-deacons; for such were not Lay-people but Ecclesiastic, separate by imposition of hands, for the function, and so were to continow, whereas we yearly altered our Elders, and Deacons. Sir, though in this point you represent our Leaders as Deceivers, Yet really, I should be sorry, that you were aswell known to be a calumniator, as the Deacons used in our Churches, are clearly found in our Bibles: Their institution Acts 6. is plain, specially verse 3. Wherefore Brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the holy Ghost and Wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business viz. the daily ministration, and serving of tables: From which Scripture, our Practice of choosing honest, approved men, for the Ministration of Charity, there meant, and the serving of tables, is so exactly copied out, that I cannot but admire your confidence: But you say, that Scripture Deacons were not Lay-people, but separate by imposition of hands: If by separation you mean the solemn appointment and designation of Deacons, and hold the same sufficient to make them Ecclesiastic, our Deacons as well as these in the Text, are indeed Ecclesiastic; but if by separation you understand a total and perpetual sequestration, from secular meddling, as you cannot be ignorant, that it was and is the wish of many worthies amongst us, that the Church could have been served with such Elders and Deacons; so, seeing inevitable nece●●●tie, through the want of an alimony, hath forced both our Church, & other reformed Churches, which observe the same practice with ours, to make use of such as they can get, it is no commendable practice in you, who are such a pretender to modesty and civility, to cast up this lamented de●ect, as our unpardonable blemish; since it had become you rather, who would be accounted a kindly child of the Church of Scotland, to have overtured a way how the Church Patrimony (whereby these Officers of the Church might have lived) may be recovered from the Harpies who devour it now without remorse: neither hath the after abuse of Deacons, unto a preaching order, used in the Roman Church, any Scripture warrant, as is clear from the Text, and the rules therein expressed: I grant we find in Scripture Philip chosen a Deacon in the 6. chap, and Preaching chap 8. verse 5. Acts, and that it is probable, that this and the like practices, were there after made the occasion, and colour, of the formentioned abuse, but if you suppose that the first Deacons did Preach by virtue of their institution, you have no just ground for it in the word: And Philip's Preaching, is so plainly annexed to an extraordinary dispensation, or tacit mission to him and to many others, upon the dispersion after Stephen's Martyrdom, insinuate in the 4. vers of the 8. chap. that I doubt not, but a second reading will convince you.  
Next you add, that Scripture Deacons, were separate by imposition of hands, for the ●unction. I grant, that was the manner of their first solemn designation; but if the Church, by reason of the Posterior abuse, of which, in probability, the mistaking of this form hath not been the least cause, or because of the reason formerly hinted viz. that because of the want of a competent maintenance, they could not get such as would be totally and perpetually separated fo● that work, hath thought fit, notwithstanding that they do warrantably retain it in the ordination of Ministers, yet prudently to disus●●● in that of Deacons, will you therefore conclude that we disown the thing itself? But you tell us, That Scripture Deacons were to continow, whereas we alter ours every year: You said first, that we took away from them their Church-office, without a fault; but remembering that our annual change, is not a deposing from the office, only used by us in the case of demerit, but a relieving from the exercise, you did well to phrase your charge better, in the term of altering: In answer whereunto, I deny that the Scripture doth repugn to our custom, nor can you show any Text in the contraire: Nay I question not, but he who considers the end, for which Deacons were first institute, will easily grant, that when Philip became an Evangelist, he ceased from the exercise of his Diaconat, and that though the then particular condition, and communion of Goods, in use amongst the first Believers at jerusalem, did not require this relief to be expressly provided for; yet the after state of things, both there and in other Churches, not permitting their constant attendance, nor providing for them any stipend, might have induced it.  
Having thus weakly objected against our Deacons you ask in the next place, Why want you Diaconesses, whose Order, Qualifications, Age and Employment, are particularly set down in Scripture? To which you cause your N. C. very poorly answer, that he hath heard many of our Ministers say, the want of them was a fault: But seeing I am not of his opinion, I make this reply to your demand, that we want Diaconesses 1. because the appointment of the office hath no clear Scripture Testimony; its true, that passage. 1 Tim. 5. 9 is commonly understood of your Diaconesse, and by these better seen in Antiquity of these feminine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae faeminarum mores formabant, who did teach the women good manners and differed as much from the Diaconesse, whose office it was, faeminas pauperes, aut aegrotas pecuniâ aut operâ sublevare, to help the poor, or sick women with money or service. as our Elders do from our Deacons; yet if a man should interpret that whole Text, to be meant of such, who were to be received unto a more special manner of the Church's charity, seeing their bypast deservings only, and not their future employment, appear there to be noted, and the command subjoined Ver. 16. to believers to relieve their own widows, doth insinuat no less, I could not accuse him of any straining: and as for that other Scripture, Rom. 16. ver. 1. where we find Phebe termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Servant of the Church, it may be so properly, and easily understood of Her occasional services, without making her an officer, that it signifies nothing in the contraire. But 2. admitting that the primitive Church among the Grecians, whose women did live under a more severe rule, and were not so accessible, as among the Jews, as Interpreters doth note, had therefore both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Diaconissas, aswel as Presbyteros and Diaconos, whereas the Jews did only use the latter, it may possibly infer that women in case of an urgent necessity, are not incapable of these offices; but doth no ways conclude either distinct offices institute in the Primitive Church● and unknown among us, or that we who enjoy and practise a more free converse, like unto that of the Jews, aught to imitate the practice of the Grecian austerity, and weakness: and therefore since our Deacons are sufficient to perform the duties appertaining to the office, and are not by our customs excluded from a due and decent Administration to both sexes, your objection of our want of Diaconisses, is but an empty inadvertent cavil: I could further tell you, that a form or constitution, observing all things that are of divine Precept, though using other things of no necessary nature, only according to their exigence, may nevertheless be perfect and of divine right, but the former answers do fully clear the matter.  
The third defect you challenge is, why wanted you Evangelists? and because your N. C. answers, that, that was ane extraordinary thing, you think you picque him wittily, when you say, any thing in Scripture that makes f●r you, call it ordinary; and what doth not please, is extraordinary: And yet in the very preceding page, in answer to the argument for ruling Elders, from Helps and Governments, you tells us more bluntly, that by these are meant some extraordinary Gifts; but not to detain you in this matter, that Evangelists are only proper, and profitable in the penury o●●e●●ed ●astors, not only their first use, but both the order and edification, that clearly appears, in a distinct affixing of Ministers to their respective flocks, doth abundantly evidence: As to what you say of the peculiar Eminency, of some Pastors, and the imp●ssibility of such a Ministry for a whole Ch●rch, as wer● to be desired, As it doth not a little impinge upon the dispensations of the most High, so, it is more vain, then to counterbalance the inconveniencies, which would follow on your conclusion; but if you will reflect how in the beginnings of our Reformation, both Superintendants and others were sent out by our Church, upon the like employment, having Provinces, and not Parishes committed to their oversight, you must of necessity acknowledge, our due esteem, and seasonable usemaking of this excellent Gift in that exigent of necessity; and if you account these to have been Evangelists (though you shall have many who shall descent from you in this, upon many accounts, ye●) ●ou will be constrained to acknowledge, that we do not construe it to be so extraordinary, as to restrict it wholly to the primitive times.  
You object in the nex● place, where do you read in Scripture, your classical Subordination of Sessions to Presbyteries, & c? Before I make use of your N. C. Answer, let me first improve ●our own acknowledgement: You say● this is indeed rational, and orderly, and thence I infer, in Opposition to your assertion, that therefore it is founded on a divine right: I am not so captious, as to build this consequence, upon that Natural Divine right, which is the undoubted impress, and light of Reason, Na●, but taking Divine right● for a divine right positive, as they speak, my conclusion proceeds thus: The Church of Christ, by express divine appointments is constitute in one Society being made one Body, gathered into one; and from the beginning, the more pur●, the more joint, and unite in all counsels and practices: therefore what ever is the natural, and rational right and privilege of a Society, must also appertain to it, by virtue of the same right, whereon its constitution subsists; the reason is, because, in every concession, the things natural and proper to that which is conceded, are certainly understood, to be imported: Now that union in Counsel, and Power in the whole, over the parts, and the subordination of the parts unto the whole, in matters pertaining and relating to the body, and concerning its end, are the inseparable proprieties, and privilege of a Society, is evident a●ove exception: which argument is the more confirmed, that in the acts of the Apostles, we find the Church assembling, and by Common Counsel managing its affairs, and determining differences, not by any special and express warrant or command, but merely in the exercise of this intrinsic power, competent to the Church as gathered, and erected in one Society: This right then and power of meetings being undeniable to the whole by the same reason & precedent they are confirmed to the parts, the Subordination whereof to the whole, cannot be drawn in doubt: Thus you see, how your own grant, affirmeth what you deny: but your N. C. answers further That they at Antioch send up to them at Jerusalem; And are not the Spirits of the Prophet's subject to the Prophets. To these Scriptures you reply, beginning with the last, That it is clear, that in that place the Apostle is speaking of Parochial Churches, which subjection none deny: But Sir, is not that which you call in question, the Subordination of Sessions to Presbyteries: Now if the Apostle tell us, That the Spirit of the Prophets, who in the day's o● the Apostles, had many of them charge pro indiviso jointly, over the same Church, but now a days, have their distinct charges over Parochial Churches, are subject to the Prophets, gathered in one assembly, may not the Subordination questioned, be sufficiently thence concluded, especially seeing I can hardly suppose you so Anti-episcopal, as to be Independent, and still to doubt, after the many irrefragable demonstrations given by the Presbyterians, whether this Church of Corinth was a Presbyterial, and not a mere Congregational or Parochial Church. As for what else may be in your return I confess I reach it not, seeing that at the time of the Apostles writing, we find no divided Parishes, and to fancy that the subjection spoken of, wa● of the Prophets, in one Parochial Church, such as at that time there was properly none, and not rather of the many Prophets, having the charge pro indiviso jointly, over the whole company of the Believers, in that City, in which many parishes were virtually included, is groundless and absurd. To the first instance you say, It is ridiculous to urge it, seeing they of Antioch sent not up to Jerusalem, either as to a Church superior, or as to an Oecumenick Council, but to men there who were immediately inspired. That they sent not up as to an Oecumenick Council, I cannot descent from you, seeing I find in the Text no suitable concourse for, or vestige of such an Assembly; but that they sent not up as to a Church superior is by you ill asserted and worse proved, seeing 1. The phrases in the letter sent from that meeting, that certain which went out from us, and it seemed good etc. to lay upon you, and that the same letter is termed a Decree, do clearly prove a superior Authority in the writers. 2. Because the example which ye adduce from the jews their high Priest for confirming your Gloss, doth plainly redargue you, in as much as the Jews consulted not the high Priest, his Urim and Thummim without regard to his Authority; but consulted him as the high Priest, and the Person to whom God had therefore committed them, Deut. 17. v. 10. 11. & 12. putting them in the breastplate termed of judgement, and not of Responses: But you may say, supposing the matter was thus carried, what makes it for your Assemblies? I Answer, yes very much: for it showeth 1. That, if the Apostles, who all of them severally were immediately inspired, and so might have determined this controversy, did notwithstanding join with other ordinary Elders or Church●officers, and by common counsel give out their Decrees, that common Counsels & their authority in the Church, are juris Divini. 2. That as the Church of Antioch, in which the Apostle Paul, Barnabas, and several other Prophets were● and the other Churches in Asia, received and submitted to the decrees, so, it evidently intimats a subordination of these, making as it were one Provincial Church, to that great Assembly of the Apostles & Elders convened at jerusalem.  
You subjoin in this place, That if that meeting at Jerusalem was a Council, than all Counsels may speak in their stile, it seems good to the Holy Ghost, etc. It's answered 1. The connexion o● your proposition, containeth an obvious non sequitur, in as much, as it is not from their being a Council, but from the certainty of these Scripture evidences whereupon their determination proceeds, that their prefacing of the mind and sentence of the holy Ghost doth flow. 2. That, that meeting was a Council of the Apostles, and Elders at jerusalem, a convened in one to Consult, Reason and exercise Authority, which severally was not so satisfying ●or the very Apostles to do, notwithstanding of their immediate assistance, is plain from the Text, & especially Paul's deference to them. 3. If you imagine that Ecclesiastic Counsels cannot be of Divine right unless they have the Spirits absolute and infallible assistance, you err as grossly, as he who for want of this infallibility, should deny to the Church a standing Ministry, by Divine institution. 4. Though the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost given to the Apostles, a●d being to them in stead of the rule, was indeed singular and extraordinary; Yet as the Lord to all his Ordinances, hath annexed the promise of an agreeable presence, which doth not fail the sincere and faithful improvers, so, Church Assemblies in matters of Faith to them committed, and following the rule thereto prescribed are also thereby countenanced, and in sound believing and upright walking, may both attain to, and profess their assurance of the Holy Ghosts assistance. 5● Seing that all Councel-acts and Canons, anent matters of Faith, aught to be guided by the Spirit, and conform to the word of God, and enacted and emitted in this persuasion, these Meetings that truly keeping the rule, and sincerely laying hold on the promise, do proceed in their determinations, may therein warrantably use the Apostles words; and such as do otherways, are only culpable in the presumptuous usurpation, because they have not rightly followed, and in effect attained unto the rule of the Word, and the conduct of the Spirit, which ought indeed to be their warrant. 6. Having on these clear grounds declared the Authority of Ecclesiastic Meetings in Matters of Faith, I freely grant that in other things, which may be incident to their cognition, and are not of Faith nor defined in Scripture, they have neither the like warrant, nor may they use the like expressions; and therefore as in this case, they cannot found upon the Lords Commandments, so they are only to be respected as such, who are entrusted to give their judgement, and have obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 7. The contradiction which you allege it is for fallible men to say, it seems good to the Holy Ghost, is abundantly salved, both by the infallible rule of the word, to which they are astricted, and by the neverfailing promise of him who is the Truth, and will be with his own to the end of the world: And your lapse in this objection, is but the same with your former against Ministers, their calling their Preaching the Word of God, which I have already fully confuted: And thus I hope all impartial Men may see that the jus divinum, being in this matter our rule, the Independants have not the better of us, as you groundlessly give out.  
Next you proceed to challenge our Discipline, and what warrant we have for it? but, seeing as to the substance you are satisfied by your N. C. Answer, from the Excommunicating the Incestuous Person, and the noting these that walk disorderly, together with his & caetera (which you may find very clearly amplified by many able Men) and do only fall a nibbling at the circumstances of public Repentance, Why so many days? (which might be questioned of any number) And why in a place of repentance? And Why sometimes the use of Sackcloth? all well enough answered by your N. C. his telling you of the power of order in external Circumstances, given to the Church for Edification, I come to weigh, the stolen advantage, that you flatter yourself to have gained, over your poor Adversary, which you carry on● with the like questions: As 1. Why may the Church impose such days of penitence, and not as well order to all, for the sins of the year, the penitence, of Lent. 2. Why is a part separate for Penitents, and not for communicating? and thirdly Why may not a Churchman officiat in a Surplice aswell as a penitent put on Sackcloth? and that the simple may fancy a pungencie in these empty conceits, you make your N. C. confess a surprisal, and refuge himself in a childish implicit belief of his Minister's ability above his own: whereupon you so vainly triumph, that I am ashamed to represent such a mean piece of pageantry, but to the matter, days are assigned to Penitents, because time being a necessary requisite, and its lengthening or shortening, very conducible for the end of public Penitence, the edification of the Church the deterring of others, and the through convincing and gaining of the person, according to either the quality of the offence, or condition of the Offender, its prudent regulation, as of a matter therefore left undefined, can no more be denied to the Church, than the exacting of Penitence itself; but as for your expiatory quarantam of Lent, as it bears no parity to the reason by me adduced, so, it imports such a delay of repentance, hardening in sin, increase of Superstition, and relaxing again to Licentiousness, that it is hard to say, whether its appointment be more groundless, or its effects pernicious? If you, object its first rise, and occasion, from the well-meaning observance of pious Men, I will not tell you, that the 'samine flowed from their mistake, of our Lords total and Miraculous abstinence by the space of 40 days, neither by himself repeated, nor by his Apostles imitated: Nor what a superstructure of vanity, may be built on such foundations: but when you consider its great depravation, and bad fruits, I hope you will easily incline to say What is the chaff to the wheat? The invention of Man, to the Ordinance of God? 2. A place is separate for Penitents that they may be Noted, Rebuked and Ashamed, that others may fear; but to separate a place for Communicating, more than is done by us, in the time of the Administration, what shadow of reason can be adduced for it? Specially after the Idolatrous superstition, whereunto it hath been abused, and from which unto this day, men's minds are not throughly purged: Witness these Superstitious Bowings, Cringins, and Kneel, which your English Prelatick-Church doth still retain. As to the third point, I will not say, that where the Surplice in t●ken of Innocence is most used, the Sackcloth of Penitence would be more agreeable: Nor may I stand to show you the Usurpation, and evils of men's imposing Significant Ceremonies, others have done this already unanswerably, but the Disparity which I find in your inference, is that Sackcloth in Penitence for Grosser sins, was by us appointed (though not universally and constantly practised) not as properly Significant, either of the Penitents guilt, or remorse, seeing it hath to neither any suitable report; but as that, which being at first the squalid neglect flowing from, and thence becoming the customable effect of deep and bitter mourning, might be both a humbli●ng badge to the delinquent, and a mean of fear to others; whereas your Surplice, is arbitrarily institute, and imposed to signify Innocence, without either real foundation, or sufficient warrant, wherein, whether you do more usurp against God's Prerogative, to appoint Sacred and mysterious Signs, and that simplicity, in which he hath set forth his Gospel, or be more grossly mistaken in the event, and fruit of your application, is a great question? I grant, that Necessity or Decence, have introduced many things circumstantial, that are rational, and consequently upon some real antecedent ground, expressive of their use and end: as grave apparel in Pastors, a becoming covering of Pulpits, Tables in sacred use, regulation of time, postures, gestures, and the like, without which, worship cannot be performed; but to ascribe a liberty to the Church, of appointing Ceremonies, having for reason of their signification, the will of the Instituter, and their use only in the representation, is so manifest an impingement upon Divine Authority, and the Sacraments thereby ordained, and hath already produced such a mass of Superstitious superfluity, in the Romish-Church, that I much admire to find a serious Person, pleading for such fopperies; specially seeing, that this once granted, and common Resemblances sustained for good warrants, not only all Christians might be put to year● at least to assemble always in their whites, but all the Allegories in Scripture, as the drinking in of the sincere milk of the word, stand therefore having your loins girt, etc. And hundreds more, may be turned unto such vain shows, yea all Imagery more probably allowed: where you say that both Surplice and sackcloth were equally practised under the Law, I must by the wa● tell you, that I find not Sackcloth therein commanded as a solemn significant Ceremony, I say commanded as a solemn Ceremony, for that you find it, not only mentioned, as the ordinary concomitant of more grievous mournings, nay by the Prophets even literally commanded, as also baldness, sitting in the dust, ●owling and wallowing in ashes, the better to express that serious mourning, whereunto the Lo●d did call, is plainly obvious, and can only infer, that therefore, and after this manner, it is the more capable to be still contained. And for the Surplice, or rather the white linen and the Ephods, beside their express Warrant, the main thing of this Controversy, they had such an agreeable conveniency, and decency to the service of Sacrificing, then in use, and might probably in the Priests, to whom they appertained, have had such a prefiguing respect to the immaculate innocence of Jesus Christ, our great Priest and Sacrifice, and yet did so little appear in the more solemn Garments of th● high Priest, that the example adduced doth rather redargue, then confirm your continuance of this, now idle Rite: I might further tell you, that the use of Sack cloth among us was not offended at; and if it had, would probably have been forborn; And also add to these clear disparities, your rigid imposing and exacting of these your Doctrines, more than the Commandments of God, both in prejudice of Christian Liberty, and to the slighting of true godliness; but whether the disparities above mentioned be subtle shifts as you are pleased to judge, before you hear, or solid differences, these who are less prejudicated will easily discern.  
In the next place, you return, to show us our difformity, with the Scripture-pattern, in demanding Why we do not observe the decree of the first Council at jerusalem? to which I answer; that we observe it, except in so far as it was designed to be temporary, and framed to bury the Synagogue with honour viz. in the matters of Blood and things strangled: And as for meats offered to Idols, the Apostle Paul did thereafter declare that point, so that in these particulars, the Decree doth not reach us: This answer as to your reply differeth nothing from your Non-conformists. And therefore I proceed, and really Sir, I find in your return such pitiful inadvertencies, as to the Text of Scripture, that I cannot but premise my wish, that in the study of it you may become more serious. 1. You say that to allege that the exceptions in the decree were made to please the jews, is a devised fancy against express Scripture, and yet the Text beareth, james first propounding the thing, and plainly adding, this reason Act. 15. 21. For Moses in old time hath in every City them that Preach him, etc. Whereupon it follows, than pleased it the Apostles, pray Sir, consider the Text, and what this then can else import? 2. You say St Paul wrote his Epistle before he went to Jerusalem and yet James tells him these things were still observed there; whence you infer that commands in externals may be both local and temporary: What indistinctnesse, and bad logic have we here? If you mean that Paul wrote his Epistle, that I mean anent meats offered to Idols, before he went up to jerusalem, from the Church of Antioch, to that Council of the Apostles, and Elders, the Scripture is contraire, showing that his travels unto Greece, and all his dealing with the Corinthians, yea and almost all his Epistles, were thereafter; but if you mean that he wrote before his going up thereafter mentioned Act. 21. it may be so indeed, as to his Epistles to the Corinthians, and some other, but then the Apostle james, only tells him, that the believing Jews were still zealous of the Law, and that they were offended, that he taught the jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, which is so far from concerning the Decree under consideration, or the proving your point, that a thing may be obligatory in one place, and not in another, that as james adviseth Paul to purge himself of that calumny, anent the Jews, so v. 25 he expressly resumeth, and secludeth the case of the Gentiles, before determined: As to your other inference, that Commands in externals, are not intended ●or lasting obligations, I grant this Decree, or any other having a temporary reason, is thereby determinable; but if your meaning agree to your too visible design, to resolve the E●durance of these things, which are absolutely settled, into the Arbitrament of the Church, or rather of the Civil Powers (for it is evident, that, though in all your discourse, you pretend the Church, yet you take your measures from the Civil Authority) it is not only groundless, from the matter of the Apostles th●ir Decree, but of dangerous consequence, to the shaking loose of all Religion: for proof whereof, see how upon the back of this discourse, you boldly attempt to make even the very Sacraments arbitrary, by ask why weisse not washing of feet, since there is no Sacrament set down more punctually in Scripture? And when your N. C. retorts, that you are under the same obligation (which retortion may be pertinently made to most of your objections) you tell him, that you have a clear answer, that in these externals, God intended no perpetual obligation; and therefore in them you follow the practice of the Catholic Church: O unhappy Bohemians, and you other Christians, who suffered so much, and so grievously, for the retainning of the Cup, in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; If this new Doctor, who with his New Light, can penetrate unto the secrets of God, and measure the duration of his intentions, had lived in your days, he could have told you, that the Cup is but an external thing, under no perpetual obligation, and by his Doctrine of Conveniency, led you to a safe and peaceful Accommodation to the practice of the Catholic Church: but Sir, they are at rest: As for this your Laxe acceptation of a professed indifferency in externals, what part of the Christian Religion or Worship, may it not corrupt, or subvert? and seeing it doth tolerate and allow, the not practising of the washing of feet, to you, as well founded In Scripture, as either of the Sacraments, would it not in a just parity of reason, dispense with, and forego these also? This is indeed doctrine so damnable, that I hope it shall never need an Antidote, and therefore I return to examine your third or eight Sacrament (I know not which, for all are but external) of washing of feet, And you say, That it hath in Scripture of Element, Water, the Action, washing the feet, the Institution, as I have done so do ye, And ye ought to wash one another's feet; and the spiritual use of it, Humility: Whence you conclude. Why do ye not there o'er use this rite? To which last point, it is, that waving any further discourse anent the Nature, and requisites of a Sacrament, whereof, notwithstanding your parallel description of this washing, yet I perceive you are loath to apply the name, I shall direct my answer viz. that this washing is not to be used, because, though our Lord did practise this lowly act of Condescendence, as eminently expressive of that humility, whereunto he would have his Disciples instructed; yet, neither is it in itself, of the Nature of a Sacramental sign, whereof all the significancy is from the institution, and virtue in the exhibition of the thing signified, which you cunningly omit to mention; Nor doth Christ perform it by way of Institution, for Repetition; but by way of example, for Imitation, as is manifest from the Text, john, 13. 4. etc. where we find, that our Lord doth first wash his Disciples feet, before he told them what he was a doing, and then having done the act not simply significant by his appointment; but of itself as the effect expressing the greatest humility as its cause, he teaches them not a solemn reiteration, but the use in these words, If I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also aught to wash on another's feet: If I have been among you as he that serveth, so ought ye to serve one another; for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you. I have not showed you humility in a figure, to be repeated for your remembrance, but by a solid practice taught you, the like performance: so that to turn this pattern unto a rite, is in effect as far from our Lord's purpose, as the instruction of plai● examples, is preferable to that of Mystic representations: which exposition is so true, and sound, that as this fancy of yours, was never owned by the Church of Christ, so, it is most certain, that wh●re it hath been followed, (I mean by the Pope) and this action hath been used, as a rite, it hath only been made a colour to the most prodigious, and superlative pride, that ever the sun beheld: and thus I hope all men may see that the not using of this washing, never again used, for any thing we read, by way of Sacrament, or Ceremony, either by our Lord, or his Apostles, and Churches; is neither a difformity in us, from the Scripture, nor an argument for your irreligious laxenesse in things you call externals.  
As for your Demand, why in your Worship do you not Kiss one another with a holy Kiss? seeing it is no where commanded in worship, as you seem boldly and ignorantly to suppose, and the Christian manner of the thing, in customary civility, is only recommended by the Apostle, as an allay of chastity, and kindness in Civil rencounters, the question is, but a petulant extravagancy of your vain imagination.  
Next you Inquire why do you not anoint the sick with oil? I answer though you address this demand to a N. C. yet it is evident, that your conclusion of difformity to the Scripture pattern thence inferred, is equally leveled, against the whole Protestant Church, wherein this Ceremony is universally disused, and that not from your vain warrant of the Church's Authority in and over things expressly commanded, as you judge this rite to be; No, this is a presumption so high, and lax, that even the grossest Papists, are unwilling to avouch it; but the ●ound answer of all the Churches is, that as the custom of Anointing might have been occasioned, from an observance then in use in these parts, where Anointings were much more ordinary then in our parts of the world; so, it is mentioned in the Scripture by the Apostle james, not by way of Command, but as the accustomed Symbol, adhibite in the exercise of the Gift of healing, which being then Ordinary in the Church, is commanded to be applied by the prayer of Faith, whereunto the effect is solely referred, and only with the formality of Anointing, as being then customary in the like cases, seeing then that the Text runs clearly thus, is any sick? let him call the Elders, and let them pray over him anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of saith shall save the sick; And that the application of the extraordinary Gift of healing by prayer, with the then usual circumstance of Anointings is here only enjoined, how can you make this Text binding as to the manner and circumstance? when you cannot but acknowledge, that the substance viz. the power of healing is ceased. But having made your N. C. say That the Apostle promises recovery upon the anointing, you turn to fight with your own shadow, and tell him There is no such matter; that the recovery is promised to prayer, and also forgiveness; and seeing we pray by all for their raising up, and that they may be forgiven, why do we not aswel anoint? But, what Logic can make out this consequence in as much as Anointing being there only spoken of as the concomitant rite used in the application of the Gift of healing, it is manifest that without the existence and exercise of the Gift itself, it is not now to be repeated; and therefore though prayer be principally commanded as the special mean, by which even the Gift of Miracles was actuate and made effectual, and to this day doth remain as the great one by which all the promises either for raising up or remission are drawn out unto effect; yet thence to infer that Anointing, a peculiar solemnity in the Gift of healing, should still continow, notwitstanding the Gift itself be ceased, is, very absurd: Now that Anointing was an Ordinary observance in the exercise of the Gift of healing you may read it clearly in the Disciples practice Mark 6. 13. And they Anointed with oil ma● that ●●re sick and healed them. This being then the just and true account, not only of our practice, but also of that of the whole reformed Churches, how vain and ridiculous are you to tell us, that our pretence of Scripture is but to impose on women and simple people, and all our persuasion, grave nods and bigwords: but leaving you to puff petulantly where you can prove nothing,  
I proceed to your next demand, who taught us the change of the Sabbath? and you say we will read the Bible long ●re we find it there; which you think sufficiently proved, when you tell us That the Churches meeting recorded to have been on the first day of the week, saveth not that they antiquated the Saturnday, (as you are pleased very curtsy to speak) and that of the Lords day, sayeth yet less: Sir, for answer, let me only tell you, that by this your conceited slighting of Arguments, which you cannot answer, with your vain arguings, against these things which you cannot disprove, you have discovered to me the deep wisdom of Solomon's contradictory-like advice, answer a fools and answer him not, Prov. 26. 4 and 5. in so sa●●s●●ying a reconciliation, that remitting you for answer, lest you be wise in your own conceit, to the labours of these who have cleared this point above cavillation, I forbear to make any further answer lest I should be like unto you; Only I think it worth the observing how like the progress of your dangerous Libertinism is to that verdict of the Apostles, 2. Tim. 3. 13. Your first sally was only against ruling Elders and Deacons, the next attacques the very Discipline of Church, your third endeavours to introduce the Superstition of Lent, the Table Altarwise, & the Surplice, & to corrupt the worship, your fourth resolves the necessity of Baptism and the Lords supper, into the Church's arbitrament, your fifth pleads for Extreme Unction, or else a liberty and power to the Church above the Scripture, and your sixth to complete the carrier of your delusions. Notwithstanding that the clearest light both of Reason and Religion, do exact a definite constant portion of time, for a rest, and this rest to be holy unto the Lord, that the Law of God in recommending the celebration of the old Sabbath, doth found it upon a perpetual determination of the seventh part of time, grounded on Divine Authority, and example, and lastly, that the Scripture in the antiquating of the service and observation of the Jewish Sabbath, doth evidently translate the keeping of the perpetual holy rest unto the Lord's day, the first of the week, Notwithstanding, I say, of these firm grounds your sext attempt dares to unfix this grand Ordinance, the reverence or contempt whereof, hath in all ages of the Church, by experience been found of great moment, and unquestionable influence, either as to the promoving or decay of true Piety and Godliness: how justly may it be said of you and your Complices, who endeavour to make void the Divine institution of this day, which your predecessors so grossly and wickedly profaned, ye be witnesses there o'er unto yourselves, that you are their Children, fill ye up the measure of your Fathers: But O ●ear lest you do not escape the damnation of Hell: I will not take Notice of your own or your Nonconformist's mien reflection on these things, That they may prove our Church was not perfect, but will not justify you, your answer to that, which follows viz. do you mean to lay aside the Scripture? 〈◊〉 rather to be considered, wherein leaving the retortion of ●ou● objected insolence, and big pretending, to the impartial examiner of what you have alleged and I replied ● come ●o your sum of the whole matter, which you say, is, That the Scriptures were designed b● God, for the purifying of the hearts and conversations of Men; Most true: And therefore it was not necessaire they should contain direct rules for the church-policy, which being a half Civil matter, needs not Divine warrants, a strange inference, whereof almost every word is a riddle: for first you grant that the Scripture doth contain Rules though not Direct rules for the church-policy, and yet you add almost immediately, that it needs no divine warrant: Then what mean you by Direct rules, if you mean Particular as the subjoined Antithesis of Common doth give us to understand, let these Scripture rules Common or not be observed, and particular determinations thereto duly squared, and it is all we contend for: Search therefore the Scriptures and whatever latitude may be left therein, as to the regulation of necessary and common circumstances, according to decency and order, for Edification; Yet I am confident, that as to the substance and main of the Officers, Discipline, and Government of the Church (the matters in controversy betwixt us) both you shall be found thereby clearly condemned, and we justified: but if by denying the Scripture, to contain direct rules, for the church-policy, you understand, that it only holdeth out indirect, unstraight and ambiguous rules, applicable to any form, as may best suit & serve the interests, and lusts of vain Men, this indeed is agreeable to your scope; but as far from Scripture, as it is dissonant to the truth of God, and Great ends of the Gospel: 2. What do you understand by the Church policy? its Officers, Discipline and Government are the things which we contend for, If you think these half Civil, I would gladly learn what a Church as such can have more Ecclesiastic; certainly if a distinct Head, Jesus Christ; a distinct Authority, flowing from that all Power given to him; a distinck manner, nothing like but wholly opposite to the way of Civil rule; distinct effects and ends, as Holiness and eternal perfection, are from external justice, and temporal peace; and lastly a distinct subsistence of the Church, and its Policy, not only when disowned, but mortally persecute by the Civil Powers, may prove the Policy Ecclesiastic to differ from the Civil, there can be nothing more clearly disterminat; but if by Policy you only mean the external protection, and assistance, which the Civil Magistrate may, and aught to give to the Church, it is not only half, but wholly Civil, as to its rise and cause; and therefore the acknowledgement thereof we render, under God, heartily and entirely, to the Powers, which he setteth up: I might further question what you call half Civil? and how you come to deny that Divine warrant which at first you half grant? but I shall content myself, to declare the falsehood of your inference, understood of the Discipline and Government of God's house, the subject of our debate, by showing you that its plain contradictory is a Scripture truth: viz. The Scriptures were designed by God for the Purifying of the hearts, and conversations of men, and therefore it was necessary they should & they do contain direct rules for the Church's Policy, wholly Ecclesiastic, & appointed by Jesus Christ: The reason of the consequence is clear, not only because the Church Policy, viz. its Officers, Discipline and Government, are expressly and directly ordained by our Lord, for our Sanctification & Salvation as I have formerly shown, & therefore their necessity such as cannot without the highest presumption be called in question: but also, because their usefulness, in order to these ends, is by divers Scriptures undeniably held forth: And he (who as the Son was faithful over his own house) gave some Apostles and some Prophets. etc. yea and all the Gifts, Power, Authority, and Directions to be found in Scripture, concerning them, for the work of the Ministry, the Edifying of the body of Christ, and perfecting of the Saints Is a truth so evident, that I marvel, how you could adventure on this Architectonick reasoning, and offer to lay down the end and project of the Gospel, and then frame and Model its institutions, and midses according to your own imagination, and not rather humbly endeavour, in the recognizance of his wonderful love, and fidelity to, and care of his Church, his own body, with all sobriety, to pursue the knowledge, and practice of what things-soever he hath ordained for its edification? I might further remember you, that the rebuke, and all the Censures of discipline are for Edification, the Saving of the soul, making sound in the faith, and Causing others to fear: and that we find the exercise of the Church's Authority, and Government, in that Meeting and Decree made at jerusalem, attended with The consolation and establishment of the Churches, But if your own concessions be but a little pressed, they will easily exhibit the inconsistency of your vanity: you say then, That the common rules are in Scripture 1. That there should be Church Officers, and are not their Power, Degrees and Ministerial Authority, as certainly therein defined. 2 That these should be separate for that function, Ought not then the best among them, give themselves continually and wholly to Prayer, and to the Ministry of the word, without usurping a stated superior Order of Governing, as their special work, let be immixing themselves by privilege in secular Courts and affairs? 3. That they should be obeyed: is this their power for discipline and Government set down in Scripture, & not also its rules & limits? Were the Apostles more than Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God? was not the sure word of Prophecy their great warrant? When the Apostle Paul is about to set order in the Church of Coriath, hear his Preface by ye followers of me even as I also am of Christ: And as in the ordinance of the Lords Supper, he only delivers what he had received of the Lord, so, even as to that smallest of matters, the Length and Fashion of the hair, doth he use any other Authority, than what he seconds with rational persuasion? How far was he then from that dominion over our Faith, which you ascribe to the Church, not only of appointing significant instructing Ceremonies, but of abrogating things as expressly ordained, in your opinion, as the true Sacraments. 4, You say, That things should be done to Order, Edification and Peace, keep within these bounds, and invert not this Method, and we are agreed; but if you subsist not in the regulation of the manner, but will impose New things, which the Lord requireth not, nay, which he abhorreth even your own inventions, framed to your own lusts and interests, or produced by your delusions, & then make peace your Argument, because ye will not allow it to such, as in Conscience cannot conform; the Lord, who hath founded Zion & Reigns in it, & who hath builded his House & rules over it, will one day judge: Thus you see how these your everlasting obligations, do fully conclude, all the truths that we assert: Where you add that the other Rules are now altered with the alterable state of things whereunto they were accommodate, if you understand it sound, of these things only which are indeed ceased, it is a very certain and allowable truth; but you remember not that in the very Page preceding, you impute this alteration so grosly● to the bare Practice of the Catholic Church, (a very doubtful term) and thereby not only unsettle Scripture foundations, as to the Sacraments, but endeavour to introduce such an arbitrary authority in the Church, that in place of establishing true Christian Liberty, which you seem here to assert, it is evident, that you go about plainly to set up; an absolute Spiritual tyranny, over the Church of God, and so to load it with the Ceremonies, and innovations, a bondage more severe than the old dispensation, from which we are liberate; but blessed be our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath delivered us, not only from that old Law of Ordinances, but hath made us free, that we should be no more the Servants of Men, nor liable to be judged in meat or drink, or in respect of an holy Day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath; and having blotted out the hand writing of God's Ordinances, that was against us, hath put no new blank in men's hands for their own devices, and superstitions: To conclude then, in your own words, these things are so rational and also so clearly deduced from your own concessions, that I see nothing either to be excepted against our Conformity to the Scripture pattern and the true Christian liberty, both in opinion, and practice, which we maintain; or to be alleged for your pretended liberty, consisting in a Licentious absurd imposing on such, whom you acknowledge to be free.  
But in order to this last point, viz. your attempt to remove a Scripture rule, easy in itself, and imparting true Liberty to its observers, and to set up an unwarrantable Yoke of Church Authority in its place, I conceive it is, that here you go about, to represent your N. C. as a vain and clamorous boaster, of the Crown, Throne and Kingdom of our Lord, on purpose, to prejudicated against our just complaint of your invasion and Robbery; but waving your Calumnious Methods, I shall only endeavour to speak ●urth the words of truth and soberness. I shall not here discourse of the Kingdom of Christ in all its parts, whereunto we find in Scripture both the outward Protection of the Church, vengeance upon Adversaries, and all judgement, even the great and last ascrived; but, in order to our present purpose, I affirm plainly, that our Lord Jesus as the Redeemer, is in a peculiar manner exalted to be Head and King in and over his Church, by virtue of which Kingdom, he sendeth forth, and Authorizeth his Ministers, hath defined their Order and Power, determined Censures, and given and declared Laws to be observed in his house, and that in such a manner, and in that perfection, that in all things properly thereto relating, he hath only left to the Officers by himself appointed, a Ministerial power of administration; so, that there is neither place left, nor power given, to diminish from, or add to the Officers, Laws, Censures, and Orders, which he hath therein established that these things are so, cannot be better cleared, then by remitting you to our larger Catechism, where, as you will find satisfying Scripture proof for their confirmation, so really I cannot but, by the way, recommend to you its more serious study, for the curing of that looseness in Principles, which almost in every thing you discover: My part at present shall be to consider your strange discourse on this subject; You say then, Christ's throne, Crown and Kingdom are inward and spiritual not of the World, nor as the kingdoms of the World. Sir, though I acknowledge the Scripture phrase, in this matter to be Metaphorical; Yet I wish you had better observed it, and forborn the hard and unused expression of an Inward Crown: But to the question, Christ's Kingdom is indeed in its power, and effects (the restriction a little above premised being remembered) internal and Spiritual, but doth it therefore follow, that its administration is not external and visible, when the Lord declared all power to be given unto him, and by virtue thereof sent forth his Apostles and Ministers, and gathered Churches, having peculiar Rulers, Laws, and Ordinances; was not this both visible, and audible? Are not all the acts of Discipline and Government, properly thereto referable, of the same Nature? Our Lord's Kingdom is truly not of the World, nor as the Kingdoms thereof, is it therefore not in the World? What doth this arguing conclude? You proceed, a great part of his Kingdom is the liberty whereto he hath called us, and I grant, that as liberty, and deliverance from Sin and Satan, are among its choice benefits, and therefore the exultation of Zachariah his thanksgiving, so our liberation from the yoke of Jewish Ceremonies, and all such bondage, is that which we readily acknowledge, in opposition to you● unwarrantable exactions: but what would you thence infer? because Christ hes liberate us from the former slavery, and pedagogy, hath he therefore left us to the worse Tyranny of men's pretended, and corrupted power, and deluded imagination? God forbid; but as the hath set us free for ever, so he hath only laid on us, his own easy ●●oke, and light burden, of Pure and Evangelic ordinances, by which our Liberty is so far from being intringed, that it is thereby both preserved and enlarged.  
In the next place you say Since no Allegory holds, it is ridiculous to argue, because offices in a Kingdom are named by the King, therefore it must be so in the Church. It's answered 1. do you then think that our Lord's Kingdom is only Allegoric? Or because the symbols and badges, usual in Earthly Kingdoms, are, in a figure, thereto transferred, is it therefore wholly a figure? but God hath set his King upon his holy Hill of Zion, and Know you assuredly that God hath exalted him to be both Lord and Christ, b●wis● therefore and be instructed Kiss the Son lest he be angr●, and learn to acknowledge his Kingdom, in all the parts and privileges thereof, by him declared: Next it is most evident, that not only Christ's Kingdom, in and over his Church, is real and certain, and that Officers truly such, vested with his Authority, and therefore depending on Christ as King, are held forth by the Scripture, and to be really found therein; but seeing he himself hath in the Gospel so expressly founded their mission, upon that All power, given unto him, and Paul so plainly refers the giving of Apostles &c, unto his Ascension and exaltation, are you not ashamed to allege these things, to be only by us concluded from the vain appearance of an Allegory And thus to make yourself ridiculous, in that scorn you intended for others? But poor wretch, you add, That we may as well say, that there must be coin stamped by Christ, as Officers appointed by him in his Church: (for this is the running of your words) Lord deliver you from this profane Spirit: thinkest thou, that the Kingdom of Christ, hath need of money, as it hath indeed need of Officers? Or, because money is current and simony a frequent practice in your Church, hes it therefore any place in Christ's true Church? Sir, your profane scoffing at the Kingdom of Christ is one passage, amongst many, that give me Confidence to say, arise O God plead thine own cause, remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily. But I profess I am confounded in myself, when I think of my own provocations, and on the iniquity of his Sons and Daughters; for if the abuse of the Glorious Gospel, shineing amongst us in so much purity, had not been great, he would not have given up the dearly beloved of his Soul into the hand of such persecuting adversaries, and such scoffers at him, who justify these malicious mockers in Cajaphas' Hall, with an overplus of wickedness. O if he would return, he would quickly empty Pulpits, and Chairs in Universities of such, who bend their tongues for lies, and make the world see, because they have rejected knowledge, he hath also rejected them that they shall be no Priests to him.  
The next thing you subjoin is, what King will think his prerogative lessened, by constituting a Corporation, to whom he shall leave a liberty to cast themselves into what mould they please, providing they obey the General Laws, and hold that liberty of him. Thus you will always aspire to enter into the Counsel of God: if your vote had been here asked, it is very like you would have bestowed large privileges upon that Church, where you might have been a sharer; But we bless him to whom the Church is committed, and on whom the Government is laid, who hath provided better, and given unto his Church complete Officers, perfect Ordinances, true Laws, and good Statutes; and ordered his house in all things: and therefore as we are not to inquire, what the Lord might have done but humbly and thankfully to acknowledge what he hath done, so, in these things for men to disown his Authority, and deny his bounty, and usurp to themselves a power of altering, what he hath established, and fashioning the worship and Government of God's house, according to the device of their own heart, is no doubt no lawful liberty, but a licentious invasion of Christ's prerogative, and a jealousie-provoking sin of Laese Majesty Divine. That thus it stands, betwixt you and us, the preceding passages do plainly witness, and the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, as a Son over his own house, so expressly commended, and preferred before the faithfulness of Moses, is an argument, which you will never dissolve: You say his faithfulness consisted in his discharging the Commission given him by his Father: Most certain; but you ask who told us that it (I suppose you mean the appointing the Officers Ordinances and Government of the house of God) was in the Father's Commission? Herein is a marvellous thing. You know that Jesus Christ whrist was sent by the Father, to redeem, gather, feed, guide and Govern his Church; and you see, that as the things in question are thereto necessary, so in discharge hereof, he sends out Apostles, and Ministers, Ordains Officers, vests them with power and Authority, instructs them to a Ministerial, and lowly administration and deportment, defines Censures, appoints his Ordinances, and Laws, liberats the Worship of God from the shadows, and types of the Jewish pedagogy, and clears its true and spiritual exercise and liberty, and finally acquits himself faithfully in all his house: do you then question, if he did these things, or doubt you that he did them by Commission? it is a hard Dilemma which you will never evade: but you add that if we argue from Moses it will infer that all particulars must be determined: whereupon you urge, that as Moses determines the days of Separation for a legal uncleanness, why doth not the Gospel the like for spiritual uncleanness? It's answered, if you had taken up the Argument aright and considered the faithfulness of Christ and Moses, not in order to the same; but with relation to their respective Commissions, You had not fallen into this mistake; but the Scripture parallel, is clear, Moses as a servant did faithfully & completely order God's house, therefore Our Lord much more as a Son, hath thus ordered the Church, his own house: Whence as it doth no ways follow, that whatsoever things were institute by Moses, aught to have been in like manner imitate by our Lord; so this is most concludent, that as Moses, as a Servant, did diligently and exactly execute his Commission, in order to the Tabernacle, its service, Ministers, and all its appurtinents, so Christ, both by reason of a command received and of his interest and power, hath exceeded the faithfulness of Moses, in the Ordering and appointment of things appertaining to his Church: But for the better confirming our Reasoning, and the removing of your Mistake, I do only recommend to you this obvious truth, viz. that the Commendation of our Lord held out by the Apostle in this comparison, institute betwixt him and Moses, regardeth the Manner, but not the subject, of their administrations: Not what was the Nature of extent of Moses his trust, but what was his diligence, and faithfulness in the discharge; is the light and argument of the parallel: suppose two entrusted in employments, wholly divers, and inadequate, and the exact fidelity of the one trusty, to be notourly known, may not the faithfulness of the other, be thence very properly commended? And will not this commendation very evidently infer, that as the first was punctually observant of all things committed, so, the second did equal his exactness, without giving the least ground to conclude, that therefore either the second must have done the same or like things, with the first, or yet that the first administration was as extensive, as that entrusted to the second: this being duly prepended, and it being certain, that not the establishing of an universal, and perpetual order to all and every of the concerns of the jewish Church, as appears from the alteration and addition made thereafter, by David, and Solomon; but only the setting up of the Tabernacle, its Sacrifices, and service, according to the command, accommodate to the then state of that People, was to Moses (and that only by peremptory prescript, as to a servant) enjoined; whereas unto our Lord, as a Son over his own house was freely committed the unchangeable establishment of his Church, in all its requisits unto his coming again: then if our Lord's faithfulness be indeed equal to that of Moses, his appointing of Officers, Ordinances, and Laws, necessare and convenient to his Church, with all requisite exactness, though neither after the pattern, nor in that particular and peremptory strictness, of Moses his prescriptions, can neither be denied nor declined: If you yet cavil, that this says too much viz. that all particulars must be now as of old determined, It's answered, the determining of Particulars under the Law, was from the express menour of Moses his Commission, and therein did consist much of the pedagogy, and rigour of that shadowing dispensation, from which God having now relieved us, and given us the clear light of the Gospel, and these things necessare and convenient to its holy ends, in simplicity, parity and liberty, it is evident, that as our Lord's faithfulness under this Gospel administration, did oblige him to provide the Church, in all things necessary and convenient, and liberate us from all further burden of Antiquate rites and Ceremonies, beyond the necessary exigences of decency and order, so, he hath fully acquit himself, in this his own house, as Moses in his house, and by this his faithfulness, for ever excluded all your superinduced humane inventions, whether in Church-Officers, Government or Worship: in a word, so ill grounded is the absurdity, wherewith you would urge us; and the faithfulness of Christ, compared to that of Moses, is so far from saying too much, viz. that all particulars must be in the Gospel determined, that it infers the direct contraire, viz, that seeing God having committed to Moses a Law, descending to a most strict prescription of Particulars, and Ceremonial observances, he was therein faithful; therefore our Lord more faithful having a dispensation entrusted to him only of Gospel Ordinances, with a becoming liberty, hath in his fiddle discharge, both fully defined the former, and established the latter, free from all humane, either General or Particular inventions, and impositions: But you go on and tell us, That Moses instituted no Church-Government in the way we use it, and that Synagogues their Rulers & chief Rulers were not appointed by Moses, & yet no unlawful thing, since countenanced by Christ & his Apostles: Whence you conclude, That either what they did, was founded on Divine tradition, (which no Christian will grant) or that a form of Government was devised by men; and if the jews had that Liberty, certainly the Christian Church is more free, as to these externals. Sir, not to detain you in a curious enquiry into the special composition, gradual advance and necessary alterations of the jewish Policy, It's answered, 1. I have just now told you, that Granting Moses did not institute any Church-Government as used by us, because neither given him in commission, not at that time needful, and agreeable to the condition of a wandering people, and the dispensation they were then under; Yet the Scripture Argument from our Lord's faithfulness, preferred to that of Moses, being conclusive of the same, yea of a greater care of all things necessary, and requisite for his Church, to the end of the World, then that which Moses did adhibite, even in the setting up of the Tabernacle, and it's commanded service; must of necessity infer, both that our Lord did de facto provide for the Ministry, and Government requisite in his own house, and that the Ministry and Government, which we find descrived in the Scriptures of the New Testament, are of his appointment, and such as may not be altered. 2. Not to mention the evident necessity of Synagogues, up and down the Land, for the end of teaching the people, a most certain duty, which could hardly otherways be performed, the dispersion of Levi among the Tribes, Moses blessing, designing him to teach jacob judgements, and Israel God's Law, david's appointing 4400. of the Hebronites, 1 Chron. 26. 30. 31. 32. thorough all Israel, in all business of the Lord, and for every matter pertaining to God, as well as affairs of the King, and Asaphs regret, for the burning up of all the Synagogues of God in the Land (not to mention the coincidence often hinted at in the Old Testament, of Judges and Teachers of the Law, in every City, and their appointment out of the Tribe of Levi) are grounds, more than probable of the Divine institution of Synagogues, and their Rulers; and that they were no humane invention, 3. The evident Testimonies that we have in the Word of God, not only of the Lords special appointing of the Tabernacle, its whole service and Ordinances, framed and suited to the then State and Posture of that people; but also, how that he Reformation, and establishment made in David's days, together with the building of the Temple, its Officers and Porters, were particularly directed by the Spirit of God, in Samuel, David, and the Seers of these times, instrumental in that work, 1 Chrom. 9 22. and 28. 11. may sufficiently evince to any rational discerner, that the Synagogues, more material, than many of these circumstantial things expressly commanded, were also ordained by the Lord, and likewise instruct all to a most tender, and precise adherence to the express Will of God, in all Matters relating to his house and Worship: And here, upon the mentioning of David, I cannot omit to remember, how that in all the Scripture, we find not a parallel and type, more frequent than that of our Lord's Kingdom, in and over his Church, to that of David over Israel: seeing then, that these ●igures have their certain grounds of resemblance, and there is not a more conspicuous typifying Character, in the person of David; then, that of his Royal ordering, and establishing the house, and Church of God, whereunto he was raised up, and particularly inspired, and commanded, though the faithfulness of Christ, preferred to that of Moses, should not, Yet his succession in the Throne of David to reign over the house of Jacob for ever, doth undeniably conclude both the Government and complete setlement of the Church, by us contended for: 4. If you would reflect upon the Lords singular Providence over his People Israel, first, in that theocraty, whereby in a peculiar manner he Governed them, unto the days of Saul, 2. in their Urim and Thummim, and the holy Oracles of God, which they constantly enjoyed, 3. In the continual assistance, which they had almost in all times, of Prophets immediately inspired, you cannot lightly suppose, that either Synagogues, or any other Lawful institution, concerning their Law and worship, were a mere humane invention; but though the evidences of their appointment, remaining with us upon record, were more obscure, these passages alone, do render it more than probable, that their Authority and rise was Divine. 5 The comparing of the Church of Christ, to that of the Old-Testament is so unfavourable to your cause, and there are such manifest disparities in that parallel, that it rather maketh against you then for you; for as the Ordinances of that dispensation, were such, as were to be done away and abolished; and therefore were appointed by God (who in times past spoke unto the Fathers by the Prophets at Sundry times and in divers manners) in a variant and mutable form, So, the Lord having in these last days, and now in the end of the World, spoken unto us by his son, to whom he sayeth, thy Throne O God is for ever and ever, the Anointing of the most Holy, attended by the sealing up the Vision, and Prophecy, and the setting up of his everlasting Dominion, do infallibly conclude, the introducing of a more excellent Ministry, and the full and immutable establishment of all Ordinances, requisite to the ingathering, and perfecting of the Saints: Sir, if these things were considered by you, and that our Lord hath now at last, by himself, given and ordered, for us, a complete and perfect appointment, of all means necessary in his Church, you should find more Soul-satisfaction in walking at true liberty in the observing of his precepts; then in the Lascivient fancies of your own vain Imagination, which not content to rest in the blessed change that our Lord hath made, of the first Covenant, not faultless, unto this New one and better ordered, under the specious aspiring to a liberty, equal to that of the Jewish Church, doth plainly charge, the Christian Church, with the imperfections of that, which is decayed, and vanished. Having thus examined and answered the strain and scope of your discourse, I shall briefly go over what remains: You say Our Saviour and his Apostles countenanced the Synagogues and their Rulers, and why not? seeing not only their first institution appears to have been such, as I have declared; but also other occasions, noted in the Gospel wherein you have no advantage, did clearly thereto invite: Next you say That this their practice was either founded on divine Tradition (which no Christian will grant) or that a form of Government not unlawful was devised by Men: I answer 1. I have exhibited already warrants for their practice, beside tradition. 2. Might not the positive manner of the institution of Synagogues, have been then more clear, while the thing was in observance, than now it is, after its abolition, and the revolution of so many Ages? 3. If I were concerned in your parenthesis, against Divine Tradition, I would ask you, why do you thus without distinction, make the admitting of it in the Jewish Church so great an absurdity? That there were Divine Traditions before the Word was committed to writing, and that under the dark, imperfect, and progressive dispensation of the Old Testament, assisted nevertheless by a more immediate presence, unwritten traditions might both have been more usual, and were less fallible, may be probabely enough held, by these who yet, now, after the full and perfect revelation of the Gospel by our Lord Jesus Christ, do upon solid grounds, very justly reject unwritten Traditions, in the Christian Church; By which reasons, you may perceive, that the one member of your Dilemma, labouring so sadly of untruth, both in its supposition and the absurdity thence inferred, it can no ways be cogent to enforce the other, of the liberty of Man's devising in the point of Church-Government, even in the Jewish Church, let be in the Christian, so many ways more excellent: But in the close you insinuate That the greater liberty you plead for to the Christian Church is in externals: That this General ambiguous objection is only intended for a convenient retreat, is apparent from all the preceding discourse, seeing, if by Externals, you understand things in their own nature extrinsic to the constitution of the Church, and which in the New Testament have no further use allowed, then is conducible to decency, and order, we willingly grant, that the Christian Church (being in effect absolutely liberate from the old burden of Ceremonies, and not (as you vainly conceit) endowed with a greater, and more arbitrary power of imposing) is indeed herein more free than the jewish was: But if by externals you mean, as alas the instances premised do too plainly speak, all the visible Ordinances of the Church, specially that of Government at least, what ever is in it visible, the liberty that you would introduce, is not more contraire to the Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, as I have shown, then most licentious and irreligious.  
Your last cavil against the exercise of our Lord's Kingdom, in ordering the visible administration of his Church, is, That if this were inferred by his headship over the Church, his being also the head of the World, should argue the same determination in the order of the World, as well as in that of the Church. And having made your N. C. seemingly and poorly check you by saying, that Christ's Church is dearer to him then all the World: Then you restrict the absurdity, which you press, unto the civil Matters of the Church, and proceed in such a rambling discourse, that I am at a stand, how to meddle with it: But waving the censure of your impertinencies, I answer 1. That the Mediatory Kingdom of Our Lord over his Church, and his Natural (so to speak) Sovereignty over the World, are so grossly here by you confounded, that I can only entreat you to be more serious in reading, and searching what the Scripture doth very distinctly hold forth: 1. Of their different rise, the one given, the other not given. 2. Of their different objects and ends, the one having & proposing the World & men in order to a regular and peaceable being in it, the other the Church and men therein called unto spiritual duties and eternal life: And lastly of their different administrations, the one grounded on the dictates of reason, and using external Magisterial authority and power, and sensible rewards and pains, the other proceeding on divine revelation, and carried on by no such externals, save a simple Ministry, and the power internal and spiritual; and then I doubt not but you will of yourself rectify such aberrations, 2. The parallel of God's Government over the World, with the Kingdom of Christ over his Church, is, so far from concluding, that Arbitrary or Architectonick power, which you endeavour to set up in ecclesiastics, equal to that in Civils, that the contraire may from thence be sufficiently evinced, thus, therefore God hath not determined the order of Civil matters, either in the World or in his Church; because an Architectonick and free disposing Government, limited with general rules, necessare to its ends, was most suitable to that almost absolute right and power, which he hath given unto man, in and over the things about which it is conversant: but so it is that the things of the Church, about which our Lord Jesus his Kingdom is exercised, being wholly Spiritual, are neither committed to our power, nor left unto our arbitrament; And plainly such, whereof, the Lord in all times, hath reserved to himself, the sole determination: and therefore it was clearly necessare, that all the Ordinances, Ministry, and Government thereto pertaining, should be also by him alone, ordered, and appointed; which disparity, doth not only reject but unanswerably retort your Argument from this pretence. 3. Your great error, and greater presumption in this question is, that apprehending our Argument for the Determined Ordinances and Government of God's house, to be taken from the simple position of his Kingdom, and the consequences, that by allusion to the Kingdoms of the Earth may be thence deduced, you remember not that the Scripture not only holds out his Kingdom, and the nature thereof, very distinctly; but also doth particularly exhibit, all the Ordinances necessare unto its ends, and appointed to be therein observed; So that our reasoning being wholly Scriptural, both in its ground and superstructure, your redargution from imaginary reason, opposed to the clear and positive Counsel of God, is plainly irrational: if in the days of old, Israel had changed the Law, and Ordinances given, and therein disowned Gods particular Kingdom and Government over them, and notwithstanding thereof pretended to the liberty of the Nations about, seeing this their liberty was no ways determined by, but very consistent with, the Lord's high Sovereignty, under which all do bow, had this poor reasoning, justified their rebellion? certainly not: how much less then, can it conclude the exemption of the Church from Christ's Kingdom, in these Ordinances therein by him established, of which the Lords peculiar Kingdom over Israel was but a slight adumbration.  
But you say, Seing justice is a part of God's Law, as well as devotion, why doth not the Lord determine how his Church should be governed, in Civils. It's answered, Justice is indeed a part of God's Law, and he hath therein determined, as particularly as the right, which God hath given to man in Civils, doth permit; or the ends thereof do require; but as this your Arithmetical equalizing of Man's liberty, in matters of devotion, to that power he hath in things Civil, doth sadly discover the woeful vanity of an unserious Spirit; So the Geometrical analogy of Gods determining, anent our Devotion, wholly dependent upon his prescript, unto his general appointment in matters of outward justice, accommodate to that power and liberty he hath therein left us, in place of inferring an equal power to Man in both, doth, on the contraire, evidently demonstrate, that the Lords determination, in matters of Religion, is as much more particular, than his Commandments are in the things of justice, as our Liberty in the former, is more restricted, than our Liberty in the latter: if you had but considered, th● th● 〈◊〉 hath given the Earth unto the Children of Men, and that, the things thereof being put under his feet, an agreeable power of Government thereanent is certainly given unto his hand; whereas our Lord's Church and People are his peculiar people, his chosen Nation, redeemed and bought with his precious blood, and not their own; let be to have the things, concerning their Soul's redemption, in their power, how happily had you been delivered from this strange confounding of things, Sacred and profane; And how clearly might you have perceived, that God's Dominion over the World, consisting in General Laws, suited to its object, and swayed by his Sovereign Providence, in order to his holy ends, doth bear but little likeness, to our Lord Jesus his Rule, and Government in his Church, as a Son over his own house, and also its Ordinances. But to enforce your point you add, that you hope we will grant that the Civil Peace is more necessary to the very being of the Church, then is Order in Discipline: Whence you insinuate that the former as well as the latter, requires Chri●●s particular determination: Not to Scandalise you by frustrating your hope; Sir, you know so well, that a thing though more necessary; Yet if such only by a mediate and consequential necessity, may therefore fall under a quite divers disposition, from that, which though less necessary, by this mediate and extrinsic necessity, to the being of the Church, than the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, do the former therefore, aswell and in the same manner with the latter, belong to Christ's Kingdom? As to what you add, That it was for this reason that the things of Civil peace were determined in the Old Law: This did so certainly flow from God's peculiar interest in that People, as a Kingdom, as well as a Church, that I make no answer; That which you subjoin, for evincing, that either the Lords Kingdom over the Earth doth extend to the appointing of Civil Officers, or else his Kingdom over his Church imports no such thing; is so manifestly, repugnant to the very nature of the things, and the Lords declared pleasure (the best decision) Nay this whole discourse doth so foolishly, and laxely cast, and weigh things Religious and Profane in the same balance of vain conjecture, that I almost repent my noticeing of it so much; but see the flattery of delusion, having made your N. C. childishly to decline all Reason, as Carnal, and, in the fright forsooth of your strong reasons, retreat to his Ministers and the Bible, you ridiculously triumph over him, and think, yourself so much Master of the field of Reason, that insinuating your own praise, in the description of Sound reason, you puff at other men's, as pitiful nibblings: thus being first in your own cause● you would seem just, how I have Searched you let others judge: for Scripture, you tell us. That to qu●te it, is not to build sure upon it, the Devil did that, and so do all Sects: do you therefore mean, that it should be laid aside, as an insufficient Judge, or that we use it no better than the Devil did? I desire you may explain yourself, if not for our concernment, at least for the Scriptures vindication: In the mean time, I am heartily willing that both what you and what I have said be rightly pondered, and whether the Church in matters of Government be lest to rove in your pretended liberty, or more excellently established by the infinite wisdom, unspeakable love, and most tender care of its only Lord and Head, let Scripture and Reason impartially decide: But to conclude all, you tell us with a preface, That the Angels of the Churches afford us fairer likely hoods for Bishops, than ever we shall find in the Bible for Presbytery It's answered, seeing you yourself do acknowledge, that nothing in it (whether you mean in this place, or in the whole Scripture, the words are ambiguous) amounts to a demonstration; I remit the matter to the Scriptures by me adduced, whereby I am confident all your Likelihoods are more than counterballanced: He who is further desirous to have them removed, may consult M. Durham upon the Text; for my own part, since ever I had the understanding to consider, that the Revelation was made in a Mystic phrase, that the Seven stars who are the Angels, do certainly signify the many teachers that were in every one of these Churches, that in the Candlesticks, as in the Stars, we find the same oneness, and number, and lastly that though to the Angel be the inscription for address; yet we find the body of all the Epistles written directly to the whole Churches, these things I say occurring I protest I could never discern more reason in this argument, for subjecting these Churches unto seven superior single Prelates; then for making the same Prelates really Angels, or turning every Church into a Candle stick; Or if I may adduce another instance, not absimilare to your Fair Likelihoods, for interpreting the two Witnesses, to be the two Arch-Bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow.  
When you have spent your endeavours upon the Authority of Episcopacy, you think to seconde it in the next place with its Antiquity derived you say, from the times next to the Apostles, whereupon you conclude in these words That how this excrescing power, should have crept into the whole Church, and no mention when it came in, no Prince or Universal Council to introduce, it, in the times of persecution when the Church usually is purest, and most free of pride, no Secular consideration to flatter, but the first brunt of the persecution always against it, and how none opposed it, if this was not introduced by Apostles, or Apostolical men, passeth my Divination: And really Sir, as to its particular Methods, and increase, so doth it mine: And so much more than it doth yours, that I am persuaded from clear Scripture, that it was not only not introduced, but plainly reprobate by our Lord and his Apostles; Yet am I so little thereby stumbled, that the more dark and obscure I find its rise and progress, I am the more confirmed, that it is the very Mystery of iniquity, and do so much the more admire the incorruptible and eternal Truth of the Gospel, which as in the beginning it foretold the coming, and took very early Notice of the first motions of this prodigy of wickedness; So hath it, through the many ages of its exaltation, preserved itself against, and now in the latter days overcomes its Malice; But to review your discourse more particularly, I have already showed, that the Ministry and Government institute by our Lord, and confirmed and practised by the Apostles, was plainly Presbyterian; if so, what place for further inquiry? Is your alleged traditional subsequent humane institution of Prelacy of greater moment? 2. That even in the Primitive times, and for 140. years after our Saviour, no vestige of Prelacy appears upon record, is the consentient opinion of the best Searchers, both on your, and our part. 3. This plea of Antiquity hath already been so fully handled, and improved both by yours, and ours, specially Hamond on your part, and Blondel, Salmasius, and other Learned servants of Christ on ours, that there needs nothing be added: and where the advantage is, the Ingenuous may easily discern: He that desires a solid and short account of the matter, may read the appendix to the jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici: But you proceed to give in some poor scrapes of pretended Antiquity, which not only the most sure, and clear, and far more ancient Scriptures of Truth, but even the convincing answers which they have often received might well have made you to forbear: And first you say That Ignatius his Epistles are plain language: And so they are indeed, but too plain for you to have cited, as the following passages, compared with the Scriptures subjoined may evince: In the Epistle to the Tralliani, we have [what is a Bishop, but he, that is possessed of all Principality, and Authority beyond all, as much as is possible for men? Reverence the Bishop as ye do'Christ, as the holy Apostles have Commanded, etc. As the Lord Christ doth nothing without his Father, so, must ye do nothing without your Bishop, Let nothing seem right or equal to you, that is contra to his judgement.] In the Epistle to the Philad. [Let the Princes obey the Emperors, the Soldiers the Princes, the Deacons and the rest of the Clergy, with all the People, and the Soldiers, and the Princes, and the Emperor, let them obey the Bishop] (no doubt the Bishop of Rome) In the Epistle to the Smyrnenses; [The Scripture saith honour God and the King, but I say, honour God as the Author and Lord of all things, and the Bishop as the Prince of Priests, resembling the image of God, of God for his principality, of Christ for his Priesthood, etc. There is none greater than the Bishop in the Church, who is consecrated for the Salvation of the whole World, etc. Let all men follow the Bishop as Christ the Father, etc. It is not Lawful without the Bishop to baptise, or offer, etc. He that doth any thing without consulting the Bishop Worshippeth the Devil: Now on the other hand let us hear what the Scripture saith to this purpose, Who then is Paul who Apollo but Ministers by whom ye believe? Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ; for we preach not ourselves, but Christ jesus the Lord, and ourselves your Servants for jesus sake: Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand. But so shall it not be among you, whosoever will be great among you shall be your Minister, and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be Servant of all: to these add the practices, and other professions of the Apostles concerning themselves, and their fellow-Labourers, and really Sir, when you shall make these things found in Ignatius, consistent even with the strain of pure Religion, and the truth of the Gospel, let be to the Orthodoxy, and Piety of Ignatius, and the simplicity of his times; then shall I cede to the Authority of these Letters: Only in the mean time let me tell you, that for all the pains that Hamond hath taken, to assert their Faith, the words above cited, do savour so strongly of most gross and corrupt interpolation; that not only I reject their Testimony, as to the matter of Prelacy; but do esteem even the passages that may be therein found for Presbytery, as to the Trallians, be subject to the Presbytery, as to the Apostles of jesus Christ, The Presbyters are the Council of God, and joint, Assembly of the Apostles, and such like of little or no value. 2. You mention Cyprians time, but hold, I preceive your second Edition mends your first, and this your practice like to that of your more innocent friend Mr. Coluin, in his verses, of giving us second Editions, bearing additions, without advertissment, had indeed abused me, If by accident I had not fallen in the review of my papers, to make use of your second Copy, and in this you tell us, in the next place of the Apostolical Canons, a work of very venerable Antiquity, at least the first fifty of them, though perhaps none of the Apostles: But first why say you Perhaps, in a matter beyond all peradventure. 2. Not to trouble you with Criticisms, he who would be resolved anent the Authority of these Canons, let him only read them: And as I am confident, he will be far from thinking either the first 50, or the rest of them Apostolical, So I am certain the mention made in the 3. Can. of Sacrificium, Altar, Oleum in Candelabrum, & Incensum oblationis tempore, a Sacrifice, Altar, oil in the lamp, and incense in the time of offering, the 17. Can, qui viduam duxit, Episcopus aut Presbyter aut Diaconus esse non potest, he who hath married a widow, cannot be a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, the 25. Can. Ex his qui caelibes in Clerum pervenerunt, jubemus ut Lectores tantum, & cantores, si velint, nuptias contrahant, Of Bachelors who hath entered into orders, Readers only and Singers if they will, may marry, the great and constant distinction therein, made, inter Clericum, & Laicum, and the many other vanities therein to be found, specially in the last part of them, will easily render their venerable Antiquity of no moment, in our present Controversy: so that neither your 40 but in effect the 38. Canon, though it were more positive, and express for your Prelatic pre-eminence, nor your Synodical injunction, to the same purpose, both posterior to the first Primitive purity, are of any regard: but 3. so wretched is the cause that you defend, that even in your clearest evidences, your partiality and hypocrisy is manifest: You allege the Apostolical Canons in defence of your Prelatic Order, and yet you consider not, that the same Canons, do not only condemn your Prelates; But subvert their present constitution. I shall not insist upon the 24. Canon Episcopus aut Presbyter in fornication, aut perjurio deprehensus deponitor: Let a Bishop or a Presbyter guilty ofsornication or perjury, be deposed: the 20. Episcopum aut Presbyterum qui fideles delinquentes (quid ergo si Innocentes) percutit, & terrorem ipsis hoc modo incutit, deponi praecipimus. We command that the Bishop or Presbyter who smiteth delinquents, and so becometh a terror unto them, be deposed, what then, if they smite the innocent: the 28 41. 53. 57 & 75. which I am most assured, if observed would remove all the present Bishops and Curates in Scotland: but the Canons I offer are the 4. Omnium aliorum Pomorum Primitiae Episcopo & Presbyteris domum mittuntor, Manifestum autem est quod Episcopus et Presbyteri inter Diaconos & reliquos Clericos eas dividunt, Let the first ●ruits of all others apples be sent home to the Bishop and Presbyters, for it is Manifest that the Bishop and Presbyters, divide them among the Deacons, and the rest of the Clergy, 33. Cujusque gentis Episcopos oportet scire quinam inter ipsos primus sit, neque sine illius voluntate quicquam agere insolitum, illa autem quemque prosetract●re, quae ad Parochiam ejus & loca ipsi subdita attinent; sed neque ille citra omnium voluntatem aliquid facito. 36. Bis in Anno Episcoporum celebrator Synodus, & pietatis inter se dogmata in disquistionem vocanto. and 80. Dicimus quod non oporteat Episcopum aut Presbyterum publicis se admini●●rationibus immiscere, sed vicar & commodum se exhibere usibus Ecclesiasticis, animum igitur inducito hoc non facere, aut deponitor: together with the obvious strain of the whole plainly insinuating, the Bishop to be the person, to whom the flock is principally and immediately committed, and who as the Primus Presbyter, the first Presbyter, ought chiefly to mind the charge, In which Canons although I grant that their appears a precedency of Order, given to the Bishop, over the Presbyters, (who in these times were many Ministers, living in one City and Society; having the charge in common among themselves, and with and under their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the Church, and Flock in their bounds) and also to the first Bishop of a Province, over his Coëpiscopi; Yet I am sure your Prelatic power, and Superiority, acclaiming the sole power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction is no where thereby approved; but rather condemned: Your third Testimony you bring from Cyprian, in whose time you say That the power of Bishops was well regulate and Settled, and here knowing that he professeth That he would do nothing without the Clergy, that he could do nothing without them, nor take upon him alone: Whereby the ancient Prostasia; and not your Prelacy, is plainly and only held forth: You insinuate as much, as if he had afterward retracted this opinion, and this you prove very pitifully, 1. From his answer to one Rogatian a Bishop, that he by his Episcopal vigour, and Authority had power presently to punish a Deacon, for an affront received, which yet doth not at all seclude the Presbyters, according to the Rule of the Canon Law Episcopus non potest judicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo, & Senioribus, The Bishop cannot judge a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Synod, and Elders● 2. From this Censure of Heretics and Schismatics, for proud contempt of their then Bishops, which we do as little allow as you do. 3. From a letter written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome, after the Death of Fabian, wherein they complain of the want of one to Moderate, and with Authority and advice to take account of Matters, whence you say, that surely they thought little of Persbyters being equal in power to Bishops, who write so, where the Episcopal power seemed to be devolved upon them: but pray Sir, If a society consisting of Members all equal in power, but having a Head or Precedent for order, and good Rule, do regret his loss, during the vacancy, in these very terms, wherein lieth the inconsistence? How foolish then is that stricture of your vanity, which you here subjoin? viz. but. I believe, few of you know these writings; whereas to be plain with you, in my thought, neither you nor I have given any great Specimen of this knowledge, or said so much, as the half of what is obviously to be found, in almost any printed debate anent this matter.  
Sir, I must tell you further, if I myself were alone concerned in this reflections I would scarce look upon it as a reproach worth the wipeing off, to be as great a stranger to these things as ye take me to be, nor would I think many cubits were added to my stature to be as knowing in them as yourself; yet it is known that I tell the world no news, when I say, that there have been (and to this day are) not a few great men of our way who have given such proof of their knowledge in these ancillarie and minutious things, whereof you represent us as ignorant; as have made your greatest Rabbis find, that wherein they gloried they were not short of them; and if ye know not this, yet seem to have lost your silly self in the Labyrinth of Antiquity, and by this means are fallen under the shameful reproach of being peregrinus Domi: and if ye know it, and yet so superciliously assert the contraire, what Apology can ye make for speaking so great an untruth, that will either satisfy the world or your own Conscience. But Sir, ingenously I profess, I pity you for your Vanity and folly; for it seems ye think this the only expedient to make the world believe the pregnancy of your pate, and Pronounce you worthy of the Chair: but Sir, it will only make the more serious weep to remember who did once fill it, and should have filled it still, when they consider how it is become the seat of a scorner; and the less serious will laugh at your prodigious folly. I have only one overture to propose unto you, that your vanity may be with some handsomeness hereafter coutched, and the world may let pass what you say without quarrelling at it, as a known falsehood: And it is this, in your after comparings and measurings of your abilities, that you may be taken notice of for a Nonsuch, be so wise as to compare yourself with your Fellow-curats', if ye hope to bear the bell, but when ye insinuate a comparison, with so many burning and shining lights, and then, in your Juvenile pride and self-conceit, arrogate a preference to these, ye do only force men to take notice of, and inquire into, your shame and short-coming: And, if I mistake not, fall upon the most certain method of making yourself ●●ink above ground. Sir, if, in these two or three lines, I have digressed contrary to my inclination, the occasion will justify it, and charity persuades to it. But, 3. You tell us, that in the Council of Nice, Speaking of the power of Metropolitans; the Canon says, let the ancient customs be in force: It's answered 1. We find that Council did conveen in the year. 325. Now admit, that certain Customs concerning Metropolitans, as well as Bishops, were b●ought into the Church about 165. years, before the Council; which is the highest period from whence they can be calculat, These customs in this respect, might will therein be termed Ancient, without the least contrariety to my assertion. 2. It's evident enough from many suffrages, that as the primitive Episcopacy, which succeeded to Presbytery, the Government first institute by our Lord and his Apostles, and exercised in the Christian Church, did only import the humane invention of a Prostasia, for Order; So the custom of Metropolitans, in these times, did differ nothing from it, as may appear from the 33. Canon of these called Apostolical already cited, wherein he is only termed Primus Gentis Episcopus, and tied to the advice of his Coëpiscopi: In the next place, you tell us, that nothing can be alleged against your Episcopal power, but Some few or disjointed places of some Authors, which at most Prove, that they judged not the origin of Bishops to be divine, and none save Aerius, repute an Heretic, did ever speak against the difference, betwixt Bishops and Presbyters: Sir, if you did not here acknowledge, almost all that I desire, I could easily show you, that not only the Scriptures of the New Testament, and the agreeable practice of the Apostles, and their Immediate successors are against your Prelatic excrescent power; but that even for several ages thereafter, while both Bishops and Metropolitans did exercise their Prostasian, your Diocesan Prelate, having the sole power of Ordination and jurisdiction, was unknown, yea expressly reprobate: but because the appendix whereunto I have already referred, and Smectymnus, do plainly make out this point, I shall not detain you: As for A●rius, it's true, he held that a Bishop and a Presbyter do not differ, and that Augustin calls this proprium ejus dogma, his proper Opinion, and Epiphanius, dogma furiosum et stolidum, a furious and foolish opinion, and that both of them do rank him among Heretics; but seeing they also accuse him of Arr●anisme, and withal do also tax him for error in some points which are cl●ar truth, viz. that it is not lawful to pray and offer for the dead, their censure is as little to be noticed, as his Testimony; specially seeing many Learned men do plainly assert, that not only Hierom, but even Augustin himself, Chrisostom and many others of the Fathers, were of the same opinion with Aërius as to the matter of this difference: but for jerom you go about to alleviat his Testimony, viz. Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus. Therefore a Presbyter is one and the same with a Bishop, & noverint Episcopi se magis consuetudine quan dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyter is esse majores, etc. And let the Bishops know that they are above Preebyters more through custom then any divine warrant. Because he himself was but a Presbyter. Pray Sir, who were they whom your men cite so fast for Bishops, were not they themselves Bishops, and yet the truth is, there were Bishops also at that time of his Opinion. 2. You say that his fervent if not sirie Spirit drives him along in every things to an excess. Good Sir, where is now your veneration for Antiquity and the holy fathers? For us, seeing we do not found on man's Authority, this your brusk character, discovering more of your partiality then of Ieroms infirmity, doth not offend: Only this I must say, that whatever be his fervour in his other writings; yet I am sure that both in his Commentary upon Titus and in his Epistle ad Evagrium, he confirms his assertion above set down, with Scripture Arguments, most calmly, solidly and unanswerably. 3. You allege, that Notwithstanding that he make the Bishop and Presbyter to differ in degree only, and not in office, and that by Ecclesiastic and not Divine Authority, yet he confesseth that Presbyters did not ordain, and that the origin of the exercising power was in the days of the Apostles to prevent schisms, etc. It's answered he saith indeed, quid enim facit, exceptâ ordinatione, Episcopus quod Presbyter non facit; But as he is there pointing only at the custom, then in use, so, this doth nothing derogate from that equality, yea identity of power, which he attributeth to both from Scripture: what you mean by the origin of the exercising power, etc. Is not so clear. It's true he affirmeth that at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclas, and Dionysius Bishops, the Presbyters did always name one, chosen of themselves, and placed in higher degree, Bishop; but what says this more than that in all that time for order's sake, they had successive Precedents at first, it's like movable, and thereafter fixed during life: And we have already both acknowledged, and regreted the grievous abuse, occasioned by that latter practice: You add that he compares, the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Church, ●to the high Priest, Priests and Levites in the Temple: and since there was at that time, from Ecclesiastic custom then allowed (which according to his use, and as he useth to speak promiscuously, writing of Lent, he here indifferently termeth an Apostolic Tradition) a ground of resemblance, why might he not use the similitude, without stretching it either to evert, what he had said, or countenance your Prelacy? Lastly you allege that he says, that it was decreed through the whole World that a Presbyter should be over the rest, to root out the seed of difference: It's answered that this in toto orbe decretum est, may, and is, to be understood, not of an express Decree, which doth no where appear; but of a General consentient custom, taking place every where: both the truth of the thing, and Hieroms after Paulatim ad unum omnis Solicitudo est delata, by little and little all the care is devolved upon one, do abundantly clear, How ever this may be warrantably said, that as this custom did with time universally obtain, and in Ieroms days, not having much exceeded the limits of a simple Prostasia, was by him also approved, as the remedy of dissension, so, he holding it to be not of Divine disposition, no doubt if he had these other holy men, were this day to see the hundred part of these sad, and fearful effects, that it hath produced, nothing could be able to break their astonishment, at the surprising sight of such prodigious consequences of this Mystery of iniquity, but sorrow and Lamentation, together with deep regrete, that they did not better foresee, and more timously resist, the first tendencies and beginnings of this evil: Now whether or not Antiquity be on your side, and if our grounds from Scripture against your Episcopal Authority, be not much confirmed, both by jerom and the other passages here handled, I willingly submit it to all the lovers of truth: but lest you think that by the representation I have made in the beginning of my answer to your alledgeance from Antiquity, of the early and strange rise and growth of Episcopacy, I do thereby derogate from that light and purity, which with you I acknowledge in these Primitive times, I must note, first, That pride as it was the first sin and corrupter of Man's integrity, from which the felicities of Paradise could not exempt him; So is it of all sins the most inward, rooted, and subtle, attending a man in all conditions, finding Matter in all occasions, and immixing itself even in our fairest and purest actions. 2. That the Disciples of our Lord, notwithstanding of his own presence, holy instruction, and humble example were not free of the motions of this evil, the History of the Gospel doth plainly testify. 3. I note that the times of the Apostles, the most pure and powerful that ever the Church enjoyed, were many ways infested with this plague, I mention not the contentions betwixt Paul and Barnabas, which no doubt sprung from this latent corruption; but he who considereth the great number● and many wicked practices of false Apostles, Heretics and Schismatics, in these days boasting against, and despising even Paul himself, with the affected Pre-eminence of Diotrephes, and the then begun working of the mystery of iniquity, toward the exalting of the Son of perdition, in place of denying, must of necessity marvel, how this Devil of pride could in so gracious and short a time, destitute of all Earthly encouragements, so greatly prevail, and plainly perceive, that this active Spirit, would not be wanting, to embrace and improve all occasions and opportunities offered; 4, That as order did no doubt at first in all meetings require a Precedent, whom I also easily grant to have been, as any occasion did require, rather recommended by desert, no evil consequence being then apprehended, then presented by a constant and complete Rotation; So it is very probable, and confirmed by Hieroms suffrage, that contentions did first both fix the presidency or prostasia, and exalt it to any notable eminency; but whether by way of remedy, or by way of victory, to the increase of the Malady, is indeed the most observable points, and, as I apprehend, that whereupon we will divide: and therefore I note 5. That although the Authority of able and holy men at first, advanced to a fixed presidency, might then appear, as in these days of great simplicity and humility, in itself very innocent, and in the event also effectual to concord; Yet without all question at best it was but an humane invention, copied from the pattern of the manner of the then Civil Government of the Empire, to which our Lord expressly commanded his Disciples not to conform. 6. That seeing affected pre-eminence and the contentions thence arising, did clearly occasion the introducing of this Prostasia, though in many, yea most places, the prevailing number of good men, might thereto advance worthy and deserving persons, studying more the prospering of the Gospel, and unity of the Church then adverting to the bad consequences, that thence might ensue; Yet it is not only most certain, that this promotion was that, whereunto these strive did every where directly aspire; but also most probable, that even in the first beginnings, many ambitious pretenders, wanting a just opposition, did carry their design, and were preferred. 7. That by plain dealing I may satisfy all pretences, I observe, that albeit power and Authority, unite in the Prostasia of one amongst many, may be thereby rendered more strong, and effectual; Yet seeing the benefits of this union, and advancement, doth only flow from the accidental worth, and ability of the person that happens to be promoted, and that the order or institution itself, destitute of divine warrant, and promise, and clearly occasioned by evil contention and introduced into the house of God by humane invention, could not at first have any thing in it recommendable, and hath since produced most corrupt ●ruits; Neither the existence of Many excellent and great men in this degree, nor the laudable, yea extraordinary advantages, that the Church hath received from them in the concrete, can now justify, and maintain the Order itself in the abstract: If this arguing were good, able and well qualifyed men vested with such a power, or placed in such a condition, have proven and may prove notable instruments of Good: therefore it is reasonable and expedient, that such a constant order should be erected, we might not only have Bishops, but most of the Monastic Orders of the Roman Church: We find Peter with the singular benefit of the Church, exercing a power of Life and Death, and that given him from above, and not assumed; could therefore an order of Churchmen, pretending to the like Authority, be rationally thence maintained in the Church? No ways: Accidental advantages do not commend unwarranted institutions, much less can they justle out our Lords express constitution: But it is he, the perfect orderer of his own house, who hath positively defined, and blessed its Officers, and their power, and not left the matter arbitrary, to the probable contrivances of apparent benefit, far less to the dissembling pretences, of men's Lusts, and corrupt Interest. 8. It is to be noted, that although the great measure of Grace, given to the Primitive Church, and the hard and frequent persecutions, wherewith it was exercised, did for a time hinder that strange depravation and incredible eruption of wickedness, whereunto the setting up of the Ancient Prostasia, the rudiment of your Prelacy, did from its first beginnings, secretly and covertly bend; Yet this is most evident, that so soon as the Church of God obtained the countenance, and was favoured by the more fond in many things (such as excessive Do●ations and Grants of privileges) then prudently pious benevolence of Secular Princes, this Prelatic order, which in its depression had been indeed honoured, with many shining lights and Glorious Martyrs, attaining then to its ascendent, did not only debauch the Lords Ministers, for the most part unto idleness, avarice and luxury; but continually climb up according to its proper Genius of Ambition, until the Devil's design in its rise, and progress, was fully discovered, and consummate, in the revelation of the Son of perdition: 9 This being the rise, progress and product of Prelacy in the first Churches, as may be clearly gathered from the writings of these times, how it was introduced in other Churches, thereafter gathered and brought in, may be found in their Histories: Only this is certain, that as in almost no Church it can be showed, to have been coëvous with Christianity, and in all the western Churches where it obtained place, was ever a sprig of Rome's Hierarchy, propagate by her ambition and deceit, and the like practices; So the Church of Scotland in special, was in the beginning, and for some centuries thereafter, instructed and guided by Monks, without Bishops until palladius from Rome, did set up Prelacy among us, as many Author's witness; Nay, we may find it on Record, that even in the 816. year a Synod in England did prohibit the Scots any function in their Church, because they gave no honour to Metropolitans and other Bishops.  
By these observations, having in some sort delineate the mysterious and crooked windings, of this excrescing Power, in its first motions, and setting forth: and very clearly and naturally traced its progressions, and thence deduced that most prodigious production of the Antichristian Papacy, as any considerate man may thereby easily perceive, not only how it might, but how the facto it hath crept into the whole Church, without an Apostolical introduction, notwithstanding of all your contrary insinuations, so I am confident, that what ever other advantages, these primitive times had above our latter days; yet our discovery, made after so full a revelation, compared to the obscure appearances of this wickedness, in the first ages of the Church, cannot be thereby rationally disproved: and your scurrile disparaging of the latter times of reformation, as the fag end o● sexteen hundred years, doth with little less success, plead for the Pope and Antichrist, then for your Antichristian Prelacy.  
As for the rest of your discourse, wherein you tell your N. C. that though the ancient Bishops were better men, than either Bishops or Presbyters alive; Yet, in Presbyteries, Specially in the matter of Ordination, they were sine quibus non, and what ever be the present abuse of the Episcopal power; Yet it is a rational and most necessary thing, that the more approven and gifted, be peculiarly incharged with the inspection of the Clergy, an order of men ne●ding much to be regulate; and seeing all humane things, and Presbytery also, are liable to be abused, the common maxim remains to be applied, remove the abuse of Bishops, but retain their use. In answer hereto, I need not enlarge, he who knows Church History best, will easily grant, that as for the first Centurie and an half, we have no vestige upon record, of your Prelatic power; So when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had place, their concurrence in Presbyteries, was only for order, as being the Mod●rators, a consideration of the same exigence and effect, whether they be fixed, or unfixed, and not from any peculiar power, proper to them as a superior order; A thing so certainly disowned by the primitive Church, that, even after the Bishops thought themselves well stated in their Prelacy, and were beginning to contend among themselves, for the Papacy, Hierom doth plainly deny them any such prerogative above Presbyters, and was not therefore contradicted by any: How much more than doth this condemn that sole power, both of Ordination and Jurisdiction, whereunto your Bishops do pretend. As for your alleged reason, and necessity of promoting the better gifted over the unruly Clergy, whatever application it may have to that naughty Company of your insufficient and profane Curates, or Conformity to the Court; yea, the world's prejudice against our Lord Jesus, his Ministers, and all his followers; Yet these two things are most evident. 1. That as that lowly and ministerial Government, appointed by Christ in his own house, admitting no superiority or inequality of power among Ministers, is not subjected to, and alterable at the arbitrament of humane reason; so, the advantage of Gifts, whereupon you would found it, doth so little favour your conclusion, that the direct contrary is recommended by our Lord, as its best evidence and fruit, he that will be chief among you let him be your Servant; and that not only as to the grace of humility, but in plain opposition to that superior Authority exercised in Secular Rule, whereof the imitation in this place, is expresty prohibit to Gospel Ministers: but the ground of your mistake is, that Notwithstanding our Lord hath said of himself and his Ministers, that one is your Master; and all you are Brethren and fellow-servants, among whom an inequality of gifts, may well consist with an equality of condition; Yet restess and most subtle Ambition, for gratifying its evil lust, will, even in a plain opposition commanded, allege the affectation, and not the thing itself to be discharged; and in the low liest state of Service, devise superior and inferior degrees. The second thing is, that though I be ●arre from denying humane infirmities incident to Ministers, as well as others, and do heartily wish, that the of ●nces by them occasioned, may be always, as the most hurtful to the Gospel, most seriously precautioned and regreted; Yet I am sure, that, without regard to our Lords most gracious gifting, and most wise ordering of his Ministry for the feeding and ruling of his people, to affirm that nevertheless there is no order of men needs so much to be regulated, is a presumptuous and vain imputation, against Jesus Christ, the Head and King of the Church, and his Oeconomie: Hath our Lord taken so great pains to Separate, Instruct, Sanctify, and send forth Ministers, and promised them so special a presence and assistance, for the oversight and conduct of Believers, and dare any Christian say, that even the order itself (for alas I grant the men are but earthen vessels) needs more than any other, the contrivance of man's invention for its regulation? But let none that honoureth Jesus Christ, or remembreth the former Beauty, Order and Success of his Ministry and Courts amongst us, be offended; this reflection proceeds from the same Spirit, that accused our great Master, as a Rebel and Usurper, and his Apostles as the Troublers and Subverters of the World. As to your conclusion, when you have disproved the Divine warrant of presbytery, and showed both its occasion, rise, tendency, and proper fruits to be only evil, as I have done in the matter of Prelacy, than you may equiparat them in the point of abuse: but seeing the abuse of presbytery is only accidental, from humane infirmity, and that of Prelacy, its most native Genius and Product; Na●, seeing presbytery is indeed the right use of the Church's Government, and Prelacy its manifest depravation, the maxim which you adduce, in its just application, doth most clearly say, remove the abuse of Prelacy, and let the use of Presbytery be re●ained.   

The fourth DIALOGUE Answered.  
SIR, since you have said nothing that I have not to myself (and I hope to all rational and impartial men) satisfyingly answered, and seeing I can say it in God's sight, that in all the matters hitherto treated, I find in my heart a serious desire to please him in all things; and also to comply with his Church, and obey the Laws of the Kingdom, in what I judge agreeable to his will, with as much distrust of myself, and charity towards others, as humane frailty doth permit: In this persuasion truly, and by your own verdict, conscientious, without either noticing the pitiful shift of a blind conscience, which you make your N C. pretend, or charging you with that arrogance, whereupon you make him weakly to exclaim, I shall proceed to consider the grounds which in this place you lay down, You say then, Private persons have nothing to do with Government; submission and not judging is their part. I cannot stand to discuss all the ambiguities that may be latent in this General; but it is strange. 1. That the Government of God's house (●or that is the point betwixt us) should be instituted by him, for the Edification and Salvation of private persons, and his own Glory, as you cannot deny; and yet they to have nothing to do with it. 2. You say, Submission i● their duty. And would you have it blind, and not rational, and conscientious? 3. Our Lord hath defined the Government of his Church, and did establish the same among us, engaging us thereinto by a perpetual Covenant, is it then nothing of our concernment? But may we break these sacred ties, and abandon ourselves to an implicit compliance, with every humane invention? I grant that private persons are neither, under a righteous constitution, to usurp the part of the Governors; nor yet under a sinful, unlawfully to solicit, and endeavour an alteration: but as in the former case, both Reason and Religion, specially where an Oath hath interveened, doth oblige to maintenance, so in the latter, I am assured that all active owning and approving (the thing whereunto we are pressed) beyond a providential acquiescence, is utterly sinful: If you require my reasons, there is none like your own, viz. first, because, I am persuaded that, what ever may be the comparative innocence of an erring, but well-meaning opinion; Yet of every Soul, who hath seen the Glorious light and work of God in the Lands, and engaged himself thereto by solemn Covenant, and now of late, hath broken these bonds, and concurred to change Christ's pure Ordinances, and set up, establish or countenance Prelacy, and its wicked Hierarchy, God will surely either in this life, as we have already seen, in the convictions of many, or in the last and great Judgement, openly require it. 2. Because not only perjury, manifestly ingredient in the active submission and compliance which you exact, hath a plain and direct tendency to the blotting of the Soul; but as the Gospel and all its Ordinances, are designed to purify the heart; So, this of Government, so clearly therein appointed, and of so necessaire and effectual influence, for the conserving of truth, edifying of the body of Christ, and perfecting of the Saints, doth undeniably contribute to the same end: And by these two easy rules it is whereby I heartily wish, that both you and I, and all men may examine our Consciences.  
In the next place you tell your N. C. That we have no rational ground to think you wrong, in Matters of Religion: do you then think that obedience to the Lords Command, against swearing falsely, and adhering to, and owning the Kingdom, and Ordinances of Jesus Christ, are no Matters of Religion? or have you already answered the full and just account, that I have given of our differences? But, supposing there may be error on your side, you add, that unless the error be of greater importance, than the Communion of Saints is, it ought not to untie the bond of the unity of the Catholic Church. This is the rule which you gave us before, in your first Dialogue, and therefore I shall say little to it, only if your meaning be, that except the conjunction with the erring party, be of greater prejudice, than separation upon that account, we ought not to untie the unity of the Church, I willingly assent: but if there be any other latent sense in your strange weighing the import of error, with an article of Faith, things quite opposite, without all communication of degrees; when you explain yourself, I shall consider it. To this you subjoin many things of Paul's conforming both to Jews and Gentiles, in matters of greater scruple, than what we contend about, and thence conclude, That if Paul did so freely and out of Charity, then are we much more bound, from whom the duty of obedience to Law doth also exact it: Now, because in this place, it is, that you not only abuse Paul's practice, but go about to intricate and destroy, by a new knack of pitiful Court Sophistry, the privilege of Christian liberty, I shall therefore endeavour briefly to give you a distinct and adequat return. And I say that Paul's conformity doth no ways enforce the compliance required of us; because that all we find in the Apostle, is a free and prudent accommodation of himself, in things wholly external and indifferent, for the gaining of such, with whom he conversed; whereas the compliance demanded of us, is plainly to own and approve unwarranted, wicked and accursed Prelacy, and its abominations: which, both by the Command, and Oath of God, we are bound to extirpate: If Paul, notwithstanding of the accomplishment of the● Mosaic dispensation, at first institute by the Lord, and not then expressly antiquat, did nevertheless continue some of its observances, that by showing a respect to, and not despising of these shadows, though already evanished, he might the better convince the Jews, of the fulfilling of what they prefigured; can any man thence infer, that therefore we ought not only to relinquish the true Ordinances of Christ, but acknowledge the inventions of men, such as Prelacy, and its vain Ceremonies, although the 'samine be found contraire both to the word of God, and power of Godliness, and therefore are by us solemnly abjured. As for Paul's freedom of converse toward the Gentiles, admitting that there appears a seeming excess in it, obnoxious to misconstruction: yet, was it not in meat and drink only? And is not its principal design of asserting, in these things, such an absolute liberty, as might warrant the deed in itself, notwithstanding the possibility of some men's mistakes, wholly opposite to your purpose? so that, without question, the outmost advantage you can draw from this matter, is, that we have the liberty to do materially many of these external things, by you enjoined, without homologating your intention in the imposing, which, whether you would accept of, or account consistent with sincere dealing, I leave to yourself to judge? But 'tis like your meaning is, that all the things whereunto we are pressed, passing from our Covenant, relinquishing of our scent and sealed Ministers, owning and active submitting to abjured Prelates, and the like, are in themselves things wholly external, insignificant, and nothing; wherein we may as lawfully compliment Authority, by our obedience, as Paul, by a free exercise of his liberty, in washing, shave, circumcising, eating, and drinking did complacently insinuat upon Jews, and Gentiles: And if in these there be any parity, let the meanest capacity discern 2. Although the things required of us, were indeed in themselves wholly indifferent; Yet we cannot be urged with Paul's conforming, because the reason and design of Paul's practice, being diametrally repugnant to yours, instead of confirming, plainly subverts the compliance by you demanded: Paul's practice, did flow from liberty, and the reason and warrant of that, was, because that Christ hath made us free, and called us unto liberty, blotting out the hand-writting of Ordinances that was against us: dare you then, or any mortal else, offer to write and fix another, and again entangle us with a yoke of bondage, and subject us to, or judge us concerning Ordinances, after the Commandments and Doctrines of men? What reasoning can be more absurd than that of yours? Paul did these things freely, therefore, you are bound to obedience: Do contraries, that remove, establish one another? I grant that, if in charity to our equals, even Aliens, we are bound to a compleasant and gaining acting or forbearance, in things indifferent, and in our power; much more doth the same charity bind us, to the like compliance toward our Superiors; but by what consequence can you extend this obligation of charity, to a plain surrender of our Liberty; and turn the praise of a free benevolent exercise, unto a bondage of obedience, wherefrom our Lord hath so clearly liberat us, as to all these externals, which you so much plead for? But as to this point, you tell your N. C. That he bewrays great simplicity; because forsooth Paul did not re●use compliance by reason that the things were commanded by Authority: But because certain false Brethren came to spy out his liberty, to whom he gave place by subjection, no not for an hour. Really, Sir, your N. C. must indeed be very simple, that he could endure such imposing. You say, Paul did not re●use compliance, by reason that the Ceremonies were commanded, and yet his own words by you cited, say plainly, that though at other times, in the free and edifying exercise of his liberty, he hath in charity ceded to the weaker; Yet, to give place by subjection (mark it) the correlat and homologation of command, he would not, no not for an hour, Is not then to repeat only your discourse, to redargue it? I might tell you further, that by the context, it is evident, that the Apostle speaks in this place, of these that would have brought Gentiles under the Law of Moses, and the observance of the Jewish ceremonies, who certainly did pretend Divine Authority for their Doctrine: And therefore, and for this only reason, were in the vindication of Christian liberty opposed by Paul, and Barnabas: but let us hear what Stilling-fl●et hath put in your Mouth as to this Matter: You say then that, If an● require of us compliance, as if it were necessary of itself, we have reason to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. But it is unsufferable peevishness, if the Magistrate enjoin a thing, declaring it free in itself, and only necessary because commanded, upon that score to refuse obedience. To this it is answered 1. That it is unsufferable boldness for you, to allege a peevishness in a practice, so exactly parallel to that of the Apostles, who, as they understood the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, to consist in that real relief and freedom granted to them from the yoke and burden of the Jewish ceremonies; so, they do exhort believers to stand fast to it, which certainly imports a non-submission, and resisting to the imposition, either of these antiquat Jewish observations, or any other of Man's invention, seeing that these are indeed contrary, and not only an astrictedness, in opinion, unto the liberty purchased: 'Tis true, the false Apostles pressed their observance from divine Authority; but seeing the Christians than did except, upon the liberty which Christ hath obtained, and thereby proclaimed to us an exemption even from the old Divine Law of Ordinances, is not the same much more forcible against men's usurpation of an unwarranted tyranny; or think you, that our Lord hath only freed us from Moses impositions, that we might fall into the hands of more severe Taskmasters, who not only take upon them to appoint, without Gods warrant into the house and matters of God, and introduce will-worship, which he abhors; but after they have urged our obedience, as only Civil, and out of respect to Authority, and not from Conscience, do then tell us, that by a general and supervenient Law of God, their statutes become to reach even the Conscience also? But 2. you say, if the Magistrate declare the thing to he free in itself, and only necessary because commanded, Christian liberty is not thereby lessened. 'Tis answered, is not Christian liberty always opposed to the Jewish bondage? Now, Sir, I demand wherein did this bondage consist, was it in the Authority only, whereby these ordinances were enjoined, and which did indeed immediately reach the Conscience, and not rather in the obligation to that burdensome practice, which thence did ensue? And certainly, you, and all men, must grant the latter; seeing the speciality of Divine Authority, is so far from rendering an imposition, otherways light, to be burdensome; that without question, as its precepts are the perfect law of liberty; So the clearness of its warrant, is the greatest relief of Conscience: Nay, this is a truth to certain, and apposite to our present purpose, that I am sure you are convinced, that if the Prelates could produce Divine commands for their injunctions, these would quickly satisfy all our scruples, and make Non-conformists, the most conformable of the Nation. Give over then your empty quibbling, in telling us, that you exact not our compliance, as necessaire in itself by divine prescript, for though I could show, how that notwithstanding you pretend not to any immediate divine warrant, for your imposings; you not the less allege that Divine Authority, whence Magistracy doth descend, for astricting our obedience; Yet this is so far from being our exception, that plainly on the contraire, your ceremonies commanded in the Matters of God, against that liberty purchased unto us, are not in themselves, or in any other respect, so much a burden, as for lack of that very same authority, whereof you do most inadvertently pretend, that the want should be our solution. But 3. what can be more manifest, then that, as the hardship of the Jewish pedagogy, did consist in the multitude of their Ceremonies, and Observances, whereunto they were tied in practice, and neither in the obligation of Divine Authority, whereby they became bound, nor yet in their opinion of things, which, notwithstanding of their being enjoined by the Lord, they knew to be in themselves free, and were not in the least, by this liberty of opinion, delivered from the rigour of that pedagogy, so the releasement, which our Lord hath purchased, consists in freeing us from that yoke, and burden, which the Jews were not able to bear, and in liberating us from the Law of Ordinances, and the rudiments of the world? Pray Sir, is this only to change the opinion of things, and leave us as much obnoxious, to be subjected in obedience as ever the Jews were? who can admit it? If you be still unclear, answer this demand with yourself in sobriety: If the false Brethren had said to the Christians of old, we acknowledge with you, that the Jewish dispensation is accomplished; but since the Lord hath not expressly discharged the continuance of its observations, and they are but things external, and of themselves free, let us in the recognizance of his Authority, or for peace sake, still be subject in a conformable obedience: would not the Apostle have returned the same answer? It is the Lord who hath made us free, let us not again be brought unto bondage: the sun of righteousness is arisen, and hath obscured all the former shadowing lights, we have no need either of these, or the more pitiful tapers of men's blind invention: And here I must tell you by the way, that as I have drawn out my answer on purpose, to meet with your significant rites introduced in God's service; So, as to the first part of it, anent the liberty purchased to us by Christ, I further add, that it is a groundless conceit, to think that the only reason of abolishing the Jewish ceremonies, was, because they did prefigure our Lords coming, seeing it is most certain, that although the whole complexly, was indeed a pedagogy to lead unto him, and make that People to wait and long for his redemption; Yet a great many of them did not properly prefigure, such as the observation of days, distinction of meats, and the like, to which no such relative signification can be attribute, without a groundless and violent straining: and therefore, as I grant, that many of these rites, as being only shadows of the good things to come, did vanish upon their appearance, and consequently could not have been kept up, without a tacit hint, that the things thereby typifyed were still expected; Yet I am very assured, that as to a great part of these Mosaic Ordinances, our Lord did remove them, as a yoke and burden, by the gracious concession of that Liberty, wherewith he made us free, and that to bring back that servitude, or to introduce the like, is plainly to bring us back again to the rudiments of the world, from which we are dead with Christ, to disown the liberty which he hath purchased, and consequently, and as plainly as in the former case, to deny that our deliverer is come. 4. Having showed that the liberty of thinking the things to be free in themselves, the practice nevertheless being strictly enjoined, is not Christian liberty, and that it is irrational to affirm, that an observance commanded by the Law of God, becomes o● this account more burdensome, then if man's authority only did make it binding: And seeing on the other hand I easily grant, that in things in themselves free, and in our power, no reason of Religion or Righteousness gainstanding, it were peevishness to decline the request of an Equal, let be the command of a Superior: I shall here shortly declare wherein it is that Christian liberty stands, and consequently what the injury is of your invasion: As than Christian liberty, is neither a licentiousness to sin against God, nor to rebel against the Powers that are over us; So I plainly understand it, to be that freedom of serving God in Spirit and in truth, whereunto our Lord jesus, by relieving us of all outward observances, either as media in our worship, or for themselves requisite to the acceptation of our service, other than he himself hath expressly appointed, hath redeemed, and restored his Church. That the circumstances of time, place etc. and their due regulation for Decency, and Order, are not here rejected, the quality, for themselves, that is, for some respect, by special command, peculiarly to them appropriate, sufficently holds out; it being very certain, that, under this consideration, the matters of Decency, whereof both the conveniency and use flows only from the common exigence of all humane actions, do not fall: And that this is the true notion of Christian liberty, the Scriptures whence I take it, and wherein it is so clearly distinguished, from the Jewish bondage, there also described, john 4. 21. Gal. 3. 4 and 5. Col. 2. are so plain, that nothing can be added. Only I observe, that because by this liberty, we are delivered from these performances, whereunto the exercise of Religion, requiring, in every act of worship or service toward God, the Faith and Conscience of a Divine prescript, without which it is impossible to please him, was formerly by Moses Law astricted: Therefore it is indeed and is rightly termed, liberty of Conscience, which while you and others do conceive, to be nothing else then a freedom to think things to be free in themselves that are not commanded by the Lord, you do not only grossly mistake it, as distinguished from the Jewish servitude; but open a door to humane lust, and invention, to encumber and deprave the whole body of Religion, and the worship of God, with whatsomever fopperies they please to devise: seeing that, in your opinion, it is impossible, that Christian liberty of Conscience, can be thereby prejudged. Now, to prove that your exactions are high impingements upon this freedom, I need not mention these compliances, which you crave, and are in effect directly opposite to the will of God; but even your other ceremonies, all added as in and by themselves significant, to the worship and service of God, without the warrant either of his word, or of the common exigence of all performances, and so thereby made Religious in their use, and object; and therefore certainly belonging to Conscience, needeth no other argument to evince it, than the subsumption of a condescendence. Having thus in some measure cleared what I proposed, lest you or any other should account these things, to be matters of mere doubtful disputations, I must add, that as it hath always been observed, that the greatest urgers of conformity in the externals of humane invention, have been very little, if at all, serious, in the life and substantials of Religion; so the great prejudice thence ensuing, to the power and practice of Godliness, partly by reason of the imposers evil lusts and ends, partly by reason of that spirit of delusion, to which they are given up, and partly by reason of the vanity of the things imposed, and the Lords abhorrence of them, doth both discover that Mystery of Hypocrisy, and Wickedness, which secretly worketh under these vain forms, and should ever render them most odious, to all the lovers of truth and holiness. I might here further add, that as your impositions are invasive of Christian liberty, injurious to Conscience, and corruptive of the pure and acceptable worship of God, and consequently such, as no power on Earth can lawfully command them, or we therein obey; so, were it but for the offence that may thence redound, to the stumbling of the weak, and hardening of the imposers, to proceed from small beginnings to the grossest mixtures, all conscientious Men may very justly be therefrom deterred; but to this I shall speak at greater length. 5. Having showed that Paul's Christian civility, doth make nothing for your imposed conformity, and that to turn the free exercise of a charitable compliance, unto a yoke of bondage, is a perversion intolerable, I shall sum up the whole matter with this brief reflection, viz. that admitting the things required of us, were only such externals and nothings as you would groundlessly persuade, and that our forbearance had, in it, more of weakness then sound reason; yet the free Spirit of Christianity, which you allege, and Paul describeth Rom. 14. is, so far from urging us to your desired compliance; that I am very confident to affirm, that if the severest Nonconformist, had had the rule to dictate (pardon the supposition, blessed be the Dictator) he could not more manifestly and directly have condemned your rigid exactions in their matters, than the Apostle doth in this place: I need not insist upon particulars, the whole chapter is most express, Let not him that eateth (and you think all the points of the controverted conformity of no greater moment) despise him that eateth not. How do you then vex them with hard Laws, and grievous pains, more than you do heinous Malefactors: Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? Is a demand which one day will concern Kings and Rulers, more than any of their Subjects: Why do they then judge? Why do they set at nought their brethren? for all shall stand (and that on even ground) before the judgement seat of Christ: Let us not therefore judge one another, but let us judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall in his brother's way: You assure us, and seem persuaded, that the things pressed are of themselves nothing; but to him that esteemeth them unlawful, to him they are unlawful, and he that doubteth is damned if he do, because he doth not of faith; How then can you require this conformity? and of how different a temper, was the free and charitable Spirit of the Apostle, who not only indulgeth the weak Nonconformist; but becometh such himself to evite his offence? If thy brother be grieved with thy meat (or with any of the matters now in debate, for you make no difference) now walkest thou (spoken in my opinion to the Prince as well as Peasant) not according to charity, destroy not him with thy meat (or your acknowledged humane inventions) for whom Christ died: Say not that the things in controversy being concluded by Law, are no more free, or in the condition of the things here mentioned; for, if not only judging and despising the Forbearer be here forbidden; but even the con●raire practice, when to him offensive, how much more must the designed framing, and strick executing of Laws, for no other visible end, than the violenting of scruplers, and racking of their Consciences, (acknowledged by yourself for the widest step to Atheism that can be made) be in this Scripture condemned? If you urge, that to carry this indulgence so high, is to frustrate all humane Laws, seeing the person unwilling to obey, may always pretend, from Conscience, the privilege of forbearance; And as de facto you reason, Any offender may decline Discipline, and say that the thing being indifferent, by command it becomes necessary, and so a burden of Conscience. 'Tis answered, that as the burden of Conscience, doth not stand in a necessity, by Divine precept, of the things imposed, otherways the Lords commandments, that are certainly most easy, should thence become most grievous; but, in effect, in a forced obligation to practice, in things wherein Conscience, requiring the Lords warrant in order to his acceptation, cannot at all find it so; the liberty and privilege here spoken to, is only in order to Conscience, viz. That Christians ought not to press, or judge one another in the performance, or forbearance of things in themselves indifferent, as acceptable and wellpleasing to God, without his warrant: and therefore the force and effect of humane Laws, ordering and commanding things in order to the Politic ends of Government, and, in so far, by the Lord commanded to be obeyed, are not by this Doctrine in the least demurred: Now that your Ceremonies and other impositions, being all relative to the service and worship of God, wherein as every thing is to be observed, with the faith of the Lords acceptation, so nothing can be acceptable without his warrant, are not of the nature of things, as objected to civil commands; but plainly such, wherein Paul pleads for liberty, is manifest: Nay, you yourself know so well, that the very things scrupled at by us, as enjoined toward a religious observance, would be readily complied with upon any other reasonable occasion; and that thousands, who detest the Surplice, would cheerfully engage in a Camisado, for their Prince's service, that I add nothing: If you say, that the things in debate, though commanded for religious uses, are never the less enjoined not as acceptable to God and under this formality; but are only necessary because commanded; You bewray, not only a sinful gaudy licentiousness, of doing things for, and in the house of the God of Heaven, not commanded by the God of Heaven; wherein even Heathens, let be Christians, have been tender; but expose the purity and simplicity of Religion, to all the corruptions of man's vain imagination: As to what you add anent the pretext, which this liberty may give to offenders, to decline Discipline, it is yet less to the purpose, in as much as submission to Discipline, doth in effect flow from the Lords Authority, whereby it becomes necessary, and men's part therein is only a naked ministerial application. Lastly if you object, that public Peace and Order require your conforming obedience: Your opinion and method in this point, is much different from the Apostles, he makes it his great argument, not only for not judging and censuring Non-conformists; but also, in the case of offence, for complying with them in their forbearance, That we ought to follow the things which make for peace, and wherewith one may edisie another: But you and your party, for all the noise you make for public Peace; before you tolerat a Nonconforming in the greatest indifferencies, and howsoever tender and innocuous; will sooner both deprive your Brethren of Peace, and for your vain trifles destroy the work of God: whereas though you had faith in these things, yet you ought to have it to yourselves before God: But, Sir, it is already too manifest, that as in practice you know not the way of Peace, so, in this discourse, by pressing a strict obedience from the free Spirit of Christian liberty, which you seem to commend, you palpably condemn yourself in that which you appear to allow.  
Having thus far, in the pursuit of your reasonings, digressed, in the explanation of true Christian Liberty; because of its after use, in the perusal of your remaining purposes, I shall not stick in the considering of what you make your N. C. add, That we forbear the things pressed, for avoiding the scandal of others: I have already told you, that the reasons of our forbearance have no less than the indispensable motive of the will and Oath of God: Yea, suppose the things required were mere externals, and indifferent, as they are not; yet I have so clearly proven that your abridging of our Christian liberty therein, by virtue of your commands, is in itself repugnant to the Apostles Doctrine, and in its effects pernicious, that your requiring to make the restraint of Authority, abused to these impositions, the warrant of Practice to the forcing of Conscience, and the offending of a Christian Brother, is a Sophism, no better, then if the hardy practiser, or proud imposer, who is expressly commanded in Christian tenderness to regard his Brother's offence, should by a vain pretending of his own offence, taken from the others indulged forbearance, or recusancy, thereby turn the Argument, and elude the exhortation, to the very scorn of Scripture: That which I rather observe, is, that seeing that to give Scandal is not ill defined by you, to be a stretching of our liberty to practice, to the drawing of others to the like (or grieving or making them weak) who have not the same clearness, why do you not begin your application at Prelates, Who having first stretched their practice, to the ensnaring, do also frame unjust decrees to the forcing of such who have no clearness to conform? And on the other hand, ought you not to indulge such, who only desire to refuge their Conscience, in the Sanctuary of an allowed forbearance? But these are the men, whom having first sinfully spoiled of liberty, you scornfully abuse, by telling they may now act, without regard to Scandal, since you do permit them no liberty to the contraire: But I hasten to your more closely examination of the matter of Conformity.  
And first you ask, why do not our Ministers join with your Courts for Church-discipline? It's answered, it were tedious to examine the follies of you, and your N. C. in this point; we join not in your Courts, because they are not the Courts of Jesus Christ; but of the King, and Prelates: If this you deny read the Act Par 1. 1661. Sess● 1. Concerning Religion and Church-Government, the proclamation of Council thereafter, discharging all Presbytries until Authorized by the Bishops, and the Act Par. eod. Sess. 2. For the restitution of Bishops, where, as you will find that Presbytries were made Precarious; as to their continuance (not as to their right, which is indeed Divine) by the first Act, and then simpliciter discharged, and broken up by the Proclamation; so that which returns, in their place, by the last Act and what ensued, is not the former Presbyteries, but only the Exercises of the Brethren, having both their regulation and authority from the Bishops, who have all their Church-power and Jurisdiction in a dependence upon, and subordination unto the sovereign power of the King as Supreme. So that the King's Authority and Prerogative Royal, is plainly the proper fountain, and last resort of all the power and jurisdiction to be found, either in your Church, or its Meetings: Nay further, this 〈◊〉 so certain, that as his Majesty doth not so much as pretend a Commission from Jesus Christ, as the anointed King of his Church, for this effect (which yet the Pope, in his most wicked usurpation, did always Judge necessary) so, if it be Treason, as it is dict. sess. of the same Parliament, act. 3. to derogat from the prerogative of the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and if absolute supremacy in ecclesiastics, incapable either of superior or conjunct, do thereto by the late Act of Supremacy appertain, certainly to make our Lord so much as a sharer with the King, in this matter, would fall under the compass of this crime: However, not to rake into this abyss of wickedness, that Act of Supremacy, giving to the King, over all Persons, Meetings, and in all Causes of the Church, all the power, that Christ as head of the Church, in these things hath or can acclame, (a piece of such desperate folly, that I am assured, that as he that sitteth in the Heaven doth laugh, so shall he one day have all its contrivers, and abettors in derision) in this I am very positive, that according to the present legal establishment made in these matters, to derive the power of your Courts from, or connect the same with, the power and headship of our Lord Jesus, is utterly impossible. That we then, who as Ministers of the Gospel, do take upon us, and exercise no power, save that which is our Lords, cannot join and partake with your Meetings, yourself may judge.  
But you say, That all that is Divine in Discipline, is, that scandalous persons be noted, and separated from worship; but how this shall be administered, can be no matter of Religion, or of the concernment of Souls, providing it be done: 'Tis answered, to argue thus, all that is Divine in Preaching, is that the truth of the Gospel be declared: but how this shall be performed can be no matter of Religion, or of the concernment of Souls, providing it be done, would it not be false and weak reasoning. 2. As your Providing it be done viz. rightly, is a salvo, whereby a man may as pertinently argue against all means whatsomever, which certainly are nothing useful, providing the end for which they are appointed be rightly done, so this quality hath such an exigence even of these midses, which you suppose to be of no import, that it plainly subverts your Argument: But 3. Your position, that all that is Divine in Discipline, is, that scandalous persons be noted, etc. Is false, in as much as this is no more clearly to be found in Scripture, than the Persons and Officers therewith incharged, are evidently thereby ordained, yea this matter is so certain, that there is scarce one place to be seen in Scripture, for the warrant of Discipline, which doth not with the same evidence, hold out the persons entrusted with its administration: And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven: Whose sins soever ye remit they are remitted unto them: Feed, Oversee, Rule the flock, are Commissions so full, ordaining the persons, as well as designing their work, that I can hardly impute the laxeness of your reasoning, to your oversight.  
In the next place (for as for your quibbling with your N. C. anent the foolish answer which you put in his mouth it is altogether frivolous as shall be showed in your 7. Dial.) you urge, That, seeing that Presbytries do by Divine right acclaime a power o● jurisdiction, they ought to meet in these Courts, let the Law call it what it will, even as i● the King should abrogate all Laws for the worship of God, and declare, that all that assemble to worship God, shall be understood to worship Mahomet, and thereupon command all to meet; though we meet not on that ground, yet you hope we would s●ill meet to worship God, how ever it be interpret: 'Tis answered, If the jurisdiction competent to Presbyteries by Divine right were in these Courts, your Argument might have some weight; but seeing they are not the former Presbyteries, but new Courts set up, as I have already declared, no more deriving power from Jesus Christ, than your late High-commission, how can you think in reason, that either the right and power of Presbyters, or his Majesties call, should oblige Ministers to come to the one more than the other: For my part, as I esteem it a less sin upon the Kings call to come to a Court of his own erecting, then to abuse Christ's warrant to the establishing of a Court, as his, which by its institution manifestly disowns him; So, I should sooner resolve, upon the King's command to meet in the High-Commission, then, by coming from the motive of our Lords warrant, acknowledge your Exercises of the Brethren for his Courts, which are so palpably settled upon the basis of another Authority: As for your Similitude, not to insist upon such claudicant Arguments, it is like to the legs of the lame which are not equal, but make it strait, thus, the King dissolves all Christian Churches, and erects Mahometan Mosches, charging all to repair there to worship, and declaring that he will account th●ir so doing, a testimony of their compliance with the change by him made: Now if one should stand up, and for the persuading of just recusants, say, that they may safely go there, and worship God, without either owning of Mahomet, or regarding the construction may be made of it: Pray, Sir, how would you understand it? And what ever you, or any reasonable man think should be the practice or Christians in this case, I am content the N. C. be thereby judged: I confess the terms of the Similitude are hard; But remember they are of your own choosing, and my work is only to make them just; to conclude therefore, it is not men's interpretation or misinterpretation (although in many cases these homologations, whereby either Enemies may be hardened, or friends stumbled, require also a very weighty consideration) that we regard in this matter: but the real state of things, whereby as Christ's power is ejected forth of your Courts; So the Divine jurisdiction of Presbyters cannot possibly therein have place: To this you subjoin that suppose Episcopacy were Tyranny, and Bishops were Tyrant's in the Church; Why ought you not to submit to them, as well as you did to the late Tyrant's in the State? It is answered, if I did think there were any Emphasis, more than the strain of your discourse, in this your urging Our submission to the late Usurpers, I could tell you that though the cases were parallel, as they are not, all the submission made by us to Oliver would not make out your inference: And that it is Your, and not Our submission which only can serve your turn; I need not mention that Mr. Sharp Now of St. Andrews, was the first, if not the only Minister in Scotland, that took the Tender, and thereby, deserting his Fellow-prisoners, procured his own liberty: Nor how the late introductors of Episcopacy, were most or many of them such as by subscriving the Tender, abjuring the King, and the like compliances, had wholly debauched their Consciences unto the perfidious re-establishing of your abjured Prelacy: whereas the tenacious honesty of the faithful of the Land, was both then, and is now, accounted their bigotrie and folly. But to the purpose. 1. If Bishops had only been intruded upon Presbytries as they were in former times, it is not questioned, but Faithful Presbyters, not Outed of their possession founded on Divine right, might have continued the same with a due Testimony, and opposition against unlawful usurpations, conform to the old practice of God's Servants among us in the like case; but seeing in the late revolution, not only Presbytries were broken, and discontinowed, but the very foundations razed, a new foundation of the King's Supremacy laid, and a new superstructure thereon built, Our compliance now, as you require it, would not be an act of Submission, but a plain partaking in this wickedness. 2. The case of men's usurpation in the State is so vastly different from that of your usurpations in the Church, that it greatly altars the latitude of these submissions, which you go about to equiparat, for though, in Civils, the aspiring and usurpation of wicked men, be a heinous transgression, before God; Yet, such is the nature, and condition of the Kingdoms of the Earth, in themselves mutable, and at the disposal of the most high, who ruleth therein, and giveth them to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over them sometime the basest of men, that the attaining thereto becometh such a providential title, as may sufficiently warrant, not only necessary submission, and obedience in things lawful, but even these other acts of seeming compliance, that do directly acknowledge the Usurper to be in titulo; providing that they proceed no further, either to anticipate Divine Providence, in the establishment, or homologate the wickedness of the usurpation. If of this you have any doubt, I remit you to Scripture-practice, the customs of all Nations, the opinion of most Casuists, and Reason itself, whereby the taking and exercising of inferior offices, under undeniable Usurpers, is most certainly confirmed: And this is plainly the case, both of State-usurpations, and of the largeness of that submission, which it admits. Now as for Church-usurpations, the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus, not being mutable and perishing, like unto the Kingdoms of this world; but his dominion of itself extra Commercium, as Lawyers speak, of things not acquirable, and by Divine decree, an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed: As it is therefore incapable of all acquisition, and his Crown such whereunto (however the great ones of the Earth may bandy together and boast themselves against it) neither violence nor possession, can entitle; So, in case of a pretended usurpation, though Providence may order a passive submission; yet most certain it is, that in this case, where there neither is nor can be any title, all deeds, so much as of simple recognizance, are utterly unlawful: And therefore albeit that under the late Usurpation it was Lawful to partake, in the capacity of inferior Magistracy, of that power, whereunto the Usurper had in providence attained; yet, in the case of our present Church-usurpation, to acknowledge it in the least, by partaking of a jurisdiction founded in the pretended Supremacy, and not derived from Christ, to which neither the events of of Providence, nor immemoriable possession, can give the least shadow of title, is altogether unlawful.  
Thus I have unfolded to you the disparity that invalidates your Argument, and have also granted the passive submission, which Providence and Christian patience do always recommend: If the grounds here insinuate do not so easily engage you assent, when you shall add thereto these certain truths, 1. That in Civils, though the manner of purchasing may be in many cases injurious and unlawful; yet it may be sufficient to acquire the dominion. 2. That wherever the length of time, or prescription may superinduce a Right, there, even from the beginning, naked possession is quasi titulus, & qui pro suo possidet potest usucapere. 3. That although Lawyers speak of certain vitia, that in private rights hinder definite prescription; Yet all Politicians grant, that immemorial possession, or even that of three ages, is sufficient to confirm over any people the most violent usurpation. And lastly, that on the other hand, our Lord's Throne and Sceptre are everlasting, and such as can never be moved, I doubt not but all your difficulties will vanish.  
You proceed to say, that our Ministers are content to Preach and quite Discipline, a part of their Rights, why may they not aswell exercise Discipline, though not with a full liberty? 'Tis answered, 1. As I have already told you, that to sit in your Courts, is not at all to exercise Christ's Discipline, but a pretended power dependent upon another head; so, you do not truly accuse our Ministers of quiting Discipline: it is well known, that, in so far as is permitted, they do not separate Doctrine and Discipline, which our Lord hes conjoined: And if full liberty be not permitted, and they necessitat to acquiesce to what the Powers will allow, it is very disingenuous in you, to misconstrue this force, which they suffer, unto a voluntaire quiting. 2. Though by the manner of your proposing the objection, you would have us to believe, that the cases are parallel, and that in the case urged, as well as in that instanced, there is only a restraint laid upon a more full liberty; yet the disparity is most manifest in this, that in the matter of Preaching, without the exercise of Discipline, we are by force debarred from doing full duty, in which case, the doing of a part permitted, cannot be censured; whereas in the compliance you require, the very act is sinful, and is therefore, and not because we are denied a more full liberty, very justly by us refused: but having vainly concluded, upon the poor arguments which we have, heard, our Ministers to be Peevish, and made your pitiful N. C. confess himself nonplussed by his general pretence of Conscience; You ask him, what he can pretend for the people's withdrawing from your Churches, since there is only a small alteration made in point of Government. 'Tis answered, if all the matter be a small alteration in point of Government, it had far better become that charitable, healing and free spirit, whereunto you so often pretend, to have reflected thus; since the change lately made, by its previous' perjury, and subsequent deluge of profanity; the desolating of Churches, and dispersing of Shepherds and flocks; the disquieting, and vexing of thousands, unquestionably Godly and Loyal; the firing and filling all the corners of the Land with contention and discontent; the burdening of a Country, formerly exhausted and now expecting relief, with heavy impositions, and strange exactions; And lastly, the necessary and worst result of all these evils, the provocking the Lord to Anger, and rendering his Majesty's Government less comfortable, and desirable, hath occasioned so great a perturbation, and yet, is in itself, and imports so small a matter, why do not our King and Nobles consider for what the Land perisheth? Wherefore do not all men bend their knees and pour out their prayers to God and the King, that so seen destructive, and easily remedied a cause, may be removed? but seeing for all your sparingness in passing judgement; yet you cease not scornfully to censure a poor people, needlessly and unchristianly, by you ensnared, and thereafter more cruelly persecute, and oppressed, not repeating what hath been said by others in their vindication, I shall briefly run over what you here subjoin.  
You say then That Separation being a tearing of the Body of Christ, to forsake the unity of the Church, when there is scarce a colour of pretence for it, must be a great sin, 'Tis answered, I will not stand to descant upon the nature and several degrees of Separation, and how that nonconforming to, and compliance with a prevalent backsliding party, in effect the worst of Separatists, which is our present case, is very different, from the case of Separation, from a Church formerly acknowledged, and joined with; nor love I to inquire how far a man's entry into the Ministry, by open perjury and violence, and his profane and flagitious deportment therein, notourly known, may in the perturbed state of the Church, supply the want of a declarative sentence, making void his mission; Nor last, will I make use of your own plain laws, viz. the Act anent the restitution of Bishops, and the late Act of Supremacy, whereby all Church-power (mark it) is made dependent upon, and subordinat unto the King's Supremacy, to prove your Ministers, to be but Court Curates: But in this I am plain and confident, that if the Prophets, who, by their lies and lightness, cause the people to err, and speak peace to such as despise the Lord, and strengthen their hands, who walk in the imagination of their own heart, be not to be harkened unto; if we ought to beware and flee from false Prophets, whose fruits (of ungodliness as well as heresy, as is clear from the context) do discover them, to be but ravening wolves, destroying Souls, under the sheep's clothing of an exterior call, and hypocritical composure; if such who cause divisions and offences, contraire to the received truth, and who serve not our Lord Jesus, but their own belly, are to be avoided; and lastly, if these Destroyer's, and Offenders be the only persons guilty of all the Separation, and other inconveniences, which ensue, then are your Curates (as dignoscible by all, or one or other of these characters, as the night is by darkness) justly, yea necessarily, to be disowned, fled from and avoided, and only chargeable with that schism whereof you endeavour to make us guilty.  
But you add, That, in a schismatical time-serving humour, we come sometimes to Church, to ●vite the punishment of Law; but seldom, that we may retain our interest with our party; that we hear some of you but not others; that some go to Churches in the Country, but not in the City; and finally some join with you in the ordinary Worship of Prayer and praise, yet will not join in the Eucharist, which is but solemn praise. Sir, if you had been candid in this reflection, in place of imputing this variety to humour, and faction, it would indeed have moved you to pity the straight of so many good people, redacted to such a multi●arious perplexity; which yet, in its outward appearance, is but light, in comparison of these inward inquietudes, wherewith the contraire workings of the fear of God, love of truth, abhorrency of wickedness, tenderness toward Authority, respect to union and peace, and fear of punishment, do continually solicit them: If I might presume so far upon your credit, I could tell you that, in my certain knowledge, some have been, against their Consciences, forced by violence and spoill to hear your Curates, who therefore have mourned many Months thereafter, and certain of them even unto death; That others whom the generality of your Curates did either offend, or, according to the Lords prediction jer. 23. v. 33. after long trial not profit at all, have searched by a choice to remedy the evil; (for, that there are better and worse not only as to private, but also as to Public transgressions, you groundlessly deny) and last, that some have prevailed with themselves to hear and join with you in prayer and praise, who have yet still scrupled in their Consciences to communicate with you, in that Sacrament; which, beside the adjunct of solemn praise, is designedly institute to signify and confirm our communion in, as well as our union with Christ, from whom, we have reason to apprehend, that many of you, according to Scripture-rules, and the grounds which your conversations hold out, are at great distance: If then these things be so, let it satisfy you in this point, that, as the Generality of the whole land would account it a great relief to be delivered of all your Tribe, and many of the godly are convinced, that your Ministry being neither of nor for our Lord Jesus, is not to be owned; so all these umbrages of compliance, which you observe, are only the effects of curiosity, fear, or some other humane frailty, wherewith by you we can, neither in Charity nor ingenuity, be urged: But you are so desireous to win us to this conformity of owning your Curates, that you are willing to suppose them to be but Intruders occupying the places of our faithful shepherds violently torn away; and yet you argue, that although the high priesthood was in our Lords days violently invaded by the Romans, and by them exposed to sale, and those Symoniacks, did also usurp th● right of others; yet we find Cajaphas, as high Priest, Prophes●ing, and our Saviour answering to his authoritative adjuration; and though the Pharisees were wretched teachers, and very guilty persons; yet our Saviour saith, hear them; for they sit in Moses chair: which you sa● is unanswerable and was the doctrine of our own Teachers? 'Tis answered, not to insist upon the particular, and full answer already made by others, for dissolving the apparent force of this objection, it is to be considered. 1. That as this argument doth proceed upon parallel instances, and similitudes for the most part lame, and unequal; so the Jews their particular customs and observances, in the examples adduced, are to us so hid and unknown, and the Jewish constitution in General, of a Church and Nation joined in one special people, unto God, by virtue of a Divine Law, for matters both Civil and Religious, committed, even in its Civil part, to the custody and interpretation of their Religious Officers, is so manifestly different from that of the Christian Church, gathered in one, out of all and every Nation, only for things Religious, without any alteration in their Civil State, under Jesus Christ their Head and King, and the Ministers by him sent forth, that little light as to our present purpose, can be thence concluded. 2. That not only in the point of the Church's Ministry but also in its worship and other ordinances, to reason from the dispensations of Sovereign Providence, in the decline of Churches, the lawful compliance of good men with these Churches, in owning them in things found, and bearing with corruptions, which they could not remedy; and lastly from the Lords assistance and presence, that never the less hath therein appeared, For the declaring of what is duty, or not duty, in the exigence of the first innovations, tending and leading unto the setlement of these abuses, is very deceitful and dangerous. If in this ye be doubtful, my charity, I hope, shall give you satisfaction: what, before the Reformation, were the gross corruptions of the Romish Church, both in its Minister's Worship and Sacraments, is to you well enough known: And yet, that many pious and devout Souls, and some of them convinced and mourning for its abominations, did nevertheless therein sincerely seek and serve the Lord, and found the strength and joy of his presence, shall never be by me denied: If then it should happen, that in your high pretensions for Union & Peace, a Popish Ministry, or other abuses should be set up, and enjoined among us, would you think it just to require our conformity, and to offer to square duty, in such a case, to any of these particular precedents to be found in the times of the former darkness? I am confident you would not: If our Lord, when on Earth, did for a while connive at certain corruptions, in a dispensation drawing to its period, and if at the times of ignorance God sometime wink, and according to the obscurer light, and witnessing thereof, do allow the endeavours of such, who happily may feel after him, and find him; for any man thence to conclude, that the change unto the Gospel administration, made no alteration in duty; or that in a greater measure of revelation, whereby we are commanded either to repent of former, or to resist returning corruptions, we ought to be stinted to the old rule, and make no further advance, are wide mistakes: It ought to be the study of God's Servants, to discern times, and to know, in this their day, the things which belong unto their duty, as well as unto their peace: to tie up practice, that aught to be advertent unto, and hath a dependence upon every circumstance, unto generals abstracted and concluded from the particular instances of other times, is altogether fallacious. 3. Let me remember you of what I have already hinted at, viz. That seeing Separation is a departing from an Union once acknowledged, even in these things which are not in themselves condemned, which certainly is of great importance, and of a very weighty and various consideration; whereas nonconforming to, or noncompliance with the introduction of things that are clearly sinful and unlawful, hath a manifest warrant, and is of no such extent: from instances of not Separating, to conclude against Noncompliance; and from denying the Majus of Non-separation, to deny the Minus of a tender forbearance, is bad Logic: nay, so ill doth this parity hold, that on the contraire, the very aversion that every true Christian ought to have for Separation, doth mostly recommend this Noncompliance, which being a sovereign and prescribed antidote against these evils, which, if once received, may go on to greater corruptions, and necessitat a sadder division, is therefore to be timeously adhibite. For clearing of this, let me but ask you this one Question: The allowed Separation of the reformed Churches from that of Rome, doth it not plainly infer, that it had been better, and was the duty of these informer ages, to have seasonably resisted, and not complied with the first beginnings of these errors, and evils, which afterward did procure the rent? And however you may judge, that the causes of that Separation were no more than sufficient, and could have laked nothing; yet I am assured, that you and every rational man will say, that a timeous Nonconforming, warrantable upon lesser motives, might have proven the better course. I shall not enforce this consideration by suggesting the evil tendency of your way; nor do I tell you that it is a reviving of the same causes, that in process of time did produce all Rome's abominations, and that these floods of Error, and Superstition, had their visible rise from smaller aberrations; so that, if God should suffer the course of your defection to prosper, and wear out the present opposition, the Ages to come might more justly take up against us the complaint of our not timeous resisting; then we can regret the too easy compliance of these, who should have withstood the beginnings of Rome's backsliding. On these things, I say, I do not insist; but, that you may the more plainly understand the difference that I conceive to be betwixt Noncompliance, and Separation, I freely acknowledge, that if God had permitted this whole Church, to slide into the present evils of your Prelacy and corrupt Ministers; and thereafter had blessed us with a discovery; yet I would not, in that condition, allow the same necessity, and expediency of a Separation, that now I find, to plead for a Noncompliance; in as much as our present Noncompliance, is not only a more certain, seasonable, and safe duty; but is also attended with a faithful and edifying adherence to our true and sent Teachers, who though removed to corners, do still remain the Lords Ministers, and our Pastors: which things do much difference it, from the case of a proper separation, as above descrived, and do not a little justify these more tender practices which you would disprove.  
Now, though these few things premised do obviously satisfy the difficulty objected; yet, to render the application more full and easy, you may further consider, that your instance from these corrupt High Priests, set up by the Romans, doth not help you. 1. Because that the high Priest was ordained by the Lord, as in order to Sacrifice, so also for Rule and Judgement, and that not only in matters purely Religious; but also in all things determinable by Moses Law: at least as to the Ministerial declaring of the Ius, which, albeit in a great part merely civil, are yet, in this respect, termed the matters of God, and jubjected to the high Priest his judgement, in the respect mentioned. 2. There is no statute in Moses Law, affixing, as you allege, the high Priesthood to the Eldest Son of Aaron's line, who possibly might have happened to be an Infant, or legally incapable; but only to his race in general, so that there was a necessity that the determination of the choice should be in the hand of the Sanhedrin, thus Eli, Abiathar and Ahimelech were all of Ithamar, and not of Eliazer his branch. As for the promise made by the Lord to Phineas, it is neither made to the eldest Son of his posterity, nor did it give any proper right; but only an assurance, whereof the accomplishment is sufficiently performed in the return of the Priesthood to Zadock, and his line, notwithstanding the preceding interruption. 3. Not to enter into a particular debate anent the form and power of the Jewish Church, as distinct from the State, and wherein the differences did consist; this is the received opinion of the Orthodox, that though at the first institution, their supreme Church-sanhedrin was, as to causes and several other particulars, distinguished from their supreme Civil-sanhedrin; yet through process of time, and many revolutions of affairs, a confusion of the two grew more and more, and at length the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, whereof the High Priest was Precedent did degenerate into a mixed Court, and having the advantage of enjoying their Religion under their civil mutations, and keeping their High Priests and his Courts, when they lost their King and civil Courts, for their greatest matters, did exerce by their Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin all the civil power they could be permitted to exerce. 4. Particularly it is evident that, from the days of the Maccabees, the High Priesthood was much changed from its primary institution; and as more extended to and busied in civil Rule, then conversant in holy things; so much exposed to frequent invasions at home, and at length, with the whole Nation, swallowed up by a foreign dominion: Which things being d●e●y prepended, it clearly appears, that neither the practice of the Romans, founded in the right (though an abuse of the exercise) of their conquest, nor the simony of the purchasers, a clandestine crime, did make void their Priesthood: How much less than do Cajaphas his prophesying, a Providential Dispensation, or our Lords free answering and confession to his adjuration, whether authoritatiuè made by him as a Judge of the Nation, or otherwise, scarce sufficient to prove a Non-separation, militat against our Noncompliance, with your re-introducing of abjured Prelacy, and its corrupt Ministry. As for your instancing of the Pharisees, our Lords words in this matter Math. 23. 2, 3. are, the Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe & do; but do not ye after their works, etc. And that hereby you have no advantage appears,  
1. Because it doth not manifestly appear, that the Scribes and Pharisees here spoken of were Intruders; but, on the contraire, it is most probable that they were Doctors of the Law, lawfully appointed according to the use of that people.  
2. The Scribes & Pharisees, sitting in Moses chair, did teach the Law, not as appertaining merely to the Soul● & Religion toward God; but as the Municipal Law of that Nation containing also the rules of external righteousness and policy; and therefore are to be regarded not so much as Ecclesiastic Teachers, but rather as Doctors of the Law: whereby it is evident, that your argument from our Lords command, is as far, in this respect, from concluding our compliance with your intruding Preachers, as these National Doctors, with whom our Lord was not to meddle further, then to vindicat the Law of God from their corrupt glosses and practices, are different from out Spiritual Pastors, who being sent by Jesus Christ, cannot by Man be discharged.  
3. If it be urged that the Scribes and Pharisees were also the Teachers and Directors of all matters of Religion; and even in civils' did only respondere de jure from the law of God, although this do no way remove the disparity, immediately assigned; yet this is further to be observed, that as our Lord in this regard did expressly warn his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and in many things correct their vain and perverss doctrines; so his tolerance of them in Moses chair was only temporary, as of many other things, until the then approaching end of that dispensation, which he would not anticipate: during which time, if our Lord do command a well-cautioned observance, for the best improvement of that which was shortly to be abolished, can you rationally thence infer, that we ought, at the pleasure of men, both desert his sent Ministers, whom he hath not recalled, and comply with and own Intruders, so lightly violating, and abusing his Ordinance?  
But 4. Admit that the Scribes and Pharisees their entry to that office, were not in every point justifiable, and that they truly were very wretched Teachers; yet, their occupying of that charge, seeing our Lord did not send forth and establish his perpetual Gospel Ministry, until after his resurrection, was not circumstantiat with, and peccant in the violent exclusion of others, lawfully settled in that chair, which they possessed. Sir, this is so casting a difference, that I nothing doubt, but if you will only pose yourself, what you think our Lord would have determined, in case that, there being among the jews, an established order of lawful Teachers, the Pharisees had risen up, and by open perjury and violence ejected them, and that the business being still recent, and many of the Teachers remaining on life, and by all acknowledged for such, whom man could not exauctorate, the people had firmly adhered to them. Let your Conscience, I say, in these suppositions, sincerely resolve the question, and, I am most assured, the verdict of your own breast will be, that whatever was our Lord's connivance for a time, at a Non-separation from a course, whereunto he was shortly to put a period: yet, in the case here stated, he would not have commanded the people to desert their lawful Guides, and follow Intruders, and thereby countenance such a wickedness.  
5. Although I love not to play the Critic, and do grant, that the observance here enjoined, doth indeed infer Hearing not to be prohibit; yet your exhibiting of the command in these words, not found in Scripture, hear them, for they sit in Moses chair, doth found so like to that heavenly voice, this is my beloved Son, etc. and that Emphatic hear ye him there commanded; whereby, the old letter and typical shadows of Moses Law being antiquat, life and immortality were brought to light; that I cannot but account (that, however our Lord permitting the hearing of the Pharisees so long as that dispensation did stand not abolished doth here directly aim only at its right improvement,) the two, hear ye him, and hear ye them, in the same signification, to be inconsistent; and this representation, a Stretches savouring more of favour to your cause, than tenderness of Truth and Scripture-phrase. But I am tedious in a matter, so obvious, the sum, where in I would have you and all to fix, is this, that whatever may have been or may be the various dispensations of Providence, in the overcloudings of Churches, and decline and corruption of Ordinances, wherein no doubt the holding the foundation Jesus Christ, by sound Faith, and sincerity in God's sight, have gone a great length; yet as the instancing of such times, cannot, with any show of reason, or measure of honesty, be alleged for a tacit, and toward compliance, with the re-introducing of the evils of these dark times, in Doctrine or Worship, contraire to the revelation of a more full and pure light; so no more can it be made use of, after the manifest and sealed blessing of a sent and faithful Ministry, to persuade a voluntaire abandoning, at the lust and arbitrament of Man, of our true Pastors, and a willing and tame embracing, and owning of manifest and profane Intruders. According to which Rules, if you will be pleased to re-examine your instances, I doubt not but you will find them, neither to be unanswerable, nor that the Doctrine of our Teachers, against causeless Separatists, doth homologate your inference. As to what you add, That it is a great cruelty, if a Minister be put from his place, whether justly or unjustly, that the people should be starved. Sir, I am verily of your opinion; and therefore, as I wish our outed Ministers, had testified more love, in despising hazards for the relief of Souls; so I cannot but remember you, how dreadful a charge this driving away of Pastors, and starving of Souls will one day amount to, against such who have been its direct Authors: However, seeing the love and faithfulness of Christ, the Great Shepherd, hath secured the event, they that believe need not make haste, for verily they shall be fed.  
Your N. C. next Argument, is, That your Curates are naughty men, and weak preachers. Sir, such is the notoriety of this charge, and so afflicting aught it to be to every one, concerned in the credit of the Gospel, and honour of its Ministry; that, I am assured, all sober men will rather impute it to tenderness, then want of matter, that I incline not either to enlarge the objection, or insist in the examination of your answer. You think it an odd piece of Religion, for us to reproach our Pastors by the name of Curates, a designation not to be ashamed of: but though the name Curate, owes its invention, only to the vanity of men, by whom the lowly Scripture-stile of Minister was disdained, and be of no proper origination, and in effect the product of the corruption, both of the Church's humility, and purity of the Latin Tongue; yet, seeing you account it honourable, and I and many others do rather use it for distinction, I heartily wish that you and others, who do appear so sensible of an apprehended reproach, may be as serious in reflecting upon that important aggravation, it shall furnish in the last Judgement, against these who, in stead of caring for Souls, do visibly destroy them. As for what you insinuat, that the Curates are our Pastors, and over us in the Lord, pardon me to say, that I cannot find the relation, either in their office or exercise, and that, if Scripture-marks do entitle to Scripture-names, these Intruders, entering not by the door, are liker to Thiefs, these false Teachers are but revening Wolves, and these Prophets, who teach lies, are but the tail: Nay, every one, who rightly considers, how that in place of minding the Lords Work, whereunto they pretend, and honouring him before the people, they have made his offering and Sanctuary to be abhorred, and his name to be profaned, in lieu of that honour which you acclaime, may justly conclude, that they that despise the Lord, shall be lightly esteemed. Say not where is Christian Charity? to call the manifest lewdness and lies of these pitiful Miscreants, whose gross abominations are, almost every where, the grief of the godly, and the very scorn of all, nay such, whereof yourself pag. 30. doth abhor the patrociny, and for which, you pretend to be a bitter mourner in secret, 'Slight grounds, and to bid men be slow to take thence an impression, is plain mockery; Charity that believeth all things, resteth and rejoiceth only in the Truth, and rejoiceth not in iniquity: neither can you allege, our grounds being good, your Church, in our not complaining, to be neglected; it were strange charity to believe, as the proverb runs, that Satan will reprove sin. As for your alleging, that to separate upon the personal ●ailing, much more weakness of a Preacher, will open a wide door to Separation. Whatever danger may be in your smooth generality; yet, I am confident, not to own (for, as to separation, I have already cleared how the practice of these you do condemn doth differ from it) for Ministers, such vicious intruders, and flagitious livers, as your Curates are, is a Sovereign expedient for preserving both of Truth and Christian Unity: and that as to tie the good of Worship to the sincere intention of him that manageth it, is an error; so, to think that Gifts and a suitable converse in a Minister, are of no influence or regard as to the work of his Ministry; and that because, not to hear Sermons only, but the solemn worship of God is the chief end of our meeting (wherein you are mistaken, if you think that you and we do not agree) which we can do, be the Minister what he will, is irreligion unmixed, which your jejune commending of the reading of good Scriptures, and singing of good Psalms, doth not palliate. Be the minister what he will: What? be he Socinian, Arminian, notoriously flagitious, an Adulterer, or Incestuous Person, a despiser of Discipline, a strengthener of the hands of the Wicked, and sander of the hearts of the Godly, a Simoniac, is nothing but what he may will, and many of yours do, de facto, will: nay, be he Popish, Mahometan, Pagan or Atheist, all are but what he may will: O execrable latitude! But you conclude this point, that our crowding to hear such weak men, now in Conventicles, who formerly were of no esteem among us, says we are not so zealous for good Preachings, as we would make the world believe. Pray, Sir, if a man in plenty, make choice, and in penury make a shift, will you thence infer, he is not desirous of the best, this is too weak: but, to be ingenuous with you, I question not, but some Curates make constantly more able, and frequently better Sermons, for the matter, than weaker Non-conformists; and vet, the just grounds of our exceptions, do still conclude, that they are neither so good men, nor acceptable Preachers, as these whom we prefer. As for what you add, That the way to make a man popular among us, is to rail against Church and State, It is a malicious calumny, wherewith you endeavour to slander us unto our Rulers, and which they, who ought to be as the Angels of God, may easily discern and repel.  
Your N. C, in the next place objects to you, the obligation of the Covenant: wherein the whole Nation and the posterity are engaged, to maintain our former Presbyterian Ministry, extirpate your Prelacy and all depending on that Hierarchy, and whatsoever shall be found con●raire to ●ound Doctrine, and the power of Godliness. I shall not improve this argument, being of such an obvious evidence, in any further explication; but briefly review what you answer, on the contraire: And 1. Your evil Conscience foometh forth your indignation against the Covenant, in your reproachful calling it, our Goliath, always brought out by us, to defy the Armies of the living God, whose strength, like sampson's, lay in its hair, the Armies that fought for it, and not in any innate vigour. But as, notwithstanding all the arrows of malice, blasphemy, and rage, that you and your party, have shot at it, it still abideth in strength, and the Armies of its followers have been made strong, by the hands of the mighty God of jacob, and, even in their most desperate extremity, did by the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their Testimony, obtain the most signal victory; So, the Virgin, the Daughter of Zion, hath despised thee and laughed thee to scorn; Whom hast thou reproached? And against whom hast thou exalted thy voice? even against the holy one, the God of truth (●or what are men or their doings, that you murmur against them) the swift Witness against such, as swear ●a●sly: He it is that it regardeth the rage, and tumult of your party, and will turn you back: and as the inconsistency, of your assimilations to Samson, a Worthy of the Lord and to Goliath, a Champion of the Philistines, do plainly discover the unreasonableness of your spite; so the Lord who hath already proved the innate vigour of his Covenant, in the blood and suffering of his Martyrs, can also, in his good time, make its hair to grow, and strength to return, to the utter ruin of your Prelacy, and all its adherents. But 2. You proceed to tell us, that it is a ridiculous fancy, to say, Children can be bound by their Father's Oath, which is to make us the Servants of men, and give them Authority over our Consciences, Gods peculiar power: Sir; I perceive that whether you rage or laugh there is no rest: just now we heard you railing, and certainly here you are rallying: but first, I am glad to find your assert so plainly, the liberty of our Consciences from man's imposing, and shall only remember you, that if a Father, in respect of this liberty, may not, at his arbitrament, bind his Son by an Oath, requiring a conscientious performance, undoubtedly far less can Rulers, whether Civil or Ecclesiastic, perscribe at their arbitrament in matters of Religion, which, without question, do exact a conscientious observance. 2. Though, the Lords Authority over Conscience do indeed exempt it from man's usurpation; yet, in so far as it hath pleased the Lord, to vest any person with this power over another, all usurpation ceaseth, and the Lords reserved dominion doth rather establish it: for example; therefore it is, that the righteous and necessary commands of lawful Rulers, do even in conscience bind their Subjects; because in so far as they observe the limits of their power, by him appointed, their authority is understood to be of God, and by him approved and allowed. 3. It is manifest that the Lord hath, in many things, given to Fathers, by virtue of his precept, a Power of Command, reaching even unto Conscience, without an interveening Oath: Honour the Father and thy Mother, is that which God hath enjoined; and doth certainly require a suitable obedience; If then this Authority be not impugned by your alleged reason, that we are not the servants of men, can the interposing of an Oath, or the Father's adjuration, in things otherways under the compass of his power, render your objection more effectual? But 4. That I may return you a round and full Answer: I say, that in many cases, whereof our present case of the Covenant is of all the most probable, Children, by virtue of the paternal authority given and allowed by the Lord, can be, and de facto are bound, by their Father's Oath: And first, wherever the Father's command doth engage to a perpetual obedience, there can be no question, but, in that case, an accessary adjuration doth greatly intend the obligation: I need not confirm this by the parallel instance of Saul's adjuring the People, while in the pursuit of his enemies; the reason of this position is above exception, viz. That if a simple command, flowing from the paternal power which God hath established, be therefore binding, the solemn invocking of the same God to be an avenger of the contempt of that authority, by himself approven, cannot but add to the obligation: but if you desire to know in what things, and how far the command of a Father, even of itself, without the consent and acceptation of the Children, (which I grant, when intervenient, doth alter the case) doth oblige? Take the instance of the Rechabites, who for obedience to their Father Ionadab●s command, who lived some Ages before, 2. Kings 10. 15. not to drink wine (a thing free in itself, and not under any Divine precept) they nor their sons for ever, have therefore the Lords express commendation, sealed with a perpetual blessing: If then a Father's command in things free, and arbitrary, may be confirmed by the accession of an oath, and, in the case adduced, doth perpetually bind, how much more, must the sworn engagement of the Father for himself and his posterity in things commanded by the Lord, be everlastingly obliging. 2. In what case soever, a Father's Bond or Contract is binding to himself and his posterity, if he confirm the ●amine by an Oath, the force and virtue thereof doth also reach all the offspring, cocerned in the obligement. For explication of this truth, it is not needful that I determine particularly, what Contracts are perpetual, and what only personal: If these be perpetual, whereof the subject matter being either under the necessity of an express perpetual command, or having an evident and lasting conveniency, agreeable to the principles of Truth and Righteousness, the party contracter doth expressly thereby engage for himself and his posterity: as it is short of the true and full extent of perpetual contracts, which cannot in reason be restricted within the limits of paternal commands, so it is more than necessary for my purpose, and more than proven by the instances subjoined.  
Now that there are such obligations, as perpetual of their own nature so, carrying along with them the virtue of that accessary Oath, whereby at first they were established, is clear, not only from that Covenant and Oath Deut. 29. 10 & 14. whereunto Moses did engage the people of Israel, and which he declareth to be made with them that stood there that day, and also with him that was not there; to with the Generations to come, as appears by the sequel of that Chapter, specially, v. 29. an example whereof the exceeding evidence can only expose it to exception; but also from these more controverted instances 1. of that Promissory oath taken by joseph of the Children of Israel, for carrying up his bones from Egypt, Gen. 50. 25. which the after-generation in the Conscience of its Religion did punctually observe, Exo. 13. ver. 19 2. From the Oath sworn by the People of Israel to the Gibeonites, josh. 9 15. for the breach whereof, we find, the Lord several ages thereafter, severely animadverting against all Israel, and Saul's house in particular: 2 Sam. 2: 1, 2. For these you may add, the sworn Leagues, and Agreements of all Nations among themselves, which do undoubtedly, with the same force and quality, descend to their Posterity. But wherefore should I insist in a matter so evident, and, at least as to the difference betwixt us, universally acknowledged? If your meaning, in affirming that Children can not be bound by their Father's Oath, were only, that however, a promissory Oath, may be binding upon the Posterity, in the nature of a promise, and for performance; yet the religion of the Oath, is not so transmitted, as to render the Posterity, in case of a breach, perjured; there might possibly appear to be some ground of debate betwixt us; (of which afterward) but seeing it is apparent both from your proposition, explication subjoined, and design aimed at, that you deny a Father's promissory Oath, even in the substance, viz. so much as a promise, let be in the quality of an Oath, to be obliging as to his Children, you manifestly repugn, not only to the instances given; but to the common opinion, reason, yea and sense of all Men, Nations and Ages, whereby it is most constant, that such is, and hath been always repute, the power and representation of Father's quoad their Children, that their pactions and contracts, not only in matters determined by divine precept; but also in things in themselves free and indifferent, viz. their condition in order to the Society civil, whereof they are members, yea even their state, as free men of slaves, have, without the least challenge of Usurpation over Conscience, seeing founded in that Authority which God approves, been holden perpetually binding. But that I may immoveablie establish the obligation of this Covenant, which I am persuaded God will require, for ever: I shall not content myself with these common concessions. 1. That the sworn Pactions and Covenants of a Nation or People incorporate in one Body Politic, do, even in the quality of Oaths, descend to after Generations; because, while the same civil form of their constitution remains, they are still understood to be the same People, notwithstanding of the change whether partial or total of the individual constituents, which doth no more alter the formal identity of the Nation, than the flux and change of parts in our bodies, waters in a channel, or boards in a Ship, do change the samness of the Person, River, or Ship. 2. That the promissory Oaths of Fathers, in all things, whereunto the sphere of their Authority doth extend, do at least bind the Children, as promises, and to the implement: which concessions granted by all, do nevertheless, above all scruple, confirm the obligation of our Covenants, which you impugn: yet, seeing that I do apprehend, both the disparity placed betwixt a Nation and a private person, to be narrow and groundless, and the second position, to fall short of Truth's full extent in this matter; to remove from you all ground of scruple, I shall reduce the whole matter to these certain positions.  
1. That though assertory Oaths, being only accessary for further security, do indeed intend, but cannot extend, the force of any Obligation, either as to its subject matter, or the persons thereby bound, beyond its rational import; yet such hath always been the Religion, and Reverence of promissory Oaths as, (nothing impeding either from the peculiarity of the subject, or other circumstances, or from the declared will of the person engaging) ever to ampliat, and extend the interpretation, and make the successors, as well as the promiser himself, understood to be therein comprehended.  
2. That the true ground and measure, both as to the determination of the subject, and extent of the obligation, whereby the force of the Father's contract, expressly binding himself and his posterity, may be known and defined; is, this Paternal power and authority, it being in itself evident, that, as by reason hereof the Children follow the state and condition of the Father, (unless in so far, as the favour of liberty, or positive Law hath made an alteration) so, where the Father by command may oblige to obedience, if by his obligation he do bind to performance, he is thereby truly to be understood much more, de facto, to exercise all the power he hath, whereby he may render his engagement effectual: Now in what things, and how far Fathers may both dispose upon and command their Children, is sufficiently known, and their undoubted Authority, not only to command obedience to the Law of God; but also to determine them in matters free, are, by the examples of Pious Parents, and that of jonadab upon record, much more cleared, then is necessary to our hypothesis.  
3. Seing it is from the virtue and influence of this paternal power, that the Contract of Society, whereby Politic bodies do at first coalesce, doth descend unto the posterity, and so continue the Society, and its constitution to after-generations; the reason wherefore the other Contracts, either simple or sworn, engaged into by these associate people, do bind their successors, must of necessity resolve into the same cause; and to refer it to an imaginary samnesse, having no other reality than the first intercession, and continuance of the fundamental Contract of Society, is but an empty Notion, importing no real difference: for, as the perpetual obligation of the original Contract, constituting the Society, can have no other cause then what is assigned; and it were irrational to attribute its continuance, to a samness, which it produceth; so, it is only in the force and power thereof, that all other after-National-Contracts, are binding upon the whole, and propagat to the succeeding race.  
4. This third position being certain, it necessarily follows, that the oath taken by joseph, of the Children of Israel, anent his bones, and that given by them to the Gibeonites, both, by Scripture declared to be binding, as Oaths, upon the Posterity, have no proper and peculiar reason, but do unanswerably conclude, that wherever the Father's obligation, otherways binding to his offspring, is confirmed by an Oath, it is transmitted to them with the same accessary force, to ●ender them guilty in God's sight, not only of breach of Promise, but breach of Oath: which argument is so much the more evident, in the first case of joseph, that the Children of Israel were not, when they swore to him, embodied in a Politic state; but did only stand in their natural Relation of Consanguinity.  
5. Seing we find in Scripture the Lord Covenanting with Fathers, for themselves, and their Posterity; as in the case of Abraham: Fathers engaging to the Lord in the same manner, as joshua for himself and his house; the abovementioned import, and extent of Ionadab's command, and (not to mention the Father's power of devoting their Children, and of making void their vows) even the adjuration and curse of Rulers, taking effect, many Ages thereafter; as that of joshua against the Rebuilders of jericho: with what show of reason, can we deny (the matter, or other argument of a contraire intention, not prohibiting) that the sworn obligations of Fathers, are binding upon their Children, aswell for the Religion of the Oath, as the Truth of the Promise? I know that, as to man's tribunal and judgement, it is thought hard poenam perjurij illi irrogari, qui ipse Deum testem ac vindicem non invocaverit, that one should be punished as perjured, who hath not himself invocated God as witness and avenger. But as we do clearly see, the Lords judgement in the contraire; doth not the same reason, which, by making the Father's promise, for himself and Children, also their promise, and therefore binding, by transmitting the Oath in like manner, confirm its righteousness. I need not here precaution, against the Children their invincible ignorance of the Father's Promise, and Oath; their innocence in this case, descending from a clearer distinct head, and purging from breach of Promise, as well as breach of Oath, doth neither infer the liberty, which you plead for; nor impugn the transmission of a sworn Promise, in its Religion, as well as in its Obligation  
6. Our Covenant, being in the matter necessary and righteous; for the manner, made with and before God, to be perpetually binding; and for its solemnity, unanimously sworn, by almost the whole Nation, and confirmed by all the Authority in it, hath, such a concurring evidence, of all arguments, and opinions, for its perpetuity, as an Oath, that your nibbling at it, upon this head, is not a greater proof of your perfidy, than testimony of your inconsiderate ignorance; but if you be ignorant yourself, you do well to make your N, C● no better: and therefore you make him objecte against your assertion, that Children cannot be bound by their Father's Oath: doth not the Father's debt oblige the Son? and why not his Oath? But to give you the advantage you design: I willingly turn the Argument to make for you, thus: The Father's debt doth not oblige the Son, unless he be also his Heir, and in this respect, only as Possessor of his goods: therefore etc. To which I answer, that as by the tenor of written Bonds for debt, it is clear, that the Debtor doth only oblige himself, & his Heirs, and Successors in his Lands and goods, so, both Law and Reason do interpret, all ordinary promises for debt, to be of the same nature, viz. to bind the person himself, and to follow and affect his Estate, together with the person, who, enjoying, by universal title, the promiser his estate, is, by the interpretation of Law, understood to accept of the same, with that burden, and no further; so, that, if a Son, as Son, be not liable, it is evidently from the restriction of the obligation, according to the meaning of the parties; which I already told you, that an accessary Oath doth not exceed; and maketh nothing for a Son's freedom in Conscience, as to such other engagements, whereunto both the Father's power, and intention, do concur to make him liable.  
In the next place, I confess you do your N. C. reason, and as just now we have heard, the ridiculous objection you put in his mouth; so, in this place, to his unanswerable argument, for the children's obligation by the Parent's Oath, from the duty of our allegiance, descending from our Fathers their swearing the same; you return as ridiculous an answer: viz. That we are not at all obliged to the King by their Oath, but because the right of the Crown is in his Person: who can forbear to laugh? are you a Doctor in Israel, and also a high pretender for the King, and understands no better? You say the right of the Crown is in his person, but supposing it came there by the original consent, and allegiance sworn to his first Predecessor, (which I am sure is a title which, in this place, you will not quarrel) is not the same that is the cause of his Kingship, also the reason of our subjection? Or will you admit it to be the Creating, and not also the Conserving cause? How do the most common maxims of reason militat against you? You add, and we are born his Subjects: but, pray, doth our birth as men, or as men born in such a place, bring us forth with this character? then should all men, or at least even strangers, casually born in the place, be also born Subjects: whereunto then can it else be ascribed, unless it be, that we are the offspring of such, who for themselves and their posterity, did submit to the King, by a perpetual surrender, transmitted upon us, passiuè with the same obligation? If these things do not satisfy, I entreat you to reflect, upon the ordinary strain of all impeachments: where you will find, the person accused of Treason, though he never actually swore, or promised allegiance; yet constantly, and very congruously, charged, with breach of Faith, Failty, and Allegiance: nay, I nothing doubt, but if you were describing to us the crime of Rebellion, you would at great length prove, it, to be both falsehood and perfidy.  
Your N. C. proceeds to argue thus: How was Adam obliged for his Posterity, if Parents cannot bind their Children? And in return you say, This is strange dealing: and because you will have the instance an inapplicable mystery, therefore, you recurre to secret Divine transactions, without either warrant, or necessity: but, Sir, is not this a strange stupidity in you; be it so, that God's Covenanting with Adam, as the common Head of Mankind, so as upon his deed, to make their standing or falling depend, is a difficulty, which only God's Sovereignty can explicat: is this therefore also a mystery, that Adam might have been, any other father may be obliged, both for himself and his posterity; so as to tie them to obedience, and upon their own 〈◊〉 obedience (not their Fathers, which is the singularity o● God's Covenant with Adam) to render them guilty? or can there be any thing more plain, both in Scripture and Reason, then that not only the Lo●ds command, according to his will, should be perpetual to the Posterity; but also a People's Covenant, made with him to observe the same, doth oblige both them and after-Generations, to continual obedience? as the 29. of Deut. most convincingly holds out. But you go on still stumbling, thus: I Parents can bind duties upon their Children, they may as well bind sins, and this is to make way● or more Original sin than adam's. Who would not pity such impertinencies? The thing asserted, is, that a Parent may oblige for his Children to duty: and you subjoin, he may as well bind sins upon them: Certainly, Sir, these are not the words of sobriety: A Parent may command his Son to duty, may he also command him to sin? the ignis fatuus that seduces you, is that you appear to be dazzled, by an imagination of your own, that we go about to im●ute to Children, not the Parent's obligation; but their deeds, their duties, or failings, which, truly we as little dream of, as certainly you will find your present dream, about Original sin, when you return to yourself, wholly extravagant.  
But the next lapse you make, is, in the person of your N. C. whom you cause in place of adducing an obligement by a Father, binding himself and his posterity, to bring in the instance of the Baptismal vow, undertaken by the Father, in Name of the Child, which seeing it meets not our Question, you both objecte, and answer to no purpose.  
The next demand your N. C. makes, is, How then is Saul charged, and his Children punished, for killing the Gibeonites? And to this you make a very pleasant return, not unlike your answer made to our obligation of Allegiance, viz Shalt Saul is taxed for blood, and killing the Gibeonites, who by the Lords ratifying the Princes their Oath to them, had got a right to their lives; and not for perjur● against that Oath, which the Princes swore: Before I consider this answer, let us first hear the Scripture. 2 Sam. 21. 2. [Now the Gibeonites were not of Israel; but of the Amorites, and the Children of Israel had sworn unto them, and Saul sought to stay them, etc. Wherefore David said to the Gibeonites, what shall I do for you?] do not these words clearly intimate, that the injury done them, was contraire to that former Oath, whereby they were secured? To this you say, The Oath is only here mentioned, to remind the Reader of the former History; but doth not at all say, that the Oath was still binding: But, if the words be set down to remind the Reader, certainly, it is in order to some apposite purpose; and the blind account that you make, is scarce worthy of yourself, let be the Scriptures of Truth. Next, what can be more evident, then, that the Oath is first mentioned, to show their right, thence derived; and Saul's injury, being thereto subjoined, it is manifest, that for his breach thereby incurred, a reparation for an atonement is offered: and seeing the Scripture saith enough, if it say not expressly, that the Oath was still binding, it seems only to be omitted, because in that Age, there was none who doubted, much less of your opinions to deny it: Now as to your answer, I must take notice of what you seem to insinuat, that the Gibeonites were spared, not by reason of their Covenant, made with the Princes; but by the Lords ratisying of it, whereby they became to be excepted, from the rest of the devoted Canaanites; But Pray, Sir, do you not in so supposing con●adict your Fellow-brother the Surveyer of Naphtaly who ranteth (as you use to do) against his Adversary the Author of the Apologetical Relation, who asserted the same which you here suppose. 2. You speak of a ratification of this Oath of the Princes, by virtue of which, abstracted from the Oath these Gibeonites were spared, which you would do well to explain and clear. Seeing then you cannot but grant that the Gibeonites were spared, and enjoyed their lives, by the right of that peace sworn unto them, my next reply is most evident, viz. that your answer, alleging Saul's killing the Gibeonites, to have been cruel, and bloody against their Right; but not perfidious against that Oath and Covenant, whereby their Right was granted, can no more be said of Saul, than it might have been said of the Princes, who at first swore, if so be they had, the very next hour, brocken their Oath, and destroyed these, whom they had saved, it being a truth most certain, that as every violation of Faith, is, an injurious invasion of that right, which was thereby secured; so, it is impossible for a right, arising from a Contract or Covenant, to subsist, unless its cause do still stand, & be repute to be in force: You add, that Saul is taxed of blood and not of perjury: A poor shift; But I have already showed him to be noted for both; & bloody & deceitful are of too near a conjunction, to allow of your negative inference, of the exclusion of the other, because one only expressed. And now, Sir, I have ended this point: only let me say it without vanity that as I judge, your folly in this last discourse to be such, as no sober man could lightly fall into, without a judicial desertion; so, I am confident if there be any ingenuity in you, the return which I justly make you of the Epilogue, which in this place you so vainly use, will cover you with blushes, viz. Thus I have taken more pains, than was needful, to show the ridiculous fondness of your absurd notion. viz. That Children can not be bound by their Father's Oath; and have said more to disprove it then ever you will be able to answer.  
What follows in this Dialogue is a mere rhapsody of railing, and in the first place to decline your N, C. too pungent demand, that for all you have said, you cannot deny but the Covenant binds these who took it, you make a hideous noise, of that Little noise, which, you say, we made in breaking it in some things: viz. In our silence, and not declaring against the Apostasy, Tyranny, and Perjury of the Usurpers, and in our faint giving over to Pray for the King, Sir, contemning your calumny, I answer, were not the Usurpers sufficiently opposed in their evil courses, while there was hope? And is this all you can say, that the Lord having broken us, and brought us under their feet, in the humbling sense of his dreadful displeasure, we did not madly declaim against such, to warn whom, after their rejecting of our brotherly admonition, the Lord did not further require us: We love not to vie with you, or any other, either in steadfastness in the Covenant, or faitfulnes to the King, in these confused and calamitous times; but of this one thing I am most confident, that his Majesty was more obliged to the Covenant, and these who to this day, adhere to it, for the continuance of his remembrance, both with God and men, in the days of his Exile, and in disposing to, and preparing the way of his return; then to all the present high and false pretenders who are not ashamed, in their flattering impudence, to aver, that the most notorious and base acts of Compliance, whereof they were then guilty, were yet the effects of a pure and constant loyalty: As for the thundering, you say, was in your Pulpits, against your course, before we were silenced, and is at this day in our Conventicles: is it not enough, that you mock at the warnings of the Lords Servants, whom for no other cause, then true Zeal for God, and tender Love to your Souls, and just indignation at your sin, you have beaten and expelled; but you must also thereto add falsehood, in your alledgeance anent what you call Conventicles, and insolent insulting over our undeniable short-coming, in due admonition, after his Majesty's Restitution; whereunto an excessive desire, by faireness and moderation, to stop the precipitant current of your late defection, did too generally tempt us, before we were ejected: but the Lord hears, and regards●  
You tell us, in the next place, That the Tyrann's cruelty did formerly terrify us, and now we presume upon the King's clemency. If I had ever professed the hundred part of that respect for Oliver that the Chief of your way did, I would say, and say it truly, that what ever he was Titulo, he was no Tyrannus Exercitio; however, I am far from justifying the Usurpers their practices, or denying altogether his Majesty's Clemency, whereof the indemnity given to the same Usurpers doth exhibit so fair an evidence; but this I must say, that as I do wholly impute the withholding of much of the King's goodness and favour from us, to the malign influence of the unlucky conjunction of accursed Prelates, whereby some even of the great and most solemn acts of his Majesty's intended bounty have been frustrate and depraved; so such hath been, and is, the implacable spite and rigour of their Malice, and Persecution, that not only it hath surmounted their resentment of the Sectarian invasion, and made them ascribe all these Mischiefs to us, who were their most constant Enemies; but by many degrees exceeded all the violences, wherewith the Englishes, during their Domination among us, can be charged: If you require a proof; instead of a long condescendence that I might adduce, the case of the then Tories in the North, and late Risers in the South, with the respective measures, where with they have been treated, being impartially pondered and compared, is an irrefragable instance. As to the trip, you mention, of these who ceased, for fear of loss of Stipend, public praying for the King, which they had in print owned for a duty: As at the worst you can call it but a trip, which I think, if not the respect you owe to your Arch-master Sharp, who, at that time, not only desisted which others; but, as he may remember, did overture it to his Brethren, to pray in public for the than Protector; yet, the many horrid lapses whereof, upon smaller temptations, yours are guilty, might have made you forbear to mention it, so, all circumstances being examined, and the practices of the Prophets and People of God in old times duly considered, a Prudent correction of an overzealous assertion, will be found its more just censure.  
But your N. C. adding oil to your flame, by telling you, that for our particular failings, you have renounced all, you go on in your accusation, and laying aside our private faults, as if our public alone were more than your indignation can decipher, and expressly waving all design of reflection, that by this smoothing unguent, you may render the spears of your envy better pointed, you tell us, That all you do, is, but to let us see, we are but as other men; and not such wonders as we would have the world believe? Sir, though the world knows, that this is but your accusation, and not our arrogance; yet I must add, that so strangely hath the apostasy, and wickedness of your course prevailed in this Land, that a very small measure of Faitfulness, is enough, without any miracle to make any man both a sign & a Wonder: but you proceed to tell us of Monstruous faults we committed in exacting the Oath of the League, over & above that it was a bond of Rebellion, as you hinted in your first Dialogue, & I have fully there refuted: And as to the national Covenant, you say, it was a cruel imposing upon Consciences, to make a Nation swear, what they could not understand: A man would think that you having turned us from being wonders o● piety to be Monsters of Cruelty, and after so high a charge given● that you were big with some amazing discovery to ensue; but behold the ridiculus Must; you made the Nation renounce all the articles of popery, and amongst the rest Opus operatum a Latin word, and abstruse conceit; with many other niceties that simple people did not understand: and to mend the jest, you add, was it not a contradiction, to make them swear against Worship in an unknown Tongue, and yet in the Oath, which is an act of Worship, to use it? yea, you made them preface this, with a great l●e, that it was after full & mature consideration, of all particulars whereof they were not capable, beside the Tyranny of making men swear in matters, whereof some were debetable: etc. Before I enter upon this weighty challenge of words: I cannot but note the ingenuity that hath escaped you: Your Brethren commence our work from the 37, and tell us, that we were false pretenders to old foundations; but you by a plain impugnation of the National Covenant, as it was first contrived, and sworn, in the 1580. 81. and 90; do clearly intimate, the true consequential extent of your common prejudice and very plainly signify, that malignancy and Popery, for all the industrious dissembling of your Party, are nevertheless of a near cognation: nay forgetting, that this Covenant was framed at first by King james his special command, and by his reiterate authority and example, very solemnly confirmed, and even by King Charles, in the beginning of the troubles expressly ordained to be renewed; so prevalent is the malice of your error, that all the regard to the powers, whereof at other times you do so vainly boast, doth not here in the least restrain you from staging these two Kings with us, as Monstruous imposers. But to the objection itself, 'Tis answered, first, that it is indeed a cruel imposing upon Conscience, to make a Nation swear an Oath, they could not understand; but do you think that because opus operatum is a Latin word, that therefore the people, who, under Popery, had been too much acquainted with Latin terms and phrases, and at the first breaking up of the light o● Reformation amongst us, had often, both in private and Public, heard the Popish errors of Justification by works, Opus operatum, etc. fully explained and refuted, neither did, nor could understand its meaning? Or because to you, the opinion of Opus operatum, appears an abstruse conceit, and many other Popish tenets, renounced in that Covenant, seem to be but niceties: must they therefore be so to all? And was it impossible for these Servants of the Lord, who where employed in the conversion of the Nation, and did at first tender that Oath, to make the grossness of these popish falsehoods, and of this in particular, though under a Latin name, sufficiently plain, even to the meanest capacities? Certainly, Sir, the very simple ones, whom you despise, do laugh at the weakness of this arguing. 2. As you do not remember, that this Covenant was first taken, u●on the back of our Reformation from Popery, when all the errors, therein renounced, were recent in men's memories; so, you consider not, that thereby we first declare, the true Christian Religion, to be that which is revealed to the world, by the Preaching of the blessed Evangell, and received and believed, by the Kirk of Scotland, etc. And therefore do abhor, and detest, all contrary Religion and Doctrine; but chiefly all kind of Papistry in general, and particular Heads as they are damned by the word of God, and in special the Usurped Authority of that Roman Antichrict, &c, and finally, all his vain Rites, and Traditions, brought into the Kirk, without, or against the word of God, and Doctrine of this reformed Kirk. Now I would inquire, if these general clauses, clearly referring to the word of God, as the only binding rule of Truth, may not be lawfully sworn to, without a distinct knowledge of all the Particulars, that possibly may therein be included? And if the condescending upon Particulars, doth import any thing more, than our sincere profession, that we judge the same to be comprised under the general Rule, and therefore as such, do renounce them: seeing then, that this enumeration, when omitted, doth not invalidate; and when expressed, doth require rather a sincere acknowledgement, than a dilucide and through knowledge; your arguing against it, from the possibility, nay even from the probability of an incident mistake, while in the mean time the persuasion of the truth of the blessed Gospel, as the regulating Rule is held firm and sure; is nothing solid nor concludent: but because the two Latin words, Opus operatum, are the great ground of your quibbling, I suppose that the Oath, after the positive part, and general abjuration of Papistry, had only begun to enumerate particulars, thus, [and in special, the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist, all his tyrannous Laws,] and in place of the rest, had given us a fair et caetera: certainly as the premised, and subjoined qualification of this & caetera, would have fully salved its generality; so no doubt the known signification of the words, had prevented the offence of their being Latin: If in this you be doubtful, let me only remind you, by way of Argument ad hominem, of the Prelatic Oath ex officio, with its blind & caetera which, though for its illimited laxeness, joined with its evil tendency, did give to all sober men, just ground of scruple; yet upon the account of the Latin, was never quarrelled, by either Man or Woman.  
But you say it was a contradiction, to make them swear against Worship in an unknown Tongue; and yet in that very Oath so to use it: A witty knack indeed; if you were arguing with the Apostle, against worship in a strange language, because the unlearned cannot thereto say Amen, would you not account this reply, viz. that it is a contradiction, to bring an argument from the unlearned, not being in case to assent to a strange Language, when that very assent is, as to us, so expressed, absurd and ridiculous? Why then doth this vain subtlety so pitifully delude you? And why do you not advert, that a Tongue in general may be unknown, and yet, many of its words and phrases, not only transferred to our Vulgar with a suitable accommodation (as is manifest in all our speech) but also simply borrowed, and by custom rendered to all significant? Seeing therefore, it is the Tongue, as unknown, and not as Latin, Greek, or the like, that is the ground of the abjuration, against Worship in an unknown Tongue; and yet in that same Oath to use a word from it, of a known signification, is no contradiction.  
Next you add, That we made the people preface this Oath with a great lie, of full and mature consideration of all particulars, whereof we nevertheless knew they were not capable: but why do you in fixing lies upon others, impinge so manifestly yourself? The Covenant doth only preface, Long and due examination of our own Consciences, in matters of true and false Religion: as to your mature and full consideration of all particulars, it bears nothing: 2. As every Oath is to be made in Truth, Righteousness, and judgement; so, certainly, the examination mentioned, is both every one's capacity, and duty; and no doubt, in all times, when this Oath was taken, was not only recommended, but sufficiently warned of, instructed, and promoved by these faithful men, by whom it was administrate: but 3. Think you it so hard a matter, for any person serious in matters of Religion, according to the truth revealed in Scripture, to be able from mature consideration, to reject all these vain Popish Inventions, and Superstitions, enumerate in this Covenant; whereof, as there are a great many that, without any curious scrutiny into their nature, merely for want of warrants and through Scripture-silence, come to be renounced; so, in special, the conceit of, opus operatum, being contrary to the very life and spirituality of Religion, must to every one, who knows that God requires the heart, and is to be served and worshipped in Spirit and in Truth, certainly appear to be most detestable? Sir, your scrupulous doubting and mincing in these matters, do sadly intimate a greater measure of unsoundness, than I am willing to express: But you tell us, that many of the things sworn against, are disputable: Pray, Sir, tell us which, that you may be known? There are now ninety years since they were all abjured, as Popish Errors and Superstitions, without the least doubt in the contrary by any Protestant among us: If you judge otherways, it were better you were known, by a condescendence, then by your general and subdolous hints, left to render men's minds unstable. But you plead only charity● and think it hard, that no man may be of our communion, except he be of our opinion in all things: Sir, this is a groundless accusation, seeing it is sufficiently plain, that, whatever tenderness we are to exercise toward such, as in points less material, do modestly differ from us; yet this Covenant, being entered into, in obedience to that command, Come out of her (that is Babylon) my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins: and be ye separate saith the Lord: and touch not the unclean thing: the total abjuration of Popery, as opposite to the blessed Evangell, the sum and end of this Oath, doth not in the least interfere, with that Christian forbearance, which persons of the same communion, are mutually to show, in matters doubtful and of less moment: And where you compare this Covenant, for rigour, to the bloody and cruel conjuration of Trent, thereby interminis renounced, it is too plain, that your turning of the adequate extent of a just and necessary opposition, designed by this Covenant, to that wicked & impious Bond, to be a ground of an invidious likeness, is only a demonstration of your calumny and malice.  
Having thus vindicate the national, Covenant, as it was first taken, I shall only put you in mind, that the renewing thereof, in the 1638. and making the people to stand to it, is so consonant to Reason and Scripture-practice, that it needeth not my Patrociny. But you say, it was a great trepane to make the Nation swear it in the 38. and then by an aftergame to declare that Episcopacy was abjured in it. I might tell you that your so frequent use of the terms of Art, do not a little insinuate, how expert a Juggler you are, in the matter of Oaths: But it is answered, the Nation swore it in the 1638. in the same terms wherein it was first taken, in the year 1591.; but because that some doubts, whether the Innovations of Prelacy, and the Perth Articles, thereafter introduced, were by this Oath condemned; Notwithstanding that its obvious meaning doth abundantly import the same, both in the particular abjuration, of the Pope's corrupt Doctrine, anent the nature, number, and use of the holy Sacraments, his unwarrantable dedication of Days, and his worldly Monarchy, and wicked Hierarchy; and also in the general detestation, which it contains, of all Rites, and Traditions, brought into the Kirk, without, or against the word of God; And that the generality of the Godly in the Land did so understand it; yet, such was the tenderness then used, that the practice was only at first agreed to be forborn, and the determination of the Question, for the gaining of the doubtful and refractory, referred to a lawful Assembly. Now, if this Assembly, in the light of the reasons, already touched, and others mentioned in their Act, did clearly determine this matter, and the Covenant was thereafter taken, with an agreeable Declaration, where can you fix your challenge? To allege, after an Oath is taken, that to be thereby abjured, which doth no where appear in it, is certainly, as false, as the terms you use are scurrilous; but to declare from undeniable grounds, these things to be contained, in a prior Oath, which only the temptation, and darkness, of an after-defection did make to be questioned; is nothing else then a just vindication and application, requisite to a faithful pursuance, and whereof the instance of Nehemiah his renewing Covenant with God, with a more large declaration of the manner of the Sabbaths observance, then is to be found in the Law, is an undeniable warrant.  
But reason failing, your passion and big words must be made use of, to supply that de●ect: for you say, what violence did we use, to oblige all to bow on this Idol? Churchmen refusing were deposed; yea both they and Laymen also excommunicate. 'Tis answered, A faithful, and zealous prosecution, of the Lords Oath, from the Conscience of his holy jealousy, is only the just and laudable effect of his fear, and no ways to make it an Idol: But seeing you love such expressions, to swear and forswear, as your party hath done, without either constancy or repentance, is certainly to make an Idol not of the Covenant only; but of the Great God thereto invocked, who infallibly will one day avenge it: As for the Censures you speak of, if the perfidy of that refusal, with the other transgressions and delinquencies, whereof, the persons particularly censured, were, for the most part if not all, notoriously known and found to be guilty, be duly pondered, they will rather be found to fall short of, then exceed the proportions of righteousness: And though I deny not, but the heats, prejudices, and other temptations, inevitable, in such changes, to humane infirmity, may possibly have rendered the lot of some few (and these very few) recusants (rather obstinate then malicious) a little hard and apparently rigid; yet, this is most obvious, that the late revolution, hath so infinitely exceeded, not only for iniquity; but also in the measure of its oppressions, all the excesses chargeable on former times; that nothing less than an impudence, suitable to the late perjury, could prompt you, or any of your party, to move such an objection: but let us hear your conclusion: What man of common sense can think this the Cause of God, which had such monstruous errors in its first conception? Sir, though I think that in the matters of God, you do appeal to an ill Judge yet I am so little diffident of the cause, which I maintain, that only wishing you to be more sparing, in obtruding your own ridiculous delusions for monstruous errors, I heartily refer our discourse, to my greatest Opposite.  
In the next place, making a step of your N C. weak and groundless concession, That there were faults in the imposing of the Covenant, and taking it up at your own hand. That the matters of the Covenant are in themselves indifferent: you go on to argue, that seeing in these things, a man is not his own Master; but by the command of God obliged to obey the Magistrate, in all things lawful, a tye before all Oaths; as by no act of ours, we can be bound to break the Command of God; so no more can we oblige ourselves to do any thing, in prejudice of another's right, our Sovereign's Authority; and therefore, since the King and Parliament, have by Law annulled the Covenant, and required submission to Episcopacy, our antecedent Oath, a voluntary deed of our own, can no longer ●ind us, against the commands of the Powers, which are the mediate commands of God. I have set down this argument of yours more fully, to the effect, you may perceive, that if I have not so much of your common sense, as to comprehend it, as a clear demonstration; yet it is not for want of a just and true apprehension; but really from the greater evidence of the answers subjoined: and first, I say, your foundation fails, the matters of the Covenant are not things indifferent; but in themselves true, righteous, and holy, importing such an antecedent obligation, as, in the occurrence of the preexistent circumstances, did render the taking and requiring of that Oath, an indispensable duty: And this when you think good to quarrel, I am most ready to make out. 2. Supposing with you, that the matter of the Covenant is indifferent, and that in such things, the Magistrates power of commanding cannot, by any Oath or deed of ours, be prevented or prelimited; yet, Sir, think you, that your Omission, must so far charm us to oblivion, as to make us forget, that as King Charles the first, did in plene Parliament, An. 1641. under his hand-writing, ratify the national Covenant, with the explication, and Bond thereto annexed, and prior Acts made anent it, with such solemnities and concurrent considerations, as it is impossible to question it; so, his Son, who now Reigns, did, in the year 1650. and 51. take and confirm both it and the Solemn League and Covenant, with such Oaths, Subscriptions, (as well private and unrequired, as public) Declarations and Acts, that greater grounds of assurance, were never heard of, amongst men: if then this was the case of the obligation of these Covenants, at his Majesty's return (admitting all that you suppose) dare you, or any say, that the King and Parliament had power, either to resile, or to lose others, from the Bonds, which they themselves had thus established? If a Father's silence, and noncontradiction, to a Daughters vowing, and whose vows he may disannul, do make her vows to stand; so that he cannot thereafter make them void; how can the express, solemn, and sworn confirmation of King and Parliament, in favours of a Covenanting people, with any colour of reason, be thought to be either, in itself ambulatory, or toward others less effectual? But 3 to undeceive you, of the vain esteem you have for this argument, the very grounds of it, are manifestly fallacious: For, granting that, in things indifferent, we are by the command of God obliged to obey the Magistrate; yet this subjection is nothing so absolute, as is requisite to the inferring of your conclusion: viz. that therefore he hath such a right, as no antecedent deed, or Oath of ours, can stand in the case of a subsequent annulling command: But, the solid principles whereby this matter is clearly resolved are 1. That, as the Magistrate is vested from above with power, requisite and proportional to the ends of Government, whereunto he is appointed; so such is his right by virtue thereof, that no Subject can either decline his lawful Commands, or yet bind himself in all events, by any such antecedent Oath or other deed, as, being inconsistent with the condition of a Subject, may fall to interfere with a supervenient rational command: for example, sitting, standing, walking, are certainly things indifferent, and in a man's power; if then, in these things, a man should bind himself, by an Oath, as never to stir from such a place, or walk without certain bounds, though, without question, the man left to his own liberty be rather to observe his Oath; yet it is as little to be doubted, that in opposition to, or for exemption from the Magistrat's lawful and rational command, it could neither be binding, nor relevantly alleged: I say, Rational Command, because I am of the opinion, that if the Magistrate, without any necessity, should for mere ostentation of his power, command the person contrary to his Vow, on purpose to make it void; such an injunction would be both sinful in the Magistrate, and no liberation to the poor Votary. The 2 principle, I lay down is, That, as the Magistrat's lawful power doth indeed grant him a large right over a man's liberty, in manner just now explained; so it is most certain, that there are many things, still left to himself, and at his own free dispose, wherein he may freely vow, and having vowed, must not break his word; but do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth, and which are plainly of that nature, that the Magistrat's countermand would be only an accession, and no excuse to a breach: I need not adduce examples, every passage of our life, doth obviously exhibit them: if a man vow the Tenth of his substance to the Lord, it is evident, that the Magistrat's power cannot discharge the performance: and the Lord's express and well-cautioned concession of this dissolving power, only to a Husband over his Wife, and a Father over his Daughter in familia, and that by way of exception, to the general command, whereby all other free Vows and Bonds are ratified, is such a confirmation, and extension of the Rules, to the case in hand, as admits no evasion? But to give you entire satisfaction in this point, the sum is, first, That God hath bestowed upon men a fair liberty, suited to their dignity: Next, He hath also ordained the Powers, and clothed them with authority and right, requisite to the ends of their appointment; whereof the preservation of our just liberties, is not the meenest: as therefore, by virtue of the former, a man, in recognizance of the Lord's bounty, so far as his liberty is not restrained, either by a lawful command, or by a visible inconsistency of the thing vowed to any other duty, may freely vow, and aught to perform; so all the effect of the latter, is only to make void such vows, as are directly, or designedly made to frustrate its right; and to suspend the execution of others, in so far as the famine doth eventually cross its lawful exercise: if you had prepended these things, you would not have obtruded on us, such a raw discourse, for a clear demonstration: the Magistrate hath right to command, and, it is the will of God that we obey him, in all things lawful; and this tye is before all voluntary Oaths: but, doth it therefore so swallow up our Liberty, that it leaves a man no power in the same things, to bind himself by a vow, unto the Lord? or may the Magistrate annul, and make void the same, at his pleasure? I am certain, your own Common sense tells you, these things are too lax, and liable to another regulation. No act of ours can indeed oblige us to do any thing in prejudice of another's right, neither can any Covenant bind to deny obedience to the King's just Laws: but as I have already told you, that the Magistrate hath no such right, as doth wholly evacuate our liberty, and leave us no power in things indifferent, of binding our Souls by an Oath to the Lord: and that the outmost extent of his power, in these things, is only to make void the Vow, or restrain the execution, which is inconsistent with his Government, or doth check its lawful exercise: So I allow no such Covenant as bindeth directly to deny lawful obedience; but such a Covenant, such a Vow, such an Oath, yea such a Promise, as being freely taken, without any direct or designed inconsistency to the Magistrat's lawful power, and whereof the performance doth not eventually thwart any of his rational commands, I affirm to be so binding, that it is neither in the Prince his power, at his Pleasure, to dissolve it; nor can a supervenient Law enacted, expressly for that purpose, make void its obligation: And this is the true and plain account, of the nature and obligation, both of Vows and Laws, which while you, in your design to exalt the power of the late Acts, above the Bond of the Covenant, do so iniquously balance, as to make laws, the mediate commands of God, and Oaths, only our own voluntary deeds, to which we are not bound, by any Divine precept, you grossly forget, that he who hath commanded Rulers to be obeyed in all things, committed to their trust, hath, on the other hand, not only ratified the Subjects their reserved liberty, but also, by his own sanction, confirmed all the Vows, and Oaths, that by virtue thereof, they do freely make: whereby it is most manifest, that as the obligation, and binding virtue of Laws and Vows, is coordinate, and not subordinate; so, nomore can an arbitrary after-law dissolve our Vows, at first freely and lawfully made, than our voluntary prior Oaths can impair or prejudge the Magistrat's righteous Power, and Edicts. As for the application of these things, to the case in hand, viz. whether the Covenant, being once sworn, in matters at present supposed to be indifferent, the Magistrate could thereafter, by an after-act, render the matter unlawful, and so make the obligation to cease? It is very easy to expede: for, seeing all the laws which you plead for its dissolution, and submission to Episcopacy, are such as do most arbitrarily condemn it, without the least conviction to any serious person, of the unlawfulness of our entering into that Oath, either from its matter, or inconsistency with Government, and its righteous ends; it is evident, that to admit such as sufficient to make it void, were to destroy all liberty, and render men in every Oath, how free and voluntary soever, obnoxious to the Magistrat's absolute control, and plainly to ranverse both the freedom of making, and necessity of keeping all vows; which nevertheless the Lord hath most expressly allowed, and confirmed. Sir, as I have, with you, supposed the matters of the Covenant to be in themselves indifferent, and taken this pains for no other end, then to rectify your Common sense, and refel your pretended Demonstration, notwithstanding of so fair a concession: so, give me leave again to remember you, and all concerned, that, seeing the matters in these Covenants, were antecedently true and righteous, and are now concluded under the great Oath of God, your pitiful quibbling, upon the King's power in matters free and indifferent, is so far from licensing us to the least violation, that, though we do further unanswerably allege his Majesty's supervenient ratification; yet it is more for your redargution, than our own confirmation, whose Consciences are, by the former ground, most satisfyingly established: And here I might put a period to my reflections, on this Dialogue; seeing, that what remains doth nothing convel these sure grounds, whereupon we are founded; but because, in pursuance of your conceit of the Magistrates power, of rendering the matter of Vows, antecedently free, unlawful; and thereby making their obligation to cease, you, in return to the Question, What could move the King to prefer Episcopacy to Presbytery? pretend to many strong inductives, whereby you suppose the change to be undeniably authorized: This calumny must also be removed. And before I enter upon this matter, I cannot but commend your providence, who, fearing that your allegations would be found false, do prudently provide a refuge, in the profound and recluse depth of Princes their secrets, which you think should put a stop to the inquiry: which indeed neither you, nor all men beside, are able to answer; but as the strange wickedness and folly of this Act is such, as all the devices imaginable cannot so much as varnish it, with any apparent colour, and its consequences have been so pernicious, as have left no Subject in the Nations unconcerned in their smart; so, I hope, without the imputation of a mutinous curiosity, I may take the liberty to tell you, that it was not our Leaders, which occasioned the work, you hint at, to the King's Grandfather, his Father, and Himself; Art thou he that troubleth Israel? is an old and royal accusation of the Lord's Ministers: I wish the answer now a days, were as improper, as I am tender to use it: we have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy Father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed thy own inventions: I need not put you in mind of K. james his engagements to defend the Gospel, and maintain the true and pure Ordinances and Discipline of God's house, and how he thereafter turned, and corrupted his way, by no less than a direct invasion of Christ's Throne, manifest perversion of his Ordinances, designed subjection of the liberty of the Gospel and its Ministry, to his lust and pleasure, and open persecution of many faithful Ministers and Professors; These things, if you were ingenuous, you should rather have essayed to answer, as being already objected and proven by others, than provoked me to the repetition: As to what you objecte, from latter times, I am sorry that by so rude and false an accusation, viz. You involved the Nations in blood, and not satisfied with all the security you could demand; you engaged with the King his Enemies in England: and opposed the design of his delivery An. 1648, you should engage me to reflect upon a worthy, but abused, Prince, all whose faults I think both may, and aught to be buried under his misfortune; but seeing this you will not suffer, I shall only desire you and others to consider these sad grievances, which are elsewhere undeniably cleared viz. 1. The Prelatic Tyranny and impositions of these times. 2. The rage and fury wherewith they endeavoured to inflame and stir up all against this Kingdom, after that they had first constrained us to just defence. 3. Their notorious and reiterate persidies, whereby they rendered all security desperate: And lastly the sin of that backsliding course 48. now so evidently unmasked, by the 9 Act of the late Parliament, 1661. which, instead of delivering, did visibly precipitate his majesty's sad fate: these things are so manifest, even from the public Records of the Nation, that I can not but admire the effrontery of your confidence, that can so overly pass them.  
But you add a Question, In a word, what jealousies had you justly raised in the hearts of Princes, of your Government? Sir, I wish you had deigned yourself with another word of answer; for really I know none, except these old and endless ones, the temptation, and sin of all worldly Powers, against the Lord and his Anointed. As for our Tyranny 1649. against the Nobility, you should first have answered for their breach of trust, 1648: But since they themselves have publicly, by the Act above mentioned, avowed it; your charge of Tyranny against the moderately disproportionate censures, then inflicted, merits no answer.  
In the last place, you say: our Ministers divided shamefully among themselves, I grant, and sinfully also, though that all engaged were not equally guilty, and this was a great trial; but since, that an excess of charity toward your party, on the one hand, and a sounder judgement of your principles or rather looseness, on the other, was the only cause of the difference, is it not invidious in you, not only to have dissappointed your favourers; but to tax the greater number, whom you have since so fully justified, as men of maxims incompatible with Government: Sir, this is the sum of the account, you make us, of the reasons of his Majesty's change, with what evidence, the Reader and not you, must judge? If he miss your Sun in its Meridian, and find your light to be but darkness, a more simple eye and heart, may be both his satisfaction and your remedy: If I might enlarge in a more full return, I could easily demonstrate, that, all things being considered, both before, at, and since the King's restauration, his adhering to the Covenant, and owning that interest, had been not only his safety and peace; but his most certain establishment and Glory: if the favour and countenance of the most High, the firm love and loyalty of all good men, and the undoubtedly equal compliance and submission of the other parties, may be fit media, in such an argument; the conclusion is obvious: But lest you say, art thou made of the King's Council? Forbear; leaving events to God I shall be silent.  
Having all along endeavoured to burn, in the close of this Dialogue, you go about to blow us: I am not for trifling with you, in such unsincere and mixed compliments: the Lord purge both you and us from all dross, and restore to the Land Truth and Purity, and then shall we certainly enjoy Peace and Unity. As for the liberty you tax in our discourses, and writings, I hope no right discerner, will find it to be an invective; but the native, genuine, and well-becoming freedom of Truth and Uprightness: whether the licence that you usurp, in your pretended justifications of the King, the Laws, and your Consciences, be indeed uncharitable, bitter and malicious, I neither say nor judge; he whose glory is concerned he also judgeth: But for the allowance of your defence by Tongue and Pen, which you would appear to plead, from our asserting of defensive arms; you cannot be so serious in the demand, as I am free to accord it; seeing I am persuaded, that if the defensive arms, which we maintain, were no better warranted, and as little to be feared, as the self-defence, which you pretend, neither you, nor any other, would have accounted them to be worthy of the opposing.   

The fifth DIALOGUE Answered.  
SIR, Neither envying you that poor applause, which you vainly captate, from your Mock-Non. C. confessing himself to be by you much shaken in the matter of Bishops, nor regarding the pitiful scorn, you would cast on us by making him, or yourself rather, ridiculous in avowing a blind aversation, notwithstanding of his professed conviction, I come to consider his quarrel against the Bishops on the account of your Common-prayer-book, and what you answer.  
Your N. C. alleges That this Common-prayer-book is a dead and formal liturgy, set up instead of the pure and Spiritual worship of God: In answer whereunto, pretending as vainly, that these are but big words, as I have already clearly proved, that the Government which we contend for, is the interest, and doth appertain to the Kingdom of Christ; and thereby manifestly showed this your confidence to be mere calumny, you undertake to discover the fallacy, by telling us what it is to pray by the Spirit: And you say, [To Pray by the Spirit, is, when out of a deep sense of our misery and need, and firm confidence in God, we draw near to him, to offer up our prayers and praises to him, through jesus Christ:] And you add, [That our hearts being moulded in this frame, we pray by the Spirit, use we words or not, the same or different; Nay, it will appear we are carnal, when we need to have our devotion tickled, and provoked, with new words:] Which description, and the deduction from it, being laid for a ground, exciting yourself, by the feigned interjections of your N. C. surprises, at the wit and novelty of your invention, [in representing the Liturgie-worship, as Spiritual, and the conceived one, as carnal:] You go one, to discourse [of the differences, betwixt spiritual devotion, and prayer by words,] the terms, wherein you are pleased, very groundlessly, and impertinently, to state the distinction: [And the former (you say) lying in the will, and not in the fancy, and being affected with the thing, and not with words, can with the newness of affection, make the same prayer in words, though an hundred times repeated, at every return New: And, is a still, humbling, and melting thing, and so equable, that it is above the frisking fits of the fancy; neither doth it require a variety of words; but, in its sublimest exercises, can persist long, with great sweetness, in the simplest Acts; whereas, multiplicity doth perhaps lead out the mind, from pure and still devotion, interior prayer, and spiritual converse with God: On the other hand (you tell us, that) prayer by words, lying in the fancy, and its gratifications, by the varying of things into several shapes, the devotion raised by such Chimes, is only sensible, needing new phrases, to renew its fervour; and words, and all the heat begot by words, are but a false fire, in the natural powers of the Soul, which may heat the brain, draw forth tears, seem to wring the heart, b●t amounts to nothing, save a sensible fervour, and present tickling, wherein, he that abounds most in Mem●r●, Fancy, Eloquence, and Confidence, is likely most to excel:] from all which you conclude, [that it expresseth a more spiritual temper, to be able to worship God in simple, and constant Forms, and that extemporary prayer, cannot be called praying by the Spirit; except by Spirit be understood the Animal or Natural spirits. This I suppose is a true account of your first flourish, upon this subject, to what purpose, remains yet to be inquired.  
And first, I might take notice of the inaccuracy of your expression, of praying by the Spirit; whereas the Scripture-phrase, is, to worship in Spirit, john. 4. 23. Praying in the Spirit, Eph. 6. 18. to worship in the Spirit, Phil, 3. 3. to pray with the Spirit. 1. Cor. 14. 15. And though the difference be more in words then matter; yet, as the Scripture-diction is certainly the founder; so, I am apt to apprehend, that your not adverting to it, may have in part occasioned your vain and impertinent digression, upon praying by the Spirit, and praying by Words, as if these were by us wholly distinguished, and the latter preferred. 2. I might observe, that the description which you give us of Praying by the Spirit, is more suitable to the calm and serene progress of a Christians course, then to these doubtings, fears, wrestle, depressions, and overwhelmings, so frequently found, in the experience of all, to be thereto incident, which being no less removed from, and destitute of, a firm confidence, than the staying and assisting of the Spirit, with groans that cannot be uttered, is therein observable; your description appears to be narrow, and inadequat: But the plain answer, which I return, is, that as the stating of the Question, is by you wholly neglected; so the reasoning, whereby you go about to maintain your lifeless and superstitious Liturgy, is altogether inconcludent. The controversy betwixt you and us, anent your Service-book is twofold. 1. Whether the Public worship of God ought to be astricted to set and imposed Forms? And 2. Whether that form of Worship, which your Book contains, be not in itself in many particulars, unsound and impertinent, and consequently not to be received by way of directory, far less acquiesced unto as a precise injunction? That these are the two hinges of this debate, will easily be acknowledged; but what your above mentioned discourse doth contribute to its determination, I must again solicit your second thoughts, to render us an account. We have your definition of praying by the Spirit; and we let it pass. Next you subjoin, and that with many empty reiterations, that praying in words, specially extemporary and various, is sensible, fancical, affecting and heating the brain in lower minds, and producing only a natural fervour; and that thus it may be, with such, who pray in words without the Spirit, was never by us denied; but dare you, or any man else, not abandoned to utter irreligion, propose this as your opinion, of all prayer in conceived, and not precontrived and prescribed words? Do not the very truth of Religion, requiring both heart and mouth; the reasonableness of our service, consisting in their Harmony; the practice of the Lords people, in all Ages; the frequent examples, every where in Scripture; the experience of every serious Soul; yea the common reason of all men, redargue the gross absurdity of such a persuasion? Were David's Thanksgiving, 1 Chron. 29. 10. Solomon's Prayer, 1 King. 8. 23. and I●hosaphat's Supplication, 2 Chron. 20. 5. all without Book or Set-form, only extemporary heats? Are the praying Psalms, with all the exercises of the Lord Servants, in the Nynths of Ezrah, Nehemiah, and Daniel, and in other places, clearly flowing, as the Spirit gave utterance, without any taught frame of words, frisking fits of the Fancy? Was our Lord's Prayer, joh. 17. only a sensible fervour? 〈◊〉, Sir, I would rather suppose, that although your airy discourse, hath wildly seduced your observation; yet your heart abhors such impiety: I will not therefore insist on the advantage, which this your lax inadvertency so fairly offereth; nor shall I content myself with this obvious retortion, that where one instance can be given of conceived Prayer, only managed by Fancy, and subsisting in its vain exercise, thousands may be found of persons, through the practice and custom of Set-forms, habituate to a most lifeless and superstitious mummery, more suitable to the worshipping of stocks and stones, then to the service of the true and living God: Nor last will I vex you, by showing, that the distinction which you make of praying by the Spirit, and by words, is so impertinently by you applied, to our present purpose; that though you endeavour thereby, to impugn extemporariness, multiplicity, and variety of words, in Prayer; yet, it plainly concludes all words to be superfluous: for, seeing that in opposition to the spiritual worship of God, which we contend for, you tell us, that we may pray by the Spirit, use we words or not, and that spiritual devotion is a still inward thing: Is it not evident, that all outward Forms, whether set or extemporary, are thereby rejected? But freely waving these your lapses, that I may come more closely to the present purpose, it is to be considered, that the right and true worship of God, is certainly inward in the mind, will, and affections: God who demandeth the heart, doth thence expect, that tribute of reverence, love, fear, acknowledgement, and praise, which in his sight is acceptable; and all other outward performances, as they ought to be the sincere expressions, and significations of this internal devotion, so they are wholly and only regulable, by the prescriptions of Divine appointment. If this truth were as seriously heeded, (as I am persuaded it is fixed, and constant,) both by you and me, our controversy would soon be ended: The Question then, is not, concerning the life and truth of internal Prayer, wherein, without doubt, the spirituality of that exercise doth principally consist; but, seeing that you and we are agreed, that God whom we serve, is to be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth, the debate is, anent the manner, how this worship, specially when Public, is to be performed? Whether in set and imposed Forms; or as the Spirit giveth utterance? Or if, for preventing mistakes, you please to take it at greater length; whether it be lawful for men, to compose and impose Set forms for Prayer, and Worship, and thereto to astrict the People of God, in their performances? Or, whether it be more agreeable to the will and service of God, that prayer and worship, which are to be performed inwardly, in the liberty and truth of the Spirit and understanding, in their outward expression, be left to be managed, by the free and sanctified use of the rational faculty, for that end given, and in many observably gifted? By which state, as you may easily perceive that I do allow, not only the antecedent improvement of the expressive power, by all warrantable aides and advantages; but also the free using, upon occasion, of such words, as others have formerly, either dictated, or made use of: Nay even in so ne cases of several of you Set forms; both which I conceive are very consistent with praying by the Spirit, either as by you or by us defined: So, the precise point controverted, and to which I would have you all along to advert, is anent the imposing, and astricting, which I plainly judge to be both destitute of Divine warrant, and contrary to the liberty of spiritual devotion; and so repugnant, in both qualities, to that Worship in Spirit and Truth, which only is acceptable. But before I proceed to a confirmation, there occur some mistakes to be removed: one is, of some of your way, who, defining praying by the Spirit, the uttering of such petitions, as are immediately suggested, both matter and words, by the Holy Ghost, hold it for a Gift proper to the Apostles, and their times, and now ceased: thus the English Debater, and your own headless allegiance, that extemporary Prayer cannot be called praying by the Spirit, unless we also call it infallible, doth also coincide: But, seeing by your description, above mentioned, you do allow of praying by the Spirit, as not yet ceased, and do thereby very justly understand, rather the Grace, than the Gift of Prayer; although even the Gift, where it is (as it may be) without the Grace, may also have the name of praying by the Spirit; and seeing that both the Debater, and you, I suppose, would be offended, if any should affirm, that no man using the Service-book-forms, could pray by the Spirit, I only add, that as the Spirit is the great promise of the Gospel, its Grace, the life, and its Gifts, the strength of all Christian duties; so, praying by or in the Spirit, can no more be impugned, for want of infallibility, than any other good work, of the same Spirit in us denied, for want of perfection: But who would not pity two Doctors of the Church, either so disingenuous, or unable, as not to distinguish, betwixt the Spirits ordinary measures, and extraordinary assistances. The next mistake is, that reflecting upon the greater exactness of phrase, attainable in a Set-form, above what can be expected in an extemporary work; and commending the propriety, conci●neness and gravity, that may be in the former, in respect of that rudeness, incohesion, and levity, supposed to be incident to the latter, you exaggerate the comparison, as if the whole stress of the debate, did lie in this point, whereas he that duly considereth, will not only find your Forms, at best to be but humane and imperfect, and that the Gift of Prayer promised, if duly improved, in and with the exercise of the Grace, is, far more likely, to furnish sound, savoury and acceptable words; then these jejune and lifeless composures; for framing and enjoining whereof, men have no promise of the Lords assistance: And lastly, that the whole word of God, and the excellent patterns therein recorded, with many other helps, are at hand, and allowed by us, by way of Directory; but he must also grant, that it is not our choice, but the Lords own prescription, which he doth accept: Suppose your Forms were as much better, than our conceptions, as a Man's Firstborn, is preferable to the beast of the field; yet, if not required, they cannot come up with acceptance on his Altar: and therefore, I conclude, that however the sincere Users may find grace in his sight; yet the peremptory Imposers, cannot be innocent. A third mistake, is, that because in the use of certain Set-forms, a man may possibly pray, with deep spiritual impressions, and high elevations: Nay the sublimest acts of communion with God, may be expressed in the simplest Forms, such as, Thou art my God; therefore you conclude, that s●inted Forms, are more suited to true spiritual devotion, than the multiplicity and variety of words, in an extemporary exercise, which do lead out, and do too frequently only excite a fantastic transient pleasure, almost evanishing with the sound, wherewith they are pronounced: But seeing, that the variableness of the condition of a militant Viator can hardly be defined, much less the free actings of the Spirit, in such exigences, confined to any prescribed Forms, and that the more Seraphic raptures of Divine contemplation, do therefore subsist in few and plain words, because above the reach of expression; it is undoubtedly certain, that neither the right usemaking, or rather agreeableness of certain forms to very sincere and serious devotion, nor the simplicity of words, used in the nearest admission of heavenly fellowship, do at all remove the unwarrantableness and inconveniency of the restraint of Set forms, when under the necessity of an imposition. As for what is insinuate of these fancical heats and pleasures, wherewith words, ex tempore, may possibly delude; it is only an accidental inconvenience, from our corruption, and by the faults of your imposed Forms, infinitely overbalanced, as I have already showed. These things, being thus cleared: for confirming of my assertion, against your stinted, and imposed Forms, I say first, That these impositions are peccant against the Truth of God's worship; because the 'samine requires his own express warrant, and prescript: It is in vain to worship after the commandments of men; the service which he requireth not, he abhorreth; Will-worship is an abomination: But such is your imposed and commanded Liturgy: if now, what doth the Lord require? aught to be the serious reflection of every one, that draweth near unto him; if, in all things commanded, we ought to be circumspect, without adding to, or diminishing aught from it; If the Lord did most exactly define the manner, and every rite and ceremony of the legal Sacrifices and service, yea every pin of the Tabernacle, with the whole contrivance and orders of the succeeding Temple; if strange fire, made use of even in an offering to God, be so severely vindicat; and the erecting of another Altar, than he had appointed, even for his Sacrifices, what can we conclude, concerning your imposed Forms and the manner of that service, which you so arbitrarily enjoin? That they are of far greater moment in his Worship, than many of these things, about which we see, his holy jealousy to be so attentively conversant, commonsense doth evince: how then can they be received without his warrant, without which, all humane devisings are rejected? Say not, that the rigour of this strictness was a part of the old legal bondage: for granting that it may be so, as to the particular manner of that dispensation; yet you are so far from being thereby helped, that, as I have formerly showed that the burden of the things, by you imposed, stands manifestly convicted by our Gospel-liberty; so, the immovable principle, that, in his Worship, his own prescription is the alone warrant of acceptable performance, doth equally redargue the presumption of your imposing, in whatsomever model, without his Command. But it may be objected, that, seeing our extemporary Prayers, are as well a part of Divine Worship, as your stinted Forms, and that as to the frame of the words, the former can no more, yea rather less, than the later, pretend to a congruity to the word and will of God, the argument from the unlawfulness of Will-Worship, doth militat more against us, than you: 'Tis answered, If the question in this matter were only whether Set-forms, or extemporary strains, may possibly be composed with the greater consonancy, in words, unto Scripture-phrase, the objection might have some, (though in respect of what I have already touched of the promised gift of Prayer very little), weight; but seeing our debate runs clearly, concerning the manner, how the true and Spiritual Worship of God is to be externally performed; If the Lord, whole alone it is to prescribe in this matter, hath in a just congruity to the liberty of his own Spirit, left it to the night and sanctified use of the rational expressive faculty, and the due improvement of these helps and promises, wherewith he hath instructed us; for man vainly to arrogat a better contrivance, in his devised impositions, is an intolerable presumption: and therefore, though the conceived, as well as the stinted Prayer, be a part of God's Worship: Nay, though this, as well as the other, singly and sincerely used, may be accepted; yet seeing the Lord hath allowed the liberty of the former, and doth not at all require the obligation of the latter, the imposing thereof must, of necessity, be repute and cast, as an humane invention. I need not stay to resume, that conceived Prayer, for the reasons above mentioned, and in respect of the promised gift, and assistance of the Spirit, whereof the composing and commanding of Set-forms is destitute, may probably be, and is often found to be, the better phrased: Nor shall I tell you, that the manner thereof is so undoubtedly the more rational, genuine, and lively, that if even those of your way could be persuaded, that men were sufficiently thereto qualified, they would easily grant the imposing and use of Forms, to be less necessary: it is enough for us, that the Lord, who knoweth the best of our performances, in whatsomever sort, to be but lame and imperfect, hath both allowed, and accepted of our extemporary petitions, whereas your enjoined Forms are no where required. 2. I say, that the imposing of Forms impingeth upon the Spirituality of Prayer and Worship; That which boundeth and restraineth the free Spirit of the Lord, in the motions and breathe whereof, the very life of prayer doth consist, impingeth upon the Spirituality of Prayer and Worship: But so it is, that the imposing of Forms restraineth and bindeth up, etc. Therefore, etc. That the Spirit of the Lord, whereby his people, especially in prayer, are guided and acted, is free, not only in its gift, but also in its operations, both Scripture and experience do teach; The wind bloweth where it listeth, etc. and so is every on that is born of the Spirit: where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty: not only from the bondage of corruption, but in the ways and paths of the Lord; and more especially, in the large and all-searching discoveries of the mind, yea of the deep things of God: and what strange exercises have been, and may be, in the experiences of the Saints, the result of this liberty, and of the variety of our unstable condition, Iacob's wrestle, David's heart commu●ings, Spirit-searching, overwhelmings, and again exulting, Ierimiah's mournings, and Daniel's supplications, do exhibit a few examples. Now that the imposing of Forms, which are set, certain, and determined, doth stint this liberty, and cannot possibly quadrat to all the variety above mentioned, needeth no other evidence, then that of an ingenuous reflection. I have already acknowledged that in the right using of several of your Forms, a man may have his heart very deeply affected; and now I further suppose for argument, that such may be the aptitude of a full and sound composition, as may possibly suppeditat petitions and expressions, convenient to every exigence; but yet, that the Spirits free usemaking, and men's stinting thereof to these Forms, do vastly differ, cannot be denied; since that, notwithstanding of all conceded, the enjoining of these impositions is not only inconsistent with the free methods, but also doth confine the illimited enlargements of the Spirit, as cannot but be obvious to any exercised discerner: But that which, I suppose, doth induce you and many others into an error, in this particular, is a preposterous observation of certain good motions, and sincere and servant devotions, which possibly some may feel, in the use of your Common-prayer-book, whence you inadvertently conclude, that the same Forms, not appearing obnoxious to the escapes, incident to extemporary expressions, may, more safely and sufficiently, serve to the exciting and signifying the like spiritual motions and devotions, in all; whereas it is certain, that as in the former case, these motions were only the free breathe and stir of the Spirit, and in a manner accidental to these Forms, wherein they come to be uttered; so to tie the same free influences to the manuduction of a set of words, is more absurd, than the same words are often found to be incompetent to the setting forth of the singularity that may be in the case of the Supplicant, whether a whole Church or single Person. Really, Sir, when I consider, that the Lord craves the heart, and that men Worship him in Spirit, and that it is thence, and out of its abundance, that the mouth ought to speak; and from a believing heart, that the tongues confession is acceptable, I cannot but wonder, how this inversion of preceding and leading Forms should be so much asserted: and certainly if we may, after the Lord's example, Mal. 1. 8. reason, in these things, from self reflection, may not the knowledge we have of our own way, in such supplications, to or from our Neighbours, wherein the heart, and not the justice and merit o● the suit, comes to be regarded, teach us, to reprobate, and nauseate such impositions? If in hearty requests, we ourselves can neither be confined, in the making, to a rat of words put in our mouth, nor relish the like practice from others, and do censure such methods, as too cold and indifferent; how much more should we stand in awe, to obtrude them to the Father of Spirits, the searcher and lover of the heart? I might arise higher, upon this subject, and demonstrate to you, from the order of nature, which certainly the Lord hath principally ordained for his own Worship, Service and Glory, that the heart, and mind, and not the eyes, common sense, or memory (unless in so far as is requisite, to the joining of the hearers in Public prayer) ought to preceded, in all; and without question did preceded, in the first acknowledgements rendered to him by his creatures; but I neither love nor need to admix such reasonings to these Scripture-grounds already adduced: I shall therefore sum up this argument, with answering two objections viz. That I seem 1. to forget, that our Ministers in public prayer, do, as much, preceded and lead the people's devotions and affections, by their conceived words, as if they were set and predevised: 2. To suppose, that all who can or aught to pray in heart, are also qualified to a suitable utterance. And to the first it is answered. 1. That it is evident, that the People may, and aught to join in public prayers, uttered by one as their mouth, although the 'samine be by him conceived, and to them unknown, until expressed● this is clear from the practices of God's People, in these public prayers of David, Solomon, jehosophat, and others already mentioned: and you yourself lay it for the ground of an argument, viz that the people can join, and pray by the Spirit, though the words be not of their framing. 2, That although our Ministers do preceded in words; yet seeing the people are gathered in the Lords Name, and he, with the power of his Spirit, in the midst of them; and the Minister is called and appointed to oversee them, know their condition and necessities, and to be their mouth toward God; and lastly, seeing there is a promise of the Spirits public, aswell as private assistance, whereupon we may assuredly confide, both for a due instruction, sense, and utterance in the Minister, of the People's state, and exigence, and a sweet uniting of their hearts, in an harmonious concurrence, the agreeableness and advantages of conceived, and not imposed prayer, are thereby abundantly conserved: and the difference betwixt the Ministers preceding, in free and Spirit-directed words, from the manuduction of your restricting forms, manifestly held forth. Offend not that I say Spirit-directed words; for if I should descrive Prayer in the utterance, to be the expressing of these desires, which through the Spirit we make unto God, in the name of Jesus Christ, for things agreeable to his will, in words directed by the same Spirit; and thence draw an argument, for reprobating your vain devising, and rigid commanding of Forms, which practice the Lord hath neither ordered nor blessed, I should but define the duty, according to the Precept and Promise, which is no more impugned, by the mixture of your infirmities, than the account given by you, either of internal praying by the Spirit, or external, by a Set-form, which, as from us, do always labour of imperfection, are thereby made void. As for the second objection, that I seem to suppose, that all that can, or aught to pray in heart, are also qualified, to a tuneable utterance; I answer 1. That my present discourse, of conceived Prayer, doth no more suppose, all to be thereto qualified, than your discourse of internal Prayer by the Spirit, doth warrant the like construction: how men do pray, and how they ought to pray, are easy to be distinguished. 2. The Spirit of supplication, is no doubt promised, not only for inward motions, but also for outward suitable expressions; and the teaching of God is sufficient, and may be forthcoming for the one, as well as for the other: Nay as we know, the expressive faculty, where the organs are not impedite, to be always more or less subservient enough to the minds conceptions; so, notwithstanding that the Gift, and Grace of Prayer, be certainly distinct, yea in such sort separable, that the gift may be, where the grace is wanting; yet seeing the Gift is promised, and given, for the help of the Grace, at lest in general; (for, that in particular Persons, the gift may be found without the grace, for helping of the grace in others, is not refused) it is scarce to be supposed, nor can it be easily instanced, where one in whom the Grace was found, was totally destitute of all measure of the Gift; I say, of all measure, for that many have had the Grace, without that eminency of the measure, that men do ordinarily term the Gift, cannot be denied; but the thing to be principally here adverted to, is, that we judge not of the competency of this Gift, according to men's too frequent estimation. That the mixtures of that woeful vanity, from which, of all vices, our minds are most hardly purged, occasioned by a just aversion of Forms, ill framed and worse imposed, have too far altered the ordinary Rule, from sincere and acceptable simplicity, is too true a regret; certainly, if men were more denied unto their own wisdom, and more surrendered to the conduct of the Holy Ghost, even for the words which he teacheth, both the ungodly scorn of many, mocking at apparent weaknesses, and the pretended modesty, but real vanity, of others, their self-diffidence; and lastly our true and undeniable insufficiencies, for a suitable utterance in Prayer, would soon, and happily be corrected: But 3. admitting that most men were more unqualified, and worse furnished, then really they are, for conceived prayer, pray, Sir, what doth your imposing of Forms help the matter? That the representing of Forms, and other Rules by way of directory, may conduce for instruction, will easily be agreed unto; but that the imposition wherein the evil of your way lieth, addeth nothing by way of help; but on the contraire, is a presumptuous prescriving in God's Worship, a manifest restraining of the Spirit of Grace and Supplication, and plainly injurious, both to the exercise and improvement of the Gift of Prayer, is not less obvious, to every one's apprehension, then by the arguments adduced evidently evinced.  
Having thus discussed the first part of our present debate, anent the imposing of Forms in general: The second part, whether that Systeme of Forms, contained in your Service-book, be not (for not a few of them) unfound, and impertinent, and not to be received, so much as for a Directory, remains yet to be handled? But since it is a little after, that you are pleased only to give a touch on this head, and that the 'samine on our part, hath been fully spoke to, by such, who by their examinations and anatomies, have abundantly discovered, both the Errors and Superstition, which your Liturgy contains; I proceed to answer, what remains of your reasoning.  
And 1. You lay it down as a ground, that, in opposition to your Forms, we hold spiritual devotion to be only the using and pouring out of unprescrived words, as if that were all required: Which is altogether false, and ridiculous; seeing it is evident, that as no prayer is acceptable, unless made in the Spirit; so we therefore call our way spiritual, yours formal, in respect, that ours is suited to the liberty, and made dependent on the Spirits direction, whereas your impositions, do both restrain the Spirit, and are plainly a humane invention.  
2. You say, That it expresseth a more spiritual temper, to be able to Worship God in simple and constant Forms: But 1. That this doth indeed import more spirituality, than the imaginative strains of these, who only flow, and are fervide in words, and are not fervent in Spirit, serving the Lord; which is the very sum of your discourse, is no more certain, then impertinently by you insisted on. 2. That the elevations of Spirit may, sometime, surmount the faculty of expression, as I have already touched, is as little to your purpose. 3. That it expresseth a more spiritual temper, to be able to Worship in a set-form, then, in the same inward frame, to be able in free and Spirit-directed words, in a more full and lively manner, than any stinted Forms can pretend, to express our prayers, and our praises unto God; I utterly deny: And am very confident, that when you attain to the experience, you will be far from thinking, that this is a multiplicity, which doth lead out.  
3. You say, that if extemporary prayer be by the Spirit, it must be infallible: But poor man, do you not consider 1. That the Spirits direction, and out imperfection are not incompatible. 2. That this doth as much militat against spiritual prayer, in, and by your humane Forms, which you so much magnify; and yet they are neither perfect, nor infallible. 3. I have already told you, that the Spirits extraordinary infallible assistance, and ordinary presence and direction, are most distinguishable. 4. You yourself plead, that as we affirm, that the people may join with the Minister, and Pray by the Spirit, though the words be not of their framing; so the Minister may also pray in the Spirit, though he use words framed by others, and yet you know, that neither the one nor the other are infallible. 4. You say, If one should with a shorthand follow his prayer, whom we say prays by the Spirit; then, may not that prayer be used over again? Or, is the Spirit in the prayer so volatile, that it evaporats in the saving? Really, might I be free without offence, I would tell you my fears, that both your Reason, and Religionare evaporat: art thou a Master of Israel and askest such questions? do either we affirm, that praying by the Spirit, doth consist principally in the conceiving of words, so, as another using, but not conceiving the same words, cannot pray by the Spirit? Or, do you imagine that the Spirit in Prayer, is in the dress and form of words, so that whoever doth use them, doth pray by the Spirit? And seeing that both members are groundless, what can your question import? What it is to pray by the Spirit, we have already heard, which, as it doth not impede, why a man may not possibly join, and pray in the Spirit, though in the words of your Forms, when uttered by the coldest Form alist; so, neither is it by us tied to the conceiving and expressing of words; nor doth a man's praying by the Spirit, yet in words, either composed, or uttered by another, in the least impugn that spiritual liberty in oral Prayer, by us asserted, against your unwarrantable impositions; which liberty, consisting in the unconfined use of words, left to the Spirits direction, as it is most agreeable to the freedom of the Spirit, and our rational service, which the Lord, who requireth it, hath not astricted unto Forms; so, in respect of your carnal, restringent, and unwarrantable imposings, is therefore, and most justly, termed spiritual. But it were only a weariness to trace all your Mistakes, and inconsistencies in this question; he who can conceive, that the spiritual manner of prayer by us commended, is neither, on the one hand, a praying always in new words, nor, on the other, such as can be lawfully tied up, to humane stinted forms; but is to be performed, whether by a man for himself, or with and for others, in words freely directed by the same Spirit, from which the inward desires and motions ought to proceed, will easily tell you, that the case of a Ministers following this Rule, and being astricted to words, framed by another, hold no parallel, and with the same facility, unravel all your other quibblings, and pity your impertinencies: and therefore I go forward. Your N. C. asks, but doth not the Spirit help our infirmities and teach us to pray? And you tell him, that, the words aright considered, speak out a far different thing from what he would draw from them, and that the Spirit doth indeed teach us the matter of our Prayers, and also the manner, to wit, the temper of our hearts; but, that words are not meant, appears from what follows, and maketh intercession for us with groans that cannot be uttered. But, Sir, if the Apostle commend the Spirits assistance to us, in prayer, in intending our desires, above the earnestness that words can express; doth it therefore follow, that, in the directing of our utterance, which is a lesser matter, his help is not to be expected? 2. Though in this place, the Spirits help for the direction of our words were not meant; can you deny, that, that gift, is not fully elsewhere promised? have you forgot the anointing that teacheth us of all things? The Spirit that giveth utterance? And the Father of lights from whom cometh every good Gift? And who enricheth us by jesus Christ in all utterance and in all knowledge? Or, need I to remember you of the promises, that the heart of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be ready to speak plainly, or elegantly: and again the tongue of the dumb shall sing: Really, Sir, if a man diffident of the readiness of his expression, cannot from these open fountains draw supply, I am confident that the brocken Cisterns of your imposed Forms, will make him but small relief. After this, relapsing into your former prejudice, and causing your N. C. to say, That in this embodied state, we need to have our Souls stirred up by the commotion of our Fancies, you accept of the acknowledgement, and thence infer, That at least, such a way of praying, is not so sublime, and therefore ought not to be called praying by the Spirit: But, Sir, as I have already told you, that he, who being internally moved by the Spirit of Grace, neither needeth a Set-form, to obstetricat his expression, nor therein confineth himself to it; but out of the abundance of his heart, and, in words directed by the Holy Ghost, doth flow forth in his Prayers and Praises; is indeed of a higher size, than he who having the same devotion toward God, is therein either stinted by another, or straitened in himself, to a limiting and restricting Form; so, your talking in this place of the stir of the Soul, by the commotion of Fancy, and the gratifications of Nature and imagination, is, but the gratification of your own vanity, in as much, as it neither pertaineth to the present Question, whereof the lawfulness or unlawfulness of men's imposing Set-forms of Worship, and not the life or spirituality thereof (wherein I hope we are agreed) is the subject; neither do we either teach or defend, but plainly reject, these carnal methods, here by you supposed to excite devotion by fancy, and kindle our affections by imaginations, where the inspiration of the Spirit ought to warm the heart, and blow the flame, as being the offering of strange fire unto the Lord, in place of the heavenly fire, that descends from himself, upon his Altar: It is true, the heart, and desires thereof, being once set on work, by this divine principle, may, and aught to enlarge itself, by the summoning and exciting of its affections, and whole mind and strength, for the intending of its fervour, and elevating of the Soul; but this truth, doth so little favour your impositions, in preference to our way, that by a new argument, it further, and evidently confirms, the narrowness and insufficiency of your stinted Forms, to that spiritual Soul-devotion, wherein the Lord delights.  
But you say, That, you will convince us of the evil of extemporary Forms; and 1. you say, That, I must long exercise my attention, to consider what he who prays intends, and this strangely draweth out the mind from devotion, which cannot vigorously act two powers at once; and therefore you conclude, that both in reason and experience, Set-forms do conduct a man's devotion, with less anxiety, wavering or distraction: To this it is answered 1. That seeing the Churches of Christ are united, not only in the same form of profession, but in the same Spirit, and have the promise of the presence of the Lord and his power, in all their Assemblies gathered in his Name, whereby both Minister and People, may expect all due assistance in their performances; your supposed unacquaintedness in the People, with what the Minister intends, with the long attention, and strange out-drawing of the mind, which you thence infer, are but your own groundless and faithless imaginations: 2. That a certain measure of previous attention in joining, either with conceived, or imposed Forms, is necessary to instruct our devotion, is neither by you, nor us to be denied; but how you can thence conclude, that attention, as such, which in this case, both in your and our way is absolutely necessary, directly preparatory, and leading into, should lead out from the devotion to ensue; and by what Logic you make the attention, or inclination of the mind, and the devotion thence arising, almost as connected, as the inclining of the ear, and harkening are, two powers, (and not two acts) and these also incompatible, surpasseth common understanding: It is true, if I could suppose with you, that the People, nay the Minister himself, going about to pray, were wholly ignorant, how he will discharge it, and that therefore, they, either join blindly, or with anxiety; nay further that our way labours under many abuses of tedious length, scurrilous expressions, involved periods, petulant and wanton affectations, and the like; I might possibly find some shadow of reason for your alledgeance: but since, you not only speak as a stranger to the Grace and Gift of Prayer, and to the unity of the Church of Christ, which is one Body, baptised and united into one Spirit, having one Hope, one Faith, one Lord, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all; whereby Christians before Forms were imposed, are found both to have been, and to have continued with one accord in Prayer, and Supplication, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have lift up their voice, and that one voice, in the same extemporary words to God, in Prayer and Thanksgiving; but do also subtly and profanely take advantage, from escapes incident to humane frailty, to proclaim the same as gross abuses, and thereupon scoff and mock at the hearty and spiritual Prayers of the Upright, wherein the Lord delighteth: I hope your own vanity and folly shall reprove you: But 3. as attention is requisite, even in the public use of your Forms, and in our way is attended with such advantages, that do both render it sweet and easy, and fully secure the conduct of our devotion; so, by your course, it not only happens, that oftentimes the attention is sore put to it, and perplexed, as you objecte to us; but the very Rule of devotion is made altogether insecure and uncertain: for proof of this, there needeth no other Argument, then that you observe these Forms, lately added to the English service, that these were as uncouth to the People, at the first hearing, and required as great attention, as our extemporary conceptions; is clear and obvious: But seeing beside this, the People are put to join in words, they know not by whom framed, and for the composing and commanding whereof, their appear neither precept, nor promise in Scripture; that their attention in this case, must be more exercised, and their devotion in more hazard to be distracted, then when they join with him, whom they judge to be appointed by the Lord, to be their mouth to himward, and on good grounds suppose, to b● instructed, both with the knowledge of their condition, and the Rule and Spirit, whereby he ought to make the 'samine known, in supplications, unto God, is beyond contradiction: neither is this the only inconvenience, of this sort, in your manner, there is a Court-practice, that I could tell you of; how the King pro re nata, useth to issue out a Form of Prayer, either for his own Chapel, the Citie-Churches, or further as he pleaseth to extend his orders; and if these novel prescriptions, be not more chargeable to the attention, and disturbing to the devotion, than any thing in our way; nay, if it be not a Method, as dangerous in its tendency, as destitute of warrant, let men judge: But this is the Supremacy, too high for you to have remembered: 4. If there were a greater exercise of attention in our way then in yours; yet when I consider, that attention, if not surcharged, or confounded, doth certainly tend to the quickening of the devotion, and that on the other hand, by the coldness of your stinted Forms, both the attention, is, for the most part wholly slackened, and the devotion deadened; the instance you make of a few serious, it may be, but weak and peevish persons of your party, professing a great stayedness in the use of Set-forms; whereas in extemporary Prayer, they could not keep their mind from distraction, doth neither impugn these more lively and powerful devotions, whereunto the Lord, and not man, hath ordered our Method nor, in the least, doth it counterbalance these myriads of dead Formalists, whom your way doth bury in utter security, and irreligion: In this place you tell us by way of witty discovery, that the way of extemporary Prayer, was well devised for spreading of Error, or Sedition, in respect, forsooth, that Ministers prayed over their Sermons; so that what in the discourse seemed the words of man, in the Prayer was called the dictat of the Spirit: But, Sir, dare you or any man deny, that extemporary Prayer, was the first manner of men's calling upon the Name of the Lord? Are you not then ashamed, to talk of it, as a late device? 2. How come you to suppose, that words in Prayer, spoken by us to God, may rather seem the dictat of the Spirit, and more speciously seduce, nor the same words delivered in Sermon, in the Name, and as the word of God? Certainly admitting you had forgot, that you did already upon this very pretext, endeavour to divest Preaching of this Authority; yet common sense might have told you, that in this there could be no deep artifice: But 3. Wherefore may not a party given to sedition, or error, devise and compose Forms to the same purpose, and with more success? If Forms be but of humane invention, and if, as you suppose, they be more weighty and impressing, then extemporary words, it is obviously evident, that they furnish a far more advantageous opportunity to this your excellent devise: I might confirm this, by telling you, how much this Method hath been made use of, and prospered, for the propagating, and establishing of many errors and superstitions in the Romish Church; but a nearer and latter instance of that piece of Heraldry, blazoning the King's Titles, and Prerogative, very irreverently and undecently, to God, foisted in by Act of Council, in your Church-prayers, for inculcating and advancing the exorbitant Supremacy, may satisfy the world, that your evil and vain conjecture against us, was suggested by your own practice.  
After the false and calumnious charge of gross abuses, incident to our extemporary Forms, given in by you, with much pretended tenderness and insinuation, as I have already touched; you N. C. Answers, that we had a Directory of the things we should pray for; Which, no doubt, if you had been pleased to propound it, in its ●ull latitude, viz. That the whole word of God, many other instructions and forms thence drawn and delivered, and left to us by godly men, with our own public Directory, and these of other Churches, and lastly, that the teaching of our Parents, Masters, and Pastors, are all given to us, to guide us, and assist us, both for matter and words, in the prayers we ought to make: And if you had understood it aright, viz. that seeing the rule in our way, is, as certain, though not so stinted, as that in yours, and that our Ministers appointed to be the people's mouth, in public Prayer and Worship, are not only tried, in their utterance for preaching, but also for prayer; And lastly that any material aberration, is as discoverable and censurable among us, as among you, you might have been fully satisfied, that neither the infirmities nor abuses of men, are chargeable upon our manner of Worship; nor doth your peremptory imposing of Set-forms, more secure the matter, from the like, and greater enormities. But being resolved to carp, you say, why may not we have a Directory forwords, as well as things? 'Tis answered. 1. A Directory for things to be prayed for, is no doubt a Directory for words also, if the things be fully directed, the application of words, the known signs, can have little difficulty: 2. The directory, distinctly and particularly ordering the method, and condescending upon the heads of prayer, with as much exactness, as the latitude to be reserved to the free grace and gift of God, will admit; cannot but be received for a Directory, both of words and things.  
But you add, That it was but a cheat, to cozen the World who might have startled, to have seen us, without any rule for Worship, in as much as our Leaders quickly wearied of it. It is answered, first, So long as any Church doth own the revealed will and word of God, for the rule of Worship, none, but such fantastic Formalists as you will prove startlers at this sure and acceptable simplicity: 2. Whence you allege our Ministers their wearying of the Directory, as such, except from the suggestion of your own malice, I cannot conceive: that our Leaders neither turned it, nor astricted themselves to it as, to an imposed Liturgy, is very certain; but that they did not at all regard it, is a groundless calumny.  
In the next place, you add, that, Hence it clearly followed, that the Preaching was the great matter of the Worship; but the constant acts, wherein the Church should adore God, were thought too homely: How you will make out this connexion, seeing, both the ground is false, and the consequence doth not hold, I recommend to your second thoughts; though our Prayers and Psalms related to our Preaching, yet it will not conclude, that therefore the Preaching, was the great matter of the Worship; Your Service-book makes many, both Prayers, Gospels, Epistles, and Collects, relative to certain festival days, is therefore the observation of these days, the great point of Worship? The great matter of Worship is the rendering of our acknowledgement unto God, which, if performed by prayer, hearing of His word, and praises, and that in such a harmony, as all the exercises may conspire, and be mutually helpful, is thereby greatly advanced, and not in the least marred. As for these Constant acts, which you desiderat in our Service; if thereby you mean your Constant Set-forms, you are already answered; but if only the daily solemn performances of Prayer and Praise, which in lieu of the morning, and evening Sacrifice, aught, as the stated and fixed recognizance of the great God, be observed and kept up, in every Christian Society, when other things shall be restored, I frankly promise you my assent.  
In the last place, you say: It is the least evil of extemporary Forms, that a Minister is ready to pour out his Soul to God, in such devotions as are then most in his own Spirit, Which may possibly happen to be very unfit for Public Worship, Sir, this is so groundless a fear, and so plain a diffidence of the assistance and presence of the Lord, that I shall not trouble you with any further answer, then to add, that as a thoughtful serious Spirit, is ever found to be most prepared for duty, and divine influences; so, all experiences do conclude, that a Ministers particular exercises, have been so far from marring, that, on the contraire, they have always rendered his public performances, more spiritual and lively.  
And thus at length your dull N. C. comes to see that you are for Set-forms, and demanding your reason, tells you, that the Apostles used them not, to which you answer, that you cannot doubt, but they used our Saviour's Prayer, and really, though I do as little doubt, but they might have done it; yet I think, both you and I, must acknowledge, that we find no vestige of their doing of it. For as for your distinguishing, betwixt Mathew's after this manner therefore pray ye; and Luke's when ye pray, say, the pattern to be proposed in the first, and the practice intended in the second: seeing the form is formally the same, in both places, and the patterm so proposed by Matthew, that the practice might be its most exact imitation, and the practice so enjoined by Luke, that yet the latitude of a Pattern, is not discharged, your notion is but airy, and of no moment. But if it were needful, to give you my thoughts in this matter, I would say, that considering. 1. That this pattern was given to the Disciples, in the infancy of their knowledge, before the out-pouring of the Spirit, as a short and easy rudiment. 2. That thereafter the Spirit is promised, and that in such an abundant measure, as it should flow like rivers of living water. 3. That our Lord in his last discourse, commands them frequently to pray to and ask the Father, in his Name, and 4 that the Spirit being given de facto, they were enriched unto all utterance, and both in their own Prayers, and in their Directions to others, how to pray, do constantly make mention of the name of jesus, these things I say considered, I am verily in the opinion, they did not precisely use, either this form of Prayer, or any other; but leaving this digression; and esteeming this Form to be the most excellent model, and the very Substance of all prayer, and granting the Apostles might have used it; yea supposing with you, they did use it; yet what makes all this for your imposing and enjoining of Forms, the only point of our present difference?  
But you go on and say, the jews at that time had a Liturgy, and hours of Prayer, which our Saviour never reproves: ergo quid. I have told you already, that to infer an approbation, from our Lord's tolerance for a time, of either the whole, or any of the parts of that service, which he was in a short space to abolish totally, is bad Logic. 2. Admit this tolerance were an approbation, how will you make it out, that the jews their liturgy, was more than a Directory, and that they were thereby astricted, to an imposed Set-form? Specially seeing we find, that where, in their best times, certain Forms of Prayer and Thanksgiving, dictated by the Spirit, are committed by David, and other men of God, to the Ministers for public use; yet the thing was both done, and observed, without the mention of any precise astriction, or limitation.  
In the next place you tell us, that the Lords Prayer is word for word taken out of the jewish liturgy: and thence you think, that exception against the English Service, that some of its Prayers are out of the Roman Missal and (not, or) Breviarie, to be foolish and groundless: But pray, Sir, why talk you so confidently of the jewish Liturgy of these times, (for other posterior Liturgies availl not) since to this day, though much search hath been made, and many forgeries have been obtruded, no such thing could assuredly be found: Next, if such a thing sound and pure was in our Lord's days, think you it was then no better Pattern, nor the Roman Missal, Ritual, and Breviarie were, in the very profoundest darkeness, of that Superstition, immediately before the Reformation broke up; and when the first glimmerings of that light, managed as much by policy as Piety, did translate from it, the English Liturgy? The disparity of these things is too palpable. 3. Admitting the jewish Liturgies, used in the days of our Lord, were yet truly extant, it will not be sufficient for you, to ●hew the words and sentences of the Lord's Prayer, to be therein disorderly found, for so no doubt a good Christian prayer, might almost be said, to be taken out of the Alcoran; but even for evincing, that our Lord did respect them, so much, as Directories, you must make out the whole context of his Prayer, to be formally found therein: But you add, that, Though the Apostles and others immediately inspired, might pour out extemporary Prayers, it doth not follow, that every one may use the same liberty: Who would not pity this folly? If infallibility be required in our extemporary methods, wherefore not also in your Set-forms? But seeing the Apostles, were only the better assisted, and not singularly privileged, to pray ex tempore, by their extraordinary Gifts; and if the same command of God, and promise of the Spirits assistance, are still with us, for our warrant, and encouragement to this duty, your argument here insinuate, is empty and inconcludent, and in effect, doth as much prove, neither the Apostles their Preaching, nor Praying, to be at all by us imitable, as the point you aim at.  
Your next Argument for Set-forms, you usher in, by the instance of the Corinthians, who in their Worship used Hymns of their own composing, as well as prayers, and then you add, that, you could never comprehend, why we allow the Spirit to be restrained in Praising, as to words, and not in Praying: Sir, whether you preface the custom of the Corinthians, for enforcing your imposed Forms, or as the reason of your doubt, anent the difference used by us in Praying, and Praising, doth not appear from your words? However, as it is evident, that in that Church, there was rather an exuberant liberty, than any thing like to your stinting; so, our practice, and theirs, shall soon be reconciled; but first, let us take your N. C. Answer to your main scruple, and he and I tell you, that, because the Psalms and Scripture-songs, are a collection of Praises, dictated by the Spirit of God, for Worship; and have been so made use, both by the Church of the jews, in the time of the old Testament, and by the Christian Church, in all Ages; therefore, they are used by us, to the same end, without either restraining the Spirit, in the performance, seeing it is his own appointment, or tying all our praises, to these Forms, seeing God hath thereto, only tied our solemn praise, by singing, and otherways left and allows us, a further liberty: To your N. C. part of this answer you reply, that never were more absurdities crowded in less bounds: And if I may also anticipat, I am certain, there were never more profane and ignorant fopperies, stuffed into a return, then in that, which you here do make.  
And first, you say, it is clear we may worship in the Spirit, and yet be restrained as towards; since we acknowledge, that God hes done it in praising: But waving that, which I have already plainly, and so often told you, viz. that it is the imposing of men, and not the free usemaking of Set-forms, that we condemn; how absurd is it for you, to allege, that a man worshipping in words, prescribed by the Spirit, is, in so doing, restrained in Spirit? Could you not advert, that the Spirits prescriving, and men's, are different, and that he prescriveth to himself, without any restraint?  
2. You say, there are many Psalms prayers; and why may they not be used for constant prayers, as well as the other for constant praises? Nay why, for instance, may we not use the 51 Psalm in plain words, with a plain voice, as prayer, as well as in hobbling rhyme, with a Tune● 'Tis answered, That I may first take out the waspish sting of your Mockery; is this the tender respect, that you profess p. 70. to every thing, that relateth to God's service; to call the Psalms in meeter, used both by you, and us, hobbling rhyme? or is your Poëtick vain so nicely delicate, that you can endure no verses inferior to your lofty Pindaric? Which yet, if Critics mistake not, doth troth more rudely, and lamely, than our hobbling meeter: for my part, I see not what answer can be given to these Questions, save this, that it seems both your tenderness, and poesy, are but false, and forced: But to the purpose, 2. I answer, that the Psalms-prayers, and particularly the 51 Psalms, may in plain words, with a plain voice be used in Prayer, as Prayer, if so be, the Spirit do so direct our utterance; but if by constant prayers, you mean, that the Praying-psalms, may as well be imposed, and enjoined for prayer, as the other for praise; you want the warrant of the Word, and Spirit of God, who hath appointed the whole Psalms, to instruct our praise; but not to regulat our prayers, and so you widely miss your mark. But here you insinuat two difficulties; 1. How we come to sing Psalms-prayers? and this you afterward enlarge by demanding, our warrant, for using all David's Psalms, since many of them relating to particulars of David's life, belong not to us? Others of them are imprecatorie, hardly to be sung, and many things there are in the Psalms, which we understand not, and lastly there were not above twenty of the Psalms used by the Jews in Worship. To this it is answered, that being commanded we sing Psalms-prayers, not with direct thoughts suited to the strain of Prayer, wherein they were first framed, and said, before they were appointed to be sung; but with a reflex acknowledgement of the goodness and mercy of God, the hearer of Prayer, who both turned the Author's mourning into a song of gladness, and hath appointed it to be so used by us, that we may be encouraged, and praise him, in the like hope: if in almost all Psalms of Praise, we find the preceding distress and afflictions, with the prayers and groan, therein made, first pathetically commemorat, as the ground of the ensuing praise, for the deliverance; is it not easy to apprehend, how that a small reflection, might, after the Lord's relief, have made the reciting of a Psalm wholly of lamentation, the most exulting expression of the delivereds' joy, and may commend it to us, to the same purpose? For my part, when I read or hear the 88 Psalm beginning with crying, and ending with darkeness, and like Iob's imprecation upon the day of his birth, having no light shining, but a cloud dwelling upon it, and yet find it a song of the Sons of Korah, directed to the chief Musician, I cannot but acknowledge it, for a Psalm of high praise unto God, who turned such doleful mourning, to be the matter of rejoicing; and thus, if you will rightly consider, that the Psalms are ordained for the matter of praise, whereof the manner, consisting in reflex acts, directed by the Spirit, unto such suitable meditations, as may excite our joy in, and praises unto God, is most rationally, and warrantably expressed, by singing, you may very quickly be satisfied, that the Saints their complain, David's particular History, Victories, and the like, with all the composures made thereupon; yea, even these imprecatorie Psalms (which though in the direct act, they appear to be hard, and to need a special warrant, may nevertheless furnish, unto all, sweet reflections of praise) are, most proper for the matter of song, whereunto they were, both at first framed, and have since been used: are all the works of God wonderful, and such as may excite to praise? and do you think it strange that the various exercises of his Servants and People, should be accounted proper matter for this exercise? Sir, though I be no pretender to Poesy, far less presumptuous PINDARUM AEMULARI; yet I conceive the smallest intelligence of the Nature, and manner of Encomiastics, and Eulogies, finding matter in every subject, might have guarded you from this escape; but here I must digress unto a very pertinent discovery; I have already told you, that though by command we use the Psalms in our praises; yet seeing these Forms are prescribed by the Spirit, it can import no restraint, and therefore can furnish no argument for your humane impositions; but now there appears a more significant disparity, viz. That the Psalms being commanded by the Lord, only for the matter of our praises, though many of them may suggest, both inward elicit conceptions, and outward proper expressions of praise; yet it is evident, that by the injunction, the reflex acts, wherein the nature and exercise of praise doth formally consist, are not in the least narrowed, or confined, let be stinted, or restrained; whereas by your imposed Forms, framed on purpose, not simply, to furnish matter, but to direct, nay to suggest, lead, and express our Petitions, the very formal desires of the heart, and spirit, in their substance, at least, though not in their degree, are so led and bound up, that it is hard to determine, whether this restraint be more visible, or injurious.  
Having thus far diverted I return to our purpose: You say, there are many things in the Psalms that we understand not. To sing without understanding is certainly sinful; but unless you affirm the Psalms to be in themselves unintelligible, you may not, because of our ignorance, or weakness, reject the institution of God: Lastly you tell us, that there were not above twenty of the Psalms used by the Jews in Worship. 'Tis answered. 1. You observe not, that all this clatter, is no more against us then against you, at least your Episcopal Church; for as for yourself, I am almost in the opinion, that you are yet so little fixed, that the clearest redargution, will prove no conviction: 2. The very inscriptions of more than thrice the number of Psalms by you named, do demonstrat the groundless confidence of this your alledgeance; beside that we find, 1 Chron. 16. 7. the very first Psalm, delivered by David to the public Singers, insert in the Book of Psalms, without any direction by way of title, what may we then conceive of the rest? 3. Reforming Hezekiah commanded the Levites to sing praises unto the Lord, with the words of David and of Asaph the Seer; and this the opinion and custom of the Church in all ages, have understood of all the Psalms: whence then is it, that you do assert so boldly? The 2 difficulty which I am to remove, is, that you say we are not bound, or rather have no warrant to use the Psalms in meeter or with Tunes. To this I answer, That we are bound to sing is evident, both from Scripture-precept and example; and that we are thereby warranted, to have the Psalms in meeter with Tunes, is as clear, as both are necessary, at least convenient in the propriety of our language, for the use of singing: I deny not, but prose may be sung; but seeing it is certain, that our language hath no such exact Prosody, as either to render it easily measurable, or the measures distinguishable by points and accents; nay that the import of the musici or tonici accentus, in the Hebrew, qui olim moderabantur harmoniam musicam, is so far now lost, and unknown, that if we were now to sing the Hebrew Psalms, we could not make use of them: Pray, Sir, leave us but the way of meeter, in place of points and accents, until you teach us better Grammar: whereas you hint, that we may have all David's Instruments as well as Tunes, if you could learn us to sing without Tunes, as we may well do without Organs, I shall not contend, but seeing that David did, no doubt, invent and introduce these his Instruments, as well by the special direction of the Spirit, as he did all other things, anent the service of the Temple, and that the Primitive Christians, worshipping more in the simplicity of the Spirit, then in outward shows, canebant assâ voce non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I think you may now put up your pipes, and spare the cost.  
Next you say, Why may not the Christian Church compose new Hymns, as they of Corinth did? And this you judge to be the more necessary; because that David's Psalms have not such full and clear Hymns, upon the great Mysteries of the Christian belief: And you think the liberty, which we plead for in Prayer, should much persuade it. 'Tis answered, if you consider, that Scripture, 1 Cor. 14. and particularly the 26. v. you may understand, that as the Apostle's business, in the place, is, to set an order to the use of extraordinary Gifts, wherein that Church abounded; so, the Psalms, Doctrine, Tongue, Revelation, and Interpretation, there spoken of, appear to be inspired and afflatitious motions, which will not found you any argument: And you yourself do so plainly observe, that these Psalms of the Corinthians were framed by private persons, that I marvel, that your remembering of the thing, to be extraordinary, did not stop your translation of it, by way of Privilege, to the Churches in our days. 2. Seeing the Lord hath provided us with a plentiful variety of Psalms and Hymns; and beside, hath allowed us as full a liberty of praising in prose, as of prayer, I think it doth fully remove, all that is here by you objected, and abundantly warrant us, both to abide content with God's institutions, and refuse a superfluous mixture of humane Odes, with these Divine Psalms, which he hath appointed, for the matter of our more solemn Praises.  
But your scope is, Why do not ye use the Glory to the Father, and your N. C. answering, Because it is not in the Scripture and is but the device of men: you reply, who would not be sick with such pitiful folly? Thus your nice ceremonious stomach, nauseats sure and solid truths: You add, show me a reason, why you make prayers and not praises? I answer 1. Whatever we make we impose none. 2. We do not say, that we make either prayers or praises; our plain profession is, that as the Lord, whose it is, hath commanded, so we worship him, using that allowed liberty of Spirit, and utterance, both in prayer and praise, whereunto he himself hath promised to direct and assist us: And as for the Psalms given us by Divine appointment, for the matter only (and not for the formal expression of our more solemn praising) we are satisfied with his bounty; and therefore do refuse your vain superaddition of an humane invention: That our Meeter-Psalmes are no device of men, seeing they are the same in substance and sen●e, with these in prose, without any greater variation, than the application of the command of singing to us Scots-men, doth both require and warrant, is obvious to any man's candid reflection: As to the possibility of singing in Prose, as well as in Rhyme, I have already acknowledged it, and when you shall make it plainly and safely practicable, I presume none will descent.  
But you again return to the Doxology, and asks, Why it may not be used in the end of singing, as well as it is used by us in the end of praying? And this second Demand heats you to be unmannerly, and to tell us, that such childishness makes you doubt our rational faculties: When in fair dealing, it would become your charity better to inform them: but, passing your folly, I say, we close our prayers ordinarily, with praise and glory to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; because it is warrantable from Scripture-practice, to wit, in Blessing; and agreeable to the truth and liberty of Gospel-worship; and yet we refuse it in singing, (mark it, not in praising) because, for that exercise, the Lord having instructed us with a sufficient plenty of Divine composures, we think it neither needful nor acceptable, that we should gratify an arbitrary imposition, in receiving the supplement of an humane addition: It is true, the words are Scriptural, but can you say, that the Scripture bears any such allowance, for their use in singing, as it doth for the Psalms of David? Yea and many other spiritual songs, in Scripture, whereof you might indeed with some reason reprehend our too great disuse: Hence therefore it is manifest, that not only the offence of your unlawful imposing; but also the want of Scripture-warrant, doth exhibit the reason of our different practice, in praying and solemn sung praises, which you so hotly urge. Having thus, Sir, vindicat, both the Truth and our rational Faculties, with how much advantage, might I retort your reproach of Childish weakeness? suppose our Reasons for refusing were no better than yours for imposing, is it not a childish impotency, to be angrier let be to make such a stir, for our scrupling to do a thing, when you have no better reason for you, then because we exactly and fully do the equipollent? And really, when in myself I consider, that on your part, such is the nature of almost all the differences, that fill this Church and Kingdom, with so much distraction, how can it be sufficiently regreted? for Men, yea Christians, yea Christian Rulers, to vex and toss poor Innocents', whom they ought with tenderness to protect, for no other reason, even in your acknowledgement, but because, they will not surrendare their Consciences to arbitrary, vain and frivolous impositions, which the very natural liberty of reason would disdain, is indeed a matter of wonder, which nothing save a Devilish design to debosh Conscience, and judicial delusion from the Lord, can satisfy: But I pray the Lord to open their eyes, who ought to see.  
In the next place, returning to Prayer, you bid us consider how Hosea the Prophet prescribes a form, when he sayeth take with you words and say: Strong reasoning! The Prophet is exhorting a backslidden, impenitent, and obdured People, to return; and, for their help and encouragement, instructing them, how by a short supplication to God, they might avert his wrath: And this you make a warrant for men, rigidly to impose Forms: If a Nonconformist should go ●orth in the Spirit of the Lord, and proclaim, O Scotland return unto the Lord thy God, take with you words, and say, take away the iniquity of a despised Gospel, and brocken Covenant, and receive us graciously &c. would not you think him very impertinent, who should thence conclude, that man to be for a set Liturgy. But our saviour prayed thrice still in the same words, and yet the third time more fervently: I will not tell you, that even in the Text there may be a little variation observed; but pray, Sir, who of us ever affirmed, that fervour in prayer did consist in a varying of the phrase, which is the inference you here make, against us; and yet that a stinted form, specially when imposed, may restrain fervour, is as evident to any impartial discerner, as that a deep fervour of Spirit may oftentimes fix in one short petition, nay sometimes be intended to a degree beyond words, is certainly confirmed by manifold experience. You conclude that in the Church they used Forms very early: I will not tell you, that antiquity is not a better plea for Set-forms, than it is for Bishops: And really in my opinion, it is so much the worse for either, that it pleads so jointly for both; for that corruptions do draw on one another, and especially a declination in Government, a declination from the pure worship, though the first beginnings, and ancient examples were more obscure, yet the joint progress and increase of these evils, in the Roman Church, and the renewed late experiments, which we have had at home, confirm it above exception: But my answer is first, that the liberty of prayer, which we plead for, was in the Church long before Set-forms, even from the days of our Lord, during the times of the Apostles and their Apostolic Successors, is a most certain truth, and a better pattern than any after-alteration: why do you not then hold to it? As for the Liturgies of james and Mark, you yourself disowne them, and they are notour forgeries. 2. Admit that in the third and fourth Centuries, partly through declining formality, and partly for a remedy of the then much advanced decay, both of Piety and Gifts in the Christian Church, certain Liturgies were composed and used; yet the very variety of them, which you acknowledge, as of that of Basile that of chrysostom, that of Ambrose, doth sufficiently testify, that though they might then have been proposed for helps, and so used; yet there was not one of them imposed by peremptory injunction: As for what you say of the Reformed Churches, that they have their Liturgies, and that so had we ours at our first Reformation, it so exactly quadrats to what I have answered, anent the ancient Liturgies, their being framed for helps, that there can be nothing more apposite; in as much, as it is a most certain truth, that both our old Liturgy, (since you do name it so) and these of the Reformed Churches, are so far different, and free from the impertinencies, corruptions ceremonies, and rigid restriction of your Service-book, by which it grossly betrays its foul Popish fountain, that they do more oppugn, then fortify your principal intent: but the matter speaketh for itself: what shall we then say of your bold assertion, viz. That never were extemporary hea●s (as you love to speak of the liberty of prayer, as rudely and profanely as if you were talking of race horses) used in the Church? When not only frequent instances from the Old, the constant practice of the times of the New Testament, the first and purer ages of the Church, but the professed allowance, and known practice, of all the Reformed Churches, do so directly witness against you: Verily this is such an impudence, that le●t it tempt my Mediocrity, I rather leave it to your own Conscience.  
In the next place, you make your N. C. allege. That our Church was purer than any by you named, on purpose, that you may take the advantage to say; That we were cheated to believe, that all the World was wondering at us, a cheat like unto that of our alleged Prophetess: whereof you, and you forsooth, on your word only, assure, that neither were true: Sir, if the grossness of that lie, anent the use of extemporary prayer, wherein I have just now attraped you, did not sufficiently secure us from the slander of your scoffing calumnies; I could easily make it appear, that all the pains we took, in our own just vindication, was many degrees inferior to that restless labour taken by your party, to represent us to all, as most arrant Rebels, and load us with the most atrocious reproaches, which the Father of lies could invent: but Cui bono? It is sufficient for us, that as the work of the Lord, among us, was honourable and glorious, many ways countenanced by his Grace, and Presence, ●oth in ordinary and extraordinary appearances, particularly in M. M. whom, I suppose, you have learned, from Balcanquels Mani●esto, and not from us, to call her our Prophetess, and only leveled against the wickedness and tyranny of a Prelatic party, enemy to all Conscience, and the scandal and betrayer of the Protestant interest; so these hard and contrary things, that have of late befallen us, in place of obscuring, do only tend to its greater manifestation, and more universal approbation, from all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity: But you proceed and tell us, that it is strangely inconsequential for us not to pray in a Liturgy; yet always to bless the people in a Set-form: But, is it not strangely ridiculous for you, to dissemble such an obvious disparity? And will you still arrogantly pretend to be a Master of Ceremonies, in the Court of Heaven? The Blessing, used by us to be pronounced upon the people, at the breaking up of the Assembly, is only a short formula of a Christian farewell, warranted by, and copied from, the practice both of Moses under the old Testament, and the Apostle Paul in the shutting up of his Epistles; and therefore in use to be performed, sometime in the words of Paul only, sometime in the words of both, and sometime also with an● agreeable variation from both: What then can this make, for the imposing of set-forms, for all public Prayer and Worship? Do not both the divers nature of the things, and the difference, betwixt a peremptory imposition, and a free imitation, redargue this your reasoning? In civil converse, our ordinary ran counters are commonly prefaced & concluded, with certain received Formulae of a respective benevolence; should therefore all mutual addresses, be reduced, and strainted to the same methods? Certainly the smallest attention will both acknowledge the just application, and marvel that (as you say of us) you are so little governed by reason.  
But now to the English Liturgy, which commending as an excellent Rule of Worship, and using other vain floorishes, not worth the noticing: in answer to your N. C. you tell us: That it is far from being an easy way of praying, and that a natural man, would be better pleased, to be running out with his own conceptions; then to use the form of the Church, which is more simple and humble. 'Tis answered, That there may be some conceited Hypocrites, from such a carnal motive, despising Set-forms, I shall not controvert; but as I have already told you, what are our just exceptions against their imposition; so, that the generality of men, who, for the most part, do only lay claim to the name, and make a slight profession of Religion, without busying themselves further in it, are by the carnal easiness, that they find in your way, not only more engaged to it, then to ours; but habituat to a superstitious, stupid formality, wherein placing the all of Religion, they ruin their own Souls, is a truth that millions of sad instances do confirm: seeing therefore, this strong food (as you term it) of your Service is indeed both rank and poisonous, we wish that, that princely tenderness in our Sovereign, to which you impute his forbearance to impose it, may at length, in its just exercise, extend to remove and discharge it, in all his Dominions. As for the discreet prudence of our Superiors (the Bishops no doubt) which you would also commend to us, upon the same account; pardon us, Sir, if we be not such Babes: we have shared too largely of the strong food of their Violence; and of the bread of adversity and water of affliction, from their hands, to be so abused; He who rightly considereth will easily assent, that they have hitherto been sparing, to enjoin these corruptions, for no other reason, then that which moved the jews to forbear to take Christ on the feast-day, viz; lest there be an uproar among the people. As for the ensuing contest, betwixt you and your N. C. anent that dulness and stupidity, which we see occasioned by, and attending your formality, the preceding discourse, doth so rationally connect them, and common observation so evidently confirm the matter, that your alledgeance of some godly people, who, in a well-meaning sincerity, have, in the use of your service, attained to some feelings of pure and simple devotion, doth furnish you no stronger exception, than what the Papists may also pretend for their Mass and Latine-service.  
After this, you make your Nonconformist objecte the vanity of your Service-book-repetitions, in the often redoubling of Lord have mercy upon us, and 2. its confusion, in that all the people say some of the Prayers together, and use Amen: but seeing these objections are amongst the least of these exceptions, made by ours against that Liturgy, which ye altogether neglect: I only say, that as the 136. Psal. containing a summare enarration of the great things God did for Israel, and most pathetically interrupted by these frequent eruptions of praise, agreeable to such a reflection, can be no precedent or warrant for the framing, and imposing the battologies of your Litany, vainly composed, and as deadly exercised, in comparison to such a pattern; so, your instance adduced from Acts 4. where it is said, that the whole company lift up their voice with one accord to God, And the custom intimated by Paul, of the saying Amen at the giving of thanks, do not remove the confusion objected, 1. because, it is the opinion of some, that that passage in the Acts, was an afflatitious motion, both dictat and uttered by the Spirit●s immediate inspiration: 2. It may be doubted, if the whole company did all of them lift up their voice, in as much as one speaking in a company, and the whole consenting and joining, they may be properly enough said to lift up their voice with one accord, though every single member do it not: 3. Supposing, as is not improbable, that the great exultation of that small company, did then express itself, in that extraordinary manner; would you make such extraordinary examples, precedents for ordinary service? sure Reason repugns, and the effect of decency doth not answer: 4. For your Amen, as I am certain, that the Apostles words, may be understood of a consentient, though silent, Amen; so it is evident, that, even in the point of order, your so frequently repeated Amen is superfluous, and vain: but if you will reduce your practice to a decent use, seeing the matter appears to be indifferent, if you love to express it, use your liberty, only permit us the like favour of ours. As to what you subjoine, that The people all with their voice, join in the Psalms, and therefore may also in Prayers: the disparities are clear. 1. we are warranted, and commanded to sing, which necessarily requires our own vocal performance and concurrence; whereas the command of Prayer, either private, or public, hath no such import. A man may pray in his heart, or join with another, without using words: I hope you will not say, that he can also properly sing, and not use his voice. 2. I grant, your Liturgy being admitted, the joining of all with their voice in Prayer, though not very orderly or decent, is yet practicable; but seeing we refuse these forms, the reason of our different practice, in this matter, from our use in singing, must by yourself be acknowledged: Having considered your answers to what you make your N. C. objecte, against the English liturgy, I might give you an appendix of many more important exceptions: As 1. It's scenical, and mimical composure throughout, very unbecoming the Worship of the great God: 2. The many impertinencies of its Litanies, Gospels, Epistles, and Collects. 3. It's mancking and confounding of Holy Scripture, specially in its Collects: 4. The superstitious observation of days and other ceremonies, twisted all alongs with its whole tenor, and exercise: And 5. It's corrupt tincture, and unsavoury and unacceptable strains and methods, which it derives from the Roman Idolatrous Missal, and Superstitious Ritual, and Breviarie. whence it was translated; but seeing others have fully declared them, to whom you have thought good to make no answer, civility forbids me to urge a declining Adversary.  
And thus we are arrived at the controverted Ceremonies, viz. The five articles of Perth: which you say, were all lawful, and most of them useful and necessary: Sir, the matter of Ceremonies in general, and also of these by you specially named, with all the pretences that possibly can be alleged for them, have been so fully treated and examined by ours, particularly by Didoclavius alias Mr. Calderwood in his Altar Damascenum, and Gillespie in his English Popish Ceremonies, that I marvel, how you had the confidence, to set forth these poor musty, and many times and ways refelled and basted reasonings, which you adduce: Neither are you in this only censurable: but when I compare that wit and acuracie, adhibit by others of your way, in the handling of this subject, with that bluntness and confusion, wherewith you repone to us the very meanest of their Arguments, not so much as in the least recocted, nay, that the short motives and insinuations mentioned in the tenor of the Articles themselves, are of far more weight, than all your superficial discourse, my censure doth almost exceed to accuse you, either of bold ignorance, or a designed treachorie: However, since all the arguments, either used by others, or abused by you, with all that could be invented, for maintaining your vain plea, doth stand by us, fully and evidently discussed; I mind not by a disadvantageous repetition, to lapse into your error; and therefore shall content myself, by a summare and close review of what ensues, in this Dialogue, to bring it to a Period.  
The first of the five Articles, which you begin with, is, Confirmation: And you say, That if it had been introduced as a Sacrament, we had reason to except against it; but seeing it was only designed for a solemn renovation of the Baptismal Vow, that Children who do not therein engage themselves, when they come to the years of discretion, may then do it; and is confirmed by antiquity, the probable meaning of the laying on of hands mentioned, Heb. 6. and the assent of most Reformers, the thing seems to be sufficiently warranted. 'Tis answered, 1. It seems that in this place you forget yourself: did you not tell us, in your 3. Dialogue, that washing the feet, and anointing the sick with oil; though in appearance, as particularly descrived, and as well warranted by Scripture, as either of the Sacraments; yet, since antiquat by the Church, are now lawfully difused, wherefore then may not the Church, having power to exauctorate Sacraments, be also allowed the power to institute new ones, and so establish your Confirmation, as a Sacrament, specially since the Roman Church doth so practise it? 2. Not to contend with you anent the name and definition of a Sacrament: How come you to deny to the Church, the power of introducing Confirmation as a Sacrament, and yet to allow it the power to appoint it, as a solemn renovation of the Baptismal Vow? Certainly, whatever be the difference betwixt the two, yet the unquestionable Rule, that in the house and ordinances of God, men are not, without Divine prescript, either to add or change, doth equally refute innovations of all sorts. 3. You speciously obtrude your Confirmation, as a solemn renovation of the Baptismal Vow; but, if you consider the thing, as it stands in the Article, whereby it is enjoined, it is plainly the Bishop's solemn benediction of young beginners, for the increase of knowledge; whereby it is manifest, that your description, importing the young beginner his act, is manifestly different from the thing, (being the Bishop's act) which you undertake to maintain. But 4. Whatever way we take it, its singular solemnity, wherein its form consists, is not only without all Scripture-warrant, but plainly superfluous; seeing that, as the Bishop or Presbyters their blessing is not thereby bettered, or materially differenced from their ordinary benediction; so the ordinary profession of beginners, in their examinations, and especially their after-partaking of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, doth more than supply your pretended solemn renovation. 5. As this conceit of Confirmation, as it is explained by you, doth evidently derogate from the Sacrament and Covenant of Baptism, as to Infants; so, your appropriating the administration thereof to the Bishop, objected by your N. C. in his next demand, doth yet more discover its vanity and evil design: To the arguments therefore which you bring for it, and 1. to its Antiquity: I answer, that the simplicity and purity of the first Ages of the Church, knew it not: 2. As, it's very first beginnings cannot be calculate, beyond the times of the Church's declination, so, it is most certain, that from an arbitrary well-meaning institution, it hath since been depraved to such an abuse, as may sufficiently justify the total removal of its use. 2. As for your Scripture probability, from the laying on of hands so notourly known to have been then only used, in the conferring of the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, or in the Ordination, or Mission of Ministers, neither it, nor your alleged assent of most Reformers, do merit any answer.  
Next you tell us, in defence of Private Baptism, That for us to confine the Sacramental actions, to the walls of a Church, is gross Superstition: But, who would have thought, when you clamour so much upon our Nonconforming Meetings, you would have stumbled into such a mistake? Our exception against Private Baptism is therefore, not the want of a dedicated House, as you do vainly allege; but because our Lord, having, by his commission, annexed it to the preaching of the word, whereof it is the seal, and it being the Sacrament of our initiation into the Church, its performance doth evidently appear to be most agreeable to the ordinary Church assemblies, wherever held; beside, that people's minds, prone to superstition, may, by the practice of Private Baptism, be readily inclined, both to apprehend the Popish absolute necessity of Baptism, and thence to regard the exterior action, more than the spiritual signification and efficacy, is confirmed, by undeniable experience, both in your and the Roman Churches: For the inconveniency, which you poorly exaggerate, from the distance of many Churches, the badness of seasons, and tenderness of Infants: as, unto this day, it was never made the ground of a real complaint, so you should understand, that the dispensations of God's Providence do not alter the dispositions of his holy will.  
From Baptism, you pass to plead for the private administration of the Communion to Persons on deathbed, and this you think, the seasonableness of its use, and the propriety of its ends to such a case, do abundantly persuade: To which I answer, 1. That though at no time, Faith and Love need more to be quickened, the Death of Christ more to be remembered, nor communion with the Church to be declared, then in the approach of the last pangs, it will not thence follow, that therefore the Communion may then be privately administrat: for, since not the seasonableness of the fruits, but the warrant and Rule given unto us, is first to be heeded, in the going about of holy administrations; nay, since that, without this regard duly adhibit, the blessing and fruits are but in vain expected, it is evident, that barely from the exigence of the fruits, to conclude, in any case, the lawfulness of the celebration, is preposterous Religion, and worse Reason: Now 2. That the rule set down to us, in this Sacrament, doth reprobate this your observance, is evident not only from that connexion, that there is and aught to be observed, betwixt the word, and Sacraments: But, 1. From our Lords own pattern in the institution, keeping this solemnity with the company of his Disciples, making as it were a little Christian Church: 2. Because the Apostle in his regulation of this Sacrament, according and with respect to his Master's pattern, doth suppose the Churches coming together into one place, and consequently the ordinary Church Assemblies, as a necessary requisite, in the free and peaceable times of the Church: 3. Because the very Mystery of the Lords Supper, representing the union of Believers with, and their communion in jesus Christ their Head and the name that it hath thence obtained, 1 Cor. 10. v. 16, 17. is not well consistent with this private administration: 'Tis true, the Authors of your Articles, not being able to decline the convincing evidence of this reason, do, among other preparations, require that there be three or four, free of lawful impediments, present with the sick person to communicate with him; but as such a packed Conventicle, beside other inconveniences, hath no just resemblance of the Church her ordinary Assemblies; much less can communicating with hand-wealed companions be a sign of that free, equable and comprehensive communion, signified by this Sacrament; so, it is manifest, that the forementioned requisite is only a colourable evasion, manifestly acknowledging the force of our argument, & in fraudem Legis, salvis verbis sententiam ejus circumveniens: But 3. This your Private Communion is to be reprobate; because, as the decumbents faith, love, and other graces, in that hour of his need, are only best excited by the means at that time allowed and competent, and the sanctified remembrance and improvement of other privileges, and ordinances, formerly enjoyed; so, it is certain, that this observance hath not only been abused by the Papists, unto the abomination of their private Ma●●; but is also rejected, by the Reformed Churches, not Lutheran, as found to be inductive of vain Superstition, wherever it is used; and for this I need not go far in search of confirmations, for you yourself in telling us, That your practice was very early in the Church, subjoin, that justin Martyr says, they sent of the Eucharist, to them that were absent, and that the story of Serapion shows, how necessary, Christians than thought it, to be guarded by this holy viaticum, which two instances, whether true or false, being generally held to be an excess, both inclining to, and introductive of vain Superstition; and therefore, reckoned among the first Naevi, appearing in the face of the Primitive Church, and now generally disused, by all the Churches of Christ, as they are by you adduced, do too evidently demonstrate, how much, both your spirit and customs, do bend to a relapse, in these evils.  
In the next place your N. C. asks you What you say for Kneeling in receiving; sure this looks like Superstition and Idolatry: And in return you confess, that it is the Article of them all, which you have least fondness for. And this indeed, is very fitly expressed, in as much as it is evident, it can be no rational or solid liking, which inclineth you, to any of them; but since even your fondness, as to this Article, is defective; how far must you be from doing the thing in faith? And how much more sound and Christian would it be for you, here to subsist, and say, since, for want of the warrant of Faith, this Kneeling cannot possibly please God, let it be removed from his Holy Ordinance? But you proceed and tell us, That since the kneelers do declare, that they neither believe Christ to be corporally present, nor intent any Worship to the bread or wine; but direct their Worship to God and Christ, for that death which is therein showed forth, it is great uncharitableness, for us, to call this kneeling Idolatry. 'Tis answered, Sir, as in the general, I have as dull a faculty, and small an inclination, for constructive inferences, specially in the worse part, as most of men; so really; if the purpose of this discourse were only a contest of opinion, upon the practice of persons, professing, as you say, and gracing the same with humility, meekness, and sincere love of the truth, the great Apologists for a dubious performance, for all the evil appearances, which I find in this matter, I think I ought rather to inform, in the Spirit of meekness, by pointing out the error, then by a severe naming of it, though just enough, both involve in more doubtful disputations, and like wise irritate, but seeing our business lies with such, who, having rejected and scorned all information, resisted yea gone over unanswerable light, and showed perverseness in practice, do further go about, subtly to seduce, nay rigidly and violently to impose upon others, who both have escaped and renounced these vanities: If the purity and truth of God's Ordinances, and the very end of charity, do in this case allow, a more peremptory plainness, I think your censure of our uncharitableness altogether unseasonable: Now that all your Ceremonies, but specially this act of Kneeling are Idolatrous, and that not only reductiuè and participatiuè, as they speak; but also directly, and formally, by rendering Formalists such, Gillespie in his English Popish Ceremonies, hath so fully demonstrat, and therein hath so diligently searched you out, in all your subterfuges, and clearly discussed all imaginable pretensions; that I should but wrong both him, and myself, and the cause, by offering either to repeat, or add: Only to convince you yet more, how little, in this affair, I am inclined groundlessly to tax your way of Idolatry: I grant that your Kneelers do not only profess, as you say, which may aswell be alleged for Worship done before a Crucifix, and yet doth not purge it of Idolatry. But further do acknowledge, the act of receiving and communicating to be no direct act of Worship; but first commemorative, having the acts of praise and thanksgiving, in the next place, resulting from it, and the gesture of adoration to be thereto only ascriveable; yet, seeing in mediate Worship, the media are necessarily objected, and of the very substance of the ordinance, without which it cannot subsist, it is manifest, that external adoration therein used, inevitably, though neither rationally, nor intentionally, respecting and relating to these objects, must of necessity be Idolatrous: For instance, suppose a person abstracting in profession, as much as you do from all respect to the minister, who in his preaching sustains his Master's person, and declaring, that neither rationally he could, nor intentionally did, attribute any more than becoming reverence to the word heard, should nevertheless in hearing, still kneel, would not you and all men say, that such an excess were superstitiously Idolatrous? How much more then, must this kneeling in the actual receipt and commemoration, (an act nothing so immediate betwixt God and the Soul, as that of hearing his word) of necessity respecting the Elements, in as much as without the presence thereof, it would not at all be by you exacted, fall under the same, yea a worse, construction? But, not to dip further in a discourse, which I have already told you, that I judge superfluous, as I have here exhibited the fairest interpretation of your way, and yet there is nothing found, even under the legal Ordinances, wherein the signs and instruments, often honoured with a visible Divine glory, were advanced to the highest pitch of a becoming reverence, that can, by any act of adoration, thereto properly directed or relative, any where recorded, justify your practice; so, when it occurs, that the 'samine is both contrary to our Lords own example, incongruous to the meaning, and end of the institution, and lastly known to be introduced by a Superstition, that very quickly discovered, and brought forth, the most gross of all the Popish Idolatries; how strange must this delusion be, that not only retaineth, but presseth it upon others? But when your N. C. urgeth you with our Lord's example of sitting in a Table-gesture● you tell him, That none should allege this, but such as communicate leaning, and after supper, and in an upper Room: And wherefore did you not add in the house, where one carrying a Pitcher doth enter; and in a city like to jerusalem: and the like, that so the folly of your reply might have discovered itself, without my meddling? But the matter is plain: Our Lord's example is to be our pattern and rule, both for the substance, and in the circumstances properly respecting its nature and ends: the substance of the institution, is, a mysterious Eucharistick commemoration of Christ's Death, by the symbols of Bread and Wine, used in the manner prescribed; the circumstances are, that the 'samine be performed by way of a festivity, at a Table, and the like: these things being observed, as the particular room, time and manner of the jews sitting mentioned in the Gospel, were only accidental; so, the 'samine are variable, according to the customs of every People, and Nation, without the least derogation from the Lords Ordinance, Nay if you would but deal with ordinary ingenuity, in these matters; seeing that our Lords familiar converse and Table-gesture, adhibite in this appointment, is not the least testimony of that condescending love, thereby represented, the just and fair imitation of his example, consisting in the like familiar manner, in genere actus, regulate by a due decency, doth equally reject, both the affected reverence of your impertinent Adoration, and also the other extreme of that rigid Apish conformity, in things purely accidental, whereby you go about to redargue our censure of your Superstition. But you say, Seing the Jews, without any written warrant, did change the commanded posture of the Pass-over, from standing to sitting, and Christ did thereto conform, wherefore may not Christians, who are less restrained, change the first gesture, which is not commanded, and only lamely exemplified, by leaning? 'Tis answered, The posture mentioned, Exod. 12. 21. in the institution of the Passe-over, is, that they should eat it with their loins girded, their shoes upon their feet, and their staff in their hand: there is no express mention made of standing. 2. Some are of opinion, that supposing standing to be imported, by what is enjoined; yet the posture was particular to that eating, at Israel's departure from Egypt, and that thereafter the posture was free, in respect that the formal perpetual ordinance, given after the first celebration, Exod. 12. 43. makes no mention of the gesture; and therefore, that the jews did thereafter use sitting, at least from the days of joshua, in sign of rest and secure liberty: however, certain it is, that as our Lord's posture in eating the Passe-over, whatever it was, was not contrary to the Divine prescription; so, the jews their practice, acknowledged by you to have been the same, can be no ground for your Superstitious innovation of Kneeling, introduced contrary to our Lord's example, the Rule of the institution; and both introductive of, and tending to plain Idolatry. As for that greater liberty allowed to Christians, which you here plead; as we have already heard, that you only allege our liberty, from the former rigour, to the effect you may impose your new yoke of a more irrational bondage; so, it is evident, that in this pla●e you mention our freedom of Gesture, on purpose, 〈◊〉 you may enslave us to the imposition of your Superstitious Kneeling: but he truly walketh at liberty, who keepeth the Lords Commandments. You shut up this Article with a perhaps, that more veneration is due to this action now, that our Saviour is exalted; then he could have allowed of in his humiliation: But. 1. the veneration, that you here speak of, to the action, sufficiently intimateth, that for all the pretences made in the contraire, the Kneeling, which you plead for, is in some sort relative to the Elements therein used, and therefore Idolatrous. 2. your perhaps, unsoundly insinuats, that our Lord could not have allowed of the same adoration, now due to him in Exaltation, in the state of his Humiliation; which you know to be false. 3. at best, it is a conjectural intruding into these things, which you have nor seen, and so not meriting any regard.  
In the last place, you treat of the Article, anent the observing of days, and denying that you pretend to make them holy days: you tell us, that it is another thing, to keep peculiar days of thanksgiving, for the great and signal mercies of the Gospel-dispensation, and in such customs you can apprehend no evil? and really, Sir, I am confident you have seen as little good: but to be short, remitting what may be said against this Article, to the pious and learned Labours of these Authors, which I have already commended; I only add, that although the construction which you put upon this observation of days, is certainly the most plausible that can be made; yet you know so well, how grossly these days have, in the Roman Church, been abused to superstition and profanity, both in their dedication and observation, And it is so obvious to any, how, to this day, the generality in these Reformed Churches, where they are observed, do, in the persvasion as well as practice, continue the same abuse, that I think, since they are only an humane invention, not good in itself, your own rule, p. 70. that, when such things are grossly abused, then there is ground to change their use, may fully satisfy you, as to the justice and reason of our dissent.  
But you affirm confidently, that in all Ages of the Church, Christians have had a peculiar veneration for these days: 'Tis answered, a veneration for these days, how doth this language agree with the above mentioned interpretation, whereby, reducing these days, to the condition of a mere circumstance of a constant Anniversary thanksgiving, you go about to purge them of all further Superstition? But this wind of your vanity can not he hid: it is as the ointment of the right hand which bewrayeth itself. 2. These days, were not in veneration, in the first and purest Age of the Church, whereby, both the generality of your assertion, and your argument, from Antiquity, are subverted: you tell us that the observation of Easter and Pentecost, are clearly derived from Apostolical practices: what you understand by Apostolical practices, concerns me not, seeing that the Apostles, and Church, in their times, knew no such thing: And this Negative, proving itself, cannot be controlled: I grant, the succeeding Ages became soon fond of these vanities; but, what were the bitter fruits of contention and schism, which the Lord in his justice, did suffer this early corruption to produce, is notourly known, and certainly such, as alone might have taught the whole ensuing generations, to be more tender of Gospel purity and simplicity: Shall we then also refuse instruction?  
But you say, Paul hasted to be at Jerusalem to keep the feast of Pentecost: Pray, Sir, be more sincere; all we find in Scripture, is, that he hasted to be at jerusalem, the day of Pentecost: And I appeal to common ingenuity, if that any rational man, considering Paul to be a jew, and to hasten, against one of their three great Feasts and Convocations, then by the jews still observed, to his own Country and its Metropolis, where the general and solemn confluence of his whole Nation was to meet, can thence conclude, that he went thither to keep the Feast of Pentecost, in the meaning by you insinuate and requisite to your purpose?  
In the last place you tell us that Paul sayeth of the legal holy days, he that regardeth a day, to the Lord he doth regard it: Whence you infer, that if Moses his Feasts might have been kept holy to the Lord, much more may these be, which the Church hath institute. Really, I am so wearied with this poor stuff, that civility, forgetting it to be your own, doth almost prompt me to demand your pardon, for resuming it: The Apostle Paul in that Chapter, is most expressly declaring, our Christian Liberty, and its right use, and in the case of a weak Brother, esteeming one day above another, belike from the difference made by Moses Law, he only adviseth, that he be fully persuaded in his own mind, and seeing he regardeth it unto the Lord, he would not have him therefore judged: Now tell me plainly, is this either the case or the controversy betwixt us? Are Bishops the weak Brethren, from the abiding impress, of a Divine dispensation fulfilled and evanishing, but not expressly antiquat, tenderly and conscientiously over-esteeming and regarding certain days; and therefore only pleading a charitable forbearance. Or lastly: Seing the Bishops do not only, without warrant, keep up these superstitious observations; but peremptorily enjoin and impose them upon others; whereas the Apostle in the same place, doth both declare our Liberty, and, with equal care, prescribe, that, seeing he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it; that therefore he should not be judged: Are they not by the very Text here alleged manifestly convicted? But it is enough: And whether our dislike of these Festivals, and the other Articles of Perth, be not well grounded, and your observing and enjoining of them both Superstitious and irrational, I leave it to the judgement of all the Lovers of Truth.   

The sixth DIALOGUE Answered.  
SIR, To this conference, very visibly contrived for the commendation of yourself and your way, and wherein pretending, by sublime speculations and the swelling words of a fair profession, to elevat Souls to the solid heights, and true liberty of Christianity, you plainly go about, to introduce a regardless indifferency, for all these corruptions and superstitious practices, whereunto, in a convenient compliance with the present course, you cunningly endeavour to subject us; you make you N. C. preface, That there is no good to be hoped from you, who are so fierce against us, and to add with little serious reverence, but God be thanked an ill-willed Cow hath short horns: Whence taking the occasion, you tell us of your extreme aversion from fierce and violent courses, your love to all Christians, your pity of such as you judge mistaken, and that you quarrel with no man for his opinion, in these lesser matters, Which are but the skirts and suburbs of Religion, and so forth. Sir, if Censure were either my Genius or office, how easy were it for me, to strip both you and your party of this your sheep's clothing: We have heard in the preceding Dialogues, your frequent accusations of Rebellion and Faction, your virulent calumnies of the most inhuman, unnatural, and barbarous Wickedness that can be paralleled, your insolent mockeries at fancied mistakes, and lastly, all that hath preceded, a continual quarrel about these things, which you call lesser matters, and all this, against the generality, nay, against the whole of the Godly and sober in the Land; but especially, the Lords faithful and suffering Ministers; and yet you have the boldness, to wipe your mouth, and make a boast of your singular gentleness, Christian love, compassion upon them that are out of the way, and tender forbearance toward dissenters in lesser things. But, I have already meddled too far in this concention, only, as I would not have men mistaken concerning you, so, for preventing of their mistake of us, from your N. C. suggestion, I assure you plainly, that though any man may affirm, without fear of a contradiction, that the Prelatic Spirit, mingled in the midst of you, is irreligious, false, fierce, jealous, cruel, covetous and proud; and, in these few years bygone, hath less or more appeared, in all these evil qualities, yet as the seen fury, folly and profanity of your Bishops and Curates, and a secret conviction, in all men, of the consistency of true Loyalty with the Country's just aversion from them, may in politic prudence, induce our Governors to restrain some what of the rage of that Party, which we are thankfully to acknowledge, so it is our Prayer to God, that he would lead them on, to a full and just consideration of the true causes of all our grievances, and to serious repentance and returning unto God, who alone, with truth, can restore unto us true peace and establishment. You subjoine here the late King's advice of Moderation to his Son, who now reigneth; and would, forsooth, have us to believe, that his words to express both your opinion, and temper: and really, though I cannot altogether acquit their strain of prejudice, nor carry their design higher than the ends of Policy; yet they contain so much of sound reason, and the later part of them, viz. take heed, that outward circumstances and formalities of Religion devour not all, or the best, encouragements of Learning, Industrie, and Piety, is so sadly verified, in the present condition of affairs, that I cannot but with wonder reflect, how such a rational instruction, taught to the Author, by long and costly experience, should at his Majesty's return, have been so much neglected, and, even to this day, after so visible an accomplishment, so little remembered? But the use you make of this passage, is only to bewray your N. C. childishness, and show a little of your own affectation, by causing him first to say, It seems you are a Latitudinarian, and then by your answering, that if by latitude be meant charity, you glory in it; but as I have already demonstrat, in the second Dialogue, that it is conveniency, more than sincerity, which relaxes and dilates your charity; and, as it is too too evident, that it is the love of Peace, more than of Truth, which doth recommend men to the favour of your good opinion; so, I would have you to consider, that rectitude, and not latitude, is the measure and character of the ways of God: Nay, when I remember our Lord's words, Enter ye in at the straight gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction; but straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth unto life: The fairest gloss, whereof your latitude is capable, cannot reconcile me to the designation: It is therefore, in the straightness, yea and straitnes of this Rule, and in the practice of the new commandment of Love, that you may truly glory, but only in the Lord: The assuming of Names, other than that of Christian, is but an empty vanity, and that of latitude, is so little expressive of pure Christian charity, that you see it is the very Gospel-epithet of the broad way of damnation.  
In the next place, taking, as it appears, with this new name of Latitudinarian, for all your disowning of it, within a few lines preceding, you and your N. C. together, playing to others hands, compound a pretty garland of praises, for yourself, and complices: And where he acknowledgeth, That you live very good lives, are strong witted People, sound against Socinianism, clear and free from Popish errors, you add on your part, That your principles are neither dangerous nor loose; that there are none greater haters of, and enemies to, Atheism; that you give a rational and convincing account of Christianity, to all clear witted men; that with a due measure of Charity for Papists, and regard to the union of the Catholic Church, you disclaim all errors, and give a most clear and scriptural account, of the points debateable; and lastly, that even where the attributes of God's sovereignty, and goodness, seem to interfere, by faith, you stoup the mouth of weak reason: Certainly, then, the men of the latitude are sound, and orthodox men; nay, no doubt, but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you: Yet, if I might a little search you out, I would demand, 1. Why you thus distinctly characterise yourself, under a peculiar name; for, that you do not understand these Epithets of all your party, nay, not of your Bishops, and most of your Curates, is evident, even from the first, whereby you assert, that you live very good lives, which, I am certain, many of them do not so much as pretend to? 2. If the principles of you Latitudinarians, be the same, that we have set down, in the preceding Dialogues, viz. that preaching is not to be termed the Word of God; and consequently that Ministers are not his Messengers; that the Church (and we know not what Church) may antiquat and cause to cease, the obligation of practices, such as the washing of feet, and anointing the sick with oil, though, as punctually and perpetually enjoined in the Scripture, as either of the Sacraments; that Christ's Kingdom is so inward and spiritual, that Offices, and Officers, can no more be thence pleaded for, in the Church, than the stamping of Coin; that, if the inward opinion be left free, no imposition upon the outward practice can wrong Christian liberty; that extemporate prayer is but fancicall and carnal; that there is no praying by the Spirit, unless in a manner and in words infallible; that the English Liturgy is an excellent Rule of Worship; and many such like things: Certainly, if these, I say, be the principles of the Latitudinarians, as they are yours, they are very loose and dangerous, even subversive of the very foundations, the Word of God, and the Ordinances therein appointed. 3. You take to yourselves the commendation of very good lives: I wish you may not be deceived; the Pharisees made clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but God requireth and searcheth the heart, and these things that come forth from the heart, evil thoughts, deceit, blasphemies, pride, foolishness, as well as adulteries, murders, thefts, these defile the man: What of these may be found in this little Volume of your Dialogues, especially, lies, calumnies, mockings, it were too rigid for me to recapitulat; I leave it to the impartial perusal of what both of us have said: Only as I desire not to be accounted so uncharitable, as to propose this, as a proportional cognizance of all the writings and sayings of the men of your way; so, I heartily pray the Lord, to make all of you, indeed, rectitudinarians. 4. As for your strong wits, I wish you may be as little puffed up with the conceit of them, as we are terri●fied by their opposition; that you do not abuse them to Atheism, or Socinianism, we cheerfully accept of the acknowledgement: Only let me tell you, that though we be as loath, as you are, to deny Christianity, both in its Articles of belief, and precepts of practice, to be highly congruous, to the dictates of right reason; and do grant, that Religion, the highest accomplishment of Nature, is suitable to man's supreme faculty; yet, that thus to propose them, is the most convincing way to all clear witted men, labours of these difficulties, 1. That, although there be not only as much obvious reason, in the revelation of the Gospel, as may stop the mouth of all Gainsayers, and unanswerably confound the vanities of Atheism, and all false Religions, but also, such a Divine congruous light, as, once entering and dispelling the natural man's darkeness, causeth these things, which formerly were to him as foolishness, appear to be the wisdom of God; yet, it is certain, that the things of God, depending solely upon his free, holy, and unsearchable good pleasure, and decree, and being only communicate by the revelation, and receivable in the illumination of the Spirit, to think to propose and enforce them, by rational persuasion, for the conversion of men in the state of nature, is vain and presumptuous: and therefore, if it be in this manner, that you do understand your assertion, viz. that thus to propose them, is the most convincing way to all clear witted men, seeing, it both imports a sufficiency in the proposer, and a possible capacity in the hearers, to convert without efficacy of Divine grace, and the light of revelation, it is doubly peccant. 2. In what sort soever your assertion be understood, the superlative preference, which it giveth to your way of reason, directly impingeth upon the Apostles their manner of preaching; which was not with the wisdom of words, but in that simplicity, which unto these, that sought after wisdom, was as foolishness: It was neither by the Wise, nor by the Scribe; nor by the Disputer; but God choosed the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise: Consider the Apostles their Sermons, yet extant; specially Peter's, not only to the jews, but also to Cornelius and the first converts of the Gentiles, there can be nothing more simple, either in persuasion, or in expression: Hear Paul's testimony of himself [and I brethren, came not with excellency of speech, or of wisdom, declaring unto you, the testimony of God; but was with you, in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling:] etc. and certainly, if you will be pleased to ponder the reason and end, which he subjoins, viz. [that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men; but in the power of God] You cannot but perceive, both the difference of this way from, and its excellency above that of rational persuasion, which you so much commend. 3. As neither the undoubted congruity of Christianity to reason once enlightened, nor the sufficiency of reason, by its own force, to redargue proud mockers and despisers, do conclude its aptitude for the discovery, explication, or right uptaking of the things of God, without the Spirit, which alone knoweth them; So, it is justly to be feared, that this new method, of adventuring by reason, without the testimony of the word, to propose and explain these mysteries● do not only prove ineffectual, for true instruction; but also inductive of the Authors themselves, into many misprisions and errors: For men to quite and lay aside the conduct of the true and only light which is the best evidence and manifestation, both of its self, and of its object, and in a vain curiosity, to set up and demonstrat by the taper of Reason, in the sunshine of revelation, and to endeavour, to cause reason lead or guide, which, with much difficulty, is able to follow, is a presumption, not more full of pride then of danger: Paul was a man very learned, long exercised, and no doubt mightily fervid in all the Arts and Methods of reasoning; but from the time, that, that light from Heaven, above the brightness of the Sun, shined about him, and laid him on the ground, trembling and astonished, we find his speech in the matters of the Gospel, was not with enticing or persuasive words of Man's wisdom; but in demonstration of the Spirit, with much fear: sometime indeed he disputes, and thereby also confounds; but it is his preaching that mostly converts. Think not that, by these reflections, I aim particularly at either the fault or fate of the men of your way: no, let their writings speak for themselves; but that there is such a vanity, too much in present practice, the late, more pretendedly rational, then Scriptural, essays of many, do too sadly evince.  
4. You say that you Latitudinarians are neither Papists, nor Cassandrians; but, in effect, charitable Protestants, and that you are far from that height of rigour, of damning all Papists, which some of us own. 'Tis answered, That we are sufficiently tender in this point, is notour to all, and this your challenge, if rightly understood of Papists, that is of all, who live within the verge of and own the Church of Rome, is as groundless as your needless profession of an uncontroverted charity, because they hold the foundation jesus Christ, though they build upon it, wood, hay, and stubble: I confess that, seeing thereby you plainly enough insinuate, that Papists, even as such, do not err fundamentally, and consequently, under this reduplication may be saved, it imports to me an excess, wherewith we ought not to comply. To join with the merit of Jesus Christ, that of their own good works, nay, of their own superstitious inventions; and to his Mediation, that of Saints, seem to me to impinge upon the very foundation, which you acknowledge. What shall we then say, of the avowed gross Idolatries and Superstitions, ridiculous penitences and perverted morality, whereby, both the truth, and spirituality of God's Worship and Service, with the inward and genuine Grace of Obedience and Sanctification, are subverted? Really, Sir, these appear to me, to be a superstructure of such naughty stuff, as neither the sincerity of Grace, with which I judge them incompatible, nor even the flames of their own purgatory, will ever purge away.  
But you proceed: That though you will not say, that all things controverted, betwixt the Reformed Churches and them, are matters of Salvation; yet in their greater errors, such as the Pope's Supremacy, the Church's infallibility, the corporal presence etc. you condemn them, and perhaps on clearer grounds, than we do: 'Tis answered, 1. That the things controverted with the Papists are not all of them such, as do directly and necessarily, in belief or practice, appertain to Salvation, is not by us denied; but, where, in this your latitude, you do in effect intimate such a dissent from the Reformed Churches, as if many things betwixt us and the Papists, were needlessly by us drawn in question, it is such an undervaluing of the will and way of the Lord, whereupon, even in our smallest differences, we hope, we are founded; that I could not pass it, without an observation. 2. Whether you do indeed condemn the Papists, in many of the points by you enumerate, let be on better grounds, is to me very dubious? You say, you are against the Pope's Supremacy; but how is it then, that you have transferred it upon his Majesty, and that with a more ample extent, than ever was conceded to, nay, or arrogat by any Pope? That the King, may enact such Acts, and Orders, concerning the administration of the external Government of the Church, and the Persons therein employed, and concerning all Ecclesiastic Meetings and matters, therein to be proposed, as he shall think fit, is more than any Pope ever assumed: Pray, Sir, is the difference betwixt the persons of the Pope, and Prince, the hinge of the controversy? Or, is this one of the clearer grounds, you talk of? consider it at your leisure. In the next place, you tell us, that you condemn the Church's infallibility, and yet, p. 31. of this same Book, your affirm that even in matters, as punctually set down in Scripture, as either of these Sacraments, the Church may judge, that God did not therein intent any perpetual obligation, and, by her practice, oblige us to a cessation, and consequently, alter Scripture-determinations: Beside, you know what power you attribute to the Church, to impose significant ceremonies and other observances; which, although you tell us, for an evasion, do not take away the liberty of inward opinion; yet you affirm, that they do bind in Conscience to a conformable practice: Verily, if a Church so impowered be not infallible, the concessions are too large; but the truth is, Scripture defectible, the Church fallible, and nothing fixed, appear to be most aggreeable, to the lightness of your brains, and the Conveniency of your new latitude. 3. You affirm, that you are against the corporal presence, and also the worshipping of Images; and yet, you are for Adoration, to, before, or, in order to, the Eliments: For call it as you will, you plead for it, as due veneration, in the action, whereof, they are the necessary objects: how these do consist, I see not: For my part, I cannot but judge, the Papists, though more gross, yet more consequent. But we have enough of this subject, and these few instances premised may indeed well justify the excessive love, which you profess to the unity of the Catholic Church, wherein you include the Roman; and your esteem for such, meaning by Cassander, and others of his way, who have studied to bring things to a temper, do palpably hold out your bias to their haltings: But if the unity and temper, that you aim at, be of this temper, since it hath not truth for its foundation, the Lord deliver his Churches from it.  
In the next place your N. C. and you fall a quarrelling, about justification, and after you have first taxed, then smoothed, and again, in a manner, rejected the Papists their justification by works, and their Merit, you proceed to justification by faith only: and when you have given us your explanation of it, you make a pretty bo●st, as it, forsooth, by your right apprehension of things, you had, in a few words, told that, which, with much nicety swells amongst us to Volumes: Sir, I so greatly desire to find you walking in the truth, and am so little in love with contention, especially in a matter of this importance, that I am resolved, rather fanely to pass, then rigidly to strain, even your more ambiguous expressions; but since you would make the World believe, that, with you and you only, is to be found both Truth and Light; and that, on the other hand, we do perplex this point, with Niceties and subtleties, it will not be amiss, that in this matter, I examine you more particularly: which that I may perform, with the greater candour and perspiciuty, I shall first exhibit your words, in their full context, and thereafter review them in parts.  
You say then, That justification and Condemnation are two opposite legal terms, relating to the judgement shall be given out, at the last day: For though we are said to be condemned already, this is only, that we are now in the state of such, as shall be solemnly justified or condemned. Now, at the great day, we must give an account of our actions, and we must be judged accordingly; but since all must be condemned, if God enter in judgement with them; therefore God gave his Son to the death for us, that thereby we might obtain Salvation: And all judment is, by the Father, committed to the Son: and jesus Christ hath proposed life, through his death, to as many as receive his Gospel, and live according to it: And as that, which gives us a title to the favour of God, is the blood of Christ; so that which gives us an interest in his death, is faith, with a life conform to the rules of the Gospel, and the root of this new life, is a faith which worketh by love, purifieth the heart, and overcometh the world, and therefore justification is ascribed to it in Scripture: and this, you say, is the right apprehension of things; both ascribing all to Christ, and declaring clearly the necessity of a holy life. 'Tis answered; The matter of Justification, being, in effect, the very substance of the Gospel, and its right uptaking, of the greatest moment, in order to our Salvation, for as much, as you, by an affected simplicity, and simulat smoothness, do palpably labour to involve and pervert it; I shall first represent, in your words, and in its own colours, the error which you would impose, and then discuss these reasons, and insinuations, whereby you endeavour, rather cunningly to cover and convey it, then plainly to maintain it.  
The scope then and aim of your discourse is, that the proposal of life in the Gospel, through the death of Christ, is to as many as receive it, and live according to it; that, that which giveth us an interest in the death of Christ, is ●aith with a li●e conform to the ralls of the Gospel, and that because of the fruits of faith, love, purity of heart, and victory over the world; therefore justification is ascribed unto it in Scripture. The meaning of which expressions in plain language, is, that it is by good works, joined with faith, nay, by good works principally, and faith referred to them, as the root thereof, and not by faith only, as the instrument, whereby the perfect Righteousness of Jesus Christ is laid hold upon, and becometh ours, in God's sight, that we are justified. Now, that this your opinion is false, and is to be rejected, appeareth by these many, and plain Scriptures: By the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, Rom. 3. 20. The man is blessed, to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Rom. 4. 6. By grace we are saved, not of works, lest any man should boast, Eph. 2. 8. 9 Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to his Mercy he saved us, Tit. 3. 5. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, 2. Cor. 5. 19 God hath saved us with an holy calling, not according to our works; but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us, in Christ jesus, before the world began, 2 Tim. 1. 9 He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2. Cor. 5. 21. jesus Christ, is made of God, unto us, Wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, 1. Corin. 1. 30. He is the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, jer. 23. 6. We are justified freely by God's Grace, through the redemption that is in Christ jesus. Whom God hath set forth to be a propisiation through faith in his blood. Rom. 3. 24, 25. By the righteousness of Christ, the free gift came upon all men to the justification of life: and by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous, Rom. 5, 18. 19 We are justified by the faith of jesus Christ, and not by the works of the law Gal. 2. 16. He that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifyeth the ungodly, his faith is counted unto him for righteousness, Rom. 4. 5. And lastly, A man is justified by faith, it without the works of the law, Ro. 5. 28. This 〈◊〉 hope is plain Scripture language, without any subtil●y: How can you then join our works of the Law with the righteousness of faith, even the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which faith doth apprehend, & appropriate for our Justification in God's sight, contrary to these most manifest testimonies? Certainly, if men would but seriously examine and consider what Gods word doth so plainly and rationally hold forth, anent this purpose, how quickly would that pure and perfect light dispel darkness, clear doubtings, and give us both a right understanding, and sound and easy expression therein. God did create and appoint man to bear, and be conformable to his image, for the manifestation of his own glory; and thereby to partake and enjoy his favour, for our felicity: for that end, he gave his holy and righteous Law, on the one hand, being both the way to, and bearing the promise of life unto the obedient; and on the other, pronouncing wrath and death, against such, as should be disobedient: The sanction and pain of this divine Law being by 〈◊〉 incurred, and all mankind standing thereby condemned, and bound over to wrath in God's sight, the Grace of God that bringeth Salvation, appeareth, holding forth Jesus Christ, manifested in our flesh, and therein fulfilling all righteousness, suffering in both Body and Soul, dying, shedding his blood, and making his Soul an offering, for a propitiation and ransom, for satisfying Divine justice, and reconciling us unto God, rising again for our Justification, and being made perfect through suffering, became the Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him; that is, believe and receive this Gospel-covenant (whereof he himself was also the Minister) holding him forth, for Wisdom, Right, ousnes, Sanctification, and absolute Redemption-to all that come unto and embrace him: And therefore, as at first, Christ came into the world, by doing the will of God, and making his Soul an offering for sin, to bring in everlasting Righteousness, even the Righteousness of God through faith in his Name; so, because he was obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross, God hath therefore highly exalted him and given him a name, which is above every name, and, vesting him with all power in Heaven and in Earth, hath made him the Head of all things, unto his Church, and committed unto him all Judgement, that he may, one day, render both vengeance unto the Disobedient and Unbelievers, and receive unto himself and the Father's Glory, his own, who, through faith in his Name, are justified in God's sight, and by his grace purified, and preserved unto his heavenly Kingdom. This being then the plain Gospel-revelation, to lost and condemned sinners: what else doth it require, then, that in the knowledge and sense of this our sinful, wretched and miserable estate, flowing from Jesus Christ our Wisdom, we, by faith, lay hold on him and his Righteousness, for our ransom from wrath, and alone acceptation in God's sight; and also for obtaining of Sanctification, consisting in the purging away of all filthiness of the flesh and Spirit; which the penitent Convert; as he feareth its guilt and wrath, doth, in like manner, detest and abhor; and the perfecting holiness in the fear of God: And lastly for complete Redemption from, and victory over, Satan, the World, the body of this death itself, in the triumph of the Resurrection, and the plenary possession of Eternal life. By all which, it is evident, that whatever be these other graces and blessings, which we partake, in and through our Lord Jesus; yet it is through and by faith alone, as an instrument, and in respect of its peculiar aptitude for that end, apprehending or laying hold on Christ Jesus, the only Propitiation, and his Righteousness, the alone Satisfaction, that we are justified in God's sight. And really, Sir, when in this sincere and clear light, I have proposed this matter, I wonder, what vanity or ignorance could seduce you, to the doctrine which you here deliver. To grant, as you do, Justification to be a judicial act, whereby, no doubt, we are to understand, that God as the great Judge, attempering justice with mercy, doth thereby accept of a Ransom and Surety offered, and therefore absolve, yea justify the Criminal; and yet, notwithstanding of the evident Scripture testimonies, that show the Lord our Righteousness to be, in very deed, this Ransom and Surety, and faith only its instrumental application, to join good works with it, and state both, as the condition of our Justification, is not only reproved by the Papists their more consequent explication, who, because they admit of works in Justification, do therefore hold it, not to be a judicial act; but rather a gracious work; but by the common sense of all men, in these similare instances, from which the manner of explaining these things is borrowed: If in our ordinary Courts, the Law being transgressed, and the transgressor convicted, the pronouncing of the doom of judgement, and its execution, were stopped, by the interposition of a ransom and surety offered, so fully satisfying and acceptable in the eyes of the judge, that, for his sake, the poor Criminal were both pardoned and received to special favour, would any rational man say, that the person guilty, were thus absolved and justified, either for his act of laying claim to the price and pledge, as a condition; seeing it is only the moral instrument, whereby the true motive of the ransomers satisfaction is applied; or yet for the act itself, together with the absolved person his consequent good behaviour, which is the parallel of your interpretation which is yet more absurd; And not rather affirm plainly, that it is for the ransom and surety only, that the man is acquit and accepted? Certainly common ingenuity, which must acknowledge all the defects of this similitude, to be the manifest advantages of the point, principally pressed, will both cede to the conviction of its evidence, and transfer it plainly to the case in hand.  
Having thus set down a Scriptural and easy account of this important truth, which (reflecting upon almost all Protestant Divines, with whom in this we agree, and wandering in your raveries, after no better guide than Patrick the Pilgrim) you say, is by us handled, with much niceness and subtlety: for it's further clearing, and the better discovery of your vanity: I shall now examine your discourse in its particulars: and 1. you say, justification and Condemnation are two opposite legal terms. By legal, I know you mean judicial, and therefore, in place of urging your mistake, I seriously wish that the tenor of what ensues, had been consistent to so true and solid a ground: but you add: That they relate to the judgement shall be given out at the last day: a strange fetch to compass a false design, I might remember you, that the Scripture is express, That being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord jesus Christ: and there is now therefore, no condemnation to them which are in Christ jesus, who (by their assured partaking of his grace, and in consequence of their true faith in him, and Justification therethrough) walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit: and that thence it is evident, that, as it is God that judgeth; so it is by an act of his free grace, in Jesus Christ, antecedent to the last judgement, that we are reconciled unto him, and justified in his sight. But your own words, viz. For though we are said to be now justified as the unbelieving are said to be condemned already, this is only, that we are now in the state of such, as shall be solemnly justified or condemned; do sufficiently reprove you, because,  
1. It is certain, that the unbelieved are not, improperly, and with respect only to that future judgement, said to be condemned already; but, as by reason of sin, judgement is already come upon all unto condemnation, and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, is under the curse, and the wrath of God abideth on him; so it is manifest, that now it is, that they stand truly under the condemning power and sentence of God's holy Law, from which, it is most unquestionable, that condemnation doth directly proceed against all transgressors; however, in the forbearance of God, they are not only for a time reprived, but place left for a ransom.  
2. To be justified freely through grace, doth plainly import, the person justified to be antecedently under condemnation; if by the offence, judgement had not come upon all to condemnation, there had been no need of the Righteousness of Christ, to the justification of life: How then, can the opposite instance of Condemnation, be by your referred unto the last day? Far less made an argument to defer, until that judgement, our justification, which of necessity doth presuppose it: Certainly, you cannot but grant it to be most absurd, to think, that Believers shall, in that day, be first condemned, and thereafter justified.  
3. When you say, That it is in that day, that men shall be solemnly justified or condemned, you clearly resolve the matter: viz. that as the solemnity of the judgement of that day, shall be only declarative, and finally executive; so it evidently concludes, that the judgement, then to be pronounced, was given and established of before. Pray, Sir, do you think the Spirits of just men made perfect, are not as yet justified?  
But 4. you grant, that we are now in the state of such, as shall be solemnily justified or condemned; which clearly shows; your insinuation premised to be only a design, to obscure by words without knowledge, in as much, as the question remains the same, anent this state, and how we now attain to it, as anent the justification, which you would defer: And 1. What is the state of justification? Is it not that we who were under the Curse and aliens, are accepted unto favour, pardoned, and brought near? Wherein doth it then differ, from actual justification? 2. How is it, that we attain to this state? Sure not by works, either alone, or in conjunction with faith, as we have heard from Scripture, and shall be further evinced. But if it be by faith alone, as the instrument laying hold on the sole meritorious Righteousness of Christ, our difference is only verbal, wherein you foolishly resile from Scripture phrase: If you shall further add, that by faith we do indeed attain to this state, but only inchoatly, or unfixedly, and changeably, than you evidently impinge, both upon the perfection of Christ's Righteousness, and the fair and certain grounds of the Saints their perseverance.  
It followeth in your discourse, Now at the great day we must give an account of our actions, and we must be judged accordingly: And I note in your ensuing words That since all must be condemned, if God enter into judgement with them, and that not only, if he should charge us with our transgressions, but even if he should only reckon with us, upon our good works, and for that imperfection and weakness, wherewith, as they are from us, they are tainted; doth not the certainty of this judgement, above all things, plead the necessity, and alone sufficiency of the Righteousness of Jesus Christ, for our Justification? But to restore your words to their own channel, you say, that since all must be condemned, if God enter into judgement; therefore God gave his Son unto the death for us, that thereby we might obtain Salvation: And though by this passage, it be clearly enough imported; that it is before God, and by the sentence of his Law, that all men stand condemned; and that therefore, he hath given his Son, whose Death and Blood is the Propitiation, and in whom he is well pleased, to be a ransom, for liberation and acceptation to all that believe on him; whereby Justification by faith in Jesus Christ, without the deeds of the Law, is in substance granted; yet for ushering in your good works, to share with faith, in Justification, by a strange connexion, you subjoin: And all judgement is committed by the Father to the Son, and jesus Christ hath proposed life through his death to as many as receive his Gospel, and live according to it. But I must take notice.  
1. That by laying down the commission of judgement given to the Son, as a ground to his proposing of the Gospel offer, you manifestly repugn to our Lords own words and testimony, expressly distinguishing the character of his first coming, which was in the form of a servant, to minister, not to be ministered unto, and by performing the Father's commandment, to save the World, and not to judge it; from that of his second coming, which shall be with power and great glory, to the Salvation of all that look for him, and to judge and to execute judgement upon all, that are ungodly.  
2. By making our Lord's commission to judge, antecedent to his ministration of the Gospel, you invert Truth and plain Scripture-evidence, whereby it is clear, that our Lord was first sent into the World, to preach the Gospel, and lay down his life for sinners; that, whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life: And then, because of his complete, and perfect obedience, is exalted to be the Head of all things, unto the Church, and hath Authority also to execute judgement committed to him, because he is the Son of Man.  
But. 3. By this your doctrine, you in effect subvert the grace of the Gospel, in as much as, in the place of the Gospel-covenant, offering pardon and peace to poor lost sinners, through Christ Jesus, and, with and in him, all grace and glory; you introduce our Lord, as having, by his death, indeed merited the privilege of a new offer of life unto sinners; but making and renewing the same, in no better terms, than these of the Law-covenant; for as the Law sayeth, that the man that doth these things shall live by them; so, you tell us, that the terms of the Gospel-tender, are to receive the same, and live according to it: Now, if the Law doth offer life, to such as receive and live according to it; and our Lord's proposal stand in the like terms, admit the proposers not to be the same; yet the proposals are certainly coincident: and therefore, although the eternal transaction betwixt the Father and the Son, may be of Grace; yet it is undeniable, that, in your opinion, the tenders of the Law and Gospel, as to us-ward, do rune in the same tenor; and the condescendence of both, prerequiring our works, is equally to be reckoned of debt: These being the consequences of that Gospel-method, by you here contrived, and its design no less evident, to make works with saith, the condition and procuring cause of our justification, at least in the sight of Christ, as the Judge appointed: I add;  
1. That your attributing of justification to Christ, as judge ordained over all, in the last judgement, is contrary to the Scripture, that telleth us, that it is one God that justifieth, it is Christ that died, mark the distinction made; and no doubt, reason itself informing us, that it is the Law and Lawgiver, and not the Judge, which define duty, determine pains, and condemn the transgressors, poenae enim persecution, non judicis voluntati mandatur; sed legis authoritati reservatur: It doth also confirm, that it appertains unto God only, as the Lawgiver, to remit the punishment incurred, and accept and justify sinners, upon an aequipollent satisfaction.  
2. The Authority to execute judgement being given to our Lord, as the Mediator; and because he is the Son of Man, in which respect, he is not the principal Author and efficient, but only the meritorious cause of our justification; not the very act, but only the solemn declaration thereof, can be ascrived to him, in this capacity; unless you can conceive, that our Lord is not only, both the Ransom, and the accepter thereof, but that, by becoming the Propitiation, he also becometh the party to be appeased, which are palpably inconsistent.  
3. The plain Scripture-truth, in this point, is that our Lord having completely obeyed the will of God, and being made perfect through suffering, is therefore highly exalted above every name, and hath all power and judgement committed to him; whereby, as he doth, here in time, every with all Grace, guide, support, and preserve all that believe in him; and also overrule, restrain, and punish all his, and their Adversaries; so, shall he, in the last day, appear, first, to receive and welcome all his redeemed ones, formerly justified by his Righteousness, and sanctified by his Grace, unto his Father's joy: And then with them, to judge the reprobate, and take vengeance on all, that know not God, and obey not the Gospel: by which it is evident, that Justification proceeding from God, for Christ's sake, and necessarily preceding, both our Sanctification here, and Glorification in the last day, cannot be referred unto that judgement, which is only declarative and executive, according to these words, Come ye blessed of my Father, nor explicate, according to its scheme: And therefore, although our Lord do therein, for our encouragement in well doing, and the commendation of the riches of his bounty, make mention of our good works, and shall certainly, in that day, also crown his own free grace in us, with a reward; yet, thence to infer, that our Justification before God, and in order to his holy justice, having for its alone cause, the Righteousness of Jesus Christ, and imported in the compellation, ye blessed of my Father, is founded, on our weak love, and scant charity which, even the Righteous in that day, seem ashamed to own, is both a groundless error, and high presumption.  
But I proceed to your next words viz. That Christ jesus hath proposed life through his death, to as many as receive his Gospel and live according to it. That, this is a manifest perversion of the free Grace of God, whereby our Lord Jesus doth freely hold out himself unto us, not only for to be our Righteousness for Justification; but also our Sanctification through his Spirit, unto the glory of God; and therefore doth not require our holiness, as an antecedent condition, seeing, it is indeed his own subsequent Gi●t, the obvious evidence of so clear a truth, may sufficiently confirm, and the following arguments do unanswerably evince.  
1. Our Lords own words, the surest Rule for understanding the proposal controverted, do contain a free tender, and not the terms by you represented: Hear what he saith to Nicodemus: Whosoever believeth in the Son of man, shall no, perish, but have eternal life: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish, but have everlasting life, john 3. 15, 16. john addeth, he that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life, chap. 3. v. 36. And again, our Lord sayeth, this is the work of God, that you believe on him, whom he hath sent: And this is his will, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth, may have everlasting life: Verily verily I say unto you, he that believeth on me, hath everlasting life. john. 6. 29, 40, 47. Surely these are Gospel proposals, yea the very sum and substance of its offer, whereof your condition of a conformable life, maketh no part: I might add Paul's words to the Jailor, believe on the Lord jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved; but it is so much the strain of the whole New Testament, that it were unnecessary to enlarge.  
2. If when we were Enemies, and not for works of Righteousness, which we have done, we were reconciled unto God, by the death of his Son, than the proposal of life, and Justification, is made through faith in his Name, without the condition of these good works, which you join with it; but so it is, that the antecedent is plain Scripture; therefore that the consequent is identick with it, as Justification and Reconciliation are, cannot be denied.  
3. That which is the end of our Election, Calling and Redemption by Jesus Christ, & is his undertaking for us, in that respect, and is the fruit of our faith, and of our acceptation therethrough, yea, and is the product of the Father's care over us, as accepted in the Beloved, cannot be said to be required of us as a condition antecedent to our justification, no more than the same thing, can be thought, to be really both antecedent and subsequent. But so it is, that we are chosen, and called to be holy, and created in Christ jesus unto good works; through faith it is, and that not of ourselves, it is the Gi●t o● God, that we become partakers of Christ, for Reconciliation, and of all his graces for Sanctification; and lastly we are in him, God's husbandry, that we may bring forth the fruits of righteousness. Therefore etc.  
4. Your requiring of good works, together with faith, previous to our acceptance by Jesus Christ, is an uncertain and desperate thing, in as much, as it is evident, that unless we be first accepted of him, and united to him, it is not possible for us to do any thing: without me you can do nothing, are our Lords own words. Say not that this Argument, equally militats against previous faith, if we did hold faith, as it is our act to be required as a proper potestative foregoing condition of our acceptance, the objection might be of some moment; but since we do affirm, faith to be only the instrumental act, (to which the word of power exciting) the Soul doth thereby lay hold on, and close with Jesus Christ, it is thence manifest, that immediately, without any other prerequisite, he becometh our propitiation, peace, and all.  
5. To these may be added, that this your Doctrine joining good works to faith, for attaining to our Lord's acceptation, subverteth the peace, taketh away the joy of Believers, checketh Paul's exultation, in his so much professed assurance of the love of God in Christ Jesus; and lastly, as to sinners in extremity, called immediately before the twelfth hour, removeth all ground of hope; but I am already too full, in a matter so clear, and so largely handled by many more able Pens. I might here subjoin, that as your joining of good works, as a condition with faith, in the proposal of the Gospel, is a manifest perverting of the free grace of God, upon which these good works, having a subsequent dependence, cannot, by any real antecedent influence, possibly move it; so your turning faith, by this conjunction, to be a motive of the same nature, and to be also respected in the quality of a condition, is a palpable depravation of its use, and comfort. It's true, our Divines taking the word condition, in a large sense, as it signifieth any thing prerequired, do ordinarily say, that faith and faith only is the condition, on our part, of the Gospel-covenant; but that it is not therein a condition, as a condition doth properly and legally import: viz. that which, though by convention only, yet hath a meriting or moving influence, upon the other party's performance, and such as works, previously required, either in the Covenant of works, or in that of Grace (as you would have it,) certainly hath, and can have, no other, I firmly maintain. I further grant, that the requiring of faith, as a proper condition, doth no less exact the existence of the thing, then if it were repute to be necessary as an instrument; yet that it clearly changeth the office of faith, in the new Covenant, unto that of the condition of works, under the old; and that by respecting it as a condition, on our part, it doth diminish that immediate regard, we ought to have to, and comfort, which we derive from, Jesus Christ and his Righteousness, tendered unto us to be laid hold upon, as the alone motive and satisfaction, acceptable to God for our Justification, cannot be denied.  
But I go on with your discourse, you add, And as that which giveth us a title to the favour of God, is the blood of Christ; so that, which giveth us an interest in his death, is faith, with a life conform to the rules of the Gospel: But passing your conjunction, and this your third and which I am certain would require more study, to discover therein a connexion, than you did adhibite in the using; let me ask if the blood of Christ giveth us a title to the favour of God, is it not then the sufficient, and sole price and purchase of our justification, in his sight? And must not faith its alone proper application render us accepted to the Beloved? What then can your, So, further import, Viz. so, that which giveth an interest in the death of Christ, is faith, with a life conform to the Gospel? Can you, or any man els●, conceive, that a man by faith alone in the propitiation, the blood of Christ, should be reconciled unto God; and yet not attain, to an interest in Christ's death, without a holy life, superadded and concurring, in the same causality? Nay, these things are plainly inconsistent: 2. The fairest sense that your words can bear, is that, as we are restored to a capacity of favour with God, by the blood of Christ; so, it is faith, with a life conform to the Gospel, that gives us an actual interest in his Death, and thereby unto the peace of God; but seeing the result of this, in plain language, is no other then, that our Lord, having by his own blood ransomed fallen and forfeited mankind, hath in lieu of the first Covenant, made with man and by him transgressed, proposed to us a second, adding to the condition of a holy life, required by the f●●st, that of believing. That this is altogether dissonant, both to the declared love of God, and the grace revealed by Jesus Christ, in his Gospel, any Christian may discern.  
Your next words are, And (a fourth And) the root of this new life is a faith, which worketh by love, purifieth the heart, and overcometh the world; and there fore justification is ascribed unto it, in Scripture: But pray, Sir, how is it, that faith becometh such a fruitful root? Is it not by laying hold on Christ's Righteousness, by which, pardon being obtained, and we reconciled unto God, we have right unto, and so do attain, in due time, the benefit of all the promises of Grace, which, in Christ Jesus, are yea, and Amen? or, that the same faith, which layeth hold on him, as our Righteousness in God's sight, doth also unite us to him, for Sanctification, and engraffing us, as it were in him, through the communication of his grace, purifieth the heart, and overcometh the World? Or lastly, is it not, that by faith we are brought to the blood of Sprinkling, which is both the blood of atonement, that sprinkleth from an evil Conscience; and also the Laver, which cleanseth from all sin, and wherewith we are sanctified? This being then, the Scripture account, and it being most apparent, that Christ, through faith, becometh, first our Righteousness, for remission of sin and Justification in God's sight, and then our Sanctification unto Good works; your own acknowledgement, that faith is the root of this new life of holiness, may evince, that a holy life, subsequent to faith, and our acceptation therethrough, cannot be therewith joined, as a condition, for our Justification. But that which followeth in your discourse, and therefore (i. e. because of the above enumerat fruits, which it produceth) justification is ascribed unto faith, in the Scripture: is, the grossest error of all, because 1. It directly repugns to Scripture, clearly intimating, that it is unto faith, as the instrument only, whereby the Righteousness of Jesus Christ is unto us applied, that Justification is in Scripture ascrived. If we be justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, and if, by the Righteousness of Jesus Christ, the free gift cometh upon all, to the Justification of life; if he be the propitiation, through faith in his blood; and our righteousness, which is of God by faith, are you not afraid to say, that Justification, requiring a satisfactory righteousness, is ascrived to faith, because of its poor, and imperfect fruits in us, and thereby to ●light and vilipend the perfect Righteousness of Christ, the immediate object, whereon it layeth hold, and our only acceptation in God's sight? 2. Because this your error derogates from Divine justice. We have already heard you call Justification a legal or judicial act, and consequently, an act, wherein free grace doth not more favour the lost sinner, than justice doth regard a valuable ransom and surety: If justification then be ascribed in Scripture to faith, this must certainly be understood, either as faith is in itself, or is relative to a complete and adequat satisfaction. Now, to think that faith in itself, or as it is an act, or habit, which is the Gift of God; or its fruits, which, (beside, that they are also the gift of God, and our duty as from us, are mixed with much weakness and imperfection: or lastly, that any thing else then the Righteousness of Jesus Christ apprehended by faith, can be commensurable to holy justice, is more than redargued, by the simple proposal. 3. This your ascribing justification unto faith, in regard of a holy life, which it produceth, doth no less detract from the praise of the glory of the grace of God wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved: Is it the praise and commendation of this wonderful love, and grace, that he spared not, but gave his only begotten Son, to be a ransom for sinners; and that it is in the Beloved, that we are accepted and justified; and should not you be ashamed to say, that it is unto faith, as the root of a holy life, and not as it doth respect and take hold on him, who was made to be sin for us, and knew no sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him, that justification is in Scripture ascrived? 4. This your error, as it is contrary to the Scripture, and derogatory to the Righteousness of Christ, the Holiness of Divine justice, and the Glory of free Grace; so, it is the manifest product of, and cannot but be a most dangerous temptation to, that inward and spiritual pride, in the heart of man, of all sin the most subtly insinuating, deeply rooted, and pernicious: A price, or something meriting, or moving, at least of our own, is that which the natural man liketh well; nay knoweth not how to renounce: was it not a subtle and strange effect of this pride, and corrupt self? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? When as the thing required by the Lord, was to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. And whence did the jews their stumbling at the Gospel proceed? Was it not, that they went about to establish their own righteousness; and therefore, they did not submit themselves unto the Righteousness of God? Say not, that this accusation against you, is unwarranted: I know you tell us, That your explanation ascribes all to Christ, through, whom it is, that our sins are pardoned, our services accepted, and grace and glory conveyed to us, But it is evident, that these are but vain words; in as much as, though you here tell us, that our services are accepted through Christ; yet almost immediately before, we heard you say, that it is faith and a life conform to the Gospel, by way of antecedent condition, which gives us an interest in his blood: Now, that our services cannot be prerequired, by way of condition, to his acceptance of us, and also only accepted as performed by us, in him● is of itself manifest. 2. Though you should, more clearly, and consistently, ascribe all unto Jesus Christ; yet by turning his grace into a condition, the subtlety and folly of your pride doth but the more bewray itself: For, as simply to obtrude our own good works, which in the acknowledgement of the most exact and confident legalist, are both commanded and given us of God, is a proud presumption; so, the more you attribute either the strength or the acceptance of performances unto the grace of God in Christ Jesus, while, in the mean time, you do still arrogate them, as a condition on the creatures part, you the more declare the folly, but in nothing diminish the sinfulness, of your vanity. These things need not to be illustrat: questionless, who ever doth consider his lost condition, by reason of sin and wrath, and hearkeneth unto that fundamental Gospel-precept, deny thyself, imprimis all self-righteousness, and believe; will find the power thereof so deeply descending into his Soul, that all the desire, trust, and hope thereof, will be fixed on Jesus Christ alone, and to be found in him, not having his own righteousness, which unto his sincere reflection, will be so far from appearing a condition, that it will disappear as dung; but that Righteousness, which is through the faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by faith. But who can sufficiently declare and regret the madness and ingratitude of this pride of man? Jesus Christ is made of God unto us, Righteousness; and yet we will thereto join our own, for Justification in God's sight: He is also made unto us Sanctification, that in Him we may bring forth the fruits of holiness unto the glory of God; and the very same fruits, will we impropriat, to be the condition, and, as it were, the price of our acceptance, even with himself, who is our only acceptation, and our all. Sir, be not deceived, as they who in the sight of sin, and fear of wrath, f●ee unto Christ alone, for a refuge, do find his Righteousness, not more sufficient, then freely offered, to every one that willeth, for Justification in God's sight; so, your Doctrine, requiring both faith and a holy life, as the previous conditions, to give an interest in Christ's Death, and ascriving Justification to faith, because, forsooth, of the pitiful fruits of our righteousness, and not that perfect Righteousness of Jesus Christ, which it doth apprehend, is wholly dissonant unto the method of the Gospel, and cannot possibly attain its end. What shall be then said of your ensuing words? Now judge, but a little, what it is, to have a right apprehension of things? since I have, in a few plain words, told you that, which with much nicety, swells among you, to Volumes: Really, Sir, if I may use the liberty of answering, by you permitted: I would say, what a sad thing is it, to have a wrong and conceited apprehension of things; since you have in a few involved words, in such a manner, obscured and confounded a plain point of truth, that notwithstanding of express Scripture-light; yet it hath necessarily required a great many words, clearly to unsold it. There remaineth now to be considered the main reason, whereby as you shut up, so you would seem to enforce, the opinion which we have heard: and that is the necessity of a holy life, which you say, Your way of justification, doth clearly declare; as being that, whereupon we shall be solemnly judged, justified, and absolved, at the last day: and afterward, you add, That it may correct the error of many carnal Christians, who love well to hear of Salvation, by the death of Christ, provided they be bound to do nothing themselves, that they may be saved. 'Tis answered.  
1. That there are many seeming Christians, who have a name that they live and are dead, who have and do delight in a form of knowledge, but want the power; of whose delusion, the error which you mention, may be a part, is an old and true regret: And yet the explication by you delivered, being so many ways unsound and peccant, as we have heard, cannot possibly be an antidote.  
2. As these carnal Christians, pretending to lay hold on Jesus Christ for Righteousness, and yet wholly neglecting the study of holiness, are, of all men, the most sadly deceived, and most wretched deceivers; so, your manner of Justification, derogating from the holy justice of God, and the perfect Righteousness of Jesus Christ, flattering the natural man's pride, to which, of all vices, we are most prone, and seducing souls, from the free Grace of the Gospel, cannot be less dangerous and pernicious.  
But 3. This your reason, for departing from Justification by faith only, as encouraging to licentiousness, is so directly the objection which the Apostle Paul taketh notice of, and fully answereth, after his having declared the truth of Justification, as by us professed, that we are thereby exceedingly fortified: The passage is thus, the Apostle having showed, that it is by the Righteousness of Jesus Christ, that the free Gift cometh upon all men, to justification of life, and that it is by the obedience of one, that many are made righteous; and summing up the whole matter, that it is grace that reigneth through Righteousness, unto eternal life, by jesus Christ our Lord; he subjoineth, What shall we say then? shall we continow in sin that grace may abound? Seing it is not by our works, but of free grace, through faith in the Righteousness of Jesus Christ, that we are justified from sin, shall we therefore, in as much as sin commendeth grace, and our good works availl not, continow in sin, that grace may abound? The plain insinuation of what you object: Now hear the Apostles answer both for us and himself. 1. He saveth justification by faith only, cannot encourage to sin; because such as do thereby, truly lay hold on Jesus Christ, partake of his death, and are made conformable thereto: How shall they then, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Sin may indeed remain, but that they who through faith in his Death, are planted in the likeness thereof, and become as crucified with him, should live any longer in sin, is not possible: To the same purpose it is, that the Apostle john, saith, whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God: And yet, if any false pretender, should therefore say, either that he cannot transgress, or that his transgressions are no sins, and so licence himself unto wickedness, he but deceiveth himself, and the truth is not in him. 2. Paul saith that Justification through faith importeth a more certain assurance of good works, than any thing by you urged. The necessity of good works, which ye plead for, is only that of a condition, strict indeed, as to its obligation; but very uncertain, if not desperate, as to its cause and real existence; being previously required, unto our acceptance by, and being in, Christ, as I have already showed: whereas the Apostle tells us plainly, that according to the truth of Justification, by him and by us asserted, the necessity of good works, is causally certain, depending upon such infallible causes, that wherever true Faith is, the study of holiness must necessarily ensue; and where this is not, the pretence of Faith, and Justification thereby, is but vain and groundless: For seeing by Faith, the only requisite, on our part, for Justification, we are not only dead indeed with Jesus Christ unto sin, but planted together with him, in the likeness of his Resurrection, and alive through him unto God, that we also should walk in newness of life, the necessity of holiness is evidently thereby as much assured, as the acts of life are in their proper principle: How can it then be alleged, that, in our way, the necessity of holiness is less secured, then in yours? Nay, such is the certainty of this truth, that true Faith in Jesus Christ, is the root and principle of the new life of holiness, that, as it is by you acknowledged; so, I cannot but wonder, how reason could so quickly desert you, as to think, that any necessary effect, such as you must grant good works to be of true Faith, can be rationally joined with its cause, in the consideration of a condition, which your discourse imports? If fire or life were, in any case, required as a condition, he that should thereto join heat or motion, necessarily thereon dependent, were plainly ridiculous: I need not take notice, of what may be objected, from these seeming Believers, who, because of their profession, are said to be in Christ, and yet for want of fruits, to be cut off; as it doth not more militat against us, then against you, who acknowledge true faith to be always fruitful; so, it answereth itself: But 3. because by necessity, its like that you do understand, the obligation to holiness, as if, in your way, it were rendered more binding and pressing, and thence would commend your explanation, as more engaging unto a holy life; I shall not here resume, what I have already declared, viz. 1. That to press the necessity of holiness, antecedently to our being, and acceptation, in Jesus Christ, is vain, and fruitless. 2. That to join our imperfect holiness, with Christ's unspotted and alone sufficient Righteousness, which is faith's value, is proud and presumptuous; but rather represent these true grounds of the necessity of holiness, which are found in our way, equally, yea more obliging, than all your vain pretences.  
And 1. We say with the Apostle, that the holy and just and good Law of God remaineth in its entire force, threatening and condemning all sin, wherever found; and as the poor sinner convicted, is thereby urged to flee for refuge unto Christ, who alone delivereth from the wrath to come; so, he who expecteth Salvation, by the Death of Christ, and doth not witness the truth of his profession, in a holy life, is, in so far, no less exposed to its severity and terror; neither can the Believer sinning, whatever may be the difference of his state in God's sight, more pretend to the peace and favour of God, without repentance renewed, and faith in Christ reacted, whence the study of holiness will undoubtedly revive and flow; then the wicked, persisting in his impenitence: What is then the difference betwixt you and us? You must acknowledge, that the great obligation of holiness doth descend from the Law of God; and we grant that this holy Law continueth, in the same force and power, against all sin (I say not sinners) wherever found, whether in the Believer or Unbeliever; so, that thereby, in our way, licentiousness to sin must be equally excluded. If you say, that by requiring Faith alone for justification, we relax the study of holiness; I must again tell you, that true faith in Christ jesus, the thing which we require, cannot be without the study of holiness: Next, if any person should thence delude himself unto licentiousness, the Holy Law of God remaining in the same severity against it, cannot but, in our way, wherein that high aggravation of turning the Grace of God unto wantonness, is more manifest, be also more powerful. If any man go on to urge us with the possible delusions of presumption and libertinism, whereunto the Devil both hath, and may abuse the truth and free grace of God, he but fighteth with the Devils weapons, whereby man's wretched frailty is indeed discovered; but the truth, by Paul plainly asserted against the like cavillations, and by us owned, not in the least impugned: Nay, I may further affirm, that as all error is delusion, and inductive of more; so, where one hath been tempted to abuse the proposal of free Grace, hundreds, through Nature's pride, both desiring, and overvaluing propriety, have stumbled upon this your so descrived conjunction of our good works, and fallen into that, not entire submitting unto the Righteousness of God, and a going about to establish their own Righteousness; by which sin, the rock of Salvation became unto the jews a rock of offence.  
2. As the Law, in the severity of its sanction, doth still abide in force, to deter from all sin, to bring in and reclaim unto jesus Christ our Righteousness and also our Sanctification; so, it's more binding Authority, derived from the greatness and goodness of God, it's own holiness and perfection, are, upon none so powerful, and in none so effectual, as these, who, through faith, have laid hold on Christ jesus, for Righteousness, and therethrough alone have attained unto peace. I need not tell you, that true repentance, discovering the sinfulness, as well as the guiltiness of sin, cannot but endear holiness; and that God appearing in Christ jesus, in that inconceivable glory of his Holiness, justice, Love and Mercy, and justifying us through Faith, in his Name, cannot, but beget a deeper reverence, and a greater regard to his will and commandments; then all the thunderings of mount Sinai, the greatest motive to holiness in the construction of your way. But when I consider, that Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness, and that the Law through Faith is not made void, but more established; and therefore we are chosen, and created in him unto holiness, and good works, to the Glory of God; when I observe the connexion, that God hath established, and his word holds out, betwixt justification and Sanctification: (1.) In his purpose, Eph. 1. 4. 2 Thess. 2. 13. (2.) In his promise, Ezek 36. 25, 26, 27. Micah 7. 19 2 Pet. 1. 4. (3.) In his precept, Tit. 3. 8. (4.) In Christ's purchase, Tit. 2. 14. (5.) In the Gift of Christ to his people, 1 Cor 1. 30. (6) In the sincere desire of and great delight in holiness, as well as pardon, recorded of the Saints, in all the Scripture, specially Psal. 51. & 103. 3. (7.) In the description of lustification, given us by Paul, in the first 6 chap. Rom. and Gal. 2. I seriously wonder, how you, or any man, can doubt, but a holy life, both in its obligation, and also in its performance, is, by the way of justification by Faith only, molsty assured.  
3. In the way of Justification by faith only, not only the obligation of the Law of God remains, in the manner declared; but also, our Lord, for our further encouragement unto holiness, hath graciously intimat, that even these good works, w●ich we perform in his strength, shall be, by the same grace from which they flow, also graciously rewarded: Wherefore the Apostle saith, That being made free from sin, and become servants to God, we have our fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Now then, if there be a constraint in love and gratitude, above the persuasion of fear; and if the desire of reward be powerful, above the apprehension of punishment, these considerations are certainly cumulative, and, in our way, above any thing that yours doth contain. That I may therefore sum up this discourse, anent the necessity of holiness: Know, that without holiness none shall see the Lord: But hence it doth so ill follow, that holiness by way of previous condition, is to be joined unto our Faith, in order to our Justification, that on the contrary, as God hath elected us in Christ Jesus to be holy; so, he also justifieth us through Faith in his Name, not because we are, but that in, and by him, we may be partakers of the glorious riches of his free grace, in begun holiness here, and consummate holiness in Glory hereafter; and hereby is our obligation unto and study of holiness, so far from being remitted; that it is both promoved, by the same standing fiery Law against all sin & ungodliness, and strengthened, by that alsufficiency of grace, which is in Christ Jesus for our completing, to whom, through Faith, we are united: And lastly, we are bound and encouraged unto it, by all that is most binding in the Laws Authority, and obliging in Divine bounty. To all which, this consideration may also be superadded; that, as the exercise of holiness remaineth with us, still under the obligation of Divine precept, and is certainly the end and effect of our acceptation in God's sight; so, the same being the necessary consequence, and inseparable effect of believing, and thereby becoming its most assured test, must, upon this ground, stir up as effectually unto the truth and sincerity of Faith, whence it flows, and which doth again incite to the sincere, closely, and constant study of holiness, by a reciprocal influence, as your vain stating of it, as a condition in our Justification, doth but lamely persuade its pursuit.  
But I hasten to the last part of your discourse, viz. That it is upon the necessity of holiness that we shall be solemnly judged justified and absolved at the last day: I cannot now enlarge upon these mistakes, that are again by you crowded into these few words, it may here suffice, that I tell you, that it is without all doubt, that, on that day, all men shall be solemnly judged, according to the holy Law of God; and therefore seeing, by the deeds of the Law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe, without the mixture, or conjunction of our imperfect righteousness, in the often forementioned respect, is only thereby the more recommended 2. Where you say, that it is upon this, so understood, necessity of holiness, or upon our holiness, that we shall be, in that day, solemnly justified and absolved; you err, and impinge most grossly, contrary to Scripture-evidence, the value of Christ's Righteousness, the holiness of God's Justice, and the glory of free Grace. as I have already demonstrat. I grant indeed, that, in that day, when our Lord shall gather into one, welcome, and appear glorious in, all Believers, he will also confess them before his Father, and the holy Angels, commemorate their charity and good works, and, in the exceeding riches of his bounty, reckon his own grace in them, unto the increase of their reward; but thence to infer, that it is upon our holiness that we are justified, and absolved in God's sight, is destitute of all truth and reason: Nay, the very figure of that judgement, wherever represented in Scripture, bearing, only, in order to Believers, their solemn reception and welcome from our Lord and Saviour, as such, who are already, in him, blessed and justified, and by him redeemed and sanctified, doth, most plainly, and powerfully confute it.  
And thus, I hope, I have evidently demonstrat, not in the language of men, or in School terms, which on purpose I have declined; but in the express revelation of the Gospel, that, that Doctrine of yours, which you make your N. C. only to tax, as singular in its phrase, and you yourself do the more commend, as being closely Scriptural, is in effect, both vain and antiscriptural, in matter, as well as expression. What you mean by preferring the stile of the Catholic Church to Modern and Scholastical expressions, under which the Doctrine of all the Reformed Churches is unavoidably comprised, let others judge: but as for the abuses which you mention, viz. the presumption of such, who love to hear of Salvation by the Death of Christ● provided they be bound to do nothing themselves, that they may be saved: seeing there can be nothing more engaging, and effectual unto holiness, then that, which in Scripture terms we do assert; viz. That we are saved, and called with an holy calling, not according to our works, or doings; but according to his own purpose, and grace, given us in Christ Jesus, the sin thereof remaineth with the Authors, and pure and certain truth, is neither thereby lessened, nor aught to be stumbled at: And therefore having fully redargued the falsehood of your Doctrine, and the vanity of all your pretences, that I may, once for all, vindicat this most precious and important truth, of justification by Faith only, from all calumny; and warn all of that delusion, which you would, very unjustly, make proper to our way; I plainly and positively affirm, that the study of holiness is a most necessary and indispensable duty, unto the justified Believer, 1. By the necessity of Divine precept, at length above declared. 2. By the necessity of love's constraint; holiness being both amiable in itself, and the high path way leading unto the seeing and enjoying of God, who therein delights. 3. By the force of fears persuasion, in regard of God's fatherly displeasure against all sin; a motive most tenderly persuasive to all, that are truly godly. 4. By the obligation of gratitude, which is indeed the cords of a man, and cannot but powerfully engage the Believer to the constant acknowledgement of God's free love, and grace, and to walk worthy of him, who hath delivered us from death, and called us with so heavenly a calling. 5. For the manifestation, to ourselves, of our faith, and justified state, to our own peace and comfort. 6. For the adorning of the Gospel, to the edification of others; nay, in a word, if our felicity be in God; if glory be our desire; if free grace be the most powerful attractive, and sufficient help; and if there be any dread and terror from God's displeasure, the study of holiness, is by the united force of all these motives, most strongly recommended, and by the wonderful free love of God, in our Justification, through faith in Christ Jesus, only yea infinitely intended.  
In the next place, your N. C. having acquit you of Popery, how justly, or unjustly, I leave it to the Reader: You make him say, but are you not, ARMINIANS? And to that I must confess, in the words of your N. C. you answer with so much Legerdemain, that you are not easily discovered; yet these few things are manifest.  
1. That such is the strange extent of this your latitude, that it is more inclineable, and favourable to any Sect or Party, then Conscientious Non-conformists: If you deal with Papists, than all their gross Idolatries and superstitions, yea and their horrid Rebellions and Cruelties, are forgotten, and they forsooth, hold the foundation, and only build upon it wood, hay, and stubble: And you earnestly wish for a temper, which, undeniable experience shows, your party hath endeavoured after, at the rate of a hundred fold more condescendence, then is required to the appeasing of all our complaints: If Arminians, come in your way: not one word of all these errors, so highly injurious to the Doctrine of the certainty & immutability of God's holy Decrees; of the freeness and efficacy of his Grace, of the extent of the merit of Christ's Death; and to the comfortable truth of the Saints Perseverance; nor yet of these disorders and tumults, wherewith, we know, they have infested the Reformed Churches: but away with these controversies, the itch of multiplying, and canvasing subtle questions, hath proven the chief pest of the Church: It is good to be sober-minded: And, thus, we see, they do indeed vent, profess, and seduce, according to their pleasure, whereas, if this your tenderness of Religion, and sober-mindedness, were real, would not the first more readily teach you, that the departing from the simplicity, and humility of the Gospel, hath been the visible inlet to all the wickedness, and darkness, at this day in the Church of Rome? And the second, that in nothing sober-mindednesse, is more sober, then anent imposing upon such, as do really scruple in Conscience, things that the Lord hath no where commanded: which two, are the hinges of most of these debates, which at present disturb us. Now on the other hand, how you have treated Non-conformists, all alongs, I leave it to your own, and every man's obvious reflection: Rebellion, Hypocrisy, and Peevishness, you, falsely, make their ordinary Epithets: And for your inclinations towards them, a short look forward exhibits them in Verse, wherein, after your approbation of the blood and fynings, that we have suffered, you melodiously sing.  
This strange distemper doth all skill defy:  
Physicians hopes still falsify.  
But as a joint, which Gangrene doth corrupt,  
Must be cut off, from the sound lump,  
Better the body grow a stump;  
Then by such members, banckrrupt.  
And then again, lest such rigour may prove a stain to your Christian and Catholic latitude, you add a forbearance for us, such as it is, wherein, though your own interest plead for a delay; yet you can forgive nothing, it is only 
Till brimful be their cup;  
Then chaffed justice, shall the chaff devour,  
And Angel-reapers bring the Just to Heaven's floor:   
This, this, I fear, is the inside of your pretended charity; and it but too plainly evinces, that all your professed stretches of a fair and comprehensive Latitude, are, in their regard to us, but the forced product, of your own conveniency.  
2. By your opposing to the Sovereignty of God, which the Arminian opinion doth proudly impugn, his infinite Goodness, and Holiness, which they make their great pretence; and declaring, that the reconciling of these attributes is beyond your capacity; it is evident, by resolving this objection in the common difficulty of the unsearcheablenesse of God's judgements, both by them and by us acknowledged, you take part on their side; however it is not my purpose to draw you unto debate; the Counsel o● God, though imperscrutable, yet it standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his: The Sovereignty o● God, though part ●●nding ou●; 〈◊〉 it only so much the more, establisheth the liberty and certainty of his Decrees, without all shadow of unrighteousness, and in stead of interfering with, doth plainly render, both his Goodness and Holiness, the more eminent, and glorious: These are the reflections, that the Apostle maketh upon this subject: Pray consider the passage, Rom. 9 where the Apostle, after having showed, that before the children had done any good or evil, God in his free purpose according to Election, not of works, but of 〈◊〉 that calleth, preferreth the Younger, and passeth by the Elder, loving jacob but hating Esaw, to vindicate the Righteousness of God, which is your stumbling, recurreth to his Sovereignty, having mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will hardening: And he is so far from conceiving with you, that the Sovereignty of God, on the one hand, and his infinite Goodness and Holiness on the other, are to humane capacity irreconcilable attributes; that it is from this high Sovereignty, that he not only deduceth the excellencies of mercy, and illustrateth the glory of God's power, and wrath; but rationally answereth, the proud reply of poor calies carnal arguings against the Lord, its infinite maker, and free and absolute disposer. But you say, that you may well take his own oath for it, that he taketh no pleasure in the death of sinners: And so you may indeed very safely, if either you understand it, of the death of sinners, simply and abstractly in itself considered, or with respect to his serious call, to them to repent, and live, as the context of that passage doth hold out; but if you would thence deny, that God willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, purposed from all eternity, to pass by such, on whom he willeth not to show mercy, enduring with much long● uffering the vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction; you directly contradict the Apostle, and all these other Scripture-passages, whereby God, and the Saints their rejoices, in the manifestation of his righteous Judgements, are clearly holden out.  
But 3. wishing to you, and all men, much fear, sobriety, and Scripture-simplicitie, in the Doctrine of this high mystery of Predestination, and not urging further the designed indifference, which, under a fair general, you clearly go about to introduce, for all Arminian tenants; my earnest desire is, that the Rule, which you give for a conclusion, may indeed both stint curiosity, and direct practice, Viz. Let none of our good be ascribed to ourselves, and none of our evil be imputed unto God.  
You proceed to make your N. C. allege our Ministers their jealousies, of this your new way; that you ma● again appeal to, and make a boast of your fruits; but since I have, without boasting, abundantly searched, and shaken you, and left all to open view; I also refer the judgement, to that most righteous cognizance.  
But now, you are wearied of these your wranglings, and therefore you resolve to leave these dry, and arid matters, and talk a little with your N. C. on better subjects. Sir, your resolution is just and good; only transfer not the faults, of your vain, airy, and insipid reasonings, upon the matters themselves by you treated: If you have foolishly and petulantly impugned, not only the work of God, and his Covenant, in these Lands; the Ordinances, of the Government, Discipline, and Worship of his House; but also endeavoured to unsettle and subvert the very foundations of Justification by Faith in Christ Jesus, without the deeds of the Law; a sent Gospel-ministerie, determined Sacraments, and Christian Liberty; And if your N. C. pretending to be the Respondent, hath on the other hand, manifestly betrayed the Cause, by such a faint, ridiculous, and absurd defence, as you were pleased to suggest, the folly of this your wrangling remaineth with yourself alone; the matters therein handled, as they continow still to be the firm truths, signal blessings, and especial means given us of God, for the declaring of his Glory, and the promoving of our Salvation, and are not by your discourse, in the least, prejudged; so, they are so far from excusing, that they greatly aggravat these jejune and gustless Methods, wherewith you manage this your conference; but foreseeing this censure, you cunningly cast in our way, the mention of better subjects; whether with a design thus to evade, or by your insinuat distinction betwixt the foregoing matters, as dry, and arid, and your subsequent speculations, as these better things, only to be pursued, to drive on the deceit of an irreligious indifferency, so much at present studied by the Adversary, and his Emissaries, let others Judge? Two things only I must say. 1. That to go about to smooth the World, with the pretensions of sublime and Seraphic attainments, and, in the mean time, from these heights, as it were, but really, in a convenient accommodation to every guise, whereunto carnal ease doth invite, and outward peace persuade, to slight, despise, and labour to relax from, the conscientious observance of these ordinances and midses, which the Lord hath given and appointed, as the only way, leading to himself, and the felicity of his favour, is the most delusive appearance of an Angelic light, wherewith Satan can possibly palliate his blackest enterprises. 2. Though your subsequent discourse were much more sound and candid, both in its tenor and scope, then truly it is; yet, therein to figure yourself, to be, as it were, a new burning, and shining light, teaching your N. C. in such a strain, as if all of us, whom by him you personat, were wholly ignorant of the truth of Religion, both in its methods, and ends; and altogether strangers to its life, is visibly more disingenuous and arrogant, then sincerely charitable: Say not that I am ill natured, if you find these words a little more pointed, it's you that hath sharpened them: Nay, if I should assume a further confidence of boasting, in behalf of the Lords Ministers, and the true Seekers of his face, found amongst us, according to the measure of the grace, which God hath distributed unto us, and even become a fool in glorying, for the abasing of your self-flattery, I do neither want a just provocation, nor a clear precedent, for my warrant. But seeing there are several things by you here proposed, which may be for the use of edifying, to a serious and considerate Soul, and wherein a real union would indeed prove a most effectual corrective, both of sinistruous designs, and evil mixtures; I shall therefore wave the direct prosecution of such discoveries, and wishing that, that power, light, and life, which is in true and pure Religion, may indeed end all our differences, I heartily join my assent to your subsequent discourse, with all the harmony and affection, that truth doth allow. That some do place Religion wholly in debates, others in external Forms, others in some private devotions, others in the regulation of the outward man, and others in certain inward speculations, and self-devised strains, are things not so strange, as grievous; but as to know the Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, is the sum and substance of Religion, and Eternal life, in which profession we are all agreed; so, it is the power of this knowledge, descending from Christ Jesus our Wisdom, and apprehending him, for Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption, which is mostly, and most sadly wanting: If in the conduct thereof, men were abhorring and denying themselves, and in the acknowledgement of him, who hath called us unto Glory, and Virtue, laying hold on these great and precious promises, which in Christ Jesus are all yea and amen; then, from the application of His Righteousness should the peace of reconciliation, and joy in the Holy Ghost abound; from the communication of his life and grace, should the Divine seed propagat, and diffuse itself through the whole man; and from and by this truth, and power of Religion, Believers should be transformed, into the likeness and image of God, and rendered partakers of the Divine Nature, by which, it is manifest, that as Christ Jesus is the only foundation; so it is, that in him alone, there is Salvation, neither is there any other name under Heaven given amongst men, whereby we must be saved: The power, as well as the reward, of Nature's light, was long since forfeited in Adam; and though in the succeeding Ages, God left not himself without a witness, in that he did good, and gave the invisible things of him, from the creation of the World, to be clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; yet, the ungodliness of men still prevailing, and holding the truth in unrighteousness, this weaker light, served only to render them without excuse: 'tis true, the Patriarches were burning and shining lights; but it was from Divine revelation, and the oracles, and promises of God, in which they saw Christ's day and rejoiced, and not from nature's light, that this their radiancy was derived: The dawning opened by Moses, had certainly a great splendour, and therein Christ Jesus, the end of the Law for Righteousness, was very observably held forth; but as it pleased the Lord to veil the glory of this discovery, with many types and shadows, not making it a great riddle, as you do unadvisedly affirm; but keeping and conducting that people, under the pedagogy of that more burdensome and severe dispensation, until the fullness of the time should come; so than it was, that he sent forth his own Son, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel; to bless them, in turning away every one of them, from their iniquities: to turn them from darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they might receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified, by faith that is in him: & thus our Lord Jesus abolished death; and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel: and the great designs thereof not lying in that preposterous in coherent order, by you represented, are first, by proposing to us that stupendious mystery of the Redemption of sinners through Jesus Christ; and proclaiming, that whosoever believeth on him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life; to reconcile us enemies, and bring us aliens, nigh unto God; and then being thus accepted, that in the same Lord Jesus, we may be filled with all grace, by the Spirit of grace, to the knowledge, and acknowledgement of God his wonderful bounty, his unmeasurable love, his glorious holiness, his eternal truth and faithfulness, and unto the exciting, in us● of that ravishing and constraining love, that filial and persuasive fear, and that comforting and joyous hope; which graces, more and more moulding us into a lively conformity unto him, that loved us, and washed us from our sins, in his own blood, and is become our life, our light, and our all; and thereby causing us, to bring forth the fruit, of holiness, meekness, patience, brotherly love, and of all virtues, to the praise of God, are the sweetness, excellency, and delight of Grace, here, until it shall be perfected by, and swallowed up of Glory, hereafter: This, this is the work and purpose of the Gospel. And seeing, it shall availl us nothing, to gain the whole world and lose our own souls, it ought indeed to be the great design of our lives, to conform unto it, even to hearken unto the call of God, and by believing in Christ Jesus, that we may be delivered from the wrath to come, to labour to be fou●d in him, not having our own righteousness, which is of the Law; but the righteousness, which is of God by faith; that so we may know him, and the power of his Resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, and still reaching forth, unto these things which are before, press toward the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God, in Christ Jesus. The way then, to purify and save our souls, is not barely to affect a little virtue, or morality; nay, nor yet, from ourselves, without the Mediator, to apply our minds to God: God not in Christ Jesus is a consuming fire, the contemplations of his Glory, and Holiness, instead of deriving, into our souls, his excellent perfections, would but fill them with amazement and horror: If the external show and figure only of this sight, was so terrible even to Moses, that he said, I exceedingly fear and quake; How do you think, that poor sinners can approach? We are therefore, to apply our mind unto God; but, only in and through Christ Jesus, that by him, obtaining peace, and from him, grace, we may have access, and by faith (not by speculation only) have our hearts purified. Your precepts of stillness and abstraction of mind, to become of a thinking temper, and give up with passions etc. and use much inward recollection: As by you proposed, for the way to spirituality, without Jesus Christ, who is the only true way; are but stoical dreamest and deluding vanities: The awakened sinner, whom sin affrights, and wrath terrifies, findeth no rest nor refuge; but in Christ Jesus, and the peace, and favour of God in him; and being in him accepted, is by his grace purified, and made to partake of that blessedness, pronounced by the procurer of it, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God: And thus with open face, beholding as in a glass, the Glory of the Lord, he is changed into the same image, from glory to glory, until that hereafter, he be brought to see him, as he is, and thereby be perfected; these are the great means, to attain to, and continue in, converse and fellowship with God. If any man love me, saith our Lord, he will keep my words, and the Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him: And thence, no doubt, it is that, not only all that sweetness of the meditation of God and his attributes, the admiration of his mercy and love in Christ, the adoration of his excellencies, and these soul breathe, and continual aspire toward him, which you here mention, will flow in into the soul, to its constant satisfaction, in an entire submission and delightsome complacency, in all God's ways and actings; but also the Believer will be stirred up, prompted, and animat, in the holy and pure zeal of God's Glory, to fight out the good fight of faith, acquit himself strenuously, in that warfare, with the World, Sin, and Satan; wherein now we stand engaged, and readily to embrace every occasion, whereby he may approve himself unto him, who hath so dearly loved us; and walk worthy of God, who hath called us unto his Kingdom and Glory: but to suppose, that a man may think himself into this frame, or by the simple means of that Metaphorick ass●●ilation, that is in mere thinking, attain to this Divine likeness, is no less groundless, than the active militant state of Christians, within time, is ill defined, by your imaginary stillness. Now, if any man would understand, wherein the sweetness, that is to be found in Divine converse, doth consist? The stillness, wherewith the mind is overflowed; the clearness of the judgement, steadfastness of the will, and calmeness of the passions, wherein you place it, are indeed qualities, which do highly advance a man, unto the perfection of his nature; and the Divine touches, that you mention, whereby the soul is sometimes carried unto sublimities not utterable, are also found in the records of Christian experience: but the only proper answer, which can be returned, is, O taste and see, that the Lord is good! The unsearchable treasures of his goodness have no measure; the excellencies of his glorious perfections, have no parallel; the poor narrow soul, admitted unto these felicities, by attributing unto God, the very form, essence, and substance of all its pleasure; and magnifying him, as its alone love, joy, and delight, hath, by these, as by the application of whatsomever else it doth conceive to be amiable and delectable, endeavoured to adumbrat this Divine satisfaction: But as the constant result of these reflections hath been ever admiration and wonder; so, a forced silence in that transport, of the Spouse her raptures, yea he is altogether lovely, is only its most significant period. What part our affections and passions have, in these enjoyments, it is not needful to mention; certainly, God who hath commanded, that we love him, with all the heart, with all the soul, with all the strength, and with all the mind, will both purify and satiat all these capacities.  
As for your telling us, that sensible passions may be very high, in an impure mind, and of a natural devotion; specially in a person melancholic, a woman, or hysterical, which may mount very high; but doth not humble, or purify the mind. I judge it, to be such an unsavoury and little pertinent mixture, that I must express my fears, that it doth denote a mind, in yourself, little humbled, and less purified: But that which you add, of Persons Divinely acted their deniedness unto all things, their absolute resignation unto, and intense delight in, and desires toward God, as the blessed effects of the souls union with him, is that which I rather observe. And here indeed it is, and in your declaring self abhorrence, and abnegation, and humble applications of the soul, unto Jesus Christ, to be that straight passage, and low gate, which is by violence to be entered, for attaining unto that heavenly state, wherein, spiritual solaces here, and immediate Divine enjoyments hereafter, do not only compense and swallow up all the preceding anguish; but surpass all possible apprehensions of that unconceived glory, that I do most heartily embrace that saving truth, if rightly understood, of Faith and Repentance, which hitherto I have desiderat. O that in the possession of so great a joy, and the hope of a greater blessedness expected, we would all vigorously set about the duties of a Christian life, not entangling ourselves with the pollutions of this world, nor with the affairs of this life, how to serve our own lusts and ease, and comply with every device, and invention of men, but enduring hardness, contradiction, reproach, and all persecution, that we may please him, who hath chosen us to be Soldiers! Certainly, he whose heart is thus fixed on God, in and through Christ Jesus, his life and actions will quickly manifest, that he hath not only the form, but the power of Godliness; his rational and unconcerned contempt of this present world, his hatred of base and debasing lusts, his undervaluing of the things of sense, his well squared and solid indifferency for all conditions and occurrents; and lastly, his love of truth, and study of innocence, and delight in goodness, in all his words, and works, do evidently show forth the love, and fear of God, to be, as it were, the vital springs of all his thoughts and motions, while self-denial emptieth, and humility vaileth him, as nothing, and out of the world, the native and genuine lustre of free grace in him, is thereby rendered more conspicuous, and his light, doth the more shine, unto the praise of God, who hath called us unto Glory and virtue: He peaceably, and cheerfully obeyeth the public Father of his Country, but only in the Lord; he remembreth and honoureth such, who watch for his soul, who speak unto him the word of God, of these he is a follower, as they are of Christ, following their faith, and considering the end of their conversation; he pursueth Charity, as the Crown of perfection. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father, which is in heaven is perfect, hath not with him a more commanding Authority, than an inviting and soul●a●ishing attraction: Hence it is, that as his bounty and beneficence toward men is prompt and unconfined; so, his obedience toward God is most punctual and circumspect, having respect unto all God's commandments, and esteeming his precepts, concerning all things to be right, and hating every false way; a latitude of love, and good will toward all men, he heartily acknowledgeth, and rejoiceth in; but a latitude of compliance with sinful courses, and indifferency, even in the smallest matters of God, under whatsomever pretext, he from his heart abhorreth. These, indeed, are a few of the fair lines, that compose the Christians Character, by which, as you may see in part, wherein Christian Religion doth consist; so, it is too too apparent, that many, who in their vain vaunting of serene and still speculations and high abstractions, do allege the strickness of Conscientious practices, to be but loud pretences, do themselves sadly and most dangerously, recede from it. O how much is it to be desired, that not only such, but all, would, in their secret retirements, often review and examine their actions, that, discovering their errors and fa●lings, they may be humbled and brought, unto the renewed and more serious exercise of repentance, stirred up by a more lively, and active faith, to lay hold on Jesus Christ, and from him, and by the power of his grace, quickened to new vigour and alacrity, in the ways of God Then should the Divine love, in Christ Jesus, inflame and elevat the soul, and captivate the whole powers thereof, unto these pure and free resignations, wherewith God is well pleased; then should the power of the grace of our Lord, mortify sin, overcome temptations, and advance, in every thing acceptable, unto God. And lastly, then should the offerings of our praises to God, for all his mercies, especially for the invaluable and unspeakable Gift of Christ Jesus, ascend with gladness, and bring back the returns of more grace, and joy: and our prayers and supplications, in the name of Christ, according to the will of God, for all things, that we may be careful in nothing, and for all men, especially for Kings, and all that are in Authority, that we may lead a quiet, and peaceable life, in all Godliness and honesty, should be set forth before him, as incense, and mount up, as the evening Sacrifice: And it is, from these heavenly exercises, and the communications of Grace, which flow therein, that the heart is firmly fixed and strengthened, to order and do all to the glory of God, and the mind continually bended, by the strong applications of fear and love, to direct all its ways, as in his sight: And these truly are the frame, and fruits, of inward and secret devotion. As for public Worship, he who considereth it, as commanded by God, for the avowed and more solemn acknowledgement of our dependence upon him, and testifying our union with his Church, and that therefore, not only in reason, but also by express precept, it is to be seriously and sincerely performed, with and from the heart, and in that holy and pure manner, which he himself hath prescribed, without the contaminating mixtures of men's presumptuous and vain inventions, will certainly go unto the congregation of the Lords people, met together in his Name, and sincerely professing thus to seek his face, not out of custom or formality, whereunto, of all things, the devising and imposing of humane forms and modes do most powerfully delude; but, that he may, jointly with others, cordially adore, and praise his Maker, and Redeemer, and give, not only an external concurrence, according to the Rule and decency of the Worship; but with his soul, and all that is within him, will bless his holy Name, and join his Amen.  
Thus you have my hearts assent, to the truth that I find in your conclusion, my desire to God is, that both you, and we, were by a serious, humble, and holy practice; and not by talking only, experimenting the solid edification, and pleasure, that lieth in these heads: If this you had minded more, you and your party would have been far from vexing the Lords Church and people, in these Lands, contrary to the Word of God, solemn Oaths and Covenants, established Laws, sound Reason, and Policy, and the general inclinations of all, with that grievous yoke of wicked and pervese Prelacy, and these vain and burdensome corruptions, wherewith, in all Ages, it hath been attended: Which things, as to your own recollected thoughts, they appear to be but extrinseck, and of little moment; so, pray Sir, whence did they proceed? And what have they produced? Certainly, if either serious reflections upon all the Ages of Christianity, especially upon these alterations, that have happened amongst us, since the Reformation; or a just consideration, of the present condition, and state of affairs, could have place; as the pride, and avarice of corrupt Churchmen, and consequently, of the worst of men, assisted, since the rejection of the Pope, with the same irreligious spirit, and practices, observed in former times, of an aspiring Supremacy, moving under the specious pretexts of order, and peace, will appear to be the only spring, and cause; so, ignorance, profanity, violence, and distraction, will be found, the woeful fruits of these innovations. But it is of the Lord, for the punishment of our iniquities; especially, our not receiving, and walking worthy, of the glorious Gospel, that judgement is far from us, neither doth justice overtake us, we wait for light, but behold obscurity, for brightness, but we walk in darkness: We look for judgement, but there is none, for salvation, but it is far from us. The Lord see to it, and let his Arm bring salvation, and his name be glorified.  
As for the concluding compliment of affection, which you do here give your Nonconformist, and make him to repay, at our cost, with the confession of his former unmeasured fury, it is but too palpably the wantonness of your own extravagant fancy, wherein to look for more truth, than you do show constancy in your resolution, to put a point to these matters controverted, and never to resume them again, were great weakness. You add in words, Let us provoke therefore one another to charity and good works, and yet we know your practice to be, to press your trifling conformity, and provoke the Powers, against such, as cannot comply: We have indeed a blessed exercise for our tongues, even with them to bless God the Father; but since you do persist, in your maligning the ways, work, and people of God, your mouth must, and shall be stopped, if the small endeavours, by me used, might make you mind the pursuance of truth more, than the study of your so often repeated Temper, my satisfaction would be little inferior to your advantage; but seeing both your words and works, do show, that thou art neither cold, nor hot; but lukewarm: I counsel the, in the words of the great Counsellor, To be Zealous therefore, and repent: behold he standeth at the door, and knocketh, if any man hear his voice, and open the door, he will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with him. To him that overcometh, will he grant, to sit with him in his throne; even as he also overcame, and is set down with his Father, in his throne. And thus passing your preposterous postscript, and your Icarian Pindaric I proceed to your Continuation.   

The Continuation, OR The seventh DIALOGUE Answered.  
SIR, Beginning this your seventh Dialogue with your ordinary insinuations, whereof the slender artifice, obvious to the first view, needeth no further discovery, I only take notice, that where your preface affirmeth that the true reason of your consenting to the publishing of the former Dialogues, was, That since you had allayed, a great deal of the heat you met with in your N. C. upon these matters, you presumed it might produce the like good effect in others. It is an alledgeance too serious to be groundless, and beyond what the licence of the fictitious form of your conferences will allow; and therefore, since any excess of heat that appears in your N. C. is not ours, but purely your own invention, your pretence of having allayed it, doth both bewray your vanity, and show this to be indeed the true cause of the publication. As for the advantages you reckon upon, you reckon before your Host, reckon again, and then boast of your Reason. But you would also be accounted a Droll forsooth, though you say, you have only adhibite somewhat of that, not out of humour, but for sweetening the transitions, according to the manner of all Dialogues; certainly you Latitudinarians are all brave comprehensive spirits, Masters of all good qualities, whether you possess them or not, and yet I dare affirm, that a pleasant humorist, will laugh more at this passage of your conceitedness, than all the drolries that hitherto you have vented.  
But now begins your half-proselited N. C. and without connexion tells you, that some charge you with Socinianism, others with Poprie, others with Arminianism, and others with Quakerism, though as it seems to him upon very slender grounds. Sir, what may have moved you, after what we have heard in your sixth Dialogue, again in this place to resume these things to so small purpose, I do not conceive. You show as if you were extremely picked by such reproaches, and tell us, that you know the arts of such, who will tell their people, that you are unsound and heteredox, and back there hard words, with grave nods and jury faces. Poor man, your passion is stirred, and I am sorry to find you so impotent, as again to relapse in such a childish reflection, whereas to have used it once before was too much and unworthy of your gravity. Bu● sure who ever are your accusers, (who really to me are unknown,) they have too visible an advantage, in this your weakness; and if many men be not mistaken, no less ground of retortion in your own scenical gesticulations, and affected grimaces. The thing I am concerned to notice is, why being so sharp in your resentment, are you so scant in your purgation? You ask, if they do understand things, who charge him with Socinianism, who believeth that Christ is the eternal Son of God, and hopes for salvation only through his blood. And I grant that these things being truly understood and believed, as I hope you do, are indeed the truth opposite to the Socinian errors: But seeing you know that some Socinians do also very easily admit, and acknowledge the same form of words, and that the cardinal point of this Controversy is, whether or not jesus Christ the Son of God, be indeed essentially & naturâ Deus, according to that Scripture, And we are in him, that is true, even in his Son jesus Christ, this is the true God and eternal life. I wish you had chosen the same positive assertion for your vindication.  
As for your clearing yourself of Poprie in the matter of Justification, because forsooth, that you ascribe all we receive in this life, and in that to come, to the love and grace of God, through jesus Christ. It is so far from being a sufficient test of your orthodoxy, that I am confident, there is scarce one understanding Papist, who would not say it were a calumny, to charge them with the contrary. Nay you yourself, in your sexth Dialogue do plainly say, that they hold the foundation Jesus Christ, and expressly wave their opinion of Justification, in the enumeration of their errors, which in effect amounts to all by you here asserted; however, having already at great length handled this purpose, and not loving to vex any with odious names, I shall only add, that when you shall believe and teach, that Christ alone, is our Righteousness and Peace, and that it is by the faith of Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the Law, that we are justified, then shall you have a good report of all men, and of the truth itself.  
Next you subjoin, that we know that all that Calvin and his followers aim at in the matter of Arminius his points, is that all our good be ascribed unto God, how then can he be erroneous in this matter, who asserts that? Sir, having already waved these debates, I shall not now resume them, but though I have formerly accorded, and am still persuaded that this general principle, rightly understood and seconded with a sincere practice; would prove a happy antidote against the Arminian errors; yet I am far from the opinion, that its bare profession, which hardly any other than an Atheist will disown, should acquit you as to soundness in these controversies. Where you say that Calvin aimed at no more, I might tell you, 1. That that might be true, and yet he and Arminius differ in the manner. 2. It is certain that Calvin's aim was farther from Scripture-revelation, to vindicat both the Sovereignty of God, and the deep mystery of the Divine counsel and decrees, from men's narrow self-devised and presumptuous notions and apprehensions, & also more evidently to defeat the errors of Universal Redemption and the uncertainty of Perseverance bottomed upon the same ground: But since Arminius himself and all his followers, would be far from denying God, to be the alone Author and fountain of all good, what need of more words, for redarguing such a pitiful vindication.  
Now follows your purgation of Quakerism, which I confess is plain and positive, and I am indeed convinced, (though ignorant of them) that the grounds of that accusation, which you are ashamed to name, are in effect ridiculous; the severity of that mode, is no doubt too strict for yours of the Latitude: However it shall still be my wish, that its large comprehension, may not at least include some of the peculiar principles of that Sect, which to the discerning of all, that have penetrate into its deeps, you do very justly term the subtlest device yet broached for the overthrow of the Christian Religion.  
To this you add, but if that spirit be not the womb, from whence all these Sects and errors have sprung amongst us, let all that look on judge. Pray, Sir, what spirit do you mean; that there is a chasma here is manifest, but whether in the print, as is obvious from the letter, or rather in your brains, as the futility of the reasons subjoined do more evidently persuade, may be very rationally doubted: In the mean time, if for the better examining of your discourse, I may supply the first, I suppose you mean, that the Presbyterian spirit is the womb spoken of; and this you go about to prove, because none fall to them viz. to Quakers, as I judge, but such as were formerly most violent in their. i e. the Presbyterian (for all is here manck and conjectural) way. But 1. If you knew how to reason fairly, to give your Argument a colour of probability, you should have taken it, not from the falling away of the most violent, which may be the issue of that excess from the soundest profession, but from the most serious in whom the natural tendency of opinions is best discerned. 2. That the more serious Presbyterians do remain steadfast and unbrangled with these delusions, is that which you dar not deny. 3. Even of these most violent that you speak of, the number fallen away is so few, that urged to a condescendency you would be ashamed to reckon them. 4. Your argument, whatever way understood, is no more applicable to Presbytery, then to Christianity; nay if such loose reasoning, were of any moment, the thousands of heresies, which the Christian Religion hath occasioned, should postpone it to Paganism.  
But you say, though you are sure, that we are far ●nough from being Quakers, yet our principles have a natural tendency that way, and for evidence, you demand, whence, think you, have they sucked there rejecting of all forms and order (under a pretence that the spirit is not to be prelimited) but from your notions against Liturgies and for extemporary heats. 'Tis answered. 1. Seeing that we disprove your imposing of Set-forms, and reject your Liturgy from solid Scripture-grounds, as I have already evinced, the Quakers their abuse thereof being the same, whereby they pervert the plainest Scriptures, signifieth nothing in your behalf. As for the mention you make of extemporary heats; though your profane spirit, doth not stick to mock at the true manner of spiritual prayer, so much practised in Scripture, and by the people of God in all ages, under this false character, yet I think your own vanity, may make you blush at such a conceited repetition. 2. If I did not love to exceed in candour, more than you do hate calumny, I could retort to you with very good reason, that it is not so much the very abuse of our grounds against your Liturgies, that have deluded the Quakers unto the rejection of all form and order, as it is the manifest irreligion of your rigour in imposing, and dead formality in practising of these vain inventions, that have stumbled not only Quakers into their fancies, but many thousands into palpable Atheism.  
Next you tell us, that the liberty we take to meddle in matters too high for us, and judge of every thing, without thinking on the reverence we owe the Church, opens a wide door for their pretensions, to a liberty of the spirit, renouncing all modesty and humility. Really, Sir, this arguing appears to me so mean, that I can scarce repete it without blushing, we have heard you frequently object, that our Ministers did labour much to tie up the people, in an implicit faith, and here you tax us for the contrary excess; if you say, that the fault here mentioned might be true of our Ministers, and your former challenge hold of the people, you miss your mark, since you cannot charge our Ministers with that falling away which you object; but why do I trifle? As you cannot convince our way, either of the excessive liberty or irreverence alleged; so it is evident, that it is only our not subjecting our faith to your Lordly Prelacy, and complying with every foolish device of man in the matters of God, that moves your spleen.  
But you proceed to object, that our humour of separation, begets that giddiness in people, that no wonder they, being shaken from the Unity of the Church, also stagger through unbelief. Thus you move every stone that you may reach us; in former times the rigour of Presbytery against separation, was a great clamour, and no doubt, if you had been Prelatic in those days, you would have made it a far more plausible medium for the same conclusion. And now our constancy to the truth once received, and most solemnly engaged unto, and our abhorrence of the falsehood and perjury of such, who, casting off all fear of God, and regard to their own reputation, either as Christians or men, have subverted the righteous and pure constitution of this Church, usurped its name and authority, and are turned to be persecutors of such who cannot comply with all this wickedness, is made by you not only a charge of separation, but exaggerate as a preparative to the Quakers their folly. O with how much more reason, and undeniable evidence, might the perjurious lightness, and versatile falsehood of your Prelates and their adherents, who have been carried about by every wind of tentation, be accused as the cause, not only of the Quakers their giddiness, by you objected, But of all that contempt and regardless indifferency, whereinto at present, we see Religion thereby precipitat.  
Your next quarrel is, that we cherish in our followers, a dejection of mind too much, as if Religion, which gives a man a right to the purest joys, should become a life of doubting, and this, you say, introduceth a spirit of melancholy making way to pretended enthusiasm. Whether or not this your challenge doth not in effect coincide with the cavils of the profane world, and directly encourage that spirit, which continually decrieth Religion, as a ●our melancholy and inconversable conceit, let every serious soul judge. It is enough for our vindication, that we do not teach any other dejection, then that of humble repentance, mortification and self-denial; this is indeed a hard work, compared in Scripture to the most bitter and grievous mournings, nay unto death itself; and seeing the superstructure of grace and glory thereupon founded, is exceeding weighty and high, it is certainly very necessary, that these foundations be firmly laid, and ever the deeper the better: But as it is by the power of the spirit of Jesus, and in the sense of his wonderful, both depressing and exalting love, that these things are best performed, so an excess of humbling (if not despairing) abasement in this matter, is no just fear, and more unjustly made our reproach. As for Religion, no question it gives a man a right to the purest joys, and is also even in this life, attended with a most ravishing foretaste, and a most glorious and satisfying hope: but if in this our bodily estate, the same pure excellency of the thing, and searching discoveries which it makes, do by reason of the enmity of Satan, and detestable and yet inevitable importunities and warrings of the World and the Flesh, render us necessarily obnoxious to many doubtings, fears and oppositions, against which we are obliged and by the word commanded to pray, watch, wrestle and fight continually; do you therefore, because we thus warn, justly accuse us, as if we made Religion a life of doubting, let be to countenance these melancholy affectations and pretended enthusiasms? Sir, if you were as serious in the practice, as you appear affected in the speculations of Religion, your experience of the many devices of Satan, the deceitfulness of your own heart, the uncessant oppositions of the Flesh and Spirit, together with the oppressing and grievous sense of a body of death and sin which doth so easily beset, would certainly convince you, not only that security and not doubting is the common bane of professors, but that our brightest shinings of joy in time, are after the saddest shours of mourning, that the most relishing wine of our consolation is made of the water of Repentance, that it is from the seed of tears, that the harvest of our joy groweth; nay that our blessedness here is in a manner wrapped up in mourning, and that it is hereafter only that we are to look for the times of refreshing when we shall be fully comforted: But the Lord grant your more real and solid dejections, and deliver you from the vanity of an airy imagination which both in itself doth bend to, and is frequently in righteousness plagued by these enthusiasms, wherewith you do reproach us. And thus all men may see, how unjustly we are by you blamed, for the progress that Quakerism maketh amongst us; and how directly, not only that, but most of the irreligion and profanity of these days, is chargeable upon your way. To this vindication I could further subjoin a very significant testimony viz. How that King james, in his first and more innocent years, did make his boast of the constitution of Presbyterian government, as the most effectual bulwark against error and heresy, but the certainty of this truth needeth no such support. For your insinuation of piety and love here subjoined, we have so often found the most keen arrows of your calumny dipped in this ointment, that I think you obliged to my civility, when I pass it as one of your poor sweetening transitions.  
In the next place you licence your N. C. To characterise you freely, to the effect that, seeing you are resolved to let him prove nothing, even what is truth in his charge may be construed prejudice: but seeing it hath been my endeavour, so to draw and design in vive colours, that naming would appear superfluous, I need not prosecute such a representation. As for the answer you return of your brave temper against reproach, Apostolic firmness against all reports, your pure anger without sin, and more than humane goodness even to die for your hating traducers, it were folly in me to question the truth, where sincerity alone would be an incredible happiness; but seeing these eulogies are the smoke you cap●at, I grudge you not.  
You go on, and truly I believe with no less candour, to class us, in some sober and modest, and others sour, heady, uncharitable and unsociable: and for the first, you honour them, great civility, & honour them the more, for their first founder Calvin, great wit, and then lest this be taken for a jeer, you tell us that the first being ever Presoytery had, was in Calvin's brain; and this you assure, a great evidence indeed; and verily whether your civility, wit, or evidence be the greater, it were hard to determine; only as it must be an extraordinary compliment, to which a scoffing jest doth make an accession, and an extraordinary jest, to which falsehood gives the point, and an extraordinary falsehood which both the Scriptures, the practice of the first and purest times of the Church, and the more judicious and ingenuous of your own party do redargue; so questionless in all the three you are eminently singular.  
Now for the second Class of us, which you make to consist of narrow headed, hot brained, cross grained fanatics, you must be licenced to use them severely; and with all my heart use such as you please, only use the whole party and their cause truly, and then I am confident this member of your distinction, will be found but a groundless malicious forgery; but to confirm it, you remember a passage of one of our Preachers, allowing Sharpness in defence of the Truth, and to check the proud conceit of Adversaries, and though it arise most natively from the words, and be clearly verifiable in all times and occasions; yet, loving to rake in our former divisions, you will have it to be directed against the insolence, forsooth, of the then protesting party, and to serve as a complete apology for any sharpness you have used: But, Sir, as you cannot subsume in the terms of that doctrine, either upon your own defence of the Truth, or upon our proud conceit, and consequently do fall short of your designed apology; so your reflecting upon these differences, wherein you are nothing concerned, being plainly intended for the disgrace of the whole party, doth far more discover your malice, than our infirmities: and therefore to use the words of the Text, seeing you use these of the doctrine, although there be mockers with us, and our eye doth continow in their provocation, at which upright men may be astonished, yet let the innocent stir up himself against the hypocrite and the righteous hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger.  
The next wedge which you set and drive for to divide us, is to tell the world, that our humours and sollies, are not chargeable upon the whole Presbyterian party, that the English Presbyterians are ●ar beyond us in moderation, as appears from Baxter's Disputations on Church-government, and all they desired in the late treaty, was to be joined with the Bishops in the exercise of Discipline which we refuse. 'Tis answered, what your opinion is of the whole party, shall not be taken from your fraudulent insinuations, but as these are plainly enough confuted, by your more free expressions in other parts, particularly in your, 1. Dialogue, Pag. 6. Where you say, Rebellion was the soul of our whole work, and the Covenant the bond thereof, and Dial. 4. P. 62. where you charge both English and Scots, with all the blood of the late war; So these umbrages of differences, which you allege, either from a particular person his problematick disputations, or a stretch of Accommodation, flowing in a great pressure of necessity from men not by oath tied with us to this preservation of that where unto they had not actually attained, but only to endeavour a Reformation according to the sure rules therein set down, ought not to be either a matter of stumbling, or an excuse to your deceit.  
But now forgetting your distinction, with the same breath you exhibit one of your former charges against us all in these words, before the late dissorders, all the Presbyterians in Scotland, did sit in the Courts for Church-discipline, and why may not you aswel do the like; And to this you make your N. C. Answer upon the old legal establishment then standing, and never rescinded until the year. 1662. On purpose that you may surprise him, as you speak, with a new discovery forsooth of an Act published, and printed now 57 years ago, whereby you say, the Act. 1592. S●tling Presbytery, was expressly annulled, and hereupon you pretend such amazement, and do make such exclamations upon our disingenuous forgery, or intolerable ignorance and groundless and presumptuous shisme, that this whole passage, saving your reverence, doth plainly appear to me to be but the schareleton tricks of a pitiful impostor. For,  
1. I told you before upon your. 4. Di●l (Where I confess I waved this matter as not worthy the answering) That the reason of our different practice now in order to your meetings, from what was used formerly, is plainly this, that Prelacy, being at first introduced in this Church mostly by cunning, and a lent procedure, our true Presbyteries were not thereby discontinued, but only injuriously invaded and usurped upon; of which practices, any honest Minister being free, and purging himself of all appearance of accession, by open protestation, might very lawfully sit still, and serve his Master therein: but in the late overturning, all things being carried at a far different rate, and not only the old Presbyteries distol●ed, but a new foundation being laid, of the King's Supremacy, and all the power and jurisdiction of this Church therein fountained, and both Bishops and the present pretended Presbyteries, thereon founded, it is most manifest, that your present meetings, being no lawful Church● in●sicatories, are not to be countenanced by any true Minister of Jesus Christ.  
2. You make your. N. C. lay claim to a legal establishment, as a necessary warrant to empower Ministers to meet in Ecclesiastick-courts, whereas you know, that although we judge Magistrates bound to give Christ's Church the assistance and protection of their authority and laws, yet we constantly hold the power of assembling, as well as of Discipline, to be intrinseck in the Church, derived unto it from Jesus Christ its head, and this is certainly a jus divinum, to which all true Non-conformists do constantly adhere, and which your. N. C. doth very foolishly and weakly omit.  
3. The noise you make, that it is in all our mouths that the law for Presbyteries, was in force until the year 1662. (Which for my own part, I may declare, I never either thought or heard alleged, as the account of the different practice wherewith you here urge us) and your pretended surprise, and vain account of being undeceived, by a person of great honour who showed you the Act. 1612. (Which I hardly believe, that there is any in Scotland of your coa● ignorant of) What do they signify, but the dress of a ridiculous fable, to impose upon the simple to our prejudice?  
4. If the matter were worth the contending for, I could show you, that, that person of great honour, is not much obliged to your report for the credit of his knowledge, in as much as your words do import that both he and you do understand the Act. 1592. settling Presbytery, to have been by the Act 1612. totally rescinded, and Presbyteries thereby totally dissolved; whereas the clause of the Act runneth verbatim thus, annulling and rescinding the 114 Act. Parl. 1592. And all and whatsomever Acts, Laws, Ordinances and Customs, in so far as they or any part thereof are contrary or derogatory unto the Articles above written, so that there being no Article or provision in the Act. 1612. Making void the approbation, given to the being and meetings of Presbyteries by the 1592. (Although I grant their power and privileges, are thereby much diminished) It is evident, that the power of meeting, and doing all other things, not altered by the posterior, did still remain allowed to Presbyteries by virtue of the prior. Say not that the first part of the abovementioned rescissory clause, relative to the Act. 1592. Is simple, and doth there terminat, as I heard once affirmed by one of your party, not, 'tis like, of so great honour as your informer, but, I am sure, in this point, of more knowledge than yourself, who proving it by the point ordinarily set after the figures of the year of God, would have the following restriction, only to concern the Acts and Laws generally annulled. But as it is evident, that the point maketh no period, and protestant Religion contained in that Act. 1592. Should be vacated and annulled; so the obvious tenor of the words, together with the sense of the Parl. Anno. 1662. Who in the new establishment of your Prelacy, did judge it convenient to the grounds therein laid down, to rescind de novo, that old Act, in all its heads, clauses and Articles, whatever might be the consequence, do abundantly elide this conceit. However I do again tell you, that our consciences, in this matter, are better founded, and not squared to such mutable rules: And, therefore, seeing our grounds are firm and stable, let me in the words of your own exhortation, obtest you and your party to consider your way better, cease from your persecution, repent of your apostasy and usurpation, and return into favour with God and union with us.  
Now follows a childish quarrel between you and your N. C. anent the tenderness of your love and prayers in our behalf, above that measure which we use towards you, and 1. You say, woe should be to you and you N. C. If the love of God to you did appear in such effects as the love of some of ours doth, the invidious strain of their prayers being universally, that God would bring you down, destroy the incorrigible, and show the rest the evil of there defection: but, you say, how would we take it, if you should pray, that God would destroy our party, and show us the evil of our Rebellion, and other wicked courses. 'Tis answered, 1. Seeing that woe shall certainly be unto all such, and they are far from the love of God, who are incorrigible, that God by making manifest his righteous judgements, would glorify his own Name, and deliver his Church from such adversaries, is a prayer clearly warranted, both from the word, and the practice of the Saints, nor is it in the least discordant, from that Christian charity, whereby I am really moved, earnestly to desire the Lord to deliver you and all both from the thing, and its punishment. 2. That God would bring down the proud that exalt themselves against Jesus Christ, and give repentance to backsliders, is a prayer so agreeable to the will of God, and full of love to the persons prayed for, that I am certain, whatever may be said against our principles, which I remit to the impartial discerner, yet our practice in this, as being both tenderly Christian, and fairly consequent, cannot but be approven. 3. Mistake not, if you should pray for us, in the same strain, we might possibly, and with great reason, account it an aggravation of the evils of your other principles and practices: but we are not so narrow, as to construe it a particular breach of charity: Nay for my part, as I would think it rationally consequent, so, abstracting from the errors which it suppos●th, I would take it for the greatest testimony both of your zeal toward God, and love toward us. But if I may use a little freedom, why do you please yourself so much in vain talk? though we hear not many of your prayers, yet, I am sure, all know, that we want not plenty of matter and instances for a retortion, in what terms soever you please to frame your challenge: are we so short in memory, as not to remember how your pulpits sounded, both in preaching and prayer, after the late rising, and that not only against these poor broken innocents', but in such a manner against our whole party, as, by false and fierce accusing of all without distinction, might almost have excused in them the like attempt, to save from that fury that thundered every where? If you would have any latter and more particular instances, pray inquire after the B. of St. Andrew's Sermons, specially that preached by him the 30 of Jan. 1669. and the other before the last Parliament: you complain of the severe stile of our prayers, he, good man, being ill satisfied, with such soft and a●rie tools, and having passionately fumed out a most bitter invective against our Presbyterian Ministers, not long since his brethren and benefactors, did very agreeably close it in these words, these are circumforaneous Demagogues, acted by a spirit, otherwise to be cast out then by fasting and prayer. But what need I mention your prayers, when indeed many of your practices have most visibly been such, as may justly make your fairest words suspected of the deepest dissimulation. I know some of you have a fashion of praying, that God would unite this poor Church, and heal our breaches: But if that be all the evidence you can bring, to show the healing and peaceable spirit to be on your side. Pray tell me, why the Church of Rome, that may boast as much of the same formula, may not as justly pretend to it? I might further add, that it appears to be no extraordinary merit for such as are countenanced by the Powers, and do Idolise peace and ease, to wish for an union with any whom they apprehend to be their opposites, and that perhaps the more sober amongst you, for all their compliance under the tentation, yet are not so far abandoned, as that they dare in God's sight justify there defection, and pray against the party and courses, which they know they did not desert, from any conscientious conviction. But I have insisted too long on so poor a subject, and I can in your own words assure you, that we are not only ready to unite with you, but are extremely, though not implicitly, desirous of it; and do therefore daily pray, that God would open your eyes, reclaim you from your backslidings, and grant unto us union and peace, in truth, to his glory. This is the Accommodation, that is only desirable, if you pursue any other, I am certain, that, however it may be consonant to your designs, yet it is altogether dissonant from your pro●ession; and therefore, if we be more rational and upright, to hate all sinful Accommodation, and rather to wish that our differences may stand, and be perpetuat in the behalf of truth, then cemented by a sinful compliance, wherein are we to be reprehended? Now that this is all that we teach in this matter, the same books which you refer to, do testify; and that it is none other, than the very doctrine of the School of Christ, the frequent Scripture-injunctions to the defence of, and steadfastness in the truth, with the commands of a just opposition to, and avoiding of every false way and its promoters, do sufficiently evince.  
But you add, Let all men judge, if there be not a bitterness in the Preface to Mas●er Rutherfoords letters, the Apologetical Narration, and Naphtali, unsampled in any satire, let be grave and Christian writing. Sir, since you are pleased to engage me into particular vindications, I answer, That, seeing the plainness of truth hath always been an unsufferable bitterness to all perverse spirits, this your reflection doth not deserve any special notice, if I were inclined to retort, it were not more easy for me, then evident to say in your own words, and let all men judge, if there be not a subtle poisonous malice, in your few Dialogues, above all the pretended bitterness against which you clamour: But, seeing these Writings, that you here mention, are not only too clearly warranted by undeniable truth, but manifestly approven by Scripture-practice, and almost stile, in the like cases of backsliding and apostasy, your charging them with a bitterness unsampled in any Satire, hath a higher tendency then probably you did advert unto.  
But you proceed, and what cursed doctrine is it Naphtali broacheth, concerning private persons their punishing of crimes in case of the supinnesse of the Magistrate? Pray, Sir, what is it? For really I am of the opinion, that, notwithstanding of your insinuat supposition, the thing is only notour to yourself. We find indeed, that Naphtali, respecting the order and subordination of ends, viz. the glory of God in the first place, the good of the whole Society, wherein the safety of the particular members is included in the next place, and thirdly, the maintenance of Government and Governors, for the procuring of these other ends, doth accordingly determine the obligation and duty of Subjects; and as from this principle, both he and many others do, in the case of intolerable and inevitable oppression, allow, even to the smaller part, the right of self-defence; so, in the case of notorious Rebellion against God, and perversion of his righteous laws, he, by an inference as much stronger and clearer in this case, then in that, as the indearing importance of the matter, viz. the Glory of God and the salvation of souls, is greater than that of our perishing lives and fortunes, and a manifest revolt from God and open overturning of his work, is a more enforcing exigence then any necessity can be pleaded for self-defence, the principal grounds of that privilege, proceedeth to assert, to these small or great, few or many whom the Lord stirreth up in the ceasing and failing of other means, the power and right of Reformation; and thence, by way of anticipation of an objection, he goeth on to show, that the deed of Phineas may not be made a cavil, and that the 'samine, being only an heroic stretch of his more fervent zeal, and not an extraordinary act by reason of any special express warrant, may, both for encouraging unto, and justifying the like practices, very justly be regarded as an imitable example: but as for your blunt and uncautioned general, viz. that private persons may punish crimes in case of the supinness of the Magistrate, I am confident who ever peruseth that whole passage in Naphtali, will find it no less calumnious on your part, than it is remote from the account that I have exhibited, Now, if you remain still of the opinion, that even the Doctrine, by me acknowledged for Naphtali's, is accursed, when you shall have answered the reasons and Scriptures by which he confirms it, and particularly the command given, Deut. 13. v. 12, 13, 14, 15. with the examples of Phineas executing judgement without legal process, Saul's soldiers rescuing jonathan from the King's injustice, Elijah killing Saul's Priests, not by any special command mentioned, in the presence of the King, without his leave, as the King himself narrates it, 1 Kings 19, 1. and Azariah with fourscore valiant Priests, their resisting Uziah in his proud usurpation, all of them less or more dependent, upon the forementioned position, it will be seasonable for me to reply. It is true, one o● your party hath been at the pains to survey Naphtali, and particularly, and at great length, the points above mentioned, whether with candour, or with clamour, by strong and sound reason, or by carping, wresting and falsifying sophistry, I leave it to others to examine. Only when I consider, that where, in the beginning, Naphtali doth treat of their matt●rs, he doth it expressly and tru●ly by way of narrative from the doctrine and practices of our first Reformers, and that with a very observable caution and moderation, and that when in the end he doth resume this purpose, he carrieth on his assertion, from most simple and evident principles, by a very rational and perspicuous connexion, to the conclusion designed, I do indeed ma●vel at the method wherewith I find him treated: but waving general vind●cations, seeing your whole party as well as yourself, do not a little talk of Naphtali his making use of that instance of Phineas, and do think, by the inferences which you thence make, to render the truth odious, it will not be amiss that I enlarge a little on this subject.  
And first I say, that the fact of Phineas appears to me, not to have been extraordinary, or to have proceeded upon any particular commission to him given, but plainly to be such, whereunto in its then-proper circumstances, any one of the Congregation was equally warranted, and which in the like exigence, hath still a laudable use for imitation. If you inquire my reasons, there can be none more convincing, then the Scripture account of this matter, Israel in Shittim, joins himself unto Baal-peor, and the anger of the Lord being therefore kindled, the Judges are commanded to slay every one his men that were joined unto Baal-peor; yet the plague by this execution is not stayed, and the whole Congregation are weeping before the door of the Tabernacle, when, behold, even in there sight about such an exercise, because of a destroying plague raging in the camp, a man of Israel in his most impudent wickedness cometh, bringing a Midian●tish woman unto his brethren, which Phineas perceiving, he riseth up from among the Congregation (tanquam quilibet) taketh a javelin, and going in after the Israelite brevi manu, in the very Act, thrusteth both the man and the woman thorough, and so the plague was stayed, and the Lord saith unto Moses, Phineas hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, wherefore, behold, I give unto him my Covenant of peace and thus Numb. 25. Which the Spirit of the Lord again commemorating. Psal. 106. Describeth in these words, than stood up Phineas, and executed judgement, and so the plague was stared; and that was counted to him for righteousness, unto all generations for evermore; by which Scriptures this deed, in itself upon the matter agreeable unto a positive and clear command, being represented, as proceeding, in the Author, not from any special call from God, or command from Moses, whereof there is not the least vestige in the Text, but from the alone impulse of an holy and fervent Zeal, exciting him to stand up to execute judgement, and therefore counted to him for righteousness, etc. If these be not the undeniable circumstances and characters of a deed only in the manner heroic, and which any person in that Congregation, acting from the same sincere zeal of God, might without any particular warrant have performed with equal acceptance, let all ingenuous men judge.  
2. I say that whatever capacity may be attribute to Phineas, as the son of Eleazar then high priest, (which indeed is all we find in Scripture concerning him preceding this time) or upon the ground of any other conjecture; yet the 'samine doth no ways make out, that this deed was an Act of ordinary administration, and consequently deprives not Naphtali, of its pertinent application, in as much as it is evident, that Phineas did not do this deed, either by virtue and using the power of any Authority, wherewith possibly he might have been vested, or yet by Moses his order, or command, but simply from the motive, of that sincere and high measure of zeal whereby, without waiting the command of the superior Magistrate, or observing a legal procedure, he was suddenly acted in such a flagrant, and openly provoking wickedness, immediately to interpose and execute judgement; and therefore we see, that as nather by Moses his command, nor by the judges there obedience, in slaying every one his men that were guilty, the fierce anger of the Lord was turned away; so it was only by Phineas his fact, as being of another nature, and his eminent zeal appearing & prompting him in such a manner that the Lord was appeased, & the plague stayed. And really when I observe, that it is in the readiness and fervour of Phineas, his zeal transporting him, as it were, to the omission of the ordinary solemnities of judgement, for the punishing of such a manifest and provoking villainy, that the Spirit of the Lord seemeth to place the high and singular praise of this action, I cannot but equally admire, how that any person, should either attribute it to an extraordinary command, or account it an Act of common obedience to Moses, or yet of ordinary jurisdiction.  
3. I say, that although in certain particular cases, such as Abraham his stretching out his hand to slay his Son, the israelites there borrowing to the spoiling of the Egyptians, and Samsons killing of himself with the Philistines, all obviously interfering with the general commands contained in the law, where an express warrant is not recorded, the 'samine may, and aught to be supposed; yet where the deed is in substance agreeable to the precept, and the apparent singularity of any circumstance remitigated by another extraordinary occurrent, and where the performance is expressly ascribed to the actors zeal or fortitude, and not the least mention made of any special command, there, to recurre to tacit warrants, is altogether groundless. If this the author of the Survey had adverted to, he could not in the pursuance of his alledgeance, that the sovereign God can cross ordinary rules, and appoint some to execute his judgements extraordinarily, wherein they are not to be followed without the same special commission (a truth which we do not controvert) have thereto subjoined examples so widely different, as Moses his killing the Egyptian which having vengeance admixed over and above the quality of the israelites defence, is by Scripture referred to an express warrant Act. 7. 24, 25. Ehud's killing of Eglon, which on the other hand was without all question lawful to any Israelite against such an oppressor, Elias his destroying of the fifties with fire from heaven, which no doubt doth not more upon the matter require, then by its extraordinary manner it is witnessed to have had an special command, his kill of Baal's Priests, which on the other part I do nothing question, to have been only a noble act of executing God's judgement, which a wretched uxorious Prince fearing to do, the people themselves might lawfully have done: Abraham going to kill Issac, which is plainly and particularly commanded, David's engaging in duel with Goliath as I judge, which any in the camp of Israel might laudably with the same permission have undertaken, and lastly Samson's killing (not murdering, as he inadvertently speaks) of the Philistines with himself, which for the reason above assigned did certainly proceed upon a particular licence. But the Surveyer's design in this so inconsistent a mixture is evident, viz. that having premised so many, part pertinent, part impertinent examples to his position, he might with the less observation add the Lords stirring up of Phineas as a suitable instance, whereas it is obvious, that the same is not more unlike to the cases of Abraham, Moses, Samson & Elias with the fifties, than it justly quadrats to that other of Elias against Baal's Priests, & both this & these of Ehud & David, are nothing referable to the ground he layeth down, but do plainly proceed by virtue only of general rules taking place in there respective exigences without the necessity (what ever message Ehud de facto had) of any special commission.  
4. I say, that Phineas his fact, was indeed a stretch beyond the line of his ordinary vocation, but so far from importing upon this ground the necessity of a special warrant, that as the Scripture doth clearly impute this his transport to the rare measure of his zeal, inflaming him in a manner to the present execution of a just vengeance upon such a detestable abomination; so it doth no less evidently hold forth how that particular and extraordinary exigences de facto occurring, the very common principles of duty, may, without a special extraordinary warrant, carry to singular performances. And thus we are arrived at the main point, whereunto this example of Phineas is by Naphtali applied, and about which both the Surveyer, and you do raise such a noise, and yet in effect the matter doth contain no greater difficulty in thesi, then that which is fully satisfied and removed by the most common and ordinary distinction of a man's calling unto that which is proper and particular, whereunto in the ordinary course of things, he is regularly and commonly confined, and unto that which is general, which not being circumscribed by any particular rule, doth, from the common obligation of the end for which all particular stations are institute, in the clear exigence of an extraordinary incident according to the general rules of righteousness bind, to an agreeable practice. I know Naphtali in his tenderness to offend for preventing of mistakes, insinuates several distinctions and subdistinctions, whereby an action heroic, and a call thereto, may be discerned from that which properly and strictly is termed extraordinary, and its call, and that the Surveyer in his rambling way, by proponing the distinction of acts heroical and extraordinary to consist in this, viz. that acts heroical do not deviat from the common rules of virtue, but differ only from its common acts quoad modum perfectiorem, whereas acts extraordinary go beyond ordinary rules and are founded upon special warrant, goes about to impugn Naphtali in that wherein they both agree. But seeing that all the difficulty of these distinctions, as I have said, is very easily and plainly resolved by these several aptitudes of a person in order to a commanded performance, which depending upon circumstances, may be thereby so diversified, that what in the ordinary and unperturbed condition of things would be accounted an excess of our particular calling and an usurpation, in an extraordinary occurrence becometh a necessary duty of our general calling, and seeing the certainty and usefulness of this distinction, according to the continual variety of humane affairs, may be undeniably instanced in thousands of experiences, and particularly in that more ready than regular concurrence, which we see practised in the case of fire, or any such surprising calamity, the more zealous than orderly interposition which all men would allow to a son, even in the presence of a righteous Magistrate, for preventing or staying a sudden outrage intended against his father's person, that resentment of justus dolour, which the common law indulges to a husband against his wife and an adulterer found in the act in his own house, and in many such cases, I think, I say, that these things considered without pursuing any further inquiry, I may from the grounds already laid down fairly conclude, that as Phineas his fact was not extraordinary in respect of any special warrant, neither probable nor necessary in this subject, but a pure product of that large measure of holy zeal wherewith he was endued, and whereunto all men ought to aspire: so there may be certain exigences of the glory of God, which tristing with a suitable degree of the same zeal without waiting the consent of a godly, far more without regarding the opposition of an ungodly Magistrate, may, upon the general grounds and obligations to righteousness, lawfully provoke and excite to convenient action.  
Now, if it be objected, that this conclusion being only general, allowing the power, but not defining what is the exigence requisite to its exercise, may more readily prove a snare and an offence, then conduce to any good purpose, It is answered 1. That seeing my undertaking was, to vindicat the Scripture truth of Phineas his deed, recorded for our instruction, from men's mistakes, and Naphtali from their calumny, if I thence rationally elicit the inference made, the accidental hazard of men's misapplication, flowing from their own weakness and corruption, cannot more properly be charged upon Naphtali, then upon his Surveyer; but it is in effect an inconvenience, which all are concerned to explicate. 2. I freely acknowledge that such is the fervour of corrupt passion, far more rapid, almost in all, than the pure zeal of God is to be found active in any, that too much caution, tenderness and fear, can scarce be adhibite in a subject, wherein even the most warrantable provocation of holy zeal is ordinarily attended, with such a concurrence of self-interest and other carnal temptations, as it is impossible without the signal assistance of the Spirit of grace, to have its exercise, in any notable measure or manner, without the mixture of a sinful allay, beside the evil of ill example, whereunto, it may be very readily and most perniciously drawn; and therefore seeing the consideration, resulting from the concurrence of all circumstances, whereupon the right dignoscing of such deeds doth mostly depend, is oftentimes most difficult, and delicate, the more easy and safe course, and best use of this whole doctrine, is rather to give judgement upon a case of that nature, when actually existent, and its whole contexture exposed to certain examination, then to set down general rules directive of such practices, But 3. As the Lord hath delivered unto us the rules of righteousness, in themselves certain and evident, and absolutely comprehensive of all cases incident, so he, who knoweth and doth the same, is no doubt of a good understanding, and whose heart is sound in the Lords statutes, walking therein continually in fear, humility and uprightness, he walketh surely and shall not be aehamed; The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul, the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple, the Statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, the Commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. Here is the complete and fixed Rule, and who so taketh heed thereto diligently, in faith and fear, is not only fitted and prepared for all ordinary duty, but thoroughly furnished unto all good works. It is true, that in all heroic, and more elevat acts, beside the rule and common virtue whence it flows, we do find the exciting and impelling motions of the Spirit frequently mentioned, as customary and necessary thereto; but seeing unto every righteous performance, the assistance of grace is requisite, and the impulse and excitation mentioned is nothing else but a greater measure of that assisting grace, which the extraordinariness of the case, and the difficulties therein occurring, do call for, and, at most, doth only determine to the species (as Lawyers speak) of the action; but it is not at all its rule and warrant, the interveening of such motions dot not alter the rule, or restrict its obligation, nor yet hinder the action so performed, to be to all an imitable example. That actions following from and depending upon special antecedent commands, which, for the most part, are singular in their matter, as well as in their manner, are not to be taken for examples, is very readily confessed: but that an extraordinary motion, first supposing duty, and in the next place only requisite and given because of some uneasiness in the execution, should restrict the duty in general to the person so gifted, when the same or the like measure of assisting grace is rather to be by all desired, is not at all agreeable. I say first, supposing duty; for, that great gifts, or strong impulses are not the rule of duty either under an ordinary or extraordinary exigence, much less do give men a call to go beyond the rules of their calling (as the Surveyer captiously allegeth Naphtali to suggest) is by me heartily conceeded, as a very important point for clearing the truth which I maintain: That which only remains to be adverted to is, that although these singular motions and impulses be indeed subsequent & subservient, both to the rule of duty, & to a man's calling resulting therefrom, and from the circumstances wherein he is stated; yet, they seem to have such a peculiar determining influence in these heroic performances, as to the species of the action, that it is not so much the particular deed, that we are to heed for our imitation, as we are to emulas the grace and principle of zeal, which produceth it, and is therein so conspicuously relucent, for our upstirring to acts in like manner, as God shall give us the opportunity. From all which it is obvious, that as it is the opportunity, res facti, and the assistant motion of the Lord's Spirit, which chiefly do determine, by way of excitation, as to the particular species of an heroic enterprise; so, it is only from the known and immovable Law of God, and the nature of the occasion, wherein the 'samine doth take place, & from which two our calling doth proceed, that the obligation of Phineas his deed, and of all other the like practices, doth descend, and according whereunto they are to be examined, and in their conformity thereto be proposed for imitation  
These things then being thus explained, I shall take leave to lengthen this digression a little further, for the removing the Surveyer his calumnies and objections against Naphtali on this point. And first, he saith, That Naphtali by adducing the instance of Phineas, for the Patrociny of such, whom he would have esteemed, as having acted from the like warrant and principle, maketh every man judge in his own private discretion, to fall in hand with such practices, and consequently giveth leave to all or any, upon pretence, or because he thinketh that Rulers have fallen into Apostasy, by any means to cut them off. But 1. if Phineas his fact be indeed such, and of use for imitation, as I have already proven, the perverseness of the Surveyer's Malignity, is not so much leveled against Naphtali, as against the very Scriptures of truth, whence his doctrine is taken 2. Where doth Naphtali allow men's private judgement and discretion to be their warrant in such practices? That every man doth de facto judge, and practise according to his own private discretion, is indeed no more requisite to the procedure of rational agents, then, because of man's ignorance and corruption, it hath both in matters of this kind, and all other matters of truth and righteousness, been the sad productive of many great inconveniences; and if, for such inconveniences, the sure rules of truth and righteousness must be altered, I am certain, as there is nothing truth, either in nature's light or Scripture revelation, which hath, through man's abuse, produced so many and so sad evils, as that of the power of, and submission due to sovereignty, which almost every where, and in all ages hath been perverted unto tyranny and oppression, and, for one instance of disorder or sedition that, can be charged upon popular liberty, is attended with thousands of far greater extravagancies; so the Surveyer & his party of all men ought to be most sparing in the sophistry of such objections: but seeing Naphtali alloweth no other judges de jure, save these unerring rules, which the Lord hath appointed, this fallacy which the Surveyer doth continually and most foolishly beat upon, thorough all his Survey, alleging still where Naph. alloweth to rational men a discerning faculty, (without which it is most certain, that nather reason nor morality can subsist) that therefore he doth set up this judgement of discretion to be the only dictat of righteousness, is by that most notour and obvious distinction, of the last result of the practical judgement from the fixed rule of righteousness, unanswerably refuted, it being thereby manifest, that, as the former is, de facto, the necessary interveinent medium of application to every moral action; so, the later is that, by which, de jure, both the judgement itself, and the action thence ensuing, aught to be regular and judged, and without either turning the use of our discerning, unto an implicit and stupid deference and submission, or exauctorating the rules of righteousness, by a lawless licentious liberty.  
2. The Surveyer urgeth Naphtali with another calumny; and that is, That although Naphtali doth allege, that he holdeth not such instances as that of Phineas for regular precedents, for all times and persons; yet he giveth no caution against the false pretence of heroical excitations, it is easy to raise the devil, but not so to lay him; if he could set down rules to bar a heady people from tumult and confusion, he would say something to satisfaction. But 1. Is not his declaring such instances to be no regular precedent, but restricting their imitation to the cases of extreme necessity, or the like manifest exigence, a very considerable caution. 2. Naphtali doth so plainly require, not only that the matter of the action be just and lawful, and of itself natively and really conducing to the glory of God, but, in an evident necessity, formally intended by the actor from a Spirit of holy Zeal, wrought and excited by the Lord, with whom is the residue of the Spirit, & who thereby breatheth upon people and persons, when and as he listeth, that I marvel how the Surveyer was not ashamed to contradict so clear an evidence● But if he say all these things may be pretended, where they are not, and for this there is no caution given. 'Tis answered, seeing it is impossible to adhibite a better caution against hypocritical shows, than the touchstone of truth, whereby they are to be tried, and the abuse of lying pretensions is incident unto the most evident and certain duties, Naphtali, requiring truth and reality, and not admitting men's delusions, and imaginations, cannot be herewith justly charged; but, the truth is, the Surveyors whole representation of Naphtali in this matter is so foully calumnious, that, without following him further, I shall content myself briefly to review the objections, which he maketh against the doctrine delivered, anent the imitableness of Phineas his act, where finding himself caught by Scripture-evidence, how with disjointed reasons, and lame testimonies, he strangely tosseth and turneth himself for an issue, the impartial eye, in his eight particular Answers to Naphtali subjoined, will easily discern.  
And. 1. He doubteth if Phineas was a private person, and thence doth groundlessly pretend the warrant of his ordinary calling, as to the fact controverted. 2. Departing from this, upon the supposition that he was a private person, he, without any reason, insinuateth from Moses his being present in that great assembly of the people, and his after-approving of the deed, that therefore it was done by his authority and command 3. He impertinently differenceth the case of Israel's sin, from that of our present backsliding, whereas (waving the too manifest parity of our present open rebellion against the Lord, usurping his Kingdom, changing his ordinances, and filling the land both with the idolatry of popery and all lewdness, to the then horrible idolatry and villainous whoredom, wherein he places Israel's sin) the main disparity of a then godly Magistrate, is Naph. undeniable advantage. 4. He falsely, and inconsistently with his former grounds, allegeth, that Phineas acted by special commission, of which the Scripture is not only silent, but doth very significantly intimate the contrary, as we have heard. 5. He foolishly cautioneth, that actions specially warranted, are not for common rules, to which I freely add, that not only such, but even these, which are special from the sole reason of their singular exigence, are not to be drawn to common example. 6. He needlessly quarrelleth, anent the distinction of Acts heroical and extraordinary, and misconstruing the Lords approbation of Phineas, Numb. 25. He plainly wresteth the elegy. Psal. 106. And that was counted unto him for righteousness, as if its emphasis were not the rare commendation of the deed, but that otherwise it might have been imputed to him for sin, unto an inconcludent inference of a special command and calling. 7. He calumniously asserteth, that Naphtali holds great gifts, and secret impulses to be a sufficient call for men to go beyond the ordinary rules, which God hath set to them in their callings, whereas, all we find in Naphtali is, that joining a zealous excitation to the Lords command, in an exigence of extreme necessity, he thereof, for superabundance, maketh up a sufficient call to the heroic action thereon ensuing, And. 8. And lastly, he grossly perverteth the question, as if any of us did affirm, that we have warrant now to look for extraordinary persons, having Gods special and secret mandat to do works, which neither Reason nor Scripture do warrant, when, on the contrary, Naph. Labours mainly, to show, that even Phineas had no such character. Now that these are the Surveyors reflections upon this fact of Phineas, and this their success, the perusal of his Papers with what I have here said doth abundantly clear.  
It remains, in the next place, that I declare, how that, as Naphtali's doctrine, here vindicated, is by him only narratiuè delivered from the records of our first Reformation; so, the 'samine is there truly and more fully to be found; and that Master Knox and our worthy Reformers were of the same opinion, as to the instance controverted, and from the ground thereof did give a resolution, in a case far more debatable, then that of Naphlali, the following passage may evence. In the year 1563 the Queen having emitted a proclamation against the Mass, and yet conniving thereat, and the Kingdom being visited by an universal death, which master Knox says, was for the idolatry of our wicked Rulers, and our ingratitude, that suffered them again to defile the land with that abomination, the brethren generally offended, determined to put to their own hands, and to punish, for example to others, and so they practised on some, and made intimation to the rest. The Queen offended here at, sendeth for Master Knox, and dealeth with him earnestly, to persuade the people, and principally the Gentlemen of the West, not to put to their hands to punish papists. Master knox, on the other hand, exhorteth her to execute justice, which, if she omitted, he feared some would let the papists understand, that they should not be suffered so manifestly to offend without punishment. To this the Queen answereth, will you allow ●that they shall take my sword in their hand? Now observe his reply The sword of justice, Madam, is Gods, and is given to princes and rulers for one end, which if they transgress, sparing the wicked and oppressing the innocents', they, that in the fear of God execute judgement where God hath commanded, offend not God, although Kings do it not; nather yet sin they, that bridle kings to strike innocent men in their rage, the examples of Samuel s●aying Agag, Elias Jezabels Prophets, and Phineas, Zimri and Cozbi are evident. And so, Madam, your Majesty may see, that others then chief magistrates have lawfully punished, and may punish, the crimes that God commands to be punished.  
By which discourse it is evident, as the sun light, that Naphtali in place of being the broacher of this doctrine doth indeed come short of that, which Mr Knox hath long since asserted; it is true, in his conclusion he saith, others then chief Magistrates, & as if meaning by inferior thereafter subjoines, that by act of Parliament power is given to all judges, to search and punish mass-mongers and hearers; but seeing the same is only spoken with an accommodation to the then case, and that both the grounds of Master Knox his reasoning, in this place, and his declared opinion, in his appellation & admonition to the commonalty, viz. that the punishing of idolatry and such crimes, as touch the majesty of God, doth not appertain to rulers only, but to the body of the people, and every member thereof, according to his vocation, and according to that possibility, which God doth minister, together with the manifest consequence of clear reason, give no less power to the people against subaltern then to subaltern against supreme magistrates,  
I need not hereupon enlarge, far less to answer the Surveyors profane & inconsistent reflections upon these times: if the opposition then made to idolatrous and persecuting Rulers, had been indeed sedition or rebellion sinfully raised for some unjust cause extrinseck to the matter of religion, by our first Reformers, as many professors of that time were no doubt too palpably guilty of sacrilege and selfseeking, there had been ground to have placed all into one category, and vindicate the Lords word from the sin of such instruments: but seeing, the then-resistance was visibly made in the same Spirit, which, in the preceding dispensation of and call to suffering, had so patiently and constantly endured fiery and bloody trials, for the testimony of Jesus, and was carried on by these reformers, who continually testifying against the sacrilege and selfseeking mentioned, did from clear scripture-grounds, out of the manifest zeal of God, and for the maintenance of his Gospel, strenuously assert and promove these courses, it is certain, that their testimony is very significant, adding as much confirmation, as can be drawn from humane authority: and the Surveyors alleviating thereof, by alleging that our Lord was crucified by wicked hands, and yet the result was the world's redemption, that reprobat ministers have saved their hearers, a leprous hand may sow good seed, and that heirs of glory may be gotten in bastard●, is not more impertinent from its non consequence, these works being manifestly evil, then wickedly contumelious and ungrate: but behold the instability of this double minded man, who having vented all this foul malice, against these doings of our first Reformers, subjoineth, let it be so, that much of their way was justificable upon the account of these motives, which then impelled them; yet how unlike was the case then, to what it is now, etc. Whereby it is evident, that it is neither Naphtalis principles, nor yet his doctrine concerning Phineas, but the Surveyors different present apprehension of the hypothesis & consequently the blindfolding charm of self-interest against the power of truth, that seduceth him and his accomplices to their absurd contradiction.  
Having thus asserted Naphtali's doctrine against your malign misrepresentation, it is time that I consider, what you objecte against him. And you ●ay ransack all the Provincial letters, Escobar or the other pro●ane Casuists, you shall not find a more impious and detestable opinion among them, than this doctrine concerning private persons their punishing of crimes, in cas● of the supinnesse of the Magistrate.  
But pray, Sir, 1. Wherefore do you enumerat the Provincial Letters, so elaboratly write against them, among other profane Casuists? This your escape, if designed, should be a bad reward for the Author's pains taken against that wicked School,  
2. Though the assertion, as by you indefinitely laid down, be not a little invidious; yet seeing it is undeniable, that Phineas and Elias did, neither as Magistrates, whatever was their capacity, nor by special warrant, punish crimes and execute judgement; and that desperate disorders in the public government, may, by the force of necessity, licence to private persons, specially parents and masters, this power controverted, to affirm without exception that the doctrine concerning private persons their punishing of crimes, in case of the supinness of the Magistrate, is cursed, seemeth rather to be the effect of passion then of reason.  
3. Divine impulses have been and are still casible, and that the Lord thereby, without the giving of any special commission, may stir up to such an heroic act, as though necessarily debording from common methods, may not the less, in its whole tract and event, be attended with so peculiar a lustre and evidence of God's approbation, as may even force from you an assent, notwithstanding that the deed can only be maintained by these general positions, which you seem to disprove, is to me unquestionable. And therefore, your so severe disowning, without any reserve, of private persons their punishing of crimes, in case of the supinness of the Magistrate, excluding all possibility of divine excitations to that purpose, appeareth to be very precipitant. Are the contingencies of humane affairs, and their surprisals and pressures such as to move Kings and Princes on earth, over and above all fixed and regular courses, to define certain causes and occasions, Quando liceat unicuiqne sine judice se vindicare, velpublican devotionem, & subjug are edicto quod serum esset punire judicio, it a ut cuncti, adversus latrones publicos, desertoresque militiae, jus sibi sciant, pro quiete communi, exercendae publicae ultionis, indultum: And if, in the far more pressing and conspicuous exigences of the glory of God, when Soul-murderers and Christ-deserters, are not only permitted but patronised, the Lord, in that case, animat private persons to heroic undertake for his glory, when all other judgement faileth, shall the justifying of such practices, though otherwise countenanced by many undeniable testimonies, be exclaimed against as accursed doctrines? far be it from us, and all that love the Lords glory, and adore his sovereignty. I say, otherwise countenanced, etc. for that some men, under these colours, may pretend to the like warrant, when in reality they have it not, is indeed to be regreted, nay, that the present loose, and lewd practices of some, who most licentiously invade Conformists, under cloud of night, in their own houses, to no good purpose whatsomever, but to the great scandal of Religion and prejudice of the Country, are such as by many clear circumstances, are utterly to be condemned, whatever they may pretend, is, I hope, manifest without any observation, and needeth not any further caution.  
4. If I may come a little nearer on this subject, wherein, I protest sincerely, I have no design, but to vindicat the truth and ways of the Lord, with all tenderness and fear, and with all due regard to the deceitfulness of humane passion and corruption, are there not many suppositions casible, wherein, to speak roundly & freely in the extreme pressure either of our own, or our neighbour's interest in matter of life or estate, both you, and I, and all others, whatever be our shyness in opinion, would have a clearness to act many things of the same nature with, or as important as the punishing of crimes, not only without, but even, in some cases, against the Magistrate: how can we then deny the like obligation and warrant to the highest and most important concernment of the glory of God, in its just and manifest exigence? Sir, I know that the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God: but, verily, when I reflect, how that in many cases relating to self, the most part of men, and even dissemblers in profession, are nevertheless in practice firmly persuaded, and, in some cases, all without exception, are even in opinion most determined, as to their right and obligation of defence and resistance, And withal consider, that our love, which is certainly the foundation of this right and obligation, aught to be infinitely more intended toward God, then toward all things else, I cannot but wish, that both the persuasion and zeal of all men, in his matters, were accordingly proportional to their value: But oh! who is now on the Lord's side? and who are they that aspire unto Levi's blessing, who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him, neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own Children?  
5. Although the position be by you exhibited, in such a lax Manner, as if, upon the emergency of every crime, every private person were constitute the Magistrates overseer and exacter of his administrations, that you may the better load us with your forged absurdities; Yet Naphtali's doctrine above declared, over and above the just exigence required, is so clearly set down in the case only of gross and notorious backsliding and defection, countinanced or connived at by the Magistrate, wherein the concernment of God's glory, and our call to assert the same, is far more discernible and manifest, then in the punishing of other crimes, that, I hope, I have said enough to cut off vain and impertinent cavillations. It is therefore certain, that though this doctrine concerning private persons their punishing of crimes, in case of the supinnesse of the Magistrate, in its undefined and uncautioned latitude, may be obnoxious to gross abuses, yet absolutely to deny the same, and thence to condemn not only many fair scripture-examples, but all heroic excitations, which, in their suitable exigences, are by a clear concurrence of circumstances manifestly demonstrate to be from the Spirit of God, as to the matter warranted by his command, and, in their manner dependent on his sovereignty, were most rigid and unjust,  
But you go on and tell us, that what cursed effects this cursed doctrine produced, all the Nation saw, when in the sight of the Sun, a villain, with a pistol, invaded the persons of two of the fathers of the Church, and that in the chief ●●rect of our royal City What an empty pomp of words have we here to make out this cursed effect, a villain, fathers of the Church, chief street, royal City, big words indeed. Sir, the way to be just in your resentments, is first to be equal, and then I doubt, but if you have as much respect to our Lord Jesus, King over his Church, as you pretend to your fathers of the Church, that the wrongs and invasions by them villainously committed, with a high and insolent hand, in the sight of all the Nations, against his glory and prerogative, will not only make you give to them the epithet, wherewith you censure their invader, but account the effects of their wickedness a hundred-fold more accursed: But lest I offend you by such extenuations I verily think, all circumstances considered, & their exigence duly balanced, that the deed was rash, precipitant & of evil example; but wherefore accursed, since against such a sacrum caput, and a person self-devoted, upon whom and his associates, by executing justice, both our Rulers, and the whole Land, may so certainly consecrate themselves unto the Lord, that he might bestow a blessing upon us, I confess I hesitate.  
In the next place you add, that though the providence of God sheilded one of your fathers totally from his fury, and preserved the life of the other, though with the loss (or rather disabling only) of his arm; yet his malice was not to be blamed, for that assassinations were only wanting to complete the parallel betwixt that Spirit and the jesuits, which is indeed the same moving in different characters. But, seeing you would appear so accurate an observer of Providence, why do ye not also remember, how easily and safely the invader did escape? Surely whatever may be the moment of these circumstances of the sight of the Sun, and the chief street of our royal City, as to the aggravation for which you adduce them; yet, in order to this passage of the escape they are of a more important consideration to render it remarkable. If you say that eventual impunity, doth not argue innocency, the retorsion is so just and manifest against your reasoning from the Bishops their providential preservation, that I need not insist. But this was an assassination only wanting to complete the parallel betwixt that Spirit and the jesuits, which is indeed the same moving in different characters. Sir, if I did intend the patrociny of this fact, I could tell you. 1. That there can be no proper assassinat, without an interveening price, which in this case, you do not so much as allege. 2. Admitting your meaning to be only of a deliberate insidiating murder, yet, I would have you to consider, that it is from the matter, and not from the manner that the guiltiness of many deeds, doth principally descend: For, as we must acknowledge the greatest villainies to have been sometimes perpetrat in form of justice, so it cannot be denied, that very eminent acts of righteousness have been performed without any legal process, as the deed of Phineas and the other examples above adduced, with many such like Histories that might be alleged, do plainly hold out; and really, when I consider but this one viz. how Saul's murdering of the Lords Priests, and jehu his killing of the Priests of Baal; as to their summare manner of procedor, of so near alliance, nay, that this later hath plainly, in respect of the dissimulation used, a worse appearance than the former, I think this one reflection may direct you unto a more solid judgement in their matters. 3. The jesuits their mischievous plots, flowing from a pernicious principle, enslaving men's consciences to an implicit compliance to their dictates, without all regard to forms of justice, and being leveled against innocent persons, in order to their most wicked ends, and designs, are not only most remote, yea most opposite to Naphtali's doctrine, but nothing countenanced by this very fact wherewith you urge us. But having above, seriously disowned this rash and inconsiderate attempt, and already cleared, how that it is not only the matter, but the concurrence of circumstances, bearing such a pressing exigence, as either cannot be satisfied by, or needeth not to attend the ordinary course of law, which doth sustain their more singular and heroic attempts, your paralleling of that Spirit (of Naphtalis I suppose) so congruous both in principles and practice, unto undeniable scripture grounds and precedents, with that perverse and cruel one, working in the Jesuits, and making them to be the same moving in different characters, is like unto the rest of these bold and groundless calumnies, wherewith you study to reproach: However, it were to be wished, that you who, upon so unlikely grounds, have the confidence to draw parallels, were upon the other hand as ingenuous, as to consider these most certain and evident arguments of pride, violence, falsehood & irreligion, whereby your prelatic Spirit doth discover itself, to be not only Jesuitick, but unquestionably Antichristian and diabolick.  
Now in the close, and after having made it your work all along to brand any measure of zeal for God to be found amongst us, with the characters of a ●our, unsociable, violent and cruel disposition, you add, that you charge not this fact upon the party, but acknowledge that all of them abhor it; but yet you subjoine, that, without all uncharitableness, you may charge it on the Author of Naphtali: And thus having before mentioned Naphtali, as one of their Books and Authors, at lest owned by them, the vanity and deceit of this your insinuation is too too palpable. But seeing that which is crooked cannot be made straight, it shall suffice me to say, that, as I have evinced Naphtali's doctrine to be none other, than the just vindication of Phineas his practice copied from our first Reformers, and also showed, that the fact, which you do here objecte, hath not thereon any rational dependence; so your particular charge, with all the foolish clamour of your party, upon this account, against Naphtali, doth not so much reflect upon him, as on Phineas, and the Holy Ghost by whom he was acted.  
After this, you cause your N. C. complain, of your design, To make him regardless of the state of the Church, and neglective o● the interest of Christ, contrary to that tender affection we ought to bear him, and the example of his Saints, and only after the manner o● Gallio's indifferency. And to this you Answer, That all things have two sides, and so this doctrine o● resignation, on the wrong side, seems like unconcerned stupidity; and yet, rightly considered, it is one of the highest pieces o● Christianity. Whence you go ●n, from the infinite Power, Goodness, and Wisdom of God, to reprove the ●olly a●d presumption of anxiety, a●ent the Lords management o● matters, specially the conc●r●●ments of his Church, and to persuade us to commit the ●ame to him, and to rest securely on this, tha● all things cooperat etc. But still you say, We are to concern ourselves in the good of the Church, as by fervent soliciting of ●od in her behalf, whereby our zeal for God's glory, and charity to the Brethren are expressed; so by improving all opportunities of doing good in as for as we are called, upon all hazards: Yet, even in this, we are, with David, not to meddle, in matters too high for us, And with Paul, not● to stretch our s●●ves bey●nd ●ur line: And with all not to let de●ecting melancholy possess ourselves, contrary to the end and contrivance of Religion, which is to beget in us ●verla●ing joys, which by such sorrows are mostly marred. Sir, I have set down this passage at large, not that I find in your answer abstractly considered, any error; seeing it is very certain, that the wrongs done to these most dearly affecting concerns of God's Glory and his Church's welfare, ought not to be more tenderly afflicting, and powerfully exciting to duties of prayer, and all righteous endeavours, than the Lords high and holy Sovereignty is both most strengthening to these duties, and comfortably exclusive of all sinful anxiety and dejection, the heav●nly return made to our Lord, I have both glorified my Name, and will glorify it again, doth abundantly hold out this consistency; and is so far from being contrary to a holy touching grief, upon that account, that on the other hand, you may find the necessary cercainty of God's Glory, the ground both of the earnest and assurance of our Lo●●'s supplication, and of the comforting answer made to his troubled soul, whence it did proceed. But, that which I would inquire, is how you come to make such an answer to your N. C. challenge, which being very rational and sound, complaining only of a stupid misregard and profane indifferency, without the least ●●exure to the other extreme of sinful anxiety, had, in my thought, been better and more ingenuosly answered by a simple denial, then by your unnecessary cautions: To oppose one truth to another can have no innocent design: Nay, i● I may use your own maxim, that all things have two sides, I fear this your discourse prove also double faced, and that, under the colour of excessive anxiety & dejecting melancholy, you do indeed condemn that mean of a concerning solicitude for God's Glory and his Church's welfare, which you seem to allow, and by insinuating, joy to be the end and fruit of Religion, resolve all its seriousness into the indifferency objected.  
But lest you judge this challenge, which is only an anticipation, to be want of charity, I proceed to what ensues, which is first your N. C's reply, to wit: That all this your preceding discourse is still contrary to the holy men of God; the Psalms, Prophets, & Lamentations are full of sad complaints, and certainly a greater measure of zeal becomes the more clear manifestation of the love of God under the Gospel. And to that return which you give to it, running out upon the difference of the old and new dispensation, showing forsooth, that outward desolations and losses, which under the former were curses and grievous, under the later are pronounced blessings and matter of joy, and so forth. What strange dealing and doctrine is this? Your N. C. tells you of the complain and mournings of the holy Men of God in old times, for the desolation of God's house, departing of his Glory, and the blasphemy of his Adversaries, Which I am certain every serious soul will take to be no other, than the same careful regard to the Glory of God, and the good of his Church, which just now we heard you approve, and is, no doubt, inseparable from the true Love and Zeal of God in all ages: But you, in your present Answer, would have these regretes to be only suitable to a carnal dispensation, and nothing agreeing to that of the Gospel. Now, if this be not a palpable discovery of your sinistrous design, let all men judge: Or if you think that I do wrest your words, do you, or any man else, make them pertinent, in any other sense, & I am content to bear the blame.  
But neither is this your doctrine in itself more sound: You say, That outward desolations and afflictions, were of old, signs of God's displeasure, & curses: but now they are pronounced and made blessings. Pray Sir, make you no distinction betwixt a sign of God's displeasure, and a curse: Or do you think, that sufferings and afflictions, may not be, both signs of displeasure against sin, and yet profitable corrections, yea matter of joyous consolation in the event? Certainly, if you had consulted Scripture in this matter, you would have found, that, as the sufferings of God's People under the New Testament: are accounted chastisements, and consequently signs of the Lords displeasure against sin, which thereto provokes; so, under the Old they were no less to be by them regarded, as the chastenings of a loving father, and the rebukes of love: But it seems you have forgotten the exhortation, which under both dispensations speaketh unto the Lord's People, as unto children, My son despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him; for whom the Lord loveth the chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Nay, blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord, and teachest out of thy law, being so plainly said of old● I wonder how you could lapse into their mistakes. I grant that the Jewish dispensation is much countenanced by temporal promises, and that even the manner of divine service thereby appointed, did much depend upon their performance, Whereas that better Covenant being established upon better promises, is, in effect, so ordered, that afflictions and persecutions did and do tend rather to its advancement: But, if thence you conclude, either that the People of God in old times were to regard their sufferings, as they respected themselves, differently from what is commanded to, and commended in Christians, or that their complaints for the corrupted or suppressed Worship of God, and the departed Glory by reason of prevailing backsliding, or outward desolation, may not now under the Gospel, in the like calamities, be lawfully and laudably resumed, over and above your evil design mentioned, you bewray palpable ignorance.  
I might here further add, that you may not only observe the same patience and fruit of chastisements under the old, that is found under the new dispensation, but also read the grace and glory of their confessions and martyrdoms, in almost the same terms, wherein you go about to represent the sufferings under the Gospel as new and singular. Others were tortured not accepting deliverance, they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were s●ain with the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, of whom the world was not worthy. Pray Sir, who were they, or wherein is this account short of that, which you exhibit of Christians their rejoicing in sufferings, except in the vain excess of your superstitious festivals, viz. the days of the death of Martyrs, observed by the Church under the name of Natalitiae Mart●rum? But I have already sufficiently demonstrate both the folly and falsehood of this your impertinent distinction: And the mixture of the cup of God's Children, being clearly confirmed by the experience of all ages, your taxing of our mourning because of a broken Covenant, a profaned Sanctuary, and abounding wickedness and violence, as sinful repining, because of personal sufferings, notwithstanding that the joy and strength of the Lord hath been very conspicuous in our dying Witnesses, and our other Sufferers, doth plainly add malice to your ignorance.  
But in our complain you reprehend both injustice and excess, and for injustice you tell us, That the reason thereof is only the alteration of the Law's and the Magistrat's denying to us further encouragement, and punishing us not for Conscience, since none hath suffered because he was for Presbytery, or against Episcopacy; but for unruly humours and practices. Sir, if our complain and mournings, were according to their just causes, viz. our high handed Rebellion against God, unparallelled breach of Covenant, perjurious subversions and alterations of the Ordinances of God, aswel as the Laws of the Land, with the profanity, ignorance and violence, that have thence abounded and filled the whole Land, neither should I, or any of the fearers of the Lord, have eyes to write or read this my vindication. It is true, all this iniquity and mischief is introduced and established by form of Law, and thence you take the impudence to smooth it over, as if there were no more in it, than the alteration of Laws; nay, as if what before the Act & Law made were righteously refused out of conscience, after the accession of an humane injunction could not be forborn, but out of humour: And as if Conscience and Laws could not interfere, you go on to tell us, That the reason of our suffering is neither our adhering to Presbytery, nor our non● compliance with Episcopacy, but only our unruly humours and practices. But seeing the colour of Law, which you pretend, is indeed no relief of conscience, but the greatest aggravation of that Apostasy and persecution, whereof we complain, and that notwithstanding of any reproach wherewith you do slander it, the true cause of all our sufferings is none other than our steadfastness in the Oath of God, binding us to the maintenance of Presbytery, and extirpation of your Prelacy. And, lastly, seeing that we bemoan no violence, either to death, banishment, bonds or spoil, which, the taking of your Declaration against the Covenant, would not certainly have prevented, the witness of our cause and sufferings, who is in Heaven, heareth, and will reprove your lies.  
As for our excess, you say, We make complaints to to God, as if Heaven and Earth were mixed, and adapt all the lamentations of jeremiah to our sorry matters, comparing the overthrow of Presbytery, to the Babylonish captivity: But oh that the causes of our grief were thoroughly weighed, and the heinousness of our provocations, with the calamities come upon God's House, Ordinances and Servants, laid in the balance together; certainly then, you should more regrete our defect, than now you mock at our excess: And in as much as sin is more grievous than judgement, and judgements spiritual, heavier than judgements temporal, Nay, Gospel Ordinances more precious, than these of the old dispensation, You would judge the overthrow of Presbytery visibly accompanied with breach of Covenant, and the rejecting and expelling of the Lords ministry, far more important, at least in these respects, (whatever other aggravations there might have been in that distress) than the Babylonish captivity.  
To these objections you add, Now, were your way what you imagine, you should rejoice that you are called to suffer for it, and not make such tragical complaints. Who ever heard such ridiculous discourse in such a serious purpose? Your N. C. doth only plead for a due concerning regard to the state of the Church, and the interests of jesus Christ, you yourself allow a fervent solicitude to God-ward, in behalf of His Glory and the good of His People: And we do not only propose for imitation the practice and exercise of God's Servants, who, both of old & of late & in all times, have from the love & zeal of God's Glory, made the desolation of God's Sanctuary, the corrupting and removing of his Ordinances, with the persecutions of his People, matter of heavy complaint, and deep mourning, but do also, greatly rejoice in that grace and glory, whereby the Lord hath countenanced and beautified the trials of particular sufferers amongst us, no less than these of any other his Martyrs upon record: And yet after you have confounded the complain of the Lord's People of old, for the desolations of his Sanctuary with their concernment in their own private losses, and falsely, and vainly distinguished betwixt the duty and deportment of God's People under the old and under the new dispensation, in order to afflictions, you say dully, without any connexion or regard to the mixtures of the cup of God's People, Our way is not what we imagine, else we should rejoice, that we are called to suffer for it. But the Lord, who giveth us both strength and joy in our sufferings, doth also know and hear our mournings, and will reprove your mocking.  
But you say, That our bitterness against our enemies, looks nothing like the mildness of Christ or the primitive Sufferers. How long will you love vanity, and seek after leasing? That we approve not bitterness against our persecutors upon any account, is our serious profession whereunto our practices ought to be conform: But with all, that we hate their way, pray that they may lay aside their opposition to the cause and people of God, otherwise, that such troublers were even cut off, and when God enables and calls, do stand up for the defence of the Gospel and ourselves against evil doers, is so far from jarring with primitive precedents that both Scripture, Reason, and the practice of all times do allow it. And really Sir, when I consider these your discourses, so directly tending to the blunting nay extinguishing of all zeal for God, and the persuading of a stupid (not patient) endurance of all injuries, under the pretext of Christian Resignation, that wickedness and violence, so much at present prevailing, may the better be established, as I cannot but regrete this point of your conformity to primitive examples, (not indeed these of Christians, but of their persecutors, who in the madness of their wickedness did often whe● their violence, and intend their cruelty to the persecuted by their scornful reciting of the gospel precepts to patient suffering); So, I must tell you my fears, that your pretendings to the serene and dovelike spirit, are only colours to palliate your deep deceit and malice.  
But making your N. C. decline your instance of the primitive Christians with a vain scoff of your own suggesting, that far fowls have ●air feathers, and appeal to the practice of late Reformers, as such who universally resisted the Magistrate, out of an exceeding veneration, as you pretend to the same Reformers, you do undertake from undeniable evidence of History, to convince us of the falsehood of that vulgar error, that the Reformation was carried on by resistance. But here, in the entrance, you must give me leave, (though I acknowledge that you take no advantage from it) first to rectify your expression, that the Reformation in many places, where opposed by force, was maintained by resistance, Is that which we with as plain and full an evidence as can be instanced in any matter of fact, do very confidently assert: But that it was carried on by resistance, Is not only inconsistent, resistance sounding rather for the defence than the advance of any cause, or interest whatsomever) but according to the proper import of the phrase, carrying on, intimating force to have been the mean used to propogat Religion, very false and caluminous. 2. I must premise that when I reflect on your undertaking in this place, and there with compare that of Doctor Heylen in his Aërius redivivus, I can not but observe the deep deceit of Satan's contradicting Methods for advancing one & the same error: for whereas to disprove the righteousness of Defensive Arms, in behalf of Religion, you go about to show that all the lawful wars instanced on our part for our assertion, had their rise from an other cause; he, on the other hand, aiming at the same mark, is so far from referring these wares to any other cause, that in his fury against Presbytery, he chargeth all home upon the Reformed protestant Churches, as Religious rebellions, just as in an other case, viz: for one and the same design of destroying Conscience and making void the ordinances of God, we find the Devil the old Serpent winding himself in courses no less opposite: for while on the one hand Taylour standeth up for the liberty of prophesying, and Henry More for his liberty of Conscience; And on the other Hobes and Parker do no less plead for the subjection of Conscience to the Magistrat's dictates; that both do jointly point, though differently, the former by dissolute relaxing, and the later, by a wretched blindfolding and enslaving, to make void Conscience and all its obligation in these matters of God, which they would have to be Arbitrary, is evident as the Sun's light.  
But passing these preliminaries, and without further prefacing upon the strange and self contradicting Arguments, whereby you go about to make an undeniable, nay generally on all sides an undenyed truth, a vulgar error, I come to examine your proofs. And first, you say, The Waldenses resisted not the King of France, as is clear in the History, notwithstanding of unparallelled persecutions, viz. 60000. killed in one town of Beziers, & 7000. Murdered at once in one Church. It is true that there were wars betwixt the Count of Montfort & the Count of Tholouse; but Tholouse was a P●er of France, and a vassal rather than a subject, besides he only ●ought against Montfort, who was a bloody Emissary of the Popes, not authorized by Philip then King of France, who only permitted his subjects to Arm in this war. So that here there was no resistance of subjects against their Sovereign. A man would think, by the reading of this passage, that certainly all these thousands killed at Beziers, were in a submissive nonresistance persecuted to death by the King's Authority, else to what purpose is their not resisting of the King, notwithstanding of their unparallelled persecutions by you mentioned? And what can the connexion import? For, if either they were not persecuted by the King, or not killed without resisance, it is evident, that the instance is altogether impertinent. And yet it is certain, that as this execution was indeed one of the funeste effects of the war, which you afterwards mention, and therefore not suffered without resistance; so, you yourself, upon the same consideration, do deny the King's concurrence & there● by plainly subvert the insinuation here made of their submission, & discover your own absurdity. But that I may clear the truth in this particular from your confusion & deceit; the matter of fact (as by all recorded) Is most clear, viz. that, that time being the very hour & power of darkness, wherein all the World wondered after the Pope, it was indeed by his instigation, and, in a manner, under his banner, viz. The Crusade, that this war was raised against the Waldenses; & consequently by him was the Count of Montfort nominate to the conduct thereof● and, for his better encouragement, had, by decree of Council, the dominions of Tholouse gifted unto him. But as it is most apparent that the King, who not only permitted his Subjects to go to that war, but sent his Son to take the cross in it, as you yourself do allege, and also allowed of the commission, and confirmed the Gift ●ade to Simon, did therein concur; So your denying thereof is both groundless and absurd Groundless, because of the deeds of his concurrence mentioned and confirmed, by all the Histories of these wars, and by yourself confessed; absurd, because if the King did not concur, the example proves not your affirmation, viz. That the Waldenses did not resist the King of France notwithstanding they were grievously persecuted.  
Now before I proceed, for confirmation of what I have said both of the King's persecution and the Waldenses their resistance, take the following testimonies, viz. Hortatu Papae & Francorum Regis permissu, per univers●m Galliam, quam plurima armatorum millia crucem sumpserunt etc. Nec vero tantum permisisse Phil●ppum Regem hanc expeditionem; (quod plerique solum dicunt verum & ipsummet, suo nomine sumptiousque exemplum aliis prebentem, quindecem millia armatorum ad eam dedisse (●ipse namque aliis bellis detentus haud ire potuit ut cupiebat) asserit Gu●ielmus Brito, qui tunc vivebat etc. Bitteras, Urbem celebrem & copiosam, ●ed prae caeteris haeresi infectam vi ceperunt & combusserunt, etc. 60 vel 70 mil● jam internecione delentur, atque intra ipsius Ecclesiam occisa septem millia; & quam multa castra & oppida, quâ vi quâ deditione Simon Montisfortis, Dux belli electus cepit; & quae Simon in hoc bello prestiterit, you may find at great length in the History Spond. ad ann. 1209 & sequentes, idem ad ann. 1227. Varia certamina, marteque vario inter Inbertum Bellojocensem istarum partium regium rectorem, & Raymundum Tholosanum haereticorum sive sectatorem sive fautorem, inita sunt: & anno 1228. sanctius atque illustrius rebus interea in Gallia sub strenuo & sancto Rege puero, ac foemina prudentissima regni Procuratrice procedentibus, dum ex una parte etc. & ex alia perduelles Religionis, vi & suasionibus manus dare coguntur etc. obsessa enim ab Imberto cum exercitu Regio Tholossa, etc. with many the like passages which may be seen in this Author, Innocentius tertius ad istam (Albigensium) haeresin extirpandam etc. arma in eos excitat, curam autem belli Leopoldo etc. & Simoni Comiti Montisfortis demandat, urbes vi captae erant Bitterae, etc. Item Francorum Regi instinctu Innocentii 3. Papae cum Albigensium haereticis negotium fuit: belli Dux Simon Montisfortis erat, Magdeb. Cent. 13. pag. 216, & 218. What then can be more evident, then that not only these Waldenses resisted their persecutors, though countenanced and authorized by the King; but that even though the King himself had been Dux belli, as his Son, by your own relation, was belli particeps, he had met with the same opposition. But you say, that the Count of Tholouse was a Peer of France, and by Hugo Capetus constitution, Peers were rather Vassals than Subjects. It is answered, ne ultra crepidam, if Peers be Vassals, as they are indeed, being such Peers among themselves only, and not with the King, that therefore they are of all the most strictly obliged subjects, is notour to all that know the fidelity and gratitude which Vassalage doth import, so that whatever privilege their Peerage may give them over their inferiors, yet that, in order to their Sovereign and Liege Lord, they are in every respect subjects, is uncontroverted. But why should I spend time on your triflings? Admitting that the Waldenses, in this war, had not so directly and immediately resisted the King their Sovereign, as not being their direct and immediate Persecutor, have we therefore no advantage from this passage? And are there not many other precedents in the History of that people, which do fully and exactly infer our conclusion? And as to the first, do we not at least find, even in your own concession, the Waldenses persecute for Religion standing to their own defence. Now if once you allow to Religion the common privilege of a defensive resistance, the main strength of your arguments, founded upon a pretended singularity in the cause of Religion, as disowning forsooth all resistance, and, in a special manner, astricted to suffering both by Gospel's precept and primitive practice, is thereby dissolved and removed. I may not here insist on this subject: But, once for all, let me demand you, may not Religion be defended aswell as other rights and interests? If you say it may, but neither that nor any other against the invasion and persecution of the King and sovereign Power: This is indeed a consequent, but so destitute of all reason, that, as there is scarce a man in the world so stupid or debauched by flattery, that will not, in some suppositions, grant the lawfulness of resistance; so, the most precious import of Religion, and the atrocity of the injuries, whereby it useth to be persecute, can not but render it the first and most favourable of all excepted cases. But if you say it may not; then, whether is it your meaning, that it may not at all be defended either against Superior, equal, or inferior? And certainly, the Scripture, and also many of the primitive instances, abused to prostrate Religion unto tyranny, do seem to run in this latitude, without insinuating any distinction, so that this generality, being manifestly absurd, doth of necessity evince them to have an other meaning, and to be nothing conclusive to your purpose. Or do you understand, that in this the cause of Religion is singular, that though against persecuting inferiors or equals, Religion, aswell as other rights, doth permit defence; yet against the Powers over us, it is subject to a special restraint. Assign me for this speciality but any colourable pretext, & cris mihi magnus Apollo. That the Gospel precepts, Resist not evil, Turn your cheek to the smiter, Love your enemies etc. Have their holy and Christian use of patience and godliness, for all manner of injuries from whatsomever hand; And that these other commands of subjection, nonresistance, honour, and obedience to Kings and all in Authority, have also their righteous influence of determining, in every occasion, our due compliance and submission, without the least vestige either in all or any of the places, of injoining a singular subjection to Powers persecuting for Religion, is obviously evident. What speciality you will gather from primitive practices, the general mistakes that we find in their opinions, as we may understand from Ambrose and Augustine, condemning private defence even against Robbers, ne dum salutem defendit pietatem contaminet, may give us a satisfying conjecture. From all which we may assuredly conclude, that seeing Religion doth lay no special prohibition of resistance● in order to Superiors, upon Subjects by them persecuted; and that the above-written passage of the Waldenses doth at least evince, that in other cases it hath the common privilege, your inferring of special consequences, in favours of the Powers, from abused generals, is but a politic improving of your lies unto base and selfish flattery.  
Now as to other examples that may be found among the Waldenses, Pray Sir, was this the only passage in all that History, which you conceived did favour our cause, or was you loath to follow them over the Alps, unto the valleys of Piedmont, to meet with instances, which indeed you have reason to think can only be best answered by concealing them, in the obscurities of the places where acted? And really, this omission is so grossly supine, that you must pardon me to think it designed. However, the History that I refer you to, for a full and particular account, aswell of the faith, steadfastness and simplicicy of these Waldenses in Piedmont, as of their many and great persecutions by their own Rulers and Princes, and their just and frequent oppositions made against them, particularly from the year 1540 to the year 1561. And how in the year 1571 they entered into a League of mutual assistance, and from that year did undergo many vicissitudes, sometimes of peace and quiet, then of cruel and barbarous persecutions, wherein they testified great constancy and patience, and sometimes of necessary defensive resistances, wherein they witnessed no less uprightness and courage, even until the year 1658, wherein the narration terminates, is that of the Evangelical Churches in the valleys of Piedmont, very faithfully and acuratly collected and written by Mr Morland, Where, I am confident, every ingenuous person will find the case of defence, for the cause of Religion, against persecuting Rulers, so justly stated, so tenderly and submissively proceeded into, and, lastly, so singly and moderately prosecuted; and that not only once or twice, but often; that as he will be thereby greatly confirmed in the righteousness of this practice, so he can not but observe the inexcusable omission of your silence.  
The next instance which you undertake to vindicate, is that of the Bohemians under Zisca, their fight and resisting when the chalice was denied them. And for answer to this, you bid us consider, that the Crown of Boheme is elective; in which case, certainly the States of a Kingdom share more largely of the Sovereign power. But 1. You hereby plainly acknowledge that Religion is not indefendible, except by mere subjects, against their Sovereign: So that again we see, it is not from the cause of Religion, but from the quality of the persons, that you foolishly go about to exclude Religion from defence, which yet notwithstanding, in several excepted cases, all inferior to that of persecution, is to subjects against their oppressing Princes by all almost allowed. 2. That the States of a Kingdom share more largely of the sovereign Power, in an elective, then in a successive Kingdom, hath no proper dependence upon the way of election, but is thereto merely accidental, the Dictator's in free Rome were elected, and that only occasionally, and for a short space, and yet were uncontrollable: The Roman Empire, though elective, yet gave to the Emperor's absolute Sovereignty: And, on the other hand, we see many Kingdoms successive, wherein nevertheless the Sovereignty is divided betwixt the King and the Estates; so that your ground doth not hold. As Grotius de jur. belli l. 1. c. 3. §. 11. in explication of that distinction, aliud esse de re querere aliud de modo habendi, doth fully clear. 3. Admitting the Crown of Boheme to be elective, which yet you know, in the competition betwixt Ferdinand and, Frederick, was much controverted; and that the Estates do indeed share largely of the Sovereignty, And further, that they were the Authors of this resistance, which also you ought to have alleged; yet the opposition by them authorized upon the denying and with holding of the Chalice, and undertaken upon the common and just grounds of defence, considering the participation of power, which our Estates, before his Majesty's restitution did constantly acclaim, and oftentimes by themselves exercise, this similitude of the cases doth only the more assimilate this instance to that of our last Reformation. 4. Although the Hussites, being numerous in Bohem, and their provocation very injurious and intolerable, the success of Zisca, their Chieftain, did in a little time draw the whole Estates of the Kingdom to appear on that side; yet it is apparent from History, that the beginnings of these troubles were so far from being authorized by the Estates, that they were rather occasional, and, as it were, tumultuary, upon the hindering of some Hussites in the town of Prague to celebrat the Lords Supper with their accustomed solemnities, which the Hussites by force resisting, it was from this spark that the flame kindling, the party became to be headed by Zisca; and he and they advanced, breaking down Images, and dissipating Cloisters, until at length he contracted a just Army, and strenuously stood to his defence, and thereby obtained the concurrence of the Estates against Sigismond then both Emperor, and upon Venceslaus his death, become King of Boheme: Now whether this was not a clear resistance of the people, begun at least without the States, against their Sovereign, upon the account of Religion, I remit it to your second thoughts.  
But you say, that Comenius gives but a slender character of Zisca and his business, extolling him chiefly as a good soldier. And, I pray Sir, what would you have him to say more? beside that it is not Comenius his testimony, but the practice of the Bohemians, which upon your own appeal, we are concerned to notice.  
In the next place you tell us, That the justifiers of the late Bohemian wars never run upon this strain of subjects resisting their Sovereign, upon the account of Religion, but upon the laws and liberties of that elective Kingdom. I entreat you, Sir, to consider what you say, That the injuries provoking to that war, were the invasions made upon the Liberties of Religion, formerly confirmed by Maximilianus and Rudolphus, is notour and manifest: Now, if in this case they did aggravate the wrong, not only from that liberty, which is every where due to truth, but from these royal concessions thereto superadded, certainly this can make no disparity to our prejudice. But if you mean that these Resisters had not only law for them, as to the making out of the wrongs which they suffered, but were in a legal capacity, as being the States of the Kingdom, to resist the invasions of their Prince, I have already told you how much this, if it were true, would make for and not against us. 2. You must consider, that the opposition, which gave the immediate occasion to the war 1618. and the war thereon ensuing, did proceed from, and was carried on only by the Religionis Bohemicae socii Ordines, and not by the whole Ordines Regni, which were partim P●ntificii, partim Religionis Bohemicae. So that the share, which the Estates of the Kingdom had of the Sovereignty, in this case, doth not assist you. I grant, that the Ordines Religionis Bohemicae, at first prevailing, seem thereafter to have attained to the whole power, and so to have proceeded to the election of Frederick. But the lawfulness of his election is not now the point in question.  
You add, Neither were the Protestants too well satisfied with the last Bohemian business. And it is very like, that the briskness of the first assault upon the King's Counsellors, with other miscarriages in the progress of that business, might possibly offend; but can you thence infer, that either these defensive wars were not undertaken for Religion, or that on this account, the Protestants did dislike them? As for what you subjoin, Yea K. James notwithstanding of his interest in the elected King, was no way cordial for it. He who desires a true account of King james his deportment in this affair, & how, contrary to the inclination of all English Protestants, the advice of his best Councillors, and the earnest solicitation of Archbishop Abbot, he strangely delayed to assist, and in effect deserted both his Son in Law, and the cause of the protestant Religion in that juncture, may find it at length in. Mr. Rushworth●s collections. But the truth is, his Majesty in that particular was so possessed and captivat by a design, or rather an humour, that then overacted him toward a Spanish match, not only in prejudice and to the ruin of his own Daughter and Son in Law, his own and England's honour and interest, but contrary to his sounder opinion in ●●vors of the French protestants necessitate to a resistance, that if you had consulted the honour of his memory, you had in this matter chosen to be silent.  
Your third instance is adduced by your. N. C. In these words, But you know there was fight in Germany upon the account of Religion, To which you answer, This shows how overly you read History when you bring this as a precedent. And truly Sir. I do conceive, t●at the most overly reading may give so full and entire satisfaction, as to this point, that I exceedingly long to hear, how your more accurate perusal will convel the evidence. You say when Luther rose the Duke of Saxon, moved of God, did receive the reformation peaceably into his principalities, etc. And what then as to the matter of defence? But you add, that in the years. 1524. and 1525. There arose a war in Germany fomented by some troublesome Preachers, as saith the Historian, who pretended the liberty of the Gospel for their chief quarrel; And this war of the Rustics was again and again condemned by Luther as an execrable rebellion, nay opposed and broken even by protestant Princes. All the concludency of this passage on your part, depends upon the supposition, that this war of the Rustics, was by them necessarily engaged into, for defence of themselves and the true Religion, against their persecuting Adversaries. Which though you be bold enough indirectly to insinuate, yet all your confidence durst not positively assert: But, that all men may see your disingenuous dealing, in this allegiance, it will not be amiss that we take a more exact account of it, in Sliedan's own words, where we find in his fourth Book, mense novembri, Ann. 1524. Ceperunt a suo domino Comite Luphio suevo dissidere homines rusticani, propter onera quibus gravari se nimium querebantur, idem & alii deinde vicini faciebant in suum quisque Magistratum. Here you may perceive that the liberty of the Gospel was not so much as pretended to be the quarrel, let be the chief quarrel; but that as oppression only and not Religion was the cause which they held out, so their too prompt and illegal resentment by way of violence, without the pressure of an extreme necessity, is that for which they are very justly censured. The next mention we have of them is in the same Book, the following year, Cujus verè primo per Sueviam, etc. altera fuit exorta tempestas Ordinis plebeii contra quosdam proceres Ecclesiasticos. jamque jurejurando ac fide data societatem coibant obducta causa, quasi & Euangelii veritatem tueri, & servitutem ab se profligare vellent: And the author adds, Magistratus quidem cognoscere de quaerimoniis ipsorum, & quod iniquum esset, emendare se velle dicebat; verum illi perseverabant, & eorum postulata, mox aliis communicata, passim novos incendebant motus. Which obstinacy and refusal was certainly unjust. Now what these postulata were, I need not repeat, in so far as they did only demand the liberty of the Gospel and the relief of their oppressions, all men will judge them reasonable; yea Luther, for all his vehemence against them, Yet upon these considerations, doth not only seriously admonish and reprehend the Princes for their persecution and tyranny, and tell them that, talis est vester dominatus, ut eum homines nec possi●t, nec velint, neque sane debeant ferre diutius, & cujus Deus aut per plebem, aut per novos hostes quos excitabit, poenam exposcet: But also concludes, that if neither the one nor the other party will abate and hearken to right counsels, se fore utriusque ruinae spectatorem: nesas enim utrinque versari, & bellum esse plebi contra principes ut in oppressores ipsorum, salutis atque doctrinae, magistratum invicem conflictari cum plebeiis ut cum latronibus, & iis, qui nomini Christiano contumeliam faciunt. But the casting reasons against these tumults, were, that in effect what was right in their demands was only speciously alleged, to palliate an unjust design of a licentious levelling liberty in all, and a more wicked ambition in their chief leaders and instigators, and that as carnal impatience and revenge, did give the rise to these stirs; so, their contagion and progress every where was carried on rather by an inconsiderate and fatal fury & rage then any show of reason, or good conduct. Whence it is manifest, that these courses, being so plainly seditious, cannot be paralleled to the cases of defence by us mentioned.  
But you say, they were fomented by some seditious Preachers, who pretended, the liberty of the Gospel for their chief quarrel? Thus you love deceitfully to insinuate where you cannot justly accuse. But because that Thomas Muncer, quiting first the truth, and then his station, did, under that general fa●● pretext, with some others his associates, heeding their own delusions and dreams, and aspiring to enthusiasms, become ringleaders to a mutinous rabble, for the cutting off, of all Magistrates as wicked, and the destroying of propriety, Dare you thence infer, that the practices, which we defend, are of the same nature, And that the Lords Ministers amongst us were no better? Certainly your calumny not hardy enough to turn this oblique reflection unto a direct accusation, doth clearly enough evince its own falsehood.  
But you add, that Luther wrote again & again unto them, condemning what they did, as an excerable & cursed rebellion. It is answered, what Luther did write, first in answer to their appeal and demands, more soberly, by way of dissuasive, and then upon their eruption unto hostility, more vehemently by way of incentive, to incite all, even private persons, by what somever manner of way, to repress and kill them, is extant on record. And ●eing that I have already cleared, how widely the rising of these Rustics, doth differ from the defensive risistances by us asserted, I am very free, upon the matter, to subscrive to his judgement. But because I confess his reasoning doth proceed upon the same grounds of subjecting to the Magistrate, not resisting of evil, and our Lords hindering of Peter to fight in his defence, which the men of your persuasion do commonly abuse, and are indeed handled by him in such a manner, as may seem to give you an apparent advantage, You must pardon me, for this my ingenuity, to use a suitable liberty, and tell you, first, that although Luther, in his first discourse doth make certain suppositions, viz, of the Magistrat's being intolerable for persecution and oppression, and that we suffered as atrocious injuries from him, as Peter and the rest of the Apostles did when our Lord was taken and led away from them; and even in such cases doth prohibit fight; yet examine his words, & you will find, that it is to restrain from revenge, and not to prohibit, that he there useth these passages. As for example, after having said, Sit Magistratus plane intolerabilis, he addeth, non tamen idcirco excitandi motus: Nec enim cujuslibet est coercere maleficia etc. And after having mentioned Christ's commanding Peter to abstain from his defence, he subjoineth, gravi latâ sententiâ in eos qui gladio ●eriunt, hoc est, qui contempto Magistratu vindictam privatam exercent: So that albeit his words after the usual manner of dehortatives, do seem some what tending to the contrary extreme; yet his scope being fairly adverted to, as the surest rule of genuine interpretations, they ought not to be extended beyond the condemning of impatient revenge. 2. I say, that as all humane authorities are but accessary and not leading Arguments, And Luther's judgement in the matter of war, as in other things, was but progressive, and not at first thoroughly enlightened; So although he had been more positive against us, at this time and upon this occasion, it ought not to stumble us; for as much as, in the first years of his Reformation, from which this war of the Bowers was not far removed, Sleidan tells us, that he wrote not only that the Magistrate was in no case to be resisted Lib. 8. But that to war against the Turk was to resist God; who useth him as a scourge to chasten us. Lib. 14. Both which he afterward, in his own manner, did retract and qualify as you shall hear. 3. Albeit the Bowers their wars, were unjust, and seditious, as we have heard; yet that Luther in his arguing against them might, and did overstrain, beside the arguments already adduced, is easy to be gathered from his excessive vehemence, in his second writing, wherein, forgetting his main principle of appropriating the sword of justice and vengeance unto the Magistrate, he instigates even private persons to take vengeance on them, and (if you will understand it a right) to turn Phineases in the case, and this Sleidan says, ut nimis aerem et cruentum multi passim vituperabant. The next thing you allege anent their wars, Is that the Protestant Princes stirred up by Luther, did fight against the Bowers and break them. And why not; seeing their rising specially that of Muncer, against which they took arms, was plainly seditious and rebellious? And thus we see, how that by laying down of false suppositions, you do only accumulat impertinencies. ● But the best advice that I can give you, is that which your confidence blindly offereth unto your N. C. viz. not to hearken to the tattles of ignorant persons, but read the History itself and there you may both understand the truth, and the true estimat to be made of Luther's Papers.  
In the next place you tell us, That upon the invasion and combination of the Duke of Brunswick & others against the Lutherans, the Duke of Saxon the Landgrave of Hesse, & other Princes and free cities met at Smalcald to unite among themselves: but Luther was dissatisfied until that from the Bulla aurea, and other constitutions of the Empire, it was showed him, that it was lawful for them to defend themselves. Whereupon he consenting, they entered into that famous league. To this you add, and every one knows, the princes of the Empire are Sovereigns within themselves, And that the Emperor is only the head of the union. From all which, it seems, you would infer, that though this be an instance of inferior Princes standing to their own defence, upon the account of Religion, against their Superior; yet it can not warrant people to resist their Sovereign: But here let me remind you first, of your own undertaking, which was to convince us of the falsehood of that vulgar error, that the Reformation was carried on or mantained by resistance: Now, whether this passage of the Smalcaldick league doth answer your design, or not, I appeal to your second thoughts: You present yourself in the proposal, as if you were to prove, that the Reformers were altogether for suffering, and not at all for resistance according to the misconstructions that you make of the practice of the primitive Christians; And yet when you come to this instance, all your offer is a politic consideration de facto, incident, which neither as to Gospel-rules, or ancient precedents, by you commonly abused, is of the least moment, as I have already showed. 2. Although the provocation, which you mention, to the Smalcaldick League, viz. the invasion & combination of the D. of Brunswick & others against their neighbour protestants, do signify nothing in your behalf, but be altogether proper and agreeable to the nature of defence, which we do maintain; yet, seeing it is not so consonant to truth, in matter of fact, and that the true and genuine rise and progress of that League do much more illustrate our assertion, you must give me leave to note your inadvertency, in as much as we find that the league of Smalcald was both proposed and entered into, long before the opposition of Brunswick and the confederacy of Norimberg, whereby it was fortified. And as to the first beginning of the league at Smalcald, we have it, in the year 1526. At Spire, where the D. of Saxon, and the Langrave calling the Commissioners of certain Cities, tell them quoniam ipsis charam esse videant Evangelii Doctrinam, & vero quid Episcopi moliantur, atque pontificii non sit obscurum, deliberare sese dicunt num qua societas atque ●aedus iniri possit, ut, si quem hujus causa periclitari contingat, mutua subministrentur auxilia etc. Thereafter when several Princes and Cities had first protested against the second Decretum Spirense, and, by many meetings and other previous transactions, had prepared the thing, in the year 1530. these protestants meet at Smalcald, atque faederis concipiunt formulam, non quidem offendendi quemquam, sed sui defendendi causa, & huic continuo Principes subscripserunt, etc. Quod foedus postea Anno 1535. In annos decem renovatur; whereas it was in the year 1538. and after the Popish Princes and Bishops had leagued together at Norimberg, against the Protestants, that we find Henricum Brunswicensem totum ad rumpendum ocium publicum spectantem, & in hoc incumbentem, ut belli fieret initium adversus Protestants. And it was in the year 1542. that, Ob vexatas Goslariam & Brunswicum Smalcal. Foederis Civitates Saxo & Langravius communi sociorum nomine bellum ei faciunt, clear arguments of your mistake. But, by all these and many other passages incident in these times, it is evident, that the principles of the than protestants did maintain the lawfulness of resistance, no less against persecution for Religion, then against any other injury. I might here add the league made in the 1529. By the Argentinenses cum Tigurinis, Bernatibus, & Basiliensibus for mutual defence in case of invasion for Religion, and that other, made the following year, upon the same grounds by the Langrave with the same Cities, but I forbear to insist on examples so obvious and frequent.  
As for what you say of Luther's Dissatisfaction, until that Lawyers showed him, how that, by the bulla aurea and other Constitutions of the Empire, it was lawful for them to the end themselves; That which I find in Sleidan to this purpose is, that Luther had ever taught that the Magistrate was not to be resisted: but when in this deliberation, Lawyers did show, that the laws did sometimes permit resistance; and that now matters were stated in one of these excepted cases, He ingenuously professeth, that he knew not this to be lawful. And because the Gospel doth not impugn or abolish politic laws, and also because, in that so doubtful and dangerous a time, many things might fall out, so● that not only Law, but the very force and necessity of conscience, might make us take arms, He concludes, that a League for defence might be entered into. Now, whether this passage do more favour your design, or our assertion, is very discernible, if we consider, first, that there is no mention here of the bulla aurea, which though it do indeed contain the rights, liberties, privileges and Dignities of the Princes and States of the Empire; yet beareth no permission of resistance referable to this case. 2. The laws here spoken of sometime permitting resistance, are, no doubt, no other than these ordinary exceptions founded in the law of nature, whereby the laws of subjection and submission, flowing from the inferior law of Nations, are by all Lawyers held, in some cases, to be restricted. And though I grant, that many Casuists do require to the lawfulness of subjects their resistance, beside the justice of the cause, the concurring of inferior Magistrates; yet that the same grounds, with better consequence, do also allow to the people by themselves (inferior Magistrates either joining with the supreme oppressor, or deserting their duty) the right of defence, is the opinion of the more judicious. Nay, seeing it is most certain, as I have often touched, that there are certain atrocious injuries, which do force, even from the most rigid royalist, a particular exception in favours of single persons thereby attacked, it is evident, that all this controversy is more in hypothesi then in thesi. 3. If it be remembered what were Luther's mistakes, in his younger years, in the matters of war & resistance, & withal that beside the information of Lawyers, he had a further and a most important reflection upon the force and necessity of conscience, in times of uncertainty and danger; it must of necessity be acknowledged, that this passage is not merely a politic discovery, whereof before he was ignorant, but a manifest retractation of former mistakes.  
I have already hinted, how absurdly the Scriptures, for not resisting of evil, and for subjection to Powers, are abused, by Court-flatterers, to a special prohibition of all resistance from Christians persecuted, for conscience sake, against their oppressing Princes, Only for sooth, because their unconcernedness in Religion, doth sufficiently secure them from the consequence; whereas it is clear as the Sun-light, that the same Scripture-rules do make no distinction, from what cause, let be from what person, the injury doth descend; but equally and indefinitely enjoin patience and submission, in their exigence and season' without the least prejudice to these other rules of righteousness, whereby, aswell in the case of persecution for Religion, as of injurious invasions upon other accounts, the persons invaded, when in an otherwise unrestrained capacity, are warranted to resistance in their own defence. And for this, it may suffice, though there were no more, that Luther tells us, that he ever taught, that the Gospel doth not impugn or abolish politic laws, much less than the fundamental laws of nature, to which all politic laws do cede. But what he further adds, of a force and necessity of conscience, thereby joining the obligation to the right of defensive resistance, is certainly a ground, which if it were here pertinent, I could improve to more than I have hitherto asserted.  
But you say, that every one knows, that the Princes are Sovereigns within themselves, and the Emperor is only the head of the union. How doth this blind Confident meddle without understanding. That the constitution of the Empire is purely feudal, the Emperor Liege-lord, and all the Prince's feudataires recognoscing him, and subject to the imperial Chamber, where they have been often doomed and for faulted● Is a thing most obvious. What do you then babble of united Soverraigns, and Sovereigns within themselves? By which dialect of discourse, and a fair descent a Majori ad Minus, you or any other private person may quo ad his reserved rights and liberties, be termed a Sovereign within himself: We know, that by concession they have large privileges, and that most of the regalia appertain to them, but are they therefore Sovereigns? Or is the Emperor only the head of the union? Beside, how will you make their things quadrat to the Hanse-townes and free Cities, who certainly, for all their immunities and privileges, are immediately, and directly subject to the Emperor, and yet have often engaged in these defensive leagues and wars against him. Thus I answer you, in your folly. But, pray Sir, do you think, that ever our Lord commanded, or the Gospel meant, that, though the poor people may not defend themselves, when persecute for Religion; yet great men their superiors, though subject to the Supreme, may? Or, if you be more rational, can you imagine, that an oppressed people upon any account, with the concourse of inferior rulers may defensively resist their Sovereign, to whom all are subject, and that the same people, no more, but rather less subject to these inferior, than all are to the Supreme, may not as lawfully, upon the like provocation, defend themselves against both the Supreme & Inferror joining in an oppressive combination? Specially, seeing it is most certain that, as the Supreme hath all his power from the people's suffrage and consent; so, the Inferior doth wholly and precariously for the most part, subsist by his grant.  
But I proceed, you say, As for the war that afterwards followed betwixt Charles the 5 th'. & the Duke of Saxe, besides that the Duke was free to defend himself, as I have told, Charles the 5 th'. declared it was not for Religion he fought. 'Tis answered, for the freedom of the Duke of Saxe, that it was no greater in this case, than the people may acclaime in the like, as also, that if the Duke of Saxe his war was lawful, upon the account of injuries, for other causes then that of of Religion, Religion doth only aggravat, and not alter the case, I have already cleared. But what a pitiful allegiance is this, that Charles the fifth forsooth declared it was not for Religion he fought? Whereas first by the league betwixt him and the Pope, it is expressly convented, That wherefore many years Germany had continued in great errors, for which the Council of Trent was called and set down, And that these of the Smalcald confederacy, did reject the same: therefore the Pope and Caesar, for the Glory of God and safety of that People, have transacted, that Caesar levy an army against juny next, and by force of arms reduce these Refusers of the Council, and Defenders of errors, into the old Religion and obedience of the holy See. 2. The Duke of Saxe and the Langrave writ to him to dissuade him, closing, that when ever they should understand his pretended causes for that war, they would so answer, ut quivis intelligat, & injuriam nobis fieri, & te Romani Antichristi ac impii Concilii Tridentini impulsu bellum hoc suscipere, ut & Euangelii Doctrina & Germaniae libertas opprimatur, nec ullam aliam subesse causam docebimus. 3. They at the same time, emit a public vindication for themselves, proving by unanswerable arguments that Religion was the only cause of that war. And should not you be ashamed, to obtrude to us Caesar's groundless and calumnious assertion, against both the Princes their declaration and reasons? 4. The very letters written by Caesar to the Argentinenses and other Protestant Cities, wherein, accusing the Princes of Rebellion and Oppression, under the pretext of Religion, he really maketh out nothing, together with their answer, wherein all his pretensions are taken off; nay Sleidan's whole sevententh Book, containing the Pop's Bull, his letters to the Helvetii, the distinct returns made to Caesar's demands by the Protestant and Popish Cantons, with many other letters and declarations, is but one evidence, and that irrefragable, against you. What impudence is this then whereinto you are hardened?  
But the Electors of Cullen and the Palatine both Protestants lay neuters. And what then? Do we not know how rare a things it is, in a time of danger, for all concerned to unite even in the most uncontroverted duties? Beside, the Elector of Cullen was then recently deposed and excommunicate, and his people (specially his principal Clergy) and he at great variance, for the Reformation by him intended. And the Palatine inclining to favour, & in effect aiding the Princes with 400 horse, was by the evil success of the war forced to retreat and excuse himself.  
Next you add, That the Elector of Brandenburg and Maurice of Saxe armed for the Emperor. And I grant, That Albertus & joannes Brandenburgici quanquam erant religionis, & joannes quidem etiam foederis Protestantium, tamen quod Caesar, non propter R●ligionem, sed quorundam rebellionis ulciscendae causa, bellu● sucsipi diceret, suam illi operam addixisse. But as their resting upon Caesar's assertion and promise, for the security of Religion, was, by all the circumstances of that war, declared to be but an empty pretext; so John's breach of faith, in this his engagement, can as little be denied, as his relation of Son in law to Henry of Brunswick, then detained captive by the Langrave, seems to have been his great motive. However it is certain, that the Elector of Br●ndenburg, for whom it is like, that, in your heedless way, you take one of his above mentioned Brothers, did stand off neuter, endeavouring rather to mediate, as the History testifies, and we may see by his interposing betwixt the Elector of Saxe and Maurice, at the siege of Lipsick. As for Maurice, his part, it was indeed foulest, and deservedly condemned by all equal Judges. But seeing you can adduce no other arguments for your pretended vindication, then undeniable wrong and perfidy, the truth and righteousness of that defensive war, on the Princes their part, against the Emperor needeth not my further patrociny. And yet, As if you had said something to purpose, you have the boldness to conclude in these words, So you may see what pitiful His●orians they are who allege the precedent of Germany. O os durum! Who would not Laugh at such excessive confidence, above the excuse of all possible ignorance?  
The fourth instance which you go about to clear, is that of Sweden, and you say, That King Gustavus, with the States of that Kingdom, did in the Year 1524. peaceably receive the Reformation, and who would not wish that Religion and Reformation might have had the same fate every where, Neither were there any broils about it, till after seventy years, that Sigismond King of Polland, the Son of their former King, and therefore by them acknowledged, though a Papist, was by force entering the Kingdom, resolving to root out the Protestant Religion: Whereupon they deposed him; no strange thing in the Sweedish History, that being before an Elective Crown, and but newly then become hereditary, and the States still retaining the supreme Authority. Sir, I must confess, that this is a passage, whereunto I can make no reply; your undertaking was to convince us, by undeniable evidence of History, of the falsehood of that vulgar error, That the Reformation was carried on (that is maintained as, I have before showed) by resistance; and here you give us an instance of a Kingdom, not only resisting, but deposing their King, because of his invading of Religion: Which, in place of a vindication, is a full and plain concession: For, as to what you insinuate, that that Crown had been a little before Elective, I told you, upon the instance of Boheme, that though it had been even for the time Elective, yet it could not make for you, much less when you acknowledge that then (for, as for your own or the Printers escape, referring the change to the Year 1644. I urge it not) it was become successive. And where you allege, that the States did still retain the Supreme Authority, if you understand it otherways then according to that power and privilege which appertains to our Parliaments, it is only your own fiction. But you, subjoin that, If this serve not to vindicat the Swedes, at least, the Reformation was not introduced by wars among them. And pray Sir, who of us did ever defend such a practice? To introduce, and to maintain, are things so different, that they can not be fairly confounded. The last shift you make is, That the actions of that state were never looked upon as a precedent to others: But, if so, why then do you mention them, and if they be indeed a precedent, certainly it is hard to determine, whether you be more false in your general assertion anent the establishing of the Reformation, or ridiculous in this part of your vindication.  
The fifth instance you mention, is, That Denmark received the Reformation peaceably. But seeing this hypothese excluds the question controverted, anent the maintenance of Religion by arms, not casible without the antecedent violence, It is evident, that it is rather transiently then pertinently by you adduced.  
The sixth instance is tabled by your N. C. thus, But you cannot deny there was force used in Helvetia and Geneve. A●d to this you answer both in the manner and terms of your accustomed vanity, That this shows, what a superficial Reader of History your N. C. is. And then you tell us, T●at Zurich received the Reformation peaceably, but being maligned by the other Cantons, and by them injured, at the Pope's instigation, it broke out into a civil war, purely defensive upon Zuriches' part, Likeas the Cantons are not subject to one another, but free States only united in a League. It is answered, that here, upon the account of Religion, there was force used in Helvetia is clear from your own narration. How then do you tax your N. C. for this allegiance, as a superficial Reader of History? As for that, that it was used by one associate against another, and not by subjects against their superior, it is only accidental from the condition of these Cantons, & the other circumstances of that war. And seeing, that neither the Gospel, nor Reason, do lay any special restraint upon subjects, in case of their Superiors intolerable persecution because of Religion, as I have already showed, this precedent is no small confirmation of the practices by us maintained. 2. I must tell you further, that this war, on Zuriches' part, was not so purely defensive, as you give it out, in as much as it is certain from Sleidan. 4. and 8. Books, that the provoking injuries were, for the most part, committed upon their citizens without their territories, and the first act of hostility, by the interclusion of passages, was done by these of Zurich, so that, although their guards were indeed surprised; yet dating the war from the hostile interclusion, it appears rather to have been assertive then purely defensive. 3. The advantage, which this example doth give us, is the more observable, from that preface they make to their expostulation, emitted to their confederates in these words. Christus, inquiunt, unam ferienti maxillam jubet alteram quoque preberi feriendam, hanc eius doctrinam sequ●ti, multa profecto toleravimus & patienter quidem: Nunc autem quando nullus est injuriarum finis, aut modus, cogimur ad illud confugere quod Christus usurpavit, &, si malè quid egimus, doceri petimus illud atque demonstrari, etc. Whereby understanding the patience; which our Lord enjoins, according to its just exigence and measure, and, by a very exact and sound observation, holding out how in a continued tract of injuries the duty of patience may at length cease, and the liberty of defence then take place, they plainly reject these abusive inferences of absolute subjection, or rather stupidity, in the cause of Religion, which men, assured by their indifferency in these matters against the temptation and hazard, would thence infer. 4. When you remembered the practice of the Suitzers, in the point of Reformation, how came you to forget Basile, Where you may find (Sleid. l. 6) that after the Reformation was in a manner established, the Papists nevertheless did prosecute their own design, until the citizens thereby provoked, assemble and supplicate the Senate, that certain of their number, countenancers of the popish preachers, might be removed; Which being refused, they make an other Assembly and Supplication & quamvis sine armis, ● non tamen tam demisse quam antea, whereupon the Senate returning a second displeasing answer, and the people being more offended, because of the apprehended usurpation of a few, they openly declare that they would take a course, not for Religion (viz. simply and only) but for the vindication of their own right: And so they instantly take arms, And the same day, one of them casting down a certain statue, they suddenly take the occasion to throw down all the idols and statues within the city making answer to such, who came from the Senate to compose the matter, that what the Senate had been advising upon, for three years, they would perfect in one hour, that idols might no more be the cause of contention. Upon which the Senate grants th●m all their desire, removing the suspected Senators, abolishing the Mess, and settling the reformed Religion. In which passage, subjects their maintaining and asserting of the Reformation by arms, against their superiors, is so evident, that it is very easy to conjecture the reason of your silence and omission. It is true the people do mention the vindication of their right, and not religion, as the immediate cause of their taking arms: But seeing their meaning is plain enough, that their just demands in behalf of Religion were in such a manner refused, as not only their common right, but their special privileges were injured; and seeing, in the progress, the cause of Religion was by them most directly intended and pursued, it is manifest above exception, that, as it was the occasion, so the Reformation of Religion, was the principal motive and end of all this stir.  
As for Geneve, you say; the Bishop fled from it out of a panic fear, when the Reformation was received. And 'tis true the History saves, that upon the change, Episcopus atque Clerus irati discesserunt ab urbe. But is it then pertinent for you to observe, that no force was used where there was no provocation. But you subjoine, that Geneve was a free Town, neither subject to the Bishop, nor the duke of Savoy. And no doubt you give this caveat for that war, which, you know, was made against them, in the year 1534. By the duke of Savoy, adjutus ab ejus urbis Episcopo, vel potius instigatus partim ob Evangelii pro●essionem, partim aliis de causis. But, seeing although Geneve was a free Town, yet it had a considerable dependence upon the Bishop, and though it had not, yet the instance is no less concludent for us, then that of the war of Zurich, I will not insist in any longer reply.  
The seventh instance, you also adduce by your N. C. Questioning what you say to the war in the Netherlands. To which you answer, that you say still they fought not for Religion: And that they fought not for Religion, that is, to propagate it by Arms you are in the right: But that persecution for Religion, carried on by the making of new Bishops, the Inquisition, and bloody Edicts, was the principal cause of all these wars, Historians on both sides, such as Bentivoglio, Strada, Grotius, Grimstoun and his Authors do so fully attest, that your confidence is to me admirable. But you say, Papists and Protestants did jointly concur in it. It is answered, 1. That the cause of these wars being complexe, the Spaniard endeavouring no less to subvert the liberties of these Provinces, then to extirpate the Reformed Religion, it is nothing strange, that there should have been a joint concurrence i● the opposition. Specially seeing, 2. even the persecution at that time, practised upon the Protestants in these Countries by the Spaniards strangers, was so tyrannous, rageful and pernicious, that many of their Compatriots, though otherwise not of their Religion, were yet induced to favour their cause. But 3. As it was the spreading of the Reformed Religion in these parts, that first gave the Spaniard occasion to exercise tyranny, and, by violating and subverting their Liberties, to design an uniform royalty over all his Dominions; So it is unquestionable, that Religion and the cruelty practised upon its Professors, were the original and principal cause of that war as the Apology, set out by the Protestants, after their first defeat, in the end of the Regency of Margaret, doth fully witness. And here I might tell you of the joint supplications and confederacies made about that time by these of that Religion for their own preservation, and also the concessions made to them in that behalf; But the History is so large in this matter, that it were superfluous in this place to be more particular: And therefore I say 4. That although in the beginning, the mixed design of the extirpation of Religion mainly intended, and of the erecting of an uniform Monarchy assumed through the occasion thereof, carrying along a manifest and most injurious violation of all rights, liberties and privileges, did at first engage even Papists in the resistance; yet it is most certain, that the principal cause of the war, viz, Religion, more and more prevailing, of the Flaming themselves there were few, save Protestants, that took part on the defensive side. And as for the French or others, who joined afterwards upon a clear ground of interest, it belongeth not unto the present consideration.  
You add, that Egmond & Horn beheaded, by the D of Alve, as the chief instruments in it, died both Papists. 'Tis answered, Egmond and Horn plainly accused of having joined to the confederates against the inquisition, & for remissness in the maintenance of the Romish Religion, were very early cut off, even in the first fermenting, as it were of these tumults, before the ensuing war was form; but, however, certain it is, that although they professed and practised mainly for the liberty of their Country against tyranny, yet they greatly favoured the persecute protestants, and also much inclined to their way, as is clear from their very accusation, and also from the manner of their death, specially Horns, who, for all Grotius his saying, that they were execute, post sacra romano ritu peracta; yet, at first refused to confess to the Bishop of Ypre, saving that he had confessed himself unto God. What then doth this allegiance, destitute of reason and little favoured by truth, avail you?  
Your next argument is, that the States by a Placaet declared it scandalous, to say they fought for Religion. Sir, I wish you had given us the words, at least the date of that Placaet: For, sure I am, that in what terms soever, the Estates in policy might think fit to declare and publish the cause of these wars, and to assign for the same rather the invasion of liberties and privileges, which was the effect of the Spanish persecution, than Religion, which was the more remote cause; yet whoever reflects upon their first beginnings will find that it was after this manner. The Flaming receiving the light of the Gospel, & being therefore sore vexed by long and cruel persecutions, the same upon the succession of Philip to his Father Charles, are by the Spainards' much intended, and a resolution being taken, to root out the Protestants, new Bishops are created, the Spanish Inquisition is threatened, and many terrible edicts emitted, by which courses, not only in themselves wicked, but also contrary to the privileges, and destructive of the liberties of that, people, many tumults and confusions were in all parts occasioned, until at length the Nobles do confederate for resistance, and mutual assistance and relief; in consequence whereof, they petition the Regent, and applications are made to the King, when in the mean time, on a sudden, these of the Religion seeing no success that way, keep their meetings and assemblies openly, assuming arms for their own defence aggainst sudden violence, and by the meaner sort of the people, images and idols are as with a whirlwind (quales olim saepe motus judeorum erant which is Grotius his remark) thrown down almost in all places. These things make the Regent more easy towards the Protestants, and force her to remit bygons, and indulge their Preachers: but the Lords retearing to their respective charges, for rendering the concessions effectual, and being terrified by the reports of the King's implacable displeasure, betake themselves to divided Counsels, whereupon the Regent resiles from the agreement, renews the persecution, levies new forces, imposeth new oaths, and the Spainards', supposing the whole people one way or other to have been involved in the late tumults, conceive them, as guilty of rebellion, to have forfaulted their former liberties, and to be become obnoxious to an absolute domination. This being the condition of matters when the Duke d'Alva was named to the government, the Prince of Orange & Brederode, both Protestants, retire. Brederod his forces of the same Religion resist and are beaten, and many shift for themselves: then the Duke arriving fills all places in a moment with tyranny and persecution, putting to death many Lords and Gentlemen, and many thousands beside, because of the former confederacy, and upon the account of their Religion: And the Prince of Orange, being cited and not compearing, his Estate and Lands are seized on, and thereafter takking arms by the persuasion of the banished, and declaring to the world both the injuries done unto him, and that he was of the Religion, he is once and again beaten; so that there remained no opposition to the duke's rage & violence, save what was made by a few, escaped from the former defeats given to the Protestants, who made war in the Prince's name, partly by piracy at sea, and partly from woods and forests, against Priests only and Officers of justice. In this deplorable estate, under most insolent tyranny and violent persecution, these poor Countries remain, until the Earl vander Mark with his Protestants or sea Gueux, as they were then called, surpriseth the Town of Breill, after which Flussing and several other towns in Zealand and Holland, refuse spanish garrisons, and being Protestants revolt to the Prince of Orange, who having implored the aid of all Protestant Princes, after a successess enterprise for the succour of his Brother Ludovick at Mons, and a proclamation emitted, declaring the cause of his engagement to be for relief of these Country's form Alva's tyranny, and from the cruelty and oppression of his proclamations, edicts, taxes, and imposts, cometh unto Holland, from which time the war for Religion and liberty, proceedeth thorough many and various accidents, and both are in all places equally restored. This is the plain and true and account of the rise of these wars, at which period, even Grotius, who, of all the writters of that History, doth most decline and wave the cause of Religion as an ingredient in the quarrel, noteth, Religionis causa primi talibus caeptis sociaverant Smalcaldico faedere Germani, post quos Galli proceres plurimis etiam Scriptis disseruerant non peccare, in fas obsequii minores potestates qui invito quàmvis principe divina ac publica jura, vitam que innocentium, si necesse ●oret, armis defenderent, etc. And a little after, romanae ceremoniae ejectae templis, etc. Whether or not then persecution for Religion appears to have been the cause of these wars, let all impartial men judge.  
But you tell us, that the true ground of the quarrel, as we may read in all the Histories, was that their Prince was not an absolute Sovereign, but limited in his power and that by express compact, they might use force if he transgressed his limits, as he notoriously did. Sir, for the true and proper ground of the war I have already clearly narrated it, from the best Historians: that which you point at here, is rather a justification of their resistance from the right and capacity whereunto their Prince was astricted. But 1. You cannot deny that persecution for Religion, whereby they were injured both in their special privileges, and common and natural rights and liberties, was the provoking cause of these wars; and consequently that Religion no more than other interests, doth not forbid to subjects necessary defence and resistance against their Superiors. 2. For all the vain talk that you and your fellows make against us for allowing to the people a discretive judgement, anent their Prince's actings, yet you not only suppose and approve it, in these of the Netherlands, in order to their Prince, but stick not to vent your aim, in saying that the King did most notoriously and tyrannically pass his limits. 3. Though we should urge this instance no further than you allow it; yet it still remains a very agreeable precedent for justifying our late courses, it being certain, that not only the rights and privileges of both Kingdoms were violate, but that the undoubted privileges of Parliament, and the resticted nature of the King's sovereignty over us, did give us as good and sufficient a warrant for the oppositions then made, as upon this head can be alleged and instructed by these of the Netherlands. And really, when I reflect upon the particular case of the late wars betwixt the King and Parliament, and how that in the Papers printed by consent of both, for clearing the controversy, there appeareth nothing, save the pretensions and pleas of prerogative and privilege, and yet all do acknowledge Religion to have been the original cause, I think this sole consideration might have made you to forbear this poor vindication.  
It is true, Grotius says, and seems to lay much weight upon it, quod Brabanti illud quoque proprium pacisci solent, ut, principe leges violante, ipsi fidei & obsequii vinculo liberantur donec demantur injuriae. But not to draw you to long discourses, anent the effect of an irritant provision adjected to a mutual contract. 1. It were no great difficulty to show you from undeniable reason, nay from Grotius himself, in his de jur. Bell. that as there is such a connexion in all contracts, that the failzeer of the one party doth in so far liberat the other from his mutual & corresponding engagement, and repone him to his antecedent condition and liberty; so in the present case, an irritant provision, though, in other cases, it may sometimes extend its virtue and influence beyond the intrinseck import of the failzie whereby it is committed), appears not to have any special use, but only to serve, ad majorem, quia expressiorem cautelam. 2. It might here be sufficient to make that answer for us, which Grotius a little, after in the same place makes for the other Provinces, viz. ab aliis quoque Belgarum nationibus idem jus moribus usurpatum; which may be verified as to Scotland and England, by many most pregnant and luculent examples. But● 3. As I grant that a reservation of these things, which otherwse would be imported in the people's surrender, & appertain to the Sovereign, fortified or not fortified, by an irritant provision, may give to the people when therein wronged, the liberty of asserting their own right, which without a special reservation had been none; so undoubtedly, as to such rights, which do reserve themselves, and are so much ours, that even by an express surrender, they cannot be absolutely resigned (such as the right of Religion, our lives and whole fortunes are, the preservation whereof, being the very ends of go, vernment, can not be understood to be permitted to the governor's absolute arbitrement) the people therein invaded, by virtue of the power inherent to rights reserved and the liberation, flowing from all such failzeours, though not expressed, may very justly resist, and demand reparation. And, is it indeed possible, that any rational man should think, because of a reservation of things of less value, and therefore within our power, a Prince transgressing may lawfully be resisted, and that nevertheless these high and atrocious invasions, in matters of the greatest value, and which therefore can neither be absolutely surrendered, nor do need an express reservation, should and ought to be stupidly swallowed down? But seeing the greatest Royalists do, in certain suppositions, wherein their own sense and interest do give them a better understanding, not stick both to acknowledge and practise, according to this principle, it is very evident, as I have often said, that it is only their indifferency in matters of Religion, and the security that they thence derive, which makes them and us to differ on this subject.  
In the close of this instance, you tell us, That for all this, you refer us to Grotius. And for matter of fact, I decline him not, as you may perceive, but if his too manifest prejudice in matters of Religion, do make him less express to our purpose, I hope the supplement of other Authors, and also of solid reason, shall obtain from you & all men a just acknowledgement.  
The 8th instance that you would vindicate, is that of the Civil wars of France, and first you say, Their first civil wars, were managed by the Princes of the blood, who by the laws of that Crown are not ordinary subjects. And certainly by all law and common sense, extraordinary persons may well be said not to be ordinary subjects; but are they therefore not subjects? Surely the conferring of high dignities and great Authority, may well intend their obligation, it doth not alter their condition. And how often have we heard and seen them accused and forfeited for rebellion? Why do you then render you● self ridiculous by such a pitiful alledgeance?  
But you add, besides, the wars were begun in the minority of the King. And do you seriously think, that (setting aside the greater incapacity it might have put them into) had the King been major, they would have been of another mind?  
But you say, that, in this case, the power of the Princes is greater; And we have indeed often heard, that the dignity of the Princes doth consist mainly in two, viz. their right of succession, and privilege of Regency, during the King's minority or absence: but as, in the matter of Regency, the nearest, and not all the agnati of the royal blood can pretend to it, and that only in the case of no nomination made by the preceding King, and during the space of the young King's pupillarity, just according to the common rules of tutela legitima; so you may remember, that the wars, we speak of, falling out in the reign of Francis the Second, being for the time, at least, sixteen years of age, there was no place for the Princes their pretence of Regency: beside the first appearance of these wars was only supposed to be countenanced, but not openly by them owned. And as for the continuation of the war, in the nonage of Charles the Nynth, it is certain, that the King of Navarre, to whom, as nearest agnat, the Regency belonged, did voluntarily renounce his pretention, in favours of the Queen mother, nay that he joined with her & the Guisians, and died fight against the Protestants headed by Conde and the Admiral. And likewise, these wars were again renewed in the King his Majority; But, not to enter further into these iliads of tumults, and confusions, occasioned by the restless perfidy and unsatiable cruelty of the adversaries, though I should admit, that these wars were not only incited and provoked to by persecution, but that also, even on the Protestants their side, they were not a little influenced both by particular interests and passions, and the general fervour of that Nation (Which in effect is the very worst account that even the enemies of the truth do give of them, and cannot be received by any impartial inquirer) Yet, seeing it is most evident, that persecution for Religion was the true cause moving the body of the Protestants to their own defence, and that their Ministers and Teachers, whom God had honoured to be instrumental in their conversion, as Beza and others, did countenance these wars, and constantly maintain, that a defensive resistance to subjects in a due capacity, was no more prohibit, upon the account of persecution for Religion, then in the case of any other intolerable oppression. The mixture of man's corruption (inseparable even from his best actions) in the prosecution of so good a cause, can neither prejudge its justice, nor deprive us of the advantage of this precedent.  
But knowing your former answers to be weak and unsatisfying, you subjoin, that you do not deny their following wars to have been direct Rebellion. And is this the vindication you promised? Only, you bid us, consider the fierce Spirit of that Nation, and we must confess it was not Religion, but their temper that was to be blamed. Well Sir, is this your candour? The question is, whether or not Religion was the cause of these wars, which, if the lawfulness thereof were not first supposed, were utterly impertinent; and you not daring to deny it, do first tell us by a blunt petitio principii, that the wars were rebellion, and then, that the French temper more than Religion is to be therefore, blamed, Who should regard such a pitiful Sophister? But, seeing it can not be denied that the many and great injuries, suffered upon the account of Religion, were the just provocation to these wars, although some small censure either of precipitancy, or of excess in the prosecution may possibly be imputed to the hot temper of that people, or excused by the signal insolency of their provocations; yet, sure I am, that neither the cause of Religion, nor the justice of it, is thereby in the least disproven.  
But now you say, many of the eminent men of that Church are fully convinced of the evil of these courses, yea one of the glories of our Nation Cameron, in the wars of the last King, directly preached against their courses as Rebellion. I will not answer, that possibly it hath befallen the eminent men of that Church, as it did many of our own, who, as they were removed, from the first times of the Reformation, & the than opposition of adversaries, & from the evidence of the Lord's Spirit & presence that therein appeared; so according to the influence of after temptations, were induced to condemn that, which otherwise they would have approven. It is enough for us, that your many eminent, whoever they be, are more than overbalanced by many more and more eminent still abiding on our side. And for Cameron, whom, forsooth, in your pedantic stile, you more than canonize, by terming a Glory, you must pardon us, who know him better, whatever be his opinion in this matter, not to be dazzled by his splendour, specially seeing you know, that, if we were disposed to vie with you in such vanities, we might by adducing King james his justifying of the French Protestants their defensive wars, in his answer to cardinal Perron, eclipse this your glory into obscurity: but what need of more words. If these last wars were purely defensive for Religion, they could not be rebellious; and if they were not, we only lose the instance, but not the argument, as I have abundantly proven.  
But to this you make your N. C. Answer by ask, How did the late King give assistance to the Rochellers, in the last wars, if so be they were rebellious? And to this you reply, That it proceeded from a particular reason, Viz. Because the King of Britain had become the surety in the former pacification that the French King should observe the agreement. Sir, If I had the management of your N. C. part. I think I should not have troubled you with this answer. The assistance you mention was so like rather to a treachery that both for the good of these poor Protestants, and for the honour of our King's memory, I wish it had never been. But, since you suppose it to have been real, how is it that by your return, you do so pitifully betray your cause? For, seeing by your acknowledgement the late King did in the pacification, after the second war of Rochel, with consent of the French King, become surety to his Protestant subjects for due observance, and, by this his accession, clearly acknowledged the lawfulness and validity of the Protestants their treaty, it is a more manifest confession of the People's right and capacity to restrain both by contract and necessary force the unjust and persecuting violence of their Prince, than all the instances adduced do afford.  
It is true, you add, That this assistance was on our King's part most just, what ever the Subjects of France their part in it might be. But where is your reason for this insinuat distinction? Or what Logic can prove that a just concurring assistance may be given in an unjust war? That the King of Britain interposing was injured and affronted by the King of France, his breach is not denied by, or contrary to, us, more than the injury done by the French King unto these his Protestants subjects. But to clear this passage of your foolish quibles. The Duke of Rohan in the Ninth of his Politic Discourses, entitled, His Apology upon the last troubles of France because of the Religion, plainly tell us, that the King of Britain did, by a Gentleman sent to him, remonstrate how he was surety in the last peace, and did compassionate the Protestants their sufferings, that if by fair means he did not obtain relief, he would engage his whole Kingdoms, and his proper Person in so just a war to which he found himself obliged in honour and conscience, providing that the Protestants would take arms with him, and promise, as he would do, not to hearken to any treaty, but jointly with him. And thereto the Duke subjoines, that this promise of assistance was his principal engagement to arm: What think you then? Do not these words plainly enough denote both Religion to have been the cause, and what was the King's approbation of these wars? Or, if you doubt the French man's faith, pray take but a view of Mr Rushworth's Collections as to this affair, and there, beside the confimation of what the Duke says, I am persuaded you will find, the King so express, and the Parliament so cordial, in their resentments of the wrongs done to these poor Protestants, and in their readiness to assist for their relief, that you will be ashamed hereafter to scorn yourself by such confident childish conjectures and distinctions. But, I am sorry, that by reflecting upon the part of the French Protestants, in that war, as less just than the King of Britain's, you should have forced me to a discovery, which rendereth its event so dishonourable to our King's memory.  
Having run thorough so many examples, with such success, as we have spoken, you conclude, And thus I have cleared the Churches abroad of that in●urious stain you brand them with. But seeing I have so mamanifestly discovered your falsehood and presumption, in this matter, I will not insult over this your folly. You go on in the next place to our Britain, and tell us of the English Reformation, and how that it was stained with no blood, save that of Martyrs, and that indeed was no stain, but, as you do well correct yourself, its chief Ornament. But Sir, if the Reformation in other places were no less confirmed and rendered glorious by this zeal and testimony, and withal the People, by defensively resisting, when in a sufficient capacity, did evidence a greater and more universal constancy, not versatile by every blast of Authority, and ambulatory at Princes their pleasure, doth it not rather augment then diminish their praise.  
You add, That in England, though a Popish and persecuting Queen interveened, betwixt the first Reformation of King Edward, and the second of Queen Elizabeth, yet none rebelled. And what then? Pray Sir, how or wherefore doth Scotland want that glory? Sure I am, that the Reformation being established in Scotland, after a sharp war (and by the way, you may remember, that Queen Elizabeth sided with the subject) both by Pacification, Authority and determination of a General Assembly, yet we received Queen Mary from France, a declared violent Papist, without the least question anent her right of Government, or any opposition moved against her, until provoked by such weakness & wickedness, as I am ashamed to mention. Wherein then in this regard are we inferior to England, unless it be that neither for the favour nor fear of a woman, we were moved by any public act, let be by vote of Parliament, as the Representative of that Nation, to deny the ●aith, and again take on theyoke of the Roman Antichrist? Or how are you not ashamed, to reproach your Nation with a nimious fervour, specially upon this occasion, wherein our worthy Reformers did make the Court compliance, back-drawing and lukwarmness of a few temporizers, their great and continual complaint.  
In the next place, you tell us, that all that traveled the World, can witness that we were not approven in our late rebellion, and passing by Diodat, Spanhem, Rivet, Salmasius, Blondel, Amerald, de Moulin, and others, not named, as all either in print or public discourse declaring for you, you say, There was an act made by the Consistory of Charentoun that no man should be barred the communion for the Scots Excommunication, except it were for a crime; And this, forsooth was a loud declaration of their disowning of our practice? 'Tis answered. 1. Though you could give a account of the opinion of the Nations abroad, concerning our late wars, yet their judgement, in matters so remote from their knowledge, and wherein, the favour generally born to Kings, specially when so fatally unfortunat as Charles the first was, is able to create in the most part, very little inquisitive, a very strong prejudice, cannot amount to a testimony of any moment. 2. That the more knowing among them did, both by their Histories and other writings, & also by their letters, approve our proceedings, might be very easily made out by an unanswerable condescendence; nay that the generality both of Dutch and French Protestants did condemn the King's party and their practices, I am certain, none of these to whom you appeal, in this matter, can justly disown it. As for Diodat, and the rest you name, why do you not exhibit their words? You say indeed for some of them, very wisely and safely, That they did only declare themselves in their Discourses and Sermons. And for these I think you must be excused, because you heard them not. But for the rest I engage, that whatever passages you shall adduce from them on your part, I shall redargue either their information, in matter of fact, or their reasons in matter of Right, to the satisfaction of all unbiased men: Beside Salmasius is most exceptionable, in respect he was employed, and got money in the cause: and yet, in the judgement of many, though he had unanswerable advantages, as to the main design of his defence, he was even in that shamefully baffled. And for Amerauld, read but his own vain and ridiculous Dedication of his paraphrase, upon the Psalms, to the King, in the year of his restitution, and I am certain you will allow us to think the want of his suffrage no prejudice to our cause. Now for your act made at Charenton I confess your not producing of it doth the more dissatisfy, because you represent it in terms little consistent, viz. That the Sco●s Excommunication should not debar, unless it were for a crime. That you take a crime in this place in its larger acceptation, for an offence, and not in that more strict and proper wherein Lawyers use it, it were disingenuity in me for to call it in question. But then how Excommunication can otherwise proceed without the allegation of any crime, as you seem to accuse us, is indeed to me a difficulty inexplicable, & whereof, I am sure, our Church could not be guilty; and therefore seeing the Consistory could not doubt that the Church of Scotland did hold an offence and obstinacy to be the necessary causes of excommunication, for them to have ●lighted the trial by us made, and judged the particular grounds of our procedure not answerable to the general rule, had been breach of Christian communion and charity, whereof your naked assertion shall never make me think the French Church guilty: withal you know that the Bishop of Galloway, whom you allege to have been upon this act admitted to the Lords Table, notwithstanding of his excommunication, was excommunicate upon the accusation of clear crimes. So that, what you call a loud declaration on the Consistories part, I apprehend to be only a loud calumny on yours. But, whatever be in that act, or the Bishop's admission, upon his own information, in opposition to all your vain pretences of contrary Authorities, it is certain, that not only the truth and right was on our side, but also that our practices were approven, yea applauded and we therein encouraged by letters from several of the reformed Churches, yet extant upon record.  
But, in the next place, your. N. C. Demanding it, you undertake to tell him ingenuously what precedents there are in History for subjects fight upon the account of Religion. And the first, you say, that you know, is that of Gregory the seventh arming the subjects of Germany against Henry the fourth, from whom other Pope's taking example, they made no bones upon any displeasure, pretending always some matter of Religion, to depose Princes, and liberat their subjects, As you instance in Frederick the. 1. und 2. jews of Bavier, and several others, but the latest precedent, you say, is the holy league of France, from which you think our whole matter seems to be transcribed. I have on purpose exhibited these passages together, that men may the better perceive the malice of your calumny, which prefacing and palliating with a great show of ingenuity, you prosecute with mere falsehood and impertinency. But first, dare you, after second thoughts, affirm upon your ingenuity, small as it is, that this History of Gregory is the first precedent that occurs to you of fight for Religion? I have already told you, how, before Constantin's Empire, the Christians in the East, the Armenii by name, did by arms assert the liberty of the Gospel, and rout Maximinus their Persecutor, and that the Persian Christians, persecute by their Princes, did implore the assistance of the Romans against them, is obviously notour. Are not these then ancient and undeniable precedents? But 2. What likeness find you in Gregory's case to these practices that we maintain? An usurping Prelate, according to the Spirit of pride and violence, moving in that order, quarrels with the Emperor, anent the investiture of Bishops, whether upon just grounds or not, is not the present concern, and thereupon excommunicating him, extites his Subjects, yet unstable after a recent rebellion, to a second rising. Pray Sir, was this a war provoked to by persecution & the necessity of defence, in which points, the justice of our courses doth chiefly Consist? Sir, do you think that a war, being sometime made upon a false or unjust pretence of Religion, should be an instance sufficient to disprove all wars whatsomever upon a Religious account? Certainly, if we admit of such reasoning, the most necessary and just defensive war that ever was or can be supposed, may by the objecting (though most groundlessly) of any of the most arrant rebellions, by the same consequence be condemned. Seeing therefore that Gregorie's course was plainly wicked. 1. Because his meddling with the Emperor after this sort was a proud usurpation. 2. Because whatever right or wrong was in the matter, abstractly considered, yet, without doubt, the Emperor's pretence was better founded, than the Pops. 3. Because he not only abused the spiritual censure, but perverted it to the instigatting to perjury, rebellion, and blood, for his own tyrannous lust and ambition, your reproaching us, who from our heart detest all such ways; either with this or any the like act of the papal insosolence and domination, is but dull and ridicluous envy.  
As for the Holy league of France, from which, you say, our whole matter seems to be transcribed, Was it not contrived and entered into, at least in pretence, for the restoring and settling of Rome's superstition, and consequently for the extirpation of the protestant Religion? How then can our necessary undertaking for the defence of ourselves, in the maintenace of the true Religion, and covenanting together, in this cause, expressly against Rome's designs and instruments, be assimulat to that precedent? Out of what Topics will you prove such direct opposites, as a League for establishing error against truth, and a Covenant for truth's defence, to be parallel? Or do you think, that the same common name and form of a League, or the accidental similitude of certain ordinary methods and circumstances is sufficient to conclude all engagements, accordingly modelled, under the same character? But it is so certain, that the most wicked combinations of the ungodly may proceed in the same form & manner, with the righteous Covenants of the faithful, and that as these may join themselves to the Lord, in a perpetual Covenant, so those also may conspire against the Lord and against his anointed, plote against the just, and make a Covenant even with hell and death, that I am ashamed of your futility.  
But you say, That herein we symbolise with Courtiers, Canonists and Jesuits the worst gang of the Roman Church, and yet fill heaven and earth with clamours against the Church of England, for innocenter resemblances. Sir, This your (herein) needeth explication; for that as they did, so do we enter into Leagues, is too general to import any reflection: and as to the specifications of that popish League, seeing they disterminate our cases to no less opposition, then that of error, persecution and destruction, on their part, to truth, necessary defence and preservation, on our part, what remains to make out this your objected agreement? 'Tis true, these French leaguers were subjects, and did pretend for their Religion, with an avowed preference to the subordinate duty of their allegiance to their Prince: but seeing their religion was a false superstition, and their engagement neither provoked by injury, nor limited to defence, but in manifest malice, Without the countenance of Authority, entered into, to suppress, by blood and violence, truth and innocenie, our Covenant, authorized by● the unanimous vote of the Estates of Parliament, for the necessity of defence, in an exigent, very demonstrable both from our first and chief obligation unto God, and unquestionable liberty and privilege of self defence, can not without an impious effrontery, be compared to that wicked and cruel Bond. And here, if comparisons were not more odious than pungent, it were easy for me to prove, that as our National Covenant was at first made in opposition to the bloody decrees of the Council of Trent, and the combinations framed for execut●ing thereof ●and our League and Covenant afterward engaged in, upon the express consideration of the continual plotes and conspiracies of the enemies of God, against his truth; so, it is only the practice of your Prelates, their persecuting bonds and subscriptions, with their perfidious ●ellum Episcopale, and not our defensive Covenants, that can be reproached with the imitation of these popish courses. But seeing the necessity and justice of our cause was plainly such, as neither can be convelled by your aspersions, nor needeth the confirmation of the known precedents of the French, and other protestants, counter-leaguing, in opposition to that wicked League devised against them, I shall not detain you longer on this subject.  
As for the Church of England's seeming to symbolise with Rome, in some innocenter things, as you phrase it, I wish she were indeed as innocent in that matter, as we are in what you objecte. But seeing what you would only have to be a seeming appearance, is a manifest reality, already clearly Demonstrate, by the Authors of Altar damascenum, and the English Popish Ceremonies; passing this poor reflection, as one of your affected transitions, I follow you to your next purpose.  
Which you table by a challenge from your N. C. that you still retain the papacy, and do only change the person from the Pope, to the King, whom you make, and swear to, as Head of the Church. And to this you answer very vehemently, that it is an impudent calumny, as you promise to clear by an account of the whole matter. But behold the worthy performance; a lame, confused, pitiful story, how the Pope, beside his general tyranny, did, upon King John his base resignation, exercise over England a particular authority; that after the Reformation and the shaking of the papal voke, the Oath of Supremacy was brought in, to exclude all foreign jurisdiction, and reinstate the King is his Civil Authority; That Henry the 8th did indeed set up a Civil Papacy, but the Reformation of England was never dated from his breach with Rome: that the Oath of supremacy was never designed to take away the Church's intrinseck Power, or to make the power of Ordination, of giving Sacraments, or of Discipline to flow from the King, that however, because the generality of the words might suggest scruples, they are explained in an Act of Parliament of Q. Elizabeth, and in one of the 29. Articles, and morefully by B. Usher with King james approbation. And lastly since we have this oath from England, none ought to scruple, the words being sufficiently plain, and the English meaning ours. This is the full and clear account which you promise; But who knows not these poor and insignificant pretences: King John's resignation was indeed so base, that by all disinterested it was ever held to be invalid, and in after times scarce ever mentioned, let be pleaded. It is therefore the Pop's general tyranny, and what it was, and whether abolished, in these Kingdoms, or in effect only transferred from him to the Prince, that we are here to consider. And, I think, I may take it for granted, that you judge the Pope's exorbitant usurpation, specially his assumming to himself, not an external assisting oversight (which we grant to be the proper right of Princes) but, by way of an intrinseck and direct power, the sole and uncontrollable care of the Church, her ministry and ministers, with his arrogating an architectonick power in the ordering of God's Worship, so that in all Ecclesiastic meetings and matters therein proposed, he may enact what canons he pleases, to be parts of the Papal tyranny, not only as in him, but in all men under our Lord Jesus Christ, unwarrantable and antichristian; nay some of these are points of so high a nature, that the greater part, even of the members of the Romish Church, do reclaim against them. Now questionless if this power be to the Pope unlawful and incompetent, all secular persons and Princes are therefore much more excluded, in as much as the Pope being at least in show a Churchman, and, according to the hypothese even of your Hierarchy, the first Bishop of the western, if not of the whole Church, he is fortified by certain seeming pretences, of which the claim of civil Princes is wholly destitute. To come then to our purpose, that after the Reformation, the Popish yoke not only as to the particulars above mentioned, but also as to his foreign Jurisdiction, unlawfully usurped over Churchmen in civils, to the prejudice of the King's Sovereignty; was righteously shaken off, and the King reinstated in his Civil authority, over all Persons, and also, in all Causes, in so far as they are committed to his royal direction and tuition, is not at all denied: If that matters had here sisted, and upon the abolition of the Papal domination, the things of God and of Caesar had been equally restored, who could have gainsaid it? But that, on the contrary, by the Pop's exclusion, and, in place of this righteous restitution, the King, under pretence of the vindication of his own Supremacy, did procure to himself a very formal and full translation of what the Pope had not only usurped from him, but arrogate from God, specially in the things above-specified, both the occasion of this change, and the manner how this Supremacy hath since been exercised, do abundantly declare. And for clearing the occasion, it may be remembered, 1. That the Peter-pences, called in the beginning the King's alms, imposed by on Ina King of the West Saxons, was discharged by Act of Parliament in the reign of Edward the Third, and the contention anent the exemption of Churchmen from the King's Courts most hotly agitate, in the reigns of Henry Second and King john, was composed many years before the days of Henry the Eight: So that neither that exaction, nor this old debate, and far less King John's most invalide resignation, not worth the naming, could be the cause of King Henry his acclaiming the Supremacy. 2. The only motive that we find in History, whereby Henry was instigat to reject the Pope, and to declare himself to be supreme in causes Ecclesiastic, aswell as civil, was his purpose of divorce from Queen Katherine, wherein, finding himself abused by the Pope and his Legates their delays, he discharges all appeals to Rome, appointing them to be made from the Commissary to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and from the Archbishop to the King, and is thereafter first called by the Clergy, and then declared by the Parliament, to be Supreme head of the Church, in lieu of the Pope, whose authority was abrogat by the same Act: These things then being certain, and you yourself acknowledging that King Henry did set up a civil Papacy, It is easy to determine, that this change was not a bare exclusion, but a plain translation of the Pope's usurped power. We know the Reformation of England was never dated from that breach with the Bishop of Rome: But what then? Can you deny that this was both the rise and establishment of the Supremacy, which being transmitted to Edvard the sixth, and then renounced by Queen Mary, and again restored to the Pope, was by Queen Elizabeth reassumed, and so continueth until this day? It is true, that after the breaking up of the more clear light of Reformation, whereby not only Rom's Superstition, bot also the Pope's usurpation and tyranny, in many things, was, upon better reasons, rejected, and especially after the succession of Queen Elizabeth, to whose Sex the former title of headship, for all the smoothe that had been before used, was nevertheless construed not to be so agreeable. Many explications were adhibite for qualifying the Supremacy, both in answer to the opposition of Papists and for removing the offence of the Protestant Churches. But the truth is, these explications, though more sound in their grounds, yet, in their explication, were nothing conclusive as to the present debate, and their Authors arguing for the Supremacy from the examples of reforming Kings and Emperors, acting not by virtue of an assumed prerogative, but only from that extraordinary power, which the necessity of the end, upon the failzour of other midses, doth measure out to Princes first, and to others also, if in a competent capacity, did rather infer the justification of the work, then conclude the approbation of the Supremacy, notwithstanding it was therein employed. Nay, while by these their reasonings, they went about from such extraordinary interpositions, only warranted by the exigence of necessity, and the rectitude of the work thereby effectuate, to establish to the Prince a constant settled authority, properly conversant about these matters, the argument is far more absurd, then if because a Governor may, in a manifest incident disorder falling, for example, in a Family, repone the Father and head thereof to his paternal oversight, one should thence conclude to the same Governor, a proper power and faculty of placing and displaceing Heads of Families, and appointing the Rules thereof at his pleasure. Now that thus it fell out in England after the Reformation, and that the same (if not a more exorbitant power) taken from the Pope, was transferred and settled upon the Crown, as a perpetual privilege thereof, is in the second place by the manner of its exercise, and its ensuing fruits, ve●y evidently held out. For proof whereof, the office and actings of the Lord Cromwell, as Vicar General, appointed by Henry the eight, over the spirituality, though by the good providence of God ordered to be a notable mean for advance of the Reformation, is an undeniable argument. And as to the continuance of the same usurpation, in order to other effects in themselves evil, and not to be justified, there needeth no curious search; the frequent practices of after Princes, laying claim to this power, namely Elizabeth, james and Charles, in their ecclesiastic meddlings, but especially of his Majesty now regnant, in his interposing in Church-matters, and thereby overturning a true Gospe-●ministry, introducing a new model of Church-government, absolutely dependent upon himself, reviving vain, groundless and antiq●●● ceremonies, appointing and imposing new Religions, Days and Forms. And lastly, giving Rules to Ministers their doctrine, what points to preach and what to omit all according to the device of his own heart, are an obvious demonstration: which things are in themselves so evident, that I strange you should accuse Henry the Eight of a civil Papacy, and so inconsequently acquit all his Successors: Whereas, in effect, they not only acted in Church-matters after the same method by him observed, using the same prerogative, in the grant of their High Commissions and in other acts, which he exercised in his vicarious deputation; but he is the Prince who (waving his haltings upon the other side, and considering the necessity there was at that time, of an extraordinary remedy, for the good things that he did) seemeth to have employed their usurped Supremacy most excusably, and also very advantageously for the promoving of the Reformation.  
Bot you tell us, that the Oath of Supremacy was never designed, to take away the Church's intrinseck power, or to make the power of Ordination, of Sacraments, and of Discipline, flow from the King. It is answered, seeing the many evil effects of this Supremacy, do so pla●●ly evince its direct and proper tendency, and its late explanation by Act of Parliament, doth put its nature and extent beyond all controversy, to tell us what at first it was or was not designed for, is but a vain suggestion. And therefore according to these ●urer grounds, I must now tell you. 1. That although the King, not likely to be tempted by such an empty curiosity, hath neither expressly declared in his own favour, nor assumed to himself the exercise of this power of administration; yet that by virtue of his Supremacy, as it now stands explained, he may do both or either, when he pleaseth, is not to be doubted. I need not remind you that any Church-power, not acknowledging a dependence upon, and subordination unto the Sovereign Power of the King as Supreme, is abrogate and discharged. But, pray Sir, he who may enact what he thinketh fit concerning all Ecclesiastic meetings and matters, may he not, if he think fit, declare himself to have the power of the ministerial function? Nay, what may he not do? But 2. admitting that this was not meaned by the Parliament, in their explanation, and that in probability the King will never affect the employment; yet that the intrinseck power of Government belonging to the Church, both as to a Society of our Lord's erection, and by his express gift and concession, is by the Supremacy taken away, I believe it will be so far from being disowned, that it is rather vaunted of as its principal end and advantage. But referring the truth and evidence of this point, anent the power of Government, given by our Lord immediately to his Church, to what hath been very fully by others declared, and is by me above hinted at, I verily think, that though we had no other argument, save the sad changes that of late have ensued upon the usurpation of this Supremacy, the usefulness and excellency of this intrinseck Government, is thereby rendered apparent, beyond the evidence of any further confirmation. And really when, together with the authority of its founder, I consider the undeniable necessity and expedience of an internal power of Government in the Church, as the most significant mean for making all its other gifts, powers, & offices effectual, And how much it is commended by the signal usefulness of a proper Government in every Society, but more especially to our adversaries by that high yea sacred estimat, which they so much inculcat of that Civil-government, and all its punctilios, whereupon their interest depends, and when, on the other hand, I reflect upon the pe●●●●ous and woeful influences, that in all ages have constantly attended either the suppression or usurpation of this great divine ordinance, I cannot sufficiently regrete, that the pride, ambition and vanity of men, in setting up and advancing this Supremacy, should be so sinfully subservient to the devil's great design, of crossing the progress of the Gospel, and propogating irreligion: Which evil is the more to be lamented, that notwithstanding that our own experience of its wretched consequences, doth evidently redargue this usurpation, yet these men who, in the matter of Civil government, make every circumstance sacred, and exclaim against the smallest innovation, as if all confusion were imminent, can and do, in the business of Ecclesiastic government, with a more than Gallio indifferency and coldness, slight all its concerns, in opposition to their carnal designs, as questions of mere outward forms, and the skirts and suburbs of Religion, far removed from its life and substance. Whereas it is very certain, that eternal life and salvation, the great end, is not more preferable to temporal peace and outward tranquillity, than our zeal for the government of God's House, institute by himself in his Church, in order to our everlasting wellbeing, aught to exceed our regard to Civil government, which in this respect, are but the ordinances of man, in order to our temporal interests: Nay, so apparent is the lukwarmness & hypocrisy of men's reasonings in behalf of this Supremacy, that though in the supposition that our Lord had by himself immediately erected in any Kingdom, a Society or incorporation with masters, laws, and a competent jurisdiction, in order to some temporal advantage, as he hath, in the acknowledgement of all, institute his Church with Ordinances, Officers, and Government suited to its great ends, all rational men let be the members of that Society, would judge the King's pretending to an arbitrary and absolute disposal of these previleges thus granted, to be an injurious invasion and usurpation. Yet, in order to the Church and her rights and immunities, they are not ashamed to cut off ●o even and just a parallel, and deny so evident a consequence in behalf of her righteous liberty: But wisdom is justified of her children. And how much were it to be wished, that, at the least, the children of light were as wise as the children of this world are in their generation. 3. Beside the invasion threatened to the Church, in its power of administration, and the usurpation from the Church of the power of Government, which this Supremacy imports, it further attributes to the Prince, according to our Parliaments late explication, an illimited power in matters of Religion, proper and reserved to God alone. To enact whatever a man thinketh fit in Ecclesiastic meetings and ma●●ers, I am certain, is that which the Lord did never allow to any mere man under heaven; and yet that this power is assumed, and how, by virtue thereof, old, unwarrantable superstitions have been retained, new rites and ceremonies in Divine Worship devised, and Churches turned and overturned, according to men's pleasure, is sufficiently known without my condescendence. And therefore, seeing the King, by virtue of his Supremacy, doth not only intermeddle, by giving his civil sanction and confirmation to the intrinseck powers of the Church, by you mentioned, as you do allege, or by acts imperate, as others, in contradistinction to elicit acts in these matters, do use to express it, but doth lay claim to an absolute power in and over all Church-matters and persons, the silly pretence whereby you go about to smooth it is not worthy of any man's notice.  
In the next place, you tell us of some explications provided for removing of the scruples, which the generality of the words of the oath of Supremacy might suggest. And to this it may suffice for answer, that seeing these explications are certainly confined to England, and by no public Act received or owned among us, your allegiance, with your childish ground, that we have this oath from them, is wholly impertinent as to our releife● But seeing the setting down of these explications, contained in the English act and Articles above cited, (Which you do counningly omit) will not only, by comparing therewith the far different practices of the Kings of that Realm, discover the inadequatnesse, not to say the slightness of these sensings, in effect merely devised to palliate an excess in itself nowise justifiable, but more fully manifest the strange extravagance both of the practical acceptation, and late express interpretation of this Supremacy. You may read them as follows; the words of the Act in quinto Elizab. Declare her power and Authority to be a sovereignty over all manner of persons, borne within the Realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, so that no foreign power hath or aught to have any superiority over them, and these of the Articles, run thus. Art. 37. We give not to our Princes the ministering either of Gods. Word or of the Sacraments, the which thing the injunctions also lately set forth by Elizab our Queen do most plainly testify: but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes, in holy Scriptures, by God himself, that is, that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn, and evil doers. These being the terms of these explications, what consonancy the meddlings of their Princes in imposing rites, ceremonies and forms of Worship, enjoining their own days, and profaning God's, commanding what Doctrine Ministers should forbear, permitting excommunication in their own name jointly with the Lords, and finally, by sitting and ruling in the Temple of God, as in their own Court, do hold thereto, is obvious to the first reflection: Only this I must say, that if the Kings of England their Ecclesiastic actings be indeed sufficiently warranted, by the foregoing explanations, the Author of the late discourse of Ecclesiastic policy, who, in prosecution of the King's Supremacy, doth plainly annex unto it the Authority of the priesthood, and power over the conscience, at least the obedience of men, in matters of Religion; in place of that applause, wherewith he is generally received at Court, deserves rather to be demeaned as the highest calumniator and depraver of his Majesty's government.  
But not to trouble you further with these double English senses, viz that pretended by their Acts of Parliament and Articles, which I grant to be more sound, and such wherewith many godly men have rested satisfied, and the other more true, received and followed by their Court and Clergy, nor yet to insist upon your incomparable and blessed (Who now hath men's persons in admiration?) Bishop Usher his more full interpretation equally redargued by what I have already said. Let us consider our Scots most excessive, though more ingenuous, explanation; and although, I do apprehend the words of the Oath of Supremacy to be in themselves capable of a sound sense, and that by understanding supreme Governor of this Kingdomed not to be a limiting designation, but a plain qualification of the nature of the government as being in order to its correlat this Kingdom, in itself civil, and only in this notion, to be extended to persons and causes ecclesiastic, all difficulties may be salved; yet, when to the rise and manner of this Supremacy above declared, I add how of late it hath been made the ground of the King his restoring of Bishops, and framing their government to an absolute dependence upon himself, granting of the high Commission, appointing the constitution of a National Synod, and of other strange acts before touched, and especially that as the Act Parl. 1592. expressly and justly limiting this Supremacy, was by the first Act 〈◊〉 2. Parl. 1661. Wholly abrogate and made voids so by the first Act of the Par. 1669. The same Supremacy is ass●rted to that absurd height, as doth import a plain surrender of Conscience, and submission of all Matters of Religion (for as to civils, we are not so rash) to his Majesty's pleasure, in a more absolute manner, than ever to this day hath been acclaimed either by Pope or general Council. These things, I say, being weighed, I think I may safely conclude, that I look upon the Supremacy not only as a civil Papacy, but an height of usurpation against our Lord, King in Zion, whereunto never Christian Prince nor Potentate did heretofore aspire.  
And here, your N. C. seconding my assertion tells you, that this Supremacy clearly makes way for Erastianisme. To which you answer, That this is one of our mutinous arts, to find out long & hard names, and affix them to any thing displeaseth us. But passing the childishness of this conceit, as if either a long or hard name were more odious than a short, in my opinion, s●ch is the manifest wickedness of this your Supremacy, that it is one of your delusive arts to make your. N. C. rather veil it with an obscure name, then leave it to an open discovery; and in the same manner it was, that the men of your gang, after they begun to broach their dangerous, dissolute, and undermining principles, thought fairly to have palliate all with the gentle name of Latitudinarian, as apparently obleidging to all parties: But now that they are detected, they turn their talk, and loath to mar their affected smoothness by terming it otherwise then, the long name, they blame us for loading them with reproach: whereas, to the best of my knowledge, it was their own invention and choice. But not to detain you about names, which really I do so little value, in any respect, that I do not so much as regard the name Fanatic, nor these many other, wherewith the truth, and party, which I maintain have been slandered, let us proceed to what you say to the things.  
And first you tell us, that in the old Testament the Kings of Judah frequently meddled in divine matters, and the Sanhedrin, which was a civil Court determined in all matters of Religion, 'Tis answered, did you not just now give us an account of certain restrictive explications made of the Supremacy? What do you then intent by these instance? Not that I do exclude Kings from a due meddling in divine matters, or do decline the righteous practices of the Kings of judah, in the largest construction that they can receive; But certainly, if what you say of their Sanhedrin be true, it will overturn all your pretended limitatio●s, at least, give to the King a determining judgement in all matters of Religion, which neither aught, nor can be admitted. But. 2. This threadbare argument, taken from the Kings of judah and the Sanhedrin, for your Supremacy, is so fully answered by others, specially by Mr. Gillespie, in his Aaron●s Rod; and he hath so evidently cleared, that there was a Sanhedrin ecclesiastic, distinct from the civil, and that these two governments were not confounded, that I wonder you are not ashamed of such jejune repetitions. And, in effect, it is so plain in Scripture, that none of these Kings did interpose in matters of Religion, otherwise then by their extrinseck oversight and assistance, except either by immediate commission and direction from God, as it happened in the establishment made by David and Solomon, not to be drawn in consequence, or else in the case of necessary Reformation, in which, ordinary means ceasing, the obligation of the end doth authorise even more extraordinary endeavours, that seeing the Lord himself did immediately reprove the usurpation of Uzziah, I can not imagine from what particular precedent you do design your advantage. However, of one thing I am most persuaded, and I am charitable to think that all your confidence dare not deny it, that had any one of the Kings of judah arrogate to himself a Supremacy in all causes, and over all persons, aswell Ecclesiastic as Civil so as to declare that whatsoever he, should enact, anent Ecclesiastic meetings or matters should be obeyed and observed by all his subjects, he had been repute no other than a rebel and usurper against God, and a proud contemner of his Law: And as for the Sanedrin, though it were not proven that there was one Ecclesiastic, and ●n other Civil, yet their distinct, sacred, and inviolable priesthood, doth so strangely plead for a constant separation where we find the Lord to have made a divided institution, that any conjunction in that Court, or any thing beside occasioned by their singularly mixed Policy, can nowise infer the conclusion you plead for.  
The next thing you say is, That the Christian Emperors did meddle in matters of Religion, 'Tis ans. That the first Chistian Emperor's did meddle in matters of Religion, so as to confirm the truth and Ecclesiastic decrees by their Civil sanction, to establish the Church in the condition wherein they found her, to adorn her with certain privileges, every her with revenues, and beautify her with fair structures, is not denied; But what is all this to your Supremacy? And who is he who doth not wish for a just measure of the like favour and assistance? You add, that they called the first general Councils. And why not? Who denies that the King may, within his Dominious, do the like? But the point you drive, is to have this power to the King solely, and exclusive of any right and power in the Church to appoint and meet in such Assemblies, (what ever be the necessity) contrary to the King's prohibition: And that, for order and decency, the King's consent and countenance should first be sought, nay, that his refusal ought to be of that moment as not to be counterbalanced, but by a very visible urgency, is by all granted. Only that he hath an absolute veto in this matter, I positively and firmly deny: for, seeing it is evident, that the Church, while under pagan Princes, did enjoy this power, how she should lose it, upon their becoming Christian, otherwise then to be tied, out of respect and for order, to make to him the first application, to be regulable by his reasons, and very tender of his displeasure, is utterly unexplicable, and were in plain terms to defer to them as Christians, though acting as Antichristians, and worse than their pagan predecessors. And further it may be considered, that the power of conveening in Council, being founded on the same warrant with the Church's liberty to meet for the duties of Worship, the former no more than the later can be made dependent upon the Prince his pleasure.  
But you subjoine, that they presided in these Councils: And to this there is no answer like unto your own, viz. that in presiding they only ordered matters but did not decide in them; which, together with a Moderator, after the example of the first Nicen Synod, wherein Constantine presiding, Eustathius of Antioch did by prayer open the Council, you know we do willingly allow. But to help you a little in this point, I grant that Theodosius in the Council of Constantinople seems to have gone a great length; yet all that we find upon record is that the Council being divided without issue, by the opinions of the Orthodox, & of the Macedonians, Arrians & Ennomians, the Emperor requires their several confessions, and, after much earnest prayer to God for light and direction, he declares for the Nicen Faith; whereunto the Synod agreeing, the contrary heresies are condemned: And this was no doubt a very laudable practice, warranted both by the exigent and the truth itself, whereby many things less regular, without inferring an ordinary and proper power in the Author for their warrant, have very often been sustained. A good turn, specially when done in the cessation of other midses, doth sufficiently subsist by its own merit. jehojada a Priest in a state of necessity, arms against a Tyrant, and reforms the Kingdom: But can you or any man thence conclude, that therefore he acted from an ordinary power and faculty, a privilege proper to his office? Why then should men be so absurdly unequal, as from the like extraordinary interpositions of Princes, in Church perturbations, to attribute to them a proper inherent right and perpetual prerogative?  
Next you say, That the Emperors also judged in matters of Schism. But seeing that any judgement given by them was consequent to the Church's determination, though perhaps with a little attemperation for conveniency, whereof determinations in these matters do very naturally allow, the instance is no more favourable than the rest you have adduced. But the Code, Basilicks & Capitulers of Charles the great show that they never thought it without their sphere to make laws in Ecclesiastic matters. 'Tis answ. This objection shows, that either you are little acquainted with what is in these Books, or little advertent to the conclusion you have in hand. The laws you mention, are either imperial confirmations of the truth, owned by the Church, or for condemning and punishing of declared heretics, or for authorising and ordering a slender umbrage of jurisdiction called episcopalis audientia, granted to Churchmen in charitable and favourable cases, or for restraining and correcting their dissolute manners, or lastly, anent the regulating, of Hospitals, Almshouses, & other things, pertaining to the outward policy of the Church. Pray Sir, what make these for your Supremacy? Or was ever this part of his Majesty's power by us questioned? But where will you find, in all approven antiquity, that ever a Prince by virtue of a pretended inherent right in his Crown, or any acclaimed prerogative and Supremacy, in causes Ecclesiastic, took upon him, with one blow, summarily to overturn the established Ministry of a Church, by himself formerly by solemn Oath confirmed, introduce new Office-bearers, set up a new frame of Church-government, declaring himself to be the sole head and fountain thereof, to whom all others, as subordinat, must be accountable for their admistrations? In what ancient record did you ever read of a Commission granted by a King for Ecclesiastic affairs, impowering Secular persons to appoint Ministers to be censured by suspension and deposition, and Churchmen to punish by fining, confining, incarcerating, and other corporal paints? What Emperor or Prince did ever assume to himself, in the right of his royal power, at once to impose upon a whole Church a new liturgy and form of service never before heard of among them? Or, did it ever enter in the heart of a Christian Potentat to declare for a Law, that what ever he should please to enact anent Church-meetings and matters should upon the publication be by all obeyed and observed, and, in suit of it, to statute, that if either Minister or other person, not allowed by his or his Bishop's authority, do preach, expone Scripture, or pray, except in his own house, and to these only of his own family, it shall be judged a Coventicle, and liable to pains of Law? These are a part of the native fruits of your Supremacy. If you look back to confirm it by ancient precedents, pray, give us but one parallel. I grant, that justinian, in some of his Constitutions, after having declared and confirmed the truth, received by the Church, and determined by her Councils; not only condemns, but anathematizes the contrary heresies. But seeing his using of that phrase peculiar to the Church, and properly importing a power, acknowledged not to be competent to secular Authority, doth only express his more enixe detestation of these errors, and approbation of the Church her censures against them, it cannot with any colour of reason, be made use of for your purpose.  
But you proceed to tell us, that the Bishops, not excepting the Bishope of Rome, were named, at least their elections approven by the Emperors. And what then? For my part, if the Emperor, and all Christian Princes should agree at once, to reduce them, aswell as they advanced them, it should not be accounted an invasion of the Church's power or privilege. But, because it is like that these Emperors, you speak of, did indeed regard them, as true Church-officers, & nevertheless meddled, as is mentioned, in their elections, I answer further, that the true cause of Princes their first meddling in the elections of Bishops was, either the diffidence of the Bishops, as to that office and title, wherein not being satisfied from Scripture-warrant, they were inclined to apply to the Emperor for the supplement of his confirmation, or else their solicitous ambition, which, in thesearly contests that they had for precedency, did prompt them, among other artifices, to fortify their pretensions by the Emperor's favour and suffrage. However this is very certain, that whether the emperor's meddling was first procured by the Bishop's address, or did flow from their own proper motive, had these Churchmen contained themselves within the rules and limits set to them by our Lord, they had never judged the Emperor's confirmation requisite to the validity of their office and title: and therefore seeing the true account of this matter, is, that the aspiring of ecclesiastics did give the first rise unto this secular meddling, whether we take it to be no usurpation, as being conversant about that, which, to say the truth, is not Christian, let be Ecclesiastic, or to be a partaking in the Churchmen their usurpation, either of the two do●h equally make void your argument.  
After the reasons, which we have heard, you conclude, That Kings their meddling in Ecclesiastic affairs, was never controverted, till the Roman Church swelled to the height of tyranny, and since the reformation, it hath been still stated, as one of the differences betwixt us and them. It is answered. If Princes had at first exceeded and intruded too far in Church-matters, and then the Pope acted by a worse spirit, and no less aspiring, had risen up against his Masters, and thrust himself into their rooms, what would this make for your advantage? Or doth it to either of them conclude a right? Suppose a Papist debating this question should argue thus, that the Pope his headship in Ecclesiastic affairs in England was never controverted, till Henry the Eight, impatient through lust, did arrogate to himself the Supremacy, and since that time it hath still been stated as one of the controverted differences, would you think this reasoning pungent? Why then is not your discerning equal to your judgement? But the clear truth in this matter is, that although the Emperors of old did, at no time, lay claim to this Supremacy questioned, yet they and the succeeding Princes, having too much connived at and countenanced the Antichristian ambition, working in Prelacy toward the Papacy, it was from the righteous judgement of God, that, upon its exaltation, they were blinded and involved in these contentions, and justly plagued by the transcendent insolence of an evil, which they had too much fomented: And therefore your dating the period of these contests from the setting up of the Papal tyranny, doth contribute nothing to your advantage. And where you say, that since the Reformation the Supremacy hath still been stated as one of our differences from them, 'Tis very certain, that it hath been granted by all the reformed Churches, that Princes may and aught to reassume their own power and Kingdom, given unto the Beast, in so far as, in the times of the prevailing of the mystery of iniquity, it was either by force extorted, or by fraud elicit from them: But that any King or Prince, upon the pretence of recovering his own from the Pope, should lay claim to all that he hath usurped, either against our Lord, or over his Church, nay to more than ever any Pope did arrogate, which is the case and import of your Supremacy, is that whereunto, I am confident, no true subject of Jesus Christ, and enemy of Antichrist can judiciously assent: And therefore if in this we do more solidly & sound maintain the differences betwixt the Reformed and Popish Churches, and, while we assert our Lord's prerogative and his Church's privilege against the Pope, do not betray them to any other pretender, we hope our differing from you, aswell as the Papists, in this matter, shall only witness us to be the more upright defenders and no deserters of the Protestants plea, and the truth of God. Now, this is That Supremacy which as I have very plainly and graphically represented without making use of Scolastick terms or distinctions, in my opinion not more frequent than superfluous in a matter so palpable; so I am confident that every one who hath that true understanding of the fear of God, and the sincere love of our Lord Jesus, will ever abhor it with all its wicked effects.  
But you in your crastines do not only make your. N. C. cede as it were to your reasonings, but in a manner own the late pretended Indulgence, as flowing from the Supremacy, on purpose to fix upon these few Ministers of ours, who have been thereby restored, at least, a constructive approbation of this evil. And thus you move your N. C. to say that he hopes you are so much for the Supremacy, as not to quarrel at this Indulgence lately granted; and by way of reply you tell him, how good Subjects you are not to criticise upon your Sovereign's pleasure, and how much more moderate than we, who would not have received ann. 1641 such a proposition from the King in favours of the Doctors of Aberdeen; And from this, falling to touch our opposing the readmission of Malignants to the Army against the Englishes, you exceedinly please yourself in your own well-natured compliance, and would have even the jealousy and aversion, which some of you have for this favour, commend your submission as the greater virtue, because against your inclination. But, not to lose time in these your triffling, the weak shadowings of your vain imagination, to be brieff and round with you, I differ from your N. C. and am so much against the Supremacy, that I abominat the Indulgence under this name. That God hath disposed the King, to restore, in any measure, what was so sinfully taken away, we account it a great blessing, wishing that he may be in such manner satisfied with the fruits of this course as may more and more convince him of its righteousness, and encourage him to its prosecution: But if you or any else do think, by this poor and scant restitution, to bribe the Lords People to a consent to the rest of your usurpations, and a more tame compliance with all the other wrongs and mischiefs, that you have done and are still doing, we trust the Lord shall deliver his own from so fearful a snare: And that as hitherto our Ministers have looked upon themselves as such, neither of man nor only by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father; so they will accordingly acquit themselves, and in a special manner (as they expect our Lord's presence to be with them) testify for his right and ordinance against all invasions, and that so much the more, as the hard condition of the present times hath in some sort engaged them to a seeming allowance, of which they ought to purge themselves in the first place.  
As for your being better subjects to the King than we are; we know indeed that many, if not all, of you, either principally designing, or else simply deluded by outward peace and ease, do, in order to this end, not only acknowledge the King as Supreme, but in effect adore and revere him as the most high, and for the freedom of your persons and fortunes, really enslave your consciences to his dictates: But, as this is a subjection no more stable and fixed, than the mutability of that interest, whereon it depends; so it is a measure thereof, for which we do neither envy you, nor for the want thereof fear to be less accepted, either with God or man. Only let me tell you, that I take your not criticising upon the late Licence, a thing, though very hardly resolved upon, and no better digested by your evil natures and foolish malice; yet, in itself, most conducible, and in its effect very advantageous to your ends, to be so much the concernment of your interest, as scarce to be a mark of just and ordinary subjection, let be to furnish a compliment to your slavish flattery.  
But you talk to us also of your greater moderation: O the impudence! The Prelates having raged several years in persecution and violence against persons, only chargeable with a simple not-countenancing of their evil courses, to the ruining of a part, and distressing of the whole Country, and to the manifest hazard of turning all to Confusion, a few of our Rulers more wise (foreseeing the consequences) are at length persuaded to a small relenting, and in hope thereby more assuredly to compass their end of suppressing and extinguishing the party by them feared, they resolve rather to allay and break them, by pretended favour and seeming indulgence: And this having succeeded more happily, than either reason or sense can convince the ever-jealous and cruel Prelatic Clergy, you would have us so stupid as to applaud you for your moderation, as exceeding any thing by us practised. But to convince you, by the retortion of your own instance, Will you or any knowing man affirm, that if there had been no more of necessity and interest to plead for us, than appeared in the behalf of the Doctors of Aberdeen, we had notwithstanding have attained to this favour? For my part, I think it may be demonstrate, that had that freedom been used by us in open disputing and opposing, which was permitted, nay allowed to the Doctors, instead of Answers, and Answers to Replies, as they are termed, we had certainly got Prisons and Gibbets. And yet for all your calumnious allegiance, that they and other worthy persons (whom nevertheless you wisely forbear either to name or number) were by us driven away by tumults and not by laws, It is known that all they suffered was, after desperate obstinacy, to be removed either by Law or Ecclesiastick-censure.  
The next thing whereby you go about to make out your charge of rigour against us, is, that we purged our Armies. And wherefore not? That evil men do not by reason of sin forfeit their rights, and consequently may lawfully defend them, is not denied: But that the Lord, having then so lately testified his displeasure against the Malignant courses of the 1648. And we having thereupon so solemnly vowed a detestation thereof, and a non-conjunction with all their bettors, there was just reason, when the necessity was not such as to leave no place for election, in the fear of the Lord's displeasure, to prefer his Command. Deut. 23. v. 9 and our own engagements unto the then contrary pretensions; and to keep us from every wicked thing, can not rationally be disproved. However these things being now past, I love not to rake in them, my heart's desire is, that the things which have since befallen us, and seem to have so clear a dependence upon the unstedfastness, insincerity, mockery, heats and contentions of these bygone transactions, may at length lead every serious fearer and seeker of the Lord, unto a single and through discovery, and the repentance which the Lord requires.  
As for the advantage you would draw from this objection, I have already told you that necessity and interest do too visibly influence all your pretended moderation, to leave you any matter of boasting in your late abatements. But he who pleaseth to turn his eye upon the other side, and there, with your former Ecclesiastic rigours, behold your other methodes, in appointing the Declaration, as an indispensable condition of State-trusts, and in your manifest discountenancing all of a different persuasion, will certainly admire to find you so much exceed, even in these very evils, which you would appear to condemn.  
Now to your stifling of jealousies, which vex some of your more weak and malicious Models. We know too well their selfish and cowardly dispositions, to impute their not whispering to any true respect to authority, more than the compliance of others to your alleged moderation. To obey God more than man, and therefore to suffer affliction cross to our inclination, is indeed a fair accession to the praise of the grace of God in this greater virtue you vaunt of, and wherein we desire to be found: But as for your submission against certain blind persuasions, and peevish fears (which you call your inclination) to that absolute overswaying devotion, which we know you bear to Peace and Ease, many of you have so notourly already basely renounced, not only your God, but your King (for whom you do more highly pretend) for this interest, that you must pardon us, neither to applaud your obedience nor submission from such suggestions. And so indeed you insinuat more intelligibly than you are awar; for you say, that if we abuse not this liberty we have got, you shall never complain of it: which according to the construction of abuses, held out by your laws and practices, doth so plainly sound, if you neither offer to reclaim the people from their rebellion against, and backsliding from the Lord, nor to warn and testify against the courses, and tendencies of an antichristian Supremacy and profane Prelacy, that the benefit and security, which you would obtain by the performance of this condition, doth render your pretended acquiescence almost ridiculous.  
But you go on to add, Nay, you would rejoice to find it produce the effects, for which it is designed, viz. to bring us to a more peaceable temper. And who either doubteth this in your sense, or refuseth it in a just sense? could we exchange a good conscience for Court-compliance, or prefer Peace to Truth, which do plainly appear to be the terms of difference, wherein we stand, there is no question of your victory and our agreement: But seeing this may not be, and your design is at best preposterous, I hope, I shall more easily obtain your concurrence in my wish, that the Gospel and godliness being by this indulgence advanced, true peaceableness and peace may thence ensue.  
The second effect of this Indulgence by you intended, Is to make us value and love more one of the noblest and most generous Princes that ever ruled. Sir, you just now commended yourself for a better Subject, then to criticise upon your Sovereign's pleasure, and, I think, I should at least be so civil, as not to controvert his praise; but as I do heartily pray that the Lord would make it a hundred times so much truly greater than it is; So, let me tell you, that to state your superlatives of Nobility, and Generosity, upon the grant of this Licence, a very mean and scant act of justice, elicit by a visible State-conveniency, if not necessity, and many degrees inferior to the liberty granted either by the King of France, to his Protestants, or the great Turk to his Christian Subjects, is rather to betray then advance your Prince his reputation. I say not this to diminish the just acknowledgement of his Majesty's justice, that every good subject aught on every occasion to express; but this your artifice, either to baffle our conscientious noncompliance with your remaining corruptions, as ingratitude, or to stop the procedure of the King's goodness, as being already in the next degree to an excess, must not go unnoticed.  
Your third effect designed, is to dispose us to a brotherly accommodation with you, Which you say, the Fathers of the Church are ready to offer, on such terms as refused will declare us to be schismatical. But seeing all along you would have this licence to be a free favour, and would thence plead its obligation toward a brotherly Accommodation, as I have hitherto told you, that I cannot regard it under that character; so, I hope, the insinuation that this pretence may import, shall be of no moment to bias any to an Accommodation, in the terms of so stated an opposition. Sir, mistake me not, it is not, that I love division or study faction; union and peace in the Lord are the earnest desire and prayer of my soul, and that not more for the manifestation of the glorious power of the grace of God, in turning you from your evil ways, then for that beauty, joy and strength, wherewith it is accompanied, and whereby the pleasure of the Lord might be so effectually promoted: But while you continue impenitent, yea obstinate in your perjury and rebellion, whereby you have overturned the Lord's work, with the Ministry and Government of His House, and do own that idol of Jealousy and root of wickedness, the Supremacy, and its dependent Prelacy, whereby under the pretence of peace and order, the Kingdom of our Lord, aswell over Consciences, as in his Church, is borne down, profanity, popery, nay Atheism and all wickedness connived at, and nothing become more odious and persecute, than a conscientious acknowledgement of the most High, not prostitute to men's lusts & devices; While, I say, you are still such, what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? & what communion hath light withdarkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that keepeth Covenant with him that avowedly breaketh it? If these be schismatical insinuations, we are very willing to be accounted such, and do heartily embrace the reproach: nay, if I should tell you, that such are the nature and circumstances of the present defection, that it doth not only enjoin a necessary separation from your pretended and corrupt Ecclesiastic Courts, for eviting the sin that attends a conjunction; but also a witnessing & withdrawing to testify against backsliders, I might as easily evince it both from Scripture-precept and example. But, may be I am too prompt; if the terms that you are about to offer be as fair as is promised, that is, as can be demanded by any rational person, no doubt they will satisfy all our scruples.  
And therefore wishing that the event may redargue this apparent anticipation, I go on to your following promise, viz. to give your N. C. at next meeting a full prospect of the state of the ancient Church, and you doubt not to convince him that their frame was better suited for promoting the ends of Religion, than ever Prebyterie could be. Sir, your performance is expected, and for your encouragement, I am free to tell you, that though the improbability of the undertaking may possibly give the world a disappointment, yet it will be no surprise. It is not the first promise that you have failed in, upon more unaccountable reasons: Mean while, you forbid us, to abuse our Sovereign's royal goodness, nor the tenderness of these he sets over us. But this, in my opinion, is a superfluous caution; the Prelates have taken a surer course to prevent your fears; for such hath been their care to secure this goodness and tenderness from our abuse, that hitherto they have thought fit to keep it without our reach. I know this will appear a hard reflection to some of your party, who would have even the common air esteemed his Majesties, and us to breathe it by his indulgence: But a flattering mouth worketh ruin, and the Lord shall cut off all flattering lips. We despise not his Majesty's favour, nay, we desire and long for it that it may come down like rain upon the mown grass: But while there is so great a short-coming in the things, which are right in the eyes of the Lord, and righteous toward his servants, why should flatteries deceive?  
And thus we are come to your Conclusion of Prayers for and exhortation to peace, love, and charity; a very expedient one to so bad a cause, so badly managed: your rebellion against God, your usurpation against our Lord Jesus Christ, the wrongs done to his Church and People, by which your Prelates have got into the chair, and in compliance wherewith you yourself do at least find ease, If they cannot be mentioned by reason, yet may in a manner be secured by peace. And, no doubt, the love and charity, which you crave would go a great length. I will not say with jehu, what have you to do with peace? But there is no peace to the wicked, saith my God; And that ought to be unto you of more moment, then if jehu, with all his fury and forces, were at your heels. But you are of that number, who would have peace though you walk in the imagination of your own hearts; nay, you seduce this people, and heal their hurt slightly, by saying peace, where there is no peace: But if you had stood in the counsel of the Lord, and had caused his people to hear his words, than you should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings: am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God a far off. Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him, saith the Lord, do not I fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord. I have heard what the Prophets said who Prophecy lies in my name, and do cause my people to err by their lightness, yet I sent them not, nor commanded them, therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord. As for the love that you desire; should we love them that hate the Lord: you know whose profession it was, do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? And am not I grieved with these that rise up against the? I hate them with perfect hatred, I count them mine enemies. Neither are these the words of one only under the old dispensation, which elsewhere you are pleased to term, more carnal and fiery. He who wished that they were even cut off, who troubled the Church, appeareth to be of the same Spirit. Nay, God who is love, and perfect in goodness to all his creatures, is nevertheless a consuming fire unto his adversaries. And our Lord Jesus, who came in lowliness and meekness to seek sinners and die for enemies, enjoining love as a badge, and legating peace as his proper blessing to all his followers, doth notwithstanding pronounce many a sad woe unto the hypocritical, proud, covetous & in a word (if as shamlessly irreligious) Prelatic Pharisee. Let us therefore, above all things, in the first place contend for the love of God, and to be found, and to abide therein: This once purging our hearts from dividing and distracting lusts, will only happily cement us by its own bond. But if you continue your opposition against God, perversion of his righteous ways, and persecution of his Saints, you do in vain pretend to that peace, which is the Saints their privilege, and without which, outward peace is no better than one of these snares that the Lord raineth upon the wicked.  
Your next wish is for charity, and O! that it might be both your and our blessing, in its full extent; charity not rejoicing in iniquity, but rejoicing in the truth, would quickly produce a desirable Accommodation, but this is not the charity which you study; 'tis like a charity thinking no evil of your evil doings, believing all your imposings, enduring all your usurpations, and bearing all your rigours, would please you well. And at this rate the most violent irreligious persecutor would become your concurrent. But we have not so learned Christ. It is a very easy and advantageous thing, to men possessed of their desires to wish for security in the peace, love, and charity even of their adversaries. And yet we are not so short of remembrance as to believe that this was always, the language of your party. At first it was, make a chain the land is full of bloody crimes, and the city is full of violence, and your cry was, raze it, raze it, even to the foundation. And when after much cruelty and blood your Prelates would scarce by the restraint of more safe counsel be taken off their eager pursuites, how hardly are they prevailed upon, even by their own interest, to teach this doctrine of peace? It is not many weeks since the chief of your Fathers, as you term them, preaching before the King's Commissioner and many members of Parliament on that Text, Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, told his hearers, in the very entry, that the particular rules of mutual for bearance and tenderness, given in that Scripture by the Apostle, were only convenient for the than state of that Church wanting a Christian Magistrate: But now there being a Christian Magistrate, his authority should quiet all scruples, and might not be demurred by these pretences: and going on to show that the only way to peace, is to allow to the King not only an outward coercive power, but also an inward, directive, architecktonick, uncontrollable power (O fear the Lord all ye his Saints) over conscience, in the matters of Worship, with much ado, as eye and ear witnesses do attest, he stammered through a part of the first chapter of a new Piece, entitled a Discourse of Ecclesiastical policy. And thus, he delivered to us the very same doctrine of peace, which, in several places of your Dialogues, you do very plainly hold out. Whether or not then it be in the same principle, and for the same end, that ye do here pray for peace, love and charity, let men judge. For our part, your power, riches, and dignities (in themselves, to say the truth, the very meenest of these trifles) are by us neither coveted nor envied. Our souls desire and earnest prayer to God, both in your and our own behalf, is that God would open our eyes, turn back our hearts, heal our backslidings, and restore unto us his Gospel and blessed Ordinances in power and purity. O turn us again Lord God of hosts, cause thy face to shine and we shall be saved, then shall Glory dwell in our Land, mercy and truth meet, and righteousness and truth kiss each other, then should the work of the Lord appear unto his servants, and the beauty of the Lord our God, even peace, unity and love be upon us.  
As for these Scriptures wherewith you second your wish for peace, Were I not more tender in opposing Scripture to Scripture, than you are in abusing it to your own design, it were easy for me to repay your admonition to love, by a more seasonable exhortation to you of repentance: But since the very consideration of the words, by you cited, may rectify your misapplication, my single desire is, that you had pondered or could yet ponder them. If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, let us fulfil the Lords joy, that we be first of a sound mind, & then like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind, Let nothing be done, through strife or vain glory (a short discharge of all the pride, persecution and pomp of your prelatic order) but, in lowliness of mind, let each esteem others better than themselves. Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among us; let him show out of a good conversation his● works with meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter zeal, or envying (For seeing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wanting this adjunct, signifieth also envy, without the least reflection upon that holy zeal of God's house which is said to eat up even the pattern of meekness & Prince of peace, your poor criticism, in altering the translation, shows more of your malice then your learning) and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be Zealous there fore and repent of your perjury and Covenant breaking) this wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly sensual and devilish; for where zeal or envying (The word is indeed still the same, and so is your folly in this remark) and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable (not first peaceable and then impure, as that of your party is) Gentle and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy (O desirable quality) And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace. Let us put on therefore (as the elect of God, holy and beloved) bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one another and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any, even as Christ forgave us, so let us do; and above all things put on charity which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in our hearts, to the which also we are called in one body, and let us be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in us richly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord, and whatsoever we do in word or deed (pray observe this fundamental direction) Let us do all in the name of the Lord jesus (What shall we then say to these who in the Bond to the Public Peace would not admit the name of the Lord to be mentioned) Giving thanks to God and the Either by him. In all this I wish we were sincerily agreed. And that these words were more deeply infixed in our minds, for I confess I am weary of vain janglings, as much as you are, and do long for truth and peace, as much as you do for your much courted peace; and indeed there is nothing that doth so much portend the Lords displeasure and imminent wrath as that not any pleadeth for truth; they trust in vanity and speak lies, they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity, they hatch cockatrice eggs, and wove the spider's web, he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper; their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hand; they do much love outward peace, but the way of peace they know not, and there is no judgement in their goings, they have made them crooked Paths, whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace. Therefore is judgement far from us, and justice doth not overtake us; we wait for light, but behold obscurity, for brightness, bot we walk in darkness; for our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and as for our iniquities we know them, in transgressing and lying against the Lord and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood, and judgement is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off; for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter, yea truth faileth, and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey. Whether you or your N. C. account these words to proceed from a fretted mind, or not, I know not; sure I am there is that truth in them that though David's wished for wings may better suit your desire of rest, yet Ieremiah's watery head, and weeping eyes, with his retirement to a wilderness, would be the more agreeable wish to our condition. But our relieff is, that the Lord seeth, and who knows, but he is displeased that there is no intercessor, and that therefore his arm may bring salvation, when he shall put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head, when he shall put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and clothe himself with zeal (even that zeal which you go about to malign) as with a clock. However this is most certain that the Redeemer is come to Zion and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.  
But your. N. C. recals me and tells us, that the further he seeth in the great business of Religion, he is the the more coovinced of a serene and placide temper, which so qalisies the soul for Divine converse. And these words do ravish and unite your heart to him in such a manner, that, for a conclusion to these your roving Dialogues, you do very agreeably vanish in a fancied transport. And really Sir, I do as little question that the further a man seeth, and is seriously exercised in the great business of Religion, he will certainly be thereby rendered of a more serene and placide temper. The statutes of the Lord are indeed right rejoicing the heart, the commandment of the Lord is pure enlightening the eyes; the divine light doth certainly give pure joy, and pure joy no doubt doth elevat above all carnal perturbations, and drossy pleasures: there is a virtue in Religion, that, powerfully rebuking not only the winds of our tempestuous passions, and the toss of our vain desires, but the dreadful tempest of God's anger, doth make a great calm, which bringeth unto Jesus Christ for refuge, unto God for our rest, and blesseth us with his peace that passeth understanding, and filleth us with all joy in believing. But your insinuation, as if a serene and placid temper not flowing from, but previously disposing unto, Religion and fellowship with God, were of special influence as to divine converse, is at best but a continuation of your delusion, I shall not say deceit, suited to your great design of preferring peace, to truth, and fraiming Religion to your own accommodation. And truly in order to that end, the advantages of a serene indifferency and placide compliance, resolving all difficulties by the conveniency of ease, and not striving in any case against the Authority and commands of such, on whom our outward peace depends, can not be denied. But seeing it is the great work of Religion, first to open the eyes, and to turn from darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that we may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith, and in these excellent graces true peace and full joy, let him who would have a mind truly serene, and not only a placide temper, but a tranquil and joyful conscience, study and walk in this light, discovering and abhorring every evil way, and by purity and faithfulness, even in that which is least, make sure his peace, and so shall he not only be qualified for, but certainly attain unto divine converse. Serenity and tranquillity of mind, when flowing from that wisdom from above, which is first pure then peaceable, and is the product of pure Religion and undefiled, is no doubt, no other than that light wherein God dwells, and that calmness and weakness of Spirit, wherein he delights. But as for your serene and placid Temper, which you exhibit to us, rather as preparatory, then subsequent to Religion, I must again tell you my fears that I find it so little agreeable to Religion's genuine method, and so very suitable to your carnal designs, that I greatly apprehend, that, instead of advancing you to true divine converse, it only seduce you into a fools paradise of your own dreams and imaginations. Whether your ensuing raptures do thence proceed, I leave it to others to judge. But, sure I am, were you as earnest to pray, Deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue, as you would appear serious in the following regrete of having too long dwelled among them that hate peace: You had rather choosed to suffer affliction with the people, of God, esteeming the reproach of Christ (even treason and sedition) great riches; and respecting and looking for the recompense of the reward, the eternal love and peace of God, then to have taken the compendious, way of a sinful compliance, for obtaining this world's ease and quiet. Which I am confident● that holy man, whose words you usurp, would have abhorred at the rate.  
As for the thick fogs and mists of contention, which you complain of, if this life were indeed to you a valley of tears, as you give it out, while all light and purity is almost destroyed by the lust and ignorance of your prelatic party, it would have been to these infernal vapours, and clouds of smoke, by which our Sun and air are darkened, and not to the just and necessary opposition of a small faithful remnant against your apostasy, that you had ascribed the noisomness which you mention. But, behold the nimbleness, aswell as the delusion, of the man's fancy; he hath for outward ease cast away a good conscience, and preferred all along peace unto truth: All the disturbance he mee●eth with, is the dissent of a few faithful unto God, and steadfast in his Covenant; whom he and his party do therefore persecute: This small innocent noncompliance he complaineth of, as if he were the most refined and tender Saint, grieving for the wicked and rageful persecution of the ungodly, from which imaginary and feigned distress, with the same artifice and facility, he pretendeth that his relieff is in divine contemplation, whither, as to the mountain of God, he flieth, forsooth, for Sanctuary that he may take rest. But this triumphing of your presumption shall be but short, the joy of the hyhocrite is but for a moment, though his excellency reach up to the heavens, and his head reach unto the clouds; yet he shall perish for ever, like his own dung, they which have seen him shall say, where is he, he shall fly away as a dream, and be chased away as a vision of the night: for who, Lord, shall dwell in thy holy hill, and who shall ascend unto the hill of the Lord, and who shall stand in his holy place? he that walketh uprightly and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart; he that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour, in whose eyes a vile person is contemned, but he honoureth them that fear the Lord, he that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not; he that hath clean hands, and a pure heart, who hath not lift up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully, he shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his Salvation. If therefore your pretensions be such as you profess, you must not overlook the way that God himself hath designed, but walk in it with fear. Your vain fantastic soarings will not carry you, either over, or by it. Nay in the end they will prove a lie, and tumble you into destruction: For what is the hope of the Hypocrite when he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?  
Think not that these things are from ill nature, and spoken in bitterness; Nay, Sir, I may very seriously protest, that when I reflect on your lax and unsound principles, not only in the matters of Government and Worship, but even in the head of justification, and several other parts, that you have given me occasion to touch, with your enmity and reproaches against the work of God, and the Kingdom, Ministry and Ordinances of our Lord jesus Christ, and how, on the other hand, you endeavour to shrewd yourself under the high pretences of peace, love, charity, and devotion, wholly heavenly, I can scarce refrain from trembling, in the thoughts of such deep and abusive hypocrisy. And therefore though you should scorn my compassion, yet will I not forbear to give you my best advice. You seem to have the form of knowledge, and of the truth in the word. Nay thou makest thy boast of God, and divine contemplation, the secret of God's presence, and the refreshful shades of the Almighty, where joy unspeakable, and the most pure solaces flow, appear to be your familiar retreat. But as it is too too evident that neither your principles nor practice are very suitable to this profession, nay, that there is no noise heard of this profession, while you are bussied in serving men's designs, and your own fancies: And that it is only after you have striven to the outmost in persuading or contradicting, that you seek to evade or delude by these pretensions; So my earnest request is that in place of fancy, that evaporats all your knowledge into imagination, faith and love may suck down the truth into your heart, to convert you indeed unto God, and reveal in you with power his Son jesus Christ, that you may love the Lord with all your soul and strength, and trust in him always, have respect unto all his Commandments, and observe all his Ordinances; then should you walk in the way safely, and the Lord should be your confidence. And though you should be exercised with the same perverse dispute of men of corrupt minds, the same strife of tongues and persecution of adversaries, whereof we have so large an experiment; yet amidst all these boisterous winds and tossing waves, God would be your Rock, light, joy, strength, and salvation for ever. Sir, this is our faith and also our victory, for which, when you shall as seriously contend, as you do vainly pretend to outward peace and man's favour, then shall true peace, even that peace, which the World neither gives nor can take, abound unto you to establish you unto the end. Let us therefore fight the good fight, keep the faith and lay hold on eternal life, that we may finish our course with joy, so shall we receive that Crown of Righteousness which the righteous judge shall give unto us at that day, and not unto us only, but unto all them also, that love his appearing. Even so come Lord JESUS.  
FINIS.