Vindiciae Libertatis Evangelii: OR, A justification of our present Indulgence, and the acceptance of Licences.  
By way of REPLY To a certain clamorous, anonymous Manuscript Pamphlet, entitled Queries upon the DECLARATION March 15th 1671 / 2: The most usual and considerable Arguments against Licences are herein examined, and satisfied.  
By a Friend to Peace and Truth.  He who is first in his own Cause, seemeth just: but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him out. Prov. 18.17. 
Printed in the Year, 1672.   

A Reply to certain anonymous Queries, which reflect upon the Indulgence, declared March 15th 1671 / 2; and the Licences thereupon accepted.  
AMong the many invasions upon the Truths and Order of the Gospel, in our dayes, those which prove most injurious, have proceeded from Adversaries lurking in the bosom of the Churches. The wild Boars of the forest had not trod down our Fences, if the little Foxes within had not plucked off our Grapes, and by their Scandals opened a gape to let in Invaders to desolate the Vineyard. The Faith and Patience of the Saints hath withstood( through Grace) all visible Opposition: but Satan changing his appearance into an Angel of Light, hath accomplished those designs by the blind zeal of mistaken Friends, which in the display of his enmity were not feasible. When the Woman had escaped the Dragon's fury, she was in more danger of intanglement by the Beast's religious Policy. What Heathen Rome could not achieve, Christian Rome well nigh performed. And there are many Antichrists, all of which I dare not, cannot reduce to the visible Papal Interest. For though they all proceed from the inward principle of Self, and carry on the same joint design of disturbing and deceiving Saints, with the breach and ruin of Churches; yet they are not more visibly Adversaries to the general concerns of God in the World, than declared Enemies( but from a grand mistake) to each other.  
Our present Antagonist is very warm in his zeal against Antichrist, but planteth his battery at the liberty of our Worship. They whose prospect of things reacheth only the surface thereof, whose sight, by reason of darkness, terminates in the out-side of objects, without piercing into their bowels; will think the Querist hath made a fair Essay. He cries out Antichrist, Babylon, but smiteth the innocent Flock. And were his Weapon as keen as his Spirit, for any thing I know, he might let out much of the vital blood of the Churches.  
The present Contest is de lanâ caprinâ. An enemy is imagined, and then buffeted. The case in hand is a mere civil privilege, affording occasionally a little free air, a respite for Spiritual Liberty. But a prejudice against it once started, is no less firmly riveted in the the fancies of the weak, than points of greater moment ought to be in their judgments. Yet our Assailant( not content with his own practise) under the pain of Anathema, and imputation of apostasy, with all other dreadful words, commands all of us to retire from, and not touch the unclean Licence, with no less peremptoriness then Come out from among them, my people, and be ye separate: to the scandal of Religion, and abundant contentment of observers. The truth is, the Querist's main quarrel is not a Licence, but something else of more moment, if I mistake him not. tithings of Mint and Cummin should not break squares between us, were principles of the League agreed on. I may practise what I please impunè, without any reflection thereon, so I hold the binding Points. Immorality then might be excused, duty otherwise is censured.  
But my work, it will be said, lies in defending a Licence. I reply, it doth so: Only so unhappy is our Assailant, that our most innocent avoidance of his impression, will expose his nakedness. And possibly it may be necessary to set the brand in its due place, and evidence who it is that troubles Israel.  
The manner of the Querist's discourse( if it will bear that style) is fitly suited to the design of it. Questions are proper means to unsettle weak Souls. Nothing seems to be asserted; yet every thing questioned. Probably because 'tis easier to query, than to prove. And we know who can ask more questions, than others can answer. It is all one with some professors,( with whom only I suppose the Querist intended to deal) whether Truth and Righteousness can be disproved, or not, so they be questioned. And indeed, saving this poor low device, the expectant will fail of any thing worth his while, in all the Interrogatories. The Declaration is set upon the Rack, and there, tormented with impertinent Queries, to which it is made to cry guilty, and to confess what it never knew. It is not because the Query's need or deserve it, that a Reply is endeavoured; but love and compassion to those who may be exposed to the snare, put me upon this trifling business. A serious thoughtful Reply, would give some colour of solidity to the Queries. They shall therefore have dignum nodo cuncum, only a present discovery, yet abundantly sufficient for its work.  
One great disadvantage the generality of unsettled Persons have, in such cases as this, is, That they are not able to look to the bottom of a plausible discourse. Here the Headship of Christ is said to be disowned in our acceptation of Licences, and the Magistrate put in his place; but I am not sensible that every one is ware of the ground upon which the Querist bottometh this strained Notion. Nay, his intimations make me suspect that to aclowledge the Legitimacy of the Magistrates Power, or to pay Tribute, is no less derogation to Jesus Christ. I shall therefore consider the secret Principles upon which the Queries are built, or rather prevent them, in a few plain Propositions preliminary to what follows.  
1. There is a Magistracy not allowed only, but set up by God, for the external government of the World. 'Tis not imaginable( granting the Personal Reign) that in the interim of the Lord's absence, he should not have his Substitutes. Either he governeth the World immediately, or leaves it in utter confusion and disorder; or he hath given Authority to men for this end. The first and second contradict sense and experience. And the third is no less obvious to them. The Querist will not( I hope) say that the Power which we see visibly in the hands of Men, is beside the intention of God. Or if he do, we know what to reply. In the interim let this Principle be taken for granted; there is cause of great security it may rest undisturbed.  
2. Subjection to Magistrates is consequently a tribute due to them, and the refusal not only a rebellion against them, but the supreme Majesty. He who gave tribute to Caesar as an example to us, and an instance of his accomplishment of all Righteousness: He who left it as a standing rule, established by his positive Command, That we give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars; cannot but reflect upon disobedience herein, as an indignity against himself. Government is originally God's, invested as to its dispensation in the Person of Christ; and being by him in any part of it devolved upon men, is, his image or stamp upon them. I ask therefore, have men Power and Government? Whose image? whose superscription is it? If God's, own it, submit to it; or you set yourselves against him. Christ hath placed them in their thrones, and by the apostles reasoning, this is a ground of subjection, Rom. 13.1.  
To say this or that Magistrate is Antichristian, will not serve the turn. I ask, Is their Power Antichristian in itself, or do they manage it for Antichrist? That Power which Christ gives, cannot be( as such) Antichristian, unless the Lord's Kingdom be divided against itself. And granting, that such manage their lawful Power in an unlawful Antichristian way: must we therefore deny their Power? or rather is it not our duty to forbear compliance with the abuse thereof? For were there any Powers in the Apostles dayes, or Christ's, which did not invade the Gospel? yet our Lord Jesus Christ did not therefore deny them tribute; neither did the Apostles reject their Authority. The Pharisees indeed( whose disciple the Querist approveth himself) questioned their Allegiance, Matth. 22.17, &c. yea, disowned it, Joh. 8.33. But Paul's example of Subjection is very observable, Acts 25.10, 11. Did he appeal unto Caesar, and not aclowledge his Power? A greater instance by far than our acceptance of a Licence. For, Sir, was not the Spirit of the Dragon, actor of the then Imperial Power, the very same Spirit and Authority afterwards invested in the Beast? Rev. 12.1, 2.  
3. Then I conclude, that there is a distinction between the due and undue exercise of Power. If Magistrates command lawful things, they must be obeied. If unlawful things, we may refuse, nay we must withdraw our submission thereto; because a superior Law of Jesus Christ supersedeth them.  
And I add, that there is a vast difference between the unlawful commands of Magistrates. Do they encroach upon our civil Rights only? I know not that a private Christian, as such, may resist. Who made us Judges or Deviders in the World? Christ himself would not decide a controversy about Civil Right, Luke 12.14. because he had put the administration thereof into other hands. And because he came to obey and not to rule, and to give us an example. But, that private Saints are to dispute civil privileges, or are in Conscience obliged to assert them, is incumbent on the Querist, if he judge meet to undertake the Province.  
But then, as to the Laws of the Gospel, the Order, Institutions and Liberties thereof, the case varieth. The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, to proclaim, assert, and preserve it, with the utmost hazard; yet only in a Gospel-way.  
4. Whereas the King is styled supreme in Ecclesiastical matters, and said to have the same inherent in himself, it only respecteth his Power to suspend and dispense with Laws National and caconical, enacted by Parliament, or concluded by the Overseers of the National Church of England, with respect to the outward regiment thereof.  
That this is so, the very Declaration itself witnesseth, by suspending the penalties of such Laws only. Which not only his present Majesty hath herein practised, but his Predecessors also; whereof instances may be given upon demand. And we have little cause to quarrel with this Power of his to suspend such Laws, which hath( under God) been a means of d●liverance to the Professors of these Nations more than ●nce.  
Object. But this Supremacy is the propriety of Christ, who is Head of the Church, and to ascribe it to the King, is to make him Head of the Church.  
Answ. This is a Plea arising from a gross ignorance of the thing treated on. The Declaration speaketh not of the King's Headship over the Church, but his Power about the Laws imposed on the Churches of Christ. Cannot the King suspend the penalty of an Act of Parliament, but he must be Head of the Church? Had he indeed abrogated or suspended any Gospel-Law, there might have been some colour for this idle Allegation. Or had he declared himself Head of the Church in opposition to Christ. It may be the word Supremacy gives the offence. But is it imaginable that an absolute Supremacy is intended? Is it not rather such a Supremacy as none on Earth hath right unto above, or equally to himself? For, is he not supreme in the Civil Government? yet who ever imagined that he doth not hold it of God? Who hath devolved it so upon the King, as to reserve the original absolute sovereignty thereof unto himself? Why then must this Ecclesiastical Supremacy entrench upon Christ's Prerogative more than that? If Supremacy in itself, if some Supremacy may consist with the Allegiance of the Magistrate unto the Divine Majesty, it is incumbent upon the Queri●● to show wherein this Ecclesiastical Supremacy entrencheth thereon; or to lay down the Plea thereof. But this, and the like notions will be, where ignorance and prejudice judge, or men interpret rather by fancy, than reason.  
5. Our acceptance of Licences in pursuance of the Declaration, doth not infer our approbation of all expressions therein; much less rendereth us guilty of all, or any of those wild inferences charged upon us by the Querist.  
I do not grant any thing extremely offensive in the Declaration; at least if an allowance be given to the judgement of that Power which put it forth. However, I am pretty well assured that should the Querist draw up a Declaration against Licences, or upon any other occasion, sober men would find as many stumbling blocks, if not more, therein. Let the Queries be a proof; wherein, besides the Nonsense evident in every page., there is such pitiful Policy and unsound Divinity, that certainly those, if any such be, who approve their design as to Licences, abhor the other Principles here and there scattered in them.  
Besides, it is an intolerable piece of uncharitableness and injustice for the Querist to set our accepting of Licences upon the Tenters, and force Consequences thence, neither natural to the thing, nor approved of us, and charge us therewith. Let him own that spurious issue of his own brain: but why is it laid at our door, who abhor it indeed more than the Parent seems to do. Yet why do I blame him for abusing us with these consequences, who, if I mistake not the complexion of his Religion, abuseth his own Principles no less; raising a superstructure of Doctrine and Policy upon that innocent fancy of Christ's Personal Reign, which all well-grounded Christians detest, and Christ himself much more.  
I must tell the Querist, that his zeal in opposing Licences, makes him wept the plain letter of the Declaration; which while it gives leave to Preach without danger of the Law, supposeth us to be no friends to Episcopacy, and thereby freeth us from the guilt of all his irrational consequences fastened upon us in the Queries, as far as his strength and skill allow.  
Be it added, That if our Licences on the one hand seem to countenance those Inferences( which by any just colour of reason they do not) our perseverence in Nonconformity denies them on the other hand. And really, Sir, to lay the weight of such severe Charges upon one single Act( and that in itself not what you represent it) and in the interim to deny all the testimony of our separation from that interest of Antichrist which you will have us favour; savours of a Spirit into whose counsel my Soul shall not enter. Suppose the Act of accepting Licences did in itself intimate or conclude what you infer; yet to charge these things upon our judgments while we publicly declare and practise contrary, is not fair play. But why do I suppose what is not arguable? It may, Sir, be a conviction of your severe uncharitable Spirit; otherwise 'tis utterly denied.  
The truth is, Sir, you have got the faculty of inferring Quidlibet ex quolibet, any thing from what you please: which were it not a Sophism below a Christian, I would return upon you with such advantage, as might possibly expose your reasonings to better purpose, than a sober Reply, which they deserve not. But with such toys do you impose upon the credulity of tender Souls, and that in the Name of Christ, which renders the matter much more wicked.  
6. The taking of a Licence doth not, cannot by any legitimate rational Inference, conclude that we accept our Ministry from the King, or that he thereby makes us Ministers. To make a Minister, gives authority to Preach, and not Liberty only. I accept the King's Favour in permitting the exercise of my Office in his Dominions peaceably, to which Office I am authorised by Jesus Christ. But neither doth he declare that I am made an Officer hereby, nor do I aclowledge it. The Declaration supposeth us in our Work, calleth us Teachers of our respective Congregations, antecedently to a Licence. And the words of the Licence are express to this purpose, We do hereby permit and licence A. B. of the Congregational, or Presbyterial persuasion to be a Teacher. Is Permission Authorization? Is leave to Preach in this or that respective place, Ordination to be a Preacher or Pastor? Indeed our Licence respects the Laws which forbid our P●eaching, not our Office. It defendeth us from their violence, that they shall not impede our work; but doth not at all call us to it. I add, that if this Licence make us Ministers, those Laws made us none. If that give Office; those supposed us not in Office; which they no where express, if my memory fail not, I am sure we never yielded. If an Enemy set upon me to take away my life, and a Friend interpose his Shield to bear off the blow; no man in his wits will say that Friend is my Father, he begot me, brought me into the world. No! he preserves the life I had before, and accomplisheth, that I may enjoy it maugre the Adversary. The case in hand is not substantially different. The Licence gives me liberty to exercise my Ministry without being liable to former hazards: but I derive not my Office thence.  
7. I conclude, to accept a Licence is lawful. My Spirit is not so across, nor am I so very angry at the Restraint heretofore,( though I suppose there be who have suffered as much, as the Querist, for the Cause of the Gospel) as therefore to dethrone the Power that prosecuted me, or refuse any legitimate encouragement from it. The cry of Beast, Antichristian, &c. is, Vox est praeterea nihil, an empty noise, and nothing in it: an inarticulate sound, and lurry of words,( as to the merit of the Cause in hand) voided of solid Reason. Did Paul refuse to be freed from Prison, because unjustly bound? Or did those Magistrates lose their Power in freeing, because they had abused it in binding the Apostles? Did Peter and John, being whipped for Preaching, resolve to be whipped to death, rather than accept freedom from the hands of their Oppressors? The Gospel is a stranger to such reasonings. The Spirit thereof is meek and gentle, not furious and froward.  
But I shall subjoin a few Arguments to confirm the lawfulness of accepting Licences, and am inconcern'd, though the Querist put Interrogatories to them, they are of age, and can answer for themselves.  
1. If it were unlawful to submit to the Command of those Laws which forbade us to Preach, then 'tis lawful to accept an exemption from them in a Licence.  
The branches of the Proposition are directly opposite, and therefore lawfulness or unlawfulness cannot be predicated of both. There is but one Cavil that I foresee can be objected to this Argument, which I shall obviate in the next, viz.  
2. If the matter of a Licence be good, and there occur no entangling conditions in its acceptance: then 'tis lawful to receive it. But the matter of the Licence is lawful, &c.  
Preaching is good, and a duty: Wo to us if we Preach not the Gospel. To have freedom to Preach is also good, and desirable; 'tis enjoined as the matter of your Prayer, That the Gospel may have free Course, &c. viz. That all men may permit its free public promulgation in the World, and that it may be prevalent and successful every where. Now how can the Gospel have free Course unless those who forbade its Preaching before, now permit it: which whether it be by a public Declaration of its permission, or by the solemn permission of every individual as in our case, or by a tacite connivance at all, it matters not: We do, we ought to pray for the thing, let Providence determine the manner as it pleaseth. And then there are no entangling terms imposed upon the licenced. Let the Querist assign such conditions( for we know of none) and they shall be considered. Do we not choose our own Place to Meet in? Do we not keep our own Principles? Is not our Separation Asserted and Practised still? We pay no Money for our Licences, make no Recantation when we receive them. But what will satisfy an unquiet man, who is resolved to be froward?  
3. 'Tis lawful to take Sanctuary in a Magistrate( under God) when he offereth it, or we may rationally expect it from him. Magistrates do not only bear the Sword, but are called shields. And why? If we may not shrowd ourselves under them, and accept, and make use of their Protection. And let the Querist demonstrate clearly, if he be able, that our accepting Licences for our Defence from the severity of Laws, is an illegitimate hiding under the Shield. 'Tis manifest, That he to whom the Shields of the Earth belong, hath disposed the Heart of the King to cover us with his Power. And we believe, that to refuse the Shelter, is a disowning the Goodness, Wisdom, and Faithfulness of God, engaging it for us.  
4. Either it is lawful to take a Licence, or a Licence rendereth a lawful thing unlawful. Had his Majesty Connived at our Liberty, or Declared to permit us without the mention of a Licence, we might, we ought to accept the Favour thankfully: And doth a Licence change the nature of the thing? In what part of the Licence doth this faculty of Transmutation lye? It may be you will say, 'tis in our Acceptance, not in the Licence. But I Reply, Why in the formality of accepting a Paper-Licence, more than in a secret Approbation of the same Liberty given without it? If his Majesty had permitted our Liberty without Declaring so much; it had been certainly lawful to accept the same tacitly as he gave it, yea, and to approve and own his Favour therein. And why our Expression of such Approbation by the external Act of taking a Licence becomes unlawful, belongs to the Querist to unriddle.  
Again, How can the accepting a Licence for such a Place, render our Preaching in that Place unlawful, or others Hearing there? Doth a Licence Null that great Statute-Law of Christ, That we lift up holy hands in Prayer every where, 1 Tim. 2.8. That we worship God indifferently in all Places! Doth a Licence pollute the Place? or is a Place capable of such defilement, in the dayes of the Gospel? I am ashamed of the Superstition of the Querist in this case! Sir, 'tis lawful to Preach the Gospel in a Consecrated Place, why not in a licensed? And 'tis no less Superstition for such tristing Reasons to exclude the Worship of God out of any( otherwise convenient Place) than to confine or limit it to, I know not what, holy Places, as others do. Nay, moreover, my Preaching with a Licence becomes also unlawful if the Queries can prove it. Strange conjuration certainly, in that small script of Paper to disoblige us from so great a Duty! But why do I dwell upon the Confutation of such a trifle? Permission by whomsoever( nay, were it the Pope himself who should vouchsafe it, which I am sure he never will) cannot change the nature of our Duty. And I must say again: We cannot own that contrariety of Spirit, that greatness of Stomach which will only serve God when and where it is forbidden, and maugre an Allowance of Freedom, practise our Worship in opposition.  
Lastly, It was lawful for the Jews with thankfulness, to make use of the Proclamation of Cyrus, to Return and build the Temple and set up the Worship of God, Ezra 1.1, &c. And when Artaxerxes had by a contrary Decree obstructed the Work, chap. 4. 17. They quarreled not with Darius for re-inforcing the first Decree, and making a Counter Edict to the Second, chap. 6. 1, &c. What is there in the King's Declaration more than in those Decrees? or in our Licences, than in their Acceptance of and closure with them? I confess the Jews being once at work, continued therein; or reassumed it after some Cessation, even while they lay under Artaxerxes his discouragement. And so did we, as we might, build the Temple of Jesus Christ in the day of our Restraint, winch the Declaration acknowledgeth. But we will build, as the Jews did, when we have Permission also; till the Querist produce more convincing Arguments against our practise, than we have yet seen or heard.  
I proceed now to consider the Queries as far as material to our business, though I must prosess there's little or nothing in them of weight, or real concernment as to the case in hand.  
Query 1. First 'tis Queried, Whether the Liberty given to the Papists, being absolute and free, and ours Conditional and Restrictive, be not a ground to conceive the Indulgence of Protestant Recusants only a cover, the better to countenance what is more really granted them.  
Reply. Well! Suppose this Query; grant the whole of it: yet doth it not prove our accepting Licences unlawful. What if an unlawful Intention be cloaked under a lawful Pretence? May we not therefore make use of that Pretence for a better end?  
Further, I Reply; We are not concerned what the secret Design may be, so long as the thing is good. If our Refusal of a Licence might prevent the Indulgence of Papists, there were more in the Query than I can see. But that we ought to refuse our Liberty, because they have theirs, when our refusal of Licences will not prejudice their Freedom; let the Querist prove at his leisure.  
Besides, I understand not the phrase that Liberty is more really granted to them than us. Have not we public and they only Private Allowance? Do not we really enjoy the benefit of the Declaration? And shall we scruple whether or no it be really given? Is not that really given which I am really possessed of, as a free gift? If by really you mean cordially, sincerely, you wept yourself. Do you know the heart of the King? Are you not to judge thereof by his Expressions( till the contrary appear) which are more favourable unto us, than them? Why do you insinuate Jealousies? In fine, we are thankful for the honour put upon us to be public in our Meetings. And we esteem it our advantage, having thereby opportunity of making our Innocence in Principle and Worship known to all Observers. The want whereof was formerly our disadvantage, and an hindrance to the Gospel.  
Your superadded Considerations I wave for their evil savour, and want of sobriety.  
Only to the Third I must say that you speak without Book. What passage in the Declaration inviteth the jesuits and Seminary Priests? And what if they come into England now? Did they not so do before the Declaration? If both then, and now, they assume a Freedom not publicly granted them, Charity would judge them more bold than welcome.  
And as to the Query itself, I must deny the Indulgence of Papists to be more absolute than our. Show the Conditions by which we are restrained, more than they. Will you say a Licence is a Condition? If it be, 'tis so just and lawful, that we judge it our security and advantage above them. Hard terms indeed! to have our Liberty warranted under his Majesties Hand and Seal, to produce in our Defence upon all occasions.  
Query 2. He inquireth again, Whether the Indulgence to the Nonconformists, is not tendered upon such Conditions, as may involve the Accepters thereof in the guilt of much sin?  
Reply. A grand Question, and well stated! Whether we may contract guilt hereby? not whether we do become guilty? There is it seems a possibility of managing a Licence unto Sin. But is there not also a possibility of avoiding that guilt? The Inquirers Conscience likely began to reluct. He cannot say we do sin herein, but may. A goodly pretence to make Proselytes by! A fair Plea to attempt the scattering of Christians, and breach of Churches. There may be sin in a Licence, or it may follow thereon: therefore withdraw from the licenced, therefore be ye separate. But what if I retort, There may be no sin Consequential, there is no sin in taking a Licence: therefore if any poor Soul he persuaded by the Querist, it is seduced, it is deceived, and the Querist must give an account of the Imposture to him who judgeth righ●eously. What, Sir, dare you attempt so high, upon the sandy foundation of a May-be?  
Well! that a may-be of Sin is in the Licences, the Querist undertakes to prove. To which end he sisteth the Declaration, and concludeth, that by all means we must consent to all Expressions therein. Goodly work! I had thought our Consent to so much of the Declaration as concerneth us, might serve our turn. But the Querist's logic infereth our approbation of all. It seems every person who hath Money out upon Bond, or a Farm, or House let to Lease, or is any way concerned in Contracts or Affairs of Right, or otherwise; must consent to every Phrase and Expression in the Instruments of Law belonging thereto. Or, to come more close: Every man, if any such there be, who alloweth not a Licence, or approveth some Reasonings of the Queries to that end; must approve all the Nonsense therein, and conclude every Consideration thereof, solid Argument, and all the hard Censures thereof, good and wholesome. Hold Sir! reflect I pray upon this bold Hypothesis seriously, and I dare promise, you will change your judgement, or hazard an Opinion that you have none at all.  
Well! lest the may in the Query should not be significant enough, the next Paragraph addeth, That our Address for Approbation of Preachers, and Allowance of Places[ May necessary] involve into an Assent to all Expressions in the Declaration. What may and necessary too? A Contradiction in the terms. Possibly necessary we must Assent to all in the Declaration. If you w ll spare the may, I deny the Assertion. It is down-right false. Make the Proposition universal, and the error will appear. He who accepteth of an Advantage or privilege by a Law or Declaration, Bond, Lease, or other Instrument; must approve all particular matters and expressions contained therein. The Accepters of Licences approve the advantage of the Liberty offered in the Declaration. Ergo, They approve all matters and expressions therein contained.  
Sir, Prove the mayor Proposition, and you shall be an Oracle.  
What follows, is a Repetition of sundry Phrases and Sentences in the Declaration, and therewith the Querist doughtily concludes we yield them all.  
But why so? Is not our Profession and practise contrary to many of them? Doth not the Declaration suppose us to continue Nonconformists still? Why do you assert without proof? Let us attend briefly unto particulars.  
Inference 1. First he tells us, The King's Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical is asserted in the Declaration, and we by accepting a Licence, own it.  
Reply. I must say the King's Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical, as stated in the fourth Postulatum, is no such ugly Bugbear as you make it. They who soberly peruse the Oath of Supremacy, and its Explication by Queen Elizabeths Council, and Learned Men, on that occasion, will be of this persuasion. Well, admit the King hath a Supremacy; yet that my Acceptation of a Licence infereth it, I deny. For my Conscience in Religion is exercised about my Duty, and whosoever gives me the opportunity to discharge it, be it a Turk or a foreign Conqueror, I will( through Grace) do my Duty, though I own not their Authority.  
You tell us in the next broken Sentence, The Parliaments have given the King a Supremacy in these things. Then by the Law of the Nation it is His, and may be owned, wherein it doth not entrench upon the Lord Christ's Supremacy; as in our case it doth not.  
Inference 2. By taking our Licences, we confess that the King hath a Legal Right, to suspend old Laws and make new.  
Reply. Sir, There is no foundation for this Conclusion in the Declaration; nor can I find any colour for it there. However I deny the Consequence. That his Majesty may suspend the penalty of Ecclesiastical Laws, the Parliaments have recognized: but that he may make new Laws, I read not. He may also( Quoad hic & nunc, in particular cases) suspend the penalty of other Statute Laws; but that he may therefore make new Laws is a Notion, Sir, wherewith yourself hath first blessed the World. To null Old Laws and make New, belongs to the same Power, and an Inference from the one to the other, is natural. But to conclude, from a Power to suspend the penalty of some Laws, to a Power to make other Laws, is an effect of the strength of your fancy, and not any commendation of your Reason. Several of his Majesties predecessors have suspended Laws occasionally, but none of them thereupon made any.  
Infer. 3. To accept a Licence makes the King Head in Ecclesiastical matters. For we come to him for Approbation of Ministers and Allowance of Places, which are both Ecclesiastical matters, and proper only for the Church to order.  
Reply. How we aclowledge the King's Supremacy, hath been above declared, as, how it is intended in all the Instruments wherein that style is used. His Headship is much the s●me, unless he be made Head of the National Church of England; to which we readily yield the Prerogative to assign its own Head: the Scriptures having determined ours ( But he approveth Ministers and alloweth Places, which the Church only ought to order.)  
What? Is the Church only to Appoint Meeting Places? By what Text? Where is the Scripture-Rule? I had thought we might lift up clean hands to God in every Place, who ever Allow or Appoint it. And as for Ministers, his Majesty undertaketh not to approve who are sit, and who not, in respect of their Gifts and Abilities for their Work: But Approveth all that come as to their Indempuity from the Laws. Which though the Declaration call Approving, yet the Licence interpreteth by Permitting, viz. That he shall not be Prosecuted by the Acts otherwise in force against him.  
Infer. 4. We consent that all disproved Meetings are Seditious Conventicles.  
Reply. I am weary of considering such incoherent deductions. Is our Licence a Subscription to this Point? Have we by accepting it, set our Hands to the particulars of the Declaration? Pray, Sir, speak intelligibly! make the matter plain, demonstrate the dependence of the Conclusion upon the Premises; Evidence the Contexture of receiving a Licence, with our consent that your Meeting is Seditious: that I may have a little to say for myself, when I shall become your Convert. In the interim, Sir, if your Behaviour and Principles vindicate you from this Charge, I shall not Censure you, nor I suppose any that are licenced.  
Infer. 5. Again, The Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, is in the Declaration styled the Basis, Rule, and Standard of the general public Worship of God in the Na●ion; this, by taking a Licence, we yield to be good Doctrine.  
Reply. But pray, Sir, seeing his Majesty hath resolved that no other Doctrine or Government shall be used in Parochial Churches, than those of the Church of England, why may we not believe that they shall be the Basis, Rule, and Standard of the Worship and Manner there observed? Yet, that it ought to be so, or that my Licence infereth my consent thereto, is yet to be proved. It seems, whether we will or no, we must hold this resolution of his Majesty for good Doctrine. Though I profess, for my own part, I judge it not matter of Doctrine, but of Fact. That general public Worship shall be de facto regulated by Episcopal Canons, the King declareth; but that we, who take Licences, shall approve this to be good Doctrine, or that it is Doctrine at all, is not declared.  
Infer. 6. By taking a Licence, We approve the Toleration of an Interest, which by Principle and practise declareth they ought not to keep Faith with heretics; and by virtue of a Subservency to a foreign Power, are to stand disposed to kill and murder their Rulers, and massacre their Neighbours, burn Cities and Countries, whereof France, Piedmont, Poland, Ireland, and London, can give ample and undeniable testimony: Witnessing that they are Beasts and Bruits rather than Men, and to tolerate their Religion, it to tolerate Sedition, and to introduce all Confusion and Desolation.  
Reply. Bona Verba! Taking a Licence is approving Papists, &c. Si accusasse satis quis innocens? All this I must believe upon the Querist's bare word, for proof of my consent hereto there is none. The very Declaration, though it tolerate the Papists, doth not own these horrid things, yet my Licence infers my consent thereto. If I accept a Licence, I consent to the Toleration of Papists, and all their Abominations. The Consequence is denied, and I expect its Demonstration. I hearty wish that no Doctrines but those of Papists did introduce Confusion, Anarchy and Blood. All that I know of the licenced, abhor these things and Doctrines; and I am confident all of them do so whom I know not. If the Querist do detest them, he is the fitter to cast this ston, but not at us.  
Infer. 7. Taking a Licence, countenanceth the Invitation of all foreigners without distinction, in violation of all the known wholesome Laws to the contrary.  
Reply. It hath been long the complaint of wise men, That the Non-incouragement of foreigners, is one of the greatest lets to the flourishing of Trade among us. Our Land is more fertile, than that the Natives can devour its Fruits; whereas if Strangers assisted more considerably, the country would find the advantage. Besides, they bring with them their Trade and Interest; which the Low-Countries considering, have improved to the enriching of themselves beyond what any of their Neighbours( neglecting that Expedient) ever attained.  
What wholesome Laws have been Enacted to prevent the Settlement of Strangers among us, I have not searched, nor am concerned: my business lying else-where. Neither know I how wholesome they are: I question not their Seasonableness when Enacted. But, Sir, Laws are changeable, as their occasions vary. And it hath been the Wisdom of Governours to let them fall by dissuetude, as they saw convenient. And possibly, his Majesty is apprehensive of the disadvantage of a rigorous enforcement of the Laws pointed at; which might occasion that Expression in the Declaration.  
If you harp upon the same string, as in the third enforcement of the former Query: my Answer is; That unless I had better reason to believe that jesuits and Seminary Priests are invited over, than you think fit to give, I may, at least, suspend my thoughts about it. However it is again denied, that taking a Licence, argues my consent to this encouragement of Foreigners; take it in what sense you please.  
Infer. 8. By taking a Licence we declare a freedom to give up all Nonconforming Brethren, who cannot go with us for Licences, as Seditious, to all imaginable severity threatened against them.  
Reply. This is like the rest, an injurious Imputation. It seems you expect that the Body of professors in the Nation, should refuse to accept this Indulgence, lest they expose a nameless Querist; who is not at all concerned that they hereby much more expose themselves. What think you, Sir, of those who judge themselves bound in Conscience to take Licences? Must they lay down their Duty, to please the Querist? Besides, Prisons and Banishment, and Confiscation, and Death, &c. attend us if the Laws be not suspended, and a Licence not accepted: and all this we must be content to undergo for the Querist's sake; whose sweet, tender, charitable, obliging Spirit breathing out against us the imputation of Apostates, Persecutors &c. no question lays an engagement upon us, to forego our Liberty, and all to gratify him. And, what if his Stomach were as weak as his judgement? Must we not eat, because he hath no appetite? Must we forbear, l●st we expose his nice fancy to a Nausea? Yea, Sir, must the Souls of the Nation be starved, and by the severity of the Laws deprived of Spiritual Food, because your Opinion excepteth against the Dressing? And by all means thousands of Ministers, and many ten thousands of People, are to fall under the scourge, to please your scrupulosity.  
Well, but neither will our forbearance of a Licence bestead the Dissenter, nor doth our acceptance thereof expose him. And why may not I as well argue, That our universal grateful acknowledgement of his Majesties Favour herein, is, and will be judged a balance to the weakness of the Refuser? For, what proportion is there between the number of the one and other? My real judgement is, according to the best information that I have had, That the whole Collection of those who forbear Licences, amounteth not in the whole Nation, to an equality with some single separate Congregations. Let the sober judge whether it can be rationally expected that such multitudes should part with their Liberty( if it were matter of Liberty only) that one or two scattered here and there be not displeased. But indeed, the Querist is alone in this Censure, others are content to bear with us, as we do with them.  
And we are willing to exercise all love, mercy, and forbearance toward the Querist also: We abhor the thought of imputing Sedition to him, nor doth our closure with the Declaration infer it, muchless dare we expose him to the Laws, for a refusal of a Licence. We hope we have otherwise learnt Christ. O●ly I wonder at this complaint of his, seeing the Indulgence is equally enjoyed by all; so far is the Querist from being exposed. In the interim, 'tis we are exposed, our Churches, our People, not only by their Scandals laid on us by the Queries, but otherwise, which I care not to mention. In all this, the Querist is innocent, and we guilty: Why? because he had the advantage of complaining first. The Aggressor generally prepossesseth the minds of Men with his story, right or wrong, whereby they are fortified against any impression from the Defendant's Plea.  
At length there is a transient flash, or show of proof, that our Licences draw all these Consequences upon us: For( saith the Querist) how fully do the Scriptures, as well as known Experience, evidence this truth: That the guilt of other mens sin, is contracted as well by silence and connivance, inference and consequence, as actual contrivance and active transacting it ourselves.  
How fully the Scripture gives countenance to the Querist's design, or warrant to his Opinion concerning us, will be seasonable to weigh, when such Scriptures are produced, as we are here threatened with. And I have a little confidence, that their unreadiness will much procrastinate a Second Edition of the Queries.  
In the interim, I dare Affirm, That we contract none of the aforesaid guilt by any of the ways mentioned; There are deductions which flow freely and naturally from Premises; and there are Inferences also which by the force of illogical reasoning, heightened by a fiery zeal in our warm Sophister, are unkindly drawn from out innocent practise. But, Sir, let the Extract cool a little, till the igneous atoms insinuated into it evaporate: and our Uprightness will be thereby more visibly evident. In a word, I am not afraid of any Inference legitimately drawn from a Licence accepted: the afore-mentioned appear to have no dependence thereon.  
But, We are commanded positively to keep far from an evil matter, and as abhorring the evil thing, and contemning the vile Person, to separate; come out from, and not touch the one as well a the other; to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but reprove them rather; there being no medium, it seems, between reproof and fellowship.  
A miserable Partition of the question! You have not yet so much as undertaken to prove a Licence in itself evil( but only the pretended Consequences of it) yet here it is supposed, and we commanded( upon pain of the Querist's censure) to keep far from the evil matter, &c. Sir, when you prove the Licence sinful, wee'l attend to your counsel; till then we are not so charitable as to grant what you so hearty beg, and prove so weakly.  
There may be a Mystery in the Vile Person from whom we are to separate, whom having no acquaintance with, I desire the Querist to demonstrate to me, that I may avoid him.  
Again, We bless and bow the knee for, go in and reap the benefit of the Declaration so evil, without any witness against the same. A Sentence well worded! What? have we blessed and worshipped an Idol? I am loth to express what I apprehended of the boldness of this charge. The testimony expected will be deferred till you prove the evil insinuated.  
At last, the accepting of Licences is accused of positive guilt, as well as consequential; and it is worth our while to observe where the charge is grounded, viz. The address to such an interest for favour of this sort, upon the terms tendered, cannot but contract sin against Christ, and our Generation, in contradicting the work and witness of the day. For hath not the late controversy, and Contest managed in these Nations, lain between Christ and Antichrist: witnessed by former Declarations, Protestations, Prints, &c.  
I hope the Querist intendeth not the late War by the controversy. If he do, I must tell him, it was not between Christ and Antichrist, but about Civil Differences. And it is very unseasonable to rak among the could ashes thereof, in which there cannot be found( that I know of) a living spark. Only how the coherence lies between that Wir, and acceptation of the Indulgence, I have not eyes enough to discern. Pray, Sir, bring them a little nearer together in your next, and tie them fast; or they will not endure each other, till you can call a witness.  
But possibly, this is only my conjecture. You intend our controversy with Conformity. Here you say Christ and Antichrist were in the lists, and for any thing I know they are so still. For, are the Combatants agreed? Doth a Licence reconcile them? Nothing less! It hath indeed procured a Cessation of Arms. We are not now over-run by our Assailants, as formerly. But the cause continues as it was. Our contention was by Faith and Patience, wherein the Accepters of Licences, with as much constancy( and possibly far more sobriety) as the Querist( if I may judge by the Spirit of his Paper) have acquitted themselves. That the Lord hath made his Majesty the Instrument to accomplish an intermission of Hostility against us( who had no offensive Weapons or Principles, only were guarded by Innocence, under the Protection of Providence) we aclowledge and accept with all gratefulness. Nor is our Address to this Interest a laying down our Testimony; I have proved afore, that Magistracy, as such, is not Antichristian, but an Ordinance of God's.  
I add moreover, That the present Indulgence is such a signal countenance to Religion, and so suitable( in the main) to the Spirit of the Gospel, that I cannot but esteem itself a grand Testimony against Antichristianism: if Persecution, and Oppression, for Conscience sake, be Antichristian.  
As for the Testimony of the day in Nonconformity, how do we contradict it? Is our accepting the Permission of a free Exercise of Nonconformity the contradiction thereof? Yea forsooth, We are not Nonconformists, because we are content to be Indulged in Nonconformity. Only there is something further offensive in it, which the nimble invention of the Querist blesseth us in the display of; that otherwise had never entered into our heads, I am sure never shall into our hearts. We own the Interest that gives this Favour. Yea, Sir, we do, though in your fancy it be a contradiction of our dayes witness. I am hearty glad your mind is known, that I may put in my Negative against it.  
Now, Sir, having received the favour of your rare Notion concerning the witness of the day, I cannot in civility and gratitude deny the imparting of mine, because you are a friend, and may improve it. I think the testimony of a particular day doth not always consist in our distance from one individual point, but that it fixeth in a middle between two extremes. The Sun maintaineth its course in the ecliptic, neither inclining to the North or South of the zodiac, but steering exactly between them. So doth Truth equally aversate each extremity. If Conformity lie as Scilla on the one hand, I am sure there is a severe unscriptural Nonconformity on the other. We are not willing to split our Consciences on that, or be Ingulf'd in this; and therefore in a tremulous motion, fearing both, avoid them indifferently, without allaying our testimony. If, Sir, you be concerned in this state of the Question, I cannot help it. Yet for a sweetening, I add, That what good thing we find in those who take either of those ways, we can hearty approve it; walking by the same Rule according to what we have attained. I omit the consideration of the last Paragraph under this Second Query: not only because nothing new, or unanswered, occurred therein; but for another reason well known to the Querist.  
Query 3. Whether or no there is not good cause to judge that the tentender'd Indulgence comprehendeth some real ensnaring designment against the Lords People.  
Reply. To give countenance to the affirmation of this Question, five Arguments are urged. Two of them full of insinuations of mistrust, and excitation of a Spirit of jealousy. All, so inconclusive and improper as to the design of the Queries, that I wonder how the Querist stumbled upon them, lying so far out of his way.  
In general, therefore let me ask the Querist, Did not your own fancy dress up this Bugbear scruple? Were you not troubled at our quiet enjoyment of Liberty in a way which you apprpve not? And was not this fancy sent among us to scar us? It seems if you cannot hinder our Peace utterly, you'l disturb it, and us in its enjoyment. But why do you affright us with dreams of this nature?  
Neither do I think your Reasons persuasive. Indeed, Sir, they are Weapons to be wielded with either hand, right or left. Capable of persuading pro or con, which the Disputant pleaseth.  
There's War with the Dutch, Ergo, a design against Nonconformists.  
The Declaration confesseth a frustration of all Attempts against Nonconformists by Coercion: Ergo, Indulgence must destroy them.  
Means are used to oblige the heads of three sorts of Nonconformists, Ergo &c.  
Lastly, The Nation continues as wicked as ever, or rather is worse, Ergo &c.  
Truly, we may infer from each of these Premises, the contrary to the Querist's Conclusion with as much probability, as his. But these are good Arguments where the Querist's Trade lies.  
Well! Suppose there be a design; can this disprove the lawfulness of a Licence? May not a design be countenanced as well by lawful things as unlawful? Or suppose we forbear a Licence; will this prevent the design? Or doth our acceptance countenance the Plot? Nothing less! Sir, your want of a Licence will not defend you in such a case. Nor will my Licence expose me. May I not be as wary with a Licence, as without it? Is it not as possible to secure myself from violence now, as formerly? Pray, Sir, whither tend your reasonings? where shall we find their scope?  
Query 4. Whether the pretended Indulgence is not a straitning rather than enlargement of Christian Liberty, & c?  
Reply. I believe not! My reason is founded upon the manner of the Coercion before; which compared with any restraint likely to follow upon the Indulgence, is very considerable. If it may please God, I desire any illegal course may be taken to hinder my Liberty, rather than what bears the form and style of a Law. For, though in the concerns of Conscience, Laws are not Laws indeed: yet my Case is clearer, and my Way plainer, if I be Persecuted without, and against Law, than by, or with it.  
'Tis granted moreover, That Christ hath purchased a Freedom for us to Worship him in Spirit and in Truth. Yea, he hath asserted, and providentially maintained it for the body of Nonconformists in these Nations, notwithstanding contrary endeavours. But how this Freedom is allayed by a Licence, by a Permission to enjoy it: because my own judgement informs me not, I shall attend our Querist's account, viz.  
1. Hereby we must by our own consent, be put under the Cognizance and inspection of our enemies.  
Who are our enemies here intended, I am not careful to inquire. But certainly our Worship of God is such, so holy, so innocent, that I esteem it its commendation to be known even by its Adversaries. Sir, it is not our Worship and Principles, but our unsuitable Conversation, our personal failings, that create offences. And I doubt not, if our Observers knew the way of Nonconformity better, their anger would be much allayed, and we should have fairer quarter with them. Nay, possibly we should sooner gain them thereby, than they get advantage against us.  
The Gospel was never intended for privacy. Christ preached to his Disciples in the ear, and in Secret occasionally; but left it in charge with them, to preach it as they might upon the house tops, that is, publicly and openly, Veritas non querit angulos. Truth abhorreth Privacy, so doth that Gospel of Truth which we preach. And I must profess we have no Points to inculcate upon our Hearers, which I dare not( if I may Preach any thing publicly) proclaim in the greatest and most mixed Audience. Let them who are afraid to have their Doctrine and Worship brought to the touchstone, and who Preach things of other concern than Salvation, or liable to Civil or just Ecclesiastical Censure: Let them retire into the secret Chambers, and say Christ is there, but it must not be known. Let them, I say, who led aside the simplo, creep into houses when they may be public: I desire my enemies( if I have any) may know my Doctrine & Manner. Wisdom is justified of her Children. To be known therefore is our desire, and privilege no straitning. Let the works of darkness be done in darkness. They that sleep, sleep in the night; and they that are drunk, are drunk, in the night. We never retired for fear of the discovery of our practise or Principle. If the Querist's Way and Doctrine may not endure inspection, I judge the course he takes more wise than innocent. Yet I wonder that fear of inspection should have any influence upon his undaunted Spirit; who prosecuteth us so severely for only a groundless suspicion of timorousness.  
2. But as the King's metres and Preachers, you must be liable to his Appointments; especially in the observation of his Publick-dayes and times, under penalty of forfeiting your Liberty.  
Why is your eye evil without cause? What clause in the Declaration gives countenance to such an Inference? Is there a word, a tittle therein to this purpose? Yea there is not the least occasion given either of this or the two following Inferences. In the former Query you endeavoured to stir up jealousy in the Subject; and in this you seem to put Weapons into the hand of the King; both will thank you for it when they see reason.  
We can without Order or a Command, nay we do press the Lord with the concernments of our Nation. We have a Rule to Pray for the Peace of the City, the Kingdom wherein we are, that in the peace thereof we may have Peace. We can also bless God for National Mercies upon the same ground. We can lay the state of the Kingdom( as far as we understand it, yea indeed absolutely) at the feet of God. But that our Licence formally bindeth us hereto, is denied. Yea, He who therein gives us Liberty about things in his judgement of no less concern, we believe leaves us to our freedom in this also; supposing it a Point of Nonconformity.  
3. You add, Hereby by our own agreement an ensnaring temptation as one of the conditions; you are to be liable to the King's Censures continually if you do any thing derogatory to the Doctrine, Discipline, or Government of the established Church, which must needs expose you continually.  
Reply. When will you make your Inferences clear? How doth this appear to be our Agreement? Where, and when did we sign it? Or, doth the Declaration express or intimate our Consent to these things? The King indeed declareth, That if after this his Clemency and Indulgence, any of his Subjects shall presume to abuse the Liberty, and sh ll Preach Seditiously, or to the derogation of the Doctrine or Government of the established Church, &c. He doth hereby give them warning, and declare, That he will proceed against them with all imaginable severity, &c. This is indeed a Declaration of his Intention and Resolve in such cases, but implies not the Offenders consent.  
But suppose our Licence did imply a Consent to that threatening, it is no straitning of our Liberty comparatively.  
Before, we were proceeded against whether we preached Sedition or not, whether we derogated from the Church of England or not; now only if we do: we have then by the Declaration gotten so much ground, which we had not before.  
The truth is, we think ourselves much secured by this Clause; for it supposeth our Nonconformity to have no natural tendency to Sedition, or the defamation of others. For which Candour we humbly thank his Majesty, professing we are strangers to Sedition, and abhor it; yea, that we ever were, and shall be still tender of those that differ from us. Hoping, yea, believing, That to assert our own Principles, and live up thereto, is not by the Declaration judged such derogation; because we are allowed Nonconformity, while we are forbid to derogate from, &c.  
4. By our Licences we are continually liable( when Meeting-Places and Preachers are in the King's Books) to Mulcts, Fines, or such Acts of Violence, as from time to time they may be disposed to.  
A rare Invention to overthrow our Indulgence: His Majesty refuseth, nay forbiddeth the payment of a penny to his Servants employed about the Licences; yet will demand Money himself of those that enjoy the privilege of them. We cannot believe that a vouchsafement so Royal doth proceed from a fordid Principle. However our many Sufferings with other Disadvantages, have reduced us to such an ebb of coin, as will abundantly secure the generality of us from this fear. If the Querist's Purse be in danger, and have occasioned this Scruple, he is( for all a no Licence) more concer'nd than most of us.  
Query 5. Whether our Liberties Civil as Christian, are not hereby given up and betrayed?  
Reply. This Query is already answered, as to its substance, in the third Postulatum. Yet it is beside the business. The real state of our controversy is: Whether I may sinlesly accept a Licence? Not whether the Declaration encroach upon our Civil Rights? Nay, Sir, let me set the Scruple a little straighter yet. What think you, If my Christian Liberty interfere with my enjoyment of Civil Rights, whether am I to hazard that or this? I think the Rule is clear, we are to leave Father and Mother, House and Land, &c. and cleave to Christ. How many have forsaken their Inheritances to seek Gospel-Liberty? But the Querist will have us to let go our Christian Liberty, to peserve civil right.  
But supposing we refuse Licences, will that secure our Civil Rights? Nothing less! The Law hath taken them all from us. Fines, Imprisonments, Seizures, Banishment, Outlawry, yea Death itself is our hire by Law. Indulgence defendeth us from these Laws, and thereby continueth our National privileges, so far is it from taking them away.  
Only one Consideration is subjoined to abet the Affirmative of this Query, viz. By accepting a Licence, we give the King an Arbitrary Power, we aclowledge he may dispense with Old Laws, and make New. For by the same rule that he may make a New Law for my pretended good and advantage, he may make another for my real hurt.  
Strange! Did the French and belgic Churches make his Majesties Predecessor Arbitrary, by accepting an Indulgence of the free exercise of their manner of Worship? Yet the Laws were thereby, ipso facto, suspended; I mean so many of them as respected that Case. Do we make his Majesty Arbitrary, by accepting his free offer to suspend the Execution of Ecclesiastical Laws, which Himself declareth inherent in himsels, and Parliaments have recognised to belong to his Throne?  
Sir, My work lies in other Studies. Niceness about Laws belongs not to me, nor private Christians, where a Salvo of God's Authority is preserved. But in this case we have a sure determination, if a King's Declaration, and the Parliaments Record be of weight; which for my own part I prefer above your private judgement. I am sorry, Sir, that unintelligible Expression is again repeated, That the King in this Indulgence makes a new Law. You have a peculiar fancy that a Declaration is a Law. But whoever imagined it, save yourself? Or, where is there an Author to be found affirming, That because his Majesty puts out a Declaration, therefore he can make Law, or by the same rule? I pray satisfy me herein, before you expect my consent, That accepting a Licence abetteth Arbitrariness.  
The Querist hath finished his main Interrogatories, and addresseth himself to answer three doughty Objections against his own judgement.  
Object. Liberty of Preaching the Gospel is a most desirable thing, and to be acknowledged with thankfulness.  
Answ. His Reply is, But as for this Liberty in Masquerade, or this Restraint rather unmasked, there seems to be as little reason with thankfulness to own it, as upon the terms tendered to receive it. Let the Readers judge, whether the Reply be either intelligible, or satisfactory. I blushy to review it.  
Obj. Are not the Persecuting Bishops made toothless, and the Oppressing Courts put down? Is not this a Mercy thankfully to be acknowledged.  
Answ. The Querist replieth, Yes sure as coming from God, but not as from them, in a design to make way for the Inquisition, or some other m●schief, there will be little cause to bless them for it. It will be time enough to praise the fair day at night.  
Habemus fatentem reum. Our Querist instead of answering the Objection, yieldeth our whole cause. First, he telleth us, We ought to bless God for this Indulgence. What? may we bless him for it, and not accept it? Secondly, he alloweth us to make our acknowledgements to the Instruments used by God in the matter, supposing there be no design upon us. And Thirdly, the whole difficulty about our Licences being suspended upon the suspicion of a design; their lawfulness is thereby granted, only expedience is questioned.  
There followeth a long Paragraph, out of which, all I can gather material is, Supposing the late Coercion had taken place to cut us short, ought we to receive Liberty from them that did it, to Preach the Gospel upon any terms? No, by no means! for they preached the Gospel louder in Prison, and at the Stake, than they that accept Liberty.  
How Orthodox this Doctrine is, I hope, Sir, you will discover upon a review of it. Because our Liberty of Preaching is for a time violently taken from us, we may sullenly refuse the freedom thereof when offered. What had become of Religion long before this day, if the Apostles and Primitive Ministers had been of your mind, is easy to conclude. But they were strangers to such a Spirit. They accepted D●liverance out of their Prisons, when they might have it; and returned to their Work with joy. So must we.  
The Martyrs, I confess, gave in a great Testimony to the Gospel by their Suffering. But that their Testimony would have been clear, or accepted with God, supposing they had refused a proferr'd Indulgence; is marvelous questionable. Nor was their Suffering properly Preaching the Gospel. That Text, Heb. 11.35. is miserable abused. The Q erist tells us, They did not accept Deliverance upon mean, low, unworthy terms: insinuating that it was generosity and noble Conditions which they stood upon; whereas if you read Maccab. 7.1, &c. you shall find no terms were offered but wicked, such as by the positive Command of God, no Jew might accept. Neither will this fancy( of granted) serve the Q●erist's turn. For we are so far from being limited to wicked sinful terms, or low and unworthy; that our Indulgence is perfectly free without any Condition at all.  
Obj. The Querist again Objecteth, That the refusers of Licences, are more nice than wise, stumble at straws, and make Mountains of Mole-hills. If a Thief should rob us, may we not receive part of our Money again?  
Answ. This light Objection puzzleth the Querist, yet he adventureth, very unhappily, to obviate it, in both its branches. F●rst, he saith, A Licence appeareth a little thing to a Superficial view; but yet if we look into it, we find it no small matter. For a glance with the Eye is but in appearance a small thing, yet the Heart accompanying, it contracteth great evil. A touch with the Hand is but a small business, yet it defileth greatly, &c. A little Leaven leaveneth a great lump. It was a little Unbelief of the Heads of the Tribes of Israel, that kept them out of Canaan, &c. I cannot but observe the ingenuity of the Q●erist, in this place only, visible. Finding the two first Objections too hard for his logic, they are kindly yielded. But he is resolved others shall not serve him so. This therefore is fixed on, either invented by himself, and consequently gently tempered( for 'tis unfit he should raise a Spirit more subtle than himself) or taken from the mouth of some young Sophister, who was afraid to press too hard upon his Adversary, lest he should be retaliated.  
The Objector seems to confess Licences sinful, only they are but peccadilloes, but Straws and Mole-hills in comparison, and consequently dispensable. For, all the Instances given, are of things evil in their own nature: only in appearance lighter than in dead.  
This advantage makes the Q●erist bestir himself briskly. But, poor man, he loseth his ground for want of skill to manage it.  
First, instead of arguing from the nature of sin to our obligation to avoid it, he pleadeth from the effect. A sinful glance is not impleaded because sinful, but because it makes way for great guilt. A little Leaven is not by the Querist's reasoning unlawful for its intrinsical sowreness; but its diffusion through the whole lump. It seems he had not compared Matth. 13.33. with 1 Cor. 5.6. The Leaven of the Gospel being good, is commended from its spr●ading prevalency. The Leaven of Sin discommended from the like diffusiveness, not as diffussive solely, but sinful in itself, and yet infections. So that by our Querist's reason, a Licence were lawful, supposing it a little sinful, were there not danger of its spread●ng, and becoming universal. Whereas indeed his cause is granted in the Objection, but he is too civil to accept it. For it sinful at all, the Argument is str●nger from that innate iniquity to its unlawfulness, than from any probable effects, how great soever, likely to slow thence.  
Again, as a further illustration, the little Unbelief of the Heads of the Tribes is mentioned. I am sorry the Querist will expose his unacquaintance with Scripture so grossly, I suppose he is better versed in the other end of the Bible. Pray, Sir, why do you call it a little Unbelief? And why was it a little Unbelief of the Heads of the Tribes? As if the sin were small in itself, and the Heads of the Tribes only guilty, not the People. For your satisfaction, read Numb. 14.1, 2. All the Children of Israel murmured, &c. And compare that Scripture with Heb. 3.17, 18. 1 Cor. 10.10, 11. and you will find it a signal instance of Unbelief. Nor do I find in all the Scripture, any excuse or alleviating expression concerning it. I think the signal punishment of that sin, and its singling out as the instance of Unbelief in those dayes, argue it a great sin.  
Yet, Sir, I utterly deny taking a Licence to be a sin at all, and I believe the innocence thereof proved in this discourse, which at one blow avengeth you of this untoward Objection, and cutteth off your answer with it.  
But as to the second part of the Objection. You say, The case of the Thief is not the Case in hand. True, as for other reasons, so because the resemblance is not the thing. Yet for any thing discoverable in your answer, it may be the case, or somewhat near it. You tell us, That a constrained act performed when we were under the Thief's power, is judged null by the Law. What if it be? Is it therefore unlawful? A promise made to a Thief when we are at his mercy, is not obligatory. But the Law no where saith, we may not receive all or part of our Goods from him, or make a promise in our danger, or perform it afterward if we please. But, Sir, it is an odious comparison, which, because I have a tenderness for you, I dismiss; without taking notice of the bad things in the rest of your Answer.  
There followeth four Queries more, without any additional either explication or confirmation considerable: which bring up the rear, and close the Querist's Paper.  
Query 1. Whether if this be so, that this indeed upon good grounds appears to be a stratagem to introduce Popery, and tends to defile and ensnare so much, to contract guilt and sin, and betrays and destroys rather than enlargeth our Christian or Civil Liberty; whether for any to rejoice in such a thing of nought, to run greedily to them for a supposed favour, which is the quiter contrary; they may not when it is to late, sadly find with the silly Fish they have catched the deadly Hook instead of the goodly Bait, and justly come under the rebuk of the following Scriptures, Prov. 14.15. Isa. 10.20. Prov. 25.26. Isa. 51.13, 14, 15. Heb. 11.25. Hos. 13.2.  
But, what if it be not so? What if we have proved the Queries, as stated by the Querist, false and injurious, both to the Giver and Acceptors of the Indulgence? Have the licenced then cause to complain? Or rather have not Professors just reason to accuse the Querist of an attempt to deceive? What think you of Prov. 14.15. alleged by yourself? Did you not expect simplo Souls would believe your insinuating delusive words? but, Sir, the Prudent have looked better to their goings. Indeed all these Texts, as the Querist orders them, are wickedly abused; being wrested to countenance his idle Queries, and the rest of that Confusion, which thereby, and otherwise, he would impose upon credulous Souls.  
What can he find in Isa. 10.20? Because the Jews might no more lean upon Egypt and Syria, rejecting reliance upon God; therefore we may not take Licences. Is this a leaning upon them that smote us with a neglect of Faith in God? May we not lean upon God, and make use of the Liberty which he sendeth us by Men?  
Is our licencing a falling down before the wicked? as you seem to persuade from Prov. 25.26. Bring forth your strong reasons, and first prove the Charge: then be peremptory. As impertinent is Isa. 51.12, 13, &c. How do you know we act from fear of Men that die? What have we done that argues fear? His Majesty put on no terrible appearance in the Declaration. Nay, he laid down Severity, and spread abroad his Arms to embrace His poor( till then) discouraged Subjects. And must we be afraid of Favour? Besides, The Declaration came out in a season of respite, at least here in the City, insomuch that there was nothing visible likely to affright us; yet you conclude, we must act in fear.  
Well! Because I will not be so across, as the Querist, to contradict all things; be it so! we were afraid; but it was of sin, lest we should by refusing Licences, bid defiance to Providence, like the Querist, and scorn the Mercy offered. We were afraid, of outstanding the opportunity of the day, to work in it while we might, without disturbance.  
Nor is our Licence saying a Confederacy, with I know not whom, to which end you abuse Isa. 8.12. Are there any Articles drawn up between us and any wicked sort of men, to carry on a joint sinful design together? We do indeed resolve to live peaceably and innocently in our places. But this we did before, and it was our Principle from the beginning. I fear, Sir, you understand not the meaning of that Scripture, it may be 'tis too plain for a mystical Head; review it, I pray, and let me know your mind hereafter.  
Heb. 11.25. is nextly forced upon the stage. And it tells us, Moses choose rather to suffer Affliction with the People of God, than to enjoy the Pleasures of Sin for a season. Prove our Liberty sinful, and the pleasure or respite of it wicked, and wee l give back our Licences. If Moses could, without disobeying the positive Command of God, have continued in Egypt, or enjoyed the pleasures of it innocently, it had been his duty to stay there; at least matter of Liberty to stay or go, which he pleased.  
show us any Rule for refusing the Indulgence,( for we know none) and we are ready to take our Lot with the Querist. otherwise, we dare not suffer like Fools, when we may be free sinlesly.  
I beseech you, Sir, why was not Gen. 1.1. put instead of Hos. 13.2. likely your nimble Invention might have forged a better Plea thence. Pray what Calves do we kiss? What Idols do we worship in taking a Licence? Speak with understanding! I cannot conceive what colour of advantage you have against us by this Scripture. Sir, it were very just to retort these Scriptures upon yourself, and as easy as just; but I abhor the imitation of your loose discourse.  
I do not now wonder at the boldness of Papists pretending to fetch the reason of Worship of Angels, Just●fication by Works, Purgatory, Penance, the Pope's Vicegerency, Supremacy, Infallibility, &c. from Scripture. Seeing the Querist( I hope, he is a Protestant for his own sake) argues thence for his fancy's with equal impertinence. If this be reasoning, there is nothing necessary to the Faculty but, Ignorance and Confidence.  
Query 2. 'Tis again questioned, Whether it is not much more mean and unworthy, for the anointed Kings and Priests of God to debase themselves, to ask leave of the bottonles Pit-Bishops to perform their Office; than for a King to ask leave of a cobbler to execute his Function? And whether it is not as bad to go to the Beast, as to the Whore, for Approbation and Allowance to serve the Lamb?  
Reply. Should thy lies make men hold their peace, and when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed? Let the Spiritual or Carnal Reader( I care not which) be Umpire, the indifferent or pre●udiced discern. Have we asked leave of the Bishops to Preach? With what Conscience is this alleged? And, whom, do you make the Beast? I dare not descant upon the expression for your sake, Sir.  
— Pudet haec opprobria nobis,  
V●l dici potuisse.—  
Query 3. You proceed. Whether such wantonness, and unbelief, are not the sad fruits of former Apostacy's from the Work and Cause of God, and sad Omens of further and sharper trials at the door?  
Reply. Taking a Licence was from fear before, now from wantonness. Cant he same action be the result of both these at once? 'Tis impossible! Pray, Sir, though you be resolved to contradict us, be a little more consistent with yourself.  
It seems by this Query we were Apostates before this late day: and we must believe it, or uncivily put the Querist to an unlikely proof. In the interim, I cannot but observe the charity of the man, who spareth none of these sweet, obliging kind terms, lest we should complain of hard usage. I can scarce forbear to gather a List of all the Christian T●tles wherewith he treats us in his Paper, that the Reader at once may view and admire the gentle air which our Author breaths: but too much of that already. Only take notice what kind of Apostates we are. Not from the Truth or Worship of the Gospel; but the Work and Cause of God. Words of great significancy, which I am loth to unriddle.  
Query 4. Lastly, Whether many, as a scourage for former apostasies from the Work and Cause of God, for which they have evidenced under all the rebukes no repentance, are not left in judgement so to defile themselves? And whether they will not discover it by testifying the like Spirit of enmity and opposition against any that discover their sin in faithfulness, and press them to their duty in the paths of difficulty? As they did, Jer. 42.43. Whilst others that are through temptation hurried into the snare, will bless the Lord for such faithfulness, and improve it to no other end, but to make hast out of the snare, and deliver themselves.  
Reply. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of mans day. I appeal from the Querist, to him who judgeth righteously, whether we be Apostates, or not. That we shall persecute him he need not fear: but what quarter we are like to find, if his power were answerable to all things else; that Spirit which breaths in every page. of these Queries( and something which I care not to mention) gives me cause to suspect.  
This is all which I think fit to Reply to that Pamphlet. Silence had been the most proper Confutation; but how I had then discharged my duty( for I was variously enforced to this unpleasing Work) was questionable. I have endeavoured what meekness the matter( all circumstances considered) was capable of, not rendering railing for railing. And now 'tis submitted to thy Christian censure and service( candid Reader.) There is an endeavour herein to vindicate the Innocent from a cruel unrighteous clamour and accusation: with a design also to obviate the deception of the weak. I leave thee to judge whether any thing be said sufficiently; and desire thy correction of what is amiss.  
farewell.  
FINIS.