A second Part of the Religious DEMURRER; By another Hand. Or, an ANSWER to a Tract called The lawfulness of obeying the present Government.  
By a lover of Truth and Peace.   

To the READER;  
IT is the unhappiness, of these last times especially, that men are apt to run, from one extreme to another. As in matter of Religion, we see it evident; we are fallen from superstition, to profaneness: So in the State, from Miss-Government, to Change of Government; and sometimes, from one kind of Tyranny, to another; from Regal, to Popular; from Tyranny under a lawful power, to Tyranny under an unlawful power. And, which is worst, is not hard to determine, inasmuch as a single Tyrant, is better than many; Regal Tyranny, better than Marshal. And this is the yoke, that at present, people most complain of; which, it were well, if wise men would study how to remove; not how to fasten it, unavoidably, upon the necks of this Nation. But this is most just with God (we humbly acknowledge it,) that seeing, we would not bear the easy, silken yoke of Jesus Christ; he is now putting on us, an iron yoke; which, neither our fathers were, nor we are, nor our posterity will be able to bear. Amongst those that assist to the effecting of this (whether ignorantly or intentionally,) this Gent. is one of the first, that undertakes, to persuade this people, to bear this yoke as if we were populus ad servitutem non nati, sed destinati; and with our own hands, should help to put this yoke, upon our own necks, and rivet it fast for falling off: which certainly we do, if once we can be persuaded, that not only we may voluntarily (because sinlesly, as we are made believe,) but also, must necessarily, for conscience sake (not mere coaction) obey an unlawful power, by the command of God. It is a very sad thing, and dangerous, for a man to be engaged once, in any sinful design, or act; in that, scel●re tuendum est scelus, one engagement draws on another: And it is a very great snare (we see,) for men to be possessed of great estates, and places of profit, by that power, which can as easily divest them of it, if they oppose or assist not their wicked designs. If the world be not mistaken in the Author of this Tract, they fear him entangled in such a snare: otherwise (say they) he would never undertake the patronage of so bad a cause; or countenance it, by acting, or assisting the Authors of this change, especially being engaged to the contrary (as they yet think) by so many Oaths and Covenants. What mischief this Tract may do (the rather for the worth, and authority of the man,) with persons fearful, or loath to suffer loss, or punishment, is not easy to say: If this Answer may give him any light, to see his error; his Retractation of it, by writing or his Retreat from the present power, and actors in it, may (if speedily done) help to Antidote, or expel the prescribed poison. Which that it it may be done, is the desire of a friend of his. The Lord give it a good Issue.   

Question.  
Whether, Those whose Title is held unlawful, yet being possessed of Authority may lawfully be obeyed.  
THere are two great questions now in chase and agitation, 1. Whether the present power be just and lawful? 2. Whether, supposing them unlawful, they may not lawfully be obeyed? The first of these is waved by this Gentleman, as undertaken by others; with what strength or weakness, let others judge. The second is the subject of the present debate. The Gentleman speaks of a Declaration published, wherein the grounds of settling the present Government are expressed. But for aught I hear, few rational, conscientious men are satisfied with that Declaration; considering those Vows, Oaths, Covenants, whereby the Authors of it, stood before engaged. And whatever the people may do, in submitting to obey this power of the new Government, I fear they that altered it, and those that act it on, or they that abet it, cannot be innocent. But let them look to that; We shall not, at present, discuss the lawfulness or the unlawfulness of their power, and proceed, but consider how far we our felves may submit unto them, without sin. For this purpose we shall first consider how the Gent. hath stated the question. And we observe that he lays it only upon the lawfulness, not upon the necessity of our obedience; For so he says, Though the change of a Government were believed unlawful, yet it may lawfully be obeyed. Not it must necessarily, but may lawfully be obeyed; and yet his text produced, Rom. 13.1, etc. is pressed with this inference, Wherefore ye must be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake. Now some there are, who are of opinion, that though such an unlawful power may be obeyed, yet it need not for conscience sake be obeyed. if a man will hazard the punishment annexed, and submit himself to suffer it. But it is otherwise in a lawful power in lawful things; a man is bound to active obedience unto them, and it sufficeth not, to satisfy conscience, to suffer the penalty, but is a resistance of the ordinance of God, which in lawful commands, requires active obedience, in unlawful, passive. What then is the difference between a lawful power and an unlawful, both commanding lawful things? but this, That a man may, if he will, obey the one, but must obey the other; not only passively, by suffering, if by ignorance, or weakness he neglect the command, but also actively, in acting that command, or else he sins. And to this purpose the Gent. adds, page. 2. If the powers in that time were ordained of God, and were to be obeyed for conscience sake, etc. where he takes it for granted (as well he may, if the powers were ordained of God) that be the powers never so unlawful; yet they must be obeyed for conscience sake. Yet the question runs only of the lawfulness. That's first.  
Secondly, For the clearer stating of the question, we must necessarily distinguish, in many particulars, which the Gent. hath either omitted, or confounded.  
1. We must distinguish of a Government: A State may be considered, either as constituta, long settled, or constituenda, as yet in settling: A people may perhaps, lawfully obey a Government, when there is no probability of recovering their lost Government; whereas while it is yet in settling, they may suspend obedience.  
2. A people also may be considered, either as free to settle upon what Government they will, as having no Government yet settled, or the line of succession being expired: or as bound by Oaths and Covenants to a former Government, or Governors, who are oppressed in their right, by violent usurpation. In the first, a people may obey an usurping power; but the question is of the latter.  
3. A Tyrant also who is an usurping power is of two sorts; First, by Title, or rather without a Title; Secondly, by oppression; or as the Gent. himself expresseth it, pag. 6. A Tyrant in regard of an unjust Title, or in respect of Tyrannical oppression, when his Title is good. Now the question is, whether a Tyrant by an unjust Title, not only may, but must be obeyed, when he commands lawful things; And whether, as when a lawful power commands unlawful things, he may justly, yea must be disobeyed; so, when an unlawful power commands lawful things, he must be obeyed?  
4. Obedience is differenced, into active and passive. The latter may be yielded, when the former may not, at least needs not: As when a lawful power commands unlawful things, a man must suffer, not do: so when an unlawful power commands lawful things, a man perhaps may obey, but not necessarily must; at least this is the question now in hand.  
5. Because we have occasion to look at impossibility, in this discourse, we must difference it also here, it is either Present, as when there is at present an overruling power which we cannot withstand: or else Absolute, when there is a total cessation of all hopes of recovery of the former Government; the heirs, and lawful successors, being either all naturally dead, or unnaturally extinct, and slain; as it was supposed to be, in Athalia's case: the people thought she had slain all the Royal seed, and perhaps upon that ground, knowing of none surviving, they submitted to her Government; but as soon as they knew joash, one of that Line, was alive, they shook off their obedience to her. These things being thus premised, we consider the strength of his Arguments.  
The first basis of all his building, is taken from the Scripture, Rom. 13.1, etc. The Apostle (says he) treating of purpose, upon the duty of obedience to Authority, lays down this precept; Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, etc. and hereupon infers; wherefore you must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake, etc.  
In answer to this; Let it first be observed, that he concludes more than he undertook to prove: His question was of the lawfulness, but his proof is for the necessity of obedience, active, as well as passive; Now I would gladly know, what difference there is, in our obedience, to lawful powers, and to unlawful powers, 
The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lawful authority not usurped power. Script. & Reas. pag. 5, 6. Pag. 4.  if it be necessary to both.  
Secondly, The question is, in this Text, of what power the Apostle speaks; of Lawful, or Tyrannical; and if of Tyrannical, whether of a Tyrant by a● u●ju● Title, or a Tyrant in regard of oppression; and the judgement of very able Divines is, that the Apostle speaks of a legal power; not of a Tyrannical, in either sense: This latter, is learnedly and largely discussed by the Author of that Tract; called, Scripture and Reason for Defensive Arms: who asserts, and proves, the text is not meant of any powers whatever, but of Legal powers, not Tyrannical at all. His Arguments are these from the context: 1. If I be bound to be subject to Tyranny by virtue of the commandment here; then Tyranny is the Ordinance of God (for the Apostle argues for subjection, from Gods ordaining the power) But this is false: Therefore so is that, that I should be subject to Tyranny. 2. He brings many Arguments against this Gentleman's Interpretation. 
Pag. 9  1. The Magistrate that must be obeyed is the Ordinance of God. 2. Not a terror to good works, but to evil. 3. The Minister of God to thee for good. But a Tyrant is not the Ordinance of God; is a terror to good works: is not the Minister of God for good; Therefore not to be obeyed. I confess he carries it all along, of a Tyrant by oppression, whose Title is lawful and just; and he speaks (more than we argue for) of Resistance of such a Tyrant; whereas we plead only for nonobedience; or against necessity of obedience, to a Tyrant, in regard of unlawful Title. We say then the Gent. misinterprets, and so misapplies the text, which speaks only of a lawful power, not of an unlawful.  
But he goes on, to prove his assertion, that the Apostle meant it of a power unlawfully gotten; by applying it to the then present Roman powers: It was either Claudius, or Nero, that then ruled: who were both made Emperors by the Soldiery, against the Wills, and Resolutions of the Consuls, and Senate, etc.  
Where first, he takes it for granted (which cannot well be proved) that because the Apostle writ in their times, therefore he meant it of those powers, that they were ordained of God: not by his permission only, but approbation also. Whereas the Apostle might mean it (and we have heard, did so mean it) of any legal power; abstractedly, from the Roman, or any particular State. 2. But grant it meant of them, yet it is known, that Caesar had gotten the consent of the Senate, and people: and they succeeded upon the same Title, and so might be lawful powers. 3. This Argument is of no force in our case; for though it hold parallel, in the Instruments of settling, or rather changing of the Government, the Soldiery; yet not in the Ratification of it by Senate, and people. Mark the words of the Historian, englished by the Gent. pag. 3. This sentence of the Soldiers, was followed with the consent of the Senate; and than it was not scrupled in the provinces: That is, it was consented to by the Generality of the people. But ours hath neither consent of Senate (in its true and full Authority) nor people, but the Renitency, yea Abhorrency of both, for the far greater part. If indeed the two Houses freely and fully sitting, had consented to it, and the people Generally submitted to it, the case might seem easier to resolve. Butstill this scruple would remain, whether both Senate and people could consent, without sin, to the change of Government, lying under so many bonds and engagements, to another Power: of which more hereafter.  
The Roman State then will not help him: let us see our own: Many persous (says he) have been settled in Supreme power, by mere force, without Title of Inheritance, or just Conquest, and obeyed by the people of this land: and Laws made by forced Parliaments are still in force and obeyed: so that the voice of the Nation, with one consent, seems to speak aloud, that those, whose Title is held unlawful, may lawfully be obeyed.  
There are many answers to be given to this: 1. Those times were very dark, in prevailing of Popery, and therefore no precedents for a Reformed State to imitate. 2. Those people were not perhaps precluded, by so many Oaths and Covenants, from alteration of the former Government, as we of this Generation are. 3. The question is not the facto, but de jure, whether they did will, in so doing. The scruple is justly made, Whether they ought not rather to assert (as far as in them lay) the right of the true Heir; than to close with the usurper; especially if under our engagements: It they ought in conscience to assert the Right of the true Heir, they ought not to obey (actively) any other, commanding in his prejudice. If they were not bound, by want of power, to assert that right, yet the question is, Whether they might either directly, or indirectly, do any act, which might affirm the right of the usurper, or deny, but so much as interpretatively, the just Title of the Heir, without being guilty of the sins of lying, treachery and falseness; if not of perjury and Vow-breaking: In suffering, I confess, if a thief take my purse, I cannot help it; if I must part with that, or my life, I choose to lose my purse; not for fear lest I break the filth or eighth Commandment, but lest I break the sixth, and be guilty of self-murder: yet rather than say, he hath authority to take it, I must lose my life. In point of protection, If I be in the hands of thiefs, I will desire some of them, to preserve me from the violence of some others: yet must I not (to obtain that protection,) say, that their robbery is just, or good, much less, join with them in robbing others, or be an abetter to their actions, though the denial of such abetting, endanger my life. 4. As for our present submitting to those Laws, first made by usurpers, and forced Parliaments; we say, they have been often ratified (being thought wholesome Laws) by succeeding lawful Parliaments, and so make nothing to the case in hand: and, perhaps, till then, not to be judged valid Acts. 
See that Ordinace of Aug. 20 1647. Declaring such Votes passed, to be null at the time of the passing, because the House was the under a force.   
And hereunto (says he) Divines and Casuists give their concurrence, Azorius, Navarr, Alsted, Paraeus, etc.  
In answer to these we say, 1. It's one thing to claim justice of a Tyrant (for necessary subsistence,) by established Laws not yet repealed (which perhaps may justify those that are forced to prosecute suits under the present Courts,) wherein we consent to the power of the former Laws, which are our birthright, not properly, but by accident, to the power that manages them at present. 2ly The reason given by the first, is this, The Commonwealth tacitly consents in this, that though he have no right or Title, yet he may administer Law, to Citizens subjected, facto, not jure, as if he were a Competent Judge, and lawful Superior: But this varies the question two ways; 1. That there is a  consent of all. 2. That he administers the old Laws established, not any new ones of his own, to the overthrow of the old, which we have sworn and covenanted to maintain. 3ly The reason given by the second, is scarcely sound; because (says he) they that seek the administration of justice, do endeavour to free him from a greater sin; that he that sinned by usurping jurisdiction, may not also sin, by pretermitting the administration of Justice. This perhaps, is but a popish nicety; for the question is. Whether in so doing, he be not guilty of his former sin of usurpation, by complying so far with him, as to establish his jurisdiction thus usurped; and whether he ought not rather to suffer loss, than sinupon himself. 4ly But Paraeus is of most credit, and so of most weight: It matters not (says he) by what ways or acts Nimrod, or Jeroboam, or others, got Kingdoms; for the power is one thing which is of God, and the getting, and the use of the power is another. Another more plainly, when a question is made whom we should obey, it must not be looked at, what he is that exerciseth the power, or by what right or wrong he hath invaded the power, etc. To this we say, first, Paraeus may be understood, to speak of an usurpation over a free people; engaged by no Oaths or Covenants, to another Government: such I believe was Nimrods' case; or if otherwise, the question is, Whether a people do not sin, in submitting to such a power, as in jeroboams case; the people revolting from Rehoboam. 2. I see not how that others words can well be justified: is it not to be looked at, whether it be Jack Cade, or John of Leyden, that exercises the power? Is not this (if literally taken) a way, to open a doer, as to insurrections and seditions, if men can but get power to suppress the Legal Authority: so to dispense with Oaths, &c, when such an usurpation is made? not only, that such may, but must be obeyed, hearty, and for conscience sake? may we, or must we obey every one that hath gotten power, though never so wrongfully? might not some infer from this ground, Satan, the prince of this world, having usurped power, over the sons of disobedience, must be obeyed, as the ordinance of God, forasmuch as there is no power but of God, etc.  
But he gives his own reason for it. And how (says he) can it be otherwise? for when a person, or persons have gotten supreme power, and by the same excluded all other from authority, either this authority, must be obeyed, or else all authority fall to the ground, and so confusion be admitted (worse than Titular Tyranny.  
I confess this is a very hard case, to natural reason: but perhaps, it is not hard to a Christian; whose rule is, Ye must not do the least evil, to prevent the greatest misery. But is there no remedy, in the whole body of a people, to prevent this? If they would all, in conscience of their Oaths and Covenants, be constant to their duty; either in resisting, or not complying, or suffering; what could that power do? whereas if they willingly, and readily comply, with every usurped power, do they not confirm Tyrants, and fasten Tyranny upon themselves? and by such compliance make themselves guilty of that usurpation? If, as is asserted, we may lawfully; nay must necessarily, obey such usurped power in all acts materially good, then is it impossible, that any one, whose Title is once wronged, can ever be lawfully righted; for it will be always sinful, to help the weaker party, and it cannot, without help, be other than such. And supposing it lawful, and our duty, to obey such usurpers, it will be unlawful to rescue ourselves out of their hands, for it being lawful to submit, and we bound in conscience to obey, in what is lawful, we are bound in conscience so to submit, without endeavouring to get our liberty, or to become the stronger party; which without endeavouring it can never be, and so we are bound to be perpetual slaves.  
That of the Master's Mate, throwing the Master overboard, etc. is not every way parallel with ours in hand: The necessity not alike absolute: But if the Mate would command the Mariners, by any word, or act, to acknowledge his violence to be just, and his Government lawful, ought they not rather to die then sin? But when we comply, actively, to the ratifying and settling of an usurped power, with wrong to the right Heir, we sin; and so much the more, if bound by Oaths and Covenants, not to assist, or comply with any others, neither for fear, nor favour, deserting our engagements (which are the words of the solemn Covenant,) Not suffering ourselves, directly, or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion or terror, to be withdrawn from this blessed union etc. but shall all the days of our lives, zealously & constantly continue therein against all opposition, and promote the same, according to our power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever, etc. All which, whether it can so easily be dispensed with, as this Gent. seems to hold forth, I leave to every conscience to consider.  
And whereas (says he) some speak of a time for settlement, they indeed do rather speak for a time of unsettlement, etc.  
They mean, if a Government be once settled, by the generality of the people, and no power appears to bring it back to the former state, they may better comply with it; In repub, constituta, not constituenda: And this is no unsettlement, unless it be an unsettling of an usurped Government, which men in Covenant, aught to endeavour to their utmost power; and however, to be rather passive in, than active to the settlement of it; which if it were generally done, might (by the blessing of God upon faithfulness to a right Heir, and to our Oaths and Covenants,) perhaps prevail, to make the usurpers think of some better way, of reducing the Government to the ancient channel: Whereas this way of compliance, fastens and settles them, in their sin and Government together: And whereas he saith, that may be called a settlement, when there is such a way settled, that men may have justice, if they will; and may enjoy the main end of Magistracy, to live a peaceable life, in godliness and honesty. I answer, Such a settlement as is pleaded for, is not the way to enjoy the main end of Magistracy, etc. For how can a people, consenting readily together, to a violation of so sacred a Covenant, and Oath, ever be like to live a peaceable life, in godliness or honesty?  
And indeed (says he) when one is in possession by power, and another pretends a Title, what can the body of a Nation do, in this case? they cannot judge of Titles, etc.  
True, in some doubtful cases they cannot; but in our case, who is so simple that he cannot judge of the Title, where it is, and where it is not? who hath not, or may not hear, of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy? who hath not heard of Parliamentary Declarations for the right and Title? Whatever it was in former times, the Title is now clear to every eye; and if it were doubtful, our engagements are gone out into all the world.  
To that he answers: Surely Oaths are sacred bonds, and reverend obligements, etc. yet there are faults on both hands: on the one side, the slighting of an Oath: But we find some part of the Vow and Covenant, to speak of all the days of our lives etc. True it is, the obligation of some things may end, as that of the King's Person, etc.  
To which and the rest we say; the King's Person in England never dies, says the Law; such a King we are bound to preserve. Suppose the King had died in wars, or a natural death, and his Son had been in Arms at his death, would not our Covenant have reached, to bind us to the preservation of the Sons person, as well as of the Fathers? whatever men think now, I am confident, two or three years ago, most men would have been of this mind. 2. It is indeed impossible, to preserve that King's person, yet (says the Gent.) We find some part of the Vow and Covenant, to speak of all the days of our lives, as to extirpate profaneness, heresy, blasphemy, and for Reformation. All which it were well if the Covenanters would remember to observe. But I shall remember him of more. To preserve the rights and privileges of Parliament, and the Liberties of the Kingdom, etc. Are these things impossible now to be preserved? and if not, do they not still bind us, to endeavour them? 2. His words are worthy to be printed, and printed again, Will any man that understands, and favours Religion and piety, say, that the clauses, which concern Religion and piety, are expired? Did we promise to God, in our several places and callings, to extirpate profaneness, heresy, blasphemy, and to endeavour a Reformed life, in ourselves and ours, only till our enemies were overcome, and then to make an end? (Say the same of our promises, to preserve the rights and privileges of Parliament, and liberties and Laws of the Kingdom,) What were this, but to say unto God, if thou wilt deliver us, we will be bound to thee, till we are delivered, and no longer, etc. Surely this is too like that course of carnal Israel, Ps. 78.14, etc.  
But he goes on; Here it were good to consider, whether there be any clause, in any Oath or Covenant, which, in a fair and commonsence, forbids obedience to the commands of the present Government: much less, when no other can be had, and so the Commonwealth must go to ruin?  
We answer, yes, there is, by necessary consequence: that clause in the Oath or Covenant, that commands obedience, and faith, to the King, his Heirs and Successors, and to the Laws established, forbids obedience to any other power or Authority, raised up against them. Nor will that salve it which he adds (when no other can be had) for another may be had, and might perhaps have been had, ere this, if some men in place had not complied with that force put upon the Houses and Kingdom. If they did it upon antecedent consent, they are deeply and heinously guilty; if upon persuasion, or terror (contrary to their engagements in the Covenant,) yet are they too guilty, to be excused, as accessaries post factum, to say no more.  
But says he, If the King's Heirs be not his Successors, how doth that Oath bind? either the word Successors, must be superfluous, or else it must bind to Successors, as well as to Heirs. And it hinds not to a Successor, that is not an Heir, how can it bind to and Heir that is not a Successor?  
In answer we say, 1. Who keeps the Heir from being a Successor? They that made the Act against succession; to which this Gent. perhaps gave his Vote; or at least, complies and acts with those, that did so Vote; in acting for a Republic in opposition to it. 2. The word Successor, is not superfluous: for it is put, by way of exposition of the word Heir; who ought to be the Successor. And it matters not, how Successor is sometime taken; In the Oath of Supremacy or Allegiance; it is not meant of any Successor, but a lawful Successor; as the words expressy are. If then, any force debar the succession of the right and lawful Heir, let him consider, whether they that took that Oath, are not bound to resist that force, if they have any power, and to help to settle the Heir: or if they want power, yet not to submit willingly to that force, in opposition to that right, and in violation of that Oath. Though the Covenant speaks not of the Allegiance to Heirs and Successors, yet the Protestation refers unto it, in terminis. And that (we suppose,) binds us, to endeavour the succession of the Heir: Else how could the Lady jane be a Traitor against Queen Mary? whose claim of the Crown, an tecedent to the others enjoyment, could only be a crime, because it prejudiced the Heir, in hindering, as much as in her was, the succession. Nor could any thing be Treason, which is only derogatory to the succession. And if such, as at any time have power, debar a rightful Heir, they must not be punished afterward, when the other is stronger, because the strength of the former made it no crime, at the time when it was done. However, the many obligations to Monarchy, as well as to the partia●●●● Monarch, are obligatory though there were a doubt, concerning the person. We cannot close with such a party (we think,) but we become accessaries, post sacsum, to what perhaps it is impossible, at present, to be helped.  
At last he puts a query, While the Son is in the same posture with the Father, how comes this Oath to plead for disobedience in regard of the Son; that was asleep, and silent, in regard of the Father?  
The answer is, 1. The Son is not altogether in the same posture with the Father: for the Father was in Arms against a lawful, and coordinate Authority of the Kingdom; but the Son, now, is claiming his own right, as Heir to the Crown; hath a good cause (so far) and a just claim; opposing, not the same power (as some think) but unlawful Martial usurpation, over his own personal rights, and over the three Estates (the fundamental Authority of this Kingdom.) the King, Lords and Commons. 2. The Father himself was under those pretended crimes (for which he was put to death) then, and before the Covenant was taken, to preserve his person: and the King, the Law 〈◊〉 never dies, 3. Disobedience was not pleaded, to his Authoritative will, but his personal will: and so the objection was neither silent nor asleep in regard of the Father; but all things being acted is the name of the King and Parliament, his Title was both acknowledged and asserted; which is now otherwise, when in regard both of the Son, and of Monarchy itself, it is disclaimed. 4 If the Son were in any crime, equal with the Father; yet the right or Title to the Crown, upon his Father dea●● doth quit him from all stain, by the Laws of the Land. Therefore obedience may be due to him, and the Oath may stand up, to plead for disobedience to usurped power, in regard of the Son, which was asleep, and silent, in regard of the father,  
For a conclusion of all: If men were as sensible of duty, as they are of danger, and more af●●●● to sin, than to suffer; I am very confideut, that such weak shifts, as large consciences can find, 〈◊〉 help them swallow a Camel, who heretosoth strained at a gnat; and such consulting with 〈◊〉 and blood, would have no place with them: I shall only make two requests; One, that the Auth●●● of the Tract, would consider seriously, whether the maintaining, and abetting those, that 〈◊〉 with the fist of wickedness, be the way to peace? The Other, That the Lord would guide all L●●●● of truth and peace, into the way of peace (which is Righteousness,) and that be would grant 〈◊〉 all the people of the Land, faithfulness to their Oaths and Covenants, and sincerity and uprightness of heart, that they may have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.  
FINIS.  EPHESIANS 5.11. 
Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.  1 TIMOTHY 5.22. 
Neither be partaker of other men's sins.