I. PROPOSITION. That the Doctor himself doth admit the Covenant to be, in some sense, lawful and good.

1. HIs own words before alledged (where he saith he hath en­deavoured to give that sober sense of the Covenant, whereof he believeth it to be only capable before God, before all good Christians, and in a mans own well-informed Conscience) is evidence enough (against him, at least,) that the Covenant is lawful and good. How else could he give a sober sense of it, which he believes would hold water, before God, all good men, and a well informed Conscience?

2. He tells us (pag. 14.) that he will look upon the Covenant (with the best aspect, considered in Conscience) in the softest sense that can be made of it; namely, as a voluntary Vow, or Religious Bond, by some spon­taneously taken, in order to declare their sense of duty to God, the King, [Page 5]the Church, their Country, and the reformed Religion, to make themselves more strictly sensible of the sacred and civil obligations respectively due to them, that so they might be more ready to discharge them in their places and callings, &c.— (And is not this lawful, and good?) He after addeth, that he believeth that very few took it in any sense, against Primi­tive, Reformed, and Regular Episcopacy, so reduced to an efficacious con­junction with Presbytery, as the most reverend Primate of Armagh proposed in his Reduction of Episcopacy. Now, if such a Reduction be necessary, the Covenant in this sense cannot be unlawful, but good.

3. In pag. the 20. he saith, The most strict and severe Covenanter can­not but be satisfied and absolved in point of Conscience, if first he hath and still doth, in his place and calling, seasonably advise, humbly petition, and lawfully endeavour to reform what is truely amiss in the Church Govern­ment by Bishops. Secondly, If he use the like means to restore and pre­serve what he finds good and useful in Episcopacy. — They then that do not thus, cannot be satisfied or absolved in point of Conscience: there­fore to do this, by vertue of the Covenant, is lawful and good.

4. In his voluminous Book of Tears and Sighs, &c. pag. 448. he reckons up sundry evils, defects and dangers incident to Episcopacy, as namely, pride, ambition, secular height, and idle pomp, a supercilious de­spiciency and Lordly Tyrannizing over other Ministers, and the flocks of Christ under their inspection; arrogating a power to do all things imperi­ously, and alone, without any regard either to that charitable satisfaction which was antiently given to Christian people; or, to that fraternal Coun­sel and concurrence which might and ought in reason to be had, from learned and grave Presbyters, &c.— Is not all this enough to prove from his own Pen, That such a Covenant, for extirpating such an Epis­copacy, is lawfully and good?

Indeed, he would (in the same breath) fain extenuate this his un­ripping of the late Hierarchy, by saying, that this ariseth not from the function or imployment, but from the persons of Bishops, (which he brings in, by a parenthesis:) but, when he had undertaken to enumerate the evils, defects and dangers incident to Episcopacy it self, of late in use, How can these be separated from that Function? And if they arise from the persons of Bishops; do they not arise from the imployment of Episcopacy? for, how else could they be incident to Episcopacy? That parenthesis then, is but a piece of contradictory non-sense, which can no way infringe the inference I have here made of it, to confirm, from the Author himself, the first point here undertaken.

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

HE is pleased indeed, (pag. 6.) from Sir L.B. (at whose motion Pag. 3. he wrote and published that pamphlet) to say, that Sir L. B. (a fit Patron for such a Proctor) told him, that many sober and honest men, are by their once taking the Covenant, so scared from all complyings with any Church-government, under any name of Bishops, or notion of Episcopa­cy, never so reformed and regulated; that they fear, by looking back to the Primitive; Catholique, and Ʋniversal Government of this, and all other antient Churches, to be turned into pillars of Apostacy, as Lots wife was, into a pillar of Salt.

If the Knight told him so, in these words, we must needs admire the metamorphosis of a Cutler turned Knight, that hath arrived already at such heards of good words, and flocks of figures: and, that he, who here­tofore took the Covenant, and pretended to be a zealous propugner of it, and of all that had taken it, should now, (in hope to get into some place to help maintain his Knighthood) leave all those of his for­mer party, and run over to such a flashy Advocate for Episcopacy, and a mortal enemy to all Covenanters, to assoyle the doubts of sober honest men that had entred into that Covenant.

But, if that Knight did so inform him, it is be doubted, whether he did it, for want of ignorance, or of stedfastness in that Covenant of God, and out of a desire of procuring (by that his story to the Doctor, and his motion for his resolution of this business, in point of Conscience) some plausible Apology for his own intended Apostacy. However he did it, let that K. take this to him as the forerunner of that reward which he must exspect from that God whose Covenant he hath thus occasi­oned to be despised, That all the reproaches and blasphemies that are or shall be belched out against the Covenant, (occasioned by reading that scurrilous Satyre of Dr. John Gauden) will one day be put to the account of Sir L. B. as the principal occasion of it, and instigator to it; if God give him not timely repentance, and stop the current of those railing Shimei's, who are glad of this opportunity to set their mouths against heaven, and to let their tongues walk through the earth Psa 73.9..

But, to leave this digression. I come to make good the second point; which I enlarge thus; That the admitting of some Church-go­vernours, under the name of Bishops, reformed and regulated according to the Primitive Catholicue and Apostolique Institution, for the Government of this Church, is not against, but very consistent with, and agreeable to the [Page 7]late Solemn League and Covenant, and the true intention of it, allowable by God and all good men that rightly understand themselves and the Cove­nant. And, thus far, they concur with the Doctor.

To make this out briefly, take notice

1. That the Covenant, Art. 2. as to this point, runs thus: That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly (through the grace of God) endea­vour the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy (that is, Church government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy.) Superstition, Heresie, Schism, Prophaness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness; lest we partake in other mens sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and, that the Lord may be one, and his name one in the three Kingdoms.

This expresly relates to the Prelacy or Episcopacy then in being and use in England (which was far from Apostolique and Primitive, as this Doctor, in his words before cited out of his Book of Tears, &c. hath clearely confessed:) and to the extirpating of whatsoever in it savoured of Superstition, Tyranny, Schism, Prophaness, Sinfulness, or was otherwise contrary to sound Doctrine, or the power of godliness. If there be any other Episcopacy; truly Apostolique and Primitive, free from all these evils, and agreeable to sound Doctrine, and the power of godliness, It is so far from the sense and intention of this Covenant, to extirpate it, that it plainly includes rather a binding of all Covenan­ters to endeavour, by all lawful and fit ways and means, to procure it.

2. That herein, by the Doctors own allegations, all sober honest men that rightly understand themselves, and the true meaning of the Cove­nant, concur with him.

Himself saith, (pag. 22.) that the Covenant is no way in Conscience to be stretched against a right and regular Episcopacy, no more than Physique given to cure a disease, should like unmortified Quick silver, be applyed to kill the man. And this, he knows, was the sense of the most learned men in the Assembly. And this, (he saith, pag. 23.) He hath often heard Mr. Marshal This may put him in mind, that hereupon, himself took the Cove­nant, which he now so much vilisi­eth., and others affirm (who had a great hand in penning and promoting the Covenant) and they owned it to some Foraign Divines, That the Covenant was levelled at the (Despoticum, Tyrannicum regi­men) mis-government, not the Government by Episcopacy.

To which, he addes, This is at present, the sense and hopes of the most learned and godly Presbyterians, whom I have lately spoken with in London and elsewhere, &c. And a little after, he beseecheth God, that by his Ma­jesties piety and wisdom, (all those materials which were good in that an­tient, noble, and venerable fabrick of Episcopacy) may be speedily and resolutely setled in its best constitution: wherein, to take counsel, is King­ly, and Christian.

But whereas, he there (pag. 23.) saith, that this was also the sense of those, who with himself, had as much right to sit among them (that is, in the Assembly) as any others, but were not permitted, either by popular faction and tumult, or by other shufflings and reasons of State; which took care to exclude or deter all the excellent Bishops of the Church, and the most able of Episcopal Divines, for fear there should have been any just plea for moderate Episcopacy, against the then Magistry of Presbytery: To this I must give this Answer:

1. That I willingly accept of that part of this speech, that this (to wit, what was before by him spoken, and by me alleged, touching the right Episcopacy) was the sense of himself, and of those that by his telling, had right to fit in the Assembly, to make out my present assertion of the concurrence of able men herein.

2. That which he here affirmeth either of himself, or any others having right to sit in the Assembly of Divines called by Ordinance of both Houses of Parliament, dated June 12. 1643. that they were not permitted, either by popular faction and tumult, or by other shufflings, &c. to fit, &c. is a very great slander. For,

1. Touching himself, who (not now only, but heretofore) hath com­plained, that he having as much right to sit among the Divines in the Assembly as any others, was not permitted to sit there. If he mean that he had as much right as any others, who were not at all chosen to sit there, I admit what he saith, to be true. But, if he intend to insinu­ate that he was chosen, and yet not permitted to sit, this is a loud un­truth; for he being then (as I remember) Parson of the Deanry of Bock­ing in Essex (which albeit it be reputed to be worth 4 or 500 l. per an. yet he, to his shame, and the little honour of those that imploy him, is non-resident from it, and preacheth at the Temple:) was not chosen to be one of the Assembly. For, in Essex were chosen Mr. Stephen Marshal of Finchingfield, Mr. Obadiah Sedgwick, then of Cogshal, and Mr. Matthew Newcomen of Dedham. But this Doctor was chosen neither there, nor any where else, as by the Ordinance it self is obvi­ous to every eye that will peruse it. And had it been otherwise, he had not been permitted, (as I can tell him in his ear) to have been ab­sent from the Assembly.

And why should he so much complain, and bewayle his not being permitted to sit in that Assembly, which he so much vilifieth, and call­eth, A sifted Sequatious Assembly Tears. &c p. 213.; a Scot-English Assembly which were as the grand Inquest, the Promoters or Apparitors to the Long Parlia­men Pag. 334. : Rabbies sitting in Moses Chair Ibid.? And then, taking it for granted, that the Assembly were the Annotators on the Bible (which is altogether untrue) he chargeth them so, as if they were Chaplains at once serving the Lord, their Bellies and the times, as partaking of the Ta­ble of the lord, and the Table of Devils Ibid pag. 334.. I forbear to foul more paper [Page 9]with the rest of his Billinsgate Rhetorick bestowed on that Assembly.

But now, mark the inference. He is angry that he, having right, was not permitted to sit in that Assembly. Therefore, his anger, must needs be for this, that he could not be a Sequatious Assembly-man, one of the Grand Inquest, a Promoter and Apparitor of the Long Parliament, a Chaplain at once serving the Lord, his Belly, and the times, and a Partaker of the Table of Devils, as well as of the Lord. O what pity is it that he fate not! Surely, I have so much charity for him, (if I may judge of the tree by this fruit) as to believe, and profess, that if the Assembly had been such as he describeth it, he had better right to fit in it, then any that sate there.

Indeed, his last mentioned expression of the Assembly as being Chaplains at once serving the Lord, their Bellies, and the Times, arose from his Bilious Passion at the Annotators for not finding a knot in a Bulrush; and that from some Textst, hey did not brand that for Sacri­lege, which he had done; whether those Texts, condemn it, or not. But I must not further make an Excursion upon this: but leave him to D. B. upon whom he hath bestowed 10 whole leaves in Folio in that his scoulding Tears, &c. of his Mother See p 685 &c., in nothing but raving, rayling, belying the Doctor, without affording one line in a serious, solid, so­ber confuting of either that Doctors Definition of Sacrilege, any Text of Scripture, or other Arguments or Reasons for his opinion; or, to disprove the same.

But, you will say, what is that to me? I confess, this is a digressi­on, therefore I will say no more, but onely advise Dr. John to spend half the time (if he can spare no more) in perusing D. B. his second Edition of that Tract of Sacrilege, (which D. J. G. cannot but have seen) that he hath trifled away in rayling upon D. B. and, to confute that Book, if he can; because, as I hear, he hath promised so to do. This, if he will once perform, like a Scholar, and a Divine; then, whereas D. G. hath in his Sighs pag. 664., &c. said (most gravely) that D. B. by his late purchase will give the world cause in after-ages, to look as narrowly to him, and his posterity, how they thrive, as the Roman Souldiers did to the Jews Guts and Excrements, when they searched for the Gold which they had swallowed, as Josephus De excid. Hieros. tells us. I dare undertake, that then, if D. G. will either desire to be the Groom of D. B. his Stool, or to be at the charge thereof, he shall have all that comes from him and his, without purloyning, or the least diminution.

2. But, as to what he saith of others, having right to sit, that they were not permitted, either by popular faction and tumult, or by other shuf­flings and reasons of State, which took care to exclude or deter all the excellent Bishops, and the most able of Episcopal Divines, &c. is a most gross and malicious untruth.

For, among those that were chosen, and summoned to sit in that [Page 10] Assembly, what say you to Dr. Richard Love, Dr. Raph. Brownrig Bi­shop of Exceter; D. Samuel Ward, Dr. John Harris, Dr. Robert Saunderson, Mr. Robert Cross, James Archbishop of Armagh, D. Mat­thias Styles, Dr. Featly, Dr. Christopher Pashly, Dr. John Hacket, Dr. Thomas Westfield Bishop of Bristol, Dr. Henry Hammon, Dr. Rich. Oldsworth, and many moe? Where can you pick out three Bishops, more excellent for learning and piety? or, other Episcopal Divines, more able? of 122 Divines chosen to sit, there were 24 that never ap­peared. And even in the Assembly, some protested against the extir­pation of Primitive Episcopacy, of which Mr. Herbert Palmer was one. And Dr. Burges was suspended from sitting there, by the House of Com­mons, for declaring and protesting against the first draught of the Co­venant, brought into the Assembly, for that (among other things) there was required an extirpation of Prelacy indefinitely and absolutely, without either limitation, or explication.

As for those that came not, who excluded, or deterred them? they were all summoned, as appears by the Books of the Assembly. What hindred them? was it not either because they liked not the Election, or the Persons chosen to sit with them; or, that they being for the late King, durst not to sit, either for fear of molestation by the Parlia­ment, or displeasure of the King?

For the manner of Election, it was no other for kind (although more Solemn and warrantable) than that antecedaneous choice, which the Lords had made of sundry Lords, Bishops and other Divines, to consult at the Deans House of Westminster, touching reformation in matters of Religion; at which none then boggled, but all readily joyned in it.

For the persons chosen to sit with them, they were all of them reputed to be able and pious, far beyond many that sate in the usual Convoca­tions, wherein sometimes Lay-men (as Chancellors and Registers Witness the Chancelor and Regi­ster of Lin­coln, chosen at once to sit in Con­vocation in the last Kings reign: Which two, a great Pre­latical Do­ctor that knew them well, called Simeon and Levi; the Devil and his Damme: upon occasi­on of that their Ele­ction.) were admitted, as well as some members of both Houses of Parlia­ment, in the late Assembly. So that if this offended them who now refused to sit in it, the offence was rather taken, then given.

And as for any fear of trouble from the Parliament, or of displea­sure of his then Majesty, it was but a pannick fear, without ground. For, being called by the Parliament, the Parliament was bound to protect them. Yea, had they not been so chosen, yet if they had continued sober, quiet and peaceable, they needed not to have fear­ed the Parliament. Witness that quiet, sober, prudent Dr. Juckson, Bishop of London, who lived quietly, and without all danger of vio­lence or imprisonment, in the Parliament-Quarters; yet was he a man known to be firm to the King, in the greatest divisions and diffe­rences between the King and Parliament: so might all these have done, carrying themselves as he did.

And, as for the Kings displeasure, there could be as little fear of that. For, he never was displeased with the Bishop of Londons abode here; but highly respected and honoured him, to the last. It is true, he ne­ver sate in the Assembly, because not chosen a Member of it. Yet the Prince Elector Palatine sate there, without offence to his Majesty. And albeit his Majesty at first disliked the calling and sitting of that Assembly; yet afterwards, he liked and approved of what they had done, as appears by the Message he sent to both Houses of Parliament, Octob. 11. 1648. wherein (among other things) he was pleased to ex­press himself touching the Assembly, thus: As to that part of the Pro­position for the calling and sitting of the Assembly of Divines, His Maje­sty saith, That he will by Act of Parliament confirm the calling and sit­ting of the said Assembly since the first of July 1643. And that they shall have such powers as are mentioned in the said Ordinance. And that they shall continue their meeting and sitting, and be dissolved in such manner as both Houses of Parliament shall direct.

But enough of this second point. It is sufficient that the Doctor in the midst of all his revilings and slanders, hath acknowledged so ma­ny to concur in the ture sense of the Covenant.

III. PROPOSITION. That notwithstanding all that he hath spoken touching the true sense of the Covenant, and so great a concurrence in it, he endeavour­eth to vilifie, make odious, and to destroy the Covenant it self, as his main design.

IN the entrance to his Answers and Solutions, for satisfying of all so­ber and honest mens Consciences, to take off their shyness of all man­ner of Episcopacy, he begins thus, pag. 6. To prevent which sad meta­morphosis (that is, in turning Covenanters into pillars of Apostacies) in City and Country, my Answer and Resolution in point of Conscience, so far as it relates to Episcopacy, is this. But, in the Margent, he calls his Answers, oblique. And they are oblique indeed: for, he begins them, thus:

First, he boasteth, that he can shrewdly batter the Covenant, by urging the defectiveness and invalidity of it, to bind, either in conscience, or in any other Judicatory; because, without the Kings consent. Without this, it binds no more then the Vow of a Servant, Son, Daughter or Wife, could bind them without, yea against the declared consent of their Master, Father or Husband, under whose protection they were, pag. 6. Here, see his good-will in this Battering Ram.

To prove this, he cites in his Margent, Numb. 30.2. which makes a­gainst [Page 12]him, as I shall after demonstrate. Mean while, take notice, that his instances of Servants and Sons, is a Tale of a Tub: there is no such thing. That Chapter mentions onely Daughters (in their Fa­thers house, in their youth) and Wives that are under Husbands, when the Vow is made. Nor are their Vows void, for want of a declared con­sent (as he talks:) but, they are valid, if Father or Husband, bearing them made, holdeth his peace, vers. 4. and vers. 7. Who will trust such a false man, that thus dares to falfifie an express Text of Scripture?

And whereas he cites in the Margent, Num. 30.2. to prove the invalidity of Vows of Servants, Sons, Daughters, Wives, as aforesaid; that second verse expresly makes against what he here alledged it for. His intention is to prove the Covenant invalid, because taken by men, without the Royal consent. To prove that, he produceth this Text. But, the Text speaks onely of a Vow made by a man: and tells us, that all such Vows are binding. If a MAN vow a vow unto the Lord, and swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. Here is not the least hint of any Exception, no not so much as of a Son, under his Fa­ther: but, all men that vow, are by God held unto it, whether the chief Governour consent, or not: It is onely the vow of a woman, in mino­rity, or Matrimony, which may be made void, as is manifest in the sub­sequent verses; but, not in that.

As for his Eccho, and retorting the Violence and Noise of the times, and the Midwifery of tumults and Armies, upon the Covenant: His further urging the Novelty and partiality of it. Page 7. The sad and Tra­gique Effects, which he malitiously imputeth to the Covenant it self; the bafflings and annulling of it by Counter and gross Engagements, af­ter it had served as one of the great Rocks for the late Kings Shipwrack: these are all such nototious untruths, that nothing but impudence it self raised to its Meridian, would dare to avouch, or own. I there­fore pass through this mire, without answering this wise Doctor according to his scurrilous folly.

But, as to his sixth Oblique Answer, pag. 8. wherein, he saith, It is very considerable how the Covenant (if interpreted against all Episcopa­cy) must needs grate sore upon, and pierce to the very quick, those former lawful Oathes (where he takes it for granted that the Covenant is not lawful) not onely that of Allegiance and Supremacy, and Canonical Obe­dience; but, that of the King at his Coronation. And, he after adds, that there cannot be any Superfetation of such a contradictory Vow and Covenant, without apparent perjury. I must here make bold to tell him, first, supposing the Covenant to be against all Episcopacy, what is that to the Oaths of Supremacy and Aliegiance to his Majesty? Can no man be true to Kings, but he that is for Bishops? Verily, this very Doctor herein contradicts and confutes this absurd Assertion, at [Page 13]pag. 25. where he saith, Doubtless the sence of the Covenant hath lately quickned many mens Consciences in the Allegiance to the King, so to bring him (as David) home with infinite joy and triumph. Who acted most in re-introducing the secluded Members, in procuring a free Parlia­ment, and in bringing home his present Majesty, (whom God bless and preserve) but Covenanteers? Nor is there any syllable in the Co­venant contrary to, but altogether consistent with, and inciting to the most vigorous performance of those two Oaths of Supremacy and Al­legiance. To charge therefore the Covenant as contradictory to the for­mer Oaths; and, as tending to apparent perjury, is such manifest bla­sphemy against so sacred an Oath of God, as cannot but be abhorred of all sober Christians.

Touching the Oath of Canonical Obedience to Bishops: it is true, they took upon them to impose such a tyrannical Yoke upon too ma­ny of their brethren. But, quo jure? and how far were such Oaths Obligatory? This was never found practised by Apostolick and Pri­mitive Bishops; nor warranted by any Law of this Land: but onely derived from the Canon Law, which here is limited by our Statute Laws; none of which do appoint or approve any such Oath. Nor can it be expected, that if Episcopacy should be reduced to the Primi­tive Institution, such tyranny will ever be again endured. And as for that Oath, what doth it require, but obedience in omnibus licitis & ho­nestis; which, our late Episcopacy least cared for? The Laws tye all men to things lawful and honest. And, if so, then the same Doctor hath furnished me with an Argument (strong enough to retort upon the Author of it) against that Canonical Oath, which himself urgeth a­gainst the Covenant, pag. 15. (inverting onely the name of the Cove­nant, into that of this Oath:) They are not the bare words of the Oath of Canonical Obedience, which as Charms, can bind any mans Conscience to or against any thing; but it is the force of Truth, Reason, Justice, Re­ligion and Duty to God and man, our selves or others, which morally and really obligeth men, either by Gods general or particular Precepts; which are as Iron and Adamantine Bands on every mans soul, to chuse good and do it, to hate evil, and eschew it, long before any of these withes or cords of mans combining or tying, are put upon them. By which he argues the needlesness of the Covenant; and so do I, of the unwarranted Oath of Canonical Obedience. And if this Oath should be extended to obey such Bishops as Wren, Peirce, and others, in all they of late enjoyned, there is much more cause to conclude against it, then against the Co­venant (though it should be extended to extirpation of all Episcopacy) in the words of this Doctor, pag. 8. It is therein of no bond or validity, as to any good mans Conscience. And so farewel such an Oath.

And touching the Kings Oath, there is nothing obliging him further then to preserve that Government; so far as it is agreeable to, and [Page 14]warranted by the holy Scripture, and Primitive Institution: so far he condescended at the Isle of Wight. And who requireth more? And yet, even this also may be changed, by his Royal Assent to the Coun­sel and Desire of the two Houses of Parliament; as this Doctor doth more then tacitely admit, pag. 18. Cannot the Legislative Power change Government by Bishops, as well as abrogate other Laws? This is to charge some with perjury, which he dareth not to name: to fright others with a scare-Crow, or man of Clouts; and, to condemn all the Churches of Christ that have laid Episcopacy aside.

His next Quarrel at the Covenant, (if it abjure all Episcopacy) is this, That it runs us upon a great Rock, not onely of Novelty, but of Schism; and dasheth us, both in opinion and practise, against the Judge­ment and Custome of the Catholique Church, in all places and ages (till of latter years He means till Calvin. See his Dendrology in his sighs, tears, &c: ) from the Apostles days. This he often harps upon in a Magisterial Traditionary way. But, once prove that our abolished E­piscopacy was of so antient and universal Observation; Et eris mihi Mag­nus Apollo. Whoever will but read the judgement of Doctor John Reynolds concerning Episcopacy, expressed in a Letter to Sir Francis Knolls, in the year 1598. and Dr. Ʋshers Tract, called, The Reduction of Episcopacy, proposed in the year 1641. will soon find this mans bold Assertion to dwindle into a vapor.

In the eighth place, Pag. 10. under colour of propounding the Loyal and Re­ligious sense of it; he dasheth it with unlawfulness to be taken at all: For, when he would have men to retire to the sober sense wherein alone it might lawfully be taken, he addeth an Alloy; If it had been imposed by due Authority. This sheweth his denial of the lawfulness of it. And so, in stead of satisfying a scrupulous Conscience how to take the Co­venant a right, he cunningly deterreth from the taking of it at all: is not this Jugling? By due Authority, he meaneth Supreme Authority, as is clear by his next Answer; in examining whereof, I shall endeavour to lay open the weakness and falshood of this suggestion.

Ninthly, Pag. 0. he tells you, It were easie to level to the ground all those fair, but fallacious pretences drawn to fortifie the Covenant, from Scripture-ex­amples, wherein the Jews sometimes solemnly renewed their Covenant with God: But, it was that express Covenant which God himself had first made with them in Horeb and Mount Sinai, punctually prescribed by God to Moses, and by Moses (as their Supreme Governour or King) imposed upon them. This, they sometimes renewed, after they had broken it by their Apostacy to false and strange gods. But this was not the case of the Church or people of England, nor was there any need of such covenanting, any more then there was any Moses, or Hezekiah, or Josiah, or any chief Governour commanding it.

As the Hatlot is forward to call her Whore, first, with whom she un­justy quarrelleth; so this Deceiver cries out upon the fallaciousness of [Page 15]the Covenant, because he seeks fallaciously to take off all men from it. In this reviling of his, there are falshoods enow. I will instance in some.

First, it is false that there was no Covenant, but of Gods own pre­scribing; and, secondly, that he prescribed but one. I shall, for bre­vity, discover the falshood of both these together. If none, but of his prescribing, what meaneth that of this Doctors own quoting be­fore, Num. 30.2. which was spontaneous? What, that of Joshua, and the Princes of the Congregation, with the cheating Gibeonites? Josh. 9.15. And, what that (to omit sundry other) of the children of Israel and the children of Judah (after the Babylonish Captivity) who joyned them­selves to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant, never to be forgotten? Jer. 50.5. These were all several Covenants, of different kinds; none of them prescribed, yet all of them allowed (and the breach of them pu­nished) by God. To this, may be added, what the Ʋniversity of Ox­ford, in their Reasons against the Covenant by general consent in Con­vocation, June 1. 1647. Sect. 2. pag. 2, 3. saith for it self, that they are unsatisfied, because the Covenant is imposed, which is repugnant to the nature of a Covenant; which being a contract, implyeth a voluntary mu­tual consent of the Contractors.

It is also false, that the Covenant on Mount Sinai was imposed by Mo­ses (as the Supreme Governour or King) on the people. For Moses was no more their Supreme Governour or King, then Samuel, to whom the people impetuously cryed for a King, to judge them like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.5., when the Lord himself was their King 1 Sam. 12 12..

Nor did Moses, but God himself impose that Covenant in Horeb, as their Supreme Governour, if Moses may be believed. For he tells us, that The Lord talked with them face to face, in the Mount, out of the midst of the fire. Moses, onely stood between the Lord and them, at that time, to shew them the word of the Lord. Deut. 5.4 5.

And albeit there was but one Legal Covenant, yet what was the Circumcision, and the Passeover; and many moe made, or lawful to be made, (and sundry of them to be renewed also; as, the Passeover, and other Festivals) by such solemn prescribing?

And whereas he blesseth God (as they that bless an idol Esay 66.3.) that A­postacy to false and strange gods, was not the case of the Church or people of England, so as to take rise from thence, to enter into this Covenant: I desire him to tell me, what meant the falling off of sundry Bishops to too much Popery both in Doctrine (witness all their Arminian Te­nets, which the learned Bannes, and other Dominican Papists disclaim, and confute:) and also in the general practice in Cathedrals, and elsewhere, the setting up of Altars, Tapers, Candles, &c. (devised by mans fancies:) Injuct. 3. which last (among other things) is in the Queens In­junctions, affirmed to tend to Idolatry and Superstition; which of all other [Page 16]offences, God Almighty doth most detest and abhor, for that the same dimi­nish most his honour and glory.

The like may be said of the late Church-Musique, Anthemes, &c. sung with so much curiosity, quavering, tautologies, &c. that the hearers cannot understand any part of the matter which is sung. A thing which not only the judicious Hooker censured and condemned; but the late Queen Elizabeth provided against, Injunct. 49. by enjoy­ning only modest and distinct songs to be so used in all parts of the Com­mon-prayers in the Church, that it may be as plainly understood, as if it were read without singing. And even where Musick, at the beginning, or ending of Common-prayer, was permitted, it was further provided, that if an Hymn were sung, care should be taken that it might be so done, as to be understood and perceived. And where this is not so done, see the censure of the Homily of the place and time of Prayer, part 2. where such chaunting and playing upon Organs, are said to have displea­sed God so sore, and filthily defiled his holy House, and his place of Prayer, that for it he justly destroyed many Nations.

To say nothing of the many thousands of Popish families in Eng­land, and the swarms of Priests, Jesuites and other Emissaries of the Pope, that at all times creep in, not only into Widows houses, but into Noble-mens and Princes Houses, to seduce, and draw more and more men and women off from the truth to Superstition and Idolatry every day. Pag. 11. There is therefore cause enough to make such a Covenant. But, where he addeth, That this Covenant was but the petty composition of a few Politique men, very mean Subjects some of them, either as Lawyers, or Ministers, a great part of whom, he, and others knew to be no very great Clerks or States-men; and fitter for a Country Cure, then to contrive and compose Solemn Leagues and Covenants, &c. adding, that their beads, rather then their hearts, and their State-correspondencies more then their Consciences, brought forth this Covenant. I shall not retort, that there be not none who know him to be such an one himself: but on­ly, desire all, to pity and pray for him. This railing vein is so incor­porated into his proud felleous heart, that there is no hope of curing it, but by slighting such palpable scornings, and praying for the scorner, that the Lord may either heal, or rebuke him Zech. 3.2..

Lastly, He confidently (I will not say, not for want of ignorance) a voucheth, that there is no precept or patern for any such in all the New Testament, nor in all succeeding ages; and that we never read, nor heard of any Covenanting Christians (until the Holy League (meaning that of bloudy Papists to destroy the Hugonotes, as they termed the Prote­stants) in France) except that of Baptism — this is the New and E­vangelical Covenant of all true Christians: this (he saith) we break by wilful and presumptuous sins; and renew by true repentance and worthy participation of the Lords Supper. Then he proceeds, saying; How [Page 17]vastly different from this sacred Covenant, Pag. 12. this late piece of Policy more then Piety is, &c. he leaves to all sober minded Christians to judge.

To which I answer, That if there were no precept, nor patern in the New Testament, it is sufficient if there be any in the Old; if not Levi­tical, or meerly Typical: unless this Doctor be turned Antinomian. For, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Do­ctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 2 Tim. 3.16. This is meant of the Old, as well as New Testament. For, what­soever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope, Rom. 15.4.

2. What meaneth he by this Covenant? Is it his meaning, that there is no precept nor patern for Covenanting against our English E­piscopacy? (there is not any for it, say I.) Nor is it much material, that he hath found none against it, for we can find no such Episcopacy in the New Testament; nor, warranted by it; notwithstanding all his common talk in this Book, and elsewhere. But this Gentleman must be pleased to look upon this Covenant, not only as against his adored Episcopacy, but in the full Latitude, as being extended against Popery, Heresie, Schisme, Prophaness, and whatsoever is contrary to sound Doctrine and the power of godliness in our selves as well as others: And, for the Preservation and Reformation of Religion against the Common Ene­mies, as likewise to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties person and Authority, to discover all Incendiaries, Hinderers of the Reformation of Religion (beware, Doctor) Dividers between the King and his People, or one of the Kingdoms from the other; to endeavour the continuance of the happy Ʋnion and Peace between them; to assist and defend all that have taken it, in the maintaining and pursuance thereof; to be unfainedly humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these Kingdoms, and to en­deavour for our selves and all others under our charge, in all duties to God and man, to amend our lives, and each one to go before another in the ex­ample of a real Reformation. This is the sum of that Covenant (which each man promiseth to observe, in and according to their several places and callings only) that this man so much setteth at naught, spurneth at, and does what he can to cause all men to throw off and abominate, meerly upon that one single clause of extirpating the late Hierarchy, if so intended, as, for the future, to keep out all such Episcopacy as he would have to be retroduced, although he never particularly descri­beth, nor setteth forth what that is.

And now, I might leave it to all sober Christians to judge, whether this Covenant (taken in the presence of Almighty God, the searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as all that take it shall answer at that great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed,) be a piece of Policy more then of Piety; And how little it differs from [Page 18]that sacred Covenant of Baptism, wherein every man stipulateth, and Covenanteth to deny all ungodliness and wordly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world Tit. 2.12.?

What other in effect and substance is our present folemn League and Covenant? And dares this Seraphical Doctor to say, that this could not be lawfully taken, for want of due Authority to impose it? doth not God require as much? hath not he imposed all these things upon all Christians? are not they all called upon by God himself to Vow all these unto God, and to pay them too? What then can it be less then deso rate madness, to throw off such a Covenant?

And is there no precept or patern to warrant such a Covenant in the New testament? what is the meaning of that, spoken to men under the Baptismal-covenant before; Give your selves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead? Rom. 6.13. What is it to contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the Saints Jude 3. , in nothing terrified by the adversaries Phil. 1.28? Are not these precepts (together with that in Tit. 2.12. before mentioned) warrant enough to Vow and Covenant, again and again, to do all this? And as for Paterns, what saith our Doctor to that of the Macedonians, namely, their giving themselves first to the Lord; and then, unto Paul, by the will of God 2 Cor. 8.5? Nay, what saith he to Paul himself, joyning with those four men that had a vow upon them Act. 21.23 ; whom Paul (by advice of James and all the Elders that were present Vers. 18. took, and the next day purifying himself with them, en­tred into the Temple, to signifie the accomplishment of the days of purifica­tion Vers. 26.? If it be said this was a Ceremonial Covenant: I reply, If Paul himself held it lawful (even when those vows were to be at an end) for avoiding of scandal among weak brethren, or malicious persecu­ting Jews, to enter such a Vow (which he had upon him after his con­version, Acts 18.10.) without any imposition of God or man, even under the Gospel: then much more would he allow such a Covenant as this, being altogether Evangelical.

But whereas he will allow but one Covenant, to wit, Baptism, in the Gospel; and this being broken by wilful and presumptuous sins, is re­newed by true repentance, and worthy participation of the Lords Supper: there are in this almost as many gross errors, as words.

For, first, Is not the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, a Gospel-Co­venant, as well as Baptism? Did ever any intelligent Divine either deny this, or affirm it to be a renewing of the other, and not a Covenant in it self? Secondly, Do true Christians, truly entred into the Bap­tismal Covenant, break it by wilful and presumptuous sins? I had thought that he that is born of God, doth not (so) sin, for that his seed remaineth in him: yea, that he cannot (so) sin, because he is born of God 1 Joh. 3.9.: and that, though he doth what he hateth; yet, not allowing it, nor wilfully and presumptuously, but out of weakness, (being led into captivity) doing [Page 19] what he would not, it is no more he that doth it, but sin that dwelleth in him Rom. 7.16, 17.. Thirdly, Doth Repentance take off wilful and presumptuous sins? In the Law there was no Sacrifice appointed for such sins: yea, God made a Law, that he that sinned presumptuously, should die the death [...]. And in the Gospel, if we believe the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are taught, that if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacri­fice (no not of Christ himself) for sin, but a fearful looking for of judge­ment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries Heb. 10.26, 27.. Fourthly, Doth Repentance renew our Covenant made in Baptism? Surely, no more then it reneweth the remission of our sins: which, not Repentance, but Christ, in Baptism, bestoweth upon us once for all Act. 2.38.: For he, by one offering, hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 10.14.. Repentance recovereth the sense of Gods favour and pardon, but doth not give a new remission. Again, fifthly, The Lords Supper doth not renew our Baptismal Covenant as to remission of sin, but strength­neth us, on Christs part, to perform our Covenant in Baptism; and re­neweth our Vows on our part, to perform it better: therefore it is called, The Communion of the body and blood of Christ, whereby, we be­ing many, are made one bread, and one body, because we are thereby par­takers of that one bread 1 Cor. 10 16, 17. ; of which he that eateth, shall live for ever Joh. 6.51. By this means, We grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ Ephes. 4.15.. Sixthly, The Lords Supper is not to be renewed, or taken again and again, for renewing our Baptismal Covenant, because bro­ken by wilful and presumptuous sins; but, for the renewing of our thankful remembrance of his death 1 Cor 11.26.; for our more full Communion with him, by partaking of him 1 Cor. 10, and encrease in him, till we come to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ Ephes. 4.14..

I have insisted on this the longer, because these few words savour strongly of Arminianism, and Popery. I shall make amends by brevity in the rest. Whereas he tells us, pag. 13. that there is neither Law of God or man, requiring, imposing or comprobating any such Covenant; and that it appears at best, to be but a matter of Will-Worship of humane and private invention, void of publick and plenary injunction, esteemed by ma­ny to be but as a stratagem of State, a flag of Faction, an Engine framed on purpose to batter down Episcopacy, and to seize their Estates, and all the Patrimony of the Church, to the great enriching of some Sacrilegious Pro­testants, &c. and, to the great joy of the Romish Party and Jesuites, &c. who are thought by many wise men to have been, if not the Sires, yet the Sibs to that Covenant. This, and much more, is so full of railing, that no wise man will hold it other then folly to bestow a Line in Answer to it. If this be not Blasphemy, I know not what is. As for his fre­quent prating of Sacrilege, here, in his Sermons, in his long, tedious [Page 20]Ink-horn, Tears, Sighs, &c. I know none so like unto Doeg, as this false vain-glorious man, whose tongue (and pen) devise mischief, like a sharp Rasor, working deceitfully: loving evil more then good, and lying rather then to speak righteousness. For this point, I again refer him to Doctor Burges, whose Book making it out that it is no Sacrilege nor Sin to buy such Lands, still lies unanswered: and yet men go on with their cla­mours and railings, as if nothing had been offered to stop their mouths who can swallow Church Lands formerly alienated, without the least regret.

But whereas he saith, pag. 24. This Age is the first Parent of that Prodigie, wherein Orthodox and reformed Christians, either Presbyters or People, did persecute godly Bishops (of the same Faith and Profession) yea, and Episcopacy it self, though never so regular and reformed: I must crave leave to say, That however Godly Bishops have heretofore been persecuted unto death, in divers former ages of the Church; yet nei­ther were they persecuted by Orthodox and reformed Christians, but by enemies to the Truth and Godliness. Nor did any Orthodox and refor­med Christians, either Presbyters or People, persecute any godly Bishops of this age. This therefore is a mere calumny and slander. It is true, that some Orthodox and reformed Christians, did exhibit and prosecute Archbishop Laud, Bishop Wren, and Bishop Peirce, two (if not all of them) being charged with no less than High Treason: the first where­of being found guilty, was executed Jan. 10. 1644. The other two never answered the Articles exhibited against them unto this day, nor vindicated themselves of those Aspersions cast upon them, for being the prime and most active, and officious Instruments of Laud, to set the Church on fire; by means whereof, all the rest of the Bishops sped the worse.

How godly these were, I know not; but this Doctor hath been the Proctor, and Advocate of Laud Sighs, &c. pag. 628., and Doctor Wren pag. 634., highly applaud­ing them in opposition to the charge of the House of Commons a­gainst them: and that he might lick clean him that was a known Pa­pist, (his hand being in) he bestows a Vindication or Apologie, even for the late Bishop of Glocester, Doctor Goodman pag. 637 also; only he could find nothing to say for Bishop Peirce, though he so devoutly thanked God that he had put down all the Lectures in his Diocess.

There were, no doubt, some of those Bishops which he also com­mendeth, that were learned and pious. But let him name one of those (unless such as were trapann'd by Williams, and other Capritious Pragmaticks, to have their hands in that high and unparliamentary Petition and Protestation to the late King and House of Peers, in Dec. 1641.) that were ever in the least persecuted, and not rather honou­red (if learned and indeed godly) by Orthodox and reformed Christians, whether Presbyters or People. If any of them suffered with the rest, in the [Page 21]abolishing of such Prelacy, they may thank those other ruffling, Cere­monious, violent Ringleaders before named; and not blame others who could not help it, nor longer endure the slavery and persecution which those Amaziah-like Priests Amos., and Tyrants, had exercised over them. I now proceed to my last Proposition, which is this.

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

DƲrus sermo, you will say: this is an hard saying. But, not more hard then true. I shall make it out, thus.

1. If it were a Covenant made between man and man, God will require performance, or severely punish the breach of it. We see this in the breach of the Covenant made by Joshua and the Princes of Israel: Josh. 9.15. Although they obtained it by a wile, and by a lye. By a wile, in coming in old shooes and clouted, and old garments upon them, and all the bread of their provision, was dry and mouldy, ver. 5. By a lye, several times repeated, in saying, they came from a far; yea, a very far country, vers. 6. &c. whereas after the Covenant made, their lying appeared, and they were discovered, at the end of three days, to be their neighbours, and that they dwelt among them. All the Con­gregation of Israel, would hereupon have smitten and destroyed them, they being such as by Gods command were to have been de­stroyed by Joshua Vers. 24., and had now so basely cheated Joshua, and all Israel. This the Princes would not suffer; whereupon all the Con­gregation murmured against the Princes: But all the Princes said to all the Congregation, We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel; now therefore we may not touch them, ver. 18, 19. This quieted the people for the present, and for a long time after. Howbeit Saul, in an humor of envy or malice, many hundred years after slew the Gibe­onites, which then he found in Israel. But Gods anger was so kind­led at this, that he smote all the Land with a famine, for three years to­gether, even towards the latter end of Davids reign. And when David enquired of the Lord, the cause of this sore Plague, The Lord answered, It is for Saul, and his bloudy house, because he slew the Gibeo­nites, 2 Sam. 21.1. To appease this wrath, seven of Sauls sons, were demanded, and hanged before the Lord, ver. 9. — And after that, the Lord was entreated for the Land, ver. 14.

Now, if God were so severe for the breach of such a deceitfully ob­tained Covenant between man and man, when they that procured it, were so base and false as our Doctor would make the late Covenant contrivers, and destined to destruction by God himself by that very hand which made that League with them: How sinful and dangerous must it needs be, for men, upon any pretence whatsoever, to depart from, or wilfully to break any Covenant made with God himself! Here was no prescribing of the League by God, nor force upon Joshua or Israel: Yet God would not put up the breach of it, even upon the posterity of a treacherous Crew that had meerly cheated all his peo­ple at once.

2. There is no Covenant made between man and man, but it is the Oath of God, and his Covenant. So, that Oath and Covenant made between the King and his Subjects, is called, The Oath of God, Eccles. 8.2. thus the Oath and Covenant of Zedekiah, made with the King of Babylon, (an Idolater, and an enemy of God and all his peo­ple) is by God himself called, Mine Oath, and my Covenant, Ezek. 17.19. And upon this account it was, that Joshua and the Princes of Israel, swearing by the Name of the Lord God, they durst not to touch the Gi­beonites. Therefore all such Covenants are irrevocable, and indispen­sable. If any man shall break them, he is sure to be ruined. Wit­ness Zedekiah, though a King, and though forced by the King of Baby­lon, who had conquered Judah, laid aside the rightful King thereof, Jehojakim, and set up Mattaniah (Uncle to Jehojahim) whom he call­ed Zedekiah 2 Kin. 2 [...].27., and made him swear by God, to be a Tributary to him; yet, rebelled against him, 2 Chron. 36.13. His rebellion was, his sen­ding Ambassadours into Egypt, that they might give him Horses, and much people, to arm himself to throw off the yoke of the King of Babylon to whom he had sworn to be subject, Ezek. 17.15. Now, much might have been said for this. That Nebuchadnezzar was an enemy, a great Tyrant over the people of God, who were Abrahams seed, and that were not to be in bondage to any man. And the Covenant was imposed on him by force, &c.

But, all this notwithstanding, mark how God takes this breach of such a forc'd Covenant as this: Shall he break the Covenant, and be delivered? Nay, now he that cared not for his Oath, makes God himself to swear his ruine: As I live, saith the Lord God, surely in the place where the King dwelleth, that made him King, whose Oath he despi­sed, and whose Covenant he brake, even with him, in the midst of Baby­lon he shall die. Neither shall Pharaoh with his mighty Army, and great company, make for him in the war, by casting up mounts, and building forts to cut off many persons. Seeing he despised the Oath by breaking the Covenant, (when lo, he had given his hand) and hath done all these things, he shall not escape. Therefore thus saith the Lord God, (again) As I live, [Page 23]surely mine Oath that he hath destised, and my Covenant that he hath bro­ken, even it I will recompence upon his own head. And I will spread my not upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare, and I will bring him to Babylon, and will plead with him there for his trespass that he hath trespas­sed against ME. And all his fugitives (such as first counselled him to break that Covenant) and all his bands. (that adhered to him in that war) shall fall by the Sword; and they that remain, shall be scattered a­broad towards all winds. And ye shall know that I the Lord have spoken it: Vers. 16.17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

By this it is clear as the Sun, that God will never put up the wilful breach of any Covenant, but dreadfully punish it, even upon Kings themselves; and will extend his wrath not onely upon themselves, but upon all that counsel them to it, (Take heed, Doctor) and joyn with them in it. Of how much sorer punishment then suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who shall dare to trample under feet any Covenant made with God himself, in what manner soever, as an unholy thing?

Nor will this end with temporal plagues in this life; but in Hell hereafter, although the Vow and Oath were but voluntary, and not im­posed. For the breach of such an Oath, Vow, or Covenant, is a sin; and the wages of sin is death Rom. 6.23; not onely natural, but eternal, if not repented of. That this is a sin, appears plainly by Gods own Decla­ration, Deut. 23.21. When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thoushalt not slack to pay it: for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee, and it would be sin in thee; to wit, not to pay it; yea, to be slack to pay it. And that this is meant of even a voluntary vow, appears in vers. 22. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. Wherefore, he addeth, vers. 23. That which is gone out of thy lips, thou shalt keep and perform; even a free-will offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth. Can there be a clearer proof?

Take one more, that by two or three witnesses, every word may be esta­blished. It is that of the Preacher, Eccles. 5.4, 5. When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools, (which, with God, are wicked men, Psalm 73.3.) Pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, then that thou shouldst vow, and not pay. This therefore makes it out, that it is a sin not to perform a voluntary vow. Now, lest, after a vow, the Covenanter should not think to evade his vow, by pleading, that he did it rashly, and it was an errour in him so to do; it is added, by way of anticipa­tion, vers. 6. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin, neither say thou before the Angel, that it was an errour. Wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, (that is, wherefore shouldst thou anger him by so speak­ing?) and destroy the work of thy hands? It being now plain that this is a sin, it cannot be denyed, that a wilful continued breach of a volun­tary [Page 24]Vow and Covenant, if not duely repented of, will certainly end in Hell.

If it be said, These instances are of particular and private persons: what is this, to prove the like sinfulness and danger of the breach, or throwing off of a National Oath, League, and Covenant, not imposed by due, or Supreme Authority?

To this I Answer:

1. The Obligation of an Oath or Covenant, consisteth not in the Paucity or multitude of those that enter into it, but in the making use of God in it; and his declaration thereupon. This was a tye upon all Israel; the swearing to the perfidious Gibeonites, by the Lord God of Israel, as we have shewed before. Hence that of Solo­mon, Eccles. 8.2. I counsel thee to keep the Kings commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God. Where this comes, the Oath and Covenant is indissolubly binding. If we once lift up our hand to the most high God, he will be sure to lift up his hand against us, if we Vow, and not pay; be we few, or many.

2. Nor will the imposing, or not imposing of it by Supreme Au­thority alter the Case. For, it is observable, that in all such Natio­nal Vows and Covenants, neither the Supreme Magistrates imposition, or so much as consent, is at all recorded in Scripture, or mentioned; which shews that there is no necessity of either. It is God, not Kings, that makes the Covenant obligatory. Take an instance or two.

The one is of all Israel, in the Wilderness. When they were set upon by King Arad the Canaanite, who (at first worsted them) and took some of them prisoners; Israel vowed a vow to the Lord, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their Cities Num 21.2. Here is no word, or hint of Moses (their Supreme Go­vernour, as this Doctor unadvisedly calls him:) yet the Vow and Covenant was binding. For God took notice of it, and by his acting confirmed it. The Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites, and they utterly destroyed them, and their Cities ver. 3.

The other is of Judah, and part of Israel (many hundred years af­ter) in the days of Asa; who being by him gathered together at Hieru­salem, to make an offering to the Lord, they entred into a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers, with all their heart, and with all their soul, That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman; and they swore unto the Lord with a loud voice.—And all Judah rejoyced at the oath,—and be was found of them, and the Lord gave them rest round a­bout, 2 Chron. 15.12, 13, &c. Here was a National Covenant, and a Divine acceptance of it. Yet no word, or syllable of Asa, as [Page 25] imposing, or confirming of it. Which is evidence enough, that the im­posing, or consenting of a King, is not of the essence of a Legitimate Covenant: It is enough that God owns it, and commands perfor­mance. Nor can any one instance be given, throughout the whole Book of God, that any Oath, Vow, or Covenant, to which the King, or Supreme Magistrate, would not, or did nor consent, was upon that reason or groud made null and void: or, that any King ever went a­bout to vacate, and adnul any Covenant made with God without the consent of the King. It is then no other but blaspheming the Gods, to term the late Parliament bungling Reformers, for doing Church-work without the Master-builders, Kings and Bishops; if he re­fer it to the Covenant. If he doth not so, then this is but a piece of railing Non-sense, pull'd in by head and ears, to vent his gaul upon his betters.

Do not all Parliaments advise and consult with whom they think meet, even in matters of Religion and Ecclesiastical affairs as well as Civil, and Vote and pass them before they offer them to the King? did they not so, in this? And did not his then Majesty take them in­to consideration, and condescend to so much, as they gave him time to consider of? without declaring against the rest, but only suspend­ing consent, till his Conscience might be better satisfied?

Nay, even that which was never offered to his Majesty at all, (being no way contrary or contradictory to the Oaths of Supremacy, and Allegiance) was never opposed, or contradicted by him. Wit­ness the Protestation of May 5. 1641. taken by both Houses of Parli­ament: and afterwards, by the House of Commons alone, imposed on all the Kingdom, without so much as asking his Majesties consent: which was never controuled, or disallowed by the King, albeit he was then in Person residing at White-hall, and could not be ignorant of what was done therein.

And, what ails the man to make such a noise about the imposing of the Solemn League and Covenant, without the then King, who was then absent! Did not both Ezra, and Nehemiah also draw all the people into a solemn Covenant with God Ezra. 10.3 Neh. 9.38., without special Commissi­ons (unless for reparing the Temple) from the Persian Monarch, then their Soveraign; albeit they were not free Subjects, but Vassals, and one of them the menial servant of Artaxerxes, then by Conquest Su­preme Governour of Judah?

Nor did his late Majesty ever command the renouncing of the said Solemn League and Covenant taken by both Kingdoms, Sept. 11. 1643. albeit he published a Proclamation, Jun. 21. in the 19th year of his Reign, viz. An. 1643. against that other Vow and Covenant, which was about that time, taken by the Lords and Commons, and by them appointed to be taken by every man in the Cities of London, Westmin­ster, [Page 26] and the Suburbs thereof, and throughout the whole Kingdom: the administring and taking of which (by such as had not taken it) were by that Proclamation, for the reasons therein contained, for­bidden.

But, albeit this were lately (by an enemy to the other Solemn League and Covenant) without warrant, reprinted, and scattered up and down as if it had been an interdicting and prohibiting those that had taken it, to perform it; and to give some countenance to that railing Pamphlet of the Doctor here laid open in his colours; in hope that Ignorant ones would surely thereupon cast off that Covenant of God: yet that was but a meer cheat and gullery, of which it behoves all honest men and sober Christians to take notice, and beware.

Nor are Oaths and Covenants once solemnly taken, to be cast off and disclaimed upon any pretence whatsoever, be there never so many defects and failings in the imposing or taking of them, unless the mat­ter of them be sinful, as that of those Jews that bound themselves un­der an Oath of Execration, or curse, not to eat or drink till they had killed Paul Act. 23.14. This I have said enough unto already; yet do repeat it, be­cause since the writing of the premises, I have met with a Book inti­tuled, The Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which have been laid a­side for many years, &c. which tells us Pag. 5., That though there be many infirmities and miscarriages committed in the making and taking of pub­lique Oaths; and although the things they oblige unto, be against the inte­rest of the people; and though the breach and violation thereof, hath the countenance of fair and specious intents and ends, seemingly conducing unto the publique good of the people; yet neither all nor any of these preten­tions, doth either make void the obligations of those Oaths, nor deliver the people from the great guilt of the sin which is committed in the violation thereof, nor secure them from the dreadful judgement of God. Who is the Author hereof, I know not; but I am confident that the Doctor and he aim both at one mark: which makes me to alledge him.

It is true, there is another Book lately reprinted, bearing this Ti­tle; Reasons of the present Judgement of the Ʋniversity of Oxford con­cerning the Solemn League and Covenant, &c. approved by general con­sent in a full Convocation, June 1. 1647. in which Book many Rea­sons are alledged why those who were then Masters, Scholars, Officers, and other Members of that Ʋniversity, could not take that Covenant, and another Negative Oath. But that no way concerneth the pre­sent Case, for their Reasons tend only to their own justification for their not taking of the Covenant and Oath then tendred to them, not, to fall upon others who had already taken it. Therefore there is no need to add any Answers thereunto, although he that caused it to be reprinted, pretendeth to do it, for the satisfaction of others; which can­not in any sense, reach those who have taken the Covenant already.

And now, good Mr. Doctor, think more seriously in cold blood, of your high presumption, in casting so much dirt upon that Covenant which his present gracious Majesty hath so highly honoured; of which, perhaps, you may one day be required to render an account, if men have any zeal for his Majesties honour. I forbear Particulars, in this: but you may do well to lay to heart particularly, what becomes you herein.

Nor hath this Kingdom onely entered into a Solemn League and Covenant themselves: but, they have approved, even in Parliament, what others have done in like cases abroad. When the Kingdom of Scotland (even without their King) entred into a Solemn League and Covenant among themselves, (before their joyning with England in this) and were threatned to be chastised, for that, and other things, by a puissant Army; yet afterwards, upon a through debate thereof in the Parliament of England, it was declared by King and Parliament, That our Brethren of Scotland had done nothing but what became Loyal and obedient Subjects; and were thereupon, by Act of Parliament, pub­lickly righted in all the Churches of this Kingdom, where they had been de­famed.

Yea, See the Exhortati­on for [...] the Covenant, ordered by the House of Commons to be prin­ted, Feb. 9. 1643. the same Exhortation (out of which the precedent Paragraph is extracted) telleth us, That neither this Doctrine nor Practise hath been (formerly) deemed seditious, or unwarrantable by the (former) Princes that have sate upon the (English) Throne, but justified and defen­ded by Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory, with the expence of much Trea­sure and Noble Blood, in the united Provinces of the Netherlands, combi­ned, not onely without, but against the unjust violence of Philip (the se­cond) of Spain (first and chiefly in matters of Religion) King James (of like blessed memory) followed her steps, so far as to approve their uni­on, and to enter into League with them as free States; which was after continued by his last Majesty, who both by his Expedition for relief of Ro­chel in France, and by his strict confederacy (and Allyance) with the the late Prince of Orange, notwithstanding all the importunity of Spain to the contrary, did set to his seal, That all that had been done by his Royal Ancestors, in maintenance of those who had so engaged and combined themselves, was just and warrantable.

Thus, Mr. Doctor, I have given you some patterns of Covenan­ting Christians, beside the Holy League in France, the two Houses of Parliament (whom you take pleasure, every where to bespatter, as if they were Fools and Rebels) in England, and our Brethren in Scotland. I forbear to mention Germany, the Cantons, the Albigenses, and others, because I have said enough already to shew the fowlness of your Pen, and the falshood of him that held it, in saying, there is no pattern of such a Covenant in any ages of the Church, and that we never read nor heard of any Covenanting Christians (until the Ligue Sainte in France) [Page 28] except those who in Baptism were sprinkled with the blood of Christ, and so entred into that Covenant, &c. pag. 11.

I have now taken my walk through your gaudy Field: but have gathered little fruit. I therefore forbear further progress; unless to take a view of Her whom you call Your dear Mother the Church of Eng­land, pag. 5. I pray, who, and what is She? Which Question I ask not, as if I were of opinion that there is none such: but, to know of you whom you take Her to be. I have read of one Mother of us all Gal. 4.26. I know no more Mothers, although I know more Churches. I have read in the Articles of Religion, established in 13 Eliz. cap. 12. Art. 19. That the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ad­ministred, according to Christs Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

But, you are not so rude an Ʋnderstander, nor so uncritical a Speaker. By the Church of England, you plainly and charitably mean that part of mankind in this Polity or Nation which having been called, baptised, and instructed, by lawful Ministers in the Mysteries and Duties of the Gospel, maketh a joynt and publick Profession of the Christian Faith, and Refor­med Religion, in the name, and as the sense of the whole Nation, &c. Thus you, in your Tears, Sighs, &c. of the Church of England, pag. 24. Then, all man-kind in this Polity and Nation, making such a Profession, is your Dear Mother. Are not you then, Terrae Filius, Sir? St. Paul tells us, Hierusalem which is above, is the Mother of us all. But you tell us, Your Mother is (not Hierusalem, [...]u [...]) England, which is below, and not free. Much joy may you have of her. I can own her as a Church, but not as a Mother. I have read of no Mothers in the New Te­stament, in relation to Churches, but onely Hierusalem (not Earthly, but Coelestial:) and Babylon, the great Whore, the Mother of Harlots Rev. 17.1, 5.. If the Doctor have found out a third, much good may she do him. Now I see what makes him so excentrick and extravagant: namely, his sucking too much of his Mothers Milk, when she had eaten too much poysonous meat of Arminianism, Socinianism, and Popery.

And now, Sir, I shall for this time take my leave of you, with this close: that whereas you (pag. 25.) vant, that, in two days you fi­nished those Answers and Solutions; truly, Sir, I think so too: and do believe, that whoever shall carefully compare those Answers and So­lutions with this Reply, (which cost more time) will be of the same o­pinion: and, that the spirit of perversness, pride, and time-serving ambition, did dictate them unto you.