to speak with more Reverence of a Case of Conscience if he had withal added my Reasons it would have plainly appeared that nothing but frontless Impudence would have called that Spitefulness But to divert the Discourse he tells me That I have over-run the Point For saith he the Word Only is not as if a Case of Conscience was not a matter of Consequence but that the taking or not taking the Oaths is only a Case of Conscience not matter of Doctrine But doth not the Strength of his Argument lye in this That the taking or not taking the Oaths is only a Case of Conscience about which wise and good Men may differ And doth not he by this means endeavour to represent it as a Matter of small Moment or Importance and I think this is not to make it a Matter of any great Consequence Or do I there speak any thing of Doctrine but strictly keep my self to the Plea of a Case of Conscience Was not my principal Reason this That there was not any Moral Action and consequently not any Duty of a Christian about which a Case of Conscience might not at one time or other arise And if these may be determined either way because wise and good Men may differ this will either destroy the very nature of Good Evil or make the Bounds so moveable that we shall never know certainly where to find them But because these and other Reasons deserve no Answer let us see whether he hath made the matter better or worse by what he will vouchsafe us It is only a Case of Conscience he says not Matter of Doctrine What is the meaning of this Doth he think practical Cases things indifferent and that nothing is of moment but matter of Theory Provided that a Man doth believe in general that Oaths are obligatory is it lawful for him in practice to take contradictory Oaths and be guilty of Perjury I confess That I should have a better Opinion of the Quaker who denies the Lawfulness of all Oaths than of that Man who maintains the Lawfulness of Breaking all Oaths The one may prevent Perjury the other encourageth it without end But if Men put such a Sense upon promissory Oaths as contrary to their Nature and Design makes them to be no Security I leave it to indifferent Persons to judge whether that Man doth not in effect invalidate all promissory Oaths and set up such a Doctrine as teacheth the Lawfulness to break them And I think we need not go far to seek Men who do thus But this Oath he says is a Matter of a Civil Nature What then Is not God appealed to in the taking it Is not his holy Name profaned and his Wrath and Vengeance provoked if it be taken in Violation of former Oaths i. e. in Perjury What if its Meaning be to be learnt from the Constitution and Laws of the Realm Has it not therefore a certain Sense and Meaning And if there be Sin in it is it not a sufficient ground to refuse to communicate in that Sin or to joyn with perjured Persons in their Perjury But here he shamelesly insinuates That the Matter of our Difference is only Scruples when I had told him as plainly as a Man could speak That we had no Scruples If a Man should encourage me to murther my Father or rob him of all he hath should I make any Scruple to reject the Council of such a Villain I think there is as little Reason for a Man to raise Scruples why he may not forswear himself as why he may not commit Theft Murther or Adultery He scarce deserves the Name of a Christian who doth not without any Scruple condemn these Sins After this shift he next puts two Pleas in our Mouths and then makes two Answers for his learned Author The First Plea is That when any Thing unlawful is made a condition of Communion it will justify a Separation As to which he tells us his Author made Answer That taking the Oaths is no condition of Communion with us and shewed that the Terms of our Communion are not altered This indeed he said but he never shewed or proved nor ever can For will he say That the matter of the Oaths is not made a condition of Communion to all Men Are we not obliged to pray for the same thing in more ample plain and signicant Terms than we are to swear it Now whatever Objections we have against the Oath our principal Objection is against the matter of it as unduely and unjustly assigned and if the Owning and Praying for this be made a part of the daily Office it is made a condition of our Communion and if so then the terms of our Communion are altered And thus he may see that a Man may sooner prove the Oaths to be made conditions of Communion then tell of forty Things they are not But this will be done more fully afterwards As to the Second Objection he tells us his Author says That it is the Scruple about mix'd Communion which hath been so long exploded among us and this he says I was very careful to pass over in silence And perhaps he did not very advisedly to be my remembrance For I will not pass it over so now For should I suffer that to lye against us I should expose both my self and others to a severe Censure But I have known Boys set up a Daslin and then strangely laugh and tryumph to see how bravely they knockt it down again and when other Men make our Objections for us they may frame them on purpose so as to fasten on them some ridiculous Consequences which they had before in their Head and that indeed may make them Sport but it doth not affect us And I cannot think that this Author did believe himself when he cast this Calumny upon us as think us so very Weak and Silly to seperate upon the Terms of those Enthusiasts who thought themselves Defiled in mix'd Communions Had he stated the Objection fairly there had been no colour for his Answer But since he is resolved to cast all Slanders upon us I shall briefly represent our Sense in this Case which will be sufficient to wipe them off We do not seperate from them upon the account of any particular Frailties or any personal Infirmities or Sins We do not seperate from them for that they have taken unlawful Oaths though we think them bad Men for doing so and worse for hardening themselves in their Sin by maintaining them and encouraging others to be as bad as themselves good Offices may be discharged by ill Persons if lawfully authorized thereto and where the Terms of the Communion are Sound the particular personal Failings of a Man in other matters affects not the Communion both Judas and Demas may execute their Office to the benefit of others though it were to be wished that scandalous Sins were less rife in the World for a fulsome Cup is apt to turn the Stomack
be considered whether it be the particular Case and whether the Publick Good be Secured or Advanced And here it would be enquired Whether Religion be better Secured to us Whether Mens Lives and Properties are more Safe How we encrease in Strength in Trade in Riches and the like And though I do not admire our Gain yet many of these Things are out of my way but there is a certain Tract called the DEAR BARGAIN which speaks of these Things and if the Government would encourage that Author to write I am perswaded he would quickly set that Controversie in the true Light and to him as the fittest Man I leave it The next thing is the Practicability of this Principle of Publick Good Now whatever the Publick Good is or whatever it may Warrant yet if People are to make that their Rule they will judge of it and then every one will judge of Publick Good according to his own Interest and Persuasion and this by several Arguments I did prove would fill the World with Violence and Confusion But he is so far from answering any of my Arguments that he never mentioneth one of 'em as sensible that it would spoil all that he intended to sham on me afterwards But very honestly he Sums up my Argument as I neither laid nor meant it and tells me That the Publick Good 's being liable to be abused is an inconcluding Argument not only because of the Inconsequence but because this is a way of Arguing that may serve against any thing and if we put Publick Justice or Laws or Religion or Reformation into the place of Publick Good it will hold in any of them as well as the other Grant this to be true though it is of his own making yet will this conclude that whoever pleads Publick Good Religion or Reformation is necessarily in the Right And if it be so liable to be abused Doth it not nearly concern us to examine well whether it be not abused When so many have been imposed upon by it and even we our selves so very lately almost to our utter Ruin must we still be such Fools as to believe without more adoe every bawling or self-interessed Fellow who cries Publick Good For this Reason I did then fairly intimate That Publick Good as a common Noise or solitary Plea is never to be admitted without such Criterions and other Evidences accompanying it as may make it appear that what is pleaded is real And thus it will be in any of the Cases he supposeth if he please he may set up the cry of Reformation and then the Church of England is for Reforming the Church of Rome yea at this time perhaps one part of it is for Reforming another the Presbyterian would Reform them both and the Independent outdoeth him and still the Anabaptist hath a Knack of Reforming further and the Quaker he is for Reforming them all Now set all these on Work and encourage them by telling them That the Plea of Reformation being liable to be abused is no Argument but it is Inconsequent and would reach to Publick Good or any thing else and if they were suffered to go on in this mad Humour I am apt to think that in a short time they would reform away all Religion And if therefore Reformation be required we must not presently fall to altering or pulling down but first enquire whether there be any thing that stands in need of Reformation For if things be either well or near well change is rarely for the better But if there be discovered either such gross Errors or intolerable Abuses as need Reformation yet it must be done in a regular Course for though there should be never so much need of Reformation if you will allow all to be Publick Reformers you will mend Religion worse than those Tinkers do Kettles who instead of stopping one hole make two And thus as to Publick Good the bare Name of it is not enough especially when such great Actions are pretended for the sake of it as for any thing we know may prove fatal and therefore when such a Pretence is set up I think there is a double Test whereby it ought to be tryed for as a Civil Society we ought to examine such Pretences with their agreeableness to our Constitutions for if they be contrary to them they portend a Civil Destruction But then as we are a Christian Society this Pretence of Publick Good must be examined by the Rules of Righteousness and the Gospel of the Blessed Jesus and if Men will pretend for Publick Good to disannul indispensable Duties to destroy all Faith and Truth amongst Men and to over-throw the very Nature of Good and Evil by making it Changeable and Subservient to every present Turn and Occasion this is the ready way to destroy not only the Civil Society but the Christian Church And if that which makes void Promises and Oaths which evacuates God's Commandments which transforms Treachery into Vertue and either makes it lawful to do Evil that Good may come of it or flatly says it is no Evil if Good may happen to come of it for I think there is not much Good come of it yet I say if this be not Destructive of the Evangelical Rule I know not what can And if disinteressed Persons were to judge of Particulars in the present Case I dread to think on which Side even a Moral Heathen would give the Verdict to the Shame of such numbers of Christians The third thing proposed is who shall be Judge i. e. either of the Mischief or the Remedy As to the former he says The Case before us is supposed to be notorious It is indeed supposed but it was never proved Must we destroy a King and Government for the Shams and Slanders that malicious Men suppose in defence of their Wickedness Two things indeed he mentions which have a Tendency as he saith to the Destruction of a Government Desertion and Lunacy Now if K. J. was Lunatick this is the first time I have heard of it but if he was that is not a sufficient ground to depose him Indeed it may warrant the setting up a Protector or Regent to act in his Name but the Honour and Title still remain with him This seems to be the Case of Edward III. who at the latter end of his Reign being sensible of his Indisposition for Government made Lionel Duke of Clarence Regent of the Realm But this bereaved neither Edward III. his Father nor Richard II. his Nephew of their Right As for Desertion I think they ought not for shame to have named it unless they had returned some better Answer to the Paper called Desertion Discuss'd than imprisoning the Author But he saith I might as well have asked who shall be the Judge whether the Banks are broken down in an Inundation c. I hope he doth not mean an Inundation of Foreigners Poverty and Cruelty But who is it hath broke the Banks or made
the Breaches Or how are they repared and amended No doubt but that now all is well and we are out of danger and as safe as Thieves in a Mill. But after all he might have considered That there is a great difference between judging in Naturals and Politicks As to the Objects of my Senses Nature hath made me the Judge so that if I see the Water break in or the Wall thrown down I need not ask another whether it be so or no but I am not so proper a Judge of the Tendency of my Superiours Actions they being often moved by such Springs as I cannot see and therefore can make no certain Judgment of them And it is no strange thing for People to mistake these Actions when done and not to know what is good for themselves Thus the Earl of Strafford was accused for advancing Trade in Ireland and for urging the necessity of the Interposition of the King's Authority where the Letter of the Law was too severe upon his Subjects And I could name the Person who in Vindication of the Barbarity of the Kentish Men to a certain Person in Distress urged his putting an Act in execution in those parts than which scarce any thing more tended to the Advancement of our Trade as even he who urged it had formerly acknowledged Thus some people will make even Health it self to be a Disease Now if we are not well qualified to judge of the Evil we are still more unfit to he judges of the Remedy For it is a Madness to prate of applying a Cure to we know not what But to put a stop here he supposes Cases wherein the Supreme Governour may be a Party and therefore not to be allowed to be judge in his own Case But then will not his Subjects be a Party too And if they in this Case must be allowed to be Judge over the Supreme Governour What is this but to set a Supreme above a Supreme whilst he himself grants That the Supreme Governour has no Supreme But it is an idle if not a wicked Thing to suppose such Cases without proving them when such Supposals are made the Reason of their Actions For at this rate no Government can be long-liv'd When that is proved to be the Case it is then time enough to discourse of what may be done by the Intreaties and Petitions of the People and the Mediation of co-ordinate Powers in order to set things to Rights But let his Author say never so plainly That he doth not set up the Power of the People over Kings yet his Principles do and Men act by those whatever they may pretend or say to the contrary As to what concerns a Body of Men he puts these two Questions from his Author Whether the Law of our Nation doth not bind us to Allegiance to a King and Queen in actual Possession of the Throne by consent of the three Estates of thâ— Realm And whether such an Oath may not lawfully be taken notwithstanding any former Oath The affirmative he proves from the Consent of the People whose true Representatives as he says they are I need not here examine of what Force is the Consent of the People because the Foundation whereon he Grounds it as to our present Case is false For the three Estates of the Realm are the King 's three Estates and they can neither be legal Estates nor legal Representatives without the King's Authority Writs and Summons and other Requisites But it seems the Inquirer here put an unlucky Question Where or how can all the People meet Which he scornfully thus Answers As if the Author he opposes thought of no less than the numbering of the People from Dan to Beersheba But if he did not think of numbering them from Dan to Beersheba he ought to have thought of numbering them from Barwick to Dover For if the Government was not dissolved Why goes it not according to the Constitution If it was dissolved than all Men were as free as it is possible for Men to be and then no Man could represent another without his express Consent and every ones Consent ought to be taken Viritim for whosoever did not give his Consent did not come into your new Body and his natural Freedom could not without Injustice be taken from him by Force When I thought we had been near an end he is got again to the begining and when he was thinking of closing in the very next Words he propounds no less than three Heads of Discourse which he says his Author treated of towards the begining but all amount to no more but the old Cuckoo Note of Publick Good and that it ought to over-rule every thing as to which I might briefly Answer That Publick Good is to be promoted in the way of Duty not out of it and this is very ill taken up for a Plea where there is neither Publick Good nor Duty in the Matter they plead for But he undertakes to prove the Matter by Instances only they are Instances which have been already Answered and he doth not handle them so dexterously as his Author He begins with Parents and Childeren and unlucky Omen If saith he a Vow to God which is as solemn a Thing as an Oath hinders that good which Children are bound to do to Parents it ceaseth to oblige as our Saviour declares Very good But the reason is because that Vow never obliged at all as be-ing unlawful and contrary to that which God and Nature had made a Duty of Childeren to Parents though Wicked or Froward I thought the Duty of Children to Parents had been Abdicated at least Sir you ought to have overlook'd it But I desire it may be observed That to make amends for this oversight this very Author who here makes the Duty of Childeren to Parents so Sacred that it makes void a Vow to God himself within 3 Pages next following teacheth you a trick to vacate the Obligation of the Fifth Commandment But it seems I had said That this was nothing to the purpose and I think I there proved it But he says it is to the purpose because if the procuring and preserving the Publick Good be a Duty and what a Person hath vowed or sworn be destructive of it then the Oath cannot oblige no more than a Vow c. p. 28. But I say this also is nothing to the Purpose For though the procuring and preserving the publick Good be a Duty yet it doth not make every thing a Duty which may tend towards it and it must be procured and preserved only by means lawful and honest If Children might murther their Parents for the Publick Good such Parents as have large Estates and wicked Children had need look out sharp for Pretences even of Publick Good would not long be wanting to send them of an Errand to another World Whereas I had said with respect to such Oath or Vow That the Sin was in making c. he says this is