SIR, I am glad to meet you here, but some­thing amused to see you so Pensive.

Our present Circumstances may make us all so, seeing we are in the greatest danger of Popery, which threatens to ruine us in Estate, Body and Soul, and our Children after us. And yet there are many not apprehensive of it, too many among us of the Cler­gy, which doth not a little amuse me, since they are Prudent Persons, sensible enough of their Interest, and better, I would hope, then to secure it by throwing their Religion overboard, and yet there is no other way visible to do it, if the Popish Designes succeed.

They are very artificial men I'le assure you, and many things may be alledged for them. It may be Popery is not a thing so formidable to them as it is to some hotter men. Or it may be they have found out some expedients to reconcile the harsher points of Popery to their own moderate sentiments. Or it may be they are over-awed by persons of great eminency on whom they have their dependence. Or —

What you alledge for them, makes them farr worse than I hope they are. For the first signifies that they are but indifferent Protestants. The next, that they have found out a plausible way to be Papists. And the third that they are not like to be true to either Reli­gion. For if those on whom they depend would have [Page 2]the People turn Turks, Jews or Heathens, they must not vote not petition (although they may legally do ei­ther) to hinder it: for they are still over-awed, and must not Disoblige their Superiors, lest they desert them when their Interest is otherwise in hazard.

You interrupted me, or else I had mentioned another thing which will Justify them. They are a­fraid of another Party, who if the Papists were too much supprest, and the Ballance not kept even, might prove more dangerous then they.

What Party do you mean?

I mean the Presbyterians, who are as bad or worse then Papists.

Do you consider what Religion they are of, when you make this comparison, and give the Papists the preference?

Yes. That also considered, that they profess them­selves to be Protestants. I know their Religion well enough.

I am much surprized to hear this from you. I always took you to be a Protestant.

And does this signifie that I am a Papist?

He that understands these two Religions and passeth this Judgment, not in heat nor disordered by Passion, but sedately and with consideration, is either a Papist, or sufficiently prepared to be one when occasion serves.

How doth this appear?

Very plainly and easly. For a Presbyterian holds all the points of the Protestant Religion. If then he be worse then a Papist, a Protestant is worse then a Papist, and the Protestant Religion will be worse than Popery.

I understand not this.

That may be from your Will rather than your Reason. Not because it is not clear, but because you would not have it so. It is plain enough to those that have Eyes and will open them. If you should hear one that judges a Christian, in point of Religion, to be worse then a Mahumetan, you would not question but that man is a Turk. He, that speaking of the Religions in France, should determine that the Protestants are worse then the Papists, would thereby shew himself a Papist, nor need one wish a clearer Demonstration of it. And can they be better who thus determine of Presbyterians in England, then he that doth it in France, when all the Protestants there, are Presbyterians? Indeed all the Protestants in other Contries are involved in this cen­sure, and Condemned as worse then Papists. For all the Protestants in France, Switreland, the Low Countryes, and very many in Germany, Transylvania, Poland, &c. are Presbyterians. And the Lutherans in these and other Countryes cannot with any reason be exempted: for none except themselves will pretend, that those things wherein as Lutherans they differ from other more Reformed Churches, do make them better: and so if the Presbyterians in all these Churches be worse then Papists, the Lutherans must be so too. Nay, there are [Page 4]few in England will escape this censure, and so there will scarce be any in this Kingdom but must be worse then Papists, save Papists themselves. For I see the late House of Commons in several Pamphlets condemned as Presbyterians, and with them the Commons of England are cast, who choose such. And if the House of Lords be not of a better Religion then that of the House of Com­mons, they must be both together worse then Papists. So that unless the Lords and Commons can be perswaded by such Judicious Censurers to be of a better Religion then that of the Presbyterians, which is the same and no other, then the Protestant, we are like to be in an ill Condition. Nay, the Bishops and the best sons of the Church, will be worse than Papists, unless those things wherein they vary from other Protestants, (such as are no part of that, nor any Religion else) can make them better. Besides, that those who are not yet Papists, are by this perswasion throughly prepared for Popery, is very apparent: for if Papists must be preferr'd before Presbyterians; then their principles must be worse then those of the Papists. Whereas even those wherein they differ from the Church of England, and for which alone they are obnoxious, are in the account of the most judicious Prelates and Doctors that this Church hath bred, tollerable Points, no parts of Religion, scarce any but matter of indifferency, and such wherein others Re­formed Churches agree with them. Now if for these they must be counted worse than Papists, then the worst things in Popery, must pass for better then tolerable and indifferent things: Then all the Popish Idolatries; their absurd, impious and pernicious Doctrines in matters of Faith; their gross Impostures, their practical Max­ims, subverting Morality, Humanity and human Soci­ety; must not be thought so bad, as some tolerable mis­takes, [Page 5]and who then but some silly Fanaticks will stick at them? It is plaine you hereby leave your self and o­thers little or no reason to baulk the very worst things in Popery,

I did not so well consider the consequence of what I asserted. However you have not yet made good the ground of your Inference, nor can do. For do not these Presbyterians differ in many things from the Religion of the Church of England.

No. Not from the Religion of this Church in any thing that I know.

That's strang. Do they not differ in the Rites and Ceremonies, the publick Liturgy, the Discipline and Government of the Church?

Call you these Points of the Protestant Relgion?

Why not, I pray? Are not these considerable Parts of the Religion of this Church as it is established by Law.

These are no Parts of the Religion established by Law: for they are no points of Religion at all, but mat­ters of Indifferency, as the Church of England declares them to be, and no Religion is to be placed in things In­different. And the Reason is obvious. For Religion, if it be True, must be Authorized by God, or Instituted by Christ, but things Indifferent are neither command­ed nor forbiden.

This is true of the Ceremonies, the Church signi­fies that they are in their own nature Indifferent, and declares withal that no Religion is to be placed in things Indifferent. But will you have the Sacred Liturgy to be a thing of this Nature, and of no more value than that which in it self, is neither Bad nor Good?

I pay all due Reverence to our Liturgy; but no Veneration should blind us, or hinder us from discern­ing the true Nature of things. Prayer in general is an eminent Part of Religion, and Divine Worship, and ne­cessary both by the Light of Nature, and Revelation; but this or that Form of Prayer, how exact soever, is in it self no other than Indifferent. This all acknowledge who understand any thing concerning these Matters.

But what Religion do you then leave those, who by their Heats for these things, and their Indifferency as to others, shew that these only are their Religion, or the Principal part of it?

I leave them all they had, if they had lest them­selves any, but indeed those who place all their Reli­gion herein, have no Religion at all; and those who make these the Principal Part of their Religion, make less of that which is Religion indeed, than of an Indif­ferent thing: and so indeed are Indifferent as to this or that Religion, Protestantism or Popery: or which is worse, indifferent as to any Religion, or none. And those that have any Love for the Souls of People, should endeavour to undeceive them therein, and not leave them under such Conceits as make them too ea­sy a Prey to Popish Seducers, who need desire no more than that we should value the whole Protestant Reli­gion [Page 7]less than some matters of Indifferency.

But must our Church Government pass under the same Account?

So far as it is not of divine Institution, it is in it self no better than Matter of Indifferency, and of the very many branches of our Government, there is but one that pretends to an higher Original. And about that one, viz. The Power and Superiority of Bishops, they themselves are divided, some asserting the Divine Right of Prelacy, others denying it. It is denyed to be of divine Institution, by Arch-Bishop Cranmer, and our first Reformers in Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth's Times, by Arch-Bishop Whit­gift, Bishop Bridges, and others in Queen Elizabeth's Time, by King James See these with many more, in Ed. Stil­lingfleet, Iren. Pag. 393. 394. himself, &c. Now you cannot well conclude, that they differ from us in any point of Religion on this account, till we be agreed a­mongst our selves, that this is a point of Religion. Or-if you will have it concluded by a major Part, take Episcopacy as it is now stated, for a distinct Office, in­vested with the sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, and of those Bishops who have writ most in defence of Prelacy among us, it will be carried against you by two for one, that such Prelacy is not of divine Authori­ty, and so no part of Religion. And those that plead for the highest Title, make it a point of very small Mo­ment.Peace-Ma­ker, pag. 46. 47. Bishop Hall one of the most Zealous Asserters of Episcopacy by Divine right, declares it as the Sence of all Protestants, Episcopal as well as others,B. Gawden Pres. to Hooker's Eccl. Po­licy. that they can see no reason, why so poor a Diversity, should work an Alie­nation of Affection in us towards one another. Another of our Bishops tell you, the things forementioned, are no [Page 8] Fixed Parts of our Religion, but Circumstantials, and Ornaments. A third will have them the Skin of an Apple, which must not be pared of, if you would have it keep. Not to mention others (as not worthy of re­gard) who will have them more like the Core of. an Apple, when it hath been kept too long. So that what Stress soever Interest layes upon these and such like points, Religion layes little or none thereon.

But there are many who will lay the greatest Stress upon this, and are greatly concerned to do it, they are sensible, and you may easily apprehend, how much depends on it.

I know their Wealth and Grandeur may seem a little concerned in it: but if they will count those who are of the same Religion worse than Papists, because they think them not friendly enough to their worldly Interest, they will be suspected to value the World more than Religion.

But, which I had almost forgot, they differ from us in the Doctrine of Predestination, and other Points that depend thereon.

You mean, I suppose, the Oppinions of Arminius and his Followers, concerning Conditional Election, the equal Redemption of all, Free-will, the indifferent operation of Grace, and Falling-away from the state of Grace.

Yes, these I understand, and these you cannot de­ny to be Points of Faith and matters of Religion.

They are no parts of the Protestants Religion, nor of the Doctrine of the Church of England, being not [Page 9]contained in the Confessions of any of the Protestant Churches, nor in the Articles of the Church of England, but rather the contrary. So that herein they differ not from the Church, who never owned these Opinions; but from some particular Persons in it; and differ no more from them, then many other Sons of the Church do at this day; and all in a manner did for many Years after the Reformation. In all Queen Elizabeths Reign I find not above three of any note, among all the Clergy and in both Universities, that maintain'd these Doct­rines, and two of them censured for it. Afterwards King James promoted the Condemnation of the Ar­minian Tenets by the Synod of Dort, sending Eminent Divines from hence, who concurred with others from the Reformed Churches in the censure of them. He him­self declaredK. James Declaration Arminius to be an Enemy to God, and his followers to be Atheistcal Sectaries. In the late Kings time, several Parliaments declared against Armianism as an Innovation of pernicious consequence. And those who most loved it, and had the greatest advantages to influence the Clergy in favour of it, durst not venture it to the Test of a Convocation, as oneHeyl. Life of A.L. pag. 153. who had a passionate Fondness for it confesses. So it is, saies he, that the truth in these Opinions not being so generally en­tertain'd among the Clergy, nor the Arch-Bishop and the greater part of the Prelates, so inclinable to them, as to venture the determining of these Points to a Convocation. How far then were these Opinions from being count­ed the Doctrine of our Church, when there was no ex­pectation that they would be accounted Truths by our Church representative? Sure they act more agreeably to the sense of the Church of England thus far, who reject these Arminian Tenets then they who embrace them.

But though the Presbyterians hold all the points of the Protestant Religion, yet they maintain other Opinions besides, such as are pernicious to Civel Government and Secular Princes, upon this account they may be said to be worse than Papists, their Princi­ples of this nature being more dangerous.

I have heard some such thing said diverse times, but I must do them this right as to declare, that I ne­ver saw it proved, nor ever expect it. Upon a strict Inquiry I find their principles about Civel Government, to be no other, than what the eminentest of our Prelates and learned Divines, such as Bishop Jewel, Mr. Hooker, Bishop Bilson, Bishop Morton, &c. have owned, or defended, so far is it from being true, that their opinions herein are as bad or worse than the Papists. And they may challenge all the Papists in England, masqued and unmasqued, to make it good from the Writings of any considerable Divines approved by those of that Deno­mination. But that you may have a more particular satisfaction, let us take a view of some Popish Principles respecting Civel Government and Humane Societies, some wherein we are particularly concerned, and then compare them with those charged on the Pres­byterians by their bitterest enemies.

Do their approved Authors publish such things as these?

Yes, And I will shew you their own Words for it, in their own Language, when you please. Indeed [Page 15]they have made the Proof of such a Charge very easy by their other Principles. We need not trouble our selves to shew, that this or that Practical Assertion is decreed by a General Council, or entertained by their whole Church; it will be evident enough, if it be made appear, to be the Judgement of some of their Grave Doctors: for it is a received Maxim, That in Matters of Morality, a Probable Opinion may be followed with a safe Conscience, and an Opinion is made probable by the Authority of the Doctors who deliver it.

Caramuel assures us four Doctors will do it currently.

In FatherAbbot An­tilog. Cap. 13. P. 191. Garnet's Judgement, two or three will be sufficient: but many hold that one Grave Doctor is enough.

Verricelli Opuse. Pag. 56. (as Guimenius tells us) quotes twenty four of their Authors that maintain this. I suppose he might have made them up Forty, by what I have seen. And those that require the Concurrence of four, in an Opinion to make it probable, must grant that one will suffice, unless they will contradict themselves, since there are more than Twenty Four who hold that One Doctor is sufficient. Now there is not the most ex­travagant Assertion among all these forementioned, but the Authority of One grave Doctor, at lest, may be produced for it; and this is enough to make it lawful in practice, past all scruple. So that there needs no more but the Opinion of any one grave Casuist or Con­fessor to assure the lawfulness of the most Horrid Vil­lany that ever was, or can be acted; Be it the Killing ef a King, or all the Princes on Earth that are Hereticks. The Life of Queen Elizabeth was divers times atrempted with an assurance the Attempt was Lawful, upon no better Authority. Or the Burning of such a City as London, though 'tis like there was a Concurrence of [Page 16]more in this. Or the blowing up a Parliament, the Opinion of Harry Garnet alone, satisfyed the most scrupulous of the Conspirators, that the Fact was both Lawfull and Meritorious.

I think these last Maxims upon which they raise their Doctrine of Probability will prove as pernicious, as any before mentioned, since they are virtually all that is wicked. And Papists must be more dangerous Persons than I was willing to suspect, since a Priest can make any thing Lawfull for them. The Opinion of One Doct­or is as good for this purpose as a Popes Bull, or the De­cree of a General Council.

True. These might make it more Certain, but there's no need of Certainty in the case, a meer Probabi­lity makes their Practice safe enough in Conscience. And though a constitution of a Pope or Council might make it more Certain and more Safe, they are not Con­cerned for that, but may Lawfully act according to an Opinion that is both less Probable and less Safe (that's their common Doctrine) and so follow the Opinion of One, though a weaker Doctor, rather than the Judg­ment of many how eminent so ever. For Instance, sup­pose Forty or an Hundred of their best Divines deter­mine that it is unlawfull to suborn Witnesses by false Oaths to take away the Reputation, Estate or Life of a Protestant, and Two or Three, or but One Priest, of re­pute among them. conclude that this is Lawfull; a Villian bribed to do it, may be secured in Conscience of the lawfulness of it by his sole Authority. And thus the Just or more Specious Determinations of the better sort of their Divines will signify nothing, and we shall be deluded if we rely on them; one obscure Doctor or Confessor, of whom we have no notice, may carry it [Page 17]against them all; for the Lawfullness of a Design or Attempt to Ruin Particular Persons, or a whole Coun­trey Prince and People.

God bless us from Men of such Principles.

I have given you a tast, of the Priests Principles, can you shew me any owned by the Priesbyterians like to these?

It may be their are not so many, nor quite so bad, but they are bad enough.

Be it so. But that will not make them worse, nor so Bad as Papists, as you declared them to be before; No nor worse than your self, and those that Symbolize with you in this Censure of your Fellow Protestants. For you will not Presume that you are better, than the best on Earth; and even those are bad enough. But pray where may we see those Principles of theirs which you count bad enough? For I have reason to believe, that it is either Passion or Malice that manages this charge, and neither of these are to be trusted further than we can see.

I will not send you far for this. You may see it in a late Print, Intituled, The Cloak in 'its Colours, where 'its Demonstrated from the Writings of Calvin, Beza, Knox, and Buchanan.

I have seen that Pamphlet some Moneths since, and find these four Authors cited, whose Sayings alledg­ed right or wrong, must pass for a Demonstration a­gainst the whole Party; and yet they are the very same Persons whose words the Jesuit Parsons long [Page 18]fince abused to prove that the Protestants Principles are in this Particular worse than the Papists. By which we may discern whose Disciple this Scribler is, and what Difference they make between Protestants and Presbyterians. Both must fall under the same Re­proach, as they intend both shall Fall by the same Exe­cution, if their Plot Succeed. There needs no other Vindication of the Presbyterians, but Doctor (afterwards Bishop) Morton's Answer to the Jesuit in behalfe of the Protestants, for they must stand or fall together, and he that runs at those, Wounds those through their sides, and forgets, if he be a Protestant, his Duty to the Common Interest, to serve his Particular Passions. Parsons and hisPag. 7. Second (towave the Foolish and nause­ous language with which he ushers it in,) make Calvin Speak thus; ‘Earthly Princes do deprive themselves of all Power when they Oppose God, nay, they are not worthy to be held in the number of Men, we must therefore rather Spit in their Faces than Obey them.’ To this Dr. Morton Answers, haveing shew'd the Je­suits Ignorance in abusing Calvins words at large, (too large to be transcribed) he shews his Deceit also thus; Calvin saith, ‘(say you) that such a King is to be bereaved of all Authority. It's noted of Satan's Temptation, that in alledging a Text of Scripture (he hath given his Angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy Wayes the subtile Tempter left out the words of greatest Importance, in all thy wayes. I will not charge you with the Imitation of that Spirit of Lying by Substracting, for you do but add only one word (all) bareaved of all Authority. But Calvin, abdicant se Potestate, bereaved of Authority, meaning only in that case of contradiction against God.’ A little be­fore having delivered Calvins Doctrine in his own [Page 19]wordsFull Satisf. Pag. 118, 119. (Pag. 108) too clear for the Ignorance of this Scriber, or the Malice of a Jesuit to deface it, the Learned Doctor concludes thus, Pag. 109. But read and Examine all the Lines which ever Calvin Pen'd, and you shall not find one Syllable that can Prejudice his Loyalty. But this was in an Age when Calvin had more Friends in England, and Popery more Enemies: Bishop Bilson Vindicates him thus; Calvin is so ‘well known to those that be Learned or Wise, for his great Pains and good Labours in the Church of God, that a few Snarl­ing Fryars cannot Impeach his Name, though you ne­ver so Wretchedly Pervert his words. By Abdicant se Potestate, he meaneth not they forfeit their Crowns, but that they loose their Power to Command in those things, which in other Cases that be Lawfull they not­withstanding retain. And though the Phrase to Spit upon their Heads seems somewhat hard, yet the com­parison so standing as he maketh it, that is, whether they were better utterly to Continue their Impious Edicts, and to deny such Sinfull Acts to their Faces, which is meant by Spitting at them, or else Obey them, Spoyling God of his Right, and as it were pull­ing him out of Heaven, I say, we must no way con­sent to yeild any regarde or Reverence, to their I­dolatrous Rage and Pride against God. This is all that Calvin in vehement Words, as his manner is, urg­eth; and this is far from Rebelling and Pursuing Princes with Arms, as you would have his words to Sound.’ Christian Subject. P. 509.

‘Next he traducesIbid. Beza, telling us that in his Book De jure Magestratus, he doth arm tke Subject a­gainst the Prince, and in Effect overthroweth the Au­thority of Christian Kings and Magistrates.’ But where? Why, he would have us believe that Dr. Suthliff [Page 20]alledges Beza his Book De jure Magistratus for this. What saies Dr. Morton here?. He assures us that he conferred with Dr. Suthliff, who Answered him, that the Book De jure Magistratus, he never thought to be Beza his work. So that Malice and Ignorance make up one Part of this Demonstration, and a peice of Forgery the other. And a little before, the Jesuit ac­cusing Beza and other Protestants of such Doctrine, the Doctor Answers, But if you should vow faithfully not to Eat, till you prove this, I could easily Prognosticate what Death you should Die. Pag. 109.

‘Mr. Knox is the third he accuses in these wordsCloak. Pag 7. Noble Men, (saith Knox,) ought to refrom Religion if the King will not. If the Prince will not yeild to his Nobles and People, he armeth them with Power to De­pose him. Nay, saith he farther, if Princes be Tyrants against God and his Truth, their Subjects are freed from their Oaths of Obedience.’ He grounds the charg upon the History of the Church, of which he will have Knox to be the Author. But Archbishop Spots­wood, (no great Friend to Presbyterians) assures us, that was none of his Book, in these words; ‘As to the History of the Church, ascribed commonly to him, the same was not his Work, but his Name supposed to gain it credit. And he proves it too, as by other Reasons, so this particularly; spaking of one of our Martyrs, he remitteth the Reader for a further De­claration of his Sufferings, to the Acts and Monuments of Martyrs, set forth by Mr. Fox an English-Man, which came not to Light some ten or twelve Years after Mr. Knox his Death.’ History of the Church of England Lib. 5. P. 267. And this he doth in a di­gression, wherein he shews what a worthy Person Mr. Knox was, both in Life and Death, And the rather (he saies) because some Malicious, and wicked Spirits, have Studyed by many Forged Lies, to deprave his Fame; only [Page 21]out of hatred to true Religion, whereof he was a Zealous Promoter. Pag. 264.

His fourth and last Author is Buchanan, whom he cites as another Apostle of Scotland, but he advisedly tells us, not in what Volume we may find the words (perhaps they are in Buchanan's Comon Places, which another learnedly Cites, to promote the same Catholick Design, for dividing Protestants in order to their Ruin) And after he hath abused the World with such Truth and Ingeniousness, as became the Jesuit Parsons in three of his evidences; hath he the confidence to expect we should take his word in the fourth? Indeed I have found Buchanan elsewhere charged for giving too much Power to the People, but if some mistake not, what he does is upon a Supposition, that the Laws and Constitutions of the Government allow it; and what the Law gives, none will question, but it may be Law­fully challenged. But then what Power the People have by the Laws of this or that Country is no Doctrine of Faith nor matter of Religion, but a Point of Law; and more proper to be decided by Lawyers than Di­vines.

I suppose the Book of Buchanan's which my Au­thor intended, is De jure Regni.

If that be it, there is no reason to charge the Presbyterians with it more than others, for it was call'd in by Act of Parliament, as Dr. Morton P. 107. ib. Answers the Jesuit, Anno, 1584. And this was before Episcopacy was settled in Scotland by King James. We have done with your Author and the Jesuit, the one accusing the Presbyterians, the other the Protestants, in the same Words. Have you met with any more elsewhere?

Diverse of the German Divines I find charged with the like Principles.

The German Divines might do, as ours and other too often do, measure other Governments by that of their own Countreys. But I leave others to Judge, whether it be considerately done by Divines. Forreign or at Home, to determine of the Power of Princes and People as if it where every where the same, when it is not the same any where; and to make a Jus Divinum the measure of that Universally, whose proper measure is the peculiar Laws of several Countreys, and the va­rying and very Different Constitutions of their respect­ive Governments. It seems no less a mistake, to look upon the Notions of Treason and Rebellion in People, and of Tyranny in Princes as though they where fixed and invariable: whereas that may be such in England which is not in France, and that such in Germany or Poland, which is not so in England; and that so in one part of the King of Spain's Dominions, which is not so in a­nother. However there needs no other Answer for the German Writers than that of Bishop Bilson, whom your cloaked Author Cites Diverse times, as tho he fa­vour'd him.Christian Subjection, Pag. 513. In Germany ‘the Emperour himself hath his Bounds appointed him, which he may not pass by the Laws of the Empire; and the Princes, Dukes and Cities, that are under him, have Power to Govern and use the Sword as Gods Ministers in their Charges; and though for the Maintenance of the Emperiour, they be Subject to such Orders as shall be Decreed, &c. Yet if he touch their Poli­ces, infring their Liberties, or violate their Specialities, which he by Oath and Order of the Empire is bound to keep; they may Lawfully Resist him, and by Force [Page 23]Reduce him to the Antient and received form of Government, or else Repel him as a Tyrant, and set a­nother in his place by the Right and Freedom of their Countrey. Therefore the German's doings or writings can help you little in this Question, they speak according to the Laws and Rights of the Empire, themselves being a very Free State, and bearing the Sword as Lawfull Magestrates, to defend their Liber­ties and prohibit Injury against all Oppressors, the Emperour himself not excepted.’

But not to digress further; Who else can you pro­duce?

I will trouble you with no more at present.

I am apt to belive, that if the Persons you are so bitter against, were not loath to expose our Religion as others do; they might alledge out of the most emi­nent Prelatists such Passages as look with as ill an Aspect upon the Civil Government, as any other of the Re­formed Divines you can produce, And if they should do this, by way of recimination, as you provoke them to do it would you think it reasonable from two or three Instances to conclude, that all the Episcopal Di­vines are worse than Papists? And yet there is neither more Reason nor more Honesty, in the one than in the other.

I should not think so ill of Presbyterian Principles, upon the report of Papists only, but they are ill repre­sented by some Protestants.

It may be so, but by none that I have seen, save such as take pleasure to lick up the Papists Vommit, [Page 24]and Spue it out again upon the Reformed Religion, after all hath been clean wiped off by those that are Pro­testants indeed; and that with as little regard of Truth or Modesty, as the Papists shew when they tell us, ‘That the cheif Protestans, Bishops and Churchmen, did all that lay in their Power to exclude Mary their Lawfull Queen from the Throne.Parsons mi­tigation, Pag. 224 The Jesuit names Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Sands, Jewel, Hooper, Pag. 123. &c. And, affirms that the Bishops and all the cheif Protestant Ministers did concur in the Duke of Nor­thumberlands Rebellion.Sober Reck­oning Pag. 253. And that Bishops and Ministers had as deeply their hearts and hands and heads in the Rebellion of Wyat and the Duke of Suf­folk, and much more than in the former RebellionIbid Pag. 254. That it was the consent of these and the chiefest Pro­testant Bishops and Divines, that Queen Mary might be deposed, and not only she, but her Sister Queen Elizabeth a Protestant, which was put in practice to the utmost of the Protestants power both with Wit and Weapons—and this not only against the Statutes of the Kingdom, but their own Oath to the Lady Mary in her Father's Life.Idem Mod. ans. Cap. 3. in Mort. full Satis­fact. Pag. 200. The like, (saies he,) the Protestant Forces and Parliaments did against the Succession of Queen Elizabeth. Ibid. Pag. 4. Many Nobles with the whole Clergy are Charged with publick and Dog­matical Positions and Practices of Rebellion against, not only God and their Queen, but Oaths of Fidelity to Harry the 8th.Pag. 9. He tells us also, that they do not now profess these Positions, because they are not under Princes that press them in matters against their Will;’ but that they would fall to them again if they were Pinched as others are.Mitigation. Pag. 117. Nay, they are bold to invoulve our Princes and State in the guilt of Rebellion (as they will call them) in Scotland, France, [Page 25]the Neither Lands, &c. as having their cheif encourage­ment and supports from our Princes and Parliaments. Ibid. P. 44.

All this hath been fully vindicated long since.

And so has Cabvin, Beza, and others of the Re­formed Churches, and that by the same Hands. But there are a sort of Protestants of a Latter Edition, who have little of Protestants but the Name, (and seem to have crowded what Religion they have, into some few things wherein we agree with the Papists, making little or nothing of most of the Differences betwixt us) and these not admitting the Defence made for the lat­ter, will be obliged to reject that made for the other. Accordingly some of them have made it their business, to rake up all the Dirt which the Papists could help them to, how clean so ever removed by our Champi­ons against the Romanists: and would overwhelm and bury the Protestants Religion under it, pretending that they design only a Grave for the Presbyterians.

But if the Principles of the Presbyterians be so innocent, and such as the best of our former Bishops did approve; yet certainly some of their Practices cannot be justifyed.

No, nor all the Practices of any sort of Men on Earth, how good soever their Principles be, so long as they are but Men, and have Depraved Natures, and are liable to Mistakes, and sensible of Interest and Dan­ger, and exposed to Temptation. You will count it highly unjust, and unreasonable, to charge a whole Community consisting of some Millions, with the Odi­ous Act of a sew in Comparison, when they generally declare against it, and own no Principle that may en­courage [Page 26]it. And the Iniquity will be greater, if it be a rare Act, far from a common Practice, especially, if they fall into it upon a Mistake, that the Laws and Constitutions of the Government allow it. If this be the Case, are not the Protestants most injuriously used? Would it not be counted intolerable for any to brand the Church of England as a Company of Rebels and Traytors against God; because, there are some in her Communion, who live in such open Wickedness, as is counted Rebellion against the Most High? Especially, if they were but few under such Guilt, and that very seldome; when, as our Church declares against, and disclaimes all Principles that would countenance it? Would it not be unsufferable, to censure all our Kings for Tyrants, because, some of them have acted Tyran­nically in one or two Instances, upon a Mistake too, that the Laws did warrant them? Compare these Cases im­partially, and you will find, that upon the same ground you condemn these Protestants, others may as justly condemn our Church, all, even the best of Kings, and the most innocent Part of the World.

This seems specious, but may we not upon the same Plea acquit the Papists?

In no wise; The Case is vastly different in eve­ry Point.

All the Papists are engaged in continued Treason­able and Rebellious Practices against Protestant Princes and States, by the Laws and Rules of their Religion. Their Principles oblige them to it Universally under pain of Damnation. It will be a Damnable sin not to be Re­bells and Traytors, when they have Power and Oppor­tunity and hopes of Success. Those who to the utmost [Page 27]endeavour not to exterminate them, fall under the damning Censure of the Church, nor are they to desist from such Practices while there are any Hereticks, Kings or Subjects left alive. And those that perish in such attempts, how Treacherous and Bloody soever, are assured of the Rewards and Priviledges of Martyrs. None can have reason to doubt of any of these, but those that are strangers to the Decrees of their Popes and Coun­cils, the Positions of their approved Writers, and the Histories of former or latter times.

You say something that requires further con­sideration.

Pray consider further of it, and suffer not your self to be transported with unreasonable Heats against true Protestants, so as to be exposed to the Subtilties of Counterfeits; or to be Surprized with the sly insinuati­ons of others, which may insnare you in Popery before you are aware.

You spake before of some Protestants of a new Edition, pray, who do you mean?

I mean such who profess themselves to be Protestants, but entertain themselves, and instill into others, such Principles as are like to betray them to Popery, when occasion serves. One of them we have discoursed of already. Another is this, that they are no true Churches who have not Diocesan Bishops. By this, the far great­est Part of Protestants are cut off from being True Churches, while the Church of Rome is allowed this Ho­nour and happiness. And so it is and will be Inferred, that it is better for those of the Reformation to turn Bapists then to continue in their Present State. And if [Page 28]it be better for them, it will be as good for us of the Church of England: for the difference cannot be great, where the ground of it is so small and of so little con­cern, that most, both Papists and Protestants count it no Part of Religion. Upon this account also there will be no reason left, why we should not turn Papists but because we have Diocesans, and this can be no rea­son to those who know they may have them in the Church of Rome. If all that Protestants do beleive and Practice, as Christians and Protestants, is not Sufficient to make them true Churches without such a sort of Offi­cers, it will be concluded that the meer retaining of such Officers will scarce make us in England a True Church, upon this account besides others.

For whatever is not of Christs appointment, cannot make that to be a True Church, which would not be so other wise, but whether Diocesans, of the Roman mode, be of Christ's Institution, is a Question both in the Church of Rome and England, and so it will be questionable at least, whether this in England be a True Church, conse­quently no Soul can be unquestionablely safe but in the Church of Rome. Not in the Reformed Churches, for they are not True Churches, with the men of this Prin­ciple; not in the Church of England, for it will scarce be probable that this is a True Church, since those Men leave no other Probability for it, but what there is for the Divine Institution of such Diocesans; and this is de­nyed by many of the Romanists and by ten to one a­mongst Protestants, that are learned and judicious. And who that loves his Soul, will run the venture of it on so great odd's? So that maxim, how much so ever cryed up by some Bigots amongst us, razes all other Reformed Churches even to the Foundation; betrayes the Church of England, under pretence of securing and advancing [Page 29]it, by leaving the whole weight of it to lean upon a Straw, but is of real and great advantage to the Papists, serving to Ferret Unstable Souls out of all other Churches, that they may run into that of Rome.

The Protestant Religion will scarce be thought worth the owning, if all the Points of it together be of less weight and value than this one, and this such a one wherein Religion is so little concerned.

Our People are also prepared for Popery, by those who would clear the Church of Rome from Antichristi­anism, and Idolatry, and Heresy. Hereby the Grounds of our Departure from Rome are removed, and a plain Way made for our Return, and what is there left to de­ter those from Popery, who believe those Suggestions? They will charge them with some Superstitions and Er­rours, and what Church is there, which hath not some Tincture of these? The Antient Churches are complain­ed of on this Account, by some of their best Writers; and that the Errours in the Roman Church may not seem more or worse; they Justify many, and excuse others, and have devised Shifts to reconcile all in a manner to the Doctrine or Practice of our own Church. The di­rect Tendency hereof, is to make People indifferent whe­ther they be Protestants or Papists, and to leave them in such a Posture, as their Interest may determine them to either Religion, and so disarm them of all that might in­able them to resist any Temptation to Popery.

I may also take those into the Reckoning, who under the Name of Protestants, write Volumes for the Ser­vice of Popery. One Doctor is notorious for this, viz. he that writ a Satyr against our Reformation, and mis­call'd it a History (as he hath served divers others of his Books) wherein following Sanders a Roman Priest (noted above others, as one that had abandoned both [Page 30]Truth and Modesty) he hath made such a false and odious Representation of the Protestant Reformation, and the Reformers, as hath endangered many, and quite perverted others; particularly, two near the Crown have declared (the one in Writing, the other in Discourse to diverse Persons of Quality) that the Book mention­ed turned them off from the Protestant Religion to the Communion of the Roman Church. Hereby, this Histo­rian, such as he is (for he hath nothing requisite for such a one but his Style, and therein may be out-done by a Writer of Legends or Satyrs, of which his Books are a Medly) hath done more Mischief to the Nati­on and Church, than all the Divines of his Temper and Principles are like to do good. To say nothing that a late Popish Scribler hath filled diverse Sheets with Passages in Favour of Popery, extracted out of his Histo­ries.

If this be so, I hope, the Rulers of our Church will set some publick Mark of their Displeasure upon such Books, to prevent further Mischief.

The Mischief done already is so great, that the Wisdom of the Nation is to seek how it may be repaired. But if these who are most significant in the Church, would testify their Resentment of it to the World, and withal discountenance those, who make it their Business, to magnify little Differences among true Protestants, and would blow up Bubbles into the bulk of Mountaines, thereby dividing us one from anc­ther, that we may be ruined together by the Papists, who equally design the Destruction of us all. If they would abate those Rigours, the ill Consequence of which is visible, and allay the Heats, wherewith men [Page 31]of ill Natures, and as had Principles, such as neither become good Protestants, nor true English Men, would enflame them. If they would stigmatize such Max­ims, as under Colour of serving some little Interest, slyly undermine our Religion, and trapan unwary people into Popery: if they would really confute those who are ready to charge many of them, as having more kindness for the Roman, than the Reformed Churches, and being more ready for Accommenda­tions, with the former than the latter; and as still ob­structing what is offered to secure us from the dread­full return of popish Darkness and Tyranny: they would do Justice to themselves and others, and good Service to their Country and the Protestant Inter­est.