A reply to the Answer of the man of no name to His Grace the Duke of Buckingham's paper of religion, and liberty of conscience by G. C. ...

A reply to the Answer of the man of no name to His Grace the Duke of Buckingham's paper of religion, and liberty of conscience by G. C. ...

Table of contents

Title page

A REPLY TO THE ANSWER of the MAN of No Name, &c.

Books Printed for, and Sold by Luke Meredith, at the King's Head, at the West End of St. Paul's Church-Yard.

[Page]

[Page]

A REPLY TO THE ANSWER of the MAN of No Name, &c.

IT it the Case of Truth to be opposed, but to prevail; and of Error, though defended, to be vanquish'd. Ill Causes cannot but be Ill maintained: They may look like true, but that is Art, which cannot change Nature. An Ass can never be a Doctor, nor a Fool a Solomon: Bulk given no Weight, nor Sound, good Sense.

And to say true, it was never much better prov'd, than in the Answer of the Duke of Buckingham's Paper: At first it amaz'd me with a flash of Words; the second Reading I came to my self; and at the last, I saw, they came to nothing: [Page] began with false Wit, and ended with Noise and Fumble. And to shew you a little the Man in his Talents, Stile, Arguments, and Humour, (for his own Book does it best at large) take what follows.

I will begin with his beginning.

That I have Written this Pamphlet (says he) is plain. But who this (I) is that Writ it, is not plain; for he has not told us his Name. However, 'tis plain, 'tis writ; and so it is, that his Apology is against himself; which is, That a Sore always wants a Plaister. In which we must either understand, He confesses the Wound the Duke has given Atheism and Violence, to which he Consecrates a Plaster; or that his Book is in it self a Sore, and he has a mind to cover it. If the First, he has an Ill time of it: if the Last, 'tis Non-sense. But this is but a part of his Excuse; he thinks he may Answer him, because the Duke won't Answer himself, and act both Plaintiff and Defendant; as they do, that turn with the times; shift Principles for Livings; and love to be Parson of Bray still. But whatever that Noble Duke does, the Answerer has that faculty; for he inveighs against Reason, pag. 12, 13. and yet p. 36. sends his Reader in a warm Fit to Reason, not only to Chuse and Establish to himself a Religion, but to Convince others by.

[Page] And now he falls on with a Tantivy—How Pernicious an Animal (says he) this Mountain and wild Conscience hath been to England, is too well known, and how Fatal Toleration would be. What stuff is here! Could a Man fetch any thing more savage out of the Highlands of Scotland, or from the Lakes of Canada? One would think, 'twere Writing in shamm, and a Definition in Burlesque: Some Cypher, but that there is no Key to it; for that a Mountain should be an Animal, and Conscience a Mountain, has neither Matter, Figure, Rhetorick, nor common Sense in it. Which, indeed, is the pitiful end of all Quacks and Pretenders. And hence he turns Vintner too: for in a moment he reads you a Lecture of Ferments and Lees, and the best way of turning the Wine of (Mount) Hope into the Vinegar (of the Valley) of Despair.

The Gentleman, that he might Run far enough from the Duke's Lenity, has pass'd the Line, and talks Antipode to common Experience. For with him Toleration pricks; Persecution does not. I had thought that sweet and soft things had prevented souring; and that therefore eager and lean Wines were fed with the richest Malagoes. But the meaning of this admirable simile, is, The Gentlemen of his Clan would keep the Wine to themselves: every body [Page] knows they love it. But I must needs say, 'tis a Churlish and Guzling trick, to drink all: Right Good-fellows are freer of their Liquor. And besides, it shews a mighty Ill Nature, that other Folks drinking should make it taste sowre with them: 'Tis not the Liquor, but the Palate: The Gall overflows; the Humor vitiates the Tast. Calvin's Predestination, in his Opinion, p. 16. is not worse natured than This. Thunder sometimes turns Liquor; but I never heard it of fair and gentle weather: Certainly, it must be an unnatural Subject, upon which the most natural Things have an ill operation. And yet in some Ill temper'd Children we have seen the seeds of this sowre Humor; who would not Eat or Wear a thing, if others must have it as well as themselves. However, this Doctrine very naturally arises from the Text, That some Men, if they may have their humor, will be as sweet as Wine; and if not, will Turn as sowre as Vinegar. The Use and Application I leave to His Majesty.

But this is not all; he explains himself upon this point pag. 33. where he dreads the Church of England's Receeding from her Active Loyalty in opposing Diffenters, and the Terrible and unavoidable consequences of their betaking themselves to a Passive Loyalty. I hope he has made more [Page] bold than welcome with that Venerable Name; since 'tis to say, The Church of England's Loyalty is to serve their own Turn, and the Prince's no longer than he will Ruin others to humor Her. That she opposes Dissenters for that Reason: And is uncharitable to all others: That though she Asserts Free-Will, she will Force other Mens. That she is not content with her Hoours, Imployments and Profits, unless others are Reprobated to a Civil Damnation: That she knows not where to stop, nor where to End her Resentments and Severities: That Law only maintains her, and her Establishment takes rise from humane Institution, and by humane Force is upheld: Nay, That if she may not have her Will, let the Black Box prevail, and the Oxfordmen come in if they will, Fight Dog, fight Bear, We will be Quiet; We will be Passive. These are the Consequences of such Resolves: Things too harsh and Idle to imagine of a Society of so much Wisdom and Integrity; and therefore this Gentleman to be thought officious, if not scandalous in this attempt. And I hope her best Members will think, That more Reason to the Duke, and Discretion to the Church, had done better: for Scandalum Cleri with the one, ought to sit as uneasie, as Scandalum Magnatum with the other.

[Page] I have done a little to snew his folly and uncharitableness; more follows: and he that ruus may almost read it▪ He wonders, his Grace the Duke of Buckingham should become a Champion for Whiggism, p. 1. And indeed so do I too: for I am sure, it must be very lately; and 'tis an ill time to begin in. But is this his Discretion, (pag. 2.) that was to defend him from a Scandalum Magnatum? But why a Whig? It seems it is, because he is for Toleration. A fine Conclusion: and yet he makes this, but half a Whig neither. For he tells us in his Character, That Persecution makes up t'other half: so that a Right Whig is, a Tolerating Persecuter. Upon the whole matter then, the Duke is but half a Whig; and his Answerer it t'other half, who tells us, That his opinions have ever been Diametrically opposite to those of his Grace's Paper; and whose Book it self is Persecution. And is it not a pretty thing to consider that the Bill and Answer, the Plaintiff and Defendant (as he calls them) should make up one Whig?

But to do it, when Whiggism is super-annitated, and looks like a cast Mistris, and is contemn'd of all, heightens the Man's Admiration: And perhaps he knew the Duke, when he did not use to make such stale choices too. But to make him amends, the Man places it to his Compassion, [Page] which is yet Satyr enough upon himself, that not only has none, but makes it Whiggish in that Noble Person to Pity, Age and Necessity. Mad he must be, or he would not yield away so great a Vertue to so ill a thing. But is she super-annuated and cast? pray, why then feared in one part, and loved so fondly in another, by this Knight of the Robe? She is but half Cast; the Toleration side is only super-annuated with him; t'other is not above Eighteen yet, fresh, strong, and ruddy, in his Desires at least: And that she may live longer a-that side, he is blowing Breath through his Quill, as fast as he can.

And to say true, he has Air enough, to help her: But when all is done, he will make an Ill Mistress of her; for she is to be Old and Cast (if not Dead) a one side still: This is her Palsie, and his Phrensie. I am of Opinion, when he thinks what he has done, he will (like his young Gallant, Pag. 6.) cry, a Pox upon Consequences, I hate Consequences. So Pragmatical so Incongruous, and so Indiscreet has the Gentleman been in his hasty Attaque.

But to come to the body of his pretended Answer. After telling us, p. 6. He will not Anatomize, nor Dissect each Nerve and Muscle of His Grace 's Paper, (though else where it has neither, in his [Page] Opinion) and that he hates Hashing of Books, and serving them up with Limon and Anchovies, turning Chryrurgeon and Cook in a breath: he says, He will deliver his thoughts in a lump; as if he had a mind to a Pudding more than a Hash. The Truth is, he has little Shape, and less Life: and therefore the Gentleman has in one word, Whiglike, turn'd Gossip to his own Chits with more propriety, than is in all his Book beside.

But let's look upon his Lump a little further. First, he says, His Grace has taken an Improper way to confute the wity Atheist, or Establish Religion. (And why so?) Because the changeableness of the World does not disprove its Eternity, any more than the Mutations of his Grace's Body alters him from being that George D. of Buckingham, that he was Forty Years ago. But the D. of Buckingham does not pretend to be the same Man that he was Forty Years ago; and would give this Gentleman, Ten thousand pound to make him so. And to say true, he that says, A changing World is Eternal, is not many removes from that which we call a Changling. For though a Man be the same, as to his Faculties and Properties: Yet we have fresh Spirits and Flesh; and this World has its Alterations and Renewings too.

[Page] What the first Matter was, and how formed, and which way it subsists, are much beyond us! yet the more we look into them, the more we are led from the Regular Motions and Seasons of the Fabrick we see with the distinct kinds and species of Creatures therein, to Conclude and Admire a Prior and Superior Being. A Man that is a Creature of time, may be said to be, and in some cases not to be the same: for he is not the same in the same Being always; but an Eternal thing cannot be so varied. And 'tis fallacious to argue from a Man's being the same Man, under changes, to the World's being Eternally the same World under Changes; since it were to say, That a thing were the same in that in which It changes: for that were to be in that which is not, or is not any more that which it was; The supeamest Non-sence a Man can be guilty of.

The Duke was not strict in this matter; and his Answer is stricter with him, than wise; especially when he faults him in a thing Disputable, and yet promises not to disturb, but improve his Arguments for a God. But so unhappy is the Genius of this Gentleman, that he frequently breaks his Word, though be breaks his Head with it. There are but three of four things the Duke goes upon; That the World did [Page]not make it self: That he that made it is God: That he was dignified Man with something more Excellent, than what belongs to other Creatures: That this makes him look and hope beyond Death; therefore Immortality, probable: That those that do well, shall be Happy; the contrary, Miserable: That to this Choice they are free and uncompell'd. And lastly, That none should Extinguish Men's Religious Impressions, by forcing them against their Perswasion. These Sober and Worthy Thoughts might have been better treated.

'Tis true (he says, pag. 7.) his Notions are very fine, and many of them very natural and true; but not too Logical. No matter for that; he Writ like a Gentleman, and not a Pedant. But to see, how true this person is to himself, within six lines after the Character of many natural and true Notions; he tells us, without blushing, though not without confusion, That the Consequences which necessarily follow the Duke's Conceptions, are greatly to the disadvantage not only of Religion, but of the politick Frame and Government of the World. I cannot imagine, which way; and he has carefully avoided to inform me. But I cannot see, how the Government of the Great Turk, and the Great Mogul are concern'd in the Duke of Buckingham's Book? They may indeed, if they could [Page] read it, because he Recommends to all Men the Christian Religion, (pag. 18.) And, if I know any thing, the Consequence of his Contradictory Assertion, is, That the Mogul must be Infidel still, and the Great Turk must be a Mahometan still. For this good Christian goes upon this Principle, That the Religion Establish'd by Law, ought therefore to be Conformed to of all; and consequently, Liberty even to Christian's Consciences is dangerous to the Political Frame of that Government that is not Christian.

He proceeds to oppose the Duke's Deduction, in Reference to the Worship of God, pag. 11, & 12. For in truth (says he) if his Argumentation be allowed, here is as fair a plea for the ALCORAN, as the NEW TESTAMENT; for PYTHAGORAS's GOLDEN VERSES, as St. PAVL's EPISTLES. For, if I be not mistaken, in what his Grace calls that Part of us, which is nearest a-kin to the Nature of God, and the Instinct of a Deity, this must be humane Reason; not as Regulated by any Publick and Politick Reason of a Community, but as every private person's Reason shall dictate.

But how unjust and precarious is all this? First, Assert; and then, If he mistakes not, the Duke meant so. But if the Duke meant not so, then [Page] he is mistaken: and the Duke could not mean, as he states his understanding of it. For though he takes leave to mistake the Duke, the Duke does not mistake himself: There is not one Word of Humane Reason in the Question, nor is Humane Reason that Instinct of the Deity.

We have a Natural Capacity to apprehend Divine things; but 'tis that Instinct, which gives us the Religious use of it. All Men that have Eyes, have the Capacity of seeing; but without light they cannot see. Pray, who was he that said; There is a Spirit in Man, but the Inspiration of the Almighty gives Ʋnderstanding? and that, Whatsoever may be known of God, is manifested in Man? Rom. 1. By what else is it, that the Prophet declares, That God tells unto Man his thoughts? And St. Paul expresly says, That those that had not the Law, became a Law unto themselves, (By what? if not by this Instinct, this Synteresis?) their Conscience accusing or exeusing them before God. And St. John goes farther, who says; If our Hearts condemn us, God is greater; but if our Hearts condemn us not, then have we boldness before God. And does this make as much for the Alcoran, as for the Scripture? and Pythagoras's Writings, as St. Pauls's Epistles?

[Page] The Duke spoke to a peculiar Rank of Men: Wits without much Religion, to give Religion the beginnings of Credit with them: He did not say, That was enough? That Scripture or other external helps were useless, or not requisite: And yet, when all is done, we must chuse for our selves, and not by the Political Reason of Community; or else we shall believe upon Authority and not upon Conviction; which was not the Christian way. St. Paul bids us, Pray with understanding; and if so, surly, our understanding ought to be satisfied, to whom, and how to pray. And this Gentleman makes it an Error, not to pray knowingly; and if so, certainly we should have some Reason for our Hope too.

And therefore, I cannot perswade my self to believe, that Noble Peer writ like a Minor, when he proceds to this Deduction? ‘That it is one of the greatest Crimes a Man can be guilty of, to Force us to act against that Instinct of Religion; and something a kin to the Sin against the Holy Ghost.’ This Notion the Gentleman throws with scorn at the Quakers, (an Honest and well-meaning People;) and if this be a Kin to their Doctrine, they are sounder than he that despises them. And to say true, He does them greater Honour, than it may be, [Page] he is aware of. But why not believe upon Conviction? For, Whatever is not of Faith, (St. Paul tells us) is Sin: And Force upon any Man's Conscience, must overthrow the Reason of this Fear, Faith and Hope. For how dark and feeble any Man's Conscience is, Force brings no Light no Knowledge: It may distract, doubt, and so damn.

But I cannot enough admire at the Conclusions this Gentleman draws from this most Inoffensive and Orthodox Expression. The First is this: That Reason is the Guide of every Man's Religion. This is spurious: For, though he that embraces a Religion without Reason, has no more Religion than my Horse; yet a Man's own Reason so rectified, is not the Guide of Man in his Religion: for his Reason is that which is to be Guided.

His Second is yet more Extravagant, viz. That Divine Revelation is not necessary to Salvation. In which he has bid boldly; for there is not a word in the Duke's Discourse about it. He asserts the Divine Instinct; ‘That it inclines and disposes Men to be Religious; That they are to be commended, that beat a sincere Respect to it.’ But not a word, that Men should not crave further Help, or read the Holy Scriptures, that contain our Revealed Religion. On [Page] the contrary, he tells us; ‘He therefore wav'd the Ʋse of them in this Discourse, because of the Persons to whose Condition he calculated it.’ Were it not a sine Conclusion in this Doctor, to say, A Man that goes to Rochester shall never come to Canterbury, though it be in the Way, and the better part of it? Just so Reasonable his Consequence is against the Duke.

But he advances in his Humour of perverting his Words; for the Third Consequence he draws in his Name, is this: That it is a most horrid Sin, to lead Men out of Errors, (pag. 13.) when there is not one word of Leading in the Question. For the Duke says, [To Force,] and he infers, To Lead. His Words are; ‘That it is one of the greatest Crimes a Man can be guilty of, To Force us to act or sin against that Instinct of Religion; and something a-kin to the Sin against the Holy Ghost.’ The Duke says, To force Men to sin; he says, To lead Men out of Errors: As if Leading and Forcing were the same; when one is the way of Perswasion, and the other of Fines and Prisons. I cannot tell what this Gentleman would not say; he may as honestly apprehend a Beggar on the Road, for an High-way-Man.

[Page] His Fourth and last Consequence he bestows upon this Noble Peer, is this, pag. 13. That Men, who believe a God, and follow the Dictates of Reason in his Worship, may be saved in any, in all Religions; provided they know not a better. And what, if he had said so? It had shewn his Charity. Does not God wink in times of Ignorance? And what is Knowing no better, but a State of Ignorance? Is there no Allowance for Times, Places and Conditions? Certainly, this Man thinks, Aristotle and St. Paul are as much below him, as he is above the Duke of Buckingham. This is riding Tantivy, through thick and thin.

But to Answer his short, yet full: This Charge upon his Grace, charges himself; First, That Faith in God, and the Dictates of Reason, can swallow all sorts of Religion; for he excepts not the most Idolatrous; yet sets up Reason elsewhere, to judge of true Religion, (pag. 14, 36.) And Men must leave Reason, when they fall under Superstition and Idolatry. Secondly, That this Hero is for chusing his Religion without Reason: And that's not worth a Fig, (with his leave.) Thirdly, That the Duke does not prefer Christianity, by the Course of his Deductions: which he plainly does, pag. 18.

[Page] But after he hath shewn the Duke's Weakness or Mistake (in his Opinion) to make him abler than he found him, and the Book worthier the Reader's notice; with a Modesty, almost equal to his Reason, he tells us: NOW, IF I WERE TO DISCOƲRSE AN ATHEIST, (pag. 9.) and: IF I HAD BEEN TO FOLLOW HIS GRACE's BLOW. I would have urged This; and, I would have done That, &c. By which, I perceive, this Gentleman is better natur'd than Sir Jo. Falstaff, that being call'd upon for a Reason for what he said, answer'd; That if Reasons were as rife as Black-Berries, he would not give him one.

I have seen Cowards fight thus stoutly: Now, Sir, (says he) here I could have you, Sir; and there I could have you, Sir: and, if I strike you, Sir, infallibly I hit you, Sir: and, if I hit you, Sir, you'll feel it, Sir: Are not you of my mind, Sir? This Gentleman wanted something; and though the Duke be no Minor, he has a mind to play the Senior upon him, and use him so: And what a fine time he would have, to be Ward to such a Jewel?

Such Coxcombs I have seen in my time; for there is not so true a Mark of that Animal, as Officiousness upon Mistake, to praeter do, or overdo a thing. Look you, Sir; upon my word, Sir; [Page] you are out, Sir; you mean this, Sir; I know your meaning, Sir, as well as if I were in you, Sir; alas, Sir, there is a better way far, Sir; and then, Sir, you don't hit it neither, Sir; for, Sir, if you aim at the end, Sir, you must aim at the means, Sir; and that I pretend to know, Sir, as well as any Man, Sir; and therefore, Sir, by your favor, Sir, if I had been to have follow'd your blow, Sir, I would have done no body knows what, Sir; Gramarcy Doctor. 'Tis pity to think, what pains some Men take to play the Fool.

His second great Head (and little Wit) is about the Anti-Christianism of Persecution, opposing the Duke's Notion of it, thus pag. 17, 18, 19, 20. And first, he says, That though to punish Professors of the true Religion, for that only, whilst inoffensive in all things to the Civil Government, is real Persecution, and truly Anti-Christian; as that of the Primitive Christians by the Heathen Roman Emperors; yet to punish Dissenters, as Papists and Phanaticks, is not so; because they are in the wrong, and offensive to the Government. This in a Lump (as he calls it) and perhaps a little better collected than his was. In all which he begs the Question of the Roman Emperors for the Christians; and of the Dissenters for their Adversaries; though upon differing terms.

For the Heathen Emperors had Antient Rites [Page] to plead, and the Establish'd Law of the Empire, against the progress of Christianity; And that is all this Gentleman has said here for himself, and against them. For he undertakes not to prove the Points Controverted true against the Dissenters; but urges the kn [...]cking Argument of the Jews, We have a Law, and by our Law he ought to die. Nay, he sends the Duke to Lewis the Fourteenth, (pag. 29.) to ask, If it be safe Tolerating another Religion than his own: By which he determines the case against the Persecuted Protestants there, lest their Indulgence should exemplarily make way for ours to the Dissenters here. Is not this a dainty Protestant, that can cherish Cruelty against Men of his own Religion abroad, rather than not act it at home upon Dissenters?

This is to make Religion a Politick Interest, and to Answer Worldly ends: A greater Argument for Atheism, than any he has offer'd against it. The Primitive Christians had died Idolaters upon this Principle: For Authority, not Conviction, with him all along concludes the Point.

He begs the Question of the Dissenters; for he argues nothing about the grounds of Dissent, but the Law; 'Tis the Religion by Law Establish'd: And why not by the Bible? but that it yields not to it the present Advantages of Force and Worldly Authority. Now (as he says) If I had [Page]been to Dispute them, and follow his blow, I would have Evinc'd their Error, before I would have pronounc'd my Judgment.

But they are Factious, Seditious, and dangerous to the Government; therefore severe Laws were made against Papists, Priests and Jesuits on the one Hand, and Phanaticks on the other. Suppose this were as he frowardly Clamors; Is it to be thought, that they would be dangerous, if they were Easie, and so endanger themselves? they know better. And we see, this Gentleman fears the Church's Receeding in her Loyalty, if there be but Indulgence to Dissenters; making her Eye evil, if the Governments be good. Pray, what then would she do, if she were Persecuted as they are? Can more, with Justice, be expected from Hereticks and Schismaticks, than from the Orthodox? If they were more patient, I should begin to fear, they would be quickly more Orthodox too. But I cannot tell how to think that Men in their Wits would forfeit Ease when they have it; though to get it they might be Indiscreet.

And one thing I must say, Roman Catholicks have been Loyal in England and Holland, and Bresbyterians in France and the German Principalities. So that 'tis not necessarily true, they are not Seditious, as they are Dissenters: Men go by [Page] their Interests. The Gentlemen that Tore the King's Declaration of Indulgence from him, were high Church-men; and they opposed his Political Capacity to his Natural, on purpose to overthrow that Act of Grace, by which distinction the late Civil War was made; so that 41. overtook 73. or that return'd to 41. And who knows not, that they were such as hardly knew how to pray, but out of our Liturgy; that attempted to Exclude the Presumptive Heir to the Crown upon the score of his Religion. And though this Jehu drives so furiously upon Dissenters on that Account, if he will think (which I fear he seldom does) he will find that an Heir is but a Subject; and the same Law governs properly a-like in this Kingdom to all Ranks of Subjects. And that some of the same Gentlemen, that formerly shook small Folks Property for Non-Conformity, had lately a mind, to Sacrifice the present King's for Dissent. Wherefore let us make Men easie, take Temptations out of their way, and not lay stumbling-blocks before weak or peevish people, nor pinch them with those Burdens or Yokes, that our Fathers could hardly bear, and we need not doubt a Friendly success.

It is by this Nameless Author Objected in a Career of Criminations, That this may suit a Republick, [Page] (pag. 28, & 29.) but is dangerous to a Monarchy. But not half so much in my opinion, as his Objection is. For, doubtless, Monarchy has as extended and saving a bottom to live upon, as any Republick in the World; nay, rather the Power of more Mercy, Favour and Indulgence. For the Number of Subjects is the Glory and Strength of a King; and that which makes the People easie, makes the Government so to the Monarch. 'T were lavish to prefer a Common-Wealth to make it more capable of good to the various conditions of Mankind than Monarchy. It is therefore his little skill in Politicks as well as Religion, that makes him quote the practice of the French King (p. 29.) for no body knows yet the consequence: His Cake is but Dough still: 'Tis early day with the Project: See if his Son, ay, if He don't feel it yet. For Uniformity is a mean Recompence for a thin and poor Country. What might not an Union of Interests and Affections, under so great a Prince as we have, recover and establish in the World? Wonders; for Miracles come from Heaven.

Instead of this, old Sores are daily rubb'd fresh; and new impressions of former Tragedies are thrown abroad to prejudice us against the means of our own Peace and Glory: God (if [Page] he pleases) avert the consequences of our own bitterness and Animosity.

His last Head is about Toleration, (p. 25.) though included in his second; this he labours with his usual pains; 'Tis neither (says he) good Divinity, nor good Politicks; and of this he is as certain as if he found a Mare's Nest.

The first Reason, why it is not good Divinity; is, That false Religions in a Christian Dress, would then be Tolerated to the injury of Christian Religion and Mens Souls, p. 26. But he does not consider, how many he will Damn by Hypocrisie. But in that, perhaps I am out, he may not think that a Damnable Sin; and that it is better be an Hypocrite, than a Dissenter; though One thinks he is in the right, and the Other knows he is in the wrong; and so one of St. Paul's true Hereticks, viz. self-Condemned.

Be that as it will, Jesus Christ is against his Divinity, that is Lord of the true. For he commands, That the Tares grow with the Wheat, till Harvest; which he interprets, the End of the world, and Great Judgment: And forbad. Fire to be so much as desired to be call'd from Heaven to hurt those that did not own his blessed Messengers in their great Doctrine of the Kingdom he sent them to preach.

[Page] For Toleration' [...] being bad Politicks, let him allow me the Liberty he takes with the Noble Peer I defend, and I will send him upon an Errand, that shall determine the Controversie presently. Let him go to the Prince of Orange, whose Ancestor begun the Glory of that Country with it, to the Princes of the Empire. And if this French King will be Impartial, ask him, If greater Feats were done without, than with a Toleration? So far is it from being dangerous to Princes.

And if Opinions were yet worse than they are, there cannot (in my judgment) accrue any danger to the Government that Tolerates them. For, First, the Professors of them have, which they could be thought to Plot to get; but will never Plot to lose. And, Secondly, if any such people could be, there are or may be Laws enough to Crush and punish the least Appearance of Disorder. And under favour, Publick Assemblies are so far from being dangerous, tha [...], truly consider'd, they are the security of the Government.

What makes Men Dangerous? First, they cann't help their Dissent; for Faith is not in a Man's own power. Next, so soon as he declares it, the Law cuts him off from the Favour and Protection of the Magistrate. Is it then the [Page] Man that makes himself dangerous, or is he made dangerous for that Dissent? And if that be it, 'twill not be hard to determine, how a Dissenter comes to be dangerous.

Forcing Men to Religions is as if it were in a Man's power to use his Conscience as he can his Money. In that case I would be on the side of the Penal Laws. But if a Man cann't believe as he will, and less, as other Men believe, and [...] yet be safe to the Government, don't make him [...]safe under it, and I'll warrant he does no harm: And this I think may be done.

I conclude, That Toleration is so far from being an Enemy to Religion and Monarchy, That it gives God his due, prevents Hypocrisie, and restores Society instead of Unity: And by an united Affection, Purse, and Hands Renders our King Great and Terrible.

I now wait upon his Three Questions: the First has Four in the belly of it, (p. 34, 35.) First: If Christ did not believe Soveraign Power might maintain the order of Society by Rewards and Panishments. Truly I don't know his Belief, nor how suitable it might be to him to believe, being the Object of ours. But he commanded it, though with a salvo to the Religion he came to Institute. They were his Sheep, 'twas his Kingdom.

[Page] The next Query is to the Duke, If he ha [...] consider'd, That spiritual Punishments are far more rigorous, than Temporal ones? I believe, as much as this Gentleman has, Whether Temporal be less than Eternal? But what of all that? Why, (next to follow his blow) he asks; If Jesus Christ then has not used greater force to compel Men to his Religion, than all the Powers of the Earth have done? But if it were so, I am of the poor Welch-man's mind; Let her alone till [...] day comes: And of St. Taffy's too; I had [...]ather fall into the hands of God, than Man. But: is this proper, just, and adequate▪ Christ punishes Spiritual Faults with Spiritual Punishments, Ergo, The Powers of the Earth ought to punish the same Faults with Temporal and Corporal Punishments, such as Prisons, Fines, Exiles and Death?

But in the next place, I don't think he has outdone the Heathen and some Christian Persecutions, the Reason of both consider'd. For he decides the Controversie by Good Works; They by Opinions: He cryes, Come ye well-doers; there are his Sheep: Go ye Workers of Iniquity; there be his Goats. But Conformity makes an Ill-Man Grateful, and Non-Conformity a Good-Man Hateful: here Good Works don't determine the point, as at Christ's Judgment.

[Page] Howbeit, it is monstrous to argue, That Men should be twice punish'd for the same Offence; by the Magistrate here, and Christ hereafter: This is held unequal among Just Men in all Governments. But 'tis no matter, let Zeal or Interest Christen it, and its well enough for a Papist or a Phanatick. But if this Gentleman were as much under their power, as they are now under his Censures; and should they use him, as the provokes the Civil Magistrate to treat them, I am of the mind, he would think and call it too Anti-Christian.

To this Second main Question (in substance Answer'd before) Whether there being an hundred Monarchies happy without Toleration and Liberty of Conscience, to one Republick that allows it with Restriction, whose future Fate we are ignorant of; and whether that may not in time prove its Ruin; It be not an hundred to one, that Monarchy shall be more flourishing, safe and lasting without a Toleration, than with it? To this I say; he makes the ground of it Fact; and that's false: There is not only no such thing, as an hundred Monarchies that have been happy without it: but more have been happy with, than without it, All the Eastern Monarchies, almost generally give it with success. Next, the French. Monarohy was happier in Henry the IV. than Charles the IX. [Page] and Ours in Queen Elizabeth, than in King Henry the VIII. for though Her's was not a Reign of Liberty, yet of less severity than His. He makes it Republican, and knows not what he says: for as his story of Monarchies is untrue, so that of Republicks, a Fiction: there being Two Monarchies to One Republick that gives it. What will be, we cann't tell: but Holland is a greater proof for the Prudence of a Toleration, than any Country that can be named on the side of Coertion; and the Effects that are, shew what the same measures will do for the time to come if kept to.

To the Third, and last Question, viz. Whether it be not Cross and Pile, whether a Man, who may be of any, or all Religions, will be of any, or of none at all? I must tell him, That they that can be of all Religions, have little or none. And therefore I always thought those Clergy-men that in Henry the Eighth's time turn'd Trimmers, and Protestants in Edward the Sixth's, and Papists in Queen Mary's, and Protestants again, with a witness, in Queen Elizabeth's, had no Religion but their Benefices. And, as I take it, there were not Three Hundred, of all Qualities, out of Ten Thousand, that stood out; to say nothing of their Fountains that ran freely through all those Rubs and Revolutions, I mean Oxford [Page] and Cambridge. If he please to remember what numbers turn'd Presbyterians between the years Forty and Fifty, how many in Sixty return'd; and with what Oaths, Covenants, Engagements, and Abjurations they maintain'd their Possession, will have cause to say, that it is, sometimes, hardly Cross and Pile with too many, what Religion they are of, and those of no small pretences too.

And since he has put it upon that game, I cami't forbear saying, That he has hit upon the aptest Allusion he could have made. For Cross and Pile in some Countries stand Pope and King, and where they meet that Game is up.

If he thinks the business yet worth his while, I should be glad to see something truly solid and Christian. In the mean time, I take the measure he gives me in his Conclusion, to make my Choice by Reason and Vertue, To discourage all Sedition and Disloyalty; to Tolerate none, that profess to cut other Mens Throats for Conscience sake: Beseeching him to let me be even with him in a few Questions and a Conclusion: They will be short.

I. If any Man ought to believe without Conviction? If not, then

[Page] II. Whether Conviction be in a Man's power to give himself or any for him? If not,

III. Whether this does not of course put an end to Coertion?

I proceed to Three more upon a Christian Foot.

IV. If Christ's Law and Example are to be the Rule of Christians?

V. If by his Law and Example Christians should compel Conformity by Worldly Force to their Religion?

VI. If Liberty to Conscientious Dissenters be not Adviseable from Examples Christian and Political?

The Conclusion is first Particular then General I would beseech the Gentleman, to whom this Reply is made, to Avoid Prejudice, which is here (I fear) an Ill Habit of Education. For he says, He was always Diametrically opposite to the Duke's Opinion in the Points treated on: As if he had suck'd it with his Milk. Examination helps Judgment; it is Chewing and Digesting well; t'other is swallowing and not Concocting: and sometime a Man gets a Hook in his Throat too. Let him have a Care of Tarantula's and the Itch of Answering, before he considers well; for [Page] that will be as unaccountable, as, he says, his Wit is poisonous Wit, (pag. 4.)

There are Two other things that make a Man heave and throw, and disorder himself extreamly; and that is the Fly and the Worm; especially in Spring-time; and this has been unusually dry and hot. But for all this, I will end well with him; For what ever he thinks, I wish him as well as my self; and that we may both live and die happily with a Toleration.

And now, Reader, 'tis fit I say something of this undertaking. The Love and Honor I have for the Truths deliver'd by that Noble Person, and the easie, plain, short, and yet full, I and strenuous way in which he has recommended them to the World, obliged me to this Defence, such as it is. But I cannot but wish, he had met with a Man that had deserv'd his own notice, because no body can better Defend his Arguments: which the oftner I read, the Weightier they seem to me; and his Adversary's looser and slighter. 'Twas a Respect I owed his Person, and a Duty to his Essay.

And now, Reader, as Men that die, ask forgivness of all the World, so do I. It is true, it does not yet appear to me, that I have Injur'd any person or thing; I would not do it for the World: And, therefore, am even with [Page] it: but I would be Modest at least. I have Writ my Heart in the main; I hate serving of Turns: I love Old England as well as any Man, and I would fain see her Happy. I have long thought this the way, VERTVE OF LIFE and INDVEGENCE OF CONSCIENCE, for the KING, for the Clergy, and for the People. And if our hopes of Immortality were but half as strong, as we care they should be thought, we could not use one another with so much Jealousie and Bitterness: We carry not a true Estimate of the World with us, to be so easily and so often disorder'd for it. Let us not then palliate our Fury, or Interest with the sacred Name of Religion: Let us Answer for our own Faults; we shall, we must: and therefore let us mend them, that we may have less to Answer for, when we come to Judgment.

God Almighty Bless the King and Kingdom, and send us Peace in our days, Amen.

G. C.

FINIS.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

A REPLY TO THE ANSWER OF THE Man of No Name, TO His Grace the Duke of Buckingham's Paper of RELIGION, and LIBERTY of CONSCIENCE.

By G. C. an Affectionate Friend, and true Servant of his Grace the Duke of Buckingham's.

LONDON, Printed by John Leake, for Luke Meredith, at the King's Head, at the West End of St. Paul's Church-Yard, MDCLXXXV.

Books Printed for, and Sold by Luke Meredith, at the King's Head, at the West End of St. Paul's Church-Yard.

[Page]

A Short Discourse upon the Reasonableness of Men's having a Religion, or Worship of God. By his Grace, George Duke of Buckingham. 'The Third Edition.

The Duke of Buckingham His Grace's Letter, to the unknown Author of a Paper Entituled, A short Answer to his Grace the Duke of Buckingham's Paper, concerning Religion, Toleration, and Liberty of Conscience.

A Dialogue between a Pastor, and his Parishioner, touching the Lord's Supper: Wherein the most material Doubts and Scruples about Receiving that Holy Sacrament, are removed, and the Way thereto discovered to be both plain and pleasant. Very useful for Private Christians in these scrupulous Times. By Michael Altham. The Second Edition. To which is added, Some short Prayers, fitted for that Occasion; and a Morning and Evening Prayer, for the Use of Private Families.

Two Treatises: The First, Concerning Reproaching and Censure; The Second, An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure-Footing. To which are annexed, Three Sermons Preached upon several Occasions; and very useful for these Times. By the late Learned and Reverend William Faulkner, D. D.

Information about this book

Title statement

A reply to the Answer of the man of no name to His Grace the Duke of Buckingham's paper of religion, and liberty of conscience by G. C. ...

Care, George.

Edition statement

1685

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A33729

ID [STC]

Wing C504

ID [STC]

ESTC R6951

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

13226910

ID [OCLC]

ocm 13226910

ID [VID]

98577

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A33729)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 98577)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 448:10)

Source

— A reply to the Answer of the man of no name to His Grace the Duke of Buckingham's paper of religion, and liberty of conscience by G. C. ..., Care, George..

Extent

[2], 36 p.

Printed by John Leake, for Luke Meredith ...,. London :: 1685.. (Attributed to George Care. Cf. BLC.) (Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.