1. The first Argument.

‘'Tis not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England saith the Dr. as appears from the sutableness of the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer, to the Doctrine, and practice of the Jesuits, This is evinced from the Jesuits admiring Spiritual Prayer, as may be seen in their writings, preface p. 14.15.16.’

I answer.

1. The whole the Dr. doth suggest is but a Probability, not a certainty, but why the Dr. should hint his probables in a matter of this moment I leave to his own Conscience,

2 'Tis most undoubtedly true, whether the Dr. knows so much or not, That Spiritual Prayer and free prayer was many an hundred years observ'd, and practised before there were any Jesuits in the World, whence to assert Spiritual Prayer to be one of the Jesu­its Arcana is an argument of too much ignorance; for who know­eth not, that the Christian dispensation is the dispensation of the Spirit, 1 Cor. 3.6, 7, 8. &c 'tis the Spirit that was promised as a teaching Spirit on Christs departure, John 14.16, 15, 26.16.7, 8, 9. which Spirit as it doth convince of Sin, of righteous­ness and of judgment, even so doth it teach and enable the Chil­dren of God to cry Abba Father; that is to pray, Gal. 4.5, 6. Rom. 8.26. Thus Free Prayer or Spiritual Prayer is clearly re­vealed in Scripture. Unto whom then are we owing for the Knowledge of this Truth, unto the Word of God contained in Scripture, or unto the Disciples of Ignatius Loyola? what, must the Honour of the Discovery be ascribed to the Jesuits, although thereby the Primitive Christians, and the Ancient Fathers are most unjustly reproached? Or, because this Gospel Doctrine shines forth so Gloriously, that such as are envelop'd with the Cloud of Popery, cannot but espie some of its Rayes; must [Page 7]we therefore conclude that it hath its Rise and Origen from thence? What do the Papists know nothing besides those No­tions of which they were the first Inventors. What think you of the Doctrine of the Trinity, &c. is that also a Jesuits Fiction?

Really I am not a little surprized at the Indecent manner, after which the Dr. treats the Holy Spirit, the third Person in the ever blessed Trinity, by ascribing its work, Namely, spiritu­al Prayer unto the Jesuits, as though such are the works of the Spirit, that they cannot be distinguished from the Inventions of the Jesuite; and that the Dr. should thus expose himself, the honour of his Learning, or good will to the Protestant Re­gion in a case so plain, is astonishing; who knoweth not, that the Church of England it self, is as much, or more so, for Free and Spiritual Prayer, than the Jesuits are; The heaping up Authorities for this, would be but to follow the Doctor, in raising a suspition of the Churches Orthodoxie; when as Free Prayer in Private, which is the utmost the Jesuits are for, is allowed us by the Church of England; yea, and commended to our Practice, with helps vouchsafed us by some Worthy Divines of this Church; as so many expedients Adapted for the obtaining the Gift of Free Prayer, which is not, as I hum­bly apprehend forbidden any Minister in Publick; supposing he neglects not the prescribed Formes. But to consider the Drs. Integrity in the History he gives concerning this, by whom 'tis suggested.

1. That the Jesuits are for free Prayer in Publick.

2. That Free Prayer is the Jesuits invention; If this be not the scope of the insinuation, to what purpose is it mentioned? But if it be, I will evince out of the Jesuits own writings, that they ac­knowledge Free Prayer to be known by the Fathers; and that they allow it only its private Exercise, even as others of the Ro­mish Faction; and the Doctor himself, &c. do.^(a) Azorius the ‘Jesuit expresseth himself thus most freely vid. That of Paul, [Page 8]Rom. 8.26. Where 'tis said, the Spirit maketh intercession for us, Saint Austin in lib. de bono Persever: c. 23 Doth interpret it thus, the Spirit teacheth us to pray, or maketh intercession according to that expression in Math. 10.20. for it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father, which speaketh in you, not that the Spirit doth truly, or properly speak, but that it vouchsafeth the Power, Help or Grace to speak the Truth, even so the Spirit prayeth, because it giveth out the Power, and Grace of Prayer. Austin, is as to this followed by Primasius, Bede, Anselme, and Sedulius, so far Azorius. But I will add, and by Fulgentus, who saith because we frequently of­fend God by our sins, 'tis necessary that we often by Prayer and compunction of Soul attempt the pleasing him. Compunc­tion of heart stirreth up the affection of Prayer, and an hum­ble prayer obtains Divine Assistance, Compunction of Heart respects our Wounds, Prayer seeketh for a Remedy; but who is sufficient for these things, or who can pray as he ought unless the Phisitian himself infuse into us the beginnings of Spiri­tual prayer? or who can persevere in Prayer unless God in­crease in us what he hath began.’ I might instance in many others, but this is enough to shew that Spiritual Prayer is not owing unto the Jesuits for its Invention or Discovery; and therefore I will proceed to inform the Dr. that the Publick Exercise, of Free Prayer, is not approved off by the Jesuits, For as concerning publick prayer the Jesuits do differ from the Dissenters if not from the Church of England, agreeing with none that I know unless with other papists and with Dr. Stil. for though [Page 9] private and Free Prayers are with Azorius and other Jesuits terms promiscuously used to express one, and the same thing, yet publick Prayer must be according to some certain prescribed form, This is the sense of (Vincent Fillincius,) yea of (Bellarmine) and before him of (Durandus,) it being proved by Bellarmine to be thus appointed by the Milevitane Council Can. 12. yea by the Toletan, 4. c, 2. and by Pope Gregory. &c

This being so the Dr's mistakes are apparent, and the Truth is.

1. That the Jesuits were not the first inventors, nor the first bringers in of Spiritual Prayer, Spiritual Prayer being owned ac­knowledged, and privately practised ever since the Apostles dayes, for the Church never did for bid its use saith Fillincius.

2. That the Jesuits ever have, and still do zealously oppose the Publick use of Free Prayer.

3 That wherein the Jesuits, and Dissenters agree as to this, it is in no other respect then wherein the Universal Church agree with them.

4. That wherein the Dissenters and the Dr. differ about Spi­ritual Prayer, the Dr. closeth with the Jesuit, our difference if any being about the publick use of Spiritual Prayer against which the Jesuits are.

2. Argument.

The Dissenters have blasted the Reputation and honour of the first Reformation, which is the great thing the Jesuits would^(c) [Page 10]be at, for saith the Dr. Preface, p. 9. What is it which the Pa­pists have more envied, and maligned than the Church of England? What is it they have more wished to see broken in pieces? that is, than the Constitution and Government of this Church? Did not Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper, and Farrar, and Latimer, all Bishops of this Church, suffer Martyrdom by their Means? Had not they the same kind of Episcopacy which is now among us, and which some now are so busie in seeking to destroy.—Is all this done for the Honour of the Reformation? Is this the way to preserve the Protestant Religion among us, to fill mens minds with such prejudices against the first settlement of it: to go about to make the World be­lieve, that the Church Government then established, was repugnant to the institution of Christ, and that our Martyr-Bishops exercis­ed an unlawful Authority over Diocesan Churches? Such men do the Jesuits work for them as effectually, as if they had been set on work by them.

1. In answer, it must be carefully observed that the Papists do not so much envy, and maligne the Episcopal Government, 'tis the Drs. mistake, for the Hierarchy, or the English Episco­pacy is not so formidable a thing in a Jesuits Eye; neither is it their principle or Interest to destroy it.

1. Not their principle, which is for the conserving Episcopal Government, for

• 1. The Papists plead most zealously for that difference, there is said by the Church of England to be between a Bishop, and a Presbyter,
• 2. They deny the peoples right of calling their own Mi­nisters.
• 3. Assert that the Church hath power to institute new Cere­monies.

1. They do distinguish between a Bishop, and a Presbyter, and with the Church of England assert, that the Catholick Church doth acknowledge a distinction to be between a Bishop and a Pres­byter, and that the Bishop is jure divino, greater than a Presbyter; and this Bellarmine, and the Romish faction insist on in opposition to the Reform'd, namely in opposition to Wickliff, the Luthe­rans and Calvenists, whence they go on with the greatest malice against the Protestants; to the end they may Haereticate and damn every Soul among 'em, and say that the Bishop only hath [Page 11]power to ordain, and that if any be ordained by Presbyters, that Ordination is null, which is according to that of Gregory III in his Epistle to Boniface, from which they proceed, as I shall shew immediately) to deny the Lutherans and Calvenists to be true Churches for want of the right Administration of Sacraments, that is the product of the want of true Ministers, or which is the same, because they have not Ministers Episcopally ordained, so^f Bellarmine. Whereby it appears that the papists are not a­gainst this part of the Prelacy of Bishops.

2. That the People have no Interest in the Vocation, or cal­ling of their own Ministers, is also the Principle of the Church of Rome. For^g Bellarmine in stating this point, saith, that the Controversie between them and their Adversaries, to wit the Reformed, is about the Right of Creating Bishops or Presbyters in the Church, and he asserts that Martin Luther, John Calvin, Mat Illyricus, Brentius, Chemnitius, and others of the Sectaries, i.e. of the Protestants, do hold, That no one is Lawfully called, or chosen to the Office of a Bishop, but by the consent and suffrage of the People, and therefore they infer (saith Bellarmine,) that there are no Bishops or Pastors among the Papists rightly called, for want of the suffrage of the People: But on the other side, the Church of Rome concludes, that the people have no right to call their Ministers, and that although the People did formerly choose their own Ministers, it was through the Concession or Conni­vance of the Popes. And therefore they say that the Hereticks, or the Protestants have no true Ministry, no right Administration of Sacraments, no Church, no Salvation, (for extra Ecclesiam nullasalus.) The Reasons they give against the Peoples Election besides many others, are these; drawn

• 1. From the Indiscretion of the People, and consequently their inability to judge of the Capacity of the Person to be Chosen.
• 2. The greater Number of the people are Foolish, and the viler sort, and consequently-will choose men like themselves.
• 3. Such a practice is obnoxious and liable unto sad Tumults, &c. Not remembering that the people, who are to choose, must be considered as men fearing God, and that there is care taken that the person to be Chosen is out of such a number, as are by [Page 12]the Godly and Judicious approv'd of, as men of Competent Abilities, &c. In this also the Principles of the Jesuites are far from destroying the Church of England.

3. That the Church hath power to institute new^(h) Cere­monies, which Assertion they thus limit.

• 1. Not such Cere­monies, as are repugnant to the Word of God;
• but 2. Such as are generally contain'd in that Scripture, Let all things be done decently and in order, and that they are not to be preferred to the Sacraments, nor must the same efficacy be attributed unto them; they only assert against the Hereticks, that 'tis lawful for the Church to institute new Ceremonies, not for Justification but for other ends.

The white Garment being for Ornament and Signification. All this Bellarmine is express in, and therefore not against this part of the Church of England. That I abuse not the Episcopal, nor Bellarmine, will soon appear to such as will but seriously consult the sense of the Church of England and Bel­larmine, who are express in asserting all this and much more; namely, that as the Decency of the Ceremonies is one Reason why we must observe them, so our Superiours Command is ano­ther.

Thus the Principles of the Jesuits, and other Papists being so much for a Prelatical Episcopacy, so much against the peoples Choice, and so much for Ceremonies with the mention'd Limi­tations, how is it possible that the Dr. presum'd to assert that the [Page 13]Papists aim at the destruction of what they too much contend for against the Generality of our Reformed Divines? But▪

2. It is not the Interest of the Jesuites to destroy Episcopacy, or eradicate the Ceremonies, and thereby break the Constitution of this Government. 'Tis probable they would add unto the Con­stitution, but the destroying it they abhor. For,

• 1. A great part of their bait would be lost, if Episcopacy be ruin'd▪ What more evident than that the Papists aim at our Bishopricks; not at the destroying them, but at the possessing themselves of them. 'Tis the Episcopal Grandeur, Church Honours, and Church Lands that they would be at.
• 2. The Jesuits know, that 'tis much more easie to introduce their Religion under the shadow, and name of Episcopacy, and Ceremonies than otherwise. What difficulty is there in drawing the vulgar to the whole of Popery, under pretences of a more firm establishing Episcopacy, and a making the Ceremony the more splendid and solemn.
• 3. May there not be an alteration in our Doctrines, when no alteration in our Government; and might not the Papists gain greater ad­vantage by their being made Bishops, than by the Ruine of Bi­shopricks?
• 4. It is not dangerous to break Constitutions, especial­ly since the destruction of Episcopacy may be attended with the Royal distribution of Church Lands among our Nobility and Gentry, than which a greater blow cannot be given the Papal in­terest in England, as appears by the Heroick actings of Henry the 8th. in a like Case.

Are not the Papists sensible of this? What­ever the Dr. may think, there are the highest Reasons to ingage us to conclude that the Jesuits dread nothing more than the de­struction of Episcopacy and the removal of the Ceremonies.

§. 2. That the Reputation of the first Reformation is not hereby blasted, nor are the first Reformers in the least Reproached But▪ 1. The memory of these Worthies, namely, Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper, &c. is precious unto the dissenters, who can distin­guish between their Episcopacy and their Martyrdom, they not being Martyr'd for Episcopacy but for renouncing transubstantia­tion, &c. They sealed those Truths with their blood unto which the Dissenters desire to give in their Testimony, in abiding by them faithful to the Death.

2. These famous Martyrs we honour, yea and the Reforma­tion they carried on, it being a wonder, that in less than six years time, they should do more towards Reformation than all the [Page 14] Bishops in England besides have done in almost six score years, They went as far as possibly they could in that juncture, and probably would have gone p [...]ri [...]passu with Luther, Calvin, &c. had they the time and opportunity.

3. I find in the Report of the Examination of William Nixon, had the 20th. day of June, Anno, 1567. before the Lord Mayor, and the Bishop of London, that Mr. Nixon gives this following answer to the like objection made then by the Bishop of London, which is most pat to this of the Doctor. ‘We condemn them not, we should go forward unto Perfection, for we have had the Gospel along time among us. And the best of them that did maintain it, did recant it at their Death, as did Ridley, some­time Bishop of London, and Dr. Taylor. Ridley did acknow­ledge his fault to Hooper, and when they would have put on him the same Apparel, he said they were abominable, and too fond for a vice in Play.’ Which is sufficient to evince, that if these Bishops had outlived the Marian Persecution, they would have gone on towards a greater Reformation.

4. 'Tis very considerable, that those very Persons▪ who were so zealous in Q. Elizabeths days for Episcopacy, were persons of whom 'tis recorded.

1. That in the time of Persecution they were men of the same Principles with Dissenters.

2. That after the Persecution was over, they did proceed with the smartest Prosecution of Laws against them.

1. That in the time of Persecution, Q. Elizabeths Bishops were of the same Principles with the Dissenters concerning Ce­remonies, &c. for this consult the Letter of Mr. D. Wy, writ­ten about the Year 1570. who saith, ‘That such Bishops as fled in Q. Maries time, or else tarried here under the Cross; had cast off, renounced and forsaken all this Trumpery, i. e. (the Ceremonies) for the which the Peace is now disturbed, and afterward for their promotion sake put them on again. The like in a Letter written by Mr. A. G. to Mr. Coverdale, Turner, &c. who speaking of the Ceremonies, saith, That all these things were abhor'd, as Popish Superstition and Idola­try among the English Gospellers, both Bishops and others; when they were under Gods Rod in Poverty: But they have now learned Courtly Divinity, to ground all upon Policy.’

2. ‘That when these very men were raised to Honour, they be­gan [Page 15]to be very severe in persecuting their Brethren, and their quon­dam fellow-sifterers, the Dissenters Yea, to discover greater en­mity against them, than against the Papists.’ This may be seen in a Letter of Dr. Wy. ‘They say they would that all Trash and Trumpery were out of the Church, [meaning the Ceremonies] and yet they stretch the utter most piece of their Authority to the keeping of it. And a little after 'tis said, 'I could rehearse by Name a Bishops boy, ruffainly both in behaviour and apparel, at every word swearing and staring, having Ecclesiastical pro­motions, a worthy prebend, no doubt: I could name Whoremongers being taking, and also confessing their Letchery, and yet both enjoying their Livings, and also having their Mouths open, not stopped, not forbidden to Preach. I know also some, that have said Mass divers years, since it was pro­hibited, and upon their Examination confessed the same, and yet are in quiet possession of their Ecclesiastical promotions. I know double-beneficed men, that do nothing but eat, drink, sleep, play at Dice, Cards, Tables, Bowls, and read Service in the Church; but these infect not their Flocks with false Doctrine, for they teach nothing at all.’

‘Thus it is evident, that Gods Commandments are fain to give place to mans traditions; and yet still all these are but small matters. Verily the punishment is great I wonder what punishment they would use, if they had transgressors of great matters in handling, that deal after this sort with such as offend (and yet offend not at all) but as they say, in such small matters.’ But this must not be mentioned, least the Honour of the first Reformation be blasted, that is, the Dissenters must sub­mit not only unto the greatest severities with all manner of Pa­tience; but moreover, though Gods Truths be neglected, and a sinful Ministry countenanced, they must remain in silence, least the reputation of these men be blasted. That surely must be the meaning of the blasting the Reformation. But

5. Notwithstanding the severity exercised against the Prote­stant Dissenters; even when the Papists escaped the smartness of the Law, yet it is observable, that the Queens Council, whosew s­dom and firmness to the Protestant Religion hath been renowned all the World over, did then discover themselves to judge other­wise of the Dissenters, than the Ecclesiasticks did, yea, although the Bishops were then very basie in turning the dege of those [Page 16]Laws that were designed for Papists, against Dissenters; Yet that wise Council did distinguish between the Papists and Dissen­ters, and thereby plainly discover, that the Dissenters there, were far from carrying on the Popish design, as appears by their Letter sent to their Justices on the complaint of the Dissenters, made to the Right Honourable Lords of Her Majesties Privy Council.

Thus you have the sence of Q. Eli. Council, and may have the like sence from our Parliament now.

These things being so, let the Impartial Reader judge who it is that hath blasted the Reputation of the first Reformation.

Whether

• 1. Those that remained faithful to these Principles of the Martyrs and other Protestant sufferers in Q. Maries dayes, or those that receeded from them.
• 2. Those that hazarded the loss of their Liber­ties and Benefices for the sake of Protestant Princi­ples, or those that persecuted the Protestants, when the debauched Papists were favoured by them.
• 3. Those that would carry on the Reformation as far as Luther and Calvin, and the generality of the first Reformers, or those that gratified the Papists, by putting a stop to so Gospel-like a procedure, revi­ling Junius and Tremelius, as German-Drunkards, &c. as some of the Episcopal Clergy did in Queen Eliza­beths dayes.
• 4. They who acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a true Church, having a Ministry rightly, i. e. Episcopally ordained, when all the Reformed beyond the Seas, are reproached for want of it, or Those who concur with the Reformed.

3. Argument.

The Dissenters oppose Episcopacy and Innocent Ceremonies, not­withstanding their Antiquity. ‘'Tis asserted by the Dr. Pref p. 4, 5. That when the People find the undoubted practices of the Anci­ent Church condemned as Popish and Antichristian by their Tea­chers; they must conclude Popery to be of much greater Antiqui­ty [Page 18]then really it is; and when they can trace it so very near the A­postles times, they will soon believe it setled by the Apostles them­selves. For it will be very hard to perswade any considering men, that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon, so unammously, so universally, as it must do, if Episcopal Government, and the use of some significant Ceremonies were any parts of that Apostacy. Will it not seem strange to them, that when some humane policies have preserved their first Constitution so long, without any consi­derable Alteration, that the Goverment instituted by Christ, and settled by his Apostles, should so soon after be changed into another kind, and that so easily, so insensibly, that all the Christian Churches believed, they had still the very same Government, which the Apostles left e'm; Which is a matter so incredible, that those who can believe such a part of Popery should prevail so soon in the Christian Church, may be brought upon the like Grounds to believe, that many others did. So mighty a prejudice doth the Principles of our Churches Enemies, bring upon the cause of the Refor­mation.’

I Answer, There are these things to be distinctly considered.

1. Whether the not embracing the Episcopacy doth any way advan­tage the Papist.

2. Whether there is any such strength to be found in the Drs: reasoning. First, From the Antiquity of Episcopacy. And Second­ly, From the Argument produc'd to prove its Antiquity, to wit, the Improbability of introducing Episcopacy, and Ʋninstituted Govern­ment, into the Church without some noise and clamour. I say, Whether there is any such strength in these reasonings, that none can oppose them, without giving too great an advantage unto the Papist.

To the first, Namely, Whether the non-embracing Episcopacy doth any way advantage the Papist.

1. From what hath been already said, 'Tis sufficiently proved, that the non-embracing Episcopacy doth rather prejudice then profit the Papal interest; for which Reason.

2. When attempts have been made by Francise. a Sancta Clara for the accommodating the differences between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, he ever with indignation excepts against the Puritane, as a people no way reconcileable to their Church, yea, when he proves it easie to heal the breach between them, and the Episcopal.

Moreover, 3. Whoever consults^* Becanus the Jesuite, will find; how he seems to honour the Church of England, by giving credit to the reports they make against the Puritans (who are so cal­led by the Jesuit, because they embrace the pure Doctrine of Calvine) to the end they may thereby from the mouths of some Protestants, viz. of the Church of England, condemn all the Reformed Chur­ches abroad, the Jesuits malice being the more inflam'd to see so many Dissenters in England, that justifie the Reformation made be­yond the Seas.

2. The Doctors discourse about the Antiquity of Episcopacy; and the argument enforcing it, must needs be of great weight with the Doctor, it having been for divers years a furbishing in the Je­suits School; and is the Diana of the Roman Church at this very time, the great foundation, and Basis of that tottering Superstructure, this is their only Alpha and Omega, their first and the last, whence if the Reformed oppose their Hierarchy, their Ceremonies, their Inventions, their Corruptions; this is that unto which they slie, tanquam ad Asylum, viz. These things must be Apostolical, be­cause 'tis impossible they should be introduced into the Church without any noise. Really the Doctor hath done this argument the greatest honour imaginable, but whether the Church of England are owing unto him for this piece of service, I much doubt. That this is^† Bellarmine's Thunderbolt against the Hereticks, consult him, and you will find him exactly so. To rehearse the many Arguments produced by the Reformed in beating down this Popish Errour, would be endless, whoever reads any learned Protestant cannot but be furnished with a multitude of Convincing Considerations, that are urg'd against this Doctors Argument.

1. Nothing being more apparent, then that the Scriptures of the New Testament, the Antientest Writings the Christian Church can produce, as the infallible discovery of the first Constitution of Christian Churches, how ancient soever Episcopacy or Ceremonies are, if not to be found in the New Testament. It is not the Anci­ent or first Constitution. This is our Religion, and whoever receeds from it, doth but give too great advantage unto the Papist, there being several Ceremonies in use among them, whose Antiquity doth equalize that of any observ'd by our Church.

2. 'Tis well known, that if we had the fullest account of the Rise of Episcopacy and Ceremonies, as to the time when, the place where, the Persons by whom they were introduced, our Faith could not thereby be more Divine concerning these things than now it is, for the Testimony would be but Humane, grounding a Faith that is only so.

3. We have a very short account of the transactions of the first 300 years, the persecution of the Churches being so severe and bloody, which is enough to evince, (because of the inconsistency of Episcopal grandeur with a persecuted state,) that neither Episco­pacy, nor pompous Ceremonies were then in their Glory.

Again,

4. 'Tis certain that those Errours creept in gradually, the Ini­quity being a Mystery, that began even in the Apostles days, and I remember that I have read in the Annals of Said Ibn. Batrick, an Alexandrian Patriarch, who lived about 200 years after the Turk­ish Hegyra, that in Alexandria, the Constitution gradually alter'd, first from Presbyters to a Bishop, and thence to a Pope, though not to an Ʋniversal One.

Is it not then sad, that there must not be an urging Protestant arguments against the Antiquity, &c. pretended by the Papists, but Popery is advantag'd? What advantage is it to them to see the Temple of their Diana ruin'd, their City of refuge demolished? I beseech the Doctor to be serious in this weighty and momentous point, and to deal freely, openly and generously in this particular, and declare unto the World what his apprehensions are of Dr. Potter, sometimes Bishop of Carlile, or rather of the Learned Mr. Chillingworth, a Son of the Church of England, whose excellent treatise entituled The Religion of Protestants, a safe way to Salvation, i [...] so applauded by Dr. Bayly, sometime Vice-Chancellor of Oxjord; [Page 21]as also by Dr. Prideaux and Dr. S. Fell; or rather what would the Dr. rejoyn unto the Answer that is found in Mr. Ch [...]llingworth, unto his great Argument about Antiquity and the Impossibility of an Er­rour's becoming Ʋniversal in so short a time. ‘Though some Pro­testants confess (saith Mr. C. to the Papists) some of your Doctrines to be antient, so long as it is evident, even by the Confession of all sides, that many Errors, I instance in that of the Millenaries, and the communicating of Infants, were more Antient. Not any An­tiquity therefore, unless it be absolute, and Primitive, is a certain sign of true Doctrine. For, if the Church were obnoxious to cor­ruption (as we pretend it was) who can possibly warrant us that part of this Corruption might not get in and prevail in the 5th, or 4th. or 3d. or 2d. Age?’ [This notwithstanding what Dr. Stil. doth suggest about the near approach unto the Apostles dayes.] ‘e­specially seeing the Apostles assure us, that the Mystery of Iniquity was working though more secretly even intheir times. If any man ask how could it become Ʋniversal in so short a time?’ [Attend good Dr. to the answer for this is your own Question] Let him tell ‘me how the errour of the Millenaries, and the Communicating of Infants, became so soon Ʋniversal, and then he shall acknowledge, what was done in some, was possible in others.’ Thus we see how Dr. Stil. to the end he may be even with the Dissenters relinquish­eth the good old Protestant Principles, unless this of Mr. Chilling­worth approved of by Dr. Baily, Dr. Prideaux, and Dr. Fell, and the generality of the Church of England be Popery.

Argument 4.

'Our Divisions give great advantage to the Papists; and the 'Dissenters by their Separation have caus'd the Division.

To this I Reply,

I. That 'tis most apparent that Divisions among Protestants have given the greatest advantages imaginable unto Popery; as to this, the Dr. and the Dissenters I verily believe, are agreed. But,

II. The great Quaery is, who occasions, or causeth these Di­visions? for 'tis the Divider onely, that is subservient to the [Page 22] Roman Interest, which being so, our enquiry must be, Whether the Dr. &c. or the Dissenters are the Dividers?

The Dr. suggests as if the Episcopal Clergy were most entirely resolv'd for Union, but 'tis the Dissenter that is the divider, who is an Enemy to Union, but a Friend to Schism, and U [...]just Separati­ons. ‘We were (saith the Dr.) in some hopes, that Men so wise, as the Non-conforming Ministers represent themselves to the World, would in so Critical a time have made some steps or ad­vances towards an Ʋnion with us. Instead of this, these we dis­coursed with, seemed farther off than before. For (saith the Dr.) God forbid that I should either design, or do any thing which tended to obstruct so blessed a work, as a Firm and Lasting Ʋnion among Protestants would be. But my business is to shew the Ʋnreasonableness of those Principles and Practises, which hinder men from such an Ʋnion, and lay a Foundation for perpetual and endless Separations. For upon the Principles laid down by some of our Dissenting Brethren, let the Constitution be made never so easie to themselves, yet others may make use of their grounds, and carry on the difference as high as ever. Which will render all attempts of Union Vain; and leave the same weapons ready to be taken up by others.’

So far the Dr's Mistakes, which in these few words, are many. For,

• 1. The Dissenters are at this time as much for Union according to the Terms of the Gospel as any can reasonably desire. 'Tis for Ʋnion they breath, and Pray, and most industriously and sin­cerely endeavour, being engag'd hereunto by Interest; for as long as Divisions continue, they are expos'd to the worst of Mise­ries.
• 2. The Principles of Dissenters are most admirably suited for a firm and lasting Union with all such as will adhere to the Terms pro­posed in the Gospel.
• 3. 'Tis the Dr. that falls in with Bellarmine giving the Papists the greatest encouragment to an abiding by their persecuting Principles, even when he dissents from the Church of Eng­land.
• 4. 'Tis the Dr. that hath done his utmost to obstruct a firm Ʋnion among Protestants.

That all this, to the Satisfaction of the Judicious, and impartial Reader, may be evinced, I will propose in short the true state [Page 23]of the Controversie, so far as I apprehend it; and then detect the Dr's Mistakes, as to those but now mention'd particulars.

In giving the state of this Controversie, I must intimate where­in there is an agreement; and wherein the Difference doth lie.

1. We are agreed in Doctrinals, and in all the Substantials of true Religion.

2. The Difference then is about lesser matters, and the Case is this;

The Dissenters are fully convinced in their Consciences from the strongest and most powerful arguments, That the Word of God contain'd in Scripture, is the onely rule of the whole, and of every part of true Religion. And that what is not according to this Rule is no part, of Protestant, or of the true Christian Religion. This great Principle occasions a twofold Controversie, the one with the Papist onely, the other with the Church of England also.

1. With the Papist; for by this Principle, we are engag'd to reject whatever Doctrines they impose, that are not agreeable to this Rule, and consequently we reject their Doctrines about Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Indulgencies, &c. because they cannot be found in Scripture. Although there is no Text ex­presly forbidding these things, yet since they are not to be found there, either directly, or by consequence, we must lay 'em aside. The Papists, 'tis true, make a great bussle, saying, where is it asserted in Scripture, no Purgatory, &c. We reply, where is the affirmative to be found. They say, that our Religion, as distinct from Theirs, is compos'd of Negatives onely, which have no foundation in Scripture; We rejoyn by denying their Assertion, concluding, That the Scripture is a sufficient Rule for our Direction concerning all Religion; and what is not found there, is not to be embrac'd as a part of our Reli­gion.

2. With the Church of England; Though we have not this Controversie as to Doctrinals, yet about Worship, and Church-Government we have The Dissenters being fully perswaded, that so far as any Doctrine about Worship, or Church-Government, is made a part of our Religion, it must be brought to the Rule of the Scripture; whence if not according to it, though not expresly forbidden, yet 'tis to be exploded. As for Circumstan­ces [Page 24]of Worship, as Time and Place, pro hic & nunc, &c. they are no part of Worship, &c. but as touching such Ceremonies, as are made a part of Divine Service, let it be Surplice, sign of the Cross, or Salt, and Spittle, or the Chrisme, we reject, as not sound in Scripture. It being the Principle of Dissenters to ad­here to the Scriptures, and to comply with every Scriptural Term of Union, and with no more.

This being so, if any part of their Service, that respects no Divine Precept, be proposd as a part of our Religion, yea and as such a necessary part, as to be the term of our Communion with them, we are fully convinc'd, That it is a sin, and not to be complyed with, unless we give up the whole Cause to the Papists.

For either the Scriptures are the whole, and onely Rule of the whole, and of every part of our Religion, or not. If not, then let us return to Popery, or where shall we go for a com­pleat Rule of Religion? But if it be a comple [...]t Rule, then what­ever is introduced into our Religion, as a part thereof, and not agreeable to the Scriptures, must be considered, as what ought to be rejected; whence either the things imposed on Dissenters, and required as terms of our Communion with the Church, are a part of the Religion of the Church, or not; If not, if no part of their Religion, why do they impose 'em on us as terms of Com­munion, or what, may we be fully of their Religion, and assent and Consent to every part thereof, and yet be uncapable of their Communion, if so, who are the Dividers? I leave it to the Judge­ment of the VVise. But if it be a part of their Religion, 'tis either agreeable to the Scripture Rule, or not; if not, we cannot consci­entiously comply with it, for this is to make that a part of our Re­ligion, which God hath not: but if according to the Scripture rule, why do they not produce the Scriptural Considerations, that are the Media, by which they would prove so much; or How comes it to pass, that they are judg d but Indifferent things, that are neither commanded, nor forbidden; whereas, whatever is according to the Scripture must be according to the revealed VVill of God, for the Scriptures do but contain the Revealed Will of God, and therefore, whatever is accord­ing to the Scripture, must be according to some Command in Scripture, since a Command is but the Revealed VVill of our [Page 25]great Legislator, and if according to such a Command, not Indiffe­rent; but if Indifferent not according to the Scripture, and conse­quently no part of true Religion, and therefore not to be proposed as a term of Union; or if proposed as such, it cannot without sin be complyed with.

The Church of England then imposing what in their judgment is but indifferent, and consequently what cannot be a part of their Re­ligion, do impose as a term of our Communion with them, what is in our Consciences sinful.

What must be done then for Peace and Union, who must yield? The Dissenters will part with every indifferent thing, rather than break the Peace of the Church; but the Clergy hath been hitherto unwilling to part with any One Indifferent thing: Yea even now, though the whole of Our Religion is in great danger, yet rather than what is no part of it should be lost, let Religion it self Perish. The Church without sin can part with their Indifferent Ceremonies, but Dissenters without sin cannot comply with them. What then must be done for Union? must the Episcopal comply in things wherein they can without sin, or must Dissenters sin, and loose their peace with God for Ʋnion? The whole of the Controversie is this, Whose Honour is mostly to be valued, that of the Episcopal Clergy, or that of our Lord Jesus Christ? for the Episcopal cannot make any Abatement of these indifferent things consistent with their Honour; They have once impos'd these things, as terms of Uni­on, and cannot now Honourably recede the least Iota; The Dissen­ters, they cannot stretch their Consciences to any sinful Impositions, but by dishonouring the Lord Christ: What then must be done? must we to the dishonour of the Lord Christ, stretch our Consci­ences and sin, rather than that the Honour of Episcopal Grandeur be fullied by a compassionate Condescention about Indifferent things, wherein they can without sin Condescend, and which would be really more for their Just Honour?

This is the state of the Case; The Dissenters would Unite, but cannot; The Episcopals can, but will not. The Cannot of Dissenters, and the Episcopals Will-not doth make the Division. But who is the Faulty Divider? If the true Reason of our Di­vision lay on the Dissenters Will-not, when they Can, 'twould be easie to conclude them Obstinate, and Perverse; what not to do [Page 26]what they Can for Peace? But since they would, but cannot with­out sin, how can they be the Dividers.

From what hath been said, 'tis evident, that as 'tis the Interest and Desire, even so 'tis the Principle of Dissenters to Unite; Of their sincerity concerning which, they have ever given Illustrious instances.

1. In Q. Elizabeths days. In a part of the Register, 'tis thus expressed of the Dissenters; Whoever of them in word or deed gave out any just suspition of Unpeaceable dealing? Nay have not they striven for peace, in their Ministerys, in their writings, in their Examples more than any? — But Notwithstanding this they have been arraigned among Felons, and Theeves; They have been imprisoned to the uttermost, and defaced, and yet they are silent. And Mr. Dudley Fenner in his Defence to Dr. Bridges; anno 1587. saith, All this they did patiently bear, and came daily to the Prayers, to the Baptisms, and to the Sacraments, and by their Examples and Admonitions kept many from Abuses, whereto rashness of Zeal would have carried them, yet now for their labour to their great grief, they are openly slandered, &c. Yea, upon every irre­ligious mans complaint in such things as many times are incredi­ble, to be by the Pursuivants sent for, to pay two pence for every Mile, &c. even when their Families were impoverish'd. But as hath been already hinted, the Providence of God gave them fa­vour in her Majesties Council, who were convinced of their peacea­ble disposition, and the regard they had to a walking in all good Conscience before the Lord.

2. That the Dissenters at this time are fully sensible, that they are engaged both by Principle, and Interest against the least com­pliances with the Church of Rome, and consequently to embrace any just proposals for Ʋnion, will appear from what is declared by divers of them in the account, they give of the Grounds, and Rea­sons, on which they desire their Liberty; where 'tis express, That unto the Resolution of a stedfast adherance unto the Protestant Religion in Opposition unto Popery, we have (say they) many peculiar engage­ments. For

• 1. ‘Our Principles concerning Church Order, Rule, and Wor­ship, wherein we differ from the Church of England, are not capable of a Compliance with, or Reconciliation unto those of the Papacy, but are contradictory unto them, and utterly in­consistent with them. Where there is an Agreement in general [Page 27]Principles, and men differ onely in their Application unto some Particulars, those Differences are capable of a Reconciliation; But where the Principles themselves are directly contradictory, as it is between us and the Papists in this matter, they are capable of no Reconciliation.’
• 2. ‘We have no Interest▪ that may be practised on, by the Arts, or Insinuations of the Papists. For we are neither capable of any advantages by Ecclesiastical Domination, Power, Promotions, with Dignities and Revenues belonging thereunto; which are the principal allurements of the Papacy; nor are engaged in any such Combination Political, or Ecclesiastical, as that the contri­vance of a few, should draw on the Compliance of the VVhole Party; These things being ut [...]erly contrary unto, and inconsi­stent with our Principles, the Papists have no way of attempting us, but by meer Force and Violence.’
• 3. ‘Our fixed Judgment being the same with that of all the first Reformers; namely, that in the Idolatrous Apostacy of the Papal Church, with bloody Persecutions, the Antichristian State foretold in the Scripture doth consist, VVe are for ever exclud­ed from all thoughts of Compliance with them, or Reconciliation unto them.’
• 4. ‘VVhereas our Principles concerning Church Order, Rule and VVorship, are directly suited unto the Dissolution and Ruine of the Papal Church-State, whence the Papists take their VVarranty for all the evil contrivances, which some of them are guilty of in this Kingdom, and will so far as they are taken out of the Scripture, at length effect it; VVe can have no other expectation from the Prevalency of their Interest in this Na­tion, but utter Extirpation, and Destruction. VVe are there­fore fully satisfied, that our Interest and Duty in Self-Preserva­tion consists in a firm Adherence unto the Protestant Religion as established in this Nation, and the Defence thereof, against all the attempts of the Papacy.’

So undoubtedly true it is, That the Dissenters are engaged both by Principle and Interest to oppose Popery; and in order thereunto, must (being directed by the Light of Nature) use all Proper means for the strengthening themselves against this Irreconcileable [Page 28]Enemy, the Papists; The Union of Protestants being the most proper Mean, they are Ruin'd if they do not vnite when they may. Propose any Terms, how difficult soever unto Flesh and Blood, but not Sinful, and they'l close with them.

Thus I have shew'n,

• 1. That the Dissenters are mov'd by Interest to desire Union.
• 2. That their Principles also engage them to do so, and consequently the Dr. is mistaken as to these Parti­culars.

I will now proceed to shew,

3. That 'tis the Dr. who falls in with Bellarmine, entertaining the same Principles, and arguing from the same Topicks with him.

1. As^(a) Bellarmine doth in the general highly extol Union, Peace and Concord in the Church, making it a note of the true Church, even so the Dr. (though he doth not make peace and con­cord a note of the Church, yet he) doth speak enough of its ex­cellency, and desireableness; For Ʋnion is a lovely Name, which is in great esteem even among such, as will not part with a Toy, a Triste for the obtaining the Thing. But

2. Notwithstanding the great commendations given this Union, 'tis not easily obtain'd, for most frequently the anteceding Dissenti­ons are between those different Parties, that are unequally interest­ed in the Favour of the State in which they are; whence things usually come to this issue, Those that are uppermost, impose many Ʋncertain, and Ʋnnecessary things, as terms of Ʋnion on their Inferi­ours, with which the more weak and inferiour Party cannot con­scientiously comply. The Imposer is deeply affected with the tre­mendous consequences of the least condescention; The Non-compli­er is mostly employed in minding the Unhappy tendencies of severe Impositions. The One declaims against the Ʋnreasonableness of Se­paration, the Other against the Mischief of Impositions. And Bellar­mine, and Dr. Stilling fleet have had the advantage of the Pleasure of Imposing; they Agree in these particulars.

1. Dr. Stil. suggests the Impossibility of a limited Toleration, and therefore in his discourses about it, his opposition is made against a General, or an Universal, and Unlimited Toleration, even so^(b) Bellarmine. ‘(There are saith he,) some, who assert, that the Magistrate may permit all to think what they list concerning Re­ligion, and live as they please, supposing they break not the Pub­lick peace of the State; but this is a most pernicious Errour. Without all doubt, Christian Princes are oblig'd to endeavour to keep their Subjects to the same Faith, the Catholick Bishops teach them [yea as to every Punctilio.]’

2. As to what the Dr. asserts about the Danger of receeding from the setled Constitution, as if Toleration would break all in pie­ces, and not answer the end, namely Peace, even so^(c) Bellarmine, who saith, ‘'That the Holy Fathers obliege us to keep inviolable, not only the Apostles Creed, but also every other Opinion of Faith, though it may seem very minute, and inconsiderable; neither must we for the sake of Hereticks [or Schismaticks] in any manner suffer an Alteration. — The Catholicks would not, but wrote to the Emperour, that 'twas very wicked to alter any thing con­cerning what was formerly determined, for if there should be an alteration of Paenal Laws, Peace would not ensue, even as the Dr. Tis impossible to satisfie all Dissenters, and uncertain whether any considerable number may be gained by a Relaxation.’

3. ‘Twill be difficult saith the Doctor, on a Toleration, to keep Factions out of the Church, for upon the Principles laid down by some of our Dessuting Brethren, let the Constitution be made ne­ver so easie to themselves, yet others may make use of their ground, and carry on the differences as high as ever; Even so^(d) Bellarmine, who saith, 'That Liberty concerning one Opinion cannot be allowed, but for the same Reason it must be so in every thing, yea, even as to those Doctrines which are contained in the Apostles Creed.’

But as in this, the Dr. and Bellarmine agree, even so the Dr. and the Church of England differ, as appears by what is most express in Mr. Chillingworth, who saith, ‘I have learnt from the ancient Fathers of the Church, that nothing is more against Religion than to force Religion, and of St Paul, the Weapons of the Christian war­fare are not carnal. And great Reason; For humane violence may make men counterfeit, but cannot make them believe, and is there­fore fit for nothing but to breed form without, and Atheism with­in. Besides if this means of bringing men to embrace any Religi­on, were generally used (as if it may be justly used in any place by those that have Power, and think they have Truth, certainly they cannot with Reason deny, but that it may be used in every place, by those that have power as well as they, and think they have truth as well as they) what could follow, but the maintenance of truth, but perhaps only of the profession of it in one place, and the oppression of it in a hundred? What will follow from it but the preservation peradventure of Ʋnity, but peradventure only of [Page 31] Ʋniformity in particular States and Churches; but the immortalizing the greater, and more lamentable divisions of Christendom and the World? And therefore what can follow from it, but perhaps in the judgment of carnal policy, the temporal benefit, and tran­quility of temporal States and Kingdoms, but the infinite preju­dice if not the desolation of the Kingdom of Christ? And therefore it well becomes them who have their portions in this Life, who serve no higher State, than that of England, or Spain, or France, nor this neither any further then that they may serve themselves by it, who think of no other happiness, but the preservation of their own fortunes, and tranquility in the World; who think of no o­ther means to preserve States, but humane power, ond Machi­villian policie, and believe no other Creed but this, Regi aut ci­vitati Imperium habenti nihil injustum, quod utile! Such men as these it may become to maintain by worldly power and violence their State Instrument, Religion For if all be vain and false, (as in their judgment it is) the present whatsoever, is better then any, because it is already setled; And alteration of it may draw with it change of States, and the change of State, the Subversion of their fortune. But they that are indeed Servants and Lovers of Christ, of Truth, of the Church, and of Mankind, ought with all cou­rage to oppose themselves against it, as a common Enemy of all these. They that know there is a King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, by whose Will and Pleasure Kings and Kingdoms stand and fall, they know, that to no King, or State, any thing can be profitable, which is unjust; and that nothing can be more evident­ly unjust, than to force weak men by the profession of a Religion, which they believe not, to loose their own eternal happiness, out of a vain and needless fear, least they may possibly disturb their tem­poral quietness. There being no danger to any State from any mans Opinion, unless it be such an Opinion by which disobedience to authority, or impiety is taught or licenced, which sort I confess may justly be punished, as well as other faults; or unless this san­guinary Doctrine be joyn'd with it, that it is lawful for him by hu­mane violence to enforce others to it. Therefore if Protestants did offer violence to other mens Consciences, and compel them to embrace their Reformation, I excuse them not.’

4. Although the Dr. speaks so much in favour of Ʋnion, aiming at it, (as it is said) both in his Sermon, and his late great book, ex­posing Divisions as what chiefly gratifies the Papist, for which rea­son [Page 32]reason none can hinder Union, or contribute any thing towards the Continuation of our Divisions, unless they will strengthen the Papal Interest, yet the Dr. doth his utmost to prevent a Protestant Union, and consequently to maintain Divisions to the a vancing the Papacy among us.

That I abuse not the Dr. will soone appear with much Convicti­on to any that shall but consider.

1. That the Dr. is fully apprehensive from Twenty years ex­perience, That the term of our Union must be made more easie, or 'tis impossible that the Dissenters should conform, which terms cannot be made more easie, unless there be an alterat on of some Paenal Laws, against which the Doctor doth express himself with very much warmth.^(a) ‘That a general unlimited Toleration to dissenting Protestants will soon bring Confusion among us, and in the end [...]opery.— And a Suspension of all Paenal Laws that relate to Dissenters, is the same thing with a boundless T [...]le [...]ation.’

I am heartily sorry to find the Dr. under this transport, and wish he would give himself the Liberty of thinking, though but for a few honrs, for then surely he could not but find himself oblig'd, when more cool, to correct what was the product of an indecent heat, and consequently distinguish between a boundless Toleration, and the suspending each Panal Laws as relate to Dissenters only. Doth not the Dr. know, that the Paenal Laws against Dissenters are only such as engage us to a strict conformity to Episcopacy and Ceremonies, for­bidding the Worshipping of God in Seperate Meetings: The Paenal Laws that relate to Sabbath breaking, Drunkenness, Swearing, Felony, Murder, Adultery, &c. affect the Dissenters no otherwise than the Conforming Clergy, for which reason, seeing a Boundless To­leration is an indulging Drunkenness, Swearing, Lying, &c. the Dr. must mean, That the not conforming to Episcopacy and Ce­remonies, and the Worshipping God in Seperate Meetings is the same with Drunkenness, Uncleanness, Perjury, Adultery and Mur­der, which if true, the off-spring of a Toleration would be as the Dr. saith, Confusion. And is this the Dr's meaning; hath he such high Thoughts of the Divinity of an Humane Ceremony, that what man soever neglects it, is as a Murderer, or such low thoughts of worshipping God in a separate Meeting, that 'tis as Felony? Is not this the equalizing Humane Inventions with Christs Institutions? [Page 33]Or rather is it not to represent the Dissenters as Persons that are as vile as the worst of men, and that it as much concerns the Magi­strate to punish a Dissenter as a Drunkard and a Felon. This shews the Reason why Dissenters are punished as much as Swear­ers, and therefore unless the Parliament incline to favour Debau­chery, let them not entertain the Thoughts of giving the Dissenters a­ny Liberty. But what is this but to close with Bellarmine, who saith, for the same reason, Liberty is given in the same point, it may as well be so, in the greatest Article of the Creed, i. e. But the Dr. must pardon us, if we are so charitable as to believe that whatever sen­timents some of the Inferiour Clergy may entertain concerning Dis­senters, or the Dr. himself in the midst of his disturb'd thoughts, yet these are not the apprehensions of the grave and Judicious Cler­gy of England, nor of the Dr. when free from these intemperate heats. They all see a difference between a Conscientions Dissenter, and a profane Debauchee, and that the former may be tolerated, when the latter is for his wickedness severely punished. However this is enough to prove that the Dr. is against the shewing any compassi­on to a tender Conscience, though for the sake of Union.

2. The Dr. doth set a greater value on the Honour, and Reputa­tion of men, than on Union, or the relieving tender Consciences in order unto Union. ‘If (saith the Doctor, page 89.) any expe­d [...]ent can be found out for the ease of other mens Consciences, without Reflecting on our own, if they can be taken in without Reproach, or Dishonour to the Reformation of the Church; I hope no true Son of the Church of England will oppose it.’ These are the Dr's. Terms; for the understanding which, it must be observ'd that the Dissenters Not-conforming to Episcopacy and the Ceremo­nies is a judging them Ʋnlawful, which is a casting a Reproach and a dishonour on the Reformation of the Church, for this supposeth, that the Reformation of the Church of England, is not so agreeable to the Scripture as it ought to be. VVhence unless Dissenters can obtain their Liberty in a way consistent with the Honour of their Clergy, it is not to be allowed them, that is, Unless they can wound their Consciences, and fully conform, no Union. All which doth plainly intimate, that an higher esteem is to be had for the external worldly Honour of men, than for tender Consciences. But is this the way to heal our Breaches?

There are several other instances that may be insisted on to shew the Dr's dislike of Ʋnion, as well as of the relieving tender Con­sciences, [Page 34]which are cloath'd with so many an uncomely reflection, that 'twill be difficult to discover just resentments of them, without falling under the Dr's Censure of being Intemperate, &c. and there­fore I will wave them, knowing that there are some others more Able, and more Concern'd to consider them. So much as to the Dr's many Mistakes about this Fourth Argument.

Argument the 5th.

5. The Dissenters accepted of His Majesties Gracious Tolera­tion, given them Seven or Eight years ago.

‘Tis the Advice of the Jesuit Contzens (faith the Dr.) in his Di­rections for the reducing Popery into a Countrey, that it be done under a pretence of ease to tender Consciences. The like in a Let­ter of Seignior Bellarini, that there be an Indulgence promoted by the Factious, and seconded by the Papists. Yea, and Coleman owned at his Tryal, and after sentence declared, That possibly he might be of Opinion that Popery might come in, if Liberty of Conscience had been granted, and 'tis acknowledged, that the De­claration of Indulgence, 167 [...] was of the Papists procuring. But notwithstanding this by one of the more moderate party of Dis­senters wrote, A publick vindication of their accepting the Licen­ces, and in the year 1675. There was a book printed, entituled The Peaceable design, or an account of the Non-conformists Meetings, by some Ministers of London.’ In an Objection it is thus put. But what shall we say then to the Papists. The Answer is, The Papist in our account is but one sort of Recusant, and the Conscientious and Peaceable among them, must be held in the same Praedicament with those among our selves, that [...]ikewise Refuse to come to Common Prayer. To which the Dr. adds, what is this but joyning for a Toleration of Popery.

To all which I shall speak distinctly, and in doing so, consider these several particulars Couched in this Fifth Argument.

• 1. That 'tis the Opinion of the Papists, that a Toleration might advance their Interest:
• 2. That when a Toleration was given through the Papists Insti­gation, the Dissenters embraced it.
• 3. That the Dissenters concurr'd with the Papists in the attempts made for a general Toleration.

1. To the First, That the Papists apprehended a Toleration ad­vantagious to their Interest.

Here it must be duly observ'd, that there is a difference between a Toleration, and a Toleration, viz. between a Limited and Un­limited Toleration.

2. The manner in which a Toleration may be given unto Dis­senting Subjects, may be different.

1. That a Toleration limited to such Dissenting Protestants as are sound in the Faith, and Peaceable, should advance the Papal Su­perstition, is not easie to comprehend, nor is it said that the Papists apprehend so much. Probably the Jesuits Contzens, Seignior Bellari­ni and Coleman might think, that a general Toleration to them, as well as to the Dissenting Protestants might advance their interest, but that a Toleration to Protestants only should contribute any thing towards the reducing this Land to Popery is unimaginable.

'Tis a known Maxime in the Roman Church, that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion, which is true only with reference to the Papal Superstitions. Let the light of the Gospel be remov'd, and Popish Darkness will soon spred it self over the Face of that Land; but as long as the knowledge of the Gospel remains, 'tis not easie to introduce Popery.

For which Reason a Toleration to Dissenting Protestant Mini­sters is so far from advancing, that it destroys the Papists Interest. And this is no more then what the Indulgence granted so graciously by His Majesty did effect, it giving as great a blow to Popery, as hath been given it in divers years before. For multitudes who former­ly living most lewdly, were prepar'd for Popery, being since con­vinc'd of the Truth and excellency of Religious conversation, are most firmly engag'd to venture their Lives, yea, their All in the de­fence of Protestant Religion. What then should tempt the Papists to conclude a limited Toleration to be an Engine prepared for the ac­complishing a Jesuitical design is to me unknown, unless they had a respect rather to the manner of its grant, than unto the Toleration it self, fancying that as his Present Majesty indulg'd Protestant Dissen­ter without his Parliament, according to the same Rule the Popish S [...]ssor they had within their ken, might without his Parliament in­dulge the Papist. But this is only a conjecture of which our States-Men are most competent Judges, and which whether right or wrong 'tis not to be insisted on by the Clergy of either way, they [...], so Ʋamcet to treat of State-affairs, which never succeeds bet­ter [Page 36]than when under the management and Conduct of States-men, nor never attended with more unhappy Issues, then when the Cler­gy like busie bodies will [...], i. e. Inspect the Diocess of the Laity, and concern themselves about what they understand not. But what though we grant, that the Papists thought a Protestant In­dulgence would advance their Interest, seeing their thoughts have no more of Infalibility in them than their Doctrines, why doth the Dr. insist on their fancies? What were they never mistaken? But the Dr. suggests that Jesuits might creep in under the Notion of Dissen­ters; And can they not rather slide into great preferments under the Covert of a Gown, a Cassock, a Surplice? The Temptation sure­ly is greater, and the way much more easie.

2. The Dissenters 'tis said accepted of this Toleration, yea, and wrote a Publick vindication of their accepting of it. What then? are they therefore Popishly affected? What, is Gratitude to our Prince confin'd to Papists, or their Instruments? I cannot but wonder at the discourses of some of our Clergy, who delight in nothing so much as in railing on the Dissenters, as Seditious, Rebellious, and what not, and yet most angry with Dissenters, because they are not so, as appears by the many Invectives, that were written against our thankful acknowledgments of His Majesties Clemency. But though this Dr. and some others are angry, yet 'tis the Resolve of Protestant Dissenters to be ready on all occasions to shew their Loyalty and thankfulness to his Majesty for every instance of his Bounty towards his dissenting, but most dutifull and loving Subjects.

But wherein is the Papist gratified by that Toleration, what did he gain by it? Did he enjoy more liberty after, than before? Me­thinks, the import of the great cry of our Clergy is this, That the Dissenters must not be permitted to enjoy, as much as the Pa­pists, and be on even terms with them, to the advancing the Prote­stant Religion. For this is evident, that when there was no Decla­ration for Indulging Protestants, there was no prosecution of Paenal Laws on Papists; yea, when the Clergy were most severe in prose­cuting Protestants; the Papists knew not practically what a Paenal Statute meant, and yet our Church men very silent. But his Maje­sty according to the Gracious Propensions of his heart no sooner ex­tends his Clemency towards the Poor Dissenting Protestants, but the cry is Popery, Popery, that is, poor Protestants in a Bears, the Papists skin, are envied and malign'd.

3. The Dissenters wrote favourably of the Tolerating Papists.

Answ. 1. Before the Discovery of the Plot, the Papists were judg'd Loyal Subjects, though Saperstitious, &c. even by our Gover­nours and Clergy. Doth not Dr. Stilling fleet remember, that a R [...] ­verend Divine, a Son of the Church, no way inferiour to himself, did write ex industria in favour of the Loyal Papist? Is the Church of England therefore for Popery? How then can Dissenters he so, seeing the reason for the one and the other is the same, with this difference, namely, The Dissenter gave but an hint, which did rather discover a confidence in, and humble de [...]ercing to the Wisdom of our Magistracy; who did not judge meet at that time to be brisk in a prosecuting the Paenal Laws against them for their Recusancy: but the Plea of the Episcopal in favour of the Roman Catholick was more than an hint, it was a considerable Treatise. But

2. Since the Discovery of the Plot the Papists are better known, they are now known to be Implacable Enemies to a Protestant Prince and Kingdom; to be Turbulent, and Ʋnpeaceable: Whence the Tolerating them, and the Kingdoms peace are become inconsistent, and as the one is advanc'd, the other necessarily must be over­thrown: For which Reason, our Superiours, Ecclesiastical and Civil, do see cause to pass another Judgment on the Papists than formerly they did, whereby the Dissenter may with the greater freedom appear against them, giving our Soveraign, and the Par­liament the fullest assurances of Loyalty to His Majesty, and Faith­fulness to the Protestant Religion, being ready to hazard their lives and their all, in the defence of them and it. How then can they be suppos'd Favourers of Popery, or rather how can Dr. Stil. Dis­course after this manner? For, if such as are under the lash of Paenal Laws for Conscience sake, must be thought to be Popishly affected, for not animating the Magistrate to a Prosecution of Paenal Laws a­gainst other supposed Conscientious, and Peaceable Dissenters as the Papists were then judg'd to be, by many of the Church of England, and this before the Discovery of their Horrid Plots, I say, if the whole Party of Dissenters must be thus expos'd, so severely for such an hint as that was, what shall we think of Dr. S., who speaks so favourably of the Papists, suggesting even now, that when Mens heats against the Papists, which are said to be beyond the just bounds of Prudence, Decency, and Humanity; are over, it will be thought great hardship for the Papists onely, to be deprived of the Liberty of their Consciences, when the wildest of the Fanaticks are [Page 38]allowed it. What, may the Dr. insinuate so much in their Favour now, and not expose himself to the Censure; and must a Dissenter who spake not half as much in other times, be so severely treated? But whether the Dissenters are favourers of the Papal Faction, will more fully appear by the Answer that shall be given unto his 6th. Argument.

Argument 6.

The Dissenters, since the Discovery of the late Horrid Plot did close with the People in an over-fierce opposing the Papists. For (saith the Dr.) now the Dissenters tack about, and strike in with the Rage of the People, and none so fierce against Popery as they, where­by they mar a good business by over-doing it. Praef. pag. 34.

This is suggested more than once, but because of the strangeness of the medium at this juncture, and its unmeetness for its designed end, I'l not be over-curious in considering it; It being well known that Popish Plots are laid so deep, the Plotter so cruel, yea, and so resolv'd for Protestant Blood, the Blood of our Prince, our Nobles, our Gentry, our Ministry, and People, that unless we by a serious and humble Repentance return to God, putting our Trust in the Lord, and assume an undaunted Courage, we are a lost People. To be at such a time cold and indifferent, is to relinquish and aban­don our Religion. For if there be any Fire of Zeal against Papists in the house, it cannot but flame out at the Windows at this time; for the stormy winds of Popish Cruelties and Treasons, desolating Threatnings, and implacable Fury, are such as must cause the least spark of Zeal for God, and the King, &c. to break out into a flame, that cannot be hid; Which may be, even when our Zeal doth not transport us to any Irregular or Illegal proceedings, which can on­ly deserve the Epithets of Indecent and Inhumane; with which Protestant Dissenters cannot justly be charg'd, and therefore the Surprize is the greater to find such an Intimation in so Judicious, and Wise a Person as Dr. S. In what respect doth, or can the Dr. accuse them? Are the Dissenters too Zealous in Declaiming against Popish Principles, and Practises? Do they represent Papal Treasons to be more hainous than they are (i. e.) more bloody, or more In­humane and Cruel? What acts of Inhumanity have they exercised? or in what respects have they been transported beyond the just bounds of Prudence, Decency, or Humanity? Why is not the [Page 39]Dr. more particular in his Charge, seeing Dolus latet in Generali­bus? 'Tis their Joyning with the People (the Dr. adds) but in what? In Petitioning his Majesty for the Sitting of the Parliament, surely the Dr. wo'nt now judge that to be seditious? Is it our Readiness, when call'd thereunto to hazard our lives to save his Majestie's? or what? seeing the Dr. doth not fasten any particular crime on the Dissenters, and the Dissenters being Innocent, have no guilty Conscience to accuse them, nor are they able to divine; It cannot be expected, that we should be more full in the Consideration of it, neither is there any need, for enough hath been said to clear the Dissenters from the Ʋnbecoming Reproaches, the Dr. would fasten on them; Yea, enough hath been hinted to evince the Dr's. Mi­stakes to have been Great and Many.

III. I'le now proceed to the third Particular, and give a Summa­ry Account of the Unhappy Tendencies of these Great and Many Mistakes, as they are adjusted for an Advance of the Papal Interest.

§. 1. 'Tis Remarkable, That Notwithstanding the Honourable Apprehensions the Dr. may have of the Reformation, very little, if any thing, is hinted concerning the most Principal part thereof, namely, Protestant Doctrines: The which I do the rather observe, because it hath been of late years, the sole care of our Ecclesiasticks to secure Protestant Religion, without using any Mean for the pre­servation of Protestant Doctrines; and accordingly new Declarations, Subscriptions and Oaths have been offered for the more firm establish­ment of Church-Government, even when our Doctrines have been sadly vitiated by some of the Sons of the Church, without any other notice, than the Complaints of a Few, such as are Dr. Tully, &c.

§. 2. That Episcopacy, and Ceremonies are considered by the Dr. as the Glory of the English Reformation, the Bulwark of Protestant Religion, even Episcopacy and Ceremonies, as dissented from by the Nonconformists, (i. e) That Episcopacy, and those Ceremonies unto which the Dissenters cannot conscientiously conform. 'Tis this that cannot be dissented from without great dishonour unto Prote­stant Religion, viz. The Reformation; which, strictly considered, is no part of the Reformation, (i. e.) as much of these things as Dissenters agree not unto, cannot be justly called Reformation. [Page 40]For what parts of the Papal Episcopacy and Ceremonies are rejected, the Dissenters heartily in their rejection close with the Episcopal; that is, so far as there is a Reformation; But, as to the Particular wherein the Difference lies between the Conformist and Non-con­formist, there is no Reformation on the Conformists part. I am not now disputing against Episcopacy or Ceremonies, but supposing them Apostolical; yet I assert, they cannot be considered, as a part of Reformation: For Reformation doth presuppose some Anteced­ing Corruption of the thing to be Reformed; Reformation consisting in the removing the Corruptions, and therefore we do not say, that the Protestants Reform'd what was never Corrupted; for instance, The Doctrine of the Trinity, not being corrupted by the Church of Rome, the Protestants are not said to Reform it, even so, That Part of Episcopacy and Ceremonies, which is considered as Apostolical, and hath been, and still is maintain'd by the Church of Rome, that part if adhered unto, as Apostolical by Protestants, is but the Retaining an Ʋncorrupted part of our good old Religion, and not a Reforming it, Thus even do the^* Jesuits consider it. But grant­ing that the Retained part of the Hierarchy, &c. may be consider­ed as Reformed, it still must be asserted,

1. That 'tis no Part of the Lutheran, and Transmarine Pro­testant Reformation; for, they consider it as what stands in need of a Reformation.

2. That the Dr. making this the Great Part of the English Re­formation, doth but exalt a part of the Papal Hierarchy under the name of Reformation, for which Reason, even other parts of the same, may deserve his Applauses under the same Notion, and what is this but to reflect on all Protestants besides themselves.

§. 3. This Reformation in Conjunction with the Papists, an adhering unto the Praelacy of Bishops, and in Opposition unto most other Protestants, an exploding Godly Peoples Right of choosing their own Pastor. And Thirdly, an introducing such little Ceremomes as do but prepare the way for greater.

§. 4. All this is most admirably accomplished with the Help of Bellarmine, and other Jesuites in that, this Noble Superstructure is fastned on the Foundation of Antiquity, and Ʋniversality, the sure Notes of what is Apostolical; for, (saith the Dr.) if this should be a Corruption how comes it to be so Antiem, and so soon Ʋniver­sal, even insensibly without any noise.

§. 5. This is a Receeding from the Church of England, and a Rebuilding what the Church hath demolished, a setting too great an Honour on those Jesuitical Arguments, which have been exploded by the Church, as appears out of Mr. Chillingworth; and there­fore as one Apprehensive of their weakness, the Doctor doth proceed.

§. 6. To the old Argument, vide Mischievous Impositions, as what cannot but most effectually compass his end, that is, under the notion of opposing a Toleration, to introduce a smart Prosecuting of Paenal Laws against such, as cannot receive Convictions from the foregoing Arguments. That the Dr. writes against such a Tolerati­on as consists in the suspending those Paenal Laws, which are against Dissenters, is evident: And what is the meaning of this, if he de­signs not the urging a Prosecution of Paenal Laws? Doth a suspending the Paenal Laws any otherwise displease him, than as it prevents a Prosecution of the Law against Dissenters? And if by these Laws Dissenters must be prosecuted, for not assenting unto what they can­not conscientiously assert. Is not this laying our Faculties under Vio­lence, or a Forcing Religion, an introducing blind obedience with a Whip? That such Doctrines are pleasing to the Papist, might be ea­sily proved from the advantages they have taken from Mr. Hooker, and some others; who have express'd themselves too liberally in their Invectives against Dissenting Protestants, and that the Dr hath no way gratified the Episcopal Protestants by Relinquishing their Do­ctrine, is to be seen in Mr. Chillingworth, who hath shewn the per­nicious consequences of such Impositions. Namely,

1. As it may occasion an Ʋniformity in some particular Chur­ches; even so it doth Immortalize the greater and more Lamentable Divisions of Christendome, and the World.

2. As it may in the judgment of Carnal Policy advance the tem­poral benefit, and tranquility of Temporal States, and Kingdoms; even so 'twill be followed with the Infinite Prejudice, if not the desola­tion of the Kingdom of Christ; and therefore this is a Doctrine that becomes none, but such whose Creed is Regi aut Civitati imperi­um habenti nibil injustum, q [...]od utile, who dread the change of State, least it should change their Fortunes. But

3 This cannot be profitable unto any King or State, because Ʋnjust, for nothing is more evidently Ʋnjust, than to force weak men by the profession of a Religion, which they believe not, to loose their own Eternal happiness out of a vain and needless fear, least they may possibly disturb their Temporal quietness.

I hope, seeing the Dr. will find these Arguments in one of the Church of Englands discourses, he will give some heed thereunto, and perceive how he hath unawares given advantage to the Papist.

Thus the Dr. in his pretences against Popery, falls into the Er­rour for which he reproveth the Dissenters, which I have evinced out of his own Preface, as compar'd with the Jesuits with whom he accords, and with the Old Protestants, from whom in some of these things at least, he dissents, The which I have done with the greatest fairness and integrity, without any design of forcing his words to speak what is not according to their Grammatical sence, and common acceptation, omitting the insisting on several points, that might be spoken unto with greater disadvantage unto the Dr. But aiming principally at the clearing the Innocent, who are by him accused, and the showing into what Mistakes his transport hath carried him, I hinted no more than what was necessary in order thereunto, carefu­ly shunning as much as the Subject matter would permit any such expression, as might be judg'd by the Dr's own intimates Indecent; humbly apprehending that the Dr's Mistakes are but evincements of the emotions of that Corruption, which in part is in the best of Saints on Earth, which calls rather for our Compassion than Triumph, knowing that we our selves are but men of like passions. For which reason I will draw to a close in speaking to the Fourth thing.

4. That to the end the Dr. may do himself, and the Protestant Religion but right, 'tis necessary that he be either more distinct, and full in a further explication of his sentiments, if he be misapprehend­ed, [Page 43]or that he will be so Candid, as to go on in following Bellarmine in one thing more, namely, in that it deserves due esteem and regard by a second Retractation, if these mistakes appears to be such as they are by me represented.

1. If the Dr. hath not wrong'd the Dissenter, nor clos'd with the Jesuit in his arguings against Dissenters, 'tis most apparent, that his words need an Exposition, for whatsoever unprejudiced Per­son considers, what hath been said in the foregoing Discourse, may easily perceive, that if we must judge of his meaning by his writing, 'tis as I have said; But, if not so, I beseech the Dr. to exercise his Candour in inlightning us, assuring him, as soon as I can understand that I have in any respect misrepresented him, I will be so Just, as to acknowledge so much, and do my utmost for the clearing him, and in order thereunto have this onely to add, That I do not say, the Doctor hath consulted the Jesuits, for what he asserts so agreeably unto their writings (God forbid I should assert what I do not know) But this I say that the Agreement is as great in those instances I have mentioned, as if he had, and that if he hath not consult'd them, I know not what can be assigned as the true Rea­son of this strange agreement, unless it be, that sometime great Wits jump, or, that such is the State of the Controversie between Him, and Dissenters, that there is no way so effectual for the confuting us, but by proceeding on Jesuitical Principles, and using Popish Argu­ments. But

2. If I have neither mistaken, nor misrepresented the Dr. as, I verily believe, I have not, seeing the Dr. is fallible, and may see cause to alter his Sentiments unto these particulars, as well as he hath done with reference unto some others, the He would be so Self-denying on his receiving Convictions, as to intimate so much unto the World.

1. That the Dr. changeth his judgement concerning some Noti­ons relating to Religion, is neither a wonder to the World, nor should it be a Reproach unto him, or any other Person, that for sufficient Reasons doth so. Yet

2. Whenever any considerable Tract is with the shew, and seem­ing strength of much Reason published to the World, through the Varnish of which, in process of time, the Author espies Mistakes and Errour, as the Author acts ingenuously in Publishing so much unto the World, even so he ought to do the World that piece of Justice, as to be at the pleasing Trouble of confuting it himself, [Page 44]seeing otherwise, much mischief may be done the poor weak Rea­der, who thinks the discourse to contain the same Reasons, since a a Retractation, which it did before, may through the Influence of of those Arguments, that are in it, be oblig'd to adhere unto Er­rour. Moreover as to the Dr's. Case, 'tis presum'd he doth not retract the whole, and every part of his Irenicum, and therefore 'twould be necessary somewhat be done to shew, what needs Ex­plication what a Retractation, and for what Reasons a Retractation; and the like as to this present great Book, a part of whose Prefaced I have Animadverted on, which Animadversions are of such a Na­ture, as cannot but engage the Dr. to do somewhat of this kind; even as^† Bellarmine himself in a like Case hath done, who, in the End of his Disputations hath his particular Recognitions, prefacing it in these words, ‘God is my VVitness, that what I have written is no more than what I judg [...]d to be the Truth, which I wrote not on any unworthy design of pleasing others, or profiting my self, but with an Aim at Gods Glory, and the Churches Benefit. Nor have I knowingly receeded either from the Rule of the Scrip­tures or Holy Fathers, However, since 'tis said, Prov. 10.19. In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin, which I Question not but may be said of much writing, I will therefore imitate St. Austin, i. e. in his Retractations, &c.’

That we may exercise the Charity in hoping that the Dr. doth not at any time publish That to be a Truth which he believeth to be an Errour, and with all finding the Dr. to mistake, yea sometimes sensible of his Mistakes. I have presum'd to recommend unto him not onely St. Austin, but also the great Bellarmine as a Pattern for his Imitation, it being an Honour to follow him in what is Right, when no way so as to those particulars, wherein he is an Enemy unto the Churches of Jesus Christ and the True Protestant Religion.