The Introduction.

IT is a Judgment upon ſome Men, not only to miſtake, but to refuſe to be informed; as it is the worſt of Natures to be afraid that other men ſhould be in the Right.

All Diſſenters muſt be in the Wrong, whether they be or no: And they muſt not mean any thing that is Good, by good Words, whether they do or no. Though it were that they ſhould ſay they would not have the Government or National Church deſtroy'd, and only pray for a little room to exerciſe their own way quietly, and that they will pray for, and pay Tribute cheerfully to their Auſpicious Caeſar.

And why all this Unkindneſs and Injuſtice, but for fear ſuch men of Wrath and Intereſt ſhould want a pretence to deſtroy them? Which in my opinion ſhews them ill Sons of the Church, that unwillingly believe well of another, and had rather they were in the Wrong than in the Right.

For in all the late Pamphlets againſt Liberty of Conſcience, there's not one word of winning one poor Diſſenter to the Church, no more than of Tolerating them out of the Church. But how peaceable ſoever he be, he is caſt out for a Veſſel of Wrath, good for nothing but to be Hang'd here, and Damn'd hereafter.

It is a Melancholly Proſpect for him, but not without Inſtruction, and ſome Hope. For Extreams do the Authors of them no good: And theſe Flaſhes may be but a Lightning before Death, I mean, of Severity.

It is always darkeſt before Day: Eaſe and Liberty of Conſcience, for all this, may yet dawn under the Government of our Brave King.

And who would not hope a little longer, that has ſtay'd all this while? Will other Princes give better Terms in their Countries, or keep them better? Let's then be Patient and Humble, and pray God to mollifie the Hearts, even of them that hate us. Vincit qui patitur. And ſo I come to the ſevere Gentleman againſt the DƲKE of BƲCKINGHAM and his SECONDS, for Men of No Conſcience; in which we ſhall have a meaſure of his, of his own giving, and that will ſhow it to be none of the beſt.

HE begins, page 3. with the Loyalty of the Houſe of Commons, and the reaſon of his Judgment, to wit, If we conſider, Who has choſen them, and Who are choſen. Now, no body doubts their Loyalty, without this lucky Reaſon given by the Squire, of Who choſe them, and Who are choſen. The caſe is plain, and needed not his officious Note upon the Houſe, for Spectacles to the People.

But if it be ſo, The Diſſenters Inſolence is inſufferable in their Pleas for Liberty of Conſcience. Which I take to be a Reflection upon that great Aſſembly; it prejudges their Wiſdom and Goodneſs. What knows he which way Reaſon of State may incline their Judgment; or what Motives may induce their Debates and Reſolves. Is it Inſolence, and that unſufferable too, for men to humbly pray, they may have leave to ſay their Prayers in another way than that which is common?

If any Man has done ill, muſt the Principle ſuffer, and the Party pay the Reckoning, eſpecially if neither be in the Fault? Here's a Loyal Parliament, Ergo, A Million of People muſt be Ruin'd. A fine Chriſtian, and as good a States-man. I hope, there's Preference of one, without Deſtruction of the reſt, and Rebuke without Ruin. The Diſſenter may live, though the Church-man only be preferr'd. And only let him be preferrd, ſo that t'other may not be confounded.

He ſays, Pag. 3, 4. Liberty of Conſcience has imbroyl'd three Nations in Blood, and yet the Patrons of it allow'd it not to one another, as Presbyterians, Independents, &c. Nor did they to King Charles the Firſt, the Church of England, or Roman Catholicks. He might have added the Quakers too, that ſuffer'd more Cruelties than any other Party, under them.

But I pray, how does this ſhake the Reaſonableneſs of Liberty of Conſcience? For, Firſt, that was not any part of the ſtated Quarrel between the King and Parliament. Secondly, If they that made the War, diſown'd it, and deny'd it, how were they Patrons of it? Or how did that Principle come to lay three Kingdoms in Blood? It ſeems then that Liberty of Conſcience muſt pay the Reckoning of the Men that are againſt it; or that becauſe thoſe Men were againſt it (and therein doubtleſs did very Ill) therefore the Church of England would do ill to give it. Make this good, and he ſhall be my Oracle.

But why? for fear they ſhould be undone by giving it, becauſe they were undone that did not give it. Mighty well argued! This Gentleman bids for the firſt Doctor next Act at Oxford.

You would not give it to me, that you wou'd not, and therefore why ſhould I give it to you? No ſuch matter; Truly I don't intend it. This is pretty Logick! 'tis Demonſtration, backward. But Paſſion, though it rules Women, it ſhould not Rule in the Church. Wiſe and Good Men, conſider the Right and Prudence of a thing, to which private Paſſions are made ſubmit.

Pag. 5. But the Proteſtant Diſſenters deſerve no Liberty, becauſe in Seventy Two they were for Liberty with the Papiſts, in Eighty without them, and now in Eighty Five it is not only lawful, but neceſſary that the Roman Catholicks have their Liberty too.

Granting this to be ſo, what's that to Liberty of Conſcience? It only ſhows the Partiality of the Men, and perhaps that would have been granted him for a word's asking. This proves nothing againſt the Principle, though the Squire upon this ſo fiercely concludes, all the Villanies in the World againſt Liberty of Conſcience. But when he has done all he can, they were not Diſſenters, under Correction, that in Eighty proſecuted the Roman Catholicks, and refuſed them Liberty, but Church of Englandmen, and ſuch of them too, as would not allow it to ſome Proteſtant Diſſenters, for fear that Papiſts ſhould hide themſelves amongſt them, and that they therefore muſt ſwallow the moſt ſevere Teſts that could be fram'd to ſhow themſelves not Friends to that Communion. And to tell truth, and I beſeech the Gentleman, not to take it amiſs that I ſay, the Diſſenters were invited to the ſhare they had in oppoſition to Popery, by Church-men, ay, they were for a Comprehenſion, to make the Church ſtand broader, the better to receive the Aſſaults of Rome without hazard. And had the Diſſenter been more modeſt to his Miſtreſs, and not ſo malepert and officious, he had doubtleſs been upon better Terms with her now. However, her Anger muſt not endure forever, nor deſtroy her Servant for being too buſie or eager in the Service ſhe call'd him to.

Well, But the Duke of Buckingham's Seconds are Men of no Conſcience becauſe they charge the Excluſion upon the Members of the Church of England, This is ſo bitterly reſented, that we are told, That an honeſt Turk would have ſcorn'd ſo baſe a Practice, within five years after the Fact, and in a Caſe wherein the whole Nation knows the contrary.

If Excluſion, or no Excluſion, be to determine the true from the falſe Church of England Men, as pag. 7. the Propoſition will be doubly falſe; For there are men that were not for Excluſion, that were not Members of the Church of England, and there are Members of the Church of England, that were for the Excluſion. And to this charge in the Reply and the Defence, he gives no Anſwer, but Anger, which for a Man to avoid, when the Queſtion lies upon it, & that grounded upon matter of Fact, ſhows his fear of Succeſs, and that, the weakneſs of his Cauſe. But ſince the Diſſenters by whole-ſale are to bear the blame, I do affirm the Excluders were Conformiſts, and are yet Communicants of your Church, and the greateſt part of them upon Education and conſtant Practice too. And that this is Truth, and no Slander, read the Liſt, and 'tis a demonſtration. Nay, I challenge the Gentleman to name ſix Perſons of all the Excluders, that diſſent from the eſtabliſhed Church.

Nor is this of yeſterday; for if we look back, we ſhall ſee the moſt celebrated Biſhops of our Church barring the Succeſſion in the Law of the 13th and 27th of Q. Eliz. See Sir Sim. Dew. pag. 140. & 207. and when that Queen pleaded Conſcience in not aſſenting to a Law to put our King's great Grand Mother, Mary Queen of Scots to Death, the ſame Reverend Biſhops undertook to remove the Scruple; yet nothing but, Away with thoſe Diſloyal Diſſenters.

Own them then ingenuouſly, that they are Members of your own Church, and that their Defection began within your ſelves, and that, for all your Invectives, and turning them over now to the Diſſenters, becauſe your are aſhamed of them, they are in communion with you ſtill, and daily Conformiſts to the Worſhip, and as ſuch, are admitted to the accuſtomed Rites and Priviledges of your Church. Page 7. To charge all Addreſſes and the Oxford Parliament to the account of Diſſenters, is not wiſe, any more than true, for it is to give the greater Numbers to the diſſenting party, ſince it is plain, how unequal they were that fell in with that excluding humor in the Kingdom.

But this is not all he has ſaid, to prevent the Legiſlative Goodneſs to Diſſ • nters. They muſt not have Liberty, leſt it be charged upon the Government as a deſign to bring in Popery and Arbitrary Power.

I remember a Story of Harry Martin, that when Cromwell came to diſſolve the Rump, to juſtifie his Action, among other things, he accuſed ſome of their Members of an evil Life, ſaying, Here ſits a Drunkard, and there (pointing to him) ſits an Whore-maſter; Harry Martin ſitting between two ſober grave men, jogg'd them, ſaying, Which of you two does he mean? The Diſſenters muſt be blam'd of thoſe that are Guilty. 'Tis hard to ſuffer for Faults, and be chid of them that did them.

No, 'twas the Gentlemen of that Communion that impeach'd the Prerogative, in the Declaration of Indulgence, and ſet the Political capacity of the King in oppoſition to his National, and to make their buſineſs more popular, beſtow'd that Comment upon it, of a deſign in the Court to let in Popery and Arbitrary Government.

Upon the whole matter, 'tis not unworthy of ſome thought, that this way of making Whigs and Fanaticks of all, that in every Point come not up to a Hair, though otherwiſe Men of Virtue, Piety, Wiſdom, and perfectly Church-men, may prove of ill Conſequence: for it narrows, where it is Wiſdom to enlarge, and greatens, where Prudence enclines to leſſen, I mean the Credit of Number.

This makes me the more admire one Expreſſion, viz pag. 8. That the Members of the Church of England have turn'd over to the Diſſenters all the Excluders, and lay'd the Bill of Excluſion at their Doors, and waſh'd her Hands of them, as Pilot did of our Saviours Blood, Where, beſides the falſe Politicks of making ſo many thouſand D • ſſ • nters in two Lines, and that without all hope of Recovery, he unhappily makes the Church of England men cowardly Pilot, and the Excluders to anſwer the place of our bleſſed Saviour. A pretty Alluſion to credit the Church, and diſgrace Excluders.

This is not the happieſt part of his Apology.

But I would have hoped that a man who ſhows not to want a ſhare of Wit and Expreſſion, ſhould be ſo diſingenious as from the Author of the Defenſive Sheet, ſaying, Take off the thing that Pinches, and ſee then whether the Church men or the Fanaticks and Catholicks will be moſt governable. To infer, Perſ • cute the Church men, beſtow the Biſhopricks and Church Revenues amongſt the Catholicks and Phanaticks, and ſee which will be the beſt qualifi • d, and moſt dutiful Subjects. A rare Expedient.

May I not better ſay, a rare Conſequence? as if eaſing Diſſenters, and not wringing their Backs, were ſtripping the Church, and cloathing Diſſ • nters in Velvit, then which, nothing leſs was thought of. This Incharity and Injuſtice ruin all. Such men cannot hope to eſcape the Judgment of God, that are ſo Injurious in their Judgment to men.

But he is angry with his Grace, the D. of Buckingham for leading the Dance, and if a Dance it muſt be, it is an old Country one, at which he has been excellent of long time, and who would not Dance to ſuch a Fidler? But how Tranſubſtantiation comes to be beholding to the Duke, whoſe Concluſion excludes it utterly, of which a Boy of ſeven Years old is judge, let the Gentleman conſider once more.

However, his Grace may happen to ask this Gentleman once in his Life, if he be the man that charges him with leading the Dance to men of no Honour, no Conſcience, no Honeſty, and that advocates a Cauſe of ſo much Treaſon and Impiety, as is laid to the charge of Liberty of Conſcience.

To the Diſſenters Objection, Pag. 10. he ſays, in their Name, That all the ill things they have done, is becauſe there are Laws made againſt them, and that they would be quiet, if they might have their Liberty; and tells us, That their ill and diſloyal Practices in Queen Elizabeth's time, drew the firſt Law upon them, and that was the 35th of the Queen. But that is no Anſwer to the Objection, for they were made dangerous, as Conventicles are now, by ſuſpition and prevention, not that they did any ill thing deſerving that Severity; but Church Refractorineſs, Biſhop Whitgiſt was pleaſed to tranſlate into Sedition: The old way, Indeed, my Lord, they are Enemies to Caeſar, and Exalters of another King, one JESUS. So that 'tis begging the Queſtion, to ground this Law on the ſeditious Practices of the Diſſenters; and we are to learn when any of our Time had a toleration to abuſe, or when any ſuch thing was in beeing, to charge our Political or Eccleſiaſtical Calamities upon. I only pray to be informed, I ſay, when, where and how? For I am intirely of his mind, pag. 10. That wiſe Men will try as few Concluſions in Government (if ſettled) as is poſſible; and yet when only one Concluſion is left to be tryed, and that ſo neceſſarily prayed and preſt, methinks 'tis not unwiſe to make the Experiment, when Mercy, Goodneſs and Charity are on that ſide.

But alas! the Author of this Apology is not contented to faſten upon an occaſion given, and improve it with all the aggravation of an unkind Nature, but turns Fortune-teller, and reads us a Lecture by the ſlying of his Jack-daw, of our own inſides & future Devices: A down-right Divination and Enthuſiaſm, as if he had been on an Errand to Delphos. Hear him, pag. 11. That we were all thunder-ſtruck, dreaded a Prince we had offended, and that had ſo much diligence and courage to repay us, and therefore turned Trimers, went to Church, took the Sacrament, gave up the Game, ſet up for Loyal: And that in this Melancholly frame, it was his Grace found us when he publiſht his Eſſ • y, and that no meaner Perſon durſt do it, though enough follow him.

Now the firſt part of the Story is falſe, and the laſt ſilly and ſaucy as well as untrue. I ſee Diſſenters Vertues (as few as they are) muſt be their Vices for a need: Their quietneſs is from the ſtroke of Guilt, and their Conformity only Hypocriſie for Safety: They have a fine time of it, and are mightily oblig'd to this Gentleman's Goodneſs and Juſtice, much good may it do'um. But the Duke out of meaſure is made brave in a bad Cauſe, a Ca • aline at leaſt, or if you will, a Cor • h, that is leading them back to Egypt again: A mighty Charge; and but that it is not true, 'twere an Impeachable buſineſs; and becauſe it is not, let this Gentleman take heed of a Scandalum Magnatum.

But this cry for Liberty here, is to break out with Argile's Plot in Scotland. This is ſhrewdly hit. Politick every bit of it I thought Argile's Presbyterians and Liberty had not agreed ſo well together: I have heard ſuch Folks hold as ill an Opinion of it, as this Gentleman, for his Ears.

But beſ • des all this, he tells us, Our time is ſhort, we muſt in pure diſpair do Fears; and what are they but to maul and diſgrace the Church Party at any rate? But if they will give us as good Quarter as they have received from the three or four Pamphlets for Liberty, I dare make the Bargain, that the Diſſenters ſhall look no farther after Biſhopricks, nor Church Livings, and I would to God it might reſt there.

What a ſtir is here that men pray to be quiet? O! but we know you won't be quiet, and therefore you ſhan't be quiet: There is nothing ſo idle, as being very cunning, and making every thing a Plot. So Tacitus makes Tiberius to have a deep one, in going to the Houſe of Office: To be ſure it was a neceſſary one.

His Concluſion is hard upon us that advocates the Cauſe of tender Conſciences, ſaying, We are men of no Honour, no Conſcience, nor Honeſty, but leaves the proof to be underſtood.

Certainly he cannot have too much of thoſe good Qualities, that advocates Tertullus like, againſt tender Conſciences, and to give him his due, he is ſenſible of it; for he preſently acknowledges his ſharpneſs, but excuſes it with the baſeneſs of thoſe that dare affirm the Excluders were Church of England Men. But for all that, it falls out to be true, and nothing but Truth pinches any Body.

He concludes in defence of the Church of England's Severity, and ſays, Tell me how Chriſt can be Head of oppoſite Bodies? But what then? muſt you perſecute where your Head forbids it? Though he is not Head of oppoſite Bodies, he does not deſtroy the Bodies of which he is not Head. But what does this Man think of an oppoſite Head and Body, the Head of one Mind, and the Body of another? An Head and no Member. Riddle me, Riddle me, what's this?

He bids us, Conſider this following place of Scripture, and bleſs the World with a Comment, Rev. 11.20.

Notwithſtanding I have a few things againſt thee, becauſe thou ſuffereſt (or tolerateſt) that Woman Jezabel, which calleth her ſelf a Propheteſs, (a godly Woman) to teach and ſeduce my Servants to commit Fornication, and to eat things ſacrificed to Idols. Now ſays he, I would fain know how long • oleration has been a Chriſtian Virtue, Rev. 11.

By this never truſt me, one would think him a Divine, every Inch of him, that can ſo cleaverly take Not Tolerating IN Communion, for Not Tolerating OUT of Communion.

But is this the Diſſenters caſe? Have they askt for the Churches, or do they uſurp the Pulpits? or out of your Communion either, do they teach the uſe of Fornication, and Idolatrous Food? What ſtuff is this for a man of ſome Wit and Words? Beſides, Jezabel was a Perſecutor, and believed a Whore, which, with all the manners I have, I would fain know to whoſe Church it is the moſt part of our Engliſh Jezabels go?

For his Query, How long Toleration has been a Chriſtian Virtue? 'Tis plain, ever ſince Chriſt came, That bid the Tares ſhould grow with the Wheat till the Harveſt, which his own bleſſed Comment ſays, Is the end of the World, where I ſhould be glad to meet this Gentleman, upon my Word. Till then, I would fain have him and his Friends let us alone, and then do their worſt.

Luke 9 54, 55, 56.

They ſaid, Lord, wilt thou that we command that Fire come down from Heaven, and conſume them, even as Elias did? But Jeſus turned about, and rebuked them, and ſaid, Ye know not what Spirit ye are of: For the Son of Man is not come to deſtroy mens Lives, but to ſave them.

An Expoſition upon which, becauſe the Queſtion is perfectly in the Text, is humbly begg'd,

Of his to Command With Liberty of Conſcience.

FINIS