YOU are a Company of Lazy Lord-Danes, Domineering, bold Coxcombs, &c. Crab-Protestants, that crawl backwards to Popery, Catts-feet, wherewith the Romish Monkeys claw the Pro­testant Religion, &c.—Sbud, you are Hea­thens, Mahometans, Persians; whose onely Re­ligion is to worship the Rising Sun:—I can easily prove you are Papists —

Ay, Sir, if you will prove any thing, [Page 2] I am for you: but what you have said all this while, I take to be nothing else, but a Regiment of Rabble Dirt, mustered and raked up, to oppose and bespatter our Monarch, Truth.

Well, you shall see that whom you call your Monarch Truth, I shall prove to be an Ʋsurper, Impostour, Son of the Whore—and, as I was saying before, I shall prove you Universi­ty men to be Papists.

Come, Sir, now I am resolved to listen.

And you shall have your own way; It shall be in Mode and Figure; for I was once of your Coat, and had the happiness to under­stand your tricks—Thus, Sir, I shall prove it, and that Infallibly.

• They that live in Colleges built by Papists, are themselves Papists.
• But you Ʋniversity men live in Colleges that were built by Papists.
• Tarbox.—

'Tis all certainly true, for your Colleges were built either by Cardinals, and you know there be no Protestant Cardinals; or else by Popish Bishops, or some of the Popish Layety; and you know, those that are Popish are Papists; therefore your Colleges were built by Papists.

Ha ha he. I am not angry with your Mi­nor; I declare I am good friends with it; I ac­knowledge most of our Colleges were built by Pa­pists: but, Sir, I have a very great Grudge against [Page 3] your Major; I desire you would prove, that they that live in Colleges, that were built by Papists, are themselves Papists.

Ha! deny the Major! Why 'tis a Prin­ciple: 'Tis agreed upon by all the Country Gentle­men that live within three or four miles of me. I know no one that ever contradicted it, but the simple Parson of the Parish, and a few other Non­sensical fellows—

Pray, Sir, don't be so cholerick—Let me ask you: Were not Cities, Towns, &c. here in England, founded and built before the Refor­mation?

And that was not quite two hundred year ago; yes, I believe they were; What then?

Then, I suppose, they may be built by Popish Founders, Popish Masons, &c. for we never heard that the Protestant Religion ever came into England before that time: And if so, Why may you not as well conclude, that those that live in Cities, Towns, &c. that were founded by Papists, are themselves Papists, as those that live in Col­leges, built by Papists, are Papists—Come, Sir, What do you say?—

For any thing I know, they may have a Spice of Popery—but if I was certainly assu­red of what you say, I would set all the Towns on fire about us, as soon as I came home—I wonder'd, in the Devil's Name, what made the greatest part of the Nation side with the D of Y.—But, supposing this is maliciously vented [Page 4] forth, because it has the face of an Objection, or not that there is any thing of Truth or Conse­quence in it, I am not so well satisfied as you may think: Have not some of you a maintenance from those Popish Founders? Are you not the Pope's Pensioners? Pray now, Are you not sworn to Statutes which were made by those Popish Founders? Have not they specified in those Statutes, that you shall have Mass read in your Chapels at such and such times? that you shall acknowledge the Pope as Supreme? that you should in every tittle conform to the Church of Rome, &c. or else to be turn'd out, and suffer utter expulsion? Or, Will you make me believe that there is no such thing, and that Papists would erect Societies for men of a diffe­rent Religion from themselves, or would al­low a maintenance for Heathens, Pagans and Hereticks? This is a nut that you can't crack, Sir, and an Objection that all the Philosophy in the World cannot solve—

Well, Sir, I shall onely desire to be heard—You having granted, that all Ci­ties, Towns, &c. were founded before the Re­formation, and consequently by Papists; we may suppose that they had their Charters and Customs conferr'd upon them by Papists, con­firm'd by a Popish Parliament: and in those Charters, &c. specified, that they should be subject to the Pope's Authority, and to his Vice-gerents, and that they should conform to [Page 5] the Church of Rome, &c. Now, as the Char­ters, &c. were corrected, at the coming in of the Protestant Religion, by Protestant Parlia­ments; so our Statutes, being at first conferr'd upon us by Popish Founders, confirm'd by a Popish Parliament at the coming in of the Pro­testant Religion, were corrected by a Protestant Parliament; so that the person, at his admittance, now swears to nothing that is sinfull or Popish, but what is either an indifferent Custom, or con­formable to Reason, Scripture, and the Church of England, as 'tis by Law established. There­fore, as you would not argue that all persons that live in Cities, Towns, &c. are Popish, because they had their Charters conferr'd upon them at first by Papists, since they are repealed and corrected by the coming in of Protestants; so I may presume that you will not argue that we, that received our Statutes at first from Po­pish Founders, are our selves Papists, since the case is altogether parallel and the same.

But pray, What can you say to clear your selves, when 'tis known that you have maintenance from Popish Founders, and are the Pope's Pensioners?

Pray, Sir, let me ask you again; Sup­pose your Great Grandfather was a Papist, and after his death had left his whole Estate to your Grandfather, that was a Protestant: your Grand­father dies, and leaves it to your Father that was a Protestant, and at last it comes to you as being [Page 6] next Heir; Would you not think people fools, that should conclude that you are a Papist, and the Pope's Pensioner, because you enjoy and have your maintenance from the Estate that was once your Popish Great-Grandfather's? See Sir, if the Case is not the same here too.

Well, I find you would persuade me to any thing in the World; but you shall find that some are wiser than some.

The whole business in short is this; Our Founders were good, honest, pious Men in their way, but a purer Religion being brought into the Nation, it was thought fit to reform them: as (I am confident you will grant it) a Christian Man, having the Care and Govern­ment of an Infidel's Child committed to him, will think himself bound in Conscience to edu­cate it in the Christian Religion.

But, pray, what can you say to the Images over your College Gates and in other pla­ces; your young Boies painted with Wings at their Backs over your Altars; your Brass Candle­sticks; your Saints painted in Glass Windows? &c. I believe you will persuade me that Idolatry is not Popery anon; but, as I said before, some wi­ser than some.

Why we say just as much to them as you say to the Pictures that hang up in your Parlour: they are onely suffered to be there for decency and ornament sake—But, to deal plainly with you, I confess their first erec­tion [Page 7] was merely superstitious, idolatrous, &c. but why they may not be permitted now, for the ornament of God's House, and for civil and historical uses, not onely lawfully and decently, but even profitably, [there being no apparent danger of Superstition;]B. Sanderson. or why things either in their first erection, or by succeeding abuse superstitious, may not be profitably continued, if the Superstition be abo­lished; the most zealous, hot-headed, profound Dissenter could never give any thing that was like a substantial Reason. But if that should be the Reason, because they were once supersti­tious, not onely Pictures, Crosses, Images; but most of our Hospitals, Schools and Colleges (which I hope now you do not think) ay and Parish Churches too must down: and so the ha­tred of Idolatry should but usher in licentious Sacrilege, contrary to the Apostle Rom. 2. 22. Thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacri­lege?

Sir, I don't intend to be persuaded the Superstition is abolished: Have I not seen your Gravest Divines among you, at their entrance into the Church, cast their Eyes upon the Glass Windows, bow towards the Altars, worship the Pictur'd Saints, and make Leggs to the Brazen Candlesticks?

All this is said upon the account of Bowing towards the Altar. As for casting their Eyes upon the Painted Glass Windows, &c. [Page 8] 'tis a mere fancy of yours; if you would pull out that Beam of prejudice out of your own Eye, you would see and understand more clear­ly: You would see that we (the Sons of the Church of England) profess an invincible Ha­tred to Idolatry; you would understand that we are throughly sensible, that those Images have Eyes, and see not; Ears, and hear not; &c. do not, cannot regard our Worship: That we scorn to offer the Sacrifice of Prayer to a Creature that is beneath us; that none can answer our Peti­tions, but a God that is glorious, immortal, e­ternal, incomprehensible, &c. If our God was nothing but a Picture, &c. or Wood or Stone, I my self would turn Dissenter; I protest I would turn Atheist, own no other superiour or equal to me, but my self. But as to the business of Bowing to the Altar; there is nothing of Idolatry in the Case: 'Tis onely a civil Re­spect to the Place, upon the supposal that God is more immediately present there where the most sacred and Solemnest Parts of Religion are perform'd: No more Idolatrous than when you stand bare in the Presence Chamber.

But if there be a Question, Whether there is any Place that deserves so much Respect, is no­thing at all to our Purpose: For if there is, Bowing to the Altar were nothing else but a too-forward, pious, ceremonious Mistake, ha­ving nothing at all of Sinfulness in it, nothing at all of Idolatry.

But pray, Sir, Is not your Liturgie the Mass-Book translated into English? Is not the Surplice, Organs, &c. used at this very day among the Papists?

Our Liturgie is no more the Mass-Book than your Directory is. This is onely a Pill that is thrust into the Mouth of the Vul­gar, being charg'd first of all, to shut their eyes, and to swallow it down whole. It has been often profered, that if any of your Par­ty will prove any one passage in our Liturgie contrary to Scripture, it shall be presently ta­ken into consideration, and corrected to his sa­tisfaction. As to the Surplice, Organs, &c. they are things totally indifferent, neither morally good nor evil: They seem at once to heighten Devotion, and to be a solemn Ornament and Decency to the Church. We must conform to them, because Authority has commanded it, lest by an ill-natur'd Peevishness, we, resisting the Ordinance of God, plunge our selves into manifest Sins. If you had been in another Coun­try, it would not have been sinfull, if you did not conform to the Church of England in matter of Ceremonies; but seeing you are un­der her Government, and she commands you to doe so and so; you, by resisting her Authori­ty, do incur God's Displeasure and (without Repentance and the Prevention of Mercy) eter­nal Damnation.

Surplice and Organs, &c. are used a­mong the Papists; Must we conform to things that are Popish?—

I see the very word Popish frights you. I believe 'twould seem a strange Paradox to you, if I should affirm, that some things in the Roman Church are truly religious and com­mendable. Pray, Sir, understand a-right: Our Ancestours once very unhappily fell a-sleep; suf­fer'd Tares to grow up with the Wheat; but when it pleased God to awaken 'em, each man bestirr'd himself to root out what was evil; suf­fering the good onely to stand, and expect the wonted Blessings from him, who first planted and water'd it. I tell you they all once were Pa­pists; but at last, finding their Errour, they flew from every thing that was superstitious and sinfull; carrying onely things righteous and in­nocent with them. But they happened to have a sort of zealous, hot-headed, quarrelsome Com­panions, (that by and by seemed to strike off towards Geneva) who would by all means per­suade 'em, to throw away all or else most of their Carriage; and their onely Argument was, that they were Popish, Popish; yet acknowledging still, that those things they had with them were innocent and righteous. Nay, they say, One Fellow (whether he were mad or drunk they could not possitively tell) mov'd, that they should cast away Prayers and Preaching, and e­very thing that was like Religion, because 'twas [Page 11] Popish, Popish: but some of his Party desired him to say nothing of those at present; they would obtain these slight requests first, and consider of the rest hereafter. And really, if because they were Popish, Popish, were a suffici­ent Reason, they might as well have disown'd all Religion as the Surplice and Organs, &c. I believe, you would think a Romish piece of Mo­ny not true Silver, because it had Caesar's or Anti-christ's Inscription. If we embrace Popish Superstition, we are much to be blam'd; but you, nor the greatest prejudic'd Person in the World, can see any hurt in Truth and Goodness, though Popery doth own it.

Truly, the Surplice and Organs, &c. as we use them, may be indifferently good, but, hang it, they are Popish, Popish, that sticks in my Gizzard.

In short, We are Reformers of Po­pery; We have pick'd out the Good and left the Bad; We observe a medium between Popery and Fanaticism; We are resolv'd not to be too fini­cally, nor too slovenly religious.

But hearken, Sir; When I swear to Conform to the Liturgie, I am to assent and con­sent to every thing that is in it, to every point and syllable, to every rite and ceremony, to every page and line, &c. The Almanack in the Common-prayer, that was printed this year, saies, Febr. hath 29 daies, and, in truth, it hath but 28. Can I swear assent and consent to this? You [Page 12] contradict your selves; you will deny the Infalli­bility of Pope and Councils; and yet you will require assent and consent to a book of humane composition, as shall suppose it to be infallible. For, so the Declaration supposes, that there is not the least possible mistake in the whole Book of Common-prayer, but that it is as infallible as the Bible, infallible, as if God himself had spo­ken it. Now, if any wise man will conform to this, I will give you leave to—

You talk very irrationally. Is it not desired in the Preface to the Common-prayer-book that there should be allowed a just and favou­rable Construction to all humane Writings, &c. which certainly supposes some mistakes? You are onely desired to swear assent and consent to the Substance of every thing in that Book, that you do not hold that any thing therein is repugnant to the Word of God: that every thing therein (as to the Exercise of Religion) may be law­fully conform'd to. There is no one desires you should swear that February hath this year 28 or 29 daies. We our selves might as well have quarrell'd, and continued a Division till now, whether we should have followed the Salisbu­ry, or the York, Lincoln, Hereford, Bangor way of saying or singing our Prayers, as you, whe­ther you should conform, or assent and consent to the Act of Uniformity. 'Tis ill nature that governs you. And (because I cannot express my self otherwise at present) you, Salamander [Page 13] like, live and enjoy your selves in the fire of Con­tention.

I believe, Sir, you fansie that you have very concisely freed your selves from being Papists; but I shall give; as they are more re­ceived, so more closer Arguments presently; and, I question not but you will then find, that you are run upon the Pikes—

Let's hear what you can say.

'Tis to prove, as I have intended all this while, that you University men are Papists. I and my self have already concluded it.

• They that rail against the True Protestants are Pa­pists.
• But you Ʋniversity men rail against the True Pro­testants, call'em Presbyterian Bitches.
• Tarbox, You are Papists.

O ho, Sir, Do you begin to stare—Come, take the other too, because you have no liking to this.

Ay, you say and swear you will fight for him, throw your lives and fortunes at his feet: So be­witching, such a devilish Religion is Popery—

Good Sir, not so fast. I can give one Answer to both these Arguments as you call 'em. But as to the Major of the first, They that rail against True Protestants are Papists—I suppose you mean, by True Protestants, the Presbyteri­ans, Non-conformists to the Church of England, though the word does not import it. 'Twas onely jestingly given to you at first, and now you have the confidence to take it in earnest. So that the Proposition is, Those that rail against the Presbyterians are Papists—Pray, Why cannot they be Anabaptists, Quakers, &c. For, truly, I believe they have almost as great an ha­tred to you. But, you will say, Quakerism, A­nabaptism, &c. is Jesuitism, the Raies of the Whore, hatched by the warmth of Priests and Je­suits, &c. And, certainly, so is Presbytery too, as hath been learned, demonstrated and made ma­nifest by the Pen, and by the late Rebellions of the armed Brethren in Scotland. But, I suppose, you mean all those to be Papists who assert the Succession of the D. of Y. and who, chiefly upon this account, do rail against the Presbyterians. To this I shall answer, (as being directly against both your Arguments) granting that they rail against and oppose the Presbyterians as much as they can, (which, I think, every wise man would doe, when he sees them resolv'd to play that mise­rable Game of Forty one over again:) Granting that they stand up for the D. of Y. who is a Pa­pist, (which at best is but a surmise, and which [Page 15] no one could ever possitively prove) yet it does not follow at all, that they are Papists, or any way Popishly inclin'd. And thus I shall prove it—

I e'en long thou should'st doe it. Why then I have been in the dark all this while; but if thou bring'st me into a clearer light, or makest me understand things better than I doe; I will assure you, 'twill be al­together unexpected to me—

I must tell you again, that there is a medium between Popery and Presbytery, and that is the Church of England as it is by Law established. Now, seeing Presbytery is its great Enemy, it will be no wonder if 'tis opposed by her: no wonder if Popery is opposed too, being as great an Enemy on the other hand. The truth ont is, we and the Papists do unite in consenting for a legal Succession, (and this is all, or more than you do desire) yet, for all this, it does not follow we are Papists. They would have a legal Succession, to promote some sinister Ends, and they would have no legal Suc­cesion too, if 'twould serve their turns: They think now this is the best means to bring in their Religion; that now is the time to erect a Throne, that they may Lord it once again o­ver our Consciences; that they may make use of the hearts of their Friends, and hearts and necks of their Enemies. But we doe it from Reason, Loyalty and Conscience: If he were Jew [Page 16] or Turk, if he would serve our Turns or not serve our Turns he should inherit. As we re­verence the Lord of the Vineyard, so we re­verence his Son; and are resolv'd to surrender it to him, lest we our selves should be cast out. I mean to be cast out in a spiritual sense; as for what is temporal; as for our lives and fortunes, it must and shall be surrendered; ‘neither shall we try to redeem it with our Consciences, or to save our skins prostitute our very Souls.’ We know that we are engaged to him and to his posterity with an Oath, and that no power can absolve us.

You will grant then, that he might be put by with good Policy, but not with a good Conscience. But will you make me believe that all those roaring Dammee's, who assert his right, doe it out of Conscience?

I must ingeniously confess (if there be any such) they doe it chiefly out of an hatred to Presbytery, hatred to an Anarchy of confusion, &c. Though wicked, yet they are, for the generalty, men of Estates, and do not care for change; whereas on your side are none but discontented, pittifull, mean, sordid wret­ches, that can find no other way to make their fortunes. The discontented Cit pines, because he is said to be one of the Commonalty: will venture his Neck to be a Gentleman: would fain be in a place of great Honour, though he look'd never so awkardly. Each Lowsie. Me­chanical [Page 17] Colledge is not satisfied, unless you tell him, he shall be a Colonel. Colledge Try­al. The Outed Non-conformist preaches Snot, Snivil, sighs and groans, because his Eyes are not bles­sed with a fat Living. But as to your saying that Succession might be cut off out of good Po­licy, though not Conscience, I think really you are very much mistaken. Supposing you cut it off, to hinder Popery, &c. and set up one of your own; (though we know, that setting up another, is but a mere mist rais'd, that you may more securely play Deeper and more Hellish Tricks;) Why the Independent, Fifth monar­chy men, Quakers, &c. may doe the same, and shew you your own Maxim for it. And this would be your good Policy, and thus would Government be preserv'd, besides ten thousand greater and more severe Inconveniences to sup­port it.

But, Sir, as to matter of Conscience, we, in truth, stand upon that. I'll maintain, that we ought in Conscience to oppose the D. of Y. This I can prove from a principle of Reason or Morality, and from Scripture it self.

Object. First, from a principle of Reason or Morality, which is this: Of two Evils the least is to be chosen. Now the case here is thus; We must either keep the D. of Y. from his right, or else, by his coming in, we must suffer Ido­latrous Popery, (a Religion which God ab­horreth) Tyranny and Arbitrary Power, Heresie [Page 18] and Schism, Murthers, Massacres, &c. and ut­ter Destruction to break in upon us. Now, I say, to prevent all this, we ought to oppose the D. of Y. cut him off, as being a commission of the lesser evil.

You mistake, and confound Matters strangely.

Answ. Pray understand: Evil is considered two waies: It is either Evil of Pain, or Evil of Sin: Now this Principle of Reason is un­derstood onely of Evils of Pain; so that here onely it holds good: As suppose 'twas put to the choice of a Dissenter, for Disturbing the Government, whether he would be hang'd or suffer a jirking at the Whipping-post: Why, if this Sentence came into his head, Of two Evils (scil. of Pain) the least is to be chosen; unless he were mightily given to a spiritual Resignati­on, he would accept of the latter. So that you are extremely out of the way, if you apply it to Evils of Sin. If it is said, è Malis minimum in Evils of Pain; it is said è Malis nullum in E­vils of Sin, that is, we may chuse the least E­vil in Evils of Pain; but if two Evils of Sin are propounded to us, we must rather die than commit either of them.

But perhaps you may object, and say, suppo­sing he is necessitated to commit one of 'em; as suppose a man should make a Vow to murther his Brother, he must necessarily either break his Vow, or commit Murther.

To this I answer, That 'tis impossible he should be necessitated to sin. As for your Example; He may break his Vow, and commit no sin; for the Sin was in making that Vow; not in breaking it: he does not commit the lesser sin; but looses the lesser bond. Breaking of it is far from being a Sin; it being a necessary Du­ty and Branch of Repentance due for the former Rashness in making it; because a hurtfull Vow is rather to be broke than kept. 'Tis onely ex pec­cato, and not Peccatum. Thus you may absolve your selves from the Solemn League and Cove­nant, and commit no Sin, but repent of the first taking it. The continuance of that unlaw­full Oath makes new Sins. But, to come closer to the matter, your drawing from this Prin­ciple, Of two Evils the lesser is to be chosen, that we must rather keep the D. of Y. from his right than that Popery should break in upon us, is very irrational: for the one (scil. the keeping the D. of Y. from his right) is an Evil of Sin; the other (suffering Popery to come in upon us) in this case, is onely an Evil of Pain and Pu­nishment: In the latter there is no Evil com­mitted against God, as in the former, but the suffering an Evil that God had inflicted upon us. An Evil of Punishment is no Evil to Chri­stians: They, by suffering a Crown of Thorns to be put upon their Heads here, may purchase one that is glorious and immortal hereafter. I sup­pose you would mean, It is lawfull to commit [Page 20] small evil, that a great good may come. But this is directly contrary to the Apostle. If we ought not to commit a small officious Lye (ac­cording to all Reformed Divines) for the Con­version of Souls, for the Peace of the Church, for the Redemption of the whole World, for the greatest Glory of God; how much less ought we to commit Perjury, invert the Order of Justice to save Lives that are inconsiderable, or hinder a temporal Tyranny. In short, If the D. of Y. had ten thousand little Queen Maries in his belly; If he is the right Heir, (we being sworn to Lawfull Successours,) he ought in no wise, and upon no account to be put by or de­prived of his Inheritance.

Well, you make me still believe any thing in the World. But granting I have err'd in applying this Principle of Reason, as I call'd it, I shall nevertheless prove it from Scripture, that we ought in Conscience to oppose the D. of Y. if he is a Papist.

Obj. 1. We ought to smite and oppose Idola­ters, to be zealous for God, our Zeal will ju­stifie us. We ought to follow the just Fact of Phinees, Numb. 25. who, that he might stay the People from Idolatry, executed Vengeance upon Zimri, a Prince of a great house: being but a private man and no Magistrate.

Obj. 2. Then consult Numb. 17. and you shall find that the man or woman that is convicted of Idolatry shall be brought forth, and stoned [Page 21] with Stones till they die. And a great deal of reason for it.

Obj. 3. And in the same Chapter you shall find that God speaking saith, From among thy Bre­thren (that is, one of thine house, one of thy Religion) shalt thou set King over thee, and thou shalt not set a Stranger over thee, which is not thy Brother, (a Stranger, as the mar­gin explains it,) lest he bring thee to Idola­try. 'Tis very plain. And if you will make it manifest that I am now in an Errour, I will stand up with Tooth and Nail for the D. of Y. drink his Health, throw up my Cap, and con­form to the Church of England immediately.

Well, Sir, as to what you say first, That you ought to be zealous for God, that your Zeal will excuse you, that you ought to follow the just Fact of Phinees.

Answ. &c. to the 1. Obj. I answer, That you ought to be zealous for God in a good cause, not in a bad one; that your Zeal can then justi­fie you, not otherwise. And as to the Fact of Phinees, &c. I answer, That 'tis the opinion of some, that you ought no more to imitate it than David's Murther or Adultery, &c. for 'tis a Question whether he did well or no? But we will grant he did well, because he was commen­ded by God himself in the same Chapter. But what then? Shall this justifie you? How do you know but that he did it by the command of the Magistrate, or was a Magistrate himself? But if [Page 22] neither, thus I shall answer you, That men of Heroical Spirits and Gifts, such as were David, Sampson, Phinees, &c. especially at such a time as they were imployed for the Service of Al­mighty God; were exempt from the Common Rules of Life, and did many things with a secret motion of a powerfull Spirit, which Motion of the Spirit was as good to them as a special Com­mand from God's mouth. But these acts ought not to be followed by others, without a parti­cular and certain assurance of the like Instinct. But if any of you should pretend to this Motion of the Spirit, we will tell you, as our Saviour did his Disciples, (who had more reason to pre­tend to it than any of you,) with indignation, that you know not what manner of spirit you are of.

Answ. to 2. Obj. As to that passage Numb. 17. That the Idolater should be stoned till he die; I tell you it cannot be applied to our case. 'Tis spoken to Jews, and not to Christians. 'Twas a mere Ceremonie. We see the Adulterer, in Deut. ch. 22. v. 22. punish'd with Death; in the Gospel, John the 8th. Christ delivering her. But suppo­sing the next Successour to the Crown is an Ido­later, and the King or Magistrate will not exe­cute this upon him, (as in truth being not at all bound to it,) Shall private men usurp his Au­thority, and take upon them to reform what is amiss? They may as well establish Laws, raise Powers, administer Justice, execute Malefactours, [Page 23] or doe any other thing the Magistrate should doe and would not, which if it were once granted, every body seeth, the end could be no other but Confusion of Church and State.

As to that passage, From among thy Brethren shalt thou set a King over thee, and thou shalt not set a Stranger over thee, which is not thy Brother, &c. I answer again, 'Tis spoken to Jews, and not to Christians: but if that will not doe; I say it is onely a Foretelling, and not a Command, as may be seen by the 15th verse, whom the Lord thy God shall chuse; so it was afterwards that Saul and David were anointed by Samuel, and Solomon by Nathan. Well, but if this neither can doe, I say, that this Law is con­cerning a Voluntary Election of a King, the King­dom not being hereditary till after Solomon: so that this Text maketh nothing against us; yea, in truth it maketh for us; for by Brethren is un­derstood the next in Kin; so that if the D. of Y. is next in Kin, he must, by this Text, necessa­rily inherit. Male hoc Zelotae eo trahebant, quasi externis Regibus parere non liceret. Lex agit de voluntaria electione, non de eo quod indixit neces­sitas, saies Grotius upon the place.

Truly, Sir, you have given good plau­sible Interpretations to these Arguments; but I am resolv'd not to be convinc'd; and so, I believe, we had as good break off.

I wish, Sir, I could at once overcome your ignorance and ill-nature. 'Tis a very easie [Page 24] matter to answer all those Arguments which igno­rant or mistaken men can bring against us. But, if you please, you may suspend your Judgment, if you cannot better inform it. The imputation of Popery is very unwelcome to us. Pray think, that we, the Sons of the Church of England, worship God in Purity, Spirit and Truth: That we pray for the Conversion of poor deluded Souls: and that, as we represent our Saviour crucified be­tween two theives, viz. Popery and Fanaticism; so that we have Charity to pray that God would make use of an extraordinary Mercy, and carry you both along with us into Paradise.