Deux, 6. Ace non possunt, six cinque non solvere volunt. Hoc tamen est notum quater tres solvere totum.

By these, and such like Methods, many are driven to us. If he say the Church does not allow these Practices, why then are Dissenters Excommunicated for disobedience to that, which the Church allows not of? But lest our words shou'd give offence, we hope Dr. Andrews will not, which he Preached before the Convocation, viz. The Church Cen­sures now a days reach the Purse only: Evil doers, when they have paid their Fees, return Scot-free; If no Money, then have at the Offenders with the Episcopal Sword, presently at one blow they are cut off from the Church, dilivered over to Satan, proclaimed Publicans, Heathens, Anathema, for the most ridi­culous things, and against every good Man these Brutish Thun­derbolts do fly up and down, and only to be fear'd of the Purse.

The D. having Arraign'd Dissenters as the chief Dividers of the Church, has been so just not to make them the only Dividers, but hath done them the honour to join the Ma­gistrates as Fomenters of division with them: which he chargeth, 1. Upon the prodigious Licentionsness in a late Reign. 2. The Governments too easy Condescentions at another time. 3. The rigorous Executing the Laws against Dissenters at some times: And thus he disciplins the Ma­gistrates.

A. Seeing the Government hath had a hand in foment­ing our Divisions, he might have honour'd the King and Magistrates so far, as to give them the pre [...]eminence above Dissenting Preachers: yet as to his Dividers, 1. Prodigi­ous Licentiousness, he may enquire at Ezek. 33. 34. If the Clergy might have a hand in it, and had they spent the one [Page 32] half of their Thunderbolts imploy'd against Dissenters, a­gainst the prodigiously licentious, they might have purg'd themselves from that Division caused by prodigious Licen­tiousness: yet we know that great Men of the Church have caught; That it is absolutely necessary to the Peace and Happi­ness of the Kingdom, that there be set up a more severe Govern­ment over Mens Consciences, and Religious Persuasions, than over Mens Vices and Immoralities. Thus Teacheth Bp. Packer in his Ecclesiastical Policy, page 53. And that Princes may with less hazard give Liberty to Mens Vices than their Consci­ences, page 55. And what he Taught, others have Practci'd. 2. For easy Condescentions to Dissenters: The Church may safely purge her self from this guilt; yea, we assure her the Dissenters will be her Compurgators herein. 3. The Rigo­rous Execution of the Laws we confess hath given cause to ab­hor the Executioners: but then how can he be guiltless of the Sin of Dividing, who pleads for the perpetuating these Laws, which he confesseth, gives just occasion to abhor them, and are Pomenters of Division? How inconsistent is he with himself and reason in this? for if these Laws may not be Executed without prejudice to the Union of the Church, why are they continu'd in force? if Rigorous Laws foment Divisions, as is confest, these cannot be guiltless of the Divisions, who urge the making and executing such Laws as the D. now pleads for.

The Lesson he prescribes to Magistrates, That their beha­vior towards their People should resemble that of discreetly ten­der Parents towards their Children, not indulging their folly, by an imprudent fondness, nor punishing their faults by too harsh a Correction, but by constantly keeping a strict hand over them, which will prove the most Effectual means of preventing or re­straining their Exorbitancies. This we hope the Magistrate will learn, and look upon the Sons of the Church to be no more B [...]st [...]rds, than Dissenters, but use the Rod of Corre­ction to drive out that solly is bound up in their Hearts, and so prevent or restrain their Exorbitancies.

[Page 33] The 2d Lesson this D. prescribes to Magistrates is, That at present they keep a strict hand in managing the publick Affairs in this Kingdom, &c. His Reasons for their being strict, are these: 1. Within these 5 years many thousands of Families have come from Scotland to settle in this Nation. 2. They and their Teachers are zealous for the Covenant. 3. They have come from a place where Episcopacy is abolished. 4. He fears, from their aversion to the Ecclesiastical Policy of the Church, when their Numbers and Preachers are increased, they will over­turn the truly Apostolical Government of the Establish't Church. And then he prescribes an Antidote against this Plague, viz. That their Preachers be obliged to perform their Quarantine, and to undergo some Religious Test before they be admitted to Preach in their Conventicles.

A. This Admonition having apparently its rise from fear, must be considered with its Causes, and Remedy. His fear seems to arise from his gift of Prophecy; by laying aside which, or prophecying better things, he might cure him­self of that panick fear: for we dare assure him, that some of us are so far from desiring the over-turning of the truly Apostolical Government of the Church, that we could wish them over-turn'd, who turn it out to turn in another of their own: tho we are persuaded, if the Bishops were turn'd out of Parliament from all their Civil Honours, excessive Re­venues, and sole Exercise of Church-Jurisdiction, and should be oblig'd to Preach the Gospel constantly, and not to Lord it over God's Inheritance, we should not lose any thing of the Apostolical Government; which we may the more boldly say, because we find in a Speech of the Lord Dela­mare's in Parliament, against the Bishops Voting in case of Blood, these words: I like Bishops very well, but I wish that Bishops were reduc'd to their Primitive Institution: for I fear, while there is in England a Lord Bishop, the Church will not stand very steadily.

[Page 34] To his first cause of this fear, viz. The many thousand Families that are come out of Scotland, whether the Govern­ment will judge it the Interest of the Kingdom, to hinder its Planting with his Majesties Industrious and Loyal Sub­jects, to gratify the D. and cure him and the Irish Papists of their fears, is very doubtful. But I believe, those, who value the Protestant and Brittish Interest in Ireland, could wish that many more thousand Protestant Families were Planted here, tho they were not all of the D's. persuasion; nor do we see that this would lessen the Revenue and Strength of the Kingdom, abate Gentlemens Rents, spoil the Nations Trade, nor hinder the Clergys Tythes; so that it is questionable wherein the Nations Interest can be to ob­struct Protestants settling here. If his fears be because such are Scotch, 'tis but the ordinary effect of such panic fear as to bereave Men of considerate thoughts which seems to be the D's Case: For beside the little Religion he Evidenceth in his Antipathy against that Nation, there is as little policy as piety, in its seeing the Nobility and Gentry of that King­dom (whom he boasts to be Members of this Establisht Church) cannot but resent such a publick affront done to their Nation.

To the second cause of his fear, viz. Their Preachers Zeal to the Covenant: If by it he means the National Covenant Subscribed by King James the 6th. and all Ranks of Persons in Scotland in 1580, 1581, and 1590, they will own it, as the antient Confession of that National Church; and we suppose his Scotch Episcopal Brethren dare not disown it, seeing it was a part of that Contradictory Test which they impos'd, the old professional part contradicting the new promissory part: but we suppose he intends the solemn League and Covenant: and here we believe he may be mi­staken of their Zeal for that, as it is a League with England and Ireland obliging them to a Reformation, seeing as a [...] [Page 35] these Leagues formerly made with France oblige England since the French have violated them. The Antidote against Ireland's Planting by Protestant Subjects from Scotland, smels rank of National Antipathy, and smites his Majesty King William, with his now blessed Consort Queen Mary, as Plaguers of that Nation, by Abolishing Episcopacy: but yet let this Antidote be no worse than its words are, and we refuse not to perform a just quarentine, and undergo any truly Religious Test, that His Majesty shall think necessary to promote God's Glory, the Nations Peace and Prosperity by: Yet Experience hath found some of these called Reli­gious Tests to be National Pests, and should others observe them no better then the D. and some of his Brethren have done, the Government may possibly be rendered more se­cure, but not more safe by them.

But we perceive the D's. fears are increasing, and there­fore he would have all the Nation Allarm'd with the Dan­ger of the Cameronians, who (as he saith) are lately Landed in considerable Numbers!

A. These considerable Numbers of Cameronians lately landed must have come from Ʋutopia, for there be no consi­derable Numbers of them now in Scotland, and other Na­tions bring forth no such Fruit: For since the late happy Revolution, all, except very few, unite with the Establish't Church there, and their Preachers now orderly and or­dain'd Ministers, one whereof is a Chaplain to a Regiment in Flanders, and in good esteem with his Majesty for his Zeal and Courage, whereof he hath given good proof: And we dare say, that those, whom he calls so dangerous, have spent more blood in the defence of the Protestant Religion, and in the Service of their King and Countrey both at home and abroad, than all the Episcopal Clergy in Brittain and Ireland; for the truth of which we doubt not but the best of the three Nations will vouch. But while he is allarming the Kingdom with [...] from [...] [Page 36] doth he not also, as a Faithful Watchman warn it of his Jacobitish Brethren, who swarms hither daily, and not­withstanding their publickly declar'd Contempt of His Ma­jesty's Government and Authority, in denying Allegiance to him in Scotland, are entertain'd as bosom Friends by some Clergy-men in Ireland, tho they perform'd not their qua­rantine, by swearing Allegiance to K. William: And if the Government desire satisfaction in this matter, they may (by search of Records in the several Counties where they are en­tertain'd) find out the truth of this and much more con­cerning such course men.

The Vindicator had told, That there had been avowed de­signs of Extirpating Protestant Dissenters, declared by many Sanguinary Laws past against them both in England and Scot­land, and that there were later ones in Scotland that made it capital to be present at their Meetings, which the D. reckons unpardonable disingenuity ('tis well it is not the sin against the Holy Ghost) and to prove it, these irrefragable Argu­ments are produced. 1. He never heard it. 2. He is in­form'd by those, who have reason to know better then the Vindicator, that there is not one Sanguinary Law in Eng­land against Protestant Dissenters, and in Scotland not one, except one, which was August 13. 1670.

A. To his first demonstration taken from his not hearing it, it seems his ears are of a prodigious length, when every matter both of Fact and Law must be within the sphere of their activity: if things cease to be because he heard them not, a great many have had no being, of whom he never heard. The next from his Informer, is little better; for Episcopal Informers have not been always men of the best reputation; yet it is strange that they should be ignorant of those Laws, by which they had so much of other mens wealth; but it's like, that being now out of date, they are not fond of owning their old friends, lest they should pur­chase new Enemies: But if the D. (who sees by his Neigh­bours [Page 37] eyes) will receive truer Instruction from a Dissenter, we will make appear that what the Vindicator asserts is real truth.

To begin then with England, because its Laws against Dissenters are of eldest date, we will find that Sanguinary Laws were there, First, against the Soul; Secondly, against the Body; Thirdly, against the Estates of Protestant Dis­senters.

And to give the Church the deserv'd pre-eminence in this case, by her Canons made Anno 1603. eleven of these in the Van are levelled against Dissenters, by most of which they are to be excommunicated ipso facto, and not to be re­stored, but by the A. Bishop after Repentance, and a publick Recantation of such wicked Errors: And when by this Ca­nonical Cimiter they are cut off from the Church Militant, and by vertue of the keys of Heaven committed to it, the gates of Heaven, which it seems were formerly potent, are now shut against Dissenters, and alti janua ditis, made open, and they delivered to the Devil, lest he should prove too merciful in not receiving their Mittimus, the poor Dissen­ters, by a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo is to be appre­hended by the Sheriffs, or his Bayliffs, and without Bail or Main-prize cast into Prison, there to lye till he for, or recan [...], by which he is depriv'd of the benefit of the Law and Clergy both. Now, if this be no sanguinary Law, to cast men out of the Church, (out of which they teach there is no Salvation) and to deprive them of their Liberty, and Pro­tection of the Laws, only for impugning the Rites and Cere­monies of the Church of England, according to the 6th Canon, and at once to cut men off from their part of Heaven and Earth, unless they would counter-act their Conscience; let the World judge.

Secondly, the Civil Laws made against Dissenters in Eng­land were sanguinary, if that may be construed such, which deprives men of Livelihood and Liberty; For 1. The Act [Page 38] of Uniformity; by which, If any Minister convicted to have re­fused to use the Church Service, or to have used any other Rite or Ceremony, Order, Form or Manner, than what is set down in the Common-Prayer-Book, he loseth a whole years profit, and must undergo six months Imprisonment for the first fault: For the second, to be deprived, and suffer a whole years Imprisonment: For the third, he is to be deprived, and Imprisoned during life; and if he be not a Beneficed person, for the first fault he is to be imprisoned a whole year; and for the second, during life: So that a man, for not using the Cross in Baptism, and Kneeling at the Sacrament, (things which God never required) must be depriv'd of his Office, Livelihood and Liberty, and thus starv'd in Prison; but for this, perhaps the D. hath a Turkish distinction, that strangling is no shedding of Blood, and yet we reckon he wou'd judge it sanguinary, were he tryed by it. But farther, all persons not resorting to the Church on Sundays and Holy-days, are to be fined 12 d. per day, and to incur the Censures of the Church, which according to Canon 9, 11, 12, is Excommunication ipso facto, with its appurtenances; yea, by Canon 10, if we shall dare to say, that we have long time groaned under the burthen of certain Grievances imposed upon us, we are to be Excommunicated, and not restored until we repent, and publickly retract such our publick Errors. 2. Act is that made in the 13 Eliz. to which every person not repair­ing to Church, according to Statute 1 Eliz. The second shall forfeit 20l. for every month, if they so make default; and if they forbear for the space of 12 months, they are to be bound with two sufficient Sureties in 200 l. Bonds to good Behaviour: And by a Statute 29 Eliz. All Grants made by such Offenders, which are by them revocable, intended for his maintenance, left at his disposal, or in consideration whereof, he and his Family are to be kept, shall be utterly void against the Queen; for the levy­ing the forfeitures for not coming to the Church, and the Queen may seize all the Goods, and two thirds of the Lands and Leases of every Offender not repairing to Church as aforesaid; [Page 39] which after their first conviction, do not pay at the next Term, at the rate of 20 l. per month, and tho the party be not in the Realm, the Indictment is to lye, and upon an Indictment found, a Proclamation is to be made that such Of­fender is to render himself to the Sheriff before the next Assizes; which if he do not, he is to be held Convict: These who are not able to pay their Forfeitures are to be committed to Prison till they pay or conform, which if they refuse, makes the Imprisonment perpetual. And 35 Queen Eliz. It is Enacted, That if any a­bove Sixteen absent themselves from Church above a Month, or frequent Conventicles, or persuade any other so to do, they shall be committed to Prison, there to continue, till he or she Conform, and make open submission, and confess that they have grievously offended God, &c. And if within three Months they refuse to Conform and make such submission they are to abjure the Realm, and if they refuse to abjure, or return after without leave, they are to be proceeded against as Fellons, and have no benefit of Cler­gy. This we suppose was literally a Sanguinary Law. A­gain by a Statute the 16 Car. 2d, this 35 Q. Eliz. was revi­ved. And farther Anno 17. Car. 2d. Non-conformists who take not the Oxford Oath there set down, which is this. I A. B. do Swear that it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King, and that I abhor, that Trayterous Po­sition of taking up Arms by his Authority against his Person, or against those that are Commissionat by him in pursuance of such Commissions, and that I will not endeavour any Alteration of Government, either in Church or State. Likewise, If any Non­conformist Minister Preach in a Conventicle, or come within 5 Miles of any City or Corporation, or place of his Ministry, except on his Journey, or summoned by a Subpena, he shall forfeit 40l. Furthermore the Crimes in 22 Car. 2d. against Conventi­cles, are, 1. To be present at an Assembly under colour of Ex­ercise of Religion any other way then according to the Liturgy, &c. where 5 Persons, or more besidess those of the Family are. 2dly. If any take on him to Teach or Preach in such Meetings, for [Page 40] the first Offence he forfeits 20l. For the second, 40 pounds, &c. 3d ly, If any person suffer such Meeting to be in his House, Out-House, Back-side, or Garden; for his first Offence, he is to pay twenty pounds; for the second, 40 pounds, &c. and every Hearer five shillings, with Ecclesiastical Censures, which is Ex­communication ipso facto, according to the 11th Canon.

Now from all this, we leave it to the judgment even of Adversaries themselves, whether the Vindicator might not assert, that there were sanguinary Laws in England design'd to extirpate Protestant Dissenters; in exerting whereof, the Prelates of the Nation had a warm Vote, tho' now (blessed be God) they be abolished by Act 1689.

His vindicating Scotland against the guilt of sanguinary Laws against Dissenters, is proof that he hears ill, else the cry of that Blood shed there by vertue of these Laws, (which hath even reached Heaven, and brought deserved Vengeance upon the shedders thereof) might have pierc'd his ears; and that he sees ill, if he sees not these Laws yet in record; but his own confession, that there was one san­guinary Law (tho he borrow'd Sir Geo. Makenzy's Com­mentar on it) is a sufficient proof of a design to extirpate Protestant Dissenters there, seeing that one Law, De Here­tico Comburendo, as employ'd in England by Q. Mary, was supposed sufficient to extirpate the Protestant Religion out of England; but had he not design'd to blind-fold his Reader, a little more pains, and honesty, might have en­abled him to discover many sanguinary Laws in Scotland: of which, take these few instances.

‘The 1 st Parliament of C. the 2 d. Sess. 1. Act 4. It was Enacted, that none be Masters in Universities, School-Masters, or Pedagogues, who would not own Prelacy,’ which that Nation had abjur'd; even the Law-makers themselves, whereby many were depriv'd of their liveli­hood because they would not be perjur'd.

[Page 41] Sess. 2. Act 2. ‘It is Enacted that all Petioning, Wri­ting, Printing, or Remonstrating, Praying or Preaching shewing any dislike of the King's absolute Prerogative, be punished as Seditious, and that no Meetings be kept in private Houses. Upon which accounts some suffered death.’

Sess. 3. Act 2. ‘It is Enacted, That all Non-conform­ing Ministers, that presume to Exercise their Ministry, be punished as Seditious Persons: And that all Persons in in acknowledgement of his Majesties Government Eccle­siastical, attend the service of the Curates: Noblemen and Gentlemen refusing, to lose the fourth part of their Rents; Burgesses their freedom, and fourth part of their Moveables; Yeomen a fourth part of their Moveables; and others, twenty shillings every time, leaving the Council to inflict other Punishments as they thought fit. It is also Enacted, That if there were three above the Family at Preaching, or Prayer,, it should be esteem'd a Conventicle.’ And for putting these Laws in Execution, a High-Commission-Court was Erected, by the King, con­trary to Act 13. Parl. 10. Jacob 6. with power to Examine upon Oath, Desuper inquirendis.

Parl. 2. Lauderdale Commissioner. It is Enacted by Ver­tue of the King's Supremacy, that ordering the Govern­ment of the Church, doth properly belong to His Majesty and his Successors, as an inherent Right to the Crown, and that he may Enact and Emit such Constitutions, Acts and Orders, concerning Church Administrations, Persons, Meet­ings and Matters, as he in his Royal Wisdom shall think fit. And thus a fair way was laid for K. James's reforming the Church. This Act was to be obey'd by all Subjects, any Law or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sess. 2. Parl. 2. It is Enacted, That who should be re­quired to depose upon Oath, their knowledge of Meetings, or Persons at them, shou'd do it on pain of Fining, Imprison­ment or Transportation.

[Page 42] Act 5. Enacted, That outed Ministers, found Preaching or Praying in any House, but their own Family, be impri­son'd till they find bond of 5000 Marks, not to do the like again, every hearer, toties quoties, 25l. if a Tenant, 12l. if a Subtenant; and then all who Preached in the Field, or in a House, if any of the people be without doors, shall be pu­nished with death: And they who can seize or secure any such Minister, dead or alive, shall have 100 Marks Reward. The Magistrates in Boroughs to be fined at the Councils pleasure, for any Conventicles held in their Boroughs. Men to be fined if their Wives or Children went to Meetings.

Act 6. Fines were impos'd from 10 to 20l. sterl. on such as had their Children Baptised at such Meetings, and Ser­vants in half their Wages.

Act. 11. Sess. 3. The same Fines were impos'd on them who kept their Children unbaptised for 30 days, and by Act 7. of the same Ses. Intolerable Fines were impos'd on all who absented themselves 3 days together.

Anno 168 [...]. The D. York being Commissioner, without taking the usual Oath appointed by Law, and against Act­making Papists incapable of that Trust; the Fines were doubled for Field Conventicles. Gentlemen were obliged to remove Tenants, and Masters their Servants, without warning, if they went to Meetings.

Act. 6. They impos'd on all a self-contradictory Test, ob­liging them to own the Confession of Faith recorded in Parliament, 1 Ja. 6. which disowns the Supremacy, and as­serts the lawfulness of defensive Arms, tho' the contrary to both was Sworn in the promissory part of the Test, with­out so much as a Non obstante; and for taking this Test with his own Explication, was Argile Beheaded.

Parl, 1. Ja. 7 D. Queensbury Commissioner. I [...] is En­acted, that such as being cited as Witnesses, in cases of Trea­sons, or Conventicles, and refused to depone, should be liable to the punishment of the same.

[Page 43] Act 8. All who Preach or Hear at House or Field-Con­venticle, shall be punished with death, and confiscation.

We hope now by this Account, (which if any doubt, we refer them to the Printed Statutes of the Nation). If the D's Conscience be nor sear'd, it will be so much his friend as to smi [...]e him for the injustice he has done to truth, in [...]sserting that there were no sanguinary Laws in Scot­land, save one. And tho these Laws were so severe, as to deserve abhorrence of all in whom any spark of Christian humanity remains: yet the execution of them was more cruelly rigid: Dragoons, and a barbarous Pagan Highland-Host being employ'd to execute them, without any Process of Law. All that can be said for the D. is, that if he thinks as he writes, he is scandalously ignorant of what all Britain knows; if otherwise, he is gtolsly disingenuous to impose upon the credulity of his friends.

As the D. hath given a sad specimen of his intelligence, so he gives equal discovery of his prudence, while he up­braids the Scots Conventicle Rebels, for refusing to Pray for K. Ja. For do not his Jacobitish Brethren deal so by K. William; and doth not himself so now, as they did then, tho' under some other obligations to do it than ever they were; whence we may tell him in his own words; that his Principles and Practices are destructive to the Establish't Church and Government, if not Praying for K. Ja. be so. And that there be several distracted Cathedral Rebels, who refuse to save their Livings and Bishopricks at so dear a rate, as Praying for the King. Therefore he and his Party are no [...], in bona­fide, to accuse any for such Principles and Practices, tho we despise both, as much as his folly, in laying these things to our charge.

Secondly it's great imprudence what he saith next, vizt: Certainly these who refuse to give the Government under which they Live, all reasonable assurances, of their Fidelity and Obe­dience; and will not solemnly disown their turbulent Principles, [Page 44] but still retain their inveterate prejudices, and pernicious disaf­fection to the Establisht Church, cannot with any modesty expect to be treated as sincere and hearty friends, but as declared open Enemies, to the lasting Peace and Settlement of the Nation. For hereby he smites his dearly beloved Episcopal Clergy of Scotland under the fifth rib, and justifies all that the Go­vernment there hath done against them, tho' they shou'd declare them open Enemies to the Peace of the Nation, see­ing they have refus'd to give the Government under which they have lived these 5 years, any reasonable assurance of their Fidelity and Obedience, but still retain their invete­rate prejudices, and pernicious disaffection to that Church and State, so far doth partial passion Transport him, that he mortally wounds them he pretends to defend.

The V. having asserted as a good effect of the indulgence granted in England, that since Conformists and Dissenters, converse more sociably and live more peaceably than former­ly. This is Contradicted by the D. for this reason, he hath been oredibly informed, that Dissenters in England were grown very insolent on the News of the Dissolution of the last Parl. and resolved to necessitate the Government to some larger Concessions to their Ministers.

A. Dissenters have little reason to expect a just account of their Actions, from Bp's. informers, who have been so great a plague to them in England: But tho' the Authority he makes use of were good, his reasoning is bad: for while the V. tells what hath been done for time past; he resutes that History, by a Prophecy in telling what they resolve to do, tho' it's hardly credible English Dissenters wou'd communicate their Intreagues to Episcopal Informers: But, time now can tell the World both the falshood of his Histo­ry and Prophecy.

His unjust reflection on those he calls our Non-conforming Fathers in Q. Eliz. time, as persons of restless Tempers, who for meek Petitions proceeded to Admonitions, then to Satyrical Re­monstrances, [Page 45] and thus threatned first the Bishops, and then the Q. and Parl. evidenceth him to be of such a Spirit, that neither Heaven nor the Graves of Godly Men do secure their Names from the venom of his tongue and pen, yet we count it our honour to be Children of such Parents as many of those per­secuted for Non-conformity were, being Ornaments to their Nation for their Learning and Godliness. And most oppo­site to the Character he and Walton unjustly gives them, as their own Works and the best Historians of their time in­form us.

The D. being, as he says, led by the V's. method, to consider the Reply's made to his Answer to the first Paper: Had this re­ply to an Argument of his against granting any further favour to Dissenters, then these several marks of Regal favour which they enjoy'd. That it's reasonable that the continuance of the same favour shou'd be secured to them by Law. To this the D. rejoins that a Legal Security of the same favour is not deny'd them, if they be pleas'd to accept of it with these Clau­ses and Restrictions that their equally deserving Brethren do now enjoy it in England.

A. If the favour which we now enjoy through His Ma­jesty's Clemency, should have these Restrictions added to it which our Brethren in England have annexed to theirs, it wou'd not be the same we now have, so far is he mista­ken. 2. We look upon the Restriction annexed to the In­dulgence granted to the Dissenters in England, neither suta­ble to the Rules of Christian Religion, nor the true interest and safety of this Nation. Not of the first for these reasons.

By this Sacramental Test (which is annex'd to the In­dulgence of England) Dominion must be founded in grace, for if Mens Right to their Civil Priviledges must depend upon their capacity to receive the Sacrament, to the recei­ving whereof the Church in the order of the Communion, requires true Repentance: then it requires grace to capaci­tate them for Civil Rights and Priviledges, and for want of [Page 46] true Repentance they must forfeit Imployments to which they have a Hereditary Right. Which Notion hath been Condemn'd as Irrational and Irreligious: yea, Balaam's Ass Taught better Divinity, when it said, Master, am not I thine Ass? Acknowledging his Right, tho' he had not grace. It this principle shou'd once obtain, its fatal consequence might possibly reach the Mitres.

2. But what is yet worse, this Test shall make a Cere­mony, viz. (kneeling at the Sacrament) the Condition of both State and Church Membership: For if none but such as kneel at the Communion, shall be admitted to share of these Priviledges, to which as Christians and free born Sub­jects they have right, the gate unto the Church-Militant, is made straiter then that into the Church-Triumphant. From which we hope Men will not be so uncharitable as to exclude all who do not kneel at the Sacrament, seeing Christ and his Apostles used no such posture.

3. This makes kneeling at the Sacrament, Lord Para­mount over all the rest of the Ceremonies, by putting the keys of the Church door only into its hand, and so it be­comes the only evidence of saving grace, when all that scruple it must be debar'd from the Sacrament as Prophane, and these who bow to, and kneel [...]t, the A [...]tar, are the on­ly holy.

4. Not to kneel in receiving, by this Test, is made equally criminal with believing Transubstantiation, the Idolatrous Worshipping of the Bread, and all the abominations of the Mass with Papists: and with denying and contemning both Ceremony and Substance with the Quakers; whenas the same and no other punishment is inflicted upon Papists and Quakers, than is upon Protestant Dissenters (for refusing the same Test) tho' we agree with them in the Doctrine of the Sacrament.

5. To put Men upon this Dilemma is the tender mercy of the wicked, and is to tempt Men to damn their S [...] [Page 47] preserve their Bodies; And to give sacred things to dogs. For if the persons have by Christ's Institution a right to the Sacrament, by what Authority can Man debar them by their Inventions, if they have none, then these are not faithful Stewards of the Misteries of Christ, who abuse them to serve their own secular ends.

6. By this the Validity of the King's Commission, must depend upon the Curates Certificate. And so His Majesty must have a Conge Des Lire from the Clergy, before he can give out his Commission for any Civil Office, lest he lose his labour. For the D. tells us plainly so much p. 27. that there are several Ecclesiastical Laws, sti [...]l in force, by which tho' Dissenters be not wholly unqualified for Admittance unto Civil Offices, yet they are perfectly dis-enabled from continuing in them. So that their present quiet enjoyment of Employments, is not so much owing to their Legal Qua­lifications, as to the Lenity and kindness of the Ecclesiasti­cal Governors. And so no Thanks to the King for the Dis­senters Employments, but to the good Lord Bishops. It seems the Bishops of Rome are not the only pretenders to a Supremacy in Temporalitus.

As it is not consistent with the Piety, so not with the interest of this Nation, to impose unnecessary Tests and Ce­remonies, whereby men are frighted from coming to Plant in this kingdom, when all wise men have thought fit to decoy Inhabitants, by granting large Immunities and Priviledges: By this policy the Roman Empire grew from small begin­nings to be the Mistress of the World. But to set up Scar­crows to fright any from coming to Plant and Trade in the Nation, cannot be consistent with the wisdom of its Go­vernment: And sure we are, neither the Heads or Hands of Papists in Ireland are so few, and despicable, nor their friends abroad so weak or unwilling to help them, that we should think Ireland over-stock't with Protestants to defendit: which Ceremonies will never do (for the Papists are better acquain­ted [Page 48] with them, than to be terrified by them) if another 1641 and another 1688 should recur. And we may tell the World, that the first Test contriv'd against Dissenters in Ireland, tho' it prov'd fatal to its Contrivers, was, by God's Providence, a means of preserving the Dissenters; who forsaking the Nation on that account, were preserved from the Massacre 1641; and these same persons returning, were the first relief that Ireland got, which can be made evi­dent by many yet alive, and may be instructive to paste­rity.

The V. having (to prove the equity of giving free-born Subjects, the same legal Indulgence, in their Dissenting, as is given to Foreigners) asserted, that the French Protestants, if left to their liberty, would chuse a Discipline and Worship more conformable to their own, than that of the Establish't Church. Hath this Answer: We are not to pass judgment on a par­ticular Church, from the inconsiderate words and actions of some of the meaner sort of the Laity, but by the solemn Declarations, and constant Practices of the Learned Clergy of that Communion. And to shew the Sentiments of the French Church, produceth a triple testimony of three French Divines in favor of the Establish't Church, and cen­suring the Dissenters separation from it: from three Letters written fifteen years ago on this Subject, by Monsieur La­moyne, M. D. Langle, and M. Cloud, which we shall not tran­scribe; But,

1. We think it strange, that the Bishops of the Church of England, shou'd own the French Protestants to be a Churh, and to have a learned Clergy, when in the mean time they deny them to have a Lawful Ordained Ministry: and force them to be Re-ordained who come for Refuge in­to England, and are willing to conform. So that this seems to be but a complement, given for these 3 Letters, and no sincere acknowledgment of their being a Church. A Reve­rend French Minister informs us, that flying from Perse­cution [Page 49] into England, he with some others were permitted to Preach in London, but upon his refusal to be Re-ordained, he was not only hindred to Preach, by the Bishop of Lon­don, but deny'd any part of the publick Charity collected for the French Protestants, and so was necessitated to leave England. The same entertainment others of them met with here in Ireland about Anno 1680 or 1682; who flying to Dublin, and setting up the beginnings of several useful Ma­nufactures: but being averse to joyn in the Church-Service, a certain charitable Peer lent them his House to Worship in, where they served God, according to the manner of the French Churches; whereupon their Minister was seized & imprison'd, &c. until, for obtaining his liberty, he consented to quit or abjure the Kingdom. And yet Liberty was pub­lickly allow'd the Papists. And we are well informed how the Papists now insult over them, as having (by their dis­owning the validity of their own former Ordination; and being Re-ordain'd by Bishops in England) thereby declared, that they have hitherto been no Church, have had no Sa­craments lawfully Administred among them; which is a great addition to their former miseries: so that whether it be worse to destroy the being of that Church in all time past, or persecute some of its Members in time present, be the greater severity, and so whether the Popish or English Clergy have been more merciful to the Protestant Church of France, we leave to be consider'd.

2. The Testimony of these 3 Men, are not the solemn Declaration, and constant practice of that Church, as he vainly says, but the opinion of three private Doctors, to whom he might oppose the Judgment of 3000, and the con­stant known practice of that Church, solemnly declared, in its publick Confessions of Faith, and Synodical Constituti­ons, disowning the Form of Worship and Disciplin of the Church of England: And it seems as unequal to judge of a Church by the Sentiments of several of her learn'd Clergy, [Page 50] as by the Laity: What a Monster would the Church of England be, if we were left to judge of her, by the several opinions of her Learned Clergy, whereof some approve, others condemn Arminiasm; some are passive obedient Do­ctors, others not, some for Episcopacy jure Divino, others think it only jure Humano, some have been for, others are now against, Liberty of Prophesying, &c. The justest way then of judging what are the sentiments of a Church, is nei­ther by the private practices or opinions of Clergy or Lay­men; but by their Unanimous, deliberate and publickly de­clared Judgment in their Confessions of Faith and Synodi­cal Constitutions: which had he produc'd against us, had been some service to his cause. And we have just cause to except against the Evidence. Some of whom have con­formed, and have disgrac'd their Church, by renouncing its Ordination, so that these who have dishonor'd their Pa­rents, will little regard their Brethren.

3. We know that indirect means have been used to ob­tain such Testimonies against us, and can tell of one who had 4 good fat Benefices in England, with a Faculty of Non­residence, to Enable him to Traffick in France, introducing Dissenters, and Exalting and vindicating the Prelacy and Ceremonies of England.

4. The Testimonies are not fairly produc'd, but a part conceal'd of the Letters, which had he repeated would have condemn'd himself. And therefore M. Cloud in his Letter as Published by Dr. Stillingfleet, p. 448. hath this. ‘I hope my Lord, you will not be wanting in the Duties of Cha­rity and Spirit of Peace, and that when the dispute shall be only of some Ceremonies, which are stumbling blocks. and which in themselves are nothing, in comparison of an intire re-union of your Church, under your holy Mi­nistry, you will make it seen, that you love the Spouse of your Master, more than your selves; And that it is not so much from your greatness and Ecclesiastical Dig­nity, [Page 51] that you desire to receive your joy and glory, as from your Pastoral Vertues, and the ardent care you take of your Flocks.’

‘M. De Langle tells you that even amongst these sepa­rating Brethren, there is a very great Number of good Men, whose Faith is pure Piety sincere; And it seems to me that the good and charitable Bishops ought to say of them, as Optatus Melivitatus said of the Donatists, in some­thing a different sense, Si Collegium Episcopate notunt habere nobiscum, tamen fratres sunt. And I'me sure, saith he, that if there were nothing wanting to cure your Divisions but tho abstaining from some Expressions, the quitting some Ceremonies, the changing the colour of some Habits, you would resolve to do that, and something more diffi­cult.’ But this the D. disingenuously conceals because of his Moderation, which is contrary to his Nature or Design.

The V. having asserted also, that a further security ought to be granted to Protestant Dissenters, than to Papists; for this reason, that some difference should be made between them who de­serve well, and them who deserve ill, of the Govarnment. The D. allowing the reasoning to be unque6ionably true, yet will have it understood with this supposition; that if the Civil Parent be forced by the pressure of some unfortunate ‘occurrences, to a concession of such favorable and advan­tagious conditions to an Enemy; which if he were left to the freedom of his own will, neither his fatherly kindness would incline him, nor his prudence permit him, to allow even to some of his own Children; this were no reflection on his justice, or kindness.’

A. Supposito quolibet sequitur quodlibet; But let us suppose as well as he, what is real matter of fact, that the Civil Pa­rent is under no such pressure, but delivered from it by the assistance of his dutiful Children: It wou'd reflect on his justice, not only to treat equally dutiful Children unequally: but to deal worse with the dutiful Children, than with re­bellious [Page 52] heart-Enemies. And it is but to Preach up Rebel­lion, to tell us, that our Civil Parents may reward Rebel­lion with priviledges, not to be granted to Loyal Subjects. For if Rebellion be the way to obtain priviledges, men will easily be induc'd to Rebel.

To the D's reflection on Dissenters, as men of uncertain measures, and unsteady tempers, and therefore not to be trusted; for it's unknown, what changes some sudden turns of publick Af­fairs, might make in the passions and interests of such men. We Answer, that tho we pretend not to immutability, yet most Dissenters dare assert the certainty of their measures, and steadiness of their tempers, to have exceeded their Ac­cusers: for neither can he charge us with breach of our Oath to any King, after Swearing never to take up Arms against him, nor any in Authority by him, upon any pre­tence whatsoever: nor did we violate our Faith by endea­voring alteration of the Government in the State. Having never taken such an Oath. Some of his own Brethren can tell him, that the Pillars of his Party, who in former Reigns were fixed Stars, are now become Planets. And that of the seven Golden Candlesticks, put in the Tower by King Ja. five of them prov'd Princes Metal. The Speech made by the Bishop of M. in the name of the Clergy, to King Ja. at the Castle of Dublin, March 1688. And that made to K. William at his Camp nigh Dublin, 7 July, 1690. by the same Persons, convince us, that sudden turns of publick Af­fairs, will change mens passions, yea, and prayers to, witness that set framed 1688. against the Invasion intended by the Pr. of O. and the new Edition framed since for K. William, where God is thanked for not hearing the former prayers, so that Turpe est doctori cum culpa reda [...]guit ipsum. If they be afraid of our unsteady tempers, let us be Established by Law and that prevents the evil in us as well as them.

The D' [...] consequence from the uncertain measures, &c. of Dissenters, viz. that all prudent and unbyass'd persons will agree [Page 53] in judging that a limited Indulgence will be more proper for the Non-Conformists, than a legal and restrictive Liberty, &c.

A. We are of opinion, that neither We, nor the Esta­blish't Church have right to unlimited Liberty; for as Rex habet in Regno suo superiores, Deum legem & Parliamentum, as a great Lawyer saith; so we are satisfied, that both C? & N. C? be limited by these, only we desire that our Liberty granted, be not clogg'd with Tests destructive of that Li­berty, by which only the best and most capable of serving their King and Country, amongst the Dissenters, are Dis­enabled thereto: And tho' as he saith, that none blame the Chineses for building a Wall to defend their Frontiers from the Incursions of the Tartars: yet we are told by as good an Au­thor as himself, that, that great Wall doth not keep the Cham of Tartary from invading that rich and plentiful Country, insomuch that his successors have been quiet pos­sessors of it, ever since 1650. But tho' Walls be good for de­fence, yet the Chinesies were never such fools as to make partition Walls to divide their Kingdom.

The D. vain gloriously boasting, that he had beaten the V. out of his several Arguments, pursues him with open mouth to matter of fact. And is as followeth.

The V. had hinted a memorial of the State of the Church of Scotland since the Revolution, to vindicate the State and Church from the unjust Calumnys of the Answerer to the Case, which Memorial he had from two Scotch Gentlemen, particularly acquainted with the affairs of that Nation: which the D. will have to be a forgery pretended to be wrought by a friend, when it was the V's own Act and Deed; and his reasons for this forgery are, 1. The Title discovers it to be his. 2. The Genius of the Person, who is not like other Men, for set­ting things in a false light.

A. The D, pretends indeed to an Extraordinary Sagacity in discerning Stiles.

[Page 54] And yet what the V. asserted in that is firm truth, for the Gentleman (if needful) can be produced, and will own that Letter to be theirs, and prove every tittle in it to be true; so that if there be any Genius's more remarkable for raising and false accusing of the Brethren than others, the D. is unhappily match'd with one of those.

But let's come to the Merits of the Cause: The first thing in the Letter he is offended at, is a general reflection cast upon the whole Body of the Scotch Bishops, for their declaring their utmost abhorrence of his presens Majesty's descent into England, their Unanimous deserting of the con­vention of States, both which he denies to be true for this reason, That if they had been guilty of these things, it would have occasioned some publick and severe remark, to be passed upon them, and would have been insisted on, as the most plausible, if not the greatest reason for extirpating of Episcopacy, whereas in the Act for Abolishing Prelacy, there is not the least censure pass'd on any of the Bishops. &c.

A. That the Bishops of Scotland did both declare their abhorrence of the Prince of Orange's descent, and Unani­mously desert the convention of States, are such evident truths, that nothing but wilfull Ignorance, or gross Impu­dence would make a man deny them, because they were not done in a corner, but in the face of the Nation, now their Address to King James will sufficiently prove the first, which take as followeth.

The Address of the Arch Bishops and Bishops of Scotland to K. James, upon the news of the Prince of Orange's Un­dertaking, Nov. 10. 1688. Vide Gazette, Numb. 2398.

Here is a Specimen of those Gentlemens Genius whose heads the D. would preserve while he bold [...]y opposeth truth, and necessitates us to lay open to the world this Tryal of Skill of his Episcopal Brethren, who all yet (except the Bishop of Rapho whom an Irish Bishoprick hath converted) glory in their being counted worthy to suffer for K. James, and continue to deny Allegiance to K. William, with many of their fellow Brethren.

That the Scoth Bishops unanimously deserted the con­vention of States, we suppose none of themselves will deny, which if any do, we shall.

In Answer to his reasons proving these Reflections un­true, because that the conversion would have pass'd some publick and severe mark upon them had that been true, we say, that by this he sees the mildness and tenderness of that convention, who without laying open to the world their grossest Ini­quities, only voted the Bishops and their Clergy the great [Page 57] and unsupportable grievance of the Nation, and thereupon voted the total abolishing of Prelacy, and if these be not publick and severe marks indeed upon them, why doth he make such a horrid Noise about their Persecution; further 'tis not to be attributed to want of matter, that in the Act they are excluded by, there is no particular mention of the misbecoming actions of their Lives, &c. for Parliaments are not Historians, but yet if he long for a Legend of their Lives, he may possibly obtain his desires e're long, little to their Credit, or his Comfort, for there are many recorded In­stances of their misbecoming actions noticed by those who smarted under them, which if he necessitates us to lay open to the world, possibly his Brethren may thank him: For do's he think, that so long as it remains in the Records of Counsel that they imposed, and took a contradictory Test, that it will not be alledged that they are perjured themselves, and the cause of it in others? or that they abjured what they had formerly sworn with great Solemnity, and betrayed the truth committed to them. Yea sure so long as it continues in the Records of these Counsels, whereof they were Mem­bers, that they ordered men to be killed without any Tryal or Colour of Law, or so much as with an exception whether they resisted or no, it will be hard to purge them from the guilt of Murther: for it is very evident that these Prelates had a hot hand in all the Innocent Blood shed in Scotland in K. Charles II. and K. James I. times, which we leave to those who may write their History: Possibly the D. believes not this, because he heard it not, and therefore we urge him to inform himself better from Authentick Proofs and Re­cords of that Nation, that the Stains of his Brethren there may be a warning to him and all Clergy-men to fright them from merciless cruelty, to which from a small tryal of his skill already given, we fear he may be too much given.

His second exception against those two Gentlemens Let­ter is, That it confidently asserts, that there is not so much as [Page 58] one single man, who was in the Possession of their Churches and publick Livings wh [...]n K. James abdicated and forfeited, who hath since K. William's accession to the Crown been thrust out for any other Crimes than either, 1. for not reading the Procla­mation whereby K. William and Q. Mary were Declared King and Queen, or 2. for their not Praying for His Majesty, or 3. for not Swearing the Oath of Allegiance and Assurance, or 4, for such Immoralities as the Church of England as truly disallows as Prebyterians. To contradict which, he produceth an In­stance of one Mr. Samuel Mowat a Clergy-man of Scotland in the Diocess of Glasgow, and at the time in Dublin, &c. who was in possession of his Church in Scotland after K. William and Q Mary's accession to the Throne, and read the Procla­mation, &c. published by the Council of Scotland, April 13. 1689. by the appointment of the General Assembly, 2. Pray­ed for Their Majesties, 3. took the Oath of Allegiance and Assurance, 4. was free of Immoralities, &c. and declared himself willing to submit to the Presbyterian Government, according to his Majesty's Formula, and yet he was rejected by them because he would not renounce the Episcopal Go­vernment, and declare his sorrow for submitting to it.

A. We might satisfy our selves with this, that Mr. Sa­muel Mowat point blank denies what the D. hath written, to be his Testimony, and that it is grosly falsifyed; but tho' he had said all this, his single Testimony does not prove it's Truth, for while he says that the Assembly appointed the reading the Proclamation whereby K. William and Q. Mary were Declared King and Queen, which Proclamation was published April 13. 1690. This must be false seeing there was no Assembly till October 16. 1690. when they first sat after the Revolution. It's true he Petition'd the Assembly who referr'd his Case to the Presbyteries of Lanerk and Ha­milton where he had formerly been officiated, but was by them rejected for his Immoralities which himself knows, and all have cause to believe, seeing Bishop Foley late Bishop of [Page 59] Down and Connor did for gross Immoralities fully proven a­gainst him, deprive him of his Curacy he had got in the Parish of Dunean in the County of Antrim: So that if he was barbarorsly robbed by Presbiterians in Scotland, he has met with as little mercy from his Brethren in Ireland, as the Records of the Diocess of Connor can testify.

His third Exception to these Gentlemens Letter is to these words in it, viz. So far are they in Scotland from exercising severities against men, for being Episcopal in their Judgment, that a great part of the Ministers of that Kingdom, who injoyed not only the Protection of the Government, but the free and Publick Exercise of their Ministry, together with the legal Established maintenance before the first of September last, were or professed to be of the Episcopal Per­swasion, and had not at that time so much as taken the Oath of Allegiance to his Majesty, and yet of these no more is required for their continuance in their Parishes, than that they take the said Oath of Allegiance and Assurance and that they behave themselves worthily in Doctrine, Life and Conversation, as appears by the Act of Parliament past July 16. 1695.

Before the D. can answer this he throws himself into a paraxism of astonishment, at those who pretending to be more then ordinary strict and holy Ministers of Jesus Christ, and the most faithful Servants of the God of truth, that they can allow themselves the liberty of willfully misrepresenting the most no­torious matters of Fact, and the plainest State of publick Af­fairs, and flatly contrary to truth and the mind of the writer; of which he offers to prove the V. scandalously guilty. But had he rightly pitcht on the guilty, and as truly confest his own fault, as he fa [...]sly accuseth the V. he might have de­serv'd compassion; to cry out against those Sins in others, which we nourish in our own Bosoms, is hypocrisie.

But in answer to these words, he first concedeth a mat­ter of Fact, viz. That the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland have [Page 60] enjoyed the free Exercise of their Religion and quiet possession of their Parishes, &c. which indeed many in the North yet do. But saith he, 1. These Instances are but seeming favours. 2. They be produc'd as arguments of the moderation of the Pres­byterian Government, whereas they are nothing else but the ef­fect of the weakness of the Party.

A. If the Protection of the Government in the free and publick Exercise of Religion with the Legally establisht maintenance, be but seeming favours: Let the Dissenters here have only such seeming favours and we shall promise in their name real thanks for the same. But, 2. He might have own'd them real favours, had he consider'd on whom they were confer'd even the Abetters of Viscount Dundee's Rebelli­on: For by his silence to the third Paragraph of that Letter, viz. That at the Abetters of Viscount Dundee's Rebellion were, or pretended to be of the Episcopal perswasion, as have also all those that have made any Publick Commotion in that Kingdom since this happy Revolution, he tacitly confesseth the truth thereof. But thirdly that these favours were the effects only of the Presbyterian parties weakness, will not be so easily believed by considering men, for why should the Par­ty be able to destroy the Root, the Bishops and their prelacy and yet not be able to Lop off the Branches, is improbable: These sure who could extirpate prelacy in the North, had Power to drive out Curacy there too. But to make it evident that it was not the effect of weakness but their moderation, they have now driven out all that rebellious brood, who had contemn'd the King's Clemency and Churches moderation. Yet farther, had the Church of that Kingdom been weak, the State was not, but could easily extirpate them, for he is mightily mistaken of Scotland, if he thinks that many of that People would be Martyrs for Prelacy.

That the Episcopal Party in the North are a formidable Party, and therefore kept it depends on the Credit of his [Page 61] Informers: for were they such as he saith, they're neither stout nor kind in suffering their Reverend Fathers to be laid aside: Why might not the Children who were able to secure themselves, being so formidable, been willing also to defend and continue their Fathers? Yet his reason to prove them a formidable party, viz. That part of Scotland on the North of Tay is known to be little less than the half of the Kingdom is not very formidable: for if the Highlands and Isles of Scotland be comprehended in this, his Geography may hold good, but his reason's lame, for he will have little Cre­dit of many of the Episcopal Highlanders, who possess more Land than Religion: And that the Episcopal Party there is eleven to one, depends on the veracity of his Informers, who, we see, are no friends to his Reputation, and will at last cause him to turn Bankrupt of it, if he continue to give such Left-handed News-mongers such Credit: For deduce from the number Papists (the most of whom are in the North) he must abate of the proportion; for in the Shires of Sutherland, Stranaver, Ross and Murray there might be, and hath been a force (which was a terror to it's Enemies) raised to defend the Settlement of State and Church. Be­sides all this, considerable numbers are in every part of that Country, and these as strict as any in Scotland; by which we see he's little acquainted with the State of that part of the Kingdom.

These favors then werenot the effect of weakness, but the genuine supple fruit of the Clemency and Moderation of that Church, which by long experience of the evil of oppression (which is apt to make wise men mad) are resolved upon it as the surest method to secure themselves; and indeed their moderation is that which now is become most formidable to their wisest Enemies, and the true cause why not the same moderation but distinct courses were taken with the Epis­copal C [...]ergy in the North and in the West, is because the Ministers in the North were generally men of better Lear­ning [Page 62] and Lives, and less concern'd in these Cruelties and Oppressions, by which the West was harassed; and so, ha­ving done less harm, were more favoured, while those in the West met with Adonibezek's Reward. Now from all this let the Reader judge if the D. had just cause for his so rash judging the Vindicator.

His 2. Reason to prove the V. scandalously guilty of Dis­ingenuity, and representing things contrary to Truth, and his certain knowledge is, that there are no Acts of Parliament in favour of the Episcopal Clergy, save that of July 16. 1695. And therefore leaves it to the Reader to judge what sort of usage the Episcopal Clergy had for five years past, not only from the unparalell'd rage of a barbarons Rabble, but also from the intem­perate zeal of their bitter and bigotted Enemies in Authority.

We join issues with him, in referring to the consideration of the prudent and impartial Reader, what sort of usage the Episcopal Ministers in Scotland have had these five years past, and tho' we think he will be none of these Readers, yet let him judge of his own words page 7. where he hath confest that the greatest part of them (for these in the North he hath laboured to prove so) have had the Protection of the Government in the free and publick Exercise of their Religion, and the quiet possession of their own Parishes, and legal maintain­ance, notwithstanding that they had not taken the Oath of Alle­giance to His Majesty, nor made any Submission to the Presbyte­rian judicatories. Is this barbarous usage? we wish the Go­vernment here would treat us thus barbarously. Let him seriously reflect on what he saith page 10. Certainly these, who refuse to give the Government under which they live all rea­sonable assurances of their Fidelity, and Obedience, and will not Disavow their turbulent Principles, but still retain their in­veterate prejudices, and pernicius Disaffection to the Established Church and State, cannot with any Modesty expect to be treated as sincere and hearty friends, but as declared and open Enemies [...]o the lasting Peace and Settlement of the Nation. How appli­cable [Page 63] all this is to his Scotch Brethren, we leave all knowing men to judge: and tho' now that Government might justi­fy it self, himself being judge, tho' they had used his Bre­thren as declared Enemies to the Peace of that Nation, because they have hitherto for five years (tho' often required) refused to give the Government, under which they liv'd, any rea­sonable security for their Fidelity and Obedience, yet hath it dealt favourably with them.

But, saith he, They have made but one Act in their favours.

A. Let us have but one such, tho' two years after theirs, and we shall pardon all that's by-past. But doth not the Church of Ireland think herself Established by one Act of Uniformity, yet it is false that they had no more Acts than one past in their favours, for April 13. 1689. The Con­vention of States did prohibit any injury to be done by any Per­son whatsoever, to any Minister of the Gospel, either in Church or Meeting house, who are presently in possession and exercise of their Ministry. By this Act a stop was put to all Rabbling which had been in the Interregnum; and in Aug 16. 1689. a Proclamation was issued out, Restoring all that had been put out by violence after April 13. 1689. So that they had more Acts in their favour than they deserv'd, seeing they continued to deny Allegiance to K. William and Q Mary.

To what he saith of the unparalell'd rage of the barba­rous Rabble, (tho' neither Reason nor Religion will justify tumultous and confused out-rages) yet that same rage had a paralell in the same proportion as near thirty years are to three months, during all which time more blood was shed in Scotland for Non-conformity, then in the bloody Reign of Q. Mary, for that which Papists call Heresie. The Act of Council October 1662. is another paralell to the Rabb [...]e's rage, by which 300 legally Establish't Ministers were turn'd out of their Churches and Houses, without either Citation or Hearing; whereas that Rabble some days before-hand gave a Citation to those whom they turn'd out, and told them why they did so treat them.

[Page 64] Further, 'tis no wonder that this man dare speak evil of Presbyterians as such, when he dare revile the Gods, and speak evil of Dignities; not paying that respect to the Authority of Scotland, which the Arch-angel paid to the Devil; when, contending with him, he durst bring no railing accusation against him: but this man dares Arraigne, without distinction, the Authority of that Nation, whereof His Majesty is Head and Fountain, as Intemperate Zealots and bitter, and bigotted Enemies to Episcopal Ministers. Had a Dissenter us'd half such Language, we know who would have cryed out, Crucify him, Crucify him. And indeed such scurrilous Language may a waken Authority, to con­sider what they may expect from some sort of Clerks, if their Mitres and Bellies be once touched.

Having railed upon the Authority of Scotland, he next falls foul on the Act of Parliament, July 16. 1695. notwithstan­ding all it's Clemency; Complaining of it as a Continuation of Severities. And that for these reasons, 1. saith he, the favour is granted only to these Ministers who were at His Majesties Acces­sion to the Crown, and have since continued actual Ministers of their particular Parishes, and so no Provision made for those who were Rabbled out, tho' they should take the Oath of Allegiance, &c. which he hopes the V. will allow to be Severity.

A. It needs not be thought severe to keep our some of those, whom the Rabble put out, seeing many of those 300 Mini­sters, who were thrust out October 1662. by the Counsel without and against all Matter or Form of Law, were yet alive; And never were by the prelatical Church it self Canonically suspended or degraded, nor legally deprived by the Magistrate, so that they'r continued still dejure Ministers of these Parishes: when then that violence by which they were barred from the Exercise of their Ministry was remo­ved, they might peaceably re-enter, having all right to officiate there, there being neither Canonical nor legal Impe­diment to obstruct them; in the same manner as the Episco­pal [Page 65] Incumbents here, (after they were forced from their Pa­rishes in K. James's time) returned to them in K. William's; the parallel being the same, because the Bishops came last into Scotland, not by Law but the Will of the Governor. If any severity by done then it is justly deserved by those, who unjustly thrust themselves into other mens Possessions: But 2. many if not all in the West, were violently thrust in upon the people, to whom by Law the Election of their Ministers belongs, and therefore they never looked on them as Ministers, for the Scotch Law allows no man to be put on any Parish without the People's Election and Consent. A­gain 3. Those men had been active for the most part in all the oppressions of that People, at least, as Informers and Promo­ters, and were voted by the convention the griivance; If then they were happily delivered from the Yoak, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, it needs not be wondred at, that the Government was not willing to gall the necks of that People with such yoaks again; Besides all this, these very men were, and are known to be heart-Ene­mies to the Revolution, and were they let in again, un­doubtedly they would open a door to K. James's re-entry. Let all men judge then if it were not severe to humour such men.

But his other ground of dissatisfaction with that Act is, That it excludes those who were under Sentence of Deposition or Deprivation.

A. Doth not the Law of England also deprive men of the Benefice, who are degraded from the Office, seeing Beneficium datur propter Officium; for none were deposed by Presbyte­ries; but such, whose Crimes upon full and fair Tryal de­served such Treatment. Is that severe in a Parliament to deny those men wages, who have cut themselves off from service in the Church.

Further, to evince the more than ordinary severity in Scotland, against the Episcopal Clergy since the Revolution, [Page 66] the D. alledgeth an Act of Parliament June, 12. 1693. where­by is is Enacted. That no Person be admitted or continued to be a Minister or Preacher within the Church of Scotland, un­less he own the Presbyterian Government to be the only Church Government of that Church, that he will submit thereunto, and and concur therewith, and never endeavour directly or indirectly to do any thing to the prejudice or subversion thereof.

A. The disingenuity so oft complained of in the V. seems not to be so much a dislike of the evil, as that this D. would make a monopoly of it for himself; for in this report we have a considerable deal of it, for he waves the consideration of what it was brought to prove, that a great many Epis­copal Ministers enjoyed the Protection of the Government in the free Exercise of their Ministry, and legally establish't maintainance, 2. That the places of greatest trust are in the hands of those who are Episcopal in Judgment, several of whom were instanced, so that no severity is exercised meer­ly for mens judgments in that matter, all which by his si­lence he seems to confess, and yet insisteth in his ordinary rote of of exclaiming against the Government, But we say, 2. The Act cited doth not inflict any penalty on any for be­ing Episcopal in Judgment, 3. There is nothing in this Act but what upon the matter was agreeed to by the Episco­pal Clergy in their Address presented to the General Assem­bly of that Church, held Jan. 15. 1691/2. with the following Formula they promised to Subscribe.

The Address of the Episcopal Clergy to the Ge­neral Assembly held at Edinburgh.

VVE under-subscribers for our selves, and our con­stituent Ministers of the Gospel humbly shew, that since the Episcopacy is abolished and Presbyterian Go­vernment is established as it was 1592. we being desirous to exercise the holy Function, wherewith we are invested, [Page 67] in our several Stations, for the Glory of God, Advancement of Religion, their Majesties Service, and the Peace of the Nation, do therefore humbly desire that stops and impedi­ments may be taken off, so that we may be admitted as Presbyters to sit in Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assem­blies in concurrence with the Presbyterian Ministers in the Government of the Church as now established by Law in this Kingdom.

The Formula Proposed is,

I A. B. do sincerely Promise and Declare, that I will submit to the Presbyterian Government of this Church, as now by Law established in this Kingdom under K. William and Q. Mary, by Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and Ge­neral Assemblies, and that I will as it becomes a Minister of the Gospel, heartily concur with the said Government for the suppressing of Sin and Wickedness, the promoting Peace, and purging the Church of all Erroneous and Seandalous Ministers, and do further Promise that I will Subscribe the confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms now Confirmed by Act of Parliament as containing the Doctrine of the Protestant Religion Professed in this Kingdom.

By all this it appears that the Act obliges to nothing but what these Addresses offered, except a promise not to sub­vert the Government; which they indeed refused as a seve­rity; but we leave the world to judge of the sincerity of such Ministers of the Gospel, who will promise to submit to a Government, and concur with it, but will not promise not to subvert it; but (if needful) we could fully detect to the world the juggle of that whole design. But 4. Knows he not that the Act of Uniformity requires the same from all Conformists, which he exclaims against in the Church of Scotland? is not then the height of partiality to condemn that as rigid severity in others, which we applaud in our­selves as Justice and Prudence.

[Page 68] But his second Exception against this Act is, it's ordering that uniformity of Worship and Administration of all publick Ordinances in the Church of Scotland, be observed by all Mini­sters and Preachers, as it is at present performed, or shall be here­after declar'd by the Authority of the same: which he looks on as equally unreasonable, as the Papists requiring Implicit Faith, or subscription to the Oath, &c.

A. It is very unjust in him to instance that as a piece of severity against the Episcopal Clergy, which by the Act all Presbyterian Ministers as well as they are obliged to. But if uniformity of Worship and Administration of all publick Ordinances be so Popish and unreasonable, why so much noise about it in his Church? to deprive men of a birth­right priviledge, if they comply not: But 'tis Scotish Con­formity only disgusts him, for what concerns the Eng­lish and Irish, he can say, ego mihimet ignosco.

But saith he, They are to subscribe to what shall be Ordered by the Church, as well as to what is at present Ordered.

A. We ask him seriously whether he that swears Cano­nical Obedience to his Ordinary, doth not oblige him­self to be ruled according to such Canons, as shall be made by the Church as well as by these which are already made, or when a Judge sweareth to administer Justice according to Law, whether he obligeth not himself to Judge by Acts of Parliament that shall be made, as well as by those that al­ready are? And if so, he dare not say, (whatever he may think) that they are guided by an implicit Faith or takes an Oath, &c. Even so when the Ministers of the Church of Scotland promise to govern their flocks, and be governed themselves by such constitutions as are already made, or hereafter shall by the common consent of the Church esta­blished, what man compos mentis can condemn them? doth not natures light reach us, that all who join themselves to a Society ruled by Laws, are obliged to be governed by these Laws already made or to be made, especially when [Page 69] they are made by themselves? if this be Popery, he must be such, or resist the Government in the execution of Laws made since his creation, but men of inconsiderate & slippery judg­ment must be dilemma'd.

His last instance of Scotish severity is from an Act made July 5. 1695. against Intruders, by whom are understood all who have not an orderly call from the Heritors, Elders, and People, with a legal Admission by the Presbytery; now such by that Law are to be removed from these Churches, into which they have intruded, and rendred incapable of any Church or Stipend within the Kingdom for seven years, &c. but he tells, that by these Intruders are chiefly means Episcopal Ministers thrust out by the Rabble, who had repossess'd their own Churches.

A. This Act was made against allIntruders without ex­ception, Presbyterian, or others; and we suppose thought Rational by all reasonable men, for the English Law justi­fies not a forcible Entry, even tho' a Person hath a right. And I doubt not, but the Church of Engl. would condemn it in her own case: for I question if the D. could defend the late Bishop of Down and Connor with the Arch-Deacon, (who looked on themselves unjustly deprived of Bishopprick and Livings by the late Regal visitation) should they re-enter and possess themselves of what they have lost, without own­ing Church or State.

But we say that those who were rabbled out, neither have nor dare intrude into those Churches from which they were rabbled, and challengeth him to instance one who hath so done. But the truth of the matter is this, some of those who were rabbled out in the West and South, went to the North, and there by the connivance of the Inheritors, and some of the Parishioners did intrude into vacant Parishes: some also had been deposed by the Church for Immoralities, others who were put out of their Benefices by the Counsel, for refusing to swear Allegiance to K. William, and supported [Page 70] by the Jacobite party, did enter into Churches in contempt of both Civil and Ecclesiastical Government. Against these this Act was made, so that none are counted Intruders, meenly for repossessing the Church out of which they were turned by the Rabble, seeing that by the Proclamation Aug. 6. 1689. all who had been Rabbled since the Settlement of the Government, were restored to their Churches.

By this the D. (as he thinks having proved the Parliament of Scotland guilty of great Severity, for making an Act against Intruders) concludes, undoubtedly the reason of the V's. not publishing that Act of Parliament July 16. 1695. not to be what is alledged, but his fear of setting matters in a true light, and exposing too plainly his gross and willful misrepresentations of the present State of that Kingdom.

A. We leave it to the Parliament of Ireland, whether they will thank him for inveighing against the Parliament of Scotland thus at random, when both have the same head, and in all these Invectives his Sacred Majesty is reflected on: But how ridiculous is it to reason thus? The Vindicator durst not publish the Act of July 16. 1695. lest he should have exposed the severity of the Parliament against Intru­ders, when there is nothing in that Act against Intrusion, but it is, (as himself tells us) by an Act July 5. 1695. what needs the V. fear the publishing that Act, which all allow to be an Act of C [...]emency, we are satisfied the V. had not seen that against which he so much Inveighs: Nor needed he fear the publishing that other Act which was in Print: yea so far were Dissenters, from any sear from that Act that they industriously spread it amongst Members of Parliament here, as a good precedent of Moderation.

The D. having discharg'd his spleen upon the Parliament of Scotland, returns upon the Church Government, saying, by way of mock, I must indeed acknowledge that we cannot boast of our coming up to, or equal in the example which the present Pres­byterian Government in Scotland has set us. For first, our mode­ration [Page 71] to Dissenters has not exprest it self in raising of the Rabble against them; much less in returning them publick and solemn thanks for the greatness of their Zeal in so doing.

A. His first instance of this Churches negative moderati­on to Dissenters, contains an unreasonable calumny thrown upon the Presbyterian Government of the Ch. of Scotl. for during the Rabble's Reign, there was no legal Government in Church or State: And therefore the Church is not chargeable with things done before it was re-established or had power. That the Church gave the Rabble publick and solemn Thanks for their Rabbling, is false; but the truth was this, the Prelates of Scotland, with the Jacobitish Party, headed by the Viscount Dundee, having conspired a­gainst the Convention of States, then assembled at Edenburg, to settle the Crown of that Kingdom upon K William and Queen Mary, had secretly conveyed 200 and upwards of armed men into the Town, in order to scatter the Conven­tion, and so defeat the Nations Settlement. Hereupon the Gentlemen and Commons of the West, being then in Arms, came with all expedition to Edinburgh, whereupon the Vis­count of Dundee with his party immediately fled and entred into an open Rebellion, which ended with his Life at Killy­crankie. These Gentlemen who protected the Convention of Estates, till they had established the Government, are by him and his Episcopal Brethren in Scotland, called the Rabble. These indeed received the publick thanks of the Convention of Estates, instead of their pay, and so went all home peacea­bly. But at this time there could be no Establish't Church, seeing there was no Establish't Civil Government.

2. That he and his have not raised the Rabble against Dissenters in Ireland, we owe not to him or his, but to the Rabble (if any such be) who if once up might possibly turn their rage upon others. Yet he and some of his have not failed to incense the Magistrate against Dissenters, who have thereupon imploy'd arm'd force against them: For [Page 72] notwithstanding all that the Dissenting Ministers had suffe­red in the North for their Loyalty to Ch. 2. (being all bani­shed by Oliver for refusing the Oath called the Tender, which many Episcopal Clergy-men easily swallow'd) yet upon his Restauration the Prelates stirr'd him up, contrary to his in­clination, to imprison all Dissenting Ministers, and so per­secute the People for Non-conformity, which was accord­ingly done: This, the Living Generation can abundantly Testify.

A Second Evidence of the Churches Moderation to Dis­senters he offers, is, That the Church of England Parliament, in this Kingdom, has not declared that Non-Conformist Mini­sters, in exercising any part of their Ministerial Function, have offer'd a high contempt of the Law, as tending to perpetuate Schism, and of dangerous consequence.

A. Seeing, as he saith, The Church of England Parliament hath not declared Non-Conformist Ministers contemners of the Law, in exercising any part of their Ministry. How cometh it to pass, that the Church of England Clergy daily declare them guilty of offering high contempt to the Law? As be­ing Schismaticks; that the exercise of their Ministry is of dangerous consequence. We have cause to thank the Church of England Parliament, for their Justice and Mode­ration; but neither of us have reason to thank the Clergy for declaring the contrary. And tho we may be satisfied with this Confession, that there is no Act of Parliament against us, vet we have cause to fear he will retract, else he hath labour'd in vain in this Pamphlet.

The third Instance given of the Churches Moderation to us, is, They have not made an Act of Parliament against ut, making Non-Conforming Ministers Intruders, (altho they be really such) into Parishes.

A. If the Law doth not make Non-Conforming Mini­sters Intruders, by what Law doth he call them so? The Law of the Land he vindicates from this Aspersion, and we [Page 73] are sure the Law of God layeth no such crime to our charge. For Ministers, duly qualified, and by the unanimous con­sent of a Christian People, elected and call'd to be their Ministers, are not intruders, tho' their Election be not ra­tisy'd by the Civil Sanction; else all the Ministers of the Gospel for the first 300 years of Christianity had been In­truders. That a Christian People have power to Elect and call their own Ministers is according to the Primitive Pa­tern. Cyprian's Rule Lib. 1. Ep. 4. is consonant to Scrip­ture, viz. Plebs ipsa, potestatem habet vel eligendi dig nos sacer­dotes vel indig nos recusandi. And even in Rome it self, in Pope Leo's time, it was a Rule, Qui prae futurus est omnibus ab omnibus Elegatur. And such we are able to make appear our Election to the Ministry to be.

2. Nor hath the Parl. of Scotland made any Act against intruding into Parishes, but against intruding into Churches and seizing upon Manses and Glebs: which if N. C's. here had done; it's possible they had both heard and felt that there are Acts of Parl. against such intruders.

The fourth instance of Moderation is that the Establish'd Church hath not forbid these Dissenters, whom the Calamities of the late times had driven away, to return and perform any Ministerial Acts in the places where formerly they held their Con­venticles for want of a Legal Call.

A. Had Dissenters as obstinately refused to swear Allegi­ance to K. W. and Q. M. as his Episcopal Brethren did in Scotland: we shou'd have had as little favour as the Non­jurant Clergy there have had, and justly deserv'd it. But why the Government of Scotland only shou'd be condemn'd for severity, when both in England and Ireland the Non-ju­rant Bishops and Clergy have met with the same measure, and yet he dates not tax the Government here, or in Eng­land, of severity upon that account, so that he is either gros­ly impartial, or a Jacobite in heart, tho' he appear for King William.

[Page 74] The Fifth Instance of Moderation, is, That they have not here authorized or required the Mayors of Corporations, and Ju­stices of the Peace, to remove all those who have intruded, or shall intrude, as they have done in Scotland.

A. If the Civil Magistrate were subject to the Authority of the Church, we have cause to be confident of being otherwise dealt with than at present we are, God be bles­sed for it. We think he deserves a fee, if he'll make good that Dissenters may, without counter acting Acts of Parl. enter and possess Churches and Tythes: but then why makes he such a hideous out-cry against the Minister of Letterkenny for his intrusion.

His Sixth and last Instance of Moderation exceeding that of Scotland, is, that they have not ordered Writs of Rebellion against Dissenting Ministers, in order to the removing them out of Parishes where they live, and making them desist from exer­cising Ministerial Acts.

A. For all this boasted of Moderation, the time was when there were Writs out against all the Dissenting Ministers to apprehend them, whereupon many were apprehended and imprison'd, which is well known. And we owe but little thanks to Church-men for the mercy we now enjoy. But by this he insinuates, that the Episcopal Clergy are by Writs and Capias's driven from living in any Parishes in Scotland, which is a Calumny, and by it we may see how safe his Majesty's Government is like to be, under such Di­rectors of Conscience, who labour to possess his Subjects against him and his Government, as cruel and severe, not­withstanding all the Clemency he has us'd to such as are declar'd Enemies to his Authority.

The D. having triumph'd in the victory of the Establish't Church of Ireland over that of Scotland in point of Mode­ration, seems to be mov'd with a Prophetick Spirit, to [...]ore­te [...]l, that in case such Revolution of Church Affairs should happen in this Kingdom, as hath lately been in Scotland; the V. [Page 75] and his Adherents would imitate the Presbyterians in Scotland, and make the Episcopal Clergy desist from exercising any Mini­sterial Acts, and Issue out Writs of Rebellion against them.

A. Either he fears, what he supposeth, will come to pass, or not. If he doth really fear such Revolution, then we think 'twere his wisdom to be preparing an Ark for saving himself and houshold: tho it be no policy to declare his fears, seeing thereby he incourageth Dissenters, and weakens the hands of his Friends, by representing us as a formida­ble party: But if he believes no probability of what he supposeth he needs not trouble us or his party with such Prophecies; for if he were not conscious to himself that he had deserved ill of Dissenters, he would not fear ill from them.

To make his Prophecy probable, he tells us, that the Professors in Colleges of Scotland felt the rigor of the Pres­byterian Visitation, which he calls by the odious name of Inquisition practised upon the Professor of the College of Edin­burgh in Aug. and Sept. 1690. according to an Act passed the 4th of July 1690. By which it is ordered, that no Minister or Professor in any College or School shall be allowed to con­tinue in the Exercise of his Function, but such as shall sub­scribe to the Confession of Faith ratify'd by this present Parliament, and submit to the Government of the Church now Establisht by Law.

A. To stigmatize the Visitors of the University's acting by his Majesty's Commission, and Parliamentary Authority with the odious name of Inquisitors, and the Visitation with the name of Inquisition, doth palpably insinuate, that tho the Heroick Ancestors of our King did drive the Inqui­sition out of the Netherlands, yet he and his Queen have brought it into Scotland. And tho he will swear he inten­ded no such [...]flection on his Majesty, yet it's too apparent he would make him, and these acting by Authority under him, successors to St. Dominick. 2. He falsely attributes to [Page 76] the Church the Act of the State. 3. When he wou'd prove a removal of Persons Episcopal from Civil Employments he instances in Professors of Divinity, which are not esteem'd Civil Employments in Scotland. 4. The ground of their removal was their refusing to swear Allegiance to K. W. and Q M. and the reason they gave for their refusal was that they were not crown'd K. and Q. of Scotland, tho' they made no such scruple of swearing to K. James, whether or no by justifying them in this he partake with them in their evil deeds, let all Men judge. 5. It's highly hypocritical to rail at that as Sin in others which we applaud in ourselves as a Vertue, for what more criminal is it in the Church of Scotland to oblige its Professors of Divinity to subscribe its legally Establish'd Doctrin, and to submit to its legally E­stablish'd Church-Government, then it is in the Church of England to require Subscription to their 39 Articles, Assent and Consent to her Liturgy and Ceremonies, and Canoni­cal Obedience to her Bishops.

For an Epilogue to his History of Scots Affairs, since the Revolution, he gives a mock Commendation (as he is pleas'd to call it) the ingenuous temper of the General Assem­bly in their Act for a solemn National Fast. Nov. 12. 1690. wherein they gave a particular Confession of the Sins of the Nation. To which he saith, Amen, wishing they may be as sincere in repenting, as they have been ingenious in Con­fession.

A. To have our Prayers and Fasts turned to reproach, is but what befel our betters, Psal. 69. 10. and therefore we may the easier bear it; but doth not the Church of Eng­land dayly confess, we have erred and strayed from thy ways; we have done these things which we ought not to have [...] to require his Charity to the Church of [...] [...] wish him ingealous and [...] in his [...].

[Page 77] The D. having made his progress through Scotland, in his return home to Ireland, gives us a taste of his skill in persuading, while he would have us believe, that the gently Penal Laws, are not (as the V. insinuates) a severe lash de­sign'd as Instruments of an Unreasonable Correction, but as the necessary means of keeping such Children, as are of a froward and ungovernable temper, within the bounds of a due Subjecti­on: and therefore it ought not to be esteemed an unkind severi­ty, but a prudent tenderness in a Parent, to deny them such in­dulgences, as in all propability will be abused, to the dive [...]ing him of his Parental Authority, and to the incouraging of them, to a total withdrawing of their Filial Duty and Obedience for the future.

A. This D. seems to be, or at least wou'd have Dissen­ters be, like the Wives of Mascovy, who are jealous of their Husbands affection unless they correct them severely; But he must beat us out of reason and sense both, e're he per­suade us to this, and had he but tasted as much of these gen­tle Penal Laws as some have lately done, for refusing the Oath of a Church-Warden, he wou'd change his Note. If to be Excommunicated, thrown into Prison, till a Man and his Family be utterly ruin'd, be gentle correction, how dares he exclaim against the severity of Scotland, where there is not one such Penal Law, nor one instance of a Lay­man's being fin'd, and imprisoned, for meer Non-confor­mity, much less for refusing to be Lay-Elders. And we suppose he cannot give instance, of any Church in the World, who Excommunicate, Fine and Imprison Men for refusing to be Officers in the Church, especially these, whom they condemn as Schismaticks. And to thrust Men into Places of Trust in the Church out of Malice. That many more Episcopal Children, have discover'd their froward and ungovernable temper (since the happy Revolution) then of Dissenters, is sensibly felt by the Government, and therefore the reflection on us hath as little Truth as Charity. [Page 78] Nor is it rational to suppose us such enemies to our own case, and peace, as to endeavour to divest these of Authority, by whose powerful Clemency we are protected from the claws of some of the angry Clergy.

As to the second thing desired by Dissenters, viz. That there be no such Clauses annexed to the Bill of Indulgence, as might disenable them from serving their King, and Country, he observes to be the same Argument the Papists made use of in the late Reign for taking off the Penal Laws and Test, and that the design of Dissenters is the same, with that of the Papists, viz. not only to capacitate themselves for all Employments, of Honour, Trust and Profit, but also to exclude others, of a different per­suasion, from having a share in any, unless perhaps in mean and unprofitable ones.

A. The Observation (tho his own) is not observable ei­ther for it's Wit or Honesty, for if Dissenters ought not to use the Argument, because Papists have us'd it; then the Church ought far less to Cross in Baptism and kneel at the Sacrament, seeing the Papists have gresly abused them. But it's well known that Dissenters did refuse, to joyn with the Papists in taking off the penal Laws and Test, tho they thereby might have had their own Fetters knockt off; yet they rather chus'd to continue in chains, then to suffer such ravenous Creatures to run loose; And we remember what fair promises were then made to Dissenters, for this piece of generosity, but the world knows how religiously these promises have been kept. And he may see that where Pres­byterians have more then we desire, they have not ingross'd to themselves, all places of Honour and Trust, as now in Scotland, where such imployments are enjoy'd, by Persons declared Episcopal in Judgment; And its ridiculous to tell, that Dissenters won'd inhanfe all imployments, to those of their own perswasion, and exclude others, seeing all of them are not of one persuasion, and so cannot inhance all to their own Party. But unless the Magistrates (to whom the [Page 79] grant of such Offices belongs) shou'd turn Dissenters, it's unreasonable to fear that Dissenters shou'd be able to make such a Monopoly.

While he tells us That it's not reasonable that they shou'd pull down any part of their Church, to furnish Dissenters with Materials to build and strenthen theirs. We must say that we knew not before now, that Penal Laws against Dissenters were any part or parcel of the Church of England: which if they be, as is said, it will be no demonstration of that Churches Antiquity, at least for that part of it: which must commence with the Act of Uniformity. Surely the Primitive Church had no such Pillars to support it, for 300 years and more, and yet the Gates, of Hell were not able to prevail against it. Bp. Taylor liberty of prophesying p. 18. will better inform him ‘That imposing on Mens understan­dings, being Masters of their Consciences, and Lording it over their Faith, came in with the rotinue and train of Antichrist, The increase of Interest, and abatement of Christian Simplicity, when the Churches Fortune grew better, and her Sons grew worse, and some of her Fathers worst of all. And cites Tertullian, saying, S [...]d nec Religio­nis est cogere religionem, quae suscipi debet sponte non vi. To this he adds, That all wise Princes till they were o­verbo [...]n with Faction, or sollicited by peevish Persons, gave To eration to different Sects, whose opinions did not disturb the Publick Interest. Heretical Persons who are impatient of an Adversary, were the first, who intreated the Emperors to persecute the Catholicks, but till 400 years after Christ, no Catholick Persons, or very few, did provoke the secular Arm, or implore its aid against Hereticks.’

The D. having given his judgment with more passion than truth, against Dissenters, particularly these in the North, to make it appear reasonable (as he saith), he at­tempts to prove it by matter of fact since the Revolution, [Page 80] attested by several persons of known Prudence and Inte­grity in the North, who have given an account of many hard things against two Ministers there, both doctrinal and practical; the first of these is Mr. Liston, late Minister of Letterkenny; the 2d is Mr. William Holms. Mr. Liston is accused, First, of constant declaring the Church of England Popish and Antichristian. 2. Praying for its destruction. 3. Preacb'd against its Feastivals, and said that they worshiped the Devil. 4. Discharg'd his Hearers to entertain any Confor­mists as Servants, but allow'd them to keep Popish Servants. 5. That he perswaded the Parents of a Gentlewoman who had conformed, to deny her Meat, Drink, and Lodging, and to hang her for her Apostacy. 6. He abus'd the Legal Incumbent, and pull'd him out of the Church of Letterkenny.

A. Were this heavy charge as fully proven, as it's confi­dently alledged, it would not amount to all that's intended thereby, viz. To make all the Dissenting Ministers of the North odious to the Government, as a factious and violent people; no more, than the Simony, Adultery, Drunkenness, habitual Non-Residence, and neglect of Office prov'd against the Bishop and Clergy of Down and Connor, at the late Re­gal Visitation, will prove all the Clergy of Ireland guilty of the same crimes: Tho some are of opinion, that those on whom that Tower of Siloam fell, were not the only Sin­ners,; but if other Diocesses had umdergone the same Or­deal, these condemned might have some comfort in having more companions. If any desiderate proof of this, they shall have satisfaction from more Authentick Records than these produc'd to prove Mr. Liston's Lybel.

2. Had he design'd impartial justice in this matter, he had been as particular in naming the witnesses, as he is in naming the accused, and their crimes; for before judgment pass, the Law allows the Accused to see their Witnesses, to know if they have any exceptions against them; but by his hiding them, he gives the world ground to suspect they [Page 81] are not evidence beyond exception. And seeing the Civil Law denies them to be good evidence, or have been but lately reconcil'd: for this cause, in offensus affectus iestiam queritur ne irati nocere cupiant laesi ulcisci se velint. We have cause to suspect the Evidence; for those who persecute men when alive, and reproach them when dead, are not their friends. Yea, all this evidence is but on hear-say, seeing we have it from Conforming Clergy, who could no other­ways know what he Preach'd and Prayed constantly, but by others testimony: And the Law saith, Testimonium quod ab aliena relatione dependet non valet. And indeed, to accuse a man long after his death, as here Mr. Liston is, when yet while alive, he was not pursu'd (though the Law both Civil and Ecclesiastical was open to them, and the faults, if proved, punishable by the Judge) is contrary to the Light of Nature, and Law of Nations, which teach, that Citatio & defensio sunt juris naturalis, and condemn no man uncited, unheard. The Civil Law says, that sententia contra mortuos ferenda non est; for that were, cum larvis pug­nare, to fight with mens ghosts, which is neither Humanity nor Religion. And several of the things asserted are so im­probable, that they must be scant in Charity who believe them.

As for the 2d Instance of Mr. W. H. It's an arrow out of the same quiver, the person being a Probationer, upon the rumor of what is here alledg'd, was call'd to account for it, but vindicated himself sufficiently, whereby it ap­pears we incourage no such intemperate, and indiscreet actions amongst any of our persuasion, but bring them to account for it; and we know by whose industry all the Au­rea Legenda that can be collected in that part of the Coun­trey, are confidently published with teste meipso.

From these Instances he draws, as he calls it, an undoubted conclusion, that if Dissenters had the uncontrolable liberty of a legal irrestrictive Indulgence, they wou'd be most turbu­lent, [Page 82] insolent, and tumultuous, which he proves by the represen­tation made by the House of Commons to King Charles the 2d above 30 years ago, as we heard before.

A. Were these two Instances as true, as we have made them appear to be false and malicious; his conclusion might be doubted, as much as a conclusion from the many Instances of Simony, Adultery, Drunkenness, and constant Non-Residence judicially proved at the late Regal Visitation at Lisburn, to prove all the Clergy of Ireland guilty of these Crimes; and seeing he can produce no Instances of intem­perate speeches, and illegal violences of Dissenters in the North, except these two pretended: this may satisfie the Government how far we are from such a distemper as he reproaches us with, tho we have had provocations from the intemperate speeches of some Clergy-men.

As for his only strong Argument; his fear of the increase of the power and number of Dissenters, and therefore the Establish't Church should not be over-fond of these seeming Pro­testants.

A. His Party hath no cause to thank him for his policy; for by representing the Dissenters as so formidable a party, he encourageth them, and weakens the hearts and hands of his Brethren by these frightful Prophesies: If he be so re­ally affraid of our power and increase, his wisdom will be seasonably to yield, and unite with us: For these penal Laws have not lessened our numbers, or weakened our power, see­ing since their commencement we are in Ireland 100 to one; and if upwards of 100 years experience of the absolute in­sufficiency of these Laws to prevent the daily growth of Dissenter [...] from the Establish't Church will not convince him of their being useless Engines to defend it, we cannot help him more than these do his cause.

The V. having urg'd, That a Legal Indulgence was needful, in case another Rebellion, which God forbid should happen: else what Gentleman among us wou'd rise, for others to command? or [Page 83] wou'd Tenants cheerfully rise with them on whom they have no dependance? and in whom they can as little trust.

The D. tells us there's no danger of that, for the generality of the Nobility and Gentry of the North are Conformists, their Landlords, and Acquaintances, and men of great Estates to ma­nage that.

A. If the Nobility and Gentry that are Conformists, who in the late troubles promised fair things to Dissenters, shou'd by the importunity of some of the hotter Clergy, be over­persuaded, contrary to their own moderate temper and in­terest, to for [...]eit that place they have now in the esteem of Dissenters; it would be impossible to induce reasonable men to trust them in a time of War, who had deceiv'd them in a time of Peace. But we hope the Nobility and Gentry value as and their own interest more, than to sacrifice both to some implacable men for Ceremonies. It would be no prudence to provoke such multitudes, which in times of confusion little regard such distinctions as in Peace they do; and ra­ther follow whom they love, and have been obliged by, than them they suspect, and have been hurt by.

That those who shut the Gates of Derry were Confor­mists, and those who were Governors in it the time of the Siege, is asserted with more vanity than truth, if he say they were the only persons: But as both parties were united in heart and hand in that matter, so we shall not divide them in the praise: Tho we believe, what's well known, that the common Souldiers were the Governors, else it seems the Event had prov'd worse than it did.

As to his credible information, that in the succesful party at Enni [...]killen, there was not one Commission Officer, not so much as one Ensign, that was not of the Establish't Church, and of the private Centinels, there were six Conformists to one Dissen­ter.

A. We fear his Informers have imposed too much on his credulity, and to the hazard of his reputation, have employ'd [Page 84] him to retail many untruths. For we are as fully perswa­ded of the contrary, as we can be of a thing of that nature, having it from those who know well, that there were above eight Captains of the Presbyterian perswasion before, and at the Troubles, and some of us have been at the Tent of one of them at Dundalk, whose Father and Grandfather were Presbyterian Ministers of good esteem in Ireland; and is now in the Army in Flanders. There were seven Lieute­nants, and several Ensigns, whose names we shall not pub­lish without their leave. Mr. Kelso the Presbyterian Mi­nister at Enniskillen, while he lived was very active, and died at Enniskillen: at that time one of his Congregation had a Company consisting of 140 men. It's true, most of them occasionally heard the Church of England Ministers; and after Mr. Kelso's death, and the removal of the rest, they had none else to hear, yet declared they themselves Presby­terians, and the most of them who are alive, do so still: And he must allow us to know our own better than he doth. But as we do not take all for ours who come occa­sionally to hear us, no more ought he to take all for his, who occa­sionally hear him.

The V's Argument against the Test, viz. If the Parlia­ment of England had thought the Sacramental Test need­ful, they cou'd easily have added it, as they have the Test against Popery mentioned in the same Act. We have this Answer: If the Parliament of England had intended to ex­cuse the Protestant Dissenters in this Kingdom from a Sacra­mental Test, as they had to the Test against Popery, they might have as easily forbid the former, as they have positively enjoyn'd the latter.

A. This Answer is a weak Brother to some of the rest; for if the Parliament doth not enjoyn, we think they do excuse [...] and had they not enjoyn'd an Act of Uniformity, we think we shou'd be excused for our Non conformity; for where there's no Law, there's no transgression.

[Page 85] The Charge given against Dissenters in the North for not paying Conformist Ministers their dues, till his Majesty put forth his Royal Proclamation for payment of them, is not fairly said. 1st, Because all the Dissenters were not guilty, several of those who staid in K. James's time, and had Stocks, &c. in the lower part of Down and Antrim did pay to these Incum­bents who staid with them. 2d, The Conformists were as guilty of this as Dissenters; the reason of both was in­ability in the most parts, having nothing left to support their lives and families; and when the Army came where there was any thing, they took free quarters. And as they were not able, so they thought not themselves bound in Conscience to maintain Non-Residents and Pluralists, who, had they not been prodigal in time of Peace, had been un­der little necessity. Besides, some of the Clergy were in England, some Chaplains in the Army; yea, some of the Clergy will confess, that they were more kindly and justly dealt with by Dissenters, than by their own people, as all moderate men did find, and will upon such occasions. But if this was injustice, the Landlords suffer'd far more, who got nothing, and after the troubles did freely forgive one, two, or three years Rent, and yet make no noise. It's well known the Bishops did not abate one farthing of their Rents, even for those times in which they could not keep their Tenants in peaceable possession, which severity was so much resented by some Conforming Gentlemen, that they threaten'd to turn Presbyterians on that account.

As for the D's great fears, that if the desired liberty were granted to Dissenters, the door being once opened, they wou'd all rush into the profitable and honorable Employments. This shews an earthly constitution of Soul, to have fears and cares mainly employ'd about things secular, and like Demetrius, who, tho he pretended the glory of the Diana of the Ephe­sians, yet his and the Crafts-men's trouble, was, the fear of the loss of their wealth.

[Page 86] In defence of the Sacramental Test, the D. tells us, they do not drive any to the Sacrament; but since the Civil Ma­gistrate is God's Vice-Gerent, it's surely not unfit that he shou'd imitate Almighty God, whom he represents, in pro­posing temporal advantages, as encouragement to the per­formance of religious actions; and they are best qualify'd for publick Employments of the greatest profit, trust and honor, that give most publick and signal evidence of their piety towards God, and obedience to the Civil Magi­strate.

A. Is it not driving to the Sacrament, when men are forc'd to it under pain of being driven to the Devil? See­ing such as refuse to communicate with the Church of Eng­land, are to be excommunicated ipso facto, according to Ca­non 9. of the Constitution 1603, and Canon 5. Constitution 1641. And is it not to drive men, when they must either quit their Civil Employments, and be made incapable of them; and to starve themselves and families, unless they will Communicate according to the form prescrib'd? And do not we daily see, that all the Souldiers are forc'd to Com­municate, how ignorant and vicious soever they be? else they lose their pay.

That Civil Magistrates may encourage those that do well, and be terrors to evil doers, we fully believe; but that kneeling at receiving the Sacrament (about which the de­bate between you and us is) is a religious action, or a pub­lick and signal obedience of piety to God; we admire how you dare assert, seeing he hath no where required it at our hands; and there are true acts of piety to God, and obedi­ence to the Magistrate, which we see are not so much re­garded as this act of Will-worship is: And why one single Ceremony shou'd be made the test of our piety to God, and obedience to the Civil Magistrate, no man can give a ra­tional account. That there be so many of the Establish't Church fitly prepared according to the Rubrick for reception of the bles­sed [Page 87] Sacrament as are fit for all the profitable and honorable Em­ployments, we are satisfied; but are forty that so small a proportion of them fall in the hands of such, and that they are treated no better than Dissenters for the most part▪ while some, whose Rubrick fitness is shrewdly suspected, thrive better.

As to what the V. says of the modes of Receiving the Sacrament, who is against making sitting, standing, or kneel­ing the only posture of Receiving: we must allow him to abound in his own sense; but know that the most part of Presbyterians and Independants in Ireland are otherwise minded: who all judge and declare, that the Table gesture in receiving the Sacrament, and not the Adoration, is most agreeable to the first pattern given us by Christ and his A­postles, and practised in the Primitive Church: and to charge the sitting posture with undecency, is an undecent reflection upon Christ and his Apostles. That the Recei­ving in the posture of Adoration, was not brought into the Church until the 14th Century, and that only into the La­tin Church, with the opinion of the corporal presence, is so well known, that it cannot modestly be deny'd. And there­fore Dissenters wonder that so late an invention, brought into the Church upon so bad an occasion, and for worse ends, shou'd be insisted upon by persons prosessing reverence to Antiquity, and declare their abhorrence of corrupting the doctrine of the Sacrament, with its ill consequence.

Yet we do not see what danger the Church is in, of ha­ving its Authority infringed, or Laws nulled by the V's opinion; who, tho he looks upon sitting, standing, or kneeling, too narrow inclosures, to keep people from the Lord's Table, yet will, it seems, allow liberty to Churches to determine in these things as they shall see meet.

As for the Churches Authority to make Laws: 1. We think her power not Legislative, but Ministerial, and exe­tuti [...] of Divine Laws. 2. That her Constitutions, at such, [Page 88] do not immediately and directly bind the Conscience. 3. That her Authority to appoint Rites and Ceremonies of my­stical signification, or as parts of Worship, is none. 4. That her power is in determining Circumstances, and that these determinations are of the same extent and continuance with the reasons thereof; and that all her Conclusions, incon­sistent with Edification, Order, Unity and Peace of Christ, are ipso facto void, and nullities. So that the world needs not be so much terrify'd with that great word, Church Au­thority, if they truly understand it, and the liberty where­with Christ hath made us free.

When he tells us, that he cannot be counted a wise man, that wilfully entertains seruples in his mind, and suffers himself to be influenc'd by them in his practice, we do not comprehend him, seeing scruples are fears of the mind, which vex the Conscience, as a small stone in the shooc doth hurt the foot; and are therefore sins of weakness: if they be wilfully entertained, they are not scruples, but wil­ful wickedness: so that we know neither wise man, nor fool, that will wilfully entertain any such diseases. But yet as wise men as himself, have had scruples, as the A­postles Peter and Barnabas, who scrupled converse with the Gentiles, Acts 10. Gal. 2.

His Principle laid down, viz. That it's more agreeable to the Character of a truly wise man, so be scrupulously fearful of disobeying, than obeying the commands of Authority; will hold good where the Authority is infallible, otherwise not: for we may as lawfully scruple, yea, deny obedience to their unjust commands, as to disobey their lawful commands; and we find it agreed well with the character of the truly wise Apostles, to scruple obedience to the commands of Authority. It had been Ephraim's wisdom, not to have walkt willingly after the command of Jorohoam, for which he was broken in judgment. Shall we suppose the seven Bishops put in the Tower, for [...] to obey the late [Page 89] King Ja's Authority, were no wise men. Seeing therefore we owe no implicit obedience to any man, we ought to be as afraid of obeying unlawful, as disobeying lawful com­mands.

Why he shou'd be surprized with the V's asserting, that Non-Conformists have been both before and ever since the Revolution qualify'd with Civil Offices, we do not see: see­ing they had both Physical, Moral, and Civil Qualifications, and are not barr'd as yet by a Sacramental Test: but it seems the V. did forget that a Canonical qualification was necessary for being in any Civil Office. For there are, as he says, Ecclesiastical Laws, by which, tho Dissenters be not wholly unqualify'd for admittance into Civil Offices, they are wholly dis­abled for continuing in them. Tho this be possible, it seems not reasonable, that any cause shou'd disable a man to bear and execute an Office, which did not disable him to enter in it, when the matter is known before. By this the Eccle­siastick Laws are like Decoy Ducks, which let in their fel­low creatures, and then catch them in the Net. But it seems Dissenters must pay the thanks for all their Civil Offices, to the lenity of Ecclesiastical Governors, and not to the boun­ty of the Civil Magistrate, who seems to be as much sub ferula of the Church as Dissenters are; for tho they may give, they cannot make good their grants.

If the D's modesty cou'd have allow'd him to suffer others to commend his Answer for its fulness, or had he been so patient, as to hear what could be said against it, he wou'd not have so severely reflected on the V. or boasted of himself as he doth.

That there might be a symetry in this defence, as he be­gan, so he ends with hard words, in which he taxeth the V. with undecent and profane ridiculing the first Constitution of the Apostles against eating of blood.

A. To accuse any of so great Crimes without sufficient proof, is rather reviling than reasoning, which is ordinary [Page 90] with men of stronger passions than reason, when they are not able to answer Arguments, they fall upon them and the Arguer, employing bantering as a succedanium for rea­son.

His 2d. Accusation, that the V. unjustly and irreverently applyeth the words of our Saviour, Mat. 7. 10. to the celebrated Parl. of Ireland. We believe the Members of Parliament will not look on these words with the D's eyes, but will rather consider them as an allusion, and that upon supposition that the Parliament shou'd give a toleration to Dissenters clog'd with such a Test; it wou'd be as giving a stone when bread is asked.

To conclude, There are some reflections on the doctrine and practice of some Dissenters occasionally communicating with the Establish't Church: where he observes the incon­sistency of some of the V's words, which we not being able to justify, leave to their Author to vindicate them, and will ingenuously acknowledge, with the Author of that Book called Vox Clamantis; which he cites, That such Non-Confor­mists as upon occasion to get into places of Honour, and Profit, will and can take all manner of Tests that have been of late im­posed, or can on such occasions take the Sacrament according to the form and way of the Church of England, tho they never did it before, and perhaps never intended it after, except on the like occasion, are too justly ob [...]oxious to be suspected, as men of flexible and profligate Consciences. But we are sure the V. in­tended to justify no such persons.

Having now impartially consider'd this Defence, we must tell him, that if he had borrow'd as much out of Dr. Stil­lingfleet's Irenicum, as he hath stolen out of his Unreasona­bleness of Separation, and given less credit to his Jacobi­tish Pamphleteers in the affairs of Scotland, he had better consulted for his own reputation, and our ease and might have spar'd several reflections he too liberally bestows on his Majesty's Government in Scotland: but hereby he hath [Page 91] given a Commentar upon the old Prelatick Maxim, No Bishop, no King: that is, if Kings do not support Bishops, there shall be no Kings.

But we wish that our Zeal may be better employ'd about things wherein the glory of God, the good of Souls, and the peace of the Church and State may be more concern'd, than either they enjoying their Ceremonies, or we our Civil Offices.