CAP. I. Persecution on the score of Re­ligion is utterly Condemned and unlawful.

IMposition, Violence, and Persecution for matters meerly relating to Con­science, directly invades the divine prerogative, for God alone is Lord over the Conscience, it is his just Claim and priviledg, for as Solomon saith, no man hath power over Conscience. Lu­ther Eccles. in the Book of Civil Magi­strates, saith the Law of them extends no farther then Body and Goods, for over Conscience God alone ruleth: in the same Book in the building of the Temple, saith he, there was no sound of Iron heard, to signifie that Christ will have in his Church [Page 2] a free and willing people not compelled by human Laws and Statutes, God hath ex­empted the soul out of your Commission, &c.

The Cause and reason why Judica­tures of men are appointed and set up, are that Magistrates should be Ministers of pro­tection and praise to them that do good: and of terror and revenge of those that do Evil in matters to outward practise: but to exceed these limits imposing nice and doubtful oaths (not having the Conditi­ons required in Scriptures) on the Consci­ences of men and other pressure, and pe­nalties concerning their souls only (of which Christ alone Challengeth the pro­priety) is neither lawful nor warrantable. it is Gods prerogative to punish for Consci­ence, who hath only propriety in the Soul, unto whom all must give account, in spiri­tual things. For Religion is a virtue hath God for its immediate object, when ac­cording to all Divines it is not within the vierge of humane Cognizance, because the Soul is not liable to our tribunal. Kecker­man a learned Writer saith, that the Bond between the Magistrate and Subject is essentially Civil. The saying of King Ste­phen, [Page 3] the wise King of Poland, is Observa­ble that he was King of men, not of Consci­ences, Commander of Bodies not of Souls.

The practise of persecution meerly for conscience, hath been disavowed and con­demned by divine authority, and holy writ, by the Primitive Fathers, by many of the most famous Princes in the world, by our own principles and concessions, by the wisest, greatest, and Best States in ancient and modern times, as the Jews, Romans, Egyptians, Germany, Holland, nay the Turks and Persians, Polish and Bohemian Kings. Marcus Aurelius a Pagan permit­ted tolleration to Christians. Ant [...]ni [...] Pius Emperor (so called for his great piety) whose Empire God blessed with greater peace and felicity, then any Pagan Empe­peror had before or after him; for the fa­vour he shewed to Christians; in taking of the many and Cruel persecutions suffered under his Predecessors; Forbad no man should be accused for their Religion, affir­med that the great Earthquakes and other Calamities wherewith the Empire was affli­cted, proceeded of the justice of God for the injuries done to the Christians: as it is [Page 4] manifested by a Copy of the edict related by Eutrop. l. 10.

Gratian & Jovianus Caesar Emperors per­mitted various Religions, the old Romans offered the Jews Liberty on condition they would be faithful. Theodosius and Gratian most Christian Emperors were contented to tollerate the Arrians. At Hierusalem in Christ time were two Sects living sociable, the Pharisees and Sadduces; in Germany these hundred years Papists and Lutherans live together, in France Calvenists are permitted. How oft the French King gave Edicts of pacification is set down in Laval. l. 3. Solomon permitted the Hit­tites, Hivites, Perizites and Jebuzites to live quietly under his Reign, as Grotius observeth, on the 1 of Kings 19. 20. The Novatians saith Baxter, were tollerated and loved by the sober Catholick Empe­rors, because they had tollerable princi­ples when many others were otherwise dealt withal, and S. Martin and Sulpitius Severus refused to be of their Councel for inciting the Emperor to the way of blood, & corporal violence. The Turk permitteth Christians, Persians and Aethiopians in his Dominions. Venetians suffereth Jews; a­mongst [Page 5] them, as the King of Spain did the Moors till necessity forced him to expel them by the Inquisition.

Its a false proposition proceeding from Gall and Spleen, only to breed an exulce­ration in the hearts of the people that Ca­tholicks, Protestants, &c. may not be tol­lerated in a well governed wealth, the wi­ser sort will not endure so gross a paradox dayly proved false before their eyes.

It was a notable observation of a wise Father, that those that perswaded pressure of Conscience, were commonly therein in­terressed themselves for their own end. And most that now plead against tollerati­on, would plead as much for it, if they were once under the hatches and their Religion discountenanced By Power, and we that once thought the imposition of a directory unreasonable; & a restraint from our way of worship Ʋnchristian; do not the same reasons remain in vindication of indulgence to others? if you will have li­berty to maintain your own opinions, why should not reason tell you, others will ex­spect the like for themselves. Protestants, Calvinist, Presbiterians, &c. living in po­pish Countries will plead for tolleration.

Our first reformers were great Champi­ons for liberty of Conscience, as Wicliffe in his remonstration to the Parliament: the Albigensis to Lewis the eleventh and twelfth of France. Calvin to Francis the First. Luther to the several Dyets under Frederick and Charls the Fifth; our anci­ent Protestant Divines Musculus, Osiander, S [...]ermius. The Protestants in Swetia de­sired tolleration as Chytraeus sheweth in his Chronicle 1595. and Belloy in Apol. saith, that Melanchton consented. Erasmus la­boured to prove the necessity of it.

While Popery was prevalent in Eng­land, the Pope being then reputed Vicar of Christ in spiritual things, yet notwith­standing so much liberty was given, that no man suffered death for opposing his dictates in Religion: and then in the 2. of Henry the fourth, a Statute being made against the Lollards, the Commons petitioned the King, it might be repealed, and by com­plaint of the Commons it was then in part repealed in Stat. Hen. 8.

A wise Emperor told Henry the third, King of France, there was no greater sin then to force mens consciences, for such as think to Command them, supposing [Page 7] to win heaven, do often loose what they possess on earth. King James in his speech to the Parliment, saith that it is a sure Rule in Divinity, that God never planted the Church by violence or Bloodshed. Much less saith the wise Sir Francis Bacon, ought the Sword to be put in the peoples hands to persecute, nourish sedition, authorize conspiracies, &c. for that is but to dash the first table a­gainst the second, and to Consider men as Christians, as we forget they are men.

The wise Romans in Case of Religion, were very tender and Cautious: for when Cato was Consul and it seemed necessary to the Senate to suppress with violence, the disordered Ceremonies of the Bacchi­nals, brought in by a strange Priest in­to the City; he withstood that sentence, alleging there was nothing so apt to de­ceive men as Religion, which always pre­sents a shew of Divinity; and for that Cause it behooved to be very wary in Chastising the professors thereof, least any indignation should enter into the peoples minds that somewhat was derogated from the Majesty of God.

Others More freely, have not spared to place Religion (I mean that which is ig­norantly Zealous) amongst the kind of frenzies, which cannot be cured other­wise then by time given to divert and qualify the humour of the conceit. Whence Levia said to Augustus, Visne Muliebre Concilium? Let severity sleep a while, and try what what alteration the par­donning of Cinna may procure. The Emperor hearkned to her Counsel, and thereby found his enemies mouths stop­ped, and their Malice abated. A soft gale of wind oft allaies a great storm, the warm Sun will prevail more with the traveller, then cold and boisterous winds. The Goats blood will break the Adamant, which the hardest hammers cannot do: Chronical diseases are not cured by phy­sick and motion, but by time and rest. It fals out many times that the remedy is worse then the disease, and while we go about to cure the State, we kill it, and instead of purging out the peccant humour of the body politick, we cast it into a Calenture or burning feaver. This was not unknown to that wise and good Emperor Theodosius, who could not be [Page 9] perswaded to extirpate or use violent courses against the Arrians, knowing how dangerous it would prove to the state if the quietness thereof should be disturbed.

Lucretius the Poet when he beheld the act of Agamemnon that could endure the sacrificing of his own daughter, exclaimed tantum Religio potuit suadere malorum? what would he have said if he had known and seen the Christian Bloodshed and Vio­lence in Religion in these times? he would have been ten times more Epicure then he was.

We read of Sabbacus a Heathen King of Aethiopia who being by dreams admo­nished, that he could not possess himself of the Kingdom, but by the slaying of the Priests: he chose rather to lay aside the Claim; and to refer the government to twelve wise men; How much more will it become Christians not to lay the founda­tion of Religion upon the Carkasses, spoils and ruins of their distressed neighbors, re­lations, and fellow Subjects?

It hath been an ancient aphorism of State and Wisdome of the greatest Princes, pu­nire raro, it was ascribed to Augustus Caesar as a title of honour, nunquam Civilem san­guinem [Page 10] fudisse: and Seneca, who lived un­der a Tyrant saith, frequens vindicta pau­corum odium reprimit, omnium irritat. Aristotle saith, those are ever held to be most godly Laws that are least Sanguina­ry, and yet maintain Order.

The Kingdome of Christ is not carried on after the fashion of this World, with arms and engines of War, to be erected on the bones and Sepulchres of our Brethren and Fathers. The Throne of Christ is not supported as Solomons, on both sides with Lyons and Tygres, Bears and Wolves; instead of Lambs and Doves, as if we should change our meek, patient, crucified Messias, and had got some Muzzian a Ma­hometan God of Forces, who is to be ser­ved in Buff Coats and Armour. It was a great blasqhemy when the Devil said, I will ascend and be like to the highest; but it is a greater blasphemy to personate God & to bring him, saying, I will descend to be like the Prince of Darkness with furies and persecutions: nay, what is worse to make the Cause of Religion (as is proved by ex­perience this last Century) descend to the Cruel and inhumane murthering of Princes, butchering of the People, rack­ing [Page 11] of Consciences, by Oaths and Seque­strations; surely this is to bring down the Holy Ghost instead of likeness of a Dove into the shape of a Vulture or Raven, and to set out for the Barque of a Christian Church, a Flag of a Barque of Pirats and Assasinates, or to bring in an armatum E­vangelium, Christian Religion in Com­pleat Armour; and Christ marching like Alexander, Hannibal or Caesar: it is hard to pick out Letters of Mart, from the Gospel, or to have any Commission to kill or slay Jesus Christ in order to re­form.

Whence a learned divine of our English Church saith, it is a squalid reformation, that is besmeared with the blood of Chri­stians, it is against the honour, order, unity and majesty of a reformed Church to per­secute, and to be like those canes sepul­chrales, violating the bones and ashes of the dead.

Persecution setteth a man as far from a true Christian temper, as burning Feavers do from natural heat and health, when once a male contented member is grieved then the rest of the body is sensible and se­cretly arm for opposition: all cry pity any [Page 12] should suffer for their conscience, and si­lently say among themselves sors hodierna mihi, Cras erit illa tibi, there being necessary connexion between Civil Liber­ty and that which is Spiritual, and, who would divest any of their spiritual, do a­larm them with just Causes of loosing their Civil.

The nature of man however in hot blood, it be thirsty of revenge, yet in a cooler temper it hath a kind of nausea or distaste of taking the lives even of the most Nocent insomuch that in Assizes or Sessions an Offender can hardly be condemned, whom the pity of many will not after a sort excuse, with laying of impositions on the Judge, part on the Jury, and much on the accusers. Hence the name of a Ser­jeant or Pursuivant is odious and the Exe­cutioner esteemed no better then an ene­my of mankind, and if such as are tender of their reputations be very scrupulous personally to arrest men for civil actions of debt, they will be more unwilling in­struments of drawing their Bodies to the Rack and Gallows, especially when any colour of Religion is pretended in de­fence.

In Counsels concerning Religion that advise of the Apostle should be prefixed, ira hominis non implet justitiam, we are to consider we deal with men and not with beasts, man is to be treated humanly, and a Christian, christianly, with all reason and charity; and of tender Consciences ought to be had a tender respect, man is sensible of gentleness, & may be obliged to quietness, by humanity. Whereas if you take violent courses, and fight against the errors of the times with prisons, dungeons, fetters, oaths, &c. they will make men the grea­ter hypocrites and be occasion of intestine division and bloodshed: experience can speak somewhat in this behalf, which hath evidently des [...]ryed within the current of few years, that severity in Religion, hath years caused the long, known and manifest, miseries of this Nation.

Hence one of our late Divines saith, it is sufficiently known what the immoderation of a preposterous zeal, male contented­ness, ambition and force, hath both ma­chinated, and perpetrated to the destracti­on well nigh destruction of Church and State. The impudence and imprudence of inconsiderable rash spirits, in their acti­ons, [Page 14] passions, and pretences for the Gospel hath caused the slaughter of 200000 in Germany, hath caused, at least occasioned most of the wars, devastations, and blood­shed, the great alterations, tumults & trou­bles in most places of Christiandom, & our late Bishop of Exeter saith, impositions on mens Consciences and Judgments in mat­ters of Religion, to tye them by penal and coercive Statutes (which like Persian sheep) carry tails of incurious mulcts after them, that are heavier then their bo­dies.

To come with swords to put Religion into our heads with main force, is like the watering of Plants with salt streams, or the lighting of a Candle with gun-powder. Never was Christian Religion planted or propagated by wars, by the civil and martial Sword; for God is not pleased with hypocrital and unwilling worshippers for­ced thereto by outward violence; nor are Christian Societies bettered by such force, but oft-times the contrary. Too much seve­rity maketh men desperate & sheweth a will to oppress the offendor, rather then cure the offence, and nothing sheweth more evi­dently that authority inclineth to tyran­ny, [Page 15] then the multitude of Promoters, con­tinual informations, and the name of trea­son made as a Livery to put upon all of­fences.

Unchristian persecution like a violent Chrysis, more frequently taketh away the Patient, then Contributes to his recovery! nourisheth a wrathful devouring spirit one against another, makes us transgressors of that Royal law, which forbids us to do that one to another, we would not have them do to us, were we in their condition: and by this rule whosoever is not against the cruelty of persecution, hath nothing to say against justice, of his being a slave; for what measure he would mete unto others, he deserves himself.

If to hate our brother is murder, as he is man, 1 John 3. 16. sure not only to hate, but even for Religion sake to kill our brother a Christian, and to be destroyers of Chri­stians, are rather deicides, then homicides! and if nothing can have more of Christian then Charity, nothing can have more of Antichristian, then such uncharitableness, which many nourishing for zeal, mistake a Cockatrice for a Dove, and fiery Ser­pent, for a Phenix.

Outward violence in Cause of Religi­on is also condemned by holy Write and d [...]vine authority. Christ commanded both the tares and the wheat should remaine to­g [...]ther in the world, Mat. 13. 30. he re­p [...]oved his Disciples who would have had fi [...]e come down from heaven ro destroy the S [...]maritans, that would not entertain him, in these word, you know what spirit you are of, the son of man came not to de­stroy, Luke 9. 54. the servant of God must not strive but be gentle to all men, 2 Rom. 2. 24. as God hath called every one so let him walk, 1 Cor. 7. 17. they who now are tares may become wheat, who are blind may see, some there be that come not till the eleventh hour, Mat. 20. 6. let your moderation be known unto all men. Phil. 4. 5. who art thou that judgest a­nothers servant, &c. Rom. 4. now I shall be­seech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, 2 Corin. 10. Wo unto them that make a man an offender for a word, or lay a snare for him, Esay.

The Fathers of the primitive times plea­ded against all force in Religion. The Christian Church, saith Saint Hillary, a­gainst Auxentius, doth not persecute but [Page 17] is persecuted. No man is forced against his will by the Christians, saith Lactan­tius. S. Hierom in paenit, cap. 4. saith, that heresie must be cut off by the Sword of the Spirit. And Tertullian saith, seeing he that wants faith and de­votion is unserviceable to God—for God being not contentious would not be wor­shipped by the unwilling. The Arrians were the first introducers of persecution. Let all the Canons of the Church be examined and searched, if one be found that justifies the shedding of blood meer­ly on the score of Religion. S. Augu­stine complaineth, how the Donatists filled with blood and desolation all A­frica, persecuting the Orthodox under Julian the Apostate, Docendo magis quam jubendo, monendo quam minando veritatem agnoscant, Aug. Epist. 63. Fides siquidem suadenda est non imperan­da, ait S. Bernard.

The Churches of the East grievously complained of the Arrians persecution; Athan. Epist. ad Solicar. speaketh much of their inhumane cruelty. Nil tam vo­luntarium quam Religio, cogi non potest­diversa sunt, carnifex & charitas, non [Page 18] potest veritas cum vi, aut justitia cum credulitate conjungi in primitiva Eccle­sia, saith learned Becanus, haeretici non puniebantur morte corporali; alius est spi­ritus legalis, saith he, qui consistebat in severitate, alius est spiritus Evangelicus qui consistit in mansuetudine, hunc debe­tis imitari. Et Apost. ad Titum 3. haere­ticum hominem devita post unam & se­cundam correptionem; Sciens quia sub­versus est; ubi notantur dixit devita, non occide: & Esay 11. 9. non occiderit in universo monte sancto meo, id est, in Ec­clesia, ubi Propheta praedixit doctrinam Evangelii propogandam in Ecclesia sine sanguine & caede. See Becanus. Do­minicus a Soto. in his 4. Sent. & dist. 5. saith every man hath a natural right to instruct others in things that are good, but cannot compell. Strifes about Re­ligion, saith Grotius, are pernicious and destructive where provision is not made for dissenters. Persecution overturns the practice of Religion, from Abel to Moses and the Prophets, even to the meek example of Jesus Christ. The Apo­stles and their Successors for 300 years confirmed their Religion with their own blood [Page 19] and not with the blood of their oppo­sers.

External force in matter of Faith and Worship is repugnant to the nature of Christian Religion, which is meekness; To the practice, which is suffering; To the promotion of it, go teach all Nations. Christian Religion intreats all, compels none. Force never yet made a good Christian or a good Subject. It subverts all Religion, because men believe not, because it is true or false, but because they are Commanded for to do, their interest and security oblige them rather to obey then dispute.

It is very unreasonable to force men to declare or swear where their judg­ments are not fully satisfied; to require Faith where they cannot choose but doubt, to punish them for disobedience, if they go not against their consciences; and to be punished hereafter if they do: For an erroneous Conscience bindeth a man to follow it, according to the lear­ned of all Religions.

Persecution destroyeth the noble principle of reason, for no man can believe before he understands; and no [Page 20] man can understand before he is taught: for Faith in all acts of Religion is ne­cessary. Now to believe we must first will, to will we must judge; to judge any thing we must understand; which cannot be forced. How can the le­prous disease of the mind be cured with corporal catoplasts? or mens judgments be convinced of the truth by tormen­ting their Bodies? the inflictions then of external punishments for meer mental errors (not wilful) is unreasonable and inadaequate, for as corporal penalties cannot convince the understanding, so neither can they be proportionable mulct▪ for faults purely intellectual.

Before we can with justice inflict pe­nalties upon any different profession, we ought to use all means possible to re­cover them to truth. Arguments to rational creatures as Christians, are to instruct, admonish, warn, and finally to reject; to come to them full of compas­sion of their misery, full of affection of their Salvation by reasonable and per­suasive motives suitable to their own na­ture; by somethng can resolve its doubts answer its objections, tenets, and Propo­sitions. [Page 21] Whence our first work should be to collect a Body of positive articles evi­dently contained in Scripture and abso­lutely necessary to salvation (for its im­proper to pen the form of Faith in the negative) because my believing Christian truths makes me a Christian, and not my disbelieving the errors that oppose it; else he that believes nothing at all would be the best Christian.

We must fight against Antichrist by lawful ways prescribed by the Word of God, by the spirit of his mouth, in preaching, instructing in Charity, Pa­tience, humility, according to the ex­ample of Christ and his Apostles. The weapons of Christian warfare are not Carnal but Spiritual, 2 Cor. 10. For as they were not the warlike engines of Joshua, but the trumpets of the San­ctuary, that made the walls of Jericho to fall down: So it is not the Canon, but the trumpet of the Gospel, which is re­quired to pull down the walls of Baby­lon. True Religion was never advan­ced by these ways, but propagated by patient sufferings: the Example of Je­sus Christ is so far from persecuting, [Page 22] that he would not revile his persecutors; prayed for them; saith, go teach all nations, &c. The Text directs Christs procedure in teaching, not in devour­ing.

Wherefore all wise, humble, and cha­ritable Christians should so Order their judgments and Censures, if at any time they are forced to declare them; they must above all things take heed they nourish not, nor discover any unchari­table fewds, antipathies, distances against others, after the rule of those passions, which were the common source of Schism and Heresies. The free, meek, and solid piety feeds it self on the sub­stance of Religion, without picking quar­rels at the shell; free from the supersti­tion and hypochondriacal Zeal of some who pretend to advance the Kingdom of Christ by cutting the throats of his Disciples, and cementing his temples with blood, instead of the Cement of charity.

CAP. II. Persecution is against Policy and Piety.

THe grand fomenters of persecution can be no friends to the English State, for what but im­position, immoderation and restraint in the cause of Religion (as a learned divine Noteth) hath turned Episcopacy into Presbytery▪ Presbytery into Independancy, Independancy into Quakerism, Religion into Policy, Refor­mation into Innovation, Profession into Pretence, Ministery into Souldiers, Soul­diers into Preachers, Churches into Sta­bles, Pulpits into Tubs, Degrees into Parity, Pastors into Hirelings, Aposto­lical Hierarchy into Anarchy, with a­busive fumes and flames to build Babels of their own.

I am not able to express (saith another great Doctor of our English Church) how high an impiety it is, that at this time when Gods hand is out against us justly for our sins, to be disposed and fixed upon a resolution that to redeem external peace we will persecute, &c.—I admire to see too too many in Parliament here amongst us where is great plenty of able Gentlemen of ex­cellent learning, worth, wit and other perfections and endowments, as any nation besides: to be inclinable if not actually resolved in all meetings to feud about the Rom. Religion especi­ally now after this tryal of their hone­sty—more is to be admired, the pre­posterous machinations, and motions even of Churchmen, who by the Ca­nons are forbid to have any hand in blood—when they forsake the ancient refuges of Christians which were preaching and tears, and betake them­selves to swords and helmets, plots, conspiracies and pursuivants.

Wisemen have seen those obscurities and disgraces which as black shadows have attended even Churchmen. Per­secution [Page 25] is fitter for the hands of Cy­clops who forged Jupiters Thunder­bolts, then the Priests of the Gods. Bishops should always be tender of good consciences, and of the honour of Christian Religion: which was not wont to see Ministers, rough and tar­getted as the Rhinoceroes, b [...] soft and gentle, cloathed as the Sheep and Sheepheards of Christ. There is not a more portentous sight then to see galeatos Clericos. Christ long ago in the person of Saint Peter commanded them to put up their Swords; nor was he ever heard to repeal that word; or Bid them draw their Swords; no not in Christs Cause (that is meerly for Religion) who hath legions of An­gels, armies of Truth, gifts of Graces of the Spirit to defend himself and his true interest in Religion withal—and a little after—

Indeed our Ecclesiastical Rulers have reason to steer us cautiously, since they sit at the Helm in such a Ship, as hath thrown very many Pilots over board—it becomes those Bishops now got up newly to be most calm, quiet, and se­date Spirits—

The great alteration of the Body of the People since these last twenty years require that our old ends of pro­moting the welfare of the Church of England should be attained by the con­duct of new means—Bishops should compose the affections of the People by Liberty of Conscience, and not Acts of Ʋniformity, for the greatest assertors of Episcopacy and Ceremonies of the Church are lodged in their Graves; and the present major part of this Land consists in those to whom the introducing of the old Church Pre­latical Government, will seem an Inno­vation: Its the interest of the Clergy here to temper the Government of the Church: for its irrational to think that any Church Government (in a Prote­stant Country of Sectaries) can be ac­commodated to the content and satis­faction of all: which restraineth a large and almost absolute power to the heads of a few Protestant Bishops.

Its the concern of none but Soul­diers of Fortune to oppose due Liberty of Conscience. Whence the wise King James had wholly repealed the penal [Page 27] Statutes engaged so to do (and Papistry then was declared tolerable) had he not been diverted from it by Cecil and o­ther Upstarts and Politicians, whose in­terest was begun and grounded upon Heresie and destruction of the ancient Nobility and Gentry of the Kingdome. For in his Speech, Sess. 1. Printed 161 [...]. My mind, saith he, was ever free from per­secuting and thralling my Subjects in mat­ters of Conscience, and in his next words— I was so far from increasing their burdens with Roboam, as I have so much as either time, occasion, or law would permit me to have, lightened them. And in his Censure against Conradus Vorstius the Dutch Heretick, recounting the dif­ference between Protestants and Catho­licks, he findeth not any for which Papists may be persecuted but rather the con­trary.

You may object persecution is neces­sary in Policy of State. I answer, who is swayed by this motive runs but the indirect way of State-Policy! and makes use of a title of that name only, to sup­port what his ambition, malice, or in­terest inforces him too; and is guilty not [Page 28] only of his own Evils, but whatever o­thers are thereby occasioned, in oppres­sion of others. These mysteries of Ma­chiavel have been to far discovered to be of no use in this Nation for the future. This Cloak of formal Godliness is now worn thredbare, and almost all men sees it to be but a Cloak. Such specious devises appear now to be but like Flock­work upon Canvas scattered over with glittering Copper or Tinsel. Experi­ence hath made almost every Body able to look not only on the Colours and Pretext, but the depth and motive of every such design.

The infinite eye and wisdome of God doth pierce through all our pretences; and his justice doth require no other accuser then our own consciences; which neither the false beauty of our actions, nor all the formality (which to pacifie the opinions of men) we put on, can in the least kind cover from his knowledge. We know that a good pretence cannot justifie a bad action; and therefore we ought to be as sollitous about the lawfulness of the means; as a­bout the goodness of the end: it is a [Page 29] maxime in morality that, bonum oritur ex integris; and in Christianity, that we must not do evil that good may come of it.

There is nothing that God's pure and undeluded eye looks on with more ab­horrence then Pseudopolicy, we may de­ceive men, but its in vain to put Ironies upon God. A Counterfeit Religion shall find a real hell. And who have conspi­red with the wrath of God in the stu­pefaction of their consciences, though they may for a time struggle with those inward checks, yet there will be a day (if not in this life) when that Witness, that Judge, that Jury will not be bri­bed. Let it be part of our dayly ori­sons, that God would banish this cur­sed Policy, out of Europe and the whole World; and damn it down to Hell from whence it originally came: and such as delight to abuse others, think of that self-cousenage, with which in the interim, they abuse themselves, God permitting the Devil to wrong the Im­postor.

Admit that for some worldly respect, Laws were necessary in State-Policy [Page 30] for the time wherein they were enacted; yet the time changing, and those causes entirely ceasing which made them seem necessary: now it will not only be safe but necessary to repeal them; when af­ter such tria [...]s there is no cause of suspi­tion remaining n [...]r [...]olour of jealousie, at least none but what may easily be removed by the wisdom of the State, and plenary satisfaction in behalf to themselves.

Wary superpoliticks are over curious Spirits, plead policy against Piety, and prefer outward safety before inward peace, subject Faith and Truth to Policy, our private and civil good to interest; Religion is suited to Government, and Conscience to connivency. What is Policy against Religion? If it be iniqui­ty, injustice, and oppression to treat men so without cause or demerit, it is not any feigned imaginary reason of State, will excuse those who act and give counsel to such unchristian acts; lest the Blood of Souls lie upon their account another day.

More Families have been ruined, more persons imprisoned, more moneys [Page 31] spent by the cruelty of persecution, than by all Law-Suits in the Courts of Judicature, or payments and ordina­ry Taxes. Our Church-wardens are per­jured that swear to present them to eve­ry Sessions (though imposing of such an Oath is breach of the Fundamental Laws of the Land) and those Church-wardens that are not perjured, but pursue the Oath, in persecuting their neighbors are plunged with a horrid guilt of Consci­ence. Now there are above 9285 pa­rishes in England, and seventy four thou­sand Church-wardens and Sides-men in England every year, and what a dread­ful thing is it to have all these yearly either perjured, persecuted or Persecu­tors?

I am by many reasons induced to con­clude, that this severe ungospellary way of proceeding hath been the cause of ruin of Trade, impoverishing; and many af­flictions of this Nation. It hath made us an Obloquy to all our Neighbors, hinders Traffique, becomes a prejudice to the Reformed beyond Seas, a dis­contenting our Friends at Home, a Scandal to all the World, a disheart­ning [Page 32] of a great many good Subjects: Persecution stops all our Friends mouths, weakens their hands, and droops their hearts; on this account many families, have left the Land to remove into some country where they may have liberty, by this means the trading stock of the Nation is conveyed away. To use ex­ternal force in matters purely of Faith and Religion, you must side with and support all corrupt interest, tire and weary out your selves with never-failing troubles and anxious difficulties, atten­ded with a hundred fears: and in con­clusion if you prosper in such practices, you would but leave Posterity partakers of the Bondage you entail upon the People.

What benefit or credit was ever got by persecution these eighty years? have not many noble persons on that account left the Land? many Religious men and women cloistered, to retire to spend their means and lives in other Coun­treys? have not Princes and States of that Religion expressed much disatisfa­ction to see them unmercifully used? hath not a general consumption of com­fort, [Page 33] unity, affection, settlement, and content, and many sad mischiefs befallen us the last Century on this only score? & hath not God shewed his just chastise­ments, judgments upon the chief actors, complices, contrivers and abetters of such inhumane proceedings, as in Cromwel, Cecil, Dudley, Leicester, Somerset, Wal­singham, Bacon, &c.

We deceive our selves to promise or exspect to King or Kingdome, Prince or Subject, Peace or Safety, or Deliverance from our Troubles, if we subordinate Fundamentals in Religion and necessary Truths of Faith to our private or ci­vil Interest.

If he be an unwise man who provides means, where he designs no end: per­secutors will never be able to accomplish their end. For experience tells us, that punishments and persecutions never les­sens the resolution of Christians, but al­waies heightens Zeal and sometimes draws men into leagued Factions: which indulgence and favour would prevent.

It is observed by all lookers into An­tiquity, that Christian Religion still got ground in the world, not by persecuting [Page 34] but by being persecuted. And our pe­nal Laws, rather increased then hindred the growth of Popery. Whence King James observed that Sanguis Marty­rum est semen Ecclesiae, the spilling of Christian Blood is but the water­ing of Christ's Vineyard. This Pine-Tree the more it is pressed, the high­er it groweth. This Camomile the more it is troden the thicker it co­meth up. This Walnut-Tree the more it is beaten, the more fruitful it wax­eth.

Yea even the Non-Conformists are likely still to increase, as from Edward the sixts time to this, they have gradual­ly done, notwithstanding the rigour of Ecclesiasticks aga [...]nst them, and that which we cannot without horror observe, is, the not allowing of a due and regular Liberty of Conscience hath instead of advancing the Cause of Religion propa­gated Atheism in this Nation. It hath been an old Stratagem of Satan to op­pose Religion against Religion, to leave us none at all.

It hath been likewise observed as a shuffling hypocritical distinction of Law­yers [Page 35] (invented to deceive the innocent) pretending none are executed or suffer for Religion or Conscience, but for Treason; or offending the Laws. Who doth not see but by this rule those Bloo­dy Tyrants Nero, Dioclesian, Maximine, &c. must be conscientious, because they judged according to the Law? and those glorious Martyrs must be counted Traitors? nay even the cursed Jews who crucified Christ alledged the self-same reason; we have a Law and by our Law he ought to die, John 19. 7.

Treason must alwaies be some action or intention discovered prejudicial to the Soveraign or State: not an Opini­on or Profession of Religion. For this reason Sir John Old-Castle in the Reign of Henry the fifth, for his Treason was condemned in one Court, and for his Heresie, in another. So were Cranmer and Ridley in Queen Maries time. And therefore also it is by the statute provid­ed 22 and 27 Eliz. that if a Priest con­forms, he is actually discharged of all imputation of treason; no further pro­ceeding can lye against him.

If Priest-hood be no treason, a Priest [Page 14] in that he is a Priest can be no Traytor: unless we will account Apostles and all an­cient Priests both of England & all Coun­tries, whom Kings and Emperors have honoured, and loved; as their faithful friends and subjects. So far thought them from being enemies to their Crown; that from their hands all Prin­ces received their Crowns, Consecrati­ons, and Scepters.

CAP. III. Liberty or Toleration Rightly understood, is equitable, just or necessary to several Re­ligions.

I Have viewed most of the Tracts concerning Toleration, pro and con; Some I find o­ver strict and nice, au­stere, and rigid: others profane and loose, arbi­trary and remiss: and betwixt them both toleration ever scrapes the imputa­tion of calumnie, either of too much restriction, or profane relaxation: nei­ther of them will know that true liberty is a middle kind of equity, indulgency, benignity, betwixt both extreams: not curst and cruel, but tender and compassi­onate, hath her commendation; for mode­rative, [Page 38] rather than vindicative: minding rather to amend than confound: not rash and arbitrary dispensing with the Law as if it were but a leaden rule; but circumspectly and benignly interpre­ting it, that it might not prove an Iron-Rod.

We plead then only for such a Liber­ty of Conscience, as preserves the Nation in Trade, Peace, and Commerce; which preserves a fair entercourse and corre­spondency one with another, and with their respective members: and would not exempt any man or party of men from not keeping those excellent Laws, that tend to sober, just, and industrious living in a due Christian regulation; consistent with the evident Laws of God and quiet Government; and that indulg­ing Dissenters in the sense defended, is not only, most Christian and rational, but prudent also: and conformable to his Majesties Gracious Declaration.

It appears of neither pace to drive on furiously with Jehu in matters of Policy, nor that he go softly with Ahab in matters of Piety. In matters of Scruple or Contro­versie, it likes well of nothing but walking [Page 39] with a Right Conscience, Gal. 2. 24. and that also of free choice like the Israelites among the Edomites, Num [...]. 22. 26. a­bove all it hates to remove the ancient Land-Marks, whether of Law or Reli­gion, Deut. 19. 14. not thirsting one anothers Blood, nor invading ano­thers rights as Wolves and Tygers; but as the Apostle saith, sobrie, juste, & pie.

It being an apt Mediety or medi­ocrity betwixt the Rigid contention of a furious Zeal or emulation, and the Luke-warm disposition of a reachless in­differency or neutrality: and though it be tender and compassionate as a mo­ther; yet she is far from being over- remiss, Licentious or irregular, whence some wise men take it for a Master-piece of prudence wisely discerning 'twixt what is just and fit; and so giving sentence rather congruously then se­verely.

School-men and Moralists make it to be a potential part of justice bringing (not severely) the Fact home to the Law: but rather in equity the Law down to the Fact, regulating the strict [Page 40] words and rigour, for the common good and particular relief of pesons in certain facts, times, contingencies and circum­stances. 'Tis a part of temperance amia­ble and amicable. 'Tis severally transla­ted and hath many Epithets in holy Scripture, Modesty, equi­ty, 2 Cor. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 10. Phil. 4. 5. 2 Tim. 2. humanity, gentleness, clemen­cy, courtesie, patience of Spirit. 'Tis the blessing and comfort of peace and unity in the Church, of plenty and tranquillity in the Common-wealth; of plain sa­tisfaction to the Conscience, and of plenary contentation to all sorts and conditions of rational men. Nothing can be easie, sweet, and safe, in our lives, Religion, Consciences, or liberties to God or man without it: without it we be tedious to our selves and troublesome one to another.

This virtue is not a little illustrated by its contrary opposit, Persecution, immo­deration, austerity, rigidness, inexorable­ness, compulsion, imposition, &c. which is an extream vitiousness in persons, in their judgments, opinions, passions, affe­ctions, pretences, actions, and designs: [Page 41] of which we have been more pathetically sensible in the effects, than in the qua­lities.

This medium therefore or middle kind of equity, indulgency or liberty betwixt both extremities aforesaid, is the most just and reasonable unto which all Chri­stians have a right and title too; by vir­tue and purchase of Christ's Blood, Death and Resurrection, who is become sole Lord over the Soul, unto whom we are to give account only as our proper Judg, in matters purely internal and Spi­ritual: for in this the Judicatures of men are not capable to make a clear judgment, or declare certainly who are in the right or wrong.

This Freedome of Conscience is of so high concern to all (and not only to be enjoyed by the strongest party) as well for the Magistrates sake as the Peoples common good; and it consists in the Magistrates forbearing to impose pressures and penalties in matters of Faith and Conscience, lest they intrude into the Office of Christ, to whose de­cision such actions are only liable.

The ancient original Fundamental [Page 42] Laws (by which other Laws of less ex­tent) are to be regulated were intended as a Defence and Protection to all: providing, one injure not another; and that Common Peace and Safety be se­cured; no other subsequent inferiour Law can therefore debar any peaceable Christian, that answers the necessities of Church and State, Civil, Spiritual and Political) in equal justice, and in foro Conscientiae from this priviledge original­ly due to all: For they that are contribu­taries to the peace and maintenance of Government, are intitled to a protecti­on from it, according to the just nature of government which consists in a fair and equal retribution. Whence a late Presb. Divine confesseth, none ever saw any argument yet could clearly evince, why any sort of men who would pro­fess a peaceable subjection unto the Ci­vil Government, might not in all their Ci­vil Rights be protected by it.

I conceive it therefore most clear, both in right reason and true Religion: that Governours ought to move in that middle way between tolerating all dif­ferences and none at all in matters of [Page 43] Religion: wherein men are variously to be considered, according to the pro­fession they own and make of Religion: as none are to be tolerated in Blasphe­my, or any that have cast off all sense of justice, order, shame and humanity (see­ing the nature of man is more prone to imbibe noxious things then to eject them) so true virtuous liberty is not to be in­fringed; nor any who can give a sober Christian and rational account for their principles and profession to Church and State. For the Power among Chrstians should not be a hard and sharp rock dash­ing presently all in pieces that touch, and strike at it in the least kind though never so modestly.

Christian Religion (saith a learned Divine) hath moderated the extremity of Servitude as to Civil things in all places where it was received, when cer­tainly it is much more consonant to that Religion, and especially that form of Religion which hath asserted its Spiritu­al Liberty from the impositions of o­thers, to allow a Spiritual Freedom to others.

Another of our Divines saith, Chri­stian [Page 44] Religion ought not to be made a snare, harrow, a rack, or heavy yoak, or an Egyptian bondage, to mens minds and consciences: this were to turn the sweetest vine into a sharp bramble, and fig-tree into a thorn: nor is there any thing Christians should be more ten­der of (as the Ephesine Fathers admo­nish) than their own and others true li­berty, Christ hath purchased with his pretious Blood: of which Christian Magistrates should be exact keepers and conscientious defenders, lest piety prove an oppression, and the bracelets and ornaments of Religion become the chains of hypocrisie and manacles of su­perstition binding such heavy burdens on mens Consciences which God hath not imposed, but exempted from their Commission.

The best way to convince opposers is by instructing them in meekness in the Spirit of Love, by suitable acts of indul­gency; for our dear Lord that bought us, will take nothing more kindly at this time from us (saith an ingenious Author) as to be pitiful to his Servants, who are di­stressed about your acts in point of Consci­ence, [Page 45] & who the more distressed they are and like to our Lord, the fitter subjects they are for your Compassion. If you had no need of mercy from God, it were tolerable then for you to be extream to­wards others. In point of Christianity we should be merciful unto them as our heavenly Father is merciful, Luke 6. 36. Mercy is to be preferred before Sacri­fice.

No torture, no rack or tyranny so great as when exercised on the conscience, for­cing to declare or swear where their judgments are not fully satisfied Force may make an hypocrite, it is Faith groun­ded on knowledge and consent that makes a Christian: no war so passionate as the war of Conscience, in Factions, Conventicles, Associations, and Sects: such practises become not the Gospel, nor are suitable to Christ's meek Precepts, Sufferings and Doctrine. True Christi­an Concord is the consequence only of a favourable benignity or toleration as be­fore circumstantiated.

For a true Christian following the rules, precepts, and examples of our Saviour Je­sus Christ, loveth God above all things, [Page 46] and his Neighbour as himself, doth injury to no man, pardoneth all inju­ries done to him, esteemeth and ho­noureth every one according to his de­gree and merit, represseth all concupi­sence, unlawful desires, obeyeth Ma­gistrates, Superiours and laws as the or­dinance of God; Non propter [...]iram Sed propter justitiam. Rom. 13. Not for fear but conscience. Yeildeth to every one his due; to Caesar, that which is due to Caesar, &c. And finally preferreth in all things the publick wealth before his private Commodity: hence it fol­loweth that in whatsoever state he li­veth, he is humble, meek, peaceable, obedient, temperate, just, religious, and consequently a good and excellent member of his Common-wealth; inso­much that if the precepts of Christian Religion were followed, there should need no Political Law, which as the Apostle saith, posita est injustis & non subditis, ordained for the disobedient and unjust.

Christian Religion in respect of the means it giveth for attaining of true perfection and virtue, and for the pu­rity [Page 47] and excellency of the doctrine, and of rites and ceremonies, is truly Politi­cal, and most necessary for Government of state; whence whosoever is a true and perfect Christian, is and must needs be, Bonus Civis, a good Citizen as Ari­stotle termeth a good member of the Common-Wealth.

This was evident to the Paynims, when they considered Christian Doctrine, without Passion and partiality: that Pliny the Second, being proconsul of Asia under Trajan Emperour, acknow­ledged the same in an Epistle to Trajan, written in favour of persecuted Christi­ans in his Jurisdiction; testifying of them they were an innocent and harmless people; whose custom and exercise was to assemble themselves in the night to sing Hymns and Praises to Jesus Christ; and that they promised and vowed to Commit no offence; or do any hurt to other men: not to steal, rob, perju­ry, break promise, &c. upon which testi­mony Trajan ordained no Christian should be further punished or inquired of, for their Religion, Euseb. l. 3. Ecclesiast. c. 27. and his Successor A­drian [Page 84] upon Like suggestion and infor­mation given by a noble man, Called Serennio Gramiano gave order to Mi­nutius Fundanus his proconsul; that Chri­stians should not be punished, Euseb. l. 4. c. 8. Hist. Eccles. Thus ordai­ [...]ed they, knowing only some points of Christian Religion: if they had un­derstood how it reforms mens manners, how the Canons, Codes, institutes, digests out of the Corpus Civile, are congruous & consonant with the good of Civil society, they would not have held it only to­lerable, but even necessary for esta­blishment and conservation of Gover­ment.

As nothing is more plain and sure then that the tolerating of all Sects, errors and faults, which conscience may pretend for: or of none at all, are ut­terly destructive of Christian and hu­man peace, society and safety, nor is he well in his wits that holdeth either part universally or unlimitted (who thinketh all or none to be tolerated) for by the one we should have no government, and by the other in time, by death, banish­ments, persecutions &c. we should have [Page 49] no Subjects to be governed, nor have any Servant; so no Master, no Wife, so no Husband.

So seeing an universal unity among Christians is not to be attained, a tolera­tion of things tolerable is not only law­ful but necessary: a Latitude of Liberty is left in such things as are not clearly and positively laid down in Scripture: Or in things of private practice, Rom. 14. 22. hast thou faith, have it to thy Self.

But then it may be objected, seeing toleration must have its bounds and limits, and those are almost indiscoverable, viz. what points are necessary? and what not? what Sects and Opinions tolerable? and what not? and who must be the Judge? or else we must deal partially, and unjustly condemn one Sect and tole­rate others?

I answer we must not cast away rea­son, because there is a difficulty in using it aright. What if be a hard thing to enumerate how many bits a man may eat and not be a glutton? or how much drink and not a drunkard? or what meats or drinks must be used to avoid ex­cess [Page 50] in quality? or what cloth, silks, fa­shion, may be used without excess in ap­parel? will you thence infer that men may eat and drink any think in quantity or quality, or else nothing? or wear any thing or else go naked? as long as it is certain such a difference there is that some opinons are tolerable and some not; you must distinguish; and then you will find a necessity of discerning as you can ac­cording to right reason and grounds of Christianity, the Tolerable from the in­tolerable.

The profession of the Creed and those who give some solid, succinct and apodi­ctical account directly grounded on Scripture, rightly understood, or in right regulated reason which is able to bear a superstructure of Christian Doctrin and practice (as enumerated afore) agree­ing upon the summary of Belief in positive, evident, and fundamental points suitable to the Apostolical Symbol, are conditi­ons which require necessarily indulgency and toleration.

In these regards then, there can be no prevalent objections urged, why a wise State may not tolerate (at least in pri­vate) [Page 51] different Religions: when other­wise the publick may be intangled or endangered; or rather because the con­science cannot be compelled or Faith forced. And more especially if they be such Religions as do not overthrow the fundamentals of Truth. Nor such as di­sturbe or impugn the Government esta­blished. Or if the professors thereof be such as are not factious or pertinacious, but honest, simple, tractable, obedient to Superiours having no other end in holding their Opinions in Religion, than Gods glory or satisfaction of their own consciences, and withall are willing to submit to better judgments, when they are convinced to be Erroneous.

In this respect the late gratious Decla­ration for Liberty doth sufficiently ap­pear (to all impartial men) to be pru­dent, pious, and politick. For this pur­pose, the Turks and Muscovites inhibited all disputations in matter of Religion, upon pain of Death: the like inhibition was made by the Emperour and Princes in Germany after their Civil Wars; that there should be no Contention between Catholicks and Protestants, to this end [Page 52] that there may be no breach of Peace and disturbance in the Government of the State.

Hence Leo Emperour made an Edict of union Called [...]; that all the diffe­rent Religions within his Dominions might live quietly and friendly to­gether. For the same Cause Anastasi­us made a Law of Amnesty and ac­counted those the best Preachers that were moderate.

Since there must be Heresies and our judgments are as different as our Faces; since breeding and education doth so much sway, and hath so great influence on many Religions; and that Sectaries are grown numerous; we ought to have a Latitude of Charity for those that dissent, if they be not Impostors, or turbulent Incendiaries. Dissenters in Controversies are obliged to a mutual toleration. We cannot be ignorant of other States and Kingdomes (and now very lately in the Empire and Denmark) those that Dissent from the Religion publikely authorized, are permitted and secured so long, as they do not affront Civil or Ecclesiastick Laws. For true [Page 53] Christianity addeth such force and vi­gour to Civil Power by planting in Mens hearts the awe of Religion (which is the main pillar of obedience) by weeding out such Errors, as humane authority would have much adoe to pluck up.

CAP. IV. Toleration or Liberty impro­perly taken and unlimited is neither reasonable nor justifiable.

I Dare not positively af­firm that the Civil Ma­gistrate is not to inter­meddle at all in matters of Religion: but how far he is to proceed and not exceed his Commission is disputable; seeing lear­ned Divines generally hold that the bond between the Magistrate, and the Subject is essentially Civil.

Querulous persons have shown a Chil­dishness in their complaints; without tel­ling what the very thing is that troubles them, and how far they would have it [Page 55] removed; and so complain for want of Liberty, because they have not their Wills: cry out before they know their own minds fully, or take care the Magi­strate shall know them otherwise then by inspiration.

Its the opinion of injudicious furious Spirits that no truth is to be silenced for Peace, or forborn for spiritual advantage or true necessity. For every one to hold what he pleaseth, and publish and Preach what he holds, confined to no rule of Order, but contemning law, will rule as Transcendents. For as Plato saith, its a temerarious Liberty, to pronounce of what is known and unknown with like confidence. Tell us of obeying the Laws of God as long as you please, I dare not believe you as long as you break the Laws of those appointed to rule over you: it is a distinction with­out difference, to separate and divide the Laws of Men, from the Laws of God; for unless we observe both we obey neither, saith Hooker, l. 3. c. 107.

Here I confess Christian Governours are not to regard such pleas for private [Page 56] Liberty as overthrow the Publick Or­der and Peace, nor to regard those Cla­mours against them and the Laws as per­secuting: when they do but oppose and restrain such perillous exorbitancies; as have no savour of reason or Religion, which strikes at the foundation of Chri­stianity, and openeth a gap to Atheism, Profaneness and Blasphemy. Here the Magistrate must interpose his Co [...]rcive Power for remedy. Nor are they in this infringers of the Peoples Liberty, but preservers of Freedome: not oppressors of others Consciences, but dischargers of their own.

Its a false Liberty to imagine our Li­berty consists in speaking or doing what we List, without regard to God or man. Its no freedom for a man to think what he lists, in vain, erroneous, Blasphemous thoughts, or to bolt out and vent his raw indigested and rotten fancies, or irreligious opinions to others: its far from Christian Liberty, for any Christian to start up loose Principles, destructive to Government, subverting Order, violating Laws, breaking Oaths and Covenants; contemning Authority: [Page 57] for every one to hold what he pleaseth, and publish and Preach what he holds; upon light popular and untried grounds: and publickly to act according to his pri­vate perswasions, passions lusts, or inter­ests: wherein neither right reason, nor common Order, nor publick peace, nor Conscience of Duty, nor fear of God have any such serious tyes upon men as necessary to the common good.

No Christian I say can religiously plead for a Liberty, seditiously and factiously, to broach to others any new opinions he pleaseth. Nor may any part of men (though never so godly) carry on any design (though it may be better than what at present may be) by any violent, irregular and disorderly ways. For eve­ry Christian duty hath its Bounds beyond which it is not true and virtuous Liber­ty, but inordinateness and excess. Some mens pedantick incivilities to the Consci­ences of others may be instructive to us, as to convince the necessity of setting out true bounds of Liberty; which should not be granted on other terms, then as far as it conduceth to Gods ho­nour and the Peoples good. For if pub­lick [Page 58] power should suffer arrogant igno­rance, excess of passion, perversness of will, to come to its full rudeness and ex­tent: tumultuary numbers and brutish Power will soon make good private pre­sumptions; and cover over the most im­potent Lusts, passions and ambitions of men, with the pleas and outcryes of Christian Liberty.

For that is no other freedome, then that as water enjoys when it overbears and overflows her Banks and Bounds: and such as the envious and malitious Devils affects, and are most impatient not to enjoy: nor may they be touched or curbed by any authority in Church or State, be their extravagancies never so blasphemous; but presently they make great clamours of persecution: as if all were persecutors who helped to bind a Mad-man, or put a roaring drunkard in­to the Cage.

The vitious are not to be counted into the sort of meer Dissenters. Soci­nians who are enemies to the Blessed Trinity; Atheists who hold Principles destructive to Christianity, and those Parties whose Religion forbids subjection, [Page 59] and carries an opposition to civil Go­vernment; and Commands by Fire, and Sword to erect their new Spiritual King­dom. And those who hold forth noti­ons and conceptions reforming or wholly changing the state of Religion and Go­vernment; and in order to that shake even the frame of Civil things; to which they think themselves no longer bound in subjection, then they want a party strong enough for opposition: nor will they easily be perswaded that it is the sin of Rebellion, carries the face of refor­mation: easily dispensing with obedience to men, where they pretend amendment before God: putting on Sheeps Cloath­ing to no other purpose but the renting of Christs seemless Coat. Sow to them­selves leaves of frivolous pretences: di­spute, Preach, Plead, Clamour, about moderation and Liberty, when all the immoderation is in themselves, contend to have priviledges, prerogatives, free­dome regulated so and so: yet would they examine themselves, nothing needs more regulation then their own judg­ments, opinions and humours.

There be others of hotter tempers, [Page 60] more Cholerick Constitutions, and fea­verish complexions, have such ferocious Spirits like pampered Horses whom no ground will hold: dayly neighing after novelties: who love to be moving in the troubled waters of secular affairs, who seem most impatient of any order or publick rule in which they have not some stroak or influence: ready to un­do whatever is done without them; their Brest is full of turbulent and sedi­tious Spirits as the Cave of Aeolus of Winds. Forgetting what Spirit becomes followers of the Gospel: whose heads are prone to move their hearts with Spe­cious novelties, quick excitations, and zealous resolutions, which soon after (like salt-streams) descend and fall upon their Lungs provoking them violently to the spreading their opinions to others, till they see the Children of their brains prove meer abortions. To the misguided activity of such (even Mini­sters) the Commonalty may owe much of its troubles.

These only and the like most truly forfeit their Christian private Liberty, to the publick discretion and power: [Page 61] who will not, or cannot use it, but to the publick detriment. Beware then of Compliances with, and indulgence to all sorts, Sects and Schisms pleaded for: as if it were a part of Christs Legacy and Peoples Liberty to be tolerated in any Actions or Opinions never so per­nicious. Saint Paul beseecheth the Romans to mark those that Cause divi­sions and offences contrary to the doctrine received, Rom. 4. 6, 17.

As an absolute unity in judgment is not to be attained in this Life: so an universal or absolute Liberty is not to be permitted or indulged in things injurious to God. Toleration of all things is a destructive principle to State and Church, a Cloak to Licentious­ness, ushereth in Atheism and Liberti­nism; Transports Men oft-times to such excesses beyond those bounds of duty which as Subjects we ought to observe; Hath many Latitudes, evasions, and di­stinctions to unravel the Cords of any Oaths, and untwist the Bonds of any Covenant or Protestations.

Those who are most pregnant and impatient of holding in their Opinions [Page 62] on the pretence of Truth, do but proudly esteem their own understand­ings pretious: to vend some raw and indigested notions. The Devil usually pretends Truth to Cover his Lyes. Clamour must not prevail but reason. Is it to follow the dire­ction of Christ to Preach on the House-top? If there were a Nero or Dioclesian at the Helm, who should threaten to mingle our Blood with our Sacrifices, if you had your Antelencana, and should flock in­to Caves of the Earth to worship Christ, your zeal would be more to­lerable.

True Christian toleration extends not to matters of an extern nature: wherefore Magistrates may use a Coer­cive hinderance from publick Meetings, without impeaching it. When Subjects have expressed a due Regulation in it, then is a King in Capacity to shew a God-like benignity and Power in granting the things they ask, as conducing to God's honour and the Peoples Good: nor is it rational to be granted on other terms. For Religion cannot be defend­ed [Page 63] by transgression of God's Commands, which are the rule of it.

The true Liberty of conscience of any man, consists in a Constant ten­dency or intention to the Supream end, and those holy regulations which God hath prescribed; as it stands in referrence to God its Creator, and its Neighbour; Wherein a Christian is free to declare and utter them, to know, consider, meditate of; and believe whatever Truth God hath revealed; When he is free to declare and utter them in such a holy way, which Charity, Sobrie­ty, Modesty, Order and Gravity al­low: or conferring so with others, as may have some savour of Reason and Religion, in an humble and holy desire to learn, or teach in a regular, not in a rude, insolent and imperious way. A wise humble Christian is never far from his re­fuge, and when pursued and ur­ged, beyond what he thinks a­greeablt to good Conscience, he is not to seek for, or take Foxes shifts, subtil windings, or sinful co­verts: [Page 64] Is more willing to hear, then earnest to object, and labours to acquiesce in others satisfaction, as well as his own, becomes all things to all men in regard of things Civil and extern.

CAP. V. Whether the Romanists have not a just and equal title to Toleration?

SUch is the multiplying of that breath giving Life, which God hath cast upon slime and dust: as every one hath received a several ex­ternal figure of Face, and every one a diverse internal form of mind, every one a Cogitation and fancy distant: from whence it cometh that there is so great diversity of Opinions; so strange a contrariety of inclinations; so different affections and passions in mor­tal men, that no ordinary means is for­cible enough to perswade them to any thing to which their private Spirits or imaginations are not inclined. Hence [Page 66] so many Scripture interpretations, so ma­ny quarrels and divisions in Religion even to Massacres. Evils unknown to the very Heathens. Hence we have of­ten seen good, by false representations may pass for abominable, in the sight of sober men.

Hence the inconsiderate multitude pre­judiced by education, passion, interest, or false Teachers; representing the Ro­man Church to them as a Monster com­posed of all sort of abomination, having their Ears perpetually beaten with seven Hills, Antichrist, Idolatry, Superstition: by many unchristian aspersions, false pre­tences, by private forgeries and publick impressions wounding most Christian and innocent men. How can they otherwise but hate them, they know no better? and even suck from their first Milk such an ill Opinion, or odium of them, as if they were Turks or Jews and had prin­ciples destructive to common Society, Peace and Concord.

What a Wonder, and what a Lamen­tation is it that those men who cry out so much for forbearance to Magistrates, should themselves be so rigid, and can [Page 67] less forbear dissenters; or see the same sin in themselves? So justifie all their Cruelties and think persecution to be their Duty. Whence is persecution but from thinking ill of others, abhorring and not loving them? condemning them without hearing, bearing them down not with sincere and plain dealing, becoming Christians: with inveterate malice filling Books with trivial Stories and Fables, pickt up out of Authors without discre­tion; make it their business to seek ca­lumnies and reproaches in the Sepulchres and Common-shores of Schismaticks; with untrue reporting of Doctrins, false and unjust Criminations; and other in­direct wayes unseemly and unworthy the Cause of Truth, to the dishonour of God, and disparagement of Christian Religion.

Reading a Treatise lately Printed a­gainst Toleration, by an university Schol­lar. Had this Dilemma, if Liberty or Toleration may be granted, either an u­niversal Toleration or particular: not an universal; for then saith he Papists may be tolerated: which is against all. As if all the Monsters of Aegypt may be ad­mitted so the Papists be excluded. Yet [Page 68] we must know if there had been no Pa­pists in the World, no other Sect among us had ever heard of Christianity.

If we knew all the Evils may ensue, we should then be forced to Check the People from railing; and let them feel our anger who would deceive us with Lies. Nor can we look on those men as either of wit or honesty, who are ever promoting the harassing of a faithful par­ty, needlesly to disoblige their fellow Sub­jects and Sufferers.

Wherefore to undeceive the so long abused and deluded multitude, I will en­deavour in the ensuing discourse to wipe of the Paint and Fucus: that so things may appear in their true complexion un­adulterated, with the slights and subtil­ties of deluders. I have chosen rather to expose these lines to Censure than to forbear to speak or be silent in the Cause and Defence of the Innocent. Silui a bonis, saith the Prophet, & dolor meus renovatus est? in the following lines shall be shewed that the Law of God, Christian Religion, nature, reason and our own principles doth oblige us to more charitable censures of the Roman [Page 69] Religion, And that they are as highly (if not more) entitled to the true Chri­stian Liberty of Conscience, than any other Sect or Religion whatsoever: all objections to the contrary cleared and evinced to any rational or impartial Rea­der.

If it remains as a Probatum est; that no Christian ought to be compelled in matters of Faith or Religion (provided it broacheth forth no new Sects or Schisms, or that it be not in Case of Scandal or open blasphemy.) And if the Fundamental Laws and Government were established as a Defence and Protection to all so­ber peaceable Christians; that immuni­ty and freedom of Conscience ought to be indulged to Dissenters in this sense, it being their due right; and not only granted in policy to some persons or to oblige a party; (or to be enjoyed by the strongest and subtilest only, to curb and subiect the rest, as is shewed before) there can be no ground able to convince any rational man why Papists should be excluded this priviledge; unless we in­fringe the Laws and Government: by not distributing equal and impartial ju­stice; [Page 70] nay the truth of this assertion is more evident and convincing for them, then any.

Primo, It is against reason and all ex­amples of antiquity for men to be puni­shed for adhering to the Religion of their Fore-fathers. Now the Roman-Catholick Religion was the first Chri­stian Religion planted in our native Country, from whom we had and have our very Christianity; the first universal­ly spread and preached: by Government permitted and encouraged; by Counsels, and Parliaments confirmed and appro­ved, a thousand years there continued; even by our deceased kindred and pa­rents not long since professed; by our Universities established and defended a­gainst all Adversaries. From whence we derive even the Scripture [...]t self, our or­dinations, most of our material Churches, Colledges, Inns of Court, Hospitals, &c. and shall Charity ever be so buried in Oblivion in England, that the Posterity of those, from whom we must confess to have received these and other great ad­vantages, never be remembred and used with equity and common Justice?

They are linked in Religion to all Catholick Princes and Countries about us: who will be more loving Neigh­bours if they see their Brethren find fa­vour from us.

To persecute this Religion is to War against our Progenitors. It is this Church in which so many Martyrs have dyed; so many Doctors have taught and preached, so many Virgins have lived in flesh like Angels; so many Saints wrought won­ders and miracles: so many Councils cal­led; so many Ecclesiastical Laws ena­cted; so many Nations converted: so many Kings and Emperors lived and died and hope to be saved: against which so many persecutors, Machiavels and Tyrants in vain have used torments, and contri­ved all imaginable force, wicked policy, or cruelty could invent.

This Faith hath the best evidence as taught and instituted by Christ his Apo­stles and Successors, in an uninterrupted series and delivery down to us. Set be­fore your eyes those glorious Champi­ons of Christs Church. Constantines, Theodos. Pepines, Charles, all sirnamed Great, more Glorious for Victories over [Page 72] Heresies and Idolatries; than for con­quests of Countries: more renowned for propagating Catholick Religion, than enlarging their Dominions. See the Ca­tologue of noble Kings of England, Lu­cius, Ethelbert, Egbert, Oswald, Oswine, Alfred, Edgar, before the conquest; William the Conqueror, and so many Henries, Edwards, Richards after the Conquest: mighty of force, rich of Treasure, so noble of birth, so fortunate in Wars, zealous in Religion, who build­ed so many Hospitals; founded so many Monasteries, enacted such wholsome Laws and Statutes, got so many Victories in F [...]ance, &c. even to Palestine it Self all professed Roman Catholicks.

Secundo, It deserves one observation, that when Christianity became the ruling Religion of the World under the great Constantine, and Emperours; his imme­diate Successors, the very Heathens themselves, were exempt from all man­ner of severity, upon the score of their Religion. Because they were in pos­session of it by discent from Father to Son, and not by usurpation or intrusion. And we have the like president in our [Page 73] own Country. For when King Ethel­bert had embraced the Christian Faith by the preaching of Saint Austin, he would not force his own Subjects (though Pagans) to receive it. Bed [...] l. 1. c. 260.

For this reason it was that the great Apostles treated the Synagogue (whose Religion at that time was vacuated) and consequently void of Truth, with so much respect and condescendency: and that afterwards the most primitive Fa­thers used so often this expression; that the Synagogue ought to be buried with ho­nour.

Whence one of our Protestant Di­vines saith, even by the Law of Seniority Catholicks might exspect some favour. For what priviledges or immunities have we, but the old Church gave us? whence had we our Bible, Creed, Honors, Donations, commendable Ceremonies, cha­ritable Foundations? had not they pre­served them faithfully, we never had found them.

The first possession of a man is a good title by the Law of Nature until an el­der; or the Law of Reason (which [Page 74] with mankind is to have pre-eminence) dispossesses it. The Roman Church had a possession unquestionable for above a thou­sand years, and the Pope enjoyed jurisdi­ction a longer time, than any succession of Princes can pretend to, and submitted to by all our Ancestors. In Catholick Religion, they stand as defenders, others as invaders, they as possessors, others as disseisors; they seek to keep what de jure they had; Calvin, and others what they had not. There is a vast difference in these two Cases, to oppose by force the introducement of innovations, and to attempt by force the extinguishment of an ancient Religion of which the Peo­ple are universally in a quiet and imme­morial possession. The one drives o­thers out of possession, the other main­tains himself: the one invades his neigh­bours rights, the other defends his own.

Apostacy and innovation with some co­lour of right have been oft in several ages persecuted by rigour of Laws even by Protestants; and the reason, is because innovation in Religion most commonly breeds disturbance in the Common-wealth.

Natural reason teaches that no parti­cular man is to be condemned much less deprived of what he stands possessed, till his cause be judiciously heard and sen­tenced.—Nor ought any man to be Judg in his own Cause.

But penal Laws and Oaths made in contempt and derogation of that Religi­on which through all Christendom a­bounds with learning civility and loyalty; whose Doctrin amongst the primitive, greatest, and most learned societies, hath been and is avouched; in most Nations and Kingdoms allowed; and more free­ly exercised and permitted: established by the Laws in which our Predecessors were born and continued; wherein all our Progenitors, all the Peers Ecclesiast. Nobles and Princes of our Realm in pre­cedent ages thought themselves happy and honourable. If they had imagined that in future times their Posterity would revile that Religion with Epithets unbe­seeming humane (much less) Christian Ears, what an opinion would they have preconceived of us?

It was said by King James one of the most learned Princes (not in private, but [Page 76] in open Parliament represented) I ac­knowlege the Roman Church to be our Mother Church although defiled with infirmities and corruptions. Is it not then a kind of Spiritual Parracide in the Daughter not only to revile the Mother, or which is worse scratch her by the Face, call her Whore, Superstitious, Ido­latrous, &c. on whose Knees you have been dandled, nourished by her Breasts, and carried in her Womb? Hear O you Heavens and give ear O earth, I have nourished and brought up Children and they have rebelled against me, Isa. 1. 2.

Let it be allowed some corruptions be of our aged Mother, this should be no warrant for cruelty, but rather a mo­tive of compassion: especially consider­ing that (by confession of all her adver­saries) those pretended failings are of no modern date; but such as they are now, such likewise they were, when first Chri­stianity was received by English-men un­der King Ethelbert.

The Church of England who Glory in their succession of Bishops; (and in this is singular from other Reformers) acknowledge, they immediately derive [Page 77] their true and lawful Ordination and mission; and from whom their first Mini­nistry, viz. Cranmer, Baker, &c. were Consecrated: and consequently that the Roman Church conveyed divine right and authority from Christ to them; the ve­ry essence and being of Religion. Which Church notwithstanding they call Anti­christian, Idolatrous, &c. abusing tender Consciences, s [...]press that which them­selves confess to be divine Truth: con­demn as Tray [...]rs and persecute to death with p [...]munire, loss of fortunes, &c. those from whom such Apostolical Graces and Functions proceed and were continued and preserved. If our succes­sion from the Roman be the glory of the English Church; its our scorn and igno­miny to persecute and revile them.

Tertio, Penal Laws and Statutes a­gainst the Catholick Religion destroyes the ground and foundation of Justice; and the form Judicature. Because the Witness can have no evidence for their Testimony, the Judges not any for their sentence, and the Legislator as little for the Law.

Primo, There must be evidence of law­ful [Page 78] Witnesses. In matters of Faith we go by hearing, Rom. 10. The best evi­dence then of any Religion, is the testi­mony of our deceased Predecessors and Ancestry, whose Faith and Doctrine is fresh in the memories and testimonies of the Christian posterity of the present Church. For besides the Authority of the present Church we can have no greater evidence in foro externo for the Law of God and Religion; then the testimony of precedent ages confirmed with supernatural Signs: v. g. the four­teenth Age delivered to the fifteenth, the Roman Faith which now they pro­fess; assuring them that it was the true sense and Letter of Scripture, which they had learned from the thirteenth age and so forward to the Apostles.

No reformers can produce one law­ful Witness against Catholick Religion, and their sense of Scripture; yet the Greatest Crimes require at least one lawful Witness. For what evidence had the first Reformers to oppose the testi­mony of all former Ages, confirmed with so many miracles; and to make Statutes against the known practiced Religion at [Page 79] least for nine hundred years? Antiquity affords them none, because though in diverse Ages some odd men did testifie sometimes an errour, they were in those very times contradicted by the Church, and declared impostors and innovators. In this present Age no Sectaries can be lawful Witnesses for their own lately modelled Religion, or against the anci­ent Catholick, because their testimonies cannot be valid against so constant an universal Tradition and practice.

Secundo, Its ridiculous and unjust in a Judge to pronounce sentence against Roman Catholick upon the evidence and testimony of Calvin, Luther, &c. as in open Court to condemn men to forfeit their Estates and ancient inheritances, upon the word of a mad fellow, that produceth no other evidence to confirm his claim; but interior motions of the Spirit, or some obscure Text of Law appliable to all Cases, and Subjects: for all the Protestant evidence is reduced to the private Spirit and the pretended clearness of Scripture.

Tertio, The Legislative power ought to be subordinate to Christian Religion, [Page 80] but Statutes against Catholicks are evi­dently against the Law of God and Christian Religion, if we may credit Antiquity, and stick to the Faith and practice of the Church, and Princes that went before us; not only in England but all other Christian Kingdomes. This way therefore of proceeding is different from all other Nations, and altereth the Stile of natural reason, humane nature, and the practice of all Antiquity; and consequently destroyes the foundation of justice and form of Judicature.

Quarto, The common temporal Mu­nicipal Laws (which Science above all others next to Divinity) doth confirm and evince unto the understanding of an Englishman the Truth of Catholick Re­ligion: Forasmuch as from our first Christian Kings and Queens, which must needs be the origin and beginning of all Christian Common Laws in England, unto the reign of Henry the eight, all our Princes and People being of one and the same Catholick Religion, their Laws must needs be presumed to have been conformed to their sense and judg­ment in that behalf; and our Lawyers [Page 81] to our Laws. So as now to see an English temporal Lawyer to impugn the said Catholick Religion by the antiquity of the common Laws throughout the times and reigns of the said Kings and Queens, to favour and countenance Lu­ther, Calvin, &c. or any new Opinions, not known before: is as great an absurdity, novelty and wonder as to see a Philo­sopher brought up in Aristotles School, to impugn Aristotle by Aristotles lear­ning in favour of Petrus Ramus, Descartes or some other new Adversary.

Catholick Religion never prejudiced any Nation or State (where it had free passage) in the least degree; but hath ever been their safety, happiness, and honour. No People or Church in the World so great a friend to loyalty and obedience: they have the repute of ho­nest men, patient and charitable; carry themselves civilly and religiously; no­thing is heard from their mouths of Blas­phemy or Atheism: or that may have ground of not believing, or adoring God alone: or of not hoping to be sa­ved by the merits of Jesus Christ. They have lived without just complaint soci­able [Page 82] and amicable. If they meet you not at Church, they meet you at Market. Do they not buy and sell with you? Are ready to perform all Offices of good neighbourhood and civility? Do they refuse any kind of temporal duties or payments? Do ye not find them at home and abroad as strict to their pro­mises as any others you converse with­all? They cannot be persecuted by any Government that understands its own interest (unless first abused by false Teachers) nor can we deny them what ancient and good Laws have ever al­lowed; the [...] being no innovators, but Professors of the same Religion, which made this Nation Christian. If there were no other Apology for peaceable men but only those Pleas of Conscience ten­dered to publick view, those ought not to be unconsidered by such as profess Christianity.

Never any Acts of Ʋniformity could expel Papists out of heretical Countries. Do ye know what you ask when you are still urging the execution of pressures against Catholicks? even their blood, life and fortunes? can any Christian zeal [Page 83] be so irregular? Can this come from the Spirit of the Gospel? Is this wisdome from above? Whence comes all this anger? What evil have they done? What maximes have they so rough and unreasonable that they must be taken a­way by the Sword? Why should we be so bloody in our Tenets? How can our passions be so intemperate? Our mercies so cruel? To them whose Faith was established by our Fundamental Laws, and maintenance of it, sworn to at least by twenty of our Monarchs; even by Queen Elizabeth her self. Why must the Papists be thus singled out from all the rest and forced to forfeit all advan­tages, or forsake his Conscience? They only exposed to publick hatred and ri­gour, though they only least deserve it.

Shall we extinguish all considerations of equity and charity towards them, of whose honesty we are assured by their Long and Patient Sufferings; rather than they would renounce their Consci­ence towards God? who are ready to abjure what is, or may be objected as only dangerous in their Religion; who [Page 84] have given evidences already they will perform those Oaths, and that they can­not be absolved from them? If we ap­prehend their principles and doctrines are inconsistent with the Gospel or Civil Go­vernment: grant them a free Confe­rence, about the points in question, which are those Tenets carry an opposition to either? and if upon impartial enquiry they are found so Heterodox as represen­ted, then inflict penalties. If their Ec­clesiasticks are not able to justisie both their Religion and Principles; let them renounce all mercy.

This offer is very fair and equal, a Vindication of Justice, and a legal pro­ceeding against the Criminal. And the contrary (how plausible soever represen­ted) pretending thereby to do God good service) is most injurious to the Peace, Christian meekness, Reason, Reli­gion, or Charity: and destructive to that prudential Ballance the wisest and best States have ever carefully observ'd. Who always after questions of Religion freely discussed, relieved the distresses of tender and innocent Consciences.

We must not judge of them, or any [Page 85] other, by the private and perhaps misin­terpretable assertions of some particular Doctors: but by the avowed principles of their belief. This is the basis on which they build the rule, by which they walk in point of obedience, to God and man: or if you would judg of them by their proceedings, and addres­ses, their frequent petitions, professions, protestations of all just obedience; will sufficiently clear them. If by their pra­ctice, and manner of lives; their quiet deportment and manner of living and conversing with all men: yea even their prayers and wishes (which they dayly make unto Almighty God in behalf of their Prince and Country) do shew how innocent they are; and how little they deserve those black aspersions and calum­nies some rash Satyrists are so diligent to cast upon them. In charity we are bound to believe the best of others, and also to think they speak true when we cannot prove the contrary.

Some destine them to destruction and extirpation, as Agapete did the Jews, Are so eager declaimers of their corrup­tions, opinions; and not considering that [Page 86] like Gehezi, the leprosie of those Syrians c [...]ves to most of their own Foreheads. Nor taking any notice of the objections standing in force against themselves.

The Cry against the Papists is but the Prologue: it was the Epidemical Frenzy in Germany a hundred years since, which turned into smoke and confusion. I wish it might not be truly said that those very persons, against whom you so bit­terly sharpen and pen your invectives (as if none were Sinners but they) none were more dangerous; or their practices less pernicious in the Face of the Sun.

Such is the general inclination and temper of all English Catholicks that preces and lachrymae, are their only weapons: an innocent and passive Peo­ple, as experience of their quiet beha­viour, so many years of hard times, have clearly shewn. Suffering with that patience, humility, equanimity, and re­signed temper of Spirit (imitating their grand Exemplar Jesus Christ) as if those virtues were innate, and most natural [...]o them. Nor can I think but those men who are so hardned in their malice [Page 87] and persecution against them, do often hear a voice secretly calling within them. O ye Sauls, why do ye persecute me in my Servants?

Why should you be troubled, Papists are not more troubled than your selves? Why should you grudge at their peace and protection? So long as they are peaceable, either actively obey the Laws, or else passively ready to submit to the penalties: They are objects of pity ra­ther than envy.

They have formerly lived in their own native Country with less priviledges than Strangers; are excluded from all Offices. By Laws obnoxious to greater sufferings than Enemies. Have suffered loss of Goods and Livings. Whose Ad­versaries have left no Stone unrolled, no corner unsearched, no Pursuivants uncommissioned to tyrannize over their Consciences: burnt their Antiquaries, consumed their Monuments, violated their Virgins, racked even the very Souls of Men with Oaths, when in humane prudence there was no fear: but God hath shewed his just chastisements and judgments upon the chief Actors, contri­vers and Abetters.

Can we be such publick contradictors of our own declared principles (where­by we disclaim and profess against Per­secution) as still to continue our mulcts and penalties upon those whose condition have been such as every one might abuse them in the Streets: (even with satis­faction to some) discredited, contem­ned, trodden under every mans foot that listeth to spoil them. To lie in pri­sons, dungeons, felters, to be racked, bowelled, and boyled alive. We have seen their families impoverished, their houses invaded by saucy Officers; their lives forfeited as Traytors, for entertaining those, without whom they could not live but as Pagans. Have been deprived of performing any Service to God, debar­red of any civil imployments in the Na­tion, they were otherwise capable of. These miseries have they groaned under without any demerit of their own part; these sour hearbs have they patiently and quietly tasted. Would it not be an unreasonable president and incitement, towards our brethren, and all Nations abroad; if we should begin again in the same Cup at home?

Some have so blackened and put them in so strange and monstrous a dress, by calling them members of Ba­bylon, Antichrist, Idolaters, &c. that I dare boldly aver that some of the se­duced herd who are ignorant of their meek, humble, innocent and pious do­cuments, (of which the whole world is to this time witness) do s [...]arce believe them to be Men, (or if so) yet that they are some terrible Cannibals that came out of some strange Lands.

Be pleased to consider, you asperse not one, but many: and those who have given best evidence of being tru­ly tender Consciences: Since they suf­fered so generally, so constantly so deep­ly. If your passion will not, at least your charity ought to think better: For if you prove not, what you say against them; you are guilty of the breach of the Mandate, of love to your neighbour, in as great a height as circumstances can improve a sin to.

Every Christian will have a Share in the injury; and a title to be right­ed, and demand satisfaction. Must [Page 90] they carry all our Sins on their backs? Must our faults be whipt on them? and they made particular oblations for us? is not this to act the part of cur­sed Cham over again? or to be confor­mable to Core and his company? by a wilful kind of Sophistry still casting all the odium upon them? Can no Ellobore Purge this Frenzie? Shall we alwaies like Flies dwell upon some particular Ulcers? And for some misdemeanors, miscarriages, or the loose lives of a few, traduce and defame the whole Professi­on and aggravate their failings? We know it were no difficulty to recrimi­nate in this kind, and repay you with the same dirt, if it were any pleasure to scramble in such a Puddle.

As great an aversion and Antipathy as you have against them, 'tis worth your labour herein, to make them your own examples in point of obe­dience and Government; and so in re­spect of publick Peace and Tranquilli­ty.

It were to be wished by all honest men of what perswasion soever that a just and equal Liberty in matter of [Page 91] Conscience, were granted unto all; if but for this only respect, viz. that so by a free confident, and friendly con­versation one with another, void of suspition, and jealousie, fear or dan­ger, to one party or other: and by amicable discourse and debating of things, truth might come more clear­ly to be discovered. But this is a work hath so much of God and good­in it, as it must exspect many Adver­saries. Moderation or true Liberty meets with so many enormities, exor­bitancies and obstacles to resist and re­tard it.

Had we but a due latitude of can­dour and charity towards others, or understood our own happiness; and took things in the best sense: Sure those billows and waves would cease roaring. Were men so ingenuous to promote peaceable order as they are watchful to find knots in Bulrushes, and torture their brains to find scru­ples in what is most plain: and stood against the tempests and shakings of virulent Tongues and cankered calum­nies: our heats and animosities from [Page 92] difference in opinion would gradually decay: and a foundation would be laid; On which to raise a considera­ble Structure of Peace to Church and State, and Prosperity to the Nation.

CAP. VI. Persecution of Recusants is against our own Principles and Concessions.

PRotestant Religion doth indemnifie us in the Court of Conscience for believing in matters of Religion according to the Dictates of our own private judgment; or rather doth oblige us to do it. For as Bishop Gauden a learned Protestant saith, If it be not lawful for every one to be guided by his private Spirit and Judgement in Religion, it will hardly be possible to acquit our separation from the Roman Church of the guilt of Schism. Nor doth it seem worthy of Christ who hath left us a Religion full of Mysteries, and not any visible Judg [Page 94] of them: to have designed about those any visible executioners. This premi­sed, I argue thus.

Where there is a liberty of examining and judging, there must be a freedome of election upon such judgment: but the Church of England, v. g. in her Do­ctrine alloweth men to search the Scrip­tures, and examine whether her Doctrine be agreeable to Scripture or no: There­fore the Church of England and other Reformed cannot in reason and equity persecute such men as in foro conscientiae, shall upon such due examination of judg­ment, dissent from their Doctrine.

If this principle pass current amongst us, that every one may read, judg and interpret Scripture: (which is by us the judg of Controversies) the only rule to guide us to Faith: we are bound to give Liberty of Conscience to others. Whence one of our own Doctors saith, Our Bishops who have declared the Doctrine of giving freedome of Consci­ence, what every one in their private judgments, do of discretion hold to be most conformable to Gods Word: yet they very inconsequently and disingenu­ously [Page 95] excite our Governours, to force their Conscience to an exterior Confor­mity.

Secondly, We confess the Church of England and all Churches may erre, and for ought we know do erre, and lead into error: and such an uncer­tain and fallible guide or ground to rely on, is not proportionable to the nature and quality of Faith; which must be certain and infallible: with an internal consent of the Will, and subjection of our understandings to revealed Truths. Our Senses may be deluded, but Faith not: for it must be more firm and cer­tain than any thing we see or feel.

Supposing then the Reformed Chur­ches fallible: will it not be a most un­reasonable thing, to be still exacting of Recusants, by rigorous Sequestratious, Oaths and what other penalties they think fit: to leave and forsake the Church and Faith which they so groun­dedly hold to be the infallible guide, ap­pointed by God himself, as the only means to direct them securely to eternal Salvation? And to yield exterior con­formity to our own new moulded Church [Page 96] we all profess to be fallible? Or to be forced to embrace a Doctrine deduced by fallible interpretations out of Scrip­ture, which interpretations, the far greater and learneder part of this very age reject as Heretical: and which as such were rejected by almost all visi­ble Christianity for these thousand years. And which perhaps may shortly be re­jected by us. We having oft-times re­jected that which we cryed up before for verity: and the Religion now in vogue not many years ago was cryed down.

If our Church be not then infallible, in what we teach against them, but may embrace a lye, for a divine Truth: they need not to vindicate and justifie their most just recusancy in refusing to submit; when we provide them no better secu­rity: but force them to refuse due sub­mission to that infallible direction ap­pointed by divine Writ to bring them securely to their end. To which the most religious, the most learned, and the major part of Christians ever yet thought and submitted too. If I should disobey the sentence of the Church, upon [Page 97] what other authority can I more pru­dently rely? What Labyrinths and A­bysmes should I fall into? How can we force and draw others to our Churches, if we cannot agree where and how to lay our Foundation? How can we im­pose upon and restrain others; whom we are so far from assuring of Truth, as we pretend to be but uncertain of it: and are not able to do so much for our selves? being liable to change, and no ways certain of our own belief to be the most infallible? as our multiplied Con­cessions are pregnant instances. What is this but to put certain penalties upon an uncertain Faith? And if our Teachers agree not in all points of Religion: the Dissenters in controversie are obliged to allow a m [...]tual toleration.

If we say the Roman Church erred for 900. years till our Reformation we ex­clude our selves from all possible assu­rance of true Faith or Salvation. And to arrogate to our Selves, or to attribute to private persons or Pastors the all-de­fining Spirit; which we deny to the whole Church represented in a general Council is absurd. His presumption must [Page 98] needs be vast that builds more on his own tenet, then the mature judgment of all successive Fathers. While he cryes down others for infallible, he lifts him­self up to be so: as if God revealed more to him than all the Doctors and Propa­gators of his Church.

Now let us hear what our own Di­vines acknowledge. Doctor Taylor saith, —but alas notwithstanding our Religi­on thus framed by our Divines; yet it seems not sufficiently marked; or the cognizance of Schism taken away: for yet we have no particular positive points among us setled for undoubted Truths.—those being rather a medley of all Religions and new Sects professed a­mong us, or a negation of those tenets of the Church we went out of; and which stood a thousand years before us, as Histories and Monuments wit­ness: which is but a negative Faith in effect: for what is positive or of Order and Government, is wholly derived and taken from that Religion which not long since we pulled down, abo­minated, and so violently persecuted.

Doctor Gauden saith, I see not why [Page 99] Papists may not in reason of State, have and enjoy that liberty (without pertur­bing the Publick Peace) which Pres­byterians and Independents do enjoy in their new ways. For nothing will savour more of an imperious or impo­tent Spirit (whose Faith and Charity are Slaves to Secular Interests) than for those who have obtained liberty to their Novelties; to deny the like free­dome, to other mens Antiquity; which hath Ecclesiastical practise and preceden­cy of a thousand years: besides the preponderancy of much reason, Scripture and holy examples. All which to force godly, grave, and learned men to re­nounce, or comply with other ways against their judgments, must be a cry­ing Self-condemning sin; in those men who lately approved the ancient Church way, and after dissenting; at first desired but a modest toleration. And in another place saith, To Fleece and depress Popish Recusants by pecu­niary mulcts, exactions, &c. is to set Religion to sale, and make Merchan­dize of Conscience and mens errors; ra­ther than fairly to perswade and win [Page 100] them by proper and perswasive engines of true Religion.

Thorndike a learned Divine saith also. Cer [...]ainly it may be justi [...]able for the secular power to grant Papists exercise of their Religion in private places, under such moderate penalties as disobeying the Laws of a mans Country requires. For Persecution to Death in that case the whole Reformation condemns the Church of Rome. And I conceive there is no reason for that, which will not condemn Persecution to Banishment. The State may easier be secured of Pa­pists against all such power in the Pope, then of our Sectaries against that Dispensation to their allegiance; which the pretence of Gods Spirit may im­port when they please.

Whereas it is manifest that many Papists hold against those equivocations and reservations which destroy all confi­dence in the Soveraign in Allegiance. Though not secured in those that pre­tend Gods Spirit.—Besides Recusants being for the most part of the good Families of the Nation, will take it for a part of their Nobility freely to pro­fess [Page 101] themselves in Religion; whereas the Sectaries are People of mean qua­lity cannot be presumed to stand so much on their reputation. And in ano­ther place he saith, to proceed to di­vide the Church more and more with Persecutions is more destructive to the substance of Christianity; than all that corruption, Reformation preten­deth to cure.

Osborne a Protestant, Hist. mem. Q. E. p. 17. [...] that against the poor Catholicks, nothing in relation to the generality, remaineth upon due proof sufficient to justifie the severity of Laws dayly enacted and put in exe­cution against them.—All other Sects, saith he, oppose the Roman with more spleen and animosity then ordinary, yet they defend themselves and prevail against all; still continue, and have been the most grand and principal Body of all Christian Societies; and the greatest force and For [...]ress of Christianity against Turks, and Hea­thenish impieties; and chiefest Propa­gators of the Gospel in all Nations, &c.

I see no reason (saith another Do­ctor of our English Church) why Pa­pists in England should not as well de­serve, hope and enjoy; as any other order or rank of men freedome to their Consciences. Nor can I think but those men who are so hardned in their Ma­lice and persecution against them, do often hear a voice secretly call with­in them. O ye Souls why do ye per­secute me in my Servants?

Its a kind of injustice, and an uncha­ritable course (as I conceive saith he) when we spare them that have no Reli­gion at all; and censure those that can give an account of somewhat tending to that purpose. Shall Atheists and Socini­ans Enemies of the blessed Trinity be not looked after? And shall others fol­lowing the Heresie of Aerius, directly opposing the order of Bishops and their Jurisdiction; (that is the whole frame of the Church of God assembled in the first four general Councils asserted and affirmed to be of divine right by Scrip­ture and the Church of England) be win­ked at? And must we only incite our Governours against Papists? Force them [Page 103] upon Banishments, Prisons, Persecutions, Pressures and Calamities, and use such severity against that Religion, we our selves hold Salvation to be acquired in: who hold all the positive Articles with us.

I may loudly proclaim (saith Bishop Gauden, with Samuel 12. 3.) this Pro­testation in their behalf. Behold the Servants of the Lord and his Church (O Christians causless Enemies) witness against them and before the Lord, and before the People. Whose Oxe or Ass have they taken? Whom have they de­frauded or oppressed? Whose hurt or damage have they procured? Whose evil of sin or misery have they not pi­tied? What is the injury for which so desolating a vengeance, must pass upon them and their whole Profession? What is the Blasphemy against God or man for which these Naboths, must loose their lives, liberties, and live [...]hoods? Where­in have they deserved so ill of former and later Ages, that they should be so used (as Ahab commanded of Mi [...]heas, and the Jews did to Hieremias) to be cast into Prisons, to [...]ordid and [...]bs [...]ure [Page 104] restraints, or to be exposed to Mendi­cant liberty, to be fed only with Bread and water of Affliction? What necessa­ry Truths of God or righteousness have they detained? What error have they broached, revived, or maintained? What true Christian liberty have they impeach­ed? A little after—

They have not light conjectures, not partial Customes, not bare Profession, not uncertain Tradition, not blind Anti­quity—but evident grounds, Scripture, Succession, Conversion of Nations, plan­ting of Churches all over the known World; crowning their Doctrine with Martyrdome. Authors of best credit undeniable; famous in Church through all the first Ages, shewing us Catholick Religion. And uncontradicted consent, con­stant, and uninterrupted Succession—their great abilities—Add those Credential let­ters, the testimonies and seals which God hath given of his holy Spirit. Lastly, the Civil rights and priviledges, the piety of the Nation, and the Laws of this Land have always given to them by the fullest and freest consent of all Estates in Parliament. these ought to [Page 105] be regarded much of men of Justice, ho­nour and conscience; as not to break all these Sanctions and Laws asunder, by which their forefathers have bound to God, &c.

Whence Doctor Taylor in his Book concerning the unreasonableness of pre­scribing to other mens Faith in liberty of prophecying, §. 2. 249. that Considera­tions to a charitable Toleration concer­ning the Roman Church, which, saith, he may easily perswade persons of much reason, and more piety, to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their forefathers, which had actual possession and seizure of men's understanding before the opposite Pro­fession had a name.

Another learned Protestant Doctor saith, the humble peaceable and discreet carriage of them, may justly plead for favour and protection against this ca­lumny of proneness to Sedition, Faction or illegal disturbance in civil affairs: Even in all the unhappy troubles of the late years.—have generally behaved themselves and shewed they had no o­ther design than to live a quiet life in [Page 106] all godliness and honesty. If they could not help in fair ways to steer the Ship as they desired; they did not seem to set it on fire and overwhelm it. If at any time relating to publick va­riations and tossings they could not act with satisfied and good Consciences; they humbly bear with silence, and suf­fer with patience.— Intentive chiefly and fearful to offend God; tender of Conscience and their own Religion. Whence.

The late Bishop of Exeter saith, in these christian bounds of peaceable sub­jection, humility and holiness: if the Papists in England may but obtain so much declared favour and publick countenance (which all other fraternities and Professions have) as to be sure to enjoy their callings, liberties, and pro­perties; (which seem to be so many times in great uncertainties) under the protection and obedience of the Laws) it would encourage them;—and re­deem them from those menaces, insolen­cies and oppressions, of unreasonable men; who look upon them like pub­lick Enemies and perdue; because they [Page 107] have little of publick favour and en­couragement.

Christian usage will no doubt win more upon them, than those rough storms and winds, wherewith they are dayly threatened, and are still distres­sed. Which makes them wrap them­selves up, as Elias in his hairy Mantle: when they think their lives, liberties and livelyhoods are sought after; and no such protection like to continue o­ver them they thought in a Christian State and Church, they might have obtained; and deserved through their quiet conversation. As a just protecti­on infers our due subjection: so no men pay more willingly then they; who besides the Iron-rod of fear have softer cords of love and favour upon them. How can we with justice, ho­nour, or humanity inflict severe penal­ties upon Papists as refusing to conform to our Church and Religion, when they protest with so much truth to our faces; they cannot see any Church, any Religion, among us as uniform, publick, authentick, Constant?

We might consider that the enacting [Page 108] of laws penalties, and impositions against Papists, is but a knotting Whipcord to lash our own posterity: Seeing now there be so many Opinions in the World, God knows upon whose children it may fall next: For the Church of England is not a Manna that relisheth in every mans palate. Secondly, To use severity a­gainst Papists overturns the very ground of our retreat from Rome. It is against Protestant sincerity; for how can they exclaim against them for persecutors, and are now the men themselves? Was it an instance of weakness in their Religion, and is it become a demonstration in ours? Is it Antichristian in them and Christian in us? For if men must be re­strained upon prudential pretended con­siderations, for their Religious exercise; why not the same in France, Germany, Holland, Constantinople, &c. where matters of State may equally be plead­ed? And if Protestants who maintain that no Councils or Church without ty­ranny may require belief or internal consent from their subjects to their de­finitions or Articles of Religion (a practice much exclaimed against in the [Page 109] Church of Rome) why then do they of the Church of England so incon­sequently exact in practice, such consent blamed in the Roman.?

CAP. VII. That by our own Concessions true Salvation is acquired in the Roman Church, and therefore not to be persecu­ted.

THe most eminent Di­vines of the English Church, allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church: whence they acknow­ledge and derive their Orders, Ordination, Calling, Mission, Jurisdiction, Authori­ty to Preach, &c. wherein they agree Salvation may be had and all Fundamen­tals of Faith are profest, v. g. Papists hold all positive Articles of Faith setled among Protestants, as divine and un­doubted Truths. Protestants and Ca­tholicks [Page 111] both are Christians, Both Bap­tized in that holy name, both lay hold on the promises of the Gospel; have the Lords Prayer, Belief, the same three Creeds, Apostolical, Nicene, Athanasian; The first four General Councils.

They believe with the Roman Church Articles of Doctrine, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son; terms of Trinity, substantiality, virginity of our Blessed Lady, Scripture, all Laws, Canons, Ordinances, forms of Li­turgy, Prayer, Service, Discipline, &c. And though the Roman Church doth declare many doctrinal points as necessa­ry to be believed (being deduced from holy Writ, and practice of the primitive times) whch the Reformists deny: Yet seeing they acknowledge all the necessa­ry articles fundamentally required to Salvation; as is by their Adversaries granted. What reason or justice is it to condem them to so great cruelties for matters of their Belief.

I could produce innumerable testimo­nies from the best Authors and Writings of the English Church; who teach the Roman notwithstanding her supposed er­rors, [Page 112] to be the Church of Christ, and therein perfect Christianity, and hope of Salvation to be found. To avoid pro­lixity I will mention a few.

Doctor Morton in his Treatise of King of Israel and the Church, p. 24, Papists, saith he, are to be accounted of the Church of God; because they hold the Foundation of the Gospel. Hooker 5. Book of Eccles. Policy, saith, The Church of Rome is reputed a part of the House of God, and of the Family of Je­sus Christ. Doctor Couel in defence of Hooker p. 17. saith, We affirm them of the Church of Rome to be part of the Church of Christ, and those that live and dye in that Church may be saved. Ma­ster White in defence c. 41. in the name of his Brethren saith, We profess the Church of Rome it self, in all Ages to have been the visible Church of God. Field lib. 3. c. 8. saith, We most firmly, believe all the Churches of the World, wherein our Fathers lived and died to have been the true Churches of God, in which undoubted Salvation was to be had. And after in the same Book, We never doubted but that in the Churches [Page 113] wherein those holy men St. Bernard and St. Dominick lived were the true Chur­ches of God. Osiander witnesseth Bede had all Popish errors, yet Dr. Humphrey in his Jesuitism acknowledges him to be in the number of the godly: so doth Fulk of St. Bernard, Luther, the Centurists, Tindal and Pantaleon title St. Francis and St. Dominick holy men; though they bleieved all Papistical errors: there­fore Papists may be saved, if Protestants may be believed.

Dove persuas. saith, in fundamental points of Doctrine the greatest Papists in the world agree with us. Prot. rel. affir­meth the Roman Church hath still invio­lably the foundation of Religion l. 48. Dow­nam l. 2. Antichr. granteth it was a note of a good Christian to cleave to the Ro­mish and Apostolical Church, and p. 103. l. Antichr. he yieldeth to Bellarmine, that S. Augustine and Victor Oticensis were of opinion, to adhere to the Church of Rome was a mark of a true Catholick in those times.

Our Stars of the first magnitude, as Luther in Epist. against Anabap. saith, we confess that all Christian good is in the [Page 114] Papacy, and from them it came down to us; and ibid. I say in the Papacy is the true Christianity, yea the true Kernel of Christianity: and on the 28 of Genes. we confess the Church to be among the Pa­pists: for they have Baptism, Absolution, the Text of the Gospel, &c. and there are many godly men among them. Cal­vin Instit. l. 4. confesseth in the Roman Church in the deepest of her supposed er­rors, there ever remained inviolabile foe­dus Dei: the Covenant of God invio­lable.

Doth not Bunny, Whitaker, Junius, Zanrchius, Seravia and almost all Prote­stants generally hold as much, at least, that we agree in fundamentals, that the Roman Church is a true Church, the Mother C-hurch.

A thousand of learned Reformists con­fess in general, Antiquity and the Fathers are for the Roman Church. Whence a learned Writer noteth in some things or other; yea in every particular Contro­versy Protestants grant their Assertions, and there is no assertion by the Papists defended, but some of the reformed yield too and confess, as of great reason and authority.

Magdeburgenses 4. Cent. dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, & ad Jacobum Regem; that the first & purest times of the Church, taught Sacramental Confession, Traditi­on, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Mass, a propitiatory Sacrifice, Miracles obtained at the reliques of Saints, Images in Chur­ches for the first 200 and 300 years. Con­cerning the Primacy that one must be Cheif in the Church is taught by Melan­cton, Luther, in loc. com. Couel in examen. Jacobus Andreas related by Hospiuian.

Mr. Perkins Prob. p. 237. saith, Appeals were often made out of Africa to Popes of Rome in primitive days. Middleton Pa­pist p. 39. that the first general Council of Nice, taught the Dignity of Rome over the West Provinces, and hold, p. 200. Papias, living in the time of the Apostles taught Peters Supremacy. Field. lib. Church saith, the Title of Constantinople was but intruded and usurped, and when the Council of Nice gave such honour to the Church of Rome; there was not so much as mention made of Constantinople. Doctor Sutcliffe subver▪ p. 51. is witness Irenaeus saith, that every Church ought to have respect to the Church of Rome for [Page 116] h [...] eminent principality: and Subvers. 19. telleth, how Saint Gregory comman­ded in England, instituting Saint Augustine Archbishop of Canterbury a See of that preeminency. Downam lib. Antich. c. 3. doth not deny but that Justinian the Em­peror and the general Council of Chalce­don did attribute to the Pope of Rome to be head of the Church.

For the real presence Jacobus Accontius, a learned Protestant, saith, though one part err, yet both are in the way of Salvation. Whitaker, Bucer and Hooker say the Body is really given to the Mouth of the faithful. So Doctor Reynolds in his Conference 722. Prayer for the dead and free will, Cartwright, Fulke and Sparke say are not so necessary. Worship of Images is indifferent, saith Master Bunny and Bilney, and is defended by Protestants in Germany, as Beza re­lates. Bowing at the Name of Jesus is affirmed and commanded by Queen Eli­zabeths Injunctions. By Doctor Whitgift in defence; Mus [...]lus in loc. com. Zan­chius in Epist. ad Ephes. &c. But if bow­ing at th [...] Name of Jesus being read or heard be lawful; it followeth, the honou­ing [Page 117] of Christs Image is also lawful: since the Name of Jesus is to the Ear, as his Image is to the Eye. Communion in one kind, Luther in Epist. ad Bohem. saith, is of indifferency.

That the present Roman Church and Religon continued and flourished during the whole time of the primitive Church in the first six hundred years after Christ: from Christ and his Apostles to Constan­tine the great, and from Constantine to Gregory the great. Calvin, Zuinglius, Z [...]nchius, Danaeus, Beza, Brocord, N [...]p­per, Perkins, Whitaker, Powel, Fulke, Reynolds, Cartwright, Field, Willet, Whi­teguift, Midleton, Morton, the most re­nowned Protestant Writers acknowledg in their Words and Books; as I could easily shew, and cite their words and pla­ces to that purpose, if it were not for brevitys sake: you may find it at large in a Treatise dedicated to Dr. Morton of the Progeny of Catholicks and Protestants. And the continuance of the Roman Religion, those last 1000 years, is acknowledged by Oslander, Danaeus, Magdeburgenses, Ho­linshed, Stow, Cambden, Fox, Bale, Bilson, Whitaker, Mason, Cartwright, Godwine, [Page 118] Martin, &c. it being evident to all that do not stupidly deny whatever was said or done in former ages.

To conclude, I propose this Dilemma, either with extream impiety you damn the Souls of the whole race of your Pro­genitors, who, till the later end of Henry the Eighth, lived and died Roman Ca­tholicks: or else, with no less cruelty, you punish them for professing the Reli­gion of your forefathers; in which, by your own Concessions, Salvation may be attained. Whence a learned Prote­stant saith,

The wrong which Protestants commit in afflicting Catholicks, and unnaturally trampling upon their dejected Estates, only for matters of Religion.—Alas! by our own Doctrine, they are neither▪ Babylo­nians nor Egyptians, but they and we (as we teach) being Israelites. Why then should Israel thus persecute Israel? are we not become a gaze of Christendom, thus to fight without an Enemy, for kindred to wound his own kindred?—inciting our Governours to great seve­rity in Religion; in which we our selves teach they may be saved. I speak sincerely [Page 119] I hold morally, its most improbable that such as have been conversant in Study of Controversies, must have a respect to Catholick Religion, unless they break with all Authority, humane and di­vine.

Bishop Gauden, in the Sighes of the Church p. 202. saith, The Dilemma and distressed choice of Religion is now reduced to this: that peaceable and well-minded Christians, wise, &c.—so long harassed and wearied with novel Factions and pretended Reformations, would rather chuse their posterity should return to the Roman Party, which hath something among them setled, orderly, & uniform, becoming Religion, than to have them ever turning and towring upon Ixius Wheel; catching in vain, at fanciful reformations, as Tan­talus at the deceitful waters: rowling the reformed Religion like Sysiphus his Stone; (sometimes asserting it by Law and power; otherwise exposing it to popular liberty and loosness) then to have them tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine, with the foedities, blasphemies, animosities, Anarchies, dan­ger [Page 120] and confusions, attending fanatick fancies, and quotidian Reformations; which like Botches and Boyls from sur­feited and unwholsom bodies, so daily break out among those Christians, who have made no rule of Religion, but their own humour; and no bounds of reformation, but their own interests. The first makes them ridiculous, the se­cond pernitious to all sober Christians. whereas the Roman Church (however tainted with errors) yet it cannot be denied without a brutish blindness and injurious slander, (which only serves to gratifie the gross Antipathies of the ga­ping vulgar) that the Church of Rome, amongst its tares and cockles, hath ma­ny wholesom hearbs, and holy Plants growing: much more of Reason and Re­ligion, of good Learning and sober In­dustry, Order and Polity, of Morality and Constancy, of Christian Candour and Civility, of common Honesty and Huma­nity; becoming grave men and Christi­ans; by which to invite after-ages, and your posterity to adhere to it and them, rather than to be everlastingly exposed to the profane bablings, endless janglings, [Page 121] miserable wranglings, childish confusions, atheistical indifferencies, and sacrilegious furies of some later spirits; which are equally greedy and giddy, making both a play and a prey of Religion; who have nothing comparable in them to the papal party, to deserve yours or your posterities admiration or imitation, but rather their greatest caution and pre­vention.

CAP. VIII. Roman Catholicks are not guilty of Practices or Principles destructive to Government.

PRotestants have set it down as a Decree a­gainst Catholicks and labour to imprint it, as an eternal scandal in the hearts of the People: that Catholick Doctrine and Religion, is dangerous to the State and Soveraignty: and therefore not al­lowable. This being a matter of great importance; I will endeavour, not so much to justifie them, as to inform my self, in a point which hath made so many stagger: Being one that desires to defend the loyalty of innocent men, [Page 123] rather than their Opinions or Doctrins; which they are best able to defend them­selves.

In this grand charge and Hyperboli­cal accusation, I find the contrary is pro­ved by evidence of Fact: that the Trea­sons, Seditions, factions, tumults which have filled all Christendome with blood and calamity; sprung not from the do­ctrine of Catholicks, but from the Opi­nions and practices of Reformists; not from Rome but from Wittenberg, Smal­cald, Geneva, &c.

Was it the Papists that induced them of Geneva to expel their Lord and Bi­shop? That moved them of Swedeland to deprive their lawful King? That pro­cured Holland to depose their Sove­raign? That sollicited Subjects to de­pose their Emperour? King of Bohemia and Poland? That imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots? That authorized Mountebank and Rochel to stand in defi­auce against their King? That begot so many conspiracies against Queen Mary of England as appears in our Chronicles? That ravished from their lawful Gover­nours the Low Countries and Transyl­vania [Page 124] and many Towns now called free? Was it from any of their Books, you have drawn these vile Maximes, viz. that the authority of the Soveraign Magistrate is of humane right? That the People are above the King? That the People can give Power to the Prince and take it away? That Kings are not anointed of the Lord? That if a King fail in performing his Oath at Coronation, the Subjects are absolved from their alle­giance? That if Princes fall from the grace of God, the people are loosed from their subjection? Do not these do­ctrines proceed from Wickliffe, Waldenses and other Sectaries? Doth not Belfor­rest sufficiently prove the like maximes from Luther, Calvin, Melancton, Peter Martir, &c.? What Buchanan and Knox did against Queen Mary their lawful Soveraign is evident in History, and Be­za in Epist. 78. ad Buchanan approves their actions. Calvin l. 4. c. 3. Instit. from his high Consistorian gives this ab­solution to all Oaths of that nature. Quibuscun (que) hujus evangelii lux effulgeat & ab omnibus laqueis juramentis (que) absol­vitur. And the famous Minister Surean [Page 125] called Rosiers writ a Book expresly, that it was lawful to kill Charls the ninth, and the Queen Mother if they would not obey the Gospel. Belforrest is sufficient witness. See more in Althusi­us Politicks c. 35. Dausus l. 6. Polit. c. 3. In all the Councils, Synods, writings of any Roman Divines, no such matters are found and allowed; but only such as teach Sub­jects loyalty, humility, obedience.

More Princes have been deposed by Sectaries in sixty years, than by Papists in six hundred years: and that deposing of Kings is no doctrine nor practice of Catholicks shall be proved hereafter: and that others have been more faulty in each of their respective Sects in all kind of disorders at home or abroad, History and experience testifie. In no Country or City in Christendome but Catholick Religion ever entred by meek­ness and suffering: in no Country of Christendome but other Sects entred by sedition, rebellion, disobedience: or murdering of great Princes or Persons; by vast destruction of Ci­ties, Countries, Kingdomes. As in France, Holland, several States in Ger­many, [Page 126] Scotland, twenty years in England, &c. Consider what was done against France, Holland, several States in Germany Mary Queen of Scots; or the late un­parallel'd Rebellion.

In Catholick Religion I find they learn their duty towards God cannot be com­plied with, without an exact perfor­mance of their duty towards their So­veraign: to obey him not for advan­tages, or temporal concerns; but out of Conscience. For no Roman Catholick can be true to his Religion, who is not true to his Prince. Whom they obey for Conscience sake; whose Person they love and honour; and whose prosperity they always pray for; Though stript of their Estates or loaden with stripes. It is in the power of great ones to make them suffer; but not to make them guil­ty. Their Religion tells them that Cae­sar's due ought not to be kept from him be he of what religion he pleaseth.

This is the will of God in Scripture, preached by the Apostles and from them derived to us: this doctrine is instilled in their Catechisms; confirmed by their Sermons and conferences: Insomuch [Page 127] that a Papist that is not truly loyal, is not truly a Papist, if to believe not, what they are taught by the Church, makes a man cease to be of it.

From the Saxons to Edward the sixth, to be a Catholick was never taken as a bar to loyalty. Nor doth it seem pos­sible a Religion which governed Eng­land with glory so many hundred years; can teach a doctrine destructive to Prin­ces; or infuse Maximes that will breed Commotion in the People.

They are ready by Oath in the face of Heaven to profess loyalty a divine command, and an indispensable duty: and any who pretend to know what Ca­tholick doctrine is; must know this to be a part of it. In matters of fact their actions have given indubitable testimo­nies even by their Enemies own Concessi­ons. If Catholicks had been disloyal, either the King or his Council; or at least the States-men under Cromwel or the Rump must know it. They appeal to the Council in all discoveries of their Trea­cheries against the King whether ever any constant Catholick was accessary or concurred in any design against his Ma­jesty. [Page 128] They appeal and challenge all the black Catalogue of Cromwells favorites and the whole Rumpists, to discover, if they can, any Papist who concurred in any plot or action.

If Catholicks refuse to go to Prote­stant Churches in respect of Conscience, They will far more refuse for Consci­ence sake to commit Treason; a sin of a higher degree; will hardly attempt or consent to any desperate act against their State and Country: and commit such Crimes as hazard Body and Soul. Nay what other Sectaries will boggle at, If the King should be a Heathen and make Laws against them; they hold it not lawful to resist, but peaceably to endure.

During the time of the late King of France, there was proposed by an As­sembly of Catholick Divines and Bishops, this question or Probleme: If it were supposed the King of France became a Mahometan, and by his Power endea­voured to force his Subjects to that in­fidelity: whether they might lawfully according to the Principles of Christia­nity by arms resist him? to which que­stion [Page 129] the unanimous consent of the As­sembly was, that such a resistance would be unlawful: since Christian Religion al­lowed no other way of maintaining Faith against lawful Soveraigns, but prayers, tears and sufferings.

When shall we find such a result from a Synod of Presbyterians? Compare these primtive Doctrines, with new the E­vangelists; and we shall find them quite contrary to the rules of Wi [...]liffians, Wal­denses, Paraeus, Knox and Buchanan, &c. who teach that Subjects may not only defend by Arms their Religion; but offend also. And lately Baxter in lib. of Rest. p. 258. saith we may fight a­gainst Kings if it were for cause of Religi­on; to purge the Church from Idola­try and Superstition. The Genova Notes of the Bible, 2 Chron. c. 5. allow the deposing of Queen Macha. See more in Belforrest.

On the contrary the Doctors and Casuists of the Roman Church hold it as an Article of Faith; that neither He­resie nor Turcism can be opposed by Rebellion. Belloy in Apol. part. 2. plain­ly saith, Arms against Princes have no [Page 112] warrant. Orationibus tantum pugnan­dum. Navar, Cunerus and all other Catholick Doctors agree in the same; as most conformable to the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Fathers. The General Council of Constance, Sess. 5. concludes it an error in Faith to maintain Subjects may kill their Kings being Tyants, nuper accepit Synodus, &c.

Cardinal Tolet in his Summolies l. 3. c. 6. affirms it not lawful to attempt the life of a Prince: although he ne­ver so much abuse his Power. And that it is flat Heresie to maintain the contrary. So Greg. de Valent. part. 2. Bellar. l. 3. of his Apology. Learned Lessius lib. de Scientia & jure. Serarius in cap. 3. Azor. in his Instit. Becanus in his answer to the 9. Aphor. Gretzer. in his Vespertilio Heretico confutes all Mariana's grounds. Saint Thomas tells expresly Tyrannus non potest a quopiam privatâ Authoritate occidi. The Canon Law and Decrees, Decret. 2. part. 10. de Episcopis ac clericis quod nec sua au­thoritate, nec authoritate summi Ponti­ficis arma valeant accipere, &c. And [Page 131] the Canon Law of England explains it more fully in the Council held at Ox­ford by Stephen of Canterbury 1228. and anno Hen. 3. where Excommunica­tion is decreed against those who per­turb the peace and tranquillity of our Lord the King and Kingdome. Bellar­mine himself maintains the Laws of Ma­gistrates bind even the Consciences of Christians, Lib. de Laicis. So the Rhe­menses in this Annotat. in 1 Pet. c. 2. Condemn treason and disobedience, and say, Subjects are bound in temporal things to obey the Heathens being law­ful Kings; and even for Conscience sake to keep their temporal Laws, pay tribute, pray for them, and other natu­ral duties. And Doctor Kellison in his Learned Survey gives a good reason for it; because, saith he, Faith is not necessarily required to jurisdiction; nor is authority lost by the loss of Faith.

The Bishop of Armagh confesseth the English Papists in Ireland were faithful in all the Invasion of Spain or Pope Sand. K. C. p. 88. Calvin himself their greatest enemy on the first of Hosea and [Page 132] ninth of Amos, saith, quam multi sunt in Papatu qui regibus accumulant quicquid possint juris & potestatis. Whence King James in his Basilicon doron Epist. to the Reader, saith, Puritans had put out many Libels against all Chri­stian Princes; and that no body an­swered them, but the Papists: that they were their only Vindicators. And the late King himself in his excellent Book of Meditations, saith, I am sorry Pa­pists should have a greater sense of their allegiance than many Protestants.

The Loyalty and Obedience of Ca­tholicks towards Princes appears un­deniable in all things; by their con­stant and general conformity unto tem­poral Government. Have shewed all the duty that men can fancy to own. Where shall we find better Subjects? How much they are faulty, and how much others have been: let the world judg. They may lay to our charge, ten Seditious Authors for one: and that more Villanies have been perpetrated since the Reformation than in nine hun­dred years before.

I must provoke both Angels and [Page 133] men (saith a Divine of the English Church) to consider their wrong. How we load them with Crimes of which they are innocent. I might wonder how so wild calumnies could be laid to their charge. When their constant Doctrine teacheth, and their own persons have shewed all duty imaginable. Experi­ence hath proved their great integrity, that no advantages offered can betray their fidelity to their King or Country.—what wrong have done? what peace have they broken? what plots have they fomented to the prejudice of the present Government? or occasions given to hatch new jealousies? treason is now left out of their charge. What disco­veries were made against them, either in the Rump or Olivers time when the Press was free? were they not still owned as the most loyal and constant Royalists? and none of them could ever be suspected for the least defection from our Soveraign. And yet these are the men that are traduced, as in­consistent with civil polity and regality. Yet none more inoffensive then they. Judg then whether it be not a superla­tive [Page 134] injustice to incense the world a­gainst them. As if they delighted in blood, and persecuting of men were a part of their doctrine.

Now because the contrary opinion hath possessed the imaginations of so many, by a self-deceiving wilfulness, predominant passion or partiality. I shall clear and lay open the truth of this asser­tion in the sequent Chapter: So plain­ly and Orthodoxally; that none but who can lay aside all reason, charity, honesty and morality, may contradict and oppose.

CAP. IX. Principles and Doctrines of Roman Catholicks are con­sistent with Peace and Go­vernment, wherein a diffe­rent Religion is established by Law.

LEt Politicians say what they will, there is no greater support to Mo­narchy than Catholick Religion: whence one of our own Doctors saith, The Fanaticks did conjecture, and were tenacious of opinion, that the late Acts put out a­against Papists and Priests, were but to bring others more easily into the snare. So good and deserving opinion, they know Papists merited from those times, [Page 136] that no security need to tye them deeper.

How all the Catholicks of England have comported themselves, at least, these sixty years last past, needs no further vindication; those that have been witnes­ses of their actions can testifie. I shall only intimate, that I have heard them profess, that if at any time they have exposed their lives and fortunes, in defence of their Soveraign and Countrey; they did but do that duty which they shall be ready to do again, notwithstanding any dis­incouragement can be put upon them.

Now in this Chapter I adventure to fight against a popular prejudice, and the obstinacy of long verted opinions: considering the number of my Adversa­ries, who so loudly and resolutely charge them with destructive Doctrines and Prin­ciples to the publick good and safety, that they seem to make it an Article of their Creed: objecting Positions of some pri­vate and disavowed persons and words only (when others rebelled indeed, and their Battels were real:) but every mans work will bear a better testimony of him than other mens words do against him.

I know great difficulties may be over­come by truth and time. And vulgar and very general errors have oft been easily detected by prudent and unbiasled men. Whence to overthrow from the very foundation all such aspersions; let all im­partial men consider, first, these calumnies proceed originally from enemies. Se­condly, they are untruths forged against them, and taken upon trust, what their Antagonists teach you. For it hath been a course often practised against them, by many of their opponents:

First to frame Articles of their belief according to their own fancy, or out of private and unapproved Authors; as if they were the true and real Articles of their Faith. Who being oft pressed to justifie the accusations could never do it: or durst not shew their faces in a free or publick conference, about the points in question.

This way of proceeding is against all Law and Equity, to condemn them be­fore you hear them. No Judg sends men to be hanged before they speak for them­selves, and Sentence given.

Secondly, According to the rule of [Page 138] reason; they themselves should make the Confession and Profession of their own Faith, and that of others, especially their adversaries should not take it upon them: For any indifferent Judg would wonder you should have better intelli­gence of their Religion than they them­selves.

Thirdly, All examples and practices of the Primitive Churches mentioned in the Ecclesiastical Histories, the custom was, when any Dispute did arise, concerning the integrity of the Doctrine professed in any particular Church, that Church so question'd did always set down in writing a Confession of their Faith; and transmit it either to the Patriarch or some general Council: that so the sin­cerity of their belief might be tried by the touchstone of the Church univer­sal.

Fourthly, Faith being an internal consent of our will, and subjection of our understanding to truths revealed, in absolute justice none but we our selves can make an authentical manifestation of what passeth in our souls of that nature. And besides it being the duty of every [Page 139] Christian, not only to make open profes­sion of his Faith when occasion requires it, but also to make such a profession with all possible sincerity and truth: (for to use any falsity or dissimulation in a case of this concern, were not only to deceive men, but even to belye the holy Ghost.) It will necessarily follow, first, no judg­ment can be made of anothers faith, but by the confession of the party himself: and secondly, that a greater assurance can­not be given between man and man of veracity and secret dealing, than when we publickly declare our faith upon any point of Controversie.

Upon these grounds and these circum­stances, I presume, their Antagonists will be so reasonable as not to question the truth and reality of their meaning in what they declare concerning their Tenets in the points of Allegiance or Doctrine. Here I will set them down, submitting to the honour and conscience of all sober men, and to any indifferent Judges (who will not retain the animosity and preju­dice of parties) to give sentence, whether they are not consistent with loyalty and the duty of good Subjects and Christians. v. g.

They hold CHARLES the II. is their true and lawful Soveraign. Secondly, that no Power on earth shall absolve them from their natural Allegeance. Are ready by Oath in the face of Heaven to profess their loyalty indispensable, from which no power can free them. Third­ly, that they are bound with their lives and fortunes to defend the sacred Per­son of his Majesty in his just Rights against all opposers whatsoever, domestick or forraign. Fourthly, that Faith is to be kept with all men indifferently and e­qually, whether they be Roman Catho­licks, or of any other Religion. And that our engagements, promises and contracts cannot lawfully be broken, or dispensed with by any power on earth to the pre­judice of any third Person.

They believe the holy Scriptures to be of infallible authority, and assent to it, as the word of God. They believe the sacred mystery of the blessed Trinity; one eternal, almighty and incomprehen­sible God, whom only they adore and worship, as alone having soveraign do­minion over all things: to whom only is due from Men and Angels, all glory, [Page 141] service and obedience: abhorring to give their CREATORS honour to any creature whatsoever.

Whence they solemnly profess, that by the Prayers they address to Angels and Saints, they intend no more, but to sol­licite their assistance before the throne of God; as we desire the Pravers of one another here upon earth; not that they hope any thing from them as original au­thors thereof; but from God through Je­sus Christ our only Mediator and Redee­mer.

Neither do they believe any Divinity or Virtue to be in Images, for which they ought to be worshipped, as the Gentiles did their Idols. But they retain them with due and decent respect in their Chur­ches; as instruments which we find by ex­perience do often assist our memories and excite our affections. Pictures may be of good use (saith our learned Bacon) if the representation of divine stories, as well work upon them to contemplate those things, as lascivious Pictures do Obsce­nity. Charity obligeth us no other con­struction of the words of men than what they profess to be their own sense: but [Page 142] I never heard or read Images absolutely to be worshipped, or Saints absolutely prayed to.

They firmly believe that no force of nature or dignity of our best works can merit our justification; but we are justi­fied freely by grace through the redemp­tion that is in Jesus Christ: and though we should, by the Grace of God, per­severe in a godly life: yet are our hopes of eternal Glory built upon the mercy of God and the merits of Christ Je­sus.

All other merits (according to the sense of that word) signifie no more, than actions done by the assistance of Gods Grace; to which it has pleas'd his Goodness to promise a reward. A Doctrine so sui­table to the sense of holy Scripture, that nothing is so frequently repeated in it, as his gratious promises to recompence with everlasting Glory the Faith and Obedi­ence of his Servants. 1 Tim. 4. 8. Rom. 2. 6, 8, 13, Heb. 6. 10. Luke 16. 38. thus we believe the merit or rewardableness of holy living, (both which signifie the same with us) arises not from the value even of our best actions: but from the grace [Page 143] and bounty of God. And for ourselves we sincerely profess, when we have done all we are are able, or comman­ded, we are unprofitable servants. Luke 17. 10.

These they sincerely and solemnly pro­fess, as in the sight of God, the searcher of all hearts, taking the words plainly, without any equivocation or mental re­servation. And now let them that judg so severely, lay their hands on their hearts, and with the same justice and equity with which they expect to be judged them­selves at the last day: Let them pro­nounce whether or no their Doctrine or Principles are inconsistent with the duty of good Christans, or Subjects, and the peaee and safety of Government.

In Law and Reason every man, à for­tiori, a society of men ought to be estee­med honest and just, till the contrary ap­pear to be proved: but nothing hath hi­therto appeared to be proved against the loyalty of Catholicks: therefore in rea­son and justice they ought to be estee­meed good Subjects and Neighbours: and it is a meer Calumny to asperse them.

That nothing can be proved is evi­dent, their accusers being often pres­sed thereunto, were never able to pro­duce any particular; or any proof suf­ficient to satisfie any rational man: But dwelling in vain, general suspicions, triflings and false presumptions; laying to their charge extravagant crimes, that have not the least proof or probability: objecting positions of some private and disavowed persons; the crimes and in­discretions of particular men to all the party, to traduce and defame the whole, we aggravate the failings of a few.

The world knows it were no difficul­ty to recriminate in this kind, and re­pay them with the same dirt. If such accusations pass current, who would or could be innocent? No people on the earth can be safe at this rate. Would not this Logick make the Church of Eng­land guilty of Fanatick Principles; be­cause, Taylor, one of their renowned Do­ctors and Bishops writes for liberty of Prophecying? And of Murder and Theft, &c. because some of them are condemned every Sessions?

Whence an English Divine ingenuously speaketh; ‘We cast an aspersion on a sort of people, whose tried loyalty in all vicissitudes of dangerous troubles, as it should have altered your judgments (so their grievous sufferings for loyalty) should from the Charity of our Profes­sion, have found rather pity for their afflictions than aspersion on their inno­nence.—So good deserving an opi­nion they know Papists deserve from these times that no security needs to tye them deeper.—Nor can there be any ap­prehension of the least danger from them to his Majesties Person or State; for in point of fidelity they have given unque­stionable proofs by their actions; as their enemies witness.’

Needham, in his Book Interest will not lye, saith, 'Papists adhered generally 'to the King. Oliver, pressed by Cardi­nal Mazarine for liberty to Papists, said, they were his greatest enemies, lib. Of Treaty at St. John de Luze. They can say two things no profession else can: viz. that no person of Honour or Estate a­mong them was ever against the King: and on the contrary, hardly any one so [Page 146] qualified but did assist him. Who can therefore look on those men, as to have any honesty, wisdom or charity, who are ever grudging and repining at the least favour indulged to a faithful, loyal and sociable people? and can never rest satisfied with their own unlimited immu­nities; unless they see others contemned, afflicted and abused? When by all the Apostolick Rules of Christianity, we should help and compassionate: and not make it our business to supplant one ano­ther.

Before I answer the vulgar objections, and undeserved clamours so confidently (though without any legal examination and process, according to justice and judg­ment) laid upon them, and so frequent­ly, though disingenuously; urged against them. I will shew more largely what they teach concerning loyalty and fidelity to their King and Country.

1. It is an undoubted verity, generally taught in all their Councils, Canons, Sy­nods, Divines, Civilians, &c. that our duty to God cannot be complied with, without an exact performance of our du­ty towards our Soveraign: to obey him [Page 147] not for advantage, private interest or temporal concerns, but of Conscience. Nay what other Sectaries have bogled at; if the King should be a Heathen, and make Laws contrary to the Gospel, we ought not to resist, but patiently en­dure.

No Roman Catholick can be true to his Religion, who is not true to his Prince and Country. Saint Peter and Saint Paul did vehemently press obedience to the Emperours in Nero and Claudius times, who were Idolaters. No Divinity can be warranted from Scripture against evil Princes, but Prayers and Tears. Whatso­ever they command, which is not con­trary to the great Charter of the word of God, I am bound in Conscience to o­bey. If they command any thing repug­nant evidently to Gods revealed Will; I must obey them still; though not actively in doing what they command, yet pas­sively in submitting to those penalties they shall inflict. He that proclaimed the Prerogative of Kings, vos estis Dii, taught the World, People are to o­bey. Xephlon in vita Mar. Anton. tells us, Solus Deus est Index Principum, [Page 148] God alone is the Judg of Kings.

I know no sin against the second Ta­ble, set forth in more bloody colours by Catholick Authors, than this of diso­be dience to Governours: they saying it is compounded of Homicide, Parri­cide Christicide and Deicide. They compare it to Witchcraft where the par­tie intends and covenants with the Devil himself.

God commanded the Amalekite, who had a hand in Sauls death, to be slain before his eyes. Sheba blowing a Trumpet against David, is stiled a Son of Belial. What made Jerobo [...]m so infamous in Scripture, but because he lifted up his hand against the King. 1 King. 11. 26. an irreverent or wry word against the King is in Scrip­ture called Blasphemy, Proverb. 27. thou shalt not blaspheme the Gods. And Naboth was accused in that he did blaspheme God and the King. Curse not the King, no not in thy thoughts; for a bird in the air shall carry the voice: is it fit to say to the King, thou art wicked, and to Princes, ye are ungodly? Job. 34. 18.

It hath been observed God hath sig­nally punished those wrongs have been [Page 149] done to his Vicegerents. What an un­luckie time was it, and accompanied with a deluge of miseries when Kings were ta­ken away from Rome and Consuls set up? We read in our Annals after Richard the Second was deposed followed a War, wherein a hundred thousand were slain, besides what of late in our memorie.

What more hurtful and hateful Crea­ture than the Locusts? Y [...] they are ob­served only to have no King: if we o­bey not the King, who is a visible God: how shall we obey God, who is an in­visible King? Since the lines of our peace and happiness do meet and center in him, as in our common Father. Who can think that any natives of a Land profes­sing themselves followers of Christ (who in the days of his humiliation was obe­dient to Caesar, that he wrought a mira­cle to give him his due) and expecting a protection from a lawful Prince, should once demur to swear and yield Obe­dience?

Mens ears are open, saith a learned Divine, to receive any tragical complaints concerning their Governours. Sheba's Trumpet is pleasant Musick to that great [Page 150] Beast, the common people: they hearken with both ears to Detractions and Ca­lumnies against Governours; that they are tyrannical Bishops, are Antichristian, Popery is coming in apace; the Gospel is adulterated, Justice obstructed, Profane­ness countenanced. What Hurricanes will these men raise? I even tremble any should profane the Pulpit, poison the Air, or (which is worse) the very hearts of men with such seditious and devilish Doctrines.

Who can chuse but renounce that way of Discipline, which startles at renouncing War with the King?

For my part, as Lactantius said to Con­stantine, the same say I of our Sove­raigns Restauration. Ille dies foelicissimus illuxit, &c. Whose Person (if we be not worse than Heathens) we ought to love and honour, and whose prosperity we ought to pray for. His unquestiona­ble Title and most noble and high De­scent and Birthright cannot but strike a reverential aw upon us: for it may li­neally and successively be derived from the British, Scottish, Danish, Saxon and Norman Princes above two thousand years, which is more antient and truly [Page 151] noble than any Prince in the World ca [...] shew. A Prince, whose great Judgment, Gentility, Educarion, candid Nature, Meekness, Generosity, Benignity and justness in Dealing all the world cannot but know and may imitate: And his ve­ry enemies (if he can contract any) must (if not injudiciously passionate, or deserve in some measure to be ranged in the Categories of fools and mad men) acknowledg. But we our selves, his Sub­jects, are more pathetically sensible of the effects, in his gentle protection to us of the Laws, Lives and Liberties: Every one quietly living under and possessing his own Vine, without the least suspici­on of being harrassed or disturbed: as they were in the late times of Anarchie and Democracy. And most Nations dai­ly feel more heavy Yokes, and exactions under their (though moderate) Gover­nours. In this where there is so much truth and justice to own, it cannot be esteemed any Adulation, but rather our duty to acknowledg.

Let's study then to be quiet, to fear God and honour the King, and not spend our selves in national and trifling Disputes, [Page 152] be so pragmatical, econtrical, and magi­sterail, as to meddle with things above us, by lying in lurking places, watching and meditating Ambuscadoes for the downfall of those we ought to pray for. It looks like a studied piece of malice to be so angry one with another for Religi­on, our own Nation and Natives; as Hy­pocrates was with the Persians, who refu­sed to give them Physick, or heal their Maladies when they sent for him.

Gold is the best mettal, and 'tis also most ductile and malleable. If you are Englishmen, of generous dispositions, and of a golden nature, you will be pliable, to be advised, and aim at nothing but your own and the Nations happiness. What though every pin in the Sanctuary doth not stand point size, as you would have it? must all Europe eccho with your bel­lowings? must an unwarrantable Cove­nant or pretence of Spirit hinder our ce­menting and soddering together? do you think, like Sea-Pies, to rise by going a­gainst the wind? or, which is worse, to rise by the fall of your Brethren and fel­low Christians? do you think to flou­rish in your private capacities? must the [Page 153] publick suffer? You know the Apologue the Members conspired against the Belly, and were starved themselves. 'Tis impossible but private interest must sink, when pub­lick falls.

You are not such strangers in our Isra­el, as to be ignorant, how the waters have swelled, the winds blew, the waves have beaten against the ship of the whole Kingdom. You well know what Confe­deracies and Combinations are abroad a­gainst our Tranquillity. Gabel, Ammon, Ameleck, all are bent upon our ruine. Is this a time to cavil one with another, dispute in triflles, when Hannibal hath been so lately at your gates? What makes ye now again so inveterate to preach down Charity, to curse, O ye Meroz! to stand so stifly upon, in a rash and false cen­suring of your Brethren?

Is this thy Kindness to thy Friend? as Absolon said to Hussey, Is this your love to your native Country? that you had rather, barbaras has segetes, that the Satyrs should dance here? and Forreig­ners should inhabit our dwellings, rather than you will come short of your wills? What makes you now so spleenish? have [Page 154] you felt the shaving of Selymus his Beard? or been subject to Neroes or Dioclesians, who would threaten to mingle your blood with your Sacrifices? Whose Ox or Ass was taken from him? Why should you grudg at Papists peace and protection, when they give no just occasion to violate yours? Is it not a meer piece of Sophistry, or Satanical stratagem, if any thing be amiss still to cast all the odium and impu­tation upon them? like those Heathens that sent the Christians to the Lyons, if Nilus did not swell high enough to make their fields fruitful; or if their legions miscarried in the field. So unhappy are they, if their Teeth must be [...]et on edge as oft as the people eat sowr grapes.

When Pirrhus proposed to himself to win Rome, Sicily and Carthage, Cyneus asked him, what he would do at last? Pirrhus said, be merry: Cyneus replied, So you may be already, if you would be contented with what you have. I must, like another Cyneus, tell you, if you would rest satisfied with that spatious liberty al­lowed you already, you may be as reli­gious as you will, who hinders you? Why should you murmur at the least indulgen­cy [Page 155] to others, that are as studious of a virtuous life as your selves? Why should you then still suspect Popery and Super­stition? and cry to Magistrates for Op­pression to others? Charity thinketh no evil. It is a strong suspition, where there is no evident cause of such En­vy, it doth rather proceed from, or ar­gue, guilt.

Thus we are still afraid of shadows, and by our active fancies frame such Chi­mera's of danger, which have no footing in nature. Like untoward and unhappy Children help forward to our own affli­ction. As the perfidiousness of the Do­natists and Manichees in Hippo, by their surmised jealousies were the cause it was made a pray to the Vandals.

Thus having proved that the Doctrine and Principles of Roman Catholicks are not repugnant to any Government what­soever; but very consonant to all moral and pious living, and Christian peace and society. I shall now, in the sequent Chapters, search (without partiality) and with all sincerity, into the depth and bottom of the usuall and common asper­sions, mistakes and objections so often [Page 156] and undeservedly cast in their teeth, taking measures of their manners, acti­ons, &c. without any due regard or examination.

CAP. X. Sheweth how widely we are deceived in our undue mea­sures and censures.

I Am not so unadvised as to think their innocence stands in need of my pen: since it's strong enough to rescue it self from the usual accusations and tempestuous Hurricano [...]s of Calumnies groundlesly imputed. Yet being by justice and title of this Apo­logy obliged to this duty, my chief de­sign in this Treatise being true Charity; I shall speak more freely and candidly, to justifie the innocent, to remove that popular odium, to allay that plebeian pas­sion, to wipe away such impious Stains, Maculations and polluted Characters: and take away those unjust jealousies; and [Page 158] rectifie those unlearned prejudices, which by so many are taken up and urged dai­ly against them. Whereby Christian Charity, according to the Gospel, our Profession, and promise in Baptism, by which we are graduated Christians, may be maintained; that we as true Servants of our great Master, may wear the Badg and Livery of Unity, Peace and Con­cord.

Suppositions and meer conjectures have been the best measures that most have taken of them, their Pr [...]ctices, Princi­ples or Doctrines. Whatever is said of Papists is generally believed: how a [...]e they traduced? what Stories are told of Popes▪ how many things of the whole body of Catholicks? and all taken for Gospel? yet have no solid foundation of truth in them? Whence one of our English Church truely noteth; saying,

We heighten little things of concern to Religion to make them odious, fill Books with trivial Stories and Fables, pick'd out of Authors without any dis­cretion; make it our business to seek out Calumnies and Reproaches (which good Authors cannot furnish us with) [Page 159] in the sepulchres and common shoars of Schismaticks, of private and disavowed persons.

Controversies in our time (saith Do­ctor Field) are grown so many in number and in nature so intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength and understanding, to examine them. It's hard for the most judicious and lear­ned men to give a right judgment of many points; and yet notwithstanding many engaged persons are ready to force Dissenters by coercive Power, or blacken them with opprobrious terms.

The Controversies of Justification by faith or good works hath filled volumes with Arguments, Definitions and Distin­ctions: but it is hard to find, whether the difference be not de nomine, and of words only. The Controversie of free­will, since neither part doth absolutely exclude Divine Grace, or concurrence of the will with it, may be called verbal; if understood cum grano salis, and by those who carrie no partial biass on their judgments. Some rigid Calvinists indeed (though not all) conclude an absolute [Page 160] fate by Predestination to Salvation or Reprobation: to those I answer, they need not trouble themselves, but let every one go quietly to his destinie; since, by their own Principles, all their Praying, Preaching, &c. can neither help nor hurt: Seeing it is not in their power to avoid evil or do good.

Worship of Images exclaimed as Idola­trous, the scandal is chiefly, as I con­ceive, taken from the word Adoration, which in the Grammar sense is but ado­rare, to pray to: but the generality of Rome disown that acceptation, and told them chiefly as Memorials, as I shewed before.

The Pope to be Antichrist, the Ety­mology of the very word is repugnant to it: the being by us acknowledged likewise the great Patriarch of the most Christian and Western Church; and every one that hath but an ordinary reason, sense or knowledge of Scripture can own but one Antichrist to come, the Prophet Daniel spoke of. And that he should give pardon for Sins or Sinners whatsoe­ver; without first having remission from God, by Sorrow, Repentance and Amend­ment, [Page 161] is so great a Calumny, that I pray God to pardon such malicious ignorance. I tremble to hear such horrid blasphe­mies out of Christian mouths to dero­gate and scandalize their fellow Christi­ans with more than H [...]athenish imple­ties.

Many and other great things have been objected against them through ignorance, weakness, mistakes or malice: which unjust men scatter too and fro as chasse to blinde the eyes of simple and credu­lous people. The crimes of a few misera­ble wretches (by none more det [...]sted than themselves) are made their guilt: but it is the fashion Papists and Popery must be brought in by head and shoul­ders, and sit down under any affronts; what ever the difference be, to exaspe­rate mens spirits, and make odious and suspected those whom we can never con­fute. It is hard they should alwaies lie under such undeserved imputations, and be persecuted without liberty of a just defence. The Morality of the Heathens was more equitable and less envious: where the Emperor Adrian commanded unto Minutius his Proconsul of Asia, as a [Page 162] thing of great importances, ne nomen con­demnaretur sed crimen.

A Divine of our English Church ex­claiming against such proceedings, saith, Our affections change our thoughts, and our imaginations fit the scene; and what we call reason is many times but a chain of phantasms: and we are gui­ded by prejudices, and overwhelmed by Authority, and formed by education, and suck in opinions carelesly,—are deeply setled before we examine them; and when we examine them it is but by halfes; we see but few things, and judg all things by them; and either seek not truth at all, or are unable to manage a due and impartial search. When we stumble upon it, we are afraid, and run away from it, or stand to pelt it with dirt and vile names. In the mean time we catch at shadows, and grow fond of the imaginations of our own fancies.

Doctor Taylor, one of our late and most eminent Divines, in Treatise of Liberty of Prophe [...]ying §. 2. & 10. p. 249. Colle­cting some considerations inducing per­sons (saith he) of much reason and more [Page 163] piety to retain the Religion of their forefathers.—Their Doctrines having had a long continuance and possession of the Church; which therefore can­not easily be supposed in the present Professors, to be a design (for Cove­tousness, Ambition, &c.) since they have received it from so many ages: and it is not likely, that all ages should have the same purposes; or that the same Doctrine should serve the se­veral ends of diverse ages. Its long prescription, which is such a prejudice as cannot be retrenched, as relying up­on these grounds; that truth is more ancient than falshood: that God would not for so many ages forsake his Church and leave her in error. I add not such gross errors as are imputed on them, as Idolatry, &c.—Again, the beauty and splendor of that Church, their pom­pous Service, the stateliness and solem­nity of the Hierarchy, their name of Catholicks, which they suppose and claim as their own due, and to concern no other Sect of Christians. The an­tiquity of many of their Doctrines; the continual succession of their Bishops; [Page 164] their immediate derivation from the A­postles; their title to succeed Saint Pe­ter (and in this regard chiefly honou­red and submitted to by antiquity,) the supposal and pretence of his personal prerogatives (much spoken of by the Fathers;) the flattering expressions of minor Bishops (in modester language honourable expressions) which by be­ing old records, have obtained credu­lity. The multitude and variety of people which are of their perswasion, apparent consent with elder ages in ma­ny matters doctrinal: the advantage which is derived by entertaining some personal opinions of the Fathers:—the great consent of one part with another in that which they affirm to be de fide. The great differences which are com­menced among their adversaries—their happiness of being instruments in con­verting divers Nations: The advantage of Monarchical Government, the bene­fit of which they daily enjoy: The piety and austerity of their religi­ous Orders of men and women: the single life of their Priests and Bi­shops, the severity of their Fasts, and [Page 165] their exterior observances: The great Reputation of their Bishops for Faith and Sanctity: The known holiness of some of those persons, whose institutes the religious persons pre [...]end to imi­tate: Their Miracles false or true, substantial or imaginary; The causa­lities and accidents that have happened to their adversaries: the oblique acts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them.

To which, join that of Sir Edwine Sands, in his relation of the western Re­ligion, p. 29. saying, Beside the Ro­man Church and those Churches united with her; we find all other Churches to have had their end and decay; as Hussits, Sollards, Waldenses, Albigenses, Berengarians, &c. or their beginning but of late. This being founded by the Prince of the Apostles with promise to him by Christ, &c. much more to that purpose, ibid. What Church but one can shew the fulfilling of innumerable Scriptures touching the Churches Infal­libility, Ʋniversality, by time, place and person? Which can spread before your eyes her Line and Pedigree, descend [...]ng [Page 166] from the Apostles to these times? which can declare that in all ages she hath had some glorious company professing her Re­ligion, even in points their adversaries now impugne?

There makes for them all that may or can be of any Christian man required: Literal Text of holy Scripture, approved Tradition, general Councils, ancient Fa­thers, Ecclesiastical Histories, Christian Laws, Conversion of Nations, divine mi­racles, heavenly Visions, Ʋnity, Ʋniversa­lity, Antiquity, Succession, their true Mission, Ordination, &c. all Monuments, all Substance, all accidents of Christi­anity.

No wit of man can find out Argu­ments more convincing in themselves, the truth of Religion, than plain Texts and literal Sense of holy Writ, the in­fallible Decrees of Church and general Councils, the indubitable Writings and unanimous consent of ancient Fathers, the credible Histories of all times and pla­ces, and often the common light of Na­ture and Reason it self. And ad homi­nem, for prevention of all evasions, no victory more certain, no objection more [Page 167] unanswerable than the plain confession of their adversaries themselves. The Vo­lumes of Fathers and Councils in the el­dest and purest times, be so clear in them­selves for Romish Faith, that the primest and most learned Reformists studying the same, are enforced through evidence of their words and deeds, to acknowledg, as Master Bierly in King James's time produceth clear testimonies.

If that Church erred, or changed by little and little, or that the true Church was invisible, &c. they require some humane reason to shew it catigorically: In what time? in what Articles? what Pope changed? what tumults rise there­upon? what Councils withstood? &c. which in all innovations they can shew easily a total change, and in what parti­cular points, as by Arrians, Sabellians, Donatists, Pelagians, Protestants, &c. What places, what Countries chan­ged with them, what Catholicks set against them, what kept the old paths? To say the Church was extinct a thousand years, or unknown, is ex­presly against the Scripture, Christs Pro­mises and Providence, and Reason it [Page 168] self. If the Church were invisible whe­ther should Gentiles address for their Conversion? or the doubtful for resolu­tion? or all faithful for their direction? was our Saviour who was promised to all Nations brought to that streight, that he had not a visible Chappel reserved to him in the whole world? Is it not good reason, God would preserve his Church which he had planted and wa­tered with his Blood? Is it not a de­nyal of Gods Providence? and to say Jesus Christ was unjust, or an Impostor, to oblige all men to indispensible obe­dience to her, if erroneous or invisible? if men were changed into beasts they may be thus perswaded.

Is not the Church compared to a Ci­ty, to a Light, to the Sun, &c. can the Church, which is a Sun, be drawn into a chin [...]k? or all her Beams into the center of a Burning-glass? Can any Proposition be more reasonable, than to ask of those who maintain a thing to be in former ages to produce some marks thereof? to shew where they had a be­ing, or a Company successively hold­ing the same Articles with them? The [Page 169] Building is perpetual where God layeth the Foundation.

The Church is the Pillar of truth, 1 Tim. 3. cannot err, Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. Mat. 28. Act. 3. Go teach all Nations—and I am with you all days to the con­summation, John 17. Father keep them in [...]hy name whom thou hast given me. See his Petition to keep his Church, gathered of all Nations, and his conti­nual protection, I will give you another Comfor [...] ▪ [...]o a [...]i [...]e with you for ever. John 16. When the spirit of truth cometh he shall [...]ach you all truth. This assi­sta [...]ce promis [...]d was ever in all ages; no Heresie or Jew could ever prevail against it.

The guard and strength of Truth in point also of antiquity is ever such, that she resteth still accompanied, attended and fortified with surest friends, stron­gest towers and best munition. Priori­ty and ancestry is so specially affected by the Wisdom of God, and maligned by the enemy of man; that in first plan­ting the Church its said Mat. 4. 13, 24, 25. 5. Mat. 13, 17. Luk. 8. 12. that he first sowed good seed in the field, [Page 170] and after the enemie came and oversowed Cockle; not obscurely intimating true Faith and Religion, that is, good seed was first and ancient to Sects and Heresies. Even as temporal nobility is most honou­rable which is derived from the a [...]cient­est Blood: and in earthly possessions that Title strongest, which pleadeth lon­gest prescription, or ancientest evidence. So it cannot be denied but truth was be­fore falshood, substance before shadows; the Gospel, Faith, Religion, &c. which is first and eldest is only the true Gospel, Faith, Church: and other Congrega­tions afterwards arising or going out from thence are only malignant inven­tions of the enemy.

In which respect to find out truth in all occurring difficulties we are specially forewarned to recurre to antiquity, to suspect novelty, Moses, Deut. 32. before his death, leaving documents to the Chil­dren of Israel, saith, Remember the old days, ask thy Father, &c. so Bildab Jobs friend 1 Job 8. advised him in grea­test extremities—ask the old generation, and search diligently, Solom. Eccl. 9. 8. 11, 12. let not the [...]rration of the anci­ent [Page 171] escape thee, &c. and Jer. c. 16. stand upon the ways and ask the old paths, which is the good way, &c.—on the con­trary God reproveth such as walk in a way not trodden: and Solomons lesson is Transgress not the ancient bounds which thy Father hath put. So Saint Paul to Timothy to keep the Depositum, avoiding profane novelties.

It's very ordinary with the Fathers to confute Hereticks, by their innovation. So Tertullian reproveth Novelists of his time, saying to them, who are you? when and from whence came you? what do you in my grounds? by what right, Marcion, didst thou cut down my woods? by what licence, Valentine, dost thou o­verthrow my Fountains? &c. It is my possession long since I possessed it, I pos­sessed it first.—So Saint Hierom. of the Luciferians, —Why do you go about after four hundred years to teach that we knew not before? until this day the world was Christian without that Do­ctrine. So Athan. confuteth the Arrians, Saint Hilarie and Saint Aug. Donatists. These reasons may induce us to take new measures of that ancient Church, and [Page 172] may easily perswade persons (as Doctor Taylor in his Treatise of Liberty of Pro­phecying) of much reason and more piety, to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their forefathers; especially when her Soveraign Rights, Titles and Prerogatives are admitted and acknowledged by her professed enemies. Whence,

Chillingworth confesseth, that Pro­testants cannot with coherence to their own grounds, require of others the belief of any thing besides Scripture, and the plain irrefragable and indubitable con­sequences of it, without most high and schismatical presumption. Dr. Bramh. Reply, p. 264. We do not (saith he) hold our 39 Articles to be such necessary truths, extra quas non est salus, without which there is no salvation, nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear to them; but only to subscribe to them as theolo­gical truths. And Stilling. p. 153. saith, men are herein to judg for themselves according to the Scripture; because, saith he 'every one is bo [...]nd to take 'care of his Soul and all things that tend thereto.

Now if there be no absolute assent re­quired to the 39 Articles of the Church of England, as to matters of Faith; as Ar [...]bishop La [...]d, Bramhal, Chillingworth, Fulk▪ St [...]llingfleet, &c. confess: do not we take hard measures of Romanists, to force them [...] renunciation of their posi­tive points revealed by literal texts of Scri­pture; Gods holy spirit residing in gene­ral Councils, confirmed by much reason and authority of all persons and ages: to put any abuses and reproaches upon them because they do not conform to our ne­gative points not de fide.

CAP. XI. Answereth more particularly all other vulgar objecti­ons and aspersions so con­fidently (though errone­ously) cast upon them.

IN the sequent Pages I judge it little to the purpose to observe any order by Chapters or Sections. Seeing these usual imputations hang together like the Tails of Sampsons Foxes; being by their An­tagonists urged against them with more bitterness and spleen then sincerity or ve­rity. I will therefore refer the Reply to the Censure of all judicious and ho­nest-minded Souls: how weakly and [Page 175] uncharitably these objections are taken up? how inconclusive is the inference from them? and how unreasonably they are continued and urged against peace­able people; to an abusive credulity and delusion of many other sober Chri­stians.

¶ I will take the first Objection and Answer from a Divine of the Church of England. Their Adversaries object (saith he) against the Papists, as Tertul­lus and the Jews did against Saint Paul, Act. 2. Papists are Pestilent fellows, stir­rers up of the People, factious, turbu­lent, seditious, will not conform, nor are well affected to the present constitutions of power and publick affairs.

Against this calumny which with much cunning and eagerness is every where by some levelled against them. And it is like to the policy of Julian the Apostate, who to ensnare the Chri­stians; set the Statues of the Emperors with the Idols of the Gods: that if Christians did civil reverence as to the Emperors; they should be defamed as Idolaters; if not they should be accu­sed [Page 176] as despisers of the Emperors.

To this sharp and poysoned arrow; I shall only oppose the Shield of plain dealing; that in a matter so much con­cerning the satisfaction of others, and Papists civil safety there may be no such obscurities as may harbour any jealousies.

The humble, peaceable, and discreet carriage of them may justly plead for favour and protection against this ca­lumny; of proneness to sedition, facti­on, or illegal disturbance in civil af­fairs; who even in all the unhappy troubles of the late years have generally behaved themselves, as shewed they had no other design than to live a quiet life in all godliness and honesty, &c.

¶ Next may be objected that Papists scruple to take the OATHS of ALLE­GIANCE and SUPREMACY.

I answer as for the Oath of Allegiance were it not for some incommodi­ous expressions nothing pertaining to the substance or design of the Oath it would [Page 177] generally be admitted. There is no­thing in the Oath of Allegiance which purely concerns the practical part of Allegiance, but what Catholicks will most willingly swear unto. But they that at­tentively consider the several parts of that Oath, shall find that some of them are speculative points, and general: o­thers practical and particular which re­late, to the actions and demeanour of him that swears, of which he is Master and consequently can answer for them.

To all the propositions of this second sort relating to the practice of allegiance; there is no Catholick in England but will swear unto them. But as to the first sort therein contained which involve spe­culative points and general notions, and withall controverted by several learned men, I must confess I think it would be very hard to excuse such an Oath from rashness and ambiguity.

I humbly therefore intreat the Rea­der to consider: An Oath is by which God is invoked as a witness to what we affirm. Three Conditions are required to it, expressed by the Eccl. 9. 2. Prophet, jurabis mihi in aequi­tate, [Page 178] veritate & judicio & justitia; Thou shalt swear in truth, judgment and justice. So that if an Oath be am­biguous or false it wants the first con­dition, viz. truth, if used rashly without discretion, good advice, and not of just necessity, it will be destitute of judgment. 3. It must be sincere and conform to the eternal Law of God, lest it want ju­stice. So that it is a breach of solemn Oaths if they be ambiguous, entangled, or contradicting one another, &c.

Now when we come to swear in ge­neral to the speculative points of the Popes Power in deposing Princes excom­municated, and authorizing one Prince to invade another, &c. although we suppose the assertion to be true that the Pope hath no such Power; Yet how can they with a safe Conscience swear point blanck thereunto? It being a matter of fact, nor in our power to make true or false. Secondly, they cannot swear that position of the Popes deposing power is absolutely Heretical: because the con­trary is not evident in Scripture nor condemned by the Church. Any other ill names o [...] epithets they will be content [Page 179] to give it. Thirdly, In doing so they seem to profess a Declaration of a point of Faith which a particular Christian cannot presume to do, and make him­self a judg and decider of a point of Faith. Fourthly, They would then by Oath testifie that all Popes that have ex­ercised and all Writers that have writ­ten or maintained such a power even in some extraordinary cases and emergencies are to be esteemed Hereticks; which is very rash for any particular to presume.

There is a great difference in swearing that I believe such a thing to be true, and swearing absolutely such a thing is true, in the first, I swear, only to my own Opinion (which any that is so perswaded may lawfully do.) In the second I positively swear to the Truth of the thing. And to do this the greatest probability in the world is not sufficient to warrant me: for the greatest probability doth not a­mount to an absolute certainty without which an Oath is rash.

Papists refuse the Oath of Allegiance (as 'tis now worded) framed by one PERKINS an Apostate Jesuit, purposely mingled with uncertain speculative points [Page 180] ambiguous and difficult to be interpre­ted; to make them fall within the Law of refusal: charged with expressions not pertinent to the substance or intention of the Oath, or relating truly to the obe­dience of the King; nor King James ever intended to intangle the Consciences of his Subjects, if he had foreseen a few unnecessary words and expressions ren­dred it so. Nor would Catholicks as to Allegiance (if an Oath were worded a hundred times more strong than this) make the least scruple of it.

This argument I urge no further than to evince in their justification that their unwillingness to swear, is no evidence to prove their want of allegiance, or any backwardness to lay down their lives and fortunes in his Majesties service: For the practical part of the Subjects allegiance is that which only concerns the security of a Prince, which all Catholicks will gladly swear unto. Therefore I hope a true and real tender­ness of Conscience (which can have no ill consequence with it in relation to his Majesties safety) will give no offence to them that are over them; nor be a mo­tive [Page 181] to hold a rigorous hand upon them. Especially seeing these threescores years since▪ the Oath was first established, it hath been refused by Catholicks to be taken upon the score of Conscience though universally taken by others of any dignity conferred upon them in Church or State. Yet no Catholick in England of any note or quality that all this time did act contrary to their alle­giance sworn unto in the Oath. On the other side I could wish it were as diffi­cult to name those amongst the takers of the Oath, who have so fatally bro­ken them; half the Kingdome being in rebellion contrary to what they had sworn, to the ruine of the best King and the best man which perhaps this Na­tion had ever cause to glory in.

As for the Oath of Supremacy, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Gilby all pretended Re­formers disliked it. Calvin in his Commen­tary on Osee, saith, who advanced Hen. 8. to such a height did not well, for they no less than blasphemed, when they called him Supream Head under Christ. Chem­nitius a learned Lutheran in his Epist. ad eloc. Briard. of Queen Eliz. Suprema­cy, [Page 182] saith, quod foeminae & a saeculis in­audito fastu se papissam & caput Ecclesiae facit. So Gilby in Admonit. ad Angl. Our Cartwright also teacheth against Supre­macy. So do Presbyterians generally here and beyond Sea. Henry the eighth once acknowledged the Supremacy more than ever any King did, as appeared by Cardinal Campeius and Wolsey Legates (he being called before them.) After his will being not executed made the Oath against Supremacy.

This Oath of Supremacy as it is word­ed and according to the sense of the first Lawgiver, cannot lawfully be taken by any Christian or assembly without con­tradicting his belief, understanding it Grammatically according to the proper and natural sense of the words at least ambiguous if not formally contradictory.—or the cause or reason of framing this Oath by Hen. 8. and what power was exercised by virtue of it, and of the Parliament enjoining it, appears to be a jurisdiction purely spiritual was commu­nicated to him, and assumed by him. Its evident also by the many practises it was only a spiritual by-title of Supre­macy [Page 183] he sought for, to deprive the Pope: for he stood in need of such a power to justifie his divorce and dispense with his intention of taking Ecclesiastical livings of Abbies & Monasteries into his hands. The Protection in King Edward the sixth con­tinued the Oath to make new Church-Laws, Institutions and commit new Sa­criledges, changes, ubique arti contrary to which King He [...]. 8. published and de­clared. Queen Mary renounces this ju­risdiction and restores it to▪ the Church. Queen Elizabeth re-assumes it, having a greater necessity for it then her Brother, because her marriage was declared null by the Pope.

This Oath consists of two parts, the affirmative, as that the King is only Su­pream Head as well in Temporal as Spi­ritual, &c. Secondly, the Negative that no Prince, Prelate, &c. hath any jurisdiction or spiritual Power, &c. This Negative part of the Oath is con­trary to a point of their Faith wherein not only all spiritual authority of the Pope, but of a general Council or We­stern Church is disclaimed. Is all juris­diction purely spiritual only in the Kings [Page 184] right? are Princes Pastors of Souls? hath not a Heathen King the same spi­ritual right? How could King James then call the Pope Patriarch of the West? or how can a free general Council o­blige Christians, and to which learned Protestants, profess to submit to as the chiefest authority under God?

And although in Queen Elizabeths time the Oaths were explicated, that on­ly civil and Kingly authority in causes Ecclesiastical, was intended) yet this negative clause cannot be by such expo­sitions eluded. Secondly, An Oath to Catholicks and tender Consciences, is so dreadful that they dare not call God to witness they sincerely swear the Pope ought not to have any Superiority in spiritual causes; unless it might be per­mitted them at the same time, and the same breath to signifie that it is in­tended of civil and Kingly authority in causes Ecclesiastical. They tremble to swear at words ambiguous but formally contradictory. Thirdly, In the thirty nine Artticles of the Church of England it is defined that the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Kingdome, and these [Page 185] Articles are confirmed by Act of Parlia­ment. Whereby it appears their inten­tion is to require a renuntiation of a Ca­tholick point of Faith, and the Popes being Head of the Western Church. This Act being made since the said ex­position.

The Oaths of Supremacy and Allegi­ance, if the former were so expressed as to require an acknowledgement of a ci­vil Supremacy in his Majesty, and Ec­clesiastical to the Church-Governours: and if the unfortunate word Heretical, and speculative points were left out of the other, no Catholick would refuse either. And more then this no Protestant, Pres­byterian, &c. that freely take them can intend by them: an Oath being in it self, a religious affirmation with Gods Seal.

Whosoever takes these Oaths abso­lutely must swear to take Almighty God to witness as he shall answer at the dreadful day of Judgment, that he be­lieves the Pope hath no Power, &c. now this word believe (being in a matter of Religion and Profession of the same) can signifie nothing but a Christian belief or [Page 186] Faith: and imports thus much, I N. N. do swear in the presence of Almighty God that the Pope hath no Power, &c. As I believe there is a God in Heaven, or any other Article of Faith: all this is virtually and really comprehended in the word believe.

Now what man of Conscience, of what Opinion soever, that feareth an Oath to use the Preachers words, Eccles. 9. 2. will venture his Soul so far as to swear all this? are we all of us so cer­tain that no forraign jurisdiction, &c. or that its Heretical, &c. as we are cer­tain there is a God, Heaven, Hell, &c. and so make it a part of, and Article of our Belief, when it is not expresly nor plainly revealed in Scripture or decla­red by the Church; and so not funda­mental to our Belief or absolutely neces­sary to our Salvation?

If you say it may be obscurely delivered in Scripture, then at least the unlearned cannot be able to discover it. How then shall such dare to swear; as in ef­fect they do when they take the Oaths that they are revealed and contained in Scripture? when by reason of obscurity [Page 187] they are not certain whether it be re­vealed there or no? Is it not a just matter of scruple and fear for a timorous Con­science to swear a thing not to be which he is not certain of? Secondly,

May the very learned in points not ne­cessary to Salvation, or obscurely deli­vered venture to swear that such a thing is not certainly in Scripture, only be­cause he himself conceives it not there? will he make his private judgment rule of his Faith and his Conscience as he must do who makes those propositions in the Oaths Articles of his Belief? can it be denied that other men no less lear­ned dispute the case doubtfully? whence we can neither swear to be or not be, because we have no sufficient certainty pro or con concerning them. Though we may use such expressions as to a­vouch; we really think and are fully perswaded that the Pope hath no power, &c. But it is most rash and temerari­ous to swear positively to such inevident propositions exposing our selves to an eminent peril of taking a false Oath and thereby committing a sin to God.

'Tis pity such slender evasions should sa­tisfie [Page 188] us, as have been scorned by Hea­thens: 'tis much that a moral Consci­ence should more check them, than a clearer light can awe us; as if we ho­noured more the Genius of a Caesar, then we reverence the presence of a God. They had their perjury-revenging Gods. Our God hates false Oaths as appeared in his severity to Zedekias for breaking Covenant with the Babylonish Monarch though a Tyrant of the first magnitude. Were all Subjects duly sollicitous about the weight of this bond, we should be less prone to take Oaths and more studi­dious to observe them.

Matter of an Oath ought to be plain and obvious to our understanding with­out obscurity and intricacy: I must know what to swear otherwise I take Gods name in vain in swearing without judgment. They must have the afore­said three conditions, viz. to swear in judgment, righteousness and truth, the matter must be lawful, not rash, obscure, &c. it must not intrench on the autho­rity of Superiors temporal or spiritual; for Oaths are so sacred that tis a piacu­lar offence to break them. No sin is so [Page 189] followed at the heels with more signal judgments then this of perjury, as might be convinced by a million of examples.

I will now conclude this question with the censure of two learned Divines of the English Church concerning these Oaths: the first objecting Papists scruple to take the Oaths.

Answereth saying— they think it is a Pill which will choak their Consci­ence if they swallow it; or purg them out of their livings if they do not. For contrary to other Physick this o­perates most strongly on those that ne­ver take it.

Remember how cruel a thing it is to make mens consciences pass as Gide­on did the men of Succoth, or David the Ammonites under briars and thorns; under saws and harrows of either sharpe contradictions, or prickly distin­ctions; unsafe Salvoes. God hath oft exacted the forfeiture of perjury as of Saul and Zedekias: and howsoever God in his providence may put suspen­sions of Oaths as to their actual execu­tion, yet they cannot find any abso­lution from the obligation which goes [Page 190] with inconditionate Oaths, so long as they are within our moral possibility of keeping them. How any man can swear and promise to be true and faith­ful to two different interests without being forsworn, or false and unfaithful to the one or the other, seems a Gordian knot which only the Sword dissolves by cutting not untying.

The State of humane affairs have been most fully represented in the glass of our times with as many variating faces as the Moon. We have seen the threefold cords of Oaths, Protestations, Covenants could not resist those Tides and Storms which have driven the whole Nation (as to extream events and affairs) from grounds of fidelity and allegiance, both as to civil and ec­clesiastical obedience.

Furthermore mens refusing to take Oaths seems to be a great fortifying of Power established. For experience hath taught us how easily men are absol­ved from such publick tyes, seem they ne­ver so strict. Neither is there any rea­son to think they will be any stronger for the future than they were in former [Page 191] times. Publick security doth not con­sist in any verbal formalities but in that efficacious power we have by the Sword.

Publick authority and safety riseth from the satisfaction of mens judgments to the justice of mens proceedings, win­ning respect and love by that equity in Government and moderation which ac­cording to Gods ancient Laws is settled and known, not by arbitrariness of will and meer force; which as to the princi­ple is tyrannical, be it never so temper­ed in the exercise.

Under such Government, wise Chri­stians know how with humility, peace and patience to submit so far to piety as is necessary for publick peace. Strict­ness of Religion terrifies Christians with fear of false Oaths (one of the blackest Stains and most indelible Spots and un­pardonable sins of the Soul, if it be a blaspheming denying and renouncing of God) yet allows latitude of peaceable subjection as may not always force them upon banishments, persecutions, forfei­tures▪ &c.

Whence Thorndike saith, I conceive [Page 192] there is great reason the Kingdom: should enact a new Oath. For they make limitations for the sense of the Oath to which Oath, non obstante, they take in the full latitude of its words though they express not any of the said limitations—when the Oaths re­quired bear two senses in the proper signification of the words and are at least ambiguous but formally contradictory; and destructive to one Article of the Creed: to the being, viz. of any visi­ble Church (if no supream Head) as founded by God in it.

What can be more just, more con­duce to Gods honour, more benign in the King and Parliament, and more for reputation and future blessing to the Kingdome, than that such ambiguous expressions in the Oaths should be cleared, and taken away? that Oaths might be taken uniformly and cordi­ally by all: that all tender consciences need not scruple, when care is taken that men may clearly understand what they are compelled to swear.

It will deeply concern us, saith Thorn­dike, to avert Gods indignation from [Page 193] our Nation, which involves Kingdoms in guilt and punishment for rash oaths;—whence he calls them the crime and sin of the Nation.

What burden and guilt lyes on the Kingdom by occasion of oaths so solemn­ly imposed on the whole people, which if we regard the natural force of the words, no man can take them sincerely, being ambiguous, and grammatically sig­nifie more than intended; as they are explicated: seeing there is no necessity for it, for what necessity is it to use such obscure phrases, and dubious acknowledg­ments, which contribute nothing to safe­ty or security to his Majesty; but on the contrary infinite prejudice to his af­flicted Subjects. And we have experien­ced great disloyalty from them that have freely taken them, and none in Catho­licks that have refused. For the Oaths by none more readily taken and earnest­ly imposed on others, than by those who began the Wars, and promoted the Co­venant; and on the contrary, by none more scrupled and refused than by those who always assisted the King.

¶ Thirdly it may be objected, as lately by Doctor Denton, &c. That Pa­pists suffer not for Religion, but be­cause they are not obedient to the Laws, &c.

Resp. 1. By a Proviso of the Act 25, and 27. of Eliz. if any Priest committed shall submit to the Laws, and take the Oaths, they shall be freed from the pe­nalty; and not adjudged Traytors, if they renounce their Religion.

Resp. 2. Suppose that in the Apostles time a Law had been made by any King or Emperour of a contrary Religion to them: that if any of the said Apostles or Priests should enter into their Domi­nions, to preach a contrary Doctrine to to the Religion there received, and to exercise any of their Apostolical or Priest­ly Functions, it should be treason, and under pain of death.

Would or could the Apostles have o­beyed those Laws? or did they obey the Governours of the Jews, their lawful Su­periours, when they commanded them to preach no more in the name of Jesus [Page 195] Christ? or to disperse Christian Doctrine, which they held for Treason? or did they fly out of their Dominions? lest their sufferings should be imputed to dis­obedience, and not for the name of Christ? Is there not another blood to be respe­cted, called by the Prophet, the blood of the Soul, whereof the Pastor shall be guil­ty if he fly for fear, or forsake his flock in time of danger and persecution? Have not the English Priests the same Obliga­tion of Conscience to help their Coun­try-men in spiritual necessities, as had the Apostles and Apostolick men to strangers, for whose help they were content to offer their lives, and incur any danger what­soever?

¶ Fourthly, It may be demanded why cannot Papists come to our Churches?

Resp. Unity and Ʋniformity are two things, one being internal, the other ex­ternal; therefore if they should conform, yet they can have no verity, faith or truth but as forced; by which Religion is never better'd. Truth and falshood are like the clay in Nebuchadonosors Image, [Page 196] they may cleave, but they will never in­corporate. Christ's Coat had no seam, though the Churches vesture was of divers colours: whence a learned Father saith, in veste varietas sit, scissura non sit. The true God hath this attribute, that he is a jealous God, and therefore his worship and religion will endure no mixture, or partner.

¶ Fifthly, To say or object the Popes Supremacy is dangerous.

This reflects not only upon the honour of Catholicks, but the safety of all the Professors of it. They acknowledg the Pope, as Successor to Saint Peter, is head of the Church, and hath supream Autho­rity in matters spiritual: but how this can be offensive to the Temporalities of Princes is not understood by me, nor those great Monarchs that are of his Church, and submit to his authority, and and yet are zealous and jealous of their own power and temporal Regalities as a­ny Princes can possible be.

Our graver and more learned Divines distinguish between the inward power of the Keys and the outward jurisdiction, by temporal penalties: this they assign [Page 197] to the King, in all causes and over all persons: that they reserve to the Clergy, as neither derived from or de­pendent of the Civil Magistrate. And if I rightly understand the Religion of the English Church, although they allow the King to be supream Governour of their Church; yet they do not confer any Pa­storal Office or Jurisdiction upon him; and consequently he is one of the Flock, and therefore as such he is subject to Pa­stors. Wherefore if this be not looked on by Protestants as derogatory to the Kings authority, I hope, by the same reason Roman Catholicks will not be found guil­ty for owning the Popes Supreamacy in matters meerly spiritual. There can be no just fear or jealousie, that spiritual ju­risdiction should supplant secular obedi­ence, because the Church-Discipline in it self is so innocent and passive.

We our selves acknowledg a spiritual authority in the Bishops, promise a Canonical obedience to them and not to the King; admit Jurisdiction in their spiritu­al Courts, &c. nay the Presbyterians in their Consistory and ecclesiastical Courts will allow the King no authority at all, [Page 198] more than the meanest Subject; and so do other Sects. Now if a Subject v. g. the Bishop of Canterbury may be supream in Spirituals, without any derogation to the Prince, may not the Pope with less danger and inconvenience be truely called (as King James did) the Patri­arch or Superintendent of the West?

For if that power be purely spiritual, being of a different nature (as is said be­fore) it cannot in the least degree be pre­judicial to the Kings civil power, but rather oblige those that acknowledg it faithfully to obey the King. Therefore it ought to be no obstacle to Toleration; other­wise no Christians or Sect whatsoever ought to be tolerated: for let them be Presbyterians, Independents, Anabap­tists, &c. do not they depend upon and own a power distinct from his Majesties Civil Power? I mean a Power meerly spiritual or pastoral, not subordinate to the King, but to which the King him­self, if he be of your Religion, ought to be subject, as no Pastor but a Sheep, no Teacher but a Hearer, no Admini­ster of Sacraments but a Receiver. Such a Power all Sects and Religions seem to [Page 199] own, no Catholick depends on or can own more.

The spirituall Primacy of the chief Pa­stor preserves peace and unity, and is a greater defence to them than many Ar­mies, in subduing their minds to civil o­bedience, without such a spiritual autho­rity there is no influence on the people, all preaching and Laws are but shaking Bulwarks to support Monarchy. No Kingdom hath been more happy at home, or glorious abroad, than when the Pope was their spirituall Father. When such a Primacy, purely spiritual, was acknow­ledged in England, the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schismes, nor poisoned with Heresies: the honour and safety of our Dominions were far from being prejudiced or invaded.

It is denied then the owning Suprema­cy should worse their condition: shall notions convince experience? when a de­monstration it self often gives way to practice? Let's summon the Kings of Eu­rope of Catholick Profession to decide the contrary unanimously, and proclaim their people are not rebellious by reason of any ecclesiastical dependance abroad.

Roman Catholicks did ever renounce any temporal power or jurisdiction be­longing to the Pope over any Subject of his Majesties. But since there is a Pow­er purely spiritual (as is shewed before) from which Princes are not exempted. Is it not more for their temporal se­curity, that the spiritual power should re­side in one single person, that usually is both learned and discreet, and withal is a thousand miles removed, than in ma­ny thousand within his own Kingdom, not all of them Angels? The King of France esteems it a priviledg, granted him in a Concordate by the Pope, that no particular Bishop should have pow­er, in any case, to excommunicate him.

Never was there greater supporters to the Crown than English Catholicks have been ever against the least encroachment offered by the Bishop of Rome himself; as it is to be seen in the Stat [...]t ▪Laws of King Richard the Second, wherein you find in many businesses (the Pope was in­teressed) the Roman Catholicks flatly denying the Crown of England to be subject to any immediately, but to God: [Page 201] yet acknowledged in the very same Par­liament the Bishop of Rome's spiritual Jurisdiction. And Bishop Bilson, in his Defence between Christ and Antichrist, brings in the Parliament consisting then altogether of Roman Catholicks, expres­sing their loyalty to their Soveraign Prince in these words, we will with our said So­veraign the King and his said Crown and Regality, in cases aforesaid, and in all o­ther cases, attempted against Him, his Crown or Dignity in all points, live and dye. p. 3. p. 243.

And in Holinshed 2. Volume of the last Edition, p. 309. we find in the Reign of King Edward the First, all the Catho­lick Lords assembled in Lincolne in Par­liament in the name of all estates did an­swer, the Popes right to judg, &c. that they would not consent their King should do any thing tending to the disinheriting of the Crown or right of England. And that it was never known (and conse­quently never practised) that the King of this Land had answered or ought to answer for their rights in the said Realm, before any Judg ecclesiastical or secular. Yet at the same time they stiled Pope Bo­niface [Page 202] the high Bishop of the Roman uni­versal Church, and themselves his devout sons, &c. Therefore Catholick Religi­on hath no headship prejudicial to tem­poral Supremacy. If this were a Check to the Glory of Kings, why do the Kings of France, Spain, Poland, Portugal, the Emperour and other great Princes in Germany uphold it, and glory in it? the Duke of Savoy with the Florentine and the rest of Italian Princes, living under the Popes Nose, absolute and arbitra­ry in their Dominions, dispute with Sword in their hand for their Tempora­lities.

And for the Catholick Church in Eng­land, in Catholick times Stat. 25. Edward 3. & Statut. 16. Richard, did not admit the Pope's deposing power in temporals; made it a preeminence to appeal to Rome, or to submit to a Legates jurisdi­ction, without the Kings License; or on the Popes summons to go out of the Kingdom, or receive any mandates or brief from Rome, or purchase Bulls for Preserments to Churches, &c. and the reason was given because the Crown of England is free from earthly sub­jection, [Page 203] and immediately subject to God.

Our Catholick Lords of England have in the name of the whole Body made oft protestations of eternal fidelity to the King, and renouncing all dependance of any forreign power, that can any way be prejudicial to him. Many Protestations, Professions, Declarations have been prin­ted by several Catholicks, that no autho­rity on earth can absolve them from their necessary and natural Allegiance: and that his fidelity was a duty of their Re­ligion, have made and will be ready to give all security of peaceable obedience and sincere integrity, that any words or actions can confirm.

But you will object, and say, they allow a power in the Pope, to excommunicate Princes, and thence follows a train of pernicious consequences of deposing, rai­sing his Subjects against him, &c.

Resp. That the power of Excommuni­cation is indeed necessarily annexed to the pastoral Function; and therefore to be allowed in the cheife Bishop over his [Page 204] Flock. But they deny and renounce any further extent of that power unto those things which appertain to Caesar 5 and therefore they declare as firmly, that not­withstanding any such excommunication they will bear true faith to our Prince, and him maintain and defend against all opposers whatsoever.

You may again object the Council of La­teran decreed, Princes that savoured Here­ticks after admonition given; the Pope might discharge the Subjects from allegi­ance, and give away the Kingdom to some Catholick to root out Heresie.

Resp. 1. Councils are not infallible in every point, even in matter of fact; and other Constitutions (not concerning faith or doctrine) being but human Laws are changeable and oft admit exceptions.

2. Council's Ordinations are to be ta­ken according to the prudent meaning of the Legislators, which bear another sense than the words taken lye.

In this case suppose the Emperours of the East and West, Kings of England, France, Hungary, Hierusalem, Cyprus, Ar­ragon, [Page 205] &c. agree together to purge their Kingdoms of Heresies; and upon forfei­ture the Church should give their Do­minions to another that will perform their Compact: these Princes being present (by their Embassadors) at the Councils, and what was there done, was done by their consent. The Albigensian Heresie beginning to be so numerous, and even dangerous, those Monarches thought themselves in no worse a condition for that decree, nor did any Catholick King since complain or protest against this Council for it.

3. Note, the Decrees of some Coun­cils not received or acknowledged uni­versally by the Catholick Church are not obligatory, but that which is principally to be considered is, that in the Decree of this Lateran under Innocent the Third, it is ordained (not Supream Princes) but temporales potestates & dominos, which bear Offices in States and Kingdoms, to take Oaths to root out all Hereticks, under the penalty of being denounced to be deprived of their Estates, &c. yet reserving the right of the supream Lord.

[Page 206]4. This pretended Article of Faith hath been disclaimed by a world of unquestio­nable Catholicks, and all allegations con­futed by learned Authors of our Nation, Doctor Bistop writ a Book purposely a­gainst it.

5. No proof can be given, that it was ever received or executed by any Ca­tholick Kingdom out of Italy. The reason is, because those decrees were never pub­lished by Pope Innocent, nor a Copy of them extant either in the body of the Councils or Vatican Library or elsewhere, till a certain German three hundred years after said, he found them in a Manuscript, compiled he knows not by whom.

6. By testimony of all Historians at that time, Pope Innocent suffered in Reputa­tion, having convoked so many Prelates to no purpose. 60 Capitula were recited in the Assembly, and many penned in a stile as if they had been concluded; but nothing at all could plainly be decreed; no Conciliary determinations, made but one or two, viz. about the recovery of the holy Land, and subjection of the Greek Church to the Roman: for a War began then between them of Pisa and Genua, [Page 207] which called the Pope from the Coun­cil.

7. Be it granted a conciliary decree, it is so far from looking like an Article of Faith, which (saith Bellarmine and Canus) may easily be discovered by the stile. Here is nothing proposed to be believed, no Anathema fulminated, no signification that the contrary is against the Scripture, &c. therefore at most it is a meer ecclesiasti­cal ordinance touching external discipline, and as such, what is more ordinary, and permitted, than for Princes to refuse ad­mittance therein? we see some Churches of France reject the decrees of reforma­tion made in the Council of Trent; and also practised in England.

8. Suppose it be an ordinance, yet su­pream Princes and Kings are not named: but excluded and only their Officers and Substitutes, &c.

9. No example can be produced in the Empire or other Catholick State that such an Oath in succeeding times was imposed or threatned. But on the con­trary we know Charls the fifth by a Law of the Empire publickly permitted Lu­therans in several Provinces, and all the [Page 208] Kings of France sin [...]e Hen. 3. permitted the Calvinists: yet the Pope never threatned deposition▪ or they feared it.

Therefore this doctrinal point of Faith is shamefully pretended to be involved on that or the like Decrees, viz. the Popes power of deposing, &c.

What State, Kingdome or City recei­ved or taught the People this, even as a probable Opinion? It is well known in practice and doctrine, other Sects and their accusers have been more faulty in this point then they, as History and ex­perience testifie of Princes actually depo­sed in Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Ge­neva, &c. and absolute rebellion follow­ing their doctrine in Poland, Bohemia, England, France, Hungary, Germany, &c.

Obj. Innocent the third who presided in this Council actually deposed King John and Otho the Emperour.

Resp. Popes as private Doctors may err in matters of fact; their Decrees and Bulls are not always held as infallible, and may be opposed (as often they have [Page 209] been by Papists) nor will they scruple to do it especially about temporal affairs. We do not approve whatsoever Pope [...] do in fact in deposing, &c. If some Popes have been exorbitant, have not Pa­pist themselves defended their Princes a­gainst all pretended illegal impositions of Rome? If some Popes have transgressed and been passionate men, it doth not fol­low all have, as some Princes have been Tyrants, not all.

This King John, Protestant Histories conclude (passing by his youthful Rebel­lion, murthering his Nephew, his A­theism, &c.) they record he lost our whole interest in France, discontenting all his people, not defending their Rites and Priviledges, &c. So Heylin, Da­niel, Martin, Sir Robert Cotton Hist. And,

Stow in his Chronicle 170. relates it thus: King John being dissolute and per­fidious, and would not grant the Laws or Liberties of the Charter, had as ma­ny enemies as Nobles; Clergy and Layty petitioned against him for the Pope to depose him (an opinion then in pra­ctice) the Pope would not but sent Paen­dulph [Page 210] his Legate who comes over to Do­ver to King John, to counsel the King's peace, and reconcile him to God and the Church. The King living then in great jeopardy to loose his Kingdome. The King of France being invited by the Nobles and Clergy to invade the King­dome, saved the Kingdome by it, after this the Clergy came over, and all was in peace.

The Pope after this excommunicates the Barons, for the disobeying the King, and calling in the French King Lewis into the Realm. And Gaule the Legate was sent from the Pope to forbid Lewis to go into, or invade England, to excom­municate him if he did: But

Lewis of France arrived in England, whom the Barons assisted against King John. John soon after died; his eldest son, Hen. 3. at nine years old was crowned King by the Bishops of Win­chester and Bath, &c. and the Govern­ment of the King was committed to the Popes Legate, the Bishop of Win­chester and Earl of Pembroke. The Le­gate maintained the King's part, admo­nished, prayed and commanded the dis­obedient [Page 211] to do as he did; called a Council at Bristol, caused the Bishops to incline to the King's part, notwith­standing Lewis did what he could to the contrary. Seeing Lewis and his complices were excommunicated every Sunday by the Legate, though they had London and all the East parts of Eng­land.

Lewis had notice from Rome, except he went out of England, the sentence of excommunication of the Legate should be confirmed by the Pope. For this cause, saith Stow 175. a truce was taken between Lewis and King Henry. Philip of France called his son Lewis to return; he being passed over: the Earl of Salisbury, Earl Warren, &c. revol­ted to the Kings side, and this by in­dustry and virtue of the Pope's Legate. Lewis, being absolved from the excom­munication, went into France, but his complices, were by the Legate depri­ved of all benefit by their disobedience▪ See Stow 170.

Thus we see how for want of know­ledge things are carried on, and repor­ted very frequently in the worst sense [Page 212] and construction: it may be easily col­lected out of our own Authors and Chro­nicles, that Popes have been great friends to our Princes, and this Nation. Take in short out of Stow 883. that Pope A­drian the fourth, an Englishman, inve­sted Hen. 2. with the Dominion of Ire­land, and had it confirmed with an As­sembly at Waterford. Pope Ʋrbane who sent a Legate, the Bishop Sabrine into England, with sentence of excommuni­cation against the City of London and Cinque-Ports, and all those that trou­bled the King's peace.

King Richard of England being taken Prisoner unjustly by Leopold Duke of Austria, in return from the Wars with the Saladine; demanding a great ran­some and misusing him. The Pope ex­communicated the Duke of Austrich, and injoyned him to release the Covenants that he constrained our King to make; and send home the Pledges. The Duke refusing this Order shortly after broke his Leg, and in great anguish ended his life; and was kept unburied till his Son released the English Pledges. Thus were the Pledges restored and the money be­hind released.

How oft did the Pope grant to the King of England the Tenth of all Eccle­siastical Goods, as to Edward the first and second? Sent the Abbot of Saint Denis, Legat, to request Edward the se­cond to remove from him Pierce Gave­ston, without which the Kingdom could not be in peace, nor the Queen injoy the Kings true love, Vide Stow 213. Edw. 2. The Pope sent Ganelinus and Lucius de Flisco (by the Kings request) to make peace between England and Scotland, and reconcile to the King Tho­mas Earl of Lancaster—who brought Bulls from the Pope to excommunicate the Scots, except they returned to peace with the King of England.

William Longshamp Bishop of Ely and Legate to the Pope and Chancellour of England was made Governour of the Realm by Richard the first. Afterward the Archbishop of Roan was made Re­gent of England, then being made Arch­bishop of Canterbury. Then you see there was no jealousie of the Pope or his Clergy, but on the contrary for ma­ny hundred years our Princes and Nati­on reposed (as with just reason they [Page 214] might) the greatest trust, and confidence in their loyalty, faith and honesty. It would fill a volume it self to recount all the benefits, priviledges, honours and advantages this Nation hath received from the Popes and See of Rome. See Bishop Smith in his Epist. Histor. ad re­gem Jacobum of the Pope's favours to England.

Hence our first Protestant Archbi­shop of Canterbury, Parker in Eliz. lib. antiq. Britan. ait, hanc insulae nobilita­tem atque gloriam Dei providentiae at­que beneficentiae, &c. The nobleness of this Island for being the first of all Provinces of the World that received the Christian Faith, and the glory thereof is to be acknowledged to have proceeded from the providence and goodness of God: yet the way it self and means by which this nobility and glory was won unto it, it was first and always laid open unto us from the See of Rome; we have always from that time persevered in the unity of the Roman Faith, and our subjection to the Roman Church is most ancient. Haec ille.

Abbot Fecknam in his Oration to the Parliament of the first of Eliz. saith thus, Damianus and Fugatianus, as Em­bassadours from the See of Rome, did bring into this Realm a thousand four hundred years past, the very same A­postolical Religion we are now in pos­session of. (For then the Roman Religion was not voted down) he would not have dared to have uttered in that time and place, but that he could produce good witness and anti­quity to his warrant.

Let not now their Adversaries be so unreasonable as to quote Mariana, Sua­rez or Bellar. or any other private Au­thor that may have enlarged the juris­diction of Popes, to the prejudice of Kings, and then lay their particular Opi­nions to the charge of all. For were this a just and fair way of dealing, they could, with as much ease, requite them with Text for Text out of Luther, Cal­vin, Knox, Buchanan and many more, whose Opinions are at least as dangerous to the safety of Monarchy. The diffe­rence betwixt them being only this, whereas the former lodge the deposing [Page 216] power in the Pope only (whose person is at a safe and sufficient distance, at least, from us:) the latter bring the danger home to the doors of Princes, and place it in the people whom they make both judges and parties in the case.

Secondly, Mariana's personal fault and his opinion were condemned by a Provincial Council of the same Society held at Paris 15 16. and that confirmati­on ratified by Claudius Aquaviva, the General of the Order: and the Doctors of Sorbon in the same year declared it an ungodly position. Thirdly, Mariana was not resolute in that opinion neither, but handled it problematically. Fourthly, It was not for deposing of Kings but Ty­rants which alters the case.

In France 1614. a Book written by Suarez against the Oaths, in which the deposing power was asserted, was by Decree of the Parliament of Paris con­demned to be burnt by the publick Exe­cutioner, as containing scandalous, sedi­tious positions, &c. and Armandus, Cot­ton, Front and Symond four chief Jesuits, were to take order their General should renew a prohibition to teach like Do­ctrines, [Page 217] and the whole Order after dis­avowed them.

Eight Universities, viz. Paris, Valen­tia, Tholouse, Poicteirs, Burdeaux, Burges, Reims and Caen, did of their own ac­cord (not expecting a command from the Court) 1626. brand this Doctrine of Pope's deposing power with titles of impious, seditious, infamous, &c. And Fossart of the Society in a publick Act advancing the proposition, although it was interpreted to extend only to Ty­rants; by decree of the whole University of Caen, the Proposition and Expositi­ons were censured impious and condem­ned, Fossart imprisoned and sentenced, bareheaded to acknowledg the said posi­tions false and contrary to the decrees of Councils, &c.

But to silence all impertinent objecti­ons in this nature, or in any other mat­ter, they declare to the whole world, that no private authors (but only the Decisions of lawful general Councils) have any influence upon their Faith or Doctrin in any point whatsoever. Therefore if their adversaries will conclude any thing against them from their own Principles; [Page 218] they must do it from their own proper uncontradicted confession, or from the Decrees of General Councils, from which they only take the Rule of their Faith.

The Project of the Gunpowder Treason, undertaken only by a few male-contents; in justice might rather be burned in ob­livion with the offenders, than objected perpetually to innocent men, who abhor the fact; and were publickly acquitted thereof, by the King himself in the Par­liament following. See the Kings Spee­ches.

That the Catholick Body had no hand in this Treason, appears by the quality of the actors, and number of them, being but four Gentlemen. The Catholick Noblemen then were the most conside­rable of the Nation; their first Marquess viz. Winchester: The first Earl, viz. Arundel: Their first Vicount, viz. Mountague: Their first Baron, viz. A­bergaveny, &c. Now none of these or any chief of the party had any intrigue in the design, though all imaginable in­dustry was used by the Commons, [Page 219] Lords, and Privy Council, and by Ce­cil their plotting enemy to bring them in.

Therefore to call this an universal Po­pish plot is in it self a contradiction, be­cause no plot can be looked on as gene­neral when no number of the chiefest part are intrigued in the design. If then some four necessitous or loose persons have been of the Gun-powder Treason, to infer thence all other of the same pro­fession are of the same stamp: Do not all rational men see this inference is irrational? That it may be retorted a­gainst any other profession in England in other things? Is it not unrea­sonable and uncharitable to infer from thence an imputation upon all others? Can any one in his right senses accuse the whole Church of England, for ince­stuous, or drunkards, because some of them have been guilty of those crimes?

Stow Chron. p. 882. noteth by many factious people, it was given out, this Treason was attempted by consent of the King of Spain, French King and Archduke. Catesby, at his Death, said, the plot and practice of this Treason was only his, and that others were [Page 220] but his assistants, saith Stow. And the Council perceived it was practiced by some discontented Papist, Staw 879.—many untruths were divulged—ho­ping to have drawn into their rebelli­on those of their Religion, and other malecontents.

In all their examinations none else were discovered though they revealed several secret particulars, as is seen in their printed confessions—they would not have spared others, seeing they accu­sed their Confessour.

Garnet, saith Stow, Provincial of the Jesuits, for concealing it in confes­sion only, was executed.—Acknow­ledged to God his offence, was hear­tily sorry, asked God and the King for­giveness, and beseeched God to bless the King and his issue: exhorted all Catholicks not to attempt any Rebel­lion or Treason, &c. for all such courses, said he, are utterly against Ca­tholick Faith and Religion. Vide Stow.

To find out the depth of the plot they left no stone unrolled, to shew how nice they were. Sturton and [Page 221] Mordent, two Catholick Lords, were fined because they were absent from Parliament that day: their circumspe­ction was so great, that the Lord of Northumberland, a Protestant, was im­prisoned for many years, because, be­ing Captain, he admitted Piercy into the Bond of Pensioners. Thus any indiffe­rent Reader may see how improbable or rather impossible it was the Catho­lick party to be involved therein.

Concerning Plots we know it was counted a piece of wit in Queen Eliza­beths time to draw men into such devices; and none more excellent than Burleigh and Walsingham: the first of which Cecil was son to, and successor to the others se­cretariship, and fomenting of plots then in fashion. Who hath forgot the plots of Cromwel framed in his Closet, not only to destroy many faithful Cavaliers, but al­so to put a lustre upon his intelligence.

This Gun-powder Treason was a meer device (though acted by the hand of some desperate persons) as King James saith in his second Proclamation. (whereas Thomas Piercy & some other confederates being of l [...]wd life, insolent dispositions, and for the [Page 222] most part of desperate Estates, &c.) Yet con­trived & invented by a crafty States-man; who every one knew hated their profession (to make them odious & suspected in that Nation, and to disoblige his Majesty of his promises in favour of them) and this his jealousie increased, seeing the King re­ceived in his Council Henry Earl Wil. Hist. in King James, p. 3. p. 190. of Northampton, an eminent Pa­pist, and no friend to the States­men. And his Majesties speech then to the two Houses against persecution of Catholicks, as Wilson noteth, as it may be justly thought, considering what Polititian sate at the helm then. Nor was it hard for a Secretary to know turbulent and malitious Spirits, as Stow calleth Catesby a malecon­tent in Queen Elizabeth's days; and when King James came to the Crown, no fa­vourable Article concerning Indulgency to English Catholicks. And that the King of Spain and Archduke minded only their own interest, &c. Vide Stow 880.

'Tis argument enough to assert this, that if a Statesman professed in tricks, ha­ting and envying Roman Catholicks, con­trived the material part, contrived also [Page 223] the rest: and certainly the miraculous let­ter which discovered the Gun-powder Treason, will discover our Statesmen to be the author of it. The Letter is this to the Lord Mounteagle a Roman Catholick.

Now this Letter could not be written by Piercy, as reputed; because first, there was little intimacy between the Lord Mounteagle and Piercy, as Wilson saith. Se­condly, the Earl of Northumberland, Per­cy's Patron and only support; he was to be sacrificed, and all Catholick Lords of his Religion: therefore no Plotter writ this; for here a hundred suspicious things, in the opinion of any fool, would endan­ger the discovery. Thirdly, Notice also given so long before the execution; for the Letter was sent to Mounteagle ten days before the 5. of November, as Saun­derson p. 383. Hist. saith, the long warning being opposite to the designe of a Con­spirator. Fourthly, in their examinations they never confessed it, as they did things of higher secrecy.

Now the interval was beneficial to a Machivilian, it would be more grateful to the Council, to have time to consider the difficulties, to ruine his enemies and make his vigilance appear. And Cecil did not miss of his aim; for, as Saunderson says, he was made Earl for his Service. For the Letter came by his contrivance, [Page 225] being, as Osborn. Prot. Hist. confesseth, a neat device of the Treasurers. Nor was he ignorant from time to time of their actions, Osborne Mem. K. Jam. p. 360. For Tresham and another, who were Cecil's in­struments, had access to him at midnight, and last he should discover it he was ne­ver brought to a publick trial, were sent to the Tower, and never seen afterward, lest they should tell tales. And Piercy and Catesby might have been taken alive, but Cecil feared these two would have re­lated the Story less to his advantage. Whence they were not made Prisoners, though they had no weapons but their Swords.

Besides many knowing men, Strangers abroad have writ; And Protestants them­selves at home have discovered since, this to be a purposed contrivance: So Ossate Letters Livr. 2. Epist. 43. Prins Antip. of Prelat. p. 151. His Majesty also well knew some had learned this art in their old Mistress's time. Whence he oft said, the fifth of November was Cecils holiday; as the Lord Cobham and others have prote­sted to have heard from his own mouth. Therefore the Roman party had no [Page 226] hand in the Treason, being but thirteen Laymen, and all those drawn in by their mortal enemy.

This desperate attempt seemed rather of a private Kindred, or Acquaintance, than of any Religion. Catesby and Tre­sham were Sisters Children, the two Graunts two Brethren; and the elder in­termarried with Winters Sister; Faux and Keys were but Servingmen; the two Wrights long time dependers on Catesby, and their Sister married to Piercy.

If any of these were Papists, or so died, they were not so long before; for the true Priests and Catholicks in England knew them not to be such; they being never frequenters of Catholick Sacra­ments; and none of them convicted and known recusants before; as our Courts witness. Papists and Priests know Ca­tholicks, by using Sacraments. These they renounced by publick Writings, and condemned their Enterprise for impious malefactors of this hellish Conspiracy. The Lord Mounteagle with his Lady and Chil­dren who disclosed it, indeed were known Catholicks.

No Priest or known Catholick, after many strict examinations, searches and scrutinies, was either proved or pro­bably suspected of it: but so far freed that the Lords of the Council requested, that a Priest should be appointed to per­swade and assure Faux (an agent in it) that he was bound in conscience to ut­ter what he could of that Conspiracy. And Master Thomas Wright, a learned Priest did hereupon come to the Council and offer his best Service therein, and had a Warrant to that purpose subsigned with twelve Privy Counsellors hands: but Faux had confessed all they could wish, before he could come to him.

So that no man of Conscience can think but Recusants rather deserved favour for their loyalty. Seeing the Arch-Priest con­demned it, all Catholicks detested and abhorred it, as appears by their Petiti­ons to the King, Parliament, and chief Secretary, printed at that time; and nei­ther could any noted or known Catho­lick, by any device, be drawn into this matter.

Those that were up in tumult with Catesby were, by our Prot. Hist. Howes, [Page 228] never full fourscore; and those made up with servants, horse-boys and houshould­attendance, as Saunders and Speed con­firm. For if Priests and Recusants, so many thousands then in England, would have entertained it; no man can be so malitious and simple, to think that there would not have been a greater as­sembly to take such an action in hand; and the Council could not have been so ill-sighted, but that they would have found some other culpable; as some by all imaginable craft and industry endeavou­red and desired.

But to confirm their innocency, King James in his own Declaration saith, that the generality of Catholicks did abhor such a detestable Conspiracy no less than himself. And he was so kind to Catholicks, the last half of his Reign, of which Wilson complains in several pla­ces, Wils. K. of 193. which was impossible he should have been so favou­rable, had he not been convinced they never had had any design of destroying him or his.

Secondly, the King in his second Pro­clamation 1605. and in his third Procla­mation [Page 229] 1605. when they were all disco­vered; in which Proclamation we plainly see the King and Council knew the Com­plices and partakers of that villanie, yet never taxed any Priest or Papist there­with.

Thirdly, the King in publick Parlia­ment did free Catholiks as much as Pro­testants, when he plainly saith (as truth is) if it had taken effect, Protestants and Papists should have all gone away and peri­shed together. The King in his second Proclamation against the Conspiracy cal­leth the Confederates Men of lewd life, insolent dispositions and of desperate estates.

And to demonstrate from the publick Act their innocency as well Protestants, he declares by Proclamation, Proclama­tione die 7. Novemb. 1605. We are by good experience so well perswaded of the loyalty of diverse Subjects of the Romish Religion, that they do as much abhor this detestable conspiracy as our self, and will be ready to do their best endeavours, though with expence of their blood to suppress all attempters against our safety and the quiet of our [Page 230] State; and discover whomsoever they shall suspect to be rebellious. This by good experience he pronounceth.

Priests and Catholicks notwithstanding were upon this pretence persecuted; though besides all these reasons aforesaid, by publick consent both of their Clergy and Layety, Catholicks presented and offered to maintain their cause and inno­cency in many humble Petitions, where­of two were printed to the King. The first begins

Another Petition to the King and Par­liament from the Cath. in Eng. allowed by the Priests, was presented by Sir Franc. Ha­stins and Sir Richard Knightly, which ur­ged likewise for a Disputation.

Another to the same tenure was then, with the same assent, subscribed with three and twenty hands of the grea­test Catholick Gentry of England; and presented to the chief Secretary of State, potent in those times, in Court and Coun­cil, and (as Recusants feared) not equal­ly affected towards them, though never so innocent. And the same Recusants were more than jealous, that this practice of Conspiracy was no great secret to that Secretary, long before divers of them, that were actors in it (by him named Catholicks) were acquainted with it: an invention to entrap those he did not affect. Whence Master Howes in his Hist. makes relation,—A great Protestant had more, or not much inferiour knowledg of it, than some that were put to death for con­cealing it.

Thus the crimes of a few miserable wretches, necessitous and loose persons, are perpetually objected to the innocent, [Page 235] and made their guilt (though by none more detested than themselves;) but how unreasonable and how great a solecism it is in Christianity, to conclude all guilty of every horrid crime, which some few are known to have perpetrated? none but injudicious furies, and such as, in some measure, may deserve to be ranged in the categories of fools or mad-men, but must needs acknowledg. And unless we will renounce all charity, justice and hu­manity, we must not impute particular mens actions (either of this or other mat­ters) to Catholick Religion, and for their faults expose them to common hatred and violence. For in common sense, if Ca­tholicks refuse to go to Church in respect of Conscience, they will far more refuse Treason, to attempt or consent to any desperate act against our Countrey or State, or commit such sins as hazard both body and soul.

O but bloody Queen Mary! O what cries against the days of Queen Mary! as if her cruelty were unparallell'd? when it plainly appears, to any impartial inqui­rer, that more Catholicks have died [Page 236] by Protestants, than of them by Papists; and that since the exclusion of the Pope, there hath been a greater quantity of blood judicially spilt among us, on the score of Religion, than from the Conver­sion of England to Hen. 8. Why do we then cry out, like men in the fit of fury, of the bloody Papists? Its suspition some radicated hatred obfuscates our intellect; as the Poet saith,

Queen Mary put none to death, but by the known Laws established many hun­dred years before the malefactors were born, and which are still used to this day by Protestants against Hereticks. None were then put to death, but by virtue of antient Laws of Christian Emperours, and Kings of England: therefore not the Queen, nor Bishops, but the Law was cruel: yet the said Laws are still in force, still continue, and were made use of since the Reformation, by Elizabeth and King James, to burn Hereticks in their time; as Stow and Baker note. Why did King James put Legat and Wightman to death, but because he religiously thought it un­fit [Page 237] they should live any longer to blas­pheme? why did Queen Elizabeth 1587. hang Coppinger and Thacker at Saint Ed­mundsbury, for publishing Brown's Book, saith Cambden, which, saith Stow p. 1174. was written against the Common Pray­er.

I will not apologize for any extrava­gancies done by our predecessors in the be­ginning of Reformation. He that will judg, let him lay his hand on his own breast, and examine what he would do in this condition. Suppose he were of a Re­ligion he thought the whole visible Church from age to age delivered to his ance­stors, and saw Profess'd in all King­doms; Suppose then the preaching of two or three men, base in rank, and taxt in moralities, broaching forth new and dangerous opinions to Church and State obstinately, and would not be silenced by any satisfactory means, would he think it then cruelty to put Laws in execution against such novelties? the consequences whereof proved seditious and rebellious, as is seen in History.

There died of the Reformists in the the whole but two hundred seventy seven; [Page 238] as Baker in Queen Mary p. 467. and Speed in Queen Mary p. 833. and other Prote­stant Writers record: And were there two hundred of those now living, they would suffer for extravagancies and per­petrated villanies; as most of those did in the voluminous Legend of Fox, stuffed with Wicliffians and Waldenses (whom Philip Melancton and other Protestants disown,) with Tinkers, Coblers, Butchers, Taylors and prating Wives, very few of them put to death on the score of Religi­on, as the Records testifie.

Cranmer and Ridley so much spoken of were attainted of Treason defending the Title to the Lady Jane. Cranmer being a Counsellor in the business, and Ridley Bishop of London preaching a Ser­mon for it at St. Pauls Cross the Sunday after King Edward died. So Cranmer was condemned of Treason and arraign­ed with the Lady Jane. He was also an Instrument of divorce to bring Anna Bullein to the Kings appetite; and after­ward, he and Cromwel the chief actors for her death, as p. 3. Statut. 28. Hen. 8. c. 1. where Cranmers Sentence is recor­ded judicially, as of his own knowledg, [Page 239] convincing her of the foul fact. Or if there were some at that time put to death (for their conscience only, which can hardly be proved, and that there was no faction, exteriour disobedience or innova­tion in the case,) yet they could not be properly Protestant Martyrs; because they suffered before the thirty nine Ar­ticles or Church of England was esta­blished.

Reformed Historians, viz. Bishop Good­man, Baker, Speed, &c. do agree Queen Mary was a marvellous good Woman, had many troubles; Cranmer and Ridley, with a thousand more, set up as busie as Bees against her: when she was to be in­vested in her Rights, Reformists would not receive her as their Queen, but upon condition (as Suffolke people) nor assist her without Indentures, Stow annal. p. 1064. nor acknowledg her but upon such and such terms, yet her Right was in­dubitable. How Wars were waged a­gainst her by the Dukes of Northumber­land and Suffolke, Bills spread abroad, and several treacherous practices contri­ved against her and her Dignity, by Arch­bishop Cranmer, see Stow Annal. printed [Page 240] 1592. p. 1039, 1042, &c. What great commotions and insurrections were made against her by Wiat, on the score of Re­ligion? How Towns and Castles were taken and held out against her by Staf­ford? p. 1047. ibid. How Daggers were thro [...]n and Guns shot off at Priests of her Religion, whiles they were preach­ing at Pauls Cross, viz. Doctor Pendleton and Master Bourne. How many treasona­ble Books writ against her after she came to the Crown by Goodman; insomuch, that more open rebellion and insurrecti­on was in five years of her short Govern­ment, from such as were not affected to her Religion, than Queen Elizabeth had from Catholicks in forty years. vide Stow 1039, 1058.

How plain and sincere her Government was, how free from tricks, and such strains of Policy as were afterward used; is manifest to all the world; How just was she? if severe for a time, that severity was necessary, not only by the judgment of Parliament, which a little before had enacted the Laws on which she procee­ded, and before which she acted nothing in that kind, but also in respect of her own [Page 241] safety and of the State. And to vindi­cate their Clergy, let all the Canons of the Church be examined and searched, if there be one to be found that justifies the shedding of blood simply on the ac­count of Religion.

That She was withal a merciful Princess, is evidenc'd by the compassion shew'd to such as deserved not well of her, as the Dutch­ess of Sommerset, to Sir John Cheeke, to Sir Edward Mountague, Lord chief Justice, who had subscribed and counselled her disinheriting, to Sir Roger Cholmey, to the Marqness of Northampton, to the Lord Robert Dudley, to Sir Henry Dudley, to Sir Henry Gates, &c. who stood attainted, and the Duke of Suffolke, all obnoxious to her Justice, she knew very well, nei­ther affected her Religion nor Title: they being her prisoners in the Tower, she re­leased them all.

But for all this the Zealots of her time would not be quieted; they libel against the Government of Women; they pick quarrels and murmur at her Marriage: they publish invectives and scurrilous Pamphlets against Religion: yet forbear not to plot and conspire her deprivation. [Page 242] Goodman writ a pernitious Book to have her put to death: William Tho­mas, a Gospeller, conspires to Out of Fox his Martyrs. kill the Queen, and when hang­ed said, he died for his Coun­try. Stow in Queen Mary p. 1056.

On the contrary, in Queen Elizabeths time, although Catholicks then were the chief Ministers in Church and State, and might have used indirect means against her, she being of a contrary Religion, and not of so clear a Title: yet Catholick Bishops who set the Crown upon her head are commended by Holinshed, a Prot. Hist. ann. Eliz. 26. pag. 1358, & 1360. for peaceable quiet Bishops, and the Catho­lick temporal Lords there by him recor­ded to be far from opposing themselves a­gainst her interest, as they are said there to offer her Majesty in her defence to im­pugne and resist any [...]orreign force, though it should come from the Pope himself. Insomuch, that they are com­mended by Holinshed for loyalty and obedience. And,

Stow testifies how diligent Catholicks [Page 243] were to offer their service in that great action 88. neither were they altogether refused by her Majesty. How the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancel­lour of England, Doctor Heath, a Catho­lick Bishop, instead of inveighing against her, or casting forth of Libels, (as Cran­mer did against Q. Mary her entrance and Government) made a publick oration in her behalf, to perswade the people to o­bedience, and to acknowledg her power and authority, Holin. ib. 1170. whence the said Archbishops faithfulness was left to commendation also by Protestant Bishop Goodman in his Catalogue of Bishops. How all Catholick Lords and Bishops re­paired to London to proclaim her Queen, who not long after turned them out of several Offices and Bishopricks; Holinshed p. 1171.

To use Cambdens own words and phrase, the world stood Cambdens Britann. p. 163. amazed and England groaned at it; what would flesh and blood move him to? was it not strange in the beginning to behold Abbies destroyed, Bishopricks gelded, Chaunteries, Hospitals, Colledges tur­ned [Page 244] to profaneness? change of Liturgies, Rites, &c.? to see people renounce their pious vows?—such unexpected al­terations—it being a pitiful thing, as Stow saith, to hear the Lamentations in the Country for religious Houses, St [...]w p. 964.

Notwithstanding the loyalty and obe­dience of Catholicks towards her appea­red undeniable in all things, not only in their humble petitions, but by their con­stant and general conformity unto her temporal Government in 88. and by their Protestations made at Ely 1588. as by other offers made to the Lord North, the Queens Lieutenant there, and by their just actions afterwards, by their submissi­on as to the Lords of the Privy Coun­cil, and profession of all due acknowledg­ment to her Majesty, notwithstanding the Sentence of Excommunication. Whence the Author of Execution of English Ju­stice acknowledges their obedience and loyalty to Elizabeth, in a time when they wanted no matter of complaint.

Any man of candour and integrity may easily convince the vulgar error, the un­evenness of Queen Elizabeths nature and [Page 245] severity to that of Queen Marys. Queen Elizabeth made new Laws against Catho­licks, and put them to death for not em­bracing a new heresie, which has been con­demned to the fire here, and in all other Christian Countries. She embrued her hands in the blood royal of Mary Stew­art, lawful Heir to the Crown, put to death many noble persons by their blood, to colour her Supremacy, raised up up­starts, Hereticks from nothing, annihila­ted the antient Nobility and Gentry, &c. to use a Protest. Historiographers words, the bloody practices of Queen Eliz. if not so barbarous in appearance (though more wicked in substance) as being exhibited under the colour and pretext of Law, in the starving and racking so many inno­cent, worthy, learned persons, tearing out their hearts and bowels in publick view, upon suborned witnesses, base va­gabond and perjured Catchpoles hired to swear.

Neither was there any reason then for persecution on the account of the Ca­tholicks misdemeanours. For as Camb­den, her own Historiographer, noteth: The reason of the penal Statutes in Eliz. [Page 246] was 1. the opinion of the Queens Ille­gitimation abroad: 2. Jealousies had of the Queen of Scots her nearness to the Crown: 3. the Bull of Pius 5. 4. the doubt of the house of Guise in behalf of their Neece. 5. the offence given to the King of Spain in assisting Orange. These causes induced the Queen with her Pau­culi intimi, saith Cambden.

We cannot excuse the persecution therefore under Queen Elizabeth against Catholicks, for any cause given by them, or just fear of their fidelity, nor from the example of Christian Emperours and Kings, that both for zeal of Religion and human policy (to avoid danger of Re­bellion) made Laws and Statutes against Hereticks and innovators of the antient faith and sense of Scripture, which de­scended to them by Tradition from the Apostles. Queen Elizabeth, taking a con­trary way, made Laws and Statutes a­gainst the ancient Religion, and known sense of Gods word delivered from age t [...] age: which practice destroys the or­der of Justice, to persecute Christians for professing a Religion confirmed by the publick testimony and practice of the Chri­stian [Page 247] world, from the first propa [...]tion of Christianity to this present t [...]e. No part of their Dectrine being [...]er judged an heresie or novelty by antiquity: other­wise they had not escaped the rigour of penal Laws made against Hereticks and Novelists in former ages. But no Histo­ry did or can ever mention any person that suffered as an Heretick, for broaching or maintaining any one point which they now believe and profess.

Whereas Q. Mary her predecessors, Em­perours and Kings punished Novelists only, that made Religons of their own heads, condemne [...] as Hereticks by the Church in ancient times. The disparity there­fore was great: Catholick Princes stan­ding as defenders of their ancient Faith, others as invaders and introducers of a new Belief. They seek to keep what de jure they had, Calvinists what they had not: they possessors of the traditum and depositum left by Christ and his Apostles; others descissors and injurious infringers of those Apostolick tyes and regulations so carefully delivered to all posterity.

Laws indeed have been made in Ca­tholick Countries, very severe against [Page 248] those the Church calleth Hereticks, but they were none of the Churches Laws, (nor made by the principles of Catho­lick Doctrine.) The Arrians were the first introducers of persecution; they were not, I say, enacted by Ecclesiasticks, but by civil Governours only. We know, that by the Canons of the Church ever in force, their Clergy, under the penalty of irregularity, are forbidden to have any hand in blood. And whatsoever civil Laws have been made, by Catholick ci­vil Governours, were but as prudent means to prevent Sedition or Rebellions justly apprehended. And though for some later ages civil Magistrates, in some Countries, exercise greater severities than anciently were used; must England imi­tate the rigidest of other Countries?

Neither can our hatred or persecuti­on against Catholicks be any more ex­cused, by the proceedings of the Spanish or Italian Inquisitions, than our penal Statutes have been by the Laws of ancient Kings and Emperours against Hereticks.

First, Because the Inquisition proceeds according to the rules and forms of ju­stice; none is declared an Heretick or [Page 249] guilty by any new Law or Oath, made only to the end, that by them men may be entrapped both in Soul, in Body and Estate. It was no crime in England to be a Roman Catholick before the penal Laws were enacted: but it was a crime to be an Heretick or an Apostate, or broacher of new Doctrines, before the ancient Emperors and Kings made penal Laws against Heresie. The Law sup­posed and did not make the crime. As penal Statutes do in England, making a crime of Christian Religion.

Secondly, Hereticks are never con­demned by the Inquisition, without the testimony of many lawful witnesses, both living and dead: All the ancient Fathers, Councils, and the Christian Church of former ages testifie their errors are new and contrary to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. No Rebel was ever more evidently convicted of Rebellion against his Prince, then Hereticks are by the Inquisition of Heresie against God and the old Apostolical Church. Ca­tholicks cannot obtain so fair a Plea, they are condemned by a new Law, be­cause they are not Hereticks, and separate from the ancient Faith.

Thirdly, The Inquisition practiceth all imaginary means towards the accused to reduce his judgment.

Fourthly, The Inquisition it self is permitted in no Kingdome where Heresie is numerous: nor can it be in justice: they strive to keep out Sects and new Opinions in Countries totally of one Be­lief. We do not morally blame the very Moors in Africa being of one profession for keeping out the Gospel it self. In Eng­land where all fell not from the Papacy, there is not the same just motive for se­verity, as if it brought an upstart Religion, never heard of or spread over the Nation.

Fifthly, The Inquisition medleth not with those who never were Catholicks: but the penal Statutes comprehend them who never were of their Church or Com­munion.

Sixthly, The Inquisition condemns no Hereticks to death, but only declares their heresie to the end the faithful may avoid their conversation: its true the Secular power executes the sentence of death against them, notwithstanding the Inquisition doth protest against the rigour, and desireth that Hereticks may not be punished with death.

Seventhly, Though the Inquisition were rigorous and unjust (as adversaries pretend) it is not a blemish to Catho­lick Religion, because, it is not an uni­versal practice but limited to Spain and Italy at the instance of secular Princes, looked upon as a necessary means to keep their Subjects in awe of their [...].

Eighthly, The Inquisition [...]oth seri­ously wish and endeavour the con [...]ersion and amendment of Hereticks, implo [...]ing learned Divines to convince them, and by fair ways and reason to win them.

Neither can the Muthers or Massacres in Ireland so much and so often exag­gerated in Protestant Pamphlets and Pul­pits be any pretext of rigour or auste­rity to English Catholicks. What hath an English Catholick to do with an Irish Massacre? Can we our selves excuse all the extravagancies by some of our natives and party? Doth Catholick Religion either incline him to or teach murther or re­bellion? Have they not a setled sense of Scripture for loyalty and obedience? Which none can alter without breach of his Catholick Faith? And they are not [Page 252] their own interpreters and and judges in points controverted; that's the priviledge of others. I only say and wish from my soul that some indiscreet Zealots had not a greater hand in them than Catholick Religion, whose tenets are contrary to cruelty and murther on any pretence whatsoever.

Is it not notorious that the Reformed Zealots in Ireland signed a bloody Peti­tion offered to the Parliament in England, that all Irish that would not go to Church might be extirpated or bani­shed? This was done before the Irish Catholicks did stir.

Suppose that in Ʋlster some of the rascality or Kerns (being exasperated by so many and continual injuries, had murthered some persons, must that re­flect upon the English Catholicks and all the Irish Nation? or what is the Irish R [...]ellion to English Catholicks who de­test it) more than the Amboyna to Re­formists? it is too much ascertained, that the Murthers and Massacres done in Ire­land by Reformists furious zeal against Catholicks, exceeded those committed by Catholicks, witness their murthers a­bout [Page 253] Dublin: the County of Wicko and Fingcole, by the transplantation of them into Canaught, and by the transporting them into the Plantations of America, forcing them to the Oath of Abjuration, and almost starving them in those places, contrary to the Publick Faith given them by printed Declarations in the Name of the English Parliament to Irish Catholicks, Anno 1649.—1652. that the Oath of Abjuration shall not be ad­ministred to any in Ireland.

Baxter in his Cure of Church-Division; confesseth and saith, they put the Irish to death that went to defend themselves and stand for the King and Country—yet they who seemed so godly them­selves Massacred millions of their own Country that were for the Country and King, and gave God many humi­liation days, and thanks for their suc­cess—killing after so many Scots in cold blood after they were taken at Worcester Fight. See Baxter.

But whosoever desires to be better sa­tisfied in this of Ireland, let him read the printed Remonstrance of the Irish Confederate Catholicks delivered by [Page 254] their Commissioners the Lord Vicount Preston and Sir Robert Talbot the seven­teenth of March 1642. to his Majesties Commissioners at Trim. There he will see how the Irish desired the murthers on both sides might be punished: and how they were forced to take up arms by the wicked practices of Sir William Persons, Sir Charls Coot, and other fiery Protestants who governed the Kingdom. Therefore whatsoever may be said in passion of the Irish war, its evident that the Calvinistical Zealot had great influ­ence upon their injurious provocations, murthering seven or eight hundred wo­men, children, Ploughmen, and labourers in a day in the Kings Land; whensoever the Army went abroad, the poor Coun­try-people did betake themselves to the Firrs where the Parliament Officers did besiege them, and set the F [...]rrs on fire, and such as escaped that element were killed by the Army. These cruelties were or­dinary not only neer Dublin but in all other parts of the Kingdome, where the Parliamentarians were. As may be read in divers Remonstrances and Relations published in the beginning of the late troubles.

Massacre in France so much objected also against Catholicks in general; The world knows was a Cabinet Plot con­demned by Catholick Writers, there and in other Countries. Although it was evident in matter of fact, their powerful Rebellion drew them into that Machi­nated destruction; and the King was moved to it by Interest of State, and security to himself, not for Religion.

They fought many Battels with their Prince, fortified Towns against him. And Coligni their great Commander known to be a grand Rebell. They brought forreign Forces into France as Rutyers from Germany, and English from us. They delivered Havra de grace to Queen Elizabeth. Nay they began first to murther Catholicks in Paris: and al­so Coligni and Beza got Poltrot to mur­ther the Duke of Guise, as Davila l. 3. Hist. who is thought by Protestants, an authentical and impartial Author. And Poltrot confessed so at his death for the Fact, so Davila. Moreover there were o­ther motives that caused the King and Councils dipleasure against these rebelli­ous People. For

Baxter in his Cure of Church-Divisi­ons, p. 365. who is known to be no friend to Catholicks, confesseth in these words.

Historians tells us, saith he, that when King Francis of France had for­bid the reproaching of Papists way of worship, and silenced the Ministers for not obeying him: Many of of hot­brain'd people took up the way of provoking them by scornful Pictures and Libels, hanging up and down in Streets such ridiculous and reproachful Rhimes and Images: (but this which was none of the way of God) began that persecution, (by provoking the King) which cost many thousand lives before it ended (and the Protestant Synod at Rochel refused the Council of du Plessis, du Moulin and many others) was stirred up by the Peoples zeal, and ended in the blood of a thousand, and ruin, and power of the Protestants in France, See Baxter.

How false therefore and malitious it was to affirm that a Jubilee was kept for this Massacre, let the world be witness. When even Thuanus a malitious and par­tial [Page 257] Writer as ever undertook History, as Doctor Heylin confesseth) writ in spleen and Faction against Popes, first belched out this notorious Fable—yet he himself confesseth, p. 1069. The Ju­bilee was to thank God for the victory at Lepanto, for the Election of a Catho­lick King of Poland, &c.

Another Calumny and not long since spread abroad by many ignorant and illi­terate people, and imprudently reassu­med by Doctor Stilling. Tillot. &c. that many Quakers, and Tub-Preachers a­mong the Sectaries were disguised Je­suits, Friars, &c. or had their Fanatick principles from them.

This weak, childish (if not malignant slander) is refuted, and known to be a manifest untruth by all understanding men. Since such wicked dissimulation is clearly against the principles of their Religion, damnable in it self, and by no power on earth (upon whatsoever pre­tence) dispensable.

Secondly, It is known false by the Sectaries themselves, who are always well acquainted with their Preachers, [Page 258] Education, former Profession, Trade, Family, &c.

Thirdly, Those disguised Preachers, after so many years could never be de­tected by themselves, or any others, or brought to trial. 'Tis yet uncertain whether this charge doth proceed from impotent malice or desperate impudence. This Imposture is now so transparent that the meanest capacity now begins to see through it, and discover the Leger­demain therein.

I ask was there ever any such thing duly proved? was there ever any such Priest or Jesuit taken under such dis­guise? let any man of honour or consci­ence, mark the proceedings of these men; I mean the Authors and spreaders of such reports and stories. They are challenged to make discovery; to pro­secute the business. The Papists disclaim the imputation as a most injurious slan­der suggested against them meerly by the malice of their enemies. Insomuch that I dare confidently assure my self; that if an Oath were tendered to all the Papists in the Nation; they would willingly swear; that neither they themselves, [Page 259] nor ever any they knew, did ever use any such practices; or ever thought them lawful.

What man in his right senses, can be­lieve such gross calumnies? so ground­less, so full of contradictions? insipid ac­cusations which seem to cheak reason. If these and the like can be thought to deserve credit; ere it be long no mans innocence will be able to protect him a­gainst suspition and slander. But who is acquainted with antiquity will find their accusers in such points to imitate the old Heathens; who imputed the unluck [...] mischievous accidents that happen'd a­mongst themselves, to the primitive Christians.

We have seen of late (to the regret of all moderate and judicious men) how some unquiet and uncharitable Spirits by false insinuations, have abused the Nati­on into most antichristian thoughts, su­spitions and jealousies, of the greatest, most prudent and peaceable Society of Christianity.

Never did Jacob Behmen, Stifeler or any of their Fraternity, write more ma­litious self-contradictions, or that had [Page 260] more inference of confusion and disor­der then a late calumniating Polyprag­ [...]us.

What candour, morality, or justice, or charity can there be in a person, for accusing the whole Catholick Church Western and Eastern for practice of Idol­latry? which must unchurch this great Body and divorce this Adultress from Christ, it being a fundamental error. Can any think it agreeable to the gra­tious nature, design and office of Christ to cast of and condemn, for so many ages the visible Body of Christianity? have not the Egyptians, Aethiopians, Sy­rians, Armenians, Abyssines and Greeks almost all the same manner of wor­ship in those things we so much censure the Roman?

Is it not a gross injustice that most mens Christianity and Church-Rites should be judged null, upon the censures and rumours of suspitious men, without any just proof or trial? to traduce and defame almost all the whole world; to judge the generality of Christians visible members of the Devil? doth not this [...]acerate and defame all Religion; and [Page 261] make all Christian Churches lubricous and uncertain shadows? that any such man that is unconscionable enough to say they are profane, idolatrous, &c. may unchurch at his pleasure? and what you say of others, another may say of you, and as justly exspect to be belei­ved.

You have great errors your selves ex concessis, should you be made odious for them to hearers: you must all put up your pipes, and find your artifice would first silence your selves. What if any should say of you, that you are, anti­christian, seditious, bloody-minded, super­stitious, &c. would you not think they should every one personally appear be­fore the accused; and proof brought a­gainst them: and that they should speak for themselves before they are condem­ned? Seeing in this age men censure and persecute most, where they are acquain­ted least.

Can such Champions hope for success that go down into Egypt for help? cut­ting and launcing with lyes and falsities as with sharp Razors? can such wea­pons prosper as are sharpened at the [Page 262] forges of Philistines? is there no way to undermine Romanists, but by digging as low as Hell in slandering the footsteps, and traducing the persons of our Pro­genitors? can that wisdome come from above which representeth the highest devotions practiced from antiquity as Fa­naticism? that makes all supernatural favours, revelations, extasies, &c. mat­ter of drollery? to term S. Francis, S. Dominick▪ &c. Enthusiasts? whom Tin­dal, Act. Mon. 1338, Pa [...]teleon, Luther and the Centurists their very Adversa­ries call holy and good men: and our very Almanacks these two hundred years have included in the Category of Saints?

The Doctor hath founded all the weight of his arguments upon false sup­positions, grosly imagining any inferior relative honour given to Saints, Angels, &c. it is derogatory to the honour of God and perfect idolatry, imitating therein the craft of the Devil, who al­ways covereth his malice with pretext of good: impugneth the same under co­lour and pretence to defend Gods honour, so the Serpent s [...]duced Eve. So he bold­ly [Page 263] chargeth them with giving divine ho­nour to Images, accidents of bread and wine; and unto Saints, using the word adoration, or honour, for divine wor­ship: this we must suppose otherwise his whole book and arguments doth not [...]ouch them, or any thing to the purpose, but phalerae a [...] populum.

Who ever that prete [...]ds to the name of a Christian, but conf [...]sses all religious divine worship is proper and due to God alone, and no created thing what­soever is capable of it?

He should have first proved his grounds solidly before he made his in­ferences upon them: And so his large chapter of Idolatry, might have seemed at least to have been somewhat ad rem: whereas now it serveth to no other end but to discovery his f [...]lly and humo [...]r against Catholicks. Why doth he ca­vil so about words? all the ground of his disputation is upon the equivocation of words. Can he be ignorant that the vulgar use have not words enough pro­perly to signifie all our notions and con­ceptions?

The terms, worship, prayer, invocation, [Page 264] bowing down, adoration, &c. for want of words are or may be equivocal. For worship or prayer directed to God im­ports a total dependance in him; and so our prayers, &c. are offered to God alone. As applied to just and holy men it implies only a communion in the members of the Church militant; or assistance of their prayers, to him who only can give what we ask. They pray not to Saints in the manner as they pray to God, but desire their prayers, as we do the just men on earth to pray for us. How comes then the one to be idolatry, and the other a recommendable action?

The word Adoration, signifieth not only divine honour and worship, but al­so religious and civil. As may be pro­ved out of the Scripture and Fathers. The Protestants themselves grant the different kinds of worship and honour signified thereby.

These three Adoratious have many examples and testimonies in holy Writ, as the word adoration is to be under­stood diversly: either to God alone, called Latria: or to Angels and Saints, holy men, as servants of God, and for love [Page 265] of him called Dulia. The third a civil worship to men of dignity for some civil or temporal excellency.

These three kinds of adoration, &c. according to the different applications thereof, cannot be distinguished in read­ing, but by circumstances: And because the corporeal exhibition of the same ex­terior acts of submission and reverence is common to all kinds of worship; thence they are distinguished and diversified on­ly by the intention and will of him that doth perform them. Whence it is not to be wondred that, as the ancient Fa­thers; so Catholicks now following the custome and phrase of holy Scripture, do use also the word adoration in diffe­rent manner and sense.

The Doctor grants the civil adorati­on, though absurdly he denies the Re­ligious; Calling that civil worship which is testified in Scripture to have been done to Angels and holy men. Whence the adoration Abraham, Lot, and Joshua did to Angels could be only civil. Which would be absurd, because there was not therein any civil or temporal respect, the motive of their adoration [Page 266] being a supernatural excellency, including also a sanctity, or holiness; as appears by the example of Joshua's adoration of the Angel; who, besides his falling prostrate on the ground, was commanded to do more reverence; viz. to put off his shooes, because the place was holy, viz. in respect of the Angels presence.

The like is to be said of the examples exhibited by Abdias to Elias, of the chil­dren of the Prophets to Elizaeus; for al­though Abdias was in temporal dignity a greater man and more worthy than E­lias the Prophet; yet he fell upon his face before Elias 3 Kings 18. acknowledging thereby the spiritual excellency of Gods Prophet, and did therein an act religious. So the children of the Prophets did the like to Elizaeus, adoraverunt [...]um proni in terram 4 Reg. 2. specifying a supernatu­ral respect of his miraculous passage o­ver the River, the motive of this ado­ration. Therefore it cannot be only ci­vil.

This I thought good to note by the way, to shew by this occasion the piece of Legerdemain i [...] the Doctor, who de­nies that Angels might be adored in any [Page 267] sense: yet it appears that Abraham, Lot, Joshua adored Angels prostrate on the ground Genes. 18. 19. Joshua 3. therefore there is some inferiour adoration, or we must charge the holy men with Idolatry. It cannot be called civil only, for the spiri­tual excellency of Angels, and sanctity of the Prophets being supernatural, doth not import any temporal or civil considera­tion, but a religious respect, because it is exhibited to Angels and Saints as Ser­vants of God, for the honour and love of him: so as the worship resteth not in them, but hath a spicial relation to Almighty God, being yielded to them for his sake; because they are his Servants; and to the end to honour him in them, which must be a religious act. This honour being finally and principally to God, for whose sake they are honoured in respect of the participation of the divine excel­lency and abundance of Grace given them; which is so far from dishonouring, that we do him a special honour and service therein; for seeing he said to his Disci­ples, qui vos recipit me recipit, qui vos spernit me spernit, he that receiveth you receiveth me, &c. so that the honour [Page 268] done to them redounds to the honour of God.

This being so and most manifest in our Doctrine and Practice: How impudent and unheard of a thing is it to make them idolaters? whereas their Books written of Worship and Ad ration &c. and their Doctrine in Schools and Pulpits do pro­claim unto the world, and their Con­sciences do witness it betwixt God and them, although they honour Saints and Angels; yet they hold and believe them to be creatures of God, and the ho­nour they yield to them is not a divine honour, but such as may be given to a gloriefid creature, whom God will have to be honoured, according to the testi­mony of our Saviour, John 22. quis mi­hi ministraverit, &c. for God is honou­red and glorified thereby.

Did Saint Hierome, when he wrote to Marcella, and invited her to adore the ashes of Saint John Baptist, Elizaeus and Abdias commit flat idolatry? did not Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine and other Fathers, yea the very Penners of Scrip­ture apply adorare very often to the worship of creatures? Saint Ambrose, [Page 269] saith Helen, did wisely to cause the nail of Christ's Cross to be set in the Diadem of the Emperour Constantine, ut [...] Christi adoretur in regibus: and Saint Au­gustine (as Collins, an eminent Prote­stant, confesseth) applied the word ado­rare to the Sacrament of Baptism and Circumcision, saying to Faustus the Mani­chean, Adoratur in gestante. Did not St. Ambrose reverence and worship holy Re­liques, the Bodies of Saint Gervasius and Protasius, Nazarius and Celsus, Vit [...]lis and Agricola, found out b [...] a revelation he had from God? and were by him transla­ted and honoured with pomp and solem­nity, and approved by many Miracles, as St. Aug. witnesseth in his Confess. or Book De civit. Dei?

But this Doctor imitateth Vigilanti [...]s the Heretick, who charged Christians of those days with flat Idolatry, for wor­shipping Reliques of Saints, calling them Cinerarios, kissing and adoring a little dust carried in a little vessel, taking ado­ration for worship due to God alone. Whence Saint Hierome answering him in the same sense saith, non adoramus mar­tyrum, &c. viz. with divine honour [Page 270] committing idolatry, as Vigilantius char­geth us: sed honoramus reliquias marty­rum, ut eum cujus sunt martyres adoremus & honoremus s [...]r [...]os, &c. we honour the Servants, to the end that their honour may redound to the honour of their Lord; who saith, He that receiveth you receiveth me. Vigilantius did not herein reprove the custom of particular men, but the practice of the whole Church. So Saint Hierome impugned him with pub­lick examples, as of the publick transla­tion of the reliques of Saint Andrew, St. Luke, Saint Timothy to Constantinople by Constantine, apud quas, saith he, demo­nes rugiunt, &c. and then produceth a­nother example of the most solemn tran­slation of the Reliques of Samuel the Prophet, from Judaea to Calcedon in Thra­cia, sumptuously carried by Bishops in a golden vessel; met, received and accom­panied by people of all Churches by the way. Whereupon he asketh Vigilantius whether he took Arcadius the Empe­rour (who caused this to be done) and all the Bishops and multitude for sacrile­gious persons and fools? as we may ask the Doctor in the same manner.

Saint Hierome said of himself praefepe domini & incunabula adoremus: and ex­pounding the verse of the Psalm adorate scabellum pedum ejus, he taketh the foot­stool to be the Cross. See Saint Gregor. Naz. Theod. who maketh a plain distin­ction betwixt Latria and Dulia. They came not, saith he, to the Martyrs as to God, therefore did not give divine ho­nour due alone to God, but an inferiour honour due to Gods Servants. So there is some intermediate worship between a divine and meer civil worship: let the Doctor find out a suitabe name for it, we will not stand upon terms;—but nothing will serve him, but a religious and divine worship must be all one.

I wish the Doctor had studied Meta­physicks better, and not to confound and jumble together the Notions of those things, which ought to be distinguished, abstracted or severed one from another. Is it not an errant fallacy to infer and con­clude an absolute divine worship; when the premises only understood in some in­feriour relative respect?

The very light of nature and com­mon sense may decide this Controversie: [Page 272] touching the honour and dishonour done to a picture or image of them we hate or affect, reflects upon the person repre­sented. Yet this man, who prattles much of reason and sense, denieth the honour or respect given to the image of Christ or his Saints doth at all redound to them: nay that it is flat idolatry? What Logick is this? is it the same thing to worship an image instead of God; and to worship God himself before an image? The Jews, we know, did worship God by bowing down before the Ark and Cherubims, and yet they did not worship them instead of God. Do all of the English Church commit idolatry entring the Churches un­covered, in revererence to the walls, bowing at the Altar or Name of Jesus, kneeling at their Communion, to their Parents for Blessing? all which may be as truely called, and are, as much a re­ligious worship, or inferiour honour, as any practised by the Papists.

Doth not he interpret the word of God and the second precept falsely? in charging others with idolatry, for doing the self same things which God himself commanded the Jews to do, to whom he [Page 273] gave this Precept? Did not God command Moses to make two Cherubims of Gold in the two ends of the Mercy Seat? Exod. 25. 18. Were there not graven Images on the walls of the Temple? 2 Chron. c. 3. were not the two Cherubims in the most holy place of image work? Psal. 99. 5. were not the people to pray in the Temple, and commanded to worship at the footstool of our Lord, that is, the Ark of the Cove­nant, 1 Chron. 28. 2. over which were Che­rubims of image work?

Behold now what a deep Di­vine and terrible Logician the Doctor is, the Papists were never so much put to their trumps, he argueth so substantially (against Scripture and against charity) his inference you must mark well.

God commanded the making of Ima­ges after he had given the second Pre­cept: therefore Papists can make no I­mages, but they are Idolaters. Images were placed in Gods Temple: therefore Papists are Idolaters, in placing Images in their Churches. God commanded to bow down and be prostrate before the Ark: Therefore Papists who kneel in [Page 274] the sight of an Image are Idolaters. Are not these good consequences? and yet this is the weighty and wildy club where­by this great Hercules hopeth to beat down Popery.

I leave it to all wise men to judg whe­ther he be not self-conceited and presump­tuous; who would make so many Chri­stians Idolaters whether they will or no? and those who so much detest it, that it is incompatible to all the Articles of their Belief. To go about to paga­nize and make Antichristian all Christian Predecessors of this Nation, and all the Churches of Christ for a thousand years, and so by a necessary consequence to be members of perdition.

Can any commit Idolatry against their will and intention? can you think it cre­dible, that prudent men should be so dull; as, in the midst of a people that cry out against Idolatry, they should deny God, and make Gods of Stocks and Stones? they who labonred these thou­sand years, by the conversion of Nati­ons, to perswade people from Idolatry, to be charged themselves with the same guilt? Good Sir, you may as truly say [Page 275] they worship an Asses head (as the old Heathens accused the primitive Christi­ans:) a wise man will as soon believe if you should affirm, those that approve all things in the Alcaron are Christians; or that England reaches as far as Greece. This Web which you weave with so much earnestness will only catch dotte­rils and fools, such as have shaked their hands with their reason; or else enthral­led or captivated it under tyranny and partiality; and locked it down to the gallies of their own passions.

It is not my business to dispute this po­lemical Article at large, which is better done by Doctor T. G. and V. C. I find his whole Book like that paralitick Dis­course, written rather Rhetorically ad captandum populum, to insinuate into vul­gar capacities, then logically to evince the Hypothesis contended for: strip it out of its multifarious fallacies, ungrounded surmises and erroneous suppositions; and it will not only be a massie body without bones and nerves to support it and join it together: but sine succo & sanguine, a very Skelleton.

Pardon me, good Reader, if thou think [Page 276] me oversharp with this man, who hath kindled my zeal and whetted my stile against him: in that his procedure is un­christian, that it tends to destroy all, but settle no Religion. The greatest heathen could never reproach Christians with more injurious slanders. And shall it be lawful for a private person to condemn and deride, on false grounds and surmi­ses, those duties which the most lear­ned and major part of Christians ever admitted of? and shall such a one be en­treated to preach and print, and others abler and honester forbid the Press and Pulpit? are we not then partial to our selves, and become judges of evil thoughts. James 2. 1, 4.

When the Doctor proveth that they worship Idols, together with God, as the Kings of Israel did. Or alone without him, as the Pagans did: or that they a­dored with Sacrifice the Sun, the Moon, &c. and other inferiour Deities, as he calls them, we will grant him flat idola­try. In the mean while, all sober men must think,

These are devices to seduce the vul­gar into strange opinions and unchristian [Page 277] thoughts of others; to traduce honest men and their principles: let them be fairly heard in a publick conference, how far they can justifie themselves from be­ing deservedly suspected of such abomi­nations: if our passion will not our cha­rity ought to think better.

I intended here to have a lash or two at the late uncharitable Pamphlet, called ( A seasonable Discourse:) but hearing it is already fully examined and corrected by a better Quill, I will only give these Animadversions; viz. that all or most of his material Arguments, are sufficiently answered in this Treatise, viz. concern­ing the Popes Power of Excommunicati­on, Deposing, Suprem [...]y, the Inquisition, Massacres, disguised Jesuits, opinions of Mariana, &c. as you may find in the Ob­jections and Answers before; as also that faith is not to be kept with Heretiks; that dissimulation of Equivocations in Religi­on is permitted: all these are confuted to be most manifest untruths and falshoods: he cites also very insincerely many Au­thors: and brings in for his best proofs for witness, our enemies or partial Au­thors not to be credited; as Thuanus, [Page 278] Platina, Myster. Jesui [...]. Cornel. Agrippa, Sleiden, [...]ll [...]ry de Foulis, &c.

The Pamphlet indeed rather indeed de­serves a rebuke for his slanders (and there­fore the name is wisely concealed) than for any man to take the pains to read or answer it. It is but a cheating Drollery to delude the people; whence he makes merry with the life of Saint Francis, as fabulous, though written by the hand of Saint Bonaventure, a seraphical and holy learned man, reputed amongst wiser Pro­testants: he takes pleasure to rail at the Popes; to whom all western Churches did ever bear a respect, and ought to do, as being the chief Patriarch of the West acknowledged by the adversaries them­selves.

All men should speak honourably and reverently of Princes and Bishops, the one being Gods Vicegerents in temporals, the other in spirituals, and Successors to the Apostles. Suppose some Popes have behaved themselves too severe, or haugh­ty, (being Princes as well as Bishops) it is not so strange, all great mean should be Saints. But the very name of a Pope is a scare-crow to this man; as if he [Page 279] were one of the ignorant Herd, credulous to believe any fabulous stories pick'd out of Legends (like his own Pamphlet) that have neither charity, truth or civility. Why cannot he (if he were just and ho­nest) rehearse as well the pious acts and memories of good Popes, where there be twenty to one; famous in approved Authors, and undeniable History? but that, like some venemous serpent he loves to suck only in poisoned places: To speak of our own days, (as he doth at random, without jugment or sincerity) what can he say against the lives and the actions of the last three Popes? have not they in­cessantly laboured for the peace and sup­port of all Christian Princes, among them­selves and against the common enemy? and now in particular uniting the Polan­ders, and assisting them with money a­gainst the Adversary of Christianity.

Is it not then a weakness in this man, (worthy to be derided by all the mode­rate and wiser sort) who would make the world believe Popes are so dangerous to Monarchy? What Kings or States com­plain against them? Are his neighbouring Princes jealous or fearful of his power or [Page 280] encroachments? and cannot more potent Princes and Commonwealths, at a di­stance, better secure themselves by their own power? Are not Catholicks in all places obliged to stand to their Sove­raign, in defence of their Countrey, a­gainst the Pope as effectually as against any other? Have not the English Catho­liks long ago in open Parliament decla­red, that the Imperial Crown of England is, and hath been at all times, free from all sabjection to the Pope? and provided a Sta­tute of praemunire, against any abuses as they thought might happen?

Look on the English Catholicks in 88. when the Pope was excited and backed by the power of a great Prince, (Her Title being disputable) and urged by some abuses, aud continued severities, to excommunication, &c. Do not our own and forraign Writers notwithstanding te­stifie, the Catholicks stood firmly to their Allegiance? and the most learned Priests, by an authentick Writing, acknowledged the Q. (though excommunicated) to have still the same authority as her Predeces­sors, and chearfully offered to hazard their lives in defence of her Dignity and Coun­try?

Suppose eight or ten men talk at ran­dom in Schools of the deposing power, &c. must that be the Doctrine of the Church? Did the Church ever approve or teach any such maxims, or were they ever tolerated? (as he most falsely would have it.) Have not all other, numerous, lear­ned men contradicted them? did not all the Universities of a great Kingdom con­demn such opinions, and their Books to be burnt, by a Decree in the face of the world, by publick Justice? did not a Ge­neral Council of Constance sentence the Deposing Power as erroneous and scanda­lous, although he were a Tyrant? Have any other reformed Churches proceeded so far? The Doctor doth well to cry Whore first, and take no notice of the ma­ny standing objections in this and other things, against his own Calvinistical par­ty.

But what need I trouble Ink and Pa­per to examine this mans absurdities, when I had taken but three hours to run them over, they are encreased to so many, I am come into a Labyrinth: you may judg by his first ten lines, wherein he com­mitteth three: first he saith, His Majesty [Page 282] found it necessary, for good of his affairs to grant freedom to all Dissentors. If His Majesty found it necessary, is not he pre­sumptuous, being a private man and a sub­ject, to make this invective (he calls sea­sonable) Discourse to impeach it? to offer weak and lying motives to obstruct it? Secondly, what confidence hath he to utter so notorious an untruth, as to say, Now Priests openly act in all parts their functions? In what City or Coun­trey Town, hath he found them publckly preaching or praying? Thirdly, is it not ab­surd, that being an ecclesiastick, he (should so mind us of Capital punishment) who, by the Canons, should have no hand in blood?

He is much troubled at the Co [...]iers Crred, viz. to believe as the Church be­lieves. Which gives a suspition he doth not believe or would not have his Pa­rishoners believe one article of the Creed. He calls charity and love, but tempting charms: as if he did not know or believe the Gospel; where there be innumera­ble commands for it. But then he comes a canting (being suspitious his Book tends to Sedition and to breed feuds a­mongst [Page 283] us) saith, no price can be to great for peace, but truth. But what truth doth he mean? the many imputed slanders in his Book? or would he have truth se­parated from love, peace, and charity? He cites Authors falsely; as Thomas A­quinus Peron, &c. he hath false suppo­sals, viz. that Catholicks take away the Scripture, give a half Communion, make new Articles of Religion, &c. that indul­gencies remit the guilt of sin, and that the gifts of God are bought with mo­ney, &c. who ever writ more against such Simony than Catholick Authors? or hold more plainly that sin is never for­given without sorrow and repentance from God by the Merits and Passion of Jesus Christ? So much for the Ʋnsea­sonable Discourse.

Now to overthrow from the founda­tion all other aspersions in this kind. Let all impartial men consider, first those cri­minations proceed originally from ene­mies, and grand animosities of parties adverse. Secondly, Papists universally disown them. Thirdly, unrepentant tray­tors and implacable enemies are amongst their accusers, and which most encoura­ges [Page 284] them is their constant fidelity: they might easily vindicate themselves from all such imputations by the putting their adversaries to the proof, had they but li­berty to question them, and bring them to a trial: For they never durst appear or shew their faces in an open and impar­tial audience. We might admire where such deep malice could be found, but much more how any prudence could be­lieve them; and that no reason or experi­ence will restrain them.

How strange a wickedness is then the groundless censuring, so highly and pub­lickly, so many noble and honourable personages, so many eminently deserving subjects of his Majesty? so many grave, most venerable and most sacred personages in the world? What account shall such give at the last day? what is this less than perse­cution? what mischiefs flow and are apt from such libelling by sad experience, we have tasted the bitterness of the fruit.

The dreadful ruin of Hierusalem was brought about by such furious ones, Jo­sephus calleth the Zealots. And should they still be countenanced, it unavoidab­ly bringeth incurable divisions; for there [Page 285] is no certain rule of Justice with such persons. Secondly, It breeds an ill cor­respondence between our fellow subjects, and makes them ill looked upon, which violates civil unity, so necessary for the peace and strength of a Kingdom. Third­ly, It disincourages Loyalty, to see that after such testimonies it may be lawful for any, at pleasure, to brand them as Tray­tors publickly in Print. Fourthly, It tends to excite our Governours, that they are not fit to be endured in any State. Fifthly, It must breed fouds be­tween private persons all over England, Scotland and Ireland. 6. It is a reproach to Christian Religion, when the world must see, we have not so much justice and equi­ty as Heathens have in their worldly So­cieties. Seventhly, It is a great cause of the persecution of Christians, and the dam­nation of Persecutors: being foolisher than the Devil, who would build Christ's house or Kingdom by dividing it. Mat. 12.

And that which must sanctifie all this sin, is, the seeming interest of God and Religion, to hinder the growth and in­crease of Popery. If it was an untruth they spake, it was for Religion; if they did back­bite [Page 286] and revile, it was to preserve the hearers from errors aud infection. If they used their reputation to murder love, and make others odious, and re­joiced in their sufferings and afflictions. all this is but for defence of truth. They think all this is a part of Christian zeal.

And this is a mark of Satans way of Re­formation he doth it by dividing, and teaching Christians to form odious thoughts of one another: And when his meaning is to save you from heaven and truth; he takes upon him, he is only saving you from sin, or errors or cor­ruptions of the Church.

By these notes and signs (saith an English Divine) you may easily perceive how the dividing zeal of such differs from the true, genuine Christian Catholick Zeal. If your zeal be raised for some singular opinion, not for the common salvation; moved by some personal in­terest, honour, or dishonour, for strengthning a party, &c. And not to promote godliness the common cause of Christianity, or general cause of pedce and piety.

A hurting burning zeal, for execu­tion [Page 287] of penal Statutes. When it causeth you to revile, backbite, despise, cen­sure, and zealously to make dissenters odious, that hearers may abate their love. When your zeal tendeth to hurt and cruelty, and is greater for the ad­versaries destruction, than your de­sire and prayer for his conversion.

Its a false zeal, more inclined to their sufferings, reproach or hurt with some secret desire of fire from heaven, &c. when it tendeth to separations, divisi­ons, distances from our ancient Bre­thren.

This is the complexion of the proud, false, conceited and surly sort of pro­fessors, which flyeth outward against the sins of other men, and can live with pride, selfishness, and sensuality at home—a contemptuous persecuting zeal, kin­led by inflaming censures of rash passi­onate Preachers.

First it is an ill sign when their cen­sures are beyond the proportion of their understandings; and their expe­rience and prudence much less then o­thers whom they censure. Secondly, When it is hardly restrained; it shew­eth [Page 288] the World and the Flesh are too much it friends. Thirdly, When it burneth where lust, pride and malice burn. Fourthly, When it carrieth you from those holy rules prescribed: and pretendeth to come from a spirit which will not be tried, but by Scripture. Its a suspicious sign when it is contrary to the judgment, experience, and zeal of the generality of most well experienced, sober godly Christians. And so con­trary to the ordinary working of Gods Spirit in others, who are as good as you: for this zeal cometh not from heaven. For Gods Spirit is not contrary to it self.

But the true Catholick genuine Chri­stian zeal appeareth in its own likeness, in wisdome, love, humility, meekness and and sobriety: Provoketh hearers to love; and good works. Is not conten­tious, reproachful, injurious: loveth vir­tue in a heathen. Is kindled by hum­ble meditations of Christs example, to study and imitate him and his Saints in forbearance, patience, forgiving others and doing good.

Promoting Christian Religion with sin­cere [Page 289] and plain dealing; winning men by Morality, justice and charity, and offen­ding them by no unnecessary thing; by no imputed calumnies; sticking closer to justice and peace than to any party: Owneth virtue and goodness that is in all parties and opinions. Which will be a means to remove the animosities we are so apt to receive against dissenters, and lessen our differences and disagree­ments.

The true means of gaining souls to God, is the Gospellary way of meekness, perswasion, &c. Christ and his Apostles appeared without words of mans wis­dome, assistance of Kings or Princes; without fines, imprisonments, oaths, &c. By his admirable mildness he condemned all these politick Religions, by using cruel­ty to support them. If it had been o­therwise I would have told you, John 14 if the way of planting or preserving my faith had been by imposing penalties, by cruel Oaths, or watering it with the blood of Refusers, I would have told you. The son of man came not to destroy mens lives but to save them.

To wind up all in few words of what [Page 290] is said in this Book, I desire no prudent man to give any credit further than his experience shall find true after diligent search made as concerns every one; be­fore he pass sentence. If this be not enough to disabuse your credulity, (of criminations imputed without proof or probability) let all impartial men judge whether you have not shaked hands with all morality. For who can pretend any charity that will harbour detected calum­nies? or who can love truth that will not acknowledge it when represented? The reasons above given I doubt not, which would serve to clear the Catho­licks from such aspersions, before any just or reasonable Judg, Pagan or Maho­metan. How much more ought they to serve among Christians; who profess not only truth, but charity, which is the life of Religion and bond of perfection. Hence, saith the great Siracides, blame no man before thou hast enquired the matter; understand first and then re­form righteously.