I Perceive Shamming the World in Print, is become not only a modish, but venerable Accomplishment: For otherwise, in the name of wonder how comes it to pass, that some Nonconformists should unequally yoke themselves with the Sham Letter of the Black Box? Verily Sirs, this does not become the Heads of the Sober Party to write as if they were drunk or mad. An Answer to a Ser­mon Preach'd by Dr. Stillingfleet! Sure, said I, these are very nimble Gentlemen to be so quick upon the Doctor, to knock him down to rights like Lightning! Well, fair and softly may go far, quoth I; but a quick dispatch is the grace of the business; 'tis well if it prove so: but this is not all, here's Miracle upon Wonder; here's a Sermon kill'd five Years before it was born; an Answer by the way of Prophesie, an Answer which will serve against all that ever was or will be, or may be, or shall be, or can be said against Nonconformists.

Well, my Masters, you are great Thaumatergicks, but I hope a Scru­ple of Conscience may be admitted to kiss the Toe of your Infallibili­ties, and to offer a few Scraps and Shreads of Nonconformity to your consideration, petimus, damusque vicissim; and therefore first for the Front of the Book, I must take the liberty to tell you, that you do not say either solum verum, or totum veritatis, and you know what that is in English. Are they Ministers of Christ, so are we. Now say I, neither so, nor so; for they are Ministers of Christ Episcopally ordain­ed, so are not you; You are Ministers of that profligate Wretch Hugh Peters's ordaining, who for any thing I know, was not a Presbyter, so are not they. Now Ordination having gone through the hands of [Page 2] Bishops for 1500 Years and upwards nemine contradicente, they who can have it but will not, but despise and hate Bishops Root and Branch, are not so the Ministers of Christ, as they who submit to those whom God hath set over them.

But that I may pull off the Vizard from those Bugbears which these Iack-straws and Watt Tylers have made to fright people into Noncon­formity, I will come yet a little closer to them: We are, say they, to seek Unity, and preach the Gospel; but the second being the greater Duty, must give place to the first. See the acurate Nicety of this little Assembly of Di­vines, and how logically they contra-distinguish these things, making two of vvhat God has made but one: for is not preaching one God, one Faith, one Baptism, one Christ over all, one Fold, and one Shepherd preaching Unity, is not one Article of the Faith, I believe the Communi­on of Saints, and is not all this preaching the Gospel? If your Morals, Gentlemen, and your Divinity be no better than your Logick, e'en go your vvays for Church-men.

But the men have reason for vvhat they say I vvarrant you; Is there not now a Cause? Yes, I assure you, several, the Good Old Cause, and seve­ral Suckers. The Eternal welfare of thousands of Souls depends upon their Preaching: Yes, though it be Dis-union, Nonconformity and Tolerati­on. Suppose novv all these painful Labourers dead and gone; vvhat, must all the World be damn'd for vvant of their Preaching? Durus Sermo! But pray tell us, do not the Episcopal-men preach the Gospel? And may not Salvation be had in Communion of our Church? If it may, then there is no such danger, but in mens neglect of the means; if it cannot, then do they Unchurch all our Parochial Churches, which is a Crime, they say, they could not ansvver before God, nor ever in­tended: So that if these honest Conventicles, as they call them, and the vvhole Tribe of Nonconformists vvere laid aside, there vvould be no such danger to mens Bodies, Souls, or Estates; but a great deal of safe­ty: For under the shadow of the Elders, there grows a sort of Facti­ous People call'd Republicans, who are for fighting, plundring, sequestring, and all that.

But this is further supported by a Second-ly, That it is not in contempt of Authority that they preach, and the People hear. Sure they take us for Gudgeons that will swallow a Hook without a Bait: The next turn will be, they do it in obodience; it is a way of arguing peculiar to the Party: they never fought against the King, they never did any hurt, alas, poor Souls, they are as innocent as obedient; but pray, what difference be­tween breaking Laws, and contempt of them; you can split a hair I know, [Page 3] and for once shew us your Skill; and now for an Excuse for the Peo­ple, for greater Edification—Comparisons are odious among all People but Non-Cons; who live by ill Neighbours, and have a great Ta­lent at praising themselves, though a wiser man tells them, Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth. Well, but the good people hear them, to witness they are not accessory to their Ejection! Sure it is ill halting before Cripples: What, are there none that can remember be­yond the sad St. Bartholomew? Are the Thumbs and Toes; the Heads and Hands that Adonibezeck cut off, quite forgotten? Ah! the poor in­nocent Nonconformists! they never ejected the Bishops and Conformists, the Clergy and Laity out of their Estates; they never sequestred, be­headed, hang'd, starved, banished, or imprisoned any body for Conscience, not they. Come, for shame, be as honest as this same Canaanitish King, Iudges 1. 7. As I have done, so God hath requited me.

But there is another Lion in the way, unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing. Why, what is the matter my Masters, that you cannot do this? Oh Sirs, it is first something they cannot tell what, an ali­quid [...]. But Secondly, something they do know. First they cannot believe the Kalendar. Do you understand it, Gentlemen? Or how to mend it Astronomically? If you do not, why do you make a Scruple of what you cannot mend? And if you do, let us see your Skill; and till then, give leave to use this till a more correct Kalendar is compiled. Secondly, they cannot believe the Athanasian Creed; why, this does no more condemn the Greek Church than the Nicene, which say, I believe in the Holy Ghost, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, which in your account of English Presbytery, pag. 12. you say, In all matters of Faith, Presbyterians believe whatsoever is in the Apostles and Nicene Creed. However, I am glad you have some Charity for Socrates, Plato and Se­neca. I am sure it is more than is expected from those, who pag. 15. dare not believe so well of their own Children when Bap­tized. Thirdly, in the Service of Gunpowder-Treason, 'tis said, There are three Estates besides the King, and this they do not, that is, they will not know. Well, would you know the true reason? If the King be one of the three Estates, then he is coordinate with the other tvvo, then a War against him, maintained by the other may be lavvful; then as the King may dissolve the Parliament, so the Parliament may serve the King, as the late name of a Parliament did; then is not the King Supreme, then is not the Government Monarchical, but a Commonwealth, vvhich yet one vvould think they should not be so fond of, considering hovv their Brethren the Independents treated them under that Government. But the Great matter, I find, is, that they cannot disgorge the Covenant; [Page 4] alas good men! There hath passed a solemn Oath over the Nation, enga­ging the main Body of it to endeavour a Reformation, and must all Cove­nants be kept? I have read of some, who had made a Covenant with Hell, and others who made a Holy League in France: Let them keep their Covenant, which is no better than these, if they like it so well; but God keep us and the whole Nation from them and their Covenant; but what would you have them do? They dare not give their unfeigned Assent and Consent to the Bible; then I perceive Atheists, Papists and Nonconformists are Cousin-Germans, if for some Litteral Faults of Fal­lible Transcribers or Translators, we may be gravel'd to give unfeign­ed Assent and Consent to the Infallible Scriptures, actum est de fide, farewell Christianity. Among all this stuff, yet there is a sprinkling of Ingenuity, pag. 15. We say we dare not give our Assent to the Use of any thing we never intend to perform, which is the daily Use of Com­mon-Prayer either in Publick or Private, they need not swear or sub­scribe this, and indeed they had better never use it than as some of them have done, who to save their Bacon, do not use, but abuse it, making such minc't-meat of it, that it is no wonder if they make the People abhor the Sacrifices of the Lord.

Oh but the Oath! this abhorring Oath! this is the saddest thing in the World to abhor taking up Arms by Subjects against the King, or those Commissionated by him: that this should be Trayterous too! make the People believe this and all's undone! what a company of Knots are here found in a Rush? The true intent and meaning of this in short is, that all men ought to swear they detest and abhor all un­lawful Sedition, and Rebellious taking up Arms against the King, or such as are legally Commissionated by him in lawful things, as did the late Rebells in 41. Was that a Trayterous Rebellion, or was it not? Pray Gentlemen answer Categorically, I or no: If it was, then why may we not call a Spade a Spade? If it was not, I say they are Rebels and Traytors that deny it; but it is plain, they do not like to con­demn the former Actings, Outgoings for Reformation, or any thing that may obviate it for the Future; and my Masters, this palliating an Old one looks scurvily, like encouraging a New one; but why not abhor? Does not David say, All false ways I utterly abhor, Ps. 119. 128. well, but a Cooler, a softer word were better, for pag. 21. A man may swear, that it is unlawful to company with another Woman as his Wife; but what Shoals of Nonconformists should we have, if all the Sons of the Church were to swear they abhor it? Where by the way observe, the Non­conformists [Page 5] would not swear they abhor any Sin; now I have been taught, that what I believe I ought to do, I may swear I ought to do. Well, I find Abhor and Trayterous are very harsh words; but sure to none but those who do not hate and abhor all Treason, privy Conspiracy and Rebellion. This you may know is a sore place in their Consciences, a Gall they got, when rid by the Rump, and pray touch it gently, or they'l kick. I doubt they abhor this Oath, tho' for all that, and the Subscriptions too, because they say, pag. 13. There has passed a Solemn Oath, viz. a Covenant over the whole Nation, engaging the main Body of it to endeavour a Reformation.

Well, you have heard their Arguments, and what is now to be done? Why, these Colemanists tell you positively, there is nothing to be done without Toleration, Comprehension and Indulgence; and all must have the Benefit of it except Papists; very good, and they will have the Benefit of it in spite of your Teeth; how will you help your selves? They can, we know, be Presbyterians, Independents, Fifth-Mo­narchy-men, Quakers, Anabaptists, what you please; and if once there comes to be a Free Trade established, we shall never want Merchants from Rome. Well, but what shall we do for our little Sister the In­dependent? Oh very well; she shall be under the Visitation of the King, and the Iustices of the Peace; so that I find, though Bishops and Clergy-men may not be Iustices, yet Iustices may have the Honour of being Bishops; but how our Congregational Men will like this, is another Query: For this Yoke put upon their Necks, will oblige them to a Dependency, destructive of their Liberty, Being, and Name of Independents.

But there is no doubt the Houses of Parliament will be induced to comply with these People for three notable Reasons. 1. Because they will make the House of Commons equal to the Lords, and both equal to the King, as must be in coordinate Estates. 2. Because, say they, We see the Iaws of Iesuits and Sectaries opening upon us, and for fear they should not gape wide enough to swallow us up quick and quickly, strain them wider by a Toleration. 3. Because they kindly suppose, p. 35. that all those who will oppose them in either House are Papists. Few, say they, there are in either House who are Protestants, without jealousie, &c. which is a plain intimation that there are some in both Houses who are Papists. A Reflection which by naming no particulars, is a general Scandal upon all and every Member of those Honourable Houses.

[Page 6]I vvill not trouble my self or the Reader vvith their explanatory Bill▪ or their marginal Annotations, only observe, First, that their very Ex­planations needs a farther Explanation, and so you shall have these pro­lifick heads bring Superfetation upon Annotation, till the Acts of Tole­ration vvould out-svvell the Statute-Book. Secondly, That Nonconfor­mists are come to as great perfection in Politiques as Divinity, and that ere long, the Gentlemen of the Long Robe vvill be laid aside, as Grie­vances of the Nation: For they are vviser than the Government many years ago, and abler than the Council Learned in the Lavv, to pre­pare Bills for Parliament, and fittest to explain them vvhen they have done. The great Comfort is, they tell us, pag. 40. That they pro­pose these things, as if they vvere in Republica Platonis, and it is ho­ped they vvill, if ever be enacted either there, or in Sir Tho. Moor's Utopia: For,