I.

1. IF common fame be true, Mr. Bag­shaw, you are the same person that published so petulant and uncivil a Libel against my Lord Bishop of Wor­cester, and not for that fault alone have been so deservedly Disciplined by Mr. l'Estrange, and so smartly whip't, that the whole Town has heard your cries. How then comes it to pass that you can find leasure to seek out, and defy to the combat other enemies? But it may be the demolishing of the Roman Church [Page 4] is but an excursion in a Parenthesis, whilst you are, for your divertisement, unbending your thoughts, or taking breath awhile against a new combat, with an Adversary that has a great deal more zeal, sharpness, honesty and courage then is for your purpose, who hope not to be discern'd, whilst in de­spight of the Act of Oblivion you will not suffer either the King or any of his faithfull Subjects to forget what they have suffered, and must expect, but still work and preach and print, almost to­tidem Verbis as you did when the hor­rible Covenant was the only Religion and Gospel of the three Kingdoms.

2. These practices, Mr. L 'Estrange, if he cannot interrupt, yet he can call company, and bid them take notice of them. He will not permit you to Glory as if you could once more couzen the Kingdom into a new Rebellion. Never hope to find so much as one English Protestant that will once more be cheated to look upon you as the Assertors of the Subjects Liberties, or maintainers of pure Protestant Religion. If the Civil Authority will for ever wink at your Caballs, and the Ecclesiastick leave open the Pulpits to your Sermons of the old [Page 5] stile, and the Presses to your Pamphlets against Bishops and indifferent Ceremo­nies: If you expect Indemnity must be interpreted to regard the future also, all that can be said will be, Sani, So­brii, vigiles perîmus. We shall not, as heretofore, be surprised: but we make a Covenant with destruction, as if we were afraid it would escape us.

3. As for your Pamphlet touching In­fallibility, though by the Title you pre­tend to attacque only Roman Catholicks, and to demolish the Grounds of the Churches Faith, yet in the whole Book there are not quite two small leaves wherein the Church is concern'd at all either in its Grounds or Superstructure. Therefore I am confident, and it may be Mr. L'Estrange (who knows your wayes and Arts much better then I) may in a far neater, that is, his own stile tell you, your real Design was to write a Book with the Title against Catholicks, meerly to have an opportunity to stuffe the Preface with malicious glances a­gainst Protestants too, and incense vul­gar minds, as if Popery (forsooth) were ready to be introduced.

4. Now though my self, purely as a Catholick, am little concern'd in that [Page 6] part of your book which you purposely wrote against Catholicks; and not very much in those passages against Pro­testants, except only in this considera­tion, that you would fain make Catho­lick Religion your Engine to raise trou­bles, yet as a faithfull Subject to his Majesty, and a lover of my Countries peace, I cannot but inwardly bewail, and must take leave thus publickly to justifie the too reasonable cause of my grief, when I see an English Subject o­penly professing his name, and pretend­ing to the Protection of an Honoura­ble Counsellour of State, renew the old seditious practise of inflaming the Peo­ples minds with rage against their Tea­chers, and murmuring suspicions against their Governours: A practise that above all others contributed to the raising of the late Rebellion, and to the ruine and murder of our late Soveraign of happy memory, and his best Subjects and Ser­vants, the late Archbishop of Canter­bury, Earl of Strafford, &c. Here are still among us God knowes how many Sects, that if any Protestant Doctours shall presume to speak or write other­wise, then according to what the furi­ous zeal of Sectaries against Ecclesiasti­call [Page 7] Unity and peace suggests, they must presently be exposed to a general sus­picion, the Country must be raised upon them, and upon the Bishops if they not discountenance them, and upon the King unless he punish them for no fault at all.

4. But give me leave now, Mr. Bag­shaw, to ask. Who are you? of what Sect? Of what Church? Common report gives you for a Presbyterian, a man former­ly very busie in the Intrigues of that Faction. Yet some passages in your Preface and Epistle Dedicatory speak you an Independent: in which you call your self an Assertor of Christian Liberty, com­plaining of the keenness of Laws against such; a disliker of Episcopal Authority as setled in England; and one that refuses to admit the interpretation of Scripture from any Person or Church, but only from your own private Reason. Most likely it is, you reserve in petto a Declarati­on whether party you mean to adhere to, till you see how they are likely to thrive: till then you would pass for an Amphibion. And truly such a temper a­mong you threatens much danger to the State. When Pilate and Herod are made friends, Christ must look to himself.

5. If you be an Independent on all o­thers, [Page 8] will you not suffer others to be Independent likewise on you? Or if you be a Presbyterian; are you not content with enjoying hitherto the fruits of his Majesties most gracious promise from Breda? None pretend more then you to tender consciences. Have any call'd you in question for differences in Religi­on? But this it seems will not serve your turn: Nor an Independents turn. Your tender conscience will not accept of the only condition that his Majesty annexes to this his Grace, which is, That you must not disturb the peace of the Kingdom. This most just and neces­sary condition you here in your Preface renounce, in which you again blow the Trumpet to sedition, by telling the World that English Divines are bring­ing in Popery. If that were true, as long as it may be permitted to you to be Presbyterians or Independents among your selves, what do you complain of? Will you never leave this peevish, this malicious envy, not to content your selves with your own safety unless o­thers be ruin'd?

6. But it is intolerable that you should call your selves in your Preface, We Protestants: and talke of our Re­formed [Page 9] Church of England, or our An­cestors, Our primitive protestancy, &c. Are you an English Protestant? a mem­ber of the English Church established by Law and Canons? Why then do you not submit peaceably to the government of your Bishops, and indifferent Cere­monies? Why do you reject the Book of Common Prayer enacted by supreme authority both Spiritual and Temporal to be the publick Liturgy of the prote­stancy of England? Why do you find fault with the keenness of Laws against such Assertors of Christian Liberty? The very titles you assume of Presbyterian or Independent, declare that your for­mal essence consists in an opposition to English protestancy and prelacy. You pilfer therefore the name of an English Protestant, ut sportulam furunculus, to use Tertullians phrase: Or rather you are English protestants, as Salvian says some in his time were Christians, in op­probium & contumeliam Christi.

7. But you are wise in your genera­tions: you know you could do no mis­chief, unless you took a vizard. For if you had spoken in your Preface the true Language of a Sectary; if directing your speech to English Protestants you had said, [Page 10] I Mr. Edward Bagshaw, Student of Christ-Church, a very Presbyterian (or Independent) a professed Rebell a­gainst the English Church, do out of my tender love and care of the welfare and promotion of the said Church, give you, O English Protestants, warning to take heed of Popery, for the bringing in of which among you Doctour Gunning and Mr. Thorndike, and God knowes how many more are preparing way; the Bi­shops are of intelligence with them, and the State connives at them: Therefore look to your selves. All we can do is to blow the Trumpet, and tell you once more how couragiously we will lead you to a thorough Reformation: If you have neither zeal for God, nor knowledge of your own strength, 'tis none of our fault, Little do you know that we Presbyterians, Indepen­dents, Anabaptists Quakers, &e. are a­gain become good friends, and will joyne together to put down this Antichristian Hierarchy; and when we are to divide their lands it will be time to try which of us can get most. Now a beater Meane [Page 11] we have not for such a purpose then, as formerly we did, to cry out, Beware of Popery, Take heed of your Antichristian Clergy, &c.

8. If you had unwisely discovered your thoughts with such plainnesse, your open dealing would have shewed some sincerity, some appearance of the simpli­city of the Dove, but little of the subtle wisdom of the Serpent, a quality much more for your purpose. Notwithstand­ing, your vizard being quite worne out, your calling your selves English Prote­stants will not have the effect it had in your former happy dayes twenty years since. Your Voice is too well known now not to be Jacobs, There is scarce an English subject so ignorant, or of so short a memory, but can take notice that this was the Old Tune that sounded to a charge, and invited them to kill one another for Charities sake, and to suffer you know whom, to murther the best King that ever reigned before him. The difference between the two Brethren in iniquity, being only this; One did but fight against him, and the Other killed him; One bound his hand, and the other cut off his head: They will [Page 12] be so far from startling at the name of Popery out of your mouthes, that per­haps they may begin to entertain a bet­ter opinion of a Religion so persecuted by you, especially remembring that the Papists never separated their interests from the Kings and Theirs, but unani­mously ventured their lives and estates for them, and this purely out of love, Duty and conscience, even when all they could expect by a victory was to re­main still under the penalty of the Laws.

9. Therefore a disguise is necessary for you whensoever you would speak, except to your own Party in private. It had been folly in extremity to say, We Presbyterians, Independents, &c. do give you English Protestants warning to beware of your Doctours that would bring in Po­pery, It had been apparently to your own prejudice, unless you had said, We tell you this who are true Reformed English Protestants, of the same Church with you, your Pastours, who have care of your souls, whom you see no man hinders from preach­ing in your Pulpits, and writing Books to Preach to those that cannot hear us in Pul­pits. If we were enemies would the Civill or Ecclesiastical State, think you, allow us such a liberty, and maintain us at their charges to Preach and Print as we do?

[Page 13] 10. But I do assure you Mr. Bagshaw, you are no English Protestant, For what is it to be an English Protestant, or a mem­ber of the English Church? This is a question of greater moment then ordi­narily is believed: The very subsistence of Protestant Religion in England now depends upon the right stating of it. Nay I may truly say, that even we Roman Catholicks are much concerned in it, and therefore I may be pardoned if I insist upon it; because unless this questi­on be resolved, all our disputes with Protestants are likely to prove meer beating of the air, contentions utterly wandring from the purpose. Therefore I may be excused, if I take the trouble upon me to resolve it: and this I must do, not upon Catholick grounds, or notions of the phrase [being members of a Church] but only the notions which Protestants and generally all Sects divided from the Ca­tholicks have entertained of that phrase. For Catholicks do not esteem any one a member of the Roman Catholick Church, that doth not profess all Do­ctrines without exception taught by it to be true, and submits not to all the Lawes and Ordinances of it. There is no distinction to be made, as to this [Page 14] matter, between Doctrines in themselves Fundamental or non-Fundamental, be­tween Lawes in themselves necessary or not: because a refusal to accept any one of those Lawes or Doctrines does vertually destroy the Authority of the Church, of how little concernment so ever such a Doctrine or Ordinance be in it self. There may be differences and even dissentions among Catholicks, a­bout points of far greater moment in themselves, and yet neither of the par­ties be in danger of being excluded from the Title of Catholiks, or members of the Roman Catholick Church, because the Churches Authority has not inter­posed it self in those disputes either way, and therefore is untouched by ei­ther.

11. But generally all Congregations divided from the Catholick have a quite different conceit of the Phrase [being Members of a Church:] And this con­ceit is either general, or more special. According to the general conception of that phrase they acknowledge all to be members of their Church (or rather co-members of the Church of Christ) that do not teach doctrines or make or­dinances excluding all right and interest [Page 15] in the common salvation: and thus En­glish protestants esteem themselves mem­bers of the Catholick Church, and Lu­therans of the Calvinists Church, and you Presbyterians, Independents, &c. of the English protestant Church: because they do not deny a possibility of salvation to one another notwithstanding the diffe­rences among them.

12. The second and more special no­tion of the phrase [being Members of a Church] entertained by all particular Congregations not Catholick, does im­port an external conformity in all Do­ctrines without exception, and all pra­ctises determined by each congregation respectively, a renunciation of any ex­cluding the refusers from an external communion and participation of the priviledges of that Congregation, who notwithstanding may be acknowledged to be almost in as good a condition as to salvation, as those are which exclude them from their external Commu­nion. Thus Lutherans are not Calvi­nists, though they believe Calvinists may meet them in heaven, because they will not admit them to their communion. Thus you Presbyterians and Indepen­dents, &c. are no English protestants as [Page 16] long as you are Non-Conformists. Let the differences between you be never so small [as wearing a Surplice, Kneeling at Communion, &c.] if these Ceremo­nies be established by Lawes Ecclesiastical or Civil, the non-submission to them is a manifest dividing from that Church: and the less considerable the quarrels are, the greater is the guilt of those that publickly dispute or write against that Church of which they desire to be thought members. True it is you would seem to have some reason to complain against the English Church, if for such trifling differencies only, they should pronounce you excommunicated from Christs Mystical Body: (though they must give me leave to say, That by not doing so, but acknowledging your Con­gregations to be members of the Church, they do manifestly conclude them­selves guilty of Schisme by such a com­munication with you, whom they can­not deny to be Schismaticks:) But it would be ridiculous in you to accuse them of Tyranny for excluding you from their External Communion, when you your selves will not embrace it. They do not pretend to an Au­thority to oblige you in conscience to [Page 17] believe that their Doctrines are true and their Ordinances just: but they would be no Church, they would renounce all Order, if they did not maintain the laws and customes with so great deliberation, and after so many disputes with you, framed and renewed. Where there is no Uniformity even in external matters, there is no Church, but a Babel. If at Communion some should sit, others stand, others lye along, (as our Lord did) and others kneel, if some should be bare-headed, others with their hats on, would it looke like an assembly of men that served God? Therefore complain not, but rather thank God and them, if they force not your consciences, but permit you to abstain from things you do not like, and to practice among your selves things you like better. But to expect to be acknowledged members of a Church, whilst you refuse to submit to the autho­rity of that Church in things of them­selves not evil, much more whilst you write publickly against them, is to de­sire them not to pretend to the name of a Church. Therefore, I conclude, that you Mr. Bagshaw are no more a member of the English Church, then I am: and my proofe is this very Preface of your [Page 18] Book that I now write against. Your saying that Episcopacy is lawful, or your being ordained by Bishops, signifies nothing; as long as you disobey them, you are none of their subjects.

13. However I cannot blame you, if in despight of English protestants them­selves you will needs be called En­glish protestants. For if being, as really you are, no true members of the English Church, you were treated as such, that is, excluded from a participation of the emoluments of it, and obliged to a sepa­rated exercise of your ill-natur'd Reli­gion, two great incommodities would ensue to you, and withal two as propor­tionably great benefits to them, and the whole Nation.

14. For First, What pittiful Congre­gations would you in a short time ap­pear to be? At present your numbers, especially in Cities and Towns are not unconsiderable. Whereas, if being no members of the English Church, you were excluded from participating Tithes, Benefices and other preferments, not at all due to you, and had no other main­tenance but the Voluntary contributions of your own party, you would quickly find that Party weary of you, and [Page 19] become rather content to hear a sermon in the Church, and wholesome prayers in a Surplice, then to pay so much over­plus for far worse stuffe in a parlour, from a short cloak and no cassack.

15. The Second Mortification thence flowing would be yet more intolerable. Hitherto the facility of Bishops giving you leave to call your selves English pro­testants and members of their Church enables you to defile their Churches by doing your own businesse in them to their great prejudice and danger. In their pulpits you cry down Ceremonies, you preach against their government, you sow sedition in the hearts of their flock, you instill discontent against the State: In a word you do all the mischief you can, both to it and them. And all this while you enjoy their Livings: they maintain you to destroy them. Whereas if at the charges of your own patrons only you were to preach and pray in private parlours, your peculiar Gifts in both would quickly vanish: for there would be no use of rayling, and blowing up discontented passions in an Auditory, where most of your hearers can raile as well as your selves, and are perhaps al­ready more discontented: You would lose [Page 20] the pleasure of gaining Proselytes to your Faction; because none will hear you that are in danger of being seduced. On the contrary to your hearts torment you would see even City-Churches eve­ry day more and more filled with your dearest friends; nay your own Sto­macks would come down, and for pre­ferment, yea even bread, you would quickly digest both Crosse and Sur­plice.

16. Before I leave this Argument, I would fain with your permission propose a Question to You, though I fear the very proposal will anger You, and I do scarce hope for an Answer, though if you had a mind to it, nothing is more easie to be answered: and in case you reply to this paper, remember, I summon You not to forget this question.

17. Suppose then His Majesty and the Parliament should by Law confirme to You the gratious promise from Breda, That upon giving security not to enter into practises to disturbe the publick peace, You should not be called in question for matters of opinion, but should have a moderate liberty to ex­ercise your Religion at home (or even in Churches to your own party only, [Page 21] with prohibition to all good subjects to come to your sermons) would you be content with such an indulgence and mercie from the State? Would You upon these termes engage to disconti­nue your sermons and prayers top-ful of the fel draconum?

18. Till You answer this Question, I will tell You the Opinion of many that believe they know Your temper well e­nough. They do assure themselves you would not: You, I mean, Presbyterians and Independents: For as for your na­tural brood, and subdivided Sects of Anabaptists, Quakers, &c. I conceive they are more reasonable in this matter of Liberty of conscience. They would be content to serve God after their fa­shion in their own Chambers, and would maintain their own Ministers, and poor too, paying withall the dues which by Law belong to Parishes. Whereas there is but too good ground to believe that there is nothing more apprehended by You Presbyterians and Independents, then such an Indulgence: because that would disunite from you all other Sects, and make them sure to the State against You: so that You and your Friends would stand miserably and contemptibly alone.

[Page 22] 19. True it is, you would fain seem somwhat inclined to a Conformity of your fashion, and for that end You demand Conferences and Treaties with the Bishops, &c. But withall You require a condescendence from them in such things, as both honour and truth forbid a compliance in, and which cannot be granted without a secret acknowledg­ment that they have been faulty hither­to in oppressing You with undue burdens. And as for other trifling scruples of yours, You are more troubled when they yield any thing, then when they refuse all. However by such Treaties You gain this, that among Vulgar minds You may sometimes pass for zealous persons in all things pertaining to God, and withall no enemies to peace: And besides; You may have occasion there­by to complain yet more against Bishops, for not submitting to your conditions, so easie and reasonable. For alas! You desire ease only in indifferent trifling matters: whereas in all necessary Ordi­nances for Gods glory You are ready to comply. What a great matter, say You, is a Surplice, or refusing a Papi­s [...]ical Cross? For peace sake You will even digest Episcopacy. Let there be [Page 23] Bishops, but not jure Divino, or if jure Divino, not such as Law hath established. Let them be countermanded each Bishop by a dozen Presbyters, and subject to their Classes, and you will not stand up­on the Title.

20. I dare say, Mr. Bagshaw, You are very angrie now to be told thus publick­ly, that you are more afraid of Liberty of Conscience then of persecution, unless You might have leave to interpret Liberty of conscience, to be a free permission to do mischief, not to serve God. And much more, to be told, You are no English protestant. But You must pardon us, that cannot but think so, till You tell the World what You mean by an English protestant, and what that English pro­testancy is which You professe and maintaine, and have been so busie Twenty Years, almost to the ruine of the Kingdome, to set up against Prelacy.

II.

1. IT is now time to take into conside­ration the zeal, Mr. Bagshaw, that You, as a good English Protestant, have shew'd against those that have a liking to the pompe of popery, and are so hardy as to make some attempts to bring it back into your Church. In this zeal You spare neither Gentry (including I suppose the Nobility) nor Clergy.

2. First as touching the Gentry, You tell the Kingdom that too many of our un­wary Preface. Gentry begin already to be taken with the outward pompe of popery. Who are these many, too many? They are Gen­tlemen. The Gentry indeed are not so apt to be wrought upon by You, as In­feriour Tradesmen and day-laborours: and therfore it is much for your purpose, that the general rout should have a sus­picion [Page 25] of them. Well though there be many of them, yet You name none: whereas there are but two of the Clergy, and You name them both. There is some Mystery in this. Would You not have it believed, but dare not speak out, that these too many Gentlemen are some members of the present Parliament, that you covertly desire the Kingdome may suspect, and have an ill opinion of, be­cause they will not, in compliance with your slovenly devotion, suffer you to burne Surplices and Copes, or abrogate decent Ceremonies? but much more because several Honourable persons a­mong them have expressed some pity to Roman Catholicks, and an inclination to requite their fidelity with some small ease from the heavy burdens laid on them by the Lawes? It is a greater torment to You to see their Fidelity rewarded, then their Religion not per­secuted. But it is intolerable to you, that no good Christian now can be un­satisfied in the way that Roman Catho­licks have taken to appear fit objects of mercy, since they have both publickly in the house of Lords Vivâ voce, and by many Treatises and Protestations in wri­ting given such security of their unalte­rable [Page 26] Loyalty and Obedience to his Ma­jestie, and the State, as not any Christian can possibly give greater, and I much fear You will never have the honesty to imitate them.

3. Observe one thing I pray You, in such Protestations and writings of Ro­man Catholicks. They do not deprecate any former faults committed, because they are guiltie of none: they protest their clearness from those crimes of a few desperate unhappy monsters, and wri­tings of their traiterous Masters, that oc­casioned the severity of Laws against all: They do not mention their universal fi­delitie to the King these last twentie Years, as an obligation or merit, for which they expect reward from men: but as a necessary duty to which their Religion bound them, and which if they had not performed, they should have in­curred a curse from God. Yet all this perhaps will not satisfie You. But see our different Complexion: for my part though there were not one of Your (sup­posed) Religion, but were deeply in­gaged in infidelity to the King, yet if You would only acknowledg that a fault was committed, is repented of, and a promise made of Loyalty for the fu­ture, [Page 27] I should hope well, and wish You might be believed and confided in for the future.

4. Next as to the Clergy, Your accu­sation Preface. is most heavy and punctual when You say, I need not plead for the not persecuting of Poperie, &c. when some that yet professe themselves to be of our Church, and those of good note too, are not afraid to plead for somthing more then its Toleration. Since by telling us in print, that the Pope is not Master Thorn­dike in Weights and Mea­sures. Antichrist, That Papists are not Idola­ters; nay by affirming, That all are schismaticks who upon that score do refuse communion with them, they not only blemish the vertue and piety of our first Reformers, who all built upon that foundation, but likewise shew how willing they are upon any termes how wretched and unworthie soever, to returne into Egypt, and bring us to our Brick and bondage again. If this be not the interest of some, I cannot imagine what means the crying up of that Great Diana of the Papists, the Churches Authority, and making that the sole Interpreter of Scripture, The Dr. Gun­ning upon Math. 9. preaching up of Lent, and other poli­tical Fish▪daies, as Religious Fasts, and [Page 28] of Apostolical Institution, quite con­trary M. Thorn­dike ut suprà. both to express scripture, and an Act of Parliament. The insinuating, that we may lawfully pray for the dead, and likewise expect some benefit by their prayers, which in time may easily be improved to our praying unto them. These with some other opinions of the like nature, so far degenerating from our primitive protestancy, do shew that if the Age is willing to be de­ceived, there are not wanting learn­ed men who are willing enough to de­ceive them.

5. This authority that You, Mr. Bag­shaw, take upon You to proscribe all protestants that dare not profess such a detestation of Catholick Ʋnity as Your party does, is alone sufficient to demon­strate how much the English Clergy does neglect their own preservation, whilst they permit such as You to call your selves protestants, and members of their Church: your waies and interests being so directry opposed to theirs.

6. All England almost has lately heard Archbi­shop of Canter­bury. laid to the charge of the late most un­justly murdered Archbishop of Canter­bury, as the most heavy point of his ac­cusation, that he had a desire of restoring [Page 29] England to Catholick unity. Yet there was not produced any proof at all, that for that end he deserted any necessarie and essential Doctrines of his own Church: the mere desire of unity was his crime. A crime that he willingly acknowledged, and as he had reason joyfullie boasted of. And certainly, that Christian must needs be full of a Spirit not from heaven, that hates unitie, quatenus ipsam. Now, what my Lord Archbishop desired, and died for, I am perswaded there is scarce any true ge­nuine English protestant but does com­mend in him, and would not refuse, occasion being given, to imitate him in.

7. If you read Bishop Andrews his works both English and Latine, You Bishop Andrews will, even in his Controversies against Catholicks, find a wonderful caution not to aggravate, or multiply differen­ces, great care to prevent mis­intelli­gence, and an exactness in stating dis­puted points with a most studied impar­tiality, & very oft with condescendence. Nay even in his sermons before the Court, in which his heart only spoke as as an Embassadour for God, what pangs may one perceive in his soul when he speaks [Page 30] upon this subject, and reflects on the aversion that some who like You, call themselves protestants, have from Ca­tholick peace and Unitie. Hearken to this one passage in his first Sermon on Pentecost: Who shall make us of one accord? High shall his reward be in heaven, and happy his remembrance on earth, that shall be the means to restore this accord to the Church; that once we may keep a true and perfect Pentecost, like this here, Erant om­nes unanimiter. It was a restoring of unity that he so much thirsted after: which word shewes, that he had a respect to the Catholick Church from which only a separation was made.

8. And Doctour Steward likewise, a person as replenished with learning, pru­dence Doctour Steward. and vertue as any of his time, he so longed after this unitie, that in his last Will he gave order it should be the argument of the Inscription on his Tombe. And no doubt there is, but such an Inscription would make it lighter, that is, render his future con­dition better.

9. These wothy persons were indeed English protestants, like those You now arraign. They knew the true compo­sition of their own Chuch: A Church, [Page 31] though I must needs say, not firmly built yet however erected by advice of persons in Authority, persons of honour and judg­ment: not as Geneva, Holland, and Cromwels Independent Church, by a re­bellious Army of Tradesmen. They knew that at the first framing of the En­glish Church a way was not so wholly given to passion, but that when certain interests of a few great persons were complied with, and several too justly complained of Gravamina from the Ro­man Court remedied, there might be a possibility of closing again with that Church which they then only so far de­serted. They knew there was never a­ny intention so to forsake the Roman Church, as if it were a Babel, or seat of Antichrist, but ever acknowledged it a true Church, though not so well Refor­med. On the contrarie they knew, and their successors do still to your hearts torment acknowledg, that all the Ordi­nation and spiritual Jurisdiction of the English Church is derived from the Ro­man: which therefore must be a true Church if theirs be any.

10. Upon such grounds as these, no question, my Lord Archbishop of Canter­bury not only desired, as all honest well [Page 32] minded Protestants do, but also hoped, that if by his authority and skill he could reduce the English church to that primi­tive State before your Calvinistical dregs and poison were instilled into it, he might, upon warrantable terms, procure a Re-union with the Catholick Church. But how should this Re-union be made? By giving up to Roman Catholicks all the points of English Doctrins and Disci­pline? No such matter. But this he knew, That in Books of Controversy, among ten Points disputed, there are not two wherein either of the Churches are interested: and that most of the few, real, Substantial differences might be qualifi­ed by a moderate interpretation and con­descendence.

11. But whensoever such a business as this is either agitated or talked of, you Mr. Bagshaw and your party smile, and deride us poor Roman Catholicks, as if we vainly framed to our selves great hopes and advantages by such good Christian designes, or Writings of Prote­stants. But truly you are deceived. We indeed, as we ought, are glad, purely for their sakes that either designe or write sincerely and ingenuously in mat­ters of Religion. But such designs and [Page 33] Writings are harmeful to us in our pre­sent condition: and the reason is plain: because they being the works of particu­lar persons without any publick com­mission; of persons that have no sufficient influence upon the whole English Church and State, they produce little effect: On the contrary they give only an op­portunity to such malicious tongues and pens as Yours to Alarme the whole Kingdome both against them and us.

12. But if it would please his sacred Majestie or the Parliament to allow a modest Conference (not Dispute) be­tween a certain number of sober learned English Protestants and Catholicks, by means of which a clear view might be given what the peculiar Doctrines by Authority established on both sides are, and what place may be allowed for mo­derate Interpretations and Condescensi­ons, in all probability the success could not but be most happy: the whole King­dome, yea all Christendom would stand in a maze to see what an inestimable bles­sing has been so long wanting to England, and how little cause there was it should be refused. How would the Civil and Ecclesiastical State of these nations be established and united in interests with all [Page 34] the Christian world almost? How free should we all be from the least danger of being infected with the venom of Secta­ries, and how secure from their designes? For then they would to all eyes appear in their distinct bodies: it would be seen who, how many, and how qualified they are: and permission being allowed them for a private liberty of exercising their Religions respectively, any suc­ceeding tumults would be both easily repressed, and their cause appear inex­cusable. In a word Religion as it might by common Advice be setled in this Kingdom, would deserve to be the envy and pattern to all the world besides, be­ing easily freed from many abuses much complained of, but hard to be rectified in other Catholick Countries.

13. And whence comes the obstruction to so inconceivable and universal a bles­sing as this, but meerly from such, En­glish Protestants as You and Your partie are permitted to call your selves. From You it proceeds that the Ecclesiasticks of this Kingdom have not hitherto so much as endeavoured to convert us Roman Catholicks to their Religion: They have been unwilling to be informed what the true Differences between us [Page 35] and themselves are. As if true Reform­ed Religion did formally consist in a blind, heady, and voluntary breach of Unity with all Churches before them. They have condescended to admit con­ferences with Sects, whose peculiar com­plexion consisting in an incompossibility with their government renders them irreconcileable, unless they yield up both their Faith and Estates. Yea for such Enemies satisfaction (if any thing could satisfie them) they have submitted to alterations even in their Church office and Discipline. Lastly to content such English Protestants as You, they have connived at your defiling, altering and destroying that which heretofore was called, and by Law still is truly the English Protestant Religion: As will ap­pear even by what You are suffered here to write against eminent persons of their Church.

14. You proscribe and expose to pub­lick hatred Doctour Gunning and Master Doctour Gunning. Thorndike, as persons that would seduce English subjects to Popery. And what are your Proofs? Forsooth Doctour Gunning has preached before the King, and since printed, and beyond your skill to dis­prove, has demonstrated that the Lent [Page 36] fast is an Apostolical Institution. Where lies the Popery? It is, You say, against express scripture. But is it therefore popery? Do no Sects contradict ex­press Scripture but Roman Catholicks? Behold the natural Logick of a Fanatick. However, let this express scripture be produc'd. Non liquet, either in your Text or Margin. Well at least, say You, it is against an Act of Parliament. Let me ask You and Your fellowes a Question. Will You be content to stand to all Acts of Parliament, both as to their Prefaces and Clauses, as Declarations of Faith: and this under the penalty of being esteemed Papists: Then I here denounce You a Papist: For has not the whole Liturgy and Discipline of the English Church been ratified by Acts of parliament? But what will You say to an Act of Parliament that has declared, and like a Heretick burnt Your Cove­nant as a damned, trayterous conspi­racie? Take heed therefore You be not found your self a papist. As for the Lent fast, You know that by the Lawes of the Kingdom Bishops are appointed the exacters and dispensers of the Observance of Lent: which shewes it to be esteemed an Ecclesiastical observance as well as Civil, [Page 37] So that I believe Dr. Gunning is in little danger from your charge.

15. God send Mr. Thorndike as good a deliverance: For his Charge consists M. Thorn­dike. of more then one, or two, or three points of Accusation: and every one of them seems to have an air of popery. Let them be examined. First, say you, he tells us in print that the Pope is not Anti­christ. Item, That Papists are not Idola­ters. Item by consequence, that all are Schismaticks who upon that score do refuse Communion with them. These are terri­ble points against good Mr. Thorn­dike: Yet, alas, not all his popery nei­ther.

16. A time was when such as You, Mr. Bagshaw, could both undoe and de­stroy English subjects meerly upon an ac­cusation of Popery, without proofe. God be thanked it is otherwise now. There­fore You ought at least to have produced some proofes that these Assertions are direct popery. But not having done it: let me advise you what kind of proofes will be expected. You must know therefore that it is a Law of the English Church, that whatsoever is found in the Antient Canons, and is not expressly re­voked by Ecclesiastical Authority in En­gland, [Page 38] is to be esteemed still in force. And common sence and reason will tell you, that before you can by such allegations as these prove any one to have deserted the English Churches doctrine, and be turned a papist, you must produce some Authentick Declaration of this Church by which the Pope is decided to be An­tichrist, and the Papists, Idolaters. But that is impossible for you to do. You will perhaps, to little purpose, cite the names of certain Calvinistical Writers, that, as you, hypocritically called them­selves English Protestants: but withall you will take notice that all very Prote­stants have laughed at them, some have been angry, and demonstrated the direct Negative. If you were a live member of the English Church, you would know that the English Church would be no Church if the Pope were Antichrist, and the Papists, Idolaters. For would you acknowledg that to be a Church that en­joyes her whole Authority and Juris­diction from Antichrist and Idolaters? Is she not rather a member and abortive of Antichrist? This is plain reason Mr. Bagshaw: and consequently the infe­rence is undeniable, That all are schisma­ticks who upon that score do refuse commu­nion with the Roman Church.

[Page 39] 17. You proceed against Mr. Thorndike, He insinuates, say you, that we may law­fully pray for the Dead. Your proof, I told you, that this is against Protestancy, must be to shew where the English Church has repealed the Antient Ca­nons commanding Prayer for the Dead. That will be a hard task. On the con­trary You your selves object against the Common-Prayer-Book that there is a clause in it, that not only insinuates it to be lawful, but actually exercises prayer for the dead. And you know that with­in the time of the four first General Counsels (received in England) above twelve hundred years ago your Progeni­tors were by the Universal Church de­clared Hereticks for denying it. Yea moreover that there was never extant any Liturgy or Missal in the Church of Christ, Eastern or Western, wherein there were not prayers for the dead.

18. You go on. Mr. Thorndike against the Doctrine of the Church of England saies, That we may expect some benefit by the prayers of souls departed (I suppose, holy soules are meant.) Where does the Church of England contradict this? nay more, except you will acknowledg your self to be a Socinian, and deny that the [Page 40] souls of dead persons have any subsi­stence at all with perception, and use of rational faculties, you your self will not be so shameless as to deny what you here lay to Mr. Thorndikes charge. For I know none that call themselves Chri­stians, except Socinians, but acknowledg that the glorified Saints do pray at least in general for the Church Militant. Now if they all do pray for us all, will you not permit us to expect some benefit by their prayers? Must we maintain that all their prayers are to no purpose? O but you in­fer, That this in time may easily be im­proved to our praying unto them. As for this inference which is not your defen­dants, but only your own, give me leave to tell you: That if you believe that the Saints pray for the Church in gene­ral, it would be no hard matter by one Syllogisme to oblige you to acknowledge that we may pray to God that he would hear and grant their prayers, making them beneficial to us. And now search all the Solemn Offices and Missals of the Roman Church mark the prayers that occurrs every Saints Feast, you will find no other formes but such as that: The prayer is alwayes directed to God alone immediately, and he is desired to [Page 41] grant us such and such blessings by the intercession of such Saints. And if in less solemne Devotions, as Litanies, Antiphons, &c. we say, Sancte Maria, Sancte Michael, Sancte Petre, ora pro no­bis: we are by the Church obliged to no other meaning then as before: and we imitate express Scripture, Laudate De­um omnes Angeli ejus, omnes Sancti ejus, &c. Cardinal Perron will assure you that our prayers to Saints is only prier pour prier, a devout wishing that they would pray for us: And truly for my part I do heartily wish all the Saints in heaven to intercede in their prayers with God, that he would vouchsafe to give you (and us all) a sincere love both to truth and peace.

19. I have reserved your most crimi­nal charge till the last, which you thus express, If it be not the intent of some to returne into Aegypt, I cannot imagine Preface. what means the crying up of that great Dia­na of the Papists, the Churches authority, and making that the sole interpreter of Scripture. What Religion can you pos­sibly be of, and talk thus? You in your own person, standing alone, are not a Church. If you be but one member of a Church, what ever it be, as long as [Page 42] you are so, you are subject to it, it must have Authority over you: the Spirit of one Prophet must be subject to an assem­bly of Prophets are you an Independent? much freedom is implyed in that Title: yet I believe your Lay Church will think it has authority enough to oblige you not to interpret Scripture for the advan­tage of that court of Inquisition, the Classes of the Presbytery. Are you a Presbyterian? Your private reason shall be yoaked and chained with bonds strong enough, and heavy enough to keep it from stirring to the prejudice of the Holy brethren and Sisters. But you will needs call your self an English Protestant, and yet will dare to revile all the Authority in your Church, bold­ly protesting that it shall not interpret Scripture for you: Your private reason shall over-master it. Unless it confesse it self to be no Church, that is, to have no Authority to oblige its members to receive the sence of scripture from her, you will be revenged by bellowing aloud This is the crying up of the great Diana of the Papists. Truly I must needs say, the Church of England is a very patient Church, if she suffer you to speak this Bedlam language and injoy a Benefice too.

[Page 43] 20. But you do well, though you mean very ill, when you call this the Diana of the Papists: Since you imply that a true obliging Authority, if any where, can only be found in the Catholick Church. As for Sects that have no Suc­cession of Ordination for such to assume Authority and Jurisdiction in matters of Religion, is ridiculous even to com­mon sence: for it implies, that to be men which have an ordinary use of reason, is a sufficient qualification to become Ecclesiastical Teachers and Go­vernours. The Clergy of England challenging a lawful Ordination, have some pretension to a real Authority: and if they could justify themselves free from the guilt of Schisme, even we Ro­man Catholicks could not deny but their Authority would oblige in conscience, and under the penaltie of damnation, because then it would be an Authority participating that of the whole Catho­lick Church, and acting in union with it But of this somewhat more in the last part of this Discourse.

21. I do apprehend, Mr. Bagshaw, that if you make any reply to this, you will, instead of speaking to the purpose, en­deavour to aggravate the cause of Do­ctour [Page 44] Gunning and Mr. Thorndike, by saying at adventure, that there is a secret intelligence between the Papists and them, and that they do mutually main­tain one anothers quarrells. On the o­ther side I am not without suspicion that some even of my own belief and Church, will think that it did not become a Ca­tholike to busy himself with justify­ing the writings of protestants, especially when he endeavours to shew that such Writers are no Catholicks, though the particular points taught by them be real Catholick verities.

22. Now to both these I must say, that I never had the happiness to know or see either Doctour Gunning or Mr. Thorn­dike: never was there any message or intelligence between us. But my only Motive to write as I have done, was to comply with that precept of God (Pa­cem & veritatem diligite) Love peace and Truth. As a true faithful English subject, I could not see so professed a disturber of peace without reproving him. As a catholick I could never hope (what I am bound to desire and aim at) that both truth and peace would find admittance into England by any endea­vours either of Protestants or Catholicks [Page 45] till it was apparent what the true grounds of our separation are: and this never will be known till other Sects be made to blush, when they impudently and per­niciously both to the Church and State, call themselves English protestants, and pretend to be judges of what is to be esteemed in the English Church Catho­lick Doctrine.

23. Therefore for a conclusion of this argument touching your charge against Dr. Gunning and Mr. Thorndike, I will once more protest, that unless either the Civil or Ecclesiastical Authority do in time provide against such writers as you, the whole Kingdom in a very short space will be in iminent danger to become a mere Babel. For if it shall be permitted to such men, to defame any English Do­ctour or Writer that shall not conspire in all the furious positions of Presbyterians, Independents, &c. against the Catholick Church, there will not be a Bishop or sober Divine in England that will not be at your mercy, both for his fame and subsistence, nay his life also, when you can either raise a tumult, or which is more dreadful, a new Tribunal of Justice.

III.

1. WEE poor Roman Catholicks could not but be strangely surprised to see such a Protestant of the Church of England, as you Mr. Bagshaw are, to become our Advocat, and to beg our pardon saying, How ill an opinion soever I have both of the Papists Reli­gion, Preface. and of the unchristian waies they take to propagate it, yet far be it from me to wish, that amongst us they may suffer the same hard measure, which I know by their Principles, they are al­waies ready to inflict. For so much do I desire their conversion (which can ne­ver be sincere, unless it be voluntary and unconstrained) and so little fear their power of seducing (since their greatest strength lies in the ignorance of their followers, rather then in the [Page 47] cunning of their guides) that I hearti­ly wish all penal Lawes against them were utterly taken away: For I never yet saw any Argument that 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.

2. What a kind wish is here, and a reason for it truly unanswerable? In­deed here is Charity, a point too high to be believed sincere. Therefore to the end your Charity may be rational, do not deprecate the inflicting of all punish­ment upon any, if you can indeed prove that by the Principles of their Religion they are obliged to inflict the like punish­ment on others. As for our Principles, we protest unto you they are very in­nocent in this point. Laws indeed have oft been made in Catholick Countries very severe against those that the Church calls Hereticks. But they are none of the Churches laws: they were not enacted by Ecclesiasticks but by Ci­vil Governours only. You know that by the Canons of the Church ever in force, the Clergy under penalty of Ir­regularity are forbidden to have any [Page 48] hand, either by Counsel or otherwise, in blood. And whatsoever Laws have been or shall be made by Catholick Ci­vil Governours, especially such as reach to blood, if the Motive of them hath been pure Opinions of the Understand­ing, not prejudicial to Government, or any thing except a prudent mean to prevent Sedition or Rebellions justly apprehended, we assure you they are not made by the Principles of Catho­lick Religion, but against them.

3. You will object the Spanish Inqui­sition. But withall be pleased to con­sider, that almost all the Catholick King­doms in Europe besides do abhorr the cruelty of that Inquisition, and have of­ten declared they will suffer the utmost extremities, rather than admit it.

4. This Charity of yours therefore was too excessive to be long-liv'd, or de­serving to be esteem'd sincere: for you presently repent and revoke it, whilst immediatly after you add, I must con­fess there are two things which do much difference the case of the Papists from that of any other Religious Sect Preface. this day in the World, and which ren­ders the Toleration of them very un­safe, if not unwarrantable.

[Page 49] 5. How was it possible for one that wrote this cruel passage, not presently to blot out what with the same ink he had written immediatly before? The King and State are little beholding to you, when you wish that may be done, which is both very unsafe and unwarran­table: and besides, that may be done for Roman Catholicks, which you say are the only Religous Sect in the World, which it is both very unsafe and unwar­rantable to tolerate: you except not even the Fifth-Monarchists, whose Religion forbids subjection to all Civil Gover­nours whatsoever, and commands by Fire and Sword to erect their new spi­ritual Kingdom of Christ, which is to last a thousand years. Let but Papists be excluded, and all the monsters of E­gypt are welcom to Mr. Bagshaw: Yet he must know that if there had been no Papists in the World, no other Sect a­mong us had ever heard of Christ. Be­hold the mercies of a Presbyterian (or Independent, I know not whether) how cruel they are.

6. And all this he writes to prevent the benignity of Protestants, which he suspects may in some measure be exten­ded as well to Roman Catholicks that [Page 50] suffered with them, as to his own party that still grieve they had not swallowed up both. He forgets what a converted criminal (as if it were some honest A­nabaptist, or Quaker, one that had been, but now is no longer, a murderer and seditious person) said to his obdurat companion, Dost thou not fear God, since thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: But these Men what have they done? But we should not much ap­prehend that his perswasion should pre­vail with persons that sure should now know us both, were it not that (by what unlucky star we are ignorant) a perswasion has entred the minds of not a few among them, that there is a secret intelligence and Union of interests be­tween Roman Catholicks and all our Sects, even to Fanaticks, and that they do all joyntly conspire against Prote­stants. This opinion is imbibed by per­sons of prudence, and otherwise well disposed to contribute to the ease and comfort of Catholicks, were it not that the proofs of this accusation are said to be unanswerable. Many Priests say they, are known to have been busie in Cromwels Army: and even of late some Catholicks have sided with Presbyterians, &c.

[Page 51] 7. Now what is left for distressed Ro­man-Catholicks to do in this case? Protesta­tions and Oaths to the contrary, will not serve. Writings of this nature, if they be read by such, are slighted. Quid verba audimus (say they) cum facta videmus? But if they see them, let the state see them too: Let some delinquents be produced. No: yet the thing is certainly true. But how comes this ttuth known to Prote­stants? Have the Sectaries discovered it? It is hard that their testimony should be taken: and though their professed ha­tred be notorious, it is unlikely they would forfeit their priviledge by the Act of Indemnity, meerly to do mischief to others. Are they Catholicks that have discovered this? They may easily be brought to a tryal: no Troops need be employed to apprehend them. And an unanswerable way of justifying the past severity of the State against us all, would be the arraignment of them, in case they can accuse any that have instil­led unlawful principles or encourage­ments into them. If all the several bo­dies of Ecclesiasticks be not able to justi­fie both their Religion and practise, we renounce all mercy. But let it be grant­ed that some Priests were in Cromwells [Page 52] Army: who were they? Either sensual Apostates, or I am loath to say who, and they perhaps with a mind to serve the King: Or in case it should happen, as possibly it may, that three or four rash persons, out of a tender affection and devotion to one party among Ca­tholicks, whose exclusion they fear, to prevent that, should enter into any pra­ctise without commission even of that party it self, hoping that such an Act of theirs would be imputed to all Catho­licks, and by that means hinder their Friends from being treated more severe­ly then all the rest; would not Justice it self complain, if even that party should suffer for the rash misdemeanours of a few: but Justice would forsake the earth, if all the whole innocent body should be made a sacrifice for a crime so committed. It is a hard condition we are in: We actually suffer as if we were guilty of a crime, and are forced to guess what that crime (utterly un­known to our selves) can be supposed to be. All that can be said in the pre­sent circumstances must be, That if in reality we can be proved deservedly ob­noxious to a condemnation upon this charge, both the present and future [Page 53] Age ought to stigmatize us and our me­mories, as persons not only in the high­est degree criminal, but as such who in a blind frenzy, after they had by suffer­ing all extremities from powerful e­nemies twenty Years together for their Soveraign, obtained a sufficient reward in being esteemed by him constantly Loyal Subjects, and (as their hopes were) had withal sufficiently freed their Religion from the scandal of infidelitie: afterwards when his Majesty was resto­red to his power, and treated them with a mercy never before experienced by them, yea moreover when the Honou­rable Lords in Parliament after a graci­ous hearing of their defence, gave them hopes of future favour, just then they deserted their Loyalty to the King: and entred into a combination with enemies alwaies implacable to themselves, and at a time when those Enemies had all power taken from them. This would be a complication of all crimes in one, a Treason joyned with the most prodigi­ous ingratitude, most scandalous impie­ty, most barbarous inhumanity, and most brutish stupidity that ever was.

8. But Mr. Bagshaw (who, I am as­sured, does not suspect us, nay knowes [Page 54] we are not guilty of this crime) calls me to hear his Reasons why Papists alone should be ill-treated: and I obey. You say, Sir, you have more then one reason Preface. which does difference the case of Papists from all other Sects, &c. If this be true, then You had not so much as half a reason to wish sincerely that the penal Statutes should be taken from them: Nay that unlawful wish deserved punishment.

8. Let us see these Your evincing rea­sons. One is, say You, their depending upon and owning a forraign power, &c. If you had stopped at these words, we should have found no reply. For we confess, such a power we depend upon and own; but we utterly deny that that should put us in a worse condition then o­thers. For if that Power be purely spi­ritual, that is, of a quite different na­ture, and not in the least degree preju­dicial to the Kings Civil Power, but ra­ther obliging those that acknowledg it, faithfully to obey the King, the own­ing of it surely ought to be no hindrance to a Toleration. If you think other­wise, then I must tell You that no Sect of Christians whatsoever ought to be to­lerated in England. For let me ask You (who ever you are, whether Presbyteri­an, [Page 55] Independent, Anabaptist, Quaker, or even English Protestant) Do not you, and all of Your perswasion with You, depend upon and own a power distinct from his Majesties Civil power, I mean, a power meerly Spirituall, or Pastoral, not subordinate to the Kings, but to which the King himself, if he be of your Religion, ought to be subject, as being no Pastour, but a Sheep, no Teacher, but a Hearer; no administrer of Sacra­ments, but a receiver; no Excommuni­catour, but lyable himself, as all Christs flock are when they demerit it, to have Ecclesiastical censures inflicted on him? Such a power, I am sure, you all ac­knowledge: And no other power do Roman Catholicks depend upon or own. Be not then so manifestly, so affectedly partial, as to alledge that to the preju­dice and destruction of Roman Catho­licks only, which must as well exclude all Christians out of England.

10. But it is a forreign power, You say, that Papists depend upon and own, and this word Forreign makes the diffe­rence. It does indeed: But the diffe­rence is, I suppose, much to the advan­tage both of the King and Roman Ca­tholicks too. For tell me for Gods sake [Page 56] since there is indeed a spiritual power from which Princes themselves ought not to be exempted, nor can free them­selves from it without infinite prejudice to their own souls, is it not more for their temporal peace and security that this Spiritual power should reside in one single person that usually is both learn­ed and discreet, and withal is a thousand miles removed from our King, then in many thousands within his own King­dom, not all of them Angels, that if they have a mind to do him a mischief, have all the means and opportunities imaginable? The King of France esteems it a great priviledge granted him in a Concordate by the Pope, that no par­ticular Bishop should have power in any case to excommunicate him: this power being reserved by the Pope alone.

11. Thefore you do very well when for an escape to your selves You add, but very ill, when most calumniously to us You add, That Catholicks depend upon and own such a power which ac­cording to the opinion of their teachers Preface. can when he pleases dispense with them for, and release them from their most sacred engagements: So that a State can have no security, but that when [Page 57] ever they have opportunity they will endeavour a change: And their present peaceableness may justly be attributed merely to their want of strength: which Bellarmine is not ashamed to say was the sole cause why the primitive Chri­stians were content to suffer without resistance. From which position what can follow, but that it concerns the wisdome and policy of every State to keep those under, whom as to Temporal Subjection it cannot confide in.

12. Imperet tibi Dominus. Here the world sees the charity of a Presbyterian, &c. in its natural colours. The Chri­stian charity so divinely commended by St. Paul has these qualities, Non cogitat malum, &c. It thinks no ill: It does not rejoyce in iniquitie, but rejoyces 1 Cor. 13. with the truth: It suffers all things; it be­lieves all things, it hopes all things. But this mans new fashioned charity thinks nothing but ill of all divided from his interests. It rejoyces only when any of them fall into any defects, and never re­joyces at their well doing. It suffers no­thing, whatsoever good they promise it believes nothing, it hopes nothing.

13. But truly, Mr. Bagshaw, You have made choice of a most unseasonable time [Page 58] to vomit forth these most spightful un­truthes against Catholicks, with any hope they should be believed. In the last age indeed when the criminous Writings and practises of four or five Catholicks of one peculiar Order had justly incensed the State, and no way was afforded to all the rest publickly to defend themselves from an imputation of concurring with, and holding the wicked principles of a few Traytours, such a bloody accusation as this might perhaps find entrance into the minds of some few unwary persons. But now when such practises and princi­ples have been he artily disavowed by all sorts of Catholicks: When the honoura­ble Catholick Lords, have in the name of the whole body of the Catholicks, before a most glorious Tribunal made most con­fident protestations of an Eternal fidelity to the King, and of renouncing all depen­dance on a forreign Authority that can any way be prejudicial to him: When so many professions have been printed by several sorts of Catholicks declaring, That no power upon earth can absolve them from their most necessary & natural Allegiance, nor so much as free them from the Obligation of any Promise or Engagement made to any private person: When his Majesty him­self [Page 59] has honoured his Catholick subjects with such a confidence in their Loyalty and sincerity, as to trust his life into their hands, when some (Mr. Bagshaw knows who) sought and hunted after that most pretious life; Lastly when for the space of twenty years a fiery tryall has passed upon the fidelity of Catho­licks, and never could diminish it: Now, I say, after all this to hear this accu­sation against them, out of such a mouth as Mr. Bagshaws, that they depend on a Power that can release them from their most sacred engagements, is beyond all suffe­rance. What name can be found out worthily to express such a shamelessness in a Presbyterian or Independent, none of whose party ever assisted, but rather used all their power and skill to ruine the King, and after their Indemnity not one has appeared to make a publick promise of dealing better with him for the future? Who can with patience hear such an one, tell the State, that it is concerned in wisdom and policy to keep Roman Catholicks under, whom as to temporal subjection it can­not confide in, when as not any one of them disserved the state, but many thousands have lost their lives, and far [Page 60] more (almost all) are ruined in their estates for their fidelity only; and more­over to shew that this Fidelity was a Duty of their Religion, have and ever will be ready to give all security of peaceable obedience and sincere integri­ty that Words or Actions can confirme? What can You expect, Mr. Bagshaw should be the fruit of such a passage as this in a Book of Yours, but a guilty blushing in Your own party, indignati­on in loyal Protestants to hear such as You become accusers in such a cause as this, and joy in Roman Catholicks, to see that none have of late taxed them as persons not to be confided in, but such old confiding men, as after oathes of Fidelity have taken the Covenant and Engagements worse then that, and but for an Act of Oblivion, &c. would in Westminster-Hall hear, and not be a­ble to answer a far heavier accusation then this?

14. There are but two Oaths by the State accounted tryals of an English sub­jects fidelity, that of Supremacy and of Allegiance. If the former were but so expressed as to require an acknowledge­ment of a Civil Supremacy in his Ma­jesty only, exclusively to the Pope: And [Page 61] if the unfortunate word, Heretical were left out of the other, no honest Catho­lick would desire to be allowed the pri­viledge of a subject if he refused either. And more then this, not any one Prote­stant, Presbyterian, or whosoever he be that freely takes them, can intend by them. For not any of these will say that the Catholick Church of any Age has defind this Assertion to be Heretical, That Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects: It being an assertion they never dream'd of: Neither will a­ny of those that make no scruples at ei­ther of the Oathes, allow a spirituall power, much less a Supremacy in that power to the King. So that it is evident that Catholicks are exposed to the ex­tremity of sufferings for not taking oaths in the full importance of whose sence they agree with all those by whom they are persecuted.

15. But truly now, fince the State has most graciously been pleased to give a publick hearing to the Catholicks, spea­king by the Tongues of the Catholick Lords, &c. who have against all possible objections maintained the innocence of our Religion in the point of Fidelity: [Page 62] And since it has been a general assevera­tion of Magistrates and the State, that they never had any intention to take a­way any mans life merely for his Reli­gion and conscience, as long as he was free from practising sedition: Me thinks hereafter our Justitiae Sacerdotes, the Reverend Judges should find a great dif­ficulty to perswade their consciences to permit their tongues to pronounce a condemnation, as for treason, against any English subject, meerly for having a scruple in an Oath to bring forth the word Heretical, he being at the same time ready to acknowledge, as due to the King, all the authority and right that the Judge himself does, when he condemns him for a traytour.

16. Therefore, Mr. Bagshaw, if You would perswade the State that it cannot confide in Catholicks, You must study some other motives: For we heartily re­nounce the acknowledgment of any power that can dispence with us, or release us of our Engagements to his Majesty. They are none of our teachers that hold such opinions. And what Bellarmine saies, That the sole cause why the Primitive Chri­stians were content to suffer without resistance was their want of power, we abhor, as a [Page 63] speech blasphemous to the Holy Martyrs, and scandalous to the Church. Yet let me tell You, this was a Doctrine that Bellarmine might have learnt from Your Fore-fathers the antient Puritans, for out of them it is that Archbishop Ban­croft quotes such unchristian sayings and words, as this for one, Paul command­ing us to be subject and obedient to Bancroft in Dange­rous Posi­tions p. 17 Princes, did write this in the infancie of the Church: there were but few Christians then, and not many of them rich, or of ability, so as they were not for such a purpose. As if a man should write to such Christians as are under the Turk, in substance poor, in cou­rage feeble, in strength unarm'd, in number few, and generally subject to all kind of injuries, would he not write as Paul did? So as the Apostle did re­spect the men he wrote unto, and his words are not to be extended to the body or people of a Common wealth or whole City. For imagine that Paul were now alive, &c. and that there were such Kings as would have their becks stand for Laws, as cared neither for God nor man, &c. what would he write of such to the Church? Surely except he would dessent from himself, [Page 64] he would say, that he accounteth not such for Magistrates, &c, he would leave them to their subjects to be pu­nished, &c.

17. What think You of this Mr. Bag­shaw? Yet I will not accuse You of hold­ing the same. Nay more, though I can demonstrate tuat there's not a Coun­try or City in Christendom into which Your Sect or Religion ever entred by any other waies but sedition and Rebel­lion, witness France, Geneva, Holland, several States in Germany, Switzerland, Scotland, and (for almost twenty Years space) England, yet if You would re­nounce that abominable principle, That it is lawful to defend Religion by arms a­gainst a lawful Prince, I should have a scruple to say, that a State cannot safely or warrantably confide in you, as You have most unjustly said against Roman Catholicks, taking advantage from one or two Writers generally disallowed by us, though You can not name any one City or Country in Christendom into which Catholick Religion ever entred but by suffering.

18. Do not therefore endeavour to make all Catholicks answerable for the wicked assertions of a few Authors, when [Page 65] you know they have been condemned by whole Kingdoms. You have eyes sharp enough to spy even in the Catholick Church our sort of Presbyterians and Independents, Yea even Quakers too: If any such be in England, the State may easily convert them. However God be thanked their teachings are out of fashion: and I would to God they displeased You as much as they do us. You know we can lay to your charge ten seditious Authours for one: and which is mainly (indeed, only) considerable, You are not able to produce one of your party that has condemned their horribly Rebellious principles. And as to the point of defending Religion by Arms, if by a Reply You will summon me to pro­duce the particular passages, I will at large informe You, that during the reign of the last King of France, there was by his order proposed to an Assembly of Catholick Bishops this Question or pro­blem, If it were supposed that the King of France became Mahumetan, and by his power endeavoured to force his sub­jects to that infidelity, Whether they might lawfully, according to the princi­ples of Christianity, by arms against their Soveraign resist such an attempt [Page 66] of his? To which Question the unani­mous answer of the Bishops was, That such a resistance would be unlawful: since Christian Religion allowed no o­ther way of maintaining the faith a­gainst lawful Soveraigns, but prayers, tears and suffering. When will En­gland be so happy as to see such a reso­lution to proceed from a Synod of Pres­byterians, &c. It would be some com­fort to see but one, Mr. Bagshaw, publish a little book to that purpose. Never cer­tainly was there a more seasonable time then now. That would be a powerful expedient to imprint the Act of Oblivion in the very hearts of all English sub­jects: And till some such thing be done, Quis Caelum terris non misceat to read from such an one as Mr. Bagshaw's pen a Le­cture of Fidelity to the King, and a warning given to the State, who the only persons are not fit to be confided in?

19. You add, Mr. Bagshaw, But could our Papists in England give sufficient evi­dence of their hearty disowning such an ir­religious Tenet, yet there is another thing, Preface. &c. What say You Sir; Could the Pa­pists? Why, have they not? Is their an ear in England that can perceive sence, and [Page 67] has not heard what a profession was made by the Catholick Lords in the House of Peers? Is there an eye that can read, and has not seen their printed Declarations in which that irreligious Tenet was confidently, clearly and heartily Disavowed? They have, do, and will protest, that if they be not ready to give all possible security of disavow­ing that, and all other Principles pre­judicial to Authority, Justice, and Peace, it would neither be prudence in his Majesty, nor a just care of his Kingdomes welfare, to tolerate them a­mong his Subjects. What would you re­quire more?

20. If You think, or however, if You be resolved to say, though You do not think so, that we lye when we both make such protestations, and withall offer to confirme them by Oathes, You will put us into some puzzle how to give You sa­tisfaction. Yet in order thereto, even to You that perhaps are unwilling to be satisfied, we tell You this. You can­not but know that Catholick Religion utterly forbids all lying, and above all, Perjury. If therefore You will judge, that neither the Protestations, nor Oaths of Catholicks, are to be credited, you [Page 68] will condemn the State of want of pru­dence in contriving Oathes for tryals of their Fidelity: and moreover you must needs esteem us the most imperti­dent Lyars in the World, that is, such as only lye when it is for our disadvan­tage. If we durst lye, we would much rather chuse to lye by taking the Oathes in the formes as they are expressed, then make voluntary false protestations of the same duty that the oaths require: because by taking the Oathes we should free our selves oftimes from the loss of our Estates, and sometimes of our lives: whereas by such Voluntary protestati­ons we cannot challenge any temporal commodity: nay perhaps we anger those, that take it worse from us that we prove our selves good subjects, then they would, if we had been ill ones. This is all I can at present say to such a scru­ple. If this satisfy not, God mend those that are in fault.

21. Let us now see Your second rea­son why only Papists must not be tolera­ted though they were never so good sub­jects. That You deliver in these words. There is another thing practised by Preface. them, which makes it highly questio­nable, whether a Kingdom professing [Page 69] Christianity ought to tolerate them in, & that is their Worshipping of Images: which is a sin so contrary to the express letter of the Divine Law, and so re­pugnant to the common sence and rea­son of all men, that God punished it severely even in the Heathen Chalde­ans, as well as in his own people the Jewes.

22. You are hard put to it, Mr. Bag­shaw, to find reasons to kill Roman Ca­tholicks. The saying is Furor arma; but it has put a straw into Your hands, to wound us with. Yet I am likewise hard put to it too, how to defend my self a­gainst even such a weapon: that is, how to discourse upon this point of Images with one that professes he will neither accept Fathers, Councels, nor the whole Church it self for an Interpreter of Scriptures, or Decider of Controver­sies, but only his own private enlight­ned reason. It cannot be helped there­fore: Reason alone must be judge be­tween us: You will needs have it so. Let reason then be our judge, but upon condition that You will not call that rea­son which is against common sence.

22. You say, The worshipping of Images is a sin repugnant to the common sence and Fres [...] [Page 70] reason of all sober men: so that your common sence and reason concludes, that there is not a Catholick in the world that is a sober man, and not de­void of common sence and reason: and by consequence, all France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Savoy, Greece, &c. are but one large Bedlam.

1 24. Well, however give one of these Bedlam men leave to propose to such a sober man as you are, that is all com­pounded of Reason, some few Questions, First, then suppose there were represen­ted to you while You were thinking of other matters, or talking, a picture of our Lord hanging on the Crosse: could you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was, and what he had done or suffered for you? And if not being able to forbid the entrance of such thoughts into your mind on such an oc­casion, would your reason dictate to you that you had done ill in changing your thoughts from the world to God, would you repent of it, asking pardon of God, and praying that such a tentation might never befal you afterwards? Does your enlightned reason suggest this to you? Truely if it do, I believe you are of a temper of mind almost specifically diffe­rent [Page 71] from all mankind besides, and must change their nature before You make them of your perswasion, or Church. And yours is not a common sence, if it either tell You that by Your beating down Crosses and breaking Church windows, our good Countrymen think more of God then they did while those remembrances were standing: or if they think less, that it is better for them, to forget him.

2 25. To make a step further, Let it be supposed that at the same time You saw before you several pictures of several persons in quite contrary manner regar­ded by you, as of St. Peter and Judas, of our Late Soveraign and Bradshaw: (you are beholding to me for this ex­ample:) Or put case you had in one hand a Bible and in the other the infamous story of Pantagruel: does not your com­mon sence and reason tell you, that such pictures or books force upon your mind quite contrary thoughts and affections, the which regard those pictures or books not simply considered, but as represent­ing such persons, and containing such matter? The which thoughts being just, and not at all harmful to you, and withal almost impossible to be avoyded, I can­not [Page 72] find any reason why reason should forbid them: I am sure common sence will not.

3 26. If then it be according to reason and common sence, and likewise una­voydable to admit such different thoughts: will not reason also warrant you to expresse outwardly by words or actions, whatsoever you may without any fault think inwardly? For my part I cannot imagine any scruple in this. If then I may and must think reverently or contemptuously of the Objects, I may as well speak, or behave my self externally after the same manner to them respectively; For whatsoever is ill or good in words or actions, is so likewise in thoughts.

4 27. Now to shew that such thoughts or affections regard not the persons only but the pictures also as representations of such persons, ask Your own heart and You will find that You would not place S. Peters picture, or the Kings in an un­clean, dishonest place. If any one should spit upon either of them, your heart would rise against him, and tempt you to strike him: which it would not do, if the same contemptuous usage were shewed to the picture of Judas or Bradshaw. [Page 73] Now this is so naturally imbibed in the hearts of all mankind, that in all Kings Courts a respect and outward mark of reverence is required to the Chamber of presence, or Chair of State: and a refusal of it, much more a contemptu­ous behaviour, would be criminal. To apply this to the forementioned Books: You could not bring your reason to per­mit You to tear out a leafe of the Bible for an unclean use, as you could without the least remorse do to the story of Pan­tagruel or Aesops fables.

5 28. Let us now consider what kind of respect this is that we express to such images. Comparing the images of Saint Peter and our Soveraigns together, we find that a respectful regard is had to both, and a contemptuous usage of ei­ther would displease us: Yet it is not the same kind of respect: For St. Peters image we consider as of a man that puts us in mind of heaven and heavenly things, one highly favoured by Almigh­ty God, a principal Courtier in his Kingdom, and one that by his writings and example has been a great instrument of promoting our eternal happiness. We do not so esteem of every good King. Therefore to shew the difference of our [Page 74] respect to each, we would choose to give St. Peters picture a place in our O­ratory, and the Kings in our Gallery. But what names to give to these different respects is not easie to determine. It is plain, that which is given to the Kings picture is purely a civil respect: but what shall we call that which is given to St. Peters? If we say it is Religious, you will quarrel, as derogating from God. Let us therefore call it a sacred vene­ration, or honour: For since all things that are appointed on purpose to mind us of God, of heaven and the salvation of our souls, we call them sacred, this name may well be applyed to such a picture. But moreover, because there are not invented such variety of names as there are things, and there are far fewer sorts of outward postures of our Bodies denoting respect, then there are Names or Words: Hence it comes to pass that when we would express a Civil and a Sacred, yea a Religious respect, we are forced to use the same outward be­haviour of bowing, kneeling, &c. to Fathers and Magistrates, that we do to God himself: Yea we find in the Scri­pture Kings adored, and a prostration of bodies paid to them. Yet for all this no [Page 75] man will suspect that thereby any dishonour was intended to God, or the Honour due only to him was paid to creatures.

6 29. In the next place let reason and common sence give judgment of the di­stinction between the respect that may be paid to the picture of St. Peter, and that which ought to be paid to himself in case he appeared to us glorified as he is. A Divine respect we pay to neither, though sometimes we use such postures as we do when we pray, or worship God. It is then a sacred veneration only: but yet there are some expressions of respect that we would use to the person, that would be ridiculous to the picture, as reverently to speak to him, to beg his prayers to God for us, to ask a Que­stion, &c.

7 30. Our last Enquiry shall be into the difference of regard (if any there be) to our Saviours picture and S. Peters, the former representing to us him that is both God and man, the latter, meerly man. However we shall find that the regard to both the pictures is of the same species and nature, that is, only sacred: because a picture we never look upon but as an instrument to put us in mind, [Page 76] or to call to our memories an object: and therefore it being of our own frame­ing is not capable of any respect beyond that which is due to so material, inferi­our a thing, what ever the object repre­sented by it be. True it is that the in­ternal affections and thoughts occasio­nally raised in our minds will be infinite­ly different, for we shall think upon Christ with Adoration, Love, Resigna­tion and Obedience due to God only: not so of St. Peter: but the pictures themselves will be treated by us as sacred pictures only, that deserve a respect pro­portionable: And since it is evident they are capable of a sinful disrespect, consequently a due respect may be paid to them. I say, may be, not alwaies ought to be: for then it would never be fit to put on ones hat, &c. in a room where there hangs a crucifix.

31. To summe up briefly our meaning in this whole matter: We find our minds too apt to be distracted from me­ditating on Divine things: therefore we help our selves by such things as will call to our memories, and fix our thoughts upon Objects good for our souls to be thought upon: Such are holy pictures both in times of prayer and out, we find [Page 77] this benefit by them. Being such sacred things, we must renounce our reason, if we deny a respect may be due to them: but by honouring with an outward re­gard a picture, we intend only to give a testimony what respect we bear to the person or holy thing represented: And though for want of variety of postures, we shew some part of the same outward Reverence to the pictures of St. Peter and our Lord, yet that signifies, we only venerate St. Peter as a glorious Saint, yet a creature, but that we adore Christ as God: And no man that sees or knows us can think otherwise. So that unless it be a sin to shew outwardly what we are oblig'd to think inwardly, there is not the least fault committed.

32. And now Mr. Bagshaw, give me leave to acquaint You with Your mis­takes. First, this respect called by the Church, Honour and Veneration, which We affirme may be paid to sacred Ima­ges, you call Worshipping of Images, meerly to make us odious to your igno­rant Proselytes: For Worship is com­monly taken to be that Honour which is due only to God, and which we abhor to give to Images. But Secondly, you give it another name more abominable, [Page 78] calling it, Idolatry such as God punished in the worst of Pagans. Once at least in your life speak your conscience: Do you think, or only suspect that we Ro­man Catholicks do worship false Gods, and true Devils? Do we consider our Images, as they did their Idols, to which by Magical conjurations they annexed an evil Spirit to do wonders, and to ex­tort Divine worship from the seduced people? Take heed Sir how you persist in so unjust a blasphemy against Gods Church: A time will come that You will be called to a strict account for it: it concerns you therefore to make some re­paration.

33. But after all this, take notice that the Catholick Church, though it declare that such a veneration may fitly be given to Holy Images, as common Reason, and Humane nature cannot choose but allow: Yet it commands none to afford them but even so much. You may be a Roman Catholick all your life, and yet never be obliged to performe any external respect to an I­mage. There is not in Catholick coun­tries a Groom or Kitchin-maid so igno­rant, but would rather burn an Image, then afford it any honour due to God [Page 79] only. And shall those that think thus, and do only what humane reason gene­rally approves and cannot hinder, be esteemed and published by you the only Christians in the World fit to be thrust out of all Christian Kingdomes, and executed as traytours, though otherwise they be ac­knowledged most faithful, peaceable men and obedient Subjects? Are you not afraid of, In quo judicio judicaveritis ju­dicabimini?

34. You see Sir, how since you will not admit of Authorities to justify the Beliefe and Practice of Roman Catho­licks, but only common sence and rea­son, I have complyed with you: And now in one word tell you, that You must never hope to make any sober man believe that Roman Catholicks are Ido­laters, or even faulty in the matter of Images, till You can demonstrate, 1. That it is unlawful to make use of our Seeing faculty to put us in mind of God. 2. That he dishonours the King that shall with reverence, bareheaded, and in a kneel­ing posture receive a Letter or Mandate that comes from him. 3. That it is a contempt of God to go through a Church with ones head uncovered. 4. And that it is unlawful, and irreligious [Page 80] to make a scruple of using a leaf of the Bible in the house of Office.

35. For a farewel I will conclude this point with a Story, the truth whereof several Gentlemen, Protestants too, in this Town are able to justify. In the year 1651. a devout Italian Friar being appointed to preach in the Great Dome at Padua, the Archbishop present, and having been informed that among his Auditors there were some English Pro­testants, that in discourse had earnestly objected (as you do) Idolatry to Ca­tholicks, He therefore that he might occur to such a scandal, made choice of the Doctrine concerning Images for the subject of a great part of his sermon. And when he came to that point, hold­ing in his hand a Crucifix, he told his hearers, That that Image did in one glance lively represent, even to the most ignorant beholder, our Lord Jesus, God and Man, and almost all the circum­stances of his most bitter and accursed death so patiently and willingly suffer­ed for us. Thereupon with great pas­sion and Rhetorick he magnified the Love of our Lord hanging on the Cross, earnestly pressing his hearers to return a proportionable Love and Duty [Page 81] to him. And during this discourse, he often with great reverence and tender­ness of affection embraced and devoutly kissed the Crucifix. Having said much to this purpose, after a little pause he pursued his Discourse, telling them he could not believe or suspect, that any one that had heard and seen what he had said and done, could reasonably imagine that he had any intention to dishonour our Lord, by that which he had done to the Crucifix which repre­sented him, much less that he adored it, as if he thought it a kind of God, that he put his trust in it, as expecting any good from it, as if (he knew not what) Divinity, Vertue or Sanctity was in that carved piece of wood. Notwith­standing because he had heard that such a scandalous imputation was by some misperswaded persons laid on the Church, he would then and there un­deceive them. Thereupon he spit up­on the Crucifix, threw it scornfully to the ground, and trampled it under his feet.

36. You see, Mr. Bagshaw, what kind of Idolaters the Papists are. Against this Idolatry, let us see what express Scripture you can produce. This is the great [Page 82] crime, for which there can be no expiati­on but oppressions, emprisonments and Gallowses. Now if what hath been here said give you no satisfaction, in case you have a mind to reply, do not practice your old way of snatching a phrase or ex­pression out of a single Authour, a School­man or Controvertist, and making the whole Church answerable for one mans indescretion. But search what the Church her self has declared in the Council of Trent, and dispute against that as well as you can: and be assured you shall either be answered, or else told that you are unconquerable.

IV. VI.

1. HItherto of your Preface: Now I come to your book: which truly will afford very little businesse. And in grosse concerning your grave Discourse I must tell you, That if you would be as merciful to our Estates and [Page 83] our Lives as You are to this our funda­mental Doctrine, we should find You a a very commodious Adversary: For notwithstanding all your blustring You have not given this Doctrine one blow that smarts at all: But God bless us from Your Swords, and Your Sermons.

2. The Title of your book is, The great Question about the Infallibility of the Pope and Church of Rome: This Que­stion you undertake to determine. We are likely to have good stuff in a Book that mistakes the subject to be discoursed on. You should not have said, The great Question about, &c. but Two Questions, the one a great one, about the Infallibi­lity of the Roman Catholick Church: which if it be disproved, destroys the foundation of that Church: the other a very little question about the Popes per­sonal infallibility, in which the Church it self is not concerned at all, but only Cardinal Bellarmine, and a few Writers zealous for that Court. And when you had said this, in all reason, having a de­sign to triumph over Roman Catholicks, you ought not to have said a word about this little, trifling, unconcerning Que­stion, but have bent all your forces a­gainst that Great one which was only to the purpose.

[Page 84] 3. But You very wisely have spent your whole book upon it only, though a subject that You your self in your Pre­face confess, is not yet decided in the Schools amongst learned men, which is as much as to say, no Catholick is obliged to maintain, and consequently no Pro­testant needs trouble himself about it: Nay moreover you say the two Councils of Basil and Constance, and (in your Book) the sixth General Council have (ver­tually) decided the contrary, having preferred the Authority of a Council above the Pope, which therefore may reverse his decisions, and actually con­demned a Pope of Heresie: you might have added the seventh and eighth Ge­neral Councils which ratifyed the same condemnation: and to them You might have joyned Pope Agathon the succes­sour of Pope Honorius, that was condemn­ed, and his Successours Pope Leo the se­cond and the rest till Pope Adrian the second, who lived in the time of the eighth Council▪

4. Why do You write Books Mr. Bag­shaw, so confessedly to no purpose at all? And why do you trouble your self about a subject that the Authour whom you pretend to confute, cannot himself [Page 85] believe, what ever opinion or suspition he may have of it? For no Catholick can be said to believe any thing as a Christian Verity merely upon discourse of Reason, or probable deduction from Scripture, but only when such a verity appears either expressly contained in the Bible, or is formally decided by a General Council, or received by un­questionable Tradition of the Church. Now it is apparent, even out of Bellar­mine himself, that none of these wayes the Popes Infallibility has been confirm­ed: Nay more, Never yet has any Pope declared that himself is Infallible. But you are wise in the midst of folly. You write out of all danger of being confu­ted, because no body thinks himself touched: so that you have an easie and cheap triumph of it. Notwithstanding by your own example I do much doubt your Honourable patron, by whose com­mand, You say, You wrote, finds not Epist. Dedic. his expectation answered; if he did ex­pect any great matter: and I am sure being very knowing and wise he will not believe that (as you brag) you have kil­led the Enemy, having left no Argument unanswered: since evidently you have mistaken your enemies person through [Page 86] your whole book, excepting only the two last leaves, where obiter, and in an­swer to an Objection supposed to be made by moderate and ingenuous Papists you make an offer to speak de tribus ca­pellis, that is, the Pope's being infallible, not in himself, but in and with a Councill: which though it be the only matter in question, you call only a Conceit, of which you will speak a little, and you keep your word, you say very little, and that little to no purpose at all.

5. Therefore to what purpose should any Catholick set pen to Paper to an­swer you, since if you be never so evi­dently confuted, you are excused from yielding by saying you have said a very little, but could have said more: and Catholicks are forbidden to yield, since they have a world of proofs to demon­strat, the Infallibility of the Church, far more efficacious then these one or two Texts of Scripture called out by you for your best advantage. And even these Texts as they are produced and made use of by Catholicks are unanswerable, espe­cially to those that think it reasonable to admit that to be the sence of Scripture which all antiquity has given, which all protestants and all reasonable men do. [Page 87] They could not foresee that there could arise a Disputant so void of reason, as Mr. Bagshaw, to whom the whole con­sent of all Ages of the Church, all Councils and Fathers appeared light and inconsiderable, if compared with his single reason. Therefore till you have proved that Ground demonstra­tively, that is, turned sand into a Rock, you are not in a capacity either to object or answer.

6. And to the end you may set upon such a work to some purpose, I pray please to enquire out a Book called Ex­omologesis, or Motives of the Conversion &c. where your great Lanista Mr. Chilling­worths reasons for such a position are pretended to be answered; and in an Appendix to that Book You will find an Examination of the Fundamental Grounds of my Lord Faulklands Discourse on that Subject. These are the men you brag of in Your Preface as your great Patrons, that is indeed, such Protestants as you are, that lay such grounds as utterly demolish the whole structure of the En­glish church, denying that any Autho­rity upon Earth can oblige any man. And this very thing, I mean, the de­struction of the Church of England you Preface. [Page 88] your self confesse in your Preface to have Preface. been the Design of your small Treatise, though written against Papists: adding that, Nothing can be more unrea­sonable ib. then this, that those (Churches or Church-Rulers) should Lord it over the Faith or conscientious perswasion of other men, who are not certain but they may err and be deceived them­selves: For that would be to take the Pope's Chair, and succeed into his room.

7. This therefore having been by your self acknowledged your Design, I must repeat what I have already said: That the English Bishops and Clergy are far more interessed in your Book, for all the Title be only against Catho­licks, then Catholicks are. But as to this horrible position of Yours, which utterly destroys all Order and peace: Let me tell You that to particular Chur­ches and Church-Rulers (if they be members of the Catholick Church) in­fallibility is not at all necessary to make their Doctrines or Orders obliging even in conscience: Because all their subjects whilest they remain so, are bound, I do not say to believe internally, but not to contradict their declared Doctrines, and [Page 89] to submit to their Orders: the refusing of either perhaps not damning, but certainly excluding the refusers from an outward communion with that Church. So that here you plainly, exerto Capite, tell the World you are no English protestant, though perhaps you would fain have an English Benefice, and preach against or­der in English pulpits.

8. Now as for that Great Question of the Infallibility of the Church, which You consider only as the conceit of some few Catholicks, if You have a mind to write any thing to the purpose, to prevent Your mistaking (if that be a possible thing) give a well-wishing friend leave to informe you in general, That there is extant no formal Decision of the Church touching her own infallibility: Notwith­standing all Catholicks are bound to acknowledge her to be infallible, by a necessary consequence of an essential Article of the Creed. Which conse­quence You may conceive to be thus de­duced, viz.

1 9. First, it is an Article of our Creed Credo unam Sanctam Catholicam & Apo­stolicam Ecclesiam, that is, I believe one (and but One) holy Catholick and A­postolick Church. By which Article sin­cerely [Page 90] professed, the person, declaring himself a Christian, signifies a necessity of his being truly a member in Commu­nion with that One Church, and con­sequently renounces all other Congre­gations, and all Ecclesiastical Com­munion with persons divided from that One Church.

10. In the 2 Second Place, Your only Guide, common sence and reason tells us that a multitude cannot be called One Society, except they be joyned and link­ed together by a Government and Lawes common to all. And therefore the whole Catholick Church, being indeed one Body (as St. Paul sayes) and one General Congregation, it must necessa­rily have both general Rulers, and Com­mon lawes universally obliging, which does not at all hinder but that under and within that general Congregation there may be many distinct Societies en­joying particular Lawes, Priviledges and Rulers, upon condition they do not contradict, nor refuse to submit to the said general Laws, Tribunals and Gover­nours.

3 11. Thirdly, our Lord having express­ly promised to preserve and continue this Church, as one Society, to the end [Page 91] of the World, so as that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it: it followes undeniably, that he has provided suffici­ent and efficacious means to preserve this unity: for otherwise one Article of the Creed might happen to fail.

4 12. In the fourth place, since univer­sal Experience both in Humane and Di­vine matters testifies, that never any Writing, Law, or Science could yet be so expressed, but that being left to the wits, enlightned Reason, and interests of particular men to descant upon them, there would follow differences of sences and interpretations, and consequently Divisions and separated interests destru­ctive to unity: to provide against which the only possible remedy hath alwaies been acknowledged to be the constitu­ting of an External lasting Authority of Judges and Magistrates. Hence it is, that the Supreme Tribunal of a General Council has evermore hitherto been con­fessed by all Christians to be the only pre­servative against a breach in the univer­sal Church: and because it cannot al­waies be possible to summon such an As­sembly, therefore by way of provision the supreme Pastour of the Church hath alwaies exercised, in matters that con­cern [Page 92] the common Faith, and Discipline, an Authority, if not to decide, at least to compose and silence all differences in Opinions, &c. and to put in Execu­tion the Ordinances of precedent Coun­cils.

13. Now if You will discourse to any purpose in opposition to this (as I know You have a great Tooth against it) You must either demonstrate that there is no need at all that controversies should be composed and Schismes healed: Or if You cannot do this, You must contra­dict the Experience of all mankind, by shewing that Judges are not necessary to end Law-suites, that writings alone with enlightned reason will do the business: and especially that above all Lawes and Sciences, the Holy Scriptures that are in some places infinitely obscure, and in plain places compiled in a popular stile, far from that studied exactness of Lawes and Sciences, are most proper to have their sence agreed in. This must be your task, and to make it good, it will be expected that You should do one mi­racle more, which is, to produce but one Example during sixteen hundred years and upwards, taking in the Apo­stles times, if You please, to shew that [Page 93] differences in Religion have been pre­vented or composed, and separations of divided Churches re-united by dispu­ting out of Scriptures alone, without submission to a common Tribunal. On the contrary side we Catholicks will be obliged to shew you that all Heresies hitherto appearing have been so far de­stroyed by General Councils, that the Church has been preserved in Unity, and we are confident will be so for ever, notwithstanding even so formidable an Adversaries opposition, as you are.

5 14. In the fifth place, This great Tri­bunal of a General Council is of an Authority so authentick, that no Ap­peal from it must be admitted. Yea moreover it has influence not on the outward actions or professions only, but even the judgments and hearts of all particular Catholick persons and Chur­ches. This appears not only by the universal agreement of all Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers past and present, but by the solemn stile of the Decrees made by all such Councils, in which Anathema's have been denounced against all Hereticks and Schismaticks, and they separated from the Mystical Body of Christ, to which alone Salvation is promised.

[Page 94] 6 15. In the last place therefore, the Church being one, and to keep it so, Authority having been communicated to it by our Lord, which Authority for that purpose must needs under pe­nalty of an Eternal separation from Christ oblige all Christians to submit e­ven their minds to it, it seems to us that it followes necessarily and inevitably, that the Church is infallible: Unless we would say, that our Lord has comman­ded us to hear such a Church and Guide as might lead us to Hell. To prevent all suspicion of which he has expresly promised to lead (not the A­postles only, as you fancy, but) his Church into all Truth, with whom he said he would be present to the end of the world, thou­sands of years after the Apostles were dead.

16. These you may suppose, Mr. Bag. to be the true grounds of the Churches Infallibility. It is Infallible because it is One, but, it is such an One from which as Separation is damnable. So that if you, a Presbyterian, or Independent, &c. have a minde to assault these grounds; then 1. You must first destroy that Article of our Creed, I believe one Catholick Church. 2. Next you must prove out of express [Page 95] Scripture not only that Scripture is our only Rule, but that we have no other Guide to find out the sence of it but only our private reason or spirit: and what these joyn'd together conclude up­on, will infallibly serve our turn, whe­ther it be true or false. 3. That all the Antient Church and all Protestants too are mistaken when they say that Schism, (to you the most innocent thing in the World) is a Sin, a great exterminating sin, for which there cannot possibly be a just cause, or sufficient excuse. 4. Lastly, you must have the confidence befitting a Presbyterian to say, that all Christi­ans before you have been poor spirited sheepish, deceived people, that knew not what the Liberty of a Subject was: and that all General Councils that presu­med to denounce Anathema's against the private spirit or enlightned reason, have been most abhorred conspiracies of Ty­rants over Mens souls.

17. Whereas if you were an English Protestant truly so called, (but the very supposition is unsufferable, and therefore must be changed, therefore I say) where­as a true English Protestant would pro­test his readiness to submit both his tongue and soul to a lawful General [Page 96] Council, and consequently would have no quarrel against the Infallibility of the Universal Church: He would ad­mit Tradition to be the best Interpreter of Scripture: Only his Controversie­humour would spend it self against the Roman Churches pretention to the Title of Catholick, and would maintain that the English State and Clergy had au­thority enough to reform themselves without consulting the Roman, or any other Churches: Indeed if the Eastern Church had still been in Union with the Roman the case then would be altered. The English Church on such a supposi­tion would have had a scruple to op­pose both.

18. Therefore since it is not in our power to oblige the Turk to permit the Eastern Bishops to meet in a General Council with the West: for English Protestants sake (not yours, good Mr. Bagshaw) I will take upon me a little more then your Book can require from me, and that is to propose in the mean time a convenient mean and expedient towards the removing this scruple: and that is as followeth.

19. Since we cannot have speaking Judges that will please them, they may, [Page 97] I suppose, do well to help themselves with Books: and for that purpose pitch upon some well known time in which the Eastern and Western Churches were uni­ted, and out of the Books and Monuments of that Age impartially collect the Do­ctrines then taught, and the Church­government then in use through the whole Church: For thereby it will evi­dently appear whether of the Churches, Eastern or Western that now differ in both, have deserted that which was anciently in both.

20. Now I conceive a more proper time for this purpose cannot be imagi­ned then the Age of the Church in St. Gregory the great's time when Eng­land was converted from Paganisme by St. Augustin the Monk sent by him. For it is evident that the whole Church was then in perfect Union: the same Doctrines were taught, and the same Government and Common laws in use all the Christian World over. Besides, there are extant more, better and clea­rer Monuments both of the Doctrines and Discipline of that Age then in any other: and especially in St. Gregories Epistles sent into all quarters of the World, and in other of his works tran­slated [Page 98] into the Greek tongue, and freely embraced, yea admired by the Greek Church, we may find what Authority so learned and Holy a Pope exercised over other Churches according to the then received Ecclesiastical Canons. Moreover besides S. Gregories Works, our own Country both by wtitings of learned men, Councils of Bishops, and visible Marks in the foundation of Churches and Monasteries, will most a­bundantly furnish us.

21. Now when we have found what in that age was the Belief and practise of the whole Church uniformly: Then we are to confront thereto the Doctrines and Discipline of the present Eastern and Western Churches: Being assured that both of them have not deserted the An­tient Belief and practise: because if it were so, there would not now be extant any Orthodox Church at all: and conse­quently our Saviours promise of leading his Church into all Truth would have failed.

21. Now when it shall appear unto us whether of these two great Churches hath preserved the Antient faith and Discipline, we shall necessarily be obli­ged to a Communion with that Church: [Page 99] because a separation from it will be a manifest Apostacy and Schism from the most certainly one, true, Catholick Church, and consequently from Christ himself.

22. Now that the present Roman Church does at this day profess the very same Doctrines, and is govern­ed by the same Laws, that were in force in St. Gregories dayes, will as seems to us evidently appear both from his Writings, the Ecelesiastical Wri­ters since, and the Antient English Councils: as likewise by the acknow­ledgment of several learned Prote­stants. To this purpose Doctor Hum­phreys Humphr. Jesuitis in par. 2. rat. 5. p. 5. & 627. writes thus, In Ecclesiam verò quid invexerunt Gregorius & Augustinus? O­nus ceraemoniarum, &c. that is. But now what have Gregory and Austin brought into the Church? A burden of Ceremonies, &c. the Archiepiscopal Pall to be used at Solemn Mass, Pur­gatory, &c. the Oblation of the Holy Host and prayers for the Dead, &c. Relicks, &c. Transubstantiation, &c. new Consecrations of Churches, &c. To these particulars Carion a Chronolo­gist Carion. Chron. l. 4. p. 567. adds the publick Rite of Invocation of Saints, a false perswasion concerning a Monastical profession, works devised [Page 100] without any precept of God, satisfacti­ons, vowes, &c. And whereas (saith he) Gregory himself did tragically declaim, and profess his abhorring the Title of Universal Bishop, yet in reality he de­clared that himself did vehemently de­sire the thing signified by that Title, since he took upon him a commanding power over other Churches. To these may be added the Centuriators of Mag­deburg, Bale, &c. who mention these and other particular Doctrines, as No­velties introduced by St. Gregory.

23. Hence if our Adversaries speak truth it will evidently follow, that since there are now differences between the Eastern and Western Churches, all the al­terations and innovations have been made by the Greek Church only.

24. Do you not now see, Mr, Bagshaw, what Religion that is, the professours whereof you, as far as your vote extends, expose to the Butchery? whence is ap­parent, that if you had been a leader of a party able to execute your cruel in­tentions in S. Gregories dayes, you would like a very Antichrist, have laid wast the whole Church of Christ, and murdred all that were called by his name. There wants only this to crown your zeal, that [Page 101] you should cry out, Their blood be upon us and upon our children. Thus would you have treated S. Augustin and his fellow Monks, you I say, that the less Charity you have, esteem your selves the more perfect Christians and Saints, you would have condemn'd to Gallowses, quartering of members, and burning of bowels those innocent persons that exposed them­selves to all incommodities for the sal­vation of our Country: when as our Pagan Ancestors, though Slaves of De­vils, yet treated them with all humanity. Take heed they do not rise in judgment against you: I am sure in that great Judg­ment you shall not rise to condemn them for this sin.