A MODEST and PEACEABLE INQUIRY INTO THE DESIGN and NATURE OF Some of those Historical Mistakes That are found in Dr. Stillingfleet's PREFACE TO HIS unreasonableness of SEPARATION. WHEREIN The Innocency of Protestant Dissenters is cleared up and Vindicated from the indecent Censures of the Doctor.  
By N. B.  
Out of thine own mouth will: judge thee.  Luk. 19.22. 
LONDON, Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel, 1681.   

To the REVEREND Dr. Stillingfleet.  
SIR,  
'TIS well known unto you, that the Ruin of England, and of the Churches of Christ in it, hath been ever since the First Reformation, aimed at by the Papists, whose rage hath not only appeared in the many little Plots that have been from time to time discovered; but even in their Rebellions and Insurrections in King Edward's days. The Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeth's. The Gunpowder Treason in King James, etc. and this l●te Hellish Conspiracy, which was designed for the utter Extirpation of the Protestant Religion, and the Universal destruction of all the Professors thereof, whether Episcopal, or Dissenter. For which reason, this is no time to add fuel to the Fire of Protestant Dissensions. Nor is it meet to insist on any matter of Indifference so far as thereby to hinder a firm and lasting Union among Protestants. If the Dissenters can without offence to God, and wrong to their own Consciences comply with the Terms imposed by you for Union, their noncompliance is a sin, that in its tendencies advances Popery: But if the Dissenter cannot conscientiously conform to your Impositions, as they really cannot, and you can without sin make such easy Overtures for Peace, as may be grateful to Dissenters, your refusing in this case to comply, doth sufficiently evince You to be the Divider, and Promoter of the Papacy.  
The Dissenters being sincerely desirous to do the utmost they can without sin for Union, you greatly injure them in representing them as Enemies thereunto. 'Tis true, you cry up Union, Union, but you will not part with what you judge but a trifle, for it. You cry down Dissenters as enemies to Peace and Concord, as Schismatics, Factions and Seditious, as Friends to Popery, exposing them to the greatest contempt and rage of your Considents, as if their Consciences were but Humour, their sense of Scripture but fancy, their Sincerity in embracing the Protestant Religion but Hypocrisy, their Zeal 〈◊〉 Reformation but a blasting it, and their Opposition unto Popery a promoting it. But is this fair and equal? Doth such a Procedure become the Learning, the Gravity and Religion of Dr. Stilling sleet? Can you in your more cool deliberations reflect on all this with uninterrupted peace? What, without any rebukes or checks of Conscience?  
SIR, Can you consider, how untrue, as well as how severe the charge is with which you load your Dissenting Brethren? or can you think on the many mistakes on which you ground your charge, and yet believe that all this may return to your comfortable account another day? Methinks there is a smart rebuke attending the method of your Procedure, namely, that in your reproaching the Dissenters as Promoters of the Papists designs, you should unawares make a discovery of yourself as such an one; for certainly you have in your Preface, yea and in your Book, said enough for the advancing the Papisls Designs, just as F. Thomas Maria Carasa, who in his delineating the Excellencies of Pope Pius the Fifth did most exactly (though unawares) give the Portraiture of Antichrist: for Dedicating some Theses unto this Pope, he did it thus, PAULO V VICE DEO, etc. some Novelles of which, being sent unto Venice and elsewhere, it was soon noised about the City, that 'twas the Picture of Antichrist, for that the Inscription paVLo V VICe Deo, contained in the Numerical Letters the number of the Beast in the Revelation, 666. Of which my Author Mr. Bedell in his Answer unto Mr. Wadsworth's Letter, saith, Whom could they blame but themselves, by their approving of such an Inscription as unawares by the Providence of God should so plainly  Antichrist? In like manner it may be said of you, seeing in the management of your smart charge against Dissenters, you have unawares (if not designedly) closed with such Principles, and magnified such Arguments as prove advantageous to none but the Papal Interest, whom can you blame but yourself? or how can you observe the nature of this unwary slip, without some inward chick?  
That you should expose yourself in such circumstances without any provocation, doth abundantly suprize, and that in so many a particular instance, beside what I have mentioned under the third head in the following Enquiry, is considerable: For,  

1. You say, That 'tis no improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of spiritual prayer; you mean of its public exercise, or speak not to the purpose, seeing 'tis that the Dissenters plead for in their Debates with the Episcopal, and 'tis that by which they gain so much in the esteem of the people. But this the Jesuits are against, they agreeing with you in that they are only for the exercise of free Prayer in private and not in public, just as the famous Mr. Hooker, who speaking of Private Prayer, saith, 
Hooker. Eccles. Poii●. ●ib. 5. pag. 223, 225. Ed. ult.  That ' ●●s a duty performed by us as men, and that we are at our own choice, both for time, and place, and from, according to the exigence of our own occasions in private.— But public Prayer must be according to some prescribed form. Which exactly agreeth with that of Bellarmine, Azorius, and Filliucius; all Jesuits.  
2. You charge your Brethren as if they had opposed an Absolute, or an Apostolical Antiquity, because they believe not your Hierarchy to be such; but you unawares have fallen in with Bellarmine in exalting such an Antiquity he pleads for, supporting it with such arguments as are setcht out of the Jesuits Storehouse, to the great dissatisfaction of the old Episcopal Protestants, as I have shown out of Mr. Chillingworth.  
3. You insist much on the Hierarchy, as if it had been the Bulwark of the Protestant Religion, but unawares have so far gratified the Jesuit, as to be freed from their black Character of Heresy; for 'tis observed by some Episcopal Divines, 
De Desper. Calvin. cause. ●. 11.  that Cudsemius the Jesuit saith, That the Calvinian Sect in England, may either endure long, or be suddenly changed in a trice, in regard of the Catholic Order there, in a perpetual line of their Bishops, and the lawful succession of Pastors received from the Church; for the Honour of which we use to call the English Calvinists [i.e. the Episcopal] by a milder term, not Heretics, but Schismatics.  
4. You represent the Dissenters as subservient to the Papal interest, because they are not for uninstituted ceremonies, yea you suggest as if a Ceremony had been in greater estimation with you than the peace of truly tender Consciences; whereby you do unawares furnish the Jesuit with a strong argument for the necessity of a Ceremony; for saith ●ellarmine, Ceremonies are a momentous parts of worship, because there have been great Dessentions in the Church about Ceremonies, which ought not to be about lesser matters.  
5. You say the Dissenters by their Nonconformity have blasted the Honour of the first Reformation; But as this is untrue, even so you have by insisting on it unawares advantaged the Papist.   
1. That the Dissenters do judge honourably of the first Reformation, may appear from the account we give of it thus:  
As it must be acknowledged, that there were in these Lands many concerned for a Reformation about Transubstantiation, and some other things before Henry the Eighths, even so in his time a Reformation of the Hierarchy and Ceremonies began, which was carried on by Edward the Sixth that Pious Prince, the wonder of his age; in whose time, although the Reformation went on gloriously, yet very slowly, because of the many Hindrances were in its way. For,  

1. Many of the Episcopal Clergy being zealous for their old Superstitions, yea even the Bishops of London and Winchester, did much mischief in impeding the Reformation.  
2. The generality of the people devoted to the Traditions of their forefathers, would rather run the hazard of the loss of their lives, than of one ceremony. As appears, 

1. By the many Insurrections and Rebellions in several Counties, especially in Cornwall, and Devonshire.  
2. From the great Neglect shown concerning his Majesty's Injunctions, and Proclamations, Acts of Parliament, and divers Letters sent from the Council unto the several Justices of every County for the promoting Reformation.  
3. The unhappy Divisions between the King's Uncle the Duke of Somerset, the then Protector, and other Lords of the Council. To which add,  
4. The Kings being under age, (which was abused by the Papist) and also the shortness of his Reign. All which duly weighed, it must be confessed even by the greatest enemies to our Religion, that 'twas a wonderful Providence that so great a Progress was made in so short a time. Surely 'twas Digitus Dei, and the Instruments employed in so excellent a work deserve our greatest Praises, in that they acted so wisely in the management of the work of Reformation, which was carried on thus gradually. For, 

1. Though Tho. Dobb was cast into the Breadstreet Counter, where he died for speaking against the Idolatry of the Mass, beside one John Hume, we find no other Prosecution of Penal Laws against Protestants.  
But, 2. Commissioners were sent out to endeavour a present Reformation as to some Particulars.  
3. A Parliament called for the Repealing some Penal Statutes. Free liberty given publicly to profess the Gospel. Many zealous Freachers before Banished, Licenced to return and Preach.  
4. Certain of the most Grave, and best Learned Bishops by his Majesty's Order assemble at Windsor. Castle, who did draw up a form of the Administration of the Sacraments, which was sent abroad into the several Dioceses, about which there arising great Divisions and Schisms among the Episcopal Clergy;  
5. His Majesty engageth the Bishops, etc. to compose that Book, Entitled, A Book of Common-Prayer, etc. which was approved of, and established by the Parliament.  
Yet, 6. Though this Service-Book was so admirably well suited to the capacity of the Vulgar, who were so zealous for their old Superstitions, the People being ignorant, made an Insurrection in Devonshire, and Cornwall, to whom his Majesty in a Letter expresseth himself thus: As for the Service in the English Tongue, it hath manifest reasons for it. And yet perchance it seemeth to you a New Service, and indeed is none other but the old, the selfsame words in English which were in Latin, etc. Act. Mon.       
Thus the first Reformers, as indeed, even so in the apprehension of the Dissenters, did their utmost in King Edward's days, and in Q. Maries did discover a zeal of doing more, might they furvive that Persecution: In pursuance of which Resolutions, several who either suffered under Q. Mary at home, or were in exile abroad, in Queen Elizabeth's time, did seriously attempt a further. Reformation, for their doing which, they have been branded as Schismatics, Dividers, and promoters of Popish designs by such as will not so far honour the beginnings of King Edward's Reformation by endeavours to promote it. All this you know, and therefore in obliging all to rest satisfied with a Reformation wrested out of Popish hands in a time of the greatest difficulties, which could ●ot then be more than what Popish Bishops, such as Bonner and Gardiver conformed unto, you do greatly advantage the Papal interest by drawing us gradatim from our greater Reformation, unto what was carried on in King Edward's days, and it may be for the same reason you will persuade us to that of Henry the 8th, which is but one step further back, and so on.  
But whether you have not offended God in this indecent procedure, I leave to your own more serious considerations, humbly beseeching you to meditate on those following hints given us by a Reverend Divine of the Church of England (Mr. Down,) who in his Preservative against the contempt of the Ministry, expresseth himself thus, It is a fearful speech of St. Chrysostom, Quis unquam Clericum lapsum panitentem vidit? Whoever saw a Minister recover himself after a fall by repentance? And indeed it is but seldom seen; for the fins that are single in others, being double in him, and an idle word in another's mouth being as it were Blasphemy in his; God punisheth him more rigorously than he doth others.— The strongest wine turneth into the sharpest vinegar, and the Noblest Angels sinning, became the vilest Devils. In like manner it is with us.  
Reverend Sir,  
You cannot but be sensible of the dangers we are in, of the necessity of Love, Peace and Concord among ourselves, and consequently of the evil tendencies of the method you have taken, in the untrue Accusations you have laid in against the innocent Dissenters, the mistakes you are guilty of in the prosecuting that your design, and the unwary slips that prove advantageous to our common enemy the Papists, and in fine of the service this inconsiderable tract may be of, in setting you right; I say you being sensible of all this, my concluding request shall be, that you will put the most candid comment on this essay, and join with me in this Litany.  
From all 

Factions and Seditions.  
Mischievous Impositions, sinful Separations, etc.  
 Censurers, and False Accusers;   Good Lord deliver us. I am Your Faithful Servant N. B.   

ERRATA.  
PAGE 32. line 22. read such. Page 33. line 8. read some one. Page 34. line 1●… deal by.   

A Modest, and Peaceable Inquiry into the Design and Nature of Dr. Stilling fleet's HISTORICAL MISTAKES, etc.  
SUch are the Calamities of the Reformed Churches both at home and abroad, so great and so many, that it highly concerns all true Protestants to do their utmost for the Defence of them. Our Enemies are men of Bloody Designs, Active Spirits, Undaunted, notwithstanding the most surprising Disappointments, and unwearied in a brisk Prosecution of their Hellish Plots, turning every Stone if possible to Ruin us Eternally, and nothing but a sincere Reformation, and a firm Union among ourselves can contribute in any measure (unless God act by an uncommon Prerogative) towards our safety. Our own Divisions, Heats, Animosities and Quarrels, are but as the Enemy's sword sheathed in our own Bowels; our mutual Jealousies, undue suspicions and Revile of each other, tend but to the strengthening the Popish Interest and the hastening our own Rheum, unto which, if ever we perish by the hands of the Roman Faction, we must assign the great Cause of our Miseries; But 'tis a special Providence of an Infinitely wise and Gracious God, that 'tis in the heart of our Sovereign, and the Parliament to Unite and save us; the which Noble Design may be compassed, unless the Episcopal and Dissenting Clergy by their own indiscretions impede and hinder it.  
For this Reason, 'tis become most unseasonable to beat the Drum, or sound the Trumpet for a Protestant Civil-wordy-War; To contend at this time about Trifles, or to mind the Tithing, Mint, Cummin, or anise, when the weighty matters of the Protestant Religion are in Danger: To be over-severe in Unnecessary Impositions on the one side, or over-scrupulous in opposing just compliances on the other, is to contend about the Shadow, even when the Substance is ready to be violently taken from us by the mighty Torrent of Popish Treachery, etc. If our Learned Worthies, whether of the Church of England, or among the Dissenters, will dispute the Matters in difference, why may it not be done with more Calmness and Serenity of Mind? what need of Personal Reflections, Angry or scolding Repartees? what need of a Metabasis, a running from the Subject-Matter, to wit, from the Argument to the Disputant? Doth it in any manner enlighten the Mind, or convince the Gainsayer, what are the advantages of such a procedure? Methinks it ought to be matter of Lamentation, rather th●n Triumph, to see the Church in its present bleeding posture, and with all our Champions, whose strength should be turned against the common Enemy, to be at Dagger's point among themselves.  
That such a Contest as this, between the Reverend Dr. Stilling fleet, and his learned Adversaries should happen at this Juncture, cannot but fill the hearts of all sober Protestants of every persuasion with sad Thoughts; but that it should be managed with so much smartness, must much more afflict us. 'Tis true, Dr. O. after the occasion was first given, returned his Answer to Dr. S'. Sermon not only learnedly, and judiciously, but, with that even Temper, became a Protestant Divine; and I wish that such others as engaged in the same quarrel had so managed it, as to deserve the same Character. 'Tis admirably expressed by Franc. a Sanct a Clara, in the Preface of his Tract de Predestinat. etc. Mali habentibus opus est medico, non severo, sed benigno, non dicteriis arictando, sed dictis placidis modo solidis, aggrediendo. Solid Arguments clothed with the most pleasing words are more convincing, than those that are offered either two smartly, or too facetiously. But whilst we carry about us the bodies of Sin, we can more easily declaim against humane infirmities, than amend them; And when we have done our utmost, there must be a Regard to the humour of a Disputant, yea, and a mutual forbearance, beside that respect, which must be had to our Readers, who either will not consider what hath not in it somewhat grateful with the Argument, or who think no Argument strong, but what is satirically expressed.  
But the Ball is up, and smart blows have passed, and every Party inflamed. The Reverend Dean of Paul's thinks himself unjustly injured by his Opposers; and that he may be even with them, has sufficiently reflected on all Protestant Dissenters, falling into the Error for which he rebukes some others. The Dissenters in like manner judge themselves as highly wronged by the Doctor. The Honour of the Dr. is impeached, the peace of the Dissenter broke, and their hoped for Liberties in hazard, which being so, 'tis become a difficulty to fasten on a just expedient for the accommadating this pernicious controversy: The fury of the sire is such, that who ever will attempt the quenching of it, is in danger of being consumed by the Flames thereof; for either the one or the other will be displeased; for though something must be said to clear the innocent: Yet what Person soever undertakes it, must either speak the Truth and offend the Doctor or conceal it, and grieve the Innocent to the wounding his own Conscience. But notwithstanding these Intricacies, I will presume to make this modest Essay in a sober Address unto the Dr. beseeching him candidly to interpret my Zeal for Truth, Faithfulness to the Protestant Religion, and Love to the peace of the Church, and his and my own Conscience. Not that I design to engage so far in the Skirmish, as to concern myself about what so many a Learned and Judicious Person as the Drs. Adversaries, are more immediately obliged to consider: I will not invade either of their Provinces, and yet I will make some inspection into the Nature of that charge, with which he seems to endeavour the blasting the untainted Reputation of truly Loyal and sincere (though dissenting) Protestant's. In pursuance of which end.  
1. I will propose the design of the Drs. History, being charitably; disposed to distinguish between the finis operis, & operantis for though the end of the Work itself cannot but in its tendency prove pernicious to the Protestant Religion; yet I hope the Dr. designed it not as such.  
2. I will show his mistakes concerning the account he gives of the Dissenting Brethren, and evince that the Reasons urged to engage the Reader to believe that the Dissenters, are a People carrying on the Popish Designs, are of such a Nature as cannot but move a thinking and  Mind to Judge the Author himself to be the Person who alone under a disguise doth so.  
3. I will acquaint you with the great disadvantages the Dr. Exposeth himself unto, by the Method he hath taken to reproach us: The Principles From which he must and doth raise the Opposition he maketh against Dissenters, being such as are found in Bellarmine, and the most noted Champions of the Roman Church. And  
4. In fine I will in a way most fair and candid evince, how reasonable it is, that the Dr. (if he will do the Protestant Religion, and himself but right;) make either a more full, distinct, and clear discovery of his thoughts, or a Retractation of what in this late Discourse he hath suggested.  
1. The Design of the History in the Preface is to misrepresent Dissenting Protestants by his false Accusations, which are That they do carry on the Papists work for them, that they hold such Principles, as by evident consequences from them do overthrow the Justice and Equity of the Reformation, preface. p. 6. and out of Bishop Sanderson 'tis asserted, That the Dissenting Brethren, though not intentionally and purposely, yet really, and eventually have been the great Promoters of the Roman Inte: rest among us.— I do not say (adds the Dr.) that such men, (namely the Dissenters) are set on by the Jesuits; But I say they do their work as effectually in blasting the Credit of the Reformation; as if they were. p. 10— But if we trace the footsteps of their Separation as far as we can, we may find strong probabilities, that the Jesuitical Party had a very great influence on the very first beginnings of it— And the Papists could not but please themselves to see that other men did their work so effectually for them. p. 16. The Papists could not have met with better Proctors (i. e. then the Dissenters) they did the Pope very good service, and he would not miss them for any thing.— The Pope could not have fit and apt instruments for his Purpose. The Dissenters were made the Engines of the Roman Conclave.  
Thus 'tis evident that the great end of the Drs. History, if not of the whole Book itself, is to represent Dissenting Protestant's to be but the Jesuits Instruments, that is, to be men, not worthy of any favour from a Protestant Prince, for surely such are the Jesuits Engines. But as no suggestion can be more untrue, even so nothing could proceed from the Drs. Pen more unseasonably; what should provoke him to be so invective and satirical in this juncture of affairs is not easy to determine, or what was his end is as difficult to imagine; whether it was to cast contempt on the Wisdom of the Parliament, who entertain other sentiments concerning the Dissenters; or whether to gratify the Roman Faction, by acting so suitably to the Jesuits measures as discovered by Mr. Dugdale and some others, which is to revile the Dissenters, as the Dr. hath done; to the end the common People may be prepared to believe, that whatever horrid Plots the Papists are carrying on, are but Presbyterian; The which can no sooner be believed, but his Majesty's most Loyal Subjects are exposed to the merciless cruelty of the bloody Papists, who will not boggle at false Oaths, to accuse them of the worst of Treasons under the Name of Presbyterians, or Dissenting Protestants. Or whether it be to cast a Bone of contention into the Parliament House; thereby to prevent the uniting and strengthening the Protestant Interest, as well as for diverting the House from such other Methods as are most necessary for the impeding the Future growth of Popery; or whether to raise one of the severest Persecutions against that Loyal and truly Protestant Party; which cannot be weakened or impoverished but to the advancing the Papal design; whether any one, or all of these particulars have been aimed at by the Dr. the Searcher of Hearts, and his own Conscience doth best know. But whatever was the Author's end, 'tis most uncontrollably true, that if these several Mischiefs do not proceed from the Discourse, it must be considered as a signal Providence, to which alone we are owing for such preventing Grace. But  
2. To Exercise the Charity of collecting such Arguments as are subtly Insinuated for the ensnaring the Credulity of some of his Readers; The which I will with the greatest fairness set forth in their strength, and then descend to a detecting the Mistakes.  
1. To give the Dr. the greater advantage, we'll consider his Arguments to be as numerous as is possible, after this following method.  

1. The Dissenters have embraced the Jesuits Principles about Spiritual Prayer, and a more pure way of worship.  
2. They have blasted the Reputation and Honour of the first Reformation.  
3. They oppose Episcopacy, and innocent Ceremonies notwithstanding their Antiquity.  
4. They have separated from the Church of England, and have caused great Divisions.  
5. They accepted of his Majesty's gracious Toleration given them 7 or 8 years ago.  
6. They have since the discovery of the Plot closed with the people in an over fierce opposing the papists. Ergo the Dissenters are the Jesuits Instruments designing the Destruction of the Protestant Religion, This is the Drs. Conclusion, drawn from these six weighty considerations.   
2. To inquire into the strength, or rather the mistakes of these weighty considerations.  

1. The first Argument.  
'Tis not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England saith the Dr. as appears from the sutableness of the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer, to the Doctrine, and practice of the Jesuits, This is evinced from the Jesuits admiring Spiritual Prayer, as may be seen in their writings, preface p. 14.15.16.  
I answer.  
1. The whole the Dr. doth suggest is but a Probability, not a certainty, but why the Dr. should hint his probables in a matter of this moment I leave to his own Conscience,  
2 'Tis most undoubtedly true, whether the Dr. knows so much or not, That Spiritual Prayer and free prayer was many an hundred years observed, and practised before there were any Jesuits in the World, whence to assert Spiritual Prayer to be one of the Jesuits Arcana is an argument of too much ignorance; for who knoweth not, that the Christian dispensation is the dispensation of the Spirit, 1 Cor. 3.6, 7, 8. &c 'tis the Spirit that was promised as a teaching Spirit on Christ's departure, John 14.16, 15, 26.16.7, 8, 9 which Spirit as it doth convince of Sin, of righteousness and of judgement, even so doth it teach and enable the Children of God to cry Abba Father; that is to pray, Gal. 4.5, 6. Rom. 8.26. Thus Free Prayer or Spiritual Prayer is clearly revealed in Scripture. Unto whom then are we owing for the Knowledge of this Truth, unto the Word of God contained in Scripture, or unto the Disciples of Ignatius Loyola? what, must the Honour of the Discovery be ascribed to the Jesuits, although thereby the Primitive Christians, and the Ancient Fathers are most unjustly reproached? Or, because this Gospel Doctrine shines forth so Gloriously, that such as are enveloped with the Cloud of Popery, cannot but espy some of its Rays; must we therefore conclude that it hath its Rise and Origen from thence? What do the Papists know nothing besides those Notions of which they were the first Inventors. What think you of the Doctrine of the Trinity, etc. is that also a Jesuits Fiction?  
Really I am not a little surprised at the Indecent manner, after which the Dr. treats the Holy Spirit, the third Person in the ever blessed Trinity, by ascribing its work, Namely, spiritual Prayer unto the Jesuits, as though such are the works of the Spirit, that they cannot be distinguished from the Inventions of the Jesuit; and that the Dr. should thus expose himself, the honour of his Learning, or good will to the Protestant Region in a case so plain, is astonishing; who knoweth not, that the Church of England itself, is as much, or more so, for Free and Spiritual Prayer, than the Jesuits are; The heaping up Authorities for this, would be but to follow the Doctor, in raising a suspicion of the Church's Orthodoxy; when as Free Prayer in Private, which is the utmost the Jesuits are for, is allowed us by the Church of England; yea, and commended to our Practice, with helps vouchsafed us by some Worthy Divines of this Church; as so many expedients Adapted for the obtaining the Gift of Free Prayer, which is not, as I humbly apprehend forbidden any Minister in Public; supposing he neglects not the prescribed Forms. But to consider the Drs. Integrity in the History he gives concerning this, by whom 'tis suggested.  
1. That the Jesuits are for free Prayer in Public.  
2. That Free Prayer is the Jesuits invention; If this be not the scope of the insinuation, to what purpose is it mentioned? But if it be, I will evince out of the Jesuits own writings, that they acknowledge Free Prayer to be known by the Fathers; and that they allow it only its private Exercise, even as others of the Romish Faction; and the Doctor himself, etc. do. 
(a) Azorius Moral. instil. lib. 9 c. 29. Illud vero Pauli; ipse Spiritus postulat pro nobis. Augustinus in lib. de bono Persever. c. 23. interpretatur. q Poftulat, q Postulare nos docet, aut facit, quemadmodum illud, Matth. 10. quod dixit Christus Apostolis. Non vos estis qui loquimini, sed Spiritus Patris vestri, qui loquitur in vobis, non quod verè loquatur, sed quod ad verum loquendum vim, facultatem, auxilium & gratiam largiatur, sic Postulat, quia postulandi, & orandi vim, & potestatem tribuit & facit ut postulemus. Et it a Augustinum secuti explicant Paulum eo Loco Primasius, Beda, Anselmus, ut etiam Sedulius. Fulgentus Epist. ad Probam de Omit. & Compunct. Cord. Et quia frequenter a nobis ofsenditur, necessarium est, ut frequenti Oratione, & jugi Cordis compunctione, mitigetur. Compunctio enim cordis excitat Orationis affectum: Oratio hunnlis, divinum promeretur Auxilium. Compunctio cordis vulnera sua respicit: Oratio vero, med●l●m Sanitatis exp●suit. Et ad haec quis idoneus? Quis enim vel orare competenter valeat; nisi Medicus ipse nobis initium desiderii Spiritualis infundat? Aut quis Purseverare in Oratione queat: nisi Deus in nobis hoc quod caepit, augeat. etc.  Azorius the Jesuit expresseth himself thus most freely vid. That of Paul, Rom. 8.26. Where 'tis said, the Spirit maketh intercession for us, Saint Austin in lib. de bono Persever: c. 23 Doth interpret it thus, the Spirit teacheth us to pray, or maketh intercession according to that expression in Math. 10.20. for it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father, which speaketh in you, not that the Spirit doth truly, or properly speak, but that it vouchsafeth the Power, Help or Grace to speak the Truth, even so the Spirit prayeth, because it giveth out the Power, and Grace of Prayer. Austin, is as to this followed by Primasius, Bede, Anselme, and Sedulius, so far Azorius. But I will add, and by Fulgentus, who saith because we frequently offend God by our sins, 'tis necessary that we often by Prayer and compunction of Soul attempt the pleasing him. Compunction of heart stirreth up the affection of Prayer, and an humble prayer obtains Divine Assistance, Compunction of Heart respects our Wounds, Prayer seeketh for a Remedy; but who is sufficient for these things, or who can pray as he ought unless the Physician himself infuse into us the beginnings of Spiritual prayer? or who can persevere in Prayer unless God increase in us what he hath begun. I might instance in many others, but this is enough to show that Spiritual Prayer is not owing unto the Jesuits for its Invention or Discovery; and therefore I will proceed to inform the Dr. that the Public Exercise, of Free Prayer, is not approved off by the Jesuits, For as concerning public prayer the Jesuits do differ from the Dissenters if not from the Church of England, agreeing with none that I know unless with other papists and with Dr. Still. for though private and Free Prayers are with Azorius and other Jesuits terms promiscuously used to express one, and the same thing, yet public Prayer must be according to some certain prescribed form, This is the sense of (Vincent Fillincius,) yea of (Bellarmine) and before him of (Durandus,) it being proved by Bellarmine to be thus appointed by the Milevitane Council Can. 12. yea by the Toledan, 4. c, 2. and by Pope Gregory. &c  
This being so the Dr's mistakes are apparent, and the Truth is.  
1. That the Jesuits were not the first inventors, nor the first bringers in of Spiritual Prayer, Spiritual Prayer being owned acknowledged, and privately practised ever since the Apostles days, for the Church never did for bid its use saith Fillincius.  
2. That the Jesuits ever have, and still do zealously oppose the Public use of Free Prayer.  
3 That wherein the Jesuits, and Dissenters agree as to this, it is in no other respect then wherein the Universal Church agree with them.  
4. That wherein the Dissenters and the Dr. differ about Spiritual Prayer, the Dr. closeth with the Jesuit, our difference if any being about the public use of Spiritual Prayer against which the Jesuits are.   

2. Argument.  
The Dissenters have blasted the Reputation and honour of the first Reformation, which is the great thing the Jesuits would 
(c) Fillincius Tract. Qust. Moral Ttract. 23. c. 3, N. 67.6.8. de Bellarm. de bon. oper. impartic. lib. 1 c. 10. nemo enim potest certam formam orandi prescribere, nisi qui praeest. Itaque in Concilio Milevitano, can. 12. Sic legimus: Placuit, ut Preces, Orationes, seu Missae, quae probatae fuerint in Concilio, ab omnibus celebrentur. Nec aliae omnino dicantur in Ecclesia, nisi quae a prudentioribus tractatae, vel comprobatae in synodo fuerint. Et in Concilio Toletano. IV. c. 2. Statuitur ut in tota Provincia idem officium celebretur. Et Gregorius Papa VII. in Concilio generali numerum Psalmorum, & Lectionum officii Divini praescripsit, ut habetur. Can. In die, de consecratione. dist. 5. c Durant. in sent. lib. 4. didst q. 15.12.  be at, for saith the Dr. Preface, p. 9 What is it which the Papists have more envied, and maligned than the Church of England? What is it they have more wished to see broken in pieces? that is, than the Constitution and Government of this Church? Did not Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper, and Farrar, and Latimer, all Bishops of this Church, suffer Martyrdom by their Means? Had not they the same kind of Episcopacy which is now among us, and which some now are so busy in seeking to destroy.— Is all this done for the Honour of the Reformation? Is this the way to preserve the Protestant Religion among us, to fill men's minds with such prejudices against the first settlement of it: to go about to make the World believe, that the Church Government then established, was repugnant to the institution of Christ, and that our Martyr-Bishops exercised an unlawful Authority over Diocesan Churches? Such men do the Jesuits work for them as effectually, as if they had been set on work by them.  
1. In answer, it must be carefully observed that the Papists do not so much envy, and malign the Episcopal Government, 'tis the Drs. mistake, for the Hierarchy, or the English Episcopacy is not so formidable a thing in a Jesuits Eye; neither is it their principle or Interest to destroy it.  
1. Not their principle, which is for the conserving Episcopal Government, for 

1. The Papists plead most zealously for that difference, there is said by the Church of England to be between a Bishop, and a Presbyter,  
2. They deny the people's right of calling their own Ministers.  
3. Assert that the Church hath power to institute new Ceremonies.    
1. They do distinguish between a Bishop, and a Presbyter, and with the Church of England assert, that the Catholic Church doth acknowledge a distinction to be between a Bishop and a Presbyter, and that the Bishop is jure divino, greater than a Presbyter; and this Bellarmine, and the Romish faction insist on in opposition to the Reformed, namely in opposition to Wickliff, the Lutherans and Calvenists, whence they go on with the greatest malice against the Protestants; to the end they may Haereticate and damn every Soul among 'em, and say that the Bishop only hath power to ordain, and that if any be ordained by Presbyters, that Ordination is null, which is according to that of Gregory III in his Epistle to Boniface, from which they proceed, as I shall show immediately) to deny the Lutherans and Calvenists to be true Churches for want of the right Administration of Sacraments, that is the product of the want of true Ministers, or which is the same, because they have not Ministers Episcopally ordained, so 
f Bel. de Cleric. lib. 1. c. 14.  Bellarmine. Whereby it appears that the papists are not against this part of the Prelacy of Bishops.  
2. That the People have no Interest in the Vocation, or calling of their own Ministers, is also the Principle of the Church of Rome. For 
g Bellarm. de Cleric. lib. 1. c. 2. etc. 7.  Bellarmine in stating this point, saith, that the Controversy between them and their Adversaries, to wit the Reformed, is about the Right of Creating Bishops or Presbyters in the Church, and he asserts that Martin Luther, John Calvin, Mat Illyricus, Brentius, Chemnitius, and others of the Sectaries, i.e. of the Protestants, do hold, That no one is Lawfully called, or chosen to the Office of a Bishop, but by the consent and suffrage of the People, and therefore they infer (saith Bellarmine,) that there are no Bishops or Pastors among the Papists rightly called, for want of the suffrage of the People: But on the other side, the Church of Rome concludes, that the people have no right to call their Ministers, and that although the People did formerly choose their own Ministers, it was through the Concession or Connivance of the Popes. And therefore they say that the Heretics, or the Protestants have no true Ministry, no right Administration of Sacraments, no Church, no Salvation, (for extra Ecclesiam nullasalus.) The Reasons they give against the People's Election besides many others, are these; drawn  

1. From the Indiscretion of the People, and consequently their inability to judge of the Capacity of the Person to be Chosen.  
2. The greater Number of the people are Foolish, and the viler sort, and consequently-will choose men like themselves.  
3. Such a practice is obnoxious and liable unto sad Tumults, etc. Not remembering that the people, who are to choose, must be considered as men fearing God, and that there is care taken that the person to be Chosen is out of such a number, as are by the Godly and Judicious approved of, as men of Competent Abilities, etc. In this also the Principles of the Jesuits are far from destroying the Church of England.   
3. That the Church hath power to institute new 
(h) Bel. de effect. Sacram. lib. 2. c. 29. Quaedam caeremoniae instituuntur ad solum ornatum & significationem, ut vestis alba Neophytorum, Lumina cercorum, etc. & de his agimus.— c. 30 Fatemur enimomnes Catholici Caeremonias Ecclesiasticas non esse praecipuum cultum; nec ab iis pendere essentiam & essicaciam sacramentorum: nec habere vim Justificandi, ut habent sacramenta, proinde inferiora esse sacramentis, nec esse approbandos ritus qui pugnant cum verbo Dei, nec esse nimis multiplicandos. Et cap. 31. Sed quicquid de hoc sit: nostra propositio solum asserit contra haereticos, licere Ecclesiae instituere novas caeremonias non ad justificandum a peccatis mortalibus sed ad alios fines.— Omnes nostrae caeremoniae sunt bonae & divinae: nam indicantur in genere a Deo & probantur multis modis 1. In ipso testimonio Pauli, 1 Cor. 14. Omnia honest, &c: 2. Cum Deus jubet obediri praepositis, in genere jubet servari omnes leges Ecclesiasticas, quorum non paucae sunt de caeremoniis.  Ceremonies, which Assertion they thus limit. 

1. Not such Ceremonies, as are repugnant to the Word of God;  
but 2. Such as are generally contained in that Scripture, Let all things be done decently and in order, and that they are not to be preferred to the Sacraments, nor must the same efficacy be attributed unto them; they only assert against the Heretics, that 'tis lawful for the Church to institute new Ceremonies, not for Justification but for other ends.   The white Garment being for Ornament and Signification. All this Bellarmine is express in, and therefore not against this part of the Church of England. That I abuse not the Episcopal, nor Bellarmine, will soon appear to such as will but seriously consult the sense of the Church of England and Bellarmine, who are express in asserting all this and much more; namely, that as the Decency of the Ceremonies is one Reason why we must observe them, so our Superiors Command is another.  
Thus the Principles of the Jesuits, and other Papists being so much for a Prelatical Episcopacy, so much against the people's Choice, and so much for Ceremonies with the mentioned Limitations, how is it possible that the Dr. presumed to assert that the Papists aim at the destruction of what they too much contend for against the Generality of our Reformed Divines? But▪  
2. It is not the Interest of the Jesuits to destroy Episcopacy, or eradicate the Ceremonies, and thereby break the Constitution of this Government. 'Tis probable they would add unto the Constitution, but the destroying it they abhor. For, 

1. A great part of their bait would be lost, if Episcopacy be ruined▪ What more evident than that the Papists aim at our Bishoprics; not at the destroying them, but at the possessing themselves of them. 'Tis the Episcopal Grandeur, Church Honours, and Church Lands that they would be at.  
2. The Jesuits know, that 'tis much more easy to introduce their Religion under the shadow, and name of Episcopacy, and Ceremonies than otherwise. What difficulty is there in drawing the vulgar to the whole of Popery, under pretences of a more firm establishing Episcopacy, and a making the Ceremony the more splendid and solemn.  
3. May there not be an alteration in our Doctrines, when no alteration in our Government; and might not the Papists gain greater advantage by their being made Bishops, than by the Ruin of Bishoprics?  
4. It is not dangerous to break Constitutions, especially since the destruction of Episcopacy may be attended with the Royal distribution of Church Lands among our Nobility and Gentry, than which a greater blow cannot be given the Papal interest in England, as appears by the Heroic actings of Henry the 8th. in a like Case.   Are not the Papists sensible of this? Whatever the Dr. may think, there are the highest Reasons to engage us to conclude that the Jesuits dread nothing more than the destruction of Episcopacy and the removal of the Ceremonies.  
§. 2. That the Reputation of the first Reformation is not hereby blasted, nor are the first Reformers in the least Reproached But▪ 1. The memory of these Worthies, namely, Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper, etc. is precious unto the dissenters, who can distinguish between their Episcopacy and their Martyrdom, they not being Martyred for Episcopacy but for renouncing transubstantiation, etc. They sealed those Truths with their blood unto which the Dissenters desire to give in their Testimony, in abiding by them faithful to the Death.  
2. These famous Martyrs we honour, yea and the Reformation they carried on, it being a wonder, that in less than six years' time, they should do more towards Reformation than all the Bishops in England besides have done in almost six score years, They went as far as possibly they could in that juncture, and probably would have gone p●ri●passu with Luther, Calvin, etc. had they the time and opportunity.  
3. I find in the Report of the Examination of William Nixon, had the 20th. day of June, Anno, 1567. before the Lord Mayor, and the Bishop of London, that Mr. Nixon gives this following answer to the like objection made then by the Bishop of London, which is most pat to this of the Doctor. We condemn them not, we should go forward unto Perfection, for we have had the Gospel along time among us. And the best of them that did maintain it, did recant it at their Death, as did Ridley, sometime Bishop of London, and Dr. Taylor. Ridley did acknowledge his fault to Hooper, and when they would have put on him the same Apparel, he said they were abominable, and too fond for a vice in Play. Which is sufficient to evince, that if these Bishops had outlived the Marian Persecution, they would have gone on towards a greater Reformation.  
4. 'Tis very considerable, that those very Persons▪ who were so zealous in Q. Elizabeth's days for Episcopacy, were persons of whom 'tis recorded.  
1. That in the time of Persecution they were men of the same Principles with Dissenters.  
2. That after the Persecution was over, they did proceed with the smartest Prosecution of Laws against them.  
1. That in the time of Persecution, Q. Elizabeth's Bishops were of the same Principles with the Dissenters concerning Ceremonies, etc. for this consult the Letter of Mr. D. Why, written about the Year 1570. who saith, That such Bishops as fled in Q. Mary's time, or else tarried here under the Cross; had cast off, renounced and forsaken all this Trumpery, i. e. (the Ceremonies) for the which the Peace is now disturbed, and afterward for their promotion sake put them on again. The like in a Letter written by Mr. A. G. to Mr. Coverdale, Turner, etc. who speaking of the Ceremonies, saith, That all these things were abhorred, as Popish Superstition and Idolatry among the English Gospelers, both Bishops and others; when they were under God's Rod in Poverty: But they have now learned Courtly Divinity, to ground all upon Policy.  
2. That when these very men were raised to Honour, they began to be very severe in persecuting their Brethren, and their quondam fellow-sifterers, the Dissenters Yea, to discover greater enmity against them, than against the Papists. This may be seen in a Letter of Dr. Why. They say they would that all Trash and Trumpery were out of the Church, [meaning the Ceremonies] and yet they stretch the utter most piece of their Authority to the keeping of it. And a little after 'tis said, ' I could rehearse by Name a Bishop's boy, ruffainly both in behaviour and apparel, at every word swearing and staring, having Ecclesiastical promotions, a worthy prebend, no doubt: I could name Whoremongers being taking, and also confessing their Lechery, and yet both enjoying their Live, and also having their Mouths open, not stopped, not forbidden to Preach. I know also some, that have said Mass divers years, since it was prohibited, and upon their Examination confessed the same, and yet are in quiet possession of their Ecclesiastical promotions. I know double-beneficed men, that do nothing but eat, drink, sleep, play at Dice, Cards, Tables, Bowls, and read Service in the Church; but these infect not their Flocks with false Doctrine, for they teach nothing at all.  
Thus it is evident, that God's Commandments are fain to give place to man's traditions; and yet still all these are but small matters. Verily the punishment is great I wonder what punishment they would use, if they had transgressors of great matters in handling, that deal after this sort with such as offend (and yet offend not at all) but as they say, in such small matters. But this must not be mentioned, lest the Honour of the first Reformation be blasted, that is, the Dissenters must submit not only unto the greatest severities with all manner of Patience; but moreover, though God's Truths be neglected, and a sinful Ministry countenanced, they must remain in silence, lest the reputation of these men be blasted. That surely must be the meaning of the blasting the Reformation. But  
5. Notwithstanding the severity exercised against the Protestant Dissenters; even when the Papists escaped the smartness of the Law, yet it is observable, that the Queen's Council, whosew sdom and firmness to the Protestant Religion hath been renowned all the World over, did then discover themselves to judge otherwise of the Dissenters, than the ecclesiastics did, yea, although the Bishops were then very basie in turning the dege of those Laws that were designed for Papists, against Dissenters; Yet that wise Council did distinguish between the Papists and Dissenters, and thereby plainly discover, that the Dissenters there, were far from carrying on the Popish design, as appears by their Letter sent to their Justices on the complaint of the Dissenters, made to the Right Honourable Lords of Her Majesty's Privy Council.  
A Copy of which Letter sent from the Right Honourable the Lords of Her Majesty's Council, I will as I find it in a part of the Register insert.  
AFter Our very hearty Commendations; whereas we are informed, that heretofore, at your Assizes in your Circuit divers good Preachers, and others Godly disposed, have been indicted (by colour of Law,) for things not so much against the matter and very meaning of the Law, as in some show, swearving from the Letter thereof; Namely, for not using the Surpless, resorting to Sermons in other Parishes, for want at home; leaving out some collects on the days of Preaching, for using private Prayer in their houses, and such like. All which we suppose cometh to pass by the practice of some Informers, not so well disposed in Religion, as also of men returned upon great Inquest. Many times such as be still in Ignorance cannot broke the Gospel, and being in love with the Licence of former times, cannot so well endure the present plain Teachers; who by laying open their faults, would draw them to a more precise, and Gospel-like Life. These are therefore to require you, and hearty to pray you, that in every sitting of your Circuit, you sift and examine the affection of such Informers, touching Religion, and thereafter give ear to them. As also to have a special regard, That the Inquest at large may be Religions, wise, and Honest: And if (notwithstanding your diligence in this behalf,) such Jurours (nevertheless) creep in (as by like information molest good men) that yet your speech, and whole proceedins against them at the Bar, (or elsewhere called before you) may be according to their quality: not watching them at bar, or in the indictment with Rogues, Felons or Papists, but rather giving apparent note (in the Face of the Country) what difference you hold betwixt Papists (dissenting from us in the substance of Faith to God, and Loyalty to our Prince) and these other men, which making some Conscience of these Ceremonies, do yet diligently, and sound Preach true Religion, and obedience to her Majesly: maintaining the Common peace in themselves. and in their Auditory; so shall the Country thereby learn (at the Assizes) better to reverence the Gospel, and love the Ministers and Professors thereof. Thus promising ourselves thus much at your hands, we bid you hearty Farewell, From, etc.  
Thus you have the sense of Q. Eli. Council, and may have the like sense from our Parliament now.  
These things being so, let the Impartial Reader judge who it is that hath blasted the Reputation of the first Reformation.  
Whether 

1. Those that remained faithful to these Principles of the Martyrs and other Protestant sufferers in Q. Mary's days, or those that receded from them.  
2. Those that hazarded the loss of their Liberties and Benefices for the sake of Protestant Principles, or those that persecuted the Protestants, when the debauched Papists were favoured by them.  
3. Those that would carry on the Reformation as far as Luther and Calvin, and the generality of the first Reformers, or those that gratified the Papists, by putting a stop to so Gospel-like a procedure, reviling Junius and Tremelius, as German-Drunkards, etc. as some of the Episcopal Clergy did in Queen Elizabeth's days.  
4. They who acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a true Church, having a Ministry rightly, i. e. Episcopally ordained, when all the Reformed beyond the Seas, are reproached for want of it, or Those who concur with the Reformed.     

3. Argument.  
The Dissenters oppose Episcopacy and Innocent Ceremonies, notwithstanding their Antiquity. 'Tis asserted by the Dr. Pref p. 4, 5. That when the People find the undoubted practices of the Ancient Church condemned as Popish and Antichristian by their Teachers; they must conclude Popery to be of much greater Antiquity then really it is; and when they can trace it so very near the Apostles times, they will soon believe it settled by the Apostles themselves. For it will be very hard to persuade any considering men, that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon, so unammously, so universally, as it must do, if Episcopal Government, and the use of some significant Ceremonies were any parts of that Apostasy. Will it not seem strange to them, that when some humane policies have preserved their first Constitution so long, without any considerable Alteration, that the Government instituted by Christ, and settled by his Apostles, should so soon after be changed into another kind, and that so easily, so insensibly, that all the Christian Churches believed, they had still the very same Government, which the Apostles left 'em; Which is a matter so incredible, that those who can believe such a part of Popery should prevail so soon in the Christian Church, may be brought upon the like Grounds to believe, that many others did. So mighty a prejudice doth the Principles of our Church's Enemies, bring upon the cause of the Reformation.  
I Answer, There are these things to be distinctly considered.  
1. Whether the not embracing the Episcopacy doth any way advantage the Papist.  
2. Whether there is any such strength to be found in the Drs: reasoning. First, From the Antiquity of Episcopacy. And Secondly, From the Argument produced to prove its Antiquity, to wit, the Improbability of introducing Episcopacy, and Vninstituted Government, into the Church without some noise and clamour. I say, Whether there is any such strength in these reasonings, that none can oppose them, without giving too great an advantage unto the Papist.  
To the first, Namely, Whether the non-embracing Episcopacy doth any way advantage the Papist.  
1. From what hath been already said, 'Tis sufficiently proved, that the non-embracing Episcopacy doth rather prejudice then profit the Papal interest; for which Reason.  
2. When attempts have been made by Francise. a Sancta Clara for the accommodating the differences between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, he ever with indignation excepts against the Puritan, as a people no way reconcileable to their Church, yea, when he proves it easy to heal the breach between them, and the Episcopal.  
Moreover, 3. Whoever consults 
* Becan, opus. Tit. 10. Calvinistae in Scotia & Anglia vocantur Puritani quia puram Calvini Doctrinam per omnia sequuntur.  Becanus the Jesuit, will find; how he seems to honour the Church of England, by giving credit to the reports they make against the Puritans (who are so called by the Jesuit, because they embrace the pure Doctrine of Calvine) to the end they may thereby from the mouths of some Protestants, viz. of the Church of England, condemn all the Reformed Churches abroad, the Jesuits malice being the more inflamed to see so many Dissenters in England, that justify the Reformation made beyond the Seas.  
2. The Doctor's discourse about the Antiquity of Episcopacy; and the argument enforcing it, must needs be of great weight with the Doctor, it having been for divers years a furbishing in the Jesuits School; and is the Diana of the Roman Church at this very time, the great foundation, and Basis of that tottering Superstructure, this is their only Alpha and Omega, their first and the last, whence if the Reformed oppose their Hierarchy, their Ceremonies, their Inventions, their Corruptions; this is that unto which they sly, tanquam ad Asylum, viz. These things must be Apostolical, because 'tis impossible they should be introduced into the Church without any noise. Really the Doctor hath done this argument the greatest honour imaginable, but whether the Church of England are owing unto him for this piece of service, I much doubt. That this is 
† Bellar. de notis Eccles. lib. 4. c. 5. In omni insigni mutatione Religionis semper ista sex demonstrari possunt. Primo Auctor ejus. II. Dogma aliquod novum. III. Tempus quo caepit. iv Locus ubi caepit. V Quis eam oppugnaverit, etc.— Nihil autem horum adversarii unquam de nostra Ecclesia post Apostolica tempora demonstrare potuerunt.— Nunquam ostenderunt, quis eam oppugnaverint, tamquam nuper ortam.— Hoc argumentum ab Antiquitate semper usi sunt veteres Patres contra Haereticos ad ostendendam veram Ecclesiam.  Bellarmine's Thunderbolt against the Heretics, consult him, and you will find him exactly so. To rehearse the many Arguments produced by the Reformed in beating down this Popish Error, would be endless, whoever reads any learned Protestant cannot but be furnished with a multitude of Convincing Considerations, that are urged against this Doctor's Argument.  
1. Nothing being more apparent, then that the Scriptures of the New Testament, the Ancientest Writings the Christian Church can produce, as the infallible discovery of the first Constitution of Christian Churches, how ancient soever Episcopacy or Ceremonies are, if not to be found in the New Testament. It is not the Ancient or first Constitution. This is our Religion, and whoever recedes from it, doth but give too great advantage unto the Papist, there being several Ceremonies in use among them, whose Antiquity doth equalise that of any observed by our Church.  
2. 'Tis well known, that if we had the fullest account of the Rise of Episcopacy and Ceremonies, as to the time when, the place where, the Persons by whom they were introduced, our Faith could not thereby be more Divine concerning these things than now it is, for the Testimony would be but Humane, grounding a Faith that is only so.  
3. We have a very short account of the transactions of the first 300 years, the persecution of the Churches being so severe and bloody, which is enough to evince, (because of the inconsistency of Episcopal grandeur with a persecuted state,) that neither Episcopacy, nor pompous Ceremonies were then in their Glory.  
Again,  
4. 'Tis certain that those Errors crept in gradually, the Iniquity being a Mystery, that began even in the Apostles days, and I remember that I have read in the Annals of Said Ibn. Batrick, an Alexandrian Patriarch, who lived about 200 years after the Turkish Hegyra, that in Alexandria, the Constitution gradually altered, first from Presbyters to a Bishop, and thence to a Pope, though not to an Universal One.  
Is it not then sad, that there must not be an urging Protestant arguments against the Antiquity, etc. pretended by the Papists, but Popery is advantaged? What advantage is it to them to see the Temple of their Diana ruined, their City of refuge demolished? I beseech the Doctor to be serious in this weighty and momentous point, and to deal freely, openly and generously in this particular, and declare unto the World what his apprehensions are of Dr. Potter, sometimes Bishop of Carlisle, or rather of the Learned Mr. Chillingworth, a Son of the Church of England, whose excellent treatise entitled The Religion of Protestants, a safe way to Salvation, i● so applauded by Dr. Bayly, sometime Vicechancellor of Oxjord; as also by Dr. Prideaux and Dr. S. Fell; or rather what would the Dr. rejoin unto the Answer that is found in Mr. Ch●llingworth, unto his great Argument about Antiquity and the Impossibility of an error's becoming Universal in so short a time. Though some Protestants confess (saith Mr. C. to the Papists) some of your Doctrines to be ancient, so long as it is evident, even by the Confession of all sides, that many Errors, I instance in that of the Millenaries, and the communicating of Infants, were more Antient. Not any Antiquity therefore, unless it be absolute, and Primitive, is a certain sign of true Doctrine. For, if the Church were obnoxious to corruption (as we pretend it was) who can possibly warrant us that part of this Corruption might not get in and prevail in the 5th, or 4th. or 3d. or 2d. Age? [This notwithstanding what Dr. Still. doth suggest about the near approach unto the Apostles days.] especially seeing the Apostles assure us, that the Mystery of Iniquity was working though more secretly even intheir times. If any man ask how could it become Universal in so short a time? [Attend good Dr. to the answer for this is your own Question] Let him tell me how the error of the Millenaries, and the Communicating of Infants, became so soon Universal, and then he shall acknowledge, what was done in some, was possible in others. Thus we see how Dr. Still. to the end he may be even with the Dissenters relinquisheth the good old Protestant Principles, unless this of Mr. Chillingworth approved of by Dr. Baily, Dr. Prideaux, and Dr. Fell, and the generality of the Church of England be Popery.   

Argument 4.  
Our Divisions give great advantage to the Papists; and the ' Dissenters by their Separation have caused the Division.  
To this I Reply,  
I. That 'tis most apparent that Divisions among Protestants have given the greatest advantages imaginable unto Popery; as to this, the Dr. and the Dissenters I verily believe, are agreed. But,  
II. The great Quaery is, who occasions, or causeth these Divisions? for 'tis the Divider only, that is subservient to the Roman Interest, which being so, our enquiry must be, Whether the Dr. etc. or the Dissenters are the Dividers?  
The Dr. suggests as if the Episcopal Clergy were most entirely resolved for Union, but 'tis the Dissenter that is the divider, who is an Enemy to Union, but a Friend to Schism, and Unjust Separations. We were (saith the Dr.) in some hopes, that Men so wise, as the Nonconforming Ministers represent themselves to the World, would in so Critical a time have made some steps or advances towards an Union with us. Instead of this, these we discoursed with, seemed farther off than before. For (saith the Dr.) God forbidden that I should either design, or do any thing which tended to obstruct so blessed a work, as a Firm and Lasting Union among Protestants would be. But my business is to show the unreasonableness of those Principles and Practices, which hinder men from such an Union, and lay a Foundation for perpetual and endless Separations. For upon the Principles laid down by some of our Dissenting Brethren, let the Constitution be made never so easy to themselves, yet others may make use of their grounds, and carry on the difference as high as ever. Which will render all attempts of Union Vain; and leave the same weapons ready to be taken up by others.  
So far the Dr's Mistakes, which in these few words, are many. For,  

1. The Dissenters are at this time as much for Union according to the Terms of the Gospel as any can reasonably desire. 'Tis for Union they breathe, and Pray, and most industriously and sincerely endeavour, being engaged hereunto by Interest; for as long as Divisions continue, they are exposed to the worst of Miseries.  
2. The Principles of Dissenters are most admirably suited for a firm and lasting Union with all such as will adhere to the Terms proposed in the Gospel.  
3. 'Tis the Dr. that falls in with Bellarmine giving the Papists the greatest encouragement to an abiding by their persecuting Principles, even when he dissents from the Church of England.  
4. 'Tis the Dr. that hath done his utmost to obstruct a firm Union among Protestants.   
That all this, to the Satisfaction of the Judicious, and impartial Reader, may be evinced, I will propose in short the true state of the Controversy, so far as I apprehend it; and then detect the Dr's Mistakes, as to those but now mentioned particulars.  
In giving the state of this Controversy, I must intimate wherein there is an agreement; and wherein the Difference doth lie.  
1. We are agreed in Doctrinals, and in all the Substantials of true Religion.  
2. The Difference than is about lesser matters, and the Case is this;  
The Dissenters are fully convinced in their Consciences from the strongest and most powerful arguments, That the Word of God contained in Scripture, is the only rule of the whole, and of every part of true Religion. And that what is not according to this Rule is no part, of Protestant, or of the true Christian Religion. This great Principle occasions a twofold Controversy, the one with the Papist only, the other with the Church of England also.  
1. With the Papist; for by this Principle, we are engaged to reject whatever Doctrines they impose, that are not agreeable to this Rule, and consequently we reject their Doctrines about Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Indulgencies, etc. because they cannot be found in Scripture. Although there is no Text expressly forbidding these things, yet since they are not to be found there, either directly, or by consequence, we must lay 'em aside. The Papists, 'tis true, make a great bustle, saying, where is it asserted in Scripture, no Purgatory, etc. We reply, where is the affirmative to be found. They say, that our Religion, as distinct from Theirs, is composed of Negatives only, which have no foundation in Scripture; We rejoin by denying their Assertion, concluding, That the Scripture is a sufficient Rule for our Direction concerning all Religion; and what is not found there, is not to be embraced as a part of our Religion.  
2. With the Church of England; Though we have not this Controversy as to Doctrinals, yet about Worship, and Church-Government we have The Dissenters being fully persuaded, that so far as any Doctrine about Worship, or Church-Government, is made a part of our Religion, it must be brought to the Rule of the Scripture; whence if not according to it, though not expressly forbidden, yet 'tis to be exploded. As for Circumstances of Worship, as Time and Place, pro hic & nunc, etc. they are no part of Worship, etc. but as touching such Ceremonies, as are made a part of Divine Service, let it be Surplice, sign of the Cross, or Salt, and Spittle, or the Chrism, we reject, as not sound in Scripture. It being the Principle of Dissenters to adhere to the Scriptures, and to comply with every Scriptural Term of Union, and with no more.  
This being so, if any part of their Service, that respects no Divine Precept, be proposed as a part of our Religion, yea and as such a necessary part, as to be the term of our Communion with them, we are fully convinced, That it is a sin, and not to be complied with, unless we give up the whole Cause to the Papists.  
For either the Scriptures are the whole, and only Rule of the whole, and of every part of our Religion, or not. If not, then let us return to Popery, or where shall we go for a complete Rule of Religion? But if it be a comple●t Rule, than whatever is introduced into our Religion, as a part thereof, and not agreeable to the Scriptures, must be considered, as what ought to be rejected; whence either the things imposed on Dissenters, and required as terms of our Communion with the Church, are a part of the Religion of the Church, or not; If not, if no part of their Religion, why do they impose 'em on us as terms of Communion, or what, may we be fully of their Religion, and assent and Consent to every part thereof, and yet be uncapable of their Communion, if so, who are the Dividers? I leave it to the Judgement of the Wise. But if it be a part of their Religion, 'tis either agreeable to the Scripture Rule, or not; if not, we cannot conscientiously comply with it, for this is to make that a part of our Religion, which God hath not: but if according to the Scripture rule, why do they not produce the Scriptural Considerations, that are the Media, by which they would prove so much; or How comes it to pass, that they are judge d but Indifferent things, that are neither commanded, nor forbidden; whereas, whatever is according to the Scripture must be according to the revealed Will of God, for the Scriptures do but contain the Revealed Will of God, and therefore, whatever is according to the Scripture, must be according to some Command in Scripture, since a Command is but the Revealed Will of our great Legislator, and if according to such a Command, not Indifferent; but if Indifferent not according to the Scripture, and consequently no part of true Religion, and therefore not to be proposed as a term of Union; or if proposed as such, it cannot without sin be complied with.  
The Church of England then imposing what in their judgement is but indifferent, and consequently what cannot be a part of their Religion, do impose as a term of our Communion with them, what is in our Consciences sinful.  
What must be done then for Peace and Union, who must yield? The Dissenters will part with every indifferent thing, rather than break the Peace of the Church; but the Clergy hath been hitherto unwilling to part with any One Indifferent thing: Yea even now, though the whole of Our Religion is in great danger, yet rather than what is no part of it should be lost, let Religion itself Perish. The Church without sin can part with their Indifferent Ceremonies, but Dissenters without sin cannot comply with them. What then must be done for Union? must the Episcopal comply in things wherein they can without sin, or must Dissenters sin, and lose their peace with God for Union? The whole of the Controversy is this, Whose Honour is mostly to be valued, that of the Episcopal Clergy, or that of our Lord Jesus Christ? for the Episcopal cannot make any Abatement of these indifferent things consistent with their Honour; They have once imposed these things, as terms of Union, and cannot now Honourably recede the least jota; The Dissenters, they cannot stretch their Consciences to any sinful Impositions, but by dishonouring the Lord Christ: What then must be done? must we to the dishonour of the Lord Christ, stretch our Consciences and sin, rather than that the Honour of Episcopal Grandeur be sullied by a compassionate Condescension about Indifferent things, wherein they can without sin Condescend, and which would be really more for their Just Honour?  
This is the state of the Case; The Dissenters would Unite, but cannot; The Episcopals can, but will not. The Cannot of Dissenters, and the Episcopals Will-not doth make the Division. But who is the Faulty Divider? If the true Reason of our Division lay on the Dissenters Will-not, when they Can, 'twould be easy to conclude them Obstinate, and Perverse; what not to do what they Can for Peace? But since they would, but cannot without sin, how can they be the Dividers.  
From what hath been said, 'tis evident, that as 'tis the Interest and Desire, even so 'tis the Principle of Dissenters to Unite; Of their sincerity concerning which, they have ever given Illustrious instances.  
1. In Q. Elizabeth's days. In a part of the Register, 'tis thus expressed of the Dissenters; Whoever of them in word or deed gave out any just suspicion of Unpeaceable dealing? Nay have not they striven for peace, in their Ministeries, in their writings, in their Examples more than any?— But Notwithstanding this they have been arraigned among Felons, and Thiefs; They have been imprisoned to the uttermost, and defaced, and yet they are silent. And Mr. Dudley Fenner in his Defence to Dr. Bridges; anno 1587. saith, All this they did patiently bear, and came daily to the Prayers, to the Baptisms, and to the Sacraments, and by their Examples and Admonitions kept many from Abuses, whereto rashness of Zeal would have carried them, yet now for their labour to their great grief, they are openly slandered, etc. Yea, upon every irreligious man's complaint in such things as many times are incredible, to be by the Pursuivants sent for, to pay two pence for every Mile, etc. even when their Families were impoverished. But as hath been already hinted, the Providence of God gave them favour in her Majesty's Council, who were convinced of their peaceable disposition, and the regard they had to a walking in all good Conscience before the Lord.  
2. That the Dissenters at this time are fully sensible, that they are engaged both by Principle, and Interest against the least compliances with the Church of Rome, and consequently to embrace any just proposals for Union, will appear from what is declared by divers of them in the account, they give of the Grounds, and Reasons, on which they desire their Liberty; where 'tis express, That unto the Resolution of a steadfast adherance unto the Protestant Religion in Opposition unto Popery, we have (say they) many peculiar engagements. For  

1. Our Principles concerning Church Order, Rule, and Worship, wherein we differ from the Church of England, are not capable of a Compliance with, or Reconciliation unto those of the Papacy, but are contradictory unto them, and utterly inconsistent with them. Where there is an Agreement in general Principles, and men differ only in their Application unto some Particulars, those Differences are capable of a Reconciliation; But where the Principles themselves are directly contradictory, as it is between us and the Papists in this matter, they are capable of no Reconciliation.  
2. We have no Interest▪ that may be practised on, by the Arts, or Insinuations of the Papists. For we are neither capable of any advantages by Ecclesiastical Domination, Power, Promotions, with Dignities and Revenues belonging thereunto; which are the principal allurements of the Papacy; nor are engaged in any such Combination Political, or Ecclesiastical, as that the contrivance of a few, should draw on the Compliance of the Whole Party; These things being utterly contrary unto, and inconsistent with our Principles, the Papists have no way of attempting us, but by mere Force and Violence.  
3. Our fixed Judgement being the same with that of all the first Reformers; namely, that in the Idolatrous Apostasy of the Papal Church, with bloody Persecutions, the Antichristian State foretold in the Scripture doth consist, We are for ever excluded from all thoughts of Compliance with them, or Reconciliation unto them.  
4. Whereas our Principles concerning Church Order, Rule and Worship, are directly suited unto the Dissolution and Ruin of the Papal Church-State, whence the Papists take their Warranty for all the evil contrivances, which some of them are guilty of in this Kingdom, and will so far as they are taken out of the Scripture, at length effect it; We can have no other expectation from the Prevalency of their Interest in this Nation, but utter Extirpation, and Destruction. We are therefore fully satisfied, that our Interest and Duty in Self-Preservation consists in a firm Adherence unto the Protestant Religion as established in this Nation, and the Defence thereof, against all the attempts of the Papacy.   
So undoubtedly true it is, That the Dissenters are engaged both by Principle and Interest to oppose Popery; and in order thereunto, must (being directed by the Light of Nature) use all Proper means for the strengthening themselves against this Irreconcilable Enemy, the Papists; The Union of Protestants being the most proper Mean, they are Ruined if they do not unite when they may. Propose any Terms, how difficult soever unto Flesh and Blood, but not Sinful, and they'll close with them.  
Thus I have shown, 

1. That the Dissenters are moved by Interest to desire Union.  
2. That their Principles also engage them to do so, and consequently the Dr. is mistaken as to these Particulars.    
I will now proceed to show,  
3. That 'tis the Dr. who falls in with Bellarmine, entertaining the same Principles, and arguing from the same Topics with him.  
1. As 
(a) Bellarm. de notis Eccl. lib. 4. c. 10.— Certum est, concordiam esse signum Regni dei, quod stare debet in aternum; Discordiam autem, Regni Diaboli, quod tandem ruere debet.  Bellarmine doth in the general highly extol Union, Peace and Concord in the Church, making it a note of the true Church, even so the Dr. (though he doth not make peace and concord a note of the Church, yet he) doth speak enough of its excellency, and desireableness; For Union is a lovely Name, which is in great esteem even among such, as will not part with a Toy, a Triste for the obtaining the Thing. But  
2. Notwithstanding the great commendations given this Union, 'tis not easily obtained, for most frequently the anteceding Dissensions are between those different Parties, that are unequally interested in the Favour of the State in which they are; whence things usually come to this issue, Those that are uppermost, impose many Uncertain, and Unnecessary things, as terms of Union on their Inferiors, with which the more weak and inferior Party cannot conscientiously comply. The Imposer is deeply affected with the tremendous consequences of the least condescension; The Non-complier is mostly employed in minding the Unhappy tendencies of severe Impositions. The One declaims against the unreasonableness of Separation, the Other against the Mischief of Impositions. And Bellarmine, and Dr. Stilling fleet have had the advantage of the Pleasure of Imposing; they Agree in these particulars.  
1. Dr. Still. suggests the Impossibility of a limited Toleration, and therefore in his discourses about it, his opposition is made against a General, or an Universal, and Unlimited Toleration, even so 
(b) Bel. De Laicis. lib. 3. c. 18. Sunt qui docent Reges de Religione non debere curare, sed permittere singulis, ut sentiant prout voluerint, modo non perturbent pacem publicam.— At hic eror Perniciossimus est, & sine dubio tenentur Principes Christiani— dare operam, ut ea sides servetur quam Episcopi Catholoci— docent esse tenendam.  Bellarmine. (There are saith he,) some, who assert, that the Magistrate may permit all to think what they list concerning Religion, and live as they please, supposing they break not the Public peace of the State; but this is a most pernicious Error. Without all doubt, Christian Princes are obliged to endeavour to keep their Subjects to the same Faith, the Catholic Bishops teach them [yea as to every Punctilio.]  
2. As to what the Dr. asserts about the Danger of receding from the settled Constitution, as if Toleration would break all in pieces, and not answer the end, namely Peace, even so 
(c) Bell. ubi sup. Libertas credendi perniciosa est, etiam temporali bono regnornm, et publicae paci, ut patet primum Gregorio lib. 4. Epist. 32. Et cap. 19 Sancti patres docuerunt, ut non solum fidei symbolum sed etiam ominia al●a Dogmata fidei, licet Minuta videantur, inviolata servemus, nee propter haereticos ullo modo immutari patiamur.— Catholici noluerunt, & Imperatori scripserunt, nefarium esse de rebus jam definitis, aliquid immutari: Et si quid justarum sanctionum fuerint immutatum, non propterea pacem futuram.— Esse p●sse. This and much more against the least Relaxation.  Bellarmine, who saith, ‛ That the Holy Fathers oblige us to keep inviolable, not only the Apostles Creed, but also every other Opinion of Faith, though it may seem very minute, and inconsiderable; neither must we for the sake of Heretics [or Schismatics] in any manner suffer an Alteration.— The Catholics would not, but wrote to the Emperor, that 'twas very wicked to alter any thing concerning what was formerly determined, for if there should be an alteration of Penal Laws, Peace would not ensue, even as the Dr. 'tis impossible to satisfy all Dissenters, and uncertain whether any considerable number may be gained by a Relaxation.  
3. 'twill be difficult saith the Doctor, on a Toleration, to keep Factions out of the Church, for upon the Principles laid down by some of our Dessuting Brethren, let the Constitution be made never so easy to themselves, yet others may make use of their ground, and carry on the differences as high as ever; Even so 
(d) Bellar. ubi supra— Non potest liberum esse in uno quolibet dogmate, quin eadem ratione liberum esse debeat in omnibus, etiam in iis, quae in Symbolo Apostolico continentur.— Si ergo credo Ecclesiae tradenti mihi Symbolum Apostolorum, quod non scio aliunde esse Apostolorum, nisi quia Ecclesia dicit. Eadem ratione, credere debeo Sanctos invocandos, quia eadem Ecclesia hoc dicit, vel si hoc possim non credere, eadem ratione possim non credere symbolum illud esse Apostolorum. Thus the Dr. and Bellarmine are agreed, only Bellarmine hath the advantage of a Popish Principle to countenance his opinion, which will afford the Dr. very little relief, unless he will own it, and oblige 0103 0 us all to believe, as the Church believes, from which if we recede in one thing, we may for the same reason recede in every thing, because the Church enjoins a Ceremony with the same strictness it doth the Apostles Creed.  Bellarmine, who saith, ' That Liberty concerning one Opinion cannot be allowed, but for the same Reason it must be so in every thing, yea, even as to those Doctrines which are contained in the Apostles Creed.  
But as in this, the Dr. and Bellarmine agree, even so the Dr. and the Church of England differ, as appears by what is most express in Mr. Chillingworth, who saith, I have learned from the ancient Fathers of the Church, that nothing is more against Religion than to force Religion, and of St Paul, the Weapons of the Christian warfare are not carnal. And great Reason; For humane violence may make men counterfeit, but cannot make them believe, and is therefore fit for nothing but to breed form without, and Atheism within. Besides if this means of bringing men to embrace any Religion, were generally used (as if it may be justly used in any place by those that have Power, and think they have Truth, certainly they cannot with Reason deny, but that it may be used in every place, by those that have power as well as they, and think they have truth as well as they) what could follow, but the maintenance of truth, but perhaps only of the profession of it in one place, and the oppression of it in a hundred? What will follow from it but the preservation peradventure of Unity, but peradventure only of Uniformity in particular States and Churches; but the immortalising the greater, and more lamentable divisions of Christendom and the World? And therefore what can follow from it, but perhaps in the judgement of carnal policy, the temporal benefit, and tranquillity of temporal States and Kingdoms, but the infinite prejudice if not the desolation of the Kingdom of Christ? And therefore it well becomes them who have their portions in this Life, who serve no higher State, than that of England, or Spain, or France, nor this neither any further than that they may serve themselves by it, who think of no other happiness, but the preservation of their own fortunes, and tranquillity in the World; who think of no other means to preserve States, but humane power, and Machiavellian policy, and believe no other Creed but this, Regi aut civitati Imperium habenti nihil injustum, quod utile! Such men as these it may become to maintain by worldly power and violence their State Instrument, Religion For if all be vain and false, (as in their judgement it is) the present whatsoever, is better than any, because it is already settled; And alteration of it may draw with it change of States, and the change of State, the Subversion of their fortune. But they that are indeed Servants and Lovers of Christ, of Truth, of the Church, and of Mankind, aught with all courage to oppose themselves against it, as a common Enemy of all these. They that know there is a King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, by whose Will and Pleasure Kings and Kingdoms stand and fall, they know, that to no King, or State, any thing can be profitable, which is unjust; and that nothing can be more evidently unjust, than to force weak men by the profession of a Religion, which they believe not, to lose their own eternal happiness, out of a vain and needless fear, lest they may possibly disturb their temporal quietness. There being no danger to any State from any man's Opinion, unless it be such an Opinion by which disobedience to authority, or impiety is taught or licenced, which sort I confess may justly be punished, as well as other faults; or unless this sanguinary Doctrine be joined with it, that it is lawful for him by humane violence to enforce others to it. Therefore if Protestants did offer violence to other men's Consciences, and compel them to embrace their Reformation, I excuse them not.  
4. Although the Dr. speaks so much in favour of Union, aiming at it, (as it is said) both in his Sermon, and his late great book, exposing Divisions as what chief gratifies the Papist, for which reason reason none can hinder Union, or contribute any thing towards the Continuation of our Divisions, unless they will strengthen the Papal Interest, yet the Dr. doth his utmost to prevent a Protestant Union, and consequently to maintain Divisions to the a vancing the Papacy among us.  
That I abuse not the Dr. will soon appear with much Conviction to any that shall but consider.  
1. That the Dr. is fully apprehensive from Twenty years' experience, That the term of our Union must be made more easy, or 'tis impossible that the Dissenters should conform, which terms cannot be made more easy, unless there be an alterat on of some Penal Laws, against which the Doctor doth express himself with very much warmth. 
(a) Preface p. 85.  That a general unlimited Toleration to dissenting Protestants will soon bring Confusion among us, and in the end ●opery.— And a Suspension of all Penal Laws that relate to Dissenters, is the same thing with a boundless Toleration.  
I am hearty sorry to find the Dr. under this transport, and wish he would give himself the Liberty of thinking, though but for a few honrs, for then surely he could not but find himself obliged, when more cool, to correct what was the product of an indecent heat, and consequently distinguish between a boundless Toleration, and the suspending each Panal Laws as relate to Dissenters only. Doth not the Dr. know, that the Penal Laws against Dissenters are only such as engage us to a strict conformity to Episcopacy and Ceremonies, forbidding the Worshipping of God in Separate Meetings: The Penal Laws that relate to Sabbath breaking, Drunkenness, Swearing, Felony, Murder, Adultery, etc. affect the Dissenters not otherwise than the Conforming Clergy, for which reason, seeing a Boundless Toleration is an indulging Drunkenness, Swearing, Lying, etc. the Dr. must mean, That the not conforming to Episcopacy and Ceremonies, and the Worshipping God in Separate Meetings is the same with Drunkenness, Uncleanness, Perjury, Adultery and Murder, which if true, the offspring of a Toleration would be as the Dr. saith, Confusion. And is this the Dr's meaning; hath he such high Thoughts of the Divinity of an Humane Ceremony, that what man soever neglects it, is as a Murderer, or such low thoughts of worshipping God in a separate Meeting, that 'tis as Felony? Is not this the equalizing Humane Inventions with Christ's Institutions? Or rather is it not to represent the Dissenters as Persons that are as vile as the worst of men, and that it as much concerns the Magistrate to punish a Dissenter as a Drunkard and a Felon. This shows the Reason why Dissenters are punished as much as Swearers, and therefore unless the Parliament incline to favour Debauchery, let them not entertain the Thoughts of giving the Dissenters any Liberty. But what is this but to close with Bellarmine, who saith, for the same reason, Liberty is given in the same point, it may as well be so, in the greatest Article of the Creed, i. e. But the Dr. must pardon us, if we are so charitable as to believe that whatever sentiments some of the Inferior Clergy may entertain concerning Dissenters, or the Dr. himself in the midst of his disturbed thoughts, yet these are not the apprehensions of the grave and Judicious Clergy of England, nor of the Dr. when free from these intemperate heats. They all see a difference between a Conscientious Dissenter, and a profane Debauchee, and that the former may be tolerated, when the latter is for his wickedness severely punished. However this is enough to prove that the Dr. is against the showing any compassion to a tender Conscience, though for the sake of Union.  
2. The Dr. doth set a greater value on the Honour, and Reputation of men, than on Union, or the relieving tender Consciences in order unto Union. If (saith the Doctor, page 89.) any expedient can be found out for the ease of other men's Consciences, without Reflecting on our own, if they can be taken in without Reproach, or Dishonour to the Reformation of the Church; I hope no true Son of the Church of England will oppose it. These are the Dr's. Terms; for the understanding which, it must be observed that the Dissenters Not-conforming to Episcopacy and the Ceremonies is a judging them Unlawful, which is a casting a Reproach and a dishonour on the Reformation of the Church, for this supposeth, that the Reformation of the Church of England, is not so agreeable to the Scripture as it ought to be. Whence unless Dissenters can obtain their Liberty in a way consistent with the Honour of their Clergy, it is not to be allowed them, that is, Unless they can wound their Consciences, and fully conform, no Union. All which doth plainly intimate, that an higher esteem is to be had for the external worldly Honour of men, than for tender Consciences. But is this the way to heal our Breaches?  
There are several other instances that may be insisted on to show the Dr's dislike of Union, as well as of the relieving tender Consciences, which are clothed with so many an uncomely reflection, that 'twill be difficult to discover just resentments of them, without falling under the Dr's Censure of being Intemperate, etc. and therefore I will wave them, knowing that there are some others more Able, and more Concerned to consider them. So much as to the Dr's many Mistakes about this Fourth Argument.   

Argument the 5th.  
5. The Dissenters accepted of His Majesty's Gracious Toleration, given them Seven or Eight years ago.  
'tis the Advice of the Jesuit Contzens (faith the Dr.) in his Directions for the reducing Popery into a Country, that it be done under a pretence of ease to tender Consciences. The like in a Letter of Signior Bellarini, that there be an Indulgence promoted by the Factious, and seconded by the Papists. Yea, and Coleman owned at his Trial, and after sentence declared, That possibly he might be of Opinion that Popery might come in, if Liberty of Conscience had been granted, and 'tis acknowledged, that the Declaration of Indulgence, 167● was of the Papists procuring. But notwithstanding this by one of the more moderate party of Dissenters wrote, A public vindication of their accepting the Licences, and in the year 1675. There was a book printed, entitled The Peaceable design, or an account of the Non-conformists Meetings, by some Ministers of London. In an Objection it is thus put. But what shall we say then to the Papists. The Answer is, The Papist in our account is but one sort of Recusant, and the Conscientious and Peaceable among them, must be held in the same Predicament with those among ourselves, that likewise Refuse to come to Common Prayer. To which the Dr. adds, what is this but joining for a Toleration of Popery.  
To all which I shall speak distinctly, and in doing so, consider these several particulars Couched in this Fifth Argument.  

1. That 'tis the Opinion of the Papists, that a Toleration might advance their Interest:  
2. That when a Toleration was given through the Papists Instigation, the Dissenters embraced it.  
3. That the Dissenters concurred with the Papists in the attempts made for a general Toleration.   
1. To the First, That the Papists apprehended a Toleration advantageous to their Interest.  
Here it must be duly observed, that there is a difference between a Toleration, and a Toleration, viz. between a Limited and Unlimited Toleration.  
2. The manner in which a Toleration may be given unto Dissenting Subjects, may be different.  
1. That a Toleration limited to such Dissenting Protestants as are sound in the Faith, and Peaceable, should advance the Papal Superstition, is not easy to comprehend, nor is it said that the Papists apprehend so much. Probably the Jesuits Contzens, Signior Bellarini and Coleman might think, that a general Toleration to them, as well as to the Dissenting Protestants might advance their interest, but that a Toleration to Protestants only should contribute any thing towards the reducing this Land to Popery is unimaginable.  
'Tis a known Maxim in the Roman Church, that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion, which is true only with reference to the Papal Superstitions. Let the light of the Gospel be removed, and Popish Darkness will soon spread itself over the Face of that Land; but as long as the knowledge of the Gospel remains, 'tis not easy to introduce Popery.  
For which Reason a Toleration to Dissenting Protestant Ministers is so far from advancing, that it destroys the Papists Interest. And this is no more than what the Indulgence granted so graciously by His Majesty did effect, it giving as great a blow to Popery, as hath been given it in divers years before. For multitudes who formerly living most lewdly, were prepared for Popery, being since convinced of the Truth and excellency of Religious conversation, are most firmly engaged to venture their Lives, yea, their All in the defence of Protestant Religion. What then should tempt the Papists to conclude a limited Toleration to be an Engine prepared for the accomplishing a Jesuitical design is to me unknown, unless they had a respect rather to the manner of its grant, than unto the Toleration itself, fancying that as his Present Majesty indulged Protestant Dissenter without his Parliament, according to the same Rule the Popish Successor they had within their ken, might without his Parliament indulge the Papist. But this is only a conjecture of which our Statesmen are most competent Judges, and which whether right or wrong 'tis not to be insisted on by the Clergy of either way, they 〈◊〉, so Vamcet to treat of State-affairs, which never succeeds better than when under the management and Conduct of Statesmen, nor never attended with more unhappy Issues, then when the Clergy like busy bodies will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Inspect the Diocese of the Laity, and concern themselves about what they understand not. But what though we grant, that the Papists thought a Protestant Indulgence would advance their Interest, seeing their thoughts have no more of Infallibility in them than their Doctrines, why doth the Dr. insist on their fancies? What were they never mistaken? But the Dr. suggests that Jesuits might creep in under the Notion of Dissenters; And can they not rather slide into great preferments under the Covert of a Gown, a Cassock, a Surplice? The Temptation surely is greater, and the way much more easy.  
2. The Dissenters 'tis said accepted of this Toleration, yea, and wrote a Public vindication of their accepting of it. What then? are they therefore Popishly affected? What, is Gratitude to our Prince confined to Papists, or their Instruments? I cannot but wonder at the discourses of some of our Clergy, who delight in nothing so much as in railing on the Dissenters, as Seditious, Rebellious, and what not, and yet most angry with Dissenters, because they are not so, as appears by the many Invectives, that were written against our thankful acknowledgements of His Majesty's Clemency. But though this Dr. and some others are angry, yet 'tis the Resolve of Protestant Dissenters to be ready on all occasions to show their Loyalty and thankfulness to his Majesty for every instance of his Bounty towards his dissenting, but most dutiful and loving Subjects.  
But wherein is the Papist gratified by that Toleration, what did he gain by it? Did he enjoy more liberty after, than before? Methinks, the import of the great cry of our Clergy is this, That the Dissenters must not be permitted to enjoy, as much as the Papists, and be on even terms with them, to the advancing the Protestant Religion. For this is evident, that when there was no Declaration for Indulging Protestants, there was no prosecution of Penal Laws on Papists; yea, when the Clergy were most severe in prosecuting Protestants; the Papists knew not practically what a Penal Statute meant, and yet our Church men very silent. But his Majesty according to the Gracious Propensions of his heart no sooner extends his Clemency towards the Poor Dissenting Protestants, but the cry is Popery, Popery, that is, poor Protestants in a Bears, the Papists skin, are envied and maligned.  
3. The Dissenters wrote favourably of the Tolerating Papists.  
Answ. 1. Before the Discovery of the Plot, the Papists were judged Loyal Subjects, though Saperstitious, etc. even by our Governors and Clergy. Doth not Dr. Stilling fleet remember, that a Reverend Divine, a Son of the Church, no way inferior to himself, did write ex industria in favour of the Loyal Papist? Is the Church of England therefore for Popery? How then can Dissenters he so, seeing the reason for the one and the other is the same, with this difference, namely, The Dissenter gave but an hint, which did rather discover a confidence in, and humble de●ercing to the Wisdom of our Magistracy; who did not judge meet at that time to be brisk in a prosecuting the Penal Laws against them for their Recusancy: but the Plea of the Episcopal in favour of the Roman Catholic was more than an hint, it was a considerable Treatise. But  
2. Since the Discovery of the Plot the Papists are better known, they are now known to be Implacable Enemies to a Protestant Prince and Kingdom; to be Turbulent, and Vnpeaceable: Whence the Tolerating them, and the Kingdom's peace are become inconsistent, and as the one is advanced, the other necessarily must be overthrown: For which Reason, our Superiors, Ecclesiastical and Civil, do see cause to pass another Judgement on the Papists than formerly they did, whereby the Dissenter may with the greater freedom appear against them, giving our Sovereign, and the Parliament the fullest assurances of Loyalty to His Majesty, and Faithfulness to the Protestant Religion, being ready to hazard their lives and their all, in the defence of them and it. How then can they be supposed Favourers of Popery, or rather how can Dr. Still. Discourse after this manner? For, if such as are under the lash of Penal Laws for Conscience sake, must be thought to be Popishly affected, for not animating the Magistrate to a Prosecution of Penal Laws against other supposed Conscientious, and Peaceable Dissenters as the Papists were then judged to be, by many of the Church of England, and this before the Discovery of their Horrid Plots, I say, if the whole Party of Dissenters must be thus exposed, so severely for such an hint as that was, what shall we think of Dr. S., who speaks so favourably of the Papists, suggesting even now, that when men's heats against the Papists, which are said to be beyond the just bounds of Prudence, Decency, and Humanity; are over, it will be thought great hardship for the Papists only, to be deprived of the Liberty of their Consciences, when the wildest of the fanatics are allowed it. What, may the Dr. insinuate so much in their Favour now, and not expose himself to the Censure; and must a Dissenter who spoke not half as much in other times, be so severely treated? But whether the Dissenters are favourers of the Papal Faction, will more fully appear by the Answer that shall be given unto his 6th. Argument.   

Argument 6.  
The Dissenters, since the Discovery of the late Horrid Plot did close with the People in an over-fierce opposing the Papists. For (saith the Dr.) now the Dissenters tack about, and strike in with the Rage of the People, and none so fierce against Popery as they, whereby they mar a good business by overdoing it. Praef. pag. 34.  
This is suggested more than once, but because of the strangeness of the medium at this juncture, and its unmeetness for its designed end, I'll not be overcurious in considering it; It being well known that Popish Plots are laid so deep, the Plotter so cruel, yea, and so resolved for Protestant Blood, the Blood of our Prince, our Nobles, our Gentry, our Ministry, and People, that unless we by a serious and humble Repentance return to God, putting our Trust in the Lord, and assume an undaunted Courage, we are a lost People. To be at such a time cold and indifferent, is to relinquish and abandon our Religion. For if there be any Fire of Zeal against Papists in the house, it cannot but flame out at the Windows at this time; for the stormy winds of Popish Cruelties and Treasons, desolating Threaten, and implacable Fury, are such as must cause the least spark of Zeal for God, and the King, etc. to break out into a flame, that cannot be hid; Which may be, even when our Zeal doth not transport us to any Irregular or Illegal proceed, which can only deserve the Epithets of Indecent and Inhuman; with which Protestant Dissenters cannot justly be charged, and therefore the Surprise is the greater to find such an Intimation in so Judicious, and Wise a Person as Dr. S. In what respect doth, or can the Dr. accuse them? Are the Dissenters too Zealous in Declaiming against Popish Principles, and Practices? Do they represent Papal Treasons to be more heinous than they are (i. e.) more bloody, or more Inhuman and Cruel? What acts of Inhumanity have they exercised? or in what respects have they been transported beyond the just bounds of Prudence, Decency, or Humanity? Why is not the Dr. more particular in his Charge, seeing Dolus latet in Generalibus? 'Tis their Joining with the People (the Dr. adds) but in what? In Petitioning his Majesty for the Sitting of the Parliament, surely the Dr. won't now judge that to be seditious? Is it our Readiness, when called thereunto to hazard our lives to save his majesty's? or what? seeing the Dr. doth not fasten any particular crime on the Dissenters, and the Dissenters being Innocent, have no guilty Conscience to accuse them, nor are they able to divine; It cannot be expected, that we should be more full in the Consideration of it, neither is there any need, for enough hath been said to clear the Dissenters from the Vnbecoming Reproaches, the Dr. would fasten on them; Yea, enough hath been hinted to evince the Dr's. Mistakes to have been Great and Many.  
III. I'll now proceed to the third Particular, and give a Summary Account of the Unhappy Tendencies of these Great and Many Mistakes, as they are adjusted for an Advance of the Papal Interest.  
§. 1. 'Tis Remarkable, That Notwithstanding the Honourable Apprehensions the Dr. may have of the Reformation, very little, if any thing, is hinted concerning the most Principal part thereof, namely, Protestant Doctrines: The which I do the rather observe, because it hath been of late years, the sole care of our ecclesiastics to secure Protestant Religion, without using any Mean for the preservation of Protestant Doctrines; and accordingly new Declarations, Subscriptions and Oaths have been offered for the more firm establishment of Church-Government, even when our Doctrines have been sadly vitiated by some of the Sons of the Church, without any other notice, than the Complaints of a Few, such as are Dr. Tully, etc.  
§. 2. That Episcopacy, and Ceremonies are considered by the Dr. as the Glory of the English Reformation, the Bulwark of Protestant Religion, even Episcopacy and Ceremonies, as dissented from by the Nonconformists, (i. e) That Episcopacy, and those Ceremonies unto which the Dissenters cannot conscientiously conform. 'Tis this that cannot be dissented from without great dishonour unto Protestant Religion, viz. The Reformation; which, strictly considered, is no part of the Reformation, (i. e.) as much of these things as Dissenters agree not unto, cannot be justly called Reformation. For what parts of the Papal Episcopacy and Ceremonies are rejected, the Dissenters hearty in their rejection close with the Episcopal; that is, so far as there is a Reformation; But, as to the Particular wherein the Difference lies between the Conformist and Nonconformist, there is no Reformation on the Conformists part. I am not now disputing against Episcopacy or Ceremonies, but supposing them Apostolical; yet I assert, they cannot be considered, as a part of Reformation: For Reformation doth presuppose some Anteceding Corruption of the thing to be Reform; Reformation consisting in the removing the Corruptions, and therefore we do not say, that the Protestants Reformed what was never Corrupted; for instance, The Doctrine of the Trinity, not being corrupted by the Church of Rome, the Protestants are not said to Reform it, even so, That Part of Episcopacy and Ceremonies, which is considered as Apostolical, and hath been, and still is maintained by the Church of Rome, that part if adhered unto, as Apostolical by Protestants, is but the Retaining an Uncorrupted part of our good old Religion, and not a Reforming it, Thus even do the 
* Becan. Opusc. Tit. II. Quest. 9 Hanc Hierarchiam ex parte retinent Calvinistae in Anglia— extra Angliam penitus rejiciunt. Quo nomine male audiunt ab eodem Rege, qui in Monitoriâ praefatione ad Imperatorem, Reges & Principes, de hac re ita scribit; Quo study in Episcoporum & Ecclesiasticae Hierarchiae defensionem semper incubui, eodem in confusam illam Anarchiam, & parilitatem Puritanorum invectus sum. Et infra, Mihi praecipuus labor fuit, dejectos Epistopos restituere, & Puritanorum Anarchiam repugnare. Et rationem addit, quia cum in caeteris rebus ordo quidum de dispositio sit, etiam in Ecclesia esse necesse est.  Jesuits consider it. But granting that the Retained part of the Hierarchy, etc. may be considered as Reform, it still must be asserted,  
1. That 'tis no Part of the Lutheran, and Transmarine Protestant Reformation; for, they consider it as what stands in need of a Reformation.  
2. That the Dr. making this the Great Part of the English Reformation, doth but exalt a part of the Papal Hierarchy under the name of Reformation, for which Reason, even other parts of the same, may deserve his Applauses under the same Notion, and what is this but to reflect on all Protestants besides themselves.  
§. 3. This Reformation in Conjunction with the Papists, an adhering unto the Praelacy of Bishops, and in Opposition unto most other Protestants, an exploding Godly People's Right of choosing their own Pastor. And Thirdly, an introducing such little Ceremomes as do but prepare the way for greater.  
§. 4. All this is most admirably accomplished with the Help of Bellarmine, and other Jesuits in that, this Noble Superstructure is fastened on the Foundation of Antiquity, and Universality, the sure Notes of what is Apostolical; for, (saith the Dr.) if this should be a Corruption how comes it to be so Antiem, and so soon Universal, even insensibly without any noise.  
§. 5. This is a receding from the Church of England, and a Rebuilding what the Church hath demolished, a setting too great an Honour on those Jesuitical Arguments, which have been exploded by the Church, as appears out of Mr. Chillingworth; and therefore as one Apprehensive of their weakness, the Doctor doth proceed.  
§. 6. To the old Argument, vide Mischievous Impositions, as what cannot but most effectually compass his end, that is, under the notion of opposing a Toleration, to introduce a smart Prosecuting of Penal Laws against such, as cannot receive Convictions from the foregoing Arguments. That the Dr. writes against such a Toleration as consists in the suspending those Penal Laws, which are against Dissenters, is evident: And what is the meaning of this, if he designs not the urging a Prosecution of Penal Laws? Doth a suspending the Penal Laws any otherwise displease him, than as it prevents a Prosecution of the Law against Dissenters? And if by these Laws Dissenters must be prosecuted, for not assenting unto what they cannot conscientiously assert. Is not this laying our Faculties under Violence, or a Forcing Religion, an introducing blind obedience with a Whip? That such Doctrines are pleasing to the Papist, might be easily proved from the advantages they have taken from Mr. Hooker, and some others; who have expressed themselves too liberally in their Invectives against Dissenting Protestants, and that the Dr hath no way gratified the Episcopal Protestants by Relinquishing their Doctrine, is to be seen in Mr. Chillingworth, who hath shown the pernicious consequences of such Impositions. Namely,  
1. As it may occasion an Uniformity in some particular Churches; even so it doth Immortalize the greater and more Lamentable Divisions of Christendom, and the World.  
2. As it may in the judgement of Carnal Policy advance the temporal benefit, and tranquillity of Temporal States, and Kingdoms; even so 'twill be followed with the Infinite Prejudice, if not the desolation of the Kingdom of Christ; and therefore this is a Doctrine that becomes none, but such whose Creed is Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti nibil injustum, quoth utile, who dread the change of State, lest it should change their Fortunes. But  
3 This cannot be profitable unto any King or State, because , for nothing is more evidently , than to force weak men by the profession of a Religion, which they believe not, to lose their own Eternal happiness out of a vain and needless fear, lest they may possibly disturb their Temporal quietness.  
I hope, seeing the Dr. will find these Arguments in one of the Church of England's discourses, he will give some heed thereunto, and perceive how he hath unawares given advantage to the Papist.  
Thus the Dr. in his pretences against Popery, falls into the Error for which he reproveth the Dissenters, which I have evinced out of his own Preface, as compared with the Jesuits with whom he accords, and with the Old Protestants, from whom in some of these things at least, he dissents, The which I have done with the greatest fairness and integrity, without any design of forcing his words to speak what is not according to their Grammatical sense, and common acceptation, omitting the insisting on several points, that might be spoken unto with greater disadvantage unto the Dr. But aiming principally at the clearing the Innocent, who are by him accused, and the showing into what Mistakes his transport hath carried him, I hinted no more than what was necessary in order thereunto, carefuly shunning as much as the Subject matter would permit any such expression, as might be judged by the Dr's own intimates Indecent; humbly apprehending that the Dr's Mistakes are but evincements of the emotions of that Corruption, which in part is in the best of Saints on Earth, which calls rather for our Compassion than Triumph, knowing that we ourselves are but men of like passions. For which reason I will draw to a close in speaking to the Fourth thing.  
4. That to the end the Dr. may do himself, and the Protestant Religion but right, 'tis necessary that he be either more distinct, and full in a further explication of his sentiments, if he be misapprehended, or that he will be so Candid, as to go on in following Bellarmine in one thing more, namely, in that it deserves due esteem and regard by a second Retractation, if these mistakes appears to be such as they are by me represented.  
1. If the Dr. hath not wronged the Dissenter, nor closed with the Jesuit in his arguings against Dissenters, 'tis most apparent, that his words need an Exposition, for whatsoever unprejudiced Person considers, what hath been said in the foregoing Discourse, may easily perceive, that if we must judge of his meaning by his writing, 'tis as I have said; But, if not so, I beseech the Dr. to exercise his Candour in enlightening us, assuring him, as soon as I can understand that I have in any respect misrepresented him, I will be so Just, as to acknowledge so much, and do my utmost for the clearing him, and in order thereunto have this only to add, That I do not say, the Doctor hath consulted the Jesuits, for what he asserts so agreeably unto their writings (God forbidden I should assert what I do not know) But this I say that the Agreement is as great in those instances I have mentioned, as if he had, and that if he hath not consulted them, I know not what can be assigned as the true Reason of this strange agreement, unless it be, that sometime great Wits jump, or, that such is the State of the Controversy between Him, and Dissenters, that there is no way so effectual for the confuting us, but by proceeding on Jesuitical Principles, and using Popish Arguments. But  
2. If I have neither mistaken, nor misrepresented the Dr. as, I verily believe, I have not, seeing the Dr. is fallible, and may see cause to alter his Sentiments unto these particulars, as well as he hath done with reference unto some others, the He would be so Selfdenying on his receiving Convictions, as to intimate so much unto the World.  
1. That the Dr. changeth his judgement concerning some Notions relating to Religion, is neither a wonder to the World, nor should it be a Reproach unto him, or any other Person, that for sufficient Reasons doth so. Yet  
2. Whenever any considerable Tract is with the show, and seeming strength of much Reason published to the World, through the Varnish of which, in process of time, the Author espies Mistakes and Error, as the Author acts ingenuously in Publishing so much unto the World, even so he ought to do the World that piece of Justice, as to be at the pleasing Trouble of confuting it himself, seeing otherwise, much mischief may be done the poor weak Reader, who thinks the discourse to contain the same Reasons, since a a Retractation, which it did before, may through the Influence of of those Arguments, that are in it, be obliged to adhere unto Error. Moreover as to the Dr's. Case, 'tis presumed he doth not retract the whole, and every part of his Irenicum, and therefore 'twould be necessary somewhat be done to show, what needs Explication what a Retractation, and for what Reasons a Retractation; and the like as to this present great Book, a part of whose Prefaced I have Animadverted on, which Animadversions are of such a Nature, as cannot but engage the Dr. to do somewhat of this kind; even as 
† Bellarm. Recog. Scripsi, Deo teste, quod verum esse existimavi, non gratiam hominum, vel propriam utilitatem, sed Honorem Dei, & Ecclesiae Commodum respiciens. Neque in scriptis meis aliquid a divinis literis ●aut sanctorum Patrum Regulis alienum, sciens, posui. Quin tamen scriptumest Prov. 10. in multiloquio non deerit Peccatum, quod etiam de multa scriptione dei posse non dubito S. Augustinum imitatus, etc.  Bellarmine himself in a like Case hath done, who, in the End of his Disputations hath his particular Recognitions, prefacing it in these words, God is my Witness, that what I have written is no more than what I judged to be the Truth, which I wrote not on any unworthy design of pleasing others, or profiting myself, but with an Aim at God's Glory, and the Church's Benefit. Nor have I knowingly receded either from the Rule of the Scriptures or Holy Fathers, However, since 'tis said, Prov. 10.19. In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin, which I Question not but may be said of much writing, I will therefore imitate St. Austin, i. e. in his Retractations, etc.  
That we may exercise the Charity in hoping that the Dr. doth not at any time publish That to be a Truth which he believeth to be an Error, and with all finding the Dr. to mistake, yea sometimes sensible of his Mistakes. I have presumed to recommend unto him not only St. Austin, but also the great Bellarmine as a Pattern for his Imitation, it being an Honour to follow him in what is Right, when no way so as to those particulars, wherein he is an Enemy unto the Churches of Jesus Christ and the True Protestant Religion.  
FINIS.