Annimadversions on the Apology OF THE Clamorous Squire AGAINST THE Duke of Buckingham's SECONDS, As Men of No Conscience.  

The Introduction.  
IT is a Judgement upon some Men, not only to mistake, but to refuse to be informed; as it is the worst of Natures to be afraid that other men should be in the Right.  
All Dissenters must be in the Wrong, whether they be or no: And they must not mean any thing that is Good, by good Words, whether they do or no. Though it were that they should say they would not have the Government or National Church destroyed, and only pray for a little room to exercise their own way quietly, and that they will pray for, and pay Tribute cheerfully to their Auspicious Caesar.  
And why all this Unkindness and Injustice, but for fear such men of Wrath and Interest should want a pretence to destroy them? Which in my opinion shows them ill Sons of the Church, that unwillingly believe well of another, and had rather they were in the Wrong than in the Right.  
For in all the late Pamphlets against Liberty of Conscience, there's not one word of winning one poor Dissenter to the Church, no more than of Tolerating them out of the Church. But how peaceable soever he be, he is cast out for a Vessel of Wrath, good for nothing but to be Hanged here, and Damned hereafter.  
It is a Melancholy Prospect for him, but not without Instruction, and some Hope. For Extremes do the Authors of them no good: And these Flashes may be but a Lightning before Death, I mean, of Severity.  
It is always darkest before Day: Ease and Liberty of Conscience, for all this, may yet dawn under the Government of our Brave King.  
And who would not hope a little longer, that has stayed all this while? Will other Princes give better Terms in their Countries, or keep them better? Let's then be Patient and Humble, and pray God to mollify the Hearts, even of them that hate us. Vincit qui patitur. And so I come to the severe Gentleman against the DUKE of BUCKINGHAM and his SECONDS, for Men of No Conscience; in which we shall have a measure of his, of his own giving, and that will show it to be none of the best.   

HE begins, page 3. with the Loyalty of the House of Commons, and the reason of his Judgement, to wit, If we consider, Who has chosen them, and Who are chosen. Now, no body doubts their Loyalty, without this lucky Reason given by the Squire, of Who chose them, and Who are chosen. The case is plain, and needed not his officious Note upon the House, for Spectacles to the People.  
But if it be so, The Dissenters Insolence is insufferable in their Pleas for Liberty of Conscience. Which I take to be a Reflection upon that great Assembly; it prejudges their Wisdom and Goodness. What knows he which way Reason of State may incline their Judgement; or what Motives may induce their Debates and Resolves. Is it Insolence, and that unsufferable too, for men to humbly pray, they may have leave to say their Prayers in another way than that which is common?  
If any Man has done ill, must the Principle suffer, and the Party pay the Reckoning, especially if neither be in the Fault? Here's a Loyal Parliament, Ergo, A Million of People must be Ruined. A fine Christian, and as good a Statesman. I hope, there's Preference of one, without Destruction of the rest, and Rebuke without Ruin. The Dissenter may live, though the Churchman only be preferred. And only let him be preferred, so that t'other may not be confounded.  
He says, Pag. 3, 4. Liberty of Conscience has embroiled three Nations in Blood, and yet the Patrons of it allowed it not to one another, as Presbyterians, Independents, etc. Nor did they to King Charles the First, the Church of England, or Roman Catholics. He might have added the Quakers too, that suffered more Cruelties than any other Party, under them.  
But I pray, how does this shake the Reasonableness of Liberty of Conscience? For, First, that was not any part of the stated Quarrel between the King and Parliament. Secondly, If they that made the War, disowned it, and denied it, how were they Patrons of it? Or how did that Principle come to lay three Kingdoms in Blood? It seems then that Liberty of Conscience must pay the Reckoning of the Men that are against it; or that because those Men were against it (and therein doubtless did very Ill) therefore the Church of England would do ill to give it. Make this good, and he shall be my Oracle.  
But why? for fear they should be undone by giving it, because they were undone that did not give it. Mighty well argued! This Gentleman bids for the first Doctor next Act at Oxford.  
You would not give it to me, that you would not, and therefore why should I give it to you? No such matter; Truly I don't intent it. This is pretty Logic! 'tis Demonstration, backward. But Passion, though it rules Women, it should not Rule in the Church. Wise and Good Men, consider the Right and Prudence of a thing, to which private Passions are made submit.  
Pag. 5. But the Protestant Dissenters deserve no Liberty, because in Seventy Two they were for Liberty with the Papists, in Eighty without them, and now in Eighty Five it is not only lawful, but necessary that the Roman Catholics have their Liberty too.  
Granting this to be so, what's that to Liberty of Conscience? It only shows the Partiality of the Men, and perhaps that would have been granted him for a word's ask. This proves nothing against the Principle, though the Squire upon this so fiercely concludes, all the Villainies in the World against Liberty of Conscience. But when he has done all he can, they were not Dissenters, under Correction, that in Eighty prosecuted the Roman Catholics, and refused them Liberty, but Church of England-men, and such of them too, as would not allow it to some Protestant Dissenters, for fear that Papists should hide themselves amongst them, and that they therefore must swallow the most severe Tests that could be framed to show themselves not Friends to that Communion. And to tell truth, and I beseech the Gentleman, not to take it amiss that I say, the Dissenters were invited to the share they had in opposition to Popery, by Churchmen, ay, they were for a Comprehension, to make the Church stand broader, the better to receive the Assaults of Rome without hazard. And had the Dissenter been more modest to his Mistress, and not so malapert and officious, he had doubtless been upon better Terms with her now. However, her Anger must not endure forever, nor destroy her Servant for being too busy or eager in the Service she called him to.  
Well, But the Duke of Buckingham's Seconds are Men of no Conscience because they charge the Exclusion upon the Members of the Church of England, This is so bitterly resented, that we are told, That an honest Turk would have scorned so base a Practice, within five years after the Fact, and in a Case wherein the whole Nation knows the contrary.  
If Exclusion, or no Exclusion, be to determine the true from the false Church of England Men, as pag. 7. the Proposition will be doubly false; For there are men that were not for Exclusion, that were not Members of the Church of England, and there are Members of the Church of England, that were for the Exclusion. And to this charge in the Reply and the Defence, he gives no Answer, but Anger, which for a Man to avoid, when the Question lies upon it, & that grounded upon matter of Fact, shows his fear of Success, and that, the weakness of his Cause. But since the Dissenters by wholesale are to bear the blame, I do affirm the Excluders were Conformists, and are yet Communicants of your Church, and the greatest part of them upon Education and constant Practice too. And that this is Truth, and no Slander, read the List, and 'tis a demonstration. Nay, I challenge the Gentleman to name six Persons of all the Excluders, that dissent from the established Church.  
Nor is this of yesterday; for if we look back, we shall see the most celebrated Bishops of our Church barring the Succession in the Law of the 13th and 27th of Q. Eliz. 
See Sir Sim. Dew. pag. 140. & 207.  and when that Queen pleaded Conscience in not assenting to a Law to put our King's great Grand Mother, Mary Queen of Scots to Death, the same Reverend Bishops undertook to remove the Scruple; yet nothing but, Away with those Disloyal Dissenters.  
Own them then ingenuously, that they are Members of your own Church, and that their Defection began within yourselves, and that, for all your Invectives, and turning them over now to the Dissenters, because your are ashamed of them, they are in communion with you still, and daily Conformists to the Worship, and as such, are admitted to the accustomed Rites and Privileges of your Church. Page 7. To charge all Addresses and the Oxford Parliament to the account of Dissenters, is not wise, any more than true, for it is to give the greater Numbers to the dissenting party, since it is plain, how unequal they were that fell in with that excluding humour in the Kingdom.  
But this is not all he has said, to prevent the Legislative Goodness to Dissenters. They must not have Liberty, lest it be charged upon the Government as a design to bring in Popery and Arbitrary Power.  
I remember a Story of Harry Martin, that when Cromwell came to dissolve the Rump, to justify his Action, among other things, he accused some of their Members of an evil Life, saying, Here sits a Drunkard, and there (pointing to him) sits an Whoremaster; Harry Martin sitting between two sober grave men, jogged them, saying, Which of you two does he mean? The Dissenters must be blamed of those that are Guilty. 'Tis hard to suffer for Faults, and be chid of them that did them.  
No, 'twas the Gentlemen of that Communion that impeached the Prerogative, in the Declaration of Indulgence, and set the Political capacity of the King in opposition to his National, and to make their business more popular, bestowed that Comment upon it, of a design in the Court to let in Popery and Arbitrary Government.  
Upon the whole matter, 'tis not unworthy of some thought, that this way of making Whigs and fanatics of all, that in every Point come not up to a Hair, though otherwise Men of Virtue, Piety, Wisdom, and perfectly Churchmen, may prove of ill Consequence: for it narrows, where it is Wisdom to enlarge, and greatens, where Prudence inclines to lessen, I mean the Credit of Number.  
This makes me the more admire one Expression, viz pag. 8. That the Members of the Church of England have turned over to the Dissenters all the Excluders, and laid the Bill of Exclusion at their Doors, and washed her Hands of them, as Pilot did of our Saviour's Blood, Where, besides the false Politics of making so many thousand Dissenters in two Lines, and that without all hope of Recovery, he unhappily makes the Church of England men cowardly Pilot, and the Excluders to answer the place of our blessed Saviour. A pretty Allusion to credit the Church, and disgrace Excluders.  
This is not the happiest part of his Apology.  
But I would have hoped that a man who shows not to want a share of Wit and Expression, should be so disingenuous as from the Author of the Defensive Sheet, saying, Take off the thing that Pinches, and see then whether the Church men or the fanatics and Catholics will be most governable. To infer, Persecute the Church men, bestow the Bishoprics and Church Revenues amongst the Catholics and fanatics, and see which will be the best qualified, and most dutiful Subjects. A rare Expedient.  
May I not better say, a rare Consequence? as if easing Dissenters, and not wring their Backs, were stripping the Church, and clothing Dissenters in Velvit, than which, nothing less was thought of. This Incharity and Injustice ruin all. Such men cannot hope to escape the Judgement of God, that are so Injurious in their Judgement to men.  
But he is angry with his Grace, the D. of Buckingham for leading the Dance, and if a Dance it must be, it is an old Country one, at which he has been excellent of long time, and who would not Dance to such a Fiddler? But how Transubstantiation comes to be beholding to the Duke, whose Conclusion excludes it utterly, of which a Boy of seven Years old is judge, let the Gentleman consider once more.  
However, his Grace may happen to ask this Gentleman once in his Life, if he be the man that charges him with leading the Dance to men of no Honour, no Conscience, no Honesty, and that advocates a Cause of so much Treason and Impiety, as is laid to the charge of Liberty of Conscience.  
To the Dissenters Objection, Pag. 10. he says, in their Name, That all the ill things they have done, is because there are Laws made against them, and that they would be quiet, if they might have their Liberty; and tells us, That their ill and disloyal Practices in Queen Elizabeth's time, drew the first Law upon them, and that was the 35 th' of the Queen. But that is no Answer to the Objection, for they were made dangerous, as Conventicles are now, by suspicion and prevention, not that they did any ill thing deserving that Severity; but Church Refractoriness, Bishop Whitgist was pleased to translate into Sedition: The old way, Indeed, my Lord, they are Enemies to Caesar, and Exalters of another King, one JESUS. So that 'tis begging the Question, to ground this Law on the seditious Practices of the Dissenters; and we are to learn when any of our Time had a toleration to abuse, or when any such thing was in being, to charge our Political or Ecclesiastical Calamities upon. I only pray to be informed, I say, when, where and how? For I am entirely of his mind, pag. 10. That wise Men will try as few Conclusions in Government (if settled) as is possible; and yet when only one Conclusion is left to be tried, and that so necessarily prayed and pressed, methinks 'tis not unwise to make the Experiment, when Mercy, Goodness and Charity are on that side.  
But alas! the Author of this Apology is not contented to fasten upon an occasion given, and improve it with all the aggravation of an unkind Nature, but turns Fortune-teller, and reads us a Lecture by the slying of his Jack-daw, of our own insides & future Devices: A downright Divination and Enthusiasm, as if he had been on an Errand to Delphos. Hear him, pag. 11. That we were all thunderstruck, dreaded a Prince we had offended, and that had so much diligence and courage to repay us, and therefore turned Trimers, went to Church, took the Sacrament, gave up the Game, set up for Loyal: And that in this Melancholy frame, it was his Grace found us when he published his Essay, and that no meaner Person durst do it, though enough follow him.  
Now the first part of the Story is false, and the last silly and saucy as well as untrue. I see Dissenters Virtues (as few as they are) must be their Vices for a need: Their quietness is from the stroke of Gild, and their Conformity only Hypocrisy for Safety: They have a fine time of it, and are mightily obliged to this Gentleman's Goodness and Justice, much good may it do'um. But the Duke out of measure is made brave in a bad Cause, a Ca●aline at least, or if you will, a Corah, that is leading them back to Egypt again: A mighty Charge; and but that it is not true, 'twere an Impeachable business; and because it is not, let this Gentleman take heed of a Scandalum Magnatum.  
But this cry for Liberty here, is to break out with Argile's Plot in Scotland. This is shrewdly hit. Politic every bit of it I thought Argile's Presbyterians and Liberty had not agreed so well together: I have heard such Folks hold as ill an Opinion of it, as this Gentleman, for his Ears.  
But besides all this, he tells us, Our time is short, we must in pure despair do Fears; and what are they but to maul and disgrace the Church Party at any rate? But if they will give us as good Quarter as they have received from the three or four Pamphlets for Liberty, I dare make the Bargain, that the Dissenters shall look no farther after Bishoprics, nor Church Livings, and I would to God it might rest there.  
What a stir is here that men pray to be quiet? O! but we know you won't be quiet, and therefore you shan't be quiet: There is nothing so idle, as being very cunning, and making every thing a Plot. So Tacitus makes Tiberius to have a deep one, in going to the House of Office: To be sure it was a necessary one.  
His Conclusion is hard upon us that advocates the Cause of tender Consciences, saying, We are men of no Honour, no Conscience, nor Honesty, but leaves the proof to be understood.  
Certainly he cannot have too much of those good Qualities, that advocates Tertullus like, against tender Consciences, and to give him his due, he is sensible of it; for he presently acknowledges his sharpness, but excuses it with the baseness of those that dare affirm the Excluders were Church of England Men. But for all that, it falls out to be true, and nothing but Truth pinches any Body.  
He concludes in defence of the Church of England's Severity, and says, Tell me how Christ can be Head of opposite Bodies? But what then? must you persecute where your Head forbids it? Though he is not Head of opposite Bodies, he does not destroy the Bodies of which he is not Head. But what does this Man think of an opposite Head and Body, the Head of one Mind, and the Body of another? An Head and no Member. Riddle me, Riddle me, what's this?  
He bids us, Consider this following place of Scripture, and bless the World with a Comment, Rev. 11.20.  
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest (or toleratest) that Woman Jezabel, which calleth herself a Prophetess, (a godly Woman) to teach and seduce my Servants to commit Fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to Idols. Now says he, I would fain know how long toleration has been a Christian Virtue, Rev. 11.  
By this never trust me, one would think him a Divine, every Inch of him, that can so cleaverly take Not Tolerating IN Communion, for Not Tolerating OUT of Communion.  
But is this the Dissenters case? Have they asked for the Churches, or do they usurp the Pulpits? or out of your Communion either, do they teach the use of Fornication, and Idolatrous Food? What stuff is this for a man of some Wit and Words? Besides, Jezabel was a Persecutor, and believed a Whore, which, with all the manners I have, I would fain know to whose Church it is the most part of our English Jezabels go?  
For his Query, How long Toleration has been a Christian Virtue? 'Tis plain, ever since Christ came, That bid the Tares should grow with the Wheat till the Harvest, which his own blessed Comment says, Is the end of the World, where I should be glad to meet this Gentleman, upon my Word. Till then, I would fain have him and his Friends let us alone, and then do their worst.  Luke 9 54, 55, 56. 
They said, Lord, wilt thou that we command that Fire come down from Heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But Jesus turned about, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what Spirit ye are of: For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's Lives, but to save them.  
An Exposition upon which, because the Question is perfectly in the Text, is humbly begged,  
Of his to Command With Liberty of Conscience.  
FINIS