THE QUAKER NO PAPIST, in Answer to The Quaker Disarmed.  
OR, A brief Reply and Censure of Mr. Thomas Smith's frivolous Relation of a Dispute held betwixt himself and certain Quakers at Cambridge.  
By HEN. DEN.  Ephes. 5.8, 9 
Walk as Children of light; For the fruit of the Spirit is in all GOODNESS, and RIGHTEOUSNESS, and TRUTH.  
LONDON Printed, and are to be sold by Francis Smith, at the Sign of the Elephant and Castle without Temple-Bar, 1659.   

To my learned Friend Mr. Thomas Smith, Bachelor in Divinity, Reader of the Rhetoric Lecture in Christ-Colledge in Cambridge, Keeper of the University Library, Rector of Cawcat in the same County, Antagonist to George Whitehead the Quaker, and the preaching Tinker.  
SIR, When your Book came to my hands, I resolved to give you a larger answer to your Letter sent to Mr. E. of Taft; But I found it so confused, that I have desisted to prosecute that resolution; you seem to be angry with the Tinker because he strives to mend Souls as well as Kettles and Pans: and you are so angry, that your passion clouded your reason, and made you forget what you had to do: the main drift of your Letter is to prove that none may preach except they be sent (and you do that also lamely.) Sir I think him unworthy the name of a Tinker that affirms that any one is sufficient to preach the Gospel without sending. By your confession the Tinker thinks otherwise, and doth not deny what you labour to prove; and so you contend with a shadow: he pleads his Mission and Commission from the Church at Bedford; it behoves you to prove either that this is false, and that the Church at Bedford never gave such a Commission, or else that the Church is not in a capacity to give such a Commission. You should also have proved that Mr. Thomas Smith hath a better Commission from some other Church, than the Tinker either hath or can have from the Church at Bedford. This would have drawn the acceptation of your friends. And it is a task worthy your labour, to send forth your determinations concerning the questions which are thus stated, by many of your friends.  
The Tinker of Bedford may have from the Church at Bedford as good a Commission as Mr. Thomas Smith hath from his Church.  
Mr. Thomas Smith hath as yet no better Commission to preach, than the Tinker of Bedford.  
This if you do, justify your own Commission, and make the Tinker's invalid, you will force your adversary to seek a better Commission, or to give over his trade. You must give me leave to propound something to your consideration: some shipwrackt men swimming to an Island, find there many inhabitants, to whom they preach: the heathen hearing are converted, and walk together in love, praising the Lord: whether the preaching of these shipwrackt men were a sin? Secondly whether it be not lawful for this Congregation to choose to themselves Pastors, and Governors, Teachers? etc. Thirdly, whether this Congregation may not find some fitting men, full of Faith, and of the Holy Ghost to preach to other unbelieving heathen? These things rightly determined will abundantly satisfy the expectation of your friends; who pray, that as God hath given you a common gift of Learning in an eminent measure, so he would be pleased to sanctify you with his Spirit, that your talon received may be employed towards the advancement of Apostolical Faith. Farewell, and read with patience the following Reply to your Disputation.   

The Quaker no Papist, in Answer to The QUAKER Disarmed, etc.  
I Have seen a fresh Encounter, which happened betwixt Thomas Smith, Master of Arts of Christ's College, and keeper of the University Library in Cambridge, and George Whitehead whom they call Quaker, a person wholly unverst in all manner of Learning, as appears by the whole process of the Dispute: wherein for T. S. even to have overcome was to lose the victory; and to encounter, was to incur disgrace; but to publish in print so disgraceful a Combat, and to fill the world with a victory so ignoble, what is it for him but to glory in his own shame? And yet this is not all. For had Thomas Smith, though encountering such an under-match, pressed such Arguments, and insisted upon such Answers, as might have given satisfaction to learned men, his proceed (possibly) might have been held pardonable; but his Reasons and Answers being such, for the most part, as are clearly unworthy of a man of his repute, (for the world, you must know, takes him for a great Scholar, and he himself seems not altogether unwilling that it should do so; witness that impertinent passage of his own, in the first page of his Preface, where he tells you he had been, August 25. 1659. all the afternoon at St. JOHN'S COLL. LIBRARY turning over ARABIC and other MSS, etc.) I say his Reasons and Arguments being so much unworthy of a man of that esteem, which the world may be thought to have of him, the publication he hath made of the Action, and that with such a height of Triumph and pretence of victory on his part, seems not a little ridiculous. For to give you a small taste of his acuteness at first. He proves there are three persons in the B. Trinity, because there are three Hees. Now this Argument, I think, would prove as well that three Horses are three persons; for they are three Hees: and if to be a He be the definition of a Person, than three she's cannot be three Persons.  
2. Secondly, He would prove Whitehead to be a Papist, (a disguized Papist, forsooth; according to that Bedlam-fancy which Pryn, and Baxter, and the Father of lies, and this vain man with the rest, go daily sowing in the heads of such people, as they find apt and willing to be deceived by tales.) He will prove, I say, that Whitehead is a Papist; and how think you? Because he refuses to take the Oath of Abjuration. But does George Whitehead refuse the Oath, because it abjures Popery? no such matter. For he plainly and presently, upon mentioning the Oath to him, professeth, I deny all Popery: which although it doth not satisfy T. S. who is not ashamed to reply upon him, That a Papist will say so too; yet I make no doubt, but it will satisfy any indifferent man till T. S. brings some better argument to prove Whiteheads being a Papist, then his bare refusing the Oath of Abjuration. For Whitehead refuses that Oath, not because it abjures Popery, but because it is an Oath, and because he thinks it unlawful to swear at all. And by such another Argument he might as easily (if he had pleased) have proved him to be a good Protestant. For if instead of the Oath of Abjuration he had offered him the Oath of Pius Quartus, which is proposed to all such as take degrees in the Popish Universities beyond Seas, he would hazard to have refused that too. Yea the Argument, were there any force in it, would prove the poor Quakers to be very Mahumetans, and Atheists; which I hope no man is yet so mad as to conceive of them. For were there an Oath exacted of them, to swear that Mahomet's Religion is false, (which none but Mahumetans for the precise matter of it would refuse) or to swear that there is a God, which none but Atheists, (if they) would scruple at, yet Quakers would refuse both the one and the other, standing to their principles. So that T. S. may make what he will of a Quaker, if it were honesty to circumvent him in this manner.  
3. After this he tells Whitehead a story of twelve men going in Embassage. The one shows his Commission, the other eleven can show none: and then adds, every one of them exclaiming against this man who shows his Commission, and against the other for Counterfeit. In the mean time I could wish that T. S. would remember whence he had his Commission. But to the purpose. Is not this pure sense, think you, that he speaks here? do these eleven both complain against the true Ambassador and themselves against one another also, as Counterfeits? crying (says he) aloud, that he himself, and he alone, is the true Ambassador, though he have nothing to prove it by, more than the other ten false. Who can make sense of this? just now there was eleven, who had no true Commission to show; and now they are shrunk up into ten? What's become of the eleventh? who is that he himself, and he alone, who says he is the true Ambassador? is there any mention of such a He? Are such matters as these fit to pass the print from such a public University? well; this is but a Minutia, a petty oversight, in comparison of what follows. He is again at the mystery of the B. Trinity, and not only grants, but makes show to prove that the three Persons in the Trinity were in different places at once, that is, (if he understands the terms he useth in the sense of his adversary, as he must do if he will dispute fairly, and not be counted an Equivocatour and Shifter) so as that one Person was, where the other was not. The one went down, (saith he) the other came up, etc. God the Father in Heaven, God the Son coming out of the water, God the Holy Ghost descending on this side heaven, like a Dove. What stuff is here to come from an University man, a Master of Arts, a turner over of Arabic and other Manuscripts? For if he thinks as he speaks, (and who knows his meaning in this case, but by what he speaks?) whilst he labours to prove the poor Quakers to be introducers of Heresies, he himself introduces a most damnable Heresy, namely in denying the ubiquity of the three Divine Persons: for by the supposition of his argument he plainly ties God the Father to heaven; and the Holy Ghost, with the second Person, he shuts quite out of it: which is blasphemy to assert. For the holy Ghost is God equal with the Father; and our Saviour, although according to his humane nature he be not every where, yet according to his divine nature he is: so that it is not only false and impious, but impossible for a Christian to conceive, that any one of the Divine Persons should be, where the other are not, as he labours to prove; because I say, they are (all of them) every where.  
4. This only hath been to give you a taste of T. S. his abilities in point of Scolarship and reasoning; guess hereby if you please, how great a Divine, and what a good Christian you may expect to find him. I shall enter now a little further with him into the pith and substance of his Arguments. His craft and cunning, I see, goes much beyond his learning. For the truth is, he presses most especially such kind of Arguments against George Whitehead and them of his way, which with far greater reason might have been urged against him and his. His artifice is this, and 'tis but too common and familiar with those of his Gang. When he disputes against Papists, he sticks close to the principles common to him and those who have separated themselves from the Church of Rome, under what notion soever they pass: then their Judgement, and their Arguments, and their Principles are good with him. But let him dispute with any of those who divide themselves from the Church of England, his late flourishing, but now fading Mistress, (not to say Idol, which perhaps were more proper) to convince any of them either of Heresy or Schism, he assumes the very same Arguments, and urges the same Reasons which Papists do, both against the Episcopal and Presbyterial Congregations. Who is so ignorant, as not to know, how often and how vehemently Popish Authors have ever, and yet do urge all sorts of Separatists from them to show their Commission, and by what Authority they took upon them to preach their new Doctrine, contrary to that which was then publicly believed and preached; to enter in others Charges, Jurisdictions, and Cures, to make themselves Pastors and Doctors of their own accord, without any lawful Call and Ordination thereto? It cannot be denied, but this is the chief Argument, which he presses against Whitehead in this dispute. But was not Luther pressed with the like by King Henry the eighth, by Sir Thomas Moor, by the Popish Doctor Eckius, and others? It is too manifest to be denied. And did not Sales Bishop of Geneva urge the same against Calvin and Beza, for usurping upon his Episcopal Chair and Authority, by their preaching without his leave, and contrary to the Doctrine of all the Popish Bishops of Christendom? Was it not the Plea of all the Bishops and Parish Priests in Germany, Swethland, Denmark, France, Switzerland, and Holland, against the first Ministers of the Reformation, when they entered into their several Parishes and Dioceses, and by force of their preaching took away a great part of their people and their children from them. Did not those Bishops and Priests here in England, who were cast into prison in the first of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, complain in the same manner, when they saw their Episcopal Sees and Benefices possessed by others, who had been formerly subject to their Authority? did they not call upon them, as T. S. does now upon George Whitehead and his friends, show your Commission? Are not all the Books of Papists in those times, and all their Histories, filled with the same complaints? Or was there ever any other answer generally given by Protestants to them, save only that which George Whitehead and those of his way do give now to T. S. namely, that the first Preachers of the Reformation had, and they now have, an extraordinary calling from God; that they were sent by God, and not by man, to reform the errors and abuses that were in the Church? When Luther and Calvin, Zuinglius, Bucer, Peter Martyr and the rest were demanded to show their Commission, did they, or could they with truth, make any other answer than what George Whitehead makes to T. S. that they had a Commission, but could not show it under hand and Seal? so that indeed it was George Whiteheads memory that failed, or perhaps his want of experience in the History of former times, that he did not retort upon T. S. his own Argument; which if he had done, he had made T. S. stand as mute, as by his own report he so often made the Quakers to stand.  
5. If he will give me leave, I shall in a word or two try the issue with him here upon that point. Suppose then that G. W. had aborded his adversary thus. T. S. what Commission hast thou to teach me and this good company here concerning matters of our soul? perhaps T. S. would reply, I come not here as a Minister to preach, but only as a Christian friend to dispute and argue with you concerning your errors, and to reduce, if I be able, both yourself, and those whom you pervert, into the right way. Well be it so. But by what Commission then, says G. W. dost thou T. S. preach to thy parish at Caucat? who gave thee thy Commission for that? T. S. replies, some of the late English Bishops, (for I suppose he is an ordained Minister, as well as a Master of Arts:) G. W. demands further, but who gave the Protestant Bishops their Commission? who made them Bishops at first in Queen Elizabeth's Reign? some say, that T. S. aught of right to stand mute here; the first Protestants Bishops having no other Ordination, but what they mutually gave to themselves; I will not say at the Tavern in Cheapside, but grant, it might possibly be at some other more seemly place. But if upon that account he will not be silent, but pretend, that the first Protestant Bishops, to wit, Matthew Parker and the rest were ordained by other Protestant Bishops, before them, viz. by Wil Barlow, Miles Coverdale, John Scory, etc. Who were all Bishops in King Edward the sixths' time, G.W. will not yet give over the pursuit, but demand of him, who gave William Barlow, Miles Coverdale, and Scory their Commissions; who gave them a Commission to make Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury? And here T. S. will be mute again: For certainly, whatsoever he may think, and also allow in his private judgement, he would not be so hardy, as to profess openly in that Assembly where he was, that they received their Commission from the Popish Bishops of King Harry the eighths' time; nor could he in truth affirm it. For, to the making of a lawful Bishop of a particular Diocese, it's well known, that according to Popish and Prelatical principles, (not to say Presbyterian also) there is a double power ordinarily to be given, viz. the power of Order, and the power of Jurisdiction. Bare Episcopal Ordination gives no more power of Jurisdiction, that is to be Bishop of such a Diocese, then bare Ministerial Ordination makes a man to be Pastor, or Minister, of such a Parish; but that power, viz. of Jurisdiction, (say both the Popish, Prelatical, and Presbyterian Doctors) must be had from the lawful Ecclesiastical Superior. Now G. W. demands of T. S. what lawful Ecclesiastical Superior gave William Barlow, and Miles Coverdale Authority to make Bishops in the Diocese of London, or in the Province of Canterbury? Pool the Popish Archbishop and Cardinal was dead, and Boner Bishop of London was cooped up in the Marshal-sea, and consented to nothing that was done in that kind. Nay he plainly and positively forbade the same under pain of Excommunication. If he answer, they had Authority from the Queen, then will G. W. reply again, the Queen was a Lay-person, and a woman, the Queen was no part of the Ecclesiastical Ministry, or Hierarchy, and therefore could give no spiritual, or Ecclesiastical power, (nor the Kings that succeeded her) to any one properly to be Bishop of such a Diocese, or Pastor of such a Parish, no more than my people here can give me Commission to be their Preacher; which thou, T. S. (I am sure) will't not allow them to do. And if it be granted, saith G. W. that Laymen, or Lay-people, (as you call them) may grant Commissions to others to be Bishops and Pastors of Souls, what rule will you prescribe from Scripture, or how will you determine, to how many, and to what sorts of Lay-people and people you will extend that power? If to the King in his Kingdom, why not to a Prince, a Duke, an Earl, etc. in their respective Principalities, Dukedoms, Counties, etc. why not to every Judge in his Circuit, to every Sheriff in his Shire, to every Justice of Peace in his District, to every Lord in his Manor, lastly, why not to every Master in his Family? why may not, I say, every Master of a Family, upon the like grounds, either be himself, or constitute some other to be Pastor and Preacher to his family? And if thus, why may not any Congregation, or company of people, either elect and constitute their own Preacher over them? or such as have an inward Call to it, take that office upon them, by and with the consent of such as are willing to be instructed by them? and when they do so, who in reason shall quarrel with them for want of Commission?  
6. Now I cannot sufficiently wonder, why those of the English Ministry glory so much in their Succession, even from Popish Bishops, seeing that beside the ridiculous absurdity of it, they are in this perfectly singular, and divided in sense and judgement, from all other reformed Churches in the world. So that if this Succession be the glory of the English Clergy, as they pretend, it must be the shame and confusion of all the rest of their brethren to want it: and if it be not the shame, but glory of others to want it, yea to cry shame upon it, and to reject it as a Superstitious relic of Popery, and mark of Antichrist, as others think (no less wise and learned then themselves) it must be the shame of our Clergy to have it, and a greater ignomy to glory in their shame. Let them rather look upon that Evangelical example, which the Protestant Ministers of France, (their Brethren, if they will acknowledge them for such) have given them in their Assembly at Poysie, not only in renouncing and abjuring whatsoever any of them had received of Ordination from Rome, but as much as in them lay, blotting it quite out, and washing away all such impurity from them, and so ordering their whole Ministry, that it might not seem to have any the least dependence of the Babylonish Ordination.  
7. But indeed that which deserves to be most reflected upon in this trifling dispute, is that Major of his first Syllogism, viz. Whosoever refuses to take the Oath of Abjuration is a Papist: a Proposition, wherein there is as much spite as there is little wit. What had the man to do with Papists, when he disputed with a Quaker? whom he had reason to think, hated the Papists, as much, and even more (perhaps) then did T. S. himself: but it is the fashion, Papists and Popery must be brought in by head and shoulders, whatsoever the difference be, to exasperate men's spirits, and to make odious, or suspected, those whom we cannot better confute. Whosoever, says he, refuses to take the Oath of Abjuration is a Papist. I answer it is noised abroad, (how truly I cannot say, let them look to that, who either make, or give credit to lies) that Popery increases in this Nation. I dare say, could T. S. maintain the truth of this proposition, he would make it increase with a witness. Were this true, we might look to find one half of our Nation (probably) Papists; who unless they would swear in some degree or other against their Consciences, would discover themselves to be Papists by the refusal of this Oath. We should find no small numbers, even of Episcopal men, Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Quakers, and all professors beside Papists, and even whilst they remain at deadly feud and hatred against Popery, to show themselves to be Papists this way: nay all sorts of men, and all conditions, Nobility, Gentry, Citizens, Countrymen, Officers of the Army, Magistrates, Soldiers, (and what not?) would by the Logic of T. S. fall under suspicion of Popery. If any man thinks I speak that which is incredible, I desire him but seriously to consider the form and words of the Oath, and then tell me, whether it containeth nothing that may be a strain and matter of scruple to a good Conscience, in all sorts of persons, and of what party soever in this Nation, that do make Conscience, or (to use the Preachers words, Eccles. 9.2.) that feareth an Oath.  
8. First, whosoever takes this Oath must swear, and take the Almighty and All-knowing God to witness, and that as he shall answer to that great God at the day of Judgement, That he BELIEVES there is no Purgatory, no Transubstantiation, etc. Now this word believe, being in a mat-of Religion, and the profession of the same, can signify nothing but a Christian Belief, or Faith, and imports thus much, I N. N. do swear in the presence of Almighty God, that I believe as certainly, that there is no Purgatory, etc. as I believe that there is a God, a Heaven, a Hell, a Judgement to come, or any other Article of the Christian Faith; and I swear to believe this so certainly, that I am ready to lose my fortunes, liberty, and life itself, rather than ever to be persuaded there is any such thing, as Purgatory, Transubstantiation, etc. yea I swear also, that I believe most certainly, that I can never go to heaven, if I did not as much believe there is no Purgatory, as I do believe there is a God, a Heaven, or Hell. All this, I say, is virtually and really comprehended, (in this case) in the word Believe. Now what man of Conscience amongst us of the reformed Religion will venture his soul so far, as to swear to all this? we have all separated from Rome, and clearly renounced all Romish error; but is any of us (I say not all, but any of us) so certain, that there is no Purgatory, as he is certain that there is a God, a Heaven, and Hell? are we all of us so certain, that the Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament, as we are certain, that it is in Heaven? The Scriptures teach us, that there is a Hell, and that Christ is in Heaven, so expressly and clearly, that no Christian ever did, or can deny it: but where do the Scriptures teach us expressly and plainly that there is no Purgatory? no Transubstantiation, & c? If indeed the Oath had only obliged those who take it, to swear that they are not certain that there is any Purgatory, as they are certain that there is a Hell; that they doubt of Purgatory; but they do not doubt of Hell; that they have no persuasion that there is a Purgatory, and are fully persuaded that there is a Hell; that they really think there is no Purgatory, and do not believe there is any, or any such like expressions, it might easily have been, that those of our reformed Churches should bear with their Consciences to take it upon occasion: but for any of them to swear that he BELIEVES there is none, that is, makes it a part and Article of his Faith to BELIEVE there is no Purgatory, as much as he does to believe there is a God a Heaven, or Hell, this I think should not easily down with all Protestants. Nay, what do I know whether it be revealed in Scripture, or no? it is not any Fundamental matter of Belief; and whatsoever is not Fundamental to Belief, nor absolutely necessary to salvation, we ourselves teach, that it may be so ambiguously and obscurely delivered in Scripture, that at least the unlearned shall not be able clearly to discover it. And how then shall unlearned men dare to swear, as in effect they do swear when they take the Oath, that it is not revealed of God in Scripture, or not contained in Scripture; when I say, by reason of the unnecessariness and obscurity of the thing itself, they are not certain whether it be revealed there or no? Is it not a just matter of scruple and fear, think you, to any timorous conscience, to swear a thing not to be, which he is not certain, but that it may be, contrary to what he swears? Again, seeing points not necessary to salvation are, or may be so obscurely and ambiguously delivered in Scripture, will any man, that makes conscience of an Oath, though otherwise not unlearned, venture to swear, that such and such a thing is not contained in Scripture, only because himself conceives it is not there? may not he, or any one, for all his learning, be deceived in matters doubtful and obscure? will he make his own humane learning, and private judgement, the rule of his Faith and Conscience, as he must do, whosoever makes this proposition, There is no Purgatory, an Article of his Faith? can it be denied, but that many men, otherwise no less learned and judicious than ourselves, think they find it there? and though we think they err, yet is it reasonable, that any of us should swear that they err? The Scripture contains it not expressly, or in terms, one way or other, whether that there is a Purgatory, or that there is none: but say the Papist, it contains it implicitly and in certain general principles, that there is a Purgatory; from whence learned men, both of ancient and latter times have sufficiently proved it: we Protestants think the contrary, that it is not sufficiently proved; well. Is it now reasonable, or according to good conscience, that every private man should be made to determine that by his Oath, which is in controversy and dispute betwixt so many learned, and for aught we know, or can in charity think, conscientious men? Add hereunto, that supposing as we Protestants hold, there were no place of Scripture, neither clear nor obscure, neither in general nor particular, proving Purgatory; nor any Tradition at all for it; in a word let us suppose, that God hath not at all revealed it, which is the utmost that can be supposed by us, yet I think no man can rightly swear with a good Conscience, that there is no such matter, or that the opinion which asserts such a thing is absolutely false. For how many Mysteries and and Things known to God may there be most true in themselves, which God never revealed, nor happily ever will reveal; and which therefore, duly considering the matter, we can neither swear to be, or not to be; because we have no sufficient certainty pro or con concerning them? This Abjuration therefore, or forswearing, of Purgatory, or any other of the points contained in the Oath, and required to be abjured, for aught I yet conceive of them, is a most rash and temerarious swearing; it is a swearing a thing to be false, which for aught he knows may be true; it is exposing a man's self to evident peril of taking a false oath, and thereby of committing a most grievous and heinous sin in the sight of God.  
9 Another consideration that may be against the oath, and reflecting upon all persons as well as Papists, is this, that a man is required to swear, that no power whatsoever can absolve him from this Oath; this is couched in these words, No power derived from the Pope, or Churchof Rome, nor ANY OTHER PERSON; can absolve me from this Oath. For though neither the Pope nor Church of Rome can do it, yet to swear, that no other person hath power to do it, is to swear a thing manifestly false. For seeing one lawful Parliament can dissolve and annul what any former Parliament hath enacted, yea, the self same Parliament can annul those Acts which itself hath made; Suppose that either this present, or some succeeding Parliament, should abolish this Oath, and declare it to be no longer of force to oblige any, should not all that have taken it be absolved from the obligation of it? And is it not clear, that whosoever takes it in this form, does, as much as in him lies, forswear and abjure the very privileges and authority of the Parliament itself, which are due to it, and inseparable from it by the Fundamental Laws of the Nation? Whosoever, I say, takes this Oath, swears as much indeed against the known power of the chief Magistracy of this Nation, as against the pretended power of the Pope, or Church of Rome. For though it should be answered, that the Oath expresses power derived from any other person, and not from any other persons; yet it is as easily replied, that it having said immediately before, the Pope or Church of Rome, which latter signifies a collection of many together, as much as the Parliament does, the words any other person may be understood either of any one single person, as is the Pope, or of many single persons collected and united together, as is that of the Church and Parliament. So that the meaning is of any other person, such as the Pope or Church of Rome is, that is either considered separate and alone, or joined with others. For in Church and Parliament both, the power is derived from every one; every one is a Parliament-man, and hath Parliament power partially in himself: So that whatsoever is voted or done in Parliament, may truly enough be said to be derived from a person, as being either expressly or virtually the Act and Suffrage of every single person in Parliament. Whence follows my inference, That to swear that no person whatsoever can absolve me from this Oath, is to swear, that the Parliament itself cannot do it.  
10. To be short, Suppose some Protestant, Native of this Nation, should have lived long within the Pope's Dominions in Italy, with his House and Family, and should there have natularized himself, and made himself a subject of the Pope, and after that returning hither again upon his occasions, should at his entrance, being pressed to take the Oath, refuse it, because he thereby swears that the Pope hath no Jurisdiction nor Authority over him in particular, which in this particular case is contrary unto truth: would it not be ridiculous now to use T. S. his argument against him, and pretend he is not a Protestant, but a Papist, because he refuses the Oath of Abjuration? Not to urge, that in justice the Oath could not be urged upon him, nor any advantage taken against him for refusing it, though he were indeed a Papist, by reason of the said clause, which renders the Oath unlawful for him to take, abstracting from Religion, because the Pope in this case hath, de jure at least, Authority over such a person in particular.  
11. But the Prelatical malice objects yet further, that the urging of this Oath of Abjuration is absolutely necessary for the peace of the Nation: Papists, say they, are a people whose principles are incompatible with all Governments and Governors, who are not of their own persuasion; their Religion teaches them, That Faith is not to be kept with Heretics, and they esteem all as such, who are not members of their Catholic Church. Therefore they ought not to be permitted to grow rich by enjoying and improving their estates, as other men; but the Oath of Abjuration was well advised, in that respect, by the Presbyterians, the better to find them out, that the Laws might be put in execution against them.  
12. To this I answer first, That this is rather the result of their malice who make the objection. They will never be drawn to take notice, that Papists universally disown that Tenet which is objected to them as theirs; and in charity we are bound to believe the best of others, and also to think that they speak true, where we cannot prove the contrary; as in this case they will, I presume, hardly be able to do. For is not the Imputation proved manifestly to be false, by continual experience of Protestants treating, commercing, and dealing with Papists as confidently and constantly, as with those of their own profession? And find they not as much honest proceeding and credit in them, as in their own? They will never look upon the just obedience which those Papists subjects of the United Netherlands do pay unto their Superiors, the States of those Provinces; and the security which that Commonwealth enjoyeth by granting some kind of liberty to them in the exercise of their Religion. But the malice of these objectors is inherent in them. Before the Scortish war they urged the same Argument (almost) against the Presbyterians; they were people incompatible with Government and Governors too: To this end they proclaimed, that Calvinisme was not brought into any Country, but with the deposition of the then Governors, and change or ruin of the Government, instancing in Geneva, Scotland, the Netherlands, etc. not taking notice of the peaceable demeanour and obedience which the Duke of Savoy finds from those of Piedmont and others of the same Religion. After the Scottish war they urged (together with the Presbyterians, who were easily enough infected with such leaven) the Incompatibility of Anabaptists and other Sectaries, (as they called them) producing to this purpose the story of Munster, without taking notice of our peaceable submissions to the State of Holland, our present obedience to our Governors at home, and our disowning the principles which occasioned those Munster Riots. Nor do they, while they fall thus upon others, take any notice of, or endeavour to answer those things which are standing objections against themselves; to wit, in relation to their rebellion, disobedience, and Apostasy from the Government of the Church of Rome; which in good earnest I think they will never be able to answer, upon their own principles, that is, supposing their Ordination, for which they so much contend, to be of necessity and of Divine Right, and that they had it (as most certainly they had) from the Church of Rome. And if they can, they would do very well to give the world, and their own party too, some satisfaction concerning those Arguments in form against them, which are published at the end of the Conference lately held betwixt Mr. Gunning and Mr. Peirson, Ministers of the Prelatical party, and two Romanists, who undertook to prove them Schismatics. The Conference is public, and the not answering to what is objected therein against them is by some counted a prejudice to their cause, and a scandal, equal to that which Mr. Gunning gives by his like silence, to what hath been long since printed against him, in relation to the public Conference at Clement's Church without Temple-Bar.  
13. Secondly, I answer to the main objection, if Papists are therefore only punished because of the forementioned doctrine, seeing it cannot with any truth be charged upon the Papists in general, but only upon some few (if any) why do we torment their consciences, by requiring them to abjure so many other opinions, which are neither relative to this that is objected, nor such, as the maintaining of them can be dangerous to the State? what is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and Worshipping of the Sacrament, (which they verily believe is the Body and whole Person of Christ) of Merits, of Purgatory above mentioned, etc. in relation to Government? May not a man be a good Subject, because he thinks that Christ is in the Sacrament, and that Good Works merit salvation? who will maintain it, but only those whose passion hath wholly blinded their judgement, and their interest extinguished all considerations of equity and charity towards their suffering and oppressed Brethren? So that, if the present proceeding against them be not a mere persecution, and a mere State trick to get money from these people, (whose condition verily is such, as every one may abuse them, even in the streets, without offence to others, nay with satisfaction enough unto many) some better way might be found to try the Papists fidelity to the State, than an Oath of Abjuration; unless we be so wise, as to think we are then most secure of men's fidelity, when we have forced them to abjure their religion and conscience towards God. Let there be an Oath of Abjuration framed, wherein Papists shall be required only to abjure that Doctrine imputed to them, viz. That Faith is not to be kept with Heretics or the like, and then, if any refuse such an Oath, let them be dealt with as men not fit to live in a Commonwealth; let them be banished. But for such as give security of themselves by taking such an Oath, let us not be such public Denyers and Contradictors of our own declared Principles, (whereby we disclaim and profess against all persecution for Conscience) as to continue Sequestrations, or to inflict any other Mulcts and Penalties upon these men; of whose honesty and conscience, I conceive, we may be reasonably well assured, by their long and so patiented enduring all manner of prejudice (almost) and hard dealing, rather than they would renounce their conscience towards God, or make profession of any thing pertaining to Religion, contrary to the light that is in them, and which doubtless they believe to be of God. No doubt those who framed the Oath of Abjuration, took it to be a very effectual means to impoverish Papists, and by keeping them low to disable them from working harm against the Commonwealth. But what is policy, when contrary to Religion? if it be iniquity, injustice, and oppression to treat men so without cause, or without their particular demerit and fault, it is not any feigned and imaginary reason, or necessity, of State that will excuse those who either Act, or give consent, countenance, or Authority to such unchristian Actings. We should rather remember what the Apostle tells us, Rom. 3.8. That such who say, Let us do evil that good may come, their damnation is just. Neither can I see any such great reason of fear, and danger from them. For having once abjured what is objected to them as only dangerous in their Religion, and sworn obedience to the present Government and Governors, they have given us some evidence already, that they will perform those oaths, and that they cannot be absolved from them, by the scruple which they have, and the much difficulty that they make against the Oath of Abjuration: which certainly they would swallow, if they had no conscience at all of an oath, or did believe, that the Pope or any other had power to allow them to commit a perjury, or to absolve them from their lawful Oaths. The Lord send us, who preach and declare against persecution, to follow that equal and golden rule of our Lord Jesus Christ; Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do that unto them also: for this is the Law and the Prophets, Matth. 7.12.  
14. I shall take notice of one only Objection more, and then leave our Disputant and Scholar T. S. to go turn over his Arabic and other manuscripts in St. John's College Library. It is to say something concerning those common Bruits which are raised against Popish Priests and Jesuits, as if they did secretly insinuate themselves into the Congregations of different professions in Religion that are now amongst us, covering themselves sometimes under one form, and sometimes under another; sometimes seeming Anabaptists, sometimes Presbyterians, sometimes Independents, sometimes Quakers, Seekers, Antiscripturists, what not? all to carry on their design of working divisions and confusions amongst us both in Church and Commonwealth, that so in time they may bring both to ruin, and upon the ruins build their own Babel again, that is, introduce and establish their own Religion and Government over us. I answer, It cannot be denied, but that such reports are spread; but does it follow therefore that they are true? It ought rather to be examined by whom they are spread, and to what ends. Before the Government that now is, was established, and Liberty of Conscience either owned, or at least publicly countenanced and favoured by the State, I do not remember that any such reports were. But assoon as the Prelatists saw themselves quite unhorsed, and the Presbyterians found that they were not like to get up into the saddle, then presently our Counsels, and Armies, and all were transformed into masked Jesuits and Priests; and ever since the tale has held currant, to the great dishonour of the State, and scandal of the whole Government, both Military and Civil: who, if they had not been extremely patiented towards a froward people, would have made some of the spreaders of those reports to have made better proof of them, than I am sure they ever yet did, or I believe, ever will be able to do. For I ask, was there ever any such thing duly proved? was there ever any Jesuit or Priest taken under such mask, or disguise? There was an idle fellow (one Ramsey) many years since brought from Newcastle upon a slight suspicion: they that sent the information, why did they not prosecute the business? what hindered them from making a full discovery of that pretended, and most villainous Imposture, if it had been true? They had him here many years in prison; why did they not procure his further examination and trial? Did any man hinder them? They are challenged to it; let them declare the truth: but let any man of honesty and conscience mark the proceed of these men, I mean the authors and spreaders of these stories. All the while they had him in prison, they were as silent and mute as fishes; there was not a word spoken of Ramsey. As soon as they understand, that the man, after a long imprisonment upon bare information and suspicion of I know not what, had procured his liberty, out comes a fresh information against him by Prynne, that he was got to Cambridge, and was so bold there, as to offer Dispute or Conference with the Hebrew Professor, and to profess himself Body and Soul for the Roman Church. Truly how far they of the Roman Church think themselves concerned in what this fellow professes, I know not; but certainly that Book-maker (Prynne's) proceeding against him, is just as honest, as if, having my neighbour face to face, I should not dare to speak a word against him; but as soon as his back were turned, or that I knew he were far enough for making me an answer, I should call him Thief, and Felon, and all the naught that can be. There is such another story published by him upon an information (as he pretends) from Bristol: but that also was after the party was gone, who should be the disguized Priest. But truly if such groundless and unproved calumnies can be thought to deserve credit, ere it be long no man's innocency will be able to protect him against suspicion and slander. The Papists disclaim the Imputation as a most injurious slander, suggested against them merely by the malice of their enemies of the Prelatical and Presbyterian party. Insomuch, that I for my part do very confidently assure myself, that if an oath were tendered to all the Papists in this Nation, they would willingly swear, that neither they themselves, nor any that they know, did ever use any such practice, or ever thought it lawful to dissemble their Religion in such manner; or to make profession (for what ends soever) to be of any religion, save only their own, yea (as I have heard some say) though they might gain the whole world thereby to be of their Religion, or that they might subvert and destroy all the Heresies, Sects, and false Religions that are in the world by doing so.  
15. We all know 'tis a fallacious way of arguing to proceed a posse ad esse, (as they speak at Cambridge) viz. to prove that a thing really is, because it is possiible that it may be: and yet no better is the argument of the Papists Adversaries in this case. They know the Popish Priests and Jesuits are men, that have a zeal for their Religion, no less than other, and that 'tis likely they are not asleep all this while, but are using endeavours to bring their designs of gaining Proselytes about: whence they conclude, that seeing divisions among ourselves, and dissensions in matters concerning Religion, seem to be one great advantage for them, that therefore (questionless) they set themselves by all ways and means whatsoever to foment and improve them. But certainly, till the thing be more evident, Christian Charity, (if that be a thing that signifies any thing with us) should teach us another lesson: and that seeing such manner of dissembling in Religion is a most heinous crime and sin against God, (and that even according to their principles and professions as well as our own) we ought not to charge them with it upon light grounds, but rather be inclined to think the contrary, and that there is no such matter: for that doubtless is the property of true Charity, and the sense of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 13.7. where he saith, Charity Believeth all things, Hopeth all things, that is, (if you will hear it Brethren) the best of all things. Where we do not too too evidently see evil, we must believe good. Not to urge, that if this way of reasoning were good, such a thing is conducible to Papists ends, therefore Papists practise it, why should not the Presbyterian, for the like reason, accuse the Prelatical men, that they secretly insinuate themselves, and work underhand the rising of New Sects, to weaken thereby the Presbyterian party, to disgrace, yea and displace too, where they can, their Ministry, to the end that in time way may be made for them to reinduce their Prelatical Government? And for the like reason why may not the Independent, (if he will) suspect and accuse the Presbyterians, that they send privately their Emissaries amongst them, to put new opinions into people's heads, that so in time, divisions and dissensions growing, they may bring the yoke of their Discipline over the necks of the whole Nation? Thus may they mutually accuse one another, and frame what suspicions they please against each other, if mere conjectures, likelihoods, and possibilities might serve the turn. In the beginning of the Scottish War what was more rife in the mouths of the Prelatical Clergy, then that the Papists concurred underhand with the Presbyterians, and the Presbyterians made use of Papists, to advance the Geneva Government against Bishops, thereby to destroy Order in their Church and Monarchy in their Government? no sooner was that War ended, and the Bishops pulled down, but both Prelatist and Presbyterian frame the like accusation against the Anabaptists and other Sectaties, (as they call them) That they concurred and plotted with Papists, and Papists with them, to hinder Reformation, and to introduce Popery under the notion of Liberty of Conscience. But the suspicion not so well fastening upon them, 'tis at length derived upon the Quakers; and there it may probably rest and thrive, inasmuch as the Quakers are a people, as to matter of conversation, most estranged from the fashions of the world, and as to matter of interest, I think so unprovided of all humane help, that they are as little able to vindicate themselves as the Papists, and consequently must be content to be both abused alike.  
16. But I had almost forgot my Opponent T. S. I have only to desire him (at parting) to consider how much an over acting zeal oftentimes obstructeth sound judgement. This is not the first time, that it hath betrayed him to censure. His passionate expression, (so I may call it rather than a proposition,) viz. that all who refuse the Oath of Abjuration are Papists, would prove himself, if he rightly considers it, as much a Papist, as it would prove George Whitehead one; yea, and more too; inasmuch as George Whitehead refuses it only, because it is an Oath, and not as it contains this or that matter: but it's more than probable, that T. S. if he be a true Protestant Divine of the English Hierarchy, out of his declared respects to Antiquity, and a good conscience also, would not willingly abjure, that is, deny upon his Oath, some of the particulars contained in the Oath. But I will not contest with him about that. I wish him often to remember the counsel of the wise man, Prov. 24.28. especially when he enters such disputes as these. Be not witness, saith he, against thy neighbour without cause, and deceive not with thy lips. To be a witness without cause, is to speak any thing to the prejudice of our neighbour rashly and unadvisedly, and otherwise then the due order of Justice and Charity doth require. This I think T. S. hath not so well observed as he ought to have done, both in the dispute itself and in the publication of it. However I remain his servant in all good offices.  
H. D.   

A Postscript.  
YOu (Mr. Tho. Smith) are very earnest to fasten the suspicion of Popery upon your Adversaries, especially George Whitehead: but 'tis a wonder to me, that (being Rhetoric Professor) you remember no better that honest advice of the Orator, given you in your Grammar, Qui alterum incusat probri, etc. He that accuses his neighbour of any crime, aught to examine himself well, and take heed, that he be not found guilty of it himself. I will not say you are a Papist; it should be too much contrary to Charity, considering what you profess. But this I do say, that you give more cause of suspicion that way, than any thing you have yet objected against George Whitehead. I shall give two Instances of this, and leave you then to your private Meditations.  
First, At the end of your Letter to Mr. E. of Taft, you talk of a pure Spouse of Christ, the Church in all ages. Now, Sir, is not this in effect to justify the Church of Rome to be a pure Church? What other Church, I pray you, was there in all ages, but the Roman Church, and those which agreed, and agree with her in all, or at least in the most and grossest of those corruptions and errors, for which Protestants (when time was) separated themselves from the Roman Church, and for which they do still at this day abandon her Communion.  
Secondly, you say, That merely upon the Authority of this Church, we receive the Canon of Scriptures. And what is this (good Sir) but to say, that either the Authority of the Church is Divine and Infallible, (which none but Papists will say) or that we have no Divine and Infallible Assurance, which Books of Scripture are Canonical, and which are not? For as concerning the Inward Assurance of the Spirit, 'tis too notorious how much you reject it, with the Papists. Ex ungue Leonem. From these two Capital Assertions of Popery let any indifferent man judge, whether Mr. T. S. (netwithstanding his vehement pretendings to the contrary) may not be justly thought to favour the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome, a little more than a man of his Profession should do.  
But I have done. The Grace of God, a due knowledge of yourself, with a spirit of true Charity towards your Brethren, (which are all, that profess the Blessed Gospel of Jesus Christ in sincerity) be ever with you. Amen.  
FINIS.