A gag for the QUAKERS, WITH AN ANSWER TO m DENN'S Quaker no Papist.  
LONDON, Printed by J. C. and are sold near the North-Door of S. Paul's Church. MDCLIX.   

TO THE. READER.  
Reader,  
LIttle did any man think when the dispute between the Quakers and Mr. S. began at Cambridge, that it would suddenly come to this question (between Papists and Protestants) whether there be any such thing in the world as a Protestant Clergy, and consequently whether any true Church, or faith, or sacraments be to be had out of the Church of Rome.  
I dare say that those who heard the public dispute at Cambridge, did as little foresee this, as the Reverend author of Schism dispatched did think that the controversy between him and S. W. (with those other Romanists who have writ against him, about infallibility and schism) would end in this debate, whether we may give as much credit in matter of fact to 24 of the ancient Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church, as to 12 country Yeomen on a Jury. The Protestant affirming this, the Papist denying it. But so it is; and so it appears by these two following discourses. Which if you have patience to read, you will find that Mr. Denne. (pretending to defend the Quaker) saith not one word in defence of any Sect, but only the downright open Papist; and that he useth the very same arguments, and the same words against Protestants in general; as the Papists do in their daily-printed books.  
But if your leisure will not permit you to read the whole be pleased (for a taste) to peruse the 58. 59 and 60th.§ of the letter to Mr Denne. and the 14th. and 16th. pages of the Queries.  
Farewell and beware of wolves in sheeps-clothing.   

A Memorable Advertisement from Dorsetshire.  
IN September last 1659. there was a strange discovery made of divers Witches in and near the Town of Sherburne in Dorsetshire, there being near 200. of them at one meeting, most of them Quakers and Anabaptiss. Three Men and two Women formerly Quakers, committed to Dorchester goal where they now are prisoners, have confessed upon their examination and since their commitment to sundry persons of quality who have visited them,  
1. That when the devil first appeared to, and tempted them to become Witches; He first of all persuaded them; to renounce their baptism and no wonder, because in it they renounced the devil and all his works, with all the sinful lusts of the flesh: which they did Actually renounce before they made a contract with him.  
2. That the Devil did often visibly appear to them in sundry forms (and persuaded them as he Matth. 4. 8, 9, 10. Luc. 4. 5, 6, 7, 8. tempted our Saviour) to fall down and worship him, which they did.  
3. That he instigated them to torment, bewitch and destroy as his and their greatest enemy Mr. Lyford late Minister of Sherburne, a learned, pio us Orthodox, painful Divine, being tormented with a painful and sharp disease of which he died; and Mr. Bamfield his successor a very godly laborious Minister, whom they have forced by their Witchcrafts to desert the Town.  
4. The two Women confess to all, that the devil hath oft times had actual copulation with them in sundry shapes; but most commonly in the shape of Mr. Lyford and Mr. Bamfield, the Ministers of Sherburne, whom he and they most hated and endeavoured to destroy.  
5. The Devil since their imprisonment hath frequently appeared to them all, and actually possessed them, bruising, tearing like the unclean Spirit Mar. 9 18. to the 28. Luc. 9 39 42. &c. tossing them frequently up & down the prison in a strange manner, tormenting them with strange fits of convulsions, quakings, shakings in all their joints, and swellings in their whole bodies, that their skins are ready to break, which makes them cry out and roar with great horror, as divers eye-witnesses of quality attest. And if incredulous Mr. Denne, or any other Quakers doubt the truth of it, if they please to visit them at Dorchester, they will be enforced to confess it, and give glory unto God for his discovery of the evillness of the way and sect of Quakers.   

To Mr. HEN. DENNE.  
Sir;  
§. 1. THis day I met with a decree of the Pope, condemning the late Apology for the Jesuits (which was printed in answer to Montalto's mystery of Jesuitism) and threatening all who dare read or keep it; but withal I met with a new Apology for the same persons with your name prefixed. Wherein wondering to find several aspersions cast upon sundry of the Jesuits adversaries (among the rest upon Mr. Tho. Smith) I resolved to spend an hour or two in vindicating them and the Church of England; which (in favour to the flourishing Romish Mistress and idolatry) you think fit to call their fading Mistress and idol.  
2. And here if I should imitate you, I should superscribe this, To my frivolous and learned friend, H. D. Mr. of Arts and senior Soph. Captain and Apothecary, farmer and Minister, the reverend Apologist for the Society of Jesus. But counting it no virtue to imitate you in this kind, I shall only take notice of such passages as may appear to some weak people to be pertinent.  
3. In the first page, you tell us that the Tinker mendeth souls; though you can not but know if you have read over that book which you pretend to answer (which I much doubt) that this Tinker p. 297. l. 21. of his book entitled Law and Gospel, adviseth his convert in these words come to Christ even as filthy as ever thou canst: that is (if I understand English) when you have sworn a vain oath and would go to prayer for pardon of that sin, first stab your Father, then poison your Mother, lie with your sister: and then go confidently to Church, but not before. If Mr. D. have read this or those other strange passages of this 'tis. sermon mentioned in the Quaker disarmed, or (if he'll not believe that relation) if he'll credit his own eyes, and see what the same Tinker saith against Christ's oration (Mat. 25. 35. 42.) and against the necessity of good works p. 65. 66. 99 100 101. 151. 304. 311. methinks he should not say this Tinker mends souls; unless he mean that he mendeth them just as he mends kettles, that is, stopping one hole and making many.  
4. In the next place H. D. blames Mr. S. for proving that none may preach unless they be sent, when (quoth he) the T. is of the same mind. I answer that the T. did deny it, till Mr. S. had proved it; or at least he bid him prove it. And Mr. S. was persuaded (and still is) that Mr. E. to whom that letter was writ did not believe the necessity of any omission.  
5. Whereas you would fain invalidate Mr. smith's ordination, you may suppose him ordained by Bp. Hall; and then when you have answered Mason de ministerio Anglicano, Dr. Fern against Champney, and the vindications of our Reformation and Orders which are writ by Bp. Bramhall and Dr. Heylin, 'tis very probable you shall receive Mr. S. his determination of your questions. Till than he who thinks you have not vouchsafed to read that small book which you pretend to answer & profess magisterially to censure, can not believe that you'll find leisure to read his determinations of such questions. And he hath not so much spare time as you, to write and print books only for his own reading.  
6. Mean while I must tell you, that one reason why I think you have not read over the Quaker disarmed, is because you put a case and three queries in your 4th. page, which are answered in the letter to Mr. E§. 35. Yet for your more abundant satisfaction I'll answer them more particularly; by asserting. 1. That in your case the preaching of those shipwrecked men to pagans is no sin. 2ly. That in such extraordinary cases 'tis lawful for such a Congregation to choose their Teachers. 3ly. That such a Congregation may find fitting men, full of faith, to preach unto unbelievers; especially if the shipwrecked men have recourse, as soon as they can, to the Church, to ordain them: as Frumentius and Aedesius did who are mentioned in the letter to Mr. E. aforecited.  
7. But H. D. must give me leave to tell him, that that man hath an ill mind who being in a ship well ordered, usurpeth the Masters or Pilots place, and takes to himself what portion of the freight he pleases; merely because a vessel shipwrecked is sometimes thought a lawful prey by the people on the shore: And I wonder that these words should come from one that pretends to be a Minister of the Gospel, unless he would imply that he hath an eager mind to shipwreck an entire vessel under fail.  
8. Whereas in your 5th. page you fall foul upon Mr. S. for disputing with Quakers; you must know, that those your friends did not only challenge him and all the Clergy in England in print (G. Fox's mystery in folio p. 19 preface) but set up their bills of defiance upon the commencement and School doors. Nay the mayor's Wife and divers other Quakers were importunate with Mr. S. to dispute (who half an hour before the on set resolved to decline it) and the Maior himself told Mr. S. that he was glad he would undertake them, for he had oft said that they were so insolent because no man meddled with them. And the case standing thus (as Mr. James Alders and many others can witness) I would gladly see your determination; and what you have to say against S. Paul, who saith 'tis the duty of a Minister not only to exhort but to confute gainsayers Tit. 1. 9  
9 For the argument of three hees see p. 2. Mr. S. did not say, that this was the only way of proof, but that it was one; He did not say, that all three he's be three persons, but that all he's which be in Heaven are such. You may see they were then speaking of the three that bear record in Heaven; and I hope Mr. H. D. will stable none of his troop-horses in Heaven though they come into Paul's.  
10. In your 2d.§. you would clear G. W. from being a Papist because you say he would take no oath Ans. Others think that he will take an oath when 'tis for his advantage, as you may see in the queries; and if that be true, (as Mr. S. hath reason to believe it) I know no reason why he should refuse the oath unless he be a Papist. Nor would Mr. S. I believe have mentioned that oath to him, if he had not been assured that G. W. and H. D. are both alike bitter enemies to the old moderate way of trial, appointed by the Church of England; and if you be so, I am yet to learn what other way, beside this oath, he could have propounded.  
11. To your 3d.§. where you ask who can make sense of the story of the twelve ambassadors; I answer any man but Mr. D. who is unwilling. To the rest of this§. besides what you have been told before [p. 2. l. 24.] I reply, that though the Father Son and H. Ghost are one essence, and each of these three is everywhere; yet that they may manifest the distinction of persons, one having condescended to an incarnation whose human nature there appeared, the other two did at his baptism manifest themselves by sensible symbols. Which three sensible manifestations Almighty God was pleased then to make unto men's senses in three distinct places (though each of the three persons be in all places) that we who are in divers places might have some apprehension of the distinct personalities.  
12. In your 4th.§. you tell Mr. Smith of Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius (as the Romanists are wont.) As if all those who protest against the Church of Rome for pretending to infallibility, were thereupon necessarily obliged to place the same infallibility in every Protestant Doctor. And whereas you ought (if you would say any thing pertinently) to prove what the Protestants of the Church of England answered, you tell us what the Papists in other Nations object; whether truly or not I shall not now stand to examine.  
13. But I am glad to meet with a man that hath read ALL the books of Papists in those times, and ALL their Histories. I hope you would not cite them all as fitted with matter for your purpose, unless you had read them all: I entreat you to cite not all of them (though the more the merrier) but only one, if you can, in all your vast historical readings (I say one Protestant of those many thousands that have defended the Church of England) who hath made such an Enthusiastical answer as that of G. W.  
14. In your 5th.§. you fondly imagine T. S. stark mute divers times; As first, upon your saying that the first Protestant Bishops had no ordination, but what they mutually gave themselves and one another. Ans. If you mean by mutually (as common sense requires) that the Ordained did ordain the Ordainer Bishop, I beseech you to prove it: for 'tis as false, as 'tis evidently known that the four bishops-ordainer were Bishops before the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign; of which time only you make this question and scruple.  
15. Secondly, you fancy T. S. mute again upon your asking who gave them commission to make Math. Parker Archbishop of Canterbury. Ans. The Bishops in King Edward VI's. time did give them power and so commission (for all Bishops have commission when fit occasion and due circumstances occur) to make Mat. Parker Bishop: and I doubt not but Mr. Smith (as mute as you conceive him, and impertinent in Manuscripts) is both able and ready to show you in his own private library (besides what he hath in the public) some ancient records, wherein you'll find it evident that Mat. Parker was a true Bishop; if you think there can any evidence arise from the testimony of a peevish adversary, who lived in Matthew Parker's days.  
16. Presently you add that T. S. dared not profess openly that they received their commission from Popish Bishops of K. Henry VIII's time. Ans. true; because he dares not speak a falsity: for they received it in the time of Edw. VI. Though what you suppose had been no impossible thing, since good Protestants in the days of Edw. VI. had received valid baptism (as all men do acknowledge) in Henry the eights reign.  
17. In answer to the rest of this§. be pleased to know that the ancient Church believed (contrary to your Popish novelty) that all Bishops had spiritual jurisdiction, as being successors to the Apostles. And 'tis only the interest of the Pope to deny it: who is wont to make titular Bishops without jurisdiction, to serve himself in his pretended Councils.  
18. I hope I need not tell Mr. D. (who tells others §. 15. how they speak at Cambridge) that a Master and a Family, an overseer and a charge are relata, rise and fall together: but I must tell him that Bishop Barlow and Miles Coverdale had the warrant of all their Ecclesiastical Superiors (who then were over them) to make Bishops in the diocese of London and that Bonner was not their superior.  
19 To what you speak at large of Q. Elizabeth's being a Lay-person and not being able to give any power, &c. I answer; What power that Queen had, and aught to have in Ecclesiastical matters you may see in the Articles of the Church of England: which no Papist nor Anabaptist (H. D. or W. J. W. J. or H. D.) was ever able to disprove, or durst say one word against it.  
20. Reading forward I am at a stand, and must plainly confess I know not what you mean by what follows, viz. your comparing the common people, and Masters of Families with the Queen that then was. I know not what your asserting that these have as much power as the Queen can drive at, but casting off all authority; like your brethren at Munster.  
21. To your 6th.§. I answer that if there be any Churches beyond our seas, who count it their glory to want a succession of Bishops, yea to cry shame upon it; and to reject it as a superstitious relic of Popery, and mark of Antichrist, we are no more engaged to defend such people, than the Quaker is engaged to defend the Papist, or the Papist a Quaker; nor so much, as appears by this Apology which I am now answering.  
22. This I know that not only the Reformed Churches in their Confession of Ausburg, and again in their Apology for that Confession (cap. de. ordine ecclesiastico, & cap. de potestate eccles.) and in their other colloquies at worms and Ratisbon, and divers of their books beside; but likewise Mr. Calvin (who subscribed the Augustane confession) in his book de necessitate reformandae ecclesiae to Cardinal Sadolet his old friend, and in his epistles to Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridley, and in his Institutions l. 4. c. 4.§. 4. And with him Mr. Beza too in his book de diversis gradibus Ministr. c. 21.§. 23. I say I know (and am as sure as a man that believes his eyes can be) that these and Zanchy, Diodati, Cappellus, Pet. Moulin; Daillé, and others the most learned Frenchmen now living believe episcopacy and the government by Bishops to be lawful at least. And I am sure that Mr. T. S. if H. D. be so well acquainted with him as he pretends (but I am told he confessed he did not know him so much as by sight, the same hour that he owned this printed book to him) will at his request give him a larger list of reformed foreign Divines on this subject, and proofs that other protestant churches beside the English have a successsion of Bishops which I saw in his chamber. But there is so much already printed of the L. Viscount Falkland's Bp. Carleton and others against your ungrounded assertion, that I shall defer sending you a larger catalogue until you (or your friend Knot the Jesuit, who also hath writ against Episcopacy) shall have answered Dr. Hamonds' dissertations against Blondel, otherwise than by your sword and sequestration.  
23. Your 7th.§. containing nothing to the purpose but a bare assertion that [T. S. §. 16. and] great numbers even of episcopal men, PRESBYTERIANS Independents, and ALL professors besides Papists, do refuse to take the oath of abjuration, is in my opinion answered sufficiently, till it be proved, by a bare negation; Though some of them have much more cause to refuse it than you; who have taken away the former trial of Popery, viz. Recusancy; common by the Law to Papists, Anabaptiss and other Sectaries: which names I hope you'll not be angry at, while you take them to yourself p. 16. l. 14. 16.  
24. In your 8th.§. you argue against the oath thus; No man can safely swear that he believes no purgatory, unless he be as sure that there is no purgatory as that there is a God. Ans. This looks like the saying of Fa. Knot against Chillingworth, who thinks that what ever he believes in religion he believes with the same certainty wherewith he receives the highest articles of the Christian faith. When passion and prejudice is laid aside, I hope you'll find time to consider whether if you were now disputing in the Divinity Schools you might not safely affirm that to be true which is your opinion in any matter of Religion, and not expect that any Caviller who stands by (and is no way concerned in the Act) should thence infer and cry out that you are as sure of it as that there is a God who made the world. If this Caviller should go further, single this assertion (perhaps being only argumentum ad hominem) out of your whole dispute and print a book against it, would not he be (as you say Mr. S. is) not a little ridiculous? And would not you yourself take as little notice of him as Mr. Smith doth of you? I should enlarge upon this your acception of the word believe, but that Mr. Chillingworth hath said enough of it in his answer to your Brother Knot, and T. S. in his defence of Chillingworth.  
25. In the last lines of this 12th. page you have these words, what do I know whether purgatory be revealed in Scripture or no? You seem here plainly to profess that you do not know whether Papists or Protestants be in the right, so far as to God's revelation in Scripture; which Protestants have always made their rule. By which we may judge what a Protestant you are, And that Anabaptists either deny the H. Scripture to be their rule, or affirm that they know no error in purgatory.  
26. To the 9th.§. whereof I can scarce make common sense, I might tell you that no Parliament is in any sense that which is signified by the word person. But I rather answer that no Parliament can free any person from any oath of belief which he hath taken: For example, if one Parliament propound an oath to me to declare whether I think the Articles of the council of Trent be Orthodox and Catholic, and I swear no; from this oath ten thousand Parliaments can never absolve me. If I swear in truth I need no Absolution: but if I therein forswear myself, the Parliament can not free me from perjury, nor remit the guilt of it. The matter of this oath was Concerning belief, and I never yet heard or read, that any Parliament in England did assume power of setting men at liberty from believing what they believe in matter of Religion. I grant that an Act of Parliament may be repealed by a Parliament and so the Law of exacting this oath may be abrogated, but that an oath taken Concerning matter of belief or not belief can be voided by any Power on earth, is the doctrine not of any English Parliament, but only of the Conclave at Rome: therefore (good Mr. Denne) creep not under the wing of an English Parliament, but confess your Argument to be a naked weapon of a Romish Jesuit.  
27. To your 10th.§. I answer briefly, that 'tis not to be imagined any English Parliament hath or will forbid the subject of any Prince to acknowledge that civil subjection which is due to his sovereign, so long as he remains in his dominions.  
28. In your 11th and 12th Sections you make the oath of abjuration to be both a prelatical and Presbyterian design (prelatical men must be sure to pay for all) but whereas you tell me divers times of Prelatical malice, and that the Papists universally disown that Tenet which is objected to them as theirs; viz. That faith is not to be kept with heretics. I shall not insist upon the Lateran council (which decreed anno. 1216. can. 30. that the Pope hath power to absolve subjects from their obedience) which is one of those Synods to which Bellarmin saith all that are Catholics must submit: but I reply, that what you say here is nothing to the purpose, for Mr. S. never said otherwise, for (in the 16th. page of his preface to Daille's Apology for the Reformed Churches) he professeth so much kindness to the Romanist in this particular, that I have heard him censured by some of them as talking there like an inamorato. But methinks both they and you instead of censuring him and bringing new arguments, should answer that which he printed therein above six years since; especially when he there doth very earnestly beseech them to answer it, professing that he had been many years troubled with it. The argument is this, That which one or two (or some few) Roman Doctors say is lawful, may (in the judgement of Papists) be done without danger of mortal sin [the Major is Mr. Knots charity maintained c. 4. §. 25. as also Valentia, Vasquez, Lessius, Enriques, Sa, Cellot de Hierarchia l. 8. c. 16. p. 714.] But not only one, but many Roman Doctors say, 'tis lawful to murder or depose a supreme Magistrate that is guilty of heresy or suspected of it. Cavete principes conclusionem. The minor is sufficiently proved by Dr. Jer. Tailor's sermon on the powder treason p. 50. and 51. and in a small tract entitled Romish positions for rebellion collected by Bp. Morton: and Mr. Yaxley's reasons why he could not be a Romanist (as he much desired) and a good subject to his sovereign at one time.  
29. Reading another's day Sleidan's relation of your friends affairs at Munster I met with this passage, that there was a law made at the council of Constance that promise should not be kept with heretics, or those that be suspected for heretics, though they came to the Synod upon the public faith of the Emperor for the hearing of their cause. Sleidan, l. 3. ad an. 1521, mihi p. 59 edit. Francf. 80.  
30. You who pretend to skill in all Popish histories cannot but know, that John Hus had the Emperor Sigismund's safe conduct in as large terms as might be expressed, gratè suscipere, favorabiliter tractare— omnique prorsus impedimento remoto transire, stare, morari, & redirè libere permittatis, sibique [Husso] & suis, dum opus fuerit de securo & salvo velitis & debeatis providere conductu, ad honorem & Reverentiam nostrae Regiae Majestatis. And notwithstanding this he was burnt; which questionless the Emp. would not have suffered, but either in obedience to the command of the council, or upon that counsels persuading him that he was not to keep promise with a man whom they had declared an heretic: a man who ad incendium quasi ad epulas properavit, linguâ potens & mundioris vitae opinione clarus, as Aeneas Silvius (afterwards Pope Pius the 2d.) Hist. Bohem. c. 35. 36. a man whose rare endowments Poghius the Florentine historian and Orator (an eye-witness of his trial at the council of Constance) admired; saying nihil unquam protulit indignum bono viro; ut si id in fine sentiebat quod verbis profitebatur nulla in eum 〈…〉 edum mortis causa inveniri justa posset. O virum dignum memoriâ hominum sempiternâ! epist. Poghii ad Lenard. Aretin. in fascic.. rerum expet. & fug. p. 153. which passages I cite, lest you should object Campians retractus ex fugâ, or any such frivolous pretence.  
31. In sum, since you impertinently affirm that the Papists universally disown that Tenet, that faith is not to be kept with heretics; methinks 'tis fit you should prove that they universally disown the council of Constance, (which is one of Bellarmine's 17.) unless you are so far Jesuited as that you reject that council, because it ejected two Popes.  
32. Mr. S. never yet said that Papists ought not to be permitted to improve their estates, nor that there are not some Papists who abhor breaking their promise (and therefore while Mr. D. talks to the contrary he fights with his shadow) but you shall do well to prove that no Papists can take advantage from the decree of the council of Constance to break their promises made to Protestants. And I cannot but take notice, how much the Papists are beholden to Mr. Denne, for telling the World very plainly that they may find every jot as much honest proceeding and credit in Papists as in Protestants. p. 15. l. penult.  
33. A few lines after having told us that the Presbyterians are easily enough infected with such leaven (Prelatical malice) he falls into these words, Nor do they, while they fall thus upon others, take any notice of, or endeavour to answer, those things which are standing objections against thems●lves; 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. Ans. Observe how this man (though he called himself Anabaptist and Sectary but two or three lines before these words) now soon forgets what person he had assumed, pulls off his Vizard, and appears a bare faced Romanist. Observe how he who professes to teach men to be disobedient and rebellious to all Bishops, passionately and hastily takes part with him, who hath usurped upon all Bishops in the Christian world: and rather than lose his design, calleth all who now profess not to obey the Church of Rome rebels, Disobedient, and Apostates from Her Government (sure he can not in good earnest suppose them to be disobedient, unless in good earnest he believe they owe her obedience.) Then judge what a foul slander this is in Mr. D. to blame protestants for their not endeavouring to answer those things which have been answered an hundred times by Bishops unanswerably: Judge what a crime it is for one who calls himself a Protestant to object against this and all other reformed Churches, the most bitter calumnies that the most extreme rigid peevish Papists have devised.  
34. You go on thus; supposing their ordination for which they so much contend to be of necessity and of Divine right, and that they had it from the Church of Rome, as most certainly they had. Ans. Here you seem to contradict what you said in the 6th.§. (p. 9 l. 33.) in these words, nor could he in truth affirm it. But if you mean by these words last cited out of the 12th.§. (as they seem to import) that you esteem our ordination to be of divine right because it came in succession from the Church of Rome, 'tis a wide mistake. In sum, methinks you declare here openly in this paragraph that all who are baptised and ordained by any of the Church of Rome (as 'tis certain a great part of this nation was, even in the time of Gregorius M.) do therefore now and shall for all future ages owe obedience to the Pope of Rome; or else they are all rebels and Apostates. Whereas we are not more ordained by those who were ordained by others from the Church of Rome, then Mr. Denne himself was baptised by the hand of one of those who was baptised from others that were heretofore Romish Priests; so that our Ordination is surely as divine as his baptism. As for his being rebaptised, both the Church of Rome (for whom he pleads) and we and all the Christian World account him, for that, a rebel and Apostate from the universal Church.  
35. But because he says in good earnest he believes it can never be answered upon our principles, he shall receive his answer in these three lines following, challenging both the Jesuits and Anabaptiss Mr. H. D. and N. N. to answer it if they can:  

The Answer is this.  
36. The popes of the Church of Rome dare not deny themselves to have received Ordination from the Church of Jerusalem; notwithstanding this they profess that they owe no subjection to the Bishop of Jerusalem: Therefore it was (not prelatical, but) Anabaptistical I malice to tell all Bishops that have been ordained from Rome they are Apostates and Rebels from the Church of Rome in good earnest if they (avouching ordination from the Clergy to be of necessity and Divine right) do not obey the Pope.  
37. That which follows in your books about Mr. G. & Mr. P. who disputed against the Romanists (a fact which I believe Mr. Hen. Denne never was never will be guilty of) all that know those Ministers know to be superfluous and frivolous. However I to whom you (in defence of the Quakers very pertinently do object this) think fit to tell you, that whereas the Romanist took a longer time only to put forth an edition of that, which if he had dealt truly was all before done to his hand; whereas he hath also so changed, transposed, added, diminished and made of it what he list, that I believe it will be as soon owned for your (I mean not J. S. but H. D's.) conference as Mr. Pearsons or Mr. Gunning's; I must now tell you further (what you have been oft enough told) that that relation cannot expect to be regarded by Mr. P. or any sober person which is disclaimed and disowned by three of the four who were disputants, viz. by both the Protestants and half the Papists.  
38. But chiefly I must entreat you to consider whether the inserting of above 200. lines at a time as part of the conference which never was part of it (besides all professed additions) 2ly. Whether the leaving out whole sheets of the Protestants, which the Papists thought too hard to answer; and 3ly. the scarce suffering any one argument and answer of both to come together (but casting usually parts of the same paper of Mr. G. many score leaves asunder one from the other) be not a scandal that any Christian would desire might be covered with silence. And I would gladly know from any ingenuous person, whether this might not be answer enough to a book put out at the charge of the Romanists own purse and conscience; a discourse by being mangled rendered so unintelligible, that scarce any man ever read it over or will.  
39 One of your friends sent 3 copies of this conference between Mr. G. Mr. P. and the Jesuits to Mr. T. S. in Cambridge, who being very desirous to hear what was in it (and having not leisure to read it all himself) gave two of them away, upon condition that those learned persons on whom he bestowed them should read it: but they both threw it aside before they had read a few leaves of it. Reverend Mr. Will. Moor, the deceased Library keeper, was persuaded by Mr. T. S. to read one leaf; but professed before many witnesses he would not read another if you would give him the whole impression: because 'twas so unintelligible for the causes above mentioned.  
40. As for your own book (which you commend) against the same Mr. G. of the same alloy. If a tract as full of falsehood as any pamphlet is wont to be fraught with, may be believed against so many thousand witnesses as heard you both dispute two days; & at length the dispute, interrupted by the Anabaptiss themselves against all laws of dispute, as you yourself then & there acknowledged; If Mr. Gunning's giving the world satisfaction at the same place concerning the whole matter and the universal church's tradition concerning that question, in a third discourse afterward, at the request of the Moderator (For the Moderator hearing both Mr. D. and Mr. G. appeal to the church's tradition, said, that the Auditory was unsatisfied in that particular, and therefore desired that one of them would take the pains to clear it, Mr. Denne refusing Mr. G. did it) to which Mr. Denne then durst not reply a word. If I say all this cannot rescue Mr. G. from the expectation of a reply to a pamphlet in print, because forsooth 'tis in print, we may expect his answer hereafter when he shall see fit; with a relation of a former and of a later Jesuits dealing and Mr. Denn's collated.  
41. But in the mean while to give you and your friend's employment (which I perceive you want) and satisfaction if possible; After you have answered the letter in Quaker disarmed (taking in the enclosed printed paper entitled a Gag for lay-preachers which you may have near the Little North-door of S. Paul's,) I shall entreat you to know (because you complain of your books lying unanswered, and therein a scandal and prejudice to the Protestant cause) that there is a multitude of considerable books writ by Protestants in folio and other volumes against the Church of Rome which have been 20. or 30. years unanswered; and are like to lie forty more.  
42. I shall name some: first (for your reading) a new gag for an old goose by Bishop Montague, Bp. Franc. White, and Bp. Laud, and Bp. chapel against Fisher, Spalato's 3. tomes, Bp. Hall, Birckbeck, Crackenthorp, Bp. Montague against Bullinger, Dr. Tho. Jackson, Chillingworth, (tho your friends the Jesuits have attempted to answer his pamphlet, as they call it, divers times, and Mr. Knot was 19 or 20. years about one.) Then in a smaller volume so many that a bare catalogue of them would make a big book, as Dr. Cosins, Dr. Jer. Taylor, Dr. Fern, Dr. Featly, Dr. Heylin, Dr. Hammond of infallibility, and his dispatcher dispatched. These all new, beside old ones. Not to mention the heaps of excellent pieces of foreigners Dailleus, Moulin, Blondell, Calixtus, Bochartus, Placeus, &c. each of them as famous and considerable as your Jesuits.  
43. And yet you and they be the men that clamour against the Protestants as if they could say nothing for themselves, when 'tis as clear as the sun at noon, that neither you in this apology nor they in their other writings have a word to allege against us, but what hath been unanswerably refelled by the forementioned Authors and others 100 times. And yet you are so wise as to complain of our silence, and the Jesuits (for whom you here plead) put forth books consisting only of questions to the same men, instead of giving them so much as one answer to their many demonstrations made against you: and though some of them as Mr. G. Dr. H. &c. never declined any meeting with the ablest of you and the Jesuits, but attend the business as diligently as if they had nothing else to do, and have been oft declined by you and them, and can bring witnesses to depose where several Romish Priests have appointed days and hours and (at the very hour appointed) sent a flame to prevent the meeting.  
44. But to come closer to you Mr. Denne. For your part, besides this scandalous false printed relation of your own here mentioned, one may (to use your own words) guess at the conscience and honesty of Mr. Hen. Denne by his saying not one word in his book of a public conference held by him and the same person, upon the same question, at Castor in Northamptonshire. But I suppose you'll publish that when you print your public dispute with Mr. Weller of Immanuel college before the Committee at the Bear in Cambridge.  
45. Besides all this, a reasonable man would think that Mr. Gunning having taken such pains, when you disputed with him at S. Clement's Church, to keep the Auditors from hissing Mr. Hen. Denne quite off from the desk and dispute (as divers who were there tell me they will witness) deserves to be excused if he takes no pains to consider your pamphleting afterwards.  
46. The mentioning whereof minds me of your blaming Mr. T. S. for Arabic, &c. In answer to which I am told, that though he owns the dispute as a true matter of fact, and so far his; yet 'twas penned by one of the auditors who took it in shorthand: and then it was no absurdity to say Mr. Smith was doing that which all the University knows he was appointed by the vicechancellor to do, in reference to printing a Catalogue of all the Manuscripts in Cambridge, which is now ready for the Press. But suppose all this to be false, yet it will be hard if Mr. T. S. who was deputed by Mr. Wheelock when he left Cambridge without hope of returning (under hand and seal) Arabic professor and hath taught that language to divers, have not more skill in that tongue than you have in the Aethiopic who cannot read it, and yet cited that and all other translations of the N. T. in the public conference that you boast of at St. Clement's Church without Temple-Bar: saying you would stick to the AETHIOPIC. And your respondent asking you whether you brought your argument from the Aethiopic copy or the Latin version? You replied with some smartness from both, from both, Sir. Which passage (together with your saying that Children cry because they are unwilling to be baptised though they neither will nor nill, with divers others (which you are so faithful a relater as to pass over in silence) having made those thousands of people which heard you very merry, might have remained buried in silence, if looking into your two Books I had not met with your Aethiopic as well as Arabic.  
47. But now leaving your languages I return to your Apology, where §. 13. you say you can not see any great reason of fear or danger from the papists, questionless your bare warrant shall secure all English men from Powder-plots hereafter.  
48. Your 14th§. you thus begin in their defence, I am to say something concerning those common Brutes which are raised against Popish Priests and Jesuits, as if they did secretly insinuate themselves into the Congregations of different professions in Religion. To which I answer that Mr. Pryn, Mr. Baxter and the rest whom you call Bedlams p. 6. & 19 may cry you mercy for the report of secret insinuations, for methinks 'tis open enough now; or let the World judge by this book of yours.  
49. But let us hear what he reports these bedlams and bookmakers to say (by the way did H. D. never furnish the tobacco-shop with wast paper They tell (quoth H. D.) of an idle fellow one Ramsey, &c. I wish Mr. Hen. Denne were such an Idle fellow, that he be likely to have the tithe of his Scholarship, though he live as long again. What this Mr. Ramsey is and was, I desire Mr. Denne may learn from a book printed by some of very good repute in Newcastle, and the depositions sent up by the Mayor of that Town with Mr. Ramsey to London; some years before Mr. Prynne could hear any thing of his conference at Cambridge: so that he was not imprisoned upon a bare suspicion as Mr. D. saith. How he got out of the Gatehouse, and what he did in Cambridge, I had rather he should hear from Mr. Ratcliff and Mr. Griffith of Christ's college, divers of St. John's and other colleges (whom he taught Hebrew) than from me; who am confident I know his Religion & design from other Reasons, besides his frequenting Milton near Cambridge. But sure H. D's concluding that because Ramsey came not to further trial, therefore he was no disguised Papist, is no better an argument, than if he should prove, that there have been no Jesuits in England of late years, because (though divers have been apprehended) none have been brought to trial.  
50. Concerning the Franciscan at Bristol, the oath of G. Cowlishaw Ironmonger in Bristol is upon record, and printed in Mr. Pryn's Quaker unmasked, edit. 2. p. 3. who (p. 34, &c.) answers to what H. D. here objects to clear the Franciscan. Besides him at Bristol, I could tell Mr. Denne a strange story of his Father Whitebread saying Mass about London; and of another disputing for the Quakers, and presently proved a masked Papist at Wolverhampton: but I had rather he should have these things from others who have more leisure. When he shall have considered these and other like relations (which will shortly be printed at large) I will desire him to tell the world, whether they be groundless and unproved calumnies.  
51. To the next words, wherein he says, No man's innocency will be able to protect him against suspicion; I answer, That it is not fit any man should judge, how hardly Mr. Denne shall be dealt with by any suspicions, further than may appear by those propositions of his, which are recollected in the close of this address.  
52. In the very next line H. D. saith, that he for his part does very confidently assure himself, 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. Wherein H. D. expresses questionless a greater confidence in behalf of the Jesuits, than either clerk or Watson would of Robert Parsons the Jesuit; or the secular Priests at this day will for the body of that Society, as appears by their books which for these sixty years they have writ one against another. So that H. D. is a closer friend to the Jesuits than many Romish Priests be.  
53. This 15th.§. begins thus, we all know 'tis a fallacious way of arguing to proceed, a posse ad esse, as they speak at Cambridge (Do not they speak so at Douai and St. Omers too?) and yet no better is the Argument of the Papist's Adversaries in this case. Here he blames some persons under the name of Popish Adversaries, sure he means to exempt himself from the number. And before he is gone to the middle of this page he falls again to undertaking for the Principles of Popery, and passes his word that their principles contain nothing which allows dissimulation in Religion.  
54. But in the last page he will needs have Mr. S. to be a Papist for asserting that we receive the Canon of Scripture upon the Authority of the Church of all Ages, and the pure spouse of Christ, I would fain be told by Mr. Denne what reason he can give to his brethren Anabaptists and the Quakers, why the song of Solomon should be Canon and other useful books which bare his name Apocrypha, why the Revelation of St. John should be put into the Canon 300. years after Christ and some gospels (bearing the Apostles names) left out, but the authority of the Jewish Church for the Old, and of the Christian for the New Testament? But I would have him remember that to talk of the pure spouse of Christ, and the Church of all ages, and exclude the 12. Apostles and the first Century out of it, is a discourse not becoming Mr. Denne's profession.  
55. Sure H. D. never saw Dr. x of the Canon of Scripture, nor Hooker's Ecclesiastical policy, nor heard of St. Augustine's non Crederem Scripturis nisi me moveret Ecclestae authoritas. If Mr. S. be a Papist for this, he hath these and a multitude of such good Protestant-company Popish with him.  
56. You ask what other Church was there in all ages, but the Roman? I answer, unless you and I agree now upon the terms of the question we must end where we should have begun; therefore first I must desire you to tell me what you mean by the Roman Church? Which I shall scarce know, till you answer the 20. questions that Mr. T. S. puts in the close of his preface to Daille's apology. But that you may not pass without one answer, I pray tell me what other Church was there in all ages but the Greek Church, and those that agree with her in all or most part of what she holds, particularly in believing no infallibility or sovereign jurisdiction (over all) in the Bishop of Rome, for which among other good doctrines the present Roman Church refuseth her Communion?  
57 And here you mend all at last; for you no sooner hear talk of a pure spouse of Christ the Church of all ages, but you apprehend it can be understood of none but the Roman Church; and say plainly, that to talk of a pure spouse of Christ and the Catholic church in the creed, the church of all ages (for those are the words in the letter that you cite) is doubtless in effect, to justify the church of Rome to be a pure church.  
58. Thus having examined Mr. Hen. Denn's new book and Religion, I shall only recollect a few positions published by him and his friend George Whitehead the Quaker (whom he would prove to be no Papist, and therefore that no Papist is a Quaker) and then leave Mr. D. to turn over his Aethiopic Testament, all the books of Papists, and ALL their histories; and leave the Reader to judge how good Protestants this fit couple be; H. D. and G. W. George Whitehead besides those particulars which are mentioned in the Queries hereto annexed (especially p. 14. and 16.) maintains these seven following Romish doctrines: 1. That justification is by inherent righteousness: and so saith no Protestant but so saith Bellarmin l. 2. de justificat. c. 3. 2ly. That a man may perfectly keep the law without sin: so saith (not Protestants but) Bell: l. 4. de justif. c. 11. 12. 13. 14. 3ly. G. W. denies the imputed righteousness of Christ for justification: so Bell: l. 2. de justif. c. 7. 4ly. G. W. affirms that Scripture is not the supreme rule for trial of spirits: so Bell: l. 3. de verbo Dei c. 4. 5ly. G. W. hath writ an whole book against Mr. Clapham to prove that the written word is but a dead letter, and carnal. So saith Costerus in enchyridio. p. 44. 6ly. G. W. pretends to immediate Revelations and pretended miracles (see Clapham and the century of queries) so do the Papists: unchurching them who pretend not to them as trial of a Church. 7ly. G. W. and the Papist both alike place much of their holiness in their beggarly apparel, in going openly with sackcloth and barefooted, which I find taxed by the ancient Fathers of the Church. Thus far G. W.  
59 Now, for Mr. Hen. Denne; I hope the Reader hath ere this observed, that though this book of his before us be entitled for the Quakers, & (as I am told) was offered to them at the Bull and Mouth in Aldersgate-street for their press, yet it is indeed all in behalf of the Papists; and contains not one word (from the first to the last) to the advantage of any sect under heaven but only the Romish: That the very same arguments, and the very same expressions are used now against the Church of England by the Anabaptist and by the Papist, so that he who answers one of them answers both. I might take notice also of such words in this Quaker no Papist, as cause the Author thereof whoever he be (H. D. or J. W. or W. J. for I take them to be all one man) to smell of a foreign country: as when he speaks of the Justice of peace in his District, p. 10. and calls the same man bachelor of Divinity and Master of Arts, putting this after that, and the like: but to let this pass I shall only mention a few of Mr. Hen. Denn's positions delivered by him in this tract (for I have not leisure to look into Mr. Robothams' Den of thieves) and then leave our Disputant and Scholar to read his Aethiopic books. Some of his Doctrines printed in this book entitled Quaker no Papist, are these,  
60. 1. That Mr. H. D. does not know whether Purgatory be revealed in Scripture or not. p. 12. l. penult. 2. That 'tis clear who ever takes the oath of abjuration doth forswear the privileges of Parliament. p. 14. medio. 3. That in good earnest he thinks those who had their ordination from the Church of Rome and do not obey the Pope, are rebels, disobedient and Apostates, if they defend the necessity of ordination by Bishops p. 16. medio. 4. That he finds as much honest proceedings and credit in Papists as in Protestants p. 15. l. penult. & can see no great reason of fear or danger from papists p. 18. l. 3. 5. That he does very confidently assures himself (sure no man else can assure him) that if an oath were tendered to all the papists in this Nation; they would all willingly swear that neither they themselves nor any that they know, did ever use any such practice as is reported of Ramsey by Mr. Pryn (and some in Cambridge) and of a Franciscan by Mr. Baxter; and swear that neither they nor any they know did ever make profession for what ends soever, to be of any Religion save only their own, p. 19 fine. 6. That no Protestant Minister either in England or beyond the seas hath any better ordination or commission to preach than G. Whitehead the Quaker. p. 8, 9, 10. Lastly (for I will not trouble the reader with recollecting all) that the present Roman Church and no other is the pure spouse of Christ, or else there hath been none in all Ages.  
From these seven capital assertions of Popery let any indifferent man judge whether Mr. H. D. (notwithstanding his vehement pretendings to the contrary) may not be justly thought to favour the doctrine of the presentRoman Church, a little more than a man of his profession (which is Anabaptism, next door to Quakery) should do.  
And so till you answer these threescore Paragraphs I bid you heartily Farewell. QUESTIONS    

ERRATA.  
IN the letter to Mr. D. p. 2. l. 1. r. mission §. 31. r. Bellarmine's 18 counsels.  
In the Queries, p. 2. l. 11. for let the reader judge, r. No conclusion can be false when the premises are true, l. 24. oft fordids, p. 12. l. 28. r. sir Walter l. 29. Countess of Sidney, p. 13. l. 35. dele viz. lust wrath, &c. p. 16. l. 1. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. l. 2. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. p. 16. l. 16. for at the end of r. in the preface to these queries.