Animadversions ON The Defence of the Answer To a PAPER, ENTITLED, The CASE of the Dissenting Protestants of Ireland, In Reference to a BILL of Indulgence, from the Exceptions made against it.  
TOGETHER, With An ANSWER to A Peaceable & Friendly Address TO THE Non-Conformists.  
Written upon their desiring an Act of Toleration without the SACRAMENTAL TEST.  
Phil. 4. 5. Let your Moderation be known unto all men, the Lord is at hand. Printed in the the Year, 1697.   

To the Protestant Reader.  
THe Publication of these Animadversions, though designed some time ago, had ceased, if a late Pamphlet, called, A Peaceable and Friendly Address, etc. had not importuned it. For seeing some men judge it their Interest to  to the world them they're pleased to call N. Conforming Brethren, as a factious and schismatical people, whereby we are misapprehended and pre-condemned. We cannot in justice to Truth and Innocence, suffer such so to pray upon the Credulity of some, and our Reputation, as thereby to hazard their Souls, and our Safety: Yea, compassion to our Adversaries, in endeavouring the prevention of their being wise in their own conceit, (a case more despcrate than that of Fools) obligeth us to vindicate ourselves, and inform misguided people, with words of Truth and Soberness.  
The people we plead for, are not the Idle and Consuming Caterpillars of the Nation, but Industrious Labourers, Ingenious Artists, and Honest Traders: whose religious Principles will abide in their strength, while one j●t or tittle of the Law of God endures: becase they adore the fullness of the H. Scriptures as the perfect and only rule of Faith and Manners. They believe the necessity of a standing Gospel-Ministry in the Church; to whose directive Authority they submit themselves; not by an implicit Faith, but by a judgement of Discretion. All God's holy Ordinances and instituted Worship they embrace, but their Fear towards God is not taught by the Commandments of men. Their doctrine bears conformity with that of the Reformed Churches abroad, and harmoniously agrees with that of Ireland declared in her Convocation, An. 1615, excepting in what relates to Prelacy and Ceremonies. They are willing to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. They profess their Credenda, Petenda, and Agenda, ought all to be regulated by the word of God. These Principles we believe are able to abide a Fiery Trial.  
And as their Principles are true, so their Petitions are modest: Episcopal Grandeur, Jurisdiction, or Revenues, is not demanded for their Ministers, or by them. A liberty to serve God according to these foresaid Principles, with a relief from some Penal Laws formerly framed against them, and that no new ones be forged to their prejudice, is all they require. And if such modest Requests may be with Christian Conscience denied a people of such Principles, we leave to the determination of our Judge, that standeth at the Door, if Men should give sentence against us.   

Animadversions On the Defence of the Answer to a Paper, ENTITLED, The Case of the Dissenting Protestants in Ireland, etc.  
WHen Diogenes trampled upon Aristippus' Cushion, and insulted over himself in these words; See how I trample on Aristippus' Pride: he had this return; thou dost it but with no less Pride: So when the Defendant of the Answer, etc. salutes the Vindicator of the Dissenters Case, with a charge of sourness, and vanity of temper. In the very entrance of his diseourse, he discovers so much of the distemper in himself, that if Civility colt not, yet Conscience of the same evil in himself, should have obliged him to treat his Adversary more decently: But whether the sourness of his temper, or his vanity to comprise an Iliad of Railing Accusations in a Nutshell, hath induced him, with one breath, to upbraid the Vindicator with sourness, and vanity of temper, dexterity in perverting, little sincerity, dise enuity, injustice, etc. I determine not, but if his Reasoning ta●ent, be equivalent to his Railing, no Dissenter will be able to stand before him.  
Lest he should be suspected of transgressing the 9th Commandment, he attempts to make good this charge, by, as he calls it, A remarkable Instance of the Dissenters injustice to him, viz. The phrase, general Indulgence used by him (which, as he saith, doth plainly signify no more than a legal toleration of Dissenting Protestants); the Vindicator wrists to import a comprehension of all sorts of Religion.  
Answ. If this be Injustice, he hath cause to fear, that all who have sense to discern words, will be injurious to him, seeing General Indulgence natively signifies, Indulgence to all sorts of Persons and Opinions: And 'tis improper to say, that General Indulgence imports only toleration of Protestant Dissenters, which is but Special, unless Protestant Dissentors should comprehend all sorts, which himself doth not assert.  
As the Vindicator hath not wrested his Expressions, so neither hath he misrepresented his Sense, seeing all the arguments he useth against the Indulgence pleaded for, militat only against an unlimited and general Indulgence of all sorts.  
The next thing disgusts the Defendant, is a rule laid down by the Vindicator, that these are of the same Religion with the Established Church, who subscribe her Doctrival Articles: this rule he'll not allow to be true; and that because, there being three general parts of Religion, viz. Doctrine, Worship, and Government, unless we agree in all these, we are not of the same Religion.  
A. If the Rule be not good, why do the Books of Articles in England, an. 1552, and 1562, and those in Ireland in 1616, unanimously declare, that they were agreed upon in Convocation, for avoiding of diversities of Opinions, and for Establishing Consent touching true Religion.  
Do not the Subscribers to the 6th Article, concerning the sufficiency of holy Scripture for Salvation, subscribe to the Worship and Government of the Church, as well as to its Doctrine? if they do not, as the D. insinuates, it must be because that Worship and Doctrine is not read in the holy Scripture, nor may be proved thereby: which is no honour to the Liturgy, Ceremonies, or Prelacy.  
Dr. Stillinfleet in his Irenicum hath endeavoured to prove that Men may be of the same Religion, and yet not under the same particular form of Church Government: And I am persuaded 'twill be hard for the D. to produce any Church that is, or hath been in the world, with which the Established Church of England doth exactly agree in Form of Worship and Government. And thus by his Rule excluding us from the same Religion with the Established Church, he doth also cut her off from Communion in the same Religion with any Church in the World. The Anabaptists against whom the D. excepts as unfit to be comprehended in the Indulgence, are of age, let them speak for themselves, we are none of their Advocates: Yet the V's. reason for including them, and his Charity also, was their being included in the Act of Indulgence for England, An. 1689. And in a Bill prepared by the Council of Ireland in my Lord Sydney's Government, and approved by the K. Q. and council of England, and Retransmitted to be Enacted by the Parliament here in 1692. But if the Reason of his dissatisfaction with them be only, their denying one of the Doctrinal Articles, durst he be so Impartial, he hath no less cause to look upon many of his Brethren, Fathers and Sons of the Church, as intolerable as the Anabaptists; for they are too truly suspected to have no sincere veneration for several of the Articles. And Bishop Bramhall hath taught us concerning the 39 Articles, that the Church doth not define any of these Questions, as necessary to be believed either necessitate praecepti, or medii, nor doth look upon them as Essentials of Saving Faith, or Legacies of Christ, or his Apostles; but as pious Opinions, fitted for the preservation of Unity, 
Stillingst. Ratif. p. 54, 55.  neither doth she oblige any man to believe them, but not to contradict them. Whence we may see what great esteem the great Prelates of the Church have for the 39 Articles: Seeing then (by such) the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Christ be not Essentials of Saving Faith, but only pious Opinions; why should Anabaptists be looked on as intolerable for denying Infant Baptism, when the Doctrine of Biptism is only a pious Opinion. We notice this, not in defence of Anabaptists, but to lay open the D's gross partiality, who knowing how little regard many Sons of the Church have for these Articles, yet tacitly justifies them, when he condemns others for the same, or less faults. But for this, let him read Bishop Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying, p. m. 227.  
The V asserted, that the Bill pleaded for by the Dissenters, would multiply no other Sects, than those mentioned in it, and tolerated by it; which the D. tells, hath little show of Reason to recommend it; and that because such a Toleration may occasion the Rise and Increase of many others not pleaded for. To confirm which, he instanceth Holland, where in few years the Anabaptists spawned 50 Sects all under the same name.  
A. The Reason given to disprove the V's Assertion, hath as little substance of Reason to recommend it, as the V had show; for what if Toleration to some Protestant Dissenters should occasion the Rise of other Sects, must it be therefore unreasonable to tolerate them: By this way of arguing, we might prove the Reformation from Popery, yea, Christianity itself Intolerable; because they occasioned the Rise of many Sects, and most bloody Persecutions, though they were not the proper causes of these Evils: even so, the tolerating two or three can never be the cause of multiplying more, if no other be tolerated save those two or three: Further, the Instance of Holland is disingenuously offered; for he knows the Toleration there granted, is nothing like what's here desired, seeing there are comprehended all sorts, Jews, Papists, etc. And therefore all multiply where they are equally tolerated, but here only three are pretended.  
But again, his Inference with its Reason, are neither fairly not prudently produced; his Inference is, That persons in Authority should deny an unlimited and irrestricted Indulgence to Presbyterians and Independents: his Reason is, lest the general and legal Allowance granted, should be productive of many Sects, which, though different from each other, should disire to be called by their names, to take away their reproach, and that they might enjoy the benefit of the public Toleration.  
A. This Inference unjustly insinuate, that on unlimited Toleration is desired, when, as in matters of Religion, we are satisfied to be limited by the Law of God: In matters Civil, by the Law of the Land. The imprudence of his Reason is, that it militats as much against a legal Establishment, as a legal Toleration, and more; for Experience reacheth us, that many desire the Ruler's favour, and to be called by the name of the Established Church, and shroud themselves under her cover, both to take away their reproach, and also to share of the Honour, Rise, and plentiful provision allowed the Sons of the Church.  
The D. being dissatisfied with the V's weakness, or unwillingness to apprehend the mischievous consequences of this legal Toleration, notwithstanding all he had said, complains of him, that he had propounded several Questions to little purpose; among which, he instanceth one, viz. Whether the Popish Interest will be ever the stronger, because there are more Protestants to oppose it, and because their mutual forbearance will more unite their endeavours against the common Enemy. so this the D. answereth; 1st. That though the Popish interest will be sensibly weak, and by the increase of Prote●ants of the same Communion, yet it will be considerably strengthened by the multiplicity of Sects, which Legal Indulgence generally promotes. 2d. That Dissenters on the grant of Legal indulgence will grow far more insolent and tumultucus than they were before, as hath been observed in a Neighbour Kingdom.  
A. To his first 'tis plain that the increase of Protestants, tho' not of the same Communion, doth, not considerably strengthen, but weaken the Popish Interest, for hath not the Increase of Protestants in Germany, France, Britain and Ireland since 1691, particularly in the North, tho' of different Communion, considerably weaked the Popish Interest? Much more would the greater increase of the number of Protestants here in Ireland, weaken them in their Civil, and consequently in the defence and maintenance of their Religious Interests, were they encouraged by a legal Indulgence: And 'tis too well known to be with modesty denied, that the Popish Interest here hath been, and yet is weakened by other hands than those of the Established Church only, for he and all may know how formidable Ulster appeared to Tyrconnel and his Party in Winter 1688, and how undauntedly it resisted and foiled King James' Army, and Reinforced Duke Sconbergs. And he, and every Man of sense knows the far greater Number there are Dissenters; for the truth whereof we vouch Bp. King for 30000 in his Diocese, and leaves him in his next to publish their Numbers in his own and Neighbouring Dioceses.  
But blessed be God we are not divided in defending the British and Protestant Interest against a Popish Irish Interest; And I hope as the many Parties of different Religions and Interest now confederate against France, do considerably weaken that King, while they unite all in one to make him just and peaceable; so will we the Protestants of Ireland against our common Enemy; for the Union of many Parties Syncretizing against a common Foe, is not that which strengthens the Adversary, but when these several Parties divide in heart and hand by mutual conflict, that impedes their joining for the common good, which is the native Fruit of one prevailing Party's persecuting the rest: And this the Papists labour to effectuate, whose drudgery he and his Brethren do with all their might, while they daily labour to keep us off and at under, with this silly shift of bending the Knee in the Eucharist, which came in with Popery, they call indifferent, and well know we will not do contrary to our Conscience; while they do not try us with the Doctrinal Articles for a Test; let all Wise Men judge of this Policy and Religion.  
His second Observation of Dissenters growing much more tumultuous since the Legal Indulgence hath been granted them, I apprehend hath been made by the D. in his Dream, arising from frightful Ideas he hath of the Dissenters; for sure since the commencement of a Legal Indulgence in 1689. no instance of Dissenters Tumults can be produced: Tho' we can instance Bloody Tumults, Rebellions and Conspiracies against the King and Government, carried on by those who call themselves the Sons of the Church, both in England and Scotland; in which no Presbyterian hath been concerned.  
The V having desired to know from the D. wherein a Toleration to Dissenting Protestants will advance the Popish Interest in Ireland, he promiseth to give a full and ample satisfaction in this matter: And 1st. He desires him seriously to consider whether there be not violent presumption, that a public Legal Indulgence to Protestants, doth not highly advance the Popish Interest; since all Romish Emissaries so eagerly desire, and industriously promote Tolerations, though limited to Protestant Dissenters; and when all other measures failed, have readily expended considerable Sums of Money to purchase them; And it is generally known that the Declaration A. 1671/2. was of the Papists procuring.  
A. If this Declaration was not granted in favour of the Dissenters in Ireland (as he knows it was not) his Answer can't satisfy the V's demand, who would only know, wherein a Toleration to Dissenters in Ireland would advance the Popish Interest here: but the Declaration he speaks of, seems to be that emitted in England, A. 1691/2, and then he most disingenuously represents the matter, for it was procured by an Exigence of State Affairs; England then being engaged in a War against Holland, it was thought unsafe to persecute so numerous and wealthy a part of the Nation as Protestant Dissenters than were, and in the interim to carry on a War against their Friends abroad; therefore to keep matters at home as quiet as possible, a Declaration for Indulgence was Published, but so far from limiting the Indulgence to Protestant Dissenters, that Popish Recusants had apparently the greatest share in that Liberty, which so much disgusted the Nation, that the King was necessitated to make Apology for it; as appears by his Speech to the Parliament, Feb. 5. An. 1672. In which he saith, I put forth my Declaration for Indulgence to Dissenters, and have hitherto found the good effect of it. There is one part that is subject to misconstruction, which is that concerning the Papists, as if more liberty were granted to them, than to other Recusants; when it is plain there is less: I do not intent to prejudice the Church, but will support its Religion in its full Power; having said, I shall take it very ill to receive Contradiction in what I have done, and I will deal plainly with you, I am Resolved to stick to my Declaration. The Lord Chancellor also spoke the same thing, viz. His Majesty hath so fully Vindicated his Declaration from that Calumny, concerning the Papists, that no reasonable scruple can be made against it, by any good Man, he hath sufficiently justified it, by the time it was Published in the Effects he hath had from it, and might have done it more from the agreeableness of it to his own natural Disposition, which no good Englishman could wish other ways than it is: he loves not blood nor rigorous severities, but where mild and gentle methods may be used by a Prince, he is certain to choose them: and concludes that head thus; But His Majesty is not convinced that violent Ways are the Interest of Religion, or the Church. By this we may see if the D. doth not Rival the V in setting (as he saith of him) things in a false light, for what can be less candid than this Representation of that matter: Seeing, 1. There was no legal Toleration, but a Liberty granted by a Declaration, which is questionable, whether Law, or not. 2. Nor was it limited to Protestant Dissenters only, but included also Papists. Nor, 3dly. Procured by money. By this we may see the merciless disposition of some Churchmen, who first extort from the Magistrate Rigorous Laws, and then reproach Dissenters for disloyalty in not obeying them, which they have squeezed from the Magistrate, contrary to his Inclination and Interest.  
The D's second Argument to prove that the free exercise of Protestant Religion, according to different Modes, will advance the Popish Interest here, is drawn from his experience; for, saith he, when Protestant Dissenters, or (as he calls them) pretended Protestants have been Legally Indulged, it hath been experimentally found, that Popish Emissaries were more numerous, their Application greater, and Harvest more plenteous than at other times.  
A. If the D. had as sincerely intended, as he vainly promised ample satisfaction in this point, he would have instanced the time when, and place where, a legal Indulgence granted to Protestant Dissenters produced that effect: for though he values his own testimony as demonstration, others do not; for it appears not that this fell out in Queen Elizabeth's, K. James', or K. Charle's 1st. time; it then must be either in Oliver's time, as by the date of Bishop Bramhall's Letter in 1659. (which he citys) would appear: but then the Papists do not glory in their Harvest here, unless it was, that many of them were cut down at the same rate, being set on a Priest's Head in Ireland, as on a Wolf, which occasioned Emissaries to be never less numerous than then; or after the Restauration of K C. 2d. during whose Reign, Dissenters had no Legal Indulgence here, though we confess the application of Papists was strong, the Harvest plentiful, and Emissaries numerous; or for King James the 2d's time, in which, no such Toleration, limited to Dissenters, was thought on: The charge than must lie on K. W. and Q. M. since 1689. but then his experience will be found false: for neither (we bless God for it) are Popish Emissaries so numerous as in former times have been, nor their harvest so plentiful; nay, we have found it experimentally, that when Protestant Dissenters has been violently Persecuted, Popish Emissaries has been most warmly Entertained; for when Dissenters in the North of this Kingdom were forced in the beginning of K. C. I's. Reign to undertake a troublesome Voyage to America, there to shelter themselves from Persecution (tho' providentially driven back) than a Toleration for Papists here was granted.  
Concerning Bp. Bramhall's Letter to Primate Usher produced to prove his experience Anno 1659. in which 'tis said, that several of the Popish Clergy of France were taught manual Trades to qualify them as Emissaries to foment divisions in England. A few Instances given of these mechanic Priest-Missionaries that came into England, would prove the truth of that Letter better, which will be suspected till then, by all that consider how hard it would be to persuade lazy Priests to undergo the long fatigue of learning Handycrafts, which would do them little service without the language of the Land: And they who know the strict scrutiny made by Presbyterians and Independants  they admit any as members of their Congregations, or Ministers, will be more afraid that such should thrust themselves in the Established Churches than ours.  
His 3d. Argument to prove that Toleration to Dissenting Protestants will increase Popery, is, because 'tis the cause of our Divisions; whereof the Papists take great advantage. For proof whereof, he citys Mr. Baxter.  
A. That Papists, and all other Adversaries, make their advantage by our Divisions, is seen and bewailed by all good men with Mr. Baxter; but that our mutual forbearance of one another in matters not necessary to Salvation, was ever the cause of divisions, Mr. Baxter hath nor taught, but the contrary: Yet if he desire an account of the true causes of our divisions, he may learn them from one of the Ornaments of the Church of England; the memorable Mr. John Hales of Eton, in his Tract of Schism, page 201. Who teacheth us, that all Schisms have crept into the Church by one of these three ways; (1st.) Upon matter of Fact; (2d.) Upon matter of Opinion; (3d.) On point of Episcopal Ambition: I call that matter of Fact, when something is required to be done by us which we know, or strongly suspect to be unlawful: So the first notable Schism of which we read in the Church, contained in it matter of Fact; for it being upon Error taken for necessary that an Easter must be kept; and upon worse than Error, if I may so speak, (for it was no less than a point of Judaisme forced upon the Church) upon worse than Error I say, thought further necessary, that the ground for the time of keeping that Feast, must be the Rule left by Moses unto the Jews: There arose a stout Question, whether we were to celebrate with the Jews on the 14th of the Moon, or on the Sunday following. This matter, though most unnecessary, most vain, yet caused as great a combustion as ever was in the Church: the first separating, and refusing Communion with the last for many years together. In this fantastical hurry, I cannot see but that all the world were Schismatics; neither can any thing excuse them from that Imputation, excepting only this, that we charitably suppose, that all Parties out of Conscience did what they did; a thing which befell them through the Ignorance of their Guides, (for I will not say their Malice) and that through the just judgement of God, because through Sloth and blind Obedience men examined not the things which they were taught, but like Beasts of burden, patiently couched down, and indifferently underwent whatsoever their Superiors laid upon them. Further, page 210. For in these Schisms which concern Fact, nothing can be a just cause of refusal of Communion, but only to require the execution of some unlawful and suspected Act: for not only in Reason, but Religion too, that Maxim admits of no Release; Cautissimi cujusque praeceptum, quod dubtias, ne feceris. And speaking of the second Council of Nice, where Image-worship was established, where was the first remarkable Schism upon just occasion of Fact; he tells us, The schismatical Party was the Synod itself, and such as conspired with it; for concerning the use of Images in Sacris. 1. It is acknowledgby all, that it is not a thing necessary. 2. It is by most suspected. 3. It is by many held utterly unlawful. Can then the enjoining the practice of such a thing be aught else but abuse; or can the refusal of Communion here, be thought any other thing than duty here, or upon the like occasion to separate, may peradventure bring personal trouble and danger; (against which, it concerns every honest man to have pectus bene preparatum) so that in these cases you cannot be to seek what you think, or what you have to do.  
His 2d sort of Schism arising upon occasion of variety of Opinion, is thus: It hath been, saith he, the common disease of Christians from the beginning, not to content themselves with that measure of Faith, which God in Scripture hath expressly afforded us; but out of a vain desire to know more than is revealed, they have attempted to discuss things of which they can have no light, neither from Reason nor Revelation; neither have they rested here, but upon pretence of Church Authority, which is none; or Tradition, which is for the most part but figment; they have peremptorily concluded, and confidently imposed on others a necessity of entertaining conclusions of that nature, etc. After he tells, were Liturgies, and public Forms of Service, so framed, as that they admitted of no particular and private Fancies, but contained only such things, as in which all Christians do agree: Schisms in opinions were utterly Vanished; for consider all the Liturgies that are, or have been, and remove from them whatsoever is Scandalous to any Party, and leave nothing but what all agree in, and the event shall be, that the public Service and Honour of God shall no ways suffer, whereas to load our Public Forms with the private fancies upon which we differ, is the most Sovereign way to perpetuate Schism unto the Worlds End. Prayer, Confession, Thanksgiving, Reading of Scripture, Exposition of Scripture, Administration of Sacraments in the plainest and simplest manner, were matters enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy, tho' nothing either of private Opinion, or of Church Pomp, of Garments, of prescribed Gestures, of Imagery, of Music, of matter concerning the Dead, of many superfluities which creep into the Churches, under the Dream of Order and Decency did interpose itself: For to charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary, was the first beginning of all Superstition: and when scruple of Conscience began to be made or pretended, than Schism begun to break in: If the spiritual Guides and Fathers of the Church would be a little sparing of encumbering the Churches with superfluities, and not overrigid, either in receiving absolute Customs, or imposing New, there were far less danger of Schism, or Superstition, and the inconveniency were likely to issue, would be but this, they should in so doing yield a little to the imbecilities of Inferiors; a thing which St. Paul could never have refused to do; in the mean while, where ever false and suspected Opinions are made a piece of the Church's Liturgy, he that separates is not Schismatic; for it's alike unlawful to make profession of known and suspected falsehoods, as to put in practice unlawful and suspected Actions.  
The third Cause of Schism is Episcopal Ambition, p. 218, saith he, Aristotle tells us, that necessity causeth but small Faults, but Avarice and Ambition are Mothers of great Crimes: Episcopal Ambition hath made this true, for no occasion hath produced more continuing and more sanguinary Schisms, than this hath done; the Sees of Alexandria, of Antioch, of Constantinople, and above all of Rome do abundantly show this much, and our Ecclesiastical Stories Witness no less of which the greatest part consists in factionating, and tumultuating of Great and Potent Bishop, etc.  
This Episcopal Ambition shown itself especially in two Heads, one concerning plurality of Bishops in one See, another the Superiority of Bishops in divers Sees: As to the first he tells us, That the general Practice of the Church since the Original of Episcopacy as now it is, was never to admit at once, more than one Bishop in one See, and to prevent Spiritual Polygamy, neither would they admit of two Cathedrals, but from the beginning it was not so; for even at Rome, and Hippo there were two Bishops at one time; neither doth it savour of Vice, or Misdemeanour, that it should be so still, their Punishment sleeps not, who go about unnecessarily and wantonly to infringe it: But the other head of Episcopal Ambition, concerning Supremacy of Bishops in divers Sees, one claiming Superiority over another, as it hath been from time to time, a great Trespasser against the Church's Peace, so it is now the final Ruin of it, the East and West through the fury of the two prime Bishops, being irremediably separated, without all hope of Reconcilement; and beside, all this mischief is founded on a Vice contrary to all Christian Humility, without which no Man shall see his Saviour, for they do but abuse themselves and others, that would persuade us, that Bishops, by Christ's Institution, have any Superiority over other men, further than that of Reverence; or that any Bishop is Superior to another, further than positive Order agreed upon amongst Christians hath prescribed: for we have believed him that hath told us, that in Jesus Christ there is neither high n●r low, and that in giving honour, every man should be ready to prefer another before himself: which say cut off all claim most certainly to Superiority, by title of Christianity; except men can think that these things were only spoken to poor and private men. Nature and Religion agree in this, that neither of them have a hand in this heraldry of secundum, sub & supra; all this comes from composition, and agreement of men among themselves: wherefore this abuse of Christianity, to make it lackey to ambition, is a vice for which we have no ordinary name, and an ordinary one we will not give it; lest you should take so transcendent a vice for a trivial: Thus the Memorable Mr. Jo. Hales. And would to God all would consider his words most seriously, by which we may see what are the true causes of Schism, and who are the Schismatics. Whence also it will appear that a public Indulgence to weaker Brethren, in matters not necessary, and suspected to be unlawful, is no cause of Divisions; but on the contrary, an ambitious claim of Superiority, imposing private Opinions, and commanding suspected Practices, are the true causes of them, and ever will be.  
The D's 4th Argument against Public Indulgence is, That they have not only fatally conduced to the perverting a considerable number of Protestants, but also effectually hindered the conversion of many Papists, who though sensible of many gross Errors in Principles and ungodly Practices in the Worship enjoined them by Rome; yet have been so highly scandalised by the Divisions amongst us, that they have rather chosen to continue in them, etc.  
A. Had not the D. trusted more to the Rhetoric than Logic of this Argument, he had concealed it; being a Sophism, as they call it, of non causa, pro causa, and is no stronger than this; the legal establishment of one of the divided parties, perverts many, and hindereth the conversion of Papists, because they are scandalised at our Divisions; for a legal toleration of some, is not the cause, but consequent of our Divisions, seeing Divisions must be before the necessity of a Toleration to the Parties divided. 2dly. If our Divisions scandalise the Papists, as I am persuaded they do; he may inquire at the Memorable Mr. John Halos, who are the Dividers, and to whom the Woe is due, that belongs to such as cause Offences. 3dly. Such Papists as are sensible of gross Errors in Principles and ungodly Practices in the Worship enjoined them, and yet continue in them, would have had the same object on against Christianity itself, had they lived in Corinth in the days of the Apostles, for than were Divisions: nor do I see what loss the Church sustains by want of such Converts, as can live, for Union's sake, in gross Errors, and ungodly Practices, whereof they are convinced: And why Division should terrify them from Conversion, I see not, seeing if they will be converted to us, they must divide from Rome. 4thly. But what if the rigid severity of the domineering party of Protestants against all who differ from them, be the cause of Offence? Sure Intelligent Papists are not ignorant of the Divisions among themselves, but neither Party being permitted to by't and devour each other, except by Pen and Ink, they glory in their Union, notwithstanding these Divisions Bishop Hall in his Letter to Mr. Laud (afterward Archbishop Laud) expostulating with him about his unsettledness in Religion, hanging betwixt the Romanists and Protestants, upon the account of our Divisions, tells him, Whither will ye go for Truth, if ye will allow no truth but where there is no Division? To Rome perhaps, famous for Unity, famous for Peace: See now how happily ye have chosen, how well have you sped, So their Cardinal Bellarmin himself, a Witness above exception, under his own hand, acknowledgeth to the world: and reckons up 237 contra●●●●● of Doctrine amongst the Romish Divines; no, they are no more peaceable, but more subtle, they fight more closely, within doors; all our frays are in the Frield, our strite is in Ceremony, theirs is in Substance; so the Decad, 3 Ep. 5.  
The D's 5th Argument to prove that this legal liberty to Protestant Dissenters will advance the Popish Interest, is taken from the different state of Denmark and Swedland, from that of the United Provinces, in reference to the numbers of Papists in these countries': For as the strictness of the Laws against those who differ from these Established Churches hath been remarkably effectual for the rooting out of Popery from amongst them, so the unlimited Toleration granted in Holland to all sorts of Religions, hath multiplied the Papists there, etc.  
A. As the strictness of the Laws in Denmark and Sweden are remarkable for rooting out Popery, so are they for rooting out all Protestants, save Lutherans: And if their strictness be their perfection; we can tell him of more perfect Laws, viz. the Laws of the Holy Inquisition, which are as sovereign prophylactick for the Established Churches of Spain and Italy, as these of Denmark and Sweden are; so that he may thus recommend Lords Inquisitors to the Parliament to be authorized, as Guardian Angels to the Clergy of Ireland. 2dly. It is not want of strict Laws against Popery that hath preserved them in England, but the not employing the Laws made against them; and misemploying them against the dissenting Protestants. 3dly. His comparing the state of the United Provinces with that of Denmark and Sweden to the desired Toleration, is unjust; seeing we plead for no Toleration to Papists, as is granted in Holland. That the rectricting the Indulgence to those pleaded for by the V will not prevent the advancement of the Popish Interest here, as he saith, seemeth strange; for if the Law granting liberty to two or three Parties, excluding all others ruined, prevent the creeping in of Priests and Jesuits amongst us; how can tho Law Establishing the Church, prevent the like among them? For if the evil be prevented by virtue of the Law, it may have the same influence to preserve both; yea, Experience teacheth us, that it's easier to preserve from being infected by such Vermin the poor and depressed Party, than the prosperous and exalted: Few play the Hypocrite, to be thereby made miserable; though many may, and daily do, for Profit and Preferment.  
His 6th Argument against this legal Toleration is, that in stead of widening the Basis of the Protestant interest, as is alleged by the V this Indulgence would undeniably weaken the foundation of the Protestant Security in this Kingdom, because each tolerated Party will rather industriously promote their own distinct Interest, than unanimously oppose the common Enemy, as Experience hath taught us: And to make good his Assertion, he instanceth the case of the Famous Mr. Houston in the North of this Kingdom,  
A. If the Defendant would allow the Dissenters to be Protestants, to which they pretend as good title as the Established Church, seeing they protest against Popery as much as they, than the increasing of their numbers would infallibly increase the number of Protestants, and so both widen and strengthen the Basis of Protestant Interest: But if he will monopolise the name of Protestant to the Established Church, and by the foundation of its Security understand Penal Laws against the Dissenters; though the Indulgence might ruin that Foundation, the Church might stand, and be better secured by its Innocency and Affection of its Neighbours, than by its own guilt, and their enmity; but it's strange he should assert that experience hath sufficiently taught us, that each tolerated Party will rather distinctly promote their own Interest, than unanimously oppose the common Enemy, when the experience of the whole Nation knows the truth of the contrary, that we maintained no separated Interest from the common; for as our Civil Interests are embarked in the common, so we cannot desert the one, without destroying the other: no more can we maintain our Religious Interest either without opposition to the Popish in Ireland: His Instance to prove his Experience, is as ridiculous as Mr. Houston himself, who, as he says, scandalously separated from the main body of the Protestants in the North of Ireland; and had not extraordinary Providence intervened, the Intestine Animosities of these seeming Friends had been of more mischievous consequence, than the open hostilities of our professed Enemies: And the Divisions which these few pretended Protestants endeavoured to foment, were really more formidable than the united Force and Power of a numerous Popish Army, and had been more fatal to our common Interest.  
A. All who know the truth of that Instance of Mr. Houston, and his rise and retinue in the Diocese of Connor, which many thousands were witness to, will ridioule him for its motion; for that man being Irregular, was suspended and deposed by the Presbyterians, and had only a few silly ignorant people to adhere to him; and when the whole North arrayed, he also ranged his company to oppose the common Enemy; so that this discovers the folly and unreasonableness of the D. in making use of it: for it seemeth strange, that about 200 men, his compliment, without Arms, Ammunition, or Order, should be more formidable than the united force and power of the numerous well-appointed Popish Army: nor did any in the North fear those mischievous consequences he talks of; for by a prudent neglect of that man, and his silly Followers, we have lived to see them vanish into Smoke: we know not what that extraordinary Providence was, that prevented these fearful misohiefs, except it be the Irish prevailing to scatter unprovided men; and it would appear, that the D. was not very apprehensive of the mischiefs of the open hostilities of our professed Enemies, when he is more terrified with the thoughts of Mr. Houston's company, who had little formidable in it, except the Motto of his Bannar: possibly a second 1641 would not have been so mischievous in its consequence (in his opinion) as the Divisions of these two parties of Dissenters, whereby he discovers either little fear of Irish Hostility, or too much of the ill consequences of Division among Dissenters.  
The D. suspecting that all he had said might be of little weight with the V attacks him with the judgement of a Protestant Parliament, who in Feb. 25. 1662. in an Address to King Charles the 2d, say; We have considered the nature of the Indulgence proposed, with reference to these consequences, which must necessary attend it; It will establish Schism by a Law, and make the whole Government of the Church precarious, and the censures of it of no moment or consideration at all: It will be a cause of increasing of Sects and Sectaries, whose numbers will weaken the true Protestant Profession so far, that it will be at last difficult to defend itself against them; and, which is yet further considerable, these numbers, which by being troublesome to the Government, find they can arrive to an Indulgence, will, as their numbers increase, be yet more troublesome, that at length they may arrive to a general Toleration, and in time some prevalent Sect will at last contend for Establishment; which, for aught can be foreseen, may end in Popery.  
A. To this I shall return him the words of a moderate and learned Conformist in his Plea for the Non-Conformists, Plea 2. pag. 39 Who saith, That the House of Commons, A. 1662. did argue against Indulgence, and for keeping up the Act of the Uniformity by way of prophecy and foresight of consequences; and their humble advices to the King contain the strongest reasons against an Indulgence, that have been found out, contain the great evils of a forbearance; all which he reduceth to six Heads, but answers to them all thus: As Events prove Prophecies true or false, so Events have proved these Arguments weak or strong. That very Parliament, the true Protestant part of it, that did faithfully serve their King and Country, with the additions made to them by a latter Election, to fill up vacant places, saw where they were, and became sensible of the necessity of Uniting Protestant's by Act of Parliament. And many Episcopal Divines, and some Bishops were for it; a clear discovery, that the mischiefs of our Divisions are of that sort, that it were better that an abatement were made of some things made necessary to Uniformity, without which the Dissenters will not unite, than suffer them to hang over our heads, and come upon us; we plainly see that many of these reasons of the Commons were of no force; we will observe what is of present use to our times, which is the first; and for the other, it became their Wisdom, and Religion, to Pass a Bill taking from the Act of Uniformity; his Majesty hath not been molested by the Importunities of the Dissenters, who have not so much as opened their Grievances, or Petitioned the King and Parliament these many years. There is no new Sect appearing, or increase of any by the Non-conformists, to weaken the Protestant Religion, who have used endeavours to Increase and Maintain it, it is is in no danger from them, they are not troublesome to the Government, are not for a Toleration of intolerable Sects and Sectaries, contend not for an Establishment which they would rejoice in, but as it become learned men, and rational, with as great a temper at least as theirs that writ against them, the Peace of the Nation is not disturbed by them, and if Popery come in, it is against their wills, Pains and Prayers to expose and baffle it: It is their trouble that they are thought troublesome to the Government, which may by no extraordinary exercise of Patience, and Love, overcome the trouble in their own Breast, which is the seat of trouble; and for the only remaining, which is the evil of Schism, it's clear, that Connivance gives no Establishment to it, etc.  
But seeing the D. is so confident of the Authority of the Commons in that Parliament, and lays so much stress upon it, we hope he will not decline the Authority of the whole, when the Experience of Ten Years had made them wiser, for p. 22. our Author tells, what England knows, That that very Parliament which was observed for a great part of it, to be young Gentlemen growing Elder became more cool and moderate toward Dissenting Protestants, more suspicious of Popery, and the more Resolute they grew in Maintaining Property, and the Protestant Religion, and break the legs and arms of growing Popery, the more temperate they grew toward Nonconformists, etc. And therefore at that meeting of the Parliament in Feb. 24. 1672. An Act passed against Papists; and a Bill was presented by the same House of Commons to the Lords in favour of the Dissenting, and for Uniting Protestant's, which, as some, who have as much reason to know, as any that writ, say, would have passed, if they had got time to sit, and from that time, that Long Parliament, who had made the Act against Conventicles, A. 1670. how Resolute soever they were against Indulgence, Feb. 15. 1662. they saw the incompatibility of the Execution of their own Law, and the Preservation of the Protestant Religion, and have ever since taken other Measures. Now whether or not the same Parliament, after ten years' Experience of the weakness, and some worse evils of their own Prophetical Arguments, upon which they retract their former Sentence, is to be more regarded, than when they gave their first unexperienced thoughts, we shall leave all thinking Men to judge, and of the D's Candour in concealing this part of the History: And if we were to manage this Argument by Authority, we have an Act of Parliament, consisting of as good Protestants, A. 1689. to balance the Addrese of the Commons in 1662. with the concurring Authority of all our Kings, who have been experienced in these our differences, asserting the conveniency of Indulging tender Consciences, as we could give him undeniable Instances: But one for all, is the Vote of the House of Commons passed Jan. 10th. 168 where they say, It is the Opinion of this House that the Persecution of Protestant Dissenters upon the Penal Laws is at this time Grievous to the Subject, and weakening to the Protestant Interest, an Encouragement to Popery, and dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom.  
His 7th, and last Argument, which he calls the most forcible of all, is the judgement of the Ministers of London, with those of Lancaster, against Toleration. Printed Anno 1648.  
A. Tho' we allow the Truth of all those Ministers say, yet they never intended that, for that end, which he perverts their words to: For it will be hard to persuade the world, that these men judged the Toleration of Presbyterians unlawful, seeing themselves were such; and because his whole Argument runs upon a false supposition, that we desired an universal Toleration of all Sects, he may receive our judgement in this, from our confession, Cap. 20. Sect. 3.  
They, who upon pretence of Christian Liberty do practice any Sin, or cherish any Lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian Liberty, etc.  
And because the Power which God hath ordained, and Liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold one another; they, who upon pretence of Christian Liberty shall oppose any lawful Power, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, resist the Ordinance of God; and for their publishing such Opinions, and maintaining such Practices, as are contrary to the Light of Nature, or the known Principles of Christianity, whether concerning Faith, Worship, Conversation, or the Power of Godliness; Or such Erroneous Opinions or Practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing and maintaining them, are destructive to the external Order, which Christ has Established in the Church, they may be lawfully called to account, and proceeded against by the Censures of the Church, and by the Power of the Civil Magistrate. Thus far our Confession of Faith.  
By this 'tis apparent, that we justify no unlimited Toleration; and when he hath made it appear, that we maintain Opinions and Practices inconsistent with the light of Nature, and known Principles of Christianity either in Faith, Worship, or Conversation, or destructive of the external Order by Christ Established in his Church, then let us be looked upon as deserving no Toleration; and till then, we judge our title to it as good as theirs who enjoy their legal Establishment: and though we are not for encouraging any Evils, yet we believe if no Sinner were tolerable, the D. himself would be intolerable; for the Apostle teacheth, G. 6. 1. that even Brethren may be overtaken in faults; but then they are to be restored with the spirit of meekness, not rigour: Every Sin is not the object of Church Censure, or the Magistrate's Wrath; but they may, and aught to bear one another's burdens, and not to bind more heavy burdens on the backs of our Brethren, and then lash them for their inability to bear them.  
For his Remark, about that which he calls the fortune of Toleration, which is, as he saith, to be always in extreems very good, or very bad, and is at several times highly applauded, and violently decried by the whole Body of Dissenting Protestants; it hath some truth, but not the whole truth in it; for both Papists, and Sons of the Church, have, and do decry, and commend it according to their need: for do not the Papists in England, and Ireland, and his Episcopal Brethren in Scotland plead for it as much as Protestant Dissenters: We suppose he hath seen Bishop Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying; and when he hath answered the Preface to that Book, he may possibly prevent men's looking on Toleration as unlawful. If he had the wisdom of the unjust Steward, he might improve his Remark, that should he be put out of his Stewardship (which is metaphysically possible) he might have Friends to receive him into their Houses.  
To the V's. Question whether he could produce one Instance of any Protestant Dissenter even in the late Reign, turning Papist. The D. gives a woman's reason, he could give several Instances, but will not mention one; which certainly flows not from tenderness of our Reputation, which he labours on all occasions industriously to blast, but either because he can't, as we are sure he can't fairly, or because he is tender of their honour now they are turned Papists, and will not expose them, or fears if we come to balance Accounts with him, he shall be much a Loser.  
But however, He tells the great reason why so few of theirs or our Communion were perverted, is (under God) to be ascribed to the excellent Discourses wr●t against Papists by the Episcopal Clergy; and amongst the vest numbers of those admirable Tracts, two only were wrote by Dissenters; and then he falls to downright calling and revi●ing Dissenters.  
A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 think it unjust to derogate from the worth of any man's labours, yet it is only native to Animals of 〈…〉 their own Praise, and inconsistent with the 〈◊〉 of God, which directs us to let another man praise 〈…〉 Lips. A stranger and not thine own 〈◊〉; but 〈◊〉 D. being jealous none would undertake to be his Parties Herald, but with so much Vanity, That he calls to our remembrance, a frantic man, who before the Troubles wandered about in the North, under the Title of King of the Rainbow, who with great assurance asserted he defended Britain and Ireland from all foreign Enemies, that he fought our Battles, and that we owed our lives to his Valour & Conduct, and hath been observed busy in an old Fort in his imaginary War: So, though we will not deny all good that such discourses may have done, yet we are confident that their influence upon Dissenters hath been very weak, seeing very few of them hath heard or seen these Admirable Tracts, which would justly deserve the Epithet, if they could preserve those who never saw nor heard them: But how comes he to know, that only two were wrote by Dissenters against Papists? doth he know all of that nature is done by them, we suppose the Morning Exercises Preached and Printed, by the Dissenting Ministers of London to that purpose, may vi● with any of these admirable Tracts, several others also might be Instanced: But yet we see not that the Irish-English Clergy have any great share in this Honour, except it be the Bishop of Derry in his Admirable Tract against Manby, in which he hath taken the same method to prevent Dissenters being perverted, that so did, wh● recommended cutting off the Head as a Sovereign Remedy against the toothache, for lest the Catholic Church should lose its Members by their being perverted, he prudently cut them off from being Members of it; And left the Lawful Spiritual Governors of the Church should laugh at Presbyterians and Independants, he appears to us to treat them no better, if his Definition of the Catholic Church hold good, ●or pag. 4. He defines it to be the whole Body of Men, professing the Religion of Christ, and living under their Lawful Spiritual Governors. Now the Lawful Spiritual Governors can't live under the Lawful Spiritual Governors, for than should they be undermost and upmost at the same time, and therefore a Bishop is as little a member of the Catholic Church as a Presbyterian. Bishop Sheridon also Preached a Sermon against Popery, which we have seen; but how it preserved him in his Bishopric, the D. knows: and yet notwithstanding all these admirable Tracts he boasts of, the Established Church has furnished Rome with twenty Proselytes to one, more than all the Dissenting Protestants in Britain and Ireland; so that their Works has been better Annulets for their Neighbours, than themselves: If we intended to render railing for railing, we would charge the Episcopal Clergy with what he falsely accuseth all Dissenting Ministers, as being Trumpoters in State Tumults and Seditions: But we leave that work to his Jacobitish Brethren, who have upbraided many of their own Clergy with that Evil, under the aggravation of Treachery and Perjury; But wickedness proceedeth from the wicked, my hand shall not be upon them.  
Tho the D. endeavours to ridicule Preaching the Gospel under the name of raising the Hue and Cry, etc. Yet it hath pleased God, by the foolishness of Preaching, to save them that believe: The Gospel was planted by Preaching, not by Printing, and shall be preserved by the same means, Acts 20. 32. And as Rome's first wound was given by the faithful Preaching of the first Reformers, more than by their Printing; so we understand not, that the Walls of Rome shall be battered by Books, but as the Walls of Jericho did fall by Faith, even so shall Rome's 2 Thess. 2, 8. The Lord shall consume it with the spirit of his mouth; and Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by God's Word Preached, Rom. 10. 14, 15.  
The V having told, to mortify the man's vanity, that years' experience might convince them how unsuccesful they had been in gaining Dissenters to their Communion; the D. tells, that this is mainly to be attributed to the unwearied labours of Dissenting Preachers; in raising unreasonable prejudices, and in fixing invincible aversion to our Ecclesiastical Discipline and Constitutions, etc. in them.  
A. As their endeavours have been very unsuccesful as to the numbers they have gained from us, so the worth of such is inconsiderable, being persons whom a worldly Interest, and a more licentious Life prevailed upon; and as they are no Ornaments to their Church (except their admired Bishop of Derry) so they are no loss to us, who could spare them more such, when we detect them. Nor is this to be attributed so much to the unwearied labours of Dissenting Preachers, (as he saith) as to the Dignified Clergy's easy wearying in their labours, and inverting the Apostle's words into, Woe to me if I Preach the Gospel; and the unwearied pursuit of Dignities, and Revenues of the Church, more than Ministerial Duties: nor need the Dissenting Preachers weary themselves to beget in people an aversion and prejudice against the Discipline and Constitutions of the Church; for 'tis the selling the management of Church Discipline to Officials and Registers, and their ways of exercising Church Discipline, more by picking men's Pockets, than bringing them to due Penitence, that hath rendered Discipline odious and nauseous even to all sober Conformists, while they see Ecclesiastical Discipline used as an Engine to drain men's Purses, more than reform their Manners. And the Keys of Heaven and Hell entrusted with such hands, who for trifles deliver men to Satan, but will not relax them without sums of Money, whereby they show themselves too liberal to the Devil but not so careful to deliver out of his power: These are things not done in a corner, but such as the Nation is dissatisfied with; besides this, the manifest partially in the Exercise of Discipline, makes men think there is little regard had to Paul's charge given to Timothy, 1 Tim 5. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Elect Angels, that thou observe these things, without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality: For 'tis known, that Great men's Immorality (tho' never so heinous) escape without rebuke, and the truly poor free to sin, because they want Silver, according to the Rule in the Official Court.  

Deux, 6. Ace non possunt, six cinque non solvere volunt. Hoc tamen est notum quater tres solvere totum.  
By these, and such like Methods, many are driven to us. If he say the Church does not allow these Practices, why then are Dissenters Excommunicated for disobedience to that, which the Church allows not of? But lest our words should give offence, we hope Dr. Andrews will not, which he Preached before the Convocation, viz. The Church Censures now a days reach the Purse only: Evil doers, when they have paid their Fees, return ; If no Money, then have at the Offenders with the Episcopal Sword, presently at one blow they are cut off from the Church, delivered over to Satan, proclaimed Publicans, Heathens, Anathema, for the most ridiculous things, and against every good Man these Brutish Thunderbolts do fly up and down, and only to be feared of the Purse.  
The D. having Arraigned Dissenters as the chief Dividers of the Church, has been so just not to make them the only Dividers, but hath done them the honour to join the Magistrates as Fomenters of division with them: which he chargeth, 1. Upon the prodigious Licentionsness in a late Reign. 2. The Governments too easy Condescensions at another time. 3. The rigorous Executing the Laws against Dissenters at some times: And thus he disciplins the Magistrates.  
A. Seeing the Government hath had a hand in fomenting our Divisions, he might have honoured the King and Magistrates so far, as to give them the pre●eminence above Dissenting Preachers: yet as to his Dividers, 1. Prodigious Licentiousness, he may inquire at Ezek. 33. 34. If the Clergy might have a hand in it, and had they spent the one half of their Thunderbolts employed against Dissenters, against the prodigiously licentious, they might have purged themselves from that Division caused by prodigious Licentiousness: yet we know that great Men of the Church have caught; That it is absolutely necessary to the Peace and Happiness of the Kingdom, that there be set up a more severe Government over men's Consciences, and Religious Persuasions, than over men's Vices and Immoralities. Thus Teacheth Bp. Packer in his Ecclesiastical Policy, page 53. And that Princes may with less hazard give Liberty to men's Vices than their Consciences, page 55. And what he Taught, others have Practcied. 2. For easy Condescensions to Dissenters: The Church may safely purge herself from this guilt; yea, we assure her the Dissenters will be her Compurgators herein. 3. The Rigorous Execution of the Laws we confess hath given cause to abhor the Executioners: but then how can he be guiltless of the Sin of Dividing, who pleads for the perpetuating these Laws, which he confesseth, gives just occasion to abhor them, and are Pomenters of Division? How inconsistent is he with himself and reason in this? for if these Laws may not be Executed without prejudice to the Union of the Church, why are they continued in force? if Rigorous Laws foment Divisions, as is confessed, these cannot be guiltless of the Divisions, who urge the making and executing such Laws as the D. now pleads for.  
The Lesson he prescribes to Magistrates, That their behaviour towards their People should resemble that of discreetly tender Parents towards their Children, not indulging their folly, by an imprudent fondness, nor punishing their faults by too harsh a Correction, but by constantly keeping a strict hand over them, which will prove the most Effectual means of preventing or restraining their Exorbitancies. This we hope the Magistrate will learn, and look upon the Sons of the Church to be no more Bastard's, than Dissenters, but use the Rod of Correction to drive out that folly is bound up in their Hearts, and so prevent or restrain their Exorbitancies.  
The 2d Lesson this D. prescribes to Magistrates is, That at present they keep a strict hand in managing the public Affairs in this Kingdom, etc. His Reasons for their being strict, are these: 1. Within these 5 years many thousands of Families have come from Scotland to settle in this Nation. 2. They and their Teachers are zealous for the Covenant. 3. They have come from a place where Episcopacy is abolished. 4. He fears, from their aversion to the Ecclesiastical Policy of the Church, when their Numbers and Preachers are increased, they will overturn the truly Apostolical Government of the Established Church. And then he prescribes an Antidote against this Plague, viz. That their Preachers be obliged to perform their Quarantine, and to undergo some Religious Test before they be admitted to Preach in their Conventicles.  
A. This Admonition having apparently its rise from fear, must be considered with its Causes, and Remedy. His fear seems to arise from his gift of Prophecy; by laying aside which, or prophesying better things, he might cure himself of that panic fear: for we dare assure him, that some of us are so far from desiring the overturning of the truly Apostolical Government of the Church, that we could wish them overturned, who turn it out to turn in another of their own: though we are persuaded, if the Bishops were turned out of Parliament from all their Civil Honours, excessive Revenues, and sole Exercise of Church-Jurisdiction, and should be obliged to Preach the Gospel constantly, and not to Lord it over God's Inheritance, we should not lose any thing of the Apostolical Government; which we may the more boldly say, because we find in a Speech of the Lord Delamare's in Parliament, against the Bishops Voting in case of Blood, these words: I like Bishops very well, but I wish that Bishops were reduced to their Primitive Institution: for I fear, while there is in England a Lord Bishop, the Church will not stand very steadily.  
To his first cause of this fear, viz. The many thousand Families that are come out of Scotland, whether the Government will judge it the Interest of the Kingdom, to hinder its Planting with his Majesty's Industrious and Loyal Subjects, to gratify the D. and cure him and the Irish Papists of their fears, is very doubtful. But I believe, those, who value the Protestant and British Interest in Ireland, could wish that many more thousand Protestant Families were Planted here, though they were not all of the D's. persuasion; nor do we see that this would lessen the Revenue and Strength of the Kingdom, abate gentlemen's Rents, spoil the Nations Trade, nor hinder the Clergys' Tithes; so that it is questionable wherein the Nations Interest can be to obstruct Protestants settling here. If his fears be because such are Scotch, 'tis but the ordinary effect of such panic fear as to bereave Men of considerate thoughts which seems to be the D's Case: For beside the little Religion he Evidenceth in his Antipathy against that Nation, there is as little policy as piety, in its seeing the Nobility and Gentry of that Kingdom (whom he boasts to be Members of this Established Church) cannot but resent such a public affront done to their Nation.  
To the second cause of his fear, viz. Their Preachers Zeal to the Covenant: If by it he means the National Covenant Subscribed by King James the 6th. and all Ranks of Persons in Scotland in 1580, 1581., and 1590., they will own it, as the ancient Confession of that National Church; and we suppose his Scotch Episcopal Brethren dare not disown it, seeing it was a part of that Contradictory Test which they imposed, the old professional part contradicting the new promissory part: but we suppose he intends the solemn League and Covenant: and here we believe he may be mistaken of their Zeal for that, as it is a League with England and Ireland obliging them to a Reformation, seeing as a these Leagues formerly made with France oblige England since the French have violated them. The Antidote against Ireland's Planting by Protestant Subjects from Scotland, smells rank of National Antipathy, and smites his Majesty King William, with his now blessed Consort Queen Mary, as Plaguers of that Nation, by Abolishing Episcopacy: but yet let this Antidote be no worse than its words are, and we refuse not to perform a just quarentine, and undergo any truly Religious Test, that His Majesty shall think necessary to promote God's Glory, the Nations Peace and Prosperity by: Yet Experience hath found some of these called Religious Tests to be National Pests, and should others observe them no better than the D. and some of his Brethren have done, the Government may possibly be rendered more secure, but not more safe by them.  
But we perceive the D's. fears are increasing, and therefore he would have all the Nation Alarmed with the Danger of the Cameronians, who (as he saith) are lately Landed in considerable Numbers!  
A. These considerable Numbers of Cameronians lately landed must have come from Vutopia, for there be no considerable Numbers of them now in Scotland, and other Nations bring forth no such Fruit: For since the late happy Revolution, all, except very few, unite with the Established Church there, and their Preachers now orderly and ordained Ministers, one whereof is a Chaplain to a Regiment in Flanders, and in good esteem with his Majesty for his Zeal and Courage, whereof he hath given good proof: And we dare say, that those, whom he calls so dangerous, have spent more blood in the defence of the Protestant Religion, and in the Service of their King and Country both at home and abroad, than all the Episcopal Clergy in Britain and Ireland; for the truth of which we doubt not but the best of the three Nations will vouch. But while he is alarming the Kingdom with 〈◊〉 from 〈…〉 doth he not also, as a Faithful Watchman warn it of his Jacobitish Brethren, who swarms hither daily, and notwithstanding their publicly declared Contempt of His Majesty's Government and Authority, in denying Allegiance to him in Scotland, are entertained as bosom Friends by some Clergymen in Ireland, though they performed not their quarantine, by swearing Allegiance to K. William: And if the Government desire satisfaction in this matter, they may (by search of Records in the several Counties where they are entertained) find out the truth of this and much more concerning such course men.  
The Vindicator had told, That there had been avowed designs of Extirpating Protestant Dissenters, declared by many Sanguinary Laws passed against them both in England and Scotland, and that there were later ones in Scotland that made it capital to be present at their Meetings, which the D. reckons unpardonable disingenuity ('tis well it is not the sin against the Holy Ghost) and to prove it, these irrefragable Arguments are produced. 1. He never heard it. 2. He is informed by those, who have reason to know better than the Vindicator, that there is not one Sanguinary Law in England against Protestant Dissenters, and in Scotland not one, except one, which was August 13. 1670.  
A. To his first demonstration taken from his not hearing it, it seems his ears are of a prodigious length, when every matter both of Fact and Law must be within the sphere of their activity: if things cease to be because he heard them not, a great many have had no being, of whom he never heard. The next from his Informer, is little better; for Episcopal Informers have not been always men of the best reputation; yet it is strange that they should be ignorant of those Laws, by which they had so much of other men's wealth; but it's like, that being now out of date, they are not fond of owning their old friends, lest they should purchase new Enemies: But if the D. (who sees by his Neighbour's eyes) will receive truer Instruction from a Dissenter, we will make appear that what the Vindicator asserts is real truth.  
To begin then with England, because its Laws against Dissenters are of eldest date, we will find that Sanguinary Laws were there, First, against the Soul; Secondly, against the Body; Thirdly, against the Estates of Protestant Dissenters.  
And to give the Church the deserved pre-eminence in this case, by her Canons made Anno 1603. eleven of these in the Van are leveled against Dissenters, by most of which they are to be excommunicated ipso facto, and not to be restored, but by the A. Bishop after Repentance, and a public Recantation of such wicked Errors: And when by this Canonical Scimitar they are cut off from the Church Militant, and by virtue of the keys of Heaven committed to it, the gates of Heaven, which it seems were formerly potent, are now shut against Dissenters, and alti janua ditis, made open, and they delivered to the Devil, lest he should prove too merciful in not receiving their Mittimus, the poor Dissenters, by a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo is to be apprehended by the Sheriffs, or his Bailiffs, and without Bail or Mainprise cast into Prison, there to lie till he for, or recant, by which he is deprived of the benefit of the Law and Clergy both. Now, if this be no sanguinary Law, to cast men out of the Church, (out of which they teach there is no Salvation) and to deprive them of their Liberty, and Protection of the Laws, only for impugning the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, according to the 6th Canon, and at once to cut men off from their part of Heaven and Earth, unless they would counter-act their Conscience; let the World judge.  
Secondly, the Civil Laws made against Dissenters in England were sanguinary, if that may be construed such, which deprives men of Livelihood and Liberty; For 1. The Act of Uniformity; by which, If any Minister convicted to have refused to use the Church Service, or to have used any other Rite or Ceremony, Order, Form or Manner, than what is set down in the Common-Prayer-Book, he loseth a whole years' profit, and must undergo six months' Imprisonment for the first fault: For the second, to be deprived, and suffer a whole years' Imprisonment: For the third, he is to be deprived, and Imprisoned during life; and if he be not a Beneficed person, for the first fault he is to be imprisoned a whole year; and for the second, during life: So that a man, for not using the Cross in Baptism, and Kneeling at the Sacrament, (things which God never required) must be deprived of his Office, Livelihood and Liberty, and thus starved in Prison; but for this, perhaps the D. hath a Turkish distinction, that strangling is no shedding of Blood, and yet we reckon he would judge it sanguinary, were he tried by it. But farther, all persons not resorting to the Church on Sundays and holidays, are to be fined 12 d. per day, and to incur the Censures of the Church, which according to Canon 9, 11, 12, is Excommunication ipso facto, with its appurtenances; yea, by Canon 10, if we shall dare to say, that we have long time groaned under the burden of certain Grievances imposed upon us, we are to be Excommunicated, and not restored until we repent, and publicly retract such our public Errors. 2. Act is that made in the 13 Eliz. to which every person not repairing to Church, according to Statute 1 Eliz. The second shall forfeit 20l. for every month, if they so make default; and if they forbear for the space of 12 months, they are to be bound with two sufficient Sureties in 200 l. Bonds to good Behaviour: And by a Statute 29 Eliz. All Grants made by such Offenders, which are by them revocable, intended for his maintenance, left at his disposal, or in consideration whereof, he and his Family are to be kept, shall be utterly void against the Queen; for the levying the forfeitures for not coming to the Church, and the Queen may seize all the Goods, and two thirds of the Lands and Leases of every Offender not repairing to Church as aforesaid; which after their first conviction, do not pay at the next Term, at the rate of 20 l. per month, and though the party be not in the Realm, the Indictment is to lie, and upon an Indictment found, a Proclamation is to be made that such Offender is to render himself to the Sheriff before the next Assizes; which if he do not, he is to be held Convict: These who are not able to pay their Forfeitures are to be committed to Prison till they pay or conform, which if they refuse, makes the Imprisonment perpetual. And 35 Queen Eliz. It is Enacted, That if any above Sixteen absent themselves from Church above a Month, or frequent Conventicles, or persuade any other so to do, they shall be committed to Prison, there to continue, till he or she Conform, and make open submission, and confess that they have grievously offended God, etc. And if within three Months they refuse to Conform and make such submission they are to abjure the Realm, and if they refuse to abjure, or return after without leave, they are to be proceeded against as Felons, and have no benefit of Clergy. This we suppose was literally a Sanguinary Law. Again by a Statute the 16 Car. 2d, this 35 Q. Eliz. was revived. And farther Anno 17. Car. 2d. Non-conformists who take not the Oxford Oath there set down, which is this. I A. B. do Swear that it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King, and that I abhor, that Traitorous Position of taking up Arms by his Authority against his Person, or against those that are Commissionat by him in pursuance of such Commissions, and that I will not endeavour any Alteration of Government, either in Church or State. Likewise, If any Nonconformist Minister Preach in a Conventicle, or come within 5 Miles of any City or Corporation, or place of his Ministry, except on his Journey, or summoned by a Subpena, he shall forfeit 40ls. Furthermore the Crimes in 22 Car. 2d. against Conventicles, are, 1. To be present at an Assembly under colour of Exercise of Religion any other way then according to the Liturgy, etc. where 5 Persons, or more besidess those of the Family are. 2dly. If any take on him to Teach or Preach in such Meetings, for the first Offence he forfeits 20l. For the second, 40 pounds, etc. 3d lie, If any person suffer such Meeting to be in his House, Outhouse, Backside, or Garden; for his first Offence, he is to pay twenty pounds; for the second, 40 pounds, etc. and every Hearer five shillings, with Ecclesiastical Censures, which is Excommunication ipso facto, according to the 11th Canon.  
Now from all this, we leave it to the judgement even of Adversaries themselves, whether the Vindicator might not assert, that there were sanguinary Laws in England designed to extirpate Protestant Dissenters; in exerting whereof, the Prelates of the Nation had a warm Vote, tho' now (blessed be God) they be abolished by Act 1689.  
His vindicating Scotland against the guilt of sanguinary Laws against Dissenters, is proof that he hears ill, else the cry of that Blood shed there by virtue of these Laws, (which hath even reached Heaven, and brought deserved Vengeance upon the shedders thereof) might have pierced his ears; and that he sees ill, if he sees not these Laws yet in record; but his own confession, that there was one sanguinary Law (though he borrowed Sir Geo. Makenzy's Commentar on it) is a sufficient proof of a design to extirpate Protestant Dissenters there, seeing that one Law, De Heretico Comburendo, as employed in England by Q. Mary, was supposed sufficient to extirpate the Protestant Religion out of England; but had he not designed to blindfold his Reader, a little more pains, and honesty, might have enabled him to discover many sanguinary Laws in Scotland: of which, take these few instances.  
The 1 saint Parliament of C. the 2 d. Sess. 1. Act 4. It was Enacted, that none be Masters in Universities, Schoolmasters, or Pedagogues, who would not own Prelacy, which that Nation had abjured; even the Lawmakers themselves, whereby many were deprived of their livelihood because they would not be perjured.  
Sess. 2. Act 2. It is Enacted that all Petioning, Writing, Printing, or Remonstrating, Praying or Preaching showing any dislike of the King's absolute Prerogative, be punished as Seditious, and that no Meetings be kept in private Houses. Upon which accounts some suffered death.  
Sess. 3. Act 2. It is Enacted, That all Nonconforming Ministers, that presume to Exercise their Ministry, be punished as Seditious Persons: And that all Persons in in acknowledgement of his Majesty's Government Ecclesiastical, attend the service of the Curates: Noblemen and Gentlemen refusing, to lose the fourth part of their Rents; Burgesses their freedom, and fourth part of their Movables; Yeomen a fourth part of their Movables; and others, twenty shillings every time, leaving the Council to inflict other Punishments as they thought fit. It is also Enacted, That if there were three above the Family at Preaching, or Prayer,, it should be esteemed a Conventicle. And for putting these Laws in Execution, a High-Commission-Court was Erected, by the King, contrary to Act 13. Parl. 10. Jacob 6. with power to Examine upon Oath, Desuper inquirendis.  
Parl. 2. Lauderdale Commissioner. It is Enacted by Virtue of the King's Supremacy, that ordering the Government of the Church, doth properly belong to His Majesty and his Successors, as an inherent Right to the Crown, and that he may Enact and Emit such Constitutions, Acts and Orders, concerning Church Administrations, Persons, Meetings and Matters, as he in his Royal Wisdom shall think fit. And thus a fair way was laid for K. James' reforming the Church. This Act was to be obeyed by all Subjects, any Law or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding.  
Sess. 2. Parl. 2. It is Enacted, That who should be required to depose upon Oath, their knowledge of Meetings, or Persons at them, should do it on pain of Fining, Imprisonment or Transportation.  
Act 5. Enacted, That outed Ministers, found Preaching or Praying in any House, but their own Family, be imprisoned till they find bond of 5000 Marks, not to do the like again, every hearer, toties quoties, 25l. if a Tenant, 12l. if a Subtenant; and then all who Preached in the Field, or in a House, if any of the people be without doors, shall be punished with death: And they who can seize or secure any such Minister, dead or alive, shall have 100 Marks Reward. The Magistrates in Boroughs to be fined at the Councils pleasure, for any Conventicles held in their Boroughs. Men to be fined if their Wives or Children went to Meetings.  
Act 6. Fines were imposed from 10 to 20l. sterl. on such as had their Children Baptised at such Meetings, and Servants in half their Wages.  
Act. 11. Sess. 3. The same Fines were imposed on them who kept their Children unbaptised for 30 days, and by Act 7. of the same Sesse. Intolerable Fines were imposed on all who absented themselves 3 days together.  
Anno 168●. The D. York being Commissioner, without taking the usual Oath appointed by Law, and against Actmaking Papists incapable of that Trust; the Fines were doubled for Field Conventicles. Gentlemen were obliged to remove Tenants, and Masters their Servants, without warning, if they went to Meetings.  
Act. 6. They imposed on all a self-contradictory Test, obliging them to own the Confession of Faith recorded in Parliament, 1 Ja. 6. which disowns the Supremacy, and asserts the lawfulness of defensive Arms, tho' the contrary to both was Sworn in the promissory part of the Test, without so much as a Non obstante; and for taking this Test with his own Explication, was Argile Beheaded.  
Parl, 1. Ja. 7 D. Queensbury Commissioner. I● is Enacted, that such as being cited as Witnesses, in cases of Treasons, or Conventicles, and refused to depone, should be liable to the punishment of the same.  
Act 8. All who Preach or Hear at House or Field-Conventicle, shall be punished with death, and confiscation.  
We hope now by this Account, (which if any doubt, we refer them to the Printed Statutes of the Nation). If the D's Conscience be nor seared, it will be so much his friend as to smi●e him for the injustice he has done to truth, in asserting that there were no sanguinary Laws in Scotland, save one. And though these Laws were so severe, as to deserve abhorrence of all in whom any spark of Christian humanity remains: yet the execution of them was more cruelly rigid: Dragoons, and a barbarous Pagan Highland-Host being employed to execute them, without any Process of Law. All that can be said for the D. is, that if he thinks as he writes, he is scandalously ignorant of what all Britain knows; if otherwise, he is gtolsly disingenuous to impose upon the credulity of his friends.  
As the D. hath given a sad specimen of his intelligence, so he gives equal discovery of his prudence, while he upbraids the Scots Conventicle Rebels, for refusing to Pray for K. Ja. For do not his Jacobitish Brethren deal so by K. William; and doth not himself so now, as they did then, tho' under some other obligations to do it than ever they were; whence we may tell him in his own words; that his Principles and Practices are destructive to the Established Church and Government, if not Praying for K. Ja. be so. And that there be several distracted Cathedral Rebels, who refuse to save their Live and Bishoprics at so dear a rate, as Praying for the King. Therefore he and his Party are no●, in bonafide, to accuse any for such Principles and Practices, though we despise both, as much as his folly, in laying these things to our charge.  
Secondly its great imprudence what he saith next, vizt: Certainly these who refuse to give the Government under which they Live, all reasonable assurances, of their Fidelity and Obedience; and will not solemnly disown their turbulent Principles, but still retain their inveterate prejudices, and pernicious disaffection to the Established Church, cannot with any modesty expect to be treated as sincere and hearty friends, but as declared open Enemies, to the lasting Peace and Settlement of the Nation. For hereby he smites his dearly beloved Episcopal Clergy of Scotland under the fifth rib, and justifies all that the Government there hath done against them, tho' they should declare them open Enemies to the Peace of the Nation, seeing they have refused to give the Government under which they have lived these 5 years, any reasonable assurance of their Fidelity and Obedience, but still retain their inveterate prejudices, and pernicious disaffection to that Church and State, so far doth partial passion Transport him, that he mortally wounds them he pretends to defend.  
The V having asserted as a good effect of the indulgence granted in England, that since Conformists and Dissenters, converse more sociably and live more peaceably than formerly. This is Contradicted by the D. for this reason, he hath been oredibly informed, that Dissenters in England were grown very insolent on the News of the Dissolution of the last Parl. and resolved to necessitate the Government to some larger Concessions to their Ministers.  
A. Dissenters have little reason to expect a just account of their Actions, from Bp's. informers, who have been so great a plague to them in England: But tho' the Authority he makes use of were good, his reasoning is bad: for while the V tells what hath been done for time past; he resutes that History, by a Prophecy in telling what they resolve to do, tho' it's hardly credible English Dissenters would communicate their Intrigues to Episcopal Informers: But, time now can tell the World both the falsehood of his History and Prophecy.  
His unjust reflection on those he calls our Nonconforming Fathers in Q. Eliz. time, as persons of restless Tempers, who for meek Petitions proceeded to Admonitions, then to Satyrical Remonstrances, and thus threatened first the Bishops, and then the Q. and Parl. evidenceth him to be of such a Spirit, that neither Heaven nor the Graves of Godly Men do secure their Names from the venom of his tongue and pen, yet we count it our honour to be Children of such Parents as many of those persecuted for Nonconformity were, being Ornaments to their Nation for their Learning and Godliness. And most opposite to the Character he and Walton unjustly gives them, as their own Works and the best Historians of their time inform us.  
The D. being, as he says, led by the V's. method, to consider the replies made to his Answer to the first Paper: Had this reply to an Argument of his against granting any further favour to Dissenters, than these several marks of Regal favour which they enjoyed. That it's reasonable that the continuance of the same favour should be secured to them by Law. To this the D. rejoins that a Legal Security of the same favour is not denied them, if they be pleased to accept of it with these Clauses and Restrictions that their equally deserving Brethren do now enjoy it in England.  
A. If the favour which we now enjoy through His Majesty's Clemency, should have these Restrictions added to it which our Brethren in England have annexed to theirs, it would not be the same we now have, so far is he mistaken. 2. We look upon the Restriction annexed to the Indulgence granted to the Dissenters in England, neither suitable to the Rules of Christian Religion, nor the true interest and safety of this Nation. Not of the first for these reasons.  
By this Sacramental Test (which is annexed to the Indulgence of England) Dominion must be founded in grace, for if men's Right to their Civil Privileges must depend upon their capacity to receive the Sacrament, to the receiving whereof the Church in the order of the Communion, requires true Repentance: than it requires grace to capacitate them for Civil Rights and Privileges, and for want of true Repentance they must forfeit Employments to which they have a Hereditary Right. Which Notion hath been Condemned as Irrational and Irreligious: yea, Balaam's Ass Taught better Divinity, when it said, Master, am not I thine Ass? Acknowledging his Right, tho' he had not grace. It this principle should once obtain, its fatal consequence might possibly reach the Mitres.  
2. But what is yet worse, this Test shall make a Ceremony, viz. (kneeling at the Sacrament) the Condition of both State and Church Membership: For if none but such as kneel at the Communion, shall be admitted to share of these Privileges, to which as Christians and free born Subjects they have right, the gate unto the Church-Militant, is made straighter than that into the Church-Triumphant. From which we hope Men will not be so uncharitable as to exclude all who do not kneel at the Sacrament, seeing Christ and his Apostles used no such posture.  
3. This makes kneeling at the Sacrament, Lord Paramount over all the rest of the Ceremonies, by putting the keys of the Church door only into its hand, and so it becomes the only evidence of saving grace, when all that scruple it must be debarred from the Sacrament as Profane, and these who bow to, and kneel ●t, the A●tar, are the only holy.  
4. Not to kneel in receiving, by this Test, is made equally criminal with believing Transubstantiation, the Idolatrous Worshipping of the Bread, and all the abominations of the Mass with Papists: and with denying and contemning both Ceremony and Substance with the Quakers; whenas the same and no other punishment is inflicted upon Papists and Quakers, than is upon Protestant Dissenters (for refusing the same Test) tho' we agree with them in the Doctrine of the Sacrament.  
5. To put Men upon this Dilemma is the tender mercy of the wicked, and is to tempt Men to damn their S 〈…〉 preserve their Bodies; And to give sacred things to dogs. For if the persons have by Christ's Institution a right to the Sacrament, by what Authority can Man debar them by their Inventions, if they have none, than these are not faithful Stewards of the Mysteries of Christ, who abuse them to serve their own secular ends.  
6. By this the Validity of the King's Commission, must depend upon the Curates Certificate. And so His Majesty must have a Congee Des Lyre from the Clergy, before he can give out his Commission for any Civil Office, lest he lose his labour. For the D. tells us plainly so much p. 27. that there are several Ecclesiastical Laws, sti●l in force, by which tho' Dissenters be not wholly unqualified for Admittance unto Civil Offices, yet they are perfectly dis-enabled from continuing in them. So that their present quiet enjoyment of Employments, is not so much owing to their Legal Qualifications, as to the Lenity and kindness of the Ecclesiastical Governors. And so no Thanks to the King for the Dissenters Employments, but to the good Lord Bishops. It seems the Bishops of Rome are not the only pretenders to a Supremacy in Temporalitus.  
As it is not consistent with the Piety, so not with the interest of this Nation, to impose unnecessary Tests and Ceremonies, whereby men are frighted from coming to Plant in this kingdom, when all wise men have thought fit to decoy Inhabitants, by granting large Immunities and Privileges: By this policy the Roman Empire grew from small beginnings to be the Mistress of the World. But to set up Scarecrows to fright any from coming to Plant and Trade in the Nation, cannot be consistent with the wisdom of its Government: And sure we are, neither the Heads or Hands of Papists in Ireland are so few, and despicable, nor their friends abroad so weak or unwilling to help them, that we should think Ireland overstocked with Protestants to defendit: which Ceremonies will never do (for the Papists are better acquainted with them, than to be terrified by them) if another 1641 and another 1688 should recur. And we may tell the World, that the first Test contrived against Dissenters in Ireland, tho' it proved fatal to its Contrivers, was, by God's Providence, a means of preserving the Dissenters; who forsaking the Nation on that account, were preserved from the Massacre 1641; and these same persons returning, were the first relief that Ireland got, which can be made evident by many yet alive, and may be instructive to pasterity.  
The V having (to prove the equity of giving freeborn Subjects, the same legal Indulgence, in their Dissenting, as is given to Foreigners) asserted, that the French Protestants, if left to their liberty, would choose a Discipline and Worship more conformable to their own, than that of the Established Church. Hath this Answer: We are not to pass judgement on a particular Church, from the inconsiderate words and actions of some of the meaner sort of the Laity, but by the solemn Declarations, and constant Practices of the Learned Clergy of that Communion. And to show the Sentiments of the French Church, produceth a triple testimony of three French Divines in favour of the Established Church, and censuring the Dissenters separation from it: from three Letters written fifteen years ago on this Subject, by Monsieur Lamoyne, M. D. Langle, and M. Cloud, which we shall not transcribe; But,  
1. We think it strange, that the Bishops of the Church of England, should own the French Protestants to be a Church, and to have a learned Clergy, when in the mean time they deny them to have a Lawful Ordained Ministry: and force them to be Re-ordained who come for Refuge into England, and are willing to conform. So that this seems to be but a compliment, given for these 3 Letters, and no sincere acknowledgement of their being a Church. A Reverend French Minister informs us, that flying from Persecution into England, he with some others were permitted to Preach in London, but upon his refusal to be Re-ordained, he was not only hindered to Preach, by the Bishop of London, but denied any part of the public Charity collected for the French Protestants, and so was necessitated to leave England. The same entertainment others of them met with here in Ireland about Anno 1680 or 1682; who flying to Dublin, and setting up the beginnings of several useful Manufactures: but being averse to join in the Church-Service, a certain charitable Peer lent them his House to Worship in, where they served God, according to the manner of the French Churches; whereupon their Minister was seized & imprisoned, etc. until, for obtaining his liberty, he consented to quit or abjure the Kingdom. And yet Liberty was publicly allowed the Papists. And we are well informed how the Papists now insult over them, as having (by their disowning the validity of their own former Ordination; and being Re-ordained by Bishops in England) thereby declared, that they have hitherto been no Church, have had no Sacraments lawfully Administered among them; which is a great addition to their former miseries: so that whether it be worse to destroy the being of that Church in all time past, or persecute some of its Members in time present, be the greater severity, and so whether the Popish or English Clergy have been more merciful to the Protestant Church of France, we leave to be considered.  
2. The Testimony of these 3 Men, are not the solemn Declaration, and constant practice of that Church, as he vainly says, but the opinion of three private Doctors, to whom he might oppose the Judgement of 3000, and the constant known practice of that Church, solemnly declared, in its public Confessions of Faith, and Synodical Constitutions, disowning the Form of Worship and Discipline of the Church of England: And it seems as unequal to judge of a Church by the Sentiments of several of her learned Clergy, as by the Laity: What a Monster would the Church of England be, if we were left to judge of her, by the several opinions of her Learned Clergy, whereof some approve, others condemn Arminiasm; some are passive obedient Doctors, others not, some for Episcopacy jure Divino, others think it only jure Humano, some have been for, others are now against, Liberty of Prophesying, etc. The justest way than of judging what are the sentiments of a Church, is neither by the private practices or opinions of Clergy or Laymen; but by their Unanimous, deliberate and publicly declared Judgement in their Confessions of Faith and Synodical Constitutions: which had he produced against us, had been some service to his cause. And we have just cause to except against the Evidence. Some of whom have conformed, and have disgraced their Church, by renouncing its Ordination, so that these who have dishonoured their Parents, will little regard their Brethren.  
3. We know that indirect means have been used to obtain such Testimonies against us, and can tell of one who had 4 good fat Benefices in England, with a Faculty of Nonresidence, to Enable him to Traffic in France, introducing Dissenters, and Exalting and vindicating the Prelacy and Ceremonies of England.  
4. The Testimonies are not fairly produced, but a part concealed of the Letters, which had he repeated would have condemned himself. And therefore M. Cloud in his Letter as Published by Dr. Stillingfleet, p. 448. hath this. I hope my Lord, you will not be wanting in the Duties of Charity and Spirit of Peace, and that when the dispute shall be only of some Ceremonies, which are stumbling blocks. and which in themselves are nothing, in comparison of an entire reunion of your Church, under your holy Ministry, you will make it seen, that you love the Spouse of your Master, more than yourselves; And that it is not so much from your greatness and Ecclesiastical Dignity, that you desire to receive your joy and glory, as from your Pastoral Virtues, and the ardent care you take of your Flocks.  
M. De Langle tells you that even amongst these separating Brethren, there is a very great Number of good Men, whose Faith is pure Piety sincere; And it seems to me that the good and charitable Bishops ought to say of them, as Optatus Melivitatus said of the Donatists, in something a different sense, Si Collegium Episcopate notunt habere nobiscum, tamen fratres sunt. And I'm sure, saith he, that if there were nothing wanting to cure your Divisions but tho abstaining from some Expressions, the quitting some Ceremonies, the changing the colour of some Habits, you would resolve to do that, and something more difficult. But this the D. disingenuously conceals because of his Moderation, which is contrary to his Nature or Design.  
The V having asserted also, that a further security ought to be granted to Protestant Dissenters, than to Papists; for this reason, that some difference should be made between them who deserve well, and them who deserve ill, of the Govarnment. The D. allowing the reasoning to be unque6ionably true, yet will have it understood with this supposition; that if the Civil Parent be forced by the pressure of some unfortunate occurrences, to a concession of such  and advantageous conditions to an Enemy; which if he were left to the freedom of his own will, neither his fatherly kindness would incline him, nor his prudence permit him, to allow even to some of his own Children; this were no reflection on his justice, or kindness.  
A. Supposito quolibet sequitur quodlibet; But let us suppose as well as he, what is real matter of fact, that the Civil Parent is under no such pressure, but delivered from it by the assistance of his dutiful Children: It would reflect on his justice, not only to treat equally dutiful Children unequally: but to deal worse with the dutiful Children, than with rebellious heart-Enemies. And it is but to Preach up Rebellion, to tell us, that our Civil Parents may reward Rebellion with privileges, not to be granted to Loyal Subjects. For if Rebellion be the way to obtain privileges, men will easily be induced to Rebel.  
To the D's reflection on Dissenters, as men of uncertain measures, and unsteady tempers, and therefore not to be trusted; for it's unknown, what changes some sudden turns of public Affairs, might make in the passions and interests of such men. We Answer, that though we pretend not to immutability, yet most Dissenters dare assert the certainty of their measures, and steadiness of their tempers, to have exceeded their Accusers: for neither can he charge us with breach of our Oath to any King, after Swearing never to take up Arms against him, nor any in Authority by him, upon any pretence whatsoever: nor did we violate our Faith by endeavouring alteration of the Government in the State. Having never taken such an Oath. Some of his own Brethren can tell him, that the Pillars of his Party, who in former Reigns were fixed Stars, are now become Planets. And that of the seven Golden Candlesticks, put in the Tower by King Ja. five of them proved Prince's Metal. The Speech made by the Bishop of M. in the name of the Clergy, to King Ja. at the Castle of Dublin, March 1688. And that made to K. William at his Camp nigh Dublin, 7 July, 1690. by the same Persons, convince us, that sudden turns of public Affairs, will change men's passions, yea, and prayers to, witness that set framed 1688. against the Invasion intended by the Pr. of O. and the new Edition framed since for K. William, where God is thanked for not hearing the former prayers, so that Turpe est doctori cum culpa reda●guit ipsum. If they be afraid of our unsteady tempers, let us be Established by Law and that prevents the evil in us as well as them.  
The D'● consequence from the uncertain measures, etc. of Dissenters, viz. that all prudent and unbyass'd persons will agree in judging that a limited Indulgence will be more proper for the Non-Conformists, than a legal and restrictive Liberty, etc.  
A. We are of opinion, that neither We, nor the Established Church have right to unlimited Liberty; for as Rex habet in Regno suo superiores, Deum legem & Parliamentum, as a great Lawyer saith; so we are satisfied, that both C? & N. C? be limited by these, only we desire that our Liberty granted, be not clogged with Tests destructive of that Liberty, by which only the best and most capable of serving their King and Country, amongst the Dissenters, are Disenabled thereto: And tho' as he saith, that none blame the Chineses for building a Wall to defend their Frontiers from the Incursions of the Tartars: yet we are told by as good an Author as himself, that, that great Wall doth not keep the Cham of Tartary from invading that rich and plentiful Country, insomuch that his successors have been quiet possessors of it, ever since 1650. But tho' Walls be good for defence, yet the Chinesies were never such fools as to make partition Walls to divide their Kingdom.  
The D. vain gloriously boasting, that he had beaten the V out of his several Arguments, pursues him with open mouth to matter of fact. And is as followeth.  
The V had hinted a memorial of the State of the Church of Scotland since the Revolution, to vindicate the State and Church from the unjust Calumnies of the Answerer to the Case, which Memorial he had from two Scotch Gentlemen, particularly acquainted with the affairs of that Nation: which the D. will have to be a forgery pretended to be wrought by a friend, when it was the V ' s own Act and Deed; and his reasons for this forgery are, 1. The Title discovers it to be his. 2. The Genius of the Person, who is not like other Men, for setting things in a false light.  
A. The D, pretends indeed to an Extraordinary Sagacity in discerning Styles.  
And yet what the V asserted in that is firm truth, for the Gentleman (if needful) can be produced, and will own that Letter to be theirs, and prove every tittle in it to be true; so that if there be any Genius's more remarkable for raising and false accusing of the Brethren than others, the D. is unhappily matched with one of those.  
But let's come to the Merits of the Cause: The first thing in the Letter he is offended at, is a general reflection cast upon the whole Body of the Scotch Bishops, for their declaring their utmost abhorrence of his presens' Majesty's descent into England, their Unanimous deserting of the convention of States, both which he denies to be true for this reason, That if they had been guilty of these things, it would have occasioned some public and severe remark, to be passed upon them, and would have been insisted on, as the most plausible, if not the greatest reason for extirpating of Episcopacy, whereas in the Act for Abolishing Prelacy, there is not the least censure passed on any of the Bishops. etc.  
A. That the Bishops of Scotland did both declare their abhorrence of the Prince of Orange's descent, and Unanimously desert the convention of States, are such evident truths, that nothing but wilful Ignorance, or gross Impudence would make a man deny them, because they were not done in a corner, but in the face of the Nation, now their Address to King James will sufficiently prove the first, which take as followeth.   

The Address of the Arch Bishops and Bishops of Scotland to K. James, upon the news of the Prince of Orange ' s Undertaking, Nou. 10. 1688. Vide Gazette, Numb. 2398.  
May it please your Most Sacred Majesty.  
WE prostrate ourselves to pay our most devout thanks and adoration to the Sovereign Majesty of Heaven and Earth, for preserving your sacred Life and Person, so frequently exposed to the greatest hazards, and as often delivered, and you miraculously preserved with Glory and Victory, in defence of the Rights and honour of Your Majesty's August Brother, and these Kingdoms, and that by his merciful goodness the ragings of the Sea, and madness of unreasonable men have been stilled and oalmed, and Your Majesty, as the darling of Heaven, peaceably seated on the I hrones of your Royal Ancestors; whose long Illustrious and unparallelled Line is the greatest glory of this your Ancient Kingdom: we pay our most humble gratitude to Your Majesty for the repeated assurances of your Royal Protection to our National Church and Religion, as the Laws have Established them, which are very suitable to the gracious countenance, encouragement, and Protection, your Majesty was pleased to afford to our Church, whilst we were happy in your presence amongst us.  
We Magnify the Divine Majesty for blessing you with a Son, and us with a Prince, whom we pray Heaven may bless and preserve to sway Your Royal Sceptre after you, and that he may inherit with Your Royal Dominions, the Illustrious and Heroic virtues of his August and most Serene Parents.  
We are amazed to hear of the danger of an Invasion from Holland, which excites our prayers, for an universal Repentance, to all orders of men, that God may yet spare his people, preserve Your Royal Person, prevent the Effusion of Christian blood, and give such Success to your Majesty's Arms, that all who invade your Majesty's just and undoubted Right, and Disturb or Interrupt the Peace of your Realms may be disappointed and clothed with shame; so that on your Royal Head the Crown may still flourish.  
As by the grace of God we shall preserve in ourselves an unshaken and firm Loyalty, so we shall be careful and zealous to promote in all your Subjects an intrepid and steadfast Allegiance to your Majesty, as an essential part of their Religion, and the glory of our holy Profession: Not doubting but that God in his great mercy, who hath so often preserved and delivered your Majesty, will still preserve and deliver you, by giving you the hearts of your Subjects, and the necks of your Enemies, so Pray we, who in all humility are,  
May it please your most Sacred Majesty, Your Majesty's most Humble, most Faithful, and most Obedient Subjects and Servants. Edinburgh Nou. 3 1688. Signed by the Lords Bishops. 

B. St. Andrews.  
B. Glasgow.  
B. Galloway.  
B. Aberdeen.  
B. Dunkell.  
B. Buchan.  
B. Orkney.  
B. Murray.  
B. Ross.  
B. Dumblaine.  
B. Isles.    
Here is a Specimen of those gentlemen's Genius whose heads the D. would preserve while he boldly opposeth truth, and necessitates us to lay open to the world this Trial of Skill of his Episcopal Brethren, who all yet (except the Bishop of Rapho whom an Irish Bishopric hath converted) glory in their being counted worthy to suffer for K. James, and continue to deny Allegiance to K. William, with many of their fellow Brethren.  
That the Scoth Bishops unanimously deserted the convention of States, we suppose none of themselves will deny, which if any do, we shall.  
In Answer to his reasons proving these Reflections untrue, because that the conversion would have passed some public and severe mark upon them had that been true, we say, that by this he sees the mildness and tenderness of that convention, who without laying open to the world their grossest Iniquities, only voted the Bishops and their Clergy the great and unsupportable grievance of the Nation, and thereupon voted the total abolishing of Prelacy, and if these be not public and severe marks indeed upon them, why doth he make such a horrid Noise about their Persecution; further 'tis not to be attributed to want of matter, that in the Act they are excluded by, there is no particular mention of the misbecoming actions of their Lives, etc. for Parliaments are not Historians, but yet if he long for a Legend of their Lives, he may possibly obtain his desires e'er long, little to their Credit, or his Comfort, for there are many recorded Instances of their misbecoming actions noticed by those who smarted under them, which if he necessitates us to lay open to the world, possibly his Brethren may thank him: For does he think, that so long as it remains in the Records of Counsel that they imposed, and took a contradictory Test, that it will not be alleged that they are perjured themselves, and the cause of it in others? or that they abjured what they had formerly sworn with great Solemnity, and betrayed the truth committed to them. Yea sure so long as it continues in the Records of these Counsels, whereof they were Members, that they ordered men to be killed without any Trial or Colour of Law, or so much as with an exception whether they resisted or no, it will be hard to purge them from the guilt of Murder: for it is very evident that these Prelates had a hot hand in all the Innocent Blood shed in Scotland in K. Charles II. and K. James I. times, which we leave to those who may write their History: Possibly the D. believes not this, because he heard it not, and therefore we urge him to inform himself better from Authentic Proofs and Records of that Nation, that the Stains of his Brethren there may be a warning to him and all Clergymen to fright them from merciless cruelty, to which from a small trial of his skill already given, we fear he may be too much given.  
His second exception against those two gentlemen's Letter is, That it confidently asserts, that there is not so much as one single man, who was in the Possession of their Churches and public Live wh●n K. James abdicated and forfeited, who hath since K. William ' s accession to the Crown been thrust out for any other Crimes than either, 1. for not reading the Proclamation whereby K. William and Q. Mary were Declared King and Queen, or 2. for their not Praying for His Majesty, or 3. for not Swearing the Oath of Allegiance and Assurance, or 4, for such Immoralities as the Church of England as truly disallows as presbyterians. To contradict which, he produceth an Instance of one Mr. Samuel Mowat a Clergyman of Scotland in the Diocese of Glasgow, and at the time in Dublin, etc. who was in possession of his Church in Scotland after K. William and Q Mary's accession to the Throne, and read the Proclamation, etc. published by the Council of Scotland, April 13. 1689. by the appointment of the General Assembly, 2. Prayed for Their Majesties, 3. took the Oath of Allegiance and Assurance, 4. was free of Immoralities, etc. and declared himself willing to submit to the Presbyterian Government, according to his Majesty's Formula, and yet he was rejected by them because he would not renounce the Episcopal Government, and declare his sorrow for submitting to it.  
A. We might satisfy ourselves with this, that Mr. Samuel Mowat point blank denies what the D. hath written, to be his Testimony, and that it is grossly falsifyed; but tho' he had said all this, his single Testimony does not prove its Truth, for while he says that the Assembly appointed the reading the Proclamation whereby K. William and Q. Mary were Declared King and Queen, which Proclamation was published April 13. 1690. This must be false seeing there was no Assembly till October 16. 1690. when they first sat after the Revolution. It's true he Petitioned the Assembly who referred his Case to the Presbyteries of Lanerk and Hamilton where he had formerly been officiated, but was by them rejected for his Immoralities which himself knows, and all have cause to believe, seeing Bishop Foley late Bishop of Down and Connor did for gross Immoralities fully proven against him, deprive him of his Curacy he had got in the Parish of Dunean in the County of Antrim: So that if he was barbarorsly rob by Presbiterians in Scotland, he has met with as little mercy from his Brethren in Ireland, as the Records of the Diocese of Connor can testify.  
His third Exception to these gentlemen's Letter is to these words in it, viz. So far are they in Scotland from exercising severities against men, for being Episcopal in their Judgement, that a great part of the Ministers of that Kingdom, who enjoyed not only the Protection of the Government, but the free and Public Exercise of their Ministry, together with the legal Established maintenance before the first of September last, were or professed to be of the Episcopal Persuasion, and had not at that time so much as taken the Oath of Allegiance to his Majesty, and yet of these no more is required for their continuance in their Parishes, than that they take the said Oath of Allegiance and Assurance and that they behave themselves worthily in Doctrine, Life and Conversation, as appears by the Act of Parliament past July 16. 1695.  
Before the D. can answer this he throws himself into a paraxism of astonishment, at those who pretending to be more than ordinary strict and holy Ministers of Jesus Christ, and the most faithful Servants of the God of truth, that they can allow themselves the liberty of wilfully misrepresenting the most notorious matters of Fact, and the plainest State of public Affairs, and flatly contrary to truth and the mind of the writer; of which he offers to prove the V scandalously guilty. But had he rightly pitched on the guilty, and as truly confessed his own fault, as he falsely accuseth the V he might have deserved compassion; to cry out against those Sins in others, which we nourish in our own Bosoms, is hypocrisy.  
But in answer to these words, he first concedeth a matter of Fact, viz. That the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland have enjoyed the free Exercise of their Religion and quiet possession of their Parishes, etc. which indeed many in the North yet do. But saith he, 1. These Instances are but seeming favours. 2. They be produced as arguments of the moderation of the Presbyterian Government, whereas they are nothing else but the effect of the weakness of the Party.  
A. If the Protection of the Government in the free and public Exercise of Religion with the Legally established maintenance, be but seeming favours: Let the Dissenters here have only such seeming favours and we shall promise in their name real thanks for the same. But, 2. He might have owned them real favours, had he considered on whom they were conferred even the Abetters of Viscount Dundees Rebellion: For by his silence to the third Paragraph of that Letter, viz. That at the Abetters of Viscount Dundees Rebellion were, or pretended to be of the Episcopal persuasion, as have also all those that have made any Public Commotion in that Kingdom since this happy Revolution, he tacitly confesseth the truth thereof. But thirdly that these favours were the effects only of the Presbyterian party's weakness, will not be so easily believed by considering men, for why should the Party be able to destroy the Root, the Bishops and their prelacy and yet not be able to Lop off the Branches, is improbable: These sure who could extirpate prelacy in the North, had Power to drive out Curacy there too. But to make it evident that it was not the effect of weakness but their moderation, they have now driven out all that rebellious brood, who had contemned the King's Clemency and Church's moderation. Yet farther, had the Church of that Kingdom been weak, the State was not, but could easily extirpate them, for he is mightily mistaken of Scotland, if he thinks that many of that People would be Martyrs for Prelacy.  
That the Episcopal Party in the North are a formidable Party, and therefore kept it depends on the Credit of his Informers: for were they such as he saith, they're neither stout nor kind in suffering their Reverend Fathers to be laid aside: Why might not the Children who were able to secure themselves, being so formidable, been willing also to defend and continue their Fathers? Yet his reason to prove them a formidable party, viz. That part of Scotland on the North of Tay is known to be little less than the half of the Kingdom is not very formidable: for if the Highlands and Isles of Scotland be comprehended in this, his Geography may hold good, but his reason's lame, for he will have little Credit of many of the Episcopal Highlanders, who possess more Land than Religion: And that the Episcopal Party there is eleven to one, depends on the veracity of his Informers, who, we see, are no friends to his Reputation, and will at last cause him to turn Bankrupt of it, if he continue to give such Lefthanded News-mongers such Credit: For deduce from the number Papists (the most of whom are in the North) he must abate of the proportion; for in the Shires of Sutherland, Stranaver, Ross and Murray there might be, and hath been a force (which was a terror to its Enemies) raised to defend the Settlement of State and Church. Besides all this, considerable numbers are in every part of that Country, and these as strict as any in Scotland; by which we see he's little acquainted with the State of that part of the Kingdom.  
These favours than werenot the effect of weakness, but the genuine supple fruit of the Clemency and Moderation of that Church, which by long experience of the evil of oppression (which is apt to make wise men mad) are resolved upon it as the surest method to secure themselves; and indeed their moderation is that which now is become most formidable to their wisest Enemies, and the true cause why not the same moderation but distinct courses were taken with the Episcopal Clergy in the North and in the West, is because the Ministers in the North were generally men of better Learning and Lives, and less concerned in these Cruelties and Oppressions, by which the West was harassed; and so, having done less harm, were more favoured, while those in the West met with Adonibezek's Reward. Now from all this let the Reader judge if the D. had just cause for his so rash judging the Vindicator.  
His 2. Reason to prove the V scandalously guilty of Disingenuity, and representing things contrary to Truth, and his certain knowledge is, that there are no Acts of Parliament in favour of the Episcopal Clergy, save that of July 16. 1695. And therefore leaves it to the Reader to judge what sort of usage the Episcopal Clergy had for five years past, not only from the unparalleled rage of a barbarous Rabble, but also from the intemperate zeal of their bitter and bigoted Enemies in Authority.  
We join issues with him, in referring to the consideration of the prudent and impartial Reader, what sort of usage the Episcopal Ministers in Scotland have had these five years past, and tho' we think he will be none of these Readers, yet let him judge of his own words page 7. where he hath confessed that the greatest part of them (for these in the North he hath laboured to prove so) have had the Protection of the Government in the free and public Exercise of their Religion, and the quiet possession of their own Parishes, and legal maintenance, notwithstanding that they had not taken the Oath of Allegiance to His Majesty, nor made any Submission to the Presbyterian judicatories. Is this barbarous usage? we wish the Government here would treat us thus barbarously. Let him seriously reflect on what he saith page 10. Certainly these, who refuse to give the Government under which they live all reasonable assurances of their Fidelity, and Obedience, and will not Disavow their turbulent Principles, but still retain their inveterate prejudices, and pernicius Disaffection to the Established Church and State, cannot with any Modesty expect to be treated as sincere and hearty friends, but as declared and open Enemies ●o the lasting Peace and Settlement of the Nation. How applicable all this is to his Scotch Brethren, we leave all knowing men to judge: and tho' now that Government might justify itself, himself being judge, tho' they had used his Brethren as declared Enemies to the Peace of that Nation, because they have hitherto for five years (tho' often required) refused to give the Government, under which they lived, any reasonable security for their Fidelity and Obedience, yet hath it dealt favourably with them.  
But, saith he, They have made but one Act in their favours.  
A. Let us have but one such, tho' two years after theirs, and we shall pardon all that's bypast. But doth not the Church of Ireland think herself Established by one Act of Uniformity, yet it is false that they had no more Acts than one passed in their favours, for April 13. 1689. The Convention of States did prohibit any injury to be done by any Person whatsoever, to any Minister of the Gospel, either in Church or Meeting house, who are presently in possession and exercise of their Ministry. By this Act a stop was put to all Rabbling which had been in the Interregnum; and in Aug 16. 1689. a Proclamation was issued out, Restoring all that had been put out by violence after April 13. 1689. So that they had more Acts in their favour than they deserved, seeing they continued to deny Allegiance to K. William and Q Mary.  
To what he saith of the unparalleled rage of the barbarous Rabble, (tho' neither Reason nor Religion will justify tumultous and confused outrages) yet that same rage had a parallel in the same proportion as near thirty years are to three months, during all which time more blood was shed in Scotland for Nonconformity, then in the bloody Reign of Q. Marry, for that which Papists call Heresy. The Act of Council October 1662. is another parallel to the Rabble's rage, by which 300 legally Established Ministers were turned out of their Churches and Houses, without either Citation or Hearing; whereas that Rabble some days beforehand gave a Citation to those whom they turned out, and told them why they did so treat them.  
Further, 'tis no wonder that this man dare speak evil of Presbyterians as such, when he dare revile the Gods, and speak evil of Dignities; not paying that respect to the Authority of Scotland, which the Archangel paid to the Devil; when, contending with him, he durst bring no railing accusation against him: but this man dares Arraign, without distinction, the Authority of that Nation, whereof His Majesty is Head and Fountain, as Intemperate Zealots and bitter, and bigoted Enemies to Episcopal Ministers. Had a Dissenter used half such Language, we know who would have cried out, Crucify him, Crucify him. And indeed such scurrilous Language may a waken Authority, to consider what they may expect from some sort of Clerks, if their Mitres and Bellies be once touched.  
Having railed upon the Authority of Scotland, he next falls foul on the Act of Parliament, July 16. 1695. notwithstanding all its Clemency; Complaining of it as a Continuation of Severities. And that for these reasons, 1. saith he, the favour is granted only to these Ministers who were at His Majesty's Accession to the Crown, and have since continued actual Ministers of their particular Parishes, and so no Provision made for those who were Rabbled out, tho' they should take the Oath of Allegiance, etc. which he hopes the V will allow to be Severity.  
A. It needs not be thought severe to keep our some of those, whom the Rabble put out, seeing many of those 300 Ministers, who were thrust out October 1662. by the Counsel without and against all Matter or Form of Law, were yet alive; And never were by the prelatical Church itself Canonically suspended or degraded, nor legally deprived by the Magistrate, so that they're continued still dejure Ministers of these Parishes: when then that violence by which they were barred from the Exercise of their Ministry was removed, they might peaceably re-enter, having all right to officiate there, there being neither Canonical nor legal Impediment to obstruct them; in the same manner as the Episcopal Incumbents here, (after they were forced from their Parishes in K. James' time) returned to them in K. William's; the parallel being the same, because the Bishops came last into Scotland, not by Law but the Will of the Governor. If any severity by done than it is justly deserved by those, who unjustly thrust themselves into other men's Possessions: But 2. many if not all in the West, were violently thrust in upon the people, to whom by Law the Election of their Ministers belongs, and therefore they never looked on them as Ministers, for the Scotch Law allows no man to be put on any Parish without the People's Election and Consent. Again 3. Those men had been active for the most part in all the oppressions of that People, at least, as Informers and Promoters, and were voted by the convention the griivance; If then they were happily delivered from the Yoke, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, it needs not be wondered at, that the Government was not willing to gall the necks of that People with such yokes again; Besides all this, these very men were, and are known to be heart-Enemies to the Revolution, and were they let in again, undoubtedly they would open a door to K. James' reentry. Let all men judge then if it were not severe to humour such men.  
But his other ground of dissatisfaction with that Act is, That it excludes those who were under Sentence of Deposition or Deprivation.  
A. Doth not the Law of England also deprive men of the Benefice, who are degraded from the Office, seeing Beneficium datur propter Officium; for none were deposed by Presbyteries; but such, whose Crimes upon full and fair Trial deserved such Treatment. Is that severe in a Parliament to deny those men wages, who have cut themselves off from service in the Church.  
Further, to evince the more than ordinary severity in Scotland, against the Episcopal Clergy since the Revolution, the D. allegeth an Act of Parliament June, 12. 1693. whereby is is Enacted. That no Person be admitted or continued to be a Minister or Preacher within the Church of Scotland, unless he own the Presbyterian Government to be the only Church Government of that Church, that he will submit thereunto, and and concur therewith, and never endeavour directly or indirectly to do any thing to the prejudice or subversion thereof.  
A. The disingenuity so oft complained of in the V seems not to be so much a dislike of the evil, as that this D. would make a monopoly of it for himself; for in this report we have a considerable deal of it, for he waves the consideration of what it was brought to prove, that a great many Episcopal Ministers enjoyed the Protection of the Government in the free Exercise of their Ministry, and legally established maintenance, 2. That the places of greatest trust are in the hands of those who are Episcopal in Judgement, several of whom were instanced, so that no severity is exercised merely for men's judgements in that matter, all which by his silence he seems to confess, and yet insisteth in his ordinary rote of of exclaiming against the Government, But we say, 2. The Act cited doth not inflict any penalty on any for being Episcopal in Judgement, 3. There is nothing in this Act but what upon the matter was agreed to by the Episcopal Clergy in their Address presented to the General Assembly of that Church, held Jan. 15. 1691/ 2. with the following Formula they promised to Subscribe.   

The Address of the Episcopal Clergy to the General Assembly held at Edinburgh.  
WE under-subscribers for ourselves, and our constituent Ministers of the Gospel humbly show, that since the Episcopacy is abolished and Presbyterian Government is established as it was 1592. we being desirous to exercise the holy Function, wherewith we are invested, in our several Stations, for the Glory of God, Advancement of Religion, their Majesty's Service, and the Peace of the Nation, do therefore humbly desire that stops and impediments may be taken off, so that we may be admitted as Presbyters to sit in Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies in concurrence with the Presbyterian Ministers in the Government of the Church as now established by Law in this Kingdom.   

The Formula Proposed is,  
I A. B. do sincerely Promise and Declare, that I will submit to the Presbyterian Government of this Church, as now by Law established in this Kingdom under K. William and Q. Marry, by Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and General Assemblies, and that I will as it becomes a Minister of the Gospel, hearty concur with the said Government for the suppressing of Sin and Wickedness, the promoting Peace, and purging the Church of all Erroneous and Seandalous Ministers, and do further Promise that I will Subscribe the confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms now Confirmed by Act of Parliament as containing the Doctrine of the Protestant Religion Professed in this Kingdom.  
By all this it appears that the Act obliges to nothing but what these Addresses offered, except a promise not to subvert the Government; which they indeed refused as a severity; but we leave the world to judge of the sincerity of such Ministers of the Gospel, who will promise to submit to a Government, and concur with it, but will not promise not to subvert it; but (if needful) we could fully detect to the world the juggle of that whole design. But 4. Knows he not that the Act of Uniformity requires the same from all Conformists, which he exclaims against in the Church of Scotland? is not then the height of partiality to condemn that as rigid severity in others, which we applaud in ourselves as Justice and Prudence.  
But his second Exception against this Act is, it's ordering that uniformity of Worship and Administration of all public Ordinances in the Church of Scotland, be observed by all Ministers and Preachers, as it is at present performed, or shall be hereafter declared by the Authority of the same: which he looks on as equally unreasonable, as the Papists requiring Implicit Faith, or subscription to the Oath, etc.  
A. It is very unjust in him to instance that as a piece of severity against the Episcopal Clergy, which by the Act all Presbyterian Ministers as well as they are obliged to. But if uniformity of Worship and Administration of all public Ordinances be so Popish and unreasonable, why so much noise about it in his Church? to deprive men of a birthright privilege, if they comply not: But 'tis Scotish Conformity only disgusts him, for what concerns the English and Irish, he can say, ego mihimet ignosco.  
But saith he, They are to subscribe to what shall be Ordered by the Church, as well as to what is at present Ordered.  
A. We ask him seriously whether he that swears Canonical Obedience to his Ordinary, doth not oblige himself to be ruled according to such Canons, as shall be made by the Church as well as by these which are already made, or when a Judge sweareth to administer Justice according to Law, whether he obligeth not himself to Judge by Acts of Parliament that shall be made, as well as by those that already are? And if so, he dare not say, (whatever he may think) that they are guided by an implicit Faith or takes an Oath, etc. Even so when the Ministers of the Church of Scotland promise to govern their flocks, and be governed themselves by such constitutions as are already made, or hereafter shall by the common consent of the Church established, what man compos mentis can condemn them? doth not nature's light reach us, that all who join themselves to a Society ruled by Laws, are obliged to be governed by these Laws already made or to be made, especially when they are made by themselves? if this be Popery, he must be such, or resist the Government in the execution of Laws made since his creation, but men of inconsiderate & slippery judgement must be dilemmaed.  
His last instance of Scotish severity is from an Act made July 5. 1695. against Intruders, by whom are understood all who have not an orderly call from the Heritors, Elders, and People, with a legal Admission by the Presbytery; now such by that Law are to be removed from these Churches, into which they have intruded, and rendered incapable of any Church or Stipend within the Kingdom for seven years, etc. but he tells, that by these Intruders are chief means Episcopal Ministers thrust out by the Rabble, who had repossessed their own Churches.  
A. This Act was made against allIntruders without exception, Presbyterian, or others; and we suppose thought Rational by all reasonable men, for the English Law justifies not a forcible Entry, even tho' a Person hath a right. And I doubt not, but the Church of Engl. would condemn it in her own case: for I question if the D. could defend the late Bishop of Down and Connor with the Archdeacon, (who looked on themselves unjustly deprived of Bishopric and Live by the late Regal visitation) should they re-enter and possess themselves of what they have lost, without owning Church or State.  
But we say that those who were rabbled out, neither have nor dare intrude into those Churches from which they were rabbled, and challengeth him to instance one who hath so done. But the truth of the matter is this, some of those who were rabbled out in the West and South, went to the North, and there by the connivance of the Inheritors, and some of the Parishioners did intrude into vacant Parishes: some also had been deposed by the Church for Immoralities, others who were put out of their Benefices by the Counsel, for refusing to swear Allegiance to K. William, and supported by the Jacobite party, did enter into Churches in contempt of both Civil and Ecclesiastical Government. Against these this Act was made, so that none are counted Intruders, meenly for repossessing the Church out of which they were turned by the Rabble, seeing that by the Proclamation Aug. 6. 1689. all who had been Rabbled since the Settlement of the Government, were restored to their Churches.  
By this the D. (as he thinks having proved the Parliament of Scotland guilty of great Severity, for making an Act against Intruders) concludes, undoubtedly the reason of the V's. not publishing that Act of Parliament July 16. 1695. not to be what is alleged, but his fear of setting matters in a true light, and exposing too plainly his gross and wilful misrepresentations of the present State of that Kingdom.  
A. We leave it to the Parliament of Ireland, whether they will thank him for inveighing against the Parliament of Scotland thus at random, when both have the same head, and in all these Invectives his Sacred Majesty is reflected on: But how ridiculous is it to reason thus? The Vindicator durst not publish the Act of July 16. 1695. lest he should have exposed the severity of the Parliament against Intruders, when there is nothing in that Act against Intrusion, but it is, (as himself tells us) by an Act July 5. 1695. what needs the V fear the publishing that Act, which all allow to be an Act of Clemency, we are satisfied the V had not seen that against which he so much Inveighs: Nor needed he fear the publishing that other Act which was in Print: yea so far were Dissenters, from any sear from that Act that they industriously spread it amongst Members of Parliament here, as a good precedent of Moderation.  
The D. having discharged his spleen upon the Parliament of Scotland, returns upon the Church Government, saying, by way of mock, I must indeed acknowledge that we cannot boast of our coming up to, or equal in the example which the present Presbyterian Government in Scotland has set us. For first, our moderation to Dissenters has not expressed itself in raising of the Rabble against them; much less in returning them public and solemn thanks for the greatness of their Zeal in so doing.  
A. His first instance of this Churches negative moderation to Dissenters, contains an unreasonable calumny thrown upon the Presbyterian Government of the Ch. of Scotl. for during the Rabble's Reign, there was no legal Government in Church or State: And therefore the Church is not chargeable with things done before it was reestablished or had power. That the Church gave the Rabble public and solemn Thanks for their Rabbling, is false; but the truth was this, the Prelates of Scotland, with the Jacobitish Party, headed by the Viscount Dundee, having conspired against the Convention of States, then assembled at Edenburg, to settle the Crown of that Kingdom upon K William and Queen Mary, had secretly conveyed 200 and upwards of armed men into the Town, in order to scatter the Convention, and so defeat the Nations Settlement. Hereupon the Gentlemen and Commons of the West, being then in Arms, came with all expedition to Edinburgh, whereupon the Viscount of Dundee with his party immediately fled and entered into an open Rebellion, which ended with his Life at Killycrankie. These Gentlemen who protected the Convention of Estates, till they had established the Government, are by him and his Episcopal Brethren in Scotland, called the Rabble. These indeed received the public thanks of the Convention of Estates, instead of their pay, and so went all home peaceably. But at this time there could be no Established Church, seeing there was not Established Civil Government.  
2. That he and his have not raised the Rabble against Dissenters in Ireland, we own not to him or his, but to the Rabble (if any such be) who if once up might possibly turn their rage upon others. Yet he and some of his have not failed to incense the Magistrate against Dissenters, who have thereupon employed armed force against them: For notwithstanding all that the Dissenting Ministers had suffered in the North for their Loyalty to Ch. 2. (being all banished by Oliver for refusing the Oath called the Tender, which many Episcopal Clergymen easily swallowed) yet upon his Restauration the Prelates stirred him up, contrary to his inclination, to imprison all Dissenting Ministers, and so persecute the People for Nonconformity, which was accordingly done: This, the Living Generation can abundantly Testify.  
A Second Evidence of the Church's Moderation to Dissenters he offers, is, That the Church of England Parliament, in this Kingdom, has not declared that Nonconformist Ministers, in exercising any part of their Ministerial Function, have offered a high contempt of the Law, as tending to perpetuate Schism, and of dangerous consequence.  
A. Seeing, as he saith, The Church of England Parliament hath not declared Nonconformist Ministers contemners of the Law, in exercising any part of their Ministry. How cometh it to pass, that the Church of England Clergy daily declare them guilty of offering high contempt to the Law? As being Schismatics; that the exercise of their Ministry is of dangerous consequence. We have cause to thank the Church of England Parliament, for their Justice and Moderation; but neither of us have reason to thank the Clergy for declaring the contrary. And though we may be satisfied with this Confession, that there is no Act of Parliament against us, yet we have cause to fear he will retract, else he hath laboured in vain in this Pamphlet.  
The third Instance given of the Church's Moderation to us, is, They have not made an Act of Parliament against ut, making Nonconforming Ministers Intruders, (although they be really such) into Parishes.  
A. If the Law doth not make Nonconforming Ministers Intruders, by what Law doth he call them so? The Law of the Land he vindicates from this Aspersion, and we are sure the Law of God layeth no such crime to our charge. For Ministers, duly qualified, and by the unanimous consent of a Christian People, elected and called to be their Ministers, are not intruders, tho' their Election be not ratisyed by the Civil Sanction; else all the Ministers of the Gospel for the first 300 years of Christianity had been Intruders. That a Christian People have power to Elect and call their own Ministers is according to the Primitive Pattern. Cyprian's Rule Lib. 1. Ep. 4. is consonant to Scripture, viz. Plebs ipsa, potestatem habet vel eligendi dig nos sacerdotes vel indig nos recusandi. And even in Rome itself, in Pope Leo's time, it was a Rule, Qui prae futurus est omnibus ab omnibus Elegatur. And such we are able to make appear our Election to the Ministry to be.  
2. Nor hath the Parl. of Scotland made any Act against intruding into Parishes, but against intruding into Churches and seizing upon Manses and Glebs: which if N. C's. here had done; it's possible they had both heard and felt that there are Acts of Parl. against such intruders.  
The fourth instance of Moderation is that the Established Church hath not forbid these Dissenters, whom the Calamities of the late times had driven away, to return and perform any Ministerial Acts in the places where formerly they held their Conventicles for want of a Legal Call.  
A. Had Dissenters as obstinately refused to swear Allegiance to K. W. and Q. M. as his Episcopal Brethren did in Scotland: we should have had as little favour as the Non-jurant Clergy there have had, and justly deserved it. But why the Government of Scotland only should be condemned for severity, when both in England and Ireland the Non-jurant Bishops and Clergy have met with the same measure, and yet he dates not tax the Government here, or in England, of severity upon that account, so that he is either grossly impartial, or a Jacobite in heart, tho' he appear for King William.  
The Fifth Instance of Moderation, is, That they have not here authorized or required the Mayors of Corporations, and Justices of the Peace, to remove all those who have intruded, or shall intrude, as they have done in Scotland.  
A. If the Civil Magistrate were subject to the Authority of the Church, we have cause to be confident of being otherwise dealt with than at present we are, God be blessed for it. We think he deserves a fee, if he'll make good that Dissenters may, without counter acting Acts of Parl. enter and possess Churches and Tithes: but then why makes he such a hideous outcry against the Minister of Letterkenny for his intrusion.  
His Sixth and last Instance of Moderation exceeding that of Scotland, is, that they have not ordered Writs of Rebellion against Dissenting Ministers, in order to the removing them out of Parishes where they live, and making them desist from exercising Ministerial Acts.  
A. For all this boasted of Moderation, the time was when there were Writs out against all the Dissenting Ministers to apprehend them, whereupon many were apprehended and imprisoned, which is well known. And we own but little thanks to Churchmen for the mercy we now enjoy. But by this he insinuates, that the Episcopal Clergy are by Writs and Capias' driven from living in any Parishes in Scotland, which is a Calumny, and by it we may see how safe his Majesty's Government is like to be, under such Directors of Conscience, who labour to possess his Subjects against him and his Government, as cruel and severe, notwithstanding all the Clemency he has used to such as are declared Enemies to his Authority.  
The D. having triumphed in the victory of the Established Church of Ireland over that of Scotland in point of Moderation, seems to be moved with a Prophetic Spirit, to foretell, that in case such Revolution of Church Affairs should happen in this Kingdom, as hath lately been in Scotland; the V and his Adherents would imitate the Presbyterians in Scotland, and make the Episcopal Clergy desist from exercising any Ministerial Acts, and Issue out Writs of Rebellion against them.  
A. Either he fears, what he supposeth, will come to pass, or not. If he doth really fear such Revolution, than we think 'twere his wisdom to be preparing an Ark for saving himself and household: though it be no policy to declare his fears, seeing thereby he encourageth Dissenters, and weakens the hands of his Friends, by representing us as a formidable party: But if he believes no probability of what he supposeth he needs not trouble us or his party with such Prophecies; for if he were not conscious to himself that he had deserved ill of Dissenters, he would not fear ill from them.  
To make his Prophecy probable, he tells us, that the Professors in Colleges of Scotland felt the rigour of the Presbyterian Visitation, which he calls by the odious name of Inquisition practised upon the Professor of the College of Edinburgh in Aug. and Sept. 1690. according to an Act passed the 4th of July 1690. By which it is ordered, that no Minister or Professor in any College or School shall be allowed to continue in the Exercise of his Function, but such as shall subscribe to the Confession of Faith ratified by this present Parliament, and submit to the Government of the Church now Established by Law.  
A. To stigmatize the Visitors of the University's acting by his Majesty's Commission, and Parliamentary Authority with the odious name of Inquisitors, and the Visitation with the name of Inquisition, doth palpably insinuate, that though the Heroic Ancestors of our King did drive the Inquisition out of the Netherlands, yet he and his Queen have brought it into Scotland. And though he will swear he intended no such ●●flection on his Majesty, yet it's too apparent he would make him, and these acting by Authority under him, successors to St. Dominick. 2. He falsely attributes to the Church the Act of the State. 3. When he would prove a removal of Persons Episcopal from Civil Employments he instances in Professors of Divinity, which are not esteemed Civil Employments in Scotland. 4. The ground of their removal was their refusing to swear Allegiance to K. W. and Q M. and the reason they gave for their refusal was that they were not crowned K. and Q. of Scotland, tho' they made no such scruple of swearing to K. James, whether or no by justifying them in this he partake with them in their evil deeds, let all Men judge. 5. It's highly hypocritical to rail at that as Sin in others which we applaud in ourselves as a Virtue, for what more criminal is it in the Church of Scotland to oblige its Professors of Divinity to subscribe its legally Established Doctrine, and to submit to its legally Established Church-Government, than it is in the Church of England to require Subscription to their 39 Articles, Assent and Consent to her Liturgy and Ceremonies, and Canonical Obedience to her Bishops.  
For an Epilogue to his History of Scots Affairs, since the Revolution, he gives a mock Commendation (as he is pleased to call it) the ingenuous temper of the General Assembly in their Act for a solemn National Fast. Nou. 12. 1690. wherein they gave a particular Confession of the Sins of the Nation. To which he saith, Amen, wishing they may be as sincere in repenting, as they have been ingenious in Confession.  
A. To have our Prayers and Fasts turned to reproach, is but what befell our betters, Psal. 69. 10. and therefore we may the easier bear it; but doth not the Church of England daily confess, we have erred and strayed from thy ways; we have done these things which we ought not to have 〈…〉 to require his Charity to the Church of 〈◊〉 〈…〉 wish him ingealous and 〈◊〉 in his .  
The D. having made his progress through Scotland, in his return home to Ireland, gives us a taste of his skill in persuading, while he would have us believe, that the gently Penal Laws, are not (as the V insinuates) a severe lash designed as Instruments of an Unreasonable Correction, but as the necessary means of keeping such Children, as are of a froward and ungovernable temper, within the bounds of a due Subjection: and therefore it ought not to be esteemed an unkind severity, but a prudent tenderness in a Parent, to deny them such indulgences, as in all propability will be abused, to the dive●●ing him of his Parental Authority, and to the encouraging of them, to a total withdrawing of their Filial Duty and Obedience for the future.  
A. This D. seems to be, or at least would have Dissenters be, like the Wives of Mascovy, who are jealous of their Husband's affection unless they correct them severely; But he must beat us out of reason and sense both,  he persuade us to this, and had he but tasted as much of these gentle Penal Laws as some have lately done, for refusing the Oath of a Churchwarden, he would change his Note. If to be Excommunicated, thrown into Prison, till a Man and his Family be utterly ruined, be gentle correction, how dares he exclaim against the severity of Scotland, where there is not one such Penal Law, nor one instance of a Lay-man's being fined, and imprisoned, for mere Nonconformity, much less for refusing to be Lay-Elders. And we suppose he cannot give instance, of any Church in the World, who Excommunicate, Fine and Imprison Men for refusing to be Officers in the Church, especially these, whom they condemn as Schismatics. And to thrust Men into Places of Trust in the Church out of Malice. That many more Episcopal Children, have discovered their froward and ungovernable temper (since the happy Revolution) then of Dissenters, is sensibly felt by the Government, and therefore the reflection on us hath as little Truth as Charity. Nor is it rational to suppose us such enemies to our own case, and peace, as to endeavour to divest these of Authority, by whose powerful Clemency we are protected from the claws of some of the angry Clergy.  
As to the second thing desired by Dissenters, viz. That there be no such Clauses annexed to the Bill of Indulgence, as might disenable them from serving their King, and Country, he observes to be the same Argument the Papists made use of in the late Reign for taking off the Penal Laws and Test, and that the design of Dissenters is the same, with that of the Papists, viz. not only to capacitate themselves for all Employments, of Honour, Trust and Profit, but also to exclude others, of a different persuasion, from having a share in any, unless perhaps in mean and unprofitable ones.  
A. The Observation (though his own) is not observable either for its Wit or Honesty, for if Dissenters ought not to use the Argument, because Papists have used it; then the Church ought far less to Cross in Baptism and kneel at the Sacrament, seeing the Papists have gresly abused them. But it's well known that Dissenters did refuse, to join with the Papists in taking off the penal Laws and Test, though they thereby might have had their own Fetters knocked off; yet they rather chused to continue in chains, then to suffer such ravenous Creatures to run lose; And we remember what fair promises were then made to Dissenters, for this piece of generosity, but the world knows how religiously these promises have been kept. And he may see that where Presbyterians have more than we desire, they have not ingross'd to themselves, all places of Honour and Trust, as now in Scotland, where such employments are enjoyed, by Persons declared Episcopal in Judgement; And its ridiculous to tell, that Dissenters won'd inhanfe all employments, to those of their own persuasion, and exclude others, seeing all of them are not of one persuasion, and so cannot enhance all to their own Party. But unless the Magistrates (to whom the grant of such Offices belongs) should turn Dissenters, it's unreasonable to fear that Dissenters should be able to make such a Monopoly.  
While he tells us That it's not reasonable that they should pull down any part of their Church, to furnish Dissenters with Materials to build and strengthen theirs. We must say that we knew not before now, that Penal Laws against Dissenters were any part or parcel of the Church of England: which if they be, as is said, it will be no demonstration of that Church's Antiquity, at least for that part of it: which must commence with the Act of Uniformity. Surely the Primitive Church had no such Pillars to support it, for 300 years and more, and yet the Gates, of Hell were not able to prevail against it. Bp. Taylor liberty of prophesying p. 18. will better inform him That imposing on men's understandings, being Masters of their Consciences, and Lording it over their Faith, came in with the rotinue and train of Antichrist, The increase of Interest, and abatement of Christian Simplicity, when the Church's Fortune grew better, and her Sons grew worse, and some of her Father's worst of all. And citys Tertullian, saying, S●d nec Religionis est cogere religionem, quae suscipi debet sponte non vi. To this he adds, That all wise Princes till they were overborne with Faction, or solicited by peevish Persons, gave To eration to different Sects, whose opinions did not disturb the Public Interest. Heretical Persons who are impatient of an Adversary, were the first, who entreated the Emperors to persecute the Catholics, but till 400 years after Christ, no Catholic Persons, or very few, did provoke the secular Arm, or implore its aid against Heretics.  
The D. having given his judgement with more passion than truth, against Dissenters, particularly these in the North, to make it appear reasonable (as he saith), he attempts to prove it by matter of fact since the Revolution, attested by several persons of known Prudence and Integrity in the North, who have given an account of many hard things against two Ministers there, both doctrinal and practical; the first of these is Mr. Liston, late Minister of Letterkenny; the 2d is Mr. William Holms. Mr. Liston is accused, First, of constant declaring the Church of England Popish and Antichristian. 2. Praying for its destruction. 3. Preacbed against its Feastivals, and said that they worshipped the Devil. 4. Discharged his Hearers to entertain any Conformists as Servants, but allowed them to keep Popish Servants. 5. That he persuaded the Parents of a Gentlewoman who had conformed, to deny her Meat, Drink, and Lodging, and to hang her for her Apostasy. 6. He abused the Legal Incumbent, and pulled him out of the Church of Letterkenny.  
A. Were this heavy charge as fully proven, as it's confidently alleged, it would not amount to all that's intended thereby, viz. To make all the Dissenting Ministers of the North odious to the Government, as a factious and violent people; no more, than the Simony, Adultery, Drunkenness, habitual Nonresidence, and neglect of Office proved against the Bishop and Clergy of Down and Connor, at the late Regal Visitation, will prove all the Clergy of Ireland guilty of the same crimes: Tho some are of opinion, that those on whom that Tower of Siloam fell, were not the only Sinners,; but if other Dioceses had umdergone the same Ordeal, these condemned might have some comfort in having more companions. If any desiderate proof of this, they shall have satisfaction from more Authentic Records than these produced to prove Mr. Liston's Lybel.  
2. Had he designed impartial justice in this matter, he had been as particular in naming the witnesses, as he is in naming the accused, and their crimes; for before judgement pass, the Law allows the Accused to see their Witnesses, to know if they have any exceptions against them; but by his hiding them, he gives the world ground to suspect they are not evidence beyond exception. And seeing the Civil Law denies them to be good evidence, or have been but lately reconciled: for this cause, in offensus affectus iestiam queritur ne irati nocere cupiant laesi ulcisci se velint. We have cause to suspect the Evidence; for those who persecute men when alive, and reproach them when dead, are not their friends. Yea, all this evidence is but on hear-say, seeing we have it from Conforming Clergy, who could not otherways know what he Preached and Prayed constantly, but by others testimony: And the Law saith, Testimonium quod ab aliena relatione dependet non valet. And indeed, to accuse a man long after his death, as here Mr. Liston is, when yet while alive, he was not pursued (though the Law both Civil and Ecclesiastical was open to them, and the faults, if proved, punishable by the Judge) is contrary to the Light of Nature, and Law of Nations, which teach, that Citatio & defensio sunt juris naturalis, and condemn no man uncited, unheard. The Civil Law says, that sententia contra mortuos ferenda non est; for that were, cum larvis pugnare, to fight with men's ghosts, which is neither Humanity nor Religion. And several of the things asserted are so improbable, that they must be scant in Charity who believe them.  
As for the 2d Instance of Mr. W. H. It's an arrow out of the same quiver, the person being a Probationer, upon the rumour of what is here alleged, was called to account for it, but vindicated himself sufficiently, whereby it appears we encourage no such intemperate, and indiscreet actions amongst any of our persuasion, but bring them to account for it; and we know by whose industry all the Aurea Legenda that can be collected in that part of the Country, are confidently published with teste meipso.  
From these Instances he draws, as he calls it, an undoubted conclusion, that if Dissenters had the uncontrollable liberty of a legal irrestrictive Indulgence, they would be most turbulent, insolent, and tumultuous, which he proves by the representation made by the House of Commons to King Charles the 2d above 30 years ago, as we heard before.  
A. Were these two Instances as true, as we have made them appear to be false and malicious; his conclusion might be doubted, as much as a conclusion from the many Instances of Simony, Adultery, Drunkenness, and constant Nonresidence judicially proved at the late Regal Visitation at Lisburn, to prove all the Clergy of Ireland guilty of these Crimes; and seeing he can produce no Instances of intemperate speeches, and illegal violences of Dissenters in the North, except these two pretended: this may satisfy the Government how far we are from such a distemper as he reproaches us with, though we have had provocations from the intemperate speeches of some Clergymen.  
As for his only strong Argument; his fear of the increase of the power and number of Dissenters, and therefore the Established Church should not be overfond of these seeming Protestants.  
A. His Party hath no cause to thank him for his policy; for by representing the Dissenters as so formidable a party, he encourageth them, and weakens the hearts and hands of his Brethren by these frightful Prophecies: If he be so really afraid of our power and increase, his wisdom will be seasonably to yield, and unite with us: For these penal Laws have not lessened our numbers, or weakened our power, seeing since their commencement we are in Ireland 100 to one; and if upwards of 100 years' experience of the absolute insufficiency of these Laws to prevent the daily growth of Dissenters from the Established Church will not convince him of their being useless Engines to defend it, we cannot help him more than these do his cause.  
The V having urged, That a Legal Indulgence was needful, in case another Rebellion, which God forbidden should happen: else what Gentleman among us would rise, for others to command? or would Tenants cheerfully rise with them on whom they have no dependence? and in whom they can as little trust.  
The D. tells us there's no danger of that, for the generality of the Nobility and Gentry of the North are Conformists, their Landlords, and Acquaintances, and men of great Estates to manage that.  
A. If the Nobility and Gentry that are Conformists, who in the late troubles promised fair things to Dissenters, should by the importunity of some of the hotter Clergy, be overpersuaded, contrary to their own moderate temper and interest, to forfeit that place they have now in the esteem of Dissenters; it would be impossible to induce reasonable men to trust them in a time of War, who had deceived them in a time of Peace. But we hope the Nobility and Gentry value as and their own interest more, than to sacrifice both to some implacable men for Ceremonies. It would be no prudence to provoke such multitudes, which in times of confusion little regard such distinctions as in Peace they do; and rather follow whom they love, and have been obliged by, than them they suspect, and have been hurt by.  
That those who shut the Gates of Derry were Conformists, and those who were Governors in it the time of the Siege, is asserted with more vanity than truth, if he say they were the only persons: But as both parties were united in heart and hand in that matter, so we shall not divide them in the praise: Tho we believe, what's well known, that the common Soldiers were the Governors, else it seems the Event had proved worse than it did.  
As to his credible information, that in the successful party at Enni●killen, there was not one Commission Officer, not so much as one Ensign, that was not of the Established Church, and of the private Sentinels, there were six Conformists to one Dissenter.  
A. We fear his Informers have imposed too much on his credulity, and to the hazard of his reputation, have employed him to retail many untruths. For we are as fully persuaded of the contrary, as we can be of a thing of that nature, having it from those who know well, that there were above eight Captains of the Presbyterian persuasion before, and at the Troubles, and some of us have been at the Tent of one of them at Dundalk, whose Father and Grandfather were Presbyterian Ministers of good esteem in Ireland; and is now in the Army in Flanders. There were seven Lieutenants, and several Ensigns, whose names we shall not publish without their leave. Mr. Kelso the Presbyterian Minister at Enniskillen, while he lived was very active, and died at Enniskillen: at that time one of his Congregation had a Company consisting of 140 men. It's true, most of them occasionally heard the Church of England Ministers; and after Mr. Kelso's death, and the removal of the rest, they had none else to hear, yet declared they themselves Presbyterians, and the most of them who are alive, do so still: And he must allow us to know our own better than he doth. But as we do not take all for ours who come occasionally to hear us, no more ought he to take all for his, who occasionally hear him.  
The V's Argument against the Test, viz. If the Parliament of England had thought the Sacramental Test needful, they could easily have added it, as they have the Test against Popery mentioned in the same Act. We have this Answer: If the Parliament of England had intended to excuse the Protestant Dissenters in this Kingdom from a Sacramental Test, as they had to the Test against Popery, they might have as easily forbidden the former, as they have positively enjoined the latter.  
A. This Answer is a weak Brother to some of the rest; for if the Parliament doth not enjoin, we think they do excuse● and had they not enjoined an Act of Uniformity, we think we should be excused for our Non conformity; for where there's no Law, there's no transgression.  
The Charge given against Dissenters in the North for not paying Conformist Ministers their deuce, till his Majesty put forth his Royal Proclamation for payment of them, is not fairly said. 1st, Because all the Dissenters were not guilty, several of those who stayed in K. James' time, and had Stocks, etc. in the lower part of Down and Antrim did pay to these Incumbents who stayed with them. 2d, The Conformists were as guilty of this as Dissenters; the reason of both was inability in the most parts, having nothing left to support their lives and families; and when the Army came where there was any thing, they took free quarters. And as they were not able, so they thought not themselves bound in Conscience to maintain non-resident and Pluralists, who, had they not been prodigal in time of Peace, had been under little necessity. Besides, some of the Clergy were in England, some Chaplains in the Army; yea, some of the Clergy will confess, that they were more kindly and justly dealt with by Dissenters, than by their own people, as all moderate men did find, and will upon such occasions. But if this was injustice, the Landlords suffered far more, who got nothing, and after the troubles did freely forgive one, two, or three years' Rent, and yet make no noise. It's well known the Bishops did not abate one farthing of their Rents, even for those times in which they could not keep their Tenants in peaceable possession, which severity was so much resented by some Conforming Gentlemen, that they threatened to turn Presbyterians on that account.  
As for the D's great fears, that if the desired liberty were granted to Dissenters, the door being once opened, they would all rush into the profitable and honourable Employments. This shows an earthly constitution of Soul, to have fears and cares mainly employed about things secular, and like Demetrius, who, though he pretended the glory of the Diana of the Ephesians, yet his and the Crafts-men's trouble, was, the fear of the loss of their wealth.  
In defence of the Sacramental Test, the D. tells us, they do not drive any to the Sacrament; but since the Civil Magistrate is God's Vicegerent, it's surely not unfit that he should imitate Almighty God, whom he represents, in proposing temporal advantages, as encouragement to the performance of religious actions; and they are best qualified for public Employments of the greatest profit, trust and honour, that give most public and signal evidence of their piety towards God, and obedience to the Civil Magistrate.  
A. Is it not driving to the Sacrament, when men are forced to it under pain of being driven to the Devil? Seeing such as refuse to communicate with the Church of England, are to be excommunicated ipso facto, according to Canon 9 of the Constitution 1603, and Canon 5. Constitution 1641. And is it not to drive men, when they must either quit their Civil Employments, and be made incapable of them; and to starve themselves and families, unless they will Communicate according to the form prescribed? And do not we daily see, that all the Soldiers are forced to Communicate, how ignorant and vicious soever they be? else they lose their pay.  
That Civil Magistrates may encourage those that do well, and be terrors to evil doers, we fully believe; but that kneeling at receiving the Sacrament (about which the debate between you and us is) is a religious action, or a public and signal obedience of piety to God; we admire how you dare assert, seeing he hath no where required it at our hands; and there are true acts of piety to God, and obedience to the Magistrate, which we see are not so much regarded as this act of Will-worship is: And why one single Ceremony should be made the test of our piety to God, and obedience to the Civil Magistrate, no man can give a rational account. That there be so many of the Established Church fitly prepared according to the Rubric for reception of the blessed Sacrament as are fit for all the profitable and honourable Employments, we are satisfied; but are forty that so small a proportion of them fall in the hands of such, and that they are treated no better than Dissenters for the most part▪ while some, whose Rubric fitness is shrewdly suspected, thrive better.  
As to what the V says of the modes of Receiving the Sacrament, who is against making sitting, standing, or kneeling the only posture of Receiving: we must allow him to abound in his own sense; but know that the most part of Presbyterians and Independants in Ireland are otherwise minded: who all judge and declare, that the Table gesture in receiving the Sacrament, and not the Adoration, is most agreeable to the first pattern given us by Christ and his Apostles, and practised in the Primitive Church: and to charge the sitting posture with undecency, is an undecent reflection upon Christ and his Apostles. That the Receiving in the posture of Adoration, was not brought into the Church until the 14th Century, and that only into the Latin Church, with the opinion of the corporal presence, is so well known, that it cannot modestly be denied. And therefore Dissenters wonder that so late an invention, brought into the Church upon so bad an occasion, and for worse ends, should be insisted upon by persons professing reverence to Antiquity, and declare their abhorrence of corrupting the doctrine of the Sacrament, with its ill consequence.  
Yet we do not see what danger the Church is in, of having its Authority infringed, or Laws nulled by the V's opinion; who, though he looks upon sitting, standing, or kneeling, too narrow enclosures, to keep people from the Lord's Table, yet will, it seems, allow liberty to Churches to determine in these things as they shall see meet.  
As for the Church's Authority to make Laws: 1. We think her power not Legislative, but Ministerial, and exetuti●● of Divine Laws. 2. That her Constitutions, at such, do not immediately and directly bind the Conscience. 3. That her Authority to appoint Rites and Ceremonies of mystical signification, or as parts of Worship, is none. 4. That her power is in determining Circumstances, and that these determinations are of the same extent and continuance with the reasons thereof; and that all her Conclusions, inconsistent with Edification, Order, Unity and Peace of Christ, are ipso facto void, and nullities. So that the world needs not be so much terrified with that great word, Church Authority, if they truly understand it, and the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.  
When he tells us, that he cannot be counted a wise man, that wilfully entertains seruples in his mind, and suffers himself to be influenced by them in his practice, we do not comprehend him, seeing scruples are fears of the mind, which vex the Conscience, as a small stone in the shooc doth hurt the foot; and are therefore sins of weakness: if they be wilfully entertained, they are not scruples, but wilful wickedness: so that we know neither wise man, nor fool, that will wilfully entertain any such diseases. But yet as wise men as himself, have had scruples, as the Apostles Peter and Barnabas, who scrupled converse with the Gentiles, Acts 10. Gal. 2.  
His Principle laid down, viz. That it's more agreeable to the Character of a truly wise man, so be scrupulously fearful of disobeying, than obeying the commands of Authority; will hold good where the Authority is infallible, otherwise not: for we may as lawfully scruple, yea, deny obedience to their unjust commands, as to disobey their lawful commands; and we find it agreed well with the character of the truly wise Apostles, to scruple obedience to the commands of Authority. It had been Ephraim's wisdom, not to have walked willingly after the command of Jorohoam, for which he was broken in judgement. Shall we suppose the seven Bishops put in the Tower, for 〈◊〉 to obey the late King Ja's Authority, were no wise men. Seeing therefore we own no implicit obedience to any man, we ought to be as afraid of obeying unlawful, as disobeying lawful commands.  
Why he should be surprised with the V's asserting, that Non-Conformists have been both before and ever since the Revolution qualified with Civil Offices, we do not see: seeing they had both Physical, Moral, and Civil Qualifications, and are not barred as yet by a Sacramental Test: but it seems the V did forget that a Canonical qualification was necessary for being in any Civil Office. For there are, as he says, Ecclesiastical Laws, by which, though Dissenters be not wholly unqualifyed for admittance into Civil Offices, they are wholly disabled for continuing in them. Tho this be possible, it seems not reasonable, that any cause should disable a man to bear and execute an Office, which did not disable him to enter in it, when the matter is known before. By this the Ecclesiastic Laws are like Decoy Ducks, which let in their fellow creatures, and then catch them in the Net. But it seems Dissenters must pay the thanks for all their Civil Offices, to the lenity of Ecclesiastical Governors, and not to the bounty of the Civil Magistrate, who seems to be as much sub ferula of the Church as Dissenters are; for though they may give, they cannot make good their grants.  
If the D's modesty could have allowed him to suffer others to commend his Answer for its fullness, or had he been so patiented, as to hear what could be said against it, he would not have so severely reflected on the V or boasted of himself as he doth.  
That there might be a symmetry in this defence, as he began, so he ends with hard words, in which he taxeth the V with undecent and profane ridiculing the first Constitution of the Apostles against eating of blood.  
A. To accuse any of so great Crimes without sufficient proof, is rather reviling than reasoning, which is ordinary with men of stronger passions than reason, when they are not able to answer Arguments, they fall upon them and the Arguer, employing bantering as a succedanium for reason.  
His 2d. Accusation, that the V unjustly and irreverently applieth the words of our Saviour, Mat. 7. 10. to the celebrated Parl. of Ireland. We believe the Members of Parliament will not look on these words with the D's eyes, but will rather consider them as an allusion, and that upon supposition that the Parliament should give a toleration to Dissenters clogged with such a Test; it would be as giving a stone when bread is asked.  
To conclude, There are some reflections on the doctrine and practice of some Dissenters occasionally communicating with the Established Church: where he observes the inconsistency of some of the V's words, which we not being able to justify, leave to their Author to vindicate them, and will ingenuously acknowledge, with the Author of that Book called Vox Clamantis; which he citys, That such Non-Conformists as upon occasion to get into places of Honour, and Profit, will and can take all manner of Tests that have been of late imposed, or can on such occasions take the Sacrament according to the form and way of the Church of England, though they never did it before, and perhaps never intended it after, except on the like occasion, are too justly obnoxious to be suspected, as men of flexible and profligate Consciences. But we are sure the V intended to justify no such persons.  
Having now impartially considered this Defence, we must tell him, that if he had borrowed as much out of Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicum, as he hath stolen out of his Unreasonableness of Separation, and given less credit to his Jacobitish Pamphleteers in the affairs of Scotland, he had better consulted for his own reputation, and our ease and might have spared several reflections he too liberally bestows on his Majesty's Government in Scotland: but hereby he hath given a Commentar upon the old Prelatic Maxim, No Bishop, no King: that is, if Kings do not support Bishops, there shall be no Kings.  
But we wish that our Zeal may be better employed about things wherein the glory of God, the good of Souls, and the peace of the Church and State may be more concerned, than either they enjoying their Ceremonies, or we our Civil Offices.    

AN ANSWER TO A Peaceable & Friendly Address TO THE Non-Conformists, &c,  
ALtho' the reasonings of this Address appear not to be so powerful, as to make us Schismatics, and thereby uncapable of a Legal Toleration; yet, left our not pleading to such an Indictment as is here drawn up against us, should be construed to flow from sullenness, or conscious of a weak and ill cause; we cannot but consider them, and that either to prevent the Addressor's conceit of his Work, as if it were impregnable, or choler for looking on it as contemptible.  
If it be malum omen cespitare in limine, the Doctor hath snappered on a piece of disingenuity in the very frontispiece; for what he calls a Peaceable and Friendly Address to Non-Conformists, upon perusal, appears to be a Libel against them as Schismatics, and its design to provoke the Civil Magistrate to keep us still under the lash of penal Laws for Nonconformity; so that, as it is reported of a Polish Ambassador sent to Queen Elizabeth, at his arrival, he pretended he came for Peace, but when he had his public Audience, he proclaimed War, whereupon the Queen said, Heu quam decepta fui Legatum expectavi, Herauldum accept, I looked for an Ambassador, but have received a Herald; so when ye have raised our expectations with the name of a Peaceable and Friendly Address, bring in an Accusation against us, as guilty of a Crime (which if what Divines say of it be true) is no less than renting the mystical Body of Jesus Christ, and if this be your kindness to your friends and brethren, you must excuse us if we be not fond of that relation.  
In your Epistle, seeing you flatter yourself with hopes of doing some good, and confidence of doing no hurt, by publishing this Address, and that because of the calmness and temper, ye have studed in it, to prevent giving offence to your Non Conforming Brethren, as ye call them, we hope it will be no hurt to tell you, that the studied temper and calmness of your words, will not make an atonement for the distemper of its matter, and windy storm and tempest thereby designed; for you mistake your Nonconforming brethren, if you think them so simple as not to be offended with good words and fair speeches, whereby men lie in wait to deceive, and, tho' your words be smother than butter, yet it is evident to us that war is in your heart, while ye cast iniquity upon us, and were they softer than Oil, we must look upon them as drawn Swords, while by them ye are stirring up those, who bear not the Sword in vain to employ it against us.  
As for the large encomium you exalt your Patron with, as an eminent example of temper and moderation to Dissenters, and that none was more mild and gentle to them than he, even in those times when it was in his power to use severity towards them; we cannot but from experience of the contrary, descent from you in this, as well as in some other things: for Non-Conformists do remember, that they never met with greater severity, at least in the North, than when the Primate of all Ireland and Chancellor road both upon one horse; and we advise you for his honour, and your own honesty, not to put us upon the proof of it.  
As for that remarkable effect of his arguments and moderation that he obliged divers Nonconforming Ministers to receive Ordmation at his hands, according to the form prescribed by your Church, and to conform to the Worship and Discipline thereof; if such were ordained Ministers before, tho' by Presbyters, you will find it hard to convince any of the Reformed Churches, or all of your own either that this was the proper effect of moderation, but rather of Prelatic Domination, and an uncharitable condemning of the foreign Reformed Churches as none, and their Ministerial Administration as void and null, for want of Episcopal Ordination: and we fear that love of the world prevailed more powerfully than any other arguments, else it's hard to believe that conscientious Ministers would have renounced their former Ordination, which if they did, without a public declaration of their former sin, in unlawful invading the Ministerial Office, and cheating the world by a pretended Administration of Sacraments, when they had no power so to do, as ye have not by them gained honest Ministers, so we have lost as few; and if this be the native fruit of his Moderation, we bless God that hath delivered us from it; and thus we shall apply ourselves to the Address itself.  
It hath ever been the honour of Peace to be well spoken of by all men, Pacem le poscimus omnes; but the unhappiness of many men to be under the dominion of such Lusts, as disenable them to pursue it; that there are, and shall be divisions among us we confess; but to convince the guilty of their Sin, is this hoc opus, hic labor est: seeing it is as rare to find men impartial as infallible.  
Considering what brevity I intent, I shall not catch all advantages I might take by some unnecessary phrases of this Address, in which the Doctor rather catechiseth the Non-Conformists, by ask questions, than convinceth them by reasons, proving his own, or disproving their principles and practices; and though some short categorical answers of yea and nay might suffice, I shall give answer with a reason to it, though not bound more than he, who gives none for his questions. And, (1st) While he tell us that there is a separation between us, and thereby a Schism in our National Church, the consequence is not good; for there may be a separation without Schism, as there is between all the Parochial Churches which are locally separate, without any Schism of your National Church. Paul and Barnabas separated, A&s 15. 39 yet were no Schismatics; and there may be Schisms where there is no separation of Churches, 1 Cor. 3. 1. (2d) Before ye had (as with confidence ye do) asserted a Schism betwixt you and us, it had been requisite that ye had proved that there was once an union in these things in which we divide, seeing all division presupposeth a prior union: if then we were never joined in one, how can there be a division? now I apprehend, it will puzzle you to prove, that the Presbyterians in the North ever joined with the Established Church in these things in which we now differ, to wit, Church-Government, Liturgy, and Ceremonies: therefore if you would successfully attack Dissenters, you must not use the same Topics for all; some you must prove Schismatics though they never joined; others you must convince that there is a National Church, before you will be able to persuade them that they have divided it.  
To your first Question; Is there any of these things which are necessary to the salvation of a Christian, wanting in the Communion of our Church? Do we not profess and teach the true Christian Faith in all its Fundamental Articles? Answer, (1st.) Tho you may be so enured to officiate by Delegates, as to think we should serve the Cure for you, we do not find ourselves obliged to prove what you affirm, seeing the rule hath hitherto universally obtained affirmanti incumbit probatio: It lies upon you to show that your Church teacheth all the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, and not on us, who are not bound to give the reason of the Faith that is in you: Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines, and left them not to be disproved by Jews and Pagans, until they had first proved them. (2.) But in reverence to the antiquity of the question, which is old Roman Catholic, I shall give it a Protestant's answer, which cannot be excepted against for Nonconformity, being the learned Chillingsworth's in his Book, The Religion of a Protestant the safe way to Salvation, in answer to a Papist who maintained the contrary. The Papist had put this Question, Page 4. Parag. 14, 15. If the Roman Church did not fall into any Error that was damnable, how can it be damnable to live in her Communion? and if her Errors were not damnable, nor did exclude Salvation, how can they be excused from Schism who forsake her Communion? etc. To this Chillingworth answers, Page 16. All that we forsake in you, is the belief, profession, and practice of your Errors; Hereupon you cast us out of your Communion, and with a strange contradictious and ridiculous confidence complain that we forsake it, as if a man should thrust his friend out of doors, and then be offended at his departure; but for us not to forsake the belief of your Errors, having discovered them to be Errors, was impossible, and therefore to do so, could not be damnable, believing them to be Errors; not to forsake the profession and practice of them, had been damnable hypocrisy: so that either you must free your Church from requiring the belief of any Error whatsoever, or whether you will or not, you must free us from Schism: for Schism there cannot be, unless we were obliged to continue in it. Man cannot be obliged by man, but to what he was formerly or virtually obliged by God. God, the eternal Truth, neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the most innocent falsehood to be a divine truth, that is to err, nor to prosess a known Error, which is to lie; so that if ye require the belief of any Error, among the conditions of your Communion; our obligation to Communicate with you ceaseth, and so the imputation of Schism to us vanisheth to nothing; but lies heavy on you, for making our separation necessary, by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your Communion. Hereafter I therefore entreat you demand not, how came we to forsake your Communion without Schism, seeing ye erred not damnably; but how could we so do, seeing ye erred not at all? Which if either ye do prove, or we cannot disprove, we will turn to your Communion, or subscribe ourselves Schismatics: In the mean time let us continue as we are. Yet notwithstanding of all your Errors, we do not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely, but only leave Communicating with you in the practice and profession of your Errors; the trial whereof, will be to propose some form of worshipping God, taken wholly out of the Scriptures, and herein, if we refuse to join with you, then, and not till then, let us be condemned as Schismatics; so he whom the late Archbishop Tillotson thought it an honour to be his Scholar.  
To the next Question; Is there any thing required by us from them that Communicate with us, that is a Sin? We answer affirmatively, there be things required, which to us are so.  
To the third Question; Are there any of our Constitutions contrary to God's Law? We answer, to us it appears there be.  
To the 4th; Hath God any where forbidden us to use the sign of the Cross after Baptism, a Ring in the Celebration of Marriage, a Surplice in divine Service, the posture of kneeling at the Reception of the Lord's Supper, or any of those Rites and Ceremonies which are appointed to be used among us?  
Answer; Things are either forbidden expressly, or by just and necessary consequence: though then they be not expressly by name forbidden, they be by good consequence: for whatever is not commanded by GOD, and is required by men as a part or means of the worship of God, is forbidden by God. (1st.) Then, whatever part or means of divine worship is not commanded, is forbidden, is evident from that reason given, Leu. 10. 1. Why God destroyed Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire, which is this, for I commanded them not. The reason of God's rejecting what was offered, Isa. 1. 12. is given, Who hath required these things at your hands? the cause of God's Judgements on false Prophets, Jer. 14. 14, 15. is, I sent them not, neither have I commanded them. Fear or Worship of God taught by the commandments of men, is not only vain, Matth. 15. 9 but brings plagues on them who abuse their wisdom that way, Isa. 29. 14. And we are lately taught this to be the doctrine of the Established Church by the Bishop of Derry, in his Vanity of Humane Inventions, page 3. (1st.) saith he, It belongs to God only, to give rules how he will be worshipped, which is a truth naturally implanted in the minds of men, and universally acknowledged at all times. (2.) The holy Scriptures contain the revelation of God's will concerning his own Worship. (3.) It concerns us to keep as close as we can to the directions which God hath been pleased to afford us, without adding to, omitting, or altering any thing that he hath therein laid down; for since God hath vouchsafed us a certain and perfect direction for his Worship in the holy Scripture, it is to be supposed, that all ways of Worship are displeasing to him, that are not expressly contained or warranted by the examples of holy men mentioned therein. Now, if Cross, Ring, etc. be not expressly contained in Scripture, or warranted by the examples of holy men therein, they must, according to the Bishop of Derry's reasoning, be displeasing to God, and so forbidden by him.  
I know nothing that can be excepted against this, but that Cross, etc. are neither required as parts, nor ways and means of Worship; but that they are required as such, is evident. (1st.) The Liturgy or Divine Service, is a principal part of the Worship of God, and those Ceremonies are a part of the Liturgy, therefore they are parts of the Worship of God; for quod est pars partis est pars totius. (2d.) That they are reputed ways and means of the Worship is plain, because no solemn public Worship can be performed without them, no Sacraments given or received without crossing or kneeling; yea, if all Ministers should refuse to say Common Prayer, or Administer Sacraments otherwise than prescribed by the Common Prayer, that is, with all these Ceremonies; then, according to the Act of Uniformity, it would be unlawful to worship God publicly in this Kingdom.  
Hence, we see an Answer to his Question, Can any thing be called a Sin which God hath not forbid? Answer, it may; for uncommanded Worship is Sin; to Baptise without the Sign of the Cross, Communicate without Kneeling, etc. are not forbidden of God, and yet the Established Church account these Sins; else why are men Imprisoned and Excommunicated for what is acknowledged to be no Sin; yea, punished more severely, than for some gross immoralities, for which they are not excommunicated ipso facto, though for Nonconformity they ought to be, according to the Canons. (2d.) Oil, Salt, Chrism, Spittle, etc. are no more forbidden than the Sign of the Cross, etc. why then hath the Church rejected them, they being lawful? The same Arguments are used by the Papists for all their Ceremonies; selling Doves, and changing Money, were not forbidden, yet Christ drove all out of the Temple.  
To vindicate your Ceremonies, you tell us, you place no holiness in them. Answer, If they be not holy, they are not civil nor natural Ceremonies, and therefore must be profane, nor doth your placing no holiness in them, free them from Superstition, if ye superadd them as parts of Worship, to God's Statutes, while ye tell us, that ye only use them as things in themselves indifferent, ordained by Humane Authority for decency and Order. Ans. Tho' Ceremonies were indifferent in their Nature, yet they never can be so in their use, for as our actions are specified good or evil by their ends, the end being good or evil, or neither, they in their use must be good, evil or idle and impertinent, and so can never be used as things indifferent. 2. Things indifferent being neither good or evil, can make nothing either better or worse, for add nothing to something, and it will be no bigger, so they can make nothing decent or orderly, seeing they have nothing of decency or order in them, else they were things really good, and not indifferent. (3.) These Ceremonies must either be necessary means of decency and order, or not; if necessary they are not only not indifferent, but all worship performed without them hath been undecently and disorderly performed, and so Christ and his Apostles Baptised, Prayed and Communicated undecently, because without Crosses, Surplices, and Kneeling; if not necessary, why is all this needless contention for things confessedly unnecessary.  
We confess with you, that Worship cannot be performed without circumstances, and that all outward circumstances of Worship are not expressly prescribed by God, yet we are fully pwerswaded, that mystical Rites and Ceremonies invented and imposed by men, as terms of Communion with them, are not circumstances, tho' craftily or ignorantly they be confounded; yet all men of reason know them not to be the same; for time, place, person, etc. are circumstances of humane actions but none can call them Rites or Ceremonies of actions; if they were, than Ceremonies should be necessary, and not indifferent, seeing it is impossible to do any thing without such circumstances: We have often told you that such natural circumstances as are necessary for a decent and orderly performance of our actions, being included in the general Precept, we esteem lawful; but such mystical Rites and Ceremonies as are not necessarily required to the performance of any of God's Commandments, and not comprehended in any general Law of Christ, we judge additions to his Institutions, and contrary to that Precept, Deut. 12. 2. What things soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, or diminish therefrom.  
Seeing you humble yourself in desiring us to teach you, how ye shall more effectually disclaim all superstition in the use of them than ye do, and promise to confess your fault, if ye give us not satisfaction; we presume to teach you a more effectual way, and that is, to disclaim all use of them, and so you effectually disclaim all superstitious abuse of them; and herein we expect the satisfaction ye promise.  
When you have convinced us of that innocency of your Church wherein ye glory, you'll find it easy to induce us to join with you; but this you have not made convincingly appear among Non-Conformists, among whom we find you have met with two sorts; (1st.) Such as judge Communion with the Established Church absolutely unlawful, these you tell, that their judgement is false, and apparently uncharitable, unless they can show that something is wanting which God hath commanded, or required that he hath forbidden. Answ. For such, what is already said, let it be considered, and then judge whether their judgement be false and uncharitable, though we know few that are for absolute and total separation from you. (2.) A second sort of such as doubt of the lawfulness of your Communion, to whom you offer yourself a ductor dubitantium, and after stating their Case, resolve it: Their Case is, they doubt (that is are not well assured) whether it be lawful to conform; the resolution you propose, is, if they are not able by any means to clear their doubts, and satisfy their scruples, yet surely in such a case, they ought to choose that way which is most free and safe from the danger of Sin. But we would ask you, how a person that is not, as you say, by any means able to clear his doubts about which is the most safe way, shall choose the most safe way? this is to oblige men to impossibilities; for while one hath used all means to clear his doubts about which is the safest, and yet these continue, he cannot choose the safest, because he knows it not; and if he choose without knowledge, he acts neither as a Christian, nor a reasonable man, and so Cicero de Offic. tho' a Pagan, is in my mind a better Casuist than you, who adviseth quod dubitas aequum an unquum sit, ne feceris, what you doubt, whether it be just or unjust, do it not, and herein he agreeth with the Apostle, whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin.  
But which is the safest way? to this, you say, 1. It's Evident we should promote the Peace and Unity of the Church. 2. Give Obedience to the Commands of Lawful Authority, Rom. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 2. 13. But then it's only doubtful whether he should conform to Ceremonies by Law Established; if then he cannot upon solid grounds satisfy himself, that such Conformity is Lawful, such a doubt ought not to be put in the balance with the aforesaid Commands. Answ. By your leave, such a doubt may be put in the balance with the  duties, seeing the same God, and the same Scripture hath told us, that he that doubteth is damned, if he eateth, for whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin, Rom. 14. ult. Now, if we may not follow peace, or obey Superiors, except in Faith, for whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin, then to conform doubtingly, either for peace, or in obedience to the Magistrate, is sinful Conformity, as well as praying to God without Faith, is Sin, Jam. 1, 6, 7. Now a little more reason and divinity would have taught you, 1. That Negative Precepts bind ad semper, that is, can at no time, nor in no case, be broken without sin, but positive Precepts bind semper, that is, as Schoolmen say, they are still obliging, tho' not at all times, as it is always a duty to pray, but not at all times. 2. A Rule against which there is no exception will overbalance that which is limited by exceptions, for this Rule, what soever is not of Faith is sin, is without exception. The other two Precepts are restricted by it, as Rom. 12. 18. if it be possible as much as in you lieth live peaceably with all Men; Here the Precept is limited as far as is possible with a good Conscience, but we must not sell peace with God, and our Consciences to purchase it with Men: Our Obedience to Superiors is limited by lawfulness, possibilty, expedience and Edification. 3. If your Episcopal Brethren in Scotland should doubt of the lawfulness of submitting to Presbytery now by Law Established there, it seems by you they are bound to conform for peace, and in Obedience to Authority, notwithstanding of their doubts; why don't you then Preach this Doctrine to them? or if a Man in France, Spain, Italy, etc. were in doubt, and could by no means clear himself of these doubts, whether Popery or Protestanism were safest, by your Rule he is obliged to be a Papist in obedience to Authority.  
To your Question, why may not I say, he that doubteth is damned if he refuse Conformity, rather than if he Conform. Ans. Why doth not the Apostle say, he that doubteth is damned if he refuse to eat, rather than if he eateth, such a Commentary as you make, would destroy the Text; for when a doubt is about doing, and not about omitting, the sin must be in doing, and not in omitting; so that all this Sophistry will not make void that good old Rule Cautissimi cujusque praeceptum quoddubitas ne feceris, obey not the Precept of the most prudent, if ye do it. But by what Authority do you Address these as Non-conformists, who so ha●● betwixt two Opinions, as neither to follow God nor B●al? they are none of ours no more than they are yours, for he that gathereth not with us scattereth.  
To your Non-conformists Objection, to wit, to impose such things upon us as are in themselves indifferent, is an Infringement of our Christian Liberty, Gal. 5. 1. Your answer is, to impose the belief or practice of any thing as an essential part of Religion, and necessary to Salvation, which God hath not particularly required, such imposing infringeth Christian Liberty, and none else. Answ. As you have not faithfully framed the Nonconformists Objection, so you have not fully answered that of your own framing; our objection is, that imposing things in their own nature indifferent, either as parts or means of Worship, or conditions of our Communion in it, and so to determine our practice, as to destroy its indifferency in doing or forbearing things indifferent, is at once to destroy indifferency, and to infringe that Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and in which we are bound to stand fast; for Christ having freed us from all parts and parcels of Worship which are not of his own Institution, from all conditions or Communion with him and his Ordinances, but those of his own prescribing, so he hath allowed us the use of indifferent things indifferently, as Christian Prudence and Charity shall determine; for any men to impose otherwise, is at the same time unjustly to invade Christ's Prerogative, and Christians Privileges, both which we judge ourselves bound to maintain.  
Your Answer is not sufficient to the Objection, even as yourself have framed it; viz. That only to impose the belief or practice of any thing as an essential part of Religion, and necessary to Salvation, not particularly required of God, is an infringement of Christian Liberty. Answ. Christian Liberty may be infringed, though the thing be not required as an essential part of Religion; for the main violation of Christian Liberty lies in a fixed, stated and perpetual compulsion to do what God hath permitted me to omit, or a prohibition to do what he hath made lawful for me: thus the Apostle teacheth, 1 Cor. 6. 12. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any person or thing in matters indifferent; for such a resignation of myself to be restrained fixedly, is to bind up myself from opportunity of my using my Christian Liberty for the spiritual good of another; for if I should be so circumstantial, that by forbearing an indifferent thing, such as you call the Cross in Baptism, I might do good to my Neighbour's Soul, I am so tied, that I cannot forbear to prevent my Brother's sinning, and so we cannot imitate the Apostle, 1 Cor. 6. 13 Wherefore if meat make my Brother to offend, I will not eat flesh while the world standeth. (2) To submit to such predetermination, is to alter the very nature of things indifferent, by making that sinful which God hath made lawful, contrary to your own doctrine, page 2. However unnecessary or impertinent any thing may be esteemed, yet nothing is to be look'● upon as a Sin, but what is contrary to the Law of God. (3) By such imposing and determining in matters indifferent, more is attributed to the positive precepts of men, than to the moral Laws of God; for obedience to some positive moral Laws of God may be suspended pro hic & nunc, to give way to a greater good; but in this case we must act uniformly, without respect to circumstances, though thousands should be offended; and wounded in Conscience, and prejudiced against Religion thereby.  
But if we can make appear, that these Ceremonies, as imposed by you, are made essential parts of Religion, and necessary to Salvation, than you must acknowledge them destructive of Christian Liberty: This will appear, if it be considered, (1.) That if these Impositions be necessary in order to Communion with the Church, and Communion with the Church necessary to Salvation, than they must be necessary to Salvation, that they are made necessary conditions of our Communion with the Church, is evident by the Act of Uniformity, and your calling us all Schismatics, who conform not to them. (2.) What is made necessary to the Solemn Worship of God is made necessary to Salvation, but so are they, seeing without them it cannot be solemnly performed in England and Ireland. (3.) If the bare omission of them, tho' out of tenderness of Conscience be ju●ged Schism, Sedition and Rebellion, and be made worthy of Fining, Imprisonment, and Excommunication. (4.) If for calling them unlawful, a man must be delivered to Satan, according to Can 6. (5) If the omission of these, make a Minister more liable to Deprivation, etc. than Whoredom, Drunkenness, or breaking the Lord's day. (6.) If the refusers of Conformity to them, be judged worse than Idolatrous Papists? if they be more necessary than the Peace and Unity of the Church, with what confidence can any man say, that he judgeth them not necessary to Salvation.  
That our Directory requires any Ceremonies of mystical signification, or imposeth any indifferent things, save such circumstances as nature's Light and right Reason direct us to, for the decent and orderly performance of our duties, we deny, and demand proof from all who assert it.  
Having justified, as you think, the nature of your Ceremonies, you proceed to vindicate their number, telling us, if we should say, that your Ceremonies were too numerous and burdensome, etc. if this were really so, it were only an inconvenience, and not a sin. Ans. God's word tells us, that to do what is not convenient is sinful, Rom. 1. 28. Ephes 5. 4. though to suffer things inconvenient is not still so; and by what authority can any burden Consciences with their own Inventions? was not this the sin of the Pharisees, Matt. 23. 4. if Augustine complained as you say, of the number and burden of Ceremonies in his time, why may not Dissenters do so now, who are as unable to bear them as he was? yet had he lived in some place of the World, and complained of such a burden, there is a Canon, called the 10th, by which he had been ipso facto shut out of the Church. But ye'll say, he did not separate, tho' he complained. Answ. How do ye know, that he did not separate? if he refused to use them, he separated from them as well as we do, and if he used them after his complaint of their being burdensome and too numerous, it would be hard to excuse him from sinning against his confession, but we have more Charity for him than to believe he did so.  
To your Non-Conformists last Objection, to wit, The Ceremonies are unnecessary, and therefore the Governors of the Church are not to lay unnecessary impositions on the People, Ye Answer thus, Tho' this were true, that Governors did impose such things, yet our compliance therewith for Peace and Vnity● sake, were no sin, but a virtue. Answ. That they are unnecessary, you confess, while you declare them indifferent, and therefore the dubious supposition, if they were, etc. is needless, but that it is a virtue rather than a sin to comply with the unnecessary impositions of Church Governors, for peace and unity, is asserted, not proved, seeing nothing can be a Christian virtue, which wants Christ's Command, and we know of none he hath given for our compliance with Governors in their unnecessary impositions: Yea, we find Church Governors obliged by their Commission to teach us to observe no more than what Christ commanded them, Matth. 28. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and the good Centurion Cornelius would submit no further to the Apostle Peter, Acts 10. 33. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God, for seeing God and Nature do nothing in vain, they have no power to impose things needless, and where their power to command is void, we are under no Obligation to obey; yea, such compliance is but a conspiracy with men usurping power, and so partaking of their sins, Paul withstood Peter to the face in his imposing unnecessary things on the Jews, Gal. 2. 11. And seeing the Church hath no Power but to Edification, 2 Cor. 10. 8. We are to follow them no further than they follow Christ, 1 Cor. 11. 1. The Synod of Jerusalem, Acts 15. guided by the holy Spirit, thought fit to impose nothing but necessary things. Bishop Bramhall page 101 of his Vindication, says, It was not the Erroneous opinions of the Church of Rome, but the imposing them by Law on other Churches, that warranted the separation. So, when things unnecessary are made conditions of our Communion, we look not upon it as a Christian virtue to comply with them.  
Having asserted, not only the lawfulness, but innocence of your Communion, you profess yourself assured that we do not think every man is at liberty, either to join himself with the established Church of a place, or to set up a distinct Church for himself. Answ. Such as on good grounds judge your Communion lawful and innocent, will not set up for themselves, but your asserting yourselves such, makes it not evident, seeing there is a generation, all whose ways are clean in their own eyes, though they be not washed from their iniquity; Therefore we say with Memerable Hales of Eton, page 194. Notwithstanding of the great benefit of Communion, in regard of divers Distempers Men are subject to, Dissension and Dis-union are often necessary, for when either false or uncertain Conclusions are obtruded for truth, and acts either unlawful or ministering just scruple, are required of us to be performed by us, in those cases consent were conspiracy, and open contestation is not Faction or Schism, but due Christian animosity: For tho' you value yourselves mightily on account of your legal establishment, which is indeed your most powerful argument, yet the aforesaid Author, page 231. says, That public Assemblies, though according to form of Law, are indeed nothing else but Riots and Conventicles, if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition. A Legal Establishment gives protection and provision, but makes neither Doctrine true, Worship pure, or Government of Divine apponitment; and seeing it adds no intrinsic value to a Church, it can merit nothing barely upon that account, else other Churches who have had a longer title to a Legal Establishment than ye, might expect more honour.  
While you desire to know whether one or more bare inconveniencies which are or may be free from sin, can be a sufficient reason to separate from an established Church. Answ. We tell you, that if the inconveniencies are sinless, we are willing to suffer in and with an Established Church, or tho' it were not Established by Law; but if the inconveniencies be to our Consciences, we must and will Dissent, nor will our Charity bear with what is inconsistent with a good Conscience.  
Such as found their separation from your Assemblies upon this, that they find themselves more edified in Godliness and Piety by their own Meetings than yours, ye confess your inability to find what reason they can ground upon this for a downright separation and utter refusal of your Communion. Answ. Tho' our edification in Godliness is the great end of our joining with any Assembly, and where that may be best had, Communion is there most eligible; yet if we may be really edified in that Assembly whereof we are Members, we allow not separation on pre●ence of better elsewhere, no more than a Woman's leaving her Husband to live with another for more pleasure and conveniency. Yet Edification being the end of Church-Communion, no wise men should condemn those who choose the best means for that end: I suppose you make use of the best meat and medicines for preserving of your life and health, and would take it ill, 'tis possible, if Governors of Church or State, should confine you to the quantity, quality, and time of your Diet, which experience teaches you to be inconsistent with health and strength; and why may not men be as much concerned for their Souls as Bodies. Dr. Stillingfleet Ire●. page 109. in answer to a question disputed by Grotius, to wit, whether it be in a time when Churches are divided, it be a Christians duty to communicate with either Party that divides the Church, or to Communion from all of them; the Dr. says, that a Christian, by virtue of his general obligation to Communion, is bound to adhere to that Church which retains most of Evangelick purity in it. Bramhall in his vindication of the Church of England, page 7. citys Dr. Holden with approbation; When there is a mutual division of two parts, or member of the Mystical Body of the Church one from the other; (yet both retain Communion with the universal Church) which for the most part springs from some doubtful opinion, or less necessary part of Divine Worship, whatsoever part you take, you are no Schismatic, because the universal Church hath condemned no part; so that real experience of edification will warrant separation from these Assemblies where it is not found, to these where it is found.  
To such as plead for occasional Communion, who do not utterly renounce your Communion, but sometimes come to your public Worship, and receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper after your form; your Question upon this, is; If occasional Communion be lawful, why is constant unlawful? Answ. Although I allow of no such amphibious creatures as a Non and Conformist appears to be, because as a Neuter in the Commonwealth, nec amicum perit, nec inimicum pellit, so in Religion he is worse, according to Christ's reasoning, Luke 11. 23. yet, if we distinguish occasional Communion in total, and partial; total, I call a communicating in all, Sermons, Liturgy, and Ceremonies; for such I have nothing to say, and will not judge other men's Servants: but as for those who can, and do occasionally hear such as are orthodox in the Faith, and sober in their Conversation, as they do not despise others, so we do not judge them. But as for most of us, we are of your judgement, as to such who communicate with you occasionally in all things, according to the form prescribed; if they see no sin in such conformity, they are but fools to suffer for non conformity.  
Having heard your Doctrine, we come now to its Use, in which you ingenuously discover your design, which is either to persuade us to Conformity, or dissuade us from thoughts of a legal toleration. As for your desire to know our aims and purposes in respect to an Act of Toleration, though we are not obliged to discover our thoughts to you, yet finding you a plaindealing man in telling yours, we shall tell you ours, by ingenuously answering your Queries distinctly. To the first, to wit, Is it only to have the liberty of serving God in that way which you think to be b●st, and thereby to be free of persecution, and to go the readiest way to Heaven, as ye suppose. To this, (1.) We confess we sincerely desire liberty to serve God according to that perfect rule he hath given us, which we firmly believe is the best way, and safest both for you and us both. (2.) We desire by this, not only to be freed from persecution, but that ye may free yourselves from the guilt and appearance of that evil. (3.) Having bodies as well as souls, by which we are bound to glorify God, and serve our King and Country as we shall be called or capable, we desire that we be not deprived of, or rendered unfit for enjoying our birth-right-privileges as freeborn Subjects, and persons professing the Reformed Christian Religion, by yoking our Consciences to unlawful or suspected practices, or ensnaring Oaths. But ye tell us, If liberty to serve God the way we think best, be all we desire, why are we against the Sacramental Test? by which we are made uncapable of any Office or Employment, unless we Receive the Sacrament after the form prescribed by the Church of England: if we be not content with liberty, unless we have share in the Government, and be made capable of Employments of Power, Trust, and Profit; 'tis apparent we design somewhat else than the Salvation of our souls, and freedom from persecution. Answ. Tho Non-Conformists should aim at more than the saving of their souls, and freedom from persecution, where is the great fault of it; if we be guilty in this, you are not innocent, who we suppose aim at something more than these things. I have already, in the Animadversions shown the inconsistency of the Test with the true interest of Ireland, which the Ingenuous Author of the Remarks on the Affairs of Ireland, etc. hath well done: but it seems you have low thoughts of Salvation, who rate it lower than Employments of Trust and Profit upon Earth; for that you seem to grant us liberty to seek, but the other is too good for us; and therefore you are either not in earnest in permitting us to seek the best way of Salvation, or else you over-value earthly honour and profit, while you would monopolise that to your party, and deprive others of the ordinary means of subsisting, and serving God and their Country.  
To the 2d Question, if it be our aim to lay a foundation for the overthrow of the Established Church, and to get into our hands all Civil and Ecclesiastic Power, which is already done by those of our persuasion in another Kingdom. Ye confess ye were not wise if ye give us not all the opposition ye can. Answ. That our design is not to overthrow any Church, is evident, because we have not moved for the withdrawing either power or profit from you; all that is desired, is, that we who have been, are, and may be useful to the Nation, may not be rendered useless; and sure the Church may stand, tho' she don't enhance all Offices of Power, Trust, and Profit; these are not the Rock on which Christ built his Church. But is there no means to keep her from ruin but a Sacramental Test? how has she been preserved hitherto without it; experience hath taught us, that such Engines have done more hurt than good to their contrivers; and therefore it were to be wished, considering how deeply the Nations have been involved in Perjury, they would be wiser than to make snares wherein themselves as well as others are caught. And now we come to consider your Politics; where first ye tell us, It becomes the wisdom of every Government to consider even the remote, if probable, consequences of what they do, and to set up two several Parties differing from each other in matters of Religion, to make Factions one against the other, and to stand in perpetual distinct opposition and competition one with the other, for all the places of Trust, Power and Profit in the Commonwealth, you believe will be thought by most wise men, to be very impolitic. Answ. If a State should set up Parties for that end, no doubt they were out in the Politics; but where is want of policy, in making persons of equal merit, equally capable? doth it not rather tend to the making of Factions, to let one party enhance all, while another equally deserving is contemned and neglected: Jacob's fondness of Joseph begot divisions in the Family. (2.) This being but a remote probable consequence, as you acknowledge, may as well not be as be, nor should Magistrates be discouraged from making good Laws, for fear of remote consequences. (3.) What extraordinary Factions are now made about such Offices, tho' Dissenters are not barred by this Test. In France the Protestants enjoyed Civil Offices of Power and Profit by the Edict of Nants; and yet the French have been more out in their politics since than before. And indeed Tests will never prevent that evil in the State, no more than the Oath of Simony prevents competitions for Dignities in the Churches; but I am apprehensive, that had the Church the sole Power of disposing all Civil Offices, you would be less afraid of Dissenters coming into them, and for your jealousy is, that they are not in hands who will dispose of them right. The 2d remote and probable consequence is, That none knows but our Successors in the next Generation may advance a little further than what is proposed by their Predecessors in this: and since the Presbyterian party in these Kingdoms did in the late Wars, 1641. actually overthrow the Established Episcopal Church, and have now again overturned the Episcopal Church in Scotland, ye have all the reason to fear, that tho' present N. Conf. keep a friendly correspondence with you, animosities may probably arise betwixt Successors, yours and ours, which if not carefully prevented may tend to the ruin perhaps of both Church and State; and ought not the Government to provide for posterity as well as for the present Generation. Answ. Tho' all this should come to pass, yet it is severe justice, to punish the Predecessors for the probable faults of the Successors, not as yet committed; in hell there is more justice, where men are only punished for real and bypast Crimes. But the reasons you give for the probability of your Consequence, to wit, that the Presbyterian party hath twice overthrown the Episcopal, ye improve not well: It were then your Wisdom with good advice to make War against them, for the Gibeonites policy was more successful than Pharaoh's. However, a Sacramental Test is but a slender defence, seeing it is well known, that the Scots Test did not preserve Episcopacy there, nor all the Oaths in force before 1641, secure the Church, and therefore Christian moderation, and a good Conscience, will be better armour for the Church.  
But if we consider the more near consequences of denying this Toleration desired, they will be found more certain and hurtful. (1) The weakening and discouraging of the great part of the most industrious profitable Subjects of the Kingdom, which will ensue, if this be denied, (2.) The alienating of the affections of all sober men from Churchmen, who are known to be the chief, if not sole opposers of this desire. (3.) If ever there should be a necessity of using the service of Non-Conformists, it would be impossible to induce them to unite with these, who notwithstanding of fair promises, in time of former trouble, have ungratefully broken to them in time of Peace, and discover heart-enmi●y against them.  
And now seeing you profess so great a Zeal for Peace and Unity, which you pretend to plead for, be as earnest to remove the bones of contention, else we cannot be persuaded of your sincerity; but there are a Sett of men who call to my remembrance, a Fool which King James the first had, when in Scotland, this fellow was pleasant diversion to the King, but being unhappily addicted to tippling, he was frequently absent when desired, whereupon the King, to affright him from that practice, caused to erect a Gallows at the Bridge of Stirling, and bring forth a Quart of Ale, and set the same upon the ledge of the Bridge, telling him, that he must either throw the Ale in the River, or the King into the River, otherwise he must be hanged; he after much howling & many apologies, comes & tells the King, that if he suffered hurt, he must blame himself for it, and therefore attempts to heave him over the Bridge, rather than part with his Ale. So some for all the affection pretended for Peace and Unity, will rather drown Peace than part with their Ceremonies. And thus I conclude, that there is no hurt done by this Answer to your Address, else you were mistaken in your confidence that it could do no hurt.  
FINIS.