A NON EST INVENTUS Returned to Mr. EDWARD BAGSHAW'S ENQUIRY, AND Vainly boasted DISCOVERY Of weakness in the Grounds of the CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY.  
ALSO His Seditious INVECTIVES Against the Moderate Sincerity of PROTESTANTS, and savage Cruelty against ROMAN CATHOLICS Repressed  
By a Catholic Gentleman.  PSALM. LXIII. v. VI 
Scrutati sunt Iniquitates; defecerunt Scrutinio.  
They made an Enquiry after Iniquities; but the Enquirers failed in the Enquiry.  
Printed in the Year, MDCLXII.   

Mr. Edward Bagshaw,  
THe Title of your Book is not immodest, being called only An Enquiry into the Grounds of the Roman Churches Infallibility; But by pronouncing in the conclusion those fatal words, MENE TEKEL, you confidently declare, it cannot be answered: The destruction of the Babylonian Monarchy was not more inevitable after the writing that Decretory sentence by an invisible Angels fingers, than is the Roman Churches now. You have compiled and published this your Book, which you judge unanswerable, and (to deal ingenuously with you) so may I too, though I be as good a Catholic as the Pope himself. What would you have more? A reason for it? Have but a little patience and you shall not fail of one, better than you expect, or have knowledge to foresee.  
2. Yet I conceive it concerns not Catholics only, but the whole Kingdom, I mean all good Subjects in it, that such a book, though pretendedly against Roman Catholics only, yet full of pernicious invectives, malicious complaints, and seditious reflections against the State, should with a barefaced impudence stalk abroad in the public view, as fearless of a censure. Nor is the Book in itself so highly provoking, as in respect of the abominable Preface that no honest subject, Protestant or Catholic, can read without indignation, no reader justify or not mislike without declaring his Thirst after the public ruin.  
3. The Apostles advice of redeeming the time forbids me to misspend it by replying line after line to what you have written: That therefore which I have to say to you shall be to make good these positions in direct opposition to what you have written, viz. 1. That it is against the welfare of English subjects, both for body and soul, that you, and such as you should be permitted to call yourselves Protestants, and members of the English Church. 2. That your instilling suspicions into the people's minds, as if English Divines, etc. had a design to introduce Popery again, is a mere acting over the late Rebellion. 3. That your attempt to render Roman Catholic subjects only in an incapacity of Toleration, is more groundless, and in your mouths most maliciously ridiculous. 4. That your whole discourse against the Church's Infallibility only proves that you have nothing to say to the purpose against it.  

I.  
That it is a public mischief that Mr. Bagshaw, or any such as he, should be permitted to call themselves English Protestants.  
1. IF common fame be true, Mr. Bagshaw, you are the same person that published so petulant and uncivil a Libel against my Lord Bishop of Worcester, and not for that fault alone have been so deservedly Disciplined by Mr. l'Estrange, and so smartly whipped, that the whole Town has heard your cries. How then comes it to pass that you can find leisure to seek out, and defy to the combat other enemies? But it may be the demolishing of the Roman Church is but an excursion in a Parenthesis, whilst you are, for your divertisement, unbending your thoughts, or taking breath awhile against a new combat, with an Adversary that has a great deal more zeal, sharpness, honesty and courage than is for your purpose, who hope not to be discerned, whilst in despite of the Act of Oblivion you will not suffer either the King or any of his faithful Subjects to forget what they have suffered, and must expect, but still work and preach and print, almost totidem Verbis as you did when the horrible Covenant was the only Religion and Gospel of the three Kingdoms.  
2. These practices, Mr. L ‛ Estrange, if he cannot interrupt, yet he can call company, and bid them take notice of them. He will not permit you to Glory as if you could once more cozen the Kingdom into a new Rebellion. Never hope to find so much as one English Protestant that will once more be cheated to look upon you as the Assertors of the Subject's Liberties, or maintainers of pure Protestant Religion. If the Civil Authority will for ever wink at your Cabals, and the Ecclesiastic leave open the Pulpits to your Sermons of the old stile, and the Presses to your Pamphlets against Bishops and indifferent Ceremonies: If you expect Indemnity must be interpreted to regard the future also, all that can be said will be, Sani, Sobrii, vigiles perîmus. We shall not, as heretofore, be surprised: but we make a Covenant with destruction, as if we were afraid it would escape us.  
3. As for your Pamphlet touching Infallibility, though by the Title you pretend to attack only Roman Catholics, and to demolish the Grounds of the Church's Faith, yet in the whole Book there are not quite two small leaves wherein the Church is concerned at all either in its Grounds or Superstructure. Therefore I am confident, and it may be Mr. L'Estrange (who knows your ways and Arts much better than I) may in a far neater, that is, his own stile tell you, your real Design was to write a Book with the Title against Catholics, merely to have an opportunity to stuff the Preface with malicious glances against Protestants too, and incense vulgar minds, as if Popery (forsooth) were ready to be introduced.  
4. Now though myself, purely as a Catholic, am little concerned in that part of your book which you purposely wrote against Catholics; and not very much in those passages against Protestants, except only in this consideration, that you would fain make Catholic Religion your Engine to raise troubles, yet as a faithful Subject to his Majesty, and a lover of my Country's peace, I cannot but inwardly bewail, and must take leave thus publicly to justify the too reasonable cause of my grief, when I see an English Subject openly professing his name, and pretending to the Protection of an Honourable Counsellor of State, renew the old seditious practice of inflaming the People's minds with rage against their Teachers, and murmuring suspicions against their Governors: A practice that above all others contributed to the raising of the late Rebellion, and to the ruin and murder of our late Sovereign of happy memory, and his best Subjects and Servants, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, Earl of Strafford, etc. Here are still among us God knows how many Sects, that if any Protestant Doctors shall presume to speak or write otherwise, then according to what the furious zeal of Sectaries against Ecclesiastical Unity and peace suggests, they must presently be exposed to a general suspicion, the Country must be raised upon them, and upon the Bishops if they not discountenance them, and upon the King unless he punish them for no fault at all.  
4. But give me leave now, Mr. Bagshaw, to ask. Who are you? of what Sect? Of what Church? Common report gives you for a Presbyterian, a man formerly very busy in the Intrigues of that Faction. Yet some passages in your Preface and Epistle Dedicatory speak you an Independent: in which you call yourself an Assertor of Christian Liberty, complaining of the keenness of Laws against such; a disliker of Episcopal Authority as settled in England; and one that refuses to admit the interpretation of Scripture from any Person or Church, but only from your own private Reason. Most likely it is, you reserve in petto a Declaration whether party you mean to adhere to, till you see how they are likely to thrive: till than you would pass for an Amphibion. And truly such a temper among you threatens much danger to the State. When Pilate and Herod are made friends, Christ must look to himself.  
5. If you be an Independent on all others, will you not suffer others to be Independent likewise on you? Or if you be a Presbyterian; are you not content with enjoying hitherto the fruits of his Majesty's most gracious promise from Breda? None pretend more than you to tender consciences. Have any called you in question for differences in Religion? But this it seems will not serve your turn: Nor an Independents turn. Your tender conscience will not accept of the only condition that his Majesty annexes to this his Grace, which is, That you must not disturb the peace of the Kingdom. This most just and necessary condition you here in your Preface renounce, in which you again blow the Trumpet to sedition, by telling the World that English Divines are bringing in Popery. If that were true, as long as it may be permitted to you to be Presbyterians or Independents among yourselves, what do you complain of? Will you never leave this peevish, this malicious envy, not to content yourselves with your own safety unless others be ruined?  
6. But it is intolerable that you should call yourselves in your Preface, We Protestants: and talk of our Reformed Church of England, or our Ancestors, Our primitive protestancy, etc. Are you an English Protestant? a member of the English Church established by Law and Canons? Why then do you not submit peaceably to the government of your Bishops, and indifferent Ceremonies? Why do you reject the Book of Common Prayer enacted by supreme authority both Spiritual and Temporal to be the public Liturgy of the protestancy of England? Why do you find fault with the keenness of Laws against such Assertors of Christian Liberty? The very titles you assume of Presbyterian or Independent, declare that your formal essence consists in an opposition to English protestancy and prelacy. You pilfer therefore the name of an English Protestant, ut sportulam furunculus, to use Tertullia's phrase: Or rather you are English protestants, as Salvian says some in his time were Christians, in opprobium & contumeliam Christi.  
7. But you are wise in your generations: you know you could do no mischief, unless you took a vizard. For if you had spoken in your Preface the true Language of a Sectary; if directing your speech to English Protestant's you had said, I Mr. Edward Bagshaw, Student of Christ-Church, a very Presbyterian (or Independent) a professed Rebel against the English Church, do out of my tender love and care of the welfare and promotion of the said Church, give you, O English Protestants, warning to take heed of Popery, for the bringing in of which among you Doctor Gunning and Mr. Thorndike, and God knows how many more are preparing way; the Bishops are of intelligence with them, and the State connives at them: Therefore look to yourselves. All we can do is to blow the Trumpet, and tell you once more how courageously we will lead you to a thorough Reformation: If you have neither zeal for God, nor knowledge of your own strength, 'tis none of our fault, Little do you know that we Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists Quakers, & e. are again become good friends, and will join together to put down this Antichristian Hierarchy; and when we are to divide their lands it will be time to try which of us can get most. Now a cannoneers Mean we have not for such a purpose then, as formerly we did, to cry out, Beware of Popery, Take heed of your Antichristian Clergy, etc.  
8. If you had unwisely discovered your thoughts with such plainness, your open dealing would have showed some sincerity, some appearance of the simplicity of the Dove, but little of the subtle wisdom of the Serpent, a quality much more for your purpose. Notwithstanding, your vizard being quite worn out, your calling yourselves English Protestant's will not have the effect it had in your former happy days twenty years since. Your Voice is too well known now not to be jacob's, There is scarce an English subject so ignorant, or of so short a memory, but can take notice that this was the Old Tune that sounded to a charge, and invited them to kill one another for Charity's sake, and to suffer you know whom, to murder the best King that ever reigned before him. The difference between the two Brethren in iniquity, being only this; One did but fight against him, and the Other killed him; One bound his hand, and the other cut off his head: They will be so far from startling at the name of Popery out of your mouths, that perhaps they may begin to entertain a better opinion of a Religion so persecuted by you, especially remembering that the Papists never separated their interests from the Kings and Theirs, but unanimously ventured their lives and estates for them, and this purely out of love, Duty and conscience, even when all they could expect by a victory was to remain still under the penalty of the Laws.  
9 Therefore a disguise is necessary for you whensoever you would speak, except to your own Party in private. It had been folly in extremity to say, We Presbyterians, Independents, etc. do give you English Protestant's warning to beware of your Doctors that would bring in Popery, It had been apparently to your own prejudice, unless you had said, We tell you this who are true Reformed English Protestants, of the same Church with you, your Pastors, who have care of your souls, whom you see no man hinders from preaching in your Pulpits, and writing Books to Preach to those that cannot hear us in Pulpits. If we were enemies would the Civil or Ecclesiastical State, think you, allow us such a liberty, and maintain us at their charges to Preach and Print as we do?  
10. But I do assure you Mr. Bagshaw, you are no English Protestant, For what is it to be an English Protestant, or a member of the English Church? This is a question of greater moment then ordinarily is believed: The very subsistence of Protestant Religion in England now depends upon the right stating of it. Nay I may truly say, that even we Roman Catholics are much concerned in it, and therefore I may be pardoned if I insist upon it; because unless this question be resolved, all our disputes with Protestants are likely to prove mere beating of the air, contentions utterly wand'ring from the purpose. Therefore I may be excused, if I take the trouble upon me to resolve it: and this I must do, not upon Catholic grounds, or notions of the phrase [being members of a Church] but only the notions which Protestant's and generally all Sects divided from the Catholics have entertained of that phrase. For Catholics do not esteem any one a member of the Roman Catholic Church, that doth not profess all Doctrines without exception taught by it to be true, and submits not to all the Laws and Ordinances of it. There is no distinction to be made, as to this matter, between Doctrines in themselves Fundamental or non-Fundamental, between Laws in themselves necessary or not: because a refusal to accept any one of those Laws or Doctrines does virtually destroy the Authority of the Church, of how little concernment so ever such a Doctrine or Ordinance be in itself. There may be differences and even dissensions among Catholics, about points of far greater moment in themselves, and yet neither of the parties be in danger of being excluded from the Title of Catholics, or members of the Roman Catholic Church, because the Church's Authority has not interposed itself in those disputes either way, and therefore is untouched by either.  
11. But generally all Congregations divided from the Catholic have a quite different conceit of the Phrase [being Members of a Church:] And this conceit is either general, or more special. According to the general conception of that phrase they acknowledge all to be members of their Church (or rather co-members of the Church of Christ) that do not teach doctrines or make ordinances excluding all right and interest in the common salvation: and thus English protestants esteem themselves members of the Catholic Church, and Lutherans of the Calvinists Church, and you Presbyterians, Independents, etc. of the English protestant Church: because they do not deny a possibility of salvation to one another notwithstanding the differences among them.  
12. The second and more special notion of the phrase [being Members of a Church] entertained by all particular Congregations not Catholic, does import an external conformity in all Doctrines without exception, and all practices determined by each congregation respectively, a renunciation of any excluding the refusers from an external communion and participation of the privileges of that Congregation, who notwithstanding may be acknowledged to be almost in as good a condition as to salvation, as those are which exclude them from their external Communion. Thus Lutherans are not Calvinists, though they believe Calvinists may meet them in heaven, because they will not admit them to their communion. Thus you Presbyterians and Independents, etc. are no English protestants as long as you are Non-Conformists. Let the differences between you be never so small [as wearing a Surplice, Kneeling at Communion, etc.] if these Ceremonies be established by Laws Ecclesiastical or Civil, the non-submission to them is a manifest dividing from that Church: and the less considerable the quarrels are, the greater is the guilt of those that publicly dispute or write against that Church of which they desire to be thought members. True it is you would seem to have some reason to complain against the English Church, if for such trifling differences only, they should pronounce you excommunicated from Christ's Mystical Body: (though they must give me leave to say, That by not doing so, but acknowledging your Congregations to be members of the Church, they do manifestly conclude themselves guilty of Schism by such a communication with you, whom they cannot deny to be Schismatics:) But it would be ridiculous in you to accuse them of Tyranny for excluding you from their External Communion, when you yourselves will not embrace it. They do not pretend to an Authority to oblige you in conscience to believe that their Doctrines are true and their Ordinances just: but they would be no Church, they would renounce all Order, if they did not maintain the laws and customs with so great deliberation, and after so many disputes with you, framed and renewed. Where there is no Uniformity even in external matters, there is no Church, but a Babel. If at Communion some should sit, others stand, others lie along, (as our Lord did) and others kneel, if some should be bareheaded, others with their hats on, would it look like an assembly of men that served God? Therefore complain not, but rather thank God and them, if they force not your consciences, but permit you to abstain from things you do not like, and to practice among yourselves things you like better. But to expect to be acknowledged members of a Church, whilst you refuse to submit to the authority of that Church in things of themselves not evil, much more whilst you writ publicly against them, is to desire them not to pretend to the name of a Church. Therefore, I conclude, that you Mr. Bagshaw are no more a member of the English Church, than I am: and my proof is this very Preface of your Book that I now write against. Your saying that Episcopacy is lawful, or your being ordained by Bishops, signifies nothing; as long as you disobey them, you are none of their subjects.  
13. However I cannot blame you, if in despite of English protestants themselves you will needs be called English protestants. For if being, as really you are, no true members of the English Church, you were treated as such, that is, excluded from a participation of the emoluments of it, and obliged to a separated exercise of your ill-natured Religion, two great incommodities would ensue to you, and withal two as proportionably great benefits to them, and the whole Nation.  
14. For First, What pitiful Congregations would you in a short time appear to be? At present your numbers, especially in Cities and Towns are not unconsiderable. Whereas, if being no members of the English Church, you were excluded from participating Tithes, Benefices and other preferments, not at all due to you, and had no other maintenance but the Voluntary contributions of your own party, you would quickly find that Party weary of you, and become rather content to hear a sermon in the Church, and wholesome prayers in a Surplice, then to pay so much overplus for far worse stuff in a parlour, from a short cloak and no cassack.  
15. The Second Mortification thence flowing would be yet more intolerable. Hitherto the facility of Bishops giving you leave to call yourselves English protestants and members of their Church enables you to defile their Churches by doing your own business in them to their great prejudice and danger. In their pulpits you cry down Ceremonies, you preach against their government, you sow sedition in the hearts of their flock, you instill discontent against the State: In a word you do all the mischief you can, both to it and them. And all this while you enjoy their Live: they maintain you to destroy them. Whereas if at the charges of your own patrons only you were to preach and pray in private parlours, your peculiar Gifts in both would quickly vanish: for there would be no use of railing, and blowing up discontented passions in an Auditory, where most of your hearers can rail as well as yourselves, and are perhaps already more discontented: You would lose the pleasure of gaining Proselytes to your Faction; because none will hear you that are in danger of being seduced. On the contrary to your hearts torment you would see even City-Churches every day more and more filled with your dearest friends; nay your own Stomaches would come down, and for preferment, yea even bread, you would quickly digest both Cross and Surplice.  
16. Before I leave this Argument, I would fain with your permission propose a Question to You, though I fear the very proposal will anger You, and I do scarce hope for an Answer, though if you had a mind to it, nothing is more easy to be answered: and in case you reply to this paper, remember, I summon You not to forget this question.  
17. Suppose then His Majesty and the Parliament should by Law confirm to You the gracious promise from Breda, That upon giving security not to enter into practices to disturb the public peace, You should not be called in question for matters of opinion, but should have a moderate liberty to exercise your Religion at home (or even in Churches to your own party only, with prohibition to all good subjects to come to your sermons) would you be content with such an indulgence and mercy from the State? Would You upon these terms engage to discontinue your sermons and prayers top-ful of the fell draconum?  
18. Till You answer this Question, I will tell You the Opinion of many that believe they know Your temper well enough. They do assure themselves you would not: You, I mean, Presbyterians and Independents: For as for your natural brood, and subdivided Sects of Anabaptists, Quakers, etc. I conceive they are more reasonable in this matter of Liberty of conscience. They would be content to serve God after their fashion in their own Chambers, and would maintain their own Ministers, and poor too, paying withal the deuce which by Law belong to Parishes. Whereas there is but too good ground to believe that there is nothing more apprehended by You Presbyterians and Independents, than such an Indulgence: because that would disunite from you all other Sects, and make them sure to the State against You: so that You and your Friends would stand miserably and contemptibly alone.  
19 True it is, you would fain seem somewhat inclined to a Conformity of your fashion, and for that end You demand Conferences and Treaties with the Bishops, etc. But withal You require a condescendence from them in such things, as both honour and truth forbidden a compliance in, and which cannot be granted without a secret acknowledgement that they have been faulty hitherto in oppressing You with undue burdens. And as for other trifling scruples of yours, You are more troubled when they yield any thing, then when they refuse all. However by such Treaties You gain this, that among Vulgar minds You may sometimes pass for zealous persons in all things pertaining to God, and withal no enemies to peace: And besides; You may have occasion thereby to complain yet more against Bishops, for not submitting to your conditions, so easy and reasonable. For alas! You desire ease only in indifferent trifling matters: whereas in all necessary Ordinances for Gods glory You are ready to comply. What a great matter, say You, is a Surplice, or refusing a Papistical Cross? For peace sake You will even digest Episcopacy. Let there be Bishops, but not jure Divino, or if jure Divino, not such as Law hath established. Let them be countermanded each Bishop by a dozen Presbyters, and subject to their Classes, and you will not stand upon the Title.  
20. I dare say, Mr. Bagshaw, You are very angry now to be told thus publicly, that you are more afraid of Liberty of Conscience then of persecution, unless You might have leave to interpret Liberty of conscience, to be a free permission to do mischief, not to serve God. And much more, to be told, You are no English protestant. But You must pardon us, that cannot but think so, till You tell the World what You mean by an English protestant, and what that English protestancy is which You profess and maintain, and have been so busy Twenty Years, almost to the ruin of the Kingdom, to set up against Prelacy.   

II.  
That Mr. Bagshaw 's insttilling suspicions into the People's minds, as if English Divines, etc. had a design to introduce Popery again, is a mere acting over the late Rebellion.  
1. IT is now time to take into consideration the zeal, Mr. Bagshaw, that You, as a good English Protestant, have showed against those that have a liking to the pomp of popery, and are so hardy as to make some attempts to bring it back into your Church. In this zeal You spare neither Gentry (including I suppose the Nobility) nor Clergy.  
2. First as touching the Gentry, You tell the Kingdom that too many of our unwary 
Preface.  Gentry begin already to be taken with the outward pomp of popery. Who are these many, too many? They are Gentlemen. The Gentry indeed are not so apt to be wrought upon by You, as Inferior Tradesmen and day-laborours: and therefore it is much for your purpose, that the general rout should have a suspicion of them. Well though there be many of them, yet You name none: whereas there are but two of the Clergy, and You name them both. There is some Mystery in this. Would You not have it believed, but dare not speak out, that these too many Gentlemen are some members of the present Parliament, that you covertly desire the Kingdom may suspect, and have an ill opinion of, because they will not, in compliance with your slovenly devotion, suffer you to burn Surplices and Copes, or abrogate decent Ceremonies? but much more because several Honourable persons among them have expressed some pity to Roman Catholics, and an inclination to requite their fidelity with some small ease from the heavy burdens laid on them by the Laws? It is a greater torment to You to see their Fidelity rewarded, than their Religion not persecuted. But it is intolerable to you, that no good Christian now can be unsatisfied in the way that Roman Catholics have taken to appear fit objects of mercy, since they have both publicly in the house of Lords Viuâ voce, and by many Treatises and Protestations in writing given such security of their unalterable Loyalty and Obedience to his Majesty, and the State, as not any Christian can possibly give greater, and I much fear You will never have the honesty to imitate them.  
3. Observe one thing I pray You, in such Protestations and writings of Roman Catholics. They do not deprecate any former faults committed, because they are guilty of none: they protest their clearness from those crimes of a few desperate unhappy monsters, and writings of their traitorous Masters, that occasioned the severity of Laws against all: They do not mention their universal fidelity to the King these last twenty Years, as an obligation or merit, for which they expect reward from men: but as a necessary duty to which their Religion bound them, and which if they had not performed, they should have incurred a curse from God. Yet all this perhaps will not satisfy You. But see our different Complexion: for my part though there were not one of Your (supposed) Religion, but were deeply engaged in infidelity to the King, yet if You would only acknowledge that a fault was committed, is repent of, and a promise made of Loyalty for the future, I should hope well, and wish You might be believed and confided in for the future.  
4. Next as to the Clergy, Your accusation 
Preface.  is most heavy and punctual when You say, I need not plead for the not persecuting of Popery, etc. when some that yet profess themselves to be of our Church, and those of good note too, are not afraid to plead for something more than its Toleration. Since by telling us in print, that the Pope is not 
Master Thorndike in Weights and Measures.  Antichrist, That Papists are not Idolaters; nay by affirming, That all are schismatics who upon that score do refuse communion with them, they not only blemish the virtue and piety of our first Reformers, who all built upon that foundation, but likewise show how willing they are upon any terms how wretched and unworthy soever, to return into Egypt, and bring us to our Brick and bondage again. If this be not the interest of some, I cannot imagine what means the crying up of that Great Diana of the Papists, the Church's Authority, and making that the sole Interpreter of Scripture, The 
Dr. Gunning upon Math. 9  preaching up of Lent, and other political Fish▪ days, as Religious Fasts, and of Apostolical Institution, quite contrary 
M. Thorndike ut suprà.  both to express scripture, and an Act of Parliament. The insinuating, that we may lawfully pray for the dead, and likewise expect some benefit by their prayers, which in time may easily be improved to our praying unto them. These with some other opinions of the like nature, so far degenerating from our primitive protestancy, do show that if the Age is willing to be deceived, there are not wanting learned men who are willing enough to deceive them.  
5. This authority that You, Mr. Bagshaw, take upon You to proscribe all protestants that dare not profess such a detestation of Catholic Unity as Your party does, is alone sufficient to demonstrate how much the English Clergy does neglect their own preservation, whilst they permit such as You to call yourselves protestants, and members of their Church: your ways and interests being so directry opposed to theirs.  
6. All England almost has lately heard 
Archbishop of Canterbury.  laid to the charge of the late most unjustly murdered Archbishop of Canterbury, as the most heavy point of his accusation, that he had a desire of restoring England to Catholic unity. Yet there was not produced any proof at all, that for that end he deserted any necessary and essential Doctrines of his own Church: the mere desire of unity was his crime. A crime that he willingly acknowledged, and as he had reason joyfully boasted of. And certainly, that Christian must needs be full of a Spirit not from heaven, that hates unity, quatenus ipsam. Now, what my Lord Archbishop desired, and died for, I am persuaded there is scarce any true genuine English protestant but does commend in him, and would not refuse, occasion being given, to imitate him in.  
7. If you read Bishop Andrews his works both English and Latin, You 
Bishop Andrews  will, even in his Controversies against Catholics, find a wonderful caution not to aggravate, or multiply differences, great care to prevent misintelligence, and an exactness in stating disputed points with a most studied impartiality, & very oft with condescendence. Nay even in his sermons before the Court, in which his heart only spoke as as an Ambassador for God, what pangs may one perceive in his soul when he speaks upon this subject, and reflects on the aversion that some who like You, call themselves protestants, have from Catholic peace and Unity. Harken to this one passage in his first Sermon on Pentecost: Who shall make us of one accord? High shall his reward be in heaven, and happy his remembrance on earth, that shall be the means to restore this accord to the Church; that once we may keep a true and perfect Pentecost, like this here, Erant omnes unanimiter. It was a restoring of unity that he so much thirsted after: which word shows, that he had a respect to the Catholic Church from which only a separation was made.  
8. And Doctor Steward likewise, a person as replenished with learning, prudence 
Doctor Steward.  and virtue as any of his time, he so longed after this unity, that in his last Will he gave order it should be the argument of the Inscription on his Tomb. And no doubt there is, but such an Inscription would make it lighter, that is, render his future condition better.  
9 These wothy persons were indeed English protestants, like those You now arraign. They knew the true composition of their own Church: A Church, though I must needs say, not firmly built yet however erected by advice of persons in Authority, persons of honour and judgement: not as Geneva, Holland, and Cromwel's Independent Church, by a rebellious Army of Tradesmen. They knew that at the first framing of the English Church a way was not so wholly given to passion, but that when certain interests of a few great persons were complied with, and several too justly complained of Gravamina from the Roman Court remedied, there might be a possibility of closing again with that Church which they then only so far deserted. They knew there was never any intention so to forsake the Roman Church, as if it were a Babel, or seat of Antichrist, but ever acknowledged it a true Church, though not so well Reform. On the contrary they knew, and their successors do still to your hearts torment acknowledge, that all the Ordination and spiritual Jurisdiction of the English Church is derived from the Roman: which therefore must be a true Church if theirs be any.  
10. Upon such grounds as these, no question, my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury not only desired, as all honest well minded Protestants do, but also hoped, that if by his authority and skill he could reduce the English church to that primitive State before your Calvinistical dregs and poison were instilled into it, he might, upon warrantable terms, procure a Reunion with the Catholic Church. But how should this Reunion be made? By giving up to Roman Catholics all the points of English Doctrines and Discipline? No such matter. But this he knew, That in Books of Controversy, among ten Points disputed, there are not two wherein either of the Churches are interested: and that most of the few, real, Substantial differences might be qualified by a moderate interpretation and condescendence.  
11. But whensoever such a business as this is either agitated or talked of, you Mr. Bagshaw and your party smile, and deride us poor Roman Catholics, as if we vainly framed to ourselves great hopes and advantages by such good Christian designs, or Writings of Protestants. But truly you are deceived. We indeed, as we ought, are glad, purely for their sakes that either design or write sincerely and ingenuously in matters of Religion. But such designs and Writings are harmful to us in our present condition: and the reason is plain: because they being the works of particular persons without any public commission; of persons that have no sufficient influence upon the whole English Church and State, they produce little effect: On the contrary they give only an opportunity to such malicious tongues and pens as Yours to Alarm the whole Kingdom both against them and us.  
12. But if it would please his sacred Majesty or the Parliament to allow a modest Conference (not Dispute) between a certain number of sober learned English Protestants and Catholics, by means of which a clear view might be given what the peculiar Doctrines by Authority established on both sides are, and what place may be allowed for moderate Interpretations and Condescensions, in all probability the success could not but be most happy: the whole Kingdom, yea all Christendom would stand in a maze to see what an inestimable blessing has been so long wanting to England, and how little cause there was it should be refused. How would the Civil and Ecclesiastical State of these nations be established and united in interests with all the Christian world almost? How free should we all be from the least danger of being infected with the venom of Sectaries, and how secure from their designs? For than they would to all eyes appear in their distinct bodies: it would be seen who, how many, and how qualified they are: and permission being allowed them for a private liberty of exercising their Religions respectively, any succeeding tumults would be both easily repressed, and their cause appear inexcusable. In a word Religion as it might by common Advice be settled in this Kingdom, would deserve to be the envy and pattern to all the world besides, being easily freed from many abuses much complained of, but hard to be rectified in other Catholic Countries.  
13. And whence comes the obstruction to so inconceivable and universal a blessing as this, but merely from such, English Protestant's as You and Your party are permitted to call yourselves. From You it proceeds that the ecclesiastics of this Kingdom have not hitherto so much as endeavoured to convert us Roman Catholics to their Religion: They have been unwilling to be informed what the true Differences between us and themselves are. As if true Reformed Religion did formally consist in a blind, heady, and voluntary breach of Unity with all Churches before them. They have condescended to admit conferences with Sects, whose peculiar complexion consisting in an incompossibility with their government renders them irreconcilable, unless they yield up both their Faith and Estates. Yea for such Enemy's satisfaction (if any thing could satisfy them) they have submitted to alterations even in their Church office and Discipline. Lastly to content such English Protestants as You, they have connived at your defiling, altering and destroying that which heretofore was called, and by Law still is truly the English Protestant Religion: As will appear even by what You are suffered here to write against eminent persons of their Church.  
14. You proscribe and expose to public hatred Doctor Gunning and Master 
Doctor Gunning.  Thorndike, as persons that would seduce English subjects to Popery. And what are your Proofs? Forsooth Doctor Gunning has preached before the King, and since printed, and beyond your skill to disprove, has demonstrated that the Lent fast is an Apostolical Institution. Where lies the Popery? It is, You say, against express scripture. But is it therefore popery? Do no Sects contradict express Scripture but Roman Catholics? Behold the natural Logic of a Fanatic. However, let this express scripture be produced. Non liquet, either in your Text or Margin. Well at least, say You, it is against an Act of Parliament. Let me ask You and Your fellows a Question. Will You be content to stand to all Acts of Parliament, both as to their Prefaces and Clauses, as Declarations of Faith: and this under the penalty of being esteemed Papists: Then I here denounce You a Papist: For has not the whole Liturgy and Discipline of the English Church been ratified by Acts of parliament? But what will You say to an Act of Parliament that has declared, and like a Heretic burned Your Covenant as a damned, traitorous conspiracy? Take heed therefore You be not found yourself a papist. As for the Lent fast, You know that by the Laws of the Kingdom Bishops are appointed the exacters and dispensers of the Observance of Lent: which shows it to be esteemed an Ecclesiastical observance as well as Civil, So that I believe Dr. Gunning is in little danger from your charge.  
15. God send Mr. Thorndike as good a deliverance: For his Charge consists 
M. Thorndike.  of more than one, or two, or three points of Accusation: and every one of them seems to have an air of popery. Let them be examined. First, say you, he tells us in print that the Pope is not Antichrist. Item, That Papists are not Idolaters. Item by consequence, that all are Schismatics who upon that score do refuse Communion with them. These are terrible points against good Mr. Thorndike: Yet, alas, not all his popery neither.  
16. A time was when such as You, Mr. Bagshaw, could both undo and destroy English subjects merely upon an accusation of Popery, without proof. God be thanked it is otherwise now. Therefore You ought at least to have produced some proofs that these Assertions are direct popery. But not having done it: let me advise you what kind of proofs will be expected. You must know therefore that it is a Law of the English Church, that whatsoever is found in the Ancient Canons, and is not expressly revoked by Ecclesiastical Authority in England, is to be esteemed still in force. And common sense and reason will tell you, that before you can by such allegations as these prove any one to have deserted the English Churches doctrine, and be turned a papist, you must produce some Authentic Declaration of this Church by which the Pope is decided to be Antichrist, and the Papists, Idolaters. But that is impossible for you to do. You will perhaps, to little purpose, cite the names of certain Calvinistical Writers, that, as you, hypocritically called themselves English Protestants: but withal you will take notice that all very Protestants have laughed at them, some have been angry, and demonstrated the direct Negative. If you were a live member of the English Church, you would know that the English Church would be no Church if the Pope were Antichrist, and the Papists, Idolaters. For would you acknowledge that to be a Church that enjoys her whole Authority and Jurisdiction from Antichrist and Idolaters? Is she not rather a member and abortive of Antichrist? This is plain reason Mr. Bagshaw: and consequently the inference is undeniable, That all are schismatics who upon that score do refuse communion with the Roman Church.  
17. You proceed against Mr. Thorndike, He insinuates, say you, that we may lawfully pray for the Dead. Your proof, I told you, that this is against Protestancy, must be to show where the English Church has repealed the Ancient Canons commanding Prayer for the Dead. That will be a hard task. On the contrary You yourselves object against the Common-Prayer-Book that there is a clause in it, that not only insinuates it to be lawful, but actually exercises prayer for the dead. And you know that within the time of the four first General Counsels (received in England) above twelve hundred years ago your Progenitors were by the Universal Church declared Heretics for denying it. Yea moreover that there was never extant any Liturgy or Missal in the Church of Christ, Eastern or Western, wherein there were not prayers for the dead.  
18. You go on. Mr. Thorndike against the Doctrine of the Church of England says, That we may expect some benefit by the prayers of souls departed (I suppose, holy souls are meant.) Where does the Church of England contradict this? nay more, except you will acknowledge yourself to be a Socinian, and deny that the souls of dead persons have any subsistence at all with perception, and use of rational faculties, you yourself will not be so shameless as to deny what you here lay to Mr. Thorndikes charge. For I know none that call themselves Christians, except Socinians, but acknowledge that the glorified Saints do pray at least in general for the Church Militant. Now if they all do pray for us all, will you not permit us to expect some benefit by their prayers? Must we maintain that all their prayers are to no purpose? O but you infer, That this in time may easily be improved to our praying unto them. As for this inference which is not your defendants, but only your own, give me leave to tell you: That if you believe that the Saints pray for the Church in general, it would be no hard matter by one Syllogism to oblige you to acknowledge that we may pray to God that he would hear and grant their prayers, making them beneficial to us. And now search all the Solemn Offices and Missals of the Roman Church mark the prayers that occurrs every Saint's Feast, you will find no other forms but such as that: The prayer is always directed to God alone immediately, and he is desired to grant us such and such blessings by the intercession of such Saints. And if in less solemn Devotions, as Litanies, Antiphons', &c. we say, Sancte Maria, Sancte Michael, Sancte Petre, ora pro nobis: we are by the Church obliged to no other meaning then as before: and we imitate express Scripture, Laudate Deum omnes Angeli ejus, omnes Sancti ejus, etc. Cardinal Perron will assure you that our prayers to Saints is only prior pour prier, a devout wishing that they would pray for us: And truly for my part I do hearty wish all the Saints in heaven to intercede in their prayers with God, that he would vouchsafe to give you (and us all) a sincere love both to truth and peace.  
19 I have reserved your most criminal charge till the last, which you thus express, If it be not the intent of some to return into Egypt, I cannot imagine 
Preface.  what means the crying up of that great Diana of the Papists, the Church's authority, and making that the sole interpreter of Scripture. What Religion can you possibly be of, and talk thus? You in your own person, standing alone, are not a Church. If you be but one member of a Church, what ever it be, as long as you are so, you are subject to it, it must have Authority over you: the Spirit of one Prophet must be subject to an assembly of Prophets are you an Independent? much freedom is employed in that Title: yet I believe your Lay Church will think it has authority enough to oblige you not to interpret Scripture for the advantage of that court of Inquisition, the Classes of the Presbytery. Are you a Presbyterian? Your private reason shall be yoked and chained with bonds strong enough, and heavy enough to keep it from stirring to the prejudice of the Holy brethren and Sisters. But you will needs call yourself an English Protestant, and yet will dare to revile all the Authority in your Church, boldly protesting that it shall not interpret Scripture for you: Your private reason shall overmaster it. Unless it confess itself to be no Church, that is, to have no Authority to oblige its members to receive the sense of scripture from her, you will be revenged by bellowing aloud This is the crying up of the great Diana of the Papists. Truly I must needs say, the Church of England is a very patiented Church, if she suffer you to speak this Bedlam language and enjoy a Benefice too.  
20. But you do well, though you mean very ill, when you call this the Diana of the Papists: Since you imply that a true obliging Authority, if any where, can only be found in the Catholic Church. As for Sects that have no Succession of Ordination for such to assume Authority and Jurisdiction in matters of Religion, is ridiculous even to common sense: for it implies, that to be men which have an ordinary use of reason, is a sufficient qualification to become Ecclesiastical Teachers and Governors. The Clergy of England challenging a lawful Ordination, have some pretention to a real Authority: and if they could justify themselves free from the guilt of Schism, even we Roman Catholics could not deny but their Authority would oblige in conscience, and under the penalty of damnation, because than it would be an Authority participating that of the whole Catholic Church, and acting in union with it But of this somewhat more in the last part of this Discourse.  
21. I do apprehend, Mr. Bagshaw, that if you make any reply to this, you will, instead of speaking to the purpose, endeavour to aggravate the cause of Doctor Gunning and Mr. Thorndike, by saying at adventure, that there is a secret intelligence between the Papists and them, and that they do mutually maintain one another's quarrels. On the other side I am not without suspicion that some even of my own belief and Church, will think that it did not become a Catholic to busy himself with justifying the writings of protestants, especially when he endeavours to show that such Writers are no Catholics, though the particular points taught by them be real Catholic verities.  
22. Now to both these I must say, that I never had the happiness to know or see either Doctor Gunning or Mr. Thorndike: never was there any message or intelligence between us. But my only Motive to write as I have done, was to comply with that precept of God (Pacem & veritatem diligite) Love peace and Truth. As a true faithful English subject, I could not see so professed a disturber of peace without reproving him. As a catholic I could never hope (what I am bound to desire and aim at) that both truth and peace would find admittance into England by any endeavours either of Protestants or Catholics till it was apparent what the true grounds of our separation are: and this never will be known till other Sects be made to blush, when they impudently and perniciously both to the Church and State, call themselves English protestants, and pretend to be judges of what is to be esteemed in the English Church Catholic Doctrine.  
23. Therefore for a conclusion of this argument touching your charge against Dr. Gunning and Mr. Thorndike, I will once more protest, that unless either the Civil or Ecclesiastical Authority do in time provide against such writers as you, the whole Kingdom in a very short space will be in imminent danger to become a mere Babel. For if it shall be permitted to such men, to defame any English Doctor or Writer that shall not conspire in all the furious positions of Presbyterians, Independents, etc. against the Catholic Church, there will not be a Bishop or sober Divine in England that will not be at your mercy, both for his fame and subsistence, nay his life also, when you can either raise a tumult, or which is more dreadful, a new Tribunal of Justice.   

III.  
That Mr. bagshaw's attempt to render only the Roman Catholic Subjects, in an incapacity of Toleration is in itself most groundless, and in his mouth most ridiculously malicious.  
1. WE poor Roman Catholics could not but be strangely surprised to see such a Protestant of the Church of England, as you Mr. Bagshaw are, to become our Advocate, and to beg our pardon saying, How ill an opinion soever I have both of the Papists Religion, 
Preface.  and of the unchristian ways they take to propagate it, yet far be it from me to wish, that amongst us they may suffer the same hard measure, which I know by their Principles, they are always ready to inflict. For so much do I desire their conversion (which can never be sincere, unless it be voluntary and unconstrained) and so little fear their power of seducing (since their greatest strength lies in the ignorance of their followers, rather than in the cunning of their guides) that I hearty wish all penal Laws against them were utterly taken away: For I never yet saw any Argument that could clearly evince, why any sort of men who would profess a peaceable subjection unto the Civil Government, might not in all their Civil Rights be protected by it.  
2. What a kind wish is here, and a reason for it truly unanswerable? Indeed here is Charity, a point too high to be believed sincere. Therefore to the end your Charity may be rational, do not deprecate the inflicting of all punishment upon any, if you can indeed prove that by the Principles of their Religion they are obliged to inflict the like punishment on others. As for our Principles, we protest unto you they are very innocent in this point. Laws indeed have oft been made in Catholic Countries very severe against those that the Church calls Heretics. But they are none of the Church's laws: they were not enacted by ecclesiastics but by Civil Governors only. You know that by the Canons of the Church ever in force, the Clergy under penalty of Irregularity are forbidden to have any hand, either by Counsel or otherwise, in blood. And whatsoever Laws have been or shall be made by Catholic Civil Governors, especially such as reach to blood, if the Motive of them hath been pure Opinions of the Understanding, not prejudicial to Government, or any thing except a prudent mean to prevent Sedition or Rebellions justly apprehended, we assure you they are not made by the Principles of Catholic Religion, but against them.  
3. You will object the Spanish Inquisition. But withal be pleased to consider, that almost all the Catholic Kingdoms in Europe besides do abhor the cruelty of that Inquisition, and have often declared they will suffer the utmost extremities, rather than admit it.  
4. This Charity of yours therefore was too excessive to be long-lived, or deserving to be esteemed sincere: for you presently repent and revoke it, whilst immediately after you add, I must confess there are two things which do much difference the case of the Papists from that of any other Religious Sect 
Preface.  this day in the World, and which renders the Toleration of them very unsafe, if not unwarrantable.  
5. How was it possible for one that wrote this cruel passage, not presently to blot out what with the same ink he had written immediately before? The King and State are little beholding to you, when you wish that may be done, which is both very unsafe and unwarrantable: and besides, that may be done for Roman Catholics, which you say are the only Religous Sect in the World, which it is both very unsafe and unwarrantable to tolerate: you except not even the Fifth-Monarchists, whose Religion forbids subjection to all Civil Governors whatsoever, and commands by Fire and Sword to erect their new spiritual Kingdom of Christ, which is to last a thousand years. Let but Papists be excluded, and all the monsters of Egypt are welcome to Mr. Bagshaw: Yet he must know that if there had been no Papists in the World, no other Sect among us had ever heard of Christ. Behold the mercies of a Presbyterian (or Independent, I know not whether) how cruel they are.  
6. And all this he writes to prevent the benignity of Protestants, which he suspects may in some measure be extended as well to Roman Catholics that suffered with them, as to his own party that still grieve they had not swallowed up both. He forgets what a converted criminal (as if it were some honest Anabaptist, or Quaker, one that had been, but now is no longer, a murderer and seditious person) said to his obdurate companion, Dost thou not fear God, since thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: But these Men what have they done? But we should not much apprehend that his persuasion should prevail with persons that sure should now know us both, were it not that (by what unlucky star we are ignorant) a persuasion has entered the minds of not a few among them, that there is a secret intelligence and Union of interests between Roman Catholics and all our Sects, even to fanatics, and that they do all jointly conspire against Protestants. This opinion is imbibed by persons of prudence, and otherwise well disposed to contribute to the ease and comfort of Catholics, were it not that the proofs of this accusation are said to be unanswerable. Many Priests say they, are known to have been busy in Cromwel's Army: and even of late some Catholics have sided with Presbyterians, etc.  
7. Now what is left for distressed roman-catholics to do in this case? Protestations and Oaths to the contrary, will not serve. Writings of this nature, if they be read by such, are slighted. Quid verba audimus (say they) cum facta videmus? But if they see them, let the state see them too: Let some delinquents be produced. No: yet the thing is certainly true. But how comes this ttuth known to Protestants? Have the Sectaries discovered it? It is hard that their testimony should be taken: and though their professed hatred be notorious, it is unlikely they would forfeit their privilege by the Act of Indemnity, merely to do mischief to others. Are they Catholics that have discovered this? They may easily be brought to a trial: no Troops need be employed to apprehend them. And an unanswerable way of justifying the past severity of the State against us all, would be the arraignment of them, in case they can accuse any that have instilled unlawful principles or encouragements into them. If all the several bodies of ecclesiastics be not able to justify both their Religion and practice, we renounce all mercy. But let it be granted that some Priests were in Cromwell's Army: who were they? Either sensual Apostates, or I am loath to say who, and they perhaps with a mind to serve the King: Or in case it should happen, as possibly it may, that three or four rash persons, out of a tender affection and devotion to one party among Catholics, whose exclusion they fear, to prevent that, should enter into any practice without commission even of that party itself, hoping that such an Act of theirs would be imputed to all Catholics, and by that means hinder their Friends from being treated more severely than all the rest; would not Justice itself complain, if even that party should suffer for the rash misdemeanours of a few: but Justice would forsake the earth, if all the whole innocent body should be made a sacrifice for a crime so committed. It is a hard condition we are in: We actually suffer as if we were guilty of a crime, and are forced to guests what that crime (utterly unknown to ourselves) can be supposed to be. All that can be said in the present circumstances must be, That if in reality we can be proved deservedly obnoxious to a condemnation upon this charge, both the present and future Age ought to stigmatize us and our memories, as persons not only in the highest degree criminal, but as such who in a blind frenzy, after they had by suffering all extremities from powerful enemies twenty Years together for their Sovereign, obtained a sufficient reward in being esteemed by him constantly Loyal Subjects, and (as their hopes were) had withal sufficiently freed their Religion from the scandal of infidelity: afterwards when his Majesty was restored to his power, and treated them with a mercy never before experienced by them, yea moreover when the Honourable Lords in Parliament after a gracious hearing of their defence, gave them hopes of future favour, just then they deserted their Loyalty to the King: and entered into a combination with enemies always implacable to themselves, and at a time when those Enemies had all power taken from them. This would be a complication of all crimes in one, a Treason joined with the most prodigious ingratitude, most scandalous impiety, most barbarous inhumanity, and most brutish stupidity that ever was.  
8. But Mr. Bagshaw (who, I am assured, does not suspect us, nay knows we are not guilty of this crime) calls me to hear his Reasons why Papists alone should be ill-treated: and I obey. You say, Sir, you have more than one reason 
Preface.  which does difference the case of Papists from all other Sects, etc. If this be true, than You had not so much as half a reason to wish sincerely that the penal Statutes should be taken from them: Nay that unlawful wish deserved punishment.  
8. Let us see these Your evincing reasons. One is, say You, their depending upon and owning a foreign power, etc. If you had stopped at these words, we should have found no reply. For we confess, such a power we depend upon and own; but we utterly deny that that should put us in a worse condition than others. For if that Power be purely spiritual, that is, of a quite different nature, and not in the least degree prejudicial to the King's Civil Power, but rather obliging those that acknowledge it, faithfully to obey the King, the owning of it surely aught to be no hindrance to a Toleration. If you think otherwise, than I must tell You that no Sect of Christians whatsoever ought to be tolerated in England. For let me ask You (who ever you are, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Anabaptist, Quaker, or even English Protestant) Do not you, and all of Your persuasion with You, depend upon and own a power distinct from his Majesty's Civil power, I mean, a power merely Spiritual, or Pastoral, not subordinate to the Kings, but to which the King himself, if he be of your Religion, aught to be subject, as being no Pastor, but a Sheep, no Teacher, but a Hearer; no administrer of Sacraments, but a receiver; no Excommunicatour, but liable himself, as all Christ's flock are when they demerit it, to have Ecclesiastical censures inflicted on him? Such a power, I am sure, you all acknowledge: And no other power do Roman Catholics depend upon or own. Be not then so manifestly, so affectedly partial, as to allege that to the prejudice and destruction of Roman Catholics only, which must as well exclude all Christians out of England.  
10. But it is a foreign power, You say, that Papists depend upon and own, and this word Forreign makes the difference. It does indeed: But the difference is, I suppose, much to the advantage both of the King and Roman Catholics too. For tell me for God's sake since there is indeed a spiritual power from which Princes themselves ought not to be exempted, nor can free themselves from it without infinite prejudice to their own souls, is it not more for their temporal peace and security that this Spiritual power should reside in one single person that usually is both learned and discreet, and withal is a thousand miles removed from our King, then in many thousands within his own Kingdom, not all of them Angels, that if they have a mind to do him a mischief, have all the means and opportunities imaginable? The King of France esteems it a great privilege granted him in a Concordate by the Pope, that no particular Bishop should have power in any case to excommunicate him: this power being reserved by the Pope alone.  
11. Therefore you do very well when for an escape to yourselves You add, but very ill, when most calumniously to us You add, That Catholics depend upon and own such a power which according to the opinion of their teachers 
Preface.  can when he pleases dispense with them for, and release them from their most sacred engagements: So that a State can have no security, but that when ever they have opportunity they will endeavour a change: And their present peaceableness may justly be attributed merely to their want of strength: which Bellarmine is not ashamed to say was the sole cause why the primitive Christians were content to suffer without resistance. From which position what can follow, but that it concerns the wisdom and policy of every State to keep those under, whom as to Temporal Subjection it cannot confide in.  
12. Imperet tibi Dominus. Here the world sees the charity of a Presbyterian, etc. in its natural colours. The Christian charity so divinely commended by St. Paul has these qualities, Non cogitat malum, etc. It thinks no ill: It does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices 
1 Cor. 13.  with the truth: It suffers all things; it believes all things, it hopes all things. But this man's new fashioned charity thinks nothing but ill of all divided from his interests. It rejoices only when any of them fall into any defects, and never rejoices at their well doing. It suffers nothing, whatsoever good they promise it believes nothing, it hopes nothing.  
13. But truly, Mr. Bagshaw, You have made choice of a most unseasonable time to vomit forth these most spiteful untruths against Catholics, with any hope they should be believed. In the last age indeed when the criminous Writings and practices of four or five Catholics of one peculiar Order had justly incensed the State, and no way was afforded to all the rest publicly to defend themselves from an imputation of concurring with, and holding the wicked principles of a few Traitors, such a bloody accusation as this might perhaps find entrance into the minds of some few unwary persons. But now when such practices and principles have been he artily disavowed by all sorts of Catholics: When the honourable Catholic Lords, have in the name of the whole body of the Catholics, before a most glorious Tribunal made most confident protestations of an Eternal fidelity to the King, and of renouncing all dependence on a foreign Authority that can any way be prejudicial to him: When so many professions have been printed by several sorts of Catholics declaring, That no power upon earth can absolve them from their most necessary & natural Allegiance, nor so much as free them from the Obligation of any Promise or Engagement made to any private person: When his Majesty himself has honoured his Catholic subjects with such a confidence in their Loyalty and sincerity, as to trust his life into their hands, when some (Mr. Bagshaw knows who) sought and hunted after that most precious life; Lastly when for the space of twenty years a fiery trial has passed upon the fidelity of Catholics, and never could diminish it: Now, I say, after all this to hear this accusation against them, out of such a mouth as Mr. bagshaw's, that they depend on a Power that can release them from their most sacred engagements, is beyond all sufferance. What name can be found out worthily to express such a shamelessness in a Presbyterian or Independent, none of whose party ever assisted, but rather used all their power and skill to ruin the King, and after their Indemnity not one has appeared to make a public promise of dealing better with him for the future? Who can with patience hear such an one, tell the State, that it is concerned in wisdom and policy to keep Roman Catholics under, whom as to temporal subjection it cannot confide in, when as not any one of them disserved the state, but many thousands have lost their lives, and far more (almost all) are ruined in their estates for their fidelity only; and moreover to show that this Fidelity was a Duty of their Religion, have and ever will be ready to give all security of peaceable obedience and sincere integrity that Words or Actions can confirm? What can You expect, Mr. Bagshaw should be the fruit of such a passage as this in a Book of Yours, but a guilty blushing in Your own party, indignation in loyal Protestants to hear such as You become accusers in such a cause as this, and joy in Roman Catholics, to see that none have of late taxed them as persons not to be confided in, but such old confiding men, as after oaths of Fidelity have taken the Covenant and Engagements worse than that, and but for an Act of Oblivion, etc. would in Westminster-Hall hear, and not be able to answer a far heavier accusation than this?  
14. There are but two Oaths by the State accounted trials of an English subjects fidelity, that of Supremacy and of Allegiance. If the former were but so expressed as to require an acknowledgement of a Civil Supremacy in his Majesty only, exclusively to the Pope: And if the unfortunate word, Heretical were left out of the other, no honest Catholic would desire to be allowed the privilege of a subject if he refused either. And more than this, not any one Protestant, Presbyterian, or whosoever he be that freely takes them, can intent by them. For not any of these will say that the Catholic Church of any Age has defined this Assertion to be Heretical, That Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects: It being an assertion they never dreamed of: Neither will any of those that make no scruples at either of the Oaths, allow a spiritual power, much less a Supremacy in that power to the King. So that it is evident that Catholics are exposed to the extremity of sufferings for not taking oaths in the full importance of whose sense they agree with all those by whom they are persecuted.  
15. But truly now, since the State has most graciously been pleased to give a public hearing to the Catholics, speaking by the Tongues of the Catholic Lords, etc. who have against all possible objections maintained the innocence of our Religion in the point of Fidelity: And since it has been a general asseveration of Magistrates and the State, that they never had any intention to take away any man's life merely for his Religion and conscience, as long as he was free from practising sedition: Me thinks hereafter our Justitiae Sacerdotes, the Reverend Judges should find a great difficulty to persuade their consciences to permit their tongues to pronounce a condemnation, as for treason, against any English subject, merely for having a scruple in an Oath to bring forth the word Heretical, he being at the same time ready to acknowledge, as due to the King, all the authority and right that the Judge himself does, when he condemns him for a traitor.  
16. Therefore, Mr. Bagshaw, if You would persuade the State that it cannot confide in Catholics, You must study some other motives: For we hearty renounce the acknowledgement of any power that can dispense with us, or release us of our Engagements to his Majesty. They are none of our teachers that hold such opinions. And what Bellarmine says, That the sole cause why the Primitive Christians were content to suffer without resistance was their want of power, we abhor, as a speech blasphemous to the Holy Martyrs, and scandalous to the Church. Yet let me tell You, this was a Doctrine that Bellarmine might have learned from Your Forefathers the ancient Puritans, for out of them it is that Archbishop Bancroft quotes such unchristian say and words, as this for one, Paul commanding us to be subject and obedient to 
Bancroft in Dangerous Positions p. 17  Princes, did write this in the infancy of the Church: there were but few Christians then, and not many of them rich, or of ability, so as they were not for such a purpose. As if a man should write to such Christians as are under the Turk, in substance poor, in courage feeble, in strength unarmed, in number few, and generally subject to all kind of injuries, would he not write as Paul did? So as the Apostle did respect the men he wrote unto, and his words are not to be extended to the body or people of a Common wealth or whole City. For imagine that Paul were now alive, etc. and that there were such Kings as would have their becks stand for Laws, as cared neither for God nor man, etc. what would he write of such to the Church? Surely except he would dessent from himself, he would say, that he accounteth not such for Magistrates, &c, he would leave them to their subjects to be punished, etc.  
17. What think You of this Mr. Bagshaw? Yet I will not accuse You of holding the same. Nay more, though I can demonstrate tuat there's not a Country or City in Christendom into which Your Sect or Religion ever entered by any other ways but sedition and Rebellion, witness France, Geneva, Holland, several States in Germany, Switzerland, Scotland, and (for almost twenty Years space) England, yet if You would renounce that abominable principle, That it is lawful to defend Religion by arms against a lawful Prince, I should have a scruple to say, that a State cannot safely or warrantably confide in you, as You have most unjustly said against Roman Catholics, taking advantage from one or two Writers generally disallowed by us, though You can not name any one City or Country in Christendom into which Catholic Religion ever entered but by suffering.  
18. Do not therefore endeavour to make all Catholics answerable for the wicked assertions of a few Authors, when you know they have been condemned by whole Kingdoms. You have eyes sharp enough to spy even in the Catholic Church our sort of Presbyterians and Independents, Yea even Quakers too: If any such be in England, the State may easily convert them. However God be thanked their teachings are out of fashion: and I would to God they displeased You as much as they do us. You know we can lay to your charge ten seditious Authors for one: and which is mainly (indeed, only) considerable, You are not able to produce one of your party that has condemned their horribly Rebellious principles. And as to the point of defending Religion by Arms, if by a Reply You will summon me to produce the particular passages, I will at large inform You, that during the reign of the last King of France, there was by his order proposed to an Assembly of Catholic Bishops this Question or problem, If it were supposed that the King of France became Mahometan, and by his power endeavoured to force his subjects to that infidelity, Whether they might lawfully, according to the principles of Christianity, by arms against their Sovereign resist such an attempt of his? To which Question the unanimous answer of the Bishops was, That such a resistance would be unlawful: since Christian Religion allowed no other way of maintaining the faith against lawful Sovereigns, but prayers, tears and suffering. When will England be so happy as to see such a resolution to proceed from a Synod of Presbyterians, etc. It would be some comfort to see but one, Mr. Bagshaw, publish a little book to that purpose. Never certainly was there a more seasonable time then now. That would be a powerful expedient to imprint the Act of Oblivion in the very hearts of all English subjects: And till some such thing be done, Quis Caelum terris non misceat to read from such an one as Mr. Bagshaw's pen a Lecture of Fidelity to the King, and a warning given to the State, who the only persons are not fit to be confided in?  
19 You add, Mr. Bagshaw, But could our Papists in England give sufficient evidence of their hearty disowning such an irreligious Tenet, yet there is another thing, 
Preface.  etc. What say You Sir; Can the Papists? Why, have they not? Is their an ear in England that can perceive sense, and has not heard what a profession was made by the Catholic Lords in the House of Peers? Is there an eye that can read, and has not seen their printed Declarations in which that irreligious Tenet was confidently, clearly and hearty Disavowed? They have, do, and will protest, that if they be not ready to give all possible security of disavowing that, and all other Principles prejudicial to Authority, Justice, and Peace, it would neither be prudence in his Majesty, nor a just care of his Kingdom's welfare, to tolerate them among his Subjects. What would you require more?  
20. If You think, or however, if You be resolved to say, though You do not think so, that we lie when we both make such protestations, and withal offer to confirm them by Oaths, You will put us into some puzzle how to give You satisfaction. Yet in order thereto, even to You that perhaps are unwilling to be satisfied, we tell You this. You cannot but know that Catholic Religion utterly forbids all lying, and above all, Perjury. If therefore You will judge, that neither the Protestations, nor Oaths of Catholics, are to be credited, you will condemn the State of want of prudence in contriving Oaths for trials of their Fidelity: and moreover you must needs esteem us the most impertident Liars in the World, that is, such as only lie when it is for our disadvantage. If we durst lie, we would much rather choose to lie by taking the Oaths in the forms as they are expressed, then make voluntary false protestations of the same duty that the oaths require: because by taking the Oaths we should free ourselves oftimes from the loss of our Estates, and sometimes of our lives: whereas by such Voluntary protestations we cannot challenge any temporal commodity: nay perhaps we anger those, that take it worse from us that we prove ourselves good subjects, than they would, if we had been ill ones. This is all I can at present say to such a scruple. If this satisfy not, God mend those that are in fault.  
21. Let us now see Your second reason why only Papists must not be tolerated though they were never so good subjects. That You deliver in these words. There is another thing practised by 
Preface.  them, which makes it highly questionable, whether a Kingdom professing Christianity ought to tolerate them in, & that is their Worshipping of Images: which is a sin so contrary to the express letter of the Divine Law, and so repugnant to the common sense and reason of all men, that God punished it severely even in the Heathen Chaldeans, as well as in his own people the Jews.  
22. You are hard put to it, Mr. Bagshaw, to find reasons to kill Roman Catholics. The saying is Furor arma; but it has put a straw into Your hands, to wound us with. Yet I am likewise hard put to it too, how to defend myself against even such a weapon: that is, how to discourse upon this point of Images with one that professes he will neither accept Fathers, Counsels, nor the whole Church itself for an Interpreter of Scriptures, or Decider of Controversies, but only his own private enlightened reason. It cannot be helped therefore: Reason alone must be judge between us: You will needs have it so. Let reason then be our judge, but upon condition that You will not call that reason which is against common sense.  
22. You say, The worshipping of Images is a sin repugnant to the common sense and 
Fres●  reason of all sober men: so that your common sense and reason concludes, that there is not a Catholic in the world that is a sober man, and not devoid of common sense and reason: and by consequence, all France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Savoy, Greece, etc. are but one large Bedlam.  
24. Well, however give one of these Bedlam men leave to propose to such a sober man as you are, that is all compounded of Reason, some few Questions, First, then suppose there were represented to you while You were thinking of other matters, or talking, a picture of our Lord hanging on the Cross: could you possibly avoid the calling to mind who our Lord was, and what he had done or suffered for you? And if not being able to forbid the entrance of such thoughts into your mind on such an occasion, would your reason dictate to you that you had done ill in changing your thoughts from the world to God, would you repent of it, ask pardon of God, and praying that such a tentation might never befall you afterwards? Does your enlightened reason suggest this to you? Truly if it do, I believe you are of a temper of mind almost specifically different from all mankind besides, and must change their nature before You make them of your persuasion, or Church. And yours is not a common sense, if it either tell You that by Your beating down Crosses and breaking Church windows, our good Countrymen think more of God than they did while those remembrances were standing: or if they think less, that it is better for them, to forget him.  
25. To make a step further, Let it be supposed that at the same time You saw before you several pictures of several persons in quite contrary manner regarded by you, as of St. Peter and Judas, of our Late Sovereign and Bradshaw: (you are beholding to me for this example:) Or put case you had in one hand a Bible and in the other the infamous story of Pantagruel: does not your common sense and reason tell you, that such pictures or books force upon your mind quite contrary thoughts and affections, the which regard those pictures or books not simply considered, but as representing such persons, and containing such matter? The which thoughts being just, and not at all harmful to you, and withal almost impossible to be avoided, I cannot find any reason why reason should forbid them: I am sure common sense will not.  
26. If then it be according to reason and common sense, and likewise unavoidable to admit such different thoughts: will not reason also warrant you to express outwardly by words or actions, whatsoever you may without any fault think inwardly? For my part I cannot imagine any scruple in this. If then I may and must think reverently or contemptuously of the Objects, I may as well speak, or behave myself externally after the same manner to them respectively; For whatsoever is ill or good in words or actions, is so likewise in thoughts.  
27. Now to show that such thoughts or affections regard not the persons only but the pictures also as representations of such persons, ask Your own heart and You will find that You would not place S. Peter's picture, or the Kings in an unclean, dishonest place. If any one should spit upon either of them, your heart would rise against him, and tempt you to strike him: which it would not do, if the same contemptuous usage were showed to the picture of Judas or Bradshaw. Now this is so naturally imbibed in the hearts of all mankind, that in all King's Courts a respect and outward mark of reverence is required to the Chamber of presence, or Chair of State: and a refusal of it, much more a contemptuous behaviour, would be criminal. To apply this to the forementioned Books: You could not bring your reason to permit You to tear out a leaf of the Bible for an unclean use, as you could without the least remorse do to the story of Pantagruel or Aesop's fables.  
28. Let us now consider what kind of respect this is that we express to such images. Comparing the images of Saint Peter and our Sovereigns together, we find that a respectful regard is had to both, and a contemptuous usage of either would displease us: Yet it is not the same kind of respect: For St. Peter's image we consider as of a man that puts us in mind of heaven and heavenly things, one highly favoured by Almighty God, a principal Courtier in his Kingdom, and one that by his writings and example has been a great instrument of promoting our eternal happiness. We do not so esteem of every good King. Therefore to show the difference of our respect to each, we would choose to give St. Peter's picture a place in our Oratory, and the Kings in our Gallery. But what names to give to these different respects is not easy to determine. It is plain, that which is given to the King's picture is purely a civil respect: but what shall we call that which is given to St. Peter's? If we say it is Religious, you will quarrel, as derogating from God. Let us therefore call it a sacred veneration, or honour: For since all things that are appointed on purpose to mind us of God, of heaven and the salvation of our souls, we call them sacred, this name may well be applied to such a picture. But moreover, because there are not invented such variety of names as there are things, and there are far fewer sorts of outward postures of our Bodies denoting respect, than there are Names or Words: Hence it comes to pass that when we would express a Civil and a Sacred, yea a Religious respect, we are forced to use the same outward behaviour of bowing, kneeling, etc. to Fathers and Magistrates, that we do to God himself: Yea we find in the Scripture Kings adored, and a prostration of bodies paid to them. Yet for all this no man will suspect that thereby any dishonour was intended to God, or the Honour due only to him was paid to creatures.  
29. In the next place let reason and common sense give judgement of the distinction between the respect that may be paid to the picture of St. Peter, and that which ought to be paid to himself in case he appeared to us glorified as he is. A Divine respect we pay to neither, though sometimes we use such postures as we do when we pray, or worship God. It is then a sacred veneration only: but yet there are some expressions of respect that we would use to the person, that would be ridiculous to the picture, as reverently to speak to him, to beg his prayers to God for us, to ask a Question, etc.  
30. Our last Enquiry shall be into the difference of regard (if any there be) to our Saviour's picture and S. Peter's, the former representing to us him that is both God and man, the latter, merely man. However we shall find that the regard to both the pictures is of the same species and nature, that is, only sacred: because a picture we never look upon but as an instrument to put us in mind, or to call to our memories an object: and therefore it being of our own frameing is not capable of any respect beyond that which is due to so material, inferior a thing, what ever the object represented by it be. True it is that the internal affections and thoughts occasionally raised in our minds will be infinitely different, for we shall think upon Christ with Adoration, Love, Resignation and Obedience due to God only: not so of St. Peter: but the pictures themselves will be treated by us as sacred pictures only, that deserve a respect proportionable: And since it is evident they are capable of a sinful disrespect, consequently a due respect may be paid to them. I say, may be, not always aught to be: for than it would never be fit to put on ones hat, etc. in a room where there hangs a crucifix.  
31. To sum up briefly our meaning in this whole matter: We find our minds too apt to be distracted from meditating on Divine things: therefore we help ourselves by such things as will call to our memories, and fix our thoughts upon Objects good for our souls to be thought upon: Such are holy pictures both in times of prayer and out, we find this benefit by them. Being such sacred things, we must renounce our reason, if we deny a respect may be due to them: but by honouring with an outward regard a picture, we intent only to give a testimony what respect we bear to the person or holy thing represented: And though for want of variety of postures, we show some part of the same outward Reverence to the pictures of St. Peter and our Lord, yet that signifies, we only venerate St. Peter as a glorious Saint, yet a creature, but that we adore Christ as God: And no man that sees or knows us can think otherwise. So that unless it be a sin to show outwardly what we are obliged to think inwardly, there is not the least fault committed.  
32. And now Mr. Bagshaw, give me leave to acquaint You with Your mistakes. First, this respect called by the Church, Honour and Veneration, which We affirm may be paid to sacred Images, you call Worshipping of Images, merely to make us odious to your ignorant Proselytes: For Worship is commonly taken to be that Honour which is due only to God, and which we abhor to give to Images. But Secondly, you give it another name more abominable, calling it, Idolatry such as God punished in the worst of Pagans. Once at least in your life speak your conscience: Do you think, or only suspect that we Roman Catholics do worship false Gods, and true Devils? Do we consider our Images, as they did their Idols, to which by Magical conjurations they annexed an evil Spirit to do wonders, and to extort Divine worship from the seduced people? Take heed Sir how you persist in so unjust a blasphemy against God's Church: A time will come that You will be called to a strict account for it: it concerns you therefore to make some reparation.  
33. But after all this, take notice that the Catholic Church, though it declare that such a veneration may fitly be given to Holy Images, as common Reason, and Humane nature cannot choose but allow: Yet it commands none to afford them but even so much. You may be a Roman Catholic all your life, and yet never be obliged to perform any external respect to an Image. There is not in Catholic countries a Groom or Kitchenmaid so ignorant, but would rather burn an Image, then afford it any honour due to God only. And shall those that think thus, and do only what humane reason generally approves and cannot hinder, be esteemed and published by you the only Christians in the World fit to be thrust out of all Christian Kingdoms, and executed as traitors, though otherwise they be acknowledged most faithful, peaceable men and obedient Subjects? Are you not afraid of, In quo judicio judicaveritis judicabimini?  
34. You see Sir, how since you will not admit of Authorities to justify the Belief and Practice of Roman Catholics, but only common sense and reason, I have complied with you: And now in one word tell you, that You must never hope to make any sober man believe that Roman Catholics are Idolaters, or even faulty in the matter of Images, till You can demonstrate, 1. That it is unlawful to make use of our Seeing faculty to put us in mind of God. 2. That he dishonours the King that shall with reverence, bareheaded, and in a kneeling posture receive a Letter or Mandate that comes from him. 3. That it is a contempt of God to go through a Church with ones head uncovered. 4. And that it is unlawful, and irreligious to make a scruple of using a leaf of the Bible in the house of Office.  
35. For a farewell I will conclude this point with a Story, the truth whereof several Gentlemen, Protestants too, in this Town are able to justify. In the year 1651. a devout Italian Friar being appointed to preach in the Great Dome at Milan, the Archbishop present, and having been informed that among his Auditors there were some English Protestants, that in discourse had earnestly objected (as you do) Idolatry to Catholics, He therefore that he might occur to such a scandal, made choice of the Doctrine concerning Images for the subject of a great part of his sermon. And when he came to that point, holding in his hand a Crucifix, he told his hearers, That that Image did in one glance lively represent, even to the most ignorant beholder, our Lord Jesus, God and Man, and almost all the circumstances of his most bitter and accursed death so patiently and willingly suffered for us. Thereupon with great passion and Rhetoric he magnified the Love of our Lord hanging on the Cross, earnestly pressing his hearers to return a proportionable Love and Duty to him. And during this discourse, he often with great reverence and tenderness of affection embraced and devoutly kissed the Crucifix. Having said much to this purpose, after a little pause he pursued his Discourse, telling them he could not believe or suspect, that any one that had heard and seen what he had said and done, could reasonably imagine that he had any intention to dishonour our Lord, by that which he had done to the Crucifix which represented him, much less that he adored it, as if he thought it a kind of God, that he put his trust in it, as expecting any good from it, as if (he knew not what) Divinity, Virtue or Sanctity was in that carved piece of wood. Notwithstanding because he had heard that such a scandalous imputation was by some mispersuaded persons laid on the Church, he would then and there undeceive them. Thereupon he spit upon the Crucifix, threw it scornfully to the ground, and trampled it under his feet.  
36. You see, Mr. Bagshaw, what kind of Idolaters the Papists are. Against this Idolatry, let us see what express Scripture you can produce. This is the great crime, for which there can be no expiation but oppressions, emprisonments and Gallows. Now if what hath been here said give you no satisfaction, in case you have a mind to reply, do not practise your old way of snatching a phrase or expression out of a single Author, a Schoolman or Controvertist, and making the whole Church answerable for one man's indescretion. But search what the Church herself has declared in the Council of Trent, and dispute against that as well as you can: and be assured you shall either be answered, or else told that you are unconquerable.   

iv 
VI   
That Mr. Bagshaw's whole Discourse against the Church's Infallibility is nothing to the purpose.  
1. HItherto of your Preface: Now I come to your book: which truly will afford very little business. And in gross concerning your grave Discourse I must tell you, That if you would be as merciful to our Estates and our Lives as You are to this our fundamental Doctrine, we should find You a a very commodious Adversary: For notwithstanding all your blustering You have not given this Doctrine one blow that smarts at all: But God bless us from Your Swords, and Your Sermons.  
2. The Title of your book is, The great Question about the Infallibility of the Pope and Church of Rome: This Question you undertake to determine. We are likely to have good stuff in a Book that mistakes the subject to be discoursed on. You should not have said, The great Question about, etc. but Two Questions, the one a great one, about the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church: which if it be disproved, destroys the foundation of that Church: the other a very little question about the Pope's personal infallibility, in which the Church itself is not concerned at all, but only Cardinal Bellarmine, and a few Writers zealous for that Court. And when you had said this, in all reason, having a design to triumph over Roman Catholics, you ought not to have said a word about this little, trifling, unconcerning Question, but have bend all your forces against that Great one which was only to the purpose.  
3. But You very wisely have spent your whole book upon it only, though a subject that You yourself in your Preface confess, is not yet decided in the Schools amongst learned men, which is as much as to say, no Catholic is obliged to maintain, and consequently no Protestant needs trouble himself about it: Nay moreover you say the two Councils of Basil and Constance, and (in your Book) the sixth General Council have (virtually) decided the contrary, having preferred the Authority of a Council above the Pope, which therefore may reverse his decisions, and actually condemned a Pope of Heresy: you might have added the seventh and eighth General Councils which ratifyed the same condemnation: and to them You might have joined Pope Agathon the successor of Pope Honorius, that was condemned, and his Successors Pope Leo the second and the rest till Pope Adrian the second, who lived in the time of the eighth Council▪  
4. Why do You write Books Mr. Bagshaw, so confessedly to no purpose at all? And why do you trouble yourself about a subject that the Author whom you pretend to confute, cannot himself believe, what ever opinion or suspicion he may have of it? For no Catholic can be said to believe any thing as a Christian Verity merely upon discourse of Reason, or probable deduction from Scripture, but only when such a verity appears either expressly contained in the Bible, or is formally decided by a General Council, or received by unquestionable Tradition of the Church. Now it is apparent, even out of Bellarmine himself, that none of these ways the Pope's Infallibility has been confirmed: Nay more, Never yet has any Pope declared that himself is Infallible. But you are wise in the midst of folly. You writ out of all danger of being confuted, because no body thinks himself touched: so that you have an easy and cheap triumph of it. Notwithstanding by your own example I do much doubt your Honourable patron, by whose command, You say, You wrote, finds not 
Epist. Dedic.  his expectation answered; if he did expect any great matter: and I am sure being very knowing and wise he will not believe that (as you brag) you have killed the Enemy, having left no Argument unanswered: since evidently you have mistaken your enemy's person through your whole book, excepting only the two last leaves, where obiter, and in answer to an Objection supposed to be made by moderate and ingenuous Papists you make an offer to speak de tribus capellis, that is, the Pope's being infallible, not in himself, but in and with a Council: which though it be the only matter in question, you call only a Conceit, of which you will speak a little, and you keep your word, you say very little, and that little to no purpose at all.  
5. Therefore to what purpose should any Catholic set pen to Paper to answer you, since if you be never so evidently confuted, you are excused from yielding by saying you have said a very little, but could have said more: and Catholics are forbidden to yield, since they have a world of proofs to demonstrat, the Infallibility of the Church, far more efficacious than these one or two Texts of Scripture called out by you for your best advantage. And even these Texts as they are produced and made use of by Catholics are unanswerable, especially to those that think it reasonable to admit that to be the sense of Scripture which all antiquity has given, which all protestants and all reasonable men do. They could not foresee that there could arise a Disputant so void of reason, as Mr. Bagshaw, to whom the whole consent of all Ages of the Church, all Councils and Fathers appeared light and inconsiderable, if compared with his single reason. Therefore till you have proved that Ground demonstratively, that is, turned sand into a Rock, you are not in a capacity either to object or answer.  
6. And to the end you may set upon such a work to some purpose, I pray please to inquire out a Book called Exomologesis, or Motives of the Conversion etc. where your great Lanista Mr. Chillingworths' reasons for such a position are pretended to be answered; and in an Appendix to that Book You will find an Examination of the Fundamental Grounds of my Lord faulkland's Discourse on that Subject. These are the men you brag of in Your Preface as your great Patrons, that is indeed, such Protestants as you are, that lay such grounds as utterly demolish the whole structure of the English church, denying that any Authority upon Earth can oblige any man. And this very thing, I mean, the destruction of the Church of England you 
Preface.  yourself confess in your Preface to have 
Preface.  been the Design of your small Treatise, though written against Papists: adding that, Nothing can be more unreasonable 
ib.  than this, that those (Churches or Church-Rulers) should Lord it over the Faith or conscientious persuasion of other men, who are not certain but they may err and be deceived themselves: For that would be to take the Pope's Chair, and succeed into his room.  
7. This therefore having been by yourself acknowledged your Design, I must repeat what I have already said: That the English Bishops and Clergy are far more interessed in your Book, for all the Title be only against Catholics, than Catholics are. But as to this horrible position of Yours, which utterly destroys all Order and peace: Let me tell You that to particular Churches and Church-Rulers (if they be members of the Catholic Church) infallibility is not at all necessary to make their Doctrines or Orders obliging even in conscience: Because all their subjects whilst they remain so, are bound, I do not say to believe internally, but not to contradict their declared Doctrines, and to submit to their Orders: the refusing of either perhaps not damning, but certainly excluding the refusers from an outward communion with that Church. So that here you plainly, exerto Capite, tell the World you are no English protestant, though perhaps you would fain have an English Benefice, and preach against order in English pulpits.  
8. Now as for that Great Question of the Infallibility of the Church, which You consider only as the conceit of some few Catholics, if You have a mind to write any thing to the purpose, to prevent Your mistaking (if that be a possible thing) give a well-wishing friend leave to inform you in general, That there is extant no formal Decision of the Church touching her own infallibility: Notwithstanding all Catholics are bound to acknowledge her to be infallible, by a necessary consequence of an essential Article of the Creed. Which consequence You may conceive to be thus deduced, viz.  
9 First, it is an Article of our Creed Credo unam Sanctam Catholicam & Apostolicam Ecclesiam, that is, I believe one (and but One) holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. By which Article sincerely professed, the person, declaring himself a Christian, signifies a necessity of his being truly a member in Communion with that One Church, and consequently renounces all other Congregations, and all Ecclesiastical Communion with persons divided from that One Church.  
10. In the Second Place, Your only Guide, common sense and reason tells us that a multitude cannot be called One Society, except they be joined and linked together by a Government and Laws common to all. And therefore the whole Catholic Church, being indeed one Body (as St. Paul says) and one General Congregation, it must necessarily have both general Rulers, and Common laws universally obliging, which does not at all hinder but that under and within that general Congregation there may be many distinct Societies enjoying particular Laws, Privileges and Rulers, upon condition they do not contradict, nor refuse to submit to the said general Laws, Tribunals and Governors.  
11. Thirdly, our Lord having expressly promised to preserve and continue this Church, as one Society, to the end of the World, so as that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it: it follows undeniably, that he has provided sufficient and efficacious means to preserve this unity: for otherwise one Article of the Creed might happen to fail.  
12. In the fourth place, since universal Experience both in Humane and Divine matters testifies, that never any Writing, Law, or Science could yet be so expressed, but that being left to the wits, enlightened Reason, and interests of particular men to descant upon them, there would follow differences of senses and interpretations, and consequently Divisions and separated interests destructive to unity: to provide against which the only possible remedy hath always been acknowledged to be the constituting of an External lasting Authority of Judges and Magistrates. Hence it is, that the Supreme Tribunal of a General Council has evermore hitherto been confessed by all Christians to be the only preservative against a breach in the universal Church: and because it cannot always be possible to summon such an Assembly, therefore by way of provision the supreme Pastor of the Church hath always exercised, in matters that concern the common Faith, and Discipline, an Authority, if not to decide, at least to compose and silence all differences in Opinions, etc. and to put in Execution the Ordinances of precedent Councils.  
13. Now if You will discourse to any purpose in opposition to this (as I know You have a great Tooth against it) You must either demonstrate that there is no need at all that controversies should be composed and Schisms healed: Or if You cannot do this, You must contradict the Experience of all mankind, by showing that Judges are not necessary to end Law-suites, that writings alone with enlightened reason will do the business: and especially that above all Laws and Sciences, the Holy Scriptures that are in some places infinitely obscure, and in plain places compiled in a popular stile, far from that studied exactness of Laws and Sciences, are most proper to have their sense agreed in. This must be your task, and to make it good, it will be expected that You should do one miracle more, which is, to produce but one Example during sixteen hundred years and upwards, taking in the Apostles times, if You please, to show that differences in Religion have been prevented or composed, and separations of divided Churches reunited by disputing out of Scriptures alone, without submission to a common Tribunal. On the contrary side we Catholics will be obliged to show you that all Heresies hitherto appearing have been so far destroyed by General Councils, that the Church has been preserved in Unity, and we are confident will be so for ever, notwithstanding even so formidable an Adversaries opposition, as you are.  
14. In the fifth place, This great Tribunal of a General Council is of an Authority so authentic, that no Appeal from it must be admitted. Yea moreover it has influence not on the outward actions or professions only, but even the judgements and hearts of all particular Catholic persons and Churches. This appears not only by the universal agreement of all Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers past and present, but by the solemn stile of the Decrees made by all such Councils, in which anathemas have been denounced against all Heretics and Schismatics, and they separated from the Mystical Body of Christ, to which alone Salvation is promised.  
15. In the last place therefore, the Church being one, and to keep it so, Authority having been communicated to it by our Lord, which Authority for that purpose must needs under penalty of an Eternal separation from Christ oblige all Christians to submit even their minds to it, it seems to us that it follows necessarily and inevitably, that the Church is infallible: Unless we would say, that our Lord has commanded us to hear such a Church and Guide as might lead us to Hell. To prevent all suspicion of which he has expressly promised to lead (not the Apostles only, as you fancy, but) his Church into all Truth, with whom he said he would be present to the end of the world, thousands of years after the Apostles were dead.  
16. These you may suppose, Mr. Bag. to be the true grounds of the Church's Infallibility. It is Infallible because it is One, but, it is such an One from which as Separation is damnable. So that if you, a Presbyterian, or Independent, etc. have a mind to assault these grounds; then 1. You must first destroy that Article of our Creed, I believe one Catholic Church. 2. Next you must prove out of express Scripture not only that Scripture is our only Rule, but that we have no other Guide to find out the sense of it but only our private reason or spirit: and what these joined together conclude upon, will infallibly serve our turn, whether it be true or false. 3. That all the Ancient Church and all Protestants too are mistaken when they say that Schism, (to you the most innocent thing in the World) is a Sin, a great exterminating sin, for which there cannot possibly be a just cause, or sufficient excuse. 4. Lastly, you must have the confidence befitting a Presbyterian to say, that all Christians before you have been poor spirited sheepish, deceived people, that knew not what the Liberty of a Subject was: and that all General Councils that presumed to denounce anathemas against the private spirit or enlightened reason, have been most abhorred conspiracies of Tyrants over men's souls.  
17. Whereas if you were an English Protestant truly so called, (but the very supposition is unsufferable, and therefore must be changed, therefore I say) whereas a true English Protestant would protest his readiness to submit both his tongue and soul to a lawful General Council, and consequently would have no quarrel against the Infallibility of the Universal Church: He would admit Tradition to be the best Interpreter of Scripture: Only his Controversiehumour would spend itself against the Roman Churches pretention to the Title of Catholic, and would maintain that the English State and Clergy had authority enough to reform themselves without consulting the Roman, or any other Churches: Indeed if the Eastern Church had still been in Union with the Roman the case then would be altered. The English Church on such a supposition would have had a scruple to oppose both.  
18. Therefore since it is not in our power to oblige the Turk to permit the Eastern Bishops to meet in a General Council with the West: for English Protestant's sake (not yours, good Mr. Bagshaw) I will take upon me a little more than your Book can require from me, and that is to propose in the mean time a convenient mean and expedient towards the removing this scruple: and that is as followeth.  
19 Since we cannot have speaking Judges that will please them, they may, I suppose, do well to help themselves with Books: and for that purpose pitch upon some well known time in which the Eastern and Western Churches were united, and out of the Books and Monuments of that Age impartially collect the Doctrines then taught, and the Church-government then in use through the whole Church: For thereby it will evidently appear whether of the Churches, Eastern or Western that now differ in both, have deserted that which was anciently in both.  
20. Now I conceive a more proper time for this purpose cannot be imagined then the Age of the Church in St. Gregory the great's time when England was converted from Paganism by St. Augustin the Monk sent by him. For it is evident that the whole Church was then in perfect Union: the same Doctrines were taught, and the same Government and Common laws in use all the Christian World over. Besides, there are extant more, better and clearer Monuments both of the Doctrines and Discipline of that Age then in any other: and especially in St. Gregory's Epistles sent into all quarters of the World, and in other of his works translated into the Greek tongue, and freely embraced, yea admired by the Greek Church, we may find what Authority so learned and Holy a Pope exercised over other Churches according to the then received Ecclesiastical Canons. Moreover besides S. Gregory's Works, our own Country both by wtitings of learned men, Councils of Bishops, and visible Marks in the foundation of Churches and Monasteries, will most abundantly furnish us.  
21. Now when we have found what in that age was the Belief and practice of the whole Church uniformly: Then we are to confront thereto the Doctrines and Discipline of the present Eastern and Western Churches: Being assured that both of them have not deserted the Ancient Belief and practice: because if it were so, there would not now be extant any Orthodox Church at all: and consequently our Saviour's promise of leading his Church into all Truth would have failed.  
21. Now when it shall appear unto us whether of these two great Churches hath preserved the Ancient faith and Discipline, we shall necessarily be obliged to a Communion with that Church: because a separation from it will be a manifest Apostasy and Schism from the most certainly one, true, Catholic Church, and consequently from Christ himself.  
22. Now that the present Roman Church does at this day profess the very same Doctrines, and is governed by the same Laws, that were in force in St. Gregory's days, will as seems to us evidently appear both from his Writings, the Ecelesiastical Writers since, and the Ancient English Councils: as likewise by the acknowledgement of several learned Protestants. To this purpose Doctor Humphreys 
Humphr. Jesuitis in par. 2. rat. 5. p. 5. & 627.  writes thus, In Ecclesiam verò quid invexerunt Gregorius & Augustinus? Onus ceraemoniarum, etc. that is. But now what have Gregory and Austin brought into the Church? A burden of Ceremonies, etc. the Archiepiscopal Pall to be used at Solemn Mass, Purgatory, etc. the Oblation of the Holy Host and prayers for the Dead, etc. Relics, etc. Transubstantiation, etc. new Consecrations of Churches, etc. To these particulars Carrion a Chronologist 
Carion. Chron. l. 4. p. 567.  adds the public Rite of Invocation of Saints, a false persuasion concerning a Monastical profession, works devised without any precept of God, satisfactions, vows, etc. And whereas (saith he) Gregory himself did tragically declaim, and profess his abhorring the Title of Universal Bishop, yet in reality he declared that himself did vehemently desire the thing signified by that Title, since he took upon him a commanding power over other Churches. To these may be added the Centuriators of Magdeburg, Bale, etc. who mention these and other particular Doctrines, as Novelties introduced by St. Gregory.  
23. Hence if our Adversaries speak truth it will evidently follow, that since there are now differences between the Eastern and Western Churches, all the alterations and innovations have been made by the Greek Church only.  
24. Do you not now see, Mr, Bagshaw, what Religion that is, the professors whereof you, as far as your vote extends, expose to the Butchery? whence is apparent, that if you had been a leader of a party able to execute your cruel intentions in S. Gregory's days, you would like a very Antichrist, have laid waste the whole Church of Christ, and murdered all that were called by his name. There wants only this to crown your zeal, that you should cry out, Their blood be upon us and upon our children. Thus would you have treated S. Augustin and his fellow Monks, you I say, that the less Charity you have, esteem yourselves the more perfect Christians and Saints, you would have condemned to Gallows, quartering of members, and burning of bowels those innocent persons that exposed themselves to all incommodities for the salvation of our Country: when as our Pagan Ancestors, though Slaves of Devils, yet treated them with all humanity. Take heed they do not rise in judgement against you: I am sure in that great Judgement you shall not rise to condemn them for this sin.  

1. THus Sir, I have performed as much as I promised in the beginning: and truly I promised more than your Book deserved: In which I found so very small a proportion of Reason employed, that I may perhaps incur censure for mispending time about a Discourse that would not endanger the misleading of any. I must therefore plainly tell the Reader that it was only your passion, Your cruelly malicious suggestions that I intended to oppose: That is your proper Engine to do mischief with, to prevent which, a Christian compassion to thousands of innocent, peaceable souls whose destruction your passion designs, does require all honest men's endeavours and care. You acknowledge enlightened reason for your only Principle: but I find that which You call by such a name to be nothing else but a restless fancy, swelling with self opinion, and inflamed with almost all sorts of inordinate passions, sharpened against all moderate persons, both Protestants and Catholics, that is, against all that have any sense of Duty to the King, or love of peace among Christians.  
2. Now as among Protestants You thought fit to single out only two, Doctor Gunning and Mr. Thorndike, through whose sides You would wound all that are not as furious against peace as yourself: So among Catholics likewise there are two, my Lord the Earl of 
Earl of Bristol. Fiat Lux  Bristol, and the Author of Fiat Lux, against whom you have thrust forth a forked sting armed with poison enough, but wanting strength to make that poison enter. I hope his Lordship will pardon a stranger, yet an admirer of his most eminent abilities and virtues, for taking notice without order from him, of your malicious reflections upon him, which might be prejudicial to his Honour, were it not that it comes from a person that I am assured he will never dignify with answering.  
3. You reckon his Lordship in the Catalogue of those who have showed the vanity and uselessness of Allegations 
Preface.  of Authorities, of Fathers, and Councils, etc. And because (say you) it is possible that the example of that Honourable Person may be urged against me, since his present practice doth contradict his former principles, I will only add this, that since his book is not yet answered by himself, I hope he thinks it unanswerable, and will not long continue in communion with that Church, whose foundations he hath so well overthrown. An Admirable passage this is, fit for no pen but Mr. bagshaw's.  
4. That his Lordship has not yet published an Answer to a Writing of his own, sufficiently confuted by his practice, I should rather think you might have imputed to such as yourself. These are not times for any of his Lordship's present persuasion in matters of Religion to multiply unnecessary controversies of that Nature. And however, yourself and your party afford such as his Lordship is business enough to exercise all their abilities prudence and skill, in opposing your secret workings and open calumnies, by demonstrating that a change in his persuasion about points of faith doth make no change at all in his Fidelity. And thus much his Lordship (in the name of all Catholics) to your great grief has performed with that sincerity, candour and energy, that I am confident there is not a Protestant that shall read your infamous aspersions cast upon Catholic Religion, touching the matter of Loyalty, but will look upon them as the last effects of the desperate rage of one that takes pleasure in mere calumniating, without any expectation to be believed.  
5. And truly, Sir, if you had taken to task the making the World believe that in your Sect Christian Charity is esteemed a mortal sin, you could not have better effected your design then by saying, as you have done, I hope his Lordship thinks his Book unanswerable, etc. For shame change this phrase, I hope, etc. It would have been an impudence not to be pardoned had you only said I fear, or I suspect this: But sure there is not any Christian, except Mr. Bagshaw whose Religion would allow him to say, I hope his Lordship thinks his Book unanswerable: that is in effect, I hope in God that his Lordship is both an Atheistical Hypocrite, professing a Religion contrary to his conscience, and withal that his Hypocrisy, against the nature of that sin, is sencelesly void of all worldly pretensions, since he counterfeits a Religion that he knows is ruinous to his fortunes. Is this your Theological virtue of Hope? Truly it becomes you well: Your Faith, Hope and Charity I see are all of a piece.  
6. It may be you knew some Great Men that for some ends you could permit to strain their consciences so far as to profess a Religion that themselves are able to confute. But sure they will be no losers by it: whatever becomes of their souls, care shall be taken that their worldly Estate shall thrive by it: They will declare for a Sect where money abounds, and where power and Offices may be shared: That is, of all Religions in England they will take heed of the Catholic.  
7. Indeed if you understood what Catholic Religion is, you would never say so much, as I suspect, etc. and if you knew what Christian Religion is you would never have said I hope such an abominable, so unreasonable a thing. In your Sect I conceive such an Hypocrisy may be practised at a cheaper rate. But in Catholic Religion no Man can commit that sin alone: it must necessarily be attended with most horrible sacrilege and a solemn profanation of two Sacraments, Penance and the Holy Eucharist. Therefore I hope that you have been bold to belly yourself when you said, I hope his Lordship thinks his Book unanswerable. I have a better opinion of you, than you desire I should.  
8. As for the Author of Fiat Lux complained 
Fiat Lux Epist. De●●●●●  of by you to your Honourable Patron in the Epistle Dedicatory, where you lay to his charge Blasphemies that you (good man) tremble to mention: If you had sincerely related those passages, and were they considered not as standing alone, but with the dependence on what is delivered before, they will be so far from deserving to be called Blasphemies, that no sober charitable Reader will deny them to be simple unstrained Truths. And if you think good to reply to these papers I here undertake to justify those passages in the proper true sense that the Author apparently meant them. Which that it is no hard matter to do I will show you presently: His first passage related by you is this: In my judgement (saith he) Christ our Lord hath no less shown his Divinity and power in the Pope, then in himself. And all things considered, I may truly say, that Christ in the Pope and Church is more miraculous, then in his own person. My reason to demonstrate the truth of this (which is the Authors too (is this, because the preservation of the Church in Unity and Truth under the Government of supreme Pastors, without interruption for sixteen hundred years and more amongst so many trials and oppositions, is a greater effect of a Divine power in Christ, than he showed in prolonging his own personal life for about thirty three years.  
9 And as to the second passage, viz. That the first great Fundamental of Christian Religion, which is the truth and Divinity of Christ, had it not been for the Pope, had failed long ago in the World. So that I may truly say, that Christ is the Pope's God: For if the Pope had not been, or had not been so vigilant a Pastor as he is, Christ had not been taken now for any such person as he is believed this day. Consult your books, and the whole Series of Ecclesiastical Story will inform you that the Pope by means of Counsels of the Western Church assembled by his Authority was he alone that instrumentally destroyed Arianism and other Heresies denying the Divinity of Christ, which for some ages had in a manner poisoned all the East.  
10. And lastly without much boasting I may with him conclude. This I may boldly say, and am assured of, that if the Pope be not an unerring Guide in affairs of Religion, that way I mean that I have shown him in all ages to have exercised his Guidance [by General Councils,] all is lost. For this is no other than what with all Catholics I have asserted and will positively justify, that the authority of the Church in her supreme Tribunals is the only assured means of preserving the Church in Unity, as being an Authority from which not Appeals must be admitted, that is, being Infallible. These therefore, you see, are no such Blasphemies as to put you into a fit of trembling.  
11. I do now expect, Sir, unless God inspire more charity into your heart, that you will make loud complaints of the presumption of your Roman Catholic adversary, for daring to defend his Religion against your evident mistakes, and the cause of all his profession from the traitorous imputation of a Dependence on a foreign authority, most unjustly by you laid to their charge: like the ancient Gladiatour, you will accuse us for avoiding your blows and thrusts, and because we do not recipere totum gladium. But this Confidence is the effect of our Innocence only, which as the Scripture says, Gives the boldness of a lion. Nay, it is for your sake, if you please; however it is for our countries' sake, that we beg no more innocent blood may be laid to its charge. But if it must still be spilt, we had rather you should be our Executioners, than any other. We give Almighty God, and the Parliament most humble thanks, that we have been permitted to wipe off the scandal of Infidelity from our Religion: This we triumph in. Hereafter if we suffer, we call God to witness, and the whole Kingdom (I mean English Protestants) that it will be purely our Conscience, our Religion, our love of Peace and Unity that we suffer for; for all manner of security we have, and ever will give of being faithful, quiet, good Subjects: all Oaths expressing only our obligation to Fidelity, or acknowledgement of the King's temporal Supreamacy we will take. Does it not become then such Sufferers to be confident? Does it not become such lovers of their Country to wish that no more guilt may lie upon it? True it is, we look upon your party as our Murderers, you give us up into their hands, you kill us with their swords. They are inclined to mercy, being satisfied of our Innocency: but you threaten to set the Kingdom on fire, with your crying out Popery, if they spare us. We do not expect from his Majesty, that for our sakes (though his most loyal Subjects) he should take upon himself the envy that you would raise against him. We beseech him he would not: indeed he ought not to do it, considering the mischief that may follow, is public, and threatening the whole Kingdom. But the generality of Protestants, me thinks, have little reason to fear your clamours, when they extend mercy to innocent persons. And therefore those that by their Offices have an influence upon our Laws, and are able to abate the sharpness of them, yea have thought fit to take it into consideration, if they, either out of compliance, or fear of You, forbear to do what Civil Justice, and much more, Christian Charity, requires, they must not expect that God will hold them innocent: It will be a great mercy if he punisheth them in this world, either in their estates persons or families.  
12. You know the Gospel Story: I would to God You would make better use of it: The Jewish Priests and Pharisees accused our Saviour of seditious doctrine: and for that delivered him into the hands of the Romans. What did they lay to his charge? Art thou a King? said Pilate, that was his charge: He assumes (said they) a power contrary to Caesar's. Our Saviour acknowledges that he was a King: that he challenged a Supremacy of power: and that he came to constitute a new Kingdom upon earth: but it was a Kingdom not of this world: it was a power purely spiritual, so far from being prejudicial to Caesar, that one of the fundamental Laws of this spiritual Kingdom was, That whatsoever belonged to Caesar should be given to him: not one dram of Civil authority should be taken from him. The Romans were satisfied with his answer: Pilate protested him innocent. But all little purpose, for the Pharisees make clamours, they stir the people to sedition; they threaten Pilate: and the Text says, the clamours of the Pharisees and people so wholly prevailed, that our Saviour was delivered up unto their will, to do unto him even what they pleased. All that Pilate durst to do was to wash his hands, and proclaim the violence used upon him: but however he judged him to death, and the Romans crucified him. Now not any man will acquit Pilate, though a greater damnation be due to the Pharisees. pilate's crime was heinous, but it was humane, he would fain have done justice, but he feared a sedition, he had not the courage to suffer for Justice. But the Pharisees crime was Diabolical, and as they behaved themselves by crying out, His blood be on us and our Children, it became unpardonable: both the temporal and eternal destruction of the whole nation was the reward of it. But now consider who these Priests and Pharisees were that accused our Saviour of seditious Doctrine against Caesar. They were the only Enemies that Caesar had in the whole Nation: Josephus will tell us that the principles of their Sect were treason and Rebellion: They only of all the Jews refused an Oath of Allegiance. If our Saviour would have incited his followers to cast off Caesar's yoke, they would have joined with him, and have made him either their King or Protector. They had attempted several insurrections against Caesar, and within a few years after put the whole State into an open bloody Rebellion, which ended in their utter destruction. Yet such power had these men's malicious suggestions as to make our Saviour be condemned as a Traitor: His Disciples therefore must not think to be better used then their Master, I mean by Pharisees.  
13. I suppose Mr. Bagshaw, here is enough said to your Stating of that great Question of Infallibility, as you have stated it: And more than You will think enough, to Your cruelty against Roman Catholics. If you have any suspicion that we have not expressed our minds clearly and satisfactorily enough; Upon any exceptions You will please to make, more shall be said. And as touching what hath been here delivered about disowning a foreign power prejudicial to the State, do not read it as the assertion of one single Roman Catholic: But be assured that if ever these papers be offered to Your eyes to be read, You will read that which has been approved, and will be justified by many Worthy Persons of the same Religion, persons of Learning, Virtue and Authority, who therefore can know, and will be answerable for the conformable judgements of far greater numbers that depend on their Direction respectively.  
14. My desire now is, that you would write no more against any Catholic Truth, or Christian peace. But if You cannot for Your life hold, than I would, as a friend, advise you to get before hand a right notion and understanding of the subject you would write upon: and however, that You would forbear laying false crimes to the charge of Your brethren: The condition of Roman Catholics is sad enough: And truly it is most unhandsome for those that are in a State of Uniformity with them, to add to their sufferings. To conclude, if you think me worthy to be your Adversary in a Pen-quarrell, let us not dispute about things in which You have no skill, or that will not be profitable, but rather wound blessed Christian Charity. And if you will permit me to propose a subject in which you and your party are believed to have much interest, and which if well debated, would bring much good to thousands of souls in these Kingdoms, my desire is it may be this Problem or Question (which I told you has been taken into consideration in France, viz.) Whether Christian Subjects may by their Religion be allowed to defend by Arms against their Sovereign and lawful Authority their Opinions and Doctrines, in case these be persecuted by them. For my own part I make choice of the Negative. And now I resign you to the mercy of Mr. L'Estrange.    
FINIS.