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