WELL met, Neighbour, What in Querpo? I cannot but admire how well those Caps and that pretty Apes-cloak becomes you, upon my Reputation, I cannot but look on you, you'r so spruce to day.

Why? what ail you to stare so? did you never see one in such a Dress before?

No truly, not very often: For that Dress was out of fashion (I thank God) before I was capable of ta­king notice of it.

I should thank God that it was as much in fashion as ever it was. For I cannot but honour the pre­cious remains of those glorious times, when the Saints enjoy­ed their Priviledges to the height; ( i. e.) When they bound their Kings in chains, and their Nobles in Fetters of Iron, even according to the very Letter: when we kept Sabbaths to the Lord, but no Holy-Days: and when our holy Fasts and Prayers were always answered with the next days Feast upon the good things of the Wicked, which the Lord was pleased to send us, by those precious wayes and methods of his own chusing, (as one of our Brethren did then well call them) viz. those which the Prophane call Sequestration, Confiscati­on, Plundering, and Decimation.

Well, I cannot but think that a Gown and Cassock, and a Canonical-Girdle, is a much more grave, so­lemn, decent, and honourable Habit for a Clergy-man.

I cannot help your thoughts, but to tell [Page 2] you the truth (which is not our common method) I have not heartily loved Gowns, &c. since Dr. I. O. then Vice-chancellor of Oxford, did so zealously and learnedly de­clame against them, as rags of Popery. Oh, that precious man, whose very name is enough to sanctifie the Prophane Title of Dean! Had you but seen with what earnestness he paid off the Whore of Babylon, how he laid himself forth with all his might upon her, and stript her from all her rags, you could not but have been willing, not only to have put off your Gown, but, your Breeches too, rather than have complied with those Sons of that Whore, the Papists, in any Garment that they wear. Oh, I can never forget that most precious Speech as long as I have a day to live!

Hold, Neighbour, hold. Don't be too much transported with the remembrance of that glorious Dispen­sation. How can any man but be abundantly satisfied with such an eloquent Oration, that the Gown, &c. is the mark of the Beast? But you seem not only to have a dislike to the Gown in general, but to the Crape-Gown in particular. Now several of those Gentlemen you have a fling at in your Book (I believe) never wore a Crape-Gown in all their Lives; and I never read that Crape-Gowns were the particular fashion amongst Papists; and therefore you would do very well, either to get the Learn­ed Doctor to make another Speech, (which if you can get him to be Dean of Christ-Church again, I doubt not but he will readily do) particularly against Crape-Gowns; or else to give us in short your particular Reasons against them.

Why—now I think on't—It hath always been the privilege of our Party, to do things for which we can give no reason. Ask me for Reason? Don't you know that we have nothing to do with Reason, nor ever had, nor ever will have? therefore reason me no more reason, for if you do, I'll be gone.

Not so hasty, Neighbour, stay a little, I pray you. I beg your Pardon, that I was not so well acquainted with the priviledges of you Army-Saints, and your Chaplains; and do assure you, that it was not in any derogation to your dear Priviledges, but for my own satisfaction, that I gave you this trouble.

Well, well, if it be for your own Instru­ction, do you see, I shall give you some satisfaction in this weighty matter.

Why—first, your Crape-Gown is too light, and that (you know) though it may do well enough for a Sister, yet is not to be endured in a substantial-grave-brother. For (mark ye me) Lightness and Gravity do no more agree than Light and Darkness.

Then, Secondly, your Crape-Gown may be seen thorough; and of all things in the world, we Saints hate the Wicked should see thorough us: for as it is well hinted, Crape-Gown. part. 2. p. 26. since neither the Piety of David, nor the Pru­dence of Solomon, could keep them from falling so fouly as they did with Women, how do we know but it may be any of our Cases, and that we may not come off so sound as they did? Now then, what a great Folly, yea, I say, what a Madness is it for us to wear such a Garment through which our Imperfections may be utterly laid open to the Fe­male Saints, and so our Persons be rejected as well as our precious Doctrines? yea, I say, our precious Persons be re­jected! would not this be a very great madness—yea—and no small folly?

Thirdly, The main cause why our Sober party do not love Crape-Gowns, may be this, that to wear them would be an intrenchment upon our Christian Liberty; for you know the Fashion came up in obedience to the late Act for the Improvement of Woollen-Manufactures, there being no other Woollen-stuff so cool and fit for Summer as Crape. But [Page 4] you know we are better taught by our elder Brethren, Knox and Buchanan, as well as by our Fathers, the Pope, the Cardinals, and all the Jesuits, than to obey Civil Magistrates in Ecclesiastical Causes. No, No, we understand the sweet­ness of Liberty better than so.

Well said, now I thank you that you deal so plainly with me; for, I well perceive, there the Shooe pinch­es with you: you have plainly discovered your self ( p. 4. Crape-grown, part 2.) where in excuse for the Loyal preaching of the Levites, (as you please, out of your abundant Civili­ty and Kindness, to call the Clergy of the Church of Eng­land) you make Priest-Love say, The Scripture commands Obedience to the Government, they are commanded to preach the Scripture, therefore they are commanded to preach Obedience to the Government; to which you answer, That is to say, in Civil Affairs they are to preach general Obedience to the Laws and Government. Now what (I pray you) doth this im­ply, but that in Ecclesiastical Affairs they ought not to preach Obedience to the Laws and Government? But, in the name of Oliver's Ghost, why not as well in Ecclesiastical Affairs as in Civil? Who but the Jesuits taught you this di­stinction, or those that learn'd it from them? Is there any such distinction in the Writings of the Apostles? Is there not such a Chain of all Affairs, as that there can scarcely be any matter but may in some sort or another be Ecclesiastical as well as Civil? So that either Obedience must be preached to Civil Magistrates in all matters, salva Conscientia, or else in none at all. Are not all Laws that are enacted by the Civil Power rightly call'd Civil Laws? Why then are not those Acts of Parliament which command all men to come to their own Parish-Church to worship God, and to behave them­selves there in such decent and orderly manner as our Litur­gy prescribes, which is established by Act of Parliament, as well Civil Laws, and consequently, as much to be obeyed [Page 5] as any other? Why are not Laws for the security of our Religion as readily to be obeyed as those which are made for the security of our Property, and as fully to be execu­ted? There cannot certainly be any reason of difference to any man who does not set a much higher value upon his In­terest than upon his Religion. Nay, have we not seen that your dear Brethren of the Kirk of Scotland, under the notion of Ecclesiastical Causes, brought in all manner of Affairs of State, and by the Decrees of their National Synods, controll'd all the Laws of their Natural Sovereign; and proceeded so far, till at length, raising Horse and Arms, to fight against his Majesty, was the great Kirk-matter which they met toge­ther to compleat?

Had I not a very great command of my self, thorough mercy, I should not have the Patience to hear one word more from you, or to stay one Minute longer in your Company.

Why Neighbour? What's the matter? How have I hurt you? Have you some old Sore about you which I touched a little too hard? I assure you, Neighbour, it was unawares if I did, and therefore I pray you be a little paci­fied.

Unawares? (say you) Why you'r always rubbing our old Sores. How do you think they can ever heal if you will be always picking and scratching of them?

Corrosives are sometimes necessary, especially where the Sores are closed up with dead or proud Flesh. When I see you sensible of your old Faults, and endeavour to amend them, I can be very willing to give my self the quiet as not to disturb my Neighbours: but, when in your Scriblings you will be insinuating the same Principles that have been the Authors of so much War and Blood-shed amongst us, I cannot help it if you hear of the old Practises that followed from them.

I wonder you will not see that these Prin­ciples are utterly rejected by us, even in that very Book you mention; see the discourse of Loyalty, pag. 6. ibid. where the Author saith, I think there is no Dissenter in England, that would not be accounted a Rebel, but would confirm it to his Prince, with his Heart, his Hand, and his Purse: and what he means by it, you have in the former words, viz. An obe­dience to Commands, enjoyn'd by the politick Constitution and Frame of Government; and this he proves most learnedly, from the derivation of the word Loyalty from Lex.

But all this, I doubt, is but one, and the fairest side of the Party, which he would have all men to see.—Thus far I believe him, That there is no Dissenter in England that would be accounted a Rebel; for, they love a Successful Re­bellion, which they can soon call by the Name of the Good Old-Cause; the Cause of God, which he hath so manifestly, even against all Opposition, declared himself to own, by casting down the strong holds of all the Powers on Earth; as they have for­merly, without so much as ever wiping their Mouths after it, canted oftentimes in their Sermons before the two Houses, and the Army. And let me deal freely with you, neighbour Cap-cloak, How can we believe those Mens bare Words whom no Oaths can hold? A Shaft.-Association possibly might hold them; but, if that will not, I know nothing but an Halter that can: Now, that this is the truth of the Business, look a little farther, and you will plainly see; for after, in the Name of all the Dissenters, he hath promised to confirm an Obedience to Commands enjoyn'd by the politick Constitution and Frame of Government, with Heart, Hand, and Purse, un­der the Penalty of being accounted Rebels; yet immediately he destroys his own very Principle of Loyalty by endea­vouring to subvert all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: for, saith he, ( lin. 13. ibid.) this being the chief Satisfaction to the Ci­vil Magistrate, it seems hard that Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction [Page 7] should make such an heavy clutter for her far less inconsiderable mite of a Coercive Power. Now Neighbour put on one Cap more, (I beseech you) that is, your Considering-Cap, and tell me where, according to your own Notion of Loyalty, we shall find any such thing in your Party, who in your Obedience to the Civil Magistrate take no notice of Ecclesiastical Laws? For, is not the settled Religion of the Nation, the true Pro­testant cause, one main part of the politick Constitutions of our Nation? Are not the Canons of our Church, and our Litur­gy, and Ceremonies ratified, commanded, and enjoyn'd by the politick constitution and frame of the Government of our Nati­on, (i. e.) even by Parliaments themselves, as well as any other Laws whatsoever? Confirm then your Loyalty to your Prince, by your hearty obedience to his Ecclesiastical Laws, or else by your own Concession I must conclude, that you'r of that number of Dissenters who would be accounted Rebels; and I must needs say, that you'r the first of them that ever I met withal: for, though most of them (I have too much rea­son to believe) would, if their Brethren the Scots last Insur­rection had prosper'd, have been Rebels, yet they have now generally more Wit, than to desire to be accounted so.

Nay, Nay, good Neighbour, not so bitter and cholerick (I beseech you) against the Sober People of God in our Land: your Passion hath so far transported you that you have not Patience to read on; for if you had, you would find that they do acknowledge the Tithes of Vnity, Love, and Charity to the Church of England.

Aye, say you so? a blind man would be glad to see it. Where do we see in their Actions any such Tythe paid? No, No, they cannot so much as spare their Mint, Cummin, Annis, to their lawful Ministers, because they reserve all to be paid to those of their own way, not of the Church of England. But however, methinks that a great Tythe of Obedience, as well as the small Tythes of Love and Charity, [Page 8] should be due from them to our Church, which was mainly founded by the first and best Martyrs for the Protestant Re­ligion.

This is acknowledged too in the same Page; only he tells you, they cannot come to Church to pay it, because your Pulpits are like so many Beacons, where ye raise such a Flame that they are afraid of the Country's coming in upon them.

Why? What's the matter with them? They are not afraid of hanging, are they? They know well enough they need not fear that, for their old Crimes are pardoned, which they cannot but know, did too well de­serve it; for greater than they were cannot easily be com­mitted: and yet I am very confident, they might communi­cate, if they would do it quietly and orderly, with most of the Churches in or near London, and never so much as be put in mind of any of them, if their own guilty Consciences did not accuse them. But a bad Excuse (you know Neighbour) is better than none at all; for one would think, if they were truly penitent for their Faults, they could not be so enraged by their being told of them.

But further, you'r told (pag. 7. ibid.) that they will conform, and that one Mr. Read hath led the way; and that he tells you himself, That he had advised with his Brethren of the Ministry, who did acknowledge the lawfulness of using the Liturgy; and that his Principles are these, That Obedience to the Magistrate, in things lawful, is a Duty, that a Form of Prayer is lawful, and that Communion in such Church­es is lawful.

I should be glad to see these Principles put in practise by him and his Brethren the Ministers. When I see they come to their Parish-Churches, as the Law requires, and do joyn in the Liturgy of our Church, and in all the Acts of Communion with her, then I shall have some Reason to [Page 9] think they have such Principles: but, whilst they go on to make Divisions amongst us, to set up Conventicles against our Churches, and Altar against Altar amongst us, I cannot help it, if (notwithstanding all the pretences of their Prin­ciples) I still believe them to be the most senseless, hypocri­tical, and perverse Schismaticks that ever the World knew: for, I must needs tell you, these mere promises of theirs will never obtain any Credit amongst us, that know how frequent­ly they have fall'n off from much higher Obligations; and how much further than barely saying and acknowledging the lawfulness of Communion with our Church, some of them have proceeded, and yet have continued in their Sepa­ration. As for instance, Mr. Baxter in his Cure of Church-Divisions, hath (by such Arguments as neither he, nor any Dissenter, can ever fully answer) proved, not only that it is lawful, but a Duty to unite with our Church; and yet in­stead of practising accordingly, he hath ever since kept up a Schismatical Conventicle, nay, hath made it his business to undermine, not only the Reputation of our most eminent Church-men, but the very Foundation of our Church it self; witness his Pamphlet against Dr. Stillingfleet 's Sermon, and his whole bundle of Lies in his History of Episcopacy. I might also here add your Lay-Brethren, who (for the sake of an Office by which they may serve their Cause and Party) stick not at the highest Acts of Conformity, ( i. e.) the receiving the Sacrament according to the established Rites of the Church of England, and yet as soon as ever they have done, run away from our Communion with as much seeming-Zeal as though we were mere Pagans, and worshipped the Devil in our Churches: but this is so well known to be their com­mon practise, that I need not further mention it.

If their Words and Promises will not do, if you read on to pag. 10. you may find full and satisfactory Arguments that may convince you that they are real Confor­mists to the Laws of both Church and State.

Aye marry Sir, that would be Logick indeed! the Philosopher that endeavoured (in spight of his own eyes) to prove that Snow was black; or he that would prove there could be no such thing as motion, when his Tongue wagg'd all the while, (I think) had an easie Task in comparison of this.

Well, well, the Wit of man is much; and though your Prejudices may be great, possibly if you consi­der his Arguments, they may remove them.

Oh! by all means let us hear them. Consider them, say you; I will put on twice as many Caps as the fa­mous Night-cap-Brother T. Goodwin ever wore, but I will duely consider them.

First then, as to the Civil Law. His two first Arguments ( pag, 7.) clearly prove that the Law-makers did never intend those Penalties against us that are Dissent­ers, but against Seditious Persons: for the Penalty is ground­ed upon the Supposition that an Insurrection may be hatch'd at such Meetings; but no such thing was done. Ergo.

The Intention of our Law-makers in that very Act was grounded upon the sense of what had been done in the late times, when our Conventicles had preach'd the best of Kings out of his Throne and Life, and they well knew that what hath been done may be done again: to prevent which, they thought it necessary to hinder all such men, that under the cloak of Religion hide their Faction, from all op­portunities of doing the same thing over again: and there­fore, though it was possible to be true that none of the Dis­senters themselves have any factious Designs, Yet because the Papists, even the worst of them, the Jesuits, have disguised themselves under the shew of peaceable Dissenters (as Dr. Oats tells us, that twelve of them were particularly sent into Scot­land to preach, in the shape of Presbyterians, all manner of Sedition) they that give such Seditious Preachers all Oppor­tunities by their separate Meetings to raise Insurrections [Page 11] amongst us, do transgress the very intention of the Law, how­ever innocent they may be in their own designs.

What, then you make no difference betwixt our Dissenters and the Papists themselves?

The Law (I think) makes none: For by our Laws, all that do not come to their Parish-Church, and con­stantly conform to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, are called RECVSANTS; whether they are Papists, Brownists, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, or Indepen­dents (though perhaps some one particular Law may make a difference) the Law in general makes no distinction amongst them. For the Liturgy of our Church being establish'd by the Laws of our Land (as is plain by the Act of Uniformity) whosoever doth not conform to it, is therefore guilty of the breach of the Law, let his opinion in Religion be what it will; and of the design of the Law too: which is not only to prevent Seditions, but to establish for ever an Uniformity in our Church.

But you do not take notice what is too truly said (p. 7. line 28.) that this Law was obtain'd by some part of the Clergy for their own advantage, &c.

Take you Dissenters without an excuse for your selves, and reflections upon others, and hang you. But it is no matter whether there is any sense or reason in them or no, it is all one, if they be but fairly insinuated, the mobile, or at least some of them, will believe them, and that is all that you care for. For was there ever so senseless a reflecti­on upon all our Laws as this is? Are not Bills generally first pass'd in the House of Commons? I pray you how many of the Clergy are in that House? What, is the Speaker's Chaplain alone able to over-rule the wisdom of our whole Nation, as sometimes you please to call the Members of that House? As for the House of Lords, there are but 26 of the Clergy in it, and is it not very strange they should out-vote all the rest? [Page 12] or that by their Interest they should over-power them? It seems the case is altered since they were called the dead weight of that most Honourable House, and thought to signifie little or nothing in it. I remember a worthy Clerk told me once, that a Speaker amongst the Quakers (whom he vilely suspe­cted to be a Papist) made it his main Argument against his payment of Tythes, that the Laws which enjoyned them, were made by the Papists and the Clergy. And indeed the objecti­on lies equally against all our ancient Laws; so that if this be a satisfactory excuse, no man can have any right to any thing he possesses by vertue of any ancient Law in England; For the same objection may be made against them all. Is it for this reason that some of you Dissenters, will not take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, nor take any notice of the Acts for the observation of the Thirtieth of Ianuary, or 29th. of May? Are not they most admirable Subjects, and most ex­actly obedient to our Civil Power, and great Lovers of the King, who refuse to acknowledge his Power, and to swear fe­alty to him, or so much as to bewail the murder of his Fa­ther, or to praise God for his happy return? If these are not excellent Subjects, I know not where you'l find any such, unless amongst the Banditi, or the Wild Arabians.

Not so fast (I beseech you) Let me put in a word or two to vindicate my dear Brethren, who are (for all your aspersions) precious in the sight of God and Man. As for those who refuse to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, I utterly disown them: But as for the observati­on of the thirtieth of Ianuary, Why should they bewail that fact in which they had no hand? This would be tacitly to confess themselves guilty of it. And as to the 29th. of May, Is it not enough for them who think they have received benefit by it, to express their joy and thankfulness for it? We lost our Lands and Livings by it, and what reason have we to keep a thanksgiving for it?

If you disown the first sort, why do you own such Principles as may justifie them? for were not the Cler­gy as much active in making those Laws that enjoyn those Oaths as any other? As for the question, Why should they [the Dissenters] bewail that fact in which they had no hand? I shall return you these few Queries. Had you Dissenters attain'd to an absolute perfection? had you no sins that a­mongst the rest of the sins of the Nation might combine to pull down God's wrath upon us, and to render us odious to all Nations by the most barbarous murder of the best of Princes? Was it the Cavalier, or the Army-Saint, that perpe­trated that Villany? Was it the Church-man that fought for the King, or the Phanatick that fought against him, that were guilty of it? Was it the Jew or Christian that killed our Sa­viour? Was Peter that fought for him, or Iudas that betray­ed him guilty of his bloud? I suppose for the same reason you joyn with the Iews, in not observing any day in memo­ry of our Saviour's Crucifixion, because you believe that nei­ther they nor you were any ways guilty of it. For I am sure you may as well believe this, as that you were no ways guilty of the murder of our Royal Martyr. As for the Query in your Vindication, for not observing the 29th. of May, though I believe you will be ashamed to own it, yet I assure you (upon the reputation of a Gentleman) that I have heard that reason given by a well-wisher of your brethren, and that I do really believe never a Dissenter of you all can give a truer or better reason for that ingrateful neglect. Did you not then by the Kings great clemency receive your Lives, which were justly forfeited to the Laws? and do not too many of you enjoy great Estates which were other Mens Rights? and is not all this worth I thank you to God and the King, be­sides those infinite publick Mercies the whole Nation recei­ved thereby?

You never know when to have done rai­ling, it is so natural to you. Come, come, if you would lay aside passion, you would find the Men you speak off to be good Men, and therefore (as the second Argument tells you, pag. 7. ibid.) since it was never yet known in the world that ever any Civil Magistrate made a Law with an intent to punish any good man, therefore this Law was never intended by the Supreme Power against the Dissenters. For that they are good men is fully proved out of the Psalmist, &c. pag. 8.

Here is a demonstration for you indeed! such an one that will hold eternally, like a rope of Sand. For first, Did you never hear of certain Heathen Emperours that made Laws to punish, even with the severest Penalties and greatest tortures, all the Professors of Christianity? Or 2dly, Can you believe that all those Primitive Confessors and Mar­tyrs were not as good Men as our Dissenters? And lastly, Do you not know that Men may be very good in the per­formance of some Duties, that yet neglect the great duties of peace and subjection, and may be very wicked as to many other; nay, that Men may be very strict in Sobriety and seeming obedience to the Laws of God, out of design to car­ry on some gain or profit to themselves? Have you not heard of the Pharisees, who made long prayers to devour Widows houses; or of a sort of People whose gain is their godliness? Was you never acquainted with a sort of good, godly and so­ber people, who preached up murder, sacriledge and rebellion, and justified in their Pulpits that most execrable crime commit­ted against the life of our late martyred Sovereign? These might be in other matters (as to all appearance) very good Men, and yet (had there not been an Act of Indemnity) they do well deserve the Gallows? Do you not know that all that will endeavour the destruction of a Church or State by drawing in the People to their party, are necessitated to appear as the best of Men, to carry on even the worst of de­signs? [Page 15] Hath not the Devil himself been transform'd into an An­gel of Light; and do not his Agents always imitate him? And therefore such as these, who under the Shew of Goodness carry on ill Designs (not only because their false Pretences make even Religion it self become contemptible, and real Goodness to be thought nothing but Hypocrisie; but also, because where their pretences of Goodness are not seen through, they render them admired and followed, and so most dangerous to the Government) ought to be most se­verely dealt withall by our Laws.

What! nothing from you but Railing and Demonstrations of a Persecuting Spirit? Will nothing con­tent you but the Blood of the Saints?

This is (I perceive) the general way of an­swering Arguments from matter of Fact, by calling it Rail­ing; and indeed I cannot blame you: for there is no other way by which they are capable to be answered. And as for your Cry of Persecution, this is another Help at a dead Lift, but to deal plainly with you, there is nothing I more hate than the Thoughts of Blood; and therefore I so much desire that our Laws may be executed, that it may never be in the Power of pretended Saints to raise another War, and cause more Blood-shed amongst us.

Well then, what would you have? Is it not clearly proved ( pag. 8. circ. med.) That the Dissenters are not guilty of any Non-conformity in reference to the Ecclesi­astical Power?

Yes truly, very clearly; as clearly as he that proved there is a World in the Moon; because Tobit went forth, and his Dog followed him.

Nay—Nay—leave your Fooling, and consider the Argument; and if that doth not convince you, for my part I shall give you over as incorrigible.

I would as willingly as any man be convinced of an Error; and shall as readily confess it. Go on then; Let me not want this Dead-doing Tool of a Demonstra­tion.

Lay aside your Prejudice, and I doubt not but you may find it a sufficient Demonstration. It is this (ibid. infra) The Law enjoyns the Exercise of Religion accor­ding to the Liturgy of the Church of England, which contains no more than only Truth; but the Dissenters do speak Truth; nay the Truth of Truth; the Divine Truth; therefore they exer­cise according to the Liturgy, vid. & p. 9. ibid.

See now, what a parcel of Fools our Logicians are: For if any Man living can shew me such a Demonstra­tion as this from Aristotle's Organ, to Keckerman, Bergersdi­cius, or Herebrood's Comments, I will give him leave to prove me an Horse, and will be bound to believe it when he hath done. I will give you the same Argument in another case, and do you judge whether it holds true or no. The Law commands a Witness in any Cause, To speak the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Now supposing the Case be concerning Brother Bull's being taken napping with a small Girl in a Bawdy-house, and the Witness upon his Oath, shall answer, by telling a Story of the Victories of the Late Usurper, though perhaps the Story may be nothing but the Truth; yet do you think that he hath spoke what his Oath bound him to, and that he swears that the said the Person was so taken, because this also is nothing but the Truth?

Pish, I hate these Similies, they never run of all Four; and therefore can never be through-pac'd Ar­guments. If you can show me by any substantial Reason the Defects of this Demonstration, then you do something.

The Argument is (indeed) so ridiculous, that I cannot find in my Heart to be serious in confuting [Page 17] it; but however for your satisfaction, I will endeavor it in as few words as possibly I can. As to the first Proposition, viz. The Law enjoyns the Exercise of Religion, according to the Liturgy of the Church of England, which contains no more than what is Truth. I readily acknowledge it, and am glad to hear that our Dissenters do so too: For then I can see no reason why they should dissent from that which contains no­thing but the Truth. But the Assumption, viz. That the Dis­senters do speak Truth, &c. is a meer Falsity, or else a meer Fallacy: For if they mean that they preach nothing else but the same Truth contain'd in our Liturgy, and that they practise according to all those Rules which you acknowledge to be Truth prescribed in it; then you know it is utterly false. But if they mean, that the Doctrines they preach are true, if we should allow it (which is impossible where there are so many Doctrines preach'd, as amongst our con­trary Sects of Dissenters) this makes a new Term in the latter, from that which was in the former Proposition; and so concludes nothing at all, but that he that argues at that rate, either knows not how to make an Argument, or else that he hath a mind to deceive, as well knowing his Cause cannot be defended any other ways: But this is so dull stuff that I am weary of it, and am afraid I shall be thought a meer Fool for my pains, for endeavoring a serious Confu­tation of so frivolous an Argument. I pray you therefore give me leave (for Recreation-sake) to tell you a Story which is not absolutely impertinent to this matter.

Well, say that you will, I am resolved to hear it, lest I should give you that Advantage to say I had not Patience to hear you out.

The Commonwealth of Birds, to redress some Grievances, call'd a Parliament, where, after they had ta­ken their Places that were Representatives, and Elected nemine contradicente the Parrot for their Speaker, because [Page 18] of its excellent Qualifications of calling Names, and Colle­cting others Voices: All the Members were called over, and made their personal Appearance before Mr. Speaker. Amongst the rest appears a round fac'd Animal, that look'd as big us a Burgess, commonly call'd an Owl. All the rest of the Birds were amazed very much, as not being acquainted with any such Corporation that could be represented by it. Resolving therefore themselves into a Committee of Ele­ctions, consisting of the whole House, they began to debate the Matter before the Chair-Bird, who was a Creature of the same kind with Mr. Speaker. The Swallow, and the Mag­pie chatter'd to this purpose, that they had flown far and near, but never saw any such Creature amongst the Birds. The Jay, the Goose, and the Jack-daw being also Lead­ing Members of that Committee, concurring with the for­mer, the pretty King in the Chair was presently for clear­ing the House of such an uncouth Member, and began to cry Walk Knave Walk: Whereupon the Owl thinking it hard Measure, before he was well seen, or at all heard to be ejected, began to set a good Face of the Business; and raising his Ruff to shew its Feather, and stretching out its Neck, to exalt its Voice, look'd so frightfully, and made so hideous, loud, and screeching a Noise, that all the Birds were so terrified, that they presently left all their Places, and the poor Parochete fell out of the Chair in a Swoon, al­tering its Note from Walk Knave, to poor Pall, and was ta­ken up in a very sad Condition; and so all the Debates ended, and the whole Assembly dissolved themselves.

Hey day! What have we here; a Tory-Tale to Countenance Arbitrary Power, by rendring Par­liaments ridiculous? How comes this into the Business we were talking about?

I pray Neighbour don't mistake me: For no man loves Lawful and Loyal Parliaments better than my [Page 19] self; though I must confess I have no great Veneration for Commonwealth-Parliaments; but the reason why I told you this Story, is this, to let you see how you deal with us of the Church of England: You set up a Creature of all Face and Feather, to make an hideous Noise against us, who still pretends to be a Member of our Church; as thinking us so much to hate meer idle Drollery, Impudence and Noise, that we will rather suffer him to say what he pleaseth, though to the utter Dissolution of the Church, than trou­ble our selves with such an Animal: For certainly no man would have made such an Argument as this, who ever imagined that it should be considered by any Person that had Common Sence, unless he thought he could Out-face any thing, even all Sence and Reason.

This is soon said, and any thing may be soon misrepresented; but is it not clearly apparent That the Dissenters preach Divine Truth, by that Argument, (p. 9. post med.) viz. The Church of England teacheth Divine Truth. The Dissenters teach the same Doctrine with the Church of Eng­land; therefore the Dissenters teach Divine Truth: How can any Son of the Church deny this, unless he will deny that the Church of England teacheth Divine Truth?

We of the Church of England do sincerely be­lieve, that our Church teacheth Divine Truth; and are well pleased to hear you Dissenters to confess the same thing: For by acknowledging this you condemn your selves: For with what Face can you dissent from the Divine Truth? The next Proposition, viz. That the Dissenters preach the same Doctrine with the Church of England we cannot but ab­solutely deny: For that we think it absolutely impossible to be true: For (First) how can the Dissenters preach the same Doctrine with the Church of England, when there is none of them but do deny some of her very Articles? (Se­condly) When few or none of them do think themselves [Page 20] bound to obey scarcely any of her Canons. (Thirdly,) When few or none of them will declare their Assent and Consent to her Liturgy. (Fourthly) When many of the Sects of them (not to say all) do differ continually in Do­ctrine and Discipline from one another: And Lastly, when all of them agree in nothing but in their Opposition to the Church of England? He therefore that is not given over to believe a Lye, can never make any true Conclusion from so false an Assumption.

You think now you have done the Busi­ness of this Argument I warrant you; but you will find your self much mistaken, if you consider even the Judg­ment of all that are moderate amongst your selves: For (as you may read it p. 9. circ. fin.) even they confess, that as to those who purely and out of Conscience refuse to conform, their Circumstances are hard.

Very well; and what if they be hard? Is it not much harder that our Church and State should be endange­red by such as design their Destruction, because some few amongst them may be under Mistakes, and so may act out of Principles of pure Conscience? Suppose some Persons, because the Apostle saith, He that provides not for his Fa­mily hath denyed the Faith, and is worse than an Infidel, know­ing they have no other way to provide for their Family but by Stealing, should therefore List themselves for High­way-men, and not only put this Opinion into Practise them­selves; but endeavor to persuade all other Men into the same. It might seem hard, that men under such Circum­stances should be hang'd; but yet because there can be no Property maintain'd without it, it is necessary that it should be done, let such mens Circumstances be never so hard: The Law cannot take notice of the Consciences of Men, but of their Actions; and since there is no certain Method of discerning the Conscientious Fools from the malicious [Page 21] Knaves, there can be no difference as to their Legal Punish­ments; unless all such as act contrary to the Law, should go Scot-free; because the Circumstances of some few of them may be hard. But (I pray) how are the Dislenters Circumstances so hard upon the most Conscientious of them? May they not have their Consciences better inform'd if they will? Do they not constantly refuse the Lawful Means of their right Information? Nay, hath not the Law taken Care to indulge to their tender Consciences, by allowing them to serve God according to their own Consciences, not only with their whole Families, but with Five more Stran­gers? If this will not satisfie them without making of Par­ties, and drawing in the Multitude, as though they were mustering their Forces against the Government, why should not our Magistrates take Care of the Publick, by duly exe­cuting the Laws upon them?

See further (ibid. lin. ult. & p 10.) and you cannot but acknowledge it very hard, That of all the Penal Statutes, these only against the Dissenters, and not those against the Crying Sins of the Nation should be so loudly awakened to their Offices.

This is insinuated like your self; by wiping off the Dirt from your own Party, where it naturally sticks, to throw it upon your Governors. Is this all the Thanks they have for their Indulgence to you for so many Years, after so many Affronts, and so constant Provocations, still to be casting Dirt in their Faces? Who would break their Oaths any longer, to spare such an ungrateful sort of Peo­ple as these are? Do you not belye your own Conscien­ces by this Insinuation? For what Crimes are there that are not punished according to the Laws of the Land, when they are duly proceeded against? I am confident you can­not instance in one of our Magistrates that ever neglect­ed his Duty in this kind, unless to those of the Dissenting [Page 22] Party. But besides, do you not know, that he that acts a­gainst the Laws, out of pretence of Conscience, gains Cre­dit and Applause, and gathers Numbers of well-meaning Peo­ple to be his Followers: Whereas another man that is guil­ty of known Crimes, for which he hath no pretence (though perhaps he might have for any thing as much Excuse as our Dissenters have for their Divisions) does but bring Shame and Odium upon himself, and makes all good Men afraid of his Company? Now the business of the Magistrate is mainly to take notice of Crimes, not so much according to their na­ture considered in themselves, but according to their ill influ­ence upon the Publick; now then, since no Crimes can have so bad an influence upon Church and State, as Schism and Faction; why is it so hard that the Laws against these should be more vigorously executed, than against any other sort of sins?

Why, say you? Read on, read on ( pag. 10. ibid.) and you'll find that this renders our Magistrates more cruel than the Turk himself; For the Turk himself, in the pre­sent height of his Tyranny, and Popular reverence of his Mahu­metisme, yet lets the disconsolate Greeks have the free exercise of their Religion.

This is (as you think) home-put indeed: but I pray do but consider how miserably poor he keeps them; how contemptible he renders them to all his Mahumetans? what pitiful Cells rather than Churches they are glad to wor­ship in, what Tributes he lays upon them for their Religion, how he hath rob'd them of all means of Learning; so that as Mr. Ricaut saith in his State of the Greek Church, Cap. 1.) no­thing but their strict and constant Observation of the Feasts and Fasts of the Christian Church, and their reverence to their Priests (things which our Dissenters seem to make no­thing of) doth preserve any Knowledge of Christianity a­mongst them: Nay, how barbarously they are used in Afri­ca, [Page 23] and more particularly in Asia, by the Turks; and then let the World judge whether their Circumstances are like unto yours? How glad would those poor Christians be, that they had but half those Priviledges of our Church, which you Dissenters slight and contemn? They would think they de­served the extreamest Rigor that could be inflicted upon them, should they make a Schism in so excellent a Church for matters of meer Order and Decency. For the lesser and more inconsiderable our Differences are, the greater is your Crime in not uniting with us; and the more Severity you deserve whilst you continue in your Divisions, and endea­vor to propagate them amongst us. Farther, the Case is far different as to the People themselves: The Greek Church are but a handful of poor Beggars in comparison of the Turks, and in no manner of possibility of raising any Com­motions or Rebellions amongst them, the Turk having a constant standing Army over them; but ours boast of their Numbers, and Riches, and have already rais'd the most Bloody and Unnatural Rebellion amongst us, which ended in the Murder of the Best of Kings, and the Destruction of the best of Churches; and since God hath been pleased by a miraculous Power to restore us again as at the first by the Restauration of our King that now Reigns, how many Plots and Mischiefs have they continued amongst us? To instance in no more, witness that Bloody Villany acted by Venner and his Party in England; and the late Rebellion rais'd by the Field-Conventiclers in Scotland: Nay, they are such a sort of People, that having got an Interest in the Late Times (how unjustly it matters not with them) in the Lands of the Church and Crown, and of most of the Loy­al Nobility and Gentry in England, their Fingers itch to be at them again, and they would willingly venture their Skins, to have a fair Blow for them: And that this is the reason of some of their Non-conformity I am fully convinced, having [Page 24] with these Ears heard one of them confess, That if they would give him his Bishops-Lands again, he would be as good a Church­man as any is in England. They have no other way to come at another push for them, but by drawing in the People to their Party, by keeping up Conventicles amongst us: For this I can speak of my own Knowledge, That they va­lue their old Titles to those Lands at some years purchase more than they did before His Majesties Declaration for the suspensi­on of the penal Laws against them. So grateful are they for the King's Favors, and so excellent Designs do they carry on by the pretences of Conscience!

Moreover, the Case is quite different as to our Magi­strates; our King hath not an Absolute and Arbitrary Pow­er, and a Standing Force sufficient at the first Rise to sup­press any Commotion that may be rais'd amongst them, as the Turk hath; but he is pleas'd to govern us by Laws, even of our own desiring; and therefore there is an abso­lute necessity that such Laws should be executed, unless we would be ruled by the sole Power of the Sword. Now let me refer it to the Nobility and Gentry of England, whe­ther they will continue to break their Oaths in not execu­ting our Laws to suppress Conventicles, and so force His Majesty (contrary to his Inclinations) to govern by a Stand­ing Army; or whether they will let him see that the Laws are sufficient to do it by a due Execution of them? For let me tell you Gentlemen, we may talk of Liberty in Re­ligion; but there is no Monarchy under Heaven (that I know of) where it is allowed; where there is not an Ar­bitrary Power, and a constant Standing Force able to sup­press all Mutinies and Seditions that may be the Conse­quence of it. Let us therefore consider well at present (for now is the time or never) whether we will maintain our Church and Laws, or whether we will submit to the long Sword, or tamely yield up our Lands to them who [Page 25] think their former Possession hath given them a sufficient Title to those Estates which they once possessed?

Ah Neighbour! have a Care how you scandalize God's People, the Sober Party of the Nation; and do but observe what follows ( p. 10. ibid.) and I hope you will be sorry you have rais'd so tedious, so impertinent, (not to say for wicked and false) a Discourse against them.

The Discourse was forced from me by your Impudence, in preferring the Turk to our Most Gracious King and Governours: Forbear your Scandalous Reflecti­ons, if you will not hear your selves represented as you deserve: For my part (neighbour) I am not sensible of a­ny thing I have said, but what is as necessary as true; and (upon my Reputation) I assure you, that as soon as you can make me sensible of it, I will not at all stick to recant it; but I must needs say, your bare word for it (to whom it is as natural to call Names, as it is to some Animals to grin and snarle at any thing that displeaseth) will not go very far with me. Let me therefore hear your Reasons you talk of.

You may find them there to this purpose, that notwithstanding those two special Fathers of the Church of England, Observator and Heraclitus, make such a Cry a­bout Fanatick Plots and Plotters, though the Papist-plotters have been visible enough at the Old-Baily, Westminster-Hall, Tower-Hill, and the Gallows; yet they have not been able to discover any such amongst the Dissenters; and though there may be turbulent, factious, and seditious Persons of all Pro­fessions, yet it is a great Imprudence to throw away a whole Quarter of Wheat, for the mixture of a Peck of Tares.

In the first place (Neighbour) why are the Observator and Heraclitus call'd the two special Fathers of the Church of England? I verily believe those Gentlemen think [Page 26] it Honor enough to be Sons, not Fathers of our Church: But I'll warrant you, you think you have made a fine Re­flection both upon them and our Church; but let me tell you (friend mine) as to them, you had better let them a­lone: For Old Nobs, and Brisk Hall. will be even with you one time or an other; and as for our Church, though we own no such Fathers, yet I think they may pass as well for Fathers as those Fathers of your Separation, Father Heth a Iesuite, and Father Commin a Friar, which in Queen Elizabeth's Time preach'd against our Liturgy, and first cried up that laudable Custom amongst you of praying by the Spirit, as you call it; or Father Prin, Burton, or Bastwick, who were the famous Martyrs and Fathers of your Schism: For neither of them two have lost their Ears, nor done a­ny thing to deserve it, as these did. As for Fanatick Plots and Plotters, Heraclitus (whatsoever you say to the contra­rary) Numb. 61. & 64. hath produced as jolly a Crew of them as ever were seen at Tower-Hill, or the Gallows, to which you have not answered one word; nor (I believe) ever can, any other ways than by throwing Dirt, which is all the Defence your Cause will allow you. And what do you think of Brother Stephen that was fairly hang'd at Oxford? do you think he had not a Plot to render the King and the Governors odious, who represented them in such abominable Pictures, and sang such ridiculous and sedi­tious Ballads of them? or to summ up all in one, what do you think of the Father of the Association? Was not High Treason as clearly prov'd against him as against any of the Papists, and that by the same Evidence, viz. Turbervile and Smith, upon whose Credit my Lord Stafford lost his Head? Talk no more for shame of the Loyalty and Peaceableness of your Party; but now for your pretty Simile which (I doubt not) pleases you wonderfully, viz. Is it not a great Imprudence to throw away a whole Quarter of Wheat for the [Page 27] mixture of a Peck of Tares? To give you like for like, let me ask you, Is it not a great folly to take that for a quarter of good wheat in which there is not so much as an handfull of any thing but Tares? For amongst all your Schismatical Con­venticles, that act according to their Principles, (I believe) it would Puzzle, the Philosopher with his Candle and Lanthorne to find any that are, or can be good Subjects and good Christians, so long as they continue in such acti­ons: but this I must say for some reverend Dissenters that I know, who though they have quitted their ministry; yet conform as Lay-men, and live Peaceably, that they are none of that number, and that no man hath a greater respect for such then I have, nor would more readily serve them.

Truely they are much beholden to you. But do you think there are no other good people amongst us but onley they?

Yes many ignorant people that mean very well (I believe) may be drawn in amongst you, but it is their ignorance of your Principles, or else of the Conse­quence of them, that keeps them in your Party, and in the Practise of any duty to their Governours, or of any reve­rence to God.

Why so (I pray) what can you alledge against our way of worship which is more indecent, then some things in yours?

Even the same that Preistlow objects to you (page 11) viz. the sitting on your bums with your hatts on your heads, showing thereby less Reverence to God, then you do to your equalls amongst men: would not any body that knows it is the custome amongst us to shew our Honour to any Person by uncovering our Heads and bowing our Bodies think that you were met together on purpose to affront God, rather then to pay him any worship?

If you would look further even in the same page you'll find that I my self do blame them for it.

Yes, yes, I see you do; but I fear it is onely a Copy of your Countenance to serve your turn at present; for if you and your Cap-cloak-men do really think it a fault, why do they not publickly and constantly preach against it till it be amended? but they dare not do this, because it would be adjudged by their Masters the people (who have so often heard such a cry against all outward Worship as meer Popery,) to be a deserting the Good Old Cause, and the Fathers of their faction those precious thorough-Reformers of the late times; and this they know they must not do, as they tender the Contributions of the Brethren, nay, (which is much more) of the Sisters.

You will never be satisfied, (I see) with any thing but that which is impossible for them to do. For they might sooner preach away their Congregations, then preach off their hatts: let them alone then and defend your selves. For if you will read on, you'll find I have charged your manner of Worship, and Customes in it, with no less Indecencies, nay I may say with far greater, viz. Pew-door-Clapping, and Hopkin's-ballads-singing?

But why do you charge these upon our Church or Churchmen? Doth our Church command or all owany such thing, or our Church-men countenance any such things in their Sermons, to the people? If not (I pray you) lay the burden on the right Ass, and you'll soon see that your own backs ought to bear it.

For (1st) as to slapping of pew-doors all the Prayer time; who may we thank for this horrid Indecency but your selves? have you not preached the people out of love with our Prayers, and taught them that the main of God's worship, if not the whole of it, consists in nothing but hearing a Sermon? Doth not our Church, enjoin all peo­ple [Page 29] to be present at the beginning of the Prayers? and what is the Cause of their neglect but your divisions amongst us? for do not all our Churchmen cry out against it? was it not for your Conventicles which hinder the execution of Church-Discipline amongst us, this would soon be remedi­ed by making the people perform their duties according to the Rubrick and Canons. And this might be done with no great trouble, by not permitting any to have a Key to a Pew, who are not well affected to our publick Prayers, and (as you direct) to keep the Pew-doors open while Prayers are done, but not as you say (p. 12) to slap them in sermon time; but to shut those quite out of Pews who will not come to the Prayers, as well as to a Sermon.

Ay! but what say you to Hopkins and Sternhold's Psalmes, the common nusance to the service of the Church (vid. pag. 13.) not onely in London but all over England, a translation that hath reviled David worse then Shimei?

They are Children of your own bringing into the Church, and therefore it is very fit that you should answer for them; they were at first translated onely for the private use of the Translators, afterwards they were brought into families, and then by your elder Brethren the Puritans into their publick Congregations, at length they were by them Printed at the ends of their Bibles, as allowed to be sung in Churches, though no such allow­ance ever could be found: and so have continued in great veneration amongst your Party. For it is not long since the singing of one of Robin Wisdom's Psalms was enough to make a man thought a great Saint amongst you. Our Church appoints the reading-Psalms as they are pointed in our Common-Prayer-Bookes to be said or sung in our Churches and no others: but hath winckt at those, because some of them are tolerably-well translated; (as supposing, [Page 30] that where they are used, such of them would be chosen to keep the People doing of something whilst the Minister went into the Pulpit, and to prevent those worse inde­cencies of Gossiping, and gigling in the Church: and there­fore we do not think them so necessary to the Service of God as to trouble our selves with a new Translation of them, because even the old were never authorized by the Church, but were sneak'd into use, in opposition to the singing of the Reading Psalms according to her order.

Nay, nay, that's not all, You sit musing in the Vestry, over the Church-wardens Half-pint till the be­ginning of the last Stave of all, believing that God gave you your voyces onely to baul, and not to Sing. (p. 14 in fine.)

Hold (Neighbour Caps) as for bauling that's a particular gift of your Splay-mouth'd Pastors; and your people do far more admire a man that keeps them awake by the strength of his Lungs, then by the strength of his Reasons: and he that can speak so loud as to make the Roof of the Conventicle to answer him, and to make the Glass-windows tremble, he's your powerfull man! he's your able Preacher, he's your Boanerges for the Sisters?

Leave your sleering and jeering, and an­swer me, why your Preachers fit in the Vestry over the half­pint till the last Stave. Answer me man, answer.

What hast man? how if I will not answer you? or how if I think your question is not worth answer­ing? as you 're stout you'r mercifull? you will not beat me I hope, will you?

If you had put your question thus; why you of the Church of England, (who believe that the main of God's worship consists in joyning in the publick Prayers) sit injoying your selves in the Vestrey over a Glass of Sack till they are quite ended, without any regard to them?

This indeed had been a very necessary question, and [Page 31] for my part I acknowledge freely, that I am not able to give a satisfactory answer to it, and do heartily wish that they who have given the Scandal would take it off, either by giving sufficient reasons for it, or else by lea­ving off so Scandalous a practice; for I must needs con­fess, this is a worse indecency in our Churches then any that the worst of our Enemies either have, or (I think) can object against us. But as your question is stated, you seem to take off all that contempt that you had de­servedly thrown upon that Ridiculous Translation of the Psalms, and to undo in 2 or 3 lines, all that you had been doing in 3 or 4 whole pages. For you seem to make the Divine worship to consist in Singing a stave or two of Hopkins. For this is the grand fault which you charge upon our Clergy, that they do not come into their Pulpits when the Psalm is first named. Now if this be all, it is very easily answered thus. That our Church prefer's the Prophet David's words, before Robin Wis­dom's: and that therefore they think they are not bound to countenance a non-sensical practice which is contrary to her far more necessary injunctions: And though they have indeed a perfect aversion to Phanatick harmony, i. e. to howling and meer divisions and discord, yet I doubt not, many of them have as great a love for true Harmony as your worship, and believe that God gave them their voices, not to baul, cant, or sing nonsence; but to speak and sing sense, to his Praise and Glory, not in Sternhold and Hopkins's ridiculous Metre, but in the Psalms of the holy David,

But you have forgotten that indecorum which I have frequently met with, proceeding from the pride and vanity of several Crape-gown-men, that Preach more out of ostentation then instruction, i. e. Humming in the Church, or Church Huzzaing. pag. 15.

For an answer to this you send Preistlow p. 16. to the Observator and Heraclitus.

Well what then?

Why nothing, but that you were strangely mistaken in the persons.

Mistaken in the persons say you? how I beseech you?

Have a little patience and I'l tell you. You should have sent him to the Wisdom of the Nation, and not to Heraclitus or the Observator.

To the Wisdome of the Nation? Who are they? or where should I find them?

I thought so wise a man, as you think your self could not but have been acquainted with the Wisdome of the Nation? Did you never hear of an House of Commons?

Yes surely, and I hope I shall live to see one again; but what have they to do with humming of Sermons, or Church Huzzaing?

Why, only that they began it at St. Mar­garet's- Westminster, that's all man.

That's all say you? that is more then I know how to believe: what an House of Commons begin so—?

Nay, have a care how you call names; for Topham is a terrible man: It is very true they did so out of their abundant zeal against Popery; and for a need I could tell you the Preachers too, who were humm'd by them; but I don't think that necessary at present.

But what if they who have larger Privi­ledges then other Congregations did so? must others do the like?

I do not understand what Priviledges they have in the Church more then any other men, neither do I know why you should blame others for imitating those [Page 33] whom your Party cryed up for the Wisdome of the Nation: But if you do really believe, that this is one of the par­ticular Priviledges of that House, have a care how you Blaspheme any of their said Priviledges by terming it Church-Huzzaing?

This wit (I see) is an Edge-tool; a Man had need have a Care how he handles it for fear he cutts his own Fingers with it. But however, I cannot but say that this Humming is very much like Huzzaing.

But don't you know that every like is not the same? for I could tell you of one of the Highest acts of De­votion amongst the Presbyterians which is much more like Health-Drinking, then this is like Huzzaing.

Then will I forfeit a Twelve-Moneths Contribution. What the Presbyterians who (in obedience to the King's Proclamation) never drink any Healths at all; can they do any thing like it in their Devotion?

Don't be so rash (Neighbour) to lay Wagers. For if you should lay your brace of Caps and your Cloak too on it, I believe you'd lose them all. Nay I am mistaken if the Independent Brethren don't do the same.

'Tis impossible (Man,) tis impossible. I'll never believe it till I see it.

Then to put you out of doubt, you have seen it, if ever you received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper with them.

Yes, yes, I have done this several times: but never saw any thing like Health-drinking in it. Surely you design to perswade a man out of his senses.

No by no means; onely I would perswade you to lay aside your brace of Caps awhile, and rub up your Brains a little, and then certainly you cannot but re­member it.

Why truly for all my rubbing I can't do it.

I perceive then like all great witts you have but a very bad memory. Give me lieve to help your me­mory, since it is so short, by a few Queries. As (First,) How do you receive the Sacrament, in what Posture?

Sitting. How should we receive it?

( Quer. II.) In what place do you sit, or in what manner?

We sit round about the Table: Where should we sitt?

(Quer. III) What with your Elbows on the Table?

Why what if we do? is not that the most familiar Posture, and most suitable to the priviledges of the Saints?

( Quer. IV) I'll ask you but this question more and then I have done with my Queries, Who gives you the Cup?

The Minister after he hath drank gives it to the next, and he to the next, and so it goes round the Table, and when it is drank off, he that is to drink fills it again.

Well now, put all this together and what can be more like the ordinary way of drinking an Health at a freind's table then this is? onely at a person of Qualities table you use a little more manners then to loll your Elbows upon it. Did you never hear the story of an honest-Country Fellow who observing the Cup to have gone round, came in great haste to the Minister and cry'd out, Nay hold Sir, let me drink my Land-Lord's Health too as well as you; and down he pop'd himself upon his Breech, snatched up the Cup and claping his Elbows on the Table, off he drinks it, and claps his Hand on his Brest, and turns up his Eyes in Admiration of the goodness of the Wine, as he had seen others do before; not knowing that they did it out of Sence of Humility and devotion?

[Page 35]I will not vouch for the truth of the Story, but I am sure a Man that onely Judges of Mens actions by his Eyes might very easily be so deceived. And now Judge you whether this is not a greater scandal and Indecency then any thing that is practised in the Church of England? For shame make no more comparisons, till this is Reformed. You see then how excellent advice Our Saviour gives, and re­proof Matt. 7, 5. Thou Hypocrite, first cast out also the Beam out of thine own eye and then shall thou see clearly to cast out the Mote out of thy Brother's eye. But I had like to have forgot one Material thing.

What's that?

Onely your great kindness to our Clergy in saying that this Custom of Humming in the Church proceeds from the Pride and Vanity of several Crape-Gown­men that Preach more out of ostentation then instruction.

Why, does it not? how can you deny it?

With a very good Conscience; for suppo­sing you your self, or any Cap-cloak-man of you all were Preaching before the House of Commons, and they would Hum you, how could you help it? I don't think your great modesty would force you to leave your Subject to re­buke them for it; why then must our Preachers be blam­ed for what they cannot help? How can they tell whe­ther their Auditory will applaud what they say or no? Or how can you tell that they are pleased with any such indecency? for my part I verily believe they desire their heares would observe what they say and remember and practise it, and not that they should in such a manner shew how much they are pleased at it.

Why then do they so sprucifie their Ser­mons, and adorn them with so many flowers of Rhetorick, and make such elegant Compositions, such exact Periods and such witty allusions in them; could not their hearers [Page 36] be well enough instructed without all this to do?

Possibly they might, but you know the old verse, Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci. Which was never more necessary to be observed then in this age. All men are not pleased with slovenly similitudes, noise, and dulness; and why then since they are debters to the learned, and the unlearned, should they not suit their discourse to their hearers, as well as your Cloak-men do to your ig­norant Sisters? and where is the ostentation more in that then in this?

Now I am come to their six-peny-cuts cal­led Sermons, and there I shall find work enough for you to vindicate them.

This your Title-page promises as the main de­sign of your Book; but I began to think that you writ as you Preach'd, and have dealt with the Title as your Party use to deal with their Texts, only named it and read it over and never came near it more, certainly you did not find so many faults in them, nor so considerable as you would have done; for otherwise you would not have spent one half of your Pamphlet before you came to main business, though I know nothing could more easily gra­tifie your malice and envy, nor tend more to carry on your Schism then this Subject.

Why so (I pray) why so?

Why say you? there hath been so many sub­stantial and practical Sermons Preached and Printed, by the Conformists, (that if something had not been said to take off their reputation) the People might have thought that there is as good Preaching in our Churches as in your Conventicles, and so all the fat had been in the fire, for they might have returned to the Church again, and then the separated Contribution would have been a great af­fliction to the guts of your Splay-mouth'd Teachers; so that [Page 37] if you do not this well, you do nothing; it being so ve­ry easie a task to find faults, or else to make them, such as shall not easily be wip'd off, for (you know) a fool can throw a stone into a Well which an hundred wise men cannot get out again, and every Child in the street can throw dirt, some of which will stick wherever it lights.

I think I have done that business throughly; I have laid it on, do you get it off as you can.

Upon my word (Neighbour) you have laid it on so slightly, that a man may blow off all that Fuz and dust you have cast upon the Crape-Gown-mens Ser­mons with less breath then will serve to cool a man's Pottage.

That's very strange; if there were not grand faults in them, why will they not sell for more then six pence, when a Play sells for double the price? vide page 17.

'Tis very true, and your objection signifies nothing; for if good Plays were as common as good Sermons their price would be as mean: and besides, what fault is it in a Sermon, that men think their recrea­tion more necessary then their instruction? If we should turn the argument upon your Party, I believe you would not like it: For I am very confident that one might easily purchase a dozen of your most famous men's Sermons in the late times for the price of one Play, and so much good may it do you with your half peny cuts for our six-peny.

Aye aye, that may be because people are frighted out of their wits, with the name of Pha­natick; so that if the Author of a Sermon be esteemed a Phanatick, (though every sentence of it be worth it's weight in Gold) the whole shall not be thought worth an halfpeny by some sorts of Persons.

And who can help it? The prices of Books as well as other things rise and fall according to the hu­mours of men, or accidents of time: but indeed the Horrid Villainies of the late time being so palpably coun­tenanced in Phanatick Sermons, no wonder that they are of no value amongst all peaceable men and good Subjects.

Hey, Ho! What a stir is here with Phanaticks, Phanatick Sermons, Phanatick men, and Phanatick women; and all this while neither Observator nor Heraclitus themselves, nor any body else knows, what or who Phanaticks are. vide page 18. a Phanatick is a Phanatick, and that's all that can be said.

What would you be at Sir? are you for the Etymology of the word Phanatick, or a Definition, or a Description of the persons, and the places where they live, and the time when to find them? Because neither Nobs nor Harry, nor any of their Admirers of the Clergy may be so much at leasure at present to serve you. I pray you Sir let me know your Commands, and I am your humble Servant.

Which you will, it is all one to me; for I believe you can do all alike, that is nothing like it.

What I fail in my performances, I hope (sweet Sir) may be pardoned for the sake of my good intentions to do you Service; As for the Etymolgy of Pha­natick, I suppose it may come from [...] to appear, so that it signifies in plain English one that appears to be more good, honest, peaceable and holy then really he is; or in short, an Hypocrite: As for a Description of him, (For I dare not undertake to define him whom no Terms can hold,) he is one that strains at a gnat and swallows a Camel; that is more troubled to comply with an in­nocent Ceremony, then with Schism, Sacrilege, or Trea­son: whose Religion and honesty, (like that of the Pharisees) [Page 39] consists in not being like other men; whose obedience in Governours consists in breaking their Laws, and who acknowledges no Supream but his own humour; or in short, as a little Boy (to answer the famous saying of an old Nurse,) told me, A Phanatick is one who if his lawfull Ma­gistrates should command him to go on his feet, would (if it was possible) go on his head. If you go on any St. Sabbath­day, you shall find him at some one or other, or all the unlawfull Meeting-houses in London; if on the 30 th of Ianuary you may find him at his own house as busie as a Bee at his own Trade. And so much for him.

A man may make any thing of any thing: but what's this to the Vain-glorious Humors of the Crape-Gown-men, that they can't stay till they have a Volumn of Sermons, but must be Printing though it be but one single and simple Business by it self. vide page 19. & 20.

If the Sermons be useful to undeceive the peo­ple, and to deter them from their sins, especially from the bewitching sins of Schism, and the 41 faction, I think they need no apologies, there being so much necessity for such discourses: For as ill times do produce good Laws, so this good Effect they have too to beget good Ser­mons, and that out of pure necessity.

You can as well be hang'd as forbear harping upon that old worn-out string of 41. Though I gave you (one would think p. 20. in fine) sufficient warning of it, you will be fathering King-killing-doctrines upon the Pres­byterians: but (p. 21.) I have fully demonstrated that if they do hold any such Doctrins they learned them from the Church of England-men.

What! you mean that demonstration from pedigrees, viz. Edward the Sixth's Church of England-men begat Queen Elizabeth's Church of England-men, and so they begat one another to the end of the Chapter; and to these [Page 40] present times, and the Church of England-men that now are in being: Ergo the Church of England-men taught the Pres­byterians their King-killing-doctrins. How good a Demon­stration this may be in Heraldry, I know not, the next time I see Charenceux King at Arms I will inquire of him concerning it: But as for Logick, I think you have the worst luck of any man in England; for the Devil-a-bit of Consequence is there in your Argument.

As for Rational Consequences we Dis­senters are not much acquainted with them, for a little Simile doth our business amongst the apron-people much better then all the Logick in the world: Reason I con­fess is not our way, but if this be not as sound and rational an Argument as ever stood on 3 leggs, for my part (I declare) I will never have any thing to do with Reason or Syllogisms again as long as I live.

Don't be too confident: I would not have you forfeit your Reason at so silly a rate, unless you think it necessary to Preach to the People in New-bethlem: It may be you may Preach by the Spirit there, as well as Oliver's Porter pray's, and then no doubt but the Cure will be throughly supplyed with two such able men.

Do but hear out the Argument, and if you be not convinced by it, certainly you're so mad that New-Bethlem is too good a place for you.

Well, away with it (man) Let's hear it.

You may read it (from p. 21 to p. 23 cir. fin.) where it is fully discoursed, but the sum of it is this. Mary Queen of Scots was brought to a formal Barr of Iustice, Convicted, Sentenced, and formally Beheaded by Queen E­lizabeth, and the Clergy were part of the Body that pressed and urged the Queen to hasten her Execution, nay further, they were her Confessors that satisfied her Conscience in the [...].

Whether Queen Elizabeth did ever consult her Confessors in the Case or no, doth not appear in any History [Page 41] that I have met with; whether it was conveyed down by oral Tradition from her Puritans to your Presbyterians, I cannot tell: but supposing all this to be true, what follows from thence?

Do you not see? Is it not as clear as the nose on your face, that then the Clergy of the Church of England did hold that it was lawful for old Queen Bess, to behead old Queen Mall, who was convicted of high Treason against her?

That's right, and follows clearly, allowing your Premises. But what then? what's this to your business.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! What then say you? Ha! Ha! Ha! what's this to my business say you? Ha! Ha! Ha! The man's mad sure, is not this all that I need or desire to prove.

By your laughing one would think you were little better. Hold your gigling man, and let me tell you, that all this is nothing at all to your business you under­took to prove.

Why, is not King-killing and Queen-killing all one?

Yes, as exactly the same as the Presbyterians Do­ctrine and the Iesuits in that point, viz. that it is lawful for Subjects (whose Trustees Soveraigns are, and from whom they derive their Power) to call their Princes to an Ac­count, and to punish them with Deposition and Death it self, if they are adjudged Tyrannical: But that ever the Church of England-men taught any such thing all your Arguments from Queen Elizabeth's-Church-men fall very short of proving.

How so for God's sake? how so? was not Mary Q. of Scots a Soveraign Princess?

No doubt but over the Scots She was? But what was that to Englishmen, or to Q. Elizabeth? Was Queen Elizabeth Q. Mary's Subject?

No. Who saith She was?

Then what is this to the Doctrine of the Presbyterians, that Subjects may arraign, condemn, and exe­cute, their own Soveraign Princes? All that this Instance proves, is only this, That the Church-of-England-Men in Queen Elizabeths time did hold that it was lawful for one Soveraign Prince to kill another if it be in his Power, and if the safety of his own Person, or his Subjects welfare does require it: and what is this more then that it is law­ful for one Soveraign to make War with another?

Now (Neighbour Cap's) e'en go to Henry Care your Giant of Learning (before you write again) and learn how to make an Argument that may not be quite from the pur­pose; that you may not spend your precious Treasure of Witticisms so much to no purpose in dressing up such idle and impertinent proofs.

No. I'll go but to one of your Sermons, viz. That Preached on the Anniversary of the Murder of K. Charles I, 1682. and there I shall find an Argument that will do my business, vid. p. 23 and 24.

What's that I pray you? an Argument for King-Killing in an Invective against it?

Even so; and no otherwise. For (p. 6. ibid.) he saith, We do not wonder at the ruine of Zedechia, nor was the ruine of him a Crime on Nebuchadnezzar 's part.

What would you inferr from hence?

Onely this, that then the using a Sove­raign-Prince more inhumanely then Killing him is no great matter; and therefore that even according to our high-flown-Church of England-men, Princes Persons are not so sacred as I thought they had been.

You might have easily seen his meaning if you had Pleased. For it is no more then this. That Com­paratively to our Crime (who being Subjects Murdered our own [Page 43] Prince) what Nebuchadnezzar did to Zedechia was no Crime at all in him. For that in Zedechia's highest and best condition, his power was but co-ordinate with the power of Nebuchadnez­zar, but after he was his Prisoner and Nebuchadnezzar had seiz'd his dominion, Zedechia was no longer a Soveraign Prince but his Subject, and therefore his endeavoring to recover his lost Crown was contrary to his fealty to Nebuchadnezzar, and might be punished by him as an Act of Rebellion. If Sove­raign Princes have a Right of War one against another who can help it? Does it therefore follow that Subjects have the same right against their own Soveraign whose Lives and Dignities they are bound by oath to maintain even with hazard of their own?

Well, but speak like a True-man now. Is there not a little touch of nonsence in a subordinate Sove­raign? For there never was, nor ever can be any such thing. For a Soveraign (p. 24. ibid.) though inferior in Power, is equal in Priviledges and Dignity to the most puissant.

Well what then? The nonsense is not his, but your own. For he doth no where in that Sermon (that I know of) say that Zedechia when he was taken Captive by Nebuchadnezzar did still remain a Soveraign-Prince, but his very Argument doth imply the quite contrary. But none are so blind as they that will not see. For you your self confess that if a Soveraign-Prince becomes Tributary, he is onely Titular, and no Sovereign. Now had not Zedechia not onely lost his Kindom, but his Liberty also? Where then was his Soveraignty?

Even where the Authors Liberty is. For in his Dedication of the said Sermon, he makes himself the most abject Slave in the World to pin a piece of Flattery upon his Patron. p. 26.

What Slavery is this you cry out of at such a rate? If I mistake not it is onely this: That he acknow­ledgeth [Page 44] it as an Honour; not onely that he, but all his Ancestors ever since the Reformation have been Chaplins to the Dukes of Sommerset, and wisheth (as well he may) that it may continue so, to all succeeding Generations.

But he expresseth it, as though he had renounc'd Liberty it self that draught of God's gifts to man­kind; onely that he might Flatter his Patron.

For my part, I think it so extraordinary an Honor to himself and his Family; that there are scarcely any Scholars in England but might well be ambitious of it: and did really think that he had herein passed a Complement on himself and not upon the Duke. But I see Liberty is as dear to a Phanatick as nutts to an Ape; and is not to be parted withal, no not so much as in Civility, though it be never so much to his own Honour and Advantage.

If this will not pass for Flattery, I'll show you one that shall, or else I'll never study the Aca­demy of Complements again as long as I live.

What! In another Dedication I'll warrant you? It seems those Church-mens-Sermons are very barren of faults that you're forced to pick Faults with every little Complement in a Dedication. You tell us of Reflexions upon Sermons, but we have nothing as yet, but idle Re­flections upon the Epistles. One would think Men might have some Grains of Allowance in expressing their gra­titude and Civility. If it had been at a Sisters Funeral (that used to bring you the refreshing-Tankard-full of Cordial after your Sabbath-Dayes great Pains and La­bours, an whole hours Flattery had been nothing with you even in your Sermon.

Well, well, you must be flnging at old Stories: but this is the very Quintessence of Courtship, the Elixir of Eloquence, &c. p. 26.

Where is this sight to be seen Neighbour?

In the Epistle before a Sermon, called the Present Miseries and Mischiefs of Sin.

I have read the Sermon, and I am sure he flatters no Vice that he discourseth of in it.

No, I don't charge him with any such thing.

No, I believe the fault of the Sermon is the quite contrary with which you was really angry.

Why, the little Vicour (I confess) is a little too pert upon the ill Consequences of Pride (P. 29th) in producing us as Examples of them. And give me lieve to say he is not a little impudent (p. 26 of the same Ser­mon) after he had shown the most miserable effects of Schisme and Faction in the destruction of the Iews in Iudea, and the Christians in Affrica, to tell my Lord Major, &c. I wish the divisions amongst our selves proceeded not from the same Cause (id est▪ from Malice and Envy) and that our Ma­gistrates would take Care to suppress them lest they proceed to the same sad effects, viz. the utter ruin of the best Constituted Church, and State in the World. Now, what Flesh and Blood that lives by holding forth at Conventicles (as I do) is able to endure such a Sermon as this is, without re­flecting upon it, to blast its Reputation?

Aye, but then (me it thinks) you should have reflected upon the Sermon, not upon the Epistle.

No, you're a fool. Oblique Reflections do a man's business by so much the better, by how much they less discover his design.

The Children of this World ( I see) are wiser in their Generations then the Children of Light. But with all your Wisdom, I pray you make out wherein lyes the ex­travagance of these his Words to the Lady. viz. I must beg Pardon of your Modesty to say, that your great Prudence and [Page 46] Piety is a sufficient Guard against those Sins which are here found guilty of the Miseries and Mischiefs of Mankind.

Does it not argue a Seraphick piece of Si­cophantisme to attribute those sufficiencies to mortal frailty, that neither David nor Solomon with all their Prudence and Piety could ever boast of, being purely Supernatural?

But (I beseech you Sir) does he any Wayes ex­clude supernatural Aids? Does he not suppose the Lady to be a Christian? And therefore her constant Devotion surely doth not any Wayes hinder, but very much procure the Graces of God's Spirit to direct her. For our Saviour saith, Ask and ye shall have, &c.

We may well suppose that David and So­lomon were supernaturally assisted, too; and yet (notwith­standing all their Prudence and Piety) we see they fell into most gross sins.

Very true, their falls were permitted that all men might be more careful of their standing, and that none might presume. And yet I believe many that have neither been Indued with the Wisdom of Solomon, nor the Devotion of David have (by Gods assistance) been preser­ved from their grand Crimes. To come a little closer to you Neighbour, Do you think your self as Godly a Man as David was, and as Wise as Solomon?

Why? what if I do not? what is that to this business?

I suppose you would not be angry if a man should say and believe that your Cap-cloak-ship is neither so Wise as Solomon, nor so holy as David, and yet that you're neither an Adulterer, a Murtherer, nor an Idolater; nay (I imagin) you would be very angry if a Man should conclude the contrary.

Should I not have reason enough to be so?

so Art not thou then a very rude Fellow to conclude so of the Lady from such Premises?

I conclude so? It is a lye. I would have you to know, that I am better bred then so. All that I concluded was onely this, that though she was as Wise as Solomon and as pious as David yet possibly she might fall into as great Sins as are arraigned in that Sermon; and therefore that her Prudence and Piety canot be Sufficient Guards against them.

But how does this follow? For my life I cannot see the Consequence of it.

Can't you see the Consequence? Then it is pitty you should have any Eyes, or make any more pretence to reason. For how can that be a sufficient Guard which may fail a Man?

I beg your leave (good Neighbour Caps) to ask you another question. Does not any man think a good Cudgel a sufficient defence against a snarling Cur, and yet is it not possible that the Tike may surprize a man for all his Cudgel, and give him a snap or two by the heels?

But does not he himself confess his flat­tery, when he is forced to beg pardon of the Lady's mo­desty before-hand?

Not at all truely that I can see. For (as I ap­prehend it) Modesty is a vertue that may be offended at it's own praises though they be never so truly deserved. Now where's the Purse-opening-sublimity that you talk of in all this? I wish you would stretch your Throat upon the Tenterhooks for it, when you next exercise before the sisters, no more then the Author hath stretched his conscience in this commendation you have made such a noise withal; and then possibly the Guineys stolen from their Husbands, would not clink so finely in your pockets.

Why, do you know the Author you're so much concern'd for him?

It may be I do, and it may be not; thus much I know of him that he hath the Reputation of an Honest plain-Dealing Gentleman▪ and to have considerably baulk'd his interest rather then he would fail of his duty to the Church; and therefore I have more reason to be­lieve him then ten thousand of those that will say or do any thing for the sake of Contribution-money.

Yes, yes, believe him you may and if you will, but surely no body will believe you, if you do; who does but consider that incomprehensible Comple­ment that he passeth upon the Son. (vid. p. 27. Crape-Gown.)

All that he saith of him is this. That he knew him in his Childhood, and that such was the goodness of his nature, as though he had been made to show the loveliness of vertue, and that one would almost think that he alone was exempted from the general corruption of nature derived from Adam. Now what if there should be nothing in all this that did not become him to say upon this occasion?

what?—Then I will be willing to be exalted above my Brethren, and to be set upon the next Sign-post, and to have my Head put through a wooden Loope-whole, with these brace of dear Caps up­on it, to be gazed at, for the Sign of the black silk-button edged with white.

Have a care of that (man) you do not know what may happen. Possibly you may have your deserts before you dye. It is a great deal of pitty but you should.

Well, well. If this happens not till you have vindicated your Author, I think I am safe enough.

But you may not be long so, for all as I can see to the contrary. For it is not reasonable that he should let the World know that he did not think those to whom he dedicated his Sermon had more need of it, then other men: for otherwise it must have been thought that they were guilty of those sins which he there con­demns. And can there be any better Argument to a young Gentleman to persist in the Ways of vertue, then to let him see how much he must degenerate from what he was if ever he should fall into vicious courses; and what a shame it would be for him to pervert so excellent a Constitution of Body, and Disposition of mind? And did it not become him, who formerly had the tuition of him, to remind him of it?

Oh! But he hath made him almost a God upon Earth: and had it not been for that almost, not much more could have been attributed to the Humanity of Christ. p. 28. ibid.

Did you never hear that a good man is the most lively Image of God? If you think then a Person is a good man, must you be affraid to say so, lest you make him a God upon Earth? Does not the Apostle say that Christ was (as to his Humanity) in all things like unto us, sin only excepted? When I see then a Person of extraordi­nary goodness of temper, and unblameableness of life, what great Crime would it be if a man should say of suchan one that one would almost think him like unto Christ? and yet this is a greater Character then that which you so much quarrel at.

Nay 'twas well that almost came in intime.

You might (if you had pleas'd) have obser­ved that he doth not say that the young Gentleman was ex­empted from the general Depravity of Humane Nature; but only that judging by the sweetness of his Genius, and [Page 50] the goodness of his inclinations visible in his actions from his Childhood one would almost think so; and surely he is a more capable judge of this who conversed with him, and had that care of him, then you that confess you do'nt know him. But if the almost had been quite: left out, certain­ly much more might have been said concerning the Hu­mane Nature of Christ.

Do you believe this to be an Hyper­bole or no?

Why, what if I do? When are Hyberboles allowable if not in Letters of Gratitude?

Never at all; nor ever can be.

Have a care, what you say, lest you throw durt upon the preaching of the heads of your Party in the late times. For then there was scarcely a sister that dy­ed but that a great part of the Sermon was made up of her Communion with God, her Godding it with God, and Christ­ing it with Christ; and such like unintelligible Stuff, that if it be not Hyperbole, I am sure 'tis grand Non-sence.

I doubt not but they which used those expressions had a very good meaning in them, but I can­not stand to explain it to you.

E'en let it alone till you have such another Assembly of Divines at Westminster as you had formerly, it may serve them for a new work of Annotations.

What have you to do with the Assembly of Divines? I pray mind your own business, and find out an excuse for your Crape Gown-Author. For in Troth you can't do it.

Why, what have you more to say against him?

What? The best is still behind. See p. 28 lin. 24. The jest is this, that after the Gentleman hath Se­raphim'd and Chernbim'd the Lady and her Son, he wisheth them [Page 51] all the Happiness of this World, and that which is to come: As if the latter could be denied to Persons so Super-naturalized and fitted for Heaven. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha—

Laugh on, Laugh on; but you might have staid till I could have found the Jest out, that I might have laughed with you▪ For I can't find where the Jest lies upon my word.

Oh Dulness, Dulness! It is pity you should ever hear a good Jest again, or ever laugh more, if you can't find in your Heart to laugh at this.

Well, but first make out the Jest, and then let us laugh: Where doth it lie, in his Words, or in your Comment upon them?

Nay, if you can't see where it lies, 'tis impossible to inform you, and I will never undertake a man that is so abominably dull.

Then I'll endeavor to inform my self. All that he saith in that Epistle is to this Effect, that he shall scarcely find any persons that have less need of such a Dis­course than they to whom he dedicates it, because they are not guilty of those Grand Sins against which his Ser­mon inveighs: Now is this to Cherubim and Seraphim them? Is there no more required to make up a Cherubim or Seraphim than not to be guilty of the highest Wickedness that Man­kind can be guilty of? The Sins he mentions are these, Pride, Envy, Schisin, Faction, Voluptuousness, Covetousness, Lust­fulness and Anger, Gluttony and Drunkenness, Vncharitableness and Injustice, Irreligion and Atheism. Now it seems you know your own Party so well, that he (you think) may well pass for a Cherubim or a Seraphim amongst you, that is not guilty of some, if not of all these Sins; and that in the highest manner that can be, and prosecutes them to the ut­most. For it is against such sort of Sinners, that con­tinue [Page 52] in these Sins, and pursue them (not against such as through Humane Infirmity or Surprize may happen to fall into them) that the Sermon is directed; from which num­ber he thinks he may well exclude the Lady and her Son. And what of all this?

What then? Surely persons so Supernatu­raliz'd are sure enough of the Happiness of another World; and therefore is it not a kind of a Bull for him to wish it them?

Why, may we not pray for that which we are sure of? What do you think of those Petitions in the Lord's Prayer, viz. Thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done? Nay, (Secondly,) How can any man be sure that he shall not fall into the grossest Sins, and die in them; and so be deprived of the Happiness of the World to come? Is any one more Super-naturaliz'd than St. Paul? And yet he tells us, I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that when I have preach'd to others, I my self should become a Cast-away. Now if he thought himself in danger of being a Cast-away, well may we think that any one else is in danger of it; and therefore sure it is no great harm to pray for the best of Men, that they may not fall short of the Prize they aim at.—Now all this while, where's the Jest you talk'd of?

Why—the Jest—the Jest—say you? The Jest was a good Jest if you could have let it alone; but you have spoil'd it, and who can help it?

Now I think on't, the Jest may lie in this, that you should talk of a Jest when there is nothing like it: or else, that you should imagine that they are said to be supernaturalized and Cherubim'd and Seraphim'd, that are only said not to pursue the greatest Villanies that men can commit.

Well, I see this Lay-chair-man of the Crape-Gown-committee hath an excellent Excuse-Forge in [Page 53] Ludgate Street, and when he is well fee'd, can tell how to employ it: For I'll be hang'd if this be not his.

Don't be so confident (Neighbour) to ven­ture your sweet Life upon such a Trifle: For if it depen­ded upon this, for all you're so wise, you might e'en die like a Fool: For it is possible, that neither he, nor any Crape-Gown-man thinks your ridiculous Libel worth the ta­king notice of; but one that is very ready to wait on you whensoever you shall please to give him a further Occasion of Discourse.

Let it be who it will, I neither value him nor what he thinks or saith of me, or of my Book.

So I thought; why should Goliah be afraid of such a Stripling as little David? But what would you say if I should produce you a Grave Saying out of one of the Gravest Fathers of the Dissenters, which in the true No­tion of Complementing (For complementare you know, is complete mentiri) doth as far exceed whatsoever you have alledg'd out of the Crape-Gown-men, as Heaven is above Earth.

What would I say? Why—I would say—any thing even-what you would have me say.

A Match, a Match: In the first place then let me ask you, do you not believe, that the Reverend Mr. Baxter is as able, as powerful, as peaceable, as Soul-searching, as Sin-confounding, as precious, as Grace-restoring, as Soul-elevating, and Soul-saving a Preacher, as any Double-Cap'd. querpo-cloak'd holder-forth of you all?

If you would have me answer you seri­ously, I think there is not an abler man in England of any Par­ty whatsoever, nor a more grave and serious Person.

Now amongst all the Books that he hath written in which do you think he is most grave, and serious?

In his Saints Rest. For there surely it [Page 54] most becomes him to be most grave and serious where he is treating of the most serious matters; the Eternal Re­wards of the Righteous, and the unspeakable joy's of Heaven.

So one would think. Yet in that very book it is that this Grave-saying I told you of is to be found. ( pag. 101. Edit. 3.) viz. speaking of the Company his Saints should have in Heaven he tells them, then shall ye be with Brook, Pim, Hambden, and White &c. Your names shall be chanted with their names, and your Sayings shall be re­corded with their Sayings, &c. I think Christians, (saith he) this will be a more Honourable Assembly then you ever beheld: and a more Happy Society then you were ever of before. For surely Brook, and Pim, and Hambden, and White, &c. are now members of a more knowing, un-erring, well ordered, Right-ayming, Self-denying, Vnanimous, Honourable, Trium­phant Senate then this is, from whence they were taken, or ever Parliament will be.

Why might not these be in heaven as well as any other repenting Sinners?

What reason had he to believe they were so? Did they ever show their Repentance by any act as publick as their Crimes? Or does Mr. Baxter think that Perjury, Treason, Sacriledge, Rebellion, and Murder, are fit Qualifications for Heaven? Or that there can be no Hea­ven to an Army-Saint without the Company of the Ring-Leaders of Rebellion? For my part I can't see any Cause to imagine that they or any such that dye in actual Rebelli­on should escape Hell, unless it be that the Devil should be afraid to admit them there, lest they should raise commoti­ons even in his Kingdom of Darkness, what Excuse-Forger have you to bring off your Father Baxter from this say­ing?

Why he himself is ashamed of it, or else [Page 55] the Printer: for it is left out in the Edition since his Ma­jesty's Restauration.

Ay, Ay, that may be. Not that he was asha­med of such a Precious piece of Consolation, but that these are not fit times for such Doctrines.

For my part he is of age let him excuse himself: For I cannot find out any excuse for him. This is a Complement with a Witness, the Quintessence of Courtship is nothing to it.

I am glad to see you acknowledge that I have perform'd what I undertook; I hope now you'll be as good as your Word, and say what I would have you say.

What is it you would have me say?

Nothing but tell Truth, and shame the De­vil; by Confessing that you double-Cap'd-Querpo-men are a parcel of very knaves, and care not a pin what you say or write so it doth but tend to carry on the cause. Will you confess man?

No. No. Don't you believe that. Con­fession is Popish. I abhorr it utterly.

But what becomes of your promise then?

Promise? What care I for promises when they make against the priviledges of the Saints? But now I think on't, before you urge my promise any further, give me leave to consult Dick Medler, and Harry Monkey-face about the business, for they are good at inventing excuses at a dead lift: or if they can't do it, instead of going to the excuse-forge at Sam's Coffe-house, I'll go to a much bet­ter Office of Excuses then that is.

Where's that new Office kept I pray Neighbor?

Did you never hear of it? At the Old Baily▪ Where should it be? Are not there constantly Igno­ramus Iuries ready to excuse even the Devil himself for re­belling against his Maker?

Now you have hit on't. They'll do your Bu­ness without fail.

Neither they, nor any Jury in England can ever acquit your Crape-Gown-men from being ridicu­lous in their preaching.

But wherein (I pray you) are they ridicu­lous? First charge them with a Bill of Indictment, and then we may better judge whether it will be found Billa Vera, or Ignoramus.

Why—I think I have charged them home enough, p. 29. to the end of my Book, a Bill of Indictment large enough and true enough too.

Let me see, I'll read your Indictment, p. 29. & 30. You stand here Indicted by the Names of Nicholas Ne­mo, &c. For that not having the Fear of God before your Eyes, &c. Vpon several days and times, particularly at—a time—not to be named, you the said Nich. &c. of the Parish and County aforesaid Crape-Gown-men, being to preach be­fore the Artillery Company, did chuse such Texts as were most suitable to the occasion (and did not as you ought to have done) chuse your Texts out of the Book of the Revelations, or out of Daniel's Visions, or Ezekiel's Wheels, &c. and further, that you the said Crape-Gown-men did use such Terms of the Mi­litary Art, and so applied them as might be most useful to the Hearers, and might be best remembred by them, &c.

This surely cannot be the Summ of what I charge them withal in those 2 pages.

If I have either Eyes or Understanding, this is all that I can find in them.

I can't tell how to believe it: Well; but go on: You'll find enough behind.

In page 31, and 32. you continue your Charge to this Effect: And further, that you the said Crape-Gown-men, not having the Fear of God before your Eyes, out of pre­meditated [Page 57] malice against our Sovereign Lord the King's Iusti­ces, and all the able Council learned in the Law, and the wise Iuries at a certain Assizes, &c. then and there assembled, did in their Sermons then and there preach'd, put them in mind of their Duties, and of the great Sacredness of Oaths even amongst Heathens, and terrifie and affright them, even to the putting them in fear of their immortal Lives, with the Terrors of the last Iudgment before an all-knowing, infallible, & Almighty Iudge, &c.

Read on, read on, you'll come to more Material Faults in the following Pages.

From pag. 33. to p. 39. you proceed in your Indictment to this purpose, viz. That you the said Crape-Gown-men, in several of your Sermons at other times, and in other places, not having the fear of God before your Eyes, out of premeditated Malice against the good, Godly and sober Party of this our Nation, have chosen certain malignant Texts of Scri­pture, to prove to the People those damnable Doctrines of the Excellency and Divine Right of Monarchy; and that in other Dis­courses you have defamed his Majesties best Subjects, the Presbyte­rians (that were so instrumental to the bringing him in, for their own Interest, and ever since his Restauration, have been most Loy­ally endeavoring (because he will not let them be Kings) to throw him out again) with a matter of Truth; and that you the said Crape-Gown-men, to the great prejudice of his Majesties Grammer-School of St. Paul, &c. have made use of certain Ci­tations out of Valerius Maximus and Cicero, because they were pertinent to your purpose; and lastly, that you the said Crape-Gown-men in other of your Sermons, have proved, that it is not lawful to make an Act of Parliament, to exclude the Right Heir from the Crown, because Job tells us Ch. 36. v. 21. that it is not lawful for a man to do evil that good may come of it; and that you have most bitterly rail'd against such as endeavored to settle the Crown and the Succession in the right Line, by such an Exclusion of the true and lawful Successor, where­by [Page 58] the Godly Party have been very much lett and hindered in doing God's Work, ( i. e.) in introducing an Holy and thorough Reforming Commonwealth amongst us: And all this you have done and said contrary to the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King, his Crown and Dignity, and the Statutes made at the last Sessions of Parliament in Eutopia, Anno 1900. of the Reign of Amadis de Gaul, c. 201. &c.

How can you acquit your Crape-Gown-men from these Faults? Is not the Indictment fully proved against them?

I think there is no great need of a Verdict in the Case: If it will do you any Service, because there's no Treason in them, I'll confess them Guilty.

Then you must acknowledge them suffici­ently ridiculous.

I beg your Pardon for that, Sweet, Dear Neigh­bour: For I cannot see any such thing charg'd upon them.

You have hudl'd up together what I have said, and represented it according to your own Hu­mor; but if you would consider particularly, as there you may find it, I doubt not but you must be forced to con­fess the Ridiculousness of such preaching.

I am mistaken if I have not delivered the Sence of your Words according to the Truth, and the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; and the reason why I put your whole Accusation in one Summ of an Indictment, is, because I did not see any thing that you have said that deserved a more particular Consideration; but if you have any thing more to say, I have Patience enough to hear it, let it be never so impertinent.

In the first place, I pray you let me know why you talk of Malignant Texts of Scripture? I am sure I made use of no such blasphemous Epithet: I have more Re­verence for the sacred Scriptures than to blaspheme them at that Rate.

Possibly you may have now; but there was a time when one of your Godly Committees of Sequestration, sen­tenced an honest Clergy-man (for want of other Faults) merely for chusing malignant Texts of Scripture, to be se­questred, and executed their Sentence upon him according­ly; and therefore you must pardon me, if (because I saw you so hot against these Texts) I did imagine these might be the very malignant Texts for which he was seque­sterd: For I cannot but think that your hatred to Monarchy may sometimes over-ballance your great Reverence for the Holy Scriptures, when they oppose your most dearly beloved Common-weath Doctrines.

You mistake me; I was not hot against any Texts of Scripture; but against the Preacher for mis­applying them.

Let's see then how they are misapplied.

For Example, to prove the Power of Kings, a Wakefield Gent. takes this Text, Psal. 51. v. 4. Against thee only have I sinned, vid. p. 33.

Had he not reason for it? For he that can sin only against God, is accountable to none but God for his Sin; and therefore cannot, nor ought not to be brought to the Block by his own People and Subjects.

I must acknowledge the Consequence to be true in spight of my Teeth: but how are the Premises true from that Text, viz. that David as a Monarch could on­ly sin against God, or against God only?

For all any thing that you have said to the Contrary, this may be the very true and genuine sense of the Words. I did desire a friend of mine to examine Inter­preters about them, and by the account he hath given me I am much confirm'd in that opinion.

Let us see your friend's account; for I cannot but think it will prove a very strange one.

I will give it you truely in his own Words, let it appear never so strange to you. He tells me that St. Hierom (who possibly could have writ Hebrew in other kind of Characters then you have done) renders the Words thus. In te, In te solum peccavi. And Grotius thus com­ments upon it, A te solo Poenas metuere possum. Nam Liberi sunt Reges a vinculis delictorum, ut ait Ambrosius: & secundum dictum Rabbinorum, Nulla creatura judicat Regem, sed Deus benedictus. That is in plain English if I can translate the Words. Against thee, against thee only have I sinned. From thee alone can I be punished for my sin. For (as Ambrose saith) Kings are free from Punishments for their Sins. And (accor­ding to the saying of the Rabbins) No creature can judge a King; but only God blessed for evermore. Now (Sir) I hope it is no great Crime if these authorities should perswade the Gentleman to take the Words in this sense; and me to believe them to be rightly applyed even against the infalli­ble Word of your dear self; for I see very little reason you have offered against this application, and I see less reason to think that Grotius and saint Hierom did not understand Hebrew as well as your learned Worship.

I do not at all question it. For I give you the translation of the Hebrew in the very same Words that Saint Hierom hath done; but I cannot assent to Grotius his explication of them, for reasons I there give you p. 33 and 34.

I pray then what can be the reason that Da­vid does here so Emphatically repeat this expression Against thee, against thee only have I sinned, but only his acknow­ledgement of God's sole power over him to punish him, or to forgive him?

That cannot be the reason. For the Words were without question uttered in reference to the privacy of the fact committed, which lay conceal'd from all the World but God.

Well faced out indeed! When were these Words spoken of by David, after the Prophet Nathan had been with him and publickly told him of his Murder and Adultery, or before? It must be surely after it, for be­fore that, he took no notice of his sin.

What if it was after? What's this to the business?

No more but this; that then David's sin when he makes this Confession did not lye conceal'd from all the World but God.

But the uery next Words Explanatory of the first, and to them annex'd, and made part of the sentence seem to demonstrate the Reason that I have given to be the true Reason of the Words, viz. and done this evil in thy Sight. (i. e.) not in the Sight of any other.

Nay surely they seem to demonstrate the quite contrary. For I think Tautologies are not to be al­lowed in Scripture without a great Necessity. Why then must these latter Words and have done this evil in thy sight, be taken in the very same sense with the former Against thee Against thee only have I sinned; when the sense may be other­wise very clear and pertinent to his purpose?

Because David could have no Reason to ap­peal to Heaven about his Power, but speak these Words to this End, viz. to justifie the Almighty in what Punishment he should inflict on him, as the last Words of the Text demonstra­tively imply, viz. to the end that thou mayest be Iustified in thy Word, and pure in thy Iudgment. p. 34. ibid.

For that very Reason that you have given from the last Words, I conclude that David had great cause in his confession to remember the power that God had gi­ven him in raising him up to be King of Israel. For this as the Prophet Nathan urgeth it 2 Sam. 12. v. 7 &c. was the grand aggravation of his sin. Thus saith the Lord God, I a­nointed [Page 62] thee King over Israel &c. wherefore then hast thou de­spised the Commandment of the Lord? Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine House; thus saith the Lord, Behold I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own House, and an­other shall ly with thy wives in the sight of the Sun. For thou didst it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, &c.

Go on and let us see how suitable to this occasion your sense of the words will prove.

With all my Heart. David having seen this threatning of the Prophet Nathan to be fulfilled upon him in the Rebellion of his own beloved Son Absalom against him, when he seiz'd his Father's Wives and Concubines and lay with them even in the Gates of the City, in the sight of all Israel; in the Agony of his Soul he pens this Peni­tential Psalm to beg Pardon for that particular Sin of the Murder of Vriah, which he could not but know was the Cause of these so heavy afflictions upon them. In which he confesses to God Almighty, Against thee, Against thee only have I Sinned &c. (i. e.) Thou O God hast raised mee up from a Poor Shepherd's Boy to be King of Israel, and given me an absolute Authority over thy People, so that they should have no power to call me to an account for any of my Actions, or to in­flict any Punishment upon me. But I have abused ingratefully all these thy Mercies towards me, and thine own power over thine own People with which thou hast intrusted me hath been a means and encouragement to me to take away the Life of Innocent Vriah: thus heinously have I Sinned against thee, and more particularly against thee, then any other of thy People could have done.

This is hitherto very pertinent I must confess; but how can you carry it quite thorough the Verse so as to agree with the following Words?

Have but Patience to go along with me and ou'll see.

Well go on then with your Paraphrase, and I will not interrupt you any more.

This great evil (saith David) I did in thy sight. So privately that no mortall Eye could see that I was concern'd in it, but thou O God who art every where present, and seest all things didst manifestly behold it; and that thou mightest vindi­cate thy power and Providence hast made my Crime visible to all men in my Punishment according as thou didst foretell by thy holy Prophet Nathan. That thou mightest be justified in thy Word and pure in thy Iudgments. And hereby thou hast justi­fied thy Prophets threatnings, and cleared thine own Iustice from all Aspersions that mine Impunity might have brought upon it, by inflicting such heavy Iudgments upon me which I acknowledge I have most justly deserved. Now let me hear what you have to say against this Gloss.

Truely (Neighbour) I have nothing to say against this paraphrase but that it may be the true sense of the Words for all as I know to the contrary at present: but you can't think the Fellows that are hang'd are accountable to none but God, because they sing these very Words at the Gal­lows. Me it thinks this renders that sense of them a little ridiculous.

After they are hang'd and dead, who (I pray) are they accountable to but only to God?

But they do not sing this after they are hang'd, do they? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

No truely I believe not. But they are dead in Law when they sing it, and have pass'd their accounts before man, and so they can be accountable to none else but God.

All this doth not satisfye me yet. I should be very loath to use those Words upon the like occasion.

I dare believe you in this without swearing. You have no great Maw without doubt to follow Brother [Page 64] Hugh and go to Heaven in a string. But If ever I should hear that you was going to the Gallows I would wait on you, and doubt not but to give you full satisfaction that you might sing those Wordes, as well as any Man can sing any Psalm of David; and yet that David might understand them in no other sense then what I have before proved.

Why truly now I think on't, Brother Pe­ters brought a great Scandal upon the Godly by his going out of the World so like a dumb Dog as he did. Wherefore because I do not know what may happen I should thank you if you would now inform me.

That you may be a little serious and leave your laughing and scoffing against all People that love the Government (which I doubt nothing but hanging can make you do) suppose then the Act of Indemnity was repealed and that you was convicted for your old Treasons and Re­bellions (because your new and latter Actions are not yet discovered) and that Sentence had justly passed upon you, and that you was mounted upon the Ladder just ready to be turnd off. I believe then you would have some serious sense of your sins, and would not think it impertinent to apply David's Confession to your own circumstances, so far as they are agreeable to them and no further.

I am apt too; think so to? but would be very unwilling to put it to the experiment.

In the mean while I pray you tell me why it is ridiculous that David should have a different meaning suitable to his particular sin and punishment in this confessi­on, from that which other men may use the words in, when they apply them to their own particular cases?

But what do you think of the Chertsey Sr. that to prove the excellency of Monarchy takes his Text Jud. 17. v. 9. In those Dayes there was no King in Israel, but every man did what was right in his own Eyes. Hath not he rendred himself sufficiently ridiculous?

I never saw the Sermon, but as for the Text, I think he makes himself most ridiculous, who excepts a­gainst the suitableness of it to that Subject.

How could this be? vid. page 35. A go­vernment without a King, and yet an excellent Monarchy! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

You have an excellent knack at that Liberal Science of Scoffing and laughing, you have studied them I be­lieve much more then Logick. For generally I find them the best Arguments you have quite through your Pamphlet. It is but dressing up any Person in a fools coat, and though he be never so Wise, the rabble will laugh at him, and then you have done your business.

You'll give me leave (I hope) to laugh at such as make themselves fools, will you not? I cannot for my Heart but laugh at so foolish an Argument as this is for Monarchy. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

The Argument from the Text is his; but the Folly of it is your own, and so you may laugh on at your self, if you please.

For my Life I can't see any Argument that can be deduced from those Words to prove the Excel­lency of Monarchy.

Our Affections too much blind our Understan­ding; I'll warrant you, you could see half so much, That made for a Common-wealth Government, if it came in your Way.

Why, this very Text makes as much for a Republican, as a Regal Government. For all that can be de­duced from it is only this, that when there are no Gover­nours to execute Laws every man will do what is right in his own Eyes; and therefore that Anarchy is worse then the worst of Governments, and this makes no more for or a­gainst Monarchy, then a Republick.

Yes surely, something more: for the Misery that is bewail'd came upon Israel by reason of the death of him that judged or ruled them, who was Sampson, a sin­gle Person; there being at that time a perfect Inter-regnum. Now if this Text doth prove (as you say) that no Govern­ment at all, is worse then the worst of Governments that can be; then by Consequence it proves that Monarchy is the best Government, because it is the farthest removed from Anarchy.

What can you say for your Crape-Gown­mens Learned Quotations out of School-boys Authors, are not these ridiculous?

Only this, that I think him a ridiculous Fool, that doth not know that the wisest man in the world may benefit himself by such Authors as are read in Grammer-schools. Are not all the Classical Authors learned there? What must we never look on them again because we saw them when we were School-boys?

Yes, Yes, by all means; but yet there is no necessity, that a man should cite Valerius-Maximus as an Historian, who was but a Collector of History; and for such a Story which other Authors contradict; or Olive­rius notes upon him instead of Plutarch or Arrianus: As we may see in a Sermon called the Miseries of Sin, &c.

You have made a very grave Discovery con­cerning Valerius Maximus: I'll warrant you that Author of the Sermon hath by this Learning of yours, got a Wrin­ckle somewhere more than ever he had; but why may not a Man call him that writes Collections of History by the name of an Historian?

No, no, 'tis ridiculous; most shamefully ridiculous.

Speak softly Neighbour; for else (if he should hear you) you will infinitely disoblige and Old Freind of [Page 67] yours, and as Trusty a Trojan for the Cause as ever wiel­ded that dangerous Weapon called a Pen.

That I would be very loath to do, but who is it you mean?

Why no less a Man then Mr. Rushworth who hath writ so many and so large volumns of Collections in the behalf of the Good Old Cause. Do you not think now the Old Gentleman would be much concern'd, if for all his Pains he might not have the Honour to be styled an Historian?

Well then for Worthy Mr. Rushworth's Sake and his most Authentick Collections, Valer. Max. though he was but a Collector of History, shall pass for an Historian; but why should he be believed against the Authority of better Authors, such as Plutarch and Pliny?

Plutarch's Lives and Pliny's History are but Collections out of other Historians no more then Valerius Max. his Book is; and why (I pray you) may not he be believed as well as they? Or why might not there be more Scylla's then one that dyed a strange and unnatural death? However, surely we may believe, that Valerius had some Ground for what he said, and that is enough to Authorize a Preacher to take so useful a Story as this upon his Credit.

Well; but why must he be quoted when Plutarch and Arrianus say the same?

Possibly the Notae Variorum upon Valerius would have furnished him with the Names of Plutarch &c. but he is more ingenious, then to mention such Authors as he hath not read though he hath never so fair an Opportuni­ty offered him. I know your Author of that Sermon so well, that I dare swear he scorns to appear more learned then he is; now I hope it is no great Crime if he that hath so much Business to do, so constantly lying upon him, [Page 68] should not have Leasure to read all the Historians that e­ver were. And now give me leave to tell you at Parting, that I think you have done our Church-mens-Sermons the greatest Honour that could be in this your Dialogue.

How so I pray you? It was utterly be­yond my intentions if I have.

I do believe you; but you may have heard of one that design'd to have cut Iason's throat; but there­by cured him of his inveterate disease.

I pray you don't raise such a Report of me: you don't know what Injury you may do me by it, Do you think the Sisters will contribute to me for my Books-sake, if they hear I have done the Church of Eng­land-men Service by it?

I cannot help that; but so it is: For certain­ly nothing in the World can more recommend their Ser­mons, then that all the Wit and Malice of their Enemies could not find nor make any more nor greater Faults in them then you have done: Nay it may do them more Service then this.

What is that? What more still?

Yes truly, and far greater then the former, viz. It may move some Persons that otherwise would not do it, to look into the Sermons of your Party, and to take Notice what horrid Crimes and Villainies are coun­tenanced in them; And nothing can render you so o­dious as this to all Men, that have but a spark of Com­mon Honesty.

This will be very Fine Work for our Common Enemies to make sport withal: will it not? All our Quarrells are but de Lanâ Caprinâ, about meer Trifles; And shall we ruine all Religion for such in­considerable things as Ceremonies?

Why then will you do it? you have be­gun to ridicule the Sermons of our Party; And if you proceed how can you expect but the same Measure you mete, shall be Measured to you again? And as for our Differences the less they are, the greater is your Fault in not complying with our Church: for our Church­men are bound up by Laws, so that they cannot if they would come over to you; but you are perfectly at Li­berty, and nothing hinders but your own perversness; But that you might joyn with them against the Common E­nemies of our Religion.

You know I have told you ( p. 39.) That it is Interest that governs the World; And that there's the grand Cause of all our Misfortunes.

You have said a great deal of Truth in a few Words: for I verily believe, that our Divisions will never have an end so long as you can reap so much Gain by your seperate Assemblies: were but these prohi­bited according to Law, and we should soon see an End of all our Misfortunes and Factious Cabals.

But have not I given you a better Di­rection out of a Sermon of that Worthy Gentleman Mr. Maurice Preached Ianuary the 30th. 1681? Would not this do it without persecuting and ruining one another?

I believe your Party will Conn you no great thanks for speaking so much Truth of that Worthy Per­son, who hath so ingeniously, modestly, and fully baf­fled your Father Baxter's railing Legend against Episco­pacy: and as for his Direction, viz. That if we would weaken that Faction, let us take away the open Scandal and Viciousness of our Lives; Let us detect their Hypo­crisie, not by washing off the Paint with Satyr; but with Solid and sincere Piety, &c. I fully assent to it as high­ly necessary; But yet do not think, that this will be [Page 70] enough so long as we suffer a Party to say what they please of us without any Answer: For the more really pious we are according to the Injunctions of our Church, the more such as are our enemies hate us, and indeavor the more to raise Lies and Scandalls of us. He that ob­serves their Actions cannot but bear Witness to this: that if the Devil himself will but appear for their Party, he shall be cryed up for an Angel of Light amongst them, and on the contrary, if an Angel from Heaven should ap­pear against them, they would cry him down for a wicked Impostor? and therefore a little Satyr may be sometimes very necessary to wash off the Glorious Outside of such Inward Hypocrites.

And thus (good Neighbour) I take my leave of you, only desiring you to take St. Paul's Advice, viz. Study to be quiet, and to do your own Business; But if you will be medling with other Men, you may expect to hear further from me. In the mean while I bid you farewel till our next Meeting.