The Lancashire LEVITE Rebuk'd: OR, A FARTHER VINDICATION OF THE DISSENTERS FROM POPERY, SUPERSTITION, IGNORANCE and KNAVERY; Unjustly Charged on Them, BY Mr. Zachary Taylor, In his Two Books about the SUREY DEMONIACK.

In a Second LETTER to Himself.

LONDON: Printed by R. J. and Sold by A. Baldwin, near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane. 1698.

PREFACE.

Mr. TAYLOR,

I Received your LETTER, May 2. To Your Apostate Friend, N. N.

Sir, I was much startled at the first sight of the Direction, and wondered who it should be, that was become an Apostate. And I thought of all those Persons I had heard of, who were reputed the Authors of the Letter, called, The Lancashire Levite Rebuk'd: thought I, is there any of them turn'd Turk, or Papist? I never heard any such thing. But may be Mr. T. thinks the Author is quite gone from the Communion of the C. of E. because he could not Pray with them formerly, That God would Strengthen K. J. in the true Worshipping, &c. But this, I can assure you, is not so. For I can now keep on my Knees at that Petition for K. W. (tho' some others will not) and heartily say, We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord.

But I was presently satisfied, this was not the Reason; but, because I had denied my Christian Name.

My first Wonder then ceased, but a second arose in its stead; that you should say, That I had denied my Christian Name, or at least were ashamed of it.

Pray' Mr. T. When was the Time, where was the Place, who was the Person, to whom I deny'd my Christian Name?

I remember not that I ever did deny it, &c. I have not been Re-Baptized, nor taken a new Name, nor am I ashamed of that which was given me in Baptism.

But I confess, I concealed my Name in my Letter to you. And if it will please or pleasure you, I'll give you some Reasons, why (tho' the Fortune of Caesar or Pompey be not concerned therein) I con­cealed it.

1. To avoid the Blows of the contending Parties. For it's often the Fate of them that interpose as Friend to both, not only to fail of their desired Success, to make them Friends; but to disoblige both, and to make them­selves more Enemies of those, who out of Kindness they endeavoured to [Page] reconcile. And this I find too true from both Parties. But, Am I become your Enemy, because I tell you the truth? Gal. IV. 16.

2. I was not willing to disoblige you; for I feared, in some heat, upon the reading of your Book I might be so far transported, to give Words that I might find cause to repent of; for I am a Man subject to like Passions as you are. Yet (whatever Misapprehensions you may have of me) I have a greater Respect for your Self, and another angry Man that spits Fire against Dissenters, than I doubt I can make you believe. And it was your tart Censures and Reflections upon Dissenters, that extorted from me some Expressions, that you may think are not friendly.

And for these Reasons, and another you have in my P. S. I gave you to understand, That if any unbecoming Words had overslipt me, I beg'd your Pardon. Pag. 28.

In this I hope I shall treat you with all the Civility that is meet for your Character, (tho' there are many Provocations;) and some Epithets in my former, &c. I wish were expunged. And I was really concerned, soon after it was out of my Hands, because having occasion to go to Manchester, I there in Discourse heard a very Learned and Judicious Man, no Dissenter, commend a Sermon you had Preached there. So I was troubled, lest any thing in my latter should be an Occasion of les­sening your Reputation, and so be a Prejudice to your Ministry.

But after I understood, That others less Judicious were offended at your Sermon, because, they said, it was like a Presbyterian Sermon. These were the High Tories and Jacobites, who called you Taylor Upon Titus. Such Blades there are, that nothing pleaseth them that is serious.

Again, I have been told, that your Father was sometimes Hasty, (as we say) but his Passion was soon over: insomuch, that a Man-Servant that lived with him would say, I am glad when my Master gives me a Lauke, (a Lancash. Word, which you understand) for I am sure presently after have a Piece of Silver from him. And I supposed you might be of the like Constitution, the Sign of a good Nature, as we say. Therefore I concealed my Name, that I might not provoke to that you might afterward see cause to be troubled at, and could not be reme­died; for,— Litera scripta manet.

3. I did also conceal my Name, to avoid the Ill-will of such as might mistake any thing in it, towards my Person. And to prevent the Cen­sures of all, and to save my self the trouble of Answering impertinent Questions; and avoid the fruitless Discourse of one or other about the Letter.

4. Possibly there might be some Apprehensions of Club-Law from some Malignant Spirits, by Innuendo's; remembring poor De Laune, Mr. Baxter, &c. and what you had said about Crab-tree. And if this [Page] do not satisfy why I conceal my Name, I want not [...] Exam­ples of Good Men; amongst whom I know you will, with me, own the Author of The Whole Duty of Man, to be one.

Mr. T. you hint at another Reason, why I am an Apostate, Because I chang'd the Presbyter into Levite.

For this I must tell you, I did not know of that Title, 'till I heard of it by a Friend, who had it from Ephraim Johnston, for whom your Letter is Printed, nor saw it, 'till the Letter came down Printed.

Mr. T. the next thing you blame me for, is, That I make Personal Reflections upon the Morals of Men that are dead; for, De Mortuis nil nisi Bonum. To this I say:

1. Your Maxim is not universally to be observed. For then we must have no Histories of Bad Mens Lives, and Vices, to deterr the Living from such Enormities, as the Dead have been guilty of.

2. I must give you to understand, That it's ill Chidden, for your Re­flections upon the Dead. Hildersham and Jesse, Bee, and 17, for ought I know, Worthy Men gave me the Occasion to reflect on W. C. in Vindica­tion, not only of Dissenters, but the C. of E. Lev. p. 18, 19. and you have done it i [...] with a Witness in this Letter to Mr. Pendlebury, in Words at length, and not in Figures. Whereas I did but put two Letters, which could not affect him much farther, than where he was known, or the Places where he acted his Villanies.

3. I did it in Faithfulness: To intimate to the Reverend B. of C. for future Caution; for I heard a Dissenter say, he had sent the B. Word by a Rev. Divine, That it was not for his Honour, to permit such a one as W. C. in a Place, which he supposed, was in his Own Gift. I am perswaded that Ingenious Man forgot to tell him.

But I know not how to excuse some, that are more peculiarly called in the Canon Law The B. Eyes, who knew of his Tricks immediately be­fore he went to Motteram, and (I doubt) were not faithful to that Good Man. And therefore I am still of the same Mind, in pitying the worthy B. B. that cannot see at distance without others Eyes, &c. Lev. p. 18.

And thus I have acquitted my self from Blame, for reflecting on the Morals of W. C. tho' dead. Besides, his were Villanies notorious; not like your Insinuations, which follow to be considered.

You say, Should I engage you my Friend, upon the same Ground that you do W. C. I could name as many of your Ministers, and put C's and N's to them too, who are yet alive, that labour under the same Guilt, &c. And so you threaten the Living and the Dead; but for the Dead, you will be modest. De Mortuis.—

But for the Living, you are very free of your Blows, and are prepared for more.

[Page] But had you not need to consider well before-hand, whether it be lawful or convenient for your self to cast Firebrands, lest some should fall upon your own House or Head, and you not be able to quench it. Yet if you have a Mind of Billingsgate-Stuff, let me as a Friend advise you, not to be too rash, but look to it; that it be for the Honour of God, and the Service of the Church, and your own Reputation; and that it be true, and well attested; remembring, your own, and every other Man's Name and Reputation is in another Man's Hand and Power. And that there have been, and are evil Surmisings, and groundless Suspitions, which are mischievous, and of ill consequence; and that many a Good Man hath suffered unjustly, and been heavily burthened under it, tho' innocent; as the Learned Hooke [...] ▪ that wrote the Ecclesiastical Policy, &c. and that if it be not true▪ you can make no Restitution. And supposing it should be true, it may be it was secret, and not scandalous; and it may be (if Persons be old) it is long since repented of, and never reiterated.

These evil Surmises and invidious Reflections, are an Indication of a corrupt and rotten Heart, and of a weak Cause; and the Persons whose Cause, and in whose Excuse you Threaten, cannot be Justified by a Recri­mination: and this might beget a Recrimination with Letters in some angry Persons, that might think themselves touched. And indeed it's to be lamented, that there may be found too many Instances.

There are some yet living, no mean Clergy-Men, guilty in that kind. And if I loved a Stink, it's easy to tell you of one that was worse than Gr. and L. that never Married the Party. And in another Case, to Parallel your Story of Mr. Pendlebury; (as true, as that he Married his Wife with­out Parents consent,) whose Name lives, and will, when others shall be written in the Earth. I can tell you of one, who gave himself the Title of A. M. to his Patron, when on Enquiry he proved Undergraduate. But I hope he hath long since repented of all; and I hear he Preaches well and lives well, and therefore I [...]ll not give so much as one Letter of his Name.

But there is another Old Stallion, that could not be content with his own Wife, that neither lived caste, nor cau [...]e; but his Miscarriage was Brought unto, and Sworn before a Justice of Peace. But alas! what's all this to the Matter in Hand? I'll leave him also without a Letter, to stand or fall to his own Master; the Lord give him Repentance.

Yet I am grieved to think, what Work such Stuff as this makes among the Prophane; what Sport they make over their Glass and Cups▪ and hence take occasion to lessen their own Crimes, and grow Impudent; and make a Mock of their own and others Sins; which is, or should be, the Grief all Good Men.

For My Own Part, I fear GOD, but fear not any of your Reflections.

CHAP. I.
Dissenters Not Guilty of Popery.

IN the Letter, which somebody (I know not who) Intituled, The Lancashire Levite Rebuk'd, I undertook to Vindicate Dissenters from the Charge of Popery, or Errours looking that Way.

Mr. T. you seem to deny your Charge in Pag. 45. of your Letter to Apost. Fr. for you say, My Friend either could not find one place in all my Book, to fix the Charge on; or else he found it so fully proved, that he saw it necessary to connive at it. And you farther say, You own Dissenting Ministers were Tools of Popery. And this was all I charged them with, upon this Head of Popery. Pag. 5.

Mr. T. you are in so much haste, that you have overlooked or forgot­ten your Charge; therefore I shall take leave, (lest I should be thought to bear false Witness against you) to shew you, This was not all you charged them withal. But I'll tell you,

1. What you charge them with more of Popery.

2. How they are acquitted in my Letter. For which you say, I have the Impertinence to ask, What Errours in Doctrine, looking that Way? in your Pag. 5.

1. Your Charge of Popery, is in the first Lines of your Preface, next after your Names; and it's in these Words, The Foundation, whereof I am an unworthy Member, being intended for the Preservation of His Majesty's Subjects from falling into Errours, especially such as tend to Popery. And a late Scandalous Pamphlet, intituled, The Surey Demo­niack, looking that Way, &c. Here is your Charge.

2. I now shew you, how I endeavoured to discharge them.

1. By taking notice, you did not prosecute your own Charge put in against them; for you Indict them of Errours tending to Popery; and when you should Prove, you Drop your Charge, and bring no Evidence. So they are in course acquitted. But the Defendants not satisfied, expect the Accuser should acknowledge his Fault, for Scandalizing of them. And to clear themselves, they put in their Plea, and prove themselves Not Guilty; by Answering the particular Instances, that can be thought could affect the Case. And therefore,

2. I anticipated what I thought could be said against the Dissenters, and only two things could with any Reason be objected. 1. Either that [Page 2] they held some Errours in Doctrine. 2. Or, that they practised some things tending that Way; viz. Towards Popery.

Now if you prove neither, the Bill ought to be quasht; and so you come under the Crimination your self, which you would have fixed on me; of Bearing False Witness.

Now for Errours in Doctrine, the Matter was soon over, being none was objected in particular. And I suppose you did not expect that I should find any tending to Popery, when your self could find none; tho' you had charg'd their Book with such Errours.

3. I enquired what they had done, that tended altogether towards Popery; here you lay in a particular Charge.

1. That they were constant Tools of Papists and Popery.

2. They Pray'd on Supposition; and such Praying justifying the Papists Prayers to Saints.

Objection. You object, they are constant Tools of Popery. And for my Information, you bring a Book called Philanax Anglicus; to prove, They Cut off the Royal Martyr's Head. Pag. 5.

Solution. I answer, excepting against the Witness a Papist. We have Mischief too much from such villanous Witnesses, who account nothing unlawful to say or do against Hereticks, to promote the Catholick Cause.

This Book was written, with a Design to cast the Odium of K. Ch. I. on the Prorestants; except some few, whom he calls (if I remember right) Protestants of Integrity: I suppose he may mean such as B. Good­man, Parker of Oxf. or Barrow; to whom add, if you will, your Dr. Heylin.

This Book was Answered so well by Dr. Owen, that he was highly Caressed by some Great Ministers of State in King Charles the Second's Time; that for certain were no Dissenters.

But if you except against him, as a Party, I shall refer you to a Canon of Canterbury in the same Reign, and Chaplain to K. Ch. II. Dr. Peter du Moulin, who Answered that Book, and calls it, Purum putum Menda­cium, Right Metal of Untruth; and calls the Author, Philopapa; and Dedicates it to the then B. of London, Sheldon.

Now would you not be angry, if I should call you Tool of Popery; because from them you derive your Authority to call Dissenters so.

Again, you refer me to a Book, I suppose, called Foxes and Firebrands; an Author, may be, of the same Kidney.

Now to be even with you, I have already given you two for two; and to gratify you, I'll add a third, viz. King Charles the Second's Decla­ration or Proclamation, appointed to be Read in Churches Annually, before Jan. XXX.

Obj. But you send me also to fresher Instances; to prove, that [Page 3] Dissenters are Tools of Popery; viz. Addresses and Speeches to the late K. J.

Solut. I will refer you to Cart-loads of Addresses, and Abhorrences, and Sermons, Cursings, Exclusioners, and their Posterities; which may be as much worth, as Dissenters Addresses and Speeches.

Besides, you may add if you will, R. Rev. and Rev. Caresses and Speeches at Chester, and the Clergy meeting him also. And whose Tools were they? I am ashamed to name these things, but you extort them. Dat veniam Corvis.

Now how should Dissenters please some Fools? One while they are the Papists Tools, for their Disloyalty; and in the next Breath, they are Tools for their Loyalty.

Now since the happy Establishment of King William on the Throne, I suppose you and Dissenters are agreed in your Loyalty. But some Jacobite would, if he durst, ask you, How you could dispence with your Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience, and your Subscri­ption, That it's not Lawful, &c. But Dissenters do heartily Bless God for such a Revolution.

And for Mr. Jolly's Speech, and Dissenters Addresses at that Time you mention; there was none presented, nor did Mr. J. make a Speech.

2. Farther, I had said, Lev. pag. 9. What are they to be Blamed for? Are they to be Blamed for their Fasting and Praying? Did they use Popish Exorcisms, or Popish Ceremonies?

Now to prove they had done nothing to be Blamed for, in their Fasting and Praying; because whether it was a Cheat, or whether it was a Natural Distemper, yet they supposing and believing here was a Devil, and the Man really being under a great Affliction, they Fasted and Prayed; (according to the Advice of St. James, Chap. V. If any be afflicted, let him Pray.) And what is here to be Blamed, or what was here done tending to Popery? Now what say you now?

1. You blame their Prayers, because they were upon a Supposition; and would justify Papists Prayers to Saints.

2. You charge me with misrepresenting your Words, and with Fabu­lous Stories.

Obj. You say, If the Supposition be false, the Worship is Superstition. And by asserting this, I am a Friend to Quakers and Papists, if a Suppo­sition be the Ground of Devotion. For Papists pay Adoration to the Sa­crament of the Altar, on the belief that Christ is personally there; and they Pray to Saints and Angels on supposition they can hear. Lett. to Apost. p. 6. With several impertinent Reflections, nothing to the Argument.

Sol. To this I say: 1. Mr. J. and the rest did not make a Suppo­sition of it; for they did verily believe that D. was a Demoniack; and thought there were the same Symptoms with some Demoniack in the Gospel, which (I remember not that) you have offered any thing against.

2. But because I said, they Pray'd on that Supposition, that Dugd. was a Demoniack, they were not to be blamed therefore. I answer, That all Worship upon a Supposition, is not Superstition. For their Prayers were not Supersticion: Because,

1. Their Prayers for Dugd. were to a lawful Object, God, in the Name of Christ; and not like the Papists Adoration of the Sacrament.

Now here some Fanatick would fall upon you, and say, Whether is more excusable, he that adores the Sacrament of the Altar, that be­lieves Christ is there Personally, &c. or he that adores the Altar, or before it, when Christ is not there, either Personally or Representatively. Unless they suppose him there, when there is no reason to believe it, this in­deed is Superstition with a Witness.

2. Dissenters Prayers were not only to a Lawful Object, but for a Lawful Thing; that God would release an afflicted Man, and one they thought a Demoniack, from the power of Satan. And that their Prayers were not Superstition upon this Supposition, may appear by alike In­stances; as, suppose you be absent from your Wife and Children, I hope you Pray for them when at a distance, supposing and believing them to be alive; but it's possible at the same time some of them may be dead, and you know it not. Will this Supposition, which is not then true, make your Prayers Superstition?

K. Ch. II. was Pray'd for publickly after he was Dead, for it could not be known at this distance. Were your Publick Prayers then for him, Superstition?

Obj. 2. You charge me with misrepresenting your Words and Fa­bulous Stories, Pag. 5. because I had said, That you deny, that a Natu­ral or Preternatural Distemper can be attended with a Devil; and that it was no good Argument to prove that Dick's was no Possession, because a Distemper. Lev. Pag. 7, 8.

Sol. 1. I did not say these particular Words were yours. But I'll tell you why I judg'd the Argument to be yours: 1. From P. 22. of Sur. Imp. to P. 28. you go about to prove Dugd. 's Fits to be a Cheat, or that there was nothing in his Fits, but what was Natural. Doth it not hence follow, that here was no Devil? Which to prove, you fetch in the Authority of Dr. Willis, Ratcliff, and Buckley. Ratcliff saith, Pag. 30. These strange Gestures and Actions were not Diabolical, but Preternatural. Whence you draw this Conclusion; You see by the help of my good Friends, I may hope to parallel the Surey Gambals, and satisfy all un­biass'd Persons; from the Symptoms that attend Convulsive Distempers; of what? That for any Feats shewn by Dick, there was no necessity for, and therefore no reason to admit the presence of Rich. Ludicrous Daemon, to Play the Merry-Andrew. Sur. Imp. Pag. 31.

Now this was either to prove from these Medium's, that it [Page 5] was a Cheat, or Natural Distemper, and therefore no Daemon; or it was not.

1. If it was not, to what end was it produced? and what signifies your Authorities? For I have told you, it might be a Cheat and Com­bination, and yet a Daemon; as in the Case of Ananias and Sapphira; and be sure there was a Distemper, as in those Demoniacks in Mat. 17. and Mark 9. And if this was all you intended to prove, why do you lay such heavy Charges against the Dissenters, for believing here was a Daemon; which you say, but do not yet prove, is an Imposture, and not to be believed to be a Daemon; but a wild Story.

2. If it was to prove that there was no Daemon, which your Words above seem to imply, then my Charge is not unjust.

And if your Whalley-Sermon advance the quite contrary Opinion, as you say, Lett. p. 5. which contrary Opinion is, if I mistake not, That because a Distemper, therefore attended with a Devil; and that you affirm, that Natural and Preternatural Distempers may be attended with a Devil. And if this be so, you quite give up the Cause. And why here might not be a Daemon, (for you have no other Argument I can find) I yet understand not from you.

Thus you kindly gratify the Dissenters; and with the leave of your Concession, they may (if they please) still believe a Surey-Demoniack; only you severely treat them about Matters of Fact, and the manner of their Management of the Affair. And indeed, if you had in the Spirit of Meekness, blamed them for it, and admonished them as mistaken Bre­thren; (tho' you be not their Diocesan;) and not Hectored, and treated them with so much Scorn and Disdain, to render them and their Party contemptible, I would not have blamed you. But, I admonish, I admonish, I admonish; and then immediately, Take them Derick; I like not. Meekness and Forbearance, is better than a Word and a Blow. The Apostle's Canon is better. Gal. 6. 1.

CHAP. II.
Nor of Superstition.

HAVING vindicated Dissenters from your Charge of Errours tending to Popery, I proceed farther to vindicate them from your Charge of Superstition; which was undertaken, Lev. Pag. 10, 11.

Now you say I impute to you, The charging Dissenters with [Page 6] Superstition, but produce not so much as one Place in all your Book, to Prove this Charge. Lett. pag. 6. To this, Mr. Taylor, hear my Defence.

1. I did, in the Lev. p. 10. give you part of the Words where you charge them with Superstition, in different Characters; and, but that I grudge the toil of transcribing your Sayings, I might have added more.

But now I will let the World have it. In your Preface, p. 1. This Trade which you have learned from the Papists, was designed to ensnare honest and well-meaning, but easy People; ( here you judge Hearts) for since neither you nor they can justify by Arguments, ( here is their Ignorance) your Superstitions, ( here is the present Charge) and Divisions from the Established Church; ( here is the next Charge) you were forced to fly to little Shifts and Tricks, that by working on weak Peoples Fancies, you might win those to your Party by Craft and Wiles, ( here's another Charge) which you could not by Reason and Religion.

Now let any impartial Man judge, whether I, or you, my unfriendly Friend, are to be blamed. Is there no Word in all your Book, nor one Place to prove the Charge?

I think you are too young to need Spectacles, else I could very well afford to buy a pair, to read your own Book; provided I might be saved the trouble of Transcribing. But at last, you honestly confess the Charge, Lett. p. 6. but with some unmannerly Rhetorick, which is no Logick.

But you have a High Charge against me, Pag. 6. which I must not over-run; and it's no less than BLASPHEMY.

I perceive I must be at the drudgery of transcribing again, or else you will say, I produce not one place in your Book, to Prove this; and then they that read your Book, and not mine, will say I belye you. Now your Charge is this.

I must rank him either amongst the Class of Ignoramus's, or I must make him to Blaspheme CHRIST. Lett. p. 6.

Really Mr. T. I will give you leave to call me an Ignoramus a thou­sand times, rather than to Blaspheme Christ; tho' I should hear of it out of Pulpits and Coffee-Houses, &c. as once befel a Jury, because out of Compliment to their Superiours, they would not find innocent Persons guilty, were called Ignoramus's. And to make me Blaspeme, you never shall; I hope I should rather suffer my Tongue to be pull'd out of my Mouth. But I suppose you mean, you will prove me a Balsphemer.

And if that be it, put in your Charge, and I will answer.

And let's put it to an impartial Jury. O Yes! hear the Indict­ment.

If the Greek Word [...] signify wholly, as he saith, a Fearing of Daemons, or Worshipping of Devils; CHRIST himself being [Page 7] called [...] Acts 17. 18. Let him tell me, if according to his Expo­sition of it, the Fearing of Christ may not be expounded by Jews and Pagans, for worshipping of Devils. Lett. p. 6. And what then? Am I a Blasphemer? GOD Forbid!

Now Gentlemen, hear my Defence.

1. Take notice, he falsly accuseth me. I did not say the Greek Word signifieth wholly a Worshipping or Fearing of Daemons. The Heathens did take it in a good sence, with respect to their own Daemons, which they worshipped; yet in this very Place, Acts 17. 18. they took it in a bad sence, as a strange Daemon; as when we say a False God; and Paul so took it, Verse 22.

2. I will yet tell you for once, seeing you ask it, Whether Fearing of Christ, may not be expounded by Jews and Pagans, Worshipping of Devils? I say, it may by them be so expounded, wickedly. Nay I'll tell you more; that they call Christ here, in Acts 17. 18. a Daemon; and so did the Jews, Joh. 8. 48. But pray' Friend what's that to me, that Jews and Pagans blasphemously call Christ a Daemon; or the Wor­shipping of Christ, the Worshipping of Devils? Did I ever call Christ a Daemon?

3. Do you think that Jews and Pagans did rightly call Christ a Daemon? Or is this one of his Names? (I hope, not to Bow the Knee to, when it's pronounc'd;) for then indeed your Accusation of Blasphemy might have had some Colour; and so to worship a Daemon, might be to worship Christ. And then to have called the worshipping of Christ in a good sence, as a true Object of Worship, A Worshipping of Devils, would have been Blasphemy.

4. But again, if you think that Christ was properly and truly called a Daemon, then Paul was as great a Blasphemer after his Conversion, as before: For he called the Pagans Worship, a Sacrificing to Daemons, not to God; and he would not have the Corinthians have Fellowship with Daemons. 1 Cor. 10. 10, 21.

What Paul! Would you not have Men to worship Daemons? Why Christ is a Daemon, and I hope we may worship Christ.

5. Now according to your Logick, you might very justly charge Dis­senters with the greatest Villanies and Blaspemies.

What Wretches! offer to cast a Daemon out of Dicky? VVhy Christ is a Daemon, (by a very good Token, Jews and Pagans call him so, and used the word properly; for Mr. T. hath told you, Christ himself is so called, Acts 17. 18.) And cast out Christ?

So Paul comes under Correction, by such a Reason. VVhat, have no Fellowship with Daemons? VVhy Christ is a Daemon, and must we not have Fellowship with him? (Is this the Reason, why some in the Pul­pits cry out against Dissenters, for talking of Communion with Christ.)

Nay Christ himself will come under Correction of Jews and Pagans, and Mr. T. for he cast out a Daemon: Did he cast out Himself? Such Divinity is like Christ Eating Himself.

And now Gentlemen, without Favour or Affection, Give in your Ver­dict, VVhether am I, or my Accuser, more Guilty of Blasphemy?

I remember a Story (for a diversion) of a young Scholar in the Univer­sity, when examined, what he remembred of a Sermon Preached by the Head of the Colledge; the said Head of the Colledge asked him, what was first, second, or third Grace that he had mentioned to one, being asked, VVhat was my second Grace? the Boy answered, Ignorance: No, said he, That's thy Grace, it's none of mine. So I fear the Blasphemy will be Yours, not Mine.

Mr. T. I would not willingly lay any thing to your charge unjustly; and therefore I read, and read again, and thought to see if I could put any other more favourable Construction upon your Words; and I am apt to think, (in Charity to you) there is some Mistake, either in Writer or Printer.

But the Charge being of so high a nature, I cannot tell how it can be proved in what you have said, but by this meaning, which is partly expressed, and partly necessarily implied in your Words, without forcing of them into Nonsence.

And if I mistake, I will once more beg your Pardon, (provided you quit me of so heinous a Crime) altho' you very unkindly denied me once before, when I desired it. For I perceive your Pardons are as hard to be obtained for Love, as Popish Indulgences, or an Absolution for some Folks without Money; unless it be to Scotch Converts.

One thing more, under this Head.

I did tell you, that some Persons would retort upon you the Charge of Superstition; for doing things in the Worship of God, which are nei­ther commanded by GOD or Men; and are not necessary Circum­stances of Decency or Order.

And it was Queried; Where are you commanded, to Bow to the East? or before the Altar to make Curt'sies? Where commanded to stand up at Te DEUM, Benedictus, Magnificat; or at Reading of Psalms? and bouncing and racketing, Priest one Verse, and People another? is this for Edification? Lev. p. 11.

I have sought for an Answer, but yet find none; for which in Civility I thank you, for easing me of so much Pains, of transcribing your Answer, and Replying; which I could easily have done, by the very Authority of a B. s Articles of Enquiry, into these Crimes before-mentioned, and some other Probation-Ceremonies of the same nature.

Farther, doth not he transgress a Rule or Canon, that goes beyond what's commanded, as he that comes short? Else, what a Gap would [Page 9] this open to an Inundation of Heathenish and Popish Rites, in the Worship of GOD, and all the Offices therein?

For why not Salt, Spittle, and Cream, and Chrisom in Baptism? Why not Crossing upon Crossing in all Parts of Divine Worship? and many other ridiculous Fopperies used in the Church of Rome. And for ought I know, if the Parson, Vicar, or Curate have a mind to use them, he may do it as lawfully, as Bow at the Altar, Stand-up at Te Deum, &c. and Racket the Psalms▪ which are no way for Edification, nor are com­manded by the Ch. of Engl.

And now I think I have cleared my Self from being a False Accuser and Blasphemer, and Dissenters from Superstition.

And leave you to vindicate your Self, or those that use Uncommanded Rites and Ceremonies, from the Crime of Superstition. Rom. II. 1.

And if Silence to what was offered in the Lev. be Consent, I know on what Hand Superstition lyes, by your Consent.

CHAP. III.
Nor of Schismatical Divisions.

NOW I proceed to your Charge of Divisions▪ and am glad, you have once Acknowledged, That I Charge you not Un­justly.

I endeavoured to Clear them from Sinful, Schismatical Divisions: And what say you to it?

You say, I pretend not to Vindicate them, as in other Cases, from the Guilt of it; but endeavour to Justify them in it. Lett. p. 7.

To this I say:

1. It's true thus far, That I vindicate them not from some Divisions; but justify them: i. e. Going to another Place, from your Church of Wigan to Billinge-Chapel or St. Elms. for I think I need not, I under­stand no Crime in either; and I gave you my Reason.

2. I justify them from Divisions in Doctrine, from the Establish'd Church; for they Subscribe all the Articles concerning Doctrine, and do not Preach against them when they have done. And so they divide not from you in Doctrine.

Obj. But Corah, Dathan and Abiram, &c. did Subscribe all the Arti­ticles of the Jewish Faith. P. 8. And what then?

Sol. 1. I have very often heard of these three Men, (as pertinently may be, as that of Rebellion being Witchcraft, which was Saul's Sin;) [Page 10] and I think them as bad Men as you can. But if really they Subscribed the Articles of the Jewish Faith, then in That they were neither Hereticks nor Schismaticks.

2. Dissenters say, They separate not from their Lawful Church-Governours; and 'till they be proved such Separatists, they are not to be charged with sinful Divisions.

Obj. But you call their Conventicles Schismatical, P. 20. Sur. Imp. and their Divisions, Unchristian. P. 69. Ibid.

Sol. You may call their Conventicles what you please; but it's one thing to say, and another to prove: For I remember not any thing Steely enough to force such a Conclusion, and Flinty Words will not do it.

Obj. Again, you are about it, and about it; and say, Hark my Friend, are not your Divisions Unchristian? Do not your Conventicles make a Division? and so are Schismatical; for these are both one.

Sol. Here's Learning, to puzzle Dissenters; but I dare venture it with some of the Lower Classes in Mr. Frank. Academy to Answer; will he not presently say, Syllogizari non est ex Particulari.

Then I'll venture to tell you, that All Divisions are not Unchristian, nor Schismatical; for if so, then they that in this Diocese divide from Chester-Cathedral, and go to worship God in other Churches and Cha­pels, are Unchristian and Schismatical. But I suppose you have some other Meaning.

Obj. But, Its Dissenters Divisions are Schismatical and Unchristian.

Sol. 1. In Answer to this I had given, Lev. p. 12. A Learned Man, no Dissenter, had call'd Schism an Ecclesiastical Scare-crow, and you call him a Socinian. But what's that to Dissenters? He was certainly a Ch. of E. Man. And let him be Socinian, Arminian, Calvinist, Papist, Millenary, in Doctrine; if he hath but a large Swallow, and can but Subscribe the Articles in Dr. Bramhall's, and some others new-invented Sence; and say he doth it Ex Animo, he is no Schismatick. And yet Heretick and Schismatick seem with St. Paul to be the same, 1 Cor. 11. And if Dissenters durst but say what they believe not, they would be no Schismaticks.

2. I told you, Lev. p. 12. That I had often heard and read, Prote­stants excuse themselves from the Guilt of SCHISM, which the Church of Rome charges them with, as you do Dissenters. Because that Church required as. Terms of Communion, things doubtful, unlawful, and sinful; and make the Papists the Schismaticks, who are the culpable Cause of Divisions; and produce Rom. 16. 17.

And I am apt to think, that if those that have the Rule in the Church would impose no other Terms of Communion, but what Christ the chief Ruler hath enjoyned, all serious Christians would live in Unity, tho' not in every thing in Uniformity. And what Authority any have, to impose more than Christ hath, I am yet to seek.

And this would be a Means to take away all Causes of Divisions, amongst the Pious, and Humble, and Charitable CHRISTIANS.

But for the Prophane, Irreligious, and Immoral, they will readily comply with that Party which either indulgeth them in their Lusts; or are most easy in overlooking, or censuring their Crimes.

And if any others be unruly, in breaking that Unity and Concord which Christ hath bounded, let the Pastors of the Churches, according to Christ's appointment, make use of the Spiritual Sword committed to them; and then, Valeat, quantum valere potest.

And for those Enormities peculiarly under the Jurisdiction of the Civil Magistrate, let them use their Sword, for the Punishment of Evil-doers.

3. Dissenters think the Protestants Arguments against the Church of Rome, will justify their present partial Withdrawing from the Ch. of E. And of this their General Argument you take no notice, tho' you had said, They cannot by Arguments justify their Divisions. Pref. p. 1. Surey Imp.

The Ch. of E. have it in their Power at any time, to remove the Schism so much complain'd of. Take but away all that Christ hath not com­manded, as Terms of Communion, and the Schism ceases. And it's hard, that Men should make those things Sin, which God hath not.

CHAP. IV.
Nor of Ignorance.

THE next Charge. They cannot by Arguments justify their Divi­sions from the Establish [...]d Church. In Answer to this, two things were said in the Lev.

1. Many Dissenters do not totally divide from the Establish'd Church; they frequent their Publick Assemblies, hear the Word, join in their Prayers, and some in the Lord [...]s Supper, and in all things that Christ hath enjoyned as Terms of Communion; and leave them only in those things they think to be unlawful, that are of meer Humane Institution.

2. It was also said, That Dissenters are not so ignorant, but they have something to say for themselves. And four Arguments were pro­duced. And what do you say?

1. You acknowledge, You charge them home with Ignorance. Pag. 12. and, That you are still of the same Mind. And give your Reasons, why you charged them with Ignorance; because they could not under­stand Arabick Characters, and some Cyphers, and suffered a Female-Friend to be call'd Ishcol; and at last you crow, What saith my Friend? Profound Silence! And you say true in that; for I never undertook to [Page 12] meddle with Matters of Fact. And it was only undertaken to vindicate them from Ignorance in matter of Argument, to prove that they can justify themselves from the Charge of Divisions, &c.

But for Matters of Fact, I am still of the same Mind, and I will not meddle, tho' you call me Ignoramus for it; but shall leave it to Mr. C. and you, if you think it worth the while to wrangle it out; for such Pedantry is no way edifying to me.

2. But what say you to their Arguments I am content here to attend a Tryal of Skill.

Obj. 1. Their first Argument was: They cannot think it lawful for any body to command things in the Worship of God, of the same nature, use, significancy and end, with God's own Appointments; when there is no difference, but God Commands the one, and Men the other; and make them necessary Terms of Communion. And they instance in the Cross about Baptism, a Humane Sacrament. Lev. p. 12.

Sol. To this you say: 1. If I knew not the Doctrine of the Church of Eng. I am still an Ignoramus; If I do know, 'tis a damnable Scandal. I shall be now gored sure, with the one Horn; yet I'll go on, here's yet no Blood. Of this afterward.

2. They calling the Cross a Humane Sacrament, you are in a Huff, and cry out, A Humane Sacrament! Prythee Friend talk Sence.

Repl. I reply, pray you Friend be not too hasty; I perceive you know not who you speak to. But I'll not take ill your Familiarity, provided you will have Patience to hear my Defence. For I cannot easily be per­swaded I talk Nonsence; if I find I have done so, I'll ask Dissenters Pardon, for representing their Arguments in Nonsence; and it shall be hard but you and I will part Friends about this Matter.

Mr. T. Why may not I, betwixt you and me, call the Cross a Humane Sacrament?

1. You are Book-learned, and therefore know the general Notion of a Sacrament; you know in the Greek it signifies a Mystery▪ and amongst the Latins it was a Military Term, something like our Press-Money. Now suppose I should say, there are Sacraments Humane, Divine, and Diabolical, I hope you would not again accuse me of Blasphemy.

Now the Heathens Mysteries and Sacraments were Diabolical, because instituted by the Devil, who enjoined them by his Oracles.

The Romans Sacraments of old were Humane, whereby they engaged their Soldiers; tho' may be sometimes, by some of their Religious Cere­monies, as an Oath for Confirmation. However, they were but of Mens Institution.

But there are other Sacraments amongst Christians, of which Two are of Divine Institution. But pray' what are the other Five, which the Pa­pists add? Why will you not admit them to be Sacraments? Is not one [Page 13] Reason, because they are but of Humane Institution? And what Contradi­ction in Terms, if they be called Humane Sacraments? At best, the Cross is Divine in its End, Use and Significancy, but Humane in its Institution.

But if that Term will not yet please, I told you we would yet part Friends, or it shall be your Fault; for I love not to contend de Lana Ca­prina. Therefore, if you will, call it a Humane Appointment; and then, Is it lawful for any body to command things in the Worship of God, of the same nature? &c.

Obj. 1. And now Dissenters say, the Cross is such a Humane Appoint­ment; and how do you answer this?

Sol. I might have found the Cross in Baptism to be no Humane Sacra­ment, if I would have consulted Can. 30. p. 14. say you.

Repl. Sir, I am not so prejudiced against the C. of E. but I will very willingly hear what she can say for her self; yea I would justify her as far as I am able. And if you knew me, I think you would not be so harsh in your Censures of me. Therefore that I might not be partial or unjust, I did consult her Rubrick, and Offices, and Canons, particularly Can. 30. and this you will find anon.

Obj. 2. Their second Argument was, They think it not lawful ( some of them) to kneel in receiving the Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper.

Sol. To this you say, My Friend is bewildred, &c. and you ask me a very important Question, Do the Papists receive Wine in that Sacrament?

Now for this time, rather than fall out with you, I'll answer you, The Papists do receive Wine in that Sacrament, unless the Priests be no Pa­pists? Just such a Learned Question once was asked, in as good earnest as yours. Pray' Sir, will you tell me one thing; What's that? Is the Pope a Papist? Am I now bewildred?

Having told you of Dissenters Offence at Kneeling, I thought good to conceal their Argument; not that they are contemptible, but that I durst not Vouch for them; and so eased you of the trouble of Answering them: Yet desired modestly your help to answer one thing I had heard some of them object, which I could not answer my self.

Obj. The thing was this. Some of them think it hard, that for doing, or offering to do as the Apostles did at the Sacrament of the Lord [...]s Supper, they should be peremptorily denied that Ordinance: When by the same Reason, if the Apostles were on Earth, and offered to do as they did, even in the Presence, and with the Approbation of their Master, they must be denied it.

Now really Mr. T. you are very unkind here; for you give me no help to answer them; but twit me with my Ignorance, when I had confessed it in this Case; and had told you, I was not able to answer them. Was this ingenuous? When in earnest, I would have thanked you, ac­cording to promise. But what say you to this Scruple of Dissenters?

[Page 14] Sol. You cry, A sad Story! if it be true; and is this all? No, here's more. When-ever you can prove that the Apostles used the Posture that the Presbyterians now do, I will engage our Church shall indulge you and your Brethren in the capricious Liberty of their pretended Con­sciences. Really, a great and kind Undertaking. For my self, you know, I need not the Indulgence; but I should be glad of it, for honest Dissenters sake. Yet I much question the Performance. For, if you should give it to any that Kneel not, the Penalty is Suspension, by Can. 27. And I doubt you would scarce run such a Hazard, for the capricious Scruplers.

Repl. Yet I fancy the Presbyterians will say, They do use the same Posture, for they Sit: Which was their Table-Gesture.

You will say, I know the Apostles Posture was Discumbency; or a kind of Leaning and Lolling in one another's Bosom. But again they will say, Whatever the Manner was, whether cross-leg'd, or with their Feet under them, or Leaning sideway on their Elbow, still it was Sitting however.

Yet still my Scruple remains. For if Christ's Apostles were now on Earth, and would receive it in the same Gesture they did receive it from their Master, and not Kneel, they must be denied it, by the C. of E. on pain of Suspension. For let Men be never so pious, holy, and good, they must Kneel, or else be left in the same Predicament with the most prophane Drunkards, Swearers, &c. Yea much worse, (which I almost tremble to write▪) for these, if they will but Kneel, cannot be denied; nor are they, that ever I heard of.

Obj. 3. Dissenters Third Argument. The imposing and tying of Men to a particular Form of Worship, ( without Authority from God) from which none shall vary, is an Invasion of GOD's Prerogative; and an Impeaching of his Wisdom; as if Men knew better than himself, what Form or manner of Service were fittest for him. And what say you to this?

Sol. 1. You tell me of a Parliament, &c.

Repl. But I think Dissenters here meddle not with Parliaments, but with the Ch. of Engl. in their Canons and Book of Common Prayers, and other Rites and Ceremonies, &c.

Sol. 2. You say, I am a pleasant Spark indeed; and then ask me another grave Question. Tell me, is Reading GOD's Word, Repeating his own Commandments, Professing our Christian Faith, Addressing our selves to him in his beloved Son's own Name, making Laws for him to obey?

Repl. I answer, this is not making Laws for him no obey. But why did you ask this Question? I could also ask you Questions; but why should we trouble our selves and others, with asking and answering im­pertinent Questions? This looks like a Blind, to escape the Force of Dissenters Arguments unobserved. For they will say,

[Page 15] 1. That it's Terms of Communion which God hath not commanded in his Word, and it's the Ch. of Engl.'s Form of Worship, which they mean, which is imposed; which God must have, or none; and which all must use, or be punished. This is making Laws, for God to obey.

2. For Reading of God's Word, and Praying in his own Son's Name, they do constantly so Worship God, because God himself hath enjoined it. But what's this to their Argument? I think I may promise, in behalf of Dissenters, If the C. of E. will impose no more on them, than these necessary things, they will chearfully obey, and thankfully comply.

3. But if God must not have his Worship in Baptism, unless the Minister do also Sign with the Sign of the Cross; and God shall not have his Worship in the Lord's Supper, unless Men will receive the Bread and Wine Kneeling; or if God shall not have his Worship in Prayer, unless the Minister say over so many Pater-nosters, and observe so many Ups and Downs, so many Cringes and different Postures, in one and the same Service; Standing up at the same Scripture read at one time, not at another; Saying Aloud at one time, not at another: Then Dissenters think this an Imposing upon God, making Laws for him to obey; and that with a Penalty; for he must have this, or none.

And 'till you have fairly answer'd this, I shall not think Dissenters so Ignorant as you represent them, ‘As not to be able by Arguments to to Justify, what you call, their Superstitions, and Divisions from the Established Church. Sur. Imp. Pref. p. 1.’

I must again be tormented with answering a wise Question, or else I shall disoblige you, and forfeit the kind Appellation you give me, of Good Man. Friend, what's this Cramp Question?

Qu. ‘Pray' tell me, ( this is mannerly) what you call them, that make God to be content with whatever comes next their Tongues-end? Lett. p. 15.’

Answ. 1. I answer, If Men Swear and Lie, or Engage themselves in the Name of God to do any unlawful thing, or rashly take an Oath, without any regard to the Matter, whether right or wrong; or whether they know what it is, or not: Yet rather than lose their Preferment, will say what comes next Tongues-end. I'll give you leave to name them; and it shall be a very hard one, if I consent not.

But not to escape in the dark, I will be open with you.

Answ. 2. If in their Prayers, any make God content with whatever comes next to their Tongues-end, and not from their Heart; I think, with your leave, they cannot make God content with them; for he requires Truth in the inward Parts. And if you will, call them Takers of God's Name in vain.

Qu. Yet another Question. ‘How I'll call them, that will not be at the pains to compose a Sober Form of Worship for God, but too often [Page 16] foam out their own Shame, and yet are not ashamed to entitle it to, but will needs have God admit it, for the Groans of his Spirit. P. 15.’

Answ. 1. If you mean by Sober, a Grave and Serious Form of Prayer, if any Person do Compose a Form in apt and pertinent, intelli­gible Words, fit to express the Lawful Desires of the Heart, and to raise their Affections of Hope and Confidence in God, I would highly com­mend them. But if they should be so in love with their own Prayer, as to tye all others to their very Words, and none other; especially if they mix with their Form uncommanded Rites and Ceremonies, under a pretence of Decency; I would say they are proud and conceited, and assume an Authority that doth not belong to them.

Answ. 2. I did never hear any such Prayers, as you speak of; nor any affirm, that what comes next Tongues-end, or that foam out their Shame, and call them, the Groans of the Spirit. But I doubt too many say and read their Prayers, only at their Tongues-end; that have no more to think of, but how to Turn-over their Book-leaves, and Read right.

Answ. 3. If any Minister in Publick conceive a Prayer, and speak it in apt Words, (especially in Scripture-Words) with Humility and Re­verence; and the Matter be Lawful, and in the Name of Christ offered up to the Throne of Grace, I would very heartily say Amen to it; and believe God will graciously accept it from an honest Heart.

And 'tis strange, that Ministers should be discouraged from Improving their Gifts, either in Composing or Conceiving such Prayers, as (I think) have been found by Experience, so much tending to Edification and Con­solation; and (I suppose) so esteemed formerly, by the most serious Men of the C. of E. who, 'till of late, constantly used them in the Pulpit.

And some B's put it into their Articles of Enquiry, at their Visitations: Do you know of any Parson, Vicar, or Curate, that never Pray before their Sermons? The restraining of which, or discouraging at least, is thought by some one Occasion of so many raw Divines, weak and ignorant, while they need no other Qualification to perform their Office, than to be able to Read well; that being the chief Work. And for Preaching, the Reading of Homilies and other Mens Sermons, recommended by a R. R. B. to Young Ones, with a Grace, or with the Spirit of Confidence, (as a Dignitary used to Pray, in a composed Form) is sufficient. Tho' this is by others thought a Discouragement to Industry, and an Occasion of Sloth, Idleness, and worse.

Obj. 4. The Fourth Argument of Dissenters was this, Lev. p. 13. Some of them think it no less than Sacriledge, to transfer the Ends of God's Sa­craments to their own Appointments: For they think we are Baptized, in token, hereafter we shall not be ashamed, &c. And that Baptism is the Honourable Badge, whereby the Infant is Dedicated to the Service of Him that Died on the Cross; and should not be attributed to the Sign of the Cross. What say you to this Argument of Dissenters?

[Page 17] Answ. 1. You say, That Baptism is perfect without the Cross, Can. 30. and you say true. But they will Reply,

Repl. 1. They therefore think it unlawful for Men to add something of their own, to that which is well and perfect already, according to Divine Appointment. Pray Friend, for once, let me ask a Question.

Quest. What is Crossing good for?

Sol. Why you'll say, It's an Honourable Badge, whereby the Infant is Dedicated to the Service of Him that Died on the Cross.

Repl. 2. This is another thing, Dissenters are offended at: That the same Honour should be put upon an aerial transient Sign of the Cross, of Men's Institution, that belongs to Baptism, a Sacrament of God's Institution. And they think it inexcusable Presumption and Arrogance, to set a Man's Badge, Cheek by Chawl, with Christ's Badge.

Answ. 3. You say, The Canon refers not to the Sign of the Cross, more than Baptism.

Repl. 3. But the Canon speaks only of the Sign of the Cross, when it says, It's a Lawful outward Ceremony, and Honourable Badge, &c.

Dissenters have objected, These Ends of Baptism should not be attri­buted to the Sign of the Cross. The Child is Dedicated already by Bap­tism, and therefore needs not, should not be Dedicated by the Cross.

Answ. 4. To this you say; I should have given this malicious Reflection a hard Name, but that I pity my Friend's Ignorance.

Repl. 4. Truly Mr. T. it's not well done to pity, and give no help to Answer Dissenters. I doubt something pinches, that provokes you. But may be I may have some Relief; for,

Answ. 5. You say, Dedicate, among other things, is to Deliver up, with some Solemnity, what belongs to another. And so the Child, by the Sign of the Cross is solemnly Dedicated to Christ, to whom he doth belong by Baptism.

Rep. 5. This is fine indeed: The Child is Dedicated by the Cross, who was before Dedicated by Baptism: So you take upon you to mend what was perfect before. And this is another Instance of your impeaching the Wisdom of GOD.

Lastly, Dissenters said, That Infants are Baptized, in Token hereafter, they shall not be Ashamed, &c. and so should not be Cross'd for the same thing. But you have Cross enough, and say nothing to this.

Now suppose a Person comes, with Authority, under the K.'s Broad Seal, to Execute an Office; and some Man should come and say, You shall not act, unless you have my Seal also. Would not this be accounted a Crime of an high nature?

And if you will not take it ill, I'll tell you of a fifth Argument. They can­not Read that which tells you, the Angel Raphael was the Son of Ananias the Great. An Angel, begotten by Man! and call it a Lesson; and justify, That it's either the pure Word of God, or, that which is agreeable to the same. But every body is in haste to over-run this.

CHAP. V.
Nor of Knavery; nor the Author Guilty of what Mr. T. accuses him of.

ANOTHER Thing charged by you on Dissenters, was, Knavery. To this you confess the Charge; but say, So conscious is he, that he cannot acquit them of it, that in his Book he drops it. P. 15.

Now I'll tell you, why I dropt it.

1. I found a General Charge of Knavery; Sur. Imp. Pref. p. 1. This their Knavery, as well as yours, was discovered. But I found no particular Instances: And would you have me to forge for you Instances, to prove your General Charge.

2. I looked upon your word Knavery, as only Billinsgate-Rhetorick; or a Malignant Reflection upon the Party; where I thought you very unjust, and therefore dropt it.

And you needed not to have given your self so much trouble, in searching your Book for all the Crimes, mentioned to be charged upon them; all are in the very first Page of the Preface of your Sur. Impostor. And the next Charge of Injustice also, in Reflecting upon the whole Party of Dissenters, for the Miscarriages of a few.

In Pag. 15. of your Lett. you say, There is one thing remains, and that most plausible in all my Friend's Book, that I have charged on the whole Party, the Miscarriages of a few. And farther you say, Tho' my Friend lay this to my Charge, yet he produceth not one Instance.

Now Mr. T. in Answer to this, I will shew you the Reason, why I accused you of laying the Miscarriages of a few on the whole Party; and let the Reader judge, whether I have wronged you.

1. The Reason of the Charge, was from your Words in the Preface, Pag. 1. I must, say you, acquaint (viz. the Reader) that it's an old Juggle that your Predecessors the Puritans practised; but their Knavery, as well as yours, was discovered. Here's Puritans and Dissenters, in­definitely. And Pref. pag. 3. The Party, I imagine, ceased from such Religious Interludes. By which we have reason to suspect, the Party to Play-over an Old Game. And P. 6. which you mention: If we be found tripping here­in, we expose not only our selves, but our whole Party; especially if the Leaders of them, as in the present Case, be conspiring with us, to promote the Intrigue.

Now Mr. T. if you did not reflect upon the Party, what means th [...]se Expressions? I would not willingly put worst Constructions upon Words. But let any impartial Man that reads this, and observes the whole Scope of your Book besides, judge whether you be unjustly charged with reflecting on the whole Party, for the sake of a few.

[Page 19] 2. The Reason why I brought no Instance, you had before. But are you not to blame, to call a Man a Thief, tho you bring no Instances; and the more faulty, if you can find none? And yet you still go about to vindicate your Charge, and fall foul on the Dissenters, because they are not of your Mind, to think the Demoniack was a Cheat; (and your self charge not this upon Dissenters truly, unless you contradict your self) and that they did not by some Overt-Act, Censure it. As if every idle Book and Story, published by Men of C. of E. and not Censured by an Overt-Act, did involve them in the same Guilt with the Editors.

And you go on, here were 17 Ministers, one way or another, concerned in the Narrative. And what of all this? Here were two Compilers of the Narrative; but you charge them not with being the Authors of the Imposture, nor Contrivers of it.

Six you call Assisters. How are they assisting? Not to carry on an In­trigue or a Cheat, you are not so hardy as to affirm it. But they Fasted and Pray'd, or Preach [...]d, and what hurt in this?

Seven you call Attestors. But what do they attest? Not the Truth of the Imposture, but they believe the Truth of the Affidavits; and that D.'s strange Fits were by a Diabolical Power. And where is their Fault? Be­lieving Men, upon their Oaths and Declarations, who were Eye-Winesses, and whom they had no reason to suspect of Falshood; attesting nothing but what many others saw, and which your self deny not to be true.

Again, there might be 50 Hearers, and for ought I know, 500 Hearers and Seers at one time or other: Must these be all Dissenters, and Ac­cessaries? Some it may be, will say, It's so much liker to be no Cheat, when all was done above-board; and many, not only Seers and Hearers, but of the Witnesses, C. of E. Men.

And when all's done, how can you tell here was no Devil in the Case? (some Arguments looking that way, to prove no Devil, you disclaim) And whether you have any more. I find not.

And in fine, you Self quit all Dissenters from the Imposture, only so far as they were credulous, and were imposed upon; and as guilty of Pride, and Vain glory, and Insincerity.

And if they were credulous, it's not the only Property of Dissenters; for B. Hall, you hear, was so; and tho you pretend his Youth, when the thing was done; yet when he wrote his Book, he was old enough to judge; and it's probable had seen or heard of Harsnet's Book.

But for their Pride, Vain-glory, and Insincer [...]ty, Lyes and Forgeries, which are all I remember you charge them with, (excepting what hath been spoken to already) if they, or any of them can be proved Guilty, (which will be hard for some of those Crimes to be, unless you could see into Hearts) then I shall heartily say Amen to your Prayer, That GOD would open their Eyes, that they may repent, (the almost only serious [Page 20] Words I have met with in both your Books;) And I would pray farther, That God would Pardon them, tho' I doubt you will not.

And now, whether Dugdale's Tricks were from a Cheat, or a Distem­per, or from Possession, Obsession, or all these, I am not concerned. But something here was strange, and unusual, and unaccountable, by what I can judge from what all Parties say. But in one thing I take my self concerned, which is, whether the Word Obsession be a Ch. of E. Word; for I had said, that it's to be found in Can. 72.

Mr. T. to this you say, p. 9. The Dissenters finding the Pretence there Censured, out of that Spirit of Contradiction to the Ch. of E. which they mostly act by, (this is very charitable) may be supposed not only to make use of the Word, but the Imposture also, which is there condemned. Here I confess I am bewildred, and by a croud of Words brought into such a Cloud, that I know not where to find you, or what you intend. Let the Canon 72 be consulted, and I find not, either, 1. That they made a Canon to condemn Obsession, Word or Thing, no more than Possession; nor do they say it's a Popish Word. 2. Nor do they condemn Fasting and Prayer, upon such Occasion; but with the B.'s Licence, they may Fast and Pray; as some did in Norwich, (if I remember the Place) with a Boy that was supposed to be Obsessed or Possessed; (Here was Prayer, upon a Suppo­sition: For how could they be sure?) with the Licence of the then B. of Chester. And now take heed of Belying your Mother. And I wish (not for any Virtue in a B.'s Licence) for Caution, Dissenters had ac­quainted the B. or some others of the Ch. of Engl. and advised with more Learned Physicians, about this Case.

Pag. 10. You charge me unjustly, Mr. T. in saying, I would make the World believe, that you were intimate to W. C.'s Intrigue. And tho' you never saw the Man, you might hear of his Hypocritical Carriage at Kirkham, where I suppose you have some Relations. And the things were not done in Secret, but generally known, and spoken of. And I had heard you were informed of his Tricks, about that Business; and withal, that you said you would inform the B. which was honest. And it never entred into my Thought, that you were accessary to the Intrigue. I see your Eyes are not yet Cured, Prejudice is powerful.

Again, I had said, P. 18. Lev. The B. of C. would never have conni­ved at W. C. if he had known such things of him, &c. much less collated him. Here you catch me; for it seems he was not Collated. Now I'll easily confess my Ignorance and Mistake: For he being in the Place near two Years, I thought it rational to believe he was Collated, however the other word Connived you acknowledge. And if W. C. gave any good Satisfaction, or did any Penance proportionable to his Offences commit­ted, so little a while before he went thither, I am glad of it. And being gone, you shall hear no more of him from me, farther than in my own [Page 21] necessary Vindication. But there are some Passages in your Lett. p. 12. you charge on me, as an Untruth; viz. That I would insinnate a Licence to another Cure, viz. N. Chappel; Mr. Taylor, this is your Untruth. I said he was Introduced, you say this is notoriously false. Pray' Sir, what is false? Did he not Preach at N. Chappel? and some tell me, sometimes at Manchester Church. But say you, Ibid. All that was done, was at the Importunity of the Presbyterian Party. You here take a Travellers Li­berty. For the Presbyterians at Newton kept up their distinct Meetings all the time, and so did the Presbyterians in Mott Parish, and do still to this day. And is this like the Presb. Party importuning for him or Grey?

And then follows a doleful Story of a Vicar, &c. and I can tell you of another Story, ‘Of one that in a Vicar's Church sate Weeping, while the Communion-Office was in hand; to see the Symbols of Christ's Body broken, and his Blood shed; tho' he must not eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup, because he durst not Kneel.’ And what good Man had not cause to be grieved, when he durst not administer to such a Pious Man, as I believe he esteemed this to be, for fear of Suspension?

Now I return to your P. 18. and I am accused of bringing in an Argu­ment, which you say is Mine, not Yours. To this, I would not willingly misrepresent what you have written, nor would I mistake your meaning; but I ll tell you what led me so to understand you, and if I be mistaken, I'll not persist in it. You, P. 32. of Sur. Imp. undertook to shew two things.

1. That Dugd. was not possessed by the Devil.

2. That if he was, he found no Benefit at all by those erroneously Religious Offices that they performed for him.

1. To the first I expected your Proof, and you go over his Tricks, &c. and at last conclude, P. 56. ‘I can find nothing in our Surey-Spark, from whence we may conclude him a Demoniack. But then to gratify Ministers, I will suppose he was so; and shew,’

2. ‘That he found no Benefit by their Prayers, &c.’ a very bold At­tempt. Now how do you shew this? First, you bring in Dicky as a true Prophet, who had said, ‘They were not able to perform what they had promised.’ Then you bring in Dugd. the Father, saying, ‘That after the Ministers had left him, he had several Fits. Then Walmsley says, Notwithstanding M. J. C. and others Preach'd and Pray'd by Ri. his Fits continued as violent as before, to the last Fit.’ Upon which you make this Inference, P. 57. ‘Doth this look like casting out the Devil?’ Now if this be not your Argument to prove your Assertion, I find none, viz. ‘To prove, That Dick found no Benefit by their Prayers.’ Which was to be Proved. So you undertake to shew, what you either cannot, or will not.

Again, I had said, What were those Offices which you call erroneously Religious, were they Fasting and Prayers? If you exclude Fasting from being Religious Worship, (Erroneously there is among the Errata) Dissenters will not quarrel with you.

[Page 22] To this you have a witty Reflection, P. 19. which I'll leave to those that are disposed to make merry with your Rhetorick: But must tell you, Dissenters are not against Fasting, to keep under the Body; nor as a Help in Religious Worship. And methinks this might have passed, when many C. of E. will not allow Preaching to be Religious Worship.

Your next Witticism is; ‘If it was conceived in a Barn, viz. Prayers, it was the fittest Place for them to be begotten in.’

Good Sir, is the Worship of God any worse, because in a Barn? Did not David worship God acceptably on a Barn-Floor? 2 Sam. 24. 18, 19. Was not a Stable the first place where Christ, after his Incarnation, was worshipped.

Again, I am here blamed, for not having Wit to stop at a Proverb, but marr [...]d it with an Explanation. And indeed here you are in the right; for if the Explanation had been mine, it had been marr'd.

But I believe E. Johnston your Publisher, can assure you, (and I wonder he did not) that presently after he had received the Lev. he had a Note of Errata's, one of which was this; P. 26. l. 19. After Sands, add an absurd Inference, vid. Ray's Prov. p. 195. Ibid. dele the four next Lines, which were not in the M. S. And who put them there, I cannot tell.

Yet P. 21. I have a Flirt for something in my Lett. P. 27. That I am blind as Tobit. I perceive something pleaseth not; but you have the Prudence to pass it over, and are in haste, as well as another of your Friends. And for Dr. Chew's Certificate I need not tarry, for Dick never had Fit after the first Dose.

But you say, P. 22. I have a fling at the Largeness of Dioceses, in Lev. P. 18. To this you say, But he would do well to consider, whether he doth not by this spit in the Face of Christ, (God forbid) and his Apostles; whose Oecumenical Provinces were something larger than the largest of our Dioceses.

Mr. T. are you here in earnest? Or you thought to try whether you could put a Trick upon your ignorant Friend; if this latter, you should not have jested at the Name of Christ, when you bow at the Name Jesus.

But if you are in earnest, to justify your large Dioceses, by the Exam­ples of Christ and his Apostles, then you have spun a fine Thread for your self and many of your worthy Brethren. For if B's must have as large Dioceses as Christ and his Apostles, as a H. 8. would make merry with a great Revenue of B's Lands, and have something to say; One B. in England is enough, and more than needs, when Thirteen will serve all the World. And then you and many of your worthy Brethren are like never to wear Lawn Sleeves.

Yet I am not so wedded to my own Opinion, but if you can find One to succeed Christ in his Oecumenical Province, of the same Natures, Gifts, Wisdom, Abilities and Authority, for the Performance of the Function, I will not spit in his Face, but submit.

[Page 23] And if you can find 12 Men with the same Commission, endowed with the same extraordinary Gifts, and so filled with the Spirit of GOD, as the Apostles, I'll submit, and we'll be Friends still.

In the same, P. 22. you are in a Huff; and I observe, where I need most of your Help, you are most out of Humor.

I told you, Lev. p. 18. I had a Scruple about a Prayer in the Litany, used generally in K. J.'s time, who was a Papist, viz. That it may please thee to keep and strengthen in the true worshipping of thee, in righteous­ness and holiness of life thy Servant, our most gracious K. and Governour. And the Reason of my Scruple was, because Popish Worship is Idolatrous; and it seemed hard for Protestants, to Pray that he might be kept and strengthened in Idolatry.

To this you say, Is Popery such a mass of Idolatry, that there is no piece of true Worship in it? Do they not worship God, &c. And was not this that True Worship we prayed God to keep him in?

Here you are in haste again, but I must tarry by it; for my Scruple is increased, by multiplied Thoughts of some Things following.

1. By the by, I observe how tenderly you deal by the Papists; their Worship is true, when Dissenters is erroneously Religious Worship. But let that pass.

2. I have been told, (but not learned it from Mr. Frankl.) that the Popish Worship is Idolatrous.

3. I have been told also by more than Dissenters, that Idolatrous Wor­ship mixed with something of True Worship, doth defile the whole. And their Liturgy is Idolatrous, as denominated from the worst Part, (and perhaps the greatest) as a Drop of Poison in a Cup of Wine.

4. Doth not the Church of Rome Worship by their Breviary and Mass-Book, as the C. of E. by their Common Prayer, which they call Divine Ser­vice? And is not their Missal and Breviary Idolatrous Worship? Tho' in some part of it they pray to God in the Name of Christ; tho' it may be, oftener to Saints and Angels, or to God through their Intercession. And is this a sufficient Reason to justify Protestants Praying to keep them. and strengthen them in the true worshipping? &c. Yes, when it's safe for you to drink a Glass of Wine with Poison in it, because it's but a Drop; but there is a great deal of Good Wine.

5. Do you think this of yours, was the Sence of the first Composers of this Petition; that it might be Prayed for a Popish K. or Q?

6. But here is implied a positive Assertion, that K. J. worships God truly, and not a bare Supposition. But if it were but upon Supposition, that you Pray thus for him, then it's Superstition at the best, according to your own Doctrine.

7. A Papist will say, If our Worshipping God be such, that you can lawfully pray God to keep and strengthen us in it; why did you separate [Page 24] from our Worship? You'll say, We separate not, so far as it's true. And so will Dissenters say, We separate not from Ch. of Engl. so far as their VVorship is good; only from uncommanded Rites and Ceremonies.

8. Did you not mean, when you Prayed for C. II. (best of K's said many) a Protestant K. that he might be kept and strengthened in the true Pro­testant Worship, or the Common Prayer Worship, and not turn from it. And must not the words still have the same sence?

Ob. But farther you say, Was not thus Praying for him, the best means to reclaim him from his false Worship? A means, the best means, thus to Pray.

Sol. 1. This might be pretended a means to keep him from turning Turk or Infidel, if the Prayer had been, to keep and strengthen him in the Christian VVorship and Religion.

2. Was not this liker to harden him in his false Worship? when you at the same time acknowledge his VVorshipping, without Ifs or Ands, to be true, and pray that he may be strengthened in it.

3. VVould not this be an odd way to convert a Papist, by praying thus with him, and for him? Lord keep him in the true worshipping of thee; might he not say, I thank you Sir for your good Prayers, for I perceive I am already in the true Worshipping of God, and so have no need to change my Church.

4. But was this the best Means? verily I think you are not so ignorant, but you can readily think of many better Means. And in my Mind, the one honest Priest of the C. of E. found out a much better Means, when he changed those words into such as these; That God would direct; and bring him into, and keep and strengthen him, in the true worshipping of him. In a word, Would it not be a strange hearing, for Men in the Liturgy to Pray for the Pope, that God would keep and strengthen him in the true worshipping of him; and to say this is the best means to reclaim him. The Israelites might thus have prayed for Jeroboam, for Ahaz, &c. yea, may you not thus pray for the Turk, that God would keep and strengthen him, &c. If you say he doth not worship God truly; yes, may it be answered, he owns the true God, and worships him. And this is the best Means to reclaim him from that part of his Worship that is false.

The Sum of all is, If Men have but the Conscience to Subscribe to they know not what, that they never read; or may have the liberty to put their own fancied Meanings upon things commanded, and subscribed to; they may subscribe to the Alchoran, and make a shift to put a plau­sible Sence upon it; (as S. Clara, who makes the Articles of the C. of E. agree with the Articles of the Council of Trent;) and it seems may also lawfully pray for the Turk and Pope; and say to God, That it may please thee to keep and strengthen them in the true worshipping of thee, &c. And according to Mr. T. as the best means to reclaim them from their false VVorship.

[Page 25] Your last thing observable, is P. 23. where you justify your self for all your ill Words and hard Speeches; from the Examples and Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles.

Really Mr. T. this is a Boldness that some tender-hooft Men (as they call them in derision) would startle and boggle at.

What, compare your self with Christ and his Apostles? I'll say this, when you know Mens Hearts as Christ did, when you have the Spirit of Discerning, as the Apostle had; you shall have my consent, to call Men Hypocrites and Insincere, &c. Provided always you be not too hasty, as some of the Disciples were, Luke 9. 54, 55. and be sure it be in a Good Cause, Gal. 4. 18. and that you have a Call to it; lest some of your Brethren should blame you for arrogating to your self, from Tit. 1. 10, 13. that which they account the proper Work of your Diocesan. And if you have a Mind to assume the Authority of Christ, to call Men Satan, (for it seems you'll allow Peter to have a Devil, tho' Dugd. none) It may possibly be as good a warrant for others to call you a Devil; that is, a False-Accuser, or Slanderer. 2. Tim. 3. 3.

CHAP. VI.
ANSWER, to P. S.

I Am now arrived at your P. S. and you produce Two Letters, to Justify the R. R. the L. B. of C. &c. and Mr. Gr.

Mr. T. whatever you insinuate, I have a tenderness for the Reputation of that worthy Person; and therefore when I understood that a Lover of him had sent him Word, That it was not for his Honour to suffer W. C. &c. I hoped it might be a sufficient Caution. And therefore in the Lev. I did lay the Blame where I think it still lies: viz. On those that should have been more Faithful to him; and I am the more confirmed in my Opinion, by these very Letters you produce, in Justice to the B. and to Mr. Gray.

For in the first Lett. who this R. T. is, or who His Worship is, I am not concerned: But I suppose he is not the Presbyterian Party you spake of at P. 11. At whose Request, the B. admitted G. to the Order of Deacon.

But whoever he is, I doubt he is Partial; he told the Bishop of Gr's Crime, but did he tell him of any Satisfaction he had made, for so Publick a Scandal? Yes, he turned Conformist, and all on a Push skipped over to the C. of E. doubtless by immediate In­spiration, by the Hopes of better Preferment than among Dissenters. Is this Satisfaction?

This R. T. reflects on Dissenters, and therefore cannot be thought their Representative to the B.

But he formerly Observed, (I perceive he's a Man of Observation, and may be an Observable Man too) when some weak or debauch'd Minister served in the Place, there was but little Reflection: A Debauch'd, and no Reflection; it may be, not by his Society; but there might by Dissenters, sorrowing and mourning, for what they could not Reform: Nor when a weak Minister; truly a weak Minister might be Pious and Godly, and might do his best, and then Charity forbad Reflection.

But now Mr. Gray, a very able Minister, (sure this is some fit Judge) he was not reflected at Thirske; no, they knew nothing of him, but as he appeared to be a zealous: Dissenter, 'Till he had a Design for Mot. and Conformity, And what then? They reflect on him, that is, they called to Mind his former Offence, for which he had never testified any Repentance.

Let's see then what the next Letter will do, for this is Small Game? the Letter is Mr. Gray' s own.

1. But is this fair, to admit a Man to be Witness in his own Cause? Altho', Upon the severest Examination, as to his Morals, P. 11. of the Letter, Would he Accuse Himself? This marrs the Proof.

2. This very Letter of his, is a Ground of Suspicion.

1. He acknowledges not the Justice of his Censure.

[Page 26] 2. He calls the telling of his Faults, Calumnies belched out against him.

3. He saith (for ought I know) a manifest Untruth; that the B. of Ch. is struck at for his sake.

4. He falsly suggests the Cause of divulging his Crime: For was it not divulged where he was not known before; and how could it be divulg'd where he secretly sculk'd?

5. He falsly and spitefully reflects upon Dissenters; and says, he might have lived quietly, if he had not Conformed.

1. But did he Live quietly when he was a Dissenter, without Censure for his Sin?

2. Had they not cause to reflect on him, who in so long time never signified his Repentance to them that Censured him.

6. He charges Dissenters roundly with a Position I never heard, nor read; and have reason to suspect his Veracity. However, doth Recriminating Justify him?

7. He saith, he fears it's Malice, more than Matter. What Impudence is this? Is it Malice, who gave thee Authority to Judge Mens Hearts? More than Matter? Was there not a Cause, was not the Crime open, notorious, scandalous; and yet no Matter?

Now Mr. T. are these things Signs of Repentance, and of an humble and broken Spirit?

And yet after all, if the Man be sincerely a true Penitent, and Live well, and Preach well, I shall say, The Lord give a Blessing, and Success to his Labours; for the Conversion of Sinners, and the Edification of Saints. So far am I from envying any Pious, Holy Minister, whether of the Ch. of Engl. or Dissenters; and very heartily will obey your Canon. Gal. 6. 1.

But Mr. T. you have a strange Comment upon that Text. I will not, say you, reflect upon my Friend, this is honest; tho' if he be a Man named to me, (I am confident, no Man living but my self can be sure, who he is you call your Friend, but your Friend himself; no not the Transcriber of the Levite.) It's supposed he is as much as the Scots. Man interested in the Lenity of this Canon. It's supposed! Here was doubtless some Reluctancy. But out it comes.

Mr. [...] I was astonished when I read this; a Story came into my Mind, of a French B. taken by the English in Armour. The Pope sends to the K. of England, to release his Son. Whereupon the K. sends his Armour to the Pope, and ordered this Question to be asked, Is this thy Son's Coat? To which the Pope answered, He's not my Son, but the Son of Mars; and leaves him to the K. to do with him what he pleased. I'll refer it to your Diocesan, to apply it. And for my self, I have need enough of Indulgence of Paul's Canon, yet not in Gray's Case. I Appeal to the Righteous Judge of all the World.

But for you my Friend, if I were your Diocesan, I would Reprove you sharply; but I'll do it in the Spirit of Meekness.

For ought you know, you have one way or other wounded more innocent Persons, than Samson did with the Jaw-bone. For there are many Conjectures of the Author of that which is called Lanc Lev. Some say it's Sir such a One, and Name, others a Learned and moderate C. of E. Man, others M. D. and others a Bookish Country Gentleman; others Father it on no fewer than Five or Six Dissenting Ministers, and name all according to each Man's Fancy So many as these are, you have exposed them and their Reputation. Besides, occasioned the Sin and Censures of so many, as believe any of these to be the Author; who live, some of them 20 Miles distant from one another Now how many may from hence, be filled with Unchristian and Uncharitable Surmises of innocent Persons; especially, such as are willing to believe any thing that's Ill, of the Dissenter.

Good Sir, retire, and think what you have done. (For I profess, I never heard the least Charge of this nature, against any that are reputed Authors, and as I know my self, Innocent; to I believe are all the rest.) And read the Author of [...] of the Government, if the T [...]ngue, and The B. of C. of Revenge; and the Lord give you a more meek, humble, and charitable Heart.

MAY 20. 1698.
FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.