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 demoniak in a letter to himself.

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 demoniak in a letter to himself.

Table of contents

Title page

PREFACE.

§

CHAP. I. Diſſenters Not Guilty of Popery.

CHAP. II. Nor of Superſtition.

CHAP. III. Nor of Schiſmatical Diviſions.

CHAP. IV. Nor of Ignorance.

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

CHAP. VI. ANSWER, to P. S.

§

[Page]

[Page]

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.

[Page]

[Page]

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.

§

[Page]

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] 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] 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.

[Page]

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] 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] 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] 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.)

[Page]

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] 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] 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.

[Page]

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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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.

[Page]

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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

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 demoniak in a letter to himself.

Carrington, John, d. 1701.

Edition statement

1698

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A69802

ID [STC]

Wing C642A

ID [STC]

ESTC R173402

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

11338786

ID [OCLC]

ocm 11338786

ID [VID]

47500

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online 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.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A69802)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 47500)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 862:10 or 1465:17)

Source

— 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 demoniak in a letter to himself., Carrington, John, d. 1701..

Extent

[6], 26 p.

Printed by R.J. and sold by A. Baldwin ...,. London :: 1698.. (Attributed to John Carrington by NUC pre-1956 imprints.) (The "Surrey demoniac" was Richard Dugdale.) (This item is incorrectly identified as Wing C642 at reel 862:10 and as L310 (number cancelled) at reel 1465:17.) (Reproduction of originals in the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign Campus). Library and the Harvard University Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.