YESTERDAY, when I remov'd my Habitation from London to Mortloch, the Serious Enquiry came to my hand. I grew weary of a City of Contention, and never intended to write more about their Controverſies, but apply my ſelf to a large delectable Habitation nigh the King's Park by Richmond, in ſome of the beſt Air in the World, hoping to cure as many diſtemper'd Bodies, as I had diſtemper'd Minds in that now forſaken City. Horace highly commends a Country Life:

Sir Kenelm Digby, after he had in lively colours deſcrib'd the Excellency of a Country, and in apt ones the Vanity of a Court Life it ſelf, as well as a City one, ſays at laſt,

Theſe with many others, make a Country Life an Emblem of the Golden Age.

But my hopes of a Life free from Controverſy, were nipt in the bud by this Oppugner of me: For Silence in me might look like Victory in him, and a betraying of my Righteous Cauſe.

Had Mr. Leſly, whom I greatly honour, or Mr. Keith, whom moſt men now as greatly deſpiſe, no better Advocate for their now common Cauſe, or no fitter Cenſurer of me, than one who never vindicates them or himſelf from one of my Arguments againſt Conformity, but is not aſhamed to ſay, p. 3. It might be endleſs to anſwer ſome of your grand Objections? Ay, Sir, ſay you ſo! Is this all? And inſtead of anſwering one of my Arguments, you offer about 60 Queries and Particulars, moſt of them ridiculous and impertinent. If I am, as you ſay you have heard, and found in my Books, a man of that ability—that I can anſwer Queries and Doubts of Conſcience, I have ſomething elſe to do than to anſwer all your Queries, but will ſingle out ſuch as are material. You ſay, Great were my pains to convince you when Quakers—That you now bear teſtimony to G. Keith's found Doctrive (A Quakeriſh Phraſe and Cant.) It is a Query among ſome of you, Whether Mr, Leſly hath fully anſwer'd my Arguments againſt Conformity in our printed Epiſtles? Let Mr. Keith eſſay it, if he thinks he can: So My firſt Friendly Epiſtle to him againſt Epiſcopacy. Why muſt I be plagu'd with old ſtale Objections, and my Replies taken no notice of: An intolerable Practice among ſome ſhort-ſighted men, or men of no depth.

Now to your chief reaſons why you turn not Independents, offer'd by way of Query: But I muſt contract.

1. They paganize, and make Antichriſtian all the Churches of Chriſt in the World, except themſelves.

This Charge is ſo foul and falſe, as I have proved in my Apology for them, that I hope in you it came from Ignorance, I fear from Malice: perhaps from both. Cotton in his Keys, Jer. Burroughs in his Irenicum, Du Maulin in his Plea for Congregational Churches, and all I have read of, abhor'd ſuch black Notions. Do they make Anabaptiſts Pagans, who, are often ſaid to have too great Affinity with them? Call they not Presbyterians their Brethren? Read the London Ʋnion. Du Maulin, that Great Good Man, in his Moral Reflections, ſingles out Bp Hall often as one of the greateſt Saints on Earth. I confeſs ſome of them are as mad upon ſome of their Notions, as Mr. Leſly, Mr. Keith, and your ſelf, on the Divsne Right of Epiſcopacy. I am ſorry a man of worth and ſenſe, tho not of temper, was—ſo weak in his Plea, for Congregational Churches, to lay down four Arguments to prove the Houſe of Stone was not the Church of God: As, Chriſt died for the Church, but he died not for the Houſe of Stone. Ergo, &c.

What is more common than a Metonimy of the Continent for the thing contained? as, I drink off ſuch a Cup or Glaſs, eat up ſuch a Diſh, for the Drinks and Meats in them.

2. The ſecond is falſe: for the Independents own the Church-Memberſhip of Infants, and ſo their Baptiſm; inſeparable Truths.

3. About living by the Goſpel, &c. What Independant denied it, or the Lawfulneſs of Tythes? What Penry did in the days of Q. Elizabeth, or ſome Browniſt, they are not to be anſwerable for. In Oliver's days this was no Controverſy.

4. You ſay, They ſet up Preachers that have no knowledg of the Tongues. What they only? Where they make one, ſome Biſhops have made two, and Good Bp Crofts juſtifies it, Naked Truth. But theſe things I have conſider'd in my Apology.

5. To the fifth I ſay, That not only they, but the Anabaptiſts, now own and practiſe Ordination by laying on of Hands. Read ſome of their Confeſſions.

6. What Independents gather Churches from York to London, I know not. No doubt they have gotten ſome Knaves, as you ſome good Men. But you have forty to one.

8. You ſay, they expect New Modifications. Have not yours often changed Doctrine and Diſcipline? Organs, Bowings, &c. See the abominable Worſhip at Paul's. Your Changes are for the worſe, Popiſh ones. What Changes they make are for the better, Proteſtant ones.

10. To the tenth Query Mr. Hales thinks the Power of the Keys nothing but declarative, and ſo no more belongs to Miniſters than private Chriſtians. Popiſh Abſolutions, and and yours have been ſo ill managed, that moſt of yours are ſick of them now. Why in a time of Death only are men abſolved?

12. If they think our Reformers worſhipped God in a wrong way, Do not you think ſo of ſome Reformed Churches, France, Holland, Geneva, Scotland of old, and now? Do not Tome of you unchurch them, and Mr. Leſly unchriſtian them. See his Black Book of Epiſcopacy. Did ever any Independent write in ſuch bloody Characters? And yet this man is your Oracle, and you all plow with his Heifer. They who were our Reformers were not our Apoſtles. Mr. L. would be, I fear, if occaſion were, as very an Incendiary as Hugh Peters, that madd Independent. Keep to ſuch as he, and go on, as one of yours did on his Execution.

To call Jacobite Quakers Honeſt Loyal ones, as Mr. L. doth, is to be abhor'd by all true Engliſh-men. No more of this: Pudet dicere & piget tacere. Rebellion is now call'd Loyalty.

To your Reaſons why you turn'd not Presbyterians, by way of Query.

Whether Chriſt did not bid his Diſciples to ſay, Our Father—Whether they did not ſay, Our Father—Whether it be not evil to expunge Our Father—are made three Queſtions; tho I put them, and ſo might he, into one.

1. The Aſſembly of Divines recommended the uſe of it, and ſome do it to this day, Mr. Shower, and others.

2. Yet ſecondly, I muſt confeſs not only I think there is no command here, but that it is not convenient to uſe it. See my Anſwer to W. C. a Churchman his Trepidantium malleus intrepidanter malleatus, in favour of G.Whitehead and the Quakers, againſt me, Mr. Keath, and Mr. Leſly too. And I add, That tho our Bible, I think, is not only well, but laudably tranſlated; yet on much and long conſideration and enquiry, I do aver, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not truly nor tolerably tranſlated. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no more daily than weekly, or monthly. And I boldly aſſert, That Panem noſtrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, is a foul Translation, tho uſed by Papiſts and Proteſtants. If it be ask'd, how muſt it be read? I anſwer, it is no eaſy Queſtion. Supereſſential, ſuperſubſtantial Bread are not proper, not being underſtood by the Vulgar; tho Mr. Pool mentions them. He was a famous Nonconformiſt, by the way, of whoſe Synopſis D. Barlow ſaid, Opus eſſet, non unius viri, ſed totius ſaeculi, ſi tu non ſuſcepſſes. I think, Tremellius gave the faireſt ſtroak: Panen noſtrum neceſſarium da nobis hodie, Give us this day our neceſſary Bread. I humbly offer this to the conſideration of ſuch Diſſenters as uſe this Form. As for the Clergy, their Ears are bor'd at the Prelates Doors, that they are ſworn to ſerve them for ever: They dare not alter it; but muſt keep to their old Mumpſimus, notwithſtanding my new Sumpſimus, for fear of being excommunicated, and ſent as a Token to the Devil for this offence. For my part, one reaſon among others why I uſe it not, is the great Superſtition of ſome men; ſo for this reaſon I ſometimes put on my Hat in hearing, and will juſtify this, if occaſion be.

You ask us, Sir, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be not a different word from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Yes, Sir, as Enſiis and Gladius, but not a different thing. And are indeed Biſhops call'd Presbyters becauſe once ſo? Would it be proper to call my Lord Mayor Mr. Alderman, becauſe once ſo? or a King Prince of Wales, becauſe ſo before. Biſhop is a name of Office, Presbyter of Duty, ſay you. Learnedly diſtinguiſh'd, ſay I.

The naming of Timothy Biſhop of Epheſus, and Titus of Crete, and Jerom's Authority, are all of a piece, as I have proved long ſince. Whether K. James or Bp B. ſaid firſt, No Biſhop, no King, is no matter, being confuted in Scotland. Aeirus his damnable Doctrine againſt the Trinity, &c. made him a Heretick, not denying Epiſcopacy, elſe Jerom had been one, the Reformed Churches-abroad had been heretical. What madneſs is this!

The Canons of the Apoſtles, and Ignatius his Epiſtles, are juſtly queſtioned, whether legitimate or ſpurious, by Proteſtants of all ſorts: Yet if Ignatius his Epiſtles were genuin, a Biſhop was but a Biſhop of one Church, one Altar—In after Ages the difference was not of Order, but of Degree. Shew a new Ordination or Conſecration.

Did St James make a Liturgy or Common Prayer-Book, or One for him?

The Lord's Prayer and Creed, p. 3. and 4. you prove every word by Scripture at large. Do we deny it? Was ever ſuch mad work made till now! The Query about ſudden Death, All Women labouring with Child, &c. is foreign to our buſineſs. Are you and G. Keith on immediate Inſpiration ſtill, that you ſay, That the Petition in the Form of Marriage, that they might live as Iſaac and Rebecca (not as Abraham and Sarah, for he had a Hagar too; not as Jacob and Rachael, for he had a Leah too) was from Inſpiration from the Holy Ghoſt, not human Invention. Was Criſtmas, Man, known of old—There is Praying by the Spirit as to Gifts as well as Grace.

You commend him that called the Common Prayer-Book, Optimmm Breviarium, the worſt name I think he could ever give it. What is it, the beſt Maſs-Book? Agreed. One being ask'd how they could ſay of K.C. II. our moſt Religions King? He ſaid, It is the moſt Religious King we have, we have not a better. So ſay I, it is the beſt Breviary we have, we have not a better.

The laſt Propoſitions in the third and laſt-part are common to all, they can have no place here.

Now, Reader, if thou haſt read my Snake caught, thou canſt not think this a Reply. I am ready to prove,

1. That it is more ſcandalous for Miniſters to read other mens Prayers to God, than read other mens Sermons to the People.

2. That the Church of the Jews, tho laden with Ceremonies (every one of Divine Appointment) had no Liturgies in this its Infancy; and therefore worſe is it now.

3. That a Dioceſan Biſhop is not a Creature of God's making, and can no more take upon him the ſole Power of Ordination, than of Baptizing or giving the Lord's Supper. To ſay nothing of their lazy vain Lives.

4. That to ſwear Canonical Obedience to ſuch, to read Writs of Excommunication againſt the beſt of men for Toys or Trifles, or ſwear Church-wardens, if occaſion be, to Articles none do keep, or can keep, &c. is double-died Iniquity, big-bellied Wickedneſs.

5. That for theſe and other reaſons Separation from the Church of England is no Sin, but a Duty. I wiſh your Mr. L. and our Mr. A. might meet together; or Mr. K. and my ſelf.