CONCAVUM Cappo-Cloacorum; OR, A View in Little of the Great WIT and HONESTY contained under a Brace of CAPS, and wrapped up in the Querpo-Cloak of a FANATIC. IN SOME Reflections on the Second Part of a late PAMPHLET, entitled, SPECULUM CRAPE-GOWNORUM, BEING A DIALOGUE between Trueman and Cappo-cloak-man.  
By an Honest Gent. and a true Lover of all such.  
LONDON, Printed for Benj. took, at the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXXII.   

Concavum Cappo-Cloacorum, etc.  Trueman. 
WELL met, Neighbour, What in Querpo? I cannot but admire how well those Caps and that pretty Apes-cloak becomes you, upon my Reputation, I cannot but look on you, you're so spruce to day.  Cappo-cloak-man. 
Why? what ail you to stare so? did you never see one in such a Dress before?  Trueman. 
No truly, not very often: For that Dress was out of fashion (I thank God) before I was capable of taking notice of it.  Cappo-cloak-man. 
I should thank God that it was as much in fashion as ever it was. For I cannot but honour the precious remains of those glorious times, when the Saints enjoyed their Privileges to the height; (i. e.) When they bound their Kings in chains, and their Nobles in Fetters of Iron, even according to the very Letter: when we kept Sabbaths to the Lord, but no holidays: and when our holy Fasts and Prayers were always answered with the next days Feast upon the good things of the Wicked, which the Lord was pleased to send us, by those precious ways and methods of his own choosing, (as one of our Brethren did then well call them) viz. those which the Profane call Sequestration, Confiscation, Plundering, and Decimation.  Trueman. 
Well, I cannot but think that a Gown and Cassock, and a Canonical-Girdle, is a much more grave, solemn, decent, and honourable Habit for a Clergyman.  Cappo-cloak-man. 
I cannot help your thoughts, but to tell you the truth (which is not our common method) I have not heartily loved Gowns, etc. since Dr. I. O. then Vicechancellor of Oxford, did so zealously and learnedly declaim against them, as rags of Popery. Oh, that precious man, whose very name is enough to sanctify the Profane Title of Dean! Had you but seen with what earnestness he paid off the Whore of Babylon, how he laid himself forth with all his might upon her, and stripped her from all her rags, you could not but have been willing, not only to have put off your Gown, but, your Breeches too, rather than have complied with those Sons of that Whore, the Papists, in any Garment that they wear. Oh, I can never forget that most precious Speech as long as I have a day to live!  Trueman. 
Hold, Neighbour, hold. Don't be too much transported with the remembrance of that glorious Dispensation. How can any man but be abundantly satisfied with such an eloquent Oration, that the Gown, etc. is the mark of the Beast? But you seem not only to have a dislike to the Gown in general, but to the Crape-Gown in particular. Now several of those Gentlemen you have a fling at in your Book (I believe) never wore a Crape-Gown in all their Lives; and I never read that Crape-Gowns were the particular fashion amongst Papists; and therefore you would do very well, either to get the Learned Doctor to make another Speech, (which if you can get him to be Dean of Christ-Church again, I doubt not but he will readily do) particularly against Crape-Gowns; or else to give us in short your particular Reasons against them.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why— now I think on't— It hath always been the privilege of our Party, to do things for which we can give no reason. Ask me for Reason? Don't you know that we have nothing to do with Reason, nor ever had, nor ever will have? therefore reason me no more reason, for if you do, I'll be gone.  Trueman. 
Not so hasty, Neighbour, stay a little, I pray you. I beg your Pardon, that I was not so well acquainted with the privileges of you Army-Saints, and your Chaplains; and do assure you, that it was not in any derogation to your dear Privileges, but for my own satisfaction, that I gave you this trouble.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Well, well, if it be for your own Instruction, do you see, I shall give you some satisfaction in this weighty matter.  
Why— first, your Crape-Gown is too light, and that (you know) though it may do well enough for a Sister, yet is not to be endured in a substantial-grave-brother. For (mark ye me) Lightness and Gravity do no more agree than Light and Darkness.  
Then, Secondly, your Crape-Gown may be seen through; and of all things in the world, we Saints hate the Wicked should see through us: for as it is well hinted, Crape-Gown. part. 2. p. 26. since neither the Piety of David, nor the Prudence of Solomon, could keep them from falling so foully as they did with Women, how do we know but it may be any of our Cases, and that we may not come off so sound as they did? Now then, what a great Folly, yea, I say, what a Madness is it for us to wear such a Garment through which our Imperfections may be utterly laid open to the Female Saints, and so our Persons be rejected as well as our precious Doctrines? yea, I say, our precious Persons be rejected! would not this be a very great madness— yea— and no small folly?  
Thirdly, The main cause why our Sober party do not love Crape-Gowns, may be this, that to wear them would be an entrenchment upon our Christian Liberty; for you know the Fashion came up in obedience to the late Act for the Improvement of Woollen-Manufactures, there being no other Woollen-stuff so cool and fit for Summer as Crape. But you know we are better taught by our elder Brethren, Knox and Buchanan, as well as by our Fathers, the Pope, the Cardinals, and all the Jesuits, than to obey Civil Magistrates in Ecclesiastical Causes. No, No, we understand the sweetness of Liberty better than so.  Trueman. 
Well said, now I thank you that you deal so plainly with me; for, I well perceive, there the Shoe pinches with you: you have plainly discovered yourself (p. 4. Crape-grown, part 2.) where in excuse for the Loyal preaching of the Levites, (as you please, out of your abundant Civility and Kindness, to call the Clergy of the Church of England) you make Priest-Love say, The Scripture commands Obedience to the Government, they are commanded to preach the Scripture, therefore they are commanded to preach Obedience to the Government; to which you answer, That is to say, in Civil Affairs they are to preach general Obedience to the Laws and Government. Now what (I pray you) doth this imply, but that in Ecclesiastical Affairs they ought not to preach Obedience to the Laws and Government? But, in the name of Oliver's Ghost, why not as well in Ecclesiastical Affairs as in Civil? Who but the Jesuits taught you this distinction, or those that learned it from them? Is there any such distinction in the Writings of the Apostles? Is there not such a Chain of all Affairs, as that there can scarcely be any matter but may in some sort or another be Ecclesiastical as well as Civil? So that either Obedience must be preached to Civil Magistrates in all matters, salva Conscientia, or else in none at all. Are not all Laws that are enacted by the Civil Power rightly called Civil Laws? Why then are not those Acts of Parliament which command all men to come to their own Parish-Church to worship God, and to behave themselves there in such decent and orderly manner as our Liturgy prescribes, which is established by Act of Parliament, as well Civil Laws, and consequently, as much to be obeyed as any other? Why are not Laws for the security of our Religion as readily to be obeyed as those which are made for the security of our Property, and as fully to be executed? There cannot certainly be any reason of difference to any man who does not set a much higher value upon his Interest than upon his Religion. Nay, have we not seen that your dear Brethren of the Kirk of Scotland, under the notion of Ecclesiastical Causes, brought in all manner of Affairs of State, and by the Decrees of their National Synods, controlled all the Laws of their Natural Sovereign; and proceeded so far, till at length, raising Horse and Arms, to fight against his Majesty, was the great Kirk-matter which they met together to complete?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Had I not a very great command of myself, through mercy, I should not have the Patience to hear one word more from you, or to stay one Minute longer in your Company.  Trueman. 
Why Neighbour? What's the matter? How have I hurt you? Have you some old Sore about you which I touched a little too hard? I assure you, Neighbour, it was unawares if I did, and therefore I pray you be a little pacified.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Unawares? (say you) Why you're always rubbing our old Sores. How do you think they can ever heal if you will be always picking and scratching of them?  Trueman. 
Corrosives are sometimes necessary, especially where the Sores are closed up with dead or proud Flesh. When I see you sensible of your old Faults, and endeavour to amend them, I can be very willing to give myself the quiet as not to disturb my Neighbours: but, when in your Scribble you will be insinuating the same Principles that have been the Authors of so much War and Bloodshed amongst us, I cannot help it if you hear of the old Practices that followed from them.  Cap-cloak-man. 
I wonder you will not see that these Principles are utterly rejected by us, even in that very Book you mention; see the discourse of Loyalty, pag. 6. ibid. where the Author saith, I think there is no Dissenter in England, that would not be accounted a Rebel, but would confirm it to his Prince, with his Heart, his Hand, and his Purse: and what he means by it, you have in the former words, viz. An obedience to Commands, enjoined by the politic Constitution and Frame of Government; and this he proves most learnedly, from the derivation of the word Loyalty from Lex.  Trueman. 
But all this, I doubt, is but one, and the fairest side of the Party, which he would have all men to see.— Thus far I believe him, That there is no Dissenter in England that would be accounted a Rebel; for, they love a Successful Rebellion, which they can soon call by the Name of the Good Old-Cause; the Cause of God, which he hath so manifestly, even against all Opposition, declared himself to own, by casting down the strong holds of all the Powers on Earth; as they have formerly, without so much as ever wiping their Mouths after it, canted oftentimes in their Sermons before the two Houses, and the Army. And let me deal freely with you, neighbour Cap-cloak, How can we believe those men's bare Words whom no Oaths can hold? A Shaft. Association possibly might hold them; but, if that will not, I know nothing but an Halter that can: Now, that this is the truth of the Business, look a little farther, and you will plainly see; for after, in the Name of all the Dissenters, he hath promised to confirm an Obedience to Commands enjoined by the politic Constitution and Frame of Government, with Heart, Hand, and Purse, under the Penalty of being accounted Rebels; yet immediately he destroys his own very Principle of Loyalty by endeavouring to subvert all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: for, saith he, (lin. 13. ibid.) this being the chief Satisfaction to the Civil Magistrate, it seems hard that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction should make such an heavy clutter for her far less inconsiderable mite of a Coercive Power. Now Neighbour put on one Cap more, (I beseech you) that is, your Considering-Cap, and tell me where, according to your own Notion of Loyalty, we shall find any such thing in your Party, who in your Obedience to the Civil Magistrate take no notice of Ecclesiastical Laws? For, is not the settled Religion of the Nation, the true Protestant cause, one main part of the politic Constitutions of our Nation? Are not the Canons of our Church, and our Liturgy, and Ceremonies ratified, commanded, and enjoined by the politic constitution and frame of the Government of our Nation, (i. e.) even by Parliaments themselves, as well as any other Laws whatsoever? Confirm then your Loyalty to your Prince, by your hearty obedience to his Ecclesiastical Laws, or else by your own Concession I must conclude, that you're of that number of Dissenters who would be accounted Rebels; and I must needs say, that you're the first of them that ever I met withal: for, though most of them (I have too much reason to believe) would, if their Brethren the Scots last Insurrection had prospered, have been Rebels, yet they have now generally more Wit, than to desire to be accounted so.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Nay, Nay, good Neighbour, not so bitter and choleric (I beseech you) against the Sober People of God in our Land: your Passion hath so far transported you that you have not Patience to read on; for if you had, you would find that they do acknowledge the Tithes of Unity, Love, and Charity to the Church of England.  Trueman. 
Ay, say you so? a blind man would be glad to see it. Where do we see in their Actions any such Tithe paid? No, No, they cannot so much as spare their Mint, Cummin, Annis, to their lawful Ministers, because they reserve all to be paid to those of their own way, not of the Church of England. But however, methinks that a great Tithe of Obedience, as well as the small Tithes of Love and Charity, should be due from them to our Church, which was mainly founded by the first and best Martyrs for the Protestant Religion.  Cap-cloak-man. 
This is acknowledged too in the same Page; only he tells you, they cannot come to Church to pay it, because your Pulpits are like so many Beacons, where ye raise such a Flame that they are afraid of the Country's coming in upon them.  Trueman. 
Why? What's the matter with them? They are not afraid of hanging, are they? They know well enough they need not fear that, for their old Crimes are pardoned, which they cannot but know, did too well deserve it; for greater than they were cannot easily be committed: and yet I am very confident, they might communicate, if they would do it quietly and orderly, with most of the Churches in or near London, and never so much as be put in mind of any of them, if their own guilty Consciences did not accuse them. But a bad Excuse (you know Neighbour) is better than none at all; for one would think, if they were truly penitent for their Faults, they could not be so enraged by their being told of them.  Cap-cloak-man. 
But further, you're told (pag. 7. ibid.) that they will conform, and that one Mr. Read hath led the way; and that he tells you himself, That he had advised with his Brethren of the Ministry, who did acknowledge the lawfulness of using the Liturgy; and that his Principles are these, That Obedience to the Magistrate, in things lawful, is a Duty, that a Form of Prayer is lawful, and that Communion in such Churches is lawful.  Trueman. 
I should be glad to see these Principles put in practice by him and his Brethren the Ministers. When I see they come to their Parish-Churches, as the Law requires, and do join in the Liturgy of our Church, and in all the Acts of Communion with her, than I shall have some Reason to think they have such Principles: but, whilst they go on to make Divisions amongst us, to set up Conventicles against our Churches, and Altar against Altar amongst us, I cannot help it, if (notwithstanding all the pretences of their Principles) I still believe them to be the most senseless, hypocritical, and perverse Schismatics that ever the World knew: for, I must needs tell you, these mere promises of theirs will never obtain any Credit amongst us, that know how frequently they have fallen off from much higher Obligations; and how much further than barely saying and acknowledging the lawfulness of Communion with our Church, some of them have proceeded, and yet have continued in their Separation. As for instance, Mr. Baxter in his Cure of Church-Divisions, hath (by such Arguments as neither he, nor any Dissenter, can ever fully answer) proved, not only that it is lawful, but a Duty to unite with our Church; and yet instead of practising accordingly, he hath ever since kept up a Schismatical Conventicle, nay, hath made it his business to undermine, not only the Reputation of our most eminent Churchmen, but the very Foundation of our Church itself; witness his Pamphlet against Dr. Stillingfleet 's Sermon, and his whole bundle of Lies in his History of Episcopacy. I might also here add your Lay-brethrens, who (for the sake of an Office by which they may serve their Cause and Party) stick not at the highest Acts of Conformity, (i. e.) the receiving the Sacrament according to the established Rites of the Church of England, and yet as soon as ever they have done, run away from our Communion with as much seeming-Zeal as though we were mere Pagans, and worshipped the Devil in our Churches: but this is so well known to be their common practice, that I need not further mention it.  Cap-cloak-man. 
If their Words and Promises will not do, if you read on to pag. 10. you may find full and satisfactory Arguments that may convince you that they are real Conformists to the Laws of both Church and State.  Trueman. 
Ay marry Sir, that would be Logic indeed! the Philosopher that endeavoured (in spite of his own eyes) to prove that Snow was black; or he that would prove there could be no such thing as motion, when his Tongue wagged all the while, (I think) had an easy Task in comparison of this.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Well, well, the Wit of man is much; and though your Prejudices may be great, possibly if you consider his Arguments, they may remove them.  Trueman. 
Oh! by all means let us hear them. Consider them, say you; I will put on twice as many Caps as the famous Night-cap-Brother T. Goodwin ever wore, but I will duly consider them.  Cap-cloak-man. 
First then, as to the Civil Law. His two first Arguments (pag, 7.) clearly prove that the Lawmakers did never intend those Penalties against us that are Dissenters, but against Seditious Persons: for the Penalty is grounded upon the Supposition that an Insurrection may be hatched at such Meetings; but no such thing was done. Ergo.  Trueman. 
The Intention of our Lawmakers in that very Act was grounded upon the sense of what had been done in the late times, when our Conventicles had preached the best of Kings out of his Throne and Life, and they well knew that what hath been done may be done again: to prevent which, they thought it necessary to hinder all such men, that under the cloak of Religion hide their Faction, from all opportunities of doing the same thing over again: and therefore, though it was possible to be true that none of the Dissenters themselves have any factious Designs, Yet because the Papists, even the worst of them, the Jesuits, have disguised themselves under the show of peaceable Dissenters (as Dr. Oats tells us, that twelve of them were particularly sent into Scotland to preach, in the shape of Presbyterians, all manner of Sedition) they that give such Seditious Preachers all Opportunities by their separate Meetings to raise Insurrections amongst us, do transgress the very intention of the Law, however innocent they may be in their own designs.  Cap-cloak-man, 
What, than you make no difference betwixt our Dissenters and the Papists themselves?  Trueman. 
The Law (I think) makes none: For by our Laws, all that do not come to their Parish-Church, and constantly conform to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, are called RECUSANTS; whether they are Papists, Brownists, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, or Independents (though perhaps some one particular Law may make a difference) the Law in general makes no distinction amongst them. For the Liturgy of our Church being established by the Laws of our Land (as is plain by the Act of Uniformity) whosoever doth not conform to it, is therefore guilty of the breach of the Law, let his opinion in Religion be what it will; and of the design of the Law too: which is not only to prevent Seditions, but to establish for ever an Uniformity in our Church.  Cap-cloak-man. 
But you do not take notice what is too truly said (p. 7. line 28.) that this Law was obtained by some part of the Clergy for their own advantage, etc.  Trueman. 
Take you Dissenters without an excuse for yourselves, and reflections upon others, and hang you. But it is no matter whether there is any sense or reason in them or no, it is all one, if they be but fairly insinuated, the mobile, or at least some of them, will believe them, and that is all that you care for. For was there ever so senseless a reflection upon all our Laws as this is? Are not Bills generally first passed in the House of Commons? I pray you how many of the Clergy are in that House? What, is the Speaker's Chaplain alone able to overrule the wisdom of our whole Nation, as sometimes you please to call the Members of that House? As for the House of Lords, there are but 26 of the Clergy in it, and is it not very strange they should out-vote all the rest? or that by their Interest they should overpower them? It seems the case is altered since they were called the dead weight of that most Honourable House, and thought to signify little or nothing in it. I remember a worthy Clerk told me once, that a Speaker amongst the Quakers (whom he vilely suspected to be a Papist) made it his main Argument against his payment of Tithes, that the Laws which enjoined them, were made by the Papists and the Clergy. And indeed the objection lies equally against all our ancient Laws; so that if this be a satisfactory excuse, no man can have any right to any thing he possesses by virtue of any ancient Law in England; For the same objection may be made against them all. Is it for this reason that some of you Dissenters, will not take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, nor take any notice of the Acts for the observation of the Thirtieth of january, or 29th. of May? Are not they most admirable Subjects, and most exactly obedient to our Civil Power, and great Lovers of the King, who refuse to acknowledge his Power, and to swear fealty to him, or so much as to bewail the murder of his Father, or to praise God for his happy return? If these are not excellent Subjects, I know not where you'll find any such, unless amongst the Banditi, or the Wild Arabians.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Not so fast (I beseech you) Let me put in a word or two to vindicate my dear Brethren, who are (for all your aspersions) precious in the sight of God and Man. As for those who refuse to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, I utterly disown them: But as for the observation of the thirtieth of january, Why should they bewail that fact in which they had no hand? This would be tacitly to confess themselves guilty of it. And as to the 29th. of May, Is it not enough for them who think they have received benefit by it, to express their joy and thankfulness for it? We lost our Lands and Livings by it, and what reason have we to keep a thanksgiving for it?  Trueman. 
If you disown the first sort, why do you own such Principles as may justify them? for were not the Clergy as much active in making those Laws that enjoin those Oaths as any other? As for the question, Why should they [the Dissenters] bewail that fact in which they had no hand? I shall return you these few Queries. Had you Dissenters attained to an absolute perfection? had you no sins that amongst the rest of the sins of the Nation might combine to pull down God's wrath upon us, and to render us odious to all Nations by the most barbarous murder of the best of Princes? Was it the Cavalier, or the Army-Saint, that perpetrated that Villainy? Was it the Churchman that fought for the King, or the Fanatic that fought against him, that were guilty of it? Was it the Jew or Christian that killed our Saviour? Was Peter that fought for him, or judas that betrayed him guilty of his blood? I suppose for the same reason you join with the jews, in not observing any day in memory of our Saviour's Crucifixion, because you believe that neither they nor you were any ways guilty of it. For I am sure you may as well believe this, as that you were no ways guilty of the murder of our Royal Martyr. As for the Query in your Vindication, for not observing the 29th. of May, though I believe you will be ashamed to own it, yet I assure you (upon the reputation of a Gentleman) that I have heard that reason given by a wellwisher of your brethren, and that I do really believe never a Dissenter of you all can give a truer or better reason for that ingrateful neglect. Did you not then by the King's great clemency receive your Lives, which were justly forfeited to the Laws? and do not too many of you enjoy great Estates which were other men's Rights? and is not all this worth I thank you to God and the King, besides those infinite public Mercies the whole Nation received thereby?  Cap-cloak-man. 
You never know when to have done railing, it is so natural to you. Come, come, if you would lay aside passion, you would find the Men you speak off to be good Men, and therefore (as the second Argument tells you, pag. 7. ibid.) since it was never yet known in the world that ever any Civil Magistrate made a Law with an intent to punish any good man, therefore this Law was never intended by the Supreme Power against the Dissenters. For that they are good men is fully proved out of the Psalmist, etc. pag. 8.  Trueman. 
Here is a demonstration for you indeed! such an one that will hold eternally, like a rope of Sand. For first, Did you never hear of certain Heathen Emperors that made Laws to punish, even with the severest Penalties and greatest tortures, all the Professors of Christianity? Or 2dly, Can you believe that all those Primitive Confessors and Martyrs were not as good Men as our Dissenters? And lastly, Do you not know that Men may be very good in the performance of some Duties, that yet neglect the great duties of peace and subjection, and may be very wicked as to many other; nay, that Men may be very strict in Sobriety and seeming obedience to the Laws of God, out of design to carry on some gain or profit to themselves? Have you not heard of the Pharisees, who made long prayers to devour Widows houses; or of a sort of People whose gain is their godliness? Was you never acquainted with a sort of good, godly and sober people, who preached up murder, sacrilege and rebellion, and justified in their Pulpits that most execrable crime committed against the life of our late martyred Sovereign? These might be in other matters (as to all appearance) very good Men, and yet (had there not been an Act of Indemnity) they do well deserve the Gallows? Do you not know that all that will endeavour the destruction of a Church or State by drawing in the People to their party, are necessitated to appear as the best of Men, to carry on even the worst of designs? Hath not the Devil himself been transformed into an Angel of Light; and do not his Agents always imitate him? And therefore such as these, who under the Show of Goodness carry on ill Designs (not only because their false Pretences make even Religion itself become contemptible, and real Goodness to be thought nothing but Hypocrisy; but also, because where their pretences of Goodness are not seen through, they render them admired and followed, and so most dangerous to the Government) ought to be most severely dealt withal by our Laws.  Cap-cloak-man. 
What! nothing from you but Railing and Demonstrations of a Persecuting Spirit? Will nothing content you but the Blood of the Saints?  Trueman. 
This is (I perceive) the general way of answering Arguments from matter of Fact, by calling it Railing; and indeed I cannot blame you: for there is no other way by which they are capable to be answered. And as for your Cry of Persecution, this is another Help at a dead Lift, but to deal plainly with you, there is nothing I more hate than the Thoughts of Blood; and therefore I so much desire that our Laws may be executed, that it may never be in the Power of pretended Saints to raise another War, and cause more Bloodshed amongst us.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Well then, what would you have? Is it not clearly proved (pag. 8. circ. med.) That the Dissenters are not guilty of any Nonconformity in reference to the Ecclesiastical Power?  Trueman. 
Yes truly, very clearly; as clearly as he that proved there is a World in the Moon; because Tobit went forth, and his Dog followed him.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Nay— Nay— leave your Fooling, and consider the Argument; and if that doth not convince you, for my part I shall give you over as incorrigible.  Trueman. 
I would as willingly as any man be convinced of an Error; and shall as readily confess it. Go on then; Let me not want this Dead-doing Tool of a Demonstration.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Lay aside your Prejudice, and I doubt not but you may find it a sufficient Demonstration. It is this (ibid. infra) The Law enjoins the Exercise of Religion according to the Liturgy of the Church of England, which contains no more than only Truth; but the Dissenters do speak Truth; nay the Truth of Truth; the Divine Truth; therefore they exercise according to the Liturgy, vid. & p. 9 ibid.  Trueman. 
See now, what a parcel of Fools our Logicians are: For if any Man living can show me such a Demonstration as this from Aristotle's Organ, to Keckerman, Bergersdicius, or Herebrood's Comments, I will give him leave to prove me an Horse, and will be bound to believe it when he hath done. I will give you the same Argument in another case, and do you judge whether it holds true or no. The Law commands a Witness in any Cause, To speak the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Now supposing the Case be concerning Brother Bull's being taken napping with a small Girl in a Bawdy-house, and the Witness upon his Oath, shall answer, by telling a Story of the Victories of the Late Usurper, though perhaps the Story may be nothing but the Truth; yet do you think that he hath spoke what his Oath bound him to, and that he swears that the said the Person was so taken, because this also is nothing but the Truth?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Pish, I hate these Similes, they never run of all Four; and therefore can never be through-paced Arguments. If you can show me by any substantial Reason the Defects of this Demonstration, than you do something.  Trueman. 
The Argument is (indeed) so ridiculous, that I cannot find in my Heart to be serious in confuting it; but however for your satisfaction, I will endeavour it in as few words as possibly I can. As to the first Proposition, viz. The Law enjoins the Exercise of Religion, according to the Liturgy of the Church of England, which contains no more than what is Truth. I readily acknowledge it, and am glad to hear that our Dissenters do so too: For than I can see no reason why they should descent from that which contains nothing but the Truth. But the Assumption, viz. That the Dissenters do speak Truth, etc. is a mere Falsity, or else a mere Fallacy: For if they mean that they preach nothing else but the same Truth contained in our Liturgy, and that they practise according to all those Rules which you acknowledge to be Truth prescribed in it; than you know it is utterly false. But if they mean, that the Doctrines they preach are true, if we should allow it (which is impossible where there are so many Doctrines preached, as amongst our contrary Sects of Dissenters) this makes a new Term in the latter, from that which was in the former Proposition; and so concludes nothing at all, but that he that argues at that rate, either knows not how to make an Argument, or else that he hath a mind to deceive, as well knowing his Cause cannot be defended any other ways: But this is so dull stuff that I am weary of it, and am afraid I shall be thought a mere Fool for my pains, for endeavouring a serious Confutation of so frivolous an Argument. I pray you therefore give me leave (for Recreation-sake) to tell you a Story which is not absolutely impertinent to this matter.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Well, say that you will, I am resolved to hear it, lest I should give you that Advantage to say I had not Patience to hear you out.  Trueman. 
The Commonwealth of Birds, to redress some Grievances, called a Parliament, where, after they had taken their Places that were Representatives, and Elected nemine contradicente the Parrot for their Speaker, because of its excellent Qualifications of calling Names, and Collecting others Voices: All the Members were called over, and made their personal Appearance before Mr. Speaker. Amongst the rest appears a round faced Animal, that looked as big us a Burgess, commonly called an Owl. All the rest of the Birds were amazed very much, as not being acquainted with any such Corporation that could be represented by it. Resolving therefore themselves into a Committee of Elections, consisting of the whole House, they began to debate the Matter before the Chair-Bird, who was a Creature of the same kind with Mr. Speaker. The Swallow, and the Magpie chattered to this purpose, that they had flown far and near, but never saw any such Creature amongst the Birds. The Jay, the Goose, and the Jack-daw being also Leading Members of that Committee, concurring with the former, the pretty King in the Chair was presently for clearing the House of such an uncouth Member, and began to cry Walk Knave Walk: Whereupon the Owl thinking it hard Measure, before he was well seen, or at all heard to be ejected, began to set a good Face of the Business; and raising his Ruff to show its Feather, and stretching out its Neck, to exalt its Voice, looked so frightfully, and made so hideous, loud, and screeching a Noise, that all the Birds were so terrified, that they presently left all their Places, and the poor Parochete fell out of the Chair in a Swoon, altering its Note from Walk Knave, to poor Pall, and was taken up in a very sad Condition; and so all the Debates ended, and the whole Assembly dissolved themselves.  Cap-cloak-man. 
hay day! What have we here; a Tory-Tale to Countenance Arbitrary Power, by rendering Parliaments ridiculous? How comes this into the Business we were talking about?  Trueman. 
I pray Neighbour don't mistake me: For no man loves Lawful and Loyal Parliaments better than my self; though I must confess I have no great Veneration for Commonwealth-Parliaments; but the reason why I told you this Story, is this, to let you see how you deal with us of the Church of England: You set up a Creature of all Face and Feather, to make an hideous Noise against us, who still pretends to be a Member of our Church; as thinking us so much to hate mere idle Drollery, Impudence and Noise, that we will rather suffer him to say what he pleaseth, though to the utter Dissolution of the Church, than trouble ourselves with such an Animal: For certainly no man would have made such an Argument as this, who ever imagined that it should be considered by any Person that had Common Sense, unless he thought he could Outface any thing, even all Sense and Reason.  Cap-cloak-man. 
This is soon said, and any thing may be soon misrepresented; but is it not clearly apparent That the Dissenters preach Divine Truth, by that Argument, (p. 9 post med.) viz. The Church of England teacheth Divine Truth. The Dissenters teach the same Doctrine with the Church of England; therefore the Dissenters teach Divine Truth: How can any Son of the Church deny this, unless he will deny that the Church of England teacheth Divine Truth?  Trueman. 
We of the Church of England do sincerely believe, that our Church teacheth Divine Truth; and are well pleased to hear you Dissenters to confess the same thing: For by acknowledging this you condemn yourselves: For with what Face can you descent from the Divine Truth? The next Proposition, viz. That the Dissenters preach the same Doctrine with the Church of England we cannot but absolutely deny: For that we think it absolutely impossible to be true: For (First) how can the Dissenters preach the same Doctrine with the Church of England, when there is none of them but do deny some of her very Articles? (Secondly) When few or none of them do think themselves bound to obey scarcely any of her Canons. (Thirdly,) When few or none of them will declare their Assent and Consent to her Liturgy. (Fourthly) When many of the Sects of them (not to say all) do differ continually in Doctrine and Discipline from one another: And Lastly, when all of them agree in nothing but in their Opposition to the Church of England? He therefore that is not given over to believe a Lie, can never make any true Conclusion from so false an Assumption.  Cap-cloak-man. 
You think now you have done the Business of this Argument I warrant you; but you will find yourself much mistaken, if you consider even the Judgement of all that are moderate amongst yourselves: For (as you may read it p. 9 circ. fin.) even they confess, that as to those who purely and out of Conscience refuse to conform, their Circumstances are hard.  Trueman. 
Very well; and what if they be hard? Is it not much harder that our Church and State should be endangered by such as design their Destruction, because some few amongst them may be under Mistakes, and so may act out of Principles of pure Conscience? Suppose some Persons, because the Apostle saith, He that provides not for his Family hath denied the Faith, and is worse than an Infidel, knowing they have no other way to provide for their Family but by Stealing, should therefore List themselves for Highwaymen, and not only put this Opinion into Practice themselves; but endeavour to persuade all other Men into the same. It might seem hard, that men under such Circumstances should be hanged; but yet because there can be no Property maintained without it, it is necessary that it should be done, let such men's Circumstances be never so hard: The Law cannot take notice of the Consciences of Men, but of their Actions; and since there is no certain Method of discerning the Conscientious Fools from the malicious Knaves, there can be no difference as to their Legal Punishments; unless all such as act contrary to the Law, should go Scot-free; because the Circumstances of some few of them may be hard. But (I pray) how are the Dislenters Circumstances so hard upon the most Conscientious of them? May they not have their Consciences better informed if they will? Do they not constantly refuse the Lawful Means of their right Information? Nay, hath not the Law taken Care to indulge to their tender Consciences, by allowing them to serve God according to their own Consciences, not only with their whole Families, but with Five more Strangers? If this will not satisfy them without making of Parties, and drawing in the Multitude, as though they were mustering their Forces against the Government, why should not our Magistrates take Care of the Public, by duly executing the Laws upon them?  Cap-cloak-man. 
See further (ibid. lin. ult. & p 10.) and you cannot but acknowledge it very hard, That of all the Penal Statutes, these only against the Dissenters, and not those against the Crying Sins of the Nation should be so loudly awakened to their Offices.  Trueman. 
This is insinuated like yourself; by wiping off the Dirt from your own Party, where it naturally sticks, to throw it upon your Governors. Is this all the Thanks they have for their Indulgence to you for so many Years, after so many Affronts, and so constant Provocations, still to be casting Dirt in their Faces? Who would break their Oaths any longer, to spare such an ungrateful sort of People as these are? Do you not belie your own Consciences by this Insinuation? For what Crimes are there that are not punished according to the Laws of the Land, when they are duly proceeded against? I am confident you cannot instance in one of our Magistrates that ever neglected his Duty in this kind, unless to those of the Dissenting Party. But besides, do you not know, that he that acts against the Laws, out of pretence of Conscience, gains Credit and Applause, and gathers Numbers of wellmeaning People to be his Followers: Whereas another man that is guilty of known Crimes, for which he hath no pretence (though perhaps he might have for any thing as much Excuse as our Dissenters have for their Divisions) does but bring Shame and Odium upon himself, and makes all good Men afraid of his Company? Now the business of the Magistrate is mainly to take notice of Crimes, not so much according to their nature considered in themselves, but according to their ill influence upon the Public; now then, since no Crimes can have so bad an influence upon Church and State, as Schism and Faction; why is it so hard that the Laws against these should be more vigorously executed, than against any other sort of sins?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why, say you? Read on, read on (pag. 10. ibid.) and you'll find that this renders our Magistrates more cruel than the Turk himself; For the Turk himself, in the present height of his Tyranny, and Popular reverence of his Mahumetism, yet lets the disconsolate Greeks have the free exercise of their Religion.  Trueman. 
This is (as you think) home-put indeed: but I pray do but consider how miserably poor he keeps them; how contemptible he renders them to all his Mahumetans? what pitiful Cells rather than Churches they are glad to worship in, what Tributes he lays upon them for their Religion, how he hath robbed them of all means of Learning; so that as Mr. Ricaut saith in his State of the Greek Church, Cap. 1.) nothing but their strict and constant Observation of the Feasts and Fasts of the Christian Church, and their reverence to their Priests (things which our Dissenters seem to make nothing of) doth preserve any Knowledge of Christianity amongst them: Nay, how barbarously they are used in Africa, and more particularly in Asia, by the Turks; and then let the World judge whether their Circumstances are like unto yours? How glad would those poor Christians be, that they had but half those Privileges of our Church, which you Dissenters slight and contemn? They would think they deserved the extremest Rigour that could be inflicted upon them, should they make a Schism in so excellent a Church for matters of mere Order and Decency. For the lesser and more inconsiderable our Differences are, the greater is your Crime in not uniting with us; and the more Severity you deserve whilst you continue in your Divisions, and endeavour to propagate them amongst us. Farther, the Case is far different as to the People themselves: The Greek Church are but a handful of poor Beggars in comparison of the Turks, and in no manner of possibility of raising any Commotions or Rebellions amongst them, the Turk having a constant standing Army over them; but ours boast of their Numbers, and Riches, and have already raised the most Bloody and Unnatural Rebellion amongst us, which ended in the Murder of the Best of Kings, and the Destruction of the best of Churches; and since God hath been pleased by a miraculous Power to restore us again as at the first by the Restauration of our King that now Reigns, how many Plots and Mischiefs have they continued amongst us? To instance in no more, witness that Bloody Villainy acted by Venner and his Party in England; and the late Rebellion raised by the Field-Conventiclers in Scotland: Nay, they are such a sort of People, that having got an Interest in the Late Times (how unjustly it matters not with them) in the Lands of the Church and Crown, and of most of the Loyal Nobility and Gentry in England, their Finger's itch to be at them again, and they would willingly venture their Skins, to have a fair Blow for them: And that this is the reason of some of their Nonconformity I am fully convinced, having with these Ears heard one of them confess, That if they would give him his Bishops-Lands again, he would be as good a Churchman as any is in England. They have no other way to come at another push for them, but by drawing in the People to their Party, by keeping up Conventicles amongst us: For this I can speak of my own Knowledge, That they value their old Titles to those Lands at some years purchase more than they did before His Majesty's Declaration for the suspension of the penal Laws against them. So grateful are they for the King's Favours, and so excellent Designs do they carry on by the pretences of Conscience!  
Moreover, the Case is quite different as to our Magistrates; our King hath not an Absolute and Arbitrary Power, and a Standing Force sufficient at the first Rise to suppress any Commotion that may be raised amongst them, as the Turk hath; but he is pleased to govern us by Laws, even of our own desiring; and therefore there is an absolute necessity that such Laws should be executed, unless we would be ruled by the sole Power of the Sword. Now let me refer it to the Nobility and Gentry of England, whether they will continue to break their Oaths in not executing our Laws to suppress Conventicles, and so force His Majesty (contrary to his Inclinations) to govern by a Standing Army; or whether they will let him see that the Laws are sufficient to do it by a due Execution of them? For let me tell you Gentlemen, we may talk of Liberty in Religion; but there is no Monarchy under Heaven (that I know of) where it is allowed; where there is not an Arbitrary Power, and a constant Standing Force able to suppress all Mutinies and Seditions that may be the Consequence of it. Let us therefore consider well at present (for now is the time or never) whether we will maintain our Church and Laws, or whether we will submit to the long Sword, or tamely yield up our Lands to them who think their former Possession hath given them a sufficient Title to those Estates which they once possessed?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Ah Neighbour! have a Care how you scandalise God's People, the Sober Party of the Nation; and do but observe what follows (p. 10. ibid.) and I hope you will be sorry you have raised so tedious, so impertinent, (not to say for wicked and false) a Discourse against them.  Trueman. 
The Discourse was forced from me by your Impudence, in preferring the Turk to our Most Gracious King and Governors: Forbear your Scandalous Reflections, if you will not hear yourselves represented as you deserve: For my part (neighbour) I am not sensible of any thing I have said, but what is as necessary as true; and (upon my Reputation) I assure you, that as soon as you can make me sensible of it, I will not at all stick to recant it; but I must needs say, your bare word for it (to whom it is as natural to call Names, as it is to some Animals to grin and snarl at any thing that displeaseth) will not go very far with me. Let me therefore hear your Reasons you talk of.  Cap-cloak-man. 
You may find them there to this purpose, that notwithstanding those two special Fathers of the Church of England, Observator and Heraclitus, make such a Cry about Fanatic Plots and Plotters, though the Papist-plotters have been visible enough at the Old-Baily, Westminster-Hall, Tower-Hill, and the Gallows; yet they have not been able to discover any such amongst the Dissenters; and though there may be turbulent, factious, and seditious Persons of all Professions, yet it is a great Imprudence to throw away a whole Quarter of Wheat, for the mixture of a Peck of Tares.  Trueman. 
In the first place (Neighbour) why are the Observator and Heraclitus called the two special Fathers of the Church of England? I verily believe those Gentlemen think it Honour enough to be Sons, not Fathers of our Church: But I'll warrant you, you think you have made a fine Reflection both upon them and our Church; but let me tell you (friend mine) as to them, you had better let them alone: For Old Nobs, and Brisk Hall. will be even with you one time or an other; and as for our Church, though we own no such Fathers, yet I think they may pass as well for Fathers as those Fathers of your Separation, Father Heth a jesuit, and Father Commin a Friar, which in Queen Elizabeth's Time preached against our Liturgy, and first cried up that laudable Custom amongst you of praying by the Spirit, as you call it; or Father Prin, Burton, or Bastwick, who were the famous Martyrs and Fathers of your Schism: For neither of them two have lost their Ears, nor done any thing to deserve it, as these did. As for Fanatic Plots and Plotters, Heraclitus (whatsoever you say to the contrarary) Numb. 61. & 64. hath produced as jolly a Crew of them as ever were seen at Tower-Hill, or the Gallows, to which you have not answered one word; nor (I believe) ever can, any other ways than by throwing Dirt, which is all the Defence your Cause will allow you. And what do you think of Brother Stephen that was fairly hanged at Oxford? do you think he had not a Plot to render the King and the Governors odious, who represented them in such abominable Pictures, and sang such ridiculous and seditious Ballads of them? or to sum up all in one, what do you think of the Father of the Association? Was not High Treason as clearly proved against him as against any of the Papists, and that by the same Evidence, viz. Turbervile and Smith, upon whose Credit my Lord Stafford lost his Head? Talk no more for shame of the Loyalty and Peaceableness of your Party; but now for your pretty Simile which (I doubt not) pleases you wonderfully, viz. Is it not a great Imprudence to throw away a whole Quarter of Wheat for the mixture of a Peck of Tares? To give you like for like, let me ask you, Is it not a great folly to take that for a quarter of good wheat in which there is not so much as an handful of any thing but Tares? For amongst all your Schismatical Conventicles, that act according to their Principles, (I believe) it would Puzzle, the Philosopher with his Candle and Lantern to find any that are, or can be good Subjects and good Christians, so long as they continue in such actions: but this I must say for some reverend Dissenters that I know, who though they have quitted their ministry; yet conform as Laymen, and live Peaceably, that they are none of that number, and that no man hath a greater respect for such than I have, nor would more readily serve them.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Truly they are much beholden to you. But do you think there are no other good people amongst us but only they?  Trueman. 
Yes many ignorant people that mean very well (I believe) may be drawn in amongst you, but it is their ignorance of your Principles, or else of the Consequence of them, that keeps them in your Party, and in the Practice of any duty to their Governors, or of any reverence to God.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why so (I pray) what can you allege against our way of worship which is more indecent, than some things in yours?  Trueman. 
Even the same that Preistlow objects to you (page 11) viz. the sitting on your bums with your hats on your heads, showing thereby less Reverence to God, than you do to your equals amongst men: would not any body that knows it is the custom amongst us to show our Honour to any Person by uncovering our Heads and bowing our Bodies think that you were met together on purpose to affront God, rather than to pay him any worship?  Cap-cloak-man. 
If you would look further even in the same page you'll find that I myself do blame them for it.  Trueman. 
Yes, yes, I see you do; but I fear it is only a Copy of your Countenance to serve your turn at present; for if you and your Cap-cloak-men do really think it a fault, why do they not publicly and constantly preach against it till it be amended? but they dare not do this, because it would be adjudged by their Masters the people (who have so often heard such a cry against all outward Worship as mere Popery,) to be a deserting the Good Old Cause, and the Fathers of their faction those precious thorough-Reformers of the late times; and this they know they must not do, as they tender the Contributions of the Brethren, nay, (which is much more) of the Sisters.  Cap-cloak-man. 
You will never be satisfied, (I see) with any thing but that which is impossible for them to do. For they might sooner preach away their Congregations, then preach off their hats: let them alone then and defend yourselves. For if you will read on, you'll find I have charged your manner of Worship, and Customs in it, with no less Indecencies, nay I may say with far greater, viz. Pew-door-Clapping, and Hopkin's-ballads-singing?  Trueman. 
But why do you charge these upon our Church or Churchmen? Doth our Church command or all owany such thing, or our Churchmen countenance any such things in their Sermons, to the people? If not (I pray you) lay the burden on the right Ass, and you'll soon see that your own backs ought to bear it.  
For (1st) as to slapping of pew-doors all the Prayer time; who may we thank for this horrid Indecency but yourselves? have you not preached the people out of love with our Prayers, and taught them that the main of God's worship, if not the whole of it, consists in nothing but hearing a Sermon? Doth not our Church, enjoin all people to be present at the beginning of the Prayers? and what is the Cause of their neglect but your divisions amongst us? for do not all our Churchmen cry out against it? was it not for your Conventicles which hinder the execution of Church-Discipline amongst us, this would soon be remedied by making the people perform their duties according to the Rubric and Canons. And this might be done with no great trouble, by not permitting any to have a Key to a Pew, who are not well affected to our public Prayers, and (as you direct) to keep the Pew-doors open while Prayers are done, but not as you say (p. 12) to slap them in sermon time; but to shut those quite out of Pews who will not come to the Prayers, as well as to a Sermon.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Ay! but what say you to Hopkins and Sternhold's Psalms, the common nuisance to the service of the Church (vid. pag. 13.) not only in London but all over England, a translation that hath reviled David worse than Shimei?  Trueman. 
They are Children of your own bringing into the Church, and therefore it is very fit that you should answer for them; they were at first translated only for the private use of the Translators, afterwards they were brought into families, and then by your elder Brethren the Puritans into their public Congregations, at length they were by them Printed at the ends of their Bibles, as allowed to be sung in Churches, though no such allowance ever could be found: and so have continued in great veneration amongst your Party. For it is not long since the singing of one of Robin Wisdom's Psalms was enough to make a man thought a great Saint amongst you. Our Church appoints the reading-Psalms as they are pointed in our Common-Prayer-Bookes to be said or sung in our Churches and no others: but hath winked at those, because some of them are tolerably-well translated; (as supposing, that where they are used, such of them would be chosen to keep the People doing of something whilst the Minister went into the Pulpit, and to prevent those worse indecencies of Gossipping, and giggling in the Church: and therefore we do not think them so necessary to the Service of God as to trouble ourselves with a new Translation of them, because even the old were never authorized by the Church, but were sneaked into use, in opposition to the singing of the Reading Psalms according to her order.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Nay, nay, that's not all, You sit musing in the Vestry, over the Churchwardens Half-pint till the beginning of the last Stave of all, believing that God gave you your voices only to bawl, and not to Sing. (p. 14 in fine.)  Trueman. 
Hold (Neighbour Caps) as for bawling that's a particular gift of your Splay-mouthed Pastors; and your people do far more admire a man that keeps them awake by the strength of his Lungs, then by the strength of his Reasons: and he that can speak so loud as to make the Roof of the Conventicle to answer him, and to make the Glass-windows tremble, he's your powerful man! he's your able Preacher, he's your Boanerges for the Sisters?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Leave your sleering and jeering, and answer me, why your Preachers fit in the Vestry over the half-pint till the last Stave. Answer me man, answer.  Trueman. 
What hast man? how if I will not answer you? or how if I think your question is not worth answering? as you be stout you're merciful? you will not beat me I hope, will you?  
If you had put your question thus; why you of the Church of England, (who believe that the main of God's worship consists in joining in the public Prayers) sit enjoying yourselves in the Vestrey over a Glass of Sack till they are quite ended, without any regard to them?  
This indeed had been a very necessary question, and for my part I acknowledge freely, that I am not able to give a satisfactory answer to it, and do heartily wish that they who have given the Scandal would take it off, either by giving sufficient reasons for it, or else by leaving off so Scandalous a practice; for I must needs confess, this is a worse indecency in our Churches then any that the worst of our Enemies either have, or (I think) can object against us. But as your question is stated, you seem to take off all that contempt that you had deservedly thrown upon that Ridiculous Translation of the Psalms, and to undo in 2 or 3 lines, all that you had been doing in 3 or 4 whole pages. For you seem to make the Divine worship to consist in Singing a stave or two of Hopkins. For this is the grand fault which you charge upon our Clergy, that they do not come into their Pulpits when the Psalm is first named. Now if this be all, it is very easily answered thus. That our Church prefers the Prophet David's words, before Robin Wisdom's: and that therefore they think they are not bound to countenance a nonsensical practice which is contrary to her far more necessary injunctions: And though they have indeed a perfect aversion to Fanatic harmony, i. e. to howling and mere divisions and discord, yet I doubt not, many of them have as great a love for true Harmony as your worship, and believe that God gave them their voices, not to bawl, cant, or sing nonsense; but to speak and sing sense, to his Praise and Glory, not in Sternhold and Hopkins' ridiculous Metre, but in the Psalms of the holy David,  Cap-cloak-man. 
But you have forgotten that indecorum which I have frequently met with, proceeding from the pride and vanity of several Crape-gown-men, that Preach more out of ostentation than instruction, i. e. Humming in the Church, or Church Huzzaing. pag. 15.  Trueman. 
For an answer to this you send Preistlow p. 16. to the Observator and Heraclitus.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Well what then?  Trueman. 
Why nothing, but that you were strangely mistaken in the persons.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Mistaken in the persons say you? how I beseech you?  Trueman. 
Have a little patience and I'll tell you. You should have sent him to the Wisdom of the Nation, and not to Heraclitus or the Observator.  Cap-cloak-man. 
To the Wisdom of the Nation? Who are they? or where should I find them?  Trueman. 
I thought so wise a man, as you think yourself could not but have been acquainted with the Wisdom of the Nation? Did you never hear of an House of Commons?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Yes surely, and I hope I shall live to see one again; but what have they to do with humming of Sermons, or Church Huzzaing?  Trueman. 
Why, only that they began it at St. Margaret's- Westminster, that's all man.  Cap-cloak-man. 
That's all say you? that is more than I know how to believe: what an House of Commons begin so—?  Trueman. 
Nay, have a care how you call names; for Topham is a terrible man: It is very true they did so out of their abundant zeal against Popery; and for a need I could tell you the Preachers too, who were hummed by them; but I don't think that necessary at present.  Cap-cloak-man. 
But what if they who have larger Privileges than other Congregations did so? must others do the like?  Trueman. 
I do not understand what Privileges they have in the Church more than any other men, neither do I know why you should blame others for imitating those whom your Party cried up for the Wisdom of the Nation: But if you do really believe, that this is one of the particular Privileges of that House, have a care how you Blaspheme any of their said Privileges by terming it Church-Huzzaing?  Cap-cloak-man. 
This wit (I see) is an Edge-tool; a Man had need have a Care how he handles it for fear he cuts his own Fingers with it. But however, I cannot but say that this Humming is very much like Huzzaing.  Trueman. 
But don't you know that every like is not the same? for I could tell you of one of the Highest acts of Devotion amongst the Presbyterians which is much more like Health-Drinking, than this is like Huzzaing.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Then will I forfeit a Twelvemonths Contribution. What the Presbyterians who (in obedience to the King's Proclamation) never drink any Healths at all; can they do any thing like it in their Devotion?  Trueman. 
Don't be so rash (Neighbour) to lay Wagers. For if you should lay your brace of Caps and your Cloak too on it, I believe you'd lose them all. Nay I am mistaken if the Independent Brethren don't do the same.  Cap-cloak-man. 
'Tis impossible (Man,) 'tis impossible. I'll never believe it till I see it.  Trueman. 
Then to put you out of doubt, you have seen it, if ever you received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper with them.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Yes, yes, I have done this several times: but never saw any thing like Health-drinking in it. Surely you design to persuade a man out of his senses.  Trueman. 
No by no means; only I would persuade you to lay aside your brace of Caps awhile, and rub up your Brains a little, and then certainly you cannot but remember it.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why truly for all my rubbing I can't do it.  Trueman. 
I perceive then like all great wits you have but a very bad memory. Give me lief to help your memory, since it is so short, by a few Queries. As (First,) How do you receive the Sacrament, in what Posture?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Sitting. How should we receive it?  Trueman. 
(Quer. II.) In what place do you sit, or in what manner?  Cap-cloak-man. 
We sit round about the Table: Where should we sit?  Trueman. 
(Quer. III) What with your Elbows on the Table?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why what if we do? is not that the most familiar Posture, and most suitable to the privileges of the Saints?  Trueman. 
(Quer. IV) I'll ask you but this question more and then I have done with my Queries, Who gives you the Cup?  Cap-cloak-man. 
The Minister after he hath drank gives it to the next, and he to the next, and so it goes round the Table, and when it is drank off, he that is to drink fills it again.  True-mau. 
Well now, put all this together and what can be more like the ordinary way of drinking an Health at a friend's table then this is? only at a person of Qualities table you use a little more manners then to loll your Elbows upon it. Did you never hear the story of an honest-Country Fellow who observing the Cup to have gone round, came in great haste to the Minister and cried out, Nay hold Sir, let me drink my Land-Lord's Health too as well as you; and down he popped himself upon his Breech, snatched up the Cup and clapping his Elbows on the Table, off he drinks it, and claps his Hand on his Breast, and turns up his Eyes in Admiration of the goodness of the Wine, as he had seen others do before; not knowing that they did it out of Sense of Humility and devotion?  
I will not vouch for the truth of the Story, but I am sure a Man that only Judges of men's actions by his Eyes might very easily be so deceived. And now Judge you whether this is not a greater scandal and Indecency than any thing that is practised in the Church of England? For shame make no more comparisons, till this is Reform. You see then how excellent advice Our Saviour gives, and reproof Matt. 7, 5. Thou Hypocrite, first cast out also the Beam out of thine own eye and then shall thou see clearly to cast out the Mote out of thy Brother's eye. But I had like to have forgot one Material thing.  Cap-cloak-man. 
What's that?  Trueman. 
Only your great kindness to our Clergy in saying that this Custom of Humming in the Church proceeds from the Pride and Vanity of several Crape-Gown-men that Preach more out of ostentation than instruction.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why, does it not? how can you deny it?  Trueman. 
With a very good Conscience; for supposing you yourself, or any Cap-cloak-man of you all were Preaching before the House of Commons, and they would Hum you, how could you help it? I don't think your great modesty would force you to leave your Subject to rebuke them for it; why then must our Preachers be blamed for what they cannot help? How can they tell whether their Auditory will applaud what they say or no? Or how can you tell that they are pleased with any such indecency? for my part I verily believe they desire their hairs would observe what they say and remember and practise it, and not that they should in such a manner show how much they are pleased at it.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why then do they so sprucifie their Sermons, and adorn them with so many flowers of Rhetoric, and make such elegant Compositions, such exact Periods and such witty allusions in them; could not their hearers be well enough instructed without all this to do?  Trueman. 
Possibly they might, but you know the old verse, Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci. Which was never more necessary to be observed then in this age. All men are not pleased with slovenly similitudes, noise, and dulness; and why then since they are debtors to the learned, and the unlearned, should they not suit their discourse to their hearers, as well as your Cloak-men do to your ignorant Sisters? and where is the ostentation more in that then in this?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Now I am come to their six-peny-cuts called Sermons, and there I shall find work enough for you to vindicate them.  Trueman. 
This your Title-page promises as the main design of your Book; but I began to think that you writ as you Preached, and have dealt with the Title as your Party use to deal with their Texts, only named it and read it over and never came near it more, certainly you did not find so many faults in them, nor so considerable as you would have done; for otherwise you would not have spent one half of your Pamphlet before you came to main business, though I know nothing could more easily gratify your malice and envy, nor tend more to carry on your Schism then this Subject.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why so (I pray) why so?  Trueman. 
Why say you? there hath been so many substantial and practical Sermons Preached and Printed, by the Conformists, (that if something had not been said to take off their reputation) the People might have thought that there is as good Preaching in our Churches as in your Conventicles, and so all the fat had been in the fire, for they might have returned to the Church again, and then the separated Contribution would have been a great affliction to the guts of your Splay-mouthed Teachers; so that if you do not this well, you do nothing; it being so very easy a task to find faults, or else to make them, such as shall not easily be wiped off, for (you know) a fool can throw a stone into a Well which an hundred wise men cannot get out again, and every Child in the street can throw dirt, some of which will stick wherever it lights.  Cap-cloak-man. 
I think I have done that business throughly; I have laid it on, do you get it off as you can.  Trueman. 
Upon my word (Neighbour) you have laid it on so slightly, that a man may blow off all that Fuz and dust you have cast upon the Crape-gown-mens' Sermons with less breath than will serve to cool a man's Pottage.  Cap-cloak-man. 
That's very strange; if there were not grand faults in them, why will they not sell for more than six pence, when a Play sells for double the price? vide page 17.  Trueman. 
'Tis very true, and your objection signifies nothing; for if good Plays were as common as good Sermons their price would be as mean: and besides, what fault is it in a Sermon, that men think their recreation more necessary than their instruction? If we should turn the argument upon your Party, I believe you would not like it: For I am very confident that one might easily purchase a dozen of your most famous men's Sermons in the late times for the price of one Play, and so much good may it do you with your half penny cuts for our sixpenny.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Ay ay, that may be because people are frighted out of their wits, with the name of Fanatic; so that if the Author of a Sermon be esteemed a Fanatic, (though every sentence of it be worth it's weight in Gold) the whole shall not be thought worth an halfpenny by some sorts of Persons.  Trueman. 
And who can help it? The prices of Books as well as other things rise and fall according to the humours of men, or accidents of time: but indeed the Horrid Villainies of the late time being so palpably countenanced in Fanatic Sermons, no wonder that they are of no value amongst all peaceable men and good Subjects.  Cap-cloak-man. 
hay, Ho! What a stir is here with fanatics, Fanatic Sermons, Fanatic men, and Fanatic women; and all this while neither Observator nor Heraclitus themselves, nor any body else knows, what or who fanatics are. vide page 18. a Fanatic is a Fanatic, and that's all that can be said.  Trueman. 
What would you be at Sir? are you for the Etymology of the word Fanatic, or a Definition, or a Description of the persons, and the places where they live, and the time when to find them? Because neither Nobs nor Harry, nor any of their Admirers of the Clergy may be so much at leisure at present to serve you. I pray you Sir let me know your Commands, and I am your humble Servant.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Which you will, it is all one to me; for I believe you can do all alike, that is nothing like it.  Trueman. 
What I fail in my performances, I hope (sweet Sir) may be pardoned for the sake of my good intentions to do you Service; As for the Etymolgy of Fanatic, I suppose it may come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to appear, so that it signifies in plain English one that appears to be more good, honest, peaceable and holy then really he is; or in short, an Hypocrite: As for a Description of him, (For I dare not undertake to define him whom no Terms can hold,) he is one that strains at a gnat and swallows a Camel; that is more troubled to comply with an innocent Ceremony, then with Schism, Sacrilege, or Treason: whose Religion and honesty, (like that of the Pharisees) consists in not being like other men; whose obedience in Governors consists in breaking their Laws, and who acknowledges no Supreme but his own humour; or in short, as a little Boy (to answer the famous saying of an old Nurse,) told me, A Fanatic is one who if his lawful Magistrates should command him to go on his feet, would (if it was possible) go on his head. If you go on any St. Sabbath-day, you shall find him at some one or other, or all the unlawful Meeting-houses in London; if on the 30 th' of january you may find him at his own house as busy as a Bee at his own Trade. And so much for him.  Cap-cloak-man. 
A man may make any thing of any thing: but what's this to the Vainglorious Humours of the Crape-Gown-men, that they can't stay till they have a Volumn of Sermons, but must be Printing though it be but one single and simple Business by itself. vide page 19 & 20.  Trueman. 
If the Sermons be useful to undeceive the people, and to deter them from their sins, especially from the bewitching sins of Schism, and the 41 faction, I think they need no apologies, there being so much necessity for such discourses: For as ill times do produce good Laws, so this good Effect they have too to beget good Sermons, and that out of pure necessity.  Cap-cloak-man. 
You can as well be hanged as forbear harping upon that old worn-out string of 41. Though I gave you (one would think p. 20. in fine) sufficient warning of it, you will be fathering King-killing-doctrines upon the Presbyterians: but (p. 21.) I have fully demonstrated that if they do hold any such Doctrines they learned them from the Church of England-men.  Trueman. 
What! you mean that demonstration from pedigrees, viz. Edward the Sixth's Church of England-men begat Queen Elizabeth's Church of England-men, and so they begat one another to the end of the Chapter; and to these present times, and the Church of England-men that now are in being: Ergo the Church of England-men taught the Presbyterians their King-killing-doctrins. How good a Demonstration this may be in Heraldry, I know not, the next time I see Charenceux King at Arms I will inquire of him concerning it: But as for Logic, I think you have the worst luck of any man in England; for the Devil-a-bit of Consequence is there in your Argument.  Cap-cloak-man. 
As for Rational Consequences we Dissenters are not much acquainted with them, for a little Simile doth our business amongst the apron-people much better than all the Logic in the world: Reason I confess is not our way, but if this be not as sound and rational an Argument as ever stood on 3 legs, for my part (I declare) I will never have any thing to do with Reason or Syllogisms again as long as I live.  Trueman. 
Don't be too confident: I would not have you forfeit your Reason at so silly a rate, unless you think it necessary to Preach to the People in New-bethlem: It may be you may Preach by the Spirit there, as well as Oliver's Porter prays, and then no doubt but the Cure will be throughly supplied with two such able men.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Do but hear out the Argument, and if you be not convinced by it, certainly you're so mad that New-Bethlem is too good a place for you.  Trueman. 
Well, away with it (man) Let's hear it.  Cap-cloak-man. 
You may read it (from p. 21 to p. 23 cir. fin.) where it is fully discoursed, but the sum of it is this. Marry Queen of Scots was brought to a formal Bar of justice, Convicted, Sentenced, and formally Beheaded by Queen Elizabeth, and the Clergy were part of the Body that pressed and urged the Queen to hasten her Execution, nay further, they were her Confessors that satisfied her Conscience in the 〈◊〉.  Trueman. 
Whether Queen Elizabeth did ever consult her Confessors in the Case or no, doth not appear in any History that I have met with; whether it was conveyed down by oral Tradition from her Puritans to your Presbyterians, I cannot tell: but supposing all this to be true, what follows from thence?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Do you not see? Is it not as clear as the nose on your face, that then the Clergy of the Church of England did hold that it was lawful for old Queen Bess, to behead old Queen Mall, who was convicted of high Treason against her?  Trueman. 
That's right, and follows clearly, allowing your Premises. But what then? what's this to your business.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! What then say you? Ha! Ha! Ha! what's this to my business say you? Ha! Ha! Ha! The man's mad sure, is not this all that I need or desire to prove.  Trueman. 
By your laughing one would think you were little better. Hold your giggling man, and let me tell you, that all this is nothing at all to your business you undertook to prove.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why, is not King-killing and Queen-killing all one?  Trueman. 
Yes, as exactly the same as the Presbyterians Doctrine and the jesuits in that point, viz. that it is lawful for Subjects (whose trusties Sovereigns are, and from whom they derive their Power) to call their Princes to an Account, and to punish them with Deposition and Death itself, if they are adjudged Tyrannical: But that ever the Church of England-men taught any such thing all your Arguments from Queen Elizabeth's-Church-men fall very short of proving.  Cap-cloak-man. 
How so for God's sake? how so? was not Mary Q. of Scots a Sovereign Princess?  Trueman. 
No doubt but over the Scots She was? But what was that to Englishmen, or to Q. Elizabeth? Was Queen Elizabeth Q. Mary's Subject?  Cap-cloak-man. 
No. Who saith She was?  Trueman. 
Then what is this to the Doctrine of the Presbyterians, that Subjects may arraign, condemn, and execute, their own Sovereign Princes? All that this Instance proves, is only this, That the Churches-of-england-man in Queen Elizabeth's time did hold that it was lawful for one Sovereign Prince to kill another if it be in his Power, and if the safety of his own Person, or his Subject's welfare does require it: and what is this more than that it is lawful for one Sovereign to make War with another?  
Now (Neighbour Cap's) even go to Henry Care your Giant of Learning (before you write again) and learn how to make an Argument that may not be quite from the purpose; that you may not spend your precious Treasure of Witticisms so much to no purpose in dressing up such idle and impertinent proofs.  Cap-cloak-man. 
No. I'll go but to one of your Sermons, viz. That Preached on the Anniversary of the Murder of K. Charles I, 1682. and there I shall find an Argument that will do my business, vid. p. 23 and 24.  Trueman. 
What's that I pray you? an Argument for King-Killing in an Invective against it?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Even so; and no otherwise. For (p. 6. ibid.) he saith, We do not wonder at the ruin of Zedechia, nor was the ruin of him a Crime on Nabuchadnezzar 's part.  Trueman. 
What would you infer from hence?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Only this, that then the using a Soveraign-Prince more inhumanely then Killing him is no great matter; and therefore that even according to our high-flown-Church of England-men, Princes Persons are not so sacred as I thought they had been.  Trueman. 
You might have easily seen his meaning if you had Pleased. For it is no more than this. That Comparatively to our Crime (who being Subjects Murdered our own Prince) what Nabuchadnezzar did to Zedechia was no Crime at all in him. For that in Zedechia's highest and best condition, his power was but coordinate with the power of Nabuchadnezzar, but after he was his Prisoner and Nabuchadnezzar had seized his dominion, Zedechia was no longer a Sovereign Prince but his Subject, and therefore his endeavouring to recover his lost Crown was contrary to his fealty to Nabuchadnezzar, and might be punished by him as an Act of Rebellion. If Sovereign Princes have a Right of War one against another who can help it? Does it therefore follow that Subjects have the same right against their own Sovereign whose Lives and Dignities they are bound by oath to maintain even with hazard of their own?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Well, but speak like a Trueman now. Is there not a little touch of nonsense in a subordinate Sovereign? For there never was, nor ever can be any such thing. For a Sovereign (p. 24. ibid.) though inferior in Power, is equal in Privileges and Dignity to the most puissant.  Trueman. 
Well what then? The nonsense is not his, but your own. For he doth no where in that Sermon (that I know of) say that Zedechia when he was taken Captive by Nabuchadnezzar did still remain a Soveraign-Prince, but his very Argument doth imply the quite contrary. But none are so blind as they that will not see. For you yourself confess that if a Soveraign-Prince becomes Tributary, he is only Titular, and no Sovereign. Now had not Zedechia not only lost his Kingdom, but his Liberty also? Where then was his Sovereignty?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Even where the Author's Liberty is. For in his Dedication of the said Sermon, he makes himself the most abject Slave in the World to pin a piece of Flattery upon his Patron. p. 26.  Trueman. 
What Slavery is this you cry out of at such a rate? If I mistake not it is only this: That he acknowledgeth it as an Honour; not only that he, but all his Ancestors ever since the Reformation have been chaplains to the Dukes of Somerset, and wisheth (as well he may) that it may continue so, to all succeeding Generations.  Cap-cloak-man. 
But he expresseth it, as though he had renounced Liberty itself that draught of God's gifts to mankind; only that he might Flatter his Patron.  Trueman. 
For my part, I think it so extraordinary an Honour to himself and his Family; that there are scarcely any Scholars in England but might well be ambitious of it: and did really think that he had herein passed a Compliment on himself and not upon the Duke. But I see Liberty is as dear to a Fanatic as nuts to an Ape; and is not to be parted withal, no not so much as in Civility, though it be never so much to his own Honour and Advantage.  Cap-cloak-man. 
If this will not pass for Flattery, I'll show you one that shall, or else I'll never study the Academy of Compliments again as long as I live.  Trueman. 
What! In another Dedication I'll warrant you? It seems those Church-mens-Sermons are very barren of faults that you're forced to pick Faults with every little Compliment in a Dedication. You tell us of Reflections upon Sermons, but we have nothing as yet, but idle Reflections upon the Epistles. One would think Men might have some Grains of Allowance in expressing their gratitude and Civility. If it had been at a Sister's Funeral (that used to bring you the refreshing-Tankard-full of Cordial after your sabbath-days great Pains and Labours, an whole hours Flattery had been nothing with you even in your Sermon.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Well, well, you must be flnging at old Stories: but this is the very Quintessence of Courtship, the Elixir of Eloquence, etc. p. 26.  Trueman. 
Where is this sight to be seen Neighbour?  Cap-cloak-man. 
In the Epistle before a Sermon, called the Present Miseries and Mischiefs of Sin.  Trueman. 
I have read the Sermon, and I am sure he flatters no Vice that he discourseth of in it.  Cap-cloak-man. 
No, I don't charge him with any such thing.  Trueman. 
No, I believe the fault of the Sermon is the quite contrary with which you was really angry.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why, the little Vicour (I confess) is a little too pert upon the ill Consequences of Pride (P. 29th) in producing us as Examples of them. And give me lief to say he is not a little impudent (p. 26 of the same Sermon) after he had shown the most miserable effects of Schism and Faction in the destruction of the jews in judea, and the Christians in Africa, to tell my Lord Major, etc. I wish the divisions amongst ourselves proceeded not from the same Cause (id est▪ from Malice and Envy) and that our Magistrates would take Care to suppress them lest they proceed to the same sad effects, viz. the utter ruin of the best Constituted Church, and State in the World. Now, what Flesh and Blood that lives by holding forth at Conventicles (as I do) is able to endure such a Sermon as this is, without reflecting upon it, to blast its Reputation?  Trueman. 
Ay, but then (me it thinks) you should have reflected upon the Sermon, not upon the Epistle.  Cap-cloak-man. 
No, you're a fool. Oblique Reflections do a man's business by so much the better, by how much they less discover his design.  Trueman. 
The Children of this World (I see) are wiser in their Generations then the Children of Light. But with all your Wisdom, I pray you make out wherein lies the extravagance of these his Words to the Lady. viz. I must beg Pardon of your Modesty to say, that your great Prudence and Piety is a sufficient Guard against those Sins which are here found guilty of the Miseries and Mischiefs of Mankind.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Does it not argue a Seraphic piece of Sicophantisme to attribute those sufficiencies to mortal frailty, that neither David nor Solomon with all their Prudence and Piety could ever boast of, being purely Supernatural?  Trueman. 
But (I beseech you Sir) does he any Ways exclude supernatural Aids? Does he not suppose the Lady to be a Christian? And therefore her constant Devotion surely doth not any Ways hinder, but very much procure the Graces of God's Spirit to direct her. For our Saviour saith, Ask and ye shall have, etc.  Cap-cloak-man. 
We may well suppose that David and Solomon were supernaturally assisted, too; and yet (notwithstanding all their Prudence and Piety) we see they fell into most gross sins.  Trueman. 
Very true, their falls were permitted that all men might be more careful of their standing, and that none might presume. And yet I believe many that have neither been Endued with the Wisdom of Solomon, nor the Devotion of David have (by God's assistance) been preserved from their grand Crimes. To come a little closer to you Neighbour, Do you think yourself as Godly a Man as David was, and as Wise as Solomon?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why? what if I do not? what is that to this business?  Trueman. 
I suppose you would not be angry if a man should say and believe that your Cap-cloak-ship is neither so Wise as Solomon, nor so holy as David, and yet that you're neither an Adulterer, a Murderer, nor an Idolater; nay (I imagine) you would be very angry if a Man should conclude the contrary.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Should I not have reason enough to be so?  Trueman. 
so Art not thou then a very rude Fellow to conclude so of the Lady from such Premises?  Cap-cloak-man. 
I conclude so? It is a lie. I would have you to know, that I am better bred then so. All that I concluded was only this, that though she was as Wise as Solomon and as pious as David yet possibly she might fall into as great Sins as are arraigned in that Sermon; and therefore that her Prudence and Piety cannot be Sufficient Guards against them.  Trueman. 
But how does this follow? For my life I cannot see the Consequence of it.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Can't you see the Consequence? Then it is pity you should have any Eyes, or make any more pretence to reason. For how can that be a sufficient Guard which may fail a Man?  Trueman. 
I beg your leave (good Neighbour Caps) to ask you another question. Does not any man think a good Cudgel a sufficient defence against a snarling Cur, and yet is it not possible that the Tike may surprise a man for all his Cudgel, and give him a snap or two by the heels?  Cap-cloak-man. 
But does not he himself confess his flattery, when he is forced to beg pardon of the Lady's modesty beforehand?  Trueman. 
Not at all truly that I can see. For (as I apprehend it) Modesty is a virtue that may be offended at its own praises though they be never so truly deserved. Now where's the Purse-opening-sublimity that you talk of in all this? I wish you would stretch your Throat upon the Tenterhooks for it, when you next exercise before the sisters, no more than the Author hath stretched his conscience in this commendation you have made such a noise withal; and then possibly the Guineas stolen from their Husbands, would not clink so finely in your pockets.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why, do you know the Author you're so much concerned for him?  Trueman. 
It may be I do, and it may be not; thus much I know of him that he hath the Reputation of an Honest plain-Dealing Gentleman▪ and to have considerably balked his interest rather than he would fail of his duty to the Church; and therefore I have more reason to believe him then ten thousand of those that will say or do any thing for the sake of Contribution-money.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Yes, yes, believe him you may and if you will, but surely no body will believe you, if you do; who does but consider that incomprehensible Compliment that he passeth upon the Son. (vid. p. 27. Crape-Gown.)  Trueman. 
All that he saith of him is this. That he knew him in his Childhood, and that such was the goodness of his nature, as though he had been made to show the loveliness of virtue, and that one would almost think that he alone was exempted from the general corruption of nature derived from Adam. Now what if there should be nothing in all this that did not become him to say upon this occasion?  Cap-cloak-man. 
what?— Then I will be willing to be exalted above my Brethren, and to be set upon the next Signpost, and to have my Head put through a wooden Loope-whole, with these brace of dear Caps upon it, to be gazed at, for the Sign of the black silk-button edged with white.  Trueman. 
Have a care of that (man) you do not know what may happen. Possibly you may have your deserts before you die. It is a great deal of pity but you should.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Well, well. If this happens not till you have vindicated your Author, I think I am safe enough.  Trueman. 
But you may not be long so, for all as I can see to the contrary. For it is not reasonable that he should let the World know that he did not think those to whom he dedicated his Sermon had more need of it, than other men: for otherwise it must have been thought that they were guilty of those sins which he there condemns. And can there be any better Argument to a young Gentleman to persist in the Ways of virtue, then to let him see how much he must degenerate from what he was if ever he should fall into vicious courses; and what a shame it would be for him to pervert so excellent a Constitution of Body, and Disposition of mind? And did it not become him, who formerly had the tuition of him, to remind him of it?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Oh! But he hath made him almost a God upon Earth: and had it not been for that almost, not much more could have been attributed to the Humanity of Christ. p. 28. ibid.  Trueman. 
Did you never hear that a good man is the most lively Image of God? If you think then a Person is a good man, must you be afraid to say so, lest you make him a God upon Earth? Does not the Apostle say that Christ was (as to his Humanity) in all things like unto us, sin only excepted? When I see then a Person of extraordinary goodness of temper, and unblameableness of life, what great Crime would it be if a man should say of suchan one that one would almost think him like unto Christ? and yet this is a greater Character then that which you so much quarrel at.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Nay 'twas well that almost came in intime.  Trueman. 
You might (if you had pleased) have observed that he doth not say that the young Gentleman was exempted from the general Depravity of Humane Nature; but only that judging by the sweetness of his Genius, and the goodness of his inclinations visible in his actions from his Childhood one would almost think so; and surely he is a more capable judge of this who conversed with him, and had that care of him, than you that confess you don't know him. But if the almost had been quite: left out, certainly much more might have been said concerning the Humane Nature of Christ.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Do you believe this to be an Hyperbole or no?  Trueman. 
Why, what if I do? When are Hyberboles allowable if not in Letters of Gratitude?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Never at all; nor ever can be.  Trueman. 
Have a care, what you say, lest you throw dirt upon the preaching of the heads of your Party in the late times. For then there was scarcely a sister that died but that a great part of the Sermon was made up of her Communion with God, her Godding it with God, and Christening it with Christ; and such like unintelligible Stuff, that if it be not Hyperbole, I am sure 'tis grand Nonsense.  Cap-cloak-man. 
I doubt not but they which used those expressions had a very good meaning in them, but I cannot stand to explain it to you.  Trueman. 
Even let it alone till you have such another Assembly of Divines at Westminster as you had formerly, it may serve them for a new work of Annotations.  Cap-cloak-man. 
What have you to do with the Assembly of Divines? I pray mind your own business, and find out an excuse for your Crape Gown-Author. For in Troth you can't do it.  Trueman. 
Why, what have you more to say against him?  Cap-cloak-man. 
What? The best is still behind. See p. 28 lin. 24. The jest is this, that after the Gentleman hath Seraphimed and Chernbimed the Lady and her Son, he wisheth them all the Happiness of this World, and that which is to come: As if the latter could be denied to Persons so Supernaturalized and fitted for Heaven. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha—  Trueman. 
Laugh on, Laugh on; but you might have stayed till I could have found the Jest out, that I might have laughed with you▪ For I can't find where the Jest lies upon my word.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Oh Dulness, Dulness! It is pity you should ever hear a good Jest again, or ever laugh more, if you can't find in your Heart to laugh at this.  Trueman. 
Well, but first make out the Jest, and then let us laugh: Where doth it lie, in his Words, or in your Comment upon them?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Nay, if you can't see where it lies, 'tis impossible to inform you, and I will never undertake a man that is so abominably dull.  Trueman. 
Then I'll endeavour to inform myself. All that he saith in that Epistle is to this Effect, that he shall scarcely find any persons that have less need of such a Discourse than they to whom he dedicates it, because they are not guilty of those Grand Sins against which his Sermon inveighs: Now is this to Cherubin and Seraphim them? Is there no more required to make up a Cherubin or Seraphim than not to be guilty of the highest Wickedness that Mankind can be guilty of? The Sins he mentions are these, Pride, Envy, Schisin, Faction, Voluptuousness, Covetousness, Lustfulness and Anger, Gluttony and Drunkenness, uncharitableness and Injustice, Irreligion and Atheism. Now it seems you know your own Party so well, that he (you think) may well pass for a Cherubin or a Seraphim amongst you, that is not guilty of some, if not of all these Sins; and that in the highest manner that can be, and prosecutes them to the utmost. For it is against such sort of Sinners, that continue in these Sins, and pursue them (not against such as through Humane Infirmity or Surprise may happen to fall into them) that the Sermon is directed; from which number he thinks he may well exclude the Lady and her Son. And what of all this?  Cap-cloak-man. 
What then? Surely persons so Supernaturalized are sure enough of the Happiness of another World; and therefore is it not a kind of a Bull for him to wish it them?  Trueman. 
Why, may we not pray for that which we are sure of? What do you think of those Petitions in the Lord's Prayer, viz. Thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done? Nay, (Secondly,) How can any man be sure that he shall not fall into the grossest Sins, and die in them; and so be deprived of the Happiness of the World to come? Is any one more Supernaturalized than St. Paul? And yet he tells us, I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that when I have preached to others, I myself should become a Castaway. Now if he thought himself in danger of being a Castaway, well may we think that any one else is in danger of it; and therefore sure it is no great harm to pray for the best of Men, that they may not fall short of the Prize they aim at.— Now all this while, where's the Jest you talked of?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why— the Jest— the Jest— say you? The Jest was a good Jest if you could have let it alone; but you have spoiled it, and who can help it?  Trueman. 
Now I think on't, the Jest may lie in this, that you should talk of a Jest when there is nothing like it: or else, that you should imagine that they are said to be supernaturalized and Cherubimed and Seraphimed, that are only said not to pursue the greatest Villainies that men can commit.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Well, I see this Lay-chair-man of the Crape-Gown-committee hath an excellent Excuse-Forge in Ludgate Street, and when he is well feed, can tell how to employ it: For I'll be hanged if this be not his.  Trueman. 
Don't be so confident (Neighbour) to venture your sweet Life upon such a Trifle: For if it depended upon this, for all you're so wise, you might even die like a Fool: For it is possible, that neither he, nor any Crape-Gown-man thinks your ridiculous Libel worth the taking notice of; but one that is very ready to wait on you whensoever you shall please to give him a further Occasion of Discourse.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Let it be who it will, I neither value him nor what he thinks or saith of me, or of my Book.  Trueman. 
So I thought; why should Goliath be afraid of such a Stripling as little David? But what would you say if I should produce you a Grave Saying out of one of the Gravest Fathers of the Dissenters, which in the true Notion of Complementing (For complementare you know, is complete mentiri) doth as far exceed whatsoever you have alleged out of the Crape-Gown-men, as Heaven is above Earth.  Cap-cloak-man. 
What would I say? Why— I would say— any thing even-what you would have me say.  Trueman. 
A Match, a Match: In the first place then let me ask you, do you not believe, that the Reverend Mr. Baxter is as able, as powerful, as peaceable, as Soul-searching, as Sin-confounding, as precious, as Grace-restoring, as Soul-elevating, and Soulsaving a Preacher, as any Double-caped. querpo-cloaked holder-forth of you all?  Cap-cloak-man. 
If you would have me answer you seriously, I think there is not an abler man in England of any Party whatsoever, nor a more grave and serious Person.  Trueman. 
Now amongst all the Books that he hath written in which do you think he is most grave, and serious?  Cap-cloak-man▪ 
In his Saints Rest. For there surely it most becomes him to be most grave and serious where he is treating of the most serious matters; the Eternal Rewards of the Righteous, and the unspeakable joys of Heaven.  Trueman. 
So one would think. Yet in that very book it is that this Grave-saying I told you of is to be found. (pag. 101. Edit. 3.) viz. speaking of the Company his Saints should have in Heaven he tells them, then shall ye be with Brook, Pim, Hambden, and White etc. Your names shall be chanted with their names, and your Sayings shall be recorded with their Sayings, etc. I think Christians, (saith he) this will be a more Honourable Assembly than you ever beheld: and a more Happy Society than you were ever of before. For surely Brook, and Pim, and Hambden, and White, etc. are now members of a more knowing, un-erring, well ordered, Right-ayming, Selfdenying, unanimous, Honourable, Triumphant Senate then this is, from whence they were taken, or ever Parliament will be.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why might not these be in heaven as well as any other repenting Sinners?  Trueman. 
What reason had he to believe they were so? Did they ever show their Repentance by any act as public as their Crimes? Or does Mr. Baxter think that Perjury, Treason, Sacrilege, Rebellion, and Murder, are fit Qualifications for Heaven? Or that there can be no Heaven to an Army-Saint without the Company of the Ringleaders of Rebellion? For my part I can't see any Cause to imagine that they or any such that die in actual Rebellion should escape Hell, unless it be that the Devil should be afraid to admit them there, lest they should raise commotions even in his Kingdom of Darkness, what Excuse-Forger have you to bring off your Father Baxter from this saying?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why he himself is ashamed of it, or else the Printer: for it is left out in the Edition since his Majesty's Restauration.  Trueman. 
Ay, Ay, that may be. Not that he was ashamed of such a Precious piece of Consolation, but that these are not fit times for such Doctrines.  Cap-cloak-man. 
For my part he is of age let him excuse himself: For I cannot find out any excuse for him. This is a Compliment with a Witness, the Quintessence of Courtship is nothing to it.  Trueman. 
I am glad to see you acknowledge that I have performed what I undertook; I hope now you'll be as good as your Word, and say what I would have you say.  Cap-cloak-man. 
What is it you would have me say?  Trueman. 
Nothing but tell Truth, and shame the Devil; by Confessing that you double-Cap'd-Querpo-men are a parcel of very knaves, and care not a pin what you say or write so it doth but tend to carry on the cause. Will you confess man?  Cap-cloak man. 
No. No. Don't you believe that. Confession is Popish. I abhor it utterly.  Trueman. 
But what becomes of your promise then?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Promise? What care I for promises when they make against the privileges of the Saints? But now I think on't, before you urge my promise any further, give me leave to consult Dick Medler, and Harry Monkey-face about the business, for they are good at inventing excuses at a dead lift: or if they can't do it, instead of going to the excuse-forge at Sam's Coffe-house, I'll go to a much better Office of Excuses then that is.  Trueman. 
Where's that new Office kept I pray Neighbor?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Did you never hear of it? At the Old Bailie▪ Where should it be? Are not there constantly Ignoramus juries ready to excuse even the Devil himself for rebelling against his Maker?  Trueman. 
Now you have hit on't. They'll do your Buness without fail.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Neither they, nor any Jury in England can ever acquit your Crape-Gown-men from being ridiculous in their preaching.  Trueman. 
But wherein (I pray you) are they ridiculous? First charge them with a Bill of Indictment, and then we may better judge whether it will be found Billa Vera, or Ignoramus.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why— I think I have charged them home enough, p. 29. to the end of my Book, a Bill of Indictment large enough and true enough too.  Trueman. 
Let me see, I'll read your Indictment, p. 29. & 30. You stand here Indicted by the Names of Nicholas Nemo, etc. For that not having the Fear of God before your Eyes, etc. Upon several days and times, particularly at— a time— not to be named, you the said Nich. etc. of the Parish and County aforesaid Crape-Gown-men, being to preach before the Artillery Company, did choose such Texts as were most suitable to the occasion (and did not as you ought to have done) choose your Texts out of the Book of the Revelations, or out of Daniel's Visions, or Ezekiel's Wheels, etc. and further, that you the said Crape-Gown-men did use such Terms of the Military Art, and so applied them as might be most useful to the Hearers, and might be best remembered by them, etc.  Cap-cloak-man. 
This surely cannot be the Sum of what I charge them withal in those 2 pages.  
If I have either Eyes or Understanding, this is all that I can find in them.  Cap-cloak-man. 
I can't tell how to believe it: Well; but go on: You'll find enough behind.  Trueman. 
In page 31, and 32. you continue your Charge to this Effect: And further, that you the said Crape-Gown-men, not having the Fear of God before your Eyes, out of premeditated malice against our Sovereign Lord the King's justices, and all the able Council learned in the Law, and the wise juries at a certain Assizes, etc. then and there assembled, did in their Sermons then and there preached, put them in mind of their Duties, and of the great Sacredness of Oaths even amongst Heathens, and terrify and affright them, even to the putting them in fear of their immortal Lives, with the Terrors of the last judgement before an all-knowing, infallible, & Almighty judge, etc.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Read on, read on, you'll come to more Material Faults in the following Pages.  Trueman. 
From pag. 33. to p. 39 you proceed in your Indictment to this purpose, viz. That you the said Crape-Gown-men, in several of your Sermons at other times, and in other places, not having the fear of God before your Eyes, out of premeditated Malice against the good, Godly and sober Party of this our Nation, have chosen certain malignant Texts of Scripture, to prove to the People those damnable Doctrines of the Excellency and Divine Right of Monarchy; and that in other Discourses you have defamed his Majesty's best Subjects, the Presbyterians (that were so instrumental to the bringing him in, for their own Interest, and ever since his Restauration, have been most Loyally endeavouring (because he will not let them be Kings) to throw him out again) with a matter of Truth; and that you the said Crape-Gown-men, to the great prejudice of his Majesty's Grammar-school of St. Paul, etc. have made use of certain Citations out of Valerius Maximus and Cicero, because they were pertinent to your purpose; and lastly, that you the said Crape-Gown-men in other of your Sermons, have proved, that it is not lawful to make an Act of Parliament, to exclude the Right Heir from the Crown, because Job tells us Ch. 36. v. 21. that it is not lawful for a man to do evil that good may come of it; and that you have most bitterly railed against such as endeavoured to settle the Crown and the Succession in the right Line, by such an Exclusion of the true and lawful Successor, whereby the Godly Party have been very much let and hindered in doing God's Work, (i. e.) in introducing an Holy and thorough Reforming Commonwealth amongst us: And all this you have done and said contrary to the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King, his Crown and Dignity, and the Statutes made at the last Sessions of Parliament in Utopia, Anno 1900. of the Reign of Amadis de Gaul, c. 201. etc.  Cap-cloak-man. 
How can you acquit your Crape-Gown-men from these Faults? Is not the Indictment fully proved against them?  Trueman. 
I think there is no great need of a Verdict in the Case: If it will do you any Service, because there's no Treason in them, I'll confess them Guilty.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Then you must acknowledge them sufficiently ridiculous.  Trueman. 
I beg your Pardon for that, Sweet, Dear Neighbour: For I cannot see any such thing charged upon them.  Cap-cloak-man. 
You have huddled up together what I have said, and represented it according to your own Humour; but if you would consider particularly, as there you may find it, I doubt not but you must be forced to confess the Ridiculousness of such preaching.  Trueman. 
I am mistaken if I have not delivered the Sense of your Words according to the Truth, and the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; and the reason why I put your whole Accusation in one Sum of an Indictment, is, because I did not see any thing that you have said that deserved a more particular Consideration; but if you have any thing more to say, I have Patience enough to hear it, let it be never so impertinent.  Cap-cloak-man. 
In the first place, I pray you let me know why you talk of Malignant Texts of Scripture? I am sure I made use of no such blasphemous Epithet: I have more Reverence for the sacred Scriptures than to blaspheme them at that Rate.  Trueman. 
Possibly you may have now; but there was a time when one of your Godly Committees of Sequestration, sentenced an honest Clergyman (for want of other Faults) merely for choosing malignant Texts of Scripture, to be sequestered, and executed their Sentence upon him accordingly; and therefore you must pardon me, if (because I saw you so hot against these Texts) I did imagine these might be the very malignant Texts for which he was sequestered: For I cannot but think that your hatred to Monarchy may sometimes overbalance your great Reverence for the Holy Scriptures, when they oppose your most dearly beloved Common-weath Doctrines.  Cap-cloak-man. 
You mistake me; I was not hot against any Texts of Scripture; but against the Preacher for misapplying them.  Trueman. 
Let's see then how they are misapplied.  Cap-cloak man. 
For Example, to prove the Power of Kings, a Wakefield Gent. takes this Text, Psal. 51. v. 4. Against thee only have I sinned, vid. p. 33.  Trueman. 
Had he not reason for it? For he that can sin only against God, is accountable to none but God for his Sin; and therefore cannot, nor ought not to be brought to the Block by his own People and Subjects.  Cap-cloak-man. 
I must acknowledge the Consequence to be true in spite of my Teeth: but how are the Premises true from that Text, viz. that David as a Monarch could only sin against God, or against God only?  Trueman. 
For all any thing that you have said to the Contrary, this may be the very true and genuine sense of the Words. I did desire a friend of mine to examine Interpreters about them, and by the account he hath given me I am much confirmed in that opinion.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Let us see your friend's account; for I cannot but think it will prove a very strange one.  Trueman. 
I will give it you truly in his own Words, let it appear never so strange to you. He tells me that St. Hierom (who possibly could have writ Hebrew in other kind of Characters than you have done) renders the Words thus. In te, In te solum peccavi. And Grotius thus comments upon it, A te solo Poenas metuere possum. Nam Liberi sunt Reges a vinculis delictorum, ut ait Ambrose: & secundum dictum Rabbinorum, Nulla creatura judicat Regem, sed Deus benedictus. That is in plain English if I can translate the Words. Against thee, against thee only have I sinned. From thee alone can I be punished for my sin. For (as Ambrose saith) Kings are free from Punishments for their Sins. And (according to the saying of the Rabbins) No creature can judge a King; but only God blessed for evermore. Now (Sir) I hope it is no great Crime if these authorities should persuade the Gentleman to take the Words in this sense; and me to believe them to be rightly applied even against the infallible Word of your dear self; for I see very little reason you have offered against this application, and I see less reason to think that Grotius and saint Hierom did not understand Hebrew as well as your learned Worship.  Cap-cloak-man. 
I do not at all question it. For I give you the translation of the Hebrew in the very same Words that Saint Hierom hath done; but I cannot assent to Grotius his explication of them, for reasons I there give you p. 33 and 34.  Trueman. 
I pray then what can be the reason that David does here so Emphatically repeat this expression Against thee, against thee only have I sinned, but only his acknowledgement of God's sole power over him to punish him, or to forgive him?  Cap-cloak-man. 
That cannot be the reason. For the Words were without question uttered in reference to the privacy of the fact committed, which lay concealed from all the World but God.  Trueman. 
Well faced out indeed! When were these Words spoken of by David, after the Prophet Nathan had been with him and publicly told him of his Murder and Adultery, or before? It must be surely after it, for before that, he took no notice of his sin.  Cap-cloak-man. 
What if it was after? What's this to the business?  Trueman. 
No more but this; that then David's sin when he makes this Confession did not lie concealed from all the World but God.  Cap-cloak-man. 
But the very next Words Explanatory of the first, and to them annexed, and made part of the sentence seem to demonstrate the Reason that I have given to be the true Reason of the Words, viz. and done this evil in thy Sight. (i. e.) not in the Sight of any other.  Trueman. 
Nay surely they seem to demonstrate the quite contrary. For I think Tautologies are not to be allowed in Scripture without a great Necessity. Why then must these latter Words and have done this evil in thy sight, be taken in the very same sense with the former Against thee Against thee only have I sinned; when the sense may be otherwise very clear and pertinent to his purpose?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Because David could have no Reason to appeal to Heaven about his Power, but speak these Words to this End, viz. to justify the Almighty in what Punishment he should inflict on him, as the last Words of the Text demonstratively imply, viz. to the end that thou mayest be justified in thy Word, and pure in thy judgement. p. 34. ibid.  Trueman. 
For that very Reason that you have given from the last Words, I conclude that David had great cause in his confession to remember the power that God had given him in raising him up to be King of Israel. For this as the Prophet Nathan urgeth it 2 Sam. 12. v. 7 etc. was the grand aggravation of his sin. Thus saith the Lord God, I anointed thee King over Israel etc. wherefore then hast thou despised the Commandment of the Lord? Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine House; thus saith the Lord, Behold I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own House, and another shall lie with thy wives in the sight of the Sun. For thou didst it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, etc.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Go on and let us see how suitable to this occasion your sense of the words will prove.  Trueman. 
With all my Heart. David having seen this threatening of the Prophet Nathan to be fulfilled upon him in the Rebellion of his own beloved Son Absalon against him, when he seized his Father's Wives and Concubines and lay with them even in the Gates of the City, in the sight of all Israel; in the Agony of his Soul he pens this Penitential Psalm to beg Pardon for that particular Sin of the Murder of Vriah, which he could not but know was the Cause of these so heavy afflictions upon them. In which he confesses to God Almighty, Against thee, Against thee only have I Sinned &c. (i. e.) Thou O God hast raised me up from a Poor Shepherd's Boy to be King of Israel, and given me an absolute Authority over thy People, so that they should have no power to call me to an account for any of my Actions, or to inflict any Punishment upon me. But I have abused ingratefully all these thy Mercies towards me, and thine own power over thine own People with which thou hast entrusted me hath been a means and encouragement to me to take away the Life of Innocent Vriah: thus heinously have I Sinned against thee, and more particularly against thee, than any other of thy People could have done.  Cap-cloak-man. 
This is hitherto very pertinent I must confess; but how can you carry it quite through the Verse so as to agree with the following Words?  Trueman. 
Have but Patience to go along with me and ou'll see.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Well go on then with your Paraphrase, and I will not interrupt you any more.  Trueman. 
This great evil (saith David) I did in thy sight. So privately that no mortal Eye could see that I was concerned in it, but thou O God who art every where present, and seest all things didst manifestly behold it; and that thou mightest vindicate thy power and Providence hast made my Crime visible to all men in my Punishment according as thou didst foretell by thy holy Prophet Nathan. That thou mightest be justified in thy Word and pure in thy judgements. And hereby thou hast justified thy Prophet's threatenings, and cleared thine own justice from all Aspersions that mine Impunity might have brought upon it, by inflicting such heavy judgements upon me which I acknowledge I have most justly deserved. Now let me hear what you have to say against this Gloss.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Truly (Neighbour) I have nothing to say against this paraphrase but that it may be the true sense of the Words for all as I know to the contrary at present: but you can't think the Fellows that are hanged are accountable to none but God, because they sing these very Words at the Gallows. Me it thinks this renders that sense of them a little ridiculous.  Trueman. 
After they are hanged and dead, who (I pray) are they accountable to but only to God?  Cap-cloak-man. 
But they do not sing this after they are hanged, do they? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.  Trueman. 
No truly I believe not. But they are dead in Law when they sing it, and have passed their accounts before man, and so they can be accountable to none else but God.  Cap-cloak-man. 
All this doth not satisfy me yet. I should be very loath to use those Words upon the like occasion.  Trueman. 
I dare believe you in this without swearing. You have no great Maw without doubt to follow Brother Hugh and go to Heaven in a string. But If ever I should hear that you was going to the Gallows I would wait on you, and doubt not but to give you full satisfaction that you might sing those Words, as well as any Man can sing any Psalm of David; and yet that David might understand them in no other sense then what I have before proved.  Cap-clook-man. 
Why truly now I think on't, Brother Peter brought a great Scandal upon the Godly by his going out of the World so like a dumb Dog as he did. Wherefore because I do not know what may happen I should thank you if you would now inform me.  Trueman. 
That you may be a little serious and leave your laughing and scoffing against all People that love the Government (which I doubt nothing but hanging can make you do) suppose then the Act of Indemnity was repealed and that you was convicted for your old Treasons and Rebellions (because your new and latter Actions are not yet discovered) and that Sentence had justly passed upon you, and that you was mounted upon the Ladder just ready to be turned off. I believe than you would have some serious sense of your sins, and would not think it impertinent to apply David's Confession to your own circumstances, so far as they are agreeable to them and no further.  Cap-cloak-man. 
I am apt too; think so to? but would be very unwilling to put it to the experiment.  Trueman. 
In the mean while I pray you tell me why it is ridiculous that David should have a different meaning suitable to his particular sin and punishment in this confession, from that which other men may use the words in, when they apply them to their own particular cases?  Cap-cloak-man. 
But what do you think of the Chertsey Sr. that to prove the excellency of Monarchy takes his Text Jud. 17. v. 9 In those Days there was no King in Israel, but every man did what was right in his own Eyes. Hath not he rendered himself sufficiently ridiculous?  Trueman. 
I never saw the Sermon, but as for the Text, I think he makes himself most ridiculous, who excepts against the suitableness of it to that Subject.  Cap-cloak-man. 
How could this be? vid. page 35. A government without a King, and yet an excellent Monarchy! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.  Trueman. 
You have an excellent knack at that Liberal Science of Scoffing and laughing, you have studied them I believe much more than Logic. For generally I find them the best Arguments you have quite through your Pamphlet. It is but dressing up any Person in a fools coat, and though he be never so Wise, the rabble will laugh at him, and then you have done your business.  Cap-cloak-man. 
You'll give me leave (I hope) to laugh at such as make themselves fools, will you not? I cannot for my Heart but laugh at so foolish an Argument as this is for Monarchy. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.  Trueman. 
The Argument from the Text is his; but the Folly of it is your own, and so you may laugh on at yourself, if you please.  Cap-cloak-man. 
For my Life I can't see any Argument that can be deduced from those Words to prove the Excellency of Monarchy.  Trueman. 
Our Affections too much blind our Understanding; I'll warrant you, you could see half so much, That made for a Commonwealth Government, if it came in your Way.  Cap-cloak-man. 
Why, this very Text makes as much for a Republican, as a Regal Government. For all that can be deduced from it is only this, that when there are no Governors to execute Laws every man will do what is right in his own Eyes; and therefore that Anarchy is worse than the worst of Governments, and this makes no more for or against Monarchy, than a Republic.  Trueman. 
Yes surely, something more: for the Misery that is bewailed came upon Israel by reason of the death of him that judged or ruled them, who was Samson, a single Person; there being at that time a perfect Inter-regnum. Now if this Text doth prove (as you say) that no Government at all, is worse than the worst of Governments that can be; then by Consequence it proves that Monarchy is the best Government, because it is the farthest removed from Anarchy.  Cap-cloak-man. 
What can you say for your Crape-gown-mens' Learned Quotations out of Schoolboy's Authors, are not these ridiculous?  Trueman. 
Only this, that I think him a ridiculous Fool, that doth not know that the wisest man in the world may benefit himself by such Authors as are read in Grammer-schools. Are not all the Classical Authors learned there? What must we never look on them again because we saw them when we were Schoolboys?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Yes, Yes, by all means; but yet there is no necessity, that a man should cite Valerius-Maximus as an Historian, who was but a Collector of History; and for such a Story which other Authors contradict; or Oliverius notes upon him instead of Plutarch or Arrianus: As we may see in a Sermon called the Miseries of Sin, etc.  Trueman. 
You have made a very grave Discovery concerning Valerius Maximus: I'll warrant you that Author of the Sermon hath by this Learning of yours, got a Wrinkle somewhere more than ever he had; but why may not a Man call him that writes Collections of History by the name of an Historian?  Cap-cloak-man. 
No, no, 'tis ridiculous; most shamefully ridiculous.  Trueman. 
Speak softly Neighbour; for else (if he should hear you) you will infinitely disoblige and Old Friend of yours, and as Trusty a Trojan for the Cause as ever wielded that dangerous Weapon called a Pen.  Cap-cloak-man. 
That I would be very loath to do, but who is it you mean?  Trueman. 
Why no less a Man then Mr. Rushworth who hath writ so many and so large volumes of Collections in the behalf of the Good Old Cause. Do you not think now the Old Gentleman would be much concerned, if for all his Pains he might not have the Honour to be styled an Historian?  Cap-cloak-man. 
Well then for Worthy Rushworth's Sake and his most Authentic Collections, Valer. Max. though he was but a Collector of History, shall pass for an Historian; but why should he be believed against the Authority of better Authors, such as Plutarch and Pliny?  Trueman. 
Plutarch's Lives and Pliny's History are but Collections out of other Historians no more than Valerius Max. his Book is; and why (I pray you) may not he be believed as well as they? Or why might not there be more Scylla's then one that died a strange and unnatural death? However, surely we may believe, that Valerius had some Ground for what he said, and that is enough to Authorise a Preacher to take so useful a Story as this upon his Credit.  Cap-cloak man. 
Well; but why must he be quoted when Plutarch and Arrianus say the same?  Trueman. 
Possibly the Notae Variorum upon Valerius would have furnished him with the Names of Plutarch etc. but he is more ingenious, then to mention such Authors as he hath not read though he hath never so fair an Opportunity offered him. I know your Author of that Sermon so well, that I dare swear he scorns to appear more learned than he is; now I hope it is no great Crime if he that hath so much Business to do, so constantly lying upon him, should not have Leisure to read all the Historians that ever were. And now give me leave to tell you at Parting, that I think you have done our Church-mens-Sermons the greatest Honour that could be in this your Dialogue.  Cap-cloak-man. 
How so I pray you? It was utterly beyond my intentions if I have.  Trueman. 
I do believe you; but you may have heard of one that designed to have cut Jason's throat; but thereby cured him of his inveterate disease.  Cap-cloak-man. 
I pray you don't raise such a Report of me: you don't know what Injury you may do me by it, Do you think the Sisters will contribute to me for my Books-sake, if they hear I have done the Church of England-men Service by it?  Trueman. 
I cannot help that; but so it is: For certainly nothing in the World can more recommend their Sermons, then that all the Wit and Malice of their Enemies could not find nor make any more nor greater Faults in them then you have done: Nay it may do them more Service than this.  Cap-cloak-man. 
What is that? What more still?  Trueman. 
Yes truly, and far greater than the former, viz. It may move some Persons that otherwise would not do it, to look into the Sermons of your Party, and to take Notice what horrid Crimes and Villainies are countenanced in them; And nothing can render you so odious as this to all Men, that have but a spark of Common Honesty.  Cap-cloak-man. 
This will be very Fine Work for our Common Enemies to make sport withal: will it not? All our Quarrels are but de Lanâ Caprinâ, about mere Trifles; And shall we ruin all Religion for such inconsiderable things as Ceremonies?  Trueman. 
Why then will you do it? you have begun to ridicule the Sermons of our Party; And if you proceed how can you expect but the same Measure you meet, shall be Measured to you again? And as for our Differences the less they are, the greater is your Fault in not complying with our Church: for our Churchmen are bound up by Laws, so that they cannot if they would come over to you; but you are perfectly at Liberty, and nothing hinders but your own perverseness; But that you might join with them against the Common Enemies of our Religion.  Cap-cloak-man. 
You know I have told you (p. 39) That it is Interest that governs the World; And that there's the grand Cause of all our Misfortunes.  Trueman. 
You have said a great deal of Truth in a few Words: for I verily believe, that our Divisions will never have an end so long as you can reap so much Gain by your separate Assemblies: were but these prohibited according to Law, and we should soon see an End of all our Misfortunes and Factious Cabals.  Cap-cloak-man. 
But have not I given you a better Direction out of a Sermon of that Worthy Gentleman Mr. Maurice Preached january the 30th. 1681? Would not this do it without persecuting and ruining one another?  Trueman. 
I believe your Party will Con you no great thanks for speaking so much Truth of that Worthy Person, who hath so ingeniously, modestly, and fully baffled your Father Baxter's railing Legend against Episcopacy: and as for his Direction, viz. That if we would weaken that Faction, let us take away the open Scandal and Viciousness of our Lives; Let us detect their Hypocrisy, not by washing off the Paint with satire; but with Solid and sincere Piety, etc. I fully assent to it as highly necessary; But yet do not think, that this will be enough so long as we suffer a Party to say what they please of us without any Answer: For the more really pious we are according to the Injunctions of our Church, the more such as are our enemies hate us, and endeavour the more to raise Lies and Scandals of us. He that observes their Actions cannot but bear Witness to this: that if the Devil himself will but appear for their Party, he shall be cried up for an Angel of Light amongst them, and on the contrary, if an Angel from Heaven should appear against them, they would cry him down for a wicked Impostor? and therefore a little satire may be sometimes very necessary to wash off the Glorious Outside of such Inward Hypocrites.  
And thus (good Neighbour) I take my leave of you, only desiring you to take St. Paul's Advice, viz. Study to be quiet, and to do your own Business; But if you will be meddling with other Men, you may expect to hear further from me. In the mean while I bid you farewell till our next Meeting.  
FINIS.