NO blind Guides, In ANSWER To a seditious Pamphlet of J. MILTON'S, entitled Brief Notes upon a late Sermon titled, the fear of God and the King; preached, and since published, By Matthew Griffith, D. D. And Chaplain to the late KING, &c. Addressed to the Author.  If the blind lead the blind, Both shall fall into the Ditch. 
LONDON, Printed for Henry Broome April 20. 1660.   

NO blind Guides, &c.  
Mr. Milton,  
ALthough in your Life, and Doctrine, you have Resolved one great Question; by evidencing that Devils may endue human shapes; and proving your self, even to your own Wife, an Incubus: you have yet Started Another; and that is, whether you are not of That Regiment, which carried the Herd of Swine headlong into the Sea: and moved the People to beseech Jesus to depart out of their coasts. (This may be very well imagined, from your suitable practices Here) Is it possible to read your Proposals of the benefits of a Free-State, without Reflecting upon your tutors— All this will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down, and worship me▪ Come, come Sir, lay the Devil aside; do not proceed with so much malice, and against Knowledge:— Act like a Man;— that a good Christian may not be afraid to pray for you.  
Was it not You, that scribbled a Justification of the murder of the King, against Salmasius: and made it good too, Thus? That murder was an Action meritorious, compared with your superior wickedness. 'Tis There, (as I remember) that you Common place yourself into Set forms of railing, two Pages thick: and lest, your Infamy should not extend itself enough, within the Course and Usage of your Mother-tongue, the Thing is dressed up in a Travailing Garb, and Language: to blast the English Nation to the Universe; and to give every man a horror for Mankind, when he Considers, You are of the Race. In This, you are above all Others; but in your ICONOCLASTES, you exceed your self.  
There, not content to see that Sacred Head divided from the Body; your piercing Malice enters into the private Agonies of his struggling Soul; with a Blasphemous Insolence, invading the Prerogative of God himself: (Omniscience) and by Deductions most unchristian, and Illogical, aspersing his Last Pieties, (the almost certain Inspirations of the Holy Spirit) with Juggle, and Prevarication. Nor are the Words III fitted to the Matter. The Bold Design being suited with a conform Irreverence of Language. (but I do not love to Rake long in a Puddle.)  
To take a view in particular of all your Factious Labours, would cost more time, than I am willing to afford them. Wherefore I shall stride over all the rest, and pass directly to your Brief Notes upon a Late SERMON, titled,  
The Fear of God and the King.  
preach, and since published by MATTHEW GRIFFITH D. D. and Chaplain to the late KING, &c.  
ANy man that can but Read your Title, may understand your Dri●… & that you Charge the Royal Interest, & Party through the Doctour's sides. I am not bold enough to be his Champion, in all particulars; nor yet so Rude, as to take an Office most properly to him Belonging, out of his Hand: Let him acquit himself, in what concerns the Divine; and I'll adventure upon the most material parts of the Rest. (but with this Profession, that I have no design in exposing your Mistakes, saving to hinder them from becoming the Peoples.)  
Your Entrance is a little Peremptory, and Magisterial, methinks, (but that shall be allowed you) ' please you, we'll see how Pertin●…nt it is, and Rational.  
I Affi●…md in the Preface of a late discourse, entitled, The ready way to establish a free Commonwealth, and the dangers of readmitting Kingship in this Nation, that the humour of returning to our old bondage, was instilld of late by some deceivers; and to make good, that what I then affirmed, was not without just ground, one of those deceivers I present here to the people; and if I prove him not such, I refuse not to be so accounted in his stead.  
TO the First: give me leave to mind you, that you make an Observation of things Past, amount to a foretelling of what's to come. This Sermon was not preached, when that humour you mention, was instilled. Next; You'll as hardly satisfy the people, that you yourself, are no Deceiver, as prove the Doctor one of those you meant. And thus I'll I●…stance; KINGSHIP, is your old Bondage; RUMPSHIP, ours: (Forgive the Term) You were Then, past the One: we are now (God be thanked) past the Other: and should be as loath to Return, as You. Yet you are Tampering to delude the People, and to withdraw them from a Peaceable, and Rational expectance of good, into a mutinous, and hopeless attempt of mischief.  
By your own Rule now, who are the Deceivers: We, that will not Return to our old Bondage; or you, that would persuade us to't?  
Your next Paragraph talks of Purgatives, Myrrh●…, Aloes, &c.— It may be an apothecary's Bill, for aught I know, and I have no skill in physic.  
As little shall I concern myself in your unmannerly descant upon the Epistle, which is the Business of your Second Page. The Third, contains your Gloss upon the Text, and that I shall examine.  

The Text.  Prov. 24. 21. 
My son, fear God and the King, and meddle not with them that be seditious, or desirous of change, &c.   
Letting pass matters not in controversy, I come to the main drift of your Sermon, the King; which word here is either to signify any supreme Magistrate, or else your latter object of fear is not universal, belongs not at all to many parts of Christendom, that have no King; and in particular, not to us. That we have no King since the putting down of Kingship in this Commonwealth, is manifest by this last parliament, who to the time of their dissolving not only made no address at all to any King, but summoned this next to come by the Writ formerly appointed of a free Commonwealth, without restitution or the least mention of any Kingly right or power; which could not be, if there were at present any King of England. The main part therefore of your Sermon, if it mean a King in the usual sense, is either impertinent and absurd, exhorting your auditory to fear that which is not; or if King here be, as it is, understood for any supreme Magistrate, by your own exhortation they are in the first place not to meddle with you, as being yourself most of all the seditious meant here, and the desirous of change, in stirring them up to fear a King, whom the present Government takes no notice of.  
NOt to contend about the Large, or Limited Sense of the word KING: since 'tis agreed upon, at all hands, to signify Supreme Authority; and, where a Single Person governs, to denote the Monarch. The issue rests upon this Point: Is there, or is there not at present, any King of England? You say, No; I'm of another mind: Compare our Reasons.  
You Argue; First, the Putting down of Kingship; and then,— the Tacit confirmation of that Act, by the last Session: who without any Address to any King, or Restitution of any Kingly Right, summoned the next to come by the Writ formerly Appointed of a Free Commonwealth.  
To your Assumption, that Kingship was put down; I cannot subscribe, till I am better satisfied, by what Authority: for no Form of Government can be altered, but by consent of all the Parties to it. In short, the late King was destroyed, Kingship abolished, the House of Lords disauthorised, and at least 7. parts of 8. of the Commons Members secluded— by the same Power.  
Come to your Inference now; That, halts of all four, There was no King, because they did not mention him: you are a little bold methinks, to lay your Brat at the Parliament Door: and Father your opinions upon them, that in the case, would not declare their own.  
Reasons of State, of Honour, and Convenierce, might very fairly move them to suspend. Suppose they thought it Prudence to refer all to the next Convention, without so much as a Debate; whether a King, or No: and upon this point of extreme necessity (the Nation running headlong, into another War without the Interpose of a new Representative) rather dispense with something of Informality in the Writs, than otherwise to hazard the main Issue of the public weal. If all this be not yet enough, I hope the reminding the Nation of the COVENANT; and their own refusal of the Oath of ABJURATION, will content you.  
Your 4th Page, runs away in some mistakes concerning Gideon;— (a Person, called and set apart by God himself; guided by Divine Inspirations; and Acting without Partnership, the work he was employed upon)  
A little further, you deny the King, the Power of life and death; urging [Page 4.] that 'tis against the declared Judgements of our Parliaments, nay of our Laws; which reserve to themselves only the power of life and death, &c.  
I'LL not deny, but a Parliament is above the King: (That is: The King is greater in Conjunction with his two Houses, than by Himself) but still this weakens not the force of my assertion; which is; that Kings must necessarily have that power: without it, they're no Kings (and 'tis the same thing in all Governments whatsoever, 'tis one of the Prerogatives Inseparable from supreme Authority) But since you urge the declared Judgements of our Parliaments, in favour of your opinion, I should be glad to see them.  
Now for the Laws; 'tis true; they Pronounce Life, or Death; but the King's left at Liberty to Take, or to Remit the forfeiture, at pleasure. Enough is said of this.  
If I were b●…nt to Cavil; your 5th. Page would afford matter: abundantly, where you extravagate upon the word Anointed: but That is more Peculiarly the Doctor's business, and I refer you to him. So are your slips, [Page 6.] but Those, I cannot pass without a mark: For There, you show your Teeth. (I might have said, your ears to boot)  
But how will you confirm one wrested Scripture with another: ay Sam. 8. 7. They have not rejected thee, but me: grossly misapplying these words, which were not spoken to any who had resisted or rejected a King, but to them who much against the will of God had sought a King, and rejected a Commonwealth, wherein they might have lived happily under the Reign of God only, their King. Let the words interpret themselves: v. 6, 7. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, give us a King to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, barken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them Hence you conclude, so indissoluble is the Conjunction of God and the King. O notorious abuse of Scripture! when as you should have concluded, So unwilling was God to give them a King, So wide was the disjunction of God from a King.  
Mr. Milton, when your hand was In, another verse methinks should not have overcharged you: and 'tis the very next too. As they have ever done (Says God to Samuel) since I brought them cut of Egypt, even unto this Day, (and have forsaken me, and served other Gods) even so do they unto thee. This, would have given you light to read the Rest by; and (possible) have done you the same service, which you pretend to do the doctor. (But none so Blind as they that will not see especially, had you but taken in likewise the verse next Antecedent to your Quotation, which speaks the motive to their such Desires; as the other does fairly imply the Reason of God's Disapproval of them, 'twas a hard miss, and an industrious one (I fear) to scape the 5, and 8, verses, without the which, the 6 and 7, (which you make use of) have no intelligible Coherence. Make us a King, (say they) to Judge us like the NATIONS v. 5. and after That, v. 8. God charges them with inclinations to Idolatry; so that the inference is open; They had a hankering after the Gods of the Nations, as well as the Kingship; and That moved the All seeing wisdom, (that knew their hearts) to tell Samuel, saying, they have not Rejected Thee, bùt me: a Speech appliable to their Disobedience, rather, than to their Proposition: God is r●…jected, in the rejection of his Ministers.— This is a stubborn Text Sir, and will not mould as you would have it.  
Had not they against the will of God, sought a KING, and rejected a Common wealth, you tell us, that they might have lived HAPPILY under the reign of God only their King. (Indeed you have the best intelligence)—— I beseech you how do you know this? whom God loves, he chastens: and persecution, in this world; is the Portion of the Saints. It's true; their obedience to God here, would certainly have rend●…ed them Happy hereafter; but this is not the happiness you drive at. Look back now upon the 3. verse of the same Chapter; and there you'll find some Reason to apprehend the contrary. For Samuel being Old, and having made his son's Judges over Israel; the Text says, that his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after Lucre, and took Rewards, and perverted Judgement, &c. now, if from hence, you can persuade yourself into a good opinion of a Popular Government, I cannot blame your stickling for the Rump; But that this misrule should please God, your modesty I hope will not pretend to offer. You'll say however, that the Popular form did; I'll not contend about it; Did not the regal too, as much in David; a King of God's particular choice, and a man after his Own Heart? So that you gain little by the odds of a Free-State in balance against Monarchy. In one word: The Saviour of the World was a KING, and a King of Jews.  
Grant, or deny at pleasure, I have you in a Net. Why would you meddle with a Chapter, that you were sure would burn your fingers? There's no Relief you see, against Authority. 'Tis well you stopped short of that Lex Regni which Samuel opens to the People; (beginning at the 11. verse of the same Chapter;) from whence, lies no Appeal. Truly, your insincerity in this Section, is more exposed, than I could wish it.  
Under the Reign of God only their King you say. This expression, doubtfully implies you a Millenary. Do you then, really expect to see Christ, Reigning upon Earth, even with those very eyes you Lost (as 'tis reported) with staring too long, and too saw●…ily upon the Portraiture of his Vicegerent, to break the Image, as your Impudence Phrases it? (It is generally indeed believed, you never wept them out for this loss.)  
In my Passage from hence, to your Frog-moral: I cannot but remember you that there was a Plague of Frogs as well as a Fable. Frogs that crept into the King's Chambers, and into the Houses of his Servants, &c.— Now to your Fable.  
Nor are you happier in the relating or the moralising your Fable. The frogs (being once a free Nation ●…aith the Fable) petitioned Jupiter for a King: he 〈◊〉 amongst them a log. They found it insensible: they petioned then for a King that should be active: he sent them a Crane (a Sto●…k saith the fable) which straight fell to pe●…king them up. This you apply to the reproof of them who desire change: whereas indeed the true moral shows rather the folly of those, who being free seek a King; which for the most part either as a log lies heavy on his Subjects, without doing aught worthy of h●…s dignity and the charge to maintain him, or at a Stork is ever pe●…king them up and devon●…ing them.  
Mr. Milton, (to agree with you as far as possible) if One Log be so intolerable, for the burden; or One Stork, for the Cruelty, and greediness: what do you think of 40. Storks, and every Stork a Log in his belly?  
What do you think of a Grand, Arbitrary, & Perpetual Counsel; and no more Parliaments? (according to your gracious Proposition, [Page 8.] of your Free and easy way, &c.) And, in regard that in a free Commonwealth, 〈◊〉 who are greatest, are Perpetual Servants, and Drudges to the public, at their own cost and Charges, neglect their own Affairs; yet are not Elevated above their Brethren, L●…ve soberly in their Families, walk the Streets as other men; may be spoken too freely, familiarly, friend●…y, without Adoration, [Page 4.] What do you think of the Rump Parliaments Perpetuating itself, under the name of That grand Counsel? [Page 10.] the Government being in so many faithful, and Experienced hands, next under God, so Able; especially Filling up their number, as they intend, and abundantly sufficient so happily to govern us: [P. 11, &c.] Alas, these Gentlemen are very Pigeons, not a Stork among them; do not deceive yourself Sir; you're one of those they have Fed: of the same Plume, and Kind; ask but the honest party of the Nation, and they shall tell you, that Tom. Scot, and his Associate Patriots, can Peck, as well as Bill.  
Now we have played, let's to our Book again, and be a little Earnest.  
You charge the Doctor, in your 8. Page, for saying,  
That by our Fundamental Laws, the King is the highest power, Page 40. If we must hear mooting and Law-lectures from the Pulpit, what shame is it for a Dr. of divinity, not first to consider, that no law can be fundamental, but that which is grounded on the light of nature or right reason, commonly called moral Law: which no form of Government was ever counted; but arbitrary, and at all times in the choice of every free people, or their representers. This choice of Government is so essential to their freedom, that longer than they have it, they are not free. In this ●…and not only the late King and his posterity, but Kingship itself hath been abrogated by a law; which involves with as good reason the posterity of a King forseited to the people, as that Law heretofore of Treason against the King, attainted the Children with the Father.  
MEthinks you might have spared your Criticism upon the word Fundamental, being a Term, that Usage hath authorized; were nothing more in't: and soberly, I do not find but it may stand a nicer Test, than perhaps you'll impose upon it.  
No Law (you say) can be Fundamental but that which is grounded in the ●…ight of Nature, or right reason,— which no FORM of Government was ever counted, &c.— So that tho' GOVERNMENT it self directs to Fundamentals: yet the Specification of it, into such or such a FORM, does not. You are quaint, Sir: show me Government without a Form, further than in Notion; and only Notional must be the Laws too that support it. Obedience to Superiors, is a Moral Fundamental: and wh●…re, to One, or More, vested with unconditionate Dominion, (I mean, as to the Power of Revocation) we ●…n e Contract a Duty; as the Person, and Authority are Inseverable, so is the Obligation Indispensable, which by a fundamental Law is become du●…; as well to the King himself, as unto Kingship. I shall be tedious if I untie all your knots.  
The Choice you say is Arbitrary; so 'tis in marriage, that is, till we have passed away our Freedom. (but you are for Divorce, I see, as well of governors, as Wives) Your next now is a shrewd one, (is it your own I pr●…y●…e?) This choice of Government (you tell us) is so essential to the people's Freedoms, that longer than they have it, they're not free. In truth, you're in the Right. Is any People Free, where there is any Government? This is somewhat worse, than the Doctors fundamental. Freedom and GOVERNMENT (in politics) Contra-Distinguish one another. (have a care of this argument; for if the People are Free to choose, they'll never choose any of your Friends again)  
But if the King, his Posterity; nay, and Kingship itself, have been abrogated by a Law; That's another matter.  
By what Law I beseech you? By the Law of a little Faction, that dares not put their heads upon a trial by the established Law of the Land? (your next shift is wretched)  
If that no Law must be held good, but what passes in FULL Parliament, then surely, in exactness of Legality no Member must be missing, &c.—  
I Answer you, that it is not the Actual sitting of All, but the Liberty of All to Sit: not the fullness of the House, but the Freedom of the Members. It is one thing; a Law that's made in the Absence of many of the Members, that might have been Present, if they would; (and are possibly fined for non-attendance) and another thing; the Vote of a tenth Part of That Body, which it self entire, is but the third Part of the Legislative Power: This Remnant too by force of arms violently ●…cluding the Rest.  
But you have no Conscience with you. Kingship Abolished will not do your work it seems.  
You suppose it never was established by any certain Law in this Land, nor possibly could be: for how could our forefathers bind us 〈◊〉 certain form of Government, more than we can bind our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a people be put to war with their King for his misgovern●…, and 〈◊〉 come him, the power is then undoubtedly in their own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be governed. The war was granted just by the King 〈◊〉 the beginning of his last treaty; and still maintain●… to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Parliament, as appears by the qualifications prescribed to the members of this next ensuing, That none shall be elected, who have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Parliament since 1641 I●… the war were just, the Conquest w●… also just by the Law of Nations And he who wa●… the chief enemy, in all right ceased to be the King, especially after 〈◊〉, by the deciding verdict of war; and royal●…ie with all h●…r Laws and pretensions, yet remains in the victor's power, together with the choice of our future Government.  
IF Kingship was never established, what was I beseech you? had we no Government?  
Nor could it be, you say: Alas then for your ready, and easy way to ESTABLISH a FREE COMMONWEALTH, what will become then of YOUR STANDING COUNCIL? If no certain form of Government can bind our posterity (as you affirm) Then is it free at any time for the People to Assemble, and Tumult, under the colour of a new choice  
Your next for altering the Form of Government upon a quarrel only in point of maladministration: I think that clears itself.  
You say that the war was granted just by the King himself, &c. and (a while after) if the War were just, so was the Conquest also, by the Laws of Nations;— and that the victors, are free to choose, a Future Government.  
What would you give that I'd dispute the original of the quarrel with you? Come, we'll not differ about the King's Concessions: Take it for granted, that the war was just: That is, The war was Just to such intents, and with such limits, as were the evident, and declared scope, and Bounds of it. The Reasons, and the Tendency thereof, methinks they should know best that L●…vied, and were Parties in it, and for That, take but one passage of above a Hundred, to the same purpose.  
We are (say they) so far from altering the fundamental Constitution, and Government of this Kingdom, by King, Lords, and Commons (that we have only desired, that with the consent of the King such Powers may be sett●…ed in the Two Houses, &c.—— This Declaration bears date Ap. 17. 1646. and is entitled—— A Declaration of their true intentions, concerning the ancient Government of the Nation, &c.  
Now if the Prospect of the War was bounded; in Reason, and in Honour, the Conquest ought to be so likewise. Especially, where only, extreme necessity was pleaded to make it appear warrantable; and where the dispute was lawful Liberty, and Safety; not Dominion.  
Again; 'twas not against the King, the war was raised, therefore the Conquest cannot in Reason Reach him. His Honour, Safety and Support, the two Houses Vowed and Covenanted to maintain.  
Further; those Things that you call Victors, may, by the same Pretence, claim to a Conquest over the Lords, and their Fellow-Members, whom they Forcibly cast out; as well as over the King, and his Pretensions.  
Lastly; if Victory gives Title, your Masters are gone too.  
You fall now into a vein of weighing Governments: (your old Trade; and the very Coffee-Boyes have got the knack on't all most as well as you.) As you order the Scales, the commonwealth goes Down most usually, but now your great Civility gives Us the Better on't. FREE-COMMON-WEALTHS (as you will have it) have been ever counted fittest, for civil, VIRTUOUS, and Industrious Nations, &c. believe me then, That Form's not Fit for you, and your Adherents.  
MONARCHY, Fittest (as you hold it forth) to curb DEGENERATE, CORRUPT, IDLE, PROUD, LUXURIOUS People; This, does your business then.  
Upon necessity yet at last, I find, a Single Person you'll 〈◊〉 to entertain; provided, such a one as has best aided the People, and best merited against Tyranny. (That's your Caution) this must be one of those that turned the Rump out: for never was a more meritorious Service to the Nation.  
Your next Page is a very Angry one. You'll have the Parliament Kide the King, you say, as well as Bridle him; and you'll persuade the People that there's Law for't too. The Question's trivial; to cut it short: Rumps are no Parliaments. But if they be so Sacred, as you argue them; how bold are you, that durst propose the final Abrogation, and extinction of them! (As in your Ready way you have, in Terminis, so often done.)  
In the next place; I●… as you idly seem to imagine, all our Kings are created by Parliament, or Conquest. What becomes of that maxim, Rex non moritur? and why do you swear allegiance to Him and his Heirs positively, if there be any uncertainty of his being admitted to the Crown? [In short, his Birth entitles him to the sovereignty.] I do not delight myself in these contests, but I am willing to lay open your little Tricks to the People.  
You urge next his Coronation-Oath, but Deceitfully, you make him by his Oath, accountable to Act, (in Effect, according to the Judgement of the People, but he swears to Govern according to his own (neither does this suppose him at Liberty to Rule according to his Will.)  
Once more; You say, That the Kings principal Oath was to maintain those Laws which the People SHOULD choose. (Consuetudines quas Vulgus Elegerit) Reconcile Consuetudines (referring necessarily to what is Past) to Elegerit, in the Future Tense, and I have done.  
FINIS.   

Henceforward, there was little left to do, but to take Names, and Prisoners: for the Party Fell without a Blow. Lambert was taken (Apr. 22.) near Daventry, by Col. Ingoldsby; His Party Scattered, and gathered up as they were Found. Apr. 24. the City-Forces mustered in Hyde-park, at which time, Lambert was brought up a Prisoner; and the Day following, the Lords and Commons assembled.  
I Have now Finished, what I dare scarce reflect upon. Yet 'tis no more, than what the City of London, and several counties have done in the same Case. That there are Rogues, there is no Question, but yet I should be loath to pass for One, if I can help it. Having discharged my Duty, first, to my Prince, and Country, I hope I may be now admitted to do myself Right; with what Event, I do not much concern myself. To deal Liberally; I look upon him that opposes a Multitude; as One mad man against Many. Nor do I know, which is the Greater Folly; to Submit the Judgement of Truth and Reason, to the great Patron of Passion, and Opinion, the Common-people; or to Dispute it with them. Methinks the Case of Calumny does in some sort agree with the Tradition we have of a man that encounters the Devil, in a House that's Haunted: he Labours at it, Thrusts, and Fences; but in the End, he comes off, bruised, and foiled; tired, and baffled, with a Shadow. Rumour is but a Phantôme; every Fool can raise it, but the whole world can hardly Lay't again. The best on't is, tho' it may Fright, and Startle sober Persons; it can Harm only those that struggle with it.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
Page 48 Line 27 For Design, Read Diligence 54 27 For to choose, r. to Sit 62 24 dele Have,  86 25 For Parliament, r. Parliaments 91 ult. For him as, r. for him in a●… 95 13 For Cardinal, r. Carnal 96 20 For cheat, r. Cheated 103 8 For to the work, r. to work 106 8 For were, r. where 107 27 For to Prey, r. a Prey 108 24 For Disclaim, r. Declaim 128 18 For without, r. Beyond 129 8 For the Declaration, r. a Declaration 8 11 For This loss, r. his loss 9 10 For these very Gentlemen are Pigeons, r. These Gentlemen are very Pigeons.   

A Catalogue of some Books Printed for Henry Brome at the Gun in Ivy-Lane.  
The alliance of Divine Offices, exhibiting all the Liturgies of the Church of England since the Reformation: by Hamon L'estrange Esq  
The soul's Conflict, being 8. Sermons, preached at Oxford, and so much recommended by the late Dr. Hewyt.  
Dr. Browns Sepulchral Urns, and Garden of Cyrus.  
Two essays of Love and Marriage.  
The Queen's Exchange, by Mr. R. Brome.  
Five New plays, by Mr. R. Brome, never before printed.  
Adam out of Eden, by Mr. Speed.  
Poems on several Persons and occasions, by nobody must know whom.  
Crumbs of Comfort.  
Most of Mr. Prynne's books.  
shepherd's Duty of Constables.  
St. Bonaventures Soliloquies.  
Health's Improvement, in 4o.  
Mr. Baxter's treatise of Conversion, in 4o.  
That long-expected piece, The Survey of the Law; containing directions how to pros●…ute, or defend Actions brought at Common Law: by William Glisson Esq  
A Second Ternary of Sermons, by the Learned Dr. Stewart.  
The Elements of Water-drawing, in 4o.  
Mr. Sprat's Plague of Athens, in 4o.  
Jews in America, by Mr. Thorowgood.  
The Royal Buckler, in 8o.  
Treason Arraigned, in Answer to that Dangerous Libel, Plain English, Condemned by the Council, against our King and Nation.