Popery, Superstition, Ignorance, and Knavery, Very Unjustly by a LETTER In the General pretended; But as far as was Charged, very fully proved upon the DISSENTERS That were concerned in the Surey Imposture.  
By ZACH. TAYLOR.  
LONDON: Printed for John Jones, at the Dolphin and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard; and Ephraim Jonston, Bookseller in Manchester, MDCXCVIII.   

TO HIS Apostate Friend N.N.  
SIR,  
SInce you pretend to be a Christian, (tho' at the best it is but a Mungrellian) you perhaps may admire that I should esteem you an Apostate: But that you may cease your Wonder, I find you have denied your Christian Name, or at least are ashamed of it; and have changed the Presbyter (tho' your Denomination from it should make you in love with it) for the more Ceremonial Appellation of a Levite. But happy is that Family that hath neither Knave nor Jilt among them; and happy is the Man, that among the Number of his Friends, hath never a false one. I have not so quite forgot all the Humanity I learned from my Father, but that one Distich of Verses is still fresh in my Memory, which are these, 
Tuta frequensque via est, per amici fallere nomen,  
Tuta frequensque licet, sit via crimen habet.  Which that our Friend Mr. C. by his awkward Poetical Talon may not by Translating spoil, I will add the English Version as I received it, 
'Tis safe and common by the Name of Friendship to deceive;  
But tho' 'tis safe and common too, 'tis Knavery, by your Leave.  And in your next Edition I allow you to insert this as another Instance of the Knavery of those I have to deal with.  
But what means my Friend in concealing his Name? Forbidden that I should charge him with Cowardice, with an abject Spirit, with a guilty Conscience, or any hard Thing, that (if he had been any thing but a Friend) I might with more Freedom (the Laws of Friendship not being thereby violated) have reasonably accused him of. But I am concerned for the Reputation of my Friend, when I find him making Personal Reflections on the Morals of Men that are dead, as well as those that are alive, for this shows he will have no Mercy on us, either Quick or Dead. Should I engage you my Friend in the same Ground that you do W.C. that is dead, I could name as many of your Ministers, and put C.'s and N.'s to them too, who are yet alive, that labour under the same Gild, and never expiated it, either by Penance or Commutation. And if you know not better how to bridle your Pen, by the next you must expect more Gall in our Ink; for I shall say as my Fr. Terence doth, 
Vehinc ut quiescant porro, moneo, & desinant  
Maledicere, Malefacta ne noscant sua. Andr. Prol.   
Had I a mind to rake into the Ashes of some that are Dead, I could raise such a Stench upon their Names, as Mr. O. H. with all the Odours that he doth perfume them, would not be able to make sweet. But I retain the Rule De Mortuis— and shall forbear unless I be thereunto provoked. But enough of this.  
I know not Friend whether you expect an Answer to your Letter, which assuming to yourself the appearance of Authority, you were pleased to make Patent: But that I may not be thought Rude in not taking notice of such a Friend as you are, I am obliged to a Reply; and I hope you will not grudge to pay the Bearer, nor think the Time or Money ill spent, p. 22. that is employed in perusing the Answer to your own Civilities; and when that's done, you may light Tobacco, or wrap Grocery with it; or if those be too great a Favour, you may if you please store your necessary House with it, p. 1. and I will not charge you for it either with Ignorance or Knavery, or Popery or Superstition; tho' if I should, I might easily make as good Proof of it, as you have done of the same Charge from me on your Dissenting Brethren; for my Friend either could not find one place in all my Book to fix the Charge on, or else he found it so fully proved, that he saw it necessary to connive at it.  
For did I say, That the Dissenting Ministers in the Surey Business, were Tools of Popery? And doth my Friend deny it? No! you would think he were Possessed with Rich.'s dumb Devil, so mute is the Gentleman. But I called them perhaps Constant Tools; and pretty constant I think they were, when they had served the Priests near a whole Year, unless my Friend would have had them bound Apprentices for seven Years unto the Trade. But the word Constant reflects on the whole Party perhaps, as you imagine. If you will have it so, (for I will not dispute it) pray tell me whose Tools they were, when they cut off the Royal Martyr's Head? If you want Information, Philanax Angelicus will tell you. Whose Tools were, and are they, in applauding Conceived Extemporary Flights of Divine Worship, in opposition to that Form of sound Words which is coaeval to our happy Reformation? If you have heard of Foxes and Firebrands, you may thence be fully instructed; or if you desire some fresher Instances (for all the Danger B. Pr. pretends them then in) you need but peruse their Addresses and Speeches to the late King James (of which Mr. Jolly had the Honour to make one) and you will fully understand, whose Creatures then they were; and so fully were they possessed with a Zeal for his Service, that it is not forgot how negligently they left their Congregations and the Service that on the Lord's day was due unto the King of Heaven, that they might gad to Chester when King James came there, to compliment a Popish King.  
This was all that upon this Head of Popery I charged them with; yet my Friend hath the Impertinence to ask, What Errors in Doctrine looking that way, I find in that Book, p. 5? And I must ask my Friend, What Errors in Popish Doctrine I there charge them with? If my Friend proceed thus, I verily fear he will fall under his Colleague's R. B. Pr. Crimination of bearing False Witness.  
But he goes on to ask, p. 6. What those Men have done that tends to Popery? etc. He may remember I have told him before, It was not only a Mistake, p. 6. (for if that had been all, he thinks it convenient that my Doctor should have cut them for the Simples, p. 7. and I think the Advice is good. My Doctor is charitable, and I doubt not but upon another Letter from my Friend I may prevail with him to undertake the Operation) but it was the faithful Service which they did the Papists, and that rich Harvest, which had the Times favoured them, the Ministers had most certainly obtained for them.  
He next comes to ask, Whether the Devil hath no Hand in my Natural, or my Doctor's Preternatural Distempers, and what I think of Job? p. 7. For the last of these, I think Job was not Possessed, no more than my Friend is. And for the other, when he asserts, That I deny that Natural or Preternatural Distempers can be attended with the Devil; and that it's a good Argument to prove it no Possession, because a Distemper, ib. &. p. 7. which he repeats over again and again: I must desire my Friend to tell me where he learned this of me; for it is the first time I ever heard or thought of it. I am sure there is no such thing in my Book, and my whaley Sermon that he hath heard something of, advanceth the quite contrary Opinion. I find I must discard him from the number of my Friends, he is fit for Mr. C.'s Acquaintance, whose warm Brain is very fruitful in framing such Fabulous Stories; and his honest Heart, in falsely charging innocent Persons with them.  
But the Man still goes on, and would gladly know, What they are to be blamed for? I have told him oft enough, but yet he inquires further, Is it for Fasting and Prayer? p. 9 His own Conscience told him that was not the thing; yet for all that, he will go on: They did believe He (viz. Rich.) was possessed, p. 9 And upon this Supposition, what could be done otherwise? Why, abler Divines ought to have been consulted, and more Discretion used. But what means my Friend, when he makes their Supposition to be the Ground of their Devotion? This is but odd Divinity, and surely Mr. Fra. never taught it him; for the Consequence of it is, that if the Supposition be false, the Worship is Supersition: The Quakers, with all the other Spawn of fanatics, the Papists themselves not excepted, may justify themselves on this Principle, that Credulity and Supposition is a sufficient Ground of Worship. That my Friend (to omit all other Instances) may see how good a Friend he is to Papists by this Principle he hath laid down, let me ask him a Question or two, Do not the Papists pay Adoration to the Sacrament of the Altar, on the Belief and Supposition that Christ is personally there? Do they not pray to Saints and Angels on the Supposition that they do hear them? Tho my Friend exclaims against me for misrepresenting the Dissenters, as instrumental to the Popish Interest, if we may be allowed to infer from his own Arguments, he himself will be found liable to the same Indictment; for here is a Position laid down by him, that will justify them, and all the Frantic Frey of fanatics of what Denomination soever.  
The next Crime that he imputes to me, is the charging them with Superstition, but he produceth not so much as one place in all my Book to prove this Charge; and have not I a very good Friend of him? However Superstition is a long Word, and as English, it may possibly puzzle a Country Fellow, p. 10. Nay, he knows not, but it's some ill Boggard (may be Dick's Blanket) p. 11. But if a Scholar should search what is the meaning of this Superstition in the Greek, and find it to signify Fearing of Demons, or Worshipping of Devils, it's known they (viz. the Dissenters) are so far from that, that they Fast and Pray to dispossess him of his Dominion over Men, as here they did, ib. I know not here what to do with my Friend, I must either rank him among the Class of Ignoramus's, or I must make him blaspheme Christ. If the Greek word for Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify wholly as he saith, A fearing of Demons, or worshipping of Devils, Christ himself being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 17.18. let him tell me, if according to his Exposition of it, the fearing Christ, may not be expounded by Jews and Pagans for worshipping of Devils. I am ashamed of my Friend, and yet Civility obligeth me to answer his Letter. And some by the help of a Dictionary (Wilsons perhaps, for I suppose my Friend a Commonplace-man) by chance may find that Superstition is to be wise above what is written, or righteous above what is commanded; and this would tempt an impartial Man (such as my Friend is) to cry cut, Oh, what a Slander! This is that very thing they are most averse to, etc. p. 11. and so he goes on, making such an Harangue in Person of a pert Scotch Presbyter, as his Friend Mr. C. used to make to the Devil. The Stoic in Lucian at a loss for an Argument cries out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so cries out my Friend, O what a Slander! But what is the Slander, or where to be me● with? Because he will not tell, for I suppose he was conscious to himself of foul, dishonest Play, I was forced to examine my Book, and I find that I charge Mr. C.'s Frothy Conferences (as he calls them) with Satan, with gross Superstition, p. 74. And what thinks my Friend of them? Why, he freely joins with me in condemning Mr. C.'s Fancies, and, he doubts, unwarrantable Colloquies, p. 3. Really Friend this is an Instance of the Moderation, Jo. commends you for p. 32. And by this means you are like to set Things in a wonderful clear Light, p. 30. as you vaingloriously pretend.  
In another place I call the Narrative of the Surey Demoniac, The Spawn of their conceived Superstition, p. 73. And what thinks my Friend of it? Why, from the first time he heard of it, he did really believe it would prove an Imposture, p. 3. and that it was always suspected by him as a Cheat, p. 22. Say you so? Out of thy own Mouth will I condemn thee; for was it a Cheat, and did Mr. Jolly and the rest Fast and Pray, and confer among themselves, and with a pretended Devil about it, and no Superstition in all this? Verily, my Friend, you dare not speak Truth, lest you should shame your Friends, and the Devil. On these two Accounts I charge them with Superstition, and I think my Friend (tho' he is none of the best) will warrant me in them both; and excepting the Word that is sometimes used, as when I call their Easiness in believing Dugdale to be Possessed, a superstitious Credulity, and the like, I do not find that I say any more of it. And for conferring with the Devil, let me ask him according to his Dictionaries Definition of Superstition, Whether they were not wise above what is written, and righteous above what is commended? I repeat the same Query, as to their Fasting and Praying about what was an Imposture, as himself acknowledgeth, and thence leave any but my Ironically Impartial Friend to judge, whether my Charge of Superstition against them be unjust.  
Under the same Head my Friend doth rank Divisions, p. 10, 11. and in this he is right, for Divisions are seldom free from Superstition. And how doth he deport himself here? Why, he pretends not to vindicate them as in other Cases from the Gild of it; for it is so notorious, Men see it with their Eyes; but he endeavours to justify them in it. Only before he engages in it, he must remove, if possible, out of the way a frightful Word, which a learned Man, no Dissenter, calls an Ecclesiastical Scarecrow, p. 12. yoleped Schismatic. That learned Man (for such all that have heard of him will own him) lay under violent Temptations when he writ that Tract, and was suspected to be, what for aught I know my Friend is, a Socinian. For what makes the Man when he had demanded of me, Whether the Dissenters held centrary to the Church of England with the Papists, p. 5. begin with the Ninth Article? Is it not that he may leave out what concerns the Trinity? Art. 1. The Eternal Son of God being made Man, Art. 2. etc. Or that he would not disoblige the Papists, by taking notice of their false Canon of the Scripture, Art. 6. If this be so, verily Friend, I must add another frightful Word to that of Schismatic, and let you know that you are an Heretic. But to pass that by, how doth he clear them from the Gild of Schism? Why, he tells us, some of them think thus, and some are offended at that. And what is it to me what they think? Should I tell my Friend what I have heard what Thought did, I suppose he would be offended too; but more of this upon the Head of Ignorance, where I shall make a little more bold with my Friend. Let us now see what my Charge against them was. And p. 4. I had accidentally occasion to speak of Corah, Dathan and Abiram, and I chanced to call them Schismatics, becaused they caused a Schism, or if the Word fright my Friend (for tho' he hath learned to give bad Words, I perceive he loves not hard ones) made a Division in the Jewish Church, and that was all; I did not then tell him what I do now, That God caused the Earth to open her Mouth and swallow them up alive, that had opened their Mouths against their lawful Church-governors. A Judgement so dreadful, one would think no Dissenter should ever forget it. For did not these Men subscribe all the Articles of the Jewish Faith? Not so much as one excepted. Did they not conform to all the Ceremonies of Moses Law? Yet in that they did not submit to their lawful Church-governors, God thought fit to make them an Example to all Ages of the Sin, and Deserts of those that will not submit to their lawful Church-governors. But let us go on, and it seems, p. 20. I call their Conventicles Schismatical; and p. 69. their Division . For these five Words, here is an Outcry made against me, as if I meant with my Doctor to knock out the Dissenters Brains, p. 7. which, if they have no more than my Friend, are not very many, and therefore aught to be spared. But hark you my Friend, are not Divisions Unchristian? I find one of our Lords last Prayers was, That we may be all one, Jo. 17.21, 22, 23. Or do not your Conventicles make a Division, and so are Schismatical? for I have before told you these are both one. You that herein undertake to vindicate the Dissenters, will in your next, I suppose, vindicate Corah, Dathan and Abiram, against the Lancashire Levite, that hath made them Schismatics; and till that time I dismiss this Head.  
We now may pass to the fearful Story of one Darrel a Devil-monger, that purged out seven Devils at a time, out of seven Women, etc. And this Man you say you will not vindicate, p. 15. But the Reason I suppose is, because you cannot; for notwithstanding your Word, you first close upon it; and you observe,  
1. That the Relator of this Story is accused by the Learned Bishop Usher, as a partial and fabulous Historian: My Friend should have told us where. But he goes on to pass his own Judgement upon him, and censures that Book of Dr. Heylin's for a Farce of Diabolical Stories, and malignant malicious Reflections upon all Parties, p. 15. I have read of a sort of Men that say, Our Lips are our own, who is Lord over us? And such an one I suppose my Friend is. For since I writ the Surey Impostor, I have seen Dr. Harnest's Book against Darrel; and if Dr. Heylin hath been as sincere in his other Collections, as he was in this▪ a more faithful Historian, that was not Inspired, did never set Pen to Paper. The only thing that seems in any thing the least to discredit it, is the Opinion of Bishop Hall; to which I reply, That that Great Man was but a Youth when Darrel played these Tricks, for the Bishop was born Anno 1574. and Darrel practiseth with Katharin Wright, 1586. when the Bishop was but 12 Years old, and from her proceeds to the rest. And the Bishop being born at Ashly de la Zouch, his Friends possibly might be some of Darrel's Admirers, and so infuse such an Opinion of Darrel into him in his Youth, as afterwards he was not able to remove.  
Besides, it doth not appear that the Bishop ever perused Dr. Harnest's Book, and so might retain his Prejudices imbibed from his Neighbours; for the scarceness of the Book could make one guess, that it underwent the same Fate with that of his Friend's Surey Impostor is said to meet with, to be bought up by the Party, and burnt. Be the Opinion of that single Bishop what it will, I think I have the Judgement of a whole Convocation to oppose unto it, and that in the Canon where my Friend finds the Popish Word Obsession, whence he thinks it probable the Dissenters had the Word, and not from the Papists. And probable enough it may be so; for the Dissenters finding the pretence there Censured, out of that Spirit of Contradiction to the Church of England, which they mostly act by, may be supposed not only to make use of the Word, but the Imposture also, which is there condemned. But let us inspect the Canon, Can. 72. which prohibits all Ministers without Licence obtained, To attempt, upon any pretence whatsoever, either of Possession or Obsession, by Fasting and Prayer, to cast out any Devil or Devils, under Pain of the Imputation of Imposture or Cozenage, and Deposition from the Ministry.  
Now would my Friend know the Reason which that Convocation had for making this Canon; I must remind him, that the Noise which Darrel made with casting out Devils, and the Imposture of it was then fresh in every Body's Mind. Dr. Harnest's Book, which contained the Discovery of it, was printed but three or four Years before, viz. 1599 and this Convocation gins to sit 1603. and they judged it necessary for the future Prevention of such Imposture and Cozenage, to make a Canon that might discountenance and suppress such Hypocritical Pretences. What say you to this my Friend? Where is the Dirt that I cast in the Face of my Mother? p. 5. Can the Convocation condemn such a Fanatical piece of Popery as this is, without naming and advising us of the thing? My Friend is a Man of a thousand, that can find out Ways and Means to condemn Things, and never name them. But what do you mean by this Flourish after your Rebuke? So have I seen an honest Matron been mistaken for a Strumpet, p. 5. I am sorry to hear that my Friend keeps such bad Company, that honest Matrons cannot pass along the Streets, but he or his Comrades are for picking them up for Strumpers. This is as sad a Story (only I have the Charity to believe you abuse yourself in it) as any you tell of W.C. to whom I next proceed. And as for this Person, though you would make the World believe that I was very intimate to the Intrigue (if any there was) so Impartial is the Hand you held your Pen in, I do declare that I never saw that Persons Face in all my Life that I know of. And for his being settled at the Place you hint, I was no way concerned in it, nor knew of it till afterward: And now I wonder what Innuendo's these are? for Jefferians, p. 2. fall infinitely short of them. But I smell your Design: You have heard perhaps how Joab treated Amasa, such a piece of Kindness you seem to intent for that pious and good Man (as you truly enough, I wish it be as sincerely) call him; who, I am apt to believe, might want your good Word, as well as his Curate, if you did not think that by the Help of such precious Balms, you might be admitted to break his Head. The Truth of the Matter is thus.  
The Bishop of Chester never collated Mr. C. to M. the Place my Friend hints at; nor could never be prevailed with (though solicited thereto again and again) to grant him a Licence to serve that, or any other Cure: That the Inhabitants of the Parish (who are generally inclined to the Presbyterian way of Worship) by the Mediation of the chief Man among them, most earnestly petitioned the Bishop for him, and would not be satisfied with any other Person, that could be proposed to them. After several Denials, being at length tired with the Importunity of the People, the Bishop suffered the said W.C. to go to them; but withal assured the Person who solicited for him, That if he ever found him guilty of any evil Practice, he would proceed to the utmost Severity against him. So he removed to the said Paris●, and for the whole time of his Continuance there, (which was near two Years) behaved himself so unblamably, that his greatest Adversaries cannot charge him with any thing unbecoming his Sacred Function.  
As to the Renegado Scotchman, the Bishop was informed, That he had once been guilty of Fornication (a very scandalous Crime); but was withal certified, That he soon after married the Woman; and by his sober, chaste and pious Life, for the space (I think) of four Years since, he had given undoubted Proof of the Sincerity of his Repenttance. The Bishop thereupon, after a severe Examination of him, as to his Morals, as well as his Learning, at the earnest Request of the People, especially of the Presbyterian Party, admitted him to the Order of Deacon.  
As for the other Scotchman that is in Pickle, in Pickle he is like to be, if my Friend or any Body else can prove what he pretends; for I suppose he cannot but know, what a severe Process the Bishop hath used on that Account: My Friend, their Foreman at St. Ellens, I hear hath a Copy of it, and if they have any thing to say, no doubt but we shall have it; only we understand if Forgery was in the Case, it was one of their own beloved Nephews, that unknown to the Party concerned, did forge it. But suppose the worst, pray was not a Testimonial forged for Mr. Pendleberries Bachelors Degree at Cambridge, notwithstanding Mr. O. H. mentions it as real in his Life? And doth not O. H. pretend a Promise from Bishop Wilkins to his Brother N.H. in favour of the Parsonage of Aughton, two Years after the Bishop was dead? Good Mr. Friend, did W. C. or either of our Scotchmen commit worse Things than these that O. H. hath done, that hath his Praise in so many practical Books, written and published by him? p. 4. One of which, according to the Popish Doctrine, tells us the several ways that Saints above may understand our Circumstances here below, viz. Heav. Conu. p. 25. Now the Papist, who only prays to the Saints to pray for him, on Presumption that they hear him, can desire no more of Mr. O.H. than he has granted to support him in his Superstitious Worship. But it is pleasant to hear him, p. 5. prove, That the Soul is a Substance, not mere Accident, because it is written, Prov. 6.2. The Lord weigheth the Spirits. He would have done well to tell us what Weight a Soul was of. But what will the Atheist say to this? for if a Soul have Weight, I fear it will be found Matter; no matter for that. It is comfortable Doctrine to such Blockheads as myself and my Friend are; for if Weight proves the Substance of Souls, than the heaviest Souls (such as ours are) are the most substantial Souls. Commend me to Mr. O.H. for this. But to return. Have I not reason to inquire of what Metal my Friend's Forehead is made, that in about a Page and an half heaps together so many Untruths? He saith W.C. was Collated by the Bishop, which he never was: He would insinuate a Licence to another Cure, he means N. Chappel, which he never had, etc. But had it been all as true, as it is notoriously false, all that was done was at the Importunity of the Presbyterian Party; and when they have got their End, they would (had it been possible) have fling Dirt into the Face of him, that out of mere Condescension was willing to please them.  
This puts me in Mind of the manner that the said Party treated a Neighbouring Vicar, on the Indulgence granted in the late King James' time: He was a good Man, and of an easy Temper, which betrayed him to an undue Compliance to those that pretend a tender Conscience; on which Account, in Compassion to them, he was (as I hear) prevailed with to christian sometimes a Child without the Sign of the Cross; to admit some others to the Lord's Supper, though they were too stubborn to Kneel, (the two Things my Friend sticks at) in hopes by gentle Means and Compliance, in due time to reclaim them from their Errors: And he was wonderfully courted by them, till the late King James' Indulgence came out; but no sooner did that appear, but they flew from him; and when he endeavoured by Arguments of this Compliance to them to regain them, they retorted his own Arguments upon him, and upbraided him as one false to his Oath, and treacherous to the Discipline of the Church, in which he was entrusted a Minister; which so far seized the meek Man's Spirits, that it was thought to shorten his Days. Such Reward do they meet with, that cut of too easy a Compassion, comply with your pretending tender Consciences.  
The next Charge that I am made unjustly to lay against Dissenters, is that of Ignorance; and the Truth is, I find that I charge them home either with Ignorance or Neglect, in that being called to a Consult to determine Whether it was lawful to confer as Mr. C. did, with Satan, they gave no Judgement against it: Whence I inferred, That they were either so Ignorant that they could not, or so Careless that they would not resolve the Point, p. 5. And I am still of the same Mind. But if my Friend would rather have them Careless in such weighty Matters, than Ignorant of them, he shall have it after him: It must needs commend their Ministry wonderfully to the World, that they are so very careless Creatures in such Important Cases. I charged them either with Ignorance or Negligence, (for though my Friend will take no notice of the Latter, lest his Hand should be found in any thing to answer his Title, to be Impartial, yet more than once I hinted, that that as well as Ignorance might be the cause of it) in not discerning the Numerical Quota 600, in the Devils pretended Greek Commission, that was figured in Arabic Ciphers, to argue a Cheat. And I cannot yet abate one Syllable in my Charge, let my Friend value his Academic and Arch-pedagogue as he pleaseth. As for the rest, my own Learning, I am like to be content with it, nor need I envy the Academic, whilst I have such a Stock as will enable me to discover his Slips. But Ignorance in some Things is no great Fault; I charged them with something worse than Ignorance, (viz.) An Aversion to be instructed, (Surey Imp. p. 60.) for when they had several Papers that they did not understand (where they confess their Ignorance, nor do I think it any Shame to them, they being writ in a Foreign Language, as Mr. C. supposeth) they would not communicate them to the perusal of others, whereby some Discovery of Use to the Public might perhaps have been made. And let my Friend herein vindicate them if his Talon will serve him. On one Account more I charged Ignorance on the Authors and Abettors of the Surey Demoniac, and it was, that they suffered a Female Friend to pass by the Name of Ishcoll, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Man all over, p. 62. Now what saith my Friend to all these Instances? What would make one believe they had his Consent, for 'tis nothing at all but a profound Silence.  
But, my Friend, I hearty pity your Learned Academic and Arch-pedagogue, that have chosen such a Person as you to be their Advocate; for had they never betrayed their Ignorance before, they have now made it manifest to all the World; for I have an Indictment against you my Friend, for the same Crime. I call it in you a Crime, which I did not in them, because yours must be an affected Ignorance; and go ask your Academic if he reads but Ethics to his Pupils, whether even there he doth not find such Ignorance as this, condemned for Guilty.  
My Friend, desirous to justify the Dissenters in their Schism, tells us, That some of them cannot think it lawful for any Body to command Things in the Worship of God of the same Nature, Use, Significancy and End with Gods own Appointments, and makes them necessary Terms of Communion, p. 12. This is my Friend's first Argument to justify the Dissenters in their Division from us. My Friend either knows the Doctrine of the Church of England in this Point, or he does not: If he doth not, 'tis grossly affected Ignorance in him to assert this, since there are Books enough to inform him better: If he doth, 'tis a damnable Scandal, which my Friend ought to repent of.  
But they say The Cross about Baptism is such an Humane Sagrament, ib. An Humane Sacrament! there's a Contradiction in the very Terms. Prithee Friend talk Sense, or done't pretend to be an Author. But he is so weak he cannot be satisfied about it, ib. I accept of his Confession, because it proves my Charge of Ignorance against him, though I wish at the same time, he be not more wilful than weak; for he that could find the Popish Word Obsession in Cap. 72. might, if he had pleased, found the Cross in Baptism to be no Humane Sacrament, (to speak in the Cant that he learned from I know who, who being gone to give an Account to God, shall not be called to an Account by me, as W. C. is by my Friend) would he but have consulted the 30th Canon; for there it is declared, That Baptism is absolutely perfect without it. And my Friend cannot but know this, tho' he insists on this Objection, for he seems in his 4th Reason to refer to this Canon, when he speaks of the Honourable Badge, wherein the Infant is dedicated to him that died upon the Cross, as if the Canon referred to the Sign of the Cross, more than Baptism. I should have given this malicious Reflection an hard Name, but that I pity my Friend's Ignorance; for d●dicare among other Things signifies to deliver up with some Solemnity, what belongs unto another; and so the Child by the Sign of the Cross is solemnly dedicated to Christ, to whom he doth belong by Baptism. In the same Canon also he may be satisfice, as well as from the Preface to the Common Prayer of the Ceremonies, that he will needs fancy that we had them from the Papists, viz. the Cross in Baptism, Kneeling in receiving Bread and Wine, nay, and the very Form of the Common Prayer, p. 5.  
I wonder he doth not say our Bible too, for I fear we had it from the Papists also. But why Kneeling in receiving Bread and Wine? My Friend is bewildered as my Friend Mr. C. was, with his Mare in the oblong Circle. Do the Papists receive Wine in that Sacrament? If they do not, we could not have it from them. But, good Reader, pardon my Friend, his Passion had overrun his Wit. And to require the Kindness I will let you know what it is, that he hath a Mind to tell me in my Ear, which if I can tell how to answer, he will thank me for it, p. 13. And 'tis this, some of them think it hard that for doing, or endeavouring to do, as the Apostles did at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, they should be peremptorily denied that Ordinance. And (O strange!) some Great Ones in the Church have undertaken to prove it Charity to exclude them; when by the same Reason, if Christ's Disciples were now on Earth, and did as they did even in the Presence and Apprebation of their Master, they must be excommunicated, ib. A sad Story, if it be true; but the Comfort is it is another Instance of my Friend's Ignorance; for when ever he can prove that the Apostles at the Institution of the Holy Sacrament, used the Posture that the Presbyterians now do, I will engage that our Church (though he thinks that I am obliged not to endeavour any Alteration of Government in it, p. 6) shall indulge him and his Brethren in the capricious Liberty of their pretended Consciences.  
But is not that an excellent Stroke that follows, Some of them say the Imposing Terms of Communion is an Invasion of God's Prerogative. And that it is an usurping of Authority to make Laws for him to obey, with an annexed Penalty on him; for he shall either take that Worship which they have composed for him, or he shall have none, etc. p. 13. Really Friend I have sometimes heard Men in Jest say, That the Parliament was Omnipotent; but I never had Reason to believe it till now, that you tell me They have made Laws for God Almighty to obey, with a Penalty annexed on him. You are a pleasant Spark indeed, and very fit to be an Advocate for Dissenters. For tell me my Friend, is reading God's Word which makes up so considerable a part of his Worship with us? Is repeating his own Commandment, professing our Christian Faith by the Apostles Creed, and addressing ourselves to him in his beloved Sons own Words, making Laws for him to obey? My Friend I perceive wants a little of my Doctor's help, p. 7. But Goodman Friend, pray tell me what you call them that make God to be Content, with whatever comes next to their Tongue's end; that will not be at the Pains to Compose a sober Form of Worship for him, but too often Foam out their own Shame, and yet are not ashamed to Entitle it to, but will needs have God admit it, for the Groans of his Spirit? To close this Head, if these be the lofty Notions your Academic infuseth into his Disciples, I thank God I have no Reason to envy his Learning.  
The last Charge which his Title-page bears, is that of Knavery, but so conscious is he that he cannot acquit them of it, that in his Book he drops it. In short, I had proved them Guilty of that which in another Case might have cost them their Ears, and it was wisely done of our common Friend to stifle the Accusation.  
I have, I hope, justified my Charge, and cleared myself from the Imputation of Injustice therein. And indeed easily I might, for so kind was my Friend that on a Fourfold Indictment, he did not preduce one Instance on any one Head against me; I was therefore forced to search my own Book, not being conscious to myself of any such unjust Deal. And I hope my Reader will think there is no other Language given them, than what Truth on one Hand, and Fanaticism on the other, demanded from me.  
There is one Thing remains, and that the most plausible in all my Friends Books, and 'tis, That I have charged on the whole Party the Miscarriages of a few. I might justly demand what they mean by a Party? For are the Presbyterians and Independants both but one Party? I won't tell him how the Pharisees and Scribes made but one Party against Christ; but I will examine how far I have charged the Body of Dissenters in general, and what Reasons I had so to do. Now I must still observe as before, That though my Friend lay this to my Charge, yet he produceth not one Instance of it, no nor his Pedantic Seconds Baldwin and Janeway; and if the Indictment be not proved, I think of course it should be quashed: But that the World may see more into this Mystery, I proceed to inquire how far I charged the Party with the Miscarriages of the Persons concerned in the Surey Demoniac. I have examined my Answer to it, and can find but one Place, unless he will refer hither what I before mentioned, p. 3, 4. that looks that way; and it is p. 6. where speaking of that Sincerity that is requisite in Authors in Matters of this Nature, I use these general Words, If we be found tripping herein, we expose not only ourselves but our whole Party; especially if the Leaders of them, as in the present Case, be conspiring with us to promote the Intrigue. These Words affect not any one Party more than another, but might have been retorted on the Church of England had any Man of Note in it, been found guilty of such Tricks as the Surey Operators were. Perhaps because I speak all along in the Plural, to a Number of Men, they apply my Words to the whole Party; but that is very unjust, for nothing ought to be enlarged further than the Circumstances of the Subject will allow. Now I had to deal with no less than Fifteen Dissenting Ministers, Heads of the Party, that were one way or other concerned in the Surey Demoniac: There were no less than about Fifty Hearers that are produced as Eye or Ear-witnesses to Attest the pretended Truth of it, in all about Sixty six, adding the two Ministers that were dead since the Transaction; a pretty little Conventicle! And could I other than speak of these People in the Plural, and Words that must imply what they were, a Party, and I think a considerable one too; but if any will enlarge my Expressions to them, to the whole Body of Dissenters, I think they are very unjust to me, since I could not (speaking to so many) writ otherwise than as to a Party. But I know the Spirit of the Men I have to deal with, having laid it to my Charge they will admit of no Excuse, but plead to it I must.  
Then open your Ears my Friend, and you shall hear what might be alleged for me, were your Suggestion true.  
1. Mr. C. tells us, This Thing was not done in a Corner, Pr. And in one Sense true it is, for he gives us the Names of Ministers, not only in Lancashire but out of York shire, that assisted at it; so public was the Matter.  
2. He tells us, Mr. Baxter was desirous to add this Narrative to his late Book, called The World of Spirits, Pr. And that another Reverend London Divine desired that it should be printed, as an Appendix to Mr. Increase Mather 's Book, called, A further Account of the Trials of the New England Witches, A.D. 1693. Upon which, saith he, much of it was then at London, for the same purpose, as is declared in an Advertisement on the Back of the said Books Title-page, Pr. If this be true (and if it be not, let them fall on Mr. C. that deceives us). This Act of Mr. Baxter is sufficient to bear itself, the weight of such a Charge; for what he did desire, I do not doubt but the Party would own: But here is also another Divine urgeth the same; and to invite the Parties to make it public, Notice is given of it by an open Advertisement. But to go on.  
3. If the Party disallowed it, why did they not censure it by some Overt-Act, before my Impostor did appear? They had time enough and enough to have declared their dislike of it, and aught if they took it to be a Cheat, to have called Mr. C. to an Account for it. But instead of that, it flies all over England; the Party glories and triumphs in it, in so much that a great Man among them was not ashamed to declare, That though God had established the Truth of Christian Religion many Centuries ago by Miracles, yet he was pleased of late to vouchsafe a new one in favour of it, meaning what was done at the Surey. But no sooner doth my Impostor appear, but the Party think to save their own Bacon, by loading my Back. And what must the meaning of this be? I suppose it is this, They resolved to wait the Strength of my Answer; for had I not given the World full Satisfaction of the Knavery of the Matter, there had most certainly been a Devil at the Surey, and Mr. C. had been a Saint. They knew that I was about it, for I had given them fair Warning of it near a Year before their Demoniac was printed; yet they sat snug and still, expecting the Issue of what Evidence I could produce, on the confidence of this Reserve, That if I proved too hard for them, they could overthrow me with a Cry, That I charged on the whole Party the Miscarriages of a few. But how doth my Friend clear the whole Party from having their Hands in it? Why he is much surprised that a Script (as drawn up by Mr. C.) and so long ago censured by many sober, grave Dissenting Ministers, and who upon his Knowledge used their Endeavours to have it suppressed, and thought they had done it, should yet after some Years latency be made public, p. 2.  
I confess an Ingenious Friend of mine, a Dissenting Minister, intimated to me his Endeavours to suppress that Pamphlet: He added, That the Manuscript was lodged in Mr. Alsop's Hands; and that he sitting by the Fire with him, and discoursing about it, he told Mr. Alsop he hoped he would not let that Pamphlet see the Light. No, saith Mr. Alsop, no Light but this, pointing to the Fire. This was communicated to Mr. Jolly whilst I was writing the Impostor; and what saith he to it? You shall hear in his own Words, for I have his Letter by me, and then let the World judge; and they are these. You are informed that Mr. Alsop did express his unwillingness that the Surey Book should be printed. Indeed, as I also was credibly informed, he did express his Dissatisfaction concerning the said Narrative, according to the uncorrected Copy, and before he saw the Affidavits; but afterwards he and others were of another Opinion.  
The Sum of all is this; here are Seventeen Dissenting Ministers in Lancashire and Yorkshire concerned one way or other in the Narrative of the Surey Demoniac: Mr. Baxter, and another London Divine press one after another for the Publishing of it; Mr. Alsop and others (which may be the whole Party except one Man, for aught I know) are brought over to the same Opinion; upon which the Narrative is printed, and the Party in general are wonderfully proud of it, extol and magnify it, till an Answer comes out that exposeth the Imposture, and then of a sudden they draw in their Horns, and would gladly sculk behind the Curtain. But how desirous they are even yet to have it believed, I shall in the Narrative more fully discover, and thither I refer it.  
And had the Party a mind it should be condemned for a Cheat, what makes my Friend here and there to nibble at what he thinks in my Book liable to Exceptions? Gladly would he have answered it if he could. And all my Safety is, that the Dog that barks, though he would, dare not or cannot by't. He had a Fling at me about the word Obsession no less than thrice, and much he got by it. What hath he else to say? Why he Queries what I have to charge the Attestors to the Surey Demoniac with: Do they affirm Dugdale was possessed or dispossessed? He confidently denies it; No, p. 4. and thereupon appeals to the Testimonial, in which are these Words, That the strange Fits of Richard Dugdale were by a Diabolical Power, ib. Was he not, according to their Judgement, possessed then? You must pardon my Friend, for he freely confesseth, That he cannot well understand what is meant by Possession or Obsession, p. 9  
Only by denying it, he showeth that he hath a good Will, though he wants Understanding, to clear the Dissenters. But my Friend is concerned that I should say, That if Dicky was a Demoniac, their Prayers did not benefit him, p. 24. And thence he makes me to argue thus, He had his Fits after their Praying for him, therefore their Prayers did him no good. Now this is my Friend's Argument, and none of mine; for I have examined the Page he refers to, and find no such thing in it, p. 57 yet he goes to show his Parts in arguing against his own Shadow, and tells a long Story of some Prayers being answered not instantly, but at some distance of time: And what then? Because God delays the Answer of some Prayers, that were founded on a true bottom of Devotion, to a distant Season, that his Wisdom and Goodness sees most proper for them; therefore Prayers that are founded on a Cheat and Imposture, as these at the Surey were, may be answered so too. Is not my Friend an extraordinary Divine? Well, but I said their Prayers did him no good. The Truth is Mr. C. tells us, p. 26. That Richard said so, and I cannot but believe him: For if I should pray, That the Man in the Moon might be eased of the Burden on his Back, I suppose he would find little Good by it. But I said, That before March 25. they had left off their Fasting and Prayers; and he asks how I knew it? I proved it from Dugdale the Father's Information, p. 56. But here is the Thorn that sticks in their Side, They tell us they kept a Fast March 24, 1689/90. How do I answer this? Very satisfactorily, saith my Friend. The Narrator hath the Impudence to pretend it, and Dicky knew nothing of it: I doubt this is one of their Sanctified Lies, p. 25. I spoke modestly if I said I did but doubt it; for the Truth is, they put it past all doubt.  
The Ministers had left him (as his Father tells you) the Month before. Richard was this Day abroad at Hindfield, yet they pretend not only a Fastday for him, but as if they had been with him, they tell you the very Words that Satan spoke to Richard, and the manner how he went out of him; which is such a notorious piece of Fiction, as no degree of Impudence, short of what Mr. C. and my Friend are Masters of, durst venture to relate or justify.  
His next Attempt is to clear Dissenters from a natural Tendency to abuse Sacred Forms of Worship, and he proves it is not natural to them, p. 25. And I am very glad to hear it; for though the Ethiopian cannot change his Skin, if what he say be true, there is some Hope that in due time these Persons may come to be reconciled to a religious and frequent use of the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and other Sacred Forms of Worship, which I suppose will not be much for my Friend's Advantage. But Richard's finding no Benefit by the Minister's Attendance on him, sticks on his Stomach; and the more so, because he reads, That they were erroneously Religious Offices that they performed for him, which he found no Benefit at all by, p. 25. Hereupon he inquires what they were? Were they not Fasting and Prayers? And for the first he imagines the Dissenters would be content to exclude that for an erroneously Religious Worship, their Appetites inclining them to solemnize Good Friday with a good piece of Roast Beef, and the Thirtieth of January with the Reserved Relics of their Christmas Pies; but that Prayers should be accounted among the erroneously Religious Offices, will not sound well in Christian Ears, ib. And why so? What doth my Friend think of Prayers to Saints and Angels? Why those are Popish Prayers; whereas these are the Prayers of honest fanatics. And what makes them erroneously so? ib. Was it because it was their Prayers? Or was it because it was not a Form of Prayer? etc. If my my Friend will have it with a because, it was because their Prayers were sometimes very wicked: Such was Mr. Jolly's Prayer, when he prayed God, That Satan might appear to be in those that did not believe him to be in that young Man, meaning Dicky, p. 70. And such I suppose was Mr. C.'s Prayer, though he hath disguised it, wherein some Persons thought that he turned his Speech unto Satan in the midst of Prayer, Sur. Dem. p. 40. And another Because is, because both the End and Ground of their Prayers were Erroneous; they were founded upon a Cheat, and tended to Superstition; and if they were as my Friend saith, conceived in a Barn, ib. it was the fittest Place for them to be begotten in.  
And this brings me to the next Insinuation, which he thinks had been better left out for my own Sake, viz. what I writ, p. 62. That the Neighbourhood affirm that there was never such Whoring heard of, as whilst the Ministers kept up their Meetings; they scarce being able to go into the Fields, but they found Men and Women trading almost under every Hedge. Had this been true (saith he) you would have proved it by Instances; but by this may be guessed what sort of People you traded with for Informations, and what Credit is to be given to such false Tongues, p. 26. The People I traded with for Informations were such, that I find tho' he hath a good Will, he dare not so much as deny one single Information throughout my whole Book; and for this Particular, I refer myself to the Warrants that were granted out on Account of the Bastards that were then gotten; which my Friend, if he will pay the Clerk for transcribing of them, shall have Copies of. And had the Primitive Christians, to whom (that he might excuse this Play of his Lambs together) he wickedly makes an Allusion, been found upon such Evidence guilty of such Debauchery, it would not have been the putting out the Candles, that would have concealed the Infamy. But suppose there had been Miscarriage (as he against full Proof) will hope there was not, must their Meetings, Fast, Praying and Preaching, be the Cause of it? Yes, when Tenterden-steeple is the cause of Goodwin-sands, p. 26. Now this had been well enough, had my Friend had Wit to stop here; but so far is he from that, that in the very next Words he gives a Reason why by Accident it was so. And is not this made out to be so (saith he) in Mr. Ray 's Book of Proverbs, or somewhere else? etc. Just such an accidental Cause was the Ministers Meetings of their Hearers Whorings; only by the by, my Friend hath spoiled a good Story in giving a silly Reason for it, which he had not from Mr. Ray, tho' he quotes him for it; for Children that play at acting Proverbs, give me a far better Account of it. But I will tell my Friend a Story, for I find he loves them: There was one Mr. W. that I was pretty well acquainted with, a Dissenting Minister, and an honest Man (as the Sequel will manifest) he lived when I went to School, about a Mile and a half distant from us; and on Sunday-Evenings, when the Church-Service was over, kept a Conventicle at his own House, whither the Neighbourhood flocked in great Numbers, especially in Summer-Evenings; but there were so many Bastards got in their return Home, as I am credibly informed, that he found he did more Hurt than Good; upon which he left the Place, and I cannot learn that he ever after held any more Night-Conventicles. And thus my Friend may learn how Tenterden-steeple became the Cause of Goodwin-sands.  
I am weary with answering my Friend's Impertinencies, who concludes like a Wasp with a Sting in the Tail, by which he meant to sting the Established Church, p. 27. But so gross is the Misrepresentation, that one may be tempted to believe, that himself is as blind as Tobit was; and so much the more, because he is wilful and spiritual, such as the Pharisees was, whereas the other was natural and accidental. For would this Man's Prejudice suffer him to see, he would never have bid me ask my Ingenious Dr. R. Whether a Preternatural Distemper, that had continued so long, could be cured at the first Dose, p. 26. For Dr. Chew's Certificate, to which he refers, is thus: I administered him Physic at whaley, March 25th 1690. which I thank God had good Success, for that afterwards observing my Directions, he never since had any more Fits, Sur. Imp. p. 56. Now tell me Goodman Friend, If following his Directions afterwards, imply but one Doses, with all the Spectacles you have? p. 19 I find you either cannot or will not read right.  
There are some other little Things which occur in your Book, that should I pass them over, tho' they are nothing to the purpose, you may flatter yourself you are in the right of them; such is your goodly Notion of going to St. Ellen's Chapel, where a Dissenting Minister preacheth, and hath it you say by Law, (more Shame for those that gave it him, for theirs, I fear, is the greater Sin) and so you divide not from a Church established by Law, p. 12. Now, not to take notice that this Argument, was it brought into the Form of a Syllogism, would have four Terms in it, such a goodly Logician is my Friend; I always thought that a Toleration had been quite another Thing from Legal Establishment; but in my Friends Conceit it is not: The Quakers need only to assume the Presbyterian Impudence, and invade one of our Conscerated Chapels, and get it Licenced, (and there are ways to make Friends) and then according to my Friends deep Learning, They will not divide from a Church established by Law. Tell it not in Gath. Yet he hopes that no greater a Crime than for us to have had an unconsecrated Chapel by Force, p. 12. This might have been a Fling of my Friend J. G. who if he speaks of a Chapel, can scarcely speak a Word of Truth. The Chapel hinted at (for I suppose 'tis Hindley, and the Straak is levelled at the Bishop's Head, and not the Curate's) was in our quiet Possession ever since the Restoration of our Lectures, till the Dissenters, whilst the Incumbent was alive, forced in upon it, and wrested it out of our Hands: And if the Right Honourable the Chancellor of the Duchy hath not relieved the Bishop under this Oppression (which at my writing hereof I hear nothing of, notwithstanding this falsely pretended Force of ours) 'tis at present in their Possession; such Conscience do these Men make of what they say or write.  
He hath another Fling at Bishops upon account of the largeness of their Dioceses, p. 18. But he would do well to consider whether he doth not by this spit in the Face of Christ, and his Apostles, whose Ecumenical Provinces were something larger, than the largest of our Dioceses.  
His next Stroak is at the Body of the Clergy, who (Nero-like) he could wish had but one Head, for than he could strike it off with this one Blow, A general Practice of Praying in the late Reign, That it may please thee to keep and strengthen in the true worshipping of thee, in Righteousness and Holiness of Life, thy Servant, our most gracious King and Governor, p. 19 Now was not his Worship Idolatrous? etc. Now are the Man's Eyes in his Head, or hath he put on his Spectacles? What did we pray for? That God would keep and strengthen in the true worshipping of him in Righteousness. And is Popery such a Mass of Idolatry, that there is no piece of true Worship in it? Do they not worship God, through the Intercession of Christ Jesus, though they join other Mediators with him? And was not that that true Worship that we prayed God to keep and strengthen him in, as the best Means to reclaim him from the other? My Friend I perceive is very blind, and then though his Hand be never so Impartial, his Feet may chance to run him into a Ditch; and that is something worse than the Jaundice, which since the Doctor could not discover in me, my Friend hath; for it seems I said these diminutive Slaves the Dissenters are Pluralists; and if so, he will never excuse them from Ambition, and Pride, and Covetousness, nor from being Self-condemned, p. 20. a Charge fouler by far than what I am made to lay against them. But how doth my Friend acquit them from it? He doth not so much as deny it, such an able Advocate have they got of my Friend. But all that he saith is, He will unriddle the Dissenters Pluralities, ib. And so he goes on to give some Reasons why they hold them, as there is no Man but can give Reasons (and better than his too) why he holds Pluralities, Thus he leaves them by his own Sentence upon them, guilty of Ambition, Pride, Covetousness and Self-condemnation.  
But let us examine his Reasons; and the First is, For the Convenience of the same People and Congregations, that some of them may have less way to go one Day, and others another Day, p. 21. Do you intent this for a Reason in good earnest Friend? I know one of your Preachers that hath a Run of Fifteen Miles long; and another that hath a Round of near Thirty Miles Compass; and have not the Congregations a great Convenience in having less way to go after them one day than another.  
His other Reason is no better, (2.) There is another Mystery in it; there are a sort of Ecclesiastical Officers mentioned, Can. 138. These are hungry Beasts of Prey, etc. and the only way to secure the poor innocent Sheep and Lambs from their Guts, is the Guard of a Recorded House, p. 21. Be it so! All that I shall say is, They have more of those Guards in this one County of Lancashire, than the King hath Castles in all his Three Kingdoms. And now the Mystery is unriddled, p. 22. Pluralities they have, and Pluralities they will have.  
And thus I have answered my Friend, Whether it be with Pride and Passion, uncharitable Censures and unjust Inferences, with superstitious Scorn, Reproach and invidious Reflections, and unchristian Surmises, and worse than Jefferian Innuendos, p. 2. or p. 3. with spiteful Representations, invidious Charge, much Spleen and Rage, Mire and Dirt, little Tricks and Mispresentations of Things, and confident Misjudging and Wier-drawing every Passage to the worst Sense, etc. I expect my Friend should tell me in his next. Had I really been guilty of such Billingsgate Language as this is, which I cannot find that I am; Yet thou art inexcusable, O Man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost the same Things. The Truth of the Matter is thus.  
The Narrative of the Surey Demoniac was fraught with so many Legends and Forgeries, such Profanations of Holy Scripture, and (if not Blasphemous) Enthusiastical Presumptions upon God and Religion, that it was not possible for any one to expose the Villainy of it; but he must be constrained (if he would not call Darkness Light, and Evil Good) to make such Reflections upon them, as could he be otherwise just to the Truth, he would be willing to forbear. Some men's Actions are so very black, that the naming of them is a Reproach unto them; of this Nature were those at Surey, which are so far from being capable of being covered with the Spirit of Meekness, that St. Paul in the like Case chargeth us to Rebuke them sharply, Tit. 1.13. For the Mouths of such unruly and vain Talkers and Deceivers, must be stopped, v. 10, 11. He makes it a Duty incumbent on our Function, They must be stopped: And he countenanceth it with his own Example, telling the Cretians in as plain Language as any my Friend meets with in the Surey Impostor, That they were Liars, bruit Beasts, and lazy Gluttons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 12. And doth our Saviour smooth up the Pharisees (a Generation that you suspect yourselves may be compared to, p. 6. such is the Force of a guilty Conscience, doth he soothe them up) in their Sins, by soft Words and oily Language? I hope he was all Condescension, and Meekness, and Humility, and yet I find him roundly calling the Pharisees, Children of the Devil, Fools, and blind Hypocrites, and a Generation of Creatures poisonous as Asper's. Doth he not resemble Herod to a Fox? And reprimand one of his own Disciples, who out of a mistaken Kindness dissuaded him from laying down his Life an Offering for Sin, with no gentler a Rebuke than of Satan, Mat. 16.23. For aught I see, St. Paul, nay the blessed Jesus, since they reprove men's Sins, in such Language as this, may fall under the same Rebuke of my Friend, that the Lancashire Levite doth. For what hath he done? He hath found Men guilty of wicked and scandalous Profaneness, and that acted under the specious Pretences of Religion and God's Worship, which raising in him out of a Zeal for God's Glory, a just Indignation, he hath signified it to the World with such becoming Animadversions, as the foulness of the Crime unavoidably required of him. This is all that he hath done. Yet there is an Outcry of Popery, Superstition, Ignorance and Knavery, unjustly charged by him on the Dissenters. And suppose this was true, will that justify them for abusing the World with such a Rhapsody of Superstition, as the Legend of the Surey Demoniac doth contain? Some Men are unwilling to repent, and pretend another Man's supposed Crimes to atone for their own wilful Prevarications. The Surey Demoniac with all the Lies and Forgeries, the Hypocrisy and Enthusiasm that it comprehends, is to be forgotten and forgiven; because a Lancashire Levite is by the Party pretended to accuse them unjustly of Popery, Superstition, etc. This is the way that our Dissenters have of answering Books that are unanswerable.  
But here they shall not so escape: Janeway, saith the Demoniac, is not to be had; and my Printer tells me the Impostor is very scarce, I will therefore oblige my Friend and the World with presenting him with an Historical Account of the Surey Imposture, and the Deportment of the Dissenters therein, together with their Endeavours to have it credited and owned for a Miracle, since the Knavery of it was discovered. And this comes beforehand to acquaint my Friend that in a few Weeks he may expect it.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
SInce my Papers were sent away, these two following Letters came to my Hands, which in Justice to the Right Reverend my Lord Bishop of Chester, to Mr. Gr. and indeed the whole World, that they may understand what Credit is to be given to some men's Pens, and how tender their Consciences are in bearing False-witness, I thought myself obliged to publish.  
SIR,  
AFter my humble Service presented to your Worship, this is to satisfy you, That I fully acquainted my Lord Bishop of Chester with Mr. Gray's Carriage formerly (before he was admitted to be Curate at Mottram): The Crime then laid to his Charge was for having his Wife with Child before he Married her; any thing more of any other evil Carriage I had no Knowledge of: And if he be any otherwise reflected upon, I suppose it is by some Persons who are troubled to see our Congregation at Mottram increase and flourish, and are afraid their Meeting-places will decline; for I have observed that formerly, when some debauched Person or weak Minister served the Place (and so a very small Congregation) then there was but little Reflection; but now, by the Mercy of God, and the Care of my Lord Bishop for us, we have this Mr. Grace, a very able Minister, and one exemplary in his Life and Conversation, and well respected and reputed of by the Parishioners and the Neighbourhood, (except by some disaffected Persons who reflect on him, for conforming to the Church of England); for although he left off Preaching at Tinstwisle upon the Crime before mentioned, yet he was admitted to Preach at Thirsk, by the Dissenting Party, for several Years last passed, and not in the least reflected against, until he had a design for Mottram, and Conformity (but we have great reason to bless God for such a Minister); and as for those that are offended to see a great Congregation at Mottram, (which I hope will still increase) I pray God turn their Hearts. And so I remain  
Your Worship's humble Servant, R. T. Godley, Feb. 10th, 1697.  
Nay, so fair is the Gentleman himself, that he gives a full Account of the Matter, in this following Letter, to a worthy Friend of his.  
SIR, Godley, Feb. 7th, 1697.  
I Have seen your Letter, and am greatly afflicted with those Calumnies which some unquiet and contentious Breast hath belched out against unhappy— but especially that so Worthy, Reverend and Pious a Divine, as my Lord Bishop of Chester should be groundlessly struck at, and reflected upon for my sake. That the Truth may be fully known, I shall give you a particular Account of what I have been, and done, for some Years past. About December 1691. I began to teach School at Hefield, (about 5 Miles from Mottram) where I was not suffered to teach long because of my Nonconformity. The Summer following (upon the earnest Entreaty of some leading Dissenters) I consented to enter upon the Ministry, and accordingly Preached thrice at Wood-head Chappel; immediately after which I was called to Tintwisle, where, as a Dissenter, I continued to Preach till near May-day, 1693. At which time she, who is now my Wife, proving with Child, I gave over Preaching, and went from them: They soon understanding the Cause of my departure, wrote after me, soliciting my Return: Upon my Return my former Hearers flocking to me, desired me to omtinue my public Labours among them, which I peremptorily denied to do, without the Consent of the Neighbouring Dissenting Ministers. Hereupon the Ministers assembled together at Stockport, and there they gave it against me; (which, I conceive, is that they mean by being cast out of the Church). Then leaving my Wife for a time at Hefield, I went to York, and by a Friend obtained a Licence to teach School in that City; (this was about October, 1693.) February following Mr. Brooks, a Dissenting Minister, being to leave Thirsk (a Market-Town 18 Miles from York) and having some former Knowledge of me, came and desired me to supply Thirsk one Lords Day, which (after frequent Solicitations) I consented to do: After I had officiated one Day, I was importuned by his Letter for a second and third (which Letters I have still by me). He not returning to them, they made choice of me for their Minister, where I continued 3 Years and an half before I came to Mottram, no one all that time divulging any thing of my Miscarriage before Marriage. But no sooner do they hear of my Conforming to the Church of England, and my drawing some of their Number from them to the Church, but a loud Cry must be raised against me, and against my Betters. Had I, instead of Conforming, publicly maintained that uncharitable Opinion of the most rigid Separatists, That God is not worshipped by the Liturgy, that the Ministration by the Liturgy is Poison, I might still have lived quietly without Disturbance, so that it's to be feared there is more Malice than Matter; and that whatever is pretended, yet it is chief for my Conformity that I am accused censured and condemned with so much Bitterness, and exposed as a Reproach of Men, and a Wonder to many. Besides the Miscarriage already mentioned (for which I can never be enough humbled) I am not conscious of any thing they have against me, and with that my Lord was fully acquainted before my Ordination: His Lordship saw also my Certificate from the University, witnessing my Proficiency and orderly Demeanour whilst there 4 Years; and received another Certificate under the Hands of worthy Divines of the Church of England, testifying the Inoffensiveness of my Demeanour during my continuance at Thirsk, with which my Lord was fully satisfied; and which will clear his Lordship from the unjust Calumnies of the Malevolous and Malicious.  
SIR, your unfeigned Servant to his Power, A. G.  
I before, for Reasons given, suspected my Friend to be a Socinian, I wish he do not also prove a Novatian. I suppose he esteems himself a Puritan; and this is Puritanism with a Witness (for the Novatians proudly call themselves, as others have done since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Puritans) that will not allow Men the Benefit of that Repentance that Christ's Forerunner began to preach, and which the Apostles did publish over the World. The Incestuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. 5.1. (bating that he was not a Renegado from the Dissenters, a Crime which my Friend, though he have Charity enough to venture a Prayer for one that had sinned, the Sin against the Holy Ghost, p. 15. would scarce I believe venture a Prayer for the Incestuous Corinthian) was, I conceive, full as guilty as the Renegado Scotchman. Now if he was one of their Ministers, as some of the most learned of the Fathers think he was, I wonder what Rebuke my Friend would have had for Saint Paul, who on his Repentance, commands them, To forgive him, and comfort him, and confirm their Love towards him, 2 Cor. 2.7, 8. I read thus, Brethren, if a Man be overtaken in a Fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the Spirit of Meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted, Gal. 6.1. I will not reflect upon my Friend, tho' if he be a Man named to me, 'tis supposed he is as much as the Scotchman interested in the Lenity of this Canon: But I will give him some Lines of a Letter, which was also sent to me since my Answer went for the Press. I hear (saith my Correspondent) from pretty good Hands, that the Academy in the North have the first Blessing of God upon Man among them, Gen. 1.28. Neither he nor I can yet say, this is true, tho' in a short time we possibly may give my Friend a better Account of it: But if it be found true, pray tell me, will you admit the Criminal to Ordination, or will you not? If, let him repent never so sincerely, your resolve that you will not, I must ask you from St. Paul, in the Case aforesaid, Whether you be not Ignorant of Satan's Devices? v. 11. If you do, pray what hath the Bishop of Chester done, that yourselves, in the same Circumstances, will not do? But I remember what my Friend saith, I see One may better steal a Horse, than Others look over the Hedge, p. 5.  
I would ask my Friend, since it is his Choice rather to be Ludicrous than Scurrilous, p. 28. (as if 'twas necessary that he must be one) whether he hath answered his Pretences? I have heard of some whose Sport it is to do Mischief; and I find my Friend esteems Scurrility a Ludicrous Matter, and would rob a Man of his good Name in a Jest. I see again my Friend conceals his Name; he was afraid our Jests should have been as broad on him, as his are upon others. But I am not at present disposed to be Ludicrous either in this way or any other, else I would have asked my Friend, How Mr. C.'s underling Slave Apollyon, came to be his chief Devil? p. 14. Whether the Surey Devil did not go out by Quarters and Halves, as his merry Papists Story is, now a Leg, than an Arm, etc. p. 26. since the Ministers were near a Year a playing the Men-Midwives to him? And whether such Dispossession as this looks like those of the Demoniacs in the Gospel? Whether they that say Here's a Devil, or they that say Here's no Devil, aught to give the Characters of him, p. 27. for I think they that see him, or smell him, are the fittest to do it. How the Dissenters by talking to Satan in Latin or Greek, would have been any more unsanctified Liars (as he pretends they would, ib.) than they were, by talking to him in English? These, with other Inconveniences of the same Nature (to cover the Dulness of my Ludicrous Friend) are designedly passed over in Silence, lest the Reader should be as weary as the Writer is.  
FINIS.