AN APOLOGY FOR Congregational Divines: Against the charge of, 

1. Crispianism, or Antinomianism.  
2. Countenancing Incompetent Tradesmen, as Preachers.  
3. Causeless Separation from the Public Worship.    
Under which Head are Published Amicable Letters between the Author and a Conformist (a Man of Renown, known ewhere to be such) about Liturgies and Ceremonies.  
By a PRESBYTERIAN.  
Also a Speech delivered at Turners-Hall, April 29. Where Mr. Keith, a Reformed Quaker, with the leave of the Lord Mayor and Bishop, required Mr. Penn, Mr. Elwood, etc. To appear to Answer his Charge against them.  
By Trepidantium Malleus.  
With an Account of his being knocked down, and a Stone fling at his Head till the Blood run down his , after a threat about Ten Days before, from Friend, J. F. openly in the Coffeehouse, That a Church Friend of theirs, Vowed he would do it.  Jud XIX. 30. 
Consider of it, take advise and speak your Minds.  
London, Printed for John Harris, at the 〈…〉   


To the Reverend and Learned Congregational Divines in the City of London, said to be afflicted for the New sprung Antinomian abominations; and therefore just Censurers of a Linen Draper (now a Speaker) who understands not the Doctrine he would defend, and therefore is only a Crispian Would_be. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Mead, Mr. ●rosse, Mr. Nesbet, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lardner, Mr. Harris, and others.  
Reverend Sirs,  
IT hath been often and long charged on some of your Brethren, who have appeared in a great Figure, that they were Antinomians, and those not of the best Edition, Crispians; but some of your Presbyterian Brethren, as well as you, could not believe it, till.  
1. They saw some open Vouchers for Dr. Crisp his Notions, which occasioned shame and sorrow to some of you, and Ingenious Confessions that they had betrayed your Cause: One of which is indeed an Ingenious Man, and discovers in his Writings good reading. He is a good Philologist, Philosopher. Divine, and Satirist, and it is believed he hath made the best of a bad Cause, though not without many and considerable flaws. It was his unhappiness, more than his Antagonists, to charge him with a Bombastick Style. This I knew not, being a stranger in London till very lately.  
2. Till they saw others open Abettors and Fautors of an Impudent, Ignorant, Corrupt, Impertinent. The following Account will prove this, to be his true Character.  
I think it Sirs, proper to begin with a short, very short, Scheme of Dr. Crisp his Doctrine, which I had about Six Months since occasion to look into, being charged by his Son (in a friendly Letter I confess) with wronging his Father in my Vindiciae Anti-Baxterianae, and also being often told by others that I was mistaken, not only in the Dr's sense, but phrases too. This gave me the Curiosity of a further inquiry, with a resolution to Acknowledge my mistakes, if any such. But I found much worse than I expected, or then I knew others had taken notice of. I sent for his Son (whom I yet value) desiring him to come to my Lodgings, or to appoint me a time when I might wait on him: He refused, passing, as I hear, a Compliment upon me, I was a ready Man, etc. This seemed to me, to argue guilt. The Scheme is this. That God Loveth the elect with a Complacential Love, in the State of unregeneracy, when in the height of all their Wickedness, Whoredoms, Murders, Thefts, and that he hath no more to lay to their charge then to the charge of any Saint in Heaven.— That they are not the Sinners, but Christ was the Sinner.— That when Christ said, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me; He was separate from God, and odious to him as a Toad to a Man, and so continued till he Risen from the Dead, and then was there a kind of renewing the Sonship.— That not only the guilt of our Sins, and Obligation to punishment, lay on Christ, but the Loathsomeness, Abominableness, and Pollution of Sin itself, till he breathed it out And that as the stain of in itself was on him, so he bore all the sadness due for Sin, and that whoever hath any sadness for Sin is out of Christ, the way: And therefore Paul did not speak of himself, but only personated a scrupulous Man, when he said, Rom. 7.28. O wretched Man that I am, who shall deliver me from this Body of Death?— That Faith is an Etcho of the Soul, Answering the Call, I come— without any change in Man. That Paul's Justification, Rom. 5.1, etc. Was not a Justification before God, but in the Heart and Conscience of Man: That Justification cannot be known or evidenced by sanctification. although Paul saith, Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without works. God justified the Heathen by Faith, etc.  
1. Not by Universal obedience (and here he most unphilosophically attempts to prove, that no such thing can be, and that this would infer perfect obedience.)  
2. Not by Love to the Brethren, etc. And therefore it is a Disparagement to the Spirit, to be tried by the word.  
But no end is there of Naming the black, horrid, and blasphemous Notions and Expressions in that Book: Which I have not by me, and therefore it cannot be expected I should Cite Chapter and Page, yet I challenge any of his Advocates to charge me with misrepresenting him. I will not boast how exactly, I have kept as to sense so words: Tho when I saw the Book last, I little thought to have this occasion to appear against it, for which, now this among other things shall be my Apology, It was reported I was gotten to the height of Crispianism, by I suppose those who would have it to be so, who also say, every Lecturer at Pinners-Hall are theirs. It is high time such be undeceived about me, and some of them.  
But some of the Drs. Creatures, or Friends, or Wellwishers, or however we phrase it, thus plead for him.  
That though they will not justify the Dr. his hard phrases, yet will his mistaken Notions. That the Famous Witchius (the Dutch Divine in a Latin Tract) that, that truly great Man, Mr. How, and that honest Dr. Beverly and others, charge not the Dr. so high as many others do.  
To all which I Answer.  
1. Are hard dangerous Expressions nothing, if your Plea were not a mistake? Which by no means must be granted you.  
What if at a full Table, All the Dishes there, were accounted good, and wholesome; only of one Dish some said, The Meat was very unsafe, dangerous, unwholesome, others said not: All was good, and safe. Only they granted, with all the Company, the sauce was very bad, and such, as some said, the Meat was, would not a wise Man, especially if weak and sickly, leave that one suspected Dish, and Eat of the unexceptionable good ones? What need we meddle (say I) with this, at least suspicious book, (but others know to be worse than Heterodox) when we have such excellent Tracts, done by Men of great Learning, and Men very Orthodox, all whose Doctrine is Acknowledged to be true, and their Expressions safe. Own, say I, such Tracts and let This go shift for itself.  
2. Witchius chargeth him high, if not so high as others. And some wise Men at home, think that Learned Forreigner understood not our Controversies here when all is done.  
3. As for Mr. How, and others with him, I can truly say, that I ever thought it (as did many Congregational, as well as Presbyterian Divines) to be at least an unjustifyable practice, to hang out such a Sign to Dr. Crisp his Book. Which no doubt decoyed not a few, as if they approved the Doctrine therein contained. And though that great Man in his subtle defence of himself, was pleased to ask Mr. Baxter, whether if Dr. C. were now alive? He would have him silenced for his Errors, etc. I know not what was Mr. Baxters' mind in this thing, seeing he was not pleased to tell us, but this I doubt not to say; The Dr. deserved it, and that I could not censure him who had Power to do it, thus to do.  
4. That Dr. Beverly might mean honestly, though mistaken in this, as in other things. How weak! Good Man, are his Attempts, to Reconcile Mr. Baxter and Dr. Crisp together, every one that hath half an Eye may see. Mr. Baxter, saith, he, was a Son of Thundee, Dr. Crisp of Consolation, and God gives various gifts for the benefit of the Church, etc. I aver the two Poles in the Heavens, may as soon meet together as these two harmonise. Can these two be reconciled? One that says, Faith is put by a Synecdoche for all other Graces, and is all one with Gospel obedience; and therefore Man is justified before God by Faith, and works. And he that says, Man is justified before God, not by works nor Faith neither.  
If Mr. baxter's Doctrine be as the Itch, I have often said, Dr. Crisp his Doctrine is as the Plague. I confess Dr. Beverlys Essays, to reconcile the Reverend Mr. Williams, and Dr. Crisp together, looks with a little better hue and dress. Yet his distinctions of our Sins on Christ, by way of inhesion and adhesion, Nor his discovery of that place of Scripture, where Christ is said to Come the second time without Sin unto salvation; As if he came with Sin in his first coming, in my apprehension, are not satisfactory, especially when so many good sound senses may be put on these last words. By the way, I doubt not but this (otherwise famous and worthy Divine) will be found to be a false Prophet, whether he be a false Expositor or no. I wish him prepared for such a storm as Monsieur Jerue, after his magnifying the Apocalyptical Mead, and the expiration of his two Years, met with. Where is that Prophet? The Dauphin Prophet? (I will not say Bp. Ushers Prophesy) Gildas Sapiens, our first Pious, Wise, British Writer, saith thus of the Old Britain's: That they were most superstitiously given to Prophecies. Cannot so many Thousands of mistaken Prophets cure us? I shall be shorter in Answering other Pleas made for Dr. Crisp.  
Others plead, That in some places, the Dr. doth own that Justification is evidenced by Sanctification.  
I know he doth in one Sermon, and much more stiffly deny it in another, and yet these contradictory discourses must be bound up together. Yet I ask,  
1. If the Dr. were inconsistent with himself, who can help it?  
2. Were not those Sermons, wherein he owns this Office of Sanctification Preached long before the Dr. came to the highest flight of his Extravagant sick brained Notions?  
3. Were they not put in here to allay the harshness of other corrupt discourses, and as a Decoy?  
Others plead for the Doctor.  
How can we tell whether such words were the Doctors or no? Those Printed Papers were only imperfect Notes taken from him. I Answer, it would be good News to us, to hear it well proved, that none of the Book was his, and the whole a mere shame. In short, we therefore Condemn the Book. We object here; and secure you the Man as well as you can. But this will be a shrewd Objection, if not against others, yet against his Son (said to be Honest and Conscientious, not Poisoned with his Father's Doctrine when searched) who Published the Book. Others plead.  
4. Some great Men in particular, Dr. Twisse, magnified Dr. Crisp against his Depretiatours, as a Man whose Heart was much warmed with the Grace of God, though he was an unlearned Man, he confessed, and others say, he wanted Logic and therefore expressed not himself, as it could be wish. To all which I Answer.  
1. I wish his Heart had been more warmed with the free Grace of God in Christ, and with the Commands of God and Christ too. Is Christ divided? Tell me no more of a Christ the Saviour, without Christ the Lord, then of Christ the Lord without Christ the Saviour. Or of a Faith without Repentance, then of a Repentance without Faith. What have these Ears of mine heard from some Men? Repentance is Faith, etc. Then the Apostle made a distinction, where is no difference. He gives us, Act. 20.21. A Compendium of his Doctrine to Jews and Greeks (which by a Synecdoche he puts for all Gentiles, Testifying (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Beza renders, Etiam atque etiam testificans.) Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. The Foundation must be digged low, if the superstructure be raised high: Faith without Repentance will as surely be found to be Presumption, as ever was a Repentance without Faith proved to be Desperation. God wounds and then heals. Wine (an abstersive cleansing thing) as well as Oil (a comfortable thing) were poured in the Samaritans wounds. The Law knows no Repentance: As it doth not for Murder or Theft, in our Courts of Judicature. These Men take all fears to be unbelief, though never so necessary. Did Paul indeed, Rom. 7.28. Personate a Scrupulous Man, as Dr. Crisp says? In other words, did he indeed mock at them, who were in such a frame? When I think, Paul never appeared more Lovely in the Eyes of a Holy God, and all experimental mortified self knowing Christians, then when in that Glorious (because humble) array.  
This Passage drops not from the Dr. unadvisedly, but considerately: Not by the by, but on his great design, That all sadness due for Sin, was on Christ, and he that had any sadness for Sin was out of Christ the way. This wicked Passage kindled my Zeal against him. Put this in practice, and such can never know God, or their own Hearts, and consequently this their Heresy must be damnable. I more fully Answer.  
1. Whether Dr. Twisse, at that time knew Dr. Crisp, as well as we now, may he queried, or whether he indeed gave this good Character of him, is more than all of us can prove. But for the other part of his description, his want of Learning, and others (I know) his want of Logic, I never doubted it; Therefore it is the more to be wondered, that such a Blunderer should be such a Blusterer.  
2. That I have heard from Good hands (and his Son yet alive knows the truth of it,) That Fifty Ministers who knew Dr. Crisp and his Doctrine, here, set themselves against him. These were no Arminians sure, but Calvinists, Baxterianism if conceived, was not then come to the Birth. Did not these Fifty Orthodox Men, break the Heart of this Doctor? However, I doubt not; This Plea or Covering is too thin, for Dr. Crisp was not Fool. For those who acknowledge his Piety, It is well observed by some, the Power of Grace: That a Man should have so many Poisonous Principles continually about him, and yet not corrupt his Vitals. Whether he declined long before he died, I meddle not with, I wonder if it were not so.  
Others plead. But did not Luther himself, and other Divines use Expressions as bad? No. He called Christ indeed, Maximus Peccatorum, which I will not censure, nor justify, and be sure I never will (as I never did) use such a phrase, though imputatione tantum, he clapped to it. The worst words I ever find Luther to use, and wonder the Papist, that mention other things, do not this, Coll. Mensal. (The best Book bearing his Name I ever saw, yet this great Flaw) Were I as our Lord, God, and should the World despise my Son, as they do his, I would set it on Fire. O vile supposition, and desperate Talk! For what Kellison, and other Jesuits charge on him, that Luther should say, Si non vult Vxor, veniat Ancilla, it may be justified. If a Confessor charge a Wife not to Lie with her Husband, or to yield him due Benevolence, because a Protestant or Heretic, (abominable) if the Wife will not Cohabit, if She will departed, let her departed, saith Paul, I leave no Man in Bondage: Let the Maid be made the Wife and Mistress too. The Story of Galeacius Caracciolus, is too well known, and the Judgement of the Divines he consulted to be mentioned here.  
Others plead. Oh, Dr. Crisp got me out of my Legal Spirit, etc.  
1. Were you ever in that Spirit you call thus? If so.  
2. Were you not got out too soon? Was not the wound skinned over, that should have been more searched and healed.  
3. Hath he gotten some Men that thus talk out of their Lying Spirit, or Dead Spirit? What a horrid shame is it, for Men to make a Noise; I cannot sit under such a Man's Preaching, he is no Gospel Minister: And yet be found in Notorious untruths, telling Lies, so Contradictory for a Crispian, and against their Accusers. I could be very particular, were it meet to talk with such pieces of Impudence, who, like Men in Bedlam, think the Spectators to be what they themselves indeed are.  
4. Some plead. But Dr. Crisp doth confess, That if a Man lead a vicious Life after his Echo, etc. He is not a believer, I know he doth thus acknowledge, but yet I was greatly furprised to see.  
1. How faintly he comes to such Assertions, as a Man that must say so, rather than would.  
2. He knew, had he not so done, he had passed for an Old Gnostick, or an Arch Ranter, and no more need to be said.  
3. Yet, I pray, Let us reason together. If Faith be such An Echo of the Soul, Answering the Call, I come without any change in Man, and this must not be tried by the Word, for it is a disparagement to the Spirit to be so tried (the very Dregs of Quakerism I am sure, if a Man know he hath given that Echo; I profess, I cannot see but he may be a Debauchee after, and be loved by God with a Complacential Delight as before the Echo given, and yet all well.  
Now having considered the best or chief Pleas I could ever hear for the Doctor, I will ask his Advocates a few Questions. What think you of those that shall say:  
1. That it is a comfortable thing to hear that unconverted Men may come to God as a Reconciled God I care not to name particular Persons, for Reasons I have more than once given in some Books; but I am ready to prove, if occasion be. Others,  
2. That they were never guilty of Sin, nor condemned by the Law: and being asked, Whether they never confess Sin? answer, No, When they are in a good Frame. Others, when dissuaded from worldly business on a Lord's Day, say, Christ bath kept the Sabbath for them, etc.  
3. Can these find their way to Heaven? Not the old one; and if their own new one will do, as they conclude, let them not be too confident till they see the end of it. These, and such as these are the Men I would ferret out of their Holes; my Work lies not with Men a little leavened, for I question not the Piety of many called Antinomians, who know not the depths of Satan, nor the natural Consequence of their Opinions, though very corrupt.  
How common is it in the Country for some Preachers to tell the People, Sirs, God loves you as much with a Complacential Love, when in your Whoredoms, and other Sins, as the Saints, when praying, or performing any Religious Duty? Is it indeed the Pride of Min's Heart to deny God to be the Author of Sin? must your own learned pious Brethren be ready to wring their Hands to hear such Stories proved upon Men of Repute?  
But because it is often pleaded, that God loved the Elect before Conversion with a Complacential Love; for it is impossible God should hate at one time, and love at another the same Person; if he do, he is a changeable God. And here we are often told what Dr. Twisse said about this, That Justification was an Imminent Act in God, etc.  
I shall omit what others have said about this; particularly, Mr. Williams in his Gospel Truth stated and vindicated, a Book magnified by the Athenian Club, by my worthy Friend, Mr. Giles Fermin, now dead, a sound Calvinist, and others. How? as we all the Snake in the Grass, as an unanswerable Piece against the Quakers, not for Passages mistaken of others, which prove him to be better acquainted with the History of the Quakers than Presbyterians, and other Dissenters. I justify not this Gentleman (for such he is in his Deportment, as much as becomes a Minister, and no more, a happy hit) in his Particularities, but in his main Design. Is not the Contexture curious, the Notions deep, the Arguments solid, and the whole a work of Art? I vindicate his censure of Dr. Crisp his Extravagancies. Are base little Stories a Reply? They who have thrown dirt in his Face have daubed their own Hands. What a shameful thing is it, for London Ministers, who should be a good Example to us in the Country, to be worse than we? That they cannot contend about a Cause, but they must seek for little false Tales to revile the Persons, (an Error on all Hands) I declare. I think once is enough to answer the Doctor his Harangues, and it cannot be done better than by Mr. W. and there I refer the Reader, being not willing, Actum agere.  
But to this great Objection.  
I remember when I first read Mr. Pemble, of Grace, that great Man, and found him tainted, quoad hoc, and that he smartly replied to many Objections that lay before him, I expected an Answer to one, which I saw he thought not of; if he had thought of it, had he been of that Opinion?  
I demand therefore;  
Did not God once love the Apostate Angels, whom now he hates, when they once loved him, with a Complacential Love, and praised him with Joy and Delight before his Throne? Who can say, These were not some of the Angels that sang and shouted for Joy, when God laid the Foundation of the Earth. How strange would it be to deny their Complacential Love to God, to follow Gods complacential Love to them? Did God hate them, when they Loved him? Speak out if you think so. Well: Doth not God hate them now, since their Apostasy, and will he not do so for ever! Now, if God could Love Angels and then hate them, and not be changed (because they be so) then can he hate unconverted Men, and afterward Love them, and not be a changeable God, but they are changed Men. Love in affectu or effectu, I meddle not with in God, only  
Love I grant, and you cannot deny is not predicated Univocally of God and us, as if it were a thing of the same Nature. No, it is not so much: Nor yet,  
2. Is it spoken of God and us equivocally. It is not so little: As if only one Name, for two distinct things quite different. But,  
3. Analogically, some resemblance there is, between our Complacential Love and Gods. God speaks to us after our manner, as Nurses to Children.  
This being the result of free thoughts in then Reading, and never meeting with it from any Man, and finding many pleased with it, I have desired a reply from some Crispians. Say they,  
1. It may be those Apostate Angels stood not long, not so long as Man. Apage nugas! A Thousand Years and an hour is all one in this Case.  
2. It may be those Angels were Sinners, as soon as Creatures. That cannot be,  
1. They could not be said to have left their first Station, if they had no first Station antecedent to that of Sin and Misery. They could not be said to fall, if they had not once stood. They fell from the Love of God actively, and passively considered, their Love to God, or God's Love to them.  
Heaven had never been the place of their Make, but Hell a fit one, if this black Notion were true, They were no sooner Creatures than Sinners; For large Discourses about Imminent Acts, I care not. It was ever Accounted by Divines, no small Error in Thomas Aquinas, That if he met with any Axiom or Proposition in A●istotle, especially his Ethics, against any Doctrine or Dogma of his, he would as gravely reply to it, as if he had met with any Text from Scripture. I care not for Philosophical Essays about these matters. Is it not enough, and often expressed in Holy Writ? That God hateth all the workers of Iniquity. It is evident, all unconverted Men be workers of Iniquity, therefore the Conclusion is good, God hateth them all Doth God hate them, and yet complacentially Love them too? Doth not God and the Devil divide the whole World? Are not all unconverted Men called every where in Scripture, the Children of the Devil? I profess, I am ashamed to attempt to prove it, Were they (My Masters) never of the Devil's Kingdom, but always of Christ, Who are said to be Translated from the Kingdom of Satan, to the Kingdom of Christ? Pray Sirs, Awake. Be not so drowsy any longer. Open your Eyes Rub them well. Look upon your Bible's once again. You may see many of your Notions, as wild as that of your Master. That Christ when he suffered, had the Filthiness of our Sin upon him, and so it continued till he sweat it out, and could not see the Face of God, till after he Risen from the Dead. Where was he in the mean while?  
1. Was he in Hell, to suffer there as Bishop Latimer thonght, in one of his honest homespun Sermons before King Edward? Not to triumph there neither, as others say.  
2. Was he not with the Thief in Paradise, as he assured him? Did he not there see the face of God? What mad stuff is this? I hope, you will not think, as I once heard a Great Dr. of Divinity say in his Pulpit, Christ ●ent with the Thief to Heaven, to welcome him there, and went down to Hell after. I Pray Sirs, Tell the Drunkards and Covetous Men, That they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and of Christ: Not that God Loves them with a Complacential Love, if they be Elect whilst unholy. I know it is true, Jacob have I loved, Rom. 13.9. And I will not say, he might be sanctified from the Womb: If so, yet this i● spoken on a Reason common to all the Elect: How? With the Love of Benevolence, not Complacency till Conversion; Laugh on at this distinction, I will make it good if occasion be.  
If King William now saw a most deformed Woman, Deformity itself of the worst body, temper, and morals in the World. Her Face, and Hands, and all full of running sores: Her Tongue full of Blasphemies against God and Him, she cursed both, and spit at the Name of all that wa● august and sacred.  
Suppose, King William knew that God would, (or he could) after some Years, make her the most comely, the most wise, the most Pious Woman upon Earth, and so the best Wife, and he intended when this change was made, to make her his Queen.  
Can King William Love this Woman with a Complacential Love, when he saw saw her sores dropping their filth wherever she went, and Cursing him every word she spoke? What fearful, frightful words, to some Ears, are the words, Repentance, Duty, Obedience to the Gospel, Good Works, etc. They must be fed with Sugar-Plumbs who had need of other Diet. They must have Cordials that are not sick nor faint, but rather want working, purging stuff. How weakly talked Saltmarsh of Free Grace! Mr. Baxter said truly, He was fit to learn a Catechism than trouble the World about his Notions. Was not this a Golden Rule to be laid down to Doubting Persons, O poor Christian, believe till you do believe— And when the Question was of God's Work within a Man, he would answer to God's Work without a Man, Christ hath ropented, saith he, and believed for thee, etc.  
Will not the Howling of the followers of that Man of Ignorance and Confidence that hath lately troubled the World, yet convince! His Doctrine and Morals are talked of every where. God testifies from Heaven against this untoward Generation. I saw several Letters lately from Worthy Congregational Divines, and People to some here in London, who greatly bewail these Abominations. They tell us of some that openly denied Christ preached Repentance, because he preached glad Tidings; and when it was openly testified against, and said: But Christ did Preach Repentance. The Answer was, But did he not go beyond, or beside his Commission?  
For my part, I am in continual Expectation of a New Sect of Ranters, as bad as the old ones, which may provoke our Governors to take away our Liberty from us, seeing it is so abused. I have heard some have thus threatened, if they find Crispianism a thriving weed.  
In Glocestershire, in a Town I knew, were there in oliver's Days, a sort of Ranters headed by a Preacher, (whether first a Linen-Draper I know not) they would say; We could not take off our Cups when with you, and would swear as a part of their Christian Liberty. One of them told a serious Friend of mine, What talk you of Sin? I would make no scruple to kill you, but I will not do it, because I love you. One of them at last was a God, and the other was a Devil. Then God would speak to the Devil, and the Devil to God, If thou art a God, etc. One of this Company was such an Instance of Divine displeasure, that he went up and down Winter and Summer, Thirty Years barefooted and distracted, I have often heard some of his Blasphemies from him, (Travers of Marsfield).  
What, I pray, did Cob and his followers do at Ely?  
To hear a Fool say, The Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance, and therefore Repentance is no duty now, might make any sick to hear it. When it is so clear, Paul speaks of Gods not Repenting of the blessings he bestows on us, not of our not Repenting of Sins against him, I that know these things, Pardon me, if I give you timely warning.—  
It hath been no small Reflection, I confess, on the Oxthodox Congregational Divines, that they never had the Courage to appear against the Crispians, though they have against another sort of Men. A few sheets in Print, would have proved your Zeal lay, not only against these, but them: Those unclean Birds would shelter themselves under your Wings, as if theirs.  
Mr. Job, indeed, in a late Ingenious Discourse (by which he hath much obliged the World) says plainly in his Preface, That I may appear impartial, I do declare, That I believe, that the Antinomian Dotages, have much occasioned the growth of the Socinianism and Deism of the Age.  
I had lately a Letter from a Congregational Divine in Devon, who thus writ me. There is not one Congregational Divine in this County, that owns Crisp his Notions, nor any, but some Anabaptist: It is so apparently impious and ungrounded, that I am astonished, how Men of Principles can incline to it. But what hath it to do with Independents, or Independents with it? If it did, any thing flow from Congregational Principles, I should think myself unsafe in those approaches, my Judgement hath made to them, and must flee with horror from them, though not to the other extreme. Some of that persuasion here cry, We are all undone, we shall be the most Contemptible Persons on Earth, if these ignorant Preachers thus go on. For my part, I solemnly profess, that I think Arminianisin itself, to be a lovely, innocent thing, in Comparison of Crispianism, though I own Calvin's Doctrine, Old Protestanism (and that in the Supralapsarian way, but about this, I never much contend.) Now what must I expect from some Men? Oh, this is he, that began well, and hath since made his Recantation: We know the Circumstances of it, and before whom. Did I begin well? Then I continue so, for in my Vindiciae, I do disown Dr. Crisp, his abominable Phrases and Doctrine, foreseeing I should be reported by some to be of that Number. If you can tell all about the Recantation, You can tell more than I. It is a false Charge, as some great Men know, who lately have had the contrary under my own hand: Who indeed I know wish it, yet I will be free.  
When I saw some Congregational Divines, as well as others say, My Vindiciae was too sharp; I have said to them and others, That I could wish two or three Passages out of the Book, as James 3.8, etc. Tho I yet add, other Pious and Learned Divines said, It was not too sharp; particularly, The Famous Mr. Giles Fermin (since dead) in a Letter to me, whose Name and Habitation he diligently enquired after, being pleased with the whole of the Book. After some undeserved Expressions of respect, he tells me, That having to deal with such an intolerable Applauder of himself, and Vilifier of others, No moderate Man, (they were his words) can say, I was too sharp, etc. To whom I replied the same Day, That some moderate Men did think it was too sharp, and I was of their Opinion, not of his— Those were, I well remember, my very words. I did intent to have Animadverted also on the Book of Universal Redemption, published by that good Man, (for so I doubt not he is) Mr. Read. I did intent it should have been the work of time, as well as pains, for I profess, slight it who will, and say it is an unlearned Tract; It made me sweat to Reply to some difficulties. Mr. Fermins' words to me in a Letter, I shall not forget: Who wished me a good deliverance, for said he, I know not what to say, being not able to Answer the Arguments on either-side. When I further examined Dr. Crisp, upon the forementioned Charge, and saw the Gangreen spreading in the City, I had done with that matter, and, undesired by any Man, I threw my Papers against Universal Redemption in the Fire: And resolved to trouble myself no more about any thing Mr. Sylvester, or Mr. Read should publish whilst Crispianism was on the thriving hand. Suppose, a Man should strike out one of my Eyes, another should cut off both of my Legs, after which would I most earnestly send a Hue and Cry? Had I known the City so well as I do now, and its present Contagion, I had said less of another sort of Men, and more of you. And now Call this a Recantation if you please, for it is the greatest I ever made. What have you to do with our Controversies? You know the plain, common, familiar apt Comparison; If two Dogs be a fight, if a Bare break in, they both give over, and set upon him? When we were fight, comes the Antinomian Bare, which makes us give over, and set upon him. Nay, to be plain, I would not be ashamed to Call on the Arminians themselves, to help in this work, against this dangerous, exceeding dangerous Enemy.  
I dread neither you nor them, as they well know. I have no preferment; but refuse it. A negative respect, I shall be thankful to you or them, or any other for.  
For my part, I declare, I hear good, sound, well studied Sermons, both at Pinner's, and Saltars-Hall Lectures. But may it not displease if I should say, If it pleased them at Pinners-Hall, to Preach more of Christ as a sanctifier, as well as justifier, and them of Saltars-Hall to Preach more of Christ as a Justifier, as well as Sanctifier, They should have my Consent, and I doubt not, of many that hear them. Would not this be a good mixture, and make such Savoury Meat as the Soul of a serious Christian Loves?  
They are all Men of Worth, and Learning and God Loveth them better than they love one another.  
It is the good honest Complaint of some Congregational Men, who, when they bring their Children, and Servants with them to their Meeting; hear so much of Comforting of Saints. What is this, say they, to them? Who should hear awakening Discourses of Conversion, and Subjects suitable for them. Besides, say I, we live in an Age, wherein Religion runs at so low an Ebb, That where one Good Man need be told of Comfort, a Hundred had need to be told of Mortification, Watchfulness and Circumspection, and of greater usefulness. Where do we see so many fainting sad Christians, that so many Cordials must be brought, when there is need of Griping, working things? They must not be told much of Duty, Activity for God, this is Legal Preaching forsooth. All Lenatives, no Purgatives: What shall be said to great Professors (Pillars too) that make nothing of an officious Lie to help out a bargain, of sitting long at the wine, of defrauding others; Sins inconsistent with grace if continued in? Let them think what they please, do these want Comfort? It is true, when the Dogs are beat, the Children cry; yet this is sometimes necessary notwithstanding; Sinners must be told their own, as well as Believers theirs.  
One great Cause of the aforenamed Corruptions, I take to be the Preaching of unqualified Tradesmen, especially, such as set up for the only Gospel Preachers.  
Many Tradesmen may be, and are such as may deserve the Name of prudent wise Christians, but yet make woeful ignorant Teachers. Who is sufficient, saith Paul, for these things?  
Had Paul lived in London, he would ha●e met with some that say, Who is not sufficient for these things?  
Obj. But the Spirit can do this work.  
Answ. But we see in you he doth it not. And I may say to such, what Peter said to Ananias and Saphira: Why have yè agreed to belie the Holy Ghost? You that never had the sense and reason becoming Men, what pretend you, to extraordinary discoveries?  
Obj. Peter was a jasher-man, etc.  
Answ. Is there no difference between a Fisherman made wise, and that to work Miracles, and Writ excellent Greek Epistles, and between ignorant Plowmen, Weavers, Tailors? Is it not a lovely Charming sight, to see an Association of such Reverend Persons, and not two Scholars among them? Who tell the People, Christ is the Subject of all our Righteousness: In the Lord have I Righteousness and Strength. He is the Efficient of all, but not the Subject.  
Obj. I Pray, What Qualifications are necessary?  
Answ. Such as you want, and that is enough.  
Christ promiseth, I will give you a Mouth and Wisdom, whereby you shall convince Gain Sayers. Mouth, there is many a time enough, or more then enough, but for Wisdom, no Man can see it. Are they Ambassadors for Christ, Pastors, Shepherds, Angels, Such as should give themselves wholly to these things Workmen, needing not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth? And yet such as cannot talk better than Women (not as Preachers) to such a Question as this,  
How know you the Scriptures to be the Word of God? All the Answer I have known from such Preachers, is by the Spirit.  
Is it not enough for them to be ignorant, but must they be so frantic to go into Pulpits to discover it?  
They sweat at the end of their work, and wise Men at the beginning. They can Preach, they say, often, and make nothing of it. Thou Fool, said Paul in another Case. Let alone, say I, the work to qualified Men who Preach seldom, and make something of it. What Polly is it for Crispians to tell the World, Dr. Owen once Preached to them, Pure Doctrine of Justification, when it is so evident, if this be true, than Dr. Crisp Preached impure Doctrine.  
For our New gospeler lately set up, some say, He hath been an Ingenious Man, others say, No: If the former be true, God seems to make him on purpose, to let the World see Preaching is quite another thing, than what most think it to be. An Ingenious Tradesman can no more make an Ingenious Preacher on a sudden, than he can an Ingenious Physician and Lawyer, or then an Ingenious Preacher, can make an Ingenious Tradesman, or Linen-Draper.  
For his Morals, I find his Friends shaking their Heads. I leave them to dispute this matter. But there is a Question to be asked, Seeing his Father and Mother were both Quakers; When was our Reverend Linen-Draper Baptised?  
But we are told of two Men of worth, that seem to Countenance him, out of respect to them, I will not say all I can. Yet some deny it, and I am sure, they care not to own it. I shall not say much of the Rude Treatment (much talked of) to me and others, when we went to hear him Whit-monday, before and after his Text, lest it should be thought to be the Great Cause of my appearing against him. Which I declare to be no Cause at all, but yet might be a sufficient excuse to Cut him up, and send him to the Tribes in Israel, with, see, consider and speak your Minds. I and others did, as God says, Go down to see, whether it were according to the Cry; And intended to Apologise for him, if I found the Charge of Nonsensical Heterodox stuff, not true. But I found according to the Cry thereof, or worse.  
The English Tongue, which is so Rich, and Copious, yet here hath that Penury, that it will hardly afford words, to set forth the Vanity of this late Preaching Linen-Draper, whom I was desired to hear, which I did with reluctancy. Before I give an Account of what I then heard from Mr. mather's borrowed Pulpit: I think it proper, to anticipate an Objection by Men that may Love only Fine, and Polite strokes, as, That I am too sharp in this, and some other Causes. I will only put them in mind, That when Hannibal passed over the Alps, and had a hard Passage, Fire, Vinegar, Salt, are used to make his way, which in other places he did not. That I am almost Fifty Year Old, and never appeared in any Controversy till a Year since coming to London; A second Amsterdam, of which it was ever said, He that hath lost his Religion may there find it. I take this to be one Cause, why our Tradesmens Mouths water after a Pulpit. They see in some Glubs here in the City, they may speak their Opinions before Ministers (and control them to boot, as if their Inferiors) Latin, and Greek words thrown out, and half of them Cracked. And Glorious Nonsense, and splendid impertinences, in Divinity and Philosophy, as if they were infallible Dictatours. Nay, one shall assert perfection, another deny Original Sin. Another the Resurrection. Another assert the Salvation of Damned Souls and Devils; which hath tired out the patience of the most Patiented Ministers, and made private Men doubt all Religion. Not only particular Ministers, but the function itself shall be jibed at, and that before their Faces, by Anti-ministerial Men, who admire themselves, when others despise them. To go on,  
When I heard the most judicious Congregational Divines, cry out of imprudence of two of their Brethren, as Favourers of this Man and his Doctrine. Some justifying him, another censuring, I was prevailed to go to the Meeting, and as I desired my Friends before, not to smile (which is a Rule to me, if at a Quakers Meeting, or any Worship.) We sat with all imaginable Reverence, when the Gentleman ascends the Pulpit, and sat down with stretch Arms, as if it had been my Lord of Canterbury his Grace, we heard the Prayer, and this Zealous Crispian Would_be, brings the Controversy even there. That when God gave Man a perfect Righteousness of her own, he threw it away, and such a Cross Creature was he, that when God had provided a perfect Righteousness in another, he would have Righteousness of his own. When Praying for Mr. mather's (then Sick, as if his Patron) he gave God thanks for Raising him up, and well it was so, when he threatened to take away the Champion of the Cause. After most impudent and uncharitable words, The Text was Named, John 11.21. Which compare with 20.23, 24, 25, etc. Were they not intended Murderers? Sirs, we would see Jesus. We. Who? Whether Greeks or Gentiles, he would not say— Sir, Philip— And here we were told a Lubberly Lecture of manners. We should go directly to our Friends, etc. And now a Doctrine. Doct. That it is naturally Written in the Heart of every Man, to desire a Mediator to come to Christ. They should not have asked Philip, but gone directly to Christ. O rare discoveries! Now let the Calvinist and Methodist look to themselves. Some must bring Humility to Christ, that is their Mediator. They must come humble. Now we are all knocked down: All was Condemned. The whole culpable, and that all was done out of Curiosity, and their Request not gratified, as far as we read, yet this Observation was laid down.  
Doct. That is the Duty of every Man, to desire to see Jesus the Saviour. Not the Lawgiver, or Commander, for he was no such. He gave no Commands, if he had, he had added to the Yoke, there were Commands enough before. And then an Anathema was thrown out, Confusion be their reward, that say it, etc.  
All Qualifications were Condemned. And now we are told, Abraham was an ungodly Man, long after he was called, and believers (after long such) were advised to plead the promise with God; Lord, thou hast promised to justify the ungodly, I came to thee as an ungodly Man, justify thou me.  
An ungodly Believer is Linen-drapers' Divinity. After our New gospeler, had Condemned all Qualifications, Behold, he is Metamorphized into a Legalist upon a sudden. He tells us, That whoever comes to Christ without being sensible of his Sin and Misery, should come in Vain.—  
What mean these Men by Coming to Christ? Christ Calls, are Matth. 9.28. Them that labour and are heavy Laden, (Not with Ceremonies, as some say, but sin and sorrow) to come to him, His word shall stand. They shall look on him whom they have pierced and Mourn, Zach. 2.7. In its primary intention, respects the Conversion of the Jew, which Joseph Mead and others, believe will be in the like way, as Paul was Converted by a Voice from Heaven, and therefore can only be Accommodated here. Dare you say, There is no way to Mourning but here? I affirm, a Man may repent aright from Subjects of Sin, Hell, Judgement to come, etc. And this will I undertake, and other things, if any reply to this, make it more necessary then as yet I can see it is. More stuff there was, in that speaking (not Preaching) which I have forgotten, or care not to mention; I have taken care to consult another Minister then with me, who once intended to Print the Sermon with Notes, but some considerations diverted him. I have not willingly erred in sense nor words. He can testify the same. One Notion comes on a Sudden, We must not rely on the doctrine, benefits, merits of Christ, but his Person. I hope, no Man will expect I should disparage myself, to Confute his absurdities. They that cannot, or will not see them, discover what they are. Might not the Doctrine be,  
Doct. It is the Duty of every Man, to desire to Murder Jesus. Oh Folly!  
I had heard before the madness of the Man, against all others. That before a great Gentlewoman this was said, as is famed and believed. That the Anabaptist dipped Women to feel them in the Water, etc.  
Which none but a Dammy Boy, I thought would have said.  
The aforementioned Minister, with others, heard him once before on this Text, Acts 9.26. And they were all afraid of him, not believing he was a Disciple: And this Doctrine was laid down.  
Doct. That it is a difficult thing for true believers, to believe others are so: When every Child knows the Circumstances. Well, Simon Magus was brought for an instance of a Preacher, who had humane Learning, but not the Call of the Spirit. When no humane Learning had he, but Magical Diabolical Tricks, and who never was a Preacher. To say, If he was not one, he would have been one, is a poor Defence. Well, Paul had the Call of the Spirit without humane Learning— Why Name I what every Ignoramous can confute, except one? Must Women be called wicked Women, for talking much of trouble for sin and fears, and a Story told, God indeed convinced me, that I was a great Sinner, but I was never troubled for it? I desired by a kind Letter This man's Abetters (so accounted) to meet me, and some Congregational Ministers justly offended with these things, to give us a fair Meeting amicably to debate matters. That they would give us their Reasons for his being a Preacher, and hear ours against it, believing, Here is a second Davis, entering on the Stage, worse every way then the first, but it was not granted.  
In another work I did, I rowed against Wind and Tide, now with both, being earnestly desired by many to undertake this work. Congregational Men, as well as others, who proposed fairly for its Encouragement. Yet I care not to use words of that Nature some Wise and Good Men do. That such a one is a Preacher of the Devils making— That had they been there, they would have pulled him out of the Pulpit— That they sweat to hear a Repetition of his Folly. So great is the ignorance that Reigns in this City, That if a Man Preach and say any thing of God, Christ, free Grace, and Heaven; they cry it is a Preclous Word though no sense nor truth delivered. You that talk so much of Free Grace. Remember it is free, though Devils and Damned Souls be not at last saved, as some here say; Tho all Men, the worst of Men go not to Heaven when they die, as that Fool that Calls himself Elijah the Prophet, says, Who hath Written an Aurea Clavis about Miracles, to confirm his Faith, that he is the Elijah promised? Yet this Barber cannot talk English, and will not say it positively, he is Elijah; Shall his Lying Miracles convince us, that he says, do not make him conclusive?  
Every Idle Jack now shall be ready to flee in the Face of Ministers, and leave them as no Gospel Preachers, though never so serious, sound, or accurate. This Barber's Doctrine is, That God is the Author of Sin, and when they ha●● served his end, be makes them amends, and takes them to Heaven.  
Antinomianisut is a lovely thing with now not a few. We read of such of Old. I inquire whether the words we Translate Sons of Belial, which the Septuagint sometimes render Lawless Children, or Sons against Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Sam. 2.12. Might not be rendered by our Translatours, had they known such a Tribe as we do. The Antinomian Children. When the Angels in Heaven thus turned Antinominians, Heaven was no place for them: And when these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pestilent Children (by which the Septungint elsewhere calls Sons of Belial) persuaded our first Parents to turn Antinomians, to Gen. 3.1, 4, 5. Yea hath, God said— Paradise was no place for them. And when some among us turn Antinomians, may it not be a Query, whether the Church should any longor be a pla●e for them? I affirm Dr. Crisp doth often question the usual methods of Conversion, confirmed by Scripture, Divines, and all Christians Experience, whether they marred not all the work till he hung out his new light?  
I humbly pray our Accusers to be at leisure for a while, and not for Expeditions sake pass sentence on us, before they hear our Cause.  
For such as are come to that higth, Ministers and People, that they will not, some Confess Sin, others, not Pray for Pardon; I think they are of all Creatures most miserable.  
You, as your Old Brethren, the Crucifyers of the Lord Jesus, are not Christ Exalters but D base's; you do as they, Bow the Knee before him with a Hail, but all but a Mockery. You say, you put the Crown on the Head of Jesus Christ, but it is one of Thorns, and the Sceptre in his hand, but it is a Re●den one, Mat 27.28, 29. You kiss Christ as one did; But He may say to you as to him, Judas betrayest thou the Son of Mun with a kiss?  
When Mr. Baxter saw so many Armed Men turn Antinomians, and Justifying-Faith, was to believe a Man was justified; And after all their strictness grew Licentious, he in a great Zeal and Fury wrote his Aphorisms of Justification: When this Book cause out, he was not then known in Oxon and they thought it was a Jesuit, ti●● they saw his Infant Church Membership and baptism came forth, (the best Boo● by the way, that ever was Written o● that Subject) they began to value him. Many Presbyterians followed him, and still do but none under that Denomination, that I know of, followed Crisp. Some unwary Independents, in as great Zeal and Fury follow Crisp, none of them Mr. Baxter, that I know of. And now between these two Contenders, T●● Question is, Which is in the right 〈◊〉 Which brings to my mind a Story Sir W. Raleigh in his History tell us, When two were contending which was the best Soldier? The Frenchman, or the Spaniard, one standing by after all, said, the Englishman: So the Calvinists, say I, or Old Protestant. But to return to our Right Antinomian (for remember, I am far from Condemning all that are so called) that cry down all sadness for sin, etc. Pray Sirs, yet I Pray, That that Jesus the Lord and King (startle not at this) who in the Days of his Flesh cured many Demoniacs, That he would take you in cure, though your Evil Spirits Name be Legion, we are many. Should we now be silent, the stories of the Streets may cry out against us. A word is sufficient. Remember the followers of Mr. D. your Meteor Lantrens, hath lead your Preachers into Confusion, in their Pulpit Harangues. He that looks for a Connexion or Correspondency, either of sense or truth, may look in Vain. And for you, it hath led you into Lakes and Precipices, and there left you. Your Preachers coming any where is Omnious, as is said of a Comet, or the coming of a Whale into a River. Your Arguments are of no Value, too mean for any Man to insist much on a solution of them; yet if I cannot put your passions and my own to a demur, I know not what I may in time be forced to do.  
I close this part of my work with a known certain story, a worthy Congregational Minister, lately wrote thus to one of the same persuasion. I ever valued you, which made me at last take up with your Antinomian Principles. I often Preached them up to this Congregation to which I belong, which I found a sober People, but now I have Preached a Congregation of Christians, into a Congregation of Devils; 
* Two of my hearers went away, and committed uncleanness immediately.  I therefore resolve to Preach up the Old Protestant Doctrine, etc. May you all thus repent and reform as this Man? Amen, Amen.  
As I ever have been careful to decline Stories upon common fame (not because I doubted them, but could not prove) and therefore mention what I know, I shall now take the like method about our Mecanick Preachers, such as I knew. One with whom I was acquainted, when Dead: I saw his Notes after he had been a Preacher Thirty Years; the Text was, Heb. 11.6. For without Faith it is impossible to please him, He that cometh to God, must believe that he is; and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him.  
In these words, saith he, are these three things.  
1. An impossibility, for without Faith it is impossible to please God.  
2. A proposition with a direction. He that cometh to God; must believe that he is.  
3. Here is a reward, and a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. I shall inquire, saith this Shoemaker (for such he had been.) 

" 1. What God is?  
" 2 What Faith is?    
1. God is an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God.  
2. He is an Almighty God, etc.  
There are two sorts of Faith.  
1. The Faith of adherence.  
2. The Faith of reliance— And you may easily imagine, how all was proved and spelt.  
Another Preached in a Town, to which I was no stranger, on that Text, God hateth the wicked: He said it appeared, God hated them. 

1. Because he did not Love them.  
2. Because he could not endure them.  
3. Because he was full of Indignation against them, etc.    
Another Shoemaker, after he had been a Preacher Thirty Years, Prints a Funeral Sermon; and there we are told, how the Devil winked with one Eye on the Good Woman: O said she, That I could but see a Troop of Angels; in they came; and it was a lovely sight. Well, we have the Epitaph for her.  
But as to she, or any other that shall attend upon his Call, shall live and Reign with Christ, and that is best of all.  
To She, is the Nominative Case to the Verb. On he goes, Our Friend Lazarus sleepeth, was the Text, John 11.11. He gins with the Story of Latimor before K. Edward, Beware of Covetousness Named three times, Change the Subject— What is that beware of Death? He chargeth a Neighbour for saying, Regeneration was a believing the Gospel, so as to obey it. If so, it will follow says he;  
That every Man hath naturally something of God in him.  
(Transubstantiation say I.)  
That it is the Power of Man to turn himself to God, (Purgatory say I) yet such Men have been our Lords and Masters, and it was an honour to come into their Pulpits. Well, another Neighbour of his a Weaver, after he was a Preacher, perhaps as long, hath Written a Book against the Anabaptist, proving out of the third of Mat. 5.3. Infant Baptism; For he said, truly Old Baxters Arguments could not convince him, and therefore he would go on a New Bottom. In this New excellent piece we are told that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, As if we should say, that been comes from benefacio; and a Multitude of such Notions. Well, John baptised Infants, All went out, Infants, the trees— When I told him, John Preached to the all, and the trees; Did he Preach to Infants? Yes, said he, that he did; I will believe the Word of God, say what you will. Did You ever Preach to them, said I? Whether I did or no, said he, is not the question, but what I should do, etc. So I left him— In that Book, in the Preface, he brings in this Objection.  
But many Learned Men urge not this Scripture for Infant Baptism. He Answers, either those Learned Men are alive, or dead: If alive, let them plead for themselves: If dead, they are either in Heaven, or in Hell. If in Heaven, they are of my Opinion now: If in Hell, I care not what their Opinion is, for all their Learning, etc. What shall we think of such Fellows who spoil a good Cause? I remember when a Boy, I heard one Trade so an Expound Countenance for Continuance, which marred the sense.  
I wonder, said Dr. Featly, long since, That our Pillars and Posts did not sweat, in which was On such a Day, such a Tailor Preached, and such a Waterman Expounded. We●l, perhaps by this time, some High Churchmen will cry out. You see what is the Fruit of your Liberty. Pray, my Masters Consider, not only how Arminians swarm among you, but Socinians and Deist. Who of ours turn Socinians? The last time save one, I heard a Sermon in a Public Church, I heard one Condemn three good sound Articles of yours. Soon after, I wrote a Latin Letter, to prove by the Canons of your Church, he ought to be Excommunicated for that sermon; Dr. Crisp, Mr. Toun, etc. Were yours, not ours. One came to Wells to be ordained, the Examiner put him this sentence; Apostoli Loquebantur, Magnalia Dei. He began Apostoli, O ye Apostles, Loquebantur, look about you; a Great Man sitting by, said, Magnalia, Manfully spoken, Dei.—  
I would not be mistaken, I believe the Church of England, had never so many Learned Men in it as of late Years. And therefore, I ever thought it an unworthy disingenuous thing, in the Author of the Contempt of the Clergy, written about Twenty Seven Year, since, to run back Fifty or an Hundred Year before, to find dirt to throw in his Moths Face: His Stories of Poverty and Ignorance, are not sufficiently qualified. Neither would I be thought to Condemn them, who take wise private Men, and make them Preachers. I am of Bishop Crofts Opinion, Naked Truth. Many such may be useful; I plead for wise Men, whether Scholars or No.  
But if this Book fall into the hands of any Papist, He may say, You see what you are come to since you left us. Fiat Lux, Written in the Year Sixty, on the Return of King Charles, hath sought to improve these things against us, more than any of that Tribe I ever read. Is it not a Sceptical Atheistical Book at the Bottom, like sure Footing in Christianity? He always distinguisheth the Protestant and Presbyterian; and yet says our Reformers, Luther, Calvin, and the rest, disowned Episcopacy, but Queen Elizabeth, saw a necessity to reassume it. A Brave Historian,  
Not to say much of your Disputes, when Dominicans and Franciscans burned one another; Jamenuists are accounted Heretics, and been destroyed as such. A Million of Men in Italy have lately run after Molinus, that Half Quaker. And now a Sect of Pietist swarm in Germany. What Wars are between you and the Greek Churches? What Notions of ours are so Monstrous as Transubstantiation? Pardon me, I call that Doctrine Monstrous, for let me ask you;  
1. Did Christ take and eat his own Body? It was well said of him in the Oxford Disputation, it is time ill spent to dispute with them that can swallow such Contradictions. This is like the Spanish Story of the Servant, that when his Head was cut off, took him up in his Teeth and buried it.  
2. Did the Ancient Christians, who burned the Bread, left after Consecration, think they burnt Christ's Body?  
3. Did ever the Heathen Julian in his Epistles; or any other, twit the Christians with making a God of a Wafer, and Eating him when all was done? Sure, No, than no such thing was then talked of, and if not, than it is too late to tell us so now.  
For taking away the Cup, and Mutilating the Sacrament, if Transubstantiation were true, yet your Story of the Blood being by Concomitancy in the Body, is not sufficient, will not do: For in the Sacrament we commemorate Christ, not living but dying; his Blood not running in his Reins, but separate from them. This Cup is my Blood shed, this consideration made most of the Trent Conventicle (Pardon the Expression for so Durankin, hath largely proved it to be, though he died in your Communion) almost Mad when urged by a Friar, They fling their Seats, etc. Father Paul's Hist.  
Can the same Body and Blood move and not move, be eaten and not eaten at the same time? I cannot Condemn Mr. Johnson, and others, that say, These be Contradictions, and Contradictoria non cadunt sub divina potentia. Tho I would take heed how I express myself hear, Remembering what a Heathen, Cicero said in one of his Orations, Pauca & timide de Deo Loquimur. Ye are the Body of Christ, faith Paul. In my apprehension you may as well say, The words are plain. Therefore;  
A Man Converted, is the very Body that hung on the Cross. If you say our senses tell us, it is the same Body in substance as before; So our senses tell us, the same of the Bread: If you say, the asserting of this would be Monstrous. Not one jot more than yours, as I could easily prove, Gen. 41.26. The Seven Ears, and Kine are Seven Years. We say looking on a Picture against the Wall, This is my Father, Brother, Husband, Wise. Some of you confess your Doctrine, here cannot be proved from Scripture, (though some attempt to do it,) and that we have taken the more favourable sense of the words, had not your Church chosen the contrary.  
I say again, Do any of these I writ of, assert such a Monstrous Doctrine, as is Transubstantiation? Or do they pray in an unknown Tongue? Your Priests here in England, were more ignorant than some Cobblers among us. It is well known, one of them reading the Questions to the Sponsors, for the Child in Baptism, Anno abrenunciabis Diabolum cum omnibus suis operibus? Wondered how the Devil should get in his Christening Book, he blotted out the word Diabolum, and put in Christum: So the Question was, Dost thou Renounce Christ with all his Works?  
Another Baptised a Child in Nomine Patria, Filia & Spiritu sanctu, which one construed I baptise with the Father's Country, the Daughter and the he she Spirit. And it was questioned, whether this should go for a good Baptism, but the Old Numpsimus is better than the New Sumpsimus.  
Pray Gentlemen, How was the Creed said formerly?  
Creco in Deum Parem orientem— crixus fixus Ponki Pilaki— remissurum peccaturum— In the English Popish Homilies of Old, the People were told, How Old Father Adam's Bones did ache in his Old Age, and he sent his Son to Paradise for some of the Gum from the Tree of Life, the Angel gave him some. They told how the Devil was whipped by St. Francis about the Church till he did Roar, for Pissing in the Holy Pot. How St. Kentigern's Mother conceived as the Virgin Mary; and a Thousand such trifles: your Priests understood as much Divinity as one of your Justices, who presented a Man for Frying of Bacon as contrary to Law, which was Firing a Beacon. Dalton of Sher. Before I go any further, I see a necessity to Answer one Objection now on Foot against me.  
Oh! This is he, that hath talked of an Impossibility, of a Legerdemain trick, of teaching a Child Nine Year old very lately, The chief things in the Greek Grammar, and to read exactly, construe purse, and say without Book, the Ten first Verses of the Gospel of John, in Greek, and all in three Days.  
I affirm, and affirm, again, and again, that it is true, and he was examined before Mr. Woodhouse, Mr Gillard, Mr. Keith, and Mr. Bolton, who know there was no Trick in the thing; as knows well Mr. Larner, the Father of the Child. I am ready for another Proof, if it be doubted or denied: I have heard of one that in an Afternoon, taught one to read all that Chapter! wonder at it who will, I do not, but think it feasable, though I never tried it. I hear I am in some Cabals called Liar, and I know not what; have pity on yourselves Sirs, if you have none on me; come forth and face me, you that smite me in the Dark.  
And now I close this with a few Words to those Congregational Divines, whom I plead for.  
You see, Brethren, That I have once more put my Hand into a Nest of Wasps for your sakes, tho' I am not of your mind about Church Discipline. I own Presbytery, and the Divine Right of it. How as my Opinion, not as an Article of Faith, and therefore will never plead for it as such only;  
I disown that little Creature, called the Lay-Elder; and think, if it be no Creature of God's making, it is a woeful one of Man's making. Not that I think the thing so novel as some do, or no older than Calvin; for I am well assured, Ambrose, that ancient Father, says,  
That it was a Church-Officer of Old, but that the Pride or Negligence of Ministers cast him out, How far he might be out here, I will not say, I am sure he was in his Exposition on the 8th of Romans, where he says, Olim viri mulieres docebant, & baptizabant.  
I paay you, Sirs, advise your Brethren not to be easily imposed on by unqualified Men. One wrote me, He desired to serve God in the Ministry, and should be glad if he could do him any good. They were his Words. When I advised him to keep to his Trade, he told me he was my Convert. When he had no help from me, he marries a rich Wife, took up much plate from the Goldsmith, and ran away. Mr. H. of B. was a notorious Example; He was bowed and cringed to, as if a Bishop; how he lived undesired for his Covetousness, Oppression, and died unlamented of all, is too well known, as well as his Preaching other men's Sermons.  
Such Men shall talk much of the Spirit, and what God hath revealed to those Babes, and his from the Wise; and by such Cants the People take them to be Oracles: Just as Van Helmont would have the World believe he had his new Discoveries in Philosophy, Physic, and Divinity, as inspired by God.  
Then he Cants, and then tells of a Dream, of a great Tree laden with Fruit— His Causes and Beginning of Natural Things. 4 Chap. 32.  
Well, after all, we are told what a Horse is, and it is put into the Contents of the Chapter, that we may the more note it. That the Horse is the Son of his Fourfooted Parents, created by the virtue of a Word, into a living, Horselike Soul.  
We have a common Saying in some Places, That to hear some things would make a Horse to break his Halter.  
And because that Man hath so many Followers in this City, I shall say the more of him, and see whether he hath not ripled some places of Scripture for his wild Notions, as our giddy Antinomians have for theirs.  
In his Two Hundred Queries about the Revolution of Human Souls.  
See how this Man, after Prayers to God to discover Mysteries to him, most vilely and foolishly plays with Scripture.  
John 12.35. Are there not twelve Hours of the Day— saith he tweve several times, to be born in the World for Man?  
Ephesians 16. Redeem the time, not twenty or thirty Years only, but hundreds they bade misspent before in other Bodies— Here is your Man, your Expositor for you.  
What is the Old Man, the Body of Sin? but that which they had, had bundred of Years— As weak is the Talk of this Heretic, about the Ending of the Torments of the Damned; Pride will put Men on strange Delusions, as if Inspirations, Raphiel, he says, was promised him in a Dream.  
The things I defend you in, Brethren, are of great Weight and Importance, which all things equally true are not, tho' the Authority of the Revealer be the same.  
Broken places of Scripture are used by these Men with as much Fraud, as by the Devil, 4 Mat. 4.6. on Christ; yet by the same Weapon of Scripture rightly used, Christ returned on him, wounded him, and overcame him.  
One was thoughtful to Print some of Mr. Davis his Golden Say, such Men will be talking of Men, of Men of Parts— Was it not a lovely thing to see our Linen. Draper in his Experiences, and Confessions of Faith, to call Mr. Williams a Blockhead, in terminis terminantibus, which none of his learned Adversaries that know him will say.  
When we hear their Blasphemy, we may cry, Hear O Heavens! and be astonished, O Earth! blush at such things as these, to see those that neither fear God nor reverence Man.  
Be you, Sirs, as great Advocates for Christ and Holiness, as they for Satan and Sin; and persuade your Hearers timely, and well, to catechise their Children, that they may escape these Birds of Prey.  
We see how many, as a flock of Sheep, run over Hedges, or down in the Sea, one after another. It is dangerous to use hard Phrases, which is the putting the Sword in the Hand of Madmen, to destroy others and themselves with.  
We are told they Preach well, so they may, when they Preach other men's Works, but many, when their own, make woeful work.  
A Man may Preach nothing in a Sermon but what is true, and yet none of it true, if it be not true Hinc, if not from bence, it foilows— it is all false. Such was the Preaching of our profound Doctor, if I may so profane the word Preaching, to call a Mess of Nonsense by this Name. Now in abundance of places, we hear the croaking of these Frogs.  
I know you, and some other Calvinists, Mr. Veil, Mr Glascock, etc. are here in the City, like speckled Bieds, but may they keep up their Courage notwithstanidng. If it please them to appear, I suppose, some of us would as soon venture the Cause in their Hands, as in the Hands of any Men whatever.  
Tho' some first Independents allowed the occasional Preaching of their Lay-Elders (an intolerable Practice) yet Dr. Owen did not, and Mr. Cotten in his Keys censures it; for which, indeed, Philip Nye, in his Preface censures him.  
If some inquire how I came to have so much respect for you above some others, whose Heads and mine better agree about Discipline, I will tell you.  
When I was a Member of the University, I frequented Meetings, and there only, received the Lord's Supper. I finding no Presbyterian Congregation there I desired good old Dr. Rogers to let me sit down occasionally with them, without any Tie, which he did. This Man was a very holy good Man; though, when a young Man, very profane, for which he was called, Mad Kit of Lincoln; but on a sudden, struck to the Heart. He was a grave Man, and wore his Beard long, for which he was often called, when Principal of New-Inn-Hall, Old Aaron.  
Among other great Things I have heard of him, these were some:  
That he, a rich Bachelor, married Mrs. Garburn, a Widow, with Children, and in Debt, and took care of them all. Her Virtues were her Dowry; for she was one of the wisest and most devout Women upon Earth: She educated many Gentle women, taught them an excellent Catechism, which she made, and a Confession of Faith of her own composing.  
Another thing was, That being often in the Company of a good Man, Capt. D. he found him always sad and pensive; enquiring into the Cause, he was told, he owed above a hundred Pounds, which he could not pay. The good, kind, compassionate Doctor, paid the Money, and takes up the Bond, without saying anv thing to the Man. Then comes to visit him, and asked him, Why are you not pleasant as you were want to be? He would not tell; then the Doctor delivered to him the Bond; Will the sight of this make you pleasant?  
He would often say to his good second self, We have much Money in such a Bag; such and such poor People want some of it— Give me such an active Man. I have often wondered, that having so many ordinary Lives Printed, the Lives of this Couple were not so.  
But I am now on sudden told, some Wits in the City design a Lampoon upon me, if I thus proceed, to which I Answer.  
1. What! What! And he Advocate for our ignorant Linen-draper? I doubt, I shall soon prove them, Wit, Would be, as this Jack a Crispian Would-bee, for he understands no Man's Principles.  
2. There is sent me by an unknown hand already, an Ingenious Lampoon upon our Linen-draper, which some that know him say, is an Exact Description of his Birth, Parents, manner of Life, such as I have seldom heard of. For my part, I abhor all things of that Nature, and was about to send it to him with this Declaration: That, I would not use much less Print, any such Paper. This way of Answering betrays any Cause whatever.  
3. That two Lampoons are Printed against me already, to which I have given a Sober Reply; Let this be Answered before a New one be made. For my part, I keep both their Papers by me in the Window to look on, when dull and melancholy to revive me. Indeed Gentlemen, Print such Lampoons every week, I care not. I am so Zealous for the King, and so Compassionate on Poor Tradesmen: That if you please to further the Custom of the King for Paper, or help Printers, and Stationers, and Booksellers, you may; I think all Men now conclude, that read my Defence, That never were more Impudent Lies told by any Man, then by B. C. and W. C. Men that are ashamed to own their Books, though I not mine. I wonder how they dare to be seen among them, that know what they have done. Not one Man comes to me for the proavised five Pound, though a half Year be past.  
For my part, I am much of Luther's Mind and Spirit; When he was told, that his Books were burnt at Rome, If they said he burn my Books, I will burn theirs.  
I may say to many, I had almost said to most in this City, what Paul did to the Corinthians, You suffer Fools gladly, seeing yourselves are wise. This I will be bold to say, I met with as wise Men in the Cuuntrey, in Bristol, in Plymouth, and elsewhere, as here. Some here are very angry for my saying so, and boast what they have read and seen, that to my certain knowledge cannot talk common sense, nor I think turn one Octonary in the 119 Psalms into, not only Greek, but true Latin. Some in the Country had need to send them Books, as much as they these. I confess, I was no Match for some I once Conversed with, but for many Hectoring Persons here— Is it not a shame for some to say, It is an Honour for their Country Brethren to come into their Pulpits, & c? When Perhaps, some of them think it a disgrace to come after Weavers, Tailors, who made the Pulpits stink of them long ago.  
It is easy for Men to write Polemical or Practical Books, and run to this Author and that Author and make Collections here and there; Then take down Pool, than some Critic, Leigh, or any other, than Books of the Subjects they Writ about. When one would think for Men of reading, sense, and years, Their Heads should be their Libraries, etc. But I must not, approaching too near any thing that looks like boasting, lest my Friends in the Country should think, I have been so long in London, that I am trouble with the London disease.  
Where Men are charged high 〈◊〉 what is said openly by almost all, Eaquire, all is denied. For lying, it is worse than bad. The private hearers here, are no more judicious, then in obscure Corners abroad. Every Quack in Physic, or Divinity, or other thing, if he runs to London, fin● it as fit a Receptacle for him as any place whatever. To see some M●● have some of the greatest Congregations in the City, whom all know are fit to be sent to School, yet these be Censurers of their Brethren, and Talkers forsooth, of able Men, and rousing Men What I pray is that? Men of good Lungs, that make disfigured faces, and speak to God, as if talking with their Fellows, etc. To the great grief of the Learned Men that hear them, or converse with them? And yet these shall Condemn, Tradesmen Preaching too.  
I am also told, by this work I shall lose many F●iends in the City I Answer, It is a great Question, whether I have many Friends here to lose. I have had many in the place from whence I came, and may again have more elsewhere. I value, Friends, Non numero sed pondere. My few here may be better, than some men's Many. One old true Protestant is worth Ten Innovators.  
Some object, They like not this way of writing; all should be considered by Arguments from Scripture. I answer.  
1. You like not this way nor the other neither, when against your darling corrupt Notions.  
2. Many wise Men like this way well, if you do not; an historical Account of Men and their Notions, is used by all. Is Mr. Lob's Book to be despised about the juggling Tricks of Arminians and Socinians, because he confutes not by Scripture, their Doctrine he mentions?  
3. Must Men run all the same way?  
This is done so well already, that much acnnot be added; done by a curious Hand.  
4. Yet I have insist●● upon the chief things from Scripture. Look again; Many Books said to be New Books, have little new but the Title: old stolen Arguments are mentioned without end.  
I shall not trouble you with an Account what clapped a Supersedeous upon my not appearing sooner; only acquaint you, that this was ready for the Press almost three Months past.  
For the Controversy now on foot, so far as it relates to Matters of Fact, I make myself no Judge. I have proposed a fair way, as the Digladiators both own, to bring the Matter to a fair Issue.  
To appoint a convenient Time and Place to debate these Matters, agreeing upon Articles before hand, to manage all.  
That a Moderator be chosen, who shall have Power to appoint to both their time of speaking and to silence hard Words; so may we know these Matters of Fact asserted by some, denied by others. (Now we must only inquire when the last Paper will be answered, and so might this Controversy take no more Air. One replied, This might have been done, but that the first Aggressor appearing in Print, must be so met with, which is true for once. But is the Advice now too late? I beseech them to think of it  
I Pray my Reader to consider, if there were so many Flaws in that one (and but one) Sermon, I heard from the Reverend Linen-Draper, how reasonable it is to think many more are in other wild Discourses of his; where he makes not so great a Preparation expecting not such an Auditory; yet see the Misery of uncatechised Heads. This was applauded by the rude illiterate Mob; some of which have the Impudence to ask us, What think you, we cannot judge of a Minister and his Ability? No, no more then of a Physician or a Lawyer. Such may be a Quack, an Empiric, as far as you or I know.  
We therefore choose such as are approved of by Men of the same Employ; so should we by Ministers of known worth. If you must choose your Pastor, I hope you must not ordain him; they that do it, must look well to it, That they lay Hands suddenly an no Man; and therefore they are judge of their Abilities, not you, to say, We have chosen him, and will have him.  
I once lived with a conceited Country Farmer, who would tell me, If he were in my place, he would make the People quale; and, that he knew one who broke a piece of the Board on which he leaned in his Pulpit. O Sirs! What do you mean?  
I would often tell him that was a Preacher for him, but a Stage-player for me.  
In a place where once I lived, was a Man much followed: he could Expound the hardest places of Scripture on a sudden.— One put him that place, The Children of Israel shall be many days without a King, and without a Priest, and without an Ephod, and without a Terephim. He began without Civil, or Ecclesiastical Government; as for Ephods and Teraphims, Weight and Measures, I shall not say much of them.  
He once, as is said, patching up a Sermon out of Dr. Featly, and Dr. Dun, their Works, one being asked how he liked it, said, It was featly done. A preaching Mealman once told me, You must have Ten Shillings a Day, when we sometimes have but Twelve Pence. To whom I replied, This is just as if a Quack in Physic should thus discourse with a Physician.  
And said I, Old H. How couldst thou in conscience take the Shilling, you should have returned two Groats again.  
Bless me, thought I, when I heard our Reverend Linen-Draper, If this be Gospel, I never heard the Gospel preached till now, and hope I never shall hear such Gospel more. If any ask, Why confute I not more what he said? because not worth it. Must I prove Christ to be a Lawgiver, etc. Or prove Christ gave Commands etc. He and Elijah the Barber-Prophet, desire it, that they may be taken notice of. These cry, Peace, Peace, where there is no Peace, and sew Cushions under men's Elbows. If Dr. Crisp had been by David, he would have informed him better, and we had had wonderful Psalms, no doubt; for David was not well acquainted with the Covenant of Grace, etc. Luther Thunders against the Antinomians, so called in his days, in his Table-Talk; and yet some have the confidence to tell us, Luther was one himself. The Man of Sin is called, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without Law, a Downright Antinomian. Judas describes them to the Life, who turn the Grace of God into Wantonness; read the whole Chapter.  
Our Mechanic Preachers, who think above all Men they pay it off, frequently tell us, I have the Seal of my Ministry: What a madness is this? Yet you will not allow the Church of England to bring forth a Convert and thus plead their Ministry to be of God. Paul having proved his Call, antecedently to this, rejoiceth in this.  
May not a Man be converted by a Man that hath no Call, not Common Sense, an awkward way of applying every thing? Did God send that Fool? But I doubt these pervert Men did not convert them. The Writer of the Life of Francis Siles, Bishop, and Prince of Geneva, gins thus; Heaven made a rich Present to the World on such a day, when F. S. was born— He converted many Heretic s to the Romish Faith. So these Converts such;  
To see Men to look, as is said of Flavius Vespasian, as if straining ●n a Close stool, and hear such Eructations of the Carrion they have eaten themselves, and corrupted others with; to hear abominable Heresies begotten by a weak corrupt Head, on a vile unsanctified Heart: this may be called Gospel for a little (and but a little) while.  
I still pray my Reader, if he be a Member of the Church of England, not to judge of our Meetings, by such Assemblies as these I condemn. He that would give an Account of a King's Palace, or of his Country House, would not run to the House of Office or put his Nose over the Jaques of a House, and describe the Air, and all by it. Here the Dissenters Deposuerunt feces: I could say much of the Folly of yours; Men I knew.  
Such a Chapter of the Prophecy of the Prophet Deuteronomy, and carried out drunk between two Men. No question in the Spiritual Court for his Folly or Profaneness. Nor of Mr. G. nigh the place I once lived, of whose Folly there is no end. I adjure you, charge not the Independents (though too many be guilty) no more than your own Bishops, easy Ordination. The late Scottish Eloquence, Presbyterians are so much charged with, is answered well by another. You will find, he that said (if he said it) in Prayer: If he that provideth not for his own, be worse than an Infidel? What art thou, if thou providest not for us thy People? Was not alone in such Folly and Impudence? But perhaps this Story may as much be questioned, as that one of them said, If ever Jesus Christ was D. it was when he made the Lord's Prayer, which W. C. twits me with, no doubt, out of that Book. Read the Answer to the Scottish Eloquence, and see how some Passages are false, others want Proof, and Accusers guilty of the censured Folly.  
Might I not be bold to ask some Tradesman, who desire to be preachers, to do good, as they pretend, Do you not as Ely's beggarly Sons, desire to be put in the Priest's Office to get a Morsel of Bread! Conscience, What sayest thou?  
It is a heavy Charge laid on many Independents, as if they were like the old Donatist, and denied Salvation to any, but to those of their own Conventicle. Whereas he that reads Mr. Cotton, Jeremy Burroughs, his Irenicum (perhaps one of the best Irenicums that is) will find their Souls loathing any such Thoughts.  
Neither find I the Ministers of this City (Carolopolis, may I call it, as Rome was designed, if rebuilt, to be called Neropolis) this way guilty— This is but the idle Talk of the Masters of our Ceremonies: they doubt not the Salvation of Men in the Church of England.  
Obj. Why leave they it then?  
1. Many of them were never in it, and therefyre cannot strictly be said to letve it.  
2. If I run from an Hospital where many die of the Spotted Fever, I run to save myself: yet I will not say they are all dead Men that are there.  
3. Would I part with both or one of my Eyes, Arms, or Legs, and say, I may live and deserve the Denomination of a Man notwithstanding: This is the common, but foolish Plea. If there be many good Christian in the Church of England, it is good News, and we hope it is true; we are assured, there are many more good Christians out of it. To tell us of the Public Wisdom, is Folly; they cannot hear, Who knows where it will end? We see what the Public Wisdom in France hath done, and what the Public Wisdom hath done in England, and was like to do again, had not King James bid us farewell.  
If you were to court a Woman, who must be your second self, when you should look to her Piety, good Nature, Skill in Domestic Affairs, and good Portion too, Would you look only to her fine Dress, and Trinklets, to her Topknots, etc.  
They think you may as well make new Credenda as Agenda, and add to the Belief, as well as Commandments; and as well seek to help Christ out in his Prophetic, as Priestly Office; and that you may as well bring new Revelations, as new Injunctions.  
They think it no small Sin to part with their Christian Liberty, though the Magistrate himself should call for it: a thing purchased by the Blood of Christ, and that we are commanded to stand in. They believe the Command of not Offending the Week, etc. was not pro tempore, nor intended by God, till the Magistrate shall command (and swear you to) not to regard this Command of God. In Ceremonies, they think Imposition is on God to accept, as well as Man to offer: Bold Presumption!  
They observe. That those who would make iudifferent Things necessary, soon make necessary Things indifferent. If their Days be observed, God's Day is neglected. Lying, Swearing, Drunkenness are made no Sins, where nonobservance of a Humane Ceremony is made a great one. They think not, you can make a thing sinful, and then damnable (if Men comply not) that was not made so by God, I ask.  
Hath Bishop Davenant said less in his Book, De fraterna Communione. When the other Reformed Churches drove out the Pope, they let him carry all his Garments with him, but these did not. No Coalition was ever attempted between them and Rome, as between you and Rome.  
Obj. Our Prayers prevent Confusion.  
Think of it again: Whose Prayers are confused, yours or ours? I remember in a place where I spent some considerable time, came a Tooth-Drawer for so much Money, promised one Man to give him ease, that his Teeth should never pain him more. He was as good as his word, for he made every Tooth drop out of his Head.  
Lock Men up in their Chambers, it keep them from going out of their Houses, and say, It is the way to prevent Drunkenness in Taverns or Alehouses.  
We are often (but weakly) told, how the Jews changed the Passover Posture from walking to sitting: But will you dare say it? the Church hath Power to make void God's Law, if to add to it. That David a King made great changes in God's House; not as a King, but as a Man of God; and all was done by the Commandment of the Lord to him, and Nathan the Prophet, 1 Chron. 28.19. David had all in Handwriting, 2 Chron. 35.3. Doth not the Lot signify the Divine Appointment, as in choosing Mathias in the room of Judas, 2 Chr. 29.35.  
Can David as a King, enjoin Posterity? But these things have been well replied to by others, but by none better (if so well) as by the ingenious Mr. Alsop, in his Melius Inquirendum.  
Bring forth, you that talk of Wits, many of yours in one Scale, we will put this Man in another— I vindicate his Arguments, not every Mode of Expression.  
If other Writers will not set forth your Church in its Colours, I hope Mr. Long of Exon hath lately done it, or else I think it will never be done.  
For his Divinity, he hath declared plainly, That Kneeling in the receiving the Lord's Supper, after it was laid aside in King Edward's Days, was taken up in Queen Elizabeth's, to satisfy the Papists, who might come to Church and receive, owning the real Presence. For his Politics, He hathlately replied to the Life of Mr. Baxter, but in that Reply hath deceived the World of their Money and Time, by printing about (as I remember) an Hundred and fifty Pages, verbatim, out of his other Book against him, printed about 16 or 17 Years since.  
What ails the Gentleman? Was he troubled with the Hickocks? I had replied to it, had I not appeared against the Book as well as he, tho' on different Accounts. Some great Men have said,  
That Mr. B's Book hath done them (that is, the King's Party) more Mischief than any Book printed for Twenty Years past; and that it is pity but it were burnt by the Hand of the Common Hangman. If it were, say I, it is pity it should go there alone, Mr. Long, his Book, would be a very good Companion for it. For,  
1. He unsaints Mr. Baxter for a Rebel; no Rebel, he says, can be one.  
What Man? What then becomes of the Tribe of Levi now? By what Names or Titles soever they be now dignified or distinguished? who with the Gentry of the Nation, invited over our King, and took up Arms against King James?  
Thus I affirm, is the King wounded by our Levites, who have sworn to him, kept Thanksgiving Days for their Deliverance by him. His Son indeed, is a Non-Juror. The honester Man he, if he be of such corrupt Principles.  
2. What, may not a Penitent Rebel be saved? These Men Corrupted Mr. Baxter, and made him turn at last a Non Resister, of which he hath to his shame, and the shame of his Friends, often declared, and yet no Saint; He shamefully denys the Story of the Earl of Antrim, which Mr. Baxter (as well as others) hath sufficiently proved. May not the Epitaph. He hath like a poor empty Man Printed in two Books, serve some of the most Reverend Fathers: How common was it, when the Prince of Orange was expected daily, to go to Church in some places twice a day? And Pray for King James, Grant him in Health and Wealth long to live; strengthen him, that he may vanquish and overcome all his Enemies; And then come out. I Pray, Is there any hope the Prince will Land, we are all undone if he do not; And yet to the same Prayers in the Afternoon!  
This Gentleman turns the wrong end of the Perspective, when he would ken Rebels that are not Saints.  
I would not be mistaken, I know there are a few good, excellet, unanswerable Passages in the Book, as. How Oliver Cromwel's Virtues were such, that it was wished Richard might be Heir of them, etc. Pol. Aphor. And yet both talked of so oddly in the Relic, it was a pitiful poor Plea to Mr. Bagslau, I think not the worse of Christ, Heaven, etc. Because Oliver owned it. But I have almost forgotten myself. This is not my work now.  
For my thus plain dealing in a Letter to the afore named Gentleman. I am informed, he threatneth to do me what mischief he can, to whom I replied, I would take the first opportunity I could to do him any kindness I could: For of all Men, I was more obliged to him for my Convictions about Kneeling, in the receiving the Sacrament more than to rutherford's Gelapse, or Ames himself.  
Whatever I have said of Mr. Baxter, I declare, I mean no more than what B Saunderson said at the Savoy, He was an illogical Piece, yet, as one told me who lived with him, He said, He was the best Logician in the World, that got all out of his own Head. Mr. Baxter tells us in his Life that he early, and without having a Tutor one Month all his Days studied Aquinas, Occam, Scotus, and Durand, which was able to make Giddy the strongest Head in the World, that is to say, his own. This infected him with a wrangling way of disputing, of which he sometimes was so sensible, that he cautioned some Candidates for the Ministry against it. This also made him sometimes to blunder, as when he saith, Justification was a transient Act, etc. In his last Book against Grisp. It is the last Plea of some Conformist,  
Obj. But Nonconformist Ministers, take the bread out of our Mouths, and our People from us.  
You took the bread first out of their Mouths, and their People from them; when King Saul took David's Wife from him, and gave her to Phaltiel, David takes her from him by the first opportunity; Let him come weeping behind, David cares not for that, taketh his own. Yet I confess, it is pity they should take the bread out of your Mouths; though no doubt, it could be wished they could sometimes take the Cup from some of your Mouths.  
And I tell you plainly, The Dissenters are but half Beneficed Men generally, and the People allow them a poor Maintenance, to their reproach and shame be it spoken: If they give Forty Shilling a Year they think it much, that can give a Thousand Poundsor some Hundreds with a Child. I cannot easily think they Love the message much, that care so little for the Messenger.  
Yet in many places, they were first ours with their Consent, and yours without their Consent.  
I now think it convenient, having Apologized for many Congregational Men, so now for some Anabaptist against the Charge of Antinomianism, Countenancing Trades●●ns, Preaching, etc. That there are Learned Anabaptists in the City, and Reverend Divines cannot be denied, Mr. Steed Seven Year as I remember an Oxonian. Mr. Collins, Mr. Harrison, and others, who are Masters of their work. Some that are no Scholars are yet studious Men Preach and Discourse well, and such Conformists and Presbyterians themselves sometimes admit, though I think it should be done very sparingly. Let such Preach the Gospel who can defend it against Papists, Socinians, Deist, and others; I remember, He that wrote a Book called, The Present State of Holland, commends the Anabaptist there for their peaceable behaviour, and good sound Doctrine, some here I am sure, deserve the like Commendation.  
Some of these bewail what they cannot help. The Preaching of so many ignorant conceited Men among them. How can they Analyse, that know not what an Analysis is Mr. Delaun, His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath done such Men no small mischief, who buy and read, but cannot understand: What have such to do with a Figure, which the Learned Call Synecdoch, etc. Now mentioning that Gentlemen, I have an opportunity to satisfy the World, that though once a Papist, he was indeed a Protestant; of him I had a large and true Account from one once his Scholar. When he w●● Papist in Ireland, he would often read the Scripture, and when inclineable● a Change, he accidentally lived in the House of an Anabaptist, which occasioned his being such himself.  
This sort of Men here shame some others, who more Friendly converse together, than other Contenders do. Their Coffeehouse is like Noah's Ark, as I have often told them; where are, as to Principles in Doctrine, Clean and Unclean Beasts, Calvinists, and Arminians, and Antinomians too, Singers, and Anti singers. Some for free Communicating, others against it. Not but that it could be wished that their Friendships were greater, and that in their Polemicals, they would more forbear Personal Reflections.   

A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A Wild Crispian and a Sober Christian.  Cp. 
I Am glad to see you, my good Brother.  Ct. 
I understand not your Salutation, for I look not on you a●● Brother, but as an Enemy to me, and to my Lord Christ.  Cp. 
O you are greatly mistaken in me, I doubt you do not know me; for I am known to talk of nothing, more than Christ exalted.  Ct. 
Yes, and to do nothing more than to debase him, and what you can to Dethrone him, you take him in one Office; I in all three, as Prophet, and King, as well as Priest.  Cp. 
Why, Man, if you observe Providence, my very Name may be my Apology, for my Name is Crispian, which is, much like Christian.  Ct. 
Yes, but you know every like is not the same. If you would be witty indeed, it might rather prove you to be but a half Christian. Is not Christ in the Name, Antichrist. Jesus, in the Name Jesuit, which is more. But what think you, if I mention the same Name in Scripture, for that that 〈◊〉 most opposite?  Cp. 
I ●ray what is that?  Ct. 
What think you of the Name God, is it not the Name of the mo●● High, Holy, Glorious Being. The Maker of all, our Benefactor in time and eternity?  Cp. 
Y●●, and what them?  Ct. 
Yet is this Name given to the Devil, (a Name ab officio, as well as natura) the Hater of the most High the Murderer of Souls, the cursedly Creature that is. Yet he is called, The God of the World, etc.  Ct. 
Come then, Let us go from Names to Things. I doubt, you are one of them that assert, The Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace with Believers, and of Perseverance unto salvation.  Ct. 
No, I am not, but am well satisfied in what the truly Eagle Eyed Man, Mr. Capel hath said against it, in a little thing worth Gold, bound up with his Book of Temptations. Yet all that assert Perseverance are, and must be sound in sense, whether in Phrases or no.  Cp. 
What is your apprehensions about it?  Ct. 
That the word, we render Covenant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is rendered Testament, Mat. 26.28. And we call the Bible, The Old and New Testament.  
2. That the word Covenant as we render it in Scripture, must not imply a Condition as some Blead, Gen. 9.9, 10, 11, 12. God's Covenant not to destroy all Flesh, admits of no condition, yet of a Sign the Rainbow, and that God's Covenant of Grace with Man, is like this Covenant, is evidenced by Isaiah. As I have Sworn, the Waters of Noah shall no more return to drown the Earth, etc.  
3. Heb. 8.10. Where the Covenant is mentioned, it is a promise of Grace, for I cannot for my heart conceive, How a thing should be the matter of a promise and condition of it too. Or a thing be the condition of itself.  
4. God gives the Sign of this to all his own, many ways if you will so call it.  
5. I therefore take what some call Conditions to be, not properly but improperly so, they are necessary Consequents of Justification, and necessary Antecedents to Glorification.  Cp. 
Oh Sir, I am pleased to the Heart to hear you talk so Orthodoxly. I suppose you are a Calvinist, and some say, Calvin and Dr. Crisp are agreed.  Ct. 
Yes, I am as surely a Protestant, for (that is the right Name) as you are none: But they that tell you, Those two are one, may as soon Reconcile God and Satan.  Cp. 
Good Sir, some more sound Doctrine; I hope, you do not own Previous or Preparatory Qualifications to true Grace some Men talk of.  Ct. 
Yes, I do, and yet do not. I am of their Opinion, and yours too in this point.  Cp. 
This is strange, and seems impossible, I pray explain yourself.  Ct. 
Mr. Norton in his Orthodox Evangelist spends, I confess, too much time about this thing, and it is the greatest, if not only, flaw in that sound Learned Book: I believe with them it is Gods, if not frequent or common, yet sometimes way and work, and experience proves it; but I believe with you, it is not his constant work. As when Three Thousand were pricked to the Heart, immediately converted and baptised. I doubt not, but the greatest Adulterers, Swearers, Drunkards, that sit down unconverted, profane hearers, sometimes arise Converted, Pardoned one's: God suddenly touching and turning their wills. And the Kingdom of Heaven is as a Grain of Mustardseed, the least of all Grains, Yet grows up to a great Tree, that the Birds of the Air lodge in the Branches of it.  
The greatest Oak was once an Acorn, and the greatest Giant once an Infant crying in the Cradle, and the greatest Scholar once learning his Letters.  Cp. 
I hope, you own the Elect were ever beloved, when in the height of all their wickedness; and that God hath no more to lay to their charge, then to the charge of any Saint in Heaven, p. 368.  Ct. 
No, by no means, for the Scriptures say plainly, Rom. 9.25, 23, 24, 25, 26. There was the Love of purpose or good will, for they are said to be prepared unto Glory, thou called, both Jews and Gentiles, than his People which were not a People, and her beloved, which was not beloved. And they which were not my People, are called the Children of God, in the same place shall it be said, etc. Can words be plainer? Yet you say, they were ever beloved, ever a People, ever the Children of God. Where God is said to Love with an everlasting Love, a priori, it is of purpose or good will a posteriori, it is with Complacency and so beloved.  Cp. 
I grant indeed, God delighted not in their Sins, but Persons.  Ct. 
O rare discovery! Now you think you have hit it, and stopped our Mouths.  
1 I am glad you are not yet come so far as to say, God loves their Sins.  
2. But the strain of Scripture is Gods hating the wicked, not their wickedness, that they are Enemies, etc.  
3. So God hateth the Sins of the Elect after Conversion, as well as before; and if no more was meant then hating their Sins, God might (say I) be said as truly to hate them after Conversion, as before.  Cp. 
But doth not God Love them as his Creatures?  Ct. 
Yes, and so he doth the Non-elect, and if you please, you may say the Devils themselves, what is that to our purpose?  Cp. 
I could bring you good Authors that thus assert.  Ct. 
Yes, jnst as Colonel Danvers would meddle openly with Divines work; who citing the Magdeburgensian History about Baptism, mentioning a place, where they were said to confess Sin when baptised. Hence drew this Inference;  
They knew nothing of Infant-Baptism, for Infants could not confess Sin when the next Words prove, they baptised Infants, Nisi propter aetatem loqui non poterant. What shall we call this?  
So is it as false, That the old Waldenses were against Infant-baptism; though the Papist charged them so, they not baptising their Children sometimes so soon as they; they sometimes wanting an Administrater, their Preachers being abroad: For Perin, who wrote the best History of them, tells us these words in their Confession of Faith and Catechism; and for this reason we baptise Infants.  
The learnedst Anabaptist once in England told me, he advised the Colonel to confess this Fault; and that he replied, No, I will do as Mr. Baxter, when a thing is out, make the best of it. But where did Mr. B. so grossly corrupt History? I am sure, my Lord Lambert, when he heard of the Book, said, Had Mrs. Danvers wrote a Book on that Subject, he had not wondered, but thought him unfit for it. But by such ungodly Tricks and Cheats he made many go down into the Water; he had his end, and that was enough. Mr. Tombs and my Lord Laurence took no such base Methods: yet, I grant a very few, not many, seem to say what you plead.  Cp. 
Return then to the Scriptures.  Ct. 
He that believeth in him, is not condemned, but he that believeth not, is condemned already, 1 John 8. Are not they Sons, Children of God, so by Adoption; How then before? sure you dream not as yet of an Eternal Adoption, 1 Cor. 6.11.  
He shows they were not justified before; Such were some of you, 26 Acts 18. They are turned from Satan to God, that they might receive Remission of Sin. The Doctor's Story of the Deer-stealer, and such nasty Comparisons; as,  
Having a Knife in thy Hand to cut the Throat of Christ, are loathsome. And that I may appear impartially; it was bad in Dr. Twisse, to say, God could not be such a Fool— As in Parker, to say an Almighty D. Or Twisse again, As we cut the Throats of Fowls for our pleasure, so, etc.  Cp. 
You say we are justified by Faith, we say freely without it; and Beza puts the Point, at the end of Justified, 5 Rom. 15. being justified, by Faith we have Peace with God.  
But the Stream of the Chapter proves our reading— and other places, 3 Rom. 20.28, 30. Therefore we conclude a Man is justified by Faith without the Deeds of the Law. He justifieth the Circumcision by Faith, and Uncircumcision through Faith; if we have by Faith, Peace with God, is not this what you will not always grant?  Cp. 
But is not a Sinner, as a Sinner justified and pardoned? sure you will not deny this.  Ct. 
Sure I will deny it. A Quatenus ad omne valet consequentia: then would every Sinner be justified and pardoned, for all Men are such. It is the believing Sinner that is justified, the repenting Sinner that is pardoned.  Cp. 
But we are grossly belied. As if we made ourselves the Subjects of Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness.  Ct. 
Your Adversary did not say it plainly, but thought it the Consequence of your Doctrine; though I wish he had let it alone, seeing you are irreconcilable about it.  Cp. 
Well, Man is in no Sense justified by Works; it is mere Popery, Texpect not such thing.  Ct. 
I believe we may think you are no Papist; you think not to be saved by good works, for none do you do. Read, Was not Abraham justified by Works, when he offered up Isaac on the Altar, 2 James 21.25? Was not Rahab justified by Works, when she received the Spies? So that, saith James, a Man is justified by Works, and not by Faith only, 24. ver.  Cp. 
But Luther called this Epistle the Strawy one; and said, Homo non justificatur ex operibus ut delirat Jacobus.  Ct. 
Whether Luther continued in that mind, I know not. The Learned Whitaker proves, against this Charge of the Papist, many of the Ancients; not accounted Heretics, denied this Epistle. And Willet, as I remember, in his Synopsis, proves the same; this was therefore Luther's Error. Man is justified declaratively before Men: Show me thy Faith without thy Works, I will show thee my Faith by my Works, 18. verse 22. Faith wrought with his Works, not his Works with his Faith. As the Body, v. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the Breath is dead, so Faith without Works ik dead also.  
The breath maketh not Man alive, but proves him so. They who plead for a Faith that worketh not, are a scandal to the Protestant Religion: James describes Religion from its Effects, 1 Jam. 27. Pure Religion, is to visit Fatherless, etc. having to deal with the Libertines, or right Antinomians of that Age. Dr. Tully hath proved well, that there is a declarative Justification; 1. Coram hominibus, 2. Coram Angelis, 3. Coram ipso Deo.  
Hereby I know thou fearest God, 22 Gen. 12. God knew it sure before, but Abraham gave another Proof of it before God.  
This, is evident, was not the first Act of Justification, that was long before.  Cp. 
I cannot get over what you said before, 1 Rom. 23.24. Tho they were not beloved, yet God might Love them before they were called; or they might be loved, though not called Beloved.  Ct. 
Beloved, is passive, as Love is active.  
To say, though they were not beloved, yet God might love them, will not hold here; and to say, God called them beloved; pray mind the next Words, Who were not beloved? not, Who were not called beloved?  
Yet, according to you, they were called beloved; Jacob have I loved— Before he knew God, did love them, when in Sin, before Conversion, 2 Eph. 4. It is plainly said, but it was not a complacential Love, as I named before, but with a Love of purpose or good will.  Cp. 
But you make Obedience, good works, the way to the Kingdom, when Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. You act for Life, etc.  Ct. 
So Old Protestants before us plead that of Austin against the Papists; Bona opera sunt via ad regnum, non causa regnandi: as they did another Saying of his, Bona opera non praecedunt justificandum sed sequuntur justificatum. How often read you in Scripture such Phrases? it may be Scores of Times in one Psalm, 119. The path of thy Commandments— The way of thy Precepts, &c Is there no Truth but Christ? No Life but Christ? Sometimes you say, Christ is not in our Sermons— It may be, his Name is not in the Text, in the Chapter, Will you tore them out of the Bible? For acting for Self, sure if you think it a Weakness in Moses, to have an Eye to the Recompense of Reward, do you think it so in Christ? who, for the Joy that was set before him endured the Cross, 12 Heb. 2. Mr. G. Firmin, in that admirable piece, The real Christian, hath by the way, corrected the Errors of some other men besides you, that call this self love, and hath proved that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or self-love, condemned in Scripture, is senfual self & that this self-love we speak of, are we pressed to in Scripture. Thou mayst call thyself Christian, but C. will call thee worker of iniquity.  
I may say to such of you, that talk of being the best Christians, what Bp. Jewel says, in his Apology about the Pope's being Peter's Successor.  
In qua re, in qua functione, in qua parte vite illi successit? Quid enim unquam, aut Petrus, Papae, aut Papa Petro simile habuit? So say I in what thing, in what work, in what part of thy Life followest thou Christ? For wherein was Christ like thee, or thou like him? Is this true, Without Holiness no Man shall see the Lord, etc. But tell me in short, what is your Opinion.  Cp. 
I have given the Echo without any change in me, I believe my Sins are forgiven me, that they are not mine but Christ's, he hath obeyed for me, if I sin this contents me, I am never sad about it. I never confess fin when in a good frame, nor beg Pardon of God, for I know my sins were forgiven before committed—  Ct. 
I think you read not many Books, no not the Bible, but one Book I am sure you, and all your Brethren have read.  Cp. 
What Book is that I Pray, you are so confident of?  Ct. 
Your Hornbook, and there you learned, Forgive us our Trespasses.— Well, if you minded, Hollowed be thy Name, thy will be done on Earth. Tho I believe well of some called Antinomians, (and too deservedly) they are upright in the main, yet as for you, and such as you, you are some of the Eldest Sons the Devil hath. Not confess Sin, nor beg Pardon? Words one would think, too big for the Mouth of the Devil.  Cp. 
I Pray, have you read Dr. Crisp's book throughout? It is the best Book in the World, I dare defend it.  Ct. 
No I read it not all, I was Sick to read so much.  Cp. 
This it is to censure a Book, and not read all.  Ct. 
You I doubt censure Books you read none of. And some of them that put their hands to the Book, I hear confess, they read it not over, which is worse: But you that are so hot, Did you ever read it over?  Cp. 
I little thought you would ask me that Question. But I will not lie, for I confess, I never read one quarter of the book over, yet I doubt not all is sound.  Ct. 
I am glad you would not tell a Lie, nor look on it as a part of your Christian Liberty, but if you had committed such a small sin, you would not have added a greater to be troubled for it.  Cp. 
No, for I am not the Liar, for Dr. Crisp well observes, Thou art not the Idolater or Thief— So I not the Liar, than the Doct. speaketh very comfortably, Sin can do me no hurt; And that after the greatest Sins I could commit, I must as certainly conclude, I am Pardoned before any Humiliation, as after, say what you will, he was the most Gospel Preacher in the World.  Ct. 
You will find somewhat else is to be minded besides Comforrt. Your Gospel you know, is a Lawless Gospel: And I declare, I never heard an Antinominian Sermon in my days, till I heard the Reverend Linen-Draper— When Heresy and Nonsense, and Impudence seemed to contend, which should make him most infamous.  Cp. 
But what have you to say against Dr. Crisp? All the world shall not convince me, but he was a very Good Man.  Ct. 
Who denys he was? Or if it might be denied, It is in vain to at tempt it, to a Man resolved never to believe it. Have I not said enough already, why I am displeased with him?  
See what woeful work he makes of Faiths being an Echo, 493, 296.  Cp. 
But I am angry with them that say, Men are not justified till they believe, and that Faith is the Uniting Grace when it follows Union, John 15. 5. Confounds you all.  Ct. 
Were the Controversy about a Priority of Nature, I would not contend. Our Act of Faith, and God's Act of justifying are coeval and instantaneous Acts; but it is a Priority of time you plead for; from Eternity, from the Womb, in the higth of all wickedness.  
You must know, there is a great diflerence between Uniting and Union, as is between Marrying and Married.  Cp. 
What more displeaseth you?  Ct. 
That though Christ sayeth, My Father loveth me, because I lay down my Life for my sheep. Yet the Doctor talks of his being separate from God, odious to him, as sin being on him; I know not how, more than by imputation sure. Doth the Judge hate a substitute punished for another's fault? (Volenti non sit injuria, by the way he may so punish) Doth he hate him as the actual Murderer, Traitor, Thief, 4●8? Also he talks at a wild rate, 98, Of Pouring Physic down the throat, etc. Prosper, says well, Voluntas in tantum libera, in quantum liberata. And we all say, acta agit, mota movit, & prius a Deo conversa convertit se ad Deum. And his Sixteenth Sermon against Evidences is intolerable: Sin doth no hurt, Duties no good, etc.  Cp. 
But you tell Men they should be troubled for Sin, even Believers for their falls and faults.  Ct. 
Why was not David so? Was not sin his burden?  Cp. 
What David did he did of himself, and he erred as when he said, hath the Lord forgotten to be Gracious, & c?  Ct. 
Hold thou thy Tongue, thou Blasphemous Corrupter of Scripture. I think not this thy bold impudent assertion worth Confutation. We thus might lose the best of Psalms, the Penitential Psalm, Psal. 51. Sinned Peter, when he went out and wept bitterly? Or the three Thousand when pricked at the heart by Peter's Sermon?  
As in the natural birth, there is no bringing forth without pain, though not in all alike, so in the Spiritual Birth. If a child cry not when born, a cry is in the Room it is a dead Child. Apply it you as you will,  Cp. 
If Doct. Crisp said this, hath he not one word to the contrary?  Ct. 
Not that I know, if he hath, his Book is like Mahomet's Bull, one Horn of Fire, the other of Snow. It is so about sanctification, evidencing and not evidencing justification; I wonder how the Sermons can agree to lie together. That they do not fight one with another. They wanted a good Hinder to make them quiet. Had the Publishers a mind to let the World know, that as Tobias and Crisp could not agree with Protestant Divines of all persuasions, so they could not many times agree between themselves? Let him go say I, and his followers after him, with his Apocraphal Writings, and mind you that famous place. Tobit went out and his Dog followed him.  Cp. 
But Doct. Crisp was an honest Man, etc. If his followers be, or should be never so bad.  Ct. 
You may as well say, Epicurus was a sober Man (and I declare, I look on his own Morals to be some of the best I ever read) though his followers called Epicureans from him, were Antinomian Philosophers, and at last downright Ranters.  Cp. 
But Doct. Crisp intended not to teach Men to be profane.  Ct. 
Neither did Epicurus any more than he. Who thought Virtue not to be the summum bonum, there being a good beyond it, and that it was not desired as an end, but as a means to an end, Pleasure. His followers had enough to have this granted, that pleasure was the chief good, and therefore placed it in sensuality (having no love to virtue) and cited some of Epicurus' his lose, careless, extravagant passages (not half so bad as Dr. crisps by the way) I aver many Crispians, now do the like of their Master, and will not many more within a few Years, till Ranters once again get the Ascendant in England?  
The Name of Epicurus was odious to all sober Philosophers, for laying such a Foundation for all manner of Abominations, so will Crisps Name be (and indeed already is) to pious, devout, zealous Christians.  Cp. 
But what do some Atheist saith the gloze of all our Breaches, Wh●● wise here is about Religion, etc.  Ct. 
So there is about every thing else.  
About Government, Civil History, Law, Physic, Meum and Tuum. A saying of Mr. Baxter in a Multitude of his Books, I have valued as Gold, The Church is a Hospital of diseased Souls. And that no more pity and kindness is going among us in our Controversies, is to be bewailed. It is a shame any Profane Men should say Come, Let us not fall out as the Saints do, not to be reconciled. I have often said, when I wrote my Vindicie, and since, were he, against whom I wrote, alive; I would visit him, if he would accept it. But indeed, if after all fair methods of Converse, or Love, Men be desperate, will not speak, etc. I am as fit for them, as a crooked sheath for a crooked knife.  
HAving brought in the Independents not guilty, as to the Charge of many against them, as if Crispians, when to my Knowledge few are such, or none abroad could I see or hear of, where Providence hath cast me. And in London (where there are some that look that way) are many loathers of it: I go on, to justify them farther against their Noncompliance with the Public Worship, as some other Dissenters occasionally do: Who lay up some Principles as we do, old threadbare (perhaps patch) Coats and Cloaks, against a Tempestuous Stormy or Snowy Day; some are pleased to call those that withdraw from the Liturgy, and Sacrament Schismatics, and what they please, I shall not proceed in that way, I might, had I not lately accepted of a fair debate about Liturgies, Ceremonies, and Conformity, with a Worthy. Learned, Devout, and Pious Churchman, between him and me the Controversy was begun, continued, and ended, not in the London way and manner, with reviling, hatred, and fables, but in the Old Christian way and manner, with the Spirit of Meekness and Love. I do Print his Letter with his Consent, I add this as a supplement to what I have said before, for their justification in this respect.   

A PAPER Sent by a CONFORMIST TO A Nonconformist.  
1. NO Church can appoint means of Grace, but may appoint Ceremonies and Liturgies, and other Forms of Worship.  
2. By means of Grace, I mean such things or Actions, to the due performance of which any promise of Grace Ghostly or Bodily, is Annexed by God. As to the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lords Supper, to Prayer, Preaching, and other mean of God's institution.  
3. Helps to Devotion, as to Time, Place, Order, Forms, etc. Are not of this Rank, but may be appointed by any Church.  
4. This is the difference between our Ceremonies, and the Church of Rome's Institutions. For Example, Holy Water is with them, said to have Virtue, to chase away Devils, to help Women in Childbed, to allay Storms, etc. But we say, not the wearing of a Surplice for Example, or any other of our Ceremonies have any Virtue at all in themselves, or by their Institution to confer any, either Ghostly or Bodily Grace, but only as a Decency or Order in the Worship, which God hath Commanded, and such Order and Decency she hath and ever had Power to appoint, but never any means of Grace. Nor doth our Church ascribe any such Power to herself.   

THE NONCONS' ANSWER.  
IT seems to me, unlawful for any Church to impose on Ministers of the Gospel, any Liturgy to be used in Public Administrations, especially so defective a one as the English Liturgy, for these Reasons.  
1. Because in the infancy of the Church, in its Nonage, when God taught it by many Rituals, till it came to maturity, or full Age as a Man, he appointed no Forms of Prayer then to be said, much less read. It cannot be supposed, but the Priests in their Sacrifices and other Ministrations, as they taught the People the signification and use of them, and so were as the Mouth of God to them, so they solemnly Prayed to God, as the Mouth of the People to him. Now if God then made no Prayer Book for them, who dares impose one now on the Ministers of the Gospel, a better Ministration or Dispensation?  
2. Because they tend to the weakening of Ministerial Abilities this way, and seem to be contrary to the Apostles Command, Stir up the Gift of God in thee. He that officiates, is supposed to have Gifts fit for his work. If he hath, he must use them; if he hath not, what hath he to do with that office? What is a Physician or Lawyer, if unable to speak aptly to, or for his Patient or Client.  
3. Because the same Prayers suited to some Emergencies, or occasion cannot be to all. New Sins, New Judgements, New Temptations, New Providences, New Mercys require such particular Confessions, Deprecations, Petitions, Praises, etc. That old set Forms will not serve for.  
4. Reading Prayers to God, we read nothing of in Scripture, or among the Ancients. This hinders Devotion when the Eyes are nailed on a Book, that should be so to Heaven.  
5. The Common Prayer Book seems to be full of Incoherencies, and Tautologies, unwarrantable Repetitions by the People, who in Church Stated Worship were to say (ordinarily) no more than Amen, or what is equivalent to it. women's speaking also is (ordinarily) forbidden, except in Singing Psalms, which Joseph Mead, and Others think is meant by the word Prophecy. Here the Lords Prayer is said over, soon after again; the King prayed for, after other Petitions he is prayed for again, than the Lord's Prayer again, after the King again, and so on.  
Spmbolicol Ceremonies in Divine Worship ought not to be imposed, much less yours, for these Reasons.  
1. Because, when it pleased God to teach the Church this way, by-Ceremonies he made them himself. Moses (of all Men most dear to God) was not entrusted to make one of them, much less Aaron, or the Civil Governors.  
2. It cannot be rationally imagined, that God intended to lay aside Ceremonies of Divine Appointment, to make way for Ceremonies of Human Appointment. May Circumcision now be used, if Appointed only as Commemorative; or Significant of Circumcising the Heart? Or might a Lamb be slain to put in mind of Christ slain, if enjoined by the Church or Magistrate, tho' not as an Ordinance of God, or means of Grace to work any Ghostly or Spiritual Good, as promised by God? Might sprinkling with Holywater be thus used, as only signifying the washing away of Sin, if thus enjoined.  
3. Surplice and Cross are made as laymen's Books, by putting in remembrance by some notable Sign to Edify, etc. great Virtue is ascribed to the last. The Cross is not only Symbolical, but Dedicatory.  
It is no Sign between one Church-Member and another, but between him and God. By this Sign is the Child said to be Dedicated to the Service of him that Died upon the Cross. Who may be so bold to make Signs of this Nature to God?  
4. They seem contrary to the Apostles command, Let all things be done decently, and in order. I would desire no better Text against them then this you all urge for them. What a Fantastical Dress doth a Surplice seem to be, unbecoming the Gravity of a Gospel Minister?  
Can it be supposed the Apostle who laid down this Golden Rule, used any of your Ceremonies, or such as yours? How comes your Decency to be used in the Desk, and to be laid aside when you ascend the Pulpit? Is God to be worshipped with Decency in the one, and without it in the other.  
Doth not the Apostle Censure women's Speaking, Singing divers Psalms together, which were not things decent, or things done in order?  
The Decency enjoined by Paul was such as the Law of God, and Nature required as agreeable to them, and therefore was Antecedently necessary to his Injunction and Practice.  
5. Things necessary in Genere may be determined by Human Authority, what they shall be in Specie, as Time, Place, etc. but not what is not so, or thus necessary, as Sacred Vestments, or Accessary signs, to signs of Divine Appointment.   

THE Con's Return.  
YOU have not answered my Argument, viz. That the Church may impose Ceremonies, Liturgies, etc. or any thing short of Means of Grace, which none can apooint but God.  
Instead of confessing or denying this, you fall immediately to several Instances.  
But let us first agree upon the Reason of the Thing in general, before we descend to particulars. But now to the Instances;  
The First is, as to Liturgies, which you make to be unlawful, for these Reasons,  
1. Because God appointed no Forms of Prayer for them (the Jews) to be said, much less read.  
Answer 1. If the Church hath Power to impose Forms of Prayer, she is also judge of the time when to impose them.  
Therefore, They were not imposed then, is no Argument why they may not be imposed now.  
Or, That God did not impose them, is no Argument why the Church may not, if he hath given her that Power. Therefore all still recurs on the Power of the Church, for that must Govern all the particular Instances, but the Instances cannot determine that.  
Answer 2. God did impose Forms of Prayer to the Jews, as upon Offering the first fruits, Deut. 26.5, etc. On the removal of the Ark, Num. 10.35. and several other occasions. Moses' Song, Deut. 32. was to be continually used. And the Psalms were of daily use in the Temple, and were imposed as a Form by Hezekiah, 2 Chr. 29. as Jeremiah's Lamentation upon Josiah, Chap. 35.25. The Jews in Babylon, sent a Form of Prayer to those in Jerusalem, to be read in their Solemn Worship, Bar. 1, 14, 14, etc. and that was taken out of that Form, Dan. 9 with Additions respecting their present case. The 136 Psalms, was a usual Form of Thanksgiving, like the Te Deum now in use: and accordingly we find the Psalm used, 2 Chron. 5.13.7.3.20.21. Ezra 3.2. and though the Repetition of each Verse is only named, it was the Name of the Psalm; as when we say, the Te Deum was sung, the meaning is not, Those two Words only, but the whole Hymn, which is so called from those Words which are in it. And that Form, whose Title is mentioned Numb. 10.35. was repeated; and more of it told by David, Psalm 132.8. And again in the same Words by Solomon, 2 Chron. 6.41.  
As the Jews always had, they still have a Liturgy. George Keith can help you to the sight of one; and if your Curiosity leads you to speak with any of them, of their use of it, how long it hath been with them, etc.  
But Lastly. Since Schism is a great Sin confessed on all hands, nothing can excuse our running into Schism, but the Imposition of what it plainly and positively a Sin.  
Therefore it lies on you to prove, 

1. That a Liturgy is unlawful. Or,  
2. That Men may run into Schism to avoid what is not unlawful.    
This brings the Matter to a short Issue, and will make my Answer very short to the other Reasons, which are at most but Inconveniences, and therefore not sufficient Causes for Schism.  
The second Reason you urge is, That it weakeneth Ministers Abilities.  
Answer. No, there is liberty given to stir up the Gift in his own Prayer unprescribed, before and after Sermon, and upon several other occasions. This is no sufficient Cause for Schism.  
3d Reason yom give, is that in the Liturgy; There are not Prayers suited for all Emergencies.  
Answer 1. These may be supplied in the Minister's Prayer, which is not prescribed.  
2. Particular Offices are made for extraordinary Occasions  
3. Most ordinary Occasions are provided for in the Liturgy; as Plague, War, Famine, Rain, Drought, etc.  
This is no sufficient Cause for Schism.  
Your 4th Reason is, That we read not of Liturgies, or Forms in Scripture, or among the Ancients, and that it hinders Devotion.  
Answer. The first part of this Reason is answered above; That we do read it both in Scripture, and amongst the Ancients.  
As to the Second. That it hinders Devotion. It may be so at first to Persons prejudieed, or unaccostomed. But the Experience of others doth witness, that it is a great help to Devotion to them, and much more moving than Extemporary Effusions, (that are as much a Form to the Hearers,) but however the Debate goes, this is no sufficient cause for Schism, unless it were positively forbidden in Scripture.  
Your fifth Reason objects something to be mended in the Form of our Liturgy, pretended Incoherencies, Tautologies, Repetitions: If all which were granted, are no cause for Schism. And such Objections might be made against the 136 Psalms, where are more Repetitious, than any in our Liturgy. But Repetitions are ofther found in the Extemporary way.  
But however this be determined, there is no sufficient cause for Schism, for that is the Point which I pursue.  
The Second Branch of your Paper is, That Symbolical Ceremonies in Divine Worship ought not to be imposed.  
But before I come to the Reasons, let me premise this, That there are many things, which ought not to be in Prudence imposed, and yet when imposed, are not a sufficient Ground for Schism.  
Now to the Reasons.  
To the first three, I Answer. Are not Feasts, and Fasts, Symbolical things? For this reason they deny to the Church power to impose them, at least Annually. Now the Feast of Purim, Esther 9.27; The fasts of the fifth, and the seventh months. Zach. 4.5. And the feast of the Dedication, 1. Mac. 1.59. were Ordained by the Church, and Annually; and our Saviour honoured the last with His Presence, Job. 10.12. Which had it been unlawful, he would not have done, but rather have Reproved it.  
Again, Circumcision was appointed for an initiating Sign or Right. The Jews added Baptism long before Christ came, and they Baptised as well as Circumcised their Prosylites. But our Saviour found no fault with this: Nay, on the contrary, He went on with and continued it; John was sent to Baptise: and Christ appointed Baptism for the initiating Form of his Church. The Jews addition of Baptism was more Symbolical, and Dedicating, than you can Allege upon the Cross in Baptism, especially, considering that we make it not Essential to Baptism, which is demonstrated, in that it is not to be used in the Office of Private Baptism.  
Your fourth Reason, That a Surplice is a Fantastical Dress, and unbecoming the Gravity of a Gospel Minister, is Gratis dictum. Every Country is Master of its own Fashions and Dresses, and that is unbecoming, and indecent in one Country, that is not so in another, which is becoming and decent in another.  
There is nothing in Nature to make White more than Black, or Black more than White to be decent, or indecent. If you say there is, you lay more stress upon. Colours than we do, and so will fall into the same Superstiaion, you accuse us with.  
Secondly. It is hard to call that colour Fantastical, which God himself appointed to the Priests under the Law: And wherein Angels appeared, and Christ himself in His Transfiguration: Or to say, It is unbecoming the Gravity of a Gospel Preacher, or Minister.  
Your fifth Reason. That things necesiary in Genere, may be determined in Specie by Human Authority, doth justify our practice in this, for we do no more. Vestments are necessary in Genere, the colour, or shape of them is no other than the determining of them in Specie, and unless you can show a positive Prohibition against the wearing of White, it is as lawful as Black, or  other Colour. However, without such a Prohibition, whatever Opinion, or Fancy you or I may have as to the Decency of it, there can be no Ground upon this Account for Schism, or for us to make Rents in the Church, which is a tearing of Christ's Body to pieces.   

A few Hours after the Noncon sent him the following Reply.  
THat Arguments are not answered, is a common Complaint, and often where there is least occasion, you think, I have not answered yours, I think I have, you think, (no doubt,) you now have answered mine; perhaps, I think, you have not; every thing of our own generally appears to us great, though neveso little; and every thing of others against us, appears little, though never so great. I therefore care not for words of that nature.  
If the Church can impose any thing short of what you call means of Grace. It might impose Circumcision, Holy Water for a Symbolical Sign, only as I wrote. Such Repetitions, you know are tedious.  
I did deny plainly your Position, and am ready for more proof. You than produced not your Arguments for your Assertion, which now you do, and I thought it not Civility in me to Anticipate them.  
The Church of the Jews had no power to impose Liturgies, or Ceremonies under the Law. God somewhere forbade the making of the like by the art of the Apothecary, etc. (I have no Concordance by me,) He charged them not to add, as not to diminish. Therefore the Church hath no power now. Where is her Charter? If God saw it not fit to make Prayers for the Priests, to be read by them, but they Prayed according to the Ability God gave them. He sees it not fit to do it now: when greater Abilities are given to Gospel Ministers now than to them of the Tribe of Levi. More Knowledge to Christians now, than to the Jews then. The Veil is taken away.  
The Question was of imposed Forms to be read by the Priests; and you answer to a Declaration made by a private Person. Deu. 26.5. Do you think indeed they were tied to Words or Sense? or that they took out a Paper or Prayer Book, and read. I use the word Ordinary, for as some manage that, and other Arguments, it might prove laymen's Praying, yea, and Preaching too in Public, Numb. 10.35. seems to me as little. Moses said, Ergo, What? God made Forms of Prayer, or Liturgy. Did he read that short Sentence? I do not think, you believe he ever did. So Deut. 32. was not a Prayer sure. If such were found in your Liturgy, Men would say of you, as Paul says, some would say, That saw men pray in an unknown tongue. That was a Song or Psalm, which may be Historical, Doctrinal, Prophetical, as well as Petitionary. Many other Answers might be given to this. The Expression there were not used together, but some Words on one occasion, some on another. This was not a Prayer made for the Priests; much less in Sacrificing. That was the Question. But the first Answer ss sufficient, and I care as little as any Man for supernumerary Arguments. The first seems to me clear, but I will not say Vnconfuteable, considering whom I have to deal with.  
I remember, I have heard of a Judge, who demanding the reasons of one Man's not Appearing at the Court, as he was required the Assizes before. One answered, My Lord, there are twelve Reasons. The first is, the Man is Dead, and therefore could not come. Secondly.— Nay, stop Friend, said the Judge, keep the other Eleven to thyself; that one is sufficient. I think of this sometimes when writing.  
Did I ever Question worthy Sir, whether ever God made or imposed Forms of Psalms, that you tell me were used in the Temple? No sure, I thought Singing and Praying had been distinct Duties. Else some distinguish where is no difference. God made these Forms under the Law, and reinforced them in the New Testament, & without his Institution, the thing had been an Abomination, as would have been once Circumcision and the Passover, and now Baptism and the Lords Supper without this. You urge; 2 Cron. 29.30. I Answer, we doubt not but the Church may require what God hath Commanded, for it is there said, All was done by the Commandment of the King from the Mouth of the Lord, Chap. 31.25. The Writer of the Lamentations was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore what Jeremy did, he did from God. As what the Apostles did, they did from Christ, who in his 40 Days Conversing with them, after his Resurrection, taught them the things, pertaining to the Kingdom of God, that is, the Government of the Church. Jeremiah required the People to use Scripture. (The Lamentations,) Therefore what, I know not who may make Prayers, (and broken one's too) for them who have a readiness to express themselves to God as occasion is. I will not say, the Argument taken from the Lamentations, looks like a lamentable Argument, it is not Grave enough in itself, and therefore not fit to be written to so Grave a Man. For, 1 Bar. 14.15. I am so much a Protestant, and so little a Papist, that I slight it. We can no more know the Mind of God by the Practice of the Jews, than the Mind of Christ by the Practice of the Papist, or some others, who would take it ill, to be named with them. God's mind is my enquiry, not their practice. Forms of Prayer came from Babylon, say you, you shall have it, say I. The reading Apocraphal Books in Churches, Hooker in his Eccles. Pol. could hardly forbear Censureing it. I think it was one of the most Devilish designs Satan ever had, to clap those Books at the end of the Old Testament to ridicule the whole. To say nothing of the Book of Tobit, or Esdras, which Bellarmin would hardly undertake to plead for. I stick not to say of the admired Book of Wisdom. (said by some to be so much like Inspired Writings.) That the Author was a grand R— who tells us of Solomon's Prayer to God, that he might Govern according to the Example of David his Father. Must the Writings of Philo, a Jew, written after the Jews were unchurched, an unbelieveing, lying Prophet, be read with Canonical Scripture, and as Lessons? Let us bring in George Fox's Journal next. I could say much of the Book Bar. you cite, were it convenient. You urge Dan. 3. Ergo, What? Men must pray, not read, and that according to the Ability God gives, would be a better Consequence than what it is brought for. 136 Psalm, you urge, I say It was a Psalm, and for your Te Deum, keep us this day without Sin; had need be well qualified to keep Men from Quakerist Dotages about a Sinless State. 2 Cron. 5.3. Proves not it was the same Psalm. If it were, it proves nothing to our Argument, much less 7 Chap. 3. Did David never say but in that Psalm; For he is good, and his mercy endureth for ever? 20 Chap. 21. The Argument is ejusdem farinae. so Ezra 3.11. Your Opinion is only asserted by a common Saying, not proved. If it were, no more would follow but this; that the same Psalm may be often sung, which no Man denies. Numb. 10.35. compared by you with 163 Psalm 8. Induceth me to think, they used not the same Words, but some; and the other place proves it 2 Cron. 6.41. The use of a Sentence or two upon extraordinary occasions appointed by God, will not prove the use of Set, Solemn, many Prayers in all Public Administrations appointed by Men.  
The Jews never had a Liturgy; the Book of Psalms was hardly ever pleaded in this Argument by the Old, Famous Advocates for the Church of England, but by some late, and less judicious Writers. I remember, I have heard that Bishop Andrews was about to Print in Oxon a Liturgy of the Jews, to prove they had one under the Law, but it was stopped from going to the Press, being proved to be made by them since their Apostasy. Of all Men under Heaven, none care to go to the present Jews for a Pattern of Worship, unless such as love indecency and disorder, instead of the contrary so much talked of.  
What you writ of Schism 1 wonder at, what Church invite, and call you me to? Is not the present Church Scismatical according to some Men? But I will not harp on that. String. Will you stand to Mr. Hales' Determination of Schism, of whose Opinion I am? And therefore believe the now called (but falsely so) Church of England, is a notorious Schismatical one, from the Old one in Doctrine, Discipline and Manners. They are alike in imposing unnecessary things, (suspiciously evil, if not really so,) which Paul would not do on them, he knew could not comply.  
Schism doth not signify primarily by Paul, any Separation from a Church, but Heats, and Uselessness in it, for the Corinthians did not erect Altar against Altar. Saith Paul, That there be no schism in the body, but that the members take care one of another. That Minister, who Preacheth not in season, and out of season— is a Schismatic, while Preaching against Schism. Members of a Church that are not forward for acts of Piety and Charity, are Schismatics. Alienation of Affection was condemned by Paul.  
What you mean by plainly and positively a Sin, I am not sure. What if it be so by Consequence? What if I have a doubtful Conscience about it? Must I be Damned to obey the Church?  
In short, The Apostles Rule is this, Let us judge one another no more; bear with the infirmities of the weak. Despise not him that eateth not. Rom 14. No Church on Earth can take me off this Rule, whatever Church command● me otherwise, commands me contrary to the Law of Christ, by Paul, and whom I must obey, judge you.  
With you, no Kneeling, no Sacrament, no Cross, no Baptism. The the Salvation of Infants without Baptism be (foolishly, I confess) questioned Yet run a risk rather than part with a Ceremony. Good God, what madness doth Superstition bring Men to! If the most Religious Man in the Parish cannot kneel, he must go without the Lords-Supper all his Days, and be Excommunicated, and Imprisoned too. How shall I Curse whom God hath Blessed? Can even a wicked Balaam say as bad as he was?  
These wicked, wicked Proceed against Brethren, prove your Church Schismatical, or Schism maker with a vengeance. Not to name what Aims in his Fresh Suit, Gelaspee in his English Popish Ceremonies, say with many others against kneeling; I affirm your Mr. Long of Exon, in his first Book against Mr. Baxter, written about 16 Years since, says more than them all, by affirming that kneeling, and taking up the Old Form of Words, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ— Preserve thy Body and Soul.— (not used in King Edward's days) was to favour them that owned the Real Presence, and to quiet them that believe Transubstantiation. Oh horrible! Who shall countenance such Idolaters as these, which your Church calls so? Who in this Adoration are as very Idolaters, as the Laplanders, who Worship a Red Cloth.  
Here Sir, I beg your Pardon, I am gone, I confess, too far into this particular, but more of this hereafter if occasion be.  
It was denied at the Savoy Conference between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, that Ministers had liberty in their Pulpits to use their Gifts in Prayer. And the design of Laud before, and many others since, was, we are sure, by the Liturgy to hinder Ministerial Gifts this way. It is well Experience is thought by you, worthy of consideration in this place.  
I pray, Sir, when saw you any one Person, Minister, or Hearer, shed one Tear, or Sigh at the Common-Prayer? No. The Liturgy (as well as another thing) doth not by't. I remember not in Plymouth, Oxon, or elsewhere I saw one. No, where this comes, there is no Bochim. I speak not of your Alms-House-People, or such who know not a Prayer from a Chapter, nor of one or two. Ministers, or great Men, who may be said thus to have done, though I know none.  
One would think some Men should not talk of Schism thus without end. Have you such plain, positive word for, or against some sort of Conventicles, or some Public Worship?  
If your vain Repetitions may be justified by the 136 Psalms, remember then may the Tautologies of some Dissenters, you so much talk of, be justified the same way, which I will not grant, you have my suffrage in blaming them, I know few such. Thus the Quakers also, who shall plead 136 Psalms as well as you, for their vain Repetitions. In extraordinary Cases, such Modes of Praying, or Praising may be justified, that cannot be brought into common Practice. ●esides, what words God puts into our Mouths must not be questioned: Because Scripture says, (and you read openly) He that pisseth against the wall; may you therefore say in your Service-book any thing of S— against the wall?  
Feasts and Fasts, are things required by the Law of Nature, antecedent to Scripture Revelation. Heathens used them Who in this Controversy, called these Symbolical, till a late intolerable Scribbler. None questioneth but the Magistrate had power to appoint the 5th. of November, upon reasons from Scripture, though I think, your Instance proves it not, That they did it of themselves without direction from God in the Feast of Purim. Christ being present at the Feast of Dedication, (where he at first refused to go,) to Preach to the People, no more proves his owning that Imposition, than a Nonconformist Preaching on Christmas-day to keep Men from Debauchery, or cautioning them against it, will prove his owning the Observation of that Day, or Christ's being then Born, which your Joseph Mead, learnedly proves was not that Day, nor at that time of the Year. You yourselves, I doubt not, would take occasion to Preach on such a day which you approve not of. Here they were gathered to whom Christ was sent; yet I take this Instance to be nothing to our purpose. Who censures your Church for observing the 30th. of January as a day of Fasting, or the 29th. of May as a day of Thanksgiving? Yet that lies fair for an Objection of weight. Where do we read of Anniversary Fasts of Divine Appointment. A Fast seems to be appointed pro te Nata.  
Whether all that is said by some of the Jews Baptising of Prosylites be true, I will not say; if true, I have ever been of Opinion, they sinned, and it was an Abomination. They were forbid to add, as well as diminish. Good Sir speak plainly, might they have appointed Circumcision, if God had not done it? That Christ appointed Baptism from this Practice of theirs, sounds hard with me, and can no more be proved than, that Christ appointed Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper from the Corybantes, or such as they. What I said before, I stick to, we can no more know the mind of God by Old Jewish Customs, than now by Popish ones.  
To say you make not the Cross Essential to Baptism, is to confess, or say, that you, not Christ appointed that additional Sign, we know, your Consciences tell you, the Ancients Baptised without it.  
I think it not proper to direct to Books, or send any, else I might Parkers Learned Folio against that worst of Ceremonies.  
Custom cannot make your Fantastical Dresses decent, else the Popish Trinklets are as justifiable as yours. They might plead, it is the Custom of their Country, that is decent in one place, that is not in another, etc. But I say, Paul's indecency could be decency no where; for this was your bottom, what was done without his decency and order, was every where, and at all times (ordinarily) indecent and disorderly. I have proved sufficiently your Surplice, etc. not so. It is not hard to call that fantastical, foolish, or vain now that the wise God once for great reasons appointed. Would not such a Dress as Aaron's, now be odious, a Bell, etc. Then there can be no fantastical Worship in the World What a ridiculous thing had Circumcision been, had not the Institution had a Divine Stamp upon it. King's will not have Subjects Images on their Coin, but their own, small pieces as well as great.  
I should not have believed the closed to be yours, were I not sure it was your own Hand. Vestments are necessary in Genere, therefore a Surplice in Specie, may be used say you. My Argument was, that Sacred Vestments are not necessary in Genere, all such were Nailed at Christ's Cross, therefore are not to be determined in Specie. Your Surplice is no civil Dress, else your Argument was irrifragable; no, it is a Sacrum pallium. It is accounted a piece of Profaneness to use it Extra ●acra. It is handled with Reverence. Why they call it Superpellicium, I have spent time to consider, is it from Pellex? God keep us from tearing Christ's body in pieces, say you, Turpe est Doctori— and from tearing the Body Politic, too, say I.  
Your Paper and mine call for a Close, so do my Circumstances. Young Men are waiting my motions whilst now with me in the Room, I writing this Reply, Currente Calamo. I think it not convenient yet to offer my greatest. Arguments against some things, till I see further Necessity  
I now urge no places of Scripture for my Opinions; this may be done in time, only answer yours.  
If I have given any unpleasing words, be pleased to be so kind to look on them as non Scripta.  
I thank you for your freedom, and do not despise your Arguments, which though a common practice, is no fair one. I know not, but that some Ceremonious Scots, and English Men too, now must be notorious Schismatics on your Principles as well as mine.  
Your Servant. I hate vain Inventions, but thy Law do I love says, David.   

Postscript  
IN the Administration of the two Great Ordinances, no place is left for the Ministers Gifts; not in Prayer to God, and which is worse (if worse can be) not in Instructions to the People. O Blessed Apostle, when thou didst enumerate Ministerial Gifts to the Church of Corinth, thou didst forget the Gift of Reading, and the Church of  
England: Give these Men a Common Prayer Book in one Hand, and a Book of Homilies in the other, they have enough. This is done, not only in Public Churches, but Private Houses.  
Did the Jews read Prayers in the time of Christ? The Pharisees Practice shows their Custom. You cannot think, they knew that unmanly, as well as unscriptural word, I Pray, who reads Prayers to Day?  
What Ancients did you attempt to Name that did this? In what Country did they live?  
Did they read Prayers in their Antilucana, that Pliny telleth Trajan of?  
I grant, as you say, your Prayers are moving Prayers; for it is a hard matter to sit still and hear them, and the most serious commonly leave them.  
It seems to me a poor Plea, for any one to say for such a Worship only, it is lawful. What if only the Lords Prayer was used in a Parish at the Lords Supper, would you continue there and say, it is lawful, etc. And not go to another place where done much better?  
Are some few words enough of Plague, Pestilence, and Famine, & c? I remember, I have read, when London Bridge was on Fire, the Priest (Pardon me Sir, it was the Name Laud gave, and blotted out the word Minister) brought the Common Prayer Book and Read; For all Women labouring with Child, for all sick Persons, and young Children, etc. An Old Woman cried out, Good Lord, what is all this to London Bridge, etc. Do you call that a Prayer, where a few words are read to God in a large History, or spoken to Men when we Pray with our Hats on and a Cup in our hand, at Home, at Feasts, in Coffeehouses, when we speak of the King, Church, or our Friends? Using commonly in a conceived Prayer the same words for the King or Parliament, etc. Make it not a Form.  
Is it ●●●●ful, or would it not be Fantastical to have Crowns on your Heads, and Palms in your Hands, as well as white Robes on your Backs? You know how John saw Christ, Rev. 1. What if you wore such a Girdle, would it not be Fantastical?  
Schism, you, now tell me, was the Point you did Pursue; I am sure, you did not so at first. I cannot Answer your thoughts, but words.  
Would you not Baptism Infant's 〈◊〉 only the Adult, if your Church so required, and say, There is no plain positive Command to the contrary? A doubtful Conscience was much with Paul.  
Is this sense?  
Nothing can excuse our running in Schism, but the imposing of what is plainly and positively a Sin.  
Would it be Schism then as you call it?   

Conformist.  
THere are several Passages which do well deserve to be animadverted upon, but I pass all to pursue our main point till that be settled, and then we will proceed as you see cause. For as to the Reason, use, and advantage of our Liturgy, Ceremonies, etc. It is not time to come to that, till we have first considered; whether the imposing these be a sufficient cause for Schism, because, if it be not all the inconveniences, improprieties which you objected, were they granted, will not excuse your separation from the Church, or make your separation not to be a Schism.  
In order to this I first set down the Power (as I conceive) the Church hath not, Viz. To appoint means of Grace, and by this I cut off most of the Popish Ceremonies.  
2. That the Church hath Power to appoint Ceremonies, or Rights of an inferior order to this.  
This you seem to deny, and build upon the Command of not adding to, or diminishing from the Law of God.  
But to add to the Law of God, is to add something as the Law of God, which is not. For if I add some Ceremony or Circumstance, unless I pretend that it is the Law of God, or a part of it, it is no addition to the Law.  
Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, this is an addition to God's Law, when I teach the Commandments of Men as Doctrines, that is as Laws of God, but to teach the Commandments of Men, only as the Commandments of Men, this is not teaching them as Doctrines, and so no addition to the Law of God.  
Thus for Example, when we teach the use of a Surplice only as a Commandment of Men, we add not to the Law. But if you forbidden a Surplice as a thing unlawful, though commanded by humane Laws, than you teach this as a Doctrine, and so you, not we, add to the Law of God: For forbidding is as much a Law of God as enjoining.  
Now then there are but too things to make our Ceremonies or Rights unlawful, and consequently which can justify a separation on their Account.  
1. If they are forbidden in Scripture.  
2. If we teach them as Doctrines and Laws of God; and seeing neither of these are the Case, I see no third thing that can justify a separation upon this Account. Let us keep close to this point till we have ended it. Let us settle to ourselves some Rule, by which we must govern ourselves in this important enquiry.  
Now give me leave to take notice of some Passages in your Paper which relate to these. For the other, I pass by as I said at first.  
You say, that with us, no Kneeling, no Sacrament. No Cross, no Baptism. Nay, though the Salvation of Infants dying without it be questioned, yet run a Risque here, rather than go without the Cross; Good God (say you) What madness doth superstition lead Men to? Now might I not justly return this Exclamation? What will prejudice, etc. Make Men believe! For in the Office of private Baptism, which is, particularly appointed for Children that are in danger of Death, the Cross is not used: And whoever useth it in private Baptism, transgresseth the Rubric and the Common Prayer, which is a Demonstration, that our Church doth not think the Cross necessary in Baptism, or to be a part of it. Yet you bring this as an Argument, that she did think it necessary, and so necessary, as to Risque a Child dying without Baptism, rather than go without the Cross.  
As great a mistake is That of No Kneeling, no Sacrament. Every day it is given to Sick Persons without Kneeling, and where there is any reasonable excuse it will not be exacted.  
But let me ask you, will you give it in your Church to one that doth Kneel? If not, as I believe you will tell me, I am sure others have, than you lay greater stress upon the Posture than we do. You teach it as a Doctrine abstracted from humane Laws; we reach it enjoined only as a Law of Men, and so alterable by Men, and to oblige no otherwise.  
You say of the Jews Institution of Baptism that they find in it, and that it was an Abomination.  
Now Sir, I beseech you, if it had been so, was it not at least highly probable, that Christ would some where or other have reproved it? Would not some mark of God's displeasure, have been expressed against it? But,  
2. Would God have honoured it so greatly as to have complied with it, to have Countenanced it so far, as to send John to Baptise? Would Christ himself have submitted to it, to be Baptised himself? Would he have instituted Baptism, as the initiating Form of his Church, for any to be established in it?  
But on the other hand, if the Jewish Church appointed Baptism and joined it to Circumcision, upon the admission of Prosylites, as we do the Cross, not as a Sacrament appointed, but as the Institution of the Church only, and that this was not adding to the Law of God, or found fault with by God. I think you will find no institution of our Church, but what you must excuse by the same Rule: And if Christ showed the necessity and obligation that laid on all, to submit to the Institutions of the Church, to say; That it became him to fulfil all Righteousness, speaking of the Baptism which he was to receive, it will teach us a greater Veneration for the Authority of the Church, then is commonly thought of. Would he have called Baptism Righteousness, if in its first institution it had been Sin and an Abomination?  
There are several other Particulars in the Paper I should have spoke to, but these come up to the point in hand. And the hurry I am in at present, made me mislay your Paper, and now hardly gives me time to run this over in haste. When this point is once settled between us, I will go with you afterwards to what other you think fit, and according to my Ability deal upon the Square with you.   

The Nonconformist.  
I Will now according to my promise, in my last to you, and your desire in your last to me, (which just now came to my hand) prove your Ceremonies and Injunctions unlawful, or forbidden in Scripture; and therefore Non conformity to them is no Schism. But I think it convenient first to remove some mistakes of yours, I find in your Reply.  
I think contrary to you, Men may be guilty of adding to God's Law, though not as God's Law; else a Multitude of Pharisaical Men of Old were not guilty here: Nor their Brethren, the Papist in most of their Ceremonies Condemned, as superstitious and unlawful in that excellent Book of sound Doctrine. The Book of Homilies, what Christ says, Teaching for Dostrine the Commandments of Men, Isaiah says to this effect; (For I cannot turn to the Place) The Fear of me, is taught by the Precepts of Men. I know, it is commonly pleaded, the Pharisees made their Ceremonies a part of their Oral Tradition, as the unwritten Commands of God by Moses. But as far as I can find this, though so often said, is said without Proof.  
I think, vast is the difference between, not doing a necessary Lawful Action, thro' tenderness of Conscience, and the doing an unlawful one thro' mistake.  
The eating of some Meats with Paul, was declared Lawful, though some thought it otherwise, that they were unlawful, yet he censures them not, chargeth others not to despise them. Commands that they be born with. Rom. 14. So to the Corinthians, well were it, if this were remembered, and practised by some Men; were these adders to the Word of God? But if any did on a mistake of a thing forbidden, as Circumcision, observing some sort of Days, etc. he says not so of them, but the contrary, they were Faults— I am afraid of you— So that our Noncompliance is not so much an adding, as your enjoining in your Service; neither are we so culpable in our non-observing your Ceremonies if lawful, as your imposing and observing them, if sinful. All things lawful are not expedient, much less necessary.  
I meant, No Cross, no Public Baptism, no Kneeling, no Public Sacrament, and doubted not you must have so understood, though you seem not to do so. For that Private Baptism you mention when a Child is like to die. I ever thought it an unlawful thing; the some of ours as well as yours too often practise it. It seems to me a Bloody Sacrifice, and such Ministers to forget what God says, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. This Custom I doubt not, hath been the Death of many Children; some have been dying, others quite dead whilst Baptising. Oh! such in my Opinion, make an Idol of Baptism The Jews in a case of necessity went 40 Years without Circumcision in the Wilderness. That Custom appears also to me as bad, of giving the Lords Supper to some sick Men. Did you never hear of some dying, others dead with the Bread in their Mouths? O horrid Profaning of so great and sacred an Ordinance of Christ!  
But what if Parent's think the Cross unlawful, and the Children live or die in Infancy without it? What if Men cannot be convinced but that Kneeling is unlawful, and an abominable Symbolising with Popish Idolaters? Must these go without the Lords Supper all their Days, though never foe Pious, Humble, and Inquisitive? Must they go without Baptism? I am unwilling to repeat excellent passages out of famous Davenant de Frat, Communione, perhaps you may remember them. Some Nonconformists do give the Sacrament to them that desire to kneel; they that do not, refuse it, because they think it to be a Sin, and the Receiver cannot say they take it to be a Duty.  
If all be true, (which I have reason to doubt) about the Jews admiting Prosylites by Baptism, as well as Circumcision, it will not follow it is justified because Christ condemned it not for Christ never condemned the Superstitous Lives of the Essense, Speculative, or Practical, which Josephus, and others speak of at large. No, not so much as name them, which hath given occasion to some (foolishly I think) to question whither ever there was such a Sect. Neither doth it appear to me, Christ appointed Baptism from the Jewish Custom, if taking it for granted such there was; but from the aptness of the Sign to the thing signified. What then, was the Baptism of John thus from men, not from heaven? Christ calls God's Ordinances (not Man's) Righteousness, 3. Mat.  
Now Sir, I come to say more to your great Question, whether your Ceremonies, or Worship be forbidden in Scripture, or our Nonconformity free from Schism? Some things are forbidden in Scripture, more particularly, some more generally, some by good consequence, others more directly.  
Stand fast (saith Paul) in the liberty wherewith Christ hath set you free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage. It seems too narrow to say, from Ceremonies God once appointed, if Men may bring in theirs, when he hath thrown out his.  
Paul saith, Be ye not the servants of men; if your Injunctions were indifferent, yet the imposing them on the weak is forbidden 14 Rom. What Man on Earth can take me off from Paul's Determination at large. Let us judge one another no more; a Chapter as if written on purpose against your Act of Uniformity. 2 Collos. 14. Did God nail to the Cross of Christ his own Ceremonies? Did he call them beggarly Rudiments, carnal Ordinances?  
What worse Names do yours deserve, that are of a base Descent, and Badges of abominable Superstitions. If I must have Ceremonies, give me the Old Jewish ones, of Gods own making, that were once good, not yours, (of whose making shall I say?) that were never good.  
If it becomes not a grave, chaste Matron, to be found in a Whorish Dress, it becomes not us to use Mass Priests Sacred Garments. What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols, deserves consideration here.  
I take Clerick Conformity to be a very great sin, and Lay Conformity to be no small one; the former for these reasons, Churchwardens must be again sworn, if occasion be; What one Man of them did, or can keep his Oath? Must Ministers study ways to drive Men to Hell, as it they did not run fast enough of themselves? I could write at large here, but Verbum sat Sapienti. This one thing convinceth me beyond all doubt or dispute, some Men are falsely called Fathers in God, who rather are Fathers in the— Swear they must again if occasion be, to persecute the best of Men, that they may be Excommunicated, and delivered to the Devil about a Toy and Ceremony. Swear must I to obey my Ordinary in his Injunctions, and how far, pro re Nata, I will not now determine. Would you dare to deal thus with Austin, for some of his Opinions, and other Fathers were they alive, for some of theirs contrary to yours, as well as B. Hooper, was Imprisoned for scrupling your Ceremonies, and Calvin is almost damned for an Heretic and Traitor? Your great Hooker says, That in his Eccles. Pol. that would necessitate him to be a Non conformist if now alive. I affirm, I were bound by my Oath to read a Writ of Excommunication against Arminians, were I a Parish Priest which I dared not do, though they be very Erroneous and condemned by your Church.  
Are Seven Years spent in a Grammar-School, and Seven more in the University, to bring a Minister to this pass to be a Reader, and a lazy Prelate's Curate?  
Who now examines before Admission to the Sacrament, or keeps off the Scandalous? Who are they that have Ears (if not Mouths) for all Discourse? It is Accounted a high Commendation of such a Minister now to say, He is an honest Man. When honesty will bring the Hearers (or them) to Heaven, we may all be content with an honest Minister.  
Sanctification by a Mans own free will, Justification by his own Righteousness, salvation by his own works is no strange Doctrine now. Thus some, not only build Wood, Hay, Stubble, on the Foundation, but make the Foundation itself so, that make sanctification so, and build Justification on it.  
Whatever talk of Curious Structures and Churches, Uniformity, Order, there is, whilst the Members and Communicants, there are Deists, or Drunkards, all is nothing. Thus were there Serpents and Crocodiles, within the Egyptian Temples, when beautiful without. What an Advocate for the Church of England was Parker's E. Pol. What Atheistical Blasphemous Expressions had he? He was notwithstanding greatly magnified by some Men, when as the Mouth of that Church he discovered his own, and their sanguinary (is one said) affections to us, as if both like Romulus and Remus, had been Nursed up by some Woolf. The Dissenters need no other Commendation, but to be hated and maligned by such.  
What Stories tell they (saith he) of Communion between them and the Lord Christ. I am forced to write of some things in haste, as they occur to my mind; I must do my work this Evening, knowing I shall have unusual and extraordinary business the next Week. I Pray you therefore, Pardon my not putting every thing in its order, or doing some things, Ex abundanti.  
Some things I have mentioned as contrary to several places of Scripture, are so to more.  
Whatsoever things says Paul, are comely and of good report: Offend not thy Brother, eat the appearance of Evil.  
If you say, some may be better than they before censured, A Quia me vestigia terrent; To return to the Consideration of Ceremonies, etc.  
Moses, and David, and Solomon, about the work of God's House, and the Council of Jerusalem did, and imposed what seemed good to God, not themselves, to the Holy Ghost, not their own fancies.  
Things of a civil Nature, common to Men, 〈◊〉 ●ell as Christians, to civil A●●●●, as well as Religious (as Love feasts, Kiss of Charity) may be done without Divine appointment; All our Anti-Ceremonial Men with one conseut grant to all the world, the natural signs of Devotion, as the lifting up the Eyes and Hands to Heaven, bowing the Knee before God, if not enjoined (though they are so) might be used. Also civil signs of Subjection, as Eleazers laying his hand under Abraham's Thigh, things done by Divine Instiust, things extorted by necessity and extraordinary Providences are no precedent to us, (as Anointing with Oil, which was pro tempore as was the miracle annexed to it,) these things are affirmed by Ames, and others; (I pray by the way, give over boasting, Hooker was never answered till Dr. Ames' Fresh Suit be so.) Had it been the mind of God to teach his Church by Ceremonies, would not he himself have appointed them, as once he did? What place may not, or cannot the Cross be used in? Did Dr Stillingfleet well answer Mr. Stillingfleet's Irenirum, or the excellent Preface thereto, I suppose, you do remember? The Church's power to appoint Ceremonies, was not in the old 39 Articles. How came they in the new ones? 147 Psalm, To make the power of the Church to bind the consciences of of Men, was put in the Contents by some Innovators, to make it canonical, seeing they could not find it in the Text.  
It is often said by the Papists, (and truly I think) when you plead against them, you use our arguments, and when you plead against us, you use theirs.  
God never made Ceremonies under the Law antecedently necessary, or in their own nature, but consequently so by virtue of a Divine Command. Shall human commands make things thus necessary that a Divine Command once did? May men thus usurp God's Throne, and when there act Satan's part.  
If Clerick conformity be very unlawful, for reasons before given, no power on earth can take ministers off their work, or make them as private men, especially when they see so little conversion work elsewhere, if they must preach, others must hear, and countenance them, suffering in their righteous cause; yet I question not the Integrity of many Liturgical ceremonial men, (and hope, yours in particular) God often accepts the man, when not the worship.  
I dared not accost a Persenage of your figure and character I thank you you were pleased to write the first Letter, and that you do not so triumph in your Ceremonies, as to give them anctuary from our Exammation. Many Arguments I could assonate with, and annex to these of the same complexion against your modes of Worship; but the fewer the better.  
You see my plainness without any dress of words to set off my apprehensions with; your Church above all other Protestant Churches, shows herself such a Plenipotentiary, (as some observe) as if t● could turn all things, though never so odd, into Orthodox, as what is Fabled, Midas touched, was Gold; many of your Bishops (those great little men, are better acquainted with their Service Boo●, and Ceremonies, than with the Bible, I will nor say all I know of this. I saw an instance of this, when a smart Boy of eighteen years old, suddenly gagmd a Bishop (having thousands by the year, yet alive,) as you would confess should I tell you the Story, when the Bishop sent for him to his chamber, and was pressing him to conformity.  
What beauty sits on the face of Gospel simplicity? Would some men (as Mervil expresseth it,) if commanded by your Church, carry Salt bags on their backs, to put them in mind of having salt in themselves, or as Zanchy wrote to Queen Elizabeth, were her Subjects bound to put on Turkish weeds, or Garments, if she commanded them? Saith he, No, much less (he adds,) the execrable Garments of Mass Priests.  
It is now past Eleven of the Clock I received your Letter abroad this Afternoon, and came not home till between eight or nine of the Clock. I take your Question to be comprehensive, and therefore have taken the more liberty. I find our friend, Mr. K. and others could wish we proceeded not. I told them, I was not very desirous to disturb you in greater, more necessary, or more useful work, wherein you have obliged the World; therefore writing once more, I thought, I would write my mind fully and plainly, If you see fit to Reply, you may to what you please, and let other things alone. And I intent to be concise, and follow you where you please to lead me, or if you think a private conference before a few judicious Persons best, your pleasure in this, is a Law to your Servant.  
I greatly honour your old famous Advocates, as Hooker, Fisher, the blind Cambridge man, his Dialogue between Ireneus, add Novatus, Sprins Cassander Anglicanus, or others, who exercised my mind several years; But for Patrick's Friendly Debate, and now Bishop King, and others make woeful work in comparison of the Old Workmen. Durel and such writers, I am greatly offended with, who tell the world of I know not what stories of the Presbyterians neglect of the Lords Supper in the Inter-Regnum; I know the contrary, where I have been, they once a month administered that-Ordinance; and Mr. Hickman, in a Latin Tract, Apologia pro Ministris in Anglia, vulgo Non Conformistis, hath sufficiently answered that charge, I only add what I have known, that where some Presbyterian Ministers came into some Parishes, they hardly could find a man but what was guilty of gross ignorance, or Profaneness. Then they did forbear according to your order, though not practice, till Religion might take place, where was not common civility before; for you know K. C. the I. and Bishop Laud by the Book of sports, and other ungodly proceed, had banished almost all Religion and Good manners out of the Nation: In Oxford, they thought it not enough to be a Member of a College, to be so of a Church. Therefore several serious Persons, received some of one Famous Doctor or Preacher, some of another, and so did many Towns People, Men and Women I knew.  
This perhaps occasioned, not doing it in some Churches where Persons disowned, by your good constitution would be ready thrust in. Your Ministers ought to forbear where men be Ignorant, Scandalous, or Contentious.  
If I have erred in any thing, I have written, or given you any occasion of offence; I beg your Pardon, as not a thing, Ex in-dustria. To tell you, that I greatly value you, would be but an Idle Compliment—  
Did you never hear that Doct. F. pleaded in a Sermon in Oxford, for Reverence, and said, Eleazar when he prayed, made the Camels to Kneel?  
Or of one desiring a Minister to read Prayers of Thanksgiving, for Recovery from a Bull Gooring, read the Prayer for Purification. We thank thee for delivering this thy Servant, from the great pain and peril of Bull Gooring.  
Or of one whose House being on fire, sent for the Parson to read the Prayer for Rain, and when he read gentle showers, The man cried out, Good Lord, Buckets full.  
Yet your Prayers are said to be such, that the wit of men or Angels cannot mend. I am displeased with some Dissenters broken Prayers, as much as you, some few of them are almost as confused as your Liturgy.   

Conformist.  
YOur Argument, that we may be guilty of adding to God's Law, though not as God's Law, else the Pharisaical Men of Old, and the Papist in most of their Ceremonies were not guilty say you. Guilty of what? There are other Guilts besides that of adding to God's Law; and even as to Ceremonies, they may be too many, insignificant and burdensome, and men may lay too great stress upon them, beyond the Nature of the things, and yet come not to the length of adding them to God's Law, which the Pharisees did by those traditions, which they said, were delivered by Moses on the Mount, and descended orally down to their times, and therefore of as great Authority as the Written Law, which gave occasion to the oral traditions of the Church of Rome. Again, some of their traditions did point blank, contradict the Law of God, as that of Corban, Mat. 15.6. And some, though not contradicting the Law of God, yet in practice were preferred to the Law of God, and these traditions our Saviour did confirm, only Corrected the abuse. These things ye ought to have done said he, but not to leave the other undone. Now there are several Errors men may commit, as to the Ceremonies, but all are not alike, all may be reprehended and redress, desired with the decency and regard which is due to our Superiors: But all are not sufficient cause for Schism, and that is the only point which I now pursue. I say, none are a sufficient cause for Schism, except those which are enjoined as part of God's Law, or which are appointed as means of Grace, which includes both the former.  
There may be many burdensome and inconvenient Laws of the Land, and Redress may be sought in these, yet they are not a sufficient cause to take up Arms and Rebel against the State; and so it is in the Church. Nothing can be a sufficient cause, but where something is contrary to the Law of God, is imposed as a condition of Communion, for if it be not imposed on me, I may still join in Communion without Sin, and then I ought so to join, and it is a sin not to join: As if an impious Law were enacted in the State, yet I ought not to Rebel for this, only if it be imposed on me, I ought to refuse it, and so it is in the Church.  
There is no cause for Rebellion in the Church, that is not as sufficient for Rebellion in the State. You urge the Oath of a Churchwarden, as a cause. f●● Schism: But all that can be inferred from thence is, that those that scruple that Oath, should not be Churchwardens. It is not imposed as a condition upon any, and there is the same reason to Rebel against the State for that Oath, (for it is enjoined by Law) as to make a Schism for it in the Church.  
I now come to the main Proof, That is, from Scripture. You quote four Texts, Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath set you Free, and be not again entangled with the Yoke of Bondage. 2. Be ye not the Servants of Men. Rom. 3.14. And the fourth is, Colos. 14. To the first I say, The Yoke of Bondage was the Law of Moses, to which the Jewish Converts did seek to oblige all Christians, which was the occasion of the Council called at Jerusalem, Acts 15. And the Liberty wherewith Christ hath set us free, is from the Bondage of that Law Christian Liberty must not be understood to give every man Liberty to do what he pleaseth, or to free men from the Lawful Commands of Superiors, therefore no consequence can be drawn from this Text, to warrant Schism upon this Account of our Ceremonies, unless they be proved to be unlawful, and secondly, to be imposed as Terms of Communion. The second Text, Be ye not the Servants of men, of Literily taken, will overthrow the Right of Masters over their Servants, and in no sound sense will come to the Case in hand?  
Rom. 14. Respects the Case of private Persons, Judging one another in things left to their Liberty, but not to oppose the Lawful Commands of Superiors, especially so as to make a Schism upon that Account, the hand Writing of ordinances mentioned, Colos. 2.14. Was the Curse of the Law due to us for Sin, which Christ Nailed to his Cross, as is plain from ver. 13. and hath no Relation to that which we inquire after? These are all the Scriptures you produce, to justify separation on the Account of Ceremonies.  
You object a neglect of Examination before the Sacrament, but this is clear, is no sufficient cause for Schism, and it may be best amended without separation by admonishing of others, and showing them a good Example. Our Rubric requires it: And therefore they are Nonconformists to our Church who do not practise it.  
You say, That sanctification by a Mans own Free will, Justification by a Mans own Righteousness, Salvation by his own good works is not bad Doctrine now. I know not where you have heard it; it is expressly contrary to our Articles and Homilies which all our Clergy subscribe, and if any teach otherwise, let them Answer for it: They are therein Nonconformist, because not conformable to the Doctrine of the Church, and here can be no cause of Schism, because no such Doctrine, but the contrary is imposed as a Term of Communion at least to the Clergy.  
What you say of Parker, Stillingsten, Hales, is nothing to our business. They are but private Doctors, and there can be no cause of Schism here. Would you think that Baxter's Life were a sufficient cause, were there no other to make a separation from the Communion, of which he was a Member. You say, The Church's Power to appoint Ceremonies was not in the Thirty Nine Articles. What if it was, or was not, doth that make them unlawful? Or is that a sufficient cause for Schism, for remember, that is our point.  
Your Condemning private Baptism, as unlawful to a child in danger of Death, is a Vindication of the Preface to the Discourse of Baptism, for which the author hath been blamed as doing wrong to the Dissenters, in suggesting, that they laid not so much upon Baptism as we do. But this is not our present Subject, and I will not digress. You say, Christ did not appoint Baptism from the Jewish custom. He certainly continued the custom which they had begun, and if the custom had been finful, and abominable as you say, it is not to be imagined that he would have given that countenance to it, instead of Reproving it.  
You say, Things of a civil nature, common to others, as well as Christians, to other actions, as well as Religious, (as Love Feasts, Kiss of Charity,) may be done without Divine Appointment, our Anti-Ceremonial men grant to all the World. Answer, That the Love Feasts and Kiss of Charity, were used in Relious Worship is certain; indeed, Love and Feasting, Kissing and Charity too, are things of a Civil Nature in the Civil or common use of them, but when they were appointed in Religious Worship, they became of a Religious Nature: All actions, or things are of a civil or Religious Nature, as they are used to a Religious, or civil use. As Music in the Church, or out of the Church, are of the same nature as to itself, but it receives a different denomination, according to the different uses it is put to. with the same Tongue we perform Religious Woship, and at other times profane God. Now, I would gladly know a reason why Music, or a Surplice might not be used in Religious Worship, as well as Kissing, or Feasting.  
I beseech you to consider impartially, and let us proceed upon Principles, and Reasons, and not upon Passion and Prejudice which blind the Eyes of wise Men. But put things to the utmost, if any cannot overcome his Scruples against Music, for example, Let him go to the Church where it is not used, which are many in the Kingdom; and however, he may think it inconvenient, unless he can prove it positively forbidden by Scripture, or by necessary consequence, here is no ground for Schism, for that is our point.   

The NONCON.  
WHen I said, The Pharisees, and Papist in your sense, were not Guilty, you say, Guilty of what? I answer, Of adding to God's Law, I thought plain, though of violating the Rules of Decency, etc. If the Ceremonies of the Pharisees were too many insignificant, and burdensome, and such are the Papists, say you, but who shall be judge? How much stress is laid upon yours, I have shown.  
Beyond the nature of the thing, are words I understand not. Mosaic Ceremonies were not changed in nature, but in use; neither is Baptism, or the Lord's Supper now, else these had been a duty now, and those then, a Divine Stamp made those once, and these now necessary, which you say a Human command doth, as you tell us. I think, you wrong the Church of Rome, if you say, That she maketh sprinkling with Holy-Water, etc. in your sense, a part of God's Worship, and of Oral Tradition from Christ or the Apostles. Neither doth it appear the Pharisees thought washing of Hands when they came from Market, and other Ceremonious parts of Moses' Law, conveyed by Oral Traditson, prove it if you can. Did Christ indeed, confirm Ceremonies preferred to Gods Law. These things ought ye to have done, what things? washing of Hands, etc. No, in vain do ye worship me. In Tything, Mint, we deny not the Magistrate's power in Tything, Ministers maintenance is a civil thing; observe a great contradicton of yours now. Man's Law, said to be God's Law, Christ respected them. Whereas you tell me so often of Schism, I have desired you to tell me what Church it is I am a Schismatic from. Is it the Rebellious, Perjured, King— Dethroning, Church of England, as some call her? Or the seditious Conventicles of Popishly affected Jacobites that others talk of, till then, I am not bound to say more of Schism. I thought according to some, nothing could warrant taking up Arms against a King, and then according to you, nothing could warrant a Separation (which you always call Schism,) from a Church. There is no cause for Schism in the Church, (say you,) that is not as sufficient for Rebellion in the State. Is not your Church, then, think you, a Schismatical Church from the Mother Church of Rome? That the Church Wardens Oath is enjoined (as you say,) by Law is denied. The Bishop of Bristol 20 Years since, was cast here. (Carleton,) The refusers of that Oath have been Excommunicated, and required to get others to serve in their place, which is unlawful, for Reasons given in my last to you. 5 Gal. 1. I will not say your Answer, or Argument was anticipated before you wrote it, lest It should displease, sure you cannot think I thought when Paul says, Be ye not the Servants of Men? Men should not serve their Masters. You tell me not what is your sound Sense of the words, nor the Reasons why you take not my Sense to be so. God left men 14 Rom. to their liberty, and no man can deny it them. The Magistrate is forbidden imposing unnecessary things on the weak. Receive ye him, saith Paul, Reject him, saith your Church. 7 ver. No man liveth to himself. 10, Who art thou that settest at naught thy brother. 22. Hast thou faith, have it to thyself before God, Chap. We that are strong aught to bear with the infirmities of the weak, Yes, say some, if the Magistrate doth nor forbidden it. O Paul, (or rather O Jesus,) thou shall be Obeyed, unless our Church commands us otherwise. Who regards these Precepts? yet they scrupled things lawful, we unlawful. 5 Col. 14.10, 11, 12, 16. Read, and you will read your fallacy. A bene conjunctis mala diviso. men's Sins, and old Ceremonies, were both nailed to Christ's Cross.  
Did I make every thing I wrote of a sufficient cause for Schism, especially simply by itself, that this is so often all the answer I can get, This is no cause for Schism? Are they all Non-conformists as you say, That examine not Communicants? Then I think, they are all Non-Conformists now from the greatest to the least. Well, I see the Noncons have gotten company, more than a good many, by what names or titles soever they are dignified, or distinguished, whether the most Reverend, the Arch Bishops, the right Reverend the Bishops, or all inferior Priests and D— s.  
I am glad you profess yourself to be no Arminian, and grant such Subscribers to the 39 Articles, and Book of Homilies, Noncons, (and I say perfidious ones) you ask me, where heard I— I answer, The last Sermon I ever heard in the Church of England, save one, about 2 years since; Three-Articles were Preached against by no mean Man, and I would prove upon him what you say, that he was a Nonconformist, and aught to be Excommunicated for that Sermon.  
What I wrote against Private Baptism, confirms not the charge, because, I told you, the practice of other Noncons, contrary to mine; and I doubt not many Church Men are of my mind in this thing, not yours. Because I only object, where such a Baptism may hasten a child's death. And can you, or will you say otherwise? You say the same of Jewish Baptisms which you long since did, and take no notice of my reply, therefore I am not bound to take notice any more of that Subject. For Kissing and Feasting, I take them not as Religious Acts, if you do prove them so; only all things we do, must tend to the Glory of God in eating and drinking, and whatever we do.  
I remember not that in my Last, I wrote any thing of Music, if I did, than what you say of it was pertinent to the occasion.  
In short, I think the Old Church of England is gone out of sight, for Doctrine, Discipline and Manners. You know it was a great Question in the Schools at Athens; whether, when all the Old Planks were gone out of Theseus his Ship (one gone after another) it might still be said, here is Theseus his Ship: I know not how far they were agreed. If it please you to give me your Opinion about this, we may be the sooner agreed here. This present Church, which some Jacobites call a Schismatical Church, her Priests Jeroboams Priests, such as are not to be Communicated with at the Lords Table, hath been a Factor for Rome, is full of Perjuries, Perfidious Baptisms, broken Prayers, Foolish sinful Ceremonies, she is bloody in her Principles (and once practise too) and therefore I think, separation from her is no Schism, but a Duty.   

To the Baxterians  
Brethren,  
WHether you have not very much contributed to the growth of Crispianism, is humbly offered to your consideration, as they by their foolish, unsound Oppositions of you, have added to your number. As not one false Charge, (no nor mistake) was ever proved on me in my Vindiciae, so I hope, will no such thing, (or can no such thing) be proved on me in this Book. I once so valued your Master, that I had his Picture in my Bedchamber, and for a considerable time after I awoke in the Morning, looked on it with delight.— I never doubted then, nor since, but that he deserved the name of a great Man, though think, he knew too many things to know any thing well, or as other greater Men than be aid. He had (I think,) been a wiser Man, had he not had so much Wi●. I am glad, that notwithstanding your Master's Doctrine of Non Resistance, nothing is farther from Jacobitism, than you; and that His Most Sacred Majesty hath not more Loyal Subjects in the three Kingdoms then you are; and that your Meetings are valued by you, and your People not told of receiving the Sacrament from Parsons given to Cursing and Swearing. I know some of you are not pleased that I thus Apologise for the Independents. I have often observed, that some Conformist who will not call you Schismatics, call the Independents so. And Mr. Baxter often called them so, and fanatics too in his Life, written by his own Hand. And why, because they complied not with (I think,) some of the most Fanatical Worship under Heaven.  
I confess, I have sinned in my once Compliance, though ignorantly, not against Light. The last Plot convinced me of this, I will be so civil to our Clergy, as to conceal my Reasons. The Men I now contend with, are a giddy Generation, they that think God loved them with a Complacential Love in their unregeneracy, when Drunkards and Whoremongers, Liars and Oppressors, some of them may think God may so love them still, if they run on in their Sins, and so delight in them in Heaven too. Alas! alas! miserable Souls are they, who talk as if sadness for Sin were one of their greatest Sins, and all doubts to be unbelief. No Fast, or Prayers can do good, they must act from life, (which you deny not,) not for life, say they, which must not be granted. Let them Read that little Book of Martyrs, Heb. 10, who looked for a city, whose builder and maker is God● who had an Eye to the Recompense of Reward, and lest this should be accounted weakness 12 Heb. 1.2. The Apostle direct to the same, Looking to Jesus, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross. Are they more perfect, greater self-denyers than Christ?  
Yet Brethren let me speak freely to you, Do not call all Crispians, or Antinomians, that have provoked you; do as Jehu did, when he gave charge against the Worshippers of Baal, See there be none of the Servants of the Lord, but the Worshippers of Baal only.  
Mr. Mather, in a kind Letter to me, disowned Crispianism, and said, The last Lord's Day I Preached against it. And know no Vindicator of him, but Mr. Cockin I heard the Reverend, Mr. Cole. (now with God,) condemned justification from Eternity, at Pinner's Hall. Yet those were too great favourers of the Men, more than their Brethren. Dr. Chauncy seeks to qualify bad passages in Dr. Crisp, as you do passages not good in another. But I am well assured, he is no more a thorough Crispian, than Mr. Williams is a thorough Baxterian, neither have spoken half so bad as their Masters. Love blinds the Judgement in defending, or censuring, both these are good Men, and I hope they so judge one of another The man whom I have singled out, is accounted by wise men that know him, to be an ignorant, intolerable, Heretic. He that will not take Christ in all his Offices shall have him in none Talk of Christ the Priest a thousand times over, all is in vain, without Christ the King, They that condemn sorrow, for Sin shall sit down in sorrow.  
You seem to me to have an advantage aingast them that refused (as you say Faithful Rebukes, etc.) to subscribe to the Anti-crispian Propositions sent to them.  
No wonder such as I plead against, are so free to lie, when they believe the Sins were pardoned before they were committed, or they were born, from the Days of Eternity; that Sin can do them no hurt; that they are not the Sinners, that to go to Humiliation, etc. is nothing. Are these sit to talk of Gospel Preachers, who shall say of the Linen-draper Speaker, what if he tripped, he wrote only the Heads, and some Sentences.— And yet at another time, says If any print his Sermon, he will do it, for he wrote all. And indeed was both seen by the same persons? What faces of brass have such, noted for nothing, but the two good qualifications, ignorance, and impudence. It is beneath a wise Man to throw away his anger upon them.  
I pray you, (as before,) conclude not that all that plead for Dr. Crisp, are no friends to Good Works, or a Holy Life, some of them say, they are sorry Dr. Crisp said, Paul personated a scrupulous man, when he said, O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of Death? That say, they disown what he said, Whoever hath any sadness for Sin, is out of Christ the way, etc. Tho they take pains, (not a little) to prove Dr. risp in other places meant not so and so. The common practice of all Bigots for their Sect Masters.  
I know to your immortal Honour, you generally are not Friends to ignorant Trades men's Preaching.  
Yet We aere told every where, our Linen-draper was countenanced by Mr. How.  
1. Mr. How is a Gentleman, and a Courtier, and such great Persons are not understood easily, always, and by all men especially by ignorant Persons.  
2. This talked of encouragement was before the Young Spark profaned a Pulpit, Mr. How knew him not, and might be imposedon.  
3. I am informed by no mean Man, Mr. How denies it; and so much for that great or greatest Plea for our profound Doctor.  
Are the French Churches laden more or less with good works, since they were so corrupted by Camero, Tilenus, and others, to put works out of their right place in a wrong one? Geneva corrupted to your Joy, exceeding Joy, but to our sorrow, exceeding sorrow, may in time this way lose its beauty and comeliness. Tho some worthy men among you, own Christ righteousness is not imputed to us for our Justification in the Effect only— Yet others of them censure these Men. What hath Mr. Humphreys done to name no more! who talked against Mr. William's (that Semi-Baxterian,) like some little Crispian?  
We call for your help against these common Enemy's; I need not say much here, but close this as the Poet his Tristia,  
Qui monet, ut facias, quod tu facis, ille monendo, Laudat, et hortatu comprobat acta suo.   

A SPEECH, delivered at Turner's-Hall, April 29. at a Meeting, with the Consent of the Lord-Bishop and Lord Mayor, where Mr. Keith (and I also) desired Mr. Penn to appear, to answer to our Charge, where were present one of the Sheriffs (and one of the Marshals, to keep the Peace) and also several Ministers and Gentlemen, and others, of all Persuasions. By T. M.  
HAving written a Book, entitled, William Penn and the Quakets either Impostors, or Apostates, which they please, proved from their avowed Principles, and contrary Practices; and also a Censure of George Fox his Journal, and other Quakerish Writers, I shall decline needless Repetitions. The last time I appeared here, on the like Occasion as now, I laid this as my Foundation, That God is a God of Truth, That the Spirit is a Spirit of Truth, that the Devil is the Father of Lies, that therefore George Fox was, William Penn is, and other Quakers are, Impostors, and False Prophets, teaching false and contrary Doctrines and prophesying Lies, things that never were, or came to pass. I charged George Fox among other things with this Story, That he saw the Blood of Martyrs in the Streets of Litchfield, and waded thro' their Blood. William Pen, for declaring, as sure as the Lord liveth, Thomas Hicks should not go to the Grave in Peace, etc. Solomon Eccles. with Prophesying in the name of the Lord to John Story, That he should die that ●ear, because he had set himself against George Fox, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, etc. who lived above four Years after. I shall now acquaint you with Objections I have met with from sober Quakers, and others, and it being so late, I hope not to detain you half an Hour.  
1 Objection. Many things they Prophesied of did come to pass. I answer, It is enough That many things also did not. What if I should now declare in the name of the Lord, That Man shall Die this Year, and that man also? What if one of them die, will that prove me a true Prophet? No, the continued Life of the other will prove me a false one. What 〈◊〉 I should say, Thus saith the Lord, To morrow there shall be Rain, but the next day none? If their be Rain to morrow, I am no true Prophet if it Rain also the Day after. Many things, Muggleton said, came to pass; but all what the Prophets of the Lord said, did so.  
2 Object Did not the Prophet prophecy falsely, when he brought back the other Prophet to Eat and Drink at his own House, in the Reign of Jeroboam.  
No Man doubts but a Prophet of the Lord ●●ay sin, and fall before a Temptation, as well as other men; but he recalled his false Prophecy, etc. Yet what he was, and how far a Prophet dwelling in that Idolatrous place, I shall not determine.  
3 Object. George Fox meant he saw B●●od Visionary; and when Edward Burroughs said, God could soon Arm thousands of his Saints to destroy the Wicked, but for the present, it must not 〈◊〉, etc. he is to be understood Spiritually, and that Friends were to blame in Printing it as they did.  
Then it follows, George Fox, in the writing that Book, and Mr. Pen in the Publishing this stor there, did not intent it should be understood Visionary, neither sa● I, will the words bear it. He put of his Shoes, he run thro' the Streets of Litchfield, and cried, Woe to the loosely City, etc. These things were not Visionary, Hundreds saw him; neither, therefore could his wading thro' their Blood to the warming of his Feet be so.— Were not the Saints to have their spiritual Arms on for the present, according to E. B.?  
4. Object. If all this be true, G. Fox, W. Pen, and others, were Deceivers. What is this to the Principle; their Opinions may be right?  
1. This will go far. 2. Whoever goes over to them, must pretend to be Inspired, and Infallible. How can they then join with them, proved to be Impostors, and false Prophets? These Men, surely, will play their Infallibilitys and Inspirations lustily one upon another. 3. These Men have been even Adored, by the Spirit of Discerning too.— Glory be to thee Let me feel thy Virtue. 4. Their Letters have been the Quakers Directories, their Dictates, the Quakers Oracles. 5. Spiritual Courts were set up by these Men from the Lord. 6. Can any of them say they were convinced, Baptism and the Supper were nothing, An Oath was unlawful, by their Inward Light, and not by Fox, their Outward Light?  
Before Igo any further, I must remove a Difficulty that lies in my way. Croese a Dutch Divine, hath written a large Book of five Shillings price, called, The History of the Quakers; much in favour of them. But I do declare, it is a 〈◊〉, false History; but to do him right, he confesseth, he haed his Accounts from the Quakers Writings sent to him. Therefore be was so credulous, he tells us of G. Fox 's Fasting ten Days, etc. It is well known in Amsterdam long since, a Woman pretended she should fast longer than Christ, fifty Da●s, a great Concourse, all wonder at this Miracle; the Lords at last, caused the place to be narrowly searched, and under the Chair was a Trap Door, where was all Necessaries for Life. They Strangled her, and as I hear, her Statue was made in Wax in the same Chair, representing the Cheat, yet to be seen in the same . I doubt not, if G. Fox kept a ten Days Fast, it was such a Fast as the Amsterdam Gentlewomans. Croese also tells us wh●●● Barbarities were used to the Quakers (not fit to be named.) in Bristol, in the last Persecution in their Meetings, which I then, a Bristol, Man, never heard one word of; and how the Quakers persevered to the last, when I a●rm for years they left their Public Meeting place as one Man. This false Historian tells us, That in New-England The Quakers were so cruelly whipped, that many Swooned in the Streets to see it, and that the Whip was such, That the Executioner was forced to put both Hands to hold it. I doubt not but Friends are made to believe, that the whipping of Dr. Oats was not worse, (or as bad) as theirs. He says little of these men's Blasphemies about Scripture, and the man Christ Jesus, etc. It is well known the last time I thus appeared in this place, a Quakor to divert me from my Charge against Pen, and other Impostors, and false Prophets, said. Did not the Presbyterians Persecute in New-England? What sayest thou G. Keith, dost thou not know it? But might not I have returned, did not the Quakers Persecute in Pensilvania? What say you M. Keith, Do you nor know it? Yes surely, he knew it too well, and felt it to purpose; for they so Persecuted him, that had not the King sent a new Governor there when Mr. Pen absconded as a Jacob●●e, we had not had him now with us, but the Quakers, in his Grave long since. Ye this Croese is forced to acknowledge against them (among other things) there, That George Fox put his name to a Book sent to John, the III. King of Poland, for Toleration; full of excellent Latin, Greek, and French Sentences out of Learned Writer s, as if he had been acquainted with those Authors. This Book was so curious, it was Translated into many Languages, and called Fox's Book. When it is notorious he never well understood his Mother Tongue. Croese cries out against this pride of Fox: Ahorrible Cheat say I. I myself, Sirs, have long since read Histories bearing Fox's name, which I and others then thought to be his, but he sent, as I am well informed, to the two lid 's in Wales, and other Scholars, to make such Books, and he would put his Name to them He also says, That the Story of one Brown, that Fox say s had Visions and Revelations, concerning him what he should do. Was only the Man's Opinion about him, when Dying. And that it was Customary with Fox to write down such Stories as Prophecies from the Lord, etc. That Fox also called many Women on his Spirit of Discerning, Witch s, and Sorceresses, of which no proof could be found; for such things was he beaten by many in the Streets.— No wonder. Having cautioned you against this Book, I proceed concerning William Pen, that he was a false Prophet hath been proved, and more proof we have of his not being Inspired and Infallible; that he shuffled in the last Persecution is well known. A Quaker (who valued him,) told me, that when a Constable came to him in the Meeting to lay hold on him, and said, I doubt, Sir, you have been the Speaker (which was true,) Mr. Pen pointed to one afar of, (who had also spoken,) That is he. Whilst the Constable went to him, Mr. Pen ran away out at a Back Door, This Quaker said, He could hardly believe his own Ears or Eyes; and could not Sleep quietly several Nights after, that such a precious Speaker as Friend William was, would so speak and do. Contrary Doctrines have been delivered from one and the same Infallible Spirit. In one Book against the Conformist, he says, Tell the Church, etc. The Church was not to be Judge of matters of Conscience. In another Book for his own Courts, against the Separate Quakers, he says, It was. For the late Liberty granted them by Authority, it is now declared, Scripture is an exact Rule of Faith, and Obedience. And now the external Form of an Oath with us, is abated them; they swallow down such Words in the Presence of God, etc. which have from the Spirit been denied to be lawful, especially about Meum and Tuum I cannot believe the story Mr. Pen tells of his Father, that he should say to him on his Death Bed, Son, if you continue in your plain, simple way of Living, you will put an end to all Preachers to the end of the World. Is it likely so brave and worthy a Gentleman as his Father was, should thus express himself, for my part, I cannot believe on Mr. Pen 's Testimony, however, if it be true, I shall only say this, The Father was such a Prophet, as is the Son. I now leave him, and go to one of their greatest Men, (though least censured by us,) Robert Barclay the Scotish-man, his Theol. vere. Christ. Apol. in this Book, is false History, unfound Divinity, course Latin.  
In his Preface to King Charles, II. he thus says of the Quakers, Non in Angulos aut obscura loca irrepentes, aut semet abscondentes, sicut omnes alii professores Dissentientes fecerunt.— In nullis privati Conventiculis aut Secretis locis, etc. That they bore their Testimony always openly, and none but they, that by this were they known to be the People of God, etc. The last time I here appeared, a Bristol Friend was brought forth to Testify against me, before all the People. That Bristol Friends never left their Public Meetings. When I asked him in the Presence of God, whether he was not one of them, 〈◊〉 le●● the Meeting a long time? The Man was in great distress, between Credit and Conscience, at last confessed, he had left it Months together.— And slunk away out of this place, that when I turned from the People, to speak to him again, he was gone.— Barclay, tells that King, That the Quakers were true to him in his Adversities.— and he did appeal to the King's Conscience concerning their Innocency.— Now if King Charles thought them so, he should appeal to his Ignorance, not Conscience: For we here all know, Fox, and others, called often on Oliver Cromwell, to strengthen his Forces against the Kings Return. And in the name of the Lord justified what was done to the Family, and the Malignants; and said, C. Love was acted by a bad Spirit to seek to bring him in; And reviled the Presbyterians as Apostates, for attempting it.— Now Oh how faithful they were always to him, and how Generations to come, would tell what great things God had done for him! In the Book he says of all Persecutions, Proveniunt a Spiritu Cain, et verirati contraria. Well, then in Pensylvania, Cain would have slain G. Keith, their Brother Abel. Tho this Barclay be accounted by some among us, better than others among them, it may be a mistake. He calls our Praying and Preaching abominable Idolatry.— He was indeed Subtit in making that Book, in declining some greater Controversies between us, and them, and insisting on the Fall, Justification by Works, Perfection, and other things, where Popish, Socinians, and other Authors, had stocked him with Arguments.  
Some perhaps may wonder I have said nothing all this while of George Whitehead. The true reason is, I take him to be such a Fool, that he is not worth Observation, I heard him once Expound in Bristol Meeting Solomon's Fool not only to be a Holy, but Sinless man too, as I have Printed, I hope, others are convinced so now, that have read his late Antidote, to that prodigious piece of Sense, called The Snake in the Grass. To all the many Charges that Author brings out of their Peter, how they had flattered Oliver Cromwell, contrary to what they had said to King Charles, and all in the name of the Lord. He only says in short, This Charge is foul and false. How false? and not attempt to disprove one of his Evidences? No doubt he knew all to be true. Again, he tells us how others applied themselves to Oliver.— Did they say I, do it in the name of the Lord, pretending to a Spirit of Infallibility and Inspiration? No, He says also, The Act of Indemnity forbids mentioning those things.— True, by way of Reviling but not in a way of Disputation. Was not that Act in Force when Pen, and others, twitted the Dissenters with Garments rolled in Blood? I therefore concern not myself about so weak an Adversary, and declare I never will.  
For that Quaker who Prophesied, London should be Burnt within two Days, when it was so, it is enough to prove him not a Prophet sent of God, seeing in the midst of the Flames he so often Propesied to the People, The Fire should end here, and then there, where he would stop, and the Fire should proceed no further, but the Fire raged still. Well, it is sufficient for me to know, Friends never believed their own Prophets, nor regarded them; therefore, I pray them excuse us, that we in this thing follow their Example.  
What follows from all that I have said Historically, after another hath spoken Doctrinally?  
1. That these Men were not true Prophets, nor sent by the God of truth. Are there any here so weak, that I need say to them, Then were they false Prophets, and sent by the Devil, the Father of Lies?  
2. That great was their madness, that though so vile boasted of Perfection, George Fox said, he was Equal with God, as perfect as Christ, etc.  
3. That they were miserably deluded, who almost Adored such Men, Glory be to thee George Fox.— Holy One.  
I close all with a great and remarkable Story, which it may be none here have known, which I had from a Minister of known Learning, and Piety, whose worthy Friend told him, he had it from the Minister to whom the doleful Subject of the Story belonged. A Gentleman in Oliver 's Days passing by a Churchyard, where was, a great Concourse of People, and a Friar, whom he knew in Spain, preaching to them when the Friar had ended, this Gentleman came to him, and desired to Drink with him a Glass of Wine at the next Tavern. Away Man, said the Friar, with those unfruitful wo●●● of Darkness. Pray, Sir, Replied 〈◊〉 Do not thus Cant with me, for I know you, and at Madrid, you and I had a Disputation about such a Question, else I will discover you, upon which the Friar promised to go with him to a place appointed, then said the Friar, I saved you from the Inquisition, when I could have sent you there. I pray give me no trouble, as I gave you none. He promised he would not, if he would faithfully answer him a few Questions, which the Friar promised him. The Gentleman asked him, What he did there? He answered, The Nation is now in a Ferment about Religion, and we always serve our own turns on such occasions; and if you please, I will make you to do as the Quakers, one Day, and afterwards, you shall be as now you are; the Gentleman consented, (perhaps doubting the thing,) the Friar after some tricks put the Gentleman in a raving Fie; out he runs in the Streets, crying, Repent, Repent, etc. At the time appointed the Gentleman came to himself, and pi●fest he had in that Fit a strange extension of all his Nerves, etc. and his Fancy strangely raised. but on the Review of his thus tempting of God, and Blaspheming his Name, he pined away a long time, and Dyed. I know his Name, and the place where he dwelled.  
If it be thought hard that jonce compared Fox's Lying Winders with those of Father Cressy, I do declare, I believe from my Conscience, Cressy, to be much the Honester Man. He may be blamed for his Credulity, for he pretends not, he saw (much less wrought,) the Miracles he mentions, as this Deceiver did. He says, That Christ appeared to St. Denni. and told him in a Dream, he had Dedicated a Church in Glassenbury to his Mother, in his own Person long since, and that having thus said, he pierced his Finger through the Bishop 's Hand, and told him, that the next Day in reciting the Canon of the Mass peripsum, &c his hand should be made whole, many saw the wound the next Day. And as luck would have it, at the Reciting those words in the Mass, the Bishop was he all'd. Protestants he says, are not willing to believe this Antiquity of the Mass, or that our Lord dignified it by mentioning it, and working a miracle at the Celebration. Cres. Hist. of Brit. pag. 26. chap. 7. But Friend George tells you of a Miracle worth a Thousand of these. He waded through the Blood of a Thousand Martyrs, slain in Dioclesian's time, was led through the Flaming Sword, etc. The Virtues, and Operations of the Creatures were opened to him. O depth, etc.  
When George Fox, said, He fasted ten Days, all may wonder, but I, that know the Quakers Juggles, Fallacies, and Equivocations, can tell you how many ways Friends can get him off.  
1. He did not say he fasted the ten Nights also, George might Eat and Drink, and he poor Shoemaker smooth his Paunch after this self-denial; it is well known the Turks hrve such Fasts.  
2. George, did not say he fasted ten Days successively one after another. Now George might fast one Day at one time, a month after another, when perhaps he could not get Bread by making Shoes; for I have reason to believe he never made one good pair in his Life, and that no Man of repute would employ him.  
3. Friend George did not say he fasted the whole Day. But it may be, he fasted till Dinner, and then began his new Fast till Supper.  
4. George might mean no pleasant Meat came into his mouth, as Daniel is 〈◊〉, thus to fast.  
Yet the Quakers, though so apparentiy vile, and false, are always boasting of then Holiness. Mr. Pen tells us, No Words of ours can; get out of men's minds, the Notions of the Quakers holiness. For my part, I profess no words of his can get out of my mind the Notions of his, and their Unholiness, Lying, and Hypocrisy. This mighty man of theirs when in Discourse, he knew the Charge of his Adversary true, as that he wrote, That Imputed Righteousness was the Doctrine of Devils. There give a Cant for an Answer. Oh if thou felt these things.—  
Mr. Bugg hath lately made a good Proposal, That our Senators would call for him, and the chief of them, and demand which Confession, or Declaration' they own, either the late Dissembling one to them, or their former contrary Blasphemies. If they say their last, let them renounce those. But this would make void Inspiration, and Infallibility I desire you, Reader, to take notice, this man, Mr. Bugg, hath Corrected gross, and foul mistakes of that false Historian, Croesius Hist. of Quak.  
If some think, I have been too severe upon G. Blockhead, I pray, consider, that speaking from those words, 9 Job 20. which I have proved to militate against their Doctrine of Perfection. He reads, I would know my own Soul, and tells, How perfect men should endeavour to know their own Soul, when nothing is so, and the sense quite otherwise.  
I acknowledge Fisher, Barclay, and Mr. Pen, and others, Adversaries worth Coping with, but not such Fellows as this. G. Whitehead once Printed the Story of Baxter Baptised in Blood, half a year after Parker, the first Publisher had recanted it as a Fable, at the command of K. C. the 2. Yet this vile man, when told by Dr. R. and others, who came to his House about it, to desne him in his next Boo● to contess his mistake, he said, He would not, bid them begun, or he would use violence, etc.  
Mr. Pen's quibbling is intolerable the Scriptures are not though word of God, but the word of the word. Quakerism a new nick Name for old Christianity. If it be said, that in my last. I declared, I intended to trouble myself with this Cattle no more.  
1. It was but an Intention, not promise.  
2. New Occurrences (and I assure you unexpected ones) have since befallen me, which makes my Apology for me. The Story is this, A Quaker of Note (especially for Ignorance,) and Mr. Penn's Intimate sets upon me in the Coffeehouse; That I was a Liar and a Slanderer to say Mr. Penn said Christ was born in Nazareth; That he would pay me Fiver Shillings if I could prove it the next day before many and competent Witnesses; The Book was produced, the Thing proved, and the Money paid soon after, he published every where, and at ●●●st to me. That a Church Friend of theirs (was it he that wrote against Mr. Keith and me?) vowed he would break my Head. About ten Days after this, when I came from Mr. Keith's at Nine of the Clock in the Evening (than dark) as soon as I came to Moorfields, a Man sets upon me struck me to the Ground, looked on me a long time as one considering what to do. I expected in that misery no other but that he would draw his Sword, and run me through; but he took a great Stone, and fling at my Head; down ran the Blood on all my , in that case was I found, and lead home. I desired Mr. Penn to examine the Matter before Friends of his and mine; He refused, I then entreated him, not to put it in his Journal, That a Prophet came to me from the Lord to tell me my Head should be broken, and that it came to pass ten Days after. Such Tricks have been sometimes among the Perfect Ones. I doubt not but that this is sent far and nigh as a Confirmation of their Faith. Whether it be true what a Gentleman, lately coming to the City, says, who offered to prove it before Mr. Penn, That often from Month to Month he sent Letters to Rome, I will not say. But his declining to meet him, and their new Fears, who would not suspect till now looks suspicious. Croesius confessed he was at Paris, and often at the French Court before he turned Quaker.  
I lately saw an Admonition to the Quakers of Philadelphia in Pensilvania, to other Quakers there. Where he says Whoredoms and other Abominations were grown common among them. etc. The Story he tells of Jennings his Knavery i● notorious; what says Sir William to all this? Now a Prophet is come from the Lord to the Quakers, to tell them they should not answer us in Print or Discourse, for the Lo●d wi●● soon take the Controversy in his own Hand, and appear against. Geo. Keith in panticular. What! is he to be knocked down too? He goes now in the Evening with a Guide as I do.  
If any of you would write to me about this, I pray direct as a Friend did, to be left in Sixth day street Friday street,) at the House of John Steplehouse (Church,) over against the Sign of the Great Light (the Sun) But Friends about Doctrine writ me nothing, for I know you have our Faith to yourselves, another for us.  
And because many of the Quakers are Socinians to my Knowledge, and the Socinians their Friends, I will say something on that Argument. Mr. Penn once brought in Socinianism among them. If Christ was only a Creature, tell me how can the Scripture tell us of the Love of God, in giving Christ more than any other thing? Or, which is more difficult for you to understand, the Love of Christ, in giving himself? The Love of God, in giving Christ? God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son. He that spared not his own Son, shall he not with him freely give us all things? Where he argues from the grearer to the lesser. He that will give me a Thousand Pound, will give me Five if occasion be. But if God made a holy Man to preach a holy Law, and lead a holy Example in this more than Pardon, Grace, and Eternal Life? But your greater Difficuly is, how can the Apostle tell us of Length, Depth, Breadth and Height of the Love of Christ that passeth Knowledge (where else is the Love of God so expressed? Philosophy knows but three Dimensions, Longitude, Latitude, and Profundity, but the Love of Christ four. Now on their Notions we may talk of Christ's Love to himself, but not to us, for which of them would not suffer a thousand times more than they imagine Christ did to acquire but the thousandth part of the Glory they say he thus acquired? Who talks in all Company, Oh, the Love of King William to 3 distressed Nations, to come and save us, when he got a Crown by it, though it is, true his Love was great to us. The divine Nature is not common to the Three Persons, as a Genus to a Species for it is indivisible; nor as a Species to Individuals, for it is not multiplied, not as a Totum to its Parts, for the Godhead hath no Parts. But  
Great is the Mystery of Godliness. If it be a Mystery, and not only so, but a great one; and nor only so, but the great one of Godliness, God manifest in the Flesh. I am content to look on it as such;  Mr. Sylvester on that Text, We shall for ever be with the Lord; and others speak wisely, That all attempts to satisfy our treason about the Hypostatick Union are in vain. Read 6 Isa. the whole 12. John 41.38, 39  
Was that Lord on the Throne whom Isaiah saw the true God, or most High God, to whom the flying Seraphims cried, Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts? Yes sure, John tells you this was Christ, 12 John, thus said Isaiah, When he saw his Glory, and spoke of him, and that he refers to this Chapter here, and no other appears from, the Words cited; 40 Verses Isaiah saith again, He hath blinded their Eyes, and hardened their Hearts. For in Isaiah 53. sure he saw Christ there in his Suffering, nor Glory, numbered among Transgressor's, in his Stripes; and John says, Isaiah faith again, which is elsewhere. If Christ's Suffering was his Glory, as some say let them consider. O Fools and slow of Heart to believe all the Prophets have said. Ought not Christ to suffer these things, and so to enter into his Glory? Besides, the Words cited 12 John are not in 6 Isaiah 53.  
Consider once again, 4. Galat. 8. They were charged with once worshipping that which by Nature is not God. If Christ then be to be worshipped, He is God by Nature. Now the Angels worship him, if they, much more we, 1 Heb. 6. We are commanded to worship him, Psal. 4. Thy Throne, O God, endureth for ever. For he is thy Lord, worship thou him, 1. Heb. 8, 9 That all that call on the Name of the Lord Josus, 1 Cor. 1.2. Saul went to persecute them that called on the Name of Jesus, for so were the Churches known by this; for Jesus tells Ananiaes' what he should do, and tells Saul it was he, 9 Acts 14. compared with the 17.  
Once more 2. Rev. 23. All the Churches shall know I am he which searcheth the Reins and Heart.  
Is it not God's Prerogative to search Hearts, who knows it? I the Lord search the Heart, and try the Reins, none but he.  
Doth Christ know Men's Thoughts, Principles and Ends at all times, in all places? Is he indeed with them that are gathered together in his Name? Is he in the midst of them? How I pray!  
Again, Psal. 83.18. Thou whose Name alone is Jehovah, now Christ is so called Jehovah our Righteousness.  
For praying to Christ I know the Socinians are divided about it. Socinus did it, and the Racovian Koran (pardon the Expression) pleads it, it is there said.  
Q. Quid putas de istis, qui nolunt adorare Jesum Christum?  
A. Non sunt Christiani.  
Franciscus Druid (that blasphemer) and his Followers condemned all Adoration, and call their Brethren Idolaters, and I think their Charge is true on their common Principle. To say Christ is indeed a Dependant and Subordinate God, and therefore a Relative and Subordinate Worship is due to him, That the Father is the Supreme Cause, first Efficient and last End, but Christ is the middle or second Cause of Salvation, and intermediate End of Religion, What signifies all this when it is no civil Worship given to him as the People did to David, etc. but they call it themselves Divine, not so much as God, is the Popish Shifts for worshipping of Saints, not so much as Christ. No wonder there is so great a distance between Socinians and Christians (pardon the Expression, I know what I say, and after no mean Men) when such charging one another is among them. Esay says, Who shall declare his Generation, 53. Isai. 8. Who indeed? As some Men expect the great God should give us, his Vassals an Account of his Will, so your proud Reasons demand an account of himself, which you must not know, which you are not capable of knowing.  
Was it not a good Providence, the Anti-trinitarian Address made to the Parliament four years since, troubled them with this their Controversy and Charge? So it is a great Question, whether the Holy Ghost be the power of God, or as Beedle and others say, a Created Angel? If it be the Virtue of God, it is Idolatry to give a Created Angel this Honour. If a created Angel, he is robbed by others of his honour due to him, being not regarded, as it would be to Christ if he were thus overlookt.  
That the Person of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, subsist in the Divine Nature, I thin● is the best way of considering and speaking of the Trinity.  
The great Objection is 17 John 3 This is life eternal to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Compare this and 1 Cor. 9 6. I only, and Barnabas, etc. and then read John 5.7. This is the true God; then as only excluded, not Barnabas that follows, but takes him in; so here the only true God, and Jesus Christ the true God. They that say, the Scripture says plainly there is but one God, the Father of all, forget the next word, and ne Lord.  
Now if one God excludes Christ from being God, one Lord excludes the Father from being Lord. 1 Tim. 3.6. Where it is said of Christ, He only hath immortality; excludes not the Father from having Immortality. The essential Properties are common to all the Three, but not Personal. I like the old Anthem well mentioned by Dr. South.  
Quid fit Gign, quid processus,  
Me nescive sum professus.  
The Master of the Sentence and the School Men after him have said much about it. but to little purpose.  
I worder our Socinians are not ashamed to tell us, That the Jews, Turks, and they, worship one God. Well matched.  
God is Lord of the understanding, as well as of the Will and as our Wills must yield to his Law, though a veluctancy against them, so our understandings to his Declarations, though a veluctancy against them, Three to be One. O contradiction in Terms, cry our Socinians. I lately asked one of them, What is that he sees in the Glass? Is it the same thing with his Face or another? If the same thing, than Three may be One. For we are sure we sometimes thus see three distinctfaces, and if another, (as we conclude) what is it, material or immaterial? Not material surely, for what becomes of it when we turn away. Corruptio unius.— If immaterial, how do we see it with our Eyes? may not we cry, O horrible contradiction of Terms, see with natural Eyes immaterial, etc.  
Isindore ●ave the fairest stroke I can remember of any about what, that is, we see in the Glass, but far from being satisfactory. I am of their mind, who tell us, it is not safe to express the distinction of uncreated Persons by terms of Art. The word Father, when taken personally, is only of the first Person in the Trinity, when essentially, of all in opposition to Creatures or image, etc. so is Christ the everlasting Father.  
Are not Gods works of Creation, and Providence, unfordable? How much more the Discoveries of himself.  
I know some Quakers are not Socinians, they own Christ Divinity, but Sabellians, I now none of them Trinitarians,   

POSTSCRIPT.  
SInce this Book was sent to the Press, I saw Crispianism Unmasked, done by a famous thorough Calvinist Conformist, which pleaseth me not a little. He is a man famous for Learning, Piety, and Moderation. If any therefore value no● Mr. William's Book, because of some Baxtterianisms in it, let him peruse this where he proves,  
That Crisp, though he pretended to be the greatest admirer of Faith, yet would not allow it its due in Justification. Thht Crisp was one that made the word of God of non-effect— It is saith he, no breach of Charity to say, He was one of the Mockers and Scoffers of the last times foretold by the Apostle, p. 59 Obj. I have neglected the Day of Visitation are brought in a Mockery. If they weep, if they 〈◊〉 lustily— No duties move God 〈…〉 car Sins on Christ, who said 〈◊〉 did. What misrepresentation is 〈◊〉 of us some think when God afflicts, if they do mend, God will mend.  
These Graces, as they call them, says he, on the General Tenders of the Gospel Conclude, Christ is yours, it is as good a Security as God can make you. Sincerity is no Qualification that may be found in an enemy of Christ, p. ●et elsewhere Sincerity is denied to be in Saints. That God is never angry with believers for committing Sin, or neglect of Duty. This wise, serious, meak man could not in true Zeal but compare, This Christ Exalter to the Christ. Exalter 4 Mat. That exalted Christ to the Pinnacle of the temple to be precipitated and destroyed, p. 64. This is saith he, A Diabolical Sn. tanical Exaltation of Christ to throw down all Christianity. He ta●es notice of the D 's rude Expressions; and Style too render Sacred things count emptible, and his nautious Repetition of the same things, in the very same Words over and over, four or five Sermons, saith he contain all the forty two. He doubts not but his profane way of talking of Duties, which says he, the man affected, hath cooled the Zeal of a great number to Prayer and other Duties. He looks on his other Sermons as a kind of Recantation, p. 28 He proves the D. to be full of contradictoions, etc.   
FINIS.