I Told you in the Close of my Second Letter, that if Mr. G. thought fit to write again, and would seriously and fairly attend to the real Merits of the Cause, I would willingly attend him a­gain; but if he was resolved to go on Scoffing and Reviling, I should endeavour to find some better Method of spending my Time, than to take any further Notice of him: Accor­dingly in hopes, I suppose, that I would have done with him, and being resolved to have the [Page 2] last Word; he has chose not only to go on in his reviling Method, but has, if possible, gone a much further Length in his injurious and abu­sive Manner of treating us than he did before.

I shall not therefore think it worth my while to write any particular and distinct Reply to his Remarks; not because there would be any man­ner of Difficulty in confuting every Syllable of them; but because there is scarce any thing new of Reasoning in them, (nothing indeed worth men­tioning but what is sufficiently confuted already, in the very Letter which he pretends to answer;) and because the pursuing such a bitter, reflecting, bantering, uncharitable Dispute as he has gone into, in the manner it deserves, may rather tend to increase than mitigate that unchristian Tem­per in you towards us, which his Management of the Controversy has a sad Tendency to pro­mote, and which therefore I should rather in­cline to draw a Veil over than to expose. For it is indeed a most melancholy thing in the Eyes of all serious Christians, that one who professes himself a Minister of the Gospel of Peace, should, at all adventures, give himself up in such an a­bandoned Manner to excite among Christians a mortal Hatred and Aversion one towards ano­ther.

He says, p. 1. It hath been justly observed, that such as lie in wait to deceive, make it their first work to move the Passions of their Readers and Hearers. In which Words he hath unhappily described his own Character and Practice; for I appeal to you all that read his Book, (which I believe will be but few,) whether he hath aimed at much else [Page 3] than to raise and enflame the Passions of his Rea­ders, and those of the worst Sort, even the Pas­sions of Anger, Malice, Hatred, Contempt and Ill-will, than which nothing can be more scan­dalous to Christianity.

But tho' I do not design any particular Answer to this new Scold of his, yet in Compassion to some who may otherwise be misled and imposed upon by certain bold Assertions and artful Insi­nuations, I have, tho' very much against my own Inclinations, been prevailed upon to make a few Observations upon his Remarks, chiefly with Re­gard to certain pretended Facts, which are as directly contrary to Truth as Darkness is to Light.—

And,

1. The first thing I shall take Notice of is, p. 85, 87. wherein he asserts, that I confess some things are unlawful in the Church of England: Now as to this I desire you to read that Passage in my Second Letter, p. 46 and see with your own Eyes, which will soon convince you how far Mr. G. is from the least Regard to Truth: for you will then be sensible that there is not the least Ground for that Assertion. Read also p. 33. and first Letter p. 13. where I challenge him and all the World to prove that there is any thing unlaw­ful in our Church, and p. 35. and many other Places there are to the same Effect. — I allow indeed that unlawful things imposed would be a justifiable Reason of Separation; but I am far from saying or thinking, and as far is he from proving, that there is any such thing in our Church: And when I say, that was our Case: he [Page 4] can't but know, I mean (not that any thing is un­lawful in the Church, but,) only that some neces­sary things were wanting among you which were a justifiable Reason for our leaving you.

2. In p. 5. He calls Bohun an honest Man and says he is informed he is of our Communion. — Now it is certain he can't be an honest Man, because he must know that he speaks false in saying, that ‘ Our Bishops give Licences to Midwives to Baptize, and to Men to have two Wives, and to commit Adul­tery and practice Knavery’ &c. — And I have it from a Gentleman of great Character and Ho­nour in London, that he is reputed an Infidel, and consequently of no Communion: — And when I find fault with some of your Ministers for re­commending and scattering about that, and o­thers the like abusive Books, he knows I don't mean the whole Body of them; for I know, and he may know that there are many of them that do abhor such Books, and his own among the rest.

3. He charges me, in p. 6. with reflecting on the Father of Spirits, because I say, ‘He that is not convinced by the mighty Reasoning of Hooker and Chillingworth appears to me to have a Mind of a very odd make.’ — Now as to this, he knows I am far from thinking that God made his Mind so oddly who is not convinced, and that what I mean is, that it seems to me he must, by perversly indulging his Prejudices, have made himself obstinate and impregnable against con­viction: — It is not God that make Men per­verse, but they make themselves so

[Page 5]4. In p 7. He does in effect charge me with barefaced wilful Perjury, because I said "God is my Witness and you also, that he had charged me falsly in saying, I had repeatedly railed against you either from the Press or Pulpit. — Now as to this, I am content to leave it to your own Con­sciences, and still appeal to you all that have e­ver known my manner of Life, whether any thing has ever been my Practice that could justly be charged with Railing? and consequently, Whe­ther his dreadful charging me at this Rate be not unsupportably abusive?

5. In p. ibid. He says, I charge him with exces­sive Rioting, as tho' I meant Drinking; when he knows I meant, not Drinking excessively, but another Sort of Riot, even that of malevolent Passions and Evil-speaking, which you all know to be true. — And on this Occasion he insi­nuates as if I were at the head of Bonfires and drinking strong Drink on the Evening of Gun-powder Treason; when you all know that I never had any Concern in those Diversions, and that there were at least five of you to one of my People that were present on those Occasions, when I cannot understand there ever passed any thing but what was very innocent.

6. In p. 9. He denys that he represented the Church of England in that odious and▪ abusive manner I mentioned, calling it not Christ's Church but the Devil's. — Now you all know that e­ver read them, that he meant the Church in those Verses: And I have them to shew in his own hand-writing, and I dare appeal to you all [Page 6] whether they can admit of any other Construc­tion, and to his own Conscience, both that he was the Author of them, and that this was his meaning.

7 In p 10 He challenges all Mankind to shew any thing whereby he ever discovered the least Dispo­sition or Inclination to conform to the English Modes of Worship and Government. — Now as to this I have a Letter by me in his own hand-writing, that I am ready to shew you at any Time, which he wrote for one of his Parishioners to a Gentleman in Boston, wherein, with all the good Wishes imaginable for the Churches Prosperity and Success in this Land, that Gentleman is desired to send the best Books in Defence of the Worship and Government of the Church of England.—Now I ap­peal to you all whether the Writer of that Letter had not strong Inclinations to Conformity: tho' we are very thankful that he never did actually conform, since he appears to be a Person of such a virulent Temper.

8. In p. 12. He says I encouraged a Person to preach every Sabbath Day, who confessedly had no Power. — Now as to this it is far from being true: And that very Gentleman himself told the Person who inspected the Press, upon his Inqui­ry into this Matter, that I never directed or en­couraged him to preach▪ and it is very strange that he would let it pass when he knew it to be not true: Nor did I ever direct him or any one else to do any thing besides what a meer Lay­man might do, and what the Society that sent me hither, both approves and rewards. — As [Page 7] to what Mr. G. himself did, I assure you I had it from one of your own Ministers who condemned his Proceeding▪ as being generally esteemed ve­ry irregular and inconsistent with your Consti­tution.

9. He says, p. 15. That one of your Ministers did undertake to defend his Remarks, and did it so rourdly that I had little to say; and that I declared, that it is not Episcopal Ordination I stand so much upon, and that if I were a Diocesan I should not oblige any that had Presbyterian Ordination to be re-ordained. Now as to these Articles there is no truth at all in either of them; and I appeal to all that were present at that Conversation, (and there were several of both Persuasions,) that that Gentleman being once and again urged to defend him, he utterly declined it, and said he had no Business to defend Mr. G 's Notions, or to this Effect. — And the Gentleman himself has since declared to me before sundry Evidences, that he never re­ported me as giving up Episcopal Ordination, or saying were I a Diocesan, I would not insist on Reordination: So that Mr. G. is left alone to stand the Author of these notorious Untruths.

10 On this Occasion he says once and again, p. 86. That he is well satisfied we never had Epis­copal Ordination. — Now this is very strange indeed, for when he disputed once with one of our Brethren on this Subject before several Peo­ple, that Gentleman, to convict him, shewed him his Letters of Orders with the Bishop's Hand and Seal, and he owned it was so: How then can he now say he is well satisfied of the contrary, when [Page 8] he knows otherwise? — And because you are made to believe we never were ordained by the Bishop with Imposition of Hands, &c. I do now for your Satisfaction solemnly declare, that we were, and are ready to shew our Letters of Or­dination at any time; and moreover, that the Bishops of England make no Account at all of the Ordinations we had before.

11. After all that I said in Vindication of our Discipline, it is really amazing that he should go on in representing things in that utterly wrong and injurious manner he does in Pages 26 to 29, and then conclude by saying that we durst not refuse the Sacrament to the most openly vi­cious Person that belongs to our Communion, if there were any spiritual Court at hand; when he knows, and I told you from the express Words of the Prayer-Book, that we are expresly ordered to refuse the Sacrament to all such, till they openly declare their Repentance: And this is our constant Prac­tice — And as to the ancient Discipline which we lament the Want of, it is as much wanting with you, as with us; for pray what open Penance is done among you in Lent? which alone is the Discipline the Church means, as I shewed you before.

12. In p 38, concerning the barbarous Mur­ther of Arch-bishop Sharp, which it never was doubted but that it was committed by Presbyte­rians, and it is expresly asserted by the Author that continues Sir Walter Raleigh's History, Vol. 4 p 150) I say, concerning this Murther Mr. G. says, Whoever did it, the Fact is justifiable on the [Page 9] same foot that Phineas was justified in killing Zimri and Cosbi. — O prodigious! — Shall an Example of Zeal inspired by God himself in ex­ecuting his Vengeance upon the vilest Idolatry and Lewdness, be alledged to justifie a barbarous Murther? At this Rate every wild Enthusiast that has the Malice and Rage to prompt him to it, and the Madness to conceit himself inspired in doing it, may be justified in committing what Murthers he pleases on every one that he con­ceits to be in a wrong way? He may plead the Example of Phineas as Mr. G. does, and all is right. What does this tend to, but to open a Door to all manner of Violence, to the most ex­ecrable Murthers, and inhuman Butcheries ima­ginable? Upon this Principle who could think his Life safe? And what Mischief might one not look for from the Hands of one that would talk at this astonishing Rate?

13. In p. 41. He says, The first Reformers took the Prayers of the Church out of the Popish Mass-Book. Now in this there is a most wretched De­lusion; for the Truth of the Matter is this: Our Reformers had no Regard at all to the Popish Books as such, but to the Holy Scriptures, and the ancient Liturgies of the primitive Church, which were used long before the Times of Po­pery, from whence some Forms of Prayer had been continued down through the corrupt Times of Popery; but surely they were never the worse for having been used by the Papists, any more than the Psalms, the Scripture-Lessons, the Lord's-Prayer, the Creed and the Ten Command­ments: The Papists have done no harm to the [Page 10] Psalms and Lessons, &c. by using them; neither for the same Reason could any of those ancient Prayers be the less excellent and useful because they had been used by them: And besides these a great Part of the Prayers of our Church were composed by those holy Martyrs and Confessors themselves: For this see Sparrow, Comber and Wheatly on the Common-Prayer, which I will any Time shew you.

14. On this Occasion, I observe p. 99. he says, That in the first 300 Years there were no stinted Li­turgies. — Now nothing more untrue than this can be asserted; for I can shew you in Mr. Bing­ham's Origines, the very Forms taken from the Apostolical Constitutions, which are supposed by him, and Bp. Beveridge, and other learned Men, to be a Collection of the Rules and Practices that were generally in use within the Three first Cen­turies in the Eastern Church; and that many of them were, Mr. Bingham proves beyond all con­tradiction from St. Cyprian and others of the Fa­thers. St. Cyprian says, They had one publick and common Prayer, De Orat. Dom. And he lived with­in 150 Years of the Apostles. And Ignatius who wrote within 7 Years of St. John's Time, Ep. ad Magn. says, Come all together to the same Prayer, let there be one Common Prayer, &c. Now seve­ral of these ancient Forms are the same with ours. It is pity but that you should see these Things in Mr. Bingham, and particularly I would have you compare and see the Difference between the Po­pish Forms and ours, which he would have you believe the same, and which I am ready to shew you: you would then see how little Truth there is in him.

[Page 11]15. He still goes on saying, p. 99. that the Extempore or free Way of Prayer, (as he calls it,) is the ancient approved Scripture Way, and he cannot find in Scripture that any one Person ever used Forms composed by another.—Now as to this, I still chal­lenge him to shew one Precept or Example in Scripture for Extempore Prayers in publick Wor­ship: And it is plain as I shewed you, that Christ used Psal. 22.1. on the Cross; and Acts 4.24. the Apostles used a Passage out of the 2d Psalm; and the Psalms which were Forms composed by David and others, are expresly required by St. Paul to be used in Christian Assemblies, Eph. 5.19. and Col. 3.16.

16. In order to shew the unlawfulness of Au­thority's interposing in indifferent Things▪ he undertakes to shew, p 70 that there are no human Actions that are indifferent — Whereas nothing is clearer both from the Nature of Things, and in the Sense of all Divines of any Note, than that some human Actions are indifferent; and it is evident that to deny lawful Authority a right to interpose with respect to such Things for the publick Good, does manifestly destroy all hu­man Government, in Familys, Church and State.—When our Saviour says, ( Matth. 12.36.) we must give an Account of every idle Word, it is plain he means not every indifferent Word; but every false, vain or rash Word, as Dr. Ham­mond on the Place, clearly proves.

N. B. On this Subject he has here a deal of idle, unintelligible Talk for 20 Pages together, which so far as you can make any Sense of it, you will [Page 12] find fully answered already in my 2d Letter in the Places he refers to, and that he takes little or no Notice of it, any otherwise than to misre­present it: I must therefore desire you to read it over carefully again, particularly p. 38.

17. But there is one Thing here, I can't but take Notice of; and that is, p. 75, where he says, I rob every Man of his own personal Judgment of Dis­cretion; and that I teach that when lawful Autho­rity has interposed, every one must sacrifice the Peace of his Conscience to the Peace of the Church. — Now this is most notoriously false, for it is di­rectly contrary to what I did teach you in my Second Letter, P. 40. My Words are, " You will say, What, May we not judge for our selves? I an­swer, Yes, We not only may, but ought to judge for our selves, and see to it, that there be nothing required of us by Authority that is evidently contrary to the Word of God. — And he knows that it is not any deliberate reasonable setled Judgment of Conscience, much less Peace of Conscience, that I hold it our Duty to sacrifice to the public Peace, but only little Doubts and Scruples about Things of small moment, as I abundantly shew, P. 41, 42. And in this all good Casuists agree. See A. Bp. Sharp's Discourse of Conscience.

18. I told you that we are not obliged to read one Syllable of the Apocrypha on the Lord's-Day. —To this he most falsly says, (tho' he pretends to have the Calender open before him) That there is no Provision made that Apocryphal Les­sons may not be read on the Lord's-Day, P. 89. Than which nothing can be said more contrary to [Page 13] Truth; for there are other Lessons appointed for every Sunday in the Year, as he might have seen if he would have opened his Eyes. A Man might as well look up to the Meridian at Noon in a clear Day, and at the same Time insist on it that the Sun don't shine. — And here he says I would have you believe that we read none but Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus; whereas I never aimed at any such thing, but only mentioned them as such Parts as we do read, not that we read no other.

But there is no End of observing to you the many gross Untruths and injurious Misrepresen­tations of both the Church and me that abound throughout his Pamphlet: I might soon collect an hundred at least, and it would be very easy to confute them all; but you may readily see, from those that I have taken notice of, what Judgment to make of the rest, and how little Cre­dit is to be given him in any thing that he says. The Truth is, and I am sorry I am obliged to say it, that of all the Writers of Controversy I ever read, (and I have read a great many) I ne­ver found one so full of Rancour, so disingenuous, or that had so little Regard to the Truth and Right of Things as this Man: He little cares what he says, so that he may but throw Dirt, and raise an Odium, and cast a Contempt on his An­tagonist, and bring Hatred and Ill-will upon us: And I do again heartily pray God to give him Repentance and Forgiveness.

One thing however I must further take Notice of, and that is relating to the Predestinarian Controversy, p. 123. where he says that the very [Page 14] Doctrine which I deny, i. e. absolute personal Pre­destination, is the Doctrine of all the foreign reformed Churches, and even of the universal Church of Christ.— Whereas he can't but know that it is only Cal­vin's Part of the Reformation that ever taught this Doctrine, and those that follow him, and that Luther & Melancthon and the Churches that they reformed, which were by far the greater Number, ever disclaimed it, except a few rigid People among them; and the Augustan or Aus­burg Confession, which is the Summary of Luther's Doctrine, and which was received by his Part of the Reformation, has none of this Doctrine in it, but what is indeed inconsistent with it: Now this Confession is generally received in the whole Kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Prussia, in some Parts of Poland, and all the Protestant Churches of the High Germany, and the Doctrine taught in all these Churches, accord­ing to Luther and Melancthon is, That God decreed to elect to Eternal Life those who he foresaw would so co-operate with his Grace as effectually to repent, be­lieve and persevere in Well-doing, and to reject those who he foresaw would abide impenitent in their Sins. (vid Apell. Evang. cap. 4.) And this is the same with St. Paul's and ours, not to mention the whole Greek Church, comprehending a vast Body of Christians, and this is agreeable to the Doc­trine of all the Fathers, and the universal Church of Christ in its purest Times, the first 300 Years, both Eastern and Western; and I challenge him to shew any of the ancient Writers of the Pri­mitive Church, of any Note, down to the Days of St. Augustin, that ever taught the Doctrine of absolute personal Decrees. — As to what he quotes from the 9th of Romans, it relates not to [Page 15] the eternal State of particular Persons, but to the Election or Rejection of whole Nations and Peo­ple in this World, whereby they become or cease to be the peculiar Covenant People of God, as will plainly appear if you carefully attend to the Scope and Design of the Apostle's Reasoning.

In p. 126. He says he hopes all he has said fully proves that the Doctrine of absolute Predestination is really the Doctrine of the Church of England. — I answer, very far from it: all that he has proved is, that a few private Men or particular Divines of the Church of England, in the latter End of Q. Elisabeth's Reign, and some part of that of K. James the First, were of that Opinion; and pray, who ever denied it? On the other hand, for these, (taking in the whole, both at the Time of the first Reformation, as I shewed before, and ever since) there have been, I believe I may say, at least fifty to one of the contrary Opinion, who were nevertheless as true Churchmen as the others; for neither the one, nor the other of these Opi­nions were ever yet imposed in our Church, as Terms either of Communion or Ordination. — There was indeed, as I allowed, a strong Party towards the End of Q. Elisabeth's Reign, who laboured hard to get the Lambeth Articles impo­sed, but were reprimanded for it, and the Impo­sition of them never could be obtained, nor were they ever allowed to be the Doctrine of our Church. And happy it was for us that they could not gain their Ends, for had they been e­stablished they would have created such Dissen­tion and Confusion as would have soon broken the Church in pieces.—For all these things and many more, let me again beg of you to read Dr. [Page 16] Heylin's History of this Controversy, and then you would see the Truth of the Matter with your own Eyes.

Indeed Mr. G. endeavours to invalidate the Authority of Dr. Heylin, p. 42. from the Testi­mony of Mr. Pierce, who says He was an Author that had no Regard to Truth. But in Answer to this, I would recommend to you the learned Dr. Grey, who in his Answer to Peirce, (who, by the way, was an abandoned Arian,) does abundantly prove in multitudes of Instances, that he had no Regard to Truth: And in reading this Book, which you may have of me, you will find a full An­swer to every thing that Mr. G. here writes a­gainst me, which he has, in a great measure col­lected from the writings of this Mr. Pierce whom Dr. Grey answers: There you will find the Sto­ries of Heath and Cummin abundantly confirmed, p. 32 from Strype's Life of A. Bp. Parker, p. 244. — Read also Dr Grey's and Dr. Maddox's An­swers to Mr. Neal's History of the Puritans, who do abundantly convict him and Mr. Pierce of many gross and notorious Untruths: And I challenge Mr. G. to shew any Instances wherein these Gen­tlemen, or Dr. Heylin either, have misrepresen­ted things: No, they never were, and never will be answered.

And now to conclude, Let me beseech you in faithfulness to Truth, to God and your own Souls, to examine carefully both Sides of the Question, and particularly I beg you will so far do me Justice, as to read over faithfully my Se­cond Letter, together with his pretended Answer to it, and then you will see how far it is from [Page 17] being any just Answer at all. — He says, p. 127. That he has gone through the principal Passages, and has not silently passed by any thing worthy of Re­mark. — Whereas, if you compare them exactly together, you will find that he has passed by the greatest Part, and things of the greatest Weight and Moment, and that where he does remark, his Remarks mainly consist in scoffing and revi­ling Language, and where he pretends to reason, his way is first most abusively to misrepresent me, and then to fight in the Air with his own Sha­dow, and in a Dust of his own raising: otherwise there is nothing new, but the same things over and over again, which have been answered a thousand times, and (as I said) even in the Let­ter he pretends to confute, to which therefore as being yet safe and sound I will refer you, in­treating you to consider seriously how poor an Account you will be able to give of your Read­ing and Inquiry, if you do not candidly and im­partially read on both sides, and procure all the helps that are offered you for your Information, and if you do not lay aside all party Affections, and seek after Truth and Right for their own Sakes, and that you may know and do the Will of God, and be saved.

He says, p. ult. If I am silent, he is resolved how­ever to go on writing. — Let him go on and wel­come, since he knows not how or when to hold his Tongue. You see from what I have here laid before you how little Regard is due to any thing he says: Let him then, if he pleases, go on Scribbling, Reviling and Scolding to the End of his Life: — This I am sure of, he will never be able to prove that ours is an unlawful, or unsafe [Page 18] Communion on any Account, and much less as he asserts, because we have any Confusion or Diffe­rence about the Head, the Doctrine or Modes of Wor­ship. For this is a most groundless Calumny, like the rest of his odious Suggestions. However, I would wish him to consider what a sad thing it would be for him when he has spent his Life in this furious manner, to go into the other World enflamed and reaking hot with such a bitter, un­charitable & revengeful Spirit as you see his Wri­tings do every where abound with, which I do most heartily compassionate, and I pray God to calm his Passions and recover him to a truly Christian Temper of Mind before it be too late! For I shall be heartily glad to see him in Heaven, notwithstanding his abusive Treatment of me here on Earth.

And I would observe to you, that it infinitely concerns you as you hope for Heaven, to be up­on your Guard against that malevolent unchari­table Temper, so contrary to the Gospel, which his Writings tend to inspire you with: For our parts we are resolved to take with Patience and Meekness all his severe and abusive Reflections, and to endeavour to be as little exasperated as possible, being perswaded that his Wrath can do us no harm; for as we find that all serious con­siderate People, even on your own side, that we can hear speak of it, (and they are not a few) are much ashamed to see your Cause defended in such a weak, scurrilous, bantering and uncharitable Manner, as cannot fail of bringing a great Dis­honour to it; so we are more and more confir­med in it, that his thus maliciously opposing the Church does greatly tend to promote it. — [Page 19] The more he, and others like him strive to set you against it, the more they will awaken your Attention towards it, and put you upon looking into it and searching the Scriptures with the noble Bereans, (Acts 17.11.) to see whether these things are so, at least those of you that are generously disposed to consider things impartially and think and judge for your selves: And we are well as­sured that the more you acquaint your selves with the Church, and seriously attend to it so as to know what it really is, the more you will be reconciled to it and be in love with it, as find­ing that the Truth and original Simplicity of the Gospel is indeed with us, and in much great­er Perfection than with you.

Some of our Adversaries have been lately try­ing to do us all the Mischief they can with the Bishop and Society, by false and odious Sugges­tions, whereby they have however really pro­moted our Interest rather than done us any Dis­service, and only made themselves ridiculous: They have alledged things which they cannot prove, and therefore can expect nothing by any further Attempts against us, but to increase their own Shame, and involve themselves in greater Confusion. — No, my Brethren, Depend up­on it, No Weapon formed against the Church will ever eventually prosper: God will, in the Re­sult of things, bring Good out of Evil to us, and in the mean time cause all things to work together for our Good: He has always done so hitherto, and we trust in his good Providence that he e­ver will: And if God be for us, who shall be against us? Truth is mighty, and under his Conduct, it will prevail.

[Page 20]In the mean time, I earnestly pray God to lead you all in the Way of Truth and Holiness, to everlasting Happiness, and remain,