The Lancashire Levite rebuk'd, or, a farther vindication of the dissenters from popery, superstition, ignorance and knavery; unjustly charged on them, by Mr. Zachary Taylor, in his two books about the Surey demoniack. In a second letter to himself.

  • Carrington, John, -1701.
Date:
1698
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The Lancashire Levite rebuk'd, or, a farther vindication of the dissenters from popery, superstition, ignorance and knavery; unjustly charged on them, by Mr. Zachary Taylor, in his two books about the Surey demoniack. In a second letter to himself. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    27/32 (page 21)
    neceflary Vindication.But there are fome Palfages in your Lett. p. 12. you charge on me, as an .Untruth \ viz. That I would in (innate a Licence to another Cure, viz. JY.Chappel• Mr.Tar/wy this is your Untruth. I (aid he was Introduced, you lay this is notoridufy falfe. Pray’ Sir, what is failed Did he not Preach at K. Chappel? and fome tell me, fbmetimes at 'manchefter Church. But fay you. Ibid. AH.that wax done, wax at the Importunity of the Presbyterian. Pt//'/}'. You here take a Travellers Li¬ berty. For the Presbyterians at ICewfon .kept ifo their difthiftMeetings all the time,.and lo did the Preshyterians in Mott Pariih, and;, do .ftill to thiS'day. And is this like the Fresh. Pa rtfim port lining’ for him1 or Grey? And then follows a doleful Story of a Vicar, Lf c. ,and I can tell yoirof another Story, cc Of one that in a Vicar’s Church (ate Weepings while u the Communion-Office was in hand -, to fee the Symbols of Chrift’s cc Body broken,,and his Blood (hed ^ tho’ he muft not eat of that Bread, cc and drink of that Cup , becaufe he durft not Kneel; And what good Man had not caufe to., be grieved, when he durft not adminifter to fucli a Pious Man,, as I. believe.he efteepaed this to be.for fear.of Sufpenlion? Now I return to your P. 18,.and I am acOufod of bringing in an Argu¬ ment, which you (ay is Mine, not Yours. To this, I would not willingly mifreprefont what you have written, nor would I miftake your meaning j but I ll tell you what led me 10 to underhand you , and if I be miftaken, Ill not perflft in it. You, P.3 2. of undertook to (hew two things. 1. That Dugd. was not pofftfled by the Devil. . 2. That if he-was, he found no Benefit at all by thofe erroheoiifty Religious Offices, that they performed for him'. 1. To the firft I expected your Proof, and you go over his Tricks, & A and atlaft conclude.P.56, CC I can find nothing In our S&r^-Spark, from cc whence we may conclude him a Demon rack. Put then to gratify “ Minifters, l will fuppofe he was, fo v and lhew, 2. cc That he found no Benefit by their Prayers, &e. a very bold At¬ tempt. Now how do; you (hew thisA Firft, ' you bring in Dicky as a true Prophet, who had (aid, “ They were not able to perform what they cc had promHed. Then you bring in Dugd. the Father, faying, u That cc after the Minifters had left hiimhe had foveral F its.Tfien Walmfcy (ays, “ NotwithflandingM.j.C and 'others Preach’d and Pray’d by R/.his Fits « continued as violent' as before, tp the lift Fit.1; Upon which you make this Inference, JP.57. “ Doth this look like cafting oiit the Devil ? Now if this be not your Argument to prove your AflertToti3I find none, viz “To cc prove, That Dick found no Benefit by their Prayers. Which was to be Proved. So you undertake to (hew, what you either cannot, or will not. Again, I had fold,;What were thofe Offices which; you call crroncoufly KeUgioJs, were they Falling and Prayers? If you exclude Falling from being Religious Worf'hip, (Frrorieoullv there is among the (Errata) , Dijjenters will not quarrel with you. P* ,