Truth and peace were the things he earnestly pursued all his days. He by writing treated with Dr. Brownrigg, bishop of Exeter, about concord with the diocesan party in this nation: and made also some proposals to Dr. Hammond to this purpose, a little before the Restoration of King Charles. By means of Mr. Lamb and Mr. Allen, two anabaptist ministers, whom he prevailed with to quit the way of separation, he dealt with the rest of the anabaptists, about communion with other churches. He treated with Mr. Nye about an agreement with the independents, in a moderate scheme; and he was often engaged in disputes with the papists also. And indeed it is amazing how one of so much weakness, who was constantly followed with divers bodily infirmities, should be capable of so much service. He came to London just before the deposition of Richard Cromwell. He preached before the parliament the day before they voted for King Charles's return. He preached also before the lord mayor and aldermen of the city at St. Paul's, on the day of thanksgiving for Monk's success. And when the king was actually restored, he became one of his chaplains in ordinary, in conjunction with some others of his brethren of the same sentiments with him. He preached once before him in that capacity; and often waited on him with the rest of the ministers, in order to obtain by his means some terms of peace and union with the bishops and their adherents, who were many of them inclined to run things to extremity. He assisted at the Savoy conference as one of the commissioners, and then drew up a "Reformed Liturgy;" which some persons not very likely to be prejudiced in his favour, have thought to be the best of the kind they ever saw. He has under this head fallen under the censure of our late English historian, who, vol. iii. p. 235, makes this reflection: "He drew up an absolute form of his own, and styled it the 'Reformed Liturgy;' as if he had the modesty to think that the old Liturgy, compiled by a number of very learned confessors and martyrs, must now give place to a new form composed by a single man, and he by education much inferior to many of his brethren." But had this gentleman been so just as to have read the reasons which Mr. Baxter gave,[2] for his doing that which he represents as so assuming, he would have seen little occasion for his reflection. For the design of this Liturgy was not to jostle out the old one, where persons were satisfied with it, but to relieve those that durst not use the old one as it was, by helping them to forms taken out of the word of God. Or suppose we, that the old Liturgy had in the esteem of many fallen short of this new one; others are at a loss to discover why this should appear so preposterous, unless it be unaccountable for persons to prefer a Liturgy entirely Scriptural, to one that is made up of human phrases, and some of them justly enough exceptionable. It must be owned that the old Liturgy was framed by