2nd §. No 19., May 10. ’56.] 
near Landaff, called ‘“‘ The Cow and Snuffers.” A 
cow is represented standing near a ditch full of 
reeds, &c., into which is falling a pair of snuffers, 
as if from the cow’s mouth (though this is closed), 
being mid-way between it and the reeds. What 
could be the origin of such a sign? J cannot tell 
whether it still exists, not having seen it since 
1832, when I was last at Landaff as a child, and I 
remember puzzling my head then as to its mean- 
ing, E. E. Brye. 
ueries. 
PURITAN TRACTS QUOTED BY PATRICK. 
Those whose literary researches have Jain to 
any considerable extent among the pamphlets 
connected with the Puritan controversy of the 
seyenteenth century, well know the difficulty that 
exists in meeting with such as are anonymous, 
or designated by initials or fanciful names, as well 
as in determining their authorship with any de- 
gree of authority. There are few works of that 
period which contain more copious allusions and 
references to publications of that character than 
Bishop Patrick's Friendly Debate, consisting of 
three parts and an appendix, written in rather a 
bitter spirit, to expose the extravagancies and un- 
reasonable pretensions of the several nonconform- 
ing bodies, in the years 1668-70. 
The extensive collections of tracts of this nature 
preserved in the Bodleian, British Museum, Sion 
College, Dr. Williams’s, and the Middle Temple 
libraries, have placed within my reach by far the 
greater proportion of the long series made use of 
by Patrick. There are still, however, several 
which have hitherto baffled my inquiries, besides 
many whose authorship I still feel at a loss to 
verify. On these points I am consequently soli- 
citous of inviting the assistance of those who have 
toiled successfully in the same field. I wish ‘to 
learn : 
I. Who wrote the following tracts? and where 
can copies of them be found ? 
1. “Medicine for Malignants.” (No date mentioned.) 
2. “ Dialogue between a Loyalist and a timid Royalist. 
1644.” 
8. “Dialogue of White Devils” (prior to 1638, and of 
course a different work from a revolutionary libel of the 
same name published by Bailey in 1795). 
4, “Mournfull Complaint to the Knights and Burgesses 
of Suffolk, by an honest man of that County.” 1656. 
5. “Some Flashes of Lightning, &c. A Sermon upon 
1 Cor. xi. 10—12.” 1648. 
6. “Short Discourse concerning the Work of God in 
this Nation.” 1659. 
7. “Sermon of the Two Witnesses — Death and Resur- 
yection.” 1648. 
8. “Dialogue between an Englishman and a Nether- 
lander, written in Low Dutch, and translated into Eng- 
lish.” 1643. 
TI. Among the King’s pamphlets in the British 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
373 
Museum (252) is a violent antinomian or inde- 
pendent tract, The last Warning to all the In- 
habitants of London. It has neither title-page, 
name, nor date, but is entered in the catalogue 
under March 20, 1648. Can the author of it be 
ascertained ? 
A reply to it appeared in May, 1646, entitled, 
An Alarum: to the last warning Peece to London, 
&e. Printed for L. Chapman. It is subscribed 
by “George Smith, gent.” Is this the George 
Smith who published a vehement and adulatory 
defence of Cromwell, with the title God's Un- 
changeableness, &¢., 1655, and England's Presures, 
&e., 1644 ? and what more is known of him? Can 
he be the George Smith who was one of the 
counsel for Archbishop Laud? (Wood, Athen. 
Ozxon., iii. 128.) The tract seems to be the work 
of a moderate presbyterian. (A copy is among the 
King’s pamphlets, 263.) 
Ill. Where can copies of these works be 
found? 
1. “Antidote against Antisobrius.” 
Burges. 
2. “ Featley’s Consecration Sermon.” March 23, 1622. 
3. “Eaton’s Sermon at Knutsford” (No date given). 
TV. In the pictorial frontispiece to the sixth 
edition of the Friendly Debate, 1684, is a female 
figure in the dress of a religieuse, reclining on the 
ground at the steps of a church, and supporting a 
cross. On the cross is engraved transversely, or 
across the arms, the device ‘0 Zows pod éoratpwrai, 
and longitudinally along the stem, ’Ey® 5¢ cupu- 
poppovuct. ‘The former clause is evidently derived 
from the well-known passage of Ignatius (ad Rom. 
§ 7.) ‘O éeubs pws éoratpwrat, the latter apparently 
a paraphrase upon Phil. ili. 10. Are they to be 
found together in any ecclesiastical writer, or did 
the composition of the device originate with Pat- 
rick himself? Several of a similar description 
may be seen in the Hortus S. Crucis of Gretser, 
4to., Ingoldst. 1610. 
At the foot of the same frontispiece occurs the 
sentence “ Nunquam Christo carior quam sub 
cruce gemens ecclesia.” Whence is this derived ? 
I have met with numberless approximations to it 
in Bonaventure, \a Kempis, the Summa Predica- 
torum, and other writers of the contemplative and 
devotional class, but nowhere with the exact 
words,* A. Taynor. 
By Cornelius 
PARAPH. 
In The Times of the 6th of last February, the 
following quotation was given: 
“ The undersigned, after having paraphed it (Draft of 
Preliminaries) conformably to authorization received to 
that effect,” &c. 
{* The same figure, with the exact words, forms the 
frontispiece to Dr. Gauden’s Lcclesie Anglicane Suspiria, 
fol, 1659.) 
