The new discoverer discover'd by way of answer to Mr. Baxter his pretended discovery of the Grotian religion, with the several subjects therein conteined : to which is added an appendix conteining a rejoynder to diverse things both in the Key for Catholicks, and in the book of disputations about church-government and worship, &c. : together with a letter to the learned and reverend Dr. Heylin, concerning Mr. Hickman and Mr. Bashaw / by Thomas Pierce ...

To the Reverend Mr RICHARD BAXTER.

Reverend Sir,

Sect. 1. AFter so many of my indeavours to disappoint the open enemies of Truth and Reason, thereby to rescue poor Christians from the worst kind of thraldom, in which too many have been held by the Mythologie of the Turks, whose desperate Doctrine of God's Decrees doth seem to me more terrible then all their Armies, by how much the bondage of a man's Spirit is more to be fear'd then that of his Flesh, (for the effecting of which Rescue, I verily thought you had laboured with me, till what you rais'd with one hand you also ruin'd w••h the other; which made me think many times of Penelope's Web,) I pleas'd my self with an opinion that my Disputes were all ended; and that a liberty would be allowed me to pass the remnant of my dayes in my proper Element: I take the words of old Hesiod as if they were spoke unto my self, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For although perhaps I may not say I have as great an averseness to all Contention, as that of the Fish unto the Fire; yet am I not able to indure it, but when I steadfastly believe it to be a Duty. And being perswaded that it is mine, I dare not shrink from

a discharge, how much soever it may cost me in self-deni∣als. That alone is the time of my being imployed in my proper Element, when I am studying the Doctrine and Life of Christ, as both are ordinable to practice; when I am preaching the glad tidings of the Gospel of Peace, as one to whom is committed the Word of Reconciliation; when I am teaching the Ignorant, admonis••ing the Guilty, pro∣curing settlement to the Doubtful, and binding up the bro∣ken-hearted; when I am anxiously pressing for Love, and Loyaltie, and Evangelical obedience to every one of Christs Precepts, that the profession of Christianity may not be brought into disgrace, nor the name of Christ be blasphe∣med among the Gentiles, through them who call it their duty to live in a course of disobed••ence, and even boast that they have learn'd it in Chris••s own school.

Sect. 2. But the opinion which I was of, that it would once more be given me to live in peace, (I speak of peace from without, for mine enemies cannot rob me of peace within,) and to imploy my whole time in those more ac∣ceptable indeavours, to which the bent of my soul doth most puissantly incline me, although it was innocent and pleasing, (whilest it was able to stay with me,) yet it ap∣peared upon a sudden to have been a very fugitive and false opinion. For no sooner had I begun to bea•• my sword into a Plow-share, and to trie if men might be brought into an unity of Love (of which the first-fruits are since made publick) when an unity of Iudgment appeared to be so un∣attainable; but straight I found my self alarm'd, and bid to stand upon my guard, as being openly defied to a fresh encounter. So little hope is there of peace to one who fi∣nally resolves not to have friendship with the world, (I mean that friendship which is enmity with God) that I am not afforded some little truce. I have not onely been assaulted by a su••cession of Aggressors, for some years past, but commonly divers of them at once have fallen

hastily upon me in the very same quarters; hoping the number of their men might distract my thoughts, when the weight of their Arguments could not be able to o••press them.

Sect. 3. Of all those persons who have at any time discharged their Pens upon me, from Doctor Reynolds to Mr. Hickman, (that is, from the worthiest to the unworthi∣est of my Assailants,) none hath ever more exercised ei∣ther my joy, or sorrow, or admiration, then your very much applauded and reverend self. First, it was matter to me of joy, that I should now have to do with a susficient ad∣versary; whom (after the reverend Doctor Reynolds) I had esteemed one of the ablest of all that are enemies to the Church. Next, it was matter to me of sorrow, that so famous a Writer as you have been, should call me forth into the field in so poor a Quarrel, and that you made not choice of a fitter subject, which might have made you lesse liable then now you are. But I was taken with admi∣ration, when I found you calling me Arminian, and in∣veighing against me even as such, when you your self (with as much reason) had been written against as an Arminian, and that by the men of your own dear party: methinks by your own unjust sufferings you might have learnt compassi∣on on them that suffer as unjustly as you can possibly have done. I wish you had taken more time to weigh the matter you were to write of, then you would seem to have taken to write your book. I wish it for mine own sake as well as yours. Because the greater your failings are, the less you are capable of excuses, for which I should be willing to yield some place. And the easier it is to subdue your forces, I have the less incouragement to strive with you at all; and so the less to rejoice in in my i••ployment. But being one of Christs soldiers, and warring under his Barner, I cannot make mine own enemy, or must I chuse mine own ground or way of Castrametation. I am to f••ght against Error and Sin in general; and because I cannot ••o all at once,

I am bound to fall on wheresoever I am appointed by my commander in chief, or where mine Adversaries challenge hath made it needful.

Sect. 4. Should I begin with your Title-page, and say as much against that, as that hath given me occasion, my Introduction would be in danger to be as long as your Preface. Which though but almost half your Book, yet it seems to me much more then the whole; at least in my sense, if not in Hesiod's. And the Portal being the chiefest part of the House, puts me in mind of what was said by Diodorus of Sicily, † That there are some Historians who have made their whole story a meer Ap∣pendix unto their speeches. I will not therefore incur the danger of a volumi∣nous Introduction, by insisting on the un∣fitness of every part of your Title-page, but onely remove one special stumbling-block, which you were pleased to put in your Readers way.

In the Title of your book, you pretend a vindication of David and Peter, &c. as if you would intimate to your Readers that I had wrong'd them. I might have said with more reason in the Title of mine, that I vindicate the truth of the Holy Scriptures, in maintaining that David com∣mitted Adultery and Murder, besides his making Uriah drunk, and his foul dissimulation with God and Man. Of which although he repented, and writ against, and put his repentance upon † record too; yet before he repented he was impenitent, and that for more then nine Moneths. These (you know) were the things which I denied to consist with the power of Godliness, or with a state of sal∣vation, during the state of impenitence in which he lived. And I had good reason for it, because you h••d said in plain English, that a man must be wickeder then David was at his worst, before he could be said to be notoriously ungodly, or in a state of damnation. And considering the ground (or quick-sand rather) upon which you build such killing Doctrine; I thought my self bound to leave an Antidote

to defend my poor Countrey-men from being poysoned. For they who can but presume that they are absolutely elected, and cannot possibly fall away, or be in a state of damnation, may be apt to sin greedily, (which is somwhat more then without regret,) at least as far as David is affirm∣ed by some Preachers to have sin'd in safety; and for this they may appeal to several books of Mr. Baxter. I did n••t give this Caveat in any ill will to you, Si••, much less to David; but in great good will to my weaker brethren, who the more they seem to themselves to stand, the more I would have them to take heed lest they fall.

Sect. 5. Hereupon I ask you, Did you promise in your Title-page to vindicate David as an Adul••erer, or as a Murderer, or as one who repented of all his wickedn••ss? If the former, you are professedly a Pleader for gross im∣piety; if the latter, you have not spoken to the purpose, nor resisted any thing at all, but what was the fruit of your private fancy.

Sect. 6. The same I may say of S. Peter also. For I spake against nothing in all his life, except his cowardize, and his perjurie, and his flat denial of the Lord Iesus, for which he hated himself, and did not write a vindication. I onely spake of such Puritans as I described to be hypo∣crites; having onely a form of godliness, but denying the power of it; the impurest creatures in the sight of God, and good men, as for other reasons, so for this also, that they are the purest in their own. I spake of such Seque∣strations as were confessed to be unlawful by eminent Ministers of your own party, and that in print, nay detested by your self, if I may credit your own words, p. 111. Of all which when you profess to take upon you a vindicati∣on, I know not how you will free your self from siding with sin on the one side, or from strange impertinence on the other. I will have so fair an opinion of you, as to think you incurr'd this inconveni••nce by writing hand over head, as egged on by the heat of your present interest and passi∣on, which gave you not time to consider that you were writing against your interest, and against your intentions of

writing for it. If this were the worst, (as it is really the best that I am able to make of so bad a matter) I shall be very glad of it, and hope, that as you have offended through too much haste, so you will make amends for it at greater leisure. I say, I hope it so much the rather, be∣cause if you find you are mistaken, you have offered me your promise of recantation.

Sect. 7. You see how willing I am to put the best con∣struction upon your words that your words will bear: which course I wish you would have taken with me and Grotius, in stead of the worst that you could fancy either of his words or mine. I shall hope to overcome you in no∣thing more then in the measure of my civility and can∣did usage. And therefore I pray do me the justice, when∣ever you find your self afflicted with any portion of my Discourse, to consider from whence the affliction riseth. It shall not arise from any such bitterness of words or ce••∣sures, as you and others have poured out against me, (you indeed much less then others) but from the nature of your own matter, from the condition of your own failings, and from the evidence of the conviction which my conscience forbids me to let you want.

Sect. 8. I shall begin with your Preface, and, in that, with your thoughts of Grotius; which lying scattered up and down in many parts of your Book, I shall endeavour to gather up (as far as my leisure will permit, and occasion serve) to be considered by themselves in the following Chapter. I shall direct my speech unto your Reverend self, not upon any other motive then a civil compliance with your example. The former half of your book (which you call a Preface) being onely divided into Sections, and the later h••lf being printed with a notification of the pages; I think it will be my easiest way, so to distinguish in my citations, as to note the Sections onely of the former, and onely the pages of the later. It is in order to my ease, that I resolve on this course; and in order to yours, that I take this care to advertise you.

CHAP. I.

Sect. 1. IN the entrance of your Preface, [you professe to render m•• that accompt of your thoughts of Gro∣tius, and his English followers, which I was pleased to de∣mand and make your duty. And that you had much rather have been excused from stirring in this unpleasing business any more. Sect. 1.] I had wonder••d that in your Title-page you should say you did what you did at Mr. Pierce his invita∣tion. I wonder more that in your preface you would say you did it at my demand. Truly if I did either, it is more then I know. And I may say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; where, and when, and by whom did I demand any such thing? Two lines in a letter will suffice you to answer this easie Question.

Sect. 2. It is well you call them your thoughts of Grotius, which may be strangely mistake••, and yet your thoughts still. It had been more for your interest, if you had not pretended in your Title to an undoubted Discovery of the Grotian Religion, meaning his being turn'd Papist; as you have often explain'd your self. For now we have it under your hand, that you h••ve but discovered your thoughts of Grotius. This indeed is a modest and proper speech, be∣cause your thoughts are such private and hidden things, that God alone can discern them whilst you are silent: we silly mortalls cannot come at them, but by that discovery which you are plea••'d to make of th••m. But Grotius, whilst he was living, was at once a publick and a most Exemplary person: much more are his writings, since his Translation, To make a Discovery of the Sun, who is best discerned by his own Light, were to suppo••e the world is Blind, and he alone quick-sighted who undertakes to ••hew him to all the rest. But to discover what a man thinkes of the Sun or Moon, as to the nature of his sub∣stance, his sphaere, and motion, hath nothing in it either of singular, or absurd. It is for want of a better thing, that I content my self with this Resemblance, in comparing

Grotius unto the Sun. His works give Light unto the world. They all lye open as well to me as to your self. You are led by some Reasons, to think that Grotius was a Papist; and I have met with many more, which make me know him to have been none.

Sect. 3. But what do you mean by his English Followers? Hath any English-man of late (either dead or alive) writ∣ten any Design of pacification between the Protestant and Popish parties? All that can be said is this, that the un∣wavering men of the Church of England do love the wri∣tings of Grotius much more then those of the Presbyte∣rians, and more then the Presbyterians love them. Now if to read his Books and to admire them doth make us fit to be reckon'd amongst his Followers, your self must passe for one of the chiefe; because you tell me (p. 4.) You must i•• gratitude professe, that you have learnt more from Gro∣tiu••, then from almost any Writer in those subjects that ever you read.] Hardly any can speak higher, unless I except Dr. Owen, who saith that Grotius was almost-wise above the pitch of humane Nature, (if that is the meaning of his La∣tin, ultra humanitatem pene sapuisse) and that in all man∣ner of learning; insomuch that he thinks there is nothing comparable to him, (if that is his meaning by Quicquam ei sim••le esse vix credo.) Yet this Gentleman and you have been so far from avowing the being Followers of Grotius, that ye are the onely men amongst us who have shewed your selves his publick Enemies. Although ye vehemently d••ffered between your selves, yet ye agreed in this, that ye were both against Grotius. Nay, in this your Agreement ye differ'd too with a witnesse. For he would have Grotius a Socinian, and you a Papist. Now a Papist and a Socinian are not onely so different, but so utterly irreconcileable, that nothing but Grotius his moderation can afford any excuse to one or other of his Accusers. You have justified Grotius from the Heresie of Socinianism, which you confesse he hath too often been charged with, p. 89. And so you have sided with the Prelatists against the man before mentioned. He again hath freed Grotius from the suspicion of being a Pa∣pist,

(if no Socinian can be a Papist, as you know none can) and so hath sided with the Prelatists against your self. I mean by Prelatists the unchangeable Divines of the Church of England. Such as those two Reverend and Righteous men, Dr. Hammond and Mr. Thorn••ike, whom I onely single out for this one reason, because they have vindicated Grotius from each extreme of the Calumny, which (betwixt you two) hath been cast upon him. And to prepare you for the evidence with which I shall after∣wards entertain you, as well as to give you some ground to suspect your own judgment, by letting you see how it differ's from such as theirs, I think it as usefull as it is per∣tinent to give you some of their words.

There is no colour for this suggestion (of Grotius his closeing with the Roman interest) as far as Grotius his writings give us to judge, (and farther then those I have no perspective to examin his Heart.) For the Fomen∣ters of the Divisions in Christendom being the onely persons whom he professed to oppose, (the irreconcili∣abiles, & qui aeterna cupiunt esse dissidia) 'tis consequent, that the pacificatory interest was the onely one by him espoused and pursued most affectionately. And I could never yet discern by any pregnant indication, that this is the Roman interest.

We have seen two men of repute now amongst us censure Grotius his Labours upon the Scriptures. The one hath made him a Socinian, the other a Papist. Both could have given us no better Argument that he was Neither, then this, that he cannot be Both. — I do but instance in an eminent person, who must needs be a Papist, though never reconciled to the Church of Rome; who must needs be a Socinian, though appealing to the originall consent of the whole Church. Upon what Termes should there be any such thing as Papists or Socinians? I remember an Admonition of his bitter Adversary Dr. Rivet, that the See of Rome will never thank him for what he writ. And from hence I inferred, as charity obliged me to infer, that the common good

of Christianity, and of God's Church, obliged him to that, for which he was to expect thanks on no side. Thi•• for certain, Grotius never lived by maintaining Di∣vision in the Church: whether any body doth so or not, I say not; their Master will judge them for it if they do.

Now Sir, let me tell you, that unlesse you think you have read more, or can better judge in your Reading of Grotius his writings, then the so venerable persons who speak before us, you ought at least to suspend your censure; untill you shall find, by all that follows, upon whose Misad∣venture you ought to place it. If you shall possibly, say that these are two of the English Followers of whom you speak, you cannot do Grotius a greater pleasure; they having both given blows to the Church of Rome, more then all the whole party with whom you joyne.

You say, you do confesse it an odious thing to calumniate so Learned a man as Grotius, and all others of his mind and way; and that you must needs rep••nt and recant, if you be guil••y of so great a Crime. Sect. 1.]

Sect. 4. I would very fain know, which are the men of his way, as that is distinguished from his mind, and seems to signifie his practice. And what way it is which here you allude to obscurely, but do not name. I for my part can think of none, but his not communicating in France with either Papists or Protestants. And amongst us here in England, I know nothing like it, except the way of the Presbyterians, many of whom for diverse yeares have been so averse unto Communions, that in their Churches, the world knows, they have not had any at all: yet even this way of his is sufficient to evidence his being no Papist. As I shall shew most clearly in due time and place.

Sect. 5. Because you promise Repentance and Recantati∣on, if you be found to be guilty of so great a Crime, as you call it, to calumniate such a man as Grotius; I will first set down how far forth you have accused him; next I will manifest his innocence of that whereof he stands char∣ged; and then I will leave you to consider whether

you ought not to make him some Reparations.

You do not content your self to say, he was a Favourer of the Papists, and one who thought not so hardly of them as other Protestants have done; or that he was strongly inclin'd that way, and put the best interpretation upon their Doctrins that they were capable of bearing, that the Peace of Christendom might not seem so impossible as some would make it; or that he stood in a preparedness of mind to reconcile himself unto the Papists, upon con∣dition the Papists also would reconcile themselves unto the moderate Protestants, and the moderate Protestants unto them; (for this had been to say no more then I can say of Thuanus, that he favoured the Protestants on all oc∣casions, although he remained a Papist still:) But you have said in grosse Termes, That he took it for his glory to be a Roman Catholick, Sect. 2. That h•• turned Papist, p. 11. That he dropt by thi•• meanes into a deplorable Schism, Ibid. So as if I shall demonstrate that there was never any such thing, and that Grotius did not turn Papist, no, no more then Mr. Baxter himself, (who yet h••th been branded for a Papist as well as Grotius; and by an eminent Presbyterian also, that is, by one of your own party;) I shall at once open a way to shew the Nullity of your rea∣sons, and the Necessity of your Repentance, of which you have made me to live in hope. My Reasons o•• Argume••ts are these that follow.

Arg. 1. In his Epistle to Laurentius, who had written against him as a Papist whilest yet he liv'd, (as you have done after his Death) intitling his Book, Grotius Pa∣pizans, he doth ex••resly disown the charge, — facile vi∣debis no•• Grotium Papizare, sed Laurentiadem nimis Cal∣vinizare. Now when I find him expresly disowning Pope∣ry, (even after his Notes upon Cassander,) who certainly knew his own mind best; and when I find you declaring, that every man shall by you be taken for that which he pro∣fesseth to be, (p. 23.) and again, that you would take men to be of the Religion which they professe, p. 98. and that you will believe the profession of G••otius (p. 89.) I know not

how you can chuse but see your error. But come we from writing to word of mouth.

Arg. 2. There lives a Person of great Honour and of great Romark for his Wisdom, as well as for hi•• great Lear∣ning and Moderation; and the eminent imployments he hath been in, who hath affirmed in my hearing, (and not in my hearing onely,) That being conversant with Grotius du∣ring his Embassy in France, he took his time to ask Gro∣tius, why h•• did not communicate with either party. G••otius made him this Answer, That with the Papi••ts he could not, because he was not of their mind; with the Calvinists he could not, (not onely because of his Embassy from Swedeland, where they were not Followers of Calvin, b••t als••) because he was deterr••d by their pernicious: Doctrins of God's De∣crees. To this he added, That he would gladly communi∣cate with the Church of England, if his condition of Em∣bassador would well permit, expressing an ample Approbation of our Doctrine and Discipline, as also heartily wishing to live and dye in that Communion. I do not name that Noble person who is the Author of this Relation, because I have not yet ask'd his leave. If you can must to my integrity, I need not say more; if not, I can prove it by so unquestiona∣ble a witness, as I am very confident you cannot but trust. However, you find it to be agreeable to what himself whilst he was living made known in print; and you shall find it agreeable to that which followes. For,

Arg. 3. Many are able to attest, that 'twas the last advice which he though•• it his duty to give his wife, that she would declare him to dye in that Communion in which he desired than she her self would still live. This she manifested accordingly, by coming on purpose to our Church at Sir Richard Brown's House, (the King of England's Resident them in France,) where from the hands of Mr. Cro••de•• she received

the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. And this i••me∣diately after her Husband's Death, as soon as Reasons of state did cease to hinder.

Arg. 4. This is agreeable with the reports which I and others have met with in the publick place of his conversa∣tion for divers years towards his last. I took my pension in Paris neer Cleromont College, in which P••ta••••ius h••d then a being: and all I could learn from ••y inquiry was truly this, that all took Grotius for a person of imparal∣lel'd abilities in every kind, but yet extremely to be la∣mented, as one who could not be brought into the bosom of the Church, that is to say, they could not perswade him to be a Papist. And I was lately assured by Mr Castiglio, (a learned person, and a religious, and so a very true spea∣ker,) that in a conference which he had with some Augu∣stine Friers with whom he travelled, he found that Gro••ius was an heretick in their ••steem, as much as any other Pro∣testants who were not followers of Calvin. And I am very much mistaken if that which Mr Knott hath cited from Grotius (p. 167.) against Mr Chillingworth, is not purposely ci••ed as from one of our own sid••. I have also been told (by a worthy person) of•• a message sent from Groti••s to Doctor Cous••n•• [that he should die in the Faith of the Church of England.] But because I want the same evi∣dence of this, which I am sure I have of other things, I do not urge it as any new Argument.

Arg. 5. But it is (to me••) another Argument, and of very great moment, that so judicious an Author as Docto•• Hammond, in his Continuation of the Defence of Grotiu••, did think he had g••ound sufficient to say what follows, viz.

That Grotiu•• had alwayes a sig••al val••e and kind∣ness for this ou•• Englis•• Church and Natio••: expressing his opinion, that of all Churches in the world, it was the most careful observer and transcriber of Primitive anti∣quity; and more then intimating his desire, to end his d••••y••s in the bos••m•• and com••uni•••• of our M••r••e••.

Now

because it is added by so credible a speaker as Doctor Hammond, that of this he wants not store of witnesses who from time to time had heard it from his own mo••••h, whil'st he was Ambassadour in France, and even in his return to Sweden immediately before his death; and because my wit∣nesses (befo••e mentioned) are distinct from his, who yet agree in the thing attested; I have added his intelligence as a very good Argument to back mine own, which having said, I proceed to argue as I began, from several testimo∣nies of Grotius concerning himself.

Arg. 6. As in his Annals (de rebus Belgicis) he strictly censures the corruptions which by little and little the Popes had obtruded upon the Church, and discovers the Need of Reformation into which Christendom had been brought by the power and prevalence of those corruptions; so like∣wise in his Histories, (which I have reason to believe were some of the last things he perfected) he clearly sides with our Engl••sh Protestants against the pretentions of Religion which came from Rome. Sixtus Q••in∣tus (the then-Po••e) together with his Anathema's and Indulgences and other tricks of Religion, are exposed both to the Censur•• and the Derision of all his Readers. He shews himself pleas'd in his observation, th••t as the Romanists had impos'd upon the rudeness and simplicity of former Ages, so they had happily been detected by the sagacity of the later. And what is this but to applaud (though not the se∣ditious lovers of change, such as the Taylor was at Mun∣ster, and the Pictur••-drawer at Leyde••, yet) the Regular attempters of Reformation?

Arg. 7. In his Poem praefixed before his Notes up∣on Cassander, he did not onely commend Cassander, and call his writings veracia scripta, for acknowledging the corruptions of the Church of Rome, and favouring the Articles of the Augustan Confession, (which by the way gives answer to one of your princi••al objections p. 31. oc∣cas••on'd by your mistake of veracia scripta) but he magnified

very much the pacifick methods of Me∣lanchthon, Wi••elius, Mo••revius, the Bi∣shop of Spalato, in his departure from Rome, K. Iames, and Casaubon, (of who••e pacifick design King Iames was Author) who being confessed to have been Prote∣stants, and to have meditated the peace of the Christian world without any preju∣dice to the Reformed parts of it, had not certainly been ap∣plauded, without exception to their design or to the mea••s they contrived for its attainment, by so intelligent a per∣son as Grotius was, if he had really been a Papist, as you suggest: much less had he reckoned their several purposes and endeavours as so many Standards or Measures by which he hoped Posterity would judge of His. It is true, he set down the Canons of the Council of Trent, as one of the great things to be considered towards an union; but so did he also the whole Protestant Confession agreed upon at Augusta, betwixt which and the other a recon∣cilement was to be made. If the former spake him a Pa∣pist, the later spake him a Protestant. And if at once he was both, he was indeed a great Hocus. But he ••leads for himself, his having set out the Creed as well of the Pro∣testants as of the Papists (Discuss. p. 7.) as it were on purpose to shew the difference betwixt a making of peace, and a turning Papist.

Arg. 8. In his Animad versions upon Rivet's, he puts a very vast difference between the Synods at Dort and at Augusta; and between the Protestants who follow ei∣ther: the want of which observation in all his Concili••to∣ry writings, I suppose a main cause of your numerous mistakes. And the supply of that want will serve to shew you the levity of the greatest part of your objections. Indeed the rigid Presbyterians, whose Life and Doctrine proclaim'd them Boutefeus and Rebels, he common∣ly marks as an implacable and an unreconcileable sort of men, as it were made for the subversion of Church and State; and professed enemies to Peace

it self, as well as to those that dare attempt it. But for Melanchthon and Casaubon, and other such Protestants as did desire to reconcile, not to rule over their brethren, he every where commends them, and joyns himself to them, and professeth he can never † enough commend them. Nor could he be any whit more a Papist for speak∣ing fairly of the Canons of Trent; then Bisho•• Caraffa could be a Protestant for speaking as fairly of the Augustan Confession. You should therefore have distinguish'd betwixt Protestants and Protestants, (as the rest of the World hath ever done) when you said that Grotius did write against them. For there are Protestants that disgrace, and there are that a∣dorn the Reformation. There are that would have peace, and there are that will have none. Grotius speaks no more kindly of any Papists, then you your self do of some (p. 10.) He speaks no more sharply of the worst Protestants in the world, then you do of the best (p. 113. &c.) So that pelting at him, you have hit your self. To the sons of sedition and disobedience, who look upon themselves as twice-resin'd Christians, our Reverend Doctor Sanderson hath been as severe as any Grotius. But will you say in general terms, that Doctor Sanderson reprocheth Refo••ma∣tion it self, and that (without a distinction) he writes a∣gainst Protestants? yet thus you use Grotius in divers places; nay in one you use him wo••se. For you say, he re∣procheth the Reformation, as an impious, tumultuary, r••∣bellious thing (p. 76, 77.) when the Latine which you cite, had you translated it into English, would have made the common people your great admirers. They would have seen (what now I tell them) that Grotius spake not a word of the regular Protestants here in England, nor of such in Germany and France as were of the spirit of Melanch∣thon; but he spake of those † Incendiaries, who measured

the truth of Religion by their distance onely from Rome, and did as well introduce, as cast out Errors; and that not peaceably, but by sedition and sacrilege, and force of arms, by inventing also such Doctrines as might make men pre∣sume upon the mercy of God, and so lie snorting in those sins which opened them a way to Wealth and Greatness, by the violation of Gods Law, in pretence of propagating his Gospel. Will you, Sir, take part with such Protestants as these, or write against Grotius as a Papist for writing against such as uphold the Papists by their profaneness? I will not guess at your thoughts when you were writing your 53^d Section; nor spread a Net of Dilemma's whereby to catch your true meaning; because I would not be more pungent then the subject matter doth enforce. Grotius spake of the Brownists, and of those that like them, as well as of those that are like unto th••m. Quibus quis placere, ab eorum veneno intactus, postulet?

Arg. 9. In the same book of Animad versions I find him joyning with the Protestants in what they say touch∣ing the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist; speak∣ing of the most moderate, whom he ever concludes the most worthy Protestants. And with them he demonstrates how the most moderate Papists may be agreed; by a com∣modious explication of words and meanings on either fide. Nor doth he say in that place that the Protestants Article should be conformed to the Papists, but that This should be made to comply with That. Nay he addes expresly, that the whole Protestant Form should be received and ac∣cepted, as he had taken it out of the Acts agreed upon at Poissy; where, excepting Peter Martyr, not one dissented.

Arg. 10. After this, when he speaks to the twenty-first Article, he reckons himself with the Protestants, by way of discrimination from all the Papists, comprehend∣ing even the French as well as the Spanish and Italian.

[If we should count them all Idolaters who live in Communion with the Romanists, it would extremely hinder our wish'd-for union.] This he renders for the reason, why he who laboured a Reconcilement (which would have carried with it a Reforma∣tion) was not in reason to accuse the whole Universe of Papists (without ex∣ception) of the greatest crime in the world; making them odious to others, as well as implacable in themselves, and most of all with the Reconciler: It being his office, not to widen breaches, but to contract them; nor to imbit∣ter, but emolliate the minds of men, especially of the great and prevailing party. The words of Grotius have this rational importance, [I saw it would hinder out Re∣concilement, if we (who are Protestants) should repute for Idolaters even all that are of the Roman Church or Com∣munion, though too many of them indeed are such.] This appears by the word omnes, co••pared with habe••emus, and with the person's Religion to whom he speaks.

Arg. 11. In his Votum pro pace, he professeth that even the moderate and most peaceable Ro∣manists were of a different communion from that whereof he professeth him∣self to be. He deploreth the supersti∣tion, with other corruptions and abuses, which he saw had invaded the Church of Rome. He saith Cassander's Consultation was commend∣ed to him by † G••saubon a famous Protestant. And that his labour thereupon was approved in France by both the opposite parties. He shews what † Re∣medies there are to cure the Popes of their Disease, to put Hooks in their Nostrills, and in despight of their am∣bition to preserve the just Rights of Kings and Bishops. Nay he acknowledg∣eth the Right of the Kings of Britain about all Ecclesia∣stical both Things and Persons: which for a Papist to have

done, would have implied a contradiction. But any thing will be Popery with them that out-act their Master Calvin; who † accused that change in the Church of England, which was made by the ad∣vice of so known a Protestant as Bucer, of no lesser a crime then downright Pa∣pisme: which unreasonable censure of our Church, whether hi•• passion or his judgement extort∣ed from him, and whether it was not a contradiction to what he spake of her at other times, I leave you to guesse by his large Epistle to the Protector, and that (you know) was in the dayes of King Edward the sixth. But if to ac∣cuse were sufficient, it i•• sufficient that Mr. Calvin was ac∣cused of Iudaisme by one; by another, of Turcisme; by a third, of Fratricide; by almost all the Latherans, of the Arian heresie; and even by Grotius himself, (who hardly ever spake in passion, or without a just ground) of a co••tu∣melious and turbulent spirit, and of virulently handling such men as were much his betters.

A••g. 12. In his Epistles to the French-men of either party, he doth so frequently and so clearly discover him∣self to be a Protestant, that out of them it were easie to write a volume in his defence. To give you an instance in as few as I may, and not in as many as I am able. He writes against the seven Sacraments (I mean against the number of them, and against four of that number) so tenaci∣ously retained by all Rome. He speaks s••arply of the † Iesuits, (from his meer humanity to one of the best of which order, you hastily conclude him to be a Papist, p. 86.) and would have the••r evil Arts set out to the life; as an anonymous Iansenian hath lately done. If his esteem of Petavius, a lover of unity and moderation, could make you think him a Papist; you must also suppose him to be a Protestant, for disesteeming many more of the very same Or∣der;

especially when he reckons that he and they are of two Religions: as indeed he doth in one Epistle; where he also calls the Pope the Patriarch of the West, and shews what it is which he would have towards a peace, even the spirit of Melanch••hon on the one side, and of Cassander on the other, and a mu∣tual forbearance with one another [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in things which are not simply necessary. Will not every good Protestant desire the same? yet he went farther, and accounted them of his party who would not hear of any such thing. Such was his moderation towards that sort of men who had none at all.

Arg. 13. I find that Grotius his desire of helping for∣ward the peace of Christendom was the same in the former as in the later part of his life; and so was his love to the Church of England: witness his sixth Chapter De Imperio summarum potesta∣tum circa sacra, wherein he doth not onely insist upon the same means of uni∣on, for which he pleads in his later wri∣tings, but exceedingly commends our English Canon agreed upon in the ye••r 1571. exactly tending to the very same end. Inprimis verò videbunt Concionatores, nequid un∣quam d••ceant pro Concione quod à populo religiosè teneri & credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit Doctrinae Veteris ac Novi Testamenti, quod{que} ex illâ ipsâ Doctrinâ Catholi•••• Patres & Veteres Episcopi collegerint. Because the Scri∣pture is made a Lesbian Rule by a great variety of Profes∣sors who are irreconcileable amongst themselves, therefore no Exposition ought to be taken for authentick, so soon as that which hath been made by the Catholick Fathers and Ancient Bishops of the Church. In a word, it doth appear, as well by Casaubon's and Bishop Overall's Epistles to

Grotius, as from his to them, and to Thua••us, and divers others, that his desires of union were no other then what were common to him with the soberest Protestants in the World; in particular with Melanchthon, whom he pro∣poseth as his exemplar in all his writings of that affair. Nay in two Epistles to Duraeus (which a learned admirer of his Works hath very usefully made English) he is as pal∣pably a Protestant as Cardinal Bellarmin was a Papist; for he clearly justifies our breach with Rome, and heartily wish∣eth our agreement amongst our selves, however hinder∣ed by those who defile themselves with a proud conceit of being holier and purer then their Fathers and Brethren of the Church. He unites his Consultations with both our English Embassadors how our union may be accomplished: to which he exhorts so much the rather, because he observes that our Division doth strengthen Popery, and make Pro∣selytes for Rome. Such were Grotius his Counsels no lon∣ger since then in the year of our Lord 1637. And though you confidently say, that He mentions the Protestants with distaste, as pretended Reformers (p. 33.) yet I know the contrary to be a very great truth. Fo•• how severely soever he useth to speak of the rebellious and sacrilegious, who by their Heathenish practises and o••inions had put a publick disgrace on the Refor∣mation, (in pretending themselve•• the Authors of it,) yet of regular Protestants he never speaks without love and reverence, and simply calls them the Re∣formed, in opposition to Pontificians who stand in need of Reformation. That unavowable sort of Protestants whom he reproves with sharpness, the meek and moderate † Dr. Sanderson rebuketh as sharply as he hath done, yet he is not the likelier to be a Papist.

Arg. 14. From many places of his Discussio (printed in the year 1645.) as well as from its whole design, his aver∣sion to Papism doth very sufficiently appear. And as that is the book from whence you draw your objections, so from that very book you could not have fail'd of satisfaction,

had you impartially either read or considered all. His desire that the rules of Vincentius Lirinensis might be ob∣served, was common to him with King Iames, Isaac Ca∣saubon, yea with Gregory Calixt••s, and Doctor Reynolds against Hart. † He would not onely have the Canons of the Council of Trent to be commodiously expounded in order to peace, but also in order to reformation; he would have all taken away which evil customes and manners have introduced. In a word, he would have that, then which the Augustan Confession desires no more. And many moderate Papists desired no less. He allowes the Pope no other Primacy then is allowed by the Ca∣nons of oecumenical Councils, and may consist with the rights of the several Patriarchs of the East; disapproving his usurpations no lesse then Casaubon himself. † He loves to style that Vsurper by the modest name of the Bishop of Rome; and fastens the Primacy (which he allowes) n••t so much on the Pope, as the Church of God, for Zanchy him∣self doth so expresse her.

Arg. 15. To prove he speaks as a Peace-maker (which he was) not as a Papist, (which he was not) he cites the Declarations of some chief Protestants in the behalf of such a Primacy as he and they have thought due to the Roman Prelate. Not onely King Iames, who granted as much (in a manner) as Cardinal Perron exacted of him, in order to the Unity and Peace of Christendom, nor onely Bucer a moderate Protestant, but even Blondel, the Patron of Presbyterians, and even Calvin himself are brought in speaking to his advantage: (to whom I might adde Fran∣ciscus Iunius, and our learned Mountague in his Appeal to Caesar.) The words of Blondel are very remarkable, Non negari à Protestantibus dignitatem Sedis Apostolicae Roma∣nae, neque Primatum ejus super Ecclesias vicinaes, im••o ali∣quatenus super omnes, sed referri hoc ab iis ad jus Ecclesi∣asticum. Nor can I remember I ever read, that Grotius pretended to any more. For obedience due from all secu∣lars

unto the Bishops of the Chur••h, he cites the Augustan Confession. For the want of reformation in the Presbyteri∣an Churches, he cites the † Confession of Mr. Rivet. For the admitting of such words as Transelementation and Transubstantiation, with their convenient explications, in order to Peace and Reconcilement, he cites Modrevi••s and our King Iames. For the Protestants return to the Church of Rome, upon condition that that Church will al∣so return unto the Primitive, he cites the Prayers and Protestation of learned Zan∣chy, who notwithstanding his being a Presbyterian, concluded his moderation like an Episcopal Divine; Ego Hierony∣mus Zanchiu•• septuagenarius, cum tota familia mea, testatum hoc volo toti Eccle∣siae Christi in omnem aeternitatem▪ The same Zanchy did acknowledge (in the seventieth year of his age,) that the Church of Rome was a true Church of Christ, (however defiled with inno∣vations) because she retained the fundamentals of Christia∣nity. See Zanchy's Preface to his Confession, and com∣pare it with what he saith in the Confession it self, Art. 8. de Eccles. Milit. p. 149. and again with his p. 157. where he doth not scruple to use these words. [† We have not simply, and in all things made a defection from the Church of Rome, but in those things alone wherein she hath departed from the Church Apostolical, and so by consequence from her ancient and pu∣rer self. Nor have we left her (even so) but with an intention to return, as soon as she shall re∣turn her self to that pitch of integrity from which she fell.] All which being considered, either let Grotius have been a Protestant, as well as Zanchy and Blondel; or let them both have been Papists, as well as Grotius. No other Primacy to the Popedom did he allow but what † Melanchthon thought

necessary to conserve the unity of the Church. Nor would he have all to joyn with Rome as Rome now stands, (which yet you confidently suggest, p. 35.) but upon friendly con∣descensions on either side; implying Reformation in some particulars, and mutual forbearance in many others. You confesse that Bishop Bramhall allowes the Pope to have his old Patriarchal power, and his Primacy of order, and somewhat else, p. 22. whom yet you take not to be a Pa∣pist, p. 23. Nor can I see that Grotius allowes him more. And as Principium unitatis, or Concordiae coagulum, you will certainly allow it as well as Grotius.

Arg. 16. If you compare one passage of his Discussio (p. 256.) with his Epistle to Cordesius (p. 352.) you will find him so steadfastly and pertinaciously a Protestant, that the largest offers of a King could not make him any thing else. You say, the French moderation is acceptable to all good men, you think that many such Papists are blessed souls now with Christ; and you pronounce that Nation an hono∣rable part of the Church of Christ, p. 10. yet all the ad∣vantages in the world could never work upon Grotius to have communion even with them, no not at that point of time when the Calvinists had deprived him of his liberty, of his livelihood, and (in preparednesse of minde) of his very life. In the depth of his poverty, immediately after his bonds, and banishment, and confiscation of goods, he refused the great offers which daily courted him in France. I pray ob∣serve in what words he confuted that ca∣lumny which Rivet was bold to cast up∣on him. Si Grotius, tanto viro invitan∣te, voluisset id promittere, quod eum promisisse fingit D. Rivetus, poterat ille, per malos Calvinistas exutus patriâ, ex∣utus bonis, ampla illa honorum & commodorum promissa a∣dipisci, quae à Rege Galliae nunquam aut habuit, aut speravit, neque illi opus fuisset exire Galliâ, & rebus alterius regni operam suam addicere. Et nunc quoque, cum omnia adferat ad pacem Ecclesia restituendam quae potest, nihil illi dat Gal∣lia,

& si dare velit, nihil i••le accipiat, Discuss. p. 256. Here you see the great reason why he went out of France, when courted in it; and why he chofe to serve a poorer, because a Protestant State. As he never had been brought to accept of any thing from France, so you see he resolved he never would.

Arg. 17. That Grotius did never once communicate with any part of the Church of Rome, is a manifest sign he was never of them: and he gives such reasons for his own abstinence from all communion in France (with either Pa∣pists or Presbyterians) as could not possibly be pr••tended by any Romanist whatsoever; and so they prove him (by consequence) to have been none, for whose excuse or de∣fence they were pretended.

Arg. 18. Whilest you say he turn'd Papist, you cleer∣ly grant him to have been Protestant: it lies upon you then to prove that he renounced the one, in exchange for the other; and you must shew both when and where he did it. For whosoever turns Papist, is ever bound by them to whom he turns, to make an abrenunciation of all other Churches; upon which he is solemnly reconciled, and recei∣ved into the bosom of that at Rome: of which you have the Queen Christina and the late Minister of Montanba•• exhibited as examples in the Weekly Newes-book. Had Grotius been such a Convert, (in their language) or such an Apostate, (in ours) the Church of Rome had been proud∣e•• of it then of a thousand such Queens as now I mentio∣ned, and their Gazetts had told us of it with great ambi∣tion. But in the whole that you have said (in a matter of Fact too) you have not pretended any such thing, how un∣advisedly soever you have impli'd it.

Arg. 19. Notwithstanding all that I have urged to prove that Grotius was no Papist, I shall adde one Argu∣ment from the signal manner of his Death, which will al∣so be much confirmed from the place and manner of his burial: they are both attested by Doctor Quistorp a Lu∣theran Divine, and so no Papist, at the earnest entreaty of an eminent person, as known a Protestant as Quistorp; and

they are published by both, to embalm the memory of that Phoenix of learned men, as learned Quistorp doth fitly call him. Had Grotius been a Papist u••on his death-bed, he would not have admitted, much less have sent for, a Pro∣testant Minister to assist him in his last and greatest triall. Nor would the chief Pastor of Rostock, the publick Pro∣fessor of Divinity, have given his Narrative to the World with so much Eulogie as he hath done, much lesse would he have buried him in the most honorable place of the chief∣est Temple; nor would the Protestant Governours have consented with so much readiness as they did, had there been any the least suspicion of Grotius his dying a Roman Catholick. Now though the testimony of Quistorp was printed first at Amsterdam, and again by Merick Casaubon in his De usu verborum, (1647.) translated in part by the very reverend Doctor Hammond, and wholly by † Ma∣ster Barksdale; yet because the manner of that religious man's end hath been most slanderously reported, and be∣cause the true Narrative is not ordinarily known, as well as earnestly desired to be made as ordinary as may be (there being thousands who have not seen it in the books before mentioned) I think fit to subjoyn it in Doctor Quistorp's own words.

Hugonis Grotii P. M. ultima: Quibus Joanni Quistorpio S. S. Theologia D. Pro∣fessori, Facultatis ejusdem Seniori, & Primarii Tem∣pli Rostochiensium Pastori, suum ob peccata do∣lorem, & spem salutis confessus est.

COntendis à me, N. N. ut perscribam, quem, mundo huic valedicturus, Literatorum Phoenix Hugo Grotius se gesserit. En pauci•• id habe. Conscenderat ille Stockholmiae navim qua Lubecam ferretur: vehementibus per triduum in mari jactatus procellis naufragium patit••••, & aeg••r ad Cassubiae litora appellit. Inde perquam incommodo curru, pluvia tempestate, per sexaginta & plura milliaria, tandem

Rostochium nostrum devehitur. Divertit ad Balemanni∣am. D. Stocmannum Medicum advocari curat, qui aetate, naufragio, incommodis itineris fractas vires adverte••s, vi∣tae terminum imminere praesagit. Secundo ab ingressu in hanc urbem die (qui stil. vet. erat 18. Augusti) me horá non•••• vespertinâ ad se vocat. Accessi: propemodum in Agone vi∣rum constitutum offendi: compellavi, & me nihil maluisse affirmavi, quam ut mihi cum ipso incolumi sermones sociare licuisset. Regerit ille, Ita Deo visum fuit. Pergo; ut ad bea∣tam emigrationem se componat, peccatorem agnoscat, super commissa doleat, moneo: quum{que} inter loquendum Publicani peccatorem se fatentis, & ut Deus sui misereretur precantis, meminissem; respondet, Ego ille sum Publicanus. Progre∣dior; ad Christum, extra quem nulla est salus, ipsum remitto. Subjicit ille, In solo Christo omnis spes mea est reposita.

Ego clara voce precationem illam Germanicam Germa∣nicè recitabam, Herr Jesu, wahrer Mensch und Gott, &c. Ille complicatis manibu•• submissa voce me insequebatur. Quum fi••ivissem, quaesivi an me intellexisset. Respondit, Probe intellexi.

Pergo illa recitare ex verbo Dei quae jamjam morituris in memoriam revocari solent: Quaero, an me intelligat. Resp. Vocem tuam audio, sed quae singula dicas difficulter in∣telligo.

Quum haec dixisset, plane conticuit, & brevi post spiri∣tum exhalavit, in puncto duodecimae nocturnae. Habes Cata∣strophen vitae ab Grotio summo viro actae. Cadaver▪ Medi∣cis post commissum est. Intestina lebeti ah••neo imposita, at in Templi apud nos Primarii Mariae Virgini sacri locum h••∣noratissimum reponerentur, à Templi Praefectis facile im∣petravi. Molliter cineres cubent. Vale. Dabam Rostochii propedie Michaelis, Anno 1645.

Tuus, J. Quistorpius.

My Argument from hence is short and easie. For if Grotius were really a Roman Catholick, he was reconciled to that Church, either 1▪ before, or 2▪ at his death, (for

after his death, you have onely reconciled him in your opi∣nion, without his knowledge or consent,) or 3. at least he thought himself obliged to call (at his death) for such a reconciliation; and so, voto saltem, at least in wish or de∣sire, (that is, as much as in him lay) to seek the peace of that Church from which he had lived so long divided. Not the first, for then he never would have received the Lutheran Minister as he did; much lesse (as he did) have purposely sent for him. Not the second, nor the third; for then Doctor Quistorp's Testimonial had told us which, and had put the whole matter without dispute. I shall once more mind you of Doctor Owen's pretensi••ns, that Grotius was a Socinian; because I since find him disowning the jealousie of Grotius his being a Papist, at least the ma∣nagement of any such thing. If these preten••ions have truth in them, Grotius his ghost is delivered from Popery. If they have no truth at all, you must answer to Doctor Owen your having condemned him of calumny, which to do, you confesse, is an odious thing, a great Crime, such as needeth Repentance and Recantation. (Sect. 1.)

Sect. 6. Notwithstanding all this evidence, whereof the far greater part might have been seen by your self before I shew'd it, you have not scrupled in your Preface to pro∣ceed as followeth, viz. [That you joyn with m•• in charity to Grotius; in that you vindicate him from dissimulation, as I from Popery, Sect. 2.]

Is this then your charity, to call him Papist who was so certainly none? to offer proofs for it by such▪ concluding Arguments, as those must needs be which are brought a∣gainst this evidence in point of Fact? and then to say, that you vin••icate him from dissimulation? I pray Sir tell me, do you take those men for your own Assertors and Hy∣peraspistae, who in their books against you have cited passa∣ges out of your writings whereby to conclude you an Ar∣minian, yea a Socinian, perhaps a Iesuite sometimes, I am sure a Papist, and of the worst sort of Papists (which are the Jesuits) when you professe you are neither? Can those your Adversaries and Brethren be said to have vindicated

your person from dissimulation, who are as known a Pr••s∣byterian as any of them? I am bold to give you that name, because I think you more that then you are any thing else; and because you are vulgarly so accounted, though what you are wholly I cannot learn. Do you not teach an evil lesson against your self? and will your writing a Confession of your particular Faith be able to secure you from Calum∣niators, whilest this method takes place, that he who calls an honest man what he professeth he is not, doth but vin∣dicate and clear him from dissimulation? I pray bear with me on this occasion, whilest I recount how others have dealt with you, and then how you have dealt with others.

You tell us that

Doctor Owen took pains about your person, to prove from your writings you are hypocritically proud, and that he seemed to accuse you of heresie▪ That in his anatomizing of your pride, he played his af••er-game more plausibly then they who before had published abun∣dance of calumnies of you to the world; telling them not onely that you were a Papist, but what books they were that made you a Papist, and what Emissaries you have in all parts of the land. That you and the Worcester-shire Profession of Faith give too much coun••enance to the So∣cinian abominations. Again † you say, that the hardest measure you had from Doctor Owen, was in his Socinian▪ Parallel in (no lesse then) eleven particulars. That Master Crandon bestows a whole Epistle to tell the Rea∣der how he detests your BLASPHEMY. And that the main substance of his Book against your Aphorismes is this, That you are a Papist, and the worser sort of them too.

Now if such men as these, whom you acknowledge to be your Brethren, both learned and judicious, are not hasti∣ly to be credited in what they write against you, notwith∣standing their number as well as quality; how much less may you look for credit in what you write against Grotius? For first the Advocates for Grotius will except against you as his enemy (vel si•• de po••te dejiciendum) and so not fit

to be a Witnesse, much lesse a Iudge. Next you are but a single person. Thirdly, you fasten the name of Papist so very wrongfully upon some, as if you were willing not to be credited when you cast it upon others. For you tell Master Tombes, that if he hath read all the books of Doctor Taylor, he will no more reckon him among the Protestants, having so much of the body of Popery in them. But, Sir, if you have read his Book of Transubstantiation, (which must needs be one of the all you mention) you will find new matter of Retractation. Adde to that his two Letters which do wholly concern the whole Body of Popery; and which as soon as you have read, you will not think his Discourses of Original Sin can (by their single force) be∣come sufficient to metamorphise him into a shape, which he doth not onely disclaim himself, but enable others to disclaim also; and doth antidote some against the contagi∣on of that Disease with which you peremptorily speak him to be infected. One thing comes into my minde (up∣on this occasion) of which I would be glad to have some account. You say in one Book, wherein you speak of Popish Bishops who lurk under the name of Episcopal, That all their Writings or Discourses do carry on the Roman Interest: That in those of them who write of Doctrinals or Devotion, one may find the plain footsteps of common Popery. (You say) You are loth to name men, but you could shew a great deal of Popery in divers such books which you see much in Gentlemens hands, as written by an Episcopal Do∣ctor. In contradiction to one important part of which words, [your being loth to name men] you do name Doctor Taylor in your book above cited. Bishop Wren and Bi∣shop Pierce you also name in that Book in which you pro∣fesse you are loth to name them, as I shall shew by and by. In the mean time I must challenge you (but in the spirit of love and meeknesse) to make good your words above writ∣ten, or to retract them. That if Popish Divines do lie lurk∣ing under the name of Episcopal, they may be punish'd for their Hypocrisie: Or if it is onely your fiction, that you may make reparation for so much wrong. For again,

† your charge of Cassandrian Popery is indefinitely laid against Episcopal Divines, who lie mask'd here in England to do the Pope the greater service. And although you now plead, that you did not intend to raise a jealousie on all the Epi∣scopal Divines (p. 103.) yet I believe you intended to raise a jealousie on the most, because you feared not to name Bish. Wren and Bish. Pierce, as a couple of your fancied Cassan∣drian Papists, who yet are known to be as perfect persevering Protestants, as you to be a Presbyterian (if yet I may say you are truly such.) And though you judge it unmeet to name even those who (you say) have given you just cause of suspicion, because it may tend to breach of peace, and to the harder censuring and usage of the persons, which (you say) is none of your desire, (p. 100.) yet you have nam'd too many (it seems,) against your own judgment, who gave you no cause at all, and have left your Readers to judge by them of the rest. Nay without exception or dis••rimi∣nation, you name the Bishops and the Kings Chaplains, and other Doctors. Admit some Papists did lurk amongst them, I hope you will argue nothing from thence, but that themselves were no Papists. For now you openly confesse, that the Papists are crept in among all sects, the Quakers, Seekers, Anabaptists, Millenaries, Levellers, Independents, yea and the Presbyterians also, (p. 99, 100.) Nay you farther make a Confession, (for which I com∣mend your ingenuity) that the Pope and the Italians might very probably have a considerable hand in raising our warres (p. 106.) Nor do you wonder if it be true that the Papists did not onely kindle our warrs here, and blow the coals on both sides, but also that it was by the Roman influence that the late King was put to death, (p. 108.) When I compare your words with the words of Salmasius, I guesse that the Papists and Presbyterians were both assistants to one ano∣ther in contriving the mischieves of which you spake.

Sect. 7. You say on in your Preface, that had Grotius been living, you think you should have had more thanks from him then I, and that if you understand him, he took it for his glory to be a Member of that Body of

which the Pope is the Head, even to be a Roman Cath••∣lick, Sect. 2.]

Thus it pleaseth you to speak, though without any to∣lerable shew of truth; nor is there any proof offered, but that so you think, and if you understand him. Its very strange that the one point on which your machine is wholly founded, (of the Grotian Religion, and the new way in which the Prelatists are involved) to wit Grotius his be∣ing a Roman Catholick, should be thus feebly introduced with an [I think, and if I understand him.] An humble begging of the Question were a gentile quality to this. There is hardly any the least of your baffled Adversaries▪ but will be able to say as much in his own defence against your Aphorismes; your Adversaries think, (or else they speak against their conscience) and if they understand you, 'tis thus and thus, you are a Socinian, and a Papist, and the worser sort of them too, as some of your Brethren did think, and if they did rightly understand you. How often there∣fore are you pleading that they do misunderstand you? And against all their misunderstandings, you write a thick b••••k in qua••to for the confession of your Faith. (If the dis∣eases had not been numerous, I suppose you had been sh••rter in your prescribing the means of cure.) Grotius his Ghost may well make much shorter work, even by tell∣ing you in a word, that you knew not his mind, nor understood his designes in writing Notes upon Cassander, which were onely P••cifick, not Apostatick; and so your whole Fa∣brick is very speedily at an end. And the one remaining Engine whereby to keep up Presbyt••rianism, to wit, the jealo••sies and feares of the deep Grotian design, (so deep indeed, as not to have the least bottom) in the very same instant doth vanish also.

Sect. 8. You proceed to tell me, that if any shall ga∣ther from your words, my being such my s••lf as you say you manifest Grotius to have been, you protest against such accusations, as no part of your intention. But you say, I have given too much occasion of them by my vindi∣cation, and that 'tis in my power to remove that occ••si∣on,

by disowning what in Grotius I dislike. Sect. 3.]

A fair expedient to conclude this controversie, to al∣low Grotius the same quarter which is given to me as his Advocate. If I shall disown what you dislike, this shall vindicate me from being a Bapist. The like privilege you imply is due to Grotius. First for my self, I declare that I am none. And if Grotius was a Papist, then he and I are of two Religions. But secondly for Grotius, he hath also disowned his being a Papist, as well as you and my self. And that may suffice for his vindication. If you will disown what is dis∣liked by your adverse brethren, you will remove that oc∣casion which they took to call you Papist and S••cinian. But you will say, it is enough that you disclaim being either. Grotius was for an Union (so is the Spirit of Peace and U∣nity) presupposing a Reformation secundum Canones in re∣spect of the Papal power, and presupposing a Reformation of the form of Doctrine according to antiquity and univer∣sal Tradition, as the best Expositors of Scripture, where Scripture is not agreed to expound it self. This is ac∣cording to the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, of all the Fa∣thers of the Church, and of the late Acute King in his Dis∣pute against Henderson, who is acknowledged by you to have been no Papist (p. 105, 106.) though calumniated as such, you know by whom. And however you are said to have fought against him, yet I observe that in this, and some other things, you are for th•• King against the Par∣liament. But to pursue the thrid of my Discourse; Grotius l••ft other things to be reformed and adjusted by Soveraign Princes, with the assistance of their Prelates in their seve∣ral Kingdomes. Now he that likes this Doctrine and De∣sign, and onely thinks it a happinesse too great for this Age, wherein there are on both sides so many irreconcili∣abiles, (to wit, Iesuits on that side, and Presbyterians on this) and therefore appeals to posterity, (as Grotius did) i•• very far from being a Papist in the common acception of the word, (as you do easily pretend Sect. 3.) much lesse is he such in the thing it self. But it is easily foreseen by your close of that Section, how you are resolved to under∣stand it.

Sect. 9. Now for your manifold mistakes of Grotius his words in his Discussio, arising chiefly from the byasse which had been put upon your judgment, (I know not whether by your nescience, or over-great hatred of his design,) and which you urge as so many arguments to prove that Grotius turn'd Papist; I take such arguments to be answered by the bare removal of such mistakes. Your mistakes are re∣moved by being proved to be mistakes: and they are proved to have been such, by the fifth Section of this Chapter, containing eighteen arguments for a matter of Fact, where∣of there are some so irrefragable, that perhaps I may be blamed for adding others: and unlesse you say you are not, I shall comfortably hope that you are convinced. Indeed the writings of Grotius would have convinced you of themselves, if you had read them all, and at leisure, and with those necessary cautions, or remembrancos, which the Reverend Doctor Hammond had timely given. Or had you but weighed what I had told you touching the nature of an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or rather of the way conducing to it, in my 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ch. 3. p. 92, 93, 94. of which I see you determined to take no notice (p. 3.) I told you early (would you have mark'd it) that Grotius as a Peace-maker betwixt the Papists and the Protestants, had labour'd to shew his moderation as well to them as to these; and to excuse ma∣ny things at least à tanto, to which he had not afforded his approbation. For he who attempted a Reconcilement of two great Enemies, was not in prudence to declare a personal enmity to either, but to mitigate the exceptions and animo∣sities of both; and to insist on those things, whether faulty or indifferent, which he desired might meet with (in either party) an interchangeable pardon, and an interchangeable compliance. Melanchthon (I told you) had done the same, and was accused (as well as Grotius) as a slie friend to Popery. The same was done by Thuanus amongst the Papists, who was accused for his labour of having turned Protestant. Indeed his favour to the Protestants was so

much greater then that of Grotius and Melanchthon unto the Papists, that his friends of that Church, as their friends of this, were fain to write his vindication. He might indeed have been a Protestant by the Confession of his Faith in his last Will and Testament, the like to which (I suppose) hath hardly been made by any Papist. And whilest you intimate your opinion that Thuanus was a Pa∣pist of a deeper die then either Cassander of Grotius was, (p. 9.) you infer that Grotius was none at all; or else the Writings of Thuanus are strangers to you.

Sect. 10. I find that rigid Presbyterians would be at peace with the Papists, as the Houses of the long Parlia∣ment would have made peace with their King; to wit, if he would comply with them in all things, and they with him in nothing at all: where as if we make a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by mutual Offices of Friendship, and not a Conquest by acts of Force, there must be Abatements and Allowances on either side. They are not worthy to be imploy'd in ma∣king Amity or Union, who understand not how much 'tis worth. There are a great many truths of so small impor∣tance, that one would part with them all for a dram of charity: and I should think th••t to purchase the peace of Christendom, no Protestant Merchants can bid too high, so long as they part not with old Fundamentals, nor do ac∣cept new Articles of Faith, nor acknowledge subjection to a power, which whensoever it pleaseth may do both the one and the other. Now by your way of arguing that Grotius turn'd Papist, because in order to reconcilement he offered allowances to the Papists, which he would not yield upon other terms, (as many peaceable Christians will ra∣ther part with some petie rights, then perpetuate contention by sutes at Law,) Thuanus also turn'd Prot••stant, and so did Cassander, and Hofmiesterus, and hundreds more whom I could name, who did offer at least as much, on the same condition of reconcilement, they for that side, as he for this. This must therefore be considered by all that read his pacificatory writings: and it ought to be esteemed the ••oblest submission in the World, to part with the utmost

of ones own right, that may in conscience be parted with, for the redemption of such a peace as cannot otherwise be purchased. The victorious Emperour Charles the fifth thought good to quit some of his Empire (not driven by necessity, but drawn by love) for the setling of Religion and Peace in Germany; so did Philip his Son, the potent King of Spain, and Arch-Duke Albert his son in Law, make an humble offer of reconcilement to the Hollanders, which for fourty years together they had denied them. By De Ney the Franciscan, by Lewis Verreich the Arch-Dukes Secretary, and even by Spinola himself, with divers o∣thers whom Grotius names (as it were justifying himself by way of anticipation,) they even supplicated for peace to their natural subjects. The same Philip the second did even buy reconcilement with Henry the fourth, King of France, when that lofty King would not bid any thing towards it. Yet Lewis his Son, (the Duke of Mant••a's Renitency notwithstand∣ing) gave a portion of Monferrat to the Duke of Sa∣voy, as a price laid down in exchange for Amity and Peace. Nay the Emperour Ferdinand the second was con∣tent to yield a good part of Hungary, and so to purchase one peace, though it was but to exclude or break another. Af∣ter all these examples (which do put me in mind of the Christian-like Doctrine in † Hierocles, however he was a Heathen, and writ a Book against Christ) let me adde one more, which is neerer home, and more to my purpose then all the rest, and which I shall earnestly recommend to your most serious consideration.

When his Majesty, at the Treaty in the Isle of Wight, did offer for three years the confirmation of the Directory, and the Form of Church-Government presented to him, and the leasing out of the Bishops lands as far as 99. years, will you say he was turn'd a Presbyterian? I know you will not; because they were offers upon condition of publick

peace, not absolute concessions at all adventure. And condi∣tio non impleta non obligat fidem, is a very good rule in the Civil Law. Nor did he offer what he thought best, precisely con∣sider'd in it self, but what he thought to be the fittest in that juncture of time, when he found himself plac'd 'twixt two evils, whereof in great wisdom) he chose the least. For although he offer'd towards the setling of a peace, no less then 100000 pounds, to be raised out of the B••shops lands, yet first it was onely towards the settlement of a peace, (and a little of that is worth money;) next it was with a Proviso, That the inheritance and propriety should still continue to the Church; thirdly, the peace being de∣nied him, he also denied to confirm his offer into a Grant. Nor would he ratifie the Directory, no not so much as for a day; wch (for the buying of peace) had else obtain'd for three years. But for the Solemn League and Covenant, as he neither would sign it, or consent to it himself, so would he not have it to be imposed upon the consciences of others; no, not in order to any ends, whether personal safety, or publick peace.

This is just the Case of Grotius, excepting that it dif∣fers to his advantage; for he offer'd not so much, and he ask'd for more. Nay farther yet, if Grotius turn'd Papist by seeking to reconcile the Council of Trent with the Pro∣testant Articles of the Augustan Confession, then did Fran∣ciscus à Sanctâ Clarâ (by your Logick) turn Protestant, be∣cause you confesse he did endeavour to reconcile the Ar∣ticles of the Church of England with the Council of Trent. The absurdity of the consequence is in both cases alike. Again, you confe••se † a little before, that Grotius his design had many favorites, both of the better sort of Pa••ists, and of the colder sort of Protestants: from whence I gather this comfort, that however I am a favourer of Grotius his de∣sign, I am yet allow'd to be a Protestant, though one of them whom you call the colder party; that is to say, (as I interpret) I am none of those hot-headed furious men, who

not understanding what spirit they are of (on supposition that they are Christians) are for fire from heaven (if not from hell too) upon all that are not of their perswasion. But as your better sort of Papists are sure the colder, so your colder sort of Protestants are sure the better, (it being clear, that by the colder you mean the more moderate:) and it is much for their honour, that they are lovers of Reconcile∣ment the most of any.

Sect. 11. You object against Grotius, That he was not truly Catholick in his designs and Doctrines (p. 11.)

Yet he excluded not any, but onely said who they were that would not indure to be included. He knew that some peace was better then no peace at all. And shall not parties of moderation seek an agreement with one another, because they cannot agree with the two Extremes? Can you name any one person whom he forbad to accept of the terms propos'd? Or is an offer the lesse Catholick, for being made upon conditions to every Creature? You cannot say this, who are for Catholick Redemption: or when you write your self Catholick, and set forth terms of Christian Concord, can you imagine that your design is half so Ca∣tholick as his? I cannot imagin that you can. You indeed will be at unity with all the World, if all the World will agree with your Worcestershire combination. But so the World will be at Vnity, if all will embrace the design of Grotius; nay all the World had been at Unity if all had agreed with Iohn of Leyden. Sed nihil hoc ad Iphicli boves. And what you say against Grotius, is gratis dictum.

Sect. 12. But you stick not to affirm, that Grotius calls us all to impossible terms of unity, as the onely terms, (p. 12.) every whit as impossible as a medicine from the Moon, or the Antipodes, or the brains of a Phoenix to cure a Patient, p. 13.]

1. You seem to forget what you had said at another time, to wit, that Grotius was a man not of great reading onely, and much learning, but that he had also a mighty judgment to improve it. Nay that you take him for so learn∣ed and so judicious a man, as you do not judge your self wor∣thy

in any such respect to be named with him, p. 4. Now whether it suits with a man of judgment to prescribe a medicine from the Moon, or what is equally impossible, and to spend so many years in it, as Grotius professeth to have done, I shall onely leave to your future consideration.

2. You are unmindful of the parties to whom the terms of peace were more immediately propounded; even the moderate Papists, who were of the temper of Thuanus, and the moderate Protestants, who were of the temper of good Melanchthon: not the rigidest of the Papists, who were wholly devoted unto the Papacy; nor the rigidest of the Protestants who perfectly doat on the Presbyterie: and yet the onely way imaginable whereby to draw them to moderation, were for those that are moderate to allu••e them to it by their example. For whom was it possible to a∣gree, if not for the soberest of either party? nay for whom was it probable, if not for them who desir'd it with so much fervour?

3. You little think how many, or how important persons there have been, who having the same aimes with Grotius, and having used the same indeavours, have expected to reap some better fruit, then meerly their labour for their pains, even Emperours, Kings, Cardinals, Bishops, and di∣vers others as wise personages as the Christian world hath lately had, and as well of the Protestant as Roman party. The words of Zanchy are worth observing, What can be more to be desired by every man that fears God, then that we live and die in that Church (meaning the Roman, of which alone he there speaks) wherein by Baptism we were born a∣gain? yet he was then no Papist, but onely a moderate Presbyterian.

4.

You professe not to distaste the pacificatory desires or designs of Grotius, (p. 6.) how much soever you ac∣cuse them, (p. 15, 16, 17, 18.) And you say, You are a per∣son of so little worth or interest, that you cannot in reason

expect that your endeavours in such a work should have any considerable success. But yet that you will speak and write for peace, though you saw not a man in the World that would regard it, or return you any better thanks then a Reproch, p. 6.

Allow to Grotius the same zeal, who was a man of great worth, and great interest in the world, knew (better then you) what peace was best, and which were the best ways to gain it, & was regarded for what he did by the best men in the World, however reproched by the most envious. You have a confident † saying of your own project, to make up the breaches which have been betwixt the Lutherans and Calvinists, the Iesuites and the Dominicans, &c. [That if your Principles propounded shall have an impartial Reception according to their evidence, you will give us security to make good your confidence, that they shall quiet the Christian World hereabouts.] When you have thus set forth your self, you should permit me with patience to speak as highly for Grotius too.

5. But I desire you in special to make reflexion upon a Passage you have printed in your debate with Master Tombes: where having said, in the Defence and Commen∣dation of Erastus, That he was a very learned judicious man in Divinity, Philosophy and Physick, and having ju∣stified his medling without the sphaere of his own calling in the business of Divinity, and having also said of him, that some of his book is erroneous, his arguments very weak for mixt communion, and that he seemeth oft to contradict what he there pleadeth for; you proceed in these words, which seem to me very remarkable:

For my part, (were my judgment of any moment to others) after my serious study in this point, both in Scri∣pture and Antiquity, (specially the Writers of the three first Centuries) I am confidently perswaded that the true way of Christs Discipline is parcell'd out between the Episcopal, Erastian, Presbyterian and Independents, and that every party hath a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Truth in peculiar— And I verily think that if every one of the four parties do entirely establish their own way, they will not establish the Scripture-way.

]

These are all your own words: and to these you adde more, [That let it be taken how it will, you will acquaint the world with your thoughts of this also, if God will so long draw out your life.] But if you put forth such a work, you will quickly find your self more. No Ishmael had ever more hands against him, for your hand will be against all. And may not your medicine from the Moon with the bruins of a Phoenix, be applied by me against your attempt, as well as you have appli'd it to that of Grotius? Such a design as this is, would make the unity and peace of the Church seem impossible, and our Divisions desperate. Turpe est Doctori, quem culpa redarguit ipsum. It should seem by this, that in your judgment the true discipline of Christ hath been revealed onely to you, or at least, that you one∣ly have found it out by your industry. Nor are you onely a Presbyt••rian, but an Episcopal Divine, an Erastian als••, and Independent; or if you are not all, you are neither. Nor indeed can you be either in point of Di••ci••line, unless you are professedly against the Scripture. When you say you would cleave to any party that you could perceive were in the right, (p. 24.) you do but say in effect, that you cleave to none, you having declared your belief, that none of those entire wayes is the Scripture-way. But why was a Natio∣nal League and Covenant both sworn and fought for? and persecutions made use of, for non-conformity to the Cove∣nant? Why were men so expensive of Blood and Con∣science for the pulling down of Episcopacy so well esta∣blish'd, and for the setting up of a Scotish Presbytery in the room, if the former was partly, and the l••ter but partly the way of Christ's discipline? May not the Independents and the Erastians do as much against Presbyterie, as Presbyte∣rians have done against the Prel••cy of the Church, and cite your judgment, as one defensative of their own? Of all the Ministers in the land, the Presbyterians who were Preachers within the Province of London A. D. 1647. and protested so much against all toleration, which did not well comport with their solemn League and Cove••ant,

will least of all thank you for your discovery. 'Tis true, you have also your Pacisick De••ign: but so little hath it of Catholicism, and so impossible it is to prove effectual, that (after your having accused Grotius) it onely serves to make you fall under your own condemnation. When you say that Christ's and the Scripture way is parcell'd out be∣tween four parties, and that every party hath a piece of the truth in peculiar, (that is to say, not common to it with a∣ny one of the other three) and so that the whole of the Truth must be compounded of four Ingredients; some of your readers will reflect on the onceit of Tamerlane, that Re∣ligion ought to be like a Posie, which smells best, when made up of the most variety. And I have read that Ma∣homet (of the Tribe of Ishmael) thought fit to make up his new Religion, by borrowing (and blending with his In∣ventions) one parcel from the Pagans, another from the Iews, a third from the Arians, a fourth from the Nestori∣ans, a fifth from the Manichees, that so he might (with the greater ease) reconcile them all unto himself. And (with pardon to the comparison, which is not intended to run on four feet) if in the Medlie which you propose, the compo∣nent parts will so temper and correct each other, that the whole will be grateful to every party, you will not onely grow famous as the first Discoverer of the thing, but (na∣ture being thus changed and tamed) our Lambs will dwell safely within the neighbourhood of the Wolf, and the Leo∣pard inoffensively lie down with the Kid. You who have given in your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after serious study of the point, both in Antiquity and the Scriptures, may speak unexpectedly in your account. But you have left me to wonder, (and I suppose some thousands more) which ingredient of the four shall be praedominant in the mixture, or which shall be the Basis of all the structure, so as to give satisfaction to every par∣ty; or whether in the mixture all parts can be equal, and a Structure erected without a Basis. If four distinct parties have the Truth of Christ's Discipline divided be∣twixt them, unlesse it be equally divided, they will not all own an equal right to the inheritance on every side. Else

when the Presbyterian Ministers were so hard put to it by his Majesty at the Isle of Wight, to give in their An∣swer to these Queres, 1. Whether there be a certain Form of Government left by Christ or his Apostles to be observed by all Christian Churches; 2. Whether it bind perpetually, or be upon occasion alterable in whole, or in part; 3. Whether that certain form of Government be the Episcopal, Presby∣terian, or some other differing from them both, (and we know how shamefully they did again and again decline answering the Queres, though they confessed them to be of great importance) your quadri-partite way might have serv'd their turn, had it not been for their usual boast, that since the times of Christianity their own is the onely Divine Model in the World. To the glory of which priviledge the Episcopal party laying claim, with fairer reasons for their pretension, how will you do for the share of the other two, (the Independent and the Erastian) and reconcile Ex∣tremes of so great a distance? If I say not (in civility) that the terms imply a contradiction; yet I know there are of your Presbyterians who will say that the mention of such terms doth carry in the Forehead its own confusion.

Sect. 13. Your following reasons of dislike (from p. 15. to p. 19.) are at least as feeble as your two first, they ha∣ving nothing to support them but your particular wants of apprehension, if not the strength of your prejudice against Grotius his Doctrine and Design. For first when you say, that in the name of a peace-maker he divideth and cutteth off the holiest parts of the Church on earth, (p. 15, 16.) it is gratis dictum, without so much as a shew of proof; and a pitiful begging of the Question, which no man living will grant you, who is not partially addicted to all you say. You fitly confesse (in a Parenthesis) you do but speak your own judgment. And what is your judgment compar'd with that of immortal Grotius, who knowingly judged those men to be the greatest subverters of Church and State, (and that incessantly by their Principles, as well as fre∣quently by their Practice, even as often as they have power to reduce their Principles into Practice,) whom you af∣firm

without scruple, as without colour of excuse, to be the holiest part of the Church on earth? What you say, and but say, of my reproching Puritans throughout my book, (very politickly forbearing to cite so much as one page or passage) doth not belong to this place, and shall be duly spoken of in a peculiar Chapter. And when you tell me that Grotius doth make the name of the Reformed or Pro∣testants a note of reproch, to those that will not be reconciled to the Pope, you do not onely beg the Question, and speak without an offer of reason for it, but as contrary to truth, as if you had affected its opposition. For I have made it ap∣pear, that he did honour the name of Protestant, and recko∣ned himself with the Reformed. But he noted with a black coal, those rebellious Schismaticks in the Protestant Churches, (if yet I may so speak without implying a con∣tradiction, for they cease to be of our Church, by their se∣parating themselves from our Communion) who usurp'd the title of the Reformed, and help'd to justifie the Papists in all their clamours, by still pretending to be R••formers of our most excellent Reformation. I can prove (by your own Logick) that you your self are a reviler of the Protestant name, by throwing such Cart-loads of dirt upon the Regular Sons of the Church of England, who will e∣ver be esteemed (do what you can) the most judiciously-reformed of all the Protestants in the World. Again you dishonour the Pro••estant name, by calling the irre••oncilia∣••iles, the holiest men; and by pleading so much for Puri∣tanes (as the godliest part of the Protestants) who call a Rebellion, a Reformation, and stick the term of Christian purity on the most palpable hypocrisie to be imagined. For these alone are the Puritanes whom both Grotius, and Bis••op Andrews, Bishop Hall, and Doctor Sanderson, and indeed the most renowned of all the Protestants in the World have taught us to know, and to avoid, under that very name. And therefore let me intreat you to be so just for the future, (even to those whom you are pleased to single out for your Adversaries) as to suffer their own words to be the interpreters of their own meaning.

Sect. 14. The next reason of your dislike (p. 16.) is but an uncharitable Assertion (without so much as pretending to any proof) that Grotius his way was uncharitable, and a trap to ingage the souls of millions in the same. But they that read and understand him do know the contrary, that Peace, and Loyalty, and Obedience, and mutual Love, were all the traps wherein Grotius would very fain have engaged the souls of men. You think not so ill of his design, as your Fathers and Superiours do think of yours: yet i•• it lay in your power, you would engage the souls of millions in it. And if you may be so zealous in your contrivance, much more may Grotius be allow'd to have been in his; you having confessed you are not worthy to be so much as nam'd with him, and that a small measure of humility may make you serious in your profession, p. 4. And if you fall so very short both of his learning and of his judgment, take my word you fall shorter of his integrity of life, if you will but allow me to take your own. And I shall cite your own words in their proper place.

Sect. 15. As your fourth reason (so called) was the same in substance with your third, so now your fifth (if not your sixth) is the same in substance with the two former. As affirming a tendency in the design of Grotius to engage the Princes of Christ••ndom in a persecution of their subjects that cannot co••ply with these unwarrantable terms, p. 17. In this you say no more of Grotius, then any man living may say of you, or indeed of any man living. But as you nakedly say it, with a great deal of confidence in stead of reason, so is it known to all the World, to whom the meekness of Gro∣tius is not utterly unknown, that he was as far from such •• project as he was from being a Pr••sbyterian. If to hinder subjects from treading all under their feet, (as well their Soveraigns, as fellow subjects,) must passe with you for a persecution, then was Grotius as guilty as you expresse him; for he indeed exhorted Prin••es to beware of those Mi∣nisters who taught the people to be rebellious, and to call it by the fine title of setting Christ upon his Throne. He would not have Sacrilege, and Murder, and all manner

of Rapine, to be freely exercised and used as the proper means of Reformation. He could not indure that the fil∣thiest fruits of the flesh should be ascribed to the suggestions of Gods good Spirit. And if men are grown to such a pitch of impiety, as not to be satisfied with less then with a liberty of Conscience to cut mens throats, they ought not to call it a persecution, to be happily bound to some good behaviour. What you adde of the attempts of pride, when men have such high thoughts of their own imaginati∣ons and devices, that they think the Churches wounds can be healed by no other plaister, but by this of their compounding, (p. 17, 18.) is so unduly appli'd to Grotius, that it hath many reflexions upon your self; for you know you have been a great promissor in your dayes. You mislike the Plaister proposed by Grotius, and that of some late Episco∣pal Divines, which yet you prefer before that of Grotius (p. 21.) you mislike the ••l••ister of Bis••op Bramhal, (p. 22, 25.) and indeed what is there, which (in other men) you do not publickly dislike? But you like your own Plaister, as abundantly sufficient to heal the wounds of the Church; at least, as better then other mens. It appears by what I have cited from you in the twelfth Section of this Chapter, and by what you said in your Preface to your book of Sa∣craments, and by what you now say in your Grotian Religi∣on, (p. 29.) that though the Tongue is a little member, yet it boasteth great things.

Sect. 16. You say the sixth reason of your dislike of Gro∣tius his Pacification, and all such as his, is because it engageth the Church of Christ in a way of sin, both in false Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship, p. 18.] still a confident affirmer of what your interest or your passion suggesteth to you, with∣out the appearance of any ground excepting your absolute Decree to reprobate Grotius and his Design. But 'tis e∣nough that I deny, what you think it enough but to affirm; and do know that Grotius his Pacification was as much su∣periour unto your own, (in all imaginable respects) as you and your Writings are confessedly inferiour to him and his. A little while since you were professing, that you distaste

not Grotius his Pacificatory designs, and that if you could find such a heart within you, you would cast it in the dust, and con∣demn it to shame, and sorrow, and recantation; (p. 18.) yet now you say in plain terms, that you dislike his pacification (p. 18.) nay you vehemently dislike it, as appears by the e∣normities with which you charge it. It was the Motto of King Iames, who had it out of Christ's School, Beati pacifici, Blessed are the Peace-makers. And therefore Grotius, as a pacifick, was much esteemed by that King. Nor can he be one of Christ's family who doth not love Pacification. But if by that word you mean his Pacificatory de••ign, how came you to dislike (at your eighteenth page) what (but twelve pages before) you highly liked? If you say you di∣stinguish his particular way from his design, it seems your qua••rel is onely this, that having chosen a good end, he did not jump with your humour in chusing the means of its attainment. But methinks for this you should never have us'd him as you have done, because he knew not you were an Oracle, and so he could not consult you concerning the course he was to take. You do avow your approbation of Pacificatory attempts between us and the Papists, p. 30. where then lay the fault, when Grotius attempted such a pacifica∣tion with the greatest Industry and Wisdom that God had given him? Had you been as Grotius in point of powe•• and prudence, (to say no more) you would have taken his course; and so if Grotius had been as you, he would no doubt have taken yours. But Grotius being as he was, one of the wisest and most learned of all mankind, and you continuing as you are, neither the wisest, nor the most learned, what matter of wonder can it be, if he was other∣wise advis'd then you would have him? If you do really take Grotius to have been so learned and so judicious as you expresse, (p. 4.) and do as really judge your self unwor∣thy to be named with him, as in the page I now cited you have acknowledged; methinks it is pity that your whole Book should be little else then a preferring your opinion before his judgment, your jealousies and fears before his knowledge, and your fortuitous conjectures before his exact

deliberations. Whereas you add, that you abhor their dis∣position who can despise or violate the Churches. Peace for every pety conceit of their own, which they have called by the name of ••ruth or Duty, (p. 19.) you oblige your self and your party to do some very severe penance for having vio∣lated the Peace of the Church of England, which for so many happy years had been establish'd. The Presbyteri∣an way of Discipline was a pety conceit of their own, as you at least must acknowledge, who have written against it, as hath been shewed. The Common-Prayer book (you † con∣fess) was more perfect then the Directory, which was there∣fore another of the pety conceits, for which the peace of the Church was despised and violated. Nay you complain to Mr. Tombs, that plain duties were wiped out, and excellent things taken from us, which we were in actual possession of. Your National-Covenant it self you must acknowledge was a pety conceit of your own, for which you have cause to repent, if we may credit your † own words. Why then did you violate the Churches peace? or if you abhor your self for it, why do you not make us some satisfaction? You are often an admirer of Bishop Davenant, who had told you all in good time, that rather then have troubled the peace and quiet of the Church under which you lived in sub••ecti∣on, and of which you did profess you all were members, you should quietly have depar••ed into some other Church, to which you could have been pleased to yield obedience, or have remained in ours without disturbance. Nay this (said the Bishop) you should h••ve done, tho••gh you had thought your opinions had been of such moment, as that sal∣vation it self depended on them. How much mo••e should you have done it, when the things you stood u••on so stifly were pety conceits of your own, and co••fessed such at long running, however magnified at your first setting out? I ever ap••lauded those dissenting and dissatisfied brethren, who peaceably went into New-England and other parts of America, until I was taught that they intended a very unpeaceable return. Be not angry at your M••n ••r but meekly receive the admonition, not at all for my sake, but

Bishop Davenant's. And if according to your own Do∣ctrine, Truth ought to be suspended for love of peace, then be not offended with this consequence, that you must judge the way of Grotius or Bishop Bramhall very much worthier to be followed then your own or Mr. Chilling∣worths (p. 29.) in case they are likelier to take effect. This I say you must do, unless you can give some better reason then I am able to expect for your refusal.

Sect. 17. Now that you see what you have gotten by the six Reasons of your Dislike, (for such it was in your power to call them, though not in power to make them such,) be pleas'd to reflect on your profession (p. 9.) that [your thoughts of Grotius are not either bitter, censorious, or uncharitable.] In which profession if there is Truth, why would you write what you never thought? Did you think it was e∣nough to think well of the man, whilest you spake as ill of him as it was possible for you to speak? If your expressions are so bitter when you are full of sweet thoughts, I wonder what words you could have us'd in case your thoughts had been bitter too. Or what advantage could you aim at, in pouring out so many bitter censorious words, and in profes∣sing at the same time a contrariety of your thoughts?

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

But perh••ps you may deny that there is bitterness in your words, and therefore that shall be tried before I leave you. If you forget what is past, it will be good for your memory to look before you.

Sect. 18. For now I hasten to conclude my Vindication of Grotius. And I hasten so much the rather, because I hear it will be done in an elaborate manner, and ex profes∣so, by a great admirer of his perfections, and because I hope I have said enough to make you sensible of your mis∣take. For methinks you should not take leasure in trying to make men believe that the learnedst of mortalls at last turnd Papist; or (in case that that is too bold a word) one so rich∣ly accomplished with all variety of secular and sacred knowledge, joyned to wonderful endowments of Grace and

Nature, but for nothing more remarkable, then acuteness of research, and depth of judgement. Now that a person of such importance should in the full maturity of all these excellencies forsake the Protestant Religion in exchange for the Papist••, would be a greater advantage to our adversa∣ries then I am willing to afford them, and I heartily wish you had not done it. For the Roman Catholicks are too apt to take such honours unto themselves when they can find the least ground or occasion for them. Had Grotius really been a Papist, how many Protestants had we lost by the powerful attractive of his example? Nay if Mr. Cran∣don and others durst call you Papist, and one of the worst sort of Papists, even before you contended for Grotius his turning from us to Rome, how much more will they call you such, if you shall possibly persist (as you have begun) to do the Papists so great a service? I do assure you for my sel••, that if it lay in my power to prove an Apostasie of Groti∣us from us to Rome, although the Pope should reward it with a Cardinal's Cap, I would not yield the Church of Rome so great advantage: so great is my love to the Church of England. I know it is not your meaning to serve and gratifie the Romanists, because you speak as ill of Grotius as if he were not worth having. You say he was

exaspe∣rated by his imprisonment, &c. That he was too much † guil∣ty of uncharitable censures; That he was a Dissembler, if not a Papist; a That he dropt into a deplorable Schism; b That his way is uncharitable and censorious, woundeth under pretense of healing, in the name of a Peace-maker he divideth and cuts off the holiest parts of the Church on earth; c That his Design is a Trap to tempt and en∣gage the souls of millions into the same uncharitable, cen∣sorious, and reprochful way; d That it tendeth to en∣gage the Princes of Christendom in a persecution of their subjects that cannot comply with uncharitable terms; e That this is the unhappy issue of the attempts of pride, when they have such high thoughts of their own devices, and depart from the word of God and the simplicity of the Faith; That his Design engageth the Church of

Christ in a way of sin, both in false Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship. g (You imply that he calumniated the Patriarch Cyril.) You say of him expresly, h That the injustice and partiality shews the meaning of the man; i That his Design was Schismati••al, Partial, and Cruel; k That you dare boldly say, he was an unjust man, &c. putting a more odious vizor on the face of the Calvinists Doctrines of Faith, Iustification, &c. then beseemeth any judicious man that understood the state of the Controver∣sies, or the strength of an Argument, and had any Chri∣stian charity left. l You reproch him further, with falshood and abomination of inhumane ca••umnies; wi••h too high an esteem of his espoused conceits, and too odious thoughts of the contrary way; m with noise and bitter accusation poured out against the Reformed Churches; with censures running upon meer mistake, and odiously aggravating the opinions that deserve it not, and that were far neerer his own then he imagined; n with bitter censures, repro∣ches, clamours, and a factions uncharitable way of pacifi∣cation. Again you say o he is guilty of his own mistakes, upon which he changed his Church and Religion.

Thus you speak of that holy and learned man, in such a strange and amazing strain, that Mr. Hickman himself could hardly have used a greater virulence. And yet you pretend great honour to him, yea a debt of Gratitude which you owe him for the great benefit of his works. † Yea, that if you might be partial for any man, it were very likely to be for Grotius. Leaving your readers to imagine how vile a creature that man must be, of whom his very partial and obliged and thankful Client (or Disciple) was forced to publish such ugly things. And as if this were not suffici∣ent, you say you ever stopt your ears against the accusation of the blemishes commonly reported of his life, in some points, and suspended your censures of him. (p. 5.) By which un∣christian Paralipsis you leave your Readers to imagine that he was a very scandalous ungodly liver, which is ac∣counted by some the very worst way of slandering, where notoreity of Fact doth not excuse it. I therefore shall an∣tidote

your Readers (if they are mine) with this short Declaration, That by all I have been able to learn of Grotius, (either from other mens writings, or from his own, or from those excellent persons who had many years enjoyed a friendship with him,) I cannot but value his godly life by many degrees above his learning.

You have done your self a shrewder turn then I could possibly have wish'd you, by writing so bitterly of so good, &c so great a Christian. And though I hope you will ac••now∣ledge that I oppose you (in his defence) without distem∣per; yet do I heartily wish you had not writ against him, that so I might not have been obliged thus to write against you. That Grotius may be defended, you will not deny, having defended him your self against the attempts of a modern Doctor. And as you have defended him in one case, I have but defended him in another.

CHAP. II.

Sect. 1. YOu very readily acknowledge [

my brotherly and moderate dealing with your self, and you say, you must acknowledge my gentleness and charity, Sect. 4.

] I am glad my charity, gentleness, and modera∣tion were so conspicuous in my Writings that you could not but see them; and so undeniable, that you could not but acknowledge them to all the World, even at that very time too, when you made it apparent how willing you were to find faults. For you accuse me (in the same breath) of wanting charity to others, and of making my learning sub∣servient to partial interest or passion. But you name not where, or when, or wherein, or towards whom, I had shew'd such passion or partiality; which had you been able to have done, I am forbid to believe you would have spar'd me. If I was partial to you, Sir, by being more brotherly, more moderate, more charitable and gentle, then you seem to your self to have deserved, you ought in all reason to have forgiven me this wrong. Had others deserved

no worse of me then your self had then done, my gentle dealing with others had been as signal. And had you been eithe•• as slanderous or as blasphemous as others were, the ex••re••sions of my dislike had been as freely distributed unto your self as to any others with whom I dealt. I must not be unwilling to ••lear mine own innocence (as to the ca∣lumnies c••st u••on me) much less to clear God from the evil repor••s brought up against him, for fear the friend•• of the malefactors should accuse me (as you have done) of partial interest and passion.

Sect. 2. Nor did you onely say this, but ••ro∣ceeded to the worst that could be said, even to cen∣sure me as a person in a state of damnation, and some∣what worse then so too; (th••t is to say) in a wo••se ••state of damnation then David was in before Nathan sp••ke to him; Sect. 20.] Before Nathan spake to him, he was in a state of impenitency; and why should you rather chuse to die in such a state, a murder••r, adulterer, and an hypocri••e, and impeni∣tently such, (at that time) then in the state that I am in, whom you confess to have committed no such sin, (sect. 20.) if you did not think me to be a Reprobate? for if I am one of the elect as well as David, I shall also repent as undoubtedly as David, let my sins be what they can be. Do you think my greatest sin is this, that I am not guilty of such sins as David's? or that Adultery and Murder are qualifications for a Saint? I pray examine your own heart, and be jealous over your self; and say, if my charity to∣wards you (which you acknowledge under your hand) did deserve a requital so void of c••arity. I assure you, that by this and some other passages in your book, you have been heavily censur'd, even by many of your way; and ut∣terly lost their good opinion•• who once admir'd you. If you continue to write much, and so to write as you have done, no man living will have need to write against you. As for your bitterness to me (in this and some other places) I am no more concerned in it, then I ought to be for your sake, and do most earnestly pray, That it may never be laid unto your charge. It is not the least of my comforts,

(for they are many) that, when I pray for the repentance of you and others, (by whom I have been most f••ulely ••udged,) I do not ••ray without Faith, or without sincerity: & though I desire you not to judg, that you may not be judged; yet judge the worst of me you can, I will ••udge of you the best I may.

You say [I seem, as Grotius, to be too much affected to my opinions, commonly called Arminian, and too much imbit∣te••ed against other mens, Sect. 5.]

Sect. 3. Indeed I was told you meant me, when you flung a side-cast at the Northamptonshire Arminian in your voluminous book of Disputations. And though I would not sustain a double person, by taking an offence where none was given; yet now I conjecture you did really strike at me by that expression, although you fortun'd to hit your self. That I am affected to my opinions, as Grotius was, who was so eminent an example both of Iudgment▪ and Piety, and Impartiality, is by much a greater advan∣tage to me, then I could ever have pretended to have de∣serv'd. And therefore for this, I thank your bounty. How you your self have been ••ffected to the very same Do∣ctrines which are as commonly called Arminian also, not a few of your party have made us know by their censures; for which you gave them as just occasion, as either Gro∣tius or I have ever given. Will you own the opinions of Cameron, Amyrald, and learned Daille? If you say no, it will be at your pe••ill. I suppose (by what you have printed) you must needs say yes. And then in the judg∣ment of Spanhemius, with other persons of great name, (who are as fit to judge of Amyralds Doctrines, and so of yours, as you can be to judge of mine,) you deserve the name of Arminian, Puccian, Pelagian, Semipelagian, and not onely so, but Socinian also: so easie it is to give men names. You had never (I am perswaded) writ a∣gainst any man as an Arminian, if you had not forgotten that words have wings. And so perhaps you will say, when you shall read my fifth Section.

Sect. 4. Nor are you any whit hap••ier in the second part of your accusation. For first, if Grotius and my self

have been imbitter'd against the Doctrines of other men, who have made God to be the Author and Fautor of Sin; and have been so far imbitter'd as to accuse them of blas∣phemy; you will wrong your self extremely, by saying we are too much imbitter'd, for Doctrines lesse impious are cal∣led in Scripture, † the Doctrines of Devils. No•• have the Fathers of the Church, whether Ancient or Modern, been less imbitter'd against the same. (As I have plentifully snew'd in another place.) Next I conceive that you your self have been much more imbitter'd upon much less ground. For not to speak of your bitterness to the most worthy Grotius and my unworthy self, and to the excellent Tilenus, it seems the men of your way have not escap'd you. Do not you ask God pardon for bitter speeches in your Treatise of Iudgment? I am sure you deplore them in your † Apology against Mr. Blake, Kendal, Moulin, Eyre, and Crandon, by thi•• good token, that you are most bitter to Doctor Kendall, whil'st you confess your bitter∣ness to be your crime. Insomuch that Master Hickman hath shewed his bitterness to me by your example to Doctor Kendall. What you have said to the m••n who renounc'd his Orders and the Lo••d's Prayer I neither know nor will make a search, but I may guess there was bitter∣ness by his to you. How you have used M••ster Pemble and Doctor Twiss, I hope I need not put you in mind. I remember your bitterness to such as were spruce in their apparel, and delighted in May-games, Morice-dances, Shewes, or Stage-Playes, whom you ea••ily adjudge to the pains of Hell. I am no friend to those follies▪ and thieves of time: but had I been of your Counsel, I would h••ve ad∣vis'd you to speak from Scripture, and to have shew'd your severity to Rebellion rather, or Sacriledge, to Schism and blood-shed, and other fruits of the flesh; of which a for∣mal godliness is not the l••ast, and of which I shall speak as occasion serves. For many strain at those Gnats, who yet can swallow these Camels. Wh••t bitterness you h••ve used to the wearing of Surplices and oth••r things which

are indifferent, (consider'd simply in themselves) but made your duties as well as ours, when commanded by that autho∣rity which God hath commanded us to obey, you may see in your Saints Rest, part 3. p. 91. And how severely such bitterness against the Rites established in the Church hath been censur'd by S. Paul, yea by God the Holy Ghost, you have been told by that learned and peaceable Divine Doctor Sanderson, in his fifth Sermon ad Populum p. 291, 292, 293. I pray Sir bear with me, whilest I speak the words of truth and soberness: Remember what it is of which you have accused both me and Grotius. And that in or∣der to your amendment, (which is an act of the greatest friendship) as well as in order to our Defence (which im∣plies the onset to have been made from your pen) I have but warn'd you for the future, to † cast the beam out of your own eye, before you say to your brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye.

You confess [

you are grown to a very great confidence, that most of our contentions about those points are more a∣bout words then matter, Sect. 5.

]

Sect. 5.] So you told that learned person whom you de∣scribe by his six Metaphysical Exercitations (in your book of Saving Faith, p. 5.) and by his living in the pub∣lick Library at Oxford (p. 6.) that he was indeed your as∣senting Adversary, and maintained your Assertion by a pretended Confutation; which was strange he should do and be learned still. So you told another who writ against you, as you against him, that you did but angrily agree. (Disp. p. 483.) Indeed it were happy if all the World had got that knack of differing into agreement, and of falling out into perfect friendship. What Cicero saith of the Academicks and Peripate∣ticks, that agreeing in Things they one∣ly differed in appellations, I wish I could say of all our contentions here in Eng∣land, in the Points you speak of. You have confidently said it, and so it lies upon you to make it good: 'tis not incumbent upon me who never said it. And

first of all you must shew that there are few material dif∣ferences 'twixt you and me. To which it is consequent, that you have embraced the greatest part of the very opi∣nions which I assert with so much eagerness; not that I have receded from my Assertions, for my adherence unto which you are pleased to call me an eager man. Again it follows from hence that there are few contentions 'twixt me and Mr. Barlee, unless it be about words; or that your self and Mr. Barlee are really differing in opinions. What a fallacy is there in your phrase, [Our Contentions] if you mean your self and me? for you know the eagerness, in∣terest, and passion, which you make the subjects of your rebuke (though of no larger a size then you deal to others) were not dealt against you, as you dilucidly confess (Sect. 4.) but against some of the Consistory, from whom you differ in point of Doctrine, and with whom you agree in point of Discipline. So that the Case in effect lies clearly thus: I have written severely against some rigid Presbyterians, who have written against universal Redemption, and for God's tempting, stirring up, exciting men to sin; and you (a sin∣gular Presbyterian) are severe to these Doctrines, as well as I; but think the onely found way whereby to answer an Arminian, is by asserting the Doctrine of universal re∣demption, and the natural consequences thereof, (that is) by yielding unto me (bearing the name of an Arminian from you, as you from others) one of the chief of my concernments. For this alone being granted, (as by you it is) I shall not contend for any thing else which shall not be consequent and agreeable to this one principle. Yet see and wonder at your own excess of partiality, which hath made you so far consider your fellow-Presbyterians, as to rebuke your fellow-Arminians for their passion and bitter∣ness against those Doctrines, against which you have writ∣ten with equal keeneness, and so contracted upon your self the odious title of Arminian, which yet to you should be the less odious, because Arminius and his followers were but the better sort of Presbyterians. I cannot but wish you will declare what you are for, and stick to what

you shall declare: for he is called a sinner, that goeth two wayes at once, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was the great fault of the Gnosticks. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Homer, did not better fit Mars then it will fit any man else, who is against what he is for, as well as for what he is against.

Sect. 6. Whereas you add so distinctly, [That I and my Antagonist do make our selves and others believe that we differ much more about them then we do, Sect. 5.] You do not lessen but raise my wonder: for can there be any two points more different then those in which Mr. Barlee and I have differ'd? our difference stands in those things, which have set the Calvinists and the Lutherans so irrecon∣cileably at odds. Observe the words of that holy and learned man Doctor Iackson, who having spoken of seve∣ral sorts of Idolaters, (saith he)

Besides all these, I am to give you notice of some in reformed Churches who com∣mit the same error which they so much condemn in the Romanist. The Romanist transforms or changes the na∣ture of the incorruptible God, and of Christ himself into the similitude of earthly Kings and Monarchs, yet not of cruel and prodigious Tyrants. But these Writers whom I mean (as the Romanists object, and the Lutherans prove) transform the Majesty and Glory of God into the ••imili∣tude of cruel Tyrants, yea of such base and sordid Pedants, as the meanest among you would disdain should have any authority over your children; (that is) such as delight more in punishing and correcting them, then to direct or a∣mend them in learning or manners.

] Now if so learned a part of the Reformed Churches as the Lutherans by all must be acknowledged, have broken off all League and Amity with the Calvinists, even because they h••ve con∣ceived

that they did not agree with them in the worship of the same God, or transformed Gods nature into the simili∣tude of his enemy, into hatred and cruelty it self

, (as the same Doctor hath it) sure the difference must needs be more then verbal, where one party saith (as I have done) that God's decree of Reprobation is with respect had to

sin, which God foresaw from all eternity; and another party saith (as my Antagonists have done) that God's Decree of Reprobation is without respect had to sin. I need not name more Instances of the material differences which pass between us. Or if the difference were more in words then matter, then how much hath that party to answer for, by opposing my notes with so much violence?

You farther adde, (and desire my pardon for the addi∣tion) That I do not well understand the true state of the Controversie, or else I would not take the breach to be wider then it is, Sect. 5.]

Sect. 7. Who best understands it, you, or I, neither you nor I must be the Iudge: I pray let our Readers enjoy that Office. You scrupled not to tell that learned person, whom you so far honour as to profess you should have thought it an honour to you to have been one of his Pupills, (of saving Faith, p. 5.) I say you scruple not to tell him, that you would have him understand you, before he confutes you. (p. 83.) Nor do I expect you should use me better. Nay you charge even Grotius with the same mistakes and misunderstandings. p. 90, 91, 92. But what Controversie do you mean? if that which I have managed with several persons who had opposed me, my very Opponents will say, I understood it. Nor do I think that you have read the whole state of the Controversie 'twixt me and them. If you s••eak of the Controversie 'twixt me and you in these points, you know that there never was any such. I have shew'd sometimes how you and I are at agree∣ment in many points which they call Arminian. And you confess that most of them are but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So that if this is the thing which you call a Controversie, I cannot chuse but understand the state of it, whilest I am able to believe that your words have truth in them; and so by a consequence unavoidable that either you are an Armini∣an, or I am none. You see 'twas fitly done of you, to ask my pardon, and I think it as fit for me to grant it.

Sect. 8. One of the first heads of Controversie, about which you suppose all quarrels will be laid aside (Sect. 5.)

is no less then the whole Supralapsarian Doctrine of Pre-destination & Reprobation (and so the Twissian by conse∣quence which so vehemently condemns the Synod at Dort) besides the Doctrine of Christ's dying onely for the elect, together with Physical Predetermination, (which contains the irresistibility of Grace) A second is, all matters unre∣vealed. Part of the third, about Methods (as whether Prescience be before Decrees, &c.) All which it seems are so far yielded by your self, that you suppose I will con∣sent they never be drawn into dispute, which you have not any the least reason to suppose, unless you readily grant what I assert in these points. For if we differ, how can we possibly agree, as to the things about which we dif∣fer? and if we agree in these points, let us go lovingly together against the rigid Presbyterians who will not par∣take of our agreement. Accordingly you profess (Sect. 8.) to wish no more in this Controversie, then may consist with rational prayers, and thanksgivings for Grace, in which you have my full grant. Nay in a very plain manner, you grant what we call sufficient Grace, in the very sense in which we mean it, to the very worst of them that perish, (Sect. 8.) And then (excepting your Doctrine, that who∣soever is once justified can never totally fall away, which I wonder how you can retain) what difference remains 'twixt you and me? nay even here too you yield me one great advantage. For besides that you often seem to wa∣ver in your notion of perseverance, and pretend to no more then a probability; your Confession stands upon Record, That S. Austin was of my mind, and that the Lord Pri∣mate said as much in the hearing of Master Kendall. Nor am I out of all hope but that in tract of time you will come over to S. Austin, and so to me in this point also.

Sect. 9. What you say is not owned by the Synod of Dort, (Sect. 5.) I forbear to exagitate, as well and easily I might, both because Tilenus is only concerned in that sub∣ject; and because I should be glad to find it so as you say, and not to dispute against that which I would fain have

true. All your Sections which next ensue, from Sect. 6. to Sect. 18. are the sole portion of Tilenus, whom though you call my friend, and seem to suspect him to be my self, yet you know you do not know, that he is so much as known to me. The odious inferences you charge on Grotius, and his uncharitable censures thereupon, of which you affirm him to be too much guilty, having been onely rais'd in your fancy, do onely redound to your dishonour. Grotius did not make loads of inferences, but observe and transcribe them from the printed writings of the Calvinians, by whom the inferences were made. And so the want of charity must lie at your door, you having unjustly censured Grotius, who with very great justice had censured them. I am exactly of your opinion that we differ little, if at all in the point of Free-will (Sect. 5.) For if I discern any difference, I do conceive it to be in this, that some of your expressi∣ons concerning the freedom of the will, have look'd more like Pelagian then mine have done. But of this I accuse you not, for nothing can be Pelagian, that looks but like it.

CHAP. III.

Sect. 1. NO sooner are you return'd from Tilenus unto my self, then you implicitly tax me of inju∣stice in three respects, Sect. 18.]

How swift you are to speak hardly, and to be guilty whilest you reprove, even of that which you reprove, I think I may make your self the judge, if you will but read when you are cool, what you seem to have written, when too much heated. For how could I fail in point of justice, by not noting some difference between the men that are godly, and not notoriously ungodly, when you know your own words did contain this difference, as I had faithfully and friendly set them down out of your book? since your Book lies printed, I (and thousands besides) can declare what you have written, as well as you, which makes me

wonder (not a little) at the very strange nature of your put-off. For under the first of the two heads, to wit the godly, you reckon up such as have been oftentimes drunk, such as rashly rail, and lie, despise reproof, and defend their sin, guilty of Schism, and dis∣obedience to their Guides, and doing much to the hurt of the Church; yea they that commit greater sins then these, the denial of Christ, Per∣jury, Adultery, Murder, Incest, Idolatry, as Peter, Lot, David, Solomon, are affirm'd by you to be in the number of the godly. For (be∣sides that you give them the stile of god∣ly more then once) you further add, that to be notoriously ungodly, or unsancti∣fied, (which is the second head) a man must be worse then all these. Do but mark your own words:

A man must be guilty of more sin then Peter was in denying and for swearing Christ that is notoriously ungodly.

Observe I pray Sir, you say not [of as much] but, of more sin then Peter was guilty of, &c. Nor onely of as much, but of more sin then Lot, whose sins you reckon up thus. [He was drunk two nights together, and committed Incest twice with his own daughters, and that af∣ter the miraculous destruction of Sodom, of his own wife, and his own miraculous deliverance.] Nor do you say he must be as great, but a greater sinner then Solomon was with his seven hundred wives, and his three hundred Concu∣bines, and gross Idolu••ries, when his heart was turn'd away from the Lord God of Israel, which appeared unto him twice, and commanded him not to go after other gods, but he kept not that which the Lord commanded.] Now compare what you say of your godly men, with what you say of the no∣toriously ungodly, and how wicked you say a man must be to be such, not onely as great, but a greater sinner then all these, (remembring also what filthy Uses some men may make of such Doctrine) and judge what wrong you have done your self, by doing so great a wrong to me, who had done you none.

Sect. 2. I must expostulate again about your second Ac∣cusation of my injustice (Sect. 18.) for first did you not say, (in the place by me cited) that a man who is notoriously ungodly, i. e. unsanctified, must be a greater sinner then So∣lomon was? &c. Secondly, Where did you adde, that 'tis the common opinion, as that doth signifie not your own? you are not singular in all you think, the opinion may be com∣mon and the more likely to be yours, nor do I doubt but that it is: if I thought it were not, you should hear more from me then now you shall. Thirdly, What if you desired all men to take heed? &c. that is no more then to dig a pit and then to bid men beware that they fall not in. But how can you or I be sure that they who believ•• what you have taught (to wit, that such sins cannot unsanctifie, or put them into a state of damnation, or make them cease to be Godly,) will abstain from such sins when strongly tempted? O Sir, take heed that you scandalize not your weak, or your wilful brethren: that you strengthen not the hands of evil-doers: rather then so, it were better that you were cast into the Sea. (Mat. 18.6.) Fourthly, This Cau∣tion was peculiar to Solomon, not to any of those sinners you nam'd besides. Fifthly, Your supposing the sin of Da∣vid with an Et caetera, (which must regularly include the sins of Lot and Solomon, the Railing Professor, the Rebel, and the Schismatick, and all the rest which you reckon up in your ample Catalogue) to have been extremely differ∣ent from the like in a graceless man, will prove a sad prin∣ciple of all security in sinning to one who doubts not but that himself is a gracious man. For he (poor wretch) will be sure to hope that his Drunkenness is like Noah's, his In∣cest like Lot's, his Adultery and his Murder, of all the world, like David's, and not at all like the sins of the graceless man. Suppose a man shall be convinced of ha∣ving been many times drunk, besides a Railer, a Liar, a Rebel, and a Schismatick, may he not plead for all that, he is a sanctisied man, and in the number of the godly, and cannot possibly miscarry when once he hath been san∣ctified, as he takes it for granted that he hath been? Nay

may he not fiercely stand to it, and cite the words of Mr. Baxter in his justification; and what are the words of Mr. Baxter but these that follow? [

He that hath of∣tentimes been drunk may yet have true Grace, and be in the number of the godly. How many Professors will rail and lie in their passion? how few will take well a reproof, but ra∣ther defend their sin? How many in THESE TIMES that we doubt not to be Godly, have been guilty of disobe∣dience to their Guides, and of Schism, and doing much to the hurt of the Church?

] If the horrid nature of these sins be pressed home to such a Wretch, he may presently flie out into a greater indignation, and urge (in the words of Mr. Baxter again) That his Drunkenness, Perjury, Railing, Lying, Rebellion, Schism, and persecution of the Church, are exceedingly different from the like facts in a gracelesse man, in regard of manner, ends, concomi∣tants, &c.

Sir, I cannot but tell you on this occasion, that I have laboured for four (if not five) howers together, (and there is witnesse of what I say) to make a woman in this County (not many miles from this place) asham'd and sorry for her adultery, which she took an occasion to profess unto me she had committed, (naming the person with whom, and many circumstances with which) and that in the pre∣sence of others also, who together with my self were much amaz'd at her confidence, we having never seen her face before. She did not believe that the sin had done her any hurt, or any whit lessen'd her in the favour of God. She acknowledged that Adultery was a damnable sin in the Graceless, but not in her who had Grace. And (as she was indeed the most fluent Disputant from Scrip∣ture that I have ever met with of either sex, she seeming to have had the whole Bible in her memory, so many chapters and verses came so readily into her mouth,) She urged David and Solomon, (as you have done) with as many more as would make you wonder, in her excuse. She told me how she had been grounded in the opinion she was of by the Ministers of the Lecture which she frequented,

naming one in particular of great authority and eminence in that side of the County (whom I shall not name, un∣less need require, as being more careful of his credit, then his followers have been;) She alledged the great diffe∣rence between the sins of the regenerate and unregenerate. She said she had learn'd from the Pulpit (of that noted man before hinted) that the sins of the regenerate were ever committed with a reluctancy, and trouble of mind; which reluctancy she had in her commission of adultery; upon which she concluded 'twas but an infirmity of the flesh, not an obliquity of her will, that her temptations were un∣resistible; and the spirit was willing to be obedient, though the flesh was weak. She made the same perverse use of the seventh chapter to the Romanes, by † wresting it just to serve her turn, as the Preachers whom she admired were wont to do. But (by the blessing of God on my en∣deavours) I convinced her of the danger as well as mad∣ness of her opinions, and of the deadly influence they had had upon her practice, and how the Scripture was grossely wrested from its true intent and importance to serve for such vilo offices of which she had had some sad experience. I made it manifest that she had fin'd against conscience, and that her sin was aggravated by that, which she had alledged as an excuse and a lessening of it, to wit, the reluctancy of her mind, which shew'd her sin to have been wilful. Now whether this Presbyterian woman (for such she was in all points when first she came into my house) were sent on purpose to baffle me with her command of words, and prodigious memory of the Scriptures, or whether she came of her own accord to hear what I could say in oppo∣sition to her Teachers, I cannot tell. But I have witness of her conviction before she went out of my doors (which was about four or five hours from after the time when she came in)and s••nce that time I never saw her but once, when meeting me and another walking togeher in my Church∣yard (about four or five miles from her own abode) she

heartily thanks me for my instructions. Sir, I have told you this great truth with a most charitable intention to you, and others, upon a most pregnant occasion which you have offer'd me from the Press: and had it not been for this oc∣casion, this Narrative might have died in perfect silence. Had I not known that there were Gnosticks in the Apostles times, and what the Ranters in these times are wont to hold, and upon what Principles they ground their Do∣ctrines, and how avowedly they have practised accord∣ing to what they have believed; nay had I not read some books which I shall cite in due place, and compared my other readings with what I have read out of your own; I should hardly have had the courage to tell a story so strange as might seem to some people to be hardly true. But besides that I have witnesses from within, and without me, I have a witness above me too, for The God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. I will shut up this Section (but not this subject) with an useful passage out of Grotius in his Animadversions upon Rivet. I wonder (saith he) that they should vex the con••ciences of others, who do enervate by their opinion all force of conscience, when they teach that Murders and Adulteries are not imputed to the justified, or to them whom they call Elect, nor take away from them the state of Grace, and that for this reason, because they do such villa••ies with a reluctant mind, that is to say, against their conscience.

Sect. 3. But let us consider the sins of David in regard of manner, ends, and concomitants, and see how they diffe∣rence his sins from the like in a graceless man, as you affirm Sect. 18.] First David deliberately defiled Bathsheba, 2 Sam. 11.2, 3, 4. Next, to palliate his adultery, he cogg'd with her husband. (v. 8.) Thirdly, finding that would not take, he dissembled with him yet farther, and made him drunk, (v. 13.) Fourthly, Seeing that that plot had fail∣ed,

he contrived the murder of the Husband, that so he might carry away the wife (v. 15.) Fifthly, when Uriah's death was certified to David, he plaid the hypocrite with the Messenger, and bid him tell Ioab, That the sword de∣voureth one as well as another, (v. 25.) Sixthly, Uriah be∣ing thus basely murdered, David married his Widow, which was to kill him over and over, even after he was dead, (v. 27.) Seventhly, his murder was the more horrible, be∣cause he gratified the Ammonites, and caused the murder of a great multitude of his loyal subjects, meerly that Uriah might be murder'd with them, (v. 15, 16, 17.) Eighthly, All this while he plaid the Hypocrite with God, both in his publick and private acts of Religion, lifting up unclean hands, and impure eyes, unhallowed lipps, and a stony heart, by which, how his sacrifice was polluted, I pray (Sir) see, and consider in the first Chapter of Isaiah, v. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Add to all this, that David was ¹ a King, and should have given a better example; ² a Prophet, who should have taught whom he perverted; 3 a person of high endow∣ments of Grace and Nature, the abuse of which was the greater sin; 4 One who had women enough at home, both Wives and Concubines, which made his seeking abroad the more unexcusable; ⁵ One to whom Vriah was an affe∣ctionate friend, as well as a faithful and valiant subject; fighting against the Kings enemies, whilest the King was acting enmity to him and his. Besides so many distinct sins, and so many aggravations, which could not but make them † exceeding sinful: he lived indulgently in them from month to month; was lull'd in carnal security; and as if his conscience had been seared as it were with a hot iron, he never so much as said, † what have I done? he was not startled with Nathans Apologue, (2 Sam. 12.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) untill he was fain to indigitate the moral of it, applying it home un∣to himself, with a Tu es homo, Thou art the man. (v. 7.) Now if with all that I have spoken of David's guilt, you will compare the whole speech which God sent Nathan to rouze him with, and consider the great∣nesse

of his ingratitude (from ver. 7. to v. 10.) which is the greatest aggravation that sins are capable of; and how great an occasion he had given to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, (v. 14.) whereby he became a very scandalous and hurtful sinner. I doubt it will set you very hard, to shew me the difference (of which you speak) between this, and the sin of a gra••••less man, in regard of the manner, ends, concomitants, or what other circumstances soever, the com∣plication of impieties was cloathed with.

Sect. 4. The sin of Peter I shall not prosecute, as ha∣ving been (in all points) extremely different from that of David, and much more capable of excuse. For 'twas by sudden surreption that Peter sin'd; his temptation was not onely great, but came upon him by a surprisal: And sudden fear, more then any thing betrayeth the succours which reason offereth. Besides, he speedily repented with † bitter tears, and brought forth such early (that I may not onely say, such ample) fruits as were indeed most worthy of repentance. Yet I pray Sir, reflect on your own acknowledgment, you say that Peter as well as David was put by his sin into a present incapacity for heaven (Sect. 18.) which what is it but to say, he was in a state of dam∣nation? for being incapable of heaven, he must needs (at that time) have been capable of hell; unless you will feign him in good earnest, (as the Papists in jest have drawn the picture of Erasmus) to have been in a capacity neither for heaven nor for hell, which being not to be imagin'd, you have granted the thing that I contend for, and blown to the ground with one breath, what you bestowed so much cost and care in building. And why do you adde, [that repen∣tance actual, deep and serious too, was necessary to the recovery & forgiveness of Peter and David] but because you inwardly confessed that without their repentance they had been dam∣ned, and that before they repented they were in a state of damnation; for if they were not, in what respect was it needful they should repent? If they could have been sa∣ved

without being forgiven, then their forgiveness was not necessary to their salvation. Or if they could have been forgiven without having repented, then their repentance was not necessary to their forgiveness: but if both were necessary to both, (as you evidently acknowledge) then whilest they were destitute of both, they were in a state of damnation. And thus you see every way you establish my Doctrine, whilest you resist it. Yet after all I must tell you, that your acknowledging the necessity of repentance to the recovery of the regenerate after their degeneration, will make a very poor amends for the Pit I spake of (in my second section) whilest Perseverance is so taught, as you have taught it.

Sect. 5. Having done with your eighteenth, I now proceed to your nineteenth Section: where, of Solomon's case you pro∣fess you are uncertain, though you know where you said, that a man must be a greater sinner then Solomon, to be notori∣ously ungodly: but now it seems you are doubtful whether he repented before his death; or if you think that he did, and that he wa•• one of the elect, then it seems you are doubtful whether some, even of them, may not become so unsanctified, as to be in a state of damnation, till they re∣pent: which uncertainty you mean, I am not certain, and so I pass him over, as you have done. David and Peter are again ill coupled, the one sinning by surreption, and straight recovering; the other deliberately sinning, con∣triving mischief to Uriah, and plotting how to get Bathsh••∣ba, and continuing in his wickedness no little time, and therefore he is most fit for our consideration. For since you affirmed even of Peter that his sin had put him at that present into an incapacity for heaven, how much rather must you acknowledge the same of David? To your par∣ticulars of him, I shall speak in order.

Sect. 6. To your Preparatory praefixed before your Rea∣sons in the entrance of your Sect. 19. I briefly say (in preparation to my answers) that 'tis not said on either side, that David was utterly graceless; nor need it be said by either side; it being frequently your Doctrine, [That even

the Reprobates have grace and grace sufficient, and that this is given to the worst that perish, and that in the notion of the Iesuits; and that this is granted by the Dominicans and the Synod of Dort.] Nor do I say, that he needed any other new birth then Repentance is. Repentance was necessary, which was truly equivalent to new bi••th. (and so much you confessed Sect. 18.) It was in order to his repentance that Nathan was sent; and before he had not that special grace; in which respect (if you please] he was unsanctifi∣ed and graceless. But Grace he might have, as that signi∣fies no more then the gift of God, by which he was suffici∣ently enabled to repent: such Grace he had, and made use of it when Nathan came, nor do I doubt of his having it long before, whilest yet (we know) he made no use of it at all. Again I will prove from your own Concessions, that he might have some degree of other virtues, and those the effects of the Grace I spake of, and yet be fallen from a regenerate state: my reason is, because this requires an universality of obedience, and is not reconcileable with living in any such mortal or deadly sin, as Adultery and Murder are known to be. Sir, I heartily wish, that whil'st you are writing new books, you will carefully remember what you have written in your old ones. Before I go any farther, I will premise a few things which you have taught in your Treatise of Saving Faith, which you pronounce to be specifically, not onely gradually different from all com∣mon Faith, and this in the Ti••le-page of your book.

Now you say (p. 43. of that Tract) That men are some∣times enabled by common Grace to be abased in the feeling of their sin and misery, to be humbled by attrition, to cry out of their sin and folly, and day and night to beg for Grace and Mercy; they like the word and wayes of God, think his servants the best and happiest men, wish that they were such themselves, avoid as much of gross and wilful sinning, and continue as much in hearing, reading the word, enqui∣ring, consideration, as common Grace may bring them to do. They have as much belief of the Gospel, as much desire after Christ, and holiness, and heaven, and as much to God, and

the Redeemer, and the Saints, as common Grace can lead them to. They have either a knowledge of their being yet short of true Christianity, or at least are much afraid of it, (which no doubt but common Grace may bring them to) and therefor•• are under a prudent impatiency till saving Grace come in, and the Spirit have sealed them up to the day of Re∣demp••ion, and are crying out, what shall we do to be saved?] In a word it seems you take common and special Grace to be so like unto each other, that you profess † to fear very much, lest many learned, civil, orthodox men do take com∣mon Grace to be special, and so delude their own soules in the trial of themselves. You farther adde, That there are many common gifts in man which are no more loseable then saving Grace. You adde in the same Treatise (by way of Postscript to the Reader,) † That an unsanctified man may love the true God, and believe in Iesus Christ the Redeemer. And again, that by common Grace men may have true Faith and Love. And again, † That we know not in our change just when common Grace left, and special grace began. (where I am glad to find you condemning the practice of the triers.) Again you lay down this Proposition, [That one and the same man may have two contrary ultimate ends of his particular actions, even the pleasing of God, and the pleasing of his flesh.] In your first reason you say, [That the very same heart may be partly sanctified, and partly un∣sanctified.] You say in your second, [That a godly man when he is drawn to eat or drink too much, doth it not onely as a mistaken means to Gods glory, but ultimately to please his flesh.] Peter and David are your examples, and of them you thus speak. [Peter did not only mischoose a means to Gods glory when he denied his Master. Either David in adultery did desire flesh pleasing for it self, or for some other end; if for it self, then it was his ultimate end in that Act: if for somewhat else as his end, for what? no one will say his end was Gods glory. And there is nothing else to be it.] Having premised these things for several uses which I foresee, I now return to the particulars of your nineteenth Section which lies before me.

Sect. 7. [You do not find in Scripture, that they or any others were twice regenerate or sanctified, Sect. 19.] But ta∣king Repentance for a Regeneration, you find in Scripture what you say you find not; to wit, that some have twice repented, that is, they have risen by Gods grace to under∣take his service, and have fallen after that, and by the Grace of God they have risen again, so saith the Article of our Church. [After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from Grace given, and fall into sin, and by the Grace of God we may rise again and amend our lives.] Nor will any deny this, except the Montanists and the Nova∣tians, and the Family of Love, the Catharists, and the Iovinians, and such as are of their kindred. (I wish that no such heresie were still alive.) But I think I may say of the Novatians, that though they would not yield place of abso∣lution in the Church, for such as had fallen, after Baptism, in∣to any deadly or wilful sin; yet for Repentance with God, they willingly yielded them a place. And I am sure the Church Catholick hath alwayes held both.

Sect. 8. You tell me what two passages (Heb. 6. & 10.) do seem to import, Sect. 19.] Wherein you did well to say they seem'd so, for you do more then seem not at all to understand those famous passages of Scripture. It is not absolute impossibility, but an extreme great d••fficulty, which there is meant: nor is it any lesse fall, then into wilful Apostacy from the profession of Christianity, which is there spoken of. To shew you the greatness of your mistake, I cannot take a more short, or effectual course, then by re∣ferring you to the Notes of the learned and Reverend Doctor Hammond on either place, more particularly, on Heb. 6.4. & Heb. 10.26. And since those places do not serve for your turn, you need not be told how exceeding∣ly much they make against it.

You say that David by Gods own Testimony was one of those hearers (in our Saviours parable) who like the good ground that gives deep rooting to the seed, do not fall away in trial, Sect. 19.]

Sect. 9. Whatever David was before his Adultery and his Murder, or whatever he was from after the time of his repentance, he was not good by God's testimony, in the whole matter of Uriah, or in any part of it. For that is excepted by God in Scripture, and you cannot but know that this is the David of whom we speak; so that before you were aware (if not on purpose) you have made a Tran∣sition ab Hypothesi, ad Thesin. It is true that God hath gi∣ven a good testimony of David in the place I cited, and with the exception of which I spake. But this was also God's testimony concerning David, [† That he had despi∣sed the commandement of the Lord, to do evil in his sight. That he had killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; (and not onely so, but) that he had killed him also with the sword of the (prophane) children of Ammon; (nor onely so, but) that he had taken his wife from him to be his own wife.] With this particular testimony you may do well to com∣pare God's general rule. That when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth i••iquity, — all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned. In so much, that David must be confessed, notwithstanding the Parable of the good ground, to have fallen away in time of triall. My way of arguing is, ab actu ad potentiam, which you know is uncontroulable. David fell, therefore he might fall. And against matter of Fact, your way of disputing is most unhappy.

But no Scripture tells us (say you) that David was void of charity, though as to the degree, and act, and sense, it was decayed, and so far David beggs for a recovery. Sect. 19.]

Sect. 10. If no Scripture had so told us, your negative Argument would be of no force. But Scripture tells e∣nough, as I lately shew'd you, when God excepted his deal∣ings with Uriah, that exception was as much Scripture, as any other passage which you can name. The Scripture tells how he continued in his wickedness without repentance, untill the message of Nathan, which was neer a whole year, if not a great deal beyond it, for his child by Bathshe∣ba was born I know not how long before he repented of his

uncleanness, which shews a greater decay, then you ac∣knowledge. And accordingly he prayed, Create in me a clean heart, O God, renew a right spirit within me. I pray Sir mark it, the clean heart was now to be created, and the right spirit to be renewed; which had certainly been need∣less, had its cleanness and rectitude continued to him. Be∣sides, † you tell us of David, That he desired flesh pleasing for it self, and not at all for Gods glory, nor is it imaginable he should commit Adultery to please God: and so out of your mouth I do infer his having been unsa••ctified, because you say that the same man, by designing to please God, and to please his flesh too, as two ultimate ends of his parti∣cular actions, may be partly unsanctified, as well as partly sanctified. Then is not he wholly unsanctified, who intends not the pleasing of God at all? or is he not wholly unsancti∣fied who designes to please God by heaping Murder upon Adultery, and adding Drunkenness to Thirst? The mur∣derous Jews were not, sure, the less unsanctified for killing the Apostles to do God service; nor was Saul the less unsan∣ctified before the time of his conversion, for that he thought it his † duty to do many things contrary to the name of Iesus. Whatever David's ends were, his sins were such (by your confession) as did put him into no less then an incapacity for heaven. But where was his charity you speak of, when he contrived and effected Uriah's death? To say he murde∣red a man in love will be of very ill consequence: and he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? even Injustice and Charity do seem to me irreconcileable. And though there are who have pretended to hate and persecute their neighbours in the fear of God, yet am I assured by an Apostle, That whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, (that great point especially of doing his duty towards his neighbour) he is guilty of all. And whereas you said at the beginning of your Section, you believe not that David had wholly excussed the spirit of God: I oppose the belief of the great Melanchthon; Excussit David fidem & Spiritum Sanctum, cùm raperet alterius conjugem, & quidem multi∣pliciter

Spiritum Sanctum perturbavit. Primum in corde suo, unde pulsus est in Adulterio; deinde in multis sanctis, quorum aliis scandalum attulit dolorem, aliis fuit occasio exi∣••ii, &c. I need not use this Authority, (having abundant∣ly done my work without it) but think it more then suffici∣ent thus to counterpoise your own.

You urge yet farther [David prayes Psal. 50. That God would not for that sin take his Holy Spirit from him, which implies yet that he had it. Sect. 19.]

Sect. 11. But (1.) he made that Prayer after the time of his repentance, whereas the excussion of God's Spirit was in the commission of his sins. (2.) Nor doth it signifie any more, then that God had been highly provoked by him so to do. And (3.) if God had not utterly withdrawn his grace, but left him what was sufficient to enable him to repent a great deal sooner then he had done, that was the height of God's goodness which inferrs the heightning of his sins, in that he had so long abu••'d it. For I must put you in re∣membrance, that it is not meerly the having of Grace, (to-wit, the habit) without the actual imployment of it, that will ever stand us in any stead; but on the contrary, † a Talent wrapt in a Napkin will evince us to be sloathful and unprofitable servants, whom our Judge will cast into out••r darkness.

But say you, [The thing in it self seems utterly improbable, that David and Peter should have no love to God, after those particular sins, Sect. 19.]

Sect. 12. What can be your meaning of [no love to God,] when you confess that the unsanctified have some love to him? Will you prove a man Regenerate in the complica∣tion of his impieties, by having that left in him more then which you do allow to the unregenerate? you know what I told you out of your self in the sixth Section of this Chapter. 2. What do you mean by your other phrase, [after those particular sins?] a great while after, he re∣pented, and was no longer that impenitent of whom we both speak. If your meaning is, that immediately after his sins committed, he had some love to God, but in the acts of

commission had none at all; you confess there was a time when he was wholly unsanctified, and had less Grace then many, who yet haue not saving, but common Grace. 3. When you adde that his sins were odious, and deserved an utter desertion of God (Sect. 19.) Do you s••eak after the Tenor of the Second Covenant, and as God hath threat∣ned every man to reward him according to his works? Then 'tis true (what you say) that the sins unrepented of deserved utter desertion, and so damnation; which is the granting of all that I contend for. But if you mean by utter desertion, God's withdrawing that Grace which was absolutely necessary to his Repentance, then you grant more then I should ever have demanded; not knowing that God in the Gospel hath threatned such sins with such de∣sertion, 'till death hath seized upon the sinner, or the sinner hardened his heart to such a desperate degree as Pharaoh did, Exod. 9.14, 16, 27, 34. However it be, God's not in∣flicting so sore a punishment is no argument at all, that the sinner was not fallen from Grace, by abusing that Grace which God had given him, and that abuse of Grace given, is the thing which God punishes because he hates; not the negation or want of Grace, which by being not given, can∣not be said to be abused.

You say, This sudden prevalen••y of sensuality did not so far change the judgment of David, that hereupon he habi∣tually esteemed the creature above God, and valued the plea∣sures of sin, before the pleasing, and the favour of God, Sect. 19.]

Sect. 13. Here you speak of a sudden prevalency, where∣as you cannot but know (what I largely shew'd out of the Text) that David was a contriving and deliberate sinner. And I pray Sir tell me, Did not David habitually, (to wit) at least for a year, value the pleasures of sin before the fa∣vour of God? Here is a very great Quick-sand which must be carefully avoided, or else a sinner may go-on, in A∣dultery, Murd••r, and other villanies, contenting him∣self with this Co••dial, (but I beseech you give no more such) that he doth not habitually esteem the creature above

God. Sir, Your soul is very pretious and dear unto me, and by the interest which I have in the perfect happiness of my Brethren, I shall conjure you to consider, whether such Doctrine hath not been hurtful, as well to your self, as to weaker men. If actually in the time of sinning, sensuality prevailed against the act of charity, then the sin of David being deliberate, (as in Peter 'twas not,) and ve∣ry long continued in, (as again in Peter it was not,) how can it modestly be denied, but that for so long a time as David lived in his impieties, and as to those species of impieties in which he lived, it habitually prevailed in him? which should you possibly deny, you know what follows. Your pleading that the judgment of David was not changed, would do you no service, if I should grant it: for there is hardly any sinner, who doth judge of the creature as more valuable then God, when asked which he doth value most; nor is a man the less but the greater sinner for deliberately acting against his judgment. And again remember how much you gave to the unsanctified man.

Yet again you say, That David's Faith was not habitually extirpated, nor was he turned unbeliever. Sect. 19.]

Sect. 14. But neither are they unbelievers, whom you allow to have Faith, and yet deny to have saving Grace, as I shew'd you from your writings in my Sect. 6. But as Faith is a Practical adherence unto God, and implies an uniform obedience to his commands, you know that David wanted Faith; he obeyed not God, by which believing is ex∣pressed in holy Scripture. It was not that Faith which worketh by love, which is the fulfilling of the Law, which consisted with so much injury, as the robbing Uriah both of his honour and of his life. To be brief, If Faith be tru∣ly inseparable from charity, and David can no more love God and Bathsheba (another man's wife) then † God, and Mammon; then must David needs have wanted both Faith & Charity. When you say (of saving Faith p. 92.) that one and the same man may have two contrary ultimate ends of his particular actions, even the pleasing of God, and the plea∣sing of his flesh, (giving your instance even in David,) you

seem to imply a contradiction to the words of our Lord, who saith, no man can serve two Masters. Dagon and the Ark cannot dwell under a roof, but that the one will subvert the other. And even he is † against Christ, who is not for him. Indeed there are in the world who make a mixture of Religions, like the people of Sepharvaim, Chuth, and Hamath, fearing the Lord and serving their own gods. But the former was in Hypocrisie, for it is said in the following verse,† they feared not the Lord, which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or literal shew of contradiction, doth evince the truth of our Saviours words, that no one servant can really and truly serve God and Mammon, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. But what kind of Principles those are, which lead the people to such mixtures, and of how dangerous importance such mixtures are, I leave to the guess of the considering Reader.

Sect. 15. What you think that David would not have done had he been put to it upon sober deliberation (Sect. 19.) is as little to the purpose as all the rest, and onely needs to be referred to my former answers, or to what I collected Sect. 6. yet here I can adde, that David was soberly put to it, (as having acted deliberately, with a great deal of project and contrivance) yet did he not choose the love of God before the pleasure of sin (as Moses did, Heb. 11.25, 26.) which indeed was contrary to the love of God.

You say, It is not likely that this one act should turn his heart into as graceless a frame, as the ungodly themselves that never were sanctified, Sect. 19.]

Sect. 16. As it is not likely, so it need not be said. For if graceless here signifies or supposeth such a sinner, as from whom God's grace is so far withdrawn, that he hath not left what is sufficient for his return; all unsanctified men are not such sinners as these. You affirm that grace suffi••ient is given to the worst of them that perish, (Sect. 8.) and therefore you cannot prove that David was san∣ctified,

(whilest impenitently guilty both of Adultery and Murder) for having just as much grace as you allow to Reprobates, whom you will not allow to have been sanctified. Whereas you speak of one Act as unlikely to turn the heart of David, you know that David committed many, and with a manifold aggravation. Nor do I doubt but he had power to have repented sooner then he did, if he had not been wanting to himself. Yet the Scripture having pronounced that the estate of those men who have fallen from grace is much more hardly to be recover∣ed, and worse (by consequence then theirs, who never knew the way of righteousness; certainly more Grace was neces∣sary for the reducing of David (as he was) then if he had never been a sanctified man. Now seeing that David was effectually reduced, and that by Grace, I am obliged to a∣vow, that either more grace was left, or more was given. And for this last, you have my reason. But however it be, it cannot but be to my advantage, it being no extenua∣tion, but an aggravation of his crimes, throughout the time of his impenitence.

You say, you think it was the habit of Grace, which the words of Nathan to David excited, and did bring again to act, Sect. 19.]

Sect. 17. But sure your thinking is no proof of the point. I may rather conclude it was not the habit of Grace excited, if you your self do but think so, for whose interest it is to have it so without question. And if it were as you think, by so much the greater was David's guilt; that having so great a gift of God as that habit of Grace, he acted contrarily to it, in so hainous a manner, and degree. To have an habit of Grace, and not to use it, yea to abuse it by grosse impieties, will no more excuse a man's wickednesse, then the bare haveing of a Talent, and thrusting it into a sink. What you adde of S. Peter is not home to the pur∣pose, and that for those reasons, which I have given al∣ready once for all.

Sect. 18. Your verily thinking that David after his sin went on in his ordinary course of Religion, and obedience in all things else, (Sect. 19.) will not stand you in any stead, (besides that again you do but think it,) unless it be to make proof, that many goers to Church, and doers of some things in the service of God, may yet deliberately sin in a hideous manner, and so become liable to condemnation. Many desperate sinners are the more punctual in their outward acts of Religion, and strive to grow eminent for some good deeds, to the end that they may sin with the more security and success, but they are not the better for being Hypocrites, and therefore not the more excusable; this I take to be another great quick-sand, in which because many are swallowed up in these times, I was not at ease with my self till I had publickly given some warning of it in the first chapter of the second part of my Sinner im∣pleaded. And which I do more wish read, then all the thing•• that I have written. I pray Sir, consider on this oc∣casion, Isa. 1.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. As for David's daily going unto God, in publick and in private, all the space of his continuance in sin without repentance, it was not joyned with that love of God which doth exclude the love of Mammon; it having been joyned with the love of unlawful pleasures, and by consequence unavailable in the sight of God. You adde that these things are to you impro∣bable: still implying a confession that you are not certain, or assured of what you so zealously contend for. The truth being proved, and demonstrated to lie on S. Austin's and Prosper's side, (both which Fathers, and those others that went before them, you have publickly confessed to be against you) it matters not what may seem improbable, much lesse improbable to you.

You say that David had built upon a rock, and that they who build on the rock, persevere in trial, Mat. 7.25. con∣cluding herewith your nineteenth Section.

Sect. 19. But his lying with Bathsheba was not building on a rock, much less his murdering of good Uriah; and that he really did both, the Scripture tells us. That phrase

of building upon a rock doth not signifie (in general) whatsoever building upon God. (for some build so, and yet but slightly.) But it peculiarly signifies a building firmly, a rooting deep, as that is opposed to building on the sand, to which nothing can be fasten'd. And that David at first did not build thus firmly, doth appear by his falling (even deliberately) in time of tempta∣tion. I adde no more, because you conclude, as you began with an ingenuous confession of what you think.

You say you are willing to learn better that Doctrine that is according to Godliness, and to disclaim all that is against it. But I must not take your expressions of the worst that the mercy of God will cover in a man obedient in the main to be your descriptions of godly men, Sect. 20.]

Sect. 20. You have told us over and over what crying sins may well consist with the power of Godliness. That David was not unsanctified or made ungodly by his Adul∣tery and Murder, and other sins. Be pleased to reflect on what I have said in the first Section of this Chapter. And consider within your self, whether men may not be taught, by such expressions as you have used, to believe they may deliberately (as David did) commit Adultery and Murder, with divers other abominations, and yet be godly, sanctified, spiritual men. Can there be any thing in the world more trecherous to their souls then that opinion? since you are willing to learn, I hope the horror of the Doctrine will teach you speedily to disclaim it.

Again, I would know what you mean in this place by being obedient in the main. Is it for a man to be obedient in more particulars then those in which he is disobedient? or else in mainer or greater things? O remember the words of our Lord and Saviour: Whosoever shall break one of these least Commandements, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven. And toge∣ther with these, compare the words of S. Iames, Whosoe∣ver shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point,

he is guilty of all. They that teach otherwise, are blind leaders of the blind. They cheat themselves and their Disciples. What is it then to be obedient in the main? Is it for the main, that is to say, the greater part of the life? sure that is not it, for we know it is possible a lesser part may serve turn. Or if that be all, then 'tis readily granted that David having liv'd godly before the matter of Uriah, and again very godly after Nathan came to him, he found acceptance with the Almighty. But what is this to the in∣terval betwixt these two? David the Murderer and the Adulterer, is the man we now speak of. David the just and the penitent i•• of another consideration.

Sect. 21. It is true what you adde, that no Act will prove us holy, but a praedominant Habit, Sect. 20.] The reason is, because all circumstances are required to make a thing completely good; But then withall you must grant, that any deliberate act of sin will pro∣nounce us unholy; Because the want of one circum∣stance is enough to name a thing evil. And he that offends in one point is guilty of all: but David offen∣ded in more then two. Again, the estimation, election, resolution, operation of the Soul cannot truly be said to be praedominant to good, when the deliberate acts are quite contrary, transcendently evil. And a sad con∣tinuance in a sinful course (such undeniably was David's) is also as opposite to Habits of Vir∣tue.

Sect. 22. What you adde of blind unjust judgment, (Sect. 20.) upon an Hypothesis of your own framing, concerns not me, in any measure. For did I ever speak of judging the whole lives of men, by one hour, or one day, be it good or bad? you know I did not. Yet thus we may judge, that that hour, or that day, wherein a man shall live both in Adultery and Murder, without repentance he can be no good man, nor in thefavour of God, whatever he were before, or whatever he may be af∣ter. And remember that David had dwelt in sin, for a year and a day, (for ought appears in Holy Scripture) in

sin deliberately committed, and not repented of at all in so long a time.

Sect. 23. Now Sir, your Arguments being answered whereby you have laboured to beget a strong conceit in your ea••••e Readers, that if a man is once sanctified, he cannot possibly be otherwise, notwithstanding all the wickedness that he can possibly commit, (an ample cata∣logue of which I have recited to you out of your self, in the first Section of this Chapter,) I beseech you to consider in the Spirit of meekness, whether your Do∣ctrine is not as dangerous to the professors of Chri∣stianity, as that of Master Pemble, and Doctor Twisse, [Of Christ's immediate actual delivering us from guilt, wrath, and condemnation,] which you profess to be the very Pillar and Foundation of the whole Frame and Fabrick of Antinomianism. And as you say a little be∣fore, † that Socinianism were the soundest Doctrine, that Christ never needed to satisfie, if we were justified from e∣ternity; (to which you adde your confession, that you remained long in the borders of Antinomianism, which you very narrowly escaped;) so I intreat you to examine whether you are not already fallen into as formidable an error, as that is which you esca∣ped.

There is a Book intitled, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, which hath dangerously built upon your Foun∣dation, and is publickly commended by some of your way; Master Caryl, Master Burroughs, Master Strong; Master Sprigg, and after all Master Samuel Prittie. Evangelista (in the Dialogue) being a Minister of the Gospel, doth instruct Neophytus, or the young Chri∣stian, in these following words: [In case you be at any time by reason of the weakness of your Faith, and strength of your temptations drawn aside, and prevailed with, to transgress any of Christ's commandements, beware you do not thereupon take occasion to call Christ's love to you into question; but believe as firmly that he loves you as dearly as he did,

before you thus transgressed; For this is a certain truth, as no good in you, or done by you, did or can move Christ to love you the more, so no evil in you, or done by you, can move him to love you the less.] Upon this bit of marrow (as the Au∣thor calls it) an idle Maid was found chewing; The very sight of which would overturn a clean stomach. For what scruple could she make of transgressing any of Christ's Commandements (whether filtching for her profit, or playing the wanton for her pleasure) having been taught before hand, (and having believed what she was taught) that Christ could love her nevertheless: If this is Divinity, the Author did well to call it Modern, for nothing was like it in An∣tiquity except the Heresie of the Gnosticks, that I can think on. From what kind of Bone that Marrow was pick'd, and whether it had not some hand in the sins of these times, it will be revealed in that day when all hearts shall be o∣pened. There are other things in that book, as † [That the Law of Christ neither justifies nor condemns. That in the Covenant betwixt Christ and his, there is no more for man to do, but onely to know and believe that Christ hath done all for them;] which I suppose you disrelish as much as I, because you hold, that the first sanctification is before justification. For which perhaps some Ignaro's may have thought you a Socinian, (men no better advised then Master Channel) though you are able to cite for it Master Richard Hooker, and Peter Martyr, and the Reverend Doctor Hammond. Nay since I writ my last words, I find you ex∣cepting against that Book, as being guilty of hainous Do∣ctrine, of notorious and dangerous mistakes; of denying the plain sense of the Text (Mat. 10.28.) of intolerably abu∣sing the Scripture, and making Paul a legal Preacher. Of shamefully abusing 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. and of many other intole∣rable errors. In which your just reprehensions, as I fully concur with you, (and in the most that you have written in those your Aph••rismes) so I hope, in some time, you will concur in mine also. Had you considered that those Mini∣sters, who so zealously recommended that venemous book

unto the people, were some of the noted London-preach∣ers, whom you exceedingly commended, (to wit in your Epistle before your Treatise of Iudgment,) I do not think you would have done it without a discrimination. But now in faithfulness I must tell you, that not a few of those errors which you so worthily have condemned, do seem to flow from the Principles, which you your self have espou∣sed, as well as they. And when the Murderer of his bed∣fellow was taught by some, to commend his sin for its greatness, as being a rouzing, awakening, yea a sanctified sin, a sin from which was producible the eternal salvation of his soul, the accidental cause of a good fruit, as that which startled conscience, which would not with the noise of a lesser guilt be awakened; 'tis easie to guesse at the source of so foul a stream. To conclude this subject, I can truly say with learned Grotius, that I am not an enemy, unless it be to those opinions, which I conceive to be enemies either to piety or peace. Such I take to be that of Marlorate, a Calvinistical Commenta∣tor, [That such sins as David's, to wit, Adulteries and Murders, are not imputed to the elect.] Such I take to be that which you have hitherto asserted, that a man once justified can never fall; That such sins as David's cannot unsanctifie the sinner; That a godly man may be a Murde∣rer, an Adulterer, (and deliberately such) and yet a godly man still, whilest yet impenitent. A man is tempted by such a Doctrine to live as he lists, to commit as many sins as are grateful to him, and at the hour of death to send for a Minister, to wish his impious deeds had been undon, to believe the righ∣teousness of Christ is imputed to him, and that so it must be even because he believes it. With this Viaticum (saith Grotius) he flies up instantly into heaven, if he does not go securely, and confidently to Hell. (For that you know must be the meaning of his Antiphrasis.) You well objected against the Marrow of New Divinity,

that no unrighteous person, Fornicator, Adulterer, &c. shall inherit the Kingdom of God. David was an Adulte∣rer, and before he repented he was impenitent. Repentance and Reformation must go before pardon. To be incapa∣ble of Heaven is to be somwhat more then capable of Hell. And were David alive upon the earth, he would not en∣dure to hear his sins apologized for in such a manner, as might incourage the greatest sinners to the like Apologies for their own.

CHAP. IV.

Sect. 1. HAving done with the Argument, you fall up∣on the person with whom you deal. You bid me trie whether in the very omission of some duties to my flock, or condemning of my brethren, &c. I may not have sins that are accompanied with as little love of God, as David's more disgraceful, and (materially hainous sins, Sect. 20.]

Had I been a Presbyterian, I do not think you would have dealt so foulely with me, as to have hinted to your Readers some strange omission towards my Flock, when you knew that you knew not my least omission, and what an omission must that have been which could equall the guilt of deliberate Murder and Adultery? Had you known my life to have been any way Reprovable, what Tragical work would you have made, who could not here contain your self from such a groundlesse insi∣••uation? Or who can be so inoffensive, whom you might not have used (or have abused) in like man∣ner? As for the work of my Ministerie, when I con∣sider the weig••t of that, how much I owe to the great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, and how strict an account I am to render, I cannot but say I am an unprofi∣table servant, and am forced to take up that Aposto∣lical Erotesis, who is sufficient for these things? But

when I consider mine own weaknesse, and my endea∣vours to serve God with the poor utmost of my ability, and that God will accept according to what a man hath; when I examine all by that Rule in conformity to which we are bound to act: I can say to you, and to Master Hickman, (who hath also printed an unhandsome, indeed an unmanlike † insinuation in this kind) what Saint Paul did to Felix, † Ye cannot prove those things whereof ye (tacitly) accuse me. But this I confess unto you, that af∣ter the way which some call heresie, (some superstition) so worship I the God of my fathers. And now I pray Sir consider whether I might not with greater reason have turn'd your motion upon your self, since you have given me (in print) a perfect knowledge of your failings, in the discharge of your Ministery, whilest you have nothing concerning mine, but in your voluntary surmisings.

You certifie to the world, that you are many times lazy in your performance: your words are these; [

It is not a want of abilities that makes Ministers use Notes; but it is a regard to the work and good of the hearers. I use. Notes as much as any man, when I take pains, and as little as any man, when I am lazy, or busie, or have not leisure to prepare. It is easier to preach three Sermons without Notes, then one with them.

] If it is really so, as here you say, that the using of Notes is for the good of the hearers, and for the bet∣ter performance of Gods work, then indeed I have been guilty of great omissions towards my flock: for in all the course of my Ministery, I never made any use of Notes. But I have this for my excuse, that I was char∣ged not to use them, by very venerable persons, when I was first ordained to be a Preacher. And the reasons given for it were these especially; first because your reading Preachers were more despised at that time, then of late they have been, (and where the Preachers is not valued, the Sermon finds the less attention.) Next because such a Preacher as speaks out of his memory,

is better able to speak out of his heart and mind, then one who is often, or altogether forced to look into his book. Not will his work be so lifeless, as when he reads. He will not be so very apt to preach his Auditory asleep, (which you modestly condemn in your self and others.) But since you say the use of notes is for the benefit of the hearers, and since I know they are used by many eminent Preachers besides your self, I begin to suspect my former judgment, and per∣haps may change my practice too. For as I never thought the worse of others whom I have known to use Notes, or the better of my self for having never us'd any, so have you given me an occasion to put my self on this question, whether I have not been faulty in bestowing that time to put my Sermons into my memory, which might better have been imployed in making them worthy to be remem∣bred. I am really in a strait, and apt to state it in the affirmative; for he who spends his whole time, in giving weight and worth to his compositions, may make them useful for the publick, and fit to be preached from the Press; whereas the man that is obliged to speak at large upon a little, and to content himself with the sudden effusions of his soul, can attain to nothing beyond the Pulpit, where he speaks little else, then what must perish whilest it is spoken. I do intend (if God permit) to make a trial of your way; and if I shall find it to be the better, will never return un∣to mine own.

Sect. 2. If you mean by my brethren, the Episcopal men, who have not changed with the times, but (after all tem∣ptations to Apostacy) have still contended for the Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints, you know I never condemned them, but cleared them rather from their Accu∣sers. If you mean by my brethren, the P••esbyterians, I have condemnd them no farther then by their printed blas∣phemies, confessions, and contradictions they have condemned one another, & very often their own selves. I condemn'd them only, whom I caught in the act of many scandalous sins, such as you may see a good account of, both in my 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.† I did carefully distinguish betwixt the Rigid and Moderate Presbyterians: I condemn'd the former out of their Writings; but the later I declared to be of their number, whom I do very unfeignedly both love and honour, which I have also made apparent by my invio∣lable friendship with divers of the••: in a word, I did timely preadmonish my Readers, (and your self as one of them,) That my words cannot reach ••nto all Presbyterians in∣discriminately, but to such and such onely, of whom the Au∣thors by me cited are found to speak. That what I say from the History of Master Knox, I mean of those whom Ma∣ster Knox himself meant, who was a Chieftain of the Party. That when I name Paraeus, Buchanan, Hacket, and the like, it is plain I mean them. If when no body is named, any one or more persons shall name themselves, (as one in the World hath very publickly done) and apply my words to their par∣ticulars, which I had left onely in common, (to be seized on by none but the proper owners) they will be in that case their own Accusers.

And now that you see how I am innocent, observe how ill you were qualified for my Accuser. For if you reckon, amongst your brethren, the regular sons of the Church of England, you have condemned them more then any man I ever heard of; and reviled them even for that, for which their Reward will be great in heaven. To repeat your bit∣terness, not onely to your Brethren, but to your right Re∣verend Fathers and Superiours, who are over you in the Lord, were to write a large volume in this one Paragraph. It shall suffice me to put you in mind what wants of cha∣rity you have shew'd in your Reformed Pastor, in your Chri∣stian Concord, and (not to rake into all your books) in your Grotian Religion from p. 109. unto the end; what your charity was to Grotius, hath been shewn already; and what to me, will be seen anon. If you mean by your Bre∣thren, the several Sectaries of the times, you have condem∣ned them all, as they have all condemned you, (the Pres∣byterians not excepted.) Of very many instances, I shall detain you but with a few. You have condemned

Master Colyer, Sprigs, and Hobson, for abominable Pam∣plets. And all the approvers of the Marrow of Modern Divinity. You have highly condemned both Doctor Twiss and Master Pemble, as hath been shew'd. † Nay many of your Divines are condemned by you, for fighting against Iesuites and Arminians, with the Antinomian wea∣pons, and for running thereby into the WORSE EXTREME. Having called Maccovius an excellent Doctor, you yet profess to be ashamed to confute so senseless an Assertion as his is. After Master Tombes had condemned you for a Railer, † you did condemn him also of stark brazen-faced and unconscionable dealing, grosser then you had found in any Iesuite••; of playing the Devils part, yea worse, yea very far worse in several respects then if it were the Devil that did it; † of covetousness, liberty in sinning, and many more things then I have leisure to repeat. You have condem∣ned your own men, (whom you call the Godly) for dis∣obedience to their guides in these times, for Schism, and for doing much hurt to the Church. Nay you have publickly condemned your own long-Parliament, and your whole Assembly of Divines, for the iniquities of their (a) Solemn League and Covenant, and of their Directory, of their too great enmity to Episcopacy, of their (b) cruelty and injustice to Episcopal men, of their (c) discarding the practice of Confirmation, and of their contentions for Presbyterie, which you declare against as (d) unscriptural, in a great part of it, which as I have in part made bare already, so I shall do it more largely in due time and place. Lastly speaking of your Antagonists, who were especially Presby∣terians [(e) You marvel what's the matter that the Wasps of the Nation are gathered about your ears.]

Sir, You see my fair dealing in laying no more to your charge, then I have cited your Writings for; and I have done it so much the rather, because you have charged me in general, without producing the least proof; which was so unhansom a dealing with me, that I have shew'd you (by my example) how you ought to have dealt with your very enemies, of whom you confessed that I was none. Yet mark how you proceed—

[You little suspect that the uncharitable passages in this very learned book of yours, are as probable a symptome of the absence of charity, as the sin of David or Peter was. Sect. 20.]

Sect. 3. Thus again you affirm, without the least shew of proof, that there is any want of charity in any one the least passage throughout that book; unless you can think it a want of charity to others, that I had some for my self in confuting some calumnies then cast upon me. And I can now evince mine innocence (as to that whereof I was accu∣sed) from the very handwritings of my Accusers. But having received some satisfaction (and a little of that will serve my turn when I am wronged) I will not cause∣lessely revive, what I have long since buried with my for∣giveness. So little do you oblige me by calling my book very learned, whilest you also call it very uncharitable, that as soon as you have upbraided my wants of charity, you do immediately compell me to tax your own.

For you shut up your Section with these incomparable expressions [If I must needs chuse one of the two, I had☜ rather die in the state of David before Nathan spake to him, (which was a state of Impenitence added to Murder and Adultery) then of Mr. Pierce who hath committed no such sin, &c. Sect. 20.]

Sect. 4. Twice I have told you of this already, but ve∣ry briefly; and till you seriously repent, you cannot be told of it too often. Yet will I not grieve you with repetition, but onely adde those things which may probably convince you of your unkindness. I cannot better introduce it, then by shewing you first your partiality, for very remarkable is the difference betwixt your dealings with me, and with other men. I was apparently the friendliest of all the Op∣ponents you ever met with, for you acknowledge my gentle∣ness and charity, my brotherly and moderate dealing with you. Sect. 4.] Yet because you find me an Episcopal Di∣vine, (for what other reason can be imagined) you are pleased to judge more hardly of me, then of the bitterest Presbyterians that have ever rail'd at you. Reflect (if you

please) on a few Examples. 1 When Dr. Owen had affir∣med in sundry particulars, that you and the Worcestershire profession of Faith give too great a countenance to the Socinian abominations, you said no worse of him then that hi•• passion had quite conquered his ingenuity. 2 Your censure of Master Blacke was much less terrible then this of me, when yet you put him i••to tears and trembling. 3 When Mr. Crandon called one of your Principles most blasphemous, and professed to ab∣hor it with greatest detestation, and indignation, you did only call him judi••ious Paed••gogue. 4 Nay you hope that such men as Mr. Robertson, are justified, whose works (you say) are such as you once hoped no man had been guilty of that had the least fear of God before his eyes. 5 When D. Kendal jeer'd you for setting so high a price on the Freshmens books, & for being said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if you scarcely had been bred in ei∣ther University; and added also to this, that somewhat more of the University would have done you no harm▪ the worst you said of him, was, That you would not come neer him, until his breath smelt sweeter. But a man may be in a present state of salvation, for all his ill-smelling breath; which no man can be thought to be, whose state is worse then David's was, be∣fore Nathan spake to him. Yet this is the censure you fix on me, whom alone you had acknowledged, to have dealt very brotherly and gently with you.

Sect. 5. If you so very much abhor the dying in such a state as mine, how much less can I be willing to die in yours? for although you have professed, you take your self to be a Saint, (whilest you say you have reason to take your self for the least; almost as modestly as S. Paul, who thought fit to say, that he was less then the least;) yet you openly †confess in another volume, that you are guilty of pride and prejudice; that you are conscious to your self of being proud and selfish. You say you must and will confess the truth of that accusation from D. Owen; that † you were aware of pride and hypocri∣sie in your heart before he told you of them. So you say to Mr. Tombes (p. 272.281.) that your heart hath pride in every work you take in hand, and that your heart is mortally or des∣perately wicked. Again you confess (in your Preface to that Book) how loth you were to publish the later part of your third

Disputation, which shews what sins do consist with godliness, as knowing how unfit it was for the eyes of the profane, yet you have printed it with a witness, and affirm'd that such sins do consist with godliness, as I have cited out of your text, in the first Section of my third Chapter: worse sins then which, it is hard to name. And notwithstanding you do acknowledge, that Sabbath-breaking i•• England is taken for a sin inconsi∣stent with grace, yet you positively affirm, that every one is not ungodly, who lives and dies in that sin without particular re∣pentance. You confess in that page, that spiritual pride is worse then common swearing, and you elsewhere confess that you are spiritually proud. You confess that you go on in the same fault your self, for w^ch you had accused the pride and ig∣norance of others; professing you have no excuse or argument, but those of the times, NECESSITY and PROVIDENCE. Sir, I think the better of you, for ingenously confessing such sins as these, but not the better that you commit them; and heartily pray you to believe that they stand in need of a particular repentance. Concerning me you know nothing, but that I have written against sin, and so (by necessary conse∣quence) against such sinners as patronize it, yet you implicit∣ly pronounce me in a state of damnation. If this is one of those sins w^ch you will have to consist w^ch the power of god∣liness, your danger cannot but be the greater, by how much the likelier you are to fansie that it stands not in need of a particular repentance. Compare your censoriousness in relati∣on to me, with what you are more guitly of in the later pa∣ges of your book, & in the pages before cited from out your Saints everlasting rest: though you are clearly a guiltier per∣son then the Episcopal men whom you condemn, yet I will not judge you, as you judge others. I had rather for mine own part, have a Mill-stone tied about my neck, and to be cast into the sea, then take upon me to be a judge of quick and dead, by parting the tares from the wheat before the harvest. Some will justifie the wicked, as vessels of absolute election, because they stick to their party, and condemn the righteous as moral men, for at least as bad, if not a worse reason, which is to in∣terpret God's secret will, in opposition to his revealed on••. I will not resemble then so far, as to judge of their end,

though I see their way; For secret things belong to God, & spiritus ubi vult spirat. And though late Repentance is seldom true yet true Repentance is sometimes late. It is to their Master they stand, or fall. I judge not of any man, but by his fruits; nor any otherwise by his fruits, but by the Rule revealed.

Sect. 6. Your next short Section being nothing but a Reference to what you have said in another Book, I have nothing to do but to circumscribe. Not understanding what you mean by the last words of it, [That that is it you yet stand to.] For if you retract what you have taught in your Disputation concerning Sacraments, and will now stand to nothing but what you have said to Master Tombes, and in the other places which you refer to, (as the Par∣ticle [yet] doth somwhat seem to imply,) I shall only intreat you to do it plainer. But if you stand to what you have said in the place by me cited, I also stand to my exceptions, and am not concerned to look out farther. Your judgment can∣not be mistaken touching the sins of the godly, when you have told us so very plainly that godly men may be Drun∣kards, and live a long time in Swearing, yea, in Rebellion and Schism, and other Crimes, and yet you do not doubt of their being godly. You had said enough, had you said no more then that you would rather chuse to die in the state of David (whilest yet impenitently lying in Adultery and Murder, and other deliberate impieties) then in the state of an Episcopal Divine, (naming me) whom you acknow∣ledge to be free from any such sin. Whereby you put me in mind of the aforesaid Malefactor, who after his Thie∣very and adulteri••s, and deliberate murder of his Bedfellow, did pity the ignorance and blindness of those his Visitants, who offer'd to aggravate his bloody fact, and ask'd him whether the sight of the baggs (for after his Murder he stole two purses, containing 120 l.) were not his first temptation to the murdering of his brother. He did ill requite them for their faithfulness to his soul, who knew it was needful to cleanse the wound with some corrosives, before it could safely be closed up. Their question was very pertinent, for he once

confessed the money tempted him, (p. 3, 4.) yet this poor Ma∣lefactor (if Master Case hath not wrong'd him) was taught the confidence to bewail his Monitors ignorance and blind∣ness. To which he added (saith Master Case) that they who never had committed such gross and scandalous sins, are ac∣counted as guilty of all sins before God, and as uncapable of heaven, as if they had committed them in the highest degree; these he also bewailed as poor Ignaro's, as if original cor∣ruption were more powerful in them who never committed such hainous sins, then in him who had committed them in the very worst manner: or as if their natures were not as likely to have been changed and re••ew'd, who had abstained from fulfilling their fleshly lusts, as his who had been so in∣dulgent to them. Or as if it were not the Grace of God, (which the Murderer called the restraining power) where∣by others are preserved from such foul sins. Its true in∣deed Master Yearwood did very prudently endeavour to keep the sinner from presumption, (a sin the more to be a∣voided because it is commonly swallowed down under the notion of assurance, and so dispatches too many souls very comfortably to Hell,) even by seasoning his ears with this great truth, that David himself if he murders, is in dan∣ger of damnation, (p. 11.) But now suppose that Malefa∣ctor was indeed a true Penitent, and that it was not presum∣ption but saving Faith, which made him say, he did not doubt of his salvation; and so (by a consequence unavoid∣able) that he was one of the Elect, as well as David; (as for ought we know he was) will you say that his crimson and scarlet sins were no more then the sins of a godly man? and that they could never once place him in a state of Damnation, before the instant of his Repentance? if you say yes, consider whether it tends; if you say no, you yield the cause, and are obliged to publish your Recanta∣tion.

CHAP. V.

Sect. 1. I Am now arriv'd at the largest subjects of Dis∣course, on which notwithstanding I shall endea∣vour to say the least. My reasons for it are chiefly these, First because I am inform'd that others will handle them ••x professo, who are qualified for it, by greater leisure then I enjoy. Next because I am called upon to undeceive the admirers of Master Hickman, who may perhaps turn Li∣bertines, if they are not speedily disabused. These especi∣ally are the reasons why I shall labour for brevity in all that followes.

You say, Tis strange that in an Age, which knows the lives of those that I am for, and against, I can make it the ground of opposing Puritanes, because their Doctrines lead men to li∣centiousness, and destroy godliness. And that Grotius saith the same. Sect. 22.]

Sect. 2. A thousand to one but it is true, if Grotius saith it, who had one of the soberest and most discerning spirits that the World hath known in many Ages. Nor is truth the less truth by being spoken by me, as well as Grotius. If you include your self in their number, whom you com∣mend for godly living, how differ your words from those of the Pharisee? Lord I thank thee that I am not as other men are. Nay if you speak of those Puritanes of whom I speak, it is just as if the Publican should take up the words of the Pharisee, instead of those which are fitter for him, Lord be merciful to me a sinner. For the lives of those whom I am against, are well nigh as ill, as the Divel can wish them; Blasphemous, Rebellious, Sacrilegious, Perjurious, Schismatical, and all in publick; what they are secretly, God onely knows: But then the fathering of all these sins on God, and committing them under pretence of Godliness, and the not allowing them to be sins, must needs be the greatest aggravation and heightning of them. And why should not this become a ground, (both with Grotius,

and my self,) whereby to conclude of their Doctrines, that they lead to licentiousness, and destroy godliness? Al∣though I cannot call to mind that I branded the Puritanes with those expressions, and had you seen any such words, you should have noted my page wherein you saw them. I think you would, had you been able, or had you thought it for your advantage.

Sect. 3. Whereas you say, that their lives are so much better, then their Doctrines (Sect. 22.) It is enough for me to say, you do but say it, you offer no proof that so it is. If your particular life is better then others of your party, it is but agreeable to your doctrines, which are (most of them) better then those of your party, and for which they have proclaim'd you a great Arminian. But whether your life is so, or not, I will leave it to God to be determi∣ned: of this I am sure, that when you had fastened on Mr. Tombes (one of the authorized Triers) as ugly a cha∣racter as was possible (throughout your book) and on the men of his way, yet you professed that those things do not diminish your affection to him. And why so? your reason runs in these words— [Because I find we are all naught, even almost stark naught, and that Saints have less sanctity and more sin in them, then ever I imagined, &c.] Let some men sin never so much, they do not cease to be Saints, but onely grow to be naughty Saints. Let others sin never so little, (as to the eye of the World) they do not cease to be ungodly, but onely grow to be moral and civil men. If it is true (what you have told us) that your heart is desperately, mor∣tally wicked, and that you are conscious to your self of being Proud, and Selfish, and Hypocritical, you doe not well to call your self the least of Saints, whilest you make us believe that you are no Saint at all.

As for the lives of those men, whom I am for, they are such as are for God, and for his persecuted spouse, for the keeping of Promises and Oathes, although it be (outward∣ly) to their hurt; they are such; whose great learning

is far inferiour to their lives; such whose enemies are not able to defame them without calumnie; such, whose converse is so unblameable, that their enemies confess they are moral men, and are fain to tell them they have not grace in their hearts, because they see nothing in their acti∣ons which is ungracious. In a word, they are such, who rather chuse to suffer affliction with the people of God, then to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. If there are any who are not such, I never was for them, I never will be; yet scandalous livers may suffer wrong in some cases, where∣in 'tis a duty to plead their right.

You say, that Fitz Simmons a petulant Iesuite, divideth us English Protestants into Formalists and Puritanes, and in∣veigheth against the Puritanes as their greatest enemies. You were sorry that mine did use so much of his language, and that the Iesuite and his formalists should accord about so ••ad a work▪ Sect. 23.]

Sect. 4. Here you argue against me, and your self, and not at all against me, unless against your self also; for you confess that the Iesuite doth call the men of my way by the name of Formalists, in which calumniating lan∣guage you do fully close with him. If I must be blamed for using one word, which is also used by a Iesuite, much more must you, Sir, who accord with a Iesuite in another. I say much more, because you do, what you condemn. And is not Formalist as scandalous, as reproachful a title to the Prelatists, as Puritane is to the Presbyterians? nay do not you use it as a word of obloquy? then mark the summe of the whole matter. Master Baxter may freely declaim against Prelatists, (that is, the regular sons of the Church of England,) calling them Formalists, Arminians, Cas∣sandrian Papists, or what he pleases. But Master Pierce must not dare to say there is any such thing, or name, as Puritane in the World. It were better his right hand were used as Cranmer's, (Sect. 24.) It were better he were in the state of David before Nathan came to him, (Sect. 20.) What a priviledge is this, that you must have the inclosing of contumelious language unto

your self? If mine were such, you are not fit to be my Reprover, but I have shewed you that mine was none.

Sect. 5. Be it so, that Fitz Simmons did rail against Puritanes as his greatest enemies, (though you cite no page where that is visible) what do you mean to prove by it? that the Puritanes are really his greatest enemies? then all is true that Fitz Simmons saith. But if they really are not, Fitz Simmons lies, which sure he may, being a Iesuite, e∣specially if he holds their prodigious Doctrine of Proba∣bility. The Iesuists use to say that, which is most for their turn; and tis for cunning mens interest to rail at them most, that do them most service: which the Puritanes cer∣tainly have done, in destroying, or suppressing the greatest enemies of the Papists, the unchangeable men of the Church of England. For this I have frequently your own confession: You say the Papists had a hand in ••asting out of our Bishops, p. 95. and in the killing of our King, p. 106.108. Do men endeavour the destruction of their enemies or their friends? Again you say, that the Papists are crept in among all sects; Quakers, Seekers, Anabaptists, Millenaries, Le∣vellers, Independents, and Presbyterians, p. 99, 100. To what end, but to cherish and abet each Sect? Do men cherish and abet their greatest enemies, or their friends? It hath indeed been the cunning of certain Papists to pretend great kindness to Episcopal men, nay, to the XXXIX Ar∣ticles of the Church of England, (of which you have Fran∣ciscus de San••tâ Clarâ for an Example) nay to whisper a∣mong the people, that his Grace of Canterbury was a Pa∣pist; nay farther to offer him a Cardinall's Hat, or any thing else in the World, to make it believ'd that the Pre∣latists were Popishly affected; that as such they might be hated, and so destroyed. Consider how you have help'd them in this design, and then I shall hope you will do so no more. Consider also the insufficiencie of your arguing, and abstain from such arguing for time to come. Your self (at one time or other) have inveigh'd against all, and yet you would be thought to be hardly an enemy unto any. The Iansenians and the Iesuites do inveigh against each

other, as much as may be, yet both against Protestants, for both are Papists. Salma••us inveighed against our E••glish Presbyterians, as the worst creatures to be imagined, and yet himself was no Papist, or Episcopal Divine, but a more peaceable Presbyterian then those against who•• he had whet his pen. You might have saved me the l••bour of this whole Section, had you consider'd what I said on the like occasion in page 98. Chapt. 3. of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

You say, I was to blame that I would not give you my descri∣ption of a Puritane, that you might know my meaning; & that a Puritane is not the same thing to one man as to another: where∣upon you reckon up your several notions of a Pu••itane, §. 23.

Sect. 6. As you do not cite any page wher••in I u••ed the word Puritane, so I suppose if you had done it, you could not have spoken what now you speak: for I cannot re∣member that I ever used that word, when I did not abun∣dantly unfold my meaning, even as much as you have done, when you have spoken of Papists, or Presbyterians, of which you know there are many sorts. How many sorts are there of Independents, of whom you many times speak, without declaring distinctly which sort you mean? Yet it ap∣pears by my writings, that I have meant by Puritanes; what was meant by King Iames, with whom you confess that a Puritane was a turbulent seditious Seper••tist, or Non-Conformist. But you might have confessed much more, had you been pleas'd, for he called them the unruly, and phanatick spirits among the Ministe••y, as bad as Highland or Border Thieves for Ingratitude, Lies, and vile Perju∣ries. When you say he meant not all Presbyterians, you do infer, he meant some, and more then some I never meant; n••y, I often professed I meant not all. But which, and how many Presbyterians were understood by King Iames, you may collect by two Books already printed, my Divine Pu∣rity defended, chap. 2. p. 8.9. and my Self-Revenger Exempl. chap. 3. p. 71. to p. 84. of which your Grotian Religion doth take no notice. The truth is, the word Purita••e wa•• brought hither out of Sco••land (I think I am not mistaken, though if I am, its no great matter,)

and so King Iames was the fittest definer of them, though their name was in the World before his time, viz. Anno Dom. 1564. So that after it was evident I spake of such, what needed the muster of so many other notions? yet to give you satisfaction, I shall speak to each of them.

You say, With a Papist a Puritane was a zealous Pro∣testant, &c. Sect. 23.]

Sect. 7. If that doth signifie a firm, or a constant Prote∣stant, who building upon rational and truly Catholick grounds, is not onely no Papist, but never can be; then the notion of Puritane belongs to no other Protestants then those you commonly call Prelatists and Episcopal men. But if by zeal is meant violence, ignorance, noise and virulence, or calling the Pope the Whore of Babylon; then it belongs to those men who declaim against Bisho••s, as Antichristian; and against a publick Form of Pray∣er, as a stump of Dagon. And so the soberest of the Papists do call them Puritanes who are enemies to Pro∣testants as well as Papists. You know who they are that are thus intitled to the word: and for those of King Iames, I have accompted to you already.

You say, With some Protestants, a Puritane is one of the old Catharists, that thinks a man may be perfect without sin in this life, as Grotius and the Papists do, &c. Sect. 23.]

Sect. 8. But could you not tell us what Protestant hath used the word as you say? or could you not tell in what wri∣tings either Grotius or the Papists have h••ld such Doctrine, as that a man in this life may be without sin? you often lay too great a weight upon your private fancy, or bare assertion; perhaps indeed some of the Papists may have said of the e∣ver blessed Virgin, that she was free from all sin in this pre∣sent wo••ld; but she was a woman, and therefore cannot be the man you are pleas'd to speak of. Nay are you sure the old Catharists did ever teach any such thing? I doubt you are not. Bishop Andrews call'd the Catharists, Puri••ane••, inferring the Puritanes to be a new sort of Catharists; but fo•• quite other reasons then you here fancy, as I shall shew you▪ at large in my following Sections.

The Scripture notion of the word [Perfect] you must ac∣knowledge doth belong to divers men in this life, it being ascribed both to Zachary, and to Elizabeth his wife. But such perfection is one thing, and sinlesness is another.

Your bidding me take heed least by vindicating Grotius I make folks believe I am a Puritane my self, (ibid.) is a most groundless intimation, that all the vindicaters of Grotius do make themselves, or some others, to be without sin, which, what a calumny it is, I need not tell you. At first you bid me take heed, lest by vindicating Grotius I be suspected to be a Papist; if now a Puritane too, my case is hard, especially when Grotius himself was neither,, for the vindicating of whom, I must be suspected to be both. Perhaps your brethren did call you Papist for the very same reason, even because you have appear'd in vindication of Grotius, and taught that the righteousness of a Christian (even in this present life) is either perfect, or none at all. In this you have spoken as high as Grotius, see if you have not, [Aphoris. of justif. Thes. 24. p. 129. & 133. & Thes. 22. p. 122.123. Thes. 27. p. 141. Saints Rest. part. 4. p. 296.] What I have spoken for Castellio, to that I refer for you, and Grotius.

You say, with the old Episcopal party, a Puritane was a Non-conformist, Sect. 23.]

Sect. 9. And glad I am of the Confession, for 'tis not long, since that party was the prevailing, and so had the Norman loquendi abiding with it: which being granted, what need we more to discover the vulgar use of the word Puritane? If you consider the ill things which Non-con∣formist doth import, (a schismatick, Boutefeux, a strainer at Gnats, and a swallower of Camels▪) you have not spoken much amiss. And as touching the late Prelates, How (good Sir,) doth it appear that they had any other notion? you bring just nothing to prove they had: and I can bring something to prove they had not. For Bishop Carleton could say, (even then when he end••avour'd to speak in their favour, or excuse) that Puritanes were † disquieters of the

Church, about their conceived Discipline. Master Fuller, to the word Discipline, doth adde Church-Government, from which the Puritanes dissented in former time. And he saith, in probability the word imported Non-conformists. To the other two words you now adde Doctrin••; and what an unruly sort of people must they have needs been, who were ever snarling and disquieting the Church of God (in which they lived) for her Discipline, and Go∣ver••ment, and Doctrine too? Our Learned and Reverend Doctor Sanderson you do professed••y reverence in very great measure, (p. 2.) and whether you do esteem him a new Prelatist, or an old one, it will equally be to my advan∣tage. First see him citing the old Prelatists concerning Puritanes, and then together with their judgments, com∣pare his own. [

The Reverend Archbishop Whitgift, and the learned Hooker, men of great judgement, and fa∣mous in their times, did long since foresee, and declare their fear, that if ever Puritanism should prevail among us, it would draw in Anabaptism after it. At this Car••∣wright, and other Advocates for the Disciplinarian In∣terest in those dayes, seemed to take great offence, &c. but without reason saith Doctor Sanderson: † for those Godly men, (meaning Hooker and the Archbishop,) were neither so unadvised, nor so uncharitable, as to become Judges of other mens thoughts or intentions, beyond what their actions spoke them; they onely considered as prudent men, that Anabaptisme had its rise from the same Principles the Puritanes hold, and its growth from the same courses they took; together with the natural tendency of those Principles and Practices thith••rward. And that it was no vain fear, the unhappy event h••th proved, and justified them, since what they feared is come to passe, and that in a very high degree.

] Thus you see that Presbyterians, and the prime of that party, even such as Master Cartwright (in Queen Elizabeth's d••yes) were stiled Puritanes, and Disciplinarians by these unquestionable men. And I wish you would read (once at least every week) that most excellent Preface

of Doctor Sanderson: you will find him placing the Church of England, and the regular sons of the Church of England, in the middle betwixt the two extremes, Papists and Puritanes; highly applauding the Episcopal Divines as the greatest enemies of Rome, and converters of Papists from that Church to this, which hardly ever a Presbyterian was known to be. You will find him shewing how your par∣ty have been the great promoters of the Roman interest a∣mong us, and that by many more waies then one. You will find him confuting your Book of Concord. p. 46. shewing how you and your brethren have hardened the Papists, and be∣trayed the Protestant cause. Nay how Libertinism it self hath over spread the whole face of the land, by the means of fiery turbulent Presbyterians. You will find him discover∣ing that dangerous point, wherein the very mysterie of Puri∣tanism consisteth (they are his own words) and from whence as from a fountain so many acts of sinful disobedience issue. How the enemies of our Prelacy are both multiplied, and divided into Fractions, and Factions, not more opposite to truth (many of them) then to one another: their opposition to the Truth being the onely property wherein the Factions do all agree. Yea you will find him express his fears (which are extremely to be heeded, proceeding from so good, and so wise a man.) that our Atheists are more numerous then either our Papists or our Sectaries, (and perhaps go masking in all their vizors) since the pretended Reforma∣tion you so much talk of. To put an end to this Paragraph, you will find him distinguishing, as I have many times done, (as well before, as since he did it,) between the moderate, and the rigid, Scotized, through-paced Presbyterians. The former he professeth to love and honour: but such he saith the madness and obstinacy of the later, that it is vain think of doing any good upon them by Argument. But becau•••• you may obje••t that Doctor Sanderson is one of the ne•• Episcopal Divines, or say of him (as you did of Grotius) th•••• he is an exasper••••ed man, (as having been cast out of hi•• own by the barbarous violence of your Reformers) I will ad•• some judgments, to which you cannot have such exceptions

Sect. 10. Bishop Andrews (of blessed memory) hath de∣scribed a branch of the old Cathari or Puritanes, who call themselves Apostolici, for an extraordinary desire (above o∣ther men) to have discipline, and all things to the exact pattern of the Apostles dayes. He citeth Epiphanius for the Catha∣rists (Haeres•• 6••.) so that it seems he thought Puritanes a sort of Hereticks revived. He calls it fitly Cacoz••lia, an a∣pish imitation, to retain all in use th••n, seeing divers things e∣ven then were onely temporary. He also shews them to be a parcel of the Donatists, for pressing all things alike which they found in Scripture. Both which (he tells us) have not a little harmed the Church. He discovers their Hypocrisie and Superstition (so unfit are the Puritanes to accuse others of it) with another riot and licentious liberty, which (he saith) is a great deal worse then the former. In a word, he doth conclude them to be partly Idols, and partly Idola∣ters; † for besides their vain imaginations touching the A∣postles fellowship, (Lay-Elders and the rest of the Presbyterian inventions) to which (he saith) a great number of the de••eived people bow down and worship, (p. 34.) and besides their babling after the manner of the Papists, yea, of the Heathen, in their long and (pretendedly) extemporary prayers, (in w••h he saith they err no less then either Papists or the Heathens do, p. 37.) He concludes of all their tricks together, w^ch he condem∣ned in particular throughout his Sermon, [These are of many imaginations, some set up and magnified by some, and by others worshipped and adored, under the names of the A∣postles ¹ Doctrine, ² Government, ³ Sacraments, ⁴ Prayers.] In divers others of hi•• Sermons he sets them out in their proper colours. As mistaking their humours, and misterming them the spirit; calling that the spirit of zeal, wh••ch is indeed a hot humour, onely flowing from the gall. Another windy humour they have proceeding from the spleen, supposed to be the wind, Act. 2.3, 4. with which being filled, they term themselves. THE GOD∣LY BRETHREN I wish (saith He) it were not needful to make this Observation. But you shall ea∣sily know it for an Humour. Non continetur ter∣mino

suo; its own limits will not hold it. They are ever mending Churches, States, Superiours, mending all save themselvs; alieno, non suo, is the note to distinguish an hu∣mour by — (b) Many follow their own ghost, in stead of th•• Holy Ghost. For even that ghost taketh upon it to inspire. And (c) flesh and bloud (we know) have their revelati∣ons.—Having set up and shrin'd the worldly spirit in their hearts) up sh••ll all the golden Calves to uphold the present e∣state; down shall Christ, ne veniant Romani, that the Ro∣mans come not and carry us all away. — † Again he calls them the Automata, the Spectra, the Puppets of Religion, Hypocrites. Wi••h some spring within, the eyes are made to rowle, and their lips to wag, and their brest to give a sob; all is but Hero's Pneumatica, a vizor, not a very face; an o••t∣ward shew of godliness, but no inward power of it at all.— And are there not somewhere in the World, some such as will receive none other spirit, or Holy Ghost, but their own ghost, and the Idol of their own conceit, the vision of their own heads, the motions of their own spirits? And if you hit not on that that is there in their hearts, they reject it, be it what it will? That make their brests the sanctuary? That (in effect) say with the old Donatists, Quod volumus sanctum est, that they will have holy and nothing else? Men causeles∣ly puffed up with their fleshly mind? — It is an old worn error of the Donatists, and but new dressed over by some f••∣natical spirits in our dayes, that teach in Corners; one that is not himself inwardly holy, cannot be the means of holiness to another. And where they dare too, that, one that is not in state of grace can have no right to any po••session or place, for they of right belong to none, but to the true children of God; that is to no••e but themselves. And These the Bishop there call's, Fond ignorant men. Again Not onely mission, but submission is a sign of one truly called to this business. But — of all pr••positions, they indure not super; all equal, all even at least. Their spirit is not subject to the spirit of the Prophets, nor of the Apostles neither, (if they were now alive,) but bear themselves so high, do tam altum sapere, as if this spirit were underling, and their spirit above the Holy

Ghost. There may be a spirit in them, there is none upon them, that indure no super, none above them.]

You see how Puritanes were described by that so emi∣nently judicious and godly Prelate, who long before his preferments, had been † earnestly dealt with by a great per∣son (being his Patron) to hold up a side which was even then falling, and to maintain certain state points of Purita∣nism; but he had too much 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as my Author alludes unto his name) to be either scar'd with a Counsellors frown, or blown aside with his breath: and therefore answered his Tempter plainly, It was against his learning and conscience too. His Patron seing he would be no Fryer Pinkie, (to be taught in a Closet what he should say at Saint Paul's) dis∣missed him then with some disdain; but after did the more reverence his integrity, and became no hinderer to his ensu∣ing greatness.

Sect. 11. Now since the Author of this Relation was Sir Iohn Harrington of Kelston, a knowing person in those times, of which he hath left a view behind him, it will be pertinent to observe his private judgement, of those old Puritanes who then disquieted the Church. When the Puritanes (saith he) whom some defined to be Protestants sca∣red out of their wits, did begin by the plot of some great ones, but by the pen of Master Cartwright, to defend their New Discipline, their endeavour was to reduce all, in shew at least, unto the purity, but indeed unto the poverty of the Primitive Church. That is to say, they were sacrilegious. For speak∣ing after of the same men, This (saith he) was the true Theorique and Practique of Puritanism. One, impugning the Authority of Bishops secretly, by such Lectures (as that which was lately founded by a sacrilegious Grandee, and read by Dr. Reynolds) The other impoverishing their livings o∣penly, by such leases as would yield good fines to the Procurers.

He inferrs the judgement of Queen Elizabeth and her Councel, in that he saith the learned Bancroft obtained the favour of Queen and State, for his endeavours to s••ppress those fantastical Novellers. And 'tis known that his reward was the Archbishoprick of Canterbury. Dr. Whitgift also

(though a great Anti-Arminian) was then an eminent Confuter of Cartwright's Writings. And (as a step to his Archbishoprick (was first rewarded with the Bishoprick▪ of Worcester. Nay, Judge Popham, who was unwilling to have them called Puritanes, was yet accustomed to call them seditious Sectaries, which he would not have done, had he not judged them to be such. Having said how the Queen did approve the books of Dr. Bancroft, I did not add the opinion he had of Puritanes, because his two books have done that for me; the one discovering their discipline, the other, their dangerous positions in point of Doctrine, more especially that Doctrine which hath a tendency to the subversion of Church and State.

I will not give you my whole accompt of that Author, but onely in brief put you in mind how the Puritanes in Cambridge had courted Dr. Iohnstill to abet that party; and how they reviled him in their pulpits, because he would not joyn with them, (yet he was after made Bishop of Bath and Wells.) How every one made reckoning that the Man∣nor-house and Park of Banwel should be made the reward of some Courtier, which suspicion was increas'd in that Sir Thomas Henage was said to have an oare in the matter, being an old Courtier, and a zealous Puritane, whose consci∣ence, if it were such in the Clergy, as it was found in the Dutchy, might well have digested a better booty. How Queen Elizabeth at Oxford had school'd Dr. Reynolds for his preciseness; willing him to follow her laws, and not to go be∣fore them. But it seems he had forgot it when he went last to Hampton Court; so as there he received a better schooling.

Sect. 12. Very remarkable are the words of the Lord Keeper Puckering, touching the parity of the danger to Church and State which the Puritanes and the Iesuites had brought on both. Remarkable, I say, as having been utte∣red in Parliament, by the special command of Queen Eli∣zabeth. And here the fitter to be inserted, because they are not to be had, but from his own hand-writing: from which, by the favour of a most noble Gentleman, I got (about a year ago) ••his following transcript. A transcript, not of the whole, but of as much as concerns the case in hand.

And especially you are commanded by her Maje∣sty to take heed, that no ear be given, nor time afforded to the wearisom•• sollicitations of those, that commonly be called Puritanes, wherewithal the late Parliaments have been exceedingly importuned: which sort of men, whilest in the giddinesse of their spirits they labour and strive to advance † a new eldership. They do nothing else but disturb the good repose of the Church, and the Com∣mon-wealth; which is as well grounded for the body of Religion it self, and as well guided for the discipline, as any Realm that professeth the truth. And the same thing is already made good to the world, by many the writings of learned and godly men; neither answer'd, nor an∣swerable by any of these new-fangled Refiners. And as the present Case standeth, it may be doubted, whether they, or the Iesuites, do offer more danger or be more speedi∣ly to be repressed. For albeit the Iesuites do empoison the hearts of her Majesties subjects under a pretext of conscience, to withdraw them from their obedience due to her Majesty, yet do they the same but closely and only in privy corners; but these men do both publish in their printed books, and teach in all their Conventicles, sundry opinions, not onely dangerous to the well-setled Estate and Policy of the Realm, by putting a Pike between the Clergy and the Laity, but also much derogatory to her sacred Majesty, and her Crown, as well by the diminution of her ancient and lawful Revenues, and by denying her Highness Prerogative and Supremacy, as by offering peril to her Majesties safety in her own kingdom. In all which things, (however in many other points they pretend to be at war with the Popish Iesuites, yet) by the seperation of themselves from the unity of their fellow-subjects, and by abusing the sacred authority and Majesty of their Prince, they do both joyn and concur with the Iesuites in opening the door, and preparing the way to the Spanish Invasion that is threatned against the Realm. And thus having ac∣cording to the weakness of my best understanding) delive∣red her Majesties most Royal pleasure, and wise direction, I rest here, with most humble suit for her Majesties gra∣cious

pardon in supply of my defects, and recommend you to the Author of all good counsel.

]

Here you see the Presbyterians were then the Puritanes, the new-fangled r••finers of giddy spirits. The Episcopal persons were then the godly, as well as the learned of the land. O what times do we live in, when a new-named godliness is grown in fashion.

Sect. 13. In the time of Doctor Richard Clerk, (not a Courtier, nor an Arminian,) to whom with Doctor Sa∣ravia the translation of the Bible was committed, as far as from the Pentateuch to the Paralipome••a, you may see what judgment was made of Puritanes by several pas∣sages of his Sermons. Amongst very many others, take that which follows.

The two Universities, the very eyes of the Realm, being so well able to furnish God's Flock with seeing Shepherds, our Church is little beholding to her Patrons for preferring to the Regiment of her Flock so many unletter'd and unsufficient Priests, either Idols, or Idols fel∣lows. Whose eyes have either a film grown over them, that they see nothing; or a Pin and Web in them, that they see but little. And these are the men, whose tongues are fierie indeed, but not cloven; that is, zealous, but not learned; preach against learning, pull down the Prelacy, to rear up a Presbyterie; Bray-forth intemperate censures against the lawful ceremonies of the Church, as being su∣perstitious, the dregs and reliques of Popery; kneeling at the Sacrament, the repetition of certain prayers in our Li∣turgie, the singing of Service, the sound of the Organ in Collegiate Churches, the square Cap and Surplisse, the painted windows, marrying with the Ring, and christen∣ing with the Cross, and such like: In some of which, were our Prelates as couragious, as our Puritanes ••re presum∣ptuous, they would be either enforced to order, or tur∣ned out of Orders.

] You see the opinion of that both learned and pious man; who tells us who were the Pu∣ritanes, and what they were; and that the Prelates were never too cruel to them, unlesse it were in being too

kind. Observe what he saith in another Sermon.

Our factious Pharisees joyn with the Herodians, and that against Christ. Iudas-like they betray him into the hands of sinners. The pragmatical Presbyterian, preach∣eth against Prelacy unto Lay-ears. A pleasing Argument unto some Seculars, either Schismatical, or Sacrilegious both men of zeal, passive in the one, The zeal of God, house eat them up: active in the other, They have a zea•• to eat up God's house: cry with Zeba and Zalmunna, Let us take to our selves the houses of God in possession. 'Twas once Simeon and Levi brethren in evil. 'Tis now Reu∣ben and Levi; Levi must be one. — Our ••orah's and Dathan's have not risen yet. Not come forth in publick. The wisdom of our Senators hath prevented that they should not swa••m. But they have lain out often. They have gathered together, sometimes sixty at once in Cor∣ners. Their Classes, Synods, Conferences, have been at least in Moses his moderate term, gatherings together. Their Petitions, Supplications, Admonitions, Demon∣strations, what were they but gatherings together? Works but of some one head happly, but of many hands. Their very motions are commotions, penn'd by some one, main∣tain'd by multitudes. —Some of the Titles which they envy the Bishops, they can be content to assume unto themselves. Right Reverend Fathers; yea Cartwright most Reverend.

The best is, Calvin and Beza differ here. Beza's wrong to Bishops Calvin rights, and calls even Archbishops a moderate honour.

Sect. 14. If you would see a great deal in a little time, concerning the nature of a Puritan, before he had gotten himself the name, (as well as after,) you may be pleased to consult the l••te Exame•• Historicum, set out by that exact and learned Writer, whom you name without his due title, as if you thought him an under-graduate, although you could not but know him an eminent Doctor in Divini∣ty. He will shew you a part of Wickliff's Gospel, and what a Protestant Religion he would have brought into the World, fitly said (by that Reverend Author) to con∣tain

the lineaments of the Puritane-platform. He will shew you where you may read † that the Dominicans, with a Puritane, can pass for Orthod••x in judgment. And they who approve of good works, for Prela••ica••ly affected. (a) There you may see a Den of Schismaticks Canoniz'd and Sainted by a Time-serving Historian; whilest Things prescribed by God's Church are Toyes and Trinckets. (b) You may read of a Puritan's immortal malice, pur∣suing the Protestant's Champion into his Bed of Rest, as if the Iesuites had hir'd him to kill their enemy when he was dead. (c) You may see a Puritane defending those scur∣rilous Libels which Iob Throgmorton, Penry, Fenner, and the rest of the Puritane Rabble, (it is the Authors own word) did publish in ••rint against the Bishops, having first exclaimed against the Que••n and h••r Councel, (for being Protestants in their wits, that is, as they phrased it) for op∣posing the Gospel. Such service for the Papists was then done by the Puritanes, whose Libels were cited and ap∣plauded by those of Rome: even Hacket himself hath an Apology made for him, although as execrable a miscreant, as most have been of that paste. (d) The libellous Pam∣phlets of Martin-Mar Prelate (th••t early Puritane in Queen Elizabeth's dayes) were urged by the Papists as Authentick Witnesses, and sufficient Evidences fo•• the dis∣grace and condemnation of the Protestant-Church. So true was that which I shew'd you f••om the Lord Keeper Puckering, that the Puritanes do joyn and concur with the Iesuites.

What (e) Principles of Rebellion were scattered abroad among th•• peo••le by the Puritane leaders in seve••al Coun∣trey••, ••uch as Wickliff, Clessel••us, Knox, and Winram, that ex∣cellent Examen will quickly tell you. And what Heath••ni••h Notes the Genevians put u••on ••he B••ble. (g) How Felton a zealous Puritane com••it••ed his murder upon th•• Duke. How Covetous••ess and Non-conformity were so married together, that 'twas not ea••e to divorce them. (h) How an Act of Parliament w••s made against Puritanes, 23 Eliz. c. 3. (i) And a High-Commission en∣forced

to curb them. (k) How mock-ordinations were made at Antwerp, by a mongrel sort of Presbyterians, consisting of two blew Aprons to each Cruel Nightcap. In a word, it will tell you their sabbatizing, their downfall, their essayes to rise, their disappointments, their new attempts by the way of Lecturing, (in which the Iesu∣ites went before them,) their pride without parallel, their malice without measure, and th••ir acts of injustice with∣out remorse.

Sect. 15. That irresistible Champion of the Protestant Church against her Adversaries of Rome, (I mean) the learned Bishop Montague, who was imployed by King Iames to write the Annals of the Church Catholick, and (all along as he went) to reform Baronius on the one side, as the Magdeburgenses on the other, do••h often justifie and distinguish the Church of England, no less from the Puritane, then Popish party. He calls them in one place, the sacrilegious hypocrites of our Countrey, who rob God and the Church, under colour of spirituality; saying that God is well pleased with no other worship then what is spiritu∣al. In another place he speaks of them as our Saviour spake of the Pharisees, Ecclesia Anglicana recte, quicquid va∣cillent Puritani, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He had long before noted, [That many were arrant Puritanes in heart, who for preferment did conform, holding with the Hare, and running with the Hound. And that many once Puritanes, turn'd often Papists. Fleeting being common∣ly from one extreme to another. Men of moving, violent, quick-silver, gun-powder spirits, can never rely upon mid∣ling courses, but dum furor in cursu est, run on headlong in∣to Extremes. And so I may avow I will not be a Papist in haste, because I never was a Puritane in earnest or in jeast; having found it true in my small Observa∣tion, that our Revolters unto Popery, were Puritanes avowed or addicted first.] — A little after, he calls the Iesuites, the Puritane-Papists; and for the Protestant-Puritanes he doth not reckon them as Members of the Church of England, but onely [an overweening-faction,

which was wont to be shrowded under the Covert of the Church of England; and to publish their many idle dreams, fancies, and furies unto the World, under pretext of the doctrine of our Church. And our Opposites of the Romish side did ac∣cordingly ••harge our Church with them.] which words when I compare with divers things before mentioned, I am apt to think that many Papists did call themselves of the Church of England, and acted their parts on our English Theater, under the name and disguise of the Puritane-party, that so they might help the real Puritanes to bring our Protestant Church into disgrace and misery.

Sect. 16. To this I will adde some words of Grotius, because he was so great an honour to the true Protestant Religion, not more for his learning then moderation: who speaking of the King of Britain and of some obligations received from him, thought fit to say [The most serene, and if the Puritanes will suffer him, the most potent King of England.] words most worthy your consideration, as ha∣ving been written in the year 1645. when you cannot but remember how much his Majesty was promised, to be made the mightiest King in Christendom. It is but seldom that Grotius doth name the word Puritane (although sometimes he names it too.) but he gives us so often a just accompt of their Ten••ts, which have commonly broken forth into Blood and Rapine, that I need not stay longer upon his exact judgment.

I will conclude my whole Catalogue with what I lately met with in my perusal of Master Thorndike. [It is evi∣dent (saith he) that Preachers and People are overspread with a damnable Heresie of Antinomians and Enthusiasts, formerly when Puritanes were not divided from the Church of England, called Etonists, and Grindeltons, according to several Countreys, &c. —well had it been had that most pious and necessary desire to restore publick penance, been seconded by the zeal and compliance of all estates••, and not stifled by the t••res of Puritanisme, growing up with the Reformation

of it.—In fine, if any thing may have been defective, or amisse, in that order which the Church of England establish∣eth, it is but justice to compare it with both extremes which it avoideth. (meaning Popery on one hand, and Puritanisme on another.) If you read his whole Book, you will pro∣bably return to the Church of England, by being convinc••d that you have left her. If you will read but some part, you will find him shewing what I shall now but say from him: viz. ¹ That the Scotish Presbyterians have done like them, who oblige subjects to depose their Soveraign, if the Pope excommunicate them; making both subjects and So∣veraigns the Popes vassals; them to rule, and those to o∣bey, at his discretion who can excommunicate them. ² That it is Puritanism, or Popery for subjects to fight against their Soveraign; yea a Branch of Puritanism, which came from Popery. ³ That there is one Principle of some Puritanes, from whence the true conclusion being drawn maketh meer Popery of the whole duty of a Christian. And that the Church of Rome holdeth no error in the Faith, any thing neer so pernicious. What he saith of Presbyteries, as to the sacriledge of Schism in the constitution, and the nullity of Gods' promises in the effect, you may read at large in his conclusion, p. 417.418, &c.

Sir, You have now the conclusion of the whole matter, as far as concerns the whole importance of those two words Non-conformity, and Puritanism. And that however you were pleased to make a difference betwixt the old and new Episcopal Divines, yet in their judgment of Puritanes, there's none at all; unless in this, that the old ones were more severe. Our excellent Bishop Hall (now with God) was one of those late Prelates of whom you speak; and what his thoughts were of Puritanes you may judge by his Exhortation in the Synod of Dort. For as in the dayes of Queen Elizabeth (and thence downwards) they were wont to compare the Puritanes to the Papists, so did that excellent Prelate compare the Papists to the Puritanes: and that for no reason more then their pretending to be p••rer then others are, or then indeed they are them∣selves.

And this doth lead me to that which follows. For

You say, Among the vulgar, a Puritane (all over Eng∣land where ever you came) was one that would speak seriously or reverently of God or heaven, or of the Scripture, and that would talk of hell, and the life to come, &c. that would not swear, or would reprove a swearer, or a drunkard, or a pro∣phaner of holy things, &c. Sect. 23.]

Sect. 17. If any man living did ever call such men as these Puritanes, (as you do nakedly affirm, but do not prove) he must answer to God, for his having done so like a Puri∣tane himself. It being as unjust to call such Puritanes, as it is now for Mr. Baxter to call the Prelatists, Papists, nay Formalists, nay what he pleaseth, p. 111, 112, 113, 114, 115. But really, Sir, I cannot imagine, with what colour of justice you should first make this the vulgar notion so contrary to that which you confessed to be the King's, the old Episcopal Divines, and the late Prelates (for you know the King's way is the vulgar way,) and that then you should imply it to have been mine, and so against me confute your own fancy, and nothing else. I have ever distinguished (as well as K. Iames) between the Knave's Puritane, and the Puritan-Knave. But we must not be afraid to call Puritans, hypocrites, because there are that are not hypocrites, who yet are called Puritanes. Must not one have his right name, be∣cause another hath a wrong? Let every man have his own, though some have that which is anothers. For my use of the word Puritane, I am encompassed about with a cloud of wit∣nesses, that I have used it as I ought. And my witnesses are such, as for greatnesse, wisdome, piety, learning, or whatever else is most lovely, I suppose you will grant beyond exception.

You say, my party gave the Puritanes a new name, and the Puritane was called a Round-head, (a learned inven∣tion, intimating that the Puritanes do speak, and not as Long-heads, bark, or grunt,) and when the ••arrs had given li∣b••rty to the rage of such as hated Puritanes, then ordinarily he was a Puritane, or a Roundhead, that was heard to pray, or sing a Psalm in his house, Sect. 23.]

Sect. 18. Though I have nothing to do with the name

of Roundhead, nor ever called any so, (that I can remember) by word of mouth, much less in any of my writings, (so as I wonder what you meant in telling me of it without cause,) yet perhaps that title is not so new as you imagin. For Petrus Crinitus could have told you of some soldiers in Germany, above a hundred years ago, Qui Agmen Tonsile, à rotundè de∣tonsis Capitibus, dicebantur. And 'tis better to have the long-head of Thersites, then the long-ears of such an Issachar as Midas was. As it is very much better to bark in†one sense, then to bray in another▪ which things concern not your self, or me. And therefore to speak without impertinence, I would very fain know where that godly man lives who was ever called Roundhead for being godly, or meerly for pray∣ing in his house: which I suppose is done even by men of all parties, excepting them who are transported above all ordi∣nances, by the presumption which they have of their absolute election, and their impossibility to fall from Grace. But if he who was HEARD to pray in his house, did pray so LOWD, and so neer the street, that passengers could not chuse but hear him, it was not his praying, but his hypocrisie, which was like∣ly to be reviled. A great deal of naughtiness may be com∣mitted, though not in prayer, as prayer; yet in a contrived Pharisaical both length and loudness. When our Saviour did call the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, yea Serpents, and generation of vipers, (notwithstanding they were esteemed the godly party) it was not meerly because they prayed, nor only because their Prayers were long, but because they made their long prayers for a pretence; that so the Orphans and Wi∣dows houses might be swallow'd down the more glibly. When thou prayest (saith our Saviour) thou shalt not be as the Hypo∣crites are; for they love to pray standing in the Synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. And he that prayes in his house to be heard of men, is neer kin to him who prays on purpose to be seen: therefore it follows in the text, When thou prayest, enter into thy closet & shut thy door. — And thy Father who seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

You say, Sometimes the sign of purgation, by which men must prove themselves no Puritans, was, if they could swear nine Oaths in a br••ath. Sect. 23.]

Sect. 19. I will not say what hath been said, That this is certainly a Hummer. But I hope i•• is an untrue report, which if it is, it is prodigiously such. I never heard any thing like it, and you ought to have given some kind of proof that you might not be concluded the Raiser of it. If the Tale hath truth in it, why did you not name the Malefactors, that (for the good of themselves, and others.) they might be brought to some exemplary punishment? such scandalous sinners before these times, would have been pa∣radigmatiz'd in the Bishops Courts. Nor could any thing less then extirpation of Episcopacy, have gained an impu∣nity for such a crime. And now to tell you the very truth, if I may judge of Antipuritanes, by those whom I am ac∣quainted with, they are as free from this vice, as most of the Puritanes are guilty of it. I speak not of swearing nine Oathes in one breath, but of swearing and forswearing, as many times in two breaths (whereof the one is hot, and the o∣ther cold) as they conceive to be for their carnal interest. Are there not Puritanes who have sworn, first an Oath of Alle∣giance, 2. An Oath of Supremacy, 3. An Oath of Ca∣nonical obedience, 4. An Oath intitled the Negative Oath, 5. An Oath which was called the solemn League and Covenant, 6. An Oath which was taken by the name of an Engagement, besides their University and Collegiate Oaths? And I have heard they swore an Oath to live and die with my Lord of Essex. Put all together, and you will find them to be Nine, with some advantage: and the Sa∣crament taken at ordination of Ministers under the Bishops, is the solemnest Oath that can be taken. Much more I could say, but that a word to the wise may seem sufficient.

You say, The way that one Company of the Kings souldi∣ers testified their freedom from this crime, by (as credible impartial witnesses in Somersetshire told you, that saw them do it) was by pricking their fingers, and letting their blood run into the Cup, and drinking a health to the Divel in their own blood, Sect. 23.]

Sect. 20. If this were true, it were not any thing to the purpose as being neither for you, nor against my self. I ha∣ving

spoken of Puritanes in the words of King Iames, not in words of my framing; and as I found them in an Hi∣storian of unquestionable prudence and moderation. Again, I spake ex professo of Presbyterians, and of Puritanes onely by accident. Nor did I speak of them otherwise, then Queen Elizabeth, King Iames, Archbishop Bancroft, Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop Andrews, Bishop Hall, Doctor Sanderson and others had afforded me a warrant from all their stiles. Yet see with what Stories you enter∣tain me, without the least offer of any proof. Nay see if it is not so contrived as if it were purposely intended to pass for incredible with all that read it. For let me put you to a few questions, 1. Was there ever any Company of his Majesties souldiers who were in very good earnest suspected to be Puritans, so as to need a testimonial that they were none? 2. Were they so far suspected of being Puritanes, that no∣thing less then their own blood, and a Health to the Divel, could satisfie the suspecters, and gain their freedom from such suspicion? when the Tale in it self is so incredible, what professor of Christianity would not suspect the very ••i••n••sses, (however professing to be no less then eye-wit∣nesses) who should suggest so strange and so incredible a thing? or who would cite such testimonies in materiâ tam∣gravi, without the naming of persons, time, and place, and without the specifying of all other circumstances, to free himself from being reckoned a False-Accuser? which of the two is the greater sin, to drink a health to the Divel, or to gratifie the Divel by falsely affirming that some have done it to free themselves from being Puritanes, I leave it to be judged by the indifferent Reader.

But now••suppose it to be true, that some did swear nine Oaths in a breath, and others drink their own blood at a health to the Divel, must you infer that they did it as a sign of purgation, (as you word it in your first story) or to testifie their freedom from the crime of Puritanism, (as you expresse it in your second?) it were very easie to pay you home in your own coyn, and to load you with more of it then you are able to bear. But I will onely speak of some

notorious matters of Fact, to let you see the advantage you now afford me. There was an eminent Presbyterian in this County of Northampton, an able Preacher by rep••te, and a godly man, who for Incest and Murder was hang'd in the ••ight of divers thousands, there are thousands now living, who saw it done; his trial and execution were so publick, that I need not tell you from whom I heard it. But how would you take it if I should say that such a Puritane did purposely defile his Niece, and consent to the murder of the child he had by her, and end his dayes upon the Gallows to prove himself free from the Prelatical party? if you find in your self, that you would take it in ill part, then learn not to speak what you would not hear. I could also tell a story of a ••everend man of the Presbyterie, (of whom it will hardly be believ'd) that taking upon him to be a Fighter, as well as a Preacher in the Army, he killed a souldier of his own Company in the Town of Warwick.

But of all the men in the World, you and I should be careful not to speak without ground, of other men's failings, since others have spoken so very groundlessly of you and me. Mr. Robertson (you say) did talk confidently of his dis∣courses with Mr. Hotchkiss, though Mr. Hotchkiss pro∣fessed he never saw him. And so you say that Mr. Blake hath printed things of your self, so false and groundless, that he might as well have said, you take your self to be King of Spain. Of Mr. Tombes his Aspersions, you very frequent∣ly complain. And you know by whom you have been ac∣cused as a Papist, and a Socinian. In all which I am obli∣ged to take part with you by my resentment, and to pro∣fess my disbelief of many things I hear of you; I having suffered my self, in the very same measure that you have done. I will not mention mens names in a more publick manner then they do mine; because I am tenderer of them, then they have been of themselves, or me. But this I cannot forbear to say, (upon so pregnant an opportunity) that malicious slanders are raised against me, and unwor∣thily whisper'd from one enemy to another, though most e∣vident

Contradictions to the plainest matters of Fact. The Tem••ter many times betrayes his Instruments, whilst he Imployes them. As if in very good earnest he had owed them a spight, as we use to say by a kind of Proverb. He puts them upon speaking such ill-made stories, as are not onely false, but Impossible to be true. 'Tis said I did this, and that, which was impossible to be done. Ju••t as if it should be said, that I created my Parents, or sq••ar'd the Circle. In∣deed I have read of Apollonius Tyanaeus, that he could tell at Ephesus, what in that very houre was done at Rome; the Devill was such a Familiar to him. But that I should speak a thing in England, whilst my Body and my Soule were both in France, is the wildest Invention I ever heard of. It is my comfort that I suffer the most Incredible of Slan∣ders, which are as Innocent in one sense, as they are crimi∣nal in another: And that I suffer for well doing, even to those very persons, from whom I suffer. But that a Sermon of Love should procure me more Hatred, than All the Acti∣ons of my whole Life, would seem as wonderfull a Thing, as that Elijah with water should set the green wood on fire, but that I consider what Age we live in; And that the Fire is more common which comes from Hell, then that which Elijah pray'd down from Heaven. Besides, I know it is part of the Chr••stians Lot, which I take in good part, and doe thank God for it.

But it were well if most men would make a Covenant with their Eares, not to listen to meer Rumors which doe not bring their warrant with them. And another Covenant with their Lips, not to utter such Rumors with∣out all reason. For through a defect of these two, what Calumnies have been raised upon men of all sorts, which (with one sort or other) have found great welcome, and entertainment? I will give you an Instance in some particu∣lars, which are many wayes pertinent to my present Enter∣prise. It was dogmatically affirmed by the whole Assembly of Divines, in a Letter which they sent to all the Prote∣stant Churches beyond the Seas, That the King and his party had an intent to set up Popery, and even to extir∣pate

the true Reformed Religion. And that they had not onely attempted, but in great measure prevailed for the put∣ting thereof in execution. A thing so far from being true, that the King protested his intentions were directly contrary, and from the Primate of Armagh received the Sacra∣ment upon it, solemnly wishing that that Sacrament might be his damnation, if his heart did not joyn with his lips in that protestation. He also declared the same thing to all the Transmarine Protestant Churches. Nay it was part of his last words, the sincerity of which he also sealed with his blood. And now you publickly confess, (as Mr. Prin had done before you in his Signal▪ Memento, p. 12.) You do not believe he was a Papist, but a moderate Protestant, and that his Conference with the Marquess of Worcester may satisfie men for that. p. 106. By the same excess of injustice, Arch∣bishop Bancroft, Archbishop Laud, Archbishop Usher, Bishop Bramhal, and Doctor Cousins have been exhi∣bited to the people as downright Papists, though as great adversaries to Rome, as Rome hath had since the Reforma∣tion. How many others in particular, and the Prelatists in general have been traduced, you know very well, and Doctor Sanderson hath told you with what injustice. It was not onely the saying of Doctor Bernard, concerning the late Archbishop of Armagh, that some of the simpler sort hearing of a conjunction of Popery and Prelacy, have thought they could not be parted in him; but it was also the com∣plaint of the Primate himself, that exceptions were taken against his Letter, as if he had thereby confirmed Papism, and Arminianism. Which yet I believe was as far from truth, as what was said by your Adversaries of you; or by you of Grotius, Bishop Wren, Bishop Pierce, and Doctor Taylor; or by Bolsec of Mr. Calvin, that he was eaten up of Lice; or by the Papists of the Waldenses, that they were Sorcerers, and Witches; or by some of Saint Austin, that he was a Manichae••n; or by the Puritanes of Bishop Andrews, that he was guilty of superstition; or by the same of Bishop Montague that he was turned unto the Papists; or by Standish of Erasmus, that he denied the Resurrecti∣on,

and blasphemed Christ's miracles, as d••ne by Magick; or by Bellarmine of the same, that he was a friend to Ari∣anism; or by Mr. Hickman of my••self, that the printed Doctrines of Zuinglius, &c. (who were dead and buried before I was born) were the meer Chimaera's of my brain. I pray consider these things, and set a guard upon your pen from this time forwards.

You say, I must be supposed to mean by a Puritane, a man that feareth God, &c. Sect. 23.]

Sect. 21. I more admire at this speech, then at all the rest that have fallen from you; for your own conscience is my witness, and so are all my Readers eyes, that my noti∣on of a Puritane hath been ever agreeable with those which I have lately set before you from Bishop Andrews, and Bishop Hall, Doctor Cleark, and Doctor Sanderson, with divers others beyond exception. How can you hope to be believed in what you say of nine Oaths in a breath, and drinking healths unto the Divel, when you can wilful∣ly corrupt the plainest words that can be spoken? And say, I MUST be supposed to mean a man that feareth God: whereas there is not so much as any circumstance of any the least probability that I should mean as you say; but the contrary is as visible as the Sun at noon, that I mean such Puritanes as have a right to that Title. Neither fearing God, nor hating covetouness; neither seeking God's Kingdom, nor the righteousness thereof; but making a stalking-horse of Religion, whereby to come at their car∣nal ends.

You say, I deviate lamentably from Catholicism, in my uncharitable censures of the Puritanes and Presbyterians. That its no Catholick Church which cannot hold such men as these, ••or a Catholick Disposition, that cannot embrace thē with that unfeigned special love that's due to Christians, Sect. 24.]

Sect. 22. Still you lamentably beat upon the very same hoof, standing still a great deal faster the•• some can gallop. With unsignificant Repetitions, naked affirmations, and want of any thing like a proof, you are able to advance a∣nother Section concerning Puritanes and Presbyterians;

not referring to any word, which I had spoken of either; nor to any one page, where my Censure may appear to have been uncharitable. My opinion is, you durst not cite my words or pages; for then your foule dealing had been too vi••••ble to the Reader. Nay then you must have written ano∣ther book to some purpose; not This, which you know is to none at all. Had you answered my Book, or any little part of it, I must have given you a Reply. But since you still begin with me, I can but answer. And that I can doe very sufficiently, by barely denying what you affirm without proof. But if you will fairly consult my book, you will find I have said no other things of the Puritanes, then I cite them say∣ing of themselves. And are you angry with me, for belie∣ving the men upon their words? Or are you so kind to their Rebellions, their Sa••rileges, and Murders, (all recorded by some of themselves, from whom you know I have my proofs) as that you have not the patience to hear them censur'd? I know not how you will give me a more colourable ac∣compt, unlesse you confesse in the end (what should have been done at the beginning) That you knew not what I had written, or thought it best to take no notice of it. Now how can Catholicism bind any man, not to censure such Puri∣tanes, as were so rigidly either Scotish, or Scotized Presbyte∣rians? Or how can the Catholick Church hold, what will not indure to be held? The Church of God is like a Net, in which are fish of all sorts, excepting the violent and the slip∣pery, which break out into the Ocean. They who cast out their Bishops, and separate themselves from the Regular way of God's worship, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in St. Paul's own notion; And † Rejected by others, for being condemned of themselves.

Again I may ask you, why I may not be Catholick, and censure Pu••itanes, as well as you may censure Prelatists, and yet be Catholick: Must none be censorious, except your selfe? Or is it lawfull for Mr. Baxter, to revile his Fathers and Brethren for being constant in their obedience to the most persecuted Pre••epts of Jesus Christ? And is it not

lawfull for Mr. Pierce, to convince the sons of Disobed••∣enc•• of their impieties, when he doth it by no lesse then their own Hand-writings? you Sir (sooner or later) have pass'd your cen••ure upon all sorts of men; (even th••m that draw nearest to your Religion) and will you not allow me to censure One? Compare your selfe with you•• selfe, and tu••ne your eyes inward, and rather repent what you have written, then continue to write what you must repent of. Whereas you question my love to Puritanes, I wish your love to the Prelatists were no whi•• less••. Did I not love their Soules, whose Hy∣pocriticall Sanctity I ought to loath, I would not pray (as I doe) for their Conversion; nor would I labour (as I have done) to make them ashamed of their Simulati∣ons. Did I not love them in my heart, I would rather suf∣fer their sinnes upon them, then suffer their hatred by my Reproofes. I will never consent, that men (whose Soules are dearer to me than all the things in this world) shall be carnally secure in a course of sinne, upon a dreadfull supposition that they are Saints, and cannot possibly fall into God's Displeasure, so farre forth as to incurre a reall danger of Damnation. I say I will not consent to such a mischief; no not so much as by being silent: for He that saith, Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, doth also say, Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy brother, and shalt not suffer sinne upon him. And yet I know as well who saith, Give not that which is holy unto the doggs, neither cast your pearles before swine. And therefore if the Puritanes shall make me know that they are such (either by barking, or biting, or tram∣pling my Admonitions under their feet) I shall resolve at last, to allow them no more of my Correption; Re∣sting satisfied in this, that I have freed mine owne soul.

Sect. 23. Having eas'd your self a little of your reproa∣ches against me, you immediately proceed to commend

your self. For you say [You can say, and that with bold∣ness, that you have attained to so much impartiality in your Religion, that you would gladly cleave to any party, how much disgraced soever, that you could perceive were in the right,— loving all Christians of what sort soever, that may be truly called Christians, Sect. 24.] Yet am I not able to discern by all I have read of your writings, to what party in Chri∣stendom you either do, or can cleave; unless by your clea∣ving you mean your being partial, which is a flat contradi∣ction to your pretended impartiality. A Presbyterian pro∣perly you cannot be, though by an usual Catachresis I do afford you that name, for your being so very partial to that sort of men. How you declare against their Disci∣pline, I have put you in remembrance by the twelfth Section of my first Chapter. How inconsistent you are with them in point of Doctrine, your Disputings and Apologies, and o∣ther writings do evince. What Christians in the World do you not justifie or condemn, as present interest or passion do chance to sway? that out of many sorts of Christians you would faign have one of your picking, is very evident. But if I am ask'd what side you are wholly for, I must pro∣fess to believe you are of none. And I can give such rea∣sons, as I do verily think you can never answer, which makes you appear the most partial of any man I ever met with, for turning your Byasse, to those Abettors, who (you confesse) have taken the wrong way. Or if this were o∣therwise, you could not prove you were impartial. For every Skeptick or Seeker can say as much, nay an Atheist may plead he is not partial to any party, because he pro∣fesseth to joyn with none. Which things being conside∣red, abstain for the future from depredicating your self, and defaming others. To what purpose is it that you publish you are a Saint (in one Book) and (now in another) that you can boldly say you have attained to an impartiality in your Religion, and again (in the same) that you feel [an excellent affection] to reign within you, and that you will not conceal the work of God upon your soul, and how your soul is inclined when you let your prayers loose, (p. 7.) I

say to what purpose does your own mouth praise you, when (if we may take your own word at another time) you can∣not deserve such commendations? How unfit was the same mouth to s••eak so bitterly of Gro••ius, as I have † shew'd you have done in another place? By your d••alings with him, and the Episcopal Divines, I take the sense of your Conclusion to be but this, that they alone are true Christians, whom you can love. And if you love not Gro∣tius, nor the Episcopal Divines, the reason is, they are no true Christians.

Sect. 24. You say, You had rather your right hand were us'd as Cranmer 's, then you should have written against Pu∣ritanes what I have done, Sect. 24.] yet still you name not a page where I have done it, nor a word that I have spoken. Nor do you speak of the Puritanes, of whom I spake; or if you do, you are a Patron of impiety. If you would not have written as I have done, against Puritanes; how much less would I, as you, against Episcopal Divines? Have not I chosen, so well as you? Then follow you your own course, and let me follow mine. If they were Chri∣stians in deed, whose works I shew'd you out of their words, the frighted Pagan will cry out, Sit anima mea cum Philosophis. And so perhaps some frighted Protestants, Sint animae nostrae cum Pontificiis. But what will you say of your self, if you have written against Puritanes, at least as sharply as I have done? I know you have not given them that very name, but you have lash'd them shrewdly to whom the word Puritane of right belongs; which shews how little you have been scared with that terrible saying of our Lord, Mat. 18.6. which you apply in such sort, as if you understood not its true importance. For to rebuke men for sin, is not at all to scandalize them, in Scripture phrase, nor in the phrase of any Scholar who knows the English of the word Scandalum. They are rather scanda∣lized who have pillowes sow'd under their Armholes, who are flatter'd and commended, and soothed up in their sins. He that saith to the wicked, thou a••t righteous, him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him, Prov. 24.24. To

offend a little one, in English, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Scri••ture-Dialect. If you make men to ••in by your exam∣ple, or incourage them in sinning by your instructions, (as by instructing them to believe, that being once Regenerate they cannot pessibly be otherwise, although their sins should be as David's, deliberate Murder and Adul••ery, &c.) you are truly said in such case, to offend those little ones in the faith, to scandalize them, to gall them, to make them stum∣ble. See Dr. Hamond hi•• learned Treatise concerning Scandal, if you are not too haughty for my Advice.

CHAP. VI.

Sect. 1. THere is little remarkable in your next Section, but what hath been spoken to already; or what may be satisfied with very few words. You implicitely accuse me of injustice i•• cal••ing my book A vindication of Episcopal Divines from Mr. Baxter, Sect. 25. whereas you cannot be ignorant, that I call'd my book by another name, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And that the words which you menti∣o••, ••er•• o••ly a part of the General Conten••s as fa•• as a Title-page was fit to hold them. You might h••ve said as truly, that I call'd my Book A vindicatio•• of Mr. B••xter from Mr. Barlee, fo•• that was also one part, a•• your eyes can wit∣nesse. 'Tis true I said in that Book, th••t you spake in general against Episcopal Divines, But I also said in your Vin••ica∣tion, That your words were wrested beyond your me••ning (in being applied to my particular) ch. 3. p. 100. But now that I find you so unth••nkful for my brotherly dealing, I must tell you that my dealing was much more b••o••h••r••y th••n you deserved. For when your words were so general, as to include the Bishops, the Kings Chaplains, and o••her Do∣ctors, who stay in England under the name of Episcopal Di∣vi••es to do the Pope the better Service; and when they were also so particular, as to point out for Papists, as firm Protest••nts as live, Bishop Wren, Bishop Pierce, &c. I know not how a True Protestant can misse your Censure,

if he performes the whole part of an Episcopal Divine, in so avowed a manner as to arrive at your knowledge. Nor ca•• I think you will deny, that you include those Prelatists, who will not approve of your Association, by allowing a meer Presbyter the Prelatical Power to excommunicate. Which I believe will be allowed you by no Episcopal D••vine; And then (forsooth) they must all be Pa∣pists.

You forgot your self much, when you directed me for Instruction about the Bishop of Canterbury, to the several writings of Mr. Prin, his most exasperated Enemy, at that time of the day, when his Eyes were not opened, as now they are. But if you will read his Rome's Master-piece, you will see that pious Bishop designed to Death by the Papists (not to be revenged upon his being of their side, you may be sure, but) because they saw him too strong an Ene∣my to Rome; so far from helping on the Introduction of Po∣pery, that they found it could never be introduced, so long as a Primate of his Wisdome, Vigilance, Zeale to the Prote∣stant Religion, and the Glory of God, was permitted to en∣joy both Life and Greatnesse. You talk of I know not what matters of Fact, which you must specifie first, before you prove. And you must doe your poore utmost to make some proof, before you can be fit for a Confu••a∣tion.

Sect. 2. You begin your next Section, I should say in a strange manner, but that it is such as you are used to, and with which you have forced me to be acquainted. For you say [I expresse with reproach and bitternesse my dislike of Ministers living on Sequestrations. And that you perceive I doe it without distinction. Sect. 26.] But you produce not one word of reproach or bitternesse, nor refer to any page, where your Reader may try before he trusts you. Much lesse do you shew that I expresse my Dislike without Di∣stinction. To have quoted my words had been just, but not at all for your Interest. For then your Readers would h••ve found, that the reproachfull expressions were but re∣peated by me from an Eminent man of your own Tribe. Who

went away with my Reproof, for having us'd his own party with so much Rigour. Which yet I have since been sorry for, because he was of my Iudgment in what he spake against Sequestra••ions; my Dislike of which i•• the same with his. And I will say in his words, that to cast a Brother out of his Livelyhood, or to seize upon that which is anothers, is an unneighbourly, unscholarly, unchristian thing. I am far from favouring any Minister, who is so ignorant, or ungodly, as you expresse. And I know there is a time when Mini∣sters ought to be suspended ab officio & beneficio. But even then I must say, as Mr. Barlee hath done, I am for justa ju∣stè, and Ecclesiastica Ecclesiasticè. It is a very good Rule in the Civil Law, Quae à judice non legitimo, aut non legiti∣mo modo facta sunt, ea praesumptionem habe••t contrase. And such were our late Sequestrations, that although they were made by his beloved long Parlament, yet M. Hickman himself undertakes not in all things to acquit them. (p. 46.) And Mr. B. did avow in his very last Book, that 'twas a way he was not satisfied with. (p. 52.) Nay a very great part of their proceedings you your self doe disown, even in this ve∣ry Section; Nay towards the end of your Book you professe your detestation of them (p. 111.) And if you may detest what you haue got so much by, much more may I who have lost no lesse. Not to speak of their losses, who have been very dear to me, and for whose losses I was afflicted, when (I thank God for it) I was not afflicted for mine own; knowing how, and for what, and from what sort of men my sufferings came. Sequestrations are scandalous and sinfull things, when they proceed, and are inflicted, either a non-Iudice, or in non-Reum, or modo non debito or in f••••em non rectum. The particular consideration of which four things, applied to all the Sequestrations which have happened within these eighteen years, would administer matter for a very just volume, had I time sufficient for such a work. Yet should I have spoken more largely then now I shall, (to give you that information which you particularly de∣sire) were I not told of an able Gentleman, who hath sent a Treatise unto the Presse upon this one

subject, and addressed it in particular to all your wants.

Sect. 3. Whereas you say [You are d••sirous to be better in∣form'd in this thing, to avoid much guilt, which else you may and doe incurre, if you be mistaken, sect. 26.] I have two or three things to return unto you. First, that as I am glad of your good desire, so I shall also be sorry if you are never the better for my Assistance. Next, for sufficient Informa∣tion, I had thought it enough that you knew the tenth Pre∣cept, Non Concupisces, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house (much less take it into possession, with all the good land that lies about it) nor any thing that is thy neigebour's, (much lesse All that is thy Neighbour's.) Of the Fundamen∣tal Lawes of this land, and the established Canons of the Church, I thought you had a sufficient knowledge. If not, you may when you please. Read but the Works of Judge Ienkins, whom God preserve from all Evil, and reward at last with a Crown of Righteousnesse. Read Magna Charta, and the Petition of Right. And compare with both, The Proclamation against the oppression of the Clergy by the In∣surrection of factious and Schismaticall persons into their Cures, &c. And compare with all Three The Declaration of the Lord General and his Counsel of Officers, shewing the Grounds and Reasons for the Dissolution of the long Parla∣ment, 1653.You will find in the three former [

That the Church, amonst others, hath these Priviledges; that re∣gularly no Ecclesiasticall Possessions can be extended, separated, or sequestred, but by the Ordinary. That Di∣stresses may not be taken of Lands wherewith Churches have been anciently endowed, and that Churches pre∣sentative cannot be filled, and the lawfull Incumbent thereof removed, but by the Ordinary; nor the Cure of the Incumbents served by Curates, Lecturers, or others, but by their own Appointment; or in their defect, by the Appointment of the Ordinary. Nor are any subjects of the Laity, by the Common Laws of this Realm, capable to take or receive Tithes (which are the Portion of the Clergy) unlesse by Demise from Them, or such as are ap∣prop••iate,

or made Lay-fee, &c. In the 28 year of King Edward the third it was declared and enacted by Autho∣rity of Parlament, (which is also ratified in the Petition of Right) That no man of whatsoever estate or condition be put out of his Land, or Tenements, nor taken, nor impri∣soned, nor disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer by due Process of Law. So by the Sta∣tute called [The Great Charter of the Liberties of Engl.] it is declared and enacted, That no Free-man may be ta∣ken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Free-hold, or Li∣berties, or his free Customes, or be out-lawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land, &c.

Note that these are such Laws as are still in force by all confessions; they who have broken them the most, cannot pretend they have been repealed. You cannot object your Scotish Covenant; for you have written (a) against That. And if you had not, your case were worse. The Remnant of the two Houses you cannot urge, for the very same reasons, and many more. Nay since the writing of these words, those very Houses which did obtrude you upon another man's Living (or Free-hold) do now implicitely stand charged with the Sin of Sacriledge, as well by your self, as by Mr. Vines; as may be seen by his (b) Letter which you have printed, and by your words thereupon, in the page going before it. From hence consider very sadly, whether they who transgressed so much in one thing, doe not deserve your suspicion in many others. And now I will hope, you are sufficiently informed: if you are not, you shall be before I leave you.

But by the way let me tell you, that you were ne∣ver in my Thoughts, when I expressed my Dislike of Sequestrations. I never knew you had any, untill you told me: Nor had I knowne it to this houre, had you but kept your owne counsell. So little Reason had you to use me with so much Bitternesse and Virulence in divers Books. But worser dealing then from your selfe (though not in print) I have h••d from a Mi∣nister

in this very County, of whose Sequestration I was as ignorant, as yet I am of his Face. I kno•• him by nothing but his Injuries, and his ist Nam••, which I s••all therefore in Charity forbeare to publish. I shot but at Rovers; and because by accident he was hit, he was as angry with the Arrow, as if it had been its own Ar∣cher, and vainly concluded that he was aim'd at, when (the very truth is) he onely stood in Ha••ms way. These things put me in mind of a certain Proverb, which I heard a while since from a worthy man, That 'tis dangerous speaking of a Halter in a jealous mans House, whose Father was hang'd.

Sect. 4. You proceed to tell me, You must confess it your opinion that the thing is lawfull, and that you take it for one of the best things you can do, to help to cast out a bad Minister, and to get a better in the place, so that you preferre it as a work of mercy before much sacrifice. Section 26.] Thus you say what you think (and whether you thinke as you say, God onely knowes.) But what Transgressor in the world may not say the same Thing? Will you doe that thing upon bare opinion that it is good, when the learnedst part of the Nation professe a Knowledge that it is evil? Let the most learned Dr. Sanderson be heard to speak in this mat∣ter, (as exact a Casuist as you can likely name any) and judge by that one person how many thousands and millions will vote against you, It should suffice to deterr you from taking that which is anothers, that the lawfulness of it is still in controversie; and even many of your way are (in this particular) of ours, blessing God with great joy, that they have never had the least finger in what you boast of. Besides you must grant, that it may be possibly a Sinne to deprive a man of his Free-hold; whereas not to de∣prive him, can be no Sinne at all. And whilest you call it your opinion that you are right, you acknowledg•• it possible you may be wrong. From whence it also must needs pro∣ceed, that you profess to be desirous to ••e b••tter inform'd. But then you should lay down the stake, untill you have found

whose reasons win. Not dispossess your Brother first, and then debate whether the action is right, or wrong. That hath too much affinity with Hallifax Law. Again consi∣der how sad an Argument from Opinion to Practise some men have drawn; that whilest your own is no other, you may suspect it. The cursed Jews had an † opinion, that in murdering Christ's Messengers they did God service. Ha∣ving also an opinion, that they were very bad Ministers. But certainly one Injury is no excuse for another. And since I seek not yours, but you (which I also do at your Intreaty) be not offended if I put the case home. Can you take it for one of the best works you can do, to despoile a Brother of his lawfull possession, and then (over and above) to call him a bad man, thereby to justifie, or countenance th•• Depraedation? Was Mr. Dance a bad man? 'Tis more then all my inquiries could yet discover. He hath a better Re∣port then you can comfortably believe. And is not his That Benefice you now possess? Or if he is a bad man, Are you better then He, who have confessed your own † Hypocrisie, as well as Pride, whilest sincerity and meeknesse are most commended in M. Dance? How many hundreds are cast▪ out from their several Places in the Church, who must be granted (even by you) to be exceedingly good men, at least exceedingly better, then those that are thrust into their Roomes? Who is now in the Canonry of Christ-Church, out of which Dr. Sanderson was rudely cast? Or who hath the Parsonage of Penshurst in his possession, out of which D. Hammond was long since thrown? You would blush if I should tell you what change is made. I do not instance in these two, as being better then all others (I cannot be so injurious to all their Equals) but because I think you may know them. Judge by these of the rest; which I will also name, if you desire it. But they would fill up too many sheets to be writ at this time. And as large as you may think me, I strive for brevity and speed. Let me ask ther••∣fore in short, If M. Baxter in some respects is a better man then some of his Brethren (who are not fit for any Livings, and yet are put into other mens) why not in all things, as

well as some? Why is he not better then his Brethren, in absteyning from the Enjoyment of that Revenue, which the Law of the Land hath as truly and solidly made Another's, as any Lay-man's Free-hold is his? Sir, I wish you so well, that I would have you as blameless as good old Zachary: I would not have it in my power, to say an unpleasant thing to you: I long to see you a Bright Example of so necessary a Duty as Restitution. Hundreds may follow, if such a man will but lead. And when Righteousness shall flow as a mighty stream, it will probably carry in the same channell the most desiderated Blessings of Peace and Union. We who have Livings of our own will most readily resign them on that condition; and intercede with our Patrons, that such as give back their Brethren's may be presented. All shall be theirs (by my consent) who most desire to have All, if they will do us but the favour to take it fairly. I would not wish any thing from them, except their Sins. I could wish the Lovers of this world had as much of it as they could wish, could I but have any assurance that they would fa••e never the worse in a world to come. Nor should I care by what courses a man grows rich, if Riches could do him any good in the day of wrath. Riches restored when ill got∣ten, I know to be profitable for ever, to those that want them for a season by such good means. Which strongly tempts me to wish, that I were just in your case (that is to say, In a Sequestration) that so I might be in a capacity of making an eminent Restitution, and of shewing the way un∣to my Brethren by that Example. Remember what you say of Tithes, when the Quakers accuse you of being cove∣tous; [The same Law of the Land that makes the Nine parts Theirs doth make the Tenth Ours. If we have no Title to the Tenth, they have none to the rest.] The same Law of the Land is as good an Argument against you in the mouth of a Prelatist, as it can be in your mouth against the Qua∣kers. And what was done by one Ordinance against the Lands of the Bishops, Deans and Chapters, &c. may as wel be done against Tithes by some other Ordinance or Order, the Law of the Land being as valid in one case as in ano∣ther.

If Mr. Dance may have a Trial by the Law of the Land, I know not how you can keep his Living.

Sect. 5. But you proceed to tell me, That for the casting out of able, faithfull, godly Ministers, because they are Prelaticall, Presbyteriall, Independent, Arminians, or interested in the Civil Differences, this you utterly disown Sect. 26.]

If you speak in good earnest, how then can you justifie the casting out any, by any means, unless by that very Law, by which it is granted they stood possess'd? Will you say in your defence that the Law is now changed, & that the Com∣mittees for Ejection can do the same things now, which one∣ly the Bishops and their Officers could do before? But your Concession disinables you from saying This: For then as ma∣ny as were concerned in the civil Differences, as oppo∣sing this new Law, might be justly cast out by your good leave, which you profess notwithstanding, that you do utter∣ly disown. Nay then even your self must be acknowledged by you self, to be justly expulsible from the Living which you possess, for your disowning and detesting (and that in print) the several Ordinances and Actions of Them that thrust you into your Living. You cannot therefore say that the Law is changed: and being not able to say that, you must confess your Sequestration to be illegall: yo••r Predecessor being not ejected, nor you succeeding into his Place by the Law of the Land, which is still in force. And which I have made it appear, you unavoidably confess: I therefore give you my solemn Thanks, for so publickly dis∣owning all those Parliamentary proceedings against a multi∣tude of as learned and as godly Protestant Divines (called common••y Prelaticall) as the Ch••istian World hath ever had since the Times of Luther. Not onely those holy and learned Fathers of the Church, whom you may possibly call Arminian, but even those who have most of your own Ap∣plause (as Bishop Morton, Bishop Hall, Bishop Davenant, Bishop Prideaux, Doctor Oldsworth, Doctor Sanderson, and so the rest) have been all cast out, as the Dung of the Earth, for no imaginable reason, but the Civil Differences

you speak of. None were ever ejected for being meerly Presbyterial, that I can think on. It having been quite another th••ng, for which Dr. Reynolds was so suddenly cast out of Christ-Church. How Independents may have suf∣fered for being sus••ected to be Arminians, you may guesse by the partiall and shamefull dealings of the Triers, whom Mr. Goodwin hath displayed in his book on that subject. And had it not been for an Army which put a Hook into their Nostrils, the Presbyterians (in all likely∣hood) had ruin'd All.

Sect. 6. You tell me further, that the casting out of the ut∣terly insusficient, ungodly, unfaithful, scandalous, or any that do more harm then good, you take to be one of the most pious and charitable works, (supposing a better put in the place) that you can put your hand to, sect. 26.] But who (by name) are the ungodly, and all the rest of the ugly things, which here you call them in a breath? Mean you the Readers of Common Prayer, the Sons of Order and Obedience, who stand fast to their Principles in time of trial, and rather then be perjur'd, will gladly perish? Were I pleas'd to recriminate, perhaps I could make your ears tingle. But this is onely to inveigh a∣gainst the Prelatists in general, as the Quakers do against Presbyterians; and by such practises as these, you justifie the Quakers against your selves. When you read me writing a∣gainst the Puritanes, you read my evidences, and reasons, and undeniable proofs, & that from matters of fact which them∣selves have put upon Record. Consider your own words in their natural consequence; and then suppose that Anabap∣tists should prevail as much by the sword against your party, as yours hath done against Episcopal Divines; Casting you all out of the Livings, of which at present you are possest; and putting in others of their perswasion. Would they not plead for so doing, as you for the things that you have done? Would they not say that they had cast out the insufficient, and the ungodly, and put better into their places? and that this was one of the most pious works that they could possibly put their hands to? Did not the Puritanes in Saxonie, who threw down Oratories

and Churches, and Church-men too, as Antichristian, call themselves the New Ierusalem, A holy people sent from God to deliver his Saints out of Egypt, the spi••itual Egypt of Su∣perstition? Did they not enter into a League of Association, to throw down all Scepters at the feet of Christ, that them∣selves, being the meek ones, might inherit the earth? And did they not begin with greater appearances of Godliness then the men of your party have yet afforded? Or did you ever yet read of any Persecutors in Christendom, who op∣pressed the just as they were just, and not rather under the notion of the unfaithfull and the ungodly, that so they might seem to set their hands to a pious work? Nay did not the Papists say the same for their casting out the Protestants in the Valleys of Piemont, and the Bohemian Churches in the Kingdom of Poland, which you (who professe to be Catho∣lick) do now alledge for the ruining of English Protestants? It is so easie to find a staffe for the beating of a Dog, and to reproach those persons, who are designed for a Rejection, that I wonder you can write at so low a rate.

Again, consider your own Principle: you think you can∣not do better then to remove a bad man, that a better may come into his place. As if the worst of men might not have right unto the greatest Estate or Possession, whilest the best have no right, unle••s it be unto the least. The veriest A∣theist in the world may lawfully come by an Estate, whe∣ther by gift, or purchase, or inheritance; whilest godly La∣zarus must thankfully enjoy his scarceness, and be content with those crumbs which daily fall from the rich mans table. He must not bid Dives come out of his House, & deliver up his purple, because they both are too good for so great a Sin∣ner, but meekly stand or lie down at the Great mans Door. And therefore admitting they were ungodly, whom you have helpt to cast out, you should have turned them out of their Rights, before you had medled with their Possessions. Bishop Hall hath told you that God loves Adverbs bet∣ter then Adjectives, the Benè better then the Bonum: Good Deeds may be abominable, if they are not well done. I

am as willing as any other, that every scandalous Minister should be made to reform, or to remove. But if it must come to a removal, let his punishment be legall: let him enjoy the Law whilest he endures it. For even a Murderer, or a Thief hath certain Priviledges and Rights, both in the manner of his Trial, & Execution. It is an intolerable mi∣stake, to think the wicked cannot be wrong'd, because they really deserve to be soundly punisht. And the mistake is no less, to think a man can be godly who wrongs the wicked: If the Devil himself hath any Dues, the Proverb tells us we must allow them; And we know there is a case wherein we may deal with him unjustly.

Again, let us take another view of your words. If you cast out the bad, and not by Law, your putting in of a better will nothing help you: for you must not do any evil that any good may come of it. God hath much a better way to be served then so; he hath not the least need of an unrighteous man, or of any one act of his unrighteousness. Were it law∣ful to perpetrate an evil act to a good end, we might lau∣dably do wrong, and defraud our Brethren, that (like the true penitent Zachaeus) we might restore four-fold. This indeed would be as charitable and as pious an injury (if an injury can be such) as a man can set his Heart or his Hand unto: for we should make them the richer for having robb'd them. And out of the evil which we do, it is but just that we should draw the utmost good that we are able; which makes it customary to me, whenever I speak of Re∣pentance, to press as hard as may be for Restitution: a point of greater consideration, then some may imagine till they are told. For if we would Covenant with our Hearts, (and be severe Covenant-keepers) to restore no less then four∣fold to every man whom we have injur'd, or possibly shall injure from thi•• time forward, our very fear of being Banckrupt would keep us honest. And such is the crooked∣ness of our nature, (as we have made it) that we had need make use of some moral Arts, whereby to keep it in some due straitness.

Sect. 7. This I say in Intuition of your very next words,

to wit [that if you be mistaken in this, you should be glad of my help for your conviction; for you are still going on in the guilt. Sect. 26.] This is now the third time, that you have called for my assistance, and given me encourage∣ment in my attempt. God forbid I should refuse you my best endeavours of conviction, or dare to dawb with untem∣per'd morter; especially when you urge me to so much Freedome. And indeed, we Shepherds have extreme great need of one another, we are so apt to go astray into richer Pastures then our own. David was a Pro∣phet, as well as a Prince; yet Nathan was fain to be sent to David, one Prophet unto another, nay a lesser Prophet unto a greater, and to rouze him out of his Sinne with a down-right form of Reprehension, Tu es homo, Thou art the man. Had I begun thus with you, Sir, you might have called it my Rudenesse, not my Faithfulnesse to your Soule. But it happily falls out, that you have discovered your selfe to me, when I had not the power to discover your selfe unto your selfe. You have said in effect, Ego sum homo, I am the man. And since you publickly avow, you will be glad of my help, I hope you will not be angry that I have helpt you.

Sect. 8. Whereas you say, You need not go to Mr. White's Centuries to be acquainted with the qualities of the ejected, Section 26.] I must shew you your Errour be∣fore I go a step farther. You speak of Centuries in the plural, whereas indeed there was but one: And that so scandalous a Pamphlet, that its Author was ashamed to pursue his Thoughts of any other. It was the Boast of Mr. White (as I was told by one, who will be as likely to tell you of it) that he and his had ejected 8000 Church-men in four or five yeares. And if one hundred of eight thousand had been as really scandalous, as that matchlesse Pasquiller was pleased to make them, it had not been so strange a thing, as that One of the Twelve should be a Devil, one hundred in eight-score hundred is exceedingly lesse then one in twelve. But Mr. Fuller

himself, however partiall to your party, (as our excellent Doctor Heylin hath made apparent) doth take himselfe up with a kind of doubt, that there might want suffici∣ent proof to convict them of that they were accused of: and indeed there was wanting a sufficiency of proof, (a) no witness coming in upon Oath to make good the Charge. So that the utmost of that performance was but to treasure up wrath against the Day of wr••th, and to make new sport for the Protestants Enemies of Rome, who did not spare to look upon that whole Businesse, as on an act of Divine Retaliation, in turning so many of the regul••r and Orthodox Clegy out of their Rights, by the violent hands of our new Reformers, under colour of some enormities of which they were forged to have been guilty; as the Monks and Friars heretofore were turned out of their Cells, with like Inhumanity (say the Papists) by those that founded our Reformation.

But now suppose it were very true, that many Episcopal Divines had been as scandalous Livers, as many more Presbyterians are known to be, they should have had a le∣gal Triall, and have been legally devested of their Prefer∣ments, nor should men more scandalous have been com∣monly thrust into their places. Much less should many swearing and illiterate Presbyterians have been rewarded with these spoyls, which had been taken from pious and learned men. How many Centuries might be made of debauched creatures, who were not onely not punisht, but very carefully preserved, and advanced also, because they could cotton with the Times, and preach the people to Disobedience? Mr. Fuller himself hath paid you home with one Truth, That his Majesty then at Oxf. would not give his consent, that such a Book should be written of the vicious lives of some Parliament Ministers, when such a thing was presented to him. Whereby you see that vast Difference be∣twixt the Spirit of Majesty, and the impotent spleen of Mr. White.

Sect, 9. You next go on to accuse whole Countreys, out of which the Ejected must all be one of your two Heads, and

the best of them profane, and yet very few esc••p'd Ejection. Have you not written against Popery to very good purpose, against which your very sh••rpest Discharge was this, That you knew not hardly any Papist, but what was Ignorant or Scandalous, or some way ill? Now behold what you have done, even taken away the force of that your Argument against the Papists, by saying the same and somewhat worse of the Protestant Ministers here in England, who were violently cast out of their Livings, and that by men of their own Profession. Some (you say) never preached, (and if others had never preached, the Church of God had been happier then she hath been by their preaching for Schism & Blood-shed) but read the Book of Common Prayer; (and was not that better then some of your preaching, if you preach no better then you have printed, as you are said to print little but what you preach?) Some (you say) preached worse then they that were never called preachers. (How much worse did they preach, who preached against their own Governours, and blowed the coles of Sedition into a con∣quering Flame?) You say, and say onely, That some un∣derstood not the Catechism, or Creed. (But did they better understand it, who dream'd themselves able to make a better? To depart from such Evil is understanding. Iob 28.28.) You say that many of them lived more in the Alehouse then in the Church, and used to lead their people in Drunken∣ness, Cursing, Swearing, Quarrelling, and other ungodly Practices, &c. And thus you pour out your passion to a considerable part of your Sect. 26.

But now it comes to my turn to propose a few things to your consideration. First, did the men of your party cast out none but such as these? Or was it for such things as these, that any Complier was ever ejected, who would but take the Negative Oath, the Scotish Covenant, raile against the King and Bishops, cry [Curse ye Meroz] or raise up good store of loan upon publick Faith? But let us come to some particulars, which may put your Generals out of countenance. I will but give you a Specimen in several kinds. Did Bishop Hall never preach? or Bishop Duppa pre••ch

worse then they that were never called Preachers? Did not Bi∣shop Davenant understand his Catechism? nor Bishop Morton his Creed? yet how were They spoyled of their Estates, and clapt up Prisoners in the (a) Tower, whilest the most ignorant and the most scandalous had both their Livelyhoods and Liberties indulged to them? Of those that preached in the Great City, the first occurring to my mind were Doctor Holdsworth, D. Howel, Doctor Hacket, Do∣ctor Heywood, Doctor Westfield, Doctor Walton, Doctor Featly, and Doctor Rives; Doctor Brough, Doctor Marsh, Mr. Shute, Mr. Hall, and besides, the Reverend D. Fuller, now Dean of Durham; since the naming of whom I think of the Reverend Mr. Udall. These did not live more in the Alehouse then in the Church: The Fame of their Piety and their Learning is long since gone throughout the Chur∣ches: yet Mr. Shute was molested and vext to death, and denied a Funeral Sermon to be preacht by Doctor Holdsworth as he desired. Doctor Holdsworth was cast out of his Ma∣stership in Cambridge, sequestred from his Benefice in the City of London, a long time imprisoned at Ely House, and the Tower. Doctor Walton (who hath put forth the late Biblia Polyglotta) was not onely sequestred, but assaulted also, and plundered, and forced to flie. Doctor Rives, Doctor Howel, Doctor Hacket, and Mr. Hall, were sequestred and plunder∣ed, and forced to fly for their lives. Doctor Marsh was se∣questred and made to die in remote parts. Doctor Brough was plundered as well as s••questred, his Wife and Children turn'd out of doors, and his Wife struck dead with grief. Do∣ctor Westfield was sequestred, abused in the streets, and for∣ced to fly. Doctor Featly was sequestred and plundered, and died a Prisoner. Doctor Fuller was sequestred and plundered, and withall imprisoned at Ely House. Mr. Udal was not onely sequestred himself, but his bed-rid wife was also cast out of doors, and inhumanely left in the open streets. Doctor Heywood was sequestred, and toss'd from prison to prison, put in the Counter, Ely House, and the Ships, his Wife and Children turn'd out of doors. Could the Ejection of a few scandalous, unlearned men (supposing them really such, and

regularly ejected) have made amends for such Riots, as were committed upon men of so exceeding great worth? Go from the City into the Countrey, and you will find the case the very same: Such venerable persons as Doctor Gillingham, Doctor Hintchman, Doctor Mason, and Doctor Rauleigh, Mr. Sudberie, Mr. Threscross, Mr. Simmons, and Mr. Farrington, and a very great multitude of the like, (whom nothing but want of Time and love of Brevity doth make me forbear to reckon further) were used like Dunces and Drunkards (by your Reformers) though powerful Prea∣chers, and pious Men; men so eminent for learning, and so exemplary for life, that 'tis scandalous to be safe, when su••h men suffer as Malefactors. To let you see briefly what it was, by which they were qualified for Ruine, I will tell you a story of Mr. Simmons, the most exemplary Pa∣stor of Rayn in Essex, who being sent for up to the House of Commons by a Pursevant, was told, That being an ho∣nest man, he did more prejudice to the good cause in hand then a hundred Knaves, and therefore would suffer accordingly. So he did in great plenty his whole life after. And who should be sent into his place but a scandalous Weaver, who cannot seemingly be nam'd? Do but read that sober and useful Book, entitled Angliae Ruina, and then you will be likely to change your stile. If none had been thrown out of Oxford, but Doctor Sheldon, Doctor Mansell, Doctor Sanderson, Doctor Hammond; or none out of Cambridge, but Doctor Lany, Doctor Brownrigg, Doctor Cosins, and Doctor Collins, Mr. Thorndike, Mr. Gunning, Mr. Oley, and Mr. Barrow, no excuse could have been made for so great a Dishonour to Religion. But above all, let me com∣mend a famous passage to your remembrance. Doctor Stern, Doctor Martin, Doctor Beale, men of eminent Integrity, exemplary Lives; and exceeding great Learning, and Heads of several Colledges in the University of Cam∣bridge, were carried away Captives from thence to London, there thrust up into the Tower, thence removed to another prison; They often petitioned to be heard, and br••••ght to Iudgement, but could not obtain either Liberty, or Triall.

After almost a years imprisonment, they were by order from the Houses put all on ship-board; (it was upon Friday Aug. 11.1643.) No sooner came they to the ship call'd The prospe∣rous Sayler, but straight they were put under Hatches, where the Decks were so low, as that they could not stand upright, and yet were denied stools to sit on, yea and a bur∣den of straw whereon to lie. There were crowded up in that little Vessel no less then 80 Prisoners of Quality. Where that they might stifle one another, the very Au∣gur-holes and Inlets of any fresh Air were very carefully stopp'd up. And what became of them after I have not heard. But let these things serve to make up my first con∣sideration.

Secondly, Because you would make the world believe, that you have not onely made a change, but a Reformation, (worth more, you may be sure, then all the Blood of the Christians which hath been poured upon the earth, or then all the money which hath been spent, or then the Widowes and Orphans which have been made, or then the Consci∣ences and Souls which have been ship-wrackt) I shall con∣vince you of the contrary by the publick Confession of your own party, and by your own confession in particular. First the most eminent of your Brethren have unanimously confess'd to all the world. That in stead of true Piety and Power of godliness, they had opened the very floodgates to all Impiety & Profaneness; & that after they had removed the Prelatical yoke from their shoulders by their covenanted endeavours, there was a rueful, deplorable & deformed face of the affairs of Reli∣gion —swarming with noysom Errors, Heresies & Blasphemies in stead of Faith and Truth; torn in pieces with destructive Schisms, Separations, Divisions & Subdivisions, in stead of Uni∣ty and Uniformity. † That in stead of a Reformation, they might say with sighs, what their Enemies said in scorn, they had a Deformation in Religion; and in stead of extirpation of☜ Heresie, Schism, Profaneness, &c. they had an impudent & ge∣neral inundation of all those Evils.] Can you possibly have more (Sir) against the change in the Church, then here is pub∣lickly attested by them that made it? There were no such

things in the Bishops times; nay none such could be. Gods Inclosure was then so mounded wi••h a Hedge of Discipline and Order; and even the Hedge was so fenced with a double Wall of Law and Canon, that either no uncleane Beasts could enter in, or if they did, they were soon cast out and impounded.. Our Saviour noted him for a Fool, who should begin to build what he could not finish. What then is He, who pulls down what is built, that he may build it up in a better Frame, when he is not assured he shall be able to begin, much less to finish his new Design? You now profess you are all for Bishops, but when you had them, you would have none. How very little of your Presbytery had you erected, when (blessed be God) you were re∣strained by better men then your selves? And yet your Brethren have confessed a good Confession, (they say they do it with Sighs, I would it were with Sincerity) that in stead of Reformation, (which was fairly promised unto the people) a Deformation in Religion is most conspicuous. A∣greeable to this, I find you saying to Mr. Tombs [That Sa∣tan in these times hath transformed himself into an Angel of Light (Is the Devil himself turn'd Puritane?) And his servants into Ministers of light, and hath deceived men so far, that there is scarce an Error so vile, but is pretended to proceed from Glorious light. I see also that this Cancer is a fretting and growing evil.—(b) Some are zealously preaching against the Godhe••d of Christ; and some of them are grown so far, that the Parlament is fain to make an Act lately against them that call themselves God, and that say, Whoredom, Murder, &c. are no sins, but he is likest God that commit∣teth them, &c.—I hope their zeal will at last be raised a little, (you speak this of your own Parlament) to befriend Christ the Mediator, as well as God the Creator; And to put in one Clause against them that shall deny Christ to be come in the Flesh, or deny his Godhead, or that make a scorn of him openly, or that prefer Mahomet before him, or that call the Scripture a bundle of Lies, &c. I hope at last they will not only honour the Father, but kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and they perish in the way.]

Now Sir, consider what you have said, (and printed in the year 1651.) in recounting these Fruits of your Refor∣mation. Consider what you say of your very Parlament. You hope their zeal will at last be raised, (as is till then it had not been,) and at last be raised a little, (as if till then it were none at all) and to befriend Christ the Mediator, (as if they wanted even a zeal for Christianity it self.) And you hope at last they will honour the Son too, (as if till then they had honoured the Father onely.) Now this being compared with your other Confessions, (a) That many things in the Common Prayer, and Rubrick, and Cano••s of the Church, were Excellent and Necessary, and therefore unjustly laid down; That plain Duties were wiped out, and the Directory more defective then the Common Prayer;☜ That those [excellent] things were taken from us which we were in actual possession of, for that the substance of these was in the Common Pr. That you have cause to repent of your Natio∣nall Covenant, as conteining in it things Politicall and Con∣troversiall; (for this you know is the summe of what you say in those pages, wherein a man would have thought you somewhat Prelatically affected;) Methinks you should easily be perswaded to lay aside your Vatinian hatred of the Episcopal Divines, and allow them to be constant unwaver∣ing men. If there were nothing else with me to make me love mine own P••inciples, The Notable Mixtures in your Books would force me to it.

Thirdly, Consider what you have said, as touching Epis∣copacy in the Nationall Covenant, that it is one of the smaller and controvertible points; And that you would not have such a Coven rashly imposed upon the Churches. Yet you know very well, both by whom it was taken, and by whom it was imposed, and what they suffered who did refuse it. 'Twas not for swearing, (as you pretended) that men were cast out of their Livings, but chiefly because they would not swear. And now your self have well absolv'd them, when it was said by (b) Mr. Nye, (whom I need but name, Caetera Fama dabit,) That the National Covenant was such an Oath, as for Matter, Persons, and other Circumstances, the

like hath not been in any Age or Oath we read of in sacred or humane Stories: his meaning certainly should have been, That it is absolutely the worst that ever was. For if he meant it was the best (even the best we read of in sacred stories) the man was blasphemous beyond Example. And however I do not doubt, but that some Prelatists in judge∣ment were Anti-prelatists in practise, by either quarrelling, or cursing, like any Puritanes; and that some Drunkards might be Episcopal, as well a•• others Presbyterian; yet I conceive you must yield, that to impose such a Covenant is a greater Sin then to be drunk. And let this suffice to have been spoken to your indefinite Accusations.

Sect. 10. To the rest of your Section (as being but a Tau∣tology) I shall return in fewer words. [You think it a cha∣rity to Souls, and honour to Christ, and the Church, and Go∣spel, to cast out these men till they be reformed. And your reason is, Because you are a Christian, and believe there is a God. Sect. 26.] A very fine Argument. Because Mr. Bax∣ter is a Christian, he must be a Ruler and a Iudge, and cast out men (who are his Equals at least) from their un∣doubted possessions, as well as his Bishops and Superiours, whom God hath set over him. And who was ever sequestred from his Parsonage, or Prebendary, or Fellowship, or the like, untill the time of his Reformation? There was an emi∣nent person cast out of his place for once not taking the En∣gagement, when yet the taking of it Twice was not suffici∣ent to cast him in. Reform, or not Reform, a man is se∣questred durante vit â. And so you speak of Sequestrations; not as they are, but as they should be, in your Opi∣nion.

Your reason why others more fit must be put in their Places and have the maintenance, is, because the mainte∣nance is for the Ministry, &c. Sect. 26.] But how comes the fifth part to be allotted for the Owner who is ejected? If he was an usurper, why is he gratified so far? if no usurper, it is his Right. And how doth such a man, by his supposed viciousness lose his Right to the mainte∣nance

which once he had? Does any Landlord, by being a Swearer or a Drunkard, eo ipso cease to have a right unto his Manor, or his Rents? Consider well to what this tends. Let a man live never so warily, yet if he is rich he shall be guilty; though if he is poor enough to be safe, he may pass for an innocent, or godly man. I am so weary of this stuff, that I will hasten to a Conclusion. For untill you can take away a right, all you say is worth nothing. Your say∣ing that a mans viciousnesse doth make him cease to have a Right, is very equivocal; and being taken in the most obvious sense, implies an Errour extremely dangerous. For it tends to the subversion of all Humane Society. Every man being so vicious, as to lose his right to an estate, in the judgement of such Neighbours as are willing and able to take it from him. And since you frequently de∣sire to be better informed (implying you want informati∣on, in as much as you desire it) you must be taught to distinguish between the justice of a Person, and the justice of a Possession. He is no just person who doth not truly serve God; yet a just Possessor of those Things, which he holds by a Title the Laws approve of. The confoun∣ding of which things, Grotius tells you, was rightly con∣demned in Wickliff. For if the Vessels of Election have a right to those things which the Reprobates have in their pos∣session, it followes that the Elect may challenge all as their portion. But then the strongest Arm, and the longest Sword will be sure to judge, and to state the Difference. The wea∣kest, and the most plunderable, will ever pass for the vicious, and so for the reprobated party, who cease from having right to the Creature-comforts, if yet they may be said to have ever had it. For towards the close of your Para∣graph

Sect. 11. You profess to think (a strange thing) That so long as the fore-described men did keep their Church-maintenance, they were usurpers before God; and therefore that they are bound, if possible, to make restitution of all the Ti••hes or other maintenance that ever they received (while they were such)

as truly as if they had broke mens houses for it, or robbed them by the high way. Sec. 26.] This doth prompt me to a Dilem∣ma concerning your own Predecessor, whose sequestred Freehold you have possessed for some years. He was one of your fore-described men, or he was not. If he was, it must be proved, before he can lawfully be condemned: If he was not, with what Conscience can you approve by your pra∣ctise, what in divers pages you have detested with your Pen? After the utmost enquiry I have been able to make, I hear a much better Character of your ejected Predecessor then of your self. But now supposing him to be one of your fore∣described men, I am to ask you this question. To whom must he make that Restitution of which you speak, for all the years during which he enjoyed his Benefice? You, who lay the Obligation as far as it is possible, (and so by conse∣quence as far as his present fifth part at least will go) ought to have shew'd him the very place in which the payment is to be made; whether in any Neighbour's House, or ra∣ther in the Church-porch. You should have nam'd the person also, who is to receive the Restitution; whether your self, who have the profits arising out of his Sequestration, or the several Church-wardens in former years, or the respe∣ctive Parishoners who pay'd his Tithes, all the while that he did them more hurt then good. (For so you suppose him to have done, whilest you compare him to the Physitian that takes money for killing men by ignorant applications, poy∣sons, or neglect.) Again you should have shew'd, what kind of death such Ministers are bound to die. For if they are bound to restitution, as truly, as if they had broken me••s houses, or robbed by the high way, (which is your perempto∣ry assertion,) what can free them from other punishments which bear proportion to their offences? Nay do you not charge your own Committees with great injustice, for al∣lowing such hainous Malefactors a fifth part of that Reve∣nue, even after the time of their Sequestration, of which you pronounce them to have been Usurpers, even before they were sequestred? I perceive you think it not enough, that your Predecessor hath lost what you have gotten into

possession, unless you may be freed from paying back the fifth part. Nor can that content you neither, unless he will antedate his Sequestration, and restore all the Tithes that ever he had received, be it twenty or thirty years be∣fore the least Accusation was fram'd against him. Nor can you deny what I say, but by denying your willingness that men should repent and do their Duties. For you say they were Usurpers, and are bound to make Restitution. By which it appears what you would have, had you the power of the Sword; and how ill you were qualified to say of Grotius, that his design had a tendency to engage the Prin∣ces of Christendom in a persecution of their Subjects, p. 17. I might here examine (had I but leisure) what restitution is to be made by such as have usurped their Neighbours Livings, if you require it so strictly from such as were scandalous in their own. And how you can pay a fifth part to so intole∣rable a person, as your Book hath concluded your Prede∣cessor. And what Restitution you will allow to the most eminently learned and godly men in the Ministery, who have been cast out of their Houses, and for ever deprived of their Revenues, for nothing else but their care to keep God and a good Conscience. And why you approve of those men who placed your self where you are, whilest you professed∣ly detest so great a part of their Proceedings. And whether the Drunkards (as you call them) might not be some of your (a) godly men (though none of ours) to whom you have indulged so great a priviledge, as to be worse then Drunkards, yet godly still. Compare your Description of sequestred Ministers with the Characters you have given of godly people, and at least you will wish for a better memory, if you doe not make use of a slower pen.

Sect. 12. To your conclusion I answer, that I would not have any Minister either ignorant, scandalous, or insufficient, to enjoy the least Benefice within the Church. But 1. I would have them exactly tried before they are censured and condemned, lest the most able and pious men be taken away by a pretence. 2. I would have them severely, but justly

dealt with, and precisely according to Law establisht. 3. I would not have the righteous destroyed with the wicked; much less that twelve such as Peter, and Iames, and Iohn, (with an humble distance in the comparison) should be cast as dung out of the Church, for one or two such as Iudas, cast as dung out of the same. 4. I would not have even the scandalous or insufficient so ejected, as that others more scan∣dalous, & less sufficient should be obtruded in their Rooms. 5. Much less would I have notorious Drunkards, or Dun∣ces, usurp the Rights of the most pious and learned men. 6. I would have the word scandalous to be duly applied and understood, knowing that many are no Drunkards, who yet are more scandalous then if they were. The Devil himself is no Drunkard; but he is proud, and envious, and hypocriti∣call, rebellious, sacril••gious, and many other wayes worse then a common Drunkard. His frequenting the Church, and transforming himself into an Angel of Light, appearing like a Saint, and putting on Godlinesse for a Disguise, doth make him much more scandalous then he could possibly be, if he could be drunk. Remember what I told you concerning scandall, both the word and the thing. Which compare with Matth. 24.5.24. 2 Cor. 11.13, 14, 15. Lastly, although a Drunkard is so detestable a thing, as not to deserve a tole∣ration in the meanest of the people, much less impunity or connivence in any Priest, yet I would not have him pu∣nisht more for his judgement, then his life, (as I can prove many have been) because a Drunkard may be Orthodox, and a dry man may be an Heretick. A Drunkard may be loyall to Gods Anoynted, whilest one who never was drunk may be a Rebell. Nor can I think it praise-worthy, Ad Rempublicam perdendam (aut Ecclesiam) sobrium ac∣cedere. And when a Drunkard is sequestred, not at all for being a drunkard, but either for refusing to swear a new Oath (such as was your solemn Covenant) or for somewhat else which is the best thing in him, and for which the holiest men have been sequestred as well as he, I know not how you can excuse it. If the Papists shall condemn a drunken Pro∣testant to the Fire, for meerly refusing to renounce being a

Protestant, you will (I doubt not) allow him the Reputati∣on of a Martyr. I pray consider the particulars of this last Paragra••h. And when by accident, o•• choice, you speak con∣fusedly of any subject, doe not take it in ill part, in case I help you to a Distinction.

Sect. 13. Your 27. Sect. which next ensues, hath so lit∣tle of what is pertinent or materiall in it, and so indecent∣ly much of what is personal, that a very short Answer will serve its turn. 1. If you had cited the very page, or at l••ast the Chapter, where I spake of some persons who were known to grow Lusty on Sequestrations, you should have had such an accompt, as you had rather have been with∣out. 2. Your Paralipsis was a mark of your greatest poli∣cy; because if I h••d grown lusty, it had been onely u••on mine own. And so for your want of a Retortion I th••nk your weakness, but not your will; for even by saying what you will not say, you shew your woulding concerning me, as be∣fore you had done concerning Grotius. 3. That you are below some of your brethren, it is enough that you have told me without my asking; I am not concern'd to contradict you. Yet some may say you contradict your own self, be∣cause you adde you would presently quit the Place that you are in, if a probable evidence could be given you of a Better supply. Every Usurper may say as much, if he is but well qualified with a haughty opinion of Himself. 4. You tell me what you would do, if you know what is in your heart. But having confessed to Mr. Tombes, that your Heart is desperately wicked, and having confessed to Dr. Owen, that Hypocrisy and Selfishness and Pride are in it, I am not the wiser for what you tell me, unless you can give me some kind of Evidence that you know your own heart. 5. The more you have Declared your being Selfish, the less I can believe of your Self-denialls. How men do value their Sequestrations, 'Tis best to judge by their Actions, and not their Words. If the Flock were in their Eye, and not the Fl••eces, less Revenues would content them, then what they are known to have seiz'd upon. Hath not the Richness of the Living been in lieu of Malignancy to the

best Divines of our Church, whil'st the Poverty of others hath afforded Pro••ection to their Incumbents? 6. Let e∣very man Injoy his own, untill he be legally dispossess'd, and then I doubt not but your Abilities will quickly commend you to a Living, as good as that which you possesse. But how full or how void of Self-deniall your brethren are, I cannot judge by your Example. Nor will I judge of your own, but by your Practice. Men may talk what they please, because their Toungs are their own: But when God hath said plain'y, Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbours House, It cannot enter into my Thoughts, how a man can invade it without Coveting, or how he can covet with Self-deniall, whilst he so far covet's, as to invade it.

CHAP. VII.

Sect. 1. HAving done with Sequestrations, you interpose in a Controversy, in which (you make your confession, that) you find no Call to interpose. Sect. 28.] But still it seems you have a courage to engage your Pen in those Quarrels, for which you have not a Call, or a Quali∣fication. Had you not caught a kind of Itch at your Fin∣gers Ends, you would not probably have imployd them in such a wilful 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For you having not a Call, I take your word; and you may pleafe to take mine, for your not having a Qualification. How much, or how little you un∣derstand of the Synod at Dort, and the several Parties of the Calvinists, who do resolve either to follow, or not at least to contradict it, I should have taken upon me to make you see, if you had not made That the peculiar Province of Ti∣lenus; whose Publication of your Failings coming yester∣day to my hands, makes me willing to ridd them of this Employment.

Sect. 2. If it is true, what you say, That the Calvinists do extend the mercy of God, and the merits, sufferings, and Grace of Christ, as much to All, as I do, (Sect. 28.) And confess that God hath from eternity decreed, that Faith and

repentance shall be the Conditions of Life, and that none but the persevering shall be saved, (Sect. 29.) That the sinns of all the whole world were l••id on Christ, who procured a grant and offer of pardon and life to all, on condition of Faith and repen∣tance, (Sect. 30.) That all men (who hear the Gospel at least) have so much grace bestow'd from Christ, as that the matter is brought to the choice of their own wills, whether they will have Christ, or not, (Sect. 31.) And lastly that God giveth all men to persevere if they will, (Sect. 32.) Then what ex∣cuse can the Synodists and other Calvinists make, for wri∣ting so much in contradiction to what they acknowledge to be true? Why do they plead with so much fierceness, that the Decree of Reprobation was irrespective, which they e∣vince to have been otherwise, by their confession that Christ hath purchased a Salvability for all men? Why do they persecute their Brethren under the Notion of Armi∣nians? Why do they Couple them with the Iesuites, by way of contumely and reproach, whilst they acknowledge so neer a parallel betwixt the Iesuites and themselves? How come you and your own Brethren to pursue each other with so much virulence, if you do all agree so fully with the Sy∣nod at Dort? Or what meant the Synod in falling so foule on the Remonstrants, for meerly holding such Tenets as were but the sequels of their own, if their own were such as you here describe? If they were not, you must eat your own words, which you will find (in the Digestion) exceeding windy. If they were, I am glad that all our Dissenti∣ons are at an end, and admire the Evidence of the Truth which extorts a submission from her Oppo∣sers.

Sect. 3. I shall not quarrel with their opinion, who say that God, in giving Grace, gives more to some than suffici∣ent, provided that That which he gives to all be very really sufficient; and that the overplus be not such, as for the want of which no man is able to come in and receive his Sa∣viour: for if it is, it will follow, that none is really and truly sufficient Grace, but what is sufficient and somewhat more. Instead of inlarging u••on This, I do solemnly re∣commend

it to your most serious consideration. For here lies the point, at which we are parted from one another. When some men have acknowledged sufficient Grace unto All, (driven to it by the ••bsurdities which they find would fall on their Denial) They are so terrified with the Thought of going over to their Antagonists, (whom they have customarily b••anded wi••h the Title of Arminians,) that they interpret the word sufficient into the importance of unsufficient: for they declare it to be im••ossible, that sufficient Grace should be available to the receiving and re∣taining of Jesus Christ, without the addition of somewhat else, which you call the will and perseverance it self, (Sect. 23.) which however it im••lies a contradiction in Adjecto, (as that the Grace which is sufficient is not sufficient) yet they resolutely swallow so huge a Camel, because they strain at the Gnat of seeming to be the Converts of their Opponents. They will not be thought to be convinced by Them they Hate.

Again, let it be granted, that whilst all have sufficient, some f••w have more; upon condition it be proved from God's own word, that to all his Elect he give's this more; or at least that it be granted, (in default of such Proof) That a man may be saved by Grace sufficient. Let Salvability for all (which you frequently acknowledge) be allow'd to signifie what it does, to wit a possibility that all may be saved. And then let nothing be subjoyned for the placing of any under an impossible, for fear of implying a Contradiction.

Sect. 4. Whereas you grant it to be true, That Augu∣stine thought The Elect onely do eventually persevere, and some who are Sanctified, but not Elect, do fall away, to which you adde, that the Synod do judge otherwise, (Sect. 33.) First I obse••ve a good confession, that St. Austin was for that, which you call Arminian, against your Dear self, and the Synod of Dort. Which makes me wish that all Calvi∣nists would either accept of St. Austin, when we urge him s••eaking against Themselves; or at least not urge him, when they imagin him speaking to their advantage. Secondly. If

the Synod does judge otherwise, as to the former part of St. Austin, they judge that men may be saved who were ne∣••er Elected unto life, or else that men may persevere, and yet not be saved. But if the Synod does judge otherwise, as to the later part of St. Austin; They judge that all who are sanctified are als•• absolutly elected, from whence they in∣cur this great Absurdity, (in case St. Austin be in the Right) That men may be absolutely Elected, and yet eventually condemn'd. Which also implye's this other Absurdity, That God's Decree can be absolute, yet not immutable. Which again imply's a Contradiction.

Sect. 5. They do not truly extend Grace further, who extend it to fewer then others do. And you know that Grace which here you speak of is onely extended by the Synodists to the smallest part of mankind, which prove's your expression not rightly chosen. (Sect. 33.) I will thank the Synodists, as for a Favour, if they abstein from doing wrong to any. But yet I will aske, by what Toxt they are so liberall to a few. Your two propositions are imper∣tinent to that very end for which you use them. For the Grace of God and his goodness is advanced especially in this, That he is wanting to none, who are not first provo∣kers of him by being wanting unto themselves, and that he give's sufficient Grace to persevere, even to them who are not found to reduce their Ability into Act.

Sect. 6. Whilst you think you may conclude, that the Sy∣nod give's as much as the Arminians or Iesuites to universall Grace, both in D••cree, Redemption, and execution by colla∣tion of Grace. (Sect. 34.) Implying how very reconcileable the Iesuites are with either sort of Presbyterians, the fol∣lowers of Arminius, and Calvin too; I wonder why you beseech me to judge impartially, whether it be Christian dea∣ling to give out, that t••ey do by the restraint of Grace, make God a Tyrant, a Dissembler, with abundance of the like, (Sect. 35.) For I call your own Conscience and Eyes to wit∣ness, (your Eyes, in case you have read my writings, and your Conscience, if you have not, as well as if you have,) That I never laid any such charge upon those that gran••

sufficient Grace unto All. For then I should have laid it upon my self. But if they who grant it in one place, do al∣so deny it in an ano••her, (as the Gnosticks by turnes did both own, and disown our blessed Saviour as they found it most for their present purpose,) their self-Contradictions must not excuse them. The Absurdities which I charge, I charge on them who deny sufficient Grace unto all, and when I catch them in the Act of their bold Deniall, I cite their words and their pages, and condemn them out of their own Mouthes. Which honest course would you have taken, you could not have publish't so many Books. Every five or six daies may well produce a New volume, from any man of any Trade who dare's to write out of his Fancy. I pray Sir consider the wrong you do me, and how your Readers may be mistaken, concerning me, by your Means. Al∣though I heartily forgive you, yet I beseech you do so no more. But either resolve not to meddle with what I have sent into the light, or at least produce my words and pa∣ges.

Sect. 7. As to your 36. Section, I perceive you are faln under the Hand of Tilenus, And so I will not oppress you whilst you are sincking. Yet because you call him my Tile∣nus, (which I take for an honour, h••wever you cannot so intend it,) I shall observe a few things which I find he pas∣sed by, as not sufficiently deserving his Time and Paper. VVhy do you charge the Remonstrants, or Presbyterian Followers of Arminius, (for they, you know, were the great Adversaries of the Synod at Dort, with the Error of denying Original Pravity? Consult their writings, and then repent of this Rashness. If I am able to sound you, I discover the bottom of your Contrivance. The sufficient Grace that is gi∣ven, you allow to Adam to have been really sufficient, or to those that are exempted from a state of Depravation. But this is onely a Trick, whereby to reteine the word sufficient, whilst you let go your hold of its signification, which make's you fit to be interrogated afresh. VVhen you say that God hath given sufficient Grace unto All, do you mean it is suf∣ficient to depraved Nature? sufficient for the bringing of

every Son of l••psed Adam (who shall not be wanting unto himself) into a state of salvation? Else, what did your for∣mer Concessions mean? Did Christ dye for Adam whilst yet unfallen, whereby to procure his salvability? Or did he not rather dye for those who were dead in Adam, whereby to restore them to life and safety? If he did it not sufficient∣ly for all mankind, what did he for them? But if he did this sufficiently, your Synodists Opponents desire no more.

Sect. 8. To your Remarkable Question on which you lay a great stress, [Is there any thing in the will besides a naturall Power or Faculty, and an Habit, Disposition or Inclination to Act, and the Act it selfe? Sect. 36.] I answer, yes. There is somewhat else besides those three, to wit sufficient strength, or grace given, or at least on God's part ready to be given [non ponentibus obicem] to all that stand not in their own light. But this is neither a natural Power, (for tis a spirituall) nor an Habit of Grace, (for before it can be such, it must be received and rooted too,) Nor yet a bare disposition or Inclination to act, (for that may be without strength to go thorow) nor the Act it self, (For we know it is clearly praecedent to it.) You did therefore say well, that you knew no more. For things may very well be, and yet be seated beyond your Knowledg.

Cannot, and will not, are not one and the same thing, as you affirme (Sect. 36.) For what a man will not is co••si∣stent with what he Can, and thence it is, that wilfull Sins are the greatest. But to say, he cannot do what he can, is to imply a Contradiction.

Sect. 9. How uncharitably soever it pleased your passion to suggest, (Sect. 37.) I shut out None from my Peace and Charity, though you and others would shut me out from the Peace and Charity of the world. To endeavour their Conversion, who affirm that God hath a chief hand in sin, And that sin it self (if a positive Entity) must either be God, or God's Creature, will be esteemed by the judicious as the strongest Argument of my Love.

Can you believe it a want of Love, that so unpassionate a writer as my Tilenus thought fit to Antidote the Readers

of Mr. Bagshaw's two Sermons, supposing the Dedicatory Epistle might hardly be An••idote enough? Or was it (think you) his want of Charity either to you, or Mr. Hickman, which made him publish the Impiety of both your Doctrins? I am as confident as of any thing, of which I have not a perfect knowledg, that he had nothing in his Eye but the Publick Good. Yet what you now say of me, you will be as likely to ••ay of him, and so of our Excellent Dr. Gauden, or indeed of any man else, who either confuteth what you are for, or defendeth what you are against, unless my seasona∣ble Caveat shall work your Cure. Consider how many of your own Brotherhood you have endeavour'd to ex••ose to shame and laughter, before you censure those men who give you Examples of Moderation.

Sect. 10. I know not well what you mean by the choicest of God•• servants; it being become in these Times a most equivocal Expression. If you mean King Iames his Puri∣tans, I have spent a whole Chapter for the Rectification of your mistake. If such as truly serve God, who have also writen against Puritanes, whereof I have given you a spe∣oimen in Bishop Andrews, Doctor Sanderson, and other Episcopal Divines, you know that Those are the men whom I am constantly defending. If God hath any choice servants in any sense, you are certainly the man who have writ against them: for you have writt••n even with bitter∣ness against your own Saints, as in your calmer moods you sometimes call them. But your Bitterness to the Bishops, and to the Regular Sons of the Church of England, and to all persons of honour in any part of the Land, who either partake of the Common Prayer, or attend to the preaching of the E••isco••al Clergy, (I say) your Bitterness ••o These is so ineffably great, that mo••tal man cannot express it, but by re••eating your own Termes. I should proceed to shew you your frightful self, from the Ten last pages of your Grotian Rel••gion, but that I see you have reprinted the substance of th••m, in your Enormous Preface to your New Book of Church G••vernment and Worship, which I intend to consi∣sider towards the end of my Appendix.

Sect. 11. It shall suffice in this place to put you in mind of your Malignity to a profound and pious Episcopal Di∣vine, whose Certificate touching the Primate I was con∣strain'd to make publick. You call him a man of the New Way, (a Grotian-papist 'tis thought you mean.) You say he blasted a good business by an unpeaceable writing, and did not onely foment a Schism, but fomented it by poor Insuffi∣cient Reasonings, (p. 118.) Pretty words for a conclusion to your Grotian Religion. But such as will sufficiently put their speaker to Rebuke, as soon as your Readers shall be inform'd that your Bolt was shot at Mr. Gunning. For how can you hope to be believ'd when you shall let flie your Censures of other men, after the liberty you have ta∣ken to write so grosly of Mr. Gunning? The world will conclude you extremely incontinent of your Passion, when they shall find you throwing it out in three such palpable Contradictions, as that Mr. Gunning was the Author of an unpeaceable writing, that Mr. Gunning was guilty of Fomen∣ting a Schism, and that any thing poor or insufficient fell from Mr. Gunning. Had you been honour'd with the Ad∣vantage of having sate for some years at his learned Feet, you had certainly attain'd a greater measure of Under∣standing, than to have mention'd his Writing with such irreverence.

Notes

• 2 Cor. 5.19.
• In nobis Christus pati∣tur opprobriū, in nobis pati∣tur Lex Christiana maledictum, aestimari it aque de cultoribus suis potest••ille qui co∣litur. Salvian de Gubern. lib. 4. † Rom. 2▪ 24.
• Iam. 4.4.
• Optimum emenda••di genus est, si scripta in aliquod tempus reponantur, ut ad ea tanquam nova & aliena redeamus, ne no∣bis tanquam recentes foetus blan∣diantur. Quintil.
• O•• David and Peter in the Title page.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He∣siod. l. ••. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• †

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diodor. Sicul. l. 20. p. 746.
• 2 S••m. 11.2, 4, 8, 13, 15, 25, 27.
• 2 Sam. 12.4.9.
• †

  Psal. 51.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Cor. 10.12.
• Of Peter, Puritans, and Sequestrations in the Title-page.
• Pro. 30.12. Isa. 65.5.
• Concerning Grotius, his Religion and Design.
• Of his Engi••sh ••ollowers.
• In omni lite∣ratura.
• Dr. Hammonds words in his second Def••nce of Grotius, p. 5.
• Mr. Thorn∣dikes words in his Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England. Epist. to the Reader, p. 5.
• To calumniate Grotius confe••sed odious.
• Repentance pro∣mised ex hypo∣thesi.
• Gro••ius accused of turning Papist.
• Proved to be none by 19. Ar∣guments. G••ot. Animadv. in Animadv. Riveti. p. 83.
• This part will be attested by a Reverend person of our Chur••h, Mr. Matthias Turner, who was personally conversant with G••o∣tius some yeares in France, and whose excellent skill In Greek and Hebrew did make him the fitter for such converse: so will it also by a great Personage distinct from him in my Text.
• Of this Sir Thomas D••r••l professeth him∣s••lf an Eye-witness, and that her two daughters ••••••••ived with her.
• Dr. Ham. Cont. of Def. of H. Grot. p. 25.
• Ibid.
• G••ot A••nal. l. 1. p. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
• P••aemium addidit sceleri scelerum immunitatem, etiam apud Deum: atque alia id genus ludibria, quae rudibus seculis haud invalida nunc tantùm in spec••em dantur, in speciem accipiuntur, &c. Hist. lib. 1. p. 117.
• Annal. l. 1. p. 9.
• Quem proedulce juvat stillante Melanch••hone Nectar; Qui Wiceli chartas Modrevii{que}. leg's; Quique putas Regem mul••ùm sapuiff•• B••itan••um, C•• sua mādavit s••n'a Cas••ubonidae; Accipe.. sed nos••••o labor hic si displicet ••evo, A gra••â pretium posteritate feret.
• Pag. 4••
• Quod ta•• ••perr•• se non dicam mihi. sed paci profitetur inf••stum (D. Rivetu••) in eo vicit expectatio∣nem meam. Animadv. in A••imadv. p. 3.
• †

  Sunt mihi communia cum viris nunquam satis laudatis, ibid. p. 5.
• Ibid. p. 4, 5.
• p. 73, 74, 76.
• †

  Seditiones, vim contra Princ••pes, Im∣periorum mu∣tationes ••x u∣su suo, mor••m frangendiaeces sacras, & bel∣la excitandi & sovendi, sub sancto Evangelii nomine; invenerunt quidam & dog∣mata in id comparata, ut ho••ines de misericordia Dei nimium sibi pollicente••, in pec∣catis indo••miscer••nt▪ Discuss. p. 16.
• Insanlentibus Brunistis, & si qui eorum sint similes, &c. ibid.
• Si quiescant Scholasticae Disputationes, quid est cur non verba Concilii Tri∣dentini explicari commode possint, &c. aut etiam recipi illa formula quam ex Actis Possiacenis desumpsi, & quam omnes qui ibi ••••m erant Protestantes (excepto un•• P. Mart.) approbarunt? Animadv. p. 29, 30.
• Videbam mul••um obstare concor∣diae, si omnes eos qui in commu∣nione sunt Romana pro Idolola∣tris haber••mus, gnarus Idololatri∣am esse eminentissimum seculi crimen, ib. p. 43, 44.
• Verti me ad eos legendos qui etsi fuere in Communione diversa, animum tamen magis ad sanan∣da, quàm ad fovenda divortia ap∣pulere. Vo. pro pace, p. 9.
• p. 7, 8, 9.
• †

  p. 10▪
• ibid.
• †

  Prompta sunt in Galliis Hispa∣niis{que} Remedia quibus impedian∣tur Papae, ••e aut Regum aut Episcoporum jura invadant. p. 12.
• ibid.
• †

  Et illam mutationem, quae Bu∣ceri Consilio in Anglia erat in∣stituta, Papismi accusavit. pag. 115.
• Redolens pla∣ne Calvini spi∣ritum contu∣meliosum illú ac turbulentū. Animadv. p. 81. Quum sciam quàm inique & virulente tractaverat viros multo se meliores, &c. ibid. pag. 9.
• Epist. 154: Iohanne Cor∣defio, p. 378. Epist. 166. Ei∣dem, p. 408.
• †

  Epist. 154. p. 377.
• Dubium est, apud meos, an a∣pud Iesuitas magis vapulem, &c. Epist. 14. pag. 36, 37. Hotm. Vil∣lerio.
• Apud meos quidem, quod illud apud ip∣fos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 defendo, posse in unaquaque Ecclesia ferri eos qui dissideant in rebus non plane necessariis, ••bid▪
• In ist's Remediis quae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 medici vocant, parum est auxilii. Neque potest partium unitas, nisi à corpo••is unitate, sperari. Non possum non laudare praeclarum A••gliae Canonem An. Dom. 1571. &c. De Imperio sum. po. circa sacra, cap. 6▪
• Casau••. Epist. 220. Hu. Gro. 1612▪ & Epist. 221. &c.
• Mr. Clement Barksdale in his M••morials of Grotius.
• Traxit in auxilium sui Reform••∣torum Principes; & Pontificlorum fervidiores meam praesentiam aliis de causis suspectant. Epist. 172. p. 422. A.D. 1635.
• †

  Look forward on ch. 5. sect. 9.
• Discuss. p. 10.
• †

  Nec aliud desiderat Confessio Augustan••. Di••unt enim qui eam amplexi sunt Principes & Civita∣tes, de nullo Articulo Fidei dis∣sentire se &c. sed paucos abusus à se omitti, qui novi sunt, & contra voluntatem Canonum, vitio Tem∣porum recepti. ib. p. 14.
• Ibid. p. 1••.
• †

  Ibid. p. 15.
• Ibid. p. 69.
• Ibid. p. 70.
• †

  Ibid. p. 73.
• Ibid. p. 77.
• Ab Ecclesiâ Rom••nå non ali•• discessimus animo, quàm ut, si correcta ad priorem Ecclesiae for∣mam redeat, nos quoque ad il∣lam revertamu••, & communio∣nem cum illâ in suis porrò coeti∣bus habeamus. Apud Grot. p. 14. a∣pud ipsum Zanch. in Confess. Art. 19. p. 157.
• Edit. Neo∣stadii Palat. A.D. 1585.
• †

  Non ab Ecclesiâ Rom. simplici∣ter & in omnibus defecimus, sed in illis duntaxat rebus in qui∣bus ipsa defecit ab Apostolicâ, at∣que ad••ò a seipsâ veteri & purâ Ecclesiâ; neque alio discessimus a∣nimo &c. ut supra. Zanch. ib. p. 157.
• †

  Farente Me∣lanchthone, Pri∣matum (secundum Canonas) necessarium esse ad retinendam unitatem, Discuss. p. 255.256.
• Vide (inter alia complus∣cula) Grot. A∣nimadv. in A∣nimadv. A. Ri∣veti p. 35. Vot. pro pa. 7, 8, 9. Discuss. p. 160.161.18.20. e∣tiam p. 71, 72.
• Gratias ago summas Regi, quod in me etiam absentem beneficia sua depluere voluerit; & amicis, quod meis commodis tam perseve∣ranter invigilent. Caeterum e∣go, ex quo Gallias reliqui, nullam cur tali beneficio utar probabi∣lem causam video; ideoque co∣miter excusari volo. Epist. 143. ad Cordes. p. 352.
• Discuss. p. 59, 60, 61.
• In his An∣swer to the A∣nimadv. on his Dissert. p. 132.
• †

  Behind his Translation of Grot. de Iure Billi & Pacis.
• Of Grotius his pretended dissimulation.
• Disput. 5. of Sacram. p. 484.
• Ibid. p. 486.
• Ibid. p. 487.
• †

  Ibid. p. 487.
• Ibid. p. 516.
• Postcript to an Admonition to Mr. Eyre of Sarum.
• Dispute with Mr. Tombs, of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism, Edit. 3. ••. 397. Doctor Taylor no Papist.
• See your Chr. Concord. p. 49. and compare it with p. 46. of the same book, and with p. 100. of your Grotian Relig.
• †

  Christ. Con∣co••d. p 45, ••6, &c.
• Claud Salm▪ Defens. Regis; c. 10▪ &c. 11.
• Grotius at last is but a Papist with an ••f, &c.
• Popery dis∣••claimed as well by Grotius and Mr. P. as by Mr. Baxter.
• Mistakes in reading Gro∣tius, arising from a nesci∣ence or hatred of his design.
• Answ. to] A∣nimadv. on the Dissert. touch∣ing Ignatius his Epistles, p. 135, 136, 137.
• Io. Baptista Gallus obstina∣tâ vesaniâ per∣negat, Thuanum Catholicae fidei ••enacissimum & Ecclesiae Romanae &c. vide Epist. Anonym. p. 103. Tom. 5. ad calcem lib. 6. Aug. Thuani de vita sua.
• How much may be offered to purchase peace.
• See The Roy∣al L••brary, Sect. 4. Num. 15. p. 339. to p. 359. See also the second part of that Collectio••, p. 465. to p. 480. especially p. 517. to p. 526.
• Plusquam hu∣manae virtutis est, tantae spei m••derari, & velut manibus conclusam for∣tunam dimit∣tere.
• Epist. ad Clariss. Virum N. P. de pace Germanica. Sane in priva∣tis quoque negotiis, transactiones, dato allquo, & aliquo retento, (ut nostri loquuntur jurisconsul∣ti) perficiu••tur: quanto magis, ubi de salute publica & pacis in∣comparabili bono agitur, omnes de jure suo cedere debent?
• †

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Hierocl. p. 61.
• Nec deerunt rationes, quibus pulsis suâ ditione Principibus sa∣tisfieri possit, qui magni beneficii loco habebunt, in partem saltem missarum ditionum restitui. Prae∣terea compensationibus & mutuâ permutatione res expediri poterit. Idem in E••ist. ead.

  Potior esse debet s••ae saluti••, quàm alieni damni, p••iorq••e con∣servandi quàm prof••r••ndi Reg••i ratio. Ibid.
• Christ. Con∣cord. p. 46.
• †

  Ibid. p. 45.
• Grotius his Doctrine and Design more Catholical then Mr. Baxter 's.
• And the terms to which he calls us, less impossible.
• Christ. C••nc. p. 45.
• De Ecclesia Romana jam tum locutus, Quid (inqui•• Z••nchius) p••o cuique optati∣us, quàm ut ubi per baptismu•• renati sumus, ibi etiam in finem usque vivamus? &c. In Confess. Art. 19. p. 157.
• †

  Preface to D••sp. of Sacram. p. 15.
• Plain Script. proof of Infants Church-Memb. and Baptism, p. 227, 228.
• Ibid.
• See the book int••tuled, A t••stimo•••• to the t••u••h of I••••us Christ; and compare it with the Covenan••, as well as with the ••••d••rs for To. ••ra••on••
• Celrenus p. 347. Baronius ad A. D. 629, 630.
• See Reliquiae sacrae Caroli∣nae, in the Pa∣pers which pass••d &c. at Newport, p. 275, & 367, 368, 369.
• Grotius doth not cut off the holiest parts of the Church.
• His way is not uncharitable.
• It do••h not tend to pers••cu∣tion.
• Iam. 3.5.
• It doth not en∣gage in a way of sin.
• Look back on Sect. 12.
• †

  Look on what shall be said ch. 6. sect. 9. num. 2.
• Of Inf. ch. memb. and Bapt. p. 122, 123.
• †

  Ibid. p. 123.
• Sent. Daven. ad Duraeum, p. 39. & A••hort. ad Pac. Eccl. cap. 11. p. 148, 149.
• Mens thoughts of Grotius must be esteem∣ed by their words.
• The conclusion.
• Christ. Conc. p. 45.
• †

  Grot. Relig. Praef. Sect. 5.
• Ibid. Sect. 2.
• a

  p. 11.
• b

  p. 15, 16.
• c

  p. 16.
• d

  p. 17.
• e

  p. 17, 1••.
• p. 18.
• g

  p. 73.
• h

  p. 78.
• i

  p. 83.
• k

  p. 90.
• l

  p. 91.
• m

  p. 92.
• n

  p. 92, 93▪
• o

  p. 93.
• p. 4.
• †

  p. 5.
• Append. to Aphor. p. 138. to p. 145.
• An acknow∣ledgm••nt of charity,
• 2 Cor. 12.13.
• W••th an uncha∣ritable requ••tal.
• Acts 7.••0.
• Luk. 6.37. Mat. 7.1. 1 Cor. 4.5.
• The title of Ar∣minian uns••a∣sonably applied.
• See your Ap∣pendix to the best of your ••ooks, viz. Of Iustification, p. 164.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ H••m.
• Neither Gro∣tius, nor any else can ••e ••oo severe against blasphemy.
• †

  1 T.m. 4.1.
• See Divine Purity defend∣ed, ch. 4. s••ct▪ 5, 6, 7.
• †

  Sect▪ 68 p. 143, 144.
• S••ints Rest, p••••t. 3. sect. 6. p. 57.
• See 2 Tim. 3. and compare v. 2, 3, 4. with v. 5.
• Not on••ly Processi••ns and Perambulations, b••t the obser∣v••tions of Holy∣dayes, repeating the L••tany, th•• lik•• form•• in the G••mm••n-Prayer, ••he bowing at the name of Ies••••, receiving the Sacram••nt upo•• th•• kn••e, are reckon••d up in the sam•• p••ge.
• †

  Mat. 7.3.
• ver. 4, 5.
• What differen∣ces are verbal, and what are real.
• Rebus congruentes Nominibus diffe••ebant. Una & consentiens duo••us vocabulis Philosophiae forma constituta est. Cicero in Quaest. Acad. l. 1.
• Ecclus. 2.12.
• A material dif∣ference indeed.
• You say as much even of Grotius himself, p. 91.92.
• Doctor Iack∣son in his Ma∣rathan Atha, cb. 40, p. 37 11.
• Ibid. p. 37 12.
• Of heads of Con∣troversie recon∣cileable.
• Account of the controv. of Persev. &c. in setting down the fourth opi∣nion, p. 4.5.
• Grotius made not uncharita∣ble inferen••es.
• A strange dif∣ference between the Godly, and the notoriously ungodly.
• See your words by me cited in The Self-Revenger Exemp. ch. 4. Sect. 3. p. 115. and compare them with your pages which there are marked.
• Remember what you call the opinion of most of your Divines, p. 326. and how you excuse Solo∣mon for his Idolatry, p. 317. in contradiction to the Text and to your self, p. 328.
• The excessive d••nger of ma∣king the greatest sinners to dream themselves in∣to a Saintship.
• Disput. 3. p. 329. &c.
• Grotian Relig. Praef. Sect. 18. to∣wards the end▪
• Grotian Relig. Praef. Sect. 18. to∣wards the end▪
• The danger ex∣emplified in a Presbyterian woman:
• †

  2 Pet. 3.16.
• Est actuale mortale, in labente post reconciliationem, actio inte∣rior, vel exterior, pugnans cum lege Dei, facta contra conscienti∣am. Melanchth. de Pecsat. Actual▪ p. 83.
• 2 Cor. 11.31.
• Hugon. Grot. Anim. in Ani∣madv. Andr. Ri∣veti, p. 80, 81. Miror vero conscientiam aliorum laces∣sere eos qui omnem vim conscientiae adimun•• suo dogmate, cum doceant justificatis five electi•• suis non imputari, non auferre st••tum Gratiae, Adulte∣teria & Homicidia, ideo quod ea faciant animo reluctante, id est. contra conscientiam.
• The sins of Da∣vid with their circumstances.
• 2 Sam. 11.11.
• †

  Rom. 7.13.
• 1 Tim. 4.2.
• †

  Iorem. 8.6.
• Homicidae, Tyranni, Fures, A∣dulteri, Raptores, Sacrilegi, Pro∣ditores erunt. Sed infra ista om∣nia ingratus est. Senec. l. 1. de Bene∣ficiis cap. 10. mihi p. 386.
• Peter's sins ve∣ry different from those of David.
• Wisd. 17.12.
• †

  Mat. 26.75.
• Luke 3.8.
• See the six∣teenth Sect. of your Pr••face.
• Of Solomon's state and its uncertainty.
• The Reprobates are granted by Mr. Baxter to have Gr••ce suf∣ficient.
• Look back on the eighth Section of your Preface.
• Mr. Baxter's Description of Common Grace and its effects.
• Ibid. p. 44.
• †

  Ibid. p. 49.
• Ibid. p. 49.
• †

  Ibid. p. 91.
• Ibid. p. 94.
• †

  Ibid. p. 96.
• Ibid. p. 92.
• Look forwards on the twelfth Section of this Chapt.
• Of men twice sanctified.
• Artic. 16.
• Concerning the importance of Heb 6. & 10.
• Gods testimony of David two∣fold, each to be compared with the Rule, Ezek. 18.24, &c.
• 1 King. 15.5.
• †

  2 Sam. 12.9.
• Ezek. 18.24. & 26.
• How far chari∣ty was decayed in David; and how hard it is to murder wil∣fully in love.
• See 2 Sam. 12.14, 15.
• Psal. 5.••.10.
• †

  Of saving Faith, p. 92.
• Iohn 16.2.
• †

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 Ioh. 4.20.
• Iam. 2.10.
• Melanchth. de bonis operibus. p. 179.180.
• Of David's Prayer Psal. 51.
• Rom. 2.4, 5.
• †

  Mat. 25.25, 26, 30.
• His being clear∣ly unsanctified by his a••c••mu∣lated sins.
• See of saving Faith. p. 47, &c. p. 49.91.94.96.
• Rom. 2.6.
• A signal quick∣sand to be a∣••oided by all that are ensna∣red with the novel notion of perseverance.
• Of Faith as a practical adhe∣rence unto God.
• They have not all obeyed the Gospel. For Esay faith who hath belie∣ved our report•• Rom. 10.16.
• †

  Luk. 16.13.
• Ibid.
• †

  Mat. 12.30.
• 2 Kings 17.32, 33.
• †

  ver. 34.
• David was so∣berly put to it▪
• The fallaciou•• use of the word Graceless.
• Recessutum non deserit antequam de∣serat Et fa∣cit ple••••mque ne deserat; aut etiamsi recessit, ut redear, Prosper. Respon. ad ob∣ject. Vincent. 14.
• 2 Pet ••.••0, 21.
• Some are think∣ers to their own prejudice.
• Mat. 25.25.
• Look back on Sect. 4. of this Chapter.
• It is another quick-sand to be avoided, which leads men to think they are the better for their hypoc••isie.
• ••hat it is, and is not to build upon a rock.
• The horror of a Doc••rine should teach its vassals to disclaim it.
• The ••quivocal refuge of being obedient in the main.
• Mat. 5.19.
• Iam. 2.10.
• What was pre∣dominant in David when he deliberately sinned.
• Bonum ex Cau••â integrâ. Malum ex quolibet de∣fectu.
• None in Adul∣tery and mur∣der can be real∣ly good men be∣fore the time of their repen∣tance.
• Rom. 8.8, 13.
• The danger of the great error propos'd to con∣sideration.
• Appendix to Aphorismes of justif. p. 164.
• †

  Ib. p. 163.
• What despera••e Doctrines have been applauded by some of the ablest Presby∣terians, no whit better then those of Wickliff.
• See The Mar∣row of Modern Divinity, p. 20•• Edit. 3.
• †

  Ibid. p. 161.
• Ibid. p. 119.
• Saints Rest. part. 1. c. 8. Sect. 2. p. 158.
• Append. to A∣phor. of justif. p. 99. to p. 107.
• See Poe••it. M••rd. printed A.D. 1657 p. 10, 11. & p. 23.
• Hostis non sum, nisi eorum dog∣matum, quae credo noxia, aut p••••∣tati, aut Societati humanae; &c. Vot. pro Pace p. 115.
• Quae est illa poenitentia vivere ut lubet, deinde instante morte dicere ministro, nollem factum, & credo justitiam Christi imputari, idque ve∣rumesse quia id credo. Cum hoc Viatico statimille in Coelum avo∣lat. Id. ibid.
• 1 Cor. 6.9, 10.
• This you ac∣knowledge in Append. to A∣phor. p. 103.
• A tacite and groundless ac∣cusation sadly r••fl••cting on the Accuser.
• 1 P••t. 2.25.
• Lu•• 7.10.
• •• Cor. 2.16.
• 2 Cor. 8.12.
• †

  In his Pre∣face to the Rea∣der, p. 6.
• †

  Act. 24.13.14.
• Saints Rest. Edit. 2. part 3. p. 99.
• One sheet for the Ministery, p. 13. & 14.
• Of condemning brethren.
• Iud. 3.
• See (in par∣ticular) Introduct. p. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. and the places there referred to.
• †

  See Ch. 3. p. 73.77. to p. 83.
• At the end of my premonition to my 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• The accuser is the most crimi∣nal.
• Mat. 5.12. Luk. 6.23.
• Heb. 13.17.
• Append. to A∣p••or. p. 99.
• †

  Ibid. p. 163, 164.
• Ibid. 147.
• †

  See your hi∣story of the Conception and Nativity of your book in∣titled Plain Scripture Proof &c.
• Ibid. p. 174. Edit. 1. p. 175.
• †

  Ib. p. 202, 203.
• Disp. 3. of Sacram. p. 330.
• (a)

  See Edit. 3. of your pla•••• Script. proof, &c. p. 120, 121, 122, 123. and Append. to Aphor. p. 107.
• (b)

  Grot. Relig. p. 111, 112.
• (c)

  Plain Scrip. proof. p. 120.122.
• (d)

  Ibid. 227.228.
• (e)

  Disp. 5. of Sacr. p. 516.
• Wants of chari∣ty examin'd, & found to be in the A••cuser.
• Look for∣wards on ch. 5. Sect. 22.
• 1

  Disp. 5. of Sacram. p. 487.
• 2

  Ibid. p. 489.
• 3

  Ibid. p. 517.
• 4

  Ib. p. 516.
• 5

  D. Kendal's Answer to Mr. Goodw. ch. 4. p. 143, 144.
• The Accuser's character of himself.
• One sheet for the Ministery, p 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eph. 3.8.
• †

  Disp. 5. of Sacr. p. 482.
• Ibid. p. 486.
• †

  Ibid. p 484.
• Disp. 3. p. 330.
• See your E∣pistle to the poor in spirit prefixt to your directi∣ons for peace of Conscienc••.
• His obligation to reca••t, if•• not resolutely mis∣chievous.
• Nathanael Butler in the N••rrative of him, p. 8.
• 1 Pet. 2.11. Rom. 13.14. Gal. 5.16.
• The Puritanes lives no better then their do∣ctrines.
• Luk. 18.11.
• Vers. 13▪
• Their partialit•• to their own Tribe.
• Pl••in Script. proof. &c. Edit. 1. p. 281.
• The contrary lives of Anti-puritanes▪ Psa••. 15.4.
• Heb. 11.25.
• The Accuser's concurrence with the Ie∣suite.
• Fitz Simmons his Artifice dis∣covered, and the Puritanes serviceableness to the Papists.
• For this last you cite the News book.
• King James his description of a Puritane.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• W••at Puritane signifies with the Papists.
• A mistake of the old Catha∣rists, who yet were Puri∣tanes before the wo••d was fit∣ted to the thing▪
• Grotius groundl••sly calum••iated a∣fr••sh.
• Self Reven∣ge••, ch. 1. p. 35, 36, 37.
• What the Puri∣t••••es were with the old Episco∣pal party.
• †

  This is con∣f••ssed by Master Hickman, p. 40.
• p. 99.
• P••••face to the fourth Edit. of of his first Sermons, Sect. XXIII.
• The judgment of Archbishop Whitgift and judicious
• Hooker con∣cerning Puri∣t••ns.
• †

  Doctor San∣derson's judg∣ment of the sam••.
• See Sect. XVII. and compare it with XXI. where he saith the right English Protestant is in the middle between the Papist and the Puritan.
• Sect. XVIII.
• Sect. XX.
• Sect XXIII.
• Ibid.
• Sect. XXIV.
• Bishop An∣drews his judg∣ment of Puri∣tanes, in his Sermon of wor∣shipping ima∣ginations, p. 29. A.D. 1592. published by supreme A••th••ri∣ty.
• Ib. p. 30.
• †

  See from p 32▪ to the end.
• See his second Sermon of send∣ing the Holy Ghost, p. 610.
• (b)

  Ezek. 13.13.
• (c)

  Mat. 16.2.
• †

  See his ninth Sermon of the same, p. 694.
• 2 Pet. 3.5.
• Col. 2.18.
• ib. p. 696.
• See his tenth Serm▪ on the s••me, p 703.
• †

  See a brief view of the Church of England, as it stood in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James, p. 143.
• Sir John Har∣rington's judg∣ment of Puri∣tanes. Ibid. p. 7.8.
• Ib. p. 150.
• The judgment of Q. Eliz. and her Privy Counsel, and of Archb. Ban∣croft p. 12.13. and Archbishop Whitgift ib. p. 7.8.
• Of Iudge ••op∣ham.
• Ib. p. 118.119.
• Ib. 135. in Doctor Herbert Westphaling Bishop of He∣reford.
• The Lord Kee∣per Pu••kering's judgment of Puritanes by the direction of Q. Elizabeth, delivered in the House of Lords, in Parliament ••ssembled.
• †

  Mark who th••y were that were the•• called Puritanes.
• Mark who they were that were so esteem∣ed.
• Mark what was wisdom in Q. Elizabeth's days.
• The judgment of D••. R. Clerk, one of the Translators of the Bible, con∣cerning the then-Puritanes, in his second visitat. Serm. on Zech. 11.17. Vae Pastori Ido∣lo, p. 251.
• In his 1. Visit. Serm. on Num. 16.3. p. 242.243.
• Ib. p. 245.
• This the Title of an Archbishop.
• An accompt of Puritanes from the Examen Historicum.
• p. 91 92. &c. W••ckliff's new Gospel.
• †

  p. ••06.
• p. 109.
• (a)

  p. 128.129.
• (b)

  p. 130.
• (c)

  ••.156.157. Their helping on the Popish I••∣terest.
• (d)

  p. 256.
• Th••ir reb••llious Principles.
• (e)

  p. 138 139.••••3.
• p. 178.179.
• (g)

  p. 151.
• (h)

  p. 153.
• (i)

  p. 156.
• (k)

  p. 158.
• Bishop Monta∣gue's judgme••t of Puritanes.
• Religiosi ne∣bulones no∣strates Deum & Ecclesiam emulgentes, aiunt, Deum cul••u merè spirituali 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Montac. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ad An. Chr. 2. See his Appello Caesarem, ••art. 2. c. 1. p. 11••.111▪ 112.
• Ib. p. 113.
• Grotius his judgment con∣cerning Puri∣tanes. Serenissimi, & si per Purita∣nos licea••, Po∣tentissimi Re∣gis Britannia∣rum beneficio, &c. Discuss. Riv. Apol. p. 57.
• Rex Iacobus se Puritanis semper exosum fuifse dicit, non alio Nomine quàm quod Rex effe••. Ibid. pag. 92.
• Mr. Thorn∣dike's judgment of Puritanes. In his Epilogue to the Trag. of the Church of England, Con∣••lus. p. 405. Ib. p. 423.
• Id. lib. 1. p. 77.
• Ib. p. 78. Conclus. p. 4••4▪
• Bishop Hall's judgment of Puritanes in his Latin exhorta∣tion to the Sy∣nod at Dort, on Eccles. 7.16.
• Vide Acta Synodi Dor∣drectanae, p. 57. Sess. 16.
• King James distinguish'd the Knave's Puritane, from the Puritane-Knave.
• Of the word Roundhead, and praying aloud in private. Petrus Crini∣tus de b••llo Rusticano.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Hom.
• †

  Is••. 56.10.
• Math. 23.33.
• vers. 14.
• Mat. 6.5.
• vers. 6.
• How the Puri∣ta••es are the worst kind of swearers.
• The Tale of d••inking a bloo∣dy health to the Divel no less impertinent then uncharitable.
• A gross and dangerous falsi∣fication in the management of the Tale.
• Mr. Barker of Pitchley.
• Men should be taught by the••r suffering, not to do wrong.
• Disp. 5. of Sacram. p. 489.
• Ibid. p. 500.
• A Cav••at. a∣gainst Raisers of false R••ports.
• See Biblioth. R••gia part. 1. Sect. •• p. 58.59. to p. 65.
• Of the judgm. of the late Archbishop of Arm. p. ••61.
• Ibid. p. 19.
• Bolsec. in vitâ Calvini. Pref. to Disp. against Master Tombes. Exam Hist. p. 204.
• A confident corrupting of plain words.
• How some Pu∣ritanes have excommunica∣ted themselves.
• Jude 19.
• †

  T••t. 3.10.
• Ver. 11.
• The Monopoli∣zer of Censori∣ousnesse no good Projecter.
• Levit. 19▪ 17.
• Matth. 7.6.
• Ezek. 33 9.
• A strange kind of Catholick, who is against the whole Church; y••t partially cleaves to a Sect, though he condemns it.
• Look back on ch. 4. Sect. 4.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athan. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 1058. which compare with a Sheet for the Ministery, p. 11.
• Look b••ck on ch 4. sect 5.
• †

  L••ok back on ch. 1. sect. 13.
• A wilf••ll Im∣posture, or else a Patr••n••ge of I••pi••ty.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Ezek. 13.18.
• Of Episcopal Divines, & the Archb. of C••nt.
• Look back on ch. 1. sect. 6. towards the end▪
• Sequestrations misliked by their very Ab••t∣tors.
• See and co••si∣der my Self-re∣venger, Exem. ch. 3. sect. 1. p. 69, 70.
• Note, I speak with the vulgar, mean∣ing o••ely the two Houses (as Mr. Hickman calls them p. 45.) or rather the Remnant of the two Hou∣ses, of which Judge Ienkins hath well in∣form'd us▪
• Sufficient In∣formation for such as w••nt and desire it.
• You may see a Copy of this in Biblioth. Reg. part 1. ••ect. 4. num. 10. p. 324.
• (a)

  Plain S••r. proof of In∣fants Ch. mem. p. 123. which compare with 120, 121, 122. & with p. 274. and with your A••en. to Aphor. p. 107.
• (b)

  Five Disp. of Ch. Gov. & Worsh. p. 350.349.
• Guilty men must keep their secrets, or not be angry that they are known.
• A sad plea for I••j••••tice from an opinion that it is good.
• Formido est de Intrinsecâ ratione Opinio∣nis; quippe cui potest subesse dubium.
• †

  John 16.2.
• 2 Cor. 12.14.
• †

  See your Disp 5. of Sacr. p. 484.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luke 1.6.
• Prov. 11.4▪
• Sequ••strations disowned by their Defender.
• Accusations are of no value, when onely ge∣neral, and with∣out proof.
• A•• ill m••n may have a good ti∣tle to his Estate, and must not be wrong'd for be∣ing u••••ighteous.
• Luc. 16, 19, 20, 21.
• Evil must not be done in pre∣tence of good ends. Rom. 3.8.
• Ecclus. 15.12.
• He who crave•• help must have the patience to receive it.
• 2 Sam. 12.7.
• The shameful∣nesse of Mr. White's Cen∣turies.
• (a)

  See Exam. Hist. p. 256.
• Worse were put into Livings then the worst that were put out.
• Unseasonable bitternesse to the Protestants, from one who would not be∣friend the Pa∣pists.
• The Indefinite Accuser brought to his triall by some particu∣lars.
• (a)

  Note, that of the 12. Bi∣shops who were voted to the Tower, Bi∣shop Morton & B. Hall at least were two.
• See Angliae Ruina, ••r Mer∣curius Rustic.
• A signal Con∣fession That what is called a Reformati•••• was but a ch••nge unto the worse.
• See the Testi∣mony to the Truth of J.C. subscribed by the Ministers within the Pro∣vince of Lond.
• p. 30.
• P. 29.
• P. 30.
• P. 26.
• †

  P. 31.
• D••sp. of Ch. Gov. and Worship. p. 275. &c.
• See your Pl. Scr. Pr. of Inf. Ch. Memb. & Bapt. Edit. 1. p. 174.
• (b)

  Note that this you speak of these men whom you call Mr. Tombs his Brethren, who were at first a∣gainst nothing but Inf. Bapt.
• Presbyterian Confessions to the advantage of the Prelatists••
• (a)

  Ibid p. 120.
• P. 123.
• P. 123.
• The National Cov. confessed faulty.
• Ibid. p. 121.
• (b)

  Cov. with Narrative. p. 12
• A strange way of arguing in the behalf of Cruelty.
• ••s consequence subversive to all humane So∣ciety.
• Aliud est de possession is ju∣stitiâ agere, a∣liud de perso∣nae.— Est hoc inter ea, quae in Wicl••fo dam∣nata sunt; & recte sane. Nam si electi ad eas res, quas homines rejecti possi∣dent, jus nunc habent, sequi∣tur, ut ea•• res vindicare pos∣sint. Grot. Dis∣cuss. p. 93.
• Concerning U∣surpers and Re∣stitution.
• (a)

  Look back on ch. 3. sect. 1, 2, &c.
• What Seque∣strations are disliked, and what not.
• Gen. 18.23.25.
• O•• growing lusty on S••que∣strations.
• A confessed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• The Synodists unexcusable by standing out after yielding.
• Austin confe••∣sedly against the Synod of Dort.
• The Extent of Grace.
• The Synod of Dort parallel'd with the Ie∣suites even by them that plead for them.
• The Denial of original pravi∣ty falsely char∣ged on the Re∣monstrants.
• How much there is in the Will of man.
• To convert a sinner no breac•• of charity.
• I shall be glad to know the Reason, by which you were moved to call him Mine.
• Who it is that abuseth the choicest of G••d's Ser∣vants.
• Made appear by an Example: