The New Discoverer DISCOVERED.  
By way of Answer to Mr. BAXTER his Pretended Discovery of the GROTIAN RELIGION, With the Several Subjects therein Contained.  
To which is added AN APPENDIX Containing a rejoinder to divers Things both in the Key for Catholics, and in The book of Disputations about Church-Government and Worship, etc.  
TOGETHER WITH A Letter to the Learned and Reverend Dr. Heylis, Concerning Mr. Hickman and Mr. Bagshaw.  
By THOMAS PIERCE Rector of Brington.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arrian. Ep. l. 4. c. 5. Their own Tongues shall make them fall. Psal. 64.8. 
LONDON, Printed by I. G. for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivye-lane. 1659.   

A Preadvertisement to the Reader.  
CHRISTIAN READER,  
IF thou desirest to know the Reason, why I begin to Mr. Baxter with more respect than thou allow'st him; whereas I treat him in my Appendix with little more than he deserves, (making almost as great a difference in my stile to him, as is observable in his to me,) be pleased to accept of this hasty, but just account.  
I was indulgent, in the beginning, to mine own particular Inclinations; but at the end I consulted his greatest Needs. My Inclinations would ever lead me to speak as 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rom. 15.2.  pleasingly as I may, but that my judgement sometimes corrects them, and makes them give way to my 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rom. 15.2.  Neighbour's profit. His bitter Enmity against my person, which he hath sturdily concluded in a state of Damnation, and so by consequence a Reprobate, after his way of reasoning, (though, blessed be God, his Conclusion is not deduced from any premises, save what his Passion and his Fancy have shaped out to him,) I say his Enmity to my person, did only move me to forgive, and to use him gently. But when I beheld him a second time, as the bitterest Adversary of Truth, reviling the Fathers of the Church, and the Church herself, more than any Presbyterian I ever met with, (unless I except Mr. Hickman, with whom I shall reckon in due time for his great uncleanness,) I durst not 
* Gal. 1.10.  seek to please men, so as to cease to be the servant of jesus Christ And therefore however I have begun my ensuing papers with what was most pleasant for me to write, yet have I suffered myself at last to add such things in the Conclusion, as I found Mr. Baxter had need to read. For if, after my having been very liberal, I find my Client so much the worse; the likeliest method to make him better, is to become for the future but strictly just. He is a different man in his book of Government and Worship, and in the later part of his Key for Catholics, from what he was in his Discovery of the Grotian Religion, (for so it seems he was pleased to word it) and that did make him the fit for somewhat a different Entertainment. 
† Grot. Rel. ●r●f. Sect. 3.  It is not long since he made profession, that if any should gather from his Discourse, my being such myself as he affirmed Grotius to have been, he protested against all such Accusations as no part of his intention: but in his two last Volumes his mind is changed, (or else his Members have prevailed against his mind) so far forth as to accuse me of downright Popery, and of having a hand in the Grotian plot, which (if we may prudently believe him) is to bring Popery into the Land, and together with that a Persecution. He takes it ill that I am suffered to have a 
* Key for Cath. p▪ 385, 386.  Rectory here in England; and thereupon betrays his judgement, that I am fit for the 
* Key for Cath. p▪ 385, 386.  Strappado: which whilst he saith that such as he cannot escape in my Church, (implying me to be one of the bloodiest Papists, (whether Spanish or Italian, he doth not say) he doth abundantly insinuate his kindness to me  
Had I a heart to return him Evil for Evil, I might fitly proclaim him either a jesuite, or a jew. For without question he is either, as much as I am a Papist: but I will not vie slanders with men of Tongue, nor try the strength of my Invention to beat an Enemy at his own weapon; for this were only to be at strife, who should be the most impious. No, let the Rigid Presbyterian take such victories to himself, without receiving the trouble of being contended with at all. I may often times punish, but never wrong him: and when I punish the Malefactor, I spare the Man. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Agape●. Diac. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 83.  Vengeance is a thing which I leave to God, I being fully content with a Vindication. 'Tis true I prove him to be a 
† See Append. Sect. 5.  Papist by fourteen Arguments; but they are Arguments only ad Hominem, and professedly urged by a Prosopopoeia, and only in order to his Conviction, that more may be said against him, than he can say against Grotius; and that his injuries to Grotius do only prove his own hurts. And having thus proved him to be a Papist, I freely 
* Ibid▪ p. 175.  profess to believe him none.  
I hope his Calumnies of Grotius, and the Episcopal Divines, will now obtain the less credit with his most credulous Admirers, for that he hath poured out the same (and a great deal worse) against a person of great remark amongst the Counselors of State. 
* Compare The Vindication of Sir Henry Vane, with Mr. Baxter's unchristian usage of him in his Key for Catholics.  The Vani or Vanists (for he is pleased to speak in both Dialects) are made the burden of his invective in his Key for Catholics. In his Dedicatory Epistle, (which some have called his Court-Flattery,) he makes a grievous complaint against ten sorts of men, of whom he declares he is very jealous. [The third of these are the Vani, whom God by wonders confounded in new England, but have here prevailed far in the dark.] To explain his meaning in the Epistle, he tell's us 
† Key for Cat●. p. 330, 331.  plainly in the Book, that the first sort of jugglers, or Hiders of their Religion, under whom the Papists do now manage their principal design, are the Vani, whose Game was first played openly in America in New-England, where God gave his Testimonies against them from heaven upon their two Prophetesses, Mrs. Hutchinson and Mrs. Dyer; the later brought forth a Monster with the parts of Bird, Beast, Fish, and Man. The former brought forth many (near 30.) Monstrous Births at once, and was after slain by the Indians. This providence (he adds) should have awakened the Parliament to a wise and godly jealousy of the Counsels and Designs of him that was in New-England, the Master of the Game, and to have carefully searched how much of his Doctrine and design were from heaven, and how much of them he brought with him from Italy, or at least was begotten by the Progenitor of Monsters. And lest his Readers should be to seek on whom he fasten's such ugly calumnies, he frequently 
* Ibid. p. 319, 329, 338.  nameth Sir Henry Vane, neither regarding the Quality, or Learned parts of that Knight, nor any the least Reverence or Care of Truth.  
Of this, and many the like pranks, I am particularly concerned to take some notice, first because Mr. Baxter hath coupled 
† Ibid. p. 391.  the Vani with Mr. P. And both with four sorts of men, by whom the Popish design is kept on foot; to wit the Seekers, the Infidels, the Behmenists, and the Quakers. Next because mine own sufferings have taught me to look with indignation on other Men's, how little soever their principles agree with mine. And though I suppose Sir Henry Vane is very far from being partial to the Episcopal Divines, (with whom I will rather choose to suffer the greatest hardships, than embrace the 
* Iam●s 4.4.  Friendship of the world, 
† H b. 11. ●5.  or enjoy the pleasures of Sin for a season,) yet are we bound to do him right, and to be sensible of his wrongs, and to afford him that deference, which both his Birth and his Breeding have made his due. When St Paul had to do with a person of honour amongst the Heathen, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A●ts 26.25.  he was so civil as to call him most noble Festus. And he is sure a gross Christian, who think's it his duty to be a Clown. I cannot tell what judgement that Learned Gentleman may be of; but he hath this commendation (as well as Grotius) that he is hated by Mr. Baxter beyond all measure; and is sufficiently averse to the Presbyterians.  
Christian Reader, have the patience to be pre-admonished of one thing more. The greatest abuse and the most groundless which I have suffered from Mr. Baxter (in no less than three distinct Volumes) is his endeavour to represent me, as an Enemy to Purity and pious life. Which however he hath done in as gross a manner, as if he had tried to what Extremities both of absurdity and Falsehood, depraved Man may be transported by abusing the Liberty of his Will, (which God could never predetermine to such uncleanness,) yet some at least of his Followers who have never yet seen him without his Vizard, have been betrayed by that confidence (with which he hath written against his Conscience) to encourage his calumnies with their belief. As for reason, or proof, he hath not offered any thing towards it, but to supply that defect, he hath thought it enough to declaim against me, for being supposed to have declaimed against Puritans, neither naming any one passage in any papers which I had published, nor so much as referring to any page where any such passage was to be found. I received letters of inquiry, [where I had written against Puritans, that Mr. Baxter should so largely rebuke me for it before the world? My answer was, that I never did it, for aught I was able to remember; and that until Mr. Baxter could show me where, I should not believe I had been forgetful. Indeed I 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ch. 3. p. 75.  cited that part of King james his Letter, which told the Bishops they had to do with two sorts of Enemies, Papists and Puritans, and willed them to go forward against the one and the other. But it appears by these words, not that I, or Archbishop Spotswood, (by whom the Letter is recorded) but that King james, who writ the Letter, had sharply written against Puritans. In so much that Mr. Baxter hath dealt with me, as he hath also dealt with Sir Henry Vane, whom he 
† Key for Cath. p. 331.  supposeth to have brought Corrupt Opinions out of Italy, when it appears that Sir Henry was never there.  
But now admit that I had written against the Puritans, before his clamour was put in print, (as very possibly I did, though I profess I know not where, and much desire to be informed) yet I had done no other thing, than had been donby the most eminent in point of Piety, Learning, judgement and Moderation, from the days of Queen Elizabeth, to these our own. And if I am an Enemy to Religion for having cited the words of others, what will be said by Mr. Baxter of Archbishop Whitgift, Archbishop Bancroft, Judicious Hooker, Judge Popham, Bishop Andrews, Bishop Carleton, Bishop Hall, Dr. Sanderson, (with divers others, whom I have cited in the first Chapter of this Book) whose just severity to the Puritans may serve to put Mr. Baxter to shame and silence.  
If he means no more than this, that I have cited out of the Writings of English and Scotish Presbyterians, their own 
* ☞ See The Sel●▪ Revenger exemplified ch. 3. p. 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, etc.  Confessions of their own principles and practise too, he should have honestly told his Readers, that I had written no worse of the Presbyterians, than themselves had written of themselves. Nor should he have called them Puritans, whom I had called Presbyterians, (as themselves in their Writings have called themselves) unless he was willing to acknowledge that they were both the same thing. Observe (good Reader) how the Case stands between us. It is confessed by Mr. Knox, that james Melvin (with two more) did privately murder the Archbp. of St. Andrews, which the same Mr. Knox doth withal commend for a Godly Fact. This Confession I 
† Ibid. p. 8●  observed, and shown his page where it is printed. Again by 52. Ministers of the Province of London it was confessed (from the press too) that instead of a Reformation they had a Deformation in Religion, — having opened the very Floodgates to all Impiety and profaneness, etc. This Concession I 
* Ibid p. 81.  observed, and showed the page where it was printed. That proceeded from the Scotish, this from the English Presbyterians. What may now be the reason, that Mr. Baxter pursues me with so much Rancour? Was it my fault that the things were printed, (without my knowledge or consent) and printed by the Authors from whom I had them? Or may not a man relate a passage, as he finds it printed before his eyes? Which was worst of the two, that Mr. Knox the Presbyterian commended Murder, or that a man of the Church of England did fairly cite his commendation? Let it be judged by my writings, and by the Authors whom I produce, whether I am so like an Enemy to Christian purity, as they (who say it) are Friends and Fautors to the most Heathenish Impurity to be imagined.  
And because I have met with a sort of men, who having been led by blind guides, have stuck so fast in the ditch of error, as to believe the word Puritan is of a fair signification, and imports a man of a pious life, I think it my duty to declare, (before I admit them to read my Book) that whensoever I shall be found to speak severely concerning Puritans, (and that in mere satisfaction to Mr. Baxter) I mean no other than have been meant by Bishop Andrew's of blesse● Memory, or by the learned and Reverend Dr. Sand●●son, with other persons of renown hereafter mentioned. Puritans properly are things, which being inwardly full of Filth, do either esteem themselves pure, or would fain by others be so esteemed. And for the very same reason, that Bishop Andrews fastened the name of Puritans on those old Heretics, the Catharists, I may bestow it on the 
* Ipsi Impuri cùm essent alios à se ut impures arcebant. Sicut Samaritas Geographus Arabs clamass● ait, Ne Attingas. Ejus Samaritarum moris etiam ad hunc locum meminit Hieronymus. vid. Grot. in Isa. 65.5.  Samaritans, those older Schismatics amongst the Hebrews; who reckoned others so impure in comparison of themselves, that if a man drew near them who was not one of their Faction, they would send him away with a [Ne Attingas] touch me not thou man of Sin. Such like Puritans were they, whom God himself hath described by the Prophet Esay [A Rebellious people, which walketh in a way that is not good, after their own thoughts: A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face, that sacrificeth in Gardens, and burneth Incense upon altars of Brick,— which say, STAND BY THYSELF, COME NOT NEAR TO ME, FOR I AM HOLIER THAN THOU. Isa. 65.2, 3, 5.] Yet as Godly, and as pure, as in the pride of their hearts they esteemed themselves, God denounceth them as fuel to the unclean Fire of Hell. For so the Chaldee Paraphrase doth understand the next words. These shall be a smoke in mine Anger, and a Fire that burneth all the day. Ibid. Such again were those Puritans (for I may boldly parachronize by so great an example as Bishop Andrews) of whom we are told by the Royal Preacher, [there is a generation who are pure in their own eyes, and yet are not washed from their filthiness. Prov. 30.12.] These are persons the more desperate, and incapable of cure, the more difficult it is to make them feel that they are sick. Continuing pure in their own eyes, we cannot persuade them to 
* 2 Cor. 7. ●.  cleanse themselves from any manner of filthiness, of flesh, or spirit. Thence said our Saviour to the Puritans, who thought too well of themselves, to accept of him for their Physician, [Verily I say unto you that the Publicans and Harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you. Mat. 21.31.]  
If when I show my aversion to such as these whom God abhorreth, and give my instance in Mr. Knox, with other rigid Presbyterians, (as the Lord Chancellor Egerton had done before me) adding the reasons of what I do from Notereity of Fact, and commonly too from their own Conf●ssions; If (I say) in such case, Mr. Baxter and Mr. Hickman conclude themselves to be concerned, without so much as demanding whether or no I mean them, they are ipso Facto their own Accusers. It is not my fault, that Hypocrisy is a Sin; nor that I labour to make it odious. If men are conscious to themselves of being Hypocrites, as I am not able to make them less conscious, so neither would I, if I were able. My public 
* Premonition prefixed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. ult.  professions might h●ve sufficed, that when my word● are general, I ai●e at none in particular, unless I name them. I such as must acknowledge they were not named, will needs be naming themselves in print, or otherwise make applications where I make none, they themselves must acknowledge, I cannot help it.  
And therefore whatsoever unchristian speeches, I may continue to suffer for my Good will, from such as (in order to their gain) do put on godliness for a disguise, I will not cease (Good Reader) to put thee always in remembrance, that the difference is as wide betwixt Purity and Puritanism, as betwixt Holiness and Hypocrisy. Let Epicharmus his Apophthegm never departed out of thy mind, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. be sober and distrustful. Let the wisdom of the serpent protect the innocency of the dove. A prudent diffidence is a lesson which is at least as needful, as it is difficult to be learned. Take that from 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euripid. in Helenâ.  Euripedes; and this from 
† N●vi & Artus s●pientiae, non temerè credere. Cicero de pe●itione Consul.  Tully; that not to be swayed over hastily by the outward 
* Mat. 23.28.  appearances of men, is no less than the Sinew and strength of wisdom. And therefore however it is natural for Gold to glister, yet remember that Art is the Apc of Nature, and that many things do glister which are not Gold.  
Before thou seest my first sheets, be pleased to know that they were printed, before I saw the two Volumes to which I speak in my Appendix. If thou thinkest that I have erred in my civil Expressions to Mr. Baxter, whose incivilities towards me made him unworthy of such a treatment; remember my errors are on the right hand, whilst his are exceedingly on the left. And although I have taken a special care, not to be censured in his next Volume (like them that sent him kind Letters) for one of his 
* Note the barbarous Requital of C●v●l usage.  flattering and fawning Adversaries; yet I conceived it my advantage, to use him better than he deserved. But if thou art not of my opinion, and art so rigid an exactor of Arithmetical proportion in every exercise or act of vindicative justice, as not to allow those errors in me, which thou yieldest to be of the better sort; it is but takeing thy Pen and Ink, and putting them all in the Errata.   

The general Contents of the several Chapters.  

The Introduction. Of David and Peter in Mr. Baxter's Title-page. Of Puritans and Sequestrations in the same,   

CHAP. I. Concerning Grotius.  
SECT. I. His Religion and Design. Sect. 3. His English Followers. Dr. Hammond and Mr. Thorndike in his defence. Sect. 4. To calumniate Grotius confessed odious by his Calumniator. Sect. 5. Mr. Baxter's promise of Repentance ex hypothesi. Grotius accused of turning Papist. But proved none by XIX. Arguments. Drawn from other men's Testimonies, and from his own. From his own both private and public Professions of himself. An Account of his Religion from his Animadversions upon Rivet's. From his Annals and Histories. His Notes on Cassander. His Votum pro Pace. His Epistles to the French. His De Imperio Sum. Pot. circa Sacra. His Discussio Apologetici Rivetiani. From the last Act of his Life, his Death, Burial.— Sect. 6. Of his pretended Dissimulation, and how it reflects on his Accuser. Sect. 7. Grotius at last is but a Papist with an if, etc. Sect. 8. Popery disclaimed as well by Grotius and Mr. P. as by Mr. Baxter. Sect. 9 Mistakes in reading Grotius, ariseing from a nescience or hatred of his design. Sect. 10. How much may be offered to purchase peace. Sect. 11. Grotius his Doctrine and Design more Catholical than Mr. Baxter's. Sect. 12. And the terms to which he calls us, less impossible. Sect. 13. Grotius doth not cut off the holiest parts of the Church. Sect. 14. His way is not uncharitable. Sect. 15. It doth not tend to persecution. Sect. 16. It doth not engage in a way of Sin. Sect. 17. men's thoughts of Grotius must be esteemed by their words. Sect. 18. The Conclusion, containing a muster of those Reproaches which are cast on Grotius by Mr. Baxter, and what disadvantage doth thence ensue.   

CHAP. II. Concerning Subjects of several Natures.  
Sect. 1. Mr. Baxter's acknowledgement of Charity, with his uncharitable Requital. Sect. 3. The title of Arminian unseasonably applied. Sect. 4. Neither Grotius nor any else can be too severe against blasphemy. Sect. 5. What differences are verbal, and what are real. Sect. 6. A material difference indeed. Sect. 8. Of heads of Controversy reconcileable. Sect. 9 Grotius made not uncharitable inferences, but recited only already made.   

CHAP. III. Concerning the state of David and the Godly, whilst yet Impenitent.  
Sect. 1. A strange difference between the Godly, and the notoriously ungodly. Sect. 2. The excessive danger of making the greatest sinners to dream themselves into a Saintship. The danger exemplified in a Presbyterian woman Sect. 3. The sins of David with their Circumstances. Sect. 4. Peter's sins very different from those of David. Sect. 5. Of Solomon's state and its uncertainty. Sect. 6. The Reprobates are granted by Mr. Baxter to have grace sufficient. Mr. Baxter's Description of Common Grace and its effects. Sect. 7. Of men twice sanctified. Sect. 8. Concerning the importance of Heb. 6. & 10. Sect. 9 God's testimony of David twofold, each to be compared with the Rule, Ezek. 18.24. etc. Sect. 10. How far charity was decayed in David; and how hard it is to murder wilfully in love. Sect. 11. Of David's Prayer Psal. 51. Sect. 12. His being clearly unsanctified by his accumulated sins. Sect. 13. A signal quicksand to be avoided by all that are ensnared with the novel notion of perseverance. Sect. 14. Of Faith as a practical adherence unto God. Sect. 15. David was soberly put to it. Sect. 16. The fallacious use of the word Graceless. Sect. 17. Some are thinkers to their own prejudice. Sect. 18. It is an other quicksand to be avoided, which leads men to think they are the better for their Hypocrisy. Sect. 19 What it is, and what it is not, to build upon a rock. Sect. 20. The horror of a Doctrine should teach its vassals to disclaim it. The equivocal refuge of being obedient in the main. Sect. 21. What was predominant in David when he deliberately sinned. Sect. 22. None in adultery and murder can be really good men before the time of their repentance. Sect. 23. The danger of the great error proposed to consideration, what desperate Doctrines have been applauded by some of the ablest Presbyterians, no whit better than those of Wickliff.   

CHAP. IU. Concerning Subjects of several Natures.  
Sect. 1. A tacit and groundless accusation sadly reflecting on the accuser. Sect. 2. Of condemning brethren. The accuser is the most criminal. Sect. 3. Wants of charity examined, and found to be in the accuser. Sect. 5. The accuser's character of himself. Sect. 6. His obligation to re●ant, if not resolutely mischievous.   

CHAP. V Concerning Puritans.  
Sect. 1. The Puritans lives no better than their doctrines. Sect. 3. Their partiality to their own Tribe. The contrary lives of Antipuritan●s. Sect. 4. The Accusers concurrence with the jesuite. Sect. 5. Fitz-Simmons his Artifice discovered, and the Puritans serviceablenesse to the Papists. Sect. 6. King james his description of a Puritan. Sect. 7. What Puritan signifies with the Papists. Sect. 8. A mistake of the old Catharists who yet were Puritans before the word was fitted to the thing. Grotius groundlessly calumniated afresh. Sect. 9, What the Puritans were with the old Episcopal party. The judgement of Archbishop Whitgift and judicious Hooker concerning Puritans, Dr. Sanderson's judgement of the same. Sect. 10. Bishop Andrews his judgement of Puritans in his Sermon of worshipping imaginations, p. 29. A.D. 1592. published by supreme Authority. Sect. 11. Sir John Harrington's judgement of Puritans. The judgement of Queen Eliz: and her Privy Counsel, and Archbishop Bancroft p. 12.13. and Archbishop Whitgift. ib. p. 7.8. Of Judge Fopham. Sect. 12. The Lord keeper Puckering judgement of Puritans by the direction of Queen Eliz: delivered in the House of Lord in Parliament assembled. Sect. 13. The judgement of Dr. R. Clarke, one of the Translators of the Bible, concerning the then-Puritanes, in his second Visitation Sermon Zech 11.17. Sect. 14. An account of Puritans from the Examen Historicum. Wichliff's new Gospel. Their helping on the Popish interest. Their rebellious Principles. Sect. 15. Bishop Montague's judgement of Puritans. Sect. 16. Grotius his judgement concerning Puritans. Mr. Thorndike's judgement of Puritans; Bishop Hall's judgement of Puritans in his Latin exhortation to the Synod at Dort, on Eccles. 7.16. Sect. 17. King james distinguished the Knaves-Puritane, from the Puritane-Knave. Sect. 18. Of the word Roundhead, and praying aloud in private. Sect. 19 How the Puritans are the worst kind of swearers. Sect. 20. The tale of drinking a bloody health to the Devil, no less impertinent, then uncharitable. A gross and dangerous falsification in the management of the tale. Men should be taught by their sufferings not to do wrong. A Caveat against Raiser's of false reports. Confident corrupting of plain words. Sect. 22. How some Puritans have excommunicated themselves. The Monopoliser of Censoriousness no good Projecter. Sect. 23. A strange kind of Catholic, who is against the whole Church, yet partially cleaves unto a Sect, whilst he condemns it. Sect. 24. A wilful imposture, or else a Patronage of impiety.   

CHAP. VI Concerning the Sequestration of Episcopal Divines.  
Sect. 1. Of Episcopal Divines and the Archbishop of Cant. Sect. 2. Sequestrations misliked by their very Abettors. Sect. 3. Sufficient information for such as want and desire it. Guilty men must keep their secrets or not be angry that they are known. Sect. 4. A sad plea for injustice from an opinion that it is good Sect. 5. Sequestrations disowned by their Defender. Sect. 6. Accusations are of no value, when only general, and without proof. An ill man may have a good title to his Estate, and must not be wronged for being unrighteous. Evil must not be done in pretence of good ends. Rom. 3.8. Sect. 7. He who craves help must have the patience to receive it. Sect. 8. The shamefulness of Mr. Whites Centuries, worse were put into live then the worst that were put out. Sect. 9 Unseasonable bitterness to the Protestants, from one who would not befriend the Papists. The indefinite Accuser brought to his trial by some particulars. A signal Confession, that what is called a Reformation was but a change unto the worse. Presbyterian confessions to the advantage of the Prelatists. The National Covenant confessed faulty. Sect. 10. A strange way of arguing in the behalf of Cruelty. It's consequence subversive of all humane society. Sect. 11. Concerning Usurpers and Restitution. Sect. 12. What sequestrations are misliked, and what not. Sect. 13. Of growing Lusty on Sequestrations, and self-denial in usurpation.   

CHAP. VII. Of the Dort-Synod and the Remonstrants.  
Sect. 1. A confessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sect. 2. The Synodists unexcusable by standing out after yielding. Sect. 3. Of grace which is really, not verbally sufficient. Sect. 4. Austin confessedly against the Synod of Dort. Sect. 5. The extent of grace. Sect. 6. The Synod of Dort paralleled with the jesuites even by its own Advocates. Sect. 7. The Denial of original pravity falsely charged on the Remonstrants. Sect. 8. How much there is in the will of man. Sect. 9 To convert a sinner no breach of charity. Sect. 10. Who it is that abuseth the choicest of God's servants. Sect. 11. Made appear by an example.    

The Contents of the APPENDIX. Concerning several Subjects both in The Key for Catholics, and in the Book of Disputations of Church-Government and Worship.  
SECT. I. The chief occasion of the Appendix Sect. 2. Mr. Baxters charge of Popery attended with self-contradictions. Sect. 3. Made the more heinous in four respects. Sect. 4. He is showed his Danger, as well as guilt. Sect. 5. Himself proved to be a Papist by fourteen Arguments, according to his own Logic. Grotius vindicated and cleared from all appearance of Popery (from. Sect. 6. to Sect. 26.) The testimony of Poelenburg opposed to that of Sarravius. Mr. Baxters confounding a Primacy of order with a supremacy of power. And the New Canons of Rome with the ancient Canons of General Councils. His many and grievous mistakes in translating Grotius his Latin; whether from wilfulness, or weakness, is referred unto the Reader. Grotius his design had no influence on our English changes. No Church-preferment was offered to him. Franciscus à Sanctâ Clarâ had a contrary design. Dr. Bezier cleared from an implicit Calumny. The Pope's Primacy allowed by all sorts of Protestants as well as Grotius; Bishop Andrews, Bishop Bramhall, Dr. Hammond, etc. A conjecture passed upon the letters which Mr. Baxter saith were sent to him of the real presence in the Lord's Supper. Material and formal Idolatry. Two sorts of P●pists. The granted Primacy a Bulwark against Popery; Pacificks are not a cause of discord. The Pri●acy of the Pope; how it removeth the whole mistake.  
Sect. 29. By whom our Breaches were fir●t made, and are ever since widened. The wrong sore rubbed by Mr. Baxter, and Presbyterians galled upon the Prelatists' backs. The Prelatists beaten for being abused yet are earnest desirers of Reconcilement. The Church of England justified by the Confessions of her Desertors. The Presbyterian separatists apparently unexcusable. They are obnoxious to men of all sides for their sin of schism. Especially to the Episcopal, whose sufferings have made them the more conformable to the Primitive Christians. Sect. 30. Lay-Elders condemned by such as had sworn to assert them. Sect. 31. A Calumny cast upon our Preachers to the sole disgrace of the Calumniator. Once a day Preaching and Catechising, a great deal better than Prating twice. The Accuser most criminal. The Presbyterian Readers are many more than the Episcopal. And their Preaching much worse, if we may credit their own confessions. An agreement in point of Raileing between the Quakers and Presbyterians. Sect. 32. A fair Confession how far a Protestant may go, and be still a Protestant.  
Sect. 33. Of Bishops and Presbytery. Bishop Hall's censure of the disturbers of settled Government in the Church. The Lord Primate's censure of Presbyterian Ordinations, as invalid and Schismatical; Dr. Holdsworth's sufferings a Declaration of his judgement. Sect. 34. The Presbyterian excuses are Aggravations of their offences. Sect. 35. Bishop Prideaux confessed a Moderate man, though the sharpest Censor of our English Presbyterians. He doth characterise them by Ravenous Wolves. By ambitious low shrubs conspiring against the goodly Oak. By a petulant Ape on the house top. By the greedy Dog, and the Sacrilegious Bird in the common Fable. By Baltasar and Achan. By the title Smectymnuan, importing a monster with many heads. By the Bramble, consuming the Cedar of Lebanon. Bishop Prideaux used worse than any scandalous Minister.  
Sect. 36. A vindication of Bishops, and Doctor Hammond's Paraphrase. Sect. 37. A Refutation of the prime Argument for Presbyterian Ordinations. Mr. Baxter proved to be an Heathen by his own Art of Syllogizing. Sect. 38. Presbyterians are not Bishops by having Deacons under them. Sect. 39 Immoderate virulence towards those of the Episcopal way. Mr. Thorndike's judgement of Presbyterian Ordinations.  
Sect. 40. A parallel case between the Pharisees of old, and our modern Puritans.  
Sect. 41. What hath been meant by the word Puritan by Learned men. The Lord Chancellor Egerto●'s judgement of Puritans. Bishop Bramhall's judgement of the same. Bishop Hall of Pharisaism and Christianity.  
Sect. 42. The Presbyterian Directory exceedingly abominable. The King's reasons against the Directory. And his reasons for the Common Prayer.  
Sect. 43. Concerning Coppinger and Hacket, and the communication of their Design to the Presbyterian Ministers. Sect. 44. Dr. Steward's Sermon at Paris. And Dr. Heylin's Antipuritanism.   


To the Reverend Mr RICHARD BAXTER.  
Reverend Sir,  
Sect. 1. AFter so many of my endeavours 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 Mythology of the Turks, whose desperate Doctrine of God's Decrees doth seem to me more terrible than all their Armies, by how much the bondage of a man's Spirit is more to be feared then that of his Flesh, (for the effecting of which Rescue, I verily thought you had laboured with me, till what you raised with one hand you also ruin'd w●h the other; which made me think many times of Penelope's Web,) I pleased myself with an opinion that my Disputes were all ended; and that a liberty would be allowed me to pass the remnant of my days in my proper Element: I take the words of old Hesiod as if they were spoke unto myself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 endure it, but when I steadfastly believe it to be a Duty. And being persuaded that it is mine, I dare not shrink from a discharge, how much soever it may cost me in self-denials. That alone is the time of my being employed 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; 
2 Cor. 5.19.  when I am teaching the Ignorant, admonishing the Guilty, procuring settlement to the Doubtful, and binding up the brokenhearted; when I am anxiously pressing for Love, and Loyalty, and Evangelical obedience to every one of Christ's Precepts, that the profession of Christianity may not be brought into 
* In nobis Christus patitur opprobrium, in nobis patitur Lex Christiana maledictum, aestimari it aque de cultoribus suis potest●ille qui colitur. Salvian de Gubern. lib. 4. † Rom. 2▪ 24.  disgrace, nor the name of Christ be blasphemed among the Gentiles, through them who call it their duty to live in a course of disobedience, and even boast that they have learned 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 employ my whole time in those more acceptable endeavours, to which the bent of my soul doth most pvissantly incline me, although it was innocent and pleasing, (whilst it was able to stay with me,) yet it appeared upon a sudden to have been a very fugitive and false opinion. For no sooner had I begun to bea● my sword into a Ploughshare, and to try if men might be brought into an unity of Love (of which the first-fruits are since made public) when an unity of judgement appeared to be so unattainable; but strait I found myself alarmed, 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 finally resolves not to have friendship with the world, (I mean that 
* jam. 4.4.  friendship which is enmity with God) that I am not afforded some little truce. I have not only been assaulted by a succession 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 oppress 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 unworthiest of my Assailants,) none hath ever more exercised either my joy, or sorrow, or admiration, than your very much applauded and reverend self. First, it was matter to me of joy, that I should now have to do with a sufficient adversary; 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 fit subject, which might have made you less liable than now you are. But I was taken with admiration, when I found you calling me Arminian, and inveighing against me even as such, when you yourself (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 learned compassion on them that suffer as unjustly as you can possibly have done. I wish you had taken more 
* Optimum emenda●di genus est, si scripta in aliquod tempus reponantur, ut ad ea tanquam nova & aliena redeamus, ne nobis tanquam recentes foetus blandiantur. Quintil.  time to weigh the matter you were to write of, than 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 encouragement to strive with you at all; and so the less to rejoice in in my employment. But being one of Christ's soldiers, and warring under his Barner, I cannot make mine own enemy, or must I choose mine own ground or way of Castrametation. I am to fight 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.  

O● David and Peter in the Title page.  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 than the whole; at least in my sense, if not in 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesiod. l. ●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Hesiod's. And the Portal being the chiefest part of the House, puts me in mind of what was said by Diodorus of Sicily, 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diodor. Sicul. l. 20. p. 746.  That there are some Historians who have made their whole story a mere Appendix unto their speeches. I will not therefore incur the danger of a voluminous Introduction, by insisting on the unfitness of every part of your Title-page, but only 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, etc. as if you would intimate to your Readers that I had wronged them. I might have said with more reason in the Title of mine, that I vindicate the truth of the Holy 
* 2 S●m. 11.2, 4, 8, 13, 15, 25, 27.  Scriptures, in maintaining that David committed Adultery and Murder, besides his making Uriah drunk, and his foul dissimulation with God and Man. Of which although he repent, 
2 Sam. 12.4.9.  and writ against, and put his repentance upon 
† Psal. 51.  record too; yet before he repent he was impenitent, and that for more than nine Months. These (you know) were the things which I denied to consist with the power of Godliness, or with a state of salvation, 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 than 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 quicksand rather) upon which you build such kill Doctrine; I thought myself bound to leave an Antidote to defend my poor Countrymen from being poisoned. 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 somewhat more than without regret,) at least as far as David is affirmed by some Preachers to have sinned 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 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Cor. 10.12.  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 Adulterer, or as a Murderer, or as one who repent of all his wickedness? If the former, you are professedly a Pleader for gross impiety; 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. 
Of Peter, Puritans, and Sequestrations in the Title-page.  For I spoke against nothing in all his life, except his cowardice, and his perjury, and his flat denial of the Lord jesus, for which he hated himself, and did not write a vindication. I only spoke of such Puritans as I described to be hypocrites; having only 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 
* Pro. 30.12. Isa. 65.5.  purest in their own. I spoke of such Sequestrations as were confessed to be unlawful by eminent Ministers of your own party, and that in print, nay detested by yourself, if I may credit your own words, p. 111. Of all which when you profess to take upon you a vindication, I know not how you will free yourself 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 incurred this inconvenience by writing hand over head, as egged on by the heat of your present interest and passion, 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, because 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 construction 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 nothing more than in the measure of my civility and candid usage. And therefore I pray do me the justice, whenever you find yourself 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 censures, as you and others have poured out against me, (you indeed much less than 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 than a civil compliance with your example. The former half of your book (which you call a Preface) being only 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 only of the former, and only 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. 
Concerning Grotius, his Religion and Design.   
Sect. 1. IN the entrance of your Preface, [you profess to render m● that account of your thoughts of Grotius, and his English followers, which I was pleased to demand 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 wondered that in your Title-page you should say you did what you did at Mr. Pierce his invitation. I wonder more that in your preface you would say you did it at my demand. Truly if I did either, it is more than I know. And I may say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; where, and when, and by whom did I demand any such thing? Two lines in a letter will suffice you to answer this easy 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 turned Papist; as you have often explained yourself. 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, because your thoughts are such private and hidden things, that God alone can discern them whilst you are silent: we silly mortals 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 public 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 thinks of the Sun or Moon, as to the nature of his substance, his sphere, and motion, hath nothing in it either of singular, or absurd. It is for want of a better thing, that I content myself with this Resemblance, in comparing Grotius unto the Sun. His works give Light unto the world. They all lie open as well to me as to yourself. 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.  

Of his English ●ollowers.  Sect. 3. But what do you mean by his English Followers? Hath any Englishman of late (either dead or alive) written any Design of pacification between the Protestant and Popish parties? All that can be said is this, that the unwavering men of the Church of England do love the writings of Grotius much more than those of the Presbyterians, and more than the Presbyterians love them. Now if to read his Books and to admire them doth make us fit to be reckoned amongst his Followers, yourself must pass for one of the chief; because you tell me (p. 4.) You must i● gratitude profess, that you have learned more from Grotiu●, 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 Latin, ultra humanitatem pene sapuisse) and that in 
* In omni literatura.  all manner 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 only men amongst us who have showed yourselves his public Enemies. Although ye vehemently differed between yourselves, yet ye agreed in this, that ye were both against Grotius. Nay, in this your Agreement ye differed too with a witness. For he would have Grotius a Socinian, and you a Papist. Now a Papist and a Socinian are not only so different, but so utterly irreconcilable, that nothing but Grotius his moderation can afford any excuse to one or other of his Accusers. You have justified Grotius from the Heresy of Socinianism, which you confess 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 Papist, (if no Socinian can be a Papist, as you know none can) and so hath sided with the Prelatists against yourself. 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 only 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 afterwards entertain you, as well as to give you some ground to suspect your own judgement, by letting you see how it differs from such as theirs, I think it as useful as it is pertinent 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, 
Dr. Hammonds words in his second Def●nce of Grotius, p. 5.  (and farther than those I have no perspective to examine his Heart.) For the Fomenters of the Divisions in Christendom being the only persons whom he professed to oppose, (the irreconciliabiles, & qui aeterna cupiunt esse dissidia) 'tis consequent, that the pacificatory interest was the only 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. 
Mr. Thorndikes words in his Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England. Epist. to the Reader, p. 5.  The one hath made him a Socinian, the other a Papist. Both could have given us no better Argument that he was Neither, than 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 original consent of the whole Church. Upon what Terms 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 Division 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 unless you think you have read more, or can better judge in your Reading of Grotius his writings, than the so venerable persons who speak before us, you ought at least to suspend your censure; until you shall find, by all that follows, upon whose Misadventure 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 than all the whole party with whom you join.  

To calumniate Grotius confessed odious.  You say, you do confess 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 repent and recant, if you be guilty 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 signify 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 divers years 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 show most clearly in due time and place.  

Repentance promised ex hypothesi.  Sect. 5. Because you promise Repentance and Recantation, 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 charged; and then I will leave you to consider whether you ought not to make him some Reparations.  
You do not content yourself to say, 
Gro●ius accused of turning Papist.  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 inclined that way, and put the best interpretation upon their Doctrines 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 condition the Papists also would reconcile themselves unto the moderate Protestants, and the moderate Protestants unto them; (for this had been to say no more than I can say of Thuanus, that he favoured the Protestants on all occasions, although he remained a Papist still:) But you have said in gross Terms, That he took it for his glory to be a Roman Catholic, Sect. 2. That h● turned Papist, p. 11. That he dropped by thi● means 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 than 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 show the Nullity of your reasons, and the Necessity of your Repentance, of which you have made me to live in hope. My Reason's o● Arguments are these that follow.  
Arg. 1. In his Epistle to Laurentius, 
Proved to be none by 19 Arguments. G●ot. Animadv. in Animadv. Riveti. p. 83.  who had written against him as a Papist whilst yet he lived, (as you have done after his Death) intitling his Book, Grotius Papizans, he doth expressly disown the charge,— facile videbis no● Grotium Papizare, sed Laurentiadem nimis Calvinizare. Now when I find him expressly disowning Popery, (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 professeth to be, (p. 23.) and again, that you would take men to be of the Religion which they profess, p. 98. and that you will believe the profession of G●otius (p. 89.) I know not how you can choose 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 Learning and Moderation; and the eminent employments he hath been in, who hath affirmed in my hearing, (and not in my hearing only,) That being conversant with Grotius during his Embassy in France, he took his time to ask Grotius, 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 only because of his Embassy from Swedeland, where they were not Followers of Calvin, b●t als●) because he was deterred by their pernicious: Doctrines of God's Decrees. To this he added, That he would gladly communicate with the Church of England, if his condition of Ambassador would well permit, expressing an ample 
* This part will be attested by a Reverend person of our Church, Mr. Mathias Turner, who was personally conversant with G●otius some years in France, and whose excellent skill In Greek and Hebrew did make him the fit for such converse: so will it also by a great Personage distinct from him in my Text.  Approbation of our Doctrine and Discipline, as also hearty wishing to live and die in that Communion. I do not name that Noble person who is the Author of this Relation, because I have not yet asked his leave. If you can must to my integrity, I need not say more; if not, I can prove it by so unquestionable 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 follows. For,  
Arg. 3. Many are able to attest, that 'twas the last advice which he thought it his duty to give his wife, that she would declare him to die in that Communion in which he desired than she herself 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 
* Of this Sir Thomas D●r●l professeth himself an Eye-witness, and that her two daughters ●●●●ived with her.  Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. And this immediately 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 public place of his conversation for divers years towards his last. I took my pension in Paris near 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 imparalleled abilities in every kind, but yet extremely to be lamented, as one who could not be brought into the bosom of the Church, that is to say, they could not persuade him to be a Papist. And I was lately assured by Mr Castiglio, (a learned person, and a religious, and so a very true speaker,) that in a conference which he had with some Augustine Friars with whom he traveled, he found that Gro●ius was an heretic in their esteem, as much as any other Protestants 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 cited 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 evidence 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 Doctor Hammond, 
Dr. Ham. Cont. of Def. of H. Grot. p. 25.  in his Continuation of the Defence of Grotiu●, did think he had ground sufficient to say what follows, viz. That Grotiu● had always a signal val●e and kindness for this ou● Englis● Church and Nation: expressing his opinion, that of all Churches in the world, it was the most careful observer and transcriber of Primitive antiquity; and more than 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 
* Ibid.  of this he wants not store of witnesses who from time to time had heard it from his own mo●●h, whilst he was Ambassador in France, and even in his return to Sweden immediately before his death; and because my witnesses (before 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 testimonies of Grotius concerning himself.  

G●ot A●nal. l. 1. p. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.  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 likewise in his Histories, (which I have reason to believe were some of the last things he perfected) he clearly sides with our English Protestant's against the pretensions of Religion which came from Rome. 
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, etc. Hist. lib. 1. p. 117.  Sixtus Q●intus (the then-Po●e) together with his anathemas and Indulgences and other tricks of Religion, are exposed both to the Censure and the Derision of all his Readers. He shows himself pleased in his observation, th●t as the Romanists had imposed 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 seditious lovers of change, such as the 
* Annal. l. 1. p. 9  Tailor was at Munster, and the Picture-drawer at Leyde●, yet) the Regular attempters of Reformation?  
Arg. 7. In his Poem prefixed before his Notes upon Cassander, he did not only 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 principal objections p. 31. occasioned by your mistake of veracia scripta) but he magnified very much the pacific methods of Melanchthon, 
Quem proedulce juvat stillante Melanch●hone Nectar; Qui Wiceli chartas Modreviique. leg's; Quique putas Regem mul●ùm sapuiff● B●itan●um, C● sua mandavit s●n'a Cas●ubonidae; Accipe .. sed nos●●o labor hic si displicet ●evo, A gra●â pretium posteritate feret.  Wi●elius, Mo●revius, the Bishop of Spalleto, in his departure from Rome, K. james, and Casaubon, (of who●e pacific design King james was Author) who being confessed to have been Protestants, and to have meditated the peace of the Christian world without any prejudice to the Reformed parts of it, had not certainly been applauded, without exception to their design or to the mea●s they contrived for its attainment, by so intelligent a person 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 reconcilement was to be made. If the former spoke him a Papist, the later spoke him a Protestant. And if at once he was both, he was indeed a great Hocus. But he pleads for himself, his having set out the Creed as well of the Protestants as of the Papists (Discuss. p. 7.) as it were on purpose to show 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 
* Pag. 4●  Protestants who follow either: the want of which observation in all his Conciliatory writings, I suppose a main cause of your numerous mistakes. And the supply of that want will serve to show you the levity of the greatest part of your objections. Indeed the rigid Presbyterians, whose Life and Doctrine proclaimed them Boutefeus' and Rebels, he commonly marks as an implacable and an unreconcilable sort of men, as it were made for the subversion of Church and State; and professed enemies to Peace 
* Quod ta●●perr● se non dicam mihi. sed paci profitetur inf●stum (D. Rivetu●) in eo vicit expectationem meam. Animadv. in A●imadv. p. 3.  itself, 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 joins himself to them, and professeth he can never 
† Sunt mihi communia cum viris nunquam satis laudatis, ibid. p. 5.  enough commend them. Nor could he be any whit more a Papist for speaking fairly of the Canons of Trent; then Bishop Caraffa could be a Protestant for speaking 
* Ibid. p. 4, 5.  as fairly of the Augustan Confession. You should therefore have distinguished 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 adorn the Reformation. There are that would have peace, and there are that will have none. Grotius speaks no more kindly of any Papists, than you yourself do of some (p. 10.) He speaks no more sharply of the worst Protestants in the world, than you do of the best (p. 113. etc.) So that pelting at him, you have hit yourself. To the sons of sedition and disobedience, who look upon themselves as twice-resined Christians, our Reverend Doctor Sanderson hath been as severe as any Grotius. But will you say in general terms, that Doctor Sanderson reproacheth Reformation itself, and that (without a distinction) he writes against Protestants? yet thus 
* p. 73, 74, 76.  you use Grotius in divers places; nay in one you use him wo●se. For you say, he reproacheth the Reformation, as an impious, tumultuary, rebellious thing (p. 76, 77.) when the Latin 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 spoke not a word of the regular Protestants here in England, nor of such in Germany and France as were of the spirit of Melanchthon; but he spoke of those 
† Seditiones, vim contra Princ●pes, Imperiorum mutationes ●x usu suo, mor●m frangendiaeces sacras, & bella excitandi & sovendi, sub sancto Evangelii nomine; invenerunt quidam & dogmata in id comparata, ut ho●ines de misericordia Dei nimium sibi pollicente●, in peccatis indo●miscer●nt▪ Discuss. p. 16.  Incendiaries, who measured the truth of Religion by their distance only 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 presume 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 God's 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 guests at your thoughts when you were writing your 53d Section; nor spread a Net of Dilemmas whereby to catch your true meaning; 
Insanlentibus Brunistis, & si qui eorum sint similes, etc. ibid.  because I would not be more pungent than the subject matter doth enforce. Grotius spoke 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 joining with the Protestants in what they say touching the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist; speaking 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 commodious 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. 
Si quiescant Scholasticae Disputationes, quid est cur non verba Concilii Tridentini explicari commode possint, etc. aut etiam recipi illa formula quam ex Actis Possiacenis desumpsi, & quam omnes qui ibi ●●m erant Protestants (excepto un● P. Mart.) approbarunt? Animadv. p. 29, 30.  Nay he adds expressly, that the whole Protestant Form should be received and accepted, 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, comprehending 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 wished-for union. 
Videbam mul●um obstare concordiae, si omnes eos qui in communione sunt Romana pro Idololatris haber●mus, gnarus Idololatriam esse eminentissimum seculi crimen, ib. p. 43, 44. ] This he renders for the reason, why he who laboured a Reconcilement (which would have carried with it a Reformation) was not in reason to accuse the whole Universe of Papists (without exception) 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 embitter, 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 Reconcilement, if we (who are Protestants) should repute for Idolaters even all that are of the Roman Church or Communion, though too many of them indeed are such.] This appears by the word omnes, compared 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 Romanists were of a different communion from that whereof he professeth himself to be. 
Verti me ad eos legendos qui etsi fuere in Communione diversa, animum tamen magis ad sananda, quàm ad fovenda divortia appulere. Vo. pro pace, p. 9  
* p. 7, 8, 9  He deploreth the superstition, with other corruptions and abuses, which he saw had invaded the Church of Rome. He saith Cassander's Consultation was commended to him by 
† p. 10▪  G●saubon a famous Protestant. And that his labour thereupon was approved in France 
* ibid.  by both the opposite parties. He shows what 
† Prompta sunt in Galliis Hispaniisque Remedia quibus impediantur Papae, ●e aut Regum aut Episcoporum jura invadant. p. 12.  Remedies there are to cure the Popes of their Disease, to put Hooks in their Nostrils, and in despite of their ambition to preserve the just Rights of Kings and Bishops. Nay he acknowledgeth the 
* ibid.  Right of the Kings of Britain about all Ecclesiastical 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 outact their Master Calvin; who 
† Et illam mutationem, quae Buceri Consilio in Anglia erat instituta, Papismi accusavit. pag. 115.  accused that change in the Church of England, which was made by the advice of so known a Protestant as Bucer, of no lesser a crime then downright Papism: which unreasonable censure of our Church, whether hi● passion or his judgement extorted from him, and whether it was not a contradiction to what he spoke of her at other times, I leave you to guess by his large Epistle to the Protector, and that (you know) was in the days of King Edward the sixth. But if to accuse were sufficient, it i● sufficient that Mr. Calvin was accused of judaisme by one; by another, of Turkism; by a third, 
Redolens plane Calvini spiritum contumeliosum illú ac turbulentum. Animadv. p. 81. Quum sciam quàm inique & virulente tractaverat viros multo se meliores, etc. ibid. pag. 9  of Fratricide; by almost all the Latherans, of the Arian heresy; and even by Grotius himself, (who hardly ever spoke in passion, or without a just ground) of a contumelious and turbulent spirit, and of virulently handling such men as were much his betters.  
A●g. 12. In his Epistles to the Frenchmen of either party, he doth so frequently and so clearly discover himself to be a Protestant, that out of them it were easy 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. 
* Epist. 154: johanne Cordefio, p. 378. Epist. 166. Eidem, p. 408.  He writes against the seven Sacraments (I mean against the number of them, and against four of that number) so tenaciously retained by all Rome. He speaks sharply of the 
† Epist. 154. p. 377.  jesuits, (from his mere 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 jansenian 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 Order; especially when he reckons that he and they are of two Religions: as indeed he doth in one Epistle; 
Dubium est, apud meos, an apud jesuitas magis vapulem, etc. Epist. 14. pag. 36, 37. Hotm. Villerio.  where he also calls the Pope the Patriarch of the West, and shows 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 mutual forbearance with one another [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in things which are not simply necessary. Will not every good Protestant desire the same? yet he went farther, and accounted them of 
* Apud meos quidem, quod illud apud ipfos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defendo, posse in unaquaque Ecclesia ferri eos qui dissideant in rebus non plane necessariis, abide▪  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 forward 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: 
* In ists Remediis quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. etc. De Imperio sum. po. circa sacra, cap. 6▪  witness his sixth Chapter De Imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra, wherein he doth not only insist upon the same means of union, for which he pleads in his later writings, 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 unquam d●ceant pro Concione quod à populo religiosè teneri & credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit Doctrinae Veteris ac Novi Testamenti, quodque ex illâ ipsâ Doctrinâ Catholi●● Patres & Veteres Episcopi collegerint. Because the Scripture is made a Lesbian Rule by a great variety of Professors who are irreconcilable amongst themselves, therefore no Exposition ought to be taken for authentic, so soon as that which hath been made by the Catholic Fathers and Ancient Bishops of the Church. In a word, it doth appear, as well by 
* Casau●. Epist. 220. Hu. Gro. 1612▪ & Epist. 221. etc.  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 than what were common to him with the soberest Protestants in the World; in particular with Melanchthon, whom he proposeth as his exemplar in all his writings of that affair. Nay in two Epistles to Duraeus (which a learned 
Mr. Clement Barksdale in his Memorial of Grotius.  admirer of his Works hath very usefully made English) he is as palpably a Protestant as Cardinal Bellarmin was a Papist; for he clearly justifies our breach with Rome, and hearty wisheth our agreement amongst ourselves, however hindered by those who defile themselves with a proud conceit of being holier and purer than their Fathers and Brethren of the Church. He unites his Consultations with both our English Ambassadors 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 Proselytes for Rome. Such were Grotius his Counsels no longer 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. 
* Traxit in auxilium sui Reform●torum Principes; & Pontificlorum fervidiores meam praesentiam aliis de causis suspectant. Epist. 172. p. 422. A.D. 1635.  Fo● how severely soever he useth to speak of the rebellious and sacrilegious, who by their Heathenish practices and opinions had put a public disgrace on the Reformation, (in pretending themselves the Authors of it,) yet of regular Protestants he never speaks without love and reverence, and simply calls them the Reformed, in opposition to Pontificians who stand in need of Reformation. That unavowable sort of Protestants whom he reproves with sharpness, the meek and moderate 
† Look forward on ch. 5. sect. 9  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 aversion 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 failed of satisfaction, had you impartially either read or considered all. 
* Discuss. p. 10.  His desire that the rules of Vincentius Lirinensis might be observed, was common to him with King james, Isaac Casaubon, yea with Gregory Calixt●s, and Doctor Reynolds against Hart. 
† Nec aliud desiderat Confessio Augustan●. Di●unt enim qui eam amplexi sunt Principes & Civitates, de nullo Articulo Fidei dissentire se etc. sed paucos abusus à se omitti, qui novi sunt, & contra voluntatem Canonum, vitio Temporum recepti. ib. p. 14.  He would not only 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 customs and manners have introduced. In a word, he would have that, than which the Augustan Confession desires no more. And many moderate Papists desired no less. He allows the Pope no 
* Ibid. p. 1●.  other Primacy than is allowed by the Canons of ecumenical Councils, and may consist with the rights of the several Patriarches of the East; disapproving his usurpations no less than Casaubon himself. 
† Ibid. p. 15.  He loves to style that Usurper by the modest name of the Bishop of Rome; and fastens the Primacy (which he allows) n●t so much on the Pope, as the Church of God, for Zanchy himself doth so express her.  
Arg. 15. To prove he speaks as a Peacemaker (which he was) not as a Papist, (which he was not) he citys the Declarations of some chief 
* Ibid. p. 69.  Protestants in the behalf of such a Primacy as he and they have thought due to the Roman Prelate. Not only King james, who granted as much (in a manner) as Cardinal Perron exacted of him, in order to the Unity and Peace of Christendom, nor only 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 add Franciscus junius, and our learned Montague in his Appeal to Caesar.) The words of Blondel are very remarkable, Non negari à Protestantibus dignitatem Sedis Apostolicae Romanae, neque Primatum ejus super Ecclesias vicinaes, im●o aliquatenus super omnes, sed referri hoc ab iis ad jus Ecclesiasticum. Nor can I remember I ever read, that Grotius pretended to any more. For obedience due from all seculars unto the Bishops of the Church, he citys the 
* Ibid. p. 70.  Augustan Confession. For the want of reformation in the Presbyterian Churches, he citys the 
† Ibid. p. 73.  Confession of Mr. Rivet. For the admitting of such words as Transelementation and Transubstantiation, with their convenient explications, in order to Peace and Reconcilement, 
* Ibid. p. 77.  he citys Modrevi●s and our King james. For the Protestants return to the Church of Rome, upon condition that that Church will also return unto the Primitive, he citys the Prayers and Protestation of learned Zanchy, 
Ab Ecclesiâ Rom●nå non ali● discessimus animo, quàm ut, si correcta ad priorem Ecclesiae formam redeat, nos quoque ad illam revertamu●, & communionem cum illâ in suis porrò coetibus habeamus. Apud Grot. p. 14. apud ipsum Zanch. in Confess. Art. 19 p. 157.  who notwithstanding his being a Presbyterian, concluded his moderation like an Episcopal Divine; Ego Hieronymus Zanchiu● septuagenarius, cum tota familia mea, testatum hoc volo toti Ecclesiae 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 innovations) because she retained the fundamentals of Christianity. See Zanchy's Preface to his 
* Edit. Neostadii Palat. A.D. 1585.  Confession, and compare it with what he saith in the Confession itself, Art. 8. de Eccles. Milit. p. 149. and again with his p. 157. where he doth not scruple to use these words. [
† Non ab Ecclesiâ Rom. simpliciter & in omnibus defecimus, sed in illis duntaxat rebus in quibus ipsa defecit ab Apostolicâ, atque ad●ò a seipsâ veteri & purâ Ecclesiâ; neque alio discessimus animo etc. ut supra. Zanch. ib. p. 157.  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 purer self. Nor have we left her (even so) but with an intention to return, as soon as she shall return herself 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 
† Farente Melanchthone, Primatum (secundum Canonas) necessarium esse ad retinendam unitatem, Discuss. p. 255.256.  Melanchthon thought necessary to conserve the unity of the Church. Nor would he have all to join with Rome as Rome now stands, (which yet you confidently suggest, p. 35.) but upon friendly condescensions on either side; implying 
* Vide (inter alia compluscula) Grot. Animadv. in Animadv. A. Riveti p. 35. Vot. pro pa. 7, 8, 9 Discuss. p. 160.161.18.20. etiam p. 71, 72.  Reformation in some particulars, and mutual forbearance in many others. You confess that Bishop Bramhall allows 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 Papist, p. 23. Nor can I see that Grotius allows 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 honourable part of the Church of Christ, p. 10. yet all the advantages 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, 
Gratias ago summas Regi, quod in me etiam absentem beneficia sua depluere voluerit; & amicis, quod meis commodis tam perseveranter invigilent. Caeterum ego, ex quo Gallias reliqui, nullam cur tali beneficio utar probabilem causam video; ideoque comiter excusari volo. Epist. 143. ad Cordes. p. 352.  and (in preparedness of mind) 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 observe in what words he confuted that calumny which Rivet was bold to cast upon him. Si Grotius, tanto viro invitante, voluisset id promittere, quod eum promisisse fingit D. Rivetus, poterat ille, per malos Calvinistas exutus patriâ, exutus bonis, ampla illa honorum & commodorum promissa adipisci, 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 Gallia, & 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, 
Discuss. p. 59, 60, 61.  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 Papists 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 defence they were pretended.  
Arg. 18. Whilst you say he turned Papist, you clearly 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 show 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 received 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 prouder of it then of a thousand such Queens as now I mentioned, and their Gazettes had told us of it with great ambition. But in the whole that you have said (in a matter of Fact too) you have not pretended any such thing, how unadvisedly soever you have implied it.  
Arg. 19 Notwithstanding all that I have urged to prove that Grotius was no Papist, I shall add one Argument from the signal manner of his Death, which will also be much confirmed from the place and manner of his burial: they are both attested by Doctor Quistorp a Lutheran 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 deathbed, he would not have admitted, much less have sent for, a Protestant Minister to assist him in his last and greatest trial. Nor would the chief Pastor of Rostock, the public Professor of Divinity, have given his Narrative to the World with so much Eulogy as he hath done, much less would he have buried him in the most honourable place of the chiefest Temple; nor would the Protestant Governors have consented with so much readiness as they did, had there been any the least suspicion of Grotius his dying a Roman Catholic. 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 
* In his Answer to the Animadv. on his Dissert. p. 132.  Doctor Hammond, and wholly by 
† Behind his Translation of Grot. de jure Billi & Pacis.  Master Barksdale; yet because the manner of that religious man's end hath been most slanderously reported, and because 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 subjoin it in Doctor Quistorp's own words.  
Hugonis Grotii P. M. ultima: Quibus Joanni Quistorpio S. S. Theologia D. Professori, Facultatis ejusdem Seniori, & Primarii Templi Rostochiensium Pastori, suum ob peccata dolorem, & 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. Ind perquam incommodo curru, pluvia tempestate, per sexaginta & plura milliaria, tandem Rostochium nostrum devehitur. Divertit ad Balemanniam. D. Stocmannum Medicum advocari curate, qui aetate, naufragio, incommodis itineris fractas vires adverte●s, vitae 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 Ago virum 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 beatam emigrationem se componat, peccatorem agnoscat, super commissa doleat, moneo: quumque inter loquendum Publicani peccatorem se fatentis, & ut Deus sui misereretur precantis, meminissem; respondet, Ego ille sum Publicanus. Progredior; 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 Germanicè recitabam, Herr Jesus, wahrer Mensch und Gott, etc. 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 intelligo.  
Quum haec dixisset, plane conticuit, & brevi post spiritum exhalavit, in puncto duodecimae nocturnae. Habes Catastrophen vitae ab Grotio summo viro actae. Cadaver▪ Medicis 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 impetravi. Molliter cineres cubent. Vale. Dabam Rostochii propedie Michaelis, Anno 1645.  
Tuus, J. Quistorpius.  
My Argument from hence is short and easy. For if Grotius were really a Roman Catholic, he was reconciled to that Church, either 1▪ before, or 2▪ at his death, (for after his death, you have only reconciled him in your opinion, 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 desire, (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 than he never would have received the Lutheran Minister as he did; much less (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 pretensions, that Grotius was a Socinian; because I since find him disowning the jealousy of Grotius his being a Papist, at least the management of any such thing. If these pretensions 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 confess, is an odious thing, a great Crime, such as needeth Repentance and Recantation. (Sect. 1.)  

Of Grotius his pretended dissimulation.  Sect. 6. Notwithstanding all this evidence, whereof the far greater part might have been seen by yourself before I showed it, you have not scrupled in your Preface to proceed as followeth, viz. [That you join 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 against this evidence in point of Fact? and then to say, that you vindicate him from dissimulation? I pray Sir tell me, do you take those men for your own Assertors and Hyperaspistae, who in their books against you have cited passages out of your writings whereby to conclude you an Arminian, yea a Socinian, perhaps a jesuite sometimes, I am sure a Papist, and of the worst sort of Papists (which are the Jesuits) when you profess you are neither? Can those your Adversaries and Brethren be said to have vindicated your person from dissimulation, who are as known a Presbyterian as any of them? I am bold to give you that name, because I think you more that than 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 yourself? and will your writing a Confession of your particular Faith be able to secure you from Calumniators, whilst this method takes place, that he who calls an honest man what he professeth he is not, doth but vindicate and clear him from dissimulation? I pray bear with me on this occasion, whilst I recount how others have dealt with you, and then how you have dealt with others.  
You tell us 
* Disput. 5. of Sacram. p. 484.  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 heresy▪ 
* Ibid. p. 486.  That in his anatomising of your pride, he played his aftergame more plausibly than they who before had published abundance of calumnies of you to the world; telling them not only 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. 
* Ibid. p. 487.  That you and the Worcester-shire Profession of Faith give too much countenance to the Socinian abominations. Again 
† Ibid. p. 487.  you say, that the hardest measure you had from Doctor Owen, was in his Socinian▪ Parallel in (no less then) eleven particulars. 
* Ibid. p. 516.  That Master Crandon bestows a whole Epistle to tell the Reader how he detests your BLASPHEMY. 
* Postcript to an Admonition to Mr. Eyre of Sarum.  And that the main substance of his Book against your Aphorisms is this, That you are a Papist, and the worse sort of them too.  
Now if such men as these, whom you acknowledge to be your Brethren, both learned and judicious, are not hastily to be credited in what they writ against you, notwithstanding their number as well as quality; how much less may you look for credit in what you writ 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 Witness, much less a judge. 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 Tombs, 
* Dispute with Mr. Tombs, of Infant's Church-Membership and Baptism, Edit. 3. ●. 397. Doctor Taylor no Papist.  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. Add 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) become sufficient to metamorphize him into a shape, which he doth not only disclaim himself, but enable others to disclaim also; and doth antidote some against the contagion of that Disease with which you peremptorily speak him to be infected. One thing comes into my mind (upon this occasion) of which I would be glad to have some account. You say in 
* See your Chr. Concord. p. 49. and compare it with p. 46. of the same book, and with p. 100 of your Grotian Relig.  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 writ of Doctrinals or Devotion, one may find the plain footsteps of common Popery. (You say) You are loath to name men, but you could show a great deal of Popery in divers such books which you see much in gentlemen's hands, as written by an Episcopal Doctor. In contradiction to one important part of which words, [your being loath to name men] you do name Doctor Taylor in your book above cited. Bishop Wren and Bishop Pierce you also name in that Book in which you profess you are loath to name them, as I shall show by and by. In the mean time I must challenge you (but in the spirit of love and meekness) to make good your words above written, or to retract them. That if Popish Divines do lie lurking under the name of Episcopal, they may be punished for their Hypocrisy: Or if it is only your fiction, that you may make reparation for so much wrong. For again, 
† Christ. Concord. p 45, ●6, etc.  your charge of Cassandrian Popery is indefinitely laid against Episcopal Divines, who lie masked here in England to do the Pope the greater service. And although you now plead, that you did not intent to raise a jealousy on all the Episcopal Divines (p. 103.) yet I believe you intended to raise a jealousy on the most, because you feared not to name Bish. Wren and Bish. Pierce, as a couple of your fancied Cassandrian 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 named too many (it seems,) against your own judgement, who gave you no cause at all, and have left your Readers to judge by them of the rest. Nay without exception or discrimination, you name the Bishops and the King's 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 confess, 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 commend your ingenuity) that the Pope and the Italians might very probably have a considerable hand in raising our wars (p. 106.) Nor do you wonder if it be true that the Papists did not only kindle our wars 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, 
Claud Salm▪ Defence. Regis; c. 10▪ etc. 11.  (p. 108.) When I compare your words with the words of Salmasius, I guess that the Papists and Presbyterians were both assistants to one another in contriving the mischiefs of which you spoke.  
Sect. 7. You say on in your Preface, 
Grotius at last is but a Papist with an ●f, etc.  that had Grotius been living, you think you should have had more thanks from him than 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 tolerable show of truth; nor is there any proof offered, but that so you think, and if you understand him. It's 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 being a Roman Catholic, 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 Aphorisms; 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 worse sort of them too, as some of your Brethren did think, and if they did rightly understand you. How often therefore are you pleading that they do misunderstand you? And against all their misunderstandings, you writ a thick b●●k in qua●to for the confession of your Faith. (If the diseases had not been numerous, I suppose you had been shorter in your prescribing the means of cure.) Grotius his Ghost may well make much shorter work, even by telling you in a word, that you knew not his mind, nor understood his designs in writing Notes upon Cassander, which were only P●cifick, not Apostatick; and so your whole Fabric is very speedily at an end. And the one remaining Engine whereby to keep up Presbyt●rianism, to wit, the jealousies and fears of the deep Grotian design, (so deep indeed, as not to have the least bottom) in the very same instant doth vanish also.  

Popery dis●claimed as well by Grotius and Mr. P. as by Mr. Baxter.  Sect. 8. You proceed to tell me, that if any shall gather 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 vindication, and that 'tis in my power to remove that occ●sion, by disowning what in Grotius I dislike. Sect. 3.]  
A fair expedient to conclude this controversy, to allow 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 myself, I declare that I am none. And if Grotius was a Papist, than he and I are of two Religions. But secondly for Grotius, he hath also disowned his being a Papist, as well as you and myself. And that may suffice for his vindication. If you will disown what is disliked by your adverse brethren, you will remove that occasion 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 Unity) presupposing a Reformation secundum Canon's in respect of the Papal power, and presupposing a Reformation of the form of Doctrine according to antiquity and universal Tradition, as the best Expositors of Scripture, where Scripture is not agreed to expound itself. This is according to the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, of all the Fathers of the Church, and of the late Acute King in his Dispute 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 Parliament. But to pursue the third of my Discourse; Grotius l●ft other things to be reform and adjusted by Sovereign Princes, with the assistance of their Prelates in their several Kingdoms. Now he that likes this Doctrine and Design, and only thinks it a happiness too great for this Age, wherein there are on both sides so many irreconciliabiles, (to wit, jesuits 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 less is he such in the thing itself. But it is easily foreseen by your close of that Section, how you are resolved to understand it.  

Mistakes in reading Grotius, arising from a nescience or hatred of his design.  Sect. 9 Now for your manifold mistakes of Grotius his words in his Discussio, arising chief from the bias which had been put upon your judgement, (I know not whether by your nescience, or overgreat hatred of his design,) and which you urge as so many arguments to prove that Grotius turned Papist; I take such arguments to be answered by the bare removal of such mistakes. Your mistakes are removed 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, whereof there are some so irrefragable, that perhaps I may be blamed for adding others: and unless 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 
* Answ. to] Animadv. on the Dissert. touching Ignatius his Epistles, p. 135, 136, 137.  Doctor Hammond had timely given. Or had you but weighed what I had told you touching the nature of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or rather of the way conducing to it, in my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 marked it) that Grotius as a Peacemaker betwixt the Papists and the Protestants, had laboured to show his moderation as well to them as to these; and to excuse many 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 animosities 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 sly friend to Popery. The same was done by Thuanus amongst the Papists, who was 
* Io. Baptista Gallus obstinatâ vesaniâ pernegat, Thuanum Catholicae fidei ●enacissimum & Ecclesiae Romanae etc. vide Epist. Anonym. p. 103. Tom. 5. ad calcem lib. 6. Aug. Thuani de vita sua.  accused for his labour of having turned Protestant. Indeed his favour to the Protestants was so much greater than 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 whilst you intimate your opinion that Thuanus was a Papist 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, 
How much may be offered to purchase peace.  as the 
* See The Royal Library, Sect. 4. Num. 15. p. 339. to p. 359. See also the second part of that Collection, p. 465. to p. 480. especially p. 517. to p. 526.  Houses of the long Parliament 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 employed in making Amity or Union, who understand not how much 'tis worth. There are a great many truths of so small importance, 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 accept 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 turned 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 rather part with some petty rights, then perpetuate contention by suits at Law,) Thuanus also turned Protestant, 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 one's own right, 
Plusquam humanae virtutis est, tantae spei m●derari, & velut manibus conclusam fortunam dimittere.  that may in conscience be parted with, for the redemption of such a peace as cannot otherwise be purchased. The victorious Emperor Charles the fifth thought good to quit some of his Empire (not driven by necessity, but drawn by love) for the settling of Religion and Peace in Germany; so did Philip his Son, the potent King of Spain, and Archduke Albert his son in Law, make an humble offer of reconcilement to the Hollanders, which for forty years together they had denied them. By De Ney the Franciscan, by Lewis Verreich the Archduke's Secretary, and even by Spinola himself, with divers others whom Grotius 
* Epist. ad Clariss. Virum N. P. de pace Germanica. Sane in privatis quoque negotiis, transactiones, dato allquo, & aliquo retento, (ut nostri loquuntur jurisconsulti) perficiu●tur: quanto magis, ubi de salute publica & pacis incomparabili bono agitur, omnes de jure suo cedere debent?  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 notwithstanding) gave a portion of Monferrat to the Duke of Savoy, as a price laid down in exchange for Amity and Peace. Nay the Emperor Ferdinand the second was content to yield a good part of Hungary, and so to purchase one peace, though it was but to exclude or break another. After all these examples (which do put me in mind of the Christianlike Doctrine in 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Hierocl. p. 61.  Hierocles, however he was a Heathen, and writ a Book against Christ) let me add one more, which is nearer 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 Bishop's lands as far as 99 years, will you say he was turned a Presbyterian? I know you will not; because they were offers upon condition of public 
* 
Nec deerunt rationes, quibus pulsis suâ ditione Principibus satisfieri possit, qui magni beneficii loco habebunt, in partem saltem missarum ditionum restitui. Praeterea compensationibus & mutuâ permutatione res expediri poterit. Idem in E●ist. ead.  
Potior esse debet s●ae saluti●, quàm alieni damni, p●iorq●e conservandi quàm prof●r●ndi Reg●i ratio. Ibid.   peace, not absolute concessions at all adventure. And conditio non impleta non obligat fidem, is a very good rule in the Civil Law. Nor did he offer what he thought best, precisely considered in itself, but what he thought to be the fittest in that juncture of time, when he found himself placed 'twixt two evils, whereof in great wisdom) he chose the least. For although he offered towards the settling of a peace, no less than 100000 pounds, to be raised out of the Bishops' lands, yet first it was only 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 denied him, he also denied to confirm his offer into a Grant. Nor would he ratify the Directory, no not so much as for a day; which (for the buying of peace) had else obtained 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 public peace.  
This is just the Case of Grotius, excepting that it differs to his advantage; for he offered not so much, and he asked for more. Nay farther yet, if Grotius turned Papist by seeking to reconcile the Council of Trent with the Protestant Articles of the Augustan Confession, than did Franciscus à Sanctâ Clarâ (by your Logic) turn Protestant, because you 
* Christ. Concord. p. 46.  confess he did endeavour to reconcile the Articles of the Church of England with the Council of Trent. The absurdity of the consequence is in both cases alike. Again, you confess 
† Ibid. p. 45.  a little before, that Grotius his design had many favourites, 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 design, I am yet allowed 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 hotheaded 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 persuasion. 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 Reconcilement the most of any.  

Grotius his Doctrine and Design more Catholical than Mr. Baxter ' s.  Sect. 11. You object against Grotius, That he was not truly Catholic in his designs and Doctrines (p. 11.)  
Yet he excluded not any, but only said who they were that would not endure to be included. He knew that some peace was better than 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 forbade to accept of the terms proposed? Or is an offer the less Catholic, for being made upon conditions to every Creature? You cannot say this, who are for Catholic Redemption: or when you writ yourself Catholic, and set forth terms of Christian Concord, can you imagine that your design is half so Catholic as his? I cannot imagine 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 Unity, if all will embrace the design of Grotius; nay all the World had been at Unity if all had agreed with john of Leyden. Sed nihil hoc ad Iphicli boves. And what you say against Grotius, is gratis dictum.  

And the terms to which he calls us, less impossible.  Sect. 12. But you stick not to affirm, that Grotius calls us all to impossible terms of unity, as the only 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 only, and much learning, but that he had also a 
* Christ. C●nc. p. 45.  mighty judgement to improve it. Nay that you take him for so learned and so judicious a man, as you do not judge yourself worthy in any such respect to be named with him, p. 4. Now whether it suits with a man of judgement 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 only 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 dote on the Presbytery: and yet the only 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 agree, if not for the soberest of either party? nay for whom was it probable, if not for them who desired it with so much fervour?  
3. You little think how many, or how important persons there have been, who having the same aims with Grotius, and having used the same endeavours, have expected to reap some better fruit, then merely their labour for their pains, even Emperors, Kings, Cardinals, Bishops, and divers 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, 
De Ecclesia Romana jam tum locutus, Quid (inqui● Z●nchius) p●o cuique optatius, quàm ut ubi per baptismu● renati sumus, ibi etiam in finem usque vivamus? etc. In Confess. Art. 19 p. 157.  then that we live and die in that Church (meaning the Roman, of which alone he there speaks) wherein by Baptism we were born again? yet he was then no Papist, but only a moderate Presbyterian.  
4. You profess not to distaste the pacificatory desires or designs of Grotius, (p. 6.) how much soever you accuse them, (p. 15, 16, 17, 18.) And you say, You are a person 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 than a Reproach, 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 reproached by the most envious. You have a confident 
† Preface to D●sp. of Sacram. p. 15.  saying of your own project, to make up the breaches which have been betwixt the Lutherans and Calvinists, the jesuites and the Dominicans, etc. [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 yourself, you should permit me with patience to speak as highly for Grotius too.  
5. But I desire you in special to make reflection upon a Passage you have printed in your debate with Master Tombs: where having said, in the Defence and Commendation of Erastus, 
* Plain Script. proof of Infants Church-Memb. and Baptism, p. 227, 228.  That he was a very learned judicious man in Divinity, Philosophy and Physic, and having justified his meddling without the sphere 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 mixed communion, and that he seemeth oft to contradict what he there pleadeth for; you proceed in these words, which seem to me very remarkable:  

Ibid.  For my part, (were my judgement of any moment to others) after my serious study in this point, both in Scripture and Antiquity, (specially the Writers of the three first Centuries) I am confidently persuaded that the true way of Christ's Discipline is parceled 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 add 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 yourself 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 applied 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 judgement the true discipline of Christ hath been revealed only to you, or at least, that you only have found it out by your industry. Nor are you only a Presbyterian, 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 Discipline, 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 ways is the Scripture-way. But why was a National League and Covenant both sworn and fought for? and persecutions made use of, for nonconformity to the Covenant? Why were men so expensive of Blood and Conscience for the pulling down of Episcopacy so well established, 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 Presbytery, as Presbyterians have done against the Prelacy of the Church, and cite your judgement, 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 
* See the book entitled, A testimony to the t●u●h of I●●us Christ; and compare it with the Covenant, as well as with the ●●d●rs for To. ●ra●on●  protested so much against all toleration, which did not well comport with their solemn League and Covenant, will least of all thank you for your discovery. 'Tis true, you have also your Pacisick Design: but so little hath it of Catholicism, and so impossible it is to prove effectual, that (after your having accused Grotius) it only serves to make you fall under your own condemnation. When you say that Christ's and the Scripture way is parcell'd out between four parties, and that every party hath a piece of the truth in peculiar, (that is to say, not common to it with any 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 Religion ought to be like a Posy, which smells best, when made up of the most variety. And I have read that Mahomet (of the Tribe of Ishmael) thought fit to make up his new Religion, 
Celrenus p. 347. Baronius ad A. D. 629, 630.  by borrowing (and blending with his Inventions) one parcel from the Pagans, another from the jews, a third from the Arians, a fourth from the Nestorians, 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 Medley which you propose, the component parts will so temper and correct each other, that the whole will be grateful to every party, you will not only grow famous as the first Discoverer of the thing, but (nature being thus changed and tamed) our Lambs will dwell safely within the neighbourhood of the Wolf, and the Leopard inoffensively lie down with the Kid. You who have given in your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 predominant in the mixture, or which shall be the Basis of all the structure, so as to give satisfaction to every party; 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 betwixt them, unless 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 
* See Reliquiae sacrae Carolinae, in the Papers which passed etc. at Newport, p. 275, & 367, 368, 369.  Majesty at the Isle of Wight, to give in their Answer 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, Presbyterian, 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 served their turn, had it not been for their usual boast, that since the times of Christianity their own is the only Divine Model in the World. To the glory of which privilege the Episcopal party laying claim, with fairer reasons for their pretention, how will you do for the share of the other two, (the Independent and the Erastian) and reconcile Extremes 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 it's own confusion.  
Sect. 13. Your following reasons of dislike (from p. 15. to p. 19) are at least as feeble as your two first, 
Grotius doth not cut off the holiest parts of the Church.  they having 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 peacemaker 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 show 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 confess (in a Parenthesis) you do but speak your own judgement. And what is your judgement compared 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 frequently by their Practice, even as often as they have power to reduce their Principles into Practice,) whom you affirm 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 reproaching Puritan throughout my book, (very politicly 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 Protestants a note of reproach, to those that will not be reconciled to the Pope, you do not only 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 appear, that he did honour the name of Protestant, and reckoned himself with the Reformed. But he noted with a black coal, those rebellious Schismatics in the Protestant Churches, (if yet I may so speak without implying a contradiction, for they cease to be of our Church, by their separating themselves from our Communion) who usurped the title of the Reformed, and helped to justify the Papists in all their clamours, by still pretending to be R●formers of our most excellent Reformation. I can prove (by your own Logic) that you yourself 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 ever be esteemed (do what you can) the most judiciously-reformed of all the Protestants in the World. Again you dishonour the Protestant name, by calling the irre●oncilia●iles, the holiest men; and by pleading so much for Puritans (as the godliest part of the Protestants) who call a Rebellion, a Reformation, and stick the term of Christian purity on the most palpable hypocrisy to be imagined. For these alone are the Puritans whom both Grotius, and Bishop 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 entreat 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, 
His way is not uncharitable.  and a trap to engage 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 Superiors 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 allowed to have been in his; you having confessed you are not worthy to be so much as named 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 judgement, 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, 
It do●h not tend to persecution.  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 comply with these unwarrantable terms, p. 17. In this you say no more of Grotius, than 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 Grotius is not utterly unknown, that he was as far from such ● project as he was from being a Presbyterian. If to hinder subjects from treading all under their feet, (as well their Sovereigns, as fellow subjects,) must pass with you for a persecution, than was Grotius as guilty as you express him; for he indeed exhorted Princes to beware of those Ministers 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 endure that the filthiest 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 than with a liberty of Conscience to cut men's throats, they ought not to call it a persecution, to be happily bound to some good behaviour. What you add of the attempts of pride, when men have such high thoughts of their own imaginations and devices, that they think the Church's wounds can be healed by no other plaster, but by this of their compounding, (p. 17, 18.) is so unduly applied to Grotius, that it hath many reflections upon yourself; for you know you have been a great promissor in your days. You mislike the Plaster proposed by Grotius, and that of some late Episcopal Divines, which yet you prefer before that of Grotius (p. 21.) you mislike the ●l●ister of Bishop Bramhal, (p. 22, 25.) and indeed what is there, which (in other men) you do not publicly dislike? But you like your own Plaster, as abundantly sufficient to heal the wounds of the Church; at least, as better than other men's. 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 Sacraments, 
jam. 3.5.  and by what you now say in your Grotian Religion, (p. 29.) that though the Tongue is a little member, yet it boasteth great things.  

It doth not engage in a way of sin.  Sect. 16. You say the sixth reason of your dislike of Grotius 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, without the appearance of any ground excepting your absolute Decree to reprobate Grotius and his Design. But 'tis enough that I deny, what you think it enough but to affirm; and do know that Grotius his Pacification was as much superior unto your own, (in all imaginable respects) as you and your Writings are confessedly inferior 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 condemn 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 enormities with which you charge it. It was the Motto of King james, who had it out of Christ's School, Beati pacifici, Blessed are the Peacemakers. And therefore Grotius, as a pacific, 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 design, how came you to dislike (at your eighteenth page) what (but twelve pages before) you highly liked? If you say you distinguish his particular way from his design, it seems your qua●rel is only this, that having chosen a good end, he did not jump with your humour in choosing the means of its attainment. But methinks for this you should never have used 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 pacification 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 otherwise advised than you would have him? If you do really take Grotius to have been so learned and so judicious as you express, (p. 4.) and do as really judge yourself unworthy 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 judgement, your jealousies and fears before his knowledge, and your fortuitous conjectures before his exact deliberations. Whereas you add, that you abhor their disposition who can despise or violate the Churches. Peace for every petty conceit of their own, which they have called by the name of ●ruth or Duty, (p. 19) you oblige yourself and your party to do some very severe penance for having violated the Peace of the Church of England, which for so many happy years had been established. The Presbyterian way of Discipline was a petty conceit of their own, as you at least must acknowledge, who have written against it, as hath been 
* Look back on Sect. 12.  showed. The Common-Prayer book (you 
† Look on what shall be said ch. 6. sect. 9 num. 2.  confess) was more perfect than the Directory, which was therefore another of the petty conceits, for which the peace of the Church was despised and violated. Nay you complain to 
* Of Inf. ch. memb. and Bapt. p. 122, 123.  Mr. Tombs, that plain duties were wiped out, and excellent things taken from us, which we were in actual possession of. Your National-Covenant itself you must acknowledge was a petty conceit of your own, for which you have cause to repent, if we may credit your 
† Ibid. p. 123.  own words. Why then did you violate the Church's peace? or if you abhor yourself 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, 
* Sent. Daven. ad Duraeum, p. 39 & A●hort. ad Pac. Eccl. cap. 11. p. 148, 149.  that rather than have troubled the peace and quiet of the Church under which you lived in sub●ection, and of which you did profess you all were members, you should quietly have departed 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 salvation itself depended on them. How much mo●e should you have done it, when the things you stood u●on so stiffly were petty conceits of your own, and confessed such at long running, however magnified at your first setting out? I ever applauded 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 Doctrine, 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. Chillingworths (p. 29.) in case they are likelier to take effect. This I say you must do, unless you can give some better reason than 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, 
men's thoughts of Grotius must be esteemed by their words.  (for such it was in your power to call them, though not in power to make them such,) be pleased 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 enough to think well of the man, whilst you spoke 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 used 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 professing at the same time a contrariety of your thoughts?  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
But perhaps 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. 
The conclusion.  And I hasten so much the rather, because I hear it will be done in an elaborate manner, and ex professo, by a great admirer of his perfections, and because I hope I have said enough to make you sensible of your mistake. For methinks you should not take leisure in trying to make men believe that the learnedst of mortals at last turned Papist; or (in case that that is too bold a word) one so richly accomplished with all variety of secular and sacred knowledge, joined to wonderful endowments of Grace and Nature, but for nothing more remarkable, than 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 adversaries then I am willing to afford them, and I hearty wish you had not done it. For the Roman Catholics 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. Crandon 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 Apostasy of Grotius 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 gratify the Romanists, because you speak as ill of Grotius as if he were not worth having. You say he was 
* Christ. Conc. p. 45.  exasperated by his imprisonment, etc. That he was too much 
† Grot. Relig. Praef. Sect. 5.  guilty of uncharitable censures; That he was a 
* Ibid. Sect. 2.  Dissembler, if not a Papist; 
a p. 11.  That he dropped into a deplorable Schism; 
b p. 15, 16.  That his way is uncharitable and censorious, woundeth under pretence of healing, in the name of a Peacemaker he divideth and cuts off the holiest parts of the Church on earth; 
c p. 16.  That his Design is a Trap to tempt and engage the souls of millions into the same uncharitable, censorious, and reproachful way; 
d p. 17.  That it tendeth to engage the Princes of Christendom in a persecution of their subjects that cannot comply with uncharitable terms; 
e p. 17, 1●.  That this is the unhappy issue of the attempts of pride, when they have such high thoughts of their own devices, and departed from the word of God and the simplicity of the Faith; 
p. 18.  That his Design engageth the Church of Christ in a way of sin, both in false Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship. 
g p. 73.  (You imply that he calumniated the Patriarch Cyril.) You say of him expressly, 
h p. 78.  That the injustice and partiality shows the meaning of the man; 
i p. 83.  That his Design was Schismatical, Partial, and Cruel; 
k p. 90.  That you dare boldly say, he was an unjust man, etc. putting a more odious vizor on the face of the Calvinists Doctrines of Faith, justification, etc. then beseemeth any judicious man that understood the state of the Controversies, or the strength of an Argument, and had any Christian charity left. 
l p. 91.  You reproach him further, with falsehood and abomination of inhuman calumnies; wi●h too high an esteem of his espoused conceits, and too odious thoughts of the contrary way; 
m p. 92.  with noise and bitter accusation poured out against the Reformed Churches; with censures running upon mere mistake, and odiously aggravating the opinions that deserve it not, and that were far nearer his own then he imagined; 
n p. 92, 93▪  with bitter censures, reproaches, clamours, and a factions uncharitable way of pacification. Again you say 
o p. 93.  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 
* p. 4.  Gratitude which you own him for the great benefit of his works. 
† p. 5.  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 sufficient, you say you ever stopped 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 unchristian Paralipsis you leave your Readers to imagine that he was a very scandalous ungodly liver, which is accounted by some the very worst way of slandering, where notoreity of Fact doth not excuse it. I therefore shall antidote your Readers (if they are mine) with this short Declaration, That by all I have been able to learn of Grotius, (either from other men's 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 yourself a shrewder turn than I could possibly have wished you, by writing so bitterly of so good, &c so great a Christian. And though I hope you will acknowledge that I oppose you (in his defence) without distemper; yet do I hearty 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 
* Append. to Aphor. p. 138. to p. 145.  yourself 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.  

An acknowledgement of charity,  Sect. 1. YOu very readily acknowledge [my brotherly and moderate dealing with yourself, and you say, you must acknowledge my gentleness and charity, Sect. 4.] I am glad my charity, gentleness, and moderation 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 subservient to partial interest or passion. But you name not where, or when, or wherein, or towards whom, I had showed such passion or partiality; which had you been able to have done, I am forbid to believe you would have spared me. If I was partial to you, Sir, by being more brotherly, more moderate, more charitable and gentle, than you seem to yourself to have deserved, you ought in all reason to have 
* 2 Cor. 12.13.  forgiven me this wrong. Had others deserved no worse of me then yourself had then done, my gentle dealing with others had been as signal. And had you been either as slanderous or as blasphemous as others were, the ex●re●sions of my dislike had been as freely distributed unto yourself as to any others with whom I dealt. I must not be unwilling to ●lear mine own innocence (as to the calumnies c●st u●on me) much less to clear God from the evil reports 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 only say this, 
W●th an uncharitable requital.  but proceeded to the worst that could be said, even to censure me as a person in a state of damnation, and somewhat worse than so too; (th●t is to say) in a wo●se ●state of damnation than David was in before Nathan sp●ke to him; Sect. 20.] Before Nathan spoke to him, he was in a state of impenitency; and why should you rather choose to die in such a state, a murderer, adulterer, and an hypocri●e, and impenitently 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 yourself; and say, if my charity towards 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 censured, even by many of your way; and utterly lost their good opinions who once admired 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, 
Acts 7. ●0.  than 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 foully ●udged,) I do not ●ray without Faith, or without sincerity: & though I desire you 
* Luk. 6.37. Mat. 7.1. 1 Cor. 4.5.  not to judge, 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 imbittered against other men's, Sect. 5.]  
Sect. 3. Indeed I was told you meant me, when you fling a side-cast at the Northamptonshire Arminian in your voluminous book of Disputations. 
The title of Arminian unseasonably applied.  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 fortuned to hit your self. That I am affected to my opinions, as Grotius was, who was so eminent an example both of judgement▪ and Piety, and Impartiality, is by much a greater advantage to me, than I could ever have pretended to have deserved. And therefore for this, I thank your bounty. How you yourself have been ●ffected to the very same Doctrines 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 Grotius 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 
* See your Appendix to the best of your ●ooks, viz. Of justification, p. 164.  peril. I suppose (by what you have printed) you must needs say yes. And then in the judgement 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 only so, but Socinian also: so easy it is to give men names. You had never (I am persuaded) writ against any man as an Arminian, if you had not forgotten that words have 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ H●m.  wings. And so perhaps you will say, when you shall read my fifth Section.  
Sect. 4. Nor are you any whit happier in the second part of your accusation. For first, if Grotius and myself have been imbittered against the Doctrines of other men, 
Neither Grotius, nor any else can ●e ●oo severe against blasphemy.  who have made God to be the Author and Fautor of Sin; and have been so far imbittered as to accuse them of blasphemy; you will wrong yourself extremely, by saying we are too much imbittered, for Doctrines less impious are called in Scripture, 
† 1 T.m. 4.1.  the Doctrines of Devils. No● have the Fathers of the Church, whether Ancient or Modern, been less imbittered against the same. (As I have plentifully 
* See Divine Purity defended, ch. 4. s●ct▪ 5, 6, 7.  snewed in another place.) Next I conceive that you yourself have been much more imbittered 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 escaped you. Do not you ask God pardon for bitter speeches in your Treatise of judgement? I am sure you deplore them in your 
† Sect▪ 68 p. 143, 144.  Apology against Mr. Blake, Kendal, Moulin, Eyre, and Crandon, by thi● good token, that you are most bitter to Doctor Kendal, whilst you confess your bitterness to be your crime. Insomuch that Master Hickman hath showed his bitterness to me by your example to Doctor Kendal. What you have said to the m●n who renounced his Orders and the Lord's Prayer I neither know nor will make a search, but I may guests there was bitterness 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 
* S●ints Rest, p●●t. 3. sect. 6. p. 57  spruce in their apparel, and delighted in May-games, Morice-dances, Shows, or Stageplays, whom you easily adjudge to the pains of Hell. I am no friend to those follies▪ and thiefs of time: but had I been of your Counsel, I would h●ve advised you to speak from Scripture, and to have showed your severity to Rebellion rather, or Sacrilege, to Schism and bloodshed, and other fruits of the flesh; of which a 
* See 2 Tim. 3. and compare v. 2, 3, 4. with v. 5.  formal godliness is not the lest, 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 
* Not only Passions and Perambulations, b●t the observations of Holidays, repeating the L●tany, th● like form● in the G●mm●n-Prayer, ●he bowing at the name of Ies●●, receiving the Sacrament upo● th● kn●e, are reckoned up in the sam● p●ge.  other things which are indifferent, (considered simply in themselves) but made your duties as well as ours, when commanded by that authority 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 censured 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, whilst I speak the words of truth and soberness: Remember what it is of which you have accused both me and Grotius. And that in order to your amendment, (which is an act of the greatest friendship) as well as in order to our Defence (which implies the onset to have been made from your pen) I have but warned you for the future, to 
† Mat. 7.3.  cast the beam out of your own eye, before you say to your brother, 
* ver. 4, 5.  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 about words then matter, Sect. 5.]  

What differences are verbal, and what are real.  Sect. 5.] So you told that learned person whom you describe by his six Metaphysical Exercitations (in your book of Saving Faith, p. 5.) and by his living in the public Library at Oxford (p. 6.) that he was indeed your assenting 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. 
Rebus congruentes Nominibus diffe●ebant. Una & consentiens duo●us vocabulis Philosophiae forma constituta est. Cicero in Quaest Acad. l. 1.  What Cicero saith of the Academics and Peripatetics, that agreeing in Things they only differed in appellations, I wish I could say of all our contentions here in England, 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 show that there are few material differences 'twixt you and me. To which it is consequent, that you have embraced the greatest part of the very opinions 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 yourself and Mr. Barlee are really differing in opinions. What a fallacy is there in your phrase, [Our Contentions] if you mean yourself and me? for you know the eagerness, interest, and passion, which you make the subjects of your rebuke (though of no larger a size than 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 singular Presbyterian) are severe to these Doctrines, as well as I; but think the only found way whereby to answer an Arminian, is by asserting the Doctrine of universal redemption, 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 bitterness against those Doctrines, against which you have written with equal keeneness, and so contracted upon yourself 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 
* Ecclus. 2.12.  sinner, that goeth two ways at once, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the great fault of the Gnostics. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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.  

A material difference indeed.  Sect. 6. Whereas you add so distinctly, [That I and my Antagonist do make ourselves and others believe that we differ much 
* You say as much even of Grotius himself, p. 91.92.  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 than those in which Mr. Barlee and I have differed? our difference stands in those things, which have set the Calvinists and the Lutherans so irreconcilably at odds. Observe the words of that holy and learned man Doctor jackson, 
Doctor jackson in his Marathan Atha, cb. 40, p. 37 11.  who having spoken of several sorts of Idolaters, (saith he) Besides all these, I am to give you notice of some in reformed Churches who commit the same error which they so much condemn in the Romanist. The Romanist transforms or changes the nature of the incorruptible God, and of Christ himself into the similitude of earthly Kings and Monarches, 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 similitude 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 amend 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 conceived that they did not agree with them in the worship of the same God, or transformed God's nature into the similitude of his enemy, into hatred and cruelty itself, (as the same 
* Ibid. p. 37 12.  Doctor hath it) sure the difference must needs be more than 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 add, (and desire my pardon for the addition) That I do not well understand the true state of the Controversy, or else I would not take the breach to be wider than it is, Sect. 5.]  
Sect. 7. Who best understands it, you, or I, neither you nor I must be the judge: 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 Pupils, (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 Controversy 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 Controversy 'twixt me and them. If you s●eak of the Controversy 'twixt me and you in these points, you know that there never was any such. I have showed sometimes how you and I are at agreement in many points which they call Arminian. And you confess that most of them are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that if this is the thing which you call a Controversy, I cannot choose but understand the state of it, whilst I am able to believe that your words have truth in them; and so by a consequence unavoidable that either you are an Arminian, or I am none. You see 'twas fitly done of you, to ask my pardon, 
Of heads of Controversy reconcileable.  and I think it as fit for me to grant it.  
Sect. 8. One of the first heads of Controversy, about which you suppose all quarrels will be laid aside (Sect. 5.) is no less than the whole Supralapsarian Doctrine of Pre-destination & Reprobation (and so the Twissian by consequence which so vehemently condemns the Synod at Dort) besides the Doctrine of Christ's dying only for the elect, together with Physical Predetermination, (which contains the irresistibility of Grace) A second is, all matters unrevealed. Part of the third, about Methods (as whether Prescience be before Decrees, etc.) All which it seems are so far yielded by yourself, that you suppose I will consent 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 differ? and if we agree in these points, let us go lovingly together against the rigid Presbyterians who will not partake of our agreement. Accordingly you profess (Sect. 8.) to wish no more in this Controversy, 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 whosoever 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 waver in your notion of perseverance, and pretend to no more than a probability; your Confession stands upon 
* Account of the controv. of Persev. etc. in setting down the fourth opinion, p. 4.5.  Record, That S. Austin was of my mind, and that the Lord Primate said as much in the hearing of Master Kendal. 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.  

Grotius made not uncharitable inferen●es.  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 subject; 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 myself, 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 only raised in your fancy, do only 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 freewill (Sect. 5.) For if I discern any difference, I do conceive it to be in this, that some of your expressions concerning the freedom of the will, have looked 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 returned from Tilenus unto myself, 
A strange difference between the Godly, and the notoriously ungodly.  than you implicitly tax me of injustice in three respects, Sect. 18.]  
How swift you are to speak hardly, and to be guilty whilst you reprove, even of that which you reprove, I think I may make yourself 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, 
* 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.  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 disobedience to their Guides, and doing much to the hurt of the Church; yea they that commit greater sins than these, the denial of Christ, Perjury, Adultery, Murder, Incest, Idolatry, as Peter, Lot, David, 
* Remember what you call the opinion of most of your Divines, p. 326. and how you excuse Solomon for his Idolatry, p. 317. in contradiction to the Text and to yourself, p. 328.  Solomon, are affirmed by you to be in the number of the godly. For (besides that you give them the stile of godly more than once) you further add, that to be notoriously ungodly, or unsanctified, (which is the second head) a man must be worse than all these. Do but mark your own words: A man must be guilty of more sin than 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 than Peter was guilty of, etc. Nor only of as much, but of more sin than Lot, whose sins you reckon up thus. [He was drunk two nights together, and committed Incest twice with his own daughters, and that after 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 than Solomon was with his seven hundred wives, and his three hundred Concubines, and gross Idolu●ries, when his heart was turned 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 notoriously ungodly, and how wicked you say a man must be to be such, not only as great, but a greater sinner than all these, (remembering also what filthy Uses some men may make of such Doctrine) and judge what wrong you have done yourself, by doing so great a wrong to me, who had done you none.  
Sect. 2. I must expostulate again about your second Accusation of my injustice (Sect. 18.) for first did you not say, 
The excessive d●nger of making the greatest sinners to dream themselves into a Saintship.  (in the place by me cited) that a man who is notoriously ungodly, i. e. unsanctified, must be a greater sinner than Solomon was? etc. Secondly, Where did you add, that 'tis the common opinion, as that doth signify not your own? you are not singular in all you think, the opinion may be common 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? etc. that is no more than 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 unsanctify, 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 scandalise not your weak, or your wilful brethren: that you strengthen not the hands of evil-doers: rather than so, it were better that you were cast into the Sea. (Mat. 18.6.) Fourthly, This Caution was peculiar to Solomon, not to any of those sinners you named besides. Fifthly, Your supposing the sin of David with an Et caetera, (which must regularly include the sins of Lot and Solomon, the Railing Professor, the Rebel, and the Schismatic, and all the rest which you reckon up in your ample Catalogue) to have been extremely different from the like in a graceless man, will prove a sad principle 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 Incest 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 having been many times drunk, besides a Railer, a Liar, a Rebel, and a Schismatic, may he not plead for all that, he is a sanctified man, and in the number of the godly, and cannot possibly miscarry when once he hath been sanctified, 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? [
* Disput. 3. p. 329. etc.  He that hath oftentimes 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 rather defend their sin? How many in THESE TIMES that we doubt not to be Godly, have been guilty of disobedience 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 fly out into a greater indignation, and urge (in the words of Mr. Baxter again) 
* Grotian Relig. Praef. Sect. 18. towards the end▪  That his Drunkenness, Perjury, Railing, Lying, Rebellion, Schism, and persecution of the Church, are 
* Grotian Relig. Praef. Sect. 18. towards the end▪  exceedingly different from the like facts in a graceless man, in regard of manner, ends, concomitants, etc.  

The danger exemplified in a Presbyterian woman:  Sir, I cannot but tell you on this occasion, that I have laboured for four (if not five) hours together, (and there is witness of what I say) to make a woman in this County (not many miles from this place) ashamed 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 presence of others also, who together with myself were much amazed 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 lessened 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 Scripture 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, unless need require, as being more careful of his credit, than his followers have been;) She alleged the great difference between the sins of the regenerate and unregenerate. She said she had learned 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 unresistible; 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 Romans, by 
† 2 Pet. 3.16.  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 endeavours) I convinced her of the danger as well as madness of her opinions, and of the deadly influence they had had upon her practice, and how the Scripture was grossly 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 fined against conscience, and that her sin was 
* Est actuale mortale, in labente post reconciliationem, actio interior, vel exterior, pugnans cum lege Dei, facta contra conscientiam. Melanchth. de Pecsat. Actual▪ p. 83.  aggravated by that, which she had alleged as an excuse and a lessening of it, to wit, the reluctancy of her mind, which showed 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 opposition 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 Churchyard (about four or five miles from her own abode) she hearty 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 offered me from the Press: and had it not been for this occasion, this Narrative might have died in perfect silence. Had I not known that there were Gnostics in the Apostles times, and what the Ranters in these times are wont to hold, and upon what Principles they ground their Doctrines, and how avowedly they have practised according 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 
* 2 Cor. 11.31.  The God and Father of our Lord jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. 
Hugon. Grot. Anim. in Animadv. Andr. Riveti, p. 80, 81. Miror vero conscientiam aliorum lacessere eos qui omnem vim conscientiae adimun● suo dogmate, cum doceant justificatis five electic suis non imputari, non auferre st●tum Gratiae, Adulteteria & Homicidia, ideo quod ea faciant animo reluctante, id est. contra conscientiam.  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 consciences 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 villainies with a reluctant mind, that is to say, against their conscience.  

The sins of David with their circumstances.  Sect. 3. But let us consider the sins of David in regard of manner, ends, and concomitants, and see how they difference 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 cogged 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 failed, 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 played the hypocrite with the Messenger, and bid him tell joab, That the sword devoureth one as well as another, (v. 25.) Sixthly, Uriah being 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, because he gratified the Ammonites, and caused the murder of a great multitude of his loyal subjects, merely that Uriah might be murdered with them, (v. 15, 16, 17.) Eighthly, All this while he played the Hypocrite with God, both in his public and private acts of Religion, lifting up unclean hands, and impure eyes, unhallowed lips, 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 endowments 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 
* 2 Sam. 11.11.  affectionate friend, as well as a faithful and valiant subject; fight against the King's enemies, whilst the King was acting enmity to him and his. Besides so many distinct sins, and so many aggravations, which could not but make them 
† Rom. 7.13.  exceeding sinful: he lived indulgently in them from month to month; was lulled in carnal security; and as if his conscience had been 
* 1 Tim. 4.2.  seared as it were with a hot iron, he never so much as said, 
† jorem. 8.6.  what have I done? he was not startled with nathan's Apologue, (2 Sam. 12.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) until he was fain to indigitate the moral of it, applying it home unto 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 rouse him with, and consider the greatness of his ingratitude (from ver. 7. to v. 10.) which is the 
* Homicidae, Tyranni, Fures, Adulteri, Raptores, Sacrilegi, Proditores erunt. Sed infra ista omnia ingratus est. Senec. l. 1. de Beneficiis cap. 10. mihi p. 386.  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 show 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 complication of impieties was clothed with.  

Peter's sins very different from those of David.  Sect. 4. The sin of Peter I shall not prosecute, as having been (in all points) extremely different from that of David, and much more capable of excuse. For 'twas by sudden surreption that Peter sinned; his temptation was not only great, but came upon him by a surprisal: And sudden fear, more than any thing 
* Wisd. 17.12.  betrayeth the succours which reason offereth. Besides, he speedily repent with 
† Mat. 26.75.  bitter tears, and brought forth such early (that I may not only say, such ample) fruits as were indeed most 
* Luke 3.8.  worthy of repentance. Yet I pray Sir, reflect on your own acknowledgement, 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 damnation? 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 imagined, 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 add, [that repentance 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 damned, and that before they repent 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 saved without being forgiven, than their forgiveness was not necessary to their salvation. Or if they could have been forgiven without having repent, than their repentance was not necessary to their forgiveness: but if both were necessary to both, (as you evidently acknowledge) then whilst they were destitute of both, they were in a state of damnation. And thus you see every way you establish my Doctrine, whilst 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 spoke of (in my second section) whilst Perseverance is so 
* See the sixteenth Sect. of your Pr●face.  taught, as you have taught it.  
Sect. 5. Having done with your eighteenth, I now proceed to your nineteenth Section: 
Of Solomon's state and its uncertainty.  where, of Solomon's case you profess you are uncertain, though you know where you said, that a man must be a greater sinner than Solomon, to be notoriously ungodly: but now it seems you are doubtful whether he repent before his death; or if you think that he did, and that he wa● one of the elect, than 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 repent: 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 strait recovering; the other deliberately sinning, contriving 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 particulars of him, I shall speak in order.  
Sect. 6. To your Preparatory prefixed before your Reasons in the entrance of your Sect. 19 I briefly say (in preparation to my answers) that 'tis not said on either side, 
The Reprobates are granted by Mr. Baxter to have Gr●ce sufficient.  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, 
Look back on the eighth Section of your Preface.  and that this is given to the worst that perish, and that in the notion of the jesuits; 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 birth. (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 unsanctified and graceless. But Grace he might have, as that signifies no more than the gift of God, by which he was sufficiently 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, whilst 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 spoke 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 hearty wish, that whilst 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 only gradually different from all common Faith, and this in the Title-page of your book.  

Mr. Baxter's Description of Common Grace and its effects.  Now you say (p. 43. of that Tract) That men are sometimes 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 ways 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, enquiring, 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) 
* Ibid. p. 44.  and therefore are under a prudent impatiency till saving Grace come in, and the Spirit have sealed them up to the day of Redemption, 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 
† Ibid. p. 49.  to fear very much, lest many learned, civil, orthodox men do take common Grace to be special, and so delude their own souls in the trial of themselves. You farther add, 
* Ibid. p. 49.  That there are many common gifts in man which are no more loseable than saving Grace. You add in the same Treatise (by way of Postscript to the Reader,) 
† Ibid. p. 91.  That an unsanctified man may love the true God, and believe in jesus Christ the Redeemer. And again, 
* Ibid. p. 94.  that by common Grace men may have true Faith and Love. And again, 
† Ibid. p. 96.  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, 
* Ibid. p. 92.  [That one and the same man may have two contrary ultimate ends of his particular actions, 
Look forwards on the twelfth Section of this Chapt.  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 unsanctified.] You say in your second, [That a godly man when he is drawn to eat or drink too much, doth it not only as a mistaken means to God's 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 God's glory when he denied his Master. Either David in adultery did desire flesh pleasing for itself, or for some other end; if for itself, than it was his ultimate end in that Act: if for somewhat else as his end, for what? no one will say his end was God's 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.  

Of men twice sanctified.  Sect. 7. [You do not find in Scripture, that they or any others were twice regenerate or sanctified, Sect. 19] But taking Repentance for a Regeneration, you find in Scripture what you say you find not; to wit, that some have twice repent, that is, they have risen by God's grace to undertake 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 departed from Grace given, and fall into sin, and by the Grace of God we may rise again and amend our lives.] 
Artic. 16.  Nor will any deny this, except the Montanists and the Novatians, and the Family of Love, the Catharists, and the jovinians, and such as are of their kindred. (I wish that no such heresy were still alive.) But I think I may say of the Novatians, that though they would not yield place of absolution in the Church, for such as had fallen, after Baptism, into any deadly or wilful sin; yet for Repentance with God, they willingly yielded them a place. And I am sure the Church Catholic hath always held both.  

Concerning the importance of Heb 6. & 10.  Sect. 8. You tell me what two passages (Heb. 6. & 10.) do seem to import, Sect. 19] Wherein you did well to say they seemed so, for you do more than seem not at all to understand those famous passages of Scripture. It is not absolute impossibility, but an extreme great difficulty, which there is meant: nor is it any less fall, then into wilful Apostasy from the profession of Christianity, which is there spoken of. To show you the greatness of your mistake, I cannot take a more short, or effectual course, then by referring 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 exceedingly much they make against it.  
You say that David by Gods own Testimony was one of those hearers (in our Saviour's 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, 
God's testimony of David twofold, each to be compared with the Rule, Ezek. 18.24, etc.  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 
* 1 King. 15.5.  excepted by God in Scripture, and you cannot but know that this is the David of whom we speak; so that before you were ware (if not on purpose) you have made a Transition ab Hypothesi, ad Thesin. It is true that God hath given a good testimony of David in the place I cited, and with the exception of which I spoke. But this was also God's testimony concerning David, [
† 2 Sam. 12.9.  That he had despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight. That he had killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; (and not only so, but) that he had killed him also with the sword of the (profane) children of Ammon; (nor only so, but) that he had taken his wife from him to be his own wife.] With this particular testimony you may do well to compare God's general rule. 
* Ezek. 18.24. & 26.  That when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity,— 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 trial. My way of arguing is, ab actu ad potentiam, which you know is uncontrollable. 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 begs for a recovery. Sect. 19]  
Sect. 10. If no Scripture had so told us, 
How far charity was decayed in David; and how hard it is to murder wilfully in love.  your negative Argument would be of no force. But Scripture tells enough, as I lately showed you, when God excepted his deal 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, until the message of Nathan, which was near a whole year, if not a great deal beyond it, for his child by Bathsheba was 
* See 2 Sam. 12.14, 15.  born I know not how long before he repent of his uncleanness, which shows a greater decay, than you acknowledge. And accordingly he prayed, Create in me a clean heart, 
Psal. 5. ●. 10.  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 needless, had its cleanness and rectitude continued to him. Besides, 
† Of saving Faith, p. 92.  you tell us of David, That he desired flesh pleasing for itself, and not at all for God's glory, nor is it imaginable he should commit Adultery to please God: and so out of your mouth I do infer his having been unsanctified, because you say that the same man, by designing to please God, and to please his flesh too, as two ultimate ends of his particular 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 unsanctified who designs to please God by heaping Murder upon Adultery, and adding Drunkenness to Thirst? The murderous Jews were not, sure, the less unsanctified for killing the Apostles to do 
* john 16.2.  God service; nor was Saul the less unsanctified before the time of his conversion, for that he thought it his 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  duty to do many things contrary to the name of jesus. Whatever David's ends were, his sins were such (by your confession) as did put him into no less than an incapacity for heaven. But where was his charity you speak of, when he contrived and effected Uriah's death? To say he murdered a man in love will be of very ill consequence: and he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, 
1 joh. 4.20.  how can he love God whom he hath not seen? even Injustice and Charity do seem to me irreconcilable. 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, 
jam. 2.10.  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: 
Melanchth. de bonis operibus. p. 179.180.  I oppose the belief of the great Melanchthon; Excussit David fidem & Spiritum Sanctum, cùm raperet alterius conjugem, & quidem multipliciter Spiritum Sanctum perturbavit. Primum in cord suo, unde pulsus est in Adulterio; deinde in multis sanctis, quorum aliis scandalum attulit dolorem, aliis fuit occasio exi●ii, etc. I need not use this Authority, (having abundantly done my work without it) but think it more than sufficient thus to counterpoise your own.  
You urge yet farther [David prays 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, 
Of David's Prayer Psal. 51.  whereas the excussion of God's Spirit was in the commission of his sins. (2.) Nor doth it signify 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 than he had done, that was the height of God's goodness which infers the 
* Rom. 2.4, 5.  heightening of his sins, in that he had so long abused it. For I must put you in remembrance, that it is not merely the having of Grace, (to-wit, the habit) without the actual employment of it, that will ever stand us in any stead; but on the contrary, 
† Mat. 25.25, 26, 30.  a Talon wrapped in a Napkin will evince us to be slothful and unprofitable servants, whom our Judge will cast into outer darkness.  
But say you, [The thing in itself 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, 
His being clearly unsanctified by his accumulated sins. ] when you 
* See of saving Faith. p. 47, etc. p. 49.91.94.96.  confess that the unsanctified have some love to him? Will you prove a man Regenerate in the complication of his impieties, by having that left in him more than which you do allow to the unregenerate? you know what I told you out of yourself 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 repent, 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 than many, who yet have not saving, but common Grace. 3. When you add 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 threatened every man to reward him 
* Rom. 2.6.  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, than you grant more than I should ever have demanded; not knowing that God in the Gospel hath threatened such sins with such desertion, 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 inflicting 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, cannot be said to be abused.  
You say, This sudden prevalency of sensuality did not so far change the judgement of David, that hereupon he habitually esteemed the creature above God, and valued the pleasures of sin, before the pleasing, and the favour of God, Sect. 19]  

A signal quicksand to be avoided by all that are ensnared with the novel notion of perseverance.  Sect. 13. Here you speak of a sudden prevalency, whereas you cannot but know (what I largely showed 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 favour of God? Here is a very great Quicksand which must be carefully avoided, or else a sinner may go-on, in Adultery, Murd●r, and other villainies, contenting himself with this Cordial, (but I beseech you give no more such) that he doth not habitually esteem the creature above God. Sir, Your soul is very precious 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 yourself, as to weaker men. If actually in the time of sinning, sensuality prevailed against the act of charity, than the sin of David being deliberate, (as in Peter 'twas not,) and very 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 judgement 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 than God, when asked which he doth value most; nor is a man the less but the greater sinner for deliberately acting against his judgement. 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. 
Of Faith as a practical adherence unto God.  Sect. 19]  
Sect. 14. But neither are they unbelievers, whom you allow to have Faith, and yet deny to have saving Grace, as I showed 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 expressed in holy 
* They have not all obeyed the Gospel. For Esay faith who hath believed our reports Rom. 10.16.  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 truly inseparable from charity, and David can no more love God and Bathsheba (another man's wife) than 
† Luk. 16.13.  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 pleasing of his flesh, (giving your instance even in David,) you seem to imply a contradiction to the words of our Lord, who saith, 
* Ibid.  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 
† Mat. 12.30.  against Christ, who is not for him. Indeed there are in the world who make a mixture of Religions, like the 
* 2 Kings 17.32, 33.  people of Sepharvaim, Chuth, and Hamath, fearing the Lord and serving their own gods. But the former was in Hypocrisy, for it is said in the following verse, 
† ver. 34.  they feared not the Lord, which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or literal show of contradiction, doth evince the truth of our Saviour's 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.  

David was soberly put to it▪  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 only needs to be referred to my former answers, or to what I collected Sect. 6. yet here I can add, 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]  

The fallacious use of the word Graceless.  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. 
Recessutum non deserit antequam deserat Et facit ple●●mque ne deserat; aut etiamsi recessit, ut redear, Prosper. Respon. ad object. Vincent. 14.  You affirm that grace sufficient is given to the worst of them that perish, (Sect. 8.) and therefore you cannot prove that David was sanctified, (whilst 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 repent sooner than he did, if he had not been wanting to himself. 
* 2 Pet ●. ●0, 21.  Yet the Scripture having pronounced that the estate of those men who have fallen from grace is much more hardly to be recovered, and worse (by consequence than theirs, who never knew the way of righteousness; certainly more Grace was necessary 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 avow, 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 extenuation, 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. 
Some are thinkers to their own prejudice.  I may rather conclude it was not the habit of Grace excited, if you yourself 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 heinous a manner, and degree. To have an habit of Grace, and not to use it, yea to abuse it by gross impieties, will no more excuse a man's wickedness, than the bare having of a Talon, and 
* Mat. 25.25.  thrusting it into a sink. What you add of S. Peter is not home to the purpose, and that for those reasons, which I have given 
* Look back on Sect. 4. of this Chapter.  already once for all.  

It is another quicksand to be avoided, which leads men to think they are the better for their hypocrisy.  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 quicksand, in which because many are swallowed up in these times, I was not at ease with myself till I had publicly given some warning of it in the first chapter of the second part of my Sinner impleaded. And which I do more wish read, than all the things that I have written. I pray Sir, consider on this occasion, Isa. 1.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. As for David's daily going unto God, in public and in private, all the space of his continuance in sin without repentance, it was not joined with that love of God which doth exclude the love of Mammon; it having been joined with the love of unlawful pleasures, and by consequence unavailable in the sight of God. You add that these things are to you improbable: 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 publicly confessed to be against you) it matters not what may seem improbable, much less 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. concluding herewith your nineteenth Section.  

●hat it is, and is not to build upon a rock.  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 signify (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 fastened. And that David at first did not build thus firmly, doth appear by his falling (even deliberately) in time of temptation. I add 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. 
The horror of a Doctrine should teach its vassals to disclaim it.  That David was not unsanctified or made ungodly by his Adultery and Murder, and other sins. Be pleased to reflect on what I have said in the first Section of this Chapter. And consider within yourself, 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 treacherous 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, 
The equivocal refuge of being obedient in the main.  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 than those in which he is disobedient? or else in mainer or greater things? O remember the words of our Lord and Saviour: 
Mat. 5.19.  Whosoever shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven. And together with these, 
jam. 2.10.  compare the words of S. james, Whosoever 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 lived 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 interval 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.  

What was predominant in David when he deliberately sinned.  Sect. 21. It is true what you add, that no Act will prove us holy, but a predominant Habit, Sect. 20.] The reason is, because all circumstances are required to make a thing completely good; But then withal you must grant, 
Bonum ex Cau●â integrâ. Malum ex quolibet defectu.  that any deliberate act of sin will pronounce us unholy; Because the want of one circumstance is enough to name a thing evil. And he that offends in one point is guilty of all: but David offended in more than two. Again, the estimation, election, resolution, operation of the Soul cannot truly be said to be predominant to good, when the deliberate acts are quite contrary, transcendently evil. And a sad continuance in a sinful course (such undeniably was David's) is also as opposite to Habits of Virtue.  

None in Adultery and murder can be really good men before the time of their repentance.  Sect. 22. What you add of blind unjust judgement, (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 the 
* Rom. 8.8, 13.  favour of God, whatever he were before, or whatever he may be after. And remember that David had dwelled in sin, for a year and a day, (for aught appears in Holy Scripture) in sin deliberately committed, and not repent of at all in so long a time.  
Sect. 23. Now Sir, 
The danger of the great error proposed to consideration.  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 catalogue of which I have recited to you out of yourself, in the first Section of this Chapter,) I beseech you to consider in the Spirit of meekness, whether your Doctrine is not as dangerous to the professors of Christianity, as that of Master Pemble, and Doctor Twisse, [Of Christ's immediate actual delivering us from guilt, wrath, and condemnation,] which you 
* Appendix to Aphorisms of justif. p. 164.  profess to be the very Pillar and Foundation of the whole Frame and Fabric of Antinomianism. And as you say a little before, 
† Ib. p. 163.  that Socinianism were the soundest Doctrine, that Christ never needed to satisfy, if we were justified from eternity; (to which you add your confession, that you remained long in the borders of Antinomianism, which you very narrowly escaped;) so I entreat you to examine whether you are not already fallen into as formidable an error, as that is which you escaped.  
There is a Book entitled, 
What desperate Doctrines have been applauded by some of the ablest Presbyterians, no whit better than those of Wickliff.  The Marrow of Modern Divinity, which hath dangerously built upon your Foundation, and is publicly commended by some of your way; Master Caryl, Master Burroughs, Master Strong; Master Sprigg, and after all Master Samuel Pretty. Evangelista (in the Dialogue) being a Minister of the Gospel, doth instruct Neophytus, or the young Christian, in these following words: 
See The Marrow of Modern Divinity, p. 20● Edit. 3.  [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 commandments, 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 Author 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 Commandments (whether filching 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 Antiquity except the Heresy of the Gnostics, that I can think on. From what kind of Bone that Marrow was picked, 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 opened. There are other things in that book, as 
† Ibid. p. 161.  [That the Law of Christ neither justifies nor condemns. 
* Ibid. p. 119.  That in the Covenant betwixt Christ and his, there is no more for man to do, but only to know and believe that Christ hath done all for them; 
Saints Rest. part. 1. c. 8. Sect. 2. p. 158. ] 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 than 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 
* Append. to Aphor. of justif. p. 99 to p. 107.  excepting against that Book, as being guilty of heinous Doctrine, of notorious and dangerous mistakes; of denying the plain sense of the Text (Mat. 10.28.) of intolerably abusing the Scripture, and making Paul a legal Preacher. Of shamefully abusing 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. and of many other intolerable errors. In which your just reprehensions, as I fully concur with you, (and in the most that you have written in those your Aphorisms) so I hope, in some time, you will concur in mine also. Had you considered that those Ministers, who so zealously recommended that venomous book unto the people, were some of the noted London-preachers, whom you exceedingly commended, (to wit in your Epistle before your Treatise of judgement,) 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 yourself have espoused, as well as they. And when the Murderer of his bedfellow was taught by some, to 
* See Poe●it. M●rd. printed A.D. 1657 p. 10, 11. & p. 23.  commend his sin for its greatness, as being a rousing, 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 easy to guess at the source of so foul a stream. To conclude this subject, I can truly say with learned Grotius, 
Hostis non sum, nisi eorum dogmatum, quae credo noxia, aut p●●tati, aut Societati humanae; etc. Vot. pro Pace p. 115.  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 Commentator, [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 unsanctify the sinner; That a godly man may be a Murderer, an Adulterer, (and deliberately such) and yet a godly man still, whilst 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, 
Quae est illa poenitentia vivere ut lubet, deinde instante morte dicere ministro, nollem factum, & credo justitiam Christi imputari, idque verumesse quia id credo. Cum hoc Viatico statimille in Coelum avolat. Id. ibid.  to wish his impious deeds had been undone, to believe the righteousness 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, 
1 Cor. 6.9, 10.  Fornicator, Adulterer, etc. shall inherit the Kingdom of God. David was an Adulterer, and before he repent he was impenitent. Repentance and Reformation must go 
* This you acknowledge in Append. to Aphor. p. 103.  before pardon. To be incapable of Heaven is to be somewhat more than capable of Hell. And were David alive upon the earth, he would not endure to hear his sins apologized for in such a manner, as might encourage the greatest sinners to the like Apologies for their own.   

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

A tacit and groundless accusation sadly reflecting on the Accuser.  Had I been a Presbyterian, I do not think you would have dealt so foully 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 equal 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 yourself from such a groundless insinuation? Or who can be so inoffensive, whom you might not have used (or have abused) in like manner? As for the work of my Ministry, when I consider the weight of that, how much I own to the great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, 
1 P●t. 2.25.  and how strict an account I am to render, I cannot but say I am an unprofitable servant, 
Lu● 7.10.  and am forced to take up that Apostolical Erotesis, 
● Cor. 2.16.  who is sufficient for these things? But when I consider mine own weakness, and my endeavours to serve God with the poor utmost of my ability, and that God will accept according to what a man hath; 
2 Cor. 8.12.  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 
† In his Preface to the Reader, p. 6.  insinuation in this kind) what Saint Paul did to Felix, 
† Act. 24.13.14.  Ye cannot prove those things whereof ye (tacitly) accuse me. But this I confess unto you, that after the way which some call heresy, (some superstition) so worship I the God of my fathers. And now I pray Sir consider whether I might not with greater reason have turned your motion upon yourself, since you have given me (in 
* Saints Rest. Edit. 2. part 3. p. 99  print) a perfect knowledge of your failings, in the discharge of your Ministry, whilst you have nothing concerning mine, but in your voluntary surmisings.  
You certify to the world, that you are many times lazy in your performance: your words are these; [
* One sheet for the Ministry, p. 13. & 14.  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 busy, or have not leisure to prepare. It is easier to preach three Sermons without Notes, than 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 better performance of God's work, than indeed I have been guilty of great omissions towards my flock: for in all the course of my Ministry, I never made any use of Notes. But I have this for my excuse, that I was charged 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, than 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 yourself 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 yourself, I begin to suspect my former judgement, and perhaps 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 myself for having never used any, so have you given me an occasion to put myself 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 employed in making them worthy to be remembered. I am really in a straight, 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 public, 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 whilst it is spoken. I do intent (if God permit) to make a trial of your way; and if I shall find it to be the better, will never return unto mine own.  

Of condemning brethren.  Sect. 2. If you mean by my brethren, the Episcopal men, who have not changed with the times, but (after all temptations to Apostasy) have still contended for the Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints, 
jud. 3.  you know I never condemned them, but cleared them rather from their Accusers. If you mean by my brethren, the P●esbyterians, I have condemned them no farther then by their printed blasphemies, confessions, and contradictions they have condemned one another, & very often their own selves. I condemned them only, whom I caught in the act of many scandalous sins, such as you may see a good account of, both in my 
* See (in particular) Introduct. p. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. and the places there referred to.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
† See Ch. 3. p. 73.77. to p. 83.  I did carefully distinguish betwixt the Rigid and Moderate Presbyterians: I condemned the former out of their Writings; but the later I 
* At the end of my premonition to my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  declared to be of their number, whom I do very unfeignedly both love and honour, which I have also made apparent by my inviolable friendship with divers of the●: in a word, I did timely preadmonish my Readers, (and yourself as one of them,) That my words cannot reach ●nto all Presbyterians indiscriminately, but to such and such only, of whom the Authors by me cited are found to speak. That what I say from the History of Master Knox, I mean of those whom Master 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 publicly done) and apply my words to their particulars, which I had left only 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, 
The accuser is the most criminal.  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 than any man I ever heard of; and reviled them even for that, for which their Reward will be great in heaven. 
Mat. 5.12. Luk. 6.23.  To repeat your bitterness, not only to your Brethren, but to your right Reverend Fathers and Superiors, 
Heb. 13.17.  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 charity you have showed in your Reformed Pastor, in your Christian 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 shown already; and what to me, will be seen anon. If you mean by your Brethren, the several Sectaries of the times, you have condemned them all, as they have all condemned you, (the Presbyterians not excepted.) Of very many instances, I shall detain you but with a few. You have condemned Master Colyer, 
Append. to Ap●or. p. 99  Sprigs, and Hobson, for abominable Pamplets. And all the approvers of the Marrow of Modern Divinity. You have highly condemned both Doctor Twiss and Master Pemble, as hath been showed. 
† Ibid. p. 163, 164.  Nay many of your Divines are condemned by you, for fight against jesuites and Arminians, with the Antinomian weapons, and for running thereby into the WORSE EXTREME. Having called Maccovius an excellent Doctor, you yet profess to be ashamed to confute so 
* Ibid. 147.  senseless an Assertion as his is. After Master Tombs had condemned you for a Railer, 
† See your history of the Conception and Nativity of your book entitled Plain Scripture Proof etc.  you did condemn him also of stark brazenfaced and unconscionable dealing, grosser than you had found in any Iesuite●; 
* Ibid. p. 174. Edit. 1. p. 175.  of playing the Devil's part, yea worse, yea very far worse in several respects then if it were the Devil that did it; 
† Ib. p. 202, 203.  of covetousness, liberty in sinning, and many more things than I have leisure to repeat. You have condemned your own men, (whom you call the Godly) 
* Disp. 3. of Sacram. p. 330.  for disobedience to their guides in these times, for Schism, and for doing much hurt to the Church. Nay you have publicly condemned your own long-Parliament, and your whole Assembly of Divines, for the iniquities of their 
(a) See Edit. 3. of your pla●● Script. proof, etc. p. 120, 121, 122, 123. and Append. to Aphor. p. 107.  Solemn League and Covenant, and of their Directory, of their too great enmity to Episcopacy, of their 
(b) Grot. Relig. p. 111, 112.  cruelty and injustice to Episcopal men, of their 
(c) Plain Scrip. proof. p. 120.122.  discarding the practice of Confirmation, and of their contentions for Presbytery, which you declare against as 
(d) Ibid. 227.228.  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 Presbyterians [
(e) Disp. 5. of Sacr. p. 516.  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, than 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 showed 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 symptom of the absence of charity, as the sin of David or Peter was. Sect. 20.]  
Sect. 3. Thus again you affirm, 
Wants of charity examined, & found to be in the Accuser.  without the least show 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 myself in confuting some calumnies then cast upon me. And I can now evince mine innocence (as to that whereof I was accused) 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 causelessely revive, what I have long since buried with my forgiveness. So little do you oblige me by calling my book very learned, whilst you also call it very uncharitable, that as soon as you have upbraided my wants of charity, you do immediately compel me to tax your own.  
For you shut up your Section with these incomparable expressions [If I must needs choose one of the two, I had ☜ rather die in the state of David before Nathan spoke to him, (which was a state of Impenitence added to Murder and Adultery) then of Mr. Pierce who hath committed no such sin, etc. Sect. 20.]  
Sect. 4. Twice I have told you of this already, but very briefly; and till you seriously repent, you cannot be told of it too often. Yet will I not grieve you with repetition, but only add those things which may probably convince you of your unkindness. I cannot better introduce it, then by showing you first your 
* Look forwards on ch. 5. Sect. 22.  partiality, for very remarkable is the difference betwixt your deal with me, and with other men. I was apparently the friendliest of all the Opponents you ever met with, for you acknowledge my gentleness and charity, my brotherly and moderate dealing with you. Sect. 4.] Yet because you find me an Episcopal Divine, (for what other reason can be imagined) you are pleased to judge more hardly of me, then of the bitterest Presbyterians that have ever railed at you. Reflect (if you please) on a few Examples. 
1 Disp. 5. of Sacram. p. 487.  When Dr. Owen had affirmed 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 Ibid. p. 489.  Your censure of Master Black was much less terrible than this of me, when yet you put him into tears and trembling. 
3 Ibid. p. 517.  When Mr. Crandon called one of your Principles most blasphemous, and professed to abhor it with greatest detestation, and indignation, you did only call him judicious Pedagogue. 
4 Ib. p. 516.  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 D. Kendal 's Answer to Mr. Goodw. ch. 4. p. 143, 144.  When D. Kendal jeered you for setting so high a price on the Freshmen books, & for being said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if you scarcely had been bred in either 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 near him, until his breath smelled 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 than David's was, before Nathan spoke 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.  

The Accuser's character of himself.  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, 
* One sheet for the Ministry, p 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 3.8.  you take yourself to be a Saint, (whilst you say you have reason to take yourself for the least; almost as modestly as S. Paul, who thought fit to say, that he was less than the least;) yet you openly 
† Disp. 5. of Sacr. p. 482.  confess in another volume, that you are guilty of pride and prejudice; 
* Ibid. p. 486.  that you are conscious to yourself of being proud and selfish. You say you must and will confess the truth of that accusation from D. Owen; that 
† Ibid. p 484.  you were ware of pride and hypocrisy in your heart before he told you of them. So you say to Mr. Tombs (p. 272.281.) that your heart hath pride in every work you take in hand, and that your heart is mortally or desperately wicked. Again you confess (in your Preface to that Book) how loath you were to publish the later part of your third Disputation, which shows 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 affirmed 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 than which, it is hard to name. And notwithstanding you do acknowledge, that Sabbath-breaking i● England is taken for a sin inconsistent with grace, 
Disp. 3. p. 330.  yet you positively affirm, that every one is not ungodly, who lives and dies in that sin without particular repentance. You confess in that page, that spiritual pride is worse than common swearing, and you elsewhere confess that you are spiritually proud. You 
* See your Epistle to the poor in spirit prefixed to your directions for peace of Conscience.  confess that you go on in the same fault yourself, for which you had accused the pride and ignorance 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 hearty 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 consequence) against such sinners as patronise it, yet you implicitly pronounce me in a state of damnation. If this is one of those sins which you will have to consist which the power of godliness, your danger cannot but be the greater, by how much the likelier you are to fancy that it stands not in need of a particular repentance. Compare your censoriousness in relation to me, with what you are more guitly of in the later pages of your book, & in the pages before cited from out your Saints everlasting rest: though you are clearly a guiltier person than 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 Millstone 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 justify 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 interpret 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.  

His obligation to reca●t, if● not resolutely mischievous.  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 Tombs, and in the other places which you refer to, (as the Particle [yet] doth somewhat seem to imply,) I shall only entreat 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 judgement cannot be mistaken touching the sins of the godly, when you have told us so very plainly that godly men may be Drunkards, 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 than that you would rather choose to die in the state of David (whilst yet impenitently lying in Adultery and Murder, and other deliberate impieties) then in the state of an Episcopal Divine, (naming me) whom you acknowledge to be free from any such sin. Whereby you put me in mind of the aforesaid 
* Nathanael Butler in the Narrative of him, p. 8.  Malefactor, who after his Thievery and adulteries, and deliberate murder of his Bedfellow, did pity the ignorance and blindness of those his Visitants, who offered to aggravate his bloody fact, and asked him whether the sight of the bags (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 Malefactor (if Master Case hath not wronged him) was taught the confidence to bewail his Monitors ignorance and blindness. To which he added (saith Master Case) that they who never had committed such gross and scandalous sins, are accounted 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 corruption were more powerful in them who never committed such heinous 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 renewed, who had abstained from fulfilling their fleshly lusts, as his who had been so indulgent to them. 
1 Pet. 2.11. Rom. 13.14. Gal. 5.16.  Or as if it were not the Grace of God, (which the Murderer called the restraining power) whereby others are preserved from such foul sins. It's true indeed Master Yearwood did very prudently endeavour to keep the sinner from presumption, (a sin the more to be avoided 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 danger of damnation, (p. 11.) But now suppose that Malefactor was indeed a true Penitent, and that it was not presumption but saving Faith, which made him say, he did not doubt of his salvation; and so (by a consequence unavoidable) that he was one of the Elect, as well as David; (as for aught we know he was) will you say that his crimson and scarlet sins were no more than 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 Recantation.   

CHAP. V.  
Sect. 1. I Am now arrived at the largest subjects of Discourse, on which notwithstanding I shall endeavour to say the least. My reasons for it are chief these, First because I am informed that others will handle them ●x professo, who are qualified for it, by greater leisure than I enjoy. Next because I am called upon to undeceive the admirers of Master Hickman, who may perhaps turn Libertines, if they are not speedily disabused. These especially are the reasons why I shall labour for brevity in all that follows.  
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 Puritans, because their Doctrines lead men to licentiousness, and destroy godliness. And that Grotius saith the same. Sect. 22.]  

The Puritans lives no better than their doctrines.  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 yourself in their number, whom you commend for godly living, 
Luk. 18.11.  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 Puritans of whom I speak, it is just as if the Publican should take up the words of the Pharisee, 
Vers. 13▪  instead of those which are fit 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 Devil can wish them; Blasphemous, Rebellious, Sacrilegious, Perjurious, Schismatical, and all in public; what they are secretly, God only 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 heightening of them. And why should not this become a ground, (both with Grotius, and myself,) whereby to conclude of their Doctrines, that they lead to licentiousness, and destroy godliness? Although I cannot call to mind that I branded the Puritans 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, 
Their partiality to their own Tribe.  that their lives are so much better, than 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 than others of your party, it is but agreeable to your doctrines, which are (most of them) better than those of your party, and for which they have proclaimed you a great Arminian. But whether your life is so, or not, I will leave it to God to be determined: of this I am sure, that when you had fastened on Mr. Tombs (one of the authorized Triers) as ugly a character as was possible (throughout your book) and on the men of his way, 
Pl●in Script. proof. etc. Edit. 1. p. 281.  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, than ever I imagined, etc.] Let some men sin never so much, they do not cease to be Saints, but only 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 only grow to be moral and civil men. If it is true (what you have told us) that your heart is desperately, mortally wicked, and that you are conscious to yourself of being Proud, and Selfish, and Hypocritical, you do not well to call yourself the least of Saints, whilst you make us believe that you are no Saint at all.  
As for the lives of those men, 
The contrary lives of Antipuritanes▪ Psa●. 15.4.  whom I am for, they are such as are for God, and for his persecuted spouse, for the keeping of Promises and Oaths, although it be (outwardly) to their hurt; they are such; whose great learning is far inferior to their lives; such whose enemies are not able to defame them without calumny; 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 actions which is ungracious. In a word, they are such, who rather choose to suffer affliction with the people of God, 
Heb. 11.25.  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, wherein 'tis a duty to plead their right.  
You say, that Fitz Simmons a petulant jesuite, divideth us English Protestant's into Formalists and Puritans, and inveigheth against the Puritans as their greatest enemies. You were sorry that mine did use so much of his language, and that the jesuite and his formalists should accord about so ●ad a work▪ Sect. 23.]  

The Accuser's concurrence with the jesuite.  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 jesuite doth call the men of my way by the name of Formalists, in which calumniating language you do fully close with him. If I must be blamed for using one word, which is also used by a jesuite, much more must you, Sir, who accord with a jesuite 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 Puritan is to the Presbyterians? nay do not you use it as a word of obloquy? then mark the sum 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, Cassandrian Papists, or what he pleases. But Master Pierce must not dare to say there is any such thing, or name, as Puritan in the World. It were better his right hand were used as Cranmers, (Sect. 24.) It were better he were in the state of David before Nathan came to him, (Sect. 20.) What a privilege is this, that you must have the enclosing of contumelious language unto yourself? If mine were such, you are not fit to be my Reprover, but I have showed you that mine was none.  
Sect. 5. Be it so, 
Fitz Simmons his Artifice discovered, and the Puritans serviceableness to the Papists.  that Fitz Simmons did rail against Puritans as his greatest enemies, (though you cite no page where that is visible) what do you mean to prove by it? that the Puritans 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 jesuite, especially if he holds their prodigious Doctrine of Probability. The jesuists use to say that, which is most for their turn; and 'tis for cunning men's interest to rail at them most, that do them most service: which the Puritans certainly 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 kill 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, Levellers, Independents, and 
* For this last you cite the News book.  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 Articles of the Church of England, (of which you have Franciscus de San●tâ Clarâ for an Example) nay to whisper among the people, that his Grace of Canterbury was a Papist; nay farther to offer him a Cardinal's Hat, or any thing else in the World, to make it believed that the Prelatists were Popishly affected; that as such they might be hated, and so destroyed. Consider how you have helped them in this design, and then I shall hope you will do so no more. Consider also the insufficiency of your arguing, and abstain from such arguing for time to come. Yourself (at one time or other) have inveighed against all, and yet you would be thought to be hardly an enemy unto any. The jansenians and the jesuites do inveigh against each other, as much as may be, yet both against Protestants, for both are Papists. Salma●us inveighed against our English Presbyterians, as the worst creatures to be imagined, and yet himself was no Papist, or Episcopal Divine, but a more peaceable Presbyterian than those against who● he had whet his pen. You might have saved me the labour of this whole Section, had you considered what I said on the like occasion in page 98. Chapt. 3. of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
You say, I was to blame that I would not give you my description of a Puritan, that you might know my meaning; & that a Puritan is not the same thing to one man as to another: whereupon you reckon up your several notions of a Pu●itane, §. 23.  

King James his description of a Puritan.  Sect. 6. As you do not cite any page wherein I used the word Puritan, so I suppose if you had done it, you could not have spoken what now you speak: for I cannot remember that I ever used that word, when I did not abundantly 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 appears by my writings, that I have meant by Puritans; what was meant by King james, with whom you confess that a Puritan was a turbulent seditious Separatist, or Nonconformist. But you might have confessed much more, had you been pleased, for he 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  called them the unruly, and fanatic spirits among the Ministry, as bad as Highland or Border Thiefs for Ingratitude, Lies, and vile Perjuries. When you say he meant not all Presbyterians, you do infer, he meant some, and more than some I never meant; n●y, I often professed I meant not all. But which, and how many Presbyterians were understood by King james, you may collect by two Books already printed, my Divine Purity 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, it's no great matter,) and so King james 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 spoke 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 Puritan was a zealous Protestant, etc. Sect. 23.]  
Sect. 7. If that doth signify a firm, 
W●at Puritan signifies with the Papists.  or a constant Protestant, who building upon rational and truly Catholic grounds, is not only no Papist, but never can be; then the notion of Puritan 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; than it belongs to those men who declaim against Bishops, as Antichristian; and against a public Form of Prayer, as a stump of Dagon. And so the soberest of the Papists do call them Puritans who are enemies to Protestants as well as Papists. You know who they are that are thus entitled to the word: and for those of King james, I have accounted to you already.  
You say, With some Protestants, a Puritan is one of the old Catharists, that thinks a man may be perfect without sin in this life, as Grotius and the Papists do, etc. Sect. 23.]  
Sect. 8. But could you not tell us what Protestant hath used the word as you say? 
A mistake of the old Catharists, who yet were Puritans before the wo●d was fitted to the thing▪  or could you not tell in what writings 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 ever blessed Virgin, that she was free from all sin in this present wo●ld; but she was a woman, and therefore cannot be the man you are pleased to speak of. Nay are you sure the old Catharists did ever teach any such thing? I doubt you are not. Bishop Andrews called the Catharists, Puritans, inferring the Puritans to be a new sort of Catharists; but fo● quite other reasons than you here fancy, as I shall show you▪ at large in my following Sections. The Scripture notion of the word [Perfect] you must acknowledge 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.  

Grotius groundlessly calumniated afresh.  Your bidding me take heed least by vindicating Grotius I make folks believe I am a Puritan myself, (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 Puritan 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 appeared 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 
* Self Revenge●, ch. 1. p. 35, 36, 37.  spoken for Castellio, to that I refer for you, and Grotius.  
You say, with the old Episcopal party, a Puritan was a Nonconformist, Sect. 23.]  

What the Puritans were with the old Episcopal party.  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 Puritan? If you consider the ill things which Nonconformist doth import, (a schismatic, 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 endeavoured to speak in their favour, or excuse) that Puritans were 
† This is confessed by Master Hickman, p. 40.  disquieters of the Church, about their conceived Discipline. 
* p. 99  Master Fuller, to the word Discipline, doth add Church-Government, from which the Puritans dissented in former time. And he saith, in probability the word imported Non-conformists. To the other two words you now add Doctrine; 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 Government, and Doctrine too? Our Learned and Reverend Doctor Sanderson you do professedly 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 advantage. First see him 
* P●●face to the fourth Edit. of of his first Sermons, Sect. XXIII.  citing the old Prelatists concerning Puritans, and then together with their judgements, compare his own. [The Reverend Archbishop Whitgift, and the learned Hooker, men of great judgement, and famous in their times, 
The judgement of Archbishop Whitgift and judicious  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, 
Hooker concerning Purit●ns.  and other Advocates for the Disciplinarian Interest in those days, seemed to take great offence, etc. but without reason saith Doctor Sanderson: 
† Doctor Sanderson's judgement of the sam●.  for those Godly men, (meaning Hooker and the Archbishop,) were neither so unadvised, nor so uncharitable, as to become Judges of other men's thoughts or intentions, beyond what their actions spoke them; they only considered as prudent men, that Anabaptism had its rise from the same Principles the Puritans hold, and its growth from the same courses they took; together with the natural tendency of those Principles and Practices thitherward. And that it was no vain fear, the unhappy event h●th proved, and justified them, since what they feared is come to pass, 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 styled Puritans, and Disciplinarians by these unquestionable men. And I wish you would read (once at least every week) that most excellent Preface of Doctor Sanderson: 
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.  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 Puritans; 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 showing how your party have been the great promoters of the Roman interest among us, and that by many more ways than one. You will find him confuting your Book of Concord. p. 46. showing how you and your brethren have hardened the Papists, 
Sect. XVIII.  and betrayed the Protestant cause. Nay how Libertinism itself hath over spread the whole face of the land, by the means of fiery turbulent Presbyterians. 
Sect. XX.  You will find him discovering that dangerous point, wherein the very mystery of Puritanism 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, 
Sect XXIII.  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 only property wherein the Factions do all agree. 
Ibid.  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 than either our Papists or our Sectaries, (and perhaps go masking in all their vizors) since the pretended Reformation you so much talk of. 
Sect. XXIV.  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 because you may object that Doctor Sanderson is one of the ne● Episcopal Divines, or say of him (as you did of Grotius) th●● he is an exasperated man, (as having been cast out of hi● own by the barbarous violence of your Reformers) I will ad● some judgements, to which you cannot have such exceptions  
Sect. 10. Bishop Andrews (of blessed memory) hath described a branch of the old Cathari or Puritans, 
Bishop Andrews his judgement of Puritans, in his Sermon of worshipping imaginations, p. 29. A.D. 1592. published by supreme Authority.  who call themselves Apostolici, for an extraordinary desire (above other men) to have discipline, and all things to the exact pattern of the Apostles days. He citeth Epiphanius for the Catharists (Haeres● 6●.) so that it seems he thought Puritans a sort of Heretics revived. He calls it fitly Cacoz●lia, an apish imitation, to retain all in use th●n, seeing divers things even then were only temporary. He also shows 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. 
* Ib. p. 30.  He discovers their Hypocrisy and Superstition (so unfit are the Puritans to accuse others of it) with another riot and licentious liberty, which (he saith) is a great deal worse than the former. In a word, he doth conclude them to be partly Idols, and partly Idolaters; 
† See from p 32▪ to the end.  for besides their vain imaginations touching the Apostles fellowship, (Lay-Elders and the rest of the Presbyterian inventions) to which (he saith) a great number of the deceived people bow down and worship, (p. 34.) and besides their babbling 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 than either Papists or the Heathens do, p. 37.) He concludes of all their tricks together, which he condemned 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 Apostles1 Doctrine,2 Government,3 Sacraments,4 Prayers.] In divers others of hi● Sermons he sets them out in their proper colours. 
* See his second Sermon of sending the Holy Ghost, p. 610.  As mistaking their humours, and misterming them the spirit; calling that the spirit of zeal, wh●ch is indeed a hot humour, only 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 GODLY BRETHREN I wish (saith He) it were not needful to make this Observation. But you shall easily know it for an Humour. Non continetur termino suo; it's own limits will not hold it. They are ever mending Churches, States, Superiors, mending all save themselves; alieno, non suo, is the note to distinguish an humour by— 
(b) Ezek. 13.13.  Many follow their own ghost, in stead of th● Holy Ghost. For even that ghost taketh upon it to inspire. And 
(c) Mat. 16.2.  flesh and blood (we know) have their revelations.— Having set up and shrined the worldly spirit in their hearts) up sh●ll all the golden Calves to uphold the present estate; down shall Christ, ne veniant Romani, that the Romans come not and carry us all away.— 
† See his ninth Sermon of the same, p. 694.  Again he calls them the Automata, the Spectra, the Puppets of Religion, Hypocrites. Wi●h some spring within, the eyes are made to roll, and their lips to wag, and their breast to give a sob; all is but Hero's Pneumatica, 
2 Pet. 3.5.  a vizor, not a very face; an outward show 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 breasts the sanctuary? That (in effect) say with the old Donatists, Quod volumus sanctum est, that they will have holy and nothing else? Men causelessly puffed up with their fleshly mind? 
Col. 2.18. — 
* ib. p. 696.  It is an old worn error of the Donatists, and but new dressed over by some fanatical spirits in our days, 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 possession 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 calls, Fond ignorant men. Again 
* See his tenth Serm▪ on the s●me, p 703.  Not only mission, but submission is a sign of one truly called to this business. But— of all propositions, they endure not supper; 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 endure no supper, none above them.]  
You see how Puritans were described by that so eminently judicious and godly Prelate, who long before his preferments, had been 
† See a brief view of the Church of England, as it stood in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James, p. 143.  earnestly dealt with by a great person (being his Patron) to hold up a side which was even then falling, and to maintain certain state points of Puritanism; but he had too much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as my Author alludes unto his name) to be either scared 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 seeing he would be no Friar Pinkie, (to be taught in a Closet what he should say at Saint Paul's) dismissed him then with some disdain; but after did the more reverence his integrity, and became no hinderer to his ensuing greatness.  
Sect. 11. Now since the Author of this Relation was Sir john Harrington of Kelston, 
Sir John Harrington's judgement of Puritans. Ibid. p. 7.8.  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 Puritans who then disquieted the Church. When the Puritans (saith he) whom some defined to be Protestants scared 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 show at least, unto the purity, but indeed unto the poverty of the Primitive Church. 
Ib. p. 150.  That is to say, they were sacrilegious. For speaking after of the same men, This (saith he) was the true Theoric and Practic 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 live openly, 
The judgement of Q. Eliz. and her Privy Counsel, and of Archb. Bancroft p. 12.13. and Archbishop Whitgift ib. p. 7.8.  by such leases as would yield good fines to the Procurers.  
He infers the judgement of Queen Elizabeth and her Council, in that he saith the learned Bancroft obtained the favour of Queen and State, for his endeavours to suppress those fantastical Novellers. And 'tis known that his reward was the Archbishopric 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 Archbishopric (was first rewarded with the Bishopric▪ of Worcester. 
Of Iudge ●opham.  Nay, Judge Popham, who was unwilling to have them called Puritans, 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 Puritans, 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.  

Ib. p. 118.119.  I will not give you my whole account of that Author, but only in brief put you in mind how the Puritans in Cambridge had courted Dr. johnstill to abet that party; and how they reviled him in their pulpits, because he would not join with them, (yet he was after made Bishop of Bath and Wells.) How every one made reckoning that the Manor-house and Park of Banwel should be made the reward of some Courtier, which suspicion was increased in that Sir Thomas Henage was said to have an oar in the matter, being an old Courtier, and a zealous Puritan, whose conscience, if it were such in the Clergy, as it was found in the Duchy, might well have digested a better booty. 
* Ib. 135. in Doctor Herbert Westphaling Bishop of Hereford.  How Queen Elizabeth at Oxford had schooled Dr. Reynolds for his preciseness; willing him to follow her laws, and not to go before them. But it seems he had forgot it when he went last to Hampton Court; so as there he received a better schooling.  

The Lord Keeper Pu●kering's judgement of Puritans by the direction of Q. Elizabeth, delivered in the House of Lords, in Parliament assembled.  Sect. 12. Very remarkable are the words of the Lord Keeper Puckering, touching the parity of the danger to Church and State which the Puritans and the jesuites had brought on both. Remarkable, I say, as having been uttered in Parliament, by the special command of Queen Elizabeth. And here the fit 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 Majesty to take heed, that no ear be given, nor time afforded to the wearisome solicitations of those, that commonly be called Puritans, wherewithal the late Parliaments have been exceedingly importuned: which sort of men, whilst in the giddiness of their spirits they labour and strive to advance 
† Mark who th●y were that were the● called Puritans.  a new eldership. They do nothing else but disturb the good repose of the Church, and the Commonwealth; which is as well grounded for the body of Religion itself, 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 
* Mark who they were that were so esteemed.  godly men; neither answered, nor answerable by any of these new-fangled Refiners. And as the present Case standeth, it may be doubted, whether they, or the jesuites, do offer more danger or be more speedily to be repressed. For albeit the jesuites do empoison the hearts of her Majesty's 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 only 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 Majesty's safety in her own kingdom. In all which things, (however in many other points they pretend to be at war with the Popish jesuites, yet) by the separation of themselves from the unity of their fellow-subjects, and by abusing the sacred authority and Majesty of their Prince, they do both join and concur with the jesuites in opening the door, and preparing the way to the Spanish Invasion that is threatened against the Realm. And thus having according to the weakness of my best understanding) delivered her Majesty's most Royal pleasure, and 
* Mark what was wisdom in Q. Elizabeth's days.  wise direction, I rest here, with most humble suit for her Majesty's gracious pardon in supply of my defects, and recommend you to the Author of all good counsel.]  
Here you see the Presbyterians were then the Puritans, 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.  

The judgement of D●. R. Clerk, one of the Translators of the Bible, concerning the then-Puritanes, in his second visitat. Serm. on Zech. 11.17. Vae Pastori Idolo, p. 251.  Sect. 13. In the time of Doctor Richard Clerk, (not a Courtier, nor an Arminian,) to whom with Doctor Saravia the translation of the Bible was committed, as far as from the Pentateuch to the Paralipomena, you may see what judgement was made of Puritans by several passages 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 unlettered and unsufficient Priests, either Idols, or Idols fellows. 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 fiery indeed, but not cloven; that is, zealous, but not learned; preach against learning, pull down the Prelacy, to rear up a Presbytery; Bray-forth intemperate censures against the lawful ceremonies of the Church, as being superstitious, the dregs and relics of Popery; kneeling at the Sacrament, the repetition of certain prayers in our Liturgy, the singing of Service, the sound of the Organ in Collegiate Churches, the square Cap and Surplice, the painted windows, marrying with the Ring, and christening with the Cross, and such like: In some of which, were our Prelates as courageous, as our Puritans ●re presumptuous, they would be either enforced to order, or turned out of Orders.] You see the opinion of that both learned and pious man; who tells us who were the Puritans, and what they were; and that the Prelates were never too cruel to them, unless it were in being too kind. Observe what he saith in another Sermon.  
Our factious Pharisees join with the Herodians, 
In his 1. Visit. Serm. on Num. 16.3. p. 242.243.  and that against Christ. judas-like they betray him into the hands of sinners. The pragmatical Presbyterian, preacheth 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 zeal to eat up God's house: cry with Zeba and Zalmunna, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession. 'Twas once Simeon and Levi brethren in evil. 'Tis now Reuben and Levi; Levi must be one.— Our ●orah's and Dathan's have not risen yet. Not come forth in public. 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 Corners. Their Classes, Synods, Conferences, have been at least in Moses his moderate term, gatherings together. Their Petitions, Supplications, Admonitions, Demonstrations, what were they but gatherings together? Works but of some one head haply, but of many hands. Their very motions are commotions, penned by some one, maintained by multitudes. 
Ib. p. 245. — Some of the Titles which they envy the Bishops, they can be content to assume unto themselves. Right Reverend Fathers; yea Cartwright most 
* This the Title of an Archbishop.  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, 
An account of Puritans from the Examen Historicum.  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 Divinity. 
* p. 91 92. etc. W●ckliff's new Gospel.  He will show 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 contain the lineaments of the Puritane-platform. He will show you where you may read 
† p. ●06.  that the Dominicans, with a Puritan, can pass for Orthodox in judgement. 
* p. 109.  And they who approve of good works, for Prelatically affected. 
(a) p. 128.129.  There you may see a Den of Schismatics Canonised and Sainted by a Time-serving Historian; whilst Things prescribed by God's Church are Toys and Trinkets. 
(b) p. 130.  You may read of a Puritan's immortal malice, pursuing the Protestant's Champion into his Bed of Rest, as if the jesuites had hired him to kill their enemy when he was dead. 
(c) ●. 156.157. Their helping on the Popish Interest.  You may see a Puritan defending those scurrilous Libels which job Throgmorton, Penry, Fenner, and the rest of the Puritan Rabble, (it is the Authors own word) did publish in ●rint against the Bishops, having first exclaimed against the Que●n and h●r Council, (for being Protestants in their wits, that is, as they phrased it) for opposing the Gospel. Such service for the Papists was then done by the Puritans, whose Libels were cited and applauded 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) p. 256.  The libellous Pamphlets of Martin-Mar Prelate (th●t early Puritan in Queen Elizabeth's days) were urged by the Papists as Authentic Witnesses, and sufficient Evidences fo● the disgrace and condemnation of the Protestant-Church. So true was that which I showed you f●om the Lord Keeper Puckering, that the Puritans do join and concur with the jesuites.  

Th●ir rebellious Principles.  What 
(e) p. 138 139. ●●3.  Principles of Rebellion were scattered abroad among th● people by the Puritan leaders in several Countrey●, ●uch as Wickliff, Clessel●us, Knox, and Winram, that excellent Examen will quickly tell you. 
p. 178.179.  And what Heathenish Notes the Genevians put u●on ●he B●ble. 
(g) p. 151.  How Felton a zealous Puritan committed his murder upon th● Duke. How Covetousness and Nonconformity were so married together, that 'twas not ea●e to divorce them. 
(h) p. 153.  How an Act of Parliament w●s made against Puritans, 23 Eliz. c. 3. 
(i) p. 156.  And a High-Commission enforced to curb them. 
(k) p. 158.  How mock-ordinations were made at Antwerp, by a mongrel sort of Presbyterians, consisting of two blue Aprons to each Cruel Nightcap. In a word, it will tell you their sabbatizing, their downfall, their essays to rise, their disappointments, their new attempts by the way of Lecturing, (in which the jesuites went before them,) their pride without parallel, their malice without measure, and th●ir acts of injustice without remorse.  
Sect. 15. That irresistible Champion of the Protestant Church against her Adversaries of Rome, 
Bishop Montague ' s judgement of Puritans.  (I mean) the learned Bishop Montague, who was employed by King james to write the Annals of the Church Catholic, and (all along as he went) to reform Baronius on the one side, as the Magdeburgenses on the other, do●h often justify and distinguish the Church of England, no less from the Puritan, then Popish party. He calls them in one place, 
* Religiosi nebulones nostrates Deum & Ecclesiam emulgentes, aiunt, Deum cul●u merè spirituali 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Montac. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ad An. Chr. 2. See his Appello Caesarem, ●art. 2. c. 1. p. 11●. 111▪ 112.  the sacrilegious hypocrites of our Country, who rob God and the Church, under colour of spirituality; saying that God is well pleased with no other worship then what is spiritual. In another place he speaks of them as our Saviour spoke of the Pharisees, Ecclesia Anglicana recte, quicquid vacillent Puritani, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He had long before noted, [That many were arrant Puritans in heart, who for preferment did conform, holding with the Hare, and running with the Hound. And that many once Puritans, turned often Papists. Fleeting being commonly from one extreme to another. Men of moving, violent, quicksilver, gunpowder spirits, can never rely upon middling courses, but dum furor in cursu est, run on headlong into Extremes. And so I may avow I will not be a Papist in haste, because I never was a Puritan in earnest or in jest; having found it true in my small Observation, that our Revolters unto Popery, were Puritans avowed or addicted first. 
Ib. p. 113. ]— A little after, he calls the jesuites, the Puritane-Papists; and for the Protestant-Puritanes he doth not reckon them as Members of the Church of England, but only [an overweening-faction, which was wont to be shrouded 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 accordingly charge 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 Theatre, under the name and disguise of the Puritane-party, that so they might help the real Puritans to bring our Protestant Church into disgrace and misery.  
Sect. 16. To this I will add some words of Grotius, because he was so great an honour to the true Protestant Religion, 
Grotius his judgement concerning Puritans. Serenissimi, & si per Puritanos licea●, Potentissimi Regis Britanniarum beneficio, etc. Discuss. Riu. Apol. p. 57  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 Puritans will suffer him, the most potent King of England.] words most worthy your consideration, as having 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 Puritan (although sometimes 
* Rex Iacobus se Puritanis semper exosum fuifse dicit, non alio Nomine quàm quod Rex effe●. Ibid. pag. 92.  he names it too.) but he gives us so often a just account of their Ten●ts, which have commonly broken forth into Blood and Rapine, that I need not stay longer upon his exact judgement.  

Mr. Thorndike 's judgement of Puritans. In his Epilogue to the Trag. of the Church of England, Con●lus. p. 405. Ib. p. 423.  I will conclude my whole Catalogue with what I lately met with in my perusal of Master Thorndike. [It is evident (saith he) that Preachers and People are overspread with a damnable Heresy of Antinomians and Enthusiasts, formerly when Puritans were not divided from the Church of England, called Etonists, and Grindeltons', according to several Countries, etc.— well had it been had that most pious and necessary desire to restore public 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 amiss, in that order which the Church of England establisheth, 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 probably return to the Church of England, by being convinced that you have left her. If you will read but some part, you will find him showing what I shall now but say from him: 
Id. lib. 1. p. 77.  viz. ¹ That the Scotish Presbyterians have done like them, who oblige subjects to depose their Sovereign, if the Pope excommunicate them; making both subjects and Sovereigns the Pope's vassals; 
Ib. p. 78. Conclus. p. 4●4▪  them to rule, and those to obey, at his discretion who can excommunicate them. ² That it is Puritanism, or Popery for subjects to fight against their Sovereign; yea a Branch of Puritanism, which came from Popery. ³ That there is one Principle of some Puritans, from whence the true conclusion being drawn maketh mere Popery of the whole duty of a Christian. And that the Church of Rome holdeth no error in the Faith, any thing near so pernicious. What he saith of Presbyteries, as to the sacrilege 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, etc.  
Sir, You have now the conclusion of the whole matter, as far as concerns the whole importance of those two words Nonconformity, and Puritanism. And that however you were pleased to make a difference betwixt the old and new Episcopal Divines, yet in their judgement of Puritans, there's none at all; 
Bishop Hall 's judgement of Puritans in his Latin exhortation to the Synod at Dort, on Eccles. 7.16.  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 Puritans you may judge by his Exhortation in the Synod of Dort. For as in the days of Queen Elizabeth (and thence downwards) they were wont to compare the Puritans to the Papists, so did that 
* Vide Acta Synodi Dordrectanae, p. 57 Sess. 16.  excellent Prelate compare the Papists to the Puritans: and that for no reason more than their pretending to be p●rer than others are, or then indeed they are themselves. And this doth lead me to that which follows. For  
You say, Among the vulgar, a Puritan (all over England 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, etc. that would not swear, or would reprove a swearer, or a drunkard, or a profaner of holy things, etc. Sect. 23.]  

King James distinguished the Knave's Puritan, from the Puritan- Knave.  Sect. 17. If any man living did ever call such men as these Puritans, (as you do nakedly affirm, but do not prove) he must answer to God, for his having done so like a Puritan himself. It being as unjust to call such Puritans, 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. james) between the Knave's Puritan, 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 Puritans. Must not one have his right name, because another hath a wrong? Let every man have his own, though some have that which is another's. For my use of the word Puritan, I am encompassed about with a cloud of witnesses, that I have used it as I ought. And my witnesses are such, as for greatness, wisdom, piety, learning, or whatever else is most lovely, I suppose you will grant beyond exception.  
You say, my party gave the Puritans a new name, and the Puritan was called a Round-head, (a learned invention, intimating that the Puritans do speak, and not as Long-heads, bark, or grunt,) and when the ●arrs had given liberty to the rage of such as hated Puritans, then ordinarily he was a Puritan, 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, 
Of the word Roundhead, and praying aloud in private. Petrus Crinitus de b●llo Rusticano.  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 imagine. For Petrus Crinitus could have told you of some soldiers in Germany, above a hundred years ago, Qui Agmen Tonsile, à rotundè detonsis Capitibus, dicebantur. And 'tis better to have the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Hom.  long-head of Thersites, than the long-ears of such an Issachar as Midas was. As it is very much better to bark in 
† Is●. 56.10.  one sense, then to bray in another▪ which things concern not yourself, 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 merely for praying in his house: which I suppose is done even by men of all parties, excepting them who are transported above all ordinances, 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 LOUD, and so near the street, that passengers could not choose but hear him, it was not his praying, but his hypocrisy, which was likely to be reviled. A great deal of naughtiness may be committed, 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, 
Math. 23.33.  (notwithstanding they were esteemed the godly party) it was not merely because they prayed, nor only because their Prayers were long, but because they made their long prayers for a pretence; 
vers. 14.  that so the Orphans and Widows houses might be swallowed down the more glibly. When thou prayest (saith our Saviour) thou shalt not be as the Hypocrites are; 
Mat. 6.5.  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 prays in his house to be heard of men, is near 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 seethe in secret shall reward thee openly. 
vers. 6.   
You say, Sometimes the sign of purgation, by which men must prove themselves no Puritans, was, if they could swear nine Oaths in a breathe. Sect. 23.]  

How the Puritans are the worst kind of swearers.  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 paradigmatized in the Bishop's Courts. Nor could any thing less than extirpation of Episcopacy, have gained an impunity for such a crime. And now to tell you the very truth, if I may judge of Antipuritanes, by those whom I am acquainted with, they are as free from this vice, as most of the Puritans are guilty of it. I speak not of swearing nine Oaths in one breath, but of swearing and forswearing, as many times in two breaths (whereof the one is hot, and the other cold) as they conceive to be for their carnal interest. Are there not Puritans who have sworn, first an Oath of Allegiance, 2. An Oath of Supremacy, 3. An Oath of Canonical obedience, 4. An Oath entitled 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 Sacrament 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 King's soldiers 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 Devil 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 myself. I having spoken of Puritans in the words of King james, 
The Tale of drinking a bloody health to the Devil no less impertinent than uncharitable.  not in words of my framing; and as I found them in an Historian of unquestionable prudence and moderation. Again, I spoke ex professo of Presbyterians, and of Puritans only by accident. Nor did I speak of them otherwise, than Queen Elizabeth, King james, Archbishop Bancroft, Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop Andrews, Bishop Hall, Doctor Sanderson and others had afforded me a warrant from all their styles. Yet see with what Stories you entertain 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 Majesty's soldiers 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 Puritans, that nothing less than their own blood, and a Health to the Devil, could satisfy the suspecters, and gain their freedom from such suspicion? when the Tale in itself is so incredible, what professor of Christianity would not suspect the very ●i●n●sses, (however professing to be no less than eye-witnesses) who should suggest so strange and so incredible a thing? or who would cite such testimonies in materiâ tamgravi, 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 Devil, or to gratify the Devil by falsely affirming that some have done it to free themselves from being Puritans, I leave it to be judged by the indifferent Reader.  
But now●suppose it to be true, 
A gross and dangerous falsification in the management of the Tale.  that some did swear nine Oaths in a breath, and others drink their own blood at a health to the Devil, must you infer that they did it as a sign of purgation, (as you word it in your first story) or to testify their freedom from the crime of Puritanism, (as you express it in your second?) it were very easy to pay you home in your own coin, and to load you with more of it than you are able to bear. But I will only speak of some notorious matters of Fact, to let you see the advantage you now afford me. There was an eminent 
* Mr. Barker of Pitchley.  Presbyterian in this County of Northampton, an able Preacher by rep●te, and a godly man, who for Incest and Murder was hanged in the ●ight of divers thousands, there are thousands now living, who saw it done; his trial and execution were so public, that I need not tell you from whom I heard it. But how would you take it if I should say that such a Puritan did purposely defile his Niece, and consent to the murder of the child he had by her, and end his days upon the Gallows to prove himself free from the Prelatical party? if you find in yourself, 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 reverend man of the Presbytery, (of whom it will hardly be believed) that taking upon him to be a Fighter, as well as a Preacher in the Army, he killed a soldier of his own Company in the Town of Warwick.  

Men should be taught by the●r suffering, not to do wrong.  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. 
* Disp. 5. of Sacram. p. 489.  Mr. Robertson (you say) did talk confidently of his discourses with Mr. Hotchkiss, though Mr. Hotchkiss professed he never saw him. And so you say that Mr. Blake hath printed things of yourself, 
Ibid. p. 500  so false and groundless, that he might as well have said, you take yourself to be King of Spain. Of Mr. Tombs his Aspersions, you very frequently complain. And you know by whom you have been accused as a Papist, and a Socinian. In all which I am obliged to take part with you by my resentment, and to profess my disbelief of many things I hear of you; I having suffered myself, in the very same measure that you have done. I will not mention men's names in a more public manner than they do mine; because I am tenderer of them, than 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 unworthily whispered from one enemy to another, though most evident Contradictions to the plainest matters of Fact. The Tempter many times betrays his Instruments, whilst he Employs them. As if in very good earnest he had owed them a spite, as we use to say by a kind of Proverb. He puts them upon speaking such ill-made stories, as are not only 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 squared the Circle. Indeed I have read of Apollonius Tyanaeus, that he could tell at Ephesus, what in that very hour was done at Rome; the Devil was such a Familiar to him. But that I should speak a thing in England, whilst my Body and my Soul were both in France, is the wildest Invention I ever heard of. It is my comfort that I suffer the most Incredible of Slanders, which are as Innocent in one sense, as they are criminal 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 Actions of my whole Life, would seem as wonderful 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 prayed down from Heaven. Besides, I know it is part of the Christians Lot, which I take in good part, and do thank God for it.  
But it were well if most men would make a Covenant with their Ears, 
A Caveat. against Raiser's of false Reports.  not to listen to mere Rumours which do not bring their warrant with them. And another Covenant with their Lips, not to utter such Rumours without 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 particulars, which are many ways pertinent to my present Enterprise. It was dogmatically affirmed by the whole Assembly of Divines, in a Letter which they sent to all the Protestant Churches beyond the Seas, That the King and his party had an intent to set up Popery, and even to extirpate the true Reformed Religion. 
See Biblioth. R●gia part. 1. Sect. ● p. 58.59. to p. 65.  And that they had not only attempted, but in great measure prevailed for the putting 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 Sacrament upon it, solemnly wishing that that Sacrament might be his damnation, if his heart did not join 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 publicly 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 Marquis of Worcester may satisfy men for that. p. 106. By the same excess of injustice, Archbishop Bancroft, Archbishop Laud, Archbishop Usher, Bishop Bramhal, and Doctor Cousins have been exhibited to the people as downright Papists, though as great adversaries to Rome, as Rome hath had since the Reformation. 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 only the saying of Doctor Bernard, 
Of the judgm. of the late Archbishop of Arm. p. ●61.  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 complaint of the Primate himself, that exceptions were taken against his Letter, 
Ibid. p. 19  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; 
Bolsec. in vitâ Calvini. Pref. to Disp. against Master Tombs. Exam Hist. p. 204.  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 Manichaean; or by the Puritans 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 Resurrection, and blasphemed Christ's miracles, as d●ne by Magic; or by Bellarmine of the same, that he was a friend to Arianism; or by Mr. Hickman of my●self, that the printed Doctrines of Zuinglius, etc. (who were dead and buried before I was born) were the mere Chimaeras 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 Puritan, a man that feareth God, etc. Sect. 23.]  
Sect. 21. I more admire at this speech, 
A confident corrupting of plain words.  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 notion of a Puritan hath been ever agreeable with those which I have lately set before you from Bishop Andrews, and Bishop Hall, Doctor Clerk, 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 Devil, when you can wilfully 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 Puritans 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 carnal ends.  
You say, I deviate lamentably from Catholicism, in my uncharitable censures of the Puritans and Presbyterians. That it's no Catholic Church which cannot hold such men as these, ●or a Catholic Disposition, that cannot embrace them with that unfeigned special love that's due to Christians, Sect. 24.]  
Sect. 22. Still you lamentably beat upon the very same hoof, 
How some Puritans have excommunicated themselves.  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 another Section concerning Puritans 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 than your foul dealing had been too vi●●ble to the Reader. Nay then you must have written another 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 do 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 Puritans, than I cite them saying of themselves. And are you angry with me, for believing the men upon their words? Or are you so kind to their Rebellions, their Sacrileges, 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 censured? I know not how you will give me a more colourable account, unless you confess 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 Puritans, as were so rigidly either Scotish, or Scotized Presbyterians? Or how can the Catholic Church hold, what will not endure to be held? The Church of God is like a Net, in which are fish of all sorts, excepting the violent and the slippery, which break out into the Ocean. They who cast out their Bishops, and 
* Judas 19  separate themselves from the Regular way of God's worship, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Paul's own notion; And 
† T●t. 3.10.  Rejected by others, for being 
* Ver. 11.  condemned of themselves.  

The Monopoliser of censoriousness no good Projecter.  Again I may ask you, why I may not be Catholic, and censure Pu●itanes, as well as you may censure Prelatists, and yet be Catholic: Must none be censorious, except yourself? Or is it lawful for Mr. Baxter, to revile his Fathers and Brethren for being constant in their obedience to the most persecuted Precepts of Jesus Christ? And is it not lawful for Mr. Pierce, to convince the sons of Disobed●enc● of their impieties, when he doth it by no less than their own Hand-writings? you Sir (sooner or later) have passed 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 yourself with you● self, and turn 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 Puritans, I wish your love to the Prelatists were no whi● less●. Did I not love their Souls, whose Hypocritical Sanctity I ought to loath, I would not pray (as I do) for their Conversion; nor would I labour (as I have done) to make them ashamed of their Simulations. Did I not love them in my heart, I would rather suffer their sins upon them, then suffer their hatred by my Reproofs. I will never consent, that men (whose Souls are dearer to me than all the things in this world) shall be carnally secure in a course of sin, upon a dreadful supposition that they are Saints, and cannot possibly fall into God's Displeasure, so fare forth as to incur a real 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, 
Levit. 19▪ 17.  Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, doth also say, Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy brother, and shalt not suffer sin upon him. And yet I know as well who saith, 
Matth. 7.6.  Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine. And therefore if the Puritans shall make me know that they are such (either by barking, or biting, or trampling my Admonitions under their feet) I shall resolve at last, to allow them no more of my Correption; Resting satisfied in this, 
Ezek. 33 9  that I have freed mine own soul.  
Sect. 23. Having eased yourself a little of your reproaches against me, you immediately proceed to commend yourself. 
A strange kind of Catholic, who is against the whole Church; y●t partially cleaves to a Sect, though he condemns it.  For you say [You can say, and that with boldness, 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,— loves 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 Christendom you either do, or can cleave; unless by your cleaving you mean your being partial, which is a flat contradiction to your pretended impartiality. A Presbyterian properly you cannot be, though by an usual Catachresis I do afford you that name, for your being so very 
* Look back on ch. 4. Sect. 4.  partial to that sort of men. How you declare against their Discipline, 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 Dispute and Apologies, and other writings do evince. What Christians in the World do you not justify or condemn, as present interest or passion do chance to sway? that out of many sorts of Christians you would feign have one of your picking, is very evident. But if I am asked what side you are wholly for, I must profess to believe you are of none. And I can give such reasons, 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 Bias, to those Abettors, who (you confess) have taken the wrong way. Or if this were otherwise, 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 professeth to join with none. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 1058. which compare with a Sheet for the Ministry, p. 11.  Which things being considered, 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 lose, (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 
* Look b●ck on ch 4. sect 5.  cannot deserve such commendations? How unfit was the same mouth to s●eak so bitterly of Gro●ius, as I have 
† Look back on ch. 1. sect. 13.  showed you have done in another place? By your dealing 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 Grotius, nor the Episcopal Divines, the reason is, they are no true Christians.  
Sect. 24. You say, 
A wilful Imposture, or else a Patronage of Impiety.  You had rather your right hand were used as Cranmer 's, than you should have written against Puritans 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 Puritans, of whom I spoke; or if you do, you are a Patron of impiety. If you would not have written as I have done, against Puritans; 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 Christians in deed, whose works I showed 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 yourself, if you have written against Puritans, at least as sharply as I have done? I know you have not given them that very name, but you have lashed them shrewdly to whom the word Puritan of right belongs; which shows 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 scandalise them, in Scripture phrase, nor in the phrase of any Scholar who knows the English of the word Scandalum. They are rather scandalised who have pillows sowed under their 
* Ezek. 13.18.  Armholes, who are flattered 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 Scri●ture-Dialect. If you make men to ●in by your example, or encourage 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 Adultery, etc.) you are truly said in such case, to offend those little ones in the faith, to scandalise them, to gall them, to make them stumble. See Dr. Hamond hi● learned Treatise concerning Scandal, if you are not too haughty for my Advice.   

CHAP. VI  

Of Episcopal Divines, & the Archb. of C●nt.  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 implicitly 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 called my book by another name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And that the words which you mention, ●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 called my Book A vindication of Mr. B●xter from Mr. Barlee, fo● that was also one part, a● your eyes can witness. 'Tis true I said in that Book, th●t you spoke in general against Episcopal Divines, But I also said in your Vindication, 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 unthankful for my brotherly dealing, I must tell you that my dealing was much more brotherly th●n you 
* Look back on ch. 1. sect. 6. towards the end▪  deserved. For when your words were so general, as to include the Bishops, the King's Chaplains, and o●her Doctors, who stay in England under the name of Episcopal Divi●es to do the Pope the better Service; and when they were also so particular, as to point out for Papists, as firm Protestant's as live, Bishop Wren, Bishop Pierce, etc. I know not how a True Protestant can miss your Censure, if he performs 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 mere 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 Papists.  
You forgot yourself 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 Masterpiece, 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 Enemy to Rome; so far from helping on the Introduction of Popery, that they found it could never be introduced, so long as a Primate of his Wisdom, Vigilance, Zeal to the Protestant Religion, and the Glory of God, was permitted to enjoy both Life and Greatness. You talk of I know not what matters of Fact, which you must specify first, before you prove. And you must do your poor utmost to make some proof, before you can be fit for a Confutation.  
Sect. 2. You begin your next Section, 
Sequestrations misliked by their very Abettors.  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 express with reproach and bitterness my dislike of Ministers living on Sequestrations. And that you perceive I do it without distinction. Sect. 26.] But you produce not one word of reproach or bitterness, nor refer to any page, where your Reader may try before he trusts you. Much less do you show that I express my Dislike without Distinction. To have quoted my words had been just, but not at all for your Interest. For than your Readers would h●ve found, that the 
* See and consider my Self-revenger, Exem. ch. 3. sect. 1. p. 69, 70.  reproachful expressions were but repeated by me from an Eminent man of your own Tribe. Who went away with my Reproof, for having used his own party with so much Rigour. Which yet I have since been sorry for, because he was of my judgement in what he spoke 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 Livelihood, or to seize upon that which is another's, is an unneighbourly, unscholarly, unchristian thing. I am far from favouring any Minister, who is so ignorant, or ungodly, as you express. And I know there is a time when Ministers ought to be suspended ab officio & beneficio. But even then I must say, as Mr. Barlee hath done, I am for justa justè, and Ecclesiastica Ecclesiasticè. It is a very good Rule in the Civil Law, Quae à judice non legitimo, aut non legitimo modo facta sunt, ea praesumptionem habe●t contrase. And such were our late Sequestrations, that although they were made by his beloved long 
* Note, I speak with the vulgar, meaning o●ely the two Houses (as Mr. Hickman calls them p. 45.) or rather the Remnant of the two Houses, of which Judge jenkin's hath well informed us▪  Parliament, 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 proceed you yourself do disown, even in this very Section; Nay towards the end of your Book you profess your detestation of them (p. 111.) And if you may detest what you have got so much by, much more may I who have lost no less. 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 sinful 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 than now I shall, (to give you that information which you particularly desire) were I not told of an able Gentleman, who hath sent a Treatise unto the Press upon this one subject, and addressed it in particular to all your wants.  
Sect. 3. Whereas you say [You are desirous to be better informed in this thing, 
Sufficient Information for such as w●nt and desire it.  to avoid much guilt, which else you may and do incur, 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 Information, I had thought it enough that you knew the tenth Precept, Non Concupisces, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house (much less take it into possession, with all the good land that lies about it) nor any thing that is thy neigebours, (much less All that is thy Neighbour's.) Of the Fundamental Laws 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 jenkin's, whom God preserve from all Evil, and reward at last with a Crown of Righteousness. Read Magna Charta, and the Petition of Right. And compare with both, 
* You may see a Copy of this in Biblioth. Reg. part 1. ●ect. 4. num. 10. p. 324.  The Proclamation against the oppression of the Clergy by the Insurrection of factious and Schismatical persons into their Cures, etc. And compare with all Three The Declaration of the Lord General and his Counsel of Officers, showing the Grounds and Reasons for the Dissolution of the long Parliament, 1653. You will find in the three former [That the Church, amongst others, hath these Privileges; that regularly not Ecclesiastical Possessions can be extended, separated, or sequestered, but by the Ordinary. That Distresses may not be taken of Lands wherewith Churches have been anciently endowed, and that Churches presentative cannot be filled, and the lawful 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) unless by Demise from Them, or such as are appropriate, or made Lay-fee, etc. In the 28 year of King Edward the third it was declared and enacted by Authority of Parliament, (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 imprisoned, nor disherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer by due Process of Law. So by the Statute called [The Great Charter of the Liberties of Engl.] it is declared and enacted, That no Freeman may be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his freehold, or Liberties, or his free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgement of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land, etc. 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) Plain S●r. proof of Infants Ch. mem. p. 123. which compare with 120, 121, 122. & with p. 274. and with your A●en. to Aphor. p. 107.  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 freehold) do now implicitly stand charged with the Sin of Sacrilege, as well by yourself, as by Mr. Vines; as may be seen by his 
(b) Five Disp. of Ch. Gou. & Worsh. p. 350.349.  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, do 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.  

Guilty men must keep their secrets, or not be angry that they are known.  But by the way let me tell you, that you were never in my Thoughts, when I expressed my Dislike of Sequestrations. I never knew you had any, until you told me: Nor had I known it to this hour, had you but kept your own counsel. So little Reason had you to use me with so much Bitterness and Virulence in divers Books. But worse dealing then from yourself (though not in print) I have h●d from a Minister 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 forbear 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 Archer, and vainly concluded that he was aimed at, when (the very truth is) he only 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 man's House, whose Father was hanged.  
Sect. 4. You proceed to tell me, 
A sad plea for Injustice from an opinion that it is good.  You must confess it your opinion that the thing is lawful, 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 prefer it as a work of mercy before much sacrifice. Section 26.] Thus you say what you think (and whether you think as you say, God only knows.) But what Transgressor in the world may not say the same Thing? Will you do that thing upon bare opinion that it is good, when the learnedst part of the Nation profess a Knowledge that it is evil? Let the most learned Dr. Sanderson be heard to speak in this matter, (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 deter you from taking that which is another's, that the lawfulness of it is still in controversy; 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 Sin to deprive a man of his freehold; whereas not to deprive him, can be no Sin at all. And whilst you call it your 
* Formido est de Intrinsecâ ratione Opinionis; quip cui potest subesse dubium.  opinion that you are right, you acknowledge it possible you may be wrong. From whence it also must needs proceed, that you profess to be desirous to ●e better informed. But than you should lay down the stake, until 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 consider how sad an Argument from Opinion to Practise some men have drawn; that whilst your own is no other, you may suspect it. The cursed Jews had an 
† John 16.2.  opinion, that in murdering Christ's Messengers they did God service. Having also an opinion, that they were very bad Ministers. But certainly one Injury is no excuse for another. And since I 
* 2 Cor. 12.14.  seek not yours, but you (which I also do at your Entreaty) be not offended if I put the case home. Can you take it for one of the best works you can do, to despoil a Brother of his lawful possession, and then (over and above) to call him a bad man, thereby to justify, or countenance th● Depraedation? Was Mr. Dance a bad man? 'Tis more than all my inquiries could yet discover. He hath a better Report than you can comfortably believe. And is not his That Benefice you now possess? Or if he is a bad man, Are you better than He, who have confessed your own 
† See your Disp 5. of Sacr. p. 484.  Hypocrisy, as well as Pride, whilst sincerity and meekness 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, than those that are thrust into their Rooms? 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 than 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 therefore in short, If M. Baxter in some respects is a better man than some of his Brethren (who are not fit for any Live, and yet are put into other men's) why not in all things, as well as some? Why is he not better than his Brethren, in abstaining 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 freehold is his? Sir, I wish you so well, that I would have you as 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luke 1.6.  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 channel the most desiderated Blessings of Peace and Union. We who have Live 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. 
Prov. 11.4▪  Riches restored when ill gotten, 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 showing the way unto my Brethren by that Example. Remember what you say of Tithes, when the Quakers accuse you of being covetous; [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 Quakers. And what was done by one Ordinance against the Lands of the Bishops, Deans and Chapters, etc. may as well be done against Tithes by some other Ordinance or Order, the Law of the Land being as valid in one case as in another. If Mr. Dance may have a Trial by the Law of the Land, I know not how you can keep his Living.  

Sequ●strations disowned by their Defender.  Sect. 5. But you proceed to tell me, That for the casting out of able, faithful, godly Ministers, because they are Prelatical, Presbyterial, Independent, Arminians, or interested in the Civil Differences, this you utterly disown Sect. 26.]  
If you speak in good earnest, how then can you justify the casting out any, by any means, unless by that very Law, by which it is granted they stood possessed? Will you say in your defence that the Law is now changed, & that the Committees for Ejection can do the same things now, which only the Bishops and their Officers could do before? But your Concession disinables you from saying This: For then as many as were concerned in the civil Differences, as opposing this new Law, might be justly cast out by your good leave, which you profess notwithstanding, that you do utterly disown. Nay then even yourself 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 illegal: your 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 publicly disowning all those Parliamentary proceed against a multitude of as learned and as godly Protestant Divines (called common●y Prelatical) as the Christian World hath ever had since the Times of Luther. Not only those holy and learned Fathers of the Church, whom you may possibly call Arminian, but even those who have most of your own Applause (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 merely 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 suffered for being suspected to be Arminians, you may guess by the partial and shameful deal 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 likelihood) had ruined All.  
Sect. 6. You tell me further, 
Accusations are of no value, when only general, and without proof.  that the casting out of the utterly 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 than be perjured, will gladly perish? Were I pleased to recriminate, perhaps I could make your ears tingle. But this is only to inveigh against the Prelatists in general, as the Quakers do against Presbyterians; and by such practices as these, you justify the Quakers against yourselves. When you read me writing against the Puritans, you read my evidences, and reasons, and undeniable proofs, & that from matters of fact which themselves have put upon Record. Consider your own words in their natural consequence; and then suppose that Anabaptists should prevail as much by the sword against your party, as yours hath done against Episcopal Divines; Casting you all out of the Live, of which at present you are possessed; and putting in others of their persuasion. 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 Puritans in Saxony, who threw down Oratories and Churches, and Churchmen too, as Antichristian, call themselves the New jerusalem, A holy people sent from God to deliver his Saints out of Egypt, the spiritual Egypt of Superstition? Did they not enter into a League of Association, to throw down all Sceptres at the feet of Christ, that themselves, being the meek ones, might inherit the earth? And did they not begin with greater appearances of Godliness than the men of your party have yet afforded? Or did you ever yet read of any Persecutors in Christendom, who oppressed the just as they were just, and not rather under the notion of the unfaithful 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 Piedmont, and the Bohemian Churches in the Kingdom of Poland, which you (who profess to be Catholic) do now allege for the ruining of English Protestants? It is so easy to find a staff 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.  

A● ill m●n may have a good title to his Estate, and must not be wronged for being u●●ighteous.  Again, consider your own Principle: you think you cannot do better than 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, whilst the best have no right, unless it be unto the least. The veriest Atheist in the world may lawfully come by an Estate, whether by gift, or purchase, or inheritance; whilst godly Lazarus must thankfully enjoy his scarceness, and be content with those crumbs which daily fall from the rich man's table. He must not bid Dives come out of his House, & deliver up his purple, 
Luc. 16, 19, 20, 21.  because they both are too good for so great a Sinner, but meekly stand or lie down at the Great man's Door. And therefore admitting they were ungodly, whom you have helped to cast out, you should have turned them out of their Rights, before you had meddled with their Possessions. Bishop Hall hath told you that God loves Adverbs better than 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 legal: let him enjoy the Law whilst he endures it. For even a Murderer, or a Thief hath certain Privileges and Rights, both in the manner of his Trial, & Execution. It is an intolerable mistake, to think the wicked cannot be wronged, because they really deserve to be sound punished. 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, 
Evil must not be done in pretence of good ends. Rom. 3.8.  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; 
Ecclus. 15.12.  he hath not the least need of an unrighteous man, or of any one act of his unrighteousness. Were it lawful to perpetrate an evil act to a good end, we might laudably do wrong, and defraud our Brethren, that (like the true penitent Zachaeus) we might restore fourfold. 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 robbed 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 Repentance, to press as hard as may be for Restitution: a point of greater consideration, than some may imagine till they are told. For if we would Covenant with our Hearts, (and be severe Covenant-keepers) to restore no less than fourfold to every man whom we have injured, or possibly shall injure from thi● time forward, our very fear of being Bankrupt would keep us honest. And such is the crookedness 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, 
He who crave● help must have the patience to receive it.  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 encouragement in my attempt. God forbidden I should refuse you my best endeavours of conviction, or dare to dawb with untempered mortar; especially when you urge me to so much Freedom. And indeed, we Shepherds have extreme great need of one another, we are so apt to go astray into richer Pastures than our own. David was a Prophet, 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 rouse him out of his Sin with a downright form of Reprehension, 
2 Sam. 12.7.  Tu es homo, Thou art the man. Had I begun thus with you, Sir, you might have called it my Rudeness, not my Faithfulness to your Soul. But it happily falls out, that you have discovered yourself to me, when I had not the power to discover yourself unto yourself. You have said in effect, Ego sum homo, I am the man. And since you publicly avow, you will be glad of my help, I hope you will not be angry that I have helped you.  

The shamefulness of Mr. White's Centuries.  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 show you your Error before 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 Churchmen in four or five years. And if one hundred of eight thousand had been as really scandalous, as that matchless 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 less than one in twelve. But Mr. Fuller himself, however partial to your party, (as our excellent Doctor Heylin hath made apparent) doth take himself up with a kind of doubt, that there might want sufficient proof to convict them of that they were accused of: and indeed there was wanting a sufficiency of proof, 
(a) See Exam. Hist. p. 256.  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 Business, as on an act of Divine Retaliation, in turning so many of the regular 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, 
Worse were put into Live then the worst that were put out.  that many Episcopal Divines had been as scandalous Livers, as many more Presbyterians are known to be, they should have had a legal Trial, and have been legally devested of their Preferments, nor should mwn more scandalous have been commonly thrust into their places. Much less should many swearing and illiterate Presbyterians have been rewarded with these spoils, which had been taken from pious and learned men. How many Centuries might be made of debauched creatures, who were not only not punished, 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 betwixt the Spirit of Majesty, and the impotent spleen of Mr. White.  
Sect, 9 You next go on to accuse whole Countries, out of which the Ejected must all be one of your two Heads, and the best of them profane, 
Unseasonable bitterness to the Protestants, from one who would not befriend the Papists.  and yet very few escaped Ejection. Have you not written against Popery to very good purpose, against which your very sharpest 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 Live, 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 than she hath been by their preaching for Schism & Bloodshed) but read the Book of Common Prayer; (and was not that better than some of your preaching, if you preach no better than you have printed, as you are said to print little but what you preach?) Some (you say) preached worse than they that were never called preachers. (How much worse did they preach, who preached against their own Governors, and blowed the coals of Sedition into a conquering Flame?) You say, and say only, That some understood not the Catechism, or Creed. (But did they better understand it, who dreamed themselves able to make a better? To departed from such Evil is understanding. job 28.28.) You say that many of them lived more in the Alehouse then in the Church, and used to lead their people in Drunkenness, Cursing, Swearing, Quarrelling, and other ungodly Practices, etc. And thus you pour out your passion to a considerable part of your Sect. 26.  

The Indefinite Accuser brought to his trial by some particulars.  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, rail against the King and Bishops, cry [Curse ye Meroz] or raise up good store of loan upon public 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 preach worse than they that were never called Preachers? Did not Bishop Davenant understand his Catechism? nor Bishop Morton his Creed? yet how were They spoilt of their Estates, and clapped up Prisoners in the 
(a) Note, that of the 12. Bishops who were voted to the Tower, Bishop Morton & B. Hall at least were two.  Tower, whilst 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, Doctor 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 Churches: yet Mr. Shute was molested and vexed to death, and denied a Funeral Sermon to be preached by Doctor Holdsworth as he desired. Doctor Holdsworth was cast out of his Mastership in Cambridge, sequestered 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 only sequestered, but assaulted also, and plundered, and forced to fly. Doctor Rives, Doctor Howel, Doctor Hacket, and Mr. Hall, were sequestered and plundered, and forced to fly for their lives. Doctor Marsh was sequestered and made to die in remote parts. Doctor Brough was plundered as well as sequestered, his Wife and Children turned out of doors, and his Wife struck dead with grief. Doctor Westfield was sequestered, abused in the streets, and forced to fly. Doctor Featly was sequestered and plundered, and died a Prisoner. Doctor Fuller was sequestered and plundered, and withal imprisoned at Ely House. Mr. Udal was not only sequestered himself, but his bedrid wife was also cast out of doors, and inhumanely left in the open streets. Doctor Heywood was sequestered, and tossed from prison to prison, put in the Counter, Ely House, and the Ships, his Wife and Children turned out of doors. Can 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 Country, 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 Preachers, 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 Ruin, I will tell you a story of Mr. Simmons, the most exemplary Pastor of Rain in Essex, who being sent for up to the House of Commons by a Pursuivant, was told, That being an honest 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 named? 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 Cousins, 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. 
See Angliae Ruina, ●r Mercurius Rustic.  But above all, let me commend 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 Colleges in the University of Cambridge, 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 judgement, but could not obtain either Liberty, or Trial. After almost a years imprisonment, they were by order from the Houses put all on shipboard; (it was upon Friday Aug. 11.1643.) No sooner came they to the ship called The prosperous Sailor, but strait 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 burden of straw whereon to lie. There were crowded up in that little Vessel no less than 80 Prisoners of Quality. Where that they might stifle one another, the very Augur-holes and Inlets of any fresh Air were very carefully stopped up. And what became of them after I have not heard. But let these things serve to make up my first consideration.  
Secondly, Because you would make the world believe, that you have not only made a change, but a Reformation, (worth more, 
A signal Confession That what is called a Reformati●● was but a ch●nge unto the worse.  you may be sure, than 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 Widows and Orphans which have been made, or then the Consciences and Souls which have been shipwrecked) I shall convince you of the contrary by the public Confession of your own party, and by your own confession in particular. First the most eminent of your Brethren have unanimously confessed to all the world. 
* See the Testimony to the Truth of J.C. subscribed by the Ministers within the Province of Lond.  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, 
p. 30.  deplorable & deformed face of the affairs of Religion— swarming with noisome Errors, 
P. 29.  Heresies & Blasphemies in stead of Faith and Truth; 
P. 30.  torn in pieces with destructive Schisms, 
P. 26.  Separations, Divisions & Subdivisions, in stead of Unity and Uniformity. 
† P. 31.  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 ☜ Heresy, Schism, Profaneness, etc. they had an impudent & general inundation of all those Evils.] Can you possibly have more (Sir) against the change in the Church, than here is publicly attested by them that made it? There were no such things in the Bishop's times; nay none such could be. God's Enclosure 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 unclean 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 
D●sp. of Ch. Gou. and Worship. p. 275. etc.  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 restrained by better men than yourselves? 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. Agreeable to this, 
See your Pl. Scr. Pr. of Inf. Ch. Memb. & Bapt. Edit. 1. p. 174.  I find you saying to Mr. Tombs [That Satan in these times hath transformed himself into an Angel of Light (Is the Devil himself turned Puritan?) 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) Note that this you speak of these men whom you call Mr. Tombs his Brethren, who were at first against nothing but Inf. Bapt.  Some are zealously preaching against the Godhead of Christ; and some of them are grown so far, that the Parliament is fain to make an Act lately against them that call themselves God, and that say, Whoredom, Murder, etc. are no sins, but he is likest God that committeth them, etc.— I hope their zeal will at last be raised a little, (you speak this of your own Parliament) 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, etc. 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, 
Presbyterian Confessions to the advantage of the Prelatists●  consider what you have said, (and printed in the year 1651.) in recounting these Fruits of your Reformation. Consider what you say of your very Parliament. You hope their zeal will at last be raised, (as is till than it had not been,) and at last be raised a little, (as if till than it were none at all) and to befriend Christ the Mediator, (as if they wanted even a zeal for Christianity itself.) And you hope at last they will honour the Son too, (as if till than they had honoured the Father only.) Now this being compared with your other Confessions, 
(a) Ibid p. 120.  That many things in the Common Prayer, and Rubric, and Cano●s of the Church, were Excellent and Necessary, and therefore unjustly laid down; 
P. 123.  That plain Duties were wiped out, and the Directory more defective than the Common Prayer; ☜ That those [excellent] things were taken from us which we were in actual possession of, 
P. 123.  for that the substance of these was in the Common Pr. That you have cause to repent of your Nationall Covenant, as containing in it things Political and controversial; (for this you know is the sum of what you say in those pages, wherein a man would have thought you somewhat Prelatically affected;) Methinks you should easily be persuaded to lay aside your Vatinian hatred of the Episcopal Divines, and allow them to be constant unwavering men. If there were nothing else with me to make me love mine own Principles, The Notable Mixtures in your Books would force me to it.  
Thirdly, 
The National Cou. confessed faulty.  Consider what you have said, as touching Episcopacy in the Nationall Covenant, that it is one of the smaller and controvertible points; 
Ibid. p. 121.  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 Live, but chief because they would not swear. And now yourself have well absolved them, when it was said by 
(b) Cou. with Narrative. p. 12  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 judgement were Anti-prelatists in practice, by either quarrelling, or cursing, like any Puritans; 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.  

A strange way of arguing in the behalf of Cruelty.  Sect. 10. To the rest of your Section (as being but a Tautology) I shall return in fewer words. [You think it a charity to Souls, and honour to Christ, and the Church, and Gospel, to cast out these men till they be reform. And your reason is, Because you are a Christian, and believe there is a God. Sect. 26.] A very fine Argument. Because Mr. Baxter is a Christian, he must be a Ruler and a judge, and cast out men (who are his Equals at least) from their undoubted possessions, as well as his Bishops and Superiors, whom God hath set over him. And who was ever sequestered from his Parsonage, or Prebendary, or Fellowship, or the like, until the time of his Reformation? There was an eminent person cast out of his place for once not taking the Engagement, when yet the taking of it Twice was not sufficient to cast him in. Reform, or not Reform, a man is sequestered durante vit â. And so you speak of Sequestrations; not as they are, but as they should be, in your Opinion.  

●s consequence subversive to all humane Society.  Your reason why others more fit must be put in their Places and have the maintenance, is, because the maintenance is for the Ministry, etc. 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 maintenance 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 until you can take away a right, all you say is worth nothing. Your saying that a man's viciousness doth make him cease to have a Right, is very equivocal; and being taken in the most obvious sense, implies an Error 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 desire to be better informed (implying you want information, 
Aliud est de possession is justitiâ agere, aliud de personae.— Est hoc inter ea, quae in Wicl●fo damnata sunt; & recte sane. Nam si electi ad eas res, quas homines rejecti possident, jus nunc habent, sequitur, ut ea● res vindicare possint. Grot. Discuss. p. 93.  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 confounding of which things, Grotius tells you, was rightly condemned in Wickliff. For if the Vessels of Election have a right to those things which the Reprobates have in their possession, it follows 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 weakest, 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 Paragraph  
Sect. 11. You profess to think (a strange thing) That so long as the fore-described men did keep their Church-maintenance, 
Concerning Usurpers and Restitution.  they were usurpers before God; and therefore that they are bound, if possible, to make restitution of all the Tithes or other maintenance that ever they received (while they were such) as truly as if they had broke men's houses for it, or rob them by the high way. Sec. 26.] This doth prompt me to a Dilemma concerning your own Predecessor, whose sequestered 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 practice, 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 yourself. 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 consequence as far as his present fifth part at least will go) ought to have showed him the very place in which the payment is to be made; whether in any Neighbour's House, or rather in the Church-porch. You should have named the person also, who is to receive the Restitution; whether yourself, who have the profits arising out of his Sequestration, or the several Churchwardens in former years, or the respective Parishioners who paid his Tithes, all the while that he did them more hurt then good. (For so you suppose him to have done, whilst you compare him to the Physician that takes money for kill men by ignorant applications, poisons, or neglect.) Again you should have showed, 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 rob by the high way, (which is your peremptory 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 allowing such heinous Malefactors a fifth part of that Revenue, even after the time of their Sequestration, of which you pronounce them to have been Usurpers, even before they were sequestered? 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 before the least Accusation was framed 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 Princes 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 Live, if you require it so strictly from such as were scandalous in their own. And how you can pay a fifth part to so intolerable a person, as your Book hath concluded your Predecessor. And what Restitution you will allow to the most eminently learned and godly men in the Ministry, 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 yourself where you are, whilst you professedly detest so great a part of their Proceed. And whether the Drunkards (as you call them) might not be some of your 
(a) Look back on ch. 3. sect. 1, 2, etc.  godly men (though none of ours) to whom you have indulged so great a privilege, as to be worse than Drunkards, yet godly still. Compare your Description of sequestered Ministers with the Characters you have given of godly people, and at least you will wish for a better memory, if you do not make use of a slower pen.  
Sect. 12. To your conclusion I answer, 
What Sequestrations are disliked, and what not.  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 established. 3. I would not have the 
* Gen. 18.23.25.  righteous destroyed with the wicked; much less that twelve such as Peter, and james, and john, (with an humble distance in the comparison) should be cast as dung out of the Church, for one or two such as judas, cast as dung out of the same. 4. I would not have even the scandalous or insufficient so ejected, as that others more scandalous, & less sufficient should be obtruded in their Rooms. 5. Much less would I have notorious Drunkards, or Dunces, 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 than if they were. The Devil himself is no Drunkard; but he is proud, and envious, and hypocritical, rebellious, sacrilegious, and many other ways worse than a common Drunkard. His frequenting the Church, and transforming himself into an Angel of Light, appearing like a Saint, and putting on Godliness for a Disguise, doth make him much more scandalous than he could possibly be, if he could be drunk. Remember what I told you concerning scandal, 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 toleration in the meanest of the people, much less impunity or connivance in any Priest, yet I would not have him punished more for his judgement, than his life, (as I can prove many have been) because a Drunkard may be Orthodox, and a dry man may be an Heretic. A Drunkard may be loyal to Gods Anointed, whilst one who never was drunk may be a Rebel. Nor can I think it praiseworthy, Ad Rempublicam perdendam (aut Ecclesiam) sobrium accedere. And when a Drunkard is sequestered, 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 sequestered as well as he, I know not how you can excuse it. If the Papists shall condemn a drunken Protestant to the Fire, for merely refusing to renounce being a Protestant, you will (I doubt not) allow him the Reputation of a Martyr. I pray consider the particulars of this last Paragraph. And when by accident, o● choice, you speak confusedly of any subject, do not take it in ill part, in case I help you to a Distinction.  
Sect. 13. Your 27. Sect. which next ensues, 
O● growing lusty on S●questrations.  hath so little of what is pertinent or material in it, and so indecently much of what is personal, that a very short Answer will serve its turn. 1. If you had cited the very page, or at lest the Chapter, where I spoke of some persons who were known to grow Lusty on Sequestrations, you should have had such an account, as you had rather have been without. 2. Your Paralipsis was a mark of your greatest policy; because if I h●d grown lusty, it had been only 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 show your woulding concerning me, as before you had done concerning Grotius. 3. That you are below some of your brethren, it is enough that you have told me without my ask; I am not concerned to contradict you. Yet some may say you contradict your own self, because you add 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. Tombs, 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 Fleeces, less Revenues would content them, than what they are known to have seized upon. Hath not the Richness of the Living been in lieu of Malignancy to the best Divines of our Church, whilst the Poverty of others hath afforded Pro●ection to their Incumbents? 6. Let every man Enjoy his own, until he be legally dispossessed, and then I doubt not but your Abilities will quickly commend you to a Living, as good as that which you possess. But how full or how void of self-denial 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 Tongues are their own: But when God hath said plain'y, Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbour's House, It cannot enter into my Thoughts, how a man can invade it without Coveting, or how he can covet with self-denial, whilst he so far covets, as to invade it.   

CHAP. VII.  

A confessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  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 Qualification. Had you not caught a kind of Itch at your Finger's Ends, you would not probably have employed them in such a wilful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 understand 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 Tilenus; whose Publication of your Failings coming yesterday to my hands, makes me willing to rid them of this Employment.  

The Synodists unexcusable by standing out after yielding.  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 sins 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 repentance, (Sect. 30.) That all men (who hear the Gospel at least) have so much grace bestowed 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 excuse can the Synodists and other Calvinists make, for writing 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 evince 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 Arminians? Why do they Couple them with the jesuites, by way of contumely and reproach, whilst they acknowledge so near a parallel betwixt the jesuites 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 Synod at Dort? Or what meant the Synod in falling so foul on the Remonstrants, for merely 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 Dissensions are at an end, and admire the Evidence of the Truth which extorts a submission from her Opposers.  
Sect. 3. I shall not quarrel with their opinion, who say that God, in giving Grace, gives more to some than sufficient, 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 Saviour: for if it is, it will follow, that none is really and truly sufficient Grace, but what is sufficient and somewhat more. Instead of enlarging u●on This, I do solemnly recommend 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 absurdities 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 branded wi●h the Title of Arminians,) that they interpret the word sufficient into the importance of unsufficient: for they declare it to be impossible, that sufficient Grace should be available to the receiving and retaining of Jesus Christ, without the addition of somewhat else, which you call the will and perseverance itself, (Sect. 23.) which however it implies 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 allowed to signify what it does, to wit a possibility that all may be saved. And then let nothing be subjoined for the placing of any under an impossible, for fear of implying a Contradiction.  

Austin confessedly against the Synod of Dort.  Sect. 4. Whereas you grant it to be true, That Augustine thought The Elect only do eventually persevere, and some who are Sanctified, but not Elect, do fall away, to which you add, that the Synod do judge otherwise, (Sect. 33.) First I observe 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 Calvinists would either accept of St. Austin, when we urge him s●eaking against Themselves; or at least not urge him, when they imagine 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● absolutely elected, from whence they incur this great Absurdity, (in case St. Austin be in the Right) That men may be absolutely Elected, and yet eventually condemned. Which also implye's this other Absurdity, That God's Decree can be absolute, yet not immutable. Which again implies a Contradiction.  
Sect. 5. They do not truly extend Grace further, 
The Extent of Grace.  who extend it to fewer than others do. And you know that Grace which here you speak of is only extended by the Synodists to the smallest part of mankind, which proves your expression not rightly chosen. (Sect. 33.) I will thank the Synodists, as for a Favour, if they abstain from doing wrong to any. But yet I will ask, by what Toxt they are so liberal to a few. Your two propositions are impertinent 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 provokers 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, 
The Synod of Dort paralleled with the jesuites even by them that plead for them.  that the Synod give's as much as the Arminians or jesuites to universal Grace, both in Decree, Redemption, and execution by collation of Grace. (Sect. 34.) Implying how very reconcileable the jesuites are with either sort of Presbyterians, the followers of Arminius, and Calvin too; I wonder why you beseech me to judge impartially, whether it be Christian dealing 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 witness, (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 myself. But if they who grant it in one place, do also deny it in an another, (as the Gnostics by turns 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 Denial, I cite their words and their pages, and condemn them out of their own Mouths. Which honest course would you have taken, you could not have published so many Books. Every five or six days may well produce a New volume, from any man of any Trade who dares 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. Although I hearty 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 pages.  

The Denial of original pravity falsely charged on the Remonstrants.  Sect. 7. As to your 36. Section, I perceive you are fallen under the Hand of Tilenus, And so I will not oppress you whilst you are sinking. Yet because you call him my Tilenus, (which I take for an honour, however you cannot so intent it,) I shall observe a few things which I find he passed by, as not sufficiently deserving his Time and Paper. Why 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 given, you allow to Adam to have been really sufficient, or to those that are exempted from a state of Depravation. But this is only a Trick, whereby to retain the word sufficient, whilst you let go your hold of its signification, which makes you fit to be interrogated afresh. When you say that God hath given sufficient Grace unto All, do you mean it is sufficient to depraved Nature? sufficient for the bringing of every Son of lapsed Adam (who shall not be wanting unto himself) into a state of salvation? Else, what did your former Concessions mean? Did Christ die for Adam whilst yet unfallen, whereby to procure his salvability? Or did he not rather die for those who were dead in Adam, whereby to restore them to life and safety? If he did it not sufficiently 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, 
How much there is in the Will of man.  [Is there any thing in the will besides a natural Power or Faculty, and an Habit, Disposition or Inclination to Act, and the Act itself? 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 spiritual) 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 thorough) nor the Act itself, (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 Knowledge.  
Cannot, and will not, are not one and the same thing, as you affirm (Sect. 36.) For what a man will not is consistent with what he Can, and thence it is, that wilful 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, 
To convert a sinner no breach of charity.  (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 itself (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 
* I shall be glad to know the Reason, by which you were moved to call him Mine.  my Tilenus thought fit to Antidote the Readers of Mr. Bagshaw's two Sermons, supposing the Dedicatory Epistle might hardly be Antidote 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 Doctrines? I am as confident as of any thing, of which I have not a perfect knowledge, that he had nothing in his Eye but the Public 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 seasonable Caveat shall work your Cure. Consider how many of your own Brotherhood you have endeavoured to expose to shame and laughter, before you censure those men who give you Examples of Moderation.  

Who it is that abuseth the choicest of God's Servants.  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 james his Puritans, I have spent a whole Chapter for the Rectification of your mistake. If such as truly serve God, who have also written against Puritans, whereof I have given you a speoimen 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 written even with bitterness 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 Episcopal Clergy, (I say) your Bitterness ●o These is so ineffably great, that mortal man cannot express it, but by repeating your own Terms. I should proceed to show you your frightful self, from the Ten last pages of your Grotian Religion, but that I see you have reprinted the substance of th●m, in your Enormous Preface to your New Book of Church Government and Worship, which I intent to consisider 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 Divine, 
Made appear by an Example:  whose Certificate touching the Primate I was constrained to make public. 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 only foment a Schism, but fomented it by poor Insufficient 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 informed that your Bolt was shot at Mr. Gunning. For how can you hope to be believed when you shall let fly your Censures of other men, after the liberty you have taken to write so grossly 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 Fomenting a Schism, and that any thing poor or insufficient fell from Mr. Gunning. Had you been honoured with the Advantage of having sat for some years at his learned Feet, you had certainly attained a greater measure of Understanding, than to have mentioned his Writing with such irreverence.    

AN APPENDIX. Containing a rejoinder to Divers Things, both in The Key for Catholics, and in The Book of Disputations of Church-Government and worship, etc.  
WHilst I was drawing towards an End of what I thought fit to advertise you, 
The chief Occasion of this Appendix.  concerning the principal Misadventures of your Grotian Religion, my Stationer sent me two books, at least as bitter, and as irrational, as the worst of that stuff which was laid before me. It seems my silence was hurtful to you; And what I intended in my Advertisement (behind my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for nothing more than a promise that I would Answer you at leisure, with an addition of Reasons for my Delay, you fall upon with as much confidence, (and that in two Books at once,) as if you had hopeed that That Promise had been the only Performance that I had meant you. So very little is my Concernment in what you Entitle a Reply, (wherein you add little or nothing to your Grotian Religion, how much soever you borrow from it,) That I might well have abstained from giving you the Trouble of this Appendix, by referring you to my Answer, as a sufficient rejoinder to your Reply, but that I hear you are a scorner, and so unhappily inclinable to flatter yourself with your misfortunes, as to think you are feared, when you are but pitied, and passed by. Some men must be dealt with, if not for other men's sakes, yet for their own; if not because they deserve Resistance, yet because they may want it to check their Pride. It being pity (in my opinion) so to despise any man's weakness. as to make him dream he is irresistible.  

The Patient's acknowledgement of his Disease.  Sect. 2. This is the chief consideration, by which I am moved to this Appendix; there being nothing more visible in your two last Books, than that you are sick of a shrewd Disease, which having swelled up to your Throat, and broken out at your mouth, doth serve to justify the charge which was framed against you by Dr. Owen, without the Help of your own 
† See your Disp. of right to Sacram. 5. p. 486. Where you also confess you are Hypocritical. Making bolder with yourself, than I should ever have allowed you by my consent.  Acknowledgement, that you are proud and selfish. Very feign would I follow my Inclinations, to treat you as gently in the Conclusion, as in the Beginning of my Book. And what incredible pleasure should I have taken in the present Discussion of Divers Truths, had you but left me the possibility to be as respectful towards yourself, as you must acknowledge me to have been towards a Couple of your Superiors, (by name) D. Reynolds, and Dr Bernard? But so throughly have you convinced me, (by your 
* Key for Catholics from p. 381: to p. 194. Five Disp. of Church Gou. and Worship. Preface. from p. 16. to p. 38.  two late Volumes) of the irrefragable Orthodoxy and Truth of what you have put upon Record in another Place (to wit) 
† Disp. 5. of Sacram. p. 486.  That your Pride need's sharper Reprehensions than your friends have ever used about you, (I do but Echo your own words,) that I must Cross my Inclinations, and change my stile for no other end, then to serve your Needs. For you give it me under your hand, both that your Malady is dangerous, and that it needs a rough Cure. You are not like Alexander's 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Diod. Sic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  B●cephalus, to be subdued with soft usage. My Brotherly Gentleness (you 
* Grot. Rel. Praef. Sect. 4.  spoke of) hath but enraged you; my Moderation (which you 
* Ibid.  acknowledged) hath made you Fierce; my Charity towards you (which you 
* Ibid.  applauded) hath accidentally Occasioned your greatest Hatred. For (not to speak yet of your innocent Railing, which I may therefore call Innocent, because it is too gross to hurt me,) mark how desperately you strike both at my Livelihood and my Life. And that with often-repeated Blows, even in Book upon Book.  
Sect. 3. You do not only say, 
An Instance of its malignity▪  in indefinite Terms, [
† Praef. to disp. of Ch. Gou. and Wor. p. 6.7.8.32.33.  That some of the New Party of Episcopal Divines are of Grotius his Religion, that is, Papists,] Implying me to be one of Them in all that follow's; Nor do you content yourself with saying, that we are Papists, or Grotians, (p. 7.) That we teach the Church of Rome to be the Mistress of other Churches, (p. 8.) That we own Grotius his Popery (p. 32.) That we must take heed how we continue Papists, (p. 33.) But Naming me, and me only, (p. 35.) you proceed to tell us, without Compliment, That we have gone far beyond such moderate Papists as Cassander, Hospitalius, Bodin, Thuanus, etc. p. 36. Nay speaking of Grotius his Popery, you boldly add (even against your clearest light of Knowledge, and against your loudest checks of Conscience, if it is not seared with an hot Iron,) 
* Key for Cath. p. 386.  That I have defended this Religion, and that you have Rectors in England of this Religion, and that those that call themselves Episcopal Divines, and seduce unstudied partial Gentlemen, are crept into this Garb, and in this do act their parts happily. Again you single me out by Name, and profess to 
† Ibid. p. 391.  see by many others, as well as by Mr. P. that the Design is still on foot: And that the Papists that are got so strong in England, under the mask of the Vani, the Seekers, the Infidels, the Quakers, the Behmenists, and many other Sects, have much addition to their strength by Grotians, that go under the mask of Episcopal Divines. Nor does your Fury stop here●for, that your Readers may suppose me one of the worst sort of Papists, you say that 
† Ibid. p. 390.391.  Grotius, called by Mr. Pierce a Protestant, did far outgo Them in Popery, whom the same man confesseth to have been Papists. He goes much further than Cassander: much further than Thuanus, etc. Quite forgetting what you had said in another place, 
* Grot. Religion p. 9  That though you Dissent much from Grotius his Pacification, yet are not your thoughts of Grotius, Cassander, Erasmus, Modrevius, Wicelius, or others of that strain, No Nor Thuanus, and many more moderate Papists, either bitter, Censorious, or uncharitable. There you rank Grotius with Cassander and Erasmus, and imply Thuanus the greater Papist. But now forsooth he outwent them all. So in a fit of humanity, you said that 
† Christian Conc. p. 45.  Grotius designed to reconcile both Parties in a Cassandrian Popery. But now it grieve's you that Grotius should far outgo the Cassandrian Papists, the remembrance of whose Wisdom, Moderation and Charity, is very grateful to your Thoughts. p. 390. I pray Sir, get you a better Memory, if you will not learn to speak Truth. But what is the Design, which you see, by me and others is still on foot, p. 391? 
* Ibid. p. 46.  Even a strong Design laid for the Introduction of Popery, and the five parts of the Plot have taken such effect, as gives it a strong probability of Prevailing, if God do not wonderfully blast it.  

In four respects.  Sect. 4. Thus you make me not only a kind of Seminary Priest, but one who hath counterfeited the Protestant in such a Dangerous Degree, as to have gotten into a Rectory where I have daily opportunities to serve the Pope; and so by consequence being discovered by the subtle Endeavours of Mr. Baxter, I am liable to die a most shameful Death. An Imputation the more heinous in these following respects.  
First, because you had a warning in my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to 
* Ps. 50.20.  slander any man Living, much less a Man whom you must reckon to be 
* Ps. 50.20.  your own Mother's son, if you pretend to be a son of the Church of Engl. much less with a plot to bring in Popery, rather than judaism, or Witchcraft, or whatever else is most absurd. For though I earnestly pray for the peace of Christendom, and think as well of the Papists, as an unpassionate Protestant may be allowed, yet do I abhor being a Papist, as much as being a Presbyterian; and will as soon be a Turk, as I will be either. Compare my praemonition before the book abovementioned, with the beginning of the first Chapter, and with the middle of the third, that you may see the aggravations of your offence.  
Next, because it is a groundless, and so by consequence a spiteful, inhuman charge. For where have I ever defended Popery? Or when did I write one word for Grotianism, as you expound it by 
pag. 381.  Popery? Or where did I ever use the word? Name the book, and the page, and the numerical lines which I have written, if I have written any such thing. Are you an Answerer of Books, whilst you forge, and falsify, and declaim at random against your Dreams, to which you entitle your Brother's Name, without directing your Readers to any one page, or expression, whereby to give some colour to your Inventions? What unstudied Gentleman have I seduced? or where are the footsteps which I have trodden, towards the management of a plot to bring in Popery? for shame do somewhat like a Man, (if not at all like a Christian) either to prove I am a Papist, or to make me at least some Reparations, in as public a manner as you have wronged me.  
Thirdly, because your Accusation could not but fly into your Face, and significantly call you a false-Accuser. For you know it never was my profession, that I was of Grotius his Religion, (let his Religion have been what it would) but rather that Grotius was of mine, by being a Protestant and a Peacemaker. If I was mistaken in my opinion, you should have gathered from thence, that I am fallible; not at all, that I am a Papist; because a man may be a Protestant, and yet be mistaken in his opinion. You are a wilful Deviator from the Thing under Dispute, and shall be made to acknowledge that you are such. For it is not our Question, Whether Grotian Popery is Good; but, whether Grotius (good man) was indeed a Papist. Had I affirmed the former, I might have been liable to your charge; but you know I only denied the latter; and cannot conceive any such thing as Grotian Popery, more than any such thing as Baxterian Paganism. For though you 
† S●ints Rest. Edit. 2. part 1. p. 155, 156.  favour the Pagans, yet doth it not follow that you are one. Even L●ther, and Zuinglius, and I think Paraeus, do hope for Salvation for divers Pagans, although the two latter were Presbyterians. You are not so thick of understanding, as not to be able to distinguish between a matter of Fact, and a matter of Faith. From whence it follow's that you are wilful, and speak in despite to your understanding, when, the Question being put [whether Grotius de Facto turned Papist, or not] you tell the world I am a Papist because I think that he was none. There may be men of both parties of both opinions in point of Fact, whilst yet they retain their Parties too. Nay the Question may be put to a Mahometan, or a jew, who retaining their own Religions may judge impartially of a Christian, whether they think he either changed, or changed not his Religion, for that of the jews, or the Mahometans. It was lately a Question twixt Dr. Bernard and myself, whether the Primate of Armagh had changed his Judgement: wherein though He was of one mind, and I of another, yet I did not infer, that He was a Calvinist, nor He, that I was an Arminian. The Question being not put concerning what we approve, but concerning the Truth of the thing done. So in the Case of Grotius, it is not disputed by you, and me, whether Grotius did well in turning Papist, (for if he turned Papist, we both condemn him,) but whether he actually did, or did not turn Papist. And to say he did, when he did not, is not to oppose, but to make a Papist. He 
* look back on ch. 1. p. 11. Arg. 1.  affirmed that he did not, and I believe his affirmation. But it is not Popery, to take a man upon his word; if it is, you are a Papist for the very same reason: for certainly there are Papists, whom you believe when they tell you that they are Papists. Behold the Case in another Colour. The jansenians do profess to detest the several propositions, which were condemned by Pope Innocent: but 
† Consulatur Mysterium jesuit.  approving the Pope's Sentence, they deny the Fact, to wit that jansenius affirmed the Contrary: (where by the way let it be noted, that either Austin and jansenius are of the Judgement that I am for, Or their greatest friends and Abettors are no less Oppugners of the Calvinists than the Molinists themselves;) will you say they love what they detest, because they deny that jansenius said it? you will be hooted at, if you do, as a very strange Creature. And yet you have done as absurd a thing. For I am a● different from a Papist, as any Protestant can be of the Church of England. Yet because I deny that Grotius turned Papist, you make no scruple, to call me Papist for my reward. A Calumny favouring of as much weakness, as if St. Basil should have pronounced Athanasius himself to have turned Arian, for conceiving all to be Orthodox in Dionysius his Writings (of Alexandria,) in which, St. Basil was of opinion, that something of Arianism was couched.  
Fourthly, your Accusation is the more heinous, because it reacheth to the D●shonourning of the Ablest Protestants in the world, who deny that Grotius turned Papist, as well as I. In particular Doctor Hammond must needs be One of your Grotian Papists, for having vindicated Grotius from the charge of Popery, although he hath written against the Papists, (O how infinitely better than you have done! and) to much better purpose, than all the men of your way. Another of your Papists is Mr. Thorndike, whose Learned book against Popery and Puritanism together, I pray be sure to understand, before you Answer. Nay Arnoldus Poelenburg the Presbyterian (but one of the learnedst of that way, as being a Follower of Arminius, and not of Calvin,) must pass with you for a Papist, (as you with your fellow 
* Note once for all, that ● call you Presbyterian, only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Presbyterians,) because he hath lately made it appear, that Grotius died a true Protestant. I shall give you his words in their proper Place.  
Sect. 5. Having discovered to you the guilt, 
Mr. Grand●n's Advantage.  I now proceed to acquaint you with the unskilfulness of your Crime. Mr. Crandon you call a judicious Pedagogue, from whence I conclude, that he Teacheth School. He was one of those Brethren, who 
* Disp. of Sacram. 5. p. 486.  told the world you are a Papist and one of the worst sort of Papists, and what the (particular) Books were which had made you a Papist, and what Emissaries you have in all parts of the Land. Now observe the Rod which you have made; and the several twigs of correction out of whic●●t is composed; and how you have put this Rod into the hands of Mr. Crandon; who being a Pedagogue, knows how to lay it o●, especially when he finds you so bare and naked. Do no● kick at the Expression. For you have told us your needs, and what it is that must do you good. Too much respect it seems destroys you. And though it is cross to my Inclinations, yet I can put on Severity for an hour or two, when I think it may tend to so good a purpose, as to make you for ever cast off your Railing.  

The Accuser of Protestants proved a Papist by 14. Arguments, according to his own logic.  In the Person of Mr. Crandon, and by the force of your Logic against yourself, It will be easy to prove you an arrant Papist in a Disguise. For 1. We have your Confession, that some of the Brotherhood itself have publicly laid it to your charge, who being judicious and godly men, would never have accused you of such a Crime, if they had dot had Grounds and Reasons for it. 2. You have not hitherto cleared yourself, as you would certainly have done, if you had been able. For though you have writ against the Papists a great deal more then enough, yet that is no more than a Blindation to escape the rigour of the Law. How could you hold a Sequestrasion, if you did not act the Presbyterian? Dr. Taylor writ against Papists, and yet you know what you have 
* Disp. with Mr. Tombs p. 397▪  called him. Dr. Hammo●d and Mr. Thorndike have writ against Papists, But you know what they are for defending Grotius. Archbishop Laud writ against them in an unanswerable manner, And yet you know how you have slurred him for having 
† Praef. to Grot. Rel. Sect. 25.  befriended the Grotian Plot. Nay 3. Your Books against Popery become an Argument to prove you its greatest Friend; Because they are Armed with so much weakness, as is a treacherous strength against the Protestant Cause. Some are hired to resist, that they may certainly be beaten, and led in Triumph. We who know how Caligula did hire the Gauls, ●an guess at the use of your Key for Catholics. Had you intended them any Hurt, you would have left them to the rigour of Abler Pens. For you were told by Dr. 
* Pr●f. Sect. 17.  Sanderson, That the sufficient Disputants with the Papists are the Episcopal Divines. 4. You have vilified the Protestants of every Sect and Division, and the best in the greatest measure. Neither Bolsec nor Fevardentius have gone beyond you. 
† Look back on Ch. 1. Sect. 12.  You have declared in point of Discipline, against the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, and Erastian, as not the Scriptural way, nor the way of Christ And if all Protestants are reducible to those 4. Heads, (as sure they are,) then 'tis clear that you writ against all the Protestants, and make men run into Popery by way of Refuge. Or if you fright them also from thence, by your winding-sheet, or your Key, you leave them to be nothing but jews, and Heathens. And I would very fain know, what sort of Christians in all the world, you have not endeavoured to Disgrace, at one time, or another, either in earnest, or in jest. I do seriously profess, I can think of none. 5. You do exceedingly commend the very same sort of Papists, and with the same kind of Praises which Grotius give's them. You say, 
* Grot. Rel. p. 10.  [when you read their public writings, you think they are now Blessed Souls with Christ. You read them with a great deal of Love and honour to the writers. The French moderation is acceptable to all good men: That Nation is an honourable ☜ part of the Church of Christ in your Esteem. Much more must yo● honour the Pacificatory Endeavours of any that attempt the healing of the Church.] Can you blame Mr. Crandon, or any real Presbyterian, for thinking or saying you are a Papist, when they read such stuff and compare it with what you say against Grotius? will they not shrug, or shake their heads, with a Totus Mundus exer●et Histrioniam? 6. Why should you labour to deceive the vulgar people into a Belief, that the ablest Protestants in the land are Grotian Papists, (in the number of which, I am far from reckoning myself,) unless it were to this end, that the simple ones may fly from such as are Protestants indeed, and shelter themselves under the Papists for fear of Popery? I mean the Papists who march about, eject the Protestants, and succeed them, as well in the profits of their Places, as in the privilege of their Pulpits, under the Title and Mask of Presbyterians. So very fitly was it said by our Learned and Reverend 
* See his Unanswerable Preface to the second Edition of his first Sermons.  Dr. Sanderson, That your Party have been the great Promoters of the Roman Interest among us, that you have hardened the Papists, and betrayed the Protestant Cause. 7. You refuse to join with us Protestants in the Public Liturgy of the Church, and to Communicate with us in the Sacrament of Eucharist according to the prescription of Laws and Canons; which doth the rather become an Argument of your being turned Papist, Because in all such s●tatutes as have been made (since the first year of Queen Elizabeth) against Popish Recusants, The refusing to be present at Common-Prayer, or to receive the Sacrament according to the Forms and Rights mentioned in that Book, is expressed as the most proper legal Character, whereby to distinguish a Popish Recusant from a true Protestant. In so much that Use hath been made of that very Character in sundry Acts, since the beginning of the long Parliament, for the taxing of double Payments upon Recusants. Which very Argument was used by 
† Reasons of the present judgement, etc. p. 34.  the University of Oxford, against the Ordinance for the Directory imposed on them. 8. In that you profess yourself a Protestant, and yet declare against all four ways, (Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, and Erastian,) giving out that the way of Christ must be compounded of all four, you help to justify the Papists in the reproaches which they cast upon our Religion, 
Ib. p. 5.  That we know not what our Religion is; That since we left them, we know not where to stay; and that our Religion is a 
* Harding confut. of Apology part 6. ch. 2.  Parliamentary Religion. Would you have done them so great a service, if you had not been of their side? A likely matter. 9 Your not allowing the Civil Magistrate to be Supreme in all Causes, as well Ecclesiastical, as Civil, doth very clearly discover your partiality to A Pope. The Oath of Supremacy here in England was purposely framed for such as You. 10. It was observed by Bishop Bramhall against 
* p. ●5▪  Militiere, that the private whispers, and printed insinuations of Papists, touching the Church of England's coming about to shake hands with the Roman in the points controverted, was merely devised to gull some silly Creatures, whom they found too apt to be caught with cha●f. And That Art which was used to begin our Breach, you have craftily continued to make it wider. For intus existens prohibet Alienum, whilst the Episcopal Protestants are kept from being cast out, the Roman Religion can never enter. 11. You are a Papist as much as Grotius, though you should prove as much a Protestant as Grotius was. But you do every where contend that Grotius was a Papist; and so (at least in that Notion) you must needs be a Papist as well as Herald 12. You 
† Grot. Relig.  profess to approve of pacificatory Attempts between us and the Papists; 
p. 30.  and that you are zealously desirous of it; 
p. 20.  and that you honour the peaceable Dispositions of the late Episcopal Divines. 
p. 21.  Which being duly compared with all you say against Grotius, and against the late Episcopal Divines, and this again being compared with what you have written both for, and against the Directory, as well as for, and against the Common-prayer, and against the very Covenant which you pretended to be for, and for Episcopacy itself which yet you Covenanted against, may lay a ground of Suspicion that you have gotten a Dispensation, to use your Tongue and your pen as you see occasion: you having been both for, and against the Papists, as well as for, and against the Presbyterians. 13. Whilst you labour to prove that Grotius turned Papist, you are doing the Papists a special service, by robbing our Churches of such a prop, and by tempting as many to turn Papists, as do believe that Grotius knew what was best. Whereas the true Protestants (on the contrary) are encouraged to adhere to the Church of England (however disgraced and forsaken by a revolting people) by the judgement of Grotius that she was nearest unto the Primitive, in point of purity, and pious Order. 14. The Design which is laid by you and others for the Introduction of Popery, is driven on by those means which you have 
* See your Christian Concord. p. 46, 47.  acknowledged yourself to be proper and suitable to the work, notwithstanding you have hid them with other Names. The first part of the plot is, to blow up the sparks of Schism and Heresy, that our Church being divided may become odious, and men be prepared for a Remove. The second is, An Incessant Endeavour to infect all persons, especially those in power, Civil or Military, with the opinion of Libertinism, (for which look back on Chap. 3.) that so your Doctrines and Practices may have vent, and exercise. Your third plot is, to get down the learned, judicious, Godly, painful Ministers, (such as by name I lately mentioned Chap. 6. Sect. 9) at least to take away their public Maintenance; that the people may take such Ministers as will humour them most, and do their work best cheap. The fourth part of the plot is, to hinder the Union of other Protestants with Episcopal Divines, and the regular exercising of Discipline, or maintaining of Church-Order; that the Papists may say we have no Church, no Government, etc. and that by division we may be disabled from opposing them. The fifth part of it is, to keep afoot a party of learned Men, who under the Name of Presbyterians may keep an Interest in the people, and partly draw them from Unity, and from obeying their Superiors by pretending a Necessity to abolish Episcopacy and Presbytery, and to set up Presbytery in its stead, or somewhat else without a Name, expressed at random by The Sceptre and Way of Christ, thereby to widen our Breaches, and so prepare a way for Popery.  

The Bishop of Canterbury cleared from his Accuser, & his Accuser from himself.  Thus you see how exactly your Satyrs fit you, which you have framed against the soundest of all the Protestants in the world, whom you will needs (because you will) call Grotian Papists. If you deny your being a Papist, we are not bound to believe you, in case we believe you when you avow the having 
* Disp. 5. of Sacr. p. 484.  Hypocrisy in your heart. When you proclaim yourself an Hypocrite, (for so you did from the Press, or I had not read it) you cannot blame me for my Belief. For either your proclamation was true, or false: if true, you are an Hypocrite, because you say it in sincerity: if false, you are an Hypocrite, because you are not when you say you are. Besides, you were not angry with Dr. Owen, although he told you of your Hypocrisy, a little before you told him; much less may your Anger break out on me, for having only believed what you have told me. Add one thing more. The Bishop of Canterbury protested before God and his holy Angels, and that upon the fatal Scaffold, even immediately before he laid his Neck upon the Block, that he had never any h●nd in any D●●gn whatsoever to bring in Popery, or to al●er he Religion by L●● established. He never told you of any Hypocrisy in his heart, much less at the Instant of his Departure, yet how have you and Mr. Hickman done your worst to desile his spotless memory? And if you cannot believe Him, nay if you cannot believe me, when I profess to be a Son of the Protestant Church here in England, attested to by the Blood of our English Martyrs, (who were Prelates, and Prelatists, not Presbyterians,) How can you hope to find credit, whilst you profess what I have done? Yet in conclusion I must tell you, I do not believe you are a Papist, how much soever some of your Brethren have charged you with it. I have only spoken in this Section by a Prosopopoeia, to show you the folly of your reasonings whilst you dispute against Grotius, and call us Papists who think him None.  
Sect. 6. Now to the Testimony you 
* Disp. of Ch. gov. and wor. Pref. p. 3●.  bring from Claud. Sarravius, 
Grotius his second vindication:  I oppose a better Testimony from Arnoldus Poelenburgius, a learned Protestant of the L●w Country's in the North part of Holland, a person acquainted with Grotius his Wife and Children, and one who dedicates his Book to William Grotius, an Eminent Lawyer now in Holland, made much more eminent by being Brother to Hugo Grotius. Arnoldus Poelenburg having premised how great a Man in all points this Hugo was; (so great, that This Age hath not brought forth a greater,) H●s wonderful knowledge in the Law, His unfathomable Depth in the Things of God, His exact Command of all story both ancient and modern, as well sacred as secular, His Incredible evolution of Books for number not to be reckoned, His stupendious Comprehension of all the languages in the world, by which a person of his Importance might be advantaged or adorned, His poetical Supere●●inence, His Elo●●tion not to be equalled, Hi● weight of matter and blessed stile, His singular Temperance, and Modesty, and other virtues, His being persecuted at home for sticking to God and a good Conscience, His being sued to from abroad by Kings and Princes and principal persons of the world, and last of all His being envied for his unimitable performances by such as thought him too happy for one single Man as yet in viâ; I say, Arnoldus Poelenburg having premised a page or two to thi● purpose, proceeds to vindicate his Memory from the Aspersion under Debate.  

Arnol. Poelent Pastoris Ecclesiae Remon. Hornanae in Epist. praef. Dissertationi Epistolicae. p. 13, 14.  Ad Papismi criminationem facilis est Responsie. Nam sicut is, qui duobus viris de possessionum Terminis inter se litigantibus Arbitrum se offered, vix alterutrius odium effugit, quia uterque sibi plurimum vindicat, & quisque suspicatur sibi minus attributum quàm Justitia flagitabat; Ita qui parts in Religionis Negotio dissidentes componere satagit, vix poterit, quin ab alterâ parte pro hoste habeatur, quia in diversae partis homines liberalior fuisse visus est. D. Grotium autem nobis ad extremum usque addictum fuisse satis liquet ex illo posthumo scripto, cui maximè Adversari● ejus infensi sunt. Ibi enim D. Vtenbogardi aliorumquè Antistitum nostrorum non sine laudis Elogio meminit. Praeterea Uxor Ipsius, Honestissima Matrona, cùm post fata Mariti ex illo glorioso non minus quàm diuturno exilio Hagam Comitis reversa sedem Do●icilii ibi collocaret, statim illa se nostrae Ecclesiae adjunxit, sacram synaxin nobiscum celebravit; denique affirmavit Maritum suum, neque in Galliis UNQUAM, neque extra Gallias alicubi Templum Pontificiorum frequentasse, aut eorum sacris interfuisse. Puto hoc Argumenti satis esse, quod Defectionem ad Pontificios meditatus non fuerit; Quod nonnulli aut Malevoli homines, aut certè nimium suspicaces opinantur.  

His wife his Witness.  Here is a witness beyond exception, even the Friend of his 
† Deut. 13.6.  Bosom, a very honourable Matron in herself, and therefore fit to be believed, although she had been but a common Friend; whereas we know she was more than a common Wife; for she contrived his safety with the utmost hazard of her own. She was 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5.23. Quia uxoris salus à viro dependet, sicut Ecclesiae salus est à Chri●●o. Beza in locum.  The Saviour of the Body, in the words, and sense of the Apostle Concerning Husbands. An Individual Partner and Companion in all his Sufferings. One who endeared him to Herself; by her so many great effects of her Love and Loyalty, (which have made her a pattern to other women, and hereafter will make her a proverb too,) that he could not conceal his Religion from Her, whom he had worthily seated so near his Heart. What need we more in so clear a Case? The Wife of Grotius was both a Protestant herself, (as well at her residence in Paris, as at her return unto the Hague) and hath constantly 
† Look back on ch. 1. Sect. 5. p. 12▪ 13.  affirmed (to all desirous of Information) that her Husband and herself were never divided in their Religion. That he did never 
* Neque in Galliis unquam, neque extra Gallias alicubi, etc.  at any time, 
† Neque in Galliis unquam, neque extra Gallias alicubi, etc.  in any part of the world, so much as permit himself to be 
* Aut eorum sacris Interfuisse.  present at any papistical Devotions. Never was there a Wife of greate● Wisdom and Gravity, and Christian courage, in the esteem of an Husband, than she in his. Never was there a Husband, who left behind him a greater Monument of honour & gratitude to a wife. And could he (think you) be a Papist without her Knowledge? Or could he (think you) turn Papist without his own? He made profession to Laurentius, who writ the Grotius Papizans, (which you are now so unskilful as to object,) that he was not turned Papist, as had been slanderously reported, which having told you of already (ch. 1. p. 11, 12.) I will encourage you to believe whatsoever his Wife hath affirmed of him, by letting you see how much he prized her.  
Nos quoque, si quisquam, multum debere fatemur 
Sylvae Grotian● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Augusti Thuani Franciscum Filium▪ p. 5, 6▪   
Conjugio. Memini, post tot tua vota precesque,  
Cynthia cùm nonum Capto mihi volveret orbem,  
Qualem te primum, Conjux fidissima, vidi  
Carceris in Tenébris: Lachrymas absorpserat Ingens  
Vis Animi, neque vel gemitu Te Luctus adegit  
Consentire malis. Rursus nova vincula, sed quae  
Te Sociâ leviora tuli, dum milite clausos  
Nos Mosa & tristi Vahalis circumstrepit undâ.  
Heic Patriam toties & inania jura vocanti  
Et proculcatas in nostro corpore leges,  
Tu solamen eras. Heic jam Te viderat alter  
Et post se mediâ plus parte reliquerat Annus,  
Cum mihi jura mei per Te solerte reperto  
Reddita. Tu, postquam jam caeca acceperat Alvus  
Dulce o●i●s, opposites libabas oscula claustris:  
Atque ita semoto foribus custode locuta es.  
Summe Pater, rigido si non. Adamant futurum  
Stat tibi, sed precibus potìs es gaudesque moveri,  
Hoc quod nostra Fides lucem servavit in istam  
Accipe Depositum, tantisque exolve periclis.  
Conjugii testor Sanctissima jura, meaeque  
Spem sobolis, Non huc venio pertaesa malorum,  
Sed miserata virum: possum sine Conjuge, possum  
Quamvis dura p●ti. Si post exempla ferocis  
Ultima saevitiae nondum deferbuit ira,  
In me tota ruat: vivam crudele sepulchrum  
Me premat, & triplicis cingat custodia Valli,  
Dum meus aetheriae satietur pastibus Aurae  
Grotius, & Casus narret Patriaeque suosque.  
Dixerat, atque oculis fugientia vela secutis  
Addit; Abi Conjux, neque Te nisi Libera cernam,  
Quod mea si auderet Famam spondere Camaena,  
Acciperet quantis virtutem laisdibus istam  
Posteritas?—  

A rejoinder to as much of the Key for Catholics as pretends to be ● Reply to my old Advertisement.  Sect. 7. I now pass on (as you direct me) to the latter part of your Key for Catholics, of which your Pen hath made great Boast. But every man's cause is not the best, who hath the fondest opinion of his performance. For then there were no disputing with you. You would be constantly in the right, which part soever you undertook. You say, the Business of Grotius is it, upon which you are to meddle with me. p. 382. And first you promise me to yield (what I told you) That for the very same reasons, upon which you conclude that Grotius is a Papist, you must also conclude him to be a Protestant, unless you think as hardly of the Augustan Confession, as you seem to do of the Council of Tre●t; But you will not perform it till the Greek Calends. For you condition with me to prove, That a Protestant is one who holdeth to the Council of Trent, etc. And are you fitted to be a Disputant, whose strength is only to be sturdy in a mere begging of the Question? welfare th● Downright Dr. Kendal for faithfully telling you in his Book, That A little more of the University would have done you no harm. See and wonder at your unhappiness, (which was Rivet's as well as yours.) You objected against Grotius, his having set out the Canons of the Trent Council in his Conciliatory Design. To which I answered, that he did equally set out the Articles of the Protestant Council at Augusta. So as if that doth prove him a Papist, This must prove him also a Protestant. Whereas indeed they both prove him a Reconciler. You confess it is not Popery to be a Peacemaker; Nay you pretend at least to be one yourself. You often wish for peace and union between us and the Papists; But how can Peace be ever made betwixt two Adversary parties, without a mutual Collation of both their Doctrines? which if they are thought so to differ, as to be quite irreconcilable, who would labour to reconcile them? When 
* At Grotius non eam Bullam— solam edidit, sed & confess nem Augus● nam, existimans, com●●dè acceptas Doctrinas Tridentinam & Augustanam inter se non ita pugre, ut multi credidere. Discuss. p. 7.  Grotius told Rivet, that he had put forth the Doctrines, as well of the Augustan, as the Tridentine Council, because he believed they differed less than many others did apprehend, he conceived the Papists Doctrines might be made to conform unto the Protestants, not the Protestants unto the Papists, (meaning not the Presbyterian, but sober Protestant's, such as those at Augusta, remember That,) for in the very same page (as in twenty others which I have met with) He pleads for the Reforming of Popish Errors, (whether the Pope will or no) by Kings and Bishops within th●ir Bounds. But never yet could I find, that he acknowledged the least Error, in either the Discipline or Doctrine of sober Protestants; such as the Followers of Melanchthon, and the unchangeable Sons of the Church of England. The words of Grotius, 
Ibid.  which have opened shall stop your mouth: Licuerit sanè Regibus, & legitime constitutis Episcopis, intra suos fines quaedam corrigere, quae videbantur corrigenda. There he approves of the Reformation● in the Dukedom of Saxony, and here in England. 
Ibid. p. 8.  At quo jure privati, ubi Ecclesiae erant, Novas constituerunt Ecclesias, nullis ab Episcopis ortas, nullis cum Episcopis cohaerentes? There he condemns the Reformations (so called) which were made by the Scotish, and other rebellious Presbyterians.  

To beg the Question must not pass for a Reply.  Sect. 8. To the next part of your Reply (p. 383.) I easily give you this full Return. 1. You do not so much as pretend a proof, that you did not mistake the drift of the most excellent Discussio; but poorly ask, if his words are not plain enough; and bid the Readers of his words become the judges, Thus you are still an arrant Beggar of the Question; and as to the duty of a Replicant, a mere Tergiversator. Any child might have said the first; and why do you write so many books, if you quit yourself manfully in the second? In stead of all your Disputes, you might have appealed once for all to your partial Readers; but than you must not pretend to give any Answer, or Replies. You ask if Grotius his words are not plain enough; thereby implying that they are, when yet you prove they are not; for I have showed, and shall show you your gross mistakes. I am ever as ready, as you can be, to submit my Cause to the indifferent Reader; but I suppose it my duty to plead it first. Indeed to Poelenburg and Mr. Thorndike, and so unerring a person as Dr. Hammond, the words of Grotius are plain enough. Plain enough to let them see that Grotius was but a peacemaker, not a Papist: And it seems they are plain even to me, because I see the same thing. But even for that very reason they cannot be plain enough to you, Sir, because you seem to see from them that their Author was, what he was not. The printed Judgements of those three above mentioned, are directly contrary to yours. Whether They, or you, are best able to interpret the Words of Grotius, I may very well say, Let the Reader judge. The learnedest persons in all the world (nor only the learnedest, but the most too) as well of the Romish as of the Protestant Church, do judge of his Words, and his Religion, as I have showed you. And could you content yourself to say, (when you could say nothing better)— Are not his words plain enough, and frequent enough to open to us so much of his mind as I have charged him with? It is but answering, No, and then where are you? I beg your pardon for my prolixity, when such a Syllable would have sufficed.  
2. You craftily omit the chiefest part of my charge; which was that you did either not traslate your Citations, or that you did it so lamely, 
* Note that the later words are those, of which I tax you for the omission.  as to conceal the true meaning from English Readers. You translate so much, as might make him seem to be a Papist, but you forbeared the translating of what would have proved him to be None. Which was (to use King james his instance) as if an Atheist should cite those words out of the Psalmist, There is no God, concealing the words going before, The fool hath said in his Heart. Had you translated either all, or none, or as much as had cleared the Author's meaning in the whole, you had not met with a reprehension. And therefore you wrong yourself extremely, by saying you purposely omitted to translate the words of Grotius, foredeeming that such men as I would have said they were mistranslated, (p. 383.) For you did frequently translate them, but you did it with partiality, as hath been 
* See my Advertisement p. penult. and compare it with both your books.  showed. And so you speak against your knowledge in a public matter of Fact. Having printed your do, you now deny the things done; as it were lifting up your right hand against your left. If you foredeemed as you pretend, why did you dare to translate a little? if not, why would you say it? and why did you not translate a little more? Happy is the man who condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.  
3. Now at last indeed you translate his wish, that the Divulsion which fell out and the Causes of the divulsion might be taken away. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome according to the Canons is none of these, as Melanchthon confesseth, p. 383. But you conceal his next words, which make for his and my advantage, to wit, The opinion of Melanchthon, That the Bishop of Rome's primacy is also 
* Qui (Melanchthon) cum primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retinendam unitatem. Discuss. p. 256.  necessary to the retaining of unity. Which opinion, if it made not Melanchthon a Papist in your account, (no nor our own Bp. Bramhal who yet is one of your late Prelates) why should not Grotius have been a Protestant, the Melanchthonian opinion notwithstanding? Did you think that Primacy and Supremacy were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, two words for one thing? That Primacy of Order in the Church, is the same for substance, with Supremacy of Power over the Church? learn to think so no more from this day forward. The Primacy yielded unto the Bishop of Rome, is in respect of Order, not at all of jurisdiction; and that in Grotius his sense, as his next words teach you. 
† Ibid.  Neque enim hoc est, Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini, sed reponere Ordinem sapienter institutum. Which shows the error of your Confidence in your Grotian Religion, p. 35.  
Sect. 9 Whereas you say, you supposed that all you wrote this for understood latin (p. 384.) You do imply yourself faulty for putting part of it in English, unless you thought us unable to understand the whole. But you confidently add, you translated none of the sentence, (ibid.) although you translated a part of it, no less than twice in one page. And though you thought it no Injury to give account in english but of part, yet I have showed it was an Injury, and told you why. If I did not translate what I recited out of Grotius to my Advantage, you should have thanked me for such a favour, as the advancing your Interest by the neglecting of mine own. But if you look on my Advertisement, (as I have done at your appointment) you will find me complaining of your silence, as to the Causes of the Breach, which Grotius did wish might be taken away. I had no doubt translated more, but for the hastiness of the Carrier, which did not allow me so great Advantage. I meant by your silence, your not acquainting your English Readers with that which served to clear Grotius, but only with that which you thought against him. The Negation of Causes, viz. that of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, cannot suffice for your task to prove Grotius a Papist, because for that, he citys Melanchthon. Nor doth the Primacy signify the universal Headship, (as you do wilfully aver, or very weakly, p. 384.) because of the reasons so lately rendered.  
Sect. 10. You confess that Grotius doth charge the Papists with the Causes of the Divulsions, (p. 385.) But you add, that he chargeth the Protestants much more. You must distinguish of Protestants, as I have told you over and over. The true and regular Reformers he never chargeth, but only the subverters of Church and State, who used the Title for a pretence. As our Saviour charged the Scribes and Pharisees, not with pouring out prayers, (as if to pray were a sin) but with using them as a cloak (as some have used the word 
* Gal. 5.13.  Liberty for an occasion to the flesh) to cover their 
† Mat. 23.14.  devouring of widow's Houses. If he charged the Papists, but not with Popery, (the second part of your evasion) why doth he frequently complain of the lust and Tyranny of the Pope, and the Corruptions of the Papists in point of Doctrine, as well as manners? exhorting Princes and Bishops, if the Pope will not join, to reform without him?  
Sect. 11. You say the things were but two, which Grotius found faulty in the Papists, (Vot. pro. Pace. p, 7.8.) And those you lamely represent too, p. 385. Read again, 
Vidi à Scholasticis— multa introducta dogm●ta— non ex Conciliorum Universalium Auctoritate; Dogmata verò in Conciliis stabilita minus ab illis commode, explicata: praeterea inter Ecclesiae praepositos eum invaluisse Typhum & Avaritiam, & mali exempli mores, ut two—  and you will find them to be Three: for first he saith, that by the Schoolmen, many opinions were introduced, and that from a liberty of arguing, not at all from the Authority of General Councils (Mark the Councils which he was for.) 2. That the opinions established by the Councils were by those very Schoolmen incommodiously expounded. (These are two distinct things, to forge New Doctrines and to misinterpret the old ones, which you have confounded in your Recital.) 3. That Pride and Avarice and manners of ill example had prevailed in such a measure among the Governors of the Church, (of which remember the Pope was chief) that they were neither solicitous, as they ought, to press upon the people those wholesome Tenets, nor to Reform those vices [which reigned amongst them] But rather made use of the People's Ignorance, and withal of their Superstition, which, arising out of their ignorance, administered nourishment unto their vices, to promote their [selfish and sordid [Interest.] Now Sir observe what you have done. You have not only huddled up the things that are different and distinct, but you have ended with an & caetera, which cut's off the Prime of your Account. As if you durst not make it known to your English Readers, how deeply Grotius had charged the Popish Prelates, and Schoolmen, for fear your bitterness towards Grotius should lose its sting, and that in the act of its exercise, or execution. To what purpose do you ask, if the Council at Lateran and Florence did not decree that the Pope is above a General Council, when you knew that Grotius was quite against it? They are the General Councils which Grotius had in great Reverence, of which the Lateran and Florentine you know were None, unless your knowledge is less than I would very fain think it. Grotius was constant to the Rules, of Wise Vincentius of Lyra, and adhered to those things which were always, and every where, perseveringly delivered in what Church soever he Chan●'d to find them; which whosoever doth not, cannot be a true Christian. He did not hold all in the Council of Trent, (as you often calumniate, but never prove,) but told us what might be done, for the love of Peace, for the Accommodating of that to the Protestant Synod at Augusta.  
I thank you for your promise, never to call me an Arminian; but not for making me a Papist in the very next period. If you are grieved, that in these Churches, I and the men of my mind have leave given us to be Rectors, you may ease yourself by a Course at Law: For you are never like to do it by writing Books, though 'tis said of you, as of him in Scotland, That you can put them out as oft, as your Belly aches. Whilst you say that such professors, as Master Hickman, and yourself, cannot have licence to be Rectors, no nor so much as to escape the strappado in my Church, you either mean you are departed from the true Church of England, or that I am revolted to that of Rome. If the first, you confess your own Schism; If the second, God will rebuke you for your Slander.  
Sect. 12. When you have done with my Advertisement, 
Compare this with Sect. 14.  you have not yet done with me. And for want of new forces, to make a stand against Evidence of Truth and Reason, you repete a great part of your Grotian Religion, as if you thought a Repetition were aequipollent to a Reply. First, you scruple not to say, [That Grotius his Religion is that which is contained in the Council of Trent with all the rest. p. 386.] Yet in the passage which you translate, there are these things against you. 
* Inveniet ea commode & convenienter, ●um S. S. tum veterum Doctorum locis ad marginem positis, posse explicari. Discuss. p. 14.  1. He saith that those Acts may be commodiously explained, by the marginal Citations both out of Scripture and Ancient Doctors, not that they ought to be received in gross, without such commodious explications: where by the way you may amend your gross mistake in the Translation, by carrying the adverbs to the verb, which you have linked unto the substantive, mistaking the Ablative, for the Dative Case plural. 
Quorum Act● si quis leget animo ad p●cem propenso, Is inveniet, etc.  And by this you have perverted the Author's sense. 2. He saith that this may be done in any man's judgement, who hath a mind propense to Peace. In order to the unity and peace of Christendom, all the most favourable Constructions, must be put upon the Doctrines of either party. And by whom is this to be said, but by a Professed Reconciler? 3. So far is Grotius from turning Papist, though such commodious explications should be allowed him, (as some have taken the Covenant, and Engagement too in their own sense, who would not take it in the Imposers) that nothing less will content him (no not in order to public Peace) than a Removal and 
* Tollantur ea, quae cum pia ista Doctrinâ pugnant, etc.  Abolition of those Corruptions in the Church, 
Ibid.  which had obtained their Introduction by evil manners and customs, not by ancient tradition, or the Authority of Councils. 4. He doth not say he is content with what he hath, but that he 
† H●bebit id quo possit e●●e contentus.  shall have that wherewith he may be contented, upon this 
* Quod si pr●terea tollantur ea, etc.  condition or proviso, that Reformation shall be made. 5. He condition's that this be done 
† Quod si, curâ Episcoporum & Regum tollantur ea, etc.  by Kings and Bishops in their respective places of Jurisdiction, without taking notice of the Pope, whose consent he thought needless as well as impossible to be had. 6. He adds the chief thing, (which you were pleased to take no no●ice of unto your Readers, hoping they would not take the pains to examine Grotius in his Original) 
* Nec aliud desiderat Confessio Augustana▪ Ibid. Ibid.  That the Augustan Cenfession doth not desire any thing else, in order to a closure of both the Churches. He adds the Profession (not only of Zanchie, a single Protestant, but) of the Protestant Princes and Cities, De nullo articulo Fidei dissentire se ab Ecclesiâ Catholicâ: sed paucos abusus à se omitti, qui novi sunt, & contra voluntatem Canonum, vitio Temporum, recepti. You see that Grotius hath expressed a lesser propensity to the Papists, than the Protestants who adhere unto the Augustan Confession, 
Et optima est & auctoritate maximâ, quip in Regnis aliquot, etc. Discuss. p. 15.  which of all the Protestant Confessions is judged by Grotius to be the best and of the greatest Authority, as being Received in some Kingdoms, and in some of the greatést Principalities, and in divers free Cities or Commonwealths. Bucer was one of that Synod, who (you know) was assisting to our true English Reformation.  
Now what a hard hap is this, that That must be Popery in Grotius, which is not such in any one else? Let all the Kingdoms and Commonwealths which embrace the Augustan Confession be reckoned Papistical, as well as Grotius; or else let Grotius be a Protestant, as well as Them. But you are implacable to Grotius, who must be therefore what you will have him, rather than want a staff to beat that Dead lion, (who can less resist you than a live Dog) you are resolved to call it 
* This you do in your. C●et. Relig. p. 37.  his way to Peace, au● per Papae eximiè beni authoritatem, aut Concilium Generale, etc. (Vot. pro pace p. 9) which, your Eyes have made your Conscience witness, was the way of some other pacific Persons. Did you not know the true English of vidi eos in id incumbere Omnes— and again, eos sentire ineundas vias—? Besides, of 
† Eas autem esse Tres. ●ot. p. 9  three ways, you name but two. 1. The Authority of a Pope extremely good. 2. Or a General Council, rightly called during the vacancy of the Popedom, (which later words you leave out.) 3. Or the Conferences of Kings directed by the Bishops with that intent, that the Result of their Thoughts might be brought to the See of Rome, as nothing else but a Coagulum, a kind of cement, and means of Concord. This whole third way you would not mention.  
Sect. 13. You object against Grotius, 
Discuss. p. 185.  that In interpreting places of Scripture, He professed he would not cross the Rule, which was delivered by himself, and by the Council of Trent. p. 386] But you name not the Rule, nor direct your Reader where to find it. If you knew it not yourself, why would you vilify you knew not what? And if you wanted no knowledge of it, why would you argue against your knowledge? Why would you brand him as a Papist for adhering to a Rule, which is the Rule of the Protestants, as well as Papists? I will convince you of your rashness (from whatsoever principle it issued out) by telling your Readers the very Rule, of which you either were ignorant, or else dissembled your understanding. It was 
* Regula prudentissima ejus Synodi de non interpretandâ Scripturâ contra unanimem Consensum Patrum, etc. Discuss. p. 18●. lin. 30.  the most prudent [and Protestant] Rule, of not Interpreting Scripture against the [full and] unanimous consent of Fathers. Are you so near to the Socinians, as to decry such Rules as These? O● is every thing Popish, for being approved by the Council of Trent? Go to Sir, go to; I understand you better and better. The better to make you understand yourself, I am to mind you of the stile which Grotius speaks in. 
† Ibid.  Nihil fecisset Grotius ne contra Synodum quidem Tridentinam. If you should say of yourself in some particular, That in this you do nothing contrary even to the Council of Trent, would any man from hence conclude you a Papist, and not rather the contrary? Consider the force of Ne quidem, and you will know what you have done. Again, the addition of those words (immediately after the place you cite.) Quam multò melius intellexit Alcazar, doth show a different meaning of the Place, than you were willing to apprehend. He speaks of his own Interpretations of some Places of Isaiah, against which it was objected, that he receded from those of the ancient Fathers. But he 
* Non obstat (Regula) quò minus ad loca Scripturae, historica praesertim aut Prophetica, adferatur nova expositio, etc.  answers to the objection (p. 182.) That to Places of Scripture, especially Historical and Prophetical Places, It is lawful to bring new expositions, so that they be not repugnant to Doctrines anciently delivered. And this liberty he citys from the Romanist Alcazar. (p. 183.) adding Maldonate, and others, and so going on, till he concludes, That by the advice of learned men, He will use this liberty; but so as not to cross the Rule, which Himself hath set unto himself as well as that Council, (to wit the Rule of doing nothing against the joint consent of the Father;) which Alcazar understood, as well or better than Mr. Rivet. Where it is evident, what he speaks is of the liberty he useth in his Interpreting of Scripture, not of enslaving h●mself unto the Council of Trent's Interpretations; but he will use his liberty in such a manner, as not to break his own Good Rule, though it is also the Rule even of that very Council. If our Enemies, the Pa●ists, do make a good Rule, or repe●e it rather from Vincentius Lirinensis, we may observe it as being good, though not as made or repeated by him, or Them.  

Discuss. p. 139.  Sect. 14. You add out of Grotius, That the Augustan Confession commodiously explained, hath scarce any thing which may not be reconciled with those opinions which are received with the Catholics, by Authority of Antiquity and of Synods, as may be known out of Cassander and Hoffmei●ter; and there are among the jesuites also who think not otherwise, p. 386, 387.] All the weight of this Testimony doth lie on that phrase, Dogmata quae Antiquitatis & Synodorum authoritate sunt recepta. And what injury is it to the Augustan confession, to think it may be so reconciled? reconciled with those Dogmata, which the Catholics have from Antiquity? If some of the soberest of the Jesuits, such as Pe●avius and Sirmondus, would (for the love they bear to peace) subscribe the Augustan Confession, it might be much for the honour, but could not be for the prejudice of our Religion; for if we rejoice for the Conversion of now and then a jew, why not for that of a jesuite also? Again, supposing that Grotius had been able, in his own sense to subscribe the Trent Articles, (in order to the peace and unity of Christendom) it would no more be an Evidence of his being turned Papist, than of any Papist's turning Protestant, who should subscribe the Augustan Confession. 
* Compare this with Sect. 12.  The very utmost of your Objections against Grotius is, that he designed to deal with the Articles of Trent, as Sancta Clara with the Articles of the Church of England; to wit, by drawing them aside to another Sense, than what is most obvious in the words themselves. And admit it were so indeed; yet 1. He had better grounds for it than Sancta Clara, to wit, the places of Scripture, and Ancient Doctors in the Margin, which may be used as a Key to unlock their meaning when it is Doubtful. And if the meaning of the Text is truly agreeable to the Margin, there is then a just ground of public peace, in case the Scripture and Antiquity do contain a good meaning, which I hope you will not refuse to grant me. 2. But however you must be minded, that this is a thing which the Papists do most of all blame in our Reconciler, to wit, his assuming so great a liberty, as to misinterpret their Definitions. Just as we who are Protestants do lay a blame upon Sancta Clara, for misexpounding our Articles against our mind. From whence, notwithstanding the Papists were never so irrational, as to conclude that Franciscus à Sanctâ Clarâ turned Protestant: Much less may we infer that Grotius turned Papist, from his making their Doctrines comply with Scripture, who had wrested the Scripture to serve their Doctrines. 3. If he could find a sense in the words of Trent, which being agreeable to Scripture and to the Protestant Confession, might be by Protestants subscribed to, what hurt were it to us, or gain to them? Even This would evince him to be no ●apist. For if he were, what need could there be of such commodious Explications? 4. Add to this, (as I said before Sect. 12.) his Qu●d si praeterea, 
Quod s● praetere● tollantur ista quae cum piâ istâ Doctrinâ pugnant, etc.  But if besides; (not and if as you translate it) noting this to be required yet further towards a peace, (before the peacemaker himself can rest contented) that all the Errors of the Papacy be taken away: which having never been introduced by Authority of Councils, or ancient Tradition, (meaning no other Councils then what are ancient, agreeable to the Tradition which comes immediately after) he resolves may be Reform by Kings and Bishops in their several Regions, without the making of any Breach in the Church of God. 5. And once for all let it be noted, That Grotius his use of that 
* Especially taking in an old Tradition, etc. p. 386.  phrase, (which you lately perverted to your own ends) is only to signify against the Romanist's Errors, that they are not introduced by ancient Tradition; and therefore wanting that Authority to which they lay a dishonest claim, they are unquestionably fit to be taken away.  

Discuss. p. 71.  Sect. 15. What you recite out of Grotius in your p. 387. Must receive its true sense from the words of the Author before, and after. You must observe the Resolution both in France, and else where, 
* Interim & in Galliâ & alibi, Duo constare video; neque pro Concilio universali l●abendum id quod à Patriarchalibus fedibus aut omnibus aut plurimis est improbatum, etc.  That no one Council is to be reckoned for universal, which is disliked either by all, or by the major part of the Patriarchal Sees. This than must assure us what his Notion is of Councils, when he speaks of them in gegerall without naming which. And for the passage which you cite, I pray Sir, tell me; Hath not France the Scriptures and the Dogmata, (that is the Doctrines, in this place, not the opinions, as you translate it,) explained in the four Ecumenical Councils, and also the Decrees against Pelagius? If so, why do you quarrel? if not, why do you say, that you esteem that Nation an honourable part of the Church of Christ? (Grot. Rel. p. 10.) If you did not strive to deceive your Reader, why did you not faithfully translate the passage, but purposely leave out the special words, which would have served to clear their Author? you know his sentence is plainly this. That in those Churches which join with the Roman, 
In Ecclesiis illis,— non Scriptura tantùm manet, sed & dogmata, explicata in Magnis Synodis, Nicaena, Constantinop. Ephesinâ, Chalcedonensi. Discuss. p. 71.  not only the Scripture doth still remain, but the Doctrines also explained in the GREAT COUNCILS, Those of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the Things decreed against Pelagius by the Bishops of Rome. But in your Translation, you neither express the word Great, (which is of vast consequence) nor do you name so much as one of the four Great Councils. As if you were willing that your Readers should imagine, he might mean some partial and trivial Councils, and lay as much weight upon such as those, as if indeed he had been a Papist. Now concerning the Canons of those great Councils, for Reformation of manners in the Bishop of Rome, (which Grotius calls, for that reason, Egregious Constitutions,) They are also received by Rome itself. And were they put in execution, there could not be any such thing as Popery. Because according to those Canons, the Bishop of Rome must quit his claim to the Universality of his Pastorship, or to his being an Universal judicial Head, and must leave the Church to be governed by her several Primates. Hence it 'tis that such wise and pacific Protestants, as Melanchthon, Isaac Casaubon, Grotius, and Bishop Bramhall, do still exact a Reformation Secundum Canon's. Yet this is but one of those many things, for which good Canons have been enacted. And thus you see at every turn, how very little you were qualified to intermeddle in these Things.  
Sect. 16. The next passage you translate in as fraudulent a manner as any other. 
Discuss. p. 48.  Read and Repent what you have done. These are the things, which thanks be to God the Catholics do not thus believe, though many that call themselves Catholics so live as if they did believe them: But Protestants (so live) by force of their Opinions, and Catholics by the decay of Discipline, p. 387.] First you omit the word [Quidam] which is of greatest moment to show the meaning of the Author; as if you had purposely laid a Trap for your illiterate Readers, to make them fall into a hatred of so incomparable a man, for having written thus sharply against Protestants in general; whereas, you know, he only spoke of some 
* Sed Protestantes quidam ex vi Dogmatum, etc. lin. 13.  certain Protestants, who live wicked lives by force of their Doctrines or Opinions. And do you know any one Protestant, who will not say the very same? 2. You do not take the least notice, what kind of Doctrine his words belong to: Indeed if you had, you had spoiled your own plot: For the passage refers unto the 
† Quomodo vivas, ni●il interest. Sine conditione pro paenâ quam ipsi debent satisfecit Christus. Sine Conditione gloriam aeternam ipsis ●●t meritus. Ibid.  Doctrine of unconditional Promises, unconditional Satisfaction, unconditional Glory. And did he not say very truly, that Catholics do not believe this, though many live as if they did? Did he not as truly say, that (at least) some Protestants do hold these Doctrines, and live accordingly? you see the whole fault i● in your treacherous translation. You promise me to translate as well as you can, (p. 383.) If to do it very falsely, is as well as you can, I will not tax you for breach of promise, But then repent of your gibeing, p. 383. l. penult.  
Sect. 17. Your next Quarrel to Grotius is for calling the Roman Church the 
* Discuss. p. 95.  Mistress of other Churches, p. 387.] But in this your misfortunes are more than One. For 1. He speaks of the Roman Church, not in her present but ancient state; and this you could not but know, if you knew the English of jam olim senserit. Or if you read as far as those words, quae tempora respiciens Grotius, (p. 96. l. 1.) 2. Zanchy was a strict Protestant, and (which is more against you) a Presbyterian; yet he professeth the Roman Church to have been pure whilst she was ancient, and desires no more for her Reformation, than that she return to her former self. Look back on chap. 1. p. 23. and you will find in my Margin his words at large; words most worthy your meditation. You will find in the same paragraph the affirmation of Blondel, (which being there in Latin only, I will here give you in English) 
* look back on ch. 1. p. 22.  That the Dignity of the Roman Apostolical Bishopric [or See] is not denied by the Protestants, no nor her primacy over the Neighbouring Churches, and in some respect over 
† & aliquatenus super omnes.  all the Churches, but this by the Protestants is referred to her Ecclesiastical Right. Is this an Argument to prove that Blondel turned Papist, who lived and died the chief prop of the Presbyterians? yet this is every whit as good, as any you bring against Grotius. 3. It is the point of Praedestination, which occasions Grotius to use those words, wherein the Arminian Presbyterians do jump with Rome. And when he calls her a 
* a●iarum Magistra.  Mistress, (not to tyrannize, but) to teach her Neighbours, he calls her no more than indeed she was; she having been often appealed to by other Churches, as by the African, and the French, when any point of Tradition was called in Question. You 
† Grot. Rel. p. 8.  profess your very honourable and grateful thoughts of the jesuits and Friars for their labours to convert the Infidel Nations unto the Faith, of which you will not deny the Roman Church to be the Mistress. 4. Higher Titles than this have been afforded to that Church by the Apostolical Father 
* Iren. adversus Haeres. lib. 3. c. 3. mi●●▪ p. 232▪  Irenaeus, who allowed her no less than a Principality, in regard of which he thought it needful that all other Churches should be conformable to This, as being the greatest and the most ancient, and known to all to have been founded by the most glorious pair of Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem Principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Ec●lesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique Fideles; in quâ semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis Traditio. The reason of this (I suppose may be fitly given out of Eusebius: 
Euseb. Hist. l. ●▪ c. 8.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In a word, if you will know how great a Deference hath been given to the Roman Church, by such as St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Ambrose, St. jerom, St. Austin, Sozomen, and divers others among the Ancients, nay by such as our Protestant King james, and learned Bucer, and Mr. Calvin himself; Grotius his 
* p. 68, 69, 70.  Discussio will straight inform you. 5. What Grotius saith he will subscribe with a most ready mind, is nothing else but the true Doctrine of Praedestination, and other Doctrines depending on it, which all the Remonstrant Presbyterians are as ready to subscribe, as any Grotius. And what is this to his turning Papist? no more than it is to the D●minicans being turned Presbyterians.  
Sect. 18. The next passage which you cite from p. 7. (in your p. 387.) is much the same with what you cited from p. 14. and may be sent for its Answer to the 12th. Section of this Appendix, 
Discuss. p. 7.  but yet I will add, that this makes more to your disadvantage; because it makes it more manifest, how that passage was to be rendered concerning the Scriptures and the Fathers (in the Margin of the Articles) being made a fit medium for a commodious Interpretation.; and so it shows you the less excusable, that when you had seen both Places, you should yet be guilty of such a misinterpretation. 2. There is added in that place, That Grotius did set out the Augustan Confession, as well as the Bull of Pius Quintus; It being the part of a Reconciler, to compare the Pretences of either Party, and then to pitch upon a moderate commodius sense, wherein both Parties may likely meet. But remember that the middle cannot be either of the Extremes; and therefore Grotius was aequedistant from a Papist and Presbyterian. 
The Synod at Dort and Assembly-m●n add Articles to those in the Creed.  3. Whereas it is said, that the Bull hath Articles in it besides those of the Creed, But that the Synod of Dort hath more: First I answer that it is True, and therefore blameless, as will be acknowledged by any of the Arminian Presbyterians. Next that Grotius did only use it as a most pertinent retorsion upon the Man with whom he was dealing. Mr. Rivet who approved of the Synod at Dort, had no reason to object against the Bull of Pius Quintus, [its having some Articles besides those in the Creed,] because his own Synod of Dort had many more. Compare with both (if you please) Mr. Baxter's Confession of Faith, and that of the Westminster Assembly, wherein (it seems) there were added so many Articles to the Creed, that the Parliament thought fit to lay aside a 
* Viz. cap. 30. &. 31. & Sect. 4. of c. 20. & also a great part of cap. 24.  great many, yet such a confidence there was in that Assembly, that they posted their Issue into the world, before the Parliament had declared their Resolutions about it. Which though I guessed at before, by the Division I had observed amongst 
† See the Testimony to the Truth of I.C. p. 37.  the 52. Ministers within the Province of London, whereof a Party did still wait for the Pleasure of the Houses, whilst a greater party of the same Tribe would not be patiented of such delay; yet I never knew it so fully, as since I saw the Declaration of the Congregational Churches, wherein the Deal of the Assembly are very usefully 
* Praef. p. 10. & ●2. 1●▪  exposed to public view. 4. As for the Novity or Newness of those Articles in the Bull, That must be judged of (saith Grotius) by such a right understanding of them, as is to be taken from the Scriptures and ancient Doctors in the Margin. And if it once come to that, they will cease to sound as now they do. How this project can be effected, without forcing and wresting the words of the Councils, I must ingenuously profess I canno● hitherto understand. But Grotius his understanding could reach to see many things, which are above the comprehensions of yours, or mine. Or if he came short of such a way, as to which the Papists would have agreed, than the Peace which he designed was still to continue in his Design. And he would ever have this to object against them, that we Protestant's had offered them Terms of Peace, Such, as by their own Margin, (to wit the Scriptures and Fathers there,) they stand obliged to accept of; And so the Blame of our Breaches is to be laid at their door, who refuse such Terms of Reconcilement.  
Now can you think it any dettiment to the Protestant Cause, That we alone are the men, who as much as in us lies would live peaceably with all men? And that others of each extreme will rather continue unreconcilable? If you think it a foolish thing, in so angelical a Person as Grotius was, to propose such Terms as were so utterly unlikely to take effect, To this I answer two Things. 1. He professed to lay-in this Provision for Posterity, to which he maketh his Appeal in divers places. He hoped that men in tract of Time would grow to be weary of contending, and place Religion in good life, as now they do in maintaining Parties. 2. You have 
* Grot. Rel. p. 6.  professed for your own part, that you will write and speak for Peace, though you saw not a man in the world that would regard it, or return you any better thanks than a reproach. And though you propose some Terms of reconciling the Protestants with the Papists, 
† Ibid. p. 2●.  that the work may not seem to be utterly Hopeless, yet you proclaim in your Title-page to your Key for Catholics, That your Proposals are made for a hopeless Peace; as if you thought you had the Privilege (above all other mortals) to approve what you practice, even whilst you practise what you condemn.  
Sect. 19 The passage about the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, 
The Real Presence in the Lord's Supper.  (at the bottom of your page 387, 
●isc●ss. p. 35. ) is placed by Grotius in the midst of many more, taken from writers of all sorts, both Ancient and Modern; and amongst the modern, as well Protestants, as Papists; to show the smallness of the difference, as to that particular. But of this you were resolved to take no notice. 2. He adds another passage of the Council of Trent, to wit that This Sacrament is the spiritual food of the Soul. Another from the Gloss of the Canon Law, a third from Clement the fourth, a fourth from St. Bernard, and then he shows their affinity to Philip Melanchthon, and the Waldenses, to divers Protestant Churches, and in a word to Mr. Calvin, who hath said as plainly as any of them, 
† Calvinus: Deum non ludere inanibus signis, sed reipsâ praestare quod per symbola testatur, communicationem Corporis & Sanguinis:— verum substantiam nobis donari:— substantiae corp. & sang. nos fieri participes. p. 36.  [That God doth not mo●k us with empty signs, but doth really exhibit what he doth testify by the signs, the communication of his Body and blood.— That the very substance is given unto us,— That we are made partakers of the substance of his Body and Blood.] Will you infer from hence that Calvin also turned Papist? or will you say the Council of Trent was as well Protestant as Popish, for saying that Christ in that Sacrament is sacramentally present, and not according to the natural manner of existing? in earnest I know not what should hinder you, could you but think it for your Advantage. 3. As for that which you add, [And the Council hath found words to express it, that there is made a ●hange of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body, and the whole substance of Wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calleth Transubstantiation,] Gretius (you know) hath nothing like it; nor doth he any way appear to approve of that notion, nor to go a step further than Melanchthon and Bucer, nay the Waldenses and Mr. Calvin. Nay he approves the Diallacticon, which was clearly written by a Protestant. The whole malignity of the passage lies wrapped in your addition about Transubstantiation; which yet you have set in such a manner, as I believe your english Readers will think you have taken it out of Grotius, if they ●o not observe what now I tell them, That Grotius hath not any such thing; but that all the Addition is your D●vice. Your Translation is also faulty in two respects, for the Latin runs thus, jesum Christum verum Deum atque hominem, verè, realiter, ac substantialiter, sub specie earum rerum sensibilium contineri. Your English thus, jesus Christ true God and truly man, is really and substantially contained under the form of those sensible things: applying verè to hominem which belongs to contineri. Again, those words in the Latin, assequi possumus, you render thus, we may be certain: of which as I see not any reason, so I verily believe you will show me none.  
Sect. 20. What Grotius saith of the Synod, 
Material and Formal Idolatry.  [that when t●e Synod of Trent saith, the Sacrament is to be adored with divine worship, 
Discuss. p. 79.  it intends no more but that the Son of God himself is to be adored, in your p. 388.] he citeth out of the Synods words, which explicates herself, as he hath recited her explication, Sess. 13. C. 6.] And could it be possible for Grotius to do amiss in so doing? was it his fault that he did not lie? or is a man turned Papist, who relates a matter of Fact as he finds it printed before his Eyes? Is any Protestant to be blamed merely for saying that the Papists do profess to worship none but the Son of God, when accused of Idolatry for yielding worship to bread and wine? Of what a happy Generation were you descended, that you can make a man guilty (though never so innocent) by somewhat less than an Affirmation? But to come from Grotius to the Papists, is it not absolutely necessary that they should make that Excuse, whilst they suppose (as they do) that the Elements are converted into the very body and blood of Christ? For we know in that Case, though what they worship is very Bread, which implie's them guilty of material Idolatry, yet Christ is That which they mean to worship, which free's them from the guilt of being formally Idolatrous. It is not Popery, to do the Papists not wrong. The way to convince and convert the●, is to accuse them in measure of their Corruptions. A Puritanical opposition confirms a Papist, and makes him conclude he is Orthodox, because he Conquer's.  

Two sorts of Papists. Discuss. p. 15.  Sect. 21. Your two last passages out of Grotius, (which you sadly translated in your p. 388.) are joined together in his Discussio, p. 15. and tell us what Papists he understood, when he spoke of them in ●n Epistle. And what hurt can there be in either part? Did not Grotius do well, in calling those men by the name of Papists, who approve of all the say and deeds of Popes, and ●hat without any difference? What a Papist must you be thought, if you will not call such Papists, as well as Grotius? But I perceive, by what you say in your Grotian Religion, (p. 58, 59) You collect from those words, (or would make your Reader at least believe it) that none were Papists with Grotius, but such as these. [You hope there be few Papists in the world, if th●se Only be Papists, p. 59] Nor can you mean any otherwise, but by denying that These are Papists. Here than I must show you as great a wilfulness or weakness in your objection, as was ever committed by any Writer in this kind. For in the page by you cited, Grotius makes a Distinction of two sorts of Papists, (as you have often times done 
* Grot. Rel. p. 9 Sect. 4.  yourself,) and tell's Mr. Rivet which sort he meant. Not, which he meant in all places, but in illâ, Epistolâ, in that particular Epistle, which Rivet spoke of. Mark the end of the period, as well as the beginning.] Papistas' Grotius in illâ Epistolâ— eos intelligebat, qui sine ullo discrimine Omnia Paparum Dicta Factaque probant, honorum aut lucri, ut solet fieri, causâ: Non eos, qui, salvo jure Regum & Episcoporum, Papae sive Episcopo Romano eum concedunt Primatum, quem mos Antiquus & Canon's & veterum Imperatorum & Regum edicta ei assignant. Here are distinctly two sorts of Papists described to us. In the Epistle spoken of, he meant the former, who promiscuously approve of all that comes from the Pope, right, or wrong; good, or evil; not the later sort of Papists, who allow the Pope such a 
* Note that the later sort of Papists are agreed with in this one particular by Melanchthon, Bishop Bramhall, David Blondel the Presbyterian, and many more.  Primacy, as Ancient Custom and the Canons and the Edicts of Emperors and Kings do assign unto him. Did you not know, that the second [eos] was a pronoun Adjective, as well as the first? And that Papistas was the Substantive, with which they did equally agree? Dr. Kendal would have said (in such a case as this is) That a little more of the Grammar-School would have done you no harm. If you shall plead in your excuse, that your offence was committed through want of Charity towards Grotius, not through any the least defect of skill in Grammar, you will enforce us to believe you a better Scholar, than a Christian.  
2. But suppose it were, as you affirm it; yet considering what is meant by sine ullo Discrimine, there can be no such ill in it, as you suggest. For they who approve of as many say and do of the Pope, as they discern to have Truth and reason in them, and also disapprove of those, which have no appearance of truth and Reason, (amongst whom you may reckon the Presbyterian Followers of Arminius, who applaud the Decree of Pope Innocent the tenth,) cannot properly and strictly be called Papists. Next, what hurt is there in adding, that they who thus approve of all that comes from the Pope, do it either for honour's, or Lucre's sake? Sure they do it not for God's, or for Conscience sake. And being not on Christian, it needs must be on carnal Grounds. The chief of which in this matter are Gain, and Greatness. Some indeed there are or may be, who may do it only out of Ignorance. But to the consideration of such as Those, he had no occasion to descend in that particular passage of which we speak.  
3. The negative part of the whole sentence, which you cut asunder from the Affirmative, and set in lieu of a New Argument against its Author, (whether more wilfully, or weakly, time will show,) I have showed you the meaning of, in the first part of this Section. But here I will add for your behoof, that there are Papists in the world, who are therefore called by the name of Papists, because they continue in Communion with the Church of Rome, and yet do concur with many Protestants (as well of the Presbyterian, as the Episcopal way,) touching the Primacy of Order which doth belong to that See. From whence we must not conclude, that Thuanus turned Protestant, but that he was a moderate Papist. Nor that Blondel turned Papist, but that he was (in this point) a very moderate Presbyterian. Remember the words of Bishop Bramhall 
* See your Grot. Rel. p. 22.23.  [Cyprian gave a Primacy or principality of Order to the Chair of St. Peter, as Principium unitatis; so do we.] And yet you profess of this learned Bishop, 
† Ibid p. 23. Sect. 13.  that you do not take him for a Papist. If to agree in many things, whilst in many others we disagree, were to be of one Church, or of one Religion; then would the Papists be all Protestants, and all the Protestants would be Papists; when Dr. Owen thought you had enrolled him into the Troop of Antinomians, 
Disp. of right to Sacram. 5. p. 485.  you pleaded fairly for yourself, that you reckoned not all to be Antinomians who held only some one or few of their Opinions. How then could you resolve to reckon Grotius among the Papists, who came no nearer unto the Papists, than the Papists come to the Protestants? No man living can be a Papist, for this one thing, of allowing the Pope such a Primacy as Grotius speaks of, but denying him the Prerogative of being the universal Pastor, or the Supreme head and Governor of the Catholic Church. And Grotius give's a good reason in his following words. 
* Qui quidem Primatus non tam Episcopi est, quàm ipsius Ecclesiae Romanae, caeteris omnibus praelatae communi consensu; etc. Discu●●. p. 15.  Because the Privilege of the said Primacy was by the common consent [of the Ancient Church] ascribed rather to the Church, then to the Bishop of Rome; as having been the most eminent of all the Churches in the world, I say the most eminent in two respects. In respect of the Purity of her Faith, when first she was planted by the two chiefest of the Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul; and in respect of the City Rome, being considered as the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vide Cod. Can. Eccl. Vniu. Can. 206.  Seat of the Western Empire. So fare is this one consideration from showing favour unto the Papacy, that 'tis a principal Bulwark set up against it. 1. It follow's avoidable that the Pope cannot pretend to the granted Primacy, from the words of Christ unto St. Peter, but only from the common consent of the Church, and so it is not by Divine, but Eccclesiastical right. 2. It is not granted unto the Pope, who may at any time err, as Liberius did; but to the pure unerring Roman Church, (such as Zanchie the Presbyterian doth acknowledge her to have been,) which when the present Church of Ro●e shall appear to be, by such an impartial Reformation of her Corruptions as may reduce her to her Primitive and purer self, we shall be ready to pay her Her Ancient Honour. Nor do we gratify her at all, as now she is, by acknowledging (with the Fathers) that she was Primitively pure; because we are able to demonstrate the several growths of her Corruption. The light and evidence of which, as it doth justify our departure, so doth it make us unexcusable, if we preposterously return.  
Sect. 22. There is nothing more strange, 
Grot. his design had no influence on our English changes. Discuss. p. 16.  than that from words so innocent as those you cite out of Grotius, (in your p. 389.) you should conclude his Design to have had an influence upon England, in the changes which occasioned our late civil Wars. For the Book you cite was the last he wrote, and so it was not very far from the final conclusion of all our Wars: or suppose it had been a great deal sooner, yet I am left to admire at what you are willing to infer. Grotius tells us that his Labours for the peace of the Church were not displeasing to many equal [impartial] men, not only in Paris and all France, 
In Angliâ non pauci placidi pacisque amantes. Insanientibus Brownistis, quibuscum D.R. quàm Angliae Episcopis convenit, etc.  but in Germany, Poland, and England too. And that the men to whom his pains was pleasing here in England, were men of mild Tempers and Lovers of peace. Such as to whom he opposeth the raging Brownist, better suiting with Mr. Rivet, then with the Bishops of England. From hence you conclude, (I wonder why) He had Episcopal Factors here in England. If you mean Factors to bring in Popery, I demand your proof or your repentance; if Factors for Peace, you have my pardon. 'tis pity so many sheets of paper as you have written and printed on this one Subject, should all conclude with nothing better than a confident begging of the Question. Yet mark the bottom of the Invention with which you have been so long a brooding. There is a party of Prelatists here in England, who are Factors for Grotius, and so Papists, (this you know is the scope of all,) when first it is apparent that Grotius himself was no such thing. And secondly, the Prelatists are not agreeable to Grotius, in that for which he was most suspected; to wit, his thinking that the Bull of Pius Quintus may (for peace) be subscribed in a commodious sense. Wherein, as I am not of Grotius his mind, (I being not able to subscribe it in any sense I can imagine) so neither am I of Mr. Baxter's, that Grotius for this opinion may be concluded an arrant Papist: no, I find great reason to conclude the contrary. For had he been really a Papist, he might have subscribed those Articles without a commodious interpretation. And you have no pretence of proof that he ever subscribed them at all: He only spoke as an Agitator, a studious Contriver of public peace, for which he made propositions, but all conditional; and showed how far he might go to so great an End.  

He had no Church-preferment offered to ●im from hence.  Sect. 23. Whereas you say, some tell you that Grotius had Church-preferment here offered him, and thought to have accepted it, (p. 389.) you give me occasion to suspect, that either you hear amiss what you are told, or do ill remember what you hear, or imperfectly relate what you remember. 1. At best it is but a hear-say, and such, as if it were true, would prove him a Protestant in grain. 2. But Grotius was not a Churchman, and was a great deal too old to quit his secular employments for the taking of orders here in England, whereby to be capable of Church-preferment. 3. All that looks like truth in it, I think, is this; that the King of England having heard of his incomparable Merits, and of his Love to our English Church, did determine to offer him, if ever the times should prove Peaceable, some very honourable condition within this Realm: Perhaps the Provostship of Eton might have been suitable to the purpose, having been given a little before to some excellent persons of the Laity. Sir Henry Savile, Mr. Murrey, and after that, to Sir Henry Wotton. Yet this at most was but a purpose, which was never advanced unto an actual offer.  
2. Your conceived objection is not so strange, but your answer to it is somewhat stranger. For what can you mean by the Church of England of the second Edition then in the Press? Dating this (as it must be dated) about the end of the war, a little before the death of Grotius, nor long before the death of the King, I know not what you will do for any good meaning of your words: was the Church of England then Popish, or was she not? if Popish, was she such either in capite, or in membris? I need not tell you your unhappiness, let your answer be what it will. You have 
* Grot. Rel. p. 105.106.  freed the King from the suspicion of being a Papist, although you make him much inclined to a Reconciliation. If she was not then Popish, you see how well you have written against your own writings.  
3. I never heard that St. Clara was the Queen's Ghostly Father, 
Franciscus● Sancta had a contrary design.  nor can I imagine from what Familiar you may have received your Intelligence. I grant he continued a perfect Papist, for all he laboured to reconcile the Church of England's Doctrine with that of Rome. But than you must grant (by the same reason) that Grotius continued a perfect Protestant, for all he proposed a Reconcilement of the Tridentine Articles with the Augustan. If St. Clara did the former, to draw the Protestants to be Papists, Grotius also did the later, to draw the Papists to be Protestants. Can the designs of Grotius, and St. Clara be both the same, when Grotius endeavoured so to moderate, and soften Popery, as to rob it thereby of all its poison? whilst St. Clara made it his business to infuse a poison into the Articles of the Church of England? Behold a strange partiality. The poor Protestants of England must suffer on both sides. It pleaseth a Papist to interpret our English Articles as a Pacifick, and thereupon our Archbishop must needs be warping towards Popery: An eminent Protestant doth the same by the Romish Articles, which by analogy should infer that the Pope is warping towards the Protestants; But still it must be quite otherwise; this must also become an Argument against the Prelatists of England; who, if they approve of that Protestant's Labours, or but refuse to rail at him for being turned unto the Papists, must needs be turned Papists as well as he.  
4. Why do you say, that I assure you of Grotius his Followers here in England? If you mean here are Pursuers of his pacific design, I shall confidently challenge you to name One man, who is employed at present in any such enterprise. Not but that we do desire and wish for Peace as much as any; but seeing the Papists are more invasive and more at enmity with us then ever, we find it more needful to betake ourselves to our defence, then either to offer them Terms of peace, or to expect such from them as we can yield to. If you have read the late writings of Bishop B●amhall and Dr. Hammond, two impregnable Propugners of the Protestant cause, (and let the Reverend Dean Cousins be ever remembered as a third) you cannot but know that the Prelatists are more the adversaries of Rome, than the Presbyterians.  
5. You ask in th●se words, [Is it any more proof that Grotius was a Protestant for joining with them, than that they are Papists who join with him? ibid.] Thus whilst you ask, if it is any more proof, you implicitly confess it to be as much: that it must be as much you cannot modestly deny; and even this, Ad Hominem, will serve the turn. For 'tis plain you make them all Papists who join with Grotius, (whilst you call them the Grotian Cassandrian Papists) and therefore according to your reasoning, Grotius who joined with our Episcopal Divines must have been a prelatical English Protestant.  
6. What you add of the late King doth serve to prove him a Protestant, and what you add of Dr. Bayly doth serve to speak him a Papist, but what of this? Grotius was not that Doctor, any more than that King. Our Episcopal Divines made a discovery of the cheat, and reckoned Bayly no other than what they found him, rather a man of the sword than a true pacific. Though 'twas observed by learned Montague, that our Puritans were the men who did commonly turn Papists, yet he did not conclude they were the likelier to be Papists who never turned. 
Dr. Bezier ●leared from a● implicit C●●●●y.  No, to argue in such sort is your own peculiar.  
Sect. 24. What you cite from I. B. to show the judgement of those on whom the judgement of Grotius had any influence, p. 390.] is every way to your prejudice. For 1. The Author is Dr. Bezier, a French Protestant by birth and by education, not one whit the likelier to have been popishly affected, for having been preferred by the Bishop of Durham to be a Prebend in that Church, the Bishop himself being so contrary, and that in your knowledge. 2. It is more than you know, that the Judgement of Grotius had any influence upon His, or that he ever took Grotius into consideration. Take heed of s●eaking things out of your mere Imagination. Dr. Bezier is a person, of whose practice in France I have been an Eye-witness; and that (I know) did evince him a sober Protestant. But 3. Why should not a Frenchman (preferred in England) have leave to wish for the ancient Union, so as each enjoying their true Liberties, they might reform all Errors in point of Doctrine for Themselves? 4. The design of that Tract being to prove against the Papists, that in casting out the Papacy we are not guilty of Schism or Heresy, urging Barnes his Book as a good Confession on their side, and his monstrous usage for that Confession,) what need was there of more than to clear the Liberties of our Church? 5. Since the Gallican Church had the same Liberties with the British, He could not take a fit hint to express his wish for our Union. 6. 
* Si utraque pars absque pre judicio sese mutuò intelligeret, & pars extrema de rigore suo vellet remittere, ea Britannicae Ecclesiae cum Gallicanâ consensio non foret adeo improbabilis, atque primâ fronte videtur Ecclesiam utramque vel alterutram ignorantibus. I. B. de Antiq. Eccl. Britan● libert. p. 34, 35.  What he speaks in their favour is only this, That if the French Church would understand us rightly, and would thereupon remit of her present Rigour, (which you know implies a Reformation) our Agreement would be likelier than appears at first sight, to such as have not a knowledge of either Church. And will not you say as much as this of that or any other part of the Roman Church? certainly these are to be thought those very tolerable terms, upon which you profess for the French Papists, that you would run with the forwardest to meet them, (p. 390.)  
Sect. 25. Your odd Resolution, 
Pacificks are not a Cause of Discord.  that bellum & discordia non sunt nisi à pacificis & propter pacem, (p. 392.) can only be verified through the wilfulness of the unreconcilable. For Love of Peace, by itself, would never be apt to make war. If any contention shall arise about the means of union, that again must be charged on them that dislike the mean's proposed, and yet propose no better, nor more probable, perhaps much worse, and more unlikely to take a comfortable effect, whereas the Pacifici, if they really propose the very best means they can, and do the utmost that in them lies to live peaceably with all men, as they cannot be blame-worthy for doing no more, so 'tis their co●fort, if they miscarry, that they have freed their own souls.  

Of the Pope's Primacy.  Sect. 26. You seem to forget the thing in Question, when you inveigh against an opinion of the necessity of an universal visible Head, p. 302.] For the Primacy allowed unto the Pope by the learnedst Adversaries of Popery, (Melanchthon, and Bishop Bramhall, Dr. Hammond, and Blo●del, as well as Grotius,) is not an universal Headship, as that signifies Pastorship, but (at the most) a Patriarchate of the west, which does not imply but exclude a Monarchy, and is exactly reconcileable with an Aristocratick Government of the Church. And even this is but according to the Ancient Canons, by which he is qualified (if he please) to advance the Honour of Christianity, but not to hinder, or obstruct it. Again, this Primacy thus allowed is not so properly the Proposal, as the Concession of the Protestants, with a proviso that the Pope will require no more. And for the buying of Peace, I told you long since how great a price is to be paid.  

How it removeth the whole mistake.  Sect. 27. To conclude the whole subject, and to remove the cause of your Mistakes, to make it very hard for you to persevere in your impertinence, or to make you unexcusable in case you do so, I give you warning to distinguish between the New Romish Canons, and the 
* Note, that the four General Councils were confirmed in Engl. by Act of Parliament in the first year of Queen Eliz. as Dr. Featly well observed in his Letter to the late Primate.  Ancient Canons of the universal Church; between a Primacy of Order, and a Supremacy of Power; and not to delude yourself any longer by fixing your thoughts upon the one, when Grotius and other Protestants do not approve but of the o●●er. You profess to approve of the Pacifick design. It was Grotius his judgement, that the likeliest way to make it take a good effect, is to take from the Pope his universal Supremacy over the Church, and to make him content himself, with a Primacy of Order, a● that Principium unitatis (for the peace of Christendom) which Melanchthon, King james, Isaa● Casaubon, Bishop Bramhall, Dr. Hammond, David Blondel, and all intelligent Protestants have still allowed him. By this means the whole Church should have one Common Regiment, under Bishops, and Metropol●tans, and Primates, and Patriarches; which as it i● much cast down, if not destroyed, by the universal Monarchy of the Pope, so it well consists with his Primacy according to the Canons of General Councils. Upon these precise terms, an universal peace might be begun, if all Protestants would agree under the Government of Bishops, and the Popes descend from their usurpations; and all other things might be reform by the Supreme Magistrates, and Bishops, in their respective places of jurisdiction. Now this being the utmost that Grotius pretends towards a Peace, you are highly injurious, whilst you join the Grotians and the French Papists in making the Pope to be the ordinary judicial Head. (p. 380.) For the Ancient Canons make him but one, although the first of five Patriarches; and allow every Primate to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own Province; as Dr. Hammond hath made apparent in his most satisfactory Treatise concerning Schism, which hath been twice or thrice railed at, but never answered. 
* Dr. Hammond of Schism Chap. 5. S●ct. 6. p. 100  Especially from the Canon of the Ephesine Council, in the particular cause of the Archbishop of Cyprus, over whom the Patriarch of Antioch (though he extended his Patriarchate over all the Orient) was adjudged to have no manner of Power.  
I hope you see your obligation to make amends for your Calumny; in which you cannot persevere, without incurring the danger of calumniating others, as well as Grotius, 
Ibid. ch. ●. p. 59  even the ablest Supporters of the Protestant cause. For Dr. Hammond hath told us, as well as Grotius, (and sure I am that they were both of the same Religion,) That if we respect order and primacy of place, the Bishop of Rome had it among the Patriarches, as the Patriarches among the Primates, that City of Rome being the Lady of the World, and the seat of the Empire. 
Ibid. ch. 5. p. 100 Sect. 5.  Again, speaking of the preeminence of the Roman See heretofore, though he denies her any supreme Authoritative power over other Primates, yet he allows her a precedence or priority of place in Councils, an eminence in respect of Dignity, which is perfectly reconcileable with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Independence, the no-subordination or subjection of other Primates. Thus our Reverend Dr. Hammond, whom, I am verily persuaded, you will not dare to call Papist, for fear of derision from your most popular Admirers. However you do acknowledge that Bishop Bramhall is a right Protestant, and he hath told you very lately, 
* Bishop Bramhall in his Schism Guarded, etc. p. 4.  That the main Controversy, nay (he thinks) he might say the only necessary Controversy between them and us, is about the extent of papal power. If the Pope would content himself with his exordium Unitatis, which was all that his primitive predecessors had, and it is as much as a great part of his Sons will allow him at this day, we are not so hardhearted or uncharitable, for such an innocent Title or Office to disturb the peace of the Church. Nor do we envy him such a preeminence among Patriarches, as St. Peter had (by the confession of his own party) among the Apostles. 
† Ibid. p. 24, 25, 26. Primatus P●tro datur, ut una Christi Ecclesia & una Cathedra monstratur. Cyprian. Epist. ad Actonium de Uui●ate Ecclesiae.  Together with this compare his citation of Bishop Andrews, expressing his own sense, and the sense of King james, yea and the sense of the Church of England. To which having added the like sense of St. Cyprian, he doth thus very briefly conclude his own, 
* p. 26.  This primacy neither the Ancients nor ●e do deny to St. Peter, of Order, of Place, of Preeminence. If this first Movership would serve his turn, this Controversy were at an end for our parts.  

A Conjecture passed upon some Letter's.  Sect. 28. It is not amiss to take notice of the applauding Letters of which you boast, (p. 393.) and to conjecture at their design, if there were any such things. Some who saw in your Aphorisms (and in some other things which you had published) more of Truth and Moderation, than in other writings of Presbyterians, were willing to pardon many things which they saw amiss in you, for the love of that Truth of which they found you a Patronizer. No doubt but that Charity, which hopeth all things, did make them hope that more study would daily discover more Truth, which (for want of good study) you had not hitherto discerned, and which as soon as you had learned might serve to rescue your Inward man from all schismatical and factious ways. In which charitable hope if they were very much mistaken, theirs was the error, but yours the fault; and you alone are accountable for having so guiltily deceived their expectations. Their hopes of your Amendment (as well in some things as in others) were very discreet, as well as sanguine: for who could easily have suspected, that the Presbyterians by their Railing (at you and all th●t came from you) should more oblige you to their side, than others reduce you into the way by gentle usage? What if some of those Epistlers might write in Latin, (as it is credibly reported) it was not to buffet but to oblige you; and therefore you should not have entertained them as so many Messengers of Satan. Yet since I can but conjecture, I shall address my request to every one of those persons, whom you accuse of their applauding and flattering Letters, (for this you know is the language, with which you publicly requite them for all their favours) that they will clear their Intentions from this Aspersion, and say in the uprightness of their Hearts, whether they sent you kind Letters to drive on an Interest of their own, or only to perfect your Reformation.  
Sect. 29. From the second part of your Key for Catholics, 
By whom our Breaches were first made, and are ever since widened.  I now return to your long Preface before your five Disputations of Church-Government and Worship, where you show your good breeding to the best part of the Nobility, as well as of the Gentry, and Commons of this land, who still adhere unto the Prelacy so long established in the Church. You say indefinitely to some, that they speak to the shame of their understandings, and uncharitableness, but you beseech them to bear it, if you touch the sore; for your work is healing. p. 2. You charge them all with want of charity to their brethren, meaning thereby the Presbyterians; and you adventure to judge of the reasons why. In some there are confused apprehensions of the case. In some a cointerest and consociation with the Divines of their way. In some as stiffness and stoutness of disposition. In too many (miserable souls!) it is mere ungodliness and enmity to that way of piety, which appears in many they differ from. In the best of them it is (too bad) a remissness of charity, and want of zeal for the Church's Peace, etc. p. 23. Thus you bestow your gentle touches (as you please to call them) upon your honourable, worshipful, beloved Countrymen, the Nobility, Gentry, and Commons of this land who adhere to Prelacy, p. 1. But they must not presume to take it ill. For you say, they have a sore, which MUST be touched, and that you will do it as gently as the case will bear. p. 2.]  

The wrong sore ●ubb'd & Presbyterians galled ●pon the Prelatists' backs.  1. Now I pray Sir reflect upon the years that are passed, and compare them with the state of things at present; consider the Acts of many full Parliaments, and compare them with the Ordinance of less than one; read the Articles and Canons of the Church of England, and compare them with the meddlings of the divided Assembly of Divines; remember by whose power your Assembly-men sat, and against whose prohibition they boldly acted, with which compare their proceed in contempt of that power by which they were called an Assembly; recollect what you have published against the Directory, the Covenant, the Presbyterian-worthies and way of Discipline, and compare it all with your confessions of Disobedience to Governors, doing hurt to the Church, taking excellent things from us which we were in actual possession of; and when you have done, tell me truly▪ whether (before you were awar) you have not been rubbing the wrong sore, and galled the Presbyterians upon the Prelatist's backs. For since you take in the Clergy of the Episcopal way, and say we separate from you for other men's doing, (p. 10.) I shall desire to know of you, who are the Schismatics and Separatists and so the breakers of charity, and peace, and brotherly union; We, who continue and persevere in the good old way of the Church of England, in which we were born and baptised, and to which we have vowed a due conformity and obedience; Or you, and your darling Presbyterians, who have departed from our Assemblies, and separated yourselves from our Communions, receded meanly from your subscriptions, and bound yourselves by an oath to extirpate your Fathers who were over you in the Lord, whom you had solemnly promised you would reverently obey? For brevity's sake I refer you to my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ch. 2. p. 50, 51, 52.  
2. Again, 
The Prelatists beaten for being abused,  I would gladly be informed, which sort of men are most unpeaceable, and injurious: We, who sought not your goods, Or you, who bereft us of our own? We, who would fain have sat still in Peace, Or you, who ruin'd us (whilst you had power) with the specious stile of Reformation? We, who complained when we were wronged, Or you who wronged us? For pity do not beat us the first time for nothing, and then a second time beat us for being beaten. If we did you any injury by having suffered extremely without a cause, it was not ours, but your fault. For all we suffered was against our wills. We did no more Court, then deserve such usage. We would fain have enjoyed the many and excellent Advantages both spiritual and temporal, which by the Petition of right, and the great Charter, and other Laws of the Land, as well as by the Statutes and Laws of God, were as undoubtedly our own, as whatsoever it is which you are able to call yours. And will you hate us so far, as not to be able to forgive us, because you have wronged us in such a measure, as that you can never make us amends? When the Fox in the F●ble is resolved to prey upon the Lamb, he quickly makes it a Malefactor. But when men are sadly beaten, for nothing else but their refusing to break the peace, they cannot certainly break it by being beaten.  
3. Once more I would know, 
Y●t are earnest Desirers of Reconcilement.  who are averse to a Reconcilement. We, who earnestly desire it, Or you, who widen our breaches, with as little regret as at first you made them? We, who labour to reduce you to your ancient Order and Uniformity; or you, who have improved one single Schism into an hundred? Notwithstanding the heinous and horrid things, which you have done, and we suffered, God and the world is our witness, we do not shut you out from our Communion: Our Chapels and Church-dores lie open to you: We contend for your Fellowship, and daily pray for your coming in; if you, by name, should have occasion to pass this way, and present yourself, with other Guests, at the holy Supper of our Lord, no man on earth should be more welcome. But if you and your Partners will continue your several separations, and shut yourselves out from our Communion, as it were judging yourselves unworthy of the Kingdom of God, and excommunicating yourselves, (without our consents, and against our wills, and in despite to our invitations,) we cannot do less than declare, that we cannot help it. We are no rigid exactors of Reparation. Do but return to our Communion, and we are satisfied. Do but accept of our forgiveness, and we are pleased. If you cannot agree with us in every act of our obedience to the established Canons of the Church, at least come back to that station from whence you fell, and no small matter shall ever part us.  

The Church of England justified by the Confessions of her Deserters.  4. You profess to be for Bishops, as well as we. (p. 5.) you acknowledge a stinted Liturgy is in itself lawful; and that in some parts of public holy service it is ordinarily necessary; and that in the parts where it is not of necessity it may not only be submitted to, but desired when the peace of the Church requireth it; that the Ministers and Churches which earnestly desire it should not by the Magistrate be absolutely forbidden the use of a convenient prescribed Liturgy, etc. (p. 358.359.) Nay farther yet you do acknowledge, That the use of the Surplice b●ing commanded by the Magistrate, you would obey him, and wear that Garment, if you could not be dispensed with. Yea though secundarily the whiteness be to signify purity, and so it be made a teaching sign, yet would you obey. (p. 409.410.) Next for kneeling at the Sacrament, you say that as sinfully as this gesture was imposed, you did for your part obey the imposers, and would do, if it were to do again, rather than disturb the peace of the Church, or be deprived of its Communion. (p. 411.) You confess you see no reason to scruple at the lawfulness of the Ring in Marriage. (Ibid.) You say that Organs or other Instruments of Music in God's worship, being a help partly natural, and partly artificial, to the exhilarating of the spirits for the pr●yse of God, you know no argument to prove them simply unlawful, but what would prove a cup of wi●e unlawful, or the Tune and Meter and melody of singing unlawful. (p. 412.) Again for Holidays you confess, That some time for God's worship besides the Lord's-day must be appointed, and God having not told us which, the Magistracy may, on fit occasions. (Ibid.) Nay for the great Holidays of t●e Church to which you have the most aversion, (such as celebrate the memorial of Christ's Nativity, Circumcision, Fasting, Transfiguration, Ascension, and the like) you freely profess to be resolved, if you live where such Holidays as these are observed, to censure no man for observing them, nor would you deny them liberty to follow their judgement if you had the power of their Liberties, etc. (p. 416.) Yea more, if you lived under a Government that peremptorily commanded it, you would observe the outward rest of such a Holiday, and you would preach on it, and join with the Assemblies in God's worship on it. (p. 417.) For the name and form of an Altar, you think it a thing indifferent, whether the Table stand this way, or that way. The primitive Churches (you confess) used commonly the names of Sacrifice, and Altar, and Priest, and you think lawfully, and you will not be he that shall condemn them. (p. 417.) Last of all for the Cross in Baptism, which you have most suspected to be unlawful, you dare not peremptorily say it is unlawful, nor will you condemn the Ancients and Moderns that use it, nor will you make any disturbance in the Church about it. (p. 418.)  
5. After all these acknowledgements (& many more in other places) I wonder how you can excuse your departure from us, 
The Presbyterian Separatists apparently unexcusable.  or what should keep you from your return. Will you not live in Communion with us, because we observe the Rites and Orders of the Church, which you confess to be very innocent? Or do you abandon what is innocent, because we use it? Are our Bishops the worse for being derived from the Apostles, as our Reverend Dr. Gauden hath lately proved by an induction? Are they the worse for being in England ever since the first time that Christianity was planted? Or the wor●e for being settled by the fundamental Laws of the British land? They are not the worse for being approved, and contended fo● unto the death, by the learnedst part and the most pious of the Reformed Churches, of which our Confessors and Martyrs do make up a great and a noble Army. That our Church was a true established Church (in the year of our Lord 1641.) You have so plentifully granted, that 'tis too late to deny. They that 
* See Bishop Hali's peacemaker Sect. 7. p. 58.  fly out from a true established Church, and run ways of their own, raising and fomenting Sects and Schisms amongst God's people, are sent for their Doom (by our late Reverend Bishop Hall) to those notable words of the Apostle, Rom. 16.17, 18. And whether or no the Presbyterians have not thus flown out, judge I pray by the 
† See Dr. Ham. of Schism. ch. 11. p. 178, 181.  last Chapter of Dr. Hammond's Treatise concerning Schism. Or let the men of that way but lay their hands upon their hearts. Now when you seem to have profited (not a little) by that excellent Preface of Dr. Sanderson, (wherein you are personally concerned,) in coming up so far, as hath been showed, to the most disputable things of the Church of England, what can make you stand off at so great a distance? what kind of answer will you return unto your own expostulations? Shall the breach be healed, or would you have it to continue? If it must continue, tell us why, and how long? Would you have it go with us to Eternity? Do you censure us to Hell? Or will you not go with us to Heaven? I pray return to us in time, rather than wish you had done it when 'tis too late. 
Th●y are obnoxious to men of all sides for th●ir sin of Schism;   
6. You cannot charge any sort of men for having separated from you, without incurring the same charge, for having separated from us. When Mr. Cawdry writ against Independency, and gave it the Title of A great Schism, I could not but smile at the retortion which Dr. Owen very speedily and ●itly made him. Nay it is publicly declared by a great Body of congregationals, 
* Praef. p. 13.  That they did not break from the Presbyterians, but the Presbyterians rather from them. You are so far from agreeing with one another, that you can never be expected to be at unity with yourselves, unless by being reconciled to the Church of England, whose Calamities have obscured, but not destroyed Her. The sin of Schism is contracted (saith the Judicious Dr. Hammond) either by some irregularity of Actions, 
loco supra citato.  contrary to the standing Rule and Canons of this Church; or by Disobedience to some commands of Ecclesiastical Superiors. And then by whom it is contracted I need not tell you. But, Blessed be God (as he goes on p. 179.) the Church of England is not invisible: It is still preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained, and multitudes rightly baptised, none of which have fallen off from their profession.  
7. To your preposterous Demands then, 
Especially to the Episcopal, whose sufferings have made them the more conformable to the primitive Christians.  why we separate from you, and refuse to go to your Communion, the first and shortest Answer is this, that we are passively separated, because you actively are separatists. We, by remaining as we were, are parted from you; and you, by your violent departure, have made our Difference unavoidable. We are divided by necessity, and you by choice; we from you our Dividers, but you from us, and between yourselves. You (like Demas) having forsaken us, and having embraced this present world, it is our lot (as it was Pawles) to be avoidable forsaken. It is God's own Method, to turn away from his Deserters. When the Times are changed by some, and others are changed by the Times, you must at least excuse (if not commend) us, that we 
* Prov. 24. ●1.  meddle not with those who are given to change. For you to go from us, and then to chide us for being parted, is the greatest injustice to be imagined; because it requires us to verify the two Extremes of a contradiction. A second Answer I shall give you in better words than mine own; even the same which Dr. Hammond once gave the Papists;  

S●e Dr. Hammond of Schism, p. 180, 181.  The Night-meetings of primitive Christians in Dens and Caves, are as pertinent to the justifying of our Condition as they can be of any; and 'tis certain that the forsaking of the Assemblies, Heb. 10.25. is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our wi●ful fault, (v. 26.) but only our unhappy Lot; who are forced either not to frequent the Assemblies, or else to encourage (and incur the scandal of seeming to approve) the practices of those that have departed from the Church. That we do not decline Order, or public communion, and consequently are not to be charged for not enjoying those Benefits of it, which we vehemently thirst after, is evident by the extensive Nature of our persecution; the same Tempest having with us thrown out all Order and Form, Bishops and Liturgy together. And to that Curstness of theirs, not to any Obstinateness or Vnreconcileableness of ours, (which alone were the guilt of non-Communion) is all that unhappiness of the constant Sons of the present English Church to be imputed.  

Lay-elders condemned by such as had sworn to assert them.  Sect. 30. I am glad to find you thinking, that unordained Elders wanting power to preach, or administer the Sacraments, are not Officers in the Church of God's Appointment: and that as far as you can understand, the greater part, if not three parts for one of the English Ministers that we stand at a distance from, are of this mind, and so far against Lay-Elders as well as we; of whom you confess yourself one, and Mr. Vines another, p. 4. But I am not glad to find you excusing what you condemn. 'Tis true, ye all swore (when ye took the Covenant) to preserve the Discipline and Government in the Church of Scotland, and to reform the Church of England in Discipline and Government according to the example of the best Reformed Churches, (of which the Scotish was implied to be the chief) yea to bring the Churches in the three Kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and Uniformity in Church-government, etc. Lay-elders in Scotland were pretended to be by Divine right. The Platform of Geneva was highly magnified (that I say not blasphemously) for the Pattern showed in the Mount. The Sceptre of Christ, and Evangelium Regni Dei, were noted expressions of their Device. But since you have printed your own opinion, that ther● were no such Lay-elders of God's appointment, you should rather have recanted your having sworn the Scotish Covenant, than have tried by all means to make the best of so bad a matter. Whilst you believe a fourth part of the Presbyterians are directly against the other three, in thinking Lay-elders of God's appointment, you give us to hope that your Kingdom will never stand. And indeed if you will read but the first 5. Chapters of Bishop bancroft's Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline, you will find that no Sect hath been more divided against itself. See what is said by Dr. Gauden (in his excellent 
* p. 17.  Dendrologia) concerning the Pertness and Impertinency, the Arrogancy and Emptiness, the juvenility and Incompetency, the Rusticity and Insolency of some Ruling and Teaching Elders too; the disagreement that was found betwixt High-shoes and the Sceptre of Church-government: especially mark what he 
† p. 18.  saith of the Decoy and Fallacy, the Sophistry and Shooing-horn of bringing in Lay-elders by Divine Right; and perhaps when you have done, you will hardly excuse your own Excuses; much less the manner in which you make them, for to excuse the Lay-elders as men not preaching.  
Sect. 31. You say, 
A Calumny cast upon our Preachers to the sole disgrace of the Calumniator.  In that, our Readers are much like them, p. 4. And again you speak of our Ignorant, Drunken, Worldly Readers, and Lazy Preachers, that once a day would preach against doing too much to be saved, p. 16.] But 1. that any have so preached, of the regular Clergy, is your ungrounded Intimation, for which you are answerable to God. They have commonly been accused of having preached for the doing too much to be saved. Their earnest pressing for the Necessity of Universal Obedience to the Law of Christ, which carries along with it all manner of good works, hath very frequently procured them the name of Papists, Socinians, Pelagians, Moralists, any thing in the world to express the dislike of your Presbyterians. The Antinomians are the chief men, who preach against doing too much to be saved; and as the Fautors of that Heresy, you yourself have accused both Mr. Pemble and Dr. Twisse, who were not Prelatists but Presbyterians. And such were they who applauded The Marrow of modern Divinity, which you have sharply written against for the like dangerous positions. Nay you yourself are more liable to undergo your own censure, than any Prelatist I ever heard of, for teaching the people how greaf a wickedness may well consist with their being Godly. Of this I have given so many Examples, that I shall add but one more: You put the Question, Whether if men live many years in swearing or the like sin, 
See Disp. of right to Sacram. 3. p. 330.  it is not a certain sign of ungodliness? To which you answer in these words, A godly man may long be guilty of them, as 'tis known, some well-reputed for Godliness are in Scotland. Reputation doth much with many even that are godly, to make sin seem great or small. With us now a swearer is reputed so great a sinner, that he is reckoned with Adulterers and Drunkards. But Censoriousness, Backbiteing, Church-division, Disobeying those that rule over us in the Lord, (I pray let that be remembered) spiritual pride, etc. which are greater sins than swearing, do not so brand a man, nor make him odious with us. This again deserves your notice.  

Once a day preaching and Catechising, a great deal better than prating twice.  2. That Preaching once a day, and once a day Catechising, is better than prating twice a day (without either Preaching or Catechising) will be granted by all, who shall consider the meek saying of the most eminent Preacher, Bishop Andrews, that when he Preached twice a day, he prated once. And what dishonour hath been done both to God, and his Church, by turning the whole public worship into two Sermons upon a Sunday, you may collect at your leisure from Mr. Thorndike. It is a proverbial observation, that two Sermons (of the new mode) do seldom differ more from one, (excepting the labour of lips and lung●) than too distinct sixpenses from one whole shilling. And though (since the departure of my assistant) I have also preached twice a day, yet I think not the better of my performance.  
3. Your lazy Preachers are they who will not take the pains to meditate; 
The Accuser mo●t criminal.  and only make up in the number of their Sermons, what their hearers would rather receive in weight. That you yourself sometimes are a 
* One sheet so the Ministry, p. 14.  lazy Preacher, you have publicly confessed in your odd sheet for t●e Ministry. Which makes it the more unseemly for you, to be an accuser of your brethren.  
4. And as unseemly for you it is, 
The Presbyterian Readers are many more than the Episcopal,  to upbraid them so much with their being Readers. For the notorious Readers of their Sermons are the eminent men of your way. I do esteem Dr. Reynolds as the most learned and the most eloquent of all your Preachers. Nor do I value him the less for being a Reader, but rather the more for his resolution to preach no more than he can write. Not to tell you of Mr. Mant●n, and all the rest of that party, let it suffice that Mr. Hickman is observed to be one of your lazy Readers. And if he preacheth, as he hath printed, the printed language and matter of English 
* D●. Heylin, Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Morris, Mr. Prinn, etc.  writers (not only not acknowledging, but) defaming and reviling the several owners, it is not an honour to your party, that he is one of your chief men. Nay since you told us from the Press, that 
† ubi supra, p. 13.  you use notes as much as any man, I and others have thought you a Reading-preacher. And so you see your misfortune in this other part of your accusation. There are twenty Readers of your way, for one of ours.  
5. Because you are not afraid to add, 
And their preaching much worse, if we may credit their own Confessions.  [That in abundance of our most applauded Preachers, the things of God were spoken with so little life, and seriousness, as if they had not been believed by the speaker, or came not from the heart, (p. 17, 18.) I must put you in mind of that public Penance, which both your Person and Party were condemned to do in your Saint's rest. Where (and to speak one syllable from common fame, or from known experience,) when you had reckoned up many and great faults in the dispensation of the word, 
Saints Rest. part 3. Sect. 5. p. 99  you shut up the Bill with these expressions, [the Lord pardon the great sin of the Ministry in this thing, and in particular mine own.] And what were those aggravations which made your sin so exceeding sinful? Even as many as you had mustered in several pages going before. Such as— your seldom fitting your Sermons, 
* Ibid. p. 98, 99  ei●her for matter or manner to the great end, your people's Salvation, your Sacrificing your studies to your own credit, or your people's content, or some such base inferior end, your formal frozen lifeless Sermons, your handling sins gently, your tender dealing with careless hearts, your telling the people of Heaven and Hell in such a sleepy tone and slighty way, as if you were but acting a part in a Play. In a word, your want of seriousness about the things of heaven, which charms the Souls of men into formality, and that brought them to that customary careless hearing which undoes them.] With these and many other things you charge your brethren in general, as well as yourself in a peculiar manner. So very ill were you advised in your indefinite accusation of our Episcopal Divines, for being guilty of but one of those many faults, which you discover in yourself, and your Presbyterians.  

An agreement in point of Railing between the Quakers and Presbyterians.  6. That Ternary of Epithets which you disgorge against the Prelatists. [Ignorant, Drunken, Worldly,] I shall only leave you to lick up again at your leisure, and entreat you, for the future, to leave your railing. The Quakers may thank you for joining with them, in bringing the Priesthood into disgrace. But sure you will not thank the Quakers, when they shall rationally demand, [if some of the Prelatists are so unworthy, how extremely much worse are the Presbyterians?  
7. I will shut up this Section, concerning Preachers, with a certain passage in your Epistle before your Treatise of judgement. Which though I could not but observe without a prompter, yet I should not at present have told you of it, had not another observed it, as well as I; and also taken it so unkindly, that you should Court the rich Citizens, whilst you seem to contemn the poorer Inhabitants of the Country, as to desire I would give you some Item of it. Your words I allude to are briefly these. 
* Epist. Dedic. p. 10.  [Let us in the Country have the honest raw young Preachers, and see that you have chief Fathers, and Pillars in the Church.] An honest Husbandman in my Parish was much offended at this expression. And having ruminated upon it, took occasion to tell me his Meditations. He thought the Souls in all Countries (within this Island) were both as many and as precious as those at London, and every way as d●ar to God. He thought it as much pity, for young Preachers to be raw, as for old ones to be rotten. He could not but put the Question, (if I may help express his mind) in which of those two ranks Mr. Baxter did reckon himself to be. If he thought himself one of the raw young Preachers, why did he take upon him to censure the eminentst Preachers in the Church? If he thought himself a Father and Pillar in it, why did he give so gross a Hint, that he would fain be sent for up to London? He doth not deserve a Country Pul●it, who thinks himself too good for it. Besides, the right Reverend Bishops are the chief Fathers, and Pillars of the Church, of which the Dioeces of London can have but one. And so the plain Countryman doth not exactly understand you.  
Sect. 32. Whilst you say that some Protestants, 
A f●ir Confession how far a Protestant m●y go and be still a Protestant.  as Bishop Bramhall and many more, do hold the Pope may be obeyed by the Transmarine Western Churches as the Patriarch of the West, and be taken by us all to be the Principium unitatis to the Catholic Church, and the Roman determinations still may stand, except those of the last 400. years, and those, if they obtrude them not on others, (p. 7.) You help your Reader to conclude, that Grotius might well have been a Protestant by the very allowance of his accuser. And supposing my Reader to be intelligent, I shall make no other use of your large Concession.  
Sect. 33. You very confidently say, 
Of Bishops' ●nd Presbytery.  that in the pulished judgements of Bishop Hall, Bishop Usher, Dr. Holdsworth, Forbes, and others, they would have all Presbyters to be Governors of the Churches, one of them having a stated Presidency or Moderatorship, and this will content them. p. 9] I know not what they have declared in other parts of their writings, which I have never yet seen. Nor am I sure I know your meaning (by the word Presbyters, Presidency, and Governors of the Churches,) much less am I sure that you yourself do know theirs. But I know what Bishop Hall hath done and suffered for that Episcopacy, which had been established in this land with Christianity itself, and had also been confirmed by 32. Acts of Parliament, (nor need I tell you how much an Act doth differ from an Ordinance,) and was abundantly provided for by Magna Charta, which by statute is 
* 25. of Edw. 1. ch. 1, 2.  declared the Common L●w of the land. I say, I know what he hath done against the many-headed Smectymnuus, in which are compendiously represented the chiefest sticklers for the Presbytery, as Dr. Gauden hath expressed in that crooked low shrub, which ambitiously supplanted the well-grown Cedar. Again I know what he hath suffered by his imprisonment in the Tower, where yet the reason of his imprisonment made it a comfortable restraint. I farther know what he was for, when he writ his Peacemaker, 
See Bishop Hall's Peacemaker, p. 48, 49, etc.  to wit the Primitive Government universally agreed upon by all antiquity, for which he refers you to the writings of Clemens, and Ignatius. He makes use of the Confessions both of Camero, and Beza, of Marlorate, and Calvin, that in 
a Calvin Inst. l. 4. ●. 4.  very City there was chosen one Bishop, lest an equality in th● Clergy should engender strife. That the Bishop was indeed the very 
b Marlorat. in Apoc. 2.  Prince of the Clergy. That he was above the Presbyters in point of 
c Beza de Grad. Minist. Evang.  order. That being chosen by the College of the Presbyters, he was to be their Precedent, and that not without some 
d I. Camer. Myroth●c. in Tim 4 14.  Authority over the rest. Now though the Bishop doth consent, that he be called a Moderator, a Precedent, a Superintendent, an Overseer, or by any other such name, if the name of a Bishop is displeasing, (as thinking it pity that words should break square where the things are agreed,) yet, saith he for the fixedness, or change of this person, 
Bishop Hall, p. 50.  let the ancient and universal practice of God's Church be thought worthy to oversway. And he had said a little 
* p. 48.  before, that the Precedent must be constant, as well as o●e. Now had you sworn, in taking the Scotish Covenant, to change the name of a Bishop, and there had stopped, you might have cited the Peacemaker with much more reason than now you do. But you swore to endeavour the extirpation of the thing, of Church-Government itself, by law established. For that you might not be mistaken, you explained the word Prelacy by the word Church-Government, etc. by a good token, that in conclusion, you superstitiously held it for Anchristian. And because you often take the confidence to cite that Treatise of Bishop Ha●l, as if it had yielded you some fig-leaves to cover the shame of your undertake, I pray observe your concernments in his Epistle before the book. I will but put you in mind, when the Book was first printed, (to wit in the yea● 1647.) and who were the very first men who did quieta movere, and then I will give you his Golden Paragraph.  
It is felony by our Municipal Laws for a man to burn but the frame of a Building intended for an house; 
B●shop H●ll's ce●sure of the Disturbers ●f settled Government in the Church.  how heinously flagitious shall the God of heaven account it, to set fire on his complete spiritual House, the Church, whereof every believer is a living stone? Doubtless how slight soever the world makes of the●e spiritual distempers, it shall be easier in the day of judgement for Thiefs, and Whoremongers, and Adulterers, then for the breakers of public Peace. Never was there any so fearful vengeance inflicted upon any Malefactors, as upon Corah and his Combination. Surely if we consider the sin itself, other offences had been far more heinous; but in that it was a presumptuous mutiny, tending to the affront of allowed Authority, to the violation of Peace, and to the destruction of community, the earth could not stand under it, hell only is fit to receive it.  
Now (Sir) consider with yourself, both what you have done in these times, and with what success. You did not open your mouths wider against Moses and Aaron, (pretending they had taken too much upon them,) than all the people of the earth have opened theirs against you: Presbytery (like Corah) was swallowed up quick. If the Bishops you were against, did differ so little as you pretend, from those very Bishops which you are for, why was the public peace broken for private interesses and ends? Let me tell you in the words of the right Reverend Bishop Hall, th●t you and others of your way, who were born and bred under Authority 
* Ubi supra, p. 93, 94.  [should have contented yourselves to be Disciples rather than judges, and have entertained reverend thoughts of those that were set over you; not more for the Gravity and Wisdom of their persons, then for the Authority of their Places. Even timothy's youth may not be contemned.— Hereupon it was that holier antiquity (even from the days of great and gracious Constantine) thought it very conducible to the good success of the Gospel, to put respects of honour upon the sacred Messengers of God. 
Damas. Epist. de Chor●piscopis. — It is too true an observation of Damasus, where the name of Church-governors is grown contemptible, the whole state of the Church must needs be perturbed.] Can you expect any thing less from the common people, than that they should pay you in your own Coin, and say ye took too much upon you, and that all the Congregation was at least as holy as themselves? Had your spiritual Superiors been more venerable in yours, ye had not certainly been so vile in the People's eyes.  

Th' Lord Primate's censure of Presbyterian Ordinations, as I●valid, and Schismatical. Published by Dr. B. p. 125.126.  2. Next for his Grace of Armagh, (whom I can never find you calling by a higher Title than Bishop Usher,) I shall but mind you how he hath pleaded for the Prelacy of England in other works; and only recite his words at length out of that very piece, in which you seem to have taken the greatest pleasure. For even there he hath concluded your Ordinations by Presbyters to be invalid, in as much as they were made, where Bishops might have been had; there being nothing but necessity (in case Bishops cannot be had) which in the judgement of the Primate can make such valid. And that you may not flatter yourself, his Grace intended such a necessity, as against all reason you sometimes offer to pretend, you shall read him subjoyning these following words.  
Holding as I do, that a Bishop hath Superiority in degree above a Presbyter, you may easily judge that the ordination made by such Presbyters as have severed themselves from those Bishops unto whom they had sworn Canonical obedience, cannot possibly by me be excused from being, Schismatical.]  
You see what necessity the Primate admitted for an excuse, and in what respect you are unexcusable. For, besides that you are not under any necessity of ordaining Presbyters without a Bishop; no necessity can happen, but what will be of your own making; and such an home-made necessity will but aggravate the wickedness of them that made it. I make no doubt but you will say the same thing, if a power succeeding shall deal with you, and your Function, as you have dealt with your Superiors. I shall not add more of the Primate now, than that the Reduction of Episcopacy is a posthumous work, and yet pretends to no other model than what may stand with the preeminence both of Bishops and Archbishops.  
3. Dr. Holdsworth's judgement is as well known, 
Dr. Holdsworth's sufferings a declaration of his judgement.  as what he suffered for his judgement, during the memorable Reign of the Presbyterians. Which puts me in mind of what was said by that learned Gentleman Mr. Morrice,— 
* The N●w-inclosures broken down. Sect. ●1. p. 212.  the digladiations about Discipline have laid open Doctrine to those destructive wounds it bleed's under; the discountenancing and depressing of so many learned Champions of the truth, hath been the leaving [the Church] without a Guard. When you were swearing and fight to levelly the Bishops with the ground, for want of merit and sufficiency to seat yourselves among the Bishops, you had not the patience to consider, or not the prudence to believe, that you were laying out your strength (as blinded Samson did his) to pull down a house upon your heads by laying your hands upon its Pillars. 
judg. 16.29.  But now you are taught by sad experience, that what you covenanted against was even the glory and support of your own profession, you will I hope be so just as to blame yourselves, if you shall live to suffer, as heavy things as you have done.  
Sect. 34. Whereas you say in your excuse, 
The Presbyterian excuses are aggravations of their offences  that some of your party did not swear obedience to the Bishops, or did not disobey such Bishops as Bishop Usher assureth us were the Bishops of the Ancient Churches, and that the Schism is not such, as maketh men uncapable of our Communion, and that since Bishop Prideaux died, there hath been none in his place, (p. 12.13.) I briefly answer, first that you speak against your knowledge, unless you know not what you did, when admitted into the Priesthood. And that I may not repeat two or three pages of what I have said in another book, I refer you for a sight of your great and manifold obligations to obey your Ordinary with reverence, and other chief Ministers unto whom the Government and Charge was committed over you, to acknowledge the order of our Church (as then it stood) to be according to the will of our Lord jesus Christ, to approve of Bishops and Archbishops, to use the Common prayer, to observe the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, and all according to the Laws of this Realm, I say I refer you for a sight of your great and manifold obligations, to my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ch. 2. p. 51.52, 53. Next I must mind you that the Lord Primate did only speak of Communion with the Transmarine Protestans in France and Holland, upon this supposition, that he were in those Countries. But our English Presbyterians were under another consideration. He never received the blessed Scrament at any one of your hands, nor would he ever hold Communion with any one of your Revolting Scotizing Churches. But if you return to our Communion, from which you fell by transgression, both our Arms and our hearts are always open to receive you. And that you may do it so much the sooner, let me admonish you of the disorder, which the Lord Primate wondered at in your late Presbyterian ordinations. A disorder so great, that it sufficeth of itself (without your other imperfections, to say no harder things of them,) to make a nullity in the things that you most confide in. 
* See the Primates judgement of Ordinat. by Pres. set out by Dr. Bern. p. 136.137, 138, 139.  [To give the Seal of Ordination (as some are pleased to call imposition of Hands) without any express Commission annexed, or Grant of Authority to the person, the Primate was wont to say, seemed to him to be like the putting of a Seal to a blank.] Your Presbyterian Ordinations he judged no better: and the reasons of it at large you may find in those pages which I have cast into the Margin. What Bishops there were in the Ancient Churches, or what the Primate thought of them, it matter's not. Your disobedience was not the better, for being acted against those to whom you had promised to yield obedience. And those alone are the Bishops, which here 'tis pertinent to speak of, for they alone were the Bishops, to whom the men of this Age had sworn Canonical obedience, through the Non performance of which obedience, you had extorted from the Lord Primate that heavy censure. If, since the Death of Bishop Prideaux, none hath succeeded in his place, remember what I said lately of self-created necessity; and do not imagine your Sin is lessened by a principal part of its aggravation. Add to this, that there are Bishops, though not perhaps in your County. And where Bishops are to be had, you were forbid by the Primate to ordain without them.  
Sect. 35. Whereas you say of Bishop Prideaux, 
Bishop Prideaux confessed a moderate man, though the sharpest censor of our English Presbyterians. See his Fascic. Controu. Epist. Ded.  [that he was one of th● Ancient and moderate sort. p. 13] I hearty thank you for the Confession, than which, I could not have wished you had made a greater. For he was undoubtedly one of them, whom you covenanted against, and under whom you should have lived in due obedience. How much he abhorred your Scottish-Covenant, and all your Covenanted attempts, especially those against your Bishops; how severely he censured the Smectym van sauciness, and ambition; how zealously he asserted the established Government of the Church by Archbishops, and Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, etc. How very heavily he sat upon the skirts of the Presbyterians, both for their Schism, and Sacrilege, and immoderate railing against their Bishops; and how by these very courses he thought them assisting unto the jesuites in bringing an odium and disgrace upon the Protestant Religion, and Rome at last into Britain; I pray be pleased to see at large in his remarkable expressions which now ensue. 
1. He doth in print characterise them by Ravenous Wolves.   
Rapaces Lupi non tantùm irruunt ex vicinis spelaeis, sed ebulliunt ex nobis ipsis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nostis quis praedixit, & quid nos sentimus.  
Sub patulae cujusdam Quercus tegmine Arbusta nonnulla olim latitantia, 
2. By ambitious low shrubbs conspiring against the goodly Oak.  putabant se fuisse impedita, per adumbrantium ramorum stilli●idia, ne in altunt (quod ambiebant) crescerent; jovem igitur implorant ut quercus averuncetur. Dictum, Factum; quid sequitur? Ingruunt procellae brumales, solo penitùs aequantur, succedit aestivale incendium, & stirpitùs exare scunt. 
3. By a petulant Ape on the Housetop.  Intelligentibus non opus est Oedipo.  
Simia in tecto praetereuntibus tam diù capita diminuat, donec ipsa ab irritatis tandem deturbetur.  

4. By the greedy Dog, and the sacrilegious Bird in the common Fable.  Canis umbrae inhians extentiori amittit quam in faucibus possidebat offam; & notum est, quomodo frustulae sacrificii ab altari direptae adhaesit pruna in nidi aquilini & pullitici vivicomburium.  
Deus noster ignis consumens est. Non impunè feret Baltassar temerata Temp●i vasa; & lingua aurea è consecratis per Achan subducta, 
5. By Baltasar and Achan.  Sacrilegium in Anathemate maranatha eloquetur.  

6. By the Title Smectymnuan importing a Monster with many Heads.  Atque hic inter caetera mirari subit, cur Episcopi titulus (quo tamen Salvatorem nostrum insignitum esse legimus) adeò recentioris censurae Smectymnuanis sudes esset in oculis, ut necessariò characterem Bestiae fronti inustum manifestaret. Num Cranmeri, Latimeri, Ridlei, & ejusdem classis symmist●, Antichristiani tandem audiant proxenetae? Et Juelli, Whitgifti, aliorumve ejusdem Hierarchiae scripta aut facta Antichristianismum redolent? Quin de vivis (ut●unque conculcatis) illud spondeam; delectum inter se habeant hi nostri Demagogi, & proferant primipilos suos in aciem: accinctiores, valentiores, aut constantiores, contra quoslibet Orthodoxorum hosts, quàm ex evessis Episcoporum & Decanorum pharis, Deuces aut Triarios profectò vix inveniant.  

7. By the Bramble consuming the Cedar of Lebanon.  Norunt hoc, qui turmis Protestantium turbatis, se latenter immiscent versutissimi Sinones Loiolitici, ideoque nil punctiùs urgent, quàm ut per flammas erumpentes ab hujusmodi rhamnis seu cynosbatis, Cedri Libani absumantur, quo faciliùs in Britanniam Roma redeat.  

8. By Papal and Antichristian Arrogance.  Memini me olim puero, in depictâ quadam tabulâ, ad nomen [PAPA] hunc Acrosticum legisse; (P) Pastorum (A) Ambitio (P) Peperit (A) Antichristum. Quis autem esset major, lis erat jamdudum inter Apostolos inchoata, sed determinante Salvatore, nunquam acquieverunt posteri. Dominari volunt omnes, nemo (ut oportet) obtemperare; sic ut tandem fiat hoc non gladio oris, sed ore gladii decidendum problema, An suprematus PAPALIS habeatur potiùs ANTICHRISTIANUS quàm PRESBYTERIALIS, aut Enthusia●ticu●.  
En quàm modicum Ambitionis fermentum totius Christianae humilitatis corrumpat massam! 
9 By unclean Separatists and Animals puffed up.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 igitur & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolica ista sunt nobis, & ● nobis fratribus inculcanda, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gal. 5. Cavete canes, cavete malos operarios, cavete concisio●em, Phil. 3. Siquidem qui seipsos segregant sub cu uscunque afflatus pretextu, inflati ta●dem animales, & Spiritum Sanctum non habentes invenientur, judaever. 19 Gustus etiam distinguet inter vinum vetus & novum (quod jamdudum indicavit Salvator) & certò pronunciabit, ve●us esse utilius, Luke 5.  
In these several particulars you have partly the History, and completely the Character of our late English Smectymn●ans or Presbyterians. And you have it from Bishop Prideaux, who is one of the ancient and moderate sort. It is at last become a Question (saith Bishop Prideaux) not to be otherwise decided than by the Mouth of the Sword, ywhether Papal Supremacy is to be reckoned Antichristian, rather than the Presbyterial or Enthusiastical.] And thi● he tells you in an Epistle, wherein you were personally concerned, if you were one of his Diocces A. D. 1652. He also tells you in that Epistle, (I pray observe it as from a Bishop who is both of the Ancient and moderate sort,) That Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline in every well-ordered Church, are Always and by All to be looked upon with a Religious eye. That the first is contained in the 39 Articles, the second in the Liturgy and Liturgick Monuments, 
Ista premun●● expendunt, defendunt Insequentia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the third in the Cano●s and Constitutions of the Church: which being piously, and providently, and prudently consigned and delivered down to us from the purest fountains of Antiquity, and in especial manner by the Reformed Bishops, He thought it his duty to defend in the several Controversies and Questions which there ensue. 
Bishop Prideaux used worse than any scandalous Minister I ever heard of.   
2. I pray, Sir, think on these things, and one thing more, that neither his Piety, nor his Learning, nor his approved Industry, nor yet the Reverence of his Years, no nor his being of the Ancient and moderate sort, could prevail for a protection from being banished from his Books, and sequestered from his studies, and presbyterianly despoiled of that subsistence, which by God's and Man's Law was undisputably his own. Many scandalous Minister's h●ve been preserved by your party, and many too have been exal●e● into the best men's Rights by wrong and violence. But Bishop Prideaux, and Bishop Hall, and Dr. Holdswor●h, and Dr. Hammond, and whatsoever was most conspicuous for height of Piety or depth of Learning, (of whi●h sort it were easy to name some hundreds) were all exposed by the Presbyterians (at least as far as in them lay) to the utmost extremities of want and beggary, without the least Mercy or Moderation. Had they been Heapers up of Riches (as Presbyterians and jews are observed generally to be) you might have squeezed them as sponges without much harm. And if the men of your party (upon the present shifting the scene of things) shall be forced to feel what they inflicted, (as some have presaged whilst they were reading your two Dedicatory Epistles, wherein you are subscribed a Faithful Subject, and wherein you complain of the 
* Epist. Ded. before K●y for Cath. p 10.  Democratical Politicians, who were busy about the change of Government,) they will feel it so much the less, by how much the greater the Treasures are, which their Avarice and Rapine have raked up for them against their Winter.  

A Vindication of Bishops and D. Hammond's Paraphrase.  Sect. 36. Your principal Argument against our Bishops, by law established in England, which you urge from Scripture and Dr. Hammond's Paraphrase (from p. 22●to p. 27.) I do the rather think fit for my consideration, because I think it not fit at all, that so learned a person as Doctor Hammond should ever take it into his own. It's pity a Person of his employments should descend to a task of so little moment. And whilst he is doing those things, which cannot be done but by himself, let me have leave to do that, for which your Argument's inability hath made me able.  
You know the sum of it is this; that Preaching, Confirming, Discipline, Care of the poor, Visiting the Sick, Baptising, Congregating the Assemblies, Administering the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, guiding the Assemblies, Blessing the people, Absolving the Penitent, and more than these (p. 27.) are the works of the Ancient Episcopal Function. But no one man can now perform all these to so many hundreds of Parishes as are in one Dioecess; Ergo our Dioecesan Bishop is not the same with the Ancient Bishop.  
This being the sum of your chiefest Argument, may be enlarged (by my consent) in the Major Proposition, to the utmost pitch of advantage, to which your own heart can wish the difficulty improved; to wit by urging that the Bishops were at first invested by the Apostles, with all manner of Ecclesiastical both Power and Office. And so the Bishop in every Dioecesse, being lineally the successor of that numerical Bishop who was ordained by the Apostles, is by consequence invested with all this power. From whence there flows another Sequel as unavoidable as the former, that not the least part of this Sacred power can be possibly received but from the Bishop.  
3. All which being granted as very true, and my thanks being returned for your service to the truth whilst you resist it, (for Presbyterian Ordinations are hence evinced to be null,) I show you the vanity of your Minor by putting you in mind of a plain distinction, [per se, aut per alium, mediatè, vel immediatè,] your mere forgetfulness of which (for ignorant of it you could not be) made you imagine there was a force where you will speedily acknowledge there can be none. For what a Bishop is not able to do by himself, he may very well do by the help of others, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) There is nothing more obvious, then that when Moses is 
* Exod. 18.18, 22, 26.  overtasked, he should take in others in partem Curae, and yet lose nothing of his Preeminence. And even for this very reason had the Bishops all power, as well as power to communicate it either in whole, or in part, that what they could not perform alone, they might by Proxy, whether by Presbyters, Deacons, Subdeacons', Arch-Deacons, Chancellors, Officials, (I will add Churchwardens, and Overseers of the Poor,) what is done by their Delegates is done by them.  
4. Now that this was the case in the earliest times of the Church, our learned and Reverend Dr. Hammond hath irresistibly 
* Consulatur Summi viri. Disse●t. 4. p. 210, 211.  evinced. And had you first been well acquainted with his four Latin dissertations, you had not stumbled at the light of his English Paraphrase. 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Rom.  Clemens Romanus would have told you, that in the Regions and Cities where the Apostles had preached and gathered Churches, they constituted Bishops to Rule those Churches, and likewise Deacons to be subservient to those Bishops. Why no Presbyters as yet, Epiphanius would have informed you out of the oldest Records. For whilst there was not (saith he) so great a 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Epiph. Haer. l. 3. t. 1.  multitude of believers, as to need the ordaining of any Presbyters, (between the two above said orders Bishops and Deacons,) they contented themselves with the Bishop only; who together with his Deacon, whom he could not conveniently be without, did then abundantly suffice for so small a Diocese. But when believers did so increase in the single Diocese of a Bishop, as that there needed more Pastors, and fit men were to be had, than they admitted into the Priesthood (I do not say into the Prelacy) that other sort of Church-Officers whom we now call Presbyters. And I conceive that such Presbyters were ordained in Asia by St. john, because Ignatius (in Trajan's time) throughout his Epistles to those Churches of Asia, doth distinctly make mention of all three orders. If then the Primitive Bishops did thus communicate of his power to Inferior Pastors, and still reserve unto himself the super-intendency over all, what should hinder their Successors from doing according to their example? And why should any man presume to take any power unto himself, but he whom the Bishop hath first ordained unto the office of a Deacon, (a kind of secundary Presbyter,) and after that, to a Cure of souls, (which belongs to a Presbyter plenarius,) and after that too, to the Episcopal Office of Ordination?  
5. Having showed you the full agreement betwixt the Ancient and modern Bishops, I hope you see your Inadvertency, and acknowledge the vanity of your Argumentation. For (1.) In the Infancy of the Church, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & ●. Epiph. l. 3. t. 1.  none were worthy to be made Bishops in divers places; and in such, the Apostles did all themselves; at least the place remained vacant 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Ibid.  (2.) Where need required, and worthy persons were to be had, in such, the Apostles ordained Bishops. But (3.) Whilst the Churches were so thin, as that the Bishops (with their Deacons) could well discharge the whole work, Epiphanius tell's us expressly (and that from the eldest of the Church Histories there was not yet a constitution of single Presbyters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And of this we have the first instance in james the Bishop of jerusalem, to whom were added seven 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 6.1, 2, 3, 4,  Deacons, without the least mention of any Presbyters. Yet (4.) Many mere Presbyters were ordained, (not with a privilege to ordain, but to dispense the Word and Sacraments,) as soon as the number of Believers had made it needful. And I pray (Sir) forget not to take due notice, that what is spoken by Epiphanius is against the Heretic Aerius, the very first Presbyterian that ever infested the Christian Church.  
6. After the levity and unfruitfulness, consider the danger and unlawfulness of thi● your arguing. It being just as much against all the Monarches, as against any one Bishop throughout the world. For 'tis the duty of every King, and of every other supreme Magistrate, (let his Dominions be never so large) to reward, to punish, and to protect, to deal out Justice to every subject, whether corrective, or distributive, as their merits or offences shall seem to challenge. Now comes a Disputant like yourself, who first displays the several parts of the Magistrate's Office; next he proposeth to consideration, how many hundreds of Parishes, and how many Myriads of Men may probably be found in his Dominions; and then conceiving it impossible that any one Mortal should know them all, much less be able to perform his several offices to each, he presently sends the chief Magistrate his writ of ease; and then forsooth in every Parish, one or other of his subjects, who thinks himself able to be a Ruler, must take upon him to play Rex within that Territory or Precinct: Never remembering or regarding the famous Division of the Apostle, much less his Precept with which the division is introduced. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King, as 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪  Supreme, or unto 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪  Governors, as unto them that are sent by him, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. 1 Pet. 2.13, 14, 15. From which words I entreat you to make this pertinent observation, that as a single supreme Magistrate may well be qualified and fitted for the largest Tasks of the widest Kingdom, by all those Emissaries and Envoyes, who are deputed to act by his Commission; so (with a greater force of reason) is every Bishop in his own Diocese very sufficiently enabled for every part of his office to every person, by the assistance of those Presbyters, and other officers under them, who are [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] by him sent out into their several charges.  
7. You see how unhappy you have been even in that way of Arguing, in which you seem to have taken the greatest pleasure; there being less force in it against the Bishop of a Diocese, than against that person to whom you dedicated your Book, and acknowledged yourself a faithful subject. May you be faithful to those Superiors, who are not only permitted, but appointed and Authorized to Rule over you in the Lord. You see the people of this Land will no more be ridden by your Presbyteries. For though you found amongst them some patiented Beasts for a while, who loved the novelty of their Riders, (if nothing else,) yet riding them (as you did) with switch and spur, as soon as you got into the saddle, you provoked your tamest creatures to reprove the 
* 2 Pet. 2.16.  madness of the Prophets: Saying implicitly to yourselves as you did frequently to them, (and with every whit as much reason) remember them which have the rule over you, Heb. 13.7. That is to say (saith our learned Paraphrast) set before your eyes the Bishops and Governors that have been in your Church, etc. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, v. 17. that is, be subject unto the Bishops, as St. 
* See the Note of Dr. Ha●. on Heb. 13.7. A resutation of the prime Argument for Presbyterian Ordinations.  Chrysostom and the said Paraphrast do well explain it.  
Sect. 37. As this may serve for a specimen of your voluminous meddlings against our Bishops, in which you say little against them, which your enemies may not say with greater reason against you, and with as much pretence of reason against the Ministry itself, and with much more reason against their maintenance by Tithes; so it sufficeth for a specimen of what you plead in the defence of your Schismatical Ordinations (to use the word of the Lord Primate) that I acquaint you with the absurdity of your first and chief Argument. In your second Dispute of Episcopacy, ch. 7. p. 199. l. 8, 9, 10, etc. You strive to prove, your Ordination is by Scripture-Bishops. (Meaning your titular Ordination without Dioecesan Bishops,) whose Episcopal Office you sacrilegiously invaded. And you think you prove it by this sad Syllogism. The Scripture-Bishops were the Pastors of particular Churches, having no Presbyters subject to them. Most of our Ordainers are such Pastors: Therefore most of our Ordainers are Scripture-Bishops. The major of this Syllogism you prove from Dr. Hammond, and the minor from Mr. Pierce. At least you are confident that you prove it; though I shall prove you prove nothing, except your forgetfulness of Logic, and somewhat else to your prejudice, of which anon.  
2. First for your Syllogism, by the disposition of the medium it appears to be in the second Figure; and yet (which is wonderful) it consists of three affirmative Propositions, which the second Figure cannot endure, any more than the First can admit of three Negatives. And so again you are obnoxious to the public assertion of D. Kendal, that a little more of the university would have done you no harm.  
3. Next to know what you have done, by disputing thus in figure, without all mood, observe the Conclusiveness of your Syllogism, by an other just like it in all respects. Suppose (in the person of Diogenes) you were to prove that a Cock with his Feathers strips from him alive, is a Man as well as Plato, though not as able to teach School; you may thus argue for him, as you have done for yourself. A man is a living Creature with two feet and without Feathers- A Cock deplumed (like that of Diogenes) is such a living Creaturo: Therefore a Cock deplumed (like that of Diogenes) is a man. But than you have taught an ill Sophistry against yourself. For the plainest person in all your Parish may prove you to be an arrant He athen by the very same Logic which you have erred by. An arrant Heathen is an Animal endued with reason Mr. Baxter is an Animal endued with reason: Therefore Mr. Baxter is an arrant Heathen. The major at least must be as true, as that which you take from Dr. Hammond. The minor infinitely truer, than that which you take from Mr. Pierce. And you know the conclusion is undeniable. For if the premises are true, Falsehood cannot flow from them by any regular Deduction. And if the Deduction is irregular, why is your dealing the very same, to prove your irregular Ordinations exactly regular?  
4. Come we now from the Form, to the matter of your Syllogism. Your major is proved from the words of Dr. Hammond, that the 
* See the whole Annotation on Act. 11.30. B. p. 406. to p. 409.  Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Scripture times, belonged principally, if not only to Bishops; there being no evidence that any of the second Order were then instituted. Which words, (if you observe them) do not deny, but suppose, that as soon as any of the second order were admitted into the Church, they were immediately subject unto the First; that is to say, to the Scripture-Bishops; there having been given him in Scripture a twofold power; first a power of ordaining inferior Presbyters, next of Governing or Ruling them, when so ordained. Had you but fairly transcribed the Doctor's whole Period, you must have added to your Citation these following words, [though soon after, even before the writing of Ignatius Epistles, there were such instituted in all Churches:] And had you read unto the end of that excellent Annotation, you would have found Epiphanius for Bishop Timothy his power (or jurisdiction) over Presbyters, from 1 Tim. 5.1, 19 Where whatever the word Presbyter may be concluded to import, whether a single Priest (in the common notion of the word Presbyter) subjected to the Bishop, or a Bishop subjected to the Metropolitan; it equally makes against you, that Bishop Timothy had power to rebuke, and to receive an Accusation against a Presbyter, which no mere Presbyter can pretend to have over another. This would imply a contradiction, to wit, that an equal is not an equal (because a Ruler and a Judge) to the very same person to whom he is an equal. The same use is to be made of what is cited from Theophylact concerning Titus, 
* Ibid.  to wit that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgement, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ordination of so many Bishops was committed to him. And I pray Sir remember one special Emphasis, which evidently lies on the Doctor's words. Which do not run thus, the Title of Presbyters in Scripture times belonged only to the Bishops; but if not only, yet at least Principally to them. And therefore however the case might be, (whether only, or not only,) all the course of his arguing will be equally cogent and unresistible.  
5. Now for your minor, [that most of your Ordainers are such Pastors] you prove it by saying, first they are Pastors. But this is petitio principii with a witness, to say they are, because they are. And 'tis a gross transition ab Hypothesi ad Thesin, to say they are such Pastors, because they are Pastors. The word Pastor in our days does commonly signify a Priest, to whom is committed a Cure of Souls. And when I have lately so used it, it hath been only in compliance with that vulgar Catachresis. But in the use of Scripture and ancient Writers, Pastor signifies him, to whom the charge of the Flock is Originally entrusted; whereas our English acception of the word Rector (which is not the Scriptural or ancient stile) is wholly extended to a deputed or partiary Government in the Church, to wit, a Government over part of the Pastor's Diocese, which Pastor (in the old stile) hath the plenary charge committed to him. Your error therefore was very great, in confounding the Pastors with the Rectors of the people, unless you spoke with the vulgar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and supposing that so you did, you spoke completely besides the purpose. And whereas you say in your Margin, [Mr. T. P. calls himself Rector of Brington.] I know not what you can mean by it, unless an unkilfull intimation, that I arrogate to myself somewhat more then is my due. And therefore to undeceive either yourself, or your Readers, I must tell you that in all Records which concern this Church, or its Incumbent, in all Leases, and Compositions, and judgements of Law, in all Directions and Orders, which have ever been sent by Supreme Authority, the Church hath been styled the Rectory, and the Incumbent the Rector of it. You may gather the reason from Mr. Sparrow's Learned Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer. The chief Rector o● a Parish (called the Cardinal Priest of old, quia incardinatus in Beneficio) was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the rest under him his Clerks.— Where there were Chantries, as there were in most Churches of England, their assisting the Rector of the Church made up that Form of speech, the Priest and Clerks. And Brington being a Parish consisting of five distinct Members hath occasioned the Rector in all times to be at the charge of an Assistant. I have told you what I mean, whensoever I writ myself Rector of Brington. If Mr. Cawdrey hath meant more, when he hath written himself as publicly, the Rector of Billing, I leave him to give you a Reason for it.  
Having done with your Argument, and with your personal reflection, I shall observe but one thing more; to wit that whilst you say most of your Ordainers are such Pastors, as Dr. Hammond spoke of in Scripture-times, (which yet I hope you will retract) you imply a confession, that some are not. Nor can I see by what means you will excuse yourselves unto yourselves, for having admitted of such Ordainers. As for your second and third sentences in your Sect. 5. p. 199. You have an answer included in what went before; and so you will have in that which follows. For,  
Sect. 38. In your seventh Chapter, 
Presbyterians are not Bishops by having Deacons under them.  p. 203. Sect. 18. You again pretend to fetch an Argument from the words of the Reverend Dr. Hammond. Your naked affirmation is expressed in these words. Where there are no such Presbyters with a Precedent, it is yet enough to prove him a Bishop, that he hath Deacons under him, or but one Deacon. Your pretended proof of this assertion is from the words of Doctor H. which now ensue. [When the Gospel was first preached by the Apostles, and but few converted, they ordained in every City and Region no more but a Bishop, and one or more Deacons to attend him, there being at the present so small store out of which to take more, and so small need of ordaining more.] Reduce this proof into a Syllogism, which may serve your interest in any measure, and it will be like your former, most dishonourably false. For thus you must form it, (do what you can) if you intent to make it in imitation of a proof. 
A primitive Bishop had no more than a Deacon or Deacons to attend him: A Presbyter hath no more than a Deacon or Deacons to attend him: therefore a Presbyter is a Primitive Bishop.  Here you see are three affirmatives in the second Figure. And by an Argument so formed I will prove you to be anything (either Fish, or Fowl,) with which you have any the least Agreement. Reduce your proof then (a second time) into a syllogism truly made, and your case will be altered, but nothing mended. Your fall into the Fire will indeed be regular, but you will get no more by it, than if you continue in the frying-pan. 
For your truly formed Syllogism will be but thus, whosoever hath none but a Deacon or Deacons to attend him is a Primitive Bishop: A Presbyter hath ●one but a Deacon or Deacons to attend him: Therefore a Presbyter is a Primitive Bishop.  Here the matter is as untoward, as the Form was before. The Major proposition being admirably false. For though a man may be a Bishop who hath no more, to attend him, when no more are to be had; (and that because no more are needful, which is the thing that Dr. Hammond hath often taught you) yet his having no more, doth not prove him to be a Bishop, which was the thing to be proved from Dr. Hammond. When Ignatius reckons the Three Orders, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, 'tis as impossible for him to mean, that Priests are Bishops, as that Deacons are Priests. For though every Bishop is a Priest, it can no more follow that every Priest is a Bishop, than it can possibly follow that every Animal is a man, because it is true, that every man is an Animal. A Primitive Bishop and a mere Presbyter may have a Conversion per Accidens, and another conversion by Contraposition, but a simple conversion they cannot have. To say they can, without proof, is but the begging of the Question; which being sure to be denied you, I shall advise you to beg no more.  
I will conclude this subject with a remarkable passage of Mr. Thorndike. And I will do it so much the rather, because the weightiness and the price of that excellent Volume may probably keep it from the perusal of vulgar Readers, who only meddle with the cheapest Books.  

Mr. Thorndik's judgement of Presbyt: Ordinations, etc. In his Epilogue to the Tragoed. Of the Ch. of Engl. Concl. p. 408.  The Presbyterians, sometimes plead their Ordination in the Church of England, for the authority by which they ordain others against the Church of England, to do that, which they received authority from the Church of England to do, provided that, according to the order of it. A thing so ridiculously senseless, that common reason refuseth it. Can any state, any society do an act, by virtue whereof, there shall be right and authority to destroy it? Can the Ordination of the Church of England, proceeding upon supposition of a solemn promise, before God and his Church, to execute the ministry a man receiveth, according to the order of it, enable him to do that which he was never ordained to do? Shall he, by failing of his promise, by the act of that power which supposed his promise, receive authority to destroy it? Then let a man obtain the Kingdom of Heaven by transgressing that Christianity, by the undertaking whereof he obtained right to it. They are therefore mere Congregations, voluntarily constituted, by the will of those, all whos● acts, even in the sphere of their ministry once received, are become void by their failing of that promise in consideration whereof they were promoted to it. Void I say, not of the crime of Sacrilege towards God, which the usurpation of Core constituteth, but of the effect of Grace towards his people. For, the like voluntary combining of them into Presbyteries and Synods, createth but the same equivocation of words, when they are called Churches, to signify that which it visible by their usurpation, in point of fact, not that which is invisible, by their authority, in point of right. For want of this authority, whatsoever is done by virtue of that usurpation being void before God; I will not examine whether the form, wherein they execute the Offices of the Church which they think fit to exercise, agree with the ground and intent of the Church, or not. Only, I charge a peculiar nullity in their consecrating the Eucharist, by neglecting the Prayer for making the elements the dody and blood of Christ, without which, the Church never thought it could consecrate the Eucharist. Whether, having departed from the Church, Presbyteries and Congregations scorn to learn any part of their duty from the Church, lest that might seem to weaken the ground of their departure; or, whether they intent, that the elements remain mere signs, to strengthen men's faith, that they are of the number of the elect; which they are, before they be consecrated, as much as afterwards; the want of consecration rendering it no Sacrament that is ministered, the ministering of it upon a ground destructive to Christianity, renders it much more.  

Immoderate virulence towards those of the Episcopal way.  Sect. 39 I now return to your long Preface, from whence I stepped into your book, that the things of one Nature might be considered together in one Head. That for which I am next to complain of you unto yourself, is your immoderate bitterness to the Episcopal way, and to the men of all qualities who dare to own it. Many Gushes of it there are, of which I will here transcribe a few. 
* Praef. to Disp. of Church-Gov. p. 17.  We see that most of the ungodly in the land, are the forwardest for your ways. You may have almost all the Drunkards, Blasphemers, and Ignorant haters of godliness in the Country, to vote for you, and if they durst, again to fight for you at any time.— The spirit of profaneness complyeth with you, 
Ibid.  and doteth on you, in all places that ever I was acquainted in,— 
* Grot. Rel. p. 113.  should one of you now pretend to be the Bishop of a Diocese,— you would have a small Clergy and none of the best and the people in most Parishes that are most ignorant, drunken, profane, unruly, with some civil persons of your mind, etc.— 
* P. 114.  The cause of their love to Episcopacy is, because it was a shadow (if not a shelter) to the Profane heretofore, and did not trouble them with discipline, and because they troubled and kept under the Puritans, whom they hated. But if you did not exercise Discipline on them, your Churches, would be but the very sinks of all other Churches about you, to receive the filth that they all cast out, and so they would be so great a reproach to Episcopacy, that would make it vile in the eyes of sober men: So that a Prelatical Church would in the common account be near kin to an Alehouse or Tavern (to say no worse.)— 
* ●. 11●.  So that for my part, were I your enemy, I would wish you a toleration; but being really a friend to the Church and you, I shall make a better motion, etc.  
Whilst you rail at this rate, not only without but against all reason, nor only beside but against your own knowledge, (as if it were your design to be voted for an ill man, and never more to be heeded in what you say) you do but show us your Doctrine thus breaking out at your Finger's ends. For it is part of your Doctrine, 
† Disp. of right to Sacram. p. 330.  [That many professors do rashly rail, and lie in their passions, whom yet you doubt not to be Godly.] Not considering that a Railer is yoked together with an Idolater, a Drunkard, an Extortioner, and the like, 1 Cor. 5.11. for it is also your Doctrine 
* Ibid p. 3●9.  [that a man may be a Drunkard, and yet have true Grace, and be in the number of the Godly.] Nay according to your 
† ☞ look back on ch. 3. Sect. 1. & 2. p. 62.63, 64.  Doctrine, Godly men may be worse, even Murderers, Adulterers, Incestuous persons, Perjured, Rebellious, Schismatical, Deniers of Christ, of which I have showed your own words in 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. c. 3. p. 115.  another place. So as in case it were true, that the men of our way are such as you would fain have them, they would be better than the most of your Godly men. But if the Apostles had been alive, you give us to guess houtou would probably have used them, by your bitter 〈◊〉 of those persons, who have not fallen from their principles, nor broken their oaths, nor receded from their subscriptions, nor changed with every turn of Time, nor invaded any man's possessions, but have ever made it their choice (with 
* Heb. 11.25.  Moses) rather to be on the suffering, than on the persecuting side. When I and others have been pungent in our expressions of such as you, we have said no more than we have proved by undeniable mediums, and commonly out of your own writings. From whence it is we stand justified on every side, and free from all violation of Christian Charity or Candor. But you, in revenge of such honest dealing, content yourself with many naked and groundless general Affirmations concerning the men of our way, without so much as an appearance of Reason for it. We do approve of a severe, but we cannot endure a false Accuser, who never considers what is likely, much less what is true, but giddily throws out the dictates of Pet and Rancour. When our Lord and Master was lying in torment upon the Cross, He was not only 
† Mar. 15.29.  railed on by them that passed by, but even one of the Malefactors (who suffered with him on the Cross) did 
* Luk. 23.39.  railingly vomit up his gall against him. Thus you deal with his Spouse, and his younger 
† Heb. 2. 1●.  Brethren, who have not been ashamed of the Cross of Christ, which you and others have laid upon them; and who do pray for your persons, whilst they reprove your ways. Nay since the Downfall of the Presbytery, yourself are one of the Malefactors, who justly suffer with those Innocents' at whom you rail. Innocents' I mean, as to the Presbyterian Calumnies, upon which their sufferings were heaped on them. But there are some of your own party whose eyes are opened, and now do justify the Prelatists, whom they had formerly condemned. These will be ready to 
* Luk. 23.40.  rebuke you, (like that other Malefactor who was 
† Verse 39  hanged together with our Lord,) and probably bespeak you in these very words. 
* Verse 40.41.  [Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art i● the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we [Presbyterians] receive the due reward of our Deeds; but these men [the Prelatists] have done nothing amiss.] I pray consider what you have done, and do so no more if you are wise. Either forbear your Accusations, or bring your Proofs along with them. For this you know is my method; and if you will follow my example in my Self-Revenger exemplified, (ch. 3. from p. 77. to p. 85.) Where I prove, as well as accuse, the Presbyterian Principles and Practice, (and that from the chief of your own Champions) your Accusations will be such as become a Christian.  

A parallel ●as● between the Pharisees of old, and our modern puritans.  Sect. 40. As in your Grotian Religion, so again in this Preface, you plead the cause of the Puritans, and boldly say, they were taken for men seriously Religious where ere you came, and thereupon you run on in your usual way of defamation, p. 18.19.] But first suppose it were so indeed; could it be possibly any fault in all those holy and learned men, who have sharply written against the Puritans, that they did not ●rre with th● vulgar, with whom alone you were conversant? 'tis true, the Puritans with the Puritans have ever passed for serious Christians; and you say in effect, that your whole Conversation hath been with Puritans, whilst you say how very highly you have ever found them to be reputed. Mark how ill it fares with you by a parallel case. 
Bishop Hall'●of Pharisaisme, & Christianity. p. 373, 374.  Bishop Hall hath told you of the Pharisees, that they prayed often and long; they read the Decalogue at least once every day; the holiness of their carriage was such, as they avoided every thing that might carry any doubt of pollution; they paid Tithe even of all, that is, of more than they needed; God would have a Sabbath kept, and they overkept it.— The poor jews (saith the Bishop) were so besotted with the Admiration of these two [The ☜ Scribes, and the Pharisees,] that they would have thought, if but two men must go to Heaven, the one should be a Scribe, the other a Pharisee. It was not the person of these men, nor their learning, nor wit, nor eloquence, nor honour they admired so much, but their righteousness.— Herein they seemed to exceed all men. Do but think how the amazed multitude stared upon our Saviour, when they heard this Paradox, except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Exceed the Pharisees in righteousness? It were much for an Angel from Heaven; What shall the poor sons of the earth do, if these Worthies be turned away with a repulse?  
Now, Mr. Baxter, apply the case. Was our blessed Saviour to be reviled as an Enemy to the Saints, for pronouncing so many woes to these Scribes and Pharisees, and for calling them Hypocrites, 
Mat. 23.13, 17, 24, 33.  blind guides, Fools, Serpents, Generation of Vipers? Was he (I say) to be reviled, for setting them out in these colours, because (forsooth!) the Common people did think them Saints? Or did our Saviour forbear to acquaint the world with their Hypocrisies, for fear their Favourers & Abetters should call him a Wine-bibber & a Glutton, a foe to the Godly, but a Friend to Publicans & Sinners? was Bishop Andr●wes a slanderous person, for preaching and writing against our Pharisees, and setting them forth by the name of Puritans, because Mr. Baxter is of opinion that the Puritans were Godly and holy men? Or dare you say that Dr. Sanderson did play with the Apple of God's eye, (as you unconscionably word it, p. 19) When he writ so much against Puritans and Puritanism, in that incomparable Preface where you are personally concerned? yet such as these are the men, at whom you thrust through my sides. It's true that now I have largely spoken concerning Puritans. But when you first of all railed against Antipuritanes, I had not written upon the subject, unles●● it were in a Citation, and that by chance. And therefore all your former bitterness was poured out against others, (of whom I reckon Bishop Andrews and Dr. Sanderson with the chief) although your latter evomitions have partly lighted upon myself.  

What hath been meant by the word Puritan by learned men.  Sect. 41. You make an excellent Confession, that in the Universities, and other intelligent Auditories, the notion of a Puritan was so far understood, (as I and others do understand it) that though you have heard before the King many a Sermon against Puritans, which you judged impious, yet it had this excuse, that much of the Auditory partly understood, it was not piety as such, that was directly reviled. p. 19 But than you add, that it was not so among the common people through the land; ibid.  
It were worth a man's knowledge, from whom you heard those many Sermons, which you impiously profess to have judged impious. Whether it were from Bishop Andrews, who preached more against Puritans than any Bishop I ever read; or whether it were from Bishop Hall, from Doctor Sanderson, or fro● whom. Or whether you ever heard a Sermon before the King. I do not think it the liklier, because you say it. The most I have learned from your writings, is to beware how I believe you. For you know where you have told me such things as these— that it was safer in all places that ever you knew, 
☞ Grot. Relig. p. 109.  for men to live in constant Swearing, Cursing, and Drunkenness, then to have instructed a man's Family on the Lord's day.— Well said Mr. Baxter. If you are not confuted by your own say of this kind, you never shall be by my consent.  
But be it so, that the common people do understand the word Puritan as you would have them; yet give me leave to understand it with the Universities you speak of, with Bishop Andrews, and Dr. Sanderson, and all the rest of those glorious lights, whose judgement of Puritans I have elsewhere recited. It is for us to instruct the seduced people, not to cherish them in their errors, and misunderstandings of Names, or Things. I wish that all the common people would read that Preface of Dr. Sanderson, so much commended by all good men; that so they might know the word Puritan, as well as he. I wish them as knowing in this point, 
The Lord Chancellor Egerton's judgement of Puritans, in the Case of the Postnati p. 99 Apud Antidote. Lincolniense p. 35.36:  as the Lord Chancellor Egerton; who speaking of a dangerous rebellious Doctrine, affirms it never to have been taught, but either by Traitors, or by treasonable Papists, or by seditious Puritans and Sectaries. He gives an instance of the first, in Spencer's Bill in Edward the second's time. Of the second, in Harding's confutation of the Apology. Of the third, in Buchanan de jure Regni apud Scotes, Penry, Knox▪ and such like. By these (saith the Lord Chancellor) and those that are their followers and of their faction, there is in their pamphlets too much such Traitorous seed sown. Upon which Dr. Heylin doth thus infer, the Puritans are, I see, beholding to you for lending them so fair a Cloak to hid their Knavery: Directing this speech unto the Lincolnshire Minister, who had too much favoured the Puritanical Faction. I wish the people were as knowing, 
Bishop Bramhals judgement of Puritans. In his Answer to Militiere. p. 46.  as the right Reverend Bishop Bramhall in this particular; who calls it no less than a damnable slander, and also the venom, which the Puritan Faction infused into the hearts of the people, that the King and Bishops had an intention to re-establish the Roman Catholic Religion. I wish the common people would yet consider (though it is late) that 
* Luk. 23.27, 28.  whited Sepulchers appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and all uncleanness. Even so ye also (saith our Saviour Blessed for ever) appear outwardly righteous unto men, but within ye are full of Hypocrisy and Iniquity. And the outward appearance of Righteousness notwithstanding, our Saviour's Erotesis is very no more terrible, than it is just. 
* Ve●se 33.  How can ye escape the Damnation of Hell? Sir, I wish you would consider the damning nature of Hypocrisy, and how far D. Owen hath charged you wi●h it▪ nay how far you were moved to charge yourself. And boast no more (as now you do p. 29.) How many there are in your own charge, who make a show of the fear of God. The Scribes and Pharisees made a show, beyond the best of our English outsides. Those Citizen-Puritanes made a show of the fear of God, whom yet our Excellent Bishop Hall did entertain with these words.  

Bishop Hall, of Pharisaism and Christianity. p. 38●.  How many are there of you, that under fair faces have foul Consciences?— All is good save that which appears not. How many are there every where, that shame Religion by professing it? Whose beastly life makes God's truth suspected: for as, howsoever the Samaritan, not the jew, relieved the distressed traveller, yet the jew's Religion was true, not the Samaritan's; so in others, truth of causes must not be judged by acts of persons; yet, as he said, it must needs be good that Nero persecutes; so who is not ready to say: It cannot be good that such a miscreant professes? Woe to thee Hypocrite: Thou canst not touch, not name goodness, but thou defilest it; God will plague thee for acting so high a part: See what thou art, and hate thyself; o● (if not that) yet see how God hate's thee; he that made the heart, says thou art no better than an handsome tomb; the house of death. Behold here a green turf, or smooth marble, or engraven brass, and a commending Epitaph; all sightly: but what is within? an unsavoury, rotten carcase. Though thou were wrapped in gold, and perfumed with never so loud Prayers, hol● semblances, honest protestations; yet thou art but noisome carrion to God: Of all earthly things, G●d cannot abide thee; and if thou wouldst see how much lower yet his detestation reacheth, know that when he would describe the torments of Hell, he calls them (as their worst title) but the portion of Hypocrites. 
jam. 4.8.  Wherefore cleanse your hands ye sinners, and purge your hearts ye double-minded: For unless your righteousness exceed the Hypocritical righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Sect. 42. You express your displeasure to me for saying, 
The Presbyterian Directory exceedingly Abominable.  that I was and would continue (by the grace of God assisting me) free from the great Abomination of the Presbyterian Directory. And ask what Papist would talk as Mr. P. doth, and not be able to name one thing in it that is abominable. p. 33.] Perhaps the Papists have kindness for it, as tending to the disgrace of the Protestant name; and acting here in Disguizes, might likely have instigated your brethren to that work of Schism and Disobedience. But to all sound Protestants 'tis an Abominable thing, as you must needs have known by your experience, if you know but the English of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or of the easier word Abomination. 'twas an Abominable Directory, for all those reasons to be collected. First from Mr. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, the writings of Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop Bilson, Dr. Cousins, Bishop Buckridge, Bishop Morton, Dr. Burges, before the Directory was made, of which you are minded by Dr. Heylin, 
* P. 64, 65.  by whom you lately had the Honour to be exceedingly well instructed. Secondly and chief, from Dr. Hammond's view of the Directory, unanswered and unanswerable. Thirdly from the Preface of Dr. Sanderson so often cited. Attempt an answer if you are able. Fourthly from Dr. Heylin his History of Liturgies. Fiftly from a large Preface before a Liturgy, very commonly thought to be Dr. tailor's. (How truly or falsely I cannot tell) wherein amongst thirty one Enormities justly imputed unto the Directory, it is observed to be composed to the dishonour of the Reformation, accusing it of darkness and intolerable inconvenience. A Direction without a Rule. A Rule without restraint. A prescription leaving an indifferency to a possibility of licentiousness. Into which Heresy and Blasphemy may creep without prevention▪ Which still permit's children in many cases to be unbaptised. And suffers them not to be confirmed at all. Ioyne's in Marriage, as Cacus did his Oxen. Will not do piety to the dead. Never thinks of absolving Penitents. Recites no Creed, but entertain's Arians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Manichees, or any other Sect for aught appears to the contrary. Consigns no public Canon of Communion, but leaves that as casual and fantastic as any other lesser offices. Never thanks God for the Redemption of the world by the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension of our Lord, but condemns the memorial even of Scripture-Saints, and that of the miraculous blessings of Redemption of mankind by Christ himself; wi●h the same accusation it condemns the legends and portentous stories of the Roman Calendar. Leaves no signature of piety upon the Lord's day, and yet its Compilers do in●oyne it to a judaical Superstition. Implicitly undervalues the Lord's Prayer, as never enjoining, and but once permitting it. Without Authority, and never established by act of Parliament. But it is farther yet abominable, for being made, and put in use by a spirit of opposition to the best Liturgy in the world by Law established; for being highly Schismatical, and so far pernicious to the Souls of men, as it beguiled them of the nourishment which their Mother the Church had provided for them, and which by Law unrepealed became their due. Again, Abominable it was, by being a work of Disobedience to the Supreme Governor of the Land, who by a purposed Proclamation did most strictly command the public use of the Common Prayer, and as strictly forbidden the use or Admission of the Directory. (Of which anon I may tell you more.) Farther your Directory was abominable for the Reasons given in against it by the University of Oxford. Sect. 9 p. 32.33, 34. And for those of Mr. Thorndike in his Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England; and for what yourself (Mr. Baxter) have writ against it. Which I do not here recite, because I have done it 
* Look back on ch. 6. p. 147.  elsewhere.  

See Biblioth. Reg. Sect. 4. p. 335▪ 336.  2. Having mentioned a Proclamation set out against the Directory by the then-confessed Supreme Magistrate, I will in order to your conversion, and for the benefit of them who may chance to read me▪ (and may also need such information) set out the Reasons which are there rendered for the prohibition of the Directory, and for the constant use of the Common Prayer. The Reasons against the former are no more than fiv●.  
I. It is a means to open the way, 
The King's Reasons against th● Directory.  and give the liberty to all ignorant, factious, or evil men, to broach their own Fancies and Conceits, be they never so wicked and erroneous, and to misled people into Sin and Rebellion, and to utter those things even in that which they make for their Prayer in their Congregations, as in God's presence, which no conscientious man can assent to say Amen to.  
II. And let the Ministers be never so pious and religious, yet it will break that uniformity which hitherto hath been held in God's Service and be a means to raise Factions and Divisions in the Church.  
III. And those many Congregations in this Kingdom, where able and religious Ministers cannot be maintained, must be left destitute of all help and means for their public Worship and Service of God.  
IU. No reason is given for this alteration, but only inconveniency alleged in general (and whether pride and avarice be not the ground; whether Rebellion and Destruction of Monarchy be not the intentions of some, and Sacrilege and the Church's possessions the aims and hopes of others, and these new-Directories the means to prepare and draw the people in for all, we leave to him who searches and knows the hearts of men.)  
V And this alteration is introduced by colour of Ordinances of Parliament made without and against our consent, and against an express act of Parliament still in force; and the same Ordinance is made, as perpetual binding Laws, inflicting penalties and punishments; which was never before these times, so much 〈◊〉 pretended to have been the use or power of Ordinances of Parliament, to which we are to be parties.  
On the contrary the Reasons for the book of Common Prayer are eight or nine in that proclamation. 
The King's Reasons for the Liturgy.   
1. It was compiled in the times of Reformation by the most pious and learned men of that age. 2. Defended and confirmed with the Martyrdom of many. 3. Was first established by Act of Parliament in the time of King Edward the sixth. 4. And never repealed or laid aside, save only in that short time of Queen Mary's Reign, upon the return of Popery and Superstition. 5. In the first year of Queen Elizabeth it was again revived and established by Act of Parliament. 6. The repeal of it than was declared by the whole Parliament, to have been to the great decay of the due honour of God and discomfort of the professors of the truth of Christ's Religion. 7. Ever since it hath been used and observed for above four-score years together, in the best times of peace and plenty that ever this Kingdom enjoyed. 8. It contains in it an excellent form of Worship and Service of God, grounded upon the holy Scriptures, and is a singular mean● and help to Devotion in all Congregations. 9 That, or some other of the like Form, is simply necessary in those many Congregations, which cannot be otherwise supplied by learned and able men, and keeps up an uniformity in the Church of England.  
Add to this the confession of the Parliament-Commissiners at the Isle of Wight, that if his Majesty would 
* See Biblioth. Reg. Sect. 4. p. 353.  not agree, which depended merely upon his will, no other Government could be set up, and by consequence no other Liturgy, or any thing else in lieu of it. Add to that also their protestation, 
p. 354, 355, 358.  not to offer the least violence to his Majesty's Conscience. Who also protested it was his Conscience which enforced his Denial of their petition in that point. I say petition, because their stile was no other, than 
* p. 354.  We humbly beseech your Majesty. 
p. 355.  Add to all, his observation, that his Conscience concurred fully with all other Parliaments (except that One) since the Reformation: and that if he should give way to remove all Ecclesiastical Sanctions which by Law are exercised, 
p. 356.  by that rule even the Presbyters themselves might be taken away. For questionless (saith he, and I pray Mr. Baxter observe his reason) the Civil Sanction gives the legal acting power to all Divine Institutions; otherwise the Christian Clergy would now be in little better case than they were before they were Christians.  
3. How Abominable your Directory hath appeared to all Protestants beyond the seas, you may partly judge by a little Book entitled A Character of England, sent (it seems) by a French Protestant (residing here in England) to a Nobleman of France. Your Party is all along concerned from p. 12. to p. 23. But I took the more notice of what he saith p. 16. That the Religion of England is preaching and sitting still on Sundays, because our learned Mr. Thorndike hath often touched on that string: showing what care there hath been taken that there should be 
* Mr. Thorndike's ●●. to the Trag. of the ●b. of Engl. Conclus. p. 420. which compare with p. 405.  two Sermons a Sunday, with a prayer at the discretion of him that preaches; provided nothing be done to signify that humility of mind, that reverence of heart, that devotion of Spirit, which the awful Majesty of God is to be served with. And he adds in that place, (what I beseech you to lay to heart) that even the frequency of preaching, which was the outside of the business (even granting it to be by the true rule of Faith) hath been so visibly so pitifully defective in the performance, that he must have a hard heart for our common Christianity, who can think that there is wherewith to defend it from the scorn of unbelievers, had they nothing to do but to mind it.  
4. Let me conclude this subject with that signal prophesy of the holy Martyr Hippolytus, That in the days of Antichrist Liturgy shall be extinguished, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bib. Patr. Gr●c. Tom. 2. p. 357.  Psalmody shall cease, Reading of the Scriptures shall not be heard. In which three (saith our Reverend and Religious 
* Preface p. 5. before his paraphrase and Annot. on the Psalms.  Dr. Hammond) as the public service of God was by the Ancients thought to consist; so the destroying of all and each of them must needs be a branch, if not the whole body of Antichristianism; a direct Contradiction to Christ, who, by his own prescription or practice of each of these, impressed a sacred character on each, 
Concerning Coppinger & H●cket and the communication of their Design to the presbyterian Ministers.  Luke 11.2. Mat. 26.30. Luke 4.17.  
Sect. 43. I now proceed unto the last, which is withal the most desperate instance of your Impiety, Rashness and wilful Railing; for which you are utterly unexcusable, whether you spoke in the dark, or quite against your own Light, concerning the Presbyterians Ministers in Queen Elizabeth's time, whom I had affirmed from Bishop Bancroft, (as he from letters which ●ass'd between them, as well as from Messages and Confessions publicly taken in the Star-chamber) to have been privately made acquainted with the bloody design of Mr. Hacket, Coppinger, Arthington, and the rest; of which you say they knew no more than either Augustin or Luther; and that I might as honestly have said the One as the Other. Nor doth your Daringness rest there, but you (or rather your furiousness, for you could not certainly be yourself, when you fling about you in such a manner) affirm, I could not have uttered more falsehood than I had done, if satan had dictated to me. Thus you precipitate your passion, not so much against me as against Archbishop Bancroft, from whose Authority I spoke, and whom you fear not to call The most violent persecutor of the Puritans, p. 34, 35.]  
Now (Sir) cool yourself a little, and honestly answer to my Dilemma. Did you know the business whereof you spoke, or did you not? If you knew it, why did you write against your knowledge in so plain a matter of Fact? or why did you not attempt to prove your Negative, to wit, That Cartwright and Traverse and the rest were not privy to the plot? Why did you not consult with Bancroft's dangerous positions, to which I referred in my Margin, naming his chapters and his pages, and specifying the year in which 'twas printed, that you might not be capable of an Error by any mistake of the Edition? Nay why would you say in plain terms, That you know not, nor much regard what I have read in Bancroft? as if you should have said, [you were resolved to give Mr. Pierce the Lie, and to compare him with satan right or wrong, without examining his Citations, without knowing what he hath read, and without regarding what is written by Learned Bancroft, or upon what kind of Evidence that Book proceeds.] Do not you think there is a God? or do you imagine he cannot see you? or do you hope he will not judge you according to your works? what should make you thus fearless, I can never sufficiently admire, if you knew the business whereof you spoke. And if you shall say you knew it not, how durst you say at all adventure, that if satan had dictated to me I could not have uttered more falsehood? I for my part had a perfect knowledge of what I writ. And since the reading of your b●ldness (which I could not have thought possible, but that I have read it) I have called the eyes of others to bare witness with mine own. And in my necessary Defense, I am enforced to discover you to all that read me, first, by desiring them to compare my Self-Revenger Exemplified, ch. 3. p. 73. with the pages of my Author referred to in the Margin. Next, by directing all my Readers to a later Edition of Bancrofts Dangerous positions, much more easily to be had, as having been printed no longer since than the Year 1640. by R. Young and R. Badger. Thirdly, by pointing them to the pages wherein the Narratives are to be seen, and that from the Letters partly, partly from the Mouths of the Malefactors themselves, partly from their hand-writings, partly from witnesses upon Oath in an eminent Court of Jurisdiction, with a perfect knowledge of all which, that equally prudent and pious Author had been abundantly furnished and instructed, towards the making of that elaborate and useful Book. Viz. Chapter VI p. 144. Their Fast was kept at Mr. Lancaster's house a Schoolmaster. Then p. 145. Coppinger wrote of his Instigations to some Preachers in the Realm, by name to one Gibson in Scotland. Then p. 146. He sent a letter to Mr. Cartwright. The effect of which follow's p. 147. Especially p. 149. 'twas dated Peb. 4. 1590. And began, Right Reverend Sir, your most wise and Christian Counsel, together with offer to take knowledge by writing from me, etc. It mentioned the number of his Fasts, his several Callings, and his writing to some Preachers within the Realm, as well as without. Then p. 150. Mr. Cartwright sent a message to Coppinger, that he should attempt nothing but by Advice, that he should be wise and circumspect. And a time for conference was appointed. Then p. 151. It appears, that Coppinger sent Letters also to Mr. Clark, Mr. Traverse, and Mr. Egerton. Then concerning the appearance in the Star-Chamber, his Letter to Mr. Udall, Mr. Carthright's resolving some Questions for him, the eight Preachers fasting and praying for Coppinger's success, see Chapter 8. p. 156.157. Especially p. 158. For his Letter to Mr. Chark, July 9.1591. and to a Preache● not named, and Penry's Advertisement out of Scotland, see Chap. 10. p. 163.164, 165. That this Conspiracy wa● for Discipline, see Chapter 12. p. 168, etc. And how far the Ministers were accessary, see Chapter 13. and Chapter 14. from p. 171. to p. 176. Lastly see how Hacket's Treasons, had they but prospered, had been defended by the Disciplinary Doctrine, ch. 15. p. 176. to p. 182.  
Now, Mr. Baxter, consider sadly, and repent in such a measure (of your uncharitable speeches) as to beware what you speak, much more what you writ, much more what you publish to your indelible dishonour. Consider what you have printed of Sir Henry Vane, and the Vanists, and compare your Author (if you have any) with the Wisdom, Learning, Piety, Renown, and Archiepiscopal See of our incomparable Bancroft; who was deservedly advanced by Queen Elizabeth, and King james, for having contributed so largely to the timely preservation of Church and State, as well from the Papists on the one side, as from the Puritans on the other. Can you not think it was crime enough, to deny the Sun's shining, when we behold him in his Moridian, (I mean a truth as bright as that) but you must bitterly rail against him that says it, with a Cochlaeus, and a Bolseck, and a slanderous tongue, imposed on him? This (you know) is the language, with which you treat me for speaking truth, p. 35. l. 1.2, 3. and which doth most of all reflect upon the memory and fame of Bishop Bancroft. O do not suffer your eyes to sleep, nor the Temples of your head to take any rest, till in the bitterness of your afflicted repentant soul, you have sought to God for a Remission of this impiety.  
I shall not now handle your other Calumny, whereby you make me an arrant Papist, (p. 36.) Because I have told you enough of that, in the beginning of this Appendix. What I said of the Presbyterians, their bloody Principles, and Practice, you do so far confirm, as you appear to have nothing to say against it. And hence I rationally conclude, that you are not so stupid, as not to see your Enormities; but so desperately stomachful, as not to mend them.  
Sect. 44. After your Preface, 
Of Dr. Steward's Sermon at Paris, and Dr. Heylin's Antipuritanism●.  there comes a Postscript. Wherein you do not at all discharge, but poorly sneak from a duty incumbent on you. The end which was clearly aimed at in recommending the Sermon of Dr. Steward to your consideration, you might have seen (had you been pleased) in the last part of the Preface. For that Sermon having been preached by so eminent a Prelatist and Antipuritane, in defence of the Protestants against the Papists, and that to an Auditory of Prelatists in the chief City of France, becomes an Argument not to be answered, that such Episcopal persons as Dr. Steward (who yet was one of the highest strain and as near the Archbishop as it is possible to imagine,) had not any design to introduce the French Popery, as you in several public writings had most uncharitably suggested. Now of this one thing, which was most pertinent, you were resolved to take no notice. Whereas you say that Dr. Heylin disclaimeth Grotianism, you either lamentably aequivocate, or speak against your own Conscience. For as I take the word, the Reverend Doctor doth espouse it as much as I. And as you scandalously mistake it, I disclaim it as much as that Reverend Doctor. The name of Grotius imports a Protestant, a Peacemaker, an Antipuritan and a Prelatist. In which sense (if you please) we all are Grotians; and Dr. Steward as much as an●. In that you call Dr. Heylin an Antipuritan, you do him very much Right; for that hath gained him the favour of God and good men. But in that you say he is a hot one, you do yourself as much wrong, because you give him an uncivil and saucy Epither. And well it were if this had been the worst of your deal with him. Remember the quality of his person, the universality of his Learning, the dignity of his place in the Church of God, and the honour due unto his sufferings for Conscience sake, and you will find it agreeable to a man of your pitch, rather mannerly to bow down your knee before him, than contumeliously to lift up your fist against him. You confess that he sent you a moderate Letter, and that 
* Grot. Rel. P●aes. Sect. 4.  my dealing with you was moderate, brotherly, charitable, and gentle. What then should move you to use us worse, than the severest of them that have writ against you, unless you thought that our Civility was only an Argument of our Fear? you told Mr. 
† p. 281.  Tombs you have a spirit of keenness in you. But it see●es that spirit was exorcized for a season, when you deal● with that person whose very 
* See your Tract of saving Faith, p. 14.  Scholar had told you, you could not speak congruously; and whom you affirm to have called you 
† Ibid. p. 87.  unlearned Scribbler, tiring the Press with your impertinencies, if not with impious and monstrous Heresies. You answered as calmly to these expressions, as if you had purposely reserved your whole stock of virulence for whosoever should happen to use you gently. Dr. Heylin and I (whilst you were capable) did use you as gently as you could wish. You have acknowledged our Candour, and put it also upon Record. Yet in how prodigal a manner have you bestowed your whole stock upon him, and me? allowing me only a triple portion, for having most of all exceeded in my expressions of Love and Moderation. Compare my first behaviour towards you, (which had something in it to oblige, but nothing at all to provoke you,) with your acknowledgements of the same in the first address which you made unto me; and call yourself to an account, what it was which could engage you in such an uncharitable Requital. You made Confession to 
* p. 281.  Mr. Tombs of your guilt in this kind; But pleaded too in your own excuse, 
† Ibid. p. 274.  that you had not the twentieth part of Mr. Calvin's keenness to Baldwin and Cassander; 
* Ibid. p. 281.  and that you are less Censorious now then ever. Is this to the credit of Mr. Calvin, that he was twenty times worse than Mr. Baxter, in point of railing? Never did Bolsec revile him more. And if in your last three Volumes you have showed us the fruits of your amendment, we do earnestly desire you to mend no more. But if you meditate an answer either to me, or to any else of the Church of England, do not addict yourself to Calumny, and think it sufficient to call it keenness. It was not keenness, but Falsehood, which made me think it my duty to change my stile. If it shall prove to do you good, I shall change it again in your Commendation. Deal but Faithfully with me, and show your Favour to whom you please. For if you bring but Truth with you, your greatest Freedom will ●ind most welcome.   

For the Reverend and my much respected Friend Doctor Peter Heylin at Lacy's Court in Abbingdon.  
REVEREND SIR,  
HAving so far complied with my inclinations, as to begin with the second part of your Certamen Epistolare, wherein you have excellently cleared our Common Mother from the Historical part of a dishonest Rhapsody, which Mr. Hickman the man of scorn (as you have fitly 
* P. 19●.  described his Nature by the signification of his Name) had most dishonourably purloined from those two Ordinary Collections, [Mr. Prinn's Antiarminianism, and his Canterburie's Doom,] in which your pertinent observation you have many men's eyes to bear you witness, (who had long since observed as much in private, as you have now made 
† P. 149, 150.  known in print,) and having read it quite over with as many degrees of satisfaction, as our deplorable Filcher hath done with grief, I hold it my duty to send my thanks in as public a manner of conveyance, as that by which I received my obligation.  
My obligation would have been weighty, although it had lain upon me no otherwise, than upon every true Son of the Church of England; and even so you might have challenged my hearty thanks. But that you were pleased to 
* P. 116.  consider the multiplicity of my Employments, and (in that consideration) to bear a part of my Burden, that you were pleased to chastise so inconsiderable a Scribbler, and to do it chief at my incitement, (notwithstanding my being a stranger to you) this I take to be a favour, for which it is not sufficient to pay you thanks, unless I also de●●re your pardon.  
I say, your pardon so much the rather, because I knew the Disparity between your persons; I well considered it was below you, to oppose your strength to so much weakness; I knew the man was unworthy of so much Favour, as to fall under the weight of so Grave a hand. Nay (not to conceal any thing from you which stands in need of an excuse) I did esteem him the meanest Disputant, that I had ever yet dealt with in these affairs. I found Mr. Barlee some Forms above him, and wondered why he made use of so poor a hel●er. Nay though I always intended (and still intent) to call his Rhapsody to account, not so much for the weakness, as the extreme great wickedness of the thing, yet did I intent it as nothing el●e, but a resolute act of my Conned scension, to which (for the safety of his Disciples) I shall cheerfully stoo●, as my Leisure serve's me.  
But being engaged with Mr. Baxter, before Mr. Hickman had put his name to the English writings of other men, (as I shall manifest hereafter in greater me●●ure than you imagin●;) and timely foreseeing i● would be late, before my manifold Employments of greater moment would give me leave to descend to so mean a task; and having been importuned by divers persons, to let out the wind of that Bladder which popular breath had puffed up to so great a Bigness; and verily thinking it unsafe, (as well for him, as his poor Admirers,) to let him prosper in his impiety and pride himself in his unhappiness, until I could have leisure to m●ke him humbler; and conceiving that Mr. Prinn was a Learned person, (as well as a person of years, and Quality,) who could not cease to be the Author of all those Arguments of which Mr. Hickman is the Transcrib●t, by their being reprinted in any Plagiarie's Name; and knowing well that those Arguments might very usefully be answered, though not as filched by Mr. Hickman, yet as belonging to Mr. Prin; and calling to mind the great Readiness, as well as exactness of your Conceptions joined to the zeal which you had showed for the Church of England, and your personal concernment in divers Calumnies, and slanders, which the Brazier (as you call him) had cast upon you; I took upon me so great a Confidence (how unhappily soever a stranger to you) as to solicit you to engage against the Historical way of arguing, which yet (you know) I did acknowledge too much below you.  
As for the part which is remaining, concerning the positive entity of Sin, in which alone I am peculiarly concerned, and which you tell me you 
* P. 149.  leave to my sole management, (making me also a greater Compliment, then either my Modesty or my Merit is any way able to support,) I make no doubt but I shall publish such an account of that affair, as will no● fail of your approbation. 'Twere easy to do it in a few pages, so as to give satisfaction to men of Learning; but than it would not be so easy to vulgar Readers, whom I do chief consider in what I publish, that they may not be in danger to think that Sins are God's Creatures, by thinking God is the Creator of all things real. And it being my purpose, not only to humble and put to silence, but to Convince and convert so bold a Libertine, I shall contentedly be as large in my intended enterprise, as needs I must be, to be perspicuous. For Truth to some Readers is nothing worth, if it is not brought to them with light and plainness. And if I shall prove it as bright a Truth, that Sin is positively something, as that the parts of the Circumference are aquedistant from the Centre; or that equal parts being taken from equal parts, the parts remaining must needs be equal; I hope the scorner himself will be my Convert. And indeed when I consider his several gross Contradictions; his being forced to confess (in a lucid interval) what he doth stomachfully deny, whensoever he think's it a shame to yield; his most deliberate mistaking the thing in Question, that he may have what to say, though not to Answer; his wilful Omissions to speak at all to the greatest part of my many Arguments, and his not attempting the force of One by any thing like unto a pertinent and fair resistance; when I consider with what R●●uotanc● he proceeds at last to that subject, in which (and in which alone) he was particularly concerned; with how many and long P●efaces transcribed verbatim from Mr. Prinn, and other late English Writers (whom I shall name in due season) he hath laboured to hid his main cause from his Reader's eyes, posting it over in a few pages, towards the end of his hotchpotch, or Gallama●frie; I think I have reason to suspect, that the man is exactly of my opinion, (as to the positive entity of Sin) but only remember's I am a man whom they call a Prelatist, and he is a rigid Presbyterian, (thatis) a Puritan in grain, and so he will seem to resist me, as far as slandering and Railing comes to, for fear his Abettors should apprehend that I have wrought a change in him.  
I must therefore endeavour to overcome his perverseness as well as to dissipate the error which he pretends to. That if he shall finally persevere in his present course, and write against his own light, the common people may clearly see, he is rather obstinate than erroneous, or else affectedly erroneous by being obstinate. And in order to the attaining so good an end, I intent to satisfy their Objections, which Mr. Hickman by adoption hath made his own; and which for want of apprehension, or something else, he hath not managed as he ought to his best advantage. I am not ignorant of the Quiver, out of which he hath taken his heaviest Shafts, and which I shall choose so much the ra●her to break in shivers before his eyes, that he may hurt himself no more with such leaden weapons, as he shall f●n● by experience he cannot wield.  
The man confesses in his Conclusion, that in the body of his Book there are certain 
* See the Book Edit. 2. p. 108. l. 3. & 4. ●rom th● bottom.  sore places; by this good token th●t h● so bids me to stick upon them: but what he means by so●e places, or where they lie, he has the policy not to tell me. Again he confesseth (in the same page) that there are several 
† Ibid.  sick and weak parts of his Discourse; by this good token I am forbid to fall on them: but he conceals what parts are understood by himself to be sick and weak, for fear I should carefully avoid them, and only fall upon that which he thinks is soundest, and thereby leave him without excuse. For this expressly he tells his Reader, that if I shall stick only upon a sore place, and fall on the sick and weak parts of his Discourse— he will vindicate himself only with contempt and silence. And so by this he hath compelled me to undertake his main Body, and to charge it quite through, (whether sick or sound) because he hath not afforded a mark of Difference. For if I am left to mine own judgement, I shall pronounce his main Body (as he ridiculously calls it) to be nothing else but a great sore. All the parts of his Book (if yet you will allow me to call it His) do seem to me to be extremely both sick and weak: so as according to that condition, upon which he threatens contempt and silence, I am not to meddle with him at all, as being sure that I shall fall upon a sick and sore part.  
For if I begin with the hating of God, 
A Foretaste of Mr. Hickman's condemnation of himself for the worst of Blasphemies.  which he first confesseth to be an Action, and secondly confesseth to be a Sin, and thirdly confesseth to be a Sin of that nature, that it can never be any thing else, by any circumstance of Time or Place, and fourthly confesseth to be a positive Entity, and fifthly confesseth to be a whole Sin, and sixthly confesseth to be complexum Quid, (as I had often affirmed and he denied) and seventhly confesseth by unavoidable implication, that half a sin is not a whole one, and that it was a whole sin which was the subject of our Debate, and that one part alone cannot make up the whole which is confessed to consist of two parts together: and if I shall ask him hereupon, whether the devil's hating of God, which he once confesseth to be a sin and a positive entity, is taken by him and his Abettors to be one of God's creatures or God himself, (as every positive entity hath been affirmed by him to be;) I say, in case I shall begin to show him the Blasphemy of his Doctrine, and to show it out of his own Confessions, the man will be apt to require me with contempt and silence, for sticking so fast (at the beginning) on such a very sore place. For he confesseth to the Lecturers to whom he dedicateth his book, that the making God the Author of sin is not only the sin of Blasphemy, but the worst sin of the kind too; yet he teacheth in his book, that God is the Author of the Devils hat●ing of God, which is the worst of all sins. And such himself doth confess it in downright terms, that I may do him no wrong, (which he will be ready to object, how much soever 
* Note his fraudulent intimation that I had not instanced in the bating of God, (p. 93.) w●en yet I had done it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ch. 2. p. 83. and elsewhere.  against his Knowledge) I will set down the pages and the lines, in which I find him affirming these following things.  


Mr, Hickman's conf●ssions of what is Truth.  1. That the hating of God is the very worst, and most intrinsically evil of all actions, p. 93. l. ult. and penult.  
2. That such actions are c●lled intrinsically evil, both because they are evil antecedently to any positive Law, and because they are evil ex genere & objecto, and not merely through the want of some circumstance, p. 94. l. 6, 7, etc.  
3. That the hating of God is such an action, as no circumstanee of time or pla●e can make lawful, p. 94. l. 16, 17.  

His unavoidable guilt of Blasphemy.  4. That it belongs to the universality of the first Cause to produce not only every Real Being, but also the real positive Modifications of Being's, p. 95. l. ult. and penult.   

His Inconsistencies with himself.  Now I would know of Mr. Hickman, (and require him to give me a Categorical Answer) whether for Satan to hate God is a sin or no sin: if he shall answer it is no sin, he will not only declare himself to be a downright Libertine, but directly contradict his own confession in the first affirmative of the four which I have just now cited. If he shall answer, it is a sin, and the very worst of all sins, I would demand a second time, whether that hating of God (which he thus confesseth to be a sin) is a Real Being, or not? if h● shall answer that it is, than he concludes it to be produced by God himself, the First cause, unless he will eat his own words in the fourth affirmative I just now cited. But if he shall answer th●t it is not, he will not only contradict the concordant Judgements of all Mankind, but ●l●tly deny his own words in the third affirmative of the four, which I have just now cited. For there he saith it is an action, which he must grant to be a Real Being, which is somewhat more than a real positive Modification of Being, of which he also makes God to be the Author.  
I say the Author for this good reason, 
How he m●●es God the Author of sin in a way of expression more unexcusable.  because he must needs be the Author of every thing which he produceth, and he must needs produce every thing, which it belongeth to him to produce: and Mr. Hickman is express in his fourth assertion above cited, that it belongeth to the universality of the first Cause to produce every Real Being, etc. Hereupon I would ask him, which is the worst of the two, the saying of God, that he produceth the Devils hating God, or that he is the Author of it? Both are fearfully blasphemous, but yet the former is more horrid, and the later more capable of a comparative excuse, however in itself it is unexcusable. For to say, he produceth, implies him to be the efficient Cause; whereas the word Author doth often signify somewhat less; as I have made appear from Classic Writers (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ch. 3. p. 188.)  
Again I would know of Mr. H. which of these Blasphemies is the worst; 
His ●ther way of expression the most horrible of all.  to say that God is the Author, or that he is the Creator of the devil's hating of God, which he confesseth to be an act at once intrinsically and essentially evil. To say he is the Creator, is the more formidable expression, and that for the Reasons which I have rendered in my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yet of this formidable Blasphemy this wretched Caitiff must needs be guilty, unless he will timely renounce his most irrational dichotomy, (which was the very first cause of our whole dissension) to wit, that every thing positive must either be one of God's Creatures, or ☜ God himself; there being no medium (saith he) inter Deum & Creaturam; meaning Creaturam Dei, as he hath often explained himself. For when I told him that those Sins which were positive things (to wit, such Sins of Commission, as Adultery, Blasphemy, and the hating of God, were neither God, nor God's Creatures, but only the Creatures of men and Devils, abusing the Liberty of their wills by such acts of Rebellion against their Sovereign, who could not possibly produce them against himself; the man of 
* Prov. 1.22, 25, 29, 30.  scorn betook himself to mock and laugh at my instruction. And yet he appears to be ashamed of his Blasphemous dichotomy, in that he doth not twice mention it (for aught I am able to remember) throughout the whole Progress of his defence. And yet he knew that that alone was made the Apple of Contention, in the 18. Section of the third Chapter of my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which he knew he was obliged to shape his Answer.  
Perhaps (Sir) your leisure may not have served you, to have read any more of Mr. Hickman, than what you had read in Mr. Prinn, before Mr. Hickman, could have affixed his Name to it; I mean the Narrative and Historical part, which hath not any thing to do with the positive entity of Sin. At least you may not have had the patience to compare particulars with particulars, as being resolved to leave that to be performed by myself, to whom indeed it doth belong as a peculiar Province. And hence I think it the less impertinent, to entertain you with a few more of the man's Assertions; that by his mixtures of Truth and Falsehood, his Confessions of what he denies, and denials of what he confesseth, you may see how inconsistent he is with himself, and how (before he is ware) he is forced to stoop and bow to me. His assertions I mean are these that follow.  

Another taste of his Contradictions and Blasphemies.  1. That sin is an abstract word, and doth not in its signification connote, any subject. p. 53. l. 4, 5. Nay that sin is so perfectly an abstract, that if we conceive not of it as an abstract, we conceive not of it as sin. p. 54. l. 9, 10.  
And yet he as peremptorily asserteth,  
2. That the hating of God is Complexum Quid, and must not be spoken of as if it were one. p. 95. l. 14, 15. Nay that there is a material part of sin & a formal part of sin, and odisse Deum is totum Complexum. (p. 94. l. 20, 23, 24.) And that in evil works there are two things considerable: The works themselves and their pravity, of which the works are from God▪ p. 96. l. 6, 7, 8.  
He further Add's,  
3. That sin and sinfulness are Synonymous to him and therefore he may use them promiscuously, mea●ing by them, what the Latins do by Peccatum, pravitas, malitia. p. 53. l. 3. from the bottom. etc. p. 54.  
And yet he peremptorily saith,  
4. That the hating of God is an action, which no Circumstance of time or place can make lawful. p. 94. l. 16, 17. And that it is an act intrinsically and essentially evil,— because evil antecedently to any positive law, and because evil ex genere & objecto. p. 94. l. 6.7, 8, 9  
And yet again he affirmeth,  
5. That in the hating of God, the vital action of hatred is a thing positive, but the terminating of that act to such an object which is altogether lovely, that's the sinfulness of the action, and not positive, but privative, p. 95. l. 16, 17. etc.  
After this he saith expressly,  
6. That all positive things are from God. p. 96. l. 9, 10. And  
7. That their pravities add no new entities to them, Ibid. l. 11, 12.  
Now (Sir) not to take notice of his not knowing any difference between a Logical, a Physical, and a Metaphysical abstract; nor to coarse him (as in the Horse-fair) for making hatred to be an action, which every Sciolist knows to be a quality, as if he knew not yet the difference betwixt odium and odisse, and had not so much as a taste or tincture of Aristotle's well; it were too easy to write a volume, in numbering up and displaying the many Absurdities, Blasphemies, and self-contradictions, which this Reviler of the Archbishop (and of all that is venerable or sacred) stands guilty of in his Adventures.— 1. Sin is perfectly an abstract; and yet it is Complexum Quid. 2. We cannot conceive it as it is sin, unless we conceive it as an abstract; and yet it consists of two parts, or two things are considerable in it, (as Doctor Twisse, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Barlee, and indeed his whole party, have still distinguished, as well as he.) 3. The hating of God is essentially evil, and yet it is (forsooth) from God. For it is an action, and so a positive thing, and all positive things (he also saith) are from God. 4. The hating of God must not be spoken of as one; and yet he confesseth, some do but feign that such an act i● separated from its pravity (p. 94. l. 26.27.) 5. In the hating of God, he saith the action is positive, and so God's Creature, (according to his division of all positive things) and so exceedingly good; and yet he saith the hating of God is an act or action essentially evil, evil intrinsically, evil antecedently to any positive Law, evil ex genere & objecto. 6. The determinating of that act to a lovely object he calls the sinfulness of that action, and yet that action of hating God is a sin, yet sinfulness and sin are to him Synonymous. 7. To hate God is a sin, and yet an action, the pravity of which he saith is the sinfulness of the action, yet sin is perfectly an abstract, and the same with sinfulness. 8. He saith that sinfulness is merely privative, and yet he calls it the determinating of the act to the object, and to determine such an act is the positive action of the will, and so the positive must be privative because 'tis positive. 9 In the hating of God he doth distinguish two things, the one good, the other evil; and yet confesseth 'tis wholly evil; and must confess it (in despite of his obstinacy) because hatred not fastened upon God, is not hatred of God, and so it is not the thing in Question. 10. To hate God is an evil work, a work of darkness and of the Devil. Yet in all evil works, Mr. H. saith the work itself is positive and from God. 11. If he thinks it a sin to hate God, he thinks that sin an evil work, and a positive action, and so grants what he denies. But if he retaineth his opinion, that all positive things are from God or God's creatures, than he denies what he gran●s, that to hate God is a sin; or else it is clearly his opinion, that the sin of hating of God is one of God's creatures, and by consequence that God is the Author of it, which he confessed in his Epistle to be the worst of all Blasphemies. 12. To conclude, if he will stand to what he hath printed, that the hating of God is an action, and so a positive thing, and so from God, and so no sin, then be it known to all the world that Mr. Hickman is a Libertine in the most desperate degree, for as much as he believes it no sin to hate God.  
And now we need no longer doubt, 
How his principles run out into practice.  whether he thinks it a sin to hate his Neighbours, especially them whom he hath injured both by railing, and slandering, and filching too. Had he not sinned against you (Sir) in all three kinds, against the Bishop of Lincoln, Mr. Morrice, and Mr. Prinne in the last, and against Mr. Goodwin both in the first and the last: Had he not sinned in the second kind, by slandering the late Archbishop of Canterbury, and our Reverend Dr. Hammond, both as conspicuous as the D●y for their exceeding great Learning, and for the spotlesness of their Lives. And had he not added to all this, his contempt and scorn of Tilenus, calling him Scribbler, Aethiopian, a poor Fellow, and objecting to him a piece of Impudence; and had he not provoked me yet infinitely more, by dishonouring that God, for the passionate Love of whose Glory we ought to hate our own Souls; I had not treated the Malefactor with so much strictness as now I do. Nabuchadnezzar made a Decree, That whosoever should speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, 
Dan. 3▪ 29.  Meshach and Abednego, they should be (forthwith) ●ut in pieces, and their houses be made a danghil: Had Mr. Hickman but spoken what he hath printed at the critical time of that Decree, he had infallibly been cut in pieces. The God of Shadrach is the God whom I serve; and though I know too well what spirit I am of, to cut mine Adversary in pieces, yet I will choose myself to be cut in pieces, (as by slanders and forgeries I have sufficiently been) rather than suffer the poor people to be perverted into Libertines, whilst I am able to hope that I may possibly prevent it. Had I but one drop of Ink in my disposal, I would employ it in the Cause, in which by Conscience I am engaged. For if the people be brought to think, that Adultery and Murder are the works of God, (as even Zuinglius and Dr. Twisse, men exceedingly superior to Mr. Hickman, have taken the boldness to affirm and defend) nay, if the devil's hating God is confessed to be a positive thing, by the same Mr. Hickman who also teacheth, that all positive things are either God's creatures, or God himself, and if as many as do mistake him for a good scholar, or a good man, shall by the help of the tempter embrace the Doctrine, alas how greedily will they run into sin and hell? supposing that sin is nothing more than a term of policy, invented by Churchmen and Politicians to keep their people in good obedience; and that all real Being's must needs be good, as being produced by the first cause, (saith Mr. Hickman) or else that blasphemies, curse, and hatreds of God, if they are not good and produced by God, are no real Being's, and that will serve their turn as well. When the people cannot separate, nor so much as distinguish the hating God from the sin of hating God, and also find it to be the judgement of the learnedst Divines in all the world, that the Act and the obliquity (in the hating of God) are so inseparably united, as that the Author of the one must needs be the Auhor of the other, how can they keep out of the snare which Mr. Hickman hath laid before them, unless we make them see clearly, that Mr. Hickman is a blind and deceitful guide? The more the man is esteemed by certain unbiased souls, who discern not the difference betwixt Purity and Purita●ism, or betwixt a Preacher and a Divine, by so much the more (like 
* 2 Kings 10.31.  Ieroboan●) he h●th the miserable privilege of making Israel to sin; and so by a consequence unavoidable, the greatest charity to his soul, is to make him less scandalous, by making him vile in the people's eyes; or rather by proving him as vile, as he and he only hath made himself.  

* See his Pr●f. Ep●st prefixed to his Calvinists Cabinet Unlocked.  Tilenus' junior hath said enough to stay the stomach of the scorner, and I hope in time he will cast it up. In order to which I shall endeavour (at my next time of leisure) to make him hate his constant Fallacy, A rectè conjunctis ad malè divisa, in his pleading for sins being merely privative.  
I can very hardly hold back my hand from setting down more of his assertions concerning the sin of hating God, and showing the manifold impieties, of which his own words do prove him guilty. But having already too much exceeded the usual bounds of a Letter, and made a greater excursion than I intended, I shall not speak of this subject, until I shall do it ex professo, and once for all. It appears by this little (thus accidentally spoken of) that Mr. Hickman will be apt to except against me, for having stuck thus long on so sore a place.  
But what then can I do for the escaping of his contempt, 
The ●●ter impossibility of escaping his Contempt.  wherewith he has threatened to entertain me? If I shall call him to account for what he hath written of Risibility, of the intellect, and the will, and the subject of inhesion to whatsoever either proper or common accident; and shall prove him a man of the greatest ignorance in the things of Logic and Philosophy, or the greatest Contemner of God Almighty in writing wilfully and studiously against h●s Knowledge, of any pretender to Grace or Wit that in all my life I ever heard of; and shall manifest that his Trophies are most ridiculously erected where his own Misadventures are most remarkable, as if he had purposely intended to make his shame the more signal, by mocking himself with an Ovation in being worsted; if (I say) I shall examine him concerning such things as these, he will be ready to cry out, that these are the parts of his Discourse which I ought not in mercy to meddle with, in regard of their being so sick and weak. So again if I demonstrate by many more than an hundred conspicuous Instances, that he hath affixed his own name, and so dishonestly pretended to be the Author of the Wit and Language of other men, (which any Boy might have done who was but able to write and read) and if besides I shall observe, how he hath not only not quoted (or acknowledged with thanks) but bitterly railed at some persons, out of whose writings he hath stolen both words and matter, notwithstanding the Authors are still alive, to give notice of his robbery and railing too, and to pursue the bold Felon with Hue and Cry, the man would certainly exclaim (at least in the presence of his Abettors) that I have stuck like a fly upon very sore places, and unmercifully fallen upon his sick and weak parts. So well is he armed cap a pe by this one Declaration of his Infirmity. 
The sad mark of a desperate Patient.   
And here it is pertinent to deplore the sad estate of this Patient, being of kin to that wound which 
* jer. 15.18.  refuseth to be healed. He is conscious to himself of having very sore places, and loudly complains to his Physician, that there are sick and weak parts in the body of his Discourse; and yet he prefers the peccant humour before the pain of being cured. To all the rest of his maladies he hath added this also, that he is fallen in love with his Diseases, and hates the means of his recovery. 
D. Prosperi R●sp. ad Ca●itul. Gallor. Ob. 6. p. 320.  Prosper gives it as the character of an unregenerate and graceless man, Quòd amat languores suos, & pro sanitate habet quòd aegrotare se nescit, donec prima haec medela conferatur aegroto, ut incipiat nosse quòd langueat, & possit opem Medici desiderare, quâ surgat. We see the condition of him is sad, who does not know that he is sick; and is not his a great deal sadder, who proclaims his sick and sore parts with his utter averseness to have them touched? I find a Horse with a galled back is less difficult in the dressing, than such a rigid Presbyterian wi●h a galled Conscience and a galled Cause. I did but move towards the former (I mean the galled Conscience) and point at it as with a finger, when yet he fell a wincing beyond all measure. It's true, I rubbed the later (I mean the galled Cause) and so for his biteing I must not blame him. If at last he will stand fair, and endure a dressing of the sore places of which he warns me to stand aloof, (groaning sometimes, but never grumbling) I shall not scruple to warrant a perfect cure. At least by abstersive and cleansing medicines I shall hope to keep the sore places from putrefaction, that they may not infect his over- ●asie and catching Readers; who may really be in danger of the contagious disease, which hath been lately called Rantism, unless the noisomeness and stench of his sorest places shall make them stand at a wholesome distance.  

No remedies too ro●gh in order to his Recovery.  I suppose, Sir, I need not desire your pardon for any Roughness in my expressions, though you are pleased in much humility to 
* p. 192.  desire my pardon for your own. Can I believe you had offended in your austerity to the Scoffer, I would not have followed your example in this praevious execution of punitive justice.. Whatever language you may have given him, I can easily justify to all your Censors, that is, to all of his incurable Scotized Sect, (as our Reverend Dr. Sanderson hath very fitly 
* See his Preface to the last Edition of his first Sermons, S●ct. 24. p. ult.  characterized them.) It's true, you call him a 
† p. 131.  man of Brass, but do you not prove him to be such, by his making you worse than any Tinker, when you had never so much as named him in any kind? It's true, you 
* p. 132.  compare him to the Cuckoo, but I know not how you could avoid it, when he had taxed you so unmannerly for defiling your own Nest, whilst he was laying his Ordures in other men's, and also guilty of the rapacity which there you mention. It's true, you admonish him of his 
† p. 134, 135.  Sacrilege, but first you prove it, and you prove it out of his mouth. For when you had but accused him of a lesser Robbery in the College than he committed, he scoffed at you for your mistake, and proved his Robbery to be greater than you imagined. It's true, you compare him to 
* p. 144.  Aesop's Dog in the Manger, but himself had made the resemblance extremely near; neither affording the Archbishop a good word himself, nor suffering others, without snarling, to do him right. It's true, you parallel his 
† p. 145. p. ●9●  Railing with his Brother Burton's, and affirm his Language to be 
† p. 145. p. ●9●  libellous, but you abundantly make it appear by that Scandalum Magnatum, of which I should think his very Favourers would find him guilty. And they would do it so much the rather, because (as you very well 
* p. 133.  observe) whilst he excuseth them of Rapine, he condemns them of Perjury. Nay if Sennacherib is affirmed in Holy Writ to have sent Letters to 
* 2 Chron. 32.17.  rail on the Lord God of Israel, because he wrote against God's Omnipotence, how very fitly may Mr. Hickman be said to have railed against the same, by teaching the people to believe, that all things positive (and all Blasphemies by consequence) are either Creatures of God, or God himself? For hath he not 
* See his p. 96. l. 8, 9  expressly taught, that in all wicked works (such as the hating and cursing God) the works themselves are positive and from God, as all other positive things, (such as the loving and blessing God?) And what is this but to write against the purity of God, with a pen as much worse than that of the Heathen King Sennacherib, as it is more puritanical, and against greater means of Light? It's true, you charge him with 
† p. 141.  slander too, but so no doubt will his Abettors, if they will read what you have written. For (not to speak in this place of what he hath vented against yourself) the slander he raised on the Right honourable and most Reverend Father in God, My Lord of Canterbury his Grace, you have evinced to be such out of his own hand-writing. And in stead of a recantation he hath dared to offer at an Excuse. But 'tis an excuse so unexcusable, that (as you have said very well) it may justly render him contemptible to the silliest Schoolboy. 'Tis so extravagant an impiety, to say of so wise, so learned, so great and holy a Divine, that He was turned out of the Schools, that (to speak my opinion in your words) the foulest mouth (except his) could never raise so lewd a slan●er. It's true, you call him a 
* p. 184.  Filcher, and say he hath made things his own, as some unhappy boys make Knives when they do but steal them. 
p. 150.  Can you have possibly done less, than to detect a Robber of such sturdiness, as that he thinks it a little thing to take the purse, unless he may fly in the very face of him that follows the Hue and Cry? If you had not known in what manner he plundered other men● Treasures, you had enough to prove against him for having ri●led one of your own. One of the very best pieces of wit and language to which he hath put his own name, (in hope to enjoy the honour of it for a season, till his works of darkness should come to light) he hath stolen verbatim from your Antidotum Lincolniense. Which I say so much the rather, because although in your late book you take some notice of the stealth, yet you name not the Treasure from whence the Margarite was stolen, (for such 'tis thought by those persons who think it his) and perhaps you knew not so well as I; at least I am sure I first observed it, merely by dipping into the book without design. But whereas you say 
* p. 147, 148.  you are able to trace the steps of this young Serpent in all the cliffs and precipices of the Rock upon which he glideth, so as to follow him not only in his proofs and Arguments, but many of his phrases and flourishes also, some who are partial to the Purloiner do think you have done him great wrong; or at least they say what they do not think, that those are only Citations which you are pleased to brand with the name of stealths. And truly the principal inducement to this my present Publication, is to vindicate your Honour in this particular, and to stop the mouths of the Snarlers, who speak so much either against or without their knowledge of the Fact; and who may say with as much reason, that Achan did not purloyn, but only borrow the wedge of Gold; and that Rachel did no more than take the Teraphims of Laban without his leave, though she is branded in Scripture for having stolen them. Had Mr. Hickman's whole book been only a heap of Citations, you would no more have condemned him in the notion of a Filcher, than you condemn Mr. Prinn for his Anti Arminianism, or Grotius himself for his Annotations on the Gospels, which are as full of Citations as can be wished, and much the better for such a 
* p. 150.  Fullness. But when you said that Mr. Hickman had taken all his Arguments from Mr. Prinns Anti Arminianism and his Canterbury's Doomsday, (which had been long ago observed by many more than yourself, who are minutely in a readiness to make an ocular demonstration) you fitly added that he did it without acknowledging his Benefactor, (that is to say in plainer English) without citeing the places from whence he stole them; for stolen them he had not, had those been cited.  
Now Sir be pleased to take notice, that the Filcher (as you call him) deserves that name, in greater measure than you imagine. For as it appears by a Collection lately put into my hands by a Neighbour-Minister (a person of very good note for life and Learning) whose exact notification both of the pages and of the lines is attested unto by my Amanuensis, (and for a great part of them mine eyes are witness) I say it appears by that Collection, that not only all his ablest Arguments and Proofs, with some of his flourishes and phrases, (as you imperfectly discover) but even all his flourishes and fancies, all his Sarcasmes and jeers, all his all●sions and si●●ile's which have any appearance of smartness in them, yea all his sentences and phrases which savour of Wit and Ingenuity, are most shamefully and grossly (and word for word in most places, if not in all) transcribed by him in his hotchpotch, from a few of our late English Writers, whom he partly doth not name, and partly rayles at, but never once citys for the things I speak of.  
Had he been but as honest as Theodectes, and owned other men's writings by a grant of Liberty from the Authors; or had he commended the proper owners with the spoils of whose Pens he had been enriched, I think you would not have showed him in so naked a manner as you have done. But to steal a Goose (as the proverb speaks) and not to set up a feather, or to set it up only for a Reproach to the proper owner, did seem to you a greater Crime, than he could safely be suffered to prosper in. It is not certainly for nothing, that the word Plagiary should signify (in Classic writers) a stealer of other folk's children, and of other folk's Wit; the fruit of the body, and of the brain. And you know what grievous punishments were inflicted on the former by the Flavian Law. The fittest punishment for the later, and that which tends most to the Malefactor's Reformation, is (in the judgement of Martial) to tell it out among the people, and make the Plagiary ashamed. It being probable that his shame will be Gentleman-Usher to his amendment.  

Mart. l. ●.  Hoc si terque quaterque clamitâris,  
Impones Plagiario Pudorem.  
And this I take to be the reason, why St. Paul took care with his Thessalonians, that some sinners should be 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2 Thes. 3.14.  noted, and as if it were marked with a black coal, and that to the end they might be 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2 Thes. 3.14.  ashamed. Besides it ought to be considered, that a looker on may be 
† Psal. 50.18. Paena peculatus (Furti scilicet pecuniae Publicae) inprimis fuit pecuniaria in Quadruplum, postea fuit de por●atio.  accessary to another man's stealth, by knowingly concealing his ill gotten goods. And when the very same person who is accused of a Plagium, is convicted at the same time of a Peculatus, (for which his Restitution should be no less than fourfold as I have somewhere read in the Civil Law) I know not how you could do less, then draw up an Indictment, and I am bound to assist you to bring in Evidence.  
But here I am in some strait what kind of course I shall take to make the evidence irresistible. Should I use that brevity which you thought best for your Readers ease, and nameing one or two Proofs, refer my Reader for all the rest to the several Authors, (without a notification of lines and pages) I might suffer from the incredulous, as you have done in my hearing. And yet to give in an Inventory of all particulars in my power, were not only in effect to reprint the Rhapsody, but twice at once to reprint it. Once, as I find it in Mr. Hickman; and again, as I find it in the true and just owners. To avoid prolixity on the one side, I shall omit the many passages which he hath taken verbatim out of the two common storehouses, Mr. Prinn's Anti-Arminianism and his Canterbury's Doom; both because it would fill up some whole sheets of paper; and because it is matter of many men's talk and observation, as well as of mine and my neighbour- Ministers; and because you have already 
* p. 150.  assured your Readers, that from thence he hath taken all his Arguments, except that of Gabriel Bridges and Mr. Simpson, and perhaps these also: which in case Mr. H. sh●●l adventure to deny, there are many who can prove it, besides yourself. And yet on the other side to attain the chiefest end of my present writing, which is the silencing of them who open their mouths for Mr. Hickman, and say you wrongfully represent him in the ugly shape of a Purloiner, I shall (as briefly as may be possible) give such a Catalogue of his Glean, as I suppose less obvious to common notice, and which I have reasons to believe hath escapeed your own. Only my Catalogue shall begin with a signal instance of his Audacity, which however it hath not escaped your notice, yet you name not the Book▪ much less the page where it is printed, nor do you set it so fully as now I shall. Next shall follow Mr. Morrice, because himself hath observed how his Book hath been pilfered. My method shall be, to set the Author on the right hand, with the Purloiner on the left; observing the pages and lin●s of each; not every line, (for that would be troublesome, and needless too) but one or two at the most, by which it will be easy to find the rest.  


Mr. Hickman.  
Only I will make bold to deal with him, as Alexander did with his Bucephalus, take him a little by the bridle and turn him to the Sun, that other men may see how he lays about him, though himself will not. Book. p. 7. l. 19, 20.   

Dr. Heylin.  
Only I will make bold to deal with you as Alexander did with his Horse Bucephalus, take you a little by the bridle, and turn you towards the Sun, that other men may see how you lay about you, though yourself do not. Antidote. Lincoln. ch. 1. p. 5. l. 3.4, etc.    

Mr. Morris of Werrington his New Enclosures broken down.  

Mr. Hickman.  
The importunity of friends— the common Vouchees for publications. Epist. p. 1. l. 18, 19  
As did the heathen persecutors by the primitive Christians, putting them into beasts skins. ib. p. 2. l. 11.  
So coursely and undecently dealt with as I have been. ib. p. 9 l. 11.  
Seasonable Counsel which Galba gave to Piso, Nero à pessimo quoque desiderabitur, mihi & tibi providendum est, ne etiam à bonis desideretur. ib. p. 9 l. penult, etc.  
Notwithstanding all his Bustle and Ratlings, impartial and judicious men may discern, he is but like that Goth in Procopius, who though he fought fiercely, had the mortal Arrows sticking in his Helmet, whereof he soon after fell. Book. p. 2. l. 2, etc.  
I am fallen into an age in which I have learned to admire nothing, not so much from any knowledge I have attained unto, of the causes of things, as from the multitude of strange effects. Pref. p. 4. l. 1. etc.  
That common Dei hominumque odium, Mr. Hobbs. Book p. 7. l. 1, etc.  
As Ithasius, who having no other virtue but his hatred to the Priscillianists, etc. ib. p. 8. l. 3, etc.  
That I might well say with Jerome, Qui non ignoscit ingenio, ignoscat tempori. ib. p. 16. l. antep.  
A blasting of all graces, and an alloy to all endowments; as if it might be said of his opinion, as Austin speaks of discretion, Tolle hanc, & virtus vitium erit. ib. p. 17. l. 18. etc.  
I have the thousand witnesses to attestate. ib. p. 22. l. 12.  
The desires of my soul are to receive— a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, not as concurring with me, etc. ib. p. 22. l. 13▪ etc.  
My cordial affections to— are as well known, as I myself am. ib. p. 22. l. 18.  
To inodiate. ib. p. 22. l. 26.  
Profess, as a precise and measured truth. ib. p. 23. l. 18.  
Judgement often varieth with interest, and things acquire a price, not so much for what they are in themselves, as for what they are relatively to our ends and purposes,— no good money when he should take it, is currant coin when he should pay it. ib. p. 59 l. 20, etc.  
An Essay of the Spartan's valour, who being struck down by a mortal blow, used 〈◊〉 stop their mouths with earth, that they might not be heard to quetch or groan, thereby to affright their fellows, or animate their enemies. ib. p. 3. l. 6.  
Cannot fall down and worship the idols, which these men have set up, they must expect to be thrown into the fiery furnace, nay they are tormented in it already in Austine's sense, who calls the mouth of an angry adversary by that name. ib. p. 31. l. 15, etc.  
Seeing the heat of these epidemical controversies hath produced more writers, than (to use Plautus his similitude) an hot summer brings forth buzzing flies. ib. p. 107. l. 24.  
Hath made a Coward fight for once. ib. p. 108. l. 1.  
Neither can I undergo the judicious trial of the learned, nor am I willing to hazard the passionate censures of the ignorant. ibid. p. 108. l. 3.  
But if his reply shall be seasoned with the salt of Momus, not of Mercury: or if it be stuffed and coloured only with an ignorantia Elenchi, defending that which is not impugned; or if he shall like the flies seek for, and stick only upon a sore place, fall on the sick and weak parts of my discourse, and never attempt to charge through the main body, I shall vindicate myself only with contempt and silence. ib. p. 108. l. 20.  
Nor have I observed, that many have been healed by going into the troubled waters, though moved by the best Angels of the Church. ib. p. 108. l. 6, etc.  
Nothing— which hath weight enough in it, to turn those scales at Sedan of which Capellus saith, that they would break with the four hundreth part of a grain. ib. p. 68 bot.  
Have the same quarrel with me, that Fimbria had with Scaevola, because he did not totum telum in se recipere. ib. p. 93. l. 21, etc.  
Who drew the Scheme of their opinions after that Bishop Land was Lord of the House. And I think it no uncharitableness to say, that some of later times, in making their judgements, had very great respect to the stars that were culminant. ib. p. 25. l. 6, etc.   

Mr. Morris.  
The importunity of friends, the common vouchees to warrant publications. Epist. p. 8. l. penult.  
As the persecutors leapt the primitive Christians in beasts skins. Book. p. 194. l. 5.  
So coursely and indecently dealt with as I have been. Preface. p. 22. l. 16.  
Seasonable Counsel which Galba gave to Pico, Nero à pessimo quoque desiderabitur, mihi & tibi providendum est, ne etiam à bonis desideretur. Book. p. 93. l. 29.30, etc.  
Notwithstanding all their Bustle and Rattling, impartial and judicious men will discern, they are but like that Goth in Procopius, who though he fought fiercely, had the mortal Arrows sticking in his Helmet, whereof he soon after fell. ib. p. 149. l. 13, etc.  
We are lapsed into an age, etc. (and so forward, with some transposition, until those words)— the multiplicity of strange effects. Preface p. 11. l. 2, etc.  
That common odium Dei atque hominum, the Anabaptists. Pref. p. 19 l. 19  
Like Ithasius, who had no other virtue but his hatred towards the Priscillianists. Book. p. 43. l. 43, etc.  
That I might plead with Jerome, Qui non ignoscit ingenio, ignoscat tempori. Pref. p. 3. l. 7.  
A blasting of all graces, or an alloy to all endowments, as if it might be said of this, as St. Augustine speaks of discretion, Tolle hanc & virtus vitium erit. Book p. 159. l. 31.  
I have the thousand witnesses to attestate. Pref. p. 15. l. 32.  
I desire, to receive a Prophet, in the name of a Prophet, and not a concurrant, etc. Book p. 166. l. 1.  
My affectionate respects, to— are as well known as I am. ib. p. 165. l. 21.  
For inodiating. ib. p. 165. l. 29.  
Profess it, as a precise and measured truth. Pref. p. 9 l. 34.  
judgement often varieth with interest, and things acquire the price, not so much for what they are really in themselves, as what they are relatively to our ends and turns;— no good money when they should take it, is currant coin when they should pay it. ib. p. 113. l. 31.  
An Assay of the Spartan valour, who being struck down by a mortal blow, used to snatch their mouth full of earth, that they might not be heard to quetch or groan, thereby to affright their fellows or animate their enemies. ib. p. 256. l. 17, etc.  
Cannot fall down and worship the image, that— hath set up an occasion to bring me into the fiery furnace (as Saint Augustine calls an adversaries angry mouth.) ib. p. 30. l. 8. with p. 67. l. 16.  
When the heat of those epidemical controversies hath produced more writers, (to use Plautus his comparison) than an hot summer brings forth buzzing flies▪ Pref. p. 10. l. 24.  
Have made a Coward fight. ib. p. 11. l. pen.  
As I cannot undergo the judicious trial of the learned, so I am not willing to hazard the passionate censures of the ignorant▪ ib. p. 12. l. 6.  
But if any reply be seasoned nigro sale Momi non sale candenti Mercurii; or if they shall stuff and colour it only with an ignorantia Elenchi,— defending that which is not impugned;— shall like flies seek for, and stick only upon a sore place, and falling upon the sick or some single parts of— without charging through the main body; I shall vindicate myself only with contempt and silence. Pref. p. 25. l. 29. & p. 26. l. 3.  
Very few are healed by going into the troubled waters, though moved by the best Angels of the Church. ib. p. 12. l. 27.  
They will not turn those very scales at Sedan, which Capellus tells us would break with the four hundreth part of a grain. Book p. 153. l. antep.  
Their quarrel against them like that of Fimbria against Scaevola, totum telum non recipit. ib. p. 256. l. 17, etc. Compare also Pr. p. 4. l. 4. & B. p. 292. l. 27.  
(This is out of Mr. Morice exactly, the words only transposed) when they draw the scheme of—, they observe who are Lords of the House, they have chief respect to the stars that are culminant, and accordingly make their judgement. Book p. 43. l. 11, etc.  
There are many more Instances to be given in from Mr. Morice, which for brevity's sake must be omitted.    

Mr. John Goodwin. Triumvirs.  

Mr. Hickman.  
Nonnulli citiùs volunt exagitate quod non intelligunt quàm quaerere ut intelligant: & non fiunt humiles inquisitores, sed superbi calumniatores. Aug. de Tem. Serm. 72. Title-page.  
Solent veritatis hostes suis jactantiis etiam de nihilo theatrum quaerere. Calvin. in Mar. 9.14. ib.  
I cannot but recall what I have often read from Gilbertus Cognatus, of a man with an Ulcer in his face, who passing over a bridge, where the passengers were to pay a certain piece of money for every malady of body found upon them, was required to pay the accustomed tribute for the Ulcer in his face; but he refusing to pay it, the Officer pulls off his hat, intending to keep it for a pawn; his hat being taken off, another malady appears in his bald head; now Sir (saith the Officer) I must have a double tribute of you. Nay (saith the Traveller) that you shall not, and gins to struggle with the Officer: who being too strong for him, gave him a foil, by means whereof there was a rapture perceived under his coat. Now (saith the Officer to him again) I must have a triple tribute of you. Book p. 106. l. pen. etc.  
Truth is so lovely and beautiful, that they who embrace falsehood, will needs have it to be truth: and because they are unwilling to be deceived, they will not be convinced that they have been deceived. ib. p. 108. l. 10.  
Debasing me to the dunghill of doltisme. Pref. p. 1. l. 5.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P●ut. Book p. 14. marg.  
At whose name Mr. P. is wont to rise up in an * ecstasy, of admiration. ib. p. 27. l. 27.  
Rhetoric dropped from his pen in the absence of judgement and conscience. ib. p. 3. l. 3.  
He hath always a flood of vilifying words at command, and if he meet with a hard and stubborn argument, he ●oaks it in that liquor so long, etc. ib. p. 75. l. 14.  
Having with the Badger bitten till his teeth meet, he lets go. ib. p. 13. l. 4. a fin.  
Was there ever a man ab ●nbe condito. ib. p. 13. l. pen.  
The best crowers are not always the best fighters. ib. p. 90. l. ant●p.  
Resolving— never more to come so near him, until his breath be sweeter. ib. p. 106. l. 24.   

Mr. Goodwin.  
Nonnulli intelligentes citiùs volunt exagitare quod non intelligunt quàm quaerere ut intelligant: & non fiunt humiles inquisitores, sed superbi calumniatores. Aug. de Temp. Serm. 72.  
Preface § 8. p. 11. in marg.  
Solent veritatis hostes suis jactantiis etiam de nihilo theatrum quaerere. Calvin. Harm. in Mar. 9 14. Book p. 211. so p. 194. marg.  
He calls to my remembrance a story reported from Gilbertus Cognatus, of a man with an Ulcer in his face, who passing over a bridge, where the passengers were to pay a certain piece of money for every malady of body found upon him, was required to pay the accustomed tribute for that Ulcer in his face; but he refusing to pay it, the Officer pulls off his hat, intending to keep it for a pawn; his hat being taken off, another malady appears in his bald head: now Sir (saith the Officer) I must have a double tribute of you. Nay (saith the traveller) that you shall not, and gins to struggle with the Officer; who being too strong for him, gave him a foil, by meanus whereof there was a rapture perceived under his Coat: Now (saith the Officer to him again) I must have a triple tribute of you. ibid. p. 225. l. 6.  
Truth is loved, but upon such terms, that whosoever loves that which is otherwise will needs have this to be truth: and because they are unwilling to be deceived, they will not be convinced that they have been deceived.  
Sic amatur veritas, ut quicunque allied amant, hoc quod amatur velint esse veritatem: & quia falli nollent, nolunt convinci quòd falsi sunt. Aug. Confes. l. 10. c. 23. Pref. Sect. 64. p. 105. l. 10.  
Abaseth me to the dunghill of doltism. Book p. 211. l. 3.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut. ib. p. 168. marg.  
At the sound of whose names— are wont to rise up in an * ecstasy of veneration. ib. p. 95. l. 27.  
Composed by the Rhetoric of— in the absence of his judgement and conscience. ib. p. 60. l. 7.  
Compare this with Pref. p. 27. Sect. 16. l. 13. and 24. ending in these words— steeping it thoroughly in this liquor.  
With the Badger he hath bitten till his teeth meet, & now he lets go. Book p. 210. l. 21.  
There was never such— ab orbe condito. ib. p. 210. l. 26  
The greatest crowers are not always the best cocks of the game. Pref. p. 29. Sect. 16. l. 5. a fin.  
Resolution, not to come any more so near him, until his breath be sweeter. Book p. 371.    

Dr. Francis White. Way to the True Church, Edit. 1614. 4●.  

Mr. Hickman.  
Who (Memnon) hea●ing a mercenary soldier with many bold and impure reports exclaim against King Alexander, lent him a blow with his Lance, saying, that he had hired him to fight against Alexander, and not to rail. Book p. 17.   

Dr. White.  
Memnon, when a certain mercenary soldier did with many bold and impure reproaches exclaim against Great Alexander, lent him a blow with his Lance, saying, that he had hired him to fight against Alexander, and not to rail. Epist. to Read. bot. of p.    

The (reputed) Bishop of Lincoln. The Holy Table Name and Thing.  

Mr. Hickman.  
This poor fellow makes himself an adversary out of his own fancy, and driving him before him from one end of the Book to the other, shoots all his arrows at this man of ugly clouts of his own framing. Book. p. 21. bot.  
Hath so slipped and glided into all the several parts of his Book, that it is almost impossible to refute them without committing as many tautologies, as he himself, etc. ib. p. 89. l. 2, etc.  
I must therefore fall a picking of them up like so many daisies in a bare common, here and there one where I can find them. ib. l. 7.  
Tumble in his ugly tropes, and roll himself in his railing eloquence. ib. p. 4. l. 9  
Mentis aureae verba bracteata. Pref (1. Edit.) p. 31. l. 10.   

Bishop of Lincoln.  
This poor fellow makes himself an adversary out of his own fantasy, and driving him before him from one end of the Book to the other, shoots all his arrows at this man of clouts of his own rearing. Ch. 1. p. 2. l. 9, etc.  
Having slipped and glided— into all the several parts of this Libel, so as it is impossible to refute them without committing as many Tautologies as he useth himself. ib. ch. 3. p. 60. l. 20.  
I must therefore fall a picking of them up, like so many daisies in a bare common, here and there one where I can find them. ib. p. 61. l. 4.  
Tumble in your tropes, and roll in your Rhetoric. ib. p. 77. l. 19  
Mentis aureae verba bracteata. ib. ch. 2. p. 59 l. 11.    

Philophilus Parrhesiales. Enthusiasmus Triumphatus.  

Mr. Hickman.  
Concerning the story out of Acosta touching the Peruvian Doctor of Divinity, who would affirm, that he should be a King and a Pope: The Apostolical See being translated to those parts; See Book p. 45. l. 17, etc.   

Philophilus Parrhesiales.  
This story we have at large in the abovementioned Treatise, p. 38, 39 Wherein some of the words are— that he would affirm that he should be a King, yea and a Pope too, the Apostolical See being translated to those parts.  
Now (Sir) however it may suffice for your vindication● that Mr. Hickman is thus evinced to have wrapped his own Talon (if he hath any) in a Napkin, and to have swaggered for a time by spending freely on others men's; and though I shall purposely omit, to send you the many and large passages, which you know he hath plundered from Mr. Prinn, even because they are so very many, and withal so very large, that to recite them would make a Volume; yet to the end you may be able to grasp them all at one view, and to find them with ease, if need require; I shall briefly set down a Directory both to the pages and to the lines.    

Mr. Prinne. canterbury's Doom.  

Mr. Hickman.  
Concerning the English Jesuite's Book inscribed a Direction to be observed by N.N. See Epist. Ded. p. 6. l. 3, etc. along for 2. pages.  
Concerning Bishop Montague's Visitation-Articles; See Pref. p. 3. l. 3, etc. along for about 16. lines.  
Concerning Bishop Lindsey. See ib. p. 10. l. 5, etc. along for about 11. lines.  
Concerning the Church of England's (supposed) holding the Pope to be Antichrist. See ib. p. 11. l. 4, etc. along for several lines.  
Concerning Dr. Abbot's Sermon at St. Peter's. See Book. p. 65. l. 8. along for 34. lines.  
Concerning the Jesuite's Letter to the Rector at Brussels. See ib. p. 63. l. 20. along for about 11. lines.  
Concerning the Historical Narration, etc. entitled to Cerberus, and Champneys. See ib. p. 18. l. 14. along for 43. lines.  
Concerning Dr. Hollands (pretended) turning Dr. Laud out of the Schools, upon the score of Presbytery. See ib. p. 23. l. 19, etc.  
Concerning Archbishop Laud's Letter to Bishop Hall about Presbytery, and the foreign Churches. See ib. p. 24. l. 1. along for 10. lines.  
Concerning Episcopacy being an Order, or degree, in Bishop of Exon's Letter. See ib. l. 15.  
Concerning Images (pretended to be) forbidden in our times by the Homilies See Pref. p. 8. bot. The Image of God the Father, etc. along for 7. lines.  
Concerning Mr. Sherfield's case. See ib.. For taking down a glass window, etc. along for about 6. lines.  
Concerning a Gentleman's telling Mr. Hickman of the Archbishop's justifying the picturing of God the Father, etc. See ib. p. 9 along for about 5. lines.  
Concerning Mr. Palmer of Lincolne-Colledge being coursely handled by the Regius P. and called Appellator, etc. for citing Bishop Montague's Appeal, &, Concerning Mr. Damport. See p. 45. l. 8, etc. along for about 14. lines.  
Concerning Mr. Pym's Report to the Commons about Mr. Montague's appeal. See ib. p. 24. l. 1, etc. That he had disturbed the peace of the Church. etc. along for 10. lines.  
Concerning the Commons Declaration about the sense of the English Articles of Religion. See ib. l. 16, etc. along for 12. lines.  
Concerning Mr. Montague's Appeal almost strangled in the womb, and such as wrote against it. See ib. p. 23. l. 14, etc.  
Concerning Dr. Bray's expunging a clause against worshipping of Images ta'en out of one of the Homilies, out of Dr. Featlye's Sermons. See. ib. p. 10. l. 18, etc.  
Concerning the calling-in of Dr. downham's Book of perseverance. See p. 47. l. pen. etc.  
Concerning the censure of Mr. Ford, Thorn, Hodges. See ib.   

Mr. Prinne.  
Ibid p. 114. l. 1. so on to the end.  
Ibid p. 177. l. 4. so on to the end.  
Ibid p. 360. on to the end.  
Ibid p. 542. l. 28. & 278. bott. & 276. l. 38. ib. l. 17. & p. 275. l. 24.  
Ibid p. 155. l. 24. so on to end. See also p. 410, 411. ib.  
Ibid p. 159. l. 39 so on to the end.  
Ibid p. 167. l. 37. etc. & 168. l. 38, etc. & p. 169. l. 35. & 170. l. 17, etc. ib. l. 39 & p. 508. l. 7. à fin.  
Ibid p. 389. l. 20, etc.  
Ibid p. 274. l. 22. so on to the end.  
Ibid p. 275. l. 25, etc.  
Ibid p. 102. l. 7, etc. Who in this window had made no less than 7, etc. so on to the end, & ib. l. 24, etc. The image of God the Father, etc. so on to the end, and p. 103. l. 18, etc.  
Ibid p. 103. l. 11, etc. so on to the end.  
Ibid p. 157. l. 28, etc. From, An Renati, etc. on to the end.  
Ibid. p. 158. l. 41, etc. 1 That he had disturbed, etc. so on to the end.  
Ibid. p. 163. l. 18, etc. We the Commons, etc. so on to the end.  
Ibid. p. 157. l. 15. etc. p. 159. l. 20, etc. ib. l. 7, etc.  
Ibid. p. ●08. l. 25, etc.  
Ibid. p. 171. l. 30, etc.  
Ibid. p. 174, l. 175.    

Mr. Prinne. Anti-Arminianism.  

Mr. Hickman.  
Concerning Dr. john Bridges' Book called a Defence of the Government, etc. and about his opinion, that falling away is not grounded on our 16. Article. See Pref. p. 45. l. antep.  
Concerning Tyndall●s, Friths, Barnes' works preserved, put forth by john Day, and prefaced by Mr. Fox. See ib. p. 13. l. 19, etc.  
Concerning Bishop Ponet's Catechism imposed by K. Edw. 6. on all Schools. See ib. p. 16. l. 13. etc.  
Concerning Questions and Answers about Predestination at the end of the Old Test. of Rob. Barkers Bible. See ib. p. 17. l. 16.  
Concerning the English Articles agreed, confirmed, etc. in several Reigns. See ib. p. 14.  
Concerning Dr. Iackson's Questions in Vesper; and concerning Dr. Frewen●s Questions. See ib. p. 28. l. 28. etc.  
Concerning Bishop Carletons' saying, That albeit the Puritans troubled the Church about Discipline, yet they did not so ●bout Doctrine. See Book p. 42. l. 7. etc.  
Concerning the University of Cambridge s Letter to the Chancellor for suppressing of Baro's Opinions. See p. 66. l. 18, etc.  
Concerning our Articles being Anti-Arminian, because composed by such as were disciples of Bucer and Martyr. See Pref. p. 18. l. 6. etc.  
Concerning K. James' hard words of the Remonstrants. See Book p. 39 l. 5. etc. ib. l. 11. etc.   

Mr. Prinne.  
Ib. p. 202. l. 8. etc. See also p. 6. l. 23. etc.  
Ib. p. 79. l. 3, etc. ib. l. 18. and ib. l. 20.  
Ib. p. 48. l. 31, etc. see just before two leaves of the said Catechism, from f. 37. to f. 41. see ib. p. 48. l. 28, etc.  
Ib. p. 51. l. 1, etc. and p. 54. l. 6, etc.  
Ib. p. 4.  
Ib. p. 249. l. 12. and p. 250. l. 11, etc.  
Ib. p. 262. l. 18, and p. 263. l. 7. ib. l. 16.  
Ib. p. 256. l. 18, etc. see p. 253. l. 27, etc. and p. 256. l. 18.  
Ib. p. 12. l. 3, etc.  
Ib. p. 214. and p. 205. l. 26, etc. and 206. l. 3, etc. see also p. 89. l. 13.  
Having thus far discovered the greater Rapines, it will cost me no labour to add the lesser; which yet I would not have done, but that they are put into my hands by the Neighbour-Minister I spoke of, who thinks they may follow, though they might not lead. One Lock of Wool doth not merit a consideration, but many of them put together will make a Todd; and you know who was slain for an accumulative Treason.   

Mr. Hickman.  
Non partis, etc. Advertisemint fin.   

Dr. Heylin.  
Non partis, etc. Preface to Exam. Histor. fin.   

Mr. Hickman.  
Book p. 14. l. 4, etc.  
Ibid. p. 36. l. penult. etc.  
Ibid. p. 58. l. antep. etc.  
Ibid. p. 105. l. 22.  
Preface p. 39 l. 1.  
Book p. 13. l. 19  
Ibid. p. 89. l. 5. à fi●.  
Ibid. p. 2. l. 11, etc. outface their defeats.  
Pref. p. 7. l. pen.  
Book p. 60. l. 2.   

Mr. Morris.  
Book p. 218. l. 15, etc. s●e also Pref. p. 25. l. 28.  
Ibid. p. 252. l. 10, etc.  
Ibid. p. 35. l. 24, etc. and p. 42.7, etc.  
Ibid. p. 333. l. 11. Pref. p. 1. l. 6. ib. p. 26. l. 27.  
Ibid. p. 79. l. 37.  
Ibid. p. 64. l. 11.  
Ibid. p. 128. l. 4, à fin.  
Ibid. p. 217. l. 29, etc. outfaced their defeat.  
Ibid. p. 258. l. 6. sic alibi semel.  
Ibid. p. 211. l. 29.   

Mr. Hickman.  
Preface p. 39 l. 1, etc.  
Book p. 71. l. 8.  
Ibid. p. 7. l. 14.  
Ibid. p. 84. l. 5.  
Pref. p. l. 5. à fin.   

Mr. Goodwin.  
Preface p. 24. l. 17.  
Ibid. p. 94. Sect. 46. l. 15. so p. 98. Sect. 59 l. 21.  
Ibid. p. 110. Sect. 66. l. 23. so Book p. 20. l. 27. p. 134. l. 4 à fin. p. 194.  
Book p. 108. l. 10. p. 110. l. antep. p. 114. l. 7. p. 123. l. 19 p. 136. l. 32. p. 189. l. 25.  
Ibid. p. 211. l. 11.   

Mr. Hickman.  
Pref. p. 4. l. 7.  
Ibid. p. 46. l. 'pon.  
Ibid. p. 47. l. 19   

Mr. Prinne's Doom.  
Ibid. p. 106. l. ult, etc.  
Ibid. p. 156. l. 22.  
Ibid. p. 171.   

Mr. Hickman.  
Ibid. p. 16. l. 5.  
Ibid. p. 16. l. 11.  
Ibid p. 38. l. 19  
Ibid p. 18. l. 11.  
Ibid p. 43. l. 16. & l. 25.  
Ibid p. 33. l. 5, etc.  
Ibid p. 31 top.  
Ibid. p. 25. l. 13. & l. 16.  
Ibid. p. 46. l. ult. & p. 47. l. 1.  
Ibid. p. 22. l. 11.  
Book p. 19 l. 12.  
Ibid. p. 35. l. 7.  
Pref. p. 43. l. 8▪ etc.   

Anti-Arminianism.  
P. 21, 22.  
Ibid. p. 27, etc.  
Ibid p. 93. l. 9, 11.13.  
Ibid p. 86. l. 9, etc. & p. 96. l. 12, etc.  
Ibid p. 97. l. 5.  
Ibid p. 89. l. 22, etc. In Marg. Featlye's Pelag. Rediv. cited. See p. 98. l. 10, etc.  
Ibid p. 204. l. 35. & p. 205. bot.  
Ibid. p. 252. l. 6. & l. 11. & p. 271. bot.  
Ibid. p. 246. l. 22. & p. 247. l. 16. & p. 250. bot.  
Ibid. p. 271. bot. See also Epist. to Parl. p. 11. l. 12.  
Ibid. p. 85. l. 24.  
Ibid. p. 93. l. 16. & p. 100 l. 17.  
Ibid. ●p. 90. l. 21. & p. 7. l. 12. & p. 9 l. 19, etc.    

Now, Sir, if any of these figures shall come imperfectly into your hands, by any oversight of the Printer, or ill correcting of the Press, be pleased to remember what now I say, that every one of the Citations have been strictly compared by several witnesses apart. And if any thing be amiss through inadvertency in the conveyance, the Collector in an instant can set it right. That some of these are Quotations either of Latin or Greek Authors, is well considered by the Collector, who therefore hath not accused Mr. Morice, or Mr. Goodwin, for having fetched them from their several Fountains, (he rather gives them his Commendation) but he accuseth Mr. Hickman of h●ving filched them out of the Cisterns, (and you know who saith, stolen waters are sweet,) without acknowledging the Cisterns, to which they are evidently due, (as may appear by his forms of Introduction, his way of rendering, and applying, besides his Robberies verbatim, before, and after,) and pretending vainly to have drank from the Crystal Spring. It's true he varies from Mr. Goodwin in two particulars of Remark. For whereas Mr. Goodwin hath truly written out of Plutarch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
* Book p. 14. in Marg. l. 2▪ & 7.  Mr. Hickman most grossly thought fit to write thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of this I should not have taken s●ch public notice, had he committed the fault but o●ce, or had he put it in the Errata, or had he mended the matter in his second Edition. But since it hath passed with him for currant in both Editions of his Farrago, I judge he meant to correct Mr. goodwin's Greek; and so I may better say of him, than he of 
* Postscript p. 1  you, he hath but done like some Tinkers, who in stopping one hole, are wont to make many. That Mr. Goodwin was his Plutarch, you may conjecture even from hence, that amongst many other things of which I have given you an account, he hath illustriously stolen in one place no less than twenty good lines together, word for word from Mr. Goodwin, although in case of no greater moment, than the telling and applying a pretty tale. And therefore in that he saith, [he hath often read from Gilbertus Cognatus] his meaning infallibly must be this, that he hath often read in Mr. Goodwin's Triumvirs, what Mr. Goodwin hath related from Gilbertus Cognatus; he having managed the story, not in the words of Gilbertus Cognatus, but in the words and phrases of Mr. Goodwin. Instead of his Thanks to Mr. Goodwin for that and many more Favours, (which Mr. G. hath done him without his knowledge) he brand's him with Vanity, and Arrogance, and Impudence hardly to b● equalled, and Intitles him the Ishmael in Colem in street. And in a manner not much unlike, he hath requited yourself for the credit he got by stealing from you, however he lost it by your Discovery; and is now to lose more, through the very same means by which he gained it.  
During the space of some months, he made a show in the world, and was thought (by some of his party) to have had a good stock of Wit, and Learning. But full well is it known to yourself and others, how poor a writer ●e would be, if every man had his own. It was not only unworthily, but cruelly done in Mr. Hickman, (like the Tyrant Mezentius) to join the living with the Dead. For if you take away the Lively and florid things which he hath stolen, there will nothing be found to be his own, except the putrid and noisome Carcase. I may say of Mr. H. as our Reverend Doctor Walton hath lately said of his Considerator, applying the words of Apollodorus to Chrysippus his writings; take away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whatsoever is not his own, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his paper will be empty and void of matter. For words of Calumny and Railing must pass for wind. Prometheus could make a man of Dirt, and that Minerva allowed him to call his own; but even the Poets would not suffer him to wear the honour of a Creator, because the Life of his workmanship was cunningly stolen from the Sun; and he was punished for his impiety by all the Ills that broke forth of Pandora's Box.  

Hesiod. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And however Mr. Hickman may have laughed for a season, (as Prometheus 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Ib. ver. 55.  did until detected,) yet I am not sure that he will ever laugh more, unless it be with a Sardonick Laughter; or at least hath attained to that worst of Faculties, which is to hug his own Misery, as well as Gild.  
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Had he timely considered the Roman 
* Non semper erunt Saturnalia.  Proverb, that the longest play-days will have an end, he would a little have suspended his Mirth and Boasting, fo● fear of heaping up a Treasure of shame and sorrow. Out of how many men's Gardens, how many Flowers hath he transplanted, to try how happily they would live amongst the weeds of his Dunghill? When in his Tenpenny trifle (as you rightly term it) I observed strange Mixtures of stile and matter, methought I found myself assaulted (like Bishop Hall by Smectymnuus) with a kind of polykephalous Lernaean Monster. But little at first did I expect, that Dr. Heylin, and Mr. Morice, and Mr. Goodwin, and Mr. Prinn, (much less that Bishop White, and the reputed Bishop of Lin●ol●e should be conjured up out of their Graves,) and made to write against me in the name of Hickman; much less yet could I imagine, that they should all be compelled without their knowledge, (and some I am sure against their wills) to fill up the 
* Maxim, qui tanti mensuram nominis imples, etc. Ovid. Trist.  measure of Mr. Hickmans' name, which you observe to betoken a man of scorn, or one who sits down in the Scorners Chair, yet I observed divers things, which did alienam olere officinam, whilst yet I knew not from whence he had them. And as there are who are examined how they come by their Estates, when they are seen to spend freely, however of a late, and a low beginning; so I employed a worthy Person (whose Love I knew would make him stoop to so mean an office) in making a very short Search into some English storehouses; and so to try if my suspicion were not very well grounded. That if his Drole●y was his own, I might afford him the more of my affection and respect, for having so handsomely abused me in divers places. Or that if it were stolen (which I exceedingly suspected) I might so far endeavour to make a Discovery for his good, as it should happen to be for his humiliation. What account my Friend gave me, (the Neighbour-Minister I spoke of) in how many str●nge instances, and in how very few days, I hardly dare tell you, for fear it should seem a thing incredible.  
Well fare Mr. Hickman for one good turn, I mean for putting me in mind of what I might otherwise have forgotten, as having learned it long ago in the Grammar School. I mean the Apologue of the Crow, which had slily imped his own wings with many other Birds Feathers of various colours, and so had passed (for some time) as one of the Beauties of the great Volary. But when his thievery was discovered, and every Bird that had been defrauded began to challenge his own Feathers, than the poor Crow would fain have flown out of himself (at least by wishing it had been possible) to escape the contempt of the other Birds, which now came purposely to behold him in his own Natural Deformity. And may I not say of Mr. Hickman, (what his Sauciness 
* Pref. p. 52●  adventured to say of the Reverend Dr. Heylin) that he is a Bird of the same Feather? May I not liken him to the Crow in this one respect, as you yourself in another have fitly resembled him to the 
* p. 132, 134.  Cuckoo? Sure if all above cited shall deplume and denudate this Bird of Prey, by taking from him but as much as he took from them, he will remain as unhandsome as Aesop's Crow. Methinks Mr. Hickman appears in prose as filching Celsus appeared in verse, when Horace spoke of him to julius Florus.  

Horat. Epist. l. 1. Ep. 3.  Quid mihi Celsus agit? monitus, multumque monendus,  
Privatas ut quaerat opes, & tangere vitet  
Scripta, Palati●us quaecunque recepit Ap●llo:  
Ne si forte suas repetitum venerit olim  
Grex Avium plumas, moveat Cornicula Risum  
Furtivis nudata coloribus.—  

Tiber. Donat. in vitâ Virgil. p. 9.10.  Bathyllus was to be shent, for taking upon him to be the Author of Virgil's Distich, though Virgil himself had never owned it. How much more is Mr. Hickman, for taking upon him to be the Author of such Conceits, as yourself and many others had put your Names to? Sed nemo gratis malus est. Bathyllus, for a time, got the favour of Augustus by Virgil's Distich. But when Virgil appea●'d against him with an 
Hos ego versiculos feci, tulit Alter Honorem,  
Sic vos non vobis Vellera fertis Oves,   
Nothing in Rome was so ridiculous as the late celebrated Bathyllus. Thus it hath fared with Mr. Hickman; who by his Praedatory Pen and by railing at the Archbishop procured an ill gotten fame from the little people of his pitch, who cannot distinguish a Linsy-wolsy from an entire piece of cloth. But the young Serpent (as you call him by way of Simile) will now be a hissing even to them, who applauded his hissing at his Superiors. And as his Partisans have boasted, that he hath laid the Arminians upon their backs; so they will grieve at least as much, to see him creeping upon his belly.  
It hath been bruited far and wide by certain thoroughpaced Presbyterians (as the most moderate Dr. Sanderson hath fitly termed them) that I am the Author of a Book, which they were pleased to entitle [A dark room for Mr. Hickman] and they have laboured to make it credible, as well by word, as by Epistle, from Northamptonshire to London, and thence to Oxford. But whether the Copies were brought up before I was able to hear of any, or whether (which I suspect) there was never any such thing, (save in the fancies and mouths of the Presbyterian●,) sure I am, I am as free from being the Author of any such Title, much less of any such Book, as Mr. Hickman himself can be thought to be. I cannot reproach any man living with bodily distempers, or with infirmities of the mind which he cannot help. No friend of Mr. Hickman's can wish him mo●e than I shall do, me●tem sanam in corpore sa●o. It is my duty to convince him of all his scandalous offences, in as public a manner as he commit's them. But with his guiltless frailties, or his misfortunes not to be helped, I have never once meddled in any kind.  
Had I not known that this invention was sent to London in a Letter, by one and the same Presbyterian, who took some care to have it thought, that I had published a Defence of woman's painting, in a Book entitled [Of Auxiliary Beauty,] and from whom I have reason to believe I have suffered more, then from the hastinesses and heats of my quondam-Enemy Mr. Barlee, whose credulity was but abused by such underhand-dealers as this I speak of; I should have thought that Mr. Bagshaw had been the Master of the Mint. Who, (how perfectly soever a stranger to me, and a person upon whom I had never so much as bestowed a thought, much less an unkind or uncivil word) hath twice reviled me from the Press in a● barbarous a manner, as such a person may be supposed. When first he nibbled at my name, and did but nibble at my writings, I can truly say that I had never heard of him; it was beside my knowledge, that there had ever been any such thing in nature as Edward Bagshaw M. A. and student of Christ-church. Nor is it likely his printed Sermons would have come to my notice, as they did, if it had not been for their Dedication. I knew my Books were none of the first, whose outward leaves had been bitten with Rats and Mice. Nor did I think that such vermin deserved mine Anger, for merely doing after their kind, I should rather have rejoiced in that Diversion, could it have kept them from nibbling at better things. But it seems Mr. Bagshaw was so desperately bend to be known for something, and took it so very much to heart, that I would not be moved at his abuses, (as if I had done him a great injury by not returning him evil for evil, and had not been to be endured for resolving to suffer in peace and silence,) that he determined to use me worse, for having suffered so much wrong, than he had formerly used me for doing none. But being destitute of an occasion to wreak his Malice upon a Man, who would not gratify him so far as to yield him any, he resolved for once to lay aside modesty, and manners, and humanity itself, to deposit the consideration of God and conscience, and judgement to come, and so to set forth a Narrative against his Master, Mr. Busbie, (whom he had injured too highly to be able to forgive,) that so in a Preface to his Narrative he might give himself ease upon Mr. Pierce.  
And here I am confident you are wondering, (before you read me quite through) with what kind of colour or pre●ense he could indite such a Preface to such a Narrative. How he could ●nter into Scurrility on no occasion; and against a person, with whom he had never any Commerce, and by whom he had never been provoked, by word, or writing. Truly his colour was no more plausible, than a perfectly Occasionless and Groundless Falsehood. He tells his Reader with as much confidence of Mr. Pierce his Reflections on his Discourse, as if he verily believed there was great reason for it, whilst yet he does not attempt to give his Reader the very least. It seems he hath absolutely Decreed, that I shall be taken to be the Author of the Calvinists Cabinet unlocked, lately published in Defense of Tilenus' junior, against the meddlings of Mr. Baxter. In the Conclusion of which Book, I find indeed some Reflections on Mr. Bagshaw's two Sermons, showing the shallowness and the danger both of the one, and the other. I mean the danger of the Doctrine, and the shallowness of the reasoning with which he hath laboured to defend it. In the beginning of those Reflections, one is made upon his Practice, to which the lewdness of his Principles might seem to lead him. But what was this to Mr. Pierce, who was no more the Author of Tilenus his Apology, then of his Examination before the Triers? The Author of the Apology was doubtless the Author of the Reflections; and very confident I am, that the Author of both was Tilenus junior: who is meant by Tilenus, or where he lives, or who was the Author of the Apology, or who of the Reflections, Mr. Edward doth either know or he doth not. If he doth, it is a wonder he will not name the right Author, but rail it out against me, for his having been gibbetted by another. If he doth not, it is a wonder he will resolve to rail at me at all adventure, without the patience to consider what will happen in the conclusion.  
This hath happened to him already, that the impiety of his Preface confute's his Book. For after so palpable a falsity, upon which he gins with Mr. Pierce, what honest man will ever heed him in what he adds of Mr. Busbie? Nay if his passion and his Pet can so transport him out of Reason, as to make him inveigh in great measure against I know not what Calumnies, Incivilities, and Slanders, committed against him by a person who never stood in his way, or beheld his face, or contributed in the least to his ejection out of the School, or ever printed any thing of him which he so sturdily pretends; what will he not say of his Master Busbie, who accidentally hath hurt him, though he hath done him no wrong? Can he be careful of the Truth whilst he is in his Paroxysm, who will not regard it in cooler Blood? When the Boy in Horace was found a liar, truth itself became incredible whilst it proceeded out of his mouth.  
I am a stranger to Mr. Busbie as much as to Grotius in his Grave; and if Mr. Busbie were in his Grave I would vindicate him further than now I shall. For though I think it a thing below me to slatter the greatest man alive, yet I am freest from the suspicion, when I am liberal to the Dead. I should not otherwise have taken such pains for Grotius, but that I am sure he cannot thank me, and have also 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Heb. 11.26.  respect to a greater Recompense. But I have heard of Mr. Busbie as well as Grotius; and I cannot choose but resent what he hath suffered, so far forth as to rejoice in whatsoever aspersions are cast upon me, by which Mr. Busbie shines forth the clearer. I have been told of the depth and great variety of his Learning, but that which gained him my reverence was the greater Sanctity of his life; the effects of which had been told me long before Mr. Bagshaw appeared against him. Some of his well-natured Scholars have long since been of my acquaintance; and knowing our Teachers are to be honoured next to our Parents and our God, I have esteemed them so much the more, the more they have given me the pleasure to hear them speak of his goodness and gracious living. Light and Darkness are not more opposite than Mr. Busbie and Mr. Busbie, as represented by Mr. Bagshaw and men of worth. The 
* Narrat. p. 22. l. 3. from the bottom.  malcontent Mr. Bagshaw hath drawn him out in strange colours, painting him covetous, and cruel, and void of Conscience, violent, dissembling, corrupt, ambitious, tyrannnical, oppressive, and what he pleaseth; but all manner of persons of worth and quality (that I can hitherto meet with) are ready to censure this saucy Censor, as one of the sillyest in the kind they ever heard of: He having written as precisely against the evidences of Truth, and the daily experience of all about him, as if he had thought it a fine thing to be found a Railer, and never more to be credited in what he utters. I still profess I am acquainted with nothing else of Mr. Busbie besides his Fame, and from thence I can attestate, that for his mastery over his Pass●ons, and his diffusiveness of his substance as well as of himself, (to all, at lest who are deserving as well as needy) I have heard few persons commended more. And in relation to his Scholars, such I have heard hath been the Wisdom, the Gravity, and the Obligingness of his Carriage, that the ingenuous part of them had rather suffer his Rod than his displeasure. What I have heard of his 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  Father like both care and kindness to his Disciples (I mean his care to instruct them in Rules and Principles of 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Living, as well as in the Elements of Human Learning) hath made me compare him in my thoughts to Homer's Phoenix, whom Plutarch sets as an Exemplar for all Educators of Youth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. How much was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 due from Mr. Bagshaw to so deserving a Master (to whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. school I know an 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Herodian. lib. 2. mihi p. 37.  Emperor who would very gladly have sent his son, had he been living in these days, or had there been a Mr. Busbie at least in his.) I wish Mr. Bagshaw had been instructed by what you have written to Mr. Davis, who was (it seems) your own Master at Burford School, and to whom you dedicate (with yourself) your Ecclesia Vindicata, with all your seasonable labours therein contained.  
That Mr. Busbie had been his Master, Mr. Bagshaw hath oftentimes confessed; that Mr. Busbie had been kind and friendly to him, yea zealous and earnest for his preferment to the Usher's place in that School, Mr. Bagshaw also doth acknowledge in the first pages of his Narrative. 
Tam bene apud memorem veteris stat Gratia facti.  Mr. Busby's merit and discretion Mr. Bagshaw doth not deny. That Mr. Busbie was at the charge of Repairing and Improveing the public School, and was careful that his Scholars might not lose the least benefit, which they might gain by his Assistant maintained also at his expense, Mr. B. himself hath well informed us; Why then doth Mr. Bagshaw lay such loads of foul language (exceedingly much worse than he lays on me) on so obliging a Master, and so venerable a man? 
Narrat. p. 4. p. 28.  Why must so excellent a person be charged with Perjury, & Treachery, and violation of Conscience, yea with abuses of such a vile and unmanly nature, that Mr. Bagshaw himself, without blushing is not able to think of them? Truly as far as I can guests by Mr. bagshaw's own Narrative, the Reason of it was chief this, Mr. Busbie desired an Assistant without the favour and consent of his Quondam Scholar: nay he desired it of the Governors, although he had not first asked his Scholar's pleasure. The Governors knowing that the Master was growing apace into years, gave him the liberty of a Cru●ch at his own peculiar cost and charges, without so much as ask the usher's leave; all was displeasing to Mr. Bagshaw the under-Teacher of the School. The affront was such as he could not bear, (and yet upon the post-fact he 
* Ibid.  blesseth God for having endued him with patience in so extraordinary a measure.) Hence his 
† p. 14, 15.  Rebellion against his Master, and (by a consequence unavoidable) against the Governors of the School. Mr. Busbie (the Master) makes a Petition to the Governors to defend their Order and his Right against the Ushers Insurrections; the Articles of the Petition the Usher partly confesseth and partly mollifies: but all not sufficing to free the Usher from a suspension, he after 
* p. 23. at the bottom.  falls upon the Governors for resolving to gratify Mr. Busbie by a removal of Mr. Bagshaw, (right or wrong) notwithstanding the conviction which Mr▪ bagshaw's speech had wrought upon them. And though he saith they were 
† p. 24.  many and honourable porsons who stood in favour of Mr. Busbie, yet they 
* Ibid. l. 4, 5, 6.  concluded on the removal of (so innocent an Usher as) Mr. Bagshaw, even before it could be resolved (saith the Usher himself) upon what ground to bottom such a proceeding. And so we see his main▪ charge doth wholly lie against the Governors, whose proceeding and sentence was their own proper act, although in favour of Mr. Busbie, whose fault it was not if he was favoured, much less was it the Governors to do him right.  
Mr. Bagshaw 
† p. 22, 23.  professeth his great unwillingness to give his Enemies the pleasure of seeing him troubled. And yet he professeth that 
* p. 22. at the bottom.  no man is more inwardly discontented. He also told the very Governors, 
* p. 19  he had not yet so much as modestly complained, as if his complaints before going were too immodest to be denied. He hath printed his Commendadation from three of the 
† p. 2.  nearest of his Acquaintance affirming his abilities to be great and unquestionable in point of Learning, and his life, to their knowledge, is very Godly. What his abilities are for Learning, I will not by any means determine, no● will I speak to his prejudice in any kind without ground. But had he vindicated his Sermons from Tilenus his Reflections, I suppose Tilenus would have appeared in vindication of the Text and his own Reflections. As for his life and Conversation, I am fittest to judge of that as far as the guilt of his Preface comes to. And Mr. Busbie can best measure him by the Enormities of his Book.  
Whereas he saith of Mr. Calvin, and three more of his Followers departing from him, (as he doth often from himself) that they lie under the same contempt and obloquy; I must needs affirm, he is prodigiously mistaken. For never were they taxed of showing ingratitude to their Masters; nor were their persons ever contemned, in that their Arguments were confuted. If so, I am sure they were much contemned by one another. To say that Mr. Calvin ascribeth Sin to God's impulse, and that Dr. Twisse defendeth Zuinglius, affirming God to be the Author of Adultery and Murder, and to cite their pages wherein their words are to be seen, is to discover their Doctrines, and no farther to meddle with the men. When the most learned Mr. Hales, (even whilst he was a Calvinist, not yet converted by 
† See Mr. Farindon's Account prefixed to Hales his Remains.  Episcopius,) told in one of his Letters t● Sir Dudley Carleton, how Gomarus pleaded for this position, 
* See Mr. Hales his Letter of Decemb. 12.1618. p. 47.  that God did predestine men to Sin, we cannot say that Mr. Hales did load that Synodist with obloquy, by relating the story with his dislike, and saying he mended the Question, as Tinkers mend Kettles, making it worse than it was before.  
But what can be possibly so absurd, which Mr. Bagshaw will not dare to put in print when he is Angry? He says I seem to be enamoured upon my numerous issue, when yet his very Calumny implies his self-Contradiction. For he conclude● me the Father of the several Reflections o● his Discourse, although he knows I never owned them. And could he think it my Issue, upon which I was enamoured but would not own? Had I indeed been the Author of all those Books, of which by enemies and friends I have been suspected, Mr. Bagshaw might have called it a numerous issue. And of some of those many he might suppose me to be enamoured, could I have had but the madness to think them mine. I have disowned so many Books, (since Oxford was visited with the Plague) not because I conceived them unworthy of me, but because I would not be overvalued, nor offend like the old, or the new Bathyllus. Perhaps indeed I am the Author of as many things which shall be nameless, as those to which I have put my name. But does it follow I am the Author of those Reflections, for which Mr. Bagshaw hath railed against me, as if I had really been one of his Quondam-Masters? I deny that sequel; and let him prove it if he is able. Or can I seem to be enamoured of a numerous issue, who would not be thought to be the parent of as many as I may, but of as few, as I think I must?  
But I am probably to be blamed, for taking notice (so much at large) of so lewd a writer. Whose inhumanity towards me, without the least shadow or show of reason, (I having never provoked him in any kind, unless it were by my peaceable and passive silence) as it hath antidoted the venom which he hath spit at Mr. Busbie; so to be hated by such a person, with such a person as Mr. Busbie, will (I doubt not) procure me his Readers Love.  
Having now done with Mr. Bagshaw, I bid him hearty Farewell. Nor do I say it as a compliment, or word of Course; but as wishing him Repentance and change of Life. Of the other Oxonian I take no leave, as having given him no more than a Salutation, and as supposing he may deserve a more elaborate entertainment. If Sir I have tired you with too much length, I will not detain you any longer, than whilst I may humbly desire your pardon, and very hearty commend you to the special guidance of the Almighty, in whom I am and shall be ever,  
Your sincerely affectionate and humble Servant, THOMAS PIERCE. Brington. july. 7. 1659.   
THE END.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 3. l. 36. for ●● r. nor p. 12. l. 8. r. France p. 19 l. 29. after all r. of p. 21. l. 32. for Mr. r. D●. p. 28. l. 28. for concluding r. unconcluding p. 37. in m●rg. l. 5. for missarum r. amissarum p. 41. l. 7. r. brains p. 42. l. 11. r. conceit p. 49. l. 34. for leisure r. pleasure p. 56. l. 26: for was r. 'twas p. 57 l, 16. after agree r. not p. 93. l. 32. deal to p. 100 in marg. l. 5. r. p. 40.41.42. p. 108. l. 16. r. Dr. john Still p. 111. l. 8. r. zeal p. 117. in marg. l. 7 after R●sticano r. p. 209. H●nnoviae Edit. A. D. 1611. p. 120. l. 6. after w●re r. both p. 147. in ma●g. l. 6. for p. 123. r. ●22. p. 170. l. 20. for do r. not p. 217. l. 21. after Them begin the Thirty first Section p. 219. l. 29. for and r. not p. 221. l. 15. for no. r. not p. ●●●. l. 17. for very r. every p. 228. l. 7. r. pullitiei.   

Books Printed for, and sold by Richard Royston.  

Books written by Dr. Hammond.  
A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New-Testament by H. Hammond, D. D. in fol. the second Edition enlarged.  
2. The Practical Catechism, with other English Treatises, in two volumes in 4.  
3. Dissertationes quatuor quibus Episcopatus Iura ex S. Scriptures & Primaeva Antiquitate adst●uuntur, contra sententiam D. Blondelli & aliorum, in 4.  
4. A Letter of Resolution of six Queries in 12.  
5. Of Schism. A defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists, in 12.  
6. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice, in 12.  
7. Paraenesis, or a seasonable exhortation to all true sons of the Church of England, in 12.  
8. A Collection of several Replies & Vindications published of late, most of them in defence of the Church of England, now put together in four Volumes. Newly published, in 4.  
9 The Dispatcher Dispatched, in Answer to a late Roman Catholic Book, entitled Schism Dispatched in 4. new.  
10. A Review of the Paraphrase and Annotations on all the Books of the New-Testament, with some additions and alterations, in 8.  
11. Some profitable directions both for Priest and people, in two Sermons 8. new.   

Books and Sermons written by J. Taylor D. D.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays of the year; together with a discourse of the Divine Institution, Necessity, Sacredness and Separation of the Office Ministerial, in fol.  
2. The history of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ, third Edition in fol.  
3. The Rule and Exercises of holy living, in 12.  
4. The Rule and Exercises of holy dying, in 12.  
5. The Golden Grove, or, A Manual of daily Prayers, fitted to the days of the week, together with a short Method of Peace and Holiness, in 12.  
6. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance rescued from popular Errors, in a large 8. newly published.  
7. A Collection of Polemical and Moral discourses, in fol.  
8. A Discourse of the Nature, Offices and Measure of Friendship, in 12. new.  
9 A Collection of Offices or forms of prayer fitted to the needs of all Christians, together with the Psalter or Psalms of David after the King's Translations, in a large octavo newly published.  
10. Ductor Dubitantium, or Cases of Conscience, fol. Now in the Press.   

Books written by Mr. Tho. Pierce Rector of Brington.  
1. THe Sinner impleaded in his own Court, wherein are represented the great discouragements from sinning, whi●h the Sinner receiveth from Sin itself, in 12. new printed.  
2. The Badge and Cognizance of Ch●ists Disciples, preached at S. Paul's Church before the Gentlemen of Wiltshire, 4.  
3. The Christians Rescue from the grand error of the heathen, touching the fatal necessity of all events, in 5. Books in 4. new.  
The new Discoverer Discovered by way of Answer to Mr. Baxter, with a rejoinder to his Key for Catholics and Disputations about Church-Government.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Church of England defended, in two Treatises against the Fabulous and Scandalous imputations cast upon her in those two Points. Of Succession of Bishops and Schism, wherein the fable of the N●gs-head-Ordination is detected, and the accusation of Schism retorted By john Bramhall D. D. Bishop of Derry.  
The Law of Laws or the excellency of the Civil Law above all other humane Laws whatsoever: showing of how great use and necessity the Civil Law is to this Nation. By Robert Wisem●n. Dr. of the Civil Law. 4. new.  
The Grand conspiracy, by Master I. Allington, in 12.  
The History of the Church of Scotland by Dr. Spotswood Archbishop of S. Andrews, in fol.  
Etymologicum parvum, in 8. by Mr. Gregory Schoolmaster of Westminster.  
The contemplation of heaven, in a descant on the prayer in the garden, in 12.  
The Magistrate's Authority, a Sermon by Master Lyford, in 4.  
The Quakers wild questions objected against the Ministers of the Gospel, by Master R. Sherlock, in 4.  
The Communicants Guide, by Master Grove, in 8.  
The plain man's sense exercised, by Master William Lyford, in 4.  
Anglicisms Latinized by Mr. Willis, in 8.  
The persecuted Minister, written by Mr. L●ngly, Minister of the Gospel, 4.  
Lyfords' Legacy in 12.  
The Catechism of the Church of England paraphrased, by Richard Sherlock. 3. Edition.  
An Apology for the Ministry by William Lyford.  
The Examination of Tilenus, before the Triers in Utopia, in 12. newly published.  
The Calvinists Cabinet, unlocked, in answer to Mr. Baxter, by Tilenus' Junior. New in 12.  
Examen Historicum, or a discovery and Examination of the mistakes, falsities and defects in some modern Histories, 8. by P. Heylin D. D. New.  
Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae, The works of that Great Monarch and Glorious Martyr King Charles the first, both Sacred and Civil, together with a short view of his Life and Reign.  
Certain Considerations of present Concernment, touching this Reformed Church of England by H. Ferne. D. D. in 12.  
A Compendious Discourse upon the Case, by Henry Ferne, in 12.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ecclesiae Anglicanae Suspiria. The Tears, Sighs, Complaints, and Prayers of the Church of England: setting forth her former Constitution, compared with her present condition; also, the visible Causes, and probable Cures of her Distempers, in four Books, newly extant in fol. By john Gauden, D.D. of Bocking in Essex.  
Certamen Religiosum, or a Conference betwixt the late King Charles and the late Lord Marquis of Worcester concerning Religion.  
Royalists defence printed at Oxon. 4.  
Mercurius Rusticus or the Countryman's complaint against Lieutenant General Cromwell's plundering, and defacing Cathedrals printed at Oxf. 8.  
The Regal apology printed at Oxon.  
Bishop bramhall's fair warning to take heed of the Scotch Discipline. 4.  
Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas, written by the Archbishop of Tuam.  
Doctor Stewards Answer to Fountain's Letter.  
Episcopacy and Presbytery Considered by Henry Ferne, D.D.  
A Sermon before his Majesty at the Isle of Wight by Henry Ferne, D. D.  
judicium Universit●tis Oxoniensis de Solenni lége & foedere, juramento Negativo, etc.  
Fifty Sermons preached by the Learned and Reverend john Donne, D.D. Doctor Cousin's Devotions, etc.  
The End of the Catalogue.