TO HIS HONOURED FRIEND Captain THOMAS KINGERBIE.  
SIR,  
THis Paper seems to challenge your Acceptance under a twofold reason, as it endeavours to rescue your Friend, and as it propounds a Supersedeas for your Tribe; in all times it is best to dedicate to a Friend, in these times to a Soldier, in you I find a concurrence of both: if I look upon you as a Friend, you have an Antitype; if as a Soldier, a Mercury: If you think it not worthy to be admitted in the former way, let it be in the latter, and receive it as your Scout: If you please to own it, in either sense, or in any sense, you reach the expectation, and desire of your  
obliged Kinsman, I. W.   

To the Reader.  
THere is a paper lately printed, entitled, The Rise, Reign, and Ruin, etc. upon which I had (in regard of the importunity of some friends, together with the expectation of many others, looking at the task as almost necessarily imposed upon me) presumed to observe, and indeed I protracted not for want of time; but in hope some of the family, or at least, through their direction, some of their friends, would have applied themselves to it, which when I see not, I resolved upon it (as upon) (in regard of the premises) an Indispensable Act, not out of any affection to be seen in Print, but out of a pity, which I had on Innocence, (unless by this means) remedilessly to be oppressed under Insolence and Malice, as appears in the forenamed discourse.  
Where we meet first with some Apologetical passages, one of which, is the perfecting of a book lately come forth out of the Press, to which, he saith, he was pressed by divers; wherein perhaps he intends, to be Rhetorical, but what is the Result of this pressing, to extract (forsooth) the quintessence and spirits of the Author: in what? Inperfecting the History; which term perhaps he useth secretly to excuse the incompleteness of his Notions for those things which are perfective, of another especially per modum formae supervenientis materiae, (Such at his are pretended) use to be Incomplete: But what perfection doth he intent? what degree of actus perfectivi will this man give, such as the first Act gives? No, that's being, or entity merely, which it seems it had before, or such as the second Act adds, that's a form, formality, this surely he would confer, which he hath done poorly, as appears; or will he go higher, and bestow the perfection of the third Act upon the second existence; and draw it extra causas, that he hath done, Extra Ideales ac primordiales in some places, but by this means he hath brought it within the compass, of hic & nune, which I am glad of, that I may Answer it: But how will he perfect it? He tells us how, by laying down the sense and order of the story: What have we here? a mythology? Real Histories use to carry their own sense, matters of fact need no comment, fictions have their senses, Fables their Morals. Did his zeal of sending one mite towards the prostration of these Opinionists pitch his thoughts, impatient of story, and examining the matter upon gloss and invective? or shall we construe it as a fatal dash of his pen, practically pointing out to us the sequel? Or did the man lay down his own sense, when he resolved to lay down the sense of the story? Order, perhaps the other used synthetical, and began with Mrs. Hutchinson whom he calls the head of the faction, this man will use analytical and conclude with her; the first its likely was some simple Theorist, this an Actor in the business, I warrant you, let him be what he will, he would seem a good Methodist, not in martial affairs though, for he sets Mrs. Hutchinson whom he calls, as before, the Captain in the rear, which seems to be an error unless as afraid of a combat he would put his back into a posture of retreat, which it may be he intends; and so I will follow him. Here is much pretence of conformity to heavens proceed, whilst he saith, What God hath pardoned in heaven he would not renew on earth: But he would be excused this correspondence three ways. First, by declaring this was in print before he meddled with it. But observe Reader, he is guilty of the Order and sense of it. Secondly, by saying Gods great works must be made known: it seems his works mediately by them are greater than his immediate acts. Thirdly, by that ordinary pretence the necessity of State, the times call for his writing, he saith, he would be thought an Oracle of Imperial depths; A considerable penman, upon whom States depend, and whose writings the exigences of Kingdoms expect. Upon which supposition I wonder he took no more pains, for he would make us believe, he wanted time, which I cannot think, unless by his expression a straight of time, he mean in allusion to straits of land, a part of time intercepted twixt two other parts, which might so be a year, and is most likely: Or unless he mean in regard of the pretended seasonableness of his discourse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the opportunity of time; or unless that the matter of his book were so blameless as that in charity, we might conceive he did intueri verbum when he writ it, and so was in a higher measure of his Action then time. But whatsoever may be allowed him in patria, if that will not be granted him in via, if he did make use of time, I am sure he bade a competency of it at the least, for though he be (I will not detract) one of the higher spheres, yet (in which he is higher too) in his discourses, especially polemic, he affects the pace of Saturn, under whose planetary hour he was born; but if this content him not, but he will (that he may hurry all after his opinion) needs be styled primum mobile, let him be so; and I in respect of, and reverence to his grave, and regular motion will be circumvolved a little with him, only he must give me leave in the nature of an Orb as well as he, though a lower one, to have a proper motion of mine own, wherein though I thwart him, I may perform my own course by which I hope to have some influence upon thee unprejudiced & qualified Reader; which obtained makes the period, and revolution of thy Mercury,  
John Wheelwright.   

ALthough my Intentions be to apply my thoughts to those things which do expressly concern Mr. Wheelwright, yet seeing I have undertaken to vindicate him, I must likewise engage myself in those things which are of remoter and more implicit concernment; wherein he is by way of involution, and as the construction of people ignorant of matters may proceed after a more eminent way disgraced, viz. in his being put promiscuously amongst those whom they call Antinomians, Libertines, etc. and being equally entitled to the erroneous positions subsequent: a gross abuse, not only to him, but to some others, who are brought upon the stage, that they should be thus indiscriminately charged as they are in his Preface, which gins thus. After we had escaped the hands of the persecuting Prelates, etc. Yes, than you began to be prelatical yourselves, else why did not you admit those men, who left Bishops as well as ye, to a freedom of spirit, and conscience which they came for? or at the least, why did you not protract their censures, and give them leave to recover, and recollect themselves after they were out of the hands of those Prelates? you might have considered, that it was their good opinion of you, and the reformation amongst you, which screwed their meditations in way of preparation for your society, to a sublimation in doctrine, as well as discipline; and there might be some dispositions to errors at the first, which would neves have advanced so much, had not the Antiperistasis of your vehement prosecution forced them into a habit; you might have been pleased to have looked at them as men transported, through the fancy of practical liberty to be enjoyed, into some doctrines of Libertinism, and so have allowed something to imagination: which is the main, you might have reviewed your former condition, wherein (as you say yourselves) you were in exposed to the malice of your Diocesans; divers ways, me thinks, there are whereby you might have taken up yourselves in more moderate deportment towards your brethren, then in fining, confining, imprisoning, disfranchising, banishing, and as much as in you lay, killing.  
The infection which the Churches caught by these errors swells into three heads, How they have prevailed, how they reigned, and how they were ruined. Here is their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and here I must needs prosecute that which I before named, viz. the unequal (and yet too equal) implication of some parties, hereafter named in the 〈◊〉, all which to my certain knowledge, and, I believe, to some of theirs even to the Author of the book, are disavowed by some of these supposed Libertines, by name, (for seeing these tenants were attributed to all, yet not univocally but Analogically, I must apply myself ad principale Analogatum) Mr. Wheelwright who hath openly protested against them, witness Mount Wolloston, where they know, and our Author tells us, that one of his own Scholars told him, He set up Antichrist because he did not comply with him; a heavy charge, which surely he would never have put upon Mr. Wheelwright, to whose Doctrine he ever before assented, had there been so near an agreement twixt them as this perfecter tells us, whose words are these, after he had named the opinions of this Scholar of his as he calls him; Now (faith he) these things were, so gross that M Wheelwright could not but contradict them, yet so tenderly as shown a near agreement with him in these points. And saith moreover, that they are necessary consequences which he gathered from his doctrine, Where there are divers indignities put upon Mr. Wheelwright, First, that he should large unsound principles. And secondly, not know their coniectaries as well as an illiterate man, I can scarce for bear to break my order, and fall upon him now, but I shall come at length more fitly to it, and shall try how well our Author is skilled in consequences: in the mean time, I use this now to let the Reader see the injustice of this Medley of his; if the heat which inspires his paper, were true zeal, it would Congregare hemogenea, & segregare heterogenea.  
There are others too as well as Mr. Wheelwright, who are not affected with these paradoxes, as Captain Vnderhill a gentleman, who did good service against the Pequits, as it is well known in New-England, which their Emissary might have requited better than to have mustered him among a troop of Enthusiasts under Mrs. Hutchinson their Captain, as he calls her. Admit he erred, yet shall every little error touching Divinity in military men, whose stirred humours may easily attenuate the spirits, when they so apply themselves, and refine them into a nicety, be heightened into heresy, and presently seen in print? He urged the liberty allowed to Soldiers, instanced in the freedom of speech he had to Count Nassau. But my Author's reason for setting out his book was pretended for his censure, viz. the necessity of State, and so the Captain was degraded.  
Another mentioned in his Catalogue is Mr. Edward Hutchinson; I wonder that he is amongst the crowd, when as he did not use to be factious or opinionate. Indeed the geri●s of that family hath not much inclined to subtleties, scarce any of the hutchinson's have been Sectaries, unless à latere, and indirectly, by reason of which, me thinks, he might have been placed (if it must needs be) more obliquely in this predicament of Familisme, etc. then he is. This man said in the Court (which through Christian liberty he thought he might very well say) that If the Court took away his means, he should not be able to maintain his wife and children. Now the Court when they propounded his Fine, might think, (supposing him to be Enthusiastic) that he would not have looked at means as necessary, but rather in a holy triumph have prostituted all, and expected immediate influence: in which he deceived the awful and serious expectation of the Court, which accessary contempt committed him, and reinforced his prepared censures; which might be hastened the rather by this reason too, the Governor comparing the intended Fine with his estate, might see disproportion, which he thought might be called Contempt in Naturalis, though not elicitus; Or whether they looking at him as apprehensive of want suspected him; that conceit promoted too by a late imagination of the crime, as likely to be seditious. However it was, the man was fined forty pound, and disfranchized.  
Another is Mr Sam● Hutchinson who (as I remember) upon dislike of some proceed in Court out of a pang of zeal, though otherwise no great Critic, asked a question of them in way of scruple, whereupon he was censured guilty of contempt, and (I think) sedition too, and so was banished. But observe the wisdom of the Court, they perceiving, in that he did but merely ask a question, that there were in him some sparks of truth, and ingenuity, sent him to a place called, The Isle of Errors, that by the circumobsistence of corrupt opinions, that little good which he had might be united and fortified, and he at length reduced into an hability of cohabitation; which effect it seems it had: for, as I hear since, he is resumed into their precincts. And this I must say for the Court, they were so courteous to him besides, (rare lenity!) as that they allowed him liberty to come to them to Boston once a month, even during his expulsion; I suppose in the waning of the Moon, when his hotter fits (as they conceived them) were over, thinking that in some competent time, he might be perfectly cured of the Lunacy, which they supposed possessed him.  
The next are Mr. Cogshall, and Mr. Aspinall, which latter for his dislike of some proceed of Court was banished, and Mr. Cogshall deputy, presuming liberty to descent from the major part, through reluctation of his conscience, and reflection upon his privilege, broke forth into this expression: That if he could not be heard, he must: whereat he stopped, which might have been well interpreted; for being incensed by reason of the severe dealing with his brethren before him, per Imperium voluntatis, and out of brotherly love, he thought he must do something, although his reason (for the present charmed by the Magic of the Court so powerfully exercised upon those that were sentenced before him) could not tell him what, whereupon he stopped at the word must: for which aposiopesis he was disfranchized, as one that through such eloquence might become a pestilent fellow; but since he hath lived peaceably, resolving never to discover more Rhetoric lest he should be banished.  
The next in his book is Tho: Martial, the Ferrie-man, as he calls him; this good man was occupied in a River called Charles River, directly betwixt Boston, the place of these Opinionists, and Charles Town, and other Towns, where his spirits being predisposed by the roughness of winds and waves, and agitated by the Counterbuffs of Divinity, which the respective passengers vented, he might (you will say) easily be inflamed; Put as long as he kept his watery Element he had an allay: which when he left, and went to the Court, whether he did (as referring to the premises, you may conceive possible) rudely enter into the Court, or whether his fever beat so to his singer's ends, as it urged him to subscribe to a Petition; however it was, he was pronounced guilty (which indeed is common with watermen) of contempt. Hereupon displaced, since which time, for want of that employment, he is grown so poor, that he will not be able to pay the indispensable halfpenny to Charon for his passage.  
The next is one Tho: Grydley, an honest poor man, (as the Pamphleter calls him) yet (as he saith) too busy in things above his reach; alas good man he never knew that quae supranos nihil adnos, but the Court cured him of his pragmaticalness very well; for they took from him his employment, and censured him an abettor of contempt, and sedition, which terms he never hearing before, nor not knowing what they might mean, did so amaze, and masquer him, that ever since, in an admiring speculation of, and gazing upon them, he hath stood as in a rapture or ecstasy, not finding leisure for new action.  
There is one more, viz. Mr. Dyer, he was charged with contempt too, though I think only disfranchised, that his brain might move in a less compass, whereupon the good man was united into an ability to deliver his mind concerning an opinion of his in the Church, which our Author saith he did weakly too. In such cases as these me thinks that of the Apostle might have place: If any one be over-taken with an error, ye that are spiritual restore ye such a one in the spirit of meekness.  
The first amongst the women is Mrs. Hutchinson. This is she who he saith had at once thirty conceptions, some bigger, some lesser, some of one shape, some of another: and this he assures us, saying, That he hath learned otherwise (blessed be his Name) then to delude the world with untruths. I question not his learning, etc. but I admire his certainty, or rather impudence: did the man obtestricate? We know (as he saith of himself, he sometimes hangs up brats against the Sun, but surely he meddled not with these, reserved I suppose, etc. unless he had it from him who is so eccentricke in his motion (as one saith of him.) But what if he had it from any then present? will that suffice to make him so confident, as thereupon to take occasion to engage, and magnify Divine direction, and derive this not known by him to be a truth, from the God of truth? If any of the men he calls Familists, etc. had done so, would it not have been accounted irreligious? relishing of profaneness? etc. would not my Author's softest exposition have called it unsavoury?  
As for his Analogy, which he observes betwixt her productions and opinions, That as she held thirty of the one, so she brought forth thirty of the other; God's wisdom (he saith) fitting those to these: It is a monstrous conception of his brain, a spurious issue of his intellect, acted upon by a sweatish and Feverish zeal, which indeed beats almost in every line; and resolves his in themselves imperfect sometimes, if not felgned facts into phanatique meditations. For first the proportion is not exact, for he reckons not 30. opinions which he calls, Mrs. hutchinson's, and those many of them coincident too, made more I suppose to prepare for his conceit. Secondly, but admit it were, yet his Notion is impertinent, for he brings in defects of Nature, amongst defects of Manners. All he can say (if he were so acute) is, that those are these reductive, and as they are effects of sin. A poor plea, by the same reason he may under the same title discover all the weaknesses and natural imperfections either of man or woman, and fix a kind of morality upon them: But he will say perhaps, that this birth was an extraordinary defect: It avails nothing, unless he will either raise it to a miracle, or at the least prove a supernatural remission of the formative virtue in her. That will require a most accurate physical inspection which I think his learning will not reach, although (for aught I can see) his modesty might: for he tells us of women purging and vomiting, what if the distemper we usually call Cholera did for the present oppress those women? must it needs be proclaimed? must it needs be in print?  
As for Mrs. Hutchinson, she was a woman of a good wit, and not only so, which is all he will allow her, but naturally of a good judgement too, as appeared in her civil occasions; In spirituals indeed she gave her understanding over into the power of suggestion and immediate dictates, by reason of which she had many strange fancies, and erroneous tenants possessed her, especially during her confinement, where she might feel some effect too from the quality of humours, together with the advantage the devil took of her condition attended with melancholy. In a word, as guilty of most of these errors, and for a pretended revelation of the destruction of the Court, she was expelled the Bay of Massachusetts.  
The next is Mrs. Dyer, the wife of Mr. Dyer aforenamed, she was devoted to Mrs. Hutchinsons' fancies; this is she, who (he says) had the monster: whether the conceptions of her brain had influence upon the conceptions of her womb, or these of the womb upon those of the brain, I will not discuss. This discoverer inclines to the former, I think he might by a deeper search have reached the natural cause whilst he in his Method telling us her penalty, judges her for her errors immediately sentenced from heaven: in which passage, as in many other in his book, a spirit of censure and malice is pregnant.  
The other he speaks of is one good wife Hunkins, who, he saith, is a witch; a poor  woman, yet having so much wit, as perceiving Mrs. Hutchin: ambitious of proselytes, to supply her wants, she attended on her weekly Lecture, (as it is called) where when Mrs. Hutchinson broached any new doctrine, she would be the first would taste of it: And being demanded whether it were not clear to her, though she understood it not, yet would say, Oh yes very clear. By which means she got, through Mrs. Hutchinsons' affection to her, some good victuals, insomuch that some said she followed Christ for loaves; Now seeing those things were so, me thinks our Author need not have been so rigid in his opinion of her. Alas, Ars illae sua census erat, surely a little less gall would (as concerning others, so her) have done better in his ink, when, as it appears, she complied with her patroness, not so much out of love to her positions as possets, being guilty I think of no other sorcery, unless it were conjuring the spirit of Error into a Cordial.  
Thus having given you an account of these persons, and passages, I cannot but observe these things.  
First, the Reasons which all these men might propound to themselves, for doing and saying what they did. Alas, we must look at them as men who had left their estates, friends, pleasures of their native soil, spiritual Chemists, extracting the sweetness of all into freedom of conscience, doubting not but they might find all in that Elixir; but as no Chemist yet got it, so they were many of them deceived; which when they surveyed, and see the result, it might trouble the weaker, and through melancholy fumes dispose them to strange fancies in Divinity.  
Secondly, the verdict of the Court upon them all, contempt, which surely must proceed from the strong impression that the supposed contempt of Mr. Wheelwright made in the fancy of the Governor; by reason of which prepossession he could conceive no other crime, else it cannot but seem strange, that there should be such a sympathy, that so many men and women too, whose sex may inequalize and difference much, should all run into the same praemwrire, Such a continuity of spirits as this consent of theirs must suppose, would be a good principle of the Art of the Weapon-salve. I give this watchword to you all, that you are disgraced in omni gradu naturae intellectivae ac practicae: he goes first from practics, then to doctrinals, than again to practics; thus he runs in a circle of abuse. In the understanding he weakens you two ways, by an inordination of things, and terms; of things, in the errors; of terms, in the unsavoury speeches (as he calls them;) in practice, by all the possible differences of exorbitancy, pride, boldness, insolence, deceit, contempt, sedition, schism; all which are indifferently, and indistinctly charged upon you in the Preface, so that indeed who reads it would think you all equally guilty: and had I any premises of the same nature, concerning some of you, as I have concerning Mr. Wheelwright, I should vindicate you, as I do him. But seeing I have not, I must apply myself to him particularly, and free him from those errors and unsavoury speeches, wherein I do but proceed according to the Rule of Art which attends principale analogatum, which by his own saying in his 31. pag. is Mr. Wheelwright; Now, saith he, all these, except Mr. Wh: were but young branches, etc.  
The way whereby I must vindicate Mr. Wheelwright is from my Authors own lines in his 42. page, where he tells us of the opinions which he (viz. Mr. Wh:) opposed being these.  
First, That there are immediate revelations without the Word. Secondly, That the child of God is dead, not acting at all, but as Christ acts in him. Thirdly, that there is no inherent righteousness in the Saints. Fourthly, that the Commandment is a dead letter. Now if Mr. Wheelwright (as the Author gives us) do abhor these positions, let right reason, and the strength of consequence judge whether he can be justly entitled either to the unsavoury speeches, or to any of the errors; And first for the unsavonry speeches. If Mr. Wheelwright oppugn the opinion of immediate revelations, how can he say that evidencing justification by sanctification savours of Rome? For if he deny immediate, he must grant mediate: And that mediante verbo, either in an absolute, (as he grants at the first) or in a conditional promise, as he holds at the second evidence; And many can witness who have heard him approve evidence of justification by sanctification, but what need of that? doth it not appear in the principles, they themselves do happily give me?  
How can he hold, he is never the worse for being unholy, nor the better for being holy, when he grants evidence from holiness?  
Or how can he say, if Christ will let me sin, let him; when as he holds Christians have life in themselves, a principle from which they act. Surely M. Wheelwright hath so much Logic, as to know frustra fit potentia quae non reducitur in actum.  
Or how can he say, I seek not grace but Christ, if it be meant in contempt of graces? would any man neglect his evidences? unless he mean thus? I seek not graces ultimate & resolutive, not as the supreme but subordinate end, not as principium imperativum, but directivum, not as quod, but as quo, not to rest in them, but to move by them to the place of rest: which if he mean, it is not unsavoury, but savours of sublimated purity and grace.  
Or how can he say, [I know I am Christ's, not because I do crucify the flesh, but because I do not;] when he expects testimony of salvation by such acts of crucifying?  
Or this, If Christ be my sanctification, what need I look for any thing to evidence my justification, when as it is of the same nature with the former, and lies exposed to the same inconsistence?  
Now I come to the first number of errors, wherein although many things be coincident with the former unsavoury speeches, and with the latter number, yet I shall give you an exact account of the particulars: and as for the first of them which is, That the preaching of the Law is of no use to drive a man to Christ: How can he hold it, when as he saith, Faith comes by hearing the Word? Now if he allow the Word in Actu completivo, in the completure and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Christians mind, much more in some preparatory and dispositive acts, as is drawing to Christ; know, that reason gives that a dispositive to which it will not give a completive power, as to cold in generation, as the Philosophers say; surely where completion is allowed, much more disposition.  
Or the second, That a man is united to Christ without faith, yea from eternity: if it be meant respecting God's decree, it is true; but if actually, how can Mr. Wheelwright hold it, when as he grants there is something on man's part to receive Christ?  
Or the third, viz. That faith is not a man's receiving of Christ, but a man's perceiving it: this is true if de reflexo actu; false, if de directo actu: what matter in this? This is a mere equivocation, you might have spared this, but you must fill up the Number.  
For the fourth, That a man is united to Christ without any act of his: it is the same with the second, and may receive the same answer.  
For the fifth, which is, That a man hath never effectually Christ till he hath assurance: it is the same with the third, and is true if meant de certitudine objecti: but if subjecti, how can Mr. Wh: hold it, when as he holds the use of signs, to confirm faith in the regenerate? Which must needs allow it some latitude, and not limit it to a mere plerophory; and surely one man never held the fourth opinion and this too; that saying, that a man is united to Christ without any act of his, this, that a man cannot be Christ's till he have acted, viz. reflected; these were not so considerately jumbled together, especially being one factions brood, as he saith. I wonder that having such opportunity to hang these brats up against the Sun, he did not hang these further one off the other. For the fixed, which is, that the witness of the Spirit is merely immediate, without any respect to the Word, how can Mr. Wh: hold it when as he opposed the opinion of immediate revelation?  
The seventh is, When a man hath the witness of the Spirit he never doubts more: How can Mr. Wh: hold this if he know what doubt means, being motus super ●tramque partem contradictionis: when as he grants preventives of the motion or deviation betwixt these two terms; in granting confirmation, which is a supply of a defect, or an accessary to a principal exposed to some degree of doubt?  
For the ninth, it falls the same with this former, and being in the same conclusion, only differenced by a supposed case or occasion, it will not call for a special answer.  
The tenth is, Sanctification can be to evidence of a man's good estate; How can Mr. Wh: hold this when as he oppugnes immediate revelations without the word? Why then he must grant mediate; and why may not that word refer to sanctity?  
The 12, viz. No comfort can be lead from any conditional promise: How can it be asserted by him, who grants evidence from Sanctification, which evidence must needs ran in the Channel of some conditional promise, if not so formally, yet virtually and by way of resolution.  
The 12. is, that to see I have no grace at all, is true poverty of spirit, and it comes to the same with some of the former.  
The 13 is, That the graces of Saints and hypocrites differ not: How can there be evidence from them unless they differ? It may be this is the meaning, they differ not by any positive thing superadded, but praecisely in their own Natures, and are not so properly called different as divers; but this is a mere nicety.  
The 14 A hypocrite may have Adam's graces which he had in his innocence: it comes to the same sense with the former.  
The 15 is this, All graces are in Christ as in the subject, and so in us as Christ is in us, and no otherways; which cannot be attributed to Mr. Wh. when as he holds (as before we said) evidence from graces, which could not be, unless they were in us, as in the primary and immediate subject; neither did he ever make Christ the formal principle of such actions, as believing and repenting, which this tenant concludes.  
The 16, which is this, Christ is the new creature; how can Mr. Wh. hold it, when he grants evidence from the new creation of graces in us?  
The 17. God loves a man never the better for being holy, nor the worse for being unboly: how can he defend it? who grants manifestation of God's favour in the way of holiness?  
The 18. Sin in a child of God must never trouble been, which opinion is apparently reducible.  
The 19 is, Trouble in conscience for sin, shows a man to be under a Covenant of works; how can he hold it, when as he makes account, trouble for sin in the Nature of a grace, proportionally shows a man to be under a Covenant of grace?  
The 20. A Christian is not bound to the Law: how can he think it, who expects comfort in a way of sanctity the Ectype of the Law?  
For the 21. All Covenants made to God in words are Legal; how can he be guilty of it, who holds Religion and Piety requifite in the Saints? which surely must needs discover itself, in some godly vows and resolutions; unless we will restrain it ad actum primum, which were absurd: Perhaps this was in oppofition to Mr. Wells his strict Covenant; never to break Subbath more, never to think idle thought more, etc.  
The 22. A Christian is not bound to pray except the Spirit move him; how can Mr. Wh. hold it, when (as before) he commits his life to the rectory of the Law, which bids him pray continually? what need he stay till the Spirit mover any further, when as he grants the Spirit moves only in the word? what need he expect the antecedent motion of the Spirit, who saith, he must begin to pray that he may have the concomitant? why should he suspend this holy action for an Imenediate dictate, when as he grants Christians have a principle of life, from which they can act? how can the man so sound in the premises think himself not bound to pray, but when the Spirit moves him?  
The 23. is this, A man who hath not this new light, is not able to edify others who have it: I suppose they mean another, quatenus another, and so the position is true in formali, for nil dat quod non habet, but then, the word quatenus must be taken reduplicative, and not specificative, unless by the tear me they attend the respective entitle, in regard of which it must be denied directly and per se only too, not per accidens; in these senses, the assertion is true: but if we consider the materiale, and so they account the praecedent errors light, I deny it to be truth, for such light (which I shadow Mr. Wh. from) is indeed darkness, and though light which our Author would praeferre to shame Mr. Wh. is very dull, as will appear; and in the mean time, I must apply that saying both to this Opinionist, and to my Author, If the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness?  
The 24. is, That the whole Letter of the Scripture holds forth a Covenant of works; it is true in some sense: xample, Christ bids the young man keep the Commandments in order to eternal life; This in the letter pretends to a Covenant Legal, whilst in its Anagoge it intends Christ the Author of sufficiency, and so pitches upon the Covenant of grace; but that the whole Letter doth so, cannot be Mr. Wh. assertion, when he applies himself to the Law as a competent Directory, which he could not do if he did look at it, as pitching upon a Covenant of works?  
The 25. is this, No Christian must be pressed to duties of holiness, which in regard of the good expected by Mr. Wh. from holiness, cannot be his doctrine.  
The 26. No Christian must be exhorted to Faith, Love, etc. admits the same answer.  
The 27. is, A Man may have all graces and yet want Christ; Indeed he may have representations of them, graces aequivoce, but not true graces; and if true, not as Synonymous to saving, but as opposed to feigned; but in the evil sense, how can Mr. Wh. hold it, when as he attributes unto graces, power to evidence Christ?  
The 28. is, A beleivers Activity is only to act to sin; This pofition implies Christ the formal principle of virtuous Acts; which conceit we before excused Mr. Wh. from. Indeed, how can it be ascribed to him who (as our Author tells us) opposed this tenant (viz.) that a Christian is, (that is his phrase) a dead lump not acting at all?  
Thus I have run through the unsavoury speeches, and the first scroll of errors; I come to the other scroll, being 82. Why might not all these positions have been put in one Number, as well as in so many? I should think, were he not a New-Englandman, that he intended some mystery in the Number of 3, which he so oft prefers, first in his Title, Rise, Reign, Ruin, Familists, Libertines, Antinomians, censures of Church, proceed of Court, Judgements of heaven upon them, and here with his three parcels; but surely the good man is no Pythagorist, but a Platonist rather, which his separato Ideae, contempt, and sedition, not properties of the men to whom he attributes them, Chimaeras only of his restless brain, declare him; but howsoever if he did purpose a Numerary spell, seeing thereby he doth many times repeat, I shall conjure him down with mere Figures sometimes: my meaning is, that in regard of the recidence, not in sense only, but words many of them into the former, I would be excused though I do not give you a Particular account, as before, for although our Author hath lavishly tautologized, which perhaps may be Natural to him, and so scarce admit a Criticism, yet I will not trace him, unwilling to oppress the Reader, and draw myself into the same height of babbling; Nor let any think I hereby seek elusion, verbum sat sapienti, let such examine.  
For the first ten they are eafily reducible.  
The 11. is, As Christ was once made flesh, so is he in us ere we be carried to perfection; This proposition, as many other we shall meet withal, is wrapped in such myslicall terms, as it scarce falls under the common rules of construction; but if this tenet intends Hypostaticallunion, how can Mr. Wh. approve it, when as by the Authors confession he opposed that Doctrine which says; Beleivers act not at all, but Christ acts in them, and doth (as before named) formally believe and formally repent, which Mr. Wh. could not rationally contradict, if he patronised this notion; which being granted, a believer should not proximately believe and repent, but Christ must obtain rationem formalis principii in him.  
For the 12 13.14.15.16. to the 24. they are in the category of those before pretermitted, as reducible to the former.  
The 24. is this, That he who hath the Seal of the Spirit may judge of an elect person; According to this Assertion, one Seal must at once make two Characters: which opinion I must tell mine Author plainly, his principles, and his parties, rather lead to then Mr. Wh. for a respective impression, in order to graces inherent, (such as theirs is pretended) may in all reason sooner by the same virtue whereby it shows to one his own Election, show to him the Election of another in whom the same perfections may be apparent, than an Irrespective & absolute impression, such as Mr. Wh. is accounted, as will be seen in their opinions concerning evidence of salvation; however, how can Mr. Wh. own this, unless he either think Gods eternal Decree attendeth some quality, the Symbolicalnesse of which might direct him in his censure? or unless he hold Immediate revelations without the Word, within it there being no such pertintous? Or unless he presume to look in specula Trinitatis? Which Mr. Wields seems to do, whilst he tells us what God bath pardoned in heaven, and to whom he purposes his immediate punishments on earth.  
By our Reason of caincidence we pass to the 28, which is the first we can find challenging a particular answer, and that scarcely too; it is this: To affirm, there must be faith on man's part, to receive Christ, it to undermine Christ: this is nothing, but an efflux of the foremen fancy of hypostatioall union; the use of faith is to apprehend Christ sub eonceptu formali: the effect of which is a spiritual union, not at all in that which may be more physically looked at, viz. the hypostatical: The next considerable is the 33, which is this, To act by virtue of a command is legal. This is Mr. Wh: which taken cum grano salis, will be savoury enough. Let us know to act legally may be taken two ways: Vel non attendendo principium effecti●um action is, vel formale siuè exemplare. In the first Reason, they act legally who think to do things in their own strength formally. In the second, they act legally who think to do so constructive, and by way of interpretation, such as the Gospel's young man, who did fulfil the Commandments sub ratione particulari, In which act he expected virtue from Christ, and so in the first sense acted not legally. But he did not, sub ratiane magis universali, & eminentiori, and therefore he acted legally in my second sense. In his Acoesse to the Law under its typical and immediate pretence, was his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his recess from it under its reflexive intention, and true Evangelicall Tropology was his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To act legally is to recede from the virtue, by which one is to act; which virtue of Christ is vel Christi tanquam officientis, vel tanquant Ideae. To act by virtue of a command, that is immediately from it, is, Vel immediatione virtueis, vel suppositi: they who act by strength of a command in this first sense, attend not Christ either in the reason of an efficient or Ideae, and so must needs act legally both ways. For the command hath a twofold habitude, directive and objective, he who acts immediately from the directive order of the Law, acts legally, non attingendo Christum ut Ideam: he who acts immediately from the objective, acts legally, Non attingendo Christum, ut efficientem. And thus its true, to act by virtue of a command is legal; but if it be meant immediatione suppositi (not that I think a command hath properly suppositalitie, but only aliquid Analog●yn, which reaches my notion and intent) it is not true, that to act by virtue of a command is legal.  
The next considerable is the 41. which is this: There be distinct seasons of the workings of the persons in the sacred Trinity, so that a man may be said to be thus long under the work of the Father, and thus long under the work of the Son, and thus long under the work of the holy Ghost. If by this, we are so long under the Father, he intended only an exclusion of the Son in some eminence, and degree of attribution. It is not against that received maxim, Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa: and the general opinion of Divines excuses it from a paradox; For what more common then to attribute redemption to the Son? consolation to the holy Ghost? What more usual then to say, the Father humbles, the Son raises up, the holy Ghost comforts? Touching which, I thus conceive: that the very same individed essence as it doth put on divers reasons or notions (as the Schoolmen speak) is said to perform divers actions not by a simple exclusion of the Attributes of any of them in this or that Act, but only secundum quid, Notionally, as we may conceive, according to the common quiddity. The Father is in himself, and so produces a Son of comfort, by reflection, he loves that issue, and so educeth illumination; in this sense, Opera ad extra sunt divisa, for from the division ad intra, why may there not follow a proportional division ad extra too? seeing the relations of those divided acts are real, and extra intellectum, which would otherwise plead Reason for their limitation; I say why may they not have some effect upon the acts ad extra too? and make them in some sense divisa? And if it be improper to say, Deus est trium personarum, but only essentia est trium, etc. why may there not be some impropriety to say (I mean in opposition to the  Doctrine) that, Deus est trium Actuam respectively, when as these acts do in the common opinion attend those relations? But if an absolute and simple division be intended, Mr. Wh. cannot hold it; when (as it is very absurd in itself, so) his doctrine of evidence by sanctification, where there must be Christ's attractive, and the Spirits illuminative power, and of signs which require a concurrence, proclaims.  
The next is this, Conditional promises are legal: If it be meant that they are in a legal form, its true, whether causaliter or consequative; But if it be meant that they are legal virtually, and so not to be made use of in the time of the Gospel, how can Mr. Wh: hold it, when as he grants evidence from graces, conditional promises being the current wherein such evidences pass?  
The next considerable is this: to lay the Brethren under a covenant of works hurts not at all, but tends to much good. What did I say considerable? a position strangely produced as it were in an indifference twixt truth and error: if it be presented as an error, we must needs by reason of the indefinitenes of the phrase suppose all Brethren to be under a covenane of grace. If it be a truth, what doth it among errors? to make even number? What shall we say? its neither true nor false, but stands in a pure precision; he imagined though perhaps that the confinity of errors (wherein observe how his malice multiplies heresies upon them) would determine its neutrality, and hereupon engages at once all his Metaphysics to effect an abstraction which he might have reserved till an exigence, and in the mean while have referred this Janus to the unsavoury speeches with which it most symbolizes. But he was afraid, lest it so easily seasonable either way, should have seasoned them, which he prefers to disrelish the appetite of the Reader, to the parties concerned in his Narration. But he saith, if it be good to lay the Brethren under a Covenant of works, than it is good to by't one another: which argument is much like one of his brats he hangs up against the Sun.  
The next is this: Faith justifies an unbeliever. If the sense be, that the faith subjected in Christ justifies me in whom there is not any, its false: if you take it in sensu composito, it is so, if in diviso, its true. I wonder such grave discursists (as my Author by his style seems) should with these poor subtleties put us upon such elementary distinctions, in resolving which Simths Logic will claim a principal share. But perhaps he did it to evade a more solid reply, thinking no Eagle would catch such flies. Which way of his is in the mean time my advantage, whilst by meddling only in my sphere I cannot be said to presume, which incourages me yet to tell him that this opinion is a consectary of theirs, who deny graces in the Saints, not of Mr. Wh: doctrine who grants them.  
The rest of the Assertions are either coincident, or such as concern Church Discipline, wherein disagreement is not pretended.  
Thus we have done with his pretended errors. Now we come to his pretended Crimes, viz. contempt and sedition; which the Court picked out of a Sermon of his, he preached upon a Fastday designed for peace, the substance whereof was this: Christ's absence is a main cause of fasting, therefore labour for him revealed in the Covenant of grace; peace is to be sought in such a drawing near the God of peace; and oppose those by contending for the faith, but spiritually, who go the way of the Covenant of works (as in that thing) (wherein indeed they are opposite to the end of the day) as enemies to grace, and in that respect persecuters of Christ, as (which word I suppose is, sieut qualitatis only) Herod, Pilus, and the Jews. This is the doctrine wherein the spirit of sedition and contempt breathes according to their opinion; I will therefore briefly leaving the fuller discussion to Statists, (by some of which Mr. Wh: hath been already cleared,) examine.  
Contemptus est ex hoc quod aliquis rennit subjici legi bonae; confer, the Magistrates publish a Fast in order to peace, whether this publication have the complete Nature of a Law, let others determine. But admit, Mr. Wh: whilst he tells them, peace is the most easily attainable in Christ, to whom they must apply themselves in a Covenant of grace, twharts' not their Law, unless it had expressed the method which the Minister must use, or unless Mr. Wh: had done that, the contrary of which it did necessarily imply; But there is no such matter, for in his general term, a Covenant of grace, he could not be inordinate, but admit explication, though it might render suspicion of unsoundness in doctrine; yet not suspicion, much less apparency of disobedience to civil discipline, therefore what neglect of Authority was here, when neither the expression nor constructive intention of their Mandate was crossed? Or, if it had been, yet not the primary end, and so could not constitute such an offence: As for finis operantis, the ends they themselves reserved, how could he attend? unless we either suppose a coincidence, or unless they think it requisite, Clergymen should study Mysteries of State, or unless (which they seem to abhor) he should have expected immediate revelation of them? [Renuit] he will not; that presupposes admonition, and supposes contumacy, Mr. Wh: had not such preparatories; If he had reiterated the discourse, though innocent, there had been more pretence. But grant further he had, yet a mere repetition makes not frequency; But admit, yet frequentia peccati non facit peccatum ex contemptu, sed disponit ad hoc: according to Aquinas. It is far then from contempt, which is not so much as a bare disposition towards it? what if he did (this as a supposition, only) decline the next purpose of the day? yet if he did reach it more eminently by setting up Christ, whose absence he told them was the cause of fasting, must he have these crimes attributed to him, because he did so concisely complete their desires? might they not have taken up themselves twixt his supposed recess, and relapse before they proceeded to censure? But our Author saith, (pag. 52. wherein he intends aggravation) whereas Mr. Cotton urged peace, Mr. Wh: contention in the afternoon: Yes, but it was spiritual, and for a Covenant of grace too: the way of peace, as in that generality, cannot be denied. The spirits of men in Winter (as it was then) have too much asperity in the morning to be trusted with zealotismes, which in the afternoon their more mollified dispositions may admit: but more seriously: what would this man have by this circumstance? where is the sense of it? or how aggravates it? would he have had Mr. Wh: Text to have been imposed by the Court? were not that to limit the Spirit? or would he have had him betwixt forenoon and evening Exercise, not being half an hour's space, by reason of the directive Sermon, to have purified his meditations into such a complexion? Or would he have had him seeing there was no time, to change his text, or his Notions, to have defisted before his paroxysm? Alas! so the Church as well as the State might have apprehended contempt. Or if he had in such an Auditory adventured upon an extemporary discourse, would not your Moderatsts' construction have pitched upon neglect? But what need of all this? Mr. Cotton and He agreed in the main, both their labours directed to the same scope, (viz. to bring men to Christ, the difference of precision, and degrees of heat allowed: so that if his Sermon offered violence to the day, yet where is that which is pretended to the State? Admit incongruity, yet where is the contempt? If it had been any thing, it had rather been indiscretion then contempt; and rather indisposition than indiscretion.  
But they say, By those under a covenant of works, he meant them, some Magistrates and some Ministers; and that he knew they went the way which he described to be a covenant of works. Admit, yet his expressions from the Pulpit in the common Rules of construction can have no such reference: Or suppose they might have reference, yet not of causality but connexion only, which would give no advantage to secular power, or Ecclesiastical either. But further, grant a reference of causality, that may be concerned in the Authority of the keys, not of the Court.  
He instances in that difference of Protestants and Papists, sub una & sub utraque, as a parallel case; but it is not, for those terms did denote upon the free acknowledgement of the right of their respective attributions: it is not so in this matter, where the phrase Under the Covenant of works, is not confessed by the Magistrates, etc. as their condition; therefore to say under a convenant of works, and under a covenant of grace, is not as much as to say, Magistrates, etc. and some others, there being much distance twixt this occasion and the former.  
He would at length puzzle the people with subtleties, whilst he talks of designation to common intendments, saying, That which designs a man to common intendments doth as much as if it should name the men; Which phrase if applied must presume, that the Magistrates and Ministers he pleads for, are by that member of the division under a Covenant of works: commonly intended, A pretty piece of work, wherein to give you his upshot, first he contradicts himself, secondly, totally excuses Mr. Wh. thirdly, he accuses his own party more than ever any did. A brave Champion, first he contradicts himself in saying, these things were never heard of before Mr. Wh. came into the Courtry; p. 24. whereas it seems it was vox pepuli before, for he was then but newly arrived, and this the first time he thewed himself in that public way.  
Secondly, he excuseth Mr. Wh. for when to stop his mouth, we had half allowed him indiscretion in that Sermon of Mr. Wh. yet he will needs clear him from it by implying that through the common rumour of Magistrates etc. walking the way of the Covenant of works, there might be occasion ministered unto him, and need for such a discourse.  
Thirdly, he accuserh both the Magistrates and Ministers, more than any yet did, by intimating a precedent continued, and manifest addiction of theirs to Legalisme, whilst he declares them commonly intended by that expression, under a Covenant of works. and by the general opinion of the people wrapped in it.  
This was a great oversight, unless by a check of his conscience suggesting Mr. Wh. innocence, he was moved to vindicate him secretly from crime, and therefore would mystically do it in the word Intendment, to purge his heart from malignity of opinion.  
And whereas he saith, p. 25. The former Magistrates and Ministers had great disrespect after Mr. Wh. his Sermon, which he saith, was the cause of it.  
I answer, First, It is not known that ever they had any notable neglect.  
Secondly, Admit, yet his inference may entitle the Gospel to sedition.  
Thirdly, The inequality of observance did not proceed from any effect Mr. Wh. Sermon had upon them; as in that instance of the Halberds, the former Governor having more carried before him than his successor; and in the expeditions against the Pequeds, but from the affection which some designed to those offices, bore to the then Governor Sr. He: Vain, who by his noble, affable and discreet carriage, engaged their utmost attendance; where observe the edge of Malice, which when it dare not suppressed by fear, openly, yet secretly it will fix, though he do not enrol Sr. Henry amongst Familists, etc. Though he will not say, he was such a Sectary, yet whilst he talks of his preferment above the following Governor, as an Issue of Mr. Wh: Sermon, upon his own premises, he necessarily infers it.  
And whereas he saith, That before Mr. Wh. came over, all things were peaceable, after his arrival, nothing but division. I answer: First, he contradicts himself, for he tells us Mrs. Hutchinson vented her Opinions in the ship as she came over, pa. 31. he tells us, she drew many to her, pa. 32. he tells us, she procured countenance from eminent persons, pa. 33. hence (saith he) was the trouble to the Pastor of Boston, etc. hence, saith he, Mr. Wh: took courage to inveigh in his Sermon, etc. It seems then there was Divisions before Mr. Wh. Sermon, and that it was an effect of them rather than a cause. Secondly, there was a company in the Bay before he came, who upon supposition of 2 parties, one under the Covenant of works, the other themselves under the Covenant of grace, had resolved upon schism, expecting only a beck from the Pulpit; which when by reason of Mr. Wh: naming a Covenant of works and of grace, (though not with any such pertinence, their prepared fancies, thought they had) they took this Idol of their own brains, for a providence of heaven, and hereupon sacrificed their premeditated endeavours to it; as it had been the Image which fell down from Jupiter; which doing of theirs Mr. Wh: was not accessary to, their pretended Covenant of grace being composed of errors, his covenant of grace which to decline legalisme he preferred, being free from them, carrying along with it the grace of the covenant. He tells us, pa. 26. of a writing which much concerned Mr. Wh: to read, that might be; it may be it was our Authors, for all his (as he saith of his book) are necessary for States, much more for private persons: but it seems Mr. Wh: was so dull as not to conceive the necessity, for he did not read it, as we are told; what then? perhaps he was otherwise employed; But what says the man? Which did argue (saith he) the height and pride of his spirit: what need these synonyma? were not pride enough? this argues my Author's malice and virulency; but is he not ashamed to talk still of arguing, when his Independent brain hath bewrayed such inconsequence? Let him never think hereafter with any judicious Reader to be reputed for a syllogist: but if he think he shall hid his talon unless he employ the Press, let him rather (as one said) write mere history, and such too where in partial respects may not bias him to error. Which way (as though he presaged dislike of his controversal discourses) he hath already taken in his book, now at the Press, called, A Narration of the proctise of N. E. wherein he may do (as in things that fall under his sense) much better, then in polemical Essays, where he doth but lose himself, and over-ballace his muddy intellectuals.  
Nay so vast is my Author in his apprehension of pernicious effects from Mr. Wh: Sermon, that he would make people believe, it not only moved all Societies on the Land, but that it had its influence upon vessels at Sea (that's his phrase) How, saith he, did it hinder all affairs in Courts, in Towns, in Families, in vessels at Sea? pa. 58. As though it had been like that commotion of the earth lately there, which Ships at a great distance felt; as though Mr. Wh: had made an Earthquake amongst them. Whereas (which I hope the Reader will conceive) it was nothing but a Trepidation of the spheres in that New Heaven, etc.  
Another pretended crime of his, is sedition, which is thus defined: Seditio est praeparatio ad impugnationem corporalem; A preparation to a bodily fight: now how did Mr. Wh: Sermon prepare for such a fight? He bids them indeed in the Apostles expression contend for the faith, etc. but he designs (as before we shown) no parties. Or if he had, it was to a spiritual conflict, as he explained himself, which respects not civil unity, or unitatem-Juris, as sedition doth, but Ecclesiastic; and so at the most it could be but schism; and not that neither, unless his doctrine be proved contra utilitatem, and so be error. Nay, that is not enough neither, unless it were in fundamentals, and so might be called heresy; for schisma always sibi aliquam confingat haeresin, schism is ever attended with heresy, in the opinion of the learned: nor is all this sufficient to bring it under the censure of the Church itself, unless it be per se intentum: for that which is per aceidens, no more in morals then in Naturals, can constitute a species, such as sacred Authority must proceed upon; as I said before of contempt, so of this, if it had been any thing it had rather been faction then sedition, and rather schism than faction. Before my Author propound his reasons whereby he would fasten these crimes upon Mr. Wh: he wisely premises thus; saith he, p. 52. Such as would receive satisfaction may, if they will read that which follows, etc. carrying this along with them, that the acts, etc. He saith true in this, such as come prejudicated and presuming necessity of justice from N. E. may satisfy themselves in his Apology; but as for others, let them attend his descriptions, and it will appear they do as little fit Mr. Wh: practice as his examples. Seditiosus (saith he) est qui facit dissensionem animorum: good in itself, but applied rudiori Minerva, if it be taken rightly, viz. Dissension in ordine ad civilem unitatem: lest sedition and schism be confounded, and the word facit be so qualified as to exclude accidental, occasional, and perisiaticall action upon men's minds, it concerns not Mr. Wh: case, it being necessary too, (which I may add) that it be not only motu praevio, but concomitativo, which is most intrinsic, and of the formal reason of velleity which must be supposed at the least in such a crime, his other descriptions, cum saevit populus, etc. and cum eunt alii in aliud, call for the same restrictions, and refer to the first.  
He exemplifies to as little purpose, as in Demetrius his sedition, and Corah with his complices: this is much like his sub una & sub utraque, as little parallel where he intends, Demetrius named the man, This Paul, etc. And so did Korah particularise, Mr. Wh: nothing so, he only spoke in thesi, the Hypothesis was their own, the application was theirs: My Author cannot make it appear their cases are alike, unless he resume his sublime Notion of Designiation to common intendments, etc. by which he might salve the Phaenomena; but we have tried that before.  
That which he saith, viz. my Author, of Mr. Wh: vehemency of spirit, and voice in proclaiming them persecuters, and Antichristian, who walk the way of a covenant of works, it must be reckoned amongst his impertinences, seeing the degree doth not vary the kind; let him be as urgent as he pleaseth. Salvaratione fidei, salva specie, whilst he keeps within that universality against those which are Legalists which he did and only did, let me use my Authors main Argument, which we meet with presently. Put the case in a Reversed Frame, if my Author had flamed in zeal never so much against Mr. Wh: Sermon, or some of the Opinionists, would he have admitted that as a topicke of Sedition? In such a particularization which is more than he can fix upon Mr. Wh: would not the equity of his cause have been his plea? Doth he not therefore rove a little in this discourse? if vehemency of spirit and voice infer sedition, it will be dangerous to have good Lungs; let my Author take heed he entrench not upon his Divinity tenure, and inscribe that to crime which entitles him to the Pulpit. But Mr. Wh: his vehemency made him not exorbitant, he missed not the cushiou, nor was he so fierce as my Author was when he said, Lie with him Devil, sleep with him Devil, etc. Mr. Wh: promoted a Covenant of grace by a spiritual prostration of its opposites. And this in general too, this is all he did: what, Pretenders to so much charity, Reformation, Christian liberty? etc. A new Heaven and a new Earth (as some said of them) and so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 celestial, arraign, sentence, imprison, banish a man of their Church too? And as though this were not enough, Instare morienti to fame him an Heretic, Antinomian, seditious person, what not? and this in print, with all possible disgrace and diminution; and that after he had repent too (as is confessed) one upon whom he saith he would not reflect any thing, his meaning is, I suppose, that the rays of his malice should fall directly upon Mr. Wh: and all this for so small a matter? Tanta fallacia? etc. May I not retort, Tantaene animis coelestibus irae? His following discourse is a Panegyric of discretion, which he by his usual clapping together of Scriptures magnifies the more, because he conceives it wanting in Mr. Wh. But how comes it in here under his title, viz. a Proof of Sedition and contempt? surely he doth not think that indiscretion involveth contempt. What doth this curious Impertinent mean? I should think that there were a secret and energetical subsidence of all into this vice, and that in his opinion too, if he had not (as we before shown) cleared Mr. Wh. from such offence. See how confused the man is, he would convict him of contempt, and yet vindicates him from indiscretion, as though that could be without this, what he means by discretion I know not. But. if it be that which is usually called spiritual discerning, my Author did use to annex it to the tribe, etc.  
His last and main stratagem whereby he will prevail upon the most prejudicated, and scrupulous spirits, is to put the case (as he saith) in a reversed frame, his words are these: p. 57 But if any shall yet pretend want of satisfaction, etc. put the case in a reversed frame if some others had taught it, etc. would not Mr. Wh: and, etc. have looked at themselves as intended? Yes surely, for a proper adjunct may design a particular company, as well as names, as Judas by the sop. This is an excellent devise: A conjecture what Mr. Wh: and the other party would have said upon the like invective: I know not what they would have said, etc. nor do I know what to say to this his masterpiece of putting the case, etc. unless I should put it into the case. Quid dignum tanto? etc. Shall we neglect it? No, the necessity of the times may call for it, it is the very distilled quintessence of his brain, his Catholicon. We will (if we can) squeeze some sense out of it, or at the least leave it in a capacity; if it have any force for the present, we must pose our Author knows, per species concreate: But I would not reflect upon him, (as he of Mr. Wh:) as though he had no more wit than he was born with: But what if he knew what they would say, shall their practice, or speech, which may (as they are men) proceed from passion direct yours? If they should take offence at a little forwardness, freeness, and irrespectivenesse of discourse, and beat it out as you have done into sedition and contempt, shall that be your Apology? Are a company of Familists, Libertines, etc. so authentic? If it must be so, let Mr. Wh: or some others send word what they would say, 
So a●●● cou●● in N●●●●  and this great oration of my Authors, even tota haec Româ ruit cum viribus si●s: of all his coixcidences, impertinences, folecismes, fruitless and weak chullitions, this is the worst, for those may be acted upon, and refined by wit. But as for this, it may stand eternally before it can receive a good construction, all the colour, and appearance of reason it can admit, must be expected in a message from New England, declaring what they would say, etc. My Author might do well, to compass Seato make a Proselyte, to go himself thither and procure an express, but I doubt he will not, his mind doth so run upon the sop: where I leave him; And in the mean time I leave this high strain of his, if the winds and seas favour in a possibility of being clothed with a little kind of sense, or the best kind of nonsense: Alas! poor argument. The case in a reversed Frame might better have been kept in the case than dut into the Frame.  
He concludes this discourse thus; That to lay those under a Covenant of works, who have suffered as much as himself, savours not of a brotherly spirit, p. 58. This can be looked at no otherways then as an impertinence too, if the Apostle speak truth: If I give my body to be burnt, etc. I do not engage myself in the dispute, etc. only I say utcunque his conclusion is not conclusive: he makes had premises, and worse conclusion.  
Seeing these things are so, that there is so little ground for these pretended crimes, seeing there can be no contempt found in Mr. Wh: Sermon, we will rather impute the undeserved censures to some other cause then to the meet malice of the Court, which some uncharitably do.  
Whether it were a strong imagination of the then Deputy upon Mr. Wh: which by the power annexed to fancy produced some contemptuous behaviour in him while he was before them?  
Or whether it were that he, viz. the Deputy, being then occasionally in contemplation of contempt, and presuming of the infallibility of his science, being (as he thought it) not simplicis intelligentiae (which is more likely) but visionis, which in that reason must have aliquid externum de facto representative of it, thereupon pitched on contempt, as Mr. Wh: delinquency.  
Or whether it were (which is probable, in the despicableness of the State, and especially of the then Deputy, late Governor, and in regard of the affection of the people, and that deservedly) to that worthy gentleman than Governor, Sir Hen: Vain, unlikely to return into that preferment speedily; I say, whether in regard of his condition, his melancholy temper, seconded, as observed, by a sullen constellation then predominant, he did absolutely determine he was contemned, some way, or other, and so cum nemini obtrudi potuit, he charged it upon Mr. Wh: And so sedition, by way of concomitance; Sedition and contempt being twins, as he used to say; howsoever Mr. Wh: was sentenced guilty of the faults, and thereupon banished, imprisoned first: upon request indeed dismissed to his family, not to stay though above twelve days upon pain of strictest censure, although in a remote place, where they could not fear any effect from the pretended vices, etc. And although in so cold a season of the year, wherein I think, had he had the very extracted spirits of sedition, and contempt, they would have been frozen up, and indisposed for Action.  
Thus saith my Author, p. 43. it pleased the Lord to hear his poor people, whose souls had wept in secret, for the reproach, etc. I desire to know of Mr. Wields what he means by pleasing of the Lord? whether ratione voluntatis Determinantis, vel determinatae? In the mean while, let the Reader judge whether he have not cause to weep not only in secret, but openly for the reproaches which he hath cast upon some. He goes on thus: It is the Lords do, and it is marvellous in our eyes. Mr. Wh. is gone to Pascal, etc. what then? it was neither contrà, nor praeter, nor suprà naturam, for Mr. Wh: to go to Pascal: where is the wonder? I confess it was marvellous he got thither at that time, when they expelled him, by reason of the deep snow in which he might have perished. Whether my Author profane not Scripture in this, I will refer it to those whom in the same page he speaks of, viz. his dear and beloved Brethren.  
FINIS.