IF beginnings be ominous, as they are held to be, then may I presage at the very first what I shall finde in that which fol­loweth; for with these words you break into your discourse:

M^r. H. observes a wrong method, he condemns me as an Interpolator verita­tis (Title-page) a Huckster of the truth, before he brings in any proof or evidence.

Sentences prefixt in title-pages are not to be ta­ken with any strict or rigorous application: your self, Sir, have now set down five severall ones, there; w [...]h do intimate much worse against me, before you did prove they were applicable to me; and your very Title proclaims my Notes to be Mistakes, before you give in any evidence that they were such, at least, in the Readers order, and the progression that he must make. This is just as if you should blame the Vintner, for hanging forth his ivie, when as yet you have not tasted his wine; or before you know whether it comes not so near to vinegar, that after [Page 2] the old quip of Palladas, a bunch of Lettice, or other Sallet-herbs, may not better become the sign-post. According to your new method, which your self follow not, he that writes a book, must place the Title of it there where FINIS is wont to stand, for when he hath concluded, we will suppose that he hath made his Title and his promise good. But Titles, as I take it, are usually impressed last. As also Prefaces and Epistles, though they be pla­ced first, are yet taken to be composed then, when the work is done.

Pag. 1. Articles of Religion, must not be injurious to the Churches growth, or her members, by tying them to the measure already obtained]

By the growth and measure you speak of, you do not mean more clear illumination, in respect of the minde, or evident belief, which is called Gra­dual Revelation: for that is no way hindred by ty­ing Christian people to Articles and forms of Con­fession: But I finde where your trouble lyeth; you are for Doctrinal Revelations, which are in re­gard of the object, or things revealed; as if there were some points of our Confession that had no certainty, and some others that being not common­ly known, are not yet received into it, which may hereafter be found needfull to be beleeved, as Chi­liasme, [Page 3] or Christs temporall kingdome, and many other old lights that might again be set up new, if once the people could be brought to forget those terms of prejudice, Donatist, Anabaptist, Pelagian.

We had not as yet had our Articles and Catechismes, if Popish Articles had not been broke through, or gone beyond.

Because Articles and Confessions were once abused, must they not now be made use of? Simile est mater erroris. The Anabaptists thought they must needs oppose Luther, as much as Luther oppo­sed the Pope: How shall the people ever come to be grounded and rooted in the Faith, if they be taught to think that they are still upon uncertain­ties, no otherwise than they were before the Re­formation?

I fear the late Synod went more from the English Catechisme, than mine hath done by far, especially in the points the Reviewer sticks at.

Here you make divers Parallels, namely, be­twixt the Church-Catechisme, that of the Synod, and your own. But I have not yet made any colla­tion or comparison, betwixt the Assemblies Cate­chisme [Page 4] and any other: And I think there is no comparison to be made, betwixt so great a number of men so well qualifyed (whatsoever their Autho­rity was) pretending to walk in the beaten path of the reformed Churches, And your self, being but one singular person, without any colour of Autho­ritie, professing to forsake the common road. And he that readeth the Title-page of your Catechisme, and observeth what points you there promise to lay open; would think that you ought in fair dealing to have made the nine and thirty Articles your Standard, and rule of comparison: for They con­tain the established Doctrine of the Church of England touching those controverted points: but in the childrens Catechisme, nothing is laid down purposely concerning them, because it was not thought, although you think so, that they did sute the capacitie of children. Yet because you seem to appeal to the English Catechisme, as making much for you, I am willing to deal with you there, and thither we will go: Although I expect you should evade and shift off all that can be brought against you out of it: or else flie off from it, as not obli­ging you in all things, but onely in some things that you approve: And these two, I reckon to be much alike. I know little difference in this matter, betwixt you, who think that Confessions which are to be subscribed unto, be prejudicial to Christian growth and libertie; and others, whosoever they be, who make confessions and articles useless, by oppo­sing [Page 5] and eluding their manifest meaning. Out of the Church-Catechisme I propound to you two ar­guments in brief, against your common Doctrine. The first out of these words, The holy Ghost sancti­fyeth all the elect people of God. Where is taught, that Gods Spirit sanctifyeth those that be elected; elected first, and then sanctifyed. You teach quite otherwise, [that God electeth those that are sancti­fyed; chooseth the godly man, (as you wrest the Psalm,) and those that beleeve, and that are called, that is, engrafted into Christs mystical Bodie, and you cannot finde where the Uncalled are said to be elected.] Secondly, the English Catechisme teach­eth the scholar thus, That he is not able to serve God without his special Grace: and he that hath learned this lesson well, will never be brought to answer to the name Universalist, or beleeve he can do it by Universal Grace. So here is no accord in the points we stick at.

Sect. 3. His third page utters this un­charitable slander of me, that I dread and deprecate all national establishment of Religion, as sanguinary persecution. Re­ply: 'Tis false. That God establish his true Religion in this Nation, I pray for, and neither dread nor deprecate. Is there no way to build up Sion, but by bloud, or to serve Religion, but by sanguinary per­secution? [Page 6] for the Nation to establish Religion is a kinde of [...], an im­proper speaking.]

Here you begin your game, to play on both hands; you say no such matter, and yet you justifie it: you seem to be very angry, and yet you seem not to be in earnest, when you thus make sport with the word all; which might as well have been by me left out, and your charge had been as full without it. When I said, all establishment, I meant not, as you might well think, all both Humane, and Di­vine; but my intent was to note, that you mislike the establishment, even of that Religion, which you do now like well and profess: The Door must be left open, lest any Truth be in danger to be shut out, though some errours in the mean time en­ter, that so the growth of Christians be not hinder­ed, as you said euen now. When the Supreme pow­er of any Nation establisheth Religion in that Na­tion, this is National establishment; and if it be the true Religion, then doth God nationally estabish it. What you mean by Gods establishment of the true Religion in a Nation, I know not, unless it be a li­bertie for every one to beleeve and profess as he will, without restraint. But this is an improper speaking indeed, (1) to call this the true Religion which is schisme; and (2) to call it establishment, which unsettleth all things, and introduceth a li­centious wildness.

[Page 7] Endeavouring onely by instruction, conference, and other spiritual weapons to convince and further one another in the truth, and keep out errour.

Your cousel comes too late, after that it hath for many years been weighed and tried, and found too light upon the scales, and too pernicious to the Church of God, and his true Religion nationally established. Experience hath taught us, by what we have seen, how much good is like still to be done by the edge of spiritual weapons onely: there is little hope of silencing such persons as have a fa­cultie of a maladie called [...], Multum loqua­ces, & dicentes nihil, that say nothing, and yet can­not hold their peace. The Devils scholars are like himself, who being twice repulsed by our Saviour, set on him the third time, and would not leave him yet, till he was commanded away, and bid be gone, by way of Authority. To dispute with an obsti­nate heretick, keeps him in breath and exercise, and the falls that he takes upon the ground, do but help to recover his strength. Think you the Ger­man Anabaptists, would have been charmed with instructions, and conquered with your conferences: it is true some few of them might, and were so: therefore it is good to use both kinde of weapons; not the spiritual onely, as you advise. When the Apostle Paul, gave order to Titus that the hereticks mouths should be stopped, chap. 1. v. 2. he meant [Page 8] not by conviction of argument onely it should be done, and endless discourse; but by suspension and censure: therefore in the third chapter ver. 10. They must have but a first and second Admoniti­on, no more, and then be rejected. And in a Chri­stian State, if the censure spiritual be not backed and seconded by the temporal arm, the wanton and profane ones of the world, will count it but as stub­ble, and the shaking of this spear contemptible. If this be the onely way you can think of, to keep out errour, I pray keep this your errour to your self.

Under pretence of establishing Reli­gion. to compell all men to beleeve or profess and practise the same things, whether God hath revealed it to them or not; and for not doing so, though otherwise sober, pious and peaceable, the persecuting and punishing them, and pressing and binding burthens of humane ceremonies and traditions, and so exerci­sing a lordly Domination in the Church of God, is such beastly doing, under pre­tence of Church-power, that I pray God enlighten all mens eyes to see the mistake and mischief of it.

As for the case of compulsion in matters of faith; you know (though you be content [Page 9] that others should understand it otherwise, be­fore whom you declaim against settling of Religi­on) that the Question among us, is not about com­pelling strangers, Jews, Turks, or Americans to a new belief; but of compelling people to conform to their own laws agreed upon: Every mans con­sent is involved in every Law that is made; so that a Law being enacted for the uniformity of Religi­on, if any man suffers, he suffers not injuriously, but by his own consent: Clergy-men especially, whose consent is more express than any other mens is. Tertullian is often alledged, as speaking against constraint in Religion; but it is there where he pleads the Christians case against the Ethnicks in his Apologetick, and to Scapula: But in the Church no man more servent for Discipline than he is, and where he deals against hereticks, as in his Scorpiaco, or Antidote against the Gnosticks, where his words are these, cap. 2. Ad officium hereticos compelli, non inlici dignum est, duritia vincenda est, non suadenda: that is, It is fit that hereticks should be compelled, not allured to do what they should do, and being obstinate, they are not to be perswa­ed, but subdued.

Though otherwise sober, pious and peaceable] This is as much as if you should say, quite contrary to what our Saviour saith, Matth. 7.15. Take no heed of false teachers, let them alone, do not hin­der them, nor molest them, though they be raven­ing wolves, so they come to you in sheeps clothing. [Page 10] Your qualities of Sober, Pious, Peaceable, (in out­ward shew, and further we cannot judge) are the sheeps clothing, under which Sectaries are wont to shroud themselves, that they may infect others be­fore they be discerned. What Tertullus called Paul, Act. 24.5. a Pestilence, is true enough in Thes [...], though misapplyed to Paul; every Seducer is a very Pest, and therefore to be looked to that he spreads not his contagion. And another may come and plead for Homicides, Traytours, false Coiners of money, that are otherwise pious and peaceable, as well as you plead for Seducers. But by the provi­dence of God, all mens eyes that will see, are open­ed to see the mischief of them.

That passage (of my deprecating all nationall establishment of Religion) per­haps was one of those passages, that in a letter to me he cryed peccavi in, and there­fore I forgive it, for as Seneca says, Quem poenitet peccasse, penè est innocens, He that repents that he hath done amiss, A faultless man almost he is.

There was very little likelihood that this should be one of the passages I meant: and I said no more of you then, than you now say of your self, nor so much. He is ill advised that chooseth you for his Confessor, who are so ready to cry it out when [Page 11] he cryes Peccavi: for me, resolved I am, never to put either wine or ought else, that is worth ought, into that vessel that I perceive will hold no water, But I am like to loose the benefit of Seneca's sen­tence; because it repenteth me that I made any such acknowledgment, now that I see what use you make of it, and what interpretation: and yet I doubt not to salve my innocence well enough, be­cause what I said was true, yet was spoken out of fair comport, and not from conscience of any wrong I did you, for I did you none, as I more perceive now I am more acquainted with you.

Sect. 4. That phrase, as may best serve the capacity of children, was not joyned with the great Mysteries, but with what went before— But may not children learn the great Mysteries?

The instructions, by your Title, were in the first place for children, though not unusefull for men al­so: if you intended not that the great Mysteries should be for the capacitie of children, why did you direct the children at the end of your catechisme, to get the Answers to all the Questions by heart, some at the first time, some at the second? your mean­ing was clear, as if you had said, Because these in­structions for children contain these great mysteries, therefore they are not unusefull for men also.

[Page 12]

What more rise with them, then the odious names of Pelagian, Semi­pelagian, Arminian, the Enemies of Gods Grace, and what not?

These names may be odious to others, but they are not odious to you, or if the names be, the opi­nions are not; no, not the Pelagian. One of your party makes it Pelagianisme, to be offended with the Surplice; another saith, that the errour of Pe­lagius was, that he held perfection in this life. I would gladly know, how you shift it off from your self; for I know no difference of any moment betwixt him and you in the main. He was an ene­mie to Grace no further than thus, that he held Grace was given to all sufficient to salvation, and that it was given according to mans works, will, or preparations. And whereas you joyn the Semi-pe­lagian and the Arminian together, I think you do Arminius no wrong: for every man knows his own minde best, and his minde you may know by his words, Oper. p. 143. Adjunxi disquiri posse an Semi­pelagianismus non sit verus Christianismus. I said in­deed (saith he)it might be questioned, whether Semi­pelagianism were not the true Christianity: because That is as the Mean, (so he addeth) duly receding from each extreme, namely, the Pelagian on the one hand,, and the Manichean on the other: where­as I suppose Semipelagianism hath been taken hi­therto to be a degree of one extreme, and not the [Page 13] golden mean between the two extreems, any more than the Papist is in the right between the Jesuite and the Anabaptist.

Sect. 6. He says, Vote, and the Rule of Gods word, may be not contrary but subordinate: Reply. Be it so; yet would I not walk by vote, but by the word stil, though in walking by the word, I should in that case walk with the vote. A man that travelleth from Lin to Aylesham, may go much of his way in Norwich road, yet he goes not in it because it is Norwich road, but because it is the way to Aylesham.

The wisdome from above is first pure, then peaceable: So may your Religion be, in the first place, Pure; because it accordeth with Gods word: and in the next place, peaceable, because it accord­eth with the Churches Confession: But as you handle the matter in your similitude of travelling from Lin to Aylesham, you regard not the Church at all, no, not in the least. But what if it be a mat­ter of difficultie, that you know not what to think? will you not suffer the Churches Authority, being put into the scale, to cast it on either side, so as to make one part more probable than the other? Or if in matter of practice, you doubt whether you may [Page 14] lawfully do, what you are by the Church enjoyned, will you not think it better to doubt, and obey, than to doubt and disobey? Or if it be in a matter of small consequence, wherein without all doubt, you think your self in the right, and others in errour; will you not keep it to your self, rather than so to propound it, as to hazard the continuance of the Churches peace? If to these you answer, No; then you regard not much the Apostles charge: To be of one minde, Philip. 2.2. To be perfectly joyned in the same judgement, 1 Cor. 1.10. To give no offence to the Church of God, chap. 10.32. If all Protestants had been of your minde, the labour might have been spared, of putting forth the Harmony of Con­fessions, as being of very little use. When Abra­ham commanded his children to keep the way of the Lord; and when Joshua undertook for himself and his houshold, that they should serve the Lord; had they of their several families been of your re­solution, they might have returned this answer: We will serve the Lord, and keep his way, but not be­cause you command us; for then Gods fear should be taught by mans precept, which must not be. God Almightie would not have given Ministers and Pastours for teaching and edifying his Church, if he intended them no more respect and authority, than you seem willing should be given them.

In the Preface to your Catechisme, you would have your people not walk by Vote, because ths is to be taught by mens precepts] said I again, [Page 15] They that learn a Catechisme framed by a single Pastour, are taught by the precept of man, as much as they that walk by the vote of an Assembly: To this you answer now, That you suspend none for not following you, neither do you enjoyn your sayings by compulsive force.] But this al­ters not the case at all. For that which is indeed su­perstition, is so, whether it be imposed by violence, and enforced, or whether it be voluntarily assumed and put in practice. Their Fear is taught by the pre­cept of men, whose Religion is Superstition, con­sisting in wil-worship, and in observation of humane traditions and inventions. And what is this, to a Catechisme or Articles of Faith framed by an Af­sembly or a Convocation? You take up a Scri­pture-saying, before you have learned what it mean­eth, and so the sound of it may serve your present purpose, You little consider in what principles you breed your scholars, and how you teach them to contemn all teaching, and the whole ministery of Gods word. And as for compulsion, for ought I know, you use all the force you can use, (which is not much.) Those who will not follow your dire­ctions, you will not encourage as your disciples; and this is as great force and violence within your nar­row sphear, as that which is used in a larger compass.

Sect. 7. pag. 7. While we are instructed all of us not to have our fear toward God [Page 16] taught by the precepts of men, we are instructed to have all but one Faith, or Creed, that is, the word of God, and not to have our Faith like that of the Roma­nists, depend on other men, to beleeve onely implicitly, as the Church beleevs, which is the thing I lead my parishioners from.]

Three Symbols or Creeds were wont to be proof sufficient of a good Christian and Catholick. You here would have but one: and that one the word of God, as every man shall differently understand it. And I do not remember that ever I heard before now, the word of God called a Creed. Because I named Removers of land-marks that their fore-fa­thers had set, you said I condemned you for such: you seem now to acknowledge your self such: for certainly, no limits there are of the Christian Churches, if the Creeds be not. The implicite Faith of the Romanists, is a Resolution and Pro­fession to be of the Churches belief, though in the mean time it be unknown what that is; An assent in gross to all that the Church propoundeth to be beleeved: and though Faith be in Scripture called Knowledge; yet, say they, it is better defined by Ignorance than by Knowledge. This implicite Faith, being upon the matter nothing but a good opinion we have of our teachers, may be a good disposition or preparation to Faith, but Faith it self [Page 17] it cannot be. And can your conscience suffer you to make the world beleeve, that when a Church shall compose a Confession of Faith, taking care the people be taught it, and exacting conformitie there­to, and imposing penalties upon such as shall depart therefrom; that this is onely the implicite Faith of the Romanists? Or to tell a good Christian that hath been instructed in the Doctrine of the Church of England, who knows it and beleevs it to be the Truth, That it is a point of Popery to beleeve as the Church beleevs? I hope there are but few that will not soon discern the mischief, and the conse­quence, and the fallacy of such instruction.

Sect. 9. I told you formerly, that you used this word all, as a helve or handle, wherewithall to cut down the trees of the forrest. To this say you now; Sect. 9. An acute charge, like helves or handles that use to cut.]

I thought you might be so acute, as to take my meaning without my further rehearsal of the Fable that is so well known. A man that wanted a helve for his ax, came and begged one of a certain goodly wood or tuft of trees, promising to trim and prune them, & having obtained it, did therewithall cut the trees down to the ground. He could not cut them down without a helve, but with an helve or handle [Page 18] he did it. For there is no remedy, but you must give us leave to put this particle[with] to any thing that is an instrument, whether conjunct or separate, or that is instrumental. He that felleth an oak, doth it with his arm, and with the strength of his arm, as well as with his ax. You write with your ink, and with your hand, and with your pen: the plough­man will tell you that he turns up the soyl with his oxen: and will you tell him again, that oxen do not use to turn up the soyl? Thus while you hunt af­ter such minutes and minims as these are, and miss them too, thinking you have caught a flie, when it is but the shadow of it; you let pass the substance of the accusation which I brought against you, and that is this: You come to Scripture, and thence you take this word all, pretending by the help of that to preach the Gospel more sincerely, and more profitably than others generally do, running with­out their message: But you frame it, and stretch and wrench it in such a manner, that you corrupt and overturn the chief points of the Covenant of Grace. Tertull. de Pudic. cap. 16. Est hoc solenne perversis, alicujus capituli ancipitis occasione, adver­sus exercilum sententiarum instrumentitotius armari: that is, With one place, or sentence, or point of belief, that is of various and doubtfull acception, perverse men think themselves sufficiently armed and furnished, to oppose the greatest part of the Bible.

[Page 19]

I said, that we may not think that Luke meant contrary to Pauls do­ctrine: That he fraudulently suppressed]

Your discourse tending to accord the words of Luke with Pauls doctrine, because it was somewhat tedious and vain, as I thought it, and especially be­cause it belonged to another place, I did onely note by the way in brief. But that you did in seeming-satisfaction to your self at least, make them agree well together, I did not omit to give notice in these words [though he thinketh he can reconcile them.] And when I said thus much, it is most evident, that I did not fraudulently suppress, what you did; though I did not needlesly express how you did it. But when you said, It is safer to stick to Paul than to Luke, it was scandalously spoken of you, and an odious comparison: if you do indeed beleeve all holy Scripture to be divinely inspired, why should you prefer one writer of it before another?

You appeal to me, Whether in case Luke doth disagree with Paul [if it be not safer to stick to Paul, who says, If we, or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel than we have preached, let him be accursed]

But the Apostle doth not make comparison be­twixt himself and any other Apostle or pen-man of holy Scripture, for he joyns himself with them [if we] he sets not himself above others, but names himself together with others, the better to establish [Page 20] that Gospel, which he together with others had taught. Here is nothing of sticking to Paul more than to Luke, but of sticking to the doctrine once delivered, against any other doctrine that should be taught by any whosoever, upon what pretence soever imaginable.

Sect. 11. May I not stick to his say­ings, and yet say, they be hard to be un­derstood?

But when you answer the arguments brought a­gainst you out of such chapters, by saying, those chapters are hard to be understood; then you do not stick to his sayings so, as by them to be conclu­ded, or to suffer an end to be put to the Controver­sie. That which is urged out of those places a­gainst the Universalists, is easie and evident: you make use of the difficultie of them, for an answer to put off and elude that which is plain and not ob­scure or difficult. The matters of doctrine deliver­ed by S. Paul, may be hard to be understood, that is hard to be received, digested, and entertained, by loose unsettled persons: many difficulties and intri­cacies there may be, not easily cleared; shall this render the proof invalid, that such doctrines there are? If you should out of S. Pauls Epistles defend Justification by Faith against a Papist, you would not accept it for an answer, if he should say thus, [Page 21] That is one of those things the Apostle Peter speaketh of, hard to be understood, which some hereticks have wrested towards libertie and profaneness, as if therefore there were no necessity of godliness or good works. The rejection of the Jews and calling of the Gentiles, The abolition of the Law of Moses, were matters hard to be un­derstood by the Jews, and in which were many per­plexities; yet were plainly delivered by the Apostle: The impossibility of Apostates repentance and re­novation was plainly taught, yet attended with dif­ficulties, and wrested by the Novatians: So is the final period of the world foretold in holy Scripture; yet are there many obscurities about it, and many errours. The Resurrection of the dead is fully and manifestly declared and confirmed; yet because it was hard to be understood and beleeved, it was wrested to this sense, as if it were already past, whe­ther interpreted of rising from the death of sin, or any other way. These particular doctrines now by me named, are by divers diversly conjectured to be intended by S. Peter, as well as that doctrine to which you apply his words. Gods gracious and free Election, likewise final Perseverance, are evi­dently taught by the Apostle Peter, 1 Epist. ch. 1. ver. 2, and 5. as well as by the Apostle Paul, Rom. 8.29, 30. and in the chief part of the ninth cha­pter. And because these things are hard to be yeelded to, and hard to be received; and because there be many things belonging thereto that are [Page 22] secret and unfathomable; let not therefore that which is plainly taught, be either denied, or in such a manner interpreted and perverted, that it amounts to a denial. You and yours have so gone to work, that to an ordinarie capacitie the chapter spoken of is made scarce intelligible. You say, God decreed not to choose particular persons, but to choose all such as beleeve the promises of the Gospel, and to refuse all such as seek justification by works; whereas cer­tainly had there ever been any such decree made, then Paul had never been chosen, who was a law-worker, as you call it. So were many of the Jews and Pharisees, who yet were brought to life eternal. And whereas the Apostle teacheth Election and Salvation to be, Not of man that worketh, willeth, er runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy; you have so wrested it, that now it is, Not of man that willeth or worketh, but of man that beleeveth, and conti­nueth in Faith and Repentance to his lives end. And indeed, if Election be of such, as such, who persevere in Faith and Repentance, then is Election of workers, in respect of their works, namely, Be­leeving and Repenting, and Persevering, which are works, all of them belonging to Gods law. And thus have you overthrown your own doctrine which you have devised, wherewith to overthrow the do­ctrine of S. Paul.

[Page 23]

It is one thing to look bold­ly, another that it may do so. Humane frailties hinder not Christian boldness.

But he that saith, I may look boldly, doth there-withall, and in so saying, look boldly indeed. Now you made your book look boldly, whether it might do so or no, when you taught it to say in the Pre­face, that it might look your worst Adversaries boldly in the face. And although he that hath hu­mane frailties may look boldly, yet his humane frail­ties may not; and if he saith, they may; he doth then justifie his frailties. And thus much for your Pre­face or first Chapter.

I Shall put him in minde where he may read it, in Ainsworth upon Psal. 149. The Christian Churches never forbad us to read Eccles 12.1. in the Hebrew tongue, or to turn it into English, ac­cording to its proper force or Idiome.

You have helped me where to finde the word in our language, but that it is found in our [Page 24] Church, I cannot admit: for you know that Ains­worth was a professed Separatist from the Church of England. It was somewhat boldly done of him to turn it so, who yet in his Title professed to ex­plain the Hebrew words; but it was far more bold­ly done of you, to learn the children at the very first to speak so. As you have helped me to the notice of one, so will I in lieu of him help you to the no­tice of another, whom perhaps you have not yet observed; or if you have, I dare say you never be­fore took notice of one of his places, which he hath added to yours and Ainsworths. It is Th. Br. of N. in a small tract published last year. His fourth instance is in these words, Eph. 2.12. And ye were without Gods in the world, so it is in the Greek plurally but it is falsty tran slated God singularly, as if there were but one God in the Trinity.] I hope there is a mean on this side the Tridentine Restraint, without such libertie as many men affect, who are afraid that they shall not be known, but pass in obscurity, and not be counted more learned and judicious than others are, if they do not mend and alter something or other, though it be without exception generally received, and of long continuance. AEneas Sylvius before he was Pope or Cardinal, or Bishop, was Secretary to Frederick the Emperour, and having indited some letters, at his first coming to the employment, he sent the copy to a Bishop then living at the Court, who procured him that preferment, desiring him to examine it, and alter what he should finde [Page 25] needed alteration; who soon after returned him again his copie, in sundry places blotted, but no way bettered, having put out divers words, here one and there another, placing such in their stead as were no way so fit and proper: and when the Secretarie asked him the reason, and what he misliked in those words that he thus corrected: Atqui, said the Bi­shop, non vidisse me scripta tua suspectare poteras, si nihil immutatum reperisses: you would have thought I never read or perused your writing, had you recei­ved it again just such as you sent it to me. I could wish that those men who are forward to show their diligence, and their skill in the learned languages (or perhaps their ignorance, as it hapned in the in­stance I now gave you) by mending the vulgar version, would innovate in matters of less moment: for these be indeed above any profanae vocum novi­tates. I know it is one thing to teach that such a point of Faith is implyed in such an Hebrew Idiom: another thing to teach children and common peo­ple to use the plural number, upon pretence of drawing the Church to the Scripture. Christian Churches forbid not to read Eccles 12.1. in Hebrew, but they are against rendring every word, just as it is in that language, as their practice doth plainly wit­ness. And would you indeed that the English Bi­ble should begin in the same manner, and with the same pretence that you began your Catechisme withall; The Gods created heaven and earth? I hope you would not; and yet you are in the way to it. [Page 26] And though you teach your scholars at your fourth Question, to answer, There is but one God: yet if they be wonted to read or hear that word in the plural, and be used so to speak, will they not go near to forget your Answer in your Catechisme, and to think that there are more than one? Bara Elohim is the sacred Text, good Hebrew and sound Do­ctrine: But Creavit Dii, is scandalous, no true La­tine, nor good Divinitie.

And because you think good to joyn with those that hold it not to be a bare Hebraism, but an inti­mation of the Sacred Trinitie, I pray you to remem­ber on the other side, 1. that the plural number im­plyeth two or four, as wel as three: so wholly it is but a matter of uncertaintie: 2. because you say here, it is a scandal for Christians to Judaize, for so you are pleased to Lutheranize, if indeed you beleeve that God is called Elohim, because of the pluralitie of persons; then wheresoever that word be found, though ascribed to one several person, it must signifie the whole Trinitie, and then in stead or Judaism, you are in peril to fall into Sabellianism, or the er­rour of the Patropassians. And for the common people, I hope they will be warie how they walk; and how they speak in such points of Faith, as this is. And because it is a matter of consequence, and because the ground is slipperie, let them in Gods name lay fast hold upon the Athanasian Creed, be­ginning thus, Whosoever will be saved, for their guide and conduct; let them read it often, and hear [Page 27] it with their best attention, and prefer it before all Catechismes; much more before any new-fangled one. There shall they soon learn by plain Analogie, according to the Doctrine of the Scripture, and the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, That the Fa­ther is Creatour, The Son Creatour, The holy Ghost Creatour: yet are there not three Creatours, but one Creatour. And this may suffice for your second chapter.

THe Question is, Whether in those words of the English Catechisme, [Sinfull lusts of the Flesh] the word Flesh signifieth created nature, as you taught; or the corruption of nature, as I said; making the epithet sinfull, serve onely to amplifie, and not as you make it to distinguish. Here you say, Be it so; the matter is not material, it is to trifle about a toy] Yet I gave some reason why it was requisite, that Christians young and old should un­derstand the meaning of that term. Matter of words is so far material, as to preserve what is mate­rial; Verba quasi vasa, as the shell preserveth the kernel, and the vessel keepeth what is put into it. But though you say, Be it so; yet presently after, [Page 28] it must not be so. Sinfull may be an epithet to distinguish withall. Why so? Because we are taught to renounce, not the works of the Devil onely, but the Devil also; why not also the other two enemies, the world and the flesh.]

Those words of the Catechisme refer to Ba­ptisme. In the form of Baptisme these three ene­mies are twice named, singly or solely, without any epithet or addition, namely, Grant they may triumph against the Devil, the World, and the Flesh: also, To fight under his banner against Sin, the World, and the Devil.] By which two places compared to­gether, any one that will may plainly see, what Flesh in the form of Baptisme, and in the form of the Catechisme doth signifie, namely, Sin: for what is called Flesh in one place, is called Sin in the other. And every one that will, may plainly see also, that you are resolved to uphold whatsoever you have said, yea, though it be an evident absurditie. This Question with the answer, you left out wholly in your later Edition: which when I perceived, I made some doubt whether or no I should take notice of it in my Review, because I did interpret the omissi­on to be a kinde of confession of your mistake; yet did I note it for the reason given in my Postscript. But here you declare your self to be for confused si­gnification, rather than a nice distinction: and what you threw out of your second edition, you call home for your relief in defence of your first: Nei­ther are you well contented, as it seems, that every [Page 29] one should interpose or meddle, and mislike that which haply may deserve to be misliked. Nemo sibi extrane us est; sicut in vulnerum tract atione,(saith Julius Scaliger) Ossa mihi extraxi egomet minimo do­lore: No Chirurgeon can so inoffensively touch or handle a wound, or sore, or fracture, as the Pa­tient can. And more than this I shall not say to your third Chapter.

VVHen upon the marginal note of your fourtieth Question and Answer, I men­tioned that horrible errour, as you well call it, The Denial of Divine Prescience, I did it so fairly and soft­ly, that I thought I had not given any just cause of distaste or anger. I gave you account of my inten­tion, in making stay at it. It was because the Soci­nians had gone that way verie far, and some of the Remonstrants were following. I had some o­ther reasons which I then kept to my self: but now my expectation thus failing me, you shall have them. One was, because there was a pestilent Se­ctarie, who to prove that God doth not know free actions before they come to pass, produced those words, Gen. 2.19. God brought the beasts and fowls [Page 30] to Adam, to see what he would call them: and because I thought your gloss upon the ninth verse of that chapter might unhappily help that errour forward, namely, that it was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because God would trie whether man would do good or evil; I therefore endeavour­ed to give the true reason why it was called the Tree of knowledge. And Socinus disproves Di­vine prescience from those words, Gen. 22.12. Now I know thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thine onely son: and your explication of a place of the same kinde with these two, was likely to pro­mote that pernicious errour. Another reason was this; I did observe of you in your writings, that you do in a manner wholly symbolize with the Remon­strants, and in some things with the Socinians, as in these for instance. 1. In neglecting the authori­tie, custome, and manner of the Church, upon pre­tence of walking onely by the Scripture-rule, wit­ness the verie first Question of your Catechisme: and, Open door, Preface, § of this. You bid the peo­ple prefer the Apostles expressions before mens glosses: as here pag. 44. you contented your self with the Scri­pture phrase, and used not that of the Church. 2. In your opinion that Christs death was onely a Prepa­ration to his Sacrifice. 3. Ut fideles panem fran­gant, are the words of their Catechisme; and Pro­fessours to break bread are the words of yours. 4. You hold with them, that Faith is wrought by no im­mediate power, but onely the word preached. [Page 31] 5. You would have the Names written in the book of life, to be Qualities; and Socinus, Praelect. 13. pag. 72. Satìs est eorum qualitatem quandam certam esse, quae in hac metaphora proprio nomini planè re­spondet: It is sufficient that those who are said to be elected, have some certain qualitie, which in this Metaphor of the book of life, plainly is answerable to their proper names. You who have gone so far with them or after them, are in danger to go further.

That you might soon have seen by that which follows there. By Their libertie, I mean such liber­tie as they plead for, and such as cannot stand with certaintie of Prescience. Say they, For any one to exhort another to do that which he knoweth be­fore hand he will not do, is to dissemble: such liber­tie as must be free not onely from coaction or com­pulsion, but from necessitie of infallibilitie as to the event: which necessitie is incident to things contin­gent and fortuitous: for events, necessarie, contin­gent, chanceable are called so, and differenced so, in respect of their second causes, not in respect of the first or supreme cause: for Quicquid est, quando est, necessariò est: any thing that is, must needs be so, then when it is so. That Saul, after he was [Page 32] wearied with seeking up and down the countrey for his fathers cattel, should on such a day, and such an hour of the day, meet with the Prophet Samuel, was to Saul then when it came to pass, as certain as that the sun should set that night, or did rise that day, that is, it was most certain because it was pre­sent. But to God all things are certain and present that shall be; as certain to him though future, as to us though present. Socinus therefore was driven (and if he had not been driven and enforced to it, he would never have done it) to denie and impugne Divine Prescience, and that in order to denial of Divine Decrees, and to maintain, Quod non est certum, non est scibile, nec futurum: whatsoever comes to pass, and doth not certainly come to pass, is not capable of being known: no more than fa­ctum infectum fieri is capable to be done. And the Socinians,(in Compendiolo,) Negant admissa infallabili omnium futurorm Praescientiâ, refelli posse dogma de Praedestinatione: and whether they speak reason or no, Ger. Vossius can tell, whose words are these: Hist. Pelag. c. 6. Th. 15. Nisi negarc volumus Deum praescire quid homo pro quibusque circumstantiis sit acturus, fateri etiam COGIMUR Deum certis homi­nibus Gratiam praeparâsse, quâ certo & infallibiliter salventur: aliis verò hujusmodi Gratiam non praepa­râsse: that is, Unless we will say that God doth not foreknow what man will do, upon such and such circumstances, we cannot but of necessitie confess, that he hath for some certain men prepared such [Page 33] grace, whereby they shall certainly and infallibly be saved, and not prepared such grace for others. If Faith be Gods gift, and if he will give it to whom he will give it; this is that predestination which you endeavour what you can to fright the world withall. That therefore which you call in this chapter a hor­rible errour, and I called an irreligious principle, you must fall to and defend by rational consequence, un­less you give over your horrible and irreligious manner of reviling Gods decrees.

I fear this Gentleman is so far from thinking that God did not know before, that he thinks he decreed & necessitated Adam to sin. Would I follow his course in fastening upon him the sayings and judgements of other men of his minde, I might finde passages enough to that purpose in many of them, to render him and his opinions odious: but Mr P. hath done it so fully, that I shall but actum age­re, do what is done already; and therefore I shall leave the Reader for that to him.]

Although I do think that you have more minde to slander than cause to fear, yet I will now tell you, 1. I do not beleeve God did decree sin: but I think you beleeve that he did decree the permission of sin: 2. In those things which are decreed to come to [Page 34] pass, Gods decree inferreth no necessitie upon infe­riour causes or agents, because he decreeth all things to come to pass according to their kinde: natural agents to act naturally, voluntarie agents voluntari­ly: So of necessary, contingent, and casual agents. I pray suffer your self to be informed a little better by Dr. P. Baro, pag. 321. in explication of this posi­tion, Dei Decretum pravae voluntatis libertatem non tollit, Therefore I shall leave you for that to him. But if you have so much leasure as to trouble your self about others, and what it is that they think, and that you would not be afraid there where no fear is; I pray let all your fear in this matter be for them that call it [A gross solecism to imagine that there should be one cause of the act, and another of the obliquitie or sinfulness of the act; and that think it is as impossible to separate the wickedness of the act, from the act that is wicked, as it is to distinguish the roundness of the globe, from the globe that is round; So that he which is the Authour of the one, must be the Authour of the other also: yet the Apostle Paul said, Acts 17.28. In him we live and move: Let it be for them who tell you it must be a Metaphysical head that can determine how God should work by evil instruments, and not be guiltie of the evil: and yet the Apostle said, Acts 3.18. He hath So fulfilled. Let it be for them that think, he who withholdeth a thing which being present would hinder an event, is the cause of that event: and in whose power it is that a thing be not done, to [Page 35] him it is imputed when it is done; and he that with­draweth the light, is the cause of that which fol­loweth for want of the light.] And yet no man that hath his reason left entire to him, can imagine that the sun which is all light, having no darkness in it, can be the cause when it setteth, of the shadow of the night.

It is an easie matter to make any opinions seem odious to those men that are full gorged with preju­dice against them. Every thing feeds according to the kinde and constitution: Torva leaena alupum sc­quitur. I can tell of some, who in the doctrines of the Church of England, wherein they have been educated, have been verie much confirmed by the matter and the manner of some mens writings a­gainst them.

And as for those men that take such pains to make the opinions you speak of to be odious: I do wish, and if it might be, I would advise them, that they would at last forbear, and not please them­selves in so odious a practise: whether these opini­ons be true or false, is uncertain; it is at least proba­ble that they are the Truth, and upon these reasons.

First, it because very many of these men, by their own confession, were of the verie same minde in these points of doctrine, and held that end of the controversie to be the surest, which now they load with unworthy mockings and reproaches: And if They were so, then were their Teachers so likewise, because it was for want of better companie that they changed no sooner.

[Page 36] Secondly because a verie great proportion of the Churches Christian, heretofore and lately, hath in the main and leading parts of the controversie, gone that way which these now forsake, and would perswade the world to follow them. For the days of old let Ger. Vossius speak, never suspected for a partiarie while he wrote his Historie, unlelss it were for their side. After all his search, the brief of all he gives in is this. De Histor. Lat. in Cassiano: Cele­berrimi quique occidentalis Ecclesiae Doctores, seque­bantur Augustinum & Prosperum; Nec enim sudicio meo B. Augustinus prioribus Patribus repugnat, sed quod de Praedestinatione priores ferè Patres praeteri­bant, hoc addit: Atque ubi illi de Gratia incautiùs es­sent locuti, hoc explicat: that is, The most famous and most renowned Doctours that were in the Western Churches, followed Augustine and Pro­sper; neither in my judgement was S. Augustine con­trarie to those Fathers that went before him; but that which they omitted about Predestination, he added; and that which they uttered somewhat ne­gligently and unwarily, he explained. It is true that Poelenburgh in confutation of Hornbeks eighth chapter Sum. Controv. produceth Vossius to the contrarie, lib 6. Th. 8. testifying that all the Greek and Latine Fathers before Augustine, held that those were predestinate who God foresaw would live well:] but he left out what follows because it made clearly against him: Verùm intellexere praesci­entiam eorum quae homo esset facturus ex viribus Gra­tiae, [Page 37] tum praevenientis tum subsequentis, eóque antiqui­tatis ille consensus, nihil vel Pelagianos vel Scmipela­gianos juvat:] They understood the foreknow­ledge of what they would do by the strength of Grace: their consent therefore nothing avails either Pelagians or Semipelagians. For late ages, Popish Schoolmen are generally for the upper way; it is communis sententia against Massa corrupt'a as the ob­ject, so witnesseth Estius in Epist. p. 112. Yea, the Remonstrants who were not of that opinion, do te­stifie, Apol. p. 63. There is no doubt to be made but the Popish Doctours, and most of the School­men, were Patrons of that opinion. For which their opinion Calvin wrote against them in divers places. I name these, Instit. 3.23. §. 2. Neque ta­men commentum ingerimus absolutae potentiae, quòd si­cuti Profanum cst, it à meritò detestabile nobis esse debet. In Isai. c. 23. v. 9. Commentumillud de absolut a poten­tia Dei quod Scholastici invexerunt, execranda bla­sphemia est. Opusc. p. 1006. Commentum de absoluta Dei potentia detestabile est, quia ab aeterna Dci supien­tia & justitia separari non debeat potestas. I shall thank you therefore if you can help me to under­stand the meaning of Hist. Qu. part. 1. pag. 38. where the doctrine of the Supralapsarians is said to be first broach'd by Calvin. Surely those Papists could not follow him in that for which he repre­hended them who were long before him. And the Council of Trent goes no further than to forbid men to presume themselves to be of the number of [Page 38] the predestinate, not denying the Decree, but onely affirming it to be secret and hidden, unless by spe­cial Revelation. In Popish countreys ea opinio ma­ximè viget, saith the Preface to Castellio's pieces. And if these opinions be so odious and pernicious, what think you might be the reason why the Pope could be brought no sooner to declare against them? And if a great partie of Papists do still hold them, it is a great probability they are true; because it concerns their advantage and worldly gain, that they should not be true: For what freedom of Grace doth gain, that merit of works doth loose; and merit it is that bringeth in their profit.

The learned Dr. J. by his Publisher was entitu­led, The Divine, with these two restrictions, of his Rank, and of his Age: I may add a third, of his partie, and then his testimonie is without exception, Pag. 3712. If as good a scholar as Bellarmine would take the pains to examine his opinion, as strictly as he hath done Calvins (touching reprobation) it would quickly appear to be for qualitic the very same, if not worse.] And the Church of England teacheth the Doctrine of Predestination, yet knew it to be A dangerous downfall to carnal minds, Artic. 17.

I am not speaking now of the Truth, or of the certaintie of these matters; nor at this time per­swading any man to be of this judgement touching these opinions. whether they be certain or no, or whether they be true or no; this is certain, they are probable to be true: and that may be enougn to [Page 39] perswade men not to reproach them, though they beleeve them not. Prudentibus (faith Sidonius) cor­dicitùs insitum est vitare fortuita: Wisemen use to be deeply rooted in this principle, not to run a great hazzard or capital adventure upon any thing that is dubious and uncertain. Good men out of a principle of conscience toward God, will not engage against their Sovereign Prince: and bad men, if they be not too bad and forsaken of God, dare not partake with them that are given to change; because of the wrath of man, foreseen as possible, though against common expectation; and because of that which vicissitude, or [...], the turn of a present state and and posture may bring upon them.

The opinions furthermore (which your Reader must be directed, where he shall finde them made so odious) besides the Authority of a most considera­ble part of Christians, receive some probability from Gods dealing in this present world: his ways being not like ours, nor his thoughts like our thoughts: therefore are his works rightly counted wonderfull. Was there ever found any man who was well satisfied and contented with what God hath done and doeth upon earth, unless it were by laying to heart that it was his doing? I speak not now of Cato or Socrates, but of David, Solomon, and Jeremy. How many things come to pass con­trary to mans wisdome? yea, which is more to our present purpose, contrary to mans goodness, that is to say, the goodness that is in man, and the goodness [Page 40] ness that ought to be in man? And if there be so much left in this world to our admiration; it is pos­sible, yea it is likely there is much more in the o­ther. Hic est fidei summus gradus, (saith Luther, de servo arbitrio) credere illum esse clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat: This is the highest degree of faith; to beleeve that God is mer­cifull who yet condemneth so many, and saveth so few. And if we give allowance to our reason to come up so far as to keep even pace with our faith, we may perhaps a little satisfie our reason, and a while gratifie our affections, and likewise retain some kinde of religion. But let us remember that the Christian Religion hath always been accounted by the best Christians, to be as well against our will, as above our understanding.

In case of vile and scandalous words against some great Prince or Potentate, it hath been sometimes the manner for the Judges, not to hear the words publickly uttered or rehearsed; but as it were pri­vately and apart to read and consider them: Even then and there where such words were to beaggra­vated to the height, and deeply censured. It were to be wished that the Remonstrants, and all that joyn with them, were half so moral and respectfull toward the God of heaven. For they seem to take delight to heap up terms most horrid, odious, and detestable, and charge them upon their adversaries how? as spoken by them? no: disclaimed by them, but following upon their opinions by consequences [Page 41] framed or forged rather by their own selves, But if you and yours will not be otherwise minded than you are, nor take heed to your way, lest you offend with your tongue, in reproaching the living God; but that you will take pleasure to sharpen and poi­son the arrows of your reproaches with taunts and mockings, whereby to render Christianitie hatefull to the common people, who for the most part do so far contemn Gods manifest judgements of this life, that they are little busied with his secret decrees touching the world to come, saving that you would fain fill their heads with your venomous slanders: Then I will give this counsel to all Christians whomsoever, who think not much to take good counsel from whomsoever, that they beware how they give a willing ear to such offensive and distast­full speeches: and that they take heed of being conversant, and especially in taking pleasure and disport in such scurrilous writings, as The Thief Pre­destinate, and Tilenus Examinate, with the like, lest they be given over to hardness of heart and a repro­bate minde, as a just recompence of the delight they take in such wickedness. Religion is the most sacred and the most serious thing in the world: All serious persons think it so; and all idle ones will finde it so, when they shall come sooner or later to abominate and hold accursed that froth and some of wit, that presumeth profanely and sacril egiously to make any article of Faith, any part of Christian profession, or the holy Scripture, the subject or mat­ter of mirth and mockery.

[Page 42] In stead of asking pardon for what I have now said, I will crave leave upon the same occasion to say a little more, before I pass from your fourth chapter.

To render opinions odious, although it may be bad enough, is yet pertinent. But it hath been always accounted moral, to spare the persons. Now that you may see how little heed is to be given to your Authours designe, while he would make his Adversaries opinions to be odious, I will here, being so fairly invited by you, give an instance of his haste and mistake while he endeavoured to make their persons odious. One instance, but a pregnant one, containing no less than four mistakes of his in less than twice so many lines. So I direct you to his 120 page of Heautontimorumenos, where thus he asperseth several persons: and first M. B. as not able to write true English, and who would not loath to read such an one. [He prays perfect non-sense, he is skipping for joy out of sense and syntax, —his faults being greater than those of Rivet, of which the grave and wise Grotius took publick notice. And in this I have followed that great example] To this latter part is affixed in the margin out of Grotius's Votum pro pace, which he wrote against Rivets Examen, [pag. 63. Moneo nè qui Latinè non didicit, Latinè scribat] with addition of some par­ticulars or instances of false Latine, which there may be seen.

The perfect non-sense spoken of, was not writ­ten [Page 43] by M.B. but was made by your Authour, ta­king one mood for another; the sentence is this be­ing contracted [Now that God would be pleased to make up all our differences] If you take it in the Subjunctive mood, it is lame and imperfect: but take it in the optative, as doubtless it was intended, and it is beyond all cavil and exception. The want of sense and Syntax was the Printers fault, a verie common one, in misplacing the latter semicircle of a Parenthesis, which being set where it ought, and as it might easily be, by any intelligent Reader, doth set all right: concerning which also M.B. in the verie next page did thus give warning, and did thus pre­sage before the collection of the Errata, [As to the neglecting signes of Interrogation and Admirati­on, and such like small matters, they may be left alone for some jocular Adversary to make his games of.] So much for M.B. Now follows next the justification of the practise by the example of Hugo Grotius, who without any disparagement to his gravitie and wis­dome, did finde out, and did publish to the world, some Grammatical oversights [...] in the writings of Andrew Rivet, with whom he was engaged in con­troversie. But what if it doth now appear, that Grotius did civilly conceal the true name of the partie that was thus peccant against the rules of Grammar, and your Authour did set down a false one? will you not grant that he hath wronged Grotius as well as Rivet, and hath taken a course to render both of them odious or despicable? Had [Page 44] M. P. ever read the works of that learned and judi­ous man, or but taken notice that he was Divinitie-Professour in the Universitie of Leyden; and that he was made choice of, and singled out to be Tutour to the Prince of Orange, two employments under­taken usually by the most eminent and accomplish­ed men that in the whole nation respectively are to be found: He would never have been so precipitate as to fasten upon Rivet the sorrie badge of a John lack-Latine, upon the single testimony of aprovoked Adversarie, and that without examining, not whe­ther he said true, but whether he said so or no. But it is an ordinary thing for some men, without chew­ing to swallow the words of those, whose persons they have in admiration: and on the other side, up­on slight or no grounds to entertain contemptible thoughts of their persons whose cause they disaf­fect. It is certain, 1, That Rivet never wrote what is there mentioned: and 2, That Grotius ne­ver charged him with it. And for proof of what I say, a verie persunctory inspection may suffice: for the words quoted are brought in towards the end of a long digression, written also in a smaller character, containing a relation of some acts and historical passages at Oxford, Roterdam, and the Hague; but not one word of Rivet, or any thing concerning him: who therefore complaineth in the 66 Section of his Answer, called his Apologetick, of so large an excursion, and so extraneous: Per sexdecim paginas ex [...]urrit D. Grotius in alia, ea excutienda relinquam [Page 45] iis quorum interest: that is, I leave the matters con­tained in so many pages to those that are concerned in them. As for the person understood and conceal­ed although I think he may be better known by some other tokens there specified, than by [Latinè non didicit;] yet my chief aim being now to de­monstrate who it was not, it is reason I should be so courteous to him, in suppressing his name, as Groti­us was, who yet had receiued at his hands no small cause of distast: And in this I have followed that great example. But he who thought it not imper­tinent to render odious a person of so great note, of such merit and praise in the Churches, upon no o­ther ground that I know, but because he was not of his own opinion, in those things wherein libertie of dissent was wont to be pleaded for and pressed; must not think me curious or over-busie, while I have done what I can to wipe off so unworthy a blur from the names of the illustrious Hugo Grotius and Doctour Rivet.

Sect. 1, 2, 3.

Strictly, the offering of the sacrifice was that which you have omitted, namely, the killing of it in relation to God. That which you call the oblation of the sacrifice, was a thing consequent upon the oblation; or at most, the compleating of the ob­lation, that is, the burning of part of it, and the ascending of the fire and smoke. For this is the na­ture of sacrificing, which I shall now tell you. The The Priest is the officer or Mediatour betwixt God and Man: Man offereth his gift to God, when he wholly resigneth up his gift to him: this is done partly and preparatively by himself in the presenta­tion: principally and fully by the Priest in the ma­ctation [Page 47] or slaying of it. The Priest killing the Sa­crifice at the foot of the altar, doth then mans part, in offering to God mans gift. Now hath man done offering. In the next place God doth by his Priest dispose of the gift being thus made his: How? his altar devoureth one part, the Priest and the people the other. If therefore you would rightly know the true nature of sacrifices among the Jews, you must consider them not onely as ex­ercises of obedience and divine worship in the ge­neral; or as acknowledgements that death was the stipend of sin; or as shadows and types that Christ should die for the sins of the world; though all these they were: But further they are to be consi­dered as Federal rites or signes of a Covenant, Friendship, or Agreement betwixt God and man: As always feasting or eating together was a Sym­bol of familiarity, amitie, and mutual consent. Psal. 41. My familiar friend that did eat my bread: and 1 Cor. 5.11. by those words, With such an one, no not to eat, familiaritie is forbidden. 1 Cor. 10. We are one body, because we are partakers of one bread. Thus the Altar is called Gods Table, Ezek. 41.22. and in the first of Malachi, The Table of the Lord is contemptible, and the sacrifices are called Bread there, they offered polluted Bread upon the altar, when they offered the blinde and the lame for sa­crifice. Levit. 21.6. The offerings of the Lord made by fire, and the Bread of their God they do of­fer. Bread, it is well known in phrase of Scripture, [Page 48] signifieth all that is eaten. Malach. 1.12. His meat is contemptible. Levit. 3.16. The Priest shall burn them upon the altar, it is the Food of the offering made by fire. God is brought in, in figure and allu­sion or analogically, as eating what is burnt upon the altar. Calvins words upon the place last named are these; Notatur familiaris Dei cum populo suo communicatio, ac si communem cum illis haberet men­sam— se cultoribus suis convivam facere dignatus est; that is, When the part of the sacrifice which was burnt upon the altar, is said to be Gods Meat or Food, it noteth, that God is pleased familiarly to converse with his people, and as it were, to feast to­gether on the same feast with them. And to the same purpose Grotius Annot. in Evag. p. 451. Quasi scilicet amicorum more communes cum ipsis epulas su­meret. As humane passions are in a borrowed man­ner ascribed to God, after the same manner was eating in the burning of the sacrifices in the time of the Old Testament. In the fiftieth Psalm when it is said, Thinkest thou that I will eat Bulls flesh? though it be denied of God in a gross and carnal manner, and as if he needed it or did it out of hun­ger; yet is it even there intimated as true in a figu­rative signification. And it would never have been denied, had there been no colour for it, no like­lihood of it, had there been no likeness of it, more or less. The altar, and the fire of the altar do take Gods portion; the rest the Priest and people eat, 1 Cor. 9.13. They which wait on the altar, are Par­takers [Page 49] of the altar. The altar taketh part, and they take part: as servants usually wait on their master, make ready the meat, & serve him til he hath eaten, and afterwards they eat: Thus did the Levites make the dinner ready, the Priests attended upon the ta­ble, that is Gods altar, where he is supposed as it were to eat, and afterward they did take their share, and feed upon the reversion, Praecerptos cibos, as Mi­nucius Felix calleth the meats that were left of the heathen sacrifices. So that the act of offering was past before the fire came to be kindled, although the gift that was offered, did remain there readie to be burned. They who rendred Idolothyta, things offered to idols, did not think that the offering con­sisted in the burning; for then the ashes must be eaten, there being nothing else left. Incense was offered strictly when it was burnt: but strictly, Beasts were offered when they were slain, though they might be said to be offered too, in some fort, when they were consumed by fire. And the rea­son which you seem to give out of the Texts in Leviticus, chap. 1. and 3. is as weak as water. It is called a Burnt-offering made by fire: doth the offering therefore consist in the burning? No: but that which was before offered, is now burnt, and there is the Burnt-offering, or the offering made by fire, or the offering fired. And you know well enough that other languages give not the least colour for this your new conceit, whatsoever the English with some that are ignorant may do. And if the whole [Page 50] Burnt-offering, one kinde of sacrifice were called so, as you say, from ascension, it doth not follow thence, that the offering consisted in the ascending.

And whereas you make application of this your fansie, that Christs Priestly oblation should strictly be, when he went unto God, and was carryed up to heaven, you do after your wonted manner, confound Christs oblation with his Ascension: and his state of Humiliation, with his state of Exaltation. Hebr. 9.25, 26. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, for then must he often have suffered. Doth not the Apo­stle say plainly here to your understanding, that Je­sus did offer himself then when he suffered, and in his suffering? And although you say, "It is one thing to offer himself in heaven (which you meant not) "and another to offer himself in his ascend­ing into heaven (which was your meaning) yet in your page 22. you declare yourself plainly for the Socinians, teaching that the purgation was made in heaven: so you contradict one falshood with ano­ther. Your words are, Yea, how did his sacrifice purge the heavenly things themselves, but by his entring in once into the heavens, as Hebr. 9.23. where also in v. 26. his offering himself is made by the Apostle to answer to the high Priests en­tring once into the holy place?] In what sense soever it was that the heavenly things were pur­ged, or purified, or dedicated, it was by that which was done on earth, and not by that which was done in heaven. Neither doth the Apostle, v. 26. op­pose [Page 51] the high Priests entrance into the holy place, to Christs entrance into heaven; but the high Priests entrance into the holy place with the bloud of others, to Christs entrance into heaven with his own bloud, that is, the vertue and merit of his own bloud, Still you deceive your self or your Reader, with the ambiguity of the word offer, as if there were no difference betwixt presenting himself, and offering sacrifice.

Sect. 4. That the Altar was the Cross, a great mistake, Matth. 23. Which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctify­eth the gift? by which reason they make the cross greater than Christ as sanctify­ing him.]

When the Altar is said to be the Cross, the meaning is, that as sacrifices were offered or slain at the altar (not upon it, but) at the foot of the altar, or as Revel. 6.9. uuder the altar; so was Jesus Christ offered and slain upon the cross: neither is there any fear from the words of our Saviour, though the altar be called the cross; because as Christ was, in divers respects, The sacrifice which was offered, and the Priest that offered, and the al­tar that sanctifyed the sacrifice: so might the cross in another respect be called the altar, because there he died: for these two being mutually related, so [Page 52] that where there is a sacrifice, there is an altar also; whether we make the altar to be the cross, or the Divine nature, as you call it, the fierie love of it, or whatsoever it be that beareth most proportion to other altars; still we shall finde there will be some dissimilitude betwixt this altar, and that upon which the sacrifices were wont to be burnt. And whereas you compare the ascending of the smoke of the sacri­fice, which God is said to smell as a sweet savour, unto Christs ascending into heaven; It is Christs Passion, not his Ascension, in which God was well pleased, as with the smoke of the burnt-offerings: Eph. 5.2. Christ loved and gave himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour. He gave himself for us, when he was crucifyed, and then was his love shewed to us, when he laid down his life for us: And accordingly is our justification ascri­bed to his bloud or death: 1 Joh. 1.7. The bloud of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. Revel. 1.5. He hath washed us from our sins in his bloud: and chap. 5.9. Thou hast redeemed us unto God by thy bloud. Con­trary to your doctrine therefore I may boldly affirm, That Christs death upon the cross, was that which did answer, fulfill, effect and accomplish, both the killing of the beasts, and the burning of them also. The question with you is about this latter. Hebr. 13. V. 11, 12. The bodies of those beasts whose bloud is brought into the Sanctuary by the high Priest for sin, are burnt without the camp: wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctifie the people with his own bloud, suffer­ed [Page 53] without the gate.] Hence is proved invincibly, that the crucifying of Jesus Christ was typifyed and prefigured by the burning of the beast: and that it did perfect and compleat the sacrifice of him, as much as the sacrificing of the beast was finished and completed, then when it was burnt and consumed to ashes.

His note from Hebr. 9.26, 28. That to suffer, and offer, and die, are made the very same thing, is a gross mistake: to of­fer was active, to suffer was passive.]

These three were in that case the verie same thing, howbeit the words differ in their severall significations. If it were true which you now teach in this matter, That Christs oblation of himself consisted in his ascension into heaven; you might very well say, that his oblation and ascension are the very same thing; yet to offer is one thing, and to ascend is quite another. You have many a nimi­um nihil, just like this same in this chapter, which I passe by; but this I have noted, that our Reader may observe, how little heed is to be taken to you, when you call aloud, A gross mistake, or use any the like false and deceitfull out-crie. He is too much to blame, that observeth your custome, and will trust you, And thus much for this Socinian chapter.

FOr your first Section I direct the Reader to the Review: and for your second, where you would prove the Apostles to be not temporary, but of perpetual standing, because it is said, Ephes. 4. Till we all come, &c. I answer, it is sufficient for verify­ing these words, that some of the officers, namely, Pastours and Teachers, continue to the end of the world: And secondly, The writings of the Apo­stles do abide still; and the Gospel preached by them at first, is brought along to our times, and as our blessed Saviour saith, Joh. 15.16. Their fruit remaineth: and yet it cannot well be said in com­mon manner of speech, and you leave us to guess at your meaning, when you say, the Apostles are of perpetual standing.

Sect. 4. pag. 33. I did relate what was done in the time of Henry VIII, without any desire to harm you: as he that should rehearse the severitie enjoyned by the Law of Moses, Deut. 18.20. can­not be therefore said to wish it were put in executi­on now: nor desire any harm to them that have foretold the day of Judgement to befall in severall years now past.

[Page 55] Kings incensurableness smells of flatte­rie: and pag. 34. It is good for Rulers to beware of flatterers, who have the poy­son of asps under their lips, and kill in­sensible and unsuspected, and therefore are a more dangerous kinde of enemie than (though not so frightfull as) open Rebels, as Dalilah did Samson, more hurt then the Philistines without her could have done him. By M. H. principles, Sa­muel was too blame to refuse to turn again with Saul, and to go to visit him, —and the Priests of the Lord in Uzziah's time; and S. Ambrose in Theodosius time, were sawcy fellows, for dealing as they did with their Sovereigns; not remembring that they were their Fathers; yet I am nei­ther for the Popes Bulls, nor the Scotch Presbyterie.

To praise, and to flatter; to reprove, and to re­vile; these do well or ill, have good or bad effect, according as the party is disposed upon whom they are bestowed. Rebuke a wise man and he will love you; but if you reprove a scorner, he will hate you: if you praise a good man more than there is cause, that is, if you flatter him, he will studie to deserve your good word, and will be (as it were) ashamed to come short of your commendation: and it will in effect amount to an admonition or reproof. It is a [Page 56] very good caution to Princes and great persons, to take heed of flatterers, who do in all things seek to sooth and please them, from whom oftentimes they receive damage, and so they do sometimes from those that out of quite contrary carriage do contradict, and cross, and provoke them.

If it be granted that a flatterer is in some fort worse than a rustical reprover, yet he is not better than a reviler, the excess always having more of vertue in it, or at least inclining more to it, than the defect; and especially in our demeanour towards our Superiours. And if a flatterer be the worst of ene­mies that deal in words; yet is he not so ill as those that wrong in hostile attempts: and therefore you kept no decorum, when you made flatterers worse than open Rebels, yea though growing frightfull. And there is a larger difference between a flatterer, and a traytour. The example of Dalilah had done well enough, to prove that a secret traytour is worse than an open Rebel; but to your present purpose it no way appertains.

For this particular kinde of flattery, that con­sisteth in ascribing too much power, greatness, or prerogative to Princes, as it is true, so it is imperti­nent to say they may be flattered: for so may the people too, to the prejudice of them both. Out of doubt, it is ill done to ascribe to either of them more than belongs to them. But here is the right question, To whom the supreme power of Religi­on belongs, whether to the King, to take care [Page 57] what Faith it is the subjects make profession of; or to the subjects to be of what profession they will. And I think it is not well done to call that flattery, when no more is ascribed to any one than is due to him by the law of nature: by the Law of God, and by the law of the land respectively.

Towards the censurableness of Kings (which was wont to be accounted amongst dangerous positi­ons) you bring three instances; Saul, Uzziah, and Theodosius. As for Saul, Samuel refused to turn a­gain with him, and to joyn with him in sacrificing what was forbidden to be sacrificed: but he did not refuse to turn with him, when he was to shew him honour before the people, in attending on him while he worshipped God, And inasmuch as God him­self reproved Samuel, for shewing more regard and tenderness to Saul than he ought to have done, be­ing peremptorily rejected; we may well imagine how Samuel stood affected to Saul: how respectfull and how stedfast he would have been to him, had the case been ordinary. And Uzziah was not put out of that place that did belong to him: The Priests said, You shall not come into our place in the Temple: they said not, You shall not keep your own. If a Minister should not suffer one of his Communicants to consecrate and distribute the bread and wine in the Lords Supper, but forbid him: this would not come near so much as to abstention, and therefore this example comes not near the pur­pose. And lastly, as to Theodosius; I answer, If [Page 58] Constantine the Great be reckoned the first Christi­an Emperour; then Theodosius the elder is the first Christian Emperour that is found among the Peni­tents, or under Ecclesiastical discipline; and the last too, for the space of seven hundred years, till the time of Henry the fourth and Heldebrand, when Hell, that is, Satan broke loose. Next, it is questi­oned whether it was well done of these two great persons, what they did. As some highly commend, so others much mislike the Emperours submission, and the Bishops austerity, as drawing danger and disgrace upon the Ruler of the people, whose di­gnity God provided for, by making a law that for­bad all such speeches as savoured of detraction and contempt of him. Thirdly, I regard not much what S. Ambrose did. Actions Heroical, and Acti­ons Zelotical recorded in Scripture or Church-Hi­storie, are not rashly to be imitated, or drawn into example. I attend rather to his words: Apolog. Dav [...] cap. 10. Liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum, ne (que) enim ullis ad poenam vocantur legibus, tuti imperii pe­testate: that is, The power of Empire dischargeth Kings from the bands or censures of their trans­gressions, neither are they obnoxious to the pe­nalties of laws as others are. The Popish Casuists resolve, That whosoever is excommunicate must be Subditus, he must have a Superiour, some or other: therefore with them the Pope is free, be­cause there is none on earth above him; whoso­ver censureth another judgeth him, and whosoever [Page 59] judgeth another, is superiour to him: and there cannot be two supremes, and there must be one.

Sect. 1. AT that rate I might con­clude that M. H. knows not how, and in what sort Christ is Head of the visible Church, because he hath not told us]

This was not my omission, but your very great negligence: I told you how, in that place pag, 27. In regard of the Graces of edification derived from him, for the Offices, Ministerie, and Government of his Church, and in regard of the common benefits and com­mon gifts of a spiritual kinde.] So now I have told told you twice.

Sect. 2. I Think they have a minde to settle their Contra-Remonstrant or Pres­byterian Principles by persecution.]

If I should ask you why you make these two terms all one which yet look severall ways, one of [Page 60] belonging to Doctrine, the other to Government, I know not what you would plead for your self, un­less it be Custome, a custome that you have to con­found, and unkindly to mix and make up together things heterogeneous and quite different. And be­cause you seem to be better acquainted with the opinions of the Remonstrants, than you are with their persons, therefore let me tell you, First, that the Remonstrants were Presbyterians, and lived un­der that Government, and misliked it not. Onely in the doctrine of these Churches they excepted against four points; and doubted somewhat of the fifth. And in the year 1622, they put forth their Confession or Declaration of their opinions, in the chief heads of Religion, and in the 21 chapter their words are; Cùm Episcoporum & Presbytero­ [...]um omnium munus sit docere ac regere, manifestum esse satìs videtur, aliis in alios imperium nullo jure di­vino competere. To teach and to govern belongeth to Bishops and to all Presbyters, neither have they by divine right any power one over another.

Secondly, Those Divines who went out of great Britain, and were assistant in the National Synod, where these doctrinal differences were examined, were all of them Episcopal men, and three of them were Bishops either then or afterward; and when they were to give approbation to the Belgick confes­sion, they kept themselves onely to points dogma­tical, and would not examine those two articles, the thirtieth and the one and thirtieth, which concern­ed [Page 61] Ecclesiastical order; as is inserted in the Acts, Sess. 144. and which is more than so, and which is not inserted, they did in the very next Session open­ly impeach the Presbyterian Government and Pari­tie of Ministers. So far were they from being, ac­cording to your medley, Contra-Remonstrants and Presbyterians, Sed cursum mutavit iniquum frugibus amnis Doctus iter melius. So you would have it at least, that now these terms should turn their wonted course, and carrie quite another meaning than they did heretofore. But because you are readie to take up any thing, though it be never so nonsensical (to use your own word) that you imagine any way to make for you; give me leave to tell you further, First, that there is no great heed to be taken to his complaint, who misliketh the Presbyterians for that which they are to be commended for, and for that in which the Episcopal part joyns with them: wch is this, That they desire and endeavour that Religion may be nationally established, and some kinde of govern­ment and discipline Ecclesiastical settled. And se­condly, They who are not content to commend their form of Government as good, and as the best; but further set it forth as Christs throne and spiritual kingdome, are not matched, but outgone by them, who make it a point of Christian libertie, and a part of Christs kingdome, to have no Church-go­vernment at all. And as it is no good Logick, to oppose Presbyterian and Remonstrant; so it is no great honestie to make the world beleeve it, if [Page 62] they could, that none but Presbyterians oppose Remonstrants.

Himself alledges a passage where I commend Authority for securing Religi­on against Blasphemie by civil sanction; therefore he might see I am not the man he represents me. I put a great dif­ference betwixt Blasphemies and diffe­rences in opinion.

Some kinde of blasphemie I ever thought you were willing should be suppressed, though it be con­trary to your principles that it should. That which I noted out of you in the place alledged was this, That you who in one place do call the establish­ment of the Contra-Remonstrant, or seeming or­thodox opinion, a bloudy sanction, in another place would have the Magistrate make provision against them, by enacting a law like that which was made against direct blasphemie: and how do you then put a difference betwixt Blasphemies and Differen­ces in opinion?

Sect. 3. To pleasure him a little with my thoughts about the Magistrates pow­er in matters of Religion, I shall say brief­ly; 1. He may not exercise the authority [Page 63] of the Dragon, spoken of Rev. 13. assume names of Blasphemy, set up and inforce images of any other Object, Authour, or Medium of worship, than God and Christ, and the mediums, ways, and ordinances of his appointment; nor back with his au­thority those that do, compelling men to worship them, swear to them, blaspheme Gods name, pollute Gods rest, &c. Nor may he oppress, abuse, persecute, and de­stroy his subjects, or suffer them to be per­secuted and destroyed, and especially up­on such accounts. 2. He is Custos utri­usque tabulae, keeper of both tables, both as to his own practise and worship, as to the Authour, Object, Ultimate end, me­dium, and way of it; He is to receive and do nothing, but as Gods commands ap­prove, and so as to the manner of his wor­ship in spirit and truth; his use and obser­vation of Religious oaths, observation of Gods Sabbath or rest, carriage to his sub­jects, &c. And in respect of others; He hath power to see that Gods worship be preached and practised, purely and sin­cerely, without idolatrie, superstition, or humane inventions, mediums, and impo­sitions; false oaths, or sinfull; breach of Sabbath, or additions of rests, otherwise than Gods word alloweth may he not suf­fer; [Page 64] nor his subjects to oppress, defraud, or harm one another, especially to oppress one anothers conscience; no, though they be Bishops; he may not suffer them to binde upon his people their inventions, and inflict penalties upon men, meerly for non-conformity to their wills, where they declare their, consciences dis-satisfi­ed; but he may pull down all false objects, and mediums of worship, impositions of forms and ceremonies that offend and trouble tender consciences, or impositi­ons of opinions, with penalties in such things where persons may be of different apprehensions, and yet all fearers of God: he may see that the Apostles practises in not imposing in things indifferent; yea, decreeing against the practise of such things as all could not practise without offence, as Acts 15.28, 29, 30. is to be observed. He may send forth his Prin­ces to teach the truth, as Jehoshaphat did with some Levites, yea and preach it him­self, if thereto fitted, &c.

You pleasured me a little, but you pleasured the Sectaries a great deal more, in carving thus, or cramping rather the power of the Magistrate about Religion to serve your own purpose, and your own partie, as Praxiteles made the statue of Venus Cni­dia [Page 65] by his own Phryne: or like your friend Bellar­mine, with the fifteen marks that he gave of the Catholick Church, which he thought might some way or other be fitted to his Romane Lady. While you were limning the several parcels of the Magi­strates power, you took care to prevent all preju­dice to your other opinions, whatsoever they were, or whatsoever they might be for the time to come, in alea hominum, as the fall of the Die may happen, and still as you went along, you were casting your eye upon that Saint which Salmasius speaks of and calleth Diva Independentia, in the eleventh Cha­pter of his Defence of the King. And I observe this your Picture is almost all shadow, and dark, or nega­tive. In your first Paragraph, and in the greater part of your second, you say not what the Magi­strate may do, but what he may not do. So you lay a Restraint upon him, in stead of teaching what au­thoritie he hath. Of him that was the first founder of a sect of the Academicks, Arcesilas by name. Lactantius wrote thus, De falsa Sap. in the third book: Constituit novam non philosophandi philosophi­am: He set up a new kinde of no kinde of Philo­phie; and you have found out here a new kinde of no kinde of Church-government for the supreme Magistrate to busie himself about. He must not do this, nor he must not do that. His ruling must be to see that none rule in impositions of forms, or opinions; and that is, that every man may rule and do in religion what he will, what is good in his own [Page 66] eyes, which is Hemlock that will grow of it self, in such times especially, when there is no king in Israel.

He, is to receive and to do nothing, but as Gods commands approves] You speak confusedly, as you do also soon after, when you say, [Otherwise then Gods word alloweth he may not suffer] I am to tell you therefore, that Gods word alloweth many things that are not commanded nor appointed by him in his word. And this is sufficient to justifie them, that there is nothing in Gods word against them, or forbidding them.

Without Idolatrie, Superstition, or humane in­ventions] For the two first of these we are a­greed; but for humane inventions I differ from you: for your words carry with them a deniall of the Churches authority, in framing; and the Magi­strates authority in confirming Canons and Consti­tutions Ecclesiastical. And this your doctrine con­cerning humane inventions and impositions, I take to be Superstition: the true nature of which consist­eth in taking away the indifferency of things indif­ferent: whether it be in placing holiness and Gods worship, in the practise of such things as are not enjoyned of God: Or in abstaining from such things as [...] displeasing to him, which he hath no where prohibited. He that forbiddeth in Gods ser­vice humane inventions, that are neither impious, nor imposed as parts of Gods worship, maketh more negative precepts than God hath made. As [Page 67] the Apostle saith of meats, 1 Cor. 8. Neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse. The like may we say of Vestures, and all things of an indifferent nature, whether we use them or use them not, we are neither the better nor the worse; and to say we are the better or the worse, is superstition.

But when you say, He hath power to see that Gods worship be preached and practised purely and sincerely, without idolatrie, superstition, or humane inventions, you add not a word touching heresie and errour in belief: is not the word of God a rule tam fidei quàm cult [...]ucirc;s? and is there not false doctrine, as well as false worship? It is true that [purely and sincerely] do comprehend very much; but your ad­dition following I take as a diminution: you limit and restrain what you say to idolatrie, superstition, and humane inventions: yea; within a few lines you make it a part of his authoritie to pull down impo­sitions of opinions. You leave us unsatisfied, nei­ther do I think that you are able to give any good reason, why the Prince should set himself against Idolatry, more then against Heresie and why Chri­stians may not have as much liberty in the practical worship of God, as they may have in their opinions and belief; there being a mutual and necessary con­nexion betwixt these two principal and integral parts of Religion. And even while you speak a­gainst tolerating idolatrie and superstition, your principles plead for them, even for all sorts of ido­latries: [Page 68] For if men must cleave onely to what they understand, and walk in what they are satisfyed in; there is no idolater that will readily understand you, or be satisfied with what you can say, so as to be brought off from his idols, and betake himself to the true God, and his true worship.

False oaths or sinfull] The Magistrate may give an oath: if it be a false oath, it is his fault that takes it, not his that gives it. For never yet was any man put to swear that such a thing, or such an opinion is true: and therefore he could not be put upon it to swear that which is false. He that some years now past, wrote a Discourse of conforming in Revolutions of Government, pag. 54. complains of the dangerousness of those Assertory oaths, which re­quire us to swear that such or such a thing or opinion is true, which may seem clearly so to the learned contri­vers of those oaths, but not so to others.] What you mean by false oaths I know not: but I think this Authour aimed at the oath of Supremacie; but he was very much mistaken in supposing that oath to be assertory of the Kings Supremacie: If that be it that is sworn, it is not a false oath, but it is a very vain one to swear that which the Court knows al­ready, and is firmly perswaded of. An oath is an end of doubt and controversie. What is the doubt? It is not whether the King be Supreme or no: but whether the partie sworn beleevs it or no: So that it is a kinde of Purgatory oath, whereby the party clears himself from the suspicion of a Papist, by denying a chief point of Poperie.

[Page 69] Additions of rests] You may charge them with additions of rests, who hold their festival days to be more holy than other days are: and equal to the Lords day or Christian Sabbath, and the ob­servation of them to be a part of divine worship. Thus the Papists do: and thus the Papists say the Protestants do not: and you may safely be so cour­teous as to beleeve them. That cannot be said to be added to any thing, that is not of the same na­ture with it; as he that expoundeth the word of God, doth not add to the word, unless he maketh his exposition to be equal to the word, and of the same authoritie with it. The Hebrews by the mini­stery of Moses received of God their Canon-Law, touching Government of the Church, as well as they did their Civil-Law for Government of their State or Nation. And we will suppose that the Christian Church which is left more at libertie, is not now deprived of that authority and power, which the Church of God in the time of the old Testament had, in setting apart some days of rest, either annual or occasional; either of rejoycing or humiliation as do witness their feast of Purim, and their feast of Dedication, and their Fasting-days, which were not of divine command, and are men­tioned Zechar. 7.5. & 8.19.

Meerly for non-conformity to their wills]Those who through want of age, or of ought else, know nothing of Episcopal Government in England, more then you here tell them, you would make be­leeve [Page 70] leeve thus speaking, that it is merely arbitrary, no way limited or regulated. But you cannot be so ignorant as not to know thus much, that none are punished for non-conformity to the Bishops will. What penaltie any man suffereth, is for not obser­ving the Laws of the land, and the Canons of the Church; which Laws and Canons are not made, but by such persons as are assembled by vertue of the Kings Writ: nor are they taken notice of, un­less they be approved by the Royal assent. Here therefore you either speak unadvisedly, or else against the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesia­stical.

Impositions of forms] If forms be lawfull (as I am sure they are) imposition cannot make them unlawfull. What you may do of your own libertie, you may do likewise when you are enjoyned to do it; Unless (as some place holiness in observing mens precepts) you place holiness in breaking of them.

He may see that the Apostles practises in not imposing in things indifferent, yea, de­creeing against the practise of such as could not practise without offence, as Acts 15.28, 29. be observed.

First, The Apostles did impose in things indif­ferent. Eating meats offered to idols, was lawfull [Page 71] in it self, or indifferent, else S. Paul would not have taught and resolved the Corinthians, that they might buy them, and eat them without question, as Gods creatures with thanksgiving; provided that they did not eat them formally or religiously, with conscience of the idol: yet the Apostle by a decree commanded to abstain from them: but I pray ob­serve well in what manner that was done: for that decree was (1) Temporary, lasting but for a time; and [2) Local, not Universal, or all the Christian world over, but concerning onely the Church of Antioch, and the Churches depending on it, where many of the Jews had their abode.

Secondly, Other things which they found indiffe­rent, so they left them: though they did not decree the practise of them, they did not decree against the practise of them, as you say they did.

Thirdly, It is a very vain imagination of yours, that the Apostles had such regard to them that could not practise without offence, those things that were imposed; and that therefore they would im­pose onely things necessary. The particulars (ex­cepted Abstinence from fornication) were necessa­ry, how? not in themselves, but for the peace of the Church at that time. It was thought requisite to compose and settle some differences, and prevent some offences, by enjoyning forbearance fro [...] some few things for a while.

Those whom you call Dissatisfied in Conscience, and persons of different apprehensions, may be [Page 72] such as the Apostle calleth Ignorant. If any man be ignorant, that is, wilfully ignorant, when sufficient care hath been taken for his information, let him be ignorant; and such he calleth contentious: and if any man be contentious, the Custome, much more the Law of the Church is enough to silence him. And he faith further, Mark them which cause divisi­ons and offences. Never would there be any order or constitution of a Church, but mere confusion, if nothing must be decreed to be practised that cannot without offence be practised, by those that are rea­dy to cause divisions and offences.

He may send forth his Princes to teach the truth, as Jehoshaphat did with some Levites, yea, and preach it himself, as David and Solomon did, if thereto fitted, &c.

You have drawn a kinde of vail over three seve­rall places or parts of this your picture; the vail of, &c. I will not attempt any where to strike it, lest I be served as Zeuxis was in Pliny, when he hastened upon the stage, to look what it was that might be under­neath the curtain that his Antagonist had painted. Yet would I gladly know whether within this last, any such thing as CALLING be couched or no; for my part I think it is contained under Fitness, and that no man is fitted to officiate in publick that is not called; and that there is Ecclesiastical Idoneitie, [Page 73] as well as Moral; and the one requisite in a preacher, as well as the other. But if I guess aright by your words, you are not of that minde, but think (with some others that walk disorderly) that Abilities, Competencie of knowledge, Boldness, Volubilitie of language, and what else there is of that kinde; without an outward Call, do sufficiently furnish any man to be a publick preacher. But the examples you bring are no proofs. Jehoshaphat sent out preach­ers ad docendum, that the people might be taught; and with them he sent Priests and Levites, who taught the people, 2 Chron. 17.9. The Princes did and spake what was proper to them; and the Priests and Levites likewise did their part, and theirs was to Teach: Deut. 33.10. They, the tribe of Levi, shall teach Jacob thy judgements, and Israel thy law. And as the case was at that time, when the people were to be reclaimed, and brought back to the God of their fathers; had the Priests and Levites gone forth alone, without civil Authoritie, directive, coercive, and coactive, they might probably have been mocked and contemned, as the messengers were that Hezekiah sent to give warning of keeping, the Pass-over.

Yea, preach it himself as Ddvid and Solomon did.] David and Solomon were Kings, but with-all they were Prophets, extraordinarily inspired, Pen-men of holy Scripture: and may all Kings be preachers because Solomon was so? If you have done the supreme Christian Magistrate any injurie, [Page 74] in what you have now written; here, if it be com­pensation, you make it in giving him more than is his own, or than of right belongeth to him. Artic the 37 of the Church of England, We give not our Princes the ministring of Gods word. To which Article rather than you will conform, you choose to give countenance to the slanders of the Papists, and so far as you can, to make them good. Calvini­stis in Angliamulier quadam est summus Pontifex: so said Bellarmine during the Queens reign: and we are quit with them now for the story of the woman. Pope which they tell us of, so cried Sancta clara, And to that purpose you seem to close with the Anabaptists, teaching that gifts do fit for ministerial duties, without any other door of entrance; extend­ing this libertie particularly and expresly to Kings and Princes. The leaven of which doctrine (if it be encouraged) may attempt Magistracie as well as Ministerie, that every one may take upon him the office of ruling and judging that is thereto fitted.

When John the Baptist refused to baptize our Saviour Jesus Christ, who was without all compa­rison more excellent than himself; our Saviour willed him to forbear, and not to insist upon the worthiness or unworthiness of their persons, but to do at that time what was decent and behovefull to be done, and to fulfill all righteousness, namely, of good order, and of that vocation which each of them had taken upon him to perform, answering his reason to this effect, as if he had said; When [Page 75] the more worthy is to be baptized, then he that is less worthy, if he be called to it, and in place for it, may and ought to baptize him; this is right and just, decent and orderly. It may so fall out, that an auditour or person of private capacitie, is of so good endowments, industrie, and learning, as that his Teacher publickly authorized, may well be taught many things by him, even such things as belong to his own profession, and may say, I have need to be taught by you: yet the private person must not usurp the publick place, because he is the more able, and the better fitted of the two. Remember the Apostles rule, Let all things be done decently and in order.

Sect. 2. VVAs there ever such a Non-sensicall thing found? he faults those answers, as deny­ing that which he proves out of them.]

You are not the first that hath spoken contradi­ctions, nor shall I be the last that confuteth an Ad­versarie out of his own words. You assigned five uses of the Law. To be a Rule of life, was none of [Page 76] the five: yet I proved it to be a rule, by conse­quence from your first use, To shew what is sin. You taught it not directly: and everie one could no gather so much from your words. But they who held the Law to be neither ruling nor binding; might nevertheless continue in that minde still. But I have gained thus much, and like wise so may others, that you have spoken out and confessed the truth, and I am glad to hear it. I pray you keep your self to it for the time to come.

Sect. 3, I know no reason for your loud chal­lenge of wrong and dishonestie: you faulted Mini­sters for being Teachers of the Law, to such as were not well principled for duties. If there be some men so unqualified, that we must not preach the law to them, then it is no rule to the unconvert­ed, which was all I said, and I might well say it from you. According to your Divinitie, so far as I can perceive, the principles are not many. There is one, To beleeve that God loves us: and he that beleevs this, is in a manner converted. But as I think, we may talk of duties to those that have not princi­ples, not any principle to perform them, that so they may know what need they have of a principle which might enable them to perform them: and that in the mean time, they may do ea quasunt Le­gis, what the Law commandeth for the substance of it, though not as they ought for the manner.

[Page 77] In your Sect. 4. I shall not need to take notice of any thing, saving how you justifie your answer to your Question 290.

If I say in making Latine, according to Tullyes or Quintilians style, a man observs all the rules of Grammar and Rhetorick, is it all one as to say, that gives a super­sedeas to all Grammar and Rhetorick, and teaches them to have no use or need of them? Who ever had to deal with an unhappier Reviser?

But, first, when you asked the childe the questi­on, Oughtest thou not to walk in the observation of the ten Commandments? why did you not teach him to answer plainly and positively, Yes? whereas the Answer that you framed for him, amounts to a Ne­gative: In acting forth Faith and Love I do observe also those Commandments] which is as much as if you had told him, that he shall not need to observe the ten Commandments, otherwise than by acting forth Faith and Love.

And secondly, for your similitude from Gram­mar-learning, I answer, He that hath attained Tul­lyes or Quintilians style, may well lay aside and ne­glect all Grammar-rules, and rules of Rhetorick, and needeth them no more than an ordinary coun­trey-man, that hath by custome learned to speak true English, doth stand in need of an English Grammar, which he never yet looked into, it may [Page 78] be never heard of. As he that can swim well, throws away his bladders, and the lame man that hath re­covered his legs at the Bath, leavs his crutches there that helped him thither. And will you say, or dare any man say, that he who hath attained the highest degree of Faith and Love that is attained in this world, may neglect, forget, or not give heed to the ten Commandments? Where is our obedience to Gods Law, if our eye be not upon his Law? or what is obedience, but as it is in Psal. 119.6. To have respect to all Gods Commandments? So you have mended the matter well with your similitude; you teach children, even children at their first, to ob­serve the ten Commandments as Cicero observed the rules of Rhetorick, who was himself a rule to Rhetorick.

The fifth Section is full of heavy complaints and charges. I shewed how you, as well as some others, did mistake the Apostles words of, The Law being a Schoolmaster to christ, because he speaketh not comparatively of a beleever with an unbeleever, but of the state of the Gospel with the state of the Old Testament. Here you say, That I have merely slandered you, and you have been for many years of my minde for all these things.]

Answ. 1. It being an ordinary mistake of others, who recede from the Antinomians more then you do, I had no reason to leave you out.

[Page 79]2. If you were indeed of that minde then, and so had been for many years, you did not hold so long; for after not many leavs turned over, I finde you of another minde, pag. 83. [The Apostles did not bring men under servitude, as Moses formerly, but to Sonship.] You make an opposition betwixt Ser­vitude and Sonship; whereas it should be betwixt manhood and minoritie of age, or the like; if you had continued in that minde you were of. Our Rea­der must now do his part to judge who is wronged, and how far. And as for the satisfaction you would have of me: it is in your power to clear and set right with others your own reputation. And so long as you charge your pretended Orthodox, with seeking Gods promises by the works of the Law, and with establishing their own righteousness; and while you say, that Teachers of the Law, do they know not what; you will be thought to be an Anti­nomian, whether you be one or no.

He adds some pretty stories of what manner of Schoolmasters some had.]

That proverbial form, Velut Epicitharisma post fabulam, Rhenanus explaineth by the custome of the preachers in his time, which was after some deep discourse of dark points in Divinitie, to tell some fine and pleasant storie of some Saint or other our of the legend, to keep the people from falling [Page 80] sleep. If the Reader thought so well of my sto­ries, as you do, they might somewhat serve to re­fresh him, being possibly (though it were but early) grown dull and heavie with reading. But I rather think that you grew dull betimes; for the instan­ces that I alledged, were not to shew what school-masters some had; but to shew that a Pedagogue, which is S. Pauls word, doth not signifie a school-master in the vulgar notion, though perhaps it must be rendred so; but one that waited on great mens sons, to teach them how to behave them­selves, and to frame their manners agreeable to their state.

I omit your explications, and come to the close of this chapter.

I said, The Law with other Scriptures is of use to instruct, reprove, &c. which is all one in sense with the rule of obedience. Onely I contented my self with the Scripture-phrase, and used not that of the Churches.

Something it was then, I was sure, that you would not let fall such a word, that the Law should be a Rule, or that it should Binde. When you would not speak as the Church speaketh, well might I think you did not mean as the Church meaneth. The Apostle Paul, who biddeth us be of one minde. [Page 81] 2 Cor. 13.11. beseecheth us also that we speak all the same thing. And when he would have us to glo­rifie God, Unanimes, uno orc, Rom. 15.6. with one minde and one mouth; can you imagine but that he would have us to instruct and teach the people with one minde, and one mouth? This humour of yours is a bad symptom, and as it may be hurtfull to the Church of God, so most certainly it is scandalous. They that know the old guise of hereticks, will think never the better of you for keeping your self so close to the Scripture-phrase, but have reason to think the worse. Arius being required by the Em­perour to deliver a confession of his Faith, gave it so, that he observed the bare words of Scripture, [...] Sozom. 2.28. They suspected him the more for this, and found him the more fraudulent. Concluding therefore this matter, I tell you, that by your delivering your self in such a manner, you have caused the offence that is given, contrary to the doctrine which we have learned, Rom. 16.17. Neither is it much material, whether your opinion were such as I charged you withall, or not; so being that it were vehemently probable by your words that such your opinion was.

IN your ninth chapter, which concerneth Lay­mens administring the Eucharist, you put me to a double task: first, I must prove it is your opini­on, because you seem to denie it: and secondly, I must prove the same your opinion to be false, be­cause yon seem to maintain it.

That Christ in the instituting of it ap­pointed or designed Ministers onely to do it, or makes any mention of them, I finde not.]

To what purpose is this said, but to shew that others not ordained may give the Eucharist? But you can finde that every man must abide in his cal­ling; and that none must walk disorderly, nor in­vade anothers place or work. But what think you of the constant practise of the Church? Hath not Custome, if there be no more, the force of a second law, as well as of a second nature? But-you finde our Saviour limiting the Sacrament, as well as the word, saying, Go teach all nations baptizing them. [Page 83] But you finde the ministration of the word limited to certain persons; How shall they preach unless they be sent? No man taketh this honour to himself. Paul and Barnabas must be separated to the work. If preaching the word be proper to persons set apart, then administration of the Sacraments also: The reason is, because the Sacraments are but the word or Gospel made visible, and do contain, after their manner, what is in the word, and somewhat more; namely, a plainer representation to our senses, a nearer application, and a mutual stipulation and agreement: The word may be preached to infidels, and propounded to them by way of parley: The Sacraments contain the solemn confirmation of the agreement between the parties. It is the Sealing of a Will, Writing, or Covenant, that is the most au­thentick and formal act for making up the instru­ment. My argument then is this: The Eucharist containeth in a Sacramental manner, that which is in the word, and somewhat more too. If a person ordained, and none else must administer the word, then he and none else is to administer the Eu­charist.

Our brethren of rhe Congregational way, as they do communicate with others in the word and prayer, but not in the Sacraments, whence they are termed Semi-separatists; so in their declaration of their faith and order, although they allow others besides Pastours and Teachers to preach the word publickly and constantly, pag. 58. §. 13. yet they [Page 84] say. The Lord Jesus hath appointed his Ministers to bless, and set apart, and give the bread and wine in the Lords Supper, pag. 94. §. 3. And while you differ from them in this and divers other points of mo­ment, you cannot take your place, which otherwise you might, among the Congregationales Orthodoxi, in the scheme that George Horn, who calleth himself Honorius Reggius hath drawn, to hold all the Sects of Great Britain.

He should have done better to have shewed in what chapter and verse Christ or his Apostles said, Let none but ordained Ministers administer the Sacraments, than to have told us what a curse the Council of Trent, a Popish Antichristian Council, ordained against others, besides to whom they allow ministring of them: but of that not a word.]

But you know I named not that Council, as in­tending to ascribe any value or authoritie to it, but onely to shew how the Protestants disclaimed the opinion. Divers errours are there anathematized, which the Protestants never held; but by so doing the world was invited to beleeve, that such errours they held. I named Calvin then, who saith in his Antidote, that no man in his right senses doth think so: and now I name Chemnitius in his Examen: [Page 85] who misliking the opinion, proves also that Luther never held it, but opposed it while he opposed the Anabaptists. And Dr. Whitaker in Defence of his Answer to Campians ten Reasons, lib. 8. Quis nescit, neque Laicis, neque Diaconis concedi, ut Eucharistiam conficiant? Wno knows not this, that neither Lay­men nor Deacons may consecrate the Eucharist? I return you answer therefore: You should have done better to have taken notice why I alledged the Council of Trent, namely, to shew how the Protestants universally neglected the curse there framed, and detested the errour there condemned; than to tell us it was a Popish Antichristian Coun­cil: but of that not a word.

The Church of England in her Cate-chisme doth not mention the Minister in treating of the Sacraments.

But the 23 Article maketh provision, That none shall administer the Sacraments before he be lawfully called.

Nor Ursin.] In the definition of a Sacrament he doth not: but under the fourth head, What the agreement is, and what the difference betwixt the Word and the Sacraments, the fourth particular of the agrement is in these words, Utraqne Deus exe­quitur per Ministros Ecclesiea: God doth deal both Word and Sacraments by the Ministers of the Church.

[Page 86] Whether those men that Peter com­manded to baptize Cornelius and his houshold, were ordained or not, no bodie can tell.]

Some will tell you that Peter himself baptized them; neither is it said that Peter commanded any to baptize them, but jussit haptizari, he command­ed them to be partakers of that Sacrament: or if he commanded any man to baptize them. you cannot tell but he to whom he gave that charge was or­dained: and have far more reason to think he was, than to think he was not.

I think you may remember who it was that once brought an argument to your present purpose, in behalf of persons unordained, from the name Eu­charist, which signifyeth, Giving of thanks. [What fault is it if some of Gods people administer a Thanksgiving?] and I do remember that a cer­tain Authour, that wrote against mixt Communi­ons, brought twenty arguments to prove the Lords Supper not to be a converting Ordinance; and fetch­ed one of them, namely the eleventh from the name Eucharist: The Euchharist, saith he, is an Or­dinance of Thanksgiving, and Consolation, but un­converted persons are not to be called to thanks and joy, but weeping and mourning.] So that from the word Eucharist, which yet is not directly found in Scri­pture, but assumed by the Church, to note, The Lords Supper; while one maintaineth, that He [Page 87] who is not a converted Christian may not be parta­ker of it; another would maintain, that He who is but a professed Christian, and no more, may be the minister of it. Both which opinions are as unwar­rantable, as the reason taken from the Name is weak and groundless. For in words and names, we must not regard what their original is, and their etymologie, or whence they came; but what they are brought to by use and custome: if Eucharist doth signifie Thanksgiving in the Greek; yet in the Church of God, it is appropriate to the Lords Supper in common acception. But secondly, take the word in that sense, whence it is taken to denote the Lords Supper, and it doth not signifie Thanks-giving, but Benediction or Blessing, and, as may ea­sily appear by conferring the Evangelists, To give thanks is to bless: as when many sit down to meat at table, we will suppose that all of them give thanks morally; yet formally, one doth give thanks; or which is the same, blesseth the table. and when Justin Martyr Apolog. pag. 76. maketh mention of [...] speaking of the Lords Supper, it is plain that he took Eucharist for Consecration, or Sacerdotal benediction, and not for giving of thanks. From the consecrating of the bread and wine, or blessing of them, which is but one act, the whole service is called the Eucharist. So that this word being rightly understood, affordeth a solid ar­gument against lay-mens administring the Lords Supper. For to whom doth it belong to bless, but [Page 88] to the Priests and the Ministers, under both the old and new Testament? Deut. 10.8. to this office he separated the Tribe of Levi: to bless persons and things, and in this also consisted chiefly the priesthood of Melchisedek, before the law of Moses was given. And this may well be supposed, and is moreover recorded to have been the practice of Christ and his Apostles. So to conclude this mat­ter: as the people would not eat untill Samuel came, because he did bless the sacrifice, 1. Sam. 9. I hope there are none but Anabaptists, or (who are the same with somewhat more learning, and more errours) Socinians, that will presume to eat, untill a publick authoritative minister doth according to peculiar dutie, bless the Sacrament.

FOr distempered or greensick appetites, that long for unwholesome food, you have in this chapter especially made provisi­on: A thousand years reign upon earth in all worldly felicitie before the day of judge­ment. But you say, though you speak besides the ordinary common rode, yet von trust not besides the Scriptures, nor [Page 89] the judgement of the ancient Orthodox.

They had need be Scriptures of clear evidence, or proof, that should be brought to call in question so many principles of Divinitie plainly delivered in holy writ, quite contrary to this millenarian fancie, that Christ should come from heaven, and raise the Saints and reign with them a thousand years; and after that space, the wicked should rise and receive sentence at the day of judgement.

First, The Scripture saith, Act. 3.21. The hea­vens must contain Jesus Christ till the times of the restitution of all things: and in our Creed, we be­leeve that Christ from thence that is, from heaven, shall come to judge the quick and dead. But by this opinion, he should continue on earth so many years, and then judge the world.

Secondly, The day of judgement is secret and un­known; shall be hid from the world, and come like a snare when men shall not think of it: but by this opinion all men shall know certainly when it shall be, namely at the term of a thousand years.

Thirdly, It makes two Resurrections of the bo­die, one a great distance of time after the other. We beleeve but one Resurrection of the just, and unjust: the Athanasian Creed (at whose coming all men shall arise with their bodies, they that have done good and they that have done evil.) The words are most clearly grounded upon what our Saviour saith, [Page 90] Joh. 5.28. The hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the Resur­rection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the Resurrection of Damnation. Dan. 12.2. Many, or the multitude of them that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those that are christs, and whom the Father hath given him, he will raise up at the last day, not at the first day of the Resurrection, as you imagine, Those that are Christs at his coming, and the rest after­wards: but beleevers shall be raised at the last day. Joh. 6. four several times there it is so said, name­ly 39, 40, 44, 54 verses, I will raise him up at the last day. It is not the last day, if a thousand years follow. The trump of God, at the sound of which the dead shall rise, 1 Thess. 4. is called the last trump. 1 Cor. 15.52. last, not because there were any the like before it, but because there shall be none after it: yea because there shall be nothing at all after it: it shall be in the last hour, when an end shall be put to all things in this world.

Fourthly, Our Saviour saith, Joh. 14.3. I will come again and receive you unto my self. Christ shall come back to take his disciples with him, not to abide with them upon earth, but to place them in the mansions of his fathers house, which he went to prepare for them.

Fifthly, This opinion makes the kingdom of [Page 91] God to be of this world, contrary to what our Sa­viour saith: and to consist in meat and drink, con­trary to what the Apostle saith: whereas the chil­dren of the Resurrection shall be equal to the An­gels, Luke 20.36. and the bodie raised shall be, not a natural but a spiritual bodie, 1 Cor. 15.44. and therefore shall not need natural but spiritual refecti­on and delight.

Sixthly, Whereas the Church of God is either militant or triumphant: either subject to temptati­ons and exercised with crosses on earth, or else crowned with victory and glory in heaven: By this opinion the Church for so many years shall be nei­ther, or betwixt both: out of heaven, but reigning on earth without sin, without ordinances. And whereas the Church of God upon earth is a mixt societie of good and bad, and is to continue such till the last, the tares must grow with the wheat till the harvest, which is the end of the world: by this opinion, the wheat shall grow alone without the tares, the just reign without the unjust, long before final consummation.

And Lastly, According to the Millenarians new Creed, the joy of the Saints in Gods presence, and the pleasures at his right hand shall not be for ever­more, or perpetually continued; but be broken a­sunder & intermitted, not with absolute misery, but with happiness so far inferiour to that of heaven, in degree, and in kinde, that it may well be inter­preted and taken for a degree of unhappiness. When [Page 92] Peter saw but a figure or glimpse of the celestial light, he forgat all things, & would never by his good will, have come down from the mount. And can we think, that the glorified Saints, who are perfectly blessed with the sight of Gods face, shall be rewarded with leaving heaven, and coming down to enjoy the tast­less pleasures of an earthly Paradise?

Had you observed your own rule you gave us before, page 11. [Contrary to things plain and fun­damentall, no difficult saying is to be enterpreted, be­cause it would be against the Analogie of Faith,] you would never have suffered your self to be carryed away with such a dream as this is. A very learned Commentatour, who telleth us, he hestowed above thirtie years studie upon the book of the Revelati­on, after all this saith, he found it an easier mat­ter to say what the thousand years are not, than to say what they are, or what is meant by them: and yet there lyes your greatest strength of Chiliasm, Saint Pauls Epistles are hard to be understood: you could once alledge it to weaken the testimonie ta­ken thence. Is not S. Johns Revelation, especially the twentieth Chapter, much more hard? In your first chapter you could spy a mote of Judaism, where there was none: but behold a beam here which you would not see, while you interpret spiritual promi­ses by a temporal kingdome, which is the main and blinding errour of the Jews to this day.

Now I come to consider the Texts of Scripture upon which you ground this opinion.

[Page 93] 1 Cor. 15. 23. Every man shall rise in his own order: and is that onely the just? are they every man? they that are Christs at his coming: he says not then, all men at his coming, as men com­monly say.]

Elsewhere it is said, All men, good and bad shall rise at his coiming. I named before, joh. 5.28. I name now Maith. 25.31. When the Son of man cometh, he shall separate one from another, as the shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats: must they not both be raised before they be separated? 2 Thess. 1. It is righteous to recompence rest to you who are troubled, when the Lord Jesus shall be re­vealed from heaven, taking vengeance of them that know not God. 2 Tim. 4.1. Jesus Christ shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing: if the quick and dead, then the unjust: and if they be jud­ged, they must be raised first.

And secondly, whereas it is said, Every man shall rise in his own order. Unusquisque, Every one ex­tendeth no further than to Christ and his bodie mystical: first Christ the Head, and then those that beleeve in him; not denoting any orderin beleevers, as if one should rise before another; much less doth it extend to unbeleevers, or shew how they shall rise: which is proved further, because ver. 22. To be made alive, as I take it, is never understood but of resurrection to life; to which standeth in oppositi­on, resurrection to condemnation.

[Page 94] Why says Christ, he that doth good shall be rewarded, Luke 14.14 at the resurrection of the just, if the just and un­just shall both rise together? why speaks he of that as a distinct period?

He doth not speak of it as a distinct period of time, but as of a distinct state. Many things may differ very much, which yet may come to pass to­gether. The prisoners that are innocent, or that have obtained a pardon, may call the Assizes, the time of enlargement and delivery; and yet upon the very judgement-day, when they are acquitted and sent home, other malefactours may be sent back to prison and execution.

1 Cor. 15. 24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the king­dome to God the Father. Now plain it is that he shall not deliver up the king­dome then when the just shall rise; for they shall reign with him: wherefore also it is said, He shall judge the quick and the dead, at his coming and in his king­dome, 2 Tim. 4.1. that implyes, that he shall not deliver up the kingdome at his coming, but when he hath reigned with his Saints that here suffered with him. If Death be put down at his coming, [Page 95] where is his reign till that be put down?

You loose your self and all that follow you in your confusions, while you choose rather to lead the ignorant, than to tread in the steps of the learned that have gone before you. There is a twofold kingdome of our Saviour Jesus Christ. The first, Natural, Absolute, and Essential to him as he is God, equal with the Father, with whom he reign­eth from everlasting to everlasting: of this king­dome shall be no end, and as he never received it of any, so shall he never surrender it. The other is a Ministerial or Oeconomical Kingdome, belonging to him as he is Mediatour, having all power given him in heaven and earth, for the good and salvation of his Church, whereof he is the Head. This kingdome consisteth in dispensing his gifts diversly for the edification of his people by his Spirit, Word, Ministerie, and Ordinance, and in subduing Sin, Sa­tan, Death, and all enemies of what kinde soever. This kingdome he hath received of his Father, and shall at last deliver it up. As if a king should give authority and commission to his eldest son, to go and reduce to due obedience a rebellious countrey, lying at some distance: which work being done, the son returneth, renders up his Commission, delivers to his Father the possssion of a peaceable king­dome; yet ceaseth not to be his Fathers son as he was before. The text you bring out of 2 Tim. 4.1. and that of Rom. 8.17. and 2 Tim. 2.11, 12. do [Page 96] speak of the first kinde of kingdome. But that of 1 Cor. 15.24. speaketh of the second kinde of Kingdome, which shall at the end of the world cease; when the Churches warfare shall have an end, and her immediate communion with God shall begin; when the blessed and glorious Trinitie shall be all things in all men, shall supply the want or ab­sence of all things: there shall not be (because there shall be no need of them) Magistrate, Mini­ster, Word, Sacrament, Temple, Sun, or Moon.

Then cometh the end, you tell us that then, or de­inceps should be afterwards: but others think it were better rendred mox, statim; that is, by and by, or presently after. Strange that the Apostle should say, Every one in his own order, and yet finde no order or time for the resurrection of the unjust; if there be, it is not mentioned with the just.]

Answer. Under this Unusquisque, no other are comprehended, but Christ & they that are Christs: the term here reacheth no further: you may finde just and unjust mentioned elswhere: Acts 24.15. I have hope towards God, that there shall be a resurre­ction of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. The twentieth chapter of the Revelation, the fourth and sixth verses do imply two Resurrections, the first, and the last: yet not both of the bodie: but one of the soul from the death of sin and errour du­ring [Page 97] this world: The other of the bodie out of the dust of the earth at the end of this world. These two resurrections are plainly and distinctly laid down by our Saviour in the fifth chapter of S. Johns Gospel; the first in the 25 verse; The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. The second in the 28 and 29 verses, The hour is coming, when all that are in the graves, shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.

It's a Resurrection after they had been beheaded, and therefore not in this life time: now if that be not the last Resurre­ction: then there is a Resurrection follows in which the rest shall rise, ver. 5.12.

I answer, but I neither rehearse nor retort your insulting words. The fourth verse speaketh nei­ther of bodies, nor of resurrection, but of souls onely and expresly, I saw the souls of them that were beheaded, and they lived and reigned; to wit in hea­venly glorie: it is not said, they rose again, or lived again.

But the rest of the dead lived not again.] That is, Satan detained many still in Paganism, and Anti­christianism, who would not rise out of sin and errour.

Until the thousand years were finished.] That is, [Page 98] Not all that time of Satans binding: not that they rose afterward, but they rose not at all: it is not a limitation of the time, but an absolute denial.

This is the first Resurrection.] Which is as if he had said thus; This living again that I speak of, is to be understood of the first Resurrection, which is from the death in sin: and I pray mark it well It is not the same life or kinde of living, that is affirm­ed of those in the fourth verse, and denied of those in the fifth; it is said of those, quod vixerint, that they lived: of these, quod revixerint, that they li­ved again. And betwixt these two there is not to be conceived any Synonymus contradiction, but a di­versitie Metaphorical: Those in the fourth verse lived the life of glorie: those of the fifth verse did not arise or live again to the life of grace. And you unskilfully put together the fifth verse with the twelfth: whereas the fifth speaketh of the first Re­surrection, the twelfth of the second or last, which is of the bodie at the day of Judgement.

Because you say, that though you speak besides the ordinary rode, yet you speak not besides the Scriptures. I would desire your scholars whom you instructed in the Doctrine of the Millenarians, though very obscurely in your Catechisme, and have added now an explication or vindication of it, That they would read over that chapter, which you refer them to, and which hath from the begin­ning of this errour, been accounted the principal place of Scripture giving countenance to such be­lief: [Page 99] that is, the twentieth chapter of the Revela­ion, you say the dead in Christ shall rise first, and reign with him a thousand years, and then the rest shall rise to judgement of condemna­ion, by themselves apart. Now in reading this chapter, they shall finde, that after the thousand years are expired, there followeth, what? The Re­surrection of the ungodly? no. But Satan loosed: Cog and Magog going forth to battel with armies of innumerable souldiers, making war against the Saints, and which are to be devoured with fire from heaven. And whence should these wicked ones be? there were none but the just living upon the earth: for the rest of the dead lived not again, for all that time. If they read on, to the 12 verse, there Saint John seeth the general judgement at the last, when both sea and land give up their dead, they were judged every man, according to their works, good as well as bad, and they were condemned who were not written in the book of life; not those who were not raised at the first Resurrection. And if the chief authority of Scripture for your opinion be so palpably impertinent, and the proof taken thence so weak; how weak is your opinion! So much for the Scriptures which you bring. Now we are to consider the judgement of the ancient orthodox.

To say nothing that Justin Martyr, one of the ancientest of the primitive writers, tells us that in his times all that were in [Page 100] all things orthodox Christians, so be­leeved. Dial. with Tryph. So also Ter­tull. lib. 3. contra Marc. and Lactant. lib. 7. the Reader that hath the books may, if he please, consult them, I study bre­vitie.

You would not name Cerinthus, who was some­what more ancient, though much more heterodox: yet he it was who broached the opinion you speak of: so witnesseth Saint Augustine in his eight book of heresies. He held it indeed in a more gross man­ner: some of the fathers following, refined it from the more feculent parts. Justin Martyr had it from the Jews, with whom he conversed, and his opini­on is meerly Judaical, that Jerusalem shall be built again enlarged and beautified: and that the Prophets and the Patriarchs, the Jews and the Pro­selytes, who were before Christs coming, shall meet there in a joyfull manner: but not that all they who belong to Christ shall be raised with them, as you teach. And secondly, you would not let us know, because you studied brevitie, what authori­ties your authours had for that their belief, though fairly, you give us leave to consult them. Now I finde that the first place brought by the first of your three, is out of Isa. 65.22. As the days of a tree are the days of my people] the meaning where­of is to be gathered from the words next before: the similitude is taken from the matter there spo­ken [Page 101] of: They shall not plant, and another eat: they shall not plant a tree, and then never live to taste of the fruit; but they shall last as long as the tree: so it follows in that verse, They shall long enjoy the work of their hands: as elsewhere, the just is compared to a tree for growth and continuance; so here he is compared to this tree here spoken of. Now your Authour, after the Septuagint readeth thus: As the days of the tree of life so shall the days of my people be. The days of the tree of life, he un­derstood to be a thousand years, which Adam should have lived had he not transgressed the law given. But eating of the other tree, the tree of knowledge, he could never attain to that age, nor any of his posteritie. But that he took to be the age that men should live to, after the first Resur­rection. Thirdly, In those words of his [...] you are to know that [ [...]] is restrictive; he doth not say that all Christians held it, but they that were in all things orthodox, did hold it, because he held it himself, and there­fore held that to be a part of orthodoxy: But some who were orthodox, but not in all things, did not hold it: for you may read a little before that he confisseth, Multos verò qui purae piaeque sunt Christianorum sententiae, hoc non agnoscere, Many pious and right good Christians did not acknow­ledge so much, not regarding what some thought who were called Christians, but were impious A­theists, and blasphemous, [...], every way, or [Page 102] in all things. And that learned writer, who would without so much as pretending any copie, insert a negative, [...], doth make Justin speak to this effect, some blasphemous Atheists are or­thodox Christians, but not in all things. Not those that are in all things impious, but those that are in some things orthodox, must stand in opposition to that limitation, in all things orthodox. Tertullian held this opinion too, but it was when he was not a man of the Church, but had fallen to Montanism, and this was a piece of his Montanism too, as he saith in his third book against Marcion. cap. 24. Novae prophetiae sermo testatur: it was witnessed by the new prophesie: but this we might not know because you were in hast. Lactantius also was of this minde, but his chief proofs, were partly from the Sibyls, with Virgils Eclogue, and partly from the prophesies of the old Testament, which he un­derstood lit [...]rally and marvelously: whereas we be taught by the Apostle Peter, Act. 2.16. and by the Apostle James, Act. 15.15. to apply those pro­phesies to the time of the new Testament, or Christs first, not his second coming.

Now because you give this regard to ancient writers, and the ages foregoing, I will produce one argument of this kinde against your Millenarian belief, and then conclude this chapter: and it is this. That opinion which was generally condemned by the Church of Christ, and was afterwards upheld by none for above the space of a thousand years, is [Page 103] no Catholick doctrine, nor sound belief: But this opinion that Christ Jesus should raise his Saints, and reign with them upon earth for the space of a thousand years, being condemned, was not held by any for above the space of a thousand years: There­fore it is no Catholick doctrine. The Major I hope needeth no proof with you at this time: but because it may seem not safe or good discretion to adventure much upon a Negative; I desire leave to mollifie and interpret the Minor with this request, that I may have libertie to think so, untill you be able to produce some instance to the contrarie. And the space I mean, is that betwixt S. Hierom who oppo­sed it, and the Anabaptists who revived it. And if there be any policie in the Papists coyning the lives of some of our Reformers to discredit their do­ctrine, I am sure it is no credit to any opinion to claim parentage or resuscitation from the Ana­baptists.

TO the Question, What God had done for man? when part of your Answer was, That God had power enough to help him; I noted, that though your Answer was true, yet it seemed to argue thus: [Page 104] He can do it, therefore he hath done it; which I said is not safe. And I suspected a dark insinuation of this, that God had done all he could do to help man be­ing fallen. Hereupon in this Chapter, although you are angrie with me for collecting any such thing, so much as by way of intimation from your words. And although secondly, you charge the ad­verse partie with thinking so; yet in the third place, you own and acknowledge it to be true, what I said might be darkly gathered from your Answer, and you think it must pose me, and all men else to tell, What he could have done more; as if you cared not what you say, so you may revile and contradict. It must be left to the Reader to compare the first of these with the third, and to judge whether there be wrong offered to you, or to your companion, who would not beleeve but that God releeved the whole world, when he had means and opportunity, you needed not to except against me for saying, That in things of this world we walk by sight: and to say, that it seems I walk so, rather then by faith. The A­postle Paul did walk by Faith, and gives this the reason why he did so, because he was absent from the Lord, and saw him not; but in things of this life he did walk by fight. Be pleased therefore to know, that in that saying of the Apostles, 2 Cor. 5.7. We walk by faith, not by sight; the word Faith is taken in a proper and strict meaning, as it stands opposed to sight, and it is called the evidence of things not seen. In things of this present world, [Page 105] we walk by sight, not by faith: not by faith strictly taken, yet by faith largely taken, we may walk in this life, and yet walk by sight too, like as Thomas both saw and beleeved. Augnst. Enchirid. 8. Melius hanc appellamus Fidem, quàm divina eloquia docue­runt, éarum scilicet rerum quae non videntur: It is best to call that by the name of Faith, which is of things not seen, as holy Scripture useth to speak.

You prove that your Adversaries hold, God cannot help the most part of men, because D^r. K. said, He can have no new immanent Act of will: So then that onely which he hath willed be can do,] and (our partie may answer) He had not power enough, for he cannot will anew concerning them, and he had so willed already as to tie his hands.]

You seem to speak both ignorantly and unreve­rently of Gods Attributes. It is no wonder you should be jealous of our liberty, who are afraid lest Gods Decrees should deprive him of his own Li­bertie and Power, as if his hands were tied, if he may not repent, and do what formerly he intended not to do. Libertie is, to be at ones own deter­mination; whereas you make it all one with incon­stancie, or changeableness of purpose and resoluti­on. His hands are tied, who cannot do what he would do, or who is hindred from using the power that he hath: not who will not do what he can do, or that abideth constant to his purpose. Omnisci­ence and Omnipotence, together with all manner of perfection, are an infallible argument or proof, as [Page 106] well as a cause of Unchangeableness. The Romane Lelius intending a good work for the Common­wealth, and the benefit of the poor; when he found that he was over-powred by a contráry faction of the wealthier sort, would move no further in it, but let it fall; and because he did so, he gained the name of Sapiens, and was called afterward Lelius the wise. It is oftentimes a part of wisdome in man, to alter his intention, and enter into new counsels: but such wisdome it is as is accompanied with some weakness or other, as of ignorance, or improvidence, or impotence: all which, and all the like are far re­moved from the infinite majestie of God. If any understanding man upon deliberation, and choise, and good reason resolveth to do or not to do this or that, are his hands now bound from doing the con­trary? It hath pleased God thus far to reveal his minde, that he will have mercie upon whom he will have mercie: and can you now say to any man, ac­cording to the tenour of the doctrine you oppose, God will have no mercy on you; he is not able to help you, he hath otherwise determined? you can­not. But you may bethink your self how you can answer to God, for thus traducing his secret will, with which he hath forbidden you to meddle, ha­viug reserved it to himself, together with the rea­son and account of his judgements, which are as the great depth, and ought to be trembled at: but you should not talk of them in so taunting a manner as you do in this Section.

[Page 107]

See then Reader, if their Divi­nitie give not indeed cause for Epicurcan Atheism, to live as they list, and take their destinie; saying as Seneea Dum fata sinunt vivite l [...]ti— Nec illa Dco virtisse licet Quae nexa suis currunt causis. Sure­ly this is liker an old chip of the Mani­chees or Stoicks fate, then any thing I said, or M. G looks like Marcion.]

You and your Divinitie finde more solace in Se­neca's Hercules furens, or Lucians [...] than in Gods holy word, whatsoever you pretend and promise. Job saith, chap. 23. v. 13. He is in one minde, and who can turn him? what his soul desireth that he doeth: he performeth the thing that is appointed for me. The Apostle Paul saith, Eph. 1.11. He worketh all things according to the power of his own will. And can you say, that God doth not ordinate, dispose, and over-rule the acti­ons of wicked men to his glory? To deny Gods Providence is impious: To call it Stoical fate, is profane, and belongeth to profane noveltie of words. There be many differences betwixt Hea­thens fate or destinie, and divine Providence; you named one even now, though it may be unawares, Necilla Deo vertisse licet. As it differed from their God, or gods, so it over-ruled them, and they stood in aw of it. But God is not subject to his provi­dence; but his Providence is his will, that is, Him­self [Page 108] And here your followers may be pleased to take notice whom you follow: and if they cannot know you by your self, they may know yon by your companions. You follow the pelagians. Al­varez de Auxil.1.1.§.9. Pelagius hanc conclusio­nem inferebat, siasseratur quòd Gratia Dei humana me­rita antecedat, & ex nolentibus volentes faciat, per talem gratiam libertas destruitur humani arbitrii, & necessitas fatalis inducitur. Pelagius reasoned thus, If Gods Grace go before mans works, and of un­willing makes us willing, such Grace destroyeth the libertie of mans will, and bringeth in fatal necessity. Here the Reader may see whom you look like.

Now because you have of your courtesie found out a parallel for our partie, the sect of the stoiks, and have in this your piece minded us of it thrice already; we do accept it, and we do own it, so far as we may; and where we may not, we refuse it, and return it to you again.

First, It is well done of you, that you compare us with those Philosophers that were Dogmatici, that did admit and retain peremptorily some opi­nions, and as resolutely refuse some other: and that you do not liken us to those fects, whose profession consisted either in arguing about the truth on both sides: or in perpetual seeking after it: or in doubting of it: or in contemning of it, as not worth the seeking. Your partie hath for a long time been char­ged to be too much distant from the Stoicks in this: and to incline too far to those that were called Sce­pticks: [Page 109] while they have pleaded, that there is no in­fallible judgement upon earth: and that as we con­demn others, so others condemn us, with such like goodly reasons as these, in behalf of indifferencie in Religion. When Erasmus said, he was not for his part much delighted in positive assertions; Lu­ther told him it was not spoken like a Christian. Non est hoc christiani pectoris non delectari assertioni­bus: Absint à nobis Sceptici & Academici. Adsint velipsis Stoicis his pertinaciores assertores. Tolle asser­tiones & Christianismum tulisti. Of all the sects the Scepticks and the Epicureans were most con­trarie to Christian Religion. Castellio that great Christian, at least as some have lately called him, howbeit he was so violent and fierce against his Ad­versarie, as if he had felt the ground he stood on; yet telleth plainly his own minde, Nondum nota veritas est: The Truth is not yet known; de Qu. Imped. p. 22. So it might be the Truth he oppo­sed for ought he knew. But Socinus, who taking another name put forth those works, saith cloppen­burgh, would assure us, that though we attain not to know the truth thereby, we shall clearly perceive what is not the truth. So that the power he had, was onely for the demonstration of Errour, not for edification in the Truth, as great a Christian as he was.

Secondly, the Stoicks were the most serious and se­vere of all the Philosophers, the most religious and devout, the most patient, just, and sober that were [Page 110] to be found among the heathens. Let Seneca, Epi­ctetus, and M. Antoninus, in what they have left upon record, be witnesses for themselves and some what also for the rest. The which I alledge now, not intending to make any comparison between one partie and another: but to this end onely, to note that their opinion of Destinie and Fatalitie, was no manner of hindrance to pietie and vertue; and to prove that it is a wicked slander to teach or imply, that the Doctrine of Gods Predestination is a prin­ciple breeding profaneness and a vicious life. But to say that it causeth Epicurean Atheism, is a sense­less slander: for Epicurus quite contrarie to Zeno's fate, set up Fortune to be a governess of the world, and held that the gods took no heed to what men did upon earth, but suffered all things to run at ran­dome. And shall that opinion that ascribeth too much to Gods Providence, as if he did all things whatsoever, and necessitated men to sin, as you blasphemously infer; breed in men an opinion, that he doeth nothing at all, and not so much as regard­eth what men do? Shall Christian Stoicism breed Epicurean Atheism? here you did strike and lay about you blindfold. They who were most contra­rie to the Stoicks, and opposite in the extreme, were most swinish and brutish in their lives. Away there­fore with this your slander, I know not whether more shameless or sensless.

Thirdly, the Stoicks were most constant assertours and most strenuous defenders of that which we [Page 111] call Free-will, and they called [...], meaning thereby that power which every man hath over his own minde, and over his own actions. It is therefore another slander, to teach that the doctrine of the divine Decrees doth deprive men of their libertie, and maketh them rather to be stocks then volun­tarie agents. Mans will may be and always is free, as to that root of libertie which is essential to man, though his Person in the mean time, be in slaverie or bondage to sin and vice.

Fourthly, The Stoicks, as they taught fate, so they taught withall confatalia, divers other things attending upon fate: which we call means. Where­by that which is fatal or decreed to come to pass, shall indeed, when due time is, be brought to pass. seneca Natur. Quaest. lib. 2. c. 38. Fatum est ut hic disertus sit; sed si liter as didicerit: ab codem fato con­ [...]inctur ut liter as discat; ideo discet. If it be any mans fate to be a learned man; it is in his fate also that he apply himself to his studie: and therefore he shall do so: and herein they accorded with our Religion. A good Christian never said nor thought; if I be chosen to heaven I shall be saved, whether I live well or ill; because he is taught that God did from the beginning, choose to salvation through sancti­fication of the spirit and belief of the truth, 2 Thess. 2.3. So when the time cometh, he giveth those things that pertain to Godliness as well as life, and calleth to vertue as well as glory, 2 Pet. 1.3. And a rational Christian will never object and cavil, say­ing; [Page 112] If men did know that they be ordained to life eternal, it is the next way to make them neglect godliness and holy conversation: for he that speaks thus, probably speaks against his own conscience which I prove thus: if this man were infallibly and undoubtedly assured by a divine prophesie, that his son being now but young, should hereafter when he shall attain to full ripeness of age, be advanced to some chief place of judicature in the State, or some chief preferment in the Church; he would not thereupon grow negligent in bestowing that cost and culture which is requisite upon that his son: but I am certain he would the more diligently and more vigorously and chearfully take care for his liberal education, that he may be fitted and qualified for such promotion. And give what in­stance you will, you shall without fail finde it true, that the assurance or confidence that any man hath of accomplishing any purpose, end, or design; doth sharpen his endeavour, and encourage him, in pro­secuting those means, by which such a design is usu­ally brought to pass.

This being the doctrine of your pretended or­thodox, and this the nature and consequence of it, I pray you what may we think of Tilenus and his favourable summarie of the Synod in the late Hi­story of the five Articles, 1. pag. 41. giving in for the result of the first Article of the five, that God elected to salvation a very small number of men (without any regard to their faith or obedience what­soever) [Page 113] whereas the Canons, which surely are the Result, speak quite contrary, by name the eight Ca­non of the first Article. Scriptur a unicum praedicat beneplacitum, propositum, & consilium voluntatis Dei, quo nos ab aeterno elegit, & ad gratiam, & ad gloriam, & ad salutem & ad viam salutis: there is not a two­sold election, purpose, or counsel of God, but One; even that whereby he chooseth both to Grace and Glory, to Salvation, and the way that leadeth to Salvation.] Such dealing may be left off, out of honesty, by them who think it is any credit to their cause to use it.

Thus far we are not, neither need we to be asha­med of being, Stoical: if therefore you think good at any time to represent us as Stoicks, let not them, let not us be misreported: for both acknowledge libertie of will: and both acknowledge a necessary connexion of the Decree, and the intervening means: and if you say otherwise, you wrong them and us, and all those that take things on your word.

But besides these particulars now named, the stoicks had a high conceit of the freedome of their will, determinately to good. They imagined that they had power to frame and fashion themselves anew, as it were to the highest degree of vertue, that mans nature is capable of. Seneca Epist. 41. stultum est optare cùm possis à te impetrare. non sunt ad caelum elevandae manus. It is a foolish part for a [Page 114] man to pray for what he may have of himself. And Ep. 31. Exurge modo & [...]e quoque dignum finge Deo. Now here we leave them, and the free-will of theirs; and I leave it to you to consider, who they be, that are nearest of kin to them: and who they be, the face and scope and import of whose doctrine, may be thought to draw nearest to them. So much for Stoicism.

You charge us with Manicheism also. But you tell us not wherein. Those that have reckoned up above twenty heresies that Manes held, have told us that it were an endless thing to reckon them all. If it be that about Free will, that you mean, I did say but little, yet enough for that matter, in my Re­view, pag. 144. And according to what in the next chapter following this you tell me, pag. 58. It is a weakness to bring an argument, or charge, which you know I have answered, and yet to take no no­tice of the answer] as you do not, neither here, nor yet in your 27 chapt. where is the proper place, if any thing you had to say to it.

But I would gladly ask you, whether you know any man, that hath so much impudence, as to say, that S. Augustine was a Manichean: if he were, how comes it to pass, that he was so great an ad­versarie to that sect: if he were not, how come those men to be Manicheans whose Doctrine is the same that his was, as I hope you have so much mo­destie as to acknowledge, what danger they are in to fall into Manicheism, or something that is worse; [Page 115] who denie Gods Providence in the evil of sin, so far as commonly they do denie it, I wish they would timely consider and beware. So much for Mani­cheism.

Verily all my instructions given to seek the Lord, imply that I think, God can do more than he hath done. Though what he could have done more for our re­demption, and for providing salvation for us, than to have given his onely son to death for us, and raise and glorifie him, as he hath done, I suppose, must pose all men, when the time comes, when God will be cleared in his sayings, and in his doings, and that shall be his appeal. Judge between me and my vineyard, what more could have been done &c. and that to little comfort to the censurers of his goodness now, which we desire, toge­ther with his power and wisdome to adore.]

Whether or no, you have and how far, in this chapter, impeached three of Gods most sacred at­tributes, namely. First, his Immutabilitie, while you reckon it for an errour to say, that he cannot will anew. Secondly, his Providence, while you compare it with the Stoicks fate. Thirdly, his Om­nipotence, [Page 116] while you speak as if he could do no more than he hath done for mans salvation, what­soever he is able to do for other things; This leave to others to judge, who are more able to judge and whom it better becometh to give their cen­sure. Of this I am well assured, that without doing wrong, more or less, to these three aforesaid, and divesting God of them so far, as to think him like our selves in things which argue our imperfe­ction, which the fiftieth Psalm reproveth as wickedness: The Remonstrants Divinitie can ne­ver consist, nor hold together while the world standeth. And of these three attributes, I under­stand the second, namely Gods Providence, to comprehend 1. his seeing and foreseeing all things, 2. his upholding or maintaining all things, in their being and actions. 3. his orderly directing and go­verning all things, to his own ends, and according to his own will. Yea, whosoever looketh into their writings and is not partial, will soon perceive what expence they are continually put to, in making good their first breach; what waste and havock they make of their old stock and patrimonie to main­tain the title of their late purchase. And you show your self as bad as the worst of them, in giving such a maim and imperfect enumeration of the mean and helps that God hath afforded to salvation. [H [...] hath given his Son to death, raised him, and glorifie him] and here you stay and tell us, there is n [...] more that could be done, very offensively; yet gi­ving [Page 117] us fairly leave to guess, when at other times, you speak of any further help, or grace, or strength, and divine assistance; whether thereby you mean any thing, or nothing.

The means to life eternal, are of two sorts. The frist called Media immediata, or Media interna: in­ternal and immediate means, by which a Christian is placed and set in the state of regeneration, and life spiritual, as Faith, Repentance, Sanctification, and justification, these are proper to the Church invisible, or mystical bodie of Christ. The second, media mediorum, Or Media externa, outward means tending to produce the former sort of means; as not onely Preaching of the Gospel, sending of Pa­stours, Administration of the Word and Sacra­ments, which are common to the Church visible; but moreover, the Incarnation of Christ, his Passi­on and Resurrection, which are in some sort, and in a sense formerly explained, common to all the world. Now you have omitted the former sort of Means, and mentioned onely this latter and most remote, of Christs Death and Rising again; as if you had rather follow Puccius and Huberus, whom both Papist and Lutheran count Monsters, than conform to the Doctrine of the reformed Churches.

It is a Custom, with you, and with other men of your minde, to deface and obscure Gods Grace, by discourse tending to set forth his Mercy and Good­ness, and Love to all mankinde. But such Mercy [Page 118] it is, by which none are saved: no man is brought to heaven by universal Grace, or that sufficient Help, that is given to all men, You may, for that matter, beleeve your Dutchman in his Diatriba, pag. 17. Divitias illas bonitatis divinae omnes fasti­dirent, nisi abundans misericordia Dei quosdam sib [...] separâsset, quibus efficacem vocationem, ac finalem perseverantiam, dare ab aeterno decrevisset, praeteritis aliis quos demum propter impoenitentiam & insidelita­tem esset damnaturus. The riches of Gods goodness would be despised and abused even by all men, un­less the mercy of God had set apart and chosen some, upon whom he did decree from eternitie to bestow effectual vocation and final perseverance in Grace, while he passed by others, who at last are to be condemned for their impenitence and unbelief.] This Doctrine therefore that you so zealously ob­trude upon the world, is no such friend to the world as may be imagined. For while you plead for some kinde of intention and will that God hath to save all men, you do withall, violently plead against any absolute intention he hath to save any man in parti­cular. Corvinus contr. Molin. cap. 12. §. 25, 26. Admittimus, fieri potuisse, ut nemo in Christum crede­ret: ut nulla sit Ecclesia. We grant it follows for what we teach, that there may be no church at all, and not one true beleever. And it cannot well be other­wise, because the preventing Grace you speak of, (I mean those of your minde) is no other than is given in the first Covenant, whereby God doth [Page 119] teach and instruct, command and forbid, and threat­en and promise. All this was done in the covenant of works, in which yet they continued not, Hebr. 8.9. And if it be not this grace you mean, why should you bring the examples of the Angels in heaven, and Adam in Paradise, to prove the Apo­stasie of Saints, and that true grace may fail? And doubtless should man be left now as he was at the first creation, in manu consilii sui, Ecclus 15. in the hand of his counsel, (a place commonly brought to the present purpose) he must needs be seduced now, who fell when he had a far greater stock of strength wherewithall to resist and stand. And as the grace you plead for, and the onely grace you think, is to be had, is the same by which Adam stood, and notwithstanding which he fell; so is it no other nor better than that grace which is be­stowed upon the reprobates:; for whom your Adver­saries do beleeve, Christ did and doth as much as you hold he did and doth for the elect: both the one and the other being left to their own freedome, and to their own power, of Beleeving, and repent­ing, and Persevering, and then it may readily be de­cided, to which doctrine the world is most beholden. we are on both sides agreed that Christ died for all men, on condition of their faith in him; we say that every man shall be pardoned that beleeveth: and you will not say that any man shall be pardon­ed and saved, whether he beleeve or no. Thus far we differ not. But when it cometh to the questi­on, [Page 120] on, Whether the Son of God did merit for us the grace of Faith, and Regeneration and Perseve­rance; we maintain that he merited these for his elect: and you utterly denie that he merited these for any: and then it may easily be decided, after all the idle and emprie words that are commonly taken up, who they are that most straiten the merits of Christ, and who are most forward to denie the be­nefits of his passion.

But the Text in Isai 5. is often alledged and in­sisted on, and by you twice in this chapter; What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done? Where First, you are to note, that it is an enclosure, it is a vineyard that is spoken of, there fore no Universalist must draw this beyond the bounds of the Church, or make use of it to prove, that all men have sufficient help to salvation. The vineyard of the Lord of hosts, is the house of Is­rael, and he dealeth not so with every nation as he did with that nation.

Secondly, It is granted there could no more be done then was done, for external means and helps exhibited to a visible, national, constituted Church namely, for Doctrine, Sacraments, Prophets, Pa­stours, Miracles, and manifold mercies and encou­ragements. But is there nothing more to be done or could there nothing more be done towards the bringing forth fruit to life eternal? Paul may plant Apollos may water, but God giveth the encrease If it pleased God, whose will is always just, though [Page 121] it may be secret to us, at that time by the ministerie of his servants, and mercies of divers kinds, to plant and to water the Church of Judah and Ieru­salem, and not to give encrease, must it needs be in­deed because he could not do it? yes, at least so we are told. He may be allowed to be able to force an ordinarie natural vineyard to bring forth good grapes, but to a Rational vineyard he could not do it. So that the Question is not now, what God doeth, or hath done for his Church, or lost mankinde; that is a modest inquiry: but it is affirmed broadly, He could not do more than he hath done. I think we may boldly say, A few such propositions as this is, are competent to blast and dcfame any cause that stands in need of such supporters.

We have often heard it affirmed to this purpose, That God could not create Adam in a state free from danger and possibilitie of falling into sin; be­cause this had been to make him unchangeable, which God onely is. Whereas there is nothing can be imagined but God can do it, if it please him to do it, both in heaven and earth, unless such things as do import either impotence in the Creatour, or contra­diction in the creature: but what had there been of the one or the other if by his Grace and Power he had kept the understanding of Adam from being overclouded with errour, his will and affections in perfect and entire obedience? no more than there was in the Angels that fell not, or than there shall be in preserving the elect for ever in heaven, God [Page 122] is onely wise, and onely hath immortality, we may add and immutability: of himself, and inde­pendently, perfectly, and infinitely: yet he hath by Communication, made the Angels and spirits of men wise and immortal; so he might have made Adam unchangeably good, though not unchangea­ble as He himself is. And such Doctrine as you here deliver, and some others teach agreeably here­unto, is no way consonant to Christian belief: for as it doth too plainly denie Gods omnipotence, con­tained in the first Article of our Creed; so doth it also directly [...]run counter to those many promises where God hath said, he will do that which you say he cannot do; as namely that in Ieremy 32.40. I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not de­part from me.

At the end of this chapter, You desire to adore Gods goodness, power, and wisdome.] There be other Attributes of God to be thought on, and to be adored; as his unchangeableness, and his justice, commonly called in Scripture Wrath whereby he punisheth sinners. Which though you named not here, yet you might well have named them in your Catechisme, where I scarce finde any more than these three in that description of God which you set down.

[Page 123]There be few Catechists (if there be any) that speaking of Gods Attributes reckon up so few as these, or that make mention of Goodness, but none of Justice, or some thing equivalent. The Apo­stle, Rom. 11.22. propoundeth the Goodness, and the Severity of God equally to be considered and adored: and Marcion, as Tertullian witnesseth, lib. 1. [...]25. Removit à Deo severitates: considered onely in God his Goodness, and nothing over against it: all Goodness, no Severity. I lay not this opinion to you: but thus much I say, This dealing of yours looks more like Marcion, than any thing your Ad­versaries have said, doth look like the Manichees.

IN the differences that are about the point of U­niversal Redemption, I had some hope that you and I should have been upon a reasonable good ac­cord. But it falls out quite otherwise: for as you tell me, page 60. that I beleeve it because the Church beleeves it [for the veneration of the Church]. So now you will not hold it because I hold it, but you argue diversly against it, page 57. But if you bring arguments against your own opinion, you must an­swer them yourself, because I know no bodie will [Page 124] do it for you, and then the solutions will please you the better, because they are your own.

Sect. 3. In adding that as the reason. why the ransome is not profitable to all men to eternal life, because it is not given to all men to beleeve, he innovates from the Scripture, which no where assignes that as the cause, but mens not receiving the grace of God.

Divers things may concur to one effect: and it may be said, because one of them is wanting, the effect is not produced. A souldier may die of a dan­gerous, but curable wound received in the field, that is the true cause of his death: but may it not be said truly, that he lost his life because he wanted a Chi­rurgeon? and a traytour is executed because he; wanted a pardon. Mans infidelitie is the cause why he receives not benefit by Christs death, but may it not be said withall, that he receives not benefit by it, because it is not given him to beleeve? But I innovate from Scripture. I wish you would once leave your wonted manner of making people think you keep your self more punctually to Scripturd than others do. Let the words of Moses be consi­dered, Deut. 29.4. The Lord hath not given you [...] heart to perceive, and eyes to see. Though great signes and miracles were wrought before their eyes, yet [Page 125] they perceived them not, because God gave them not to perceive. Let those words of our Saviour be considered, giving the reason why his heavenly doctrine was revealed to some, and not to others: it was not onely because some gave better ear then others did; but, So it seemed good in thy sight, Matth. 11.26. and those words of his, Joh. 10.26, You beleeve not, because you are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. Sheep, that is, say you elswhere, meekened and made docible: then look to the 16. verse, Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, the I must bring. Were the Gentiles yet uncalled, meekned and made docible already? No. By sheep therefore are meant elect, such as belonged to God by election, without reference to any sheep-like disposition found in them before they were brought. In Gods counsel they appertained to his flock, according as the elect in Corinth are called his people: Acts 18.10. I have much people in this citie: not with refe­rence to any frames or qualities they had before they were called. And I pray marke those words, [as I said unto you;] but where was that said? that we may the better gather the meaning of what is said here. I will refer you, who would be thought not to swerve the least from what you finde in Scri­ture, to Joh. 8.47. and Joh. 6.36. Ye have seen me and beleeve not: All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me. To come, is to beleeve: and they come whom God doth give, and none else; and they whom God giveth were his. Joh. 17.6. Thine [Page 126] they were, and thou gavest them me. These be the causes you finde in Scripture, no other frames and dispositions why one beleeveth and another not.

Sect. 3. You lay down considerations touching Gods giving Faith; The sum is this.

He giveth Faith to all that hear the word, as well to them that beleeve not, as to theem that beleeve; as he gave the Is­raelites Manna lying before them upon the ground: they might take it if they would; if they would not take it, they might leave it. Mans not having doth not argue Gods not giving. The sluggard cannot say, God gave him not provision, when he might have had it, would he have laboured for it.]

And where is now that malicious and standerous Adversary that dareth to accuse you, as if you taught that Faith is not Gods gift? God gave Faith to Judas, but he would not take it, as he giveth the slothfull man bread that starveth for want of it, be­cause he will not stretch forth his hand to labour. He likewise gave Faith to Peter, as he giveth to the diligent hand that maketh rich. With you, or in your doctrine, To give, is no more than to offer: but in good, common, and ordinary sense, That which is offered may be rejected: but that which [Page 127] is not received, cannot be said to be given. And still you presuppose that man hath always spiritual life, and can come when he is called, and can take what is tendred to him, and can eat what is set be­fore him: Whereas if you did not innovate from Scripture, you might learn and teach others, How Faith which is said to be Gods gift, is the chief part of that spiritual life by which a Christian liveth: and that very hand by which he receiveth and layeth hold of Gods promises: and that appetite of the soul, by which it longeth after the heavenly bread. And untill this be obtained, all that is said or done, or propounded by way of Object to mans heart, is no other than appositiones epularum circumpositae se­pulchro, as messes of meat set upon a grave, or a banquet that is offered to an idol, that can neither eat nor smell. I am sure you innovate and in­vert the Apostles words, who saith thus; It is not of him that willeth, but of God that sheweth mercy. But you say to this effect, That this man is saved, and not another, it is not of God that sheweth mercie, for he sheweth mercie to all: but it is of man that willeth and accepteth his mercie. It is not of God that giveth, but of man that taketh: for God gi­veth to all that will take. And when the Apostle Paul saith thus to Timothy, [if God peradventure will give them repentance] his meaning must be but this: If it pleaseth God to propound to their minds such reasons and arguments, that would pre­vail with those that are disposed as they ought to [Page 128] be. A thing which Timothy himself might do well enough. But when he saith, Sifortè if peadven­ture, he intendeth some singular and rare matter, and of great difficulty, scarce to be hoped for; not a common gift, vouchsafed to all that hear and are outwardly called.

It is well said it is given to you to be­leeve or suffer: but it follows not, that God either did not, or would not have gi­ven the same to others, in the serious listening to him: in the means and Spi­rits concomitancie therewith given. All that come are drawn, it follows not, all that are drawn come.]

But who giveth the serious listening you speak of? Who giveth eyes to see, and ears to hear, and a heart to perceive? Whatsoever your concessions be, or how far soever you yeeld, you take care not to endanger nor part with your beloved Principle though never so rotten. It must be of man that willeth, and of man that listeneth, why one belee­veth, and another not.

The Spirits concomitancy therewith given] they should speak of this, that hold any such thing needfull, beside the word for producing faith, but you draw so deep of the Socinian lees, as to count them breeders of Fanaticks that hold it. I deny not [Page 129] but there is a working of the spirit of God, which causeth some degree of illumination and convicti­on, in the hearts of the hearers ordinarily, but not universally: for some hear and understand not, their hearts being like the high way, the seed that is sowen, the wicked one catcheth away, and it taketh no manner of place at all: and in the Acts of the Apostles, some beleeved, others doubted, a third sort mocked. But though there be ordinarily such a working of the spirit accompanying the word, yet I utterly denie that this is always accom­panied with that saving and quickning power or ef­ficacie which causeth true faith, and is sufficient to salvation; for it were sufficient and universal, if it were able to remove mans rebellious disposition, and were granted to all, then all men would be saved. For what should hinder?

Not all that are drawn come] whether that be so or no, may soon be known by considering other expressions of the same thing, in that place, John 6.37. All that the Father giveth shall come. and v. 65. No man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father. and v. 45. Every man that hath heard and learned, cometh, and v. 44. No man can come except the Father draw him. To give, and to draw, and to teach, are of the same im­port. All that are given, and all that are taught, and likewise all that are drawn, do come.

Your Masters have thought that they eluded this word of Drawing, and fairly came off, from all [Page 130] force of argument from thence, when they found out that it was to be interpreted by teaching, in the very next verse following, they shall be all taught of God: not remembring that Gods teaching is not like mens: and that none teacheth like him. No; nor so much as considering, how that it follows in that very verse, Every man that hath heard and learned cometh. Which, as it wholly overthroweth that evasion of theirs, manifestly also sheweth the falshood, and absurditie of what you here say, not all that are drawn, come.

In your 8 Section, you yield that Gods Grace doth remove infidelitie, but not give faith, unless thus explicated ‘["Faith or power to beleeve]’ this I take to be all one with what some others say, that He doth not give credere, but onely posse crede­re, and for this you quote, Hos. 11.4. I did take off the yoke on their jaws and laid meat before them. This is spoken of the civil state of the Israelites: and when you have made it appear that the yoke there mentioned is to be taken for a muzzel, you are driven to betake your self to a vein of allegori­zing, for proof of your opinion, when it is well known that many plain and direct places prove the contrary. Your other texts shew what God doth outwardly to a Nation or Church visible: but do not shew, that he doth no more than so, in the con­version of a particular person.

[Page 131] Sect. 9. Therefore he may think with himself, if I be of the former, I must be brought in, take what course I will; and if of the other, I must perish take the best course I can. Therefore I had as good take the present good things, while I may have them, and live as I list.]

He must needs be a man absurd and unreasona­ble, and for the time given over of God, that shall in earnest speak in his heart after this manner. And if ever he return to his right wits, he will begin thus rather to argue with himself: If God hath chosen me to be a Saint in heaven, and doth intend to bring me to glory; then I must out of all doubt be­leeve, and repent, and amend my ways, and conti­nue in Gods holy laws to my lives end, knowing that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. And although the book of election be now closed up, and a seal set upon it; yet there is an inscription upon that seal, which I can easily see and read, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But if God doth intend to condemn me to Death eternal, it will be for my wickedness, and for my rebellion, and for being so graceless as to argue thus scornfully against Gods mercie, and the dutie that I ow to him. I will therefore with my utmost diligence apply my self to the faith and fear of his most sacred name, and take heed while I live of such desperate and blasphemous thoughts, know­ing [Page 132] they proceed from none but the Devil, who out of his endless malice to God, and envie towards me, would perswade me to be a more sot in things con­cerning life eternal, than he dareth to perswade me to be, in matters of this life and bodily health: For if I knew assuredly, that God did now purpose to prolong my life, to such a term of years, it were too gross a temptation to be put upon me, to make me beleeve, that it were well done of me, henceforth to cast off all care of providing food and raiment, and avoiding deadly dangers; and not to call for a boat when I am to pass over the water; and when I go into the field to battel, to leave my armour be­hinde me. In those things therefore that far more nearly concern me, I will never be so vile an hypo­crite, or in effect, so forlorn an atheist, as to discourse and conclude in such a sort upon supposal of Gods foreknowledge and determination, whatsoever some have told me, I may do.

THe Doctrine maintained by you in this chap­ter, is; That although all sins whatsoever springing from the sin of Adam be forgiven as of due debt, through Gods mercie, and the sacrifice of [Page 133] his Son; Nevertheless, by the manifestation of this his Death and Sacrifice, and by occasion of this his goodness made known to men, all their actual sins become new debts, because they are done against Gods Grace and Truth shining upon all men. In defence and explication of this detestable Doctrine. You afford us a twofold distinction: the first is this, such sinning as doth arise from force of natural corruption, is not charged upon men, but onely sinning voluntarily and unnecessitatedly against the Truth striving to reclaim them, pag. 63. The second distinction is so fine, and of so great subtili­ty, that it flies quite away from all good sense. You distinguish of sins considered before, or without Christs coming, from sins considered as before, or without his coming, and you ask pag. 68. if I cannot so abstract, as to consider them, as in the root, and according to what they had onely by virtue of that from what they are as against Grace vouchsafed.]

But what say you in the mean time to those sins, that are both natural, or in some sort necessitated by corruption of nature, and voluntarie too, as many sins, if not the greatest part of them, are? Shall they be forgiven as natural, and punished as volun­tary? Consider sins, as before, or without Christs coming: they would yet have been against light, the light of nature: and should not they have been charged upon any man, because they were not a­gainst the light of grace, or the Gospel? And [Page 134] know you not, that to love darkness more than light, resisting of the truth, and hatred to be re­formed, and offending against mercy and goodness, are all of them as necessarily derived from the root you speak of, and are as truly parts and products of our hereditary pravitie, as any sins are whatsoever you can name?

The chief place of Scripture you alledge, is Joh. 15.22, 24. If I had not come, they had not had sin, it had not been charged upon them.] You make a twofold coming of Christ, of this sort: One as he came spiritually in his light and truth into the world in all ages, upon the account of his death un­dertaken, pag. 65. the second, when he came in mans nature to suffer that death. It is to your pur­pose that you should mean the first. But that can­not be meant, because it is said, If I had not come and spoken: and, If I had not come and done the works that none ever did: of his second coming therefore it must be meant. Now let me ask, Had Christs capital enemies no sins to be charged upon them before Christ came, or unless he had come? You have had some dealing with the people called the Quakers: Did ever any of them take a text of Scripture more crudely than you do this? Was there no guilt of sin laid to the Nation, upon killing of the Prophets or messengers sent beforehand, till the Son himself came? Doubtless there was a stock of sin charged upon them before, though now it came to be compleated, and filled up in [Page 135] measure. It is wonder you would not compare this with other places, which might soon have shewed you how soul your errour was. Or why would you not view the context, or that which went before? v. 20. If they have persecuted me; and v. 24. You have both seen and hated me. It was the kinde of sin; Persecution and hatred: and it was the degree of the sin, it was hatred without a cause: it was ma­lice against cause to the contrary; against so many good deeds, convincing and obliging. That was the sin which they had not been guilty of, if Christ had not come.

You bring another text, Sect. the last, out of Rom. 5.14. where you say the Apostle implies a di­stinction answerable to what you make. Some sins are after the similitude of Adams transgression, namely, against light, knowledge, and engage­ment, or with free unnecessitated consent: Other sins are not so. Now man being fallen and re­stored again, sinneth as Adam did upon a new engagement by Christs death against Gods goodness, and some libertie brought into their wills.] Answ. Adams sin was against a posi­tive and express law: others, till Moses came, sin­ned against the law of nature written in their hearts. The Apostle speaks nothing of light, nor of libertie, nor engagement; and dare you set on soot such a pestiferous opinion as you do, because the Apostle implies something answerable, which yet he doth not? Where doth he so much as obscure­ly [Page 136] or implicitely teach, that all men from the be­ginning were brought to a new engagement, new light, and new libertie in their wills? Or where doth he say, that some sins are forgiven of due debt, and some not but upon Repentance?

Your discourse in the other Sections is so frivo­lous, that I must not bestow much time upon it. I will consider that place which you bring in your 10. Section, the which (as it seemeth) you esteem alone sufficient to uphold the Universalists cause, and to prove the necessitie of teaching their do­ctrine, as without which there is no hope of any good to be done upon any man in the world by preaching of the Gospel. The words are, 2 Cor. 5.14, 15. The love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they which live, should not live unto themselves, but unto him. But I suppose you would not have spent so great a part of the fourth chapter of your Essayes, in your boister­ous and uncharitable deductions from that place, if you had bestowed a little time rightly to understand it. Be pleased therefore calmly to take notice: First, that the Redemption there spoken of, is not that universal Redemption which you so much in­sist upon, but that which is efficacious and actually applied, so that a Christian thereby is regenerated, justifyed, and sanctifyed; and, Those for whom Christ is said to have died, had been dead, and were now alive; and ought therefore in all good reason, [Page 137] not to live to themselves, but to him that died for them. The like exhortation and upon the same ground, we finde Rom. 14.9. Christ died that he might be the Lord of the living, and that they might live to him: and 1 Pet. 4.1, 2. forasmuch as Christ hath suffered for us, let us cease from sin; and live the rest of our time to the will of God. And if it be such a Redemption as is actually salu­tiferous, and bringeth with it a new life; and if it be such a Redemption of which Sanctification is a consequent, as clearly it is by the Apostles discourse, and by parallel places, then it cannot be that which is called Universal. This is further confirmed, because

Secondly, The love of Christ there spoken of, is not in probabilitie to be taken actively, for that love wherewithall Christ loveth us; but pas­sively, for that whereby we love Christ. To this sense the scope of his words there do best sute, as even they seem to acknowledge who interpret it o­therwise. He would not have them to imagine, that what he spake of the Dignitie of his Ministerie, tended to his own commendation, or that such car­nal end or designe had any place in him: If we be besides our selves, as you may think we are, it is for Gods sake, whom we seek and serve: The love we bear to him compelleth us to do what we do, whom alone we desire to know, and no man else, and no­thing else. And if it be the love active that is there spoken of (for I will not much contend with you [Page 138] about it) then we are to know there is a twofold love that God beareth to man (as well as a twofold Redemption) A general love spoken of Joh. 6. So God loved the world: and a particular or special love, most commonly understood where his love is spo­ken of. Rom. 5.8, 9. Love to the justified, and those that shall be saved. 1. Joh. 4.19. Love that causeth us to love him again: we loved him because he first loved us: & such must that love be that con­straineth, and that causeth extasie, that setteth us as it were besides our selves: and is not likely to be that which is born towards all mankinde, whatsoe­ver in right reason it ought to be.

And thirdly, whereas you say that the Apostles were carried out to all their service for Christ, because of the love he bare to all men, as if they would not have been half so zealous in preaching the Gospel to all men, if they had not thought all men had been alike chosen without difference, and no man had been denied the gift of Faith; it is a very weak phansie of yours. What they did, was principally done for the elect people of God: for his Bodies sake which is the Church, Col. 2.24. for the Elects sake, 2 Tim. 2.10. As for the rest, they knew and testified, and held themselves contented, that they were unto God a sweet savour even of death unto death, in them that perish. The love they bare to Christ, did carrie them on to do the work appointed them, leaving unto God the suc­cess of their work, and unto his secret counsels: and [Page 139] though they might labour in vain, and spend their strength for nought, yet were they well assured that their judgement was with the Lord, and their work with their God.

Fourthly, suppose that not onely Ministers and Preachers of the word did beleeve it, but they could moreover make all their hearers beleeve it firmly, that Christ died for all without any diffe­rence, and loved them all, not preferring one before another, would it work much upon the disobedi­ent? I think not. If you go about to wash a raw brick, you do nought but turn it all to mire; tell an obstinate and hardned sinner of mercie that is in store for him, and the Gospel and bloud of Christ, he will but turn this grace into wantonness, and be so much the more dissolute. You think all the world might be brought home to God by preach­ing his love to them, and telling men of his good­ness and kindness to sinners. But have you never known many undutifull children, who have yet been tenderly beloved of their parents, and have known so much too? Absolom was not ignorant how dear­ly his Father affected him, and desired his good a­bove any thing, yet still he continued an ungracious rebell. And what if he had made him partaker, yea wholly possessour of his Kingdome & Govern­ment in his life time? The Chronicles of after A­ges have recorded what have come to pass in like case, and may teach us to conjecture, whether that would have brought him to any further sense of his [Page 140] dutie; who knows not how little good is done by doing good to ill natures? Kindness will never al­ter kinde; nor will an ill-disposed man be gained to the friendship of another, whom he hates through a natural antipathy, by courtesies, and entreaties, and significations of good will towards him. Every mans experience can witness so much, and how little policie it is to heap benefits upon the ungratefull, out of hope to win them. Fit deterior qui accipit, saith Cicero. Men are the worse for endearments and obligations: Understand it of those that are bad and ill-affected of themselves, or to such an one. But so are all men naturally to the most righ­teous God: and it is not common kindness, nor or­dinarie knowledge of his love, that will reclaim them.

Lastly, It may reasonably be demanded of you, how it comes to pass that this general love ot God towards men, should do so much with them, and prevail so far with them; and yet his special love should do so littles; yea, should rather be prejudicial to holiness. So those of your partie use to crie out, that absolute election, special and eternal love, do cause men ro cast off all care of their salvation, and of walking in the way that leadeth to life, and do serve onely to make men proud and haughtie. And in your Funeral Sermon, 1648. The Pha­risee, say you, thought he could not have been so good as he was, if God had not had special and eternal love and favour towards him.] But [Page 141] will not a special love, and that considered compa­ratiuely too, do as much as the general love? it en­flamed Davids zeal, that he was chosen and prefer­red before Saul, 2 Sam. 6.21. And arguments are often brought to move the Israelites to obedience, from the favour and good will that God did bear to­wards them, more then towards any other nation. He that beleeveth the special love, beleeveth the general also, and receiveth as much benefit from the appearance of Gods love declared in the Go­spel, as any others do: for what is there that should any way hinder them?

Now because you think that you must main­tain, some sins are forgiven absolutely, as of due debt, because otherwise universal Redemption, pre­supposeth two payments of the same debt, one from the Saviour of the world, another from the person impenitent or unbeleeving, pag. 61. It is unjust to require two payments of the same debt.] I de­sire your attention to what I shall now say. The work of the Son of God in behalf of lost mankinde is set forth to us diversly; under the term and like­ness of Reconciliation, or Atonement of parties that are at distance: of a Sacrifice offered to propi­tiate the Deitie: of Adoption, whereby not one­ly pardon for malefactours, but further, the state of sons and heirs is procured: of Redemption, whereby captives are ransomed by some price paid: [Page 142] of one that is punished in anothers stead, or for an­others fault, or that doth satisfie or discharge the debt, which some other oweth. These particulars, with divers others, being of a different nature one from another; cannot all of them, perfectly agree to the work of mans salvation, that Jesus Christ wrought. With men ordinarily, there is a numeri­cal punishment, applyed to a numerical or individual fault. But when Christ was smitten for our sins, the punishment was one, but of infinite value, ap­plicable to the sins of all men, were there more than there are, or ever will be. In this similitude there­fore, the respect of punishing the same fault twice, must be forborn: so must that also, touching a dou­ble payment of the same debt. But take the other si­militudes; Reconciliation there may be, and Adop­tion there may be, which may come to nothing for want of the condition: and a general ransom may be many ways defective, as to some persons: and a Sacrifice may be offered, and the God not appeased; according as the Latines make a difference betwixt Sacrificare and Litare: to your argument therefore I answer, when the payment or satisfaction is abso­lute, as to all effects, then there is no other satis­faction to be expected.

But when it is absolute as to some effect, and conditional, as to some other; then it is neither against reason, nor justice, nor custome, but that a payment, pardon or satisfaction may be twofold. The General ransome is absolute thus far, that Gods [Page 143] justice or wrath is appeasable. All sins are venial, and way made for pardon, the Covenant of works notwithstanding. But thus far it is conditional, that it shall not be actually beneficial for any to life eter­nal; but according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace, namely, upon Repentance and Belief in the Son of God. I gave you the similitude of a general pardon granted from the King: to which you say not one word to the purpose, but most im­pertinently betake your self to the point of Free­will, in the fourth Section of your former chapter. And as for the injustice you speak of, I answer, had we our selves of our own, paid these our debts: or had our Suretie and Redeemer paid them and satis­fied for them so, as that all men should by vertue of his sacrifice have been instantly discharged from all their sins, and admitted to possession of life, no condition whatsoever intervening: or had Almigh­ty God made any such promise or agreement, with his son our Saviour, to bestow faith and repentance upon all those, for whom he was to lay down his life: in any of these cases, it had not been just to demand a second payment. But inasmuch as God himself did freely procure the ransome and satis­faction for our sins; It was free for him to annex thereto, what conditions it pleased him. There is therefore no wrong done to such persons as are pu­nished for their sins, after the price of their ran­some is accepted, because they did neither pay that ransome, nor perform the condition required.

Sect. 1. & 2. You needed not to have troubled your self, to finde out some that have spoken as you did. I implyed so much, and yet thought you blameworthy, not them; because you were busied about an ill work. Moreover, Of all things, Definitions ought to be deliberate and well weighed, and it is one thing how some learned writers may chance sometime to speak, while they are discoursing before grown and well grounded Christians; another thing what words you use in de­livering the first principles to new beginners: who if they be not instituted very warily may fall into some heresie, the name whereof they never yet heard. For as that which deceived Nestorius, was the want of good attending and taking heed to the first beginning of the union or combination betwixt God and man; so likewise to treat of the Incarna­tion, in such a manner that children may think there are not onely two Natures in Christ, but two Per­sons, may breed in them the same opinion that Ne­storius held.

[Page 145]

It is Beza's one of his own Ma­sters; from him I received the notion, and gave both terms, chose or purposed to choose.]

When two several men shall do, or shall say the very same thing, it comes to be quite another thing.

His Elegit, and Decrevit eligere, differ not much. But they are not all one with yours: if your Do­ctrine and Definition of Election, be the same with his; then may his authoritie make for you: his meaning is, that from eternitie he purposed to choose us when we should come to be fallen in A­dam, and not when we come indeed to beleeve: or howsoever it be, he seemeth to take Election there for a transient action, whereas others take it for an immanent. You might take the term from Beza, but the sense you had from your other Masters. And who was their Master? Socinus Prelect. 13. pag. 63. Eligendi verbum declarat cligendi decretum. paulus affirmare non dubitat Deum suosjam glorifi­casse. Here you have your Doctrine and your proof too. How you make it good, that none are said to be Elected before they be called, falleth to the Readers share to consider, and to see what regard you give to testimonies of Scripture.

That the Elect signifie, not chosen, but choice, I know not who says.]

[Page 146] The evasion is so common, to make Elect and Reprobate to be Adjectives and not Participles, and to denote a Qualitie in man, no Act in God; that it is much you have not taken notice of it. I will now name one of your Masters, whom you di­vers times have alledged here: Hemingius de Grat. univ. pag. 25. Primo hoc tenendum est quod Electus, non sit Participium, ut quidam falsò putant, sed nomen habitus seu formae haercntis in anima, hominis creden­tis. But though I have helped you to the notion, yet that you may not think it worth your taking notice of, to your purpose, I pray observe that in all reason, Elegit nos, containeth nos electos, if he chose us, we are chosen. and 1 Pet. 2.4. Disallowed of men, à Deo autem electum, but chosen of God, it must needs have the force of a Participle; and though it be but an Adjective verbal, yet hath it the signification passive, as [...] which I hope they will give us leave, to render by a Participle, called, until they can tell us how we may render it other­wise. But were it but a Substantive, it were suffi­cient to make good the Doctrine, that you oppose. Rom. 11.7. Electio consecuta est: the Election hath obtained. The rest were hardened: where, as I think, you must interpret, the election, by the elected, by vertue of the opposition to c [...]eteri, the rest, in the other member of the verse. Another of your Ma­sters Huberus, a down-right Universalist, howsoe­ver he seems to overlook all inferiour learning and cries out upon Grammaticuli & Discipuli Libanii, & [Page 147] Pagana Grammatica; is yet content to stoop to so low game, as to tell us, that eligere, in the Etymo­ligie of it, is extrahere ex miseria omne humanum ge­nus: not to choose, but onely to take out, or draw out. Thus you may say that Jeremie was elected out of the Dungeon, and Joseph out of the pit, as the Midianites passed by. I think it was wisely done of him, that drove away all the true birds out of sight, when he had a minde to set forth, and to commend his deformed counterfeits. And here pre­sently you observe the Grammatical case, to prove that God chooseth men when they beleeve. 1 Pet. 1.2. chosen in the sanctification of Spirit: and yet you cannot but know that those who have very good skill in the Greek, turn it, to sanctification; others into, or unto sanctification. You may com­pare it with Ephes. 1.4. he hath chosen us that we should be holy, or to be holy: not, being holy, or because we were holy: And inasmuch as S. Peter in those words mentioneth all the persons in the Trinitie, ascribing Election to God the Father, Re­demption to the Son, and Sanctification to the ho­ly Ghost, it is best to understand these three works apart, and not to make Election and Sanctification all one, as you would do.

Here be three things further to be considered in this chapter.

• 1. Whether our Saviour Christ be chosen first.
• 2. Whether he be chosen to salvation.
• 3. Whether he alone be personally chosen.

[Page 148] To the first of these, your words are Sect. 4. He faults me for beginning with Christ in the Do­ctrine of Election; a great offence to them that lay him by therein, and give him not the Preemi­nence in all things; could not he see that to be the Apostles method, he chose us in him, then not, but with respect to him, as his chosen ones, see­ing we receive from him and his fulness, and grace for grace.]

Untill you be able to shew, out of the very words of the pretended Orthodox, not out of Tilenus and Arcana Dogmatum, that they lay aside Christ in the Doctrine of Election, you must give me leave to think that these words are a great slander: and withall, a great argument, that neither you nor yours are able to speak any thing, against your ad­versaries opinion, because you will not represent it as it is, but must alter it, and pervert it, and make it quite another thing, before you dare to meddle with it. For their constant Doctrine is, That the Decree of Election to life doth include the means by which it is brought to pass; the first and chief whereof, is Christ Jesus the Redeemer. And although the end, and the means towards it, be thought upon toge­ther by every wise agent at the same time, yet the intention of the end, doth precede the means, in nature, or as others call it, in signo rationis, in reason; because the end propounded, is the true Reason, and the true Cause, why the Means are such as they are. When you described Election, to be the choise [Page 149] of the man Christ, to be united with the Word, I told you it was an innovation, and I should think it [...]o, till I knew some one or other that herein went before you. In stead of naming any such, you tell me of some, that lay aside Christ in the doctrine of election. I send you now a kinde of second chal­lenge, to name them that do so: and now if you can, you may answer both the challenges together.

But then, say you, Christ should not have the preeminence in all things.] To this I answer, That our Saviour Christ is not now in this inquirie, to be considered absolutely as the second person of the Trinitie, coequal with the Father, God blessed for ever: But as he was incarnate, and did take up­on him mans nature in the fulness of time, and suf­fered. As he is the most high God and Creatour of us and all things, so we and all things are for him, Coloss. 1.16. yet though all things were made by him, and for him; nevertheless, as it is in the Ni­cene Creed, For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and was incarnate. His incarnati­on was for the sake of his Passion: therefore did he take upon him our flesh, that he might be capa­ble of so mean an office, as to die for us, Hebr. 2.14. And can you think that both these, his Incarnation and his Passion, with other parts of his mediation, were in nature or reason first thought upon, as be­ing the end why the Church was? If our Saviour Christ must have the preeminence in all things, as you mean, even of Gods purpose in sending him, [Page 150] then man was to be saved that Christ might come. The Son of God is rightly preferred before us and all creatures: yet is not every thing that he did, or suffered, so far to be preferred before mans benefit, but that mans salvation, may as the end be preferred in the reason or order of causalitie, before that acti­on or passion of his. He was foreordained of God for our Redemption, 1 Pet. 1.19, 20. And he is to be considered as the instrumental cause by which we are brought to life, as the chosen servant of God, by whom his will and pleasure doth prosper and take effect, Isa. 53. v. 10, 11. You seem to fear, that inasmuch as the end is more honourable and valuable than the means, if we be the end why Christ was chosen to be Gods servant, then we should be more honourable than Christ is. But you are mistaken; for that rule doth hold onely in those means, which having no absolute goodness or worth of their own, are onely valuable by that relation which they bear unto their ends: otherwise it hold­eth not: for the Angels are more worthy and ho­nourable then men, yet are sent forth as ministring spirits for the good of men. The Angels are supe­riour to men, yet may mans benefit be above, and preferred before some actions ministeriall of the Angels. The King may condescend to do some action for his meanest subject; yea to signe a pardon for a rebellious subject, or a traytour; in which case he valueth the life of his subject before the setting to his own hand or seal, otherwise he would not do [Page 151] it: And yet, I hope, the King hath still the pree­minence in all things.

There is no just cause of your distast in this mat­ter, nor of any mans dissent, if it be well consider­ed, how they who teach, that the end or fruit of Christs Incarnation, is the salvation of Gods elect, not onely in general but in particular; for whose re­spect and benefit it was that Christ was sent; do withall readily acknowledge, that the end or fruit of mans salvation is, that Christ may have the honour of it, and that it may be as the Apostle faith, Eph. 1.12. To the praise of his glory. So that our Saviour is no way disparaged or undervalued, but still and ever, Of him, and To him are all things.

Many of them who seem to honour Christ more than others do, in beginning with him, and making him the foundation of election, do indeed most dis­honour him; for they make him a foundation pos­sibly without any building upon it: a head, possibly without any bodie: a King without any subjects. For while we suppose all means necessarie to salva­tion afforded to all men, it may be according to what they teach, that not one shall beleeve, or if he do, he may fall away.

While you tell us, That Christ having the pre­eminence in all things, is worthy to have it in ele­ction too, page 71. I pray take heed lest it be in­deed you that would have the preeminence, and that while you seem to honour Christ, you do not in­deed honour your self, your own power and natural [Page 152] abilities. If your Adversaries doctrine prevail, then all the glorie redounds to God and his grace. But if God doth choose his Son Jesus Christ, & send him into the world, and then chooseth all those that beleeve in him, (if any there be that will beleeve in him, for all may if they will) then if you be cho­sen, it is because you beleeve: you are worthy and fit to be chosen, because you are in Christ, and then you may thank your self, and not say with the Pha­risee, one of the pretended Orthodox, God I thank thee, I am not as other men are.

If he chose us in him, then not but with respect to him.

It is granted [not without respect to him] if you mean not without respect had to Christs Passion, by which our Redemption is wrought, and our electi­on is completed in the execution of it. But it is de­nied if you mean thus: not without respect to him as the cause why we were elected. For though the means be the cause of producing the effect; yet are they not the cause why the effect is determined, and resolved upon to be produced. For example: God destinated food and medicine to be the means to maintain mans corporal life and health: so that food and medicine are in some sort, the cause of mans life and health, yet are they not the cause why God was moved to give to man life and health [Page 153]

The election of his Church (well-said, that's not of uncalled.)

They may be the Church of God in his counsel of election, before they be his called and gathered Church. Matth. 1.21. He shall save his people from their sins. Ephes. 5.25. Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctifie it. Christ had his people as yet uncalled, and a Church as yet unsanctified.

I named two places to prove that the love of God did precede the sending, or purpose of sending his Son. The first, So God loved the world, that he gave his Son: the other, God loved us and sent his Son. To this you say, The Church and the world are not all one; and are resolved not to pity me, because I am not humble, but to laugh at me that I may be ashamed.] It shall not trouble me which of the two liketh you best, either the one or the other: or you may, if it please you, forbear both the one and the other, and be sober. I named two places, the latter of them you wholly omitted, for had you mentioned that, there had been no co­lour for your vain and swelling words, for it is plain by the Apostles discourse, 1 Joh. 4. when he said he loved us, he meant not the world but the Church. And the former place of the two I explicated, to prevent all cavil, if it might have been, in these words, [Whether it were Gods love to mankinde in the general, or in special to the elect, his love doth go before his purpose to send his Son,] where you could [Page 154] not but see, that I foresaw what might be objected from the ambiguitie and different acception of the word world: for take it how you will, my argument held firm to my purpose; and the second place is without exception.

Page 75. Zanchy another of his own partie will condemn him, for making ele­ction before the purpose of sending Christ.]

Against his authoritie I set Peter Martyrs, Loc. Com. pag. 457. Christus primum & praecipuum Prae­destinationis effectum est.D.Prideaux Fascic. pag. 138. Includitur christus ut Caput mediorum in exe­quendo. Wollebius, Chr. Th. 1.4. Christus ut Media­tor, est electionis exequendae medium. Alvarez De Incarn. verb. Div. pag. 451 In genere causae objecti­vae, priùs nostro modo intelligendi voluit Deus salvare homines, quam mittere salvatorem, quia Incarnatio verbi fuit volita in remedium peccati. Bannes tom. 1. pag. 297. Unio hypostatica est effectus praedestina­tionis totius corporis mystici, That is, That God did send his Son into the world, did proceed from divine predestination, as the chief part of the means to accomplish it.

Pag. 75. That the Apostle calleth election the foundation of God, 2 Tim. [Page 155] 2.19. is one of the Elders traditions: it's but a private interpretation so to take it, no other Scripture says it: but to say, Christ is the foundation, as laid in the Apo­stles doctrine, which is not shaken by mans falling off, is more agreeable to Sc [...]i­ture, and to the Apostles scope in that place.]

It is the Tradition of your Elders also. Hagu [...]-Remonstrants, pag. 112. Edit. Bert. Fundamentum Electionis. Esto. They did grant, that the founda­tion there spoken of, is Election. So in this, as in many other things you have outgone your masters. See that it be for the better: for some wax worse, as you are admonished a little before at the 16 verse of that chapter, and at the 13 verse of the next.

You go on resolutely, and say, It is but a private interpretation. But what mean you when you say so [...] a private interpretation in the place of S. Peter, is propria expositio, a mans own interpretation, as the word is taken elswhere, as Acts 1.25. Judas went to his own place: and Jude v. 6. the angels left their own habitation. And when you say, Christ is the foundation, that is indeed your own interpretation: for it is no mans else that I know. Those Sectaries who would anull all duties, upon pretence to ma­gnifie Christ and his grace, are wont to say, that the New Creature, and the New man, are to be meant of Christ: and by Love, 1 Cor. 13. and the armour [Page 156] mentioned Ephes. 6. Christ is meant: and good works, say they, are not as they are commonly thought to be, the way to glory, because Christ is the way. And as you may remember, in one of your published discourses, to that text of Psal. 119. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, alledged to prove perfection in this life, you give this answer [Christ is the way: we grant some undefiled and complete in Christ] Thus your Antinomian spots do now and then break out, and appear, though you be an­gry to hear of it: and thus you may think to honour Christ, while you wrest and abuse his word, and may seem to be zealous for him, but your zeal is not according to knowledge. It is true that Christ is, and is called a foundation: yet is he not everie foundation that any where is spoken of. Christ is the Resurrection, is there therefore no other resur­rection? neither is it true that no other Scripture says it. There be divers other places that say in ef­fect, that Gods election is a firm foundation against falling away, and being seduced: Matth. 24. If it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Rom. 9.11. That the purpose of God according to election might stand. The election have obtained, but the rest were hardened, Rom. 11. His meaning is, the elect have obtained; but he saith, the election, to intimate that they obtained, non quâ fideles, not as faithfull, nor in any other regard; but the ground-work or foun­dation of final perseverance was election. But you hardened your forehead too much when you wrote [Page 157] thus, That your exposition is most agreeable to the Apostles scope in that place: for his scope is clearly this, Though some eminent professours be fallen away, and others be gone after them, yet let not this shake your confidence that are true belee­vers, because your safetie and preservation is laid upon a firm foundation, even Gods eternal purpose, which maketh the difference betwixt you and them. This I will evince to be the Apostles intent, 1, by that word Nevertheless: which word is ma­nifestly exceptive, exempting some from falling a­way, even those that are his: 2, by a parallel place, which you cannot so easily shift off: 2 Thess. 2. ha­ving set forth the marvellous prevalence of Anti­christian seducers, and the fearfull estate of those that were seduced; for the comfort of Gods peo­ple he doth ground the difference of them from the Apostates, upon the foundation of Gods ele­ction, v. 13. But we are bound to give thanks to God alway for you brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth. If God chooseth, and calleth, and justifieth, and glorifieth, who can be against us? what shall separate us from him? But when Chri­stians shall be struck with the fear of a spreading A­postasie, and begin to think with themselves thus: This defection thus encreasing may go on, and swal­low us up also; It is no manner of relief or satisfa­ction, to say; Though we and all men fall away, [Page 158] and be given over to be deceived, and to beleeve lies; yet Jesus Christ the Son of God continueth the treasurie of all his blessings: a sure foundation to them that beleeve in him, he abideth firm as a rock, though we and all men that now cleave to him, come to suffer shipwrack one after another. Therefore that is no way likely to be the scope of the place.

Next is to be considered, whether our Saviour Jesus Christ be chosen to salvation. In the fune­ral sermon upon which you wrote your exercitati­ons, & called them Essays, when you met with that saying, [That there should be any one chosen, was the infinite free mercy of God in Christ] you would scarce admit it to pass under your approbation, un­less with this your interpretation [It was Gods in­finite mercie to choose and save one man even the man Christ Jesus] which proposition of yours, howsoever you may please your self therein, hath little salt or savour in it. For then is God mercifull when he helpeth his creatures out of miserie. To save, and mercie in saving, these terms, in all rea­son suppose a lost estate. It was infinite mercie in God to send a Saviour: but to save a Saviour, comes too near the scoff of the Jews. If thou be the king of Israel, save thy self. There is little hope of him be­ing a Saviour that standeth in need himself to be saved. What they said had thus much of truth in it, He who needed a Saviour, was not likely to save others. Howbeit that Death from which they [Page 159] would have him save himself, was the means to save us.

Was not Christ chosen to life and sal­vation, as man? could any part of the seed of David or Abraham, have escaped death, or been glorified in life, had it not been chosen of God thereto, and that by Christs dying?]

Here you implie and teach plainly enough, that Christ by his own dying escaped death, and attain­ed the life of glory: and that he came to save him­self as well as others. And this were not so ill as it is, if want of sense were the worst. For death be­ing the stipend of sin, if Jesus Christ had need, by reason of the common law and manner of men, to save himself from Death; then how could he be our high Priest, holy and undefiled, and separate from sinners, and a spotless sacrifice offered on our behalf?

There is no Christian that hath learned his Creed, and been well instructed in those words of the third Article [conceived by the holy Ghost] but must needs take check at what you have here writ­ten. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh. The imputation, and the pollution of Adams sin, are con­veyed to all his posteritie, by natural or carnal ge­neration. But Jesus Christ, as man, was conceived [Page 160] supernaturally: and that stream or flux of original sin, which universally and uninterruptedly descend­ed upon mankinde from the first Adam; was cut off and stopped by the miraculous work of the holy Ghost, so that Christs humane nature was not de­filed thereby, but was preserved free from all taint and touch of the flesh, or sinfull corruption. And because as he was man, he had no father, therefore is he said to be FACTUS Rom. 1.3. and Gal, 4.4. not Genitus, not begotten but made, made of a wo­man, or, of the substance of his mother: and be­cause he was so, and that by the holy Ghost, Ideo quod nascetur, sanctum: Luke 1.35. Therefore that which was born of her, was holy, perfectly exempt­ed from sin, and the guilt of sin, otherwise than as the took upon him the sin and guilt of others.

You quote two places for your purpose, Zach. 9.9. Thy king cometh having salvation, or, saving himself: you choose to take it passively, with the Jews who take occasion hence to calumniate; rather than actively, with the most and best interpreters. Christ was called Jesus, because he saved his people, not because he was saved: or if it be said, that he saved himself, it was that he might not be swal­lowed up of Death after his passion. The other text is Hebr. 5.7. He offered prayers to him that was able to save him from Death and was heard: this is spoken of bodily Death, which our Saviour did in some sort, for a time, shrink from, praying that the cup might pass from him: and he was saved [Page 161] from Death, so as that he triumphed over Death: or if you understand it of his prayer upon the cross, what is that to salvation from Death eternal, and the wrath of God in the world to come? which sal­vation we stood in need of, but he needed not.

Lastly, We are to consider whether onely Christ, and none else, be personally chosen. Now although this be your Doctrine plainly, yet you will not al­low me to gather it out of the Answer in your Ca­techism: which in effect, and in brief was this. E­lection is that whereby God did choose Jesus Christ to be united to the Godhead, and all that beleeve in him, to blessing. Here I observed thus. All in general, none in particular, not any determinately. Hereun­to you make answer. I thought the general had included the particulars, not excluded them. I am sure in stead of having new Doctrines, he hath new Logick. All in general, therefore none in particular.]

I answer first; A General doth include every par­ticular: but All in general, doth not include any one in particular. And secondly, the Generals, where­ever they are, include the particulars, but where the generals are onely upon supposition, it is possible the particulars may have no positive being. Who­soever doth perfectly keep the law of God, shall be saved. This proposition is true in the general: yet in particular no one person in the world shall be saved by keeping the law of God. So when it is said whosoever beleeveth shall be saved, this being [Page 162] the Election which you teach; there may in the event be some particular person saved, but as to the choice, no one particular person is chosen before an­other, because they are all without any difference beforehand. Neither said I, All in general, There­fore none in particular. It should be supplied thus, nevertheless none in particular, and I have told you, who of your own partie held, that though salvati­on be intended to all, yet possibly to none particu­lar it may befall. And let me tell you now, what you heard not yet from me, that the second part of the Definition that you give of Election, is a mock-answer as well as the first. For as the first part is, of the union of the two natures in one per­son, that is, the Incarnation; So the second is, con­cerning the Gospel, but not at all, concerning Electi­on. For what is the Gospel? He that beleeveth shall be saved. Mark 16.16. The preaching of Christ crucified to save them that beleeve. 1 Cor. 1.21. And this is that very thing which you in words me­taphorical, others of your partie in words more pro­per, do call Election; both removing the old terms, bounds and words; faulting modern systemes, to make way for new-coined opinions.

The Gospel proffers life upon condition of be­leeving: As the Law did upon condition of work­ing: Gods purpose of Election, 1. ordaineth life eternal absolutely, not whether we beleeve, or no, as is constantly, and as I think unconscionably by some objected; but without any such conditional [Page 163] proviso of beleeving, because 2. it ordaineth [...]aith and all other means infallibly conducing to eternal life. So there is difference enough between the Doctrine of the Gospel, and the Decree of E­lection (though they be made all one by them that lay the grounds of the study in Divinitie in the mo­dern systome of the Racovian Catechisme, as may be seen there in pag. 231.) but in doing so, they at­tempt to break open the seal which the Apostle speaks of, 2 Tim. 2. and to publish all that is con­tained and concealed under it, Even this, All men that beleeve, shall be saved. But enough hath been said of this chapter.

Pag. 79. You interpret those words of the Apostle, 2 Thess. 2.13. from the beginning, thus;from the beginning of the Gospel preaching amongst them, like as the same phrase is used. 1 Joh. 2.24. let that abide in you which you have heard from the be­ginning.]

But I pray you, are these parallel places? If you did intend to gather the meaning of the Scripture, [Page 164] by conferring one place with another, why did you not confer this with Ephes. 1.4. he hath chosen us before the foundation of the world? you should compare places that are alike, and speak of the same thing, as these two do, and not finde out a place where the same word is used of quite another matter. Or did the Apostle intend to free from the danger of defection, those that beleeved at the first hearing, more than those that beleeved a while af­ter? To be chosen out of the world, I said, is Vo­cation, not Election.

This you say, is a sorry shift. Election, is not so large as Vocation, for many be the called, few the chosen.

You will not rightly deliver the grounds of Divi­nitie, if you cannot distinguish betwixt Vocation ex­ternal & Vocation internal. Of the former it is said, Many are the called, few the chosen. Of the other, the Apostle speaketh to this effect, Rom. 8. All that are called, were elected, are justified, and shall be glorified.

He saith, The Lord hath chosen him that is godly, is to be understood of choice to office, that is, the kingdome, Psal. 4.3. a piteous evasion. Chooses he godly men always to be kings?

But the Psalmist speaks but singularly, so that [Page 165] you need not to extend it to all godly men. In be­half of the exposition which I gave, I have this authoritie. Grotius, Sanctum suum, id est, unctum. Tremellius, Ut Regem quem designavit, statuat. Lyra, Fecit mirabilem vocando de gregibus ad regni jura. Genebrard, Celebrem reddidit me Davidem à se con­secratum. D. Hammond, —separated me to be his Vicegerent upon earth, conferring with Psal. 78.70. be chose David also his servant. Ainsworth, God had promised David the honour of the kingdome. Calvin, Communem sententiam sequi tutius judico, [...]uod Deus regem elegerit. So that it is the common exposition which I gave: so you may see how rash you are in censuring those that gave approbation to this, which you call a piteous evasion.

If in Psal. 65. Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, be meant of choosing or ad­mitting to the Church visible, then Judas and the Pharisees were blessed men.]

Yes, they were blessed after such a manner as all the members of the Church visible are blessed, Psal. 84.5. Blessed are they that dwell in thy house. Yet hypocrites may dwell in Gods house. You must know therefore that blessedness in such like ca­ses, doth not signifie blessedness absolute, but re­spective and particular: and the intent is onely to speak well of, or to commend the condition of them [Page 166] whom we call blessed. Blessed are thy servants that stand before thee & hear thy wisdome. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them. Blessed are the bar­ren. Blessed art thou, O Land, when thy King is the son of Nobles. You may finde it otherwise rendred, Ecclus 25. Well is him that dwelleth with a wife of understanding. Well is him that speaketh in the ears of him that will hear. With whom it is well, he is called blessed. Thus may we say that Judas and the Pharisees were blessed men, or happie men, in hearing and conversing with Jesus Christ; as So­lomons servants were in standing before him; not that they were absolutely blessed or happy persons. Having thus bewrayed your ignorance and vulgar conceptions unbecoming a learned man, neverthe­less with these words you put an end to this chapter

I may conclude he hath piteously ca­vill'd here, and made sorrie and senslese evasions: whether out of wilfulness, or some hand of the Lord infatuating him, I know not: but me thinks that he him­self, and all that read him, should be asha­med of it. I heard that a Doctour and some reverend men in C. gave approba­tion to this piece of his. I hope it is not so: for if it be, I greatly fear God hath infatuated the men of this generation, be­cause of their too long and stubborn op­position [Page 167] of the truth, that they should commend things so sensless.]

In your last leaf you charge my review with want of three things, Logick, Ethicks, and Theo­logie. Doubtless you had too little of something or other, when you wrote after this manner: for which your manner you deserve no other answer than this, [...] that so you may accompanie Cyclops in the den. But because you are pleased at the end, in correction of the mis-printings to take notice of an ugly parenthesis, as you call it, and to put a deleatur upon it, & s iquid aliud ejusdem gener is inveniatur, and upon any thing else that may be found like unto it; if you be content, we are a­greed, that these lines bear that parenthesis com­panie, and be thrust in among the Errata of your own, which you there distinguish from those of the press. So proceed I to that which followeth.

Sect, 1. IN Election to life we cannot be considered as fallen in A­dam, and be chosen in Christ, one consi­deration destroys the other, as he that [Page 168] gives another a cup of water as a disciple, doth not give it him simply as to a thirsty man,]

You may think you have got the start of me, in crying ont, weakly, piteous, sensless. There is no great hurt done; but who can otherwise think of this, and a great deal the like of yours, but as weak and worthless? May not a cup of cold water be given to a Christian both because he is thirstie and wanteth relief, and also because he is Christs disciple, and in that regard claimeth relief? at the verie same time that he is considered as a Christian, he is also considered as thirstie, else the gift were not worth the giving. So may we be considered as fallen in Adam, and needing help; and withall as ordained to obtain life eternal by Jesus Christ our Re­deemer.

In the fourth Section, he that is loth to read over all your book, may finde enough for a taste, how to judge of your dealing. I did say that the meaning of those words Ephes. 1. He chose us in him, was not that God chose Christ first, and in choosing him chose us. I proved it out of the words in the se­venth verse, and the like manner of speech there, [in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.] I asked, had Christ forgiveness first, and we in him? No. Now to have forgiveness is to be forgiven. Mark 3.29 He that shall blaspheme against the holy Ghost, hath never forgiveness, Acts 10.43 [Page 169] Whosoever beleeveth in him shall receive remission of sins. Redemption and forgiveness are here taken passively: as they are taken actively, so they may be said to be in Christ. I might have said thus, for so I meant: Was Christ forgiven first, and then we in him? Was Christ redeemed first, and we in him? and then I had prevented that most absurd and impertinent vagarie of yours, of partaking of a feast by coming into the house where it is, with a great deal the like, which when you wrote, I won­der where your senses were wandring. I call you back therefore, if I may, and I tell you, We were forgiven and redeemed in Christ; yet Christ was not forgiven and redeemed first. So were we chosen in Christ, and yet Christ was not chosen as we were chosen.

For the clearer understanding of this matter, and of those words [We were chosen in Christ] it is need­full to distinguish. The word [Christ] may be ta­ken two ways: First, personally, for the Son of God made man, and suffering for us: Secondly, collectively, as it signifies a mystical bodie, whereof Christ is the Head; a body congregated of Christ and all beleevers incorporate with him. You take it in this latter sense, as if we were chosen because we were united to him, or after we were made one with him. But I have shewed that it is to be taken in the former sense; for the person of the Mediatour in whom, that is, by whom, by whose bloud, V. 7. we were ehosen to salvation, or to be brought to life: [Page 170] as he is taken not for a person, but for a collective bodie, so indeed, not otherwise, we may be said to be chosen into him; but no way in him, as you me [...]n.

You think, If election of the Church do in na­ture or reason precede the choice of a Mediatour; then we cannot be chosen in Christ, because we are chosen before the confideration of him.] It is more irksome to speak to him that will not under­stand, than to him that cannot. Let me use a few words to your layman, whosoever he was that had the good hap to espie this contradiction: for this is likely to be that which you speak of in the twen­tieth chapter. My friend, you intend to build an house, this is your end and purpose, this you think of first; next, you think of hiring workmen, and providing materials, as means towards building the house: and yet you cannot for the least moment of time, think to build an house not having where­withall; without workmen and materials. You intend to cross the haven, this is your first purpose; next you think of taking boat; you think of one before the other, and yet you think of them both together. Likewise it is but one purpose, desire, or resolution of yours to make a voyage into France, and to go a ship-board; you intend these two both together, yet in reason the first of these is first, because you desire the other onely in order to that, If neither you nor your friend can under­stand this, you are more fit to meddle in other [Page 171] matters, than in finding out contradictions.

Your Essay, that names written in heaven should be the qualities of godly, meek, mercifull, written ever in heaven, but put upon men when they be­leeve, came out of Socinus's shop, as I told you some where before, though you have hammered it more then any other that I know of. The names of beleevers are according to their frames, and you quote Solomons Proverbs, The wise in heart shall be called prudent.] I told you that qualities are not names: Prudent is a qualitie: so is righte­ous, poor in spirit, mercifull. Here you answer some­what nicely ‘["Prudence is the qualitie, Prudent the name.]’ You shall not need to tell me of my new Logick, I have enough left of my old to tell you, that Prudence is a qualitie in the Abstract, and Pru­dent is a qualitie, no less, in the Concrete; so they are both qualities, but neither of them any mans name. But you, as before you confounded qualities with names, now confound Grammar with Logick, as if those things which differ in the one, must differ in the other also. I can discern nothing further in this Chapter, concerning which there is need of any notice to be taken, or to be given. I shall onely give you this my reason against this new Essay. When we read that there are in heaven names written in a book, it is borrowed from mens custome, who are wont to set down in writing the names of certain persons in a book, scrol, or catalogue, to the intent that their persons may be for sundry purposes, the [Page 172] more certainly remembred in time to come. So that though there be no book, or writing with God, yet is there somewhat like it; and the thing it self is found among men. But as for your kinde of book or writing, a book full, not of proper names, but Adjectives, or Qualities, it is no where found, that I can tell of, neither know I where to look for it. Therefore vnless you and yours can invent this, you have invented nothing.

I Dare trust any Reader with your xvii chapter throughout, if his senses be but awake, though they be not much exercised. Onely I observe what encouragement you give him at the beginning, while you explain your meaning of that in your Catechisme, [The Scripture says not, that the Election of Jacob, and the rejection of Esau were personal; by personal evidently meaning as considered in their own persons without Christ] for, First, you then explained your self in the very next answer thus; Not personally, but nationally; therefore it is too bad tosay that you evidently meant any thing else than Nationally. Secondly, though something hath been said touching election perso­nal [Page 173] and withall in Christ; yet for Esau's rejection, how that should be, not personal but in Christ, or not without him, you should have helped your Rea­der in this, who is not always of so quick invention as your self. As for your xviii chapter, I know no­thing in it, but may receive satisfaction either from what hath formerly been said, or from what here­after followeth.

Sect. 1. He saith, I interpret a vessel of honour, upon which any honour is con­ferred, whereas I spake onely of Divine honour, and in things heavenly, or re­lating thereunto.]

And what other honour, could I mean, than Di­vine? yea, how could you otherwise take me, when I expressed what I meant by any, when I ad­ded, though for the duration temporary and transi­torie, for such are all the honours which he menti­oneth.] I hope you do not take temporarie, for temporal.

[Page 174] That the preposition, In, in honorem, To honour, doth not import a permanent condition, you would prove from Isai. 14.2. Where people are taken in servos & in ancillas, for servants and handmaids. Must they therefore be ever so? may they not be made free?]

But 1. In servos, denotes a state, or condition, which is more than aid, or choise means towards an estate, as you made it. And 2. Bondage, your own instance, is a state permanent and final, during life. It is true, that a slave may be made free: it is possible, but it is accidental to slaverie, not of the nature of it. And strangers were not released at the year of Jubilee, as the Hebrew bondmen were, but their bondage did abide from one generation to an­other.

The potter makes a vessel for honour: that is his final end: yet it may be marred on the wheel: and he may turn it, and make another vessel. Jer. 18.3, 4.]

The Apostle Rom. 9.20, 21. sheweth Gods ab­solute power to dispose of men finally as it best pleaseth him, by the likeness of a Potter, that out of the same lump of clay, frameth one vessel to ho­nourable use, another to dishonourable: the simi­litude [Page 175] is taken out of Isai. or at least, is the same that the Prophet there useth, Chap. 45. v. 9. Wo to him that striveth with his maker: shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, what makest thou? (whe­ther it be meant of Cyrus, who though a great Mo­narch, yet was wholly at Gods dispose for the work that he had in hand: or whether it was spoken to check the peoples impatience, that thought long for their deliverance, and to make them willing to abide Gods leisure) S. Paul applyeth it to Prede­stination, and the eternal state of men, in the life to come; This is most evident by that which goes before, and follows in that discourse. The same si­militude you may finde used also in Ecclus 33.12, 13. Some men he blesseth and exalteth and setteth near himself: some he curseth and setteth low, and turneth out of their places: As the clay is in the Potters hand, to fashion it at his pleasure, so is man in the hand of him that made him. I pray take you heed that you be not like to Balaam, who though he knew Gods minde or purpose, yet because he liked it not, would needs go and inquire again, if possibly he might be brought to speak according to his own desire. You would fain have the Apostles words refer to the eighteen chapter of Jeremy, where indeed is spoken of a Potter, and the clay in his hand, but quite to another purpose, namely this: A Potter, when he is framing any one earthen vessel upon the wheel; can, with the turn of his hand, make quite another of it, and not that which he began to make. Am­phora [Page 176] coepit institui, currente rota cur urceus exit? as on the contrary, sometimes he that thinks to write but a few lines, when his hand is in, writes a long discourse: currente rota, dum urceum cogito, Ampho­ram fecit nanus; said one that wrote much more than he thought to have done. So saith God by his Prophet there: if I intend to bring, and be bring­ing evil against a Nation; upon their Repentance I can and will upon the sudden, turn away the evil that was hastening towards them. And if I pro­mise, and begin to do good for a people, to plant and establish them; if they in the mean time prove disobedient to me, I can instantly turn my intended mercies into judgements, and destroy in stead of building them. You may easily discern a difference betwixt thefe two; namely the Power or Liberty, that a Potter hath to make several vessels to seve­ral lasting uses, as it pleaseth him: (which the Prophet Esay, and the Apostle Paul speak of) And the Power or Facility that he hath to make or mar one and the same vessel, before it be finished (which is spoken of in the Prophet Jeremy) And let not the Vorstian Divinitie so blinde your eyes, that you cannot distinguish betwixt Gods promisse, threatnings, exhortations to Repentance, and re­vealed will, which is dayly resisted on the one hand: and on the other, his hidden purpose, which always takes effect, or his secret will, that never is resisted, and cannot be disappointed.

[Page 177] 2 Tim. 2.21. If a man cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto ho­nour; must either signifie that he that is not so, may be made so—]

A man is made a vessel of honour, 1. By E­lection, from the beginning. 2. In time, By Vo­cation and Sanctification, he therefore that through Gods Grace, cleanseth himself, may know he was elected a vessel to honour: so that in these words the Apostle doth but repeat in effect, what he said before, v. 19. Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquitie: as if he had said. In a great house are vessels of several sorts, some to ho­nour some to dishonour, known onely to God, who knoweth who are his, who not. If any man be de­sirous to be certified that he is a vessel made to ho­nour, Let him forsake iniquitie, let him keep him­self free from the defilements of sin; for by this, Gods purpose according to Election is executed, and also assured to them that are heirs of life.

AGainst your opinion, that Heathens were in some sort Christians, and the Rain, Sun-shine and other worldly blessings do preach the Gospel to them, I brought some Arguments, which you endeavour thus to put off.

Sect. 2. Gods works may manifest what men take no notice of. The Sun doth shine though I do not see it, and a man may speak what no bodie hears.

I will briefly shew you the vanitie of this your allegation. 1. That which God is said indeed to manifest, is indeed made known to most men in the world. As the heavens declare the Glory of God; so there is no Nation of what different speech or language soever, where their voice is not heard. And 2. The Doctrine of your Catechisme was, that Gods works do bring a man to Faith in Christ: and your Quest. 154. with the Answer, is this.

[Page 179] Quest. How doth God speaking in his works conduce to Faith? Answ. Inas­much as they evidence God, and what is to be known of him to us, they evidence to us] which cannot be unless we hear and see: and they dispose the heart to receive more clear Revelation.]

Can that dispose the heart, which the heart doth not perceive? This Answer of yours, you say sect. 3. passes currant without exception amongst the Answers of his commendation.]

But what maketh you think, I commend all the Answers in your Catechisme that I passed by, and did not mention? I pray do not abuse your self and me so far as to imagine it. But that I should com­mend this Answer, that contains the same Errour and falshood that the other did, because I took it not in among them, is the most idle fancie that could come into your head.

Sect. 4. The humblest souls are usu­ally best at seeing. Even as there be ma­ny poor despised illiterate men that see more into Christ and heaven, than many proud ministers, scholars, and Universitie men, that swell with conceits of their sci­ence and despise them.]

[Page 180]He that will beleeve readily what you say, & take it upon your word, though it be weak and unsound, shall have the commendation of an humble Chri­stian. Papists are brought to think, that when they renounce their own understanding, and blindfold follow their guides, it is a high act of humilitie: and you would have it thought that all they who que­stion what you deliver, do swell with pride and self conceit, and a high opinion of their own know­ledge. But as worldly want doth not always make men humble, nor penury starve pride, according to what Solomon saith in the twelfth of the Proverbs, There is that honoureth himself and lacketh bread, and as Gregory in his Pastoral, enlargeth the observati­on; Plerumque personarum ordinem permutat quali­tas morum, ut dives humilis sit, pauper elatus, that is, Mens qualities and demeanours for the most part run quite a cross their estates and degrees: the richer sort being in their carriage low and gentle, while the poor are stiff and loftie. So there be ma­ny ignorant and illiterate people, that are intole­rably proud, undervaluing disdainfully, all know­ledge and knowing men; and on the other side, there are many men as eminent and as much above others in humilitie, as they are in learning and parts and promotion.

You tell us somewhere who bred the Quakers: but who is most like to do it? who talketh most like them? their name is new, but their manner S. Jerom thus taxeth to Marcella, Crassam rustici­tatem [Page 181] pro sanctitate habent, quas [...]dcirco sancti sint si nihil scierint. Down-right rudeness they count is holiness, as if because they knew nothing, they must be therefore more holy than others are. There be some lay-men, whom perhaps you may think to gain upon, and to gain to you, while you complie with them and joyn with them in reproaching the Clergie. But as love that is caused by undue means, doth not long continue, but is unstable and fastidi­ous, like fishes, saith Plutarch, that being taken with medicated baits, are unwholsome and nothing worth: So when you have pleased some ill-dispo­sed people in reviling their Ministers, your example hath taught them to do the like by your self, as well as others; and of this you have had experi­ence. But after that conference came abroad, wherein G. W. produced your self against your self, reading out of your book the testimonie you gave against the Ministers; although you reasona­bly well shifted off one of the particulars from your self at that time; yet I thought you might have been more warie of your words afterwards: but I finde it otherwise. One of the badges you there bestow upon your brethren, is, That they are more mindfull of the fleece, than the flock.] Whether it be true or false that you said, it was verie rashly spo­ken of you, because it is a hard matter for you to know what others minde, and what they minde most. But do you well know what you meant by the fleece? If you meant not the fleece of the [Page 182] flock, it is scarce tolerable sense: and if you did, it is a manifest falshood and injurie. For in England the maintenance of the Clergy is theirs, by the same law by which any man holdeth what he hath and enjoyeth. And is your understanding so extremely superficial, as to think it is theirs who pay it, and not theirs who take it? or that the Laws of the Land should enforce any man to give away that which is his own to another, though never so much against his will? Another may come and out-go you, but in your own way, and bewail the iniquitie of the times, that creditours should fleece their debters, so as daily they do, when they take what is due to them: and complain of the Nobility and Gentrie of the land for fleecing their Tenants twice a year. It may be you are troubled with an noise you have heard of some Minister, that is compelled to sue at Law some of his neighbours, for taking away some of the fleece from his back, hazarding the loss of all the rest for being so litigious. But whether he be more troubled, and more grieved at his own loss and charge, or at the dishonestie of the people that put him to it, That you know not; and till you do know, you are bound in civilitie and charitie to think the best. But you proceed fur­ther in this vein.

I remember my reverend Tutour, M. Henry Hall of Trinitie Colledge, once [Page 183] said to us his pupils, We sit here (speak­ing of the Universitie-fellows) poring on our books, and filling our selves with notions (or to that purpose) when the poor countrey-men (or Ministers) run away with the true and heavenly under­standing.

With your good leave, I should think, that he did not speak of persons absent (which had been to little purpose) but as he spake to his pupils, so he spake of them too, who might be so disposed as to need such caution and advice; or howsoever, it was good that they should know, that sanctifying grace is not attained always, nor onely by learning and studie: and it is good likewise for all men whatsoe­ver to know, that it is sooner and more probably attained by knowledge and reading, than by lasi­ness and ignorance. But why do you not speak against other vocations and employments, as well as against that of scholars and learned men? It is their profession to pore on books (if you will needs call it so) and fill their heads with notions: it is their particular calling, and it sets them never the further off from Religion, nor out of the way to the general calling of Christianitie. Why will you not let every one abide in his calling, according to the Apostles appointment? Why do you not speak aginst manufactures, and merchandizing; against navigation, against building and rigging of ships; [Page 184] against rearing fair houses, and providing costly furniture? Why not against keeping Courts, and surveying lands? for a poor countrey-man that ne­ver busied himself about any of these matters, may run away with the true understanding. But how­soever the world goes, you must have your years minde of flinging at Universities, and Philosophy, and humane learning, without any colour of good reason, but not without a great suspicion of an ill intent. For suppose that these things were merely secular and worldly, nevertheless to the pure all things are pure: and we may use the world, and all things therein, so we abuse them not: but all Arts and sciences may be, and they are serviceable to the true Religion, and the worship of the onely true God: provided that they do not over-rule, but be kept in good order and subjection. If you would refuse to joyn with those, that will prove man hath Free-will to good, out of Aristotles Ethicks, or with those that conclude a Christian is justified by doing just actions, out of the principles of moral Philoso­phy; it were commendably done of you. But when you take delight and a small occasion to inveigh against these peculiar and appointed places, where nature and natural faculties are polished, and per­fected, by accession of art and studie, for the better service of God in the State, and in the Church: and when to maintain the sufficiency of Scripture-do­ctrine, for preaching the Gospel, against the in­croachment of Philosophie; you bring such argu­ments [Page 185] as will hold as much against lips and lungs, as against Logick and Metaphysicks: This is no good humour of yours, and it may be a very bad one. And in you especially it is the more absurd and incon­gruous, who promote the New Light; That the works of Creation preach the Doctrine of the Gospel: yea, who say Essay pag. 14. The works of God are true preachers of God, but the force of their voice is taken off, by many of these Ministers that run without Gods message.] You that speak so much of the open school that is in the creatures, praising Gods name, and declaring his glorie and goodness; do but destroy what you build, in girding thus at schools of learning. For Arts and Sciences, and the studie of them, do serve for lectures, or for commentaries upon the great book of the world. Who can search out and contemplate the influen­ces and motions of the heavenly bodies? Who can set forth the Historie of Plants, Stones, Me­tals, Meteors, Fishes, Birds, and Beasts, and the works of the six-days-Creation, but such men as have their education in places dedicated to learning and studie? You talk of a School that God hath opened, and you do what you can to seal up the doors of it. One thing I must tell you further, that the greatest enemies that Christians ever had, most opposed and sought to hinder Christian schools: and the most pestilent hereticks that have arisen since the Reformation, have most of all declaimed against Scholastical and Academical knowledge. [Page 186] And you will never perswade indifferent persons to beleeve any otherwise, but that you speak against learning and learned men, to this end, that your er­rours and abuses that you put upon the people, may not be discovered: for always among the blinde, he that is half-sighted is king.

I am sure many lay-men that cannot read Latine, could see the faults of M. H. arguings, when both himself and (if I may credit reports) divers Universitie­men, were not so good at seeing them: overmuch light makes some men, almost if not altogether blinde.]

If want of Latine be a good help to see by, it may be this was the designe of the new method, to make experiment in curing by contraries; and to put out our lights the better to clear up our ey-sight. It is verie well that you have declared your self in your seventh chapter against Impositions of Opini­ons. I may therefore freely dissent from you in this matter, and I will give you some reason. There is difference betwixt the light of the Sun, and that light which enlightens the minde; because the sen­sitive power, and the organ of the bodie are but weak and narrow, and if there be an undue applica­tion or proportion of outward light, all will be spoil­ed. But humane understanding, after Gods image, [Page 187] being of vast capacitie or comprehension, there is no fear that the intellectual light, which is so spa­ringly dispensed in this life, whether by acquisition or infusion, should oppress or any way corrupt the facultie of the minde. How it fares with you, I know not; but as for others in all ages, the more they have waded into the abyss of knowledge, the more they have confessed their own ignorance. This light doth discover darkness: but that it should cause any, or make some men blinde, is a blinde and blundering conceit of your own. And now we will return to the particular controversie of this chapter.

Sect. 6. You will not grant that the Sun did shine upon Adam after he was fallen, as it did be­fore; or if it did, yet it spake not the same lan­guage, because it spake God kinde to sinners, which it could not do before man sinned.]

It is pitie to interrupt you in these your deep spe­culations. Go on, I pray, to prove, that when you turn homeward the winde blows not as it did: and that the Sun doth not shine alike upon the dial, but speaks a new language everie hour of the day; with plentie of the like, never heretofore thought rea­sonable or credible.

He brings the saying of the scoffers to [Page 188] confirm his assertion, and justifies the truth of it, when the Apostle tells us, that saying proceeded out of their wilfull ignorance, and minds them that since the creation of the world, all things, did not continue alike, for God overflowed the creation with a floud.]

Thus did the impostours argue: If the world hath lasted for so many ages, then it will always last: But it hath lasted for so many ages: Therefore it will always last. Now the Apostle doth not denie the Assumption, or second proposition, but directs his answer to the Connexion; as if he had said thus: It is too great ignorance to think the world must always continue, because it hath continued so long: for know they not that God is the Lord of nature? know they not that he made this earth as standing and emergent out of the waters, and that after so many years, the waters were let loose upon it, and wasted it? The course of nature therefore doth not abide constant and unmoved, but the power of God countermands it at his own will 2 Pet. 3.7. The heavens and the earth which now are, by the same word are kept in store: the Apostle confuteth them, not from the change or alteration that was upon the floud, but from the word or power of God that caused the floud: The same hand, or power, or word, that drowned the world, shall when time cometh put an end to it by fire. [Page 189] So that when the scoffers said, All things continue alike from the first creation, it was true as they meant it; namely, of a continued course of the hea­venly motions, and of the seasons of the year: winter and summer, day and night: These and the like abide as they were at the first, notwithstand­ing the deluge, according to Gods promise, Gen. 8. The earth had long ere S. Peters time out-worn the floud, and the Psalmist saith as much, psal 119.91. They continue this day according to thine ordinances.

Sect. 7. Evident it is, they preach God mercifull to sinners, as well as just to punish sin: and the one is the contents of the Gospel, as much as the other of the Law.

If by mercie you mean goodness, and forbear­ance, and patience, these are evidently seen in the works of God. But what is all this to pardon and redemption? where in the mean time is purchase and satisfaction?

And yet actions, if meer actions, are subject to various interpretation, and therefore to misinterpre­tation: witness the two Service-books that were left upon the Altar over night, and in the morning scattered in pieces all over the Church. When Ju­lius Cesar at a time made a speech to his souldiers, the greater part of them being at a distance, could [Page 190] not well understand what he said, but they per­ceived by his gesture, that he spake of the ring up­on his finger, and thought that he had promised to them all, the honour and revenue of Knight­hood: whereas he onely told them thus much: that rather than not satisfie their utmost arrears, he would part with all that he had, even to the ring of his finger. Ceremonies which are actions ap­pointed to teach and instruct, are usually accompa­nied with a word of instruction. When Esay walk­ed barefoot; and Jeremy wore a yoke about his neck; when Agabus bound himself with Pauls gir­dle, and the Gourd withered that shadowed Jona's head; if something had not been spoken, as well as done, there would as little knowledge have been gathered, as David would have gathered from the arrows that Jonathan shot, if they had not afore been agreed upon the token. The eternal Power, and Godhead, and Wisdome, are seen in the world: but can you tell us one place in all the Scriptures, one word of Institution, whence it may appear, that God ever intended to give notice of mans Redem­ption through Jesus Christ, by the works of Crea­tion and Providence? If you cannot, it is put to your choice, whether you will hold your peace, or speak to no purpose: as you do in that which fol­lows here. [How else lead they to Repen­tance, if they witness not mercie to the penitent, Rom. 2.4, 5.]

In answer to which place, I have thus much to [Page 191] say. First, That reproof of the Apostle, is bent against the Jews, or if it be to the Gentiles, it is af­ter they were made partakers of the Gospel, or the publication of it. And Secondly, To whomsoever he speaks, he is in that place, even to the middle of the third chapter, whetting the Law, and bright­ning the face of Moses, not preaching the Gospel. Repentance belongeth to the Law, which enjoyn­eth and commandeth it. The Rule that directs me to walk in the way, directs me also to return into it, when I am out of it. Before the Fall, Gods boun­tie led to Obedience and due service. After the Fall, Gods bountie leadeth to Repentance, as a part of our Obedience and as necessarily prerequired to all future obedience in such a case. It is true that God pardoneth all that do repent; but this is by vertue of the Gospel, and is a Priviledge of be­leevers. His long-suffering to us-ward, is that none should perish, but sooner or later, come to the know­ledge of the Truth, 2 Pet. 3.9. But this is the que­stion, whether every inducement to repent, even among heathens and infidels, doth include and con­tain in it, a promise of mercie and pardon: this I denie, upon this reason, because, then the Gospel should be contained in the Law, and the promise of forgiveness, in a dutie of obedience. But the Law & the Gospel being two several things, ought in our consideration to be kept apart. He that invites to Repentance sheweth plainly he would not have the offender or delinquent to go on, in doing wrong, but [Page 192] would have him prevent heaping up wrath vers. 5. and increasing his condemnation: but he doth not always shew that he is readie to pardon what is past: that this is so, appeareth by this similitude. A Landlord commenceth sute against one of his Te­nants, in order to his ejectment, for not paying his Rent; in the mean time this Tenant, maketh strep and waste, still wronging and by divers abuses pro­voking his Lord, who nevertheless is kinde to him, as to his other Tenants, in countenance, invitations, and other courtesies. A servant of the Lord thus speaks to the Tenant. My Masters fair and civil carriage towards you, may invite you to be sorrie for what you have done, and make you ashamed to de­mean your self so undutifully and injuriously. In this case he is invited to repent; but he is not put in hope that the suit shall be let fall, and he be still con­tinued in possession.

Pag. 105. They preach God mercifull to sinners, and that is the contents of the Gospel. Whence else do poor heathen in distress cry to him for mercie and help, as in Psal. 107. and Jon. 1. or offer sacrifice in all ages, if they had not instruction into the propitiousness of God, as well as into his being?

Forasmuch as sacrifices do ow their original to [Page 193] Divine institution, and the will of God made known by his word to the Patriarchs; It is consequent that the heathen, who did also offer them, did not ga­ther that dutie of their Religion from the contem­plation of this visible world; but that it must be reckoned among those Remains of broken know­ledge, which from Gods people were diffused among the nations, but much and many ways vitia­ted and corrupted.

Now you have taught in these words, two great errours, yea, if I may call them as they seem to me, unchristian, and heathenish. 1. That all worship, done to any God, is done to the true God. 2. That all kindness, that God sheweth to sinners, is the manifestation of his Gospel. And thus have you broken down the hedge of the vineyard, or enclo­sure; and laid it open, in waste and in common, to all the world of Pagans and Infidels: for never was there nation so barbarous, but did homage to a God, one or other. You have brought, not Greeks into the Temple, but Idolaters, continuing in their Idolatries, into the Christian Church, and yielded to them the knowledge of the onely true God, and of him whom he hath sent, Jesus Christ. Or ra­ther, as some have taken away all Idolatrie against the second Commandment, by making the first and second all one. So have you taken away all Idola­trie against the first Commandment, when you thus make all one, the true God with Idols, or false Gods, or a confused conception of a Deitie at large. [Page 194] The 107 Psalm saith that sea-faring men, crie un­to the Lord in their distress: if you read the Psalm from the beginning, you will finde Gods own peo­ple the Hebrews to be spoken of: or what if it be extended to others, that in their distress they crie unto God? The young Ravens call unto him for their meat; And the eyes of all things are said to look up to him. The earth and clouds crie unto him in a drought. You may read in another Psalm this prayer, which you may reconcile as well as you can, with that which you alledge out of the 107. Pour out thy wrath upon the Heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name. You bring the first chapter of Jonas, where every man cried unto his God: and yet you know that none of them cried to the true God, till Jonas awoke and called upon him. They cried to them who were no Gods, but Idols. Gal. 4.8. When you knew not God, you did service to them, which by nature, are no Gods. But what were they then? the same Apostle telleth you, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the tenth chapter and the twentieth verse, The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to Devils, and not to God. You have raked fair, to finde out your universal Grace in the Idolatrous sacrifices which Pagans offered. Paul and Barnabas might have spared the rending of their clothes, and saved their out crie. Sirs, what do you mean to do these things? And the Lystrians might have answered thus: but [Page 195] that they wanted such a Priest as your self at their elbow to have prompted them: these are no such vanities as you imagine, for by them we do testifie our hope in God, and in his Grace; and by them we do celebrate his propension to pardon our mis­doings. We have always served the living God that made heaven and earth, and redeemed all men. Neither hath he suffered us to walk in any wrong ways, but hath been propitious to us in his love and mercie, and hath trained us up in his school. The Sun passeth over our heads every day we rise, preaching Gods name and bringing tidings of his Goodness; and when the night cometh on, the Moon and the Stars succeed and take their course, uttering to us his saving knowledge: you may tell us more plainly what we knew before; but we have had sufficient teaching long ere you set foot among us. This speech is moulded in your Doctrine, de­livered in this Section; and because it is very bad, false and blasphemous, it better becometh the priest of Jupiter that was before the Citie, than A ser­vant of God, in the Gospel of his Son.

I would ask you where you finde Gods kindness to sinners called the Gospel. In the old Testament the preaching of the Gospel contained the know­ledge of him that was to come: one of Adams po­steritie; the son of David, the son of Abraham: called the Messias in Daniel; and in Esay 53. a per­son is described that should come and suffer, bear­ing the sins of Gods people. In the new Testament [Page 196] the Contents or Sum of the Gospel is, Christ cru­cified, and God in Christ reconciling the world. When the Apostles preach the Gospel they speak of Jesus, and the Son of God, and the man whom he hath appointed. But as for rain and food and fruit­full seasons, which you call the contents of the Go­spel, they speak of these, as witnesses indeed of Gods goodness, but as such witnesses, that not­withstanding, the nations went their own ways. Yea, and God suffered them so to do. Act. 14.16. He suffered all nations to walk in their own ways, Nevertheless, he did them good, and gave them rain from heaven. This utterly overthroweth the false Doctrine throughout this chapter, or wheresoever else by you delivered, manifestly shewing your self a perverter of the Gospel, while you make the crea­tures to be preachers of it. Notwithstanding his ordinary goodness, or common kindness, he suffered them to perish. His temporal blessings therefore were not able to reclaim them, nor were they in­tended for the conversion of their nations: if they had been so, then it could not be said, God suffered them to go on in their own ways nevertheless. Act. 17.30. The times of this ignorance God winked at. That is to say, he overlooked them, he neglect­ed and despised them. He hid himself and was wroth. They were times of ignorance, and during these times, God did hide himself, therefore he did not manifest himself, as in the Gospel, or by way of any saving knowledge.

[Page 197]

That something of the Go­spel contents is held forth universally in the works of God, D Amyrald learned­ly proves against Spanhemius. Let M. H. answer him.]

I might say, let D^r Amyrald answer the pro­mise which he made to the national Synod at Alen­zon, that he would afterward forbear to teach such doctrine, for which you now commend him to your Reader. But why should that be done again that is sufficiently done already? You speak as if to this day he lay untouched, and that no man yet ever medled with him. Whereas I should think you can­not but know, he hath been answered before now, purposely, and that by divers. I rather think you read none of their answers, because they make not for you; and then (as persons resolute and pertina­cious in their opinions, a great man was wont to call Triremes [...], Gallies having all their oars go­ing on one side) if you bestow time upon such writers and none else, as serve to nourish you in your belief, you can make little progress in the search of Truth, beause your motion is still round and home­ward, and if you be in an errour, it is like you will still continue so. And yet I must tell you, I would gladly see you answer D [...] Amyrald in all those points wherein you differ from him, which you can tell, are very many, and very material. And I would gladly know that you hold universal Grace no otherwise [Page 198] than Amyrald doth. In the mean time, I will tell you a short storie out ot Athaneus of a Spartan: now you know that Countrey was known to be of a very hard breed. This man, sitting down with others at a feast, and not observing what they did, made somewhat more hast to eat of a certain sort of fish, that was set before him, than he had good skill to sever the meat from the shell that was hard, and withall full of sharp pricks or bristles: but having well broken and subdued the harder parts with his teeth, and tasting the meat what it was, being somewhat loth to lose the pains he had taken, resolved thus with himself. Thou art, said he, a very naughtie kinde of food: yet I will not leave thee now, but I will never meddle with thee more. I finde now that these Polemicks are but a harsh diet, very crabbed and thornie, the which who so loves, had need to have according to the Comicks bold metaphor, calceatos dentes, and must not stick at any thing that is tendred to him. And though I may seem too forward and rash, in thus undertaking (as you call it) and falling on, I will not now go back, nor give you over: but I purpose therewithall not to be so hastie in engaging with any other. Yet as Florus said of Hannibal, having gotten the advan­tage of the ground, and of the wind, vento & pul­vere pugnabat; you do not trouble me much with your blows, or weapons. I fear not your armour, nor yet your arguments, no nor yet your uncivil and disparaging language. But you drive me out of [Page 199] the field with your dust: you confound me with your confused significations. I cannot plainly per­ceive your meaning, and when I think that I have it, you have another at hand, because it concerns you not a little to deal in obscurities and ambigui­ties, and to have your reserves readie, and places of retreat. And you either cannot or will not perceive my meaning: As here in the Section next follow­ing, that which I thought had been plain enough to be understood, you have so taken, snatching one part from the other, as to wring out an impertinen­cie from my words, that never came into my minde, that so you might have something to busie your self about. Quintilian will have his Oratour so to speak, not onely that he may be understood, but so clearly and in such a manner, that he cannot possi­bly but be understood, even by those that are ne­gligent in hearing, and are minding other matters. There he some, and you may be one of them, that through their wilfulness make this advice of his to be needfull, and a verie difficult task too: you are quick enough and ready to defend whatsoever it be you chance to say: and you seem as backward to apprehend what anothers meaning is. But I pray, if you finde no tolerable sense in what you read, look it over again, and mark it better, lest the fault be found to be in your self.

As for universal objective grace, by whomsoe­ver maintained, it seemeth to implicate in the terms: as doth the Catholick-Romane, that is an universal [Page 200] particular Church. To which purpose may briefly be considered, wherein grace, as it is grace, consist­eth. Some will tell you that it is not grace, because it is given to one and denied to another, but because it is given to the unworthy. But the elect Angels were confirmed by grace, and yet were worthy so far as any creatures can be worthy: And our Savi­our Jesus Christ was full of grace, and did partake of Gods favour in the highest degree; yet withall was most worthy. Others say, that if it be grace, it must be added to nature and natural parts or per­fections. Now this indeed is true of Gods grace shewed to man; but doth no way agree to grace in general, neither hath it any place in such grace as one man sheweth to another, or as a king sheweth to one or more of his servants or subjects.

But you may say to me thus: The subjects of a kingdome may be supposed, even every one of them, more or less obnoxious to the strictness or rigour of law, for submitting to a forreiner invading, or a domestick usurping: if the king be pleased to pardon every one of them, not excepting any; this would be a great grace, and yet is universal: there­fore there may be universal grace without any op­position in the terms. To this I answer, Although the grace of the king thus pardoning all his sub­jects be universal in some respect, that is, in respect of the persons, yet it is singular in respect of the case, or of the time, and in respect of the kings carriage to his subjects otherwhile. And if he should [Page 201] in like manner pass by all offences against him and his crown, during his whole reign; this semper-leni­tas were not grace, but an aberration in government, and a kinde of injustice through excess of clemen­cie and remissness. But Gods goodness in creating all things, and his providence in governing and disposing all things; these two shining forth from the beginning of the world to the end, cannot be called grace, as being no way singular: For according to Scripture, and common custome of speaking, grace always implieth something singular, or particular therein.

IN my second Edition, because I see it might be questioned touching Cor­nelius, I left him out, and mentioned be­sides Rahab, Naaman and the Ninevites.]

And are these any better instances to prove that Faith hath been wrought by means of Gods works? Jonas preached to the Ninevites, and what Faith they had was by his means: and Naaman was a Proselyte, and desired so much earth from the land of Israel, as might serve for an altar, and resol­ved [Page 202] thenceforth to offer neither offering, nor sacri­fice to any but the Lord.

Rahab was brought to her Faith by the works of God for Israel, which she heard of before the spies came to her.]

That which Rahab knew of the true God, was made known by the Church, as the Apostle speaks in another case, Ephes. 3.10. Whether by the Church as a glass, or whether by the ministerie or teaching of the Church, that was the school, and not the school of the creatures in which she was taught. God was pleased to work faith in her by the miracles she heard of, so way was made for fur­ther instruction.

For proof that there is varietie of means to sa­ving faith, you send me to Rom. 2. If uncircumci­sion keep the Law, it shall be counted for circumci­sion. Whence you seem to argue thus: Pagans, Infidels uncircumcised may keep the Law, and do as much, yea more than some Jews or Christians that have the written word and Sacraments as vari­etie of means. Answ. There were many of the Gentiles, who were Proselytes to the Jews Religi­on, and remained uncircumcised, who had the knowledge of the true God, and walked in obedi­ence to him. Jews inwardly and in the Spirit, which were better Jews than others who were circumcised [Page 203] and disobedient. What gather you hence, for vari­etie of means? or from the other place following, chap. 3. v. 21. The righteousness of God, without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets? Where [Law] in the first place is ta­ken strictly for the doctrine of the Moral Law, whether written or natural, as it stands in opposition to the Gospel: and the righteousness of God with­out the Law, is elswhere in other words, called The Righteousness of faith without works, or without works of the Law. And in the second place [Law] signifieth the writings of Moses, in which Evange­lical promises were many ways contained. When you broach such new and scandalous opinions as you do, it is not sufficient to refer to chapter and verse; you should bring the words, and shew where­in consists the strength of your argument or proof.

I Did not quarrel with you, as you say I did, for making crueltie a false conception, but for set­ting it in opposition to all mercie. If you saw not this, it was your own blindness, whether wilfull or no, I say not, because I know not.

[Page 204] He taxes me with partialitie, for put­ting four false conceptions into the same different character, or else I know not wherefore.]

I think indeed the subtillest of all our Readers is not able to finde out what should be the partialitie to include four false conceptions in the same diffe­rent character. And withall I think the meanest of all, if he dare adventure to read plain English, may soon see where lies the partialitie, namely, in that you charged upon three several parties what they held and ovvned: but to the pretended Orthodox you laid that vvhich they ovvned not.

He says more than I dare affirm I thought of, when I mentioned it.]

You dare not affirm that you thought of it; yet you say here [It is a vvord that borders upon their principles.] Novv it comes into your minde, but you thought not of it then. But you dare to say: [I vvas guiltie of the charge, be­cause I did not pass it by untouched] so you know my thoughts better than your own. But if I must give credit to you in what you say, though you speak it very faintly, why would not you be­leeve me for what I disclaimed so earnestly? As it is moralitie and honestie not readily to question [Page 205] what others say in this kinde; so is it also to say no­thing in this kinde, but that which may readily be beleeved.

Is this man fit to review a Catechisme, that would have me put amongst false conceptions of God, that he is just or se­vere

I will endeavour to recollect your understanding and your thoughts, if you will give me leave. Mercie is one of Gods Attributes; Justice likewise is one of Gods Attributes: All mercie is a false conception of him: All justice likewise is a false conception of him: you, in stead of this latter, na­med Crueltie. Now though All justice and No Mercie be a false conception of him, and he be not such; yet if he were such, he were not cruel, because crueltie is unjust severitie. And if God were All justice, and did shew no mercie at all, nor free any man out of the miserie into which he is fallen; he were not yet unjust. All justice is one thing, this God is not, because he sheweth mercie: unjust is another, this God should not be, did he shew no mercie. It was therefore ill done of you, in that you would not set All justice, but crueltie, in opposi­tion to all mercie; for in so doing you did oblique­ly asperse good Christians, as if they thought that God were so; and God himself, as if he should be [Page 206] so, did he shew no mercie. And though I am wil­ling to beleeve all things that may be beleeved, yet I can scarce beleeve but that this term proceeded from the same spirit that those other horrid terms did, that I rehearsed out of your other work. And now I answer to your scornfull question, and I say, I may be as fit to review your Catechisme, as you are to review the Reviewer, who could not understand him, no, not so much as where the partialitie should lie, unless it were in the different character. So much might serve for this drowsie chapter, save that you are here suddenly turned a great friend to the Papists, and to Bellarmine. For the first, you say, ‘"You spake generally without respect to persons]’ at that time by chance you were altogether Ideal, and dealt in Abstracts onely, not stooping to im­merse your thoughts in gross particulars: neither did you charge it on the Papists, (to think God is like an old man) there be many ignorant Prote­stants as guilty of it as they, I fear] They are guiltie then, and so you think them, but you did not charge it on them, but on the Protestants. I hope if I tax you now for partialitie, you will know wherefore it is. But what follows hence to your purpose? You that can tell us that many godly persons think, the time of Beast-worshipping is not yet over; you that can finde Beastly doing, and the voice of the Dragon, in pressing humane cere­monies, are you so ignorant as not to know, that there be Relliquie Latii, certain Remains of Pope­rie, [Page 207] though not by Law established, yet kept alive, and warm in the breasts of many half-baked Prote­stants? You grant the Papists to be guiltie of it: and I said not, they onely were: but whosoever they be that are guiltie of it, they own and justifie the opinion and the practice, which is sufficient for my purpose.

Yet I think he speaks falsly of Bellar­mine; for though he held it lawfull to pi­cture God in forma hominis senis, it fol­lows not he thought him like an old man. Sure he knew God to be a Spirit. Its true Bellarmines juudgement was naught in that, but I think Mentiris Bellarmine, had been better of the two, than Mentiri de Bellarmino.]

I shall not trouble my self about the comparison, which is the better, or which is the worse of these two. To give Bellarmine the lie, or to belie Bellar­mine. Let him look to the first that said it, if you know who it was: but I must take notice of mine own charge, which is this; Mentiris de Bellarmino, and clear my self as well as I can from speaking falsly of him, and which is worse, from lying. And this is no hard matter to do. For first, you yeeld the Papists to be guiltie of this false conception: some Protestants also as you doubt: but Papists doubt­less: [Page 208] thus much your words import. And I trow you reckon Bellarmine among the Papists, and what is become now of Mentiris de Bellarmino? You that accuse me, do also acquit me from belying Bellar­mine. But secondly I alledged his words speaking of picturing onely, but not of any likeness: yet eve­rie picture is a likeness, everie image is a similitude, though everie likeness be not a picture or image, as one egg is like another, yet is not the image of it. If therefore the Cardinal held it lawfull to picture God like an old man, it must needs follow that he thought him like an old man: as thirdly, he might lawfully do in those things wherein an old man ex­celleth another man. We may lawfully think God to be like some creature, though not in any thing that imports infirmitie or imperfection. God made man in his image, how can that be if God be not in some things like him? And he is like the Sun, why else should he be called a Sun, in the Psalm; and the Father of lights by S. James? who yet noteth his unlikeness to the Sun, in that he maketh no shadow by turning, the most dark bodie being to him as a globe of chrystal: and he was like that shape or re­semblance described in Dan. 7.9. otherwise he would not have appeared in it. Likeness, is of verie great extent and latitude, and a small matter may denominate one thing like another. And fourthly, whereas you say, he knew God to be a Spirit; you know also the Angels to be spirits, yet they may, be pictured like young men, and the Cherubims [Page 209] were pictured like winged wights, by Gods ap­pointment. By this your reason, God cannot be pictured at all; and then he should forbid that which cannot be done: whereas God doth not command any thing, nor forbid any thing, that is absolutely impossible: we may possibly, represent God in a picture, but we must not. So that I have no way wronged, or falsified or belyed Bellarmine. Now though I will not say to you, mentiris pro. Bellar­mino, and set you on work to compare this, with your other two above; yet any one may plainly see, how you have run your self a ground, and are gravelled more ways than one, for Bellarmines sake, who yet will con you no thank: and if you had done him any service, he might thank me, because for my sake it was, that you became his Advo­cate.

Sect. 1. THe Son of God did offer, a full perfect and suf­ficient oblation and and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. That is as much as I desire, or assert.]

[Page 210] If you may have leave to interpret the words, of the Article, or Liturgie, according to your own meaning and Doctrine, and contrarie to the known meaning of the Church, it is as much as you need to desire. But where doth the Church of England teach that all sins proceeding from the first Adam, are forgiven of due debt to the impenitent without further and particular application of Christs Death? Windeck, a Papist, who wrote largely of the efficacie of Christs Death, and mustered up 286 arguments to prove that he died for all men, yet called puccius, Execrabile monstrum, who held that Christs Death was actually efficacious to pro­cure justification, and restore life to all men what­soever, until by new wickedness they rejected that life, and drew a second destruction upon themselves; and his opinion he calleth stultum & paganicum pa­radoxon, a foolish and heathenish paradox, & prae­sentissimum venenum, a poisonous Doctrine that dispatcheth presently, and killeth outright those that take it in. I pray you therefore learn to distin­guish between that Redemption which is universal; and that which is particular, belonging onely to such whom God doth choose, and to whom he vouch­safeth the gift of saving faith. Had you done so now, you would have contented your self with those places of Scripture that shew Christ died for all, and not confusedly and dangerously have added those places which speak of the justification, vevification, and salvation of beleevers; as namely these two: [Page 211]

All have sinned. being justified freely by his Grace. All have sinned, and all are justified by his Grace.] Answ. If all absolute­ly that have sinned, be justified, why should he re­strain it v. 22. to them that beleeve? The scope of the Apostle is this, to prove that the Jews, who thought well of themselves, in regard of their ex­cellencies and priviledges above others, have never­theless no other way to be justified, and saved, but even as the Gentiles are saved: and that is, by be­leeving. For because they have sinned as well as others, and have no righteousness of their own, more than others have, they must be justified as others are, by the righteousness of another. Be­cause all have sinned, therefore all that are justified, must be justified by Grace, and none can be justified otherwise. So also is the extent to be taken Rom. 11.32. God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercie upon all, that is, each people, Jew as well as Gentile.

Rom. 5.18. By the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.] Answ. The meaning is, that as all that sprang from the first Adam as their head, or root, were guiltie of Death; so all that belong to the se­cond Adam, are partakers of life: the very next verse before, there is a restraint to them that re­ceive the abundance of Grace. Gal. 3.22. The Scri­pture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise might be given to them that beleeve. Is it not the [Page 212] constant Doctrine of the Bible, that the benefit Christs Death, as to life, and justification and for­giveness, is limited to them that hear, and to them that come; To them that eat and drink of him: to them that beleeve, and to them that obey? will no­thing serve with you to mitigate and mollifie the [...], the rigidum, and the aridum of the letter, but that against reason, against so many Parallel places, and the generally received Doctrine of Chri­stians, the universalitie of mankinde must be in­tended? It may be you regard the testimonie of Conradus Vorstius, more than you do some others: hear his words in his Commentarie upon the Epi­stle to the Romanes ch. 5. v. 18. Apparet eos gra­viter errare, qui ex hoc loco colligere conantur omnes omnino homines per Christi gratiam actu regenerari & justificari; nec perinde quenquam perire posse, nisi qui acceptam gratiam malitiosè, suâque impaenitentiâ atque incredulitate, novam Dei indignationem sibi at­trahere velit. Quae sententia haud dubie valde peri­culosa est. That is, It is evident that those men are in a grievous errour, that from this place endeavour to gather, that all men whosoever are by Christs grace, actually regenerate, and justified, and that none do perish but such as wilfully reject this grace, and through unbelief draw upon themselves, a se­cond time, Gods wrath and indignation; which opi­nion, out of all doubt, is very pernicious.] Yet this opinion you contend for, with all your might, as if it were as true as the Gospel, as if it were the very [Page 213] Gospel, and as if all that gainsay it were hinderers of the Gospel.

Concerning the equalitie of Gods love towards men, you refer me to your Essays, where you say thus; pag. 20. He may take his own libertie to give more or less, as he pleases, and yet deal equally and graciously with all.] Which is ei­ther a manifest contradiction, or a sophistical ambi­guitie. Gods ways are equal, that is just, whether he give more or less: yet are they not equal, that is, is, alike to all, because he giveth to one, more than to another.

HOW doth it appear that such hold­ers of it love others, seeing they are my adversaries for holding it, because I hold it not in all things as they do? Is enmitie to a man because he is not of their minde, a signe of love? For he says not, they be my dissenting brethren, but my adversaries. God grant their other frames [Page 214] be righter, for not he that commends himself, &c.

I intended not to commend my self, nor all that are of my minde in these matters, but spake inde­finitely of your adversaries: if but some, if but a few, it is sufficient. And I hope you will never in­fect your own partie with that dangerous point, as you count it, of Pharisaisme, to say, Non sumus si­cut caeteri: though now you are readie to censure us for this, and to suspect us for the rest. But as not he that commends himself, is always the best, no more is he that is the forwardest to censure others. There is difference betwixt an adversarie and an enemie: howbeit you, by vertue of your trope cal­led confusion, do make them all one. May not a man wage law against his friend, and yet be his friend still? they that plead the causes of other men, are adversaries one to another, and yet out of the court agree well enough among themselves. May not one Christian Prince wage war against an­other Prince, and yet be in Christian Charitie? he may. And what do you call them, that call you adversarie? You call them the pretended orthodox: which is a term more censorious, by far, and more supercilious then adversarie, which hath no hurt in it, I am your advarsarie, and you are mine: and no man thinketh amiss of us for this, unless perhaps he mislike the cause why we are so. And thus much shall serve for this hungrie cavil, and also for this chapter.

IN the second section you explain your self, and what your meaning is, when you usually teach, that we should not gather Gods love to us by faith, obedience, new frames and repentance; namely we may gather by these that the benefits of Christs passion are applied to us for our spiritual life, but we must not gather by them that the Remedie is provided for us. This will I beleeve to have some truth, or at least some reason in it, when I shall be­leeve that there was ever any Christian, that did search into his own heart, and seek there for good desires and good affections, and inclinations, to the intent he might thence conclude and know assured­ly, that Jesus Christ died for all men in the world: or when you can shew me, who he was, that ever yet taught any Christian to do so. You made pro­fession in your fourth page above, That you arm­ed the children against the dangers and deceits of the pretended orthodox, as Antidotes are to be given against the present reigning diseases.] Now their doctrine is that a Christian person from the fruits of sanctification in his thoughts, words, and works, and especially from the frame and dis­position [Page 216] position of his heart, may gather the love of God and the benefits of Christs death for his glorifica­tion in heaven. This was the reigning disease, this was the Doctrine against which you framed your Antidote: and not against this, that we should take heed how we conclude from fruits of holiness that the Son of God offered a sacrifice for the sins of all the world, or that he is the Saviour of all men, especially of them that beleeve. I cannot imagine you spake against that which never any man did, or was taught to do; but against that rather which all good Christians do practise, except those that are commonly called Antinomians. There is a seal of Gods spirit, which is in this life set upon those that are his, and by which he will own them at the last: and is not set upon those that are none of his. This difference you cannot endure should be made or spoken of; He is a Pharisee that is not as other men are, but if he gives thanks to God that he is better than others, better than this Publican, or suppose then this malefactour, or this traytour, which he seeth, or heareth to be executed; This, this is the poison that needeth the Antidote, this is Pharisaisme, that must be cried down, this is the spirit that must cast out: this must be followed up­on all opportunities and occasions. I noted before how you plied this point in one of your funeral ser­mons: and in another which you preached the year before upon Prov. 14.32. pag. 12. your words are. But thou wouldest have some signe or token of [Page 217] the truth of this as concerning thee from him in something to be done by him to thy soul—then doest thou as that adulterous generation, Mat. 12.39. which Christ reprooveth seeking signes and tokens: and if thou shouldest persist in that way, thou maist be given up to delusion to believe a lie.]

But when the Apostle in the second Epistle to the Corinthians and the last chapter, biddeth them, Examine themselves, whether they be in the faith, and prove their own selves; did he bid them do that for which our Saviour reprooved the Scribes and Pharisees? Thus you teach: but they are de­luded that believe you. You cōplain, Brief Disc. pag. 21. That too many of the Teachers love to slumber, and content themselves with Dreams in stead of searching out the Truth, and giving it forth to the people.] Is this the truth you have searched for, and found it out at last to impart to the people? or what shall we call a sick mans dream?

I will suppose that most of your Auditors had sormerly learned, and could then remember that part of the Church-Catechisme, wherein they were taught to professe and rehearse after this man­ner: I believe in God the Father who hath made me and all the world: and in God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all mankind: and in God the holy Ghost who sanctifieth me, and all the elect people of God. And I will suppose also that some [Page 218] good Christian well weighing these words with himself, should not rest contented with the com­mon love of God, who created all things, and ha­teth nothing that he hath made: nor with that generall love of Christ, whereby he redeemed all mankind; but should endeavour further to finde that he is sanctified by the holy Ghost, having heard that there is a seal of the Spirit: and every seal is more than a signe, but a signe it is, having heard also of the fruits of the Spirit, Gal. 5. If now this person should be perswaded by you and your Sermon, that if he goeth on in this way, he is de­scended of that wicked and adulterous generation of the Scribes and Pharisees, that tempted God, and provoked our Saviour by calling for signes, I can­not think you have done any good service for his soule, but rather that he forsakes the right way, and gives over the truth, to be abused by you. When we look for fruits of Faith, this is not to enquire whether Christ died for us, or not, for he dyed for all; but whether the holy Ghost hath sanctified us or not, because he sanctifieth only the elect people of God, and consequently whether we have Christs death applyed to us according to his speciall intention. If you had perceived any of your people so fond, as to apply that reproof, Mat. 12.39. for confirmation of the doctrine you elsewhere teach; By the place and office you are in, and by your skill and learning in Logick and Lan­guages, you should have informed them, that a [Page 219] Signe, there, signifies a Miracle, or a Wonder, above the sphere and force of nature, as Isa. 7. Ask thee a signe, aske it in the depth, or in the height a­bove. And Mark 16. The Apostles confirmed the word with signes following; much less ought you to have put such a conceit into their heads, as if when they examined their own hearts, as the Apo­stle biddeth them, they were as blame-worthy, as some Atheist or Epicurean, who after all the De­monstration which he daily seeth, should demand some miracle, some signe or proof extraordinary, that God is, and that he guides this present world.

Sect. 4. The Analogie of Faith, I con­ceive, is rather that proportion of the Faith every man hath, which the Apo­stle would have none to exceed in his pro­phecying, than any Systeme to be sub­scribed by all.]

I was not interpreting the Apostles words, Rom. 12.6. Nor did I say they are to be meant of a sum of those things that are to be held and believed, ra­ther than of the proportion of Faith, that every man hath, and yet I think there may as much be said for that interpretation, as for this. But the A­nalogie of Faith in common acception is taken for a brief Summary of Christian Belief, as the Apo­stles Creed, whatsoever it may signifie in the place [Page 220] whence it was first taken. Therefore you might very well have let this pass without trouble to the Reader about it: And so would I, but that your selfe used this word in the very same sense, here, above at

Who is there that doth not lay down some things fundamentall, contrary to which no difficult saying is to be interpreted, be­cause it would be against the Analogie of Faith] And how comes it to pass that you forgat your self so soon? or what is the reason that you may speak after the common manner, and I may not?

You often bring up the Pharisee and his words, as making much against your Adversaries, in that he thanked God, he was not as other men are.] Upon this I noted that a Saint may say, what the Pharisee said, with another mind and to another in­tention than the Pharisee said it. To this you an­swer Sect. 6. It was not the Pharisees saying, but his doing, in trusting in himself that he was righteous, and thence despising others, that I blamed.

But (1) you quoted Luke 18.11. which contain­eth nothing but his words. (2) Doing, if take at large, comprehendeth saying. To speak, in old Logick, be­longs to the Predicament of Action. Indeed if you restrain it by way of opposition; then, to say is one [Page 221] thing, and to do, is another, yet here in this case they meet & are all one, according to your opinion, and according to your words, in this place. To give thanks for being better than other men are, is saying and it is doing too, for it is despising of others. To trifle is one thing, to write is another: yet he who sets down in writing meer trifles, to no purpose but that he may write something or other, doth at the very same time, both write & trifle. (3) One of your English Masters, is nothing so nice, as you would seem to be, and yet I think you be both of a mind, for having taught that in the gifts of Tongues and Prophesying, with the like, given for the publick service of the Church, God maketh the differece. But in gifts of Sanctification, as Faith & obedience, Man maketh the difference and not God: he giveth this rule touching these graces, pag. 266. App. Evang. Take heed of the Pharisees form of Thanks for Graces with comparison to other folks] I see nothing to the contrary but that he who thinketh good to follow this rule, must so understand it, not but that he may think himself better then others are, but he must be wary that he thank not God for it, as if He had made any such difference betwixt man, and man: he must by all means take heed of that: And then it is easie to see, that upon pretence of being lowly, like the poor Publicane, he shall indeed be more proud then was the Pharisee, who though he insisted more then was fit upon his own righte­ousness such as it was; yet sticked not to give God [Page 222] thanks, that he was so righteous. (3) Why may not a well-disposed Christian give to God the glo­ry of his Grace, and thank him with such like words as the Pharisee used, that he is so good as he is, and no worse; and yet withall, at the same time, with the Publicane, be cast down in his minde, and crie to God for mercy and pardon, be­cause he is so bad as he is, and no better? I pray think further of it, lest you be too forward in your judgement, and condemn the righteous together with the wicked. And lastly, I would desire you, and all that abound in this sense of yours, to re­member, that as Pride, which consisteth in re­flecting too much upon the good we have, is rec­koned [...]mong the deadly sins; so is Envie likewise, which causeth us to be grieved and discontent at the good that others have. And as there is dan­ger of the one, in those, who exceed others in par­taking of Gods graces; so is there no less danger of the other in those that come behind, and have re­ceived a less measure of his love and favours. Let not your minde be always on the Pharisee despising the Publican, but think now and then of Cain, who was wroth because his brothers sacrifice was accept­ed, and slew him because his works were more righteous than his own: and of Esau who hated Jacob because of the blessing: and of Iacobs sons, who hated Ioseph because his Father loved him more than he loved them, and yet they hated him more because of his great preferment that was [Page 223] foretold, and because of the blessings that were upon the crown of the head of him that was sepa­rated from his brethren. And as God doth various­ly dispense his blessings temporal and spiritual, even as [...] seemeth good to him, and as Princes have their favourites, and our Saviour had the Twelve, and of them, one beloved Disciple; If it pleaseth God Almighty, who is debtor to none, to give to his beloved, sleep, that he will have his Darlings, and bestow upon them all affluence, without their care and thought-taking, while the labour of o­thers, and all their industry is lost; you will never be able to give any good reason, why they may not be sensible of so much, and why they may not with modesty be thankfull for it. And if they be so, it is not the example and the words of the Pharisee that will justifie any man, who shall thereupon say, They are proud, and despisers of others; but let him rather fear lest it be thus taken and interpreted, as if he were therefore their enemy, because God is their friend. Because I will not trouble my self or others with what hath been said, or what need not be said, I passe on to your next chapter.

IF you do not think the Remonstrants Doctrine worthy of Defence, and your self able to de­fend it, why do you deliver, and publish it? If you do, why do you deny it when you are challenged for it, and charged with it? It were fair to deal plainly, and not to give your mind to shifts and subterfuges, disclaiming what you hold, and teach­ing it then, when you deny it, as here you do in this chapter.

The Hague-Remonstrants were afraid, it would be destructive to mans nature, if he should be wrought upon any otherwise than suadendo, which I Englished, by perswading, and you now say, I confound suadendo with persuadendo, counselling with perswading.] I answer, whatsoever differ­ence there is betwixt suadere, and persuadere, in some Latine writers (for it is not in all) we have in our language but one word for both, and that is perswa­sion, for suasion is no English. And 2ly Brandius the Translator of that Conference doth in the very next place before use the word persuadere and per­suasio, thrice within the compass of one sentence, in the very same signification, with suadet, in the [Page 225] words that I alledged, pag. 310. praeter alia omnia persuadendi dona, quibus alii aliis praest are possunt, rogamus fratres, quando volumus persuasionu rationes inter se conferenao ponderare, agatne ille fortius in persuadendo, qui aeterna & incorruptibilia dona pro­mittit, co quitantum temporalia & corruptibilia? Illud est discrimen inter allicia Dei & Satanae. I alledg the words at large the rather, that withall it may be seen, how little they ascribe to God in the conver­sion of a sinner, even as much as is in the object, which he propoundeth, and no more. And 3ly It is nothing materiall to our enquiry, whether the counsell be followed or no, whether it be suadendo, or persuadendo, by perswading or by counselling: the question is, What or how much is done by him, that doth either counsell, or perswade. The coun­sell given is the same, whether it be followed, or not followed. Who determines the will to follow the good counsell that is given? The Apostle saith, Phil. 2.13. God worketh in us to will: so say you too, by giving us good counsell to follow: but if that be all, he worketh it in us, according to our good pleasure, and not of his good pleasure, as the Apostle there addeth. Perswasion say you, doth it with the perswasible] but who maketh them perswasible? The work of grace is to open the deaf eare, and to make the stubborn and refra­ctory become willing to hear and obey.

Having alledged Cameron by way of scorn (for so I take it) Sect. 1. In your third you bring him in [Page 226] again, saying, Deus ista omnia facit persuadendo. God doth all these things by his perswasion: but in in the same page he saith, God in this life worketh Charity in us, as he doth in the life to come, sic ut fieri non possit ut non amemus. So as that it cannot be otherwise but that we must love him, and after in the 75. page, Those who are converted, are so illuminated. Ut non possint non converti: that they cannot but be converted. Is this your Illumi­tion, and perswasion?

Sect. 3. I thought the new spirit and heart had followed Faith.

Regeneration is an entire work, though in ap­pearance and to our apprehension, some things go before, and some other follow. As faith is a Principle of spirituall life, so is it withall a part of spirituall life. As the life in the Heart, is a part of Naturall life, and withall a principle of Naturall life: So Faith goeth before the new frame, as a part of the new frame.

Sect. 2. LEt the Reader view my Answer, and judge of my Reviewers honesty, when he thus wrote, where say I they are both alike without a­ny difference so called? Nay I say quite o­therwise; for in saying of the latter, it is a gift brought to us by the word of God, which I say not of the former, I expresly put a Difference.]

Let the Reader judge hardily, and spare not, I am willing withall: let him look narrowly, and tell what he findes, whether in you, or in me, either of Dishonesty, or of Sycophancy. Your Answer in the Catechisme was this. As the ability to hear the Gospel outwardly, is of Gods gift, so the word outwardly heard, brings to men by the gift of God power of more inward hearing and attenti­on.] Hereupon I noted thus; To hear outward­ly, and to hear inwardly, are in this answer called both alike, without any difference, Gods gift, and as far as we may guess by his words here, and in o­ther places both of them are of like extent thus far, [Page 228] that look where he giveth the outward hearing he giveth the inward also. Whatsoever the means be, by which he conferreth the gift, still the one is his gift as well as the other, he giveth this, no more than he giveth that, which way soever he giveth it. May they not both be said by you, to be his gift without difference, and yet be given by somewhat different means? But you must be born withall for writing thus, if you have nothing more solid to bring forth.

If the power to hear with inward in­tention, be an act of special Grace, why doth our Saviour fault some for stop­ping the ear lest they should hear: it was not the outward ear they stopped with their fingers, but their inward with their oppositions to God; and if that was not opened, no ground to stop it.]

The will is corrupted as well as other faculties of men unregenerate, so that they lie under a natural and a voluntarie corruption. As it is a natural cor­ruption, so they cannot hear and obey; their ears are stopped: as it is a voluntarie corruption, so they are willingly disobedient and stop their own ears. A prisoner, that is besotted with his manner of life, and his companions, and preferreth it before his libertie, [Page 229] may say, I will not come forth; and you cannot thence prove that he may come forth if he will.

Sect. 2. HE adds such a faith as is feined and unsound may belost, and truly I think it is not worth the keeping: no loss in loosing such a faith, seeing if kept it would do a man no good, A man may lose it for the better even for a righter faith. But I am per­swaded that is not it, which the Apostles and Christ warn men of, and bewailed, or feared any for, that they should lose what made them but Hypocrites.]

Hy pocrisie is a moral crime: An Hypocrite is a dissembler, He that takes upon him and personates what he is not. But if you will extend the term so far as to comprehend such as want saving Grace, and are not yet made partakers of spiritual life, how­soever otherwise morally qualified, and conforming in duties of Religion: or if you will put the case of one that is an Hypocrite indeed, in the common sense: If he loseth his faith, he doth not lose that [Page 230] which made him an Hypocrite, though he loseth that, notwithstanding which, he was such. But as an Hypocrite is not so bad, as a vitious and openly profane and ungodly person, so an unsound faith is better than none, & a faith historical or tempora­rie, better kept than lost; Although you very rashly, as I suppose, not deliberately, do here teach to the contrarie. For I pray observe well, first that Historical faith is a true faith in the kinde of it, hath a true being, and is of good use and benefit: and it is best for them that have it, to hold what they have, and not think of losing it for a better; for though it be not justifying faith, nor a part of it, nor yet a degree of it; yet is it a step towards it, ac­cording to Gods ordinarie way of proceeding in the conversion of sinners; and as a stock whereupon is engrafted saving Faith, when God is pleased, to make that Christian a member of the Church in­visible, who was before but a member of the Church visible. And as in the vision of the great tree, that figured the estate of Nebuchadnezzar, the stump of it was left in the ground, because God intended to restore him; So there is more hope of good inten­tions towards him, who preserveth in himself found principles of Religion, though he be unsanctified, than another who goeth aside in the by-ways of unbelief, or misbelief. And secondly, as for faith temporarie, it is not so called, because it never en­dures but for a time, but because it is apt in the na­ture and constitution of it, to abide but a while, and [Page 231] then to fail. For in two cases a temporarie beleever doth not fall away. 1. When persecution doth not arise, nor any temptation on either hand; for then he may persevere in his faith, during his life. 2. When it pleaseth God to make use of this com­mon Grace, as preparatorie to saving Grace, and to indue the temporarie beleever with true justifying faith, which is his meer gift, not produced by the utmost of natural and civil persections, but bestow­ed onely upon the heirs of life. In a visible consti­tuted Church. God bringeth men home to himself ordinarily by Degrees, working in them first that which is natural, and that which is moral; and then that which is spiritual. And they which quench the spirit, even in the common gifts thereof, for­sake their own mercies, and are no friends to their own salvation, though you seem to advise all men, that are not as they ought to be, to turn Atheists or Pagans, for so they must do, if they lose all their faith.

Pag. 135. Such were the Galatians, they ran well; were the sons of God by faith. Yet the Apostle saith so manie of them as were justified by the Law, were fallen from Grace.]

In that place, the word Grace, doth signifie the Doctrine of Grace, as 1 Pet. 5.12. This is the true [Page 232] Grace of God wherein ye stand, in other places also where Grace, is opposed to the Law: and it is as much as if he had said; You that are justified by Law, are fallen from the Gospel, or Doctrine of Faith. You are revolted from the Covenant of Grace, to the Covenant of works.

I answer therefore, first, The defection of a par­ticular Church, from sound Doctrine to errour or unbelief, is no good argument to prove the revolt of a particular beleever from the habit of saving Grace; no not so much as of any one individual per­son from sound doctrine; for an erroneous genera­tion might rise up in the stead of these who held the truth to their dying day.

And secondly, It doth not appear that those Ga­latians who stood in Grace, did now fall from Grace. They did run well, and now they did intermit their course, not forsaking the right way, but halting or stumbling in the way, and doubtless were recovered by the Apostles admonition, as he was perswaded they would be, ch. 5. v. 10. I have confidence in you that you will be no otherwise minded than yon have been. Neither doth he speak absolutely in the words you bring, but rather conditionally, as if he had said thus, if ye be justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace, as he saith v. 2. if ye be circum­cised. So that from the Galatians, there is no such abundant proof as you speak of,

[Page 233] The temporarie beleever is not said to have wanted truth of faith but root.]

If they had no root, then they had no truth of Faith, but onely leaves of profession, which Simon Magus had, and many other, who yet are said to beleeve. But it is a heart of unbelief, that causeth to depart from the living God; Heb. 3.12. It was the last sort of hearers, and they onely, that did re­ceive the word in an honest and good heart, that is the difference of this fourth kinde of hearers from the other three, and must therefore be in the fourth onely, and without such a heart, they might have some faith, but they could never have a justifying faith, of which onely the question is.

The foolish virgins had oyl in their lamps, else how could their lamps have burned or gone out? But they took not oyl in their vessels to supplie their lamps, they treasured not up the word of God in their hearts.]

A Parable, is as an instrument of Musick, it is unskilfulness to strike besides the strings. Oyl in their lamps, is the profession of Christiantie in out­ward works and words. Oyl in their vessels, is in­ward Grace, or Faith, whence outward professon is maintained and supplied, There was a difference [Page 234] from the beginning, between the foolish and the wise; and between their lamps, which were not alike pro­vided for: and thence it was, that the one sort went out, and the other continued burning, That it was true oyl that was quite spent and burnt out, as good as that which the other virgins had to feed their lamps withall, is a consideration belonging, not to the scope or intention of the Parable, but to the frame or constitution of it. But have you the confidence to maintain that they had truth of faith, when yet you say, The word of God was not in their hearts?

The house that fell had no good foun­dation, because they did not do what they heard.]

You might rather have said, they did not what they heard, because they had no good foundation. Action is rather the superstructure, than a ground­work. But if they did not do, what they heard, then they had not true faith: for true faith is always operative, and attended with works, otherwise it is but the counterfeit of faith.

What need of warning true beleevers, to take heed of falling, or of fearing of­fence taking, if they were out of all dan­ger [Page 235] of taking offence and falling? the A­postles implie no such impossibilitie of their falling.]

Exhortations to a mixt societie or congregati­on, must be so delivered, as to fit one sort of hea­rers, as well as another, and to be usefull to all: In the Epistles that the Apostles wrote to the Churches, in which were good and bad; when they speak to the good, they speak as if they were all such; and when they direct their speech to the bad, they often speak so, as if they were all bad. I desire you would remember this rule, when­soever you fetch any argument of this kinde from the manner of the Apostles writing to any societie of Christians: and if you had thought of it now, you would never have laid any great weight upon that place, Gal. 5.4. Ye are fallen from Grace; for in the third ch. v. 26. he saith ye are all the chil­dren of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Such warn­ings and exhortations are usefull to all: for as the secure are awakened: and the unsound may hereby be made better than they are; so are true beleevers held in that state which they have attained. By fear of falling away, they are preserved from falling away. Care and watchfulness are spiritual graces of God, whereby they continue stedfast. When many of Christs disciples being offended left him, their departure endangered the rest: the twelve therefore he kept by him, by asking them thus, will [Page 236] ye also go away? As for such impossibilitie of fal­ling away, as you speak of, I know not any. That which certainly shall not in the event come to pass; may yet be possible in it self to come to pass. For the Saints considered in themselves to fall away, is a thing possible, yea, very probable, such is their weakness, such is their danger. But upon supposition of Gods Decree, and promise, and pre­servation, it is impossible that it should be. They are as frail as glasses, but they are held by a warie hand. God will not suffer them to be tempted a­bove their strength, but knoweth how to deliver them out of temptation. He will not suffer the rod of the wicked to rest, to abide long upon the lot of the righteous, lest the righteous put forth their hands to wickedness. He shortens the days of trou­ble, that the Elect be not born down, nor sink un­der the burden. And sometimes speedily takes them away, lest malice should alter their under­standing, or deceit beguile their soul.

To prove that there is a difference betwixt true beleevers and Apostates besore their fall, I al­ledged several places, to which you have answered severally and largely. But you have said nothing that hath made any of those testimonies to that purpose, invalid. The two first did shew, not onely, that there is a difference, but that the ground of that difference, is in Gods secret counsel. To those two, I shall onely add now some other the like, and then conclude this chapter. Joh. 17.12. None of [Page 237] them is lost, but the son of perdition. And what that signifies, you cannot better understand, than by con­ferring with a parallel place of the same subject, namely, Joh. 13.18. I speak not of you all, I know whom I have chosen: in each of these texts Judas is he that is excepted, and in the one he is called the son of perdition; in the other he is said, not to be chosen: and thence it was, he fell away, and was lost. And that Election to life is spoken of there, and not to Office, is certain and evident, for Judas was chosen to be an Apostle. When the Jews, in so great a part fell off from the true Church, it was a very great offence. How doth the Apostle re­move it? Rom. 11.7. Israel hath not obtained, that which he seeketh for, but the Election hath obtain­ed it. When some turned the Grace of God into wantonness, S. Jude to prevent the scandal, saith that such false teachers and their followers, were not good at first, and at best, but such as crept in unawares, and were before of old ordained to this condemnation. And when the generalitie of the inhabitants of the earth, did wonder after the Beast and worship him, there is in serted a clause of diffe­rence, betwixt them and others, and that difference derived from the very fountain, or foundation of God, the Elect are excepted Revel. 13.8. All whose names are not written in the book of life, from the foundation of the world.

IF it please the Reader to peruse first mine, and then yours, and but compare them together, I suppose he will not think it needfull, that any thing more be written now, about the title or subject of this chapter. When we are speaking of the will of God, you betake jrour self to the Free will of man, bringing forth such fragments as have often been served up. I shall onely take notice of some other things which you have fallen upon, no way belonging hither. For you are like a valiant Game­ster and will have at all, [...] Joannes ad oppo­situm, as you can hold up any thing that you have said, you can oppose whatsoever another saith, yea sometimes although it be your own opinion.

Sect. 2. But he says God is to be wor­shipped in spirit and truth now, and not as before Christs coining in outward rites, shadows and ceremonies, which then bare a great part of Gods service. I am glad M. H. is for such spiritual worship, if it be in realitie, for he may have, it is likely, a [Page 239] secret intention, contrary to his revealed sayings, as he signifies of God.]

Soon after this, about the beginning; of your next Section, you call it a Threed-bare distinction of, A Revealed will, and secret, and like better of Conditional and Absolute. I told you then, you had often heard it, and I like it the better for be­ing common and ordinary. You say little to it there, and here you make a Jest upon it: and a jest if it be a threed-bare one, as this is, is stark naught: but if withall it be prophane, and Lucianical, it is the more abominable.

To understand, and to make out the two-fold will of God, manifestly delivered in holy Scripture, it concerneth you as well as others, and I think you cannot do it better than others have done: For ex­ample, Exod. 7.3, 4. God commanded Pharaoh to let the people go: at the very same time he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he might not let them go. Yours of Conditionall and Absolute, will not help the matter here, unless you can tell what should be the condition in this case. You that hold God willeth all men to be saved in your sense, without any difference, till they themselves make it, not conferring one place of Scripture with another, & one principle of Faith with the rest, must make two contrary wills, or else deny, whether di­rectly or by consequence, Gods omnipotence. It being a most certain truth, in Reason, and in Reli­gion, [Page 240] gion, that God doth whatsoever he will, both in Heaven and in Earth. But others say, consonant­ly to other parts of Christian Divinity, that Gods revealed will is not always properly a will, but one­ly figuratively, interpretatively, or by way of likeness. He is said to will because he seemeth to will, in declaring what he willeth should be mans duty, and what he will accept and approve of, if performed. Now because this is declared by the Law or Commandment, therefore it is called his revealed will. This is no way contrary to his will whereby he peremptorily determines what he him­self will do, and what shall inevitably come to pass, which because he hath not discovered to us, except matter of prophecy, or promise, is therefore called his secret will.

Or, that it is his will, by way of approbation, he approveth, alloweth and liketh well of universall and perfect obedience, and the salvation of all men as agreeable to his nature and generall inclination, and as morally good: though he doth not com­pleatly and perfectly will it, so as to effect it.

And that his will to save all men consisteth in procuring a Saviour or Redeemer for all men, and ordaining means of salvation more or lesse for all men; not in causing those means always to take place. Thus have we been taught by those whom you had done better to follow, than to take the chair of the scorners, and make a mock of what you cannot or will not understand.

[Page 241] But were not the Ceremonies of Gods appointing then, more warrantable and sutable to Davids spiritual worship, than Rites or Ceremonies of mans Institution now, that God never commanded? might not a man expect more blessing then in observing them, than in the other now? I durst not determine positively.]

You compare the Rites and Ceremonies given to the Jews by Moses, with the Ceremonies of Mans Institution now. And you do it so, that the people may think, the Rites established in our Church, are appointed as appertaining to Gods service, no less than those which were imposed upon the peo­ple of the Jews in the old Testament. Wherein you deal very injuriously with the Church of Eng­land, and with the consciences of the weak.

Before the Liturgy is declared, that what of Ce­remonies is retained, is for Discipline and Order, and not to be esteemed equall with Gods law.

When the Gileadites had erected an Altar, on the other banck of Jordan, and that of their own heads, without divine command, yet as a Ceremony some way significant in religion; the other Tribes were highly offended at it, taking it to be a corruption of the true worship, and a kinde of defection from the God of Israel. But so soon as they heard them [Page 242] protest against any such intention, and declare that they meant it onely as a witness of their consent in Gods worship, and of their joint-profession with their brethren that dwelt in the land of Canaan; they gave over presently, laid aside their jealousie add suspicion, and rested well content.

They who have endeavoured to satisfie the Non-conformists, did fully declare these things to be matters of indifferency, no part of divine wor­ship, no way necessary to salvation, no more than any thing else that is done, and ought to be done at the command of a Superiour. They did always disclaim any opinion of necessity, or efficacy ascribed by Papists to their Ceremonies, any obligation of Conscience, otherwise than in civill Laws, which God in the general hath commanded us to observe. The more to blame are they that will not at last, after so many protestations and declarations receive satisfaction.

If any of those high-flown Anabapists with whom you have discoursed, who are against civill customes, yea against customes of Civility, as well as against Ecclesiastical Laws, and will not come at our Churches because they have been defiled with; Mass, should argue thus against you, as you have in a sort taught them to do; Might not a man ex­pect more blessing in going to the Temple at Jeru­salem, which was of divine dedication, appointed and consecated by God himself, descending from heaven, and by his cloud of glory, owning it for [Page 243] the place of his mansion and abode, than we can expect in going to our Churches, which are but of mans institution and consecration? I suppose you would shape him some answer or other, I pray let that answer serve for you both.

Upon occasion of those words in the Church-Cathechisme, [To keep Gods holy will, and Com­mandments] you asked your Scholar, what is the will and Commandment of God concerning thee? And you taught him to answer thus: Gods will is that I should be saved.] Upon this I noted, that Gods will to save men, is matter of belief, not of practice, therefore not of precept, hereto now you answer, That God commands us to be saved, I prove from Isa. 45.22.] and there I find these words, look unto me, and be ye saved; this is your proof, because Be ye saved, is the Imperative mood forsooth! and that is as much as command­ing. A most worthy argument! but more worthy of G. F. or G. W. than of their Antagonist: but bet­ter becoming one of your Laymen that can read no Latin, than your self: for if they could, they might there have found it, & salvi eritis, or ut servemini. I hope your skill in Logick will help you, not to make two preceps of those words, but to resolve them into a precept and a promise: or if you be re­solved to hold you to your Grammar and your Moods, then let me tell you, that though it be [Page 244] called the Imperative, yet it is not always so, but now and then something else, as Precative, carry­ing prayer or entreaty, for otherwise you will teach, not the Souldier onely with a sword in his hand, but any other beggar, when he asketh Almes, to command, for they make use of the Im­perative Mood: and Postulative, or requesting as Pay me that thou owest, a Demand, not a Com­mand: and Concessive or granting, as sleep on now, and take your rest: and Hortative, as Be of good courage, fear not: and Constitutive, causing some­thing to be, or be made, which was not before, as Gods Voice at the Creation, Fiat, and the Kings, Sois Chevalier: and Lastly, Promissive, as Do good and live for evermore: So, that which you call a Command, is a Promise, Look unto me, and ye shall be saved. He commands us to look to him, and if we do, he promiseth to save us.

IN your last chapter there is little I shall take no­tice of, besides that which you have in effect mentioned twice before, namely pag. 2. pressing ceremonies and domination in the Church yon call Beastly doing, and the voice of the Dragon, and pag. [Page 245] 36. The Magistrate must not exercise the Autho­rity of the Dragon, in appointing Ordinances of worship, and here you are at it again.

If the time of Beast-worshipping be not yet over, (as many godly persons think it is not) then the Scripture says, all that then dwell upon the earth are false wor­shippers, onely excepted, whose names written in the book of life.]

And many godly persons know, that there have been, and are still many ungodly persons, who would gladly overthrow and destroy all Christianity upon pretence of Antichristianisme. The Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. 2. hath given us warning of the dan­ger incident to Reformation, and what the Devi­ces and Machinations of Satan are at such a time, and what his Method: and that is this, to drive men from one extreme to another. Witness the case of the incestuous Corinthian there, who being at the first tolerated in his wickedness without any manner of censure, was in the next place well nigh plunged into despair, and swallowed up of sorrow; through over-rigorous dealing. When the abuses of Popery were to be reformed, not onely the wel­minded laid to their hands, but persons also world­ly, godless, and enemies to Religion joyned with the rest in the destructive part, but intended to [Page 246] promote Atheisme, when they set themselves a­gainst Superstition. Hereticks also, whose opini­ons lay on that side, were zealous in their manner, but their zeal was more like Wild-fire, which they threw in, to have marred all, if it might have been. For after that Antiquity came to be a badge ot Po­pery then (1) whatsoever was found to have been practised by the Papists in Church-orders, was for that reason rejected. Not a stone must be taken from Babylon, for a foundation, or a corner. If the least matter of all were yielded, it was as a pepper­corn in acknowledgement of the Antichristian Go­vernment. And (2) even the most sacred Articles of our Christian Faith, have been denyed, as ha­ving come from Rome, and thither were to be re­turned. So the name of Antichrist, the Beast, and the Dragon, served the turne for many heresies, & for all profaneness. A Discourse came forth enti­tuled, The storming of Antichrist, a right proper and well chosen word, of which they know the meaning, who had experience of the Wars, and laying siege to Towns, and strong places, and as­saulting them: storms of winde, tempests of hail, and of Lightning, do spare nothing that is in their way, having no regard, shewing no mercy, ma­king no difference: for being meer naturall Agents, they always act according to their utmost power and might. So describes the Poet his hardy Souldi­ers, [...]. not likening them to Wolves and Lions, which have been [Page 247] known to relent, and their mouths have been as it were stopped; but they fought as it were a flame, fell on like a tempest, noting, saith the great Scho­liast, [...], that they were irrationally im­petuous, violent without sense or reason, without mean or measure. And much like these stormers were some of those that went among our Reform­ers both first and last. You seem to extend Beast­worship very far, even to those matters in question betwixt us. But you give no instance, nor shall I insist upon any. I know you can, if you will, distin­guish betwixt Poperie, and the Christian Religion; and if you do not consider apart, what belongs to one, and what belongs to the other, what to Er­rour, and what to Truth; you may soon do that which tendeth to the weakening and undermining of the whole building. Divers of the Papists have twitted us with the Jews, laying to our charge Ju­daisme for refusing some Apocryphal books, and for condemning Image worship, as the Jews do now; and for saying that a man cannot forgive sins, as they also said: and for insisting upon the Law of Moses, and the precedents of the old Testament, to prove that unto Christian Kings belongeth the su­premacy in ordering matters of Religion in a Nati­on: he that argueth thus, say they, is more like a Jew than a Christian. The Anabaptists had learn­ed this Lesson too; for when they were bent upon such a confusion, as should take away the difference betwixt Clergie and Laitie, they were wont upon [Page 248] occasion to revile the Priests and Levites, as blinde and ignorant, [...] demanding of John the Baptist, by what authority he did what he did: as if observa­tion of order in the Church, and pretence of Au­thoritie in Gods worship and service were points of Judaical blindness and infidelity. Against all these and such like let us remember that the Jews were once the onely true Church of God, and our Chri­stianity came to us from them, and through their hands, & we are all but proselytes to their Church. So that as they had once all the Substantials of the true Religion, both for belief and practice, we can­not suppose but that they do retain many of them still. In like manner the Christian Religion came to us, through the Church of Rome, not from the Church of Rome; and our profession is but to re­move the additions and superstructures of the Pa­pists, by which the right belief and worship have been corrupted; and to throw out the earth with which the Philistims had filled the well, and stop­ped the springs. Antichrists are many, there is false worship on both hands, Anarchie is beastly doing, as well as Tyrannie; and Confusion, as much as Usurpation.

I cannot but think some prejudice a­against my person (I know not where­fore being so meer a stranger to him) hath clouded his reason.]

[Page 249] By this Clause, he that will may judge of all your book, as of the sack by a handfull, for it is like the rest, full of confidence, but void of reason, as if your Doctrine were so blameless, that nothing could be spoken against it: Perhaps against your person some may harbour prejudice, but against what you teach and write, no man, unless his rea­son be overclouded, can justly except. You should have been well assured first, that there was any such prejudice born against you, before you took such thought, and put your self to a loss in seek­ing what might be the cause of it. For my part, I am as much to seek, what should be any the very least ground of such a vain surmise.

Some little while after the comming forth of this your Piece, a friend of mine, and of yours too, who doth nor much give his mind to read Contro­versies, nor was at that time much inclined out of his good nature, to pitie my condition, did ask me thus; Who bade you begin? And because this que­stion is very consonant to your sense, I will now give you the Answer to it. And first, if my charge, which is that I began, be in reference to those mul­titudes of right-believing Christians, who have a long time been offended at your Doctrine, My De­fence is this, that if any other whosoever had before endeavoured to hinder the spreading of your er­rours; then, as I could not have begun, so I would not have followed. There arose indeed some con­test between the Reverend Doctor and your self a­bout [Page 250] Vniversity-learning, but for other Hetero­doxies of yours, no man, so far as I know, gave notice or publick warning. I began therefore be­cause none other would, though very many much better might. But I suppose, the meaning of the question was not, why I rather than another, but why I would begin with you, when as you gave me no provocation. But I pray consider well, they are the Schismaticks, who, though they abide, give just occasion unto others for to depart; He that de­nies the debt, begins the sute; and he that invades my right, sends for the process. Will you not give others leave to defend their own against you, and and to continue in the things that they have learn­ed, and contend for the Faith once delivered to them, which you with your Innovations and in­ventions have corrupted? you began when you taught and promoted so many opinions contrary to what we have received; when you wrought upon the people to draw them after you; when at last you took advantage of their age, to sow your No­velties among them early, lest they should take a resolution to hold their own, after they were once prepossessed with the truth; when you presumed to contrive your errours into Question and Answer by way of Catechisme, with impression upon impres­sion, for the instruction of children, as if you meant to lay a ground-work for the men of the next gene­ration to be built upon, because the men of this ge­neration are infatuated. [Page 251] In the next place I desire you to consider, that you have (further than by teaching otherwise) pro­voked, and as it were sent a challenge to those that are not of your mind. In the Preface to your Open Door § upon these, You do in a manner com­plain of the cowardize of your Adversaries, ‘"that will gird and argue when they get into a Pulpit, where none may interrupt them, but they will not Abide An argument or two to their faces.]’ And in your Essays, where you took a very little occasion to begin, I finde these words, pag. 16. perhaps you may say, or some for you] and pag. 22. But haply you or some o­ther may reply] as expecting the debate would not end there, but that some or other would main­tain the Duel. I do suppose therefore that whatso­ever shew you make, you are not much offended. Maffeius writeth of Ignatius Loiola, that he had do­num lacrymarum, Tears at command, and could weep when he would, and as he would, more or less: So I think you can be angry at any time, and chide when you have a mind to it, though you be in sport, and take upon you great displeasure then, when you are best of all content and pleased. I pray Sir, be perswaded to believe, that I bear you no manner of grudge, nor did ever ow you ill will, as you never gave me the least occasion; and if in this Answer of yours, you have given me any, I have not taken it. It belongs not to me to say, how far my reason is clouded, but my affection to­wards you continueth very fair. And for the opini­ons [Page 252] between us controverted, I am where I was. You have brought nothing of moment wherewith­all to strengthen and support that cause to which you are a wel-willer, nor yet to incline those that are wavering and unsetled, to be of your mind: but a twine threed will draw that which is coming: and those whom you have misled, you may mis­lead still, untill God be pleased to shew them better.