I Do not wonder that you so little understand the Rehearsal Trans­pros'd; I believe the Author him­self never did: You had done better to have writ unto some of the Virtuosi for a Key unto it; since none are so forward to suggest impossibilities, or so great undertakers for the sense of a Man they never read or understood, be it Aristotle or the present Writer. The Rehearsal, as it was Acted at the THEATRE ROYALL, will rather puz­zle, than inform your understanding: For, al­though here are some passages REHEARSED out of the Books of the Author of Ecclesiastical Policy; yet I do not comprehend, How they are Transprosed: They being Originally Prose. In the Comedy, which I now send you, one Bayes is represented as having certain Drama Common [Page 2] places; It being (as 'tis said) his Method to pil­fer from other Men; and If they write in Prose, He doth Trans-verse them; If they write in Verse, He doth TRANS-PROSE THEM, or express the sense of their Poesie in Prose. If you will now examine this New Book, it will appear like a Mountebank's Ball, or a project of the R. S. Wherein nothing doth answer our Expectation. It cannot be said that the Author of the Ecclesi­astical Policy did Rehearse, or Transprose any con­siderable part of His writings; (I except where­in He violates the Act of UTTER OBLIVI­ON) for No Author (that is fit to be menti­oned) did ever hold His Principal Tenets: They contradict the Fathers, & the Authentick Declara­tion of Our Church concerning the Supremacy of Emperours and Kings: Neither is there any pow­er vested in our King, the which may not de­scend unto a Woman. Now it would seem strange that any Woman should confer Ecclesi­astical Orders, or administer the Sacrament of the LORDS SUPPER (Baptisme 'tis thought may be administred by a Sage Feme) in our Church; And, notwithstanding what is said that the first Christian Emperours new PONTIFICES MAX­IMI (which perhaps is not true, as Pacidius, [Page 3] or, rather Gothefredus will teach you) yet the Greek Church hath a Concil. 6. in Trullo Canon 69. cum notis Zonat. Canon, that it shall be lawfull for no LAY-MAN, but the EMPEROR to enter within the Rails which in­close the Communion-Table. Whosoever under­stands any thing of Antiquity cannot say that a­ny thing that contradicts this, is TRANS-PRO­SED thence; and if you will ask Fleta what power our Kings had antecedently unto the Rule of Henry VIII. He had no more than totam lai­calem potestatem, a Large power: And albeit Our Law doth esteem Him to some Purposes a MIXT PERSON, yet to extend that saying unto it's utmost latitude, is to contradict Our Ca­nons. If we look into ancient Governments (the formula of Regnane Christo, were there nothing else, would justifie what I say, as to the Christians; and the Rex Sacrorum, and Pontificate, as to Rome) there is no such Connexion betwixt the CROWN and MITRE, that Ecclesiastical and Civill pow­er should be INSEPARABLE. These, and many other Errours, if they have not been taken notice of, the Author of the Ecclesiastical Policy may be reputed happy through the Ignorance of HIS ADVERSARIES: But, if what He writ is not [Page 4] TRANS-PROSED, you will demand, Who it is that is the TRANS-PROSER? I learned it long ago from the famed Stagirite, that 'tis more easie to propose Questions then to solve them; and if you peruse the REHEARSAL, you will find none (or few) of those Verses turned into Prose, by our late writer. I am certain these are not:

Nor the Dialogue betwixt Thunder and Lightning, viz. I am loud Thunder. Brisk Pag. 170. Lightning I. I strike men down. I fire the Town.—Look to't; We'll do't. Since these and other passages are not TRANS-PROSED; I do not know how to justify the TITLE-PAGE of this new Book: Mr. Thomas Dring at the White Lyon next Chancery-lane end in Fleet-street, hath indeed some reason to gratifie the Author, who hath effe­ctually obliged him to the prejudice of his own re­putation. For conversation-sake, I will imagine you to object, that BAYES (not the word ju­nior) is TRANS-PROSED: If I did not sup­pose this for conversation-sake only, I should [Page 5] provoke you unpardonably for one word, or name, is neither Trans-prosed, nor Trans-versed, if it consist of no more Syllables. But why must the Author of the Ecclesiastical Policy, be called BAYES Junior? He was no Roman Emperour, or Victorious Consul, with his Literae Laureatae. It doth not appear that He was a POET, or writ any PLAYES. What is it then that entitles Him unto these LAURELS? If I should grant that, His disc [...]urses are indiscreet, incoherent, stuffed with falsities and impertinencies; doth it thence follow that He is a POETASTER? If BAYES Junior be, descended from BAYES Senior; 'tis by an Equivocal Generation, as good Timber may by cor­ruption produce Worms, or Vermin; and should I inlarge my self never so much in commendation of the REHEARSAL, the REHEARSAL TRANS-PROSED would derive no advantage thence.

But I pass from the Title page, as from an evil Portal or Frontis-piece (which yields nothing of delight, though somewhat of ill Omen) to examine the Ireatise it self; There are in it several Pe­riods, which shew the Author to have had some Intervals of SI NSE and WIT; and such you may find in the Harrangues of Enthusiasts, and Mad­men, [Page 6] though the speakers do not apprehend the things; Or, to deal more civilly with the Au­thor. I do not find that His understanding is pro­portionate unto his confidence.

It is not manifest unto me, by the Sarracenical Histories; nay, I am morally certain of the contra­ry, that Mahomet had not two Companions, which clubb'd with Him, in making the Alchoran, yet our Author avows it. Pag. 44.

The Parable of the Bramble, speaking (if we allow that the rest may be easily granted, or ex­torted) hath a Precedent in Scripture; and though the Author of the Ecclesiastical policy, do explode the use of fulsome Metaphors, and Pag. 50. Scriptural Allegories; yet this Rehearser seems of another opinion, and perhaps may acquiesce in these inferiour Examples of Aesop, Loeman, &c. However if BAYES Senior be so ridiculous as the Rehearsal represents him. We may indulge BAYES Junior, without incongruity.

But this Rehearser doth spend all his wit upon the Censure of this Parable. He reserves extra­ordinary flashes thereof, for the subse­quent discourse about the Scituation of P. 51, &c. Geneva upon the Lake Leman. I do except against his Raillery, by saying that the Ecclesi­astical [Page 7] Politition writ in England, from which the whole Lake lieth South-wards. But I might com­plain of the Geography of this railer, for either occasion to be exceeding pleasant, or the vigour of his phansie transported him into an Errour, which every one may see in the large Atlas. The Lake doth not lye due East and West, but bend­ing it self North-wards, and then turning some­what West-wards, doth form an Halfe moon, and he spoke without his Compass Lueus for­mam si spe­ctes, ad Lu­natam acce­dit. Beae [...]. who observed this Lake to the East and West: But suppose this were true, yet would it not be false to say Ge­neva seated on the South-side, for all that side is the South-side, as the opposite to the North nei­ther is Geneva seated exactly at the end, in the Lake, but upon the Southern terra firma And it seems strange, that the Assign [...] of John Calvin, and Theodore Beza, should be so unacquainted with the place of their residence. If any concluded that Geneva had sold Mr. Bayes a Bargain; as the Moon served the Sun in the Rehearsal they shew­ed their want of judgment, and as little of Memo­ry: for the Moon sells the Bargain unto the Earth, and not unto the Sun, Orbis, O Orbis.

If the Author of the Ecclesiastical Policy, deserve the name of Bayes, though no Epick or Drama­tick [Page 8] Poet; we ought not to deny some such like denomination unto the modern Rehearser, who would seem to act the Comedian, and repre­sents us six of Mr. Bayes his Playes (as He P. 134. calls them) and instead of Plots, we must expect nothing but Aphorismes or Hypo­theses. Pa 105. What? Aphorismes, and Hypotheses of Playes? This Language would better become an Astronomical, or Philosophical Treatise, then a Comedy. Well, I see the Rehearser will not deserve the Bayes; I will therefore term him Rosemary, and then the whole Contest will be brought to this summary, that there are two per­sons in the world that trade much in Rosemary and Bayes, But Rosemary! though you would have acted the part of Gideon, upon this Politici­on of Succoth, and clawed him away with Briars, for his Parable of the Bramble, and mis-placing of Geneva: Have not you placed your Scene ill, where you represent Bayes, as Pag. 65. Chaplain in a Noble-mans House, and directing his reverence towards the Gentle-womens Pew? where­as if we understand any thing of this Noble-man, no Women resort unto his Chappel, or Table.

Though I am not of their opinion, who ima­gine, that the Priesthood is really consolidated with the Regal power in England: yet if Mr. [Page 9] Rosemary had assisted at the Coronation, he might have seen his Majesty vested Pag. 111. in Sacerdotal habiliments, and thereby have satisfi­ed his curiosity, which is now very impatient to see how the Pontifical stole would become our King.

Mr. Bayes is charged to recommend unto the civil Magistrate persecution; And that so fiercely, that Julian whom Mr. Rosemary thinks to have been first a Reader, and then to have Held-forth in Pag. 125. the Christian Churches, before he turned Apo­state, and then Persecutor, could not have out­done him in Irony, or Cruelty. I confess that Ju­lian had some right to the Bayes, as a victorious Emperour: But if I have the True Character here of Mr. Bayes, there is not any resemblance be­twixt Him and Julian. If Julian were a Rea­der in the ancient Church, it doth not thence fol­low, that he did ever Hold forth: except those two expressions be equipollent And as for cruelty the Reign of Julian is not infamous for that. He gave an universal indulgence, re-called the exil'd Or­thodox, protected the Christian Churches, and severe­ly forbid that Christians should be enforced to Paganism. Where now doth lie the resemblance be­twixt Julian, and Mr. Bayes? I do not comprehend the Hypotheses of this Drama.

[Page 10] I am no lesse dis-satisfied with his Allegati­ons out of Mr. Hales's Treatise of Schism He was a learned man, but towards his latter end so much suspected for Socinianism, that 'tis ill done to reckon of him as one of that Church of Eng­land; especially since that tract was never allowed of, or approved by the English Church, as Hookers's policy hath been.

I should exceed the bounds of a private Let­ter, should I render you an account of every failour whereunto hast, prejudice, or ignorance betrayed Mr. Rosemary: He will not approve of Truths, if uttered by the Ecclesiastical Politician, whereof this instance will convince you.

‘The Eccles. Pol. said that Our blessed Savi­our did in that action (of scourging the Buyers and Sellers in the Temple) take upon him the Person and priviledge of a Jewish Zealot. Mr. Rosemary subjoyns—Take upon him the per­son, that is, personam induere. And what part did He play? Of a Jewish Zealot.’

‘The Second person of the Trinity (may I repeat these things with­out offence?) to take upon Him the person of a notorious Rogue and Cut-throat! 'This see­med to proceed from too slight an Apprehen­sion and Knowledge of the duty we owe un­to Our Saviour.’

[Page 11] I am willing to believe that Mr. Rosemary did write this out of an hearty zeal for the lio­nour of our blessed Saviour; but yet his zeal is not according to knowledge: Others may think that He intended to scourge Bayes, and cast Him out of the Temple, allotting unto Him for chang­ing thus of our Saviour the same doom whereun­to those were sentenced who changed moneys there. If he were not more excellent at Rail­lery, then Criticismes, I assure him that his Re­putation would immediately decline. To take upon him the person, that is, personam induere. He might also have taken notice that personam induere doth also signifie to put on a perruke and Visor-mask; and have with abomination declai­med against Bayes, for introducing the Second person in the Trinty acting a modern Mascarade in the Temple. But He is content the imputati­on shall not extend so far: But could you ima­gine it to be other than the dictate of extream malice, thus to argue? He took upon him the per­son; that is, personam induere; and that to Act a part in a Play. Is this the Rehearsal transpro­sed? Or rather an innocent expression invidiously misconstrued! In the Garden, upon his resurre­ction; in the Journey unto Emaus, would not any man say that the Second person of the Trinity [Page 12] did take upon him the person of a Gardiner and Traveller? And when He made as if he would go farther; Oh! to what exceptions would Zeal and Animosity have transported Rosemary; had but the Original Greek been Transprosed, or literally translated by Mr. Bayes! But Rosema­ry thinks, though this expression of taking upon him the person, be it of a Reconciler and Media­tor, or Judge, (or persons when attributed un­to the Trinity) may not be perhaps culpable e­nough in the judgment of others; and there­fore the case must be aggravated with playing a part. Truely the words of playing the part, are too light, and unbecoming: Ay I gad they are; And

But Sir, Mr. Bayes sayes no such thing: this is a Flower of Rosemary. 'Tis personam indue­re very ill transprosed. None would have scru­pled at the expression, had it been rendered, to act the part, or take upon him the person: And perhaps by this time the Non-Conformists will not scruple at the phrase of playing the part, since they have bought up so mightily the Original [Page 13] Rehearsal, and find so great advantage by trans­prosing it. Well, if Mr. Rosemary may say with­out offence, that Christ did take upon him the per­son; yet He cannot, He doubts, say He took upon him the person of a Jewish Zealot, that is, of a NOTORIOUS ROGUE & CUT-THROAT. I do concur with Mr. Rosemary in the latter clause, that none ought to say, That Christ took up­on him the person of a NOTORIOUS ROGUE & CUT-THROAT. Oh! Mr. Bayes, Mr. Bayes.

Sir, I have examin'd him strictly, but no tor­ture of the Rack produceth this to be his sense. He saith that a Jewish Zealot hath a great resem­blance unto Prince Prettyman.

After all this blustering in Verse, and in Prose: be pleased Sir to understand that Rosemary, knows not the nature of a true Jewish Zealot: He had read, or heard some body tell out of [Page 14] Josephus his History of the destruction of Jeru­salem, that there were a sort of Zealots, who out of a vehement and indiscreet concern for the Mosaical Law, begot great tumults, occasi­on'd much blood-shed, and were the principal cause of the ruine of that State. To compare Christ with one of these, this seemed uncouth, and intolerable in a Christian. But, behold there were another sort of Zealots permitted by God in the Jewish Common-wealth, who might de­stroy their friends, kill even their sons, if guilty of Idolatry: such was Phineas, such was Matthias: and in cases of great enormities & violations of the Mosaical Law, the actings of Zealots for Refor­mation, were approved as Heroical, and exempt from judiciary censures or penalties. Any man, of ordinary sense, will imagine that our Saviour did (since he was not questioned for the fact, nor opposed in it) assume the person of such a Zea­lot, and was secured by the Law for Zealots: for it behoved him to fulfill all Righteousness, at least He came not to destroy the Law. And the Text alludes unto this case, alledging this passage thereupon. The Zeal of thy house hath eaten me up. Howsoever, Mr. Selden authenticates the Ecclosiastical Selden de jure natur. Heb. l. 4. c. 4, 5. Historian; neither is there any just offence in the expression.

Behold the passage whereat Mr. Rosemary was so much offended: I should have thought the first Expressions of Mr. Bayes, whereto this part of the Zealot related, were the less supportable, viz. That Christ being not only in an hot fit of Zeal, but in a seeming fury, and transport of Passion, did overthrow the Tables, &c. But Pag. 324. Mr. Rosemary hath other Sentiments, and esteems this to be the more petulant speech: But however that I do think somewhat ill of these words; yet I know that in the Psalms, and old Prophets, there are passages which might as easily be carped at by a malevolent Pen, especially if one consult the Original Hebrew Text. And Buchanan in his version of the Psalms, doth so express himself concerning God Almighty, that we may tolerate the like in reference unto the second person of the Trinity.

[Page 16] It may be you will reply, That the Ecclesiasti­cal Historian can claim no benefit for his defence by any Scripture expressions: He, and the Author of the Friendly Debate, are incapable of the privi­ledge of the Clergy, and I believe they would sooner quit their Professions (if they might hold the Emoluments) then it should be said of either of them Legit ut Clericus: they would sooner lose their lives, then preserve them by a fulsome, Me­tophorical, Allegorical Psalm of mercy: except they be permitted to render the Moral thereof, and having read as Clerks, to expound according to themselves. It is not to be wondered at if such as I are at a loss, and know not what the Religi­on is now of the Church of England. Were Bishop Whitgift and Jewel, Whitaker and Perkins alive now, they would be accounted Fanaticks, Here­ticks and Brambles: And a new part of the Friend­ly Debate would evince them to be the most ridi­culous, canting Preachers that ever were. I believe they may esteem Bishop Latimer a fool, in that he suffered for his Religion: I am sure they would have thought him so for His Preaching. It was a wish of St. Austin, that He had but seen Christ in the Flesh, and heard St. Paul Preach; But I see now that the Father was a Simpleton, who de­lighted in canting expressions, Scriptural allusions, and insignificant Phrases. The Apostle Paul, and [Page 17] the Bishop of Hippo, were the Eastern and Sou­thern Brambles, whence that prodigious, indefati­gable, prating; preaching, scratching, biting Bramble upon the Lake of Loman had its Original. There is Magick, they say, in a Bramble, both ends whereof do grow, and strange effects are said to be wrought thereby; this Geneva-Bramble was rooted on both sides of the Lake: and besides its Agents it pro­duced Nettles, which sting even the Ecclesiasticks of this Age, though many take them to be dead Nettles, or Archangel. They that piss upon them, prove exceeding peevish for a long time after: they rest evilly thereupon, and are perplexed with vexatious dreams, so as that they dis­quiet their Neighbours. I could wish they would not disturb the Visinage with declamations a­gainst Mr. Calvin. When I was a Stripling, I heard him oftentimes cited in the Pulpit, by Men (as those times were) and they were, as I heard, of the Church of England, very pious and Learned (and had read him) and they always added the Elogy of Judicious, when they named, Mr Calvin; I have seen Testimonies of an intimate Correspon­dence and Communion betwixt the Forreign Pro­testants and those of the English Church, and our Embassadors had a Pew in the Church at Charen­ton, frequenting that Church, and receiving the Communion there; as other Royalists, exiles, did [Page 18] in other places. But now I see those people were all in the Briars, and like Truant Children forsook their School, to go miching after Black-berries, upon which Fruit whosoever feeds much, He will be apt to break out into the Itch (and must be clawed by the Ecclesiastical Historian) or some other cutaneous pustules, for which the Pilgrims-silve will be necessary; the which is to be had near the Stage of John Punteus in Covent-garden.

I will not detain you any longer; I heartily wish that neither the Ecclesiastical Historian, nor the Trans-proser had writ; and that there were a prohibition against Rosemary and Bayes, 'tis an Age of Children, and such an Edict would be ac­ceptable amongst those. As to the Church of England few of them approved the Style of Mr. Bayes and fewer his Doctrines: He was in the Pulpit declaimed against as the young Leviathan: And upon diligent enquiry, I do not see any reason why Mr. Rosemary should make so many sallies against the whole Clergy, that were inno­cent and un-concerned: Thus he insinuates a sei­sure of Church-revenues; and represents the Divines indefinitely as implacable persons, and incendiaries: It is most evident, that the civil peace (if not our common salvation) doth depend upon a Reverence unto the Clergy: and they are in times of Peace the great [Page 19] support of Government: whilst their dictates are regarded awfully, the people are tractable, and the Prince may with ease manage them: but when they become contemptible, and are inodia­ted, then standing Armies, Arbitrary power, and such like contrivances must secure the Peace and Monarchy. It is more safe and consonant to old prudence, to exact that the Priests of all Re­ligions shall be equally reverenced then that none should be. I cannot allow his discourse concerning the original of the Wars: There was such a conjunction of causes which produced those dire effects, that 'tis a fallasie to assign one efficient thereof. If I were to deduce its origine, I should fix upon the two books, Ig­noramus, and Selden of Tythes, as the occasion thereof: besides which, there were some that wanted white staves, some that were disappoint­ed in their Amours, some that were made Cuck-olds, some that envied the splendour and magni­ficence of others, which they themselves could not, or would not imitate. These (and such like accidents) were the true occasions, the rest were only coincident, or pretences assumed, whilst the restless, ambitious and malicious Spirits, abused the well-meaning Patriots, and Zealots. I have heard it related from the mouth of Mor­nay du Plessis that the Civil Wars of France, [Page 20] the Catholick league and the confederation of Henry the third, with the K. of Navarre, had this private Original, that the Duke of Guise cheated him that was afterwards Duke of Es­pernon of a Misse. And let men declare what they will, be it Religion or Liberties and Priviledges, I am resolved to remain dis-engaged in the quar­rel, and imagine only that there is an Amour in the bottom, or that some men would deprive others of their places and estates, or that the Lawyers (finding themselves too numerous, odi­ous, burthensome and disrespected by the people) would indear themselves to the Nation, and make work for their profession by seeming Assertors of the Laws, Rights and freedom of the Subject. The business of the Minutes in Chancery portends worse things than the Conjunction of Saturn and Macs: and for any Chancellor to prevent 10000. Law-suits in one Honourable Action, is a sufficient ground for everlasting quarrels & animosities. Me­thinks I already hear the complaints, that Dame Curstabel in Northumb hath suffered by the Rats in her Dairy, & that the intruding Mice have for­med unto themselves Nests in two or three of her Cheeses: which dammage though it be not much considerable to Her, or the Nation: yet the Exam­ple! the Example! the property of the Subject, Meum & Tuum is universally endangered; and [Page 21] it behooves Cheshire and Suffolk to look unto themselves. Such reasonings as these did more mischief in 1636. then Sibthorps Sermon. In the days of Queen Elizabeth, was not there a Loan? Was not Wentworth clapped in the Tower for debating of such State-affairs in the House of Commons, as the Queen did not refer to their consideration? Were not the Non-conformists persecuted, and some put to death? Why was not the Nation then so jealous and fearful of their Liberties, as to appear generally discontent­ed? It is most true there was so small a number of Lawyers that they had all sufficient employ­ment, and their interest in the Nation was not great; nor was the Press employed about Books of Reports: But I do not attribute it unto that cause; I rather think the People were then wiser then to think that one Action or two in the Queen, though they did (as John Goodwin said of some actions in K. David, and Solomon) smell rankly of Prerogative and Arbitrary power, yet did not they presage a total subversion of the Laws and Liberties of the People: That such an alteration of Government is not the work of every Prince or Age; the fierce, proud, and ambitious may attempt it: but not the popular, cautelous, and mild: Such a design is accompa­nied with so much hazard, that I must have [Page 22] powerful Arguments to perswade me that any King goes about it; and if He have potent neigh­bours, or be involved in Wars, or in danger of any, there is not any suggestion shall ever be powerful enough to convince me that he will pursue such projects. You see I retain the sen­timents of the Age of old Elsibeth; and if the Ecclesiastical Politician will not permit us to ad­mire the Wit, let us admire the wisdom, and retain the Religion of those times: As to the former, perhaps He will joyn with Us; as to the latter, I conceive it is uncontroulably settled by Law, and should we once go about to alter it, 'tis doubtful when and what the Parliament & Convocation will agree unto; or the Non-Con­formists acquiesce in: Tis not in the power of the Church to comply with all: 'tis not Wisdom to oblige one party to the discontent of the rest, especially the Royallists being of that number; and 'tis an hundred to one but if the Presbyterians ('tis those for vvhich Rosemary must seem to plead) be indulged in point of Ceremonies, a fevv of the Ministers may acquiesce in Episcopacy, but the party vvill not: And then vvhat prudence is it to unsettle the present state of affairs, to discontent the Loyal & Generous Cavaliers, and yet to gain (if that) a fevv Presbyterians good Benefices?

But Your long experience in the Parliament, and publick affairs, renders this discourse unnecessary. I am,