THat a Text of Scripture in your handling should weare two faces, and the Doctrine of it should bee made to looke one way, and the use of it another, is at all no wonder to me. But that pretending so much to Holiness, and Christianity as you doe, you should thinke the Pulpit a fit place to revile me in, would hardly enter into my beleif, were not the Congregation that heard you on Sunday morning last at S. Maryes, my cloud of Witnesses. From some of which I am informed, that you solemnly charged me with imprudence and impudence, for publishing a late Sermon against false Prophets. SIR, Though report, and my name perfixt in the Title-Page might probably perswade you, that I am the Author of it; yet to assure you, that I caused it to be publish'd, or consented to the printing of it, will certainly require a more in­fallible illumination, then, I presume, you have. Besides, if I should grant you that 'twas printed with my consent, (which yet I shall not) yet certainely the seasonableness of it in a time where god­liness is made the engine to arrive to so much unlawfull gaine, will excuse me from imprudence, though perhaps not from an unthri­ving, in your sense, wart of policy. And as for the impudence you charged me withall, I am confident that all they who heard you with impartiall Eares, and have read that Sermon with impartiall Eyes, have, by this time, assigned that want of modesty a place in a more capable forehead. I heare farther that having in a kinde of pleasant disdaine shuffled pipes, Surplices, pictures in Church-win­dowes, Liturgy, and Prelacy together in one period, and stiled them the musty Relickes of an at-length-banisht Superstition, you were pleased out of that heape to select Images, and to call them Idolls, and then to charge me as a defender of them.

SIR, Had you done me but the ordinary Justice to pluck my [Page 4] Sermon out of your pocket, as you did the Practicall Catechisme, and had faithfully read to your Auditory what I have there said of Images, I make no question, but they would all have presently discerned that I defend not Pictures in Church windowes as they are Idolls, or have at any time beene made so, but that 'tis un­reasonable to banish them out of the Church as long as they stand there meerly as Ornaments of the place. From which innocent use having not hitherto digrest, for you to call them Idols, and then to charge me as if I had made them equall with God, by my defence of them so formallized, will I feare, endanger you in the mindes of youre Hearers, and beget an Opinion in them, that you are one of the Prophets who use to see Vanity. I heare farther, that when you had traduced me as a Defender of the fore-mentioned musty Relicts of Superstition, you said, that this was the Religion to which I profest my selfe ready to fall a sacrifice. Certainely, Sir, This is not faire dealing. For if, once more, you had pluckt my Sermon out of your pocket, and had read to the Congregation that passage of it which endeavours to prove that 'tis not lawfull to propagate Religion, (how pure soever it be) by the sword, they would have heard from your mouth, as they once did from mine, that the Religion to which I there professe my self ready to fall a Sa­crifice, is that defamed, true, Protestant Religion, for which the holy Fathers of our Reformation died before me. In saying, therefore, that I professe my selfe ready to fall a sacrifice in the defence of Surplices, the Common Prayer Booke, or Church Ornaments, (things which I have alwayes held not necessary, unlesse made so, by right Authority) you have incurred one danger more, which is, not only to be thought to see Vanity, but to be guilty of the next part of the Text. I am farther told, that to deliver your selfe from the number of the false Prophets there preacht against, you prophecyed in the Pulpit; and chose for the subject of your pre­diction, a thing which is possible enough for you to bring to passe; which was, that you will have my Sermon burnt.

Sir I have, for your sake, once more severely consider'd it. And can neither finde Socinianisme, or any other Poland Do­ctrine there which should deserve that doome. But if it must die like Bishop Ridley or Hooper, for its adhaesion to the best Religion that this Kingdome ever enjoyed, I must repeat the words of my [Page 5] Sermon, and tell you, that (without the fear of being thought by you a Pseudo-Martyr) I shall account it one of the happiest pas­sages to Heaven, to be dissolved to ashes with it in the same fune­rall-pile.

Lastly, Sir, having, with all the sober detraction, which might probably beget a dislike in the mindes of your Hearers, of me and my Sermon, sufficiently defamed both, I heare you did beat up a Drumme against me in the Pulpit, and challenged me to a pub­like dispute with you. If by a dispute you meant a pen-combate, I shall be as ready to enter the lists with you, as you have beene to summon me to it, if you will grant me two things. The one is, that, if we engage our selves in a Conference of that nature, you will confine your selfe to the particulars in my Sermon which you quarrell'd at; and not use your strange, wilde Art of multiplying Questions upon Questions; or like another Hydra, what ever the Hercules be, make three heads spring up in the place where you finde one convincingly lopt of. The other is, that, when you have made your Charge, and I my Resistance, you will consent that the debate of every question, thus disputed, may bee made publike and printed. But if by a Dispute, you meant that I should fight a Duell with you upon the same stage, and in the same Theater of men and women, before whom you, and Mr. Yerbury played your prize, I doubt very much, if I should accept of your Callenge in that sense; whether all discreet men would not count this a spice of the phrenzy in me, which you complained of in the Pulpit, for being imputed to you by Him that wrote the Conference at your late Scruple-House; and say I deserved to be cured by the Disci­pline, and Physicke of a darke roome. To deale freely with you, Sir, I by no meanes can approve of an English Disputation in a Ʋniversity. But because you shall not loose your challenge, nor I be thought to desert the cause, which I professe to defend, so you will choose the Divinity Schoole, and Latine weapons, I shall not refuse (as well as God shall enable me) to give you a meet­ing there, and to sustaine the Answerers part in the defence of the lawfulnesse of white Surplices, Church Ornaments; the Common Prayer Booke, and Prelacy; which are the particulars in my Ser­mon, which you called Relicts of Superstition. To one of these two offers I shall patiently expect your answer; unlesse without [Page 6]troubling me any further, you will let me quietly retire backe againe into the shade, from whence you have too importunately called me: Who, neuer the less, have learnt so much Charity, as to pray God to forgive you the wrong which you intended to­wards

I have sent severall times to your lodging this day to an­swer your challenge yesterday; if you cannot meet to morrow, let me understand your minde to night. For I have a great deale of [Page 7]business, since the Ʋniversity was silenced for your sake.

What kinde of meeting was here meant, or whether I (having I thanke God, the use of my understanding) could consent to it, will appeare by the Letter it selfe; which (being an Answer to mine) was verbatim this.

SIR, I use to spend my morning thoughts upon a better subiect then a pot of dead drinke, that hath a litle froth at top, and dreggs at bottom;

SIR, It appeares by your Letter, that you doe not understand my Text, and the learned Scribe, or Intelligencer, did not vnder­stand my plaine, very plaine English Sermon. I am not at leisure to repeat every Sermon that I preach, (preaching soe often as I doe sometimes twice, and upon just occasion thrice a day) to every one that is at leisure to cavill at that which thay heard but at se­cond hand; yet to shew how much you are mistaken, I will give you a breife, but satisfactorie account.

My Text stands upon record, Isa. 40.25. the Doctrine I raised from the words, was as followeth.

Doct. There is no creature in heaven, or earth, like God in all things, or equall to God in any thing.

The first Corollarie I deduced from thence, when I came to make application, was breifly this.

That no picture can be made of God, because there was nothing like him in heaven or earth. All nations are less then vanity in com­parison of God; to whom then will ye liken God, or what like­ness will ye compare unto him? Isay. 40.17.18. The Prophet urgeth this Argument, against all manner of images which are made to represent God, who sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and stretcheth out the heavens from the 19. v. of the same chap: to the 23. ver. and he enforceth this Argument vers. 21. have yee not knowne—have ye not understood? &c. as if he had say'd, yee are ignorant sotts, irrationall, and inconsiderate men, if yee apprehend not the strength of this Argument. Now, SIR, be pleased to pro­duce your strong reasons, and overthrow, if you can, the Doctrine or the Corollary: Your, Intelligencer was (if not a false Prophet yet) a false Historian, when he told you that I accused you of making images equall with God. SIR, I said, that images were not like unto God; and thereupon wondered that you tooke upon you to pleade for the retaining of those images which have beene too [Page 8]often turn'd into idolls, not by the piety, but superstition of forme times. You say, that by the same reason there should be no Sun in the firmament. Whence I collect, that you will be forc'd to maintaine, that images are as necessary in the Church, as the Sun in heaven; be pleased to read the 22. page of the false Prophet.

Moreover, you plead for Copes, and for those parts of the Common-Prayer Booke which were borrowed from Rome pag. 21, 22. The Ʋisitors will ere long enquire, whether there hath not beene a Superstitious use of Copes at Christ-Church? and ther­fore I did not make any such enquirie in my Sermon, but as a Freind I give you and your adherents timely notice of it, because I believe you had need study for an Answer.

You maintaine, that some things in the excellencies and height of the Doctrines of Christian Religion depend for their credit and e­vidence of their truth upon the authority of Christs miracles con­veyed along in tradition and story, pag. 16. and therefore I say your Religion leanes too hard and too heavy upon Tradition.

You are offended that I spoke not distinctly concerning Prela­cy, you may (if you please) try your strength, and endeavour to prove that Christ hath put the sole power of Ordination and Juris­diction in the hand of a Prelate. 2. You may (if you can) justifie, that no Church that ever the Sun look'd upon hath been more blest with purity of Religion for the Doctrine of it, or better establish'd for the Government and Discipline of it, then the Church of England, pag. 17. if you believe this confident assertion, you may proceed and justifie all the Doctrines, which were publikely countenanced, or approved; all the superstitious practises, and prelaticall usurpati­ons, nay, the delegation of the Prelates, usurped power to Chan­cellors and all the Tyranny of the high Commission, together with all the corruptions and innovations introduced into the State, Church, Ʋniversity from the yeare 1630. till 1640. by a prevailing faction, who were not the Church or Ʋniversity, but the disease, indeed the plague of both. If you dare not undertake so sad a taske, you cannot justifie the 17.18.22, 23.27.35. pages of the False Prophet; you must prove that the proceedings of the Parliament are Turkish, pag. 15.1 [...]. that none of the Members of either House of Parli [...]ent (who complaine of the blemishes of the Church) are t [...] [...]med good Protestants, pag. 18. that the Reformation which they have made is [...] vanities, pag. 20. that they are [Page 9]guided by no other principles but such as are contrary to all rules of right judgement, either common to men or Christians, pag. 21. that the Ministers who have appeared for the Parliament, are all of them False Prophets, who have encouraged the Parliament to oppression, sacriledge, murther, and to make all names that are great and sacred, cheap and odious in the eares of the people. That the Ministers are the liars, and the Parliament-men the compliers, as appears by all your unworthy insinuations, hints, intimations, quite throughout your Scurrillous Libell, falsly called a Sermon: let any prudent man judge whether this be not your maine drift and scope, à carceribus us (que) ad metam.

You talke of a Religion, in which you were borne, were you borne in a Surplice or a Cope? Christiani non nascunt [...]r sed fiunt. Sir, the Parliament doth not defame nor will they suppress the true Protestant Religion, and therefore if you fall in this quarrell, I said, that you must be sacrificed in the defence of Tyranny, Pre­lacy, Popery: if you put not Religion in Copes, Images, Prelates, or Service-Booke, quorsum haec perdito? why doe you talk of being Martyr'd? say, that (if the King will give you leave) you will burne your Copes and Surplices, throw off the Bishops and Com­mon-Prayer Booke, you'l break your windowes, and take the Co­venant, and make it evident that you are and ever will be of the Kings Religion; for you hold none of these things necessary now, (whatever you have said heretofore) unless they be made ne­cessary by right Authority.

Sir, if I made any prediction, it was that your Sermon would be confuted, before it was burnt; you know Paraeus was burnt before he was confuted; and if you be not guilty of any doctrine received in Poland, I wonder, First, why you did endeavour to incense an Officer of this Garrison against me, because I had refu­ted M. Yerburies blasphemous errors. 2. Why you did maintaine those damnable Doctrines on the last Sabbath: forgive me this injurie, for I heare you did but vent them, and were no way able to maintain them.

Sir, I acknowledge that I doe contend for the restitution of the true Protestant Religion, and contend for the civill right which we have to exercise the true Protestant Religion: we were in ma­nifest danger to lose our right, by the force and violence of po­tent Enemies, whereupon the high Court of Parliament judged [Page 10]it fit to repell force by forces: be pleased to shew how the Par­liament doth hereby canonize the Alchoran, or declare them­selves to be of the Mahumetan perswasion; the Parliament will not compell you to be happy, onely take heed that you do not compell them to make you miserable. Though you renounce all Doctrines that M. Yerberie maintaines, yet I thinke you are too great a friend to the Rebels in Ireland; you contend for a Vorstian liberty, not for a liberty of conscience, for you desire a liberty for men that have no conscience, such as turne from being Prote­stants to be Infidels. There is one of M. Yerburies opinion, who saith, that the righteous are at liberty, [he that is righteous let him be righteous still] and the wicked are at liberty, [he that is wicked let him be wicked still,] but you are of a more dangerous opinion, the wicked as (as you think) are at liberty to kill and slay, but the godly are not at liberty to defend themselves by the power of the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdome from illegall and unjust oppression, violence. I am convinced by many passages in your Sermon, especially the 15, 16, 17. pages, that you think we ought not to fight against the Rebells in Ireland, because it is part of their Religion (as it was of your brethren the Cavaliers) to put all Roundheads (as you terme them) to the sword; missajam mordet, the Mass may be armed, but the Gospel must not: What thinke you of the War fore-told in the book of the Revelation? Sir, you abuse your betters when you talk of the Scruple-house. You are not worthy to carrie the books of those Reverend Mi­nisters after them, nor could your Carfax-Sermon have ever si­lenced the ungifted Preachers; you would have found them gif­ted Disputants: if you think otherwise try one or two of them in some of their beaten points; Sir, I speake thus freely, because I was not present at the famous meeting, Novemb. 12. but I see you can cite one of your owne Prophets, Poets I should say, but he is no truer a Prophet then you are like to prove a Martyr, a Cretian Prophet. Sir, the knowledge of my Brethrens worth, and your fa­mous pride and self-conceitedness hath provoked me to let my pen loose, that I might disabuse and humble you.

It seems you are unwilling to come upon the stage (though that be a fitter place for you then the pulpit) to appear before a Theater of men and women: Sir, you love the stage too well, take heed you doe not love women too ill, there is a friend of yours [Page 11]that doth entreat you to beware of dark rooms and light women; for though a great Physitian doth advise you to the use of such pleasing physick, yet the Frenchmen will assure you, that it is not wholsome for the body, and the English can assure you, that it is not good for the soul; your kind of phrenfie must be cured by more severe remedies, your devill will be better cast out with prayer and fasting. You are mis­informed when you say, that I did beat up my drum. No Sir, you did sound a charge and made a challenge, my acceptance of it was but the eccho which answered the 17. and 21. pages of the False Prophet. In the 17. you seem prepared to enter into dispute presently with the greatest Champion that appeares for the Parliament, Sir, one of the meanest that appears for them, takes up that Gantlet which you threw forth with so much scorn and confidence.

In your 21. page you threaten to press us in a rationall logicall way; Sir, doe your best, you shall find that we have neither lost our reason nor our logick. We can distinguish between demonstration and supersti­tion; and truly Sir, if you had not put more Poetry then Logick into your Sermon, though your Sermon might have been longer, yet your Libell would have been shorter; if you please to blot out those few places of Scripture which you have abused by misapplication and im­prudent insertion of them into so prophane and wild a stamp, you may do well to turne your Libell into Verse, and then it may pass currant amongst the Balladmongers for a triobolar Ballad, and you will be ran­ked in the number of those who are reputed the most excellent Au­thors, next to them that write in Prose. If you are offended that I did not shew you so much respect, as I have shewed towards the learned Author of the Practicall Catechisme, consider the difference, nay, di­stance betwen his person, education, learning, civility, writings and yours, and you will see a very sufficient and satisfactory reason. Sir, if that Author did overlook your Letter, I believe he did advise you to contend onely for the lawfulness of Prelacy, because I see that is interlined, and he was present at the sad debate at Ʋxbridge; if that learned Doctor hath any thing to object against me, he knowes my mind, habet aetatem, he is able to speake for himselfe, the Oratour needs not borrow eloquence of so prophane a Poet.

You are unwilling to dispute in English, to which I answer:

First, your Sermon is English. Secondly, many of the persons whom you have abused and deceived by your printed Sermon, understand not Latine. Thirdly, you have been too much addicted to English [Page 12]Playes, and English Verses, and you have with a pleasant kind of igno­rance shuffled them (with other Verses published in more learned lan­guages) in the same book printed by the Ʋniversity-Printer, and there­fore I believe you are most able, and most ingaged to dispute in English, for the disabusing & undeceiving of those whom you have seduced by a Sermon preacht and printed in English. Be pleased to performe that task to morrow at two of the clock at S. Maries Church, where your Sermon was preacht, and I will meet you; and if you dare examine your Sermon by the Word of God, I shall be the Opponent, because you have chosen to be the Respondent.

If when the Doctor of the Chaire comes home, you please to dispute in the Divinity Schools, let us agree upon the state of the questions in controversie, and I will accept your challenge at your owne weapon, which will I feare have more false Latine, then true steele.

SIR, You make a dishonourable retreat, when you say that Prelacy is lawfull; you have cried it up jure divino, & assured the King, that hee cannot in conscience passe the Bill against Prelacy, because it is a Go­vernment instituted by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ. Now stand your ground, or confess your errour, acknowledge that you and your adherents have perswaded the King to destroy so many thousand of his loving and gallant subjects, that Prelacy might be established in its tyrannicall height and rigour; and now the God of heaven and Lord of hosts hath broken all your forces, you tell us that the Parliament must not pursue their victory; but we must in charity beare with those malignant, Prelaticall, and Antichristian errors, which will not consist with faith; be pleased to return such an answer as will indure the pub­like test and touchstone, and you shalbe rationally, nay spiritually dealt with by

THough in the Letter you sent me yesterday by (I think) Jelly­man the Cobler, you have given me such a tast of your Lo­gick as well as civility, that I have small encouragement to meddle a­ny farther with you, (unless you will promise hereafter to write with better consequence, and less distemper) yet, Sir, least you should tri­umph over me, as one beaten by your Arguments, not by your rude­ness, I have thought fit for once to return you this answer. First, that without the danger of a dark room (as I told you before) I cannot con­sent to meet you at S. Maries at two a clock. Next, that I do imbrace your offer to meet me at Latine weapons in the Divinity Schoole, when the Doctor of the Chayre comes to town. Thirdly, that if your Syllo­gismes be no better then your wit, (which I perceive strived to be fa­cete, when it adventured to say, that you feare my weapon will have more false Latine then true steele) I doubt the Poet you contemne so much, will go equall with you in the conquest. Lastly, not being inga­ged (I confess) to preach thrice a day) I will with as much dispatch as I can, put order to your chaos, and return a fuller answer to your strange letter; wherein I know not whether you have less satisfied, or more reviled

Among the other praises, which greater friends to the Muses then I perceive you are, have bestowed upon Virgil, he hath been cal­led the Virgin Poet. Yet Ausonius ordering his Verses another way, hath raised one of the most loose lascivious Poems from him that I think ever wore the name of a Marriage-song. Me thinks Sir (and I doubt not but all they who shal compare them together will be of my opinion) you in your Letter have just dealt so with my Sermon; it went from my hands forth a sober Virgin, but falling into yours, it returns to me so strumpet­ed, so distorted in the sense, and misapplied in the expressions, that what I preach'd a Sermon, you by translating whatever I have said of false Pro­phets to the Parliament, have with the dexterity of a falsification, trans­formed and changed into a Libell. This I do not wonder at, when I re­member what the Physitian was, who said, that where the Recipient is dis­tempered, the most wholsome food turns into his disease; just as we see in those harmfull creatures, whose whole essence and composition is made up of sting and poyson, the juice which they suck from flowers and roses, con­cocts into venome and becomes poyson too. Having said this by way of Preface to my following Reply, first, Sir, (confining my self to your me­thod) how you spend your morning thoughts, being impossible for me outright to know, unless your thoughts were either visible or you trans­parent; I desire you wil not think me over-curious, if I open a door upon you, and proceed by conjecture. You say, you use to spend them upon a bet­ter subject then a pot of dead drink that hath a little froth at top, and dregs at bottome. To what passage of my Letter this refers, or why a language which I do not understand, should possess the porch & entrance to yours, I am not Oedipus enough to unriddle. But if I may guess what your mor­ning thoughts were, when (as you confess) you did let them loose by your pen to discharge themselves upon me in a shower of rude, untheologicall, flat, downright detraction, though they were not employ'd upon a frothy subject, yet they shew that you were at that time in his distemper in the Gospel, a piece of whose raging and distraction 'twas to fome at mouth.

Next Sir, had I been present at your Sermon, (as I am glad I was not, for I desire not to be an Auditor where I must hear my self libelled from the pulpit) I shal easily grant, by the taste which you have given me in this short Conference with you of the perspicuity of your stile, and the [Page 15] clearness of your matter, that 't was possible enough for me not to understand it. I doe, therefore, acknowledge it as a favour from you, that you will let me no longer wander in uncertain­ties, or write to you upon the mis-report of a fallible Intelligencer; but will your selfe be my Clue to guide me to what you said. Which favour, you have much heightned, by robbing your weigh­tier employments of so much time to convey it in, as might have been spent in providing your selfe to preach thrice a day, and yet not doe it so hastily, or with such a running negligence, as to be thought to preach but once a week.

As for your Text, and the Doctrine built upon it, at whom soever it was shot, I shall not quarrell with it. But how your Co­rollary should concern any thing that I have said in my Sermon contrary to your Doctrine, I cannot possibly imagine; who do there onely speak of the vanity of some of our Modern Prophets, who can see Idolatry in a Church-window: And do onely strive to prove that for people to refrain the Church (as you know who did) because some (though perhaps not of our age) paid worship to the windowes, was a fear as unreasonable as theirs was, who refused to go to Sea, because there was a Painter in the City who limn'd shipwracks.

Sir, had you a minde to deal pertinently or ingennously with me, you would witness for me, that though I speak in defence of the Ornamentall use of Images, yet I in no passage of my Sermon do defend any Image or pourtraicture made of the Deity. Sir, 'tis not your saying, That no picture can be made of God, because there is nothing like him in Heaven or Earth, or the following proofs of your letter (which I conceive to be a piece of your Sermon at St. Maries, which because I came not to it, you in charity have sent home to me) that perswades me that any such picture is unlaw­full: Nature, as well as the numerous places of Scripture, which you have quoted to prove that which I never yet denied, have long since taught me, that to make, or draw any picture, or Image of God is not onely a breach of the second Commandement, which is built upon the invisibility of his Essence, and Nature, but that the Attempt would be much more vain, then if a Painter should endeavour to limn a soul or minde, which not affording any Idea, or resemblance to his fancy to be taken by, cannot possibly by him [Page 16]be exprest in Colours. The Task, therefore, to make any Draught or Figure of God (pray Sir, being misled by your example, do not think me superfluous in my pursuit of an Argument, to which I was not bound to reply) is (besides the sinfulness of it) much more impossible. For, First, Sir, if the School-men (which I hear you once said you had long studied to little purpose) may be Judges, He cannot be limn'd or drawn, because he is a Spirit: Therefore not capable to be represented by any gross, materiall Thing. Next, because He is Infinite; and therefore not capable to fall under Symmetry, or be circumscribed within the finite lines which stream from a Painters pencill. Thirdly, because He is Sim­ple, that is, (as your Schoolmen say, for you know Sir, I am but an English poet) All in All, and All in every part: Or, in other Termes, a Thing entirely uniform, and indivisible within it self, which admits not of any false representation of it self by limbs or parts. Lastly, Sir, (because I will not be tedious, and go over all his other Attributes) who shall paint his Omaiscience, who his Omnipotence, who his Eternity, who his Ʋbiquity? Knowing this Sir, and much more of him (not by the Help of a borrowed Illu­mination) I could not trespasse so much against my own studies, and Conscience as to allow of any picture of God. And therefore, in this particular, challenging me, (as you impertinently do) to produce my strong reasons, and overthrow, if I can, your Doctrine, or Corollary, deduced from Esay 40.25. where God by his Prophet sayes, To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equall saith the Holy One? You would fain have me be your Adversary in an undefen­sible Cause, that your conquest of me might be the easier. In short, you would have me profess my selfe to be an Anthropomorphite, that you might have the advantage to confute me for an He­retike.

Sir, since you deny that you said in your Sermon, that I made Images equall with God (which if you had said, my Sermon without any new confutation, would have disproved you) I am in that par­ticular satisfied, and shall think it was, though not a wilfull one, yet a mistake in the reporter. But, then, Sir, I must tell you, that I am not at all satisfied with that which followes. Where you say, that Images are not like unto God, and Thereupon wonder that I took upon me to plead for the retaining of those Images which have been [Page 17]too often turned into Idols, not by the piety, but superstition of former times: For here, Sir, if I would take the advantage of expression not well considered, upon you, in saying that Images are not like unto God, and thereupon that I did ill to plead for the retaining of other Images not of God, a Sophister would make the world be­lieve, that you think all Images superstitious, and therefore fit to be banisht out of the Church, but onely such Images as are made of God; which would expose you to the opinion of being thought very subject to speak contradictions. But being a meer poet, Sir, whose ability, you know, lies not in making use of Aristotles Eleuchs, but in the soft, harmless composure of an Elegie or Ode, I shall deal more gently with you; That is, take you in the most advantagious sense which you possibly, upon your better morning thoughts can put to your words, & believe, that the fault you finde with me for the retainment of Images, is, because by the superstiti­on of former times they have been turn'd into Idols. Sir, if I be not deceiv'd, my Sermon, in this particular, is able to save me the la­bour of a reply. Where I have once for all said that which you wil never be able to controul (how poetically (that is not dully) soe­ver you may think it exprest) that by the same reason that Orna­ments are to be turn'd out of the Church, because some out of a mis-guided devotion have adored them, we should not have a Sun, or Moon, or Starres in the firmament, but they should long since have been banisht the skies, because some of the deluded Heathen worshipt them. The little fallacy with which you think to entrap me, when you say, that hence you collect that I will be forced to main­taine that Images are as necessary in the Church, as the Sunne in the Firmament, will expire, like all other thin Sophismes, in vanity & smoke, when I have shewn the weakness and infirmity of it, which will be briefly done by repeating onely the sense of my Sermon in other words, and saying, that if Images doe agree with the Sunne, in that they have both been made Idols, though one be no necessary part of the Church, and the other be a necessary part of the building of the world, yet if for that reason wherein they agree, one must be banisht, any man that hath Logick (though he be a Poet) may inferre, that t' will be as reasonable that the other should be banisht too.

In your next Paragraph, or fardell of I know not what, you say [Page 18]that I plead for Copes, and for those parts of the Common-Prayer-booke which were borrowed from Rome: And then confute me with the threats of an ere-long Visitation. Sir, there is neither Logick, nor School-Divinity in this. As for Copes, you know I joyne them with Surplices in my Sermon; and say that by the same reason that the false Prophets of our times would perswade the people that Surplices are unlawfull because Papists weare them, they may endeavour to perswade them, that Linnen is also unlawfull, because Papists shift; and so conclude Cleanliness to be as super­stitious as Surplices or Copes. Sir, you may call this Poetry, but there is a Logick in it, which I hope doth not cease to be Logick, which you cannot resist, because 'tis not watrishly or flegmatickly exprest. As for those parts of the Common-Prayer-booke, which I doe not say were borrowed from Rome, (as you impose upon me) but are to be found in the Rubrick of the Church: if I had said they had been borrowed from that Church, yet you have said no­thing to prove, that upon this supposition 'tis Popery to use those Prayers in Ours. Foreseeing, I beleeve, that if you had offered to maintaine that what ever is in the Popish Lyturgie is Popery, that is, superstitious, and fit to be proscribed out of the Church, you would (meeting with a good Disputant, and one not addicted to Poetry) have been compelled to confess, that the Lords Prayer, and Davids Psalmes are Popery too, (though the one were deli­vered by Christ, the other by one who lived long before Antichrist) because they are bound up in the same volumne with the Masse. Sir, if this be your Logick, 'tis Socrate ambulante coruscavit, and will be a false fire to lead you for ever out of the way. But here, Sir, though I need not take the paines to confute the Nothings you have said against me, in this particular, yet whenever you shal call upon me to make good my undertaking, I doe promise to make it evident to you, that all the ancient parts of the Common-Prayer-booke, which I plead for, I doe not plead for because they are used by the Church of Rome, but because they were part of the Lyturgie of those Churches which were thought primitively pure, and not superstitious, and were in the world long before Popery, or Antichrist was borne. I must, therefore, for ought you have yet said to alter my opinion, still stand to my former conclusi­on; which is, that by the same reason that either the whole, or any [Page 19]part of our Cōmon-Prayer-Book is to be turned out of the Church, because in some things it agrees with the Lyturgie of the Church of Rome, Italy, and Rome it self is to be turned out of the world, (& so a new Map to be made of it where these places are not) be­cause they are the Popes Territories, and lye under his Jurisdiction. Lastly, Sir, as for the Visitors you threaten both me and Christ-Church withall, (of whom some report that you are one) when you come to execute your Commission, so you will not urge it as a Topicke to convince my understanding, but as a Delegacy of power to examine my studies, life, and manners, I shall bring all the sub­mission with me which can be expected from one subject to the try­al. and examination of such a power. Being withall very confident, that when that time comes, however you may perhaps finde an old Cope or two in our Colledge, yet you will never bring Logick enough with you to prove, that they are either Idolatrous, or have been put to a superstitious use. And therefore, Sir, in this particu­lar you have lost your friendly counsell, there being no need at all that we should against that time study for an Answer.

In your next Fascicle, you say, that I maintaine that some things in the Excellency, and Height of the Doctrines of Christian Religion depend for their credit, and the Evidence of their Truth, upon the Authority of Christs Miracles convey'd along in Tradition, and Sto­ry; And, therefore, conclude that my Religion leanes too hard, and too heavy upon Tradition. Sir, though I have alwayes lookt upon the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New, as two glorious lampes, which to all eyes (that have not lost the use of seeing, by being kept sequestred from the sunne too long in the darke) mu­tually give light to one another, so that a vigilant Reader, by compa­ring Prophecies with their Accomplishments, will have very great reason to beleeve that both are true, yet because this amounts but to the discourses and perswasions of a single mans reason, if I prefer Tradition, which is the constant, universall consent of all Ages, as a fuller medium to prove doctrines by which are hardly otherwise de­monstrable, doe I any more, I pray, then prefer the universall Te­stimony, and Report of the Church of all Times, before the more fallible suggestions of a private spirit?

Your next Paragraph, is perfectly the Hydra with repullulating Heads which I warned you of in my first Letter; And multiplies [Page 20]so many causeless questions as make it nothing but a heape, partly of such doubts, partly of untruths, as would make it one of Her­cules labours to examine them. First, you bid me prove that Christ hath put the sole power of Ordination in the hand of a Prelate. Sir, if the practice of the Apostles in the Scripture in this point were not cleare, yet the practice and opinion of the Church for 1500 yeeres ought to be of too great Authority with you to make this a scru­ple. Knowing that no Church in the world thought otherwise, till the Presbyterian Modell crept forth of Calvins fancie; nor a­ny good Protestant in the Church of England, till such as you re­called Aërius from his grave, and Dust to oppose Bishops. Next, you bid me justifie, that no Church that ever the sunne lookt upon hath beene more blest with purity of Religion for the Doctrines of it, or better establisht for the Government, and Discipline of it, then the Church of England hath. Sir, you repeat not the words of my Sermon so faithfully as you should. I am not so extravagant as to say, that no Church that ever the Sunne lookt upon, but that the Sun in all his heavenly course for so many, many yeeres, that is, (in my sense) for many Ages, saw not a purer Church then ours was, both for the Doctrines, and Discipline of it. Against this you wildly ob­ject, I know not what Doctrines publiquely countenanced, but tell me not what these Doctrines were, speake of certaine superstitious practices, and Prelaticall usurpations, but doe not prove them to be either superstitious, or usurpt; quarrell with the Delegation of Bishops power to Chancellors, then proceed to the tyrannie of the High-Commission-Court, and at last conclude with I know not what Imaginary corruptions and Innovations introduced into the State, Church, and Ʋniversity. Sir, if I should grant this long-winded Charge of yours to be true, (as truly I think it is onely a seeing of vanity) yet my confident Assertion is not hereby enfeebled I hope, when I spoke of the purity of our Church, you did not think I freed it from all blemishes or spots. The Primitive Church it selfe had some in it who broacht strange doctrines; Saint John had not else written his Gospell against the Gnosticks, nor Saint Paul his Epistle to the Galatians against those that held the necessity of Circumcision. The next Ages of the Church have not been more distinguisht by their Martyrs, then Heretiques; yet the Primitive Church ceased not to be Apostolically pure, because it had a Ce­rinthus, [Page 21]or Nicolaitans in it; nor the succeeding Churches to be the Spouse of Christ, because one brought forth an Apelles, another a Marcion, a third a Nestorius, a fourth an Eutiches, a fift an Ari­us. Sir, as long as the best Church in the world consists of men not infallible there will be errors. But then you must not charge the Heterodox opinions or Doctrines of particular men, though, per­haps, countenanced by some in publique authority upon the Church. Besides, Sir, every Innovation is not necessarily a Corruption, un­less it displace, or lay an Ostracisme upon some other thing more worthy and better then it selfe. You your selfe say, that the corrup­tions introduced were brought in by a prevailing faction, who were not the Church. If they were not, my Assertion holds good, that notwithstanding such corruptions, yet our Church in its time was the purest Church in the world. This, then, being so, me thinks, Sir, you in your pursuit of Reformation, by making Root & Branch your Rule of proceeding, have beene more severe then the lawes of right Reason will allow you. If there were such a tyrannie as you speake of streaming it selfe from the High Commission Court, why could not the tyrannie be supprest, without the abolishment of the Court? Or if there were such a thing as Prelaticall usurpation, why could not the usurpations be taken away, and Episcopacie left to stand? Sir, if you be Logician enough to be able to distinguish betweene the faults of persons and the sacredness of functions, you cannot but pronounce with me, that to extirpate an order of the Church, ancient as the Christian Church it selfe, and made venera­ble by the never-interrupted Reception of it in all the Ages of the Church but ours, for the irregular carriage of a Prelate or two, (if any such have beene among us) is a course like theirs, who thought there was no way left to reforme drunkenness in their State, but utterly to root up, and extirpate, and banish Vines.

The remainder of your Paragraph is very politically orderd; which is, that because you finde it hard for you to confute my Sermon by your Arguments, you will endeavour to make the Par­liament my Adversary, who, you thinke, are able to confute it by their power: And bid me prove that the proceedings of the Parlia­ment are Turkish.

Here, Sir, methinks, being a Poet, I see a piece of Ben Johnson's best Comedy, the Fox, presented to me; that is, you, a Politique [Page 22]Would-be the second, sheltring your self under a capacious Tortoise-shell. Why, Sir, can you perswade your selfe that the great Coun­cell of the Kingdome, by whom you are imployed, if they will vouchsafe to reade my Sermon, will not presently discerne your Art? And withall perceive, that though the Text, upon which I, out of the Integrity of my soule, preacht that Sermon, stick as close to False Prophets, as the Centaures shirt did to Hercules, and set them a raging, yet that they having never Parliamentarily profest to propagate Religion by their speare, can no way be concerned, when I say that such a perswasion in us Christians would be Mahu­metan; and we thereby should translate a piece of the Alchoran into a piece of the Gospel. Sir, I am so confident of the wisdome of that Honourable Assembly, of my owne innocent meaning, and of your guilt, (who have beene one of those Turkish Prophets, (and in your Letter to me still are) who have preacht that piece of the Alchoran for good doctrine) that for answer to all your slye, impo­tently-malicious mis-applications and shiftings off that which I have said onely of such as your selfe to the Parliament, I shall onely ap­peale to my Sermon. And by that, if you please to undertake the Devils part, and be my Accuser, shall be content to stand or fall. In the meane time, Sir, I must repeat what I said before, that if it be read, or lookt on through those refractions, with which you have mis-shap'd, and crookt it, I shall consent to what you say in the end of your filthy Paragraph; That 'twas once a Sermon, but you almost à Carceribus us (que) ad metam have made it a Libell.

In your next (what shall I call it?) you are very Critically plea­sant; And because I talke of a Religion wherein I was borne, aske me, whether I were borne in a Surplice, or Cope; and then very distinguishingly proceed, and say, Christiani non nascuntur, sed fiunt.

To the first, I reply, that it had been as unnaturall for me to be borne in a Surplice, or Cope, as for you to come into the world, with a little Geneva set-ruffe about your neck.

Next, Sir, for your sharpe distinction, I hope, though the Muses be your Step-dames, yet you thinke not the figures of Rhetorick to be so superstitious, that it shall be Popery in me, to make use of a Metonymy, and to express my selfe by the Adjunct, when I mean the place, and Country. I grant, Sir, that men are not borne, but [Page 23] re-born Christians; yet 'twill be no great Errour in speech for a man to say he is born in Christianity, if he be a Christian, and were born in the place where Christianity is establish'd. Sir, I doubt you begin to think secular learning to be a profane thing; And that you are bound to persecute Tropes out of Expression, as you have Liturgy out of the Church. If you do, Sir, we shall in time, (if we proceed in this conflict) fulfill a peece of one of Saint Paul's Epistles between us; I become a Barbarian to you, and you to me.

I am glad to hear you say, That the Parliament will not suppress the true Protestant Religion; Sir, I never thought they would. But, then 'twill be no harm to you, if I pray, That whilst you pursue such a through Reformation of it, as of late years hath left it doubt­full in the minds of the people what the true Protestant Religion is, you let not in Popery at that Gate, by which they strive to shut it out. If Queen Maries dayes do once more break in upon us through the sluce which we open to them by our unsetledness, and Distractions, and if I then fall a sacrifice in defence of the same Religion for which I now contend, I hope you then will think your self confuted; And no longer beleeve that I am such an ill Judge of Religions, or so profusely prodigall of my life, that I would make it a Holocaust, or Oblation, either to Tyranny, or Popery.

In short, Sir, let the King and Parliament agree to burn Copes, and Surplices, to throw away the Common-Prayer-Book, or to break our Windows, I shall not place so much Religion in them, as not to think them alterable, and this done by Right Authority. But as for the Covenant, 'tis a pill, Sir, which no secular interest can so swee­ten to me, that I should think my self obliged to be so far of any mans Religion, as to swallow both parts of a contradiction in an Oath, if it appear to me to be such.

Your promise that my Sermon should be first confuted before it be burnt, gives me hope it will be longer liv'd, then upon the first report I thought it would. But then I wonder you should passe that sentence on it, and choose Paraeus for your precedent. I must confesse to you Sir, had I written so destructively of Parliaments as He did of Kings, I should think it no injustice from that High Court, if they should doom me the Author to be sacrificed on the same Altar with my Book. But having (upon the highest warrant that can possibly lend courage to a good action) directed it wholy against [Page 24] False Prophets, and no where reflected upon the Members of either House, but where I maintain it to be unlawfull to speak evill of dig­nities, to condemn it to the flame for speaking such Truths, as I could not leave unspoken, unlesse I had prevaricated with the Scrip­ture, will be so sar from the reproach of a punishment, that 'twill en­crease the esteem and value of it from its sufferings; and make it ascend to heaven as the Angel in the Book of Judges did, in the breath, and ayre, and perfume of an acceptable sacrifice to God.

Sir, As your she-Disciple did very much mis-inform you, if she told you that I endeavoured to incense an Officer of this Garrison against you, so 'twas one Errour more in her (as upon just occasion I shall demonstrate to you) to tell you that I vented damnable Doctrines in her Company, which I was not able to maintain. She is my Gentle Adversary, and I desire she should know, that as I desire not to fight serious duells with that unequall Sex, so when ever she will again provoke me to a Dispute (so it be not at Saint Maries, for S. Paul forbids women to argue in the Church) she shall return with prizes, and I will confess my self conquer'd. In the mean time, Sir, whither she came to you, or you went to her, Her Sex puts me in mind of some false Teachers, not mention'd in my Sermon, but branded by Saint Paul, 2 Tim 3.6 * for creeping into houses, and leading captive silly Wo­men. If your Intelligencer be one of these (as I shrewdly suspect she is) I should be sorry for those Friends sake in whose Acquaintance we both meet, that she should be lyable to the Character of such silly women in the next verse; where 'tis said, That they were ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth.

You proceed, and say, That you were in manifest Danger to loose your Right to the Exercise of the Protestant Religion, whereupon the High Court of Parliament thought it fit to repell force by force. Sir, do not entertain me with your own false fears, and jealousies; but demonstrate to me that the King (for Him I presume you mean) meant to extirpate the true Protestant Religion by the sword, and to plant Popery in its stead, And you shall not more falsely charge me that I make the Parliament by such a Resistance to Denizon the Al­choran, then I shall truely pronounce the Kings party, in fighting for him to that end, guilty of a Mahumetan perswasion. In saying this, you exceedingly mistake me if you think I contend for a Vorstian Liberty, or am hereby a Friend to the Rebels in Ireland. Sir, I hope [Page 25]you can distinguish between mens Disloyalty and Religion. As Rebels I hold it fit, if they will not otherway return to their Alleagance, that they be reduced by force. There is a right to their subjection pursued by such a War, which makes all Armes warrantable which are im­ploy'd for the recovery of such a losse. But to think, that as they are Papists, nay, (Sir, I shall not shrink from my word) if they were outright Infidels, that the Protestant Religion is to be imposed upon them by force, is to make our selves guilty of all the hard Censures which have past upon the Spaniards Conquest of the Indians, where their Silver Mines were the true cause, and Religion the pretence. Notwithstanding your Holy War, therefore, mention'd in the Reve­lation (which place I have considered, and find it as mysterious, as the pale or black Horse) for ought you have said in disproof of it, I find not my self tempted to desert my Opinion: which is, That to come into the field with an Armed Gospel, is not the way chosen by Christ to make Proselytes. And, therefore Sir, I will not so much distrust the Wisdome, or Justice of the Parliament, that upon your bare Assertion, they will make me miserable, because I maintain that they cannot warrantably compell any man to be happy.

Why the bare mention of your Scruple-house should put you into such a fit of ill language, as to pronounce me unworthy to carry the Books of the Reverend Divines after them, who met there to heal Doubts, or why my Carfax-Sermon should contribute to the raging of that fit, I cannot reasonably imagine. Sir, I have no mind to fight many Duells at Once; nor, (having received a challenge from no other but your self) to ingage my self with them by whom I have not been provok't.

Whither they be ungifted preachers, or Gifted Disputants, is best known to themselves. But, certainly, Sir, if the Report which was made to me (by some who brought both their understandings as well as Eares with t em to the famous meeting November 12.) be true, there was nothing so demonstratively by them either ob­jected, or replyed as might incourage them, or their Hearers, to be­leeve this peece of Popery, that they are unerring, and infallible in the chair: pray, Sir, do not think my Famous pride, or self-conceited­ness (which you say hath provoked you to break your chaines, and to let loose your pen, that you might whip me into Humility) hath prompted me to say this.

[Page 26] Had you named the Reverend persons whose Books I am not worthy to carry after them, so they be Greek or Latine Books, and those well understood by them, perhaps I should have exprest a greater Act of Humility then you are aware of, and have been content (though one of the new Doctors yet by the second Subscription of your Letter but a Master of Art) to sit a while at the feet of such learned Gamaliel's. But speaking indefinitely as you do, I hope Sir, for twenty years study sake in this Ʋniversity, (where I have learnt to distinguish the letters of the Greek Alphabet, and at first sight do know that it would be­get a [...], or quarrell among the Vowells, if [...] in a word should usurp the place of [...]) you will find me a nobler imployment then to carry Books after Them who count Liberaries Superfluous, humane, Secular Things; And think a Minister, not Minister of Gospel, (as your Scribe hath twice erred in the transcription of your letter, in a vowell very fatall to you) needs no other furniture but the Spirit, Cottons Concordance, and the English Bible without the Apocrypha.

Sir, I am sorry the Fit which the mention of the Scruple-house did put you into, should be increased by the mention of a Dark Roome. There goes a Story of one who had tasted a while of Bedlam, and was at length, by the help of Discipline, dyet, and Physick, cured of his Distraction; yet not so perfectly, but that still when he came within the sight of the place, his fancy remembred him of his old Distemper, and tempted him to do something which required a se­cond cure. I speak not this parable to upbraid any with an infirmity which is unavoydably naturall to them, and no way contracted from the pride, or irregularity of their own Wills; But if you have read Tully's Paradoxes, you may remember, Sir, that he there maintains the Opinion of the Stoicks, that not onely they whose chaines and fetters, proclaim them distempered, but that all foolish, over passio­nate men are to be reckoned into the number of those who are to be cured by manacles, and chaynes: pray Sir, do not take it ill, if (being as you say a Poet) I cite a Poet who was of this Opinion; but main­tains it like a Philosopher, (I will not say a School Divine.) And ha­ving insisted in verse upon Covetousness as one, Ambition as another, The love of beauty either in reall or painted faces, as another Species of Madness, He concludes in Anger, and sayes, Ira furor brevis est; that is, That the Cholerick man, during the fit of his choler, is [Page 27]in a short phrenzy. That which Seneca, Tully, and Horace, called madness, (though not the other more naturall, (which I should be uncharitable to object to you) you by this letter (especially the an­gry part of it) have given me very justifiable cause to apply to you, who (as all dispassionated men may judge) have fulfill'd the Poets de­finition of Madness upon your self in all the parts of it but one, which is, that your Anger against me is not furor Brevis, a short di­straction, but extends from the word Scruple-house to the End of your Letter. For first, Sir, in Language almost as unclean, as the sin of uncleanness it self, you endeavour to raise a Suspition upon me in the world as if I had been more familiar then I should with light Women in dark Roomes: Sir, besides the poverty of your wit, and quibling Antitheses of Expression, (to which I finde you in other places of your letter very subject) I am not afraid (with all the con­fidence of an Innocent man) to tell you, That as I never was an Ene­my to that Sex, so I never converst with any of them single, or in a dark Congregation, so loosely, to deserve to have the slander fast­ned upon me, which Tertullian, and Minutius Faelix from him, say was laboured to be stuck upon the Christians of those Times, which was, That they used to meet in Conventicles, where their custome was, after the end of the Sermon, to put out the Candles, and then to commit Folly, the holy with the holy. Sir, in plain Termes, (How blameable soever other Errours, or vanities of my life may make me stand in the presence of God, who upon a true Repentance, Sir, is not so Fatally tyed to the Spindle of absolute Reprobation, as not to keep his promise, and to seal mercifull pardons, yet) in this particular, my known Conversation in this Ʋniversity, and all other places, bids me defie you; And challeng not only your self, but the precisest of your Informers, either heer, or any where else, (who use not to suffer the looks, Gestures, or thoughts of any who are not of their Tribe, much less notorious matter of Fact, to scape unquestio­ned) to appear in an accusation against me; where it shall be proba­bly, not conjecturally proved, that I have been frail with the frail Sex either holy or profane.

Sir, all they of that soft Sex, with whom I have converst, have accused me of too great severity, and ruggedness, towards them, but you are the first, who ever endeavoured to make me guilty of being too amorously affected.

[Page 28] Next, sir, However you may tell me that you have not so lost your Reason, or Logick, but that you, (the meanest who appears for the Parliament) are ready to take up the Gauntlet which I threw down, and to answer the challenge which I first sounded in the Pul­pit; yet, certainly, They who shall read that passage of my Sermon, where I say, That if I were presently to enter into a dispute with the greatest Patriarch among these Prophets, who (notwithstanding that which I said before) will still perversly strive to prove that our Church stood in such need of Reformation, that the growing super­stitions of it could not possibly be expiated, but by so much Civill War, I should not doubt with modesty enough to prove to him back again, that all such irrationall Arguments, as have onely his zeal for their Logick are composed of untemper'd Morter: And shall compare the wilde Torrent of ill language, with which the furious remainder of your paragraph over-flows, with the Sober Web, and Composition of my Sermon, which you there think no worthier of, then of a Triobolar Ballad, They will finde that you have said no­thing in the progress of at least forty Folio-lines together, which shews not that your Reason assisted not your pen. One passage I con­fesse (like a lucide Intervall) hath some taste of sobriety, and not short fury in it; which is, that how meanly so ever you think you may speak of me, yet you think you are to make a more honourable mention of the Author of the Practicall Catechism. That learned Doctor, Sir, I am acquainted with, but not so inwardly as that he should contribute to the interlining any letter I write to you; or should suggest to me what he, not I, think fit to be maintain'd. I wish your lucid intervall had been as long as your fit; For, then I perswade my self you would never have suspected that he did over­look my letter, or advised me to contend for the lawfulness of Pre­lacy, because he was present at the sad debate at Vxbridge.

What you mean when you say, That if the learned Doctor hath any thing to object against you, He knows your mind, and (being none of the new Doctors, who you presume are Infants) is able to speak for Himself, I cannot possibly divine: unless by this Oraculous Ex­pression, you would have him understand you ready to enter into a second conflict with him, and would put me to the mean imployment to convey your challenge. Sir, if I know that Doctor well, you had best content your self with me, who am a more poeticall adversary; & whose weapons, you know, when they strike most, being sheath'd in [Page 29] Roses, ought to be terrible to none but such, whose buying & selling Consciences (like the money-changers in the Gospel) wil drive them out of the Temple at the sight of a whip made of straws and rushes. Ne­vertheless, Sir, if you be so fruitfully quarrelsome, that you think your leisure will serve you to hold combate with us both, let me desire you to hold this Opinion of us, that as I shal at no time recruit my self frō him as an Oratour, so he is too good a schollar to need my assistance as a Poet. This word Poet, I do observe, through the whole phrenzy of your letter, you strive to make use of in a disgraceful sense; And object it to me as a Reproach that the Muses are my Friends. In one place you call me a Cretian Prophet, That is, (according to your Com­ment) a Poet; In another place you tell me, that onely the few places of scripture which I have misapplied in my Sermon, can preserve it from passing among the penny-merchandizes of those that sel Ballads. In your next paragraph, (where you challenge me to dispute with you in English at S^t. Maries, as Mr Erbury did) one of your Arguments to move me to that frantick enterprize is, because I am an English Poet, and have been not only addicted to Playes, but have shuffled my Mother-tongue Verses, with other Verses publisht in more learned languages, in the same Book Printed by the Ʋniversity-Printer. First, sir, though the ungentleness of your stile, and Expressions, do sufficiently testifie that neither the Muses, nor Graces assisted at your Birth, yet I hope you are not such an enemy to numbers, to think poe­try Superstitious, and therefore to be turn'd with Imagery out of the Church. If you do, you will compell me to call Nazianzen in to my Ayde; who, besides his writing of a Play (if Erasmus have not mis­numbred them) hath written thirty thousand Heroick, Jambick, Hen­decasyllable, Elegiack, and other verses. Tertullian, Sir, you know hath confuted Marcion in Verse; and Synesius thought it as great a glory to be called a good Poet, as some who wrote in prose did to be called fathers of the Church. I wil not repeat a peece of Prosper to you nor tel you what S. Austin hath said in the praif of Virgil. To be a Cre­tian Prophet, that is in your sense, a lying Poet, but in al theirs who un­derstand the first C. of Titus, an Evil Beast, and a falfe Prophet) Is I confesse a crime. But then, sir, as one excellently sayes in his Defence of Poesie, This is a kind of Poetry which belongs to those who lye in prose as wel as those who fain in Verse. For Pliny, when he speaks of men with one foot, whose breadth interposed between them and the sun, shades their whole body, to be as great a poet as Ovid, when he speaks of [Page 30]a Virgin transformed into a Laurell, so, Sir, when you, (contrary to the direct minde, and Expressions of my Sermon) fain that to be spoken of the Parliament, which is onely spoken against False Prophets. you are a far greater Poet then I have yet shewn my self either upon the Stage at Black-Fryers, or in any Ʋniversity Book here in Oxford. Next, sir, I was never so addicted to English Poe­try, but that in the same Ʋniversity Book I had Latine Verses too; And the Reason why I wrote in both Languages was, because I was prompted to it by my Obedience to their Commands, who had Au­thority over me, and thought English the fitter Language for that part of the Court, whose Sex doth make it a Solecism to be writ­ten to in Latine.

Lastly, Sir, As for your Arguments to give you one of Mr Yerbury's Meetings, at Saint Maries; I. Because my Sermon Preacht there is English, next, because you conceive that to be the readiest course to undeceive the people who understand not Latine; thirdly, because I am an English Poet; if you think I have not sufficiently answered them in my two former letters to you, I desire you once more to con­sider, if I should have consented to that course, whither you, as well as I, in the opinion of discreet men, might not have indangered our selves to have that half verse in Horace applyed to us, Aut insanit Home, aut versus facit, That either we are both mad, or both Poets,

The way to avoyd such an Imputation, in a Time of liberty, where every body may say what they list, is for us to stand constantly to the more Academicall Proposition I made you; which was, to meet at Latine Weapons in the Divinity School. Where; sir, not agreeing upon the true state of the Questions before hand, (For if we agree before hand, nothing will be left us to dispute) if you please, the Question shall be that which concludes your Letter; That is, Pre­lacy, which, how far 'tis, or 'tis not to be defended to be Jure divino shall then appear. In the mean time, sir, as I can by no means allow that victory, and Success, are alwayes the true signes of a Right cause, (Because, The Lord of Hosts, who, you say, hath broken all our forces, is sometimes falsely thought to assist, when in truth he doth only permit) so, Sir when you write next to me, let me request you to keep your promise; which is, to deal with me rationally for the Matter, and Spiritually, that is, like a Divine for the language and forme. Otherwise, sir, though I have long since learnt from the [Page 31] best Master, that when I am reviled, I am not to revile againe, yet, instead of a Conference, meeting with nothing but Invectives, 'tis possible you may so farre provoke me from my mild temper, that the Philosophers expression in Lucians Nigrinus may be veri­fied upon me; [...]. The English of it will endure the publick test; to which if you will be pleased to submit your Letters with the same rea­diness that I am content to submit mine, I doubt not but the world will judge, that as you have not yet confuted, so you have very unchristianly injured

If I had not answered you according to your folly, you would have been wife in your owne conceit; but if I should againe answer you according to your folly, I feare I should become too like unto you, Prov. 26.4, 5. I told you that I did let loose my pen, that you might see how easie it is to answer you with a running pen, nay a running negligence in the less serious part of the day; I did let fly so many quibbles that you might smell the stench of your owne elaborate folly; glad I am that you have censured me for imitating of you, I hope you will now be at leisure to censure your selfe, for setting me so foule a copy; doe but read over your owne Sermons and Letters, and suppose they were mine, and then seriously and impartially pass your sentence on them, and I dare say you will be a gainer by this conflict.

I am very much pleased with your faire condescension to have all things in controversie rationally and spiritually examined.

1. Sir, you did as I conceive preach in defence of all images set up in any Chappell in the Ʋniversity; you know there are divers Images of some persons in the glorious Trinity set up in some [Page 32] Chappels within this Ʋniversity: You must then acknowledge all Images of that sort ought to be taken downe.

Imago nos tan­tism [...]t memori­ale excitat uti Jesuitae passim. Dico non esse tam certum in Ecclesiâ an sint faciendae ima­genes Dei, sive Trin [...]tatis, q [...]â Ch [...]sti & san­cto is hoc [...]nim ad sidem [...]erti­n [...]t, tilud e [...]t in opi [...]one. B [...]lla. deim g l. 2 c. 8 J [...]animata sp [...] ­ritualem quan­dam virt [...]em exconsecratione adipiscuntu [...], &c. Tho. p. 3. q. 83. art 3. Deum imagini­bus inhabitantè colunt, Deum cut [...]m virtu [...]e [...]stam sp [...]tua [...] ret [...]he [...]e al­quando sive [...] ­ [...]be es [...]t [...]n [...]m. Casetanus hac in re [...]nc Genti­libus quidem sanientio [...] ha­b [...]tur. You are not perswaded by any Scriptures which I have cited, but nature hath taught you (so pure is your nature) that it is a breach of the second Commandement to draw a picture of God: (re­vise that fancy) the Schoolmen whom you prefer before the testi­monies cited out of the Word, have taught you that it is not onely sinfull, but impossible to draw any picture of God. But, be pleased to consider that the Scriptures are a perfect (nay indeed the onely All-sufficient perfect) Rule, & therefore you need not goe about to patch up the rule with the low generall dictates of nature & School-men, you may study the L [...]llian Art. & fill your braine with Sebund's fancyes, but my Schoole-men (as you call them) are the best Tutors, & the best Schollars. If you prove that is is impossible to picture God, you doe not touch the point in Controversie, for vaine men will fancy and endeavour to doe, that which is impossible for to be done. Beleeve it Sir, they who had consulted as many Muses, and courted as many Graces as you have done, and were able to demonstrate out of their Poets that we are Gods off-spring, yet were not able without the help of divine Revelation to infer, from thence, that the Godhead is not like to Gold, as you may see it con­vincingly proved; Act 17.29. For as much then as we are the off-spring of God, we ought not to thinke that the Godhead is like to Gold or Silver, or stone graven by Art or mans device, I dare not there­fore make the Schoolmen my Judges in this weighty point, and I beleeve you cannot prove them to be Judges in any point which concernes the Mystery of faith or the power of godliness, but enough of that.

3. The word (thereupon) is sometimes Illative, sometimes Or­dinative, you are sufficiently answered; but let me adde, that if no Image is like God, then sure those Images, which are not made to represent God, and yet are by Idolatours turned into Idols, and worshipped as if they were divine, cannot reasonably be de­fended. Sir, I must guess at your meaning, because I beleeve you have omitted two or three words (such is your running negli­gence) which should help to make your sophisticall criticisme per­fect sense.

Truly Sir, if it be so high a fault to picture God: I may justly [Page 33]wonder that any picture of a Saint turned into an Idoll should be retained and pleaded for by any man that pretends to be a Prote­stant, and if it be impossible to picture God, it is also impossible to picture God-man. And I beleeve that you will acknowledge our Mediatour to be [...].

4. That the Sun and Images cannot be put in the scales of a comparison in point of fitness to be preserved, is a truth written with a Sun-beame; Sir, I never durst argue from the abuse of a thing against the use of it, if the thing be necessary; But the Sun is necessary, and Images are not necessary, ergo there is no parity of reason between the termes of your comparison.

5. It appeares to me by your shifting fallacy, that you make Copes as necessary as clean Linnen.

6. You will never be able to prove, that all, that the prelates and their Faction have borrowed out of the Missall, Ritualls, Breviary Pontificall of Rome are to be found in any Lyturgie re­ceived by the Primitive Church; And I would intreat you to con­sider, whether they, who doe profess a seperation from the Church of Rome, can in reason receive and imbrace such trash and trumpery. And yet though you would willingly be esteemed a Protestant, I find you very unwilling to part with any thing which the Prelates have borrowed from the Court (rather the Church) of Rome.

7. Your next Paragraph doth concerne Tradition; I shall give you leave to preferre the constant and universall consent of the Church of Christ in all ages, before the reason of any single man; but Sir, you doe very ill to call the testimony of the spirit speaking in the word to the Conscience of private men, a private spirit; I thinke you are more profane in the stating of this point then Bellarmine himselfe.

8. You have not yet proved that any Prelate can challenge the Sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction Jure divino.

9. I should be glad to know for how many yeares you will justifie the purity of the Doctrine, Discipline and Government in England. I beleeve the Doctrine, Discipline and Government of the Prelaticall faction whom you call the Church, was not excel­lent, if you reckon from 1630. to 1640. and that is time enough for men of our time for to examine. I beleeve that you will ac­knowledge [Page 34]that the Prelates did lay an Ostracisme upon those who did oppose them; who were in the right both in the point of Doctrine and Discipline, we shall in due time dispute. Though Prelacy it selfe be an usurpation, yet there were many other en­croachments which may justly be called Prelaticall usurpations, and the Parliament hath sufficiently declared its judgement in this point, they have clearly proved that Prelacy had taken such a deepe root in England, and had such a destructive influence, not only into the pernicious evills of the Church, but Civill State, that the Law of right reason (even Salus populi quae suprema lex est) did command and compell them to take away both roote and branch; you may dispute that point with them; Sir, you cannot prove that Prelacy is an Order of the Church, as ancient as the Christian Church it self, and made venerable by the never interrupted reception of it in all Ages of the Church but ours.

10. I am no Turkish Prophet, I never preacht any piece of the Alchoran for good Doctrine, much less did I ever make it a piece of the Gospell; all that I say is this, that Christians incorporated in a Civill State may make use of Civill and naturall means for their outward safety. And that the Parliament hath a Legall power more then sufficient to prevent and restrain Tyranny. Finally, the Parliament hath power to defend that Civill right which we have to exercise the true Protestant Religion, this last point is sure of highest consequence because it concernes Gods immediate honour, and the Peoples temporall and eternall good. Pray Sir, shew me if you can, why, he who saith the Protestants in Ireland may de­fend their Civill right for the free exercise of their Religion, against the furious assaults of the bloudie Rebells, doth by that as­sertion proclaime himself a Turke, and Denison the Alchoran; you talke of the Papists Religion, Sir, their faith is faction, their Religion is Rebellion, they think they are obliged in conscience, to put Heretiques to the sword, this Religion is destructive to every Civill State into which true Protestants are incorporated, & there­fore I cannot but wonder at your extravagancy in this point. Sir, Who was it that would have imposed a Popish Service Book upon Scotland by force of Armes? You presume that I conceive the King had an intent to extirpate the Protestant Religion; Sir, I am sure that they who did seduce or over-awe the King, had such a [Page 35] designe. I doe not beleeve that the Queene and her Agents (the Papists in England who were certainly confederate with the Irish Rebells) had any intent to settle the true Protestant Religion; & you cannot but beleeve that their intent was, to extirpate the Prote­stant Religion by the sword, and to plant Popery inits stead; I know Christ doth make prose [...]ites, and breake the spirituall power of Antichrist, by his word and spirit, for Antichrist is cast out of the hearts and consciences of men by the spirit of the Lord Jesus; but Christ is King of Nations as well as King of Saints, and will breake the temporall power of Antichrist by Civill and naturall meanes. If Papists and Delinquents are in readiness to resist or assault the Parliament by Armes, how can the Parliament be de­fended or Delinquents punished but by force of Armes? I know men must be converted by a spirituall perswasion, but they may be terrified by force of Armes from persecution. All that I say, is, the Parliament may repell force with force, and if men were a­fraid to profess the truth because of the Queenes Army. and are now as fearfull to maintaine errours for feare of the Parliament, the scales are even, and we may (by study, conference, disputati­on, and prayer for a blessing upon all) be convinced, and convert­ed by the undenyable demonstrations of the Spirit; Sir, this is my perswasion, and therefore I am sure far from that Mahumetan per­swasion of which I am unjustly accused.

11. I am glad that you speake out, and give light to your darke roome; I did not accuse you of Convenicles. I beleeve you hate those Christian meetings which Tertullian & Minutius, Pliny and others speake of; we had lights and witnesses good store at our meetings. And as for your conceit, that I deserve to be in Bedlam, because of the predominancy of my pride and passion, and the irregularity of my will; Sir, I confess that I deserve to be in Hell, a worse place then Bedlam; and if you scoffe at me for this acknowledgement, I shall say as Augustine did, Irrideant me arro­gantes, & nondum salubritèr prostrati, & elisi à te Deus meus, ega tamen confiteor dedecora mea in laude tua. Sir, be not too confident of the strength of your wit, make a good use of it, or else you may quickly come to have as litle wit as you conceive, God hath be­stowed on me. 1. Doe you beleeve that your nature is corrupt? 2. And doth not a wanton wit make the heart effeminate? 3. Did [Page 36]you never converse with any woman of light behaviour? rub up your memory. 4. Superstitious persons are usually lascivious, I could tell you more, but I spare you. 5. Are you more tempe­rate then the Disciples to whom Christ gave that caveat, Luk. 21.34? you may then apply your selfe to Prayer and Fasting; doe not say that this is a filthy Caveat, but beware of that filthy sinne, and acknowledge that the Caveat is given you, upon sad con­siderations.

12. You tell me that God is not so fatally tyed to the Spindle of an absolute Reprobation, but that upon your Repentance he will seale your Pardon. Sir, Reprobatio est tremendum Mysterium; how dare you jest upon such a Subject, at the thought of which each Christi­an trembles? Can any man repent, that is given up to a reprobate mind, and an impenitent heart? And is not every man finally impe­nitent, save those few to whom God gives repentance, freely, po­werfully, effectually? See what it is for a man to come from Ben. Johnson, or Lucian, to treat immediately of the [...]igh and stupendi­dious mysteries of Religion; the Lord God pardon this wicked thought of your heart, that you may not perish in the bond of ini­quity and gall of bitterness; be pleased to study the 9. Chapter to the Romanes.

You say if we agree upon the true state of the Questions before hand, nothing will be left us to dispute. Sir, it is 1. one thing to state a question for debate, so that you may undertake the affirmative, I the Negative, or è contrat: 2. another thing to state a question in a supposition as the Respondent usually doth, and a third business to state a question after the debate in a prudent and convincing de­termination, as the Moderatour should doe; I speake of agreeing upon the state of the question in the first sense, that the Question may be propounded in such termes as doe so farre state the point in Controversie, that you and I may know which port to take, the Affirmative or Negative.

The questions as I conceive are these that follow.

• 1. Whether all that our Prelates have borrowed of the Church of Rome, and imposed upon the people, ought to be still retained in the Church of England?
• 2. Whether the Images of our Mediatour, and the Saints are [Page 37] usefull Ornaments in Protestant Churches?
• 3. Whether any Prelate be endued with the power of sole Or­dination and Jurisdiction Jure divine?
• 4. Whether they who defend the Protestants of Ireland against the Rebells by force of Armes, are therefore to be esteemed Ma­humetans?
• 5. Whether that faith which is grounded only upon Tradition, ought to be esteemed a Divine faith?
• 6. Whether the spirit speaking in the word to the conscience of private men ought to be esteemed a private Spirit?
• 7. Whether any Reprobate can ever be converted or saved?
• 8. Whether the Papists of England, & Rebells of Ireland with their Confederates did endeavour to extirpate the Protestant Religi­on and plant Popery in its stead?
• 9. Whether they who endeavoured to impose a Popish Service-Booke upon Scotland by force of Armes, were of the Mahumetan perswasion?
• 10. Whether the School-men are Competent judges in any point which concernes the Mysterie of Faith or Power of God­liness?
• 11. Whether the Nationall Covenant contradict it selfe?

Sir, if you please to answer upon the three first questions in the Schools, and hold them as you seem to hold them all Affirma­tively, I shall endeavour to prove the Negative.

To all your scoffes and abuses I have nothing to reply; if God bids you revile or curse me, I shall submit to God; you call me Fool, Bedlam, Turke, Dog, Devill, because I give you seasonable advice: Sure Sir, Nazianzen, Prosper, &c. were not guilty of such Poetry, nor did Prudentius teach you any such streines.

I did very honestly forewarn you of a visitation; it is I thinke proper enough to enquire into matters of fact at a visitation. Now whether Copes have been put to a superstitious use is not a questi­on to be determined by any but In-Artificiall Arguments, I mean by sufficient witnesses. To that which you Prophesie of, that I am like to be a Visitor; I answer 1. I thinke you have litle ground for such a Prophecy: I call it a Prophecy, for I am sure the Houses of Parliament have not yet named any Visitor. 2. You talke much of the wisedome of the High Court of Parliament; and can you [Page 38]imagine that so wise a Court or (as you terme it) Councell will make choice of a Bedlam, a Turke, Dog, &c. to visit so many pru­dent and learned Doctors?

Sir, you say you are not satisfied with my Arguments, you might have consider'd that I doe reserve my arguments till we meete at Schooles, our worke for the present is to draw up the Points in Controversie into formall questions; I have you see for­med some questions, if you please to adde more, you may, I shall be ready to give you the best satisfaction I can, after these are dis­cussed, if I be not called away to some better imployment by those who have power to dispose of

An

• Omnia è Missali Breviario necnon Pontificali Romano à Pre­lat is nostris decerpta, populo (que) obstrusa in Ecclesiam recipi­enda sint?
• Christi Sanctorum (que) imagines Reformatorum Templis utili sint ornatui?
• Soli Praelato potestas Ordinationis nec non Jurisdictionis Jure divino competat?

When I had open'd the Letter you sent me on Saturday night last, Jan. 30. and found by the first period of it, that as your first Letter shew'd you a great Master in Detraction, so in this you had learnt the Art to make the Scripture revile me too, and taught two of Solomons Pro. 26. 4, 5. Proverbs to call me Fool; Finding also in the next period how naturally and uncompelled ill language flows from you; who do here confess that you did let loose your pen that I might see, how easily, and with what an unforc'd Dexterity, in the less serious part of the Day, without premeditation, or the expence of Study, you could revile me; And withall, that you did let flye so many quibbles (as the exercise of your Recreation, I presume) to minde me of my more industrious Trifles, I must confess I not onely look't upon you as a Person fit to sit in thePsa. i. 1 [...] Seat of the Scornfull, but as one very capable to be requited with a Proverb; which the samePro. 26.18.19. Chapter which you quoted, presented to me at the 18. & 19. Verses; where 'tis said, That as a mad-man who casteth-firebrands, Arrows, and death, so as the man that deceiveth his neighbour and saith he is in sport.

Sir, I should not have applyed this price of Scripture to you by way of Retaliation, (which may seem to have some bitterness in it) had you not at the very threshold and first unlocking of your Letter, verified this Proverb upon your self, by casting firebrands and Arrows first, and thereby deceiving me, who (upon your pro­mise that I should be spiritually dealt with, that is, as a Divine ingaged in a needless Controversie with a Divine ought to be) un­succesfully flattered my self, that for the future, though I could not expect much Reason or proof or Argument from you, yet you would certainly bind your self to the Laws of Sobriety, and good Language. How you have made good your promise, will appear to any, who (besides the reproachfull proverb with which you begin your Letter, and for which, a greater then Solomon hath said you shall be inMat. 5.22 Danger of Hell-fire) shall read the puddle of your letter which streams from the first foul Spring, and Head of it; where, having first charged me in my writing to you with Elaborate Folly, you make it an Excuse to the Dirt and mire of your pen, that I set you the Copy, and was foul in my Expressions first.

Sir, Though the saying of Tacitus be one of the best confutations of [Page 40] Detraction, Convitia spreta exolescunt, and though I have alwaies thought that to enter combate with a Dunghill is the way to come off more defiled, yet finding my self engaged (like one of the poeticall Knights errant) with an Adversary that will not onely provoke me to fight, but, whos best weapon is to defile me out of the field, I shal for once apply as good perfume to the stench you speak of, as can possibly in such times make me walk the streets in my own Oxford, uncondens'd not by you made foggy, Ayre; And shall make it evident, first to your self, next to the world, (if you will consent that what thus secretly passeth between us shall be made publike, and Printed) that you are not onely fallible in your most sad, and melancholy considerations, but in those more pleasant, mirthful chymes of quibbling, for which I before placed you in the Chaire.

First, sir, you bid me read over my two Sermons and the two letters which I have sent you, as if they were yours, and then impartially tell you, whether I am not to pass sentence upon them as you do; That they are Diffoiles Nugae, Elaborate Follies.

To which my Reply is; First, that there is so much loyalty, and so little self-interest in them, that my imagination can never be strong enough to Suppose them to be yours, Next, That what Folly soever betrayes it self in your expressions, yet the matter is built upon such sure rocks of the Scripture, that 'tis not all the waves or Tem­pest which you can raise against them, wil be able to reduce them to the fate of a House built upon the Sand. Thirdly, (since all Dis­putes, as wel as wit, are like a Rest Kept up at Tennis, where good players do the best with the best Gamsters) I do sadly promise you, that when ever you shal either write or urge to me such Arguments of serious Consideration, that I shal not have reason to think St. Pauls saying verified in thy Expressions, that my Foolish things are suffici­ent to confound, and bring to nought your wise; I wil lay aside the Folly you tax me withal. In the mean time, if you think my Letters to you By what Glass soever my Sermons were made) are elaborate, pray compare the Dates, and Receipts of them, with the No-d [...]es, and uncertain Receipts of yours; And you wil find that the longest letter, I have yet written to you, was but the creature of two days, when your unelaborate answer to it back again was the Birth, and Travell of a whole week.

Having said this, Sir, by way of Answer to your ungospel-like pre­face, I shal next, (confining my self once more to your own method) address my self to the examination of the rest of your letter. A hard [Page 41]task, I confess; It being so much a Twinn-brother to your former▪ where your evasions, and little escapes are so many, and your true substantiall, solid disproofes of any one thing which I have sayd either in my Sermons or Letters, so few, that, to deal freely with you, my Conflict with you hitherto hath been (and for ought I yet foresee is like to prove) like the Fight between Hercules, and the River Achelous; which when 'twas foyled in one shape, could tire the Conquerour, and presently provoke him to a fresh encounter in ano­ther. Sir, I could wish (without your strange endless multiply­cation of Questions) you would assume to your self some constant figure, wherein I might say, I grappled with a bodyed Adversary. But changing Form, as you do, and putting me stil to prove that which you have not yet so much as seemingly confuted, pardon me (I beseech you) if I say, that my combate with you is not only like the combate of Hercules with that River, but like his, who thought he had entered Duell with a Gyant, and after much toyl found himself encountred by a cloud.

First, you conceive, that I preacht in defence of all Images set up in any Chappell within this Vniversity. Sir, This is but your con­ceipt, of which you, not I am guilty. My sermon, if you mark it, is not so confined either to Vanlings Draughts, or any other mans pencil, as to defend what ever their Irregular Fancies shal draw, or not to defend what ever, either heer, or any where else, they shal regularly limb. But if your conceipt were true, what doth your Logick infer, That because some Chappels are adorn'd with the I­mages of some of the persons in the Glorious Trinity, therefore I must acknowledg all Images of that sort ought to be taken down? Pray, Sir, how long hath the single-Topick of your meer Assertion been of such forcible Authority, that without any other proofe, you should think me obliged to hold such Images worthy of expulsion, be­cause you say they are? Had you either from Scripture (the most perfect Rule for the Decision of Controversies) or from Reason, (Though in your esteem but a peece of nature corrupted) urged any one necessary Argument to prove them unlawful, or things which deserve to be called the Idolatry or Superstition of the place, per­haps being a servant to Demonstration, (though a favourite of the muses) I should have been one of the first that should have cryed out for Reformation. But this not being done by you, nor indeed, possible to be done by any other, though my sermon speak not of any Image of any person in the Trinity, yet I conceive all Argu­ments, which shal strive to prove, that no picture of any person in [Page 42]the Trinity ought to be the Ornaments of a Church, or Chappell Window, will be as frail and brittle as the Glass in which they stand. Sir, I have said in my last Letter, and shal repeat it in this, that 'tis not you, but nature and the numerous places of Scripture, which forbid to make any picture of God, (either taken for the Divine essence com­mon to all the three persons, or for the person of God the Father di­stinct from the other two) which perswade me that any such picture (besides the impossibility) is unlawfull. And therefore you need not have put your self to the uncecessary trouble to hang your Margin with quotations taken out of Bellarmine, or Aquinas; since all such quotations applyed to that which I have said and you have cited, which is, That all pictures of God are a breach of the second Com­mandent, do strike me no more, then if I should enter conflict with those dead Arras-Captains, which in hangings threaten to assault the spectatour with imaginary, woven Lunces. Much less need you so superflously have called S. Paul from the third heaven to prove, that (because he once quoted this Greek Hemistick out of Aratas [...], that we are the Off-spring of God) God is not like to gold, silver, or stone, graven by the art of mans device. Since by that which I have said of him in my former Letter, you are obliged to testifie for me, that I have urged convincing reasons to prove he cannot be: which Re [...]sons, as borrowed from nature and the schoolmen (with whom, sir, I hope you are not implacably fallen out) I do not urge as the supre [...] Judges of what I there prove, but as subservient mediums, which car­ry a musick and consent to that which God hath said of himself in the more perfect Rule of his Word. So that for doing this, to charge me (as you do) with the Study of the Lullian Art, is either nonsence in your Letter, or an Illation which resolvs it self into a contemptible mistake; which is, That because Lullius, who wrote of Chymistry, was ca [...]ed Raymundus, I, who have read another Raymundus who wrote of Natural Theologie, am to be called a Lullianist, which is a Logick as wretched, as if I should say, Mr Cheynell hath read Caserane, and hath made him a marginal note, Therefore he is a seeker of the Philo­sophers Stone, and studys to convert the Ore and Tin of the kingdom into Gold. Sir, Your Logick is not much mended when you say, That the Word (thereupon) is sometimes Illative, sometimes Ordina­tive. For [...]ke it which way you will, As it stands in your last letter, you are bound to give me thanks as a Poet, that I deal [...] not with you as a Sophister, and proclaimed your infirmity for having utter'd a con­tradiction. Which contradiction, I confess, might have been avoyded [Page 43]by the insertion of the [...]itled worder two, for w [...] of which, yo [...] say my sophisticall Crititis [...] is abortive, and came but with one legg into the World.

In answer to your next Paragraph, I shall most readly grant, That 'tis a high fault to picture God. Because, any such Draught not being possible to be made of him, but by resembling of him to something w [...] is able to afford a Species or Idea to the sense, would, (besides the Falseness of it, where a gross material figure should represent a Pur [...] invisible Essence) degrade him from the honour which he ought to hold in our Minds which are his Temple; in which Temple if he should hang up in a frame or table, which should contract and shrink him to the finite Model of a man o [...] any other creature, 'twere the way to convert him into an Idoll; and so (as I have often said) to sin against the second Commandement, which as it may be broken by spending our Worship upon false Gods; so it may also be broken by our false portraitures, and apprehensions, and venerations of the True.

The case of the Saints is far otherwise. For whose pictures turn'd into Idols, as I have no where pleaded, (For as Idols I acknowledge they are the crime of those who worship them) so, as Orndments, you will never be able convincingly to prove but that they may be i [...]no­cently retain'd, and be lookt on by those who do only count them speechless Colours. The like may be said of Pictures made of Christ, which pretend to express no more of him then is capable of Represon­tation, and exceed not the lines and sy [...]etry of his Body and flesh. For I shal grant you that to Limb his Divinity, or to draw him in both his Natures, as he is [...] God as well as man, is altogether impos­sible, and not in the power of any Painter, though we should recall Apelles, or Parrhasius from their Graves, and once more put Pencil [...] into their Hand. You know, sir, if a man should have his picture drawn, 'twould be an impossible task, if he should enjoyn the Painter to limb his soul, as well as the proportion and feature of his Body, since the Soul is a thing so unexpressible to the sense, that it scarce affods any Idea to be understood by the mind. Sir, if you have read Aristotles Books [...], you will there find, that the proper Objects of al the senses besides those of the Eye (though much grosser then Spirits or Souls) cannot be brought into picture. A Painter may draw a flower but he cannot limb a scent. He may paint fire, but he cannot draw heat. He may furnish a table with an imaginary banquet, but he that should offer to raste of this banquet would find himself co [...]en'd. The Reason is, because Nature it self makes it impossible for the proper Object of [Page 44]one sense to be the Object of another; And finds not art or col [...]s for any thing invisible; But only for those Superficie's, Symetry's, and sensible parts of Things, which are first capable to be seen, and then to be transcribed into a picture. But why that part of Christ, which after his Resurrection, (when it began to cease to be any lon­ger a part of this visible World) was seen of above five hundred bre­thren at once, may not be painted; Nay, why the figure of a Dove, or of cloven Tongues of fire (wherein the third person in the glorious Trinity appeared, when he descended upon our Mediator Christ, and sate upon the heads of the Apostles) may not be brought into ima­gery, I must confess to you, I am not sharp-witted enough to perceive. Though this I shal freely say to you, (and pray do not call it Poetry) That to maintain that Christ thus in picture may be worshipt, is such a peece of Superstition, as not only teaches the simple to commit I­dolatry, but endeavours to verifie upon him in colours the reproach which the calumniating Jews stuck upon his person and to make him thus painted, a Seducer of people.

As for your fourth paragraph, (which assaults me the second time with an Argument without an Edge, which is, that the Sun and I­mages cannot be put in the scales of comparison in point of fitness to be preserved) having in my former Letter already answered you, I shal not put my self to the needless trouble, the second time to confute it.

For answer to your Fifth, pray, Sir, read that part of my Sermon which you have corrupted into a quibble; And there you shal find, that what I say of clean linnen is not, as you say, a shifting Fallacy. But I there say that which you wil never be able to controule; which is, That by the same reason that you make Surplices to be supersti­ [...]ious because papists wear them, you may make Linnen also to be su­perstitious because papists shift; And so conclude cleanliness to be as unlawful as Surplices or Copes. Sir, this is [...]; I confess, the same Answer twice served in to you, not out of scarcity or barren­ness, or for want of another Reply, but because much of your Letter is but crambe repetita, a carret twice boyled.

Your sixth paragraph is a faggot bound up with more sticks in it, then you, without poetical Licence, can possibly gather from my Letter; where, Sir, I only promise you, (when ever you shal cal upon me) to derive to you all the ancient parts of our English Liturgy from Liturgy's which were in the Church before popery was born. Of which if any part be to be found in the Rubricks of the Church of Rom [...] your logick wil never be able to prove, that therefore 'tis to be rejected as [Page 45] trash and trumpery in [...]rs. Good things, Sir, lose not their goodness, because they are in some places mingled with superstitious. Nor, as I told you before, do Davids Psalms cease to be a piece of Ga [...]ical Scripture, because they are to be found bound up in the volumn with the Mass. Sir, if what ever is made use of by the Pope, or touches upon Rome, should be superstitious, the River Tiber would be the most blameable river in the World. What you mean by a prelatical Faction here in England, or what they borrowed from the Rituals or pontifical of Rome, is exprest to me in such a mist of words (which sound big to the common people, and signifie nothing to the wise) that I must con­fess my dulness, I do not understand you. If you mean, that they in­serted any new peeces into the old garment of our Cōmon-prayer-book; and those borrowed from the Missal, or Breviary of Rome, I beleeve, Sir, (abstracting from those alterations made in the prayers for the King, Queen, and Royal issue, which the Death of Princes exacted, (unless, for constancy sake, you would have them allow of prayers for the dead; and in King Charls and Queen Mary's days, to pray still for King James and Queen Anne, which would be a piece of popery equal to the invocations of saints) you will find nothing medern or of such new contrivance, as past not Bucers [...]xamen in the raign of Edward the sixth; And was confirmed b [...] Act of Parliament in the raign of Queen Elizabeth. In saying this in their defence, who had the ordering of such changes, I hope Sir, you will not so uncharitably think me imbark't in their Faction (which truly to me stil presented it self like the conceal'd Horses under ground, a fiction made to walk the streets, to terrifie the people) as to perswade your self, after my so many professions to fall a sacrifice to the Protestant Religion, that it can be either in the power of the Church or court of Rome, to tempt me from my Resolution: Which is, to go out of the world, in the same Religion I came in.

Sir, I gave warning in my last letter not to venture your writings upon the Arg [...]ment, which deceives none but very vulgar understan­dings, and which I in my Ser [...]on cal the Mother of mistakes; which is, from an accidental concurrence in some things to infer an outright si­militude and agreement in all. Because Bellarmine says tradition is a better medium to prove somethings by, then a private spirit, and be­cause I in this particular have said so too, you tacitely infer that I and Bellarmine are of the same Religion; which is the same, as if a Turk and a Christian saying that the Sun shines, you should infer, that the Christian is a Mahumetan, and for saying so, a Turk. I confess, you do not say we are both of the same Religion: but that I, in preferring [Page 46] Tradition, which you your self, in your s [...]h paragraph, t [...]ow to be the Constant and uni [...]ersal Report of the Church) befo [...] he Testimony of the Spirit, speaking in the Word to the Consci [...]ce [...] of private men, am more profane than he. Heer, sir, you must not take it ill, if I expose you to the censure of being deservedly thought guilty of a double mistake. The one is, that if Bellarmine in this par­ticular were in an Errour, and if I had out-spoken him in his Errour, yet the Laws of speech will not allow you to say, That in an unprof [...] subject, either of us is profane; more heretical, or mistaken you might perhaps have said: and this, though a false Assertion, might yet have past for right Expression. But to call him positively, and me compara­tively more profane, because we both hold, That a Drop is more liable to corruption then the Ocean, or the testimony of al ages of the Church is a fuller proof of the meaning of a text in Scripture, then the solitary Exposition of a man who can perswade none but himself, is as incon­gruous, as if you should say, that because Bellanmine wrote but three Volumn [...], and Abulensis twelve, therefore Abulensis was: a greater Adulterer then He. Your other mistake is, That you confound the Spi­rit of God speaking in the Scripture with the private Spirit (that is) Reason, Humour, or Fancie of the person spoken to. Sir, let that blessed Spirit decide this controversie between us. He sayes2 Pet. 1.20 that no Prophesie of the Scripture is of private Interpretation. That is, so calculated, or Meriduanized to some select mind & understandings, that it shall hold the candle to them only, and leave All others in the Darke. But, if you will consent to the Comment of the most primitive Fathers on that Text, The meaning of it is, That as God by his Spirit did at first dictate the scripture, so he dictated it in those things which are necessary to Salvation, intelligible to all the world of M [...]n, who will addict their minds to read it. It being therefore a Rule held out to all mankind, for them to order their lives and actions by and there­fore universally intelligible to them, (it should else cease to be either Revelation or a Rule) for you to hold that is [...]not be understand without a second Revelation, made by the same Spirit that wrote it, to the private spirit of you the more-Cabinet Reader, is as if you should inclose and impale to your self the Ayre, or Sun-be [...]es; And should maintain that God hath placed the Sun in the firmament, and given you only eyes to see him In short, sir, 'tis to make as word, which was ordained to give light to all the World, a Dark Lanthorn, In which a candle shines to the use of none but him that bears it.

Your Eighth Paragraph being the third of your eleven Questions as also the close of your ninth, shall receive a latine Answer from me in the Divinity School.

[Page 47] Your next Paragraph is againe the Hydra with repullulating Heads: Where, first, you put me to prove the purity of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Government in England. Which, being managed by a Prelaticall faction, whom, you say, I call the Church, was not excellent, if I reckon from the yeare 1630. to 1640. As for the Doctrine, Sir, I told you before, that the Primitive Church it selfe was not free from Heresies. If therefore I should grant you (which I never shall, till you particularly tell me what those er­roneous doctrines were) that some men in our Church were hete­rodox, nay hereticall in their opinions, yet I conceive it to be a very neere neighbour to heresie in you to charge the doctrines of persons upon the Kingdome or Church. Such Doctrines might be in Eng­land, (as you whether out of Choice or Luck have said) yet not by the Tenets or Doctrines of the Land: No more, then if you should say, that because M. Yerbury and some few others hold the Equ [...]lity of the Saints with Christ, the whole Kingdome is a bla­sphemer, and was by you confuted at S. Maries. The publick do­ctrine of the Church of England I call none but that which was al­lowed to be so by an Act of Pa liament of England; and that, Sir, was contained in the 39. Articles. If any Prelate or inferiour Priest, for the Cicle of yeares you speak of, either held or taught any thing contrary to these, (as it will be hard I beleeve for you to instance in any of that side who did) you shall have my con­sent, in that particular, to count them no part of our Church. In the meane time, Sir, I beseech you be favourable to this Island; and think not that for ten yeares space 'twas hereticall in all the parts of it on this side Berwick. Withall, Sir, I desire (since you have assigned me an Epocha to reckon from) that you will com­pare the worst doctrines which wore the date of the Trojan Warre amongs us, with those which have since broke loose in the space of a Warre not halfe so long, and you will find, that our Church for those ten yeares you speak of wore a garment, I will not say, as seamless and undivided as Christs coat: But since the Soldiers did cast lots upon it, so much heresie, as well as schisme, hath torne it asunder, that 'tis now become like Josephs coat imbrued in bloud, where no one piece carryes colour or resemblance to another. As for the Discipl ne and Government of our Church, (if you would speak your conscience, and not your gall) you would confess, that [Page 48]the frame and structure of it was raised from the most Primitive Modell that any Moderne Church under the Sunne was governed by. A Government so well sized and fitted to the Civill Govern­ment of the Kingdome, that till the insurrection of some false Pro­phets, who presumed to offer strange fire before the Lord, and reduced a Land which flowed with milk and honey, into a wilder­nesse; they agreed together like the two Scripture-brothers, Moses and Aaron; and were the two banks which shut up schisme within its channell, and suffered not heresie or sedition to overflow their bounds. In short, Sir, I know not into what new forme this Kingdome may be moulded, or what new creation may creep forth from the strife-full heap of things, into which, as into a second Chaos, we are fallen; But if the Civill State doe ever returne to its former selfe againe, your Presbyterian Government, which was brought forth at Geneva, and was since nursed up in Scotland, mingled with it, (if I be not deceived in the principles of that Go­vernment) will be but a wild Vine ingrafted into a true. Vpon which unequall, disproportioned Incorporation, we may as well expect to gather Figs of Thistles, or grapes of thornes, as that the one should grow so Southerne, the other so Northerne; that one harmonious, musicall Body should arise from them thus joyned. What Errors in Government or Discipline were committed by the Prelates, I know not; neither have you proved them hither­to chargeable with any; unless this were an error, that they laid an Ostracisme (as you say) upon those that opposed your Govern­ment. I beleeve, Sir, when Presbytery is set up, and you placed in your Consistory with your Spirituall and Lay-Brethren, you will not be so negligent, or so much asleep in your place, as not to find an Ostracisme for those, who shall oppose you in your office. In the meane time, Sir, to call them, or those, who submitted to their Government, A Prelaticall faction, because the then wheels of their Government moved with an unanimous undisturbance, is, I be­leeve, a calumny, which you would faine fasten upon them, pro­voked (I suppose) by the description which I have made of the conspiracy of the False Prophets of Jerusalem in my Sermon. I must deal freely with you, Sir, do but probably make it appear to me, that this Faction in your letter was like the Conspiracy in my Sermon; Do but prove to me, that the Prelates devoured soules; That they took to themselves the Treasure, and precious things of the Land; [Page 49]That to effect this, they kindled the first spark towards a Civil War; & then blew it into such a flame, as could not be quencht but with the bloud of Husbands ravisht from their Wives, and the slaugh­ter of parents prest and ravisht from their children: Doe but prove to me that they made one widdow, or built their Honours upon the ruine or calamity of one Orphane; Lastly, do but prove to me that the Priests (whom you make to be the lower orbe of their Faction) did so mingle, and confound the services of the Church, as to put no difference between the holy, and profane, or that in complyance with them, they saw vanity, and divined lyes to the people, and I shall think them capable of all the hard language, which you or others have for some yeares heapt upon them. Till then, Sir, pray mistake not Concrets for their Abstracts; nor charge the faults of persons, upon the innocency of their functions. Prelacy is an Order so well rooted in the Scripture, though now deprived of all its Branches in this Kingdome, that I verily per­swade my selfe, that as Caiaphas in the Gospell when he spoke Pro­phecy, perceived not himself at that time to be a Prophet; so you (over-rul'd by the guidance of a higher power) have in this Para­graph exceedingly praised Prelacy, whilst you laboured to revile it. For either it must be Non-sense, or a very great Encomium of it, when you say, that as long as it enjoyed a root here in this King­dome, it had not onely a destructive influence into the evils of the Church, but of the Civill State too. If the Influence of it were so destructive of evils, (as indeed it was) pray with what Logick can you say, that Salus populi quae suprema lex est, did compell the Parliament to extirpate a thing so preservative and full of Anti­dote both to Church and State?

Sir, if mens styles & denominations be to be given to them by the place & clymate where they are borne & bred, I shall grant you are an English, nay an Oxford Christian. But if you preach, & maintain, that Religion as to be propagated by the Sword, I must tell you, that an English Presbyter may in this case be a Turkish Prophet; and that though his Text be chosen from the Gospel, yet the Do­ctrine raised from it, may be a piece of the Alchoran. I shall allow you to say that the Protestants in Ireland had a Right to the defence of the free exercise of their Religion against the furious assaults of the bloody Rebels. But when you tell me that Christ is King of Nati­ons [Page 50]as well as King of Saints, (which I shall grant you) and say, that as one of his wayes to make Proselytes is by the perswasion of his Word and Spirit; so, if that will not do, his other way to break the power of Antichrist, that is, (as I conceive you mean) to con­vert men from Popery, is by civill and naturall meanes that is, (if you meane any thing) to compell them to be Protestants by the Sword; Me-thinks I am at Mecha, and heare a piece of Turcisme preacht to me by one of Mahomets Priests. In short, Sir, whether the Papists in England were confederate with the Irish Rebels I know not: But doe you prove demonstratively, not jealously, to me, that the Queene and her Agents had an intent to extirpate the Protestant Religion, and to plant Popery by the Sword; and the Army that should bring that designe to pass, shall, in my opinion, be styled an Army, not of Papists, but of baptized Janizaries. As for your bidding me dispute the right of taking up Armes in such a case, with the Parliament; First, I must desire you to accept the Answer which Favroinus the Philosopher gave to a friend of his, who askt him, why he would let Adrian the Emperour have the better of him in a Dispute; I am loth to enter into an Argumen­tation with those who command Thirty Legions. Next, Sir, if I were of consideration enough to be heard to speak publickly to that Great Assembly, having first kist my weapon, I should not doubt, with all the respective liberty, which might witness to them that I strive not to diminish the rights of their power, but to de­fend the truth of my cause, to tell them, that to come into the field with an armed Gospel, is not the way chosen by Christ to make Prose­lites. If this be an error or mis-perswasion in me, shew me but one undenyable demonstration of the Spirit to disprove it, besides your unto picall perswasion of your selfe to the contrary, and, without any farther conference, or dispute in this point, I shall acknowledge my selfe your convert, and be most glad to be convinced. In the mean time, Sir, you are obliged, (though I be in your opinion in an error) to think more nobly of me, then of those Cowards of your side, who durst not speak Truth in a time of danger, when you see me, in the like time, such a resolute Champion (as you conceive) for the wrong.

Sir, 'tis one of the prayses of a good picture to be drawne so livingly, that every one in the room that beholds it, shall thinke it [Page 51]looks only on him; 'Tis just so with some Texts in Scripture, and some parts of morall Philosophy; which when they speake very Characterizingly of an irregular passion, or vice, if they meet with a man Conscious, and one subject to such passions, remember him of his guilt, and prick his minde as if he only were signified by that which was writ to all the World. By your charging me that I dealt more sharply with you then I should, you give me cause to suspect, that my Letter proved such a picture to you; and you to your guilty selfe seemed a person so concerned. The words of bit­terness which you have layed together in one heape, are compo­sed of such Language, as upon your twentieth perufall you will never be able to finde in my Letter. Sir, Christianity, and my pro­fession (however you in your letter forgot both) have taught me not to returne Vomit for Vomit. And the love which I beare to to the Civility of expression, would never suffer me to be so revi­lingly broad. If I made use of one of Seneca's Epistles, or of Tully's Paradoxes, or Horace's poeticall Controversies, and if you would apply what they said of Ambition, Pride, or Choller to your self, certainly, Sir, you have no reason to call this the Luxuriancy of my wit. And thereupon to inferre these provocative conclusi­ous; that my wit is wanton, therefore I am effeminate. That I am superstitious, therefore lascivious too. Sir, as my wit is so poore that I shall observe your Councell, that is, never wax proud upon the strength of it, or despise those that are more weake, so (without sparing me at all) I doe once more challenge you to prove, that the wantonness of it hath betrayed me to the loose Conversation of any that are light. Lastly, Sir, I hope you doe not thing I have so much of the vaine glory, or selfe-conceitedness of those Reverend Hypocrites in the Gospell in me, who were able to boast of their long Prayers, and broad phylactaries, and of their fasting twice a weeke, that I will offer to thinke my selfe more temperate then the Apostles. Yet, Sir, I dare once more challenge you, & the preci­sest of your inspired informers, to prove me at any time guilty of the breach of the Text you quote against Surfeiting, and Drun­kenness. Luk. 21.34. That part of your Paragraph, therefore, which ends in exhortation, is a piece of Homily, which returnes to you, to be made use of towards some other on the next last Wednesday of the month, where Fasting, and Sobriety will be seaso­nable The [...]ams.

[Page 52] I grant, Sir, that Reprobation is a Mystery to be trembled at. Yet Sir, all they who (maintaining it to be absolute) doe revive the fiction of the three destinies, where one holds the Distaffe on which the Thred of every mans Fate is spun, and doe preach a piece of Zeno's Philosophy for a piece of Saint Paul's Epistles, can have no reason to accuse me of a jest, because I apply'd a spindle to the Distaffe, on which mens fates are rolled. Sir, in plainer termes, as absolute Reprobation, is a piece of Stoicisme, which was never held to be Christian, till it crept forth into the Church from the same fancy, which was the wombe in which the Presbyterian Go­vernment was formed, so me thinks, Lucian, Sir, (how cheaply soever you think of him, or me, for having closed my last letter to you with a piece of his Nigrinus) in his confutation of this Hea­thenish Errour (which hath made so many hang themselves) urgeth Arguments which would become one of the Fathers of the Church. I know not whether you have read his [...]. But if you have, he there tells you, that if there be such a thing as the fatall Decree, you speak of; 1. That all they who lye under the Inflexibility of it, being tyed by an unalterable necessity to do what they do, can in no reason be rewarded if they do well, nor with any Justice be punisht if they do ill. Next, that the Sinnes which they commit, (if they cannot but commit them) are not to be called their Sinnes, but the Sinnes of that Decree which laid this necessity upon them. And, therefore, Thirdly, that a murtherer (thus predestined) if he should be arraigned, may say to any Judge thus stoically perswaded. Why doe you accuse me? Pray call my Destiny to the Bar; and do not sentence me, but my fate to the Racke and Wheel. I was but an oversway'd Instrument in this Murther; and was but such an Engine to my Destiny, as my Sword was to me. Though this were spoken by a Heathen, only in dis­proof of Fate, yet since Saint Chrysostome in more then three Ser­mons had said the same things in disproofe of absolute Reprobation, I hope, sir, neither Calvin, nor Piscator, have so mistaught you to understand Saint Paul, as from any Epistler of his to conclude peremptorily, that any without their desert, are given up to a Repro­bate minde, and finally struck & necessitated to a remediless impeni­tence. The 9. Chap. of the Romans, I have long since consider'd, and studyed it by the most sere [...]e, impartiall lights which might uncloud [Page 53]the great Mysterie to me which lyes so obscurely there wrap'd up. And to deale freely with you, the best Commentator I ever yet met with to lead me through the darkness of it, was another place of Scripture or two set in presence, and scale with this, both which joyned, me thought, made perfectly the Cloud which guided the Jewes through the Wilderness, which was a Cloud to the Aegypti­ans, but a pillar of fire to the Israelites. Sir, I know that neither Saint Paul hath written Contradictions, nor any other of the Apostles written that which is Contradictory to Saint Paul, Sir, I presume, also, that Aristotles Book [...] hath not so [...]or­saken your memory, but you know that an Ʋniversall Affirmative, and a particular Negative are a perfect Contradiction, and cannot both be true. Here, then, stands the case. You, building your Opinion upon the [...] or great depth of the ninth Chapter to the Romans, inferre from thence that God gives Repentance only to some few, whose peremptory will 'tis that they only shall be saved. Saint Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy, Chapter 2. vers. 4. gives us a line and plummet to sound this Depth; and saves expresly, That 'tis the will of God that all men should be saved. Between these pro­positions, 'tis his will that all shall, and 'tis his will that only a few shall be saved, there is no Medium, in which they may be reconciled; but one of them must necessarily be true, the other false. This, then, being so, I have alwayes held it safer to build my Faith upon those cleare places of the Scripture, which have no vaile before their face, then those which are mysterious, and lead me to a [...] over which I stand amazed, but cannot from thence infer. I doe farther profess to you, that I am not so wedded to this or any other Speculative Opinion, but that, if you will shew more convin­cing Scripture for the contrary, I shall most readily renounce my owne thoughts, and espouse my self to yours.

Your premonition or forewarning of me that we at Christ-church would e're long taste of a visitation, hath since come to pass, and in part approved it self to be true Prophecy. Whether im [...]ired by you or no, I know not, but there have been two with us, who have taken away as many Copes and guilt can lesticks, as if they had been superstitious. Sir, 'tis no wonder to me that in our times silver should be Popery; Or that Church utensills if they be Gold should be called superstition. But certainly, Sir, 'twas a great misinfor­mation [Page 54]to send them to search for Copes or things of value to my poor Protestant Chamber; where there never was a Cope, though, per­haps, they might have found a long-difused Surplice, there. And as for Idolls of price, if they had searcht my purse, I beleeve that all the popery, which, in these impoverishing Times, they could have found in it, cast into the fire, like the Jewish Earerings, would neither have come forth a Silver Crucifix; much less so wealthy an Idoll as a Golden Calfe.

Sir, since at length I understand you, that by agreeing upon the true state of the questions before we dispute them, you mean that we should agree upon the termes in which they are to be held, I am very ready to comply with you in that reasonable particular. But to accept of any, either of your eleven English, or yout three La­tine questions, in the terms in which you have formed them, I can by no meanes consent. First, Sir, Because I find a piece of Artifice in the Web, and contrivance of them, which hath something of a Trap, and Snare, and Engine in it. Which is, that by making them as Popish questions as you can, (especially one of them) where you insert the words Missall, Breviary, and Pontificall) words odious to the people, and part of the dismall spell which for six yeares hath raised the spirit of discord to walk among us; if I should hold it affirmatively under these termes of hatred, 'tis possi­ble it may beget an opinion in the minds of those that know me not, that, though I have more then once profest my selfe ready to fall a sacrifice in the defence of the Protestant Religion, yet that this was but a disguise which concealed my hypocrisie, 'till provo­ked I were put to defend the superstitions of the Church of Rome. Sir, I know upon what lesser ground [...] then this, some in our credu­lous times have been unjustly called Papists. Next, Sir, if I should hold them affirmatively, with their fares thus looking towards Po­pery, and should bring them thus clothed in your termes of super­stition into the Divinity Schoole, I doubt very much whether the publickness of the Defence may not draw an aspersion not onely upon me, and the Moderator, (if he will vouchsafe to sit in the Chaire whilst we quarrell) but upon the Whole already too much defame Ʋniversity, which such as you have from numerous Pul­pits called long since Ropishly affected; But if it should allow of such a Dispute, 'twould lend fuell to your calumnies, and be en­dangered [Page 55]to be no longer thought P [...]pish, but [...] right a Papist. Thirdly, Sir, your first and last Question (if they were purged of their odious termes) cannot p [...]liquely be maintained without some affront to the Parliament, who by one Ordina [...] have put down the Common-prayer-book, by another Epis [...]p [...]y. If there­fore, under your termes, I should p [...]l [...]quely stand up in defence of them, you had need procure a third Ordinance, which when I have done may keep me safe. Yet, Sir, to as [...]e you that this is no evasion in me to decline a dispute, because my Sermon [...]as the oc­casion of your challenge of me in the Pulpit, and of this private conference betweene [...]s since; Since also you allow me the liberty of alteration, and to adde my stroke to the A [...]ill on which the questions to be disputed on between us are to receive the last form, and shape, in which, with least offence, and scan [...]l, they may walk into the publique. Lastly, since the three Latine Questions you sent me are dree passages of my Sermon, but so corrupted from themselves, as shew them to have been once p [...]r [...]y P [...]stant, but passing through your hands have degenerated, and [...]ed them­selves with a to-be-suspected robe of Popery, the nearest way I knew for us to agree upon their true state, is to deale with them as the Bishops at the Reformation dealt with the Religion of the Church of Rome; that is, p [...]rge them from their corruptions, and restore them to the Primitive rule from whence they have di­grest. Which Ride, being my Sermon, (if you read it with open eyes) presents you with your three questions, in this more ge [...]i [...]e forme.

An

• Liturgia Ang [...]ican [...] ideò elimin [...]da sie, qui [...] [...]ullas partes ab Ecclesiâ [...] na [...]â [...] est, Neg.
• Christi, Sa [...]t [...]rum (que) imagines in Reformater. Eccles [...]is [...]itè r [...]ti [...]eri p [...]ssi [...]t, Aff.
• Regimen Ecclesia Anglic [...]na per Epis [...]p [...]s s [...]t Anti­christianum, ex eo quòd Ecclesia Romana (quā non­nulli sedem Antichristi statuunt) sic gubernatur, Neg.

Vpon these three Questions (which are but three periods of my Sermon cast into a problematicall forme) if you approve of them, and, like a generous Adversary, will promise me, that neither for sen [...]ing of them to you now, nor for defending them hereafter, [Page 56]I shall be question'd, (for this I require no other security but your word) I will not faile (God assisting me) to meet you in the Divinity Schoole at Ʋniversity weapons, when ever you shall think fit to call upon me; and to bring with you those Arguments, which, you say, you reserve for that place, and in your two letters have not vouchsafed to afford me, who doe daily pray (for I be­gin to be weary of fighting with shades) that this unnecessary con­flict may at length end in a Christian peace between you the oppo­nent, and me the defender of

You may be confident that the Messenger was not sent by me, because he return'd without you and without his fees. I never writ up one Letter to London that did in the least measure reflect upon you; if your Sermon had not been printed, I had not spoke one word against it. I desire to deale with you in a rationall way, and therefore I doe accept of your Academicall proposition or challenge so often sent me; and because I find my prayers in some measure answered, and you more civill then heretofore, I shall deale freely with you. I doe here under my [...] b [...]nd assure you, that if you be questioned for defending these Propositions in a Scholasticall way, (you know reproaches are not Scholasticke) in the publique Schools, I will answer for you; the Parliament will not question you for any learned nationall debate about Prelates or the Common-Prayer-Booke, for the satisfaction of your self and others.

I will meet you if you please, at the Doctor of the Chaire his lodgings to morrow about two of the clock in the afternoon; I doubt not but by his advice we shall, agree upon termes fit to ex­press the points in Controversie; if you like the proposall be pleased to send your approbation of it in two lines by this bea­rer to▪

I shall (God willing) meet you to morrow at your houre, at the Doctor of the Chaire's Lodging. Where if you be as willing to submit to the termes which he shall think fit to put the Que­stions in, which we are to dispute upon as I shall be, there will be no variance▪ between us there, nor shall we I hope, bring any with us from the Divinity School. Where Sir, you shall meet one who is so great a lover of truth, that if you can convince me for [Page 58]being all this while in an Errour, I shall think my self indeed, a gainer by this conflict. And no longer stile my self the defender of the Sermon against False Prophets, but one, who for being confuted by you ought to remain