I Should not easily have believ'd that Mr. Pierce his Letter to Dr. Heylin had made you so sick as you were reported, had not the effect discovered your disease; of which if you were cured for a season (not so perfectly it seems, as you hope p. 8.) you are the more endangered by so suddain and so sad a kinde of Relapse. For no sooner have you begg'd Mr. Pierce his pardon (p. 3.) and cleansed your selfe by a confession of the former filthiness you were in, but straight your Looseness comes upon you (even whilst you say you are cured of it) and you defile your sweet self, in a manner so much beyond example, that you may better be called Copronymus, than Constantine the Fifth, as having defiled the water of your Baptisme, with a filthier Looseness than he had done. For besides the prostituting your selfe to all manner of scurrility against those men, who will requite you only by silence, (whether in pitty or contempt of so wretched a fellow, I cannot tell,) Besides your ingratitude to your Master, to which you have added your obduration, besides your palpable contradictions and contrarieties to your selfe, (which make you appear to be an obstinate and wilful sinner,) besides your ignorance and stupidity, in which you are caught by your own confession, (and leaves you the less to be excused for medling in things above your reach,) I say, besides all this, you have Blasphemed against God in such an unpardonable Degree, that this shall be the first thing, for which I will make you an example to all your Peers, that at least the fear of publick penance may deter you from playing the Ranter any more in Print.

First, Six direct Blasphemies against the holiness of God. you pretend to mix some Modesty with your Impu­dence, whilst you say you do not affirm, and yet (in the very next words) that you cannot deny God to be the Anthor of sin. (p. 2.) If it be Blasphemy, why can you not deny it? If it be one of your Maximes, why do you not affirme it? Or what may it be which makes you stick betwixt Hauke and Buzzard, ( [...]) betwixt an unwil­lingness to affirm, and a non-ability to deny, what (a few pages after) you cannot hold from affirming in diverse places? It doth not lessen your following Blasphemies that you here say in waggery, [If it should follow from this Tenet] because you afterwards pronounce it without an If. You are as po­sitive in the thing, as if it were an Article of your Creed. And I am now but preparing for your Conviction. If you verily thought it no Blasphemie in print, to say you cannot de­ny God to be the Author of sin, why did you blot out the prin­ted word [Author,] with the printed word [be,] and with your pen make it run thus; I cannot deny God to will the Event of sin? That the former was printed from your Manuscript Copie, is too visible to the eyes of all your few Readers, to be denied; besides its admirable agreement with all that follows, (p. 9, 10, & 11.) Perhaps you will say in your excuse, that what was alter'd by the Pen, was done without your knowledge, and (likely too) against your will, by the Compositor, or Printer, or Corrector of the Press. Be it so, or not so; I must ask you a second time, if you thought it to be Blasphemy, why would you send it to the Press, and there suffer it to pass both in the Proof and the Revise, before your selfe or your Corrector thought fit to mend it? Or why did you not so mend it, as to make it somewhat the better? For considering your Principle (p. 9.) That all Gods Decrees are absolute, and that it cannot be un­derstood (at least by you) how God can consider any condition in the Creature, as a ground of his Election, and by consequence, of his Reprobation, (meaning his Will and his Decree of the one and the other, for else you run your selfe headlong a­gainst the men of your own way) I say, considering your Principle, what difference is there betwixt your saying, that [Page 3] God doth will the Event of sin, and that he is the Author of sin? He being granted by all, to be the Author of all That, which he doth Absolutely will? And 'tis as fully agreed by all, that he necessitates the being of what he Absolutely wil­leth, which is affirmed even by them that were the favourers of Gotteschalk, to be an See Mr. Pierce's Di­vine purity de­fended. ch. 4. p. 37. horrible Blasphemy against God; and by Ibid p. 38. Remigius in particular, to be a making god the Author of sin. Nor is your Blasphemy the less, but the greater ra­ther, (as I shall by and by shew) that you say In some sense you cannot deny God to be the Author of sin, or to will the event of sin; for you discover your sense to be the worst to be imagin'd, so much the worst, that I finde you speaking worse of God, than any man, without slander, could have spoken of the Devill. And I can prove what I say, even by the dictates of common sense. That you may not fail of a conviction, compare your former with your following words.

Secondly, You peremptorily say, (p 9.) That God is the Sole Author of whatever conditions the creature can be suppo­sed to have.] First, observe the word Author. Next the uni­versality of your speech, not only expressed by the word whatever, but by whatever conditions the creature can be supposed to have. In each of which notes of your universa­lity, God is inferred unavoidably to be the Author of all our sins. For that the sins of men are the conditions, upon which the Decree of Reprobation is executed upon them, hath ever been granted even by those of your way, who deny (as well as you) that the Decree it self is Conditional. Nor is there any thing plainer throughout the Scriptures. Ezek. 33.8. If thou dost not warn the wicked from his way, his blood will I require at thine hand. This and all other sins are some of those con­ditions, not only which may be suppos'd to be, but which actually are in the creature, and upon which Gods venge­ance is here denounced. Now because you tremble not to say, That God is the Author of all Conditions in the Creature, (of all that are, yea and all that can be supposed too) that is, of all the villanies that either are, or can be suppos'd to be in the Creature, I am bound to warn you (as I do) from [Page 4]this your Blasphemous and wicked way, that whatever be­comes of yours, Verse 9. I may deliver mine own soul.

3. Again you positively affirm, (p 9) That whatever God foresees, and does not prevent, he may justly be said to cause.] And here your malice to your Creator doth grow outrage­ous. For as he cannot but foresee (who is Omniscient) so he doth not prevent, but patiently suffers to come to pass All the wickedness in the world; which had he prevented, it had not been. And so it is palpably your Opinion exprest in print, That God may justly be said to be the Cause of all the wickedness in the world; which is by much a greater Blasphemy, than can be verified of the Devil; because there is very much wickedness of which the Devil is not the Cause, but only the will of the wicked man, as the right Reverend Bishop Hall hath well observed. And are you fit to be a Preacher, who teach the people to believe that God is worse than the Devil? Do not flatter your self, that when you shall come to be exa­mined for these and the rest of your horrid Blasphemies, it will suffice you to say, You writ these things when you were D [...]unk; For you have not onely written, but also done what you can to make them publick too. For which it is not your Master Bradshaw, that will be able to excuse you.

4. And whereas you say also, (p. 9.) that you cannot under­stand, how those who acknowledge Gods Praescience, can free him from being in some Sense The Author of Sin.] You ex­pla [...] your meaning by the fourth line going before, where God in plain termes is called by you [The Sole Author,] as if the Devills and wicked men had nothing to do in the works of wickedness, but all were to be cast upon God alone. Where­by it appears in what sense you would have God not to be freeable from being thought the Author of Sin, by such as acknowledge he is Omniscient. And if you acknowledge him to be such, then you profess you cannot free him from being in your sense the Author of Sin. But if you deny him to be Om­niscient, declare your denial if you dare, and you shall have a Round Answer. Again you tell us what you mean by the Phrase [in some sense] when you joyn it to Gods being Author [Page 5]of sin, by having said before that he willeth sin, and that what he willeth he necessitates, because he Absolutely wills it, in your Theology (p. 9, & 10.)

5. To leave your self without excuse, and without all be­nefit of equivocation, you open your mind with a witness (p. 10.) where you say that the Absolute will of God, as it is the prime cause, so it does alwayes actually concur with, and therefore is necessarily productive of every action of the Crea­ture.] I will not here shew how fit you are to be Ʋndergra­duate, if not to be sent back to School, (not as an Usher to teach others, but as an overgrown Boy, to be taught once more in the Ushers Formes,) by your illogical use of the word [Therefore;] inferring necessary productiveness from actual concurrence, as if you knew not the force of those English words: For the Blasphemy of your speeches is so much the worst and the most Regnant thing in you, that your talking like an Idiot doth hardly deserve my consideration. You know that to Blaspheme, and hate and curse the Crea­tor, are some of the actions of the Creature; which shews that your Doctrine must needs be this, that the absolute will of God is the prime cause of Blaspheming, and hating, and cur­sing God; and is necessarily productive as well of the worst, as of the best actions, because (say you) of every action of the Creature. But whether you do not rather believe that the three said actions are very good, as being produced by God himself (in your Opinion,) then that God can be productive of any thing that is evill, you must resolve your Readers another Time. If you say yes, then you hold that it is good to Blaspheme and hate God; but if you say No, you hold that God is the Cause and the prime Cause too of those impi­eties.

6. You farther add in the same page, (6 lines from the bottome,) that Gods Influence doth Act, though in a secret, yet in an irresistible manner.] And thus you infer, with your Master Hobbs, that twas as necessary for David to commit Adultery, as for the Fire to burn upwards: the one being acted as irresistibly as the other, in your Opinion. And hence it must needs be your Opinion, that there cannot [Page 6]be any such thing as Hell, because God is just; and it can­not consist with justice to punish men eternally for what they could not be obliged to perform: And Nemo tenetur ad Impossibile, none could ever be obliged to the doing of those things, which from all eternity were made impossible to be done. And all was so made impossible, the contrary to which was decreed to be effected in Time, by an Influence Acting in a manner irresistible. And so perhaps when you shall be asked, why you have written so many Blasphemies; you will readily say, you could not help it. For God (say you) is the prime cause, and is necessarily productive of every action of the Creature (p. 10) and Gods Influence doth act in an irresistible manner, (ibid. and what you were made to do irresistibly you could not help. And so you are caught in a net which your selfe were at the cost and the care to weave; having proved you a Ranter in the highest degree, by an Argument never to be resisted. Whereas you say, Gods In­fluence doth act, and not that God doth act by his Influence, you only discover your disability to write plain English like a Scholar, and therefore for That I shall not vex you, if you will learn some Logick before you write next. But I hasten to your three consequential Blasphemies.

The six examples of your Blasphemy against the holiness and goodnesse of God Almighty being premised, Your Conse­quential Blas­phemies, 1. a. gainst Gods Praescience. I now pro­ceed unto the seventh, which very plainly (although Im­plicitly) you have publickly vented against his prescience. For first whilst you say, you are not able to understand, how those who acknowledge Gods prescience can free him from being the Author of Sin, (p. 9.) you imply your self to be none of their number, who do acknowledge Gods Prescience; if we du­ly compare it with what you say before and after. You say before (p. 2) that men ought to look no higher for a cause of their defilement, then to the impure spring within them. Which if you really believe, (as you say you do, p 1.) you must needs believe that God hath no prescience of any Sin, because the acknowledging of his prescience is said by you to conclude him the Author of sin. And if God may be so concluded, then men may look higher for a cause of their defilement, then to the [Page 7]spring within themselves. So as you cannot deny your impli­cit Denial of his Prescience (p. 9. but by confessing you plaid the Hypocrite, in saying you did believe, what you knew you did not, (p. 1.) And as you say (p. 11.) how much the doubts of Prescienos are apt to perplex a disputing Christian, so you ignorantly affirme (p. 20.) that no man yet hath been e­ver able to explain, how humane Liberty can consist with Di­vine Prescience. So that one of these two you implicitely pro­fess not to believe, unlesse you can believe two things at once, whereof the one is inconsistent with the other. Humane liber­ty you believe, (if we may believe you p. 19.) though you say your Master Hobbs does more then Stoically deny it. And therefore Divine Prescience must needs be that which you dis­believe.

8. Your 8th. Blasphemy Consists in the Jeere you cast up­on the Scripture, Against his word. wherein though you say, you are taught to believe that man hath free will, (p. 19.) yet you also say 'tis so impossible to be proved, that you think there is nothing less ca­pable of a proof, (ibid.) Nor doth it excuse you, that you there say. Si omnino Philosophice a gendum sit; for besides your affirming, the Inconsistency of Prescience with the Liberty of the will (in your deep apprehension,) you discover your mockery in the whole matter, by daring to say in equiva­lence, there neither is nor can be God, if God may be gran­ted to be a Spirit who can move himself by his proper force.

9. For you say, it is impossible to be so much as imagined or conceived, that any thing should be able to move it self and that by its natural force or virtue. Against his Essence. (p 19.) which although you u [...]ge against the Liberty of the will, yet it evidently reacheth to the denial of Gods own essence. For your words are universal, and must be granted by your self to strike at God, if you will grant, that God [...]is aliquid. And if you will not, you will discover your Atheisme another way. For what is not Aliquid is Nihil. And to say that God is nothing, is as bad as to say, there is no God. I foresee you may say in your own defence, that you speak only in reference to the Omnia quae videmus (3. lines going before) But I also fore­see, this will not stand you in any stead. For do you speak [Page 8]of all things, onely visible to the eyes of the outward man? or of all things visible to the inward man also, I mean to the eyes of the understanding? If of the former, you baffle your self with your own Instance, which you expresly give in the will of man. (For the will of man is invisible, unless it be to the Inward eyes.) If of the latter, you must confess that your Assertion doth reach even to God, and becomes an Argument for Athcisme. For (besides the Reason before given) it is not a God, but an Idol, which ariseth out of certain determinate Causes. And this you know is the English of your own expression in that place.

If in the three last Paragraphs I have but argued from your words, Six confessi­ons of igno­rance in the things where­of you affirm. and not hit upon your meaning, be sure you learn to write better, before you write of such things, of which you confess you understand nothing at all. And this is the next thing to be noted in you, that you have taken so much paines to tell the world you are a Blockhead, or that nothing can truly be, but what you are a­ble to comprehend. For though conditional Election is asser­ted, both by Scripture and Antiquity, and the most Learned of all the Moderns, yea and assented unto by the ablest Fol­lowers of Calvin (who grant Election to be conditional, though not the eternal Decree to Elect,) yet (1.) you say tis impos­sible to be conceived (p. 2.) And therefore you must needs be one of the dullest of Mankinde, since what is easie to other men is impossible to you. You have not only not learnt, what others have; but you are not capable of being taught. Why else do you say, that that is impossible to be conceived, which is demonstrated by others, and conceived even by me, than whom there is hardly any one duller, your self excepted? 2. You say, you do not understand, how God can consider any condition in the Creature, as a ground of his Election. (p 9.) why then did you not supplicate, to Mr. Pierce, or some other) for information? why do you raile at other men, for under­standing things above your reach, or for your wants of un­derstanding? 3. You say, you do not understand, how they that acknowledge Gods Prescience can free him from being in some sense the Author of sin. (ibid.) But suppose you cannot un­derstand [Page 9]how God can be a Spirit, (which surpasseth Mr. Hobbs his understanding) does it therefore follow, he is not a Spirit? Cannot things be knowable, unless such things as you can know them? 4. You say, you cannot understand Free-will, (p. 10.) And I believe you speak truely. But why then do you write two leaves of Latin De Libere Arbitrio, and ridi­culously call it Exercitatio Philosophica) when you confess in the same Pamphlet (I mean the English part of it) not one­ly that you do not, but that you cannot understand the thing you write of? Why are there Schooles and Schoole-masters, but to enlighten such understandings, as yours is manifested to be? 5. You say there are Intricacies which make this con­troversy unintelligible, and almost incapable of solution. (p. 10. 11.) Yes, quite Incapable, if unintelligible. But as he that speakes aloud to every one that is quick of hearing, doth seem to whisper to a man that is thick of hearing, and to hold his peace to a man that is deaf; so some mens evidences are in­tricacies to others: and things commonly understood may to men of your pitch, be unintelligible. But there are intricacies indeed, as you have made them, by taking those for your Maximes, and setting them down as things granted, which are the greatest of all Falsehoods, and the most generally de­nyed. And I refer you for instance to my first Six Paragraphs, shewing how you make God to be the Author of sin, without the least offer of Reason for it. 6. You confess you are not able to prove free-will, nor to reconcile it with the Presci [...]nce of God (p 19.20.) although you say you are content to believe it (p. 10.) And are not you a proper man, to offer at a dis­pute about what you confesse you cannot prove, nor un­derstand nor conceive? no nor imagine how the things can be conceivable? Tis just as if Polyphemus, when he was blinde, should have challenged Ʋlysses to judge of Colours, notwithstanding his confessions, that all was black to him, as being blinde.

From your confessed wants of understanding, (which may well have been forfeited for your monstrous ingratitude to your Teacher) I come to shew you the depravation of your Will too. Ten self-con­tradictions & willful Lies. which will be best of all seen, in your self-contra­dictions, [Page 10]and wilful lies, For I find you saying within the compass of a few pages, 1. That you hold nothing but what you solely derive from Scripture, (p. 1.) and yet that you can­not deny God to be the Author of Sin, (p. 2.) which is as con­trary to Scripture as Heaven is to Hell. 2. That men ought not to look higher for a cause of their defilement then unto the impure spring within them, (p. 2.) And yet that the absolute will of God is the prime cause, and necessarily productive of every action of the Creature (p. 10.) So that unless you mean God, by the impure spring within men, (which is a greater Blasphemy then ever proceeded from the Devil) your self-contradiction is unpardonably shameful; though your condition is farre worse, if it be no contradiction; and that for the reason I just now hinted. 3. That you do in your very thoughts abhor Blasphemy, and cannot with reason be accused of it (p. 2.) And yet that God is the sole Author of whatever conditions the Creature can be supposed to have. (p. 9.) Do you not think it to be Blasphemy, for which Mr. See Mr. Pierces divine purity defen­ded Edit. 2. p. 30. Calvin accused the Liber­tines, of making no difference between God and the Devil? If you adhorred it in your thoughts, why did you Print it for one of your principles? If you did not abhor it, you wilfully lied when you said you did. 4. That you firmly believe mens sins to be wholly to be taken to themselves (p. 1.) And yet that you cannot understand, how they who acknowledge Gods prescience can free him from being the Author of sin. (p. 9. 5. That Mr. Pierce charged your faults upon the account of your principles, (p. 1.) and yet that you did him an injury, for which you al­so begge his pardon, in naming him rashly as the Author of those reflections set out by Tilenus Junior, whom you call the namelesse, and unknown Apologist. (p. 3. 4, 5.) 6. That He at­proached neer to Blasphemy (p. 1.) and yet that you dare not charge upon him those odious inferences &c. and that his opinion is consistent with a pious life (p. 2.) 7. That you do hartily beg his pardon for your Preface (p. 3.) and are content to call it a fault, a mistake grounded upon presumptions, (p. 4.) and yet that you have a just occasion to abide by what you said, and instead of retracting any thing in your Preface, you might look upon it only as an Anticipated revenge. (p. 5.) and yet again (but five lines after) that Mr. Pierce having opened your eyes, as to what you [Page 11]say you did ignorantly, and in the dark,) tis fit you should first offer to shake hands, and not wilfully prosecute what you unwit­tingly began. 8. That you hold it more generous, to ask for­givenesse, then to persist in an injury, (p. 4.) and yet that you dare not retract any thing in your Narrative (p. 3.) though wholy spent against your own Master Mr. Busby,, who had done better for you then your natural Parents. 9. That you think Free-will cannot possibly be proved (p. 19.) and yet that e­very man proves it by his experience, (p. 20.) and yet again, that Gods concourse is urged to take away all manner of Free-will, because his influence doth act irresistibly. p. 10 and yet again (for all that) that if we take away Free-will, All vertue and piety and Politie falls to the ground. (p. 20.) 10. You add abun­dance of contradictions (besides all these) if not to your own printed words, yet to your clearest knowledge that all is False. For you say of Mr. Pierce that he made invectives at the Pillars of the Church (p. 3.) that common Fame did voice those Reflections to be his. (ibid.) that a friend of his did warrant you He was the Author of those Reflections. (p. 4.) To which you add the likeness of the stile; whereby (if you prove any thing) you prove it was not his; for Nullum simile est idem. Again, you talk of a Dispute which had been betwixt Mr. Pierce and you about a weighty question, (p. 1.) and affirm that Question to have been touching Gods Decrees, (p. 9.) where­as you know, there had not been ever any such thing. Not in private; for I cannot heare (upon inquiry) that you ever met under one Roof, or ever saw each others Faces. Nay till you lick't up the spittle of your Patron Bradshaw, (whom you took upon you to make a Lord in your pudendous Dedica­tory Epistle,) and also had railed at Mr. Busby for being a Merciful, Conscientious and Prudent man, Mr. Pierce had not See his Let. ter to Dr. Heylin. p. 301 heard you were in being.

All the Controversie therefore twixt him and you, was meerly grounded upon these two Questions. First, whe­ther Mr. Pierce was the Author of the Reflections at which you Rail'd; which you first held in the affirmative, and now in the negative; (for you confess, you were mistaken, and proceeded too sharply upon that mistake, (p. 3.) Secondly, [Page 12] Wilfulnesse added to your ingratitude. whether Mr. Busby was to be libelled by one of his most obli­ged Scholars, for repairing a Publick School at his own char­ges, and for desiring an Assistant (at his own charges too) not more for his ease, than the good of others: And whether he might not desire the Governours, that his Ʋsher might not be suffered in attempting a thing so unnatural, as the standing upon his Head, when there was Ground enough whereon to goe. Here it was that Mr. Pierce discovered the madness of your Virulence against your Master, and the multitude of your Lies against the most known Innocence, and the most palpable matters of Fact. You have not now one word to say, towards the clearing of your selfe from so great a charge. And yet, instead of repenting, or asking Pardon from your Master; you declare you need none (p. 5) and that you cannot say less then you have done. (p. 6.) This is that which makes your sin exceeding sinful, that you deny it to be a sin, and resolve never to mend.

That I may not lose too much time by setting you forth in all your colours, I will not disorder you starched counte­nance, by taking notice (before the world) how you have laid your self open by all your personal reflections on your Supe­riours; in particular, on the Learned Tilenus Junior; whom you call a worthless unknowing person, how much soever you are unworthy to wipe his shoes; and how much soever you were afraid to make the least answer to his Reflections. There are but two things more, which I resolve for the present to lay before you.

The first is your profession of a strict adherence unto the Let­ter, without regard to any consequences, (p. 2.) Again you re­solve to acquiesce in the Letter of the Scripture, in spite of all the Tumultuatings, and Agitations of your thoughts against it. (p. 11.) From hence you discover to the world, what Hea­thenish thoughts you have of God, when Eyes, and Eares, and Heart, and Bowels, are by the common figure [Anthro­popathia] ascribed to him in Scripture. When St. Paul saith the weakness, yea the foolishness of God &c. When our Saviour saith he is the true vine: Are you resolved to ac­quiesce in the Letter of those Texts where such figures are to [Page 13]be found, in spite of all the ugly consequences which will en­sue? See the condition that you are in, by reading Mr. Pierce upon this Subject against [...]. from p. 28. to p. 61. Mr. Whitfeilds adhearing to the Letter, as you have done in the same case. And yet in other places of the Scripture where God is said to hate sin, and to be of purer eyes then to behold iniquity, you are so far from adhearing to the Letter, that you say you cannot deny him to be the Author of Sin. Which proves your malicious dis­affection as well to his Purity as his word.

The second thing I must lay before you, is your impertinent bundle of Latin scraps, which you vainly call a Philosophical exercitation concerning Free-will, and which I call a bundle of Latin scraps, because you have stolne the ingredients of the hotch potch, (which are by far the most, and the most mate-rial parts of the whole) out of Gassendus his third tome, upon the tenth Book of Diogenes Laertius, concerning Epicurus his moral Philosophy; without taking notice of Gassendus, to whom you were beholding for all your treasure: (except­ing what you filch from Mr. Chillingworth.) I speak my o­pinion, and the opinion of a Gentleman who first directed me to the places, where he had traced you by your foot­steps. If you did jump with Gassend in so many collections to the same purpose, and in the same way of application, (without your knowledge,) I shall ask your pardon for my mistake. Whether its credible that you did, let it be judged by the parallel which here is added.

These particulars are many, (many even to admiration) considering the shortness of your Exercitation, with which your Printer was not able to fill up three little leaves, not­withstanding the largeness of his Character, as well as his many and great breaks.

And now (pray) to what purpose is the little all that you have said? The Latine Exercitation Epitomized. you onely tell us as well as you can, (that is, very improperly) what every childe could have told you, [That the Stoicks held one thing, and the Platonicks quite another, and that if any one has a minde to examine the matter of Free­will, he may read Bp. Bramhal affirming, and Thomas Hobbs more then Stoically denying, (what the Scripture, you say, af­firmeth,) The Free-will of man. After which you conclude, that you believe it for your own part, (as being taught it out of the Scripture,) although you see no reason for it, and cannot conceive how it should be, yea that it can as Non dubita­verim affirma­re nihil esse quod minus probari posse putem p. 19.little be proved to be, as whatsoever it is which is most impossible; And yet (you say in the close of all Cum nemo non experiatur se, quando velit, non actionem modò, sed & voluntatem immutare posse; nemo vereatur asse­rere sibi cam, cujus vim quotidiè sentit & actionem exerit, &c. p. 20. That every man proves by his own expe­rience, that he can change his action, yea and his will too when he pleaseth. And therefore you forbid him to deny Free-will, [Page 15]whose operation and force he daily feeleth within himself.] O brave Usher! That is impossible to be proved, which is daily proved by experience. It is the fullest of Difficulties, al­though the clearest and plainest thing, and the most unde­niable to be imagined. Go thy wayes without a Peer, both as a Disputant, and a Divine.

I will not swinge you for your p. 16. l. vit. & p. 17. l. 1. us (que) ad l. 7. false Latine, False Latin pardoned in writing a period of no lesse then eight lines, without a principal Verb to make it sense; nor for your Ignorance in the use of the words p. 17. l. 5. Certa and Infallibilis, as if they were the same with Necessitativa; nor for putting [Certo] in stead of [ut necessa­ria] p. 17. l. 12. Nor for saying [...] is the very Greek for wretched, implying that you knew not the just Impor­tance of the word; nor yet for diverse other things which I have promised you not to mention; but onely ask you why you say, That no man hitherto hath been able to explain, how humane liberty can consist with Divine prescience, Salvo utrius­que jure. (p. 20.) Dare you write your self a Student, with­out having studied so much as one of those many, who have often and clearly performed that task, which you say was never performed by any? Not to speake of Latin writers, Mr. Thorndike in English hath done it largely, and Mr. Pierce (long before) had done it often. If you have read his several Books, why do you write against your know­ledge? If you never read them, (which is most likely, since you never cited a Line from them, but onely railed at them in general) why raile you at that, which you never read? your meaning is, that you your self are not able to conceive, much lesse to explain, how humane Liberty can consist with Gods Prescience. Whereby you virtually confess, that it cannot consist with Gods absolute Decrees of Election and Reprobation. And so you must deny those decrees to be absolute, because you hold the Free-will of man. And again you must deny the Free-will of man, because you hold those Decrees to be Absolute.

Well, Sir. Because the thing which you call a Latine Ex­ercitation [Page 16]amounts to no more in effect, then a Declaration of your ignorance, how Free-will and Prescience are recon­cileable, (this in God, and that in man,) I will enlighten your understanding, as Mr. Pierce his Books have enlight­ned mine. And in order to this end, I will not steal, but (fairely and thankfully) onely borrow some of his Light. All I shall do shall be to explain it to you in Latine, that so in every respect I may fit my Remedy to your Disease. If it chance toeffect the cure, you will acknowledge me to be, of all the men in the world,

THat you may see my Resolution not to imitate Mr Bag­shaw, by using sharpness towards you, for what was done by another man; And that you may feel for what Rea­sons I do conclude you (though not the Author, yet) the Compiler of that Libel, which is Intitled [A Review of the Certamen Epistolare] and fictitiously subscribed by Theophi­lus Churchman, (of which hereafter;) I will present you with a Catalogue of several Plagiarismes and stealths, which could hardly be committed, unless by You. Your own Right Eye is not liker unto your Left, then the Thieveries I will shew you are like to those, which gained you the name of the * New Bathyllus, and made you fit to be compared with filtching Celsus, as well as resembled to Aesop's Crow. This is not all I have to say, for your being the Author (I should have said the Compiler, or Stitcher-up) of the Joce-Seria, for which I intend to represent you both to your selfe, and common people; But this is that with which I chose to begin my work, which being done, I shall go on to the other Rea­sons of my Conclusion; and then proceed to the vindication [Page 21]of that Reverend, Learned, and Renowned Champion of the Church, (I mean Dr. Heylin of Lacies Court) whom you have wilfully slandered in an unpardonable Degree. And whom as I honour for the great profit I have already recei­ved by his Cosmography, (by which alone I am incouraged to be a diligent reader of all his works) so I shall honour him more then ever, for being profaned by the Pen of so obscene a Pamphleter as your selfe.

Should I recite as many stealths, as other men have ob­served, as well as I, (for I will not be so dishonest, as to pretend they are all of my collecting, which were sent me from a person whose very Name is a stranger to me, though by a strict examination I find his collections to be true) I should be in some danger to make a volume of your purloy­nings. But I will imitate the method, and exceed the Bre­vity which I find observed by Mr. Pierce; whose publick discovery of the dishonest Trade that you were driving, gave me the Hint and Curiosity to make another; and so to find out the meaning of Theophilus Churchman. The taking up of citations at second hand (of which I told your Brother Bagshaw) is a generous fault, in comparison of stealing the wit of other men, with their very words too: More than an hundred of such crimes you are already convicted of, And therefore the fewer shall serve my Turne, to shew the affi­nity of this second Pamphlet with your first. But if you think otherwise, I will convict you hereafter with many more. The greatest Robberies are again committed upon that Learned Gentleman Mr. Morice, but reserving those to the later end of the Indictment, I begin with the suffe­rings of other men.

Now besides these Authors whom you have plundred, I know not how many there are besides, whom you include in your Et caetera, as soon as you have named Dr. Davenant and Dr. Twisse; whose Books having not read, I know no more of your stealths from them, than your self have con­fessed in general Termes, and therefore require you to give in a Catalogue of particulars. Yet I can tell you where you had your quisquilious Levity, and lifting up a pen, (p. 13. & p. 77.) even from the Triumviri of Mr. Goodwin. And where you had your being possest with an invincible indig­nation, &c. (p. 19. l. 6.) even from Dr. Peter Heylin. So the Dr's hard grating your stile (Pref. p. 7.) is the second time stolne from Mr. Goodwin. Some things you filtcht from Dr. Browns vulgar Errours, as when you say (p. 7. there is nothing above the line, or beyond the extemporary sententiosity, of a ploughman or Butcher.] Your playing with Ne hili upon the name of Dr. Heylin (p. 13.) is verbatim stolne from Mr. Fuller's Reply. Many of your cleanest and best expressions are palpably stolne from Mr. Pierce, (as I could demonstrate if I had time.) I could also tell you of many stealths in your first Rapsody, which escaped the notice of Dr. H. and Mr. P. But hereafter of That, if occasion serves.

And thus you have my first Reason, why the Libellous Joco-seria ought to lie at your Dore. My second is taken from your forgetfulness of the part you were to act, when having spoken of Mr. Hickman in the third person only (as far as p. 23.) you there betray your self, by speaking plainly in the first. And this is done no less than twise in one Section (p. 23, & 24.) So that Churchman is discovered to be a Magdalen Colledge man; and no one there, besides your self, could be so thievish, or so obscene, or so slanderously ma­licious to Dr. Heylin, or so partially affected to Mr. Hick­man, (who has too much of their Laughter, to think he has any of their Love,) as to compile such a Libel in your be­half. My third Reason is, Because although in the Title­page the Libel is pretended to have been printed at London, yet the Printer's Errata are imputed to the Author's being sometimes absent from the University. (as if there were no sending to London, or having intelligence from thence, un­less by being at Oxford or Cambridge.) A Counterfeit in one thing will be a Counterfeit in another. My fourth Reason is, because in the very last lines printed after the Errata, a Con­fession is made unto the Reader, that many passages of the Book were (dishonestly) taken from several Authors, without an acknowledgment of the Authors from whom the passages were stolne; and without so much as a Note of Difference, which is usually made in Italick Letters. This in that place is expressed thus—[Some things taken out of Dr. Davenant, Dr. Twisse, &c. are not put in the Italick Letters, nor the Authors Names set against them in the Margin.] Where I ob­serve these things. 1. Your favourable Periphrasis whereby the Plagium or Robbery is here described. (Things were ta­ken out of Authors, without taking notice of their Names, and without the doing of any thing else, by which they might be known to be none of yours. Neither Celsus nor Bathyllus could have said less for themselves) Secondly, This Confession was not made until the Libel was quite printed, which was after the discoveries of your former stealths were made publick: And in which our Churchman had not been so concerned, had not He and Mr. Hickman been both the same. Thirdly, Af­ter Davenant, and Twisse, there is added an [&c.] Importing [Page 28]many more Authors, that had been pilfer'd of wit and lan­guage, who yet are concealed with an [&c.] because the same that Mr. Hickman had so eminently robb'd in his former Book. Fourthly, As the other sufferers are not named, so Dr. Davenant and Dr. Twisse are only named, without any refe­rence to their Books, much less to their pages, out of which it is confessed some things were taken. And so much for my fourth Reason. My Fifth Reason is, because Churchman sometimes confesseth, that what he speaks is from the mouth of Mr. Hickman, as well as in Mr. Hickman's name. p. 168. l. 6, 20. My Sixth Reason is, because I can prove that you owned the thing as yours, whilst yet it stuck in the Press at Oxford, and continued so to do untill your Trade of stealing was in part discovered by Dr. Heylin, and in perfection by Mr. Pierce. After which you repented, though you purpos'd never to mend; and being asham'd to own That, which you found would be proved to be but stolne; you try'd to hide it behind the veil of Theophilus Churchman. A couple of names no way suitable, unless it be by an Antiphrasis. For how can you be Theophilus, who slander God as the Author of the wickedest actions in the world? (Mr. Pierce hath printed your own words in his Letter to Dr. Heylin, p. 226. &c.) And how can you be a Churchman, who were only ordained by Presby­terians, and by that made incapable of being admitted into the Clergy, without your abtenunciation of such Mock-Orders?

But haveing spent too much time in the plucking off your Hood, (that men may see who you are for all your mumming) I will proceed to make it appear, in the second place, (the first being filled with your trade of stealing) what a trade of wilful lying, and slandering, is driven by those Puritans who pretend to Godlinesse onely for gain, and afterwards aggravate their Hypocrisie by calling it the token and also the Fruit of their Election.

You deny in the Preface (p. 8, 9.) your having smitten, or bitten, or ever so much as shewed your teeth at sequestred men of the Clergy. And yet besides your railing at Dr. Heylin, and Mr. Pierce; at the Bishops in general, and the Arch-Bi­shop in particular (as if he laboured to bring in Popery, and [Page 29]had been turned out of the Schooles) you rancked Dr. Ham­mond with [...]: p. 66. p. 21. Ep. p. 4. &. Praef. p. 11. Book. p. 18. Cerberus, and the Keeper of the great Ordinary of Hell. You called the English Tilenus an AEthiopian, a Scribler, a poor Fellow. Dr. Taylor Socinian and Pelagain. Dr. Martin the Licencer of a scurrilous Pamphlet. &c.

You boast of contributing to the relief of Sequestred men (ib.) And yet you swallowed no less then three Benefices at once although you had no right to any of them. viz. The Vicarage of Brackley, (belonging to learned Dr. Sibthorp) the Parsonage so St. Aules (worth 150. pounds per An.) and a Fellowship of Madg. Coll. (enough for any single man, who is not a greedy Puritanical Robber.) Before you were made to quit Brackley, you pocketed up the profits of all three at once, without the least right to so much as one.

You say that Dr. H. H. a most eminent Scholar affirmed concerning Dr. Heylin, that he was an unhappy writer, and mar­red every thing he medled with (p. 1.) A slander so great, that if you do not recant it, or name some Author, you will be as proverbial for your own invention, as you are already for slily filching other mens.

I have learnt upon enquiry (of which I have made a great deal) that Dr. H. H. can belong to none but Dr. Hammond and Dr. Hentchman, who are both the friends of Dr. Heylin (as I am certified by some who are friends to both) and great applauders of his workes, and disclaim the having so much as given occasion to any slander. And therefore down upon you knees, and ask forgiveness of the Doctor before the world, or else I will make you as famous for something else, as you have been for the Tooth-ach, to which you pre­tended even ex tempore, upon the coming forth of the new Discoverer Discovered.

You also say that he was checkt by Dr. Prideaux for going a little to neer the Papist, (p. 31. that he would fain have brought some of his brood into the Colledge p. 22. And you tell a large story of a check he received from the Marquesse of Hartford. p. 35. All which with the rest of what you have vented against the Dr. are at least as ungrounded and home­bread lyes, as the Father of lies hath ever framed. But tis no more to his disgrace, that he suffers as his Saviour, hath done [Page 30]before him; than it can be to your glory that you have used Gods servants, as the Puritan Pharisees did his Son.

If now with your slanders and other lies I shall abstract from your work (as we ought to do) all your old ends of stuff, (which are impertinent to the businesse, as well as stolne) your over many and long tales; and if besides I shall expunge (as I ought also to do) your world of Libellous and railing speeches; there will be nothing remaining throughout the whole composition, which doth any way relate to the con­troversie in hand, but what is abundantly confuted in the Certamen Epistolare, and in effect by your own Confession.

Your confession is this, (p. 40.) That if you thought the Church of England had embraced, ☞or but connived at Doctrines so pernicious, as Mr. Pierce represents the Calvinistical to be, you should account her the worst of all Churches, not indeed worthy the name of a Church.] From hence it follows unde­niablely (and even your favourers cannot deny it) that as far as you believe that the Church of England is not the worst of Churches, so far you grant that the Calvinistical cannot be possibly her Doctrines. Mark now my reason. Those Do­ctrines are Calvinistical, which are publickly taught by Mr. Calvin and the most eminent of his Followers. But Mr. Pierce hath made it manifest from the words of Calvin, and his followers, exactly cited from their Books, that they have commonly taught God to be the Author of sin, and that in all manner of termes in which that Blasphemy can be ex­pressed; see variety of examples produced by Mr. Peirce in his [...] Chap. 1. p. 8. but especially Ch. 3. p. 140, 141. which no one Calvinist hath ever attempted to gain­say, Therefore you grant the whole thing, for the proving of which Dr. Heylin wrote; viz. that the Doctrines of the Calvinists cannot be possibly embrace'd by the Church of Eng­land. Which you cannot yet deny, unlesse by saying shee deserves not the name of a Church, which are your own words in the place above cited. Nor is it strange since in your scan­dalous Latine Sermon (of whose faults I could send you a vast accompt if I had time) you rail as bitterly as a Jesuit at the Church of England. For could a Jesuit say worse, than that [ Concio dé Haeres. orig. p. 7. The Church of England alone hath brought forth Monsters of [Page 31]opinions, at which a mad Aegyptian would stand amaz'd?] yet this is nothing but the English of your Latine in that printed Sermon (p. 7. l. 11, 12, 13, 14.)

As for your saying that by One Dr. Overal, you meant not two, when 'twas spoken so plainly by way of scorn; and for the work you make with Typographical Errata, which are so clearly typographical that they make arrant Nonsense, (which could never have fall'n from Dr. Heylin) it is so much to your shame that you could catch at such flies, as I need not wish you a greater punishment.

Now I come to your Letter to Dr. Heylin printed together with your Book. And first, I begin with your wilfull Lyes. For though you had promis'd in the Title-page a Reply to Mr Pierce, yet you, and all your Readers know, there is not any such thing in all the Pamphlet. You should have said in the Title-page, A sneaking away from Mr. Pierce. For, 1. whereas he proved from your words (citing your pages and very lines) that you had printed many Blasphemies (as that the hating of God is Gods own Creature, &c.) and as many self­contradictions also, you durst not return so much as a syllable to the one, or the other; but by answering nothing, you im­plied his proofs to be unanswerable, because you promised an answer to them; which had you been able you would have readily performed. And 2. whereas he had charg'd you with no less than an hundred and nine stealths, there are but two of so vast a number, which you endeavour to excuse. And how do you endeavour it? even by such enormous Lies, as will make you an example to all posterity. First, you say you never read Dr. Heylins Antidotum Lincolniense, p. 170. And yet you stole from him diverse times together word for word Once more look upon the See Mr. Pierce's Let­ter. p. 280. parallel, and say if it is possible that you never read Dr. Heylins Book.

Secondly, you say you read this passage in the English Trans­lation of Plutarch's Lives, p. 167. (where by the way I observe, that you read Greek Authors, as women do,) and yet you know it is impossible that half the passage should be there; for Plutarch told the naked story, and did not apply it to the Bishop of Lincoln: That you had from Dr. Heylin; unless you can prove you are a witch. 3. you say you know not if Doctor Heylin did quote it out of the same Author. p. 170. And yet you know he quotes Plutarchs Greek in his margin, which you could not but see, when you stole the passage. 4. you deny your having stoln another passage from Dr. White. But look again on the Mr. Pierce's Letter. p. 288. parallel, and then do you and the world judge.

Now Sir, if your case is so deplorable in these very particu­lars, which you chose to clear your self from (amidst 109.) what can you say in your behalf, for having stoln no less than Ibid. p. 286. twenty good lines together, and many more than so too, not by lines but whole pages? yet (Fifthly,) you plead not guilty, p. 168. though but few lines before you pleaded guilty, p. 167. your words being these, that they may be well reckon'd amongst the impertinences and Errata of the Book. Nay you call it a Peccadillo. p. 163. pretty expressions of the thing! So when Achan stole the wedge, 'twas but an Impertinency: and when Rachel robbed Laban, it was an Erratum. And 109. Thests amount to no more than a Peccadillo.

It is a very good Jest, to find you boasting in the Title­page, of a Reply to Mr. Pierce, and yet confessing afterwards, that you never read Mr. Pierce's Book, nor ever would read it. p. 162. If you had, you could not have called yours a Reply to it. Nor is't a wonder you gave your Pupils so strict a charge not to read it: for so they might have been ashamed of ha­ving owned you for a Tutor.

You say Mr. Pierce (by accusing you of theft) did bear false witness. p. 163. though he caught you in the Act no less than one hundred and nine times. And you implicitly confess grent store was stolne, by saying, that some passages are not any ones else, but Mr. Hickmans own, p. 167. I suppose you mean the most stupid and railing passages, which yet you may seem to have stolne from Billingsgate: and then no part of the Book was yours, though by patching up all materials you became Cobler unto the whole.

One part of your Dilemma (p 163.) is very true, that Mr. Bar­lee had very falsely (you should have said slanderously) accu­sed Mr. Pierce, of being beholding to Fur Praedestinatus for some of his citations. For Mr. P. did immediately shew the madness of that Invention in ten respects, (See Divine Philanth defend. ch. 3. p. 139. to p. 143.) and Mr. Barlee hath since repented of it. Whereupon he is return'd into the favour of Mr. P. as you may do (I presume) upon the very same Termes. Never was there a writer more exact than Mr. Pierce in citing the Authors which he useth; (insomuch that many have thought him too punctual, punctual even to superstition.) When first he quo­ted some of the Fathers as he found them quoted by famous Vossius, he was careful to tell the Reader, that he found them in Vossius first, before he found the Truth of them in the Fathers themselves, (see, and imitate Correct Copy, p. 25.) which yet he needed not have done, (but that his Christian simplicity was very great) because the reading of those Fathers belonged to him, as well as Vossius, and considering his years, I believe he had read them as much as Vossius.

The implicit excuse which you make for your self, that ha­ving been accustom'd in the dayes of your minority to deal in Sentences, Apothegmes, and fragments, you could not forbear it when you came to maturity, (p. 165, 166.) is no more to your advantage, than it would be to a Cutpurse to tell the Judge he could not help his thievery, having from a Child been inured to it. Sins are never the better, but the worse for being habi­tual and inveterate. And that your Book is like Herodotus his head, [void of brains, but fill'd with hony-combes,] you well confess by your application, p. 167.

'Tis strange you should confess, you having stolne some things [Page 34]out of Canterburies Doom, (p. 168.) in the very same page where you plead not guilty, and therefore who will believe you when you deny your having rifled Mr. Prins Antiarminianisme? Though you say you have witnesses, you name not one, and (in such a negative) you cannot possibly have any. Dr. H. and Mr. P. (beside my additional instances) have proved what you have done. But what you have not done besides, (as often as you have slept) none can tell so well as you, and they that watch you whilst you were sleeping.

'Tis very well that now at last, (having been taught by Mr. P.) you acknowledge it is the odisse Deum, the hating of God that is an action, (p. 172.) But you know you were so ignorant, when you writ your first Fardel, as to call hatred an action, (p. 95.) which a Fellow of Magd. Coll. should have known to be a Quality. But from you who were so absolutely a stranger to Scholarship, as to write extasis for ecstasis, and [...] for [...], in a couple of passages which you filch'd from Master Goodwin, we must not expect any skill in Legick, & therefore here I shall advise you, only to cut off your Beard, and return again to the Grammar School.

You end (agreeably to the rest) with an ill-made excuse: For all the Reason which you render, why you stole diverse things from Dr. Davenant & Dr. Twisse, is your being some­times absent from the Ʋniversity. As if you could not be honest in other places as well as Oxford; which yet is known to be the usual place of your abode, since the Time that you thought stolne Bread to be the sweetest.

I will therefore conclude with a memento, that you were taught in the Church Catechisme, to keep your hands from Picking and Stealing, and your Tongue from evil speaking. But so far have you been from the first, that what you have read in Mr. Morice, and other English Writers, you have presently had at your fingers ends; as if you were really an Adamite, and thought all yours that you could lay your hands on. And so far from the Second, that your Tongue may be reckoned the most unruly member in all your Body.

Sir, To tell you freely of your Estate, is the greatest favour that man can do you. To sooth you up in your course, is to betray you to your self, and act for Satan. You cannot say I have been your Flatterer; and there­fore I hope you will take my plain dealing for a token that I am