Thus I have runne through the unſavory ſpeeches, and the firſt ſcroule of errours; I come to the other ſcroule, being 82. Why might not all theſe poſitions have been put in one Number, as well as in ſo many? I ſhould think, were he not a New-Englandman, that he intended ſome myſtery in the Number of 3, which he ſo oft prefers, firſt in his Title, Riſe, Raigne, Ruin, Familiſts, Libertines, Antinomians, cenſures of Church, proceedings of Court, Judgments of heaven upon them, and here with his three parcels; but ſurely the good man is no Pythagoriſt, but a Platoniſt rather, which his ſeparato Ideae, contempt, and ſedition, not properties of the men to whom he attributes them, Chimeraes only of his reſtleſſe braine, declare him; but howſoever if he did purpoſe a Numerary ſpell, ſeeing thereby he doth many times repeate, I ſhall conjure him downe with meere Figures ſomtimes: my meaning is, that in regard of the recidence, not in ſenſe only, but words many of them into the former, I would be excuſed though I do not give you a Particular accompt, as before, for although our Authour hath laviſhly tautologized, which perhaps may be Natural to him, and ſo ſcarce admit a Criticiſme, yet I will not trace him, unwilling to oppreſſe the Reader, and draw my ſelfe into the ſame height of babling; Nor let any think I hereby ſeek eluſion, verbum ſat ſapienti, let ſuch examine.

For the firſt ten they are eafily reducible.

The 11. is, As Chriſt was once made fleſh, ſo is he in us ere we be carried to perfection; This propoſition, as many other we ſhall meet withall, is wrapt in ſuch myſlicall terms, as it ſcarce falls under the common rules of conſtruction; but if this tenet intends Hypoſtaticallunion, how can Mr. Wh. approve it, when as by the Authours confeſſion he oppoſed that Doctrine which ſayes; Beleivers act not at all, but Chriſt acts in them, and doth (as before named) formally beleive and formally repent, which Mr. Wh. could not rationally contradict, if he patronized this notion; which being granted, a believer ſhould not proximately believe and repent, but Chriſt muſt obtaine rationem formalis principii in him.

For the 12 13.14.15.16. to the 24. they are in the categorie of thoſe before pretermitted, as reducible to the former.

The 24. is this, That he who hath the Seale of the Spirit may judge of an elect perſon; According to this Aſſertion, one Seale muſt at once make two Characters: which opinion I muſt tel mine Author plainly, his principles, and his parties, rather lead to then Mr. Wh. for a reſpective impreſſion, in order to graces inherent, (ſuch as theirs is pretended) may in al reaſon ſooner by the ſame virtue wherby it ſhews to one his own Election, ſhow to him the Election of another in whom the ſame perfections may be apparent, then an Irreſpective & abſolute impreſſion, ſuch as Mr. Wh. is accounted, as will be ſeene in their opinions concerning evidence of ſalvation; however, how can Mr. Wh. own this, unleſſe he either think Gods eternall Decree attendeth ſome quality, the Symbolicalneſſe of which might direct him in his cenſure? or unleſſe he hold Immediate revelations without the Word, within it there being no ſuch pertintous? Or unleſſe he preſume to look in ſpecula Trinitatis? Which Mr. Welds ſeems to do, whileſt he tels us what God bath pardoned in heaven, and to whom he purpoſes his immediate puniſhments on earth.

By our Reaſon of caincidence we paſſe to the 28, which is the firſt we can find challenging a particular anſwer, and that ſcarcely too; it is this: To affirm, there muſt be faith on mans part, to receive Chriſt, it to undermine Chriſt: this is nothing, but an efflux of the formen fancie of hypoſtatioall union; the uſe of faith is to apprehend Chriſt ſub eonceptu formali: the effect of which is a ſpirituall union, not at all in that which may be more phyſically looked at, viz. the hypoſtaticall: The next conſiderable is the 33, which is this, To act by vertue of a command is legall. This is Mr. Wh: which taken cum grano ſalis, will be ſavoury enough. Let us know to act legally may be taken two wayes: Vel non attendendo principium effecti • um action is, vel formale ſivè exemplare. In the firſt Reaſon, they act legally who think to do things in their own ſtrength formally. In the ſecond, they act legally who think to do ſo conſtructive, and by way of interpretation, ſuch as the Goſpels young man, who did fulfill the Commandments ſub ratione particulari, In which act he expected vertue from Chriſt, and ſo in the firſt ſenſe acted not legally. But he did not, ſub ratiane magis univerſali, & eminentiori, and therefore he acted legally in my ſecond ſenſe. In his Acoeſſe to the Law under its typicall and immediate pretence, was his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his receſſe from it under its reflexive intention, and true Evangelicall Tropologie was his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . To act legally is to recede from the virtue, by which one is to act; which virtue of Chriſt is vel Chriſti tanquam officientis, vel tanquant Ideae. To act by vertue of a command, that is immediately from it, is, Vel immediatione virtueis, vel ſuppoſiti: they who act by ſtrength of a command in this firſt ſenſe, attend not Chriſt either in the reaſon of an efficient or Ideae, and ſo muſt needs act legally both wayes. For the command hath a twofold habitude, directive and objective, he who acts immediately from the directive order of the Law, acts legally, non attingendo Chriſtum ut Ideam: he who acts immediately from the objective, acts legally, Non attingendo Chriſtum, ut efficientem. And thus its true, to act by virtue of a command is legall; but if it be meant immediatione ſuppoſiti (not that I think a command hath properly ſuppoſitalitie, but onely aliquid Analog • yn, which reaches my notion and intent) it is not true, that to act by virtue of a command is legall.

The next conſiderable is the 41. which is this: There be diſtinct ſeaſons of the workings of the perſons in the ſacred Trinity, ſo that a man may be ſaid to be thus long under the work of the Father, and thus long under the work of the Son, and thus long under the work of the holy Ghost. If by this, we are ſo long under the Father, he intended onely an excluſion of the Son in ſome eminence, and degree of attribution. It is not againſt that received maxime, Opera Trinitatis ad extra ſunt indiviſa: and the generall opinion of Divines excuſes it from a paradox; For what more common then to attribute redemption to the Son? conſolation to the holy Ghoſt? What more uſuall then to ſay, the Father humbles, the Son raiſes up, the holy Ghoſt comforts? Touching which, I thus conceive: that the very ſame individed eſſence as it doth put on divers reaſons or notions (as the Schoolmen ſpeak) is ſaid to perform divers actions not by a ſimple excluſion of the Attributes of any of them in this or that Act, but onely ſecundum quid, Notionally, as we may conceive, according to the common quidditie. The Father is in himſelf, and ſo produces a Son of comfort, by reflection, he loves that iſſue, and ſo educeth illumination; in this ſenſe, Opera ad extra ſunt diviſa, for from the diviſion ad intra, why may there not follow a proportionall diviſion ad extra too? ſeeing the relations of thoſe divided acts are reall, and extra intellectum, which would otherwiſe plead Reaſon for their limitation; I ſay why may they not have ſome effect upon the acts ad extra too? and make them in ſome ſenſe diviſa? And if it be improper to ſay, Deus eſt trium perſonarum, but onely eſſentia eſt trium, &c. why may there not be ſome impropriety to ſay (I mean in oppoſition to the above-named Doctrine) that, Deus eſt trium Actuam reſpectively, when as theſe acts do in the common opinion attend thoſe relations? But if an abſolute and ſimple diviſion be intended, Mr. Wh. cannot hold it; when (as it is very abſurd in it ſelf, ſo) his doctrine of evidence by ſanctification, where there muſt be Chriſts attractive, and the Spirits illuminative power, and of ſignes which require a concurrence, proclaims.

The next is this, Conditionall promiſes are legall: If it be meant that they are in a legall form, its true, whether cauſaliter or conſequative; But if it be meant that they are legall virtually, and ſo not to be made uſe of in the time of the Goſpel, how can Mr. Wh: hold it, when as he grants evidence from graces, conditionall promiſes being the current wherein ſuch evidences paſſe?

The next conſiderable is this: to lay the Brethren under a covenant of works hurts not at all, but tends to much good. What did I ſay conſiderable? a poſition ſtrangely produced as it were in an indifference twixt truth and errour: if it be preſented as an errour, we muſt needs by reaſon of the indefinitenes of the phraſe ſuppoſe all Brethren to be under a covenane of grace. If it be a truth, what doth it among errours? to make even number? What ſhall we ſay? its neither true nor falſe, but ſtands in a pure preciſion; he imagined though perhaps that the confinity of errours (wherein obſerve how his malice multiplies hereſies upon them) would determine its neutrality, and hereupon ingages at once all his Metaphyſicks to effect an abſtraction which he might have reſerved till an exigence, and in the mean while have referred this Janus to the unſavoury ſpeeches with which it moſt ſymbolizes. But he was afraid, leſt it ſo eaſily ſeaſonable either way, ſhould have ſeaſoned them, which he prefers to diſreliſh the appetite of the Reader, to the parties concerned in his Narration. But he ſaith, if it be good to lay the Brethren under a Covenant of works, then it is good to bite one another: which argument is much like one of his brats he hangs up againſt the Sun.

The next is this: Faith juſtifies an unbeleever. If the ſenſe be, that the faith ſubjected in Chriſt juſtifies me in whom there is not any, its falſe: if you take it in ſenſu compoſito, it is ſo, if in diviſo, its true. I wonder ſuch grave diſcurſiſts (as my Author by his ſtyle ſeems) ſhould with theſe poore ſubtilties put us upon ſuch elementary diſtinctions, in reſolving which Simths Logick will claim a principall ſhare. But perhaps he did it to evade a more ſolid reply, thinking no Eagle would catch ſuch flyes. Which way of his is in the mean time my advantage, whileſt by medling only in my ſphere I cannot be ſaid to preſume, which incourages me yet to tell him that this opinion is a conſectarie of theirs, who deny graces in the Saints, not of Mr. Wh: doctrine who grants them.

The reſt of the Aſſertions are either coincident, or ſuch as concern Church Diſcipline, wherein diſagreement is not pretended.

Thus we have done with his pretended errours. Now we come to his pretended Crimes, viz. contempt and ſedition; which the Court pickt out of a Sermon of his, he preached upon a Faſt-day deſigned for peace, the ſubſtance whereof was this: Chriſts abſence is a main cauſe of faſting, therfore labour for him revealed in the Covenant of grace; peace is to be ſought in ſuch a drawing neer the God of peace; and oppoſe thoſe by contending for the faith, but ſpiritually, who go the way of the Covenant of works (as in that thing) (wherein indeed they are oppoſite to the end of the day) as enemies to grace, and in that reſpect perſecuters of Chriſt, as (which word I ſuppoſe is, ſieut qualitatis onely) Herod, Pilus, and the Jews. This is the doctrine wherein the ſpirit of ſedition and contempt breathes according to their opinion; I will therefore briefly leaving the fuller diſcuſſion to Statiſts, (by ſome of which Mr. Wh: hath been already cleared,) examine.

Contemptus eſt ex hoc quod aliquis rennit ſubjici legi bonae; conferre, the Magiſtrates publiſh a Faſt in order to peace, whether this publication have the compleat Nature of a Law, let others determine. But admit, Mr. Wh: whileſt he tels them, peace is the moſt eaſily attainable in Chriſt, to whom they muſt apply themſelves in a Covenant of grace, twharts not their Law, unleſſe it had expreſſed the method which the Miniſter muſt uſe, or unleſſe Mr. Wh: had done that, the contrary of which it did neceſſarily imply; But there is no ſuch matter, for in his generall terme, a Covenant of grace, he could not be inordinate, but admit explication, though it might render ſuſpition of unſoundneſſe in doctrine; yet not ſuſpition, much leſſe apparency of diſobedience to civill diſcipline, therefore what neglect of Authority was here, when neither the expreſſion nor conſtructive intention of their Mandate was croſſed? Or, if it had been, yet not the primary end, and ſo could not conſtitute ſuch an offence: As for finis operantis, the ends they themſelves reſerved, how could he attend? unleſſe we either ſuppoſe a coincidence, or unleſſe they think it requiſite, Clergie-men ſhould ſtudy Myſteries of State, or unleſſe (which they ſeem to abhor) he ſhould have expected immediate revelation of them? [Renuit] he will not; that preſuppoſes admonition, and ſuppoſes contumacie, Mr. Wh: had no ſuch preparatories; If he had reiterated the diſcourſe, though innocent, there had been more pretence. But grant further he had, yet a meer repetition makes not frequency; But admit, yet frequentia peccati non facit peccatum ex contemptu, ſed diſponit ad hoc: according to Aquinas. It is far then from contempt, which is not ſo much as a bare diſpoſition towards it? what if he did (this as a ſuppoſition, onely) decline the next purpoſe of the day? yet if he did reach it more eminently by ſetting up Chriſt, whoſe abſence he told them was the cauſe of faſting, muſt he have theſe crimes attributed to him, becauſe he did ſo conciſely compleat their deſires? might they not have taken up themſelves twixt his ſuppoſed receſſe, and relapſe before they proceeded to cenſure? But our Author ſaith, (pag. 52. wherein he intends aggravation) whereas Mr. Cotton urged peace, Mr. Wh: contention in the afternoon: Yes, but it was ſpirituall, and for a Covenant of grace too: the way of peace, as in that generality, cannot be denyed. The ſpirits of men in Winter (as it was then) have too much aſperity in the morning to be truſted with zealotiſmes, which in the afternoon their more mollified diſpoſitions may admit: but more ſeriouſly: what would this man have by this circumſtance? where is the ſence of it? or how aggravates it? would he have had Mr. Wh: Text to have been impoſed by the Court? were not that to limit the Spirit? or would he have had him betwixt forenoon and evening Exerciſe, not being half an houres ſpace, by reaſon of the directive Sermon, to have puriſied his meditations into ſuch a complexion? Or would he have had him ſeeing there was no time, to change his text, or his Notions, to have defiſted before his paroxyſme? Alas! ſo the Church as well as the State might have apprehended contempt. Or if he had in ſuch an Auditory adventured upon an extemporarie diſcourſe, would not your Moderatſts conſtruction have pitched upon neglect? But what need of all this? Mr. Cotton and He agreed in the main, both their labours directed to the ſame ſcope, (viz. to bring men to Chriſt, the difference of preciſion, and degrees of heat allowed: ſo that if his Sermon offered violence to the day, yet where is that which is pretended to the State? Admit incongruity, yet where is the contempt? If it had been any thing, it had rather been indiſcretion then contempt; and rather indiſpoſition then indiſcretion.

But they ſay, By thoſe under a covenant of works, he meant them, ſome Magiſtrates and ſome Miniſters; and that he knew they went the way which he deſcribed to be a covenant of works. Admit, yet his expreſſions from the Pulpit in the common Rules of conſtruction can have no ſuch reference: Or ſuppoſe they might have reference, yet not of cauſality but connexion onely, which would give no advantage to ſecular power, or Eccleſiaſticall either. But further, grant a reference of cauſality, that may be concerned in the Authority of the keyes, not of the Court.

He inſtances in that difference of Proteſtants and Papiſts, ſub una & ſub utra que , as a paralell caſe; but it is not, for thoſe tearms did denote upon the free acknowledgement of the right of their reſpective attributions: it is not ſo in this matter, where the phraſe Ʋnder the Covenant of works, is not confeſſed by the Magiſtrates, &c. as their condition; therefore to ſay under a convenant of works, and under a covenant of grace, is not as much as to ſay, Magiſtrates, &c. and ſome others, there being much diſtance twixt this occaſion and the former.

He would at length puzzle the people with ſubtilties, whil'ſt he talks of deſignation to common intendments, ſaying, That which deſigns a man to common intendments doth as much as if it ſhould name the men; Which phraſe if applyed muſt preſume, that the Magiſtrats and Miniſters he pleads for, are by that member of the diviſion under a Covenant of works: commonly intended, A pretty peece of work, wherin to give you his upſhot, firſt he contradicts himſelf, ſecondly, totally excuſes Mr. Wh. thirdly, he accuſes his own partie more then ever any did. A brave Champion, firſt he contradicts himſelf in ſaying, theſe things were never heard of before Mr. Wh. came into the Courtry; p. 24. wheras it ſeems it was vox pepuli before, for he was then but newly arrived, and this the firſt time he thewed himſelf in that publick way.

Secondly, he excuſeth Mr. Wh. for when to ſtopp his mouth, we had halfe allowed him indiſcretion in that Sermon of Mr. Wh. yet he will needs cleere him from it by implying that through the common rumour of Magiſtrates &c. walking the way of the Covenant of works, there might be occaſion miniſtred unto him, and need for ſuch a diſcourſe.

Thirdly, he accuſerh both the Magiſtrates and Miniſters, more then any yet did, by intimating a precedent continued, and manifeſt addiction of theirs to Legaliſme, whil'ſt he declares them commonly intended by that expreſſion, under a Covenant of works. and by the generall opinion of the people wrapt in it.

This was a great overſight, unleſſe by a check of his conſcience ſuggeſting Mr. Wh. innocencie, he was moved to vindicate him ſecretly from crime, and therefore would myſtically do it in the word Intendment, to purge his heart from malignity of opinion.

And whereas he ſaith, p. 25. The former Magiſtrates and Miniſters had great diſreſpect after Mr. Wh. his Sermon, which he ſaith, was the cauſe of it.

I anſwer, Firſt, It is not known that ever they had any notable neglect.

Secondly, Admit, yet his inference may intitle the Goſpel to ſedition.

Thirdly, The inequality of obſervance did not proceed from any effect Mr. Wh. Sermon had upon them; as in that inſtance of the Halberds, the former Governor having more carried before him then his ſucceſſour; and in the expeditions againſt the Pequeds, but from the affection which ſome deſigned to thoſe offices, bore to the then Governor Sr. He: Vain, who by his noble, affable and diſcret carriage, ingaged their utmoſt attendance; where obſerve the edge of Malice, which when it dare not ſuppreſſed by fear, openly, yet ſecretly it will fix, though he do not inroll Sr. Henry amongſt Familiſts, &c. Though he will not ſay, he was ſuch a Sectary, yet whilſt he talks of his preferment above the following Governor, as an Iſſue of Mr. Wh: Sermon, upon his own premiſſes, he neceſſarily inferrs it.

And wheras he ſaith, That before Mr. Wh. came over, all things were peaceable, after his arrivall, nothing but diviſion. I anſwer: Firſt, he contradicts himſelf, for he tels us Mrs. Hutchinſon vented her Opinions in the ſhip as ſhe came over, pa. 31. he tels us, ſhe drew many to her, pa. 32. he tels us, ſhe procured countenance from eminent perſons, pa. 33. hence (ſaith he) was the trouble to the Paſtor of Boſton, &c. hence, ſaith he, Mr. Wh: took courage to inveigh in his Sermon, &c. It ſeems then there was Diviſions before Mr. Wh: Sermon, and that it was an effect of them rather then a cauſe. Secondly, there was a company in the Bay before he came, who upon ſuppoſition of 2 parties, one under the Covenant of works, the other themſelves under the Covenant of grace, had reſolved upon ſchiſme, expecting onely a beck from the Pulpit; which when by reaſon of Mr. Wh: naming a Covenant of works and of grace, (though not with any ſuch pertinence, their prepared phanſies, thought they had) they took this Idoll of their own brains, for a providence of heaven, and hereupon ſacrificed their premeditated endeavours to it; as it had been the Image which fell down from Jupiter; which doing of theirs Mr. Wh: was not acceſſary to, their pretended Covenant of grace being compoſed of errours, his covenant of grace which to decline legaliſme he preferred, being free from them, carrying along with it the grace of the covenant. He tels us, pa. 26. of a writing which much concerned Mr. Wh: to read, that might be; it may be it was our Authors, for all his (as he ſaith of his book) are neceſſary for States, much more for private perſons: but it ſeems Mr. Wh: was ſo dull as not to conceive the neceſſity, for he did not read it, as we are told; what then? perhaps he was otherwiſe imployed; But what ſaies the man? Which did argue (ſaith he) the height and pride of his ſpirit: what need theſe ſynonyma? were not pride enough? this argues my Authors malice and virulencie; but is he not aſhamed to talk ſtill of arguing, when his Independent brain hath bewrayed ſuch inconſequence? Let him never think hereafter with any judicious Reader to be reputed for a ſyllogiſt: but if he think he ſhall hide his talent unleſſe he imploy the Preſſe, let him rather (as one ſaid) write meer hiſtory, and ſuch too where in partiall reſpects may not byaſſe him to errour. Which way (as though he preſaged diſlike of his controverſall diſcourſes) he hath already taken in his book, now at the Preſſe, called, A Narration of the proctiſe of N. E. wherein he may do (as in things that fall under his ſenſe) much better, then in polemicall Eſſayes, where he doth but loſe himſelf, and over-ballace his muddy intellectuals.

Nay ſo vaſt is my Author in his apprehenſion of pernicious effects from Mr. Wh: Sermon, that he would make people beleeve, it not onely moved all Societies on the Land, but that it had its influence upon veſſels at Sea (thats his phraſe) How, ſaith he, did it hinder all affairs in Courts, in Towns, in Families, in veſſels at Sea? pa. 58. As though it had been like that commotion of the earth lately there, which Ships at a great diſtance felt; as though Mr. Wh: had made an Earthquake amongſt them. Whereas (which I hope the Reader will conceive) it was nothing but a Trepidation of the ſpheres in that New Heaven, &c.

Another pretended crime of his, is ſedition, which is thus defined: Seditio eſt praeparatio ad impugnationem corporalem; A preparation to a bodily fight: now how did Mr. Wh: Sermon prepare for ſuch a fight? He bids them indeed in the Apoſtles expreſſion contend for the faith, &c. but he deſignes (as before we ſhewed) no parties. Or if he had, it was to a ſpirituall conflict, as he explain'd himſelf, which reſpects not civill unity, or unitatem-Juris, as ſedition doth, but Eccleſiaſtique; and ſo at the moſt it could be but ſchiſme; and not that neither, unleſſe his doctrine be proved contra utilitatem, and ſo be errour. Nay, that is not enough neither, unleſſe it were in fundamentals, and ſo might be called hereſie; for ſchiſma alwayes ſibi aliquam confingat haereſin, ſchiſme is ever attended with hereſie, in the opinion of the learned: nor is all this ſufficient to bring it under the cenſure of the Church it ſelf, unleſſe it be per ſe intentum: for that which is per aceidens, no more in morals then in Naturals, can conſtitute a ſpecies, ſuch as ſacred Authority muſt proceed upon; as I ſaid before of contempt, ſo of this, if it had been any thing it had rather been faction then ſedition, and rather ſchiſme then faction. Before my Author propound his reaſons wherby he would faſten theſe crimes upon Mr. Wh: he wiſely premiſes thus; ſaith he, p. 52. Such as would receive ſatisfaction may, if they will read that which follows, &c. carrying this along with them, that the acts, &c. He ſaith true in this, ſuch as come prejudicate and preſuming neceſſity of juſtice from N. E. may ſatisfie themſelves in his Apology; but as for others, let them attend his deſcriptions, and it will appear they do as little fit Mr. Wh: practice as his examples. Seditioſus (ſaith he) eſt qui facit diſſenſionem animorum: good in it ſelf, but applyed rudiori Minerva, if it be taken rightly, viz. Diſſention in ordine ad civilem unitatem: leſt ſedition and ſchiſme be confounded, and the word facit be ſo qualified as to exclude accidentall, occaſionall, and periſiaticall action upon mens minds, it concerns not Mr. Wh: caſe, it being neceſſary too, (which I may adde) that it be not onely motu praevio, but concomitativo, which is moſt intrinſick, and of the formal reaſon of velleitie which muſt be ſuppoſed at the leaſt in ſuch a crime, his other deſcriptions, cum ſaevit populus, &c. and cum eunt alii in aliud, call for the ſame reſtrictions, and refer to the firſt.

He exemplifies to as little purpoſe, as in Demetrius his ſedition, and Corah with his complices: this is much like his ſub una & ſub utraque, as little paralell where he intends, Demetrius named the man, This Paul, &c. And ſo did Korah particularize, Mr. Wh: nothing ſo, he onely ſpake in theſi, the Hypotheſis was their own, the application was theirs: My Author cannot make it appear their caſes are alike, unleſſe he reſume his ſublime Notion of Deſigniation to common intendments, &c. by which he might ſalve the Phaenomena; but we have tried that before.

That which he ſaith, viz. my Author, of Mr. Wh: vehemencie of ſpirit, and voyce in proclaiming them perſecuters, and Antichriſtian, who walk the way of a covenant of works, it muſt be reckoned amongſt his impertinences, ſeeing the degree doth not vary the kind; let him be as urgent as he pleaſeth. Salvaratione fidei, ſalva ſpecie, whileſt he keeps within that univerſality againſt thoſe which are Legaliſts which he did and onely did, let me uſe my Authors main Argument, which we meet with preſently. Put the caſe in a Reverſed Frame, if my Author had flamed in zeal never ſo much againſt Mr. Wh: Sermon, or ſome of the Opinioniſts, would he have admitted that as a topicke of Sedition? In ſuch a particularization which is more then he can fix upon Mr. Wh: would not the equity of his cauſe have been his plea? Doth he not therefore rove a little in this diſcourſe? if vehemencie of ſpirit and voice infer ſedition, it will be dangerous to have good Lungs; let my Author take heed he intrench not upon his Divinity tenure, and inſcribe that to crime which intitles him to the Pulpit. But Mr. Wh: his vehemencie made him not exorbitant, he miſt not the cuſhiou, nor was he ſo fierce as my Author was when he ſaid, Lye with him Devill, ſleep with him Devill, &c. Mr. Wh: promoted a Covenant of grace by a ſpirituall proſtration of its oppoſites. And this in generall too, this is all he did: what, Pretenders to ſo much charitie, Reformation, Chriſtian liberty? &c. A new Heaven and a new Earth (as ſome ſaid of them) and ſo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 celeſtiall, arraign, ſentence, impriſon, baniſh a man of their Church too? And as though this were not enough, Inſtare morienti to fame him an Heretique, Antinomian, ſeditious perſon, what not? and this in print, with all poſſible diſgrace and diminution; and that after he had repented too (as is confeſſed) one upon whom he ſaith he would not reflect any thing, his meaning is, I ſuppoſe, that the rayes of his malice ſhould fall directly upon Mr. Wh: and all this for ſo ſmall a matter? Tanta fallacia? &c. May I not retort, Tantaene animis coeleſtibus irae? His following diſcourſe is a Panegyrick of diſcretion, which he by his uſuall clapping together of Scriptures magnifies the more, becauſe he conceives it wanting in Mr. Wh. But how comes it in here under his title, viz. a Proof of Sedition and contempt? ſurely he doth not think that indiſcretion involveth contempt. What doth this curious Impertinent mean? I ſhould think that there were a ſecret and energeticall ſubſidence of all into this vice, and that in his opinion too, if he had not (as we before ſhewed) cleared Mr. Wh. from ſuch offence. See how confuſed the man is, he would convict him of contempt, and yet vindicates him from indiſcretion, as though that could be without this, what he means by diſcretion I know not. But. if it be that which is uſually called ſpirituall diſcerning, my Author did uſe to annex it to the tribe, &c.

His laſt and main ſtratagem whereby he will prevail upon the moſt prejudicate, and ſcrupulous ſpirits, is to put the caſe (as he ſaith) in a reverſed frame, his words are theſe: p. 57. But if any ſhall yet pretend want of ſatisfaction, &c. put the caſe in a reverſed frame if ſome others had taught it, &c. would not Mr. Wh: and, &c. have looked at themſelves as intended? Yes ſurely, for a proper adjunct may deſigne a particular company, as well as names, as Judas by the ſop. This is an excellent deviſe: A conjecture what Mr. Wh: and the other partie would have ſaid upon the like invective: I know not what they would have ſaid, &c. nor do I know what to ſay to this his maſter-peece of putting the caſe, &c. unleſſe I ſhould put it into the caſe. Quid dignum tanto? &c. Shall we neglect it? No, the neceſſity of the times may call for it, it is the very diſtilled quinteſſence of his brain, his Catholicon. We will (if we can) ſqueeze ſome ſenſe out of it, or at the leaſt leave it in a capacitie; if it have any force for the preſent, we muſt poſe our Author knows, per ſpecies concreat • : But I would not reflect upon him, (as he of Mr. Wh:) as though he had no more wit then he was born with: But what if he knew what they would ſay, ſhall their practiſe, or ſpeech, which may (as they are men) proceed from paſſion direct yours? If they ſhould take offence at a little forwardneſſe, freeneſſe, and irreſpectiveneſſe of diſcourſe, and beat it out as you have done into ſedition and contempt, ſhall that be your Apologie? Are a company of Familiſts, Libertines, &c. ſo authentick? If it muſt be ſo, let Mr. Wh: or ſome others ſend word what they would ſay,So a ••• cou •• in N •••• and this great oration of my Authors, even tota haec Româ ruit cum viribus ſi • s: of all his coixcidences, impertinences, foleciſmes, fruitleſſe and weak chullitions, this is the worſt, for thoſe may be acted upon, and refined by wit. But as for this, it may ſtand eternally before it can receive a good conſtruction, all the colour, and appearance of reaſon it can admit, muſt be expected in a meſſage from New England, declaring what they would ſay, &c. My Author might do well, to compaſſe Seato make a Proſelite, to go himſelf thither and procure an expreſſe, but I doubt he will not, his mind doth ſo run upon the ſop: where I leave him; And in the mean time I leave this high ſtrain of his, if the winds and ſeas favour in a poſſibilitie of being cloathed with a little kind of ſenſe, or the beſt kind of non-ſenſe: Alas! poore argument. The caſe in a reverſed Frame might better have been kept in the caſe then dut into the Frame.

He concludes this diſcourſe thus; That to lay thoſe under a Covenant of works, who have ſuffered as much as himſelf, ſavours not of a brotherly ſpirit, p. 58. This can be looked at no otherwayes then as an impertinence too, if the Apoſtle ſpeak truth: If I give my body to be burnt, &c. I do not ingage my ſelf in the diſpute, &c. onely I ſay utcunque his concluſion is not concluſive: he makes had premiſes, and worſe concluſion.

Seeing theſe things are ſo, that there is ſo little ground for theſe pretended crimes, ſeeing there can be no contempt found in Mr. Wh: Sermon, we will rather impute the undeſerved cenſures to ſome other cauſe then to the meet malice of the Court, which ſome uncharitably do.

Whether it were a ſtrong imagination of the then Deputy upon Mr. Wh: which by the power annexed to phanſie produced ſome contemptuous behaviour in him while he was before them?

Or whether it were that he, viz. the Deputy, being then occaſionally in contemplation of contempt, and preſuming of the infallibility of his ſcience, being (as he thought it) not ſimplicis intelligentiae (which is more likely) but viſionis, which in that reaſon muſt have aliquid externum de facto repreſentative of it, thereupon pitched on contempt, as Mr. Wh: delinquencie.

Or whether it were (which is probable, in the deſpicableneſſe of the State, and eſpecially of the then Deputie, late Governor, and in regard of the affection of the people, and that deſervedly) to that worthy gentleman then Governour, Sir Hen: Vain, unlikely to return into that preferment ſpeedily; I ſay, whether in regard of his condition, his melancholy temper, ſeconded, as obſerved, by a ſullen conſtellation then predominant, he did abſolutely determine he was contemned, ſome way, or other, and ſo cum nemini obtrudi potuit, he charged it upon Mr. Wh: And ſo ſedition, by way of concomitance; Sedition and contempt being twins, as he uſed to ſay; howſoever Mr. Wh: was ſentenced guilty of the faults, and thereupon baniſht, impriſoned firſt: upon requeſt indeed diſmiſſed to his family, not to ſtay though above twelve dayes upon pain of ſtricteſt cenſure, although in a remote place, where they could not fear any effect from the pretended vices, &c. And although in ſo cold a ſeaſon of the yeer, wherein I think, had he had the very extracted ſpirits of ſedition, and contempt, they would have been frozen up, and indiſpoſd for Action.

Thus ſaith my Author, p. 43. it pleaſed the Lord to hear his poore people, whoſe ſouls had wept in ſecret, for the reproach, &c. I deſire to know of Mr. Welds what he means by pleaſing of the Lord? whether ratione voluntatis Determinantis, vel determinatae? In the mean while, let the Reader judge whether he have not cauſe to weep not onely in ſecret, but openly for the reproaches which he hath caſt upon ſome. He goes on thus: It is the Lords doings, and it is marvellous in our eyes. Mr. Wh. is gone to Paſcal, &c. what then? it was neither contrà, nor praeter, nor ſuprà naturam, for Mr. Wh: to go to Paſcal: where is the wonder? I confeſſe it was marvellous he got thither at that time, when they expelled him, by reaſon of the deep ſnow in which he might have periſhed. Whether my Author profane not Scripture in this, I will refer it to thoſe whom in the ſame page he ſpeaks of, viz. his dear and beloved Brethren.