Πάτρο-σχολαστικο-δικαίωσις, OR, A JUSTIFICATION OF THE FATHERS and SCHOOLMEN: Showing, That they are not Self-condemned for denying the Positivity of Sin.  
Being an Answer to so much of Mr. THO. PIERCE's Book, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Αυτοκατάκρισις, as doth relate to the foresaid Opinion.  
By HEN: HICKMAN, Fellow of Magdalene College, Oxon.  
Nonnulli citius volunt exagitare quod non intelligunt, quam quaerere ut intelligant: & non fiunt humiles inquisitores, sed superbi calumniatores.  Aug. de Tem Serm, ●2. 
Solent veritatis hostes suis jactantiis etiam de nihilo theatrum quaerere.  Calv in Mar 9.14. 
Inclamant Puritanoes, Puritanoes, sed per Puritanorum latera Orthodoxam vulnerant veritatem.  D Holland referente M. Bolton. 
OXFORD, Printed by A. Lichfield, for Joh. Adam's, and Edw. Forrest. 1659.   

To the reverend and learned the weekly Lecturers at Brackly.  
Fathers and Brethren.  
YOu will a little wonder to see me in print, more wonder to see me meddling with a subject somewhat remote from practice, most of all wonder to find me engaging with an adversary, who drinketh up scorning like Water, and knows not how to mention the worthiest man alive, if of a differing judgement, without contempt. Nor would you cease wondering, if I should tell you, that the mere importunity of friends (which is now made the common vouchees for publications) did put me upon this undertaking, nay, though Solomon hath told us that a good name is better than a precious ointment; yet if Mr. P. had contented himself to give me alone ill names, you would never think it any part of my duty, to scribble so many sheets in my own vindication: but when as I have found a wanton wit doing by all the honest Presbyterians and Puritans as did the heathen persecutors by the primitive Christians, putting them into beasts skins, abusing them with all the odious epithets and aspersions he could scrape together, the one half whereof if they should deserve, they were not worthy to live, and when as I have heard that some are too apt to believe those things real which are the mere chimaeras of his brain, you will not count it an idle expense of time, if I bestow some pains (and very little will serve) to show the World that he who is so fierce in charging others with blasphemy, doth maintain an opinion on which necessarily and unavoideably follows the worst of blasphemies Gods being the Author of sin, and that the privativenesse of moral evil is not a monster hatched under the wings of a few disciplinarian zealots; not a perfect fantasy, a mere Scholastical notion as Dr. Hammond is pleased to call it, fundam. Pag 178. But the undoubted opinion of the Fathers and of modern Divines as well Lutheran as Calvinistical, yea and that in the way which some angry Divines now with extreme bitterness call Calvinisme the ancient Episcopal Divines worshipped the God of their Fathers. Two Artifices I have observed some violent Spirits of late to make much use of, in order to the drawing away of persons from the opinions in which they have been educated. 1. to persuade them that the opinions they have embraced are but the crude indigested notions of some Presbyterians, so Dr. Jer. Tailor in the book which should have been called Pelagius, or Socinus justificatus, would bear us in hand that he quarrelleth only with the Presbyterian notion of Original sin; and yet to that tract the Stationer hath unluckily joined another, in which he labours to give as good an account, and make as fair an Apology for his tenet as he can, to an Eminent Prelate of our own Nation, who can as little digest that Chapter in the unum necessarium, as the most rigidly Scotized Presbyterian. And I hope none of our old Protestants will be caught with such chaff. A 2. Stratagem is this, after they have fathered the assertions against which they declaim, upon Mr. Calvin, and his followers, then to Burden them with such horrible consequences, as cannot by any true rules of reason be deduced from them, as if they were contrary to the Holiness, Mercy, Justice of God, as if they introduced fatal necessity, and opened a gap to all manner of Licentiousness, as in the first design they do unwittingly befriend the Presbyterians, by giving the people occasion to think that they only are the men, who will contend for the faith once delivered to the saints; so in the latter they do (whether wittingly, or unwittingly they best know) befriend the Synagogue of Rome; for as B. Carleton, saith well: Pag. 62. What greater pleasure can a man procure to the Enemies of the truth, than to speak evil and odiously of those men whose service God hath used, and made them excellent instruments to make the truth known unto us? Some take it for a sign of such as are looking towards Popery, when they offer such a service to the Papists, as to speak evil of them who have been the greatest Enemies to Popery, the greatest propagators of the truth. I have took occasion to as far as my Antagonist offered it to make bare both these two fallacies, and to that end have scarce made use of any testimony, but such as he dare not call Presbyterian. If at any time I seem to departed from that meekness of Spirit, which is required in a Minister, I shall desire it may be considered not only what is fit for me to speak, but what is meet for him to hear. If I were to mention their fact, who took the relics of Peter Martyr's wives carcase out of the grave, and after buried them in a dunghill, would you not allow me to call it, unchristian, and inhuman? And shall I be permitted to put no vinegar in my Pen, when I am to write of one, who hath taken the far greater part of our Protestant writers out of those beds of honour, in which the Church hath laid them, and made their graves amongst blashpemers are the keenest words to keen for a reformed Bolsec? an English Fevardentius? And hath not Mr. P. showed himself such? Come out of your dust ye ancient records, and show us if you can, since Mr. Mountagues Appeal, any piece written by a Protestant Divine, so full of bitter girds, and scurrilous gibes, against the great instruments of our Reformation, as the late 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are: But I know how hard it is for one who hath been so coursely and undecently dealt with as I have been, not to exceed bounds; if you find me so to have done, be not so cruelly merciful as not to call me to repentance. And for yourselves, Let your moderation be known to all men, the Lord is at hand. The reproaches where with you are reproached, are no other than such as the old Puritans (of whom the world was not worthy) were exercised with. Let me also mind you of the grave, and seasonable counsel, which Galba gave to Piso. Nero a pessimo quoque desiderabitur, mihi & tibi providendum est, ne etiam à bonis desideretur: The Episcopal government, as it was exercised in your County, will be desired by the bad, let not the good wish it restored also, for any Church Government is better than no Church Government, a promiscuous admission to the Sacrament is more  than a total disuse of that most blessed ordinance. If you will but put in practice the rules you pitched upon when you were first about to enter into an association with your Brethren, you shall as little need to fear the spleen of him who calleth your ordinations Pranks, as the clamour of those who call your Churches Antichristian: That the word of the Lord may run and be glorified among you: That God would open unto you a door of utterance, to speak the Mystery of Christ, for which you endure contradiction of sinners, and that when your work is done in this life you may enter into your Master's glory is the prayers of  
The unworthiest of your fellow labourers H. Hickman. Magd. College. Nou. 22 th' 1658..   

A Preface to the Reader.  
Christian Reader,  
ALthough I never saw Mr. Pierce his face, yet so much have I been taken with that rich vein of Rhetoric, which runs through all his Writings falling under my eye, that those few friends, in whose common acquaintance we meet, will testify, I have not mentioned his name without those prefaces of respect which are due to a Scholar: Nor hath his debasing me to the dunghill of Doltisme, put me under any temptation to detract from the credit and reputation which he hath acquired unto himself among our young Gallants, by putting the good Greek and Latin of the old Philosophers into as good English, is his Practicals, by abusing Mr. Bar. with Drollery, as handsome as ever dropped from the Pen of Ben. Johnson in his Polemicals. But as Bees are sometimes drowned in their Honey, so is his Logic in his Rhetoric; the body of his Proofs being as poor, and lean, as the garnish of his words, and margin glorious; his stuff as mean, as his dressing rich. And therefore I reckon him many ways unfortunate in choosing the tremendous mystery of Reprobation for his first public Essay. Eccius indeed in his Chrysopas. where he entreateth concerning Reprobation, saith, he did choose it as an idoneous subject, in quo juveniles calores exerceret. But that Mr. P. a person, professing to be of that party by whose means a declaration was procured, enjoining silence in these points, to be an admirer of Bishop Montague, who in his first Visitation made this one Article of Enquiry; Doth your Minister commonly, or on set purpose, in his popular Sermons, fall upon those much disputed, and little understood Doctrines, of God's eternal Predestination, of Election precedaneous, of Reprobation irrespective without sin fore-seen, of , of Perseverance, and not falling from Grace, points obscure, unfoldable, unfordable, untractable, at which that great Apostle stood at gaze, with, O the height, and depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his judgements and his ways past finding out. Rom. 11.31. That Mr. P. should sport his fancy in these troubled waters, wherein so many have made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, would seem strange to me: But that I am fallen into an Age in which I have learned to admire nothing; not so much from any knowledge I have attained unto of the causes of things, as from the multitude of strange effects.  
But, that 2ly; I had long since learned, that the foresaid Declaration was never intended to be a two edged Sword, was never procured out of any charitable design, to settle the Peace of the Church, but out of a politic design, to stop the mouths of the Orthodox, who were sure to be censured, if they at any time declared their minds, whilst the new upstart Arminians were suffered to Preach and Print their Heterodox notions with out any control: lest in this I should be suspected of partiality, or falsehood, I will quote the words of the most Noble Lord Faulkland, in his Speech to the House of Commons printed, Anno 1641. For Thom. Walkeley, Pag. 5, 6. Mr. Speaker in this they have abused his Majesty as well as his people; for when he had with great wisdom silenced on both parts those opinions, which have often tormented the Church, and have, and will all way trouble the Schools, they made use of this Declaration to tie up one side, and let the other lose; whereas they ought either in discretion to have been equally restrained, or in justice to have been equally tolerated, and it is observable, that the party to which they gave this licence was that, whose Doctrine, though it were not contrary to Law, was contrary to custom, and for a long while in this Kingdom was, no ofter preached than recanted.  
If Mr. P. have for the time passed (what he tells us for the future he resolves) bestowed only his times of Leisure and diversion upon these disputes, he is the more : But if whilst he hath ●een throwing stones at Mr. Bar. head, his Children have wanted their bread, or have been fain to take it divided to them by a more unskilful hand then his own: Then hath he put something on his doomsday book, which I wish he may have time to take off by repentance before he go away and shall be seen no more: and let him take this counsel from one (who though constrained to descent from his opinion, is a cordial friend to his Person) quickly to kiss the Son who must needs be offended with him for his hard speeches used against those precious Divines beyond the Seas, scarce to be equalled by any now a live, or to be excelled by those in any Calendar.  
So little do I delight to have my fingers in the fire of contention that have meddled with nothing in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but what I myself am, at least by him thought, to be concerned in. Whether I be supra, or sublapsarian, or neither in the Doctrine of reprobation, and the conversies depending thereon no one knows, or can pretend to know, from any thing they have heard me say in the Pulpit, and if I have not thought meet to make these things a Pulpit business, why should I declare my mind about them from the press? If my opinion be in some particulars singular, then perhaps it may be my duty to have my knowledge to myself; if in all things I agree with others of the Calvinistical persuasion, I must then, before I writ one, consider twice whether I can say any thing that others have not said before in most full and ample manner; for he had need be very prodigal of his credit, who in such a curious and inquisitive age as this will serve up his Reader with only a dish of twenty times sodden coleworts. Yet because I am brought upon the stage, and because Mr. P. hath thought meet to blast me with the utmost expression of his hatred, the title of Calvinist and Puritan, and because I find some to make use of this Jvybush to toll in customers, that they are obedient Sons of the Church of England. I shall beg thy patience (good Reader) whilst I show that not the Remonstrant, but the Contra-remonstrant opinion hath been the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England, and that the Countenancing of Arminianism with us, is no older than Bishop Laud, and Bishop Montague, who are but of yesterday in comparison: But do not these men much forget themselves whilst they appeal to the Church of England? Was it not the Church of England that in her 35th. Article did legitimate the books of homilies, and are not such words to be found in the homily against the Peril of Idolatry: The image of God Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, either severally, or the images of the Trinity, be by the Scriptures expressly forbidden, and condemned, as appears by these places, Deut. 4. Isa. 40. Acts 17. Rom. 1. Vide ibidem plura. How then was the late Arcshbishop an obedient Son of the Church of England, who put Mr. Sherlfield a Bencher of Linc. Inn, and Recorder of Sarum to so much cost, and a disgraceful acknowledgement of his fault, and caused him to be bound to his good behaviour, for taking down a glass Window, in which there were made no less than 7. pictures of God the Father in form of a little old man, clad in a blue and red coat, with a Pouch by his side about the bigness of a Puppet. Yea I have heard it from a Gentleman of good repute that the Archbishop then justified the Picturing of God the Father, in form of an old man, out of that place of Daniel, where God is called the ancient of days. Nay Bishop Lindsey, one of the Archbishop's great Creatures was not ashamed to say? That none but ignorant Calvinist Bishops did put down Altars at the beginning of the Reformation; and that they were worse than jesuites: that he was much offended with the Homily's against the Peril of Idolatry, against setting up of images in Churches; that he would have these Homilies put out of the Homily book, & wondered why they were suffered to continue in it so long.  
Was it not the Church of Enland, who by her Lords Spiritual in the upper house, and her whole convocation, in the Act for the subsidy of the Clergy? 3o. jacobi defined the Pope to be the Antichrist, was it not Bishop Andrews positive opinion that the Pope is Antichrist? was it not Archbishop whitgift's, commencement assertion 1569. Papa est ille Antichristus: was not this also positively asserted by Archbishop Usher, and proved by King james, and must they now be called the only obedient Sons of our, Church who study by all their Learning to take off that ignominious name from the Pope, and fasten it upon I know not whom?  
Was it not the Church of England who in her 9th. Article, speaks so plainly concerning Original sin, That it standeth not in following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk, but is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, etc. And must he now that set forth the unum necessarium, than whom Pelagius himself could not be more Pelagian, be resorted unto and reputed as an Oracle by those who glory in nothing more than in being old Eliz: Protestants. O that those who have any zeal for the Religion sealed by the blood of our Martyrs, defended by the pens of our Divines, the swords of our Soldiers, established by the Law of our Nation would consider what I writ: But these are Parerga'es to our grand design, which was to find out the opinion of the Church of England in the matters debated betwixt the Remonstrants, and Contra remonstrants: for the carrying on whereof, it will not be amiss to consider our Church in a twofold capacity, before our general Reformation; & after it. Before the general Reformation in whom should we seek our Church but in our Martyrs and confessors? who did witness against the Synagogue of Satan, what were the opinions of Wichlief, we can scarce find but in the History of Papists, who would be sure to make him as odious as they could tell how to draw him, but by their laying it to his charge, that he brought in fatal necessity, that he made God the author of sin, we may make a probable guess that there was no disagreement betwixt him and Mr. john Calvin. For the days of King Henry the eight we have through special providence some works of Mr William Tyndall, Mr, john Frith, Mr. Dr. Barnes preserved, which are all bound up together, and put forth by john Day: 1563: Mr. john Fox (than whom Magd. Coll. hath scarce ever had, a member, of whom she may more justly boast) putting a large preface, in which he styleth them the chief ringleaders of the Church of England. How point blank they speak for the things that now are called Calvinistical errors, may be seen with a little labour, if any one will look upon the index, though he that will read the book itself once over for my sake, will read it over twice for his own. Come we to the more conspicuous estate of our Church, when Kings and Queens have vouchsafed to be nursing Fathers and Mothers to it, when she hath spoken to her members by the 39 Art. Homilies, Liturgies, Catechisms, these we will consult that we may be sure, if it be possible to know her mind. The Articles were first agreed upon in the Convocation holden in the Reign of Edward the sixth 1552. confirmed and repromulgated, Anno 1562. ratified by King james, 1604. and by King Charles, 1628. Some little variation there is in the several editions of them, about which I mind not to trouble myself, seeing the 17th Article is the same in all, the words are as followeth: Predestination to life, is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby before the foundation of the World laid, he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation, those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour: wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose, by his Spirit, working in due season; they, through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of his only begotten Son jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works, and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity, etc.  
Nor can any one that reads the common prayer book with an unprejudiced mind choose but observe divers passages that manifestly make for a personal, eternal election. That which may be collected out of our Homilies I will not transcribe, seeing the book is commonly to be had: Let me only mind those, who are not wont much to deal in any books but our new Pamplets, of a Catechism set forth by Authority for all Schoolmasters to teach in King Edw. 6. days, the very year after the composing of the public Articles, the King prefixed his royal Epistle, wherein he commands and chargeth all Schoolmasters whatsoever within his Dominions, as they did reverence his Authority, and as they would avoid his royal displeasure, to teach this Catechism diligently and carefully, etc. In that Catechism, how do Master and Scholar plainly declare themselves to be no friends to any of the Tenants which Mr. P. contends for?  
If this Book be not at hand, let the Bible printed by Rob. Barker, Anno 1607. be consulted, and at the end of the Old Testament, there will be found certain Questions and Answers touching the Doctrine of Predestination, which are as full and punctual against Arminianism as may be.  
But lest all this should not be thought evidence sufficient, we will produce our Arguments to prove the Church of England not to be Arminian; and if not Arminian, much less could she account Anti-arminianism Blasphemy.  
1. Who were the Composers of our 39 Articles? were they not all the Disciples and Auditors of Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr? or at least such as held consent with them in Doctrine? Dr. Alexander Nowell was Prolocutor of the Convocation in the time of Qu. Eliz. And whether he had any Communion with Arminians, let his Catechism speak, I mean the English one, dedicated to the two Archbish. To the Church do all they properly belong, as many as do truly fear, honour, and call upon God, altogether applying their minds to live holily and godly, and which putting all their trust in God, do most assuredly look for the blessedness of eternal life, they that be steadfast, stable, and constant in this faith, were chosen, and appointed, and (as we term it) predestinated to this so great felicity, pag. 44. and (paulo post) the Church is the body of the Christian Commonweal; i. e. the universal number and fellowship of the faithful, whom God through Christ, hath before all beginning of time appointed to everlasting life. Shall we think that he, and others engaged with him in the same Convocation, were so ignorant, that they understood not what they put into the Articles? or so infatuated by God, as to put in things that were quite contrary to their own judgement?  
2. If the Church of England did consent to the opinions commonly called Arminian, how came she to dispose of her places of greatest influence and trust, to such as were of a contrary persuasion? no places in our Church are more considerable for leavening the Clergy than the Archbishopric of Canterbury, and the two Chairs in the University, both these have been occupied by those who detested Arminianism as the shadow of death. Parker, Grindall, Whitgift, Bancroft, Abbot, are all known; particularly in the time of Bishop Bancroft, came forth the book, called, The Faith, Religion, Doctrine professed in the Realm of England, and Dominions thereof; said in the Title page to be perused, and by the lawful authority of the Church of England, allowed to be made public. Let Mr. P. or any one for him name the Dr. of the Chair in Oxon, that did not totis viribus, oppose such a Platform of God's Decrees as men would feign obtrude upon us now. In ●ambridge indeed we may find one Dr. Overall, who may be suspected a little to Arminianise, but his opinion is disliked by Mr. playfere in his Apello Evangelium, and therefore is not that which Mr. P. stickleth for. In the Conference at Hampton Court, he did declare himself against the total, or final falling away of Gods elect: And would Mr. P. but come over to us in the point of Election, & Gods invincible working on the hearts of his chosen ones, we should soon agree, or else very easily bear with one another in our differences.  
3. If Mr. P. go the way that the Church of England hath taught him, how came it to pass, that as many as trod the Arminian path, were wont to be suppressed & censured, so soon as they began to discover themselves? Who is such a stranger in the History of the University, that hath not heard of Barrets Recantation, made in the University Church, 10. of May 1595? And these are the words of the Order, appointing him that penalty, Habitâ maturâ deliberatione, nec non visis & diligenter examinatis positionibus praedictis, quia manifesto constabat positiones praedictas errorem & falsitatem in se continere, nec non aperte repugnare religioni in Ecclesia Anglicanâ receptae ac stabilitae, ideo judicaverunt, etc. See more in Mr. Th. Fuller. Peter Baro's Arminianism cost him the loss of his place, and which was worst, lost him the Affections of the University. Mr. Edward Sympson, a fine Critic, preached a Sermon before King james at Royston, taking for his Text, john 3.6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh: hence he endeavoured to prove, that the Commission of any great sin doth extinguish Grace, and God's Spirit for the time in man. He added also, that St. Paul in the seventh Chapter to the Romans, spoke not of himself as an Apostle and Regenerate, but sub statu legis. Hereat his Majesty took (& publicly expressed) great distaste; because Arminius had lately been blamed for extracting the like exposition out of the Works of Faustus Socinus; whereupon he sent to the two Professors in Cambridge for their judgement herein, who proved, and subscribed the place, ad Rom. 7. to be understood of a Regenerate man, according to St. Augustin his later opinion In his Retractations; and the Preacher was enjoined a public recantation before the King; which was performed accordingly.  
Mr. Mountagues Appeal had almost been strangled in the womb by Archbish. Abbot. When it saw light, how exceedingly it was disliked, may appear by the several Answers made to it by Bish. Carleton, Dean Sutliffe, Dr. Featly, Mr. Yates, Mr. Wooton, all Episcopal: Presbyt. Mr. Francis Rouse: Independ. Mr. Henry Burton. Nor do his Respondents object any thing more than his dissent from the Doctrine of the Church of England. He was censured for it by the Parliament: Mr. Rim from the Committee for Religion made this Report to the House of Commons, April 18. 1626. That he had disturbed the peace of the Church, by publishing Doctrines contrary to the Articles of the Church of England, and the Book of Homilies; that the whole frame and scope of the book was to discourage the well affected in Religion from the true Religion established in the Church, and to incline them, and as much as in him lay, to reconcile them to Popery. Let me here insert an Order made by the House of Commons, 28 jan. 1628. after a large Debate: We the Commons now assembled in Parliament, do claim, profess, and avow for truth, the sense of the Articles of Religion, which were established in Parliament, 13 Eliz. which by the public Acts of the Church of England, and the general and currant exposition of the Writers of our Church, have been delivered to us; and we reject the sense of the jesuites and Arminians, and all others wherein they differ from us. If any one shall be desirous to know why we meet with no censures of Arminianism in Oxon? the answer will be, that thi● was not because she had less zeal● against that error than her Sisters but because her members either were free from it, or else kept it to themselves. Yet I could tell him o● Dr. Howsons' suspension for flirting at Mr. john Calvin.  
4. How comes it to pass, tha● those who now follow Arminius, di● heretofore follow Mr. Calvin? D●… jackson's Questions in vesper: 162● were, An peccatum originale liberum arbitrium in Adamo, & ipsius posteris penitus extinxit? Affirm. An voluntas hominis lapsi sic libera quoad actum conversionis ad Deum? Neg. And whose these were 1627. An praedestinatio ad salutem sit propter praevisam fidem? Neg. An praedestinatio ad salutem sit mutabilis? Neg. An gratia ad salutem sufficiens concedatur omnibus? Neg. Mr. P. knows, if he knows who admitted him a Demy. Nay he himself confesseth, that he holdeth not the same opinions that he did when he first commenced Mr. What did not the Parents, Masters, Tutors of these persons know what the Doctrine of the Church of Engl. was? or were they some schismatical Puritan who instructed them in a doctrine contrary to what is established by Law? I hope they will not so blemish their education; yet do they not strangely blemish the Church herself? For if she did verily apprehend these Geneva Doctrines to be so contrary to the glory of God, and the power of godliness, why hath she not in some Convocation declared the mischievousness of these tenants, and warned her Sons against such Catechisms and Systems of Divinity as do contain them? Why hath the Practice of Piety, Perkins his Principles, Balls Catechism, with divers others been so often printed?  
5. If the Church be so cordially for Arminianism, how came it to pass that King james should be so very solicitous to have it weeded out in other Churches? Did he not put the States upon calling an Assembly to condemn Episcopius and his party? Did he not send some of his Divines of singular Piety and parts to sit in that Assembly? charging them not to agree to any thing contrary to the Church of England, and yet rewarding them at their return, when they had suffraged to the contra remonstrants. Did not he exclaim against the impudence of Bertius, for saying that his Doctrine of the Apostasy of Saints was agreeable to the Doctrine of our Church? Do but observe how Mr. P. strives to get out of your hand, though you think you have him fast: Diu. Puri. p. 6, 7. Although King james in his younger years had imbibed and sucked in, even before he was ware, that Presbyterian opinion of the Genevizing, Scotish Kirk (which no man living will think strange, who knows the place of his birth & his education) yet in riper and wiser years, he found so great reason to retract and abjure his former error, that he readily accepted of Bishop Mountagues Appeal, and commanded it to be printed, and to be dedicated also unto his royal self, when even this was the Doctrine Appealed for, that the children of God may fall away, according to the tenor of our sixteenth Article, which the King perceiving to be the words and mind of the Church of England, and that Bertius had discerned it a great deal sooner than himself, he did not think it below him to grow in knowledge & wisdom as well as years. The very mentioning of B. Montague makes him talk like a Dictator rather than an Historian. B. Montague saith in his Appeal, lest the Lambeth Articles should too much stand in his way, that they were afterwards forbidden by public authority: But Mr. Tho. Fuller, Book 9 p. 231. makes himself a little merry with the Learned man; When, where, and by whom this prohibition was made, he is not pleased to tell us: and strange it is, that a public Prohibition should be whispered so softly, that this author alone should hear it, and none other to my knowledge take notice thereof. Such another Winter tale hath Mr. Pierce told us: King james changed his judgement: when, or where? how many months or years before his death? of these not a tittle. Doth he think that so unlikely a change will be believed without very strong proofs? I can prove that not above a month before he died, giving directions and instructions to two Divines, having occasion to touch upon the treatises of St. August. that are extant in the 7. Tom, he styled them. S. Augustins' Polemical Tracts against the Heretics that agree with our Arminians, and presently calling to mind their proper name, termed those Heretics Pelagians. Vid. Feat. Parallels. Now though some people, who will be prating about what concerns them not, do talk parilously about some poison given to the King, not long before his death, yet that the poison was the Arminian errors, I never heard or dreamt. That the Divines employed at that venerable Synod never changed their mind, is beyond all doubt. Hear Bishop Hall and Bishop Davenant in their Letters to one another. Bishop Hall: Yea as if this calumny was not enough, there want not those whose secret whisper cast upon me the foul aspersions of another sect, whose name is as much hated, as little understood. My Lord, you know I had a place with you (though unworthy) in that famous Synod of Dort, where (however sickness bereft me of the honour of a conclusive subscription) yet your Lordship heard me with equal vehemence to the rest crying down the unreasonableness of that way. I am still the same man, and shall live and die in the suffrage of that reverend Synod, & do confidently avow, that those other opposed opinions, cannot stand with the Doctrine of the Church of England. Bishop Davenant replieth. As for the aspersion of Arminianism, I can testify, that in our joint employment at the Synod of Dort, you were as fare from it as myself. And I know that no man can embrace it, in the Doctrine of Predestination and grace, but he must first desert the Articles agreed upon by the Church of England: nor in the point of perseverance, but he must vary from the common Tenet and received opinion of our best approved Doctors in the English Church, Mentis aureae verba bracteata.  
Obj. Notwithstanding all this, ●t is plainly said that we may fall away from grace received Article 16. As will appear if we compare the 16 th'. Article, with the first part of the homily touching falling away from God, Pag. 54.57. With the form of Baptism, with the Catechism, and all with the Conference at Hampton-Court. Pag. 29, 30, 31.  
Answ. All these have been compared by every one of those 7. writers that undertook the answer to Mr. Mountagues appeal, & yet they never thought it incumbent upon them to alter their minds Mr. Montague saith both in his Gag & appeal, that our Church hath left this undecided; and in the conference at Hampton-Court, I find Dr. Reynolds moving that the words totally and finally might be added for explication of the Article, and that the Lambeth Articles might be in serted. The King then unacquainted with the Lambeth Articles, thought not meet to put them in: But liked it well enough in his Clergy of Ireland, that they took them into their confession, Dr. Overall said something touching an opinion of his, about which he had been questioned by some, but concluded that the elect do never fall away totally, or finally. The Bishop of London said he knew, there were some that did make an ill use of the decrees; But had before the conference agreed to the Lambeth Articles, and after the conference when he was Archb. his Chaplain with his good liking and approbation published the exposition, and Analysis of our Articles, in which he gives the Calvinist as fair quarter as could be wished. And now I would faing know why I am sent to the conference at Hampton-Court? Mr. Hooker, had I warrant you read Artic. Homilies, form of Baptism, and seeing he could scarce tell how to speak not judiciously we will consult him, the rather because it seems this Author was by the late King commended to his Children as an antidote against the poison of Popery. Disc. of justifis. p. 506. As Christ being raised from the dead, dyeth no more, death hath no more power over him: So the justified man being allied to God in jesus Christ our Lord, doth as necessarily from that time forward always live, as Christ by whom he hath life liveth alway. I might if I had not other where largely done it already, show by many and sundry, manifest and clear proofs, how the motions and operations of this life, are sometimes so in discerneable, and so secret, that they seem stone dead, who are notwithstanding still alive unto God in Christ. For as long as that abideth in us, which animateth, quickeneth, and giveth life, so long we live and we know that the cause of our faith abideth in us for ever. If Christ the Fountain of life, may flit and leave the habitation, where once he dwelleth, what shall become of his promise I am with you to the end of the World? If the seed of God which containeth Christ, may be first conceived & then cast out how doth St. Peter term it immortal? How doth St. John affirm it abideth? If the Spirit, which is given to cherish, and preserve the seed of life, may be given and taken away how is it the earnest of our in heritance until redemption. Anno 1625. one Mr. Damport, did answer on this Question, An renati possint totaliter & finaliter excidere à gratiâ. His opponent one Mr. Palmer of Lincoln College urged, out of Mr. Mountagues appeal the Article of our Church, the Homilies, the book of Common prayer, the Dr. of the Chair handled the Appellator shrewdly, saying he was Merus Grammaticus, a fellow that studied Phrases more than Matter. that he understood neither the Articles; nor the Homilies, or at least perverted both.  
And what thinks Mr. P. of the University of Oxon? did not she know the opinions of the Church of England? or would she countenance any thing that had so much as the appearance of contrariety to our Church? How came it then to pass that her congregations appointed questions to be disputed of at the public acts, in which are the greatest confluence of the of Sons of Levi. That proceeders maintained in a Calvinistical way? How many are now alive that can remember this Question, an ex Doctrina reformatorū sequatur Deum esse autorem peccati: held Neg. And maintained to the satisfaction of the hearers, the Arminian Doctors, mean while showing themselves rather angry, than able opponents. Let any one who questioneth the truth of what I now say, consult the Act Papers that are printed as often as those Academical solemnities are celebrated, What should I say more, we know when Arminianism began, & under whose wings it was sheltered, viz. the D. of Buck. and Bishop Laud, of whom the first had so much of an Herod in him, as would not have suffered him so long to continue friendship with the latter, if he had not had too little of a St. joh. Baptist, whilst they did rule, not before, nor since, passages in books against Arminianism, were blotted out, reflections in Sermons upon Remonstrants were disliked, by Bishop laud's means, Dr. downham's book against the Totall & final Apostasy of the saints from grace, was called in, in his days Mr. Ford of Mag. H. Mr. Thorn of Balliol, Mr. Hodges of Exeter, were censured; but let it be observed that the ground of the Censure was not their having preached any thing contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, (which is the form of the censure possed upon Arminians by the ancient Protestants) but only their going against the King's Declaration, which determined nothing, but only enjoined silence in these points. Now I hope the Church did not live and die with B. and C. Nay their flourishing was the decaying and languishing of Church and State too, nor could either body well recover but by spewing out such evil instruments.  
Obj. The Church of England is for universal redemption the Calvinists that are Antiarminian are against it.  
Ans. Mr. P. indeed is hugely confident that it we grant him universal redemption the cause is yielded to him: But I am all most as confident, that to grant him universal redemption is to grant him just nothing at all, for what though Christ did so far die for all as to procure a salvation for all, upon the conditions of faith and repentance, what's this to the absoluteness of God's decrees, or to the insuperability of converting grace, or to the certain infallible perseverance of Gods elect after conversion. King james understood these controversies far better than either Mr. P. or I. and yet he even at that very time when he sent his Divines to the Synod of Dort, to determine against the Arminianism that was then growing in the Low Countries, gave it them in charge not to deny that Christ died for all, as I myself was told by Bishop Usher, the first time I had the happiness to have any personal discourse with him; who also further than told me, that he gave in his own judgement to Dr. Davenant for universal redemption, but withal added, that there were a certain number upon whom God absolutely purposed to bestow his Spirit, taking away the heart of stone and giving them an heart of flesh, and we know that Dr. Davenant, in that very dissertation, in which one conclusion is, Mors sive passio Christi, ut universalis causa salutis humanae deum patrem, ipso facto oblationis eatews reddit placatum & reconciliatum humano generi, ut vere nunc dicatur paratus quemvis hominem in gratiam recipere, simulac in Christum crediderit; neminem tamen saltem ex adultis praedicta Christi mors reponit in statum gratiae actualis reconciliationis, sive salutis, antequam credat. Hath two more extremely opposite to his darling notions, Conc: 4 a. Positâ Christi morte omnibus hominibus applicabili sub conditione fidei, stat cum bonitate & justitia Divina suppeditare vel negare, sive nationibus, sive singularibus hominibus, media applicationis idque pro bene placito voluntatis sue, non pro disparitate voluntatis humanae: & p. 88 Mors Christi, ex speciali intentione Dei patris illud sacrificium ab aeterno ordinantis & acceptantis, Christique illud idem in plenitudine temporis deo patri offerentis, destinata fuit certis quibusdam hominibus (quos electos Scriptura vocat) iisdemque solis ut efficaciter & infallibiliter applicanda ad aeternae vitae consecutionem. The Comment upon this Thesis he thus gins; Hanc Thesin opponimus Arminiorum errori, quem Grevinchovius stabilire conatur, disser: de morte Christi, p. 7. Vbi docet Deum tradentem Filium suum, intendisse impetrationem reconciliationis omnibus et singulis communem, applicationem vero ejusdem impetratae nemini mortalium absolute voluisse. If Mr. P. cannot swallow these two last, let him answer the Doctor's arguments, and count me as much engaged to defend them, as if I myself had made them. If he can digest them, let him know that I have no quarrel with him about the former, which would never have found so many adversaries among Calvinists, if the Arminians had stated it so clearly, & proved it by so good arguments, as the Rev. Professor hath done. But what do I talk of agreeing with such a man as Mr. P? who rather than not fight, will contend with his own shadow. Dr. P. H. a bird of the same feather, who also took his flight from the Angel in Ivy-lane, will needs have Bishop Usher to differ from the Church of England in the point of universal redemption; mark his proof, p. 102. The Church of England doth maintain an universal Redemption of all mankind, by the death and sufferings of our Saviour. Well, and so doth the deceased Primate, p. 103. We think not that all mankind is so perfectly reconciled to Almighty God, as to be really and actually discharged from all their sins, before they believe, but that they are so far reconciled unto him, as to be capable of the remission of their sins, in case they do not want that faith in their common Saviour which is required thereunto. Well, and so thought the Primate too. 'Tis a wonder that a Doctor of Divinity should so unworthily handle a Reverend person, and fasten upon him a dissent from the Church of England, in a matter wherein he doth so perfectly agree with her. But he hath received the due desert of his bitterness, his Book being, as I am informed, burned by the hand of the common Hangman. And now Reader, thou wilt apply to me the speech of Diogenes concerning Mindas, but I shall ease thy patience, when I have only desired thee to resolve this most plain and easy question: Whether those opinions, which are contrary to the judgement of the Composers of our Articles, which have been frequently recanted by the divulgers of them, opposed by our Learned Professors, condemned by our civil authority, the contrary whereunto have been constantly defended in our Acts, the greatest Academical solemnities, be the Doctrine of our Church of England.   

ERRATA.  
Pref. r. that I. r. none know. for one r. once. p. 14. l. penult. r. Mat. 7.3, 4, 5. p. 74. l. 12. r. à Deo. p. 77. l. 24. r. 'tis p. 96. l. 6. for them r. his reasons.  
Mistakes in spelling, or in accenting Greek words, or in not distinguishing the members of sentences, if I should note, I should too much distrust the judgement of the Reader.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, OR, A Justification of the Fathers and Schoolmen in their Opinion, That Sin hath not a Positive Being.  
EXercising my Ministry at Brackley, I came into acquaintance with Mr. William Barlee, who upon the publication of his Correptory Correction, was pleased to bestow one Copy on me, desiring me freely to spend my thoughts upon it: In my Answer, though I could not but Intimate how much I disliked the sharpness of his stile, in some passages relating to his adversary, yet I could not but say, that there was something in the Argumentative part, unto which Mr. Pierce would scarce be able to return a satisfactory Answer: Which my opinion I yet see no reason to recant. For notwithstanding all his bustle and ratlings, yet impartial and judicious men may discern, he is but like that Goth in Procopius, who, though he fought fiercely, had the mortal arrows sticking in his helmet, whereof he soon after fell. The Gentleman had some part of his education among the Oxford Cavaliers, who were wont to outface their defeats with bonfires, and to ring their Bells after the greatest routs, and being a little tainted with that humour, resolves to Triumph who ever gets the victory. And indeed a Spirit of most childish insultation seems to have possessed as many, as have lift up an English pen against the Orthodox, in this quinquarticular controversy. I'll instance only in Mr. John Goodwin, who in the Preface to his Triumvirs, saith, that he hath not met with any thing in the writings of any, or of all the three men contesting with him, which had in the least shaken his confidence concerning the truth of the things by him asserted, or that, for the least space of time, put him to any stand or loss in his understanding concerning them, or to seek what to Answer to any thing they offer or object against any of them? which lines the greatest charity must needs look upon as so much vapouring Rhetoric dropped from his pen, in the absence of Judgement and conscience: Or as an essay of the Spartans valour, who being struck down by a mortal blow, used to stop their mouths with earth, that they might not be heard to quetch or groan, thereby to affright their fellows, or animate their Enemies. The reader hath not yet the occasion of my calamity: Mr. Barlee resolves to undertake the Divine philanthropy, and writes a second letter to me, desiring to borrow some books, and withal to know what I thought of his assailants reply: I had not then perused it, nor have I yet perused it, nor shall I ever peruse it, except I can find some of the Rabbins hours, which belong neither to night nor day. But it seems I had espied that his strange and long since exploded opinion of the positivity of sin, which made me write, that if he held sin to be positive, he must either hold it to be from God, (which is the blasphemy he chargeth upon the Calvinists) or else hold it to be God, which would be to bestow an Apotheosis on sin. Because whatever positive thing is not from God, is God. This my friend, without any leave obtained or asked from me, puts in print under my name: with no ill intent, I hope, but yet some what against the rule of friendship. But having entitled me to the old, innocent, Metaphysical maxim, that omne ens est vel primum vel a primo, how doth Mr. Pierce paratragaediate? How doth he tumble in his ugly Tropes, & roll himself in his railing eloquence? You would think he were some Tertullus, hired by an angry Parishioner, to accuse me before the Committee for ejection, of Ignorance, and scandal. I cannot, without perfect affront to my Conscience, and the rules of Christianity, return him blasphemer for blasphemer: For though I think the forementioned blasphemy doth naturally and lineally descend from that opinion, which he first vented in his Philanthropy, and now seeks to maintain; yet I think it no way consistent, with the ingenuity of a Scholar, or of a man, to charge an adversary with that blasphemy, which he every where disclaims, because in my opinion such a blasphemy flows from his principles. I know that the Lutherans are no better than infidels, if they deny the resurrection and ascension of Christ, and am pretty confident that their opinion concerning the ubiquity of the humane nature, cannot consist either with the one or with the other: shall I therefore say in print, that the Brethren of that persuasion deny those two fundamental Articles? nay rather let my right hand forget its skill, than writ any thing of that nature concerning them. And yet this is the case of the Calvinists, they hold an absolute decree of reprobation, hence it follows, says Mr. Pierce, that God is the Author of sin, and that man's destruction is not of himself. They deny any such consequences can be inferred, and writ books upon books, to show the grounds and reasons of their denial, sufficient one would think to stop the mouths of any calumniator, though as wide as a sepulchre. Withal declaring that they refuse not to be cursed with the bitterest anathemas, if they shall be found to father the least obliquity upon the most holy Lawgiver. And yet Mr. Pierce finds a forehead to say they make God the Author of Sin. And is angry with those that will not be as hugely uncharitable as himself. This he will pretend to do in great affection to the most vulgar and less intelligent readers, whose deliverance & liberty from the worst kind of thraldom he doth especially aim at in what he publisheth; as he tells us Pag. 5. That the vulgar may not be in danger to stumble at what was written in Latin, by men some of whose names they scarce ever heard of, whose Books they to be sure would never have bought, Mr. P. hath in great affection to their souls, translated some of the worst say of transmarine Divines into English. You are indeed obliged to do good to all, but especially to those vulgar ones of your own persuasion, and party, who are so exceedingly prejudiced against Mr. Calvin and others, from whom you pretend to derive your frightful expressions, that they'll ' not be in any danger of being misled by them. Therefore it would have been your wisest course to have drawn a Catalogue out of the writings of Bishop Abbot, Dr. John & Dr. Francis White, Dr. Field, Dr. Sanderson, Dr. Featley, Bishop Prideaux, who were their friends in point of Ceremony, whose Books are most of them in English, and commonly to be had, and the Authors of them acknowledged to be men of great desert and piety, and so may be the more apt to do mischief by instilling these kill Doctrines into the minds of men. But what if the maintainers of the absolute decree did deserve so severe a condemnation, how come I to be concerned in it? why, because he cannot conceive how that argument of mine (If sin is a positive entity, either God is the Author of it, or it is God,) should flow from any other fountain than my conceit of God's predetermination (before his prescience) of all events without exception. ●nd yet he knows that jesuits twenty & ten do use this Argument, who yet are the ablest, acutest, and most malicious opposers of the absolute decree, as stated by Calvin & others of our reformed writers. I have already secured him that I study no retaliation, only I will make bold to deal with him as Alexander did with his Bucephalus, take him a little by the bridle, and turn him to the Sun, that other men may see how he lays about him, though himself will not.  
First, he joins me with that common dei hominumque odium, Mr. Hobbs, & when he hath called me Hobbist, what can he say more, except he should call me Devil? But did I give him any reason to join me with that prodigious writer, or doth not Mr. Pierce rather do this on the same account as Ithacius, who having no other virtue but his hatred to the Priscillianists, became so wise in the end, that he set down all that differed from him for Priscillianists? Sulpit. Seu. lib. 2. p. 413. Both Mr. Hobbs, and Mr. Pierce say, that if God be the Author of the Action, than he is also the Author of the obliquity of the Action, and that there is no difference betwixt the sinful act, and the sin of the act, and this he knows I deny. And would the Reader think that I am an Hobbist for dissenting from Hobbes, and Mr. P. an Anti- Hobbist for agreeing with him? That Author is known to be one who exceedingly scorns the parts of all that differ from him, who contradicts the old received Philosophy, who bitterly inveighs against Presbyterians. And whether these Characters do better fit me or my adversary let others judge.  
Secondly, in his title-page he makes me an example of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which if he could be supposed to mean, that I were one that upon consideration of my many unworthynesses condemn myself, I must thank him for his commendation, and pray unro Christ for grace that I may abound in so noble an effect and part of repentance; but questionless with him I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostles sense, Tit. 2.11. i e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Theophylast, and this is in effect to call to all people to break of familiar converse with me, and to make me worse than an Heretic; for he was not thought self condemned till after the first and second Admonition, and that by a Bishop, saith Dr. Hammond; but he for a supposed oversight in Metaphysics thinks meet to print me such to all the World, though I be to this day Ignorant whether there be a Bishop in rerum naturâ, of a different opinion from me. Pref. that he might slur me he defiles his own conscience all over with an untruth; (thou wilt find men obtruding new Creeds on the Church, one inserting this Article, that God is no Spirit, another this, that God is the maker of all things real, and so by consequence unavoideable of all the wickedness in the World.) I confess I had so much charity as to think he intended not me, but some other in this so high charge. But that I find him Ch. 3. p. 163. thus deliver himself. Mr. Hick: builds backward, thus he lays it down as his principle, that God is the maker of all things that are real without exception, therefore of David's lying with Bathshebah, therefore of his adultery. If in that sentence which Mr. Barlee hath excerped out of my letter, he can find the word real, than I must necessarily either explain, or condemn myself; but having never used it, nor any term synonymous, I might leave him with those words delivered will thunder & lightning, thou shalt not bear false witness. I say indeed that all things positive are either God, or from God: But is positive and real all one? The darkness (which he saith improperly enough, was created by God) no wise man will call positive, yet all will say that it was real: privations are indeed ranked among entia rationis, but that is not because they do not antecedere operationem intellectus; for the air would be dark, and Bartimaeus blind, though no one thought so; but they then become entia rationis when they are conceived of otherwise than they be, as when darkness is conceived of as if it were some positive blackness. But what if I had said that God is the Author of all things real, why must this be called an article of my faith, or an obtruding a new article on the Church? Doth every one that gives his opinion, and brings an argument to confirm it, make a new Creed? Then shall we have more Creeds than there be sound believers. These are the two articles of my Creed, God is Holy, God is omnipotent, if any one do cordialy assent to these, I shall give him the right hand of fellowship, if in the explication of these two divine attributes he differ from me, I shall not make him a blasphemer, or expunge him out of the Catalogue of Christians, but charitably suppose that his error, if not too gross, proceeds rather from want of Philosophy than from want of piety, and do here once for all profess before the searcher of hearts, who hates nothing more than Hypocrisy, and that severe Register within me, to which I own more reverence than to affront it with a wilful lie, that I should be the less zealous in defending the privative nature of sin, if I did not think that this my assertion were the most probable way of reconciling those two Divine perfections of purity and omnipotence. I love Philosophy only as an handmaid to Divinity: as to those Scholastical speculations in which Theology is not at all concerned, I matter not much what opinion men be of, nor whether they be of any opinion at all. But I will not use so great severity, as to aggravate his so unworthy speeches, take them barely as thou findest them: Pref. I have envenomed Mr. Barlee, and intermeddled in his affairs, to such a desperate degree, that if I preach as is printed, my Disciples of all others have need of a preservative: Pag. 11. I am one of the prodigious pair of writers: Pag. 107. cap. 3. Mr. B. safest way is to spit in my face, who betrayed him to that senseless blasphemous inference; Pag. 154. My argument is the most horrible of all, hard to say whether more impious or more unscholarlike. Pag. 156. I must make some kind of satisfaction for so scandalous an attempt. Ib. my medium is a crying and a kill Doctrine. I am a malefactor, and fallen headlong into dangers, nay real mischiefs, by my own wilful precipitation of myself and others. Pag. 157. He corrects himself for talking Metaphysics to such a Scholar as I, who seem so great a stranger to them, that he may very well take up the Proverbial verse.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
pag. 159. The brethren's way of arguing, is the fantastic creature of the brethren. Pag. 161. I am a Beetle flying in the face of the Eagle, striking at God and his purity, by giving sin an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and laying my child, when I have so done, at another man's door. Pag. 162. My traitorous child hath done exactly to me, as I thought to have done unto my brother. Pag. 164. I argue like the Libertines, and as it were out of their mouths, Pag. 167. Mr. B. is debauched by me. Pag. 175. My apprehension is sadder than if I had thought Apotheôsis to be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pono. Ib. All I have discovered is my being overflown with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which could its banks have contained it, would not thus have gushed over upon no occasion, when 'tis plain the effect could be no other, but to drown my credit with a yellow, as well as my cause with a blacker Jaundice. And for a conclusion I am bid to read, consider, and apply what is spoken in Mark 3.28, 29, 30. as if I had done something bordering upon the coasts of the most accursed blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Having with the Badger bitten till his teeth meet, he lets go; and I trow it was high time: for was there ever a man, ab orbe condito, in whom malice, upon so small, so no reason, raged at that tedious and importune rate and height? Hath this learned Rector been lately made free of the Cart? Doth he think he may rail by authority? Or was he ambitious to publish a Treatise dirty enough to transform the gilded Angel in Ivy-lane into a black one, able to justify all the ugly brats of the wildest Sectaries that G. C. hath midwived into the world? I utter not the words of passion, but sobriety, knowing that many a poor scold hath been ducked in the Gumble-stool, many a deluded Quaker cast into prison, for words incomparably more civil and tolerable than most of those bestowed on me. Had my Antagonist been a resident in the University, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Mr. Vicecan. had been bound upon my complaint to have punished him with banition, or at least with incarceration, or public recantation; and yet Mr. P. who meats out all this hard measure to me, does every where complain of Mr. B's foul language against himself; not regarding that of Plutarch, which I have thrown into the Margin, nor that of the Apo●…le, Rom. 2.2, 3. nor that of our Saviour, Mat. 7.34, 35. Nay, as if all this were not enough, he makes himself also guilty of the greatest Hypocrisy, by giving it out to the world, that he hath done no more than he was in conscience and duty bound to. p. 156. and Pref. he would needs persuade me, That all he hath done is in order to my ease and safety too; and that I ought to be thank full for the diligent and impartial hand, which for some short time doth seem to hurt me. But seeing he himself had the same Phagedaenous and eating sores which he tells us were cured by good company, and good books, what necessity was there that mine should be touched with either the lance or caustick? If he had not delighted in such a composition, whose every line is gall and wormwood, why did he not before he thus blurred me with his blackest ink, First, inquire whether ever I did write any such thing to Mr. B. or no? For if Mr. B. be such a liar, as he represents him, why would he believe me the Author of so monstrous an Argument, upon the bare Authority of his report? 2. How did he know whether I related this Argument as from myself, and not only as the Argument of others? Or 3. why did he not by some private letter, endeavour to purge the peccant humour, before he made the passionate adventure of calling it obstinate? Let's try whether we can guess what might move Mr. P. who says in his Letter to Doctor Bernard, that in all his dealing with Mr. B. he was not so much as heated, so to flame against me. First; it was not sure the Argument itself; for that being used by Fathers, by Schoolmen of all Sects, by Protestant Writers of all persuasions, particularly by the most judicious Mr. Tho. Barlow (with whom for Metaphysical Learning Mr. P. will in modesty confess himself not worthy to be named in the same day) could not deserve so severe a censure. Seeing he tells us, that he resolves to do nothing until the most sober,  persons shall think it publicly useful, I shall make this request to him, that he would procure any one sober person, to give it under his hand, that it was publicly useful to call all those foolish and impious, who have used this Argument; or if such Epithets belong not unto others, why to me? Others have the industriâ printed the Argument, whereas I never thought that any thing which I wrote should have come to the Press: nay what I did write, was written in such haste, that I might well say with Jerome, Qui non ignoscit ingenio, ignoscat tempori: But I believe the sober men of his own persuasion, will be so far from approving his language, that they will rather let him taste of Memnon's discipline, who hearing a mercenary Soldier, with many bold and impure reports, exclaim against King Alexander, lent him a blow with his Lance, saying, That he had hired him to fight against Alexander, and not to rail.  
Secondly; though not the Argument in self, yet my party and my Masters, with whom he doth so frequently upbraid me, might justly move his choler: Indeed I find, Mr. P. guilty of partiality to so desperate a degree, that he makes Arminianism enough to a man's commendation, but Anti-arminianism a blasting of all graces, and an alloy to all endowments; as if it might be said of his Opinion, as Augustine speaks of Discretion, Tolle hanc, & virtus vitium erit. Once I find him acknowledging, that Piety and Learning might be found among the Absolute Predestinarians, but being now fallen from his first love, he thinks meet to brand Dr. Reynolds with the suspicion of being an Hypocrite; as if because he were a man of great parts and worth, he could not be in earnest of that party whom he hath owned in Praying, in Preaching, in Covenanting: Nay those against whom he writes are the wicked, and so by him not only thought, but also called in the Adu. to Mr. Bax: But as for those that are for the respective Decrees, and are no friends to Presbytery, they are, eo nomine, religious, excellent, renowned, immortal, what not? I will instance in two or three, upon whom he bestows the greatest commendations, sure not without some regret and recalcitration of his conscience. First, he blesseth the Author of an unlicensed Pamphlet, called, An Historical relation of the Judgement of some most worthy Bishops, holy Martyrs, and others, concerning God's election. Divi. Phil. p. 93. ch. 3. with the honourable appellation of a most learned Divine and Confessor, and seems to bewail it, that the book is in so few men's hands; but I shall let the Reader see, that if this book had had its desert, it must have been in fewer men's hands than it is. The forementioned scurrilous Pamphlet was reprinted Anno 1631, and licenced by Mr. Martin, Bishop Laud's Chaplain: when Sir Humphrey Lind, and Mr. Prynne complained to Archbishop Abbot of this execrable Imposture, the book was called in, Bishop Laud professing to his Grace, that he had given to his Chaplain such a rattling, as would make him never meddle with Arminian books or opinions more; nay at the Lords Bar he said, that he did put him out of his Chaplains place for licensing that Pamphlet. The first Author of this book was answered by Mr. Robert Crowly, as may be seen in our University Library, 4ᵒ O 5. This Crowly was a fugitive for Religion in Queen Mary's days, an eminent laborious Preacher in the time of Qu. Eliz. He not knowing the name of Mr. P's Confessor, calls him Cerberus; but Mr. John Veron the Queen's Chaplain, who was principally concerned in the book, found out his name to be Champneys, and in a Tract of his dedicated to her Majesty, and called a Defence of the Doctrine of Predestination, speaks thus of him [In this I comfort myself, that his tongue is known to be no slander: For the like did he most proudly attempt, in your most gracious Brother good King Edward the sixth's days, against all the godly Preachers of that time, calling them marked Ministers of Antichrist, and men void of the Spirit of God (for none, be they never so godly, never so earnest and faithful labourers in the Lord's vineyard, have the Spirit of God, or do know the efficacy of it but he only) as many godly persons be able to testify to his face: That he did therefore, and for many other abominable errors, which he then stoutly maintained, bear at that time a Faggot at Paul's-cross, Father Coverdale making then the Sermon there. Belike fearing now the like punishment, and that he should be compelled to revoke his Pelagian-like opinion, he durst not, for all his proud boast, set his own name to his railing and venomous books, nor yet suffer them to be sold openly or publicly in the Booksellers shops, but cowardously suppressing both his own name, and the name of his unwise and foolish Printer, got the whole Impression into his own hands, that so he might in huggermugger send them unto his private friends abroad, whom belike he suspected to be of his affinity and damnable opinion: Howbeit this could not be wrought so privily, but that within a while, some of his books came into my hands, whereby shortly after the Printer was known, and brought to his Answer, whom this stout champion of Pelagius hath left in the briars; and lest himself should be fain to show a reason of his Doctrine, doth keep himself out of the way still, and dares not once show his face: If he be able to maintain his Doctrine against my Book, let him come forth and play the man, I am ready at all times to yield to the truth, and unto the sincere teachers thereof] And doth this Gentleman deserve to be saluted a Confessor?  
A second Aethiopian, whom he seeks to make white, is the English Tilenus; he's styled the excellent, and this is said of him; If he be alive to undertake his own cause against Mr. Baxter, the world will find 'twill be but impar congressus: Yea he seems to complain, that he hath not the happiness to know him in the least degree. But what is there in this scribbler that may deserve such Eulogies? First, he casts the highest scorn upon the Tryers, making them to ask such questions of those that come before them, as in all probability it never came into their thoughts to ask, which is such a piece of Impudence, as no one hath ventured to imitate him in, but that Ishmael of Coleman-street, whose hand being against all men, hath provoked all men, even the common Pamphleter to lift up a hand against himself. Secondly; This poor fellow makes himself an adversary, out of his own fancy, and driving him before him from one end of the Book to the other, shoots all his arrows at this man of ugly clouts of his own framing, as if it were that venerable Synod of Dort: And does he not deserve to be called excellent? and to be preferred to Mr. Baxter?  
But as to my party and Masters, I have some satisfactory things to return in way of Answer.  
First; I have the thousand witnesses to attestate, that the desires of my soul are, to receive a Disciple in the name of a Disciple, a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, not as concurring with me in any opinion, concerning the Mint and Cummin of Church Discipline. My cordial affections to those Episcopal Divines, whose endeavours are to promote that in which all confess the power of Godliness to consist, are as well known, as I myself am. And I challenge all the world to produce that ear that ever heard me speak the least syllable that might tend to inodiate the person, or to vilify the parts and pains of any one Prelatist, because such.  
2. Though that little I have read of Mr. calvin's Institutions which, is not above the fourth part, makes me fully of Salmasius his mind, who said in Epistola Verini, he had rather be the Author of that Book, then of all that ever were made by Grotius; yet so unhappy is Mr. P. in guessing at my Masters and the Books in which I converse, that I can safely profess, as a precise and measured truth, when I sent that letter to Mr. B. I had read more in Doctor Tailor, and Doctor Hammond, than I had in all those Authors mentioned in his Title-page, upon whom he pretends to make occasional reflections: And if Presbytery be a crime, I must needs say that I have learned it from Episcopal men.  
1. Is this Presbytery to say that a Presbyter and a Bishop differ in degree only, and not in order? that I learn from the late right Reverend the Primate of Ireland, from Doctor Holland Regius Professor, who so determined in Publicis Comitiis, in direct contradiction to Dr. Laud.  
2. Is this Presbytery to hold that an ordination by Presbyters is valid? That I learn from Bishop Andrews, who ordained a Scotchman Bishop, never made Priest but by Presbyters, which he would not have done, had ordination by Presbyters seemed unto him a nullity. I learn it from Bishop Downam in his consecration Sermon, Pag. 43. Who saith that the contrary opinion is proper to Papists: from Doctor Forbs, who in his Irenicum largely proves it. Indeed among the Episcopal Divines I scarce know any contrary unto me in this, except those who drew the scheme of their opinions after that Bishop Laud was Lord of the house. And I think it no uncharitableness to say, that some of later times, in making their Judgements, had very great respect unto the Stars that were culminant.  
3. Is this Presbytery to assert the sole power of Jurisdiction was not in the Bishops, & that they had no warrant to delegate their power unto a Lay Chancellor? This I learn from the judicious Lord Verulam, who saith, that the first was a thing almost without example in good Government, and therefore not unlikely to have crept in, in the degenerate and corrupt times. As to the 2. the deputation of their authority. I see no perfect and sure ground for that neither; being somewhat different from the examples & rules of Government: we see in all Laws in the World offices of confidence and skill, cannot be put over, nor exercised by deputies. In his works printed 1657. p. 239. 240.  
4. Is this Presbytery to aver that after a great abuse of the Episcopal power, the civil Magistrate might take it away root and branch, and commit the whole Government of the Church unto Presbyters, at least for a season? This I learn from the learned Grotius, at whose name Mr. P. is wont to rise up in an ecstasy of Admiration, de Imperio Sum. potest. chap. 11. Nay, if this be Presbytery to maintain the greater antiquity and primitivenesse of Presbytery than Espiscopacy, for that I need not consult David blondel, the Lord George Digby a great stickler for our English prelacy so inform's me in his letter to Sr. K. D. Pag. 119. The Presbytery of Scotland in point of Government hath a greater resemblance then either yours or ours to the first age of Christ's Church.  
5. Is this Presbytery and Calvinisme to assert an absolute decree of election and reprobation, and to manifest the greatest indignation against those who give it out unto the World, that those opinions either take away the liberty of the will, or make God the Author of sin, this also I learn from Episcopal divines of the first magnitude. Reader, peruse their words, and then tell me whether I mistake their meaning. Dr. Abbot calls Bishop for aspersing the forementioned tenant, as if it made God the Author of sin, Elymas, and his fellow Wright on the same score, foul mouthed dog, and a filthy swine, who wallowing in the muck & dirt of Popish Ignorance, hath his eyes so daubed up therewith, that he seethe not his own way. Answer to the Preface. All this in a book dedicated to King James, who in requital of his pains bestowed on him the Bishopric of Salisbury. Yea the forementioned Writer in his Defence against Mr. higgon's saith, That if Luther have any where in that lewd and impious manner calumniated the Church of Rome, he will not deny but that Mr. higgon's should have cause to style him a foul mouthed dog.  
When the Apostate Spalatensis objected this against the same Doctrine, what words Dr. Crakanthorpe thought meet to use against him, Mr. Barlee hath already told Mr. Pierce: I shall only add the Book was dedicated to King Charles, and hath this title put to it, Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae; of which Church Mr. P. professeth himself a dutiful and obedient son; and that Dr. Abbot saith of that Treatise, that it was the most accurate piece of controversy that was written since the Reformation. Next let us hear the most learned and peaceable Dr. Sanderson, con. 2. ad Clerum, p. 29, 30. Sundry of the Doctors of our Church teach truly and agreeably to Scriptures the effectual concurrence of Gods will and power, with subordinate agents in every, and therefore even in sinful actions; Gods free election of those whom he purposeth to save of his own grace, without any motives in or from themselves; the immutability of God's love and grace towards the Saints Elect, and their certain perseverance therein to salvation; the justification of sinners by the imputed righteousness of Christ, apprehended and applied unto them by a lively faith, without the works of the Law. These are sound and true, and (if rightly understood) comfortable, and right profitable doctrines; and yet they of the Church of Rome have the forehead, (I will not say to slander, my Text alloweth more,) to blaspheme God and his Truth, and the Ministers thereof, for teaching them; Bellarm. Gretser, Maldonate, and the Jesuits, but none more than our own English Fugitives, Bristol, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, and all the rabble of that crew freely spend their mouths in barking against us, as if we made God the author of sin; as if we would have men sin and be damned by a fatal necessity; sin whether they will or no; be damned whether they deserve it or no; as if we opened a gap to all licentiousness and profaneness; let them believe it is no matter how they live, heaven is their own cock sure; as if we cried down Good Works, and condemned Charity: Slanders loud and false, yet easily blown away with one single word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; these imputations upon us and our doctrine are unjust, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let them that misreport us know, that without repentance their damnation will be just. Dr. Field, B. 3. p. 117. The next Heresy which they say we are fallen into, is the Heresy of Florinus, who taught that God is the author and cause of sin; This, saith Bellarm. Calvin, Luth. Martyr have defended in their writings; of this sinful, and wicked, and lying report, we are sure God is not the author, but the devil. & pag. 140. Cal. Then is not worse than the Manichees, in making God the author of those evils which the Manichees attribute to an evil beginning, as Bellarm. is pleased to pronounce of him; but is farther from that hellish conceit than Bellarm. is from hell itself, if he repent not of these hellish slanders. Dr. Ward. prae. de pecca. orig. p. 148. Prodiit non ita pridem clanculum liber, quem author intitulavit, amor dei erga genus humanum, qui acriter contendit ex concessis sublap. satis evidenter inferri omnium peccatorum hominum reproborum deum esse verum & principalem authorem. Audax assertum vel verius impudens calumnia.  
I might mention more, but I forbear, and do earnestly desire those Episcopal Divines, who close with us in the points of present contest, that they would bethink themselves and consider, what favour they must expect from these Arminian Ardelio's, no more than what Polyphemus promised Ulysses, to be last devoured. If they cannot fall down and worship the Idols which these men have set up, they must expect to be thrown into the fiery furnace; nay they are tormented in it already in Augustine's sense, who calls the mouth of an angry adversary by that name; for mark his word, ch. 2. p. 61. Whatever dishonours have been done unto the Protestant name by those of the Kirk, or Consistory, or their adherents here in England, yet the dutiful sons of the Church of England have ever been free from any part of that guilt. This doth expunge Bishop Hall, Bishop Morton, Bishop Brownerig, whom we (as they deserve) call Fathers, out of the number of the dutiful Sons of the Church of England: Nay he sticketh not in the Preface to the Reader, p. 6. to place them among the very unsound and unruly members of this Church. Let me take the boldness to beseech them who are of any authority in that party, as they love the truth, than which nothing ought to be more precious, as they tender the welfare and safety of poor souls, for whom Christ died, that they would either plainly say, that they have all this while been mistaken, and through ignorance Preached and Printed Blasphemy, or else brand this false accuser with the letter K, which when the I awe I allude to was made, was the first letter of the word Calumniator.  
3. I have spent more time in reading the Author's Pro & Con about these points, than ever I intent to do, being of opinion that the greatest Scholars will never be able fully to satisfy their own, or other men's Reasons about them: Nor should this seem any wonder to us, who cannot be ignorant how many points there be in Natural Philosophy, in which a man plungeth himself into inextricable difficulties, whether he affirm or deny them. With what confidence have I heard one young Sophister maintain, that continuum fit ex indivisibilibus? and another, that continuum non fit ex indivisibilibus? both thought themselves in the right; but men of mature judgements standing by, could easily see, that neither the one, nor the other could free his Assertion from the common Objections brought against it. I thank God I have not the least temptation to doubt concerning the Trinity of the Persons, nor the Hypostatical Union of the two Natures; yet I never thought myself able to vindicate those mysteries from all the subtle Arguments and niceties of unbelieving sophisters. The like I think concerning the Doctrine of God's Decrees, and the manner of the Spirits working Grace in the hearts of the Elect, these are matters so very mysterious, and my understanding so dark, that I can scarce hope ever in this world to be freed from all scruples about them. Would you therefore know why I hold Absolute, Eternal, Personal Election, Efficacious determining Grace, and the certain infallible perseverance of all Believers; Truly because I find these opinions most agreeable to Scripture, to the communis sensus fidelium, the instinct and impulse of the new creature in all ages; and, because I find they do most tend to the debasing of sinful man, and to the exaltation of Christ my Saviour, and that free Grace of his, by which I hope to be acquitted at the last day.  
To this end I will relate two Historical passages, with which I have been much taken; the one from Father Paul (who hath filled the Christian world with his admiration) Hist: of the Counc. of Trent, lib. 2. pag. 212. he speaking of the debates in that Assembly concerning these two opinions, thus expresseth himself. The first opinion (which is the opinion Mr. P. so declaimes against) as it is hidden, and mystical, keeping the mind humble, and relying on God, without any confidence in itself, knowing the deformity of sin, and the excellency of divine grace, so the second was plausible and popular, cherishing humane presumption, and making a great show, it pleased more the preaching Friars, than the understanding Divines, and the Courtiers thought it probable as consonant to politic reasons, it was maintained by the Bishop of Bitonto, and the Bishop of Salpi shown himself very partial, the defenders of this using humane reason prevailed against the others, but coming to the testimonies of the Scripture they were manifestly overcome. The other story I find in the Preface to the Parallels, drawn up, as I suppose, by Doctor Featly, and Doctor Good. Accacius Baron of Dona, residing some months in England, to solicit the recovery of the Palatinate, was often set upon, and much laid at by a stranger there, named Roerghest, a man deeply engaged in the Arminian party, who though he could not draw him from the truth to that side, yet cast such mists of doubts before him, that his Lordship, for better clearing, desired the conference of some English Divines versed in Controversies of this nature, and opportunely meeting with two at once, he demanded of them why the Divines of England so generally distasted the Doctrine broached by Arminians, their answer was, that albeit those tenants were plausible to corrupt reason, and set out to the best advantage by the wit and art of the Patrons thereof; yet that the sacred Scriptures, to which natural reason must bow and strick sail, throughly searched and impartially scanned gave no support at all to the new model of God's counsels framed in man's brains; and that the prime Fathers of most eminent note in the Church, above twelve hundred years ago, at the first birth of those mishapen brats dashed them against the stones, and consequently that by the same Orthodox ancient Church the new Revivers of those errors at this day were damnati antequàm nati, precondemned in the loins of their parents. The Baron somewhat affected with this answer, replied, certe si Arminius Pelagium refodit, merito vos Arminium defoditis. Not long after the said solicitor came to the Baron again, hoping to make him his Proselyte, the Baron acquainting him with the English Divines answer, he was at first so confident as to say, quid tandem Arminio cum Pelagio? But when those Divines had exhibited to the Baron a Parallel betwixt them, since printed, this confident Gentleman, though he undertook to return forthwith a direct and punctual answer, quitted the field, took Sea and returned into Holland, and was never heard of more. I know Mr. P. also doth very much fume to be accounted Pelagian, Semi-pelagian, Massillian, etc. But if his feet were not crooked, how came their shoes to fit him so well? I remember a saying of Doctor Sanderson, in his fifth Sermon, ad Populumi, that the Prophecies of saint Paul and saint John make it so unquestionable that Rome is the seat of Antichrist, that they who will needs be so unreasonably charitable, as to think the Pope is not Antichrist, may at least wonder by what strange chance it fell out that these Apostles should draw the picture of Antichrist in every point and limb so just like the Pope, and yet never think of him; Mr. P. his quick wit hath prevented me in the application, never did the stile of an unfortunate writer belong to man, if not to him, supposing him to have no communion with those old Heretics, for he hath form no weapon, against which I cannot furnish myself with armour from the Magazine of Austin and others, who had to do with Pelagius and his Disciples.  
But it may be the party with whom he supposeth me to say a confederacy are, the Puritans, for those he cannot name with any patience or moderation he tells us (advertisement to Mr. Baxter) that they were defined at Hampton Court, to be protestants frighted out of their wits, such as are known to be painted sepulchers, having the form only of godliness, without the power of it: thought by judicious Hooker to be fit inhabitants for a wilderness, not for a well ordered City. Such as have ever despised dominion, and spoken ill of dignities, have been formerly boutefeus, and men of blood, the proverbial Authors & Fautors of sedition and violence in Church and state. The words of the relator of the Hampton Court conference are these: Pag. 37. This and some other motions seeming to the King and Lords very idle and frivolous, occasion was taken in some by-talke, to remember a certain description which Mr. Butler of Cambridge made of a Puritan, A Puritan is a protestant frayed out of his wits. And must what is said in some by-talke be called defining? If I were minded to pay Master P. in his own coin, how easily might I tell him, that the Arminians were defined by a wise King in a premeditated declaration Atheistical sectaries, that many of them are known to have neither the form nor the power of godliness, of whom judicious Amyraldus saith, that they can scarce be supposed ever to have felt the power of the Holy Ghost, concerning whom the foresaid King said that if they were not with speed rooted out, no other issue could be expected than the curse of God, infamy throughout all the reformed Churches, and a perpetual rent and distraction in the whole body of the State, concerning whom also the States themselves said, that they had created them more trouble than the King of Spain had by all his wars. And one would think the King and the States should know better how to set the saddle upon the right Horse then Master P.  
Ob. These were Presbyterated Arminians, our English Episcopal Arminians are free from any such guilt.  
Ans. Concerning them, not I, but the Viscount Falkland shall speak, who as he had more courage than to be afraid of them, so had he more ingenuity than to wrong them, in the before commended speech to the house of Commons, Pag. 3, 4.  
Master Speaker, he is a great stranger in Israel who knows not that this Kingdom hath long laboured under many and great oppressions, both in Religion and liberty, and his acquaintance here is not great, or his ingenuity less, who doth not both know and acknowledge that a great, if not a principal, cause of both these, hath been some Bishops and their adherents. Master Speaker, a little search will serve to find them to have been the destruction of unity, under pretence of uniformity, to have brought in superstition and scandal under the titles of reverence and decency; to have defiled our Church, by adorning our Churches: to have slackened the strictness of that union which was formerly between us and those of our Religion beyond the Sea, an action as unpolitick as ungodly. And because I know the Reader will not account me tedious whilst I use the words of so eloquent a Lord, I shall recite more passages from him to the same purpose, Pag. 9 We shall find of them to have both kindled & blown the Common fire of both Nations, to have both sent and maintained that book, of which the Author hath no doubt long since wished with Nero, utinam nefcissem literas, and of which more than one Kingdom hath cause to wish, that when he writ that, he had rather burned a Library, though of the value of Ptolemy's. We shall find them to have been the first and principal cause of the breach, I will not say of, but since the pacification at Barwick, we shall find them to have been the almost sole abettors of my Lord of Strafford, whilst he was practising upon another kingdom, that manner of Government which he intended to settle in this, where he committed so many, so mighty, and so manifest enormities, as the like have not been committed by any Governor in any Government since Verres left Sicily. And after they had called him over from being Deputy of Ireland, to be in a manner Deputy of England (all things here being governed by a Juntillo, and that Juntillo governed by him) to have assisted him in the giving of such counsels, and the pursuing of such courses, as it is a hard and measuring cast, whether they were more unwise, more unjust, or more unfortunate, and which had infallibly been our destruction, if by the grace of God their share had not been as small in the subtlety of Serpents, as in the innocence of Doves. But in entitling the honest Puritans to the manifold violences that have been attempted or practised in Church and State, he borrows a piece of policy from the Jesuits, who if they had prospered in blowing up the Parliament house, had intended to give it about, that that so horrid and hellish a fact was perpetrated by he knows whom. Honest Bishop Carleton in his Examination of Mr. Montague's Appeal, saith; That albeit the Puritans disquieted the Church about their conceived Discipline, yet they never moved any quarrel about the Doctrine of our Church, and that till Montague there was no Puritan Doctrine known. Mr. Wotton saith in his answer to the Popish Atti: p. 33. He that makes difference between the Protestants and Puritans in matters of Faith, doth it either ignorantly or maliciously. Mr. T. Fuller 610. p. 99 We must not forget that Spalleto (I am confident I am not mistaken therein) was the first who professing himself a Protestant, used the word Puritan to signify the defenders of matters doctrinal in the English Church. Formerly the word was only taken to denote such as dissented from the Hierarchy in Discipline and Church-government, which now was extended to brand such as were Anti-arminians in their judgement. So that by Puritans, in all probability must be meant non-conformists. And if Mr. P. dare say, that such men as Mr. Paul Baine, Mr. Arthur Hildersham, Mr. Dod, and Mr. Cleaver the Decalogists; Mr. Tho. Hooker, Mr. John Ball, Mr. Tho. Shepherd, were void of the power of godliness, or that they had not more of it than had their persecutors, he must either expect not to be believed, or seek some other place than England to vent his passion in.  
If by the Puritans he meaneth the giddy Brownists, I have not a word to say in their excuse, but this, that the Prelatical oppression was such, as might have made wiser people than they mad. Had they not a colourable pretext to call some of our Prelates Antichristian, whose Courts vexed sundry laborious Preachers, because they could not bow at the name of Jesus, when as sundry idle sots, whom they might frequently observe to stagger in the streets, were never questioned.  
But the most probable ground of his fury is yet behind, my being noted by Mr. Barlee in the Margin, to be a man of his own College: for do but observe the phrases and periods of the man upon this occasion. For aught I know he may be also in possession of mine own Fellowship, and mine own Chamber, and mine own meat and drink, and those yearly revenues which are mine own too; and for the which I may the rather expect to have some satisfaction, because it seems the Visitors made him one of my Receivers and Usufructuaries (for my legitimate heir or successor they could not make him) And I have reason to be glad that he is thought such a pious and learned man; because if he is pious, he will the sooner pay me my Arrears; and if he is learned, he will not object against my known and indisputable right pag. 155. and Diu. Phil. p. 147. I suffered the loss of what I thought to be the pleasantest possession on earth; for being secretly suggested to be the Author of some books, which to this very day I could never hear named; and though I earnestly desired that I might hear myself accused, and know distinctly my accusation, and be heard speak for myself, yet Dr. Reynolds could not obtain that for me. Thus he hath thrown his fiery darts at me, at fare the greater part of Heads and Fellows of Colleges in Oxon: at the Visitors, and at the two Houses of Parliament. But I know not how I am so little solicitous concerning the quenching of these Darts, that I find myself carried away with a very pleasing diversion concerning two different kinds of sober distraction or melancholy; the one wherein the brain is generally and equally ill affected to all objects; the other, where the distemper is confined to some one object or other; the brain being otherwise very sound and sober upon all other objects and occasions. So Laurentius tells us of a Noble man, that otherwise had his senses very perfect, and would discourse of any sub●ect very rationally, but was persuaded that he was glass. And Huartus tells us of a Noble man's footboy in Italy, that thought himself a Monarch: And Josephus Acostae tells us a sadder story of a Doctor of Divinity, who would affirm, that he should be a King and a Pope too; the Apostolical See being translated to those parts of America: which, together with some other frantic distempers, made him condemned to the fire for an Heretic. Fare be it from me to wish or presage any such kind of punishment to Mr. P. for his impudence against the supreme Authority of the Nation; but I am under some temptation to think, that Mr. P. how discreet and sober soever in other matters, is fallen into some Hypochondriacal conceits much of that nature; for what else could make him, after that he hath been known for some years, to be an Husband, and peaceably to have enjoyed the Rectory of Brington, to talk of an indisputable right to a Fellowship, chamber, meat, and drink, yearly revenues in Magdalene College? Nay, he prints as if he had right unto two Fellowships, one for Mr. Thomas, and another for Mr. Pierce, how else am I but one of his Receivers? Let's try whether by a few questions we can make him more sober,  
1. What would he have me pay him Arrears for? the usus fructus is mine; why else am I said to be made usufructuary? An usufructuary wanteth nothing but the title; he hath jus in re, though not ad rem. Well, sigh he doth so please himself in a title to yearly revenues at Magd. Coll. I shall desire him to look over his Postpredicaments once more, and there he shall find, that the modus habendi uxorem, is by Logicians called pessimus: by which they mean, that it is the most improper, but to a Fellow of a College it is the worst on another account, because it doth evacuate and nullify his title to all Academical enjoyments.  
2. Had he not better have said nothing, than said any thing, which might look like an affirmation, that he suffered the loss of his sweetest enjoyment, for being suspected to be Author of a Libel? When as we all know, that he was turned out, not by the Visitors, but by the Committee of Lords and Commons, for non submission to the Authority of Parliament in visiting the University, for the doing of which a liberty was reserved in the Articles granted by the Lord Fairfax at the surrender.  
3. Is it not impudence to say, that the Visitors authorised by the two Houses, under the broad Seal of England, could not make me his legitimate successor? Let him also say, that the Honourable Judges are Murderers, or else tell us how the Parliament, which could give them power to take away men's lives, could not also give power to others to take away his Fellowship. I have all this while gratified him in his ungrounded supposition, upon which his pen did run riot, viz. my being in his Chamber, and succeeding him in his Fellowship, but the truth is (and that Mr. P. had opportunity to know) his place was void before I was so much as Demy, nor am I in possession of the Chamber which was once his. For a conclusion, I shall desire this my Adversary to commune with his own heart, and impartially to inquire whether it be not envy, and not conscience, which maketh him to exclaim with so much bitterness against the late ejections, sequestrations, deprivations; and whether he was so much offended at those who enjoyed the places of such Heads, or Fellows of Colleges as were ejected, whilst Oxon being a Garrison was not Oxon; and whether our late sequestrations (which yet I undertake not in all things to acquit) were not more justifiable than those proceed in the late Archb. times, when men were suspended ab officio & beneficio, merely for not reading the Book of Sports.  
Having removed the rubbish, we may now come at the question, which is, Whether moral evil, as such, be a privation? Concerning which, the terms being explained, 'twill be no difficult matter to determine. What evil in general is, can perhaps scarce be declared by any one common definition, nor hath such a definition been attempted by any but Voetius the son, in his Theol. Nat: p. 539. sometimes things very perfect and positive are called evil, as the venomous qualities in Plants, not that they are evil in themselves, but by extrinsecall denomination, in regard of their efficiency, of this kind of evil we now dispute not. And indeed nothing is properly said to be evil, but that which is such by  denomination, as wanting some either natural, or moral perfection that it ought to have. The most common division of evil is into evil of punishment, and evil of sin, called by Tertullian, malum supplicii, and malum delicti: by Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Our debate is of the evil of sin, which only can be called moral evil. The next term is the restrictive particle (as) by which we understand malum formaliter sumptum, sin considered abstractly from that either act, habit, or faculty in which it is, and unto which it gives denomination. The not distinguishing betwixt the sinful act, and the sin of the act, is the stone at which Mr. P. hath all along stumbled. He tells me, that sin being a complexum quid in the acknowledgement of all, cannot admit of an abstraction, and yet remain the complexum that it was before abstraction, p. 164. very wisely and warily spoken; as who should say, I cannot abstract, but I must abstract; I cannot indeed abstract sin from a sinful action, so as it should still remain sinful; nor can I abstract whiteness from a white wall so as that it should still remain white; for 'tis constituted white by whiteness: But though it be the whiteness that makes it white, yet it is not the whiteness that makes it a wall; and therefore I may consider the whiteness and the wall apart: The Abstract and Concrete word do both signify the same form, but not in the same way; because the Concrete doth in obliquo connote that subject unto which the denominating form agrees; but if at any time the Concrete be used with a reduplication, than it is all one with the Abstract, saith Smiglesius; indeed album qua album, and albedo differ little. Sinful signifies both the subject that is sinful, and its sinfulness, sin or sinfulness, the mere pravity and irregularity: Bus this will not down with Mr. P. therefore he tells us, p. 83. 1. That action and quality are both accidents. 2. That an accident is not the subject of an accident. 3. That some accidents are separable from their subjects of inhesion, some not, as risibility from a man. Blush all you that have any respect for Magd. Coll. to find that one that was for some years' Fellow of that Foundation, should be ignorant of that which Freshmen of two Terms standing commonly know. May not an Accident be the immediate subject of inhesion to an accident, though only substance can be the ultimate? If not, than the Question, An fides sit in Intellectu, an in voluntate, with six hundred more of the like nature, are at an end. Or what if the Action were but the Subject of Denomination, might not its evil be distinct from it? Nor would this exact Gentleman, if he had to do with a Sophister, escape the lash, for calling Risibilitie an Inseparable Accident, it being the most common instance of a Propriety, betwixt which, and an Inseparable Accident, there is a most gross difference. But if he think that the evil quality doth as necessarily flow from the Essence of an Action, as Risibility doth from the Essence of a man (which he must think, unless he hath written ridiculous impertinencies) I conceive he hath not one man alive of his judgement. Yet at last, in a lucid interval, he tells us, p. 84. He can discern a difference betwixt the Action and its quality, by which it is evil. Let him but stick to that distinction, and I'll ne'er put him to distinguish between the same evil action and itself: Nor did any one else; but he hath frequently frightful apparitions in his own fancy, in the vanquishing whereof he takes not a little pride. Nor will I offend his terse ears, with such a barbarous word as pecceity, which he tells us occurs not in any Author sacred or profane. Only I must observe how variously his pulse beats, p. 13. Sin itself is a Physical Abstract at the grossest, of which sinfulness at least is an Abstract Metaphysical, which admitting not any composition, cannot further be Abstracted, no not so much as in Imagination. p. 78. c. 2. Sin is a Concrete in respect of sinfulness, and doth note the same thing in one word, thot sinful action doth in two, which I will make him to apprehend, do he what he can to the contrary: besides, not reading what I writ, by showing that a sin and a sinful action, or act, or motion, have the same enunciation in all propositions imaginable: p. 84. To prevent a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I give this notice to to Mr. W. that if the word wickedness be not always synonymous with sin, yet it is so often: pag. 164. Sin is a complexum quid in the acknowledgement of all.  
1. That sin is a complexum quid, is not acknowledged by all, or any; except by complexum you'll mean complexum ex genere & differentlâ; for sin is an abstract word, and doth not in its signification connote any subject.  
2. It hath neither truth nor sense in it, that a sin, and a sinful act, or action, or motion, have the same enunciation in all Propositions Imaginable; I can say, not to do what a man is bound to do is a sin; but I hope it is not a sinful act, or action, or motion; sin may be predicated of original and habitual corruption, so cannot sinful act, or action. Let Mr. P. explain how sin is a Physical abstract, and how it is synonymous to the word wickedness, and yet signifieth but the same thing in one word, that sinful action doth in two, and he shall reconcile what to me seems not reconcileable. If I had said albedo is a concrete in respect of albedineitas, and signified that in one word, which superficies alba doth in two, I should be thought at Magd. Coll. to forget myself extremely. And to prevent a Logomachy, I further add, that sin and sinfulness are to me synonymous, and therefore perhaps I may use them promiscuously, meaning by them what the Latins do by peccatum, pravitas, malitia, and the Greeks by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Little probability may the Reader think we should agree; for he saith, p. 150, 151. That sinis so perfectly a Concrete, that unless it is a Concrete, it cannot be conceived to be a sin, no more than a concrete can be conceived not to be a concrete; but I say that sin is so perfectly an abstract, that if we conceive not of it as an abstract, we conceive not of it as sin; I am to seek what vox Abstracta is, if sin be not such.  
The third term is privation: which I must the rather explain, because he tells me, Pag. 162. That I seem to make no difference between a simple Negative, and a Privative. A Privation with me, (as with all others) is the absence of a positive form, in a subject capable of such a form: Instances are commonly given of blindness, deafness, etc. Mr. P. indeed, seems not to know the difference between a negation, and a privation, as any Sciolist, will gather from his words, Divin. Phil. p. 111. It cannot so much as be pretended, that every sin is only privative; for every privation presupposeth a habit, which every sin cannot do: because a man may be covetous, or cruel, who never was liberal, or compassionate, which rather implies a negation, than a Privation of those virtues which he hath not lost, but never had: This is one of the convincing demonstrations which he tells me I had not the courage to venture upon. Must not he be very spleen bound, that would not smile at such stuff? Did this disputant never peep into a Philosopher, to know the signification of the word privation? if he did not, why doth he venture to use a Philosophical dialect? If he did, how could he make shift, not to remember, that privation is as well the absence of a form that should, or might have been in the subject, as of a form that sometime was in it? One of the three principles of natural generation, doth denote the absence of a form that never was in the subject, but of which the subject is only capable, and yet sure it was wont to be called privatio: But the reader hath had too too much of these trifles: I had rather that he would take notice that there is a twofold privation, in respect of a habit: The one pure, the other not pure, the one in privari, the other in privatum esse, as Aquinas doth express it somewhat more roundly. The privation also which hath respect to an action is twofold, one that altogether takes away the act, the other that takes away but the rectitude of the act: the question therefore is; Whether that evil quality, or quasi quality, from which any act, or habit is denominated evil, be a privation, as I say, or a positive entity as Mr. P, saith. That it is not a positive entity, I prove by good authority, & better reasons. By authority, 1. of the Fathers and other ancient Christian writers, who did not write in the Scholastical stile and strain: they with one mouth assert the mere privative nature of sin. Dionys. Areop. in his book de Divinis nominibus frequently speaks to this purpose: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the Reader peruse the whole discourse of that ancient, in that place, with the two Greek Scholiasts on him:  
Greg. Nyssen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oratione Catechetica, pag. mihi 490. Joan. Damascenus: Orthod. fid. lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Naz. Orat. ad Julianum, is of the same mind. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; his Scholiast Nicetas, p. 1045. Neque enim malum substantia ulla est, sed boni privatio, quemadmodum & tenebrae luminis recessus: Non enim alia est mali substantia quàm virtutis abscessus. Athanasius I shall commend hereafter. Amongst the Latins Austin and Anselm, (who have both, not obiter, but data operâ, enquired into the formalis ratio of Sin) have determined it not to be positive: Aug. toto libro de natura boni: Anselm, de concep. Virg. lib. 1. cap. 4, 5, 6. De casu diaboli, à Cap. 8. ad 11. Now though I would not err with the Fathers, yet do I less distrust myself to err, while I keep them company, and do with the more confidence, look an adversary in the face, when my quiver is full of their Testimonies: & 'tis in favour to the Readers purse and patience that I fill it no fuller.  
Secondly, I might strengthen my opinion from the Schoolmen, amongst whom I have an Army to a man: as is confessed even by Arriaga. The first that ever was against me, as Faventinus thinks, was Cajetan, and those that assert the positivity of sin are by Rada called Cajetanistae; so that I may say to Mr. P. where was your opinion before Luther? for Luther and Cajetan are known to be contemporaries. Yet not to wrong Cajetan, he only holds the essence of the sin of commission to be positive, but that the sinfulness of omission was so, he never dreamt. Do these authorities signify nothing with Mr. P? hear him: Pag. 174. If either the Schoolmen err, or were mistaken, or were never read, who can help it? I see judgement often varieth with interest, and things acquire a price, not so much for what they are in themselves, as for what they are relatively to our ends and purposes. The Schoolman's authority is no good money when he should take it; is currant coin when he should pay it, I must needs say that the general suffrage of the Schools doth signify much to me, in matters where they are not overawed by a Church Canon. But he hath a prettier evasion than this, Pag. 170. The Jesuits in waggery did purposely propagate many blasphemies, arising from the tenet of unconditional reprobation, in Protestant parts of the Christian world, that by making them odious, they might fright men from thence into the Church of Rome. If there be any Jesuits that do propagate what they apprehend to be blasphemy, I should think a fit name might be given to so Devilish a practice than that of waggery. Who betrayed him into this observation? Dr. Jackson; who yet doth not bluntly say, that it's the design of the Factours for the Church of Rome to have this Doctrine generally embraced, or acknowledged by us; but inserts these words of Caution, or at least to have the World believe that it were generally acknowledged by us: Beshrew Mr. Bar: who put Mr. P. upon a necessity of reading this Author, if he can make no better use of him. The Jesuits are generally reputed very Politic; but if this be the best policy they have, I should think we need not much fear their plots: For what if they should fasten the Doctrine of absolute reprobation upon the Church of England: Why thence it would follow that the God of heaven were worse than an incarnate Devil, yea thou any wicked Spirit, or the Devil himself can without slander be supposed to be: But doth he not think that men would inquire, whether that frightful conclusion were rightly deduced from the former principle, would they not tell those Popish factours that their Pastors teach them to confess their sins, and to take the shame of them to themselves? Would they not bid them dwell at home, and take notice of their own Dominicans, who as strenuously assert the Doctrine of absolute reprobation as any that go by the name of Calvinists: the same Dr. Jackson saith, Pag. 3012. He that would diligently peruse Aquinas his writings, and in particular his resolution of that Question, An detur causa praedestinationis, may find him as straight laceed as Calvin was; one and the same girdle would be an equal & competent measure for both their errors: Nay the Dr. saith the Dominicans and other Schoolmen were more faulty than Zuinglius, or his followers.  
But with Mr. P. Doctor Twisse, is worse than the Jesuits, though the Jesuits and Dominicans are too bad, Pag. 170. Let me add that two Papists as learned as ever did engage for upholding the Popish cause, do acquit us of this imputation the making of God the Author of sin, Suarez opus, lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 111. The Heretics (potestants) know well that God intendeth not that which is formal in sin, nor inclineth the will of man to intent it. Vasquez, dis. 99 cap. 4. n. 22. Calvin, Zuinglius, Beza, do plainly affirm that sin as sin is not to be referred to God as the cause thereof, both these Testimonies I take upon trust from D. F. Wh. P. 145. Having not the books themselves by me at the present. But to requite him for this observation out of Dr. Jackson, who attempts not the proof of it by any one example, I shall give him another: That the Popish Priests will sometimes go over to the Lutherans and pretend a conversion, whereas their design is only to blow up the coals of contention betwixt them and the Calvinists: And at the managing of such a design I am sure Mr. P. hath as good a faculty as any man alive. What success can Mr. Duree, expect in his negociations for peace, when as men of bitter Spirits from among ourselves, do not stick to make the opinions of the Calvinists worse than those of the Atheists; And that the Arminians are the consin-germanes to the Jesuits, and do underhand aim at the introducing of Popery, I shall give him the opinion of the whole house of Commons, whose word's in a Declaration of theirs to his Majesty, are, The hearts of your subjects are perplexed, when with sorrow they behold a daily growth and spreading of the faction of the Ariminians, that being, as your Majesty well knows, but a cunning way to bring in Popery, and the Professors of those opinions, the common disturbers of the Protestant Churches, and incendiary's of those states in which they have gotten any head, being Protestants in show, but Jesuits in opinion and practice. Vid. a necessary introduction to the Archbish: trial by Mr. Prinne. If he except against the house of Commons, let him learn the same from a Jesuits letter to the Rector at Brussels. Father Rector, etc. We have now many strings to our bows, and have strongly fortified our faction, and have added two Bulwarks more; for when K. James lived, we know he was very violent against Arminianism, and interrupted with his pestilent wit, and deep learning, our strong designs in Holland, now we have planted the sovereign drug Arminianism, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresy. This letter was seized in the Archbish: Study, and attested against him at the Lords bar: If yet there be not witness enough, we'll call in the Lord falkland's speech, p. 7. As Sir Tho. Moor says of the Casuists, their business was not to keep men from sinning but to inform them quam prope ad peccatum sine peccato liceat accedere; so it seemed their work was to try how much of a Papist might be brought in without Popery, and to destroy as much as they could of the Gospel, without bringing themselves into danger of being destroyed by the Law: Mr. Speaker, to go yet further, some of them have so industriously laboured, to deduce themselves from Rome, that they have given great suspicion, that in gratitude they desire to return thither, or at least, to meet it half way: Some have evidently laboured to bring in an English, though not a Roman Popery: I mean not the outside only and dress of it, but equally absolute, a blind dependence of the people upon the Clergy, and of the Clergy upon themselves: And have opposed Papacy beyond the Sea, that they might settle one beyond the water: Nay common fame is more than ordinarily false, if none of them have found a way to reconcile the opinions of Rome to the preferments of England, be so absolutely, directly, and cordially Papists, that it is all that 1500. per annum can do to keep them from confessing it. Dr. Abbot, in a Sermon before the University preached at St. Peter's, on Easterday, 1615. Men under pretence of truth, and preaching against the Puritan's, strike at the heart and root of faith and Religion now established among us. This preaching against the Puritan's, was but the practice of Parsons and Campian's counsel, when they came into England to seduce young Students, and when many of them were afraid to lose their places, if they should professedly be thus, the counsel they then gave them was, that they should speak freely against the Puritan's, and that should suffice: And they cannot pretend they are accounted Papists, because they speak against the Puritan's; but because they are Papists indeed they speak not against them. If they do at any time speak against the Papists, they do beat a little upon the bush, and that softly too, for fear of troubling or disquieting the birds which are in it. They speak of nothing but that in which one Papist will speak against another; as against aequivocation, the Pope's temporal authority, and the like, and perhaps against some of their blasphemous speeches; but in the point of freewill, justification, concupiscence being sin after Baptism, inherent righteousness, certainty of salvation, the Papists beyond the Sea can say they are wholly theirs, and the Recusants at home make their brags of them, and in all things they keep themselves so near the brink, that upon all occasions they may step over to them.  
From the Doctor of the Chair in Oxon I'll lead him to the University of Cambridge, in which I find a Letter subscribed unanimously by the several Heads of Colleges, March 8. 1595. to their much honoured Chancellor, desiring from his Lordship's hands some effectual remedy for the suppressing of Baro's opinions; Lest by permitting passage to these errors, the whole Body of Popery should by little and little break in upon us, to the overthrow of our Religion. And a little after these words do occur; Vouchsafe your Lordship's aid and advice both to us (wholly consenting, and agreeing in judgement) and all others of the University sound affected, and to the suppression in time, not only, of these errors, but even of gross Popery, like by such means in time easily to creep in among us, as we find by late experience it hath dangerously begun.  
The Reader will pardon me (who can scarce pardon myself) for this excursion, occasioned through a desire to acquaint the world, what our former Worthies did think concerning the spirit and design of our English Demonstrants.  
3. It were no difficult matter to compass about my Thesis, denying the positivity of sin with a cloud of witnesses, from among our Modern Divines; but that I have reasons more than enough, to conceive, they stand but for cyphers in Mr. P's account: Melancthon, it may be shall be regarded; let's hear him; He wisheth that there were some one common definition of sin, unto which all would stand; and, for his own part, declareth in more places than one, that he well approveth the Definition given by Anselm, that Original sin is, privatio originalis justitiae debitae inesse. Nay, Tom. 1. p. 163. he answers Mr. P's Argument. If sin be not a positive entity, than God punisheth for nothing, by distinguishing between nihil negativum, and nihil privativum, by the same token that he calls that convincing demonstration by no better a name than Cavillatio; hence I hamper him in this Dilemma; either Melancthon's judgement is somewhat worth, or it is not: if not, why is it made so much use of by Mr. P? If it be, than down falls the positivity of sin. I confess these horns are in themselves so blunt, that I am almost ashamed to make any use of them; but ad hominem they are sharp enough; for with such a pair he fancieth he hath tossed Dr. Reynolds concerning King James, Diu. puri. p. 8. And yet this deplorable Dilemmatist, would needs be dealing again with that incomparable Doctor, quite and clean forgetting what befell the poor Frog in Aesop's Fables, that would needs be swelling against the Ox, a second, and third time. I now inform him, that the Doctor will meddle no more with him; and indeed to undertake an Answer, would be, intemperanter abuti & otio & literis, nothing being offered against his Epistle, which hath weight enough in it to turn those Scales at Sedan, of which Capellus saith, that they would break with the four hundreth part of a Grain. After so many testimonies, it may seem needless to urge reasons unto Mr. P. who professeth, Divi. Phil. p. 100 That none of his principles appeal to reason, against the judgement of the whole ancient aod modern Church. If by the whole Ancient and Modern Church, he mean every Learned man that hath in any Age been of the Church, I question whether we can find a consent so unanimous in any point, except the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed: But that sin is a privation, hath been as generally held as any one thing of this nature. Among the Fathers, I know none of a contrary mind: Some few Schoolmen, as also Dr. Field, I grant were, in reference to sins of commission; as to sins of omission, that they also should be positive is so strange, that I know not whether ever it were asserted by any, but Cerberus, alias Champneys, Mr. Dukes the Keeper of the great Ordinary at Hell in Westminster, Mr. P. and (whom I would not join with such company) the Reverend and Learned Dr. Hammond: Yet we will also contend by Arguments artificial.  
Mr. B. had used one, p. 112. in which because Mr. P. will have me equally concerned, I shall suffer it, and his Answer to play a little before us.  
If sin, as sin, be a positive entity, than it is a thing in itself good, but so it is not, therefore neither is it a positive entity. The consequence is founded upon a very rational, and commonly received Maxim, that Ens & bonum convertuntur, though Mr. P. be pleased to call this, The printed Article of Mr. B's unchristian Creed, p. 151. But what doth he answer?  
1. That all the force of this argument is only to prove that sin is good; whereas he that hath but half an eye may see, that the design of the Argument is to fright Mr. P. out of his sad opinion concerning the positivity of sin, by bringing him to the grand absurdity, of saying sin is good.  
Secondly, he saith, That a thing privative in one respect, is also positive in another; and every Sciolist can tell, that the corruption of one thing is the generation of another: Quorsum haec? If he mean, that the corruption of one thing is formally the generation of another, he falls into so loathsome a contradiction, as would make any Sciolists stomach rise at the naming of it. If he understand the Proposition in sensu concomitantiae, than it is true, that in the ordinary course of nature, the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, and the corruption of one thing the generation of another; because the matter cannot exist without a form, nor under two disparate forms: But quid haec ad Iphicli boves? How that which is properly, and by intrinsecal denomination privative in one respect, should be positive in another, falls not as yet under my comprehension. His examples will perhaps clear my Intellectuals; The darkness which God created, was not more privative of the day, than it was positive of the night; and that which is privative of life or sight may be positive of death and blindness. If his meaning be, that from the want of light in the air we may as truly say it is night, as from the presence of light we can say it is day, that is a truth but very vulgar, if he would either hint or hold forth, that the darkness doth actuate and inform the air per modum qualitatis positivae, as the light doth, there seems to be such a darkness upon the face of his own understanding, as I had thought till now had not been incident to a man of Academical education. If darkness be a Positive Quality, pray tell us to what species of Quality belongs it? 'tis not habitus, nor potentia naturalis, nor yet is it qualitas patibilis, which never was, nor ever can be seen, felt, heard, smelled, tasted by any one. He hath not yet made himself noisome enough, the peccant humour still operates; A Carneadist will be glad to introduce an opinion, that Sin is good by calling it bonum Metaphysicum, or transcendentale: If so, then Mr. P. hath deserved his humble thanks, who bestows a positive Entity on sin. We poor thick-pated Mortals, who make it but a privation, shall merit none of his favour. Mr. B. must be taught, that the adequate subject of Metaphysical science is, Ens quatenus ens, real illud, non omnimodò positivum quatenus est positivum. A strange sentence: Can any thing be directly contained under the subject of Metaphysics, which is not positive? or can any thing be unum per se (and such is the object of every science) which is partly positive, and partly privative? but we have more either of his ignorance, or inadvertency: Bonum in Metaphysics doth no more signify good in English, than canis the Star doth signify the Dog which walks about with four feet. Bonum ●n English doth signify good, as opposed to e●ill; but in Metaphysics, no more but Ens ●n ordine ad appetitum. How came English and Metaphysics so to fall out, that ●hey should stand in opposition? Is it not ●nough that it is opposed to Greek, and ●atine, and other languages, but it must so stand as the opposite term to Metaphysics? I see others besides Presbyterians can sometimes talk nonsense: But doth not Bonum, the affection of Ens, if it were to be rendered in English, signify good as opposed to evil? Mr. P. sure thinks it doth, and therefore in policy he forbears to English it, only in Latin he gives us this description: Bonum est Ens in ordine ad appetitum; and that Sin is such, Mr. B. knows by sad and minutely experience. What uncharitableness is this, to say that Mr. B. hath minutely experience, that sin as sin is the object of his appetite? Malum qua malum is not the object of any rational creatures appetite; Nor can it be the object of the rational appetite any more than falsum quâ falsum can be the object of the understandings assent. For a close, he tells us, that malum morale est bonum Metaphysicum; and if Mr. B. aimed at nothing but this, he hath gained nothing. Yes, he hath gained enough: For who would ascribe a transcendental goodness to moral evil, but one, who hath either lost all his Metaphysics, or never had any to lose. Seeing you have made a shift to swallow such a Camel, we'll try whether we can fetch it up again. May it therefore please yo● to understand, that they who describe Metaphysical goodness, per ordinem ad appetitum, understand it primarily with relation to the Divine will: And will you make sin the object of the Divine will? But Suarez will tell you, that good is not so compared to the appetite as truth is to the intellect: for Metaphysical truth, includes in its formal nature and denomination some conformity to the understanding, but so doth not goodness include a conformity to the appetite, though such a conformity be a necessary consequent of goodness. A thing is not therefore good, because desired, but it is therefore desired because good. Hence they express the nature of good by the word perfectum, and conveniens alicui; and let Mr. P. if he can, tell me how sin bonificates any subject, or adds any perfection to that in which it is.  
The second Argument used by me in the Letter, was to this effect: If sin be a positive Entity, than it is either God, or from God; but it can be neither: ergo, Cajetane found himself so hard beset with this Argument, that he ventured to say, God was the Author of malum morale, but not of malum simpliciter sic dictum: For the absurdity of which distinction he is sufficiently schooled by Suarez in more places than one; but Mr. P. hath an art worth twenty of the Cardinal's distinctions, he hath always a whole flood of vilifying words at command; and if he meet with a hard and stubborn Argument, he soaks it in that liquor so long, till the less understanding Reader forget that ever any such Argument was used. What Mountains he rolled up together to keep my Argument from being seen, I before observed: I will now take notice of a relenting pang, with which he seems to be surprised in the height of his persecutions against my Argument: Observe how it works, pag. 156. He must know that there is a medium betwixt God and his creatures, and I wonder what should ail him, that he should say there is none. Nay, if I must, there is no remedy; but till he have more authority over me, than I yet conceive him to have, I shall without fear give him my reasons, why I neither do, nor can acknowledge any medium.  
First, because I find those that had to do with the Manichees, and heathen Philosophers, building their Argument upon this Basis, that Omne ens est vel primum, vel à primo; and that malum is therefore not caused by God, because it is not ens, but non ens, as they commonly call that which is but a privation: e: g: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. contra gentes, p. 6. & De: incar. verbi, p. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Nys. Tom. 2. 490. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Who is such a stranger to St. Augustin, that hath not read such sentences as these from him, de lib. arbit. lib. 1. Credimus, ex uno Deo, esse omnia quae sunt, & tamen non esse peccatorum auctorem Deum? in 1 cap. Joh. v. 1. Peccatum quidem non per ipsum factum est, quia peccatum nihil est. Mali author non est qui omnium quae sunt author est: quia in quantum sunt, in tantum bon●… sunt: 83 Quaest. It would be endless to put together all say of the Ancients that are of this nature. I shall take off my Pen when I have only transcribed the remarkable determination of Aquinas, 1a, 2 ae, q. 79. ar. 2. in corpo: actus (saith he) peccati & est ens & est actus, & ex utroque habet quod sit adeo: omne enim ens quocunque mod●… sit oportet quod derivetur a primo ente-omnis autem actio causatur ab aliquo existente in actu, quia nihil agit, nisi secundum quod est actu; omne autem ens actu reducitur ad primum actum. sc. Deum sicut in causam qu●… est per suam essentiam actus: unde relinquitur quod Deus sit causa omnis actionis in quantum est actio; peccatum nominat ens & actionem cum quodam defectu. Defectus autem ille est ex causâ creatâ sc: libero arbitrio in quantum deficit ab ordine primi agentis, i. e. Dei, unde defectus iste non reducitur in Deum sicut in causam; sed in liberum arbitrium, sicut defectus claudicationis reducitur in tibiam curvam, sicut in causam, no● autem in virtutem motivan: a qua tamen causa tur quicquid est motionis in claudicatione, & secundum hoc Deus est causa actus peccati non tamen est causa peccati, quia non est hujus quod actus sit cum defectu.  
Nor secondly, do I know any other way of defining what ens primum is, but this that it is such a being, which is not from any other being, and which is the cause of all the beings that are. Thirdly, this positive being of sin is it a finite and participate being? If not, how is it not God? if? How is it not from the Fountain of all essences? Fourthly, I am the more confirmed that there's no medium betwixt Deus & creatura, because Mr. Pierce after all his enquiry hath not been able to find any. For whereas he doth tell me that the works of the Devil are a medium, he could not sure but think that I would distinguish in blasphemy, lying, etc. Betwixt the vital act and its deficiency and dissonance from the Law of God, the act itself I hold to be positive, and from God; the irregularity of that act from which it is denominated blasphemy, lying, etc. I would derive only from man's corruption, and the Devil's temptation. If he will not take this from me, let him take it from those Gamaliels, at whose feet he'el not account it any disparagement to sit as a disciple. Dr. Fr. White, Pag. 104. Defence of his Brother, whereas sin is a deficience and aberration from the rule of justice, it cannot subsist alone; but even as halting must necessarily be joined with some motion of the body, & hoarseness of speech with the action of speaking, so the evil of sin is conjoined with some action, or motion of the Soul, or body which hath a natural and positive being, and where unto there happeneth a going astray from Divine Law, even as it happeneth to a lame man's natural motion, to have halting concurring with it. Of that which is positive & natural in sinful actions Divines acknowledge God to be the Author both in that he perserveth man's will and faculties, whereby he is enabled to his operations, and also because as the first cause he produceth together with the 2d. cause all positive motion. Dr. Sand. 1 Tim. 4.4.5. Ser. Add pop. there is a natural (or rather transcendental) goodness, honitas entis, as they call it, in every action even in that where to the greatest sin adhereth, and that goodness is from God, as that action is his creature, but the evil that cleaveth unto it is wholly from the default of the person that committeth it and not at all from God, Dr. Abbot, answer to Bishop, Pag. 124. We say, and you will say no less that God is the Author of all the actions in the World, yet we say that sin is wholly and only of man himself. distinguish the accident from the subject, the sin of the action from the action itself, God in the one shall be glorified & man justly condemned for the other. Nay what if M. Pierce, himself say that the sinful action, so far as it is an action, is from God? He saith that every good action of man is from the special grace of God. Now seeing all the good actions that are done per gratiam viatoris be and must necessarily be on some account sinful; concerning these actions I demand are they from God? If not, how is every good action from God? If they be, than he spits in the face of his judicious Dr. Jack. who saith exact: Col. p. 3013. To imagine there should be one cause of the act and another of his obliquity, or sinfulness of the act would be as gross a solecism, as to a assign, or seek after any other cause of the rotundity of a sphere, or bullet besides him that frames the one, or moulds the other, or else he must say that the action, & that in perfect moral goodness which is in it are from God but the sinful imperfection itself is from man through God's permission, and this he doth say 172. But then he ought not to be offended if we take the same liberty, Pag. 158. He saith God made idolaters men. And 159. men themselves are the works of God only, which is to grant more than with truth can be granted. But thus I argue, if God be the cause of men, than of David's child begotten by the action of Adultery, for Scripture will allow me to call that child, so soon as borne, a man, John. 16.21. If the cause of that child, undoubtedly then the cause of the action of generation by which, as by a causality, that child was produced. Yet was he not the cause of the adulterious pravity cleaving unto that action. Quid mirum si dicaemus, deum facere singulas actiones quae fiunt malâ voluntate, cum fate amur eum facere singulas substantias quae fiunt injustâ voluntate & in honest â actione, Ans. de casu diab. c. 10. So that we are but where we were at the first setting out. For the actions in which the evil of sin is subjected, I'll grant to be positive, but from God as well as the creature; the evil of sin from which they are denominated sinful, is but a privation and requireth no proper efficient cause at all, such as it hath man is and not God. But I have obstructed his good nature in working, Pag. 157. He goes on further to tell me that res in Metaphysics hath three acceptions, in the first of which it comprehendeth entia rationis, as opposed to nihil. Before he tell what the other two acceptions are, he corrects himself, my design is to convert and not confound him, this charity (as is more than probable) did both begin and end at home had any benefit been intended to me by it, you should have ceased sooner. For I was confounded before that politic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made. For let any one tell me how this discourse about ens rationis is here brought in: First, was it to let the World understand, that our Author knew what ens rationis meant? That's but a low design, and yet he cannot accomplish it neither, for he placeth the model of an house to be built hereafter among entia rationis, & yet that is as far from being only objective in intellectu, from not being longer than it is thought on, as the East is from the West. Secondly, hath he a mind to insinuate that sin is ens rationis, if so, it must either be privatio, which is that he all along denieth, or a negation, against which his arguments militate with more strength, or a relatio rationis, which is affirmed by Vasquez, but against all good reasons, as I shall soon show him if forced to so great severity by his owning such a paradox. Thirdly, was it his business to intimate that all the entia rationis are so the works of men, as that God cannot be termed the cause of those actions, by which they are made? I will not torture his ingeniolum with that perplexed question, whether the Divine intellect do fabricate ens rationis, but without all peradventure, the action of the understanding, though not the imperfection is from God, are not all our notiones: 2ae. in Logic, entia rationis, yet is the act of the understanding, causing them so far from not being from God, that God hath indeed a more than ordinary & common concourse to it.  
The privative nature of sin may be thus further evicted. If a thing be therefore sinful because it wants some perfection that it ought to have, and cease to be sinful when it hath all the perfection which it ought to have, than is sin a privation; but a thing is therefore sinful, etc. Ergo, the consequence of the proposition is as clear as the noon day light, the assumption also needs rather explication than confirmation, there's not a novice but knows the old rule, bonum ex integrâ causâ, malum ex quolibet defectu. To make an action good there must be a concurrence of all the three goods, object, end, circumstances, the mere want of any of these three makes the action sinful, because the Law requires that all the three goodnesses should be in the action, & the want of that which the Law requires to to be in any subject is a sin: or else we must reject, not only Aristotle, but the Apostle, who saith; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This argument is used by Greg. Arim. a noble and ancient Schoolman, and largely insisted upon by Faventinus, the most acute Scotist. I'm not ignorant that various replies are made to the argument; but answers also are commonly given to those replies, which to transcribe would be a matter of more trouble than profit.  
My fourth and last argument against the pretended positivity of sin I dispose in this enthymem, Original sin is not positive, ergo, sin as sin is not positive. The consequent (I conceive) will be yielded sine sanguine & sudore, otherwise the old Canon, a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia, would soon command it, as to the antecedent. I deny not but our Protestant Divines in their disputes against the Papists, do make a positive, as well as a privative part of original sin; but how that term may be understood so as not to prejudice my assertion in the least is largely showed by Gisber. Voetius, in his accurate discourse de propagatione peccati originalis. He that calls it a privation of God's image, saith the whole nature of it, is a sentence of Mr. John Calvin. That I may prove original sin not to be positive in the sense we now use the word positive, I must lay down this as a postulatum. That the soul is not by propagation, or ex traduce, (as they speak) but immediately created by God. If this postulatum should not be granted me, I should not fear the demonstrating of it by evidence of Scripture, and strength of reason, to any gain sayer; but such my charity forbids me to think Mr. P. This supposed, I thus argue. If original sin be a thing positive, 'tis either the soul itself, or some of its faculties, or some accident or adjunct agreeing immediately to the faculties, mediately to the soul itself, but none of all these; ergo. To say with Flaccius Illyricus, that it is the soul itself, were with more than heathenish impiety to calumniate the goodness of our Creator, and the like absurdity will follow if we assert it to be one of the faculties of the soul. If we say it is an accident inhering in the faculties of the soul, than it was either put into them by God, which will make God the Author of the worst of sins, or else it is caused in them by the souls presence in, and union to the body, or from some action of the soul itself: Not by any action of the soul itself for its faculties are sinful before it put forth any one act of reason: Not from its presence in, or union to the body: for who can imagine how the soul, which is spiritual and immaterial, should be defiled by being joined to a body? which thoughfull of natural imperfections is not sinful, and if it were sinful could nor communicate its sinfulness to the soul that informs it. But now holding original sin to be a privation in an active subject, we do avoid all these inconveniences, by saying, that Adam by his first transgression did sin away the image of God from himself, and his posterity, who were in him, not only as a naiurall, but as a federal head also, and so God createth the souls of men void of his image, and yet justly looks on them as sinners, for wanting this image, because they ought to have it, and by their own folly deprived themselves of it.  
As for the reasons Mr. P. hath against the privative nature of sin, he hath so slipped & glided them into all the several parts of his book, that it is almost impossible, to refute them without committing as many tautologies, as he useth himself in making them, I must therefore fall a picking of them up, like so many daisies in a bare common, here and there one where I can find them; but first me thinks 'tis somewhat strange, that my aggressor should put forth a discourse tending to prove the positivity of sin, and never consult the Schoolmen, among whom the question hath been for many years agitated, or if he did consult them, than it is more strange that he should not find ingenuity to acknowledge whence he borrowed his arguments, and take notice of the solutions, so commonly and plainly given to them: Yet I confess, sometimes our disputant hath let fall such reasons, as were never thought on by any before him, this is the happiness, or rather, unhappiness of some, that they can use and urge such mediums, which those with whom they deal had not wit, great, or little enough to foresee: so I remember I once heard a fellow with extrean confidence strive to prove, that there was no necessity of repentance in order to salvation, because the gifts and callings of God are without repentance; an argument, I dare say, with which the Minister never expected to be encountered:  thou see its parallel? look Pag. 156. unless Mr. Hick. will embrace the suds of a contradiction, he must confess that to be positive which Christ came to destroy. The suds of a contradiction! A pretty similitude. But I would feign know whether Mr. P. will say there be any proper privations? If he say there be none, he must think of making our freshmen some kind of satisfaction, for robbing them of one of their postpredicaments; if he say there be any, he must either let fall this sad lose way of arguing, or else show us some one example of privation, which Christ either did not, or could not have destroyed, had he so pleased, by introducing the opposite form into the subject, 'tis said 1 Cor. 15.26. The last Enemy that shall be destroyed is death. Will it hence follow, that death is no proper privation? The best crowers are not always the best fighters.  
A 2. argument is from habitual sins, which I confess were a good one had it been well managed; but Mr. P. can no more use it than young David could saul's armour; for mark the letters & syllables of the man, Pag. 161. Sins of commission being riveted in a man by long custom and continuance, are commonly called habitual sins, so then Mr. H. cannot but confess that vices are habits, as well as virtues (there is an habit of drunkenness as well as of so briety) and that habits are qualities he cannot be ignorant if he is but able to tell his fingers; and that a habit is a thing positive his post predicaments have taught him, where a habit and a privation are set as opposite terms such as do mutually necessitate each others absence.  
1. What consequence is this, if I can tell my fingers I can not be ignorant that habits are qualities? Did not Mr. P. know how to tell his fingers before he knew that habits were species of quality? Well, but grant him (which is denied by learned Piccolominee) that habits are qualities, what's gained? Just nothing: he makes a face as if he had intended a So●…es but hath so miscarried in the pursuance of his medium, that I cannot with all my skill mould his words either into a Sorites, or any other good form of argumentation. I suppose the proposition habits are qualities is redundant, and that the thing he aims at is this, that which is an habit is positive, some sins, as drunk. are habits. Ergo, the proof of the Major, because habit in the postpredicaments is set as an opposite term to privation. This would almost make a man think, that he took the word habitus to be of as limited a signification in the postpredicaments as it is in the 4th. predicament, but that is too sad a failing to charge a Scholar with, yet he falls into one as sad; for, by making the habit of drunkenness a fit example of habit in the postpredicament, he must set the habit of sobriety as its opposite term, and make it a privation, which is to cut his own throat: but had his hand been sosteddy as that he had hit the mark at which he shot, I think he did not take his aim aright; for I doubt not whether the habit be positive, but whether that vitiosity from which 'tis called an habit of drunkenness be a positive entity. How evil actions may be said to produce evil habits, evil habits produce evil actions, and yet sin not be positive, see Baro. met. de nat. mali. And to remove prejudice, though he were a Scotchman, yet he was no Puritan. Ibid. There must be something positive to make a man positively foul, which foulness suffers a privation when the man is cleansed of his filth. Would not one think that all things conspire to make the good Rector ridiculous? It must indeed be some thing positive that rendereth the sinner positively foul: But how will he prove the filth of sin to be positive? Not from the Rom. 22.11. For there be not so many Chapters in that Epistle; Nor doth he offer any other proof: Therefore we may make the spiritual filth to consist in the want of that nitor gratiae, which either was, or should have been in the soul.  
His main argument is from actual sins as lying, and blaspheming, and believing that there is no God, even in the prosecution of this argument, he shows more of the Palm than of the fift. But that he may not have the same quarrel with me that Fimbria had with Scaevola, who appointed him a day, because he did not totum telum in se recipere I would give his argument the best advantage I can, by supposing his instance to be made in the very worst, and most intrinsecaly evil of all actions; that of hating God, and will show. 1. Why such acts, are called intrinsecaly and essentialy evil. 2. What others have answered to this objection. 3. What I conceive is to be answered according to truth. Such actions are called intrinsically evil, both because they are evil antecedently to any positive Law, and because they are evil ex genere, & objecto, and not merely through the want of some circumstance: for a Scholar to walk in the night season, when by the statutes he is bound to be within his College walls, is sinful, to walk at a time allowed, in a convenient place, and to a good end, is not sinful: but the hating of God is such an action, as no circumstance of time, or place can make lawful.  
Some to answer the objection, do make the totum complexum, odisse Deum, the very determination of the hatred to God, to be the material part of that sin, and then the formal part, they make to be the want of conformity in this action to the Law of God, and so they labour to show, or rather to feign, some conditions in the concurrence whereof, such an act is separated from its pravity: Let the Reader, if he please to satisfy his curiosity, consult, Greg. valent. 2. Tom. in Tho. dis. 6. q. 9 puncto 1. Or, Bradwardine lib. 1. cap. 26. I recite not their words, because I need not their help, and because they seem to make impossible hypotheses, as if the hatred of God were produced by God in a stone, whereas it cannot be that there should be the hatred of God in a stone, which neither hath nor can have any knowledge; nay the beasts, though they have love and hatred, yet cannot be said to hate God, of whom they have no knowledge, or representation. I say therefore, that the hating of God is complexum quid, and must not be spoken of, as if it were one, the vital action of hatred, is a thing positive, but the undue referring, or terminating of that act to such an object which is altogether lovely, that's the sinfulness of the action, and not positive but privative: indeed omne esse morale est valde jejunum & diminutum, moral goodness and evil are rather modi entium than entia, which made Vasquez, though otherwise a very acute Doctor, place them, as I noted before, among entia rationis. Yet because it belongs to the Universality of the first cause to produce not only every real being, but also the real positive modifications of beings. Therefore we say, that in good works, both the works themselves, and their rectitude are positive, and are from God; in evil works there are also two things considerable, the works themselves, and their pravity; the works themselves we doubt not are positive, and from God, as all other positive things; but their pravities add no new entities to them, but consist in a mere privation; in those things which are to be done according to a rule, good consists in a conformity to, and convenience with the rule, but evil in a difformity, or discrepance from the rule; conformity is positive, difformity is privative. And in this Answer I am very much confirmed, by the say of Anselm, and Twisse: Thus Anselm, deconc. Praedest. & liberi arbitrii cap. 1. God caused all things which are done, either with a just, or injust will, that is, good works, and evil: in good works he both causeth, that they be, and that they be good; in evil, he only causeth that they be, not that they be evil, adding this reason of the difference, because to be evil is to be nothing: Dr. Twisse, vind. lib. 2. There is a twofold actual concourse of God, one of General influence, the other of special grace; the concourse of general influence is necessarily required to every action, whether good, or evil; but the concourse of special grace, is only required to a work throughly good: every good work therefore needs a twofold help, one of general influence as it is a work, another of special grace as good; but an evil work requires only the concourse of general influence, as it is a work, but that it be evil, no more is required than the denial of special grace: Thomas speak to the same purpose, 2 Senten. didst 37. art. 2. p. 2.  
A 5. thing which Mr. P. would feign have to do the office of an argument is this, if every sin be privative, than there will be no difference betwixt sins of omission and sins of commission, but a difference there is betwixt them, therefore, etc. I suppose those words, Pag. 167. Would if reduced to mood and Figure appear before us in such a form, as I have now represented, he makes no difference betwixt not blessing and cursing God, betwixt ceaseing to give alms and grinding the faces of the poor, betwixt not saving and killing another man: Answ. Sins of omission and commission are sufficiently distinguished, notwithstanding they be both made to consist in privation: Omission will be the transgression of an affirmative precept, commission the trangression of a Negative precept. 2ly. They differ in respect of their immediate foundation, the fundamentum proximum of a sin of commission is some act or habit; but these are not the fundamenta proxima of a sin of omission: it vexeth me, that I am forced to inculcate these so vulgar and obvious things, which none are ignorant of, but those who never learned the A, B, C. of Philosophy. To the same Cluster I may reduce what he hath, P. 146. Murder must have something in it of positive to distinguish it in specie from all other sins: But Scotus in 2. dis. 35. will tell him that the specifical distinction of sin is taken from the different privation of different rectitude, & Joh. Rada, will tell him that there is no real difference betwixt Thom. & him in this: deafness and blindness are privations, yet speeifically distinct, because one is the privation of the power of seeing, the other of the power of hearing: But how then are the two extreme vices distinguished. e. g. Covetousness & prodigality seeing? they are privations but of the same habit of liberality. Answ. Because covetousness is a privation of liberality, as it puts a man upon honest spending, prodigality is a privation of liberality as it doth incline a man to avoid superfluous spending. Thus I have eked out my adversaries argument, which was somewhat short and scanty, this made him seek to piece it with a patch of Grammar, for so it follows, some are not only positively but superlatively evil: the jest lieth in positive and superlative I am content he should thus use his wit with out any rival: But I have been told that some years since there was one T. P. lived near the Schools, who would have made such clenches with him and given him 3. for one.  
A 6. argument that he will needs press to fight for the positivity of sin is taken from those Scriptures, which do speak of greater and lesser sins, Pag. 163. At this I would strike with my Answer, if I could find where the vein of proof did lie; if I may guess it lies in this, that there can be no degrees in a privation, but this is a mere mistake: Among privations some are greater, some less, with relation to that form unto which they are opposed: if the form have degrees of intention, that may Physically be accounted the greater privation which removes more degrees of the Form from the Subject; that the less which removes fewer: if we reckon morally, than we may also calculate the degrees of privation from the greater or less obligation, that the subject is under, to have that form, which for the present he wants.  
A. 7. If sin be a privation, how are actions and operations ascribed to it? How doth the Apostle say sin wrought in him all manner of concupiscence? Rom. 7.8.  
Answ. In such speeches sin signifies not abstractly and formally; but it signifies our nature and its faculties as under corruption. The faculties in which the sinful privations are, by reason of those privations do lust against the working of the Spirit.  
And now I might take my leave of Mr. P. but that I am told of no less than 17 cogent Arguments used by him in his Divine philanthropy, which I had not the courage to venture on. When Mr. B. told him, that he durst not quote the Assemblies Confession, he is made a liar for that speech: If he deserve such a censure, so I am sure doth Mr. P. How could I be said to want courage to meddle with that which I had never read over? And which now that I have been forced to read over, hath rather exercised my patience than my courage; so far am I from looking upon them as convincing Demonstrations, that I think I should honour them sufficiently, if I but say that they are good enough for a Sophister to use when he is put to course in the Horse-fair, ex tempore. He ptetends to have proved in ample manner, That sin hath an efficient cause, properly so called, being angry it seems with the saying of Augustin, that makes it to have a deficient, rather than an efficient, properly so called. Pag. 145. If man be not the efficient cause (saith our doughty Disputant) than he is either the material, or formal, or final. Rather than we will seem to be too much frighted, we will say that man is the material, or subjective cause of the action; such a material or subjective cause as evil can have: And he is the efficient cause too of the evil of the action, if by an efficicient he mean no more than that unto which it may be ascribed. But he and I both were best not to make too much noise, lest we should awaken the youngsters to fall aboard us with such an Argument as this. If man be the efficient cause either of a good action or a bad action, than he doth effect it by another action, and so we may proceed in infinitum. To let that pass: the deficient cause is reduceable to the efficient; and this is to be said; Suppose the first sin of Angels to have been a proud desire to be equal unto God; the cause of this proud desire was the will of the Angel; but it was the cause of the action (in such a sense as a causality may be said to have a cause) per se, of the vitiosity of the action, it was only the cause per accidens, & per concomitantiam; nor doth the vitiotsiy of the effect always suppose a vitiosity in the cause; though it always presupposeth an imperfection in the cause; and where the cause itself is vicious, its vitiosity is not the cause of the vitiosity of the effect; for vitiosity of itself, neither can effect, nor be effected; but the vicious cause, taking together the being, and the supervenient privation, is the cause of the vicious effect, taking it in like manner for the being, and the superadded privation. But if we contradict him, we must say, that God damns men for nothing. Anselm, in the place I before referred my Reader to, makes this objection, and laugheth at its, weakness, De Con. vir. c. 6. Quidam cum audiunt peccatum nihil esse solent dicere: si peccatum nihil est, cur punit Deus hominem pro peccato, cum pro nihilo puniri nemo debeat; quibus quamvis humilis sit quaestio, tamen quia quod quaerunt, ignorant, aliquid respondendum est. What doth he mean when he saith, that God then must punish men for nothing? If he mean that God would punish men because they have not that in their faculties, habits, actions which should be in them what absurdity is there in that? Is not the punishment just, except it be for positive entities? How many men have been imprisoned for not paying sums of money which they did owe? Yea I believe Mr. P. could well enough bear my being punished for not paying him his Arrears which he (vainly enough) fancyeth to be due to him, and yet nonpayment cannot be accounted a positive entity; nor doth Mr. P. know how to place it in any predicament of Beings. Siu is a punishment, but punishment is a positive entity. erg. There is a punishment of loss, which scarce ever any man said was positive: There is a punishment of sense, and this we say is no other way an evil or a punishment unto us than as it doth deprive us of some perfection of which we are capable. The punishment of sense may be said to be positive as to its foundation, not in its formality; that is, it is not positive, if we consider that in which the very evil of that punishment formally consists. As to the rest of his Arguments, they are partly such as I have met with before, and partly such as others upon whose expressions they are grounded, are more concerned in than myself. When Mr. P. will undertake to vindicate every expression that hath been used in the managing of these controversies by men of his opinion, then may I perhaps sense some kind of obligation, to try whether I can justify every thing that hath fell from Mr. W. and Mr. B. in the mean time they are of age, let them speak for themselves, if they count it needful: if they count it not needful, why should I spend labour about that, ●n the doing of which I cannot take any great pleasure, and for the doing of which ●hey will con me no great thanks. This I cannot but observe, that though none durst undertake Dr. Twisse in the Arminian Controversies, whilst he was alive, yet since his death every puny will be nibbling at him upon all occasions, which puts me in mind of that paltry fellow in Pausanias, who being never able to get the mastery in his life time of one Theagenes a famous Wrestler, came many a night after he was dead and scourged his Statue, which was erected in the honour of him. Paus. in Attic.  
If Mr. T. P. or Mr. I. G. do verily believe Dr. Twisse to be an enemy of that Divine grace, which he pretends to have maintained, let them follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as he did those with whom he took occasion to deal; and when they shall have so done, Mr. Jeanes, a person of a very scholastical head, will not long let them be without an answer. And so I leave my Combatant, resolving, if it may be, never more to come so near him, till I am told by others, that his breath smells sweeter.  
Upon the review of my book I cannot but recall what I have often read from Gilbertus Cognatus, of a man with an ulcer in his face, who passing over a Bridge where the passengers were to pay a certain piece of money for every malady of body found upon them, was required to pay the accustomed tribute for the ulcer in his face; but he refusing to pay it, the Officer pulls off his hat, intending to keep it for a pawn; his hat being taken off, another malady appears in his bald head. Now Sir (saith the Officer) I must have a double tribute of you; Nay (saith the Traveller) that you shall not, and gins to struggle with the Officer; who being too strong for him, gave him a foil, by means whereof there was a rapture perceived under his coat: Now (saith the Officer to him again) I must have a triple tribute of you. The more Mr. P. doth struggle, the more doth he discover his infirmities; yet I believe he will not be quiet; for they that have a bad cause will always have the last word, if death do not stop their mouths. But as to myself, I think we had both been held wiser men if we had held our peace, especially seeing the heat of these Epidemical controversies hath produced more Writers then (to use Plautus his similitude) an hot summer brings forth buzzing flies; and therefore, though Mr. P. through his provoking language, hath made a coward to fight for once, yet will he scarce draw me into the field again; for neither can I undergo the judicious trial of the Learned, nor am I willing to hazard the passionate censures of the ignorant; nor have I observed, that many have been healed by going into the troubled waters, though moved by the best Angels of the Church. Truth is so lovely, and beautiful, that they who embrace Falsehood, will needs have it to be Truth; and because they are unwilling to be deceived, they will not be convinced that they have been deceived. If Mr. P. do reply seriously and judiciously, so as that I be convinced, it will be sufficient, that in a private Letter I thank him for undeceiving me, and authorise him to publish to the world, that I am his Proselyte. But if his Reply shall be seasoned with the salt of Momus, not of Mercury; or if it be stuffed and coloured only with an ignorantia elenchi, defending that which is not impugned; or if he shall like the flies, seek for, and stick only upon a sore place, fall on the sick and weak parts of my discourse, and never attempt to charge through the main body, I shall vindicate myself only with contempt and silence. When a Nobleman of this Nation had a controversy in Law with a Brewer, who had a Garden and dwelling house bordering upon his: The Brewer gave it in charge to his servant to put in so many hogsheads of water more into all his Brewing, than he was wont to do, telling him that such a supply would bear the charge of his suit with his adversary; which being overheard by the Nobleman, he sent presently to the Brewer, resolving he would no longer go to Law with him, who upon such ease and cheap terms could manage his part of the suit. I neither make myself the Nobleman, nor Mr. P. the Brewer, but yet seeing he suffers his fancy to fly abroad so fast, seeing he hath a fluid ink-pot, as ready at hand as the Thames to the Brewer; seeing he can print more Books in two years, than a wiser man would undertake to print in all his life; nay, seeing rather than not be a good customer to Mercurius Politicus, he will clap a new Title to his old Works. I may well be excused if I have no mind to meddle further with him. Of all distempers I hope I shall keep myself free from the itch of disputing and writing many books: And I doubt not but wise men will count it more commendable to stand out, than to play at small games.  
The God of Truth and Love, teach us to follow the truth in love, that we may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.  
FINIS.