FRATERS in MALO, OR THE MATCHLESS COUPLE, Represented in the Writings of Mr. EDWARD BAGSHAW, and Mr. HENRY HICKMAN; By way of Answer to a Scandalous Letter, bearing the Name of Mr. BAGSHAW; and to a slanderous Libel, fictitiously subscribed by Theophilus' Churchman, but proved to be written by Henry Hickman. To which is added A Latin Essay, very briefly and plainly Reconciling God's Prescience with the of man, which Mr. Bagshaw thought irreconcilable. All in vindication of Dr. HEYLIN and Mr. PIERCE. By one of the meanest of their Admirers M. O. Bachelor of Arts. Printed by R. Wilks, and are to be sold by the Booksellers of London and Oxford, 1660. COURTEOUS READER That I who am Junior to Mr. Bagshaw in point of years (though not, I hope, so very a Boy in point of ignorance and Indiscretion,) should take upon me to be a writer, and to interess myself in another man's cause, to whom I have little or no Relation; All the Reason that I can render is plainly this. Mr. BAgshaw having in a late Pamphlet fearfully polluted the common light, with the highest degree of the three worst Crimes, Blasphemy, Sauciness and Ingratitude, against God, Mr. Pierce, and his Master Busbie; and having made himself thus too foul and loathsome, to deserve the honour of a correction, from hands so favourable & so clean, as are those of Mr. Busbie and Mr. Pierce; I thought it fit enough for me who am but a Bachelor of Arts, (and never intent to be degraded with more degrees, where I find them conferred upon two such Animals as Mr. Bathyllus and Mr. Bagshaw are found to be,) to help rid the World of its intolerable Scribblers, by making an example of one or two. And methinks I have a call to the discharge of this office. For though I confess I was a Schoolboy, and not quite fit so much as to come to the University, after the time Mr. Pierce was forced to leave it (because he would not comply with the bloody visitors A. D. 1648.) whereby I had not the possibility of sitting down at his Feet as a Colledge-Student; yet I feel, and can demonstrate my having profited so much by his public labours, and by his private directions for the ordering of my Studies, (since by taking my degree I became destitute of a Tutor,) that I hope I may say without much Arrogance, I am one of his Disciples, although the meanest. His charitable instructions have been so free and gratuitous (without either the hope or the possibility of a requital, unless from God,) that I have never had a capability to show myself thankful in any kind, until Rabshekah Bagshaw put this occasion into my hands; which I will never let slip, but rather improve so many years as I shall live till I am thirty, if no restraint shall be laid upon me by the interdict of him, in vindication of whose Name I now am voluntarily engaged. For I am really ambitious to be as grateful to Mr. Pierce as the pudendous Master Bagshaw hath been ingrateful to Master Busbie. I have also undertaken the taking down of Mr. Hickman, hiding himself under the Title of Theophilus Churchman) in vindication of Doctor Heylin, whom I very much honour, particularly for the honour I bear to Mr. Pierce, for I thought it high Justice, that two such Brethren in iniquity, should be tied together and hung up for an example to all Spectators. Nor will it be thought too great an arrogance that I should take the resolution to deal with two men at once, who am hardly out of my boyage, as being but Bachelor of Arts; since Mr. Baxter has had the confidence to deal with twenty for my Two, who is known to be but an undergraduate. I am his Senior in the College, although he Rocked me in the cradle. Were I ambitious to be known, as far and wide as he hath been, (though more of late for his folly, than any quality besides,) I should be as careful to print my name in as large a character. But intending nothing more than the good of others, the undeceiving of the Credulous, the vindication of the innocent, and the humiliation of the guilty, I do no more affect than I fear the issue of being known. And for this very reason, I choose (at least for the present) to write no more of my name then these two letters. M. O. The Contents of the Letter to Mr. Bagshaw. His six direct Blasphemies against the holiness of God. His three consequential Blasphemies; First against God's Prescience; Secondly, against his Word; Thirdly, against his Essence. Six confessions of Ignorance in the things whereof he affirms. His Ten selfe-contradictions, and wilful Lies. wilfulness added to his Ingratitude. His Latin Exercitation Epitomised. His false Latin pardoned. Conciliatio facilis & perspicua Praescientiae Divinae cum Libero Hominis Arbitrio. The Contents of the Letter to Mr. Hickman. The Libel proved to be his by a second discovery of his new Thefts, and many other clear Reasons. His Slanders and Lies against Dr. Heylin. His giving up the whole cause to the Doctor. His Sneaking away from Mr. Pierce's Assault. His filching as well confessed as denied by himself. His contradictions to himself. His Ignorance in Greek, Latin, and Logic. The Conclusion. For Mr. EDWARD BAGSHAW St. of Ch. Ch. SIR, I Should not easily have believed that Mr. Pierce his Letter to Dr. Heylin had made you so sick as you were reported, had not the effect discovered your disease; of which if you were cured for a season (not so perfectly it seems, as you hope p. 8.) you are the more endangered by so sudden and so sad a kind of Relapse. For no sooner have you begged Mr. Pierce his pardon (p. 3.) and cleansed yourself by a confession of the former filthiness you were in, but strait your Looseness comes upon you (even whilst you say you are cured of it) and you defile your sweet self, in a manner so much beyond example, that you may better be called Copronymus, than Constantine the Fifth, as having defiled the water of your Baptism, with a filthier Looseness than he had done. For besides the prostituting yourself to all manner of scurrility against those men, who will requite you only by silence, (whether in pity or contempt of so wretched a fellow, I cannot tell,) Besides your ingratitude to your Master, to which you have added your obduration, besides your palpable contradictions and contrarieties to yourself, (which make you appear to be an obstinate and wilful sinner,) besides your ignorance and stupidity, in which you are caught by your own confession, (and leaves you the less to be excused for meddling in things above your reach,) I say, besides all this, you have Blasphemed against God in such an unpardonable Degree, that this shall be the first thing, for which I will make you an example to all your Peers, that at least the fear of public penance may deter you from playing the Ranter any more in Print. First, Six direct Blasphemies against the holiness of God. you pretend to mix some Modesty with your Impudence, whilst you say you do not affirm, and yet (in the very next words) that you cannot deny God to be the author of sin. (p. 2.) If it be Blasphemy, why can you not deny it? If it be one of your Maxims, why do you not affirm it? Or what may it be which makes you stick betwixt Hawk and Buzzard, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) betwixt an unwillingness to affirm, and a non-ability to deny, what (a few pages after) you cannot hold from affirming in divers places? It doth not lessen your following Blasphemies that you here say in waggery, [If it should follow from this Tenet] because you afterwards pronounce it without an If. You are as positive in the thing, as if it were an Article of your Creed. And I am now but preparing for your Conviction. If you verily thought it no Blasphemy in print, to say you cannot deny God to be the Author of sin, why did you blot out the printed word [Author,] with the printed word [be,] and with your pen make it run thus; I cannot deny God to will the Event of sin? That the former was printed from your Manuscript Copy, is too visible to the eyes of all your few Readers, to be denied; besides its admirable agreement with all that follows, (p. 9, 10, & 11.) Perhaps you will say in your excuse, that what was altered by the Pen, was done without your knowledge, and (likely too) against your will, by the Compositor, or Printer, or Corrector of the Press. Be it so, or not so; I must ask you a second time, if you thought it to be Blasphemy, why would you send it to the Press, and there suffer it to pass both in the Proof and the Revise, before yourself or your Corrector thought fit to mend it? Or why did you not so mend it, as to make it somewhat the better? For considering your Principle (p. 9) That all Gods Decrees are absolute, and that it cannot be understood (at least by you) how God can consider any condition in the Creature, as a ground of his Election, and by consequence, of his Reprobation, (meaning his Will and his Decree of the one and the other, for else you run yourself headlong against the men of your own way) I say, considering your Principle, what difference is there betwixt your saying, that God doth will the Event of sin, and that he is the Author of sin? He being granted by all, to be the Author of all That, which he doth Absolutely will? And 'tis as fully agreed by all, that he necessitates the being of what he Absolutely willeth, which is affirmed even by them that were the favourers of Gotteschalk, to be an ‖ See Mr. Pierce's Divine purity defended. ch. 4. p. 37. horrible Blasphemy against God; and by † Ibid p. 38. Remigius in particular, to be a making god the Author of sin. Nor is your Blasphemy the less, but the greater rather, (as I shall by and by show) that you say In some sense you cannot deny God to be the Author of sin, or to will the event of sin; for you discover your sense to be the worst to be imagined, so much the worst, that I find you speaking worse of God, than any man, without slander, could have spoken of the Devil. And I can prove what I say, even by the dictates of common sense. That you may not fail of a conviction, compare your former with your following words. Secondly, You peremptorily say, (p 9) That God is the Sole Author of whatever conditions the creature can be supposed to have.] First, observe the word Author. Next the universality of your speech, not only expressed by the word whatever, but by whatever conditions the creature can be supposed to have. In each of which notes of your universality, God is inferred unavoidably to be the Author of all our sins. For that the sins of men are the conditions, upon which the Decree of Reprobation is executed upon them, hath ever been granted even by those of your way, who deny (as well as you) that the Decree itself is Conditional. Nor is there any thing plainer throughout the Scriptures. Ezek. 33.8. If thou dost not warn the wicked from his way, his blood will I require at thine hand. This and all other sins are some of those conditions, not only which may be supposed to be, but which actually are in the creature, and upon which Gods vengeance is here denounced. Now because you tremble not to say, That God is the Author of all Conditions in the Creature, (of all that are, yea and all that can be supposed too) that is, of all the villainies that either are, or can be supposed to be in the Creature, I am bound to warn you (as I do) from this your Blasphemous and wicked way, that whatever becomes of yours, Verse 9 I may deliver mine own soul. 3. Again you positively affirm, (p 9) That whatever God foresees, and does not prevent, he may justly be said to cause.] And here your malice to your Creator doth grow outrageous. For as he cannot but foresee (who is Omniscient) so he doth not prevent, but patiently suffers to come to pass All the wickedness in the world; which had he prevented, it had not been. And so it is palpably your Opinion expressed in print, That God may justly be said to be the Cause of all the wickedness in the world; which is by much a greater Blasphemy, than can be verified of the Devil; because there is very much wickedness of which the Devil is not the Cause, but only the will of the wicked man, as the right Reverend Bishop Hall hath well observed. And are you fit to be a Preacher, who teach the people to believe that God is worse than the Devil? Do not flatter yourself, that when you shall come to be examined for these and the rest of your horrid Blasphemies, it will suffice you to say, You writ these things when you were Drunk; For you have not only written, but also done what you can to make them public too. For which it is not your Master Bradshaw, that will be able to excuse you. 4. And whereas you say also, (p. 9) that you cannot understand, how those who acknowledge God's Prescience, can free him from being in some Sense The Author of Sin.] You expla●● your meaning by the fourth line going before, where God in plain terms is called by you [The Sole Author,] as if the Devils and wicked men had nothing to do in the works of wickedness, but all were to be cast upon God alone. Whereby it appears in what sense you would have God not to be freeable from being thought the Author of Sin, by such as acknowledge he is Omniscient. And if you acknowledge him to be such, than you profess you cannot free him from being in your sense the Author of Sin. But if you deny him to be Omniscient, declare your denial if you dare, and you shall have a Round Answer. Again you tell us what you mean by the Phrase [in some sense] when you join it to Gods being Author of sin, by having said before that he willeth sin, and that what he willeth he necessitates, because he Absolutely wills it, in your Theology (p. 9, & 10.) 5. To leave yourself without excuse, and without all benefit of equivocation, you open your mind with a witness (p. 10.) where you say that the Absolute will of God, as it is the prime cause, so it does always actually concur with, and therefore is necessarily productive of every action of the Creature.] I will not here show how fit you are to be Vndergraduate, if not to be sent back to School, (not as an Usher to teach others, but as an overgrown Boy, to be taught once more in the Ushers Forms,) by your illogical use of the word [Therefore;] inferring necessary productiveness from actual concurrence, as if you knew not the force of those English words: For the Blasphemy of your speeches is so much the worst and the most Regnant thing in you, that your talking like an Idiot doth hardly deserve my consideration. You know that to Blaspheme, and hate and curse the Creator, are some of the actions of the Creature; which shows that your Doctrine must needs be this, that the absolute will of God is the prime cause of Blaspheming, and hating, and cursing God; and is necessarily productive as well of the worst, as of the best actions, because (say you) of every action of the Creature. But whether you do not rather believe that the three said actions are very good, as being produced by God himself (in your Opinion,) then that God can be productive of any thing that is evil, you must resolve your Readers another Time. If you say yes, than you hold that it is good to Blaspheme and hate God; but if you say No, you hold that God is the Cause and the prime Cause too of those impieties. 6. You farther add in the same page, (6 lines from the bottom,) that God's Influence doth Act, though in a secret, yet in an irresistible manner.] And thus you infer, with your Master Hobbs, that 'twas as necessary for David to commit Adultery, as for the Fire to burn upwards: the one being acted as irresistibly as the other, in your Opinion. And hence it must needs be your Opinion, that there cannot be any such thing as Hell, because God is just; and it cannot consist with justice to punish men eternally for what they could not be obliged to perform: And Nemo tenetur ad Impossibile, none could ever be obliged to the doing of those things, which from all eternity were made impossible to be done. And all was so made impossible, the contrary to which was decreed to be effected in Time, by an Influence Acting in a manner irresistible. And so perhaps when you shall be asked, why you have written so many Blasphemies; you will readily say, you could not help it. For God (say you) is the prime cause, and is necessarily productive of every action of the Creature (p. 10) and Gods Influence doth act in an irresistible manner, (ibid. and what you were made to do irresistibly you could not help. And so you are caught in a net which yourself were at the cost and the care to wove; having proved you a Ranter in the highest degree, by an Argument never to be resisted. Whereas you say, God's Influence doth act, and not that God doth act by his Influence, you only discover your disability to write plain English like a Scholar, and therefore for That I shall not vex you, if you will learn some Logic before you writ next. But I hasten to your three consequential Blasphemies. The six examples of your Blasphemy against the holiness and goodness of God Almighty being premised, Your Consequential Blasphemies, 1. a. 'gainst God's Prescience. I now proceed unto the seventh, which very plainly (although Implicitly) you have publicly vented against his prescience. For first whilst you say, you are not able to understand, how those who acknowledge God's prescience can free him from being the Author of Sin, (p. 9) you imply yourself to be none of their number, who do acknowledge God's Prescience; if we duly compare it with what you say before and after. You say before (p. 2) that men ought to look no higher for a cause of their defilement, then to the impure spring within them. Which if you really believe, (as you say you do, p 1.) you must needs believe that God hath no prescience of any Sin, because the acknowledging of his prescience is said by you to conclude him the Author of sin. And if God may be so concluded, than men may look higher for a cause of their defilement, then to the spring within themselves. So as you cannot deny your implicit Denial of his Prescience (p. 9 but by confessing you played the Hypocrite, in saying you did believe, what you knew you did not, (p. 1.) And as you say (p. 11.) how much the doubts of Prescienos are apt to perplex a disputing Christian, so you ignorantly affirm (p. 20.) that no man yet hath been ever able to explain, how humane Liberty can consist with Divine Prescience. So that one of these two you implicitly profess not to believe, unless you can believe two things at once, whereof the one is inconsistent with the other. Humane liberty you believe, (if we may believe you p. 19) though you say your Master Hobbs does more than Stoically deny it. And therefore Divine Prescience must needs be that which you disbelieve. 8. Your 8th. Blasphemy Consists in the Jeer you cast upon the Scripture, 2 Against his word. wherein though you say, you are taught to believe that man hath free will, (p. 19) yet you also say 'tis so impossible to be proved, that you think there is nothing less capable of a proof, (ibid.) Nor doth it excuse you, that you there say. Si omnino Philosophice a gendum sit; for besides your affirming, the Inconsistency of Prescience with the Liberty of the will (in your deep apprehension,) you discover your mockery in the whole matter, by daring to say in equivalence, there neither is nor can be God, if God may be granted to be a Spirit who can move himself by his proper force. 9 For you say, it is impossible to be so much as imagined or conceived, that any thing should be able to move itself and that by its natural force or virtue. 3 Against his Essence. (p 19) which although you u●ge against the Liberty of the will, yet it evidently reacheth to the denial of Gods own essence. For your words are universal, and must be granted by yourself to strike at God, if you will grant, that God ●is aliquid. And if you will not, you will discover your Atheism another way. For what is not Aliquid is Nihil. And to say that God is nothing, is as bad as to say, there is no God. I foresee you may say in your own defence, that you speak only in reference to the Omnia quae videmus (3. lines going before) But I also foresee, this will not stand you in any stead. For do you speak of all things, only visible to the eyes of the outward man? or of all things visible to the inward man also, I mean to the eyes of the understanding? If of the former, you baffle yourself with your own Instance, which you expressly give in the will of man. (For the will of man is invisible, unless it be to the Inward eyes.) If of the latter, you must confess that your Assertion doth reach even to God, and becomes an Argument for Athcisme. For (besides the Reason before given) it is not a God, but an Idol, which ariseth out of certain determinate Causes. And this you know is the English of your own expression in that place. If in the three last Paragraphs I have but argued from your words, Six confessions of ignorance in the things whereof you affirm. and not hit upon your meaning, be sure you learn to write better, before you writ of such things, of which you confess you understand nothing at all. And this is the next thing to be noted in you, that you have taken so much pains to tell the world you are a Blockhead, or that nothing can truly be, but what you are able to comprehend. For though conditional Election is asserted, both by Scripture and Antiquity, and the most Learned of all the Moderns, yea and assented unto by the ablest Followers of Calvin (who grant Election to be conditional, though not the eternal Decree to Elect,) yet (1.) you say 'tis impossible to be conceived (p. 2.) And therefore you must needs be one of the dullest of Mankind, since what is easy to other men is impossible to you. You have not only not learned, what others have; but you are not capable of being taught. Why else do you say, that that is impossible to be conceived, which is demonstrated by others, and conceived even by me, than whom there is hardly any one duller, yourself excepted? 2. You say, you do not understand, how God can consider any condition in the Creature, as a ground of his Election. (p 9) why then did you not supplicate, to Mr. Pierce, or some other) for information? why do you rail at other men, for understanding things above your reach, or for your wants of understanding? 3. You say, you do not understand, how they that acknowledge God's Prescience can free him from being in some sense the Author of sin. (ibid.) But suppose you cannot understand how God can be a Spirit, (which surpasseth Mr. Hobbs his understanding) does it therefore follow, he is not a Spirit? Cannot things be knowable, unless such things as you can know them? 4. You say, you cannot understand , (p. 10.) And I believe you speak truly. But why then do you write two leaves of Latin De Libere Arbitrio, and ridiculously call it Exercitatio Philosophica) when you confess in the same Pamphlet (I mean the English part of it) not only that you do not, but that you cannot understand the thing you writ of? Why are there Schools and Schoolmasters, but to enlighten such understandings, as yours is manifested to be? 5. You say there are Intricacies which make this controversy unintelligible, and almost incapable of solution. (p. 10. 11.) Yes, quite Incapable, if unintelligible. But as he that speaks aloud to every one that is quick of hearing, doth seem to whisper to a man that is thick of hearing, and to hold his peace to a man that is deaf; so some men's evidences are intricacies to others: and things commonly understood may to men of your pitch, be unintelligible. But there are intricacies indeed, as you have made them, by taking those for your Maxims, and setting them down as things granted, which are the greatest of all Falsehoods, and the most generally denied. And I refer you for instance to my first Six Paragraphs, showing how you make God to be the Author of sin, without the least offer of Reason for it. 6. You confess you are not able to prove freewill, nor to reconcile it with the Prescience of God (p 19.20.) although you say you are content to believe it (p. 10.) And are not you a proper man, to offer at a dispute about what you confess you cannot prove, nor understand nor conceive? no nor imagine how the things can be conceivable? 'tis just as if Polyphemus, when he was blind, should have challenged Ulysses to judge of Colours, notwithstanding his confessions, that all was black to him, as being blind. From your confessed wants of understanding, (which may well have been forfeited for your monstrous ingratitude to your Teacher) I come to show you the depravation of your Will too. Ten self-contradictions & wilful Lies. which will be best of all seen, in your self-contradictions, and wilful lies, For I find you saying within the compass of a few pages, 1. That you hold nothing but what you solely derive from Scripture, (p. 1.) and yet that you cannot deny God to be the Author of Sin, (p. 2.) which is as contrary to Scripture as Heaven is to Hell. 2. That men ought not to look higher for a cause of their defilement then unto the impure spring within them, (p. 2.) And yet that the absolute will of God is the prime cause, and necessarily productive of every action of the Creature (p. 10.) So that unless you mean God, by the impure spring within men, (which is a greater Blasphemy than ever proceeded from the Devil) your self-contradiction is unpardonably shameful; though your condition is fare worse, if it be no contradiction; and that for the reason I just now hinted. 3. That you do in your very thoughts abhor Blasphemy, and cannot with reason be accused of it (p. 2.) And yet that God is the sole Author of whatever conditions the Creature can be supposed to have. (p. 9) Do you not think it to be Blasphemy, for which Mr. * See Mr. Pierces divine purity defended Edit. 2. p. 30. Calvin accused the Libertines, of making no difference between God and the Devil? If you adhorred it in your thoughts, why did you Print it for one of your principles? If you did not abhor it, you wilfully lied when you said you did. 4. That you firmly believe men's sins to be wholly to be taken to themselves (p. 1.) And yet that you cannot understand, how they who acknowledge God's prescience can free him from being the Author of sin. (p. 9 5. That Mr. Pierce charged your faults upon the account of your principles, (p. 1.) and yet that you did him an injury, for which you also beg his pardon, in naming him rashly as the Author of those reflections set out by Tilenus' Junior, whom you call the nameless, and unknown Apologist. (p. 3. 4, 5.) 6. That He atproached near to Blasphemy (p. 1.) and yet that you dare not charge upon him those odious inferences etc. and that his opinion is consistent with a pious life (p. 2.) 7. That you do heartily beg his pardon for your Preface (p. 3.) and are content to call it a fault, a mistake grounded upon presumptions, (p. 4.) and yet that you have a just occasion to abide by what you said, and instead of retracting any thing in your Preface, you might look upon it only as an Anticipated revenge. (p. 5.) and yet again (but five lines after) that Mr. Pierce having opened your eyes, as to what you say you did ignorantly, and in the dark,) 'tis fit you should first offer to shake hands, and not wilfully prosecute what you unwittingly began. 8. That you hold it more generous, to ask forgiveness, then to persist in an injury, (p. 4.) and yet that you dare not retract any thing in your Narrative (p. 3.) though wholly spent against your own Master Mr. Busbie,, who had done better for you then your natural Parents. 9 That you think cannot possibly be proved (p. 19) and yet that every man proves it by his experience, (p. 20.) and yet again, that God's concourse is urged to take away all manner of , because his influence doth act irresistibly. p. 10 and yet again (for all that) that if we take away , All virtue and piety and Polity falls to the ground. (p. 20.) 10. You add abundance of contradictions (besides all these) if not to your own printed words, yet to your clearest knowledge that all is False. For you say of Mr. Pierce that he made invectives at the Pillars of the Church (p. 3.) that common Fame did voice those Reflections to be his. (ibid.) that a friend of his did warrant you He was the Author of those Reflections. (p. 4.) To which you add the likeness of the stile; whereby (if you prove any thing) you prove it was not his; for Nullum simile est idem. Again, you talk of a Dispute which had been betwixt Mr. Pierce and you about a weighty question, (p. 1.) and affirm that Question to have been touching Gods Decrees, (p. 9) whereas you know, there had not been ever any such thing. Not in private; for I cannot hear (upon inquiry) that you ever met under one Roof, or ever saw each others Faces. Nay till you licked up the spittle of your Patron Bradshaw, (whom you took upon you to make a Lord in your pudendous Dedicatory Epistle,) and also had railed at Mr. Busbie for being a Merciful, Conscientious and Prudent man, Mr. Pierce had not * See his Let.ter to Dr. Heylin. p. 301 heard you were in being. All the Controversy therefore twixt him and you, was merely grounded upon these two Questions. First, whether Mr. Pierce was the Author of the Reflections at which you Railed; which you first held in the affirmative, and now in the negative; (for you confess, you were mistaken, and proceeded too sharply upon that mistake, (p. 3.) Secondly, * Wilfulness added to your ingratitude. whether Mr. Busbie was to be libelled by one of his most obliged Scholars, for repairing a Public School at his own charges, and for desiring an Assistant (at his own charges too) not more for his ease, than the good of others: And whether he might not desire the Governors, that his Usher might not be suffered in attempting a thing so unnatural, as the standing upon his Head, when there was Ground enough whereon to go. Here it was that Mr. Pierce discovered the madness of your Virulence against your Master, and the multitude of your Lies against the most known Innocence, and the most palpable matters of Fact. You have not now one word to say, towards the clearing of yourself from so great a charge. And yet, instead of repenting, or ask Pardon from your Master; you declare you need none (p. 5) and that you cannot say less than you have done. (p. 6.) This is that which makes your sin exceeding sinful, that you deny it to be a sin, and resolve never to mend. That I may not lose too much time by setting you forth in all your colours, I will not disorder you starched countenance, by taking notice (before the world) how you have laid yourself open by all your personal reflections on your Superiors; in particular, on the Learned Tilenus' Junior; whom you call a worthless unknowing person, how much soever you are unworthy to wipe his shoes; and how much soever you were afraid to make the least answer to his Reflections. There are but two things more, which I resolve for the present to lay before you. The first is your profession of a strict adherence unto the Letter, without regard to any consequences, (p. 2.) Again you resolve to acquiesce in the Letter of the Scripture, in spite of all the Tumultuating, and Agitations of your thoughts against it. (p. 11.) From hence you discover to the world, what Heathenish thoughts you have of God, when Eyes, and Ears, and Heart, and Bowels, are by the common figure [Anthropopathia] ascribed to him in Scripture. When St. Paul saith the weakness, yea the foolishness of God etc. When our Saviour saith he is the true vine: Are you resolved to acquiesce in the Letter of those Texts where such figures are to be found, in spite of all the ugly consequences which will ensue? See the condition that you are in, by reading Mr. Pierce upon this Subject against * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. from p. 28. to p. 61. Mr. Whitfeilds' adhering to the Letter, as you have done in the same case. And yet in other places of the Scripture where God is said to hate sin, and to be of purer eyes then to behold iniquity, you are so far from adhering to the Letter, that you say you cannot deny him to be the Author of Sin. Which proves your malicious disaffection as well to his Purity as his word. The second thing I must lay before you, is your impertinent bundle of Latin scraps, which you vainly call a Philosophical exercitation concerning , and which I call a bundle of Latin scraps, because you have stolen the ingredients of the hotch potch, (which are by far the most, and the most mate-rial parts of the whole) out of Gassendus his third tome, upon the tenth Book of Diogenes Laertius, concerning Epicurus his moral Philosophy; without taking notice of Gassendus, to whom you were beholding for all your treasure: (excepting what you filch from Mr. Chillingworth.) I speak my opinion, and the opinion of a Gentleman who first directed me to the places, where he had traced you by your footsteps. If you did jump with Gassend in so many collections to the same purpose, and in the same way of application, (without your knowledge,) I shall ask your pardon for my mistake. Whether its credible that you did, let it be judged by the parallel which here is added. Mr. Bagshaw. Pet. Gassend. Pag. 13. from lin. 15. etc. Pag. 1616 lin. 33. etc. ib. l. 23. ibd. l. 1. p. 14. l. 6, 7, 8, 9 ib. l. 9 etc. from the bottom ib. l. 11, 12. ib. l. 7, 8. from the bottom. ib. l. 16, 17, 18. p. 1617. l. 1, 4, 5. ib. l. 19 20. p. 1616. l. 4, 5. from the bottom ib. l. 24. 25. p. 1619. l. 43. p. 15. l. 2. ib. l. 44. ib. l. 17, 18. p. 1644. l. 20. 21, p. 16. l. 17, 18. p. 1615 l. 12. p. 17. l. ult. & penult. p. 1596. l. 28. p. 18. l. 6, 7. p. 1602. l. 7. etc. from bottom. ib. l. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 p. 1615. l. 12. Mr. Bagshaw P. 8. The passage and application [of the Stoic in Lucian his outery, supplying his want of Argument, crying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is visibly stolen from Mr. Chillingworth his Epistle Dedicatory to the King p. 3. These particulars are many, (many even to admiration) considering the shortness of your Exercitation, with which your Printer was not able to fill up three little leaves, notwithstanding the largeness of his Character, as well as his many and great breaks. And now (pray) to what purpose is the little all that you have said? The Latin Exercitation Epitomised. you only tell us as well as you can, (that is, very improperly) what every child could have told you, [That the Stoics held one thing, and the Platonics quite another, and that if any one has a mind to examine the matter of , he may read Bp. Bramhal affirming, and Thomas Hobbs more than Stoically denying, (what the Scripture, you say, affirmeth,) The of man. After which you conclude, that you believe it for your own part, (as being taught it out of the Scripture,) although you see no reason for it, and cannot conceive how it should be, yea that it can as * Non dubitaverim affirmare nihil esse quod minus probari posse putem p. 19 little be proved to be, as whatsoever it is which is most impossible; And yet (you say in the close of all † Cum nemo non experiatur se, quando velit, non actionem modò, sed & voluntatem immutare posse; nemo vereatur asserere sibi cam, cujus vim quotidiè sentit & actionem exerit, etc. p. 20. That every man proves by his own experience, that he can change his action, yea and his will too when he pleaseth. And therefore you forbidden him to deny , whose operation and force he daily feeleth within himself.] O brave Usher! That is impossible to be proved, which is daily proved by experience. It is the fullest of Difficulties, although the clearest and plainest thing, and the most undeniable to be imagined. Go thy ways without a Peer, both as a Disputant, and a Divine. I will not swinge you for your * p. 16. l. vit. & p. 17. l. 1. usque ad l. 7. false Latin, False Latin pardoned in writing a period of no less than eight lines, without a principal Verb to make it sense; nor for your Ignorance in the use of the words † p. 17. l. 5. Certa and Infallibilis, as if they were the same with Necessitativa; nor for putting [Certo] in stead of [ut necessaria] p. 17. l. 12. Nor for saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the very Greek for wretched, implying that you knew not the just Importance of the word; nor yet for divers other things which I have promised you not to mention; but only ask you why you say, That no man hitherto hath been able to explain, how humane liberty can consist with Divine prescience, Salvo utriusque jure. (p. 20.) Dare you write yourself a Student, without having studied so much as one of those many, who have often and clearly performed that task, which you say was never performed by any? Not to speak of Latin writers, Mr. Thorndike in English hath done it largely, and Mr. Pierce (long before) had done it often. If you have read his several Books, why do you write against your knowledge? If you never read them, (which is most likely, since you never cited a Line from them, but only railed at them in general) why rail you at that, which you never read? your meaning is, that you yourself are not able to conceive, much less to explain, how humane Liberty can consist with God's Prescience. Whereby you virtually confess, that it cannot consist with God's absolute Decrees of Election and Reprobation. And so you must deny those decrees to be absolute, because you hold the of man. And again you must deny the of man, because you hold those Decrees to be Absolute. Well, Sir. Because the thing which you call a Latin Exercitation amounts to no more in effect, than a Declaration of your ignorance, how and Prescience are reconcileable, (this in God, and that in man,) I will enlighten your understanding, as Mr. Pierce his Books have enlightened mine. And in order to this end, I will not steal, but (fairly and thankfully) only borrow some of his Light. All I shall do shall be to explain it to you in Latin, that so in every respect I may fit my Remedy to your Disease. If it chance toeffect the cure, you will acknowledge me to be, of all the men in the world, Your surest friend in time of need. M. O. Conciliatio facilis & perspicua Praescientiae Divinae cum Libero Hominis Arbitrio. Amirabilis illa sive sciendi sive percipiendi ratio, quae Patri luminum, tum semper, tum soli competit, longè exsuperans omnem motum Ordinemque Temporis, suâque simplicitate mentis nostrae aciem percellens, rectissimè (opinor) concipiatur, si dixerimus Aeternum illum uno simplici intuitu res omnes nôsse & contemplari, sive praeteritas, sive futuras, (quoad nos) ut jam praesentes (quoad Se.) Ideoque eam Boethius, non Praescientiam sed scientiam, nec tam Praevidentiam, quàm Providentiam, dicendam censet. Quae quidem Providentia, Rerum futurarum proprietates & Naturas, non mutat, sed expendit; Expendit verò, prout sunt, respectu Sui; id est, prout sunt futurae, respectu Temporis. Nam ut Praesentium Perspicientia nullam connotat Necessitatem, ipsis inditam Rebus, quae jam nunc evenêre; ita neque Futurorum Praevisio, Rebus ipsis, quae sunt futurae, necessitatem omnino ullam concipiatur injicere. Quia quicunque res novit cernitve, easdem cernit novitque, quemadmodum sunt ex parte Rei; non autem ex adverso quemadmodum non sunt. Et quidem Dei scientia nequaquam Res conturbare, circa quas versatur, putanda est; sed ad omnia eventa se exerere, non tantum quae eveniunt, sed & quemadmodum eveniunt, sive contingenter hoc fit, sive etiam necessario. Exemplicausâ.) Quando hominem solo incedentem video, eodemque plane momento solemin Coelo collucentem; Alterum conspicio, ut voluntarium; ut Naturale, alterum. Et quamvis ea temporis articulo, quo utrumque fieri conspicio ut reapse fiant necesse sit, (secus enim non conspexissem) priùs tamen quàm facta sunt, Unius tantummodo Necessitas erat ut fieret, nempe Resplendentiae in Coelo Solis; Alterius verò omnino nulla, videlicet Incessûs in solo Hominis. Ille siquidem non potuit non lucere, ut qui sit Agens Naturale; At benè potuit Hic non incedere, ut qui sit Agens Voluntarium. Ex quibus praemissis statim sequitur, duplicem esse Necessitatem. Absolutam alteram; Alteram verò ex Hypothesi. Absoluta est Illa, per quam Res non potest non moveri, quando eam quid actu movet, Suppositiva Illa, per quam damnabitur quisquis est qui hinc abierit non renovatus, Posterior Necessitas, (non item & Prior,) cùm hominis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tùm Decretorum Dei Conditionalitatem, quàm optimè admittit. E. G. Ego nunc scribo, meque scripturum ab aeterno praevidit Deus: Non tamen inde sequitur, me nondum scribentem non potuisse non scribere, potui enim, si vellem, meditando, aut legendo, & non scribendo, istud Temporis contrivisse. Licet enim quodcunque praevidit Deus, id ipsum eveniat necesse est; necesse est tamen ut eveniat, eâ solâ ratione, quâ, Qui falli non potest, eventurum praeviderat. (Verbi gratiâ.) Praevidit Ille me scripturum, non ex Necessitate, sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ita ut ejus praevidentia non omnino afferat Necessitatem, Absolutam; sed inferat solummodo Necessitatem ex Hypothesi. (Attendamus sodes, quantum immane distent, tum ab Illatione Causalitas; tum Necessitas Absoluta, ab eâ quae est Conditionata.) Facilè convenit inter omnes, esse simplicitèr necessarium, ut quodcunque exequor, id Deus praevideat: veruntamen Deus, praevidendo actum meum voluntarium, non facit ut abeat in Necessarium; nisi ex hac suppositione, quod ego eum confecerim, aut jam conficiam. Si apud Deum praesentia sint, (ut sunt quidem) omnia; Ipsius praevisio, necesse est, ut eodem ferè redeat, quò nostra visio. igitur, Hominem cùm intueor pro Arbitratu suo saltantem, necesse habet ut illud faciat, quod facientem eum intueor, meus tamen intuitus id non facit necessarium: sic etiam prospectus Ipsius Des De futuro hominis peccato, certitudinem innuebat, itase Rem habituram; Rem autem necessariam, aut non voluntariam, non reddebat. Rem enim certam esse posse, quoad Eventum, quae tamen non sit Necessaria, respectu Causae; nihil habet in se novi apud Animum pensitantem, qui distinguere assueverit inter Omnipotentiam Dei, & Omniscientiam, inter Praescitum & Decretum; inter Certum & Necessarium; inter Naturale & Voluntarium; interque id quod Sequitur per modum Consequentiae, & id quod sequitur per modum Consequentis. Et quidem si ab erroribus edocto meis, quibus ingenuè agnosco me aliquando praepeditum, (tunc temporis nimirum, cùm alius fuerim, quàm nunc sum) liceat mihi de alienis sententiam ferre; In aliis videre mihi videor tot hallucinationes, ab infortunio miscendi ea, quae ego modò separavi, natas, quot ab aliâ infelicitate quacunque, quam quidem mihi datum est cogitando assequi. Ex omnibus autem hucusque dictis, ineluctabili modo videtur sequi; Nullam aliam Necessitatem, praeter illam suppositivam, cum Actu Libero, & fortuito, seu voluntario, posse consistere. (Exempli gratiâ.) Cùm cerno aliquem sedentem, necesse est ut simul sedeat; non tamen absolutè, (sive ex necessitate antecedente,) sed hoc supposito, eum tum sedere; quippe cujus consessus res est prorsus ultronea, fortuita, id est, Contingens. Consedit enim tum, cùm illi esset collubitum, & (ordinario Dei concursu nequaquam se subducente) exsurgere potest, quandocunque illi visum fuerit. Aveo doceri, (si haec non sit) quaenam sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loquendi ratio. Nimirum, suo Interdicto sanctione communito, Deum meam contumaciam poenae obnoxiam reddidisse; suo autem decreto non impediendi aut sinendi, reliquisse me in manu Consilii mei; & eousque sub peccato, ut peccare possim & perire, si velim modò: adeoque sciendo me peccare, (aut praesciendo me peccaturum) nihil illum omnino aut influxûs aut efficaciae, in peccatum meum exerere; ideoque tum Praevaricationem, tum Perditionem, à meipso in solidum dimanare. To Mr. HENRY HICKMAN Titular Fellow of Magd. Coll. and Pretended Parson of St. Awls in Oxford, Touching a Libel subscribed by THEOPHILUS' CHURCHMAN. SIR, THat you may see my Resolution not to imitate Mr Bagshaw, by using sharpness towards you, for what was done by another man; And that you may feel for what Reasons I do conclude you (though not the Author, yet) the Compiler of that Libel, which is Entitled [A Review of the Certamen Epistolare] and fictitiously subscribed by Theophilus' Churchman, (of which hereafter;) I will present you with a Catalogue of several Plagiarismes and stealths, which could hardly be committed, unless by You. Your own Right Eye is not liker unto your Left, than the Thieveries I will show you are like to those, which gained you the name of the * New Bathyllus, and made you fit to be compared with filching Celsus, as well as resembled to Aesop's Crow. This is not all I have to say, for your being the Author (I should have said the Compiler, or Stitcher-up) of the Joce-Seria, for which I intent to represent you both to your self, and common people; But this is that with which I chose to begin my work, which being done, I shall go on to the other Reasons of my Conclusion; and then proceed to the vindication of that Reverend, Learned, and Renowned Champion of the Church, (I mean Dr. Heylin of Lacy's Court) whom you have wilfully slandered in an unpardonable Degree. And whom as I honour for the great profit I have already received by his Cosmography, (by which alone I am encouraged to be a diligent reader of all his works) so I shall honour him more than ever, for being profaned by the Pen of so obscene a Pamphleter as yourself. Should I recite as many stealths, as other men have observed, as well as I, (for I will not be so dishonest, as to pretend they are all of my collecting, which were sent me from a person whose very Name is a stranger to me, though by a strict examination I find his collections to be true) I should be in some danger to make a volume of your purloynings. But I will imitate the method, and exceed the Brevity which I find observed by Mr. Pierce; whose public discovery of the dishonest Trade that you were driving, gave me the Hint and Curiosity to make another; and so to find out the meaning of Theophilus Churchman. The taking up of citations at second hand (of which I told your Brother Bagshaw) is a generous fault, in comparison of stealing the wit of other men, with their very words too: More than an hundred of such crimes you are already convicted of, And therefore the fewer shall serve my Turn, to show the affinity of this second Pamphlet with your first. But if you think otherwise, I will convict you hereafter with many more. The greatest Robberies are again committed upon that Learned Gentleman Mr. Morice, but reserving those to the later end of the Indictment, I begin with the sufferings of other men. Mr. John Goodwin's Triumvirs. Theophilus' Churchman. The young Bear, who intending to do his Master, being asleep in the fields, a courtesy, by mauling a poor fly that troubled his rest, struck her paw, or talons, into his head, and slew him. pag. 225. l. 26. A young Bear, who intending to do his Master, being a sleep in the field, a courtesy, by mauling a poor fly that troubled his rest, struck her paw, or talons into his head and slew him. page. 138: line 1. He is not ex genere Aquilino; he is so active in catching flies. p. 144. l. 1. He is not the genere Aquilino, he flieth out— to catch a fly. p. 134. lin. Antepen. Pelagius Redivivus (supposed to be) written by Dr. Featly. Churchman. Zabarel having coined as he thought, a new distinction unheard of before,— Ego hanc solutionem primus inveni (In poster. Analyt.) Yet afterwards he ingenuously confesseth, that perusing Gandavensis his writings upon the same Argument, there he found the self same distinction; and it much rejoiced his heart, that so acute a Philosopher as Gandavensis, should hit upon the same conceit. Epist. before 2d. Parallel, p. 8. lin. Antepen. Zabarel had coined as he thought a new distinction not heard of before, Ego hanc distinctionem primus inveni, (In Anal. post.) Yet afterwards he ingenuously confesseth that reading Gandavensis on the same subject, he found the selfsame distinction, and much rejoiced that so acute a Philosopher as Gandavensis should hit on the same conceit. p. 8. lin. 20. Mr. Hales Golden Remains. Churchman. Is like unto a suborned witness: it never doth help so much while it is presumed to be strong, as it doth hurt when it is discovered to be weak. 1 Sermon p. 17. lin. 4. Is like unto a suborned witness: it never doth help so much while it is presumed to be strong, as it doth hurt when it is discovered to be weak. p. 41. lin. 4. Forepossest with some opinion, as Antipheron Orieles, in Aristotle thought that every where he saw his own shape and picture going afore him. 1. Serm. p. 4. l. 28. Prepossessed with an opinion, as Antipheron Orieles in Aristotle, think that every where he sees his own shape and picture going before him. p. 95. lin. 16. As Chemists deal with natural bodies, torturing them do extract that out of them which God and nature never put in them. Ibid p. 3. lin. 5. As ever Chemists did upon those Bodies, out of which he hoped to extract something which God and Nature never put in them. p. 76. lin. 6. Bp. Lincolne's Holy Table. Churchman alias Hickman. Pag. 2. (lin. 15.) I will give you a short taste of his feigning and his failing. (l. 16.) He feigneth the— (17.) he fails, because— (lin. 20.) He feigns, that— (lin. 21.) He fails, for— (lin. 22) He feigns that— (lin. 23.) He fails, for— (l 25.) He feigns the— (l. 28.) He fails,— (l. 30.) He feigns, that— etc. Pag. 8. lin. 2. now let's take notice of the Doctors failings— (lin. 6.) He feigns this— (l. 8.) He faileth for— (lin. 19) He feigneth the— (lin. 22.) He feigneth each— [Note that this is in his Advertisement behind his first Book.] Bp. of Lincolne's Holy Table. Churchman alias Hickman. Let Doctor Coal kindle as red as he pleaseth. ib. p. 39 l. 16. Would not Dr. Coal kindle upon it? p. 32. lin. 18. This great good work, or piety of these times. p. 83. l. 9 The piety of the times or the good work in hand. p. 103. l. 7. Mr. Morice Coena quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Churchman. To research— is with Roderick of Spain, to break open a Temple, where they shall only find Images of men armed against them. p. 45. lin. 5. To search— is with Roderick of Spain, to break open a Temple, in which he shall only find Images of men armed against him. p. 84. lin. penult. Though I think they need as few grains of allowance to make them passable, as any generation of men, p. 93. lin. 20. Though I think they need as few grains, to make them currant as any sort of men. p. 152. l. Antep. Diogenes seeing a roving Archer, ran to stand at the mark as the safest place; so surely all the— shafts are shot so wide, that I may willingly choose to keep myself at this mark, yet never fear to be hurt with any of their Arrows. p. 79. lin. antep. Es cùm magna malae superest audacia Causae, Creditur a multis fiducia.— p. 76. lin. 13. These Arrows— are all shot at rovers and the— need only with Diogenes go to the mark at which the— should have aimed, and he'll find that no one arrow had the good hap to be shot near it. p. 64. lin. 4. Et cùm magna malae superest audacia Causae, Creditur a multis fiducia.— p. 138. l. 13. As Caracalla dealt with his Brother Geta, sit inter divos modò non intervivos. p. 211. l. 39 We know who said, sit divus modò non sit vivus. pag. 126. l. 6. Mr. Morice Coena quasi κοινή. Churchman. Albeit they are Symbolizantia Elementa, that therefore they are facilè transmutabilia. p. 252. lin. 5. See lin. 28. We judge those Elements symbolical, which are most easily transmuted. p. 154. lin. antep. See ib. lin. ult Wet with the common shower of folly. p. 64. lin. pen. A few soft drops of the common shower of folly— pag. 165. lin. 7. De occultis non judicat Ecclesia. p. 136. l. 12. Et de occultis non judicat Ecclesia. p. 43. lin. antep. Whether Sat benè, I shall not say, but I am sure not Sat citò. Pref. p. 5. lin. 6. Sat citò, I am sure whether sat benè— p. 175. lin. 2. Prompted by Balak to see but the utmost part of them, and not to see them all,— ibid. p 9 lin. 9, Only with Balaam he looks on the utmost part of it, and will not see it all— pag. 133. lin. 26. Rather operate upon the pillars, than the rails of the Tabernacle: (and then follows lin. pen.) I envy that glory to Hortensius, that never engaged in a Civil war. Pref. p. 14. lin. 36. Rather strengthen the Pillars than adorn the rails of the Lords house. [there's more of Mr. Morice his notion in that place, lightly changed, and then follows,] hath been the glory of some, that they never engaged in a Civil war. pag. 159. lin. 21. That I may not be Voluminous, but rather make short work, I shall only show you by way of Reference (pointing out with my finger) to whom you were beholding for other things. Churchman. Francis Rous. Concerning King James' saying, of Predestination. pag. 140. lin. 24. See Francis Rous in his Testis veritatis, or, Doctrine of K. James. p. 3. l. 3. Concerning A. B. Bancroft's approving Mr. Roger's Book on the Articles. p. 116. l. 15. See Ibid. p. 53. lin. 22, etc. Concerning the Arminians destroying the Articles of Religion, by your opinion; Title-page, lin. 22. See Ibid. p. 58. Concerning Bp. Montague's censuring the Genevenses, Epist. pag. 2. See Dr. Owen's long Preface to his Book of Perseverance. Now besides these Authors whom you have plundered, I know not how many there are besides, whom you include in your Et caetera, as soon as you have named Dr. Davenant and Dr. Twisse; whose Books having not read, I know no more of your stealths from them, than yourself have confessed in general Terms, and therefore require you to give in a Catalogue of particulars. Yet I can tell you where you had your quisquilious Levity, and lifting up a pen, (p. 13. & p. 77.) even from the Triumvirs of Mr. Goodwin. And where you had your being possessed with an invincible indignation, etc. (p. 19 l. 6.) even from Dr. Peter Heylin. So the Dr's hard grating your stile (Pref. p. 7.) is the second time stolen from Mr. Goodwin. Some things you filched from Dr. Brown's vulgar Errors, as when you say (p. 7. there is nothing above the line, or beyond the extemporary sententiosity, of a ploughman or Butcher.] Your playing with Ne hili upon the name of Dr. Heylin (p. 13.) is verbatim stolen from Mr. Fuller's Reply. Many of your cleanest and best expressions are palpably stolen from Mr. Pierce, (as I could demonstrate if I had time.) I could also tell you of many stealths in your first Rhapsody, which escaped the notice of Dr. H. and Mr. P. But hereafter of That, if occasion serves. And thus you have my first Reason, why the Libellous Joco-seria aught to lie at your Dore. My second is taken from your forgetfulness of the part you were to act, when having spoken of Mr. Hickman in the third person only (as far as p. 23.) you there betray yourself, by speaking plainly in the first. And this is done no less than twice in one Section (p. 23, & 24.) So that Churchman is discovered to be a Magdalen College man; and no one there, besides yourself, could be so thievish, or so obscene, or so slanderously malicious to Dr. Heylin, or so partially affected to Mr. Hickman, (who has too much of their Laughter, to think he has any of their Love,) as to compile such a Libel in your behalf. My third Reason is, Because although in the Title-page the Libel is pretended to have been printed at London, yet the Printer's Errata are imputed to the Author's being sometimes absent from the University. (as if there were no sending to London, or having intelligence from thence, unless by being at Oxford or Cambridge.) A Counterfeit in one thing will be a Counterfeit in another. My fourth Reason is, because in the very last lines printed after the Errata, a Confession is made unto the Reader, that many passages of the Book were (dishonestly) taken from several Authors, without an acknowledgement of the Authors from whom the passages were stolen; and without so much as a Note of Difference, which is usually made in Italic Letters. This in that place is expressed thus— [Some things taken out of Dr. Davenant, Dr. Twisse, etc. are not put in the Italic Letters, nor the Author's Names set against them in the Margin.] Where I observe these things. 1. Your favourable Periphrasis whereby the Plagium or Robbery is here described. (Things were taken out of Authors, without taking notice of their Names, and without the doing of any thing else, by which they might be known to be none of yours. Neither Celsus nor Bathyllus could have said less for themselves) Secondly, This Confession was not made until the Libel was quite printed, which was after the discoveries of your former stealths were made public: And in which our Churchman had not been so concerned, had not He and Mr. Hickman been both the same. Thirdly, After Davenant, and Twisse, there is added an [&c.] Importing many more Authors, that had been pilfered of wit and language, who yet are concealed with an [&c.] because the same that Mr. Hickman had so eminently robbed in his former Book. Fourthly, As the other sufferers are not named, so Dr. Davenant and Dr. Twisse are only named, without any reference to their Books, much less to their pages, out of which it is confessed some things were taken. And so much for my fourth Reason. My Fifth Reason is, because Churchman sometimes confesseth, that what he speaks is from the mouth of Mr. Hickman, as well as in Mr. Hickman's name. p. 168. l. 6, 20. My Sixth Reason is, because I can prove that you owned the thing as yours, whilst yet it stuck in the Press at Oxford, and continued so to do until your Trade of stealing was in part discovered by Dr. Heylin, and in perfection by Mr. Pierce. After which you repent, though you purposed never to mend; and being ashamed to own That, which you found would be proved to be but stolen; you tried to hid it behind the veil of Theophilus Churchman. A couple of names no way suitable, unless it be by an Antiphrasis. For how can you be Theophilus, who slander God as the Author of the wickedest actions in the world? (Mr. Pierce hath printed your own words in his Letter to Dr. Heylin, p. 226. etc.) And how can you be a Churchman, who were only ordained by Presbyterians, and by that made incapable of being admitted into the Clergy, without your abtenunciation of such Mock-Orders? But having spent too much time in the plucking off your Hood, (that men may see who you are for all your mumming) I will proceed to make it appear, in the second place, (the first being filled with your trade of stealing) what a trade of wilful lying, and slandering, is driven by those Puritans who pretend to Godliness only for gain, and afterwards aggravate their Hypocrisy by calling it the token and also the Fruit of their Election. You deny in the Preface (p. 8, 9) your having smitten, or bitten, or ever so much as shown your teeth at sequestered men of the Clergy. And yet besides your railing at Dr. Heylin, and Mr. Pierce; at the Bishops in general, and the Archbishop in particular (as if he laboured to bring in Popery, and had been turned out of the Schools) you ranked Dr. Hammond with * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: p. 66. p. 21. Ep. p. 4. &. Praef. p. 11. Book. p. 18. Cerberus, and the Keeper of the great Ordinary of Hell. You called the English Tilenus an AEthiopian, a Scribbler, a poor Fellow. Dr. Tailor Socinian and Pelagain. Dr. Martin the Licencer of a scurrilous Pamphlet. etc. You boast of contributing to the relief of Sequestered men (ib.) And yet you swallowed no less than three Benefices at once although you had no right to any of them. viz. The Vicarage of Brackley, (belonging to learned Dr. Sibthorp) the Parsonage so St. Awls (worth 150. pounds per An.) and a Fellowship of Madg. Coll. (enough for any single man, who is not a greedy Puritanical Robber.) Before you were made to quit Brackley, you pocketed up the profits of all three at once, without the least right to so much as one. You say that Dr. H. H. a most eminent Scholar affirmed concerning Dr. Heylin, that he was an unhappy writer, and marred every thing he meddled with (p. 1.) A slander so great, that if you do not recant it, or name some Author, you will be as proverbial for your own invention, as you are already for slily filching other men's. I have learned upon enquiry (of which I have made a great deal) that Dr. H. H. can belong to none but Dr. Hammond and Dr. Hentchman, who are both the friends of Dr. Heylin (as I am certified by some who are friends to both) and great applauders of his works, and disclaim the having so much as given occasion to any slander. And therefore down upon you knees, and ask forgiveness of the Doctor before the world, or else I will make you as famous for something else, as you have been for the Toothache, to which you pretended even ex tempore, upon the coming forth of the new Discoverer Discovered. You also say that he was checked by Dr. Prideaux for going a little to near the Papist, (p. 31. that he would fain have brought some of his brood into the College p. 22. And you tell a large story of a check he received from the marquis of Hartford. p. 35. All which with the rest of what you have vented against the Dr. are at least as ungrounded and home-bread lies, as the Father of lies hath ever framed. But 'tis no more to his disgrace, that he suffers as his Saviour, hath done before him; than it can be to your glory that you have used God's servants, as the Puritan Pharisees did his Son. If now with your slanders and other lies I shall abstract from your work (as we ought to do) all your old ends of stuff, (which are impertinent to the business, as well as stolen) your over many and long tales; and if besides I shall expunge (as I ought also to do) your world of Libellous and railing speeches; there will be nothing remaining throughout the whole composition, which doth any way relate to the controversy in hand, but what is abundantly confuted in the Certamen Epistolare, and in effect by your own Confession. Your confession is this, (p. 40.) That if you thought the Church of England had embraced, ☞ or but connived at Doctrines so pernicious, as Mr. Pierce represents the Calvinistical to be, you should account her the worst of all Churches, not indeed worthy the name of a Church.] From hence it follows undeniablely (and even your favourers cannot deny it) that as far as you believe that the Church of England is not the worst of Churches, so far you grant that the Calvinistical cannot be possibly her Doctrines. Mark now my reason. Those Doctrines are Calvinistical, which are publicly taught by Mr. Calvin and the most eminent of his Followers. But Mr. Pierce hath made it manifest from the words of Calvin, and his followers, exactly cited from their Books, that they have commonly taught God to be the Author of sin, and that in all manner of terms in which that Blasphemy can be expressed; see variety of examples produced by Mr. Peirce in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. 1. p. 8. but especially Ch. 3. p. 140, 141. which no one Calvinist hath ever attempted to gainsay, Therefore you grant the whole thing, for the proving of which Dr. Heylin wrote; viz. that the Doctrines of the Calvinists cannot be possibly embraceed by the Church of England. Which you cannot yet deny, unless by saying she deserves not the name of a Church, which are your own words in the place above cited. Nor is it strange since in your scandalous Latin Sermon (of whose faults I could send you a vast account if I had time) you rail as bitterly as a Jesuit at the Church of England. For could a Jesuit say worse, than that [ * Concio dé Haeres. orig. p. 7. The Church of England alone hath brought forth Monsters of opinions, at which a mad Egyptian would stand amazed?] yet this is nothing but the English of your Latin in that printed Sermon (p. 7. l. 11, 12, 13, 14.) As for your saying that by One Dr. Overal, you meant not two, when 'twas spoken so plainly by way of scorn; and for the work you make with Typographical Errata, which are so clearly typographical that they make arrant Nonsense, (which could never have fallen from Dr. Heylin) it is so much to your shame that you could catch at such flies, as I need not wish you a greater punishment. Now I come to your Letter to Dr. Heylin printed together with your Book. And first, I begin with your wilful Lies. For though you had promised in the Title-page a Reply to Mr Pierce, yet you, and all your Readers know, there is not any such thing in all the Pamphlet. You should have said in the Title-page, A sneaking away from Mr. Pierce. For, 1. whereas he proved from your words (citing your pages and very lines) that you had printed many Blasphemies (as that the hating of God is Gods own Creature, etc.) and as many self-contradictions also, you durst not return so much as a syllable to the one, or the other; but by answering nothing, you implied his proofs to be unanswerable, because you promised an answer to them; which had you been able you would have readily performed. And 2. whereas he had charged you with no less than an hundred and nine stealths, there are but two of so vast a number, which you endeavour to excuse. And how do you endeavour it? even by such enormous Lies, as will make you an example to all posterity. First, you say you never read Dr. heylin's Antidotum Lincolniense, p. 170. And yet you stole from him divers times together word for word Once more look upon the * See Mr. Pierce's Letter. p. 280. parallel, and say if it is possible that you never read Dr. Heylins' Book. Dr. Heylin. Mr. Hickman. Only I will make bold to deal with you as Alexander did with his horse Bucephalus, take you a little by the bridle, and turn you towards the Sun, that other men may see how you lay about you, though yourself do not. Antid. Lincoln, ch. 1. p. 5. l. 3, 4, etc. 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. Book. p. 7. l 19 Secondly, you say you read this passage in the English Translation of Plutarch's Lives, p. 167. (where by the way I observe, that you read Greek Authors, as women do,) and yet you know it is impossible that half the passage should be there; for Plutarch told the naked story, and did not apply it to the Bishop of Lincoln: That you had from Dr. Heylin; unless you can prove you are a witch. 3. you say you know not if Doctor Heylin did quote it out of the same Author. p. 170. And yet you know he quotes Plutarch's Greek in his margin, which you could not but see, when you stole the passage. 4. you deny your having stolen another passage from Dr. White. But look again on the * Mr. Pierce's Letter. p. 288. parallel, and then do you and the world judge. Dr. White. Mr. Hickman. Memnon, when a certain mercenary Soldier did with many bold and impure reproaches exclaim against Great Alexander, lent him a blow with his Lance, saying, that he had hired him to fight against Alexander and not to rail. Epist. to Read. bot. of p. Who (Memnon) 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. Book. p. 17. Now Sir, if your case is so deplorable in these very particulars, which you chose to clear yourself from (amidst 109.) what can you say in your behalf, for having stolen no less than * Ibid. p. 286. twenty good lines together, and many more than so too, not by lines but whole pages? yet (Fifthly,) you plead not guilty, p. 168. though but few lines before you pleaded guilty, p. 167. your words being these, that they may be well reckoned amongst the impertinences and Errata of the Book. Nay you call it a Peccadillo. p. 163. pretty expressions of the thing! So when Achan stole the wedge, 'twas but an Impertinency: and when Rachel rob Laban, it was an Erratum. And 109. Thests amount to no more than a Peccadillo. It is a very good Jest, to find you boasting in the Title-page, of a Reply to Mr. Pierce, and yet confessing afterwards, that you never read Mr. Pierce's Book, nor ever would read it. p. 162. If you had, you could not have called yours a Reply to it. Nor is't a wonder you gave your Pupils so strict a charge not to read it: for so they might have been ashamed of having owned you for a Tutor. You say Mr. Pierce (by accusing you of theft) did bear false witness. p. 163. though he caught you in the Act no less than one hundred and nine times. And you implicitly confess grent store was stolen, by saying, that some passages are not any one's else, but Mr. Hickmans' own, p. 167. I suppose you mean the most stupid and railing passages, which yet you may seem to have stolen from Billingsgate: and then no part of the Book was yours, though by patching up all materials you became Cobbler unto the whole. One part of your Dilemma (p 163.) is very true, that Mr. Barlee had very falsely (you should have said slanderously) accused Mr. Pierce, of being beholding to Fur Praedestinatus for some of his citations. For Mr. P. did immediately show the madness of that Invention in ten respects, (See Divine Philanth defend. ch. 3. p. 139. to p. 143.) and Mr. Barlee hath since repent of it. Whereupon he is returned into the favour of Mr. P. as you may do (I presume) upon the very same Terms. Never was there a writer more exact than Mr. Pierce in citing the Authors which he useth; (insomuch that many have thought him too punctual, punctual even to superstition.) When first he quoted some of the Fathers as he found them quoted by famous Vossius, he was careful to tell the Reader, that he found them in Vossius first, before he found the Truth of them in the Fathers themselves, (see, and imitate Correct Copy, p. 25.) which yet he needed not have done, (but that his Christian simplicity was very great) because the reading of those Fathers belonged to him, as well as Vossius, and considering his years, I believe he had read them as much as Vossius. The implicit excuse which you make for yourself, that having been accustomed in the days of your minority to deal in Sentences, Apothegms, and fragments, you could not forbear it when you came to maturity, (p. 165, 166.) is no more to your advantage, than it would be to a Cutpurse to tell the Judge he could not help his thievery, having from a Child been enured to it. Sins are never the better, but the worse for being habitual and inveterate. And that your Book is like Herodotus his head, [void of brains, but filled with honeycombs,] you well confess by your application, p. 167. 'Tis strange you should confess, you having stolen some things out of Canterbury's Doom, (p. 168.) in the very same page where you plead not guilty, and therefore who will believe you when you deny your having rifled Mr. Prins Antiarminianisme? Though you say you have witnesses, you name not one, and (in such a negative) you cannot possibly have any. Dr. H. and Mr. P. (beside my additional instances) have proved what you have done. But what you have not done besides, (as often as you have slept) none can tell so well as you, and they that watch you whilst you were sleeping. 'Tis very well that now at last, (having been taught by Mr. P.) you acknowledge it is the odisse Deum, the hating of God that is an action, (p. 172.) But you know you were so ignorant, when you writ your first Fardel, as to call hatred an action, (p. 95.) which a Fellow of Magd. Coll. should have known to be a Quality. But from you who were so absolutely a stranger to Scholarship, as to write extasis for ecstasis, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a couple of passages which you filched from Master Goodwin, we must not expect any skill in Legick, & therefore here I shall advise you, only to cut off your Beard, and return again to the Grammar School. You end (agreeably to the rest) with an ill-made excuse: For all the Reason which you render, why you stole divers things from Dr. Davenant & Dr. Twisse, is your being sometimes absent from the University. As if you could not be honest in other places as well as Oxford; which yet is known to be the usual place of your abode, since the Time that you thought stolen Bread to be the sweetest. I will therefore conclude with a memento, that you were taught in the Church Catechism, to keep your hands from Picking and Stealing, and your Tongue from evil speaking. But so far have you been from the first, that what you have read in Mr. Morice, and other English Writers, you have presently had at your finger's ends; as if you were really an Adamite, and thought all yours that you could lay your hands on. And so far from the Second, that your Tongue may be reckoned the most unruly member in all your Body. Sir, To tell you freely of your Estate, is the greatest favour that man can do you. To soothe you up in your course, is to betray you to yourself, and act for Satan. You cannot say I have been your Flatterer; and therefore I hope you will take my plain dealing for a token that I am Your Friend M. O. The End.