THE Divine philanthropy Defended Against the Declamatory Attempts of certain late-printed Papers Entitled A Correptory Correction. IN Vindication of some Notes concerning Gods Decrees, Especially of Reprobation,  
By THOMAS PIERCE Rector of Brington in Northamptonshire.  Augustin. l. 6. Hypognostic●n ad Calumn. Pelag. p. 880. 
Non miramur Vos de Nobis, id est, Homines de Hominibus, falsa posse confingere.  
We do not wonder that men are able to bear false-witness against their Neighbours.  
LONDON, Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane, 1657.   

To a Person of Honour and Integrity.  
Sir,  
YOur most obliging Resentment of the late un-Neighbourly usage which I have publicly received from that strange Person, whom you mention so severely under the Title of Mr. Wasp, is that for which I must thank you, but chide you too. For what use do you make of your Philosophy, and that Government of the Will which we are wont to talk of, whilst you appear to be so deeply and oversensibly concerned in any man's swaggering against the innocent and careless MOON? The very worst that you can say of my Dear Antagonist (whose precious Soul I do protest is dearer to me then my Eyes) is in effect and substance no more than this, that he is vehemently Angry without a Cause, and bitterly reproachful without a Reason, and most Inventive of Accusations without the least Ground. But what necessity could there be that you should express his misdemeanours by such an austere Hypotyposis, as [That He foams upon my Name, and offers violence to my Closet, and committed great lewdness with my bashful-reluctant-unwilling-Papers, and that now in a Libel of above thirty sheets He even tears and scratches and incessantly biteth my Reputation?] might not this have been clothed with cooler words, if you had not been a little heated by his great Fire? I for my part will not answer him according to his Folly. And whilst in Revenge of my Doctrines, [That Sin is none of the Objects of God's Absolute Decrees, but of his real Hatred and sincere Detestation; that God decreed to punish no man without respect unto his Sins, nor to save him any otherwise then as being in Christ; that Christ is intentionally the Saviour of all; and that none can continue to have an Interest in Christ without Obedience as well as Faith, or without Repentance, New Life, and Perseverance unto the end,] I say, whilst Mr. Barlee doth, in Revenge of these Innocent Doctrines, load my Person and my Papers with such unfriendly Appellations, as [unconscionable, and Graceless, Proud, and Stomackful, Insolent, and malapert, Frontless, and Impudent, of an Adulterous Forehead, and Atheistical, Slanderous Dragon, and Satanical Blasphemer, raging against Heaven, and belching out Blasphemies against the Scriptures, Poisonous, Triobolarie, and Diabolical, nay, worse than Diabolical wittily wicked,] with an innumerable company of such like things, I am content to express them after the manner of the Psalmist, by saying that he hath 
a Psal. 35. 21.  opened his mouth wide against me, and 
b Verse 20.  devised deceitful words against them that are quiet in the Land. A 
c Verse 11. 12.  false witness is risen up, and (rewarding me evil for Good) hath laid to my charge things that I knew not.  
And I pray Sir tell me, why should you be so offended with his irreverence towards me, who (in his Doctrine of Decrees) speaks much more 
* If you desire some examples without the labour of searching for them, you may turn to that which I have spoken in my following discoveries, Chap. 1. Sect. 5. p. 23, 24, 25, 26. and chap. 3. Sect. 31, 34, 35. and chap. 4. Sect. 21. 24. 28, 29. and from Sect. 33. to the end. and Sect. 28, p. 110, 111, 112, 116.  hardly of his Creator? If he hath been so unhappy as to abuse himself, and me, (but most himself, because me,) the first should only serve to exercise your pity, and the second only your pardon. For in this we should follow the example of David; who however impatient of a profane Goliath that offered indignities to his God, and affronts to his Religion, yet he slighted the rail of cursing Shimei, because they reached no farther than to his Person. I confess it is my duty, when I find a slander cast upon the will of our God (whom we have the honour and the happiness to serve and worship) to be affected as David was, and as you yourself now are, with equal resentment and Indignation.  
But, Sir, you know who tell's us, that 
* Muliebre maximè & puerile est vitium, Sene●. de irâ, c. 16.  testiness is an unmanlike and childish vice. They are feeble and sick bodies which groan and complain upon every touch. Though we cannot say with Seneca, or with Maximus Tyrius, that a wise man and virtuous cannot be 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Max. Tyr. Dissert. 2. In sapie●tem non cadit Injuria. Sen. ad Serenum.  injured, yet we may venture to say with So●rates, that such a man cannot be 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  hurt. Indeed a judgement that is blinded with Pett and Passion is not wont to distinguish betwixt Injury and Harm. Because anger (as well as Fear) 
a Wisd. 17. 12.  betrayeth the succours which Reason offereth. But that that there is a distinction appears by this, that God himself may be injured, who yet (we know) can take no harm. He hath communicable Attributes, as well as Attributes incommunicable; not only Impassivenesse, but patience too. And if we will but 
* 2 Tim. 1. 6.  stir up the gift of God which is in us, we are able to be patient, though not impassive. Why should you or I be troubled at those extravagant inventions and bitter speeches, which are only cast at me, but do not hit? of what concernment is it to me, that an Enemy is sick with the overflowing of the Gall, so long as I (God be thanked) enjoy my health? if he * wearieth himself to commit iniquity, the more is 
Jer. 9 5.  his misery, and my compassion. My compassion (I say) of him, who hath done me the wrong, and not of my self who have received no harm by his injustice. For though he aims at my head, he strikes nothing but my Helmet. That he hath provoked me above expression, (as you rightly phrase it) infers nothing on my part, but an occasion to forgive him. And the excess of his injustice doth but add to the Lustre of my forgiveness. Mine indeed is the injury, but his the mischief.  
Besides, we may learn so much Christianity among the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Arrian Ep. l. 1. c. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Stoics, as not to make ourselves unhappy by our not being Masters of an other man's Tongue. If a man in Music shall call Neat, Hypate, or discoursing of Geometry, shall say the Lines are not equal which are drawn to the Circumference from the very same Centre, will a Mathematician be therefore Angry? why then should you, or I, because my Neighbour mistakes my name; I am not sure the less Orthodox for being called a Pelagian, a Socinian, a Jesuit, or a Ranter, any more than the Apostles were the less sober, because they were said to be 
* Act. 2 13.  full of new wine; and not only said, but 
* Ver. 25.  supposed to be drunk. St. Paul was not the worse for being said to be a 
* Acts 28. 4.  Murderer, nor yet the better for being said to be a 
* Ver. 6.  God. I am no more a Heretic for being said by Mr. Barlee to lay 
b Correp. cor. p. 22.  a snare for the worthy Gentlemen of the Country whereby to bring them into Boggs and praecipices, than God himself is a Seducer, for being said by Mr. Barlee to 
* p. 79. he saith he is not at leisure fully to open in what sense. But he had partly told us, but 14. lines before, where he saith expressly, God determins that sin shall be done, not as a duty; but as a fact, that shall fall out by the sinful will of the creature. Nor can he mean a conditional determination who is all for absolute. And he saith p. 86, 87. God doth not only determine all things and actions, but their several modalities too, as to the manner of their being, whether as necessary, contingent, or voluntary. Now sin must needs be a thing, or action, or a modality of thing or action. And withal it must needs be either necessary, contingent, or voluntary. And of all such modalities, he saith that God is the supreme cause, p. 87. Again he saith, (p. 60, 61.) that God doth stir up wicked men to acts as acts which to the Actors are and will be unjust. As if God could stir up David to pollute Bathsheba, without stirring him up to his adultery, or else that Adultery become no sin. See what I shall say. ch. 4. p. 42, 43, 44.  tempt men unto sin. who instead of excusing, doth commend the expressions of other men, whilst they say that the wicked do run into sin, by God's Impulse, by his command, by his will, by his compulsion, by his Decree, and Prostitution. All which I shall display (with a desire to convince, and not to shame him, unless I shame him by accident in his refusing the glory of true Repentance) when I discover the sad estate of his 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60. and some following pages. All which shall be considered in the ten last Sect. of my 4th. Chapter.  
The use that here I make of it is only this, that we should not think ourselves hurt by being railed at. Every man is not thunderstruck by a long suffering God that bringeth up an ill report of his ways and dealings. And although we may punish any libeler by making it appear that he is such, yet at the very same time, we must give him our pity and pardon too. The truth is, that if he had done me no greater injury, then to drag my name through the dirt, by telling all the world I am in a state of 
* Correp. Cor. p. 43. & 174.  damnation, and (which is more to my prejudice) that I am nearly allied to the 
a p. 15.  Jesuits and Socinians, and express my reverence to the Augustan Confession (which is well known to be Protestant) merely out of love to the * Mass of Ceremonies, that 
** p. 92.  ceremonious * litter, thereby making me liable (as much as in him lies) not only to sequestration, but death itself (for you know that 
* Michael Servetus, procurante id Calvino, vivus exustus est Genevae, Anno 1553. libenter fateor (inquit Calvinus de se) ac prae me fero, ex me prodiisse Accusatorem, Gro. in Vo. pro. pa. Ecc. Spero capitale saltem feret judicium. Calvin. in Epist. ad Farellum.  Servetus was burnt at Geneva for less than being a Socinian, and what would be done to that Papist that should hold a Parsonage here in England) I say if this had been all, I had not now put pen to paper. For I consider that breeding people are ever apt to be pettish, and I should easily have hoped that all that frowardness of Mr. Barlee had been merely the effect of a teeming brain. Which I can as heartily forgive, as men do their Wives the Qualms of breeding, or torments of Childbirth. I mean the peevishnesses and petts, which are usually incident to such as bear and bring ●orth. I know, that my Neighbour hath had very hard labours; once he terribly miscarried with what he had long been impraegned against a Manuscript Copy of what I printed (if yet a thing so mangled may be called mine,) & it is much more than nine months, since he hath been travelling with that which he hath now brought forth. And whether we consider the great 
* This I should never have said or thought, if Mr. B. himself had not assured me under his hand and seal, [that being a Prebsbyterian he affected much to proceed by the common counsel of the Presbytery.] Which makes me amazed at the injustice of his Dedicatory Epistle (p. 7.) where he accuseth me for suggesting that thing to him, which had been more then suggested by him to me. As if he thought it m●…crime, to believe the truth of what he told me: and which however he told me in words at length, yet have I a better opinion of those men, then to think them all guilty of what they were so very early accused to me by Mr. Barlee.  company of friends who were employed in his assistance, or the many and long Teeth with which the child of his Invention did eat its way, we cannot choose but conclude that his pangs and throws were very tedious, and that the effects of his Impatience should only be matter of good men's Pity. Which was indeed one Reason, why I resolved at the beginning only to punish him with my silence. For commonly those punishments are most useful to the Offenders which are most opposite to the offence. And therefore as I approve of the Senate at Ephesus which decreed that his 
* At bene consuluerant Ephesii, Decreto memoriam teterrimi hominis abolendo: n●si Theop●mpi Ingenium in historiis eum suis comprehendisset. Val. Max. l. 8. c. 14.  name should not be mentioned, who had burned their Temple, merely to be talked of; so that ambitious sort of weak scribblers, who (like unclean and ravenous Birds) are not affrighted with the stench, but love to feed upon the Carcase of Reputation, and have an impotent desire that their Names should live, and be immortal, by the woeful preservatives of being loud, and troublesome, deserve (I think) to die in silence, and (to prevent ill smells) to be quietly buried in Oblivion.  
But now in consideration of these few things, first, that my Neighbour hath committed a public Riot (I do not say upon my Name and Papers only, but) upon all that is dear and precious to me, my Friends, my Religion, my Reverend Fathers in God, my dearest Mother the Church of England, my Conscience, my Faith, my Saviour, and my God too; Secondly, That he hath quoted my private Letters by scraps and pieces, not as he ought, but as he pleaseth, and as he hopes may tend most to his Advantage; Thirdly, that he pretends my Necessity of sending my Notes into the world was not given me by him, but 
* page 9  selfe-created; Fourthly, that under colour of confuting my little Book, he hath only used Tricks to write a great one, which he hath filled (not with Arguments, but) with Invectives and Rail against my Papers; nor yet so much against my Papers, as against my Person, and my Party, (to use the cleanest of all his phrases) against my Name, and my Principles, my Parishioners and my Parsonage; Lastly, that he refers his Reader to such and such pages of my Book, where I say the very contrary to what he would have me, (nor do I speak of any written, but printed Copy, which he falsifies as boldly, as if he took it for granted, either that no body that reads him would read me too, or else that every body would trust before they try him,) and as if that were not sufficient, is fain to father some 
* There is a notable example p. 39 where ●he pretends me to have baosted, that I am above Sin, and by my own power could abstain from it. And p. 73. That I am against all second Marriages of Ministers. And very many the like in other places, which are as groundless as these two, (enough to let you taste what is likely to be your entertainment.)  Fictions upon bare Report, which have not only no ground, but no similitude of Truth, and for which he citys nothing but a simple Hearsay, and which if the Reader should believe upon his bare word, would render me as odious as any Antichrist; I say in consideration of these five things, I do consent to publish the discoveries which I have made at twice Reading over the seventy first pages of his voluminous Invention. It being fit that my Judgement should be conformable to yours, which is in this, as in other things, so conformable to Reason. Why I trouble the Press with no more, I shall satisfy my Reader before we part. And shall say to you at present no more than this.  
Ajax took it so heavily that Ulysses should be preferred 
Sophocles in Ajace flagellifero. Erasm. in Adag.  before him, and that in the Judgement of Agamemnon, as that with overmuch grief he ran quite Mad. Nothing now would content him but sweet Revenge; both on the wicked Ulysses who had gotten the Armour of Achilles (which was the subject of their Contention) and on the filthy Agamemnon, who had decreed it. Ajax drew out his sword, and (Fancy succeeding in the place of Reason) he valiantly charged a Herd of Swine, supposing them to be the Grecian Army. There were two great Sow's of extraordinary Bulk, which he singled out as a peculiar sacrifice to his Displeasure, taking one for Agamemnon, and the other for Ulysses. These fourfooted Grecians he hung up on a Beam, and gave them such Correptory Correction with Tongue and Whipcord, as made them utterly uncapable of any more such Combats. This act of vengeance did so affect him with insultation and laughter, that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] became a Proverb.  
What think you, Sir? should the Grecian Army have faceed about, (and have quitted their main Project towards which they were marching,) to revenge themselves upon Ajax, because (in enmity to them) he had fearfully mangled a Herd of Swine? or should Ulysses and Agamemnon have set their wits against Ajax, for having cruelly insulted over a couple of dead Sows? was it not punishment enough, that he lost the Armour of Achilles, and after ran out of his wits? mistook a Herd for an Army, and a Sow for an Enemy? Nay, when he came out of his Reveree, and found the grossness of his mistake, his vexation and his shame made him Impatient of his Life. For having drawn his Sword at his Fancy, he put it up into his Bowels.  
To apply this story were long and needless, and I must now take care, that my Gate be not big enough for my City to run out at. Lest Mr. Barlee tell me once more, (who yet had surely less reason than any man living) that 
* Correp. Corr. p. 44.  I am terrible long ere I can get into my Trappings or Jeers. I have perhaps already worn out your patience, and presumed too much upon your leisure. The usual freedom which you allow me must be attended with respect, as well as kindness; for although you are not either a Lord, or a Lady, (as the shrewd Hariolator doth seem to think) yet you are certainly a Person as well of Honour, as of Integrity. And since I have been so observant of all your strict precepts, That I should never reveal your Name, I may say without danger of interessing your modesty (how much soever to the displeasure of our Correptory Corrector) that I honour your virtues and Erudition, more than your Fortune, and your Blood. And that I am equally obliged to speak myself  
Sir, Your very Affectionate 
 and Humble Servant 
 T. Pierce.   

An Advertisement to the READER.  
WHen I found a Volume of about thirty sheets, addressing itself in particular to Mr. T. P. in the very express Form of a Declamatory Epistle, and almost totally composed of the most bitter rail, or the most groundless inventions that in all my life I ever heard of, (interlarded with but a few, and those few very unskilful, and unscholarlike Reasonings against the subject of my Notes concerning God's Decrees) I awhile debated within myself, which would be the most prudent and Christian course. Whether to suffer in deep silence under his personal abuses and imputations, or to discover to the World what an Incomparable Adversary I have to deal with.  
If I should venture on a discovery, I thought I might give some distaste to the less considering sort of Readers by my bare 
a Saepe gravius vidi offendere animos Auditorum, eos, qui aliena flagitia aperte dixerunt, quam eos qui commiserun●. Cicer●.  discovering of his commissions, as well as He by committing such heinous things. And yet if I should not discover them, the several men of his 
* It is his own expression of himself in his p. 48.  Combination might make advantage of my silence, and urge it as an Argument of my Consent.  
I stood balancing (for a time) somewhat like Buridan's Ass, knowing not which of the two I should prefer. To show him a very gross Christian, and a very Thinn Scholar, were to reflect upon the Credit of those aged Praefacers, who have publicly commended his undertaking; and yet to indulge him an escape, were to suffer the common people to stumble and fall down into some foul Errors, (of Judgement first, and then of practice) by the reverence which they bear to the Learned Author of the first Epistle; whom as I seriously respect for his Gravity, Learning, and comparative Moderation, so I design to make it appear by conferring with him in a peculiar season. For His Name, and Mr. Barlees bound up together, are like the Couples of 
b Mortua quin etiam jungebat corpora vivis. Virgil.  Mezentius, whose Cruelty it was to yoke the living with the dead; nor will I be so severe or disobliging unto him, as I find in this matter he hath been unto himself. But I had not yet determined what course to take with Mr. Barlee. For to denudate his misdemeanours, might seem severity to a Neighbour; and yet not to do it, would be a cruelty to my self. Once I thought that Mr. B. had very sufficiently bewrayed himself, and that the first of his Patrons could not preserve him from Contempt, much less the Second, much less the Third. But yet it came into my mind, that it is as true now, as it was at the time when 
c Nullus imperitus scriptor est, qui Lectorem non inveniat similem sui, Hieron. Epist. 36.  Saint Hierome wrote it, that There is not any Writer so very unworthy to be READ, who doth not meet with some Readers just like himself. One while I considered the noble meekness of a Saviour, who endured (even with silence) such 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Heb. 12. 3.  contradiction of Sinners against himself. But again I laid in the other Scale of the Balance, his great Severity and Sharpness at 
ee Matt. 15. 3, 7, 9, 14. etc. Matt. 23. 14, 33.  other times. I remembered that Charity 
g 1 Cor 13. 7. & 5.  endureth all things, and is not easily provoked. But yet I could not be forgetful, that it is also allowed to begin at home; and that my 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Aristot. Ethic.  knee is nearer to me then my shin. I looked with one eye upon the 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc.  happiness and bliss of being reviled, and persecuted, and having all manner of evil falsely spoken against me, for his Names sake for whom I pleaded. But I looked also (with the other eye) upon the very great Misery of suffering 
l Jer. 9 3.  Truth to fall in the midst of the Streets, without so much as endeavouring to hold her up. I gave an ear to that of Solomon, [
m Prov. 8. 16.  strive not with an angry man,] And thought the very repetition of his Reproaches might be looked upon by the unwary as a kind of 
* As indeed in this case▪ difficile est Satyram non scribere. It is hard to say any thing which will not look like severity, where such enormities must be detected.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But I would not be deaf to that saying of the Apostle, 
n Jam. 5. 20.  that he who converteth a Sinner from the Error of his way, shall save a Soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. Whilst I was standing thus in Bivio, (suspended by an indifference which way I went,) I was determined to this course which I have now waded through, by the distinction which I made betwixt a Greater and Lesser evil. I thought it dangerous to speak, but more dangerous to be silent; and though of two Moral Evils I may not choose either, yet of two evils not Moral I may and aught to choose the 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aristot. ●th.  least. As rather to suffer some Envy by making this vindication, Then the sadder events of making none.  
It hath been matter of trouble to me, that being tied up to such subjects as my Correptory Corrector hath laid before me, I have been under a necessity of spending whole Sections upon things extrinsecall to God's Decrees. And therefore I have attempted to requite my Reader and my self, by making a Table of those things which are most material and pertinent to the several Questions in Debate betwixt my innocent Notes, and my angry Neighbours; that if any man shall desire, without the expense of much time, to examine how matters do stand betwixt us, as to any particular under debate, he may be able to find it out with very great ease and expedition; and so be freed from the danger of losing his pains and his Leisure upon that which he thinks doth least concern him.  
Concerning the Praefacers or Encomiasts who have bewrayed their Affections, if not their Judgements, by way of prolusion to Mr. Barlee and his incomparable attempts, and so have done a public Penance by making it known unto the world what kind of things they do approve, I shall only offer to my Reader these general Observations.  
First, that in all which they have spoken, they have not adventured one syllable against any one Argument in all my Book. But only have told their several Tales after their several Manners of Expression, showing whom they are for, and whom they are against, which way they lean and are Biased by their respective Interesses and Passions; How they are friends to Mr. Barlee for being no friend to me, and would have his Book find Buyers by way of Encouragement to the Cause, which they presumed would far the better amongst one sort of Readers, for being furnished and tricked up with their Names and Notions.  
Secondly, as the whole Drift of their Epistles is to praei●gage and praeoccupie the Readers Mind with some very favourable and false Conceits of Mr. B. and his Book, (as well as with some unkind Prejudices of me and mine,) so there are many single Paragraphs in this my present Vindication, wherein I doubt not but those Prefacers will find their several Disappointments. And if my Reader would have experience of what I say, by some more compendious and easy Course, then that of reading me quite through, He will not need to look farther than the Ten last Sections of my Fourth Chapter. Or if those are too many, he may content himself with the 35th Section of that Chapter, and with the 31. 34. and 35th Sections of Chap. 3d.  
Thirdly, there is something in Mr. Whitfield, of which I think it my Duty to give the Reader some Notice; I mean his uncharitable Endeavour to create me some Enemies amongst my Friends. For such are many Antiremonstrants, whom I know to be Learned and Pious men, and upon whom I never meant to fasten any ill Names, but do really pay them every whit as much Reverence, as if I were of their opinions, or they of mine. So far am I from being able to call them [the half-witted Rabble of Absolute Praedestinarians] as this Poetical old Man doth slily intimate. Who as he pretends to Observations upon I know not what Manuscript of my Printed Notes, which he is pleased to call [The un-Correct Copy] which neither I nor my Readers have ever Seen, (thereby running Parallel with DON QUIXOT, who valiantly confuted the Barber's Basin under the Notion of a Helmet, which he fancied to be the spoil of some unconquerable Knight,) so by the minting of that Contumely [Half-witted Rabble etc.] He is ambitious to have it thought, that I am altogether such a one as himself. And yet he tacitly confesseth it the very Child of his Invention, by not pretending to name either the time when, or the place wherein, or the Person to whom such words were spoken; which he would greedily have done, if he had had the least shadow of Reason for it. It is very well known, that there are many Absolute Praedestinarians, (as well Dominicans and Jansenians of the Church of Rome, as Presbyterians here in England) who are all far enough from being Half-witted. Had I been willing to charge them, it should have been with greater Crimes, for which they have no want of Wit to be their Apology or Excuse. I am now tempted to suspect, that this was the Reverend Divine whom Mr. B. quoteth, without a Name, to put a Colour on his matchless Fiction, to which I have spoken in the 21st Section of my Third Chapter. And why Mr. Whitfield should have taken such an uningenuous course (to say no worse) whereby to gain me their Hatred towards whom I harbour nothing but love, I cannot guests at any reason, besides this one (which will not excuse, but rather aggravate his Injustice,) That I once took the veil from off his Eyes, and made him see very clearly (what it seems he could not until that Instant) That upright JOB WAS NOT A JEW.  
I either know or am Confident, that this Man and Mr. Barlee will be apt to take it very unkindly at my hands, that I should vindicate myself from those great offences whereof I am not only uncharitably, but also unskilfully accused; as I shall show in my 3d. Discovery. But with their favour, or without it, I may better be allowed to clear my self, than they can be to feign me guilty. If they may publish the Defamation of an Innocent, much more may I publish the great Injustice of the Defamers. If they may be permitted to cover and hide their works of Darkness by their matchless confidence of bringing them forth into the light, much more may I be permitted to find them out, and make them seen by that light by which they hoped to be concealed. As for Mr. Barlee, who alone shall be considered in my following Account, I do heartily wish his faults were fewer. For he is more obnoxious in all kinds in every part of his book, than I am able to wish my greatest Enemy. Whom I would have so worthy as to deserve resistance, and to be [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] not below a confutation. If any unpassionate and knowing man had addressed his endeavours against the matter of my Notes (without committing any Riots upon my Name or Person) I should have taken great pleasure in such a friendly contention as that would have proved. And should have thought myself happy either in receiving, or giving light to the Truth; which if I do not possess, I do sincerely covet. And will be ever thankful to that Antagonist, that shall by beating my Flint, produce so much Fire, as I may light my Candle by. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But to cast away my Hours upon a Correptory Correction, which like straw set on fire, doth blaze a little, and end immediately in smoke; to strive with a man that is full of 
r Prov. 8. 3.  Tongue, which (in Solomon's Judgement) is heaping Wood upon his Fire, (a giving Nurse to that strife which is 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He●●od. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 1.  begotten of the Night,) This I confess is grievous to me. And such, as, were it not a duty, I should not be able to endure. But where there is Poison, there must be Antidote. And there being much of it in our Declamators very Title (which is more likely to do mischief then his whole book besides) I shall secure his plainest Readers with so much a larger Prophylactick.   

The GENERAL TITLES of the CHAPTERS.  

Chap. I. A Discovery of the Frailties and Misadventures in Mr. Barlee's Triumphant-Title-page, and his Dedicatory Epistles.  
Chap. II. A Brief Discovery of Mr. Barlee's Style and Temper. Wherein is exhibited his Second way of Confutation.  
Chap. III. A Discovery of Mr. Barlee's Extraordinary Invention, showing itself in mere Calumnies and Falsifications, both on the Person and on the Papers with which he deals. His Third way of Confutation.  
Chap. IU. A Miscellaneous Discovery of Mr. Barlee's other strange Failings in several kinds.  
The Conclusion Giveth some Reasons, why no more Time is to be lost in representing the other weaknesses of this Incomparable Antagonist.    

A Catalogue of some Books printed for Rich. Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane, London.  

Books written by the Author of the Divine philanthropy.  
A Correct Copy of some Notes concerning Gods decrees, especially of Reprobation. The 2. Edit. Now at the Press with some Additionals.  
The Sinner Impleaded in his own Court, wherein are represented the great discouragements from Sinning, which the Sinner receiveth from Sin itself.   

Books written by H. Hammond, D. D.  
A Paraphrase and Annotataions upon all the Books of the New-Test. by H. Hammond D. D. in fol.  
2. The Practical Catechism, with all other English Treatises of H. Hammond D. D. in two volumes in 4.  
3. Dissertationes quatuor, quibus Episcoprtus Jura ex S. Scriptures & primaeva Antiquitate adstruntur, contra sententiam D. Blondelli & aliorum Authore Henrico Hammond, in 4.  
4. A Letter of Resolution of six Quires, in 12.  
5. Of Schism. A defence of the Church of England, against the exceptions of the Romanists, in 12.  
6. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice, by H. Hammond D. D. in 12.  
7. Six books of late Controversy in defence of the Church of England, in two volumes in 4. Newly published.   

Books and Sermons written by Jer. Taylor D. D.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Course of Sermons for all the Sundays in the year, together with a Discourse of the Divine Institution, Necessity and Separation of the Office Ministerial, in fol.  
2. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ, 2 Edit in fol.  
7. The Rule and Exercises of holy dying, in 12:  
8. The Rule and Exercises of holy living, in 12.  
10. The Golden Grove, or, A Mannual of daily Prayers fitted to the days of the week, together with a short Method of Peace and Holiness.  
11. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance rescued from Popular Errors, in a large 8. Newly published.   

A Compendious Discourse upon the Case as it stands between the Church of England, and those Congregations that have divided from it, by Hen. Fern. D. D. New.  
The History of the Church of Scotland, by Job. spotsword Archbishop of S. Andrews in fol. New.  
Dr. Cousins Devotions, in 12.  
The Quakers wild Questions objected against the Ministers of the Gospel, and many sacred Acts and Offices of Religion. etc. by R. Sherlock. B. D. in 4. New.  
The persecuted Minister, in 4. New.  
The Excellency of the Civil Law, by Robert Wis●man Dr. of the Civil Law. New.    

CHAP. I.  
A Discovery of the Frailties and Misadventures in Mr. Barlee's Triumphant Title-page, and his Dedicatory Epistles.  
§ 1. AS there is one sort of Creatures whose chiefest strength is in their Tail, and another sort of Creatures whose chiefest strength is in their Teeth, and a third sort of Creatures whose chiefest strength is in their Tongue; so amongst the many skirmishes whether of truly-polemical, or of meerly-troublesome and wrangling writers, it is easy to observe their several strengths, their sundry weapons and ways of hurting. There is one sort of writers, who are not for threats, but Execution. All their premises are fair and Candid, they only sting in the Conclusion. There is another sort of writers, who are incessantly biting in every part of their Discourses. In every page and period, they leave an evident Impression upon the party with whom they deal. But a third sort there is, whose chiefest strength is in their Title: with that they by't very shrewdly, (in the thoughts of some who look no farther,) whereas in every thing that follows and doth denominate a Book, they appear to do little more, then only to wag and to show their Teeth. (As we know some Infects, though they sting very smartly, yet they presently leave their sting behind them, and from that time forward, they will buzz and be angry, but cannot hurt.) And truly this is the Reason, why I ought to consider the very Title of Mr. B. before I enter upon his Book. For it speaks more in two words, than his Book can attain to in 30 sheets. His Title is magisterial, and gives me 
Of his Correptory Correction.  Correptory Correction; whereas his whole Book doth render him liable to the lash. They that are of his Paste, who either cannot, or will not read him, but only hear of his Title [a Correptory Correction] may take it for granted that I am beaten in my Notes, (stat Bellum famâ,) and so his Title may do him service. Whereas his Book (like the wicked ingrateful Urchin that sucks the milk, and spoils the udder at the vary same Instant) doth sadly betray both it, and him. So that if I were sure, that all the Readers of his Title would be the Readers of his Book too, I should not desire any other Vindication. But because I am assured by very intelligent and practical Persons, that very few will buy his book who are not prodigal of their money, and that fewer will read it who are not prodigal of their Time, and that hardly any will compare it with the particulars of mine, and that almost all who are abettors of his Cause and Doctrine will help to propagate his Title, (that is, his strength▪) and endeavour so to work upon the letterless multitude in their Reports, as to make his Confidence to pass for Courage, his Impatience for Zeal, and his Ovation instead of Conquest; I think it not useless to admonish my Reader, as Polybius did his concerning Fabius, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyb. l. 3.  that they gaze not so much upon his Title, as consider the matters of his book, to which his Title is but a vizard.  
Indeed Mr. B. doth but do his endeavour to make good his promise. For he sent me a message long since by a Neighbour Minister, that I should be whipped. And now in his book he somewhere tell's me he brings a 
b Corr. Corr. p. 10.  Rod. And professeth in his Title, to give me Correptory Correction. Thus the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herod. in Melpom. c. 3. p. 226.  Scythyans in Herodotus did encounter their slaves, not with spears and arrows, but with whips and switches. Whilst they fought as with a just Enemy, their Army of slaves still got the better; but immediately fled away when they saw their Masters came Armed with switches, it did so mind them that they were Servants. In the very same manner my Master would be, being utterly out of hope that he can vanquish my Notes by force of Argument and Reason, (the proper weapons of a polemic) hath thought it fitter for his purpose, to use a Rod. Perhaps supposing I will not dare to turn my Pen upon them, who take themselves to be Masters in this our Israel, and (if my Author hath mustered his men aright) did vanquish seven or eight thousand in less than three or four years. Indeed Favorinus did so far gratify the Emperor Hadrian, as to yield him the better in Disputation; preferring the favour of an Emperor before the Truth of his Cause. And being chid by his friends for that compliance, he asked them this Question, 
* Familiaribus suis, qui illam, quod non recte cederet, arguebant, non recte suade●is, inquit, qui non patimini me illum doctiorem omnibus credere, qui habe● 30. legiones. Ael: Sparta: p. 14.  [will ye not suffer me to yield that he is more learned than all the men in the world, who hath thirty legions at his command?] perhaps my Master doth consider, that it lies in his power to do me shrewd turns; and believes that I am of his opinion; and that by way of prevention, I will give him leave to confute me (I mean) in his way. A little Correptory Correction he may hope will be borne, to shun a great deal of mischief. And therefore all his chief weapon's are Drums and Trumpets. The very Title of the book is Io p●●n victoria, a Correptory Correction. That's the motto held forth in the Triumphant Flagg, whereby the Reader must understand, that He comes not to combat, but to chastise me.  
And that the credulous unwary Reader may not take up his Title by the wrong handle, it will not be amiss to tell him truly what it means. Correptory Correction (in this Author's acception of the phrase) is the singing an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a Fight. A way of Conquest by mere Contempt. When the great Goliath 
* 1 Sam. 17. 42.  disdained David because he was but a youth, and made no doubt of giving David's 
† Verse 44.  flesh unto the fowls of the Air, and to the Beasts of the Field, it was a Correptory Correction. When * Hanun took Davia's servants, and shaved 
** 2 Sam. 10. 4.  off the one half of their Beard●…, and cut their Garments in the middle, e●e● to their * Buttocks, and sent them away, it was intended to King David as a Correptory Correction. When Jezebel suborned the two sons of Belial to swear that Naboth blasphemed God and the King, and so to rob him of his Vineyard, it was a Correptory Correction, When 
a Son●rè & minitabundus cum Jove Capitoline fabulabatur.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— Sueton. l. 4.  Caligula the Brave did thunder back against Jupiter, and threaten to banish him into Greece, it was a Correptory Correction. When he condemned a 
b Gallis Graecisque simul condemnatis, gloriatus est, se Gallo-graeciam subegisse. Id.  few Gauls and a few Grecians to be killed, and then gave out that he had conquered Gallo-Graecia; That was Correptory Correction. When he marched with his Army against the Ocean, and took abundance of Cockles Captive, and devoted them to the Capitol as spoils of a routed and plundered Ocean, and erected a 
c In victoriae memoriam Turrim extruxit ad Phari imitationem & usum. Idem.  mon●ment to the eternal memory of the Fact, it was a Correptory Correction. When my Excellent Neighbour hath called me all the ill things that he could Name, and set me up on a Gibbet in the ugliest guise that he could fancy, and reformed my little Book as He and others would do Religion, he tells the world it is a Correptory Correction.  
I find that [correptory] is a new-coined word, sent out into the world from Mr. B. his Mint to signify something in himself, peculiarly differing from other men. He is indeed an extraordinary Writer; I believe the Sun in all his Course ne'er saw his peer. His book was entered with the Title of a Castigatorie Correction, and now 'tis mended into the worse.  
§ 2. Postdestination] is another cast of his Invention, and 
Of his Postdestination.  evinseth in its Author a threefold weakness. First, because a Decree before the Creation of the world is as much and as purely 
1.  a Predestination, although conditional, as his absolute Decree can be supposed to be, and That the word Prescience doth very sufficiently enforce. 2. His term of Postdestination, according 
2.  to his way of reasoning, will fall foul upon all his most venerable Masters, who follow the sublapsarian way, for that is founded in prescience of Adam's fall, which doth infer a Decree not altogether irrespective. And though Mr. B. hath not, yet Dr. 
d Dr. Twiss. Vind. Gra. l. 1. part. 1. Digr. 4. Sect. 4. cap. 4. p. 87.  Twisse had sagacity enough, to discern this Truth which I am speaking. Who therefore rebuketh the Sublapsarians (and by consequence Mr. B.) in as severe a manner, as any Molinist or Arminian hath ever done. Yea, even all the bitter speeches which Mr. B. hath vented against the respectiveness of God's Decree, will by an easy Violentum (as Logicians speak) belong directly to himself, and to all the whole College or Combination of Postlapsarians. For that Decree is respective which is made in Intuition of Adam's sin, as well as that which is made in Intuition of a man's own. 
The Difference betwixt the Postlapsarians, and us, as to the object of God's Decree. Reprobatio non procedit (ut Molinaeus contendit) nisi expeccatis actualibus praevisis, perseverantiâque finali in iisdem. Twiss. Vind. Grat. l. 1. part. 1. Sect. 4. Digr. 6. c. 1. p. 92. 1. Postlapsarian Absurdities arising from their Postdestination, as Mr. B. in his Title hath used that word to his undoing. 2. 3. 4.  Where then lies the difference betwixt them of the Consistory, ●nd us who are of the Church? God (say they) decreed to reprobate the greatest part of mankind in consideration of no other than Original sin. But say we of the Church of England, (and the famous Moulin of France) it was in consideration of all the sins that were future; not only of original, but actual also. And which of these two respective Decrees is most agreeable to the nature of God Almighty revealed to us in his word? That which determined the Reprobation of Cain, of Pharaoh, of Judas, and the like, in regard of nothing but Adam's fall, or that which determined their Reprobation both in regard of Adam's fall, and of their actual sins besides? (viz. the murder of Cain, the manifold wickedness of Pharaoh, the filthy treachery of Judas, and the final Impenitence of all who were eternally the objects of Reprobation? The man that laboureth at the Plough may here demand of Mr Barlee, (and Mr. B. may answer when he is able,) was God less able to foresee the actual sins of wicked men (when he decreed their Reprobation) than their Original sin which was actually committed by ●one but Adam and Eve, many thousands of years before these Reprobates were born? or was he able to connive so as by connivance to conceal any thing from himself, so as to have no foresight or Intuition of actual sins, and yet to have it of original? Was he able, for a time, not to be Omniscient, which is only a power of becoming weak, and by consequence of not being God? Could he eternally foresee the sin of Adam, and not foresee (at the same Instant) the actual sins of his Posterity? Or so●eseeing both together (which by virtue of his Omniscience he could not but 
5.  do) could he consider the former, and not consider the later? Or did he hate Original sin in Cain (which he drew only 
6.  from his Parents,) more than the murdering of his Brother, (which he wilfully acted without his Parents?) Or could he 
7.  be willing to reprobate the soul of Cain in respect of that sin which was committed by his Parents before his Birth, (and which by consequence he could not hinder from being naturally derived upon himself) and at the same instant be unwilling to decree his Reprobation in respect of his murder and impenitence, which were actually and wilfully committed by himself? (and which by consequence he might have hindered, as being a free and voluntary, not a necessitated and fatal sinner?) was original sin only the Condition, or the Cause, or the object of Reprobation, and are all actual sins to be punished only by the By? what need the Cause of cain's Ruin be thrown entirely upon Adam, or his being considered as lying in the loins of Adam, when he hath sin enough besides which is peculiarly his own? Did Cain receive the greater damnation for his murdering 
10. A Dilemma for Mr. Barlee to which he is desired to speak distinctly without eruption into virulent language upon my person.  of Abel, or did he not? if Mr. B. say [not] he must deny the words of our blessed Saviour, Mat. 23. 14. and if he say, [yes], he must first confess 'twas in respect of his heinous fratricide, that he was decreed unto the greater damnation, and not only in intuition of Original sin. Or secondly, else he must say, (to wind himself out of that) that God finding Cain in Massâ Corruptâ, or Adam's loins, decreed him simply to damnation, and not to the degree of it until his murder was committed. Or else thirdly, he must say (to wind himself out of both) that Cain's damnation was not the greater for his murder; and (by consequence) that God rewards not according to works: which absurdity also did follow upon the first part of the Dilemma. Let him choose which he will: if the first, he is my Convert, and must publish his 
1.  Recantation, if the second, he is literally for postdestination, 
2.  and so his whole Book is against himself, (or else his Title is in opposition to his Book.) If the third, He is a downright 
3.  enemy to the clearest passages of 
e Rom. 2. 6. Rev. 20. 12. 2 Cor. 11. 15. Jer. 17. 10. Rev. 18. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 17. Luk. 12. 47. & 20. 47. Mat. 11. 20, 21, 22. Mat. 10 15.  Scripture, and then he is not a chosen vessel (as he pretends p. 10.)  
But by the word [postdestination] he doth evidently bewray a third sort of weakness, for here he gives us a specimen what kind of stuff we must look for from such a Writer, when the denial and refutation of irrespective Decrees, especially of Reprobation, (which was the chief subject of my Book) is by him disguised upon the front of his Book into this so ugly and odious shape, without the least shadow of reason for it. He knows that I, as much as any, do assert eternal predestination; only I prove it, against him, to be respective of final impenitence in all that shall be damned, respective of Faith, and Repentance, and perseverance to the end, in all of ripe age who shall be saved; and for such as die infants before they can actually believe or repent, God's eternal predestination or purpose of electing them unto bliss, was also respective of their being in Christ, they having committed no actual sins whereby to forfeit their interest in the 
* 1 Joh. 2. 1.  propitiation for the sins of the whole world; as well for original, as actual sins, and for all sins of all men as well actual, as original, as to the grief of Mr. B. the 
† Artic. Eccl. Angl. 2. 7. 15. 31.  Church of England hath taught us out of the Scriptures. I say to his grief, because he is such a Zealot for the 
* Correp. Corr. p. 39  damnation of Infants, as to be angry with me for being their Advocate, which I shall ever be so much the rather, because being harmless they never hurt me, and being speechless they cannot rail at me, and being senseless of my love they cannot thank me. But to proceed.  
§. 3. Mr. B. accuseth me in his Title page of Pelagianism, 
Of Pelagianism and Massilianism.  Massilianism, and Arminianism] he cunningly guessed by the difficulty of getting his Book to be printed (for he confe'st to very many, that it must cost him a round sum of money) that most of his Passengers, rather than Readers, would probably look upon his Title page, and would probably look no farther, and at least a few of his own principles might believe him upon his word. But what he affirmeth nakedly in his Title, he as nakedly affirmeth throughout his Book, where he is not able to name one period in any one paragraph in all my Book, which looks any more like Pelagian, than what hath been written even by those who have made it their business to confute the heresy of Pelagius: was St. Paul a Pelagian for having exhorted his Philippians, to work out their own salvation (Phil. 2. 12.) or forbidding Timothy to stir up the gift of God which was in him? (2 Tim. 1. 6. was it not God who said to a wicked rebellious Israel [wherefore turn yourselves and live? Ezek. 18. 32.] where do I say more, or where so much, unless I speak the words of Scripture, and though it might be sufficient to deny his aspersions with the same ease that he affirms them, yet that he may cease from such calumny's from this day forward, or at least that he may choose them with more advice, I will antidote his Reader with these few things. 1. That against 
1.  the two former, [Pelagianism, and Massilianisme, I have spoken so fully and expressly in the laying down of my opinion (p. 55, 56, 57 etc.) that Mr. B. might as well have called me any thing, (a Presbyterian, or a Quaker, an Anabaptist, or a Witch,) as either a whole, or a half Pelagian: if every one is a Pelagian who believes with Pelagius in any one thing; all Christendom is Pelagian, and even Mr. B. in more instances, than I can be. How much more a Pelagian was * Dr. Twisse, who said expressly that many do abstain from fornication, theft, and murder without Grace? 2. As he hath 
2.  no where produced any one passage out of my Notes which hath any the least sound of Pelagianism in it, ●o he hath divers out of Austin (who confuted Pelagius) which he professeth to be Pelagian. He 
a Twis. vin. Gr. l 2. p. 1. Se. 1. Digr. 2. c. 14 p. 155.  saith it was a Pelagian maxim [that all sin is voluntary] which the Pelagians snatched out of Augustine's own mouth, He tells us 
b Correp. Corr. p. 185.  farther, that Austin spoke 
(a) Corrept. Cor. p. 154. usque adeo peccatum est voluntarium malum, ut nullo modo sit peccatum, nisi sit voluntarium, Aug. li. de verra Relig.  some things which he knocked in the head with his own Maxims, and some things which were even literally Pelagian, and that the Pelagians, or Massilians twitted him with it. He tells us farther, 
c Correp. Cor. p. 186.  there was a time, when Austin knew not that faith was the gift of God, (nor was it before, but even after his conversion,) farther yet, (d) he doth (for want of skill and caution) call S. Austin himself by the name of Pelagius, for he saith I spoke that out of Pelagius his mouth which I cited merely from St. Austin ad 
* Note, that S. Aust. in his last writings, commends his writings to Simplician as very sufficient to confute the heresy of Pelagius.  Simplician. 1. 2. and though he tell's me I do it simply, and am a Simplician in doing it, and delights so much in this Quibble as to repeat it extremely often; yet when I shall have taught him this new lesson, that St. Astin was a Bishop when he writ to Simplician, which cannot therefore be one of his babelike writings (as Mr. B. calls them in his abuse of that Father) he will discern his little jests are quite and clean spoiled. Lastly, he saith that St. Austin, as a 
e Correp. Corr▪ p. 34.  child, doth call the quality of the free will occultissimum meritum, and that he often 
f Idem p. 229  beshrewed himself. But (3.) Mr. B. himself is the Pelagian (rather than Austin or myself) for these four Reasons. First, he denieth universal redemption, which was a consectary, if not a part of the heresy 
g Aug: Epist: 106. Tom: 2. confer: cum Hist: Nar: &c p. 9  of Pelagius, which he was fain to recant in the Council of Palestine. Pelagius denied original sin. And so doth Mr. B. by the unavoidable consequence of his Doctrine, that Christ died only for the Elect. For Christ died for all that were dead in 
h Rom. 5. 15 18. 2 Cor. 5. 14.  Adam, (as I proved in my Notes, p. 19 and Mr. B. confesseth by not disproving it) but Christ (saith Mr. B.) did not die for all, which infers that in Adam all did not die, and had not (by consequence) original sin. Secondly, Mr. B. speaking of power to repent, saith in plain terms 
k Correp: Cor: p. 163.  posse est naturae, the power to do it is from nature: and though he speaks of potentia remote, yet there is nothing so like Pelagian in all my Book. 3. He confesseth that his sinful nature is most inclinable to Pelagianism (in his p. 39 lin. 11. 12.) to which I profess I had never any temptation. Yet this is the man, who dares say even in print, 
l Corrup: cor: p. 202. & 103.  that I may as well deny Semipelagianisme, as that my nose stands in my face, and so (according to him p. 103.) I am no Christian, or but a piece of one. 4. If Mr. B. had had so much knowledge, or integrity, he should have showed what it is which doth denominate a Pelagian. For Pelagius was Orthodox as to the main, I mean the Articles of the Apostles Creed, and 
m Clari & ●gregii omnium virtutum studio viri, quorum magna est de probitatis Contemplatione reverentia. Pros. ad Augustin. de Relig. pelag. Haereseos p. 880. possumus quidem ad non credendum esse constantes, sed ad Auctoritatem talia sentientium non sumus pares, quia multum nos & vitae meritis antecellunt, & aliqui eorum adepto nuper summo sacerdotii honore supereminent; nec facile quisquam, etc.— tantis superiorum disputationibus ausus est contraire. Id. ibid. p. 884.  Prosper himself commends the Semipelagians for men of admirable life, and conversation, excelling those that were Orthodox, and of such Authority in the Church for their sanctity of life, that very few durst contradict them. 
* Idem ad eundem.  S. Hilary was one, and he Archbishop of Arles. The famous Arausican Synod would not exclude them from their Communion, S. Austin called them brethren; Cassia●us (a chief one) is called a Divine, and a Catholical person, by Photius and Prosper; and if all are Massilians or Pelagians who agree with them in any point, the whole Christian world, (the Apostles themselves not excepted) would be as liable as I am; who am as little liable to the heresies of the men, as any man living this day in Christendom. I have compared my opinions with the several Canons of the great Council of 
n Co●cil. Carthaginense 418 contra haeresin Pelag. & Caelest. Can. 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116. Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. p. 289, ●90. & de inceps.  Carthage against Pelagius and Caelestius; and with the Recitals of 
o Prosper in Epist. ad Demetriad. p. 867.  Prosper in his Epistle to Demetriades; and with S. Augustine's accounts of Pelagian doctrine both in the 
p August. de bono persever. cap. 2.  Great, and in the 
q Idem in Epist. 106. Tom. 2  Retail; and with the Pelagian History of Learned Vossius; and I find myself as clear from the least stain of that Heresy, as from any other that can be named. Nothing is spoken by 
r Papae Coelestini Epistola de Gratiá ad quosdam Gallerum Episc. in fine operum Prosp Acquit.  Pope Celestine in defence of Hilary and Prosper, to which my Notes were not agreeable; and they are just as agreeable to the 
s Concil. 2. Arausic. in Calce Prosp. p. 896.  Arausican Canons which are annexed. All better Touchstones whereby to judge what is Pelagian, than our Correptory Corrector's being angry with a Doctrine. 5. Now since from all that I have spoken, it appears that Mr. B. (and he alone) is really the fouler for all that Dirt, which he hath weakly endeavoured to fling on me, I will please myself, and punish him, with this final consideration, that this Admirer of S. Austin, and especially of himself, hath hurt himself, and S. Austin, much more than me, and 
Calvin. Inst. l. 2. c. 2. Sect. 4. fol. 78, 79.  it is much for my advantage, that what he laye's to my charge, hath also been laid in effect upon (t) all the Fathers of the Church; I mean the Latin, as well as Greek. The truth is (saith 
* Saints everlasting Rest, edit: 2. p. 158. in marg:  Mr. Baxter) till Pelagius his days all spoke like Pelagians: and he had said a little before, that [most, if not all the Fathers of the first 200. or 300. (he might have added 400.) years, do speak in a language seeming to lean strongly that way, and therefore Calvin and Scultetus in Medul. Patr. charge them with no less than Pelagius his error. Yet perhaps (as he goes on) their laying the blame of evil actions on man's will, and persuading men's wills, may occasion men to charge them too far, as if therefore they supposed natural sufficiency; or they spoke of free will as opposed to Fate, Nature, and coaction, as interpreted by Chamier Panstr. To. 3. de li. arb. l. 3. c. 16.] thus he showeth how the Ancient Fathers have been slandered both by Calvin and Scultetus (as I am now by Mr. B.) with flat Pelagianism, though they did but speak like Pelagians, (and so doth Scripture Ezek. 33, 11. and ch. 18. 32. and so very many the greatest Truths are like very many the greatest falsehoods; but nullum simile est idem,) and did only use a language which seemed (and but seemed) to lean that way. But as Mr. Baxter also points at the probable ground of calvin's Error, so I will add this observation, that both Calvin and Scultetus by those their Censures of S. Augustine's Teachers and Predecessors, have even given the flat lie to S. Austin himself. 
† Aug. de bon● pierce. c. 19 20.  Who vindicates them all from any the least stain of the Pelagian heresy, as I long since showed in my Notes page 73. §. 59 Thus the Fathers have been calumniated, and thus am I For as neither Mr. B. nor his Prefacers have named any one passage in all my Book, which they can tolerably pretend to be Pelagian or Semipelagian, but only have framed an Accusation in general, (as if they should say I am a Horse-stealer, (in imitation of Calvin who accused Castellio himself of Theft,) but not give any Instance of the time wherein, the place from whence, or the man from whom I stole a Horse) so I do solemnly make a public challenge to the ablest Abettors of Mr. Barlee in this his Calumny, to transcribe any one period from any part of my Book wherein they will affirm that Pelagianism doth lie. And if they cannot do this, that they will publicly condemn so gross a Calumny, and make a Competent satisfaction to me and the world for having publicly encouraged so foul a sin. I require nothing of justice in this kind from them, more than what I am ready to perform my self. If I say they make God to be the Author of sin, (and I wish that their expressions were not worse than so too) I will fairly lay down their very words. And if they can prove I do them wrong, I will give what I require, a very public satisfaction. What I shall perform in this particular of proving them to make God the Author of sin (which the right Reverend Bishop 
* Bp. Hall select Thoughts 34. p. 103. & 104.  Hall affirms in plain terms to be no less than Rank Blasphemy, and against (Psal. 5. 4.) will be in part seen now, but more apparently hereafter, when I shall vindicate myself from the Imputations, which without the least show of proof, are laid upon me by D. Reynolds, in his Epistolary Preface to this Volume of Mr. Barlee. 6. But our 
Of Arminianism.  Correptory Corrector hath one Reserve, that if his Reader will not believe I am so bad as a Pelagian, no nor half so bad, (not so much as a Massilian) he yet may swallow me down whole in the glibber Notion of an Arminian. When a great deal of Calumny is cast upon me and my papers, he hopes that something at least will stick. The vulgar sort do take Arminius to have been some foul Monster, though they never yet learned whether that Monster were fish, or flesh; or from what part of Africa the Thing was brought. And therefore they who have been taught rather to hate Arminius, then understand him, may very usefully be told some few things of him. First, he was plainly a Presbyterian, and so is Mr. Barlee, so am not I Next he taught and believed that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth justify, so I suppose doth Mr. Barlee, so do not I Thirdly, Arminius was for free will; and so is Mr. B. as well as I. So (as he confesseth) are 
u Correp. Corr. p. 218. Voluntas est semper libera sed non semper bona. August.  all his Party, who are ready to take up that with Austin, that the will is always free, but not always good. (yet in a fit of forgetfulness p. 219. he saith that Austin and 
* Note that Melancthon dares do, and doth, what Mr. B. saith he scarce dares, in loc. Comm. de libero arbi●rio, p. 56. & seqq. & in Defin. Theolog. p. 478 & in Confess. Augustanâ. Nor was Siracides an Arminian though he was for free will. E●cclus 15. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.  Melancthon scarce durst to name the free will of man since Adam's Fall. Not knowing perhaps, or perhaps concealing, that Arminius was a Follower and Admirer of Melancthon.) 4. Arminius was of opinion, that the considerations of sub and supra (in stating the object of God's decree) were but ingenti figmenta, mere tricks and devices in the Anti-Arminians. And Mr. B. confesses the very same in his p. 114. where though he saith that they are honest ingenious devices, yet Dr. Twisse calls the former by very 
w Haec sunt monstra illa opinionum & Portenta quae nobis parturit & parit ista sententia, scholis Jesuiti●is digniora, quam nostris. Twisse vind. Gra. l. 1. part. 1. Sect. 4. c. 4. p 88 Digr. 4.  foul names, as inferring God (saith he) to be the Author of sin; the very thing they would avoid in the supralapsarian way. 5. Arminius disputeth against God's Absolute Power or Will, as it is separate from his Justice; and Mr. B. 
x Correp. Corr. p. 166.  confesseth that 
y Sorbonicum illud Dogma, in que sibi plaudunt Papales Theologastri, detestor, quod potentiam absolutam deo affingit. Calvin. de Divin, Praedest. p. 72. B.  Calvin himself doth do the same; yea, that he bitterly declaim's against it. 6. Though Mr. Barlee most times affirmes God to decree, and praedetermin that sin shall be done, (as I shall largely show anon) yet forgetful of himself (in his p. 138.) He saith that God's decree is only permissive and governing of every sinful thing: in which he jumps with Arminius extremely well. 7. Mr. B. confesseth that he and his party do in 
7.  part admit of some Arminian Principles, p. 106. and yet he makes a clear distinction betwixt me, and the Arminians, p. 66. But 8. Arminius denied the working of 
8.  Grace irresistibly; and Mr. B. 
z Correp: cor. p. 211. especially p. 213. 215.  professeth, that the terms resistible and irresistble were never willingly owned, by him and his party. (I am sure they use extremely often the word [irresistibiliter;] if not willingly, it seems they do it unwillingly, and why then do they do it? if they are ashamed of it, they should not be ashamed to mend.) 9 Arminius holds that God never 
a Correp: cor. 157.  intended to punish any one with temporal, and 
9  then less with eternal death, but for sin. And Mr. B. professeth to hold the same even in those very words. (What God decreed, he intended, and vice versâ, and so Mr. B. is an Arminian (perhaps) before he is aware, or understands not the things whereof he speaketh.) 10. Mr. B. is a Calvinist, 
10.  and saith that Calvin and Melanchthon did but seemingly, not 
b Correp. cor. 46.  really differ. Yet Arminius was so much a follower of Melanchthon, that we may call him a Melanchthenian. (Sure Mr. B. will agree, as soon with Pelagius, as with himself.) 
11.  11. To conclude, where Arminius is in an Error, Mr. B. is sure to err with him; but hates Arminius where he is Orthodox, although he is constrained to speak like him there too, when the necessity of his affaires doth drive him to it, or when he is forgetful of the part which he is acting. 12. For myself I do declare, that I was then in the opinions I now am in, when I had not read one page of Arminius his works: nor do I agree with him any farther, than he agrees with Scripture: Antiquity, the Church of England, and Melanchthon (after the time of his 
* Qu●mvis ab initio Luthero tanquam praeceptori ad haesisset,— attamen agnito postmodum errore, & quod prius scripserat emendavit, & contrariam sententiam propugnavit. Felix Turpio in Praef: ad castle:  conversion from the Errors of Luther, and Mr. Calvin) this Melanchthon at first had been as it were the Scholar of Lu. her, and drew from him his first Errors: But being apious, learned, and unpassionate man, (pursuing Truth, not Faction) he saw his Error, and forsook it: embracing those opinions concerning the liberty of the will, the cause of sin, the universality of Grace, and the respectiveness of God's Decrees, which I asserted in those Notes, which Mr. B. now declaims against. This Melanchthon was, and is still the Darling, (more than any one man) of the Reformed part of the Christian world; so much the rather, because besides his vast learning, unbyass't judgement, and transcendent piety, he was almost proverbial for moderation. For this was he chosen to write the Augustan Confession, for this he was much considered by them that composed our Book of Articles, and our other book of Homilies, which shows us what is the Doctrine of the true Church of England. For this he was imitated and admired by the glorious Martyrs of our Religion in the days of Q. Mary: for this he was esteemed far above Mr. Calvin by Jacobus Arminius, the famous professor of Divinity in the University of Leyden, who however a Presbyterian as to matter of Discipline, did yet so very far excel the other Divines of that sect, in exactness of learning, as well as life, that we may say he became Melanchthon's Convert. If Mr. B. would needs call me by any new Name, it should have been a Melanchthonian, not a Pelagian, or an Arminian, much less a Satanical and diabolical Blasphemer, and Atheist, an a what-not. But neither am I a Melanchthonian in any other respect, then as I apprehend Melanchthon to be a true and an Orthodox and a peaceable-minded Christian. I leave it to M. B. to give up his Faith to Mr. Calvin, and to follow him at aventure through thick and thin; but neither Melanchthon nor Mr. Calvin did die for me, no was I baptised in the name of either. It is my sole desire and ambition to be a follower of Christ, and one of Christ's school, to imitate the example, and adorn the Doctrine (not of Calvin or of Arminius, but) of Jesus Christ. Let Mr. B. be a Calvinist, an Ae●ian, or what he will; I have vowed, for my part, not to be any thing but a Christian. And if that is good logic, to say that I am an Arminian, because in some things I do not differ from Arminius, then Mr. B. (by the same Logic) is not only an Arminian where I am none, but he is also a Papist, because he is at agreement with the Jansenians and the Dominicans, and (in many respects) with the Jesuits too. Yet 13. I was in my childhood 
13.  of those Opinions, which Mr. B. doth now contend for. So was Melanchthon himself, as well as I; but through the infinite mercy and Grace of God, I have obtained conversion, as well as Melanthon; and being converted from the practice, as well as from the opinion which I was of, I will, (to my poor utmost) at least endeavour to confirm, or convert my brethren. 14. The chief head of Arminianism (as Mr. B. will 
14.  call it do what I can) is Universal Grace and Redemption, (with which the other opinions in debate must stand, or fall, as I conceive) a point so clear both from Scripture, Reason, and Antiquity, that the most learned Anti-arminians have been fain to assert it, as well as Arminius or Melanchthon. Among us, Bishop Davenant, and the late Bishop of Armagh. (This latter a little before his Death having also professed his utter dislike to the whole Doctrine of Geneva in these affairs and the former is plain enough in his parcificatory to Dureus.) So in France the learned Testard, and Amirald, and Daille lately in his defence of Amirald. Mr. Baxter himself in this point must be an Arminian with Mr. B. and so must Prosper, (c) or St. Hilary, (which soever of them 
(Prosper vel Hil de Vocat Gen. l. 2. c. 16. p. 844.  writ the Books De vocatione Gentium,) and so must Dr. Ward, and many a noble Divine besides in the confession of 
d Correp: cor. p. 169.  Mr. B. who saith [they have so many hardsome Orthodox putoffs, that he will inquire farther, before he pass any damnatory censure upon them.] thus doth he speak (like some Pope out of his porphyry chair) of no less men than Bishop Davenant, and Dr. Ward, and other noble Divines, as he himself calls them. 15. Arminius held the respectiveness of 
15.  God's Decrees, yet is it so far from being Arminianism to do the same, that it's 
e Prosper apud Episcop. Vedel. Rhap: c. 11. p. 222. Melanchthon apud eund: ibid. p. 223. Prosp: ad Aug: Epist. p. 886. Calvin: Institut: l. 2. c. 2. Sect. 4. fol. 78. Beza in Rome 11. 2. Edit: 2. Gra: l. 1. part. 1. Sect. 4. Digr. 8. p. 110. col. 2.  confess't to be the doctrine of all the Fathers of the Church (before St. Austin) many hundreds of years before Arminius was borne; and that as well by the Enemies, as by Friends of this Doctrine. Beza is fain to say, the Fathers are not to be heard. And 
f Twiss: Vin:  Dr. Twisse professeth to consider none but S. Austin; and yet his single Father S. Austin will fail him too, who placeth the object of election in Fide praevisâ in 
g Augustin: de perscverantiâ. l. 1. c. 14. Enchirid c. 98. ad Simplician: l. 1. qu. 2.  divers places of his no-babelike writings. And so doth 
h Prosper in Respon. ad Gal: cap. 3. 12, 14, 15.  Prosper as well as Herald And therefore they must fall into the Catalogue of Mr. Barlee's Arminians. Nay, his beloved 
k Polanus Syntag: Theol: l. 4. c 9 de Elect: àd vit: aeternam. Argum. 9  Polanus will not escape him, any more than 
l Molineus in Anat. Arm. citat. à Twiss. l. 1. part 1. Sect. 4. Digr. 6. c 1. p. 92.  Du Moulin could escape Dr. Twisse; or any more than Mr. B. can escape himself p. 121. 130. (if I or my Reader were at leisure to show how he is entangled, as well in that, as in other places, by the necessary sequels of his unskilful Talk.) To conclude. 16. Mr. B. and his Masters have fastened the Name of Arminianism upon so many very good, and very necessary Doctrines, that some of the wisest of their own Party have been heard to say; that [when all comes to all, if they intent to preach to the people, so as to do them any good, they must preach Arminianism do what they can.] For if the will of man is not free to avoid the sins which are preached down (by the mighty assistance of God's free grace) and to perform the duties which are preached up (by the same assistance of the same Grace) but so tied and fettered and predetermined, that it cannot possibly be one jot better, or one jot worse than now it is, 
* Sic in Articulis nostris, multisque publicae leiturgiae locis, Gratiae Necessitas astruitur, ●t tamen sub Gratiâ, voluntas libera relinquatur; sine quâ, frustra leges, praecepta, consultationes, conditiones, exhortationes, admonitiones, promissiones, comminationes, laudes & paenae proponerentur; omnisque Curae & diligentiae, studij, consilii, & laboris ratio tolleretur. Overallus in exposit. Sent. Eccl. Anglic. cap. 3. & 4. p. 51. 52.  all our laws and precepts, consultations and conditions, exhortations and admonitions, promises and threats, praises and dispraises, rewards and punishments, would not only be useless but ridiculous things. And therefore as we tender the good of souls, and desire to be useful in what we speak, or write; we must be so far in danger of being called Arminians (by such a Correptory Corrector as lies before us) as to endeavour by our doctrines of Grace and liberty (of liberty by, and under Grace) that all care and diligence, and Circumspection, may not be banished out of the world, as nothing else but Names and Notions. And Mr. B. doth very ill in saying that Bishop Overal doth 
n Correp. Corr. 130.  play upon Calvin and traduce the Puritans for heterodoxie about Predestination; siince the most learned of his own party are grown ashamed of their Doctrines; and that Incomparable Bishop doth but speak the very mind of the Church of England. Which doth put me in mind of another great and strange Calumny in Mr. Barlee's Title-page. viz.  
§ 4. That the Church of England will exclaim against me 
Of the Church of England compared with his superscription of his Dedicatory Epistle.  to my shame.] This (they say) is such a jest as ne'er was heard of. That he should jeer me so often for my overgreat 
* Correp. Corr. p. 15. 19 etc.  Constancy to this my persecuted Mother, (and publish himself a Presbyterian,) and yet not allow me to be a dutiful Son. 2. If we will hearken to the voice of the Church of England, we must hear her speaking to us in the public monuments of her Doctrine. Such are the 39 Articles, the Homilies, the Liturgy, the Catechism, the book of Ordination, the book of Canons and Constitutions. All which will prove, that I (if any man living) am a dutiful son of the Church of England, and that the Correptory Corrector is nothing less. Well he may be of the Consistory of Geneva, or of the Kirke of Scotland; but (as a most learned Doctor hath lately told us from the Press) he, and such as he is, are as much of the Church of England, as the Irish are English. 3. He hath by much the worst luck of any Subsannator I 
3.  ever knew. For as if he had forgotten what he here speaks of me, he speaks a great deal worse of his beloved self, and of all his Sympresbyters to whom he Dedicates his Book. For whilst he tells them, in his Address that they do still adhere to the Dogmatical part of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, he proclaims to the world that they adhere to a part only, and not to the whole; and that there is another part of those 39 Articles, from which they have Apostatised; the particle [Yet] is very emphatical, and im-ports thus much. That whereas heretofore they did impartially subscribe to all the 39 Articles without exception, and have since accommodated their principles to the great Turnings of the Times, so as to violate their former faith, they are not yet so totally fallen off from the Church, but that they 
* Note, that if that is not the Importance of his particle [Yet] his meaning must needs be worse. viz. that they do hither to adhere to the dogmatical part, though he knows no● what they may do hereafter Asif when times shall have another turn, they might●all off from that part also, as they had done from the other since these last times.  still adhere to the dogmatical part of the English Creed, (as Mr. Thomas Rogers himself doth call it.) which is to say in effect, that though they are Schismatical in some points, yet they are not in all; though they believe the Church of England is a very false speaker in many things, yet in many other things they believe she speaks truly; though they have cast off their obedience to their common mother where her commands are not pleasing (at least in these times) yet to this very day they are loyal to her in part, (as far as 'tis safe, or useful, or secularly convenient.) Though they are not wholly of the Church of England, yet they are half way. And what a compliment is this from Mr. B. to all his Sympresbyters, (to the Seniors of them especially) to tell them they have receded from their subscriptions? What greater reproach could he have fastened on them? And how little have many of them deserved this usage at his hands? I will take upon me to be an Advocate for the better sort of those Persons whom he hath thus publicly stigmatised, as if they were men of his Paste, and Patronizers of his Project, and whom for their learning, civility, and moderation, I do really love and honour. I can name many Ministers, and I believe there are others, whom (from my knowledge) I cannot name, who notwithstanding they have frequented one or both of those Lectures which Mr. B. doth mention in general Terms, (as if he were willing to involve them all together in his Gild, not sparing the Reputation of any one) are so ingenuous and well disposed, as to abhor the blackness of His Design; and withal so rational, as to despise the weakness with which 'tis managed. But 4. Since Mr. B. his memory would not serve 
4▪  him from the later end of one page to the beginning of another, I desire the Readers of his Title-page to judge betwixt us, against which of the two the Church of England is most likely to exclaim; whether against him, who makes a public confession that he adheres to no more than one part of her Articles, or against me who do cordially adhere to all? But 5. 
5. Of the ●9. Articles.  What doth he mean by the Dogmatical Part? If the Articles of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and the like, he might have said as well that he adheres in part unto the Articles of the Church of Rome, unto the Greek, and Lutheran Churches, or that he adhereth to the Articles of every Church in the world in all those parts and particulars wherein he doth not differ from them. if he means those Articles concerning the matters in Debate, his absurdity is greater. For universal redemption is asserted in no less than 4 distinct Articles. viz. the second, the seventh, the fifteenth, the one and thirtieth. So also in the Catechism, the Nicene Creed, and in several other parts of the Public Liturgy, as is evidently showed by the right Reverend Doctor 
p Sente●. Eccl Anglic. cap. 2. de mor●● christi. p. 46. 40, 47, 48.  Overall, whilst he was public Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. And to this agree the concessions of the Protestant Churches beyond sea reckoned up by Mr. Rogers upon the 31. Article; if not rightly, it is his fault. Again the liberty of the will, and the cooperation of Grace are asserted in the tenth Article, wherein there is not the least sound of irresistible working; as it is excellently explàined by the same Dr. 
q Id ibid. e. 3. & 4. p. 49. 50, 51, 52. de libere Arbitri● & Grati● operatione.  Overall (a person for Temper, Piety, and Moderation, as well as for wideness and depth of learning, as fit to tell us the very mind of the Church of England, as any man that can be named.) Again, the possibility to fall from Grace after the reception of the Holy Ghost, and to fall into damning sins, (or into a state of Damnation,) is clearly asserted in the sixteenth Article, and in the Homilies of our Church concerning the Danger of falling away from God, and in the Administration of Baptism, as the same 
r Id ibid. c. 5. de perseverantiâ. p. 53, 54, 55.  Doctor doth demonstrate; Affirming the contrary opinion to have been rejected by all antiquity, and too much confu●ed by the experience of all times, and only brought into the Church by the late dissensions which passed betwixt Zuinglius, and Martin Luther. Lastly, con litional Predestination is sufficiently, though implicitly▪ asserted by our Church in her seventeenth Article. Where it is clearly to be collected, that God's eternal Decree of electing men to life eternal was made in In●uition of their being in Ch●ist. Which is as clearly also to be inferred from the Nature of the Promises which are conditionally expressed in Holy Scripture. And the Promises of God are merely the Transcripts of his Decrees, revealed to us in time after the pattern and proportion of what he decreed from all eternity. Which Mr. B. himself doth very strongly acknowledge by the very great weakness of his denials. For whilst to this, (as to other things) he hath no more to say then a Bare [Noe,] embellished with many contumelious words, or emboldened with the suffrages of such as are of his opinions, (or rather of such whose opinions he is of,) he declares he is worsted, but will not yield. But of this I shall speak hereafter; and (not to dwell overlong upon the threshold) mind the Reader of that which he knows already, the Exposition of Bishop Over all, 
s Id. ibid. c. 1 de praedestinatione p. 41. 42, 43, 44.  and the accurate Analysis of Mr. Playfere in his 
t part. 3. ch●. 21. p. 350. etc.  [Appello Evangelium.] Besides that, when the Church saith (Art. 31.) that Christ is a perfect Redemption, Propitiation, and Satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world both original and actual, she doth irrefragably prove (that Article being granted) that God's Eternal Decrees of man's end were respective and conditional. 6. I will not here reckon 
6.  up how many other Articles of the 39 exclaim against Mr. B. (which I would not say, but that it is his own word) or how many Articles of our Church M. B. hath often exclaimed against. Nor will I largely insist on the three eminent Articles, to which all that entered into sacred Orders (and by consequence Mr. B. if he is lawfully ordained) were strictly enjoined to subscribe. viz. Concerning first, the Queen's Supremacy. Secondly, conformity to the Book of Common prayer, and the Book of ordaining Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Thirdly, the Book of the 39 Articles of the Church of England (not a part only, but the whole) which three Injunctions were composed by Archbishop Whitgift himself, and added to the English Canons by the command of Q. Elizabeth. I have already said more than Mr. B. his Calumny required. What he is, let others now judge by what I am, and by what he hath professed himself to be. 7. If Arch Bishop Cranmer, Bishop Latimer, Bishop Hooper, and others, who suffered Martyrdom in the days of Queen Mary, were Orthodox sons of the Church of England in their Doctrines of God's Election, and Universal Redemption, etc. (of which occasion will be offered to speak anon) than it is worse with Mr. B. then I wish it were, and better with me than he would have it. By what hath hitherto been spoken it will be easy to judge of his Next Invention. viz.  
§. 5. [That Scripture, Antiquity, Schoolmen, and all Orthodox Neotericks will exclaim against me.] Here is matter for a whole volume, if I would expatiate as I might upon each of these particulars. But by how much the longer I am tempted to be, I will endeavour to be so much the 
1. Of Scripture used by Mr. B. and by me.  shorter. And first, for Scripture I will observe, that he useth that as he doth the neoterics. So many Texts as in the letter do 
* Note, that they do not so much as seem to make for his opinion of Gods being the Fountain or cause of sin, to any other sort of Readers than such as he is. For Act. 4. 28. is spoken only of God's determining, not to hinder what he foresaw men would do if they were not hindered. But Mr. B. will not allow either such conditional decrees, or such idle permissions, for so he calls them, p. 63.  seem to make for his opinion, [that sin is absolutely willed by God Almighty (as p. 78. & 88) that God did voluntarily decree it (as p. 73.) that God doth determine it shall be done (as p. 79.) that God doth tempt men into sin, (as p. 79.) and the like,] so many Texts, in the letter, do pass for Orthodox with Mr. Barlee. But so many Texts as do evidently make for my opinion [that Christ is the Saviour of the 
u Joh. 4. 42.  World, of the 
w 1 Joh 2. 2.  whole world, of 
x 1 Tim. 4. 10.  all men, of 
y Heb 2. 9  every man, and the like] so many Texts, in the letter, do pass for Heterodox at least, if not for 
* Note, that for this part of my opinion, as well as others, he calls me heretic in several places.  Heretical, with Mr. Barlee. Such places of Scripture as are plain and easy, (as plain and as easy as the wit of man can imagine,) Mr. Barlee will needs interpret in some figurative sense, that so he may drag them to vote on his side. But such other places of Scripture as are obscure, or doubtful, or notoriously known to be spoken by an Hebraisme, he will needs understand in a literal sense, and all in homage to his Caprices concerning God's 
z Correp. cor. p. 63. compared with 60. & 61.  Agency and 
a Ibid pag. 53. 54. The first ex-example of universal redemption.  efficaciousness in sin. It may be of good use to the unlearned sort of Readers to give them an example in either case. When God 
b Ezek. 33. 11  sweareth he hath no pleasure in the death of the wicked; nor is willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, and will have 
d 1 Tim. 2. 4.  
c 2 Pet. 3. 9  all men to be saved; and tasted death for 
e Heb. 2. 9  every man; and is the 
f 1 Joh. 2. 2.  propitiation not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world; and commandeth 
g Act, 17. 30.  all men every where to repent, 
* My sense  I say that these words ought to be simply understood, after their native signification, without any mental Reservations, or other tricks whatsoever. So as my sense is plainly this; That God sincerely doth desire the health and welfare of all mankind, I mean their Obedience, Repentance, Renovation of life, perseverance in well doing in this present world, and Glorification in the world to come; that he hateth nothing which he hath made; nothing but sin, which he hath not made; that when he commands he is sincerely willing to be obeyed, and therefore giveth a passive power to receive his grace, and by that, an active power to perform such obedience as he will mercifully accept. But he forceth no man, compelleth no man, necessitateth no man, by Grace irresistible, to be eternally happy, do what he can to the contrary; any more than he forceth or necessitateth any man, by any irrespective unconditional Decree, to be eternally miserable, do what he can to be otherwise. So that such as are not saved, cannot say, they are not saved for want of means and possibility, for want of a Ransom or a Saviour, or for want of God's willingness that they should be saved; but for want of their willingness to do their duties, the conditions of the Covenant, upon the performance, or non-performance of which, Salvation either may, or may not be had. 
* Mr. B. his putoffs, and their absurdities.  But Mr. B. on the contrary derides my simplicity in the literal acception of such plain Texts. He hath either a Synecdoche for the word [All] to make it signify no more than [some] and those not the greater, but by very much the lesser part of mankind. Or else he hath a distinction of [sufficienter, non intentional●ter] Christ (saith he) was sufficient to have been a ransom for all the world, but 'twas a thing he never meant, or intended. Or else he hath the common abuse of voluntas signi, & 
* Voluntas beneplaciti is rendered by Mr. B. the will of liking; and by Mr. Prin, (in his translation of the Lambeth Articles) the will of the w●ll pleased God, how absurdly, let others judge.  Beneplaciti; that is, the revealed will of God (which, they say, is 
† Twiss. Vind. Gra l. 1. part. 1. Digr. 10. Se. 12. p. 140. & Correp. cor. p. 67.  not properly his will, but only a token what ought to be aone and the secret will of God, (which, they will have to be properly his will, as that by which he decreeth a thing shall actually be done) In so much that although he professeth in his word; He is not willing that any should perish, but [very willing] that all should come to repentance; yet he is secretly willing that the far greater part of men should perish, and secretly unwilling that all should come to to repentance. He having absolutely decreed (say they) to leave the major part of man kind without the very possibility of Repentance or Salvation; and determined their Reprobation without respect unto their sins. So when he is said to command all men every where to repent, it is not meant (say they) as if he intended they should repent indeed, (for he had absolutely decreed the Impossibility of their Repentance, as say the men of Mr. Barlee's temper) but only to show what ought to be done if the doing of it were possible. So again when God revealeth his great unwillingness that men should sin, they say it is but a sign that men ought not to sin; whereas his secret will is (which alone is properly his will, saith Dr. Twisse) that men shall sin of necessity do what they can to the contrary. Which is as much as to say, [that voluntas signi is but signum voluntatis, non voluntas ex parte rei, nay worse,] That voluntas signi is but the will of not willing what he willeth, and of willing what he willeth not with his secret will. Or (which by way of refuge they are fain to say) that what we call the will of God, revealed to us in his word, we do but call so. It being not properly his will or the revelation of his will, but many times contrary to his secret or real will, and so rather the concealing then the revealing of his will; or only a making show as if he were willing, when his secret will proves that he is very far from it. And this may suffice for the first example of the first case, wherein I am for a literal, and Mr. B. only for a figurative Interpretation of Scripture. But 2. there is a time too, when I am for a figurative, and he 
2. The second Example of Gods not only permitting, but exciting men to sin.  is only for a literal sense. E. G. When God is said in Scripture to 
h 2 Sam. 16. 10. etc.  command Shimei to curse David, to 
k Ezek. 24. 21.  profane his Sanctuary, to 
l 2 Sam. 12. 〈◊〉.  give the wives of David unto Absalon, to 
m Eze. 20. 26.  pollute men in their own gifts, and the like, I say that such words must be expounded by an Hebraisme, whereby many verbs which are active in sound, are only permissive in signification. And herein I agree as well with 
n Certum est, ●ebraicâ phra●i significare eas [figuras verborum] permissionem, non voluntatem efficacem. Melanc. loc. Com. de Causâ peccati. p. 49.  Melancthon, as with 
o Saepe apud Hebraeo● verba so●o activa significatu permissiva sunt. Grot. in Jer. 4. 10.  Grotius, and all other the most learned Interpreters of Scripture; and with the judgement of common sense. 
* My sense.  So as my apprehension of such Texts is plainly this. That God did permit, or that he did patiently suffer, or that he did not hinder those wicked acts, viz. the cursing of David, the profanation of his temple, the pollution of his people, and Absalon's violation of his Father's wives. Nor do I say that thus it may be, but thus it must. For nothing can actively 
* Quicquid efficit tale, est ipsum magis &  pollute but what is unclean in it self. (as nothing properly can 
‖ Nihil dat quod non habet.  moisten, but what is wet,) Now God (we know) is the spirit of holiness and purity, who hateth sin with a real, not with a 
p Cum igitur non sit simulatum odium peccati in voluntate divinâ, nequaquam sent●endum est, Deum velle peccatum. Melanct. ibid. p. 48.  counterfeit hatred, (as Melancthon speaks.) And cannot decree what he hateth, because he cannot be willing of that, of which he is unwilling. It would imply a contradiction, and therefore the 
q Parce derechef que tel est le stile de l' escriture, que celui qui n'oste point quand il le peut est souuent dit donner, oster celui qui point ne donne. Mornay du Pless. en medit. sur le vers. du ch. 19 des Proverbes p. 167. 170.  Seigneur du Plessis, however of calvin's judgement in other points, had more Grace and more Wit than not to acknowledge the necessity of the Rule abovementioned in the exposition of such Texts as do seem to some men to imply the Divine will to be efficacious of sin. 
* Mr B is here for the literal sense.  But Mr. B. on the contrary, is for literal expositions of such Texts, and chides me for being otherwise, and upon this very occasion proposeth this Question, [Know you not that bonus Textuarius est bonus Theologus? and that sensus Scripturae est tantùm unicus isque grammaticus? and (it is in his p. 69.) he jeers 
r Correp. Corr. p. 70. & 61.  my milky mild way of understanding those Texts, and calls them Socinio-Grotio-Percian Glosses (ibid.) professeth to be as incredulous as any Jew, that by receding from the words of those Scriptures I can approach nearer to the genuine sense of them. And what doth he mean by [those Scriptures] but the forequoted places? (as he confesseth but 4. lines before p. 70.) and what were the places forequoted, but the choosest 
s The Catalogues which he makes of them are in his p. 56. 59, 60, 61, 62.  Texts of Scripture that he was able to pick up, whereby to prove God to be the Author of sin? as needs he must be in the very worst manner in which an Author can be expressed, if all those Scriptures were to be literally expounded, which our correptory Corrector doth there so earnestly desire. But would we not think that man were mad, who should conclude our Saviour to be a Plant or a Tre●, from Joh. 15. 1. 5. because he there saith, [I am the true Vine? or that he is a wooden Saviour from John 10. 7. 9 because he there saith, [I am the door?] or that he is an irrational Saviour from john 1. 29. 36. because the Baptist there calls him [the Lamb of God?] and is it not much a greater madness, to conclude that God is a Tempter, a Deceiver, and a Father of lies, from 1 King. 22. 22, 23. where he saith to the lying spirit, * Go forth and 
*** Note, that these and all the like expressions which are but figures of speech (as Melancth●n knowingly calls them) are very easily and naturally to be expounded of God's Permission, or sufferance, and God is only said (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to do those things which he permitteth to be done, because they cannot be done without his sufferance or permission. And because he hath determined not to cancel his Law (the transgression of which is sin) nor to change the course of Nature by making Man (like Beast) an involuntary Agent, but to let him continue a free and rational Agent (and so capable of sin) his permission and sufferance of sin is not only a just but a necessary thing.  prevail? or from Ezek. 14. 9 where he is said to have * deceived the erring Prophet? or from Isa. 63. 17. where God is interrogated, [Why hast thou * made us to err from thy ways?] yet Mr. B. doth plead for a literal signification of such passages in Scripture. And in justification of such blasphemies as I had quoted from his Oracles (in my p. 9 & 10.) affirming men to do wickedly by the force or impulse of God Almighty, and by his positive command, and the like he allegeth many Texts (in his p. 56.) against which he saith, I might as well have cried out, that they make God the Author of sin. And then asks if those Texts do fall any thing (t) short [of those sayings which I produced out of the chieftains of his opinion,] nay, if they go not beyond the highest expressions of those blasphemers. And to help excuse this abuse of Scripture, he hath 
* in his page 57  learned to say from Dr. Twisse, that the Jesuits and Dominicans have done so too, (as if the blasphemy were the less for the greater number of blasphemers.) But the same Dr. Twisse 
(tt) Correp. Corr. p. 56.  doth there confess, 
u Twisse in vind. Gra: l. 2. p. 1. Sect. 1 Crim. 3. Digr. 2. c. 4. p. 52. col. 2.  that from such Doctrines of the Jesuits and Dominicans [The act of sin is from God, and God determineth the will of the Creature to every act, yea even to every act of sin] it was very easy for the unlearned, such as the libertines than were, to conclude God to be the Author of all the sins which are committed by men. Upon which confession of Dr. Twisse it must inevitably follow, that if Mr. Barlee and his Masters, and Dr. Twisse in particular, have spoken sometimes as ill, and sometimes worse than the Jesuits and Dominicans, they must needs be liable to the very same crime. But that Doctor doth contradict, and condemn himself, when he saith 
w Dominicani etiam imperfectè & obscure veritatem hâc ex parte enuntiant dum: praeter concursum Dei, nihil aliud requirunt ad viam peccato sternendam, quam negationem gratiae efficacis, cum tamen manifestum sit ulteriorem aliquam per occasiones agendi suppeditatas, ad peccata (ut ita dicam) prostitutionem requiri, quae sine tentationibus ad peccandum inducentibus absolvi non potest, etc. Twiss. Vin. Gr. l. 2. p. 1. Sect. 2. Cri. 3. Digr. 2. c. 15. p 156.  else where, that the Dominicans do imperfectly and obscurely relate the truth, whilst besides God's concurrence to the making way for sin, they require nothing but the Negation of efficacious Grace. Whereas the Dr. himself goes much beyond them and is bolder than they were, (as I have showed in my Notes, p. 10. in the last quotation.) And though Mr. B. saith, p. 56. that they profess some fearfulness of their being enforced to express themselves in the language they cannot but do; (therein acknowledging the checks of conscience, and yet alleging a necessity for such expressions) yet Dr, Twisse hath 
x Quoties quenquam impelli à deo aut cogi dicunt, rhetoricè potius loquuntur quam logicè, & non tam propriè quam figuratè, ut ●o divinae mo●ionis e●ficaciam illustriùs repraesentent. Id. ibid. Sect. 1. Crim. 3. c. 1. p. 29. col. 1.  pleaded that they speak Rhetorically, rather than logically, nor so properly, as figuratively, that they may the more clearly represent the efficacy of the divine motion. It is an obvious observation, that Dr. Twisse in this place doth speak directly against Mr. B. For first, a figurative interpretation is is not a literal one. 2. Men are not enforced to speak improperly [in saying that men are compelled by God to sin] when 'tis so easy for them to speak properly [in saying they are not compelled but only permitted by God to sin.] 3. It cannot be said with any 
3.  Truth, that they cannot but speak rbetorically, when they speak of man's coaction from God to sin; for Melancthon, and all such do speak logically true, when they speak the quite contrary, and if they will, they can speak as truly as any Melanchthon whatsoever. Yet Mr. B. saith plainly, that (when they speak of God's Impulse or coaction to sin) they are enforced to do so; and though they do it with some fearfulness, yet they cannot but do it. (As if absolutely decreed to speak such frightful and horrid things.) 4. Dr. Twisse confesseth, that what 
4.  Bellarmine there urgeth is very true, [viz. that Calvin doth say, and say in Print too, that wicked men are coacted or compelled by God as with a bridle to do wickedly.] But only pleadeth in his excuse, that when he and others do 
y Id. Ibid.  say [quenquam impelli à deo, aut cogi, that any man is enforced, or compelled by God] they speak rhetorically. Sure it is not only a needless, and a wicked, but a very unhandsome and dull kind of Rhetoric, to say that God who hateth sin and doth earnestly forbid it, doth compel and constrain men to its commission; it being worse than to say, he is the Author of sin, because less than coaction or compulsion will make an Author. And the Doctor's reason spoiles all he had said before. For [Efficacy] sure is a word of force, ab efficiendo, to effect. And if God doth efficaciously move men to sin, they need not seek for assistance to words of coaction and impulsion to express his motion by; especially since the Doctor is wont to explain the word [Efficacious] by 
z Twiss. Vin. Gr. l. 1. part. 1▪ Sect. 12. p. 140  [irresistible.] Besides, 5. if these are Orthodox putoffs, (as Mr. B. speaks, p. 169.) and as honest and ingenious, as they think them necessary devices, (as Mr. B. phraseth it again, p. 114.) they may say as well that God is the Author of all the sins in the world, and tell us when they have done, that they speak not logically and properly▪ but Rhetorically and figuratively, the better to express the efficacious motion of the Almighty. And the same may be urged for any blasphemy whatsoever. 6. If their meaning is not blasphemous when their words are so, let them publicly confess that they acknowledge 
6.  the Hebraisme above mentioned, as well as we; and that all those Texts which are alleged for God's stirring up to sin, are only meant of his permission. When this is done, the Scripture will exclaim no more against Mr. B. in this particular, then (as he saith) it does against me. But I must hasten to his next invention, viz. That Antiquity, as well as Scripture will exclaim against me.] 1. What he means by Antiquity 
1. of Antiquity.  we may guess by his Catalogue to which he recommends me (p. 194.) where amongst his Ancient Authors he reckons Historia Gottescalci written by the late Bishop of Armagh about 25. years since. Yet to that Author I will give ear, if I may also be allowed to read the Predestinarian heresy set set out lately by Sirmondus, and also Vossius his Pelagian History. 2. His very ancientest Author there mentioned is no more ●…ntient then St. Austin, who lived above 400. years after Christ, whereas I derive my Antiquity in behalf of my opinions from as far as St. Ignatius who lived together with the Apostles. And 3. even Austin, Prosper, Fulgentius, and Hilary, (who are in effect no more than one Austin, the three latter 
3▪ Of S. Austin.  following him, as Scholars commonly their Master) are as exactly for my opinions, as Mr. B. can pretend them to be for his, as I have, and shall show upon just occasion. And if they speak on both sides, let them signify nothing with him, or me, but let us be tried by their Fathers to whom they will humbly submit themselves, and who are granted to be for that which I asserted in my Notes by the very Enemies of my opinion. But 4. if this one Austin had been only for Mr. B. his opinions, it had not been argumentative that they are true. 
4.  For that Father was subject to divers errors as himself 
a Ego a●tem cum per eos qui meos labores legunt, non so●um doctior, verum etiam emendatior ●io, propitium mihi Deum agnoseo. Et hoc per Ecclesiae Doctores maxime expecto, si & in ipsorum manus venit, dignenturque nosse quod scribo. Augustinus ita concludit libros de praedestinatione sanctorum et de bon● perseverantiae.  confessed, and his very admirers cannot deny. It was one of his Errors, that Infants as soon as they were baptised should receive the other Sacrament of the Lord's supper. (Which Mr. B. sure will grant was no small error, since he himself withholds it from men of ripe age.) And that was founded upon another error far worse than the former; viz the 
* Augustin. l. 6. Hypognostic●…, contra Pelag mihi p. 895.  damnation of Infants dying unbaptised. From whence he worthily was styled Durus pater Infantum. Besides, 5. It is the judgement even of Grotius (that wonder of this age, much more of the next, for his profoundness of judgement, as well as learning.) 
b Sed utdicam quod sentio, puto Augustinum, ne secum quidem per omnia posse conciliari, ita contranitendi studio sc in illas ambages indult, ut non invenerit qua se extricaret.— clarioribus scripturae locis interpretationes dat violentas, & nunc has, nunc illas, incertus quò se vertat.— ad interpretanda● scripturas satis infelix, etc. Grot. Apol. Rivet. p. 97, 98.  That Austin is not reconcileable with himself, that he cast himself into Ambages in the heat of disputations, from which he could not disentangle himself; that he used violent interpretations of many clear Scriptures, now one, anon another, as being doubtful which way to turn himself; that he was useful for instruction, but unhappy in interpreting Scripture, and far inferior to the Greeks. This is the upshot of Grotius his judgement, which I do not set down in derogation to that Father (who speaks as much for my opinions as he can possibly speak against them) but that the plain Reader may know what he ought to think of Mr. B. his notion of Antiquity. 6. Though 
6. Of Prosper.  Prosper did err the same error with his Master, touching the 
c De Voc. Gen. l. 2. c. 21. 23. & ad Aug. Epist. p. 882.  Damnation of unbaqtized Infants, yet he sufficiently overthrowe's it by his other opinions. As of predestination, being founded in 
d in Respon. ad Cap. Gal. c. 3. 12. 14. 15.  prescience. Of 
e Cap. 4. de Voc. Gen. l. 2. c. 16. & Resp ad Gal. cap. 9  universal Grace to all that are baptised. Of universal Red●…ption to all without exception as well to the wicked as to the just. Of falling 
g cap. 2. et 3. et 7.  away from sancttity. Of free will to 
h cap. 3. 6. et 7.  evil, and withal to (h) good per divinum adjutorium. Of Gods 
k cap. 7. 11. 12. 14: 15. l.  not impelling any man to evil. Of God's prescience 
l cap. 12.  not being his will. Of God's not forsaking 
m cap. 7.  until he is forsaken. And very much more I could allege, (to show him speaking for me against our Correptory Corrector) out of his Answers to the Objections of Vincentius. And from his choice Sentences collected out of St. Austin's Works. And it ought to be remembered, that Austin and Prosper are no where so likely to declare in plain terms their true opinions, as where they wipe off such Calumnies as their correptory Correctors 
7. Of S. Hilary  had laid upon them. 7. St. Hilary was so far from Mr. B. his opinions, that he was contrary to them, (as Mr. B. himself must say) if that is true which Prosper himself speaks of him in his Epistle to Austin concerning the Relics of the Pelagian Heresy. For when Prosper had reckoned up (what he there doth call) the Pelagian Relics, he 
o Nam unum ●orum praecipuae Authoritatis & spiritualium studiorum virum, St. Hilarium Episcopum Arelatensem sciat Beatitudo tua admiratorem sectatoremque in aliis omnibus tuae esse doctrinae: & de hoc quod in querelam trahit jam pridem apud sanctitatem tuam sensum suum per literas velle confer Prosp. in Epist. ad Ang. de Relig. Pelag. p. 886.  concludes that St. Hilary Arch Bishop of Arles, a great man and a good one, was one of their number who taught those Doctrines, however in all other things an absolute follower of Augustine's Doctrine. (And if Prosper were not one himself, he must be acknowledged to have receded from what he spoke (in Resp. ad excerp. Genuens. ad Dub. 8. p. 356.) nay, Hilary saith farther, that that very 
p Nec de hac ●ide dici potest, Quid habes quod non accepisti, cum in eadem naturâ remanserit licet vitiata, quae prius sana ac perfecta donata ●it. Hilar. Arel. Edit. Basil. p. 679. And let it be noted, that though Hilary desired not to be thought by Austin to write his own Doubts to him, (p. 681.) yet Prosper saith expressly, that he was one of those Massilians there spoken of in the place before cited.  Faith in the prescience of which men were praedestinated to life, is a man's by Nature, and not by Grace. Which though he saith they gather from Austin on the Romans [Quod credimus nostrum est, quod autem operamur, illius;] yet do I utterly disapprove it (and so am less Pelagian then Austin or Hilary) for certainly Faith is the gift of God, wrought by his Grace, as well as good works, although the one is before the other. This Epistle of Hilary as that other of Prosper (two Admirers of Austin) were written upon occasion of many things which were disliked in Austin's Books [de Correptione & Gratiâ, & contra Julianum] and wrought upon him so much as to occasion his writing those other books [de Perseverantiâ sanctorum & de bono Perseverantiae.] Thus unlucky and unskilful is Mr. B. in his pretensions to Antiquity from but a few no very ancient Fathers, who cannot stand him in any stead neither. And 8. what he boasteth 
8.  of the Neotericks doth show his Infirmity as plainly, because by 
Of Neotericks.  adding the word [Orthodox] which is (like Manna with the Israelites) of several Tastes to the several Palates of them that taste 
Of his latin sentence out of Austin.  it. And so the profound fetch of Mr. B. is merely this, [That they only are Orthodox who are exactly of his opinion, and they that are of his opinion are not of mine; and they that are not of my opinion will exclaim against me, because I am not of theirs.] Lastly, his 
* Quomodo dicuntur negare liberum Arbitrium voluntatis, qui confitentur omnem hominem, quisquis suo cord credit in Deum, non nisi suâ liberâ credere voluntate? cum potius illi op pugnant liberum arbitrium, qui oppugnant Dei Gratiam, qua verè ad bona eligenda & agenda ●it liberum. Aug. Epist. 107. add Vital. Carthag.  sentence out of S. Austin, wherewith he shuts up his Title-page, doth plainly argue these 5 things. 1. That Austin is a strong Assertor of freewill, (even as well as Arminius) 2. That the freewill of man doth consist very well with the Grace of God. (and so he confirms my whole fourth Chapter.) Nay 3. That the will is truly made free by the Grace of God. (in perfect agreement with what I said p. 58.) Nay 4. That they who oppose the freewill of man do also oppose the Grace of God. (and Mr. B. is a Pelagian, if he is not so far an Arminian as to assert the freedom of the will.) 5. The whole sentence is an argument, that our Correptory Corrector either doth not understand the sentence itself, or that he wholly mistakes my Book. For the sentence is directed by its Author against the Massilians, who allowing the spirit necessary to all after-graces and performances, did yet deny it to be so to Faith. But I have always said and believed, that Faith, as well as other Graces, is the free gift of God, (which is more than Austin himself did always believe) and therefore that saying of that Father doth less make against me, then against himself. Such a woeful Antagonist is Mr. B. even in his very glorious triumphant Title-page, which (according to their Custom who are wont to set the fairest foot foremost, and the most creditable dish at the upper end of the Table, the best wine first, and then that which is worse, John 2. 10.) is the strength and substance of all his Book.  
§ 6. And whereas there is added the mention of two Epistles 
Of Mr. B's. two Preface●● in his Title-page.  subscribed with the Names of two Ancient Ministers in this County, (and why the third was left out it is not hard to conjecture,) either that the Book might sell the better, or be preserved from contempt (at least with some of his own party,) I shall say at present no more than this. First, that where the Vintner knows his Wine is good, he needs not hang out an Ivy-bush to toll in Customers to his Debauches. Secondly, that if ten thousand times ten thousand such men as they should subscribe to this Doctrine, [That two and two do make seven; and that it is but afurlong from Northampton to London; or (which is yet more impossible,) That God could decree without omniscience, or be omniscient without a prescience of all events, or have a prescience without a consideration, or predetermin and compel, and necessitate a man to commit that sin which he hateth and forbiddeth, and therefore forbiddeth because he hateth or that He died only for foam few men who tasted death for every man, or that He is only the propitiation for the lesser part of the world who is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, or that he who giveth his commands to all is secretly unwilling to be obeyed by all, when he openly profeseth that he is willing,] it ought to seem no more True, by being Preached or Penned by men of Note, than it can be by being printed by W. H. for George Sawbridge at the sign of the Bible on Ludgate-Hill.  
§ 7. After the lamentable successes of Mr. Barlee's Triumphant 
Of Mr. B. his Dedicatory Epistles.  Title-page, it were very great Pity to pursue him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout his Dedicatory Epistles. Where there is hardly any period but what I find liable to some severe Animadversion. And since he doth publicly acknowledge in the first of those Epistles, that he is [
* pag. 6.  Rusticus Corydon, and a poor 
† pag. 7.  Sympresbyter, and again a mere 
* pag. 10.  Pigmy, I will not contradict him in every one of his Assertions, by observing more of his Epistles then a poor Sympresbyter may well deserve. It was not possible for me to have fastened upon him any one of those Names; but since he hath freely imposed them upon himself, I shall not complain that he hath done 
Correp. Corr.  himself wrong. For who but a very poor Sympresbyter would 
a a Epist. Ded. 1. p. 9  think it a Pleasantness or a Playfulness in confuting the Arguments of a Book, to tell his Antagonist that he is 
b Idem. p. 174.  damned; that he plays the 
c Idem. p. 119.  Lucian and Carpocratian against Heaven; that he is a 
d Idem. p. 102.  Satanical Blasphemer; and 
e Qui Diabolum ipsum blasphemand● superas. Id. ibid.  exceeds the Devil himself in Blasphemy? yet after a world of such logic clothed over with such language, He is afraid of being judged too 
f Idem Epist. Ded. 1. p. 16.  soft and Playful; as if his Presbyterian Drolerie were not sufficiently picquant, because it seems not to him so very rudely Abusive as he would have it. But (to come from the fashion of his wit to that of his reason and discourse) He very valiantly takes it as an unquestionable thing, that His is the Cause of 
g Id. ib. p. 8.  Grace and Truth. But hath no more of Truth in it, then that (h) Zachaeus was a Pigmy, or that he 
hh Id. ib. p. 10.  got upon (h) shoulders, or that 
k Id. ib. p. 9  Tart and Pleasant are all one to any Taste but Mr. Barlee's. Which were it not admirably debauched, he would not gratify its longings by persevering in a sin which he fears 
l Id. ib. p. 8.  every body will blame, and even his very 
l Id. ib. p. 9  Sympresbyters as well as others. And (which shows how this sin hath got the Dominion over his Soul) he will rather come to an 
m Id. ibid.  open penance with a peccavi fateor, then lose the pleasure and sensuality of being scurrilous. This is an Essay of that Practice which is consequent to his Doctrine. [Veniam 
m Id. ibid.  peto si unquam posthac] he asks a pardon, upon condition that hereafter he will not wallow in such mire; and yet in his Dedicatory 
n p. 13. 14, 15. etc.  Postscript he wilfully suffers a Relapse. If the equal Reader will but compare the ninth page of his Epistles with the fifteenth and sixteenth, he will find a rare Instance of that temporary Repentance which S. Peter hath expressed by two Returns, to wit, of a 
o 2 Pet. 2. 2●.  Dog to his Vomit, and of a sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. Or if from the last line of the eighth page and the beginning of the ninth his Reader will heedfully attend him to what immediately follows page 10. he will find him (in a breath) ask forgiveness for his Commissions, and promising to do so no more, until the next time. A man that should swear never to swear, and (without provocation) confirm his Promise with some great oath, would make a competent mirroir for Mr. B. to see himself in. Whilst he 
p peccavi fa●●or. p. 9  confesseth that he hath sinned, and yet is obstinately bend to sin the very same sin which he confesseth, he seems to be of this opinion, That such a naked Confession as [peccavi fateor] is a sufficient expiation for all sins past, and an Antidote sufficient for all his wilful Transgressions from that time forward. Such is the horrible effect of his believing irrespective and unconditionate Decrees.  
§ 8. In his second Dedicatory Epistle which he calls his Postscript, he begins with a specimen of his Calumniating Vein, and holds it on in such sort as if he were willing to teach his Reader by that one Trial or Endeavour, what an able man he is in his way. My [Sinner Impleaded] which was sincerely by me intended to avert my Reader from Sin which is the way to Reprobation, our new fashioned Artificer doth call the Reproba●es 
q Epist. Ded. 2. p. 13.  Ple● for ●…ning. And by that one sentence so perfectly opposite to the Tru●h, it will be obvious to conjecture of all the rest. Had he repent in good earnest when he cried Peccavi p 9 he would not now (as he professeth) think it very allowable to 
r Id. ib. p. 14.  ●all in his Apology, that is, to repent of his Repentance. And therefore very unfitly did he liken himself to 
s Id. ib. p. 10.  Zacheus, who did so repent as also to make Restitution to every man whom he had injured. Which was such a Repentance as was 
t 2 Cor. 7. 10.  not to be repent of. Whereas Mr. B. was only sorry in a sudden Fit of Humanity, which did not last to the end of the very same page, as if at the Instant of his Confession he had resolved not to mend. And it seems he had such need to express his sorrow for having been sorry, and to Apologise for his Apology, that he could not hold from breaking out into his Dedicatory Postscript, whereby his Readers might have notice that his Fit of good Nature was at an end, that he was not Patient of Reformation, that he was big of some Contumelies of which he must instantly be delivered, and therefore retracted his Retractation. He thought that [Insolency 
u Ep. Ded. 2. p. 14.  belched out against God's absolute Decrees and Counsels] was a prime piece of Drolerie which ought not utterly to be lost; though he knew I disproved that God's Decrees of Reprobation were any other then conditional, and only gave Antidotes against the poison of them that Teach them to be otherwise. His 
w Id. ib. p. 15.  Daemon Meridianum is another Instance of his 
x p. 9  Pleasantness. Not only Devil, but the worst sort of that kind, a (x) Noonday Devil. And false Latin besides, to make it yet more filthy. (as if he thought that D●mon had been of the neuter gender, by virtue of [Graecula vel in on vel in 'em, ut Barbiton ovum etc.]) and as if this raillery were not pleasant enough, he makes great haste to call me 
y Id. ib. p. 16.  slanderous Dragon, which is again the worst sort of Devil. For he professeth to mean that very Dragon or Serpent spoken of in the Revelation by referring his Reader to Rev. 12. 15. and yet he is not at ease by being disburdened of his Conceptions, until he hath ranked me with Elymas the famous * Sorcerer, giving this reason for his Resemblance, that 
** Act. 13. 8.  I have drawn away the * Deputy from the Faith. What he means by the Deputy, I will not publicly conjecture. But I am told he is angry that I am not thought worthy of Sequestration, and that (for my sake only) he would be revenged upon the memory of one that's Dead. And to fill up the measure of his Comparison, he will have me to deserve as 
z Id. ib. p. 16.  cutting a Reproof, as that which Elymas received from Paul. Which is to call me in plain Terms [The 
a Act. 13. 10.  child of the Devil, full of all subtlety and all mischief, the Enemy of all righteousness, who never ceaseth to pervert the right ways of the lord] For he refers his Readers to Act. 13. 10. And having said these things, he thinks it a piece of Civility to stay himself in his Career with a kind of unseasonable 
* Sed reprimam me p. 16.  Aposiopesis; as if his Conscience had given him a sudden check. But he will rather g●gg the Importunities of a Conscience, than not persevere in evil doing. For after a 
b Id. ibid.  wailing with Flood; of tears that my (c) Triobulary Pamphlets (as he was pleased to call them) had received the (c) Applause of no mean Persons, and drawn Disciples from 
c c p. 10.  their School; he presently (d) stirs up his Brethren to finish the Plot which they had hegun of an Ecclesiastical Association; that by their Presbyterian (d) Censures such a Sorcerer as I may 
d d p. 17.  be delivered up to the Devil.  
§ 9 When I compare these things with many like Passages in his book (especially pag. 232.) I cannot choose but conceive that he would threaten me into a● silence; and hopes I may think it my safest way, to make as if I were nonplused by him, and his Seniors. Much indeed might be done, if I were able to be afraid of such as fear not the Lord of Hosts. But I seriously profess I do not know which way to do it. For I have learned to distinguish betwixt things Necessary, and things Convenient. I hold it Necessary to keep a good Conscience, whereas it is but Convenient to keep a good Living. I know a man may be persecuted, and yet be saved; and in adherence to my Principles I can despise those Bugs, wherewith my Correptory Corrector doth strive to awe me.  
'Tis true, the Emperor Caligula having an itch after Victory, but not a Courage to Endeavour it by Dint of Sword, hired the 
e Gallum quemque procerum, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sermonem Germanicum addiscere coegit, ut triumphui inservirent. Sueton. l. 4.  tallest of the Gauls to learn the language of the Germans, and so to adorn his Mock-Triumph by a Counterfeit Confession that they were Captives. But our Correptory Corrector hath never yet bribed me with a Sum of Money, either to manage my Cause as may be most for his turn, or to own those Inventions which he hath Minted in my Name, (as seemed most for his Convenience.) And since I am not so much as his stipendiary Captive, nor am afraid of those Mormos wherewith he hopes he may fright me in several parts of his Declamation, I will not fail to preadmonish his Reader, That because he despairs of ever having any Victory, he comforts himself with some Ovations. And what ever Insultations he may make over Germany, all his Captives and Trophies came out of France.   

CHAP. II.  
A Brief Discovery of Mr. Barlee's Style and Temper, wherein is exhibited his second way of Confutation.  
§ 1. THe chief particulars of his Charge in the first nine sheets of his Indictment (for I cannot pretend at once-reading to grasp them all) he hath exhibited against me to posterity (if yet they fortune to live so long) in the pithy expressions of this following Bill.  
That my correct Copy is uncorrected of most of the Pelagian, Semipelagian, Arminian Tenants, p. 1.  
That Pelagius and Arminius are my true Doctrinal Pro-parents, p. 6. 7.  
That I am spiteful against God's Truth and ways, p. 7.  
That none is better affected to my cause then the Devil, p. 10.  
That I make God to be worse than the Devil himself, p. 10.  
That I am the very Captain General of all the Arminian Rout, p. 11.  
That I am stiff in the instep, p. 12.  
That my conscience told me, I thought my papers fit to be burnt for Heretics, p. 14.  
That I am too nearly allied to that proud, haughty, and daring Generation of the Jesuits, Arminians, and So●inians, p. 15.  
That I dote on the Authority of the Mother Church, p. 15.  
That I am a stately Orator, p. 16. And of truly Gallant parts, p. 6. Yet there is not one in a thousand of the Laity but is able to teach me, p. 21.  
That I, like Grotius, do in words fawn upon two different parties, p. 17.  
That my forehead is sufficiently steeled. p. 18.  
That I am superciliously scornful upon the confidence which I have of my own great natural wit, p. 19  
That my Book abounds with Arminianism as much as any ulcerous body with Botches, p. 19  
That I am an admirer of Prelates, and that quà tales, p. 19  
That Arminianism is my great Diana, p. 19  
That I am the Trim, finical, lean clerick of the Country, p. 20.  
That I lay the snare to bring the worthy Gentlemen of the Country into bogs and praecipices, p. 22.  
That my Book begins with Calumnies, goes on with jirks, and squibs, and ends with Compliments, p. 23.  
That my secret belongs to the depths of Satan, p. 23.  
That I cast in Texts by dozen, as if Baker-like I were bound to throw in so many fine Manchets into a Buttery Hatch. But when I crumble them, either they fall into my own crude dictates, or be turned into sippets fit for none but Pelagian, Massilian, and Arminian palates, p. 26.  
That my falsehood and my impudence are to be detested, p. 26.  
That my first and second Tom are most agreeable to the Analogy of perfidiousness, p. 26.  
That I am no Babe in Grace, nor yet in malice, p. 27.  
That I take myself to be wiser than Austin; whose manlike writings I confute by his more infantile and Babelike writings, as to my shame shall be seen, p. 27.  
That I must consider if I have not altogether made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, p. 28.  
That the genuine Successors of the Semipelagians are the Jesuits, Arminians, and myself; Still devising chimaerical shifts, and setting up the rotten Dagon and proud Idol of man's will against the never missing determinations of God, p. 30.  
That I am a close Votary to Pelagian, and Arminian secrets, p. 32.  
That I must be allowed to pelagianize even whilst I declaim against it, p. 34.  
That I talk against them as if I were spit out of their mouths, p. 35.  
That he can, hath, and shall prove my Doctrine to be full of those proud errors, hatched by one who was styled of old the proud Devil's primogenitus, as like the Father as he could look, who in his words, doctrine, and deeds, was the very emblem and paradigma of pride, from all which the Lord deliver Mr. T▪ P. p. 36.  
That I am not the smaller thief, but the more sacrilegious, p. 32.  
That my crafty and ve●satil head is suspected to be stuffed with the usual Pelagian captions and equivocations, p. 38.  
That I am like to be looked upon as some of the Planets spoken of Judas 13. (to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever) if I repent not the sooner, p. 43.  
That I am unmerciful in my dealings with the names and writings of others, therefore I shall have no mercy, p. 45.  
That I appear like Pelagius, and Pelagius sometimes in an Ethnic shape, sometimes in a Semiethnick, sometimes in a Judaic; sometimes in a half-Christian shape, p. 45.  
That I am proud and malapert, p. 48.  
That my malice occasions my stupefaction, p. 48.  
That I am a great Cassandrite, p. 46.  
That I rage and ramp it against the names of men (whom the Reader knows I do not name,) p. 50.  
That I undertake to be a Ringleader, and appear in the van of my Faction, p. 50.  
That through the fine, thin, aulicall complimental lawn of my civility, I make my hypocrisy to be very conspicuous, p. 51.  
That I do up and down in my last papers whip and strip the Masters of the Assembly, p. 51, 52.  
That never any before my impudent self was so foolhardy, p. 52.  
That I look into Books, as Spiders suck flowers, to gather poison, p. 52.  
That I am malicious, (52.) bespattering others names, 53.  
That I am full of Gall and Spleen, 55.  
That I have odiously and enviously altered my Method, p. 57  
That I am fell and fierce as the Batavian Remonstrants, p. 58.  
That I am upstart Mr. T. P. p. 58.  
That two pages in my Book is a Libel of slanders, wherein I do as the false witnesses against Christ, p. 59  
That J. Good. W. is a very brother of mine in divers of my wild opinions, p. 59  
That I am a finical Rhetorician, p. 64.  
That I dissuade others from their Combination, and scorn to be conversant with them, p. 48.  
That I am the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and formidable Zanthia Zummim, inter fraterculos classiarios rusticanos, p. 64, 65.  
That Dr. Twisse would have put me into Dr. Lopes his condition, p. 65.  
That I am intoxicated with passions, p. 66.  
That he can upon certain knowledge tell how little conscience I have, p. 69.  
That I act the Tragedian part of a Stage-player. And call in Poets if not Devils to help me to blaspheme, p. 69.  
That Mountebank-like I thrust myself upon the Stage, and will not stick to be beholding to very thiefs, viz. such roguish Pamphlets as fur Praedestinatus and others are, p. 69.  
That I imitate the Jesuit Bellarmine, p. 70.  
(These are some of the first Articles which he prefers against me to the Reader, as one single Malefactor. But be-besides this, he implead's me together with others of my * Faction, or Dogmatic * sire's; Naming such as Bishop Mountag●e, 
** Correp. Corr. p. 1.  Grotius, G. Vossius, Bishop Andrews, Dr. Weston, Castellio, Dr. Jackson, Innocentius, Adolphus Venator, my Batavick Brethren the Remonstrants, Arminius Pelagius Junior, and the like, in conjunction and relation to such as these, his farther process is managed thus.)  
That I and my party are sharpening our Tongues and pens against God's Sovereignty, Grace, Counsels, Servants, p. 12.  
That the pious men of my way have eloquence and learning, but not Faith or Religion. p. 8.  
That they are poor Rats, lazy Hierarchick, non-residential, non-preaching Lubbers. p. 20. (which though not spoken of me, is spoken of I know not whom, to be revenged upon me, for speaking diminutively and scornfully of my Neighbour Clergymen, (as he is pleased to say, and fancy, p. 20.)  
That they are Arminian clerical Ceremonialists. p. 25.  
That the profane spawn of the English Arminians, from Montacutius to this day downwards, have shipwrackt more in few years upon the Rocks of Atheism, etc. then any of their opposites of any considerable Note have done at any time p. 28.  
That (he doth not say who) are unhappily kept and fed in a place where profaneness and superstition makes matches. p. 33.  
That I and my Complices do say such things as he thinks the Devil himself might blush to object against their Tenants. p. 34.  
That we are presumptuous Teachers. p. 34.  
That the Remonstrants grew shameless. p. 37.  
That we are fools, carnal, madmen. p. 44.  
That the thousands of thousands of my side are either the crowd of Carnal Idiots, or such as wittingly or unwittingly suffer themselves to be fooled by the polite and politic sons of the Devil, the Jesuits, and their followers, or indeed the Devil and his Angels. p. 49.  
That I and my Faction do fret against the Almighty, and cry out Fate, Fate. p. 50.  
That we slander the footsteps of the Anointed, and Julian-like, throw up darts against Heaven, as if we were resolved to breath out our last with a vicisti Galilaee in our mouths. p. 50.  
That the slanderous Arminians (p. 52.) are wrangling sophisters, taking an unscriptural, unecclesiastical, illogical course. p. 57 All these particulars being brought in against me, and against all that think otherwise then he would have them, It concerns us in the next place to take a view of his Arguments or ways of proof. And those we shall find to be several maxims or Postulata, which are not themselves to be proved (as he supposeth) but to be granted him by the Reader upon the irrefragable Authority of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mr. Barlee hath said i●, and woe be to that Reader that will not believe him. For in his 53 page he conjures the Reader, as he hath any Candour, Conscience, Piety, and true Christianity left in him, that he will favourably heed him. Most unavoidably implying this Papal Bull, that whosoever will not heed him, and heed him favourably whilst he declaims against Mr. T. P. many whole pages together before he speaks one word to the matter in hand, shall be ipso facto concluded to be a person given over to a Reprobate sense, void and destitute of all Candour, Piety, Conscience, and Christianity. Now the Readers obedience being secured upon no less than the pain of his displeasure, and of the utmost perils that may e●…sue, he endeavours to prove his whole Charge from these following succinct axiomatical Topics.  

First my Insolency against God's Truth. p. 4.  
My Insolency against Mr. B's. Ministry, Flock, and name. pag. 4. 5.  
The Bandogs of my Rhetoric. p. 13.  
The Altitude of my Spirit, and Luxuriant Rhetoric. pag. 16.  
My Cassandro-Grocian strain, and my aspiring to a Moderatorship betwixt the contending Parties. p. 16.  
My Bold Impudence which he admires (which he civilly introduceth with sweet Sir, and so craves pardon for a bug's word. p. 19)  
My contemning the Clergy. p. 20.  
My Pelagian and Arminian Faction. p. 20. (styled before all my good men Cassandrians, Grotians. p. 3.)  
The fierce impetus of my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 21.  
My Snakelike motions. p. 22.  
My mischievous poisonous papers. p. 22.  
My late modest Jesuits. p. 28.  
My miserable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 29.  
My feats of Activity, as a Rope-dancer. p. 29.  
The lucky devise of scientia media. p. 30  
My desperate Doctrines, miserable and merciless comforters p. 35.  
My believing myself to be above sin. p. 39  
My prevaricating Portals. p. 42.  
My whifling Pamphlets. p. 46. a crowd of carnal Idiots. p. 49.  
My palpable Jesuitical Calumny and loud lie. p. 50.  
My evil finger and sore Eye. p. 61.  
My virulency and spleen. p. 63.  
My parcel of little wit. p. 64.  
My Sermons at Daintry and at Northampton. p. 20.  
My Socinio-Grotio-Persian Glosses. p. 69.   
§ 2. The Reader must not imagine that these are all the ill things that I deserve to have spoken concerning me and my Book. Nor that my Neighbour speaks this out of any ill will. For he professeth to forbear me in hopes of my amendment p. 7. And again, for to sp●re me, he would not blab out what the cause of my silence and secrecy was (in the concealment of my papers which he compelled me to publish.) p. 21. And a third time he spares me p. 28. He professeth to show (p. 203.) how kind hearted he is to me. And (p. 6.) That as near as he can he doth call things by their proper Names. That the Reader may infer from the qualities of his Mercy what his Cruelties would have been, if he had given way to his Indignation. But he (good man) in the midst of all his severities, puts on bowels and mercies, even tender mercies, spoken of by Solomon Prov. 12. 10. And how often soever he placeth me in Hell, yet he frequently endeavours to help me out by a set form of Prayer, as [I pray God I be out in it p. 68 and pray God that for ever hereafter I become not Lupus in Fabulâ p. 16. The Lord deliver Mr. T. P. p. 36. And having ranked me and my faction together with Julian the Apostate in the consummation of all his blasphemies, he immediately prays, the Lord be merciful unto us. p. 50. As 'twere to give us an experiment of that great Truth, Jam. 3. 10. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. In the mean time it is evident, that yielding Mr. Barlee his demands he will easily prove what he pleaseth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And my best way of reply to all his Premises will be only this, to note the manifold Conclusions which those Premises do infer. For though I must not say, that I will do to him as he hath done to me, (Prov. 24. 29.) But commit vengeance to God, (Deut. 30. 35.) yet I am sure it is lawful, and I am told it is necessary ' at least to vindicate myself by meerly-shewing how I am injured.  
§ 3. The first thing conclusible is his unimitable Impertinence. For how doth it follow that I am a Jesuit, because I am lean, or have been beyond Sea? How doth it follow that I am finical, because I preach in a Gownd and a pair of Cuffs? or admit I were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, as decently clad and as well behaved, as Saint Paul would have every Bishop (1 Tim. 3. 1.) would it follow from thence that all my Book is erroneous? or if I am not vehemently either a sloven, or a clown, must it therefore be an Ingredient in the confutation of my opinions, to tell the world from the Press, that I am the trim Clerick of the Country? and superlatively fine Mr. T. P. and in my proper element of Courting my noble Patron? how doth this prove that I am an Arminian? This is confuting my Bandstrings, more properly than my Book. Suppose I had a great wit, a fine and elegant tongue, (as my Neighbour saith when he is pleased to give us a cast of his drolery. p. 1. 2. 23. 29.) Must it therefore be followed with my disputing against God? (p. 29.) Do I pour out a world of human Rhetoric because my Rhetoric is not inhuman? or in case it were true, yet how doth it speak me a Socinian? His undertaking is to prove that I am a Pelagian, and in stead of that he maintains, that there is a sixth Edition of a practical Catechism. I expected to be showed how Reprobation is irrespective, and he will needs tell me instead of this, that I am Insolent against his Ministry, of which he offers no proof, but that his chiefest parishioners do come to my Church. And because I suffer them so to do, he infers me insolent against his Flock. Whether this is not impertinent to the confuting of my Book, and whether his 232. pages are not spent in such extravagances, I leave it to every man's Judgement who will consider, as well as read him.  
§ 4. The second thing conclusible is his deplorable guilt. For a Railer is reckoned by the Apostle amongst the worst sort of persons to be conversed with, If any man that is called a 
* 1 Cor. 5. 11.  brother be a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a RAILER, or a drunkard, or an Extortioner etc. with such a one no not to eat. Michael would not 
† Judas 9  Rail against the Devil himself in their Dispute about the body of Moses. And so far will I be from being like my Mr. B. in the unchristian practice of scurrility, that I would not use those words [unchristian and scurrility] if it were not necessary in the discovery of a vice, to use some word whereby to express what we discover. For whosoever accuseth another person of a Commission (be it of Theft, of Murder, of D●…unkenness, or the like,) he is obliged by Necessity to use such a word, as may signify the thing which is the subject of his Indictment. And I say it so much the rather, because in the Third Discovery I am to make, I shall detect such things as I shall not be able to express, but by saying that they are Calumnies, Falsifications, and Inventions. If they are found to be such in a high Degree, I shall be acquitted by God and man from any passionate use of such expressions. But if they are less than what I call them, I will publicly confess it upon conviction of my fault, and endeavour to make full satisfaction. For I can never believe I have sufficiently repent of any injury to a Neighbour, unless I add to my sorrow my utmost endeavour to make amends. By the same proportion of Justice, if I am all those things which Mr. B. doth suggest, let the word Railer be transferred from Him to me. But if I am quite another thing, let his own 
* Jer. 2. 19  backsliding be his reproof. Though I am wronged in great measures, and have been so from the beginning of my appearing to differ from him in judgement, and of his 
* In his first letter it appears, that this was the Ground of all his Correptory correction.  chief Parishioners being of my Congregation, (however at first, not without my knowledge only, but to my dissatisfaction) yet I acknowledge I am a party, and must not be heard to speak alone. And they that are Strangers to him and me will probably be fitter to judge betwixt us, then either his Friends, or mine. In their judgements (I suppose) I am allowed to be sensible, (at least) of that part of Calumny, which strikes at my liberty and my livelihood, if not at my life. For the tongue in these times hath been a dangerous weapon, and perhaps hath ruined as many men, as either the Pistol, or the sword. There is an 
* Jer. 9 3.  Assembly of treacherous men, who ben● their tongue like their Bow (saith the Prophet Jeremy) and 
† Psal. 64. 3.  hoot their arrows, even bitter words (saith the Psalmist.) and all the favour that I desire, is, that when I am shot at, I may break the arrows, and sometimes show how they recoil. If the Reader shall but consider, that Mr. Barlee was praeadmonished by 
* Jam. 3. 5.  myself and others, not to prejudice his Cause, and his private credit by any intemperance of the tongue, but to direct all his strength against the 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyb▪ lib. 3.  matter of my Book concerning Gods Decrees, and (notwithstanding our admonitions) that all that Muster of his aspersions which I have hastily collected, have been found within the compass of 8. or 9 sheets, and that the farther we wade into his very foul ink, still the fouler we find our way; he will undoubtedly conclude (though I should not) that our Author hath written as if he had written for a wager; and as if he would prove by an experiment, by how 
* Ver. 6.  little a member how great things may be boasted; of how little a fire how great a matter may be kindled; and of how clean a subject how much impurity may be spoken. We find the Tongue many times is not only the unruliest, but the 
* Ti●. 2. 10.  filthiest member; for S. James saith expressly, that it d●fileth the whole body. Which should methinks have discouraged my angry neighbour from that very strange Method of confuting my Papers, by falling so foully upon my Person. It is neither to † to adorn Christ's Doctrine, nor to assert his own. But rather on the contrary  
§ 5. A third thing conclusible is the infirmity of his Cause. Which had it been strengthened with Truth, had been better defended by its own Nakedness, then by such a weapon as the Tongue, which the Psalmist affirmeth to be a 
† Psal. 57 4.  sharp sword. If he by setting down my words, as I had set down the words of Mr. Calvin, Zuinglius, and Dr. Twisse, (p. 9, 10.) could have shown as ill effects of my Doctrine, as I did of the contrary, he would have spoken as little against my person, as I did against theirs. I did not call either of them by an ill N●me, nor give an ill character of any of their persons; I only translated their very words, and concealed their Names, and concealed them so, as none but Scholars could find them out; nor all Scholars neither, but only such as would take the pains; nor all such neither; for Mr. Barlee himself after all his search, hath (either wittingly or unwittingly) mistaken the Authors of the foulest of those C●tations, & misreported them to the Reader, as I shall demonstrate when I come to that place. Indeed I say they are frightful sayings as inferring God to be the Author of sin. But first, I speak of sayings only, and not of Persons. Secondly, I set down the sayings, to be judged of by the Reader, and not taken upon trust by a mere general invective. Thirdly, I said no more of those sayings then I am able to justify, and intent so to do in what I now am designing. Fourthly, I appeal to the indifferent Reader, whether it is not a frightful saying, to affirm that wicked men do commit their wickedness by the just impulse of God. 
* These are some of those sayings which I called frightful; and for the confutation of which all my Notes were written on God's Decrees. And my proving these sayings to be false & blasphemous, is confessed by Mr. Bar. to be the Pillar on which my Book doth rest, Corr. Cor. p. 68  That the Devil and wicked men cannot conceive, nor contrive, nor execute any mischief, nor so much as endeavour its execution, any further than God doth himself command them. And that they are compelled to perform obedience to such commands. That Adultery, or murder in as much as it is the work of God the Author, Mover, & Compeller, it is not a crime; but in as much as it is of man it is a wickedness. That besides God's concurrence to the making way for sin, there is a farther prostitution to sins required, and many the like. Now when I shall have shown how Mr. Barlee doth so strive to mend the matter, as to make it rather much worse; I hope the Reader will acquit me in that part of my Enterprise for which I have been ●o much reviled (I cannot say by many, but) by this one man. Who as often as he rails at any one of my Arguments, doth seem to betray a confession that he cannot answer it. For what imaginable Reason should he use all ways to fill up forty and two pages against my portal (as he calls it) which is not quite 5. leaves, before he came to the purpose, (to wit, a vindication of those ten sayings which I premised in the extrance of my very first Chapter) unless it were to this end, that he might not presently be discerned to stumble even at the threshold? mali ominis in principio lapsus. Rather than be discovered to fall and flounder in the beginning of his Course, he would spend so many pages in pure invective; very rationally hoping, that his Reader would be tired with so much drudgery, and not endure to read on to the sadder state of his affairs. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Polyb. l. 2. & passim alibi.  Polybius tells us of some Writers, that they are not careful to set down what is truest, or most pertinent, but what is most apt to affect the Reader, either with horror or delight, as may be most for their turns. And perhaps my Declamator not confiding overmuch in his disputative faculty, did choose to furnish out a volume with those subjects of discourse, wherein he was aware his chiefest excellency did lie. But the same 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Polybius doth also tell us in his Embassies, that when the Roman Army had been routed by Perseus the King of Macedon, the Romans determined not to be the more, but the less inclinable to a peace; to give them bitter words in requital for their silent blows, and at least to be the bolder for being beaten. They having found by experience (and so they did then no long time after) that confidence many times, though in an overthrow, hath been the Mother of good success.  
§ 6. And truly this seems to me to be a fourth thing conclusible, that my Correptor is shrewdly hurt, because he labours with such impatience. Noise and clamour are commonly the effects of some acute pain; there is nothing more natural than the love of victory, or Revenge, (I speak of Nature in its Corruptions.) And therefore Zeno Eleates had no little satisfaction, that (being bound hand and foot) he had it left in his power to spit out his Tongue in his Lictor's face. And though I say not this with a design of applying it to my Correptor, yet I am of opinion that he sits not at ease, because I find him so very angry. Besides, Mr. B. marches out against me, and every thing that either is, or is called mine, (as Darius did against the young man of Macedon) as if he came not to fight, but conquer. And endeavours to conceal his despairs of victory, by the excess of his Triumphs and Insultations.  
§ 7. The fifth thing conclusible is the unkindness of his design (not so much upon my papers, as) upon my person; which I should not dare to affirm, if I were able to imagine another reason why his first Care should be to praeoccupate and fill the every man that shall read him with the worst character of me that he was able to invent. Solomon tell's us of a man, who with his Tongue destroyeth his neighbour, Pro. 11. 9 He could not be ignorant of the late Declaration upon which so many had been ejected. And he knew very well, that whilst others have been questioned and e●ected too, who yet have been of his party,) I have sat very quietly under mine own vine. No man living hath appeared to speak against me. Whether because I wanted enemies, or because I wanted some able crimes, let who will judge. But that I may not escape so, my Co reptor (not content to have preached against me at Daintry, as well as at Northampton) thinks fit to do that himself, which after all his incitations he finds none other would yet do for him. He makes proclamation with a kind of noverint universi, that the Rector of Brington is Arminianly, Massi●ianly, Pelagianly, Socinianly, Prelatically, Popishly, Jesuitically, Atheistically, and even divelishly inclined. That these are some of those Articles put up against me before as great a Tribunal as he shall have readers here on Earth, (and may they never rise up in judgement against himself at that greater Tribunal which is in Heaven) is but too too manifest by the Epitome premised. With which may be compared his profession of hearty good affections to me in his p. 231. and his m licious instance of those affections not many lines after, viz. p. 232. If Mr. Barlee did not believe that I am all these things which he affirmeth, why would he sin against his knowledge? and if he did verily believe it, of what unspeakable punishments did he not think me to be worthy? if he is willing to have me live, and to have me live in my Living, why must I and my Doctrines be made legible to the world in the blackest and bitterest ink that can be made of Gall, and Copras? and if he is willing to have me dealt with, as Mr. Calvin dealt with Servetus (for far lesser crimes than are laid to my charge) why did he tell me in his Letter that he was a 
* In his first Letter to me.  true lover of my person and my parts? If bitter words were to be spoken, he should rather have bestowed them upon the dangerous consequences which he should have shown might arise from the several matters in my Book, and not have taken the ready way to confute me with Sequestration in stead of Syllogism. Which to effect the more surely, he seeks to heighten my condemnation by a terrible Paralepsis. He pretends to be sparing in the very midst of his profuseness; and will not blab out (to use his words) what he is able to inform (if he were not mercifully minded) the Reader is lef to conjecture, that I am some way obnoxious to public Censure, which my charitable Neighbour will not reveal. But I am a little confident that my Correptory Corrector will be 
* Jer. 2. 19  Corrected by his own correctory Correction. For his mere excesses of Malediction forbid the Reader to believe him. So that taking it for granted 
* Jer. 2. 19  that he is punished more than I would have had him, by having taken so much pains to lose his labour, I cannot wish him to * suffer 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arrian l. 3. c. 26.  more, then from the things which he hath done.  
§ 8 And therefore I shall shut up this Discovery by importuning the Reader in his behalf; That Christian Pity and Forgiveness may be the only * coals of fire to be heaped upon his head, with a charitable design, not to burn, but melt him. Whilst there is a possibility, there should be Hope that he may mend; I have many things to plead in favour of him. First, that though he endeavours to 
* Rom. 12. 20. Psal. 140. 5.  break my head, yet many times it is with Balsam. Though he saith I make God a great deal worse than the Devil (p. 10.) yet he confesseth that he was never half so good as myself. (p. 6.) although he saith, there is not one in a thousand of the Laity but would even instruct and teach me, (p. 20.) yet he tells me for my comfort, I am superlatively fine, (p. 1.) of a sparkling wit, and truly gallant parts, (p. 6.) though he saith in all my Book or body there is not one grain of salt (p. 19) yet to keep me from crying, he gives me Gingerbread, by saying I have a ●ine and an elegant Tongue, (p. 23.) and withal a great wit, (p. 29.) though he saith I am nearly allied to the Jesuits, (p. 15.) yet he calls me good brother, (p. 28.) and confesseth it impossible that they and I should agree. (p. 79.) Besides he useth me no 
2.  worse than he useth Grotius, and Doctor Jackson, and other venerable persons, (alive, or dead,) most eminent in the world for transcendent Integrity, as well as learning. And so (before he is aware) he doth me greater honour than I could ever have aspired to; even enabling me to say, [Nemo mihiper hos annos, nisi qui Grotio, qui Jacksonio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Inimicus.] I do therefore say Nemo, Because (to the best of my Remembrance,) I cannot say I have an Enemy who is not an Enemy to Grotius, and to every other Person whom I extremely honour and admire. The Prophet David had not so many 
* Psal. 69. 4.  hairs upon his head, as Enemies that hated him without a cause, whereas (above board) I have but one, that I know of, in all the world. And he (by chance) my Benefactor, of whom I might say (with as great reason as one did) Nolo maledicere, ne maledicere desistat, hoc est, ne laudare desinat. To be reviled by such a person amongst such persons as Bishop Andrews, and Grotius, Bishop Overal, and Vossius, Dr. Jackson, and Castellio, with many other such learned and pious men, will be looked upon by the best, as no small mark of my proficiency. For men of Judgement and Integrity do already say of those 
Scias illum profecisse cui Cicero valde placuit. Quint. 3.  Authors what Quintilian of Cicero▪ that a man may be known to have profited by his very delectation in such men's writings. Thirdly, my Correptory Correctors great Need may be alleged to the Reader, a little to mitigate his wrath. For had he had any weapons from the Armoury of Reason, he would not have made his Pen so picked. Could he have brought hard Arguments, he would have given soft words. But when he found me so unkind in every passage of those Notes, as not to be liable to just exception, it was hard for him to conceal his keen resentment of such unkindness. What would you have a man do in such an exigence as he was in? Retreat he could not who had set up his Trophies before he fought. Repent he would not who was impatient of a repulse, than which there is not any Dysaster more unagreeable to the Flesh. Having resolved upon the End he was obliged to use some means. Having peremptorily decreed that my Book should be a Reprobate, he found a Necessity to make it guilty, for fear the world should call him cruel. And he could not fly from what he threatened, for fear the same world should call him Coward. Had he not first been engaged by rash expressions, and resolves, to represent me to his Readers as a very foul thing, he had never besmeared me with so much Dirt. And till we can cure him of his Principles, we must (I think) deplore his Practice.  
§ 9 I have now pleaded for him in the best manner that I am able in so much haste as I am in. For as I think it my duty, to show the heavy things which Truth and Innocence have suffered, which could not be but by showing the heinous things which he hath done; so do I think it my duty to show mercy even to him, who hath publicly 
* Correp Corr. p. 45.  threatened to show me none. I look for no satisfaction, but his amendment. And would gladly suffer the loss of any worldly thing to the very destruction of my Body, if that could be available to 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jam. 5. 20.  save his soul, Which every man is affirmed by S. James to do, who converteth a sinner from the error of his way. Though in many places of his Book he hath allotted me my portion in the bottomless Lake of Fire and Brimstone, yet I cannot but hope better things of my self, and that the rather, because I find in myself more charity for him. I hope to meet him a Saint in Heaven. And may I have the very lest, I have not any▪ unwillingness that he enjoy the higher mansion. If that Doctrine were not concerned by which I am made thus to hope, I would not now show how I am injured. And even now I distinguish betwixt the man and the malefactor. For I am of opinion, that to discover the Malefactor (in this case) is a sufficient punishment to the man. Less than this he cannot suffer, and I do truly desire no more. I cannot choose but foresee, that my second Discovery will make him sadder than my first. But sober sadness is very wholesome. And it is my Duty, to show how much he fails in his.   

CHAP. III.  
A Discovery of Mr. Barlee's Extraordinary Invention; Showing itself in mere Calumnies and Falsifications both on my Person, and on my Papers. His third way of Confutation.  
§ 1. I Will not wear out my Time in disposing his Inventions, whether raised upon my Person only, or only upon my Printed Papers, into their several Ranks and Classes, but set them down in that order wherein they meet my observation. Nor will I pretend to name them all, but only as many as I espied in the perusal which I have made of his first Nine sheets. His first artificial mistake is this,  
[That a matter of 600 Copies of my Notes within less than two months were almost sold in this very County, as saith W. C. p. 1.] Thus in his very first page (the fairest part of his performance) he gives his Reader a specimen both of his Logic, and Ingenuity. Here are two gross Forgeries in less than three lines. For first I can prove from many Topics, 
1.  that in more than three months (which is not less than two) there were not 300 Copies (which is not a matter of 600) so much as almost sold in this very County. And (2) W. C. tells 
2.  me, that he never said any such thing. But complains on the contrary, that Mr. Barlee hath done him so great an Injury, as to publish in his Name so great a Falsehood. Or (3) if it 
3.  were as true, as I wish it had been, can it follow from hence, that Christ died only for the Elect? Or that God did decree men's Reprobation without the least regard or respect unto their sins? such as these were the things, of which our Correptory Corrector did pretend, in his Title, to be the Hyperaspistes. 4. Is it a probable Token that my Book was worth 
4.  nothing, because it found so many Buyers, and because the Buyers caught it up in such Haste? The very Bible by this Logic would be blaspemously concluded the worst Book in the world. Yet this is one special Instance of Mr. Barlee's skill in confuting Books. And having nothing else to say against a Book which he mentions in his p. 8. he lays to its charge its having been the sixth time Published. I hope he shall live to see it published six or seven times more. And if he thinks it a fine thing to Print such a Book as very few men will buy, much good do't him with his felicity; let his Correptory correction lie and sleep upon the stall, as unregarded as he can wish it. I do not envy the little 
* This he confesseth [he doth feel full well] but comforts himself with [veritas ●dium pari●] nothing comes amiss to him. If but a few men love him, 'tis for his Excellence. If most men hate him, it is because of his Deserts. 5.  favour, which he confesseth his Parrhesia hath procured him in the world (p. 6.) but do heartily wish that he may use his Tongue better, and in tract of Time be better thought on. Nor am I displeased with myself, that the whole Impression of my Notes was dispersed so soon, or that a Second Edition hath been so many times desired, when I have not had leisure to set it out with any the least variation, or addition, which perhaps a greater vacancy might have suggested to me. But 5. it were well for Mr. B. if his memory were as strong as his Invention. He would not then have told me (in his p. 51.) that the very memory of my Book shall Rot, and serve for nothing but wast-paper.] As if a matterof six hundred men had bought Copies of my Book in less than two months, even in this one County, (where yet the buyers were fewer than in other Counties more remote) not to read them, but let them rot. If he means by my Book, his own Manuscript Copy which he and old Mr. Whitfeild are pleased to call mine, or if he only means the few particulars of my Book which he hath mumbled as he listed in his Correptory Correction, I am exactly of his opinion that 'twill become wast-paper, among those that do vendere Thus & odores. This is just such a Synecdoche by which Christ's dying for the sins of the whole world is expounded by Correptory Correctors of very much the lesser (perhaps the twentieth or fourtieth) part of the world. Such kind of stuff (and very much worse in the kind) Mr. Barlee's Reader is like to trust to. And by his utmost endeavours of launching forth to his advantage, I leave it to any man's conjecture in what a Weatherbeaten state we shall find him landed.  
§. 2. His 2. [That I allow no other will to God than a Hypothetical 
Of absolute Decrees.  one, p. 4.] yet he knows on the contrary. 1. That he nether doth, nor can show any one passage in my Notes where I deny that God Almighty hath as well as an Absolute a Conditional will. 2. That I distinguish (p. 49.) betwixt an absolute necessity, and a Necessity ex Hypothesi, whereof the former doth infer a very absolute will in the Almighty. Such was his will that all men should be mortal; that heavy Bodies should tend downward; and innumerable the like. 3. That I distinguish betwixt his Threats under his Oath, and under his word only (p. 52.) implying his will not always hypothetical. 4. That when I speak of conditional or respective exclusively of Absolute, it is only in relation to eternal punishment, or reward. Which is no more than his 
a Agnoscimus & docemus, Deum non decrevisse quenquam damnare, nisi justissime propter ipsius peccata. Et hoc respectu decretum hoc non posse ita absolutum vocari, ut Deus fine ullo peccatorum respectu decreverit quemquam damnare. Suarez in 3. Disp. 5 p. 103. Cor. Cor. 117.  Suarez, and Dr. Twisse, and even 
c Correp. cor. p. 121.  himself is fain to say; as anon shall be showed. 5. That Arminius himself denies not 
d Absolutum Dei decretum, quo decrevit filium ponere me diatorem, etc. Armin. in Declarat. s●ntent. p. 95, 96.  absolute Decrees, as he confesseth p. 60 nor can I believe, that any Christian ever did. So as I cannot but admire the extreme untowardness of this invention; which affirms me to allow but one sort of Decrees, because of two sorts I assert the 
(b) Dr. Twisse saith that sin is the cause of Reprobation quoad res volitas p. 49. against Mr. Hoard as Mr. B. confesseth p. 145.  one as well as the other; as well the Respective, as Irrespective.  
§. 3. His 3. [That I have fulfilled my Insolency against his Ministry, Flock, and Name, etc. p. 4. &. 5.] This in each particular is not only as different from truth, as a Horse is from a Man; but as opposite to Truth, as sight is to blindness; and as contrary to it, as white is to Black, or as we are to our Antipodes. For first, it was not my insolency, that he railed against me to all sorts of people, and cursed me to some, and preached me down in his two Lecture-Sermons, whilst I held my tongue, and ke●t silence, like a dead man out of mind, as if I knew not, or had forgotten, that there was any such thing. 2. Be it so that his Parishioners have been as little his friends, 
2.  as he hath been theirs, (before I had the least knowledge of him, or them) is that my fault? when his chiefest Auditors (whom he calls his Flock) were frighted by him out of his Fold, and thereupon came to mine by way of Refuge, I was an absolute stranger both to their Persons and to their Names. Yet he told me by Epistle, that he was robbed of a considerable part of his Auditors, and (by a Paralepsis) called me the Thief. But not content with that assurance which I privately gave him in a Letter, that I was perfectly innocent from that great offence of being a Spiritual Abgregarian, he publicly tell's that I am Insolent against his Ministry and Flock. Am I insolent against his Ministry, because I am not very Barbarous to his Flock? or am I insolent against his Flock, because I am not so like a Gaderene, as to bid them de●art out of our Coasts? unless he thought the word [Insolency] denoted courtesy and Reverence, Civility, and Candour, how could he say I have been insolent against his Flock, whom I was never heard to mention without expressions of Love and Honour? if persons of Quality, and Judgement, and not only of an umblamable, but of a most imitable converse, fearing God, and hating Covetousness, (a worse Idolatry amongst many Christians, than most of the Heathens were guilty of, for the Heathens who worshipp'● the Sun or Moon made no man a Beggar by that Idolatry, whereas the Christian that is Covetous, and so an 
e Eph. 5. 6.  Idolater, becomes very hurtful by that 
f Colos. 3. 5.  Idolatry to every one who is the object of his unsatiable eye.) I say if Persons so inoffensive and so generally obliging as not to be hated by any Creature besides one Correptory Corrector, cannot endure at the same instant to be his Auditors and his Text too, (spoken to and against from the very same Pulpit) and are not railed at by me for being weary of his railing, all the world must be told (upon occasion of God's Decrees) that I am insolent against his Flock. This (as far as I can guess) is the true original of all my Correptory Correction. M. B. is the Preacher that must be followed; or if he is not, the world must know his indignation. 3. But this is not all For though a thousand Readers at least are able to witness in my behalf, 
3.  that I did not name Mr. B. in all my Book, yet for that I must be insolent against his Name too. 4. This is as true, as what 
4.  he adds but five lines after, concerning [my threatening that I had lived long unanswered.] When he cannot but know, 1. That 'tis impossible for any man to threaten a thing past. He might have told me as well, that he will confute me the last year; or that he hath already done it in time to come. 2. He neither doth, nor can prove, that I did threaten any 
2.  thing future. And 3. my Letters to him do testify that I 
3.  most friendly dissuaded him from doing himself so ill an Office, as to whet his pen against my papers. And 4. I am sure it 
4.  was ever my serious wish, that my Notes might cost me no farther trouble. 5. What he adds of my friendly Daniel (p. 5. lin. 5.) I suppose is spoken at a venture, not only without 
5.  that Gentleman's knowledge or consent, but with his great displeasure and indignation. Whom because he hath dishonoured with so rude a mention, in such an oblique and Malignant manner, I will briefly vindicate by saying this of him, that had Mr. B. been worthy of that Gentleman's friendship, or so happy as to have profited by his converse, he had learned a better way of answering Books, then by throwing scurrility upon their Authors. I wish Mr. B. and his Abettors no worse than this, that they may im●●ate rather than envy that Persons Learning, Candor, charity, Moderation, and be able to be as friendly, as he hath been, to such as differ from them in judgement. If he dissuaded me (some weeks too late) from sending my Notes into the light, it was not because he disapproved the thing, but because he was a stranger to my necessity, and considered nothing so much as my ease or safety, wherein he was so far mistaken, as to think I should best have provided for it, by giving way to those Calumnies which were prepared for the Press by Mr. B. etc.  
§ 4 His fourth, [That it's wondered (by one without a name) I should deny 
* Note, that (in his p. 5. l. 8 9) he confesseth he can give no honest reasons, though some other he thinks he can give, (which must be sure dishonest reasons, since he confesseth they are not honest) why I should peremptorily deny my former papers (speaking of the forged misshapen Manuscript in his Study) to have been mine.  my first Papers to be mine, p. 6.] How can he say I d●…ed that to be mine which I publicly owned and subscribed. And called a Copy, though a correct one? That what I published was a Copy of my private Manuscript, he doth in many places confess, affirming here, a consanguinity of Matter, Stil●, and very words. And saying elsewhere, (p. 134.) that from Chap. 3. p. 32. unto the very end, (which is above half my Book) my Book is almost verbatim the very same with my first renounced Papers.] Why then doth he say that I renounced those Papers, which he confesseth me to have printed in the very same breath? did I deny it to be a Copy by affirming it to be a Copy, adding withal that it was a true correct Copy, not a false, Surreptitions, disfigured Copy? are there not divers Copies of God's own word, and divers Readins in those Copies, some things left out, and some thrust in, yet all Copies still, whether more, or less correct, through the carelessness, or the care, the malice, or the Integrity, of the several amanuensis by whom transcribed? what wonder is it then, if my Papers falling into such unkind hands, and conveyed by light fingers from one enemy to another, and transcribed by some who could not possibly understand them, and confessed by Mr. B (under his hand and seal) to be perfect nonsense in some places, and found by myself to have been so altered in the two first Transcripts, of which I had ocular inspection, as I could not pick out any sense in the very first Pages (which Mr. Bernard of Abingdon can sufficiently attest, and he is a Person so full of honour, as not to be able to speak a false thing) I say, what wonder if my Papers were made by many Transcribers so unlike my Autograph, as to need my correction before they went into the light? and again, what wonder, if I disowned them as they were false, and publicly owned them as they were true? in respect of what was foisted in, I said the thing was none of mine, yet I say it was mine in respect of what was uncorrupted. Thus the nazarenes Gospel, in several respects, is very truly said to be, & not to be the Word of God. But 
2.  2. the Correptory Corrector makes a lamentable confession, that he hath 
* Correp. Cor. p. 6. lin. 20, 21.  need to ●ast about for Topical Arguments to prove me the Father of the first Papers.] He doth not know that his Manuscript is mine, any farther than it agrees with my Printed Copy; but he would make it as lawful as is possible to lay his child at my door, and professeth to cast about for Arguments, to make it probable or like Truth, although not true. For such are Topical Arguments, which he is fain to cast about for. Nor hath he any way to get out of this confession, but by making another confession (as much to the prejudice of his Learning, as this of his Integrity.) That he used the word Topical, because it seemed a fine word, and not because he understood it. Yet he saith (p. 5. lin. 11, 12.) that he must say, think, and write the former papers to be mine, though he confesseth he wants even probable Arguments (which he saith, he had need to cast about for) to prove them mine. And now (3) let him give some dishonest reasons 
3.  (since he confesseth he can give no honest reasons. p. 5. lin. 8. 9) why I denied all false Copies to be mine, in as much as they were false. Or (4) let him give some honest Reasons 
4.  (since Reasons dishonest are unavowable) why He, and Mr. Cawdry, and Mr. Whitfield, have tacitly confessed to all their Readers, that my Printed Copy is very unblameable, by spending so much Paper, Time, and Strength, (however an argument of the greatest weakness in the world) against I know not what passages of their manuscript Copies, to which I am a perfect stranger, and which they only call mine, that I may be thought to be the Author of whatsoever they can invent.  
§ 5. His 5t. [That there are some who love me but too well, whom in my Epistles, as well as in my public writing, I accuse of Ignorance, Malice, Forgery, etc. p. 6. lin. 13. 19 20.] A strange crime, if it were true. But (1) unless by 
1.  [some] he means himself, I cannot guests whom he means. And 2. how much too well he loves me, and what I said of him 
2.  in my public writing, my Book and my Readers can bear me witness. Every body can tell, that I was more merciful to him and others, than they have been unto themselves. Had he been as tender of his reputation, as I was, he had had the favour of passing nameless out of the world. 3. What I 
3.  said in my Epistles I am best able to certify. And am sorry in his behalf that he hath forced me now to do it in my Justification. I told him, that having voted me to be a Papist, and a Pelagian, and a Socinian into the bargain, he might as well accuse me of having said Mass, or of any thing else which may be matter of Sequestration.] To which he answered, that I fancied him so, as if he had nothing of an 
* This is in the last Epistle of Mr. Barlee, which I had etertally concealed, had he not publicly laid his own faults to my charge.  Ecclesiastic, of a Christian, of a Gentleman, of a Scholar, or of a Neighbour left in him. That he was for Ecclesiastica Ecclesiasticè. And though his Principles might seem to lead him to the liking of Sequestration, yet he blessed God for it, he never had, nor ever would have any hand or finger in that Pye.] And to this I replied, [that I had reason to believe he never preached against that, from which he blest God he had been personally free. Nor that he ever so much as privately rebuked his brethren for what he called an unchristian, ungentlemanly, unscholarly, unneighbourly, unecclesiastical thing.] From hence it will publicly appear, that Mr. Barlee had accused his own Dear Brethren of what he judged to be heinous in five respects, and that I very justly rebuked him for it; I mean, for giving their practice so black a character behind their backs as he durst not own before their faces. So well hath he requited his three special Benefactors for their commendatory Epistles before his Book.  
§ 6. [That I make God to be worse than the Devil himself, p 10.] quoting my 24 page. Where he knows as well as I. 
1.  1. That there are no such words in all my page. 2. That 
2.  what I say of Gods being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is only inferred from that Doctrine which I resist, and he defendeth. 3. Mr. B. doth make this inference to the reproach of his own opinion, (which I could never have done,) that if God's absolute Decree doth necessitate the misery of all the reprobated Crew, and by consequence slay them from all eternity (as Christ is said to be slain from the foundation of the world Rev. 13. 8.) he is not only inferred to do more than the Devil, but to be worse than the Devil himself. In what a lamentable case is my Declamator, if he be now observed to say (115.) that Punishment must needs be decreed before the permission of sin. And (p. 87.) That God is the determiner not only of all things and actions, but of their several modalities too. etc. And 
* Nun ad eam quae nunc pro damnati●nis causâ obtenditur, corruptionem, Dei ordinatione praedestinati●… ante fuerant? etc. fateor etc. & inferiùs— de Angelorum Defectione loquens;— Cuius●… rei causa, inquit, ●●n pote●… alia adduci, quam reprobatio etc. Calvin Inst. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 4. p. 323.  Mr. Calvin, That Reprobates were predestined to that corruption which is the Cause of Condemnation. And that no other 'Cause can be given for the apostasy of Angels, then that God did reprobate and reject them. Never did I infer so foul a consequence from any doctrine, as the Declamator hath from his own, propriis perire pennis, grave. He could not have miscarried worse, if I had hired him.  
§ 6. His 7th. That I (in my 24th page) have tartly and sarcastically gibed against Calvin p. 14.] Yet 1. I only name his words [a 
* Calvin Inst. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 7. 1.  horrible Decree] not bestowing on him any one of those terms, which my liberal Corrector bestows on me in all the pages of his Book. 2. Having spared his Person, it was my Duty to show his words, and to observe their Inconvenience. 
2.  Why else are Books printed on either side? Let the Reader be judge how I could have said less, unless by losing my advantage, which had been Treason to my Cause. 3. Is it not strange that Mr. Barlee should reprove a man for 
3.  being bitter? How men do hate their own vices when they but fancy them in others, which in themselves they love most dearly? 4. How unsound are those words confessed to be, 
4.  when he that doth faithfully repeat them is thought to gibe? if I had not said the Truth, he would have told me that I had Lied; and yet because I said the whole Truth, he calls me Giber.  
§ 8. His 8th. that (in my 70 page) I give out Faith 
Of eternal Election and Reprobation.  and Infidelity to be the causes of Election and Reprobation. p. 15.] Still my amazemen▪ grows more and more, that any man even in Print should speak so clearly against his knowledge, and contradict his own Eyes, and the Eyes of as many, as ever have, or shall read me. For 1. there is not any such 
1.  word in all that page which he citeth, or in any other which he citeth not. 2. In the page going before, § 55. (not many 
2.  lines before the passage which Mr. B. citeth,) I had said expressly, [that our Election is not of works, but of him that calleth; that good works are required as a necessary condition, though ●…erly unworthy to be the Cause of our Election.] 3. In the page which he citeth, I say that Christ is the 
3.  means, the meritorious Cause, and the head of our Election. And that upon the condition of believing in his Son, God gave the promise of eternal life; from Joh. 3. 26. what I called the condition, why doth he say I gave out to be the Cause? 
I.  
* A very gross Ignorance.  if he knew no difference betwixt the cause and the condition, why would he meddle in these affairs for which he is not qualified with any tolerable skill? it is indeed for my Humiliation, that I must be 
* Correp. Cor. p. 10. compared with his message. II.  whipped by that man whom I must Teach to distinguish betwixt the Cause [propter quam res est] for which a thing is, and the necessary condition [sine quâ non est] without which it is not. I have no way to help him out in his great extremity and distress, but by saying that such a condition is causa-sine-quâ non. Yet that will do him but little service. For God's Commandments (written or unwritten) are not the Cause of sin, and yet they are the Causa-sine-quâ-non, without which it is impossible that there should be a Transgression. My Declamator (it seems) cannot write a great book without Calumnies and rail, but it follows not they are the Cause, unless he will have them a material Cause, of which his book is Composed, as of a very essential part. Suppose a man should say, that without a Magistrate there can be no Rebellion, who is therefore a condition without which it is impossible for any Rebellion to be committed; can we affirm with any Truth, that he gives out the Magistrate to be the Cause of the Rebellion? 
* Or else a wilful deceit.  if Mr. B. shall allege, that he knew the difference betwixt the Cause, and Condition of our Election, and needed none of my Teaching, his case is worse than before; and he confesseth it a studied or wilful misdemeanour. If he misliked my words, why did he not faithfully repeat them, and show the reason of his mislike? But if he did not, why would he proclaim that my page was innocent, by showing he needed to forge it guilty? 4. If I had spoken 
4.  that which he knows I did not, I had not spoken no more than what 
* Conclusio istius Argumenti [se. Deum ab aeterno decrevisse, illos his ipsis causis (inter quas & fides est) salvos facere] non contradicit nobis, atque adeo totum illud argumentum lubentissime concedimus. Credimus cord & confitemur quicquid in isto argumento dicitur. Polan. Syntag. Theol. l. 4. c. 9 de elect. ad vit▪ aeter.  Polanus himself hath yielded. Who to the ninth Argument brought to prove, that Faith is one of those Causes for which God decreed to make men safe, he gives a willing concession, and professeth to be of that opinion, and reckons it as a calumny to be said to speak otherwise. So that Polanus (an Anti-Remonstrant I am sure) is more that which is called Arminian then Mr. T. P. or perhaps then Arminius himself; Let Mr. B. contend against him. 5. As if Mr. B. 
5.  took care not to speak a true word, he adds the word [Reprobation] for which he quotes the same page. When first, there is not any mention, nor any the least occasion for it. Secondly, If I had said it elsewhere, why did he not refer us to it? Thirdly, I had never so little Logic, as to say that any thing in man (which is the object) could be the Cause of God's Decree; but that man is the cause of his sin, and of his punishment, because of his sin, with which Mr. B. doth quarrel, because he cannot disprove; and he cannot so much as endeavour that, because he cannot or will not comprehend my reasonings. 
Mr. B. Confession (before he is aware) of Conditional Reprobation.  The most that he can say in his excuse of this, is, that he thought I had meant it in my p. 21, 22. but then he must confess he is a unbiased man, who can mistake man's punishment for God's Decree. For though punishment is Decreed, yet it is not a Decree, and many things are Decreed which are no punishments. 6. If here as before, he takes a Condition for a cause, he woefully becomes his own accuser, for (in his p. 121.) he saith he knows not any one either of the Ancient, or Modern Orthodox Writers, who will not readily yield, that God did not absolutely Decree the Reprobation (positive) of any Creature, but upon prescience and supposition, of wilful rebellion and impenitence. I will now take him at his word. He is as perfect an Arminian as I have ever heard speak, or else he confesseth he is not Orthodox. In these few words he hath ruined himself and his Cause for ever, unless he will say, that he is my Convert, and the best of his Book a long impertinence. He cannot escape at any crevice. Not by saying he means 
* Note, that Piscator himself affirmeth God to have decreed the damnation & punishment of men without any condition or respect to their sins, merely because it was his pleasure. (And this Mr. B. must confess is positive Reprobation) Piscat▪ Resp. ad Dupl. Vorst. par. 1. p. 25. & p. 106.  Damnation only, (as he complains I did in the Title-page of my Notes) for he saith distinctly [Reprobation.] Nor by saying he means the execution only of God's Decree (as in other places) for he saith distinctly [the Decree of Reprobation] and the Eternal Decree is before the temporal execution. Nor by saying, that he adds the word (positive) in a parenthesis; for he saith not distinctly [the Decree of Damnation] which yet he chid me for not saying, when I said Reprobation in the Title of my Book; but the [Decree of Reprobation] that is to say, of rejecting or passing by whom he did not elect.  
Nor is there any real difference betwixt not choosing and refusing, or betwixt not saving, and damning, (in God's Decree.) For not to choose, and to refuse, are aequipollents in Grammar, as well as Logic. And it is cleared by experience, that when two things are put to our choice, the choosing of the one is ipso facto the refusing of the other. Or when the same 
Of the distinction of positive and Negative Reprobation.  thing is put to us to be accepted, or rejected, the not accepting is rejecting, and the rejecting is not accepting. And every Freshman can tell, that they are Identical Propositions, [quae etiam in recto dicuntur ad convertentiam] which are mutually reciprocated in the Nominative Case. The distinction therefore betwixt a positive and a negative Reprobat on appears to be nothing but a 
* Note here, that Mr. B. doth either inwardly acknowledge that this distinction is but a shift (in his p. 197.) or else in that place he must outwardly acknowledge something or other which is worse. For to excuse Mr. Calvin from making God's Reprobation to be the cause of the Angel's defection, he there saith, that he meaneth [God's Reprobation is the cause of his Dereliction. Upon which I offer him this Dilemma. He understands either the negative or the positive Reprobation. If he say the negative; he makes the same thing to be both the cause and the effect of the very same thing. For what is Dereliction but negative Reprobation (in his way of speaking) and how absurd is it to s●y, that God's Dereliction, or negative Reprobation is the cause of his Dereliction or negative Reprobation? if he say he means the positive Reprobation, the speech is yet more absurd. For that were to put the positive reprobation as the cause of the negative, and so before it in order of nature. The decree to damn, before the decree to pass by, or to relinquish. And then according to his concession (p. 121.) God's first Decree would not be absolute, but upon prescience and supposition of wilful rebellion and impenitence, which is to confess the thing which he so vehemently denieth. So that what course he will take to get out of this dilemma, I leave the Reader to imagine.  shift; or a tacit confession, that though they are nonplussed, they will not yield. They confess they are of our opinion, but they will be of another side. And rather than not differ from us, they will distinguish Jacobus from Arminius, and Judas the Traitor from Iscariot. And Iscariot archipodialiter, from Iscariot refl xiuè. But since the Correp●ory Carrector is accustomed in all parts of his Volume to make what Prolepses he thinks are fit, and to beg the question when need requires, I will allow him in this place to be as sturdy a Beggar as he pleaseth; and yet I shall show him to be as naked and as bare after the granting of his Petition, as if he had never demanded any thing. For let him fancy a negative and a positive Decree of Reprobation (I speak his own words) to be as different as he can fancy, yet malgrè his fancy, the one will still infer the other. For his Decree of rejection being absolute (as they suppose it) must imply Damnation, and his Decree to damn (whether absolute or not) must imply a rejection, And then I demand, 1. how the one could be made in foresight of sin, and the other not, when they are both eternal, both in the very same instant, (as Mr. B. confesseth p 114.) both equally objected in what is future, both equally Divine? doth it lie in God's power to lay aside any part of his perfection for a time to one end, and resume it to another at the very same time? God cannot cease to be Omniscient no not for a moment; his foresight of all is as necessary to him as his perfection; and that, as his being. It was therefore impossible (as implying a contradiction) that he should decree to reject (or to Reprobate) his Creatures without the least intuition of their sins; and at the same instant decree to damn them, (not without, but) with an intuition of their sins. Besides secondly, it is the confession of 
* Cum verò ●inis, quem intendit Deus, sit gloriae suae patefactio per modum justitiae punientis, hinc sequi tur, non nisi damnatione hominis peccatoris ejusmodi gloriam posse patescere. Twiss. in praefat. ad Vin. G●. p. 3. col. 2.  Dr. Twisse, (and indeed of the most amongst that party) That the reason why God did not decree to damn any without respect unto his sins, is, because he could not otherwise have showed his Justice. And the same reason holds for the one as for the other. For if he would not Decree to damn any irrespectively, because he would be just; he would as little Decree to Reprobate any irrespectively, because he would be just too. It being always his intention to glorify his Justice, in whatsoever he Decreed which was in order to pnnishment. It was a punishment with a witness to be rejected to all eternity; and if every least punishment implies a sin, much more must that which is none of the least. 3. I demand, is Reprobation 
3.  negative, before the positive, or not? if he saith it is not, then at the same instant that God rejects, he hath an intuition and respect of sin. If he saith it is, then according to his own Rule, p. 115. (which he mistakes, and misuseth, as did Dr. Twisse, and incurr's the same most deplorable absurdities) the reprobate must be damned before he is rejected, because the Decree of his Rejection was before that of his Damnation. For so saith 
a Nullus habetur intentionis ordo, nisi qualis intercedit inter intentionem finis, & mediorum ad finem, etc. Twiss. ibid. Correp. Cor. p. 115.  Dr. Twisse, and out of him Mr. B. what is first intended must be last executed. And they apply it so as to infer, that because eternal punishment is last in execution (after sin) it was first in God's intention (before sin.) And by the same Logic, he that first intends to take Ship at Dover, and afterwards to sail into France, must needs sail in to France first, and after that take ship at Dover. Because (saith Mr. B. out of Dr. Twisse) what is first intended▪ must be last of all executed. Had I used that ax●om in such an ignorant manner when I was a Raw Sophister, I had been hissed out of the Schools. And how extremely weak is that Cause, which could betray so strong a Disputant as Dr. Twisse into so strange an inconvenience? that saying [nullus habetur intentionis ordo, nisi qualis, etc.] which is the very Pillar upon which all his vast Book doth lie, is as strangely false, as any thing he could have spoken, and (that I may not seem to boast only) I will demonstrate it to be so, when I 〈…〉 find a convenient season, or when any man shall require 〈…〉 of me. 4. When Mr. B. doth distinguish betwixt a Negative and positive Reprobation, he is a pure Sublapsarian with Mr. Calvin; and yet to excuse Mr. Calvin (in his p. 117) he is as pure a Supralapsarian, as any in the Church of Rome; and as 
* In Angelis nullus occurrit locus massae coruptae, & cur null: ratio habeatur, etc. Twiss. in Praefat. p. 3.  every one must be, who makes the fall of the Angels to be a mere 
b Calvin. Inst. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 4. & 7.  effect of God's rejection. But he is any thing to serve his turn; and professeth to be a friend to both (in his p. 113.) although 
c Haec sunt monstra illa opinion●m & portenta quae nobis parturit & parit ista sententia, Scholis Jesuiti●is aut Arminianis digmora quam nostris, etc. Twis. Vin. Grat. l. 1. cap. 4. p. 87.  Dr. Twisse is a bitter enemy to the Subl●…saria Doctrines, and by consequence to Calvin's, and Mr. Barlees too, call them Monsters of Opinions, and such as inevitably infer God to be the Author of sin, and worthier of the Arminian and Jesuit schools, then of their own. Nor is he a friend to the 
d Idem. l. 1. Digr. 1. p. 55. to p. 58.  other supralapsarians, and therefore utterly out with Mr. B. (who yet will have him to be his, and his Father's friend in several places of his Correptory Correction) who doth by consequence call him Atheist. (p. 118. lin. 1.) but I have dwelled too long upon his sixth Invention, and the many absurdities which follow it. I will endeavour to requite my Reader for this length by using brevity in those that come after.  
§ 9 His ninth, that (in my p. 56.) I do not so much as 
Of freewill.  seem to deny that when two men are equally called, whereof the one converts himself, the other miscarrieth, it is not God, but man that puts the difference. p. 15.]. When yet he knows, 1. In that page my words are these. [If I am be●ter than any 
1.  man, it is God that makes me differ. And in my p. 70. I said, it is God that makes the difference as well as God that chooseth.] 2. When I said any man, I must needs have comprehended, 
2.  not only any that hath equal Grace, but any that hath less. 3. I also said in that page, [we owe it wholly to God, not only 
3.  that h●…es us his Grace, but that he gives us the Grace to desire his Grace, as well as to use it to the advancement of his glory. etc.] Whosoever will read over my 56. page, will find it so contrary to Mr. B's. Invention, that he will hardly ever trust him in any one citation, before he tries him. 4. St. 
4.  Austin never spoke more unlike a Pelagian against Pelagius, than I have there done. Nay, he speaks more towards the way of Pelagius in lib. de spiritu & literâ ad Marcell. c. 33. quoted in my Notes p. 28. Yea 5ly, Mr. B. himself confesseth 
5.  (in his p. 113.) that objective considerations are the causes of Gods temporal transient acts, and of the execution of his Decrees; which is more Pelagian then I durst speak, for the saints glorification is one execution of God's Decree; and is it not Pelagianism in Mr. B. to in●err that any thing in the Creature can be the Cause of that? I had said not the Cause, but a Necessary condition. But Mr. B. saith the Cause; and the proper Cause, Ibid. So inventive is he in reporting my words, and so unwary, or unskilful in the management of his own.  
§ 10. His tenth, [That I mention slightingly (in my p. 4.) those Remonstrants that have deserved so well of me. p. 19] Yet 1. I there mention the Remonstrants as the 
1. 2. 3. 4.  Antiremonstrants in a most equal manner. 2. There is not the least slighting of any Author in that page. 3. I there speak slightingly of my self and respectfully of others. 4. How could he say two such contrary things in the same page, as that the Remonstrants had deserved well of me, and yet that I had never vouchsafed to look into any Remonstrant Author? (ibid.) he hath sure the worst luck of any man that ever meddled with Pen and Paper.  
§ 11. His 11th, [That contrary to my promise (as some say) I vented my goodly Argument (in my p. 72.) about the universality of Christ's Death. p. 20.] 1. Breach of promise 
1.  is dishonesty. Which because he cannot evince in me, he says [some say.] 2. I do affirm to all the world that I never 
2. 3.  made any such promise. 3. On the contrary, I told that person who was employed to overcome my unwillingness to preach in that place, that my unwillingness was grounded upon my knowledge, that I should certainly displease a factious part of the Congregation, (as I had formerly done,) if I appeared to be otherwise then they would have me. And that as long as I lived I would be single and unmixed; that it was a wickedness below me, to dissemble my principles, and to Preach in a Disguise. That if my Livelihood or my Life should depend upon it, I would not seek to please men in things of that nature, wherein if I should, I could not be the 
* Gal. 1. 10.  servant of Christ. 4. Several persons of the Presbytery 
4.  can bear me witness, that I have avowed an abhorrence to the doing or saying of any one thing, which might betray me into the danger of being thought a Presbyterian, however dangerous it might be (in a carnal sense) to be thought otherwise by some of that persuasion; as our Corrector would make it appear by his 
* Correp. Cor. p. 131.  Presbyterian Rodds if I were not exempted from the † smart of their † Discipline, by some 
† † Ibid.  * Erastian Politicians, as he calls all them that are Antipresbyterians.  
§ 12. His 12th, [That in my Sermon at Daintry and in 
Of Hell.  my p. 26. I affirmed God to have prepared the Torments of Hell for the Devil and his Angels, 
* Note that in his p. 123. he abuseth the words of that Sermon in a new manner.  but not for any wicked men. p. 20.] It falls out very well, that what I Preached at Daintry is since in public, and was published by me so much ●he rather, because it was abused by Mr. B. with the name of Pelagian. But with what Degree of Charity, or show of Reason, I appeal to all honest and ingenuous Readers. My words were these; that 
* See The Sinner Impleaded etc. 132.  those dark Territories, (in their primary design and Institution,) were prepared (not for men, but) for the Devil and his Angels. (as Origen, Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact, expound those words of our Blessed Saviour.) 1. Mr. B. leaves out those words [in their primary Design.] 
1.  2. He adds [wicked and any] to [mwn] which altars the Case 
2.  the most that may be. For God did not prepare Hell for men as men, no nor for Angels as Angels, but for wicked Angels, and wicked men, in as much as they were wicked; and so had prepared themselves for Hell (in order of nature) before that God prepared Hell for them. For in order of nature, sin is first, and punishment second. Sin infers Punishment as that which is naturally to follow; but punishment presupposeth the commission of sin, as that which of necessity must go before. 
† Rom. 6. 23.  The wages of Sin is Death [and Hell.] But sure the paying of the wages implies the doing of the work. 3. Melancthon saith, that a 
d Causam Reprobationis certum est hanc esse. viz. peccatum in hominibus. Melancth. in loc. Theolog. de praed.  man's sin is the cause of his Reprobation. And Mr. B. will have Melancthon to be one of his party p. 129. yea, in effect he saith the same p. 113. (where he quotes Austin against himself, and Rivet nothing to his purpose.) Now I hope the Cause is before the effect, and therefore sin before punishment. Though Mr. B. elsewhere (p. 115.) affirms God to have decreed punishment first, and that men should sin afterwards. His word is permission of sin. But he means an efficacious permission, (as hath been showed.) by which God determines that sin shall be done. p. 79. of which hereafter. 4. I produced the Authority 
4.  of no less than four Fathers, which Mr. B. wittily conceals. 5. I spoke more warily than Origen did, by adding 
5.  those words, [in their primary design etc.] which either Mr. B. did know, or he did not. If he did, why did he not honestly allege my own words? if he did not, why would he accuse me without a knowledge that I was guilty? what Texts of Scripture might not Helvidius have accused either of Nonsense, Blasphemy, or Falsehood, if he would have added, or altered, or have taken away from God's words, as the Declamator hath done to mine? And 6. Let it be considered, that 
6.  when our Saviour's words were directed to men, and to men accursed on the left hand, he did not say [prepared for you] but 
e Mat. 25. 41.  [prepared for the Devil and his Angels.] Our blessed Saviour had reason for what he spoke; and I can give many Reasons, if this were a place convenient for it. 7. There is 
7.  another deceit very signal in my Declamators ordering of this matter. For he knew very well, and doth confess, (in his p. 133.) that in the twenty ninth page of my Notes (he should have said the 31.) I do use the word especially, thus. [Everlasting fire was prepared especially, (not for men, but) for the Devil and his Angels. Nor for them by a peremptory irrespective Decree, but in prescience and respect of their pride and Apostasy. And he putting his trust in the idle credulity of his Reader, makes bold to add, that by my eagerness to defend Origen, I leave some kind of suspicion behind me, as if in process of time, I would go on with him, to maintain Redemption from Hell itself, yea salvation of Devils. p. 133. Here he proves what before he 
f Correp. Cor. p. 8.  professed, that he is a very jealous man. For 1. in all my Notes I do not plead for Origen at all, much less with eagerness. Though Bishop Hall commended Origen for a good Interpreter. As Mr. B. confesseth in his p. 123. 2. All the Auditors of my Parish, (and some of his) are my witnesses, that I have made it my solemn business to confute that Error to which he would have me be thought inclinable. 3. I sufficiently show my aversion to that Error in the 143 page of my late 
* The Sinner Impl. part. 1. c. 3. Sect. 15. p. 143.  Printed Book (which the Reader will now think that some enemies, as well as friends, did persuade me to publish.) and so the Declamator is every whit as unhappy in his Dexterities, as he is able to make himself much more unhappy than I can wish him. For if he were less liable, I might be able to dispatch him with greater brevity.  
§ 13. His 13th. [That he doth by one half with those few under him, take more pains, than I do with my more numerous Flock, p. 21, 22.] though this is no more pertinent to the Decrees of God Almighty than other parcels of his volumes, yet because he doth endeavour to depredicate his diligence by preaching down mine, (in hope that some will look upon me as one of the lazy, Hierarchick, non-residentiall, non-preaching Lubbers, whom he so rails at, p. 20.) I will discover how unlucky he is in this too. For first, it is not a very commendable 
1.  thing, that he is fain to commend himself. Nor will his Reader think it any excellent sign, that he is fain himself to commend his own Preaching. For so he liberally does, (p. 22.) And withal crave's leave to magnify himself and his Sermons without boasting, (p. 21, 22.) Nor can I guess at the reason, why he takes an occasion to tell the world, that he hath very few Hearers of all his good Preaching; as if it were a fine thing to be insufferable in a Pulpit, and to Preach men out of their patience. But if he is in good earnest, so much more painful and more wholesome in his Preaching, than I am, why do the chiefest and most intelligent of his Parishioners take the pains to go from him no less than two miles as well in the winter, as in the Summer? but that he said was my insolency against his Ministry and Flock. If he is not already, I do wish with all my heart he were as much beyond me in every thing that is good, as he can imagine, or desire; upon condition I might not be worse than I am, I would be glad if every Creature might be abundantly better. And it had been for my ease, if others had thought as well of Mr. B. as he doth of himself. For than I had not been called by ill Names, nor been put to this drudgery of cleansing myself from his aspersions. 2. Though a Pastor's pains should not be measured by his Preaching (there being many other duties incumbent on him) 
2.  yet he knows I am a weekly Preacher. And if he is more, I cannot think the better of him, or that he takes the more, but (perhaps) the less pains. For many have found it by experience, (excepting the labour of lips and lungs) a much easier thing to preach twice every week in one manner, than once a fortnight in an other. 3. Must all those Glories, and 
3.  Ornaments, those venerable supports of our English Church, (the very latchets of whose shoes, we weekly Preachers are hardly worthy to untie) be either hinted or held forth to be lazy Lubbers, because their lips do not labour twice a week in a Pulpit? let those Learned, Industrious, and righteous men (not to be named, or thought on without a preface of highest Reverence and Honour) be once restored to those places, from which they were thrown by none other than Presbyterians, and they will preach more in one day, than any Correptory Corrector can do in twenty years. And whilst they are not preaching, they are doing things of greater moment.  
§ 14. His 14. [That I did not dare to mention the confession of faith, Catechisms, etc. of the late Westmonasteriall Assembly, p. 24.] Here the Correptory Corrector gives us a Specimen of his Logic. Because I did not name his Authors he infers I did not dare to mame them. By his own way of reasoning, how many thousand Books are there, which he did not dare to name? 2. How should it lie in my way to name Confessions of Faith, or Catechisms, which I never saw, and seldom heard of? I suppose the Assembly had more wit, then to think they could make a better Creed than the Apostles; or teach their Mother the Church of England, any better Catechism, than she had taught them. 3. I never saw those things which Mr. B. saith I durst not mention. But I durst have named any thing that I had known, and I durst have showed my dislike if I saw occasion. And I dare now say in the words of Mr. Cheynell (upon another occasion) that they might have contented themselves with that Catechism [which was before in the Church of England] unless they could have made a better. And if this false saying of Mr. B. was cast out purposely by him, to draw me into the danger of saying what I have said, I am well pleased with myself that I have not spoken like a Hypocrite.  
§ 15. His 15 [That (in mp 13. 17. 34. pages) I cast in Texts by dozen, as if Baker-like, I were bound to throw in so many fine manchets into a Buttery hatch, p. 26.] I have surveyed the three pages, but cannot find where lies the jest. For in the first I find but six Texts, in the second I find but seven, and but eleven in the third. But suppose that I had thrown in Texts by dozen; Had it advantaged his Cause, or hindered mine? 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Polyb. l. 16. p. 732.  Polybius pardons such falsities as are invented for the good of Religion, (as he thought they might be in certain cases, wherein he spoke like himself, a Politician, and a Heathen.) But what excuse can he have, who speaks untruly to no imaginable end? when he gets nothing by the bargain?  
§ 16. His 16. That (in my p. 35.) I have a charitable wish, that the absolute Reprobatarians should be shipped over for Turkey. p. 27.] 1. There is no wish at all. 2. There is nothing spoken of any person, but merely of an opinion. 3. That opinion there mentioned was no other, then that all we do (however sinful) is by an absolute Decree; which I said, and said truly, (as I yet conceive) came out of Turkey into Christendom, or was at least a Transcript of the Heathen Stoics 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But 4. I spoke not a word of shipping thither, only said that that opinion would be rooted out in the next Reformation. So manifold is each Forgery, that if I did not omit many of them, and study brevity in those I mention, I should be as tedious as the Correptory Corrector.  
§ 17. His 17. [That I take myself to be wiser than Austin, 
Of S. Austin's writings, and the Fathers before him. 1.  whose manlike writings I confute by his more infantile and babelike writings. p. 27.] Here the unhappy Corrector hath bewrayed himself many ways. For 1. I no where confront S. Austin to himself, but always allege him in behalf of that Doctrine which I assert. 2. He calumniates that Father and gives 
2.  him Correptory Correction, calling him a babelike and infantlike writer, whensoever his writings are not pleasing to Mr. B. 3. That very passage of S. Austin in my p. 44. (which is referred 
3.  to by Mr. B.) was written by him in that book which he writ being a Bishop, (and not a bare Presbyter) and which S. Austin himself commended as very sufficient to confute Pelagius his opinion. And was Austin the Bishop a very babe and Infant in the sight of Mr. B. who is at the most but a Presbyterian? 4. did Mr. B. know that Austin was a Bishop when 
4.  he writ to Simplician, or did he not? if he did, why did he meanly prevaricate with me and his Reader, by calling those his babelike writings? if he did not, why was he so dogmatic in what he did not understand? but parachronismes with him are his very best faults. So in his p. 117. he would have Calvin be thought to say no more, than what multitudes of Schoolmen, some hundreds of years before Calvin was born, had said, quoting only two men, and who should they be but. Scotus and Suarez. 5. He doth forget, or conceal, that in 
5.  my p. 28. I mentioned 4 expositions which Austin made on 1 Tim. 2. 4. preferring that which was written after the time that the heresy of Pelagius was on foot. Which was I hope no babelike writing. 6. I hope that Augustine's Retractations (being 
6.  the last thing he writ, as I suppose) are no Infantile or babelike writings, where yet he speaks for me against Mr. B. as much as I could desire him. His words are 
k Et quod paulo post dixi, nost●ū est enim credere & velle, illius autem dare credentibus & volentibus facultatem bene operandi per spiritum sanctum p●rquem charitas di●●unditur in cordibus no●tris, verum est quidem; Sed eadem regulâ & utrumque ipsius est, quia ipse praeparat voluntatem, & utrumque nostrum, quia non fit nisi volentibus nobis▪ Augustin in Retract. l. 1. c. 23.  these in the Margin, which I thus translate to Mr. B. [what I said, It belongs to us to will and to believe, But it belongs to God to give unto us so willing, and believing, the ability of well-doing through the holy Ghost, by whom his love is shed abroad in our hearts, is indeed very true. but by the same 
† viz. utrumque nostrum est propter arbitrium voluntatis, & untrumque t●men darum est per spiritum Fidei & charitatis. Id. ibid.  rule, they are both pertaining unto God, because it is he hat prepares our will, and both pertaining unto us too, because they are no● wrought in us unless we are willing.] If I had used these expressions as mine own, they had been branded with Palagia ●…sme at least; But since the words are Augustine's, and in his book of Retractations, and if not more, yet at least as much sounding to the displeasure of Mr. B. as any thing I ever spoke, I know not how our Corrector can either swallow them down, or cast them up. 
l Calvin Inst. l. 2. c. 2. Sect. 4. p. 78. 79.  Mr. Calvin, 
m Beza in Rom. 11. 2. Edit. 2.  Beza, and Dr. 
n Twiss. vind. Gr. l. 1. part. 1. Digr. 8 Sect. 4. p. 110.  Twis●e, have very publicly confessed, that all the Fathers before S. Austin (a very great number) are quite against their way. Only they make much of him (and of his Disciples,) by misexpounding some places which fell from him unawares, who yet declares himself so plainly even in his Retractations, (as I could show more largely if my desires of brevity would permit, and may have occasion to do it hereafter) that they have not left them so much as one. 
* Semper apud latin●s liberi arbitrij nomen extitit. Graecos vero non puduit multo arrogantius usurpare vocabulum: Calvin ibid. p. 98.  Mr. Calvin confesseth in effect that all the Latin Fathers did own freewill, and that all the Greek ones did speak more arrogantly than the Latins. Using the word 
‖ Siquidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dixerunt, ac si potestas sui ipsius penes hominem fuisset. Id. ibid.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if it were in man to do what he pleased. Nay farther. The Greeks and the Latins were so far from speaking as Mr. Calvin would have had them, that he even rails at them, 
o Long plum aequo Philosophis accesserunt. ibid.  as drawing too near the very Heathen Philosophers (as in his Anger he is pleased to say when he finds their Doctrine doth ruin his,) 
p Nimis Philosophi●e hâc de re locuti sunt, qui se Christi jactabant Discipulos ibid.  who boasted themselves the Disciples of Christ; and speaking of man's will, 
q Quasi adhuc Integer staret homo, Latini etc. ibid.  as if he were yet in a stare of Innocence. He there particularly singles out S. Chr●s●stome from the Greeks, and S. Hierome from the Latins, and bestows upon them both some such Correptory Correction, as Mr. B. bestows on me. As that they 
r Videscerte iis sententijs homini plus quam par erat ad virtutis studium illos e●●e largit●s.— quas retulimus sententias, esse fal●issimas, paulo post constabit. Id. ibid.  ascribed more to man towards the study (or desire, or love) of virtue, than it was just for them to do. Which was to accuse them of Pelagianism, or Massilianisme at least; although the words of S. Hierome were spoken in his book against Pelagius. (and indeed did more sound towards it, than any thing the Declamator can find in me.) Farther yet. It was the saying of 
s Pene omnium par invenitur & una sententia, qua propositum & praedestinationem. Dei secundum praescientiam receperunt, ut ob hoc Deus alios vasa honoris, alios vasa contumeliae fecerit, quia ●ine●… unius cujusque praeviderit, & sub ipso gratiae adjutorio in quâ futurus esset voluntate & actione praesciverit▪ Prosper apud Episc. Vedel. Raps. c. 11. Vide Prosp. ep. ad Aug. p. 886.  Prosper (who breathed nothing but S. Austin) that almost all do unanimously agree, that God's Predestination was according to his foreknowledge, so as he made some vessels of honour, and some of dishonour, even for this cause, because he foresaw their several ends, of what wills they would be, and what would be their Actions, under the assistance and help of Grace. Lastly, the excellent 
t Scriptores veteres omnes praeter unum Augustinum putarunt aliquam causam electionis in nobis esse. Melancth. apud eund. ibid.  Melancthon (whom Mr. B. is so ambitious to have of his party) hath hurt the Antiremonstrants as much as he was able, by this one saying, That all the Ancient writers, except one Austin, did believe some Cause of Election to be in us. (had I said as much, I should have heard of it with both Ears.) Had he not said [some Cause] (which was more than I would ever have wished or desired,) he needed not have excepted Saint Austin neither. Both because of that passage which I cited out of his Retractations, (and very many more to be produced) and because he 
u August. de bono Persever. c. 19 & 20.  vindicated the Tenent of conditional Election in all the Fathers that went before him. Upon all which it follows, that when Mr. B. pretends, either that Antiquity is for his opinions, or that it is not for mine, he doth (before he is aware) bestow his Correptory Correction upon Calvin, Beza, and Twice, which are his own dear Authors; and besides, upon Austin, Prosper, and Melancthon, whom he would make to be his own, but is not able. But 7. Suppose that Austin 
7.  the Bishop had retracted those opinions of which he was being a Presbyter, (as Mr. Barlee betrays an Ignorance to that effect, p. 17.) doth it follow that the last opinion a man takes must be the truest? if so, Mr. B. is quite undone. For how many (besides my inconsiderable self) have been for absolute Decrees in their days of Ignorance and Childhood, who growing to riper understandings, and reading better books, as well as conversing with better company, and obtaining some Degree of manumission from Passions and prejudices, have discerned those fallacies, wherewith (before) they have been blinded? Ph. Melancthon at first was of Luther's opinion in these points. But growing in Wisdom and Grace, he saw his Error, and persevered in his conversion unto the end. So the late Primate of Armagh was though a late, yet a serious convert. And affirmed not long before his Death to several persons of great worth (whom I can name) that he utterly rejected all those opinions of Mr. Calvin. Besides, I may ask, Will Mr. B. turn Montanist, Photinian, Apollinarian, or Nestorian, because Tertullian, Photinus, Apollinaris, and Nestorius, were very Orthodox in their younger days, (when they writ their babelike things,) and fell at last into their several Errors, when in respect of their age, they should have been wisest? shall their latest writings be called manlike, merely because they were their latest? Yet men will thus reason who see but a little way before them. Or 8. Suppose 
8.  that Austin had said nothing in behalf of that Doctrine which I assert, but all against it, (whereas I can prove, that if he speaks against me in any place, he speaks it all against himself too, and so his suffrage shall be due either to both, or neither,) yet he will willingly give place to all his Teachers and Tutors, which for four hundred years together had showed him the way in which it behoved him to walk. It is as vain to urge Austin against conditional Decrees, as Jerome the Presbyter against Bishops. Who besides that he was but a single man, and overheated by a Deacon, is as little a friend to the Posterity of Aërius, as any other of the Fathers, If we may give credit not to the tacit, but loud confessions, of Blondel, Salmasius, Lud. Capellus, and divers others of their persuasions. 9 The babelike writings of Austin, are such as he 
9  penned next after his conversion. Such as de Praed. Sanct. and how liable Mr. B. himself is to his own Inditements, any man may see by his citations.  
§ 18. His 18th. That we so far teach men to rely upon 
Of freewill. ☞  their own wills, as that for Grace and Glory, they are more beholding to them, than Gods. p. 34.] This is so far removed from truth, that it did not lie in his power to drive it farther. And since he hath fathered this Calumny upon no page in my Notes, I will do that for him. I said in my p. 55. and 56. That no man can go to heaven any otherwise then by Christ, nor to Christ unless it be given, that is, unless the Father draw him. That God (by glorifying) doth crown his gifts and Graces in us. Not acquired by us, but infused by him. That we cannot pant after the waters of life, unless he gives us our very thirst. That there is no good thought arising in us, unless suggested by his preventing Grace; no nor increased, unless strengthened by his subsequent Grace; 〈◊〉 no nor consummate, unless perfected by his Grace of perseverance. And (in my p. 70.) that there is no matter for man to boast on; he having nothing which he hath not received, no not so much as his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is God that makes the difference, as well as God that chooseth. etc. I am troubled to recount (what yet I must in my own Defence) by what improbable immoderate and ridiculous falsifications he incurs the detestation of all good men, and (I am confident) of his own party, who cannot approve of such dealings in any imaginable Case. 'tis plain that I am more than innocent as to this particular, and that if any man is guilty, it is himself, in his p. 113.  
§ 19 His 19th. [That upon he cannot tell what occult 
Of freewill. ☜  quality in the freewill, I and my party do lean upon, as a broken reed, that we may be called, nay chosen. p. 34.] This being near of kin to the former needeth no more for its discovery, then is there set down. Yet because he refers to my p. 69. I will have the patience to say a little. As 1. That in 
1. 2. 3.  all that page there is not one word towards it. 2. That all in that page doth directly overthrow it. 3. That there is an argument in that page (§ 55.) which because Mr. B. can only rail at (for being impossible for him to answer) I wish the Author of the Preface would undertake for him. 4. He doth 
4.  implicitly confess he frames a slander, by confessing he cannot tell what etc. For if I had told him, he might have told from me. 5. He is himself more guilty of this charge in 
5. 6.  his p. 113. 6. he confesseth that S. Austin spoke more like a Pelagian, by ascribing a secret merit to the will, than I can be any where found to do. And for so doing that Father is only called child; whereas if I had said occultissimum meritum as Austin did, I had been a Heretic at least in the account of my Corrector.  
§ 20. His 20th. [That (in my p. 70.) I affect to be an 
Of freewill. ☞  elector, and determiner of Grace. p. 36,] It seems his Invention begins to fail him, when he is fain to slit one slander into three. This in substance is the same with the two former. And I refer the Reader to my former returns. Yet because he citys my p. 70. I will 1. assure my Reader (what he 
1.  may, if he please, assure himself) that all things in that page are directly contrary to his fiction. And because I am not sure that every Reader will take so much pains as to peruse that page, I will transcribe a line or two of what I there say. [God doth give us the advantage of our being in Christ, as well as choose us for that advantage. First he giveth us his Son, next he giveth us his Grace whereby to believe in his Son, and so believing he doth elect us. etc.] 2. Though I say that election implies 
2.  a difference, yet I say at the same time, that it is God who makes the difference. 3. Though I say it is a preferring of 
3.  the better before the worse, yet I say at the same time, that God doth choose his own Gifts. And that such men as are in Christ by faith, are better than such as are out of Christ by Infidelity. (which whosoever shall deny, proclaims an Enmity to Christ.) And I would know (I do not say of Mr. B. who hath small skill in these matters, but) of the wisest of his Abettors, 1. Whether God elected any man any otherwise then 
1.  in Christ. 2. whether any man can be in Christ, or be Elected 
2.  as in Christ, without the Qualification at least of Faith, or something else whereby he is considered as having an Interest in Christ. 3. Whether Faith is not better, than Infidelity, 
3.  and the faithful than the Infidel, or whether to be in Christ (by what means soever) is not absolutely better than to be out of Christ (by what means soever.) 4. Whether 
4.  God electing some as considered in Christ, and rejecting others as considered out of Christ, doth not elect them as different from those whom he rejects; and the better before the worse. 5. Whether I who thus hold, and hold besides, that it is God 
5.  who giveth Christ, God who giveth us to be in Christ, God who giveth us whatsoever it is by which we are in Christ, and God who electeth us from all eternity in his prescience and consideration that we are thus gifted by himself to be in Christ, (whether I who thus hold) can be said to affect to be an Elector, and Determiner of Grace. 4. I said no more in that 
4.  place, than I proved also by Oecumenius, assented to by the most Reverend Bishop Andrews. Yea, by the words of Saint Austin which he writ when he was Bishop, and so no Baby, (as Mr. B. would have him when he is angry.) Lastly, if that 
5.  57 §. be thought by any to be more unwarily delivered by me then any other in my Notes, I shall be glad if the Author of the first Preface will deal with that very Section, in case he wants leisure to try the rest.  
§ 21. His 21. [That first it was by a Reverend Minister 
Of being above sin. ☜  told him alone, and afterwards by the same man, delivered before many more Ministers in his hearing, and as heard from my own mouth, viz. that I believe no sin to be in me, that I was above sin, that by my own power I could abstain from all sin, p. 39] First, this is not a confutation of any argument 
1.  in my Notes, but in default of reason, a flying for Refuge to pure Invention. 2. This Invention pretendeth to no better 
2.  Author than bare Report, and this again is received from an indefinite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Reverend Minister without a Name, who being added to Mr. B. makes a Resemblance of the two Elders, who accused Susanna of Fornication, or Adultery, for no other reason then her being more chaste than they would have had her. 3. It is the strangest Invention, and the most 
3. 1.  unskilfully chosen of any one I ever heard of. For 1. He cannot but confess, that when he hath heard me out of a Pulpit (which hath been 5 or 6 times) he hath heard from my mouth a full confession of my sins. And 2. His Invention is 
2.  contradicted by several passages of my Notes the most that may be, as p. 6. in the two Grounds of my belief. And p. 55. 56. where I declare my meaning in the second of those Grounds, to be as Antipelagian as can be wished. 3. I have as many witnesses 
3.  as weekly Auditors in my Church, and as daily Auditors in my Family, that I affirm the quite contrary to that Invention. 4. Mr. B. himself doth acknowledge in his very 
4.  next words, That I made a profession (p. 56.) never to have lain under the least degree of Pelagianisme. Which how could I say, if I could say any part of that Invention? and yet he is so overseen, as to use those words to prove me guilty, which do most loudly declare me innocent. 5. Unless he can 
5.  suborn some Reverend Minister (as he phraseth it) to say I spoke such words in my dream, (who yet do not remember I ever slept in such company,) I cannot imagine what colour he can allege for this fiction, which is as contrary to probability, as well as to Truth, as the wit of malicious men can possibly contrive. It was an easier Invention for the Enemies of our Saviour, to say, That he was a winebibber, because at a 
Matth. 11. 19  Marriage Feast he turned Water into Wine. And they might be prompted to call him glutton, because he was seen sometimes 
John 2. 9  to eat, and (which is more) to make his Loaves and his 
Mar. 6. 43.  Fishes even to grow much more as they were eaten. But Mr. B. is such a Poet, that he needeth no hints for the holding forth of his Inventions. He might with more ease, as well as colour, have called me Drunkard or Glutton upon supposal of my confession; because I cannot deny, but that I have often in my time both eat, and drank; but that I am above sin, or by mine own power can abstain from all sin, or that I believe no sin to be in me, I never once said or thought since I came into the world; I have ever said and thought and found the contrary. 6. How much better might Mr. B have charged this 
6.  upon himself? for he is one of the brethren who are faithful, chosen and true (in his p. 10.) as he supposeth, and presums (by consequence) that he hath Grace irresistible, and is secu●e he cannot fall. (p 35.) and may abuse to that purpose those words of S. John (as others have done upon the same principles) whosoever is born of God, carnot sin, because he is 
1 John 3. 9  born of God. Besides; he maintaineth a necessity of all events in many places of his book (as shall be showed in its proper place) and so by consequence of sins, and that from the absoluteness of God's Decrees, which will infer that his sins are very excellently good, or if they are not, that they are not his, because from all eternity they were determined to be done. Thus I argue from his Doctrines, merely to show him with how little reason he hath made me a Ranter, with his Invention. 7. He saith, 
* p. 38, 39  perchance he should be stupid, if he should 
7.  absolutely disbeleeve, what he pretendeth to have heard of the foresaid Invention. Is this the charity that hopeth all things? and that thinketh none evil? even from this one Instance 
1 Cor. 13. 5, 7.  let my greatest Enemy pass a Judgement, how much Mr. B. is to be trusted with his Manuscript Copy of my Notes, which he so much talks of throughout his book.  
§ 22. His 22d. [That I neither do nor can maintain any 
Of special Grace.  special Grace as derived from God, for I dispute strenuously against it all along, (especially in my p. 70.) so saith he in his p. 41.] Yet in that very page which he refers too, there is 
1.  not a footstep, no not a shadow of any such thing. 2. But on 
2.  the contrary my words there are, [It is God that makes the difference, as well as God that chooseth.] 3 I ever did, and 
3.  do maintain special Grace, such is the gift of Jesus Christ, and all other Graces in him, (all given by God by a certain, absolute, gracious decree; praevenient Grace, when we were 
† Ezek 16. 22.  naked and bare and as yet polluted in our blood. And subsequent Grace, which although according to our Saviour's Rule [Habenti dabitur Mat. 13. 12.] is granted as a reward of using well the former Talon, yet still is it gratuitous, because our good use is no merit of ours, but an effect of God's free Grace. I am for Grace exciting, sanctifying, minutely assisting, both to will, and to do; and so to every single action or Thought of good, I clearly plead a special Grace. Lastly, a special Grace of perseverance to every one that doth continue and abide unto the end. This is the proper notation of special Grace. Properly Grace, because gratuitous and free. And properly special, because it serves [ad speciales actus & habitus] to every habit, or act, or thought of good, that is done by man, or required of him. So that I utterly disclaim the merely light Coruscations or irradiations of Grace, which without the least ground he chargeth on me. 4. If Mr. B. doth 
4.  mean, that by maintaining an universality, I do also maintain an equality of grace, it argues a strange shortness of Discourse. For may not all have some, and yet some have more than many others? The Master in the 
* Mat. 25. 15.  Parable gave to every servant some part of his goods, to be employed unto advantage▪ Yet to one he gave five Talon, to another two, and to another he gave but one. And to him that made good use of what he gave him he gave much more; as on the contrary he took from him that had not made such use of his Talon. But I am prompted by my charity, to think that this mention of Mr. B. is more the child of his Ignorance, than others were. He hath not probably yet learned what is the genuine acception of special Grace. If by it he understands I know not what irresistible or unquenchable Grace, much good do't him with his own Notions, he only sings to himself, and to his own dear Muses.  
§ 23. [That I am not for any special Grace, as particularly, 
Of special Grace and Redemption. ☞ 1.  and specially procured for me by Christ's blood, more than for all the world besides. For this in my p. 38. I count a pernicious heresy. p. 41.] 1. there is no such thing in all my Notes, he only speaks from his Con●ecture. 2. In my 18 
2.  page, I distinguished of a general and special Saviour; (yet not with Mr. B. but) with S. 
† 〈◊〉 Tim▪ 4. 10.  Paul, who affirms our Saviour to be the Saviour of all men, [but] especially of them that believe. If S. Paul will teach me, that Christ in general is the Saviour even of them that do not believe, but especially of them that do, I may believe him in one thing, as well as in another. And since I spoke of this matter even as fully as that Apostle, Mr. B. his Accusation doth equally lie against S. Paul. 3. I cannot endure to be of their leven, who do 
3.  arrogate a Saviour wholly and only to themselves. Nor can I hope to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, by 
* Mat. 23. 13.  shutting it up against other men. but I hope I am a sincere believer, and I know that the Saviour of all the world is especially the Saviour of them that believe. But if Mr. B. by [especially] will have me mean [only] I am not so void of fear or wit, as to yield my consent to any such guilty prevarications. 4. To 
4.  my Naked word heresy p. 38. he adds pernicious, and applies it to special Grace etc. Whereas my words were plainly these. He is called the propitiation, not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The Apostle foresees and confutes 
1. Joh. 2. 2.  the Heresy of Christ's d●…ing only for the Elect, with a [not only, but also.] And whether that is not a heresy which is a flat contradiction to the words of St. john, let Mr. B. himself be judge. 5. Now we clearly discover what Mr. B. understands 
5. ☜  by special Grace, and special Redemption; he means Grace only, and Redemption only for the Elect. And he must confess that this is really his meaning, or that he did prevaricate against his clear light of knowledge. For when my words were [the heresy of Christ dying only for the Elect] why should he say, that [I 
* Correp. Cor. p. 4. lin. 13. 18 19 20.  neither do nor can maintain any speciale Grace, as particularly and specially procured for me by Christ's blood, more than for all the world besides, and that this I account 
☜  a pernicious heresy,] if he did not conceive it to be tantamount to [Christ's dying only for the Elect?] this being the very thing to which I fastened the word Heresy, and to which he himself refers the Reader. And therefore till he acknowledge that he did wilfully●…deavour ●…deavour to abuse my Notes, and deceive the Reader, or else shall publish a Recantation, we must take his opinion to be barely this, That [Christ died only for the Elect.]  
This I said was a Heresy when I desired to speak mildly, 
Concerning the Great error of Christ's dying only for the Elect. Of which see more, Ch. 4. Sect. 26.  and since Mr. B. hath called me to it, I will show it to be a pernicious Heresy. For 'tis as contrary to Scripture (and to the clearest Scriptures that can be named) as any thing could be invented by the wit of Julian or Helvidius. A little patience in the Reader (let his present persuasion be what it will) will be likely to be sufficient to make him exactly of this opinion. For Universal Redemption is exhibited to us in Scripture by all expressions of 
* Note here a saying of Mr. B. from Dr. Ames: [That to speak properly and Theologically, no one Text hath any more than one sense, in his p. 172.] And in all such Texts as are cited for God's Agency in sin, he is altogether for a literal interpretation, in his p. 69. where he saith, that there is but one sense of Scripture, and that is the Grammatical. Yet at other times (when 'tis for his turn) he will have Scripture interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so as is most suitable to the Majesty of God, p. 173. And why not as well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sa as may be most suitable to the mercy of God? he confesses the Scripture doth plainly say, Christ's flock is but a little one (p. 174.) but forgets, it saith as plainly, He tasted death for every man. Supposing that Christ was not offered unto all, because the major part refuse him.  Universal, which the Tongue of men & Angels is possibly able to express. 1. By a Universal Collective, (He is the Saviour of all men, 1 Tim. 4. 10.) 2. By a Universal Distributive, (He tasted death for every man, Heb. 2. 9 3. By a Universal indefinite (He is the Saviour of the world, Joh. 4. 42.) 4. By an Universal express (He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, (an universal Subject Syncatagorematicall, 1 Joh. 2. 2.) 5. By Vniversals affirmative) as in those now mentioned, and many more.) 6. By Vniversals Negative (He was not willing that any should perish, 2 Pet. 3. 9) 7. By an Universal command to use the means of Salvation, and that Universal as well to places as to persons. Not to all men in some places, nor to some men in all places, but [he commandeth all men every where to repent, Act. 17. 30.] 8. By a particular in the Negative, and an universal in the affirmative in opposition to one another, and joined together by a Discretive [not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world, 1 Joh. 2. 2.] From hence 
1.  let us make these Observations. 1. That an universal Creation is not asserted to us in Scripture by so great a variety of plain 
2.  expressions as an universal redemption is found to be. 2. That they who teach that Christ intended to be the Saviour of a few only, ² only of the Elect, ³ only of the lesser part of the world, ⁴ only of them who are 
* Joh. 15. 19 ch. 17. 14. 16. 1 Joh. c. 3. etc. 4.  not of the world, and ⁵ not of all men, ⁶ not of every man, ⁷ not of the 
† 1 Joh. 3. 1. 13 compared with 1 Joh. 4. 14.  world, ⁸ not of the whole world, do speak as much in contradiction to the word of God, as the affirmation and negation of the very same Term, wherein the Essence of contradiction is defined to consist. 3. That to extricate 
3.  themselves from the inevitable odium of such a Fact, they fly for refuge to equal mischief's (as 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Zosim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 2.  the Emperor in Zosimus is reported to seek for cure from one wickedness to another) interpreting affirmatives by Negatives, and Negatives by Affirmatives. And then 4. The very plainest Texts of Scripture are made by them to be the hardest. For such Texts sure must needs be hardest whose sense is made to be contrary to the signification of the words, whose proper end it should be, not to conceal, but express the meaning of the Speaker. Now when 
4.  God saith expressly (as if he would make it impossible for any mortal to misconceive him) that Christ is the Saviour, the Propitiation, the taster of Death, not only for all men, but for every man, not only for the world, but for the whole world, and to prove he speaks of 
** God's intention is showed to prove the sadness of their distinction, when they say he is sufficiently, but not intentionally the Saviour of the whole world. Compare Joh. 1. 7, 9 with Joh. 3. 15. ☜  an * intention to save them all without exception (if by the wickedness of their wills they do not frustrate his * Inten●ion, as the greater part of men do, by not accepting his offer, and not performing the conditions on which his offer is made) he professeth he is not willing that 
Mr. Hooker saith, God hath a general inclination that all should be saved, Eccl. Polit. l. 5. ect. 49.  any should perish, but [on the contrary] that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3. 9 what other man then Mr. B. could imagine the meaning of it to be, that he is verily and indeed the Propitiation, and Saviour, and taster of Death for a very small number, for here and there one, perhaps not the twentieth, or fourtieth, or hundredth part of the world? and that he was very willing (so as to Decree it from all Eternity, and that by an absolute and necessitating Decree) that almost all the world should perish, and perfectly 
* Note here that Dr. Twiss doth affirm God's will revealed to us in his word, to be improperly called his will. But he feigneth another will, to be properly called his will, which is contrary to his will revealed in his word, I. 1. pat. 1. Digr. 10. c. 12. p. 140. and this Mr. B. asserts in his p. 66, 67. as I shall show anon.  unwilling that the far greater part of mankind should come to Repentance? (so as to leave them in the state of a most desperate impossiiblity, which cannot but be followed with unavoidable impenitence?) thus they ch●●ge God Almighty with mental Reservations, and tell the people, he doth not speak as he means, but that his meaning is contrary to what he speaks; that when he saith he is willing that all should come to repentance, it is no more than his revealed will, or volunt as signi] which is not properly called a will, for it only signifieth what men ought to do by right, whereas his secret will is properly called a will, and with that he decreed that very few should come to repentance. And though Mr. B. is fain to say (for want of better excuses) that Dr. Twisse doth speak of those different wills as belonging to different Objects (in his p. 67.) yet I shall prove when I come thither, that he could not but speak against his knowledge, if he consulted the place (as I have done a second time) and if he did not, his case is every whit as bad, in that he 
5.  spoke as if he knew, what he knew he did not know. 5. If the Holy Ghost shall be affirmed not to intend what he speaketh in those plainest places of Scripture, where he saith [all men, and every man, the world, and the whole world, not only, but also, not willing that any, but willing that all, etc.] How are men taught to disbelieve him in all his other affirmations where his expressions are not so plain? how will they preach any man into any one duty, or dehort him from any sin, when they have once showed the way by certain tricks and distinctions to elude such Texts as are the plainest, and do yet explain each other the most that can be imagined? how will they be able out of Scripture to prove their right to Tithes, or to the Ministry, the Sunday Sabbath, Infant Baptism, or indeed the Trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead, for all or any of which they cannot bring either so many, or so direct, or so univocal, or so easy affirmations of Scripture, as I, or any man will urge for Universal Redemption? 6. If any man 
6.  will pretend to hold by Scripture, [that Christ died only for the Elect] for which there is not a word in all the Scripture, with how much a greater force of Reason will the Arian hold his heresy, having the plain letter of the Text, [my 
b Joh. 14. 28  Father is greater than I?] or the Romanist his Transubstantiation upon his better pretensions from [
c Mat. 26. 27 7.  This is my Body?] 7. When Christ is said to be the Saviour of the world, and (more emphatically) the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins 
(d) Joh. 1. 29.  of the world, it must be meant of the whole, or of a part only▪ If Mr. B. will say of the whole, he grants the all that I desire. If he saith a part only, 1. He flatly contradicts the very words of the same Apostle, 1 Joh. 2. 2. where to the world he addeth whole. 2. He must grant it to signify a major part, both according to the 
e Analogum perse positum stat pro famosiori Analogato.  maxim which is in every man's Logic, and because it is ever so used in 
f 1 Joh. 3. 1. 13. c. 4. v. 5, 15.  Scripture. And then 3. he must confess that the Reprobate● make up the major part, and by consequence that Christ is the Saviour only of the Reprobates; which abominable Absurdity he cannot possibly escape but by a full confession of Universal R●lemption. 8. But he will possibly 
8.  grant my premises, and yet by the help of distinction hold fast his Conclusion.  
For he may say Christ died for every man in the world, and was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 
* Of the famous subter●…e of sufficienter, non intentionaliter:  Sufficienter, but not intentionaliter. Yet this is a Refuge which doth but lay him more open, as I shall show many ways. (For since I am upon this subject I am willing to speak of it this once for all, and it is the main hinge upon which all turns and doth depend.) First, if that distinction hath sense in it, 
1.  the meaning of it must needs be this. That Christ had merits sufficient to have ransomed all and every man, (the least drop of his blood was more worth than a world) but he did not 
* Note here that saying of the most learned Bishop Overall— quod vulgato scholae dicto sat is 〈◊〉 ecte traditum erat,] Christum pro omnibus mortuum esse sufficienter, pro electis & credentibus efficaciter, [nisi isti corrupissent exponentes per hypothesin, [fuisset mors christi sufficiens pro omnibus, si Deus & Christus ita intendissent.] Cap. 2. sent. Eccl. Angl. de morte Christi. They corrupted the distinction by their expounding it thus. The Death of Christ had been sufficient for all, if God and Christ had so intended. That is, it was not sufficient for all, because it was not so intended.  intend to ransom all and every one, he in●● d●d all the benefit of his Death and Passion to no●e but those few persons who were elected from all Eternity out of Massa Corrupta, and left the greater part of men who were eternally ●e●ected or passed by in that Mass, to be utterly incapable of being saved by any part of his Merits. Which is as much as to faith, that he might have been their Saviour, not that he is. He might if he would, because his merits were sufficient; but he would not, because he did not intend it; and he could not intend it in the fullness of Time, because he willed the quite contrary before all Time. Whereas the Texts which I alleged do not speak in the Potential, but Indicative Mood. It is not said, he might have been, (for his ability or sufficience) but expressly that he is the propitiation for the sins of all the world. Not aptitudinally, but actually such. Every Smatterer in Logic will be able to tell Mr. B. that from 
† Ab actu ad potentiam bene valet Argumentum. Vice versâ non item.  the act to the aptitude there may be very strong arguing, but there can be none at all from the Aptitude to the Act. And therefore Secondly, if men may say with any truth, That Christ is 
2.  their Saviour whom he neither doth save, nor doth intend to save, and did eternally determine he would not have saveable, and leaves them without the passive p●…er or bare Possibility of being saved, yet might have saved them if he had pleased; then by the very same reason in all respects, a man may say with great Truth, That God is the Creator of a thousand worlds besides this, (and add the distinction not intentionally but sufficiently) because he was able, and might have done it if he had pleased. Or that he was the Destroyer of this very world 5 or 6 years since, because he had been sufficient to have destroyed it, if he had not decreed it a longer time of Duration. Or that every rich man who is worth more than he owes, is truly a payer of all his Debts, (though he neither doth pay them, nor doth intend it, but doth intend the contrary,) because he hath wherewithal, abundantly sufficient, and might do it if he pleased, and were so honestly minded. Suppose that Mr. B. were such a man's Creditor, who should refuse to pay the greater part of the Debt, and yet affirm he paid it all, [sufficienter, non Intentionaliter] explaining himself, that he was sufficient, but never meant it, would not Mr. B. call this a lie, or a Jeer? would he give him any thanks for such a payment? how many myriads of Absurdities must inevitably follow, if that may truly be said to be, which either may be, or might have been, but never was, nor ever will be? But Thirdly, the vulgar 
3.  use of the word [sufficiently] is more unreasonable than so amongst the men of the absolute way. For they infer our Saviour to have been utterly unable and insufficient to have made himself a Ransom for all mankind, whilst they say, as he was God, he had determined the contrary before the Foundations of the Earth were laid. For he was not able to resist himself, or to reverse his irreversible Decree And his Decree of Reprobation (say they) was such. Upon which it follows by their Doctrine, that Christ was not sufficient to have saved all the world, but only those that could be saved; he could not possibly save them, to whom he had denied a possibility, and the very passive power of being saved.  
From all this together it is as clear as noonday, that they who deny him to be the Saviour of all the world intentionally, cannot say with any reason (whilst they keep their old principles) that he is so much as sufficiently the Saviour of them whom he eternally decreed he would not save, but that he is sufficient to have been their Saviour, if from all eternity he had been pleased. But (say they) he was not pleased to be their Saviour; yea he was pleased not to be so, and sure he could not be their Saviour against his will and good 
* Note, that they call the Decree of Reprobation without respect unto sin, The will of God's Good pleasure or the will of likin● (as Mr. B. translateth voluntas beneplaciti in his p. 67.) though God himself swearcth, he hath no pleasure in the Death of the wicked. Ezek. 33. 11.  pleasure. And yet they say, he saved all sufficienter, who did nothing towards it, nor ever had it in his Thoughts. That is to say, [he is their Saviour, because he was able; and he is not, because he would not do what he was able.] So that as often as I meet with that distinction, the only true sense of it seems to me to be this, [we know not well what to say, but are resolved to hold our own. We find we are beaten, but will not yield. We want a good Cause, but yet we have a good courage. We think Christ died not for all the world, but we'll say it with a reserve, because 'tis Scripture.] And therefore one of the 
g Mr. Hobbs of Liberty and Necessity. p. 72. 73.  ab●est of Mr. B. his Party was so far from affirming so absurd a Use of the word sufficient, that he rather chose to fall into a contrary error, and would have nothing sufficient which is not necessary, or (to speak his mind more properly) which doth not necessitate. Whatsoever (saith he) is produced, hath had a sufficient cause to produce it. And therefore also voluntary Actions are necessary. Into such contrary Absurdities even witty men must needs fall who did at first set out from the very same Error. When men are brought to their wit's end, and know not which way to go, and are ashamed to go back, the clearest Truths are sure to smart for't. Whatsoever they suffer in dispute, they stomackfully resolve they will not be silenced. 4. They would make by this distinction, a stranger kind of Amphibologies in holy Scripture, than those that were famous or infamous in the ancient Oracles of the Heathen. For in such sayings as those [ibis red bis nunquam Romane peribis] two contrary things are very equally signified. But in the words of the Apostle there is the greatest simplicity that can be wished. [He is the propitiation, not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world 1 Joh. 2. 2.] There can be no plainer speaking then by [not only] in one clause, and [but also] in another. Yet that distinction above mentioned would make an Amphibolia in those plain words, or a fallacy which is worse. For it makes not only an affirmation of two contrary things, [He is the propitiation for our sins only intentionaliter, and also for the sins of the whole world sufficienter,] but an affirmation and negation of the very same thing, [He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world sufficienter, and he is not the propitiation for the sins of the whole world intentionaliter.] And now 5. That 
5.  what I have said may be useful to such very plain Readers who alone may be in danger of being debauched by Mr. B. I will denudate that distinction by a familiar Illustration. Suppose the King of Spain hath a thousand Christian subjects taken captive by the Turks. He gives as much for the Ransom of 2 or 3 hundred, as would have been required for all the whole Thousand. But he will give the whole sum, because he will; and because he will too, he will have released not all the Thousand, but only two or three hundred, intending all the rest shall be Captives still. And this he will do, to show his power over the greater number, and his partiality towards the lesser. Can that King say with Truth or Modesty, that he is the Redeemer of all those Captives, because he paid a sum of money which had been sufficient to redeem them all, but did not intend that they should be taken into the Bargain? No. It only proves that he is not their Redeemer, but might have been if he had pleased. And that the Turk was less merciless than He, who would have given all back if the King of Spain would have had him. I intent nothing in this similitude, but to illustrate the vanity of that Distinction [He is the Saviour even of Reprobates sufficiently, but not intentionally] That the lowest capacity may not fail to comprehend, how vast a difference there is betwixt the being sufficient to do a Thing, and the doing of a thing sufficiently. Which are fallaciously confounded (the later used for the former) by the necessitous Inventors of that Distinction. And if in the last place I shall observe, that Pelagius himself by 
6.  denying Original sin denied universal Redemption too, and that no Ancient did it so much as He, I suppose Mr. B. will be more Pelagian then I am, or confess (in time) that I have made it appear a Pernicious Heresy. And I have for so doing a very excellent 
h Hist. Narrat. of the Judgement of the most learned and godly English Bishops, holy Martyrs, and others. Whereof Arch Bishop Cranmer, B. Latimer, and B. Hooper, suffered Martyrdom in the days of Q. Mary for the Protestant Religion. p. 11. N. B.  Precedent, in the second or third year of Q. Elizabeth, who flourished in the time of King Edward the sixth and Q. Elizabeth, and in the time of Q. Mary for his conscience sake endured voluntary exile. His words are these. ☞ But this appeareth to be one of Pelagius his damnable Errors, that Christ was not a general Saviour; if Christ offered not up the Sacrifice of Redemption for all the whole world. Contrary to the manifest Scripture. Which saith, he it is that obtained grace for our sins; and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world, 1 Joh. 2. the same also is manifestly declared in these Scriptures following, and many other, 1 Joh. 1. a. b. f. and 12. g. Rom. 5. d. 1 Cor. 8. d. 2 Cor. 5. c. Heb. 2. c. and 2 Pet. 2. a. This Heresy of Pelagius as well as of Mr. B. so directly contrary to the Scripture, he flatly calls damnable, (which is more than I have ever done) and Pelagius himself was so ashamed of it, that he was fain to make a Recantation in the Council of Palestine, (as S. Austin himself declareth Epist. 106. Tom. 2.) I wish Mr. B. may do no worse. Farther yet. That most learned Divine and holy Confessor doth make an excellent Observation from St. Augustine's Recital of the fourth Error of Pelagius, the worthier of all men to be observed (who shall peruse what I am writing) because the Book (I suppose) is not commonly to be had. And further (saith he) there is to be noted, that the first part 
Apud Hist. Nar. p. 10.  of the fourth Error is manifestly the very same which is the second and third Error, before rehearsed, and by the same Scriptures plainly condemned. But to make the latter part of this Error more plain, it was necessary and thought good of 
k Et quod neque per mortem, vel praevaricationem Adae, omne genus humanum moriatur, neque per Resurrectionem Christi omne genus humanum Resurgat. Aug. apud Hist. Nar. p. 6.  St. Augustine, to rehearse the first again. That, by the comparison of condemnation in Adam, and Redemption in Christ, it might the more plainly be perceived, that Christ was not inferior to Adam, nor grace inferior to sin, and that as all the generation of man is condemned in Adam, so is all the generation of man redeemed in Christ. And, as general a Saviour is Christ by Redemption, as Adam is a condemner by Transgression. Which comparison is taken out of St. Paul his Epistle to the Romans; where he saith, 
l Rom. 5. 18.  likewise then, as by the sin of one, Condemnation came upon all men; even so by the justifying of one, cometh the Righteousness, which bringeth life upon all men. Yet shall not all men be condemned, by Adam, eternally; for there is ordained of God again, a way to life; which way is Christ. Neither shall all be eternally saved by Christ. For there is of God DECLARED a way again unto death; which way is sin, and the wilful 
* This should be considered by Mr. B. who asks somewhere, [if Ch. died to save all, why are not all saved?] and (p. 174.) from the fewness of the chosen he would make it a blasphemy to say, that all were seriously called, or that Christ desired the salvation of all. Not having learned that Christ is a conditional Saviour, saving none for whom he died, but such as do what he requires to be done.  contempt of God's mercy in Christ. I have insisted the longer upon this Point, because if this one Error be once disclaimed by the Adversary, all the rest will tumble of their own accord.  
§ 24. His 24. [That I neither do nor 
* Correp p. 4. l. 13. 21. Of the grace of Perseverance.  can maintain no special Grace, as by which any special habits of Grace, viz. of Conversion, Regeneration, Sanctification, etc. are infused into my soul, as any abiding seed of grace, or life of God. For in both my Papers I am highly silent as to these matters, though ad phaler and ●m populum (p. 56.) I make some slight mention of grace infused by God, etc. p. 41.] Yet 1. he confesseth, that in my p. 56.) I do maintain what he saith I cannot. 2. So 
1.  far are those mentions from being slight, that I could not have 
2.  spoken more distinctly, if it had been for a wager, as any 
3.  man will say who reads that page. 3. I there affirm most expressly, not only preventing, and subsequent assisting Grace, but the perfecting grace of Perseverance. And yet is he so strange a speaker as to say, that I neither do nor can maintain any abiding seed of Grace, etc. and this he calls [light Coruscations only,] as if any grace could go farther than the grace of Perseverance unto the end. 4. If I had not mentioned what 
4.  I did, he had sadly argued from a Negative. For many things might be in my opinion which were not set down in those few Papers. By such Logic he may conclude (as some have done against others) that I am a Socinian, because in my Book I do not treat of the Trinity. 5. Being forced to 
5.  confess that I did that, which (in the same period) he said I did not, he is fain to say I did it ad phalerandum populum. Which is as pretty a jest as ere was heard of. For if by that Latin phrase, he meant on purpose to speak nonsense, that no man living might know what he meant, it seems he knew that he was guilty of a falsification. And if by [ad phalerandum] he meant [to deceive] it seems he spoke he knew not what; and thought that that word which comes from phalerae Horsetrappings, had been derived from Fallere to deceive. And so is almost as pitiful a Latinist as he appears to be a Grecian, wheresoever he tampers in those matters; there being hardly a place (at least not many) wherein his very little Greek is not very falsely set down. And because he wisheth that I had writ my Notes in Latin (in his p. 192.) to the end our plain hearted Englishmen might not have understood me, (and adds, he might have been well able to answer me) I cannot but avow I wish it too: for sure he would not then have been so tedious in his correptory Correction. A specimen of whose Latin we have, as here, so p. 90 [multasunt admodum 
* How many faults he hath committed in his [multa rara] and what an English Latinist he is, whose Latin makes him so gay, let any man judge.  rara quae hic inserta fuissent, in marginis Angusti● prohibuisse●.] But especially, p. 197. where he takes [
* Defectio arguit fuisse derelictos. Cujus (supple derelictionis saith Mr. B.) non potest alia adduci causa, quam ☜ reprobatio, etc. p. 197.  derelictos] rather then [defectio] to have been the Substantive, at least the Antecedent to [Cujus the Relative.] Or if it were not a pure want of skill in Grammar, it was very much worse, even a wilful prevarication to excuse Mr. Calvin's making Gods Reprobation the Cause of the Angel's sin of defection. And because that one place is most sufficient to ruin his whole undertaking against that which he calls the pillar of my Book, I will speak of it more in its proper place. 6. If he means by his 
6.  strange Latin, that I only did what he said I did not, either to deceive or to please the people, 'tis gratis dictum, like the rest. And he may say as well, I am a speculative Atheist, because when I make any mentions of God, they are but slight mentions ad phalerandum populum.  
§ 25. His 25th. [That I am for a mere conditional consequent 
Of Preventing Grace and Free will.  Grace, which finds my will so busy and active as to be not only pragmatical in my temporal vocation, (but lo what an active thing T. P's will is) but even in my very election, p. 42.] When the Reader is still treated with such mere inventions, and perfectly groundless, it might be sufficient to answer them all with a short denial, and with a desire to Mr. B. that he will henceforward set down my words, and not his own in my name. But because this Calumny (as the rest) is not only disagreeable, but even contrary to the Truth, I shall vindicate myself by saying these few things. 1. That in my p. 56. I 
1.  affirmed the quite contrary to what he inventeth. Particularly, [we cannot take what God doth offer, unless he give us the hand of Faith. Nor can we possibly desire to take it, unless he gives us our very appetite and hunger. There is no good thought arising in us unless suggested by his Preventing grace; nor increased unless strengthened by his subsequent grace, etc. 2. In the p. 69. of my published Notes which he citeth, there 
2.  is not any the least mention of what he chargeth that page withal; he might as well have referred to any page as to that. 3. He is fain to refer his Reader to p. 11. of a Manuscript 
3.  which secretly lurketh in his Study, to which I am as great a stranger as any other of his Readers. A●d he might have said as he did before, (with every whit as much reason) that he was told it by a Reverend Minister. 4. I never spoke so much towards it as St. Austin himself. For Mr. B. confesseth there 
4.  was a time, when Austin knew not that Faith was the gift of God, (p. 186.) and Hilary himself (a great Admirer of Austin) affirmeth Austin to have said upon the Epistle to the Romans (which was after his conversion, when he was no bab,) 
* Quod enim credimus, nostrum est, quod autem operamur illius. August: apud Hilar. Basil. Edit. p. 679. Of the Grace of Perseverance. I.  it is of ourselves that we believe, but of God that we work. which is more liable to the charge that Mr. B. lays against me, than any thing I ever said, or thought. It having been always my belief, that Faith as well as works is the gift of God, although the one before the other. And so I declared p. 56.  
§ 26. His 26. [That I am for no special, abiding, lasting, continued grace, &c, p, 42.] Yet (in my p. 56.) I expressly assert the grace of Perseverance. Which I there do call a perfecting Grace, by which the rest are consummate. So p. 69. I assert a perseverance in well doing unto the end. And would Mr. B. have any thing beyond the end? or more lasting than everlasting? nothing that I say can ever please him, unless I will do him the favour to say something which he may rationally accuse without the help of his Invention. 2. He 
II.  adds my saying p. 67. that many Infants in Christendom who in their harmless Nonage were babes of Grace (for such were my words) have yet outlived their Innocence. But First, 
1.  do I infer that there is no abiding Grace, by saying that some do not abide? might not John persevere, though Judas fell? I may infer as rationally that Mr. B. deemeth Christ died for any, from his denial of his dying intentionally for all. 2. What I said in that place of many out-living their harmless 
2.  Nonage, first is evidently true by our every-days experience. 
1.  For Judas was not a Traitor whilst he was hanging at his mother's Breast. He did not then keep the Bag. He was covetous only of milk, and not of money. It was long enough after his Infancy when the Devil entered into his heart 
2.  John 13. 2. Nor 2. doth Mr. B. offer one word to prove 
3.  the contrary. Nor 3. doth he invalidate my proofs out of Scripture, or Antiquity, (not Tertullian only, but Austin too) which gives Instances in men of very 
†— credendum est, quosdam— in ●ide quaeper dilectionem operatur incipere vivere, & aliquandiu fideliter & justè vivere, & postea cadere, neque de hac vitâ priusquam hoc iis contingat auferri. Aug. de correp & Gra. c. 13. p. 1647.  ripe Ages, whereas I spoke in the most advantageous manner that was possible, of harmless Infants, who having been baptised into a membership of the Church, have lived long enough to be very far from being harmless. For nemo repent fit p●ssimus. The Infant's Father is not presently at his worst, much less the Infant. 4. For want of an Argument, He adds a Jeer, which toucheth not me, but the God of all Grace. 
* So in his p. 217. he calls the very power of resisting God's Grace (which is not an act of resisting, and so not guilty, and which God himself was willing we should have) a wretched, miserable, lying, sinful power.  His words are these [A goodly special Grace sure, which hath all these mischievous qualifications. p. 42.] Hear o Heavens, and give ear o Earth! every measure of God's Grace which is not irresistible is called [goodly] by a Gibe, and is said by a blasphemy to have [mischievous qualifications.] 
— o quis Iniqui  
Tam patiens oris! tam ferreus, ut teneat se!  Upon the first reading of the words I am tempted to some 
Of Grace Resistible.  Impatience. But I will resist it as a Temptation, and only calmly reprove my Corrector, and set before him the th●ngs that he hath done. There are that 
m Eph. 4. 30.  grieve the spirit of God. There are that 
n 1 Thes. 5. 19  quench him. There are that always 
o Act. 7. 51.  resist the holy Ghost.. And sure the Paraclete is not grieved before he comes to comfort, or to convince. The spirit is not resisted before he strives. The Fire is not quenched before 'tis kindled. Where lie the mischievous qualifications, whereby Grace is resisted, the Holy Ghost grieved, the spirit quenched? Sure not in the Grace of God's spirit, nor in the spirit of Grace, but in the wills of the wicked who love 
p Joh. 3. 19  darkness rather than light. We find that silver may become dross, because it 
q I●a. 1. 22.  did. And the faithful City may grow a Harlot. 
r Verse 21.  Murder may, and hath dwelled, where Righteousness and Judgement were wont to lodge. The Dross and the Harlot were none of God's Creatures. God made Jerusalem a faithful City, and that by the gift of his special Gra●e; but 'twas her own wicked will that made her a Harlot; which it could not have done, if that special Grace had been irresistible. Saul had once the spirit of God, and with 
s 1 Sam. 10. 22.  humility refused a Kingdom. But after his preferment, he grew 
t ch. 15. 8, 9  covetous, 
u ch. 23. 14.  envious, 
w ch. 14. 44.  cruel, 
x ch. 28. 7.  profane, and in a desperate manner procured his own 
y ch. 31. 4.  Death. Yet God forbid that we should say, that the Talon of Grace which he abused was a goodly Grace by an Irony, or that it had mischievous qualifications. 
Exo. 32. 33.  Whosoever hath sinned against me (said God to Moses) him will I blot out of my book. Whosoever is blotted out is therein employed to have been written, and that implies a special Grace. But the mischievous qualification is in him that sinneth.  
How shall I hope to be spoken well of by Mr. B. who speaks so bluntly ill of the Grace of God, if it is not such as he would have it? but (if we will take it upon his bare word) He is sure (in his following lines p. 42.) that all the Orthodox in all Ages have maintained the contrary. Indeed the contrary to what he holds. The Scholar and 
a Ex regeneratis in Christo Jesu quosdam relict● fide & pijs moribus, apostatare à Deo, & impiam vitam in suâ aversione ●i●ire multis (quod dolendum est) probatur exemplis, sed horum l●psum Deo ascribere, immodicae pravitatis est. Quast ideo ruinae ●psorum Impulsor a●que author sit, quia illo● ruituros propriâ ipsorum voluntate, praescivit & ob hoc à filijs perditionis nullâ predestinatione discrevit. Prosper. ad Gall. object. 7. vide ●tiam 3. & 3. ob.  Follower of S. Austin shall speak for all. Who in vindication of his, and Austin's Doctrine from the Calumnies of the French men, said the very same words which I shall say in the same case, [That many men who were regenerate in Jesus Christ, forsaking their Faith, and godly manners, do apostatizo from God, and finish their wicked lives in that Aversion, is proved by many examples, (the more is the pity) but to ascribe their fall to God, were immoderately wicked. As if he were therefore the Impulsor, or Author of their ruin, because he foresaw that they would fall away by their own mere wills, and even for this reason did not sever them by predestin●…im from the sons of perdition. etc. If it be duly considered, who spoke those words, and to whom, and upon what occasion, Mr. B. surely will call back his hasty words; or else by all the Orthodox, he must confes● he means none but such as are exactly of his opinion▪ and then the upshot of his saying is only this, [that all agree with him in judgement who do not differ.]  
§ 27. His 27th, [That I frequently relinquish Scripture, 
Of Scripture, Tradition, and right reason.  and Tradition, for the courting of right reason. Which some of my faction give out to be, even since the Fall, incorrupt. and to be appealed unto against the Judgement of the whole Ancient and Modern Church. p. 43. 44.] Here again are as many falsities as in so many words can be expressed. For 1. it is 
1.  evidently the Method of my Notes to give Scripture the first place, universal Tradition the second, and right Reason the third. Which is not to relinquish, but to prefer the former. Scripture before Reason, and the public reason of the whole Church before the private reason of myself, or of other particular men. 2. As he names no place wherein I do what 
2.  he affirmeth, so am I not able to conjecture what pretence he can have for that suggestion; unless it be this one, that when I have done with Scripture, and Antiquity, I proceed to Reason, and so he thinks it a witty thing to call the finishing of a Subject, the relinquishing of it. He may say in this sense, That S. John the Evangelist (ch. 1. v. 19) doth relinquish the Divinity and Office of Christ, for the courting the Testimony of John the Baptist, because he leaveth the former (having spoken of it sufficiently) and falleth in hand with the later. And so the Author to the Hebrews may be said by Mr. B. to relinquish the principles of the Doctrine of Christ. 3. There are none of my Religion (which he is every where so civil as to call my Faction) nor yet of my Acquaintance, who give out Reason, 
3.  since the Fall, to be incorrupt. I for my part did avow my being subject to errors (p. 1. 〈◊〉) and my having once erred the same errors with those men who now oppose me for my conversion (pag. 48.) Mr. B. himself is much more liable to this accusation, because in all his Articles of his new Creed, he is as peremptory as a Pope. Nor can I find him confessing that he ever erred, or was mistaken in all his life, 4. Nor do any of my Principles appeal to Reason against the 
4.  Judgement of the whole ancient and modern Church. But on the contrary, would have things decided by that Authority, which Mr. B. and his Teachers have set at naught; and thence are worsted so frequently in their Disputes, not only by the learned, but by the unlearned part of the Independents. They having said such things against the Authority of Tradition and the universal Church, when they contended with Bishop Hall and other Assertors of the Hierarchy, that whilst those dictates stand unrevoked, they are utterly unqualified to prove the baptism of Infants, the Sunday-sabbath, the very Canon of Scripture, the Apostolicalness of the Creed, or their pretensions to the Ministry, more than any other men▪ 5. Mr. B. unwarily confesseth (p. 43.) that with me tria 
5.  sunt omnia, these three things are all in all; Scripture, Tradition, and Right Reason. Now since nothing is substracted from the Authority of the Scripture by the addition of suffrages both from public and private Reason, (Tradition being useful to convey the Canon of Scripture to us, and reason as well useful to explain it where it is hard, as to understand it where it is easy) I know not how Mr. B. could have spoken more to his own disadvantage, or my commendition. And that he may not say that I am Popishly affected for the reverence I bear to universal Tradition, and the Mother Church, (as sometimes he doth) I will here put him in mind of Mr. Bal●'s own words. The 
* Pulpit. Patron. part. 2. c. 2. p. 197. Sect. 7.  best way to find out what the Scriptures have determined in Ecclesiastical affairs, is to observe the practice of the Universal or Catholic Church of Christ in all successions and Ages from that time unto this. For no doubt the Apostles made known their minds to those that lived with them, would not enjoin what they themselves had never practised— we should therefore in matters Ecclesiastical be guided and directed very much by the Annals and Actions of the Church, and those believers that succeeded in the Apostles Rooms [of which Ignatius was one] and bequeathed their practice unto succeeding generations. This indeed seemeth to me one of the very best arguments in all that Book. And I wish it were considered in all Cases, as well as in hat wherein 'tis urged. For the Ecclesiastical Levellers were in all probability the true Parents of all the Levellers in the Civil State. And if this Argument is valid for the Patronage of the Pulpit (which is so different now, in all kinds, from what it was in the Primitive Church,) how much more for those things, which Mr. B. hath resisted with so much v●hemence? 6. It is a very great Ignorance, or a 
6.  strange wilfulness of Deceit, by which Mr. B. doth call a small number of men who (I may say) are but of yesterday, not only the whole Church, but the whole both Ancient and Modern Church. For the one thing that he refers to is Castellio's Preface. And there 'tis certain, that the unlgus are they who believe what is plain by common sense. And that the quidam literati are some of his Time, (Mr. Calv●n, and the like,) who persecuted him for his opinions. For it follows, [
* Sed quia multum laborant liberati quidam, ut per suadeant hominibus ●a non esse quae sentiuntur, hoc est ut hominibus ●culos effodiant, nos laborabimus in hoc errore re●●llendo. Sebast. castle. in Pref. ad Dia●.  because some learned men do much labour to persuade the people, that such things are not as are evidently seen, that is, that that they may pull out the people's Eyes, we also will labour in the refelling of this error. And for the ingenuous confession of Castellio's Prefacer, [that by those certain learned men, is meant the Ancient and Modern Church since Austin] (as Mr. B. prodigiously affirmeth) on the contrary, Felix Turpio, that Praefacer, speaketh only of a few, and even of those very times, and of them he speaks very 
* Itaque factum est, ut plerique eorum qui nostrâ memoriâ Christianae Religionis notitiam funditus propemodum eversam instaurare sunt aggressi, ad hunc lapidem offend●rint▪ & cae●eris Antiquioribus omnibus spretis, unum Augustinum aut secuti, aut certe se sequi persuasi, tam absurdam, imo nefariam & detestandam opinionem, (quâ, velint nolint, Deus & peccati primus auctor, & egregius simulator, atque proh scelus, turpiter mendax, & injustus, esse neces●ario concluditur, ac pietas universa convellitur) imprudentes pro salutis nostrae praecipuo quodam fundamento obtruserint. Viderunt hoc non pauci viri praestantissimi qui in plerisque satanae imposturis detegendis cum illis ipsis consenserunt. Nec tanto malo obviam ire neglexerumt. Atque ut eo● qui adhuc vivunt silentio praeteream, ex iis vero qui obdormierunt, quatuor tantummodo praecipuos commemorem, etc. Felix Turp. in Praef. ad castle.  sharply, as those that despised all the rest of the Ancients and only followed one Austin, at least persuaded themselves that they followed him, and that before they were aware, they obtruded so absurd, yea so impious, and detestable an opinion, (as that by which they made God to be by necessary consequence the first Author of sin, an egregious dissembler, a liar, and un●ust, and by which all piety is plucked up by the root) for a special Fundamental of our Salvation. That many of the first Reformers did endeavour the prevention of so great a mischief, amongst whom then living he only reckons the four chiefest. viz. Erasmus against Luther his servum Arbitrium, Theodorus Bibliander against Peter Martyr, and Philip Melancthon (who at first followed Luther, but after acknowledged his Error, and maintained the contrary with perseverance unto the end) and Sebasti●nus Castellio. This is the sum of what is said by that ingenious Prefacer in that place, so destructively contrary to Mr. B his Party and opinions, and to the invention lying before us under examination, that I cannot but make him this Dilemma. Either he understands the Latin Tongue, or he doth not. If he doth, he must confess he is a wilful Impostor, and did put his trust in the Readers ignorance, or want of leisure to examine the Truth of his Citations. And if he doth not understand Latin (which will be the best of his plea) I will leave it to be conjectured in how many respects he is to be blamed. 7. If by the whole 
7.  Ancient and Modern Church he means the 8. or 9 men whom he enjoins me to study next to the holy Book of God (p. 194.) whom he groundlessely believes to be exactly for his turn, (granting him his supposition) his profound meaning will be this, [That they do make up the whole Church of God who are precisely of his Opinion; and they are all of his opinion who think precisely as He doth.  
§ 28. His 28th. [That my concession in the beginning of 
Of the cause of punishment eternal. ☜  Chap. 3. that every Reprobate is praedetermined to eternal punishment, is directly at daggars drawing with my almost whole Chap. 2. where I strenuously dispute, that God determins none 
1.  to punishment, p. 45.] 1. What Text is there in the Scripture which may not be made by Mr. B. his arts to be at daggers drawing with some other Texts? had he been so upright, as to have named the next words, [not by God's irrespective, but conditional Decree] he had had no place for this invention. Suppose a man say that [God is a God of purity] in one place of his Discourse, and in another, that [God is not the God of uncleanness] would it not be thought a dishonest part in an Opponent, to say he speaks contradictions, [God is a God, & God is not a God,] concealing the two terms which alone did make the two contrary Praedications? I have but put his Case into other colours that the plainest Reader may see how odious ' 'tis. I never said in my life that God determins none to punishment (there making a period, as Mr. B doth;) but God determins none to punishment without respect or consideration of their Transgressions. He doth determine respectively, but irrespectively he doth not. So that in case I had spoken any such words in my second Chap. Mr. B. had committed a great trespass. But 2. In all that Chapter there are not any 
2.  such words that I can find, nor in any part of my Book, (nor in any Book I ever saw, as Mr. B. hath set them down.) My Thesis there is no worse, than what is asserted by our 
* Bishop Hall in his Select Thoughts Medit. 34. & 35. p. 102, 103, to p. 107.  Divines who were at Dort. viz. [That the Cause of Damnation is not on God's part, but that man himself is the 
* Quicquid ad aeternam damnationem ducit miseros mortales, & in gehennam praeeipi●at▪ id omne nob●s nostrisque Demeritis imputemus, & à Deo longè face●●ere jubeamus. Senten. Davenan. p. 20. this is just the Sense & meaning of my words, which I spoke as M. Hooker did, when he said, [our self we condemn as the only causes of our own misery. l. 5. Sect. 72.  sole cause of his eternal punishment, p. 20.] and what is this to the denial of God's eternal determination, that he would punish this or that man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings? Jer. 17. 10. it was only used as a Topick whereby to prove, that God's eternal determination to punish sinner's was not made without regard or respect unto their sins. But Mr. B. doth not understand how the meritorious cause of punishment can be also the efficient, (p. 95.) I am not to be reviled for another man's want of understanding; but I will endeavour to give it light.  
And first, I will tell him, that his Definition of Causa efficiciens 
Of the cause of punishment.  [cujus vi res fit] is not adequate to the thing defined; and only shows he will be tampering in matters, to which (in all likelihood and appearance) he was never trained up. Before he adventured to deny what I affirmed concerning the efficient cause of punishment, he should have looked round about him, and have studied the Subject of which he spoke. He should have considered within himself, that Causa efficiens in general is 
a Biel in 2. d. 1. q. 5. act. 1.  Causa quae extrinsecè producit aliud, cujus ipsa non est pars. And then have inquired after the species by these Dichotomies. Causa alia per 
b Soncinas 12. Met. q. 3.  se agit, alia per Accidens. Causa efficiens per se est vel totalis, vel partialis. Causa Totalis vel sufficiens, vel adaequata. Causae partiales (quae & sociae dicuntur) sunt vel ejusdem, vel diversi ordinis. And again these latter must be considered, secundum latitudinem, vel secundum vim agendi. Quoad Latitudinem, alia est universalis, alia particularis. Secundùm vim agendi, alia est Principalis, alia instrumentalis. Again the Causa principalis (as 'tis considered in 
c Scot in 4. d. 1. quaest. 1. & ibid. Gabriel.  4. manners, so) is either magis, or minus principalis. And the later is motiva primae. And this being of two sorts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sin will be found to be exactly the later of these two. For the will of man (in strict speaking) is the immediate efficient cause of his sin, (that is to say) of determining itself to this or that thing, which is forbidden by God Almighty, and is so the immediate efficient of that, which is the motive to, or meritorious efficient Cause of punishment; (that is) the efficient of the efficient. But for fear Mr. B. should not be able to understand what is Metaphysical, (and I may very well fear it, whilst I find him so unintelligent in these affairs, as to say that a Cause is not efficient, because it is meritorious, which is as if he should have said, it is not efficient, because it is efficient,) I will open myself to him [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the grossest and most familiar and plainest manner that he can wish. And I will do it so much the rather, because he complains in several places of his book, that he hath plumbeous Cerebrosities (to use his own Bombast) to be indoctrinated.  
He knows the Parent is the efficient Cause of the Child. And he knows the relation betwixt the sinner and the sin, the sin and the punishment, is expressed in Scripture by that of a Father to a Child (Joh. 8. 4.) the Devil is a liar, and the Father of it. And by that of a Mother to a Child, (Jam. 1. 15.) lust conceaving [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] bringeth forth sin [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and sin being finished bringeth forth Death. From such Texts as those, [O Israel thou hast destroyed thyself Hos. 13. 6. And they shall bring upon themselves swift destruction 2 Pet. 2. 1.] Man is concluded suppliciorum suorum Faber. He is the parent of his sin, his sin of his punishment, which is not the less its offspring because it is its wages too. Rom. 6. 23. on the contrary, the sinner is therefore the efficient, because the meritorions Cause; for he could not make to himself a punishment, unless by sin he did deserve it. By one man (saith the Apostle) Sin entered into the World, and Death by Sin. Romans 5. 12. Now the Cause of the Cause is the Cause of the effect. The Father of the Father is (we know) the Grandfather: but the sinner we find is more, in relation to his punishment; not only its immediate, but only Parent. For sin being an accident cannot exist without the subject of its Inherence. It's very being is in concreto. It is impossible to fancy or imagine sin without the connotation of some kind of sinner. Sin in the abstract cannot be, much less be active without the sinner, nor by consequence effective of any thing whatsoever. And although we speak catachrestically true when we say that sin is the Cause of Punishment; yet our speaking is more exact, when instead of sin we say the sinner. Wilful man effects his ●…n (and so is causa efficiens) and being, by sin, become a sinner, effects his punishment, because his sin. (and so is causa efficiens still.) Which Mr. B. and his Masters not considering, or not conceiving, have ruined themselves with the distinction of sins not having an efficient, but only a 
* Correp. Corr. p. 33. 135. 178. Of the Cause of sin, not deficient, but efficient; which shall be spoken of again ch. 4. Sect. 21. 1.  deficient Cause, which will infer it not an efficient, but only a deficient cause of punishment, since it cannot have more of Entity than the cause of its production.  
But the pitifulness of that distinction will soon appear. For 1. If man is the cause of sin, and not efficient, he must then be either the material, or Formal, or Final Cause; for if the deficient Cause be none of these, 'tis not a cause. (Nor will any man pretend that it is either of those three.) And if it is not a Cause, then hath sin no real being, because no Cause. And so it cannot be, in any sense, the Cause of punishment; and so God will be jnferred to punish men without Cause. 2. Malum non habere Causam efficientem, (when said by 
2.  any in the Metaphysics) is the same thing as to say, malum est non ens. For as that must be something which is caused by something, so out of nocause we know that no-effect can be produced. Efficient, and effect, are reciprocally converted both in the affirmative, and in the negative. So that where there is no-efficient there is no-effect; that is to say, there is nothing. But Mr. B. saith expressly, that sin hath no-efficient, (as in 
z Correp. Cor. p. 55.  other places, so in his p. 79, and his reason is, because it wholly consists in a deficiency,) and by consequence is nothing; and so according to him, men are punished eternally for just nothing in the world. 3. If wicked man is no 
3. How God is inferred by Mr. B. to be more the Cause of sin then man is, or can be.  more than the deficient cause of sin, he is not so much the cause of it, as God himself, in their account, who say he [absolutely] wills that sin shall fall out (p. 78.) and that he doth determine it shall be done. (p. 79.) that he did voluntarily decree it should fall out (p. 73.) that his permissive will of sin is efficacious (p. 196. & p. 54.) that he* creates, and* commands it, and by no less than an* impulse excites men to it. That 
*** All this and more is asserted by Mr. B. in his asserting the 10. citations which I produced at the entrance of my Notes, from his 59 page as far as p. 68  Gods will is as (a) efficacious in relation to sin, as in the production 
〈◊〉 a Vtramque voluntatem agnoscimus esse efficacem, ut cui nemo possi● resistere. Twiss. Vin Gra. l. 1. part. 1. Sect. 12. p. 140. of which I shall speak ch. 4. Sect. 42.  of good; and so efficacious, as to be (a) irresistible, and by consequence to necessitate sin. So that their distinctions of a permissive and effective will, or of efficient and efficacious, cannot stand them in any stead, and are made appear to be but figleaves to cover the nakedness and the shame of those frightful expressions (as Mr. B. himself calls them by a periphrasis p. 56.) For Dr. Twisse saith plainly, [
b Voluntas divina non minus est efficax ad praestandum quod peccatum sit, permittend●, quam ad praestandum quod bonum sit, efficiendo. Id. ibid.  That the Divine will is no less efficacious to the doing of that which is sin (permittendo) then to the doing of that which is good (efficient do.) To what purpose doth he distinguish those two members of his period by permittendo & efficiendo, whilst he ascribeth as great an efficacy to the will of God in the production of sin, as in the production of virtue? for the word [praestandum] is used in both, and so is the word [efficax.] And a [non minus] in the one, implies a [non magis] in the other. Nor will it help him much to say, He meant no more by efficacious permission, than Gods withdrawing his Grace and all other hindrances, which he might interpose to keep from sin. For this will have no place at all in all those sins which are committed against his Grace. Grace being not withdrawn whilst 'tis receiving resistance, but after 'tis resisted. When God calls, and enables and moves us to obedience, and only doth not force us to it, or disable us to disobedience, it is abominable to say, He efficaciously permits it. Though God may be said to be efficacious, in making man as he is, (in a peccable conditition) whom he might (if he had pleased) have made impeccable; yet that being supposed, and the same God giving Grace to enable this man at this time, to abstain from the commission of this or that sin, (which needs must be granted in all that resist the grace of God) there can be no new efficacy of God Almighty in thus permitting the sinner, (that is to say) in not forcibly stopping him from that Commission. And to place it without question, that Dr. Twisse intends an equality in the operation of God's will, as to wicked or good Events, he immediately adds not many lines after, [
c Ex quo fit, ut per solam permissionem non minus efficax sit voluntas Dei, quam ex effectione positiuâ. Idem. ib. And here Note, that Piscator doth expound [efficaciously] by [necessarily.] Saying that God doth efficaciously destiny men to sin, so as by the force of his destination men must necessarily sin. Piscat. Notis ad Am. Coll. Vorstij. p. 157.  That the will of God is no less efficacious through his sole permission, then from his positive effection.] By which two last words, [positive, and effection] we may discern what they mean by the abstruse point (as Mr. B. calls it p. 54.) of God's efficacious permission of sin. And the word [efficacious] ab efficiendo, being used in Authors, and set down in Dictionaries, to signify [prevalent, forcible, effectual, available, and the like,] how can that be only a deficient Cause, which is efficacious, determining, ordaining, and irresistible? but God (saith Mr. B. and his Friends) is all that which I have showed from their forecited pages, and man (say they) is but a deficient Cause; therefore God by them, is concluded to be more the Cause of sin, than the very sinner that commits it. 4. If this point is so abstruse, that Mr. B. doth not understand it, why doth he 
4.  talk That into the Universe of Readers, which is arrant gibberish to himself? but if it is not so abstruse, why doth he talk off and on, affirming and denying the very same thing? E. G. in his p. 79. he saith the sinning Creature is the sole efficient Cause of his sin. Yet in his p. 55. he said that sin hath no efficient 
☞  Cause. Again p. 79. he saith that sins very Being is consisting in a deficiency. And by the word [Being] he needs must mean its existence, and so doth confess it to be something real. For that must be something which God ordaineth. And he saith directly, that 
d Correp. Cor. p. 178.  every thing is ordained by God, giving no other Instance then that of sin. Which though he affirmeth to be ordained well enough by God, yet he saith it is not effected by him; giving this reason, that sin is only a privative, not a positive Entity. Which is as much as to say, that God can and doth ordain every privative Entity, that is to say, every sin; but he effecteth nothing but positive Entities. The meaning of which (if it is sense) must needs be this, that he ordaineth the commission of sin by his Creatures, but he committeth not sin himself. That is, He is the Cause, but He is not the Instrument; or he is the first Cause, but not the second. He doth it per alios, but not peruse. For if Mr. B. shall plead, that his meaning is only this, that sin is but a privation and so is not effected by any thing, he will rather be in a worse pickle. The conclusion being unavoidably to be this, that no creature can effect sin, and by consequence no creature can commit it. These are some of his vile absurdities, but these are not all. For he presently adds sin hath only a deficient, not an efficient cause. Which being compared with the first words of that period. [every thing may well enough be absolutely ordained by God] doth most evidently infer; that Gods absolute ordination of sin (from whence it receiveth the necessity of its being) is the deficient Cause of sin. For though he should distinguish of Gods ordaining to permit, and not effect it, yet it helps him not at all, if we remember duly, that he means an efficacious permissive will, such as necessitates the thing determined, as much as a positive effection. (as hath been showed.) And he is for a necessity of Infallibility, as well as of Coaction. And to excuse the ugliness of that saying above mentioned, he adds the contradictory to it, God can ordain nothing but good. By which he must mean (unless he retract his other sayings) That sin is good, in as much as it is absolutely ordained by God; but evil in as much as God forbids it, or as it is committed by man. For he saith p. 73. 78. 79. that God doth [absolutely] will, that he doth voluntarily decree, that he doth determine sin shall be done, that it shall fall out or come to pass. 5. It being▪ granted by Mr. B. that 
5.  sin hath a 
e p. 79.  Being, and an 
f p. 178.  Entity, it must also be granted that it either exists of itself, or is effected by something else. He cannot say the former, (that being the privilege of God alone) he must therefore confess the later, that sin is effected by some other thing. And what is effected doth imply an efficient (for they are relata secundum esse, being both founded in the Creature) and so the cause of sin is not only deficient. 6. If the Cause of sin is only deficient, not efficient, 
6.  what will become of the difference betwixt sins of Omission, and sins of Commission? betwixt not praying, and cursing? not giving Alms, and committing Saoriledge? if the Cause of the first were only deficient (which yet is as irrational) yet sure the Cause of the second must needs be efficient. For the Cause must needs be more noble than the effect. And in genere causarum, the deficient (if such there were) would be less noble than the efficient. Now Cursing, and Sacrilege and other sins of Commission (and I may say of Omission too) are effects with a witness. And then their causes cannot be less. 7. Where was the Logic of Mr. B. when he concluded sin to have a cause 
7.  only deficient from its having only a privative Entity? for (admit what he swallows, the merely privative Entity of sin, which yet is most false) can there be any thing so illogicall as to argue the privativenesse or negativenesse of the cause from the privativenesse of the Essect? How many privations are there of which God himself is the first and chiefest cause? the darkness of the night is a privatton of light, which yet was one of the famous works of his Creation, (Gen. 1. 4, 5.) And will Mr. B. say that God is but Causa deficiens, non efficiens tenebrarum? A man is often the efficent cause of his own blindness, sickness, Death itself, which yet are privations of three contrary habits. But 8. 
* Note, that the 19 Article of the Augustan confession, and so Melancthon, do set down the will of the wicked as the positive cause of sin. [Avertitse à deo ad alias res.] And the Ratisbon proposition was conceived in these words. Causam peccati constat esse malam voluntatem Diaboli & hominis se à Deo avertentem. Quae malitia voluntatis, non à Deo, sed ex Diabolo & nobis est. And is the judgement of Cassander In Art. 19 de Causa peccati.  A thing may be privative in one respect, and yet positive in an another. As we find by experience in our sicknesses, and sins. The stone and the Srangury, the Fever, and the Pestilence, are not only privative of health and pleasure, but they are constitutive of sickness, and torment, and destruction itself. So adultery, and murder, and blasphemy and Witchcraft, are not only the absences or mere privations of Grace and virtue, but they do [ponere multifariam] constitute both the species, and degrees of vice. Murder hath some thing of positive in it, by which it differs in kind from all other sins; and in degree from other murders. The disorder of Nature, the confusion of faculties, the resistance made against Grace, the defacing of God's Image, the grieving his Spirit, the dihonouring his Name, & the like, are such attendances of sin, as do enforce it to be more then merely privative. If David's sin of not protecting the life of Vriah, and the chastity of his wife had had no more than a privative entity, yet his murder of the first, and his pollution of the Second could have no less than a positive entity. If the sin of not admonishing or reproving the guilty were merely privative, yet the sin of seducing and perverting the innocent would have something in it to make it positive. If the sin of not obeying the commandments of God did wholly consist in a deficiency, yet would it have something of addition, to rebel with violence against them. We know by experience that there are some of whom we commonly say, they are not good; and rather not very vicious, then very virtuous. Whereas others are not only positively, but superlatively evil. So that according to M. B. one sin would be a privative o● a negative privative, and another Sin would be a Positive Privative. 
9  But 9 It cannot so much as be pretended, that every sin is only privative. For every privation praesupposeth a Habit. Which every sin cannot do. Because a man may be covetous, or cruel, who never was liberal, or compassionate. Which rather implie's a Negation, than a privation of those virtues, which he hath not lost, but never had. So that if those vices have nothing in them of positive, but do wholly consist in a Deficiency, they will not be privative, but negative of Entity, 
10.  that is to say, they will be nothing. 10. To conclude, If there is any Truth in that Proposition, [That there is a deficient cause of sin] it is in a moral signification, [quod qui peccat deficit à regulâ rectae rationis, etc.] that the sinner is wanting or defective in the performance of his duty. But then that will not be sufficient to verify the other part of Mr. B. his assertion, [That sin hath no efficient cause.] Because that Agent that is morally deficient, and in that circumstance faileth, and transgresseth the Law, doth yet effect or produce the action which is so deficient and so irregular. For 1. the Adulterer is without question the efficient cause of his filthy act. 2. The Devil is called by our Saviour the Father of lies; and sure a Father is an efficient. 3. A man by God's grace is the efficient of a good action, and as such, rewardable. And I hope Mr. B. will not say (what is much worse than Pelagian) that man is more the efficient of a good action, then of an evil one. For which he is punishable with much more justice, then rewardable for the other. To conclude. Mr. B. himself is of opinion (in his p. 111. where he thinks it for his turn) that there may be something positive in a privation, and that in death there is so, so far forth as under the notion of punishment, and so is from God the Author of it. Let him now but remember; First, that sin is sometimes under the notion of a punishment, next that death is a privation as much as any sin can be, (and more than some sins can possibly be,) Thirdly, that he allegeth it as the reason (in his p. 55.) why they do not say that God is the Author of sin, even because that sin hath no efficient cause; And then he is forced to conclude in one of these sad inferences, 1. Either that God is not the Author of Death (consisting in a deficiency as well as sin at least) Or 2. that he is the author of sin, (which hath something in it of positive, as well as death at least,) Or 3. That he is the Author of both, (as far as both have any thing of positive in them,) Or 4. That he is the Author of neither (as being not efficient of what consisteth wholly in deficiency.) So miserably entangled is this man in his own unwary, unskilful sayings. But I have not showed him his whole unhappiness. For whilst he argues their denial of Gods being the Author of sin from sins not having any efficient cause (p. 55.) he perceives not that that Reason is as apt to evince, that the sinner himself is not the Author of 
☞  sin, neither man, nor Devil. And then according to Mr. B. either sin hath no author at all, (as consisting wholly in a deficiency p. 55.) or God is the Author of it, (as having something in it of positive p. 111.) or that God its first Author, (as having decreed it from eternity saith Mr. B. p. 73.) and man only the second (as fulfilling in time what was decreed from Eternity, p. 79. 135.) From all which Absurdities, which do naturally grow from his Principles and distinctions, we must conclude by way of Refuge, that it is not for a Small-thing (a mere defect or privation) much less for Nothing (of which there is not a cause efficient) that God doth punish wicked men in a bottomless lake of fire and Brimstone, where the Recompense or 
* Deut. 32, 35  Revenge is not only not finite, but of eternal duration too.  
3. And now M. B. I hope hath learned how (by sin's having 
A return to the point at first proposed. The cause of of punishment.  an efficient cause) the Sinner becomes the cause Efficient of his eternal punishment. Not of Hell, (the place of his punishment) nor of the Devils or the Fire (which are the Instruments of his punishment) for they are substances of God's Creating, and in genere substantiarum are very good. And this was but the grossness of Mr. B. his mistake, to deny that the Sinner is the Cause of his Damnation, because he did not 
h In his p. 97.  make Hell which is the place of Damnation. So he asks if the Judges do let the Malefactors be the efficients of their 
k Ibid.  Gibbets, Racks, Rodds etc. Forgetting that the Carpenter is the efficient of such as these, which are the Instruments wherewith to punish, not punishment itself. Now that which I said was plainly this, That (God having ordained that such 
(l) Causa efficiens, positis omnibus ad agendum requisitis, necessary producit effectum.  Causes as Sin should be productive of such effects as punishment, and that Sin being committed even to final Impenitence should become that Requisite to the production of punishment, which being supposed must needs be followed with its effect) man is the sole efficient Cause of his eternal punishment; that is to say, he is the Cause of his being punished, of deriving upon himself a right to punishment; not of the Torments of Hell in themselves (which others suffer as well as he, and which would have been Torments to others, though he had not felt them,) but of his suffering the Torments of Hell; or of the appertaining of those Torments to himself; or of committing those sins of which those Torments are unavoidable effects.  
Thus though God is the Maker, and so the Father of 
Note, that these are meant for illustrations and not as additionals to the arguing part.  mankind, yet he having ordained, (not to make every man, as he did Adam, out of the Earth; nor every woman as he did Eve, out of the man's left side; but) that by the union of man and woman, both men and women should be produced; we truly say that the Parents are the efficient Causes of their Sons and Daughters. It is not (as Mr. B. doth inconsiderately suppose) either the Lawgiver or the Law by whom and which a Felon is ordained to be hanged. It is not the Plaintiff, the witness, the Counsellor, or the Judge, the jury, the Gaoler, the Sheriff, or the Gibbet, it is not the Carpenter who made the Gibbet on which the Felon is to be hanged, nor the Hangman by whom, nor the Halter with which; it is not any, nor all of these, to which the Death of the Felon or Malefactor can be so imputable, as to himself. He is therefore the most considerable efficient, who by the Malefaction of his Felony did 
m Wisd. 1. 16.  call Death to him, and 
n Verse 1●.  pulled destruction upon himself with the work of his hands, (as the Book of Wisdom speaks of the greatest punishment of all.) his (o) conceiving of 
Jam. 1. 15.  his sin (o) brought forth his punishment. All the Catalogue of Requisites to the condition of his punishment did no more than give a due connexion of the Cause to its effect. His ma●efaction was the Root from which his punishment did grow, and so his sufferings are but the 
p Jer. 17. 10. & ch. 6. v. 19  fruit of his guilty doings. He 
q Wisd. 1. 12.  sought out death in the error of his life; and is but 
r Prov. 1. 31. ch. 14. v. 14.  filled with his Devices. He hath 
s Isa. 3. 9 4.  rewarded evil unto himself. 4. One sin sometimes becomes the Punishment of another, and the greater of the less. In which case (say I) the former sin is the Cause and efficient Cause of the later. Which if Mr. B. shall deny, he must (according to his reasonings against my second Chapter) affirm God the efficient of the greater sin, and man only (the efficient, or rather) the Deficient of the lesser; because the greater sin which follows is the punishment of the lesser which goes before; and he denieth that man is the efficient Cause of his punishment. But if he shall not deny it, he grants the whole Cause against which he hath taken such exceeding great pains. Unless he can give a solid reason, why a Man, who by Sin is the Cause of one punishment, may not also by more sin become the Cause of another. 
5.  From whence it follows, (5.) That the Scripture speaks very truly, and properly, when it connecteth punishment with six by a conjunction Causal. Such as [
t Prov. 1. 29. 31. Ma●. 25. 4●. Psal. 81. 11. 12. Rom. 1. 21, 24, 25, 26. Jer. 6. 19 6.  For. And wherefore. and therefore, and because.] Nor was it nonsense or a lie which was said by Solomon, that the wicked shall eat of the fruit of their own way, and the turning away of the simple shall slay them. Prov. 1. 31, 32. And therefore (6) It was judiciously spoken of Mr. Hooker (who hardly knew to speak otherwise) 
u Hooker Ec●. Polit. l. 5. Sect. 72. ☞ The Reverend Bp. Hall saith the same in effect in his 34th Select Thought p. 103. 104. comparing a Reprobate to one that is a Felon of himself. Bishop Davenant also is express, that the Original and Cause of all Evils is not founded in God Reprobating, but in the Reprobates themselves. And that there is no such Decree of God by which Reprobates should be forced to Sin and Perish, but always they Perish by their own voluntary Unbelief and Impiety, Free, and not Constrained. Which how contrary it is to the common doctrine of Sub and Supralapsari●ns, I shall show by my Citations, when I come to the 63 page of Mr. B.  ourselves we condemn as the only Causes of our own misery. Let the Reader compare Mr. Hooker's saying and mine, and judge which is liable to most exception. He saith, the Causes of Misery, but I of Punishment. He saith the only Causes, I the only efficient. And where Mr. B. doth pretend to wrest the suffrage of so great an Author out of my hand (in his p. 86) he spoils his very pretensions in these few words, (which confirm the saying of Mr. Hooker, and much more mine;) [All that he saith hath been most readily consented 
☜  unto by men,— less liked by you.] After this he adds something in pretence of exposition to hooker's words, so perfectly impertinent either to hooker's meaning, or his own purpose, as showeth his necessity exceeding great. He will only say something that his Reader may not see he hath nothing to say. Mr. B. there saith, (p. 86.) that even those very things of which Gods absolute Will is the Cause, yet as they stand in relation to each other they have many other causes and laws besides Gods absolute will. (And this he saith that Mr. Hooker doth say in effect.) But first it is as contrary to that saying of Hooker which I produced as any thing can be spoken. Secondly I ask, are those words true of Sin itself, (in Mr. B. his account) and are they less true of punishment? 7. The 
7.  repeated saying of Melancthon in that part of his works in which he used his greatest Care and writ with greatest consideration, (as appears by his 
w— eo majore con●ilio & Religione scribi deb●bant.— quare majore curâ ac studio illa artis vestigia confector.— religionem & fidem, quam debemus rebus sacris prae●tare studui— etc. Melancth. ad Hen. 8. ante loc. Com. Edit. 1536.  Epistle to our King Henry the eighth) will put this matter without all doubt. And so much the rather, because Mr. B. commendeth him (p. 129.) for Depth of learning, Calmeness, Prudence, and Moderation, yea, and as none of my party, yet (saith he) it is certain, 
x Causam Reprob●tionis certum est hanc esse, viz. peccatum in hominibus, & humanam voluntatem.— & paul● inferiùs— Haec de causâ Rejectionis seu Reprobationis certa sunt. Phil. Melancth. in loco Praedestin. p. 316. 317. Edit. Basil. 1562. Causa reprobationis in ipsis est. p. 320. Correp. Cor. p. 129:  that the sin of men, and their will is the Cause of their Reprobation; and to assure us of his meaning, he saith a little after, [The Cause of Rejection and Reprobation.] Which though the same in effect with the words of my Thesis in my Second Chapter, yet are the words of Melancthon much more liable to exception if any such as Mr. B. would quarrel with him; and since Mr. B. doth charge me as an Arminian with falsehood and impudence, as often as I make Melancthon on my party, I will say a few things to show how little of Truth or of Modesty there is in that expression. First, in general it is known by all that are tolerably knowing in such things as these, that as 
* Quam [Lutheri] s●ntentiam postea Philippus Melancton tum in Confession, tum in locis communibus correxit. Cassand: Consult: de Praesci: ad Art: 19 page 134.  Melancthon grew older, and so more learned, and wiser too, he grew an enemy to those opinions which he had formerly been of, and which Mr. B. doth now assert. Next it appears in particular to any man that shall read his common places, [de 
† Confer. Melanct: loc: Com. de Cau. Pec. p. 47. 48. cum Calvin. Inst. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 4. p. 323.  Causâ peccati, & de Praedestinatione] wherein he took as great care to speak the Truth with moderation, as he ever did in any work, (if not much greater,) that he speaks as precisely against the Doctrines of Mr. Calvin, as I have done in my Notes. Nor is it likely that he could be a Calvinist, who is so much in the favour of learned 
* Grotius observes that the Followers of Calvin were fierce and cruel, but the Followers of Melancthon mild and gentle. Vot. pro Pace. p. 18.  Grotius, and Erasmus. But he that was once against 
y Nun Melancthon damnavit Scholas publicas? nune autem dicit, maneant scholae quae bonae sunt; vitia corrigantur. Erasm. in Epist. l. 31. Ep. 59 p. 2127.  Public Schools, might also once have entertained other Errors, and yet afterwards retract as well the one, as the other. Lastly, who ever shall consider how great a Harmony there is betwixt the Augustan Confession, Cassander, and Grotius, in the points of freewill and Praedestination, and shall consider that Melancthon was the chief Composer of that Confession, he will not fail to wonder at these two 
Confess: August: Artic: 18. 19 p. 22. 23, 24. Cassander p. 128. usque ad p. 135. Gr●t. ad Cass. p. 307. 308. 309.  things. First, that Mr. B. should represent Cassander as an utter Enemy to my Opinions, and yet call me so often a Cassandro-Grotian; next that he should call me both false and Impudent, for citing a passage out of Melancthon, which very truly and precisely did make for my purpose. Especially since 
z These objective considerations are the proper Causes of his Temporal Transient acts, and of the execution of those Decrees. Correp. Cor. p. 113. No man ever suffered to the cutting of his finger, but for his Sin. Which is not the Cause of God's Decree, but only of the Execution of his Decree. page 116.  himself (whether as ignorant, or forgetful, I cannot say) hath said the same in effect in his p. 113. and since in his p. 129. he wonders what is become of my Forehead, for having cited P. Moulin in my behalf, whom he affirms to be against me & Arminius in all the 5. Articles; I will show him how in that speech he even flies in the face of Dr. 
a P. MolinaeiCausae Orthodoxae non tam defensio, quam praevaricatio. Ut non modo hac ex parte Causam Arminianorum plus justo promoveret, sed & quicquid antea de election● satis Orthodoxè differuerat, prorsus convelleret. Twiss. in Vin. Gr. l. 1. par. 1. Digr. 1. Sect. 4. p. 58.  Twisse, who saith that Moulins defence of the Orthodox cause, ought rather to be called his prevarication, (which implies a juggling on both sides) for that he did not only promote the Arminian Cause (in his way of stating Reprobation,) but plucked up by the Roots what before he had spoken very Orthodoxly concerning the business of God's Election. So extremely unhappy is Mr. B. in every one of his undertake.  
§ 29. His 29th. [That he is informed I made a promise to some of my best Friends in the Ministry ABOUT US, that I would in Pulpit at Lectures, vent nothing but what was agreeable to their known Tenants; and that I kept my promises 
1.  no better than Arminius, p. 47, 48.] 1. He pretends to no more than a private information, of that with which he doth so publicly accuse me. 2. The thing whereof I am accused 
2.  is set in direct opposition to the Truth of that story. For what I said to my friends was plainly this, that as I knew my Tenants were very different from the Tenants of many Ministers who were of that Lecture, (which as I never was of, so by the Grace of God I never will be) so if I should hear any of them Preaching up a false Doctrine, I would not fail of my endeavours to preach it down. It being the duty of every Shepherd, not only to feed the Flock, but to defend them from the Wolf too. 3. I never Preached upon a Lecture-day, when I did not say that which I thought most useful to them 
3.  that heard me▪ without the least regard to any man's favour or disaffection. Nor did I yield to appear at those Lecture meetings (which Mr. B. calls Combinations, p. 48.) but upon being misinformed of the greater part of the men of whom those meetings did mostcommonly consist. And upon knowledge of my Error, I did immediately reform it. 4. If this invention had 
4.  been a Truth, it had been nothing to the business of God's Decrees, nor my desire to be restored in the Spirit of meekness by any man that could prove me to be erroneous. 5. All that I have delivered either at Daintry, or Northampton (with which Mr. B. doth so often importune the unconcerned Reader) was not in a controversial, but practical way. Nor do I remember any passage concerning the liberty of the will, or the respectiveness of God's Decrees in any one of those my Sermons, though Mr. B. in those Pulpits hath declaimed against both.  
§ 30. His 30th. [That the only question betwixt me and my Opposites, is, whether it be possible for me to adhere to my second Principle, if I do but resolve to stick to what I stickle for in my first and second mischievous Papers, p. 50.] 1. There was never any question in any kind proposed betwixt me and 
1.  any Opposites that I know, much less this which here he speaks of. 2. By mentioning opposites in the plural, he seems to intimate a Club of wits in this Correptory Correction against 
2.  my Notes; agreeable to that part of his third Epistle, wherein he professeth to proceed by the 
* His words were in Latin, verbatim thus— communi Presbyterorum consilio. 3.  Common Council of the Presbytery. How much for his, or their credit, let others judge. But I am verily persuaded, that very few of the Presbytery are either glad, or thankful to him, for such a considerable disgrace as he hath put upon their Name. 3. The only Question betwixt us that I can guess at is this. Whether I am abactor Gregis alieni, (to use his Phrase) for when I heard of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and friendly advised him by letter, that if he were writing against any thing which either was, or was called mine, he would consider whether his Copy were true, or false; he returned me this answer in the very entrance of his Epistle [— you know me to be robbed, (I call not you the Thief) of a considerable part of my very few Auditors when they be all together.  
This was the first unkind word that ever past 'twixt him, and me. Till this I could not discover why he should call me a Pelagian, or compose a large volume against a very small Manuscript which was but reported to be mine. By that aching Tooth, to which the Tongue (by a Proverb) doth most naturally tend, I foresaw the many Calumnies whi●h are since fallen on me. He complained that his Parishioner●… 〈◊〉 come to my Church, and I professed sincerely I could not 〈◊〉 it. Other controversy than this I never knew any, until this little sparkle was publicly blown into a fire. But 4. If the only Question 
4.  now is, whether I can possibly adhere to my second Principle, whilst I stick to what I stick for in my first and second Papers, (as he is pleased to clintch it) he makes a lamentable confession, that the far greatest part of his Book is not a syllable to the purpose.  
§ 31. His 31. [That against these men's blessed works and 
of Dr. Twisse his charging of h●…ren t●… ●…apsarians with their making God the author of sin. 1.  memories, I rage and ramp it, and make slaughters amongst them, Nimrod, or Nero-lik, p. 50.] The men he speaks of are Mr. Calvin, and Dr. Twisse, of whom he saith (by a quibble he much delights in p. 51. & p. 60.) I mean to pierce through and through their Works and Books, p. 51.] 1. Whether Mr. B. in this place doth not whip himself upon my back, I leave it to be determined by any man that shall compare his Declamation with my Book. 2. All that he can pretend 
2.  for this strange speech, is my saying that their Doctrines do make the God of all Goodness to be the Author of Sin. And to that I have many things to say which Mr. B. will not glory 
1. ☜  in the hearing of. First, I said no more of Dr. Twisse and Mr. Calvin in that particular, than Dr. Twisse himself hath said not only of Mr. Calvin, but of all the rest of his own party, as he himself calls them the professed Enemies of Arminius, who place the object of Praedestination in massâ corrupt â, whom he elaborately confuteth, and speaks of very hardly, as I shall faithfully manifest in this following Account. (Which whether or no it be not faithful, I will not be judged by Mr. B. but by every Learned and Impartial Reader, who shall examine those Citations which I shall cast into the Margin.) First, 
a Vis liber● pronun●iem quod unice proficiatur ex hac nostrae de praedestinatione sententiae temperatione? dicam quid sentiam. Hinc nimirum efficitur, ut à lapsu primorum parentum decreto praedestinationis subjiciendo & subordinando liberemur, etc. Twiss: Vin: Gra: l. 1. part. 1. p. 87. Digr. 4. Sect. 4. c. 4. Edit. 2. Amster. 1632.  what the reason should be, why almost all the Antiremonstrants should place the object of Predestination after Adam's fall, rather than before it, the Dr. sets down in these very ●…s. [Nesc. alias peccatum fieri statueretur decernente ●…anquam medium ad fines à Deo in praedestinatione sibi praestitutos accomneodatum; unde etiam quin Auctor peccati constituendus sit, nullâ solidâ ratione explicari posse videtur.] That is to say, that God might not be inferred to be the Author of sin. Hence is my first Observation, (though only in the way to what I principally intent) that all the Supralapsarians do infer God Almighty to be the Author of Sin in the unanimous judgement of the Sublapsarians; or Dr. Twisse hath lost his aim. 
b Sed quem alterâ viâ declinare satis anxie cupivimus, ad eundem lapidem alterâ nihilo minus infeliciter impe●●rim●s. 〈…〉  But (as the Doctor goes on) their very refuge is as liable to that inconvenience. They unhappily stumble at the very same stone. Flying from Scylla, they fall upon Charybdis. 
c Qui●… mum anxia hac nostrâ scopuli istius declinatione profecerimus? Id. ib.  What have we profited (saith the Dr. in the first person plural, thereby owning the party, though confuting their opinion in that particular) by our anxious endeavour to decline that Rock? and then he shows that they incur the very same absurd Sequel which they would avoid, in the following parts of that fourth Chapter, concluding sharply, 
d Haec sunt monstra illa opinionum & portenta quae nobis parturit & paritista sententia (Sublapsariorum sc.) scholis Jesuiticis & Arminianis digniora quam nostris, Id. ib. p. 88 Col. 1.  These are the monsters of opinions which that opinion hath brought forth, worthier of the Jesuitical and Arminian Schools, then of our own. And hence is my second Observation, that Dr. Twisse as a 
e Objectum praedestinationis universae esse massam nondum conditam, nec tamen cujusquam Reprobationem fieri citra considerationem peccati, probatur per totum cap. 5. l. 1. par. 1. Sect. 4. Digr: 3. p. 77.  Supralapsarian (placing the Object of the Decree in Massâ nondum conditâ) however differing from the rest of the very Supralapsarians also (by denying Reprobation to be without the consideration of sin) doth argue against the Sublapsarians (though Anti-Arminian, as well as He, and owned by him as his party in other matters) as inferring God, by their way, to be of necessity the Author of sin. And they whom he accuseth of so intolerable an absurdity, are no fewer & no less men (by his own 
f Confer: l. 1. par. 1 Sect. 4. Digr: 2. c. 1. p. 63. 64, 65. cum cap: 4. Digr. 4. ejusdem libri & Sectionis, p. 87, 88  confession) than all the Brethren in the low Countries who subscribed the contra-Remonstrantia; besides Tilenus in France, Sibrandus Lubbertus in Frizland, Kimedontius in high Germany, Zanchy, Vrsin, Paraeus, Polanus, Bucanus, Bucarius, Peter Martyr, Vermilius Florentinus, Bishop Hutton, Bishop Abbot; yea, even Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Perkins, are brought by him into the list of such as make God to be the Author of sin: Whom he doth not confute only, but he doth it with bitterness; Seeming to love them for their common hatred of a Common Enemy, but withal to despise them, because (many of them before he was born) did not jump with him in judgement concerning the object of universal Praedestination. Farther yet. That Doctor proves at large against 
g Quod posterior sententia Piscatoris sit deterior eâ, quam retractat. Id. l. 1. par. 1. Sect. 4. Digr. 3. cap. 2. p. 74, 75.  Piscator, what Mr. B. doth merely affirm of me,) that his later opinion was worse than that which he retracted. Then he disputes against Moulin himself (one of the ablest of that Party) in no less than 8 large Chapters, affirming him to have 
h— quod videam Theologum istum in articulo Reprobationis turpiter hall●cinatum, adeoque purum putum Arminianismum Ecclesiis Reformatis reposuisse; Idque proh dolour, nimium animosè & splendide, sine omni tergiversatione executum esse; Quo facto hac ex parte non modo ex professo cum Arminianis conspirat, sed—. Idem l. 1. part. 1. Sect. 4. Digr. 6. c. 1. p. 92.  filthily erred, and to have brought flat Arminianism into the reformed Churches, and professedly to conspire with the Arminians, even in that very Book which he painfully composed against Arminius. (as Mr. B. calls me Pelagian for what I writ against Pelagius, as well as against those of the other extreme.) And all for no other crime, than his being so much quicker sighted than the vulgar assertors of that cause, as to discern the necessity of granting thus much, That the Decree of Reprobation was not made but upon a 
k Reprobatio non procedit (quemadmodum ille contendit) nist ex peccatis actualibus praevisis, perseverantiâque finali in ijsdem. Id. ibid.  foresight of actual sins, and of Perseverance in the same unto the end. All this is done by Dr. Twisse against others of his party, whilst every Reader is my witness, that I used him better who is none of mine, having quoted his words only without the least incivility to his person, Learning, or Integrity. Nor (2.) did I rage and ramp it any more against Calvin, but without interessing his person, I fairly represented 
2. Of Mr. Calvin's stile and Temper.  his naked words. So far was I from using him, as he used others; He not only 
l Qu●s nune quidam Augustini supra modum Admiratores Pelagio compares faciunt. Grot: in Discuss: Riv: Apol: p. 98. conferantur illa verba cum Calvin. Instit. l. 2. c. 2. Sect. 4. ●ol. 78.  branding the Ancient Fathers in general, and S. chrysostom with S. Hierome in particular, as Pelagianizing in their opinions; but calling 
m Grot. vot. pro Pace. page 17.  Castellio Knave and Devil, Cornhertius Dog, Cassander and Baldvinus, Serpent, Hobgoblin, Pest, and Hangman, with many more foul things, which Grotius rips up in his votum pro pace. In so much that Bucer 
n Imo & ob atrocia dicta Bucerus ei Nomen dedit Fratricidae. Hanc maledicendi libidinem Calvinus in Epist. ad Bucerum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Impatientiam voca●.— nondum ai● consecutum ut Belluam domuerit; Si quis post id ab eo scripta leget, inveniet eum profecisse, sed in pejus. Id. ibid. p. 18. 3.  himself called Calvin Fratricide, a murderer of his Brethren. And Mr. Calvin confessed in an Epistle to Bucer, that he did labour with Impatience his untamed Beast; and yet so far was he from mending, that the mild Grotius observeth, he rather grew worse and worse. And that Calvin's Disciples and Imitators are such themselves in disposition, as they make God to be in their Imaginations, towards the greater part of mankind. [Contra, Calvini discipulos asperos videas, & tales, qualem in maximam partem humani generis Deum esse sibi imaginantur.] 3. I spoke more gently of those frightful sayings of those men, than I needed to have done, or then many great men had done before me. I only said they make God to be the Author of Sin; whereas I can prove, that they do make him a great deal worse. For the Author he might be by mere Persuasion (if that were possible) but they do boldly affirm him to be an Impulsor, or driver on into sin, and that irresistibly, by giving a necessitation. And this I shall prove in its proper place. Whereas the Notable 
o Vide ●●iscopium in suo Vedel. R●apsod. cap. 10. p. 186. 187, 188, 190. & seqq.  Vedelius (whom Mr. B. so much commendeth) did but crudely affirm that the Remonstrants indeavourd the bringing of Atheism into the world, and could do nothing towards the proof of it but what did ruin his undertaking, as Episcopius made it appear to the eternal discomfiture not only of Vedelius, but of 
p Correp. Cor. p. 28.  Mr. B. also who owns and useth that Calumny of Vedelius in several parts of his Declamation. And 4. Whereas Mr. B. tells me, 
q Correp. Cor. p. 56. 4.  that I did Cham-like uncover my Father's nakedness (for he so calleth Mr. Calvin and Dr. Twisse) into whose writings I should have dutifully gone back, etc. To that I answer, first, that he confesseth something shameful in their writings, which was not openly to be discovered. Secondly, that I published nothing of theirs, but what themselves had made public before I was borne. And Thirdly, public means of infection must have public Antidotes and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If their words were wholesome, why might not I use them? and if they were not, why then did they? I see that to publish some errors is to confute them.  
32. His 32d. [That I draw up a malicious scattered Inventory or Catalogue of broken expressions, gathered here and there out of their writings, without any due regard to the scope of the words, or the Authors explained meanings. p. 52.] Mr. B. his Tongue is his own, and it is not my fault that he will use it as he pleaseth. But 1. I cannot believe that 
1.  he hath examined the places, from whence I fetched those ten Expressions (p. 9 10.) some of those places I am sure he hath not, or else he doth wilfully prevaricate in his p. 63. For 
r Correp. cor. p 63. lin. 12. 13, 14. etc.  what I took out of Dr. Twisse, he ignorantly or deceitfully saith I took out of Calvin. And in the same manner he saith I 
s Ibid. line 3, 4. from the bottom.  fall fiercely upon Calvin in the passage taken out of Zuinglius. And again, what I cite out of Dr. Twisse his vindiciae Gratiae (l. 2. part. 1. p. 36.) he saith I took out of Calvin 
t Id. ibid. lin. 2. from the bottom.  l. 2. de Provide. when he cannot but confess, (now his confidence and Imposture is thus discovered) either that Calvin hath no 
u Had it been out of Calvin, it must have been de occultâ dei Providentiâ. Not in Serm. de Prov. etc. ☜  such work, or not divided into parts, as well as books, or hath no such passage in any such page. Was he ignorant, or was he not? if he was ignorant out of what Authors those citations were made, he could not but speak against his Conscience (p. 52. lines 3, 4.) in saying, I did as good as name them to any attentive Reader, when I particularly quote them as to Book, Section, Page, and almost line, whilst he himself mistakes their Names. And if he was not ignorant, he cannot but speak against his conscience in ascribing those things to Calvin which he knew belonged to Twisse and Zuinglius. He cannot possibly escape the first, or second Horn of this Dilemma. Especially since he betrays himself with a flat contradiction within the space of 6 or 7 lines. For he concludes the 63 page by saying it is [de Prov. c. 5. & 6. l. 2. de Prov. part. 11. p. 36.] And he begins the 64 page with the Enemies of Calvin quoting the place before me, and calvin's Answer upon the place, which yet he quotes in the 
☞  Margin from [Occult. Dei Prov. p. 736. inquinto articulo.] What a great necessity there is, that some men should have good Memories! that Mr. Barlee's should not stand to him whilst he could write 6 lines, was very unkindly and strangely done. How can he hope that the Reader will ever trust him upon his word, who thus makes it appear in a most palpable manner, that he cares not how truly but how bitterly he may speak. But 2. I was not obliged 
2.  to transcribe whole Chapters in my Citations, only so many words as might declare a full and perfect sense. And so 'twas foully done in Mr. B. to call them broken expressions gathered here and there. The shortest of my Ten (p. 9, 10.) was this out of Calvin. [
Calvin. Inst. l. 1. c. 18. Sect. 4. p. 71.  That a wicked man by the just impulse of God doth that which is not lawful for him to do.] Which is as full and as round and as significant a Period, as any Grammarian can imagine. He confesseth that my Citations were almost to the line. And that I had a due regard to the scope of the words, every man that will examine me will be my witness; and I in probability shall largely evidence hereafter. 3. If none of those sayings were blasphemies, he would not 
3.  think himself concerned, nor call my Catalogue malicious; but because they are such, he is angry with me for saying they are what they are.  
§ 33. His 33d. [That I promised he should receive a Copy of my Creed in the particulars which he did intimate. But it seems it consists rather of Negatives then affirmatives, p. 53.] what I promised, I did speedily perform. And he 
w E. G. in his p. 134.  conconfesseth in many Pages, that my Printed Copy was little differing from what I had before written. I only enlarged my Notes, and gave them Method. Nor did I disown what I published, but only those false Copies, which were as false, as the several Transcribers had pleased to make them. The later part of this saying is gratis dictum, and so fare it well. What I did not believe, I briefly set down in two single pages, (viz. 9, & 10.) but both before and after I sufficiently affirms what I believe. Which if I did not, Mr. B. his whole Book must be acknowledged by himself to have been nothing to the purpose.  
§ 34. [That Calvin l. 1. c. 18. (of whom he speaks) doth 
Of God's permission of sin. How understood by Mr. B. and his Masters, and how by me. ☜  but oppose such an idle speculative permission, as I and the worst of my Associates plead for (in my p. 14.) a permission which makes evil things to fall out, etc. p. 63.] a large congeries of falsities in not many words. For 1. It was not Calvin but Zuinglius, out of whom I cited that place, (as I lately showed.) 2. In my p. 14. which he mistakes for p. 15, & 16. I said expressly that God (besides his permitting of our sins) doth dispose, and order them to the best advantage. Which shows I am not for such an idle permission, (as he forgeth) but for a permission designed for wise and just ends. Nor 3. Am I for such a permission as makes evil things fall out, (as he doth 
3.  groundlessly affirm, not only besides but against the Truth of what I say) but for such as signifies [not to hinder by main force.] 4. He alone and his Associates are for such a 
* Of this see more ch. 4. Sect. 28.  permission as makes sin to fall out, who accordingly call it God's (x) efficacious permission of sin, and his (x) efficacious permissive 
x x Corrept. Cor. p. 7●. 79. & p. 54. 196.  Will, and explain themselves by saying, that God did voluntarily Decree, and (x) determine its being done, as I have largely showed upon his 28. invention.) 5. Since Mr. is discontented 
5.  with what I said [of God's permission, and of his wise disposal and ordering of what is thus permitted without a decreeing or ord●…ning of the evil,] he discovers what he means by God's Agency in sin (a few lines after;) viz. his determining its being done; and his Decreeing it shall fall out, (as he spoke before,) for if I say less, I am (saith he) for an idle speculative permission, yea, that I take away the very 
y Correp. Cor. p. 54. & 69.  subject of the Deity. Yea he chargeth me with the greater and lesser Atheism. Yea farther, [not only that my Opinions tend to it, but that I am 
z Id: p. 55. 117, 118.  absolutely for Atheism major & minor. (according to the method of my proceedings) That I turn 
a Id. p. 58. where he refers to my Section of God's permission. Qui tollit providentiam tollit Deum.  God into a mere speculator, and deny his sovereign and working providence. And he that takes away Providence, takes away God.] Thus with Mr. B. ne sim sceleritus facio scelus. Because I dare not be so wicked, as to say that God is the Determiner, the Decreer, the Necessitator of Sin, (but only that he doth suffer, and permit, dispose, and order it to the best advantage, in the saying of which I did sufficiently attest his Providence, as well as his Sovereignty and Godhead) or of sins being done, or that he doth (b) command men to sin, 
b b b For all which and more see my Testimonies out of Calvin, Zuinglius, and Dr. Twisse in my 9 and 10 pages.  or that they sin by his (b) Impulse, and that his (b) will doth pass into the sin itself which is permitted; I say, because I dare not be so wicked as to say such things, but think it my duty to beat them down, Mr. B. declares me to be so wicked, as to turn God into a mere speculator, to deny his Providence, his Sovereignty, his very Being. Which is as much as to say, that if God is not willing, and efficaciously willing, that all the wickedness in the world should be committed, he cannot be God. But if he will concur to the commission of sin in that 
* Theodor. Bez● in lib. Qu●st. & Resp. Christianarum. p. 695.  Almighty, 
† Calv. Inst. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 8. p. 325. & Sect. 7. fol. 325.  Irresistible, and 
* Dr. Twiss: in vind. Gra. l. 1. part. 1. Sect. 12. p. 140. See also Corr. Corr. p. 88 and what I have cited upon his 28 Invention.  ordaining manner, which they plead for, than they will be propitious to their Creator, (as 
c Apud Vos de Humano Arbitratu Divinitas pensitatur nisi homini deus pla●uerit, Deus non erit. Homo jam De● propitius esse debebit. Tertull. in Apol.  Tertullian speaks to the heathen persecutors of Christ and all true Christians) than they allow him to be a God still. Is not this a hard tenure for the spirit of Holiness to hold his Godhead by? who professeth to hate sin, and to ha●e it with a sincere, not with a counterfeit Hatred, (as 
d Non deus volens Iniquitatem es Tu. Ps. 5. id est, Deus verè & non simulate, odit peccatum▪ Et paulo post.— omnia haec sunt quae odi. Zech. 8.] cumigitur non sit simulatum odium peccati in voluntate divinâ, nequaquam sentiendum est, Deum velle peccatum, Ph. Melancth. in joc. de Causâ peccati. page 48.  Melancthon speaks in his detestation of that which I plead against?) whosoever shall compare Zach. 18. 17. with what Melancthon saith upon it more than once in the same page, (who yet was not guilty of vain repetitions) he will conclude two things. First that Melancthon (whom Mr. B. would have of his Party) is as opposite to Mr. B. as the Nadir is to the Zenith; and next, that it is better (that is, less ill) to make God a mere speculator of sin, than a Willer and Decreer of what he hateth. And whilst I have it under my Eye, I will observe it to the Reader, That whereas Dr. Twisse and out of him Mr. B. do call Gods will an 
e Twisse in loc● novissi●e citato Mr. B. p. 54. & p. 196.  efficacious permissive will in relation to Sin, 
f Certum est, Hebraic●… phrasi significare ●as permissionem, non voluntatem efficacem. Melanct. Ibid. p. 49.  Melancthon on the contrary, doth set God's permission in a direct opposition to his efficacious will. 6. When Mr. Cnlvin saith, that God did therefore foreknow events, because by his Decree he had ordained them, and adds (a little after,) that God 
g Et ideo praescierit, qui● Decreto suo sic ordinarat▪ Nec absurdum videri debet, primi hominis casum praevidisse Deum, & suo arbitrio dispensasse. Calvin. Inst. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. y. fol. 325.  foresaw the fall of the first man, and by his will ordained it, (as he could say no less according to his Rule of putting God's Decree before his prescience, and inserring his prescience from his Decree, with an [ideo, quia,]) Mr. B. professeth, that Mr. Calvin doth say no more in that place, then what must be 
h Correp. Cor. p. 117. 118.  granted if we have no mind to turn Atheists. Now because it is evident, that God foresaw all the sins in the world, it needs must follow from their Doctrine [of God's foreseeing things 
k Cum non alia ratione quae futura sunt, praevideat, ni●● quia ita ut fierent, decrevit, frustra de pr●s●ientia lis movetur, ubi constat, ordinatione potius, & nutu omnia evenire. Calvin. Instit. l. 3. e. 23. Sect. 6. fol. 324.  because he ordained them,] either that he did not foresee those sins which he did foresee (which is an intolerable contradiction) or that he therefore ordained, because he foresaw them. (which I still say is a blasphemy and the worst kind of it.) upon which it follows (7) That however they do not say those very words [God is the Author of sin] 
* How Mr. B. and his Party, whilst they deny their saying that God is the Author of sin in those express Terms, do say the same Sense in more odious Words, as well as in words that are less odious.  yet they say a great deal worse, and in much worse Terms. And they are not those six letters [A. U. T. H. O. R.] which I stand upon, nor is it the signification of the word [Author] which is made up of those letters, that I esteem only-odious. There are other Aphorisms and affirmations of a more odious Importance (if that is possible to be,) and because Mr. B. is so unthankful for the lenity which I used in so short a Catalogue as I made (p. 9 10.) I will evince the Truth of what I say by adding more to their number. Which for Brevity's sake I will content myself to set down in the fewest words 
The first Classis of Quotations, making God to Decree and necessitate sin.  that I am able, even those words especially wherein the blasphemy consisteth, or from whence it follows, quoting the Authors and their places very exactly in the Margin. And if Mr. B. shall pretend that they are not faithfully or fully enough quoted, I will vindicate my self, and punish him by a purposed enlargement, wherein I will lay down the original on one side, and my translation on the other. I will begin with the milder sort.  

a Piscat: Disp: de Praedest: contra Andr: Schalm: Praefat: p. 6. called by Mr. B. the Honest Piscator.  The Horrible Affirmations are these that follow. That by a necessity of Divine Providence, though not of Nature, the Fall of Adam did necessarily happen: yea, that God made the Protoplasts to this very purpose, that he might suffer them to be tempted, and led into sin, and that by force of his Counsel or Decree, it 
* ●la●ly contrary to Melancthon de Contingentiâ. p 51. sic erant conditae voluntates, ut poslent non peccare.  could not otherwise be but that they 
b Id. ibid.  must sin.  

c Idem Thes. 121. Hermann: Rennech: in aureâ salutis Catenâ. c. 6. p. 28. & c.  That Judas could not but betray Christ, seeing that God's decrees are immutable. And whether a man bless, or curse, he always doth it necessarily in respect of God's Providence, and in so doing he doth always according to the will of God.  
That Adam's fall did only happen, because God eternally foresaw and decreed it should be. And could not otherwise happen, than God had ordained. And in respect of God's Decree, there is no 
* Note that this is flatly contrary to Me ancthon in loc. come. de Causâ Pecc. p. 50. 51. as well as all the rest to which he there gives Antidote. Beza c●msequae. suis in Monpel: Coll: ad do: 8. de Praedest. fol. 5. 9 Calv. Inst. l. 3. c. 23. 〈◊〉 9 f. 325  contingency in the world. And therefore Adam's change from good to evil was absolutely necessary to the execution of God's Decree.  
That God foresees nothing but what he hath decreed. And that his Decree doth precede his Knowledge. That Adam necessarily fell in respect of God. And that it behoved him to sin, not by the naked and idle permission of God, separate from his will and Decree.  
That Reprobates would feign be thought excusable in sinning, because they cannot escape the necessity of sinning, especially when that necessity is cast upon them by Gods own ordination. But we deny (saith Calvin) that they are thence excusable, because that ordination of God hath its equity, though to us unknown.  
From these passages it is evident, what these men mean whensoever they speak of efficacious permission, and why they say we make God to be a mere speculator. Even because we allow not that stoical Necessity (which they have thus forged) of all events. And so the contingency they speak of from the Teeth outward can signify nothing in the world, but either the frustraneous endeavours of Nature, or else our ignorance in the management of things, whereby being ignorant of God's Decrees, we labour sometimes in vain towards a contrary event to what hath been absolutely decreed, and of necessity must come 
The second Classis of Quotations making God the Cause of Sin, and that Irresistibly.  to pass. And whether God by these Doctrines is not evidently concluded to be the Cause of all sins, I leave it to every man to judge by what hath been cited, and shall farther manifest by a second Classis of quotations.  
That we cannot say of Esau being rejected by God, I 
Huldericus Zuinglius in Elencho contra Catabaptist: strophas: p. 172.  would to God he had died an Infant. For he could not die whom the divine Providence created to this very end, that he might live, and that he might live wickedly.  
That man doth fall. God's providence so ordaining it. 
Calv: Inst: l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 8. p. 325.  And the first man fell, because the Lord thought it expedient; why he thought it expedient, we cannot tell. (which words are spoken before the former.)  
That God doth holily drive or thrust men on unto wickedness, 
Joh: Piscator in Praefat: Disput: de Praedest: p. 8.  that he may punish sins with sins. (though these last words are true so far as that God by permitting, or suffering men to do, or not restraining them from doing what he sees they will do if they be not restrained, is said very properly to punish sins with sins, yet the former words are so blasphemous, as not to be capable of any tolerable excuse.)  
That God made men such as that they might be able to 
Idem Thes: 27. (which he also repeats Thes: 33.  sin, yea, he made them to this end or purpose that they really might sin.  
That God by a secret force as by a hidden Rope doth drag wicked men to attain those ends which they think not of. 
Herm: Rennecherus in Aur: Sal: Cat p. 32.  To which they are directed without their least purpose or endeavour, just as arrows are shot out of a Bow, without being sensible whither they are going. (which though true in one sense, is blasphemous in another.)  

* Piscator Thes. 115.  That God chose some, and reprobated the rest for this reason only, that he might manifest the Glory of his power in handling those that were equal, unequally.  

† D. Festus Thesauri Catech. fol. 216. Lutherus de serum Arbitr. citantibus Tigu●i●is contra Phil. Nuo. p. 9 & Beza post Praelec. in ep●d Rom. Calv. Inst. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 1. p. 322. ●id. etiam Sect. 2. Z●●ch. de Nat. Dei l. 〈◊〉. c. 2. ●e Prad. part. 4. Resp. ad Argument. ult. etiam de Reprob. c. 〈◊〉. Thes. 4. p. 571. ali● edit. 743, 744. Zanch. de Nat. dei l. de Pr●. dost. S●nct. Qu●st. 5. pag. ●3●.  That the subduction of Grace, and of its means, even Excecation, and Induration, and Perseverance in ●ins are the fruits of God Rejection, or the things which follow from or out of his rejection.  
That it is incomprehensible yet believed by us, how it is just to damn such as do not deserve it.  
That it is not agreeable or fitting to ascribe the preparation to destruction to any other than the hidden counsel of God.  
That Reprobates are compelled with a Necessity of sinning and so of perishing by this Ordination of God, and so compelled, that they cannot choose but sin and perish. This is ushered in with a [Damus we grant.]  
That all who are predestined to the End, are predestined to the means without which they cannot attain unto the end.— 
* Bucanus loco de Praed. quaest. 30. etiam Macco●. Disp. de Praed. Thes. 〈◊〉.  The common means are three. The Creation, and Fall, and Propagation of man.  
That God made men to divers ends, and some to the 
Macco●i●● Disput: de Praedest: These 8.  end that they might suffer eternal Torments. He appointed also or ordained, that those men being entire should fall from their Integrity. And that for this reason, that whom he had created for Destruction he might reprobate, to this end that he might punish them out of Justice.  
That the Denial of Grace and Sins are the consequents 
Zanch. de Nat. dei c. 2. de praedest: pag. 620.  of Reprobation. Sins are the Punishments of Sins, to all which God preordained Reprobates from all Eternity.  
That God's first constitution was, that some should be 
Zanch. ibid. p. 740. col. 1.  destined to eternal Ruin. And to this end their Sins were ordained; and desertion, and denial of Grace in order to their sins.  
That the first man, as he was made upright in body and 
Mart. B●rrhaus Posit. 1. impress. A. D. 1551.  in soul by the divine Providence, so by the Counsel of the same God he contracted that stain which by no humane means can be blotted out, his Innocence being lost by his Disobedience. (he contracted that stain, is the same as to say, he committed that sin.)  
That all things Which shall be, shall be by the inevitable 
Idem in Deut. 47. p. 924.  Counsels and Decrees of God. (without any distinction betwixt good and evil.)  
That Satan is judged to be the Author of evil, (whether 
Idem in Isa. 28.  of sin, or of punishment,) one way, and God another way; 
** Zuing. in Serm. de Prov. c. 5. & 6. Dr. Twiss. Vin. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. p. 36.  aliter Satan malorum quam Deus (sive de malo quod in culpâ, sive de eo quod in poenâ cernitur loquamur) Author judicatur esse. So Zuinglius speaks of Adultery and Murder as the * work of God the * Author of it.  
That God doth stir up the Devil to lie. And is in some 
Petrus Vermilius in Epist. ad Rom. p. 403, 406. & 38.  manner the Cause of sin. And thrusteth on the wills of the wicked to grievous sins.  
That God doth will and necessitate sin; that men do ill to 
Mr. Hobbs of of Liberty and Necessity. p. 22, 23, 24. compared with his p. 44, 45.  distinguish betwixt God's Will and Permission; that no man can be free from necessitation; that all men who do any thing for love or Revenge, or Lust, though free from Compulsion, yet their Actions may be as necessary as those that are done by Compulsion. (whether this is not the upshot of Mr. Hobbs his Doctrine in those pages, which for brevity's sake I have thus expressed in this Epitome of his sense, I leave it to be judged by such as have leisure to consult him.  
That God is the Author not of those Actions alone, in 
Comfort for Believers. p. 36, 37.  and with which sin is, but of the very pravity, Ataxy, Anomy, Irregularity, and sinfulness itself which is in them. Yea, that God hath more hand in men's sinfulness, than they themselves.  
That Reprobates are therefore not converted, because 
Trigland. ex comment: Calv in Ezek. 18. quam piam explicationem vocat. p. 138. Defence. 140. Dontelock contra Anonymum Quatern. K. 3.  God will not have them to be converted. Yea,  
That God calls men to Christ, but [will not have them come; for] it pleaseth him not to draw them, which is absolutely necessary to their coming. And— seeing they were dead in sins, and obnoxious to damnation, before that Christ is preached to them, it must necessarily follow, that Christ is preached to them, to aggravate their Damnation.  
That God predestined whom he pleased not only to 
Beza contra Castell. Art. de Nat. veri & falsi dei. p. 417.  Damnation, but the Causes also of Damnation. (of this Beza saith, agnos●imus esse verum, we acknowledge it too true.)  
That both the Reprobates and the Elect were preordained 
Zanch. de Nat. Dei l. 5. Thesi 4. de Reprob. p. 555. ali● edit. p. 572.  to sin as sin. In as much as the goodness and Glory of God was to be declared by it.  
That as God did so deprive Reprobates of his Grace, 
Id. ibid. c. 2. de Reprob. Q. 2. Thes. 4. p. 554. aliâ edit. p. 722.  as that they cannot sin, so he also ordained or destined them to this condition, that they cannot but of their own Nature commit variety of sins.  
That a Necessity of sinning and of sinning unto Death 
Id p. 571. aliâ edit. 743, 744.  without Repentance doth lie upon Reprobates from God's immutable Reprobation. This is with a [non dubitamus con●iteri.]  
That if God wrought or acted the wicked man to punishment, 
Piscatar contra Hemming. p. 76.  it follows that he acted him or wrought him to sin also; because unless sin preceded, he could not justly punish him.  
That God made men with this intent, or to this purpose, 
Idem contra Schism. p. 29. Thesi 27.  that they might really fall. Because he could not attain his principal ends any otherwise, then by this course.  
That the word of God doth dictate, that God doth predestine 
Piscat. Notis ad Am. Coll. Vorstij p. 157.  men to their very sins, and that by an absolute Decree. (note that this is by way of Answer to Vorstius his Question.  
That men were 
a Idem in 1 Pet. 2. 8. Scholar  constituted and ordained to disobedience by God's decree. 
b Id. observat. ex v. 4. 6, 7, 8.  That he ordained▪ Reprobates to their very Incredulity. 
c Idem in Eze. 24. 21.  That he took care to have his Temple profaned. 
d Id. in 2 Sam. 16. 10. Scholar— & observat.  That he commanded by the secret Impulse of some evil spirit, and moved the will of Shimei to curse David.  
That men were predestinated precisely to both evils. Both that they may eternally be punished, and that they 
Id. Resp. ad Duplic. Vorst. part. 1. p. 220.  may Necessarily sin. Yea, that they may therefore sin, that they may be justly punished.  
That the Rebellion of the Reprobates doth depend upon 
Idem p. 217.  the Antecedent will of God.  
That God doth necessitate man to sin, to the end that he may punish him for sin. 
Idem p. 223.   
That though Reprobates are Predestined to damnation, and to the Causes of Damnation, and created to that end 
Idem contra Tau●●. p. 47.  that they may live wickedly, and be vessels full of the dregs of sins, yet it follows not that God's absolute Decree of Reprobation is the Cause of all the villainies and lewdnesses in the world, because besides the sins of the Reprobates, there are also other villainies and lewdnesses committed, namely, by 
☞  the Elect. (let the Reader here imagine what Piscator will have to be the Cause of the heinous crimes committed by the Elect, if not the very Decree of Election? since he expressly affirmeth the Decree of Reprobation to be the Cause of all the wickednesses committed by Reprobates. And whensoever they say that God's Decree is the Cause of wickedness, they mean that God himself is the Cause of wickedenss for they cannot but confess, that God's Decree is God himself, (as I can show if any deny it according to the School-maxime, Quicquid dicitur de deo est Deus.)  
That God doth will and make us to sin. And that he 
Gratianus Civilis in Semipelag. Grotij p. 16. & p. 17.  doth us no injury in making us sin, because we are willing to be made sin. And volenti non fit injuria.— And (in the next page) that nothing is future but by the will of God going before as the Cause of what is future.  
That God works all things in all men, not only in the 
Z●n●h. miscel. p. 428. in 4 to.  godly, but also in the ungodly.  
That nothing is done without God's will, no nor without 
Trigland. Apolog. p. 172.  his operation. For God worketh all things in all men. Therefore he willeth and effecteth, that ungodly men do live in their concupiscences.  
That the sin of Incredulity doth depend upon God's Predestination, 
Piscat. Resp. ad Dupl. Vorst. part. 1. p. 10, 11. Id. ibid. p. 27.  as the effect upon the Cause. (this saith he, is his Opinion, or Tenent.) Yea he adds p. 25. that God doth effect in them an incredulity, in as much as he blindeth them whilst the Gospel is preached.  
(Two things are here remarkable. 1. He doth not say that God makes them only incredulous, but effects or makes their Incredulity. As if it were his sin in them, and not theirs but by donation. 2. He infers the only cause of their Incredulity to be this, that God is their hindrance.)  
That God doth incite, seduce, draw, command, harden, 
Martyr in Jud. 3. ver. 9 p. 49.  and inject deceptions, and [doth, or maketh or] effecteth those things which are heinous or grievous sins.  
That it doth, or at least, may appear from the word of 
Piscat. ad Amic. Dupl. Vorstij. p. 176.  God, that we neither can do more good than we do, nor omit more Evil than we omit. Because God from eternity hath precisely decreed that both [the good and the evil] should so be done. 
Id. ibid. p. 228. This is also expressly taught by Beza, Sturmius, and Broeckerius, in those places which are quoted by Dominius out of their Books. Witness Rippertus Si●…i Pastor Hornanus in Necessariâ Defension. p. 755. All applied to the Case in hand.   
That it is fatally constituted, when, and how, and how much every one of us ought to study and love piety, or not to love it. (we may Note, that he useth the word [debe●t] as well as to [non colere] as to [colere pietatem.] As if it were a man's Duty to be wicked when God hath precisely appointed him to be so. And indeed upon their principle of God's particular decree, and precise determination, and secret command that such a man shall be wicked, he ought to be so indeed. Piscator's Inference is very logically good, however morally it is vehemently evil.  
Now whereas in my Notes (p. 15. 16.) I said that God doth only permit sin, that is to say, doth not ●inder, or doth patiently suffer it to be committed by the unconstrained or freewill of his Creatures, and when he hath so permitted it to be committed, doth wisely order or dispose it to the best advantage, and draws good out of the evil (not evil out of the good) we see the Absolute Reprobatarians (whom Mr. B. defendeth and admires,) do oppose against this reverend and safe stating of God's Permission, that He doth absolutely decree it, and effect it, and command it, and will it, and seduce, and stir up, and compel men to it, and create men on purpose, that they may commit it. And much more than this, as hath been showed in the Citations, not from a few, but from many of those Doctors, nor from those of the least, but of the greatest Note amongst the Masters of Mr. Barlee.  
§ 35. His 35th. [That I call in Poets, if not Devils, to 
Of my being called Blasphemer for not daring to call God the Decreer of my Sin. ☞  help me to blaspheme. p. 69.] if the Reader will examine my two pages which he 
* p. 13. & 24. I.  refers to, he will admire the strangeness of this complicated Invention. 1. That I blaspheme. 2. That I call in Poets. Yea, (3) Devils to help me. The first place he fetcheth from the thirteenth page of my first Chapter. Where the thing which I assert is merely this, [That I am the Author of my own sins, that Adam and the Serpent may be allowed as sharers, but my God (blessed for ever!) is none at all.] This I hope was no blasphemy. Having proved this by Reason, I made it good by Scripture too. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God. Jam. 1. 13, 14. (this I hope was no blasphemy.) From that reason and that Scripture I next concluded, that I durst not say with him in the Comedian who had been a great sinner, [what if some God hath so decreed it?] and too say I durst not say so blasphemously, I hope was no blasphemy. The only Poet in that page was Terence, and him I cited to condemn that horrid blasphemy. Why then said Mr. B. that I called in Poets to help me to blaspheme? 2. Mr. B. must say, against what it was that I blasphemed. 
2.  Not against God, for whose hatred of sin I was an Advocate; nor against Scripture which I pleaded in my behalf. But against the wicked Heathen brought in by that Poet speaking just like those men, who say as expressly as that Heathen did, (and my Quotations shall prove what I am speaking) That God 
a Deus Decrevit ut Adam peccaret. Piscat. Resp. ad Apolog. Bertii p. 136.  decreed that Adam should sin. 
b Id. ib. p. 111. absurdum non est, peccatum fieri de● volente, decernente, ordinante. Item prae●olente, praedece●nente, praeordinante. It● ut non possit non evenire.  That sin is committed, God willing, decreeing, and ordaining it, yea forewilling, foredecreeing, and foreordaining it. In so much that it could not but come to pass. Yea farther, 
c Quintum caput, Deum peccata quae prohibet, ad eadem occulte impellere. ●dem advers. Schism. Praef. p. 7.  that God doth secretly thrust men on to those same sins which he forbids. Yea farther, 
d Vult Arminius lapsum evenisse voluntate dei transeunte duntaxat in suam permissionem, hoc est, Deum voluisse permittere lapsum. At sententia Perkin●ii nostrorumque The●logorum haec est, lapsum illum evenisse Dei voluntate transeunte in rem permissam. Hoc est, Deum voluisse ut Adamus laberetur. Dr. Twiss: in vind: Grat: l. 2. part. 1. Sect. 2. cap. 12. Digr. 3. p. 142. Col. 2.  that God's will doth pass, not only into the permission of the sin, but into the sin itself which is permitted. Th●t God did not only will the permission of Adam's Sin, but the sin itself which he permitted, or it was God's will that Adam should fall etc. Yea farther yet, 
e Hic justo illius Impul●… agit quod sibi non licet. Calv: Inst: l. 1. c. 18. Sect. 4. p. 71.  that a wicked man doth sin by the Impulse of God. (as Mr. Calvin expressly words it.) Which word Impulse (for which alone I cite the place) is 
f Fatemur ●ita usurpari posse, ut designent actiones interdum morales, interdum vero naturales. Twiss. ibid.  confessed by Dr. Twisse to note both a natural and moral action. Yea farther yet, (if that is possible) 
g Ad peccatum, quià peccatum, quatenus ex eo Dei boni●atem & gloriam declar●… oportuit, praeordinati sunt tam Electi, quà n Reprobi. Zanchius de N●t. Dei l. 5. Thesi 4. de Reprob. p. 555. aliâ edit. p 572. ☞  That as well the Elect as the Reprobates were praeordained to sin as sin, (reduplicatiuè; that is to say, in as much as it is sin, in that very notion and respect,) in as much as it behoved the goodness and glory of God to be declared by it. Now that these are the opinions and sayings, not only of those Authors whom I have cited in the Margin, but of very many others, and of our Correptory 
* We may compare with these, that very strange speech of Mr. B. in his page 72. where he saith, (by way of Answer to the Former part of Grotiu's words cited by me in my page 11.) That the Scripture and the Ancients say not much, or often, that God doth praedestinate men to sin. Thereby avowing, that both the Scripture and the Ancients do say it a little, and sometimes. Indeed the Marcionites and Manichees were Ancient Heretics, and the only Ancients that I know, who favour that ungodly speech. But where in Scripture is there any such thing? No 'twas He in the Comedian who spoke just like it.  Corrector in many places of his Volume, I have prepared to demonstrate in my next Account of the most material things in his Declamation. But Thirdly, I have wronged the Heathen 
III.  Poet and the Actor in his Play, by ranking their Blasphemy with those last mentioned; for 1. they said no more than 
1.  [Quid si, What if some God hath so decreed it?] by way of Scepticism or Doubt, as if it were but a faint suspicion, not a peremptory Belief. But Mr. B. saith Dogmatically in his very act of Commission, that God would have it at this time to be so. p. 21, 22. Secondly, The Poet spoke of some one of the Heathen Gods, which had deservedly an ill Reputation 
2.  (as Mr. B. himself observeth in his p. 80.) for one was the patron of Adulterers, another of Drunkards, a third of Thiefs. And from such God's as those to expect such Decrees was not so strange for a Heathen man. Nay 3. That Heathen did no more than [Personam agere] act a wicked 
3.  man's part. But here on the contrary. 1. The Author's 
1. 2.  forecited did speak in a positive Dogmatical way. 2. They spoke of the God of Holiness, who professeth he cannot endure the least stain of sin. 3. They spoke very seriously, and were impatient of contradiction. E. G. I did but say, [I durst 
3.  not say what if God hath decreed sin] and Mr. B. tells the wide world, I called in Poets to help me to blaspheme. It. 
IV.  may therefore be wondered at in the fourth place, why Mr. B. should charge that Heathen with Blasphemy, for speaking as he himself did in the 
h Correp. Cor. p. 79. ●is words are, ●od doth de●…min that sin shall be done.  page going before, unless he is angry with the Heathen for seeming to make a doubt of that which is one of his Theological Maxims. He confesseth that God doth not will to do or 
k Yet here he contradicts his honest Pisca●or flatly●…it ●…it in illis ●…tem Deus. ●iscat. ●…p ●d Dup●… V●r●●. part. 1. 〈◊〉▪ 25.  effect sin; (that is, he doth not sin himself,) but only determine that sin shall be done; that is, he decreeth its being done by his Creatures? and what was it else spoken of in the Comedian? and if I had blasphemed in denying Gods decreeing of sin, yet of all the men in the world, how could that Poet be said to help me? he was rather helpeful to Mr. B. as any Reader will say who shall compare their speeches. And therefore (5.) It may be another wonder, why Mr. B. should call him an 
l Correp. cor. p. 80.  Atheistick Lad who spoke so much for the absolute Decree, which whosoever denies must be an 
m See his p. 54. 69. 117 118. and how freely he there bes●ows Atheism on all Dissenters. VI  Atheist in his Judgement. If he was Atheistick who spoke so like to Mr. B. and I Atheistick who spoke so unlike to both, he breathes at once both Hot and Cold. 6. He adds my calling in Devils to help me, which as it is the ●…st opposite to Truth or Candour, that any man can imagine, (that which I spoke of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being merely an Inference from that opinion which placeth the Destruction before the sin of the Creature,) so I have spoken to it 
* See the Forgery taken from his 10th page. Sect. 6.  already by 4 degrees. And therefore shall add no more to that strange part of his Invention, than what Austin spoke to the Pelagians upon an occasion not so bad, yet somewhat like it. 
n Non miramur Vos de n●bis, id est, homines de hominibus, falsae posse con●ingere: c●m videamus Vos ●ic 〈◊〉 Diabolo esse Fas●inatos. Augustin. Hypognost. lib. 6. Sub initium. mihi p. 880. Calvin: Inst: l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 9 p. 325. Piscat: in Prae●at: Disput: de Praedest: p. 8. Herm: Rennech: in Aur: ●●lut: Cat: p. 32. Rippert. Six. Horn-Defens. Necess. p. 755.  I do not wonder that one man should forge out Calumnies of another. Yet Austin's Reason of such Calumnies, I am too civil to apply. Only I propose it to consideration, whether of the two is most blame-worthy; I, who called it a blasphemy, to say that God doth will sin, Decree sin, praedestin men to sin, determine efficaciously that sin shall be committed, prostitute, impel, and excite men to sin, and that irresistibly; or He who calleth me Blasphemer, because I assert and prove the contrary.  
§ 36. His 36. [That I will rifle the well furnished Cabinet 
Of the Batavian Remonstrants.  of the Batavian Remonstrant writings, or not, stick to be beholding to very Thiefs, viz. such roguish Pamphlets as Fur Praedestinatus, and others are, rather than want materials for invectives against Calvin, Beza, Twisse etc. p. 69.] Here Mr. B. hath spoiled himself for a public Writer, so long as the memory of these Fictions shall stick in those few who accidentally may read him. If he would bring his Figments somewhat nearer together, or make them cunningly to border upon Truth, I might dispatch them with greater brevity; but standing as they do, in a direct opposition and contrariety to Truth, they will be wasteful of Time and Paper by being exhibited in all their colours. First in general I declare, that 
1.  when I published my Papers on God's decrees, I had never so 
Of the Batavian Remonstrants.  much as seen that well furnished Cabinet [the Acta Synodali● Romonstrantium] Though since that time, I have got it into my study, and shall not fail to recommend it to every man's Reading of my Acquaint●… 2. If I had taken any 
2.  thing out of those Remonstrants, I had professed as much, either by quoting them in the Margin, (as I did other Authors,) or in the body of my Discourse (as I did Ger. 
* Note here the impotent ill will of Mr. B. p. 24. where he would seem to discover to my disadvantage what I had told him in print p. 25. (as I thought) to my advantage. 4.  Vossius, in my p. 25.) and for the future, I do avow, that though I want not their help, yet I will use it as often as my leisure to read them will permit, and as occasion shall be offered. But 3. Upon such a perusal as I have made, I cannot find one passage which Mr. B. (with any colour) can say I have from them, (though such there may be for aught I know) much less did I borrow, much less did I rifle one syllable from them. Nay 4. I am certain, (1) that Dr. Twisse is not cited by those Remonstrants, and a great part of my Decachorde is out of him. (2) My place out of Zuinglius is not in that Cabinet; or if it had been, Mr. B. could not have known it, because of that Ignorance which he discovers of the place in his p 63. where he grossly mistakes Mr. Calvin for Dr. Twisse, and Zuinglius too. (3) Beza is not in my Decachorde (as Mr. B calls it) nor in any part of my Notes where I speak severely of him, (as far as I can remember) nor is there a syllable of Beza common to me with the Remonstrants. And what a pickle is Mr. B. in, in case he find nothing of Mr. Calvin, which I might have taken (by a possibility) from them? But 5. His guilt is little lessened in case he do. For is not 
5.  Calvin in Print? may I not read him as well as others? and observe the same things without their help? and was it not strangely done of Mr. B. to lay 
* Note that in his p. 158. he flings upon me the Thievery of the Fox, and filching matters against Calvin. Though he cannot but know, that I cite him to the page, (which others do not) and to the page of mine own Editions, and almost to the very line, as himself confesseth in his p. 52.  stolen waters to my charge, when my own Cisterns were full? if any two men shall accidentally read, and cite the same passage of any book, what an unmanlike act of hostility must it needs be, to say that the one does ris●e the other? But 6. I can say it as a great Truth, that I went immediately to the Fountain, and refused to draw out of unsincere streams. I suspected that Fur praedestinatus might possibly err, at least in some of the Quotations, and through the negligence of the Printer; and though for aught I knew, or yet know, his many Testimonies are all exactly set down, (and I have since found reason to think they are,) yet I did 
Of Fur Praedestinatus. ☜  purposely resolve not to use him at all, both because I knew not the Author of it of what Credit he might be, and because I would not have it possible for any Correptory Corrector, to abuse himself by aspersing me. And I can never enough admire Mr. B. his slanders in this particular; since upon examination whether my Ten Quotations p. 9 10. or any of them, were accidentally also in that Dialogue, I find Mr. B. to have chosen his Fiction the worst that could be for his turn, and because it is my business to give an account of his dealings, (that the unwary Reader may know what kind of Author, he takes in hand) I will detect him by these Degrees.  
First, (in my Decachorde p. 9, 10.) I have four Citations 
1.  out of Dr. Twisse, who is not at all mentioned in Fur praedestinatus. 2. That Dialogue citys Zuing. de Prov. c. 6. But 
2.  my Citation was thus, Zuing. in Serm. de Prov. c. 5. & 6. which I also cited from Dr. Twisse himself l. 2. part. 1. p. 36. where'tiss verbatim to be found. Nor did Mr. B. know that I had any thing of Zuinglius, as I have showed before. 3. Of 
3.  the five places from Calvin four are wanting in that Dialogue. And 4. The one place remaining, though by accident in the 
4.  Dialogue, is only fetched from the Book Chap. and §. whereas I fetch't it from the page 324. which shows I used mine own Calvin. Inst. Edit. Genev. A. D. 1637. and farther, I quoted these words in a different manner from Mr. Calvin, than that Dialogue doth, which shows I had them not thence, but from the Fountain. But 5. Suppose I had agreed in each 
5.  circumstance of that one Quotation with the Dialogue, would it have followed that I had taken it out thence? 〈◊〉 might not one Testimony of Ten be lighted upon by me, and by another, from such an ordinary Book as Calvin's Institutions? But 6. When on the contrary, I did abstain from the reading 
6.  of that Fur Praedestinatus, and did studiously avoid the having any commerce with him, or of taking from him any syllable; with what modesty or conscience, or show of Charity, could Mr. B. say even in print (where every Readers light might be able to manifest the exceeding blackness of such a Deed) that I was beholding to Thiefs and Roguish Pamphlets, nay, that I was myself a very Thief p. 158? when he called me Thief by a Paralepsis in the first of his letters which he so often alludeth to throughout his Book, he was somewhat the less unpardonable, because he was robbed (as he worded it) of a considerable part of his Auditors. But here his Calumny is absurd, as if he should say that Dr. Twisse did filch Quotations out of Arminius. He had not spoken a greater falsehood, (though to some less credible,) if he had said that Mr. Barlee took all his Sermons out of Ben Johnson. And hence it follows (7.) That if those words of Mr. B. 
7.  have either Truth or Sense in them, Calvin, Beza, and Dr. Twisse writ Roguish Pamphlets, and were themselves Thiefs, in the unworthy Character of their Admirer; for theirs were the Books from which I cited those things to which I fasten their Names. And this is such language bestowed upon his friends, as I could never have given my bitterest Enemies. Nor can be possibly prove that he hath not thus defamed them, unless he will confess he injured me. But (8.) if Mr. B. his Book 
8.  is but a rhapsody or Cento, Patched up out of the writings of Dr. Twisse and the rest of those Absolute Reprobatarians, (except the major part of it, which is foul or false language,) he had less reason than any man to say that I rifled a Cabinet I never same; or was beholding to a Pamphlet, from which I never received so much as the black of a Bean. 9 He speaks 
9  in the Plural of Roguish Pamphlets; as if in that number he would include the great and good men, Bishop Andrew's, and Vossius, whom he so much reviles in his p. 190. 206. & p. 121. and other places. In such a case he should have signified what men he meant, if he cannot name any, he confesseth the nature of his Invention. 10. Let him show in what page I use 
10.  Invectives against the three men he mentions. Had there been any such thing, he would have given his Reader my very words, at least have showed him where to find them. I suppose he must mean the Term of blasphemy, which I give to those speeches, whereby God is affirmed in effect to be the Author of sin. But whether I did amiss to call that blasphemy, which is contrary to the Nature, and Glory, and word of God; and whether it is not contrary to each of them, to say that God is expressly the 
* Piscator contra Taufr. p. 47. Beza contra castle. Art. de Nat. veri & falsi Dei p. 417 Piscator Notis ad Am. Col. Vorst. p. 157. Nota. 6. & 8. Resp. ad Dupl. Vorst. part. 1. p. 220. Martyr in Jud. 3. v. 9 p. 49. & viginti tales.  Cause of sin, the Necessitator of sin, that he commands men to sin, draws men to sin, seduceth men to sin, incites men to sin, and even effecteth grievous sins. (all which amounts to what is much more ugly, then if they only affirmed him the Author of sin.) Whether this (I say) is not blasphemy, I intent to try with the Reverend Author of the first Epistle prefixed to these Behaviours of our Correptory Corrector, or at least in my next account of Mr. Barlee's Dealings. And let it be marked in the conclusion, That I affirmed those writers to blaspheme whom I conceived to have written to the Dishonour of God; whereas Mr. B. calls me Blasphemer 
† In his p. 114. he saith I pour out damnable Blasphemies. That I play the Lucian & Carpocratian in his p. 119.  whom he conceives to have written to the Dishonour of men only, and of such men only as I have mentioned. Of which I doubt not but I shall publish a very satisfactory account, if yet there are any who are not satisfied already.  
§ 37. These are some of those groundless, and uncharitable Inventions which I have observed within the compass of his first nine sheets. Which we may easily conclude the most tolerable part of his Book, as that on which he confesseth he bestowed most pains. Should I continue my account throughout the rest, I leave the Reader to judge how great a Volume must be made on so slight a Subject. It shall therefore suffice me to give my Reader but a Taste of Mr. Barlees entertainment in the following sheets.  
§ 38. In his p. 125. He saith, that I am much beholding 
Of Dr. Jackson.  to my Domestic Dr. Jackson for abusing the world with my two first principles p. 6. which I took from him.] If this were true, 
1.  it were a commendable thing. And I heartily wish it had been true, that I had had the happiness (and the leisure from other studies and employments) to have read any one of those inestimable books, which I have heard commended as such by very learned and pious men. But 2. Though I have seen and am 
2.  possessed of two little pieces of that Great Author, (intending long and often to make a severe perusal of them) yet such have been my praeengagements in other methods, that I have not read six pages in either of them. And as I know not of my self, so neither (3.) am I able as yet to learn, in which part of that 
3.  Doctors works my two principles are to be seen. And because Mr. B. hath not mentioned the place, (considering also his custom of saying any thing at a venture which may express him to be spiteful in any kind) I do verily believe he is not able. So  
§ 39 In his p. 178. he lays to my charge Atheistical Lucianizing, and Castalionizing, unto whom (he saith) 
Of Castellio.  I am beholding for my flowers of Rhetoric.] First he quotes 
1.  no part of Castalio's works, from whence he can pretend I ever borrowed one word, and therefore I suspect he speaks against his own Conscience. And I have reason to suspect it; for (2.) until a month since, I was a perfect stranger to that excellent 
2.  man, I had never so much as seen what he hath written on this subject. Much less did I borrow any one flower out of his Garden; which if I had done, I should ambitiously have named such an honourable Acquaintance, rather than have concealed what I had really esteemed a credit to me. For now I have learned, (since Mr. B. hath reviled him in many places of 
3.  his Book,) that he was a very learned and pious man; and in this the more lovely to all who are not enemies to the cross of Christ, but delight in a followship with his Death, and a conformity to his sufferings, that he was persecuted by Monsieur Calvin to extreme great want. Yet was fain to provide for eight motherless Children by making Trenchers, (as S. Paul did Tents) and also by translating the Sacred Bible into Latin. So far was he from taking other men's livings over their heads, or from snatching and tearing other men's Bread out of their Mouths, (in pretence that he was the Godly man, and that the meek were to inherit the earth, and that all Dominion was founded in Grace,) that he rather took 
a Heb. 10. 34.  joyfully the spoiling of his own Goods, (like those excellent Christians in the Apostles Times, who were Christians indeed, but not in word,) and rather 
b Ch. 11. 23.  chose (with Moses) to suffer affliction with the people of God, then to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. This good man dying left his eight poor children to the mere Providence of God, who provided for them all, as for so many young Ravens when they call upon him. Eight Gentlemen of Poland having been then in the City where he expired, bestowed upon him a handsome Funeral, and to each of his 8 Orphans, each of those 8 Gentlemen became a Father. It was so great an Impertinence in Mr. B. to defile the memory of such a person (who durst to suffer for Conscience sake as much as Mr. Calvin, or any other, could dare to enjoy,) that it ceaseth to be impertinence in me, thus to vindicate a Saint in Heaven, And I have done it the rather, because I am sure he cannot thank me. Now though nothing that is Devilish could likely proceed from such a man, and though I could not learn any thing from him, whom, (when I published my Notes) I never read, or saw, yet Mr. B. tells the world, that I am much beholding to him for my 
c Correp. Cor. p. 179.  Diabolical Argument, and did translate his smooth Latin into smother English. I will not enlarge in the unnecessary vindications of the prodigiously-Erastio-Arminio-Socino-Pontificio-politick Headpiece, (as Mr. B. calls immortal Grotius. p. 126.) Who hath such heaps of contumelies and ill names cast on him, for this visible reason, because he hath discovered the Designs and Practices of the Presbyterian party so fully and distinctly in several of his works, (in his Appendix especially the Antichristo) that no man can with their safety be permitted to read him. But sure the more they rail at him, the more are all true Lovers of Peace and Truth, Learning and Piety, stirred up to the love and study of him. Nor need I make a Vindication of the venerable Bishop Andrews (whom Mr. B. useth so profanely p. 190. 206.) nor of those very many others, which it would be tedious even to name; but supposing the youngest Scholars, having this hint given them, will greedily read and admire those very choice Writers, who are extremely commended to their most serious Use by the very stigmas and reproaches which this Correptory Corrector is pleased to cast on them, I will only show him in one thing more.  
§ 40. In his p. 155. he makes me excellent good at 
Of a book entitled Artificial Handsomeness. ☞  laying on Paint upon rotten Posts. Witness the Praefacers paint in the Dialogue betwixt the two Ladies mentioned before.] Without the least Ground and directly against the Truth, He reported me the Author of that new Book, to which is given the Title of Artificial handsomeness. Now he tells me even in Print, that I am the Author of the Preface, if not of the whole Book. And perhaps in the place where he hath spoken of it before (as he professeth to have done, though in my perusal of his Book I did not find it) he hath feigned me the Author of all the Book too. I may say as well, that he is the Author of the Alcoran, if I were capable of so much folly. It is not the first printed Book of which I have been reported to be the Penman, which yet to this hour I never read. Nor am I able to learn (after my diligent Inquiry) who is the Author of Artificial Handsomeness. But that I might know what it is, of which I am said to be the Author, I have read a part of it. I find the Preface subscribed by I. Johnson, and not by T. P. The Dialogue itself is said by the Publisher (who could tell better then Mr. B.) to have been composed by a Lady. And I admire the vast difference betwixt the language, the wit, the Temper, and the Learning, of that Lady, and Mr. Barlee. I never pleaded for the lawfulness of any painting; but I ever thought them to 
2.  be most guilty of it, who having a 
d 2 Tim. 3. 5.  Form only of Godliness deny the Power of it. They that go in 
e Mat. 7. 15.  sheep's clothing whilst within they are no other than (e) ravening wolves; they that seem to love God, and more than seem to hate their Neighbours; they that persecute their Neighbour for whom Christ died, and paint it over with zeal to Christ; they that devour Widows houses, and make long prayers for a 
f Mat. 23. 14.  pretence; they that wash the 
g Ver. 25.  outside only of the Cup and Platter, and are outwardly 
h Ver. 28.  righteous unto men; they (say I) are most guilty of Artificial Handsomeness; and I wish the Learned Lady had writ against them, who are 
k Ver. 27.  whited Sepulchers (in our Saviour's Sermon) appearing beautiful outwardly, but inwardly full of dead men's Bones and all uncleanness. But (3.) suppose I had written in the behalf of White and Red, yet Mr. B. should not have 
3.  said it upon a groundless supposition, much less have sent it to the Press; Since it was wholly impertinent to God's Decrees, which he pretended to confute as I expressed them in my Notes. And indeed to what end should he publish this Invention, if not to represent me as one that administers to Vanity, and so unfit for the ministry, and by consequence fit for a Sequestration. The Reverend Author of his first Preface may be my witness, (for he was the Author of what I say) that I suffered the loss of (what I thought) the pleasantest possession upon Earth, for being secretly suggested (he did not tell me by whom) 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 my sel●e accused, and know distinctly my Accusation, and be heard speak for my self, yet was he not able (as he told me) to obtain that for me. Which I should not have said in this place, unless it were to this end, that men may know how it concerns me to publish the falsehood of such Reports. 4. It 
4.  doth sufficiently appear, that Mr. B. is the Author of Artificial Ugliness. For to make me odious to his Readers, he hath draw● me out in the worst Colours that he was able to fancy. Not only as an Arminian (which yet with him is no small Crime) but as a Socinian, a Massilian, a Pelagian, a Jesuit, an Atheist, a Ranter, a huge Independent, a pharisaical Battologist, and twenty other things, which his Reader will meet with as I have done. He shows a willingness somewhere to make me a Quaker. Where I vindicate God from being inferred by his Doctrines to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he tells me that in blaspheming I do exceed the Devil himself. And salutes me in these words, Avaunt, Avaunt, depart from O thou Satanical Blasphemer, Thou art an offence unto me. 'Tis in his p. 102. Where I contended for nothing less than the glory of God's mercy, he saith I blurrd my Paper with Diabolical stuff. p. 178. and professeth seriously in the presence of God (and how frequently doth he take that Great Name in vain!) he much fears no man could write thus but one well nigh in the same condition with Simon Magus. p. 174. But the most horrible thing of all is in his p. 22. where notwithstanding such bitter language and such spiteful Inventions as I have quoted out of his Book, (which have as dismal a Character in the Scriptures, as any sins whatsoever,) he saith in his excuse, That God gave him the leisure to say thus. And God would have it at this time to be so. And it may be of some Use 
☞  to the Church of God. So said he in the Comedian after some great sin (I know not whether so great as this) Quid si hoc quispiam voluit Deus? What if some God would have it to be so?  
Thus he dares do, who is secure he cannot fall (p. 35.) and who saith (in his 165 page,) that God did play upon Adam presently after his Fall Gen. 3. 22. He (forsooth) is one of them who are faithful, chosen and true (p. 10.) 'Tis within his commission to be cutting (p. 12.) He tells us, he ought not to be a dumb Dog, nor ought his tongue to be toothless (p. 12.) and that nothing drops from his Pen which was not usual to Austin against Pelagius (p. 6, 7.) Which by the way is as foul and as false an aspersion as was ever cast on that Father by the Pelagians themselves.   

CHAP. IU.  
A Miscellaneous Discovery of Mr. Barlee's strange Failings in several kinds.  
§. 1. TO those words in my Title [concerning God's Decrees] 
Of God's Decrees.  Mr. B. opposeth, that I might have said more truly, against God's Decrees, p 1.] In how very few words how many Falsities can he comprise? For 1. Decrees 
1.  dependent and conditional are as truly called Decrees, as those that are absolute and Independent. The Decree of damning impenitent Sinners is as much a Decree as that other Decree of creating a World; and much more worthy of that compassionate Father and righteous Judge, than the decree of reprobating the greater part of mankind without the least respect or intuition of their impenitence. Am I against God's Decrees, because I reconcile them as well with his Justice as with his Power, in confutation of their opinion, who asscribe them to his Power without his Justice? is not the justice of the Omnipotent in his Decrees as essential to him, as his Omnipotence? and can I be said to be against them by being an Advocate in their behalf? and that by proving them just, as well as mighty? and that they do not run counter to his compassion, which is as natural to him as to be just? I ever contended for God's Decrees of Reprobation, which I proved to have respect unto the sinfulness of the Reprobates, and so indeed am against t●e Poetical Decrees of Mr. Barlee, which consider only the punishment, but not the 
* Note, that he professeth himself a good friend both to the Sub, and to the Supralapsarians, as hath been showed. 2.  sin. By his unsound way of reasoning, a Man may say of Mr. B. that he leaves God no Decrees, but what are absolute and irrespective, and what a horrible thing is that? But 2. How can I be against the Decrees of God, who assert his promises and his threats as the very Revelations or copyings-out of his Decrees? Doth not the promise of jesus Christ infer a Decree in the Almighty that he would give him to be the Saviour of the World? Doth not his Threat of Perdition to all Impenitents, and his 
a Psal. 95. 11.  Oath against such, plainly prove his Decree that they should not 
a Psal. 95. 11.  enter into his rest? But 3. I ever acknowledged Decrees independent on, and antecedent to the will of 
3.  man, that is to say, to its very consideration. As 1. the Decree 
1.  of creating a World, and in it Men, not as necessitated, but as voluntary Agents; not to do good or evil as Stones tend downwards, but very freely and by consent. 2: The Decree of giving life to the obedient, and death eternal to the Rebellious. 
2.  Which being considered in itself (and not in its effects) is not depending on any act of man; but 'tis his absolute will, that he will thus deal with us, that he will proceed by this Rule, of rewarding if we will obey, and of punishing if we will not: that is to say, it is his absolute will, that his Decrees of Man's End shall be conditional, having respect and consideration of a Man's Faith or Infidelity, his Obedience or Rebellion, his Repentance or Impenitence. 3. (The sin of Adam 
3.  being supposed,) I assert the Decree of giving Christ for as many, as are fallen and dead in Adam; the Decree of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a propitiation for the sins (not of us only, but) of the whole World, 1 john 2. 2. And also 4. The Decree of sufficient Grace; sufficient, I say, for Evangelical obedience. And 5. the 
4. 5. 6.  Decree of accepting it instead of perfect obdience. 6. The Decree of more Grace to him that useth his 
b Matth. 25. 28, 29.  Talon, and of taking it away from him that useth it not. Both which are Acts of his free Oeconomy, his liberty to do what he will with his own, and no way depending (unless it be in the execution) on any act of our will. But 4. though I am thus an 
4.  Assertor of God's Decrees, and as well of those that are absolute, as of those that are conditional, yet my Correptory Corrector will not be pleased, unless I also will assert that God decreed the fall of Adam, (that Source and Fountain of all our sins,) and that I will not thus far comply with his Masters and himself, as to make the Spirit of Holiness to be the Decree and predeterminer of all events whether holy, or unholy, clean or unclean, good or evil. I thank him as much as if I did. God forbid that I should think any such Treasonable thought against his Majesty and Goodness, as that he decreed what he hated, the Apostasy of Adam or of the Angels: he gave them liberty, and only permitted them to abuse it. Nor can I believe the irreversible damnation, or preterition, of far more than half the whole World upon no other score than Adam's sin, (the Second Adam being given to raise up all them that had been fallen in the first,) but also upon the score of their manifold personal and actual sins. It being more agreeable to the nature of God, to reject Men for those sins which they wilfully committed in their particular persons, then for the one sin of one man committed many thousand years before these Reprobates were born. Which is not to write against Decrees, but to define what they are which are owned by God, and what they are which are not.  
§. 2. To that word in my Title, [Reprobation] Mr. B. 
Of Preterition & Damnation or Reprobation Negative and Positive.  opposeth, that I should rather have said Damnation, which he saith I confound with preterition, or Negative Reprobation, p. 1.] 'tis very well that he discovers so much knowledge of his opinions as to put these Figleaves upon their shame. Shame may possibly make way for penitence; and it is easier many times to confute the hardness of a Forehead, than the darkness of an Understanding. This is one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which have been infamously invented to disguise and palliate the frightful rigidness of their Doctrine, their disclaiming the old words [Reprobation or Damnation] and flying for refuge to the smother Terms [Preterition, or Negative Reprobation.] But first, suppose there were a very real difference, 
1.  might not I have the liberty (in my Notes) to discourse of what I thought good? or to be silent as I saw occasion? Might not I insist upon the Absolute Reprobation spoken of by some, without extending to the negative spoken of by others? If I pitched upon the Subject which M. B. was most ashamed of, was that my fault, or his misfortune? I will not be responsible for other men's infelicities; especially when I show them the way to prosper, (and by prosperity I mean Amendment.) I did but mind Mr. B. in a friendly Letter, that if he needs would be meddling, he should do very well To keep close to his Text which lay before him from the Press, and neither call me by ill names, (which would but tend to my Advantage and his Dishonour) nor affirm any thing to be mine which I had already very heartily and very knowingly disowned; when he returned me this Answer, That he wondered at my injustice and at my monstrous uncharitableness, telling me that I prescribed him, Dictatoriâ nescio quâ potestate, some Rules for his future proceeding. And though my advice was the same which he received from those Men, who even loved his very Cause a great deal better than his Person, yet here in Print he upbraids me for pursuing the very Subject which I had chosen for my Discourse. But 2. What if it appear that there is no real difference betwixt preterition and reprobation? 
2.  or betwixt a negative and positive reprobation,) as Mr. B. and others are fain to Cant it?) Sure they that are passed by being not approved, and they that are not approved being all rejected, and all they that are rejected being certainly to be cast into fire unquenchable, proves the lamentable distinction to be no more than a trick, insufficient to Buoy up a sinking Cause. For what is to reprobate, but not to approve, or to reject? And what sense is it to say, there is a negative not-approving (or reprobation) and a positive not-approving (or reprobation?) or if reprobation is taken in a positive sense only (as it cannot be both at once, positive and negative,) what sense is it to say, there is a Negative positive, and a Positive Positive? I will therefore put my Demand a little farther. When all that are passed by are damned, and all are damned that are passed by, what real difference can be assigned betwixt Preterition and Damnation, (as to the justifying unconditional Decrees of reprobation?) they are Identical propositions which are converted or reciprocated Per simplicem conversionem. The not-approved are rejected, because they are not approved; and the rejected are not-approved because they are rejected; (supposing the rejection to be made either in, or Ant Massam, as our Adversaries do, whether of the upper, or lower way,) nor need it better be proved [ad hominem] then by the saying of Mr. Calvin. [
† Quos praeterit reprobat, nec aliâ causa, nist quod ab baereditate quam filiis suis▪ praedestinat, illos vult excludere. Calvin. Inst. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 1. fol. 322  Whom God passeih by (saith he) he reprobates, and that for no other cause, than his will to exclude them from the Inheritance which he predestins to be his Sons.]. What a mockery than is this to the Justice, and Mercy, and goodness of God, and what a bitter jeer to the far greater part of all mankind, to say they are rejected without respect unto their sins? but yet not damned without respect unto their Sins, when the same men do say, that all the rejected are damned, and therefore damned because rejected? Mr. B. professeth (p. 135,) that I no where seem to understand Reprobation otherwise then as he would have me, that is, to signify a decree to damn. How chanceth he then to write against me? or rather why against himself? for he 
* Corrept. Cor. p. 121. ☜  confesseth he knows not one (the more is his ignorance) who will not readily yield, that God did not absolutely decree the Reprobation (positive) of any Creature, but upon prescience and supposition of wilful Rebellion and Impenitence.] which is as much as to say, that though my opinion must needs be true, and he cannot choose but confess it, (when in a lucid Interval he can discern its necessity) yet lest he seem to be worsted, or to have erred heretofore, or to be the convert of one who is not a Presbyterian, he will put my opinion into new words, and say he is not of my opinion because he speaks it in other words; and he will do so, because he will differ, and differ he will, because (forsooth) he will not yield. But 'tis too late to say he will not, for he hath done it distinctly in that confession, which in the Margin is pointed out with a Finger. Let him not eat up that saying, and we shall be friends, (although perhaps he may not know it, who understands not the difference betwixt himself and himself,) he must be an Arminian, (I say not in mine, but) in his own notion. But (alas!) in how many minds may one man be? for the Author of the sentence pointed out with the last digit, is the Author of another sentence, which must in my Margin be pointed out with another. [It must needs be most evident (saith Master B. p. 115.) that punishment must needs be decreed before the permission 
☜  of Sin.] I am in some Amazement, how one and the same man should be the Asserror of these two sayings; that is so true, and this so false, that so contrary to this, and this to that; for if the decree of damnation, or reprobation positive, was not absolute, but conditional, made upon prescience and supposition of sin (as he confessed p. 121.) how could punishment be decreed before the very permission of sin? (as he affirmeth p. 115.) either he must say, that positive Reprobation or damnation is not a punishment (which will be strange) no not though it were decreed on supposition of sin (which will be stranger,) or that the Being of sin is before the permission of it, or that God foresaw it would be, before he foresaw he would permit it; or that that is before which is after; or that the Correptoria Corrector hath printed unparallelled Contradictions, and instead of biting hath broke his Teeth. Again, 3. Master B. his preterition denotes, a leaving in massà 
3.  corruptâ. Upon which it follows, that what is said in my Notes against the Postlapsarian way doth equally hold against his preterition, as against irrespective, or unconditional Damnation. For there the Question is in the issue this, whether when all had sinned in Adam, the greater multitude were left, or passed by in that Mass by him who hated nothing that he had made, without his providing them any Remedy, or giving Christ to die for them. If Christ tasted death for every one of these thus fallen, there could be no preterition, or negative Reprobation of any one, And if there were multitudes for whom he died not, nor was intended by God to be the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or] Ransom for them, then as these were passed by in Massa, so were they also in Gods Decree condemned or Reprobated in Massa. For so they certainly must be, who being fallen in Adam were never so much as intended to be raised by Christ. Again, 4. If some of those that are passed 
4.  by, shall die in Infancy or in the womb, before their commission of actual sin, they cannot but perish (according to Mr. B.) And if so their preterition and Damnation is on the very same account, merely upon the Sin of Adam. And so not distinguishable either in the subject, or in the Foundation. Not in the former, because the same persons that are passed by are also damned. Nor in the later, because the same sin of Adam which provoketh their preterition, doth also provoke their Condemnation.  
Sect. 3. In the Margin of Mr. B. p. 4. he citys Jer. 9 1. every whit as impertinently to the subject matter for which 'tis cited, as the place in Hilary which he saith is somewhere, but cannot tell. I will tell him 
b Male vos parietum Amor cepit, malè Ecclesiam D●i in Tectis aedificijsque veneramini, male sub his pacis Nomen ingeritis.— Montes mihi & sylvae & lacus & Carceres, & voragines sunt tutiores. In his enim Prophe●ae aut manentes 〈◊〉 detrusi Dei spiritu prophetabant. Hilarius contra Arianos & Auxentium in fine. Basil. Edit. p. 216.  where it is, that he may learn 
Of Orthodox Assemblies.  to use his Readins better. For it is pitifully mistaken, or as pitifully applied, it being in Hilary, a preferring the Orthodox Assemblies, although in solitary places, before the Assemblies of the Arians; who prevailing by violence●ver ●ver the Orthodox party, did by the favour of the Emperor fill all the Churches▪ So much did they prosper who denied the Godhead of Jesus Christ, as to sequester them that did assert it, and were ready not to be plundered only, but even to die for the Lord Jesus. This is applied by Mr. B. to his burying himself amongst his books. How much a better application he might have made, I leave his Reader to be his Judge.  
§. 4. He calls it his happy misfortune, that no other dropped 
Of Aust. & King james  from his pen then were usual to Austin against Pelagius, and to learned Orthodox King James against Arminius. p. 6. 7.] 1. He abuseth Austin and King James, as much as 
1.  before he abused himself. He doth as good as call them Railers, and false Accusers. But where do they say, that Pelagius or Arminius were satanical a Blasphemers, and in blaspheming 
a a Corrept. Cor. p. 102.  a exceed the Devil himself, and were 
‖ Id. p. 55.  absolutely for Atheism, major, & minor, and such other language, as Mr. B. gives me? 2. Though King James at first appeared 
2.  in favour of the Anti-Romonstrants Doctrine, concerning man's will, and Gods Decrees, yet years, experience, and meditation made him espy and retract his former persuasions (as I foresee an occasion to show hereafter in my account of Mr. B. first prefacer) 3. If King James were learned (as he was) 
3.  he was the likelier to be Orthodox, and if he were Orthodox (as Mr. B. confesseth) than we to Mr. B. and to all of his Gang, for that King was a perfect Hater of the Presbyterian way; to which he gave the blackest characters that could be given to a Sect; and foretold what things should be expected from that Tribe. (But more of this too hereafter, this being enough to make appear, how very cruelly Mr. B. used himself.  
§. 5. He saith an Erysipelas is a disease rather hot then hurtful, and sometimes the indicium of a recovery from some great 
Of Erysipelas.  sickness, possibly from a dangerous fever, nay, frenzy. p. 7.] Here his condition is most deplorable. For 1. I spoke in my Epistle 
1.  of an Exulcerate Erysipelas (as a thousand Readers can witness) which Mr. B. doth here conceal, making a weeful flight, ab hypothesi ad Thesin. 2. Doth he mean that Erysipelas 
2.  which he doth not express, or doth he not? if he doth not, there is Impertinence and fraud, but if he doth, there is ignorance and hypocrisy. For 3, He names Fernelius 
3.  in his Margin, (as if he had knowledge of what he saith;) but neither mentions his words, nor the place where they are written, (as if he feared the Reader should find him false.) 4. He applies to himself what I said of Erysipelas, 
4.  and though he saith it is a sign of Recovery, yet every Recovery doth presuppose a disease. He names a fever and a frenzy. I will not contradict him, for Ira furor brevis est, in the judgement of Horace, but is it a sign of Recovery, when after all means of Cure used by me, and his other friends (whereof his first prefacer professeth to have been one) he useth all the scurrility that could be thought on? if to say that I exceed the Devil in blasphemy, and that I make God to be worse than the devil, and that I write Diabolical stuff etc. is the sign of a Recovery, what would he have said if his wholesome Erysipelas had been no index of his Amendment. But (5.) An exulcerate Erysipelas is no such innocent 
5.  thing, as he would make it, nor did 
a Erysipelas' est duplex: unum quod simplex Eris: Celso appellatur, solo rubore & ardore, nullâ exulceratione molestum; alterum quod eidem sacer ignis nuncupatur, atque exulceratum Erysipelas. Simplicis Erysipelatis origo est è fervente tenuique sanguine qui biliosus appellatur; exulcerati verò ex eo cui bilis supervacaneae ejusque incalescentis nonnihil sit admistum. Fernel. l. 7. c. 4.  Fernelius tell him any such thing, (as I have showed in my Margin.) Or if he had, he had deceived him. For 
‖ Quando suppuratur, apparet non fuisse verum & legitimum, quia genitum est ab aliquo crasso humore cum bile mixto, undesequitur corrosio partium quae cuti proximè subsunt; quapropter tale Erysipelas pejus etiam habetur eo, quod exquisitum appellatur. Frambes. in l. 7. Canonicum & Consultationun. Med. p▪ 497.  Frambesarius, and 
† Id autem quod Erysipelas v●cari dixi, non solum vulneri supervenire, sed sine hoc quoque oriri consuevit, atque periculum majus affert, utique si circa cervicem aut caput constitit. Celsus lib. 5. cap. 26.  Celsus, with 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hypocrates Aphor. 20. Sect. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Aph. 25. Sect. 6.  Hypocrates added to them, do speak so hardly of an exulcerate Erysipelas, that I had rather believe than feel it. And so all the contumelies of that Page do fly back into the Face of him that vents them, and do admonish their Author from this day forward, not to meddle with matters above his reach; and when he shows himself in public, to use more skill, or more integrity. But both will do best.  
§. 6. He confesseth he is jealous over me, pag. 8. Because I 
Of sincere being better than Orthodox.  say, with S. Paul, That God will render to every man according to his 
‖ Rom. 26. 1.  works, not his opinions. (Ibid.) Jealousy, even here too, is as cruel as the Grave. Suppliciumque suum est. How sad a life doth he lead who is afflicted and troubled at all I say? Even Scripture will not please him if proceeding from my Pen. Certainly none but a Solifidian can have unkindness to such Texts. Yet perhaps he hath not an ill opinion of the innocentest passages in my Book, but only takes a round course to quarrel at all, that in case there should be Pelagianism in any one Period, he may not fail to meet with it: As Herod (in another case) had not the least aversion to any one of those 
† Matth. 2. 16.  Infants who were of two years old and younger, but yet gave order to slay them all, that he might be the surer to light on Christ. Secondly, I said, it is not so good a task, to 
2.  make Men Orthodox Christians, as to make them honest and sincere ones. Upon which Mr. B. is very angry. (p. 8.) Is that my fault? if he thinks otherwise, I am sorry for him, but cannot help it. And if he doth not, why should he be angry that we agree? If he thinks it is better to know much, then to do well, and prefers a clear Head before a sound and upright Heart, what a case is he in? and how ill hath he done to * commend his preaching? And if on the contrary, he 
Correp. Cor. p. 22.  thinks as I do, why should he be froward for want of power to descent?  
§. 7. He adds a little after (p. 8.) That I and the pi●us 
To be practical Christians 〈◊〉 ill thing.  men of my way, are great Admirers and Followers of a Practical Catechism the sixth time published.] What greater commendation could he have given us, then that we follow the good which we admire? Would he have us know our Lesson, but not observe and keep it? Orthodox Christians, but not Practically honest & sincere ones too? If He and the Godly. men of his way (as he and they are wont to word it) do neither admire nor follow that Practical Catechism, I wish they did, and beseech God they may. If they neither do, nor will, I will rather be a pious, then godly man: that is (as he hath distinguished) I will rather be of them, whom he calls the pious, then of them whom he calls the godly.  
§. 8. He calls his opinions in these matters, [The very fundamentals 
Of Fundamentals in Religion.  of the Covennant of Grace, pag. 8. lin. 12.] but in which of the Three Creeds shall we find either of them? What Poperty is this, to obtrude upon us new Articles of Faith? I see King James was a wise, as well as a Learned and Onthodox Man. And so was He of the Lower House, who told Mr. Speaker in his Speech, (An. Dom. 1640.) That if they were listened to who would extirpate Episcopacy (speaking of the Presbyterians) they would instead of every Bishop put down in a Diocese, set up a Pope in every Parish: And if the Presbyterian Assemblies should succeed, they would assume a Power to Excommunicate Kings, as well as other Men: And if Kings were once Excommunicated, Men would not care what became of them. And Mr. Hooker (as I take it) doth say of such Men, that they might do well enough to live in a Wilderness, but not in a Kingdom, or Commonwealth. For all who differ from their opinions (that is, their mistakes,) shall be said to err in the very fundamentals of the Covenant of Grace, and so be looked upon as Heathens, and so be used as Vessels of Wrath. And that their Censures do extend to the Supreme Civil Power, is apparent to all who know the History of Scotland, or the Book of Paraeus upon the Epistle to the Romans, which was burnt at Oxford by order of Convocation, An. Dom. 1622. It is here to be noted by Mr. B. and his Abettors, that the Reverend Bishop 
* Sentent. Davena●…, p. 10. & 11.  Davenan● in his famous Epistle to Duraeus, (which was one of the last, if not the very last thing he writ, and that not long before his death) affirmeth, That nothing is Fundamental which is not comprehended in the Apostles Creed. Amongst these he reckons the Redemption of mankind in general, as really different from God's * peculiar people (which he therefore doth distinguish into two several Articles) And this is one of those Articles which he allegeth as an Expedient to reconcile the Protestant Churches. Which whosoever shall deny is pronounced by the Bishop to deserve an Excommunication, and to be a Christian only in Name. And this perhaps may be the reason why Mr. B. tells us of a Damnatory Sentence to be pronounced upon that Bishop, (however he was one of the Synod of Dort) were it not that he is pacified with some Orthodox putoffs.  
§ 9 He saith, That some Diseases do better when they 
1.  break out then when they are kept in, p. 9] Yet the Diseases of Railing and Forgery had been better kept in, then be suffered to break out. For that which cometh out of the 
‖ Mat. 15. 11.  mouth defileth the man. And our Saviour doth instance as well in 
† Vers. 19  false-witness and Blasphemies, as in Murders, Adulteries, Fornications and Thefts. Now whether or no Mr. B. hath not born false witness against me and others, let every Man judge by the third Discovery. And whether he hath or hath not blasphemously spoken concerning God, let it be judged by what I have proved, and by what I shall prove before I leave him. 2. For the publication of my Notes, which he expresseth by 
2.  the breaking out of a Disease, I have this to say; That though at first I was unwilling to publish any thing which I thought might prove [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] an Apple of Strife and Contention; yet when I saw that peace could not be had with the quarrelsome, and was persuaded by Friends to prevent the Calumnies of a False Copy, by the publication of a True one, I did in all singleness of heart make my Appeal to common Readers, whether or no I was a Pelagian, & c? Or whether my secret did belong to the 
* Correp. Cor. p. 23.  Depths of Satan. In this I am sure I did very well. For he that doth truth, cometh to the 
† John 3. 21.  light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God. And 'tis the joy of my Soul, for which I am bound to thank God, that my small performance in those Papers hath redounded to the benefit at least of some.  
§. 10. He professeth not to put on the Spirit of meekness, 
Meekness professedly put off by Mr. B.  p. 10.] (much indeed to his commendation) but to come against me with the Rod, Ibid.] Yet he hath made so many Rods for himself, that I am even weary to lay them on. What I said and meant only of the Accusor of the Brethren, Rev. 12. 10. he takes unto himself, p. 10. and so is Felo de se: as if this were a mark of his being faithful, chosen, and true, (Ibid.) that he hates his Neighbour not as himself, though the Refuser of instruction 
‖ Prov. 15. 32.  despiseth his own soul.  
§. 11. He is content to have his Cause tried by any ten noted signior Sympresbyters, who since the times have been upon their Tropics, have been least of all Tropical, p. 11.] 'Tis well he acknowledgeth his Cause so ill, as to submit it only to the 
1.  judgement of his own Dear Brethren to whom he Dedicates his Book. But 2. how came he to say, they have been least 
2.  Tropical since the times have been upon their Tropics? Are they the Men that have stood their ground? Indeed S. Hierome hath said, Bos vetulus fortiter figit pedem. But did he not ●ell them in his Address, that they adhered yet to one part of the 39 Articles, implying their Apostasy from all the rest? What was that which he called an unchristian thing, and four things more? How many turns and removes have some of them made since they subscribed the three Articles which were contrived by Bishop W●itgift? Since they owned the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical agreed upon with the Licence of Orthodox King james in the Synod held at London An. Dom. 1603. and commanded to be observed under the Great Seal of England? Since they took their Degrees either in Oxford or Cambridge? Since the Day of their Ordinations when they were upon their Knees, and the Bishop's hand upon their Heads? Since they Read Common Prayer like other mortals? and preached some Sermons like other men? The time would fail me to speak of what I will not here speak of. And will he never leave jeering the very men of his way? But (3.) perhaps he had need to utter his fine 
3.  Clinch, which he therefore marked with Italic letters, and of which he is so amorous as to repeat it verbatim p. 48. lin. 7. 8. 9 (where he calls them grave Incumbents only, as if he distinguished betwixt right and possession.) Had he not done better to have kept his ●est whole, then thus to have broken it upon his friends? Tropics and Tropical would sure have kept.  
§. 12. He concludes the necessity of railing in that he 
Railing not warranted by Scripture.  ought not to be a dumb Dog, nor to be toothless at his tongue's end, and pens end, and that it is within his commission to be cutting. p. 12. lin. 45. 6. 8] Thus he squeezeth the Text till blood comes from it. Scripture was ever made a Lesbian Rule, by which all sorts of men have undertaken to set their Errors right. The very Gnostics and Nicholaitans pretended to it as much as any, but hardly ever was it put to viler uses, than now by our correptory Corrector. because Titus a Bishop had the sharpness of Rebuke committed to him as part of his Episcopal Censures, (Tit. 1. 13.) Mr. B. a mere Presbyter defends his railing and slandering against a person, over whom, he cannot pretend a jurisdiction. Which abuse of this Text he seems to have borrowed from his first Epist'ler, with what success, or Discretion, we shall see more hereafter.  
§. 13. He is much pleased that our Divines at the Synod of 
Of our Divines at the Syof Dort, and of the Synod▪ itself.  Dort were the visible lawful Representers of our Mother the Church of England there. p. 18.] I am very glad of this confession, because he adds another to it, not many lines after, [That when a motion did but seem to be made somewhat prejudicial to the Hier●rchick Flaunt of the English Church, they (our English Divines in that Synod of Dort) did unanimously enter their joint attestation against it.] 1. It seems they were not so much against the Remonstrant, as against the Presbyterian party. For (2.) They were so far at agreement with the former, that Bishop Davenant in his Pacificatory to Duraeus, is very 
† Sentent. D. Davenantij edit. Cantab. p. 10. 11. Bishop Davenant.  expressly for universal Redemption; and saith that 
* P. 27. Edit. Lond. A. D. 1641. Edit. Latin: Cantab: p 20.  nothing belongs to the Catholic and Fundamental faith in these points of freewill and Predestination, but this one thing, [that all good is from God's Grace, and all evil from ourselves.] Which as it is the total sum of what I desired to be granted me in the two Grounds of my belief and Book▪ so it is also of what the Bishop there mentions. He saith too, that the word Calvinist is rather a sign of 
a Id. ibid. p. 46.  Faction than a badge of brotherly union, and sets down 
b Exhortat: to broth: Comm: c, 11. p. 150.  Theses of God's Decrees, which are flatly contrary to many Anti-Romonstrants, if not to all. So that whatever his opinions might once have been, he shows evident marks of his change, as the Primate of Armagh, and other great ones have done, (as well as my very inconsiderable self.) It's very well known that in the Synod of Dort, the English were more moderate than the rest of that way, nay, sometimes opposite. Bishop Hall of late hath publicly showed his dislike of all that party who ascribe eternal misery to the 
* Select Thoughts one Centurie. Med: 34. p. 102 103. 104. & seqq.  absolute will of an unrespective power; and rebukes them 
Bishop Hall  for their distinction of a positive and negative Reprobation. (Which Mr. B. so much relies on p. 1.) he calls it blasphemy (as I did) to make God the Author of Sin, and pleads in effect for my whole second Chapter, (which Mr. B. hath so much railed at) yet he and Bishop Davenant were both at Dort. Besides, it is certified by a most learned and pious 
‖ Argumenta omnia erant ferrea, & syllogismi numellae ac compedes. Praetor majorem Propositionem, Lictor Minorem, & conclusionem faciebat Carcer: Episcop: in Vedel: Rhap. c. 11. p. 216.  person of that Synod, that things were carried at Dort (somewhat worse then at Trent itself) rather by violence, than Reason. Their Arguments were all iron; their Syllogisms no other than Stocks and Fetters, the Praetor made the Major proposition, the Lictor was the Minor, and the prison was the conclusion. 3. Besides, if those very few 
† Dr. Hall. D. Davenant. D. Carleton. Doctor Ward.  of our men at the Synod of Dort were the visible lawful Representers of our Mother the Church of England, how much more were all Those who composed the Catechism, the Communion Book, the 39 Articles of our English Church, to some of which some 
a Confer Artic. 31. Eccl. Belg. in Act: Synod. part: 1. p. 362. come Artic: 36. Eccl. Anglic. Item Thes: 6, & 8, etc. Genev. in Synod: Dordr: part. 2. p. 132. 133. cum Artic: 2. 7. 15. 31. Eccl. Anglic:  Articles of the Synod at Dort have a most evident Repugnance? what shall we say of all those who composed our Canons and Constitutions A. D. 1603. which were ratified by the learned and Orthodox King James (as Mr. B. calls him when he thinks it is for his turn) to which notwithstanding Mr. B. and his Masters do stand in perpetual opposition? if so few men at Dort who were purposely called out by the same King james are to denominate the judgement of the whole Church of England, how much more may be said for the Common prayer, which was not only subscribed to by all our English Divines at Dort, but was establshed by Law and Canon, since the times of our Reformation, by no less than five Acts of Parliament in the days of Edward the sixth, and Queen Elizabeth? compiled by those Reformers who were not persecutors, but Martyrs? and held in practice during the time of no less than 4. Princes? (and 'tis well known that Pe●ry for publishing of libels against the Church Government, was indicted, arraigned, and executed at Tyburn.) How much more for Episcopacy, which is not only as ancient as Christianity itself in this very Land, but was particularly confirmed by M●gna Charta, and by no less than 32 Acts of Parliament? and in 42 of King Edward the third, the first chapter enacteth, that if any Statute be made to the contrary, it shall be holden for none. And in 25. Edvardi 1. Chap. 1. 2. Magna Charta is declared to be the Common Law of the Land. And I hope an Ecclesiastical Constitution whether divine or humane, is not the less valid for being corroborated by the whole Civil power. But 4. Our English Divines at Dort, as they were all for Episcopacy (and their Authority as valid in one point, as another,) so they were 
b Confer Thes: 3. sent. Theol: Mag: Brit: in Act. Synod: de Artic. 2. in part. 2. p. 100: 101: cum Thes: 6. 8. sent. Genev. ibid. 132: 133:  opposite in that, and in other points, to other Representers of other Churches, even in that very Synod. And Mr. B. is so angry for one part of their Dissension as to jeer them very mannerly with their Hierarchick Flaunt, which the most Reverend Bishop Hall did very learnedly assert against Smectymnuus, whom Mr. B. hath ill requited with this correptory Correction for his having requested Mr. Kendal to write an Answer to my Notes. Which yet none are so credulous as to believe, except the few who are not acquainted with such men's Rumours. But 5. That a Presbyter should accuse those Bishops of so much arrogancy and Pride, as seems 
5.  to be couched in that Nickname [Hierarchick Flaunt] is no more or less strange, then for Corah, Dathan, or Abiram to accuse Moses and Aaron of having taken too much upon them. What shall we think of the Aerian or Presbyterian Flaunt, which denieth a supremacy to all Civil power in all cases and over all persons, as well Ecclesiastical, as Civil? and for this very reason were never known to be quiet, any longer than they were flattered, or kept inawe? The power to excommunicate the Supreme Civil Magistrate was never arrogated by any, except the Pope, and the Presbyterian, in direct opposition to the 39 Articles of the Church of England, and to the Protestant Hierarchy by whom they were composed; and who never were known to beard their Sovereigns; a thing as natural to the Scotish Presbytery, as eating and drinking to other men. And what affinity (or Identity rather) there is betwixt the Scotish and English Followers of Aërius, their League and Covenant hath made apparent. If Mr. B. or his Assertors do think I cannot prove what I have spoken, let them say but the word, and I will try. I have notcharged my Margin with Citations of proof, both because I suppose it is not needful where there is so great a Noteriety of Fact, and because my supellex is too plentiful to be but tolerably expressed in so small a Room.  
§. 14. He saith Vox populi Vox dei. p. 23.] if that is generally true, then is he himself the unhappiest man that I have known. He hath forgot what he told us p. 6. that his parrhesia in speaking hath procured him small favour in the world. And yet he would needs publish his correptory Correction. When he calls my person [satanical Blasphemer, and my writing [Diabolical stuff,] he professeth as near as he can, to call things by their proper names, p. 6. This the people calls Railing. And he concludes against himself, that the voice of the people is the voice of God.  
§. 15. He calls Vossius his Pelagian History my Warehouse to fetch Quotations out of, p. 24.] Perhaps he had not known that there was any such Book, or that I made the least use of it, if I had not publicly informed him in my 25 page. What a cunning Man is this to find out the knowledge of some things, by no other Circumstance then that of being told? but since he is so ingrateful as to make an ugly use of the knowledge which I gave him, I may perhaps be less liberal another time. I was desirous to use Vossius, (not as Mr. B. hath used Janseni●…s and Dr. Twisse, and several others of that stamp, out of pure necessity, but) that the Reader might discern what was the sense of Antiquity, not only in my judgement (which is not considerable) but in the judgement of learned Vossius. To whom I added many Testimonies, though not the Tithe of what I could easily have done.  
§. 16. He saith It was a Massilian Tenent, that they denied 
Of the Grace of Perseverance. 1. 2. 3.  there was given unto any such a perseverance from which they were not permitted to prevaricate, p. 24.] Though this is nothing to the purpose, & hath been spoken of before, yet that his Reader may not be abused by his bare Intimation, I think it not amiss to say a little. 1. That all is not erroneous, or Massilian, which was said to be so at the Synod of Dort. 2. That I never denied the Grace of Perseverance; but said 
* Corrected Copy of Notes. p. 66.  on the contrary, that that Grace in the Elect doth bring them to a most certain and infallible degree of bliss. But 3. I question whether every one that hath Sanctification hath also that Grace of Perseverance. And to this S. Austin hath sure no quarrel, as appears by the 
a Cum dicunt sancti, ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos à malo, quid aliud quam ut in sanctitate perseverent precantur? Aug. de bono Persev. c. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4.  beginning of his Sixth Chapter De bon● perseverantiae. For 1. They are holy (in some measure) before they have or pray for the Grace of Perseverance. 2. If no holy man can fall, than no need of that prayer. 3. The Grace of Sanctification is one Grace, that of Perseverance another. 4. God doth not always at the first grant holy men's prayers, but doth exercise their vigilance, and excite their importunity, and grants them perseverance in their course of well-doing as a reward to their vigilance and importunity in prayer for it. 5. Though in S. Austin's opinion, they that have the grace of Perseverance cannot fall from that grace; 
5.  yet they that have the grace of regeneration and justification may fall from that grace, as appears by the place which I had cited out of S. Austin in my p. 67. Now before Mr. B. had writ against my Notes, he should have taken the pains to understand them, especially what I had spoken, p. 65, 66, 67.  
§. 17. What he saith of the Lambeth Articles, and the 
Of Lambeth Articles.  Explanatory Articles of the Church of Ireland, p. 24.] is every whit as impertinent. For 1. They are not of the Church of England, which he professeth to be for, though I 
1.  cannot guess for what reason. 2. The Articles of Lambeth were such an Innovation, as Queen Elizabeth was angry at, 
2.  and commanded them speedily to be suppressed. Nor would King James be entreated to let them pass among the Articles of the Church of England, who rather protected Mr. Montague, their great opposer. And we may very well suspect the Man is sinking irrecoverably, who catcheth so earnstly at every such straw, to support or rescue his drowning cause.  
§. 18. He tells us That in fidelity, though with much weakness he hath served his Mother the Church of England now above these twenty years, in the work of the Ministry; and if he cannot prove that the Doctrines which he hath taught all along, contrary to what I deliver in my Book, are most agreeable to her faith, & that mine is as opposite to it as Heaven and Hell, he will be contented to be cursed by his Mother even with Anathema Maranatha, p. 24, 25.] 1. Here is another Specimen of his peculiar Logic, which doth commonly consist 
1.  in such a stomackful affirmation, that he is in the right, and I in the wrong. So the Scotish Preacher confuted Bellarmine▪ in the Pulpit: [Bellarmine saith thus, but I say the contrary; Where is he now? 2. That he hath served his Mother with much weakness, is that which no body denies him the glory 
2.  of: but 3. with what fidelity we cannot possibly imagine. And 
3. 4.  how much the contrary, let others judge. But 4. how is the World concerned to know, that Mr. B. hath been a Minister above Twenty years? Must we be taught by an example, in how long a time how little a Proficiency some Men can make? It may here be demanded, whether in so many years he ever preached against Railing or Bearing false witness? If he did, how much was his Correptory Correction against his own Doctrine as well as Conscience? 5. How cruelly and Rashly 
5.  he hath proceeded against himself in his Invitation to an Anathema Maranatha, amongst many Instances I shall give but one. He is an opposer (to his poor utmost) of Universal Redemption, 
Universal Redemption asserted by the▪ Church of England.  asserted by his Mother in her Liturgy, Articles and Catechism. Or if he grant Universal Redemption, how can he doubt of what I say against the absolute Reprobation of the Antelapsarians, or the Sublapsarians Preterition? For if Christ died for us men, and for our salvation (as in the Nicene Creed it is expressed by an indefinite equivalent to universal) or for me and all mankind, (as the Catechism hath it) or for all the sins of the whold World both actual and original (as she hath it in her Articles) how can the greatest part of Men be absolutely reprobated, or but passed by in Massâ, without respect unto their actual sins? For if that can be true, Christ died not for them; the passing by being contrary to the giving of Christ. Instead of which these Men do very solemnly use God's offering of Christ (not for them, but) to them. And this they would fain reconcile with the full intention of God Almighty, that they to whom he is offered shall not possibly have him.  
§. 19 He saith There is no question or difficulty, after 
Predestination Respective confessed unwillingly by Mr. B.  what fashion, and upon whom that predestination is to be executed, p. 25. lin. ult. p. 26. lin. 1.] This is as much as I desire. For if no question is to be made how, and on whom God's predestination is to be executed, it doth instantly follow, that his execution being agreeable to his Decree, it must be also without question, that his Decree of Reprobation was to the final impenitent and unbelieving; and that his decree of election was to the believing, penitent, and persevering. Which is my Notion of God's decrees.  
§. 20. He saith That I and my party rob God of his Sovereign 
Of God's Sovereignty and justice. 1.  determinining power, etc. p. 27.] Unless he means my denial of God's being the cause and predeterminer of sin, I cannot guess what he means. I plead for his Sovereignty and determing power, as much as Scripture pleads for them. But he doth not exercise his Sovereignty in decreeing to punish without respect unto sin; and as he determines all things that are good, so he determines nothing that is evil. I appeal to the Reader where lies the Sacrilege. In me, who deny the least causality of wickedness to the Spirit of Holiness? or in the Correptory Corrector, who will have him the Determiner of all Events, just, and unjust? But 2. our Controversy 
2.  is not, what God may do if he will, but what he hath decreed to do, and therefore cannot but will because he hath decreed it, and determined himself by so decreeing; and by his word revealed to us those his determinations. Which are mercifully and justly to judge every man (not according to his merits, as Mr. B. words it, but) according to his 
* Rev. 20. 12. Rom. 2. 6.  works.  
§. 21. He saith that his party will clear themselves to hold 
Of God's being the Author of sin, according to Mr B. his reason to the contrary.  more than myself, that God is no Author of sin, nor can be. For that the very esse of sin is merely Priva●ivum & nullam habet causam efficientem, sed deficientem tantum, p. 33.] Here our Correptory Corrector is fallen so deeply into the mire, as it will not be possible to fetch him out. For 1. If there is 
The distinction of Efficient and Deficient Cause was before considered. Chap. 3. Sect. 28. 1. 2. 3. 4.  found to be an efficient cause of sin (as I have proved there is) he concludeth God to be it, since he gives no other reason of his not being the Author, than that sin hath no efficient cause. 2. He implies that God is such a cause, of which the being of sin is capable, though not such a cause as is competent to that, whose very esse is merely privative. Else for what reason should he render such a reason? 3. If the esse of sin is more than privative, (as I have proved long since) Mr. Barlee's only Reason ceaseth, in default of which, he leaveth God to be the Author of sin; he giving no other reason why he is not the Author. 4. The Reason which he pretends to give, is not taken from the purity and holiness of God and its repugnancy to the nature of sin, but from the incapacity of sin itself; as if ●pon supposition of sins being positive and so capable of an Author, nothing could hinder God Almighty from a capability of being its Author. Or 5. If God is found to be the Author 
5.  of that, whose very esse is merely privative, as of Darkness, Blindness, and the like, (than which there is nothing more apparent) then, (notwithstanding the Reason which M●. B. gives) God may be concluded the Author of sin too. Or 6. If his way of arguing were as strong as he can wish it [viz. that God is not the Author of sin, because its esse is but privative, and hath not an efficient but deficient cause,] yet his condition is as lamentable as his very Adversaries can wish it, (and I heartily wish it were better with him) for this would prove God to be the Author of sin, as much as any thing else either is, or can be. And if it hath any force in it, it will prove that the Devil is not the Father of lies, nor Cain the Author of that Murder for which he is deservedly and justly damned. 7. Why may not that which is punishable with Death eternal, be something? and that which is something, be effected? and that which is effected have an efficient? but Mr. B. hath confessed that sin is something, when he made it the object of God's 
a Correp. Cor. p. 73.  decree, of God's will, of God's eternal Determination, and it cannot be nothing, which God hath absolutely willed to fall out: and 
b Id. p. 78.  voluntarily decreed; and 
‖ Id. p. 79.  determined to be done. Not only Charity, but good Nature forbids the farther prosecution of so unfortunate a writer, whose great store of unskilfulness may help excuse him. For no unskillulnesse is so bad, as to be knowingly erroneous without Amendment.  
§. 22. His Cylindrical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or turn-pin Indifferency 
Of freewill.  p. 33.] he doth as little understand, as he doth [his Euph●es of the pia mater of my Brains p. 19] or his plumbeous cerebrosities of the Church indoctrinated, p. 70.] For what is nonsense is unintelligible, it signifies nothing besides the depth of the speaker, and his very small Acquaintance with Greek, or Latin. But that may otherwise be discerned by comparing the Errors of his Book with those in his Catalogue of Errata, which to prosecute at large would make a very long Chapter, and stir up more laughter than would be perhaps for the Readers ease. It is pity that some men should rather use a ●ew Bombast and rumbling words at a venture, then stay so long as to inquire after their proper signification. The passage which he quoteth p. 64. was fetched from jesus the son of Sirach, whom perhaps he believes to have been one of the profane 
‖ Correp. Cor. p. 28.  spawn of the Arminians, many hundred of years before Arminius himself was born. And 
* Si liberum arbitrium primi hominis consistebat in illo aequilibrio affectus & inclinationis ad malum & bonum, tum sane homo ante lapsum non tantum Dei Imaginem, sed, quod impium auditu est, etiam satanae Imaginem retulit. D. Anton: Walae. cont. Corvin. c. 6.  Walaeus his Argument in the Margin p. 33 [that if the first man were placed in aequilibrio to good and evil, he would not only have been Gods, but Satan's Image,] is so incomparably shallow, that none but a correptory Corrector could have thought it worth citing. For the image of Satan consisteth in the pressing motion to evil, and not in an Indifferency to good or evil. If Mr. B thinks otherwise, he hath a better opinion of the Devil, than he seems to have of Adam in his state of Innocence.  
§. 23. He confesseth, that their Doctrine would sink 
That Mr. B. his Doctrine leadeth to despair by his own confession  men into the gulf of Despair, if they did teach, that though men did knock never so hard, heaven Gates should never be opened unto them p. 34.] yet it is part of theïr Doctrine, 
‖ Nec plus boni facere possumus quam facimus, nec plus mali omittere, quia Deus utrumque, ut fi● f●●t ab aeterno praecise decrevit. Piscat: ad Amic: Dupl: Vorstij: p. 176.  that that no man can possibly commit less sin than he committeth, or do more good than he doth, because God hath precisely decreed from eternity that both be done as they are done. And that it is 
† Fataliter constitutum est, quando, & quomodo, & quantop●re, unusquisque nostrum pietatem vel colere vel non colere debeat. Id: ibid. p. 228.  fatally constituted, both when, and how, and how much every one of us ought to be pious, or not to be pious. It is another part of their Doctrine, that all the care and diligence which men can use towards the attainment of Salvation is vain and frustrate, and rather 
a Dontelock advers: Castell: p. 171.  hurtful then helpful to them that are without faith. And Mr. Calvin referreth the irremediable misery of the sons of Adam [ad 
b Calvin: In: sti●: l. 3. c. 23. § 4. fol. 323 Nun ad eam quae nunc pro damnationis causâ obtenditur, corruptionem, dei ordinatione praedestinati ante fuerant? quum ergò in suâ corruptione pereunt, nihil aliud quam poenas luunt ejus calamitatis, in quam ip●ius praedestinatione lapsus est Adam, ac posteros suos secum praecipites secum traxit. ●ateor sanè, in hanc quâ nunc illigati sunt, conditionis miseriam dei voluntate decidisse universos filios Adam. Atque id est quod principio dicebam, redeundum tandem semper esse ad solum divinae voluntatis Arbitrium, cujus cause sit in i pse abscondita.  solum Arbitrium divinae voluntatis] to the sol● or only or mere will of God, as if he were afraid, that a ma●s own will should be any cause of that corruption, which is alleged to be the cause of Damnation. For such is the Question to to which he there answers, and makes a Grant. Q● Were not men predestined by the ordination of God to that * corruption which is alleged as the cause of Damnation? when therefore they perish in their corruption, they only suffer the punishment of that Calamity into which Adam fell and into which he drew headlong his Posterity with himself, by God's Predestination. Truly (saith Calvin) I do confess, that all the sons of Adam did fall into the misery of this condition in which they are bound [and fettered] by the will of God. And this is that which I said at the beginning, that we must always have recourse to the sole Decree of God's will, the cause of which lies hidden within himself. I will here observe but two things. 1. That the Question was not made of any other corruption then that of sin, viz. the cause of Damnation. 2. That such as are absolutely reprobated or passed by in Adam's loins, and had not Christ as a Ransom intended for them, cannot enter heaven Gates though they should knock never so hard; that is, upon supposition, that they should knock, which whether they can or cannot, they cannot enter, if they are absolutely excluded by unconditional Reprobation. Which being the Doctrine of Mr. B. and of his Teachers, he hath confessed it to be bloody, as leading men into the Gulf of Despair.  
§. 24. He hath a strangely weak and false assertion of A. 
Of Rivets Argument.  Rivet in the Margin of his 38. page, which he saith will prove most unavoidably true, 
* Qui affirmant Inclinationem ad peccandum etiam ante lapsum, in Deum Naturae autorem omnem peccati culpam, conjicunt cum inclinatio talis vitiosa non esse non potuerit, quae tamen fuerit à deo necesse est, si ante lapsum detur. etc. Rivet: Disp: 2: Thes: 2.  viz. that they who affirm an inclination to sin before the fall, do lay all the fault of the sin upon God the Author of nature, since such an inclination cannot but be vicious, which yet must needs have been from God, if it were before the fall p. 38.] But here I demand. Had not Eve an inclination to the forbidden fruit, before she eat it? was it not fair to look on? and did not this incline her eye? was it not tempting to the Taste? and did not that incline her palate? had she not a body of flesh and blood, inclinable to its proper material objects, as well as a soul, or spirit, inclined to obedience? if before she sinned, she was not inclinable to sin, how then did she sin? was it without or against her inclination? if her sin was voluntary, and not committed of necessity, (or whether she would or no) she had an inclination to which she yielded, and thereby sinned. And which if she had resisted, she had not fal●e, but been victorious. 2. Her mere inclination to 
2.  sin was not her sin; for if it were, she sinned before she sinned. And if her inclination to her first sin were itself a sin, there would be something [primo prius] before the first, and the first would be second, which would imply a contradiction. There would also be an inclination to that inclination (as there must needs be to every voluntary and wilful sin) which would infer the absurdity of progressus in infinitum, if inclinatio ad peccandum were ipsum peccatum, nor would there be any distance betwixt the way, and the journey's end. 3. It is not a sin to be hungry, (for so was Christ) nor to be tempted, (for so was Christ too.) But 
3.  'tis a sin to do what is forbidden, or not to do what is commanded. Adam & Eve were forbidden to 
a Gen: 2. 17.  eat and to 
b Chap. 3. 3.  touch, not to be inclinable to either of them. 4. 
* How God inferred to be the Author of Sin by Rivet and Mr. B.  Whence was the sin, if there was no inclination? not from Eve herself, who if she had no inclination, had no temptation from within; not from the Devil, whose Temptations have no force, if contrary to all our inclinations. He tempted our Saviour, but could not possibly prevail, because he had not inclination to any the least evil So that according to Rivet, and Mr. B. t●e sin of Eve was from God alone. For they affirm two things; First that her very inclination to sin was 
p cum talis Inclinatio vitiosa non esse non potuerit.  vicious, and Secondly, that of necessity it was from 
q Quae tamen fuerit à Deo necesse est. A. Rivet. apud Correp. Corr. p. 38.  God. So that unless they can prove that Eve had no inclination to sin before she sinned, they must confess they make God to be the 
r Qui affirmant inclinationem ad peccandum ante lapsum, in Deum naturae Authorem conjiciunt omnem peccati culpam. Id. Ib.  Author of sin, upon the ground on which they say, that others do it. And besides this violentum which Mr. B. procureth to himself, it must be remembered 5. That these Men who do not allow an inclination to Eves first sin, do yet contend for a necessity of its being committed, and do ascribe that necessity to God's absolute Decree. And yet 6. Mr. B. 
s Correp. Corr. pag. 217. his words are, that I stand up for a miserable, lying, sinful power of resisting God's grace.  accuseth me, for merely asserting the power of resisting the grace of God; and farther calls it a sinsul power, although it is of Gods giving. The power to sin is very innocent whilst not reduced into act. For Adam and the Angels were very innocent before they sinned; and they had power to sin before they sinned; how else could they sin? had they been able without the power? and was not God the Author of all, with which they were endued before they sinned? So that if the very power to sin is sinful (as Mr. B. saith) Mr. B. makes God to be the Author of sin. Unless he can prove (by way of subterfuge) that a Man can sin without the power to sin, or that he hath not the power to sin before he sins. That Potentia is not Prior actu.  
§. 25. He accuseth me of saying, That Infants are 
* P. 39 lin. 29, 30.  harmless notwithstanding original sin, and that none in the world dying Infants are 
† P. 39 l. ult. 1. 2. 3. Of Infants being harmless and in a saveable condition.  damned, in his p. 39 But First in my pag. 9 which he citeth, there is not any such thing. And Secondly if there were, it were not liable to Reproof. Nay, Thirdly, how could Mr. B. defame himself more, then by denying Infants to be harmless, or by affirming that those harmless things are damned? he had been less cruel to himself if he had called himself Pelagian, Massilian, Arminian, or the like. For if Mr. B. is one of those who are faithful, chosen and true, (p. 10.) and who cannot possibly fall away, (p. 35.) why should Infants be sentenced by him to Hell, who never were guilty of any railing, or of bearing false witness against their Neighbours? And if Infants may not be termed harmless, who never injured any Man living in thought, word, or deed, what hope hath Mr. B. that we should term him a harmless Man? Must the heinous Malefactors be placed in Heaven, whilst thousands of Infants are adjudged to Hell, who did no evil actually, neither was guile found in their lips? If Job is said to be 
t Job 1. 1, 8.  perfect and upright, fearing God, and eschewing evil; if Zachary and Elizabeth are said to be 
u Luke 1. 6.  righteous before God, walking in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord blameless; if David said of himself that he was 
w Psal. 86. 2.  holy; if Christ commanded his Disciples to be 
x Mat. 10. 16.  harmless as Doves; and S. Paul his Philippians, to be blameless and 
y Phil. 2. 15.  harmless; why should I be reproached for saying that Infants were harmless things, who are sure more harmless, then Job, or Zachary, David, or the Philippians? If our Saviour was so tender of little children, as to be much 
z Mar. 10. 14.  displeased with his Disciples for being less tender than they ought; if he proposed a 
a Mat. 18. 1, 2, 3.  little child as an emblem of the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and told his Disciples, that except they were converted and did become as little 
b Vers. 3.  children, they should not enter into the kingdom of heaven; and bid them take heed that they did not despise one of those little ones, because 
c Vers. 10.  their Angels in heaven do always behold the face of God; if he said of little children (as little children) that the kingdom of God is composed of 
d Mar. 10. 14  such (of such in Age, or such in Innocence, that is to say, in simplicity and inoffensiveness of mind) and farther added, that whosoever should not receive the kingdom of God as a little (e) child (that is with meekness, and malleableness, self-distrust, and resignation, and sole dependence upon Christ, like that of an Infant upon the Mother or the Nurse,) should in no (e) wise enter therein; if he took them up into his 
f Vers. 16.  arms, 
Vers. 15.  put his hands upon them, and blessed them, and that because they were little children (whether their parents were believers, or unbelievers, or believers only in part,) how is it honourable or safe for Mr. B. to give such Correptory Correction to Millions of Millions of such Dovelike souls, as to be willing to have them burning in a bottomless lake of Fire and Brimstone, and that for ever, merely for being the posterity of Adam, (which yet they could not but be) and so polluted with that sin which is called Original, because it never was actually 
g So saith our Mother the Church of England, Artic. 31.  committed by them, and for the expiation of which their Saviour died? Let every Man judge of Mr. B. his opinions touching the irrespectivenesse of God's Decrees, by the monstrous assertions to which they lead him. Amongst many of which this sure is one, [That such great sinners as he cannot but confess himself to be, (unless by a denial he will become the greater sinner) are precious vessels of election, and cannot (by any means possible) fall finally from grace, whilst the far greater part of Infants are vessels of wrath, though incomparably better and more harmless, and so more lovely before God and Man, than such as hate and persecute their Fellow Christians.  
§. 26. He saith I have a care of pouring out a world of humane Rhetoric in the very words which man's wisdom teacheth. But none at all of any spiritual Logic; which art I no where exercise unless in drawing up a cracked Syllogism of four terms, p. 43.] If I have done so, as he speaks, it is 
1.  more than I know; and how he should know it I cannot imagine, since I am sure I never told him. 'Tis true indeed that in my Book I did not say, I wot, I wis, and I trow. But that was no argument that I took any care of pouring out a world of humane Rhetoric. What care he took I cannot tell, but he hath poured forth a world of most inhuman and cruel Rhetoric, in the very words which man's wilfulness (I cannot say man's wisdom teacheth: for to have called me Dragon, Sorcerer, Satanical Blasphemer, the child of the Devil, and my Book a Noonday Devil, was I think no part (no not so much as) of humane wisdom. But 2. If a great deal of Rhetoric were a 
2.  fault, either as being Rhetoric, or as being a great deal, Mr. B. might accuse the Epistles of S. Paul, and Psalms of David. And if the fault lies in the humanity of the Rhetoric, as that is opposed to divine, Mr. B. is more guilty than any Man I ever read. He is as rhetorical as he is able, as appears by the pleasure he takes in clinches. Such as [Notes of no good Note. Courted at Court. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Face. Fulgent and Fulgentius. Prefaces, faces, and outfaces. Classes and clashing. Tropics, and Tropical. Polite and Politic. Stick and stickle: Prosperous and prosper.] With other such elegancies & rhet●rications, which some little children of six years old have not been able to endure. But 3. It is worthier a Readers patience, to consider the cracked Syllogism of four Terms, which he saith I pin on the 
3.  Apostle in my 19 Page. How far from truth and ingenuity, or but tolerable skill in the Art of Reasoning, how much to the injuring of S. Paul, and to the pitiful betraying of his own Cause, will be as worthy our observation, as any one misdemeanour in all his Book. The whole case lies thus. I did in 
Of universal Redemption, already spoken of. Chap. 3. Sect. 23.  the 19 Page of my Notes prove the universality of Christ's death from those words of the Apostle [If one died for all, then were all dead, 2 Cor. 5. 14.] Where [That all were dead] is the thing to be proved; and [that one died for all] is the Argument or Medium, whereby to prove it. And that this later being the Antecedent, as that former the sequel of the major proposition of a Hypothetical Syllogism, the former could not but make the minor, and the later the conclusion, (and both of necessity, without my help,) as every child must needs know who hath but dipped into any Logical System. And if Mr. B. will but try to make such a Syllogism, he shall find by experience, that (let him do what he can to the contrary) the Antecedent of the major will make the minor, and the sequel of the major will become the conclusion. Therefore said I very truly (what Mr. B. doth not gainsay with any the least pretence of reason) that the Apostle in that Text doth argue thus,  

If one died for all, then were all dead.  
But one died for all (that must be the Assumption)  
Therefore all were dead.   
So that had there been the Fallacy of four Terms in that cracked syllogism (as Mr. B. hath been unskilful enough to call it) it must have been objected against S. Paul, whose way of arguing that was, and not against me, who was but his E●h●. Which because Mr. B. may be unwilling to understand, it may perhaps be worth while 4. To make him 
4.  understand it against his will. For although it doth lie in any man's power to dissemble, and to persist in a denial of what he inwardly doth acknowledge, yet there are very many cases wherein he cannot be ignorant although he would. E. G. Mr. B. cannot be ignorant, what is commonly meant by [If, and Then,] when in the same proposition the first is conditional, and the second illative. Next he cannot be ignorant, that they are both used as such in our Apostles proposition [If one died for all, then were all dead.] Again he cannot be ignorant, that in case it were false [that one died for all,] it might also be false, [that all were dead.] Because the later is inferred, by our Apostle, upon the strength and presupposal of the former. And so unless Mr. B. will turn Pelagian, and deny that all were dead, (without the exception of any one,) he must confess that all were died for (in the same notion of the word all,) or if to escape Pelagianism he shall seek to creep out at another Crevice, by saying that [all] in the sequel, is more universal then in the Antecedent, he will accuse St. Paul of deceit, or ignorance, of a gross equivocation, or a want of skill to speak good sense, which no Pelagian was ever so wicked as to attempt. For the evidencing of which (to such as are of his size,) let us 5. Behold St. Paul's words as they make an Enthymeme (which is as sound a form of Argumentation as any disputant can use: 
One died for all,  
Therefore all were dead.   
If the word [all] in this Enthymeme is not univocal, as (Mr. B. saith it is not) the Apostles meaning must needs be one of these two. [One died for 
* Note that Mr. B: (in his p. 106.) doth say that [all] in this as in other Texts, doth only signify [many.] that is, the Elect. Who in respect of all, are but some; and in respect of the Reprobates, are but a few.  some only, therefore some only were dead] or [one died for some only, therefore all were dead without exception.] If Mr. B. will have the former, he makes St. Paul a Pelagian before that Heresy had a Being; And if the latter, he makes that mighty spiritual Logician (as he hath called him p. 43.) to infer an universal from a particular. Which how illogical it is, I need not say. But 6. Mr. B. hath one shift more in his p. 106. whereby he hopes to evade or evacuat the conquering force of that Text. The poor sum of it is this, that when the Apostle saith [all were dead] he means not dead in trespasses and sins, but (on the contrary) dead unto sin. But this is to flounder and not escape; such an endeavour of evasion, as doth but entangle him so much the more. For 1. It shows him (against his will) a notable Friend to the Pelagians, 
1.  whilst he labours to rob me of the force of that Text, which, as I understand it, is most expressly against them. Next, 
2.  it shows him to be careless what becomes of the Context, if that Text by any means may be but wrested to his uses. For the obligation lying upon us from the constraining love of Christ (which the Apostle there speaks of) is seen in this more especially, that Christ died for us even then, when we were all dead in trespasses and sins, when we stood in perfect need of his vivification. 3. I ask him, how Christ's Death can presuppose or conclude our being dead to sin, when 
3.  it is said in the same place to be in order to that end, that we should not henceforth live unto ourselves, that is to say, that we should die unto sin? 4. If Christ died for them only who are dead to sin, than the object of God's decree, and so of 
4.  Gods giving Christ, is not man as man, nor lapsed man as lapsed, but the mortified Regenerate man in as much as he is regenerate, which is directly against the Doctrine of Mr. Barlees own Masters the Sublapsarians. 5. If the word [all] 
5.  in this place [then were all dead] doth only signify a few (for the Elect are very few, in respect of the Reprobates) what place of Scripture can Mr. B. allege, affirming all to be dead in Adam, which may not thus be avoided? and for how much a lesser reason than this (indeed for no reason at all) hath the stupendous Grotius been called Socinian? much more might be said to show the absurdity of Mr. B's Answer, and the force of the Argument from that Text, which is yet found to be capable of no other Answer. 7. I will now return to his former shift of saying that all doth only 
7.  signify many, when Christ is said to die for all. The absurdity of which as I have showed many ways, so may it be showed many more. As 1. From other places of Scripture, where the Death of Christ is so universally expressed, 
1.  as to exclude the least exception. He died for all, that is for the 
a Joh: 4. 42  world, for the 
b 1 Joh. 2. 2.  whole world, for 
c Heb. 2. 9  every man, for them that are capable of 
d Rom. 14. 15. 1 Cor. 8. 11.  perishing, for them that 
e 2 Pet. 21.  deny him and are damned. Texts so very much prevailing with Junius and Tilenus, as to make them acknowledge the Ancient Fathers ' distinction (which Mr. B. derides so often) of God's Antecedent or conditionate will. 1. That no man should perish. 2. That 
f 2 Pet. 3. 9 1 Tim: 2. 4.  all should come to repentance. Which doth infer sufficient Grace to every man in the world, as Prosper a hundred times confesseth, and of ●are even Junius as well as he. 2. From the nature 
2.  of the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro, For,] which needs must note either the end, or the effect. In respect of this later, he died effectually for no●…●ut ●ut the elect; because they only do believe, and obey, and sincerely repent, and persevere unto the end, which are the Conditions of the Covenant betwixt us and Christ, and the respective Qualifications in the prescience of which we were Elected. But in respect of the former, He died intentionally for all and every one, even for them that forsake him, whom he never forsaketh, 
* Deus priusquam deseratur, niminem deserit. & multos Desertores saepe conver●it. Prosper Respon. ad 7. object. Vincent.  until he is forsaken by them. (As Prosper spoke in his answer to one of Vincentius his Objections, who yet of all mankind is the least suspected to be Pelagian by our correptory Corrector and all of his way). The goodness of God would have continued even on them, 
a Rome 11. 22.  if they had continued in his goodness (as St. Paul expresseth the condition upon which the pr●mises of God are made) 
b 2 Chro. 15. 2  The Lord is with us, whilst we are with him. If we seek him, he will be found of us. But if we forsake him, he will forsake us (as Azariah spoke by the spirit of God.) In the former notion of the word [for] as it noteth the effect of our Saviour's death, he is said to lay down his life for the 
c John. 10. 15.  sheep; and to have given himself for his 
d Eph. 5. 25.  Church. But in the later notion of the word [for] as it noteth the end, and by consequence the intention of our Saviour's Death, he is said to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole 
e 1 John 22.  world, and to have tasted Death for 
f Heb. 2. 9  every man. Thus the double notion of the particle [for] shows us an easy reconcilement of several Texts which may outwardly seem to disagree. And if our correptory Corrector can neither prove another use of the particle [pro, for,] nor evade those absurdities which have risen from his Doctrine, and ways of proof, I do conceive he is obliged to make a public Recantation.  
§. 27. He saith, Fulgentius makes it his business to confute my Second Chapter, where he largely proves, that though God do not predestinate men to sin, yet he doth to their punishment for sin. p. 43. Yet this is pleading for my second Chapter, and not against it. For sure 
* Praedestinatos affirmat Augustinus non ad delictum, sed ad supplicium. etc. Fulgent. l. 1. ad Monim.  [supplicium] punishment supposeth sin, and so God's Predestination of sinful men to punishment must needs be made in intuition of sin, which to prove, is the business of my second and third Chapters; but Mr. B. takes his usual liberty of calling things as he pleaseth. A respective Decree must be no Decree a●…, when he has need to beg the Question. He will not allow me to say (in my second Chapter,) that the sin which God willeth not is the Cause of the punishment, (which God willeth only for sin, not for itself.) And yet he citys a * saying from Dr. 
‖ Dr. Twisse against Mr. Hoard p. 49. cited by Mr. B. p. 144. & 145.  Twisse, 
Respective Decrees proved from Dr. Twisse his own words.  That sin is acknowledged to be the cause of the will of God in reprobation, quoad res volitas, in respect of the punishment willed thereby] If I had said that sin had been the cause of Gods will in any respect whatsoever, (as D. Twisse hath done) Mr. B. would probably have called it blasphemy; because Gods will is 
† Quicquid dicitur de Deo est Deus.  himself, and the cause is ever before the effect; but nothing is before the will of God, and therefore nothing can be the cause of it. But if the meaning of that Doctor was only this, that sin was that thing in respect of which, or for whose sake, the punishment of the sinner was willed by God in his eternal Decree of Reprobation, there is sense and Truth in what he spoke. And so he grants the whole Thesis against which he disputeth, viz. [That Gods Decree of reprobation is respective and conditional.] So our correptory Corrector is ●ain to do when he allows the distinction of God's Antecedent and consequent will, with this proviso, that it be quoad res volitas, and what Remonstrant did ever think otherwise? for they that say that God's decree of Reprobation is respective, must understand something in the object, in respect of which it is respective. And what can that be but Sin, which every punishment doth presuppose? so that if Mr. B. or Dr. Twisse himself would not gainsay sometimes out of distaste and Animosity, what they sometimes say when driven to it by necessity and pressing urgency of discourse, a great part of our difference would be at an end; and Mr. B. henceforward would write no more Volumes against himself.  
§ 28. He saith they deny God to be the 
* See what hath been said before. Chap. 3. Sect. 28. & 34.  Author of sin, whilst they repeat it at every turn, that sin hath no efficient cause, p. 55.] How many very gross absurdities do arise from this poor Salvo, I have showed before, and must not here make repetitions. I shall only add, That Mr. B. and Dr. Twisse do ascribe to God Almighty an efficacious permission of sin, and when they say he willeth and decreeth sin, they say that will is efficacious. We know that permission, although active in sound, is passive in signification. For to permit is to suffer, or not to hinder. So that when they say, an efficacious permission, they say in effect, an active passive, a positive negative, a forcible not-hindering; and why should non sense be spoken, and studied, or the known sense of words be purposely abused and perverted, if men were not conscious to themselves of some fowl Doctrine which must thus be covered and disguized? but the disguise is so gross, that it stands in need of a disguise. For Dr. Twisse affirmeth that his efficacious permissive will doth act as irresistibly, as when it is effective, (which I have also showed before,) and how are they thankworthy, who deny that blasphemy in one mode of speaking, but assert it in another? efficacious and efficient do differ no more than Potentia and actus. And 'tis as bad a thing to say, God hath the power to effect sin, as to say, that he effects it. But I have showed that those men do use both ways of discovering themselves. And to deny from the Press what from the Press they have affirmed, is but a new aggravation of their impiety.  
§. 29. The many Texts of Scripture which he musters and affirms to go 
* P. 56. lin. 18. 19 Scripture vindicated from making God the Author of sin.  beyond the highest expressions of my bold or moderate blasphemers, pag. 56. lin. 7, 8. etc.] are as unlike those of their Writers, as Mr. B. is unlike Job. And since Mr. B. hath not dared to make the parallel, by matching their expressions with the expressions of Scripture, lest his Reader should discern the very strange difference; I will not be so severe as to do it for him, unless he shall provoke it from me by persevering in his offence. Let him only consider (with fear and reverence) that if what he here saith of those Texts cannot be proved to be true, (as I am sure it cannot) the wit of Man cannot excuse him from the greatest blasphemy that can be spoken. For some of his Masters have said that God 
l P. Martyr in Jud. 3. ver. 9 p. 49.  effecteth sin, and that (in plain terms) he is 
m Mart. Borrhaus in Isa. 28. ver. 21.  the Author of sin, and (in some respect) that sin doth 
n Idem in Exod. cap. 4. pag. 448.  please him, and some have said worse, if worse may be. And therefore (as Mr. B. hath confessed in his Margin) our English Divines at the Synod of Dort were for the public rejection of such 
o Addendam quoque existimabant nonnulli rejectionem duriorum quarundam & incommodarum locutionum, quae in nonnullis reformatorum scriptis reperirentur, quae infirmioribus offensionem praeberent, etc. Synod. Dort. Se●●. 132.  scandalous expressions in the Calvinistical writings, whereat the weak might stumble and fall down into sin. Nor was it their fault that they were outvoted by the other part of that Synod, who refused to admit of any such Reformation, (upon such like Reasons as were rendered by the Pope to Charles the Fifth, and Maximilian, why he could not reform those things in prudence, which otherwise, in conscience, he should not tolerate,) alleging their 
* Visum fuit potioribus suffragiis rejectionem incommodarum locutionum esse omittendam, ne calumniari possent adversarii, etiam doctrinam orthodoxam quam professi sunt illi qui in ejus explicatione ejusmodi phrasibus durius aut imprudentiùs usi videntur, pariter damnari, etc. Ibid.  politic fears and jealousies, that if they rejected such expressions, their Adversaries might say that they had also condemned the Doctrine of those Calvinistwriters by whom the expressions had been used. Which if they called Orthodox, it is no wonder; for so every Man living doth think his own.  
§. 30. His several Quotations from the Pontificians, p. 57] 
Calvinists agree with Papists.  do only prove this great Truth, That those Papists and Mr. Calvin do agree in those Doctrines which I resist; And so they are not all Papists who hold the contrary. If Mr. B. had but considered, that there are Jansenians as well as Molinists, Thomists as well as Scotists, as well Dominicans as Franciscans in the Church of Rome, he would not have told me (for his own sake) that I am nearly allied to the Jesuits.  
§. 31. In his Margin, p. 60. he saith that Arminius is for 
Of Arminius his absolute decrees. 1.  absolute Decrees.] First, if he is so indeed in Mr. B's. sense, it seems that he is the Arminian, and I am none. (A● Jo. Goodw. p. 59 is of his opinion, and not of mine, if he really saith what Mr. B. saith of him, that nothing falls out in time not decreed by God before all time, without distinction betwixt good and evil.) 2. If Arminius spoke in quite a different sense from 
2.  Mr. B. there is nothing remarkable in his mention of those absolute decrees, besides a matchless Impertinence, or want of knowledge, of what it was that Arminius spoke. But 3. that 
3.  every Reader may here observe the extraordinary defect either of judgement or integrity in Mr. B. (for it must be one, and I cannot tell exactly whether the fault lies more in his heart or in his head) I have thrust the very words of Arminius into my 
p Primum & absolutum Dei Decretum de homine peccatore servando, quo decrevit Filium ponere mediatorem, etc. Secundun praecisum & absolutum Dei decretum, quo decrevit resipiscentes & credentes in gratiam re●ipere, eosque perseverantes adfinem salvos fa●…re in Christo, 〈◊〉 Christum, & per Christum, impenitents vero & infideles in peccato & sub irârelinquere, & damnare tanquam alienos à Christo. Tertium, quo decrevit media ad resipiscentiam & fidem necessaria sufficienter & efficaciter administrare, etc. Hinc sequitur Quartum, quo decrevit singulares & certas quasdam personas salvare & damnare. Atque hoc decretum praescientiâ Dei innititur, quâ ab aeterno scivit, quinam— ex praeveniente ipsius gratiâ credituri erant, & ex subsequenti perseveraturi, qui vero non. Armin. in Declarat. Sent. p. 95, 96.  Margin, which Mr. B. either could not or durst not do. Either he could not, if he found that quotation at second hand, and that in some one of his English Authors; or else he durst not, for fear the Reader should discover the misapplying of the place, and thence conclude his want of faithfulness, or understanding. For when Arminius had spoken of three degrees of God's Decree concerning the final state of Man, (as 1. To give his Son, 2. To receive the penitent and believing into grace and favour, and 3. To administer the necessary means of both,) he proceeded unto a fourth, which he affirmed to be respective, and to depend upon his prescience, whereby he knew from all eternity, who would believe and persevere, and who would not. And how little this tendeth either to the hurting of my Doctrine, or to the helping of his own, is so apparent of itself, as that I need not enlarge upon it. I will now make haste to clear myself from that [Libel or Decachord of slanders] which he lays to my charge in his p. 59  
§. 32. Before I enter on the Ten Places urged by me in 
Of those Ten places whereby God is concluded to be the Author of sin. 1.  my Notes, p. 9 and 10. which Mr. B. calls slanders, I think it fit to promise a few general Observations, before I consider them in their particulars. First, Mr. B. should have tried to prove, that I had invented those speeches, and falsely laid them to the charge of Calvin, Zuinglius, and Dr. Twisse, (from whom I fetched them without the addition of their Names,) before he had ventured to call them slanders; which as it was impossible for him to do, so he no where pretends to set about it; but contents himself to call them slanders, as being a word soon spoken, and very hardly kept in when he is angry with his unhappiness. 2. I do publicly declare, and every 
2.  man living is my witness, (who either hath compared, or wid compare those ten Quotations with the respective Fountains from which they are by me derived) that the First five places are truly fetched from Mr. Calvin. The Sixth and Seventh from Dr. Twisse. The Eighth from Zuinglius. The Ninth and Tenth from Dr. Twisse. So that until Mr. B. can prove the Negative, he stands guilty of that great slander, his having called my Ten Places a Decachord of slanders. Nay, 3. He demonstrates himself to have been guilty of a most slanderous accusation whilst he makes it appear no less than twice 
3.  in one 
q Correp. Cor. p. 63.  Page, that he either 
* This I have showed Cham 3. Sect. 32.  wilfully or ignorantly mistook my Authors; ascribing to Mr. Calvin what was spoken by Zuinglius. And by consequence he hath slandered the very Men whom he admires. Nay he slanders himself in a most admirable manner. For he had said (p 52.) That I did as good as name those Authors (whom I did not name) to any attentive Reader. And he renders this reason, because I particularly quoted them as to Book, Section, Page, and almost Line.] From whence two things are very observable. First, that he himself was no Attentive Reader of my Book, which yet he pretendeth to confute, or that he wilfully mistook me in his p. 63. Or that he spoke against his knewledge, in saying I did as good as name what I never did name, and what he with all his diligence was not able to find out. The Second thing is, That he acknowledgeth the exactness of my Citations which were almost to the line (p. 52.) and yet calls them slanders p. 63. which two pages being compared do prove this great sin to have been committed upon Design. And 4 to conceal 
4.  it the better from vulgar Readers, he sought to wear out their patience with 58. pages before he had the courage to set about that Decachord. And 5. When at last he comes 
5.  thither, he seems to hope, that his Reader may be at some loss by forsaking the order which I had used. For after my fifth instance he puts my ninth, thence leaps back unto the eighth. Thence he goes backward, and skipping nimbly over the seventh, he sets down the sixth, thence he goes forward to the seventh, and jumping over the eighth and ninth he pitcheth his feet upon the tenth. Now upon what Grounds of policy he should thus strangely pervert my order, unless to trouble his Readers, and make it painful for them to compare his book with mine, or in favour to Dr. Twisse whom he calls his friend and his Father's friend, and of whom he had the happiness to be beloved as an other Timothy, I am not able to divine. But for the ease of my Reader, I will follow mine own order in the ninth and tenth pages of my Notes, with which the Reader is well acquainted, and quote the page of Mr. B. where each of those places is spoken to.  
§. 33. The first of those horrible affirmations he seeks to 
Of the first place in his p. 59  justify, and not excuse, (confitentem habemus reum) viz. that all things (without exception of any the least, or the greatest wickedness) do happen or fall out by God's Decree. And fain he would wrest some Texts to authorise the guilt of this assertion, but they are easily vindicated from that unclean and vile use to which he puts them. Eph. 6. 11. is sure misprinted (as I in charity believe) and should have been Eph. 1. 11. God worketh all things according to the purpose of his will, or after the counsel of his own will,] he doth not say all wicked things, but all things there spoken of, viz. the giving of Christ, the preaching of the gospel, receiving the Gentiles into the Church; or all things which he works, not the lewdness of men which he worketh not. This doth not so much as intimate, that God concurs to the most devilish and impure acts (as Dr. Twisse 
a Twisse. Vind. Gra. l. 2. part: 1 p. 149.  Teacheth.) Or that nothing falls out in time, (though never so filthy or unjust) but what was decreed before all time (as 
‖ Corrept. Cor. p. 59  Mr. B.) 2. [Isa. 46. 10. my Counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure.] He doth not say, he hath decreed all things whatsoever men or Devils do, but that he effecteth all things which he decrees, which needs must be good if he decrees it. But Mr. B. saith plainly, 
a Correp. Cor: p. 73. 78, 79.  that God wils, and decrees, and determines that sin shall be done, and by consequence that he effects it, and that according to the Text. 3. [Rom. 9 11.] is only spoken of Gods electing the Jews, the seed of Jacob, to be his elect and peculiar people, whom (as to temporal Blessings, and the revealing his will, and sending them Christ to be born of that seed) he was pleased to prefer before the posterity of Esau, but not devoting Esau's person, or all the persons of his posterity unto eternal condemnation, and that without consideration of the least or greatest sin committed by them. 4. [Pro. 16. 4.] doth only speak of Gods making or decreeing the wicked to punishment, not the Creature to wickedness. And so the Gnostics, or Nichol●itans, or modern Ranters never made a more irrational or a more guilty use of any Text, than our correptory Corrector hath made of these. Which being thus cleared (in the fewest words I can invent) there is no need that I affirm all decrees to be temporal, (for some being absolute, and all those that are conditional being founded in his eternal prescience, may I hope be allowed to be eternal,) and of Arminius I have spoken already §. 31. and the words of the Trent Catechism I am not concerned in. They only show an agreement (in some things) betwixt the Papists and Presbyterians; and much good do't him with that advantage.  
§. 34. The second saying out of Calvin he seeks to excuse 
Of the second place in his p. 60.  by other Texts. And that for want of this knowledge, or consideration, that those Texts are only spoken of the effect or event, of Gods either speaking, or giving light, when they are followed by deafness or excecation. Whereas the words of Mr. Calvin do speak of the end and intention, (as appears by his following words,) as if the deafening and blinding, and infatnating of some, were the final Cause of God's dispensing both voice, and light, and good instruction. And this Mr. B. doth seem to acknowledge, when speaking a little after of obstinate sinners, he saith [the word is and will be a kill letter unto them.] But that doth only prove [kill] to be, through their obstinacy, a sad effect, and not at all the design or intent of Gods preaching. Now if Mr. B. is so thick of understanding as not to discern the wide difference betwixt the end intended, and the effect accomplished b●t not intended, (and oft times accomplished by the Creature in a direct opposition to God's desire and intention, as when God is willing that 
a 2 Pet. 39 Act. 7. 51.  all should come to Repentance, but many resist a●d reject the 
b Luk: 7. 30. Math: 23. 37, 38.  counsel of God against themselves;) I say if Mr. B. is not able to distinguish any better of things that differ, he should not meddle with such edged Tools, as the 
c Eph. 6. 17.  sword of the spirit which is the 
d 2 Pet: 3. 16:  word of God, with which how many have killed their own souls for want of (e) knowledge t● use it well, it will be easy to conjecture from this common observation, that there never was yet any Abettor of sin, or Error, though never so foolish or impure, who hath not pretended to as much Scripture, and with every whit as much confidence, as our Correptory Corrector is found to do. How very hastily Mr. B. hath urged the letter of those 
* Ex: 4. 21. Eph. 2. 3. & 2, 12. Jer. 1. 10. Isai: 6. 9 Joh. 12, 39 Mat. 13 11.  Texts against the sense will farther appear from those words which here he citeth from Mr. Calvin as the sum and upshot of all that Section, viz. that God cares not to be understood by wicked men. Upon which I ask; doth not God 
f Eze 7: 18. 3 & 33, 11.  desire they should repent and live? is there not joying in heaven at the conversion of (g) such? and came not Christ into the world, to call such to Repentance? and is not all this a 
g g Luk. 15. 7.  ●aring to be understood by them? had he spoken only of the obstinate who have filled up their measure, such as Phara●h after the sixth Judgement, there might have been Truth in it. But there is no Truth in it at all, when spoken of all wicked men not arrived at that pitch, or even of Phara●● himself from the time of his Birth, or during the space of his former judgements. For God doth seriously desire the Repentance of a sinner so long as he offers him the means, of which he never deprives him totally, until he finally gives him ever in his state of Impenitence and obduration. For if any thing in God (whether absolute Decree, or unwillingness to be understood when he commands and exhorts and entreats men to repent) could be the Cause of man's Impenitence, he could then be the cause (and so the Author) of the greatest sin that can be named or thought on. 3. As for Gods punishing sin with sin [Rom. 1. 24. & 2. Thes. 2. 11.] that is only by 
3.  giving them up to their scornful dispositions, (as Mr. B. himself doth here express it) by withdrawing his Grace which they abused, by forsaking them as desertors, and depriving them of their Candlestick, and permitting them to be cheated by mere 
c 2 Thes. 2 11: see Dr. Ham: Paraphrase upon that place.  Magicians and Impostors; not by directing his voice to them, and by giving them light, and by offering them instruction, and by using Remedies on purpose to make his Patients incurable. Besides I would know how the punishing sin with sin can have any place in the decreeing of Adam's fall, who had one sin to begin with, and did not fall before he fell. Or what place can it have in the sins of such as are not arrived to those scornful Dispositions? which yet (by their Doctrine) are decreed by God as well as others. As for [Hos. 4. 13. Act. 13. 41. Rev. 22. 11.] they only signify the just Desertions of God Almighty, and the sins of the deserted which would be consequent thereunto. Those words of God [Therefore your Daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery (Hos. 4. 13.) are only spoken by the way of prophecy or prediction what would be the effect of their Idolatries (in the former part of the same verse,) not by way of decree or purpose that he would almightily necessitate those foul commissions; but by way of threat and menace, that he would permit them to be committed; neither hindering them by violence, nor by the assistances of Grace. But what is this to Gods giving light that men may be the blinder for it? 4. The place of Austin and his [non potuerunt credere] is very easily answered by 
4.  having recourse unto the place from whence he fetch't it, john 12. 39 Where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify that it was impossible to believe, but according to the Hebrew phrase, Gen. 19 22. that they did not believe. So the phrase is used Mark 6. 5. and Luke 16. 2. and john 5. 19 Where Isidore the Pelusiot expoundeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Son can do nothing of himself, that is, he doth not. And that the word is so used john 12. 39 [they could not believe] is plain from that which next follows, [because that Esaias said again.] For that Prophet's prediction was not the cause of their unbelief (any more than the Almanac is the cause of the Eclipse which it pres●geth) but only a sign, or an argument, or an infallible token of its event. And until Mr. B. can learn the difference betwixt a prediction, and a cause, or betwixt a consequence and an effect, or betwixt the certainty of God's foreknowledge, and the necessitation of his Decree, I know not how I shall cure him of this Disease of making God to be the Cause of all the wickedness in the world, by 
d 2 Pet. 3. 16.  wresting the Scriptures to feed his sickness. I shall only tell him that the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That] is not always 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, denoting the end or final cause of the thing spoken of, but often referreth to the mere consequent or event. As when S. Paul saith, [the law entered 
e Rom. 5. 20.  that the offence might abound Rom. 5. 20.] he cannot possibly mean, that the abounding of the offence or increase of wickedness was the very end or final cause for which the Law was intended by God Almighty, (far be it from us to speak or think so wickedly,) but that it was the event or consequent of Gods giving the Law, as that by which it received its aggravation. For sin is not 
f Rom. 5. 13  imputed where there is no Law. But I must hasten to other stages of my journey.  
§. 35. The third Assertion of Mr. Calvin [that men do sin 
Of the third place, in his p. 60. & 61.  by God's Impulse] which is least excusable, or rather most unexcusable, Mr. B. huddles up in fewer lines than the rest, as if his stomach did not serve him to stay long upon that, which the more he stirred, the more he saw it would stink. His first way of defence is nothing else but a presumption, a sturdy begging of the Question. He asks What truth was more protrite and more readily of old received in the Church, then that God doth justly stir up wicked men to acts as acts, which yet to the Actors are and will be unjust. Where First he calumniates the Ancient Church without any other pretence then merely 
1.  to relieve himself in his present exigence and distress. 2. Of all ancient Writers he only urgeth one Austin, who also fails 
2.  him in his design, as I shall presently make it appear. 3. 
* Of Mr. B's making God to be the Author of sin.  He avows it to be a part of his particular Creed, [That God 
3.  doth stir up wicked men to unjust Acts as Acts] which he explains and illustrates by [setting spurs to a dull Jade. (p. 61. lin. 2. 3.) which is as much as to say, that as we put spurs to a dull Jade to make him go faster, so God doth stir up wicked men (or dull sinners, such as are but slow at sinning of themselves) to wicked acts, that they may sin so much the faster, or with more mettle, and become as it were Galloppers in the Carrier of sinning; as if of themselves they were not infinitely too fleet, but rather needed stirring up. It will avail him nothing, to say that this excitation is to wicked acts as acts, because it is as impossible to separate the wickedness of the wicked act from the act which is wicked, as the roundness of the Globe from the Globe which is round. What would be thought of that Man, that should distinguish David's lying with Bathshebah from his Adultery? or his Adultery from his Sin? or that should stir up his Neighbour to some wicked act (as jezabel did her Husband Ahab) and then plead in his excuse, that he stirred him up only to the wicked act as an act, but not as a wicked act? If a sin is the less sin by being committed with a distinction, not Reduplicatiuè, as sin, but under some other notion, than the Adulterer will quickly plead, that David lay with Bathshebah under the notion of a woman only, and not under the notion of another man's wife; or only as a means of procreation, and not as an Injury to poor Vriah. And Eve might have pleaded (by Mr. B's Logic) that she did eat of the Apple as it was pleasant only to the taste, or only as it seemed good to make one wise, but not as it was a Forbidden Fruit. 
* Note here that Mr. B. doth ask in these words pag. 32. [Do we maintain that the only true God is at all Proprii nominis Author of that which is sinfully evil as such? Wherein he implies two things. First, that in substance and effect they do maintain him to be the Author, or something tantamount to it, but not the Author Propri● nominis, they do not give him that Name or Title. Secondly, That they maintain him to be the Author of what is▪ sinfully evil, but not [reduplicative] as such. But a sinner commonly loves sin, not as such, merely because it is sin, but as profitable or pleasant (at least in show,) who cannot yet pretend that he is the less an Author or a Lover of his sins, or the less liable to blame, in that he commits them under some other notion then that of their being sins. And he that makes God the Author of sin in equivalence, is not capable of excuse for not making him the Author of sin as such, or for not saying he is the Author very properly so called.  Now that no the weakest Reader of Mr. B. may be debauched into wickedness, by being made believe, that when he sins, God stirs him up unto the act, (a phrase I should not dare use, but that 'tis published by Mr. B. and called the tenant of the Church, and I must repeat it so far as to give it an Antidote or Confutation) it will not be amiss to let him know, that the sin of Murder or of Adultery or any the like, is withal the sinful act, and the sinful act is the sin, in the account of God, and in the stile of his Penmen. For although in propriety of Logick-speech a sin and a sinful act are as the abstract and the concrete, yet they are so far differeneed from other Conjugates, as to admit of different predications. For cain's killing of Abel was a sinful act, and by consequence a murder, and by consequence a sin. For the truth is, sin is a concrete in respect of sinfulness which is its abstract. And 'tis as impossible to separate the sinfulness from the sin, as the sin from the sinful act; Nay, we shall find an Identity betwixt the sin and the act which we are not wont to call sinful. For the transgression of the Law must be confessed by Mr. B. to be an Act; and he knows that sin (by definition) is the transgression of the Law; and he cannot but grant, that the act of sinning is a sinful act. For being a transgression it must needs be an act, and being such an act it must needs be sinful. The first beginning of this transgression is the act of consenting to any temptation whatsoever (I speak of Temptation to things unlawful.) Now the act of consenting is Punctum indivisibile, and hath not any dimensions to render it. capable of division. The very act of consenting is sin in its birth, and è converso. Upon which it follows, that when God is affirmed to stir up wicked men to acts as acts which to the Actors are and will be unjust, (that is to say, to unjust or sinful acts,) he is affirmed (eo ipso) to stir them up to sins; Because sin is not sin any otherwise, then as it is an act of sinning, nor an act of sinning any otherwise, then as it is a sinful act. Nor can a Man be stirred up to the act of consenting without being stirred up to the sin itself which is that act. So that if Mr. B. cannot distinguish the act of consenting to a temptation (of the World, the Flesh, or the Devil,) from the sin itself which is the act of consenting to such Temptation, he must confess he makes God to be the Author of sin. And if he will not acknowledge what he cannot but know, D. Twisse at least shall force him, unless our Timothy will dare to bid defiance to his Paul. For the Doctor saith plainly, [
* Fornicatio notat peccatum, non tantùm secundum formale ejus quà peccatum est, sed & secundum materiale ejus, quà actus est. Twisse vind. Gra. l. 2 part. 1. Crim. 3 p. 155.  That Fornication denotes sin not only according to its formality, as it is sin, but also according to its materiality, as it is an act.] And Mr. B. saith as plainly, (and calls it a very protrite truth) that God doth justly stir up wicked men to acts as acts which yet to the actors are and will be unjust. So that according to Dr. Twisse, Mr. B. makes God to be the Author of sin. Yet this is his Friend and his Father's friend by whom he was loved (if we believe him) as another Timothy. Nay, his Friend Mr. 
‖ Of lib. & Necess: p. 23. 24  Hobbs (who is sure the Friend of his opinions) hath publicly professed To find no difference between an action that is against the Law, and the sin of that action. As for example, between the kill of Vriah, and the sin of David in kill Vriah. Thereby condemning Mr. B. the most that may be. Nor will it help him to say, that he did not say [sinful] but [unjust] in conjunction with those acts, nor that he said [acts which are and will be unjust] for what is unjust is sinful, because it is unjust. And the acts that are and will be unjust, are and will be unjust acts. And if they are un●ust acts to the actors (as Mr. B. saith) who are said (by Mr. B.) to be stirred up to them by God himself, what are they to him who is said to incite or stir up those wicked Actors to those unjust or wicked acts? Nor will he become the more excusable for his Quotation out of Austin. For 1. if it were so that Austin 
Austin vindi●eted from Mr. B' s Calumnies.  had spoken any such thing, as that Men do sin by God's Impulse (with Calvin) or that they are stirred up to it (with Mr. B.) yet would it not have been the less false or impious for having been spoken by such an Author. For that Austin had his 
* Ego fateor me ex eorum numero esse eonari qui proficiendo scribunt, & scribendo proficiunt. Unde si aliquid vel incautius vel indoctius à me positum est quod non solum ab aliis qui videre id possunt merito reprehendatur, verum etiam à me ipso, quia & ego saltem postea videre debeo si proficio, nec mirandum est nec dolendum, sed potius ignoscendun & gratulandum, non quia erratum est, sed quia improbatum. Augustin. in 7. ad Marcellin.  Errors, himself hath implicitly yet liberally confessed, and on that supposition hath desired of his Readers not only pardon, but Reproof too. And that he had his great Errors, Mr. B. cannot but confess, unless he will tell us he is a Papist. But (2) Austin is not guilty of any such impious expressions whereof Mr. B. doth very guiltily accuse him. For [utitur cordibus malorum, usus est Judâ etc.] comes not home to calvin's Impulse, or Mr. B's stirring up. God may use whom he impels not. The other passage comes nearer (l. 2. de great. & lib. arb. c. 21.) yet not home neither to wicked men's doing by God's impulse what is not lawful. for this implies God's impulse to be the mover of his unlawful Action, without taking notice of any previous inclination to evil in the wicked man thus impelled. Whereas his will being bend to any evil of itself indifferently, God may so wisely 
† Ejus voluntatem proprio suo vitio malam in hoc peccatum judicio suo justo & occulto inclinavit. August. l. 2. degra. & lib. arb: c. 20. And after speaking of the Pbilistines and Arabians 2 Chro: 21. 16. ha' hath expressly these words (c. 21.) Hic ostendit Deum suscitare hostes iis Tertis vastandis quas tali paenâ judicat dignas, nunquid tamen Philistijm & Arabes in Terram Judaeam dissipandam sine suâ voluntate venerunt? etc. Id: ibid. cap: 21.  limit and restrain him from one sort of evil, as that the wicked man will certainly commit another, which God in his wisdom can best convert to good uses. Thus the Jews were permitted to release Barrabas, rather than constrained to release Christ, because the former evil, had the greatest good to be drawn out of it, viz. the Redemption of all mankind. Besides, Augustine's word doth only note an inclination, and not an impulse; and that in relation to a [quocunque voluerit] which seems to imply a limitation of the sinful man's will already sinful, and as yet indifferently sinful, rather to one sin then to another. Which whether or no St. Austin meant for his sense, the Reader may Judge by his own words which I have thrown into the Margin, concerning Shimei, the Philistines, and the Arabians. Which if in some parts inexcusable, that is not my fault. I have so much a reverence of his Antiquity and learning, as to give his words the most candid interpretation that I am able. If he had said [permit,] instead, of [incline] there had been no Question of the Truth of it. And even for the word [inclining] too in that particular Case wherein Austin useth it, I have thus much to say. That whatsoever in itself is just for God to command, he can justly limit and incline man's will to execute, and such is the punishment of his people, by what rod he thinks fit. Whether by Egypt or Assyria, the Philistims or Arabians, those Rods of his Anger and staffs of his indignation, (as the Prophet phraseth it.) God did not only incline, but he commanded Abraham to kill his son, and he commanded as well as inclined his people Israel to deprive the Egyptians of their goods; for he might justly dispose of Isaac's life, and of Egypt's treasure, and take both from both by whatsoever instrument it was his pleasure to employ. And therefore Abraham's intention and preparation to kill his son was so far from his guilt, that it was an argument of his Faith and impartial obedience to God's command. But there are things of an other nature which are not just (for God Almighty) to do or command, and therefore he cannot command or do them, because he cannot do unjustly, or command injustice to be done. For example, it is injust, and so impossible for 
This is Seriously recommended to Mr. B. his consideration.  God to abjure, or blaspheme, or dishonour himself, and by consequence unjust, and so impossible, that God should command or impel, or stir up wicked men to the abjuring, or blaspheming, or dishonouring of himself. All sorts of sin are a dishonouring of God and a rebellion against his sacred majesty, which he doth suffer, and permit and limit, and circumscribe (as he doth the wild Ocean) and draws good out of evil; but cannot decree, or command it, compel, or provoke, or stir up men to it, because he cannot be so weak (that is, so contrary to himself) as to be principal or Accessary in the dishonouring of himself. Yet this is the Doctrine of Mr. B. and of his great Masters, as I have plentifully showed in divers Paragraphs. 4. But it is no wonder, that he seeks to draw Austin into a share of that odium under which his own Doctrine will ever lie, s●●ce the Scripture itself cannot escape him, p. 61. For he saith that Calvin doth irrefragably prove by variety of Scripture and Scripture Cases, (what I cited from him, viz.) that men do sin by God's impulse, and farther gibes me for saying, that such Scriptures are by Calvintoo literally expounded; therein confessing it to be his opinion and belief, that such Texts of Scripture ought to be literally expounded. Which is as black an Accusation as he could have framed against himself; worse than which was never spoken by any Gnostick of old, 
The sad effects of Mr. B. his literal interpretations.  or by any Ranter of later times. One of his Instances may serve for all, viz. 2 Sam. 16. 10, 11. Which if literally expounded must needs be an argument of one of these two things. Either that Shimei did not sin in cursing David who was Gods Anointed, but rather discharged his duty in doing just as God had 
a Let him curse for the Lord hath bidden him. 2 Sam. 16. 11.  bid him; or else that he sinned by God's 
b Let him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him, curse David. ver. 10.  express precept and command. If Mr. B. shall assert the former, he will incur two mischiefs. First, by contradicting those Texts of Scripture wherein the cursing of Shimei is affirmed to be a sin; 
c 2 Sam. 19 21  confessed by himself, and 
d 1 Kin. 2. 44.  punished by Solomon with Death itself; next by opening a Door to the secure commission of such a damning sin as cursing is, and even the treasonable cursing of Gods Anointed, whilst he shall teach his people that 'tis no sin, but rather the yielding an obedience to the will of God. And if to slip out of these mischiefs which follow upon the former assertion, he shall presume to assert the later, he will translate the wickedness from Shimei to the Precept of God, by which he did it (in his literal interpreting of the words of those Texts) and so incur the most impious absurdities that can be thought on. First, by contradicting those clearest passages of Scripture, which say [that God hath 
e Psal. 5. 4.  no pleasure in wickedness, that he is of 
f Habak. 1. 13  purere eyes then to behold evil, and cannot look on Iniquity, that he hateth all abomination, and hath not caused 
g Eccles. 15. 13  any man to err. That he hath 
h vers. 12.  commanded no man to do wickedly, neither hath given any man licence to sin.] Next by inferring, that a man may sin by doing that which God will have him, and hath 
i ver. 20.  said to him that he shall do, and by consequence may do his duty by disobeying Gods 
k 2 Sam. 16. 〈◊〉  precepts, and by consequence that God hath a twofold precept, directly contrary the one to the other; whereof the one is of things which ought to be done, but cannot possibly, because it is decreed they shall not; the other of things which ought not to be done, yet must be done of necessity, because it is decreed, they shall. Whereas if David's words concerning [God's biding Shimei] be understood to be spoken by the common 
The right way of Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Hebraisme, by which such verbs as are active in sound, are only permissive in signification, all those horrible absurdities will be avoided, or if the Hebrew particle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which we render [because] were rendered [if] as sometimes it signifies, it will then be no more than a mere conjecture arising from David's guilty conscience. As if he should have said thus. [if the Lord hath said (as for aught I know he hath, and I am sure he justly may,) Curse David, who shall then say, wherefore hast thou done so?] for God might justly curse David, in revenge of his sins, by whatsoever messenger he pleased to send, as well by Shimei, as by Samuel; who, if God had said to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [curse David] had but discharged his message, (as Samuel himself had done before him) and not committed 
2 Sam. 12. 7, 8, 9, 19, 11, 12.  a sin in doing what God distinetly bid him. How much better were it to think, that David erred in his conjecture 
k Chap. 11.  (as easily he might, who found it no hard thing to commit Adultery and murder) then to speak irreverently or indecently of God Almighty? it was an argument of David's modesty, and of the severe reflection which he made upon his sins, to look upon it as a wise and righteous Act of God's Oeconomie, that God should thus punish him for his sins, by permitting Shimei to reproach him openly; or that by restraining the wickedness of Shimei's heart from all other acts at this time, he should limit him to this, (when perhaps of itself it was indifferent) thus to punish David's sins. But in this, and the like cases, God forbid we should say, (with Mr, Calvin and Mr, Barlee) that the sin is done by God's impulse, or by Gods stirring up to unjust acts as acts; although in sundry respects, the effect doth seem to be ascribed unto God, (after the Hebrew custom of speech) and the Phrases [exciting or bidding etc.] are used figuratively or tropically of God himself, when yet he is so far from exciting or commanding, that he doth the contrary to them both. 5. As 
5.  for Mr. B's. similitude (spoken of before) by which he resembles God's stirring up to unjust acts to a Man's setting of spurs to a dull Jade; it is very strange, and far beyond the rate of Augustine's expressions, by whose Authority Mr. B. doth seek to mitigate his crime. For the will, which Austin saith God doth incline, (in the sense above mentioned) is forward enough to evil, only God puts the bridle into his mouth (not the spur into his side) and restraining him from one evil, doth consequently limit him unto another (out of which in his wisdom he knows more good is to be drawn.) Whereas he that spurs the dull ●ade, doth find the ●ade dull, and so infuseth speed into him, stirs him up and excites him against his will or inclination: which it is impossible for God to do. 6. As 
6.  for calvin's similitude [of the Suns drawing up noisome Vapours out of a nasty impure Dunghill, etc.] that is but Per Accidens in respect of his shining, and is so far from coming home to the Impulse of God (which it is brought to illustrate) that it is miserably defective in five respects. For First the 
1.  Carcase or noisome Dunghill (which Mr. B. seems to have overlookt, or to have taken at second hand) is presupposed to be before the shining of the Sun, and is sure to stink, whether the Sun doth shine, or not. Whereas God's Impulse (of which he speaks) is presupposed to be before the sin, and decreed so to be from all eternity; (according to their Doctrine of which I spoke, Chap 3. Sect. 34.) Secondly, the Sun is Causa universalis, 
2.  and shines no more upon the Dunghill, then on the Diamond, and upon every thing else within its Horizon. Whereas God is said by them to be Causa particularis, impelling Shimei to curse (which is Mr. B's first instance) and jeroboam to rebel (which is his second) in their peculiar numerical persons more than all other men, who had none of that Impulse, or not so much. Thirdly, the shining of the Sun intends 
3.  not the corruption so properly as the heat of the noisome carcase or Dunghill. Whereas the Impulse spoken of is concluded to intend the sin itself, unless Mr. B. will distinguish Shimei's cursing from his sin; and jereboams rebellion from his sin; and his own calumny from his sin, which he excuseth by saying, that God will have it to be so, p. 22. Again Fourthly, 
4.  Although the Sun were granted to be Causa particularis, yet in corrupting other things it would not itself be corrupted, because it is not a voluntary Agent, but doth all that it doth by pure necessity or necessitation, which it receiveth from God's absolute Decree. Whereas the Impulse spoken of is ascribed to God as a free Agent, and by consequence to his choice (as if he preferred the impelling of men to unjust acts before the restraining of them from unjust acts) unless Mr. B. will say that God is necessitated, or doth of necessity impel men to do wickedly, which were such a Plaster as would make his Sore a great deal worse. Fifthly, the Carcase or Dunghill is merely passive, as to every thing that is done unto it. And sending 
5.  forth ill vapours, sends them forth of necessity, without election, or voluntary consent. Whereas the sinner doth choose to send forth sins, and might have forborn if he had not been wilful, who if he had not been a voluntary, had as little been a sinning agent. Upon all which it follows, that Mr. Calvin was conscious of something shameful in his use of the word [Impulse] (extorted from him by his first error of irrespective reprobation,) when he endeavoured to conceal it by such similitudes, as he hoped might procure him a more favourable construction when he talks of Gods impelling to wicked acts. And now having spoken thus largely of the three first places, I shall not need say any thing, and shall therefore say the less to those that follow.  
§. 36. The Fourth place of Mr. Calvin Mr. B. confesseth 
Of the fourth place in his p. 61, 62.  to make something a higher sound than the former, and that perhaps may be the reason why he seeks to amuse his Reader with some very impertinent and very false sayings. First, 
1. 2. 3.  that in Calvin he cannot find it. Secondly, that he finds some such thing in the predestinated Thief. Thirdly, That I am more delighted in that Book then in that which I commend of Bishop Wintons. To the First, I answer, that he might 
1.  have found that saying in Mr. Calvin if he had turned to the Chapter, Section, and Page set down expressly in my Notes. How else did he know that I took that place from Mr. Calvin, when I only referred to the place but concealed its Author's name? Nay, why said he himself (p. 52. lin. 2. 3, 4.) that I did as good as name those Authors to any attentive Reader, by very particularly quoting them, as to Book, Section, Page, and almost Line? This doth put me in mind of 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hierocl. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 28. 2.  Hierocles his Scholar; Who receiving a Letter from his Friend, wherein he was requested to buy certain Books for him, which he neglected to perform, alleged afterwards in his excuse (meeting his friend by great chance) That the Letter which he sent concerning the buying of certain Books never came to his hands. So Mr. B. doth confess, that he found my fourth Testimony to be from Mr. Calvin, but saith he cannot find it there. And yet he cannot render any imaginable reason why he affirms it to be in Calvin, except this one, that he found it to be there. To his Second saying I answer, that that speech of Calvin which I produced cannot any where be found in the Book Entitled [The predestinated Thief] and so it was impossible that I should take it out thence. Which if Mr. B. had not a willingness to make men believe, why did he urge that Book so perfectly nothing to the purpose? when it signifies no more, then that other men have read Calvin as well as I; and that as I have noted some things in my Reading, so▪ other men have noted other things, though not the same, yet somewhat like. To his third saying I answer, that I never delighted 
3.  in that Book, which in all my life I never read, until Mr. B. had thus from the Press accused me of it. Nay, I did purposely forbear the reading of it (even whilst I had it in my possession) that Mr. B. might not be able to upbraid me with it, as he hath frequently done without the least appearance or 
4.  show of reason. But Fourthly, neither is 
* Impii occultâ Dei manu, etc. tanquam laqueo latente diriguntur ad scopum ipsis ignotum, etc. 5.  that saying so much as a [some such thing.] For although that sentence is inexcusable as spoken in consequence of the doctrine, and in relation to other sayings, and in the usual sense of the Stoicallyminded men, yet is it capable of a good interpretation. And therefore Fifthly the former part of my fourth Instance is not that for which it was alleged by me; there being nothing more granted on all sides, then that God doth restrain wicked men as with a bridle from doing more mischief than he suffers them to do. But what is his restraining from evil to his commanding or compelling or impelling men to evil? Nay, how contrary are these to one another? It is plain therefore that I set down the first words of that Instance, as merely leading to the rest, that the Reader might see how the rest came in. For had I not rendered the full sense, Mr. B. might have said (with more show of reason then now he hath done,) that I quoted nothing but 
y Correp. Cor. p. 52. spoken to before, c. 3. Sect. 32.  broken expressions. The evil of that fourth place consisteth only in these two assertions. 1. That God doth not only permit, but also command [the doing that which is not lawful for men to do:] 2. That he even compelleth them to perform obedience to such commands.] Mr. B. strives to cover or excuse the first, by saying, [that the rough phrase of a command is only seemingly rough to dainty ears, and may be dexterously expounded (as 'tis by Calvin, Austin, and others) not of a command given out by God, for any man to yield obedience to, which would be contrary to Deut. 29. 29. But of that occult Law of God's stupendous workings, even whilse men sin, which God hath appointed to be the Law of ●is providence, and so of his out-going, but not of our conversation, Isa. 8. 20.] In which excuse there are divers things unexcusable. For 1. he fancieth in God a twofold command: the one given out, (and so truly a command) the other occult or secret, or not given 
1.  out, (and so not possibly a command; which may be in purpose, or intention, or in the way to a command, but not a command before it is commanded, that is to say, before it is. A Master may purpose, or design, or resolve, or intent, or determine within himself to send his servant upon this or that message, but we cannot say that he commands him, until by word of mouth, or by Epistle, or by some dumb but significant sign, he gives out his will and pleasure, and bids him go.) And so the meaning of Mr. B's. distinction comes all to this, that of the two sorts of command, the one is a command, and the other is not a command. Or, of two revealed wills (which the word command implies) the one is given out, and the other is occult or not revealed. 2. He expounds the same word, not only of two different, but of two contrary things. A command to be 
2.  obeyed, and a command not to be obeyed. One the rule of God's providence which must be done of necessity, but ought not; another the rule of man's conversation, which ought to be done by right, but cannot possibly when by the other occult Law the quite contrary is determined. 3. Because [command] is a 
3.  relative, whose Correlative is [obedience] when Mr. B speaks of a Command [not given for any man to yield obedience unto,] it is as if he should say, that there are two sorts of Parents among men, some who have children, and others who never had any, nor ever can have. 4. Mr. B. wrongs Austin 
4.  in making him an Abettor of this distinction, who no where saith that God commanded Shimei to curse David, but (the contrary to it in the very place cited) that God did 
* Non enim jubendo dixerit ubi obedienentia laudaretur.  not command him; and that if he had, the obedience of Shimei had been a commendable thing; and interprets the [dixerat maledicere] by [cor ejus malum miserit, sive dimiserit] God bid him curse, that is (saith Austin) he did not hinder him from cursing, he dismissed his heart from his Holy guidance and restraining Grace, he suffered or permitted him, as his [dimiserit] must needs import. And if Mr. B. shall plead, that he spoke not of a twofold command any more than Austin did, he must either blame the words of Calvin, for calling that the command of God which is not such, but contrary to it, and so renounce his own book; or else he must say, that he expounds God's commanding by his not commanding, (an affirmative by a Negative;) and that that is one of his Dexterities. But (6.) If Mr. B. had been able, why did he not labour to justify the last and worst part of that fourth instance, as it relates unto the former, that a man is compelled by God to perform obedience to such commands? that the commands were in order to something not good, he intimated by saying, that they were not for any man to yield obedience to, wherein he contradicts both Austin and Calvin. For (1.) Austin saith that obedience to God's command is to be 
* Si jubenti obtemper asset Deo, laudandus potius, quam puniendus esset Austin lib. de gra: & lib: arbit: c. 20.  commended rather then punished. And (2.) Calvin saith, that God compelleth men to obedience, which he could not do, if he were not willing that such commands should be obeyed, which yet Mr. B. affirms God to have given out, not for any man to yield obedience to, as if the commission of such sins were merely the effect of God's occule will (nicknamed his Command) & committed by men by mere compulsion, whether they will or no. But 7. Instead of meddling with this last part, Mr. B. concludes with the first; and excuseth that, which no man ever thought ill. Instead of showing how God, when he commands men to do evil, compelleth Obedience to such commands, (or confessing at least that they are words inexcusable) he tells us a Tale of something else which no man either denies, or doubts of; as that the Devil and his angels etc. are ruled, and overruled, and held in a chain, and ordered as the wild Ocean, that they shall not go beyond their Bounds. But Mr. B. must be held ad idem, and be bid to prove, how God doth set spurs to the dull Jaded sinner, or compel, or impel, or stir up, or command any man to do evil.  
§. 37. The fifth place of Mr. Calvin Mr. B. tells me, may be served with the same answer which was given unto the last▪ 
Of the 5. place in his p. 62. 63  and if so, it may be served with the same reply which was just now given to that last answer. But because he tells us another story neither for himself, nor against me, to supply the space of those two pages, which should by right have been filled with something pertinent to the thing for which that saying was produced, I will give him the reason for which I added no digit to it; even because I found it capable (considered simply in itself, and in the former part of it especially) of an innocent sense and exposition. For I knew that Instruments of the Divine providence, may possibly signify no more, than those whom God doth by his providence so overrule, as to make instrumental to his wise Oeconomy, by permitting them to act those their voluntary evils (of which the crucifying of Christ may be an instance) out of which he can draw the greatest good. For the Judge may in Justice, and in punishment of the sinner, decree to suffer or permit the commission of sin, which yet is committed by the sinner through the mere wickedness of his heart, and not by any act of Gods will or impulse. But yet considering that that speech fell from the pen of that person, who was the Author of those sayings set down immediately before, and that the men spoken of were [Thiefs and Murderers] of whom it is added in the conclusion, [that God worketh through them] I thought fit to set it down (not in the first, second, third, or fourth, but) in the fifth place of that Catalogue, as being capable of a very guilty sense, and so meant in all likelihood (or rather of necessity) by him whose meaning was made apparent in the four first Doctrines. For unless by [working through them] he means the act, as well as the end, effect, or consequent of it, he beats down all that he had built in his forecited words. Which if Mr. B. will deny, it is as much as I can wish for to prove the blackness of his Assertions.  
§. 38. The sixth place, taken from Dr. Twiss (whom he calls his 
Of the sixth place in his p. 65. 66.  old friend and his Father's friend p 65.) he seems to be more gravelled at, then at any of the former. For instead of showing that God's Decree of Damnation doth not presuppose sin, or that the prescience of sin doth not precede the decree of Damning, or that the Decree of damning for sin, if granted to be an act of Vindicative Justice, doth not presuppose sin; he shuffles in somewhat of Dr. Twisse, which being added to his own words, amounts to little else then the mere begging of the Question. He saith the Dr. speaks modestly by using the word [seems;] who yet in my instance, doth pronounce without seeming; and even in that very place of his supposed modesty, saith [it may be demonstrated.] And what is it which he tells us may be demonstrated? even the grossest falsehood and most irrational position, that the wit or witlesnesse of any man can invent, viz. [* That the will of condemning or the decree by which a man is destinated to condemnation for sin 
* Correp. Corr▪ p. 66. lin. 1. 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  seems not to be an act of Justice, * and cannot presuppose sin.] This is the thing of which he saith, that without any obscurity it may be demonstrated (line 6.) but neither doth he, nor can he give us any thing like it; and he seems to be conscious of its impossibility, whilst he saith [it seems not to be an act of Justice,] in agreement to which he should have said, [it seemeth not to presuppose sin.] For if the former is not, 'tis plain the latter cannot be; and if that is, 'tis plain this must. If he thought the former did only seem, why did he say the latter cannot demonstratively. And if he thought this cannot be, why did he say that did but seem? nay, why did he strongly, though implicitly, affirm them both in the same breath that he denied them, by saying expressly [a condemnation for sin?] sure God's Decrees to punish sinners, and to punish them for their sins too, may very well be acts of Justice (and if they may be, it is enough for the refuting of Dr. Twisse) and certainly they must be agreeable to justice, which decreeing to punish without consideration of, sin cannot be (and this again is enough for the refuting of that Dr.) And although such Decrees are 
* Predestinatio non egreditur extra se●ibid.  imminent Acts (as Mr. B. and his Dr. do rightly speak) yet they must have an object; for he doth not reprobate no body, or a man in the clouds. And the objects of such decrees are particular men, or 
† Note that he speaks of a Decree to condemn for sin.  sinners, to whom they relate, and so they are ad alterum (which Mr. B. requires in acts of justice,) and those sinners are so objected, as having an actual Being in God's sight, to whom all things are and must be presentiated. For they must be considered as being, before they can be destined to condemnation for sin. Nothing can punish nothing. what is looked on as punishable, must needs be looked on as something, and so as Being; because punishment is something, and that must be something on which something is inflicted; for the subject hath rather more than less of Being then its Adjunct which is so much acknowledged by the very Antilapsarians (of which Sect Dr. Twisse, if he is any 
* I say [if any thing,] because he disagrees even with them with whom he more agrees then with any other of that party.  thing, is one,) that though they do not make man to be the object of God's Decrees, [quà peccatorem,] as a sinner, yet they do [quà creaturam as one of God's creatures.]  
§. 39 The seventh place (taken from Dr. Twisse) he seeks to rid himself of by 3 strange sayings. 1. That he will 
Of the seventh place in his p. 66. 67. 2. 3.  do great matters elsewhere (neither naming time, nor place) 2. that I had been more valiant, in doing what I did not. 3. that Dr. Twisse teacheth him, the two wills are not contradictory, as being not ad idem, nor secundum idem, as belonging to different objects and different ways of working, etc. This is prettier than all the rest. For to the First answer, 
1.  which is nothing, (but that he will elsewhere do what he would gladly have done here, if it had been to be done,) I have nothing to reply but that there is nothing to reply to; and that this is indeed his wittiest course. For to the Second, I reply (to his greater discomfort) that I never denied 
2.  God to have another will besides that of legislation; but only affirmed, that the one of these is not contrary to the other. He doth not by the one will impel to do what by the other he forbids, etc. (which is the Doctrine of Dr. Twisse to be defended by Mr. B.) He determines what shall be as to particular events, but decrees not that men shall sinfully contribute to this or that effect; or that he shall commit the every sin which he commits. (To which if Mr. B. was ashamed to speak, he should have been not- ashamed to say it is a shameful Doctrine; and if he was not ashamed, he should have spoken.) As for the Instance of God's willing or commanding, and yet not determining the offering up of Isaac, the answer to it is very easy, viz. That God willed and commanded, first that Abraham should be willing, and then that he actually should do every thing which he did towards the offering up of Isaac. And as Abraham did what God commanded, so God determined nothing contrary to that which he commanded. But for the actual slaughter or offering up of that Sacrifice, God did punctually forbid it [Lay not thy hand upon the child.] And to that agreeth also his predetermination that Abraham should not kill his Son. So that in this example, which Mr. B. seems to be so glad of, both the will of God as that signifies his command, and the will of God as that imports his determination, are most perfectly agreeable. And condemns that Doctrine of Dr. Twisse, in excuse of which it was unskilfully alleged. Nor can it be said with any shadow or show of reason, (as it is by that Dr. and his second Timothy) that God's Voluntas signi, or revealed will, is improperly called his will; for he did most properly will that Abraham should do every thing which he did, by way of obedience to his command of sacrificing his Son; and so afterwards, God did properly will that he should spare his Son, by way of obedience to his command too. Now if the Sun at noon is not more visible than this, what a mad thing is it to tell the world, that what hath hitherto been called the revealed will of God, that is, the whole book of holy Scriptures, hath been improperly so called, and is not really a revelation of his will, but only a sign of what men ought to do by right, if his secret or real will did not hinder the doing of it? as if when God saith, [thou shalt not kill, or steal, or commit adultery,] it were not properly his real will that we should abstain from those sins, because it is written and revealed, not kept secret from our knowledge. If this Doctrine hath truth in it, then when the Spirit of God saith, [he is not * willing that any should perish, but * willing that all should come to repentance] 
** 2 Pet. 3. 9  his [not willing] would signify his real will (because many perish) and his [willing] would signify his being really unwilling (because all repent not.) And when the Spirit of God saith, [This is the will of God] his meaning would be, [this is not the will of God, but only improperly called his will,] because it is revealed, and not kept secret. Where as the contrary is evident, that when S. John saith [He that doth the will of God, abideth for ever, 1 John 2. 17.] he cannot speak of his secret, but revealed will. And yet I hope S. John's words were very properly and truly spoken. But I must hasten my reply to the third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Mr. B. wherein he quite betrays his cause, and contradicts his Teacher Dr. Twisse, by 
3.  speaking as contrary to his knowledge, and to the very testimony of his eyes, as any thing can be imagined. For one of Dr. Twisse his Instances of Voluntas signi and B●neplaciti he confesses to be Abraham, who is but one man and the very same with himself, and that in the relation to the same Isaac who was not different from himself neither. So that the object was Idem, and the consideration Secundum idem. Another Instance of both wills is one and the same Pharaoh. And a third Instance of both wills is the one numerical individual Adam, who is not sure two different objects. Nor says the Doctor any such thing concerning the object of those two wills, but only saith of the wills themselves, that they are not contradictory, without rendering the least reason of that his bare affirmation; only in lieu of a Reason, he saith that one of the two wills is very truly a will, and that the other is not a will, but only a signification what ought to be done, not what God will have to be done, and is but called a will, and that improperly. And how agreeable this is to the distinction of several seekers, of which some do seek and find, others neither seek nor find, let indifferent Readers now pass their judgement.  
§. 40. The eighth place, out of Zuinglius, Mr. B. seems 
Of the eighth place in his p. 63, 64. 1.  to be sicker of, then of all the seven going before. For First, he offers not a word either to justify, or excuse it, but leave, It to stand in full force against him and his Doctrines, and tacitly confesseth it to be a very blasphemous speech [that Adultery or Murder is the work of God; that God is the Author, mover, and compeller to it, and that therefore it is not a crime.] Secondly, He falsely ascribeth this wicked speech to 
2.  his Dear Master Calvin, and so is guilty of that Forgery, of which Calvin accuseth his anonymous Foe in the passage translated by Mr. B. (intentionally against me, but) really and effectually against himself. 3. He saith that that answer which 
3.  he translates is made by Calvin upon the * place, when he 
** Calvin de occult. Dei Prov. p. 736. 4.  knows that in * that place there is no such matter. Which must be therefore his wilful and deliberate sin. Fourthly, What he calls the zealous Answer of Calvin, however zealous it may be, is not an Answer, no not so much as to the 
bb Note. I did not accuse them of saying, that God sinneth himself, but that he maketh men to sin.  substance of that eighth Instance. For the words which I cited and charged with blasphemy were plainly these [That when God (b) maketh an Angel or a Man a transgressor, he himself doth not (b) transgress. And again, the same sin, viz. Aultery or murder, in as much as it is the (c) work of God the Author, mover, and compeller, it is not a crime; but in as much as it is of man it is a wickedness.] But that which 
c c Note God is here called the Author of Adultery, and Adultery the work of God. And both in a full, round complete period of speech, not broken or mutilated. Now whether Adultery is a sin, and whether it is blasphemy to say that God is its Author, let Men, women, and Children be heard to speak.  Mr. B calls an Answer, is nothing else but an angry and railing speech, [of spitting in faces, Impudence, Fools, and execrable wickedness.] And how doth this prove, 1. That God makes a Transgressor? or 2. That Adultery is God's work? or 3. That God is the Author of Adultery? or 4. That he is a cempeller to it? (which is worse,) or 5. That the Adultery can be separated from the sin? or 6. That God can be the Author of the Adultery, yet not the Author of the sin? Mr. B. his Answer must be made to these six things; and till that is done, he must confess he was non: plust at this astonishing saying of his great Master. Fifthly, he cannot pretend that his Translation of ●r. Calvin's Invective is any way applicable 
5.  to me, but rather to Dr. Twisse. First, because Dr. Twisse hath 
d Vin. Gra. l. 2. par. 1 p. 36  quoted Zuinglius his words, as well as I; (and therefore if it were a Forgery, the guilt would lie upon that Doctor.) Next because he chargeth the 
e Id l. 1. part. 1 Sect. 4. c 4. Digr. 4. p. 88  Postlapsarians in general, (and 
f Id. l. 1. part. 1 Sect. 4. c. 1. p. 63, 64, 65. 6.  names Mr. Calvin amongst them) with the crime of making God to be the Author of sin. 6. What I cited from Dr. Twisse his Vindiciae Gratiae against Arminius, Mr. B. imputeth injuriously to Mr. Calvin's Book De providentiâ, where he knows, if he hath tried, there is no such thing; and if he hath not tried, he cannot excuse his blind asseveration: but any Man will believe that he did wilfully prevaricate, who shall compare the end of his 63 page, with the beginning of the Margin of his 64.  
§. 41. The ninth place (from Dr. Twisse) Mr. B. again imputeth, 
Of the ninth place in his p. 63. 1.  with great injustice, to Mr. Calvin. Whether in kindness and partiality to his old Friend (as he calls him) from whose shoulders he would devolve such insupportable burdens, or whether in hope that Mr. Calvin hath shoulders strong enough to carry all, and that every thing is justifiable merely by dropping from his Pen, I am not willing to determine. But so it is, that Mr. B. calls him wicked Calvin (which in my life I never did) and 
* Correp. Cor. p. 63. li. 15.  disgorgeth himself upon him (to use his own words) sticking so much in his stomach indigestible, even by saying I did, what he knows I did not. 2. He speaks not a word in the defence of that strange speech of Dr. Twisse, but bids me turn to the Section of Mr. Calvin again, (where he knows there is no such thing) as if Mr. Calvin in his Grave had expounded that saying of Dr. Twisse, before Dr. Twisse was old enough to lie in's Cradle. 3. He saith, ['tis plain, 
3.  though a man should run, yet he might read it, that he pleads not for God's Agency in sin as it is sin.] Upon which I offer him this Dilemma. Did he read my eighth instance (from Dr. Twisse) in Mr. calvin's works, or did he not? if he did, let him name the page, and say that Dr. Twisse did only steal it out of Calvin. If he did not (as I am sure he did not) let him publicly confess, that he spoke against his clearest knowledge. 4. He professeth that God as a judge was the 
4.  Author of punishing a sinful Ahab by his i e. ahab's sin. But how the Author of such punishment? by permitting him to sin, or by withdrawing his grace only and not restraining from the sin? no (saith Mr. B. and his Dr.) not only by the fiction of bare permission, but by (a) decreeing what he will have done, and by (a) commanding its execution.] So 
a a See Correct. Copy of notes p. 10 Dr. Twiss vind: Grat. l. 1. c. 18. Sect. 1. p. 68  that the sin being avowed to be the punishment of sin, and God being avowed to be the Author of such punishment, he is avowed the Author of sin too, when we and others say, that God doth punish sin with sin, we say it is by sufferance and permission, by not hindering from sinning, by leaving men to their wilful selves, expressed in Scripture by giving them up to their own hearts lusts, or by giving them over as desperate Patients, as Physicians do those men on whom no good is to be done But when our Adversaries speak of Gods punishing sin with sin, they say it is by decreeing it, and by commanding its execution. (As in the place above cited from Dr. Twisse.) 5. He saith, [that I and the worst of my Associates do plead for such a permission which makes evil things to fall out against God's determination etc.] this is first as contrary to truth as any thing could be spoken, in all respects, (I ever denying permission to be efficient, effective, or efficacious of evil, nor is evil against, but besides his Determination.) Next it is contradictory to his own words but a few lines before, where he accuseth me of holding an idle speculative permission. And how can such a permission be so busy and practical as to make evil things to fall out? Thirdly he confesseth (by this very Calumny) that he is for such an active permission of evil things, as is also effective, and * makes them fall out, and that according to his will and Determination. Which were he to express in Latin, he would have said [* facit or * efficit ut mala eveniant.] 6. How many fearful miscarriages there are besides in this eighth exterprise, I have so largely showed 
6.  already Chap. 3. §. 34. that I will choose to refer my Reader thither.  
§. 42. The tenth place (from Dr. Twisse) Mr. B. speaks 
Of the tenth place in his p. 67. 68  to in such a manner, as to bewray his acknowledgement that there is something in the place past all Apology and excuse; for 1. He commends the whole Discourse of Dr. Twisse. 2. He 
1. 2.  calls my quotations scraps and bits of his words, but is blindfold in both. For it appears by all Circumstances, that he did not read those long discourses of the Dr. to find whether my quotations were true, or not, but wanting the patience or the Courage to observe how faithfully and fully I had exhibited the Dr's. sense (which I was not to do by transcribing whole pages) he finds it easier for himself to give me a cast of his Contumely, and let me pass. 3. When he pretends to justify the several parts of that last instance which 
3.  doth consist of four degrees) he only addresseth himself to that which he thought most capable of Apology or excuse, but passeth by in deep silence the two prime things which I intended should be considered in that Quotation, viz. That Gods will doth pass not only into the permission of the sin, but into the sin itself which is permitted.] now why should our correptory Corrector (who is professedly such) choose to speak of the mildest and easiest parcels of the Quotation, but purposely slip over the hardest and most affrighting, if he were not conscious to himself of his perfect inability to make them good? The second thing is, [that God doth not only administer the occasions of sinning, but doth also so move and * urge them as that they smi●e the sinner's mind and really affect his imagination etc.] now that for which these words were voted was not [the administering of Occasions] but [the moving and urging them upon the mind of the sinner]. The former of which Mr. B. speaks to, (which amounts to no more than the telling a Tale of a Tub) but takes no notice of the latter, wherein the blasphemy doth lie. I say the blasphemy, in Justification of Saint James, who saith that God tempts 
a Jam. 1. 13, 14  no man, and how can the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The tempter tempt any man, more than by moving and urging, and thrusting home the occasions of sinning upon the will and fancy of the sinner, so as to smite his mind with them, and really affect his imagination? what is it to urge a thing, but to thrust it forward, or set it on lustily to the utmost point? and when are the Occasions of sinning thrust on or urged more homeward, then when they affect the Imagination, yea, even smite the mind of him that sins by that means? the Devil can but tempt, not compel us to do wickedly, how can he tempt more, then by the utmost degree of suggestion or persuasion to evil? and what greater degree of that, than the urging the occasions of sinning so far as to smite the mind with the allurements of profit or pleasure? (as D. Twisse goes forward in that quotation) the very next thing to the smiting of the mind, is the yielding up of the consent, but that is an effect, and not a part of the Temptation, performed by the sinner, not by the Tempter. Nor did the Devil tempt our Saviour one jot the less, in that our Saviour did not assent. Nor in that Eve consented did he tempt her more than he did our Saviour. To neither could he do more, than first to administer occasions, and then to urge them upon the senses, and persevere in that urgency until they affect the imagination, and smite the mind too. All which that Doctor doth speak of God, and as if that were not enough, he adds another ugly word, [that there is on God's part] a farther prostitution to sins required,] which being added to the urging of occasions and to the smiting of the mind with those occasions of sinning, is more than can truly be ascribed to the unclean spirit called Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, [The Tempter. 4. Having showed the two things which Mr. B. was so prudent as not to mention (yet would not confess that his old friend had erred, or spoken rashly) I will a little consider the three particulars to which he speaks. First he tells us that the Dr. doth put a wide difference betwixt God's efficient, and his efficacious will To which I reply, 1. That the difference cannot be very wide betwixt two wills which are both irresistible, and such are these two 
1.  in the 
* Vin Gra. l. 1. p. 1. Sect. 12. p. 140.  profession of Dr. Twisse. Besides, he will confess, that Gods will is efficient in the production of good, and yet they both say, that God's decree is no less efficacious in the permission of evil, then in the production of Good, which is to equal [efficient] with [efficacious.] But 2. Though there is indeed a difference betwixt efficient and efficacious, yet Dr. Twisse and his Timothy make none at all, whilst they say that Gods will doth transire in rem permissam; for that transience of the will into the object is not separable from efficiency, as Dr. Twisse himself acknowledgeth, when to make Predestination not to be ad alterum, he affirms it to be an immanent Action, and yet he is willing to deny any such efficiency, by only acknowledging an efficacy in the permission of evil, the former of which if Mr. B. will deny, he will ruin his Cause as much as I can desire him, and if he cannot understand it, let him discover his infirmity before I endeavour to work his Cure. But having spoken of this distinction Chap. 3. §. 28. I refer my Reader thither, and reply to his second Answer no more than this, that Dr. Twisse speaks not only of some judiciary acts of God upon impenitent sinners, as Mr. B. pleads at a venture, and discovers his adventure by the word doubtless, which implies only a confidence, and not a knowledge) or if he did, it were no good plea, whilst he is for a transience of Gods will into the sin permitted, and for the urging of occasions to smite the mind etc. and therefore Hosea 3. 13, 14. and 2 Thes. 2. 3. do only stand in his paper, as the signal Monuments of his Impertinence, or Abuse. To his third I reply, (what I enlarged on before) that what he saith no body can deny, was not the thing which I misliked considered simply in itself; but that I might not set down scraps and bits of the Doctor's words (as now Mr. B. hath affirmed for want of Logic,) I transcribed those words to show the full sense of that which followed. But the things themselves which were precisely the objects of my dislike, and to which I expected Mr. B. his Answer, or Abjuration, were the two foul speeches which I have pointed out with Digits at the beginning of this Section, which because Mr. B. was afraid to meddle with, I conceive he misliked them as well as I.   

The Conclusion.  
I Conclude with some Reasons why I will lose no more time in representing the other weaknesses of my Incomparable Antagonist, but only leave them to be judged of by that account, which I have hitherto given of his Abilities and Designs.  
1. I find him so obnoxious in every Page and Period of his Attempts, that should I vindicate myself after the measure that he is guilty, I could not answer to my Discretion so great a wastfulnesse of Time, nor to my Reader so great a length.  
2. It was the opinion of several persons, that the best way of clearing the First Edition of my Notes, would be to set forth a Second without addition or alteration. And if that again were calumniated, then to set forth a third. At least not to be long in my Vindication of those Truths, which Mr. B. hath injured, but cannot hurt.  
3. The very Taste of some things is able to breed a Satiety, if not a Surfeit. When some wagers have (con-been laid cerning the Correptory Correction) that let a Man dip where he will, he shall not find a clean Page, they that have betted on this side have always won. Cut off the Nails and the Hair and other excrescencies of the Thing (I mean the scold & inventions) [Et nusquam in toto corpore corpus erit] the whole Body of his Book will be transparently thin and slender. And I hold it not lawful, or decent, to combat with him at his own weapons.  
4. He commends his Answer to my two * Portals (as he is pleased to word it) viz. my Title, Epistle Dedisatory, and Paraenesis to the Reader,) to the serious perusal of such as are not at leisure to read him through. Therein he professeth to have been * purposely the longer for the gratifying of some, and to have taken off the edge of my Objections. From whence I gather, that he thinks it the shrewdest part of his Book; And thence I concluded it the fittest subject of my Reply.  
5. Such as he takes to be the keenest and choicest passages of the following part of his Volnme he hath industriously premised in his Invective against my Portals. And that he gives for the Reason why he will speak but briefly and by † strictctures to that which indeed is most material. So that taking fo● my Theme his first nine Sheets, and fetching in his several strengths from other places of his Book, (to avoid abundance of Repetition,) I have extracted the very Quintessence of all his Correptory Correction.  
6. He hath happily confessed, that the Ten Speeches which I quoted in the entrance of my first Chapter do make one great * Pillar upon which all my Book doth rest.] Upon which it follows, that if I have proved undeniably, that that Pillar is not rotten, nor overturned by him, (as he pretendeth,) but established rather and confirmed, (as I have evidently showed) I need not display him any farther, until he shall endeavour to shake that Pillar, by invalidating the proofs by which that Pillar is supported. For whilst it cannot but be granted, that his Doctors and Doctrines, do tempt the people to believe, that God is the Author or cause of sin, (some in those very words, and some to that very purpose, and almost all in a language as bad or worse,) with what excuse or patience can such a writer be considered in all his failings?  
7. He hath made his whole work so immethodieal, and confused, and taken so many strange courses to make his Reader incapable of comparing his Declamation with the Notes which I had written on God's Decrees, (which he in part doth acknowledge by his Apology to the Reader just before his Errata,) that he implicitly confesses he durst not stand to an easy trial. And when I consider how many Men were employed in the correction of every Sheet, (besides the ordinary Corrector,) and with how absolute a Liberty they were empowered, I cannot but look on his Apology in the conclusion of his Book, as the deepest Instance of his Invention.  
8. Whereas the only right way to confute my Notes, had been either by proving that my Principles were false, or that my Inferences from thence were not legally deduced, he hath tacitly acknowledged the indisputablenesse of both And I need not be elaborate in the vindicating of That, which he implicitly confesseth to be without blame.  
9 He hath many Sad Methods of speaking nothing to the purpose, the very discovering of which will be a competent Antidote against his whole Book. First, it is ordinary with 
1.  him, to mistake the Topics of my Proofs for the Proofs themselves, and then to call them no Proofs, and wisely to send me for an Answer to Sir N. N. which is in effect to tell his Reader, that he is a Rare Person in the Art of Misunderstanding; or is not able to distinguish betwixt things that differ. 2. He hath another solemn custom, instead of confuting 
2.  my way, to set down his own from one or other of his Masters; which can signify no more, then that the judgements which differ, do not agree. 3. He is excellently good 
3.  at deceiving himself with Petitio Principii, and Ignoratio Elenchi, and (either skilfully or for want of skill) makes frequent Transitions ab Hypothesi ad Thesin. As, when I prove that Christ died intentionally for all, he vehemently opposeth that all are not saved. And when I say, God's Reprobation of the far greater number of Men was not without the consideration of their sins: He demurely asks, If God content himself with a little Flock, why should you grumble it is no bigger?] as if he hoped that some Readers would be so silly as to believe, that I did grumble at God's Oeconomie. 4. When he is pintcht with an Argument which he dares not meddle 
4.  with at all, (lest in salving one ulcer, he should make many more of as desperate a Nature,) he amuseth his Reader with some little story, concerning his Father, or himself, or his Father's Friends, or his own, or his wholesome way of making Sermons, or his great pains taking with his little flock; and not to be wanting to himself on these occasions, He tells the Reader how many years he hath been a Minister in England, that the world may have an Intimation how old he was when he began to be an Author; otherwhile he diverts to his having been in Holland, his having seen Gerhard Vossius, and heard him speak too; Now he is very much beholding to Dr. Ames; anon he is beloved of Dr. Twisse, and that no less than another Timothy; Nay rather than enter into a reasoning about that part of an Argument wherein the force of it doth lie against his Doctrines, he tells the Reader as much of me, as he either knows, or suspects, or else is able to invent; and as much of others as he thinks is needful to stop a gap. 5. In divers cases of Extremity, when he cannot devise which way to turn, he saith, he is not at leisure to do this, 
5.  or that, and refers his Reader to some other Author; or tells us he should blush to spend time in confuting it; or that he is too short, because he hath been too long; or that it is time to string up his Pen. Or says, 'twas answered long ago in his First Attempts against my Notes, which neither I nor his other Readers could ever see. Yet he refers us to the pages of his manuscript labours locked up in the privacy of his Cabinet, or Closet, and hopes that that will pass with us for one of his Orthodox Putoffs. But to cover these shifts with some variety, he often refers to some page of my Printed Copy, where I either say nothing of what he pretends, or many times the contrary to his pretensions. 6. It is one of his 
6.  subtleties, not at all to quote my words, or the page where they are written, hoping the Reader will not be able to bring him to due examination, but rather swallow it as granted, that in a great deal of story there is at least a little Truth. 7. When 
7.  he cannot quarrel with my words, he interprets my heart to be as opposite to my words as he can wish. As when I did not conclude the will of man to be free from all divine Prescience, (nor was it possible that I should do so) he tells his Reader I would have done it but for the shame of the world and speech of People. By which inhuman course of proceeding, any man may say any thing against any man living. In a word. When he hath least to say against my Argument, he rails the most against my Person, Crying out [that my ways of reasoning are Blasphemous and Scurrilous or mysterious pieces of Iniquity. Or that others have answered them already. Or that he will stride over all my fifth Chapter, because it hath been battered, mauled and broken by his Answers to my Former, so as it moulders all to pieces. Or else he breaks out into Noise and Clamour, as if he took me for a Fiend to be exercised, AVAUNT, AVAUNT, DEPART FROM ME O THOU SATANICAL BLASPHEMER, QVI DIABOLUM IPSUM BLASPHEMANDO SUPERAS.]  
These are the Admirable Methods of giving Correptory Correction to such as differ in Judgement from Mr. Barlee. In the Discovery of which, I have revealed no Secrets. It was without my Consent, and in Refusal of my Advise, that he hath unnaturally inflicted such an exemplary punishment upon himself, as first to publish his Imperfections in a Remonstrance of Thirty sheets, and then, in the ordinary News Book, to be at the cost of publishing his very Publication. In both which Contrivances of his Disgrace, I can truly say I have not had the least hand. But o● the contrary, I was so careful of his Credit as to desire him very early (by several Letters to that effect) that he would not divulge his Animosities, nor make himself known in the streets of 
* 2 Sam. 1. 20.  Askelon; but if he could not abstain from behaving himself unseemly, that he would suffer his Misbehaviours to pass in silence; and in Return of my Charity afford me his. All the Requital that I expected for the many Injuries which he had done me, was that at length he would put an end to them, and cease from doing me any more; and that he would not conceive me to be made incapable of pardon by my having been so Inoffensive, as to have suffered so many wrongs with so much patience. It was not therefore my fault, that he hath scorned my Counsel, and thrust himself upon the Theatre, and Trumpetted out those things which he was deeply concerned to have concealed. I have but showed him by that light, by which he longed to be seen; and so have said in effect no more than this, Behold the CHRISTIAN, the SCHOLAR, the GENTLEMAN, and the MAN.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 1. for Philanthophy r. philanthropy. p. 7. in marg. 1. 1 Joh. 2. 2. p. 8. in marg. 14. vera. l. 30. r. Austin. p. 14. l 29. r. nor p. 15. in marg. Dal. Apolog. pro 2. Synod. ibid. l. 22 Hilary p. 40. l. 8. J. Goodw. p. 57 l. 15. Gadarene p. 59 l. 30. Nazarene p 63. penult. deal not. 69. ult. Erastian, p. 72. l. 7. r. volumn. p. 99 l. 19 r. ni. 106 for the Title r. Of the cause of punishment. p. 112. l. 15. r. unto p. 124. for the running Title, r. Dr. Twisse against p. 125. l. 2. r. Peter Martyr Vermilius Fl. p. 129. l. 25. after Mr. r. B. p. 130. l. for sceleritus r. sceleratus: p. 132. in Marg l 10. Schasm. ibid. in Marg. l. 45. 46 fol. 5. 19 p. 137. l. 2. after cannot r. not. ibid. in marg. l 12 r. Schasm. p. 139. in marg. l. 17. & 21. r. Broeckerus & Dominicus. ibid. l. 22. deal as after well. p. 141. in marg. l. 17. for quia r. quà. p. 146. l. 11. after is r. as. ibid. l. 24. r. Rhapsody. p. 151. l. 28. after from r. me.  

CHAP. 4.  
Page 6. line 9 read correptory. p. 9 in marg. l. 12. r. Cano●um. p. 20. l. 5. r. determining. ibid. l. 9 r. sacrilege. p. 23. in Marg. 41. r. cujus causa sit in ipso. ibid. in marg. 45. r. conjiciunt. p. 24. for the running title r. the ugly consequence of— p. 57 l. 6. deal for.    

A Table of those things that are most material, wherein the Reader must needs be referred as well to the Chapter as to the Page.  

A.  
A Braham in relation to the sacrificing of Isaac. Ch. 4. p. 57, 58. Absolute. See Decrees.  
Arminianism what, and how little understood by the ●ulgar, and by Mr. B. Ch. 1. p. 12. to p. 17. Arminius his Absolute Decrees. Ch. 4. p. 35.  
Artificial Handsomeness in the worst kind. Ch. 3. p. 150, 151.  
Antiquity how misunderstood and abused by Mr. B. Ch. 1. p. 27. to p. 30.  
Augustin Ch. 1. p. 28. of his writings and the Fathers before him. Ch. 3. p. 74, 75, 76, 77. vindicated from Mr. B's Calumnies. Ch. 4. p. 44, 45, 46. Author. See God.   

B.  
Blasphemies. A Catalogue of them, and from what Doctrine they arise. Ch. 3. p. 123. to p. 140. & p. 141. etc. it is no blasphemy to free God's Decree from being any Cause of Sin. p. 140. rather the contrary is blasphemy. p. 147. as to say he is the Author of Adultery with Zuinglius. Ch. 4. p. 59, 60.   

C.  
Calvin, his stile and Temper. Ch. 3. p. 125, 126. the weakness of his simile of the Sun and a Dunghill. Ch. 4. p. 49, 50. how calumniated by Mr. B. p. 60, 61.  
Calvinists agreeing with Papists. Ch. 4. p. 34.  
Castellio. How injured by Mr. B. Ch. 3. p. 148, 149.  
Conditional. See Decrees.  
Church. The Church of England Ch. 1. p. 17, 18, 19, 20. all the ancient and modern Church how meant by Mr. B. Ch. 3. p. 105, 106. Correptory Correction, what it signifies ch. 1. p. 1, 2. etc.  
Christ his dying only for the Elect a great and dangerous Error. Ch. 3. p. 86. 87. etc. of his dying intentionally as well as fufficiently for all. p. 93. 94. etc.   

D.  
Damnation. How disguised by Mr. B. and his masters. Ch. 4. p. 3. 4. etc.  
Decrees Absolute. Ch. 3. p. 56. absolute and conditional. Ch. 4. p. 2. irrespective Decrees if believed lead men into despair by their confession who maintain them. p. 22. 23. respective Decrees proved from Dr. Twisse his own words. p. 32. the absolute Decrees of Armineus. p. 25. Decrees though eternal must have an object and so be ad alterum. p. 56.  
Despair the effect of Mr. B's Doctrine Ch, 4. p. 22. 23.  
Dort. Our Divines at that Synod Ch. 4. p. 13. 14. jeered by Mr. ●…as not being for his turn. p. 16.   

E.  
Effect and End not distinguished by Mr. B. Ch. 4. p. 39  
Efficient and Efficacious how confounded by Dr. Twisse and Mr. B. Ch. 4. p. 64.  
See Sin.  
Election eternal. The Cause and the Condition must be distinguished. Ch. 3. p. 62. 63. etc.  
Erysipelas' Exulcerate hurtful malgrè Mr. B. Ch. 4. p. 8.   

F.  
Freewill. How safely interpreted by me. Ch. 3. p. 64. 78. 79, 80. & p. 100 Ch. 4. p. 21. 22.  
Fundamentals in Religion. Ch. 14. p. 10. 11.  
Fur Praedestinatus how groundlessly imputed by Mr. B. Ch. 3. p. 145. 146. Ch. 4. p. 51.   

G.  
God. How and by whom he is forged to be the Fountain and Cause of Sin. Ch. 1. p. 23. 24, 25. 26, 27. how inferred by Mr. B. to be more the Cause of Sin than the sinner himself. Ch. 3. p. 110. 111. God's being made to be the Author of Sin is charged by Dr. Twisse upon the Antiremonstrants his Brethren. p. 123. to p. 125. how God's permission of sin is understood by Mr. B. & his Teachers p. 129, to p. 143. How made to be more than the Author of sin p. 131. 133. etc. of his Decrees. Ch. 4. p. 1, 2. His sovereignty is consistent with Justice, and doth not consist in the causality of sin, p. 20. how made Author of sin by Mr. B's very way of Tergiversation, p. 20, 21. and by Rivets Argument, p, 23, 24, 25. and by Mr. B's way of denying it, p. 33, 34. how Mr. B. and his are demonstrated to make God the Author of sin, in 10 whole Sections from p. 36. to the end of Ch. 4. God cannot will his own dishonour, p. 46. etc.  
Grace special, Ch. 3. p. 83, 84. etc. of perseverance. p. 98. 99 prevenient p. 100 of perseverance not irresistible. p. 101. 102. 103. Ch. 4. p. 17. 18.   

H.  
Hell. For whom prepared. Ch. 3. p. 70. 71. Mr. Hobbs, against Mr. B. Ch. 4. p. 44. otherwise of the same principles, Ch. 3. p. 136.  
Hilary, Ch. 1. p. 29.   

I.  
Dr. Jackson, Ch. 3. p. 147, 148. King James orthodox with Mr. B. Ch. 4. p. 7.  
Infants are harmless, and in a saveable condition malgrè Mr. B. Ch. 4. p. 25, 26.   

L.  
Lambeth Articles an Innovation which Q. Elizabeth was angry at. Nor would K. James be entreated to admit them, Ch. 4. p. 18.   

M.  
Massilianism, Ch. 1. p. 7, 8. etc.  
Melancthonianism, Ch. 1. p. 14.   

O.  
Orthodox Assemblies, Ch. 4. p. 7 The Orthodoxy of K. James, Ibid.  
Orthodox not so good as sincere, p. 9, 10.   

P.  
Pelagianism, Ch. 1. p. 7, 8, etc.  
Permission of sin, how misunderstood and misapplyed to God by Mr. B. and his Masters, Ch. 3. p. 129. to p. 143. and confounded with positive effection, Ib. and Ch. 4. p. 61, 62.  
Perseverance. See Grace.  
Postdestination, Ch. 1. p. 4, 5, etc.  
Postlapsarians charged with postdestination by the Antelapsarians, Ib. Practical Christians no ill things Ch. 4. p. 10.  
Predestination respective confessed unwillingly by Mr. B. Ch. 4 p. 19 See Decrees.  
Prediction not distinguished from effection by Mr. B. Ch. 4. p. 41.  
Preterition, how it argues the shamefastness of the Sublapfarians, Ch. 4. p. 3, 4. etc. See Reprobation.  
Prosper, Ch. 1. p. 29.  
Punishment eternal, the cause of it, Ch. 3. p. 107, 108. etc. and p. 116, 117. to p. 121. the punishment of sin with sin, how meant by us and by our Adversaries, Ch. 4. p. 61.   

R.  
Railing leads to five conclusions, Ch. 2. p. 44. to p. 50. not warranted by Scripture, Ch. 4. p. 13.  
Reason, of what Authority right reason is, Ch. 3. p. 103, 104, etc.  
Redemption universal, Ch. 1. p. 21, 22. Special, Ch. 3. p. 84, 85, etc. Universal clear from Scripture, p. 86. and flowing immediately from an Article of the Creed in the judgement of Bishop Davenant, Ch. 4. p. 11. and is vindicated from Mr. B's attempts, p. 29, 30, 31, 32.  
Remonstrants, Ch. 3. p. 144.  
Reprobation, its Cause and Condition, Ch. 3. p. 62, 63, etc. confessed to be conditional by Mr. B. p. 64. etc. Positive and Negative, an ill distinction, p. 65, 66, 67. Ch. 4. p. 3, 4, etc.  
Revealed. See Will.  
Rivet's strange Argument infers God the Author of Sin, Ch. 4. p. 23, 24, 25.   

S.  
Scripture how used by Mr. B. and how by me, Ch. 1. p. 21, 22. to 27. and Ch. 3. p. 123, etc. Vindicated from being made to make God the Author of sin, Ch. 4. p. 33, 34, 38, 39, 40. the sad effects of its literal Interpretation where it speaks figuratively, p. 47, 48. the right way of interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 48.  
Sin, no man above it, Ch. 3. p. 81, 82. It's cause efficient not deficient only, p. 110. to 116. Sinfulness cannot be separated from sin, nor sin from the act of sinning, Ch. 4. p. 42, 43, 44. See God.  
Sincerity better than Orthodoxy, Ch. 4. p. 9 & 10.   

T.  
Temptation to sin is not sin. Ch. 4. p. 63. 64.  
Tradition. of what Authority. Ch. 3. p. 103. etc.  
Dr. Twisse against his Brethren the Antiremonstrants, Chap. 3. p. 123, 124, 125. His words infer respective degrees, Chap. 4. p. 32. Of clashing with Mr. B as p. 44. how strangely mistaken, and how sadly defended by Mr. B. p. 60, 61, 62, 63, etc.   

V.  
Vedelius, chargeth the Antiremonstrants with Atheism, Ch. 3. p. 126.  
Universal. See Redemption.   

W.  
Will. What the Adversaries do mean by God's Secret and Revealed will. And the absurdities which follow, Ch. 4. p. 52, 53, 54, 57, 58.   
The End.