BEing at this time not far from London, I have met with a little Pamphlet, cal­led The Truth unveiled, &c. (which you pretend to be a Vindication of Mr. Stan­dish's Sermon) a great deal sooner than otherwise I should have done. The Pamphlet it self, doth not seem to me to be worthy of any regard: but to your self who seem to be much concerned for the safety of our Religion, there is a great one due, and therefore in mere charity to you, I have once more set Pen to Paper, briefly to demonstrate that you wrong your self exceedingly in imploying your time about works of this nature; for which you are not at all fitted. You are a Person of Quality; I make no doubt, because I have your word for it; but I must take the bold­ness to tell you; that whatsoever other qualities you have, you are not qualified (to imitate a little your way of wri­ting) to pass a censure on Men, and on Books, as you have taken the liberty to do,

[Page 2] You will be apt, it is like, by this blunt beginning, to make the same judgement concerning me; but I trust I shall evidently show, it is no rashness or presumption in me, to undertake this task; which is so easy, that it requires no great abilities to make good this charge, viz, That there is a notorious defect, either in your Will and Affections, or else in your Mind and Judgement: either of which make you unmeet to meddle with these matters.

The former of these I dare not suspect, because you pro­fess down-right Honesty, though no Arts; and in many passa­ges speak very piously. Though I cannot forbear to say thus much, that the constant affectation of little strains of the lowest and poorest sort of witty reflexions, is no good sign of that serious inside Piety, whose Heart-bloud, you say, is now letting out by a Generation of Men, for whom you can­not find a name bad enough. Who can read without some disdain, such pittiful punns as you have made upon the names of several persons: which I doubt you would not allow in another, while you take a great liberty this way your self. You would call it, I have reason to think, flurting and fleering, or lightness and vanity, if not jeering and a­busiveness in those whom you take to task; which you practice without any scruple, from the beginning of the Book to the end. Mr. Bull comes first with his Horns, and eager pushes pag. 33. having lately pusht apiece into the World. p. 37. Then Mr. Baxter is described by the character of one, who hath spoiled in his time many good Ba­kings. And elsewhere Dr. Heylin, passes under the name of St. George his Champion, and you doubt his Dragon too. And there is another, I am confident you aim at, when, upon the mention of Dr. Owen, and Mr. Jenkins, you tell us of the groveling outeries that are made. Nor can I devise any other reason, why you contracted the name of your Book in the entrance, with an &c. (when it stands at length enough in the Title Page) but only to bring in the far-fetcht conceit [Page 3]of the Oath, &c. Sure, Sir, this trifling is not to be a practi­tioner of Piety in Baley's way, nor to watch over your acti­ons according to Brinsley's Rules, and as you direct us, p. 30. If it be, those Books, and the rest you commend to our use, do not surpass so far as you would have the world be­lieve, the labours of the New Speaking Gentlemen. So you call the Writers you oppose, though that excellent Man Dr. Hammond (after whom follows Bishop Taylor) leads the Van, as you speak, and was the Forelorn Hope. Who deserved sure to be treated with more Reverence, especi­ally by a Person of Quality, who ought not to have stoop­ed to so low, so paultry, a way of writing, nor to have comprehended so great a Divine, and so Holy a Man, under no better Name, than that of a New-Speaking Gen­tleman.

But you do not deny, but there are abundance of excellent, useful, seasonable, well-said things in his Practical Catechisme. and therefore, notwithstanding all this, I doubt not but you are (though I know not who you are, no more than the Man in the Moon) a Pious, Serious, Honest Gentleman, or Person of greater Quality) who intends to do service to Religion; though you are not well skilled in the busi­ness you go about.

For that there is an exceeding great defect in your judge­ment, it is apparent from hence, That pretending a Vin­dication of Mr. Standish his Sermon, you have not writ one syllable to the purpose. For the Men whom he in­forms against, and whose names I desired we might know, are such as impiously deny both our Lord, and his Holy Spi­rit: who make Reason, Reason, Reason their only Trinity: who preach up Natural, and Moral Religion, without the Grace of God, and Faith in Christ: and in effect say, There is no such thing as supernatural Grace. That is in plain terms, rank Socinians; or worse, (if worse can be) for the So­cinians [Page 4]do not advance Natural Religion against the Chri­stian, nor deny all Supernatural Grace. Now I did not, nor do believe that there is a man to be named among our Clergy, who is guilty of these foul detestable Here­sies. Yes, say you (or you say nothing) since you call so loudly and importunately, for a Bill of particulars, you shall have it. And the first Names you give in, are Dr. Hammond and Bishop Taylor. Who must therefore be the Ring-lead­ers of those deceitful Workers, those false Apostles Mr. Stan­dish speaks of; or else (to speak mildly, in one of your own phrases) you have mist the Quishion. Chuse you which of these you will; it is certain you will be found, to be an incompetent person to interpose your self in those diffe­rences; though I doubt not you are, as in humility you stile your self, p. 34, A well-meaning Scribler.

Do you really intend to charge those great Men with the crime of Socinianisme? Is the Practical Catechisme in effect but the Cracovian, in which Mr. Standish feared we might live to see our Youth trained up? Hath any one more effectually established the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, than the ever memorable Dr. Hammond, upon the 1 Epistle of S. John, the fifth Chapter, and the sixth Verse? I believe I may answer for you, that you did not mean to impute any such Heresies to either of them. And therefore it remains, if you acquit them, that you condemn your self of the grossest impertinency, and heedlessness, in naming these, as the Heads of that black Faction. For if you can lay things together, you will see that this must be your mean­ing; or you did not mind what you wrote about: but having something in your Head, concerning innovations in our Religion, regarded not how you applyed it. Look over the earnest request to Mr. Standish; read the character of the Men, a List of whom I desire him to communicate; and then apply it to Dr. Hammond, and Bishop Taylor, and [Page 5]you will very hardly hold (to speak your own language again) from asking your self that question, which you observe p. 29. Sir John Sucklin ask'd, when he found Sir Toby Matthews in the Session of Poets, What do they here?

Perhaps, you will as earnestly reply, have I not alledg­ed a strange passage out of one of Bishop Taylors Prayers? What do you say to it? I say I have taken notice of it my self, and do not know what he meant; but I am sure he was no Socinian, and that there is no Socinianism in the words you quote, whatsoever there be else; and there­fore I know not what you meant to thrust them in here; where they have nothing to doe. There is no man of the Church of England, I believe, that will answer for every word in that great Mans Writings: But no more will any discreet Man of your way, answer for all the hard say­ings that are in Mr. Calvins. I am sure I find in my small Reading, the greatest Men, who have undertaken his de­fence, absolutely disclaiming their being bound to make good every thing that he said; and therefore had it been more pertinent than it is, you might have let it pass, and not have disturbed Dr. Taylors ashes (as they speak) but suffered a person of his merit, to sleep in peace.

But some of those that follow, perhaps may be of the Racovian stamp; though these two be found as innocent, as all you have said about them, is impertinent. Let us try if you please, what you have to say to St. George Cham­pion, who next follows? If we should allow him to have been, as you doubt, his Dragon too; we shall never find him spitting any such venome, as that mentioned in Mr. Standish's Sermon. You your self cannot charge him with any such thing; but detain your Reader only with a­long tedious reflection (in XVII. Particulars) upon his Cy­prianus [Page 6]Anglicus, or, The Life of our Great Archbishop Laud, which still shows that you are beside the Cushion, and without question, expert (as you say of him) that Readers should rest upon your Dictates, without any searching whether you write to the purpose or no: or else you would never have so determinately called your Book, a Vindication of Mr. Standish's his Sermon, which in truth is far otherwise. It would have saved you a great deal of needless pains, if you would but have minded the last words of my Re­quest to him (which are not mine, but the wise Son of Syrach's 11 Ecclus. 7.) Ʋnderstand first, and then rebuke. You would not have troubled us, if you had heeded this good counsel, with a story of his Arminianisme, strutting through all the pages of his Book; which is no more to the Vindication you undertake, than the mysterious agen­cy of Panzani and Con (which you talk or afterward) and that which was a doing (I know not when) at Clerken; well, and behind Drury-lane.

Nor hath the Ghost of Tilenus, whom you bring in next, any thing to say about the business. It is only a dumb apparition; and we have nothing but your word for it, that it makes very irregular glances, and would let out the hearts bloud of sundry truly Protestant Doctrines, All that follows it likewise is but wind, against Parker, Hickringale, and sweet Mr. Sherlock (as you are pleased in much civi­lity to term him) whose Writings you say, contain not much more than Sophistical Harangues, Perspicuous Calum­nies, and Prodigious Drolleries. What that much more is, you will not let us know; It is like that, as little as you think it, it contains a confutation of your accusations. For one of those persons whom you rank with them, Georgius Bull, I am acquainted withall, and know him to be both an Holy▪ and a very Learned person, who hath in his last Book thrown off this charge of Socinianisme, [Page 7]with as much indignation, as you can do the Writings of any of the New speaking Gentlemen. And there is no body that knows him, but is assured, he most sincerely declares his inmost thoughts: and would not for a world embrace any Doctrine, contrary to what hath been taught by the Catholick Church; with which he is certain the Church of England is not at odds.

But why do I make so many words about this sort of Writers? Our Books of Devotion will not down with you neither; but, upon this, that is no occasion, fall under your lash. If they do but omit any thing, which you would have in them, straitway you quarrel, and think it a sufficient reason for your displeasure at them. The method and direction for private Devotion, is not for your Tooth. And which is more, the Whole Duty of Man, is not secure from your impotent assaults, p. 29. and 32. We must use no other Books but such as you like; or else quit our Ti­tle to the name of the right Sons of the Church of England. Instead of the excellent Book last named, we must buy the Practice of Piety (though far more liable to exceptions in many wise mens judgements, than any Book of Devotion you have mentioned) or else you will not be in a good hu­mor. What an imperious, dictating Spirit is this (which rules in Men of this strain) who will not allow us so much as to speak out of their phrase? Is this the Spirit of true genuine Calvinisme, which you so highly commend, p. 28? Are those that carp at every thing, and can relish nothing, but what is of their dressing, nor fancy any body, but those that are exactly of their own cutt, the rightest Sons and Fathers of the Church of England? —

Why (will you here, I fancy, interrupt me, and be apt to say) what have you to object against what I have writ, That an Episcopal Calvinist is the rightest Son, or Father of the Church of England, the best Protestant; and (if a good man) the best Christian? p. 28. I answer, if you will not [Page 8]count me impertinent for medling with that, which was not my present business with you, I have very much to object. And first I say, that no right Son, much less, Fa­ther of the Church of England, will endure to be called, or thought, either a Calvinist, or an Arminian: for our Church follows no particular man, though never so great; neither Calvin, nor Luther, nor Arminius. None of these are the founders of its Faith: which is not taught by Cal­vin's or any other Institutions; but by the Holy Scriptures interpreted by the Church of Christ, in the best ages of it. Or (to give it you in the words of an once Father of this Church) interpreted, not according to the fancies, and most what presumptions of some one man, delighting commonly to oppose and thwart the stream of antiquity; but according to the sense and meaning of those times, that drew water nearer unto the Well-head; that is, to the Apostles, and their suc­cessors immediately.

Upon which score it is certain, that the Doctrine of this Church cannot be Calvinian. For the first and purest ages, by which it is guided, you your self are sensible was not so; only you think it sufficient to smile at those who pre­tend their Authority, and say, It is little less than ridicu­lous to talk of the Fathers before St. Austin's time, in refe­rence to those questions. p. 25. Why so, I beseech you? Be­cause they lived, say you, before the Controversie was started; and so did not, nor could intend to speak appositely to the points of Original sin, the power of Grace, &c By which reason we must not appeal to them in the points about Popery; for then the pretences of St. Peter were not on foot, &c. and then they could not intend to speak appositely to such matters. I should think those great Lights of the Church, ought not to be thus slighted, in a matter of such moment. And an indifferent person would, for your reason, conclude the quite contiany; that they are the more to be heeded, because they are the more likely to have delivered purely [Page 9]their sense without any bias, when they were not enga­ged among themselves in the heats of controversy; which too oft pervert the understanding. And those Doctrines which subvert Mr. Calvins Systeme, were so certainly be­lieved by them, that they made no controversy of them: but with one consent rejected the Doctrine of Fate, which was then no less rife among the Pagans (against whom they were careful no doubt to write appositely) than the absolute irrespective Decrees are now among Christians.

But besides this, I am also certain, that the Sons and Fathers of the Church of England, have opposed this Doctrine long before Mr. Hoord appeared; who you say, was the first that ventured to give our Brittish world, new notions of Gods love to Mankind. This is so palpable an untruth, that Bishop Hoopers Works shew these notions which you call New, are as Old as the Reformati­on, And a Sermon Preached at St. Pauls Cross, Note: PLACE="marg" See Mr. Bull. on the 27 of October (as the Title Page informs me) Anno Reginae Elizabethae 26. by Samuel Harsnet, is such an illu­strious testimony against you, that there cannot be a great­er. He was then but Fellow of Pembroke-Hall in Cam­bridge; but afterward promoted to be one of the Fa­thers of the Church, in King James his time, and at last advanced to be one of our Primates; for he dyed▪ Arch-Bishop of York. I supose, Sir, a Person of your Reading, who undertakes to trace the crooked muddy stream, as you call it, to its first weak ebullitions, cannot be ignorant of the strong efforts (to use your own word) made by this Preacher; Who expressly makes the Doctrine, which Mr. Hoord long after opposed, a daring enemy risen up against our Israel. For he expresly calls it a Goliah, which was grown huge and monstrous, reviling not the Host of the living God, but the Lord of Hosts. And mentioning those words of St. Paul, [God would have all men to be saved] tells that numerous Auditory the Genevian conceit hath dealt with this Gracious [Page 10]bounty of God, and this blessed saying [God would have all men to be saved] as Hanun did with the Ambassadors of David. He cut off their Garments to the Hips; and this hath curtail'd the Grace of God to the stumps: For it saith, it must not be meant that God would have every living soul to come to Heaven; but one or two, perhaps, out of every order and occupation. But the Spirit of St. Peter ( a great deal wiser than that of Geneva) saith plainly, God would not have any one perish, &c. I trust we shall have Grace to believe him; since himself can better tell what himself would have, than the men of Geneva can. What think you now after this down­right Declaration (which I have transcribed a small scrap of, out of that Sermon, on 33 Ezek. 11.) was Mr. Hoord the first man that ventured to teach Gods love to Mankind, in a way quite opposite to that of the Calvinians? Is not here a man that boldly tells the British world in the greatest Assembly it had, that your beloved Doctrine is a stran­ger, nay an enemy to our Church: strutting indeed about at that time, and bearing it self high (as you speak of Dr. Heylins Arminianisme) so that Men trembled and shak'd at it; but by him resolutely endeavoured to be cast down, as a forreign conceit, which ought not to be admitted here. We know very well, how it came to spread and grow so huge and monstrous; but it was then no more the sense of the Church of England, than Arianisme was the sense of the Church Catholique, when all places were over-run with it. There were still more than one who had the same resolution with Athanasius, to bear witness against it; as I could show out of good Authors.

And I can see no cause why Bishop Mountague (whom, as becomes a true course Calvinian, you call bare Mounta­gue, and therefore the rest, by the way, need not take it ill they are no better treated) should be quite struck out of the number of those, from whom we may learn the no­tions of our Church in his dayes. For I can find no State-Politicks [Page 11]in his Book (which you pretend for his rejecti­on) but as he assures us, the proper, true, and antient te­nents of the Church of England; such as be, without any doubt or question, legitimate and genuine, such as she, will both acknow­ledge and maintain for her own: So he avows in his Epistle Dedicatory, to His late Majesty, before his Apello Caesarem. And there is no reason to think him partial in this case; since Dr. Francis White, then Dean of Carlisle (no mean Champion sure of our Church) testified as much, after he had been authorized by King James, to read that Book over duely, and give his judgement of it, which is this, as you may see in his Approbation, or License of it for the Press, 1624. that having diligently perused it, he found nothing therein but what is agreeable to the Publique Faith, Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England.

Now mark what this Writer saith to those that inform­ed against him. You would make the world believe (as you, Sir, indeavour also to do) That the Church of England Calvinizes: shew me good warrant for it, and I yield, I may rather say that the Church of England hath opposed this Do­ctrine, because that many of the Learned (your selves will not deny) in that Church, and most conformable unto the Disci­pline and Doctrine of the Church, have mainly opposed it. You may find this lively testimony against you, in the First Part, the Seventh Chapter: towards the conclusion of which, he further adds, I am sure it hath been opposed in the Church of England; otherwise taught and professed in the Schools, when I was an Auditor there. It hath been prohibited to be enjoyned, and tendred, or maintained, as the authenti­cal Doctrine of our Church, by supreme authority; with sharp reproof, unto those that went about to have it tendred, than when those conclusions or assertions of Lambeth (which you mention) were upon sending down to the University of Cam­bridge.

[Page 12] This is sufficient sure to convince you of your error; or if it be not, let me add, that Bishop Davenant himself (who you do but hope, reduced Mr. Hoord to a sounder mind, for I can prove the contrary) in his Lent Sermon before the King, and the last I think that he preached, declared his opinion to be, as for Ʋniversal Redemption, so for Ʋniversal Grace within the Church. Which I doubt, the Calvinians will-not allow; I am sure those that are called Arminians, desire no more. You may find this, if you please, in Dr. Hammond's Letters to Bishop Sanderson, concerning Gods Grace and Decrees, p. 27. and I hope you will take his word in a matter of Fact, for a greater thing than this.

But if all this will not be regarded, yet I presume the Church it self will be allowed to understand its own sense, which hath directly, and in express words (saith the forenamed Bishop Mountague, in that Book, Licensed by the Kings Authority) overthrown the ground of Calvinisme, in Teaching thus: that a justified man, and therefore pre­destinate in your Doctrine, may fall from God, and therefore become not the Child of God, p. 59. which he repeats again p. 73. The Church holdeth, and teacheth punctually (and that in the opinion, and with the dislike of the Learnedst of your side) that Faith, true, justifying Faith, once had, may be lost and recovered again: that a man endued with Gods Ho­ly Spirit, may lose that HOLY SPIRIT, have that Light put out, become like unto SAƲL and JƲDAS, &c. How can the Church of England then be thought, even in your own understanding, to be Calvinian; which teaches things so cross to Mr. Calvins Hypothesis, that they utterly overturn it? And it had been very happy if they that endeavoured to bend some other Articles of our Church to his sense, had rather studied, as they ought to have done, to frame their sense in all other things to this Article, which is di­rected so expressy against what he teaches. This Church then would have been in a better condition than it is; be­ing [Page 13]now in danger to be destroyed by those, who were never quiet, till with the Doctrine, they had brought in the Discipline too of Mr. Calvin among us. Those are me­morable words of Bishop Mountagues (whom if he had been yours, you would have gone near, upon such an oc­casion, to have stiled a Prophet) which we meet with in the Fifth Chapter, of the First Part of his Appeal, where he charges those that informed against him, with waving the Doctrine of our Church, Preaching against it, Teaching contrary to what they had subscribed, that so, saith he, through FORRAIN DOCTRINE, being infused secretly, and instilled cunningly, and pretended craftily to be the Churches; at length you may wind in with FORRAIN DI­SCIPLINE also, and so fill Christendom, with Popes in eve­ry Parish for the Church, and with popular Democracies and Democratical Anarchies in the State. If you please to re­flect upon our late confusions, and compare them with this Prediction, perhaps you may hereafter love Bishop Mountague better, as a person of some judgement and sa­gacity in other things, as well as in this.

But I list not to trouble the Reader with any unplea­sant reflections upon those dismal times, I will rather up­on this occasion, refresh him with a tale, as King James called it, in the Conference at Hampton Court, p. 82. There was a time, saith he, when Mr. Knox writes to the Queen Regent of Scotland, telling her, that she was Supream head of the Church, and charged her, as she would answer it before God's Tribunal, to take care of Christs Evangel, and of suppressing the Popish Prelates, who withstood the same. But how long, trow ye, did this continue? even so long, till by her authority, the Popish Bishops were repressed, he himself, and his adherents, were brought in, and well setled, and thereby made strong enough to undertake the matters of Re­formation themselves. Then loe, they began to make small ac­count of her Supremacy, nor would longer rest on her Autho­rity [Page 14]but took the Cause into their own hand, &c. I will ap­ply it thus, And then putting his Hand to his Hat, His Ma­jesty said, My Lords, the Bishops, I may thank you, that these Men thus plead for my Supremacy: they think they cannot make their party good against you, but by appealing to it; as if you, or some that adhere unto you, were not well affected towards it. But if once you were out, and they in place, I know what would become of my Supremacy. With the like reason I may apply it again to our present business; there are certain men that ring perpetually in our ears, the Do­ctrine of the Church of England, the Doctrine of the Church of England: as if they were the most afraid of innovati­ons in it, and were the most zealous assertors, and strong­est supporters of it. Whereas the truth is, they are beat from all other holds, and hope to shelter themselves a lit­tle by appealing to it: as if some among us were not well-af­fected towards it. But if once their opponents were out, and they in their places, with a power to settle matters among us; I know what would become of the Doctrine of the Church of England; which they would no more value than an old Almanack quite out of date.

But I intend not to make a Book of this, and therefore have said enough to demonstrate the First part of your assertion is not true that an Episcopal Calvinist is the right­est Son or Father of the Church of England. As for the Se­cond, That he is, if a good man, the best Christian; I have far more to say, than I am willing to Print. It is sufficient to tell you, that I have known indeed sundry good men of that way, who I verily believe would have been much better, if they had not been of it. And others I have known, who have stained their gooodness, with such irre­gular actions, and sinister practices and dealings, as I be­lieve they would not have been guilty of, had not their Principles betrayed them into them. And lastly, I am apt to think that you your self would have been more chari­table [Page 15]in your censures, more indifferent in your judge­ment, concerning Men and things, more civil and courte­ous in your treatment of those you oppose, less captious, less partial, and not so peremptory as you are in many places of your Book, if you had not been a Calvinian: but I will not dispute on which side (would to God we could use no such word, but as we are one Body, so were indeed all One) the best Christians are, nor which Prin­ciples are apt to make the best. Let us all sincerely endea­vour to excell in Vertue, and be glad that any can out­strip us, though they be not in all things of our mind; which will be far better than contending about prece­dency, or about any thing else whatsoever.

Here now we might fairly part; but that I believe you will be apt to think, either I have nothing to say, or dare say nothing, of that about which you make so many sad complaints, if I should wholly pass by the points of justi­fication by Faith, and the imputed Righteousness of Christ. With the same provision therefore, that you will not ac­cuse me for medling with .that which did not concern me, I will add a few words about those matters.

And I assure you, I abhorr the man, as much as you can do, who shall teach me otherwise, than our Church doth, Artic. XI. that we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own Works or Deservings. And there­fore it is a most wholesome Doctrine, and full af Comfort, that we are justified by Faith only. But I verily think, there are: none that teach otherwise; but you have wholly mistaken those Persons, whose Writings have given you the trou­ble of making this Book. For though we are justified by Faith only, yet you acknowledge p. 37. that all Christian Vertues are connate with that Faith. Which grants all that Mr. Bull contends for; whose position is, that the Faith which justifies contains in it a sincere purpose of a new [Page 16]life. O but none of those vertues (you add) pass into the cause of justification, No, nor is Faith it self any cause of it; not so much as an instrumental cause; and therefore you ought not to have quarrelled with Mr. Bull about this matter; who detests any such thoughts as you impose on him, that our good Works are required casually, and an­tecedently to our justification, p. 39. No such absurd No­tion is to be found, I will stand to it, in his Book; nor lyes I am sure, in his Head. He is not so weak, so unstu­died a Divine, as to make any thing that we can do, the cause of that, which God alone can bestow upon us. He doth not so much as require good Works antecedently to our entrance into the state or Justification; but only the purpose of them: which you your self acknowledge to be included, together with all Christian Vertues, in that Faith which justifies. And indeed Bishop Davenant, whom you deservedly applaud, affirms, as he shows, that those internal good Works are necessary to our justification, though not as efficient or meritorious causes, yet as concur­ring or previous conditions.

There is but one clause which can bring you off, and excuse you in this business, which you wisely insert, when you speak of Mr. Bulls Doctrine [ if at least, say you, I can un­derstand him.]I know not what you can do, but I am sure you do not understand him. And therefore ought to have suspected also, that you did not rightly understand Bishop Nicholson's Books; rather than have said so confidently as you do, doubtless Mr. Bull imposes very far upon the Bishop, when he saith, the Bishop read, approved, commended his Book, and wish'd him to publish it. This is very uncivil, and hardly to be reconciled with Christian Charity, which teaches us to think no evil, to believe all things, and to hope all things, when the contrary doth not evidently appear. It would have been but bare modesty in you, to have thought you did not apprehend the meaning of a Writer, [Page 17]in matters of controversie about Faith; rather than have accused a Divine (of no mean credit, I assure you in his Countrey) of falsifying so impudently in a matter of Fact, which he avows to the world, and to the Bishop himself (to whom he dedicates his Work) to be a most real Truth. When you consider it, you will acknowledge, I hope, be­tween God and your own Soul, this was too rash and pe­remptory (to speak gently) and not becoming one of the best sort of Christians.

Which if you, and I too, will both of us study to be, I think verily it is best for us not to trouble our selves with nice disquisitions, about these matters, wherein we find Divines cannot well agree, about the way, I mean, of Faith's justifying us. It may suffice us, I should think, to know, what our Liturgy teaches us plainly in both the Ab­solutions, that God pardoneth and absolveth all them that true­ly repent, and unfeignedly believe his Holy Gospel (as it is in the Absolution pronounced every day) having promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance, and true Faith turn to him; as it is in that at the Holy Com­munion. Let us receive this glad tidings upon our bend­ed knees, and with most joyful hearts, thankfully devo­ted to his service; and leave those that list to dispute about the particular act of Faith that justifies; and how it is in­strumental, as they speak, in the business of Justification; and whether there be such a thing as a passive Instrument, and what Repentance hath to do in this matter. No body shall ever perswade me, but we shall have the benefit of the Absolution, though we be not able to resolve these questions, or though we never think of them, If we true­ly repent, and unfeignedly believe Christs Holy Gospel; or, which is the same, With hearty Repentance, and true Faith turn to him.

[Page 18] And in like manner (to speak a word or two in the other point) we are sufficiently instructed in our Litanie, as I understand it, to expect to be delivered (from our sins, I suppose, and the punishment due to them) by the whole Humiliation, and exaltation of our Lord Jesus Christ: when it teaches us to pray, By the mystery of thy Holy In­carnation; by thy Holy Nativity and Circumcision, by thy Baptisme, Fasting and Temptation, by thine Agony and Bloudy sweat; by thy Cross and Passion, by thy precious Death and Burial, by thy Glorious Resurrection and Ascen­sion; and by the coming of the Holy Ghost, Good Lord de­liver us. It is plain, that whosoever minds what he prays, trusts to be delivered by Christ alone; who impetrated this Mercy for us, and bestows it on us, by his Incarnati­on, Nativity, Circumcision, and all the rest now mentioned. But what hand each of these hath, distinct from the other, in procuring our deliverance, and how each of them me­rits for us, and makes us to be accounted righteous before God; and wherein the merit of his life differs, from that of his Death and Passion, and is applied to us by his Resur­rection, Ascension, and coming of the Holy Ghost; we need not, I hope, very solicitously enquire. For Justifica­tion is not a Blessing that belongs only to Scholars and subtil Wits, but to the plainest Countreyman of us all; who pray, and hope to be delivered, by all that Christ hath done and suffered for us; whose righteousness in both regards, was so pure and perfect that God in consi­deration of it (or for its merits) was pleased Graciously to grant us forgiveness of sins, and him a power to bestow it on all those that believe on his name: which is as much as to say, that we are accounted righteous for the sake of Christs merits, or for the merits, if you will, of Christs righteousness; the effects and fruits of which we are made partakers of by Faith. So the Church teaches us to un­derstand Christ's imputed righteousness (which all good [Page 19]Christians rejoyce in.) For righteousness imputed, is our being accounted righteous before God, though we are not so in our selves, and we are accounted righteous before God, saith the 11 Artic. only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith; and not for our own works and deserving.

If you will trouble your self with notions beyond this, you may; but do not trouble others with them, who pro­fess they cannot understand how the Righteousness of Christ can be so accounted ours (which is the modern no­tion of it) as if in him we had performed perfect obedi­ence to God. He performed perfect Obedience for us; (that we believe and hope to be saved by the me­rit of it;) but we did not perform perfect obedience in him, (that is contrary, I have been taught to the ve­ry principles of Christianity.) For if we did, then by that perfect obedience performed in him, we become per­fectly righteous; free, that is, not only from all punish­ment, but from fault; and then we have no need of par­don, nor of any inherent righteousness, and we have me­rited a reward.

For my part I believe the honest people of the Church of England, who devoutly say the Litanie, never think of any such thing, but humbly address themselves to God for mercy, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, who hath purchased pardon for penitent sinners, by the intire righteousness of his life and death. They mean no more, when they pray to be delivered by his wonderful condescension, in being incarnate for our sake (which was the beginning of his humiliation) and by his bloudy death and burial (in which it was finished) but that they may be freed from the guilt of their sins, and the punishment due to them, by the merits of these, and all other parts of his humiliation: which they know, by his exaltation into the heavens, and the coming of the Holy [Page 20]Ghost, was highly acceptable to God; being the fulsil­ling of all his Will, in what he required for our redemp­tion; and having obtained for our Saviour, all power in Heaven and Earth, to dispense the Blessings which he pur­chased. And thus other Churches understand this business, the French for instance, who say; We believe that our righte­ousness consists in remission of sins, &c. and therefore casting a­way all opinion of our own vertues and merits, we rest only in the obedience of Christ Jesus; which is imputed to us both, that all our sins may be covered, and also that we may obtain Grace before God. Here they plainly tell us, that their righteous­ness (which is procured by Christs obedience) consists in remission of sins; and therefore that obedience of his, is imputed only in this sense; that for its sake we may ob­tain remission of sins, and be accepted with God.

I beseech you, Sir, do not accuse me of Heterodoxy, if I do not jump with your thoughts in these matters : for I protest I have no inclinations to fasten a sense upon the Churches words out of my own head; but would most gladly receive it from those that can inform me better a­bout it. And I have a great respect also, for all good men that are of a different mind in these matters: and reverence Mr. Calvin very much, though I do not think my self bound to follow his opinions. All I desire is, that neither you nor any body else would keep a pudder and a stirr, as if Christianity were in danger to be lost by I know not what new notions; when Mr. Bull, and all that I have heard of his way, preach the Grace of God, in such a manner as I have declared: which makes me confident our Religion and the Church is safe, if they have no worse enemies than he. But I much fear they are none of the Churches friends (though they may design its good) who make such a noise, as if all our antient, most fundamen­tal Doctrines were subverted. For the love of God, Sir, Let as hear no more of this from your hand, if you bear any [Page 21]good will to it. Let us have no more discourses of inno­vations in our Doctrines; no more Truths unveiled (though you think your self never so well acquainted, with them) no more Vindications, nor mention of Mr. Stan­dish: who being the only person concerned, hath as be­came an honest and good man, acknowledged his error by silence. I pray, Sir, do not you therefore revive that, which he thinks fit should dye, and be no more heard of. I dare say for him, he will give you no thanks for your kind intentions to serve him; and therefore do not study how to oblige him any further in this matter. He honours se­veral of those persons, I make no doubt, as true Sons of the Church of England; whom you have loaded with the reproach of departing from its Doctrine. You have done him a great deal of injury in endeavouring to make the world believe, that he struck at Dr. Hammond, Bishop Taylor, or Bishop Mountague either. Nothing I am confi­dent was further from his thoughts, and he wishes, I am of opinion, that he had been as far out of yours. For it was untowardly done to bring him upon the stage again, right or wrong; when he had no mind to persist in making a breach among us, as he had in an heat begun to do.

But he will take it kindly, I am apt to think, if you will not seek to make him any reparation for this wrong: but leave him to justify himself his own way. He may well forgive you all that is past, for one considerable service you have done him (and the only one that I can find) which is, that I hope you have opened his eyes to see, that I was in the right when I told him (in my request to him) what sort of men he would gratify by those passages in his Sermon. Even such as accuse our late great Archbishop of Canterbury, for being an incourager of the Romish Facti­on (as you do in express terms, p. 28.) i. e. betraying his Trust, and this Church; which he so affectionately served, [Page 22]that it cost him his life. It was not enough it seems, that they brought him in his life time, under the Prophets affliction (as he complains to our late Martyred Soveraign in his Epistle before his admirable Book against Fisher) between the mouth that speaks wickedness, and the tongue that sets forth deceit, and slandered him as thick, as if he were not their own Mothers Son: but he must still be persecuted with the same calumnies, now that he is laid in his Grave.

But it is no wonder that Pen should do it, which be­stows such commendations on him, who reproaches, not only our Bishops, but the most famous persons of that Or­der, which have been known in the Christian world, I mean the facetious and candid Marvel (as you praise him, p. 34.) with whom honest Mr. Standish (as you there truly term him) will not take it well to be joyned in the very same breath; as if he carried on the same design with that Gen­tleman. He is an honester man, I dare say, than you would have him; and hates that which you applaud with all his heart. What? do you really think a Son of the Church of England can be in love with him, that laughs at the primi­tive times, and makes a jest of the venerable Council of Nice, and drolls upon the Bishops assembled there, as if they were a company of pitiful Dunces, whose under­standings were sequestred, and knew not what to believe, but as they were every day instructed by their Chaplains. p. 58. Call you this Facetiousness? And is it Candor too, when he tells us in his Rehearsal Transpros'd, that the highest pinnacle of Ecclesiastical Felicity, (for the Clergy still have most of his kindness) is to asswage their lust, and wrack their malice. p. 10. And when in the conclusion of his last work, we read, that the Bishops have induced His Majesty to more severity, than all the Reigns since the Conquests will contain, if summ'd up together? What? Not Queen Ma­ries Reign excepted? No, nor the late Reign of the Presby­terians and Independents? Were the flames in Smithfield, [Page 23]and all the Sequestration — (I am loth to mention all the rest of the dreadful sufferings) which our times have known, mere gentleness, in comparison with the present rigors? When with so much lenity also, as was never known in any Reign, such Books as these are suffered, to confute their own accusations?

Good God! how partial are the best sort of Christians grown (if you may be believed) who can swallow all this glibly and merrily, with a great deal of smuttiness to boot (which I have observed in the Rehearsal Transpros'd) but keck at Dr. Hammond, and the Whole Duty of Man. &c. which will by no means down with them? What an odd kind of Conscience is this, which cryes out, How long O Lord, how long? (p. 35. as if you wondred at his forbear­ance) because some men speak of justifying Faith in other terms than you would have them: and can, not only suf­fer, but countenance him, who directly strikes at a main Principle of Christianity; viz. That our Saviour is the Eternal Son of God, begotten before all worlds, of one sub­stance with the Father. For he saith the Council of Nice imposed a NEW ARTICLE or Creed upon the Christian world: when this was the very thing they stood upon, that they only declared the antient belief, which had al­ways been from the beginning, concerning the Son of God. What outcries would you have made, had any person of our Church been guilty of such a fact? How prophane, how impious would you have thought it, to call that ex­plication which they made of the antient Faith, a gibberish of their own imposing: a Cant, wherein they forced others to follow them? How oft would you have repeated, your facinus ante hoc inauditum? p. 35. and reiterated your Hen! in the next pages, whereas you can read this in him, and be as calm as a Lamb; nay, entertain him with the friendly complement of the facetious and candid Marvel.

[Page 24] Well, I see by this what the care is, which some most zealously pretend to have, least there should be the smal­lest innovation in the Doctrine of the Church of England, which expresly declares in the 8 Article, that the Nicene Creed (together with that of Athanasius, and the Apostles) ought to be thorowly received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture. And in the Second Article it asserts, in plain words, the Son to be the very Eternal God, of one substance with the Father, &c. Such is the gibberish of the Church of England (as he (and you too in effect call it:) for which, if you were in­deed as much concerned as you imagine, and did not de­ceive your self with an unequal zeal; you would so reason upon this occasion (as you fancy you do upon another) to beblur your paper with Tears more than Ink. For you cannot pretend that any of those whom you trouble your self so much withal, have affronted her Doctrine in so audacious a manner, as this Writer hath done; whom you can read, not only with dry Eyes, but with a merry Heart. There would have been no end of your complaints, could you have found any thing so black in our Books, we should have had our ears filled with clamours from all parts of the Kingdom; and nothing sounded in them, but that Christianity was betrayed, the name of our Lord blas­phemed, &c. by an impious Innovator. You your self, though now you be silent, would have joyned with them, and said that he had out-done all others in scurrility, calumny, and prophaneness; as you accuse others that deserve a better character; you would have sobb'd and sigh'd, and sate down full of Marvel (you must give me leave to fancy, how you would have spoken) and in deep astonishment that such a thing, such an inauditum facinus, should be committed in our Israel.

[Page 25] And truly I am so astonished at it, and at your par­tiality, that I am able to go no further; but must here break oft abruptly: After I have told you, that I am not­withstanding so charitable (looking upon you in an ill fit when you writ this Book) that as you take me for an ho­nest Countrey Gentleman, so I take you for no less; which of us is mistaken, let the world judge, without giving it any further trouble by either of our scriblings about this business. It had not been troubled with mine, I assure you, but that I thought it was necessary you should see, your Zeal cannot be so great for one way; but there are men in the Church of England who will equal it, and are as much concern'd, and can say as much for the other way. And now that this is done, let us betake our selves to our Prayers, which is the best employment, That God would enlighten all our Eyes, to see the way of Truth and Righteousness, Amen.

Octob. 20. 1676.