I Return to you with a second part of the same Tune, a Pamphlet of Dr. Layburn's, against Mr. Blacklow and his Reply. Having gotten a Copy of it, I carried it to Mr. Blacklow, who, as soon as I had told him what it was, lamented himself, saying to me; You know my endeavours have ever been to make a clearnesse and show a rationality, both in Faith and Divinity, as St. Peter commands us to be ready to do; and, must I now, when mine Ague gives me small, or no leasure, be employ'd in retorting the Pot-gun­shot of this D ^rs. Well, since it is God's disposition, read what you bring. But, I professe (my conscience being witnesse to my words) that were it not that through ambition he seeks to ruine the Clergy, hoping by such indirect and unhand­some means to make them stoop to accept him for their Su­periour, all his calumnies against my person should not make me open my mouth to answer them. But this hath been our long quarrel that I have resisted his ambition, and for this he seeks other pretences against me.

This being said, he held his peace, and I began to read; nor had I read six lines, but Mr. Blacklow exclamed. Jesus! what information hath this Dr. Or, what insolence is it to publish so patent an untruth against seven, or eight of your chief men about London upon pure ghesse? For, order to communicate my answer was neither granted nor asked; but the hint which occasioned me to do so was taken out of his Letter, in which he ordered that the said Letter should be sent to all your Brethren. Nor was my answer kept from him by me, but two Copies given by my self to a friend of his, to the end to have them sent to him; if his friend had not so much friendship for him as to send it, it was not my fault.

Then I read some two leaves without farther reflexion than that Mr. Blacklow noted that they were spent in the commendation of his own patience, the effects of which he [Page 2] desired to see in his actions, saying that till that was done, words were but winde. Besides, the good Dr. took Pilate for Christ in citing those words, non es amicus Caesaris, as a re­proach against our Saviour, which were spoken to Pilate, as every Childe knows: so that, according to this learned mi­stake, he calls Pilate here (p. 5.) his Divine master, and very sadly and soberly tells us, he will strive to imitate him in his inju­rious reproaches.

Being come to the 8 ^th. page, the first objection presented it self, which was that Mr. Bl. had approved divers scanda­lous opinions, and would not recal his fact for the intreaties, or reasons which were brought him. Mr. Bl. reply'd, that the story passed thus. One of the learnedst and gravest Regu­lars of the Kingdom had written a book which clash't with another, written by a Cosen of the D ^rs. and the Dr. thought by his friendship to make Mr. Bl. recal his subscription for his Cosen's credit; and, not being able to do it, revenged him­self by this groundlesse aspersion: For the book hath been justified both in England and beyond Seas, nay, in Rome it self. Wherefore the Dr. hath little reason to offend the par­ty, and all his order, which maintains it, by attributing to it divers scandalous opinions, which is a notorius calumny.

I read farther how my Lord had commanded him to suppresse Mr. Bl. his new Divinity. To which Mr. Bl. answered that this depended upon the proof. For my Lord in his Let­ter to him which is yet in his hands (dated June 22.) hath these words. I have been so far from commanding Mr. Lay­bourn to cry against your book, I desired him to suppresse all speech against it, as I assure you is true, and, I hope he will not deny. And in his Letter of the 6 ^th. of July, these: what apparent ground you had to write that I had commanded Mr. Layburn to cry against your books was no true ground, seeing I commanded him the contrary. And afterwards in the Letter; Divers Saints and Learned men have (salvâ charitate) dissented in their opinions even in matters of Divinity, and so may you and I do, if we will; and God willing, it shall be so on my part. When he had read me these words, he added; you may by this see how true his pretence was of impugning me in obedience to my Lord's commands, and whether my Lord moved him, or he my [Page 3] Lord. And I remember to have heard, that when a friend objected this order of my Lord's to him, he answered my Lord is a weak man. By these passages also in his Letters is seen clearly that my Lord judged my Tenets to be onely dif­ferent opinions in Divinity, not meriting such zealous im­pugnation, which the defining Doctor, like a new Law-giver to all Christians, so confidently pronounces to be Heresies; and makes that calumny of his own, a seeming pretence for his zeal, but in reality a Cloak for his too apparent ma­lice.

I read farther, how for executing this command of my Lords Mr. Bl. was so incensed against him, that he cry'd him down in divers companies, and the ordinary character he gave him was, that he was an illiterate man not able to say Bo to a Goose. Mr. Bl. reply'd that the Doctor cared not how unlikely his tales were, so he said somewhat that might passe amongst those, who knew no more of the businesse than they found in his paper; For all that know Mr. Bl. know, that he is so far from haunting▪ either good tables, or great companies, that he can be drawn to neither; and besides, he is very sparing in his speeches of the Doctor by reason of the place he holds; and rather ready to defend him against the many blames those who come from his house, lay upon him; unlesse it be to those to whom it belongs to see them amended. As it happen'd in the Character he speaks of, which he wrote to his Superiour, and does not think that he used it in any o­ther occasion.

I read further how he had written Mr. Bl. a civil Letter, and put two places of St. Austin in it, and concluded that, that spirit was not from God, which was opposite to St. Austin's spiri [...]; but that his good advice produced little fruit in Mr. Bl. Mr. Bl. answered that the Doctor took care he should not profit by it, nor be troubled with answering it; for whether perhaps he writ such a Letter, or no, to show up and down amongst his friends, to let them see how gravely he could ad­vise, and how learnedly transcribe two places out of St. Au­stin, (for which he seems here to prize himself so much) yet Mr. Bl. affirms that the Letter was never sent to him, and that he should have shew'd how those places of St. Austin [Page 4] came to his purpose as well as have meerly transcribed them, and then have left the application of them, (that is, all they were brought for) to his own supposal. But most of all he wonder'd that the Doctor living amongst Catholicks should think there is but one particular Spirit in the Church. Is St. Hierome of the same Spirit with St. Austin? or did he not use another way against those, who opposed him irratio­nally than St. Austin did? Doth not every Regular order pretend a several Spirit under the common Spirit of God? How carelesse then, and over-seeing is this Doctor in his Discourses?

I proceeded and read the Doctors words, how he was forced in a manner out of England, to engage in the Government of the Colledge affairs, and how not long after an Army of accusations was forged against him, and presented to the Nuncio at Paris, and from him remitted to Brussels, and he after mature examination acquitted. Mr. Blacklow, when the Doctor said he was forced to that Government, smil'd; and asked me whether I thought the Doctor knew not that we understood how both himself and his Agents at Rome did accuse an innocent man (whom both my Lord and the Clergy desired for the Office) of Jan­senisme, and hinder'd all satisfaction to be received, though the party professed neither to have read Iansenius, nor to know what his Doctrine was. As for the army of accusations he speaks of, Mr. Blacklow wonder'd at the strange informa­tion the Doctor hath, or at his vein in forging: For, first, the Letter was never sent to Paris: Secondly, there were no ac­cusations in the Letter, it meerly informing the Nuntio of certain reports cast out against him, and very prejudicial to his Colledge, withall desiring his Lord to seek out the truth, and amend them if he found them as was reported. But, what is most to the purpose, is that those who wrote had good information of the truth of what they inform'd; and some things were so evident that there was no possible deny­ing them. However, he found means to cast a mist before the Internuncio's eyes, which useth to be by getting Letters from men of Quality who know not particulars, but com­mend the person in common: By which any sleight answers usher'd in, easily finde acceptance.

[Page 5]I read further how he conjectures these accusations came out of a Letter he wrote to the Assembly of 1653. and takes thereby occasion to tax Mr. Blacklow, of a Letter to one be­before a printed book. Mr. Blacklow answered, that he won­der'd he could descend to that scrupulosity as to say he could conjecture any thing, who had hitherto been so confident of the falsest and most groundlesse assertions that imagination could stumble on; and that, if his assurances be false, his con­jectures must needs be weak; and so is this. For the informa­tion, sent to the Nuntio, proceeded from the reports of those, who came from his house, and from pure pity of the evil Government of a place so important, which they who wrote the Letter apprehended deeply. For what he talks of the effects of the Letter to the Assembly concerning Mr. Blacklow, he answered that they pleased him very well; for they were these, that they would not meddle with his Do­ctrine particularly, because my Lord had forbidden them to do so till it were censured at Rome. As for his Letter to the joynt-party, who subscribed with Dr. Layburn, whosoever reads the Epistle it self, which he subscribed, and Dr. Lay­burn has put in his Pamphlet, will finde that he deserved a sharp reprehension, which in the Letter sent to him is tem­pered with love and honour; and so the party himself said by it that he had punished him sufficiently, yet forsook not his friendship nor Mr. Blacklow his; for he was a man capable of reprehension, of wisdom & worth; and, if the Doctor had been such, he had had his share in it; but, taking him for a wilfull man, and obstinate in his ambitious way, he thought a touch of neglect was fitter for him.

I read farther concerning a Letter Mr. Blacklow wrote to my Lord, some part concerning the Doctor, and some part an Irish Bishop, who lived and died here; to which my Lord made answer, and sent him a Copy of the answer, some pas­sages of which the Doctor hath set down here. He added also a Letter which he conceived to be written against my Lord by Mr. Blacklow, and sayes the Original is within his reach, and that Mr. Blacklow denied the Letter to be his. To these Mr. Blacklow replied, that he should have set down the occasion of his Letter to my Lord, which was that the [Page 6] Doctor had calumniated the whole Assembly of 1653. to my Lord, of being contrary to his Authority, and procured a Decree of dissolution without any former inquisition: and, after that he knew his information to be false, yet by his Let­ters he maintained my Lord in the same opinion, and so far inveigled him by his continual Calumnies, that generally he neglected the advice of all others to follow his; and, waving to employ his Officers, which were grave men, employ'd young men whom the Doctor appointed him: This was the occasion of the Letter.

Now, judge you whether in this case he were not bound to speak plainly, both to my Lord, and his sentiments, which by long experience he had of the Doctor; which would not have seemed so harsh had the Letter appeared; but my Lord, as prejudiced, gathered out those passages which set alone were invidious, and in his Letter to him shewed some effects of passion more (as he hoped) than he had, who was bound to expresse his sentiments in a private Letter to the Doctors Superiour.

Another piece of Legerdemain is that the Doctor having calumniated the whole Assembly, and his Letter relating to this onely, he layes disconformity in Doctrine to have been the ground of the difference between them; about which there was no controversie between my Lord and him after the Letters above cited.

As for the Irish Bishop, Mr. Blacklow said, I wrote what he was informed of him, and it was at his first coming when he as yet understood not the wayes of living in this place, nor was in good correspondence with his own Order; but, after some time, being better informed, he changed his course and lived and died in the respects and love of all who knew him; and particularly disliked my Lord's proceeding in pu­blishing a private Letter of information to the parties of whom it was written, saying, it could not stand with good Go­vernment.

As for the Letter to the Nuncio, he wish'd the Doctor had exprest what fault he findes in it. Did it little concerne all all the Catholicks of England, whether he had Authority over them, or no? Or, was not Mr. Blacklow bound in con­science [Page 7] to get the difficulty cleared if he could? Or did he presse any thing but to know the truth of a matter already passed? Where then lay his blame? His objection concern­ing his denying the Letter is answered thus. He was in­formed by ocular witnesses, that the Copy sent by the Do­ctor into England was corrupted, and so had no reason to en­gage himself in quarrels upon such a Copy which he could not acknowledge to be his. And for the Original, being within his reach, which is one of his great assurances, 't is a great mistake; For he having received an answer from the Nuncio, and others to whom it was sent, knows the con­trary.

After this I came to the Doctors Arguments against Mr. Blacklow his Doctrine: which because they hold some five, or six leaves, I must cut into divers parcels according as they were answered. First, was objected some Doctors opinions of Doway and Lovain. As for Doway he replied, he did not wonder; for he supposed they perused not the books, but took the Doctors information, which was full of untruths. In the Doctor of Lovains answer he noted that there was not a word of his own liking, or disliking, but onely that by o­thers the Doctrine was better liked than he expected. The next objection was that his Doctrine was injurious to Scrip­ture: For the Scripture was utilis ad coarguenda & refellenda falsa dogmata, but that Mr. Blacklow sayes, it is no more pro­per ad refellenda falsa dogmata, than a beetle is to cut. The an­swer was, that Mr. Blacklow hath not any such, either words, or sence. The third objection was that he was injurious to Councels, and to the definition of Pope Benedict the 11 ^th. The answer was, that the Doctor conceived Mr. Blacklow could not construe a piece of Latin, or knew not the significa­tion of the word [ mox.] Wherefore he challenged him, that if he could make any of his Grammer-School-boyes construe those words of the Councel, [ Animas, quae sunt purgatae, in coe­lum mox recipi,] to signifie that the Souls are purged before the day of judgement, he would yield his cause: If not, that the Doctor imposed upon, and abused the Councel with his private spirit changing in it what he listed. He added that those words condemned the Doctor's opinion, which putteth [Page 8] nothing to be purged in the Souls of Purgatory, and yet that they are not presently received into Heaven. So unhappy is the Doctor in his citations. As for the definition of Bene­dict the 11th. 't is in substance the same, in form lesse favour­able to the Doctors opinion. And whereas the Doctor ci­teth Benedict to say that John the 22th. never held the opinion of no Saints going to Heaven before the last day, it is abso­lutely false and ignorance in History, for he onely testifieth that his Predecessour did not define it; and there is extant his revocation of it at his death: But the Doctor after he has put the question, whether Pope John held the opinion, changes it to defining; which had been a great fault in one of his meanest Logicians. He noted also that the Doctor thinks that to be Historically certain, and Theologically certain is all one; saying, that it is Theologically evident that no Pope hath erred defining as Pastor Vniversalis Ecclesiae; which de­pends purely on History, and that obscurely enough. He adds that it is maintained by the whole current of Catholick Do­ctors; but, the best is, he appeals to them presently after, who know it to be false, and that the contrary opinion both is, and ever was held for a probable opinion. And, if he pleased to dispute the Question, he could produce quickly a dozen at least of great Authours, whereof some were Popes, or grave Cardinals for this opinion. But the Doctors assertion is so notoriously false, that 't is a shame to spend time about it. After this he saith, that 't is apparent to those, who have perused Mr. Blacklow's books, that he makes no use of Holy Scripture nor Authority. By which is made apparent that he hath not perused them, and therefore can be neither good censurer nor impugner of them. And otherwise his assertion is be­yond excuse a manifest untruth; two of his books consisting in a manner wholly of Authority, and that those two also which the Doctor most impugnes, to wit, those concerning Purgatory, and the Pope's personal infallibility. His other books are of such a nature as require to have no store of Au­thorities, being but compendiums, and therefore called Insti­tutions; yet even in those there are some. So far Mr. Black­low.

The fourth Objection was, that he was injurious to the [Page 9] Vniversal practice of the Church, which sets up priviledged Al­tars, and to the particular of those who live by the Altar. The answer was, that the Doctor was mistaken in the significati­on of those words, [ the practise of the Church] which is far different from the practise of many in the Church, even Church-men; as is evident by the eating two meals in the day, and such like practises generally used. Likewise in say­ing the Office of our Lady dayly, or Office of the dead, or seven penitential Psalms in such dayes, in which the Clergy is in­vited to them by Indulgences. And the very name of privi­ledges, and the bestowing them for graces and rewards, which are specialties, show that, though many have them, yet are they no general practise, such as are those practises emerg [...]nt out of faith. In the second point he said the Do­ctor had maliciously and wilfully abused him, applying those words of his, to all those Priests who live by the Altar, which he spoke onely of those, who made the Altar their occasion to live idly, and to apply themselves to nothing that becomes their function: Of which kinde of Priests all good men much complain.

There followed a Discourse to shew that even in Divini­ty, Mr. Bl. his opinion was false. To which he answered, that he would not examine his high Divinity. But that his Scripture seemed very pleasant; For it would make a man think he apprehended the Devil has a pair of Leggs, and goes locally out of a converted man, and walks himself wea­ry in dry and waterlesse grounds, and hereupon changes his minde, and gets a will of returning back; and not that all this is spoken by our Saviour Allegorically, and is performed meerly by the Devil's watching his time to tempt. Besides, what change of minde is it in one, who is violently cast out of his home, to desire to return back? which is truely to con­tinue the same will, and the same minde still? In the second testimony he reflects not that it is a pure conjecture that the Devil did send those dreams to Pilate's wife, and more like­ly that they were from God. And, if they were from the Devil, yet must he prove they were from the same Devil, ere he can prove hence that the Devil changes his minde; which I believe, no Commentary saith. For his citing of the Tho­mists [Page 10] Doctrine, he answered that in regard he cite's no Au­thour, and there be divers sorts of Thomists, it is of no account and signifies nothing.

There followed in the Doctors discourse, how, when he was Superiour in England, one dying would leave no Alms to M. Bl. his adherents. The reply was that the said party was abused, and told that Mr. Bl. denied prayer for the dead, whereas they, who understand his Doctrine, say that he teacheth it more than others. And so, that man's Execu­trix, being informed of the truth, was so grieved, that she be­stowed something out of her own purse, her Uncle's money being all distributed before. And the truth is, the interessed party would seem to conceive that they, who hold the point of souls not going out before the day of judgement, also pray that they may not go out of Purgatory before then; for else what are their prayers worse than others? and if they communicate no Alms, it must be out of revenge and malice. As for his noting that this was done whiles he was Superiour in England (as the Doctor affects much to talk of his Superiourship, and Grand-vicarship) Mr. Bl. said he did not remember he was ever Superiour here, though he did, that he was joynt Vicar-General with another, whom the Clergy had desired of my Lord for that Office. But that to have a special service should make a man a Superiour he never heard; no more, than that being a Bayliffe makes a man master of the Tenants: Nor did he ever hear that his fellow assumed so insolent a Title.

Proceeding forwards, I came to two instructions he pro­fesses to give the Clergy; which when I had read, Mr. Bl. wondered at the arrogancy of the man, who would under­take to instruct the Clergy, in which there are so many able to instruct him. He said he would not take notice of the sil­linesses and mistakes contained in them, which were not few; besides, the instructions themselves were such as none of his brethren could be ignorant of. He added that where­as the Doctor talked of Novelties in Doctrine, he was quite besides the Saddle, making no distinction between Divinity and Faith; and applying the Fathers speeches of Faith to Divinity. Whereas, as far as divinity is not demonstrated, no­velty [Page 11] is not onely lawfull, but sometimes necessary; for other­wise the Church should have no means to get out of errour and incertitude in Theological points▪ and this novelty must begin by some one man. But this he spake not in respect of his own Doctrine, which was the ancient Doctrine, as partly he had shown when he was forced to it, partly could shew when like occasion offered it self. He marked also that the Doctor lost his Text, to have a gird at his Fellow-Vicar's Sub-deanship; citing my Lord's not making him such. But he either did not know, or dissembles that his Lordship being informed that the Sub-deanship he practised was no digni­ty, but onely a deputation from the Chapter, which belong'd to the ancientest Canon, when there was no Election, was content, and professed not to meddle with that. He noted also his jeering at the resignation of Deanship to him, cal­ling it a Legacie in articulo mortis; whereas it was made be­fore any suspicion of extraordinary sicknesse, and long be­fore the resigner's death, as Mr. Fitton's own Letters te­stifie.

At last we came to the Postscript, in which the Doctor pro­fesseth that in thirty years acquaintance he had never done Mr. Bl. any wrong. To which Mr. Bl. reply'd, that for their acquaintance he thought it was of some two, or three and fourty years, for he knew the Doctor a School-boy, him­self being then a man; and in all this time he never com­plained of him before this last Letter, though he heard for many years of the evil Offices he did betwixt my Lord and him; and, these later years, both of his jeerings at good Tables in England, and since in his own house, and of a Ballad made against him, whereof some verses had in them his accustomed jeers. Nor, if his last Letter had aimed no farther than the disgrace of his own person, and not at the mischief of the publick, would he have taken notice of it.

But, to come to some of the reasons of the falling out on the Doctors part (for Mr. Bl. said that on his he never fell out, unlesse the answering his Calumnies be counted falling out) the first he remembered was that, after Dr. Kellison's death, the Doctor's friends in the house proposing his prefer­ment [Page 12] to the succession, and wanting some money, he pro­cured a Letter from my Lord to possesse himself of a little summe that he knew to be in Mr. Bl. his dispotion; and, be­ing refused, grew so hot that he affronted the whole compa­pany, in which were divers better than himself. A second was, that, being disgusted, he could not govern in Dr. Champ­ney's time, he would have brought in a PRAEPOSITUS, who was designed a Kinsman of his, whom he might go­vern; and so have outed not onely Dr. Champney, but my Lord and Episcopal power too. Which design he con­ceived Mr. Bl. defeated, and gave thereupon a bad Chara­cter of him to the Agent, who resided then here for his Holinesse. A third was his setting of odds betwixt my Lord and the whole Assembly of the Clergy; which obliged Mr. Bl. to send his opinion of him plainly to my Lord as to his Superiour. The fourth may be because the Doctor accounts him a Defender of the Chapter; whereof, though he professeth himself a Member to have present intelligence, and a future hand in Government, if he cannot get above it, yet all his informations are to the disparagement of it, though it cost him so many falshoods; as also his discourses and Let­ters where he is confident. And, when he was in Authori­ty, waving it, he cull'd out a meeting of his own to do some businesse he intended, but failed of, and now lately was up­on the same design to waver the Chapter, and send his Or­ders to the ancient Priests, that is to whom he pleases, and in this very Pamphlet strives to set division betwixt the consult in London and their brethren, to take away that little order which is left among them. Nor do we onely see his de­signs here to make himself Superiour; but it is written also from beyond Sea, by such as cannot be suspected to bear him malice, that he, by his Agents, hath acted against Episco­pal power, and that he cares not what Authority be brought in, so it lights upon his head; and, because he thinks Mr. Bl. may be a means to hinder this design, therefore he is so vio­lent against his Doctrine. And so ended his answer to the Doctor's first part.

The second part begins with an accusation of Mr. Bl. his reproachfull language, as calling him Mad-man and Syco­phant, [Page 13] and the Doctorss holy acceptance of such injuries. Mr. Bl. hereupon asked me whether it were all one for a man to be indeed mad, and to do some actions of a Mad-man? or to call one a Sycophant, and to say, if he does so he is a Sycophant? and affirmed that these were the sense of his words, the first after proof, the latter ushering in the proof. As for the term of hissing Serpent, it is a Scripture-expression of a calumniatour, and so was but the varying of the phrase. He added that he challenged the Doctor, or any of his party to shew that he had written one word unbe­seeming the fact he proved against the Doctor, and he would do him satisfaction. Otherwise he understood not that ac­cusers used complements in their accusations, or spake not the Crimes by their own names. As for his holy acceptance of them, which he, so like a Saint, professe, he wish't his acti­ons were conformable to his words; For holy words with contrary actions is Hypocrysie added to misdeeds.

I read on the Doctors reply to what Mr. Bl. had excepted against his first Objection, concerning external sin without consent of the minde. It began with the Doctors asseveration that he had added nothing to the Regular's words. Mr. Bl. answered that he expected either the Regular's own sub­scription, or at least some bodies that had heard him speak, and that it was a weak conceit to ground and propose a ca­lumny of that nature to all our brethren, upon no other Au­thority to make it good, than meerly his own bare assevera­tion; which ought to be of no value in his own cause, espe­cially against an Adversary both renouncing and detesting the wicked sence the Doctor objects it in, and showing in his books, publick and extant, that they ground the quite con­trary Doctrine. The next part of the Doctor's answer was that he would make it clearly appear, that to commit an ex­ternal sin remaining in charity, and yet to go to heaven (which Mr. Bl. acknowledged, and called the body of the report) doth necessarily require the circumstances of [destructive of Re­ligion and morality] which he called the Vesture. Mr. Bl. drew out his Answer and shewed me these words; [ For dressing, he adds Mr. Bl. pretends that the Soul may do well, when the flesh does ill,] and added, is this to use common honesty thus manifest­ly [Page 14] to change the plain words and sence of the Writer? For, it was the Doctors false and groundlesse imposing this pre­tence now mentioned, which Mr. Bl. called the Vesture, or dressing, not those other words he dissemblingly substitutes. The like fraud he uses concerning the Regular's report. For Mr. Bl. having said the Regular would spit in his face, if he should say he had told him that Mr. Bl. pretended the body might do ill and the soul well; He in common sayes that Mr. Bl. affirms the Regular would spit in his face for venting a report the Regular himself had spread: We came afterwards to the Doctors proof, which was no better than his own bare asse­veration that Mr. Bl. assertion imports so sweet an agreement be­twixt charity and exteriour sin, that it would infallibly invite frail nature to sin exteriourly. Mr. Bl. replied he was ashamed to have to do with a man who had so little understanding in Divinity, as not to know the general Tenet of Divines, Lawyers and Mankinde to be, that an exteriour sin may be committed without knowledge, or consent, much lesse with­out sweet harmony with charity. The next part of the An­swer was, that Lot had lost his charity by being twice drunk; and that the blessing of progeny was no Argument, because Tha­mar had a greater, and the Midwives who saved the Jews Children were likewise rewarded, though they told a ly. Mr. Bl. said he admired the Doctors boldnesse to censure a Saint, and sirnamed just in the Scripture, as Lot is, for being cozen'd in­to drunkennesse, if so much be true; for mebriari amongst the Hebrews doth not still signifie so much; and his shortnesse of understanding, as not to see, he yields the whole question; if Lot sinned not the first time, which he grants when he sayes, that at least he lost his charity the second bout. Nor is his rash­nesse much lesse in censuring Judah and Thamar; whereof Thamar had the testimony from Judah to be juster than he, being freed from all punishment as soon as her fact was un­derstood; and plainly sought by her action what God grant­ed her, to have the Messias spring from her, and to raise a family to her first husband, which was then a custome, and afterwards enacted for a Law by God and Moses; and there­fore it must be supposed she proceeded in an innocent igno­rance, and consequently that she should not be temerariously [Page 15] censured. Judah's action, whatsoever it was in his heart, was not of that quality as in those times, God took notice of, to hinder blessings deserved by other services, or titles, and is esteemed a Saint, as the rest of his brethren Patriarchs, a­mongst whom were greater sins than his. He added, he had reason to expect no other at the Doctors hands than the Saints did finde. The example of the Egyptian Midwives he neglected; saying, the Doctor could not be so simple as not to see that the saving of the Children for which they were re­warded, was a different action from their lying to excuse themselves. Lesse to the purpose was St. Austins speech of the Romans, being rewarded for their moral vertues, there being in the testimony no sin objected, which is all our que­stion.

There follows in the Doctor his Reply to Mr. Blacklow, his charging him with calumniation for saying he knows his ac­cusation to be true, and that it is verbatim in his writings, that the happinesse of the damned exceeded all the happinesse of this life; the contrary to which he show'd him out of his writings in expresse terms. His first excuse is that he doubts Mr. Blacklow hath not cited the place truely, because in another place there is corruption. Secondly, he sayes that the sence is there, though the words be not, & that the particle verbatim could not mean more than that onely the sence was there ((so that the plain ad­verb verbatim must quite lose it's signification to save the Do­ctor innocent from an, other-wise, unavoidable falsification.) Thirdly, the Doctor would club his opinion into an Heresie, pretending still most shamelesly (against plainly contrary words brought to his face) that his opinion is, the happinesse of the Devils is greater than any worldly happinesse: And that, to say their pains were pure volitions was again an Heresie; Nay, that to deny material fire in Purgatory, is next to Heresie, if not Heresie. Mr. Bl. reply'd, with a sigh; Oh, how irksome it is to have to do with one, who throws his verdicts at random, without ever considering how easily they are convinced, nor understands the question he talks of. As for his suspicions, he may know that I have his own hand to shew for what I say: and why doth not he produce that place of mine, which he thinketh himself sure to be corrupted? This a solid and sin­cere [Page 16] man should have done, and not ground all things thus upon his own bare word. Mr. Bl. added that the Question being whether the possession of goods without having con­tent in them makes one happy, the Doctor is so wise as to say Mr. Blackl. affirms the Devils are happy, because they have great goods; which is wilfully, or ignorantly to misse the question; yet this is the substance of his answer; and particu­larly he takes without proof, that the damned, notwithstand­ing their perversnesse, enjoy the goods they have; making no distinction between possession and fruition, nor understanding that their perversnesse consists in diligere poenas, and nolle ca­rere eis, which import no pleasure but obstinacy; and, even in this world are found with grief, and causes of grief. Nei­ther is there any sence in his rambling into the Apocalypse, where it is said that the damned shall cry to the Hills, Cad [...]te super nos; for who denies fear in the damned? His answer likewise to the example of Antiochus strayes totally from the question; which was whether his Kingdoms made him hap­py, he not taking content in them as before? in stead of an­swering which, the learned Doctor, very soberly, tells us the reason why he took no content in them, & never shows that he was happy without this content, for the bare having them, which onely belongs to the question. The next Heresie of denying material fire, he would prove from the Council of Florence, where just the contrary was agreed upon; that both parties, Latines and Greeks, might continue their own opini­ons, the one to hold material fire in Purgatory, the other to hold none; & therefore, I suppose this Doctor will perswade none but fools of his silly assertion, that the whole current of Doctors in the Catholick Church censure the opinion which denies material fire, as temerarious, or next to Heresie, whereas none dares censure it, by reason of the Authority of the Council, in which, after debate, neither opinion was forbid­den. Lastly, he noted that the opinion, which the Doctor cries out on as Heresie, to wit, that the pains of the damned are voluntary acts, is the common opinion of all Divines: For even those, who put material fire say that it is elevated to produce acts of the will, which they acknowledge to be vo­luntary acts: wherefore he may do well to plead his Scripture [Page 17] and consequences against them, and not against Mr. Bl. who condemnes the opinion of God's producing voluntary acts in the damned, by the force of fire, as well as the Doctor him­self. And what difficulty, that they might be saved if they will, if, by reason of their obstinacy in wickedness, they cannot will it. So perfectly is this bold scribler ignorant in all he talks of.

Yet, as ignorance is oft the Mother of confidence, he will needs demonstrate his tenet of material fire from Scripture; alleadging two places, Ite maledicti in ignem aeternum, and that of the rich Glutton, crucior in hâc flammâ; which he urges in a literal rigour, without ever thinking of the Rule of Faith, the onely certain Interpreter of Scripture, in matters of Faith, or of Science, which interprets it in points belonging to their own Sphear. It were enough then to enervate his pretended Demonstration to reply, as Catholick Doctors use to do to Protestants, that no Scripture is of private Interpretation; or to ask him vvith vvhat confidence he presumes to demonstrate upon his own fancy (for those most sacred Oracles) or how he can demonstrate any thing from Scripture, till the sence of that place, whence he would demonstratively inferre, be concluded and evinced; since demonstrations consist in the connexion of notions and sence, not of aire and words. But let us scan his places in their literal and critical rigour. The first is Ite in ignem aeternum; after which immediately follow, though he omits them, paratum Diabolo & Angelis ejus. Which makes it far from making that place conclude for material and natural fire, since it declares it self to speak of that sort of fire, which is adapted and fitted to spiritual sub­stances: And what kinde of fire this is, must (in case the Rule of Faith show it not) be learn't from that Science, which treats of spiritual Natures. Besides, the Dr. should shew that Hell, & material fire were made before the damning of the Devils, w ^ch is a hard task, especially if they were damned in Heaven. Again, in the last vers. of Mat. 25. where the ef­fect is exprest, it is said, to everlasting punishment, and not to material fire; now, spiritual punishment is known not to be grief; as life eternal, which is opposed to it in the same verse, is known not to be a material, or external Kingdom (which [Page 18] was opposed to fire, vers. 34. and 41.) but the internal acts of the blessed, to which in good sence the internal acts of the damned must be opposed. His second place whence he would demonstrate this, is far more pittifull; for this, if under­stood litterally (as he would have it) signifies as well that spi­rits have real tongues, and that water would quench, or cool that fire (as appears by the Glutton's request to Abraham) and so, could the Devils come at water, all would be well with them; according to this Doctrine, at least, those De­vils, who possest the Hogs were befriended by our Saviour, when they run into the Sea by his permission; for, I conceive, there was water enough in the Sea; and not onely drops to cool, but deluges to quench all the fire the Dr. assigns them. Is not this a grave Divine? We acknowledge indeed, in St. Austins meaning, though not in the Doctors grosse appli­cation, the Rule of interpreting Scripture literally, cum fieri possit sine fidei & morum praejudicio; for, First the Doctor di­stinguishes not the Grammatical and Rhetorical expression; whereas, it is rediculous to explicate Metaphors Grammati­cally; as if one should say, when the Church sings Flammas amoris excitas, the literal sence should be that a Faggot of love was set on fire in our breasts. Again, it is manifest in St. Austin, that whatsoever is against Science, he takes it to be in prejudicium fidei, as making our faith ridiculous to Phi­losophers: So that, if Divels, or Souls to be burn't, or turn'd into Ashes be against Philosophy, St. Austin would account it to be in prejudicium fidei: and so the Doctor must show that this is not a Rhetorical expression, nor against Philoso­phy, before he can presse the Authority of St. Augustin.

After this the Doctor comes to discover more Heresies in Mr. Bl. his books. And first he objects it is a blasphemy to say that God should be worse if the damned had not been damned, and sayes, it is as soon confuted as open'd, and after­wards putteth an argument to prove it. Mr. Bl. reply'd that in this point he pardon'd the Doctor, it depending upon too large a discourse for one, who doth not peruse his book, and yet will needs fall to censure. But, if truely the Doctor had been able to open the opinon, he would have found it to be the greatest honour of God, both in his own attributes, and [Page 19] in the Government of this world, which mankinde esteems of. In his own attributes, because it taketh God to be essen­tially wise, even to the least circumstance, and that he would be worse if he did any thing otherwise, than according to the Rule of wisdom, and that wisdom in all things is the principle to his Will; whence follows that if it be better to let the damned be damned, than not, he should not have done so wisely as he now does, if they had not been damned; and therefore had been lesse wise, that is, worse in himself. In his Government, because it declares that in that very ope­ration in which Creatures seem to be worst handled, even there they have the greatest goods, which were possible to them. To his arguments he answers, that when the Doctor asks whether God, before the Creation, had not the perfection of the world in himself, he dares say the Doctor understands not what [ before] in that question signifies, and thinks that God was before Creatures in time, and takes eternity to be an infinite length of time. Secondly, he thinks the question is of the plenitude of perfection in God Almighty, whereas it is of his wisdom; which not being thought on by the Doctor, he, by consequence, quite mist the whole question; which is so common with him, that it seems even natural to his low pitch of understanding. Mr. Blackl. was proceeding to his second argument, when I advertised him that the next ob­jection concerned the same matter, vvhereupon he bad me read forvvard.

The next objection therefore was that it was an impiety and prophane novelty, to say that Christ died not for any thing, or person, which was not granted him: Mr. Bl. reply'd that the Objectour calls St. Austin, it seems, an impious and prophane Novellist, who holds it in expresse terms. But, quoth he, that which would be thought strange in another is that in the very same place the contrary is taught expresly, to wit, that he died also for the damned▪ and that the whole que­stion betwixt parties is but of words, the meaning being the same of both: So that the honest Doctor first tells a shame­lesse untruth, and then makes an invective against the per­son; and this is a sample of the integrity he made so holy a Profession of pag. 7. to his friends, and according as he should [Page 20] make it appear, desired he might stand, or fall in their judge­ments: And, if they be candid, I dare promise he shall have his wish. Moreover, if he understood his own words, the Antecedent will of God, which he goes about to prove against Mr. Bl. is in this case maintained by him: But it were too much to presse him so far.

When I had read the third Objection, which was that the Sacraments do work ex opere operato, he said, the Doctor was constant to his Principles, and to the Integrity he made so Saint-like a Profession of. For first, in the Latin Text he adds those words [ sententiam asserentem sacramenta novae Legis cau­sare gratiam ex opere operato] and by adding them makes him hold the contrary; against the very title of the Chapter, which is Quomodo Sacramenta conferant gratiam ex opere ope­rato, which manifestly supposes him to hold and grant that, they do cause grace ex opere operato, and onely to expli­cate how, and in what manner they cause it thus: Again, this calumniating pretence of his is against the whole begin­ning of the Chapter, which is spent in declaring and aver­ring that they do conferre Grace ex opere operato, and those words which are cited truely by the Doctor, are spoken a­gainst an opinion father'd upon the Council of Trent, about the manner how they conferre Grace ex opere operato, which cannot be framed out of the words of the Council, but is ra­ther against them. Again, in his English meaning he gives to his words, he imposes on him an opinion, the contrary to which in the whole fifth Lesson he maintains; to wit, that the Sacraments do physicè efficere their proper Grace, and, by connexion to that, sanctifying Grace; which is the most ri­gorous opinion of the Divines about the efficacity of the Sa­craments, and the very words of the Council of Trent, that they do continere, and conferre gratiam quam significabant. Is it possible any should be so weak as to give credit to this man, after such manifold and wilfull frauds, or think his profession of integrity any thing else, but a Cloak for his malicious Hy­pocrisie?

Mr. Bl. Ceasing, I went on to the third Errour objected, which was that Mr. Bl. subjected Princes to be punished by the Law of reason; which he calls inauditum figmentum. When he [Page 21] heard the whole place in the Doctor read, he shook his head and cried Semper idem: Replying that the first untruth was that Mr. Bl. pretends his whole scope in writing rules of Govern­ment was to heighten and commend the exemptions from written Law, or custome of the Common-wealth, which Mr. Bl. pretends onely of one single discourse, peradventure of the length of a a Leaf, or two. Next, the Doctor thinks it is to debase a Prince to bring him to be judged, or punished when the Law of reason requires: forgetting that men be governed by Rea­son, because it is their nature; and that he is a beast that is not; and therefore, what Reason commands, must be done, because it is Reason it should be done. Besides, he omits that Mr. Bl. never allows this circumstance, but when a Prince is dispossessed and in the power of the dispossessour, and he in quiet and lawfull possession of his estate. That he calleth it figmentum antea inauditum, shows his ignorance in History; in which there be so many unfortunate Princes, both in the Roman History and in the Christian, imprisoned and hardly used.

I read next, how the Doctor, first acknowledged himself to be ignorant, then went about to disprove it, and retort the same upon Mr. Bl. whose defence was, that he should have been glad to hear him acknowledge himself ignorant, if his deeds were conformable to his words, and that he would be­have himself as a one that accounts himself ignorant should. But he that will meddle so boldly with Divinity questions, as he hath done both in his first Letter, & this second Pamphlet. He that will venture thus blindfold to club Heresies faster than s [...]nce: He that, against his Superiour's command, will prosecute his violence against Doctrines; and undertake up­on his own head to censure opinions never censured before, which is the Master-piece of Divinity; For this man to pro­fesse ignorance shows more of the Wolf in Sheep's clothing, than of the true Sheep. He said also that his proofs for his learning were rather proofs that he had, or was esteemed to have a good purse than much learning: For conclusions are not called Pulchrae, for being learned, but for being well print­ed, or having a fair Picture, or Arms upon them, and for the making of his Theses, the Idea of solid Doctrine in the Uni­versity, [Page 22] he needed to have brought a strong Authour to per­swade them that know him of so incredible a vanity, and not ground it upon his own words. As for his being desired to defend again, 't is known that in occasion of great Assem­blies, Defendants are sought, who will bear out their Acts splendidly, and not the best Schollers: Again, that he made or compiled his conclusions himself is no proof that he un­derstood them, for he might take them out of other mens writings. But, because nothing can passe without some un­truth in this Doctors writings, he was pleased here to tell us that Mr. Bl. made certain conclusions for a friend of his in Paris, which contained, both erroneous opinions and false Latin. The report is absolutely false, that he either made them, or saw them before they were printed, nor was in Pa­ris: sure he is, he was not at the Act. Secondly, the Doctor insolently censures what the Censors of Paris approved, and was well accepted of in the University. Thirdly, he won­ders the Doctor should at least charge him with false Latin in so plain a piece as Theses ought to be; which should have been an Argument to him (if passion had permitted) of the untruth of his report.

This falshood he said was accompanied with a greater about Mr. Bl. his flying suddenly out of Portugal for his Theses, terrified at the Inquisitions proceeding's against them. For, though it be true they were put in the Inquisition by malice the very day they should have been defended to affront him; Yet, this was done after they had been approved five several times by several men appointed by the Inquisition; which argues the other was onely a trick put upon him. Besides, the information was never follow'd, and the Theses were approved afterwards in the University of Conimbra. As for his flying away, or quitting the place suddenly, (which was the second part of the Doctors tale) let him inform himself of any that was there, and he may know that he stay'd after­wards till the Founder sent him to the Court of Spain about a businesse of great consequence; which being dispatch'd with successe, he returned to Portugal, and stay'd again there, till the Founder sent him again into England about another businesse, with expresse charge not to return if he perform'd [Page 23] not his errand, which he professed to him before-hand he could not do. All which Mr. Bl. declared to his Assistants, who intreated him to get them also away, if he returned not himself; and so, declaring the Founder's minde to the Inqui­tour, took his leave of him, and came away publickly. Nor was he blamed for coming away, but for not returning to defend Theses, in causing which the Doctor had his share. For Mr. Bl. his chief errand being to carry Divines from Doway thither, and some opposition being made in the con­sult at London, (at which the Doctor was present) it was re­solved that Mr. Bl. should carry a Letter from the Consult to Doway in his favour, yet should accept of Humanists if he could not obtain Divines; and expresse command given that this clause should be kept from Dr. Kellison. But our obedient Doctor, against the command and bond of silence and truth to the Clergy, writ to Dr. Kellison how the Clergy would be content though he sent no Divines. Which Letter Dr. Kel­lison read to Mr. Bl. untill he came to these words [ This to your self] which closed that businesse; by which taking him­self in the surprize, he read no farther. So that Mr. Bl. was forced to accept of Humanists, and not to return by the Foun­der's order.

The Doctor saith, his conference with shame is a dream, but let him know that those, who carried him thither are yet alive. He objects Mr. Bl. his conference with Chilling­worth; who peradventure vaunted himself, for, self-conceit and interest push't him thereto; but, Catholicks, who were present were so well satisfied, as that they desired another af­ter Dinner, and Chillingworth's own party reported, that he was too hard for all others, but that Mr. Bl. held him to it, and hereupon he was in credit with them ever after.

The ensuing part contain'd the Doctors impugnations of two points; of the Souls durance in Purgatory, & the Pope's personal infallibility. When I had read it, Mr. Bl. answered that he did well to begin with an untruth to Usher in a like Discourse. For the man, he impudently named for Mr. Bl. his Secretary, was neither asked advice, nor knew any thing far­ther than in publick he had profest, untill he saw it finished. So that the Dr. casts about his calumnies at random, light [Page 24] they where they will. Yet he thought the Dr. had had so much knowledge in humanity Books, as to understand that men frame the fashion of their writings according to their occasions; and this the rather, because he findes that the Dr. hath herein imitated him. Neither yet doth he believe he had a Secretary, notwithstanding the like frame of his Dis­course (though he entitle his Treatise a summe of his Answer, whereas Mr. Bl. called his, his own Answer) for that he seeth the Doctors weaknesse, and humour and phrase throughout it all. Neverthelesse, if he did, he would not be so uncivil as to name him in print, as the Doctor most indiscreetly does friends and foes, without respect, where his occasion serves. As concerning the Doctors impugnation of Mr. Bl. sayings about the Pope's personal infallibility, he said they were meer flashes of words against experience, & therefore would spend no time in answering them. And as for his objecting to Mr. Bl. his comparison of deflouring sacred Virgins upon an Altar, he said, it still more and more show'd the Doctors weaknesse; For who can doubt but the corruption of all Christian faith in the root, and the making all our faith un­certain, is greater than any particular sin. Besides, there were other comparisons of greater force than this, which the Dr. neglects, to take notice of one whose force consists in a vulgar apprehension. As for the second point Mr. Blacklow affirmed that if the Doctor had any friend, who perused his books, he might know that the places of St. Austin, for Souls not being perfectly purged till the day of judgement, be re­corded in his Treatise de medio statu. But how ignorant the Dr. is in St. Austin, he could not chuse but shew, who cites first a place out of his 15 ^th. book de Trin. where the Saint teacheth nothing, but that they, who dy without sin go im­mediately to Heaven without any thought of Purgatory, as appears there by these words; Ad agnum pertinentes, quando, fine hujus vitae, resolvuntur a corpore, jus in eis retinendis non ha­bent invidae potestates — Promde liberi a Diaboli potestate, suscipiuntur ab Angelis sanctis, &c. — Constituuntur autem purgati ab omni cogitatione corruptionis in placidis sedibus donec recipiant corpora sua. He added that the Doctors interpreta­tion of this place was perfect non-sence. For what can this [Page 25] mean that St. Austin, or any body else should place those Souls, which immediately go to Heaven out of their bodies (of which he plainly speaks) to expect their bodies after their purgation. Be Souls in Heaven to be purged? or the bodies which being turned into other Creatures have now no foulnesse in them? His next Testimony is none of St. Au­stin's, yet of a Saint, and speaketh clearly of the day of judge­ment, and what passeth then, and so is a clear Testimony for Mr. Bl. his opinion. For the Homily it self is de resurrectione Domini, and begins thus, Resurrectio & glorificatio D. nostri Jesu Christi ostendit nobis vitam quam accepturi sumus cum venerit retribuere d [...]gna dignis, mala malis, bona bonis. Which manifests that the whole Scope of the Homily is in order to that day, to wit, the day of judgement. Thence he proceeds, Interim donec veniat ILLA DIES (that is, the day of judgement) studeamus, &c. And so goes on showing what shall happen to the three sorts of Christians at that day; nor, in his transition to those that are to passe through the purging fire, hath he any the least expression in order to any other circumstance of time, but on the contrary avouches it to be then, by making those words Fluvius igneus curreba [...] ante eum, signify the fire of Purgatory; now, when can a fiery floud be said to run before our Saviour, but when he him­self is coming, that is at the day of judgement, at which time St. Paul teacheth us that fire shall go before him? Again, this place affirms that the multitude of lesser sins (that is, by-affections) and ill thoughts, illic exudabunt, shall be purged out in that fire; which cannot agree to the opinion of the in­termediate fire, for this opinion puts no by-affections re­maining there at all, nor that this fire purges them, or works any change in their thoughts at all, but onely penally af­flicts them. So that the whole intent and sense of this place is quite opposite to the Doctors Tenet; and for Mr. Blacklow's, though produced against it. But the Doctor makes no rec­koning of such small differences. Another thing Mr. Black­low occasionally noted, and 't was this, that though both this Testimony and others objected by him (particularly those of Pope Benedict, and the Council of Florence) be objected by himself in his own books, and solutions there given to them, [Page 26] yet the solid Doctor onely transcribes the objections, and urges the raw places against him, never taking notice of his solutions there given, much lesse disanulling them; The next calumny of the Doctors was his affirming, without limi­tation, or restriction, that Mr. Blacklow sayes, Visions are old wives tales, pag. 39. and afterwards in his Letter to two makes it one of the heads against him; whereas he never spoke of more than one, which he conceives to be a dream, not a Vision. For Visions in general, Mr. Blacklow acknow­ledges many to be true, but sayes that many reputed such, are uncertain, because they depend on the credit of some one person, the which is often weak, and not to be trusted in such difficult matters to judge of.

This finished, I told Mr. Blacklow there was a short Let­ter behinde; the which, though written onely to two Per­sons, and so might easily have been twice transcribed, yet, the Doctor thought worth the printing. When I had read it, Mr. Blacklow said he had little to answer, it being but a bundle of untruths grounded upon his own word. He ac­cuseth the Consult of seven, or eight of the gravest of his own body of what they never did, and aims to bring them into contempt amongst their brethren, and so to destroy the little Union he hath left amongst them. Secondly, he thanketh two, whereof the first did as much as any of his fellows, the other was absent, and heard nothing of the bu­sinesse; and in a private Letter accuseth another, who was not in the Kingdom. His invectives against Mr. Blacklow are already shown to be calumnies. And so God forgive him and me both our faults. Then intreating me to have for awhile the Pamphlet, at the restoring it, he brought me this Paper.

‘BEcause the Doctors Partials vaunt his Pamplet as very modest and censure my answer to his former Letter very hardly, I shall set down a list of his fair deal­ing in the following heads. Neither will I touch his ac­cusing me of prophane Novelties, upon his own words, or of some interessed Regulars, and such as follow their Authority, (whereas they are no Novelties, but the con­trary, [Page 27] and still tend to take away prophanenesse in Doctrine, which corrupts piety in the Church,) but onely his con­sciencelesse calumnies, his plain falsifications, his Taunts and Jeers, &c.’

• 1. Against the Consult which never meddled in this busi­nesse, pag. 3.
• 2. Of my Lord Bishop's command to suppressing Do­ctrine, pag. 8.
• 3. Of my decrying him in companies, pag. 10.
• 4. Of his writing a civil Letter unto me, and my being incensed with it, pag. 10. and 11.
• 5. Of my sending a Letter to Paris against him, and its being remitted to Brussels, pag. 11.
• 6. How that Letter was occasion'd by one he wrote to the Assembly of 1653. pag. 14.
• 7. That my Letter to the Nuncio at Paris was sufficient to confirm a calumny against the Assembly the Doctor had made to my Lord, pag. 23.
• 8. He charges me with hainous Crimes upon inconside­rable grounds, from pag. 25. to pag. 34.
• 9. Against the Sub-dean-ship of the Chapter, pag. 41.42.

• 1. That it was onely his design in his first Letter to awake Mr. Blacklow, pag. 4. The Letter it self shews the con­trary, as appears in the List set down hereafter.
• 2. That he is assured Mr. Bl. hath corrupted his first Letter, pag. 7.
• 3. That Mr. Bl. elevates the happinesse of the damned above the happinesse of this world, pag. 7.
• 4. He accuses me of Heresie, or something next to Here­sie, for denying material fire in Purgatory, pag. 19.
• 5. That I made a Doctors conclusions in Paris, contain­ing dangerous opinions, pag. 30.
• 6. That, terrified at the Inquisitions proceedings, I fled, out of Portugal, pag. 31.
• [Page 28]7. That my Disputation with Chilling-worth was a great disadvantage to the Catholick cause, pag. 32.
• 8. That a man named by him was either Counsellour, or Secretary in my answer to his first Letter, ibid.
• 9. That he accuseth me of committing an unpardona­ble sin against the holy Ghost, pag. 37.
• 10. That he sayes I call Visions generally old vvives tales, pag. 39.
• 11. In his Letter to two he repeats diverse of these Ca­lumnies.

• 1. That Mr. Bl. sayes the Scripture is not fit, ad refellenda falsa dogmata, pag. 25.
• 2. His interpretation of the Council of Florence & Bene­dictus his Bull. pag. 26.27.
• 3. His applying of Benedictus his Bull, and Johannes 22 ^th. his Errour, which are concerning Saints to Mr. Bl. his Do­ctrine, which is about when the purgation of Souls ends, pag. 30.
• 4. And 5 ^th. His attributing to holy Scripture that sen­tence that zelus animarum is divinorum divinissimum, pag. 35. as also the words non es amicus Caesaris, to be spoken as a re­proach against Christ, pag. 5.
• 6. That the wit of Serpents is to passe through little holes according to Christ, pag. 36.

• 1. Whereas Mr. Bl. putteth the vesture of his proposition expresly in one thing, he expresly sayes he puts it in ano­ther, pag. 7.
• 2. He imposes a false, and quite contrary sense on Mr. Bl. his words, concerning the damned, pag. 11. and 13.
• 3. He goes about to maintain the falsification by justify­ing his leaving out the antecedent, and subsequent words in that small Paragraph, which manifestly put the contrary to what he pretended, pag. 12.
• 4. He sayes the Council of Florence maintains there is fire in Purgatory, whereas all the Greek Fathers were a­gainst it, and the Council contradicted it not, pag. 18.
• [Page 29]5. He sayes that the whole current of Doctors in the Catholick Church, unanimously condemne the opinion, which denies fire in Purgatory, pag. 19.
• 6. He accuses Mr. Bl. to say that Christ died not for all, whereas, take the whole place and, he sayes the quite con­trary, pag. 23.
• 7. He puts into the citation of Mr. Bl. his words concern­ing the Sacraments, a whole line against the sence of the Author, pag. 25.
• 8. He corrupts the evident meaning of Mr. Bl. his words by his interpretation, ibid.
• 9. He imposes upon Mr. Bl. that he sayes Sacraments, as outward works, exercise no causality, or efficiency against his expresse words and whole discourse, pag. 26.
• 10. He corrupts his intention of writing his grounds of Government, pag. 28.
• 11. He corrupts St. Austin by citing him in a wrong sence pag. 36.
• 12. He corrupts him again by a false and non-sensical in­terpretation, pag. 37.
• 13. He corrupts another Saint, by making him speak of Purgatory before the day of judgement, whereas he speaks of Judgement, ibid.
• 14. He corrupts Mr. Bl. his words of one pretended Vi­sion, by applying them generally to all, that is, to true Visions also, pag. 39. and afterwards pag. 4.

‘What truths he will corrupt in his informations against me at Rome (which he seems to threaten, pag. 42.) where there will be no body to answer in my behalf, may be expected out of this scantling.’

• 1. What strange fancy, humour, or genius possessed him, pag. 20.
• 2. That Mr. Bl. his spirit is neither sober nor Christian-like, nor peaceable, pag. 33.

• 1. That Mr. Bl. his conscience semper praesumit saeva, p. 6.
• [Page 30]2. That Mr. Bl. his understanding is distempered, and his conscience disorder'd, pag. 7.
• 3. That Mr. Bl. may rightly be stiled coluber Britannicus, or Lubricus anguis, pag. 8.
• 4. That Mr. Bl. gloriously acteth Thomas Albiorum Trino­bantum, a bragging Captain, pag. 11. ‘It seems the good Doctor thinks that Trinobantum is the Genitive case of a participle from a Verb Trinobare, which should signifie to triumph, or brag, or some, such thing, agreeing with the substantive Albiorum; both by his ex­pression of bragging, and by the wrong Grammar he makes, which he finds not in Mr. Bl. his books; and by his often pleasing himself with this Jeer.’
• 5. The Doctor sillily clubs (as he calls it) Mr. Bl. his opi­nions into Heresies, pag. 14.
• 6. The Doctor condemneth Mr. Bl. of open blasphemy, pag. 21.
• 7. That Mr. Bl. acts the Serpent that hissed poyson into Eve in Paradise, pag. 33.
• 8. That Mr. Bl. is blown up with the dreams of his own troubled fancy, ibid.
• 9. He calls Mr. Bl. his Doctrine impious and blasphemous, pag. 35.
• 10. That Mr. Bl. hisseth poysonous words, pag. 35.
• 11. He stiles him our all knowing Thomas Albiorum Trino­bantum, and falsly adds that he stiles himself Thomas Albio­rum Trinobantum in his printed books, pag. 36.
• 12. He sayes Mr. Bl. commits a sin against the Holy Ghost, and flagitium profanitatis, pag. 37. and 38.
• 13. He sayes Mr. Bl. his opinion is branded by St. Austin with impudency, pag. 40.
• 14. He sayes Mr. Bl. is civil to the Devils and the damned, pag. 5. of his Letter to two.
• 15. To these may be added his calling every opinion he dislikes a prophane novelty.
• 16. Also his witty Epiphonema's, whereof let his Gram­marians look whether the rest be Latin, excepting that which he took out of the Apostle, which signifies onely sa­p [...]re moderatè.

‘ [Page 31]But perhaps his Partials, who make no distinction between the same language by one justly concluded and necessarily pronounced, and by another calumniating and speaking, upon slight grounds, at random, will think him not blamea­ble, at least not more than I am, for this extravagant language in his Reply; because I occasion'd it by my sharp­nesse in my answer, as they conceit. Let us see then whe­ther his first Letter against me when I medled not with him, and which began all this stir, be more moderate than his Reply: That the spirit of the man, as yet untouched, may be discerned, and whether I was not forced to disco­ver it whom it concerned; and still leave him inexcusable for beginning first without cause given to write to his brethren against me in such an insolent and calumniating manner. I present them therefore, out of his first Letter (which I have under his own hand, and which himself owns in his second part, pag. 4.) with these’

• 1. That Mr. Bl. teacheth Diabolical Doctrine.
• 2. That he is not from God.
• 3. That he hath made the Clergy odious to all Christian Princes.
• 4. That he is void of common sence, reason and Religi­on in delivering his Rules of obedience.
• 5. That he is excommunicated.
• 6. That he sleights Decrees from Rome.
• 7. That his books are condemned.
• 8. That he is an unworthy Member of the Society he is of, and that it is high time to discard him.
• 9. That by the judgement of a man of great esteem and Authority, he would be the cause the pension would be taken from the Doctor's Colledge, which two judgements by like­ly-hood, sprung from the Doctors own information.
• 10. That in the same mans judgement the chief heads and Members of the Clergy, if not all, were Schismatical.

‘All these (some of which are the highest provocations which can be given to a Christian, who hath any care of his good name) are pure fictions of his own brain without any other ground more than his own falsifications, and his own bare word, as hath been shown; yet sent by him to be published to the whole Clergy as concerning them all. Let now any indifferent man judge, whether I was not for­ced [Page 32] in my answer to speak the truth of his wrong in plain words. I omit an­other passage in the same Letter against me, which manifestly aimed at bloud, if it had had any ground to work the effect. It were not amisse to subjoyn some of his.’

• 1. His vilifying the Consult at London, by expressing them by unworthy and contemptible terms. To omit his calumny against them in this, and his fra­ming and spreading a report against them in his former Letter that they are Schismatical.
• 2. His denying and disgracing the Sub-dean-ship; which two acts of his ut­terly break asunder all that little Union they have amongst them, which was sound and entire, till upon his Letters and informations some of his began to dissolve it.
• 3. His bringing to light unnecessarily businesses concerning the Govern­ment of the Chapter.
• 4. Naming the names of the chiefest Members of the Clergy about London.
• 5. His expresse plotting of division betwixt his brethren in the Countrey & these in London, pag. 3. of his Epistle to two.
• 6. His sending his Pamphlet to Lay-men whom it concern'd, not by ex­presse order of his Letters hither, and that, to increase division; by which means it is gotten into the hands of Protestants; and a Gentleman now in London affirms that he heard of the businesse first from a Protestant, who had seen Dr. Leyburn his Pamphler.

I might add another head (were it not too tedious) of his self-praises and professions of his own sanctity, integrity, patience, zeal, and other vertues; applying the sayings of Saints (importing Heroical acts of vertue, meeknesse, charity, and humility) to himself; which though they seem fine flowers of pie­ty, yet wanting the lap of Truth in his dealings, and being blasted with so many falsifications, open calumnies, and other injurious, and insolent carri­ages, quickly fade into Hypocrisie. And are onely sufficient to take weak men and Fools, not wise and prudent persons, who will consider what he does, shows, and proves, not what he talks, pretends and professes.

Mr. Bl. concluded that either this letter of his, was sufficient to shew the Dr. had neither learning enough to censure, nor conscience in slandering any that he concieved stood in his way; nor truth in his hypocritical expressions; nor prudence or charity in his actions, or that nothing would do it. If it was suffici­ent, he had done his businesse; which was that under opinion of learning and piety the Dr. would not be able to make a schism and division in the Clergy. If nothing were sufficient, that he had a Supersedea's from further pains, and there­fore was resolved to lose no more time upon him, but to sit down quietly as he hid done so many years, how bold & shamel [...]s soever he proves in calumniating.

‘Whereas Dr. Layb. in his Letters hither, hath expresly ordered that his Pam­phlet against Mr. Bl. may be communicated to the Laity, to the end they may know who he is; Mr. Bl. on the other side, requests those of the Clergy, who shall come to have this Reply of his, not to communicate it to the Layty, ex­cept those whom it may much concern, to the end they may not know Dr. Layb. and thence conceive a prejudice against his house.’