ALthough my Intentions be to apply my thoughts to those things which do expresly concern Mr. Wheelwright, yet seeing I have under­taken to vindicate him, I must likewise ingage my self in those things which are of remoter and more implicite concernment; wherein he is by way of involution, and as the construction of people ignorant of mat­ters may proceed after a more eminent way disgraced, viz. in his being put promiscuously amongst those whom they call Antinomians, Libertines, &c. and being equally intituled to the erronious positions subsequent: a grosse abuse, not onely to him, but to some others, who are brought upon the stage, [Page 3]that they should be thus indiscriminately charged as they are in his Preface, which begins thus. After we had escaped the hands of the persecuting Prelates, &c. Yes, then you began to be prelaticall your selves, else why did not you admit those men, who left Bishops as well as ye, to a freedome of spirit, and consci­ence which they came for? or at the least, why did you not protract their censures, and give them leave to recover, and recollect themselves after they were out of the hands of those Prelates? you might have consider'd, that it was their good opinion of you, and the reformation amongst you, which scrued their meditations in way of preparation for your society, to a subli­mation in doctrine, as well as discipline; and there might be some dispositi­ons to errours at the first, which would neves have advanced so much, had not the Antiperistasis of your vehement prosecution forced them into a habit; you might have been pleased to have looked at them as men transported, through the fancie of practicall liberty to be injoyed, into some doctrines of Libertinisme, and so have allowed something to imagination: which is the main, you might haue reviewed your former condition, wherein (as you say your selves) you were in exposed to the malice of your Diocesans; divers waies, me thinks, there are whereby you might have taken up your selves in more moderate deportment towards your brethren, then in fining, confining, im­prisoning, disfranchising, banishing, and as much as in you lay, killing.

The infection which the Churches caught by these errors swels into three heads, How they have prevailed, how they reigned, and how they were ruined. Here is their [...], and [...], and here I must needs prosecute that which I before named, viz. the unequall (and yet too equall) implication of some parties, hereafter named in the [...], all which to my certain knowledge, and, I beleeve, to some of theirs even to the Author of the book, are disavow­ed by some of these supposed Libertines, by name, (for seeing thse tenents were attributed to all, yet not univocally but Analogically, I must apply my self ad principale Analogatum) Mr. Wheelwright who hath openly protested against them, witnesse Mount Wolloston, where they know, and our Author tels us, that one of his own Scholars told him, He set up Antichrist because he did not complie with him; a heavie charge, which surely he would never have put up­on Mr. Wheelwright, to whose Doctrine he ever before assented, had there been so neer an agreement twixt them as this perfecter tels us, whose words are these, after he had named the opinions of this Scholar of his as he cals him; Now (faith he) these things were, so grosse that M Wheelwright could not but contra­dict them, yet so tenderly as shewed a near agreement with him in these points. And saith moreover, that they are necessarie consequences which he gathered from his doctrine, Where there are divers indignities put upon Mr. Wheelwright, First, that he should large unsound principles. And secondly, not know their coniectaries [Page 4]as well as an illiterate man, I can scarce for bear to break my order, and fall upon him now, but I shall come at length more fitly to it, and shall trie how well our Author is skilled in consequences: in the mean time, I use this now to let the Reader see the injustice of this Medley of his; if the heat which in­spires his paper, were true zeal, it would Congregare hemogenea, & segregare he­terogenea.

There are others too as well as Mr. Wheelwright, who are not affected with these paradoxes, as Captain Ʋnderhill a gentleman, who did good service against the Pequits, as it is well known in New-England, which their Emissary might have requited better then to have mustered him among a troop of Enthusiasts under Mrs. Hutchinson their Captain, as he cals her. Admit he er­red, yet shall every little errour touching Divinity in militarie men, whose stirred humours may easily attenuate the spirits, when they so apply them­selves, and refine them into a nicety, be heighten'd into herefie, and presently seen in print? He urged the libertie allowed to Souldiers, instanced in the freedome of speech he had to Count Nassau. But my Authors reason for setting out his book was pretended for his censure, viz. the necessity of State, and so the Captain was degraded.

Another mentioned in his Catalogue is Mr. Edward Hutchinson; I wonder that he is amongst the crowde, when as he did not use to be factious or opi­nionate. Indeed the geri [...]s of that family hath not much inclined to sub­tilties, scarce any of the Hutchinsons have been Sectaries, unlesse à latere, and indirectly, by reason of which, me thinks, he might have been placed (if it must needs be) more obliquely in this predicament of Familisme, &c. then he is. This man said in the Court (which through Christian libertie he thought he might very well say) that If the Court took away his means, he should not be able to maintain his wife and children. Now the Court when they propounded his Fine, might think, (supposing him to be Enthusiastique) that he would not have looked at means as necessarie, but rather in a holy triumph have prostituted all, and expected immediate influence: in which he deceived the awfull and serious expectation of the Court, which accessary contempt committed him, and re-inforced his prepared censures; which might be hastened the rather by this reason too, the Governor comparing the intended Fine with his estate, might see disproportion, which he thought might be called Contempt in Naturalis, though not elicitus; Or whe­ther they looking at him as apprehensive of want suspected him; that con­ceit promoted too by a late imagination of the crime, as likely to be sedi­tious. However it was, the man was fined fourty pound, and disfranchized.

Another is Mr Sam [...] Hutchinson who (as I remember) upon dislike of some proceedings in Court out of a pang of zeal, though otherwise no great Crit­tick, [Page 5]asked a question of them in way of seruple, whereupon he was censu­red guilty of contempt, and (I think) sedition too, and so was banisht. But observe the wisdom of the Court, they perceiving, in that he did but meerly ask a question, that there were in him some sparks of truth, and ingenuity, sent him to a place called, The Isle of Errours, that by the circumobsistence of corrupt opinions, that little good which he had might be united and forti­fied, and he at length reduced into an hability of cohabitation; which effect it seems it had: for, as I hear since, he is resumed into their precincts. And this I must say for the Court, they were so courteous to him besides, (rare le­nity!) as that they allowed him libertie to come to them to Boston once a moneth, even during his expulsion; I suppose in the waning of the Moon, when his hotter sits (as they conceived them) were over, thinking that in some competent time, he might be perfectly cured of the Lunacie, which they supposed possessed him.

The next are Mr. Cogshall, and Mr. Aspinall, which latter for his dislike of some proceedings of Court was banisht, and Mr. Cogshall Deputie, presuming libertie to dissent from the major part, through reluctation of his conscience, and reflection upon his priviledge, broke forth into this expression: That if he could not be heard, he must: whereat he stopt, which might have been well in­terpreted; for being incensed by reason of the severe dealing with his bre­thren before him, per Imperium voluntatis, and out of brotherly love, he thought he must do something, although his reason (for the present charm­ed by the Magick of the Court so powerfully exercised upon those that were sentenced before him) could not tell him what, whereupon he stopt at the word must: for which aposiopesis he was disfranchized, as one that through such eloquence might become a pestilent fellow; but since he hath lived peaceably, resolving never to discover more Rhetorick lest he should be ba­nished.

The next in his book is Tho: Marshall, the Ferrie-man, as he calls him; this good man was occupied in a River called Charles River, directly betwixt Boston, the place of these Opinionists, and Charles Town, and other Towns, where his spirits being predisposed by the roughnesse of winds and waves, and agitated by the Counterbuffes of Divinitie, which the respective passengers vented, he might (you will say) easily be inflamed; Put as long as he kept his watery Element he had an allay: which when he left, and went to the Court, whether he did (as referring to the premisses, you may conceive pos­sible) rudely enter into the Court, or whether his feaver beat so to his singers ends, as it urged him to subscribe to a Petition; however it was, he was pro­nounced guilty (which indeed is common with watermen) of contempt. Hereupon displaced, since which time, for want of that imployment, he is [Page 6]grown so poore, that he will not be able to pay the indispensable halfpeny to Charon for his passage.

The next is one Tho: Grydley, an honest poore man, (as the Pamphleter cals him) yet (as he saith) too busie in things above his reach; alas good man he ne­ver knew that quae supranos nihil adnos, but the Court cured him of his prag­maticalnesse very well; for they took from him his imployment, and censu­red him an abettor of contempt, and sedition, which termes he never hearing before, nor not knowing what they might mean, did so amaze, and masquer him, that ever since, in an admiring speculation of, and gazing upon them, he hath stood as in a rapture or extasie, not finding leasure for new action.

There is one more, viz. Mr. Dyer, he was charged with contempt too, though I think onely disfranchised, that his brain might move in a lesse compasse, whereupon the good man was united into an ability to deliver his mind concerning an opinion of his in the Church, which our Author saith he did weakly too. In such cases as these me thinks that of the Apostle might have place: If any one be over-taken with an errour, ye that are spirituall restore ye such a one in the spirit of meeknesse.

The first amongst the women is Mrs. Hutchinson. This is she who he saith had at once thirty conceptions, some bigger, some lesser, some of one shape, some of ano­ther: and this he assures us, saying, That he hath learned otherwise (blessed be his Name) then to delude the world with untruths. I question not his lear­ning, &c. but I admire his certainty, or rather impudence: did the man ob­testricate? We know (as he saith of himself, he sometimes hangs up brats against the Sun, but surely he medled not with these, reserved I suppose, &c. unlesse he had it from him who is so eccentricke in his motion (as one saith of him.) But what if he had it from any then present? will that suffice to make him so confident, as thereupon to take occasion to ingage, and magnifie Divine di­rection, and derive this not known by him to be a truth, from the God of truth? If any of the men he cals Familists, &c. had done so, would it not have been accounted irreligious? relishing of profanenes? &c. would not my Authors softest exposition have called it unsavourie?

As for his Analogy, which he observes betwixt her productions and opini­ons, That as she held thirty of the one, so she brought forth thirty of the other; Gods wis­dome (he saith) fitting those to these: It is a monstrous conception of his brain, a spurious issue of his intellect, acted upon by a sweatish and Feaverish zeal, which indeed beats almost in every line; and resolves his in themselves im­perfect sometimes, if not felgned facts into phanatique meditations. For first the proportion is not exact, for he reckons not 30. opinions which he cals, Mrs. Hutchinsons, and those many of them coincident too, made more I sup­pose to prepare for his conceit. Secondly, but admit it were, yet his Notion [Page 7]is impertinent, for he brings in defects of Nature, amongst defects of Man­ners. All he can say (if he were so acute) is, that those are these reductive, and as they are effects of sin. A poore plea, by the same reason he may under the same title discover all the weaknesses and naturall imperfections either of man or woman, and fix a kind of morality upon them: But he will say perhaps, that this birth was an extraordinary defect: It avails nothing, un­lesse he will either raise it to a miracle, or at the least prove a supernaturall remission of the formative virtue in her. That will require a most accurate phy­sicall inspection which I think his learning will not reach, although (for ought I can see) his modesty might: for he tels us of women purging and vo­miting, what if the distemper we usually call Cholera did for the present op­presse those women? must it needs be proclaimed? must it needs be in print?

As for Mrs. Hutchinson, she was a woman of a good wit, and not onely so, which is all he will allow her, but naturally of a good judgement too, as ap­peared in her civill occasions; In spirituals indeed she gave her understand­ing over into the power of suggestion and immediate dictates, by reason of which she had many strange fancies, and erroneous tenents possest her, espe­cially during her confinement, where she might feel some effect too from the quality of humors, together with the advantage the devill took of her con­dition attended with melancholy. In a word, as guilty of most of these er­rours, and for a pretended revelation of the destruction of the Court, she was expelled the Bay of Massachusetts.

The next is Mrs. Dyer, the wife of Mr. Dyer aforenamed, she was devoted to Mrs. Hutchinsons fancies; this is she, who (he sayes) had the monster: whe­ther the conceptions of her brain had influence upon the conceptions of her wombe, or these of the wombe upon those of the brain, I will not discusse. This discoverer inclines to the former, I think he might by a deeper search have reached the naturall cause whilest he in his Method telling us her pe­naltie, judges her for her errours immediately sentenced from heaven: in which passage, as in many other in his book, a spirit of censure and malice is pregnant.

The other he speaks of is one good wife Hunkins, who, he saith, is a witch; a poore filly woman, yet having so much wit, as perceiving Mrs. Hutchin: am­bitious of proselytes, to supply her wants, she attended on her weekly Lecture, (as it is called) where when Mrs. Hutchinson broached any new doctrine, she would be the first would taste of it: And being demanded whether it were not clear to her, though she understood it not, yet would say, Oh yes very clear. By which means she got, through Mrs. Hutchinsons affection to her, some good victuals, insomuch that some said she followed Christ for loaves; Now seeing those things were so, me thinks our Author need not have been so rigid [Page 8]in his opinion of her. Alas, Ars illae sua census erat, surely a little lesse gall would (as concerning others, so her) have done better in his ink, when, as it appears, she complied with her patronesse, not so much out of love to her positions as possets, being guilty I think of no other sorcerie, unlesse it were conjuring the spirit of Errour into a Cordiall.

Thus having given you an account of these persons, and passages, I can­not but observe these things.

First, the Reasons which all these men might propound to themselves, for doing and saying what they did. Alas, we must look at them as men who had left their estates, friends, pleasures of their native soyl, spirituall Chy­mists, extracting the sweetnesse of all into freedom of conscience, doubting not but they might find all in that Elixar; but as no Chymist yet got it, so they were many of them deceived; which when they surveyed, and see the result, it might trouble the weaker, and through melancholy fumes dispose them to strange fancies in Divinity.

Secondly, the verdict of the Court upon them all, contempt, which surely must proceed from the strong impression that the supposed contempt of Mr. Wheelwright made in the fancie of the Governor; by reason of which prepos­session he could conceive no other crime, else it cannot but seem strange, that there should be such a sympathy, that so many men and women too, whose sex may inequalize and difference much, should all run into the same praemwrire, Such a continuity of spirits as this consent of theirs must suppose, would be a good principle of the Art of the Weapon-salve. I give this watch-word to you all, that you are disgraced in omni gradu naturae intellectivae ac practicae: he goes first from practicks, then to doctrinals, then again to practicks; thus he runs in a circle of abuse. In the understanding he weakens you two wayes, by an inordination of things, and tearms; of things, in the errors; of tearms, in the unsavoury speeches (as he cals them;) in practise, by all the possible differen­ces of exorbitancie, pride, boldnesse, insolence, deceit, contempt, sedition, schisme; all which are indifferently, and indistinctly charged upon you in the Pre­face, so that indeed who reads it would think you all equally guilty: and had I any premisses of the same nature, concerning some of you, as I have concerning Mr. Wheelwright, I should vindicate you, as I do him. But seeing I have not, I must apply my self to him particularly, and free him from those errours and unsavoury speeches, wherein I do but proceed according to the Rule of Art which attends principale analogatum, which by his own saying in his 31. pag. is Mr. Wheelwright; Now, saith he, all these, except Mr. Wh: were but young branches, &c.

The way wherby I must vindicate Mr. Wheelwright is from my Authors own lines in his 42. page, where he tels us of the opinions which he ( viz. Mr. Wh:) opposed being these.

First, That there are immediate revelations without the Word. Secondly, That the child of God is dead, not acting at all, but as Christ acts in him. Thirdly, that there is no inherent righteousnesse in the Saints. Fourthly, that the Commandment is a dead letter. Now if Mr. Wheelwright (as the Author gives us) do abhor these po­sitions, let right reason, and the strength of consequence judge whether he can be justly entituled either to the unsavourie speeches, or to any of the errours; And first for the unsavonry speeches. If Mr. Wheelwright oppugne the opinion of immediate revelations, how can he say that evidencing justification by san­ctification savours of Rome? For if he denie immediate, he must grant me­diate: And that mediante verbo, either in an absolute, (as he grants at the first) or in a conditionall promise, as he holds at the second evidence; And many can witnesse who have heard him approve evidence of justification by san­ctification, but what need of that? doth it not appear in the principles, they themselves do happily give me?

How can he hold, he is never the worse for being unholy, nor the better for being holy, when he grants evidence from holinesse?

Or how can he say, if Christ will let me sin, let him; when as he holds Christians have life in themselves, a principle from which they act. Surely M. Wheelwright hath so much Logick, as to know frustra fit potentia quae non redu­citur in actum.

Or how can he say, I seek not grace but Christ, if it be meant in contempt of graces? would any man neglect his evidences? unlesse he mean thus? I seek not graces ultimate & resolutive, not as the supreme but subordinate end, not as principium imperativum, but directivum, not as quod, but as quo, not to rest in them, but to move by them to the place of rest: which if he mean, it is not unsavoury, but savours of sublimated purity and grace.

Or how can he say, [I know I am Christs, not because I do crucifie the flesh, but because I do not;] when he expects testimony of salvation by such acts of crucifying?

Or this, If Christ be my sanctification, what need I look for any thing to evidence my justification, when as it is of the same nature with the former, and lies exposed to the same inconsistence?

Now I come to the first number of errours, wherein although many things be coincident with the former unsavoury speeches, and with the latter num­ber, yet I shall give you an exact account of the particulars: and as for the first of them which is, That the preaching of the Law is of no use to drive a man to Christ: How can he hold it, when as he saith, Faith comes by hearing the Word? Now if he allow the Word in Actu completivo, in the completure and [...] of a Christians mind, much more in some preparatorie and dis­positive acts, as is drawing to Christ; know, that reason gives that a disposi­tive [Page 10]to which it will not give a completive power, as to cold in generation, as the Philosophers say; surely where completion is allowed, much more dis­position.

Or the second, That a man is united to Christ without faith, yea from eternity: if it be meant respecting Gods decree, it is true; but if actually, how can Mr. Wheelwright hold it, when as he grants there is something on mans part to receive Christ?

Or the third, viz. That faith is not a mans receiving of Christ, but a mans per­ceiving it: this is true if de reflexo actu; false, if de directo actu: what matter in this? This is a meer equivocation, you might have spared this, but you must fill up the Number.

For the fourth, That a man is united to Christ without any act of his: it is the same with the second, and may receive the same answer.

For the fifth, which is, That a man hath never effectually Christ till he hath ass­urance: it is the same with the third, and is true if meant de certitudine objecti: but if subjecti, how can Mr. Wh: hold it, when as he holds the use of signes, to confirm faith in the regenerate? Which must needs allow it some latitude, and not limit it to a meer plerophory; and surely one man never held the fourth opinion and this too; that saying, that a man is united to Christ without any act of his, this, that a man cannot be Christs till he have acted, viz. reflected; these were not so considerately jumbled together, especially be­ing one factions brood, as he saith. I wonder that having such opportunity to hang these brats up against the Sun, he did not hang these further one off the other. For the fixt, which is, that the witnes of the Spirit is meerly immedi­ate, without any respect to the Word, how can Mr. Wh: hold it when as he opposed the opinion of immediate revelation?

The seventh is, When a man hath the witnesse of the Spirit he never doubts more: How can Mr. Wh: hold this if he know what doubt means, being motus super [...]tramque partem contradictionis: when as he grants preventives of the motion or deviation betwixt these two tearms; in granting confirmation, which is a supply of a defect, or an accessary to a principall exposed to some degree of doubt?

For the ninth, it fals the same with this former, and being in the same conclusion, onely differenced by a supposed case or occasion, it will not call for a speciall answer.

The tenth is, Sanctification can be to evidence of a mans good estate; How can Mr. Wh: hold this when as he oppugnes immediate revelations without the word? Why then he must grant mediate; and why may not that word refer to sanctitie?

The 12, viz. No comfort can be lead from any conditionall promise: How can it [Page 11]be asserted by him, who grants evidence from Sanctification, which evidence must needs ran in the Channell of some conditionall promise, if not so formal­ly, yet vertually and by way of resolution.

The 12. is, that to see I have no grace at all, is true poverty of spirit, and it comes to the same with some of the former.

The 13 is, That the graces of Saints and hypocrites differ not: How can there be evidence from them unlesse they differ? It may be this is the meaning, they differ not by any positiue thing superadded, but praecisely in their owne Natures, and are not so properly called different as diverse; but this is a meere nicetie.

The 14 A hypocrite may have Adams graces which he had in his innocencie: it comes to the same sense with the former.

The 15 is this, All graces are in Christ as in the subject, and so in us as Christ is in us, and no otherwaies; which cannot be attributed to Mr. Wh. when as he holds (as before we said) evidence from graces, which could not be, unlesse they were in us, as in the primary and immediat subject; neither did he ever make Christ the formall principle of such actions, as beleeving and repenting, which this tenent concludes.

The 16, which is this, Christ is the new creature; how can Mr. Wh. hold it, when he grants evidence from the new creation of graces in us?

The 17. God loves a man never the better for being holy, nor the worse for being un­boly: how can he defend it? who grants manifestation of Gods favour in the way of holinesse?

The 18. Sinne in a child of God must never trouble bine, which opinion is appa­rently reducible.

The 19. is, Trouble in conscience for sinne, shewes a man to be under a Covenant of works; how can he hold it, when as he makes accompt, trouble for sinne in the Nature of a grace, proportionally shews a man to be under a Covenant of grace?

The 20. A Christian is not bound to the Law: how can he think it, who expects comfort in a way of sanctity the Ectype of the Law?

For the 21. All Covenants made to God in words are Legall; how can he be guil­ty of it, who holds Religion and Pietie requifite in the Saints? which surely must needs discover it self, in some godly vowes and resolutions; unlesse we will restraine it ad actum primum, which were absurd: Perhaps this was in op­pofition to Mr. Wels his strict Covenant; never to break Subbath more, never to think idle thought more, &c.

The 22. A Christian is not bound to pray except the Spirit move him; how can Mr. Wh. hold it, when (as before) he commits his life to the rectory of the Law, which bids him pray continually? what need he stay till the Spirit mover [Page 10] [...] [Page 11] [...] [Page 12]any further, when as he grants the Spirit moves only in the word? what need he exspect the antecedent motion of the Spirit, who saith, he must begin to pray that he may have the concomitant? why should he suspend this holy acti­on for an Imenediate dictate, when as he grants Christians have a principle of life, from which they can act? how can the man so sound in the premisses think himself not bound to pray, but when the Spirit moves him?

The 23. is this, A man who hath not this new light, is not able to edifie others who have it: I suppose they mean another, quatenus another, and so the position is true in formali, for nil dat quod non habet, but then, the word quatenus must be taken reduplicative, and not specificative, unlesse by the tear me they attend the respective entitle, in regard of which it must be denyed directly and per se only too, not per accidens; in these senses, the assertion is true: but if we consider the materiale, and so they accompt the praecedent errours light, I deny it to be truth, for such light (which I shaddow Mr. Wh. from) is indeed darknes, and tho light which our Author would praeferre to shame Mr. Wh. is very dull, as will appeare; and in the meane time, I must apply that saying both to this Opinionist, and to my Authour, If the light that is in you be darknesse, how great is that darknesse?

The 24. is, That the whole Letter of the Scripture bolds forth a Covenant of works; it is true in some sense: xample, Christ bids the young man keep the Comman­dements in order to eternall life; This in the letter pretends to a Covenant Le­gall, whilst in its Anagoge it intends Christ the Authour of sufficiencie, and so pitches upon the Covenant of grace; but that the whole Letter doth so, can­not bee Mr. Wh. assertion, when he applies him self to the Law as a compe­tent Directory, which he could not do if he did look at it, as pitching upon a Covenant of works?

The 25. is this, No Christian must be pressed to duties of bolinesse, which in regard of the good expected by Mr. Wh. from holines, cannot be his doctrine.

The 26. No Christian must be exhorted to Faith, Love, &c. admits the same answer.

The 27. is, A Man may have all graces and yet want Christ; Indeed he may have representations of them, graces aequivoce, but not true graces; and if true, not as Synonymous to saving, but as opposed to fained; but in the evill sense, how can Mr. Wh. hold it, when as he attributes unto graces, power to evi­dence Christ?

The 28. is, A beleivers Activity is only to act to sinne; This pofition implies Christ the formall principle of vertuous Acts; which conceit wee before excused Mr. Wh. from. Indeed, how can it be ascribed to him who (as our Authour tels us) opposed this tenent (viz.) that a Christian is, (that is his phrase) a dead lump not acting at all?

Thus I have runne through the unsavory speeches, and the first scroule of er­rours; I come to the other scroule, being 82. Why might not all these positi­ons have been put in one Number, as well as in so many? I should think, were he not a New-Englandman, that he intended some mystery in the Number of 3, which he so oft prefers, first in his Title, Rise, Raigne, Ruin, Familists, Li­bertines, Antinomians, censures of Church, proceedings of Court, Judgments of heaven upon them, and here with his three parcels; but surely the good man is no Pytha­gorist, but a Platonist rather, which his separato Ideae, contempt, and sedition, not properties of the men to whom he attributes them, Chimeraes only of his restlesse braine, declare him; but howsoever if he did purpose a Numerary spell, seeing thereby he doth many times repeate, I shall conjure him downe with meere Figures somtimes: my meaning is, that in regard of the recidence, not in sense only, but words many of them into the former, I would be ex­cused though I do not give you a Particular accompt, as before, for although our Authour hath lavishly tautologized, which perhaps may be Natural to him, and so scarce admit a Criticisme, yet I will not trace him, unwilling to oppresse the Reader, and draw my selfe into the same height of babling; Nor let any think I hereby seek elusion, verbum sat sapienti, let such examine.

For the first ten they are eafily reducible.

The 11. is, As Christ was once made flesh, so is he in us ere we be carried to perfection; This proposition, as many other we shall meet withall, is wrapt in such myslicall terms, as it scarce falls under the common rules of constructi­on; but if this tenet intends Hypostaticallunion, how can Mr. Wh. approve it, when as by the Authours confession he opposed that Doctrine which sayes; Beleivers act not at all, but Christ acts in them, and doth (as before named) formally be­leive and formally repent, which Mr. Wh. could not rationally contradict, if he patronized this notion; which being granted, a believer should not proximately believe and repent, but Christ must obtaine rationem formalis principii in him.

For the 12 13.14.15.16. to the 24. they are in the categorie of those before pretermitted, as reducible to the former.

The 24. is this, That he who hath the Seale of the Spirit may judge of an elect per­son; According to this Assertion, one Seale must at once make two Characters: which opinion I must tel mine Author plainly, his principles, and his parties, rather lead to then Mr. Wh. for a respective impression, in order to graces inhe­rent, (such as theirs is pretended) may in al reason sooner by the same virtue wherby it shews to one his own Election, show to him the Election of another in whom the same perfections may be apparent, then an Irrespective & absolute impression, such as Mr. Wh. is accounted, as will be seene in their opinions con­cerning evidence of salvation; however, how can Mr. Wh. own this, unlesse he either think Gods eternall Decree attendeth some quality, the Symbolical­nesse of which might direct him in his censure? or unlesse he hold Immediate [Page 14]revelations without the Word, within it there being no such pertintous? Or unlesse he presume to look in specula Trinitatis? Which Mr. Welds seems to do, whilest he tels us what God bath pardoned in heaven, and to whom he purposes his immediate punishments on earth.

By our Reason of caincidence we passe to the 28, which is the first we can find challenging a particular answer, and that scarcely too; it is this: To af­firm, there must be faith on mans part, to receive Christ, it to undermine Christ: this is nothing, but an efflux of the formen fancie of hypostatioall union; the use of faith is to apprehend Christ sub eonceptu formali: the effect of which is a spiritu­all union, not at all in that which may be more physically looked at, viz. the hypostaticall: The next considerable is the 33, which is this, To act by vertue of a command is legall. This is Mr. Wh: which taken cum grano salis, will be savoury enough. Let us know to act legally may be taken two wayes: Vel non atten­dendo principium effecti [...]um action is, vel formale sivè exemplare. In the first Reason, they act legally who think to do things in their own strength formally. In the second, they act legally who think to do so constructive, and by way of inter­pretation, such as the Gospels young man, who did fulfill the Commandments sub ratione particulari, In which act he expected vertue from Christ, and so in the first sense acted not legally. But he did not, sub ratiane magis universali, & eminentiori, and therefore he acted legally in my second sense. In his Acoesse to the Law under its typicall and immediate pretence, was his [...] in his recesse from it under its reflexive intention, and true Evangelicall Tropologie was his [...]. To act legally is to recede from the virtue, by which one is to act; which virtue of Christ is vel Christi tanquam officientis, vel tanquant Ideae. To act by vertue of a command, that is immediately from it, is, Vel immediatione virtueis, vel suppositi: they who act by strength of a command in this first sense, attend not Christ either in the reason of an efficient or Ideae, and so must needs act legally both wayes. For the command hath a twofold habitude, directive and objective, he who acts immediately from the directive order of the Law, acts legally, non attingendo Christum ut Ideam: he who acts immediately from the objective, acts legally, Non attingendo Christum, ut efficientem. And thus its true, to act by virtue of a command is legall; but if it be meant immediatione suppositi (not that I think a command hath properly suppositalitie, but onely aliquid Analog [...]yn, which reaches my notion and intent) it is not true, that to act by virtue of a command is legall.

The next considerable is the 41. which is this: There be distinct seasons of the workings of the persons in the sacred Trinity, so that a man may be said to be thus long under the work of the Father, and thus long under the work of the Son, and thus long under the work of the holy Ghost. If by this, we are so long under the Father, he intended onely an exclusion of the Son in some eminence, and degree of at­tribution. [Page 15]It is not against that received maxime, Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa: and the generall opinion of Divines excuses it from a paradox; For what more common then to attribute redemption to the Son? consolation to the holy Ghost? What more usuall then to say, the Father humbles, the Son raises up, the holy Ghost comforts? Touching which, I thus conceive: that the very same individed essence as it doth put on divers reasons or notions (as the Schoolmen speak) is said to perform divers actions not by a simple exclusion of the Attributes of any of them in this or that Act, but onely secun­dum quid, Notionally, as we may conceive, according to the common quidditie. The Father is in himself, and so produces a Son of comfort, by reflection, he loves that issue, and so educeth illumination; in this sense, Opera ad extra sunt divisa, for from the division ad intra, why may there not follow a propor­tionall division ad extra too? seeing the relations of those divided acts are reall, and extra intellectum, which would otherwise plead Reason for their li­mitation; I say why may they not have some effect upon the acts ad extra too? and make them in some sense divisa? And if it be improper to say, Deus est trium personarum, but onely essentia est trium, &c. why may there not be some impropriety to say (I mean in opposition to the above-named Doctrine) that, Deus est trium Actuam respectively, when as these acts do in the common opinion attend those relations? But if an absolute and simple division be in­tended, Mr. Wh. cannot hold it; when (as it is very absurd in it self, so) his doctrine of evidence by sanctification, where there must be Christs attractive, and the Spirits illuminative power, and of signes which require a concurrence, proclaims.

The next is this, Conditionall promises are legall: If it be meant that they are in a legall form, its true, whether causaliter or consequative; But if it be meant that they are legall virtually, and so not to be made use of in the time of the Gospel, how can Mr. Wh: hold it, when as he grants evidence from graces, conditionall promises being the current wherein such evidences passe?

The next considerable is this: to lay the Brethren under a covenant of works hurts not at all, but tends to much good. What did I say considerable? a posi­tion strangely produced as it were in an indifference twixt truth and errour: if it be presented as an errour, we must needs by reason of the indefinitenes of the phrase suppose all Brethren to be under a covenane of grace. If it be a truth, what doth it among errours? to make even number? What shall we say? its neither true nor false, but stands in a pure precision; he imagined though perhaps that the confinity of errours (wherein observe how his malice mul­tiplies heresies upon them) would determine its neutrality, and hereupon in­gages at once all his Metaphysicks to effect an abstraction which he might [Page 16]have reserved till an exigence, and in the mean while have referred this Ja­nus to the unsavoury speeches with which it most symbolizes. But he was afraid, lest it so easily seasonable either way, should have seasoned them, which he prefers to disrelish the appetite of the Reader, to the parties con­cerned in his Narration. But he saith, if it be good to lay the Brethren under a Covenant of works, then it is good to bite one another: which argument is much like one of his brats he hangs up against the Sun.

The next is this: Faith justifies an unbeleever. If the sense be, that the faith subjected in Christ justifies me in whom there is not any, its false: if you take it in sensu composito, it is so, if in diviso, its true. I wonder such grave discursists (as my Author by his style seems) should with these poore subtilties put us upon such elementary distinctions, in resolving which Simths Logick will claim a principall share. But perhaps he did it to evade a more solid reply, thinking no Eagle would catch such flyes. Which way of his is in the mean time my advantage, whilest by medling only in my sphere I cannot be said to presume, which incourages me yet to tell him that this opinion is a consectarie of theirs, who deny graces in the Saints, not of Mr. Wh: doctrine who grants them.

The rest of the Assertions are either coincident, or such as concern Church Discipline, wherein disagreement is not pretended.

Thus we have done with his pretended errours. Now we come to his pre­tended Crimes, viz. contempt and sedition; which the Court pickt out of a Ser­mon of his, he preached upon a Fast-day designed for peace, the substance whereof was this: Christs absence is a main cause of fasting, therfore labour for him revealed in the Covenant of grace; peace is to be sought in such a drawing neer the God of peace; and oppose those by contending for the faith, but spiritually, who go the way of the Covenant of works (as in that thing) (wherein indeed they are opposite to the end of the day) as enemies to grace, and in that respect persecuters of Christ, as (which word I suppose is, sieut qualitatis onely) Herod, Pilus, and the Jews. This is the doctrine wherein the spirit of sedition and contempt breathes according to their opinion; I will therefore briefly leaving the fuller discussion to Statists, (by some of which Mr. Wh: hath been already cleared,) examine.

Contemptus est ex hoc quod aliquis rennit subjici legi bonae; conferre, the Magi­strates publish a Fast in order to peace, whether this publication have the compleat Nature of a Law, let others determine. But admit, Mr. Wh: whilest he tels them, peace is the most easily attainable in Christ, to whom they must apply themselves in a Covenant of grace, twharts not their Law, unlesse it had expressed the method which the Minister must use, or unlesse Mr. Wh: [Page 17]had done that, the contrary of which it did necessarily imply; But there is no such matter, for in his generall terme, a Covenant of grace, he could not be inordinate, but admit explication, though it might render suspition of un­soundnesse in doctrine; yet not suspition, much lesse apparency of disobedi­ence to civill discipline, therefore what neglect of Authority was here, when neither the expression nor constructive intention of their Mandate was cros­sed? Or, if it had been, yet not the primary end, and so could not constitute such an offence: As for finis operantis, the ends they themselves reserved, how could he attend? unlesse we either suppose a coincidence, or unlesse they think it requisite, Clergie-men should study Mysteries of State, or unlesse (which they seem to abhor) he should have expected immediate revelation of them? [Renuit] he will not; that presupposes admonition, and supposes contumacie, Mr. Wh: had no such preparatories; If he had reiterated the discourse, though innocent, there had been more pretence. But grant further he had, yet a meer repetition makes not frequency; But admit, yet frequentia peccati non facit peccatum ex contemptu, sed disponit ad hoc: according to Aquinas. It is far then from contempt, which is not so much as a bare disposition towards it? what if he did (this as a supposition, onely) decline the next purpose of the day? yet if he did reach it more eminently by setting up Christ, whose ab­sence he told them was the cause of fasting, must he have these crimes attri­buted to him, because he did so concisely compleat their desires? might they not have taken up themselves twixt his supposed recesse, and relapse before they proceeded to censure? But our Author saith, ( pag. 52. wherein he in­tends aggravation) whereas Mr. Cotton urged peace, Mr. Wh: contention in the afternoon: Yes, but it was spirituall, and for a Covenant of grace too: the way of peace, as in that generality, cannot be denyed. The spirits of men in Winter (as it was then) have too much asperity in the morning to be trusted with zealotismes, which in the afternoon their more mollified dispo­sitions may admit: but more seriously: what would this man have by this cir­cumstance? where is the sence of it? or how aggravates it? would he have had Mr. Wh: Text to have been imposed by the Court? were not that to limit the Spirit? or would he have had him betwixt forenoon and evening Exercise, not being half an houres space, by reason of the directive Sermon, to have pu­risied his meditations into such a complexion? Or would he have had him see­ing there was no time, to change his text, or his Notions, to have defisted be­fore his paroxysme? Alas! so the Church as well as the State might have ap­prehended contempt. Or if he had in such an Auditory adventured upon an extemporarie discourse, would not your Moderatsts construction have pitched upon neglect? But what need of all this? Mr. Cotton and He agreed in [Page 18]the main, both their labours directed to the same scope, ( viz. to bring men to Christ, the difference of precision, and degrees of heat allowed: so that if his Sermon offered violence to the day, yet where is that which is pretend­ed to the State? Admit incongruity, yet where is the contempt? If it had been any thing, it had rather been indiscretion then contempt; and rather indispo­sition then indiscretion.

But they say, By those under a covenant of works, he meant them, some Magi­strates and some Ministers; and that he knew they went the way which he described to be a covenant of works. Admit, yet his expressions from the Pulpit in the com­mon Rules of construction can have no such reference: Or suppose they might have reference, yet not of causality but connexion onely, which would give no advantage to secular power, or Ecclesiasticall either. But further, grant a reference of causality, that may be concerned in the Authority of the keyes, not of the Court.

He instances in that difference of Protestants and Papists, sub una & sub utra (que), as a paralell case; but it is not, for those tearms did denote upon the free ac­knowledgement of the right of their respective attributions: it is not so in this matter, where the phrase Ʋnder the Covenant of works, is not confessed by the Magistrates, &c. as their condition; therefore to say under a convenant of works, and under a covenant of grace, is not as much as to say, Magistrates, &c. and some others, there being much distance twixt this occasion and the former.

He would at length puzzle the people with subtilties, whil'st he talks of designation to common intendments, saying, That which designs a man to com­mon intendments doth as much as if it should name the men; Which phrase if apply­ed must presume, that the Magistrats and Ministers he pleads for, are by that member of the division under a Covenant of works: commonly intended, A pret­ty peece of work, wherin to give you his upshot, first he contradicts himself, secondly, totally excuses Mr. Wh. thirdly, he accuses his own partie more then ever any did. A brave Champion, first he contradicts himself in saying, these things were never heard of before Mr. Wh. came into the Courtry; p. 24. wheras it seems it was vox pepuli before, for he was then but newly arrived, and this the first time he thewed himself in that publick way.

Secondly, he excuseth Mr. Wh. for when to stopp his mouth, we had halfe allowed him indiscretion in that Sermon of Mr. Wh. yet he will needs cleere him from it by implying that through the common rumour of Magistrates &c. walking the way of the Covenant of works, there might be occasion ministred unto him, and need for such a discourse.

Thirdly, he accuserh both the Magistrates and Ministers, more then any [Page 19]yet did, by intimating a precedent continued, and manifest addiction of theirs to Legalisme, whil'st he declares them commonly intended by that ex­pression, under a Covenant of works. and by the generall opinion of the people wrapt in it.

This was a great oversight, unlesse by a check of his conscience suggesting Mr. Wh. innocencie, he was moved to vindicate him secretly from crime, and therefore would mystically do it in the word Intendment, to purge his heart from malignity of opinion.

And whereas he saith, p. 25. The former Magistrates and Ministers had great disrespect after Mr. Wh. his Sermon, which he saith, was the cause of it.

I answer, First, It is not known that ever they had any notable neglect.

Secondly, Admit, yet his inference may intitle the Gospel to sedition.

Thirdly, The inequality of observance did not proceed from any effect Mr. Wh. Sermon had upon them; as in that instance of the Halberds, the former Governor having more carried before him then his successour; and in the expe­ditions against the Pequeds, but from the affection which some designed to those offices, bore to the then Governor Sr. He: Vain, who by his noble, affable and discret carriage, ingaged their utmost attendance; where observe the edge of Malice, which when it dare not suppressed by fear, openly, yet se­cretly it will fix, though he do not inroll Sr. Henry amongst Familists, &c. Though he will not say, he was such a Sectary, yet whilst he talks of his pre­ferment above the following Governor, as an Issue of Mr. Wh: Sermon, upon his own premisses, he necessarily inferrs it.

And wheras he saith, That before Mr. Wh. came over, all things were peaceable, after his arrivall, nothing but division. I answer: First, he contradicts himself, for he tels us Mrs. Hutchinson vented her Opinions in the ship as she came over, pa. 31. he tels us, she drew many to her, pa. 32. he tels us, she procured coun­tenance from eminent persons, pa. 33. hence (saith he) was the trouble to the Pastor of Boston, &c. hence, saith he, Mr. Wh: took courage to inveigh in his Sermon, &c. It seems then there was Divisions before Mr. Wh: Sermon, and that it was an effect of them rather then a cause. Secondly, there was a company in the Bay before he came, who upon supposition of 2 parties, one under the Co­venant of works, the other themselves under the Covenant of grace, had resolved upon schisme, expecting onely a beck from the Pulpit; which when by rea­son of Mr. Wh: naming a Covenant of works and of grace, (though not with any such pertinence, their prepared phansies, thought they had) they took this Idoll of their own brains, for a providence of heaven, and hereupon sacrificed their premeditated endeavours to it; as it had been the Image which fell down from Jupiter; which doing of theirs Mr. Wh: was not accessary to, their pre­tended [Page 20]Covenant of grace being composed of errours, his covenant of grace which to decline legalisme he preferred, being free from them, carrying along with it the grace of the covenant. He tels us, pa. 26. of a writing which much concerned Mr. Wh: to read, that might be; it may be it was our Authors, for all his (as he saith of his book) are necessary for States, much more for pri­vate persons: but it seems Mr. Wh: was so dull as not to conceive the necessity, for he did not read it, as we are told; what then? perhaps he was otherwise im­ployed; But what saies the man? Which did argue (saith he) the height and pride of his spirit: what need these synonyma? were not pride enough? this argues my Authors malice and virulencie; but is he not ashamed to talk still of ar­guing, when his Independent brain hath bewrayed such inconsequence? Let him never think hereafter with any judicious Reader to be reputed for a syl­logist: but if he think he shall hide his talent unlesse he imploy the Presse, let him rather (as one said) write meer history, and such too where in partiall respects may not byasse him to errour. Which way (as though he presaged dislike of his controversall discourses) he hath already taken in his book, now at the Presse, called, A Narration of the proctise of N. E. wherein he may do (as in things that fall under his sense) much better, then in polemicall Essayes, where he doth but lose himself, and over-ballace his muddy intellectuals.

Nay so vast is my Author in his apprehension of pernicious effects from Mr. Wh: Sermon, that he would make people beleeve, it not onely moved all Societies on the Land, but that it had its influence upon vessels at Sea (thats his phrase) How, saith he, did it hinder all affairs in Courts, in Towns, in Families, in vessels at Sea? pa. 58. As though it had been like that commotion of the earth lately there, which Ships at a great distance felt; as though Mr. Wh: had made an Earth­quake amongst them. Whereas (which I hope the Reader will conceive) it was nothing but a Trepidation of the spheres in that New Heaven, &c.

Another pretended crime of his, is sedition, which is thus defined: Seditio est praeparatio ad impugnationem corporalem; A preparation to a bodily fight: now how did Mr. Wh: Sermon prepare for such a fight? He bids them indeed in the Apostles expression contend for the faith, &c. but he designes (as before we shewed) no parties. Or if he had, it was to a spirituall conflict, as he ex­plain'd himself, which respects not civill unity, or unitatem-Juris, as sedition doth, but Ecclesiastique; and so at the most it could be but schisme; and not that neither, unlesse his doctrine be proved contra utilitatem, and so be errour. Nay, that is not enough neither, unlesse it were in fundamentals, and so might be called heresie; for schisma alwayes sibi aliquam confingat haeresin, schisme is ever attended with heresie, in the opinion of the learned: nor is all this suffi­cient to bring it under the censure of the Church it self, unlesse it be per se [Page 21]intentum: for that which is per aceidens, no more in morals then in Naturals, can constitute a species, such as sacred Authority must proceed upon; as I said before of contempt, so of this, if it had been any thing it had rather been faction then sedition, and rather schisme then faction. Before my Author propound his reasons wherby he would fasten these crimes upon Mr. Wh: he wisely premises thus; saith he, p. 52. Such as would receive satisfaction may, if they will read that which follows, &c. carrying this along with them, that the acts, &c. He saith true in this, such as come prejudicate and presuming necessity of justice from N. E. may satisfie themselves in his Apology; but as for others, let them attend his descriptions, and it will appear they do as little fit Mr. Wh: practice as his examples. Seditiosus (saith he) est qui facit dissensionem animorum: good in it self, but applyed rudiori Minerva, if it be taken rightly, viz. Dissention in ordine ad civilem unitatem: lest sedition and schisme be confounded, and the word facit be so qualified as to exclude accidentall, occasionall, and perisiaticall action upon mens minds, it concerns not Mr. Wh: case, it being necessary too, (which I may adde) that it be not onely motu praevio, but concomitativo, which is most intrinsick, and of the formal reason of velleitie which must be supposed at the least in such a crime, his other descriptions, cum saevit populus, &c. and cum eunt alii in aliud, call for the same restrictions, and refer to the first.

He exemplifies to as little purpose, as in Demetrius his sedition, and Corah with his complices: this is much like his sub una & sub utraque, as little para­lell where he intends, Demetrius named the man, This Paul, &c. And so did Korah particularize, Mr. Wh: nothing so, he onely spake in thesi, the Hypothesis was their own, the application was theirs: My Author cannot make it appear their cases are alike, unlesse he resume his sublime Notion of Designiation to common intendments, &c. by which he might salve the Phaenomena; but we have tried that before.

That which he saith, viz. my Author, of Mr. Wh: vehemencie of spirit, and voyce in proclaiming them persecuters, and Antichristian, who walk the way of a cove­nant of works, it must be reckoned amongst his impertinences, seeing the degree doth not vary the kind; let him be as urgent as he pleaseth. Salvaratione fidei, sal­va specie, whilest he keeps within that universality against those which are Le­galists which he did and onely did, let me use my Authors main Argument, which we meet with presently. Put the case in a Reversed Frame, if my Au­thor had flamed in zeal never so much against Mr. Wh: Sermon, or some of the Opinionists, would he have admitted that as a topicke of Sedition? In such a particularization which is more then he can fix upon Mr. Wh: would not the equity of his cause have been his plea? Doth he not therefore rove a little in this discourse? if vehemencie of spirit and voice infer sedition, it will be dangerous [Page 22]to have good Lungs; let my Author take heed he intrench not upon his Divi­nity tenure, and inscribe that to crime which intitles him to the Pulpit. But Mr. Wh: his vehemencie made him not exorbitant, he mist not the cushiou, nor was he so fierce as my Author was when he said, Lye with him Devill, sleep with him Devill, &c. Mr. Wh: promoted a Covenant of grace by a spirituall prostration of its opposites. And this in generall too, this is all he did: what, Pretenders to so much charitie, Reformation, Christian liberty? &c. A new Heaven and a new Earth (as some said of them) and so, [...] celestiall, arraign, sen­tence, imprison, banish a man of their Church too? And as though this were not enough, Instare morienti to fame him an Heretique, Antinomian, seditious per­son, what not? and this in print, with all possible disgrace and diminution; and that after he had repented too (as is confessed) one upon whom he saith he would not reflect any thing, his meaning is, I suppose, that the rayes of his malice should fall directly upon Mr. Wh: and all this for so small a mat­ter? Tanta fallacia? &c. May I not retort, Tantaene animis coelestibus irae? His fol­lowing discourse is a Panegyrick of discretion, which he by his usuall clapping together of Scriptures magnifies the more, because he conceives it wanting in Mr. Wh. But how comes it in here under his title, viz. a Proof of Sedition and contempt? surely he doth not think that indiscretion involveth contempt. What doth this curious Impertinent mean? I should think that there were a secret and energeticall subsidence of all into this vice, and that in his opinion too, if he had not (as we before shewed) cleared Mr. Wh. from such offence. See how confused the man is, he would convict him of contempt, and yet vindicates him from indiscretion, as though that could be without this, what he means by discretion I know not. But. if it be that which is usually called spirituall discerning, my Author did use to annex it to the tribe, &c.

His last and main stratagem whereby he will prevail upon the most preju­dicate, and scrupulous spirits, is to put the case (as he saith) in a reversed frame, his words are these: p. 57. But if any shall yet pretend want of satisfaction, &c. put the case in a reversed frame if some others had taught it, &c. would not Mr. Wh: and, &c. have looked at themselves as intended? Yes surely, for a proper adjunct may designe a particular company, as well as names, as Judas by the sop. This is an ex­cellent devise: A conjecture what Mr. Wh: and the other partie would have said upon the like invective: I know not what they would have said, &c. nor do I know what to say to this his master-peece of putting the case, &c. unlesse I should put it into the case. Quid dignum tanto? &c. Shall we neglect it? No, the necessity of the times may call for it, it is the very distilled quintessence of his brain, his Catholicon. We will (if we can) squeeze some sense out of it, or at the least leave it in a capacitie; if it have any force for the present, we must [Page 23]pose our Author knows, per species concreat [...]: But I would not reflect upon him, (as he of Mr. Wh:) as though he had no more wit then he was born with: But what if he knew what they would say, shall their practise, or speech, which may (as they are men) proceed from passion direct yours? If they should take offence at a little forwardnesse, freenesse, and irrespectivenesse of discourse, and beat it out as you have done into sedition and contempt, shall that be your Apologie? Are a company of Familists, Libertines, &c. so authentick? If it must be so, let Mr. Wh: or some others send word what they would say, So a [...] cou [...] in N [...] and this great oration of my Authors, even tota haec Româ ruit cum viribus si [...]s: of all his coixcidences, impertinences, folecismes, fruitlesse and weak chullitions, this is the worst, for those may be acted upon, and refined by wit. But as for this, it may stand eternally before it can receive a good construction, all the colour, and ap­pearance of reason it can admit, must be expected in a message from New England, declaring what they would say, &c. My Author might do well, to compasse Seato make a Proselite, to go himself thither and procure an expresse, but I doubt he will not, his mind doth so run upon the sop: where I leave him; And in the mean time I leave this high strain of his, if the winds and seas favour in a possibilitie of being cloathed with a little kind of sense, or the best kind of non-sense: Alas! poore argument. The case in a reversed Frame might better have been kept in the case then dut into the Frame.

He concludes this discourse thus; That to lay those under a Covenant of works, who have suffered as much as himself, savours not of a brotherly spirit, p. 58. This can be looked at no otherwayes then as an impertinence too, if the Apostle speak truth: If I give my body to be burnt, &c. I do not ingage my self in the dis­pute, &c. onely I say utcunque his conclusion is not conclusive: he makes had premises, and worse conclusion.

Seeing these things are so, that there is so little ground for these pretend­ed crimes, seeing there can be no contempt found in Mr. Wh: Sermon, we will rather impute the undeserved censures to some other cause then to the meet malice of the Court, which some uncharitably do.

Whether it were a strong imagination of the then Deputy upon Mr. Wh: which by the power annexed to phansie produced some contemptuous beha­viour in him while he was before them?

Or whether it were that he, viz. the Deputy, being then occasionally in contemplation of contempt, and presuming of the infallibility of his science, being (as he thought it) not simplicis intelligentiae (which is more like­ly) but visionis, which in that reason must have aliquid externum de facto repre­sentative of it, thereupon pitched on contempt, as Mr. Wh: delinquencie.

Or whether it were (which is probable, in the despicablenesse of the State, [Page 24]and especially of the then Deputie, late Governor, and in regard of the affecti­on of the people, and that deservedly) to that worthy gentleman then Gover­nour, Sir Hen: Vain, unlikely to return into that preferment speedily; I say, whether in regard of his condition, his melancholy temper, seconded, as obser­ved, by a sullen constellation then predominant, he did absolutely determine he was contemned, some way, or other, and so cum nemini obtrudi potuit, he char­ged it upon Mr. Wh: And so sedition, by way of concomitance; Sedition and con­tempt being twins, as he used to say; howsoever Mr. Wh: was sentenced guilty of the faults, and thereupon banisht, imprisoned first: upon request indeed dis­missed to his family, not to stay though above twelve dayes upon pain of strict­est censure, although in a remote place, where they could not fear any effect from the pretended vices, &c. And although in so cold a season of the yeer, wherein I think, had he had the very extracted spirits of sedition, and contempt, they would have been frozen up, and indisposd for Action.

Thus saith my Author, p. 43. it pleased the Lord to hear his poore people, whose souls had wept in secret, for the reproach, &c. I desire to know of Mr. Welds what he means by pleasing of the Lord? whether ratione voluntatis Determinantis, vel determinatae? In the mean while, let the Reader judge whether he have not cause to weep not onely in secret, but openly for the reproaches which he hath cast upon some. He goes on thus: It is the Lords doings, and it is marvellous in our eyes. Mr. Wh. is gone to Pascal, &c. what then? it was neither contrà, nor praeter, nor suprà naturam, for Mr. Wh: to go to Pascal: where is the wonder? I confesse it was marvellous he got thither at that time, when they expelled him, by reason of the deep snow in which he might have perished. Whether my Author profane not Scripture in this, I will refer it to those whom in the same page he speaks of, viz. his dear and beloved Brethren.