A LETTER TO Mr RICHARD BAXTER Occasioned by several injurious Reflections of His upon a Treatise entitled. Justificatio Paulina.  
For the better Information of his weak or Credulous Readers.  
By THOMAS TULLY D. D.  
Prov. 18. 17. He that is first in his own Cause seemeth Just: but his neighbour cometh and SEARCHETH Him.  
OXFORD. Printed by Hen. Hall: for John Wilmot, Ann. D. 1675.   

Mr BAXTER,  
I have lately from three several public messengers of yours (the later treading still upon the heels of the former) received your expected Salutations: all of them much resembling Ahimaaz, both for the swiftness of their pace, and that they had nothing to say when 
2. Sam. 18. 19  they came. The two first indeed approached me as if they had a mind to lie Incognitoes, for they took up their lodgings where none would inquire for them; the one in a little corner of a Preface to Mr Danvers, the other in the wide open field of your Catholic Theology, where yet he stood placed so cunningly, that a man might traverse about three parts of that large Champion, before he could gain the Satisfaction to see him. Your 3d. is of a freer Conversation, 
Preface to two Disput. about Orig. Sin.  and though He brought the face of war with him, and seemed to threaten much, yet I found him civil and good natured, and he went off fairly without doing any harm. In your Preface to Mr. Danvers, I am beholding to you for the trouble you have saved me of transcribing that very little I have of your new Original Sin. uz: Vnum vero praetereundum non censeo etc. p. 2. only I beg your leave to English it for the sake of your un-latine Readers, and thus it sounds. One thing I judge ought not to be waved, which is a novelty amongst the newest (though it may seem a little more remote from the Argument before Us.) that the Prefacer (I know not by what fortunate Mercury) has found Us another Original Sin of a much later Date then that which claims from Adam. O blind Divines who ever went before! This is my charge, and the whole of it to a word, which I entreat the Reader (for his better satisfaction) to keep carefully in his mind.  
Now, Sir, that I do not prevaricate or misreport you in a syllable, yourself I doubt not will be my Compurgator in your PREFACE to a Treatise of another man's concerning the nature, Ends, and Difference of the two Covenants. Your words are these, most writers, if not most Christians, do greatly darken the sacred Doctrine by overlooking the Interest of children in the Actions of their nearer Parents, and think they participate of no Gild, and suffer for NO ORIGINAL SIN but ADAM'S ONLY. Any that is not blind (and understands the langauge) may see I fasten upon the last clause alone, the new Original SIN, I meddle with no other INTERESTS of Children; this is the All of my charge, A new or (as you pleasantly call it) a SECONDARY Original Sin, that is, a secondary first of All.  
Now let us compare your Answer, which in the same Preface is clearly to this effect, that I charge you only for holding some guilt of children in their nearer Parents sins. For although in the close of that period you shuffle in your secondary Original Sin, that comes in but by the By, not as any words of mine but as an Ex abundanti, a private whisper of your own, where it would not by All be so easily minded as any Part, much less as the whole of my Charge.  
I appeal now to yourself, whether this was done as a fair ingenuous Antagonist, or to use your own words, as an Impartial Friend of sacred 
Dedic. before the Pref of Orig. Sin.  Truth who is above the Dominion of Carnal Interest, faction, and false prejudice; and is cured of the malady of praesidence, hasty Judging etc. Will any unbyass'd Reader think you have done me right here, and not rather be tempted to believe you sought a Quarrel? you should have proved that some before yourself had owned another Original Sin, and that under the very terms (for I do not desire you should give yourself the trouble to make any Consequences for my use) instead of which you present me with some Interest of children in their Parents Sins, which neither I nor any Body Else I know off denies as to the thing, though as to the Extent and other circumstances all are not agreed, and you may in that enjoy your Opinion for me. Sir, Austin has a sharp rebuke for him, qui verba supprimit quaestionis, and bids us have an eye to him, but I forbear.  
You go on there to tell your Reader (I would hope not to expose my Ignorance) I know not your new Original Sin was Augustine's judgement, and many other ancient and modern writers: wherein you have done me but right, for indeed I did not know it, and despair I ever shall; but more of that anon.  
You might have spared your objecting the Litany against me with its flourish, that I am less for it then you, which is another piece of news to me. I admire the mystery so much the more for the notable proof you have annexed to persuade me and others to believe it, viz: because you pray hearty, Remember not Lord our offences etc. Good Sir what would you have me to subsume? I can find nothing but this hard chapter; that I am not so happy as to pray so hearty etc. Ergo you are more for the Litany then I. Who will be able to stand before you, if you fight with such weapons as these? I have heard of some weak or unquiet men, whose fancies or ferments have found in this passage of the Litany a way to Purgatory, but never any till now that discovered by it the Nova Atlantis of a new Original Sin. Why was I not as well attaqu'd with the second Commandment? what need of going any farther?  
In the close of the same 
* To Mr Danvers.  Preface you promise us fuller satisfaction to both these points, Justification by works, and the Secondary Original Sin. Truly, Sir, I crave your pardon, if I think your fullest Satisfaction would be a full entire Retractation of both; of the latter, as you give it the new stamp of another Original Sin; farther I am not engaged at present against it. 'Tis a pity but those good words of yours should be turned into Real Actions, where you profess 
Appeal to the Light. p. 4.  your readiness to buy the Truth at a dearer Rate than the Recantation of your Error. O for more Augustine's, more Exemplars of that admirable modesty, which enamell'd all the Gold in his other excellent writings: more of that generous Love to sacred Truth, which should make us lay all our poor concerns and reputations at its feet, and value one Euge of a good Conscience above all the shouts and acclamations of a Triumph. But alas, Sir, how faintly such heroic selfe-abasements are to be expected yourself have taught us in remarkeaable words.  
I like them so well, that I hope the Reader will not think them unworthy my transcribing. If (say you) you have a Friend that errs, whose recovery you desire, be sure you writ not a Confutation 
Disput. 5. of Right to sacraments. p. 481. 482.  of his Errors, for ordinarily that's the way to fasten them in him, and to make him worse. Some will think this is a hard Censure to pass upon learned Godly Men. But there's no reasoning against Common unquestionable Experience. Of all the Cartloads of Controversial writings that swarm in the world how many can you name that convinced the Antagonist, and brought him to a Recantation? And anon, Assoon as you speak to men in the hearing of the World, they presently apprehend their Reputation to be so engaged, that they are excited to defend it with all their might, and instead of an impartial Consideration of your Arguments, and a ready Entertainment of the Truth, they bend their Wits to study how to make good what once they delivered, THAT THE WORLD MAY NOT THINK THEM SO WEAK AS TO HAVE MISTAKEN. Nay, they who do PROFESS TO LOVE THE TRUTH as Truth, yet this SELF is so near them and so potent with them etc. Words full of truth with the sad experience of all Ages to confirm them: and you that have given us the Adviso have a particular obligation to observe them punctually for yourself upon all occasions. But, Sir, to deal plainly and Christianly with you, 'Tis not only my own fear, but of divers knowing persons, who pretend (at least) to be your very Friends, and to have a fair Respect for your Parts and sincerity, that you fall too near the reach of the description, you here give of others. I have a particular reason to fear it. A great Outcry you have made of Me, as chargeing you with things you have retracted; which, if true, I hope is no inexcusable crime on my part, for I'm sure it will amount to no more than a fault of unwillfull Ignorance. I knew not it was my duty to read all the books your fruitful pen has brought into the world, much less to look for Retractations, where I had no Encouragement to Expect, nor any Inscription of your numerous Treatises hinted the least promise of so noble a self-denial; and let me assure you I have not been negligent in my Inquiries of those that might know better than myself, what you have retracted: All I have met with profess to be as ignorant as myself of this. Your very late Preface to the Discourse of the two Covenants shows us little of Retractation.  
And to come closer to you, if I have wronged you in this matter (as you always charge me) what's the reason you have not hitherto directed us to the particulars of your Recantation, what, when, where? but throw a general roving Accusation against me without offer of proof. You direct me indeed to a small Book above twenty years ago (as you say) retracted, Preface to the two disput. of Orig. Sin, p. 44. I suppose you mean your Aphorisms (the most scholarlike and elaborate (though erroneous) Book in Controversy you ever composed, excepting its numerous Oracular Dictates) and thence Appeal especially to your Disputations about Justification, and some others. But truly, Sir, I cannot trudge up and down to every place you would send me, my legs at present are too weak. Had you a mind to satisfy your Reader, what would it have cost you to save him a labour with one point of your finger to the particular places? All I can pick up of any seeming Retractation (where I have happened to be) is that you some where say (after your wary deliberate manner) that works are necessary AT LEAST to the Continuation of Our justification. But, Sir, AT LEST sounds no alteration of Judgement but an Haesitation, or suspension at most: nor have you me for your Antagonist in that (sano sensu) in the known Reformed notion. Our Question, Sir, with your good leave (disguise and darken it as you please) is not what is necessary to the justified Person, or to the continuance of his Justification, but what to the primary Justification its self, in which if you disclaim your Works, the Controversy will shrink into a narrow point, and then you may in time be obliged to unravel all your entangled Threads of Justification again, & come to the Penance of speaking as your Neighbours do.  
Only you cannot blame me if I wish you would go about your farther explanations to some better purpose than hitherto you have done, that you would not raise clamours of being grossly misreported by me, for I doubt all the gross Misreports will come to some other door at last, that you would make good your smooth suffestion, that such Teachers as oppose you think that Agreeing Men (in 
P. 7.  these points) are not agreed: In short that in a few plain undisguised words, you would let us know where We are agreed, and where not, and deliver your Reader from the Jealousy you have raised that there is no such Agreement. So that if the fear be just and true He may not be surprised; if false he may give it over. Si verus, Ne opprimar, sin falsus ut tandem aliquando timere desinam. 
Cic. in Catil.   
I have done with your first Attack, and proceed to the next in your CATHOLIC THEOLOGY, fol. 255. There it seems you are pleased again not only to arraign and condemn me for my Doctrine, but to put me also in the Cubb with divers mean and contemptible Malefactors, such as wild Saltmarsh, P. Hobson, and the Marrow of modern Divinity, whose Author (out of great kindness no doubt to some body) you industriously tell us in the margin, is reported to have been an honest Barber; a note which many think you might have spared as well as any that ever traded so busily in Controversies of Religion; Thus you think fit to mark out my poor name to Posterity.  
But, good Sir, one word with you before we go off from this suggestion so full of Truth and Civility. Had you no other names in your memory, had you not many scores of greatest Eminence and repute in the Christian World of the same Judgement with me, that you could find no better Fellows for me then such as these? Know you not I speak the same thing with all the Reformed Churches (where they have occasion) and generally with all the Old Reformed Writers? This sure would be too gross an Imputation of Ignorance to a Person of your Parts, Fame, Industry and Reading. Do you know it? Then you have made me Reparation enough by joining me in that very scandalous Reflection with such numerous Worthies as those. For shame let it be no longer Dr. Tully, Saltmarsh, etc. But the Church of England with all the rest of the Reformed, and their several old renowned Writers; these be your Hobson's, your Saltmarshes, and your Barber-Scriblers. I am hearty sorry you have forced me to be so plain with you; had not such names and so many of them been embarked with mine in that odious Insinuation I could have turned it into mere Divertisement (for otherwise it could deserve no farther notice) But as it is you may well allow me to question by what Spirit you thrust that Paragraph into your Book, and to believe no protestation Contra Factum.  
I must not wave the Character you there give your Readers of me and the Honest Barber etc. viz. where you admonish them that such Writers in their learned network Treatises (being wise or Orthodox overmuch, entangled and confounded by incongruous notions of man's Invention) are liker to entangle and confound etc. What learned Network Treatises some of those names were ever guilty off, or what fowl they caught by their Network but Widgeons etc. I know not. But let any man seriously peruse your own controversial writings in these points, and 'tis not improbable but (as in Anselm's dream) he will find all overspread with Nets, so many Wind in and out, off and on, this way and that way, such clouds of Novel Distinctions, Preambles, Limitations, etc. such wheelings and lines of Circumvallation at a modest distance about the Quaestion, and faint uncertain Approaches to it, that to my knowledge divers who wish you well have sadly complained of it, and professed your fuller Explanations (as you call them) have but bewildered them more, and sent them away with less satisfaction than they came unto them. You will not, I hope, account me your Enemy for telling you the truth, and yet, so I may do you good, pass what judgement of me you please, it matters little.  
And now, Sir, to your large PREFACE before your Disput. of Original Sin, all which you have frankly bestowed on me, but with such an unfortunate mistake, we are neither of us the better for it, I have no profit, and you no credit by it. For though you charitably intent something for my satisfaction, 'tis all lost in your speaking nothing to the Question. You may remember, Sir, (what stands visible to every eye) that I charged you only with your new Original Sin, underiv'd from Adam, unknown, unheard off before in the Christian World, and which therefore I thought well deserved the Exclamation, which so pains you, O caecos aniè Theologos etc. To this your Preface has not one word to the purpose, nothing in all your quotations, that I laid to your charge, of which more anon.  
But because you give us Preface upon Preface, a medley of things that have no great cohaerence with your main design (to smooth, I suppose, your way to some of your more Innocent, but eredulous Readers) I must attend your Motions. 
P. 3.   
And first of all I cannot but approve your Note concerning Good Intentions, that They will not Justify our Errors, and that by our bold hasty Judgeing of those things We never well digested, or understood; we do but bring Ourselves into a suspicion, Our Understandings are none of the largest size, or plainly to that affect. Only your Remark in my Judgement had been more complete with the Addition of that rational sentence in the Law, Magna Negligentia est lata Culpa. Our haste when Wilful and Excessive, may justly bring Our Morals into quaestion too. For wilful ignorance has ever been accounted somewhat more than a fault of the mind and Understanding.  
Now, Sir, can you endure a little plain dealing from a friendly Antagonist? Do you think your good Admonition has no Aspect upon yourself? would God it looked not so full upon you. I appeal to your own Conscience (as well as the Readers judgement) whether of us two be deeper in the Gild of bold and hasty judging; you that in your single leekie Brigandine dare set forth with so high a sail against wind and tide to brave all the Reformed Churches etc. Or I who content myself to cast my Anchor by theirs upon the Faith and Doctrine which was once delivered to the Saints, trembling at a thought of exalting myself above so many Worthies at whose feet it would more become you and me to sit with Reverence, than to be thus Pelting at their Heads, and dragging them by the hoary hairs, as a spectacle and a Byword to all, You know, Sir, (at least give others leave to think they do) what Armies, of what Strength and Quality appear in these Battles against you, and that through such poor Names as mine, you defy and wound them, you may hear more anon.  
I see therefore no cause as yet to repent me of calling (as you say) to the Academical Youth (to All indeed) that, as they love the knowledge of the Truth, they take You not for an Oracle in your bold dividing singularities. I bless God I can with a clear Conscience call upon them again and again to do so.  
Next you fall upon that obvious popular Topick of each Parties bidding their Fellows beware of the other, Papists, Protestants, Lutherans, Calvinists 
p. 5. 6.  etc. Of which the natural Inference must be this, Ergo my Admonition (or any other man's of the like nature) concerning Yourself is not to be heeded. Might not the false Teachers in the Church's Infancy have used the same Plea for themselves to the many Caveats put in against them by the Apostles? Or were those Caveats to be blasted as Phantasms or Melancholies (in your own Courteous 
p. 51.  Phrase) Or were the faithful Admonitors to withdraw their good Counsels upon Fear that such a roving Topick should be brought against Them? nay does any man practice what you here condemn more than Yourself? As particularly You have lately treated me in your forementioned Catholic Theology, where you expressly dissuade your Readers to be instructed by Me, or Saltmarsh etc. lest they be led into Error, Truly, Sir, I wonder what opinion you have of the Age you live in (for Vetera praeter ierunt) to think such little wiggles and Evasions will pass for rational Discourse, nay that even your frequent Self-oppositions, though in the open view and light of the Sun, shall slink away unobserved.  
You say well p. 5. that it is not the part of a good man to set Churches together by the Ears, and to make People believe they differ where they do not. If this be designed (as no doubt it is) for the Teachers of Justification by Faith without works, I pray what Churches are by this Doctrine set by the Ears together? not the Reformed sure, for, as I have showed you elsewhere, they are of one lip and doubtless of one Heart too in the Point, with both against your own makebate Novelties. What other Societies of men you can take in, except Papists, Socinians, or of late the Quakers, I understand not. And would you have us yield up the great Truths of the Gospel for fear of offending such Churchshipps as these? In the mean time, Sir, You may do well to Consider who began the Fray, and how much easier 'tis to begin one, than to end it. Next you proceed to some grave Advice commended to our Acceptation from the Test of much, and so much Experience of your own, and that in effect is not to conclude difference in Doctrine from different Terms, Orders or Methods of Expression, digesting of Conceptions etc. and withal give us timely notice you are resolved to the utmost of your skill and opportunity to 〈◊〉 them that think a different name or method is a different Doctrine. And 'tis a very Charitable undertaking where ever such sad creatures can be found, who know not the Some Thing may be expressed in Different Names or Languages.  
But I pray, Sir, let's fall a little closer to our Business, speak in good sadness: would you not have your friends with the Glib swallow conclude upon this Admonition, that all the Difference betwixt you and me (or others of the same judgement) in the point of Justification is merely Verbal, nothing but a strife about Words and Forms of Expression, and that in the Main we are agreed? 'Tis clear enough, I think, you would: But not so fast, Sir, my weak legs cannot hear your company at this rate. What? Perfect Contradictions no more than a Difference in words? Faith alone, and no Faith alone, Faith with, and without works, one and the same thing? Excuse our dulness here. I see it is not for (nothing that to an Objection against your Doctrine as Popist, you return this Heroic Answer, FRIGHTEN NOT ME WITH THE NAME OF PAPIST, when I speak the Truth. It seems you would be taken for a stout Protestant, and so you are. All no doubt in the Point before Us is a mere Logomachy, with which no Man of Mettle ought now to be frighted, though Our White-livered Progenitors in the Reformed Churches durst not take the note so high.  
Sir, you have taught me to guests What Answer you would return to This: which very likely would be to this effect. What? would you have me frighted from owning a Truth because a Papist owns it too? Then I must not believe there is a God or a Jesus &c. (and so on for two or three pages together) 
* Pref. p. 52.  Is this Doctrine fit for an Academical Doctor, and a Master of a literate society? And having run on a while so pertinently and withal so modestly then woe to some. Sir, most if not all the Differences betwixt Us and the Romish Church were ever held (with your good leave) by as wise and learned Protestants as ever you or I are like to be for more than Trifling of words, and above all in the Article of Justification, which you seem to place amongst your Logomachies, or Logical notions. Let any discerning Reader compare the 48. Sect. of this Preface with the words in p. 5. of your Appeal to the Light, and 'tis likely he will concur with me (let him be never so Airy) in that Melancholy Phantasm or Fear. For 'tis worth the noting how in that dark Appeal, where you distinguish of Popish points; i e. some where the Difference is irreconcilable, others in effect but in words; We have no direction upon which Rank we must bestow Justification, nothing of it at all from you, Name or Thing. But why, next to the alseeing God, you should know best yourself.  
Sir, pile one Distinction or Evasion upon another as long as you please, as many several Faiths, and works, and Justifications as you can name, all this will never make the two Poles meet, your Doctrine I mean of Justification with that of the Reformed Churches. But seeing you are so busy in turning Our greatest Controversies with the Papists &c. into a childish Contest of words; to undeceive some of your Readers, who dream of no harm from such a Name as yours (but in the simplicity of their hearts go along wherever you lead them) we must give it a little farther Examination. And a little will serve the turn.  
Words, Sir, as they are enfranchised into Language, are but the Agents and Factors of Things, for which they continually negotiate with our minds, conveying errands upon all occasions from one soul to another. Whence it follows that their Use and signification is unalterable, but by the stamp of the like public Usage and Imposition from whence at first they received their being, and therefore (if I may here accommodate the holy phrase) of no private Interpretation. What all others call a Tree you must not call a Stone, and pretend the difference is but in a name or Words. For although the same thing may be sufficiently represented by different words, 'tis only when they are synonymous and agreeing in sense; It cannot be otherwise, no more than a Stone can be represented to the eye by the Image of a Tree. Now as keeping close to t●is common Usage of words is necessary in all affairs of humane life, 'tis so especially in the concerns of Faith and Religion. 'Tis not sure for nothing that Paul advised Timothy to hold fast the FORM of sound words, non solùm quoad substantiam, sed 
2. Tim. 1. 13.  quoad ipsam orationis figuram saith Calvin. For (as the wise and learned Melanchton has minded 
Praefat. in Luth. Op. Tom. ●.  us well) Amissâ verborum proprietate, quae rerum notae sunt, alias confingi res necesse est. That is, when once we lay aside the propriety of words, which are the notes or Symbols of things, We pass undoubtedly to the minting of new Things themselves. The old Primitive Doctors and Churches were sufficiently ware of this, and therefore would not dispense with the Intrusion of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (much less of one novel word) in any Article or head of Faith, where Custom and the Usage of the Church had authorised another. And this they did upon the great and cogent reason Melanchton gave us but now, uz. because they were not to learn that such as thought with the Church, would be content to speak as she did, and that the Contrary Practice never boded good to the Unity, Peace, and Doctrine betrusted to her care: Of which I think we of this Age have had Instances enough amongst ourselves to our cost: so that (to return your kindness) It is not the part of a Good man to set 
● 7.  Churches by the Ears together, and to make Our silly Credulous Admirers believe that the Vast gulf which was ever fixed between Us and the several branded Corrupters of the Truth is now so near upon the close that if a man do but go back a little to take his feeze, he may easily jump over it. Nor is it the part of a wise Teacher to think himself, that Men are agreed, where every eye may see them dealing blows and Deaths about.  
As for the Difference of Method, Ordering, Digesting and expressing our Conceptions (of which you seem to make little account in Comparison) I know not yet how far you may stretch your Order and Method of conceptions; whether you speak of that order which is no more than a beauty, or Circumstance; or would draw it out to All indefinitely, and so leave nothing but deformity and Confusion. A child may be born with all the parts and limbs of a perfect man, yet if not placed in their rank and Order may be a prodigious Monster: and a Book may want ne'er a letter of the Alphabet (and all repeated many thousand times over) yet not contain a word either of sense or Language for want of Order.  
Thus Papists and Protestants are agreed about the necessity of good works, yet the difference is much wider than you seem to make it, because both do not rank that necessity alike; the one stretching it to the first Justification, the other not, but confining it to it's proper Rank and Province of Inhaerent holiness, where it ought to keep. So that upon so crude and general an Admonition about different Names, Words, Orders, and ways of Expression, your weaker Readers had need beware that instead of instructing you do not entangle and confound them.  
Next, Sir, you are pleased to turn something out of your way to a pleasant Discourse about Melancholy and its ill effects, perhaps to drive the pernicious humour from all your Readers by your odd introduction of it there (with its handsome Attendants) as Heraclitus was cured of his, pro tempore, by a not extremely differing Rencontre.  
I have now done with that part of your Preface, which you have wasted upon your Secondary Orig. Sin.  
But you have one word with me more, and I'm glad it is but one, for such sad work as this might afflict a more Athletique constitution than mine; and in earnest I somewhat wonder how you held out with it yourself, it must needs make any man sick at the heart.  
And now the heavens are on a sudden all covered with black; a storm is coming, to which the former was but a brisk musical gale. Let's look to our tackling.  
In my Justif. Paulina, I had made two civil requests to you, the one Probè te excutias, that you would well examine and sift yourself before 
Cap. 11.  God and your own conscience, whom you especially design by that ONE Person, who alone (upon supposal of difference) is to be followed before all Dissenters in the matter of Justification, according to your 42. Direct. for the Cure of Church Divisions. My other suit is in these words, Diligentiùs apud se perpenderet etc. That you would diligently consider the great Affinity your Justification has contracted with the Popish.  
Now let the Reader well observe how you manage this part of the Battle; and thence take his measures of your skill and dexterity in Controversal Engagements. Let him take notice first where and how you begin, with a mere catch at the word [Diligence] to let us know what a hard Student you have been in your time. 
p. 44.  Your Call for Diligence (say you) tells me you know me not, who have little spared for labour these 37. years, and I am now unfit for increased diligence; and this is all we have to that Concern.  
I pray, Sir, did I ever tax you (directly or indirectly) with sloth in your Studies? and yet do not you suggest unto your Reader I do? And shall we call this Sincerity? my desire was you would take your Balance and weigh more diligently, that so you might see the very small odds betwixt your Justification and the Council of Trents; for to me neither of them turns the scale upon the other: I spoke of no pains or labour, but only a more diligent Consideration.  
For give me leave, Sir, by the by to mind you, that much reading and tumbling of Books contains not all the necessary ingredients of an useful Scholar, no more than the thrusting down of meat in abundance to the Stomach makes a strong or healthful Body. If we will have good blood and nutriment, strong Nerves and bones for action, after the best choice of our meat, we must allow nature her due periods of Concoction, otherwise all will be but unperfect or hurtful chyle. 'Tis Meditation, Sir, which is the Stomach of the mind, weighing, sifting, and reflecting upon what we read: in which if there happen to be an error, either in point of diligence, or judgement (as too often there does) no after-concoction will make amends; All will be Crudity and Contagion still.  
But now (if you please) to our business of Justification (for you know well enough my words refer only to that) you say you will not summon me before God, or Conscience, but what will the world think of my dealing, to bait, and that by gross MISREPORTS, a small Book, above twenty years RETRACTED.  
Sir, I gave you no Summons, but a Friendly Admonition (as all the world may see) and I here do it again. I have MISREPORTED you in nothing, much less GROSSLY (let your friends themselves be Judges) I know of no RETRACTATION you have made to this day, notwithstanding all my diligent inquiries of Persons that are well acquainted with you: no one Book under that title (which yet would have been no disgrace to so good a work) no talk of RETRACTATIONS till I had printed my Book, and that only from yourself, no direction from you either what you have retracted, or where we may find it since; which is yet the more amazing, because in your first complaint of this matter, p. 4. you tell us of about SIXTY Books of Retractations (in part at least) you have writ, and blame me for passing them All by without observation: I envy not the readiness and faecundity of your Pen; but you seem a Pretender to Cryptography in writing what few Eyes (if any) besides your own can read. Well, when we see these famed Retractations, we shall take our measures accordingly.  
But, Sir, for your Own, your Readers, and the Truth's sake, I beseech you take care we have no Retractation of those yet invisible Retractations, and that you no where contradict yourself.  
Sir, the world will expect some clearer and more ingenuous satisfaction from you (at this time of the day) then to be wheadled with bare Talk, and complaints of gross MISREPORTS, where none at all appears. And truly, Sir, I give you this Admonition as a Friend, for otherwise I needed not.  
Next you surprise me with a pretty Quaestion, why I turn a Logical case of Defining into a Theological de Re, and we hear of this new quirk 
p. 45.  of Defining from you more than once, and 'tis All your own fruitful Invention, Justitia Christi Imputata is one thing (say you) and the Definition of Justice or imputation is another. Of Justice, or Imputation! I take [OR] Sir, to be a Disjunctive, not a Copulative, and so 'tis a plain Fallacy of Division, which any young Logick-Smatterer would tell you. Who knows not that the wall is one thing, and the whiteness of it another, and so must have their Definitions apart; but, good Sir, is the Definition of a white wall another thing from a white wall? then it is no good Definition, and our Plea now is not about false Definitions, but what are supposed (at least) to be True; about Definitions indefinitely, for there lies your Novel Instruction.  
Justice, Sir, is one thing, and the Imputation of it another. but Imputed Justice cannot differ from its true Definition, unless you will have it to differ really from its self. Here than we have a transparent Fallacy.  
You go on, and ask me if in good earnest I am desirous to know whom you mean, and there you stop. Your question is imperfect and speaks out no sense. Mine is plainly this, whom you mean by that 
p. 45.  ONE Rare Person, whose single Judgement is (upon Difference) to be preferred, in the Point of Justification, and to whom; Quem quibus in Doctrina Justificationis anteponat. You need not doubt but that I am in earnest here, for I am ambitious of his Acquaintance. Now let's attend your Answer (and I earnestly desire the Reader to observe it throughout.)  
Why, first Pagnine, Buxtorf etc. are very good Hebraicians, Dr. Pocock is good for the Arabic (He is so to a great Eminence in that, and many Languages (with store of other good learning) besides, to say nothing of his rare Christian virtues, the Crown of all.) Dr. Wallis for a Geometrician, (and so he is in many singular endowments and abilities besides) Dr. Willis in Physic, and so on. These, and such like Excellent men, are to be preferred in their way, before such as never studied those sciences (a slender commendation for so eminent and worthy Persons!) A whole Page and a half consumed in this ramble. But now at last you will fall to the point, and tell me their names, who are better Definers of Justification, Faith, and Imputation, and have delivered us far more judicious, and digested thoughts of 
P. 47.  these things than myself. Indeed! your servant, was that ever any Question of mine! And is this all you have to say in the matter, and in the audience of the world too? not one syllable more. To save you farther labour, I yield to all the worthy persons you have named (excepting only your own Disciples) I am not worthy to be compared with them. I desire no man (young or old) to prefer me before my Betters, lest of all when I am singular, and walk alone.  
But, Sir, with your favour, this will not do your work; we must have some other account of, quem quibus, than what you have given us yet. I shall take leave to present our indifferent Readers with a more ingenuous, and truer state of the Question, far more suitable both to my plain meaning, and the clear purport of your own direction. Let the case be this. There is ONE, who of late has raised much dust amongst us about the grand article of Justification, whether it be by Faith without works, or by Faith and WORKS too. All our old renowned Divines on this side, and beyond the seas, are unanimously agreed that Justification is by Faith alone, i. e. without Works. This ONE Person has often published his Judgement to the contrary. The matter is of very great concern by the confession of both. So that a poor Academical Doctor may very rationally inquire of you, who in this case is to be preferred; That ONE, or those Many. If that ONE, than I am all most brought to the Person I sought for; and why should he be so bashful to be willingly concealed? nay, why so injurious to the Public? 'Tis true it would be some small reflection upon those innumerable worthies who have gone before him, such as our Jewel, Rainolds, Abbot, White, Field, Whitaker, Perkins, Andrews, Davenant, etc.  
But Truth is Truth still, and men must not be over modest in its cause, and why may not ONE Lynceus, that can see through a stone wall, discover more than a thousand that cannot? But now 
* See Mr Baxters Direct. 〈◊〉.  if I am not to go along with him, than I am left still to herd it with the illiterate Rulers and Majority: and if this be my duty, why should not that ONE encourage me by his Example? nay suppose he is upon all occasions (as openly as he yet thinks fit) persuading me, that they are more worthy to be directed by him then he by them. To some such case as this, Sir, I expected your Answer, and not a needless insignificant scorn of my poor endeavours in the cause of so great a Truth.  
There remains yet one small sub-question, and then I am quit at present from the tediousest task I ever yet undertook. You desire me to tell you, whether I differ from you in the rule of counsel, which you there gave your ignorant people or no.  
Sir, our young men in the University call this a Fallacy of several questions in one. Your direction is built of various materials and several appartiments, some of which I like well enough, others not. I am only concerned (as the blind may see) about your matters of high and difficult speculation in the close of your direction, wherein you would have that ONE man to be preferred before all the rest. Amongst those in the Application of your rule you place the Definition of Justification (i. e. undeniably (for all your mincing) the Thing itself).  
Now, Sir, without any rovings, wheelings, or evasions I give you this plain Categorical answer, that I exceedingly differ from you, and that upon these two Accounts:  
1. Because I neither hold the Doctrine of Justification to be properly of speculative concern, but wholly practical: nor 2. Do I think it to be so full of difficulty, as your very discouraging suggestion to your ignorant People imparts.  
No matter of Speculation: For though in all Practical knowledge there be some antecedent contemplation of the nature and properties of the End, or Object, yet 'tis the End and scope alone, which gives the distinct and proper denomination. In Ethics our scholars are taught the natures of moral acts, virtues, and felicity its self; yet we instruct them also that moral Philosophy is a practical, not a speculative science, and that all they know of these matters is to be referred and applied unto the great practical End, how they may be morally happy, as the Philosopher tells us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if he did not, all, that have but the ordinary use of reason, cannot choose but know. Hence it follows, that Justification being at least the first step in order to Eternal Happiness, the knowledge of this is no more of speculative concern, then for a man to know his way home, especially when there is but One way, and if that be mistaken he is in extremest danger of perishing in the way wherein he goes. Indeed to know the certain number of the steps or paces between is a speculative nicety, but to know his way thither, I am of opinion that every man who has a home believes it to be another thing; ask who comes next. We never enter into the way of life till we are Justified, nor can we be Justified but in the way and method of Gods own appointment. All other ways do but lead us from our home.  
Nor 2. Is the Doctrine of Justification so high and difficult, but that the meanest christian may understand it sufficiently to Salvation, so far as words can make it intelligible. And you have done little service to your weaker christian (as well as to the great blessed charter of Salvation) to persuade them otherwise, and to lead them out of the plain road into woods and mazes, to that ONE Man of Extraordinary Judgement and clearness; no body must know what's his name, or where he dwells; and so to whirl them about, till you have made them so giddy, they know not whither to go.  
Sir, I understand something at these years (without your Tutorage) of the duty both of Pastors and People. But I know not what you mean to make the way to heaven (revealed sufficiently to all, and wherein all are so much conoerned) to be a matter of high abstruse speculation, as if none but great scholars, and men of extraordinary Judgement could by the right use of the Scriptures, and other ordinary common means, be able to find it out, till they have met with that Elias who is to solve all doubts; though here (blessed be God) there is no doubt at all, whatever you have ill suggested to the contrary. The earth may send up clouds enough to darken the noonday sun, but this does not hinder that glorious Creature to be still both the Fountain of Light, and the most visible of bodies. The Fancies, wits, Passions, and Interests of sinful men may put strange colours upon the face of the clearest and most important truth, but when the paint is brought to the fire, it melts off in a moment, to the just reproach of such as daubed it on.  
But, Sir, (to deal a little more freely with you) I cannot well swallow down in the lump what you would have me and others to do, when you direct us to prefer that ONE man before the Rulers and Majority of Votes, till you acquaint us who that Gentleman is, and what sort of Rulers and Majorities you mean.  
And first for the single Person (that Monarch in Divinity) to whom we are upon differences to make our Appeals, I beseech you, Sir, how shall your Ignorant or weaker Christian be able to Judge of fitness? If you think he may. I know no reason he should be disgraced for an Ignorant. He had need to have a very competent measure of abilities himself, who is to give his verdict of another's, even so far as to make him his super-Doctor of the Chair. Or must he take all upon trust from that One man's Fancy of himself, or from others that by many secret invisible Arts may be easily induced to cry him up? But this is to make him a mere Tool, and to turn his discerning faculty into a mechanism of blind Obedience. Perhaps he may be no such Unused è multis, a person, in the judgement of the most knowing and sober men, of no more than ordinary parts, learning, or virtues, in all much exceeded by others, save in the din of his name. He than cannot be your man, for that seems to be against your own hypothesis.  
Next it ought, I think, to be well considered in a case of so high importance, quem quibus, to what Rulers and Majorities this ONE must be preferred (and both plainly were my question) A learned intelligent Christian (nay one of moderate abilities) in a case of Christianity before Heathens, no doub●● and little less for a judicious and pious Protestant before a packed Synod, or Majority, who hang their eyes upon the lips of a Pope. But what shall your Ignorant Protestant do? shall one single Protestants judgement in such a case as Justification turn the scale upon the known declared judgement of his own Church in conjunction with all the rest of the Reformed? I wish that be no part of your meaning; and if it be, I like not your Balance; your direction (at best) is a crude and dangerous Dictate, a Dividing, and not a Curing rule. So you have my Answer to your question.  
But, Sir, will you please to gratify me with your positive answer to one of mine, for I despair of solving it myself: you desire me to tell you, p. 〈◊〉. whether in earnest I differ from you in your direction, or rule of counsel you there give the ignorant peony and without expecting my Answer one minute, or hearing me speak one syllable for myself, I find presently your dreadful sentence passed against me in this kill tone, are you not herein a man singular even to admiration! are not all Protestants, Papists, 
P. 49.  christians, learned heathens agreed in the Rule I gave? what may be the meaning of this outcry from a person of your veracity, meekness, charity etc. which has almost driven me out from the society of men to eat grass with the wild asses of the field? why, I must hold, whether I will or no, that a herd of errand Ignoramns' is to be preferred before one learned Judicious man, and that too in his own profession, as those that never read Logic, before Aristotle etc. now let my answer prove what it will, I am condemned before hand, singular even to admiration. Then I am set a telling I know not what, tell your scholars, and the world, p. 48. Tell your scholars, you are but one and they are many (which no doubt would be a great piece of news to them) ibid. Then again, tell the world etc. p. 49. Doubtless there is something in that unfortunate (though civil) request of mine, which galls you more than ordinary. For these do not sound like words of mettle, but of pain, and Paroxysm.  
But, Sir, will you please to let us walk out a little into the cooler air? (for there is no breathing in this Stove.) What is it you would have m● tell all these people? why, to this effect (as before) that a child in his hornbook is to be preferred in his judgement of Latin, Greek, Hebrew etc. before the ablest critics of the world in those Languages.  
But pray, Sir, may not I be excused? whatever I think, it goes against me to tell such stuff to the world, as my own mind and judgement. I would not trumpet my own shame, (whoever do theirs) without a greater cause. I think my time may be better employed by minding you that presses are a kind of sacred things, and ought not to be profaned by the passions, interests, weaknesses, or extravagances of men. In private and familiar discourses some greater liberty may be allowed; but he that speaks to the whole world, owes reverence and caution to it, without which every book we publish is little better than a libel against our Reader; and even when we court him, we do but entitle him to all the impertinencies and follies of our pens.  
But above all, this can never be minded enough, that if of every idle word, much more slanderous and reviling one's account shall be given in the day of Judgement. Had you minded this (as you ought) you could not have vented those very vain words (I will say no worse) you have done against me up and down this preface; as also in the rest of your books where you mention my name.  
You have yet a piece of another question, and then it will be high time for us to make an end, and to think our readers may have some business besides. 'Tis this, what mean you to bring in the intimation, 
Pref. p. 50.  that thus the great Truths of God will depend on humane suffrages; even whether God shall be God. Sir, if you have not disused your Acquaintance with the latin Tongue, and so mistaken, you might have englished the words I quote out of Tertullian in the like case, with more sincerity. For any one may quickly see, I make not the Divine Existence (as you would have me) an instance of the great Truths of God (though I hope no harm if I did so) but as a consequential dependent, whether it shall be so or no, upon the subjection of the word of God to the will of man; especially of ONE man, in opposition to all others.  
Then you would have me to consider whether I do well to number Artificial, Logical Definitions, controverted by the greatest Divines, with the great Truths of God.  
To which I answer 1. That I am ashamed you should thus over and over expose yourself with your most illogical evasion of logical and artificial definitions; as if (supposing them true) they were not the same Re with the definitum, as I have told you already. Good Sir, talk what you please in private to such as understand not what you say, and let them give you a Grandee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for your pains: but you may do well to use more civility to the reason of a scholar, though he hath not yet worn out his freshmans gown.  
2. I absolutely deny what you so rashly avow, that the definition of justification is controverted by the greatest Divines. This is one of your liberal Dictates. The Reformed Divines are all, I think, before yourself agreed about the nature of justification, its causes etc. and consequently cannot differ about the Definition. Prove the contrary when you can, and let these poor Fig-leaves alone; at least bestow them somewhere else.  
The close of your Preface is a cover fit for such a Dish. You tremble not in the audience of God and man to suggest again that hard-fronted Calumny 
P 52.  (how can any man call it less?) uz: that I prefer a majority of ignorants before a learned man in his own profession; and thereupon sound your trumpet to this tune, Is this fit Doctrine for a Doctor, and a Master of a Literate society? you know not what the event of all this may be: for suppose now being dragged in my scarlet (a habit more suitable for him that triumphs) at the wheel of your chariot in the view of all men, I should happen to be degraded, and turned out of my literate society; would it not trouble you? no doubt; but than it might happen to be too late.  
In the mean time, Sir, (without any disparagement to your own degree) the name and quality of a DOCTOR and Master of a Literate society might have been treated more civilly by you. And so let that go along with its fellows. For the pleasant speech to my hearers and scholars, you put into my mouth at parting, I leave it as divertisement to any that has a mind to be merry upon so sad an occasion: yet one Asteisme in it must not be omitted, which fronts it thus; Hearers and scholars, this and that is the true definition of Faith and Justification, even of the various sorts of Faith and Justification etc.  
But, Sir, I fear your haste has betrayed your memory, and made you forget that I commend your own definition of faith (logical or artificial) with some needful explanations; and therefore you might at least for my farther encouragement have spared me there. As for the bringing all sorts of faith into one definition, I confess my disability to do it, but shall leave it to such as are skilled in making Definitions and their definitums two several things, with whom it will be an easy work. So for your various definitions of Justification constitutive, sentential, 
P. 50.  executive, in Foro Dei, in Foro conscientiae, etc. one would expect some more than ordinary sense a coming by the train and rumble of words which attend it; when indeed all looks like a mere artifice, to set people a gazing upon some other matters while you are conveying your self with the question out of the way.  
If it be not so, what need of this heap of distinctions here, when you know the question betwixt us is of no other Justification, but the constitutive in Foro Dei, that which makes us righteous in the court of heaven. I have nothing to do with you yet in any else, as your own conscience will tell you when you please. If you have not more justice and civility for your intelligent Readers, I wish you would show more compassion to your ignorant homagers, and not thus abuse them with your palpable evasions.  
And now, Sir, if your pen can spare you a few minutes, I think you may do well to reflect a little upon what you have done already. You have here and in other places endeavoured what you could to expose a person who had never been uncivil to you, but rather had a fair respect for you; and indeed once took you for a quite other man, than I have found you now. You have perverted the plain sense of questions between us, hide yourself from the ignorant in mists and clouds, and impertinencies of words.  
And are such WORKS as these the rounds of jacob's ladders are these your steps and stages to heaven; especially when upon all occasions, and even in this Preface you tell us you are going to the great and dreadful tribunal? will you go out of the world thus? I hearty pray you may not, and hope you will not.  
I cannot end without begging the Readers pardon for this trouble I have given him though in my just and necessary defence. I know it must needs be tedious to him, which has been so in such a measure to myself.  
One word more to you, Sir, and I have done. First, if any words have escaped me, of greater plainness and liberty than I would otherwise have used, I desire you would lay your hand upon your breast, and consider what (indeed unsufferable) provocations you have given me, by your odious representations of me to the world in all the material part of your Preface (such as if they were true I were fit enough to be begged for a fool) Your vain triumphs and insultings over me, from nothing but idle fancies of your own. Let the equal reader judge between us.  
Next, that being now so well acquainted with you, I intent no farther reply to any thing your shall think fit to publish against me hereafter, nor indeed to any other upon these controversies; contenting myself to have delivered my Judgement thus far; wherein if you, or any man remain unsatisfied, you may, for me, enjoy your opinions in peace; resolving to contend withno man for the small vulgar triumph of the last or loudest word: yet not despairing, but God in his time will infuse courage into men of far more abilities than myself to defend his cause. So wishing you all the happiness (Temporal, and Eternal) I do to myself, I bid you FAREWELL.  
From my Country-Habitation, Jun. 18.  Prov. 9 8. 9 Rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee: Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser. 
FINIS.   

Errata.  
Pag. 12. lin. 10. read effect. pag. 14. lin. 6. read wriggles. pag 29. lin. 17. read scholars. pag. 27. lin. ult. read imports.