1. Mr. Jenkin argues himselfe defective in point of conscience, by these and many such like passages in his Book.

In his Title page, he calls Sion Colledge visited, A very feeble Pam­phlet: and a while after (in his Preface) His other writings are below the most: but this last piece was below himselfe.

Though the man speakes these things in good concurrence with my conscience (for I verily believe my writings to bee of that sort of weake, Sect. 3. feeble, and despised things, which God hath chosen to confound the things that are mighty,) yet I have cause to think that hee speakes them with the loud reclamation of his own, it being a thing inci­dent to youth, [...]. Arist. Eth. (as Aristotle long since observed) to say many things, which they beleeve not.

For first, is it like that a man of such Seraphicall parts and lear­ning, that he is able to instruct the ignorant in the profound specu­lation [Page 3] of the Quiddity of Manicheisme, whereof Mr. Goodwin, and such Abecedarians as he, is ignorant Busic-Bishop, p. 45, 48, &c., would so farre undervalue him­selfe, and prophane his excellencie, as to set himselfe and all the po­wers of his wit against that he judgeth VERY FEEBLE?

Secondly, if he judged my Pamphlet so very feeble, why doth he so studiously, amolish, and deprecate of his Reverend Sirs, the suspi­tion of Ambition, in that he should undertake to answer it Preface. p. 2.? When an Eagle engageth herself to catch a Fly, hath she cause to feare the imputation of Ambition, because of such an attempt? In this solemne deprecation of his to his Reverend Brethren, not to account it ambition that puts him upon the undertaking, supposing the Pamphlet he under­takes to be very feeble, he either makes his brethren very feeble in their understanding, viz. as being obnoxious to account it ambition in him, that should attempt to break a rotten stick; or otherwise bewrayes the rottennesse of his own conscience in calling that VERY FEE­BLE, which he inwardly thinks to be very strong. And whereas hee presently addes, that for the most of them to have performed his taske, he should have accounted it an act of (not to say too) great condescention: Que­stionlesse the condescention in them had been as great, as it would be in the Master-fidlers belonging to a countrey consort, to excuse the little Boy, and carry the great Fiddle themselves.

Thirdly (and lastly) is it likely that Mr. Jenkin can have the consent of his conscience, to say, my other writings are below the most, and this last to be VERY FEEBLE, and below my selfe, when as the fifth rib of Mr. Jenkins Religion (High Presbytery I mean: for which metaphor I shall give account hereafter) lies bleeding at the foot of the other, being as good as broken in peeces by them; and him­selfe, with many others of his Collegiate fraternity, cast out of the possession of their patience (that I say not, of their wits) by the last. If my other writings were below the most; the cause of High-Presbytery being so shaken, shattered, and dismantled by them, must needs be (in strength, and capacity of being maintained) below the most of cau­ses; unlesse for the staving off of this consequence, Mr. Jenkin will say, that the cause I speake of, is good, but the defenders of it are weake [Page 4] and insufficient. I give him leave to chuse his horn; but goared hee must be either by the one horn, or the other, of the Dilemma. And for Sion Colledge visited, if this be below my selfe, it is a signe that Mr. Jenkin, and his Reverend Sirs, grow downwards, or backwards, as well in patience, as in learning and knowledge. For I appeal to all judicious and disengaged men, that have found so much time as to lose in reading Mr. Jenkins Busie Bishop, whether both the patience of the man be not overcome, and his learning overcharged, with that writing. If Mr. Jenkin notwithstanding all this, will say in his soule and conscience, hee verily beleeves that the said writing called Sion Colledge visited, is a very feeble Pamphlet, let this Animadversion be re­moved from under this head, and carried on to the third, to prove him a Defective in judgement and understanding. But I suppose there is no occasion for the remove.

Secondly, Sect. 4. whereas (in the said Title page) he insinuates me guilty of cavills against the Ministers of London for witnessing against my er­rors touching the holy Scriptures, and the power of Man, &c. it argues (in his own metaphor) a crazy conscience. For I never cavil'd against, nor had any thing to doe with, either on the right hand, or the left, the Ministers of London for witnessing against any errors of mine whatsoever, nor did I ever charge them w ^th any such crime. That which I charged them with, (not cavil'd against them, for) was unconscionable and in­direct dealing with the words & writings of their brethren, who ne­ver wronged them, a cōspiracy against several truths of God, (bound up indeed in the same bundle with many errors, as Christ was num­bred amongst transgressors,) and incensing the Magistrates against thousands that are godly & peaceable in the land, because not of their faction, &c. With these things, and some other of like notorious de­linquency with these, I confesse I charged them. But that they ever witnessed against any error of mine, it never came within the verge of my thoughts. Doth not then my young adversary abase his con­science greatly in this point also?

Thirdly, Sect. 5. when in the same Title page he affirmeth, that in his Busie-Bishop, the impertinency of my quotations out of the Fathers, M. Bucer, and Mr. Ball, are manifested, he plainy declares, that it is all one with him to say that snow is black, as that it is white: yea more easie, to say that what is not done, is done, than to say that it is not done. For a­las! what hath the young Glorioso done to the value of the least haire of his head, towards a manifestation of any impertinencie in any of my quotations he speakes of? Or if he understand not what the imperti­nencie [Page 5] of a quotation meaneth, or wherein it consists, let this note serve under the third head, and prove him debile or crazie in his intellectu­als. For to cite other words, of a different, or contrary import, to those quoted by me out of the same Author, is no manifestation at all of any impertinency in my quotation. It is indeed a discovering of the nakednesse of an Author, to present him as contradictious to himself. Nor is there any practice or course more ready and direct, to ener­vate, cancell, and dissolve the interest of all humane Authority what­soever, and to render all Authors, but as so many ciphers in matters of religion, than to expose the unstablenesse of their judgement to the eyes of men. For he that speaketh contradictions, as to matter of te­stimony, is as good as silent, and as speaking nothing at all. And for my part, I neither am, nor shall be, at all offended with Mr. Jenkin, for duly presenting any Authors whatsoever, Fathers or others, be­neath the order of Hagiographie, as divided from, and inconsistent with themselves, in any difficult or disputable point in Christian Religion. To goe on in this course I shall rather give him the incou­ragement of

For by this meanes he will help to teare and pluck off that cove­ring of flesh, wherewith the faces of many notable Truths of God have been so bumbled and muffled up, that the generality of men could never come to a cleare and orderly sight, or view of them. Not that I would have the names or memories of men deserving well of Religion and Christianity in their generations, unkindly or unwor­thily handled in the least; but that their authority and greatnesse of name might not (contrary to their desires) be abused to the preju­dice or disadvantage of any truth; nor, in any particular opini­on which they assert or hold, be exalted above the strength and worth of those grounds, whether of Scripture, or Reason, by which they maintain it. I heartily wish, that in all our disputes about matters of Religion, all names of men whatsoever might be but standers by, and lookers on, and that onely their arguments and reasons might be a­ctors. And whereas the young man, ( p. 41.) either very ignorantly, or (which is worse) very contra-conscientiously, chargeth me with going about to make Testardus my Patron; And p. 44. with bringing Mr. Bucer, and Mr. Ball to blesse me. And again, that I come to the Fathers for pa­tronage (which is his Coccysme, or Cuckow-note, that he sings ten times [Page 6] over.) I must tell him, for his learning in these sayings, hee (as the the English proverb phraseth it) museth as he useth. For because himself, and others of his capacity, use to make Patrons for their opi­nions, of their books and Authours, having commonly no better pillars to support the Pile and Fabrick of their judgements, than flesh and blood; therefore he conceiteth that all other men, who make use of Authors, doe it upon the same termes, and ground. But when the Lord Christ cited the testimony of John the Baptist, in the behalf of himselfe, and that Doctrine of his, wherein he avouched himselfe the true Messiah and Son of God, did he goe about to make him a Patron, either to himself or his Doctrine? Nay, doth he not ex­presly disclaim any such thought or intention as this, in these words, I receive not testimony from man John 5. 34., and as expresly declare what his in­tention was in producing this testimony (in the words following) but these things I say that ye might be saved: plainly signifying, that nei­ther he nor his Doctrine, had any need of any forraigne or extrinfi­call aid from any Authority of men whatsoever, for the countenan­cing or asserting of either, in the eyes or judgements of considering and unprejudiced men, being both full of a native light of their own, abundantly sufficient for the conviction and satisfaction of such; and therefore the reason which moved him to insist upon the testimony of John, was, that such partiall, froward, and ingaged men as they were (for he speakes unto the Jewes,) might have the advantage of a testimony more creditable with them, to be convinced of, and be­leeve that, which was so necessary to be beleeved by them, for their sal­vation. In like manner, the reason why I quote either Testardus, or Hierome, or Austin, or any other Authour, as concurrent in judge­ment with me about my Doctrine, or opinion, which I teach, is not by way of patronage, or countenance unto them, or as if I conceiv'd that intelligent, free, and disengaged men were not sufficiently ca­pable of truth in them only by the pregnancy of those Scriptures, and grounds of Reason, upon which they are built, without being relie­ved against their feares, by a conjunction of humane Authority; but that M. Jenkin, & such as lye under the same disadvantage with him, for discerning and beleeving Truth, being so servile, and so bowed down in their judgements and understandings, that they dare not, (or howsoever will not) call any thing Truth, which men, voted Or­thodox by a reciprocall vote amongst themselves, doe not call such with them, might have a sustentory, or encouragement suitable to their weaknesse in this kind, and not be afraid of Truth, as of an un­clean [Page 7] clean spirit, for want of flesh and bones. Therefore when he speakes of manifesting the IMPERTINENCY of my quotations, I cannot readily imagine what he should mean by his Impertinency: or how, or by what light given by him, he should imagine that he hath manifested any such thing in them, or against them. If by the IMPERTINEN­CY of aquotation, he meanes, a contrariety of sence, or import, to somewhat which the same Author affirmeth or denieth elswhere, all, or the greatest part of his own quotations are every whit as IM­PERTINENT as mine. For he quotes nothing from any Au­thor in opposition to me, but what hath been counter-quoted by me from the same. Nor doe I, either in Sion Colledge visited, or in any other of my writings, quote any Author, for any such end or purpose as this, viz. to prove that the Author which I quote, never expressed himselfe otherwise, than according to the tenor of the words, which I quote from him. If not to prove such a thing as this by a quotation, be to quote an Author IMPERTNENTLY, I confesse M. Jenkin hath said somewhat (though not sufficient neither) to manifest the IMPERTINENCY of my quotations: but howsoever, the IM­PERTINENCY of his own are equally manifest (as hath been said) by the same light. Or if by this his IMPERTINENCY, hee meanes the Impertinency of them in respect of the actuall accomplish­ment of the end intended and desired by them, which was the con­viction and satisfaction of Mr. Jenkins, and others, of the truth con­tained and asserted in them, I confesse (as touching himselfe) he hath sufficiently manifested this Impertinency in them, by declaring himselfe an enemy to such Truths, my quotations notwithstanding. But in this sense of the word, IMPERTINENCY, his own quotations are altogether as IMPERTINENT as mine; inasmuch as I, and many others (to my knowledge) are far from being satisfied by them, touching the truth of what hee conceiv'd to be comprehended in them. If young Thraso will undertake to manifest IMPERTINENCY (in any regular or tolerable signification of the word) in my quota­tions, he must clearly and lightsomly prove, either that vera justitia doth not signifie, true, but hypocriticall, righteousnesse; or that ante­revelatum eis Christum, doth not signifie, Before Christ [was] rev [...]led unto them, but, that Peter answered and said, or the like [...], quam ut ignorare eos Christum suum pateretur, doth at no hand [...] then that he would suffer them to be ignorant of his Christ, but, [...] two Sparrowes sold for a farthing? or something as extravagant, [...] noramus-like, as this, or other things of everyhwit as difficult [...] [Page 8] as any of these: otherwise I make no question, but the next time that he and his conscience meet, either he will come off with this faire interpretation of his words, that the IMPERTINENCIE of my quotations (i. all the IMPERTINENCIE that is in them, which indeed is none at all) is manifested in his Busie-Bishop: for in this sence (I confesse) the IMPERTINENCIE of them, is here manifested: 1. there is no more IMPERTINENCIE in them, than what is by him manifested, which (as was said) is none at all: or else, with this penitent confession, that hee dealt unkindly by his Conscience, when he talk'd of IMPERTINENCIE in my quotations.

Whereas he pretends (in the same Title page) that in his Busie-Bishop my Cavils against the Ministers of London, are answered: Sect. 6. I an­swer, that in such a sence at the strong Arguments of his Book are answered in the Title page of mine, so are my cavils against the Mi­sters of London answered by him in his. For as I answer all his strong Arguments, without answering any at all: so doth he answer all my cavils against the Ministers, without so much as answering any; there being no jot or tittle of such imployment in my Book for his Busie-Bishop to meddle with.

Amongst many other causlesse and sencelesse revilings of me, Sect. 7. where­in he comforts himselfe and his Reverend Sirs (his fellow Testimo­nialists) against me, in his Preface he is not ashamed to charge me with abundant rage in opposing Christ in his Scriptures, Grace, Ministers, Government; his rage (saith he) against the two last, reaching up to hea­ven. Elijah was the man charged by Ahab to be the troubler of Israel: but Ahab himselfe (with his Fathers house) was the man who indeed and in truth was the troubler thereof, Elijah being the Chariot and Horsmen of Israel. I have not troubled Israel (saith Elijah to him) but thou & thy Fathers House 1 King. 18. 18.. So I am the man charged with abundant rage in opposing Christ in his Scriptures, Grace, Ministers, Government: but M. Jenkin with his Sinonian band, is the man who really & according to the truth, thus opposeth him. I oppose Christ in his Scriptures in such a sense as Christ himselfe deceived the people. Others said, nay: but he deceiveth the people Joh. 7. 2.. These obstinate and blinde Jewes called that a deceiving of the people, which was nothing else but an instructing of them in the truth, and a preserving of them from being deceived. In like manner this sonne of shame, wilfulnesse and folly, calls that an opposing Christ in his Scriptures, which is most evident in the eyes of all men, who have not sold themselves [...] [...]laves into the hand of high-Presby­tery, [Page 9] a justifying, a magnifying, an exalting of Christ in them. It was the expression of a man, as eminent both for pietie, parts, and place, as either of our Universities affoord, and not of the abhorred order of Independency neither (as his preferment sufficiently testifi­eth,) finding me charged by the testimony-mongers of Sion Colledge, with the foul crime of denying the authority of the Scriptures, & ha­ving seen my tractate upon that subject, that he wondred how ever it should come into the hearts of these men, to lay such a thing to my charge, how they durst traduce me as a man denying the authority of the Scriptures, when I had written so clearly, fully, & effectually, in the defence and vindi­cation hereof. These, or words to this effect, he used to some of his friends; adding further this regretfull Epiphonema: But I see wee are fallen into times wherein men dare doe and say any thing. Words of like import have come from severall other men of worth and judgement. But as they, who charged the Lord Christ with deceiving the people, were the deceivers of them themselves: so the truth is, that Mr. Jenkin, & his Cōpeers, who burthen me with opposing Christ in his Scriptures, are themselves the men of this abomination. For whilst in their tea­chings they turn the glory of the abundant grace, love, sweetnesse and bounty of God, expressed in the Scriptures towards men, into the similitude of the most unnaturall, unreasonable, unconscionable cruelty and blood-thirstinesse of a tyrant, and withall represent Christ as the Image and Expresse Character of this God, doe they not oppose, and that with an high hand, Christ in his Scriptures? Or what opposition is Christ capable of in his Scriptures, greater than this, that these, diametrically contrary to their native tenor, tendency, and im­port, should be made accessory to his disgrace, and to the misrepre­sentation of him in the mindes, judgements, and consciences of men; as if all the love, care, bowels, and compassions which hee bare to­wards farre the greatest part of them in his death, being interpreted, were nothing else but bloody purposes, intentions, & desires, to make them two-fold more the children of wrath, and this to the dayes of eternity, than otherwise they had been? And that as for those few, whose salvation he is supposed to have intended in his death, that these were as much in the love and favour of God before, and with­out it, and had eternall life and salvation setled upon them by the unchangeable decree and purpose of God from eternity, without a­ny relation to, or consideration of it? The teachers and avouchers of such doctrines as these, are they who oppose Christ in his Scriptures, not they who deny ink and paper, and whatsoever is materiate or [Page 10] formed by man, to be precisely, and in propriety of speech, the word of God. Of the two, in case the saying of Epiphanius be true, that mis­belief is worse than unbelief; [...]. it is better to deny the Scriptures in any sense, or in every sense, to be the word of God, (which yet I never did, & am as far from doing as the best resolved man in all Mr. Jen­kins fraternity) than to render them an obloquie and reproach unto God, and destructive to his glory. But with what authority, and so­veraignty of argument Mr. Jenkin proves the Sun to be a Sackcloth, I mean, that I deny the Divine authority of the Scriptures, shall be taken into consideration in due time.

That I oppose Christ in his grace, Sect. 8. is a charge parallel to the other of opposing him in his Scriptures: and therefore it is no great marvell if one conscience affords them both. But why, or how, doe I oppose Christ in his Grace? Surely, not by making it greater, more extensive, more comprehensive, more redundant, than Mr. Jenkin and his fel­low-dogmatists doe. Certainly the conscience of the man (if it bee not amongst Rachels children Matth. 2. 18.) will not give him leave to call this an opposition of Christ in his grace: but will rather reverberate this cri­mination upon himselfe and his mates, who tremble not to informe the creature against the Creator (blessed for ever) as if from eternity he had shut up his grace, mercy, love, from and against the whole generation of men (some few of them onely excepted) with the iron bares of an ireversible, indispensable decree, and this without any regard and consideration had, either to, or of, their obduration, im­penitence, or unbeliefe: thus making him like a King, or other man, who should marry and desire to beget children, with a full pur­pose and intention to make the farre greatest part of them slaves, yea and to put some as soone as they should be borne; others not many yeares after, to a most cruell, shamefull, and tormenting death. If there be any opposers of Christ in his grace under heaven, the teachers of such doctrines as these are the first born in the ingagement.

But it may be this swelling peece of vanity, Sect. 9. charging me, p. 29. with the swelling of nature, represents [...]e as an opposer of Christ in his grace upon this account, viz. as exalting nature against, or above the grace of Christ. Indeed if the man could prove either of these, it might som­what mend his market. But as to matters of proofe (truly so called) the great Gingler otherwise, is as well in this, as in other his under­takings against me, as mute as a fish. If God shall vouchsafe to grant me life and health, and opportunity otherwise, to give a distinct and perfect account of my judgement about the strength or interest of [Page 11] nature, and the efficacie of grace, it will appeare, that all things con­sidered, I give as little to the former (and much more to the latter) as M. Jenkin and his Assessors do I shal only add this one thing (for the present) in the point in hand, that whatsoever is ascribed unto Na­ture, by way of gift, power, or endowment, except Nature, with her gifts and endowments, be given away from God, or from the grace of God in Christ, and ascribed unto some other Author, Founder, or Benefactor, there is no occasion given unto any man to look up­on it, as any wayes derogating from the grace of God, or Christ. Sed de his alias

Whereas he expresseth himself as somewhat more qualified about my opposing Christ in his Scriptures, Sect. 10. and Grace, but with great indigna­tion chargeth me with rage reaching up to heaven, in opposing him in the other two, his Ministers and Government, doth not his pen be­wray him for a man, whose heart sits closer to his own interests of honour and profit, than to his Masters greatest concernments? yea, I verily beleeve, that had I not touched the apple of Mr. Jenkins eye, he would not have said so much unto me, as black is my eye, for any oppo­sition I have made against Christ. I have made bold to visit Sion Col­ledge, & to blaspheme (as her worshippers interpret) the great Dieana of high Presbytery; therefore I must suffer as an opposer of Christ in his Scriptures, Grace: yea, and as a man whose rage reacheth up to heaven, in opposing him, first and principally in his Ministers, and then in his Government: my opposing him in his Ministers (that should be) is the root of the matter: Scriptures, Grace, and Government too, should have gone for nought, had not these Ministers of his been opposed. But upon what simple and ridiculous pretences, he raveth against me, as a man opposing Christ either in Ministers, or Government, is argued un­der the second head.

Not long after (in this Preface) he professeth, Sect. 11. that his hearty re­quest to my mis-led followers (because led out of the broad way of High-Presbytery) is like that of Moses to the people, that they would depart from the tents of this man. Mr. Jenkin in this profession, hath charged him­selfe with a very difficult task, against his next, viz. to prove, that Moses made some such request as this unto the people, viz. that they would depart from my tents. He tells me of three or foure prophanations of Scripture Page 59.: But he that prophanes Scripture himself, as Mr. Jenkin doth, more than three or foure times in his Busie-Bishop, is a very in­competent judge of this misdemeanour in others. But to levie the Scriptures against any principle, or practice in High-Presbytery, or [Page 12] Presbyterians, must by the decisive authority of this young Dictator, needs be a prophanation of them.

He further requests them, Sect. 12. that they would not feed upon chalk and coales in corners. I make no question but the persons he meanes will gratifie him in this request, with an overplus: and that they will take heed of feeding upon such stuffe as he speakes off, either in corners, or in more open places. It is well known that there is more Chalke and Coales about Christ-church, than is to bee found in, or about the Warehouse in Colemanstreet.

But since he tells them, Sect. 13. that the Lord Jesus Christ hath provided them Pastors after his own heart, I wonder how he dares attempt to se­duce, or withdraw them from such Pastors? They keep to the Pastor which the Lord Jesus Christ hath provided for them. But for those Pastors which Mr. Jenkin (I suppose) meanes, he or they, or both, shall doe well to prove them Pastors according to the heart of Jesus Christ: for their spirit, wayes, and works, strongly import another (much diffe­ring) conformity.

If under Prelacy they hated those Doctrines as hell, which now they ad­vance to heaven, I trust they doe but imitate St. Paul, who in time came to build up that faith, which sometimes he destroyed Gal. 1. 23.. It seemes it is a law in High-Presbytery, that that which is crooked, must never be made straight, nor that which is turned out of the way, ever bee healed: or else that this Government is built of Irish Oke, so that there is no danger, or possibility, that any cobweb of error, or false doctrine should ever be found about it.

And whereas (in the last place) he desires them not to be offended at his acrimony (wherein he commends himselfe for being more boun­tifull to mee, Sect. 14. than to all the men in the world besides, put together) I trust that herein also they will grant him his desire. For (as Hierome saith) majores non scandalizantur: well-grown Christians are never scandalized, or offended: the reason whereof is, because they know that there are wolves in sheeps cloathing, as well as in their own skins: and that there is no unworthy, impious, or abominable thing what­soever, but there is vilenesse and wickednesse enough in some prof­fessing Christian Religion, to perpetrate and doe it. Now the know­ledge of the reasons and causes of things, is an antidote or pre­servative against admiration, and so against any distemper or distur­bance in the minde or affections, when such things come to passe, which to others, who are ignorant of the causes producing them, are like to occasion disturbance and offence. I make no question but my [Page 13] followers fully know, that Mr. Jenkin, before this, might have, & that now, he (indeed) hath pride, ignorance, & wickednesse in him every wayes sufficient, to exhibite and affoord, all that acrimony he speakes of as bestowed on me, and in this respect I am full of hope, that they will not be offended at it in the least, however they may bee affected with sorrow & grief of heart, to see a young man by the just judge­ment of God, turn'd into a pillar of such unsavoury salt. For what is that acrimony he speakes of, or what are the ingredients of it, but affe­ctate jeers, childish ventosities & puffs of wit, charges made of most notorious, palpable, and broad-fac'd untruths, senslesse and impor­tune vilifications, which his best friends are ashamed of, exaltations of ignorance and folly in Criticisms, and such like over-ingagements of his strength, unchristian revilings, diabolicall slanders, &c. This is the true composition of Mr. Jenkins his Acrimony; they that have no­thing else to do with their time, but to read his Pamphlet, may with­out the help of any Commentary, so find it.

This considered, certainly either his sense, or conscience, or both, failed him, to say concerning his Acrimony, that it is lesse than I deser­ved. For can any man, whatsoever his demerit, or crimes be, deserve to make another man sinfull, or wicked? Doth the Devill himselfe deserve to be belied, slandered, reproached, reviled? At whose hand, or from whom, deserveth he these things, or who shall do the execu­tion in case he deserveth them? I know none but M. Jenkin, and those that take the same liberty of conscience (or, from conscience rather) with him, that are like to inflict such penalties as these upon him. Such executions are no work for Arch-angels. But this Mancipium of absurdities, and all manner of illiteratenesse, that in matters of Scho­larship, regular and manlike learning, scarce knowes his right hand from his left, will yet ever and anon be perking up into Aristarchus his chaire, and as if he understood what he censures, will tell men how oft he takes them tardy.

For the further furnishing of this head, Sect. 15. I shall onely present the Reader with a catalogue of some of those many broad-fac'd and shamelesse untruths (with a briefe eviction annexed unto them respe­ctively) together with some other straines of a semblable impiety, which lie thick scattered, like dung upon the face of his Pamphlet. First, there is a nest of this serpentine brood I speak of, (base and pu­tid slanders and untruths) in the very first halfe page of his booke. Here he affirmeth, 1. That my work is to kill Religion. 2. that I advance her head in my Preface, to break her neck in my book. 3. that in the perfor­mance [Page 14] of my booke, I lay Religion among the clodds. 4. that I deny the Scripture to be the Foundation of Religion. 5. (within two lines after the end of this first page) that were my wit but halfe so keen as my will, they should in a short time neither have Religion nor Minister left among them. Might he not with as much truth, yea, with as much likeli­hood of truth, have charged me to have uttered all those scurrilous, foul-mouth'd, unmanly, and most unchristian speeches against the Parliament and Army, which (as the Pulpit-Incendiary informes the world) have been the devout orisons, and pious ejaculations of the circumforaneous tribe of our morning Lecturers? I confesse, that if either my wit or will knew how to effect it, we should neither have a­ny such Religion, which stands in railing, left amongst us; nor any Minister, who in stead of lifting up his voyce like a Trumpet, to cause the people to know their abominations, should lift it up like a Trumpet, to prepare and cause the people to commit abominations. As for that foundation of his, that I deny the Scripture to be the foundation of Re­lion, upon which he builds this pile of lying vanities, we shall (under the next head) so raze and demolish it, as not to leave one stone of it upon another, which shall not be thrown down.

Page 2. he saith, Sect. 16. 1. that my rage against the Ministers made me write non-sence, and so page 4. and I know not how oft besides, he tells me of my rage, rage, rage, against the Ministers;) whereas the words, which through ignorance of his mother tongue he calls non-sence, are as regular, proper, and significant, as the English tongue will beare; and those which (novice-like) he would substitute in their place, are meerly barbarous, making [...], an absurd sol­lecisme, (as we shall, God willing, shew more at large in the second head). And secondly, there is not the least occasion given by me, why he should imagine the least rage in me against the Ministers he speaks of: He cannot but know, that in my Sion Colledge visited, I give them as friendly & faithfull counsel as himselfe can do; not is there any sentence or expression in all the book, savouring of any rage a­gainst them. In the same page he is not ashamed to say, that he finds two abominable falsities within the space of two lines; whereas the truth is, that he contracts the guilt of two abominable falsities in rela­ting my words. For first, he affirmes, that I say, That the Ministers of the Gospel, are ONELY so reputed by men, for want of knowing and co­sidering better; whereas my words are clearly of another tenor, ten­dencie, and import: nor doe I so much as speak of the Ministers of the Gospel (truly so called) but onely of such, who not being such, [Page 15] notwithstanding assume the title and dignity of being such, unto themselves, and receive it accordingly from inconsiderate men. And besides, the word ONELY is here falsly foysted in; he findes no such word amongst those of mine, which hee pretends to cite. Se­condly, he affirmes that I say, that they (the Ministers of the Gospel) have vested themselves with the priviledge of being the ground and pillar of Truth; whereas 1. I use no such barbarous or illiterate expression, as vesting any man, or men, with any priviledge: nor 2. doe I speak, what I speak in this point, concerning the Ministers of the Gospel (truly such) but (as before is expressed) concerning those, who call them­selves, and are called by others, such Ministers, being really and in truth nothing lesse. Therefore the two abominable falsities he speaks of, are his own, not mine.

Page 3. Sect. 17. Fearing (it should seem) that hee might want variety of falsities to fill the mouth of his Busie-Bishop, hee again chargeth me with saying, The Ministers have vested themselves with the priviledge of the Church, &c. Let him shew me these words in my book, and I shall discharge him of the Whetstone. Page 4. he saith, that the designe of my deluded followers, is to raze and levell the Church of Christ, and to preach as well as John Goodwin (as indeed they may soone doe.) Mr. Jenkin, the sooner my followers shall be able to preach, as well as I, I judge it so much the better, and more honourable to me. If it were the will and pleasure of him, who is able to effect it, I should greatly rejoyce if the thing might come to passe before the morrow next. It seemes your prayer is, that your followers may never be able to preach, as well as you: you are a mountaine, and therefore afraid of levelling. But why must it needs be one and the same designe, to raze, and to levell the Church of Christ? When Moses wished, Would God that all the Lords people were Prophets, and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them Numb 11. 29, was his designe, or wish, to raze the Church of Christ? When the Prophet Esay prophesied thus: Every valley shall be exalted, and eve­ry mountain and hill shall be brought low Esay 40. 4.: did he prophesie of the de­struction, or razing of the Church of Christ, or of the exaltation and glory of it? Questionlesse the raising and lifting up of the weaker members of the Church, in gifts and spirituall endowments, to the line and levell of those that are strong, would be so farre from razing the Church of Christ, that it would gird her with strength, and bee a beautifull crown upon her head. But it is plain, that by, the Church of Christ, Mr. Jenkin (according to the old Pontificiall, and Pontifi­call notion) meanes the Clergie: and makes account that if their in­terest, [Page 16] or honour be impaired, the Church must needs fall. Not­withstanding whereas he saith, that the designe of my deluded followers, is to raze, &c. if his meaning could be excused, his words were inno­cent, (the crime of idlenesse onely excepted) for they neither touch, nor concern any man. Mr. Jenkin may send his learned ignorance, with his unconscionable honesty, and my deluded followers, to dwell together in one of the Castles which he hath built in the aire.

Page 4. Sect. 18. He chargeth me with striking at the Pillar [meaning the Ministers of Sion Colledge] because of the Proclamation, the Gospel that hangs upon it. If by the Gospel, he means the Gospel of Christ, or Do­ctrine of Salvation (which himselfe, I presume, will not deny to be his meaning) then is his meaning also blasphemously base; his words otherwise being passable. For doth the Gospel (in such a sense) hang upon such a crazy pillar, as the Collegiate fraternity of Sion Col­ledge? Or doth Mr. Jenkin think, that the Doctrine of salvation is supported by Sion Colledge, and must needs fall to the ground, if this should sink, or fall? If this bee the thought of his heart, I professe plainly, it is none of mine, nor of any affinity with any of them: and therefore when he chargeth me with striking at the pillar hee speakes of, because of the Gospel that hangs upon it, he chargeth me with that which never was in all my thoughts, no nor ever came neere unto a­ny of them. I never look'd upon the Doctrine of Salvation, as de­pending or hanging on Sion Colledge. But had he charged me with striking at the pillar, onely because of the Proclamation that hangs upon it, and of such a Gospel, which really and in truth hangs upon it, I should have acknowledged the charge, as true. For that Proclamati­on of impiety, and opposition to the Truth, which hangs upon the pillar of Sion Colledge, and would (I beleeve) soon fall to the ground, if this pillar were removed, was the very reason indeed why I strook at the pillar. Nor doe I know any other Gospel but this, or some like un­to it, that in deed and in truth, hangs upon the pillar of Sion Col­ledge.

Page 5. Sect. 19. He chargeth me with blasting the Ministers (he must mean the Ministers of the Province of London) with the title of murderous Nebuchadnezzars. Shamelesse young man! What? because the Mi­nisters he speaks of, are indeed blasted, must it needs be by the Title of murderous Nebuchadnezzars given unto them? and this by me? This is another false and forged accusation against me: I no where call them, murderous Nebuchadnezzars. Howsoever, it is not I, nor any man else, that could blast them with any title, or titles whatsoever, [Page 17] did they not blast themselves with the rough East-wind of their vio­lent practices against peaceable and pious men; and with other cour­ses of little better influence upon their names and reputations. When (in the same page) he representeth these words, as mine; The Mini­sters of the Gospel claim Nebuchadnezzars prerogative, &c. he basely fal­lifies: I speak not this of the Ministers of the Gospel; I verily beleeve, that no men of this interest and capacity, will claim any such preroga­tive, as there I speake of; my charge is laid onely against such men, who call themselves Ministers of the Gospel, but are not.

Page 6. Sect. 20. He chargeth me, that when I write, I am alwayes in the clouds. But if so, how then come I to strike at the pillar of Sion Colledge? Is Sion Colledge also in the clouds? I feare rather among the Clods. But if I be alwayes in the clouds when I write, I am continually in my writings, where (as the Scripture saith) the strength of God dwelleth. His excellency (saith David) is over Israel, and his strength is in the clouds Psa. 68. 34.. I confesse that when I write, I finde and feele the strength of God neere unto me, and with me. I am content to beare the re­proach of my habitation, for the accommodation of my company. But take Mr. Jenkin in his notion of my being alwayes in the clouds when I write, I wonder who shall mediate between that assertion of his in his Preface, where he saith of my last peece (Sion Colledge visited) that it was beneath my self, & this, of my being alwayes, when I write, in the clouds? Certainly there is nothing that can make peace between these two, but onely this supposition, that in all my former writings, I was in the heavens; and that in the last, I fell no lower, nor neerer to the earth: than the clouds. And in the clouds (I acknowledge) that sometimes I am, when I write, viz. relatively, (I mean, with refe­rence to Mr. Jenkin, and men of his line of understanding) especial­ly when I expresse any thing in significant and proper English, which lies a little out of the road of A. B. C. At such turnings as these, Mr. Jenkin is fain to pull me downe out of the clouds of my regular and good English, and put me into the light of his absurd and barbarous language, before he can see or tell what to say to me.

When (as page 6.) he affirmes, Sect. 21. that many know, that I have more he­resies and errors met me, than are dispersed among some THOƲSANDS in the world; he must seek his Substantive, for his Adjective [thousands] inter oves & boves, & caetera pecora campi, or such like creatures, or o­therwise suffer the shame of a Pseudographer, in those words. As for heresies, most certain I am that I have none in me, being alwayes rea­dy and willing to submit my judgement, to such Arguments for my [Page 18] conviction, of the weaknesse and insufficiencie whereof I am not a­ble to give a faire and reasonable account (though I confesse there is somewhat short of this, which yet in true account is sufficient to ex­empt from the imputation of heresie.) But as for errors, I confesse there may be more in me, than are dispersed among ten thousand [sheep & oxen] but that one Wil. Jenkin hath not double and treble my pro­portion in this black coyn, I know that there is neither man under heaven nor Angell in heaven, that knoweth, or is able to demonstrate. And when ( page 7.) he chargeth it for a passage, as pernitious, as proud, that I should say, that I will endeavour when I am gone, that my follow­ers may have my spirit among them; First, he falsifieth (almost) as fast as he transcribeth, Graecia men­dax. as if his pen were made of a Greek-goose quill, and antipathized against the truth. My words (in the Epistle he men­tioneth) are these: I shall endeavour whilst I yet remain with you, to prevent as much as may be, any supposed, or feared inexpediencie in my depar­ture from you. As for these words and phrases which hee interfoysts, followers, when I am gone, amongst them, &c. they are no where to bee found in the Epistle. And for those words which are in the Epistle, some of them he takes out of one sentence, and others, out of ano­ther, and jumbles them together into what saying he pleaseth. But secondly, suppose such a saying as he reporteth, should have dropt from my Pen, why, or how, or wherein, would it have been either per­nitious, or proud? Doth M. Jenkin judge it pernitious either to his fol­lowers, or to the world, that he should endeavour that his hearers might have his spirit among them when he is gone? More shame for him to have a spirit so mischievous and vile, that it would be a pernitious endeavour in him, to propagate it amongst his people. Certain I am, that it be­comes every Shepheard of every flock of Christ, to be of such a spirit, which he may lawfully, yea and commendably desire and endeavour to leave amongst his people, when he is gone.

Page 7. Sect. 22. He sets this crown (shall I call it, of thorns, or of honour) upon my head; he calls me a Seducer in chiefe; and yet a few lines be­fore, he was so devout, as to acknowledge it for a mercy, that I have no more of intellect, and in his Preface he saith, that my writings are below the most (to omit twenty vilifications and ten, every whit as quisqui­lious and importune, as these) A double minded man (saith James) is unstable in all his wayes. What? A Seducer in chiefe, and no intellect? A Seducer in chiefe, and yet his chiefe writings below the most? Happy sure is the condition of the world in Mr. Jenkins dayes, when the chiefe seducer in it is a man of a despicable and depressed intellect. Is [Page 19] not the most devouring beast also in it, a silly lamb, and the greatest danger in it, that men will walk with their heels upwards? It had been time enough for Mr. Jenkin to have called me a seducer in chiefe, when he had proved, that I had seduced more, than any of the pra­ctitioners belonging to Sion Colledge.

Page 8. His face and conscience (it seemes) like Simeon and Levi, Sect. 23. took a shamelesse and sinfull boldnesse together, to affirme, that it was my aim (in a place in Hagiom) to prove him guiltlesse, who denieth the Being of the Scriptures; and yet in the words immediatly preceding, he saith, that it is most like, that in the place he meaneth, I deale clou­dily. What a wretched man is this, to charge a person, positively and peremptorily, with the vilest intentions that lightly can be, when by his own confession he had but a cloudy and obscure ground to do it? I am perswaded, that hardly can an instance ( ab orbe condito) be given, that so green a head, and so black a mouth, ever met so neere toge­ther before. Page 9. he chargeth me, with throwing off the Covenant in my life. I confesse I have not observed it with that exactnesse, which I both might and ought to have done: but had not Mr. Jenkin, and his high Presbyterian consorts, thrown it off in their lives, at another manner of rate than I have done, the Rights and Priviledges of Par­liament had been better preserved, Incendiaries and Malignants more discovered, the Reformation of Religion in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government according to the word of God, had been more advan­ced amongst us, lesse had been taught contrary to sound Doctrine, and the power of Godlinesse, yea and a more effectual course had been taken, that we and our posterity after us, might as brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord delight to dwell in the midst of us. But not to rave and rage against the servants of God in zeale to the fifth rib of Mr. Jenkins Religion, is (in his interpretation) to throw off the Covenant in our lives.

Page 10. Sect. 24. He chargeth me with denying the Scriptures. Why doth he not accuse the Sun for wearing a Sackcloth, & the Moon that she ne­ver shineth? Here also he saith, that I think my eares defiled, when with the Covenant the Ministers do but name the world, Truth. Truly I think that M. Jenkin thinks he may both think & talk what he listeth, with­out being called to an account by him that judgeth righteously. Where doe I meddle with, or so much as mention the Ministers na­ming the word, Truth, with their Covenant? Let them practice Truth and keep their Covenant, and I shall not be offended at their naming ei­ther the one, or the other. Indeed that men should talke aloud of [Page 20] giving Testimony to the Truth, and so to their Covenant, and yet to walk contrary to the Truth, and to their Covenant, is a matter of no plea­sing resentment unto me, nor (I suppose) to any truly fearing God, or loving the souls of men. Lest he should be so farre overseen, as to let a page passe sine calumnia, he remembers himselfe, p. 11. and for­geth this slander, that I plead for the covenant onely to get the greater advantage against it God (I am certain) doth not know of any such intention as this, in me: but it is a small thing with Mr. Jenkin to make himself equall in knowledge with God; he presumes to know, what God knoweth not. In the same page he strikes the same false stroke againe, and affirmeth, that I dare not come neere an expression of dislike to errors, by twelve score; when as himselfe in the beginning of the same period, had acknowledged, that I tell the world, that errors are a great griefe to my heart, and that I oppose them in my Ministery. Though these be none of my words (as most of his transcriptions are basely falsified) nor so expressive of dislike to errors, as mine; yet doe they contain a manifest expression of dislike to errors. He tell [...] me, pag. 41. that a crazy conscience, and a brittle memory, are very ill companions. I am sorry Mr. Jenking hath no better company than these: they must needs draw him into much folly.

Whereas upon occasion of the Ministers branding Gods Truths, Sect. 25. & Satans errors, with the same brand of obloquy and reproach, I ten­der this Christian and sober advice to them, that in their next impres­sion, they would not say, A Testimony against errors and heresies, but, as we account errors and heresies. Mr. Jenkin, (p. 13.) in the heat of his youthfull blood, not being well capable of advice, in conjunction with his first love to the fifth rib of his religion, riseth up thus. His plain meaning is: Be doubtfull whether those damnable errors and here­sies be such, or no: be Scepticks, Seekers, &c. Was the man ever cut out for an Interprer, either of the word of God, or of Men, who so fre­quently misuseth the minde and meaning both of the one, and the o­ther, by casting them out of their words, and substituting his own in their stead? Doth he that adviseth men, not to judge themselves in­fallible, or not to deport themselves as if they were infallible, bidd them be doubtfull whether damnable errors, and heresies, be such or no? Is not this rather the Spirit, and cleare importance of such an advice, Take heed you call not such things, such opinions, damnable errors or heresies, which you cannot sufficiently and substantially prove to bee so? and which, for ought that appeares to men as learned, as appre­hensive, as judicious, as conscientious every whit as your selves, to the [Page 21] contrary, may be the sacred truths of God? By Mr. Jenkins logick, whosoever doth not judge himselfe to be infallible, and this in the most profound and disputable matters in Religion, ipso facto, (or non facto, rather) turnes Scepticke, Seeker, &c. and can never believe any thing. Men may be so far resolved and established in matters of re­ligion, as to be able and willing to dye for them; and yet not neces­sarily judge themselves infallible: will Mr. Jenkin call such Sceptickes, or Seekers? If he will, what Sect shall we finde to give a denomina­tion unto him, whose establishment in matters of Religion, notwith­standing his importune claime of infallibility, will not (I feare) a­mount to the value or worth of such a resolution. But (it seems) all counsell and advice to mature consideration, though in matters of the greatest consequence, and most dreadfull importance under hea­ven, is to Mr. Jenkin as the shadow of death, and the great abhorring of his soule. Youth, and the fifth rib of Religion, when they meete, make (I see) a fierie conjunction.

REader, Sect. 26. I make no question but thy conscience is before this satisfied about the vilenesse and wretchednesse of the conscience of M ^r Vicars his Pastor, and my Persecutor; yet have I present thee but with a first fruits only of his base unworthinesse. There is scarce any one page through­out the Pamphlet, but Jim and Oijm, forgeries and falsifications dwell in it. His imputations & charges are generally built upon the weakest, simplest, the most unreasonable and sencelesse grounds, occasions, and pretences, that lightly can be imagined. He seldome transcribes any of my words, but hee imbaseth them with some allay or other of his owne. Confident I am, that never did any Minister of Christ, vastare conscientiam, make so much wast of conscience within so short a time, and narrow compasse of occasion, as Mr. Jenkin hath done in this daring, and heaven-affronting piece of portentuous insolencie, and impiety, intituled, The busie Bishop. Howe­ver, I shall not weary the Reader, or my selfe, with tracing him any further by the foote steps of an evill conscience: but shall proceed to the second head propounded, where we shall take a like survey of his intellectuals, as we have already done of his morals. We shall find him hearted, and headed, much alike. Only because the discussion and vindication of those two Doctrines or opinions, which Facultas Theologica, the faculty of Divinity annexed to Sion-Colledge, hath beene pleased to make erroneous, whether the Do­ctrines themselves will or no, and which were the principall (and upon the matter) the only engagers of me to this Answer, fall under the second head, [Page 22] I must crave the Readers patience and leave, to enlarge my selfe a little more herein, than in the former; but withall shall make ample satisfaction, by contracting my selfe in the other two.

2. Mr. Jenkin demonstrates himselfe defective in Clerk-ship, and matter of learning, in these passages, with their fellows.

To prove that my rage ( in his rhetorick) against Christs Ministers and Government, Sect. 27. reacheth up to heaven, hee appeales to these words of mine, which yet as he hath jumbled them, are more his than mine. The best successe, which with any colour of truth we can entitle the Presby­terian government unto, is to snip and keepe under thriving branches. Up­on these words out of his profound learning, he distinguisheth thus: I know he meanes not branches that thrive in heresies, but clearely intends such branches, as thrive in holinesse.

In this division or distinction of thriving branches, making some to thrive in heresies, others in holinesse, and concluding, that because I do not meane the one, I must needs the other; doth my young Springlius reason at any better rate than this? that which Mr. Jenkin hath up­on his trencher is no apple: ergo, it is an oyster. Or thus: By the Re­verent Ministers in the Citie, Mr. Jenkin doth not meane the Indepen­dendent Ministers: therefore he meanes my Lord Major's Officers, or the Ministers of civill Justice in the Citie. For is there no thriving, but either in Heresie, or in Holinesse? Doth not Mr. Jenkin think that it is POSSIBLE a man may thrive in learning, judgment and un­derstanding of the Truth? Or is such a supposition as this contrary to some Article in the Creed of high Presbytery? Or doth he neces­sarily thrive, either in Heresie, or in Holinesse, who thrives in any of these? But this is the line of reason, which our young Metropolitan Visiter hath stretched over his Busie Bishop, from the one end to the other.

Before wee leave this, Sect. 28. I would gladly demand of the learning of the man, what rage it is against Christs, either Ministers, or Govern­ment, to say, that the best successe of Presbyterian government (or the go­vernment which the Subscribers approve of, as himselfe more truly ex­presseth my meaning, this government not being simply Presbyterian, but high- Presbyterian, or Metropolitanicall) that the best successe of it is to snip and keepe under thriving branches; suppose it should be meant of branches thriving in Holinesse? What communion (saith the Apo­stle) hath light with darknesse? or righteousnesse with unrighteousnesse? [Page 23] Cannot a man call a spade, a spade, but hee must needs rage against the mattock? Or cannot a man charge darknesse with misdemeanors and many evill works, without raging against the light? or the Sons of Belial, without raging against the Ministers of Christ? or say to a Cosmocraticall, imperious, bloody government, thou art the cause of these and these mischiefes, but he must presently rage against the Government of Christ? Would a man thinke that such a Conse­quentiary as this, should offer to ingage in the profound disputes a­bout the efficacie of Grace, and the liberty or power of the will? yes, why not as well as Phaethon undertook to drive his Fathers Chariot.

He speaks ( pag. 50.) of having me sent to the children. Sect. 29. He had need be sent both to children, and to men: to the former, to learne mode­sty: to the latter, to be taught the rudiments of learning and dis­course.

Having so demonstratively proved my rage reaching up to heaven a­gainst Christs Ministers and Government (as you have heard) he con­ceives this cordiall and devout prayer for me: The Lord smite his con­science, and touch his heart, for this expression, before it be wounded so as it will be without cure. Speaker not my Lords Grace just as if he were in his Metropoliticall visitation? Or was it not the manner of the Arch-Prelates and their Commissioners (to amuze the poore ignorant peo­ple with the profoundnesse and solempnity of their devotion) when conscientious and godly persons were brought before them, either for going from their Parish Churches to partake of the Word where it was preached, or for repeating Sermons in their houses, or the like, to lift up their eyes and hands towards Heaven, and make de­vout prayers unto God for such heynous Delinquents as these, that God would smite their conscience, and touch their hearts, and give them repentance, for the great dishonour they had done unto God, and Jesus Christ, by these refractory and schismaticall practices, by their disobedience unto those Rulers and Governours which he had set o­ver them, &c.

[Page 24] Then Mr. Jenkin's devotion in this, and other places of his book, is to that of our late Prelacie, whereby they sought to commend both their Persons, Office, and Government unto the poor simple people, as sacred, and such whose honour could not be impeached or im­paired, without great impiety, and dishonour unto Christ: even as this Prelaticall piece of Presbytery, a little after, would needs make the world believe, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the greatest suffer of them all by my Pamphlet. The truth is, that none of them all need to have been any sufferer at all by the Pamphet he speaks of, the face of it being clearly set, not to curse them, but to blesse them altogether. If they suffer by it, they may thank the pride and stiffenesse of their own necks, w ^ch will not stoop to the yoke of sound counsel, or a through Admonition. But for the booke, whatsoever now they suffer from it, they have only some such cause of complaint against it, as they have against that corner-stone wch God hath laid in Sion, who by stub­bornnesse, impenitency, and unbelief, dash themselves in pieces against it. As for his intituling Jesus Christ to the preheminence of martyr­dome amongst them, it is but a straine of Rabshekah his rhetoricke of old, who went about to perswade the people, that what Hezekiah had done with speciall acceptation from God, in taking away the Ido­latrous Altar and high places, was matter of deepe provocation in his sight Isa. 36. 7., and that God was a loser, or sufferer thereby.

His second proofe of that sore rage of mine (which you heard of) against Christ in his Ministery and Government, Sect. 30. is, that I say, concer­ning the Reverent Ministers of Christ in the Citie, that they foment di­ons, multiply distractions, obstruct the quiet composure and setling of things in the Land, &c. I answer.

1 ^o. That I speake no such words as these concerning any Reverent Ministers of Christ, at least not concerning any, whom I had any more reason to know, or to take notice of, for such, then Paul had to know, or acknowledge him for Gods high Priest, who commanded him to be smitten on the mouth by the standers by whilst he was soberly plea­ding his cause; and to whom he said, God shall smite thee, thou painted wall Acts 23. 3.. Concerning some Ministers in the City, I confesse I spake those words: but that I spake them concerning the Reverent Ministers of Christ in the Citie, lies upon Mr. Jenkin [...] prove in his next, and in the meantime to be suspected, not only for a [...] a simple accu­ser, but for a false accuser of his brethren.

2 ^o. For the truth of the words, applied to those, of whom they were spoken and meant, I appeale to ten parts of twelve, throughout [Page 25] the Kingdome, viz. whether the Ministers of Sion-Colledge, amongst them (for of all of them the words were neither spoken, nor meant) doe not foment divisions, multiply distractions, obstruct the quiet composure of things amongst us. So that thus farre here is no rage reaching up to heaven proved in opposing Christ, either in his Ministers or government. It is a certaine rule: that Christ is never opposed with truth.

Whereas he addes, that, the genuine paraphrase is, the Ministers are the Troublers, and Traytors of the Kingdome; I wish, that if this be the paraphrase, it be not too genuine to the originall Text. I heare a bird (called, the Pulpit-Incendiary) sing a note very neare to the old dole­full tune, By Clergie-men we are undone.

Whereas I adde, Sect. 31. and Mr. Jenkin repeats; and recompence no degree of all this unworthiness with any considerable good; he gravely demands, would any Atheist in England have said more? Truly (Mr. Jenkin) I thinke not, nor perhaps halfe so much. I would be sorry to say no more for Christ, nor for his friends, nor in his cause, than an Atheist would say? Atheists are not like to put their fingers into any such fire, as I have done, for the honour and service of Jesus Christ my Lord, and his Gospel. Whereas hee addes (with much seeming re­gret) as if those words of mine did imply, that all their labours, though never so successefull in converting, or building up of soules, amount not to any considerable good; I cleerly answer, that for all the successe, either in converting of soules (except it hath been from God and god­nnesse, unto the power of Satan) and so for building up of soules (ex­cept it hath been in wrath and disaffection, against the Parliament, Armie, and faithfull servants of God, under the name of Sectaries and Independents) which the Ministers I speak of have had for these 3. or 4. years last past (for I speak of the unprofitablenesse and useles­nesse of their Ministery only since the zeale of high Presbyterie eate them up, as my words cleerly enough import) I am very full of a rationall confidence, that it may be cast up in a cipher, and measured with a reed that never grew.

Page 1. Sect. 32. He chargeth me with aiming at the fifth rib of Religion. It is the strangest metaphor that a man shall likely meete with, to call High-Presbytery the fifth rib of Religion. For certain I am, that (with truth) he can mean nothing else that I should aime at. Let that wri­ting of mine he speaks of, be examined and sifted to the bran, let my scope, drift, aim, end, designe therein be calculated by the narrowest and most exact observations; and it will clearly appeare, that I aim at nothing, but the breaking of the necke of high-Presbytery. Indeed, if [Page 26] this Presbytery be the fifth rib of Mr. Jenkin his religion, I confesse, I did aim at his fifth rib, and gave her a soare bang (I beleeve) upon it. But did Mr. Jenkin gather this Rhetoricall flower in Mr. Vicars garden? Or what quaint Author furnished his pen with such an Elegancy as this, to call the great interest of Sion Colledge (domineering Presby­tery I meane) the fifth rib of Religion? But I am so taken with the pleasantnesse and rarity of the resemblance, that I shall hereafter (in this discourse) forbeare the dull Grammar expression of High Presby­tery, and use the Rhetoricall of the fifth rib of Religion, in stead of it.

Yea but he presseth sore upon me with this accusation, Sect. 33. that I take away the foundation of religion, because I deny the Scripture to be that foun­dation. What else (saith he, after his insulse and vain manner, acting the part of a meere Braggadoch) is the English of these words, in ter­minis, his owne, viz. Questionlesse no writing whatsoever, whether Transla­tions or Originals, are the foundation of Christian Religion; And upon the onely repetition of these words, as if the battell were fought, the day won, and nothing more to be said in the businesse, hee be-zeales it thus Away with your hypocryticall exclamations against the enemies of Religion, &c. But is Caiaphas the High Priest risen again from the dead? Or was not this his deportment right up and down? He hath spoken Blasphemy (saith the Priest, concerning Christ) John Goodwin denies the Scripture (saith Mr. Jenkin) to be the foundation of Religion. What further need have we of witnesse (saith the Priest?) What else is the Eng­lish of these words (saith Mr. Jenkin?) The High Preist in a devout detestation of our Saviours blasphemy (as he must award it) rent his clothes: Mr. Jenkin in a zealous agony for my denying the Scripture, cryes ou [...], Away with your hypocriticall exclamations, &c.

But before my friend William and I part at this turning, I shall ei­ther make him as hereticall as my selfe in denying the Scriptures to bee the foundation of Religion, Sect. 34. or else prove his wits to be as schismaticall, as the senses of a Bethleemite (whom he in course English calls a Bed­lam) in departing from their master. But first (to his most un-chri­stian, yea unmanly deportment, in managing this base calumny, and forged accusation against me.)

Whereas I clearly and plainly distinguish and lay down a double sense, and acception of the word, Scriptures, and in the one sense a [...] clearly acknowledge them to be of Divine Authority, & so the founda­tion [Page 27] of Christian Religion, onely denying them to be such in the other, this unhallowed piece of Presbytery wholly suppresseth & concealeth my distinction; and what I deny onely in such and such a sense, re­presenteth as simply, absolutely, and in every sense denied by me. Whether I do not, in a due & regular sense, affirme and avouch the Scriptures to be of Divine Authority, to be the Word of God, and con­sequently the foundation of Christian Religion, I appeale to these words (in pag. 13.) of my Treatise concerning the Scriptures. First, if by Scripture, be meant, the matter and substance of things contained and held forth in the books of the Old and New Testament, commonly knowna­mongst Protestants by the name of Canonicall, I fully, with all my heart, and all my soul, beleeve them to be of Divine Authority, and none other than the word of God: and (God assisting) shall rather expose my selfe to a thou­sand deaths, than deny them so to be. Can any man, yea can Mr. Jen­kin himselfe, in words more perspicuous and plain, assert his ac­knowledgement and beliefe of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, than these? So that Mr. Jenkings charge against me of the denying the Scriptures to be the foundation of Christian Religion, stands onely upon the authority, credit, or base, of such an argumentation as this. God hath taken a course that we might serve him without feare (as is evident, Luke 1. 74.) therefore he hath taken a course that we should not feare him at all, or in any signification of the word, Feare: which conclusion is diametrally opposite to the whole course and current of the Scripture, and no wayes followes from the premises. In like manner, he that should inferre, because it is said (1 Sam. 15. 29.) that the strength of Israel (meaning God) is not a man that hee should re­pent, that therefore GOD can in no sence repent, should belie the holy Ghost, who expresly saith ( Genes. 6. 6.) that it re­pented the Lord that he had made man on the earth: yea and God him­selfe, who said thus to Samuel, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be King, 1 Sam. 15. 11. If I should reason thus, Mr. Jenkin denies the woodden Horse made for unruly Souldiers to ride, to be a living creature: therefore he denies an horse simply and in every sig­nification of the word, to bee a living creatures; might not Mr. Jenkin conclude me to be a Woodden Disputant? Yet this is the Logick by which he proves that I deny the Scripture to be the foundati­on of Religion.

Secondly, Sect. 35. when Austine, Mr. Bucer, Mr. Ball, &c. deliver them­selves in one place (at least seemingly, and so farre as the letter of the words they use, will beare) for such an opinion, which the generall tenor [Page 28] to nor of their writings elsewhere seeme to oppose, how impatiently importune is Mr. Jenkin, to have the sense of the particular place o­ver-ruled and interpreted, by the Analogy of what hee conceives to be their judgement elsewhere? Why then, in as much as he can pro­duce but one place onely, wherein I seem to deny the Scriptures to be of Divine Authority, or the foundation of Religion, whereas in twenty and ten places I clearly assert them for such, yea it is my entire, drift, scope, and designe in the whole Treatise, to prove them to be such; why (I say) doth he not regulate and measure the sence of that one place, by the constant and expresse tenor of the rest of the Treatise? But Mr. Jenkin, I see, hath a weight and a weight, an Ephah and an E­phah, one to accommodate him in selling, another in buying: but he shall do well to remember, that both these are an abomination unto the Lord, Prov. 20. 10.

Thirdly, Sect. 36. concerning that very particular sence, wherein I doe in­deed (and I think all intelligent and considering men with me) deny the Scriptures to be the word of God, and foundation of Religion, I expresse my selfe thus, p. 15. of the said Discourse. Though I doe not beleeve that any Originall Exemplar, or Copy of the Scriptures now extant amongst us, is so purely the word of God, but that it may very possibly have a mixture of the word of men in it; yet I confidently beleeve that the providence of God, and the love which he beares to his own glory, as well in the condemnation of the wicked and unbeleevers, as in the salvation of his chosen, have so farre in­terposed and watched over the great and gracious Discovery and Revelation which he hath made of himselfe by Jesus Christ unto the world, that those books, or writings, wherein it was in all the branches & particularities of it at first imparted unto the world, neither as yet have suffered, nor ever shall suffer, any such violation, mutilation or falsification in any kinde, either through the ignorance, negligence, or malice of men, but that they will be a­ble, sufficiently, yea abundantly to furnish the world, men of all sorts and conditions, with the knowledge of all things necessary to be knowne, either for their honourable and Christian deportment in this present world, or for their everlasting salvation and exaltation in that which is to come. By which words it clearly appeares, that though in a sense (limited and explained by me) I deny the Scriptures to be the foundation of Religi­on, yet I hold and assert them to CONTAIN the Foundation of Religion, i. those gracious counsels and intendments of God unto the world, by Jesus Christ, upon which Christian Religion stands, and is built. Why then did Mr. Jenkin Anania's it with my opinion, and keep back one part of it?

[Page 29] Fourthly, Sect. 37. concerning my said opinion, for which I beare the ca­lumniatory charge of Mr. Jenkins pen, I write thus ( pag. 17. of the said Discourse) Seventhly and lastly, the TRUE AND PRO­PER Foundation of Christian Religion, is not INK AND PA­PER, nor any booke, or bookes, not any writing, or writings whatsoever, whether Translations or Originals; but that substance of matter, those gra­cious counsels of God, concerning the salvation of the world by Iesus Christ, which indeed are represented, and declared, both in Translations and Ori­ginals; but are essentially and really distinct from both, and no wayes, for their Natures & Beings, depending on either. Why then did not M. Ienkin, charging me with denying the Scriptures to be the foundation of Reli­gion, as with a dangerous error, mention and relate this my opinion truly and fully, with such explications of mine about it, without which it is unpossible for any man to know what mine opinion was in this behalfe? Particularly, why did he not charge me with denying the Scriptures to be [THE TRUE AND PROPER] Foun­dation of Religion? Why doth he leave out those words [THE TRUE AND PROPER] which are essentiall to the true sta­ting of that opinion of mine, which he pretends to represent? Again secondly, why doth he not plainly acknowledge and declare, that when I deny the Scriptures to be the foundation of Religion, I meane by the Scriptures, the INK AND PAPER wherewith, & where­on, they are either written, or printed, and what ever else is found in them, or appertaining to them, besides the substance of matter, and those gracious counsels of God concerning the salvation of the world by Iesus Christ, which are contained and represented in them; this being an essentiall ingredient also in that opinion of mine? but it may be the fifth rib of Mr. Ienkins Religion, hath need of the pious frauds of the Papists for her corroboration and support: and can you then blame him for a little logerdemain now and then?

Fifthly, Sect. 38. why doth this young Academick, contrary to the principles of Logick, and all regular Argumentation, yea, in full conformity with the weaknesse of illiterate Disputers, deny the con­clusion, without denying or answering any thing at all to the pre­mises? I lay down severall Arguments, and Grounds of Reason, to prove the Scripture not to be the foundation of Religion (in the sence wherein I deny it so to be) and he, without any answer, or satisfacti­on given to so much as any one of these Arguments, denies my con­clusion, and votes it for an error destructive to the foundation of Religion. It is like the bent and figure of the fifth rib of his Reli­gion, [Page 30] required the Anomalie of these proceedings at his hand. But

Sixthly, Sect. 39. doth not himselfe distinguish (p. 7.) and affirme, that in a sense the Scriptures are not the foundation of religion? Else what is the English of these words, in terminis his own? May not Christ be the onely foundation in point of mediation: and the Scripture in point of manifesta­tion and discovery? Hath the man a Fungus a Mushrome, in stead of caput humanum, upon his shoulders, to quarrell with me for denying (in a sense) the Scriptures to be the foundation of Religion, and yet to deny as much himselfe? Or did I ever, or doe I any where deny them to be such a foundation, in respect of representation and discove­ry; i. to represent and discover him who is the foundation of Religion, by way of mediation? Or doth, or can this young Pragmatico pro­duce from any writings of mine, any jot, letter, syllable, word, sen­tence, of any such import? I confesse, that to call the Scriptures the foundation of Religion in point of manifestation or discovery (taking the words manifestation and discovery, properly, in their usual and known significations) is as ridiculous and absurd a metaphor, as the stiling of Prerbytery the fifth rib of Religion. For can he that onely mani­fests, makes known and discovers unto me, where such, or such an house, or towne, stands, or what the situation or manner of building of either is, be in any tolerable construction, or sense, called the foundation of either? Mr. Jenkin thinks that he manifests and disco­vers the feeblenesse of Sion Colledge visited: is he therefore the founda­tion, either of the book, or of the supposed (or rather, pretended) fee­blenesse, which he discovers? But to affirm (as he doth) the Scripture to be the onely foundation of Religion, in point of manifestation and disco­very, is not onely absurdum absurdo absurdius, but most Atheologicall also, and unsound in point of truth. For did not God manifest, and discover Christ, or Christ, himself, whilst yet there were no Scriptures, or bookes written concerning him? The Apostle Peter informs us, that Christ by his Spirit went and preached unto the Spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the dayes of Noah, Pet. 3. 19, 20. &c. Certainly the Scriptures were not extant in the dayes of Noah; Moses (who was born divers hundreds of years after) being the first Pen-man of them. Yet Christ by his Spirit even then preached unto men. Did he preach without manifesting or dis­covering himselfe, or the foundation of Religion unto them; I mean, in such a sense as the Scriptures afterwards manifested and discovered him? If he did in the dayes of Noah manifest and discover himself to the [Page 31] world, then are not the Scriptures the only, no nor yet the first foun­dation of Religion, no not in point of manifestation, or discovery. Yea, if the Scriptures be the only foundation in point of manifestation and dis­covery, how came all the Hagiographers and pen-men of the Scrip­ture, by that knowledge they had of God and of Christ, and of Re­ligion? Did they ground their knowledge of these upon the Scriptures, whilst as yet they were not? And whereas he demands of me (not more imperiously, than simply, but both, sufficiently) why I alledge 1 Cor. 3. 11. Other foundation, &c. to prove that Christ is the only foun­dation, if I doe not ground my knowledg and beliefe hereof upon this place, I desire to require his kindnes with this demand of him: why did our Saviour Christ cite the testimony of John to prove himself to be the Messias John 5. 32. 33, 34., if hee did not ground his knowledg & beliefe of his being the Messiah, upon John's testimony? One good turne (the saying is) re­quires another: if Mr. Jenkin will pipe unto me in answering my de­mand, I will dance unto him in answering his. In the meane time what if I should prevent him with this answer, that I doe ground my knowledge and beliefe of Christs being the only foundation, upon 1 Cor. 3. 11? What followes from hence? That I acknowledge the Scrip­tures to be (in a regular sense) the foundation of Christian Religion? Poore man! when did I ever deny it. My discourse of the Scrip­tures is (as hath beene lately proved) full of this assertion. If any thing followes besides this, narra mi fili, fili mi Batte. Had not the man now (thinke we) a sore temptation upon him to foame out his owne shame in this most insufferably- Thrasonicall demand: Is it possi­ble that the known distinction of essendi, & cognoscendi, principium, quod, et quo, or a foundation personall and Scripturall, should be hid from this se­ducer in chiefe? I confesse Mr. Jenkin is in no danger of being a Sedu­cer in chiefe (unlesse his wits and intellectuals miraculously advance) except it be of, or amongst, such a generation of men and women, as Peter resembleth to naturall bruit beasts, made to be taken and destroy­ed 2 Pet. 2. 22., or Solomons simple ones, whose character is, to believe every thing Prov. 14. 15. Well might he ask, is it possible, that the distinction he speaks of, should be hid from me? For that which is not hid from him, cannot lightly be hid from any other. He talks of distinctions: but with the Apostles Desirers, to be teachers of the law, he understands neither what he saith, nor whereof he affirmes 1 Tim. 1. 7.. Would he else charge me (as he doth a little after) with doing wickedly and weakly to oppose Christ and his word; when as himselfe (as we heard just now) opposeth foundations perso­nall, to foundations Scripturall? What is this but to oppose Christ and [Page 32] his word, as much as, and in the very same sense wherein, I oppose them There is nothing more frequent in Protestant-writers than to distin­guish the person of Christ, whom (from the greek Fathers) they call [...], the essentiall or substantiall word, from the written word, which they call [...] the word spoken, or pro­nounced: and what Novice knows not that in every distinction, there is, or ought to be, an opposition? And for his known distinction of essendi, & cognoscendi, which hee so much wonders should be hid from mee, he is desired in his next to produce any classique Author that ever used it, but himselfe. The complexion of it is, as if it were of the house and lineage of Mr. Jenkins learning. I confesse there is difference enough to make a distinction, between esse, and cognoscere; witnesse Mr. Jenkin himselfe, who hath a tall mans portion in the one, but scarce a childs in the other. But

Seventhly, Sect. 40. and lastly, that the Scriptures, whether written, or printed, are not truly and properly the foundation of Religion, I demon­strate in the sight of the Sun, to the shame and confution of all those faces, which have charged the Assertion and Tenet upon me, as an Errour, by these arguments.

First, If Religion was founded, built, stood firme and stable in the world, before the Scriptures were, then cannot the Scriptures be truly & properly the foundation of religion. This proposition needs no proof, beyond the explication of the terms. By the Scriptures, I meane the Book, or books, commonly known by this Name amongst us, wher­in the gracious counsels of God concerning the salvation of the world by Jesus Christ are declared and expressed, either by writing or printing: as they were (for matter and substance) revealed at first by God himselfe, unto the first writers, or pen-men of them.

By the foundation of Religion, we meane (I presume) on all hands, that which mainly and primarily supports it, and without which it cannot stand, or have a being among men. If Mr. Ienkin meanes any thing else either by Scriptures, or by his foundation of Religion, I must excuse him from blaming, or medling with any opinion of mine concerning the Scriptures, or foundation of Religion. Therefore I assume:

But Religion was founded, built, stood firm & stable in the world before the Scriptures were. Ergo.

This latter proposition, besides the native pregnancy and evidence of Truth in it, is fully proved by me page 10. of my discourse concer­ning the Divine Authority of the Scriptures: where (for dispatch [Page 33] sake) I desire the Reader, if unsatisfied in this point, to enquire af­ter it.

Secondly, Sect. 41. If the foundation of Religion (truly and properly so called) be unperishable, and what cannot be thrown down, or deprived of Being, then can no booke, or bookes whatsoever under heaven, and consequently not the Scriptures themselves, be this foundation.

But the foundation of Religion (truly and properly so called) is unperish­able, &c. Ergo.

The Consequence in the Major Proposition, is evident: because a­ny booke, all bookes whatsoever, are perishable, may bee burnt or consumed by fire, or miscary by many other casualties, that may possibly befall them.

The Minor Proposition stands firm upon this bottome: viz. that no building or superstruction whatsoever, can exceed the Foundati­on in strength, or continuance. Therefore if the Church of God, which is built upon the foundation of Religion, bee unperishable, and which cannot be prevailed against, to ruine or destruction, (which the Scripture every where asserteth) most certain it is, that the foun­dation on which it is built, is unperishable also. If the foundation of Mr. Jenkins Religion, be his Bible, then is his Religion no such treasure, but that theeves may break through, and steal it from him. For how should it continue or stand, the foundation of it being gone? Or in case his Bible should be casually burnt with fire, the foundation of his Religion, and consequently his Religion it selfe, should be consumed. Diogenes hearing that Plato had given this definition or description of a man, Animal bipes implume. that he was a living creature, with two feet, without feathers, gets a Cock, and pulls off all his feathers whilst he was alive, and throwes him in amongst some of Platoes Scholars, Ecce hominem Platonicum. wishing them to behold their Master Plato his Man. If some such odd-conceited fel­low as Diogenes, should use meanes to get Mr. Jenkin his Bible, and having defaced, rent and torn it, should come and cast it into the midst of his Auditors, with this Elogie, Ecce fundamentum religio­nis Jenkinianae, Behold the goodly foundation of the religion of your Master Jenkin, it might prove a more effectuall conviction unto him of his folly, than seven demonstrative reasons administred by a more sober man.

Thirdly, If any booke, or bookes whatsoever, either that which is called the Scripture, or any other, be the true and proper foundation of religion, then may religion be truly and properly said to have been founded by men.

[Page 34] But Religion cannot truly and properly be sayd to have been founded by men, but by God. Ergo.

If Mr. Jenkin will deny the Assumption, at the perill, both of his conscience, and reputation, be it. The consequence in the Propo­sition is evident. For as the Apostle saith concerning houses, that e­very house [...], is built by some man (as our Translators render it:) So is it as true concerning bookes, that every book now ex­tant in the world, every Bible, in what language soever, whether printed, or transcribed, whether consisting of paper, parchment, or other like materiall, was built and form'd, and made into a book by men. There is no point, letter, syllable, or word, in any of them, but is the workmanship of some mans hand, or other. If Mr. Jenkin hath a [...], a Bible that fell out of heaven, written, or printed without hands, he is defired to produce it for the accommodation of the world. Yet he must know, that though he could produce such a Bi­ble, or copie of the Scriptures, as this; it would not follow that this book must needs be the foundation of Religion, inasmuch as Religion might take place, be professed and practised in truth and power by men, where this book never came, nor was heard of.

Fourthly, Sect. 43. If those Tables of stone, wherein the Law was written by the Finger of God himselfe, Exo. 24. 12. 32, 16. were not the foundation of this law, nor of the o­bedience exhibited unto it, then neither is any Bible or Book whatsoever, the foundation of Religion.

But the Tables of stone written immediatly by God himselfe, were not the foundation of the Law written therein, nor of the obedience exhibited unto it. Ergo.

This latter proposition is evident, because these Tables of stone were broken in pieces by Moses soon after Exod. 32. 19, and yet the law stood firme, and obedience hath been given unto it untill this day.

The Consequence in the Major cannot reasonably be doubted or denied. For doubtlesse there is as much, (if not much more) reason, to judge those two Tables, w ^ch are said to have bin the work of God, & the writing in them, the writing of God graven upon the Tables Exod. 32. 16, to have been the foundation of the Law written in them, and of the obedience either due, or exhibited unto it; as there is to judge any book what­soever, either written, or printed, by the hands of men, to be the foundation of that Religion, the grounds and principles whereof are declared in it, and no more but declared: especially confidering that this Declaration hath (as hath been said) been formerly made by God without any such book, and might be made again by him, if he plea­sed: [Page 35] yea and (doubtlesse) would be made, if there were any just oc­casion, or necessity for it.

Fifthly, Sect. 44 If any booke, or bookes whatsoever, Bible or other, be the true and proper foundation of Religion, then is not the true and proper founda­tion of religion necessarily uniform, and consistent in all things with it selfe. The reason of this Proposition is, because it is very possible that ei­ther through negligence, ignorance, want of memory, or the like, in Scribes, and Correctors of the Presse, some such error may be found in every copie of the Scriptures now extant in the world, which will render this copie contradictious to it selfe; yea it is possible, that ma­ny such errors as this may be found in the best and truest copies that are. I now assume:

But the true and proper foundation of religion, is necessarily uniform and consistent in all things with it selfe. Ergo. If this Proposition be ob­noxious, the true and proper foundation of Religion must be divided in, and against it selfe: and how then (according to our Saviours own Maxime and Rule, Matth. 12. 25.) can either it, or the Religion built upon it, stand?

Sixthly, Sect. 45. If any booke or bookes, Bible, or other, bee the true and proper foundation of Religion, Then is the foundation of Religion somewhat that is visible, and exposed to the outward senses of man. This needs no proof, unlesse Mr. Jenkin will deny, that Bibles, or the Scriptures, are legible, and may be seen.

But certain it is, That the true and proper foundation of Religion, is not any thing that is visible, or exposed to the outward senses of men; but somewhat that is spirituall, and apprehensible onely by the mind and under­standing of men. Ergo.

The reason of this proposition is, if the proper foundation of Religi­on, be the object of the outward sense, then is there nothing necessary to be beleeved by any man to make him truly religious, but what ei­ther he sees with his eyes, handles with his hand, or the like. For he that beleeves or builds upon, the true and proper foundation of Religion, (questionlesse) is truly religious. But men are not made truly religi­ous by beleeving onely what they see with their outward sense of see­ing: otherwise, every man or woman, that did but look into a Bible, and see such and such words and sentences written, or printed there, and beleeved accordingly, that these words and sentences were here written or printed, must needs hereby become truly religious. Certain­ly, if men may be made truly religious, onely by looking into a Bible, seeing what is there written, or printed, and by beleeving that what [Page 36] he sees there written, or printed, is indeed there written or printed accordingly, Mr. Jenkin hath smal reason to deny, but that a Natu­rall man hath power to supernaturall good; at least if he judgeth true re­ligion to be such.

Seventhly, Sect. 46. the true and proper foundation of Religion is intrinsecally, essentially, and in the nature of it, unchangeable, unalterable in the least, by the wills, pleasures, or attempts of men.

But there is no book or books whatsoever, Bible or other, but in the con­tents of them may be altered or changed by men. Ergo.

For the Major, If the proper foundation of Religion, were intrinsecal­ly, & in the nature of it, changeable and alterable by men, then can it not be any matter of truth; because the nature of truth is like the nature of God himselfe, unchangeable, unalterable by Men, Angels, Devils, or any creature whatsoever: yea God himselfe cannot al­ter it, any whit more than deny himselfe, or change his own Na­ture or Being.

For the Minor, that also is no lesse evident: Experience teacheth us, that bookes, or Bibles themselves, are de facto changed and alte­red by men from time to time; every new Edition, or Impression (al­most) commending it selfe for somewhat corrected or amended in it, which was delinquent or defective in the former: And if Mr. Jen­kin be not dissensed altogether, he cannot but know, that à facto ad possibile, efficax est illatio.

Eightly (and lastly) If the Bible, Sect. 47. or Scripture (in the sense formerly explained) be the true and proper foundation of Religion, it must bee un­derstood and meant, either of the Bible and Scriptures, as in the Originall languages onely, or onely as translated into other languages, or as both.

But it is neither true, that the Bible or Scriptures in the Originall lan­guages onely, nor onely as translated into others, nor as both, are this foun­dation of Religion. Ergo.

First, if Mr. Jenkin will say, that they are the foundation of Religi­on onely as they are in the originall languages, then they that under­stand not these languages, cannot build, (at least with understand­ing) upon this foundation: and consequently can never be truly Re­ligious. If so, what will become of Mr. Jenkins own Religion?

Secondly, if the Bible, or Scripture, be the foundation we speake of, onely as translated into other languages; then it is alike unpos­sible, that any Jew, or Grecian, who understands onely the language wherein he was born, should become truly religious.

Thirdly (and lastly) if they he this foundation, in both the said [Page 37] confiderations and respects, or as well in the one, as the other, indif­ferently; then two things, or more, in completenesse of being, really and specifically differing one from another, and between themselves, may notwithstanding be one and the same identicall and numericall thing. This consequence is evident upon these two suppositions: 1 ^o. That the foundation of Religion is but one and the same numeri­cally. 2 ^o. That Bibles, or the Scriptures, in severall languages dif­fer specifically amongst themselves. Both these suppositions are preg­nant enough in Truth. For 1 ^o. If the foundation of Religion were not numerically and identically the same, then men by becomming, or by being made Religious, should multiply foundations of religion: yea, and foundations in this kind should both increase, and decrease, in their number, as the number of persons Religious, either encrea­seth or decreaseth. Which though it looks like an [...] of Master Ienkin's learning and wit, yet is sufficiently ridiculous to an understanding man.

2 ^o. That Bibles, or the Scriptures, in severall languages, differ specifically, amongst themselves, is evident likewise. For two things, or more, which differ more then numerically, must needs differ spe­cifically (at least) there being no middle or third kinde of difference between that which is numericall, and that which is specifical. Now certain it is, that an Hebrew Bible (for example) and a Spanish Bible (and so an English Bible, and a Latine) differ more then numeri­cally the one from the other; because they differ more than either two Hebrew Bibles, or two Spanish Bibles, differ from one another; and yet these differ numerically the one from the other.

If Mr. Ienkin by the advice of the learned (by which Mr. Vicars, Sect. 48. if he and his speak Truth, composed his learned picture, and Wind­mill) shall here answer, that two things, which differ only numeri­cally, may yet differ more between themselves, then either of them differs from some third, which differs from neither of them more than numerically: so that every difference which is more then nume­ricall; is not necessarily specificall: as a man that is learned, differs more from a natural Idiot, than either of them differs from a sober man without learning; yet it followes not from hence, that any of these three men differ from other specifically, they being all men properly and univocally; I answer,

That every difference which is more then numerical, must needs be specificall, in one kind or other; i. must needs argue a difference in some things (at least) which specifically differ one from the other, [Page 38] though not necessarily in any thing which is essential to the things, or persons, which are said thus to differ. As for example: a learned man differs not from an idiot, or ignorant man, in any thing which is essentially requisite to the nature, and simple being of a man: these have a humane body, and an humane soule (which is all that is es­sentially requisite to the simple being of a man) as well as he. But yet he differs from them both in the endowment of learning: which learning differs specifically both from the ignorance, which is in the one; and the incapacity of knowledge, which is in the other. Such differences as these, the Logicians call specifical, but not simply spe­cifical, but specifical accidental, or, in specie accidentali. This confi­dered, the exception mentioned is of no value against the argument, which it pretends to oppose. For though the difference betweene an Hebrew Bible, and a Spanish, be but specifical accidental, i. in respect of the two specifically different languages, wherein they are written, neither of these being essential to the booke, which we call the Bible, or the Scriptures; yet such a difference as this is sufficient to prove, that they cannot be one and the same thing numerically, either Bible or Scriptures: and consequently, neither divisim, nor conjunctim, the proper foundation of Religion, which (as was lately proved) is nume­rically one and the same. As though the difference which is in point of learning, and ignorance, between two men, the one of them being learned, the other ignorant, be not sufficient to prove that they dif­fer specifically essentially the one from the other; yet being sufficient to prove that they differ specifically accidentally, it is abundantly sufficient to prove that they differ numerically, and cannot possibly be, or make, one and the same person.

Mr. Jenkin (I trust) before he baul, Sect. 49. or brays against me any more, as a man erroneous for denying the Scriptures to be the foundation of Religion, will vouchsafe to answer these 8. arguments, & that work­man-like, not after that smal-sense rate, at which he hath written in his busie Bishop. Or if he had rather clamour, then clerk it, or shall do only the one, because hee hath no good faculty at the other, I shall apply that soft and gentle remedy (good both for him, and my selfe) neglect.

Before I leave the particular in hand, I must needs (for the credit of my Antagonist, being but a young beginner) acquaint the Reader with that Hercule in and signall argument of his ( page 22.) being the quintessence, and spiritfull extraction of many pages; yea of all hee argueth against me about the Scriptures. How can any (saith he) be­lieve [Page 39] the matter and substance of the Scripture, to be the word of God, when as he must be uncertaine, whether the written Word, or Scriptures, where­in the matter is contained, are the word of God, or no? But is not this a question of the same profound calculation, with this: How can a man believe that the Sun is a greater light, and the Moone a lesser, if he be uncertaine, whether every jot and tittle of what is read in our Bible, Gen. 1. 16. be the word of God, or no; because here it is said, and God made two great lights, the greater, &c? Or with this: How can a man believe, that there are any such seasons in the yeare, as Sum­mer and Winter, if he must be uncertaine, whether that be the word of God, or no, Psal. 74. 17. Thou hast made summer and winter? If there be no meanes possible, to believe the matter and substance of the Scrip­tures, if a man be uncertaine whether the written word or Scriptures, (i. whether every thing, sentence, phrase, word, syllable, letter, point that is found in our printed Bibles: for this must be his meaning, if he meanes to argue against me) be the word of God, or no, miserable is the faith of Master Jenkin, yea miserable is the faith of the whole world. For what assurance can any man have, that the Transcri­bers of the Bible heretofore, and the Printers of them of later times, have in nothing mistaken, or miscarried about them? Are Scribes and Printers, Mr. Jenkins his Prophets, and Apostles? or doth he not vest in them the infallibility of the immediate pen-men of the holy Ghost? If the knowledge and faithfulnesse, or unerringnesse of Printers and Transcribers, be the foundation of Master Jenkin's Faith, I confesse that hee and I build upon two very different foun­dations.

Besides, Sect. 50. if it be unpossible for mee to believe that the matter and sub­stance of Scriptures is the word of God, if I be uncertain whether the writ­ten word be the word of God, or no; how came the Patriarchs, and ho­ly men and women, who lived in the first two thousand years of the world, to believe it, since it was not only uncertain unto them, whe­ther our Bibles, or Scriptures, or word now written, were the word of God, or no, but whether such a word should ever be written, or no? Doubtlesse the same way to bring me to believe, what they believed, is as open before the glorious God at this day, as it was then; seeing he hath not hedged it up, either against himselfe, or me, with the thrones of any threatning, or decree.

Againe: though I willingly acknowledge (and prove it at large, in my Treatise concerning the Divine Authority of the Scriptures) that the manner of the phrase and style of the Scriptures, is a rich [Page 40] character of their Divinity, and a very considerable ground to prove that they are the word of God; yet is not this character of equal weight or power for such a conviction, with the matter and substance of the Scriptures. Therefore the nature, beauty, worth, weight, and excel­lency of these (I meane, of the matter and substance of the Scriptures) is sufficient to perswade, and bring men to believe, that they are the word of God, or things which came from God, though they had not the gracious and super-added advantage of any thing in the Scrip­tures, whereby to believe, that they, in respect of their language, stile, and all particularities of expression, were the word of God. In­somuch that were the matter and substance of the Scriptures understan­dingly and faithfully declared and held forth, in any other Book or writing, besides the Scriptures, and which Mr. Jenkin himself would not call the written word of God, there were no impossibility at all, nor much improbability, but that considering men might come to believe them to be the word of God.

Yet again: Sect. 57. Doth not the Scripture it self plainly affirm and teach, that [...] the goodnesse, or kindnesse, of God leadeth [even natural, yea and wicked men] to repentance Rom. 2. 4. If so, then certaine it is, that this kindnesse or goodnesse of God towards them, leadeth them to the knowledge and consideration of this Truth, that upon their Repen­tance God will be gracious unto them, and forgive them their sins: in as much as without the knowledge or beliefe hereof, it is unpossi­ble that any man should be led to a true and sound Repentance (of which the Apostle here speaketh) by any motive, means, or ingage­ment whatsoever. Now I desire to understand from Mr. Jenkin in his next, whether forgivenesse of sinnes, and acceptation into favour with God, upon true repentance, be nothing of the matter or sub­stance of the Scriptures: yea or whether it doth not comprehend in it, as explicitely and intirely, as so much can lightly be comprehended in so little, the whole and intire matter and substance of the Scrip­ture. If this be so, then may men who are uncertaine whether the written word, or Scriptures, be the word of God, or no, come to be­lieve the matter and substance of them to be the word of God notwith­standing; in as much as the long suffering, kindnesse, or goodnesse of God, are extended and vouchsafed unto many, who are altogether uncertain whether the written word be the word of God, or no.

Lastly, Sect. 52. doth not the Scripture also as plainely affirme, that the Heavens declare the glory (i. the glorious power, as the word of­ten signifieth) of God Psalm 19. 1., and his righteousnesse Psalm 50. 6. and againe, [Page 41] that [...] i. that which may be knowne of God, his invisible things, his eternall power and God-head, are clearly seene from the Cre­ation of the world, and are to be understood by the things that are made Rom. 1. 19, 20.: and yet further, that the Gentiles (without the written word) both have, and shew the works of the Law written in their hearts Rom. 2. 15. (by the worke of the Law, meaning, the effect, matter, or substance of the law written; or else such convictions of the equity, and meetness for them to practice, of the things contained in this Law, which this Law is wont to worke, and produce, in those who live under it) besides ma­ny other things of like consideration. Now I would gladly know of Mr. Jenkin by his next, whether neither the power of God, nor the righteousnesse of God, nor the invisible things of God, nor the eternall power of the God-head of God, nor the things contained in the law, be not the matter and substance, at least some-what as much of the matter and substance of the Scriptures. If they be, then simple is his demand: How can any man believe the matter and substance of the Scriptures to be the word of God, when as he must be uncertaine whether the written word, or Scriptures, wherein the matter is contained, be the word of God, or no?

One thing more (as to the point in hand) I would gladly be in­formed of by Mr. Jenkin in his next, viz. what the ground-worke and foundation of that Faith of his is, whereby he believes that every passage, sentence, phrase, word, syllable, letter, point, extant and to be found in every Bible, or copie of the Scriptures, printed, or writ­ten, Original or Translated, throughout the world, is the word of God, or any part of it; considering 1. the manifold, yea and mate­rial disagreements that are generally known to be betweene many of them: and 2. that the word of God is but one, alwayes uniforme, and consistent with it selfe, without the least variation or change. It is more than to be feared, that whilst he pretends the establishment of men in the Faith of the Scriptures, hee spreads a snare in their way, and steers a direct course to cast them upon the quick-sands of insu­perable difficulties and uncertainties.

Whereas I take my Testimonialists tardy, Sect. 54. in making it an infamous and pernicious errour against the Divine Authority of Scriptures, to say that a superstruction, is not a foundation, or that the act of belie­ving, being built upon the foundation of Religion, cannot be this founda­tion it selfe; with what acumen (thinke ye) doth this novice-underta­ker bring off himselfe, and his fellow adventures, from the shelfe of this malicious absurdity? For your argument (saith he, page 8. 9.) Christ is the foundation, and therefore not any act of man, as the believing [Page 42] of the Scriptures, 'tis very false and feeble. What man! is it a very false and feeble Argument, to infer, that because Abraham begat Isaac, therefore Isaac was Abraham's Son? Or thus: Isaac was the Son of A­braham: therefore he was not the Son of Moses; is this a false & feeble argument too? Or is not this an argument of the same calculation, pregnancy and frame; The timber of an house, is part of the super­struction, and is built upon the foundation; therefore it is not the foundation it selfe? Faith is an act of man built upon the foundation of Religion: therefore it is not this foundation it selfe. If Mr. Ienkin's fore-head will serve him to call these false and feeble arguments, gape against ovens hereafter who will: and let those undertake to prove, that a mans eyes are not his eares, who have a minde to trifle away their time, or know not how to doe God or men better service with it. Mr. Ienkin by such couragious expressions and sayings, as these, superstructions are foundations, 'tis very false and feeble to say other­wise, that the Covenant hath done good to the Kingdome Busie Bi­shop, p. 9., that I by de­nying the Scriptures feare not to destroy the word of Truth Page 10., that men that are dead assume to themselves titles in print Page 11., that I dare not come neere an expression of dislike to errour Page 11., that Master Edwards is a man of blessed memory Page 12., that to advise men, not to make errour and herefie of what they please, & cannot prove them to be such, is to advise them to believe nothing or to put them to believe nothing Pag. 13. 14., that because there is nothing in the world so certain as matters of Faith Ibid., therefore there is nothing more certaine then that I deny the Authority of the Scrip­tures, and that naturall men have no power at all to good supernatu­rall, &c. that Doctrina salutaris signifies the Law Page 42. [of nature] that, Gentes ante revelatum eis Christum verae justiciae fuisse compotes, doth not signifie, that the Gentiles before Christ was revealed unto them, were partakers, or obtainers of true righteousnesse, but of the duties of righ­teousnesse commanded in the law Page 43.; Mr. Jenkin (I say) by the frequency of such valorous and couragious sayings and reasonings as these (for I omit twenty more, and ten of as high a resolution, as these) hath inspired me also, with courage, and resolution, to count it strength e­ough for me to sit still, the next time he riseth up against me.

By a like line of learning, Sect. 55. reason, and truth, with which he mea­sured my former errour (so voted in the Testimonie concerning the Scriptures, & at last could make nothing of it, but a Truth, (in pro­cesse of discourse) he attempts the measuring of my second errour al­so (for so it pleaseth the Colledge of Dictators to adjudge it) concer­ning the naturall mans free will, and power to good supernaturall: (for [Page 43] thus that Facultas Theologica thought good to head it.) The diffe­rence between his deportment, and acquitment of himselfe, in the one, and in the other, consists only, or chiefly in this; that as Jeru­salem justified her two sisters, Samaria, and Sodome, by multiplying her abhominations more than they Ezek. 16. 51. 52.; so hath hee qualified the hard a­spect of his un-christian and un-clerk like behaviour, in traversing the former point, with that super-abundant extravagancy in both, wherein he utters himselfe in managing the latter.

As for his un-christian dealings (in affirming contrary to the certi­ficate of his own conscience, so many most notorious, & broad-fac'd falshoods, & untruths) knowledg hath been taken of them, and gi­ven (in part) under the first head. Concerning his ridiculous, emp­ty, and absurd reasonments, and other puerllities of this nature; we shall (for the present) only give a transient & brief account of them; intending a more full and through discussion of the controversie in due time (the great disposer of all things not gainsaying.)

First, one of his first-born arguments, to prove it an errour in me, to hold, that a naturall man hath any power to good supernaturall, as to repent, believe, &c. is, that herein I lovingly joyne hands with the Ar­minians the Remonstrants Busie Bi­shop, p. 28.: that the Arminions were my Schoolmasters Page 30.: & again, that I and my masters the Remonstrants will not part Page 31.. This cabbage he boyles, and re-boyles, and boyles again over and over, I know not how often, & sets it before his Readers as one of his choi­sest dishes. But did the young man (thinke we) calculate his Pam­phlet for the Meridian of Mr. Vicars his Academie? or did he expect it would be read only by children, women, or men superstitiously addicted in their minds and understandings, or blinded by the God of this world? Or did he conceive, that men of worth, parts, learning, who keep their judgments, consciences, understandings free for the en­tertainment of truth, & judg it beneath a man [...] to be servile to the epidemical suppositions of men, wold reject the opinion as an error, because it is found in the writings of the Arminians & Re­monstrants? Might not I upon the same ground, tell Mr. Jenkin, that if he holds Jesus Christ to be the Holy one of God, he lovinly joynes hands with the Devill, on which he chargeth me, to joyne hands with the Arminians, and Remonstrants? Or did not the Devill assert the one, as well as the Remonstrants doe the other? Or that if he teacheth the Resurrection from the dead, he lovingly joynes hands with the Phari­sees? Are these two great Truths ever the worse, or the more to be declin'd, because (in Mr. Jenkin's notion, and phrase) they who em­brace [Page 44] them lovingly joyne hands with the Devill, and men erroneous in many things otherwise? Might he not by as good logick as this have proved Daniel to be a beast, because he was amongst Lions? or David to have beene a Philistine, because hee dwelt amongst Phili­stines? The Arminians affirme, that there is a supernaturall power con­ferred upon the will, and that God by this means doth worke immediately upon the will, &c. They attribute all the praise of conversion to God, and place the cause of mens disobedience and unbeliefe in themselves, &c. They acknowledge a necessity of speciall grace unto perseverance, &c. I presume Mr. Jenkin concurs in all these, and in twenty things more, which they teach: and why is not he an Arminian for joyning with them in many things, if I must needs be an Arminian for joyning with them in some few? especially considering that upon a legitimate debate and examination, some of those things wherein he agrees with them, will be found every whit as much, yea or more, erroneous than those, wherein my judgement fals in with theirs.

But this stratagem of Master Jenkin in attempting to defame such Truths, as hee hath no mind should be received, and to cause the judgements and consciences of weake men to loath them, by telling them, that such and such opinions dwell in the tents of such and such erroneous & dangerous men, is but an old Papisticall device, where­by they also endeavoured to render such Truths of God, as were in­comportant with their Interests, hatefull unto the weak and super­stitious people amongst them. Thus Prateolus (a great Popish Here­seologer) to render this christian and sound opinion as erroneous and hereticall amongst his party, viz. that it is lawfull for any per­son to eate what meates he pleaseth on any day, though the Church should forbid it, solemnly tells them, that it was the opinion of Jovi­nian the Heretique. So to make them out of love with receiving the Sacrament in both kinds, he tels them that it was the practise of Ne­storius the Heretique. To defame the judgement and opinion of those, who deny Purgatory, he informs them that it was one of the heresies of Armeni to deny it. And it is an argument much insisted upon by Popish writers, to bear off Protestants from that Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, that this was a Doctrine taught by Si­mon Magus. Mr. Jenkin, the question, with wise and considering men, in matters of Faith is not, with whom we lovingly joyne hands, but from whom wee unkindly with-draw hands. So that I separate not in an opinion from Peter, Paul, or Christ, it concerns me not at all with whom I joyne.

[Page 45] Secondly, Sect. 57. whereas I charge the young man and his compeeres, with confuting Pelagianisme by pure Manichisme, Busie Bishop, page 48. hee makes accompt that he washeth his hands in pure innocency from this charge, by tel­ling his Reader, that this charge was as old as Pelagius: it was by him cast upon Austin, & Hierom: by the Jesuites, upon the Protestants: by the Arminians, upon the assertors of grace, &c. I confesse the man needs not care how heavy his charge be, if his Judges be so simple as to ac­cept such a purgation as this. For doth he in this vindication reason at any better rate, than if a Seducer and Deceiver of soules, being charged with such a crime, should plead thus for himselfe: the charge or accusation of Deceiving people, is as old as the Scribes and Pharisees: they, or the people by their suggestion, charged Christ himselfe with it. Or if a blasphemer, being justly accus'd of blasphemie, should vindicate himselfe thus: the accusation of blasphemie, is as old as Caiaphas the High-Priest: hee cast it upon the Son of God himselfe: the Synagogue of Libertines suborned men to cast it upon Stephen, &c Acts 6. 9. 11.. Mr. Ienkin, the question is not, how old the accusation of confuting Pe­lagianisme by Manichisme, is, nor yet by whom, nor upon whom, it hath been cast: but by whom any of your judgement in the point of Reprobation, have been sufficiently vindicated from it, or against it. Till you can produce a man who hath done this feate for you, and for your opinion, and can demonstrate unto us that he hath done it sufficiently indeed, you must (for ought I can doe to relieve you) be under the accusation.

Thirdly, Sect. 48. In going about to wrest the passages cited by me from Mr. Bucer, Mr. Ball, and some of the Fathers, out of my hand, how miserably doth he flunder in quagmires of non-sence and absurdity! Let us view him in this posture once for all, page 37, 38. where wee shall find him up to the eares in mud, strugling and working with his braine might and maine, to fetch off Mr. Balls words from my o­pinion. Mr. Ball's words are these: No man is hindered from believing through the difficulty or unreasonablenesse of the command, or through his own simple infirmity, as being willing and desirous to believe, but not able, which inability deserves piety: but his inability is of corruption & wilful­nesse; he doth not believe, because he will not: he is unable, because he doth not covet, or desire, which is inexcusable. Well: how doth Mr. Jenkin wash these words from all staine and tincture of confederacie with my opinion, which affirmeth, that men are not wholly destitute of all power to doe what God requires of them as simply necessary to salvation, & particularly to repent, and believe? In the might of his weaknesse hee [Page 46] riseth up thus, p. 37. What is here that gives you the least countenance in your errors? Why (Mr. Jenkin) who either said, or thought, that here was any thing of such an import? I professe ingenuously, I know nothing written by any man whatsoever, that gives me the least countenance in any error. I cite the words, not so much by way of countenance, either in any Error or Truth, as of concurrence, & this onely with Truth. But what childling, but Mr. Jenking, would have rais'd the dust of such a ridiculous demand up such an occasion? But it may be he redeemes his reputation by that which followeth: if he doth, it is with a, nihil minus. Mr. Ball (saith he) saith, and that truly, that unwillingnesse to beleeve hinders a man from believing: but he doth not say, that any man of himselfe can be willing. But (Mr. Jenkin) when I tell you that Mr. Ball speakes of Apples, why doe you (by way of answer) tell me, that he doth not speake of Oysters? Who ever said, that any man of HIMSELFE could be willing to beleeve? Or that Mr. Ball should affirme any such thing? The ridiculousnesse of the expression, a man cannot be willing, is enough to acquit any judi­cious man from the guilt of such an assertion. But what if Mr. Ball doth not say, that any man of HIMSELFE can be willing to be­leeve? Doth this hinder, but that he may say every whit as much as I say, or as my opinion importeth? Moses doth not say, Gen. 1. 1. that Babylon is fallen: but yet he saith, that in the beginning God made Heaven and Earth. Therefore if the doctrine that lieth upon me, to prove, be either this; There is a God: or this, God is the great Archi­tect of the world, or the like, I may very properly, for the confirma­tion of either, cite Gen. 1. 1. where Moses saith, In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth; though he doth not here say, that, Babylon is fallen. Where did Mr. Jenkin ever meet with any such assertion or opinion of mine, as this; that Man of HIMSELFE can be wil­ling to beleeve? As Christ sometimes said to the Jewes, If I should say, I know him not, I should be a lyar like unto you John 8. 55.: So say I to Mr. Jenkin; If I should say or hold, that Man of himself could be willing to beleeve, I should be as absurdly erroneous as He and his partners are in many of their Doctrines. My sense and opinion (as to the point in questi­on) is this: that naturall men have such endowments from God, and such a gracious assistance, or concurrence of God with them for the acting of these endowments in order to repentance, and beleeving, that did they act according to their power, & means vouchsafed unto them, they might repent and beleeve. As for any will, or willingnesse in such men, to do either (I mean, either to repent, or to beleeve) I ne­ver [Page 47] asserted it: much lesse, that they had any such will, or willing­nesse, as this, of themselves. My opinion (as to this particular) scltar­ly this: That upon the first motion & rising up of the will, in a true and reall willingnesse to repent and beleeve, men cease to be any lon­ger Naturall men, and become regenerate, God in this case accepting the will for the deed. Now whether Mr. Ball (in the words cited by me) doth not in cleare and pregnant importance, say every whit as much as this, let men without brasse on their forehead, and blind­nesse in their eyes, judge. No man (saith he) is hindered from beleeving, through the difficulty, or unreasonablenesse of the command. Certainly, a man hath power to doe that, from the doing whereof he is not hindered by any difficulty relating to the performance of it. If the command of God, wherein he commands men to beleeve, hath no such difficulty in it, whereby they are hindered from obeying it, have not men power to obey it, and consequently to beleeve? Besides, though Mr. Ball doth not say, that Naturall men of themselves cannot be wil­ling to beleeve (no more than I say it) yet he saith that, which clearly supposeth, that such men want no power, no not of being willing, or of making themselves willing, to beleeve. For if there be no such dif­ficulty in the Command he speaks of, by w ^ch naturall men, are, or need be hindered from obeying it, it must needs follow, that there is no such difficulty in it neither, but that such men may be willing to obey it; in­asmuch as there is an absolute impossibility for men to act or do that w ^ch is unpossible for them to wil. Men indeed may suffer, what it is im­possible they should be willing, or make thēselves willing, to suffer: but they cannot be said to act or do, or to be able to act or do, but onely what is possible for them to wil, or to make themselves willing, to do. And this is the apex & utmost point of what I hold touching the natural mans free will, or power to good supernaturall: wherein it is most evident either that Mr. Balls judgement was fully commensurable with mine; or else incommensurable with his own words. Besides, when Mr. Ball saith; That a man doth not beleeve, because he will not, hee doth not resolve his non-beleeving, or unbeliefe, into any weaknesse, or deficiency of power in him, to will, or to make himselfe willing, (as Mr. Jenkin would imply:) but into his will it selfe, into the actuall and present frowardnesse and indisposition of his will, by rea­son whereof it voluntarily chuseth to continue in unbeliefe, whereas the nature of it is such, yea and the grace of God in conjunction with it is such, yea and a thousand ingagements upon it, and motives round about it, are such, that it both ought, and might, as [Page 48] voluntarily chuse the contrary, viz. a purpose and resolution to be­leeve, or (which is the same) to steere an effectuall course of meanes for believing.

But just such work as he makes in interpreting Mr. Balls words, Sect. 59. to demonstrate their non-concurrence with me in my opinion, (or ra­ther much worse) he makes also in a like attempt upon the passages cited by me from M. Bucer, and such work as hee makes in this at­tempt, through the steadinesse and Ʋniformity of his hand, he makes the like in construing my citations from the Fathers. As it is said of Joshua, that as he had done to Hebron, and Libnah, and to her King, so hee did to Debir and her King Iosh. 10. 39.: so doth Mr. Jenkin strike the same unpar­tial stroke in dealing with all my quotations: as he deales by M. Ball, and his words, so he deals by M. Bucer and his words; and so again, with Austin, and his words, and with Hierome and his words: hee leaves nothing of their native sense, or savour remaining. To insist upon the particularities of every story, were to require more in pa­tience of the Reader, than I could recompence him in weight or worth of matter.

Fourthly, Sect. 60. whereas he troubles himselfe with quoting severall sen­tences out of Mr. Ball, Bucer, Austin, &c. of a contrary import (as he after his weak manner imagineth) to that opinion, which I af­firm to be asserted by them in the passages cited (respectively) by me, I would gladly know of him, what is the distinct sound that this trum­pet maketh: or to what part he intends to saile with this wind. Cer­tain I am, that what he doth in this kinde, hath no manner of ten­dency in it to disable the pertinency of the words or passage cited by me, in regard of my purpose or intendment in these citations. My in­tent and drift in citing these Authors, was not to prove, or so much as to insinuate, that they no where else in their writings delivered themselves with any seeming contrariety, to the substance or import of the respective places cited by me; but onely to shew and prove, that the opinion asserted by me in opposition to Mr. Jenkin, and his Testimonying Consistory, was neither so irrationall, nor so farre di­stant from truth, but that men of worth, of sound judgement, and much learning, formerly had embraced it; yea, and had left it upon [Page 49] record in their writings, that they judged it to be a truth; at least that they thus judged, when they made the record. So that unlesse Mr. Jenkin can prove, out of the writings of Mr. Ball, M. Bucer, &c. that they were at that time, when they wrote those respective passa­ges, cited by me, of a contrary judgement to the tenor, purport, and contents of them, hee shall but beat the aire in any attempt what soeuer to separate between me, and my end, in these citations. What the genuine and proper tendency of these his counter quota­tions is, is elsewhere declared, and proved to be nothing else, but on­ly the breaking (as it were) the bones, and strength of the authority of these Authors, and consequently, the easing of the Truth (in many points) of the burthen and weight of their Authority, which lies heavie upon her, and keeps her from lifting up her head in the world, with so much freedome and dispatch, as otherwise (in all likelihood) she might doe.

Fifthly, Sect. 61. if the information were worth a Readers time to peruse, it were easie to shew, how irrelative to his purpose, the greatest part (if not the whole number) of all his quotations are; there being ve­ry few of them (if any) but that, Reason, and good Grammar, and Lexicons, being the Interpreters, I can willingly subscribe unto. And yet how considerable a part of his inconsiderable Pamphlet, labours under this vanity. Busie Bishop page 44. So that he will very pertiently serve for an ex­ample to his own Rule: A child can blurre paper.

Sixthly, Sect. 62. how like himselfe is he, and acts he, in telling me, that my quotations out of the Fathers are threed bare quotations, commonly made use of by the Jesuites and Arminianes Page 46.. Are not quotations from the Scriptures made use of by them both, and that much more fre­quently, than any of those sayings cited by me from the Fathers? Will he say that the Scriptures become threed bare by being so fre­quently quoted, as they are, by pretenders to Truth on every side? If any of the illustrious sayings of his book, were quoted a thousand times over by a thousand men, I beleeve he would not complaine of their being made threed-bare hereby. Howsoever the question is not (among wise men, whatsoever it may be among Novices and shuttle­heads) whether quotations have been oft used, or no, nor yet by whom they have been used; but whether they carry the sense and impor­tance of that opinion or conclusion in them, for the credit and con­firmation whereof they are used. He is ever and anon up with Jesu­its, Arminians, Remonstrants: but I can hardly beleeve that this great talker of Robin Hood, ever shot in his Bow. Jesuits and Remonstrants [Page 50] are halfe as bad as Modall Propositions in Logick: de quibus (as the saying is) non gustabit Asinus.

Seventhly, Sect. 63. whereas he vapours in pitie towards me, tel­ling me that my mistake was pitifull, Busie Bi­shop, p. 48 in saying, that the question between Pelagius and the Fathers, was not whether man bad freedome of will in respect of good or evill, but whether men, notwithstanding their freedome of will, did not still stand in need of the adjutory of grace, &c. and under­takes to inform me better, viz. that the question between the said parties was not, whether the will did stand in need of the adjutory of Grace, for the performance of good, but what kind of adjutory it was, &c. First, the words of Austin are expresly contrary to this his information. Dicat Pelagius (saith he) per gratiam nos posse praestare legem Dei, & pax est. Construe (Mr. Jenkin) or let Mr. Vicars help you: it may be he is better at construing, than at making, Latine. Ask Mr. Vicars whether this be not the English of Austins Latine: Let Pelagius say, that by grace we may perform the Law of God, and we are friends; or, it is peace. If Austin offered the right hand of fellowship to Pelagius upon this condition, that he would grant, that by Grace (i. by the Adjutory of Grace) men might, or had power to perform the Law of God, certainly that which occasioned the distance between them, was, that Pela­gius denied the necessity of grace, or of the Adjutory of grace for performance of the Law of God, which Austin contended for. But

2 ^o What if in processe of dispute, and after a long ventilation of the controversie between them, the difference came to settle in that point, wherein he placeth it, and that Austin would not be satisfied, unlesse Pelagius would grant the Adjutory of Grace, by way of an invincible and undeclinable working of good in us; doth it follow therfore it stuck here between them at the first, or in the beginning of the controversie? Who knows not but that skirmishers, especially if the velitation or incounter continues long, often shift and change their ground. But by Mr. Jenkins Logick (it seemes) hee is pitifully, if not palpably mistaken, who saith that ever Mr. Vicars was a child, because now he is a man: or that the Sun was but two houres high at six in the morning, because it is eight houres high at noone.

3 ^o. If the question between them, was that, which Mr. Jenkin seems to assert, viz. whether God doth not invincibly and indeclinably draw or work upon the will, that is (as I understand it) so that the will must of necessity follow, will it, or nill it, be it never so obstinate, or resolved to the contrary; then it could not be, (I mean the que­stion between them could not be,) what kind of Adjutory the will did [Page 51] stand in need of; but whether it stood in need onely of an Adjutory, or compulsory. For can that be called an Adjutory, or help to another, for the performance of what he is not able to do alone, w ^ch necessitates or compell's him to doe it, whether he will or no? If my will be un­willing to consent, & God shal come in with such an unresistible force or power upon me, which shall ravish my will, and force it to con­sent, contrary to the present bent and posture of it, this would not be adjuvare, to aid or help forward my will to a consent­ing, but cogere, to compell or force it to consent, whether it would, or no; nor could my consent upon such terms be called the act of my will, but of the power, which extorted, or enforced it. Suppose Mr. Jenkin having taken some just offence at the proceedings of the Classe he speakes of Preface, pag. 3., should grow into an utter aversnesse of meeting them in their Sessions any more. If in this case some stout Porter should surprise him, hoyse him up upon his shoulder, and so carry him by main strength, and against his will, to the Classicall Consistory, would he look upon this Porter, or his act in carrying him, as an Ad­jutory, or help to convey him to his Classe? But

4 ^o. If by his invincible and indeclinable work of grace upon the will, he means onely such a work, which the will hath no power to decline, or to hinder God from working or exercising in it, or upon it, pax est (as to this point) Mr. Jenkin and I, shall be no more two. Grace (questionlesse) doth work upon the will invincibly and undecli­nably (in such a sense) no creature hath any power to prohibit or im­pede God from working upon his will, either in what kinde, or to what degree he pleaseth.

5 ^o. Whereas Austin (as he saith) makes a twofold adjutory to good, the one, without which a good work is not done; the other, by which, and through which a thing is done; adding, that the Pelagians in gran­ting the former, never satisfied Austin, because denying the latter: by this addition he makes Austin ignorant of his own satisfaction. For Au­stin requires but this, as a true confession of the grace of God, viz. for a man so to confesse it, as not to question but that nothing at all appertaining to godlinesse and true righteousnesse, CAN BE DONE WITH­OVT IT Ac per hoc, gratiam Dei, quâ charitas Dei diffundi­tur in cordi­bus nostris per Spiri­tum sanctum qui datus est nobis, fic con­fiteatur, qui vult veraciter confiteri, ut omninò nihil boni fine illâ, quod ad pie­tatem perti­net, veramque justitiam, fieri posse non du­bitet. Aug. de gratia Christi, cap. 26. Yea most evident it is, if there be any tolerable con­sistencie in the writings of this Father concerning the Pelagian con­troversie, that the main difference between him and Pelagius (at least during the heat of the contention) was, Whether the Aajutory of grace was simply and absolutely necessary (which was his opinion) for the ina­bling of the will to doe that, which is good and pleasing unto God, or ne­cessary [Page 52] onely by way of accommodation and facilitation for such a perfor­mance, which was the sence of Pelagius Non quomo­do iste [Pe­lagius] qui cum dicit, propre [...]à da­ri gratiā, ut quod à Deo praecipitur, fa­ciliù implea­tur, quid de [...], sa­tis ostendit, scilicet. quod etiam, sine il­lâ, etsi minùs facilè fieri ta­men quod di­vinitùs praeci­pitur. potest. In libre quip­pe ad virgi­nem sacram, cum dicit, Di­vinam merea­mur gratiam, ut facilius ne­quam Spiritui sancti Spiritus auxilio resista­n [...], significat protectò quid sapiat: ut quid enim hoc verbum interposuit, id est facilius?—Volens uti (que) credi tantas esse naturae vires, quas extollendo praecipitat, ut etiam fine auxilio Spi­ritus sancti, etsi minus facile, tamen aliquo modo nequam Spiritui resistatur. Aug. de grati [...] Christi. Cap. 27.. Yea the very truth is, that all things duly considered and compared, both what Austin hath left in writing concerning his own judgement and demands, in the con­troversie, and what he reporteth as given in and granted, first or last, by Pelagius, the difference between them in conclusion, was very little, if any at all. But

6 ^o. (And lastly) whereas he feares (as he saith) that I deny such an a [...]jutory of grace, by, and through which a thing is done Sed etiam hic vult intelligi [Pelagius] ad hoc esse auxilium, ut facilius fiat per gra­tiam, quod etsi minus facile, tamen putat fieri praeter gratiam. Item in eodem libro alio loco: ut quod per liberum (inquit) homines facere jubentur arbitrium, facilius possint implere per gra­tiam. Tolle facilius, & non solum plenus, verumetiam sanus est sensus, si ita dicatur, ut quod per liberum facere jubentur homines arbitrium, possint implere per gratiam. Cùm aurē facilius addit, &c. ibid cap. 29.; I must tell him, that [...] feare is as vain here, as his confidence is elsewhere. Un­happy man, that neither feare's, nor faith's, but without ground, or cause. I freely acknowledge, yea, have allwayes taught and publick­ly asserted such an Adjutory of Grace, not onely without which a good work is not done, but, by and through which a thing, yea every good work which is done, is done. Onely let Mr. Jenkin take this mite from me, and cast it into the treasury of his understanding; that such an Ad­jutory of Grace, by and through which a thing is done, doth not imply an absolute necessity of the effecting of that, which yet is effected and done, by, and through it. Nor was Austin himselfe (doubtlesse) of a­ny other mind, when he preached this doctrine, that it was in the power of man, through the adjutory of God, whether he would consent to the Devill, or no Et ideo, cum per Dei adjutorium in potestate tuâ sit, utrùm consentias Dia­bolo quare non magis Deo, quàm ipse obtemperare deliberas? Aug. Hom. 12. Nor did he ever, that either I read, or heard of, nor (I beleeve) Mr. Jenkin himselfe, retract this doctrine, but stood by it to the last. Certain I am, that if he preach'd what he wrote, and wrote what is printed in his name, he preach'd the same Doctrine (for substance) over and over. He indeed (saith hee speaking of the De­vill) giveth counsell: but God assisting, or helping, it's our part [or it be­longeth unto us] either to chuse, or refuse what he suggesteth Dat quidem ille [Diabolus] confilium: sed Deo auxiliante nostrum est, vel eligere, vel repudiare, quod sug­gerit ibid.. And a­gain: So then, both sin and well-doing are in the power or liberty of the will Est igitur, & peccatum, & rectè factum, in libero voluntatis arbitrio. Aug. de 83. Quaest. Quaest. 24..

[Page 53] Eighthly, Sect. 64. whereas in one place he doth (very freely and friendly) all me, that I know not what Manicheisme is, and p. 48. that it proceeds either from unparallel'd impudency, or inexcuseable ignorance, that I charge the Merchants of Sion Colledge with confuting Pelagianisme with pure Manicheismee: 1. For imparallel'd impudencie; I marvell a Cripple should have so little skill in halting, as not to know when a man goeth upright. 2. For inexcuseablenesse of ignorance, it being his own deep demerit, it is no great marvell if he seekes to interesse o­thers in the same guilt with himselfe. That great Traveller he speakes of ( page 57.) whom he calls the greatest liar in the world (as a Fa­ther saith) Selatium suae perditionis, perdendis hominibus quaerit, sola­laceth himselfe under his own destruction, in seeking to destroy o­thers with him. But 3. to let him and his Sym-marterists know, that there was neither Impudence, nor Ignorance in the charge (un­lesse it were [...], and such indeed as hee cannot parallel) I shall now give both him and them an account of my knowledge what Manicheisme is, and leave them to account with their own preachings, writings, and consciences, and particularly with their Testimony it self, whether there was any Impudence at all, but that which is called Truth, in the charge. We (saith Austin) so confesse the freedome of the will, that we say, it alwayes stands in need of the help and aid of God: and that they erre on the one hand, who with Manicheus affirme, THAT A MAN CANNOT AVOID SIN; and they on the other, who say with Jovinian, that a man cannot sinne. Both these take away the liberty, or freedome of the will. But we say, both that man alwayes sinneth, and yet withall, that he hath power not to sin, that so we may acknowledge a liberty, or fredome in the will Liberum sic confitemur arbitrium, ut dicamus nos Dei semper indigere auxi­lio: & tam illos errare, qui cum Ma­nichaeo dicūt, hominem pec­catum vitare non posse, quàm illos, qui cum Jovi­niano asserūt, hominem non posse peccare. Uter (que) enim tollit arbitrii libertatem. Nos verò di­camus, homi­nem semper & peccare, & non peccare posse, ut nos liberi cōfitea­mur esse arbi­trii. Aug de Temp. Serm. 192. circa fi­nem.. From this passage it clearly appears, that one notorious strain of the Manichean error, or heresie, was this, that there is no possibility for a man to avoyd sinne, that men by the eternall, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, are either put in­into, or left in such a condition, wherein it is impossible but that they should sin, & do wickedly. And elswhere the Father both in his Tract de Haeresibus, and in other places of his writings, couples the Mani­chean hereticks with the Stoique Pholosophers, who are famously know to have asserted an invincicible necessity of Destiny and Fate.

Now whether Master Jenkin, and his [...], fellow-artifi­cers (the Testimony-makers) in denying it themselves, and making it an error in others, to hold, that men have power given unto them by God to repent, believe, work righteousnesse, &c. do not make sin, yea sinning to destruction, things unavoidable unto men, let Iewes & [Page 54] Gentiles judge. Fatemur, ac docemus im­pios omnes i­tà a Divinâ providētiâ re­gi, ut nihil a­liud efficere queant, quàm quod Deus ae­terno suo et immutabili consiliodecre­vit. Trigland in Declar. [...] Nobis ex ve­bo dei consta re potest, ho­minem non plus bonipos­se facere, quàm facit, nec plus mali omittere, quàm omittit imò Deum decrevisse a­pud se; quantū boni et mali ab unoquo (que) praestari vel­let. Yea their common Doctrines and opinions concer­ning the Decrees of God, especially concerning Predestination and Reprobation, are extreamly tainted and sowred with that levenof Manichisme, whereof we now speak. It were easie to cite many pas­sages from the writings of such men, whom they count Orthodoxe, and with whom they professe a concurrence in judgement, as full of that Spirit of Manichisme, lately mentioned, as words (lightly) can be. Crimine ab uno [...] disce omnes. Take one or two for a tast of many. We confesse and teach (saith one of these) that all wicked men are so or­dered, or ruled by the providence of God, that they CAN DOE NO­THING BƲT WHAT GOD HATH DECREED in his eternall unchangeable counsell. Another of them saith, that a man can neither doe any more good, then he doth, nor avoid any more evill then he avoideth: yea and that God hath decreed in himselfe, how much good, and how much evill he would have to be done by every man. If such Te­nets as these are not pure Manicheisme, I must (I confesse) signe Mr. Ienkin's estimate of my weaknesse, and say as he saith, that I know not what Manicheisme is. Sect. 65.

Ninthly, for his arguings, whether by Scripture, or by reason, to prove my opinion, about Naturall mans free will, or power, &c. (as the Ministers of the Testimonie are pleased to baptize it) erroneous, they plainly argue, that the man neither understands the minde of God in the Scriptures, nor yet savours the principles of reason with men. Take an instance or two in either for a demonstration hereof, pag. 27. To prove that conversion is the restoring of sight, not of light on­ly? Et alibi; ve­rum quo (que) est quicun (que) ho­dievel peccāt, vel bene agūt, respectu de­creti divini non posse non peccare, au benè agere: quia quicquid Deus decrevit ut fiat, id non potest non fie­ri: decrevit au­tem ut fiat, quicquid fit. Piscat. Adam. Dup. Vorstij. p. 231. the opening of the eyes, not the bringing of light to them, who have eyes already, hee cites, Acts 26. 18. where Paul declares that hee was sent by Christ to the Gentiles to open their eyes, &c. Where 1 ^o. It is observable, how ridiculous he is in making an opposition, between the opening of mens eyes, and the bringing of light to them, who have eyes already; as if men, who had eyes to be opened, had not yet eyes already. It seemes that either Master Jenkin, sleepes with his eyes open, or else hath no eyes at all, when he sleepes with them shut. 2 ^o. How igno­rant he is of the Scripture dialect, and phrase, when he makes an op­position between, the restoring of sight, and of light only; the Scripture, by the opening of the eyes of men in conversion, meaning only such an opening, which is proper for the light to effect. In such a sense as darknesse, or the night, may be said to shut mens eyes (for a disabling of them from present action, or service, is a kind of shutting of them) in the same, the light of the morning, or of the Sun, may be said to [Page 55] open them. i. to restore them to a capacity of present service. Now that it is in this sense only, that the eyes of mens understandings, are in Scripture said to be opened in their conversion, is evident, 1. by all those places (which are very many) where conversion active is ex­pressed by the giving of light, and conversion passive by the receiving of it: see and consider to this purpose (amongst others) Luke 1. 79. Ephes. 5. 14. 2 Cor. 4. 46. Mat. 4. 16, &c. 2. Upon this ground because if men should have the eyes of their minds or understandings ope­ned in any other sence, then that, wherein the light may be said to o­pen them, God might and must be said to worke as many miracles, as conversions: and how then can that great pillar of Presbytery, that miracles are ceased, stand?

Take onely one instance more (for the present) Page 31. to prove that the Scriptures deny a power, in those who perish, to believe, and re­pent, he cites; dead in sins and trespasses, from Ephes. 2. whereas it is evident, both from the context it selfe, where this expression stands, and also from the frequent tenor of Scripture-expression else-where, that by being dead in sins and trespasses, the Apostle only meanes, that they were guilty of death, or liable to condemnation, for those sins and trespasses, wherein in times past they had walked. For 1. this their death in sins and trespasses, is explained, by their being children of wrath, vers. 3. 2. That quickning together with Christ, opposed to this death, as a remedie to a disease, is interpreted, Col. 2. 13. to be the forgivenesse of their sins and trespasses. Both which plainly shew, that the death spoken of by the Apostle in the place which Mr. Jen­kin citeth, is not a death, which either standeth in, or which neces­sarily implyeth, an utter impotency in men to believe, but which con­sisteth in guilt, and obnoxiousnesse unto death. 3. The Scripture oft expresseth the estate and condition of guilt, by the term, death. See Gen. 20. 3. 2 Sam. 9. 8. 16. 9. 19. 28. Rom. 8. 10. 2 Cor. 5. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 6, &c. And for those other Scriptures, Joh. 14. 17. Rom. 5. 6. Phil. 2. 13. We shall in due time (God willing) give a satisfa­ctory account, with how little pertinency to his purpose, they are here brought upon the stage by him.

4. (And lastly) that death in sinnes and trespasses here spoken of, whatsoever, is meant by it, is not asserted or represented by the Apo­stle as the condition of a meer naturall man, or of men considered as naturall: but of men who have actually, and for a long time lived in disobedience against God, contrary to the effect of the Law, written in their hearts by the finger of God, is evident from the expresse [Page 56] letter of the context. And you hath he quickned, who were dead in tres­passes and sins, wherein in times past ye walked, &c. vers. 1. 2. & 6. 3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in time past, &c. So that from this place (however) nothing can be inferr'd concerning any defect, or want of power to believe, in meer naturall men; though such an inference should be yielded against such men, who have cor­rupted themselves by a long continuance in wilfull and knowne sinnes.

Again 2. How like unto himselfe (i. simply, Sect. 66. and novice-like) hee reasoneth otherwise, to prove my opinion a delinquent against the Truth, appears by the constant tenor of his arguing, wherein he op­poseth (indeed) my opinion; (for, more generally, he makes weake and simple opinions of his owne, and then confutes them strongly, in­stead of mine) Page 29. Upon this saying of mine, that by the im­provement of nature a man may attaine to such a conviction, as upon which saving conversion followes, he profoundly demands, what place is here left for grace? what agreement with the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4. 7. Who ma­keth thee to differ from another? But is there any whit more sap or sa­vour of reason, in these arguings, and demands, then if I should gree [...] Master Jenkin thus: Sir, If you be able to travail upon your ten toes within 3. or 4. dayes to a place an hundred miles off, where you must appeare by that time, or else you are a dead man, though you be lazie, and perhaps as willing to dye, as to take the paines of such a journey: what place is there left for the kindness of any of your friends to accommodate you with a wel-going horse, or Coach for your journey? A man may have power of doing, yea and of willing, that, which yet, left unto himselfe, he neither will ever actually will, nor doe. So that notwithstanding such a power as Mr. Jenkin striketh at in the dark, yet there is place enough for all that Grace of God, which the Apostle attributes unto him, Phil. 2. 13. In working both to will, & to doe in men, of his good pleasure. Yea if Mr. Ienkin would quit him­selfe like a man, & reason home, in stead of hal [...]e way (like a child) he would manifestly perceive, that there is a farre larger place left for grace, by that opinion, which he calls error, then by that, which he seekes to enthrone in stead of it: and this in more respects then one. For 1. as he is a farre greater sinner, who knowes how to doe well, and hath all things necessary thereunto, and yet doth evill, than he that doth evill, having no power at all to doe well: so is it a far grea­ter act of Grace to forgive the sin of the former, than of the latter. Now the latter is Master Jenkin his Sinner, and the former, mine. [Page 57] 2. For God to give a man strength and power to believe, twice over, or after a forfeiture made by sinne and wickednesse, of the first dona­tion, is an act of more grace, than to conferre them onely once, and that without any such provocation. Now Mr. Jenkin his opinion leaves place onely for this latter act of grace, which is farre the lesser; whereas my opinion, makes roomth for the former, which is the greater. 3. (And lastly) to save greater sinners, is an act of more grace, or of Greater Grace, than to save lesser. Now whether that opinion which presents men impenitent and unbeleeving before God under a sufficiency of grace, and meanes otherwise, both to re­pent, and beleeve, doth not present them as farre greater sinners, than Mr. Jenkins opinion doth, which denies them so much as a pos­sibility to doe either, I referre to Mr. Jenkins himselfe with the fagge end of reason and understanding, which is left him, to consider, and (if he please) determine. In the meane time, had not the man (think ye) a prodigie of provocation upon him, to cry out, What place is here left for grace? What agreement with the Apostle? It seemes there is no agreement between Wood and Trees, in Mr. Jenkin his Lo­gick; nor any place left for so much as one man to stand, where there is space enough for an hundred. Surely Mr. Jenkins Theology is like his Philosophy, who would undertake to argue and make good this Position;

And if his interrogatory exclamations had such simple hey and stubble (as you have heard) for their foundation, his subjoyned pa­renthesis hath nothing but mire and dirt. Mr. Goodwins answer (saith he) my selfe by my improvement of nature made me to differ, would have fal­len little shorter than blasphemy. What putid incongruity, and perfect non-sense is there in this parenthesis? Mr. Goodwins answer: to what? or to whose question? Such an answer as he personates in me, hath no more relation unto, nor congruity or coherence with, either of his questions propounded, than his answers (so called) in his book, have to, or with, the importance of my arguments, unto which they pretend this relation. Mr. Jenkin demands. What place is here left for grace? Mr. Goodwin is made to answer; My selfe by improvement of nature made me to differ. Or else, M. Jenkin demands thus: [Page 58] What agreement with the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4. 7? Mr. Goodwin answers (by plowing with Mr. Jenkins heifer) thus: My selfe by my improvement of nature made me to differ. Qu. How far is it to London? Ans. A poke full of Plummes. Doth not this Harp and Harrow agree as well, as those that Mr. Jenkin hath here tuned? If his meaning be, that according to the tenor of that opinion of mine, which he speakes of, I must make such an answer as that, to the Apostles demand, Who ma­keth thee to differ? he should have done well, and unlike to himselfe, to have said so. As for those words [from another] who maketh thee to diffe [...] [from another] I confesse he finds them in our last English Transla­tion: but this is never the more the word of God, but the lesse, for ha­ving them in it. For the original bears only thus: [...]; i. For who makes thee to differ; or, who separates thee (as the former translation had it) But first, how doth my opinion, which onely saith, that by the improvement of Nature a man may attain to such a con­viction, upon which saving conversion followes, necessarily lead me to such an answer to the Apostles question, as this young Simplicius will needs thrust into my mouth? Must Mr. Jenkin, because he hath a paire of long legges, needs walk as far in a day as they are able to carry him? or is it not far from blasphemy to say, that it is possible for him to ride on an horse, because he is able enough to go on foot? Or doth he in every kind, whatsoever he is able to doe? If so, cer­tain I am, that his ability in arguing, or drawing consequences, is ve­ry scant.

Secondly, Sect. 67. in case it were true, that a man by the improvement of na­ture, hath [actually, and defacto] attained such a conviction, upon which saving conversion followes; doth it follow from hence, that therefore this attainment must needs bee resolved into himselfe, or his endea­vours, as the sole or primary cause hereof? For (supposing that the Apostle here speakes of such differing which is made by beleeving) that his question doth not intend to exclude the creature it self from ing the cause [in a sence, viz. in a way of inferior, subordinate, and dependent efficiencie, or causality] of its differing, or separation here spoken of, is evident from hence; viz. because this differing, or sepa­ration of his from others, either consisteth in, or is caused by, his be­leeving. So then, if it be the creature it selfe, and not God, who be­leeveth, then is it the creature it selfe, and not God, which [thus far, and in this respect] maketh it selfe to differ. But it seems by Mr. Jenkin his Logico-divinity, that if Mr. Jenkin should say, that he beleeveth, it would not be farre from blasphemy; Possibly it might not bee farre [Page 59] from untruth: but as for any affinity or neernesse unto blasphemy, it may (I suppose) be measured by the neighbourhood of the East to the West. Therefore it is as clear as the light, that the Apostle in this demand, Who maketh thee to differ? (supposing, as before, that he here speakes of any saving difference between man and man) intended on­ly to put the creature upon this consideration and acknowledgment, viz. that God, and God onely, was the originall, prime, and sove­raigne cause of that happy estate and condition, by the attainment and enjoyment whereof, he differed from all others, who had not attained it; not to occasion him to confesse or acknowledge, that himselfe could in no sense, or consideration at all, be looked upon as the cause thereof. But

Thirdly (and lastly) evident it is, Sect. 68. to him that will but view the context, that the Apostle doth not speak here of any difference be­tween man and man, which is made by Faith, or by any saving work in either; but of such a difference onely which stands in more and fewer, or in greater and lesser gifts: which kinde of difference in the primitive times, was very frequent, between persons, who were parata­kers in all things saving, one with another. And that God indeed, is not onely the principall, but the sole cause of such differings as these between men and men, is more evident, than to be matter of doubt or question unto any man. But how, or wherein, doth the Apostles question, thus understood, relate unto my opinion, concerning the power of naturall man to good supernaturall? If M. Jenkin understand Scripture no better than thus, (which it seemes, by many other mis­interpreted places in his pamphlet, he doth not) certainly the Chalk and Coales in Corners, are more wholsome nourishment, than the Par­tridges and Quailes that are cook'd and fed upon in the pompous Basilique neere Newgate, not so properly, as commonly, termed Christs-church: unlesse (haply) the Episcopall consecration of the place, be a standing antidote against all infection and unwholsom­nesse of Doctrine, that shall be delivered there. I have good ground to beleeve, that the persons which he pities, as feeding upon Chalk and Coals in corners, will by the goodnesse of their food, and blessing of God upon it, be nourished up to eternall life, when as the wrath of God (I feare) would come upon the quail-eaters in Mr. Jenkin his vast and roaring Seraglin, even whilst the meat which they feed upon, is in their mouthes, as sometimes it did upon those, that ate Q [...]ails in the W [...]ldernesse, had they not some better provisions from other hands. You have seen the young mans nakednesse in point of ar­guing: [Page 60] he neither levies Reasons, nor Scriptures, with any pertinen­cy to his cause; there is not the least haire of the head of my opini­on, concerning the naturall mans power to good supernaturall, fallen to the ground, by any thing, by all things, that hee hath attempted a­gainst it. His Scriptures are good and serviceable otherwise, but too hard for him: his Reasons are like unsavoury salt, good for nothing but to be thrown upon the dunghill. But

Tenthly, Sect. 69. though he be weak in arguing, yet he may bee strong in questioning: Some can beg stoutly, that can doe little work. Possi­bly his faculty may lie this way: for I remember it was a common saying in the University, that plura potest interrogare Asinus, quàm re­spondere Aristoteles: An Asse may ask more questions, than Aristotle can answer: As a man not worth a groat, may ask and begge more, than the richest Prince under heaven is able to give. But let us taste a little his genius and strength in quereeing. Pag. 54. hee propounds foure querees, yet the three latter so relating unto, and depending up­on the first, that unlesse such an answer be given to the first, as he ex­pecteth should be given, the three last are non-suited. His first que­ree is, Whether I mean, that grace is an adjutory by way of influence into the will, or by way of concourse unto the work only? I confesse he hath as good as apposed me with his first question: For whether it bee the pro­foundnesse of the question, or the shallownesse of my apprehension, I know not; but by reason either of the one, or of the other, I must professe, that I understand it not; unlesse I should put such a sense upon it, w ^ch would (I confesse) make it a question too too ridiculous and weak even for M. Jenkin himself to propound. For other con­struction of this queree I can make none, but onely this; viz. whe­ther, supposing the work of Faith, Conversion, or Regeneration, to have two ends, God be at the one end of it, and man at the other, each heaving at his respective end, & lifting up the work like a peece of timber, until it be laid upon the soul? And doth his simile, subjoy­ned by way of explication of his question, import any other sense than this? As two men (saith he) that between them both carry a burthen, yeeld assistance to each other, neither of them contributing strength unto o­ther. If this be the sense of the question, I must answer, tollendo sub­jectum questionis, by denying that, which the question supposeth, viz. that Faith hath two ends. Besides, how grace should be any Ad­jutory at all unto the will in beleeving, onely by concourse unto the work, without some influence vpon the will it selfe, considering that it is the will onely, and not grace, that must consent, or beleeve, [Page 61] I understand not. So that Mr. Jenkins comparison is [...]. But

2 ^o, Sect. 70. In case I doe acknowledge that grace is an Adjutory unto the will by way of influence into it, his next queree is, Whether I mean, that this influence is moralis, suasorie by way of intreaty, that the will would move; or, Physica, that is properly, really, and efficaciously operative upon it. This queree containes more absurdities in it than the former. For first, it supposeth, that there can be no morall influence, but that which is sua­sorie, or by way of intreaty. When Mr. Jenkin commands his Clerk to set the second part of the 119 Psalm, and threatens him that he will turn him out of his place, if he will not doe as he is commanded; hath such an addresse as this, any Physical influence upon the will of this Clerk? or any other, than what is moral? But will Mr. Jenkin call it suasorie by way of intreaty? He indeed often findes appositum in opposito, and so may make commands and intreaties, all one: but the Apostle Paul, who could distinguish as well as he, findeth a great difference between them, writing thus to Phil [...]mon; Though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoyn [or, command] thee that which is con­venient: yet for loves sake I rather BESEECH [or, intreat] thee, &c. v. 8, 9.

2 ^o. Sect. 71. The said quere, makes an opposition, supposeth an inconsi­stencie, between a morall influence upon the will, and that which is properly, really, and efficaciously operative upon it; as if the influence of such a command and threatning of his, as were mentioned, could not be properly, really, and efficaciously operative upon the will of his Clerke; and that it were simply impossible that his Clerke, having his will no otherwise influenced, should bee willing to doe the service injoyned him. But to the intent (as I suppose) of the queree, as also of the o­ther two yet behinde, I answer briefly (for the present, expecting an opportunity for a larger explication of my self, upon the subject) that if by a Physicall influence upon the will, Mr. Jenkin meaneth any other kinde of working or acting upon it by God, than by the me­diation of the Word, or then that which is proper to bee wrought by such an instrument as this; as if God did work any thing saving in men, either apart from the word, or in any other way, or after a­ny other maner than those, wherein the word may be said properly, & according to the nature and frame of it, to communicate & to have part in the action, I deny any Physicall influence of grace upon the will, in the act of conversion. It passeth my understanding to conceive, how the will should be wrought or acted into a consent in any kind, [Page 62] otherwise than by argument, motive, or perswasion; unlesse it be by force, violence, or compulsion; which Mr. Jenkin himselfe will not heare of: yea, the truth is, I do not well understand, how any other force, violence, or compulsion it selfe can do it, but only that, which consists either in the weight, or proportion of an argument or mo­tive, one, or more: or else in the effectuall explication, urging, and pressing of such arguments. As the naturall frame and structure of a man, renders him uncapable of speaking by any force, or course of violence whatsoever, otherwise than by opening his mouth; yea, and of speaking, though his mouth be opened, without the consent of his will: so doth the essentiall constitution and fabrick of the will, exempt it from a capacity of being drawn or brought into a consent by any other meanes, method, or way whatsoever, but onely that of argument, motive and perswasion. Again, it no whit lesse passeth my understanding, to conceive, how or in what sense, Faith can be said to come by hearing, or men to be begotten by the word, in case either of these works be wrought in men, by any such kind of action, or work, which immediatly reacheth the will, and wherein it is unpossible that the word should communicate: as also how it is possible that the word should communicate, or beare a part, in any action that is pro­perly Physicall; more than it is possible for Iron and Clay to mix and work together, or for the understanding and will of a man to communicate (by way of assistance) in the motion or influence of the Sunne. If Mr. Jenkin his youthfull head bee more vigorous, preg­nant and quick in these difficulties, than mine, who am stricken in yeares, and he please to open such veins of truth unto me, whereof I am ignorant, I shall willingly sit at his feet to reap the benefit and blessing of his head. But if by a Physicall influence of the will, he means nothing else, but either an inward excitation of the soule, or opening of the heart by the Spirit of God, whereby a man is made to mind, or to attend unto the things of his peace, (as it is said, Acts 16. 14. that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, that she attended unto the things spo­ken by Paul) or else, a gracious and immediate supporting of the will in the act of consenting, and in all other acts requisite hereunto, so that a sufficient light of conviction shining in the judgement or un­derstanding, God suffereth nothing to intervene to the disturbance of the will, so as to prevent or hinder the regular motion thereof, which, in such a case, is to consent: or 3 ^o (and lastly) if hee meanes by his Physical influence, any such representation of things to the mind or understanding of a man, whereby the will is brought over after [Page 63] an effectuall and potent manner, to give up her selfe in consent unto them; I acknowledge a Physicall influence of Grace upon the will. But the truth is, I doe not well understand what the man meaneth by his Physicall influence (and am fully perswaded that himselfe under­standeth himselfe as little in it, as I) so that I cannot give that parti­cular and distinct answer which upon a distinct explication of the queree, I am ready to doe. But they that propound blind questions, must expect answers accordingly. Onely let me add this further (in the point in hand) that for any other Physicall influence upon the will, than that which I have expressed and acknowledged, (which I confesse to be very untowardly and unproperly so called) himselfe acknowledgeth none, at least if he meanes as he saith, page 51. For here (more like a reasonable man, than himselfe) he writeth thus: To whatsoever object it [the will] is carried, it is not without the prece­ding counsell of the practicall judgement. The will being a rationall appe­tite, never moveth but per modum judicij, upon apprehension of some goodnesse, to which it moves. Nor is it in any motions compulsorily over­swayed, but worketh according to its own proper motion, and to the condi­tion of its own nature. Surely he that saith these things, if he be of a consistent brain, doth not suppose the will capable of any other in­fluence in order to the moving of it, but onely that which is suasory and morall.

The profundum, Sect. 72. or bottom of his querees, is this: If I grant that Grace is certain, infallible, and determinative in its operation upon the will; he desires to know, whether I mean that this invincibility and in­fallibility of the working of grace, be onely to be look'd upon as such respectu eventus, in regard of what doth fall out, and de facto doth come to passe, or whether the certain determination of the will by grace, proceedeth from the powerfull nature of that grace of God, which (as Austin saith) no hard heart is able to refuse. They that clearly understand this question, may give a cleare answer to it. All that I clearly understand of it, is a par­cell of absurdities; what I conjecture of sense in it, I shall give an­swer unto.

First, he maketh the invincibility and infallibility of the working of grace, and the certain determination of the will by grace, to be one and the same; whereas it is evident, 1 ^o. that invincibility and infallibi­lity, are but modifications of the act, or working of grace; whereas a determination of the will, is either the act it selfe, or else (if it be un­derstood passively) the product, or effect of such an act.

[Page 64] Secondly, he supposeth, that if there be an invincibility and infalli­bility in grace, there must needs follow a certain determination of the will by grace. Wherein Supponit quod non est supponendum (a misbeha­viour very incident to novice Disputants) For grace may be invin­cible and infallible in the working of it, i may invincibly and infalli­bly produce such an effect in the soule, which answeres the nature, measure, and degree of it, and yet not necessarily produce a cer­tain determination of the will to a saving consent, or a through act of beleeving.

Thirdly, Sect. 73. is it not a very ridiculous queree, to demand, Whether the certain determination of the will by grace, proceedeth from the powerfull na­ture of grace; considering first, that effects doe not proceed from the natures of their causes, but from the actuall engagements of their causes in a way of efficiencie, to produce them? 2 ^o. That Grace is not a naturall, but a voluntary or free working cause, and so doth not necessarily act, or work, when it doth work, ad extremum potentiae, to the uttermost extent of its power, but according to such measures and degrees of efficiencie, as it selfe pleaseth. So that how powerfull soever the nature of grace be, it no way followes, that a certain deter­mination of the will must necessarily follow upon the motion, acting, or working of it. It was the grace of God, which is so powerfull in the nature of it (for God hath but one Spirit of grace, which is alwayes in respect of his nature uniformly and equally powerfull) which wrought upon the stiff necked and hard-hearted Jewes for many suc­ceeding generations; yet we know that they resisted this grace and Spirit of God, neither were their wills penitently or savingly determi­ned by it.— Ye have alwayes (saith Stephen to the latter brood of them) resisted the holy Ghost: as your Fathers did, so doe yee.

Fourthly, Sect. 74. nor is there any over-plus of acumen in that distincti­on exhibited in this queree, between an invincibility and infallibility of a cause, respectu eventus, in respect of the event, or effects, and the powerfulnesse of the nature of a cause. I doe not understand how a cause may be termed invincible and infallible in respect of the event, or effect, which is not very powerfull in the nature of it. But

Fifthly (and lastly) that which the young man would demand in this Queree, as farre as my soule is able to enter into his secret, is briefly this, whether the act, or worke of God, in, and about the conversion of a man, be so strong, powerfull, and over-hearing, as to carry, or produce the effect of his actuall conversion, against all the possibility that is in him to hinder it? If this be the intent of his [Page 65] queree, I answer: My sense clearly is, that according to the ordina­ry course of the grace of God acting, and working, in, and about the conversion of men, there is no man actually converted, but might possibly have acted, or demeaned himselfe so, as never to have been thus converted. The account of my judgement herein (for the pre­sent) is briefly this: I conceive, that though the grace of God, acting in, and towards the conversion of a man, subdues and takes away all the actuall rebelliousnesse, or gainsayingnesse of the will, yea and possibly all inclination towards any rebellion in this kind, (which is abundantly sufficient as to his actuall conversion) yet it doth not re­move or take away all possibility from the will of rebelling, or of doing wickedly. Nor doe I apprehend how it is possible for the will, either of men, or Angels, being a creature, ever to be made e­qual unto God, in so transcendent and glorious a priviledge & perfe­ction, as a non-possibility of sinning, or doing wickedly. It is the [...] and highest pitch of perfection competible to a created being, to be like unto God in actuall holinesse, in actuall hatred and detestation of sinne, in firm and stable resolutions to continue holy for ever: but for a simple and absolute impossibibility to sinne, I conceive it to bee one of the incommunicable properties of God, as being simply and absolutely unchangeable. From hence then it undeniably (and ex abundanti) followes, that even then, when God is ready (as it were) with the hand of his grace lifted up to strike that blessed stroke, whereby a man is actually converted, there is a possibility in him to hinder the work, or effect it selfe, of this conversion; inasmuch as it is impossible for any man to receive actuall conversion from God, in any act of sinne whatsoever. By the way, if I had as much a minde to cry out against M. Jenkin for a Blasphemer, as he hath to clamour out this Impiety against me; I have another manner of ground or oc­casion now before me to call him a sonne of this guilt, than ever hee had to asperse me with such an imputation. For is not he a blas­phemer, who claimeth part and fellowship in any of the incommuni­cable properties of God? Or doth not Mr. Jenkin made this Blasphe­mous claim when he asserteth himselfe under the same impossibility of sinning, with God? Or doth hee not assert such an impossibility as this to himselfe, when he supposeth it impossible for him to sinne, when God is about to convert him?

Besides, if there be a possibility in man to sinne after the worke of grace and conversion wrought in him; certainly, and much more, is there a possibility in him to sinne at any time before such a work. If [Page 66] it be possible for a man to stumble in the day, much more possible is it, that he may stumble in the night: And if a wise man may be over­seen, much more a weake and foolish. Now if there be a possibility for a man to sinne at any time before his conversion, then is there a possibility in him also to hinder his coversion; because (as hath been said) it is unpossible for any man to be converted in, or under, an act of sinne: conversion it selfe standing in such an act, which includes (at least) an aversion from all sinne (at least in purpose, affection, and desire) which must needs be a act of righteousnesse. I [...] Mr. Jenkins sense in the point onely be, that a man being now converted, hath no power to hinder his conversion, i. to prevent the doing of that, which is done already, I know no man like to oppose him, unlesse it be in a dreame. And whether himselfe doe not clearly acknowledge a power or possibility in the will, to withstand the work of conversi­on attempted by God, so as to prevent and hinder the actuall effect­ing of it, I appeale to these words of his, page 52. Nay this efficacious determination of the will by grace, is a most happy adjurory to it, TA­KING NOTHING AWAY BƲT THE PRAVITY and rebellion of it, but preserving and RESTORING ITS TRƲE LIBERTY. First, if grace in the act of conversion, takes nothing a­way from the will, but the pravity and rebellion of it, then it leaves it a li­berty or power of rebelling or depraving it selfe. For there is nothing more evident, than that there may remain a liberty or power of re­belling in the will, when the rebellion it selfe is taken away from it. There was no rebellion in the will of Adam during his innocence: but yet there was a liberty or power in it to rebell: otherwise it could not have rebelled afterwards. Again 2 ^o. if the adjutory of grace preserves and RESTORES the true liberty of the will unto it, then it invests it with no other liberty, than that which was naturall to, and some­times inherent in it, i. to that liberty, wherein, and wherewith it was created. Nothing can be said to be restored, but what was formerly possessed and enjoyed. And besides, doubtlesse that liberty wherein the will was first created, is the true liberty thereof. Now then, if grace, in, or about the act of conversion, vesteth no other liberty in the will, but the true, native, originall liberty of it, wherein it was created, most certain it is, that it leaves a liberty or power in it to re­bell, and consequently to oppose the work of conversion, even to the frustration and defeature of it: inasmuch as the true liberty, wherein it was created, was none other liberty (as hath been said) than what left the will under a power or possibility of rebelling. This may [Page 67] serve for a morsell to stay Mr. Jenkin his stomach, till a fuller table can be prepared for him. I [...] in the mean time, out of the abundance of his Seraphicall Revelations, he shall please clearly to demonstrate unto me, an utter and absolute impossibility in men to hinder their conversion, at any time, before they be converted, I seriously professe, I shall look upon it, and accept of it, as simply the greatest and rich­est accommodation for the satisfaction of my minde and spirit, which I have received for these many yeares. And this briefly for answer to his captious and yet ill-digested, and worse expressed Querees.

Eleventhly (and lastly, Sect. 75. as to the non- error of naturall mans free-will) whereas he demandes, p. 44. (though his demand bee somewhat im­perious and authoritative, for a stripling) Let me have one page halfe fil'd [out of Orthodox Authors] agreeing with th [...]se your opinions, which are transcribed by the Subscribers, &c. I shall neverthelesse grati­fie him in his demand; or rather (I feare) trouble him with this gra­tification. For herein I cannot but suspect that he acts the part of a jealous man, who many times inquires after that which much trou­bles him when he findes it. But first, I must re-minde him, that my former passages from M. Bucer, P. Testardus, and I. Ball (together with those cited from the Fathers) are still in full force, strength, and vertue for my purpose, notwithstanding any thing attempted by him, for the cancelling or defacing of them. I have formerly asserted their cleare and through concurrence with those opinions of mine, of which he speakes, and have sufficiently shewed, that the man was ne­cessitated to a Sion Colledge trick, I mean to forge an opinion, which he might call, Mine, to set so much as a face, or colour upon them, of a non-concurrence with me. All these citations (I presume) be­ing put together, will amount to the full of his desire, and fill the halfe of one page (at least.)

But to g [...]ve him measure heaped up, Sect. 76. I shall here cast in unto him a further parcell of the same commodity. And first ( hororis causa) I will begin with the judgement of the Subscribers themselves: I make no question but they are (in Mr. Jenkins account) the first borne a­mongst all that are called Orthodox. Let it then be unpartially consi­dered, whether there be not the substance of that opinion of mine, about the power of naturall man to supernaturall good, which they have transcribed, and voted for an error, in there words of their own (pag. 3 [...]) Thousands and ten thousands of poore soules which CHRIST HATH RANSOMED with his own blood, shall hereby be be­trayed, seduced, and ENDANGERED TO BE VNDONE to [Page 68] all eternity, First, here is the Doctrine of universall Redemption, ful­ly, and with open face, asserted; inasmuch, as they who are ransomed by the blood of Christ, are said to be endangered to be undone to all eter­nity. He that is in danger of an evill, or misery, may very possibly fall into it. Danger doth not onely imply a possibility, but even a probi­lity, or likelihood of suffering. So then, if thousands ransomed by the blood of Christ, may be brought into danger of being undone for all eter­nity; they very possibly may suffer such an undoing, and so perish for all eternity. If the ransomed by Christ may perish for all eternity, then Christ ransomed not the elect onely, of whose perishing there is not the least possibility, but the reprobate also, or those who perish; and con­sequently, all men.

2 ^o. Sect. 77. If Christs love unto all men was such, as prevailed with him to ransome them by his blood; doubtlesse he is not wanting unto them in such inferiour accommodations, whereby they are, or may be, suffi­ciently provided, actually to partake of this ransome, and to enjoy the blessednesse of it. And what is this, being interpreted, but a con­ferring upon them a sufficiency of strength and power to repent, and to beleeve? Nor was there ever any considering man, whose judge­ment stood for the Redemption of All men by Christ, but by being true to his opinion herein, and in cleare consonancy unto it, held a sufficiency of power or means also of beleeving to be vouchsafed unto All men. Nor is it (indeed) any wayes consisting with the wisdome of Christ, to purchase for men such a blessed inheritance as redemption and salvation is, especially at so dear a rate, as with his own blood; and not withall to procure them a way, wherey they may be able to come at it, and enjoy it. So that if Mr. Jenkin, and his fel­low Con-subscribers, will but stand their ground, and be content to owne their owne principles and sayings, they must of necessity owne those opinions of mine about the power of naturall man to supernaturall good, which they have transcribed, yea and proscribed as erroneous, in their Testimony. Did not Mr. Calamy himselfe, no mean man in the retinew of the Subscribers, within these very few yeares, ( viz. Jan. 12. 1644. preaching upon 2 Chron. 25. 2.) publickly assert the power of naturall man to supernaturall good upon termes every whit as obnoxious, and liable to exception, as ever it was asserted by me? Yea was not the Spirit of my Doctrine in the point, in this of his; An unconverted man may doe that, which is right in the sight of the Lord? Or did he not in the prosecution of this doctrine, speak as great things of Nature, and the power thereof, as ever were spoken by me? [Page 69] Let such sayings as these give in their evidence: An unconverted man may beleeve that God made the world: He may beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God. Afterwards; A wicked man may d [...]e that, which i [...] right in the sight of the Lord, by the light of Nature, and by the help of common grace. And although God bee not bound to reward him for it, yet I doubt not but God, out of the abysse of his mercies, if he make use of common grace; I doe not doubt (I say) but God out of his abundant mer­cy, though he be not bound unto it, yet will give him spiritual: [or speciall] grace: if he make use of common Nature well, God will finde some way or other to doe good to that mans soule, Luk. 17. 11. If therefore you have not been faithfull in the unrighteous Mammon, who shall commit to your trust the true riches? This place seems to hold out thus much: That if a man improve the outward mercies of God, or the work of common grace, God will intrust that man with better riches; God will finde out a way to doe that man good Yet again, in the use of the former Doctrine: Beloved, this I doe affirm [...], that a man that is not converted, may by the generall assistance of Gods spirit, doe that which is naturally good, and which is morally good: yea and may doe something which may make towards his conversion, by the help of common grace. Again afterwards: Thou oughtest to do according to the gift and power, which God hath given thee in a natural way: and that God which hath given thee power to doe it in a naturall way, wil no doubt assist thee with power to doe things in a spirituall way. For that man which improves his naturall talent, God will one time or other intrust him with a spirituall talent. For there was never any man went to hell for, CAN NOT, but for, WILL NOT. If the author of these sayings (who­soever he was) flieth not every whit as high a pitch as I, in maintai­ning the naturall mans free will, or power to good supernaturall, I con­fesse I had need to bee sent, whither Mr. Jenkin would have me, (I mean, to the children) to learn to read, and understand English with them. If Mr. Calamy, by reason of the present occasion, hath forgot­ten these passages, I know how to relieve his memory, and to finde him out an authentique Remembrancer.

I doe not finde Mr. Henry Scudder amongst the Subscribers: but I question not his repute of Orthod [...]x [...]sme with Mr. Jenkin. Thus then Mr. Scudder: And it was intended by Christ that the plaister should be as large, as the sore, and that there should be no defect in the remedie, i. in the price or sacrifice of himselfe, offered upon the Crosse, by which man should be saved; but that ALL MEN, and each PARTICƲLAR MAN, might in that respect, become saveable in Christ Mr. H S [...]d­der, Christians daily wa [...]k. p. 342. of the 8. Edition. I know no Arminian or Remonstrant ( at Mr. Jenkin calleth them) that maintains [Page 70] universall Redemption upon other terms than these. Not long after the forme [...] word [...], Which condition ( saith he, speaking of Faith, by which the actuall fruit of the all-sufficient ransome of Christ redoundeth un­to th [...]se that are saved) many, to whom the Gospel [...], MAKE IMPOSSIBLE TO THEMSELVES, through a wilfull refusing of the Gospel, and salvation it selfe by Christ, upon those termes, which God doth offer it. Doubtlesse that which a man makes unpossible to himselfe, through a wilfull refusing of the Gospel, is not so or such, by nature unto him. That which is naturally, or by nature, unpossible to a man, he cannot be said to make unpossible to himself by any act what­soever. Whatsoever Mr. Jenkin hath made unpossible to himselfe other­wise, he hath not made it unpossible to him to flie, nor yet to build castles in the aire, nor to remove mountaines. If he hath made any of these things unpossible to him, I desire to know (in his next) how, by what act, or acts, he hath done it. Therefore Master Scudder cleerly supposeth, that till a man wilfully refuseth the Gospel, it is in his power, or very possible for him, to believe.

Dr. William Gouge Pastor of Black fryars, Sect. 79. I find a Prince amongst the Subscribers: therefore his Doctrine ( Judice Jenkin) must needes be Orthodox and true. Heare then how affectionately his pen sym­pathizeth with mine, in the substance of those opinions, which him­selfe (unlesse he hath been made to drinke of Master Downham's cup) with Mr. Jenkin, and the rest of the Sinonian Classe, hath voted er­roneous in me. In something or other (saith this Grave Author) all they which believe not, come short of that which they might have done, for attai­ning unto this precious gift of Faith. And that is it for which another day they shall be condemned. Ʋnbeliefe is in a mans power Dr. Gouge whole armour of God, p. 233.—If mens comming short of that which they might have done, be the reason and ground of their condemnation, it undeniably followes, that they have power to doe that, whereby their condemnation might be prevented; and consequently, to believe, in as much as there is no possibility of preventing condemnation, but by believing. Again, in saying, Ʋnbe­liefe is in a mans power; doth he not imply, that a man hath power o­over it, and may dissolve, subdue, and destroy it, if he will? When God said to the Devil, Behold, all that he [Job] hath, is in thy pow­er, did he not mean, that the Devill now might, if he would, destroy, or dispoile Iob of all he had? Besides, nothing that doth accompany a man ex necessitate naturae, out of the necessity of nature, can be said to be in his power; as for example, originall sin is not in a mans power, nor is his being born, either blind, or seeing, in his power; nor is the [Page 71] frailty of his life, nor the mortality, or corruptiblenesse of his flesh or bodie, nor any thing whatsoever, that is meerly and simply naturall unto him, in his power. Therefore if unbeliefe be in a mans power, it is certaine that nothing in nature doth necessitate him to it: and consequently, that hee may free and quit himselfe of it, if he please. It were easie out of the same Treatise of this great Subscriber, to tran­scribe many other passages, of like importance. Let every one (saith he, in another place) of what ranke or condition soever he be, be encouraged to apply to himself these glad tidings of pardon: and seeing God excludeth none, let not any of us exclude our selves. Questionlesse so grave a Teacher, would not encourage men, or perswade men to encourage themselves to doe that, which he judgeth unpossible for them to doe: would he say, let men be encouraged to flie, to number the stars, to touch the moon, &c. Therefore (doubtlesse) hee doth not judge believing a matter of like consideration with these in point of difficulty, or unpossibility of performance. And if God excludeth none [from believing] then hath he not inflicted any such punishment upon men for their sin in Adam, by which thy are disabled from believing; or at least he hath dealt so graciously and bountifully by men in the second Adam, as to furnish them with power sufficient to believe, that punishment notwithstan­ding. For certainely he that thrusts out a mans eyes, and doth not restore them againe to him, doth exclude a man from seeing. Nor can a man be said to exclude himselfe, unlesse it be supposed, that that act, by which this exclusion is made, be in his power, as well to for­bear, as to execute or performe. I [...] were ridiculous to say, that a poor man, who is not worth a groat, excludes himselfe from eating Partri­triges and Quailes by his not buying them at a deare rate in the Market.

I shall onely sub-joyne two or three places more out of the same discourse, Sect. 80. and leave it to the Reader to consider, whether the spirit of those opinions, which both William J. and William G with Wil­liam B. and William T. and many other Sinonian names of men, have stigmatiz'd for error in me, doth not breath & live in them. In the or­der of Redemption God hath made mans sin pardonable: but man by his im­penitency makes it not to be pardoned Page 275.. Else-where thus: Did not the very lifting up of the Serpent shew, that it was Gods will they should looke on it, and looking be cured? So God causing Christ to be lift up by the prea­ching of the Gospel before thee, sheweth that HEE WOƲLD THOƲ SHOƲLDST BELIEVE, and believing have ever­lasting life Page 230.. God never failed any that continued to waite on him: at [Page 72] length he satisfied their longing Page 232.. Though it be hard to the carnall carelesse man, yet (as Solomon saith of knowledge, Pro. 14. 6.) Faith is easie to him that will believe: not that it is simply in mans power, but that GODS SPIRIT SO OPENETH HIS ƲNDERSTANDING, &c Page 289.. Againe, if we repair to the Author who giveth Faith, and to the spring whence it floweth; if we rightly use the right meanes of attaining it, and waite at the doore of wisdome till shee open unto us, ƲNDOƲB­TEDLY WEE SHALL FINDE FAITH, & not misse of it. Page 290.. I appeale to any man, that will please to take the paines to compare my erroneous passages (so rated by the Subscribers) with these cited from their learned Doctor, whether the one can any more be orthodox, if the other be erroneous, then the Parish Pastor of Christ-Church neer Newgate, be an honest and modest man, if Willi­am Jenkin the Author of the Busie Bishop, be disconscienced and lofty.

I shall adde two passage which I have met with in the writings of Dr. Sibs: whose memory and Name is Sion-Colledg proofe, and needs not feare the poysoned arrow of their obloquie or reproach. If the will (saith he) would use that soveraignty, which it should, and could at the first, we should be altogether freed from this necessity [he speaks, of sin, and unbeliefe] men are not damned, because they cannot doe better, but be­cause they will doe no better Dr. Sib's souls conflict, page 162.. This clearly implies, that neither the ne­cessity of sinning, nor the impotency of believing, under which the ge­nerality or greatest part of unbelievers lie, are meerly naturall, but voluntarily contracted: and withall, that naturally they have power to doe that, which, had they wills to doe, would prevent their Con­demnation. Againe not long after: Our consciences tell us to our faces, that we might do more than we do to hinder sin; and that when we sin, it is not through weaknesse, but out of the wickednesse of our natures. If our sinning be (cleerly, and with sufficient ground for the avouchment) not through weaknesse, then certainly we have power sufficient not to sin; and if so, then to believe.

And because the young man talks of the Synod of Dort, Sect. 82. as if that were, Ex [...] beneficii ob­lati, & verbo Dei apertissimo judicandum est de illis Gratiae auxiliis, quae hominibus suppeditan­tur: non autem ex eve [...]u, aut abusn. Et paulò post: Talentum gratia à [...] semel concessum nemini eripitur, nisi qui priùs suo vitio illud sepeli­vit, Matth. 26 28. [...] divinae derelictionis ea apertissimè designatur ratio, quòd Deus ab homi­nibus prius deseratur. Et paulò post: Nusquam in Scripturis vel levissimè innuitur, Deum so­lere, aut velle unquam abs (que) praeviâ hominis culpâ eripere cuiquam gratiae exercitantis auxilium, aut ullum [...] quod semel contulit ad conversionem hominis ordinatum. Sic docuere Patres Orthodox, quibus cum Pelagianis negotium fuit. head, and taile, rush and branch, wholly, absolutely, and in­tirely [Page 73] his, and no part of it, mine, in the cause depending, I desire the Reader seriously to consider the tendency and import of these words (being the words of our English Divines, members of this Synod) we are to judge of those adjutories or helps of grace, which are vouchsafed, and adminstred unto men, by the nature of the benefit that is offered, and by the manifest word of God, not BY THE ABƲSE OF THEM, OR THE EVENT. If there can no judgement or estimace bee made of the aids of grace (viz. in point of sufficiency, or insufficiency, for the enabling of men to believe) either by the abu [...]e of them, or by the event, then mens non-believing, or perishing, is no argument or proof at all, that they had not sufficient meanes given unto them, whereby to have prevented both the one and the other. Again, if they bee to be measured or judged of (in the consideration mentioned) by the be­nefit offered in the Gospel, which is forgivenesse of sins, salvation, &c. then are they to be judged as sufficiently efficacious for the enabling men both to repent, and believe; in as much as without these the said benefits cannot be obtained. A little after they affirme; that there is not the least intimation in the Scripture, that God ever takes away the ta­lent of Grace, or the aid of exciting Grace from any man once given unto him in order to salvation, but for their preceding sinne, and burying of it through their own default. Yea and affirm this to have been the opinion of the Orthodox Fathers, who had to doe with Pelagius: and accordingly cite Austin for it. In which passage they cleerly suppose, 1. that men who never come to believe, or to be saved, have a talent of grace vouchsafed unto them by God in order to their salvation, (and con­sequen [...], sufficient, upon, and by improvement, to save them; and if so, sufficient also to make them believe) and 2 ^o. that the reason why men doe not believe, and in fine come to be saved, is not any de­fect or with-holding of Grace sufficient hereunto, on Gods part, but their owne voluntary abuse, or burying of it, being given unto them. So that if these men be friends to their own principles, words, and sayings, they cannot be enemies to my opinion about the the power of the naturall man to supernaturall good. If men will stagger, & not stand their owne ground, say, and unsay, affirme in premises, deny in con­clusions, I cannot help it. In the meane time, though many things they say may be of worthy concernment for the cleering and confir­ming of many truths in Religion, yet is their simple vote or Autho­rity in matters of Religion, of small value.

I presume by this time I have satisfied Master Jenkin's desire to the full, and have given him out of the Orthodox, a sufficient proportion of [Page 74] citations and sayings for the filling of halfe a page (unlesse it be a page in super-folio, which he meaneth) wherein those opinions of mine are cleerly avouched, which the Grand Committee of Sion Colledge, out of a desire to enrich themselves with the spoyles of my name and reputation, have sentenced for erroneous. I make no question but leasure and opportunity for a further search into the writings, both of these, and other learned men amongst us, of reputation enough to be counted Orthodox, might fill many pages with quotations of a manifest consistency with my proscribed opinions.

I now expect, that Mr. Jenkin, and his fellows, should either put me out of their black bill, or else write downe their owne names, and their Friends names, with mine: unlesse they shall clearly and Clerk­like, not shiftingly, or shufflingly, or by shewing me the nakednesse of the Authors (I meane, their interfeerings, and selfe-contradictions) disable the testimonies produced by me. Which I am certaine they never will, nor can doe, but by turning rules of Grammar, significa­tions of words, regularities of constructions, and principles of rea­son, upside-downe.

Under this head I shall only take knowledge further of some few simple passages more in the Busie Bishop, Sect. 83. of the same seasoning (with unsavory salt) with the former, and so passe on to the third & fourth heads; in the furnishing wherof, we shall be much briefer then in either of the former, and so conclude. Having ( page 3.) committed a sin, in telling me, tis my sin to say, they are no more then Ministers reputed [he meanes, himselfe & his fellow Testimonialists, of whom I speak not at all in that place] he demands of me; If they be not Ministers, why dis­prove I not their callings? But might not I more per [...]inently demand of him; If they be Ministers of Christ, why doe they disprove their cal­lings themselves, by transforming themselves into the Ministers of Sa­than, by forging Testimonies, by blaspheming cleere and manifest Truths with the odious names of errors and heresies, by cursing those, and that in their very pulpits, who have blessed them (I meane, both Parliament, and Armie; so farre they are from the practise of that which becomes, not only all Ministers, but all Disciples, of Christ, Blesse them that curse you Mat. 5. 44.; and againe, Bless them, which persecute you, blesse, and curse not Rom. 12. 14.) by throwing fire-brands of discord and dissenti­on amongst the people, by declaiming against, and virulently decry­ing that [...] or moderation, which the holy Ghost commends unto all Christians Phil. 4. 5., by continuall complainings of oppression, and hard measure, from, and in the state, where they live, when as they [Page 75] have the Sun of Authority shining in its might upon them, and all ex­pressions of respects from them, which they can with a good consci­ence, or with any tolerable convenience or satisfaction to the King­dome, and with their own safety, exhibite and shew unto them, as in setling the Government w ^ch they so inordinately desire, in discounte­nancing & discouraging those that are contrary-minded to them, in investing only them, and their party in the Ministerie, with a capaci­ty of al the sat Benefices, yea with al the Church Livings (judged meet to continue in such a relation) in England, &c. Men that call them­selves Ministers of Christ, & make such crooked & unworthy steps to themselves as these, need not call upon any man to disprove their cal­lings: they do it (with Authority & conviction in abundance) them­selves. Neverthelesse that Mr. Jenkin may not remaine u [...]-gratified in any so reasonable desire, or demand; I doe here promise him, that when either he, or any of his party, shall have sufficiently vindicated their callings against all those who have already impleaded them, no material engagement lying upon me otherwise, I shall be willing, up­on his second summons, to attempt some-what (according to my fee­ble and weake manner) for his satisfaction in that behalfe.

Page 2 Upon an [...]staticall pang of desire (it seems) to have his learning and clerk-ship seene (like Solomon) in all their glory, Sect. 84. & mine, prostrate in the dust at their feete, he resolves to make the represen­tation upon a theatre built by himselfe on purpose to act the trium­phant part of a Critique upon. Thus then he builds, and thus hee a­cteth, in order to that noble designe. First, for the LECTIO. Your meaning I suppose was, and had not your rage against the Ministers, made you write non-sence, you would have said thus: The Ministery cun­ningly vested themselves with the priviledge of the Church, and not as you doe; The Ministers vested the priviledge of the Church, in themselves. A man may be vested in, or with a priviledge: but it's very improper to say a Priviledge is vested in, or with a man, as improper as to say, a garment is vested in the man that weares it, 'twere better to say the man is vested in the garment. Your pen is drunke with madnesse, it doth stagger & stammer, These faults of pure weakenesse I should not regard, &c. Poor young man! the old proverb hath catch'd you; Corrigis Magnificat, et nescis quid significat. This it is for the Cobler to adventure beyond his Last. E­ven a foole (saith Solomon) when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise Prov. 17. 28.: but Mr. Ienkin (I see) had rather make an adventure for the reward of a fooles silence (I meane, repute of wisdome) by talking, then to accept of it upon such termes, on which only he is capable of it. For [Page 76] my selfe, I am willing, and shall not be ashamed, to receive reliefe a­gainst my weakenesse or ignorance in any kinde, from the meanest hand, that can reach it unto me: if M. Vicars his blew regiment can adde any thing to my knowledge in my mother tongue, I shall most readily hearken unto them; and upon benefit received, shall acknow­ledge them my benefactors. Yea there are not many yeares gone o­ver my head, since (I must confesse) I learned that, which I knew not before, of such teachers, who are known by no greater name then, Grammar Scholars. But Mr. Ienkin (I perceive) went lame to the U­niversity, and halts upon his English leg to this day. For what ailes the Lectio he speaks of? Doubtlesse much the same kind of ailement, which was in the house complained of by Harpasie (in Seneca) for being darke, when as she her selfe was blind. And as her blindenesse was all the darkenesse of the house; so is Mr. Ienkin his ignorance, all the unpropernesse in the Lectio. Questionlesse if he had tendered the Lectio to his Teaching Elder Mr. Vicars, and desired his advicement upon it, before he had taken the Censorian rod into his hand to smite it; Mr. Vicars would have taken pitty on him, and disswaded him from proclaiming the shame of his folly so loud, as to say, that hee finds that which is crooked, in that which is straight; and that which is rough, in what is perfectly smooth. For though M. Vicars his learning doth not lye so deep in the old Italian tongue, called Latin, (there being, haply an unhappy antipathy betweene his Genius, and it) yet I make no question but that he is a Master of some competen­cy in his Mother-tongue, & can understand a piece of plain English. Speake then, Mr. Vicars, speake out: know neither Father nor Mo­ther, Friend nor foe, in the judgement: is it very improper to say A PRIVILEDG IS VESTED IN A MAN? or is it more proper to say, A MAN IS VESTED IN A PRIVILEDGE? Say, did you ever meete with this latter construction of the word, VESTED, in any good English Author? or have you not met with the former, in very many? Say, is it very improper to say, that the river runs in the channell? and more proper to say, that the channell runs in the river? Is it very improper to say, that the fruit grows upon the tree? or more proper, that the Tree growes upon the fruit? But concerning the regular & proper construction of the word, VEST, VESTED, &c. let Mr. William Prynne umpire between Mr. William Ienkin and me. Well known it is, that he is no friend, or flatterer of mine, nor enemie to Master Ienkin: and withall, that for under­standing in the propriety of the English tongue, he is above, and Mr. [Page 77] Ienkin beneath. I have not had leasure or opportunity of late, to search much into his writings; but two places, wherein he useth the word, have occurred unto me. In his first book, concerning the So­veraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdomes, p. 50. he writes thus: Now it is clear on the contrary side, that the King hath not the power of the whole Realm VESTED in his Person, &c. In his Full reply to certaine briefe Observations and Antiqueries, towards the close whereof, he was pleased to make some briefe Animadversions (as hee calls them) upon my Theomachia, he writes thus (page 24.) Why may they not (the com­mon people) likewise delegate a lawfull Ecclesiasticall legislative Authority in Church affaires, to their elected Parliamentary, and Synodicall members, which was never actually in themselves, as well as M. Goodwin delegates the power of determining who should be fit persons to receive the Sacrament, and to become members of his Independent Congregation, to eight select sub­stitutes, which was never actually VESTED in himselfe, nor transferrible thus to others, &c. How doth Mr. Jenkin his pulse beate upon this potion? will he say, that rage against the Ministers made Mr. Pryn to write non sence? or that his pen was drunke with madnesse? Let him ei­ther charge him, or discharge me. For (as the saying is)

Well might he conclude, as he doth (towards the beginning of his Preface) Never was an Over seer so over-seen. I easily beleeve, that ne­ver since the mountains or hills were brought forth, was there such a Novice, that took upon him the office of an Over-seer, and performed it with that height of insolency, and depth of ignorance, which Mr. Jenkin hath done. Many Bishops have been busie in reforming that which was right, by attempting to b [...]ing in that which was croo­ked, in the place of it: But Mr. Jenkin's busie Bishop surpasseth them all. Mr. Jenkin the preaching Elder, understands not plain English; Mr. Vicars, the Teaching Elder, cannot make true Latine: Is not the Church of Christ in Christ-Church in a faire and hopefull way to a learned Presbytery? He tells me (page 55.) that his soul pitties my chea­ted chapmen, and else-where he talks of my misled followers. But as Christ spake to the women, who bewailed and lamented him; Daugh­ters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for your selves, and for your children Luke 23. 28,: So may I desire Mr. Jenkin to turn the pitty of his soul from my chapmen & followers, upon his owne; whose condition must needs be most deplorable and sad, having no better Guide in the impor­tant [Page 78] affaires of their soules, then such a one, who on the one hand is so defective in knowledge, as not to understand plaine English (the tongue wherein he was borne) yet so abounding in pride and pre­sumption on the other, as to make himselfe a Judge over others, not in such things only, but even in those also which are of a far greater and more difficult import.

By the way, I cannot reasonably judge, but that hee dissembles, when he saith, that his soule pitieth my cheated chapmen and followers; else why did he refuse to rectifie the judgements of such of them, who not long since upon the alarm of a magnificent challenge sounded by him in his pulpit, came unto him, to propound their scruples and doubts, about the Doctrine which he had taught, concerning the nature of a true Church? He could not but know, that, in his sense, and according to the tenor of his doctrine, they were in an error. If then his soule pitied them, why did he refuse conference with them, they so earnestly and frequently desiring and pressing him, that ac­cording to his pulpit-promise and ingagement, hee would answer those objections (very materiall and strong, as they supposed) which they had against his doctrine? Why did he after severall delayes and put-offs, at last take sanctuary, and shift for himselfe, under this poor and creeping refuge; viz. that it was the advice of his brethren, that he should not dispute with them, unlesse it were by writing.

Another like pageant of illiterate arrogance he playes, Sect. 85. p. 50. where he meets with another Lectio, as much too hard for him, as the for­mer: yet he is resolved to have a saying to it, though that which he saith be never so ridiculous and absurd. My expression was this: These men have exchanged the Fathers Adjutorium, into their own Com­pulsorium. Upon the head of this expression he pours out this flood of folly. For your accusation brought against the Subscribers of exchanging (as you word it) the Fathers Adjutorium into their own Compulsorium; first, for the Lectio: In what garden of authority did you gather that flower of elegance, to exchange one thing into another? Had you said, they have ex­changed the Adjutory for the Compulsory; or thus, they have exchanged the Adjutory into the Compulsory, though the matter had been base, yet the sense had been currant: but now this expression of (exchanging into) makes the whole sentence not so much worth as brasse silvered over: 'twas a mistake of Permutare, for Mutare: & I should advise you to study that easie worke, where you shall find Nil permurabis, emesve, before you adventure again up­on the Fathers. Had another taken you in this grosse non-sense, he would have sent you to the children: but I spare you.

[Page 79] What a mirrour or glasse have wee here presented, wherein to behold Mr. Jenkins profound learning and humility together in their own native colours and shapes! First, for his learning, doth not this ride on horse-back, in these words: Twas a mistake of Permutare for Mutare? Illiterate soule! Is the man so ignorant, as not to know, that Prepositions in composition, many times, make no alteration or difference at all in the signification of Verbs? If his pride had not been a debtor unto him of shame, it is probable he might have con­sulted with his Dictionary about the signification of these two verbs, mutare and permutare, before he had uttered his ignorance in assert­ing such an emphaticall and signall difference as alwayes found be­tween theem: and so have saved his face from the covering of this shame. If he had look'd into his Thomas Dictionary, hee should have found, that as permuto signifies, to change one thing for another, and to barter, so doth the simple verb muto, signifie to change, to barter or exchange one thing for another. So in the judgement of those who understand the propriety of the Latine tongue at another manner of rate than M. Jenkin; there is no more difference between permutare and mutare, in Latine, than there is in English, between, to barter, and to barter; to change one thing for another, and, to exchange one thing for another. Yea the Dictionary I speak of would have informed him, that permutare in contrarium, i, (according to his own translation) to exchange one thing into another, is an expression used by Pliny (no igno­ble Author in the Latine tongue.) And I would know of him, whe­ther in that easie work, which his humility adviseth me to study, where he findes (to the rendring of himselfe a very ridiculous Critique, Nil permutabis, emesve, the word permutabis, hath any other touch, no­tion, or streine of sense or signification in it, than what might have been as well expressed, by the simple, mutabis. It is no wayes like, that the Author of the verse prefer'd the compound, permutabis, before the simple, mutabis, for the sense of the word, but for the verse, which stood in need of the Preposition to compleat it. And if wee consider the proper force and import of the preposition, ex, in the English word, exchange, why may not one thing be properly enough said to be exchanged into another? nay, can one thing be said to be changed into another, without being exchanged, i. changed out of it selfe first, and so changed into another? But this it is to have to doe with Novices, who understand not quid distant aera lupinis. And whereas he in the simplicity of his pride, asks me, In what garden of authority I gathered that flower of elegancie, which he ignorantly seeks to blast; [Page 80] I might upon terms of sobriety and good reason, ask him, where, or from what Author he learned to call a mistake of a compound verb for a simple, grosse non-sense. But unlesse he should be ever and anon in his sayings, as low in learning, as lofty in conceit, he should not beget in his own likenesse.

For his Humility, doth not this also triumph in these expressi­ons, I advise you to study that easie worke, where you shall finde, Nil permu­tabis, emesve, &c. And again: Had another taken you in this grosse non-sense, he would have sent you to the children, &c. In what garden of autho­rity did you gather, &c. Are not these the ejaculations and streines of a most profound humility in a young man? Must not he that speak­eth such demure, modest, and submissive words as these, needes be as light as the dust in the ballance, upon his own weights? a man as little in his own eyes, as a mote in the Sun? Is it not an unheard of, an unpa­rallable condescension in a child, not to send his Father to his fellow- children, to be taught wisdom of them? I [...] ever the unclean spirit of pride and insolency had his throne in the heart of a young man, I feare Mr. Jenkin affords him the accommodation. In one place of his book, he tells his reader the story of his famous exploits in taking me tripping Page 89., (I know not how often) he means in impropriety of expres­sion, and non-sence. If a man were so blind, as not to be able to discern trees from men, in case he came to a Forrest, or Wood, he might very possibly imagine, that he saw as many men as trees. Nor is it any great marvel, that M. Jenkin, understanding so little as he doth, the proprie­ty of the English tongue, or regularnes of construction, should take me tr [...]pping, as often as he pretendeth. It is much the greater marvell of the two, that he doth not take me tripping in every sentence, and in every line. A stumbling Horse is as apt to stumble in a smooth way, as in a rugged. But upon such termes as he takes me tripping, he may take what Author he pleaseth tripping also, when, and where, and as oft as he pleaseth. If what I have said and argued under this head, bee not thought sufficient to evince my conclusion, viz. that M. Jenkin is but a very Novice in Clerk-ship, and understands little in any regu­lar and sound learning; the Reader is desired (if hee shall judge it worth his paines) to peruse the other passages in his booke, which I have not rembled, and then he needs not feare, but that his mea­sure will be full. In the mean time I shall proceed to the demonstra­tion of the two points yet remaining; and shall prove, though very briefly, 1 ^o. That the said M. Jenkin, proveth himselfe defective al­so in judgement and [...]. 2 ^o. That he demonstrates him­selfe void likewise of civility, and common principles of ingenuity.

Mr. Jenkin proveth himself defective in judgement and apprehension, by such passages as these.

FIrst, Sect. 86. all the three Titles, wherewith hee hath fronted his Piece, and affronted the Truth, present him extreamly defective in this kinde. For first, he flourisheth with his Greek Colours, and intitles, [...], which signifies, A busie body in other mens matters; and is to [...] both by our later, and former Translators, 1 Pet. 4. 15. Is the young man so weak, as to reflect upon me the imputa­tion of a busie body in other mens matters, only for washing my selfe clean from those foule aspersions of Erro and Heresie, wherewith hee and his defaming generation had bespattered me? Or did I in my Sion Colledge visited, lift up my hand to any thing, but in necessary and due order hereunto? If a pick-purse, or thiefe upon the high­way, should take Mr. Jenkins money from him, and he knew who had it, and withall, how to recover it, should Mr. Jenkin be a busie body in other mens matters, to attempt the recovery? What a vast difference is there between the judgement of old Hierome, In suspicione [...] quenquam esse patientem. and young Jenkin, in this point? Hierome judgeth it not meet, that any man should be patient, or sit still, under a suspition of heresie: Judge Jenkin judgeth him a busie body in other mens matters, that shall stirre little or much, in vindication of himselfe, in such a case. Or sup­pose the defamatory Testimony of the Ministers, had spared my name and reputation; yet falling foule upon so many pretious Truths, as it doth: doth he deserve the reproach of a busie-body, who shall rise up in the strength of the zeale of God, to defend them? It seems the things of Jesus Christ, and of the eternall salvation of the soules of men, are none of M. Jenkins matters: nor will he busie himselfe with them, further than they relate unto himselfe, and are his proper concernments, either in point of reputation, or of purse. Therefore (doubtlesse) they young man did not understand the first word of his book: and if he understands not his own words, I have the lesse reason to marvell, or be offended with him, that he under­stands not mine.

His second Title is, Sect. 87. the Busie-Bishop: to which he joynes (to shew, as it seemes, the manifold exubera [...]cie of his wit) by the dis-jun­ctive, Or, this (in the third place) The Visitor visited. And soon after [Page 82] (in his Preface) by way of indulgence to this his Titular wit, and rare invention for his Frontispiece, having repeated some words of mine, which were not for his tooth, he demands thus: Speak [...]s not my Lord j [...]st as if he were in his visitation? But speaks not my young Ig­naro in all this, just as if he were in a delirium, or deliquium of under­standing? O [...] was it done out of a politique reach, to make himself a Metropolitan, that I must need [...] be made a Bishop, and in this capacity be visited by him? Doubtlesse, if I be a Bishop, and Mr. Jenking my visitor, he must needs be an Arch-Bishop (at least) if not a Patriarch, or a Pope. But the poore man (I see) is troubled with that infirmity in the eyes of his understanding, which the Grecians call, [...]; we English Moon sightednesse: and in this respect was not able to discern a consequence, that lay faire and cleare, and neare enough to a man of ordinary apprehension. So that (by the way) I have no great reason but to beleeve him, when he saith: I FIND not (to my re­membrance) throughout his papers, one quotation taken out either of Scri­ptures, Fathers, or modern Writers, pertinently applied. It is no great marvell if a lusk, or pur-blinde man FINDES not that which is plain enough before him, and easie to be seen and found by o­thers.

Speaking of my mis-led followers (a generation of Paracelsus his non-Adami) he saith first, Sect. 88. that whether be escape their reproaches, Pref. p. 3. or su­stain them, he shall labour to blesse God and love them. Though I much suspect the reality of his heart in this promissory ingagement, yet I accept the intimation, which is clearly this: that if ever he blesseth God, or loveth men, he must make a labour of it: the present frame and temper of his spirit it seemes) are in no more capacity to yeeld such fruits as these, than Thornes are, to bring forth Grapes, or Thistles, Figges.

Secondly, he addeth, that assured he is, that should be have their stroke, it would be in the dark. This confidence of his, may very well be allowed him. For he that is never out of the darke, may be fully assu­red, that if he be strucke, he shall receive the blow, or stroke, in the dark. A fish, if he can but scape danger in the water, needs not feare trou­ble in any other element.

Whereas he adds, I desire them to know that I desire to say, I can die, &c. Was the man afraid, that saying, I can die, my followers should not know, that he desired to say it? or was he jealous, that in case such a saying should come from him, they would suspect that he did but dissemble therein, & that it came not from any truth of desire within [Page 83] him? Either of these jealousies are extreamly simple and empty. For though a man may very reasonably doubt, whether Mr. Jenkin can doe as he saith, when he saith, I can die: yea, and whether, when he saith, he can die, his heart doth not reprove him, for so saying, as being conscious to his tendernesse in that kind: yet why saying it, he should be thought not to desire to say it, himselfe (I think) cannot well imagine the least reason. But whatsoever his intent or meaning was, the words are so un [...]avoury, that no salt of any construction whatsoever will give any rellish or taste of reason unto them. And yet this Neophyte, with all his own non-sensicall sayings in that end of the wallet, which hangs at his back, presumes from the Tribu­nall of his understanding, to give judgement in cases of sense and non-sense.

Having said, Pref. p. 3. I can die, he adds, I cannot be silent. It seemes, hee is troubled with the unhappy infirmity of that talkative man in Athens long since, of whom a wiser man gave this character, saying of him, that he was, [...], i. unable to be silent: but most unable to speak.

That which yet followes, Sect. 89. is liker Mr. Jenkin than what went be-before: Pref. p. 3. When the truths are struck at (saith he) which I [...]ish not to out­live. How piously rational [...] is the man in his wishes? He wishes, not to out-live him, that liveth for evermore. A very modest and mortified wish. Is he afraid, that the truths of God, however struck at, should die? Indeed according to his absurd sense, and notion of the word and truth of God, making them nothing but paper and Ink, and the workmanship of mens hands, either in printing or transcri­bing, they are mortall, and may die. All the Bibles in the world may be burnt with fire, or perish otherwise: but the word and truth of God cannot be burnt, or perish. As Jesus Christ (the substantiall Word, and Truth, of God) is the same yesterday, to day, and for ever Heb. 13. 8., however he be opposed, or struck at in the world: so are all his words, whether uttered immediatly by himselfe in the dayes of his flesh, or suggested to his Pen-men before, or after, by his Spirit: let m [...]n mis­scribe them, mis-print them, mis-understand them, mis-interpret them, handle them how they will, turn them upside down, yet will they be the same, full of the same truth, yesterday, to day, and for ever. Is not the man (think you) a profound Theologue, to be afraid of out­living the truths of God?

Or if his meaning be, that he wishes, not to out-live, the free, open, and State-countenanced profession of these Truths, i. that the pro­fession [Page 84] of Truth, may be free, without danger, countenanced by the State, whilst he lives in the world; I cannot but commend him, for not being so unnaturall unto himselfe, as to hate his own flesh. What carnall, formall, or luke-warm Professor is there, that will not give the right hand of fellowship to Mr. Jenkin in this wish?

Or if his meaning be, that upon supposition, that the Truths he speakes of, shall be publickly opposed, discountenanced, persecuted, he had rather die before, than live to partake with the Truth in these her afflictions; this argueth, that he is no good Souldier of Jesus Christ. Thou therefore (saith Paul to Timothy) [...], endure hard­nesse, as a good Souldier of Jesus Christ 2 Tim. 2. 3.. And a little before: Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel 2 Tim. 1. 8.. He doth not say to him; In case the Gospel shall come to be opposed, disgraced, hated, persecuted in the world, desire rather to die, or, wish thy selfe out of the world, than to stand up in defence of it, or to partake of the afflictions which attend upon it. If a souldier, when the enemy comes on, & the battell is now ready to be joyned, should come to his Captain, and say, Sir, I wish rather to die than to fight: I wish I may not out-live my ease and peace; were this gallant, or martiall-like? I perceive Mr. Jenkin hath no minde, nor courage, to follow the Truth, longer than shee hath Fields and Vineyards to bestow upon him, or opportunity to make him a Captain.

When he saith ( page 6.) that I cannot say that I have been opposed by them [he speaks of himselfe and his Colleagues the Subscriptioners] in God way, Sect. 90. did he apprehend the most obvious and plain sense and importance of his words? Or was it his intent to confesse ingenu­ously, that the men he speaks of, never opposed me in Gods way, i. with meeknesse, sobriety, strength of argument, &c. but in their own way, viz. with passion, precipitation, peremptorinesse, or at the best, with empty, childish, and loose arguments, which stand off from the o­pinions which they pretend to prove by them, as if they were afraid to come neere them, or to own them? Of which kinde of argument, Mr. Jenkin hath mustered up a small body, in his pamphlet. I might without much labour instance in many: but by seeing only two or three play before you, you may judge of the dexterity and valour of the whole troop. Page 28. he affirmeth, that by my opinion, wherein I affirm, That if God should not make men capable of beleeving, they who are condemned, would have their mouthes opened against Gods procee­dings, I must needs make Gods soveraignty to be impaired with mans abi­lity, [Page 85] and to be limited to mans sinfully & voluntarily contracted impotencie. Might he not (wel-neer) w ^th as much semblance of reason, & strength argue thus: If I hold that Abraham begat Isaac, I must needs make A­bel the murtherer of his brother? For what greater affinity is there between my premises and his deduction, or conclusion, drawn from them? If it be not consistent with the wisdome of God, or with the goodnesse of God, to require faith and repentance of men, un­lesse enabled by him to exhibit and perform them; doth it any wayes follow, that God must needs lose his soveraignty, by not requi­ring them? Doth he lose his soveraignty by not acting contrary to his wisdom, or cōtrary to his goodnes? Is his soveraignty or dominion o­ver the creatures impaired, because he doth not judg it meet to com­mand throns to bring forth grapes, or Thistles, Figs? Confident I am, that there never was a generation of Christians (scarce of any kind or sort of men) so positive, peremptory and bloody in asserting their opini­ons, and withall so weak, contemptible, and shallow in arguing them, as the greater part of the London Sub-scripturients are.

Page 27. Sect. 91. to prove the words, which I deny to be an error, viz. 'Tis a needlesse thing for Satan to blinde, if they have not eyes to see, to be very false, he advanceth this apodicticall proofe: For (saith he) notwith­standing Satans making us blinde, we are blind of our selves: Dicite I [...] Pae­an: is not this a triumphant demonstration? we are blind of our selves, therefore there is a necessity that Satan should blind us. I feare, and partly know, that such arguments as these, or those that are very lit­tle better, are the foundations of a great part of Mr. Jenkins Religion, how importunely soever hee ob [...]rudes his reverend opinion of the Scriptures. The very truth is, that he, and many more, speake high­ly of the Scriptures, not because they loveth Truth, or the minde of God, and of Christ, contained in the Scriptures, or care much for the propagation or knowledge of these in the world, but to procure the greater reverence and authority to their own mindes and opinions, how unworthy and godlesse soever, by perswading the people, that they dwell in sacred sh [...]ines, and therefore can be none other but the Truths of God. See a cleare instance hereof, in the progresse of the late mentioned argument: as simple as 'tis, it must be fathered on the Scriptures, yea Scripture upon Scripture must be cited (or rather abu­sed) in the justification of it: according to Scripture, (saith he) which saith, That natur all men cannot know the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2. 14. and yet that the God of this world hath blinded them, 2 Cor. 4. 4 When the Scripture saith, that a natur all man is carried captive by Sa­tan (it is onely Mr. Jenkin that saith this, the Scripture saith it not: [Page 86] he hath practised the art of falsification so long, in citing my words, that his right hand cannot forget her cunning in citing the words of the holy Ghost himselfe, when he hath a lame opinion to gratifie) 2 Tim 2. 26. Doth it therfore follow, he is not a slave to since, because to Sa­tan? In this peece of discourse, the intentions of these men in lifting up the Scriptures, and so in using of them, may be clearly seen, un­lesse the vaile of their ignorance may be conceived to hide them. He chargeth me ( page 34.) according to the known tendernesse of his conscience, that still I would have fain the Scriptures counted hereticall with me; In which saying alone, there is more arogant and desperate blasphemy, than can well be supposed incident to any other man, than him that spake it. For doth it not clearly suppose, that the Scriptures themselves must be hereticall, if they should teach or hold forth any other doctrine than what M. Jenkin teacheth? And if so, then not the Scriptures, or their authority; but M. Jenkin his judgement and authority, must be the touchstone of Truth and Error: and the Scrip­tures must be look'd upon as Hereticall, if they shall presume to teach or assert any thing contrary to him; and consequently, must submit themselves to the regulation of his judgement, in their sense and meaning, and in whatsoever they affirm. But whether I would fain have the Scriptures counted hereticall, with me, or no; evident it is, that M. Jenkin would fain draw them into communion and fellowship with himself, in a most absurd, insulse, and unsavoury opinion; in go­ing about to prove from them, that he that is as blinde, as a man that is dead, had need yet to be blinded by Satan, or may further, or to a greater degree of blindnesse, be blinded by him. As for that Scrip. 1 Cor. 2. 14. by which he seekes to prove it, it appeares by his pro­ducing it for such a purpose, that he understands little of it. For first, evident it is from the series of the context, that by [...], translated, the naturall man, is not meant, the man that is simply or meerly natural, or unregenerate, or that hath nothing at all of Christ in him, but such a kinde of men, whom two or three verses after (viz. cap. 3. 1. 3.) he twice expresseth by the name of, Carnal; whom notwith­standing he calls Babes in Christ. So that evident it is, that by naturall there, and carnall here, he meanes onely weak Christians, such as for the present had made little progresse in the knowledge of Christ, and of the Gospel. This interpretation is further confirmed, 1 ^o. from hence, viz that one and the same kinde of person, whom hee calls spirituall, is opposed both to the naturall man there (as cap. 2. v. 15.) and likewise to the carnall man, here ( cap. 3 1.) 2 ^o. From hence, [Page 87] that as the Gospel speakes frequently, of two kindes (or degrees ra­ther) of Christians, weak, and strong, expressing them by severall ap­pellations; so the one sort of them, viz the strong, is (amongst other denominations) frequently expressed by the term, spirituall. If any man think himselfe to be a Prophet, or Spirituall [i. excellent, and of a greater growth in knowledge than ordinary] let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you, are the commandements of the Lord, 1 Cor. 14. 37. So again: Brethren, if any man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spirituall, [i. more able than your fellowes,] restore such an one, &c. Gal. 6. 1. To passe by other instances of like import; And I (Brethren) could not speak unto you, as unto spirituall [i. as unto strong, or understanding Christians] but as unto carnall, even as unto babes in Christ, 1. Cor. 3. 1. So then the word Spirituall, when spoken of persons, or spirituall man, being never found in the writings of this Apostle opposed, to the meere naturall, or carnall man, but very fre­quently to the weak, and lesse understanding Christian, it is no wayes reasonable to imagine such an opposition here: the scope and car­riage of the context, no wayes requiring it, but rising up in op­position to it.

The reason (by the way) why the weake Christian is, Sect. 92. and well may be, termed naturall, or carnall, is, because he retaines much of the meere naturall, or carnall man in him: he is still under the guidance of many false principles and notions of things, which are more gene­nerally found in meere naturall, and carnall men; and consequently his dispositions and practices are in a great measure like unto theirs also. A denomination may truly, and with sufficient proprietie of speech, be given, upon a graduall participation onely of a form, though it be not inherent in the highest, or most perfect degree of it. As for example, Silver is called white, though it be not as white as snow: and a man or woman, may be called black, though they bee not as black as a Negro. So a man may be termed an ignorant man, not onely when he knowes nothing at all, but when he knows little in comparison of what he might, and ought to know, and what o­thers do know. In like maner, men may be termed natural, or carnall, not because they are wholly, or altogether either the one, or the o­ther; but because there is much of that genius and temper, many of the properties & principles of those, who are altogether such, found remaining in them. The Apostle himself gives this account unto his Corinthians, why he called them carnall. For having charged them with being carnall, that it might appeare to them, that' he had done [Page 88] them no wrong in this charge, verse 3. he demands of them, and rea­sons with them thus: For where is there is among you, envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnall, and walk as men? Implying, that since they had so much of meere naturall and carnall men in them, or a­mongst them, as they clearly discovered by such wayes a [...]d doings as these; since they so farre communicated with them in their natures and dispositions, they might well be content to partake with them in their names also.

If it be here objected, Sect. 93. à minori ad majus, thus; If weak Christi­ans, who have the Spirit of God in some measure, are not yet able to know ordiscern the things of the Spirit of God, how can we imagine, that the meere naturall man should doe it? I answer briefly (for the present, expecting an opportunity of further enlargement) evident it is, from the tenor and carriage of the context, that the Apostle doth not (in this passage of Scripture) speak simply, or in generall, of the things of God, nor particularly of things simply necessary to be known or beleeved, unto salvation, but onely of the deep things of God (as they are called vers. 10) and such which the Corinthians by reason of their infancy, or b [...]b [...]ship in Christ, were not (for the pre­sent) able to beare. Such things of God, as before (viz. verse 6. and 7. of this chapter) he had called, wisdome, and the wisdome of God; and afterward, (viz. c. 3. v. 2.) he calls meat (opposed to milk) i. strong meat; by milke, understanding the obvious and plain truths of the Gospel, such as are easie of apprehension even to those that are car­nall, and babes in Christ. Now men meerly naturall, may be uncapa­ble of these, as a great part of the beleeving Corinthians themselves were: and yet be some wayes capable and apprehensive of such of the things of God, the knowledge whereof is of absolute necessity un­to salvation. And that they are very capable (I mean in respect of knowing & discerning) of many of the things of God, as generally of the duties commanded in the morall law, of his eternall power and God­head manifested in the creation, of such rationall grounds, argu­ments and demonstrations, by which the original and descent of the Scripture, & particularly of the Gospel, from God, are usually argu­ed & proved by learned Divines, & others; is a thing so manifest, that me thinkes Mr. Jenkin himselfe, though he have a rare gift of de­nying any thing that makes not for his turn, should not deny it. But

2 ^o. Sect. 94. That power, or ability, which the Apostle here denies to his Animal, or naturall man (who ever he means by him) of knowing the [Page 89] things of God, or of the Spirit of God, may well, nay (of necessity) must be understood onely of an immediate, actuall, or present capacity, or power. So that his meaning may be onely this: The Animall, or Naturall man, whilst he continues meerly such [animall, or naturall] or in sensu composito, hath no principle, or power, directly, actually, and de praesenti, to know savingly, the things of the Spirit of God. But this proveth not, but that such a man, animall, or naturall, may have such principles even for the present, which by a due and regular improvement, & such whereof, by the never-denied assistance of God at first, he is very capable, may advance and rise through the ordinary blessing of God in such cases, into such a capacity, or power, as is contended for. A childe, or youth of ten or twelve years of age, can­not (haply) construe, or understand a chapter in the Hebrew Bible, or lift a great weight, which requires the strength of a man to heave it, whilst hee remaines yet a childe: hee hath no immediate or actuall power to doe either of these; yet such a power, or principle he hath in reference unto both, by a regular imployment and improvement whereof, he will, or may in time, according to the ordinary course of Gods providence, be able to doe either. A man that stands upon the floore of a low room, hath no power of stepping into the upper room, immediatly; but he hath a power of conveying himselfe, if he pleaseth, by the opportunity of staires made for such a purpose. The Apostle himselfe, in this very context of Scripture (viz. cap. 3. 2.) supposeth that these Corinthians, who being carnall, and babes in Christ, were NOT for the present) ABLE to beare meat, had yet such a principle, or capacity in them, by the growth and strengthe­ning whereof, they might in time come to such an abilitie. I have fed you (saith he) with milk, and not with meat: For HITHERTO ye were not able to beare it, neither YET NOW are ye able. In that he saith to them, that they were not YET able to beare it, as being Babes, he plainly implies, that by using meanes to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Christ, they might in time through the ordinary blessing of God (ordinary I mean in such cases) come to be able.

3 ^o. Sect. 95. (And lastly) whether the place be understood, either of weake Christians, or of meere naturall men (though the former be lesse que­stionable) as well the one, as the other, may (according to the fre­quent Dialect, and phrase of Scripture) be said to be unable, or, to have no power to know, or to discern the things of God, either because of that great difficulty, which lies in the way of such men to attaine [Page 90] the knowledhe or discerning of these things; or else because of that great aversnesse or indisposition, which is incident to both these sorts of men, to steere a course of meanes proper or likely, to render them capable of such knowledge, or discerning.

For first, as the Scripture is wont to expresse a number, next to none, (I mean, a very few, a number inconsiderable) by the word, none, simply; There is NONE that doth good, &c. Psal. 14. 3. and elsewhere; and so likewise in greater sums or accounts, to omit the fractions, or odd unites, expressing onely the round number (where­of there are many examples in Scripture ready enough to be found) so likewise when a thing is very unlikely to come to passe, and (as it were) neere to an impossibility, it oft-times takes no notice of those few degrees of probability, or possibility, under which it lieth, but calls it (simply) a thing unpossible, or which cannot be done. Thus Christ having first said to his Disciples ( Matth. 19. 23.) Verily I say un­to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the Kingdome of Heaven, in the next verse, to carry up their apprehensions to the due height and pitch of the difficulty, hardnesse, or unlikelihood of the thing, he ex­presseth it by a similitude importing an unpossibility. And again I say unto you, it is easier for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdome of God. Yet that he doth not here speak of a Logicall, i. a simple and absolute impossibility, but of a morall onely, is evident from vers. 26. where he restraines the impos­sibility of it unto men, and supposeth it possible enough with God: With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. Now that which is Logically, or simply impossible, is impossible with God himselfe, as well as with men. And that which in this verse he affirms to be impossible with men, v. 23. he had represented onely as very diffi­cult, and what was very seldome likely to come to passe. Verily I say unto you, [...], &c. i. that very hardly, or with great difficulty, will, or shall a rich man enter into the Kingdome of hea­ven. Many times the rarenesse onely, or the great unlikelihood of an effect, is expressed, sometimes by the difficulty, otherwise by the im­possibility of it. The like passage is to be seen, Mark 10. 23, 24. Thus when the Lord expostulated with his people after this manner, Jer. 13. 23. CAN the Ethiopian change his skin? or the Leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, who are accustomed to doe evill; he seems to im­ply (as to the manner of the expression) a kinde of impossibility in them to repent, or turn unto God. Which impossibility notwithstan­ding is not to be measured, or computed by the strict definition of [Page 91] what is simply and precisely impossible (for in that sense it was not impossible for them to repent, notwithstanding their long habi­tuated custome in sinning, as appeares by the examples of those, who have repented upon such termes as these) but onely by the nature and definition of what is marvellously unlikely, and what lieth (as it were) in the borders or confines of an impossibility. This interpretation fully agrees with Austines notion in the case. How hardly (saith he) or with what difficultly doth such a man rise, (or get up, meaning, to repentance, or a course of well-doing) who is pressed (or kept down) with the heavie weight of an evill cu­stome (lying on him.) And yet he riseth upon a great voyce Quàm dif­ficulti [...]e sur­g [...], quem malae consuetud [...]s moles premit? sed tamen sur­git post vocem magnam., i. after some [...] consideration, or motive to repentance hath taken an effectuall hold upon his judgement and conscience, by the graci­ous interposition and co-operation of the Spirit of God. To in­stance onely once more (for the present) the multitude of the Saints spoken of, Revel. 79 is said to be so great, that NO man COƲLD number them: i. it was very difficult and hard, not simply unpossible for men to number them. For it is not simply un­possible for men to number any number that is finit: and that the number of these Saints was not simply infinit, appeares from hence, viz. that elsewhere in Scripture they are called, few, a little flocke, See also 1 Kings 3. 8. &c. viz. comparatively, in respect of the farre surpassing number of those which perish; which number, the great surplussage of it notwithstanding above the other, is not simply infinit. The line of this interpretation is to be stretched over very many other places of Scripture of like expression and phrase with those, in which instance hath been given. According to the tenor of this exposition (which is, as we have heard, fully consisting with the familiar Dialect, and frequent manner of speech in the Scripture) those expressions in the passage in hand, Cannot receive, Cannot know, Cannot discern, &c. doe not import a simple, or utter impos­sibility in the men spoken of, to receive, know or discerne the things of God; but a difficultie onely which no man I know of, denies. A­gain

Secondly (as to the other particular mentioned) it is very consi­derable both to the clearing of the place in hand, Sect. 96. and very many o­ther place [...] also of like notion and phrase in the Scriptures, that the word POWER, whether formally, and in the letter, expressed, or implied onely, is in very many places to be taken in a kinde of metaphoricall and unproper sence, viz. for a morall POWER, [Page 92] that is, for such a principle or disposition in the will, which ren­ders a man actually inclimble and propense to doe such, or such a thing, and not for a POWER of efficiencie, or execution, which (in strictnesse and proprietie of phrase) is POWER one­ly. And again the present or actuall want of such a principle, or disposition, is frequently expressed by the want of POWER to doe the thing. When it i [...] said of the Lord Christ himselfe, that be­ing in his own countrey, Hee COƲLD there DOE NO mighty work Mark 6 5, &c. It cannot be imagined that the arm of his Divine om­nipotency, by which he wrought all his great workes and mira­cles elsewhere, was at all shortned in his own countrey, more than it was in other places, or that it was Logically unpossible for him to work as mighty works here, as elswhere. Therefore the mea­ning of the expression is onely this, that by reason of the exceeding disrespective and unworthy carriage of his countrey-men towards him, he had no minde, will, or disposition, to shew unto them the glory of his power by doing any mighty work amongst them, but by reason hereof, during his abode with them, was as if he had had no such power, nor been able to any mighty work at all. Thus when Christ saith to the Church of Ephesus, I know thy works, and thy la­bour, and thy patience, and how thou CANST NOT beare with them that are evill Rev. [...] 2., &c. his meaning is not, that it was logically, or simply impossible for these persons to beare with those that were evil; but clearly this, viz. to acknowledge that they were zealousl [...] and vehemently inclined and bent, to censure and restraine those that were evill amongst them; by reason of which inclination, they con­stantly dealt as effectually, as severely with those that were evill amongst them, either in reclaiming them, or disclaiming them (by casting them out from amongst them) as if it had been simply im­possible for them to tolerate or beare with them, being evill. In the like construction and phrase the Apostle Paul expresseth him­selfe to the Thessalonians thus: Wherefore when wee could no longer forbeare, wee thought good, &c. And a little after: For this cause, when I COƲLD no longer forbeare, I sent to know your faith 1 Thess 3. 1, 5., &c. His intent was not to informe them of any thing that was simply and absolutely impossible for him either to do or to forbeare: but onely to expresse the greatnesse of his affection towards them, and the vehement longing of his desire after their establishment and comfort in their faith. To open onely one instance more, and to content our selves with a briefe pointing at many others; when [Page 93] the Apostle John writeth thus; Whosoever is born of God, sinneth not, for his seed remaineth in him: NEITHER CAN HEE sinne 1 John 3 [...]., &c. his meaning is not, that such a man wants faculties, or Powers, either of body, or of soule, wherewith to perpetrate, execute, or practice sinne, in case he had a desire or minde there­unto: but that that inclination or propensnesse of will, which formerly abounded in him towards the commission and practice of sin, is by the influence or working of the seed of grace, by which he is born again, so broken and disabled in him, that not­withstanding he hath all the same power, or powers (properly so cal­led) which other men have, to perpetrate and commit sin, yet ordi­narily, and willingly he sins no more, than if he had no power at all to sin: there is an abhorrencie or great alienation of heart and soul in him, from sin.

Very many places there are of like construction and phrase, Sect. 97. be­sides these, which can admit of none other interpretation. How then ( saith Joseph) CAN I doe this great wickednesse, and sin against God Gen 39. 9. Ye CANNOT ( saith Joshua to the people) serve the Lord your God: for he is an holy God Jer. 24. 19. The people CANNOT come up to mount Sinai ( saith Moses speaking unto God) for thou hast charged us, saying, set bounds Exo. 19. 23., &c. The evill ( saith Jeremy concerning his Figges) very evill, that CANNOT he eaten, they are so evill Jer. 24. 3. And I CANNOT ( saith Lot to the Angel) escape to the moun­tain, lest some evill take me Gen. 19. 19., &c. We CANNOT (say Laban and Bethuel to Abrahams servants) speak unto thee, bad or good Gen. 24. 50., And they said ( the Shepheards of Haran unto Jacob) wee CANNOT [meaning, water the sheep] untill all the flocks be gathered together Gen. 29 8. We CANNOT (say the sonnes of Jacob to Shechem and Ha­mor) doe this thing to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised Gen. 34. 14., &c. It is said of Josephs brethren, that they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him Gen. 37. 4.. We cannot goe down ( said the same persons to their Father) if our youngest brother goe with us, then will we goe down Gen. 44. 26.. Of Joseph himselfe it is said (a little after) that hee COULD NOT refrain himselfe before all them that stood before him Gen. 45. 1., &c. The Magicians COƲLD NOT stand before Moses, because of the boyles Exod 9. 11.. It B [...]l [...]k would give me this house full of silver and gold, ( saith Balaam) I CANNOT goe beyond the word of the Lord Numb. 22. 18. & 24 13.. He is such a sonne of BELIAL ( say Nabals servants of their ma­ster) that a man CANNOT speak to him 1 Sam. 25.. I am doing a great worke. ( saith Nehemiah) so that I CANNOT come down Neh. 6. 3.. CAN that [Page 94] which is unsavoury ( saith Job) be eaten without salt Job. 6. 6.? Parallel to to these instances in the old Testament, are these following, in the New: CAN the children of the bride-chamber mourne, so long as the Bride-groome is with them Mat. 9. 15.? How CAN yee, being evill, speake good things? Mat. 12. 34.? Are yee ABLE to drink of the cup that I shall drink oft? &c. Mat. 20. 22. Either how CANST thou say to thy Brother, Brother, let me pull out the more that is in thine eye Luke 6. 42.? &c. How CAN yee beleeve, which receive honour one of another Joh. 5. 44.? No man CAN come unto me, ex­cept the Father which hath sent me, draw him Joh. 6. 44. 45.. Therefore they COƲLD NOT beleeve Joh. 12. 39.. Even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world CAN­NOT receive Joh. 14. 17. &c. And I, Brethren, COULD NOT speake unto you as unto spirituall 1 Cor. 3. 1., &c. So then, they that are in the flesh, CANNOT please God Rom. 8. 8.. Who CAN have compossion on the ig­norant Heb. 9. 2., &c. How can he love God whom he hath not seen 1 Joh. 4. 20.? In all these places (and many more of like character with them) by an ability or power of doing things, whether expressed, or implied, whether affirmed or denied unto men, is onely meant such a morall power as I spake of; an actuall propension or inclination in the will toward the doing them. Which kinde of Power men may be with­out, and want, and yet have a sufficiencie of power otherwise to fur­nish themselves (by a diligent and regular course of meane [...]) with such a power. As they (John 5. 44.) who by receiving honour one of another, were disabled (for the present) frō beleeving, had notwith­standing such a power, I mean, such principles of knowledge and conscience, by a due excitement and improvement whereof, they were able to have removed the impediment of ambition and vain­glory out of the way, and consequently to have beleeved. For (doubtlesse) it was both Reason and Experience, that taught the Heathen Poet this Truth:

Nor ought that Idiome, Sect. 98. or phrase of Scripture, wherein the present inclination, or bent of the will in reference to an action or course, is signified by a power, or ability to doe or practice accor­dingly, [Page 98] seem strange, or any wayes ha [...]d; since it is but the familiar Dialect of our own language. When we have a great unwilling­nesse, or aversnesse of minde to the doing of a thing, we ordinarily expresse our selves thus, We CANNOT doe it: and it may with good propriety of speech be said, that a covetous man CAN­NOT doe liberally or bountifully: an angry or proud man, be­ing proked, cannot expresse himselfe meekly, or humbly, &c. In such expressions as these, we doe not imply, or deny, but that the men, whose wills for the present, stand strongly bent a contrary way, have yet a power (properly so called) to doe the actions: yea and have (as hath been said) such power, such ability of reason, judgement, and understanding, by a regular engagement whereof accordingly, they may dissolve and alter the present frame of their hearts, and bend their wills quite another way.

By this time, Sect. 99. the Reader (I trust) fully understands, how little Mr. Jenkin understands of that Scripture, 1 Corinth. 2. 14. The naturall man knoweth not the things of the Spirit of God, by which hee seekes to confute that assertion of mine, viz that it were needlesse for Satan to blinde the eyes of men, if men were naturally blinde, and to­tally uncapable of the things of God. Poore man! It is evident by his Scriblings, and frivolous quotations of Scripture, that he is but a raw Student in the Scriptures, doth not weigh or ponder contexts, or carriages of Arguments, nor minde the propriety or import of Scripture-expressions. He tells me (page 30.) that I have a long­winded stile, and a foggie conceptus, that I cannot write a slight notion, which may be couched in foure lines, under thirty-foure; and hereupon layeth his command upon me, to Be quicker hereafter. Because. Mr. Jenkin himself still makes more haste than good speed, he thinks others should doe very vertuously to follow his example herein. It is a true saying, De facili pronunciar, qui ad pauca respicit: he that con­siders little, may soon be ready with his answer; and they that speak English proverbs are wont to say, that a short horse is soon curried.

I remember a story in Plutarch to this purpose: A Painter, who though a Bungler in his Art, yet being vain-glorious, and suffici­ently conceited of his skill, brings severall Tables, or pieces of work, to shew to a master-workman of the same profession (of his acquaintance) and (desirous to [...]ast of the sweet mor [...]ll of ap­plause from such an hand) declares to him with what celecity and quicknesse of hand, he had performed them, and tells him, that within such a space of time, he had dispatch'd them all. But (re­plies [Page 96] his friend to him) are these all thou diddest in that time? wittily reproving his vanity, and affectation of applause and inti­mating withall, the slightnesse and inconsiderablenesse of his work. Mr. Jenkin, Mr. Jenkin, it is very easie to bee quicke, but exceeding hard to be substantiall and through. You young men can feast vi­treum vas lambendo, onely with licking the cut-side of the glasse: but wiser men must pultem attingere, come at the meat that is with­in; or else they cannot bee satisfied. Nor is it any great marvell, that you complain of long-windednesse in my stile: a broken-winded horse thinkes a short journey long, and informes his Rider accor­dingly, in a harsh complaining gutturall Dialect every step (al­most) that he taketh. And for the Fogginesse of my Conceptus, had a wiser man made the observation, the consideration of it might have taken some hold upon me: but colours need not regard the censures and disparagements of blind men. I confesse Mr. Jenkin his conceptus, or conceit of himselfe, is more elevated and clear than mine: but his conceptive facultie, of the nature, truth, cause, rea­sons, grounds, and connexions of things, is so foggy dark, and grosse, that foure hundred lines will not serve him to bring forth a very slight and sl [...]nder notion indeed with any clearnesse or evidence of truth. But I had rather he should discover his weaknesse himselfe, than I: onely I desire to give him some further assistance towards so laudable a work. And upon this account

I desire him seriously to consider, Sect. 100. whether this demand, or (com­mand rather, page 32.) sounds weaknesse, or strength: In your next tell me in what places Peter and Paul assert, that a naturall mans impotencie excuseth him from doing his duty, whether in Rom. 9. 19, 20. where we are forbidden to dispute against God; Or in Rom. 3. 19. — Every mouth shall be stopped. How ridiculously irrelative are these demands to his purpose, or to any occasion administred by mee? Doe I any where hold it fort [...] (or any thing of affinity with it) that either Peter or Paul should assert, that a naturall mans impotencie ex­cuseth him from doing his duty? Or is it not the expresse and cleare tenor of my opinion (in this point) that there is no such impote [...] ­cy in a naturall man, which doth excuse him from doing his duty: and and that men are therefore inexcusable before God, who doe not their duty, because he hath sufficiently in abled them to do it? Might not I then as reasonably say to Mr. Jenkin, Tell me in your next, in what place Peter and Paul assert, that Iannes and Iambres were excel­lent Prophets of the Lord, and that Balaam was a holy and righte­ous [Page 97] man? whether in 2 Tim 38. where Paul saith thus: Now as Iannes and Iambres withstood Moses, &c. or in 2 Pet. 2. 15. where this Apostle writes thus: Which have forsaken the right way, and have gone astray, following the way of Balaam the sonne of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousnesse, &c. As absurdly ridiculous is that also which followes in Mr. Ienkins Bishop: In the meane time your old friend, Mr. Bucer sends you word by me, that our impotencie and want of strength to doe any good at all, will prove a vain excuse. Well may Mr. Bucer imploy Mr. Ienkin to carry such frivolous and im­pertinent messages as these: I know not where hee could have found a man that might better be spared, either to pill st [...]awes, or to throw stones against the winde, or to carry such messages, which nothing concern those to whom they are sent. For doe not I very well know without information either from Mr. Bucer, or his filly pragmaticall agent (Mr. Ienkin) that impotency and want of strength to doe any good at all, will prove a vain excuse? Or doe I not clearly and positively affirme, even in those passages transcribed by the London Scribes, things every wayes consonant hereunto? When Christ said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger: and again, Reach hither thine hand, and put it into my side John 20.; if Thomas should have excused him­selfe from doing either the one, or the other, upon this ground, that he had neither fingers, nor hands, doubtlesse this had been a vain ex­cuse. Why? certain it is, that Thomas had both fingers and hands. In like manner, in case we should plead impotency or want of strength to doe good, it must needs prove a vaine plea, or excuse. Why? be­cause every untruth pleaded by way of excuse before God, must needs prove a vain excuse, yea and more, or worse than vain; the righteousnesse of God not onely not admitting any untruth to me­diate with him in any mans behalf, but also deeply abhorring those, who shall presume to come before him in the name of such a me­diation.

Whereas I complaine, Sect. 101. that one while, and in one place, the London Heresie [...] deface and mangle those passages of mine, which they pretend to transcribe, by suppressing and leaving out what they please, yea very emphaticall, and materiall words and clauses; in a other place, that to render me as a man prodigiously erroneous, and to make me hereticall in folio, they swell and bulk their transcriptions by citing similitudes, parables, and resemblan­ces also; Mr. Ienkin (page 30.) profoundly censures this deport­ment of mine, as a deep misdemeanour in these words: The Sub­scribers [Page 98] have not (as yet) the Art of pleasing you: even now they cited the words too sparingly: now, too copiously: you are ever complaining, &c. Might not the tyrant Procrustes, having first cut off the feet of a man to make him shorter than he was, and afterwards stretched him upon a rack to make him longer than he was, in case this man should have complained of his cruelty towards him thus different­ly acted, as reasonably and as Christianly have replied unto him; even now you complained of me, that I made you too short, now you complain that I make you too long: you are ever complaining: I have not the art of pleasing you, &c

I conclude my present demonstration with another brief touch upon his deplorable weaknesse, Sect. 102. and insufficiency in managing the Scriptures. Pag. 31. to prove, that the Scriptures deny, that they who pe­rish, have power to beleeve, and repent, he cites (among other Scriptures every whit as impertinent) without strength, Rom 5. 6. God worketh in us to will and to doe. Certainly the man understands nothing of the sense and meaning either of the one place, or the other. In the former, we are said to be without strength, or rather to have been without strength, not in respect of our condition as repaired, relie­ved, and stated by Christ, but in respect of that condition, whereinto we were exposed by the sinne of Adam, and whereinto we should certeinly have perished, had not Christ interposed by his death for our deliverance. The tenor of the Apostles words is expresse: For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. So that this Scripture, affirming men to have been weak, or without strength, i. unable to help or save themselves from death, without the death of Christ for them; rather supposeth them endued with, or as having strength in this kind, by means of the death of Christ than o­therwise Therfore he [...]hat should thus reason; the sun now shineth: therefore it is midnight; should draw the true portraicture of Mr. Jenkin his reasoning from the Scripture in hand. For to prove, that the Scriptures deny strength in those who perish, to be­leeve, and repent, he brings a Scripture, which (as hath been shew­ed) supposeth it.

Nor doth his latter Scripture any otherwise relate to his pur­pose, than the East unto the West. For Gods working in us, both to will and to doe, clearly supposeth, that men have power both to will and to doe; so farre is it from denying it, or supposing the contrary. Yea it is Gods working in us both to will and to doe, that enableth us both to the one, and the other. The Apostle himselfe earnestly presseth and [Page 99] perswadeth the Philippians, to will and to doe (in effect) upon this ground, viz. that it is God [...], that is working in them to will, and to doe, of his good pleasure. Wherefore (my beloved) as ye have alwayes obeyed not as in my presence onely, but now much more in my absence, worke out your salvation with feare and trembling. For it is God that worketh, &. Phil. 2. 12, 13. From the connexion between the exhortation, or duty laid down (in the former verse) and the motive, in the latter, evident it is, that Gods working in us both to will and to doe, doth not necessarily suppose, that either to will or to doe, are actually, and with­out any more to doe wrought in us: no more, than his purging Jeru­salem of old, necessarily supposed, that herefore Jerusalem was actu­ally purged. Because I HAVE PƲRGED thee (saith hee to Jerusalem) and THOƲ WAST NOT PƲRGED, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthinesse &c. Ezek. 24. 13. As God purged Je­rusalem of old, and yet Jerusalem was not purged: in the like sense, and after the same manner, God worketh, or is working both to will, and to doe in many, who yet neither will, nor doe. For the understanding whereof, Mr. Jenkin shall doe well to take knowledge of the Scrip­ture Dialect and phrase in such expressions; as viz. that when an ef­fect depends upon the joynt concurrence of two, or more causes for the actual production of it, it is very usual and frequent in the Scrip­tures, when any one of these causes have contributed that efficien­cie, which is proper for it to exhibit towards the production hereof, to mention the effect as produced by this cause, though it be not actually produced, the other cause, or causes, not having given in their influence or concurrence herevnto. As for example, The purging of Jerusalem (lately mentioned) was an effect, which depended, partly upon God, or his interposall by his Word, Spirit, Mercies, Judgement, &c. partly upon Jerusalem her selfe, in comporting with God in those administrations, wherein he applied himselfe unto her, for her purging, and so in suffering her selfe to be purged by him. Now because God had done that, which was necessary or proper for him to doe towards this effect of purging her, he had for a long time stroven with her, by his Word, by his Spirit, by his long suffer­ing, by his judgements, to bring her to repentance, in this respect the effect it selfe, (I mean, the purging of Jerusalem) is attributed unto him, though it was not effected or brought to passe, Jerusalem her selfe denying, or with-holding that, which was necessary on her part, for the actuall producing of it, viz. her consenting unto the moti­ons and applications of God unto her, for her purging. Because I here [Page 100] purged thee, (saith God unto her) i. have done all that which was proper or meet for me to doe towards the purging of thee; and thou wast not purged, i. deniedst to joyne or comply with me in thy purga­tion, therefore thou shalt not be purged &c. Upon the same considera­tion and ground, our saviour expresse [...] himselfe thus, Matth. 5. 32. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, i. doth that which is proper, apt, and likely to cause her to commit adultery, whether de facto she committeth adultery, or no. For he doth not suppose, that every woman put away upon such termes, must of necessity therefore commit adultery: yet he that put­teth her away so, is said to cause her to commit adultery. Thus (in Pauls language) he is said to destroy his brother Rom. 4. 15, 30., who doth that, which is apt or likely to destroy him, whether he be actually destroyed, or no. In like manner and phrase of speech, God may be, and is said to work in men, [...], to will, and to do [viz that which is good, holy, and of a saving import] though men actually neither will, or doe such things, viz. because he acteth or worketh that, in, and upon men, which is very proper, and full of efficacie and power, to prevaile with men, both to will and doe such things. For men actual­ly to will and doe things accompanying salvation, depends partly upon God, in respect of the necessity of the motion, and assistance of his Spirit, thereunto; partly upon men, in respect of a like necessity of their concurrence, and consenting unto the motions of the Spirit God, in that behalfe. Now when God doth his part, I mean, that which is proper and meet for him to doe towards these great and blessed effects in men, whether men act their parts or no, he is never­verthelesse said, to work in them both the will and the deed. I [...] Mr. Jen­kin desires more instances of that propriety of Scripture-phrase, by the analogie and consideration whereof his inference from Philip. 2. 13. is quite overthrown, he may please at his leasure to have recourse, to John 10. 32. Matth. 5. 24. Rom. 2. 5. 1 Joh. 2. 16. 1 Tim. 4 16. In all these, and many more places like unto them, he shall flude severall effects attributed unto their partiall causes respectively, not because actually produced by them, but onely because these causes contri­bute their respective vertues or efficacies towards the production or raising of them. So that Mr. Jenkin in citing Scriptures to prove, that men who perish, have no power to repent, or beleeve, shews himself to be a man of the same line of understanding with those, who should either bring water to drown an Eele, or fire to imbase Gold.

[Page 101] Though the particulars which have been insisted upon, and ar­gued, be but as a first fruits, in respect of the full harvest of absurdi­ties, which might be gathered from Mr. Jenkin his Busie-Bishop; yet I suppose them demonstrative in abundance of their conclusion, viz. that the man is extreamly shallow, empty, and depressed in his in­tellectuals, and no wayes meet for his ingagement. So that if Sion Colledge mean to have their work done to any purpose, alius quaeren­dus est artifex, they must seeke some better workman. Mr. Jenkin hath done his good will: but what is this to their reliefe?

4 Mr. Jenkin evinceth himselfe defective even in mat­ters of Civility, Modesty, and common Ingeunity, by such deportments and passages, as those taken notice of in the sequell of this present Discourse.

WHen a young man renounceth principles of Civility,, Sect. 103. Mode­sty, and common Ingenuity, he giveth hostages unto Satan, and secureth him, that he will never atchieve (nor indeed cordially attempt) any great matters against him, or his kingdome. Those straines in the Busie-Bishop, which represent the Author, as a man, in whom, though a young man, Nature herselfe taketh no pleasure, but leaveth him in the hand of the degenerous and ignoble impressions of incivility, male-pertnesse, and shamelesse scurrility, are of a sadder consideration to a spirit truly Christian and considering, than all the rest. Humanum est errare: to erre, mistake, and mis-understand, is nothing but what is incident to men, as men, and so to the best of men: but to outface, forge, falsifie against knowledge, to vilifie our Superiors, to trample upon our betters with the foot of insolencie and disdaine, to boast of the key of knowledge when we are grosly ignorant, to assume the seat of Judicature, and passe confident a­wards in matters which we understand not, no nor care to enquire into; doubtlesse such misdemeanors as these, are not the waves or practices but but of men [...] (as Chrysostome speaketh) i. who are declined and bowed downe to­wards the nature and disposition of unreasonable creatures. Now whether severall of these ill-portending symptomes bee not found upon Mr. Jenkin, I appeale to these, and many such [Page 102] like uncleane touches and breakings-out as these, in his Busie-Bishop.

Page 41. Sect. 104. he calls Testardus, a French Minister, and Pastor of the Reformed Church of Orleance, a man that discovers more soliditie and worth, more soundnesse of judgement and understanding in the Scriptures, and matters of Divinity, in one page of his writings, than Mr. Jenkin hath done in all that ever he hath written, yea and a far more Christian temper and Genius, than he; yet this man he avileth with the scurrilous character of a Dough-bak'd Testardus. They that are not burnt as black as a coale in the fiery furnace of High-Presbytery, are (it seemes) in M. Jenkins account Dough bak'd. Page 35. as if all his own ind [...]tings were of an Angelicall refinement and allay, he calls my writings, Hereticall Scriblings. Modestlessime! Is not he, who understands not a piece of plain English, a competent judge of Scriblings? and he who is as ignorant of the mind of God in the Scriptures, as M. Jenkin, Secun [...]ù [...] allegata & probata, hath been evinced to be, a like judge of Heresie? Page 23. He flings him­selfe into this hypocriticall and basely-calumniating passion: How doth my soule pitie your poore deluded followers, who have such a soul star­ving, and soul poysoning Shepheard set over them: The Lord knowes, I hardly write these things with dry eyes. What M. Jenkin saith, in say­ing that he hardly writes with day eyes, I finde no great obstruction in the way of my beleeving; considering that children oftner cry out of anger and meere vexation, when they cannot have their wills, than out of pitie. I beleeve (and not without ground) that if the in­side of M. Jenkins heart were turned outward, there would be seen in it, wrath, envie, and indignation in abundance at the prosperitie and flourishing estate of the soules of those persons, whom he (not­withstanding the earnest sollicitations of his conscience to forbeare) pretends to pitie, as if they had as [...]ul starving and soul poysoning Shep­heard over them. But the spirit, which pitied the followers of Christ, and his Apostles, as deceived, 1 Joh. 7. 12. 47. 2 Cor. 6. 8. deluded, and drawn aside, by them, I see is not quenched to this day. It M. Jenkins courage had not failed him, when he should have entred the lists with some of those my de­luded followers he speakes of, he would (I beleeve) have found no great symptomes upon them of their being fed by a soul starving, or soul-poysoning Shepheard. Yea those very feares which ceized on him, and disswaded him from the attempts when his great words and publick challenges called him to the conflict, give sufficient evidence against him, that he had not the consent of his conscience, when he [Page 103] reviled me with the stigmaticall and opprobrious termes of a soul-starving and soul-poysoning Shepheard. But I have been a long time used to the hissings of the old Serpent: and now they doe not trou­ble me.

Because I advise the Subscribers, Sect. 105. in respect of that un- Christian te­meritie, and self-assumingnesse of spirit, which they discover, in bran­ding with the odious names of Errors and Heresies, such Tenets, not onely which are controverted between learned, sober, and religious men, but for the truth whereof also more (in weight, and worth) hath been said, and argued both from the Scriptures, and clear prin­ciples of Reason, than hath yet been produced against them by all their opposers, yea or (I beleeve) ever will be produced, that they would (for the time to come) deale more Christianly and tenderly in such cases, and not stigmatize their brethren as Erroneous, or He­retickes, because they are not of their judgements in such poynts, wherein themselves can give no account of their judgements tolera­bly satisfactory; M. Jenkin demands, page 12. Had ever Ministers or Christians such advice given them before? It seemes hee never heard of that exhortation of Paul, given as well to Ministers as Christians, e­ven to every man, not to think of himselfe more highly than he ought to thinke, but to think soberly, as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith Rom. 12. 3.: and in another place, that men be not wise above that which is written [...]? For what is the substance or import of these and other like injunctions in this Apostle, but the same, with that advice of mine given to the Subscribers, at which he so causlesly and importune­ly maunders? notwithstanding, because of the same Christian coun­sell, he presently after gravely teacheth me, that the Hereticall Devill must not be used gently. M. Jenkin had best take heed how he pro­vovokes his own Familiar. But for my part, let the proud Devill, and the Bloody Devill be first handled in their kind, and as they de­serve, and I shall freely consent, that the Hereticall Devill drinke of the same cup with them. Upon the same account he saith after­wards, ( Page 13.) that I am more wicked in prescribing the manner of doing, than the thing to be done. I marvell what that manner of doing is, or meaneth, for which this upstart Censor concludeth me so a­bundantly wicked. If he were asked what he meaneth by it, confi­dent I am, that an Ignoramus would be his best account. Yet he goes on (all this page, and the greatest part of the next) like himself, rai­ling and taking on without feare or wit, as if I would have them beleeve nothing at all in Religion for certain, onely because I advise [Page 104] them not to be unchristianly poremptory, and self will'd, in stigma­tizing such opinions for Errors and Heresies, which men every way as wise, as learned, as judicious, as religious as themselves (no dispraise to them) judge to be truths: yea, and have asserted them for such, with a stronger hand of Scripture, and rationall demonstration, than all those of contrary judgement have been able to resist. Suppose M. Jenkin his opinion were, that there is another World in the Moon, or that the Sunne is the center of the Universe, or that the earth moves, the heavens standing still, or that there are nine Hie­rarchies, or distinct rankes of Angels, that the name of the Souldier, who thrust his speare into our Saviours side, was Longinus, the name of the penitent Thiefe crucified with him, Dysmas, with the like; and the man should be so importunely confident of his judgement in these particulars, that without all question or debate, he judged all men Erroneous and Hereticall, that were not partakers of the same foolish faith with him; in case I, or any other man, considering the weak grounds of these opinions, should soberly advise him, that hee would consider better of such opinions, and especially forbeare to de­claime against those that were otherwise minded, as men Erroneous or Hereticall, had he the least colour or tolerable pretence to com­plain of us, as if we advised him to turn Sceptique, or to beleeve no­thing positively and for certain? But in M. Jenkins Logick, there is no difference (it seems) between beleeving that the Moone is made of green Cheese, and, that twice two make foure; but that hee that disswades men from beleeving the former, doth by consequence, disswade them also from beleeving the latter. This is ingenuous Mr. Jenkin.

Page 42. Sect. 106. He tells me, that if any thing could be wrested from the words cited by me, from Bucer, yet I shew nothing but extream igno­rance, or impudencie (M. Jenkin is offended with me for shewing his commodity) to alledge an Author for me, the whole straine of whose wri­tings are so directly opposite unto me. But (M. Jenkin) suppose that which is not to be supposed, and which lies out of the reach of the out-stretched arm of your learning to prove, I mean, that the whole strain of M. Bucers writings were so opposite unto me, as you pretend; yet upon what account, or by the verdict of what principle of rea­son, or common sense, doe you give sentence, that I shew nothing but extream ignorance and impudence, in citing him [i. passages from him] for me? Will you blaspheam, and say, the Holy Ghost shewed nothing but extream ignorance, or impudencie, to record or cite the words of [Page 105] Caiphas the High Priest for him, or as consonant to the Scriptures, because the generall strain of the words and sayings of this Priest were opposite unto him? Or did the Apostle Paul shew nothing but extream ignorance or impudency, in citing some passages for him, and for the confirmation of his Doctrine, out of Heathen Poets, because the whole strain (in a manner) of their writings are opposite unto him, and to that great Doctrine or mystery of Christianity, which he taught? In other cases (more generally) the more rare, and lesse frequent or usuall things are, the mention, discovery, or presentment of them, findes proportionably the greater acceptation with men. But Mr. Jenkin renders me either ignorant or impudent, onely for citing such sayings from M. Bucer, which (as he saith) have no fellowes in his writings. But for ignorance, impudence, and such aspersive termes as these, M. Jenkin hath them at the first hand, and so affoords them cheap.

He tells me, Sect. 107. p. 43. that I still LABOƲR to make my own face clean, by throwing dirt in Bucers. Wretched man! I know of no soyl or un­cleannesse in that face of mine he speaks of: why, or how then should I still LABOƲR to make it clean? especially how should I LA­BOƲR to do it, by throwing dirt in Bucers face? or what doth the silly brain mean by throwing dirt in his face? Doth M. Jenkin labour to throw dirt in the faces of his Authors, when he cites them for him? Or doth not every man suppose, 1 ^o. That what he holds in point of judgement, is the truth? and 2 ^o. that it is an honour and matter of good repute unto him, to assert and hold the truth? How then is it possible that any man should LABOUR, or intend, to cast dirt in the face of another, onely by affirming him to bee of the same judgement with him in the Truth? I thought Mr. Jenkin had not LABOƲRED to cast dirt in the faces of Jerome, Austin, Luther, Calvin, &c. by citing them for his opinion, but ra­ther to have cast honour upon them, as being Orthodox with him­selfe. Upon the like account he presently after chargeth me, that my AIM is here to make Bucer seem a Gyant, that I standing by him, may seem but a Dwarfe in heresie. Was there ever man spake at this rate of malicious non-sense? Or was ever man charged with such a crime as this, that his AIM was to make himselfe seem a Dwarfe in heresie? Is any mans AIM to be counted Hereticall, in what de­gree soever? or to bring the reproach of Heresie upon others, one­ly by presenting them as men of the same judgement with them­selves? But any thing, sense, or non-sense, will serve M. Jenkins [Page 106] turn, to vent his unmanly distemper in. He can build with Slime as well as Mortar. But would you know, why, or how I would make Bucer seem a Gynnt in Heresie? The root of the matter is onely this: Whereas M. Jenkin by vera justitia (in the passage cited by me from Bucer) will needs understand, the duties of righteousnesse commanded in the Law, and so make him speak perfect non-sense; I on the contra­ry, affirm the words to signifie, True righteousnesse. Presently after, in the same heat of blood, he civilly tells me, that I doe wickedly to seeme willing, that the Reader should beleeve, that Bucer did ever imagine, any could be justified out of Christ. Reader, wouldst thou know the ground of this charge also? I onely translate Bucers Latine words into En­glish, where he saith, Magis id ex instituto Pauli fuit, ut objiceret Ju­daeis, Gentes etiam ante revelatum eis Christum, verae justitiae fuisse compo­tes. i. It was rather Pauls minde and intent, to object [or suggest] unto the Jewes, that the Gentiles, even before Christ was revealed unto them, were obtainers [not of the duties commanded in the Law, as M. Jenkin would absurdly interpret, hereby making Bucer to affirm that, which is notoriously false, and that in a very uncouth and harsh phrase: For the Gentiles never obtained the duties commanded in the Law, or the true righteousnesse of the Law, neither before Christ was revealed unto them, nor since, but] of true righteousnesse. Nor doth it any wayes fol­low, that in case Bucer should imagine, that the Gentiles were justified before Christ was revealed unto them, [viz. in the ministery of the Gos­pel, of which kinde of Revelation it is evident he speaketh] that there­fore he must needs imagine that men may be justified out of Christ. God hath severall wayes to reveale Christ unto men, besides the externall ministery of the Gospel: nor is Faith said to come by hearing, as if there were no other way by which it is possible to come: but onely because it is the ordinary way by which God hath appointed that it should come. Many things are simply and indefinitly affirmed in the Scriptures, which doe not import an absolute universality, but onely a commonnesse or frequency of truth. When our Saviour saith, that if any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not Ioh. 11. 9.; his meaning is not to affirme, that no man whatsoever, walking in the day, ever stumbled (this being notoriously untrue) but onely, that men walking in the day, doe not ordinarily stumble, or, are not likely, or apt to stumble. So when he saith (a little after) If a man walk in the night, he stumbleth; his meaning is not, that alwayes, and without excep­tion, they who walk in the night, stumble; but onely, that it frequent­ly cometh to passe, that such doe stumble. Doe I not then very wic­kedly, [Page 107] to seeme willing that the Reader should beleeve, that M. Bucer should imagine, that which he clearly doth imagine, yea and which he may imagine, without any disparagement to him; nay which he cannot but imagine, unlesse (with M. Jenkin) he should imagine that which is palpably false?

Page 33. Sect. 108. He ingenuously demands of me, whether I be a Bedlam, that I teare my own flesh? I may very reasonably demand of him, whe­ther he did not consult with a Bedlam, and take his advice, about the proposall of such a question? For what sober man can imagine he should mean, by my tearing my own flesh? All the ground and occasi­on he pretendeth for this his question, is, that I say, that the Subscri­bers represent it for an error in me to say, Doubtlesse men are naturall men, before they are spirituall, and yet these are the words of the Apostle. What act, what strain is there in this question, which a man in possession of his wits, can call the tearing of a mans own flesh? When I cite one saying of M. Jenkin, without citing another, or without citing all the rest, doe I teare his flesh? If so, M. Jenkin tears the flesh of his friends of Sion Colledge, and of severall other Authors lesse deserving such measure, than they. A little after he commenceth another demand, of a like stamp: Friend (saith he to me,) Feare you not God? Did not your hand shake, and your heart tremble, when you wrote, that the Ministers set down these words for THE Error? Doubtlesse, men are naturall before they they are spirituall. It seems Mr. Ienkins hand shaketh, and his heart trembleth, when he speaketh, or writeth the truth; else why should he ask me, whether these Symptoms were not upon me, when I wrote nothing but the truth? For I doe not write, as he falsly ( pro more suo) repeateth my words; viz. that the Ministers set downe the words he speaks of, for THE error, but, for AN error in me. And if Christ were not look'd upon by the Iewes, as a malefactor, why was he crucified by them amongst malefactors? If the Ministers did not intend to represent the assertion mentioned, as an error in me, why do they inventory it under their head and title of Errors and Heresies? Yea, why doe they number it amongst my transgressions in matter of opinion? Nay, the truth is, that this assertion we speak of, is the very basis and foundation of what is asserted afterwards in that pas­sage, which they transcribe, as erroneous: so that granting the said assertion to be true, they cannot reasonably deny any thing that fol­lowes therein.

Pa. 30. Sect. 109. He turns himself unto me with this grave addresse: The Ar­minians were your Schoolmasters, when you learned this lesson: The Re­monstrants [Page 108] and you meet again. Did M. Ienkin never meet with any man the second time, but who presently became his Schoolmaster upon the greeting? But why should he think the Arminians were my School­masters, when I learned the lesson he speakes of? This lesson being inter­preted, is nothing else, but that God is not unjust, nor unequall, nor any wayes pretending contrarie to his intentions, in his dealings with men. I trust M. Ienkin hath learned such lessons as these: and if he learned them without having the Arminians for his Schoolmasters, why was it not possible for me also to learn them upon the same terms? Hath not M. Ienkin so much mother-wit, as to say, that thrice five make fifteen, without having some choyce Schoolmaster to teach him?

He tells me ( page 30.) that I have such a long-winded stile, Sect. 110. and such a foggy conceptus, that I cannot write a slight notion, which may be couched in foure lines, under thirty foure lines: and yet page 10. he tells me on the other hand, that I have a compendious way of confutation: and that I blow away whole books with the Dictates of three or foure lines. M. Ien­kin (I perceive) can beat his dogge, both with a long staffe, and a short. And as the Scribes and Pharisees, one while, to create enviein, and amongst, themselves, against the Lord Christ, pretended that the whole world was gone after him Ioh. 12. 19.; Another while, to disparage him among the people, pleaded on the contrary, that none of the Rulers, or Pharisees beleeved on him, but onely a few ignorant people, who know not the Law Ioh. 7 48, 49.: in like manner M. Ienkins ingenuity serves him to make vilifications and reproaches, of any thing; yea aspersives, though never so contradictory unto, or inconsistent with, themselves, will yet warrantably, and congruously enough to his principles, serve him in his warfare. I have (to my discredit) a compendious way of confutation, and can blow away whole bookes with the Dictates of three or foure lines: and yet (to my disparagement also) have such a long win­ded stile, that I cannot write a slight notion, which might be couched in foure lines, under thirty foure lines.

Page 14. Sect. 111. Onely upon occasion of my saying, that God made the world of nothing, he interjects it thus; Prophanely enough! Is it pro­phanesse in M. Ienkins Divinity, to say, or hold, that God made the world of nothing? Or is it pious only in High Presbyterians to say it, but prophane in all others? Or doth the man deny creation, and dogma­tize with those, who affirm the world to have been from eternity? Why else should he call it prophanesse in me to affirme the contrary? [...] But what is it (almost) that I can speak, or doe, but the debauched [Page 109] conscience of this man pretends to finde, either blasphemy or prophane­nesse in it? If I cite, or any wayes make use of the Scriptures, he chargeth me with prophanation of Scripture. What remaines (saith hee page 50.) of this weak Pamphlet, consists of nothing but three or foure pro­phanations of Scripture. And a few lines after: 'Tis a miracle that the stones and tiles of houses doe not speak about the eares of one so prophane and erroneus. But let me tell you (M. Ienkin) whether I be prophane, and erroneous, or no (both which imputations you are as farre from proving, as free in charging upon me) that it is prophanesse and erro­neousnesse in you (and that in a high degree) to think it a miracle that God should be God, and not man: or (which is the same) that he should not be of your minde, and condemne him for prophane and er­roneous, whom you out of a blind zeale to the fifth rib of your Religion, condemne for such. Is it a miracle with you, that the righteousnesse of God should not accomplish the wrath of man?

Because I expresse my selfe onely thus; Sect. 112. Doe I not plainly, clearly, and distinctly enough declare unto the world, in m [...] Treatise concerning the Di­vine authority of the Scriptures, in what sense I hold the Scriptures, whether Translations or Originals, to be the word of God, his ingenuous and can­did animadversion is this (pag. 20.) YOƲR SELFE IS the first man that ever I heard to commend you for clearnesse, plainnesse, and di­stinctnesse. For a man to say, especially by way of Apology, that he hath clearly, and plainly expressed his sense and meaning, or stated his opinion, was it ever so fairly and candidly interpreted, as to be the commending of himselfe, untill Mr. Jenkin and his transcendent inge­nuity came to undertake the construction? But howsoever, the great Corrector (or Corruptor rather) of L [...]ctio's, should doe well to pull the Beame of false concord ou [...] of his own eye, and not joyne Nomina­tive cases of the second person, with verbs of the third, before he goes about to pull the MOAT (or rather somewhat as much lesse than a moat, as nothing is than something) of unproper English out of his brothers eye. If any of Mr. Vicars Boyes, who have learned that ea­sie thing, where Mr. Jenkin findes Nil permutabis, emesve, should bring any such English as this to him, YOƲR SELFE IS, or any such Latine as this, Tuipse est primus, &c. I cannot but thinke hee would administer correction to him; and but deservedly. As much reason as M. Jenkin hath to charge me with commending my selfe, for the words lately mentioned, so much also (and no whit more) he hath to slander the close of my Sion Colledge visited, with some foure or five (it seems he cannot speak clearly, or distinctly) nauseous commendations [Page 110] of the Author and Booke. But Nabal (as his own servant described him) was such a sonne of Belial, that a man could not speak to him 1 Sam. 25. 17.. If a man washeth off the base dirt and filth, which M. Jenkin (and his Truth-defaming generation) hath cast in his face, it amounts to no lesse in the balance of his rare ingenuity, than to the nauseous com­mendations of himselfe.

Page 16. Sect. 113. He sadly bewailes his own condition, and the condition of his fellowes, under the name of Orthodox (thrice mentioned in the complaint for failing; this is a nauseous commendation of himselfe to purpose) as if it were farre better with the Sect of the Independents, than with theirs. These (saith he) are exceeding dayes for Sectaries: the Orthodox have but short commons: they are rich in imployments, and poore in payments. 'Tis true, you preach a great deale more than you pay of the debt of Evangelicall Truth, which you owe unto the peo­ple: your payments in this kinde are very poore) you are quite contrary, you are paid for being an hearer of your people: but it were well with the Orthodox, if they were paid for preaching to their people. You are the Prea­chers under worldly glory: the Orthodox are under the crosse, &c. In this passage of M. Jenkin it is clearly seen, both how strangely Envy multiplieth, and unthankefulnesse substracteth.

1 ^o. With what fore-head, or face, can he say, that the Orthodox have but short commons, if by Orthodox he meanes the Ministers of the adored Order of Presbytery? May not Newcastle as well complaine for want of Coales, or the Sea for lack of water, as the Presbyterian Ministers for shortnesse of commons? Is not the whole English element of Church-livings offered up by the State upon the service of their conformity? Marcus Crassus nega­bat quenquam esse d [...]vit [...], qui suis fructibus exercitum aler [...] non posset. Cic. Are not all the fat Benefices in the Kingdome appro­priated unto them, and their Order? Are not all other men thrust out of doores with disgrace, to make room for them with honour? Must they feast with Hecat [...]bs every day, o [...] else complain of short­nesse of commons? Or is Mr. Jenkin of M. Crassus his minde, who would have no man accounted rich, unlesse he could maintain an Army of men upon his revenues? I wonder what length he judgeth competent for Presbyterian commons, that two hundred, three hundred, foure [Page 111] hundred, five hundred pounds per annum, will not serve to protend them to their due longitude and proportion. And yet I beleeve that the line of many of the Orthodox he speaks of, hath fallen upon a fruitfuller ground than any of these. The Author of Sion Colledge vin­dicated [that is, of the Black-a-more washed] if I mistake not the man, having but C. B. and A simple book, to direct me to him, would (I presume) count it sacriledge in him, that should compell him to ex­change his Presbyterian demesnes for five hundred pounds per An­num.

I would willingly know in what crypticall, mysticall, or retired sense he affirms the Orthodox aforesaid to be under the crosse? For un­lesse some under-hand, or unknown sense here relieve him, his as­sertion must be his shame. What? Presbyterian Ministers under the Crosse, and scarce under the Crown? Are they under the crosse, who are carried by Authority upon Eagles wings? over whom the Parlia­ment it selfe rejoyceth to doe them good from time to time, heaping up Ordinance upon Ordinance, Ordinance upon Ordinance, to ad­vance both them, their government, and their livings together, suf­fering no man to doe them wrong reproving all sorts of men for their sakes, and charging all men concerning them, as God chargeth the world concerning his indeared ones: Touch not mine anointed, and doe my Prophets no harm Psal. 105 14, 15.. Are these the Symptomes of men under the crosse? What? Sunne, Moone and Starres making obeysance unto them, and yet they under the crosse? High and low, Magistrate and people court­ing them, and yet under the crosse? Alas for their tendernesse! When they lie upon beds of Roses, if a leaf happen to double under them, it is as a sword passing through their soules: they are not able to endure the torment of it. Unhappy men, to whom wealth, ease, honor, peace, liberty, are turned into a crosse! For alas! who, or what shall deliver them out of their great distresse? But certainly there is some pad in the straw; something there is, that Mr. Jenkin calls a crosse, which few men know by that name, but onely they, who are deeply baptized into the Spirit of High Presbytery. Que­stionlesse the crosse he speaks of, is such a crosse as Saul complained of, when he sough [...] the life of innocent David, and could not have his will on him: Blessed are ye of the Lord (saith Saul to the Ziphims, who sided with him against David) for ye have had compassion on me 1 Sam. 23. 21.. Was not Saul in a very sad condition, under a grievous crosse, and much to be pitied, that he could not have his will upon David, an ho­ly, innocent, and peaceable man, to destroy him? Doubtlesse the [Page 112] Orthodox Mr. Jenkin speakes of, are under no other crosse but this: they cannot doe all the evill that is in their hearts to doe, to a qui­et, peaceable, holy and harmlesse generation of men amongst them; against whom they are vainly and senslesly jealous, as if the thought of their heart were to take away their kingdom from them. But

3 ^o. With what colour or pretence of truth can M. Jenkin say, that these are exceeding days only for Sectaries (meaning Independents) especially in comparison of Presbyterians? Are not the gleanings of the grapes of Presbytery, better th [...]n the vintage of Independency? Or have Independent Ministers any other commons, or meanes of sub­sistence, than what is the abomination of the Presbyterian soules to think of, I mean the benevolence, the free and voluntary allow­ance of their people? Or might not Presbyterian Ministers have such commons, such exceedings as these, if they pleased, with thankes in abundance for the change? But as Hophni and Phineas the Priests, gave the people to understand, that if they would not give them what they desired, they would take it by force 1 Sam. 2.; so doe M. Jenkin and his Or­thodox men teach their people by the thorns and briers of the lawes of the land, to pay their tythes: so farre are they from contenting them­selves with the exceedings of the Sectaries, which are nothing else but the revenues of the love, and good will of their people. Mr. Jenkin himselfe very lately preached a Law Lecture to his people concerning the payment of Tythes, wherein he potently convinced them of the necessity, though not of the duty, yet of the action: and so fulfilled the law of Christ (the clean contrary way) If any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy Coat, let him have thy Cloak also Mat. 5. 40.. C. B. like­wise hath been a terrible man at this weapon in his dayes, and by the mediation of the law hath oft reconciled himselfe unto his covetous­nesse, which (it seems) would give him no rest, untill he had by that Rod of Iron, brought his Parishioners under contribution for the in­largement of his commons. But with what Truth, or semblance of Truth, Mr. Jenkin affirmeth these to be exceeding dayes onely for Secta­ries, it may be clearly judged by this: viz. that one of his Ortho­dox men, even C. B. himself (lately touch'd) hath in yearly Ecclesia­stick meanes and incomes, more than any three (I beleeve, I might safely say, than any foure) Independent Ministers in all the King­dome. And yet I doe not look upon him neither as a man anointed with the oyl of that joy and gladnesse I speak of, above all his fellows: I be­leeve [Page 113] there are more than a few of them, whose anointing is richer than his.

4 ^o. What Sanctuary doth M. Jenkin think will protect him a­gainst the shame of that assertion of his, that the Independent Mini­sters are the Preachers under worldly glory? Doth he count it matter of worldly glory unto Ministers to be discountenanced by the State where they live; to be made, and publickly declared, uncapable of those favours and priviledges, which are granted generally to other Ministers, or Preachers in the Land; to bee sequestred from their meanes and livelihoods; to be disgracefully thrown out of places more creditable (at least, in vulgar repute) for the exercise of their Ministery, and thrust into holes and corners (as himselfe calls them) yea and to be upbraided herewith from time to time; to be represen­ted both unto Magistrates and people, by those that are like to be be­leeved by both, as Sectaries, Schismatiques, Erroneous, Hereticall, Factious, Troublesome, Dangerous to the State, and what not? If these, and such like things as these, bee matters of worldly glory, then may the Preachers of whom M. Jenkin speaketh, be truly said, to be the Preachers under worldly glory: but if not, hath not he avouch­ed it to the shame and confusion of his face?

5 ^o. (And lastly) the most staring, and daring untruth in all the story, is this, that I am paid for hearing my people. If this be written in any of M. Jenkins Bibles, whether Translation, or Originall, most cer­tainly it is not the word of God. If in stead of saying, I am PAYED for hearing my people, he had said, I am well apaid in hearing them, his pen had been no great transgressor: but saying I am PAYD FOR hearing them, can he be judged any other than an [...], a man condemned of himselfe in the saying? Or if he had said, that I am paid for teaching them, or for inabling them [instrumentally un­der God] to speak those things which sometimes I heare from them, the saying had been tolerable enough, for matter of truth, though little enough, for matter of consequence, or import. But M. Jenkin hath little cause to be offended with me, for being payed for teaching my people so, that I may heare them speak the things of God with comfort; when as himself is payed for teaching his people (I feare) to farre lesse purpose; yea and compelleth some to pay him, whom (I beleeve) he teacheth not at all, unlesse it be to know what it is to dwel in a Parish so proudly, covetously, and quarrelsomly Clergified.

Though I assert the Divine authority of the Scriptures, Sect. 114. or their being the word of God, and the foundation of Religion, in the very same [Page 114] sence wherein himselfe asserteth either the one, or the other (as hath been formerly proved) and that by many Arguments and Demon­strations, himselfe onely dictating his opinion, but demonstrating nothing; yet how importune and restlesse is he in his barking a­gainst me, as if I denied both the one, and the other? And doth not (saith he, page 1.) John Goodwin deny the Scripture to be the foundation of Religion? Page 3. he telleth me, that I subvert the whole Scripture. Page 6. My Treatise, wherin I assert the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, he calls, My late book AGAINST the Authority of the Scriptures. Page 10. He chargeth me, that by denying the Scriptures, I feare not to destroy the word of truth. I feare that he by his diaboli­zing and calumniating, feares not to destroy his soule. Page 19. he saith, My work is to preach and write against all Propheticall and Aposto­licall writings. What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue Psa. 120. 3. When did I ever preach or write the least word or syllable, against any Prophetical or Apostolicall writing? Page 24. he chargeth me with casting contempt upon the written Word. Page 20. he demands thus. Ought you not to be the more blamed for your cloaked impiety, and for your reall enmity to the Scriptures? &c. Page 22. he complaines, that J. Goodwin tells him, that this written word is not the word of God. Page 24. he chargeth me, that in terminis, I deny the written word to be the word of God. Page 14. he visits me with this Interrogatory: Did not you blasphemously deny the Scripture to be the foundation of Faith? Page 55. he saith, He is sure, that, according to my principles, the written word cannot be the standing measure of Truth and Error. I think he is as sure of this, as of most things, wherein he is, or pretends to be, most confident. The man (it seemes) knowes not sands from rocks Page 56. he chargeth me with having throwne off the written Word. What a generation of spurious accusations hath Mr. Jenkin here begotten upon the body of a shadow of demerit? Was there ever a foolish and groundlesse pretence thus nauseously improved to the defamation of a man (if yet M. Jenkin hath so much credit in the world, as to render him capable of that mischievous act, of defaming?)

P. 19 He demands of me thus: Sect. 115. Was it from the lowlinesse of your heart that you prefer your selfe before the most learned and pious of the Subscribers? Reader, if there be any word, syllable, letter, or tittle, in that pas­sage of mine, as himselfe hath transcribed it, upon occasion whereof he levieth this demand, which savoureth in the least of any prelation of my selfe before any, even the meanest of the Subscribers, let this [Page 115] crown of honour be set upon Mr. Jenkins head, that once in his dayes he spake truth. In the next words he interroga [...]es me further, thus: Or was it from the Logick of your head, that you form such a childish argument, viz. you may not be taxed with errors about the Authority of the Scriptures, because you have written in vindication of them. Reader, if thou canst find any such Argument as this formed by me, let me be the child, and Mr. Jenkin the man: but if it be otherwise, contrariorum contraria sint consequentia. The Argument formed by me (as to that point he speaks of) is to this effect: that having written and publi­shed a large Treatise in vindication of the Divine Authority of the Scrip­tures, and having withall laboured with the uttermost of my endea­vours in the ingagement, to quit my selfe faithfully herein; I conceive it no effect or fruit of the integrity of the hearts of the Subscribers, to perform their duty, taking no knowledge at all of the main drift, scope, and end, or of the generall carriage of the Discourse, to clamour and traduce me for a man denying the Authority of the Scriptures, onely be­cause in one place I doe not [...]autologize, and use those restrictrive or explicative expressions the second time, which I had used a little be­fore for the cleare stating of my opinion. Yet had I formed such an Argument as he speaks of, it had been more manly by farre, and lesse childish than that whereby himselfe would prove, that I cite M. Bu­cer for me impertinently; inasmuch as M. Bucer never wrote an intire book or discourse, against that opinion, for which he is cited by me, as I have done against that opinion, which the Subscribers take li­berty (or licentiousnesse rather) of Conscience, to ascribe unto mee.

A while after (in the same 19. page) to vilifie me, Sect. 116. and make ortes of my discourse in vindication of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, he magnifies Bellarmine, and makes singular good hey of what he hath written upon the same subject: and particularly commends one say­ing of his, as a non-such in all my writings; in which saying notwith­standing, there is very little weight, or worth, (indeed) scarce Truth. Bellarmine (saith he) hath laboured in justifying the Divine Authority of the Scriptures against the Swenkfeldians, with INCOM­PARABLE more sinews and strength, than ever you have done in your way. When did your pen ever [...] [...] his did, drop such a passage as this, that the very Question, Whether the Prophetical and Apostolical writing is to be received as the word of God, is unworthy to be handled by any Chri­stian Divine, had it not been necessary by the deliration of Swenkfeldius, and the Anabaptists denying it? I confesse, Mr. Jenkin, my pen never [Page 116] dropt such a passage as this, nor (I hope) ever shall. D [...]mmemor ipse mei, God keeping me in my Christian wits, I shall never say or af­firm, that such a Question is unworthy to be handled by any Christian Divine, which of all Questions in Christian Religion, is of the high­est and most fundamentall concernment, both for the propagation of this Religion in the world, and likewise for the radication and confirmation of it in the soules and consciences of those, who pro­fesse it. The young man could hardly have pick'd out a more incon­siderate and unsavoury saying out of all the writings of this his admired Author, than that mentioned, whereon he bestoweth such admiration. Nor is, nor was, the deliration of Swenkfeldius, or of the Anabaptists, who in words denied the divine authority of the Scriptures, the onely, no nor yet the principall or most considerable cause, of that necessity, which lieth upon Christian Divines, to labour in the Question whereof Bellarmine speakes, or to assert the said Au­thority of the Scriptures. The sinfull and prophane lives and conver­sations of the generality of Professors of Christianity, whether in the way of Bellarmines, or of M. Jenkins perswasion, (I mean, whether Papists or Protestants) who deny the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, (as they doe God himselfe, as the Apostle speaketh) in their workes Tit. 1. 16., amount (upon true accuunt) to a farre more considerable i [...]gage­ment upon Christian Divines, to assert the true Originall and Autho­rity of the Scriptures, than the deliration of Swenkfeldius, or of the A­nabaptists; on which only Mr. Jenkin his adored Author insists. Yea the conviction of the Jewes (in respect of the Divine Authority of the new Testament) together with the conversion of the Turkes, and all Pagan and Idolatrous Nations throughout the world, unto Christian Religion, impose a greater necessity upon Christian Divines, to labour in that Question, which first to Bellarmine, and then (by vertue of his authority) to Mr. Jenkin, seemes so inconsiderable, than either, or both, of those considerations which the one of them suggests, and the other digests so readily. Yea, I beleeve Mr. Jenkins own Faith, and conversation, stand in much need of a through and substanti­all ventilation of the Question we speak of (concerning the Divine au­thority of the Scriptures) and would receive improvement thereby, if he were capable of understanding, and condescending unto, the things of his peace.

I shall conclude (for the present) with Mr. Jenkin, Sect. 117. when I have onely (to perfect the demonstration in hand) presented the Reader with a first fruits of those palpable and broad-fac'd untruths, toge­ther [Page 117] with those industrious and consulted falsifications (for Charity her self can think no better of them) of my words & opinions; which, together with his workings and arguings upon the advantage taken by them, take up little lesse than the one halfe of his Pamphlet. Pag. 16. He affirmes (as we heard before) that I am paid for being an hearer of my people: which is as true, as that Mr. Jenkin is paid for hearing his bells ring. In the same page, speaking of me, and other preaching Sectaries (as his clemency indulgently termeth us) You (saith he) are Preachers under worldly glory. Speak, holes and corners: speak, hatred and threatnings of all sorts of people: Speak, Bookes and Pulpits of Presbyterian Ministers: Speak, votes and ordinances of Parliament, and stop the mouth of a leasing-speaking man. In the same page (a little before) he tells me this untroth; that now I see many of the names of those Ministers of Christ in the Province of London, subscribed in the last edition of the Testimony, concerning whom I had said (in my Sion Colledge visited) that God had provided a better thing for them, than to suffer them to fall into the snare of so unworthy a Subscription; whereas the truth is, that I neither see, nor ever saw, (and confident I am) ne­ver shall see, any one of the Names I speake of, or intended in the said passage, subscribed to that Testimony, in what Edition soever. Page 19. He obliquely taxeth me, with preferring my selfe before the most learned and pious of the Subscribers. Mendacissim [...]e (as was said before, and as is visible enough in the words, upon which the tax is raised.) In the same Page, be bids me Remember in what confident heat I rose up for the most horrid Heretiques, Anti-scripturians, Anti-trinita­rians, &c. in my Hagiomastix. Reader, assure thy selfe, that I never rose up for any Heretique whatsoever, either Horrid, or smooth, much lesse in any heat, least of all, in any confident heat; (as this mouth of vanity suggesteth) but have evermore pleaded and declared A­GAINST them upon these termes; That first, their opinions be­ing substantially and clearly proved to be Hereticall; Secondly, all due and Christian means being used for their conviction and re­claiming, if yet they remain obstinate, they ought to be censu­red and punished with such punishments, which the word of God ap­pointeth for such offenders. It seems by the principles of M. Jenkins Divinity, that to be delivered up unto Satan, is a courtesie, and to be cast into bell fire, a friendly dealing by men. Why else doth he charge me with rising up for Heretiques, who never thought, nor said, that they deserve any more courtesie or friendship (upon the terms men­tioned) than to be thus severely and dreadfully punished? Pa. 26, 27. [Page 118] He saith, that a Sectarian Anti-scripturist hath found that favour in my Hagiomas [...]ix, as that in this Calender he was highly Sainted. The vain young man is not able to produce any one line, saying, word or syl­lable in that book, of any such import. Page 28. He tells me, that my mouth is widely opened against God for the English of this assertion; If God should not make men able to beleeve, they MIGHT accuse God. Reader, (I assure thee) these words are none of mine, but Mr. Jen­kin's: and consequently, it his mouth, not mine, that is widely opened against God. Whereas 1 ^o. he makes me to say, If God should not make men able to beleeve; my words are, If God should not make men capable of beleeving. An intelligent Reader cannot but apprehend a very mate­riall difference between the one expression and the other; especially, as I explain my capability of beleeving. Secondly, whereas be makes me to say, that men MIGHT accuse God (as if I implied the lawful­nesse of such an accusation) my words are, that they WOƲLD have their mouthes opened against Gods proceedings, and be furnished with an excuse. In which words I only imply an aptnesse in men to take hold of such an opportunity, or advantage, in case it were given them, to speak against Gods proceedings in their condemnation, and by way of excuse for themselves: which, how farre short it comes of any justifi­cation of such an act (which young M. Jenkin by his false transcri­bing of my words, would put upon me) lieth clear enough with­in the reach of an ordinary apprehension. Thirdly and lastly, [...]or do I any way intimate, or imply (in the least) that the opportunity or advantage I speak of, would be given unto men, or taken hold of by men (for the end mentioned) simply upon Gods not making men able to beleeve, or not capable of beleeving (which this degenerate sonne of Levi by his male-administration of my words, would fasten on me) but upon his proceedings against men to condemnation for not belee­ving, in case of an utter incapacity in them to beleeve. So that for the young man to make me say, that If God should not make men able to beleeve, men might accuse God: is not onely to make me say what I never said, but what is diametrally contrary to what I doe say. Yet this is his constant manner, and measure to me, and to my words, whensoever he either findes blasphemy in them (which is very ordinary with him to doe) or when he levieth an Argument or Dis­pute against any thing asserted by me. He must pervert, not my sense & meaning onely, but my words themselves also (in one kinde or o­ther) or else he knowes not how to gain any commodious ground or standing, to quarrell or cavil against me. Page 29. His right hand [Page 119] practiseth her cunning with this falsification: If God will not suffer his Soveraignty to be impaired with mans ability, and to be limited to mans sinfully and voluntarily contracted impotency; the holy commands of God are by J. G. openly charged to be worthy of having our mouthes wide opened against them. Os impudens! when doe I charge the holy commands of God (so much as in colour or shew) upon any such termes? But the madnesse of this imputation is made manifest elswhere. Is this asserti­tion of his (p. 34.) Orthodox, viz. that Rivet p. 155. of his Disputati­ons, calls me, amongst the rest, pargetted Pelagian? I cannot beleeve any thing so unworthy of so worthy and learned a man, as to reproach me altogether unknown to him. Page 43. He poureth out himselfe in falshoods: 1. He saith, that I still labour to make my own face clean, by throwing dirt in Bucers. 2. that my aime is to make Bucer seem a Gy­ant, that I, standing by him, may but seem a dwarfe in Heresie. 3. that I desire, that the Reader should beleeve, that it was Bucers judgment, that the Gentiles could be justified without Christ. These three (the last where­of, with a small difference in the words, he presently again repeat­eth) have been dealt with like themselves, and put to open shame, as they well deserve. Yet he adds a fourth (in the same page) with the same image and superscription, viz. that the Papists were not so cruell by a THOƲSAND parts, in digging up of Bucers body, when dead, and buried, as you, in labouring to bury his name, while it is yet living: and ra­ther than his name shall want a burying place, to make your own throat an open Sepulcher. Unworthy young man, and most unworthy the name of a Minister of Christ! How, or wherein, or whereby, doe I labour to bury the name of the man thou speakest of? Is this to bury his name, to say, that he was never counted an Arminian, nor branded for an Here­tique, or a man of rotten judgement, unlesse it were by the Ministers of Babylon? Or is it to honour his name, and keep it alive? Or is the shewing of those monuments of Truth, which he reared up, yet living, and dying, left behind him, unto the world, (I mean, the quotation of his writings) a burying of his name? Or is a proper translation, or a like interpretation of his words, a buriall of his name? Or have I said, or done any thing in relation to him, more than these? But that he chargeth me, with making my throat an open sepulcher to bury his name in, I impute not so much to his malice, as to the incon­sideratenesse of it (though this may well be a symptome of the strength and heat thereof) For doth the man think, that I wrote with my mouth, or could he imagine, I should write with my throat, Or can he chargeme (somuch as in pretence) with any unkindnesse, [Page 120] or cruelty to Bucers Name, otherwise than in, or by my wri­tings?

Reader, I am loath to weary thee with any more proofes or de­monstrations of the conclusion in hand. Those that have been alrea­dy taken up, and insisted upon, doe abundantly evince, that Mr. Jen­kin evinceth himselfe in his Busie-Bishop, extreamly defective, and (in a manner) totally eclipsed even in matters of civility, modesty, and common ingenuity: quod erat probandum. If I should make a col­lection of all other the untruths, falsifications, mis-transcriptions, so­phistications of my words and sayings, which have not been yet mentioned, and which are obvious enough to my view, in the said Pamphlet, and withall argue and detect the wilfulnesse and unwor­thinesse of them, I should (I verily beleeve) make another book every whit as bulky and big as this, the materials would be so many. But I have done (for the present, and haply for a full doe) with my Young­ling-Elder Mr. Jenkin.

As for my Antique Elder, Sect. 118. Rabshakeb Vicars, that [...], that bad Egge of ill Bird, (a rod gathered by himselfe for his own back) with his Pictures, Poetry, and Wind-mills, I conceive that he hath received already an answer or recompence meet for him, both from God and men; 1. In the contempt of learned men. 2. In the neglect of wise men. 3. in the sorrow of good men. 4. In the shame of his friends: and lastly, in the laughter of Boyes and children.

I shall be no further troublesome to Mr. Vicars, except it be with the recommendation of a few words unto him from the mouth of God, for his Christian and serious meditation; If any man among you seem to be religious, [...]am. 1. 26. and bridleth not his tongue (much more his pen) but deceiveth his own heart, this mans Religion is vain. Farewell Mr. Vicars.

There is yet a third man, Sect. 119. whom I cannot call, but onely conjectu­rally, by his name: the man hath been already touch'd in (the prece­dure of the discourse) with whom I desire to debate a few particulars, though very briefly, before I close. The man I mean, is the Author of a late scurrilous Pamphlet, which fronteth, Sion Colledge what it is, &c. but pageth, Sion Colledge vindicated, i. what it is not (a natu­rall intimation, I conceive of the lubricity, or versipelliousnesse of [Page 121] the Author, whom no man can well tell, either what he is, or what he is not.) Touching his name; he is not willing (it seemes) to expresse it by any letters further off from GREATA, than those that are next to it, viz. C. B. Yet I halfe believe this C. B. to be that same D. D. who lived not long since in Colemanstreet; and who be­ing demanded (as I am credibly informed) by the Collectors of the Assessments for the Army, a small summe which he was assessed upon that account, taking up a Bible in his hand, wish'd the Devill take him if ever he paid it; and yet very honestly paid it a while after. I will not over-confidently assevere this D. D. I speake of, to be that C. B. whom I am to speak with: because C. B. may dissemble; and whereas they pretend to be the proemiall or initiall letters of a mans Christian name, & Sir-name, they may prove the Epilogicall or finall letters of them, yea or letters of some middle place. Nay who knows, but that possibly they may be letters borrowed to serve a turn, and to deceive, by inticing a man to challenge such or such a person by name, for the Author of the book, because they agree to his name, when as he in the mean time lies upon the catch in ambush, to fall foule upon him that shall so challenge him without sufficient proofe. Therefore bee this C. B. who hee will, I shall neither nominate him, nor any other man, upon so slight a foundation as two letters affoord.

Notwithstanding I cannot easily disengage my thoughts from run­ning upon the same D. D. Sect. 120. I spake of: they wil, do what I can, secretly challenge him for the Author of the piece, the consideration of many circumstances animating them hereunto. First, that fell and fiery Spirit that beats up and down in the veins of it, resembles the man. 2. The authors symbolizing with their principles, who (as the Apostle saith) glory in their shame, in his accounting it his honour to be a member of Sion Colledge Title page., strengthens the conjecture. 3. [...], the stile & di­alect of the piece bewrayeth him. 4 To plow with clandestine heifers, together w ^th underhand practises to know what he should not know, are known practises of his. 5. That encyclopaedicall knowledge of the state of Sion Colledge, and of all things relating to it, from the Cedar in the Lebanon thereof, even to the byssop that springs out of the walls thereof, which magnifies it selfe in the piece, is (I conceive) the appropriate character of the man. 6. The notion of Bishop and Chancellor working in his fancy who is the Author of the piece, strongly tempteth me to a belief, that the said D. D. is the man who in his book of zeale, & when he wrought at the fire, spake many an hot [Page 122] and affectionate word for Episcopacy. But yet this constellation is made onely of such starres, quae tantum inclinant, non necessitant, which onely incline, but doe not necessitate. Therefore since the humour of the man is to speak his name in a parable, but his mind plainly, let us leave his parable (to his own explication) and weigh what it is which he speaks more plainly.

In his Title page hee talkes of two fell and fiery Satyrs, Sect. 121. the one, cal­led Sion Colledge visited; the other, the Pulpit Incendiary; from the slanderous defamations whereof, he promiseth a Vindication of the So­ciety of Sion Colledge. To vindicate the Society he speakes of, from the slanderous defamations of the two Treatises he nameth, is no service at all to this Society; no more than it would be in a Chirurgian to heale a man of such wounds, which he never received. As for one of the Treatises, Sion Colledge visited, certain I am, there is no slanderous de­famation in it of that Society: nor doe I remember any such miscarri­age in the other. If C. B. desired to deserve honorably of his So­ciety, he should have undertaken (and quitted himselfe accor­dingly) a Vindication of the members thereof, from those crimes and unworthy deportments, which with evidence, and manifestnesse of truth the said two writings lay to their charge. But in this case, that of the Poet excuseth him (in part.)

All the slanderous defamations which C. B. findes in the two Pam­phlets he speakes of, are nothing else but either his own cleare mi­stakes, or else the capcious constructions, which he makes of some of their expressions. When they charge Sion Colledge with such and such unchristian misdemeanours, and crimes, C. B. avoucheth with importune confidence, the innocencie of the walls and edifices of Sion Colledge, and tels us a long story of the conversion of a large and ancient house in Alphage Parish, into a Colledge, and of the commendable intentions of the Founder of this Colledge, with many such good morrowes, which are altogether irrelative to the matters objected by the Authours of his two Satyrs. Goodman, he learnedly pleads the cause of the b [...]na terra of Sion Colledge: but it is the malagens of this colledge that is accused. We charge the children: and he tells [Page 123] us, that upon his knowledge he can acquit the mother. His carriage in this kinde, Fortasse cu­pressum scis si­mulare: quid hoc, si fractis enatet exspe [...] navibus, aere dato qui pin­gitur? Horat. Art. remembreth me of a story in Horace, concerning a sim­ple Painter; who, when one that had hardly escaped drowning in a wreck at Sea, came to him, and offered him money to make him a Table, wherein his person, danger, and escape, might be artificially drawn, made him this answer; Sir, if you please, I will draw you a very faire Cypresse tree. C. B. is excellent at one thing: but it was a­nother thing that lay upon him to doe. He hath painted us a goodly Cypresse tree: but what is this to a shipwrack?

So again when we challenge and charge Sion Colledge, as aforesaid, C. B. chargeth us with slanderous defamations, and thinks that he vin­dicates this Colledge and Society with an high hand, by protesting or proving, that the matters of fact charged by us, were not transacted, concluded, or done by this Colledge, or Society, in their Collegiate capacity, or in the formalities of their Corporation. Truly (C. B.) we confesse that very possibly our senses may not be so much exercised as yours, in discerning the puntillo's of Law; and probable it is we may faile in some formality of expression: but when we charge Sion Colledge, or the Society hereof, with misdemeanour, our intent is to charge the members hereof, as well divisim as conjunctim: and when the greater part, or any considerable number of the members of this Society, are found guilty of the crimes which we lay to their charge, the rest no wayes declaring against them, we make account that we speak properly enough, and nothing but the truth, when we charge the Society (simply and indefinitly) with such things. But that is the thinnest Fig-leafe of all the rest, wherewith C. B. goeth a­bout to cover his own, and his Colleagues nakednesse; to pretend,that when they doe meet to agitate and consult of their affairs (which ma­ny times prove the Kingdomes miseries) they doe not meet in Sion Colledge. As for the place of their meeting, whatsoever it is, where­soever it is, it is but Asini umbra, or lana [...]aprina to contend about: so the ends of their meetings, and their transactions at their meetings, be the same, it is all one to me, and I suppose to all others, where their Rendez-vouz be, whether they meet at the quondam Dean of Pauls Colledge, or at the present Dean of Pauls House, or at Mr. Jenkins House, or at the Popes-head Tavern, or wheresoever.

But why doth he stile the two bookes he speaks of, Sect. 1. 22 two fell and fiery Satyrs? A Satyr (according to our best Lexicography) is a nipping kind of Poetrie, rebuking vice sharply, and not regarding persons. The man (as himselfe confesseth) read the bookes with much astonishment, and so [Page 124] being besides himselfe, might very possible mistake Prose for Verse. However, after the manner of men astonished, he speakes halfe-sense. The books he speakes of, though they be no Poetrie, or Satyrs, yet doe they rebuke vice somewhat sharply, nor doe they regard persons. The truth it, that Truth is Satyricall, and biting.

Yea the Galatians themselves (it seems) look'd upon Paul, as an e­nemy, as one that dealt Satyrically, and over-sharply with them, onely for telling them the Truth. Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth Gal. 4. 16. And questionlesse the admonitions and reproofes of the two Prophets, Elijah and Micajah, unto Ahab, might (in the same dialect and propriety of speech) have been by him called Satyrs, which C. B. useth, when he termeth the admonitions and reproofes administred to Sion Colledge in the two writings which he quarrels, by the name of Satyrs. Howsoever, if the writings he speaks against, should be found Satyrs (in the common notion and acception of the word) yet he should out of his charity consider, that they who wish well to the cause of Religion, to the peace and quiet of the Citie and Kingdome, lie under a great temptation of writing Satyrs, conside­ring the most unnaturall dealings of Sion Colledge men in opposition unto both. Good men have at this day cause to professe and say with the Poet of old:

When we meet with so many Prophets every where, who write and speak things so provokingly obnoxious to the lash. I beleeve the man is haunted and troubled with Satyrs, and these fell and fiery e­nough (as his complaint is.) But, like a man affrighted, intus habet, quod extra causatur. He hath that within him, which he complains of, as if it were without him. The fell and fiery Satyrs, which (as it seem [...] by his complaint) handle him so severely (doubtlesse) are not the Pamphlets he speakes of, which have nothing f [...]ll or fiery in them, (ex­cept [Page 125] it be the fell and fiery actings, and speakings of Sion Colledge men here mentioned) nor yet Satyricall, unlesse it be Truth; but rather, the sharp accusations, the severe workings and smitings of a guilty conscience within him. Which conscience (I confesse) might very possibly be awakned, and set on work by the two bookes he speakes of, to doe that severe execution upon the man: but the Law, which onely teacheth and admonisheth a Judge of his duty in punishing a malefactor, is rather to be justified and commended, than any wayes censured for so doing.

Moreover, Sect. 123. out of the Amalthean horn of his Title Page, we have a promise, of, a little tast, by the way, of another young thing of Mr. J. Goodwins, running about with the shell on the head, before it be all hatcht, &c. What? must C. B. needs taste of a young thing before it he all hatcht? Behold the unmaturalnesse and unrulinesse of the mans appe­tite! The Law forbids again and again, the seething of a Kid in his mothers milk Exod. 23. 19. 34. 26, &c.. But Gallio careth for none of these things. I looke upon this unrulinesse of appetite, as a further character (besides those men­tioned) of that D. D. I spake of; for so common fame reporteth him a man of an irregular appetite, as well in respect of reals, as perso­nals. Yet if C. B. be this D. D. me thinks so grave and mighty a man of warre, should not think the ingagement worthy his grandure, to enter the lists against a young thing with the shell on the head. Is there no mercy neither for young, nor old, with the members of Sion Col­ledge? But how came C. B. to meet with that young thing he speakes of, in that posture which he describes? For confident I am, that that would willingly have kept the nest, & not been running about before it had been all hatch'd, had not some unnaturall thing befallen it. But alas! Doth not our English proverb inform us, that he must needs RƲN whom the Devill drives? No marvell then to see a young thing running about before the time, which by some black Art or other hath been conjured out of the nest, and compelled to run. I beleeve C. B. himselfe hath had a finger in the prank, and imployed some of his Familiars to act it. Howsoever, if the Society of Sion Colledge be vindica­ted by C. B. in his late Pamphlet, I beleeve they are beholding to this young thing of Mr. J. Goodwins, as well as to the old thing [C. B.] for the accommodation. For I have very good reason to think, that C. B. would not have made any such breach upon his golden occasions, as the compiling of this vindication (such as it is) hath put him upon, had he not had the opportunity of commending himselfe for a man of rare activity, as viz. in procuring the sight of some part of a book [Page 126] before the whole was finished; and so by giving notice accordingly unto his friends and party, to arm themselves with patience against the coming forth of it; that when it doth come, they may be able to bear the brunt with lesse regret and sorrow.

The said Title page yet blesseth us with this one blessing more, Sect. 124. which consisteth in such a discovery or notification of the Author; whereby a little doore of hope to obtain the great happinesse of fin­ding him out in due time, is opened. The tenor of the words and let­ters together, is this: By C. B. who accounts it his honour to be a mem­ber of Sion Colledge. In good time. Who accounts it HIS honour. Hath the man no more honour that he counts upon, or can call HIS, but only his simple being a member of Sion Colledge? Judas had the honour of be­ing a member of the Colledge of Christs Apostles (a better foundation I wisse, than that of C. B. his Sion Colledge) yet the spark of this ho­nour was soon quenched in the deluge of wickednesse, which burst out of him. But why, or upon what account doth C. B. account it his honour to be a member of Sion Colledge? Himselfe tells us (pag. 3.) that the whole company of the Ministers of London, and the suburbs (being In­cumbents of Churches) together with their Assistants and Lecturers, for the time being, are all incorporated by Charter, as fellows of this Colledge: So that by his own account it is no more honour to be a member of Sion Colledge, than it is to procure a Church-living (whether by hook, or by crook) or a Readers place, or a Lecture in London. And if this be an honour to any man, certainly it is minimum quod sic, the least atome or dust that ever was filed off from the masse or wedge of Honour. Besides, if C. B. be the D. D. my thoughts run so much upon, I know not well how, according to the tenor of his own informations, to allow him that honor which he so highly accounts of, I mean; of being a member of Sion Colledge. For since his Incumbency, or leaning upon Mag­nus Parish (which complained grievously of his leaning hardupon it) he neither was, nor yet is (to my knowledge) either an Incumbent up­on, or of any Church in London or suburbs, or any Assistant, or Lecturer unto any such Incumbent. Therfore there is no dore that I know of for him to enter by into Sion Colledge, as a member thereof: but when the dore is shut, he can climb, and get in by the window. If he hath any colour or pretext of claim to the honour (as himselfe reputeth it) of the membership which he challengeth, it is in the lowest and last ca­pacity of all the rest (according to his owne Table of Herauldry) I [Page 127] mean, that of a Lecturer (for the time being.) But whether he be a natu­rall, or putative member onely of the Colledge he speaks of; or whether it be an honour to him to account it his honour to be such a member of it, as he is, or no; certain I am, that it would be a greater honour to him by farre, if this Colledge could think it an honour to it to have such a member, as he. But though I cannot much commend this Colledge ei­ther for principles of ingenuity, or for any great wisdome in provi­ding for their own honour; yet I conceive they are not upon any such terms of defiance with their reputation, as to say, that they account it their honour to have such a member, as C. B.

In the very entrance of his Piece, Sect. 125. he confesseth himself to have been in a great distemper, when he read the 2 books, which (the distemper, as it seems, yet remaining on him) in his Title page (as we heard) he calls, two fell and fiery Satyrs; yea, here also he mingles words, which plainly declare him to have been under the regiment of the Distem­per, as well when he wrote his own piece, as when he read those other. So that I cannot beleeve that common saying to be universally true, viz. that to tell a dream is the part of a man waking. Narrare som­mum vigilan­tis est. The words of his confession (together with the said mixture) are these: I have with MƲCH ASTONISHMENT read two scurrilous Pasquils, one intituled, Sion Colledge visited, written by an Apostate member thereof: the other, calls it selfe, the Pulpit Incendiary, compiled (some say; the more shame for them) by the same visiting Bishop, though published by his deare Chan­cellor, the Exchange-man. In these words [...] giveth his reader a ratio­nall account, how it might very well come to passe, that he should so far mistake the natures and respective purports of the two discourses he names, as to call them one while, two fell and fiery Satyrs, another while, two scurrilous pasquils. He read them (he saith) with MUCH ASTONISHMENT: if he had not said it, his [...] of them, and [...] upon them, would have said it for him. For both these speak him a man suffering much in his intellectuals, when he perused them. A man of a serene and undisturb'd fancy, could not lightly have pit­ched upon such uncouth, wild, and extravagant appellations as those, by which he calleth them. That the distemper was not off him, any whit more when he wrote, than when he read it, is beyond all per­adventure confirmed by this saying of his, that Sion Colledge visited, was written by an Apostate member thereof. For I would fain know of C. B. (if he be yet come to himselfe, or to a more considering man) upon what account he voteth me an Apostate member of Sion Colledge; or wherein stands this my Apostasie? Was that blind man, to whom [Page 128] Christ restored his sight, John 9. an Apostate from the Jewish wor­ship and religion, because the Pharisees cast him out Ioh. 9. 34. by a strong hand? Or was David an Apostate from his religion, because his enemies drave him out from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying unto him, Goe serve other Gods 1 Sam. 26. 19.? Or what act have I ever done, by which I have ei­ther made or declared my selfe an Apostate from Sion Colledge? The sin of Apostasie is never committed by suffering. Was not C. B. him­self far more properly an Apostate member of this Colledge, when he vo­luntarily abandoned his people and Incumbe [...]cy, in Magnus Parish; and thereby dismembred himself from the Colledge he speaks of? Yea is it not likely that he would have continued in this his Apostasie all his dayes, had he not been reduced and reconciled by the friendly media­tion of many hundreds per annum? But if a Lecturers place in the Ci­tie, be the cure of his Apostasie in this kind, why is not mine apostasie healed also, who have accepted such a relation as well as he? For though the hundreds I spake of were his reconciliation, motivè, yet is his place of a Lecturer, simply considered, and without the adjunct of an Episcopall demesne annexed, which reconciles him formaliter, & terminativé. So that my Lecture in the Citie, how poorly soever en­dowed, is as potent to invest me with the honour of being a member of Sion Colledge, as his is.

Again, considering that it is so generally known what an Exchange­man himself hath been, exchanging first Magnus for Major, and then Major for Maximus, and withall, how studious and diligent he was (when time was) in furnishing himselfe with that kind of learning, which teacheth the Art of Chancellory, and how he fau'nd upon Epis­copacie, (the common road to a Chancellorship in those dayes) me thinks it argues the reliques (at least) of a distemper upon him, to remind the world of these his disparagements, by using the meta­phors of Bishop and Chancellor, and by describing a man by the em­phaticall periphrasis of THE Exchange-man.

Passing by all his frivolous and (indeed) ridiculous exceptions a­gainst me, Sect. 126. about my mis-notioning of Sion Colledge (which together with his essayes to jeere and flout, make up the greatest part of what he pamphlets against me) I shall only touch two or three particulars of somwhat another nature, in the charge whereof he magnifies him­selfe at an extream rate of height and grandure against me. His first-born charge against me (upon which he runnes a long division in a multiplicity of words, p. 14. and again, p. 19, 20.) is this, that I say in my Epistle (which yet doth not begin with it neither, as C. B. stum­bleth) [Page 129] that the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Bishop of their souls, some few months since, was pleased to administer (by the hand of his weak and un­worthy servant) a monitory visitation unto some, professing themselves his Ministers, &c. upon occasion of these words, he chargeth me first, with inward rancor of heart against the Colledge; and then, with a pre­sumptuous fathering of all, little short of blasphemy, upon Christ, and the Almighty himselfe. And (soon after) at a man fallen into a new trance of astonishment, or as not recovered out of the former, he epiphone­ma's it thus: O horrid presumption, thus to entitle his railings, and slan­ders to the Almighty! But first, (good C. B.) where are the railings and slanders you speak of? Certainly the place of them is no where to be found, but in your distempered fancy; distempered (I fear) with a more malignant & dangerous distemper, than that of astonishment. You neither do, nor can, shew any one instance, either of the one misdemeanour, or the other, in that piece against which your trans­portation so rageth: In that Epistle, or Preface you speak of, you onely find a monitory visitation, intituled (as you call it) unto Christ; no railings, or slanders. Nor doth it follow, that because I intitle the body or substance of that visitation unto Christ, I must therefore in­title unto him also all, or any, the infirmities found in the administra­tion. A man may, and ought, intitle God to the act of his beleeving; and yet not intitle him to any deficiency, or weaknesse therein.

2 ^o. Whereas you are so zealously displeased, that I should intitle Christ to the visitation you speak of, and cry out of little lesse than blasphemy in it, it no wayes troubles me (nor need to trouble any o­ther) considering there is nothing more incident to men, that have too much wil on ways that are sinful, than to rise up with deep indig­nation against those, that shall censure or reprove these wayes, as spea­king of themselves, [...]ut of the pride or malice of their own hearts, and as having no commission or authority from God, so to speak, or doe. When Jeremy had faithfully made known unto the people, the mind of God against their going into Egypt, upon which accommodation (for so it seemed unto them) their hearts and minds were inordinatly, impotently, and importunely set, how peremptorily and confidently did they charge this Prophet, with speaking unto them those things in the name of God, which yet he had no commission from God to speak, but spake them out of ill will to them, and with an intent to destroy them. Now when Jeremiah (saith the Text) had made an end of speaking unto the people, all the words of the Lord their God, for which the [Page 130] Lord their God had sent him to them, even all these words, then spake A­zariah the sonne of H [...]sh [...]iah, and Johanan the sonne of Kareah, and ALL THE PROƲD MEN, saying unto Jeremiah, Thou speakest falsly: the Lord our God hath not sent thee to say, G [...] not into Egypt to sojourn there; But Baruch the son of N [...]riah setteth thee on against us, for to deliver us in­to the hand of the Chaldeans, that they might put us to death, and carry us away captive into Babylon Ier. 43. 1, 2, 3. The selfe sam [...] Spirit which uttered it self in these men against Jeremy, worketh at this day after the same manner, and uttereth it selfe upon very like terms in C. B. W. I. and some o­ther high-spirited men of Sion Colledge, against me, and others, for re­proving such sinfull wayes and practices of theirs, unto which they have lift up their hearts very high, and are resolved (it seems) not to let them fall again, come life, come death, whether temporall, or e­ternall. It were easie to trace the same spirit by severall other foot­steps in the Scriptures. See Jer. 5. 12, 13. 18. 18. Am. 9. 10, &c. But

3 ^o. (and lastly.) It being the manner of the Scriptures, to ascribe those things unto God, which are done by vertue of, and in obedience to, his command; I had ground and foundation large enough to in­intitle or ascribe unto him, that my visitation of Sion Colledge (except as before is excepted.) For is not the command of God expresse, Them that sin, rebuke before all men, that others also may fear? 1 Tim. 5. 20. And again, This witnesse is true: wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, Tit. 1. 13. It seems C B. hath no mind himself to be­come sound in the faith, nor yet to have his Collegiate brethren divided from him upon that point. For, as to his demand, p. 7. How dare these men, so boldly and deeply to traduce, calumniate, condemne, and post up a whole Society of Elders, without any shew of truth, [...]or offering to produce so much as one witnesse to make good their charge; hee doth prudently to shelter himselfe from the charge of a right-down and most notorious untruth, under the wing of an interrogation; which yet he conceiveth will serve his turn, as well as an assertive affirmation, which had been more obnoxious, would have done. The truth is, that the men he speaks of, dare not, upon any terms whatsoever, traduce or calumniate any man, or men, of what condition soever, much lesse a whole Socie­ty of Elders: they know as well as C. B. himself, that in so doing they should d [...]e the office of the grand accuser of the brethren, as Atturneys or Sollicitors (the Lawyer still metaphors it in his Act) to the Devil. But I will tell you what they dare do: they dare with the hand of Truth, take Lions by the beard: they dare in the vindication of the cause of [Page 131] God, and of his servants, withstand his and their enemies, though ne­ver so formidable for number, rank, or other consideration soever, to their faces; they dare expose their names, estates, liberties, lives, to the wrath of men, for fulfilling the righteousnesse of God. These, & such things as these, they dare do. But whereas he would fain inti­mate, that the men he speaks of, do not reprove for, or charge upon his Society of Elders, matters of truth, but onely traduce and calum­niate them, and this without any shew of truth; 1 ^o. evident it is, that all, or farre the greatest part of all, the particulars charged upon them in Sion Colledge visited are extant in their own d [...]are Testimo­ny, not onely acknowledg [...]d, but rejoyced and gloried in by them­selves: 2 ^o. concerning the particulars wherewith they are burthe­ned in the Pulpit Incendiary, I have severall times heard the Author say, that he can produce very competent and [...]uostantiall witnesses for the proof of them all; yea and of many things more of every whit as unchristian a character and import, as the vilest and worst of these.

Pag. 17. Whilst labouring in the fire to find a knot in a rush, Sect. 127. a con­tradiction ( I mean) in a faire consistency (as the Reader may soone perceive, if it be worth his time to view the passage) he deales so kindly with the truth, as to spare it twice together. For first he saith, that I stile the Subscribers learned and pious men, as if generally, and without exception of any, I so stiled them all; whereas my expres­sion, wherein I use those words, is clearly partitive, and onely im­ports a supposall of some to be such. 2 ^o. He saith, that I instance in Dr. Gouge, Mr. Calamy, Mr Case, Mr. Cranford, is men of great names; whereas I speak only of great names of man, not any thing at all of men of great names, there being no such expression or juncture of words in all that book. Nor 3 ^o. do I so directly instance in the foure per­sons he speaks of, for great names of men, as he implieth But 4 ^o. (and lastly) whereas he seems very desirous to imply (for here his sen­tence scarce senseth well) that I Instance in the said foure men, as learned and pious, he drawes the face of my words quite awry, and seeks to represent me to these men (at least to some of them) as if I had anintent to abu [...]e them.

Pag 19 He makes me a trans [...]r [...]ssor in chiefe, Sect. 128. only for mentioning a report or information that was brought to me, concerning ano­ther name, by which Sion Colledge, or the house now called Sion Colledge, was anciently known, For I affirm nothing positively con­cerning [Page 132] either the credit or truth of the information; onely once al­luding to [...]he information, I confesse I call it Sinon Colledge. Was this so treasonable a practice against the majesty of Sion Colledge, (be it supposed that this, and not the other, was the ancient name of it; though I have no ground at all from any thing that C. B. hath yet said to suspect the credit of my information The house that hath for these 24 or 25 years last past, been knowne onely by the name of Sion Colledge, might very possibly notwithstand­ing, be anci­ently called, Sinon House. And if so, to say that the ancient Re­cords menti­on it by the name not of Sion, but of Sinon Colledg, is not the breadth of a lana caprina out of the way of Truth. For that House, & the present [...]olledge being [...]aterially the same, there wants onely a faire explica­tion to make the saying stand right & streight in point of truth) as to deserve a tree of fiftie cubits high? or to have such a Viall of wrath, or such a flood of fiery indignation poured out upon it, as this great Rhadamanth hath prepared and decreed in these words: Therefore (viz. because the Records will speake for themselves, i. be­cause the Crow is black, and not white) Therefore (saith hee) I know none but himselfe, who doth boldly take authority, and delights in it, to make errors, that hath THƲS IMPƲDENT­LY changed the name at pleasure, &c. It seemes C. B. knowes not himselfe: otherwise he might know another besides me, who farre more IMPƲDENTLY than I, changeth names at pleasure. For 1 ^o, when a person, or thing, hath two, or more names, or ap­pellations, he that calleth them by one of these names, and not by the other, doth not hereby change the name of it: When Paul called Peter by the name of Cephas (as he doth 1 Cor. 1. 12) did he change his name at pleasure; especially calling him Peter elswhere, as I usually call C. B. his beloved palace, where hee thinkes his HONOR dwelleth, by the Name of Sion Colledge? Therefore it is a most frivolous and false charge upon me, to say, that I change the name of his Colledge, because I once, or sometimes, call it by a name, by which it is not so vulgarly knowne, or called. How much more shamelesly false is it, to say, that I either IMPƲ ­DENTLY, or at pleasure change this Name, when as first, I use it but once, and 2 ^o, have the ground and inducement of such an informa­tion asserting the legitimacie of that Name, by which I call it, the authority whereof I know no man able [...]o disable?

Secondly, though he saith here, that he knowes none but me, that hath so IMPƲDENTLY changed the name of that plea­sure of his eyes, Sion Colledge; yet a few lines before, hee had said, that he thinkes he knoweth another. As for the information (saith hee) which you intimate out of the ancient Records, I THINK it came originally from a famous Atheist. Surely this person whom he calls an Atheist, (by a worse change of a name, I wisse, than that of Sinon, for, Sion Colledge) yea a famous Atheist, whom he sus­spects [Page 133] for the Author of my information, must needs be known un­to him. But

3 ^o (And lastly, to this) is not C. B. himself a far more Impudent changer of names, and this at pleasure, then I? He pretends not to lay any other changing of names to my charge, but only of a dead edifice. Nor is the Name pretended to be given by me by way of exchange, any wayes re­proachfull, or disgracefull unto it: but how oft doth he change the Names of living men, & that of his brethren in the most holy professi­on of Jesus Christ, and this for Names disparaging and stigmaticall? Pag. 1. He cals me by the Name of an Apostate member, &c. In the same page he calls the Author of the Pulpit Incendiary, and me toge­ther, by the name of, Gracchi, [those audacious Gracchi.] Page 13. he calls me by the name of, Bishop John: page 15. Presbyter John. Page 2. the Mock-visitor of Sion Colledge (to omit many other such changes of names as these, which at his meere pleasure he gives me for mine own.) But this is he that complains of so much of the Dragon, and so little of the Saint, in other m [...]ns writings.

But the man containeth not himselfe within the narrow com­passe of the indignation uttered against me for my loud-crying sin of changing the name of Sion Colledge (as you have heard) in the words transcribed; but advanceth the motion of his passion and pen together, thus: And now, Mr. Goodwin, be serious, speake the truth, and shame the—[D. D.] Did the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Bishop of our soules, administer this Piece of your Monitory Visi­tation? [No, C. B. nor did any man I know of, ever say that hee did] Or was not your hand guided by another spirit, which you well know without my naming? (You mean, I presume, that Spirit, by which your own hand was guided in drawing up this your vindicative vindication,) Consider and repent seriously of this great wickednesse [in calling a spade, a spade] least that great Bishop of soules deprive you of your Bishoprick and call you to such an account at his tribunall, as an A­theisticall scoffer, [...]luctus in simpul [...] exci­tare. Prov. as will make your eares to tingle, and your heart to tremble, but to hear the report. What mighty waves are here raised in a cup dish of water? Once in a mans life, o call Sion Colledge, by by the name of Sinon Colledge (though he hath more grounds and reasons than one, and these very tolerable and competent so to do) in C. B. his learned charity, amounts to no lesse than the rendring of a man an Atheisticall scoffer; deserves no lesse than the deprivation of his Bishopricke, and shall be punished with no lesse or lighter pu­nishment, [Page 134] that the vengeance of eternall fire. Is it the inward thought of this mans heart, that the righteousnesse and wrath of God are cal­culated for the fulfilling of his unrighteousnesse? and that the Tri­bunall of Christ, is, or shall be erected for the triall and condemn­ing of his opposers? The truth is, all things considered, that it is no easie thing to beleeve, that C. B. durst have so much as once mentioned the Tribunal of Christ, in case it be supposed that he rea [...] ­ally beleeves the being of it.

How stigmatical and shamelesse an untruth lookes out of these words, Sect. 129. pag 20. There is not so much as one word of admonition to Si­on Colledge in all your Book? let the 18. and 19. pages of the book he speakes of ( Sion Colledge visited) speak. In which pages, I doe first (upon leave desired, and presumed) seriously admonish the men of Sion Colledge (for I suppose C. B. doth not challenge me for not admonishing the walls) of those true and reall grounds and causes, of those sad inconveniences which have befallen them, and whereof they themselves complain (as I there say, instancing in sundry particulars) And 2 ^o. I here also admonish them with all faithfulnesse and sincerity, how, and by what wayes and meanes they may repaire all their breaches that are made upon them, and recover with advantage whatsoever they have lost in the hearts of the people. Among some other addresses unto them upon this account, I use these words, Following showres of uprightnesse and since­rity from your hearts and hands together, will make your crownes of honor to flourish upon your heads; which otherwise will certainly anguish, fade, and die away.

In the same page (within a line or two after the words last transcribed) hee complements with me in this whirlewinde. Sect. 130. For you have taken upon you, Sir, the boldnesse in that bold visit of Sion Col­ledge, to blaspheme, not the great Diana of High Presbytery (as in high scorn you flout it: I wonder what his [...]ecedent is to his relative it) but the High God, whose Ordinance Presbytery will approve her selfe to be, when your Name is like to rot in the dust, amongst those Gyants, that would wage warre with heaven. Here we have profound and learned doings indeed.

1 ^o. He here prophesies of the time, when Presbytery will approve her self to be an Ordinance of God, upon such terms, and in such a kind of expression as God by Ezekiel prophesied long since of the return of Juda and Jerusalem out of captivity: When I shall bring [Page 135] agoin their captivity, the captivity of Sodome and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I being again the cap­tivity of the captives in the midst of them. Ezek 16. [...]3. Gods intent in this pro­phesie was (as Calvin rightly interpreteth it) to [...]ut off all hope of deliverance from the Jewes M [...]nimè er­go dubium est, quin Propheta hîc spem om­n [...]m salutis e­rip [...]at Iudaeis, dum ratiocina­tur ab impossi­bil, &c. Calv. in locum. In like manner C. B. prophesying, that Presbytery wil approve her self to be the Ordinance of God, when my Name is likely to rot in the dust amongst those Gyants that wag'd warre with heaven, doth emphatically prophesie and affirm, that Presbyte­ry will never approve her selfe to be the Ordinance of God. For most certain and assured I am, that my Name will never be likely to rot in the dust with the company he speak [...] of, i asmuch as all the warre that I have ever waged, hath been, not with heaven, but with earth, and with earthly wayes, and earthly minded m [...]n.

2 ^o. Why, or upon what tolerable account doth he say, that I blaspheme the high God, because Presbytery (as he supposeth) wil prove her selfe to be his Ordinance? If the man thinks, that because I speak against High Presbytery, I speak against Presbytery simply, or the Presbytery spoken of in the Scriptures, I perceive he knows not the Lamb of God which taketh away [...]he sinnes of the world, from the roa­ring Lion the Devill, who goeth about seeking whom [...]e may devoure. For the Scripture Presbytery, [...] the sweet and m [...]ek Genius and disposition of the former: and High Presbytery, the bloody pride, and devouring rage of the latter. And if C. B. and his associates, did not stand in their own light, it were unpossible that ever it should enter into their hearts to imagine, that such a Government should be the Government of Christ, or the Ordinance of God, the Scepter wherof is nothing else but a sencelesse and importune claim of a power from Christ, to umpire the sence and meaning of the Scriptures, according to their own notions, and exig [...]ncies of in­terests and affairs: and consequently, of making Errors and Heresies of what opinions, or doctrines they please, without giving, in ma­ny cases, any sufficient (or indeed any tolerable) account (save on­ly what themselves and their prosely [...]es, and party, are pleased to d [...]em and call such) of such their determinations and decisions. By the exercise of which power, the persons interested in this Govern­ment, stigmatize and brand whom they please, though otherwise pious and peaceable, and friends unto Christ, with the reproach of men Erroneous & Heretical, so exposing them to the hatred of men, and all miseries attending thereon, onely because they cannot ac­knowledge [Page 136] knowledge them as Commissioners from God, to arbitrate the af­faires of their judgements and consciences, and subscribe to their sence in matter, of Religion, as the infallible Test and Rule of Truth. If this Government (which I call High Presbytery, and) which is laniena & macellum ovium Christi, the shambles, or slaughter-house of the Sheep of Christ, bee the government of Christ, or the Ordinance of God, then had C. B. some colour (how­ever) to charge me with Blaspheming the High God; though (by the way) it savours of anignorant and bloody interpreter, to make e­very arguing against truth (whether known, or unknown for such, unto the arguer) to be a Blaspheming of God. But C. B. (it is like) is of their mind and judgement, who hold, that in Schismaticis & Hereticis puniendis non po [...]est peccari; there is no possibility of sin­ing in punishing, or proceeding against Schismatiques & Her [...]tiques. There is scarce any thing can be spoken, which toucheth High-Presbytery any thing neere the quick, but that Mr. Jenkin and C. B. with others of that learning and candor, make either Prophanesse, or Blasphemy of it. But there is nothing more common than for men zealously affected in a cause that is not good, to make them­selves and their cause, the apple of Gods eye: and then neither the one, nor the other must be touch'd [for feare of pleasing of God, and easing men.]

Whereas (in the same 20. page) he flees to common report for a little assistance against me, Sect. 131. which (it seems) takes compassion on him (as the Z [...]phims did on Saul when he persecuted David) and voteth me for a man that have long laboured under two great infirmities; Am­bition, to be a contradictor in chiefe to all my brethren in poynts of greatest weight: and Revenge, upon all those that tell me my own freely. I answer, 1 ^o. That when C. B. tells me either of Ambition, or Revenge, hee tells me his own, not, my own. I will not say that common Report, or Fame (which long since was known to be ‘Tam ficti, pravi (que) tenax, quàm nuneia veri, i.’

Of truth and untruth much a like assertresses) but the tenor of his own Actions and Departments for a long time (which, in matters of the left hand especially, seldome misreporteth) speaketh him a man, not so much labouring under the two infirmities he speaks of, as rejoycing. As for my selfe, I confesse I have more infirmities upon me, than becometh either me, or any other man to have; but my labouring under them, is an effectuall dore of hope opened unto [Page 137] me, that they are on the declining hand, and that a perfect free­dome and deliverance from them, is as neare unto me, as Death, or the Grave. In the mean time, neither was Pauls paroxysine with Barnabas Acts 15. 39, nor his withstanding of Peter to his face Gal. 2. 11., nor his dispu­ting against the Grecians Acts 9. 29., nor his disputing with, or against the Iewes in their Synagogues, or with whomsoever bee met daily in the Market-place Acts 17. 17., nor his fighting with beasts at Ephesus, after the manner of men 1 Cor. 15. 32, either divisim, or e [...]njunctim, any argument, or proofe, that he laboured under Ambition to be a contradictor in chiefe to all his brethren, in points of greatest weight (though the points which he disputed against his Brethren, the Jewes, were, for the most part, points of the greatest weight) but his frequent, and almost continuall ingagements in this kind notwithstanding, he was a man that sought to please all men for their good 1 Cor. 10. 32; yea and was made all things to all men, out of a desire by all means to save some 1 Cor. 9. 22.. Therefore it was no ambi­tion in Paul to be a Contradictor in chief to the world: nor did the frequency of his contradictings and contests with men in his way, any wayes evince him to be any other, than a most meek, hum­ble, quiet, and peaceable man. The great Knower of Hearts, and searcher of the veines, in whose presence I write, knoweth, that if himselfe would be pleased to discharge me of the service of con­tradicting and opposing men, and dispose of me in a way of retire­ment, were it never so privat and obscure, where I might only con­test with mine own weaknesse and errors, he should give me one of the first-born desires of my soule in the things of this life, into my bosome. As for Revenge, I have alwayes (since I understood any thing in the things of God) judged it not onely an un-christian, but a most effeminate, base, and ignoble passion or distemper: yea at this very houre, my thoughts hardly suffer me to conceive of it, as consisting with those things which accompany salvation. But to practise Revenge, when no injury hath been done, but rather a kindnes, and office of love, as the telling of a man his own freely is, is a farre more unmanly, unnaturall, and horrid distemper, than Re­venge it selfe (properly so called.) I wish that it were but as easie for others to forbeare injuring of me, as it is for me to neglect and passe it by, when they have done it. But whether it be either C. B. himselfe, or his common Report, or whosoever, that burden me with the crimes of Ambition and Revenge, certain I am, that they are strangers to my spirit, and converse in the world. The Apostle Paul, speaking of himselfe chiefly, yet (as it seems) in conjunction [Page 138] with some others, saith they were, as deceivers, yet true 2 Cor. 6. 8.. They were as deceivers to them that looked upon them at a distance, and had not familiar acqua [...]ntance with their principles, wayes and spirits: but unto such, who with Timothy, fully knew their doctrine, manner of life purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience 2 Tim. 3. 10, &c. they were true: i. they judged them to be the men which they were indeed and in truth. It is no hard matter to beare the imputation and re­proach from strangers, of such crimes, from the demerit and guilt whereof, all that are intimate, and throughly acquainted with us, as God, our consciences, our bosome friends and acquaintance, do with a joynt and free consent absolve us. As for Ambition, unlesse to shape a course for the dust and dunghill, for poverty, disgrace, contempt, losse of estate, losse of friends, great and small, and of whatsoever is called great in the world, be Ambition, the tenor of the course I have steered, will be my compurgator in the consci­ences of all those to whom it hath been known. I have now dis­patch'd with my Triumviri, for the present, yea, if themselves please, for the future also.