The Six booksellers Proctor nonsuited. WHEREIN The gross-falsifications, and Untruths, together with the inconsiderate and weak passages, found in the apology for the said booksellers, are briefly noted and evicted. And the said booksellers proved so unworthy, both in their Second Beacon-fired, and likewise in their Epistle written in the Defence of it, that they are out of the Protection of any Christian, or reasonable apology for either.  
By J. G. A Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, even they both are an abomination unto the Lord. Pro. 17. 15. Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things, are worthy of death, not only do the same, but consent with them who do them. Rom. 1. 32. They that forsake the Law, praise the wicked: but such as keep the Law, contend with them. Prov. 28. 4. Nullum vitium est sine Patrocinio. Sen. Causa patrocinio non bona major erit. Ovid. 
Non est in medico semper relevetur ut aeger:  
Interdum doctâ plus valet arte malum.  Idem. 
London, Printed for H. Cripps, and L. Lloyd, and and are to be sold at their Shops at the Castle in Cornhill, and in Popes-Head-Alley, near Lombard-street. 1655   

The six booksellers Proctor nonsuited, and his apology proved the Apologists own condemnation.  
GOod Reader, I shall do little in this paper, but only give thee a few Items (with an Imprimis) of that large bed-rol of untruths and foul aspersions (as the Apologist expresseth himself) of which he hath composed an apology (or rather, an Apologue, instead of an apology) for his bookmen.  
If there prove to be any vacant paper towards the end, I may give thee a taste of some weak and indigested sayings of his likewise. But concerning aspersions and untruths.  
Imprimis he saith, p. 3. that after search, he found the omission of one word, such, had by a strange kind of multiplication, §. 1 produced a thousand, wherein I render them [the booksellers] to the world, as guilty of no less than forgery and falsification. Here are two of those evil things, which himself calls soul and unjust aspersions. For first, I take his bookmen ●ardie, (and charge them accordingly) with the omission of several other words, besides such, p. 16. 60. Besides, I charge them in my book (and that most justly) with several other falsifications, besides those committed in and about the Transcription out of my book of Redemption, as is to be seen in my Animadversions upon every Section of their Epistle (a very few only excepted) especially upon Sect, 1. 20. and 21. 3. I nowhere make his bookmen guilty of Forgery, for leaving out of the word Such: I only say in my Letter to them, that some would call it Forgery. p. 1.  
Item, he saith, p. 3. that at the booksellers mistranscribing §. 2 the passage out of my Book of Redemption, I cry out of Antichristian dealing, &c. This is Book-seller-like also. I nowhere cry out of Antichristian dealing because of their un-Christian handling me in their transcribing me. I only call their request to the Parliament for the confinement of the Press, an Antichristian request; of which I give a true, and sober account. p. 49.  
Item, p. 4. he saith, that I have so far profited in the art of §. 3 calumnation, that I am not ashamed to prostitute the sentences of Calvin, Piscator, Pareus, the Synod of Dort, &c. to the maintenance of those Arminian Doctrines, which all the world knows their souls abhorred, &c. Doth the man speak truth, when he calls it a calumniation, truly and faithfully, and without any falsification in the least, to transcribe or report the sayings of men? He is not able to prove that I have wronged the Authors he speaks of, nor any one of them, in the least tittle or iota, in any thing I have cited from them. And if their souls abhorred the Doctrines he speaks of, they are in a twofold respect, blame worthy; 1. Because their souls abhorred such Doctrines, which are the manifest truths of God. 2. Because they assert and affirm that in words, which upon such a supposition, is most contrary to their sense and judgement. Besides it is much more Presbyterian, then Orthodox, to call the citation of men's sentences for the maintenance of what they plainly speak and avouch, a prostitution of them.  
Item, p. 4. He insinuates a charge against me of oppressing the booksellers innocency. It seems to falsify men's writings §. 4 and opinions, is Presbyterian innocency. But some of the booksellers themselves (I understand) are more ingenuous than their Apologist (as clients many time are then their Proctors) and do confess they did not well in defacing my words, and wish it had been otherwise.  
Item, (in the same page) he calls Toleration an accursed §. 5 Idol, and affirms it to be Mr. Goodwins Great Diana. If Toleration be an Idol, how come Presbyterians to fare so well as they do, by it? Idols (the Scripture informeth us) do neither good, nor evil, Esa. 41. 23. 44. 10. Psal. 115. 4. 5. &c. I know no reason (nor do wiser men than I, know any) why the sect of High Presbyterialism, should be tolerated, more than its fellows. Certain I am, it is as ill deserving of the civil State▪ yea or of human society; yea or of the interest of Christian Religion itself, as most of them▪ But why he should call, Toleration, my Great Diana, it may be his interest, or his disaffection to me, knoweth; but his conscience, (I am confident) knoweth not, especially if he understandeth what Toleration properly meaneth. I not long since plainly expressed myself to the chief Ruler of the land, that my sense was not to have any Toleration granted by the Magistrate, to any sort, or sect, of erroneous men whatsoever; yea and further, that it was not in the Magistrates power to grant any, [id est, to grant a liberty, or permission unto any man, or sort of men, to err.]  
Item yet again (in the same page) he saith, that if things §. 6 be unpartially weighed, it will evidently appear, that to deny such or such a particular kind of unchangeablness in God, and to deny any unchangeableness in him at all, though different in words, yet is in sense the same. But if things be never so unpartially weighed, doth it, or will it evidently appear, that to deny the Apologist, (be he Mr. Pool, or Mr. Jenkins, or whosoever) to be such or such a kind of animal, as suppose an Horse, Mule, or the like, and to deny him to be any animal at all, as suppose animal rational, an animal endued with reason, is only somewhat different in words, yet the sense the same.  
Item (in the same fourth page) he saith he is well assured, §. 7 upon much conference with booksellers since, that it was not wilfully or maliciously left out to deprave my meaning, &c. and this he allegeth as his first argument to make it evidently appear, that to deny such an unchangeableness, and to deny any unchangeableness, though somewhat different in words is yet in sense the same. Doth it, evidently appear by the affirming of an untruth inconsiderately, and not maliciously, that to affirm a truth, and an untruth, is in sense the same, and only somewhat different in words? Is not this of that kind of demonstration, which maketh it evident that white is black, because it is something?  
Item (towards the foot of the same page) why the denying §. 8 of such an unchangeableness, and any unchangeableness, should be in sense the same, he adds (in the second place) this reasonless reason. The true reason (saith he) why the word such was left out, was because it was a relative term [and was not this an offence, deserving the punishment of being banished from the sentence?] and so if it had been expressed it would have necessitated the Transcription of a far larger proportion of Mr. Goodwins words, &c. But first, this reason is not at all relative to the conclusion, the apparent eviction whereof it pretends unto. For what is there in it to prove, that to deny such an unchangeableness, and any unchangeableness, are in sense the same? 2. It grossly contradicteth his former reason. For there he affirmed (on the behalf of his Beacon-Firers) that the word was not wilfully left out: and here he affirmeth that it was left out upon consideration and debate. Now what is wilfulness, but the fullness of the will? and when is the will fuller, than when a thing is willed, or resolved to be done, upon consideration, and in order to the effecting or procuring of some beloved end? 3. (and lastly) if the nature of their work of Beacon-firing would not permit the transcribing of such a proportion of my words, as was sufficient to explain my sense and meaning in that unchangeableness, which I deny unto God: they had provided better both for their consciences, and credits, if they had left out the whole sentence out of their book, instead of leaving out the word Such, (with others) out of the sentence. For is it reasonable, or Christian, to represent a man's saying as erroneous, without declaring unto the Reader, in what sense that word, wherein the error is supposed to lie, is meant or understood by him, in case it be ambiguous?  
Item (page 5.) he saith that that assurance of the unchangeableness §. 9 of God's love, which the Beacon-Firers implici●ely assert, and with the denial whereof they charge me, is very well known (to the Lord Protector, and Parliament, and all intelligent men) to be that very▪ same which I oppose, &c. If the Beacon-Firers do assert such an assurance of the unchangeableness of the love of God, as I there describe and oppose, I cannot believe that either my Lord Protector, or the Parliament, or many if any) other intelligent men, have any knowledge of such their assertion. For how should it ever come into the mind (much less into the steady and certain knowledge either of the Lord Protector, Parliament, or other intelligent man, that men pretending to the true knowledge and honour of God, as the Beacon-fires do (by the Apologists high testimony of them) should ascribe any thing unto him, so abhorring to his nature, so inconsistent with his holiness, so destructive to his great end and design for the advancement of godliness amongst men, as such an unchangeableness of love to men, which I there describe, and deny unto him? As for the unchangeableness asserted by my adversaries, if it be such, which opposeth the unchangeableness, which I in twenty places (some of them pointed to in my Fresh Discovery) do assert, it is more than yet I understand. If it be such which I reject, and this with indignation and abhorrency of soul (as I, and all intelligent men, have good cause to do) neither the Beacon-Firers, nor their Proctor, can with truth charge me with rejecting any other; nor consequently with rejecting all whatsoever. Therefore the man's Dilemma is impertinently frivolous.  
Item (p. 5.) he chargeth me, that my whole dispute is levied §. 10 against the unchangeableness of God's love. A most horrid, bold, and broadfaced slander. For the main design of that dispute of mine he speaks of, is to explain, vindicate and assert the unchangeableness of God's love: and withal to demonstrate, that to ascribe unto him such an unchangeableness of love, as the Apologist (it seems) and some others, very inconsiderately do, is (above all contradiction) to render him mutable in his affection, and consequently, that unchangeableness of love, which they ascribe unto him, is felo de se, falls foul upon, and destroys itself. Upon this account the Reader desirous of satisfaction, may please to peruse p. 63. 64. and p. 205. 206. 207. of my book of Redemption. Therefore how importune and un-clerk-like is he in his Parenthesis following: I am not ignorant (saith he) he confidently tells us, that in his judgement God's love is unchangeable, as it is no new thing for a spirit of error to be accompanied with a spirit of contradiction. Most true it is, that a spirit of error is very frequently accompanied with a spirit of contradiction. And hence it is, that the Apologist, and other Ministers and Preachers of his judgement about the unchangeableness of the love of God, &c. seldom preach, but that their Sermons are yea and nay; the doctrinal part, a Samaritan, and the applicatory part, a Jew. But whereas he would insinuate me a self-contradictor, because I somewhere deny his unchangeableness of love in God, and elsewhere assert such an unchangeableness of love in him, which with the savage of the glory and truth of all his Attributes, is competent to him, he declares himself to be the first-born son of disingenuity, unless to salve this dishonour, he will be content to plead an Ignoramus. The passages he transcribes out of my book, are palpably irrelative to his cause. They only prove that I deny such an unchangeableness of love in God, as he (it seems) fancyeth in him (which certainly, whilst God spareth me my wits, and the use of my reason and understanding to consult the Scriptures, I always shall deny) but they have no face or colour of proof, that I deny the unchangeableness of God's love simply, or of any such unchangeableness herein, which is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or by the Scriptures anywhere ascribed unto him.  
Item (p. 5.) He terms it Scepticism in me, that I am not §. 11 positive and assertive in the highest, but express myself modestly and with acknowledgement of some stoned in my judgement, where the matter is difficult, and the grounds of the truth not so evident to me. Yet p. 9 he profoundly taxeth me with want of modesty, even where I have ground of confidence in abundance. But want of modesty, and abundance of modesty, are alike taxable, when they do not serve high-Presbyterian turns. It seems High-Presbyterians, pretend to a line of knowledge far higher than Paul's. For he professed that he knew but in part, and accordingly prophesied but in part. But they are afraid of the reproach of Scepticism, unless they profess to know all things, and this without hesitancy, or the least regret in their judgement, about any thing. Their manner is to lay on load and strength of confidence on their conclusions, even where their premises are weak and contemptible.  
Item (p. 6. 7. 8.) he reasons most absurdly from the loose Sect. 12 ground of his distinction of a two fold love in God, a love to righteousness, a love to persons. For speaking of that love, about which only the question sticketh between the Apologist and his opponents, viz. a love of complacency and delight in the persons of men, God loves no man's person materially or simply considered, but only as qualified with righteousness: as on the contrary, he hates no man's person, with an hatred opposite to this love, simply considered (this being the workmanship of his own hands) but only as corrupted with sin and unrighteousness. So that when God loves a righteous person, he doth not love him with a twofold love (as the Apologist weakly supposeth) with one, in respect of his righteousness, another in respect of his person; but he loves the person, mediante justicia, or because of that righteousness, which he finds in him: and would not love him (I still mean, with that kind of love mentioned) if righteousness were not found in him. The reason is, because this love of his to righteous persons, formally [i. e. as righteous] and concretely considered, is uniform and unchangeable: neither is there any other object of it, but only a person, or persons, so qualified. From hence likewise it evidently appears, how impertinent the similitude is, upon which the Apologist, for want of better supports, statuminates his cause. A Prince (saith he) that loves a Loyal and faithful subject, but when he proves disloyal, he hates him. Will any man deny that the Prince's affections are changed? And yet he continues to love loyalty, and hate disloyalty. Who with half an eye, seeth not, but that if this Prince were like unto God in his love to a loyal and faithful subject [i. e. could love no subject, but him that is faithful and Loyal, nor hate any, but him that is contrary] it were unproper to say that his affections in this kind, either were in the case put, or could be in any other changed. And that there is a sense, wherein the Love of God to men, may be said in some cases, to be changed, viz. such a sense as that wherein he is said to repent, is I suppose the sense of all that understand themselves in these controversies. But this sense doth not suppose any change, or changeableness, in the Nature or Essence of God, which is really the same with his love, but only a change and changeableness in his dispensations in reference to such and such persons, which all divines with one mouth affirm may be varied and changed, and this in reference to the same persons, without the least shadow of variation, or change in his Essence. And if 1. the love of the Prince in the Apologists fable, were his nature and essence; And 2. This essence of his simply and absolutely unchangeable, though he should express himself according to the different manner of love and hatred towards his subject specified, under the different deportments of Loyalty, and disloyalty, yet could not his affections, at least in any proper sense, be said to be changed (which is the sense wherein I constantly deny any change of affection in God, although he should one while love a person with a love of complacency, and afterwards, (viz. upon his turning aside from righteousness unto sin) not love him, but hate him with an hatred contrary to his former love.  
But these things are argued to the satisfaction of all ingenuous and unprejudiced men, in the pages, and passages of my Book of Redemption, lately directed unto. But the Apologist stands declared on the left hand: and there is little hope of bringing him over to the right, unless his company were willing to come along with him. How can ye believe (saith Christ) who receive honour one of another? Joh. 5. What the Apologist adds, p. 7. 8, and part of the 9 sibi et muses canit, or however it passeth my intelligence. Only this I understand, p. 9 he citeth a passage from my Letter to Mr. Ca●yl, Book-seller-like, I mean, with the omission of these Emphatical words in it: and I cannot but presume regularly enough.  
And thus the Apologist hath done his good will to cover the nakedness of his six Friends, the Beacon-Firers. But he may cry out; H●i mi i quod nullis scelus est medicabile verbis! He hath indeed tried his skill, if it were possible to make (with Cacus of old) Candida de nigris, et de candentibus atra, i. e.  
Black things, look white, and white to look like black.  
And they may do well to accept of his will for the deed. But the blackamoor is never the whiter for his washing: only the Launderer hath blacked his fingers with handling him.  
Item p. 9 He chargeth me with scurrilous language towards the learned and reverend Mr. Walker, and in particular with my bitter recipe, which (he saith) I prescribe for him, as for one that is not compos sui. He falsifies egregiously, in saying that the Recipe (bound in some of the copies of that book, contrary unto order from me nor is it in any the copies in my hand) was prescribed by me for him, as if, &c. It was as much prescribed for Mr. Pool, Mr. Jenkin, or any other man: as for Mr. Walker: it was ●ather prescribed from him, or out of his papers, then to him. But when he tells me of using scurrilous language towards him, if he would tell me what he means by scurrilous language (for High Presbyterians, as I somewhere take notice in my Animadversions upon the Booksellers letter, are much given to a kind of canting dialect) I should better know how to entertain his charge. If he understands the words in the common and best known signification, I may reasonably suppose he only read Mr. Walker's piece against me, and not my answer to him; and by the far worse than scurrilous-language against me, which he found there, presumed that somewhat scurrilous, at least, would be drawn from me thereby, in case I should make any reply to him. But Mr. Walker (it seems) inherits the praises of learned and reverend, notwithstanding any super-scurrility of language in his writings: In promptu ratio est: Presbyteralis erat.  
Hereof the Reason is not far:  
He was a Grand High presbyter.  
However, if there were any unbeseeming word, one, or more, which in the heat and haste of writing, either in answer to him, or Mr. Jenkin, or any other (for I think I am certain that I never began any fray with any man) may possibly have escaped my pen, (although I know nothing at present in any of my writings, that deserves the black brand of scurrilous.) I shall follow the copy, which the Apologist tells me (and oh, that the tidings were true) his Friends the Beacon-Firers have set me in an ingenuous acknowledgement of their error in using such tartness of language in their letter to me. But it is not so much their tartness of language that I complain of; but their numerous falsifications, untruths, and undue suggestions against me; in which kind I am not conscious to myself that I ever wronged any man.  
Item p. 9 He further chargeth me with saying something (himself saith not, nor I think well knoweth, what in favour of all cursed and damnable Doctrines: only he means (he saith) for the toleration, and against the suppression of them. Another most un-Christian aspersion, and scandalously untrue. I never spoke any thing in favour of any cursed or damnable Doctrines (either known, or suspected for such by me) but have continually upon all occasions, both in public, and private, faithfully, and with the best of my understanding, testified against them. Yea, I am so far from pleading for a toleration, or against a suppression, of them all, that I never pleaded in either kind for so much as one of them. Yea my soul is aggrieved within me, that the Ministers both in City and country, whether it be out of consciousness of their inability to do any thing to purpose against them, or out of an unworthy remissness in the case, have been so little active, as they have been, in enlightening the world with the knowledge of the truth, which is the only way to heal the darkness of the Apologists accursed and damnable Doctrines in the world. I confess I have laboured to dissuade men from fighting the battles of God, and of the truth, with unhallowed weapons, from plucking up the tares in such a way; which cannot but endanger the plucking up of the Wheat also; from applying such means for the cure, which is like to enrage and strengthen the disease yet more. The Lord Christ himself gives this Testimony to the Church of Ephesus, that they could not [and consequently did not] bear [or tolerate] those that were evil, Rev. 22. But doth the Apologist think that their non-beari●g, or non-tolerating of them, consisted in their fining▪ confining or imprisoning, in their burning, or slaying them with the sword? This is, not the Christian, but the Antichristian, non-toleration? The Christian non-toleration of vain talkers and deceivers, was taught by Paul, when he tells Titus that their mouth must be stopped, Tit. 1. 11. And their toleration (in such a sense as ever I pleaded for it) by the Lord Christ himself when he said, Let both grow together until the harvest, Mat. 13. 20. But not weak and sinful men, but the Lord Christ himself also (it seems) blessed for ever, must give place to the High-Presbyterian interest, and be arrested for pleading for a toleration of errors, and damnable Doctrines.  
Item p. 9 He chargeth me, that in my {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, I set my-wits, and the Scriptures too on the rack to maintain the monster of universal liberty of conscience, &c. The spirit of the clients here again uttereth itself in the Proctor. For 1. he cannot prove (nor is it true) that I either set my wits, or the Scriptures on the rack, for any end or purpose whatsoever. 2. Much less is it true, that I set either on the rack, for the maintaining of any Monster. If by liberty of conscience, he means an exemption of any man's conscience, from subjection unto God, or Christ, or any of their laws, or sayings, I have always been so far from maintaining this liberty, that I have still opposed it with all my might, with my whole heart and soul. If by it he means an exemption of the conscience, from subjection unto men, or their Doctrines, or sayings, 1. He gives it a scurrilous nickname, in terming it a Monster. 2. The Scriptures need not be set on the rack for maintaining it: they voluntarily, yea zealously, and with expresness of plea, plead for it. But whereas the Apologist makes mention of conscience here, if (in his tittle page) where he confesseth himself to be nullius nominis, instead of nominis, he had put in, conscientiae, he had given a better and truer reason of his non-subscribing his name to his apology. For I verily believe that his inward thought was, not that he was a man of no name (i. e. of no credit or esteem with men) but that he was a man of too much credit, to adventure it in the crazy bottom of such an apology.  
Item p. 9 He confidently affirms, that Mr. Edward's did answer my {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} satisfyingly and convincingly in the judgme●t of any impartial man, And then insinuates a charge of disparagement against me, that I never replied hereunto: and concludes my silence to be a confession that I cannot answer it, yea is confident that this is the truth. Surely the man dreamed either all, or the greatest part at least, of this fable. I am so far from believing that the man he speaks of, answered the book he speaks of, either satisfyingly or convincingly, that I cannot yet believe that ever he made any answer to it at all. It is somewhat strange, that such a book, upon which the world should have such an eye, as he importeth, and which should be written particularly against me, should never be so much as heard of by me, within the compass of I know not how many years. However, how greedy of aspersing and calumniating doth this man show himself to be, who thus simply insults over me for not returning an Answer to such a book, which he could not know that ever I had seen, or heard of. Solomon saith, He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame to him, Prov. 18. 13. But this man would have the world believe, that my not answering a matter before I hear it, is folly and shame unto me. So that Solomon and he, are of two minds. Another book of the Author he speaks of, entitled Antapologia, the greatest part of it written in the same argument, which Mr. Pryn, (a man of more learning, I believe, and of a more profound judgement, than the Booksellers Proctor) proclaimed unanswerable, I did answer, and this satisfyingly, and convincingly in the judgement of any impartial man. And if God stood by me to encounter and slay that lion, I should have been able (I question not) by the same assistance to overcome that uncircumcised Philistine (if the Goliath be indeed in vivis, which I much question) in whom the Apologist so much rejoiceth. But in imposing upon me his will and pleasure, what books I shall, or aught to answer, and what not, (whether my health, strength, or occasions otherwise, yea or life itself, will permit me to answer any, or no) he acteth the part of High-Presbytery to the life (as his booksellers phrase is.) But all books written, either by the Theologica facultas of High-Presbytery, or in defence of the grossest contra-remonstrantism, must be unanswerable by the verdict of this faculty. The Answer in the Press to my Pagans Debt and Dowry, must needs be unanswerable, because it is written indefence of the common error against the truth. But for his two acute and learned Doctors, Doctor Owen, and Doctor Kendal, whose labours (he saith) have had the high approbation of divers learned men, enough of their writings have been answered already by men as acute and learned as they (whom I name in my Animadversions upon his client's Epistle) whose labours likewise (I doubt not) but have had (I am sure deserve) the high approbation of sundry learned men. However, in case I shall not answer the writings of either of them, shall the man, or any of his complices, have any more reason, upon such an account to conclude me {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, [i. e. self-condemned] then either of his two acute and learned Doctors, who have only set Harpocrates 
a Harpocrates was worshipped by the Egyptians as the God of silence.  on work to answer some of the books that are extant against them? And yet they are, in respect of their years much more capable of the labour of study, and (I believe) in respect of their occasions, at much more liberty, then I.  
Item p. 10. He chargeth me, that I twit Mr. Jenkin in the teeth, with Carolizing, Scotizing, and telling him of his bands, &c. most disingenuously and barbarously, &c. But might not he much more ingenuously have concealed Mr. Jenkins' name here, than his own, in the Title page of his book? It seems he is more tender over his own name, and credit, than his friends. It may be Mr. Jenkin himself would never have owned the things, which he now applies unto him, nor would the world have looked upon him, and them, as correlatives. However, was I not provoked, yea, pressed upon, and challenged by the booksellers (I had almost said by himself) to make my exceptions against any of their Committee? In which case, what could I have done less, than I did? Certain I am, that I dealt more fairly and favourably by Mr. Jenkin, than the Apologist hath done. I named him not in reference to any the crimes mentioned, but observed that known law of civility, which enjoins men to spare the persons of men, but permits (upon occasion) to censure their vices:  Parcere Personis, dicere de vi●iis. 
A Law which the Apologist himself hath transgressed, dicend, de utrisque and arraigns me for his own transgression.  
But it seems that so much as to mention High-Presbyterian miscarriages, though never so unworthy, though upon occasions never so equitable and importuning, though with never so much tenderness and respect to their persons, is disingenuity, yea no less than barbarism.  
By the way, whereas he chargeth me with telling Mr. Jenkin of his bands, &c. he breaks the bands of truth, and casts them from him. I nowhere so much as mention Mr. Jenkins' bands, either to himself, or to any other person: neither indeed do I know that Mr. Jenkin ever suffered bands: I only cite a few words out of Suetonius, one of which signifieth, bound. But in case Mr. Jenkin hath suffered bands, and it be Barbarism to mention them, it seems there was a marvelous great difference between the Apostle Paul's bonds, and his: For Paul oft mentioneth his bands as matter of honour unto him; yea and commends other Christians unto their fellows upon the account of their bands, Heb. 13. 3. When the mention of a man's bands is matter of disgrace, or disparagement unto him, it argues, not only the cause of his sufferings to be very unworthy and foul, but to be such in the general opinion of men also.  
Item p. 12. (towards the parting) he chargeth me with imputing unto God, ignorance of future contingencies, more Sociniano; Well said the Apostle that evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, 2 Tim. 4. The truth is, that this is the basest and broadest calumny in the whole piece: nor can I imagine what word, phrase, saying or passage in all my writings, should embolden the conscience of the man of no name, to act this splenetique part in the end. Certain I am that I do as plainly as any other man, and with as much strength of understanding, as God hath given me, upon all occasions, assert the knowledge of all future contingencies, yea of all things whatsoever unto God. The Reader (if he please) may satisfy himself by repairing to p. 9 to p. 39 40. to p. 481. (besides many other places) of my book of Redemption.  
What he cavils, p. 10. 11. against my Answer to Sir Francis Nethersole, as if it were unsatisfactory; and his charge of I know not how many greek misdemeanour, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in relating the testimony of another concerning my treatise of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures (where also without any reason, or colour of reason, he insinuateth against me, as if I thought myself to good to veil the bonnet to Mornay, Grotius, Cameron, in their writings about the same subject) being altogether eccentrical, as well to his business (unless this were absolutely and universally to asperse, as much as to vindicate his clients) as mine own, I pass over; only taking notice by the way, how lamely and by halfs, he presents my Answer to Sir Francis Nethersole, opposing my justification of the design of putting the King to death, to a passage in my anti-cavalierism: 2. How either weakly, or proposterously and perversely he understands that part of my Answer, which he describes. For there is an high and extraordinary interposure and appearance of God in stirring up the spirits, and strengthening the hand of Rulers and Magistrates, to proceed in judgement against Kings degenerated into Tyrants; in respect whereof the process is emphatically attributable unto God, whereas the ordinary proceedings at Law by a single Judge against the Apologists Rogues, are matters of course, and common providence. Nor shall I stand now to reason the man into his senses about proper, and improper, Attributions unto God, nor to cause him to see, that what is properly, must needs be formally, and what is formally, cannot be eminently attributed unto him, &c. I confess I thought that such a Meraphysical pretender, as Doctor Kendal, had understood these things better than I perceive he doth. His pen strikes another false stroke, in saying that the having of a man's senses sodden into Trapezuntius his temper, is my OWN phrase. For where I use this phrase, I plainly signify that I borrow it, and declare from whom. I shall further only take notice of this passage, p. 12. If he Answer me, as he hath answered Sir Francis Nethersole, or Mr. Jenkins, I shall not trouble either him, or the world with any reply; but that which is his constant refuge in arduous cases, he means, silence. Doth he not here plainly grant that it was no arduous case [or matter of difficult undertaking] for me to answer either Sir Francis Nethersole, or Mr. Jenkins, inasmuch as I made not silence my Refuge, when I answered them? Yea, and that it is no arduous case to answer his apology, since I have not made silence my Refuge from the face of it? Yet I confess there is a strain of prudence in the saying. For in case I should answer him, as I have done either Sir Francis Nethersole, or Mr. Jenkin (as perhaps I now have done) it is his wisdom to arm himself with a resolution against troubling himself with a reply, because in such a case, it is like to be a trouble indeed to him, and this to little purpose.   

A Postscript▪  
BEcause the man of no name chargeth me (pag. 9) with speaking in favour of all cursed and damnable Doctrines, meaning (as he saith) for the toleration, and against the suppression of them, (besides what I have already answered to this charge) that He, and His, may understand, that long before either his days, or mine, there were men, both wiser, and learneder (and I fear more conscientious and pious, then either of us) that speak as much, or more, than ever I did for a toleration (in such a sense as ever I pleaded for any) of such Doctrines, which he (I doubt not) will call (as well he may) accursed and damnable, I shall supply part of the vacant paper with some passages, which he may read, as I have done, in Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli. Lib. 2. cap. 20. §. 50, &c. First he transcribes out of Salvianus Bishop of Marseilles, these words (declaring his tenderness about the punishing, or rather for the non-punishing, even of Arrian heretics.)  
Haeretici sunt, sed non scientes: denique apud nos sunt haeretici, apud se non sunt: nam in tantum se Catholicos esse judicant, ut nos ipsos titulo haereticae pravitatis infament. Quod ergo illi nobis, sunt & hoc nos illis. Nos illos injuriam divinae generationi facere certi sumus, quod minorem. Patri filium dicunt. Illi nos injuriosos Patri existimant, quod aequales esse credamus. Veritas apud nos est, sed illi apud se esse pr sumunt. Hono● Dei apud nos est: sed illi hoc arbitrantur honorem Divinitatis quod credunt. In officiosi sunt, sed illis hoc est summum Religionis officium. Impij sunt, sed hoc putant summam esse pietatem. Errant ergo, sed bono animo errant, non odio, sed affectu' Dei, honorare se Dominum, atque amare creden●es. Quamvis non habeant rectam fidem, illi tamen hoc perfectam Dei aestimant charitatem: Et qualiter pro hoc ipso falsae opinion●● errore in die judicij puniendi sunt, nemo potest scire, nisi judex. Interim idcircò eis, ut reor patientiam Deus commodat, quia videt eus, etsi non recte credere, affectu tamen piae opinionis errare, i. e.  
They are heretics, but against their knowledge, they are so in our opinion, but not in their own, for they think themselves so far to be Catholic [or, Orthodox] that they defame us with the title of heresy. Therefore what they are in our opinion, we are in theirs. We are sure they do wrong to the divine generation, in saying, The Son is less than the Father. They believe that we do wrong unto God the Father, in holding that the Son is equal to him. The truth is with us, but they presume it is with them. The honour of God is with us; but they are of opinion that by their belief they honour the godhead. They are officious amiss, but what they do, they judge to be the chief duty of Religion. They are impious, but they think it to be true piety. They err, but they err with a good mind, not out of hatred, but out of affection unto God, believing that by this they honour and love their Lord. Though they have not the right Faith, yet they think this is the perfect love of God: and how they are to be punished at the day of judgement for this error of a false opinion, none knows but the judge himself. In the mean time, as I think, God lendeth them his patience, because he sees, that though they do not believe aright, yet they err out of an affection to a pious opinion.  
By the way; the Christian equanimity of this man, being a Bishop, towards poor creatures, who in the simplicity of their minds shall turn aside into byways of error, though very dangerous, in things appertaining unto God, may make Mr. Anonymus his cheeks to change colour (as his own phrase is) when he breathes out fines, imprisonment, banishment, fire, sword, gibbet, and what not, against poor, weak, and foolish men, only for not being as quick-sighted to discern the truth from error, as he presumes himself to be, or for not having (possibly) obtained from God the like grace and means for his coming to the knowledge of the truth, which himself hath done.  
The forementioned Author rehearseth likewise (in the place directed unto) these words out of Austin, Tom. 6. Cnntrà Epistolam Manichaei, cap. 2. (though he nameth not the place) where this worthy Father disclaimeth all severity of proceedings against the Manichees, though a most vile and pernicious sect of heretics.  
Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt cum quo labore verum in veniatur, & quà difficile caveantur errores. Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt quàm rarum & arduum est carnalia phantasmata piaementis serenitate superare. Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt cum quantâ difficultate sanetur oculus interioris hominis, ut possit intueri solem summum, non istum, quem vos collitis coelesti corpore, oculis carreis & hominum, et pecorum fulgentem atque radiantem, sed illum de quo scriptum est per Prophetam, Ortus est mihi justitiae Sol, et de quo dictum est in Evangelio, Erat lumen verum quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt quantis suspirijs & gemitibus fiat, ut ex quantulacumque parte possit intelligi Deus. Postremo illi in vos saeviant, qui nullo tali errore decepti sunt, quali vos deceptos vident. Ego autem— saevire in vos omninò non possum, quos, sicut me ipsum illo tempore, ità nunc debeo sustinere, & tantâ patientiâ vobiscum agere, quantâ mecum egerunt proximi mei, cum in vestro dogmate rabiosus & caecus errarem, i. e.  
Let those be fierce [or cruel] to you, that know not with what labour truth is to be found, and with how great difficulty errors are avoided. Let those be cruel to you, who know not how rare and of how difficult an attainment it is to overcome carnal phantasms [and conceits] by the serenity [and clearness] of a pious mind. Let those [again] deal cruelly with you, who are ignorant with how great difficulty the eye of the inner man is healed, that it may [look uponand] behold the highest Sun, not that which you worship, as subsisting with an heavenly body, & which shines with his beams in the fleshly eyes both of men and beasts, but that Sun, of whom it is written by the Prophet, The son of righteousness hath risen unto [or upon] us; and of whom it is said in the Gospel, He was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world. Let those [yet again] cruelly handle you, who know not with what deep sighings and groanings [of soul] even a little [true] understanding of God, is obtained. Lastly, let those exercise cruelty towards you, who never were themselves deceived with any such error, as now they perceive you deluded with. But as for me, I can at no hand be [fierce, or] cruel towards you, whom I ought now to bear with patiently, as I did with my selfthen [when I was one of you] yea and to entreat you with as much patience, as my neighbours [Orthodox Christians] showed to me, when I wandered like a mad and blind man, in your opinion.  
The forenamed Author (in the place specified) to these two large transcriptions out of the two renowned Fathers mentioned, subjoineth (upon the same argument) as followeth.  
In Arrianam haeresin acriter invehitur Athanasius (Epist ad soli●ari●s) quòd prima in contradicentes usa esset judicum potestate, & quos non potuisset verbis inducere, eos vi, plagis, carceribusque ad se pertrahere amniteretur. Atque ita inquit, seiqsam quàm non sit pia, nec Dei cultrix, manifestat; respiciens, in fallor, ad illud, quod legi ur, Gal. 4. 29. Similia habet Hilarius ad Constantium. In Galliâ jam olim damnati sunt Ecclesiae judicio Episcopi, qui ut Priscillianistas gladio animadvertere●ur curaverant: & in Oriente damnata Synodus, quae in Bogomili exustionem consenserat. Sapienter dixit Plato, errantis paenam esse, doceri, i. e.  
Athana●…us sharply inveigheth against the Arian heresy (in his Epistle to the Solitarians) because they made use of the chief power of the [civil] Judges, against those who contradicted their opinion, and endeavoured by force, stripes & prisonsto draw them over unto them, whom they could not induce [or persuade] by arguments. And so (saith he) it manifesteth itself, not to be [truly] pious, nor reverential of God; herein respecting, if I mistake not, that which is written, Gal. 4. 29. [But as then, he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the spirit, &c.] Hilary hath the like writing to Constantius. In France those Bishops were long since condemned by the judgement of the Church, who procured the Priscillian heretics to be punished with the sword. And that Synod was likewise damned in the East, which had consented to the burning of Bogomilus. It was wisely said by Plato; that he that erreth, is to be punished by being taught.   

ERRATA.  
Page 4. l. 25. r. with the, l. 26. r. High-Presbyterian. p. 6. l. ult. after knowledge, insert,) p. 10. l. 21. r. musis. p. 14. l. 1. r. showeth. p. 16. l. 28. r. wisdemeanors.  
FINIS.