ΝΕΟΦΥΤΟΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΣ, OR, The Youngling Elder, or, Novice-Presbyter.  
Compiled more especially for the Christian Instruction and reducement of William Jenkin, a young Presbyter, lately gone astray like a lost sheep from the ways of Modesty, Conscience and Truth.  
And may indifferently serve for the better Regulation of the ill governed Society of ZION COLLEGE.  
Occasioned by a late importune Pamphlet, published in the name of the said William Jenkin, entitled Ἀλλοτριοεπὶσκοπος; the said Pamphlet containing very little in it, but what is chief reducible to one, or both, of those two unhappy Predicaments of Youth, Ignorance, & Arrogance.  
Clearly demonstrated by I. G. a servant of God and Men in the glorious Gospel of JESUS CHRIST.  
Wherein also the two great Questions, the one, concerning the Foundation of Christian Religion: the other, concerning the power of the Natural Man to good supernatural, are succinctly, yet satisfactorily discussed.  
With a brief Answer in the close, to the frivolous exceptions made by C B. against Zion College visited, in a late trifling Pamphlet, called, Zion College what it is, etc.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not a Novice, lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the Devil, 1 Tim. 3. 6.  
Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses; so do these also resist the truth, men of corrupt minds, etc. But they shall proceed no further: for their [ἄνοια] folly or madness shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was, 2 Tim. 3. 8, 9  
Homo peccatum defendendo, sibi praeponit: sed poenitendo, subjicit. Aug.  
Exultatio praepropera, ruboris plerunque sementis est.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom.  
Quò (moriture) ruis, majoraque viribus audes?  
Fallit te incautum pietas tua. Nec minùs ille Exultat, demens. Virg. Aeneid.  
Printed for Henry Overton in Popes-head-Alley. 1648.   

To the unpartial Reader.  
REader, it was the complaint of a faithful friend and Counsellor unto his Country long since, that what he gave with the right hand, was still taken and received with the left. That great servant and Prophet of God, David, who kept a watch at the door of his lips 
a 〈…〉  and was abundantly cautious not to sin, or offend, with his tongue 
b 〈…〉 , yet met with occasion to take up this complaint against his adversaries, that every day they wrested his words: or (as the original soundeth) they made a kind of labour and toil of it to figure his words: i. to put uncouth and strange constructions upon them. When righteous Lot did but seek to turn his neighbours, the men of Sodom, out of the way of their wickedness, though he attempted it in a most sweet and loving way, I pray you, brethren, (saith he to them) do not so wickedly 
c Gen. 19 7. , they through zeal to their lusts, being impatient of all admonition, fell foul upon him with this answer; Stand back: This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a JUDGE. Now will we deal worse with thee than with them. And they (saith the Text) pressed sore upon the man, even Lot 
d Verse 9 , etc. It is not (I suppose) unknown to thee, how that some few months since, the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Bishop of their souls, was pleased to administer (by the hand of his unworthy and weak servant) a monitory visitation unto some professing themselves his Ministers, who (it seems) stood in eminent need thereof, commonly known by the name of the Society of Zion College. Which Visitation, though administered with all faithfulness and singleness of heart by him, whom the Lord Christ was pleased to use in that service, yet the face of it being set to turn the said men out of those ways of unworthiness, which they have no mind to relinquish, hath so fare provoked them (at least some of them) that in stead of reforming themselves according to the tenor of that visitation, they pour out the 〈◊〉 vials of their wrath and discontent, in most unmanly passion, in most unseemly revile and reproaches, upon that poor instrument of God, who unfeignedly sought their peace and wealth in that administration. It seems they are a generation dreadless of that thunderbolt from heaven, which certainly will strike all dead before it, where ever it falls: He that despiseth you, despiseth me: and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me, Luke 10. 16. Not to mention the expressions that have fallen from others of them in this kind, the unclean vomit of my Allotrioepiscopolian Antagonist alone, is a super-sufficient testimony, how deplorable and sad an effect that visitation hath had upon them; not much differing from that, which the Ministry of the Messengers and Prophets of old, by whose hand God sent to his people, and the CHIEF PRIESTS amongst them, had upon them to whom they were sent; who (as the Text saith) mocked these Messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his Prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy 
c 2 Chron. 36. 14, 15, 16.  When men are resolved to walk in the light of their own eyes, and shall not only reject, but vilify and scorn the admonitions of the Almighty, by what hand soever administered, it is a sign that destruction is coming upon them like an armed man. 
1 Sam. 2. 25.  It is said of Hophni and Phineas the Priests, that they harkened not unto the voice of their Father, because the Lord would slay them. And the sound of that voice of the Lord himself by his Prophet Ezekiel, 
Ezek. 24. 13  is enough to make both the ears of Zion College to tingle: In thy filthiness, is lewdness: because I have purged thee, and thou wast not purged, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthiness any more, till I have caused my fury to rest upon thee. I fear the foundations of this College are not long-lived: the iniquity of the Sons thereof hath already so sorely shaken them.  
Notwithstanding (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to press them beyond the line of their demerit) it seems in their Provincial meeting not long after their visitation, it was prudently, if not piously, and with remorse, resolved upon the Question, that no answer should be given either to Doctor hamond's Book, or mine But as Gehaz● risen up against the spirit of his master Elisha, saying thus in himself, 
2 Kine. 5. 20.  My master hath spared Naaman this Syrian; but as the Lord liveth, I will run after him, and take somewhat of him 
e 〈…〉 : so hath Mr. Jenkin in the vanity and pride of his heart, magnified himself against that Spirit of wisdom and counsel, which spoke in his more advised brethren, and whereunto (according to rule) he ought to have been subject; and as the Jews would needs have Christ crucified, when Pilate had judged him to be delivered 
f Acts 3. 13. : so hath the heart of this young man importuned him to make long furrows of most notorious and importune slanders and reproaches upon my back, when the graver Judicatory had determined mine immunity in that kind, and this (I hope) out of a conscientious sense of my innocency. But, poor man! little doth he know what he hath done, not only to cause his own savour to stink in the eyes of men, but to the further discovering of the nakedness of his brethren also, by tearing that covering, which they had prudently cast over it.  
Turno tempus erit magno cum optaverit emptum,  
Intactum Pallanta, & cum spolia ista, diemque  
Oderit. i.  
The time will come when youthful Turnus shall  
Wish dearly, Pallas ne'er had been encountered;  
And when these trophies and this day he'll call  
The hatred of his soul.  
Nor can I charge all the 52. Ministers of the Diocese or Province of London, whose names were sub-printed, but not sub●scribed, to the late Testimony published in their names; nor do I know how many of them I may truly charge with representing me as a man of Errors upon the Stage: Because it is very possible that those of them, who were the Master-sticklers in the business, & purveyors for subscriptions, (in which meritorious engagement my Antagonist, as it seems by his unparallelled zeal for the vindication of the said Testimony, had the principal hand) might serve many more of the printed subscribers as slippery a trick as they did Mr. Downham one of the gravest and best spirited men amongst them, The legerd● main was this: The Architects of the design, present Mr. Downham with their papers, wherein they had collected and put down in writing only some of the wildest and most absurd opinions, which are now extant in their Testimony, desiring his hand by way of concurrence with them, as intending to testify against them publicly. In this draught which they brought to him, and whereunto they desired and obtained his hand and subscription, there was not the least mention or word of any error of mine, or of Dr hamond's. From whence (by the way) it is observable, how with as little truth, as common sense, or good English (of which afterwards) this young piece of presumption writes thus, pag. 41. In which passage you bring in, AND THAT TRULY, the whole number of 52. as testifying against you, etc. In which words (though not many, as you see, in number) there are two contraries (at least) unto truth. First, that in that passage, wherein I went about to make Testardus my Patron (a passage no where to be found in my book) I speak to the whole College or Covent of 52. There is not a word, syllable, or tittle, of any such address, in that passage, wherein I speak of Testardus. Secondly, that I bring in, and that truly, the number of 52. to testify against me. For I confess, that if I did in this, or any other passage, bring in, or present 52. as testifying against me, I did it not TRULY, (though I presume, pardonably not suspecting forgery in a testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ, especially being a testimony also to our solemn League and Covenant, and this exhibited by so many, calling themselves Ministers of Christ, and these all of them, solemn pretenders to an inviolable observation of this Covenant) because Mr. John Downham whose name they have printed amongst the subscribers, and who is one of the 52, did NOT testify against me; and many more of the 52. might be as innocent as he in this behalf, for aught I know, or have reason now to judge. Are these false-fingred men, these forgers of testimonies, these opprobria & propudia generis humani, the shames and blots of mankind, Mr. Jenkin his reverend and beloved? Very probably they may so be, himself being one, and (its like) the first born of them. But are these the Pastors which the Lord Jesus hath provided after his own heart for his people? No great marvel if the forlorn conscience of this man giveth him full liberty of speaking all manner of evil of me, when at the infinite holiness, the dreadful power, the incomprehensible majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ himself cannot secure him against the reproach of his pen, which not only maketh the vilest of men Pastors of his providing for his people, but also asserteth these for Pastors according to his own heart? But to the story; These Setters having obtained their desires of Mr. Downham in this kind, how honourably (think we) did they reward him for his courtesy? First, they go and foist into that catalogue of errors, which he had subscribed, what sayings and sentences of other men they pleased, without demanding his judgement about them, whether he thought them errors or no Yea (that which was as base an affront as could have lightly been put upon an ancient, reverend, and learned man) they insert in this catalogue, under the name of errors, several passages out of a book of Dr. hamond's, which Mr. Downam himself had licenced but a little before; and so represent him, not only as a man of a desultory and inconsistent judgement in his sedate and best composed years, but also as a man of no more conscience or cordialnes to his friend, than to blow hot & cold with the same breath, to kiss and kill in the same hour. If this be the measure of Zion College to their friends, what may their adversaries expect from them? If this be their oil, what are their swords? Secondly, being conscious (it seems) that they bade abused him, by way of reparation, they make him Captain of their black guard, conferring upon him the ignoble honour of prenomination amongst all their subscribers. Mr. Downham himself related, not without much regret, this unnatural and most unworthy department of his Presbyterian brethren towards him, to another ancient and grave Minister in the City, of his acquaintance. Hem, vosteam fidem, Dii Sinoniam! Tales neanimis coelestibus arts! i. Have heavenly minds such tricks, such frauds as these? Can but such a piece of forgery as this be found in the tents of Independency, how soon should the report of it fill— Solis utramque domum, both houses of the Sun? Presbyterian pens and pulpits would join hand in hand, to provide, that 
Solis ad occasus, Solis caneretur ador●us. i.  
That East and West should ring with the disgrace.   
The story puts me in mind of an old Saw, which cuts well: 
Non audet Stygius Pluto tentare, quod audet  
Effraenis Flamen—  
The Prince himself of the black Stygian lake,  
Dares not attempt, what Priests will undertake.   
But the best is, that our Collegrate sons of Zion do not build up but pull down their College, and de number their Society, by such unhallowed policies and practices, as that lately related. 
Mr. C. Mr. W. etc.  There are other Ministers (I hear) in the City, late of that Consistory, who are resolved that their souls shall no more enter into the secrets thereof. The cage is already so defiled, that the clean birds amongst them begin to loath and forsake it. And indeed it stands all those of this nation in hand, whom either the interest of conscience or of honour toucheth, speedily to quit all communion in counsels and engagements with them. But to return to my Phaethontean Antagonist. I have heretofore had to do with some of the keenest sons of high Presbytery, who (I am certain) bad divisim & conjunctim, more strength of learning in their little finger, than Mr. Jenkin in his whole loins: yet their attempts and writings in the defence of what was indefensible, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
Lie in the dust, as well they did deserve.  Therefore (doubtless) this young man was of no deep reach, to involve himself in the same guilt, & tamen eundem exitum non perhorrescere, and yet not to fear the same issue. But when men have armed themselves with a brow of brass, they make account they are bravely accoutred, sufficiently harnessed for all encounters whatsoever. A breastplate of righteousness upon their adversary, is a very feeble piece of armour in their eyes & the sword of the Spirit glittering in their hand, is esteemed but as stubble and rotten wood. The Apostle Paul served an hard service at Ephesus, when he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fight with beasts, i. with unmanlike, importune, & unreasonable men (as the best exposition carrieth it.) For when men will say unto the Sun, Thou art a sackcloth; and to the stars, ye are but so many clods of earth, and will insult over others as very weak and feeble, who will not judge and say the same things with them, with what discourse can such men be entertained either to conviction, or satisfaction? or how shall they wh● suffer disparagement upon such terms, vindicate themselves in any other way, than by appealing from the phrenetick imputations of these men, to the senses, and common-senses of others, and by delivering up their adversaries to the neglect & scorn of all such, whose reasons, judgements and understandings have not evaporated in pride and vanity? I confess I do not well know how to prove, that the Sun is not a sackcloth, or that the stars are not clods of earth, especially by any such arguments which are like to convince, or to be regarded by him, who indeed judgeth them to be such. And there are several things asserted by me in Zion College visited, and in those passages of mine transcribed in the Testimony, which Mr. Jenkin denies, or cavils at, which I acknowledge are very difficult for me to prove; I mean, by any clearer light, than that wherewith they shine of themselves. If a man will deny that Christus, in Latin, signifies in English, Christ, or that person, God and man, who according to the Scriptures, came to save the world; or that Gentes signifies the Gentiles, or the Nations of the earth, as contra-distinguished to the Jews: or that suaculpâ perire, signifies in English, to perish by a man's own fault, (with many the like) I must profess, that I know not well how to prove them. So again, if a man will deny that twice two makes four, that the Sun is full of light, that sweet things are sweet, that bitter things are bitter, etc. I shall be at a loss to make any substantial demonstration of them, especially to the satisfaction of Mr. Jenkin, or men of the same line of reason and understanding with him. In which respect (Reader) I shall not weary either thee or myself with any solemn or formal confutation of what Mr. Jenkin affirms in opposition to things delivered by me; nor do much more, than only present thee with the ridiculous insolency of his allegations when he argues, with the unconscionablenes of his assertions when he reports; together with the ignorance and unclerklinesse of his exceptions, when he vapours and insults.  
The Lord deliver both thee & me in due time from unreasonable men, and vouchsafe unto us more comfortable employment, than to contend against those, who both speak, and do, as if they had abjured all principles of reason, conscience, and ingenuity.  
From my Study in Colemanstreet, April 6. 1648. Thine to serve thee with all faithfulness and simplicity of heart in the LORD, John Goodwin.   

THE NOVICE-PRESBYTER INSTRUCTED.  
FOR a great part of Mr. Jenkin his Pamphlet, 
Sect. 1.  the constitution and complexion of it, easeth me of the labour of making any Answer, or Reply unto it. For, consisting of such reproaches, vilifications, and disparagements (the madness whereof is sufficiently known unto, & cried out against by all men) I should but actum agere, do that which is abundantly done already to my hand, if I should go about to possess men of sobriety and judgement, with the unfavourinesse thereof. The task whereunto I shall confine myself in this undertaking, is to show my youthful Confidentiary more of himself, than yet he understands; and how fare, even in those things, wherein he most magnifies himself, Reason and Truth are above him. Or if by the Institutes of High-Presbytery it be a thing unlawful for him ever to be wiser than he is, or to see any thing more than what for the present he seethe, than I bequeath this his portion to those, whose Religion prohibiteth them not to GROW in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord JESUS CHRIST.  
For method, 
Sect. 2.  and memory's sake (with the brittleness whereof he upbraideth me, p. 41.) I shall reduce what I judge necessary to animadvert upon his book, to the demonstration of these four capital defects in him: 1. In point of Conscience. 2. Of Learning, or Clerkship. 3. Of Judgement, or Apprehension. 4. (and last) Of Civility, and common Ingenuity. I shall not furnish every of these heads with matter so entirely appropriate unto them respectively, but that some things more directly appertaining to one, will occasionally take their place under another. But this (I conceive) will be no breach of method in the eye of a Reader truly judicious. As for the two middle Deficiencies, the one of Learning, the other of Judgement, were they not accompanied with the other two, I confess I could very willingly gratify his youth with pardon for them. But in what degree soever he is beholding to his years for their mediation for him, in respect of his want of learning, judgement and apprehension, in the same, or greater, he is burdened with them, and rendered inexcusable, under his defect of conscience and ingenuity, For when the light and vigour of conscience, and principles of modesty and ingenuity are so soon extinguished, it is an undeniable sign that men have sinned at so much the higher, and more desperate rate. And very unhappy must needs be the condition of such men, who are charged not only with the inconveniences more appropriate to their own age, or years, but with those also which are more commonly incident to other men's: As when the children of youth shall not only suffer themselves to be filled with vanity, ignorance, and presumption, (the evil spirits which commonly haunt their years) but shall also take unto themselves the worse spirits of malignity, hypocrisy, searedness of conscience, dissimulation of the truth, etc. which do not often find men out, until they be somewhat stricken in year, and grey hairs upon them.  

1. Mr. Jenkin argues himself defective in point of conscience, by these and many such like passages in his Book.  
In his Title page, he calls Zion College 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 himself.  
Though the man speaks these things in good concurrence with my conscience (for I verily believe my writings to be of that sort of weak, 
Sect. 3.  feeble, and despised things, which God hath chosen to confound the things that are mighty,) yet I have cause to think that he speaks 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 believe not.  
For first, is it like that a man of such Seraphical parts and learning, that he is able to instruct the ignorant in the profound speculation of the Quiddity of Manicheisme, whereof Mr. Goodwin, and such Abecedarians as he, is ignorant 
a Busic-Bishop, p. 45, 48, etc. , would so fare undervalue himself, and profane his excellency, as to set himself and all the powers of his wit against that he judgeth VERY FEEBLE?  
Subruere est arces, & stantia moenia virtus:  
Quilibet ignavus praecipitata premit. i.  
Valour, strong castles won, and walls, d'exalt;  
'Tis coward's guise things FEEBLE to assault.  
Secondly, if he judged my Pamphlet so very feeble, why doth he so studiously, amolish, and deprecate of his Reverend Sirs, the suspicion of Ambition, in that he should undertake to answer it 
b Preface. p. 2. ? When an Eagle engageth herself to catch a Fly, hath she cause to fear the imputation of Ambition, because of such an attempt? In this solemn 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 betrays the rottenness of his own conscience in calling that VERY FEEBLE, which he inwardly thinks to be very strong. And whereas he presently adds, that for the most of them to have performed his task, he should have accounted it an act of (not to say too) great condescension: Questionless the condescension in them had been as great, as it would be in the Master-fidlers belonging to a country consort, to excuse the little Boy, and carry the great Fiddle themselves.  
Thirdly (and last) 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 myself, 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 pieces by them; and himself, 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; unless for the staving off of this consequence, Mr. Jenkin will say, that the cause I speak of, is good, but the defenders of it are weak and insufficient. I give him leave to choose his horn; but gored he must be either by the one horn, or the other, of the Dilemma. And for Zion College visited, if this be below myself, it is a sign 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 Busy 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 soul and conscience, he verily believes that the said writing called Zion College 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 cavils against the Ministers of London for witnessing against my errors touching the holy Scriptures, and the power of Man, etc. it argues (in his own metaphor) a crazy conscience. For I never caviled against, nor had any thing to do 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 with any such crime. That which I charged them with, (not caviled against them, for) was unconscionable and indirect dealing with the words & writings of their brethren, who never wronged them, a conspiracy against several truths of God, (bound up indeed in the same bundle with many errors, as Christ was numbered amongst transgressors,) and incensing the Magistrates against thousands that are godly & peaceable in the land, because not of their faction, etc. With these things, and some other of like notorious delinquency with these, I confess 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 easy, 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 hair of his head, towards a manifestation of any impertinency in any of my quotations he speaks of? Or if he understand not what the impertinency of a quotation meaneth, or wherein it consists, let this note serve under the third head, and prove him debile or crazy 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 nakedness of an Author, to present him as contradictious to himself. Nor is there any practice or course more ready and direct, to enervate, cancel, and dissolve the interest of all humane Authority whatsoever, and to render all Authors, but as so many cyphers in matters of religion, than to expose the unstableness 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 go on in this course I shall rather give him the encouragement of 
Macte nova virtute, puer.  
Brave youth, advance in this new valour thine.   
For by this means he will help to tear 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 clear 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 greatness 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 hearty 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 only their arguments and reasons might be actors. And whereas the young man, (p. 41.) either very ignorantly, or (which is worse) very contraconscientiously, chargeth me with going about to make Testardus my Patron; And p. 44. with bringing Mr. Bucer, and Mr. Ball to bless me. And again, that I come to the Fathers for patronage (which is his Coccysme, or Cuckow-note, that he sings ten times over.) I must tell him, for his learning in these say, he (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 Authors, having commonly no better pillars to support the Pile and Fabric of their judgements, than flesh and blood; therefore he conceiteth that all other men, who make use of Authors, do it upon the same terms, and ground. But when the Lord Christ cited the testimony of John the Baptist, in the behalf of himself, and that Doctrine of his, wherein he avouched himself the true Messiah and Son of God, did he go about to make him a Patron, either to himself or his Doctrine? Nay, doth he not expressly disclaim any such thought or intention as this, in these words, I receive not testimony from man 
a John 5. 34. , and as expressly 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 foreign 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 partial, froward, and engaged men as they were (for he speaks unto the Jews,) might have the advantage of a testimony more creditable with them, to be convinced of, and believe that, which was so necessary to be believed by them, for their salvation. In like manner, the reason why I quote either Testardus, or Hierome, or Austin, or any other Author, 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 conceived 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 fears, by a conjunction of humane Authority; but that M. Jenkin, & such as lie under the same disadvantage with him, for discerning and believing 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 reciprocal vote amongst themselves, do not call such with them, might have a sustentory, or encouragement suitable to their weakness in this kind, and not be afraid of Truth, as of an unclean clean spirit, for want of flesh and bones. Therefore when he speaks 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 means, a contrariety of sense, or import, to somewhat which the same Author affirmeth or denieth elsewhere, 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 do I, either in Zion College 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 himself 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 confess 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, he means the Impertinency of them in respect of the actual 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 confess (as touching himself) he hath sufficiently manifested this Impertinency in them, by declaring himself 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 he conceived 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 signify, true, but hypocritical, righteousness; or that anterevelatum eye Christum, doth not signify, 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 Sparrows sold for a farthing? or something as extravagant, 〈◊〉 noramus-like, as this, or other things of everyhwit as difficult 〈◊〉 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 fair interpretation of his words, that the IMPERTINENCY of my quotations (i. all the IMPERTINENCY that is in them, which indeed is none at all) is manifested in his Busie-Bishop: for in this sense (I confess) the IMPERTINENCY of them, is here manifested: 1. there is no more IMPERTINENCY in them, than what is by him manifested, which (as was said) is none at all: or else, with this penitent confession, that he dealt unkindly by his Conscience, when he talked of IMPERTINENCY 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 sense at the strong Arguments of his Book are answered in the Title page of mine, so are my cavils against the Mistress 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 employment in my Book for his Busie-Bishop to meddle with.  
Amongst many other causeless and senseless revile of me, 
Sect. 7.  wherein he comforts himself 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 himself (with his Father's house) was the man who indeed and in truth was the troubler thereof, Elijah being the Chariot and Horsemen of Israel. I have not troubled Israel (saith Elijah to him) but thou & thy Father's House 
a 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 himself deceived the people. Others said, nay: but he deceiveth the people 
b Joh. 7. 2. . These obstinate and blind Jews 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 son of shame, wilfulness 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, a justifying, a magnifying, an exalting of Christ in them. It was the expression of a man, as eminent both for piety, parts, and place, as either of our Universities afford, and not of the abhorred order of Independency neither (as his preferment sufficiently testifieth,) finding me charged by the testimony-mongers of Zion College, with the foul crime of denying the authority of the Scriptures, & having seen my tractate upon that subject, that he wondered 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 we are fallen into times wherein men dare do and say any thing. Words of like import have come from several 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 Compeers, who burden 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, sweetness and bounty of God, expressed in the Scriptures towards men, into the similitude of the most unnatural, unreasonable, unconscionable cruelty and bloodthirstiness of a tyrant, and withal represent Christ as the Image and Express Character of this God, do 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 accessary to his disgrace, and to the misrepresentation of him in the minds, judgements, and consciences of men; as if all the love, care, bowels, and compassions which he bore towards fare the greatest part of them in his death, being interpreted, were nothing else but bloody purposes, intentions, & desires, to make them twofold more the children of wrath, and this to the days 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 eternal life and salvation settled 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 form 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 obloquy and reproach unto God, and destructive to his glory. But with what authority, and sovereignty 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 marvel if one conscience affords them both. But why, or how, do 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 do. Certainly the conscience of the man (if it be not amongst Rachel's children 
a 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 himself and his mates, who tremble not to inform 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 only excepted) with the iron bears of an ireversible, indispensable decree, and this without any regard and consideration had, either to, or of, their obduration, impenitence, or unbelief: 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 fare greatest part of them slaves, yea and to put some as soon as they should be borne; others not many years after, to a most cruel, shameful, 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 engagement.  
But it may be this swelling piece 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 somewhat mend his market. But as to matters of proof (truly so called) the great Gingler otherwise, is as well in this, as in other his undertake 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 nature, and the efficacy of grace, it will appear, 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 shall 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 ways 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 Master's greatest concernments? yea, I verily believe, 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 Zion College, & 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 misled followers (because led out of the broad way of High-Presbytery) is like that of Moses to the people, that they would departed from the tents of this man. Mr. Jenkin in this profession, hath charged himself 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 departed from my tents. He tells me of three or four profanations of Scripture 
a Page 59 : But he that profanes Scripture himself, as Mr. Jenkin doth, more than three or four times in his Busie-Bishop, is a very incompetent judge of this misdemeanour in others. But to levy the Scriptures against any principle, or practice in High-Presbytery, or Presbyterians, must by the decisive authority of this young Dictator, needs be a profanation of them.  
He further requests them, 
Sect. 12.  that they would not feed upon chalk and coals in corners. I make no question but the persons he means will gratify him in this request, with an overplus: and that they will take heed of feeding upon such stuff as he speaks off, either in corners, or in more open places. It is well known that there is more Chalk and Coals about Christ-church, than is to be 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) means, he or they, or both, shall do well to prove them Pastors according to the heart of Jesus Christ: for their spirit, ways, 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 do but imitate St. Paul, who in time came to build up that faith, which sometimes he destroyed 
b Gal. 1. 23. . It seems it is a law in High-Presbytery, that that which is crooked, must never be made strait, nor that which is turned out of the way, ever be healed: or else that this Government is built of Irish Oak, 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 himself for being more bountiful to me, 
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 scandalised, or offended: the reason whereof is, because they know that there are wolves in sheep's clothing, as well as in their own skins: and that there is no unworthy, impious, or abominable thing whatsoever, but there is vileness and wickedness enough in some proffessing Christian Religion, to perpetrate and do 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 mind or affections, when such things come to pass, which to others, who are ignorant of the causes producing them, are like to occasion disturbance and offence. I make no question but my followers fully know, that Mr. Jenkin, before this, might have, & that now, he (indeed) hath pride, ignorance, & wickedness in him every ways sufficient, to exhibit and afford, all that acrimony he speaks 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 be affected with sorrow & grief of heart, to see a young man by the just judgement of God, turned into a pillar of such unsavoury salt. For what is that acrimony he speaks of, or what are the ingredients of it, but affectate jeers, childish ventosities & puffs of wit, charges made of most notorious, palpable, and broad-faced untruths, senseless 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 revile, diabolical slanders, etc. 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 less than I deserved. For can any man, whatsoever his demerit, or crimes be, deserve to make another man sinful, or wicked? Doth the Devil himself 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 Archangels. But this Mancipium of absurdities, and all manner of illiterateness, that in matters of Scholarship, regular and manlike learning, scarce knows his right hand from his left, will yet ever and anon be perking up into Aristarchus his chair, 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 only present the Reader with a catalogue of some of those many broad-faced and shameless untruths (with a brief eviction annexed unto them respectively) together with some other strains 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 putrid slanders and untruths) in the very first half page of his book. 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 of my book, I lay Religion among the clods. 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 half 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-mouthed, unmanly, and most unchristian speeches against the Parliament and Army, which (as the Pulpit-Incendiary informs the world) have been the devout orisons, and pious ejaculations of the circumforaneous tribe of our morning Lecturers? I confess, 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 voice 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 nonsense, 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 nonsense, are as regular, proper, and significant, as the English tongue will bear; and those which (novice-like) he would substitute in their place, are merely barbarous, making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an absurd sollecisme, (as we shall, God willing, show 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 Zion College visited, I give them as friendly & faithful counsel as himself 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 affirms, that I say, That the Ministers of the Gospel, are ONLY so reputed by men, for want of knowing and considering better; whereas my words are clearly of another tenor, tendency, and import: nor do I so much as speak of the Ministers of the Gospel (truly so called) but only of such, who not being such, notwithstanding assume the title and dignity of being such, unto themselves, and receive it accordingly from inconsiderate men. And besides, the word ONLY is here falsely foisted in; he finds no such word amongst those of mine, which he pretends to cite. Secondly, he affirms that I say, that they (the Ministers of the Gospel) have vested themselves with the privilege 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 privilege: nor 2. do 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 less. Therefore the two abominable falsities he speaks of, are his own, not mine.  
Page 3. 
Sect. 17.  Fearing (it should seem) that he might want variety of falsities to fill the mouth of his Busie-Bishop, he again chargeth me with saying, The Ministers have vested themselves with the privilege of the Church, etc. Let him show me these words in my book, and I shall discharge him of the Whetstone. Page 4. he saith, that the design of my deluded followers, is to raze and level the Church of Christ, and to preach as well as John Goodwin (as indeed they may soon do.) 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 rejoice if the thing might come to pass before the morrow next. It seems your prayer is, that your followers may never be able to preach, as well as you: you are a mountain, and therefore afraid of levelling. But why must it needs be one and the same design, to raze, and to level 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 
a Numb 11. 29 , was his design, 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 
b Esay 40. 4. : did he prophesy of the destruction, or razing of the Church of Christ, or of the exaltation and glory of it? Questionless the raising and lifting up of the weaker members of the Church, in gifts and spiritual endowments, to the line and level of those that are strong, would be so fare from razing the Church of Christ, that it would gird her with strength, and be a beautiful crown upon her head. But it is plain, that by, the Church of Christ, Mr. Jenkin (according to the old Pontificial, and Pontifical notion) means the Clergy: and makes account that if their interest, or honour be impaired, the Church must needs fall. Notwithstanding whereas he saith, that the design of my deluded followers, is to raze, etc. if his meaning could be excused, his words were innocent, (the crime of idleness only 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 air.  
Page 4. 
Sect. 18.  He chargeth me with striking at the Pillar [meaning the Ministers of Zion College] 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 himself, 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 Zion College? Or doth Mr. Jenkin think, that the Doctrine of salvation is supported by Zion College, and must needs fall to the ground, if this should sink, or fall? If this be the thought of his heart, I profess 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 he speaks 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 near unto any of them. I never looked upon the Doctrine of Salvation, as depending or hanging on Zion College. But had he charged me with striking at the pillar, only 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 Zion College, and would (I believe) soon fall to the ground, if this pillar were removed, was the very reason indeed why I struck at the pillar. Nor do I know any other Gospel but this, or some like unto it, that in deed and in truth, hangs upon the pillar of Zion College.  
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 Nebuchadnezars. Shameless young man! What? because the Ministers he speaks of, are indeed blasted, must it needs be by the Title of murderous Nebuchadnezars given unto them? and this by me? This is another false and forged accusation against me: I no where call them, murderous Nebuchadnezars. Howsoever, it is not I, nor any man else, that could blast them with any title, or titles whatsoever, 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 Nebuchadnezars prerogative, etc. he basely fallifies: I speak not this of the Ministers of the Gospel; I verily believe, that no men of this interest and capacity, will claim any such prerogative, as there I speak of; my charge is laid only against such men, who call themselves Ministers of the Gospel, but are not.  
Page 6. 
Sect. 20.  He chargeth me, that when I writ, I am always in the clouds. But if so, how then come I to strike at the pillar of Zion College? Is Zion College also in the clouds? I fear rather among the Clods. But if I be always in the clouds when I writ, 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 
a Psa. 68 34. . I confess that when I writ, I find and feel the strength of God near unto me, and with me. I am content to bear the reproach of my habitation, for the accommodation of my company. But take Mr. Jenkin in his notion of my being always in the clouds when I writ, I wonder who shall mediate between that assertion of his in his Preface, where he saith of my last piece (Zion College visited) that it was beneath myself, & this, of my being always, when I writ, in the clouds? Certainly there is nothing that can make peace between these two, but only this supposition, that in all my former writings, I was in the heavens; and that in the last, I fell no lower, nor nearer to the earth: than the clouds. And in the clouds (I acknowledge) that sometimes I am, when I writ, viz. relatively, (I mean, with reference to Mr. Jenkin, and men of his line of understanding) especially when I express any thing in significant and proper English, which lies a little out of the road of A. B. C. At such turn as these, Mr. Jenkin is fain to pull me down 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 affirms, 
Sect. 21.  that many know, that I have more heresies and errors met me, than are dispersed among some THOUSANDS 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 always ready and willing to submit my judgement, to such Arguments for my conviction, of the weakness and insufficiency whereof I am not able to give a fair and reasonable account (though I confess there is somewhat short of this, which yet in true account is sufficient to exempt from the imputation of heresy.) But as for errors, I confess there may be more in me, than are dispersed among ten thousand [sheep & oxen] but that one Wil Jenkin hath not double and triple my proportion in this black coin, I know that there is neither man under heaven nor Angel in heaven, that knoweth, or is able to demonstrate. And when (page 7.) he chargeth it for a passage, as pernicious, 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 inexpediency in my departure from you. As for these words and phrases which he interfoysts, followers, when I am gone, amongst them, etc. they are not where to be 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 dropped from my Pen, why, or how, or wherein, would it have been either pernicious, or proud? Doth M. Jenkin judge it pernicious 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 pernicious endeavour in him, to propagate it amongst his people. Certain I am, that it becomes every Shepherd 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 chief; 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 ways. What? A Seducer in chief, and no intellect? A Seducer in chief, and yet his chief writings below the most? Happy sure is the condition of the world in Mr. Jenkins days, when the chief seducer in it is a man of a despicable and depressed intellect. Is 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 chief, when he had proved, that I had seduced more, than any of the practitioners belonging to Zion College.  
Page 8. His face and conscience (it seems) like Simeon and Levi, 
Sect. 23.  took a shameless and sinful boldness together, to affirm, that it was my aim (in a place in Hagiom) to prove him guiltless, who denieth the Being of the Scriptures; and yet in the words immediately preceding, he saith, that it is most like, that in the place he meaneth, I deal 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 persuaded, that hardly can an instance (ab orbe condito) be given, that so green a head, and so black a mouth, ever met so near together before. Page 9 he chargeth me, with throwing off the Covenant in my life. I confess I have not observed it with that exactness, 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 Privileges 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, less had been taught contrary to sound Doctrine, and the power of Godliness, 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's against the servants of God in zeal 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 ears 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 do 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 talk aloud of 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 fare overseen, as to let a page pass sine calumnia, he remembers himself, p. 11. and forgeth this slander, that I plead for the covenant only 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 equal in knowledge with God; he presumes to know, what God knoweth not. In the same page he strikes the same false stroke again, and affirmeth, that I dare not come near an expression of dislike to errors, by twelve score; when as himself in the beginning of the same period, had acknowledged, that I tell the world, that errors are a great grief to my heart, and that I oppose them in my Ministry. 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 do 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 Minister's branding Gods Truths, 
Sect. 25.  & Satan's 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 youthful 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 doubtful whether those damnable errors and heresies be such, or no: be Sceptics, Seekers, etc. Was the man ever cut out for an Interprer, either of the word of God, or of Men, who so frequently misuseth the mind 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, bid them be doubtful whether damnable errors, and heresies, be such or no? Is not this rather the Spirit, and clear 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 be so? and which, for aught that appears to men as learned, as apprehensive, as judicious, as conscientious every whit as yourselves, to the contrary, may be the sacred truths of God? By Mr. Jenkins logic, whosoever doth not judge himself to be infallible, and this in the most profound and disputable matters in Religion, ipso facto, (or non facto, rather) turns Sceptic, Seeker, etc. 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 die for them; and yet not necessarily judge themselves infallible: will Mr. Jenkin call such Skeptics, or Seekers? If he will, what Sect shall we find to give a denomination unto him, whose establishment in matters of Religion, notwithstanding his importune claim of infallibility, will not (I fear) amount to the value or worth of such a resolution. But (it seems) all counsel and advice to mature consideration, though in matters of the greatest consequence, and most dreadful importance under heaven, is to Mr. Jenkin as the shadow of death, and the great abhorring of his soul. Youth, and the fifth rib of Religion, when they meet, make (I see) a fiery conjunction.  
REader, 
Sect. 26.  I make no question but thy conscience is before this satisfied about the vileness and wretchedness of the conscience of Mr Vicars his Pastor, and my Persecutor; yet have I present thee but with a first fruits only of his base unworthiness. 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 senseless grounds, occasions, and pretences, that lightly can be imagined. He seldom transcribes any of my words, but he imbaseth them with some allay or other of his own. Confident I am, that never did any Minister of Christ, vastare conscientiam, make so much waste of conscience within so short a time, and narrow compass of occasion, as Mr. Jenkin hath done in this daring, and heaven-affronting piece of portentous insolency, and impiety, entitled, The busy Bishop. However, I shall not weary the Reader, or myself, with tracing him any further by the foot steps of an evil 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 been pleased to make erroneous, whether the Doctrines themselves will or no, and which were the principal (and upon the matter) the only engagers of me to this Answer, fall under the second head, I must crave the Readers patience and leave, to enlarge myself a little more herein, than in the former; but withal shall make ample satisfaction, by contracting myself in the other two.   

2. Mr. Jenkin demonstrates himself defective in Clerk-ship, and matter of learning, in these passages, with their fellows.  
To prove that my rage (in his rhetoric) against Christ's Ministers and Government, 
Sect. 27.  reacheth up to heaven, he appeals to these words of mine, which yet as he hath jumbled them, are more his than mine. The best success, which with any colour of truth we can entitle the Presbyterian government unto, is to snip and keep under thriving branches. Upon these words out of his profound learning, he distinguisheth thus: I know he means not branches that thrive in heresies, but clearly intends such branches, as thrive in holiness.  
In this division or distinction of thriving branches, making some to thrive in heresies, others in holiness, and concluding, that because I do not mean 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 Reverend Ministers in the City, Mr. Jenkin doth not mean the Independendent Ministers: therefore he means my Lord Major's Officers, or the Ministers of civil Justice in the City. For is there no thriving, but either in Heresy, or in Holiness? Doth not Mr. Jenkin think that it is POSSIBLE a man may thrive in learning, judgement 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 Heresy, or in Holiness, who thrives in any of these? But this is the line of reason, which our young Metropolitan Visitor hath stretched over his Busy Bishop, from the one end to the other.  
Before we leave this, 
Sect. 28.  I would gladly demand of the learning of the man, what rage it is against Christ's, either Ministers, or Government, to say, that the best success of Presbyterian government (or the government which the Subscribers approve of, as himself more truly expresseth my meaning, this government not being simply Presbyterian, but high- Presbyterian, or Metropolitanicall) that the best success of it is to snip and keep under thriving branches; suppose it should be meant of branches thriving in Holiness? What communion (saith the Apostle) hath light with darkness? or righteousness with unrighteousness? Cannot a man call a spade, a spade, but he must needs rage's against the mattock? Or cannot a man charge darkness with misdemeanours and many evil 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 mischiefs, but he must presently rage's against the Government of Christ? Would a man think that such a Consequentiary as this, should offer to engage in the profound disputes about the efficacy of Grace, and the liberty or power of the will? yes, why not as well as Phaethon undertook to drive his Father's Chariot.  
Quem si non tenuit, magnis tamen excidit ausis.  
Which how to manage though he could not tell,  
Yet brave was the attempt from which he fell.  
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 learn modesty: to the latter, to be taught the rudiments of learning and discourse.  
Having so demonstratively proved my rage reaching up to heaven against Christ's Ministers and Government (as you have heard) he conceives this cordial 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 Metropolitical visitation? Or was it not the manner of the Archprelates and their Commissioners (to amuse the poor ignorant people with the profoundness and solemnity 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 heinous 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 schismatical practices, by their disobedience unto those Rulers and Governors which he had set over them, etc.  
Nec lacte lacti, nec ovum ovo similius.  
Betwixt milk, and milk, the likeness is not greater,  
Nor egg to egg more parallel in feature.  
Then Mr. Jenkin's devotion in this, and other places of his book, is to that of our late Prelacy, 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 Prelatical 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 bless them altogether. If they suffer by it, they may thank the pride and stiffness of their own necks, which will not stoop to the yoke of sound counsel, or a through Admonition. But for the book, whatsoever now they suffer from it, they have only some such cause of complaint against it, as they have against that cornerstone which God hath laid in Zion, who by stubbornness, impenitency, and unbelief, dash themselves in pieces against it. As for his intituling Jesus Christ to the pre-eminence of martyrdom amongst them, it is but a strain of Rabshekah his rhetoric of old, who went about to persuade the people, that what Hezekiah had done with special acceptation from God, in taking away the Idolatrous Altar and high places, was matter of deep provocation in his sight 
a Isa. 36. 7. , and that God was a loser, or sufferer thereby.  
His second proof of that sore rage of mine (which you heard of) against Christ in his Ministry and Government, 
Sect. 30.  is, that I say, concerning the Reverend Ministers of Christ in the City, that they foment dion, multiply distractions, obstruct the quiet composure and settling of things in the Land, etc. I answer.  
1ᵒ. That I speak no such words as these concerning any Reverend 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 God's 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 
b Acts 23. 3. . Concerning some Ministers in the City, I confess I spoke those words: but that I spoke them concerning the Reverend Ministers of Christ in the City, 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.  
2ᵒ. For the truth of the words, applied to those, of whom they were spoken and meant, I appeal to ten parts of twelve, throughout the Kingdom, viz. whether the Ministers of Sion-Colledge, amongst them (for of all of them the words were neither spoken, nor meant) do not foment divisions, multiply distractions, obstruct the quiet composure of things amongst us. So that thus fare here is no rage reaching up to heaven proved in opposing Christ, either in his Ministers or government. It is a certain rule: that Christ is never opposed with truth.  
Whereas he adds, that, the genuine paraphrase is, the Ministers are the Troublers, and Traitors of the Kingdom; I wish, that if this be the paraphrase, it be not too genuine to the original Text. I hear a bird (called, the Pulpit-Incendiary) sing a note very near to the old doleful tune, By Clergymen we are undone.  
Whereas I add, 
Sect. 31.  and Mr. Jenkin repeats; and recompense 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 think not, nor perhaps half 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 he adds (with much seeming regret) as if those words of mine did imply, that all their labours, though never so successful in converting, or building up of souls, amount not to any considerable good; I clearly answer, that for all the success, either in converting of souls (except it hath been from God and godnnesse, unto the power of Satan) and so for building up of souls (except it hath been in wrath and disaffection, against the Parliament, Army, and faithful 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 passed (for I speak of the unprofitableness and uselessness of their Ministry only since the zeal of high Presbytery eat them up, as my words clearly enough import) I am very full of a rational 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 meet 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 aim at. Let that writing of mine he speaks of, be examined and sifted to the bran, let my scope, drift, aim, end, design therein be calculated by the narrowest and most exact observations; and it will clearly appear, that I aim at nothing, but the breaking of the neck of high-Presbytery. Indeed, if this Presbytery be the fifth rib of Mr. Jenkin his religion, I confess, I did aim at his fifth rib, and gave her a soar bang (I believe) upon it. But did Mr. Jenkin gather this Rhetorical flower in Mr. Vicar's garden? Or what acquaint Author furnished his pen with such an Elegancy as this, to call the great interest of Zion College (domineering Presbytery I mean) the fifth rib of Religion? But I am so taken with the pleasantness and rarity of the resemblance, that I shall hereafter (in this discourse) forbear the dull Grammar expression of High Presbytery, and use the Rhetorical 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 mere Braggadoch) is the English of these words, in terminis, his own, viz. Questionless no writing whatsoever, whether Translations or Originals, are the foundation of Christian Religion; And upon the only repetition of these words, as if the battle were fought, the day won, and nothing more to be said in the business, he be-zeales it thus Away with your hypocryticall exclamations against the enemies of Religion, etc. 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 witness (saith the Priest?) What else is the English of these words (saith Mr. Jenkin?) The High Priest in a devout detestation of our Saviour's blasphemy (as he must award it) rend his clothes: Mr. Jenkin in a zealous agony for my denying the Scripture, cries ou●, Away with your hypocritical exclamations, etc.  
Sio oculos, sic ille manus, sic or a ferebat. i.  
Just so, and so, with eyes, hands, face, he acted.  
But before my friend William and I part at this turning, I shall either make him as heretical as myself in denying the Scriptures to be the foundation of Religion, 
Sect. 34.  or else prove his wits to be as schismatical, 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 of Christian Religion, only denying them to be such in the other, this unhallowed piece of Presbytery wholly suppresseth & concealeth my distinction; and what I deny only 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, affirm and avouch the Scriptures to be of Divine Authority, to be the Word of God, and consequently the foundation of Christian Religion, I appeal 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 Canonical, I fully, with all my heart, and all my soul, believe them to be of Divine Authority, and none other than the word of God: and (God assisting) shall rather expose myself to a thousand deaths, than deny them so to be. Can any man, yea can Mr. Jenkin himself, in words more perspicuous and plain, assert his acknowledgement and belief 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 only upon the authority, credit, or base, of such an argumentation as this. God hath taken a course that we might serve him without fear (as is evident, Luke 1. 74.) therefore he hath taken a course that we should not fear him at all, or in any signification of the word, Fear: which conclusion is diametrally opposite to the whole course and current of the Scripture, and no ways follows from the premises. In like manner, he that should infer, because it is said (1 Sam. 15. 29.) that the strength of Israel (meaning God) is not a man that he should repent, that therefore GOD can in no sense repent, should belie the holy Ghost, who expressly saith (Genes. 6. 6.) that it repent the Lord that he had made man on the earth: yea and God himself, 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 wooden Horse made for unruly Soldiers to ride, to be a living creature: therefore he denies an horse simply and in every signification of the word, to be a living creatures; might not Mr. Jenkin conclude me to be a Wooden Disputant? Yet this is the Logic by which he proves that I deny the Scripture to be the foundation of Religion.  
Secondly, 
Sect. 35.  when Austin, Mr. Bucer, Mr. Ball, etc. deliver themselves in one place (at least seemingly, and so fare as the letter of the words they use, will bear) for such an opinion, which the general tenor to nor of their writings elsewhere seem to oppose, how impatiently importune is Mr. Jenkin, to have the sense of the particular place overruled and interpreted, by the Analogy of what he conceives to be their judgement elsewhere? Why then, in as much as he can produce but one place only, 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 design in the whole Treatise, to prove them to be such; why (I say) doth he not regulate and measure the sense of that one place, by the constant and express 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 sense, wherein I do 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 express myself thus, p. 15. of the said Discourse. Though I do not believe that any Original 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 believe that the providence of God, and the love which he bears to his own glory, as well in the condemnation of the wicked and unbelievers, as in the salvation of his chosen, have so fare interposed and watched over the great and gracious Discovery and Revelation which he hath made of himself 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 kind, 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 known, 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 appears, 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?  
Fourthly, 
Sect. 37.  concerning my said opinion, for which I bear the calumniatory charge of Mr. Jenkins pen, I writ 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 book, or books, 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 jesus Christ, which indeed are represented, and declared, both in Translations and Originals; but are essentially and really distinct from both, and no ways, for their Natures & Being's, depending on either. Why then did not M. jenkin, 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 impossible for any man to know what mine opinion was in this behalf? 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 essential 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 mean 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 jesus Christ, which are contained and represented in them; this being an essential ingredient also in that opinion of mine? but it may be the fifth rib of Mr. jenkin's 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 Academic, contrary to the principles of Logic, and all regular Argumentation, yea, in full conformity with the weakness of illiterate Disputers, deny the conclusion, without denying or answering any thing at all to the premises? I lay down several Arguments, and Grounds of Reason, to prove the Scripture not to be the foundation of Religion (in the sense 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, required the Anomaly of these proceed at his hand. But  
Sixthly, 
Sect. 39  doth not himself distinguish (p. 7.) and affirm, 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 only foundation in point of mediation: and the Scripture in point of manifestation and discovery? Hath the man a Fungus a Mushroom, in stead of caput humanum, upon his shoulders, to quarrel with me for denying (in a sense) the Scriptures to be the foundation of Religion, and yet to deny as much himself? Or did I ever, or do 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 confess, 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 styling of Prerbytery the fifth rib of Religion. For can he that only manifests, makes known and discovers unto me, where such, or such an house, or town, 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 feebleness of Zion College visited: is he therefore the foundation, either of the book, or of the supposed (or rather, pretended) feebleness, which he discovers? But to affirm (as he doth) the Scripture to be the only foundation of Religion, in point of manifestation and discovery, is not only absurdum absurdo absurdius, but most Atheological 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 books 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 days of Noah, 
* Pet. 3. 19, 20.  etc. Certainly the Scriptures were not extant in the days of Noah; Moses (who was born divers hundreds of years after) being the first Penman of them. Yet Christ by his Spirit even then preached unto men. Did he preach without manifesting or discovering himself, 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 days of Noah manifest and discover himself to the 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 penmen 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 allege 1 Cor. 3. 11. Other foundation, etc. to prove that Christ is the only foundation, if I do not ground my knowledge and belief hereof upon this place, I desire to require his kindness with this demand of him: why did our Saviour Christ cite the testimony of John to prove himself to be the Messiah 
b John 5. 32. 33, 34. , if he did not ground his knowledge & belief of his being the Messiah, upon John's testimony? One good turn (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 mean time what if I should prevent him with this answer, that I do ground my knowledge and belief of Christ's being the only foundation, upon 1 Cor. 3. 11? What follows from hence? That I acknowledge the Scriptures to be (in a regular sense) the foundation of Christian Religion? Poor man! when did I ever deny it. My discourse of the Scriptures is (as hath been lately proved) full of this assertion. If any thing follows besides this, narra mi fili, fili mi Batte. Had not the man now (think we) a sore temptation upon him to foam out his own shame in this most insufferably- Thrasonical demand: Is it possible that the known distinction of essendi, & cognoscendi, principium, quod, et quo, or a foundation personal and scriptural, should be hid from this seducer in chief? I confess Mr. Jenkin is in no danger of being a Seducer in chief (unless his wits and intellectuals miraculously advance) except it be of, or amongst, such a generation of men and women, as Peter resembleth to natural bruit beasts, made to be taken and destroyed 
a 2 Pet. 2. 22. , or Solomon's simple ones, whose character is, to believe every thing 
b 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 affirms 
c 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 himself (as we heard just now) opposeth foundations personal, to foundations scriptural? What is this but to oppose Christ and 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 essential or substantial 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 aught to be, an opposition? And for his known distinction of essendi, & cognoscendi, which he so much wonders should be hid from me, he is desired in his next to produce any classic Author that ever used it, but himself. The complexion of it is, as if it were of the house and lineage of Mr. Jenkins learning. I confess there is difference enough to make a distinction, between esse, and cognoscere; witness Mr. Jenkin himself, who hath a tall man's portion in the one, but scarce a child's 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 Error, by these arguments.  
First, If Religion was founded, built, stood firm 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 mean the Book, or books, commonly known by this Name amongst us, wherein 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 himself, unto the first writers, or penmen of them.  
By the foundation of Religion, we mean (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. jenkin means any thing else either by Scriptures, or by his foundation of Religion, I must excuse him from blaming, or meddling 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 sake) I desire the Reader, if unsatisfied in this point, to inquire 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 book, or books whatsoever under heaven, and consequently not the Scriptures themselves, be this foundation.  
But the foundation of Religion (truly and properly so called) is unperishable, etc. Ergo.  
The Consequence in the Major Proposition, is evident: because any book, all books whatsoever, are perishable, may be burnt or consumed by fire, or miscarry by many other casualties, that may possibly befall them.  
The Minor Proposition stands firm upon this bottom: 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, be unperishable, and which cannot be prevailed against, to ruin 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 thiefs 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 itself, 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 throws him in amongst some of Plato's Scholars, 
Ecce hominem Platonicum.  wishing them to behold their Master Plato his Man. If some such odd-conceited fellow as Diogenes, should use means to get Mr. Jenkin his Bible, and having defaced, rend and torn it, should come and cast it into the midst of his Auditors, with this Elegy, Ecce fundamentum religionis Jenkinianae, Behold the goodly foundation of the religion of your Master Jenkin, it might prove a more effectual conviction unto him of his folly, than seven demonstrative reasons administered by a more sober man.  
Thirdly, If any book, or books 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.  
But Religion cannot truly and properly be said to have been founded by men, but by God. Ergo.  
If Mr. Jenkin will deny the Assumption, at the peril, 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 books, 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 material, was built and formed, 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 man's hand, or other. If Mr. Jenkin hath a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Bible that fell out of heaven, written, or printed without hands, he is desired to produce it for the accommodation of the world. Yet he must know, that though he could produce such a Bible, or copy 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 himself, 
a Exo. 24. 12. 32, 16.  were not the foundation of this law, nor of the obedience exhibited unto it, than neither is any Bible or Book whatsoever, the foundation of Religion.  
But the Tables of stone written immediately by God himself, 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 
b Exod. 32. 19 , and yet the law stood firm, and obedience hath been given unto it until this day.  
The Consequence in the Major cannot reasonably be doubted or denied. For doubtless there is as much, (if not much more) reason, to judge those two Tables, which are said to have been the work of God, & the writing in them, the writing of God graven upon the Tables 
c 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 considering 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: yea and (doubtless) would be made, if there were any just occasion, or necessity for it.  
Fifthly, 
Sect. 44  If any book, or books 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 itself. 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 Press, some such error may be found in every copy of the Scriptures now extant in the world, which will render this copy contradictious to itself; 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 itself. Ergo. If this Proposition be obnoxious, the true and proper foundation of Religion must be divided in, and against itself: and how then (according to our Saviour's own Maxim and Rule, Matth. 12. 25.) can either it, or the Religion built upon it, stand?  
Sixthly, 
Sect. 45.  If any book or books, Bible, or other, be 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, unless 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 spiritual, and apprehensible only 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 believed 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 believes or builds upon, the true and proper foundation of Religion, (questionless) is truly religious. But men are not made truly religious by believing only 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 believed 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, only by looking into a Bible, seeing what is there written, or printed, and by believing that what he sees there written, or printed, is indeed there written or printed accordingly, Mr. Jenkin hath small reason to deny, but that a Natural man hath power to supernatural good; at least if he judgeth true religion to be such.  
Seventhly, 
Sect. 46.  the true and proper foundation of Religion is intrinsically, 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 intrinsically, & 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 himself, unchangeable, unalterable by Men, Angels, Devils, or any creature whatsoever: yea God himself cannot alter it, any whit more than deny himself, or change his own Nature or Being.  
For the Minor, that also is no less evident: Experience teacheth us, that books, or Bibles themselves, are de facto changed and altered by men from time to time; every new Edition, or Impression (almost) commending itself 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 last) If the Bible, 
Sect. 47.  or Scripture (in the sense formerly explained) be the true and proper foundation of Religion, it must be understood and meant, either of the Bible and Scriptures, as in the Original languages only, or only as translated into other languages, or as both.  
But it is neither true, that the Bible or Scriptures in the Original languages only, nor only 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 only as they are in the original languages, than 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 speak of, only as translated into other languages; than it is alike impossible, that any Jew, or Grecian, who understands only the language wherein he was born, should become truly religious.  
Thirdly (and last) if they he this foundation, in both the said considerations and respects, or as well in the one, as the other, indifferently; then two things, or more, in completeness of being, really and specifically differing one from another, and between themselves, may notwithstanding be one and the same identical and numerical thing. This consequence is evident upon these two suppositions: 1ᵒ. That the foundation of Religion is but one and the same numerically. 2ᵒ. That Bibles, or the Scriptures, in several languages differ specifically amongst themselves. Both these suppositions are pregnant enough in Truth. For 1ᵒ. If the foundation of Religion were not numerically and identically the same, than men by becoming, 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 increaseth or decreaseth. Which though it looks like an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Master Ienkin's learning and wit, yet is sufficiently ridiculous to an understanding man.  
2ᵒ. That Bibles, or the Scriptures, in several 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 kind of difference between that which is numerical, 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 Latin) 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. jenkin 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 than numerical; is not necessarily specifical: 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 follows 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 than numerical, must needs be specifical, in one kind or other; i. must needs argue a difference in some things (at least) which specifically differ one from the other, 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 soul (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 considered, the exception mentioned is of no value against the argument, which it pretends to oppose. For though the difference between 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 book, 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 bawl, 
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 workmanlike, not after that smal-sense rate, at which he hath written in his busy Bishop. Or if he had rather clamour, than clerk it, or shall do only the one, because he hath no good faculty at the other, I shall apply that soft and gentle remedy (good both for him, and myself) 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 signal argument of his (page 22.) being the quintessence, and spiritful extraction of many pages; yea of all he argueth against me about the Scriptures. How can any (saith he) believe the matter and substance of the Scripture, to be the word of God, when as he must be uncertain, 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 Moon a lesser, if he be uncertain, 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 year, as Summer and Winter, if he must be uncertain, whether that be the word of God, or no, Psal. 74. 17. Thou hast made summer and winter? If there be no means possible, to believe the matter and substance of the Scriptures, if a man be uncertain 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 means 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 penmen of the holy Ghost? If the knowledge and faithfulness, or unerringnesse of Printers and Transcribers, be the foundation of Master Jenkin's Faith, I confess that he and I build upon two very different foundations.  
Besides, 
Sect. 50.  if it be impossible for me 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 Patriarches, 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? Doubtless 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 himself, or me, with the thrones of any threatening, or decree.  
Again: 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 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 mean, of the matter and substance of the Scriptures) is sufficient to persuade, 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 superadded 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 itself plainly affirm and teach, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the goodness, or kindness, of God leadeth [even natural, yea and wicked men] to repentance 
a Rom. 2. 4.  If so, then certain it is, that this kindness or goodness 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 belief hereof, it is impossible that any man should be led to a true and sound Repentance (of which the Apostle here speaketh) by any motive, means, or engagement whatsoever. Now I desire to understand from Mr. Jenkin in his next, whether forgiveness of sins, 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 explicitly and entirely, as so much can lightly be comprehended in so little, the whole and entire matter and substance of the Scripture. If this be so, then may men who are uncertain 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, kindness, or goodness 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 plainly affirm, that the Heavens declare the glory (i. the glorious power, as the word often signifieth) of God 
b Psalm 19 1. , and his righteousness 
c Psalm 50. 6.  and again, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. that which may be known of God, his invisible things, his eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen from the Creation of the world, and are to be understood by the things that are made 
d Rom. 1. 19, 20. : and yet further, that the Gentiles (without the written word) both have, and show the works of the Law written in their hearts 
e Rom. 2. 15.  (by the work 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 work, 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 righteousness of God, nor the invisible things of God, nor the eternal power of the Godhead of God, nor the things contained in the law, be not the matter and substance, at least somewhat 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 uncertain 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 groundwork 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 copy 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 between many of them: and 2. that the word of God is but one, always uniform, and consistent with itself, 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, he spreads a snare in their way, and steers a direct course to cast them upon the quicksands of insuperable difficulties and uncertainties.  
Whereas I take my Testimonialists tardy, 
Sect. 54.  in making it an infamous and pernicious error 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 itself; with what acumen (think ye) doth this novice-undertaker bring off himself, and his fellow adventures, from the shelf 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 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 itself? Faith is an act of man built upon the foundation of Religion: therefore it is not this foundation itself. If Mr. Ienkin's forehead will serve him to call these false and feeble arguments, gape against ovens hereafter who will: and let those undertake to prove, that a man's eyes are not his ears, who have a mind to trifle away their time, or know not how to do God or men better service with it. Mr. jenkin by such courageous expressions and say, as these, superstructions are foundations, 'tis very false and feeble to say otherwise, that the Covenant hath done good to the Kingdom 
a Busy Bishop, p. 9 , that I by denying the Scriptures fear not to destroy the word of Truth 
b Page 10. , that men that are dead assume to themselves titles in print 
c Page 11. , that I dare not come near an expression of dislike to error 
d Page 11. , that Master Edward's is a man of blessed memory 
e Page 12. , that to advise men, not to make error and heresy of what they please, & cannot prove them to be such, is to advise them to believe nothing or to put them to believe nothing 
f Pag. 13. 14. , that because there is nothing in the world so certain as matters of Faith 
g Ibid. , therefore there is nothing more certain than that I deny the Authority of the Scriptures, and that natural men have no power at all to good supernatural, etc. that Doctrina salutaris signifies the Law 
h Page 42.  [of nature] that, Gentes ante revelatum eis Christum verae justiciae fuisse compotes, doth not signify, that the Gentiles before Christ was revealed unto them, were partakers, or obtainers of true righteousness, but of the duties of righteousness commanded in the law 
i Page 43. ; Mr. Jenkin (I say) by the frequency of such valorous and courageous say 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 error (so voted in the Testimony concerning the Scriptures, & at last could make nothing of it, but a Truth, (in process of discourse) he attempts the measuring of my second error also (for so it pleaseth the College of Dictator's to adjudge it) concerning the natural man's free will, and power to good supernatural: (for thus that Facultas Theologica thought good to head it.) The difference between his deportment, and acquitment of himself, in the one, and in the other, consists only, or chief in this; that as Jerusalem justified her two sisters, Samaria, and Sodom, by multiplying her abominations more than they 
k Ezek. 16. 51. 52. ; so hath he 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 himself in managing the latter.  
As for his un-christian deal (in affirming contrary to the certificate of his own conscience, so many most notorious, & broad-faced falsehoods, & untruths) knowledge 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 controversy in due time (the great disposer of all things not gainsaying.)  
First, one of his firstborn arguments, to prove it an error in me, to hold, that a natural man hath any power to good supernatural, as to repent, believe, etc. is, that herein I lovingly join hands with the Arminians the Remonstrants 
a Busy Bishop, p. 28. : that the Arminions were my Schoolmasters 
b Page 30. : & again, that I and my masters the Remonstrants will not part 
c Page 31. . This cabbage he boyles, and reboils, and boyles again over and over, I know not how often, & sets it before his Readers as one of his choicest dishes. But did the young man (think we) calculate his Pamphlet for the Meridian of Mr. Vicars his Academy? 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 judgements, consciences, understandings free for the entertainment of truth, & judge it beneath a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be servile to the epidemical suppositions of men, would 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 joins hands with the Devil, on which he chargeth me, to join hands with the Arminians, and Remonstrants? Or did not the Devil assert the one, as well as the Remonstrants do the other? Or that if he teacheth the Resurrection from the dead, he lovingly joins hands with the Pharisees? Are these two great Truths ever the worse, or the more to be declined, because (in Mr. Jenkin's notion, and phrase) they who embrace them lovingly join hands with the Devil, and men erroneous in many things otherwise? Might he not by as good logic as this have proved Daniel to be a beast, because he was amongst Lions? or David to have been a Philistine, because he dwelled amongst Philistines? The Arminians affirm, that there is a supernatural power conferred upon the will, and that God by this means doth work immediately upon the will, etc. They attribute all the praise of conversion to God, and place the cause of men's disobedience and unbelief in themselves, etc. They acknowledge a necessity of special grace unto perseverance, etc. I presume Mr. Jenkin concurs in all these, and in twenty things more, which they teach: and why is not he an Arminian for joining with them in many things, if I must needs be an Arminian for joining 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 falls in with theirs.  
But this stratagem of Master Jenkin in attempting to defame such Truths, as he hath no mind should be received, and to cause the judgements and consciences of weak men to loathe them, by telling them, that such and such opinions dwell in the tents of such and such erroneous & dangerous men, is but an old Papistical device, whereby they also endeavoured to render such Truths of God, as were incomportant with their Interests, hateful unto the weak and superstitious people amongst them. Thus Prateolus (a great Popish Hereseologer) to render this christian and sound opinion as erroneous and heretical amongst his party, viz. that it is lawful for any person to eat what meats he pleaseth on any day, though the Church should forbid it, solemnly tells them, that it was the opinion of Jovinian the Heretic. So to make them out of love with receiving the Sacrament in both kinds, he tells them that it was the practice of Nestorius the Heretic. 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 join hands, but from whom we unkindly withdraw hands. So that I separate not in an opinion from Peter, Paul, or Christ, it concerns me not at all with whom I join.  
Secondly, 
Sect. 57  whereas I charge the young man and his compeers, with confuting Pelagianism by pure Manichisme, 
Busy Bishop, page 48.  he makes account 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 Jesuits, upon the Protestants: by the Arminians, upon the assertors of grace, etc. I confess 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 souls, being charged with such a crime, should plead thus for himself: the charge or accusation of Deceiving people, is as old as the Scribes and Pharisees: they, or the people by their suggestion, charged Christ himself with it. Or if a blasphemer, being justly accused of blasphemy, should vindicate himself thus: the accusation of blasphemy, is as old as Caiaphas the Highpriest: he cast it upon the Son of God himself: the Synagogue of Libertines suborned men to cast it upon Stephen, &c 
a Acts 6. 9 11. . Mr. jenkin, the question is not, how old the accusation of confuting Pelagianism 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 feat for you, and for your opinion, and can demonstrate unto us that he hath done it sufficiently indeed, you must (for aught I can do 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 nonsense and absurdity! Let us view him in this posture once for all, page 37, 38. where we shall find him up to the ears in mud, struggling and working with his brain might and main, 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 unreasonableness 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 & wilfulness; 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 stain and tincture of confederacy with my opinion, which affirmeth, that men are not wholly destitute of all power to do what God requires of them as simply necessary to salvation, & particularly to repent, and believe? In the might of his weakness he 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 profess 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 only with Truth. But what childling, but Mr. Jenking, would have raised the dust of such a ridiculous demand up such an occasion? But it may be he redeems his reputation by that which followeth: if he doth, it is with a, nihil minus. Mr. Ball (saith he) saith, and that truly, that unwillingness to believe hinders a man from believing: but he doth not say, that any man of himself can be willing. But (Mr. Jenkin) when I tell you that Mr. Ball speaks of Apples, why do you (by way of answer) tell me, that he doth not speak of Oysters? Who ever said, that any man of HIMSELF could be willing to believe? Or that Mr. Ball should affirm any such thing? The ridiculousness 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 HIMSELF can be willing to believe? 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 HIMSELF can be willing to believe? As Christ sometimes said to the Jews, If I should say, I know him not, I should be a liar like unto you 
a John 8. 55. : So say I to Mr. Jenkin; If I should say or hold, that Man of himself could be willing to believe, 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 natural 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 believing, that did they act according to their power, & means vouchsafed unto them, they might repent and believe. As for any will, or willingness in such men, to do either (I mean, either to repent, or to believe) I never asserted it: much less, that they had any such will, or willingness, 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 real willingness to repent and believe, men cease to be any longer Natural 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 clear and pregnant importance, say every whit as much as this, let men without brass on their forehead, and blindness in their eyes, judge. No man (saith he) is hindered from believing, through the difficulty, or unreasonableness of the command. Certainly, a man hath power to do 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 believe, hath no such difficulty in it, whereby they are hindered from obeying it, have not men power to obey it, and consequently to believe? Besides, though Mr. Ball doth not say, that Natural men of themselves cannot be willing to believe (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 believe. For if there be no such difficulty in the Command he speaks of, by which natural 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 which is impossible for them to wil Men indeed may suffer, what it is impossible they should be willing, or make themselves willing, to suffer: but they cannot be said to act or do, or to be able to act or do, but only what is possible for them to will, or to make themselves willing, to do. And this is the apex & utmost point of what I hold touching the natural man's free will, or power to good supernatural: 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 believe, because he will not, he doth not resolve his non-beleeving, or unbelief, into any weakness, or deficiency of power in him, to will, or to make himself willing, (as Mr. Jenkin would imply:) but into his will itself, into the actual and present frowardness and indisposition of his will, by reason whereof it voluntarily chooseth to continue in unbelief, whereas the nature of it is such, yea and the grace of God in conjunction with it is such, yea and a thousand engagements upon it, and motives round about it, are such, that it both aught, and might, as voluntarily choose the contrary, viz. a purpose and resolution to believe, or (which is the same) to steer an effectual course of means 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 he makes in this attempt, through the steadiness and Uniformity 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 he 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 deals 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: he 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 recompense him in weight or worth of matter.  
— Manifesta rotae vestigia cernas.  
The prints made by his wheels, do plainly tell,  
That gone he is a way, which doth not well.  
Fourthly, 
Sect. 60.  whereas he troubles himself with quoting several sentences out of Mr. Ball, Bucer, Austin, etc. 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 sail with this wind. Certain I am, that what he doth in this kind, 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 only to show and prove, that the opinion asserted by me in opposition to Mr. Jenkin, and his Testimonying Consistory, was neither so irrational, nor so fare distant from truth, but that men of worth, of sound judgement, and much learning, formerly had embraced it; yea, and had left it upon 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 unless Mr. Jenkin can prove, out of the writings of Mr. Ball, M. Bucer, etc. 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, he shall but beat the air in any attempt what soever 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 burden and weight of their Authority, which lies heavy upon her, and keeps her from lifting up her head in the world, with so much freedom and dispatch, as otherwise (in all likelihood) she might do.  
Fifthly, 
Sect. 61.  if the information were worth a Readers time to peruse, it were easy to show, 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. 
a Busy Bishop page 44.  So that he will very pertiently serve for an example to his own Rule: A child can blur paper.  
Sixthly, 
Sect. 62.  how like himself is he, and acts he, in telling me, that my quotations out of the Fathers are thread bare quotations, commonly made use of by the Jesuits and Arminianes 
b Page 46. . Are not quotations from the Scriptures made use of by them both, and that much more frequently, than any of those say cited by me from the Fathers? Will he say that the Scriptures become thread bare by being so frequently quoted, as they are, by pretenders to Truth on every side? If any of the illustrious say of his book, were quoted a thousand times over by a thousand men, I believe he would not complain of their being made threadbare hereby. Howsoever the question is not (among wise men, whatsoever it may be among Novices and shuttle-heads) 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 believe that this great talker of Robin Hood, ever shot in his Bow. Jesuits and Remonstrants are half as bad as Modall Propositions in Logic: de quibus (as the saying is) non gustabit Asinus.  
Seventhly, 
Sect. 63.  whereas he vapours in pity towards me, telling me that my mistake was pitiful, 
Busy Bishop, p. 48  in saying, that the question between Pelagius and the Fathers, was not whether man bad freedom of will in respect of good or evil, but whether men, notwithstanding their freedom of will, did not still stand in need of the adjutory of grace, etc. 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, etc. First, the words of Austin are expressly 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, Latin. Ask Mr. Vicars whether this be not the English of Augustine's Latin: 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  
2ᵒ What if in process of dispute, and after a long ventilation of the controversy between them, the difference came to settle in that point, wherein he placeth it, and that Austin would not be satisfied, unless Pelagius would grant the Adjutory of Grace, by way of an invincible and undeclinable working of good in us; doth it follow therefore it stuck here between them at the first, or in the beginning of the controversy? Who knows not but that skirmishers, especially if the velitation or encounter continues long, often shift and change their ground. But by Mr. Jenkins Logic (it seems) he 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 hours high at six in the morning, because it is eight hours high at noon.  
3ᵒ. 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; than it could not be, (I mean the question between them could not be,) what kind of Adjutory the will did stand in need of; but whether it stood in need only 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, which necessitates or compells him to do it, whether he will or no? If my will be unwilling to consent, & God shall 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 compel 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 proceed of the Class he speaks of 
* Preface, pag. 3. , should grow into an utter averseness of meeting them in their Sessions any more. If in this case some stout Porter should surprise him, hoist him up upon his shoulder, and so carry him by main strength, and against his will, to the Classical Consistory, would he look upon this Porter, or his act in carrying him, as an Adjutory, or help to convey him to his Class? But  
40. If by his invincible and indeclinable work of grace upon the will, he means only 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 (questionless) 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 kind, or to what degree he pleaseth.  
5o. 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 confess it, as not to question but that nothing at all appertaining to godliness and true righteousness, CAN BE DONE WITHOUT IT 
a Ac per hoc, gratiam Dei, quâ charitas Dei diffunditur in cordibus nostris per Spiritum sanctum qui datus est nobis, sic 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 consistency in the writings of this Father concerning the Pelagian controversy, 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 enabling of the will to do that, which is good and pleasing unto God, or necessary only by way of accommodation and facilitation for such a performance, which was the sense of Pelagius 
b Non quomodo iste [Pelagius] qui cum dicit, propre●●à dari gratiam, 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 quip 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 utique 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 controversy, 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  
6o. (And last) whereas he fears (as he saith) that I deny such an adjutory of grace, by, and through which a thing is done 
c Sed etiam hic vult intelligi [Pelagius] add 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 aurem facilius addit, etc. ibid. cap. 29. ; I must tell him, that 〈◊〉 fear is as vain here, as his confidence is elsewhere. Unhappy man, that neither fear's, nor faiths, but without ground, or cause. I freely acknowledge, yea, have always taught and publicly asserted such an Adjutory of Grace, not only without which a good work is not done, but, by and through which a thing, yea every good work which is done, is done. Only 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 himself (doubtless) 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 Devil, or no 
d 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 believe) Mr. Jenkin himself, retract this doctrine, but stood by it to the last. Certain I am, that if he preached what he wrote, and wrote what is printed in his name, he preached the same Doctrine (for substance) over and over. He indeed (saith he speaking of the Devil) giveth counsel: but God assisting, or helping, it's our part [or it belongeth unto us] either to choose, or refuse what he suggesteth 
e 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 
f Est igitur, & peccatum, & rectè factum, in libero voluntatis arbitrio. Aug. de 83. Quaest. Quaest. 24. .  
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 unparallelled impudence, or inexcusable ignorance, that I charge the Merchants of Zion College with confuting Pelagianism with pure Manicheismee: 1. For imparalleled impudency; I marvel 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 marvel if he seeks to interest others in the same guilt with himself. That great Traveller he speaks of (page 57) whom he calls the greatest liar in the world (as a Father saith) Selatium suae perditionis, perdendis hominibus quaerit, solalaceth himself 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 (unless it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and such indeed as he 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 preach, writings, and consciences, and particularly with their Testimony itself, whether there was any Impudence at all, but that which is called Truth, in the charge. We (saith Austin) so confess the freedom of the will, that we say, it always stands in need of the help and aid of God: and that they err on the one hand, who with Manicheus affirm, 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 freedom of the will. But we say, both that man always sinneth, and yet withal, that he hath power not to sin, that so we may acknowledge a liberty, or freedom in the will 
a Liberum sic confitemur arbitrium, ut dicamus nos Dei semper indigere auxilio: & tam illos errare, qui cum Manichaeo dicunt, hominem peccatum vitare non posse, quàm illos, qui cum Joviniano asserunt, hominem non posse peccare. Uterque enim tollit arbitrii libertatem. Nos verò dicamus, hominem semper & peccare, & non peccare posse, ut nos liberi confiteamur esse arbitrii. Aug de Temp. Serm. 192. circa finem. . From this passage it clearly appears, that one notorious strain of the Manichean error, or heresy, was this, that there is no possibility for a man to avoid sin, that men by the eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, are either put in-into, or left in such a condition, wherein it is impossible but that they should sin, & do wickedly. And elsewhere the Father both in his Tract de Haeresibus, and in other places of his writings, couples the Manichean heretics with the Stoic 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 righteousness, etc. do not make sin, yea sinning to destruction, things unavoidable unto men, let jews & Gentiles judge. 
Fatemur, ac docemus impios omnes ità a Divinâ providentiâ 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; quantum boni et mali ab unoquoque praestari vellet.  Yea their common Doctrines and opinions concerning the Decrees of God, especially concerning Predestination and Reprobation, are extremely tainted and soured with that levenof Manichisme, whereof we now speak. It were easy to cite many passages from the writings of such men, whom they count Orthodox, and with whom they profess 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 taste of many. We confess and teach (saith one of these) that all wicked men are so ordered, or ruled by the providence of God, that they CAN DO NOTHING BUT WHAT GOD HATH DECREED in his eternal unchangeable counsel. Another of them saith, that a man can neither do any more good, than he doth, nor avoid any more evil than he avoideth: yea and that God hath decreed in himself, how much good, and how much evil he would have to be done by every man. If such Tenets as these are not pure Manicheisme, I must (I confess) sign Mr. Ienkin's estimate of my weakness, 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 Natural man's free will, or power, etc. (as the Ministers of the Testimony are pleased to baptise it) erroneous, they plainly argue, that the man neither understands the mind 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 quoque est quicunque hodievel peccant, vel bene agunt, 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, he citys, Acts 26. 18. where Paul declares that he was sent by Christ to the Gentiles to open their eyes, etc. Where 1ᵒ. It is observable, how ridiculous he is in making an opposition, between the opening of men's 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 seems that either Master Jenkin, sleeps with his eyes open, or else hath no eyes at all, when he sleeps with them shut. 2ᵒ. 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 darkness, or the night, may be said to shut men's 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 open them. i. to restore them to a capacity of present service. Now that it is in this sense only, that the eyes of men's 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, etc. 2. Upon this ground because if men should have the eyes of their minds or understandings opened in any other sense, then that, wherein the light may be said to open them, God might and must be said to work as many miracles, as conversions: and how then can that great pillar of Presbytery, that miracles are ceased, stand?  
Take only 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 citys; dead in sins and trespasses, from Ephes. 2. whereas it is evident, both from the context itself, where this expression stands, and also from the frequent tenor of Scripture-expression elsewhere, that by being dead in sins and trespasses, the Apostle only means, 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 quickening together with Christ, opposed to this death, as a remedy to a disease, is interpreted, Col. 2. 13. to be the forgiveness of their sins and trespasses. Both which plainly show, 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 implieth, an utter impotency in men to believe, but which consisteth in guilt, and obnoxiousness 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, etc. 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 last) that death in sins and trespasses here spoken of, whatsoever, is meant by it, is not asserted or represented by the Apostle as the condition of a mere natural man, or of men considered as natural: 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 express letter of the context. And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in times past ye walked, etc. vers. 1. 2. & 6. 3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in time past, etc. So that from this place (however) nothing can be inferred concerning any defect, or want of power to believe, in mere natural men; though such an inference should be yielded against such men, who have corrupted themselves by a long continuance in wilful and known sins.  
Again 2. How like unto himself (i. simply, 
Sect. 66.  and novice-like) he 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 weak and simple opinions of his own, and then confutes them strongly, instead of mine) Page 29. Upon this saying of mine, that by the improvement of nature a man may attain to such a conviction, as upon which saving conversion follows, 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. days to a place an hundred miles off, where you must appear by that time, or else you are a dead man, though you be lazy, and perhaps as willing to die, as to take the pains 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 himself, he neither will ever actually will, nor do. 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 do in men, of his good pleasure. Yea if Mr. jenkin would quit himself like a man, & reason home, in stead of hal●e way (like a child) he would manifestly perceive, that there is a fare larger place left for grace, by that opinion, which he calls error, then by that, which he seeks to enthrone in stead of it: and this in more respects than one. For 1. as he is a fare greater sinner, who knows how to do well, and hath all things necessary thereunto, and yet doth evil, than he that doth evil, having no power at all to do 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. 2. For God to give a man strength and power to believe, twice over, or after a forfeiture made by sin and wickedness, of the first donation, is an act of more grace, than to confer them only once, and that without any such provocation. Now Mr. Jenkin his opinion leaves place only for this latter act of grace, which is fare the lesser; whereas my opinion, makes roomth for the former, which is the greater. 3. (And last) 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 unbelieving before God under a sufficiency of grace, and means otherwise, both to repent, and believe, doth not present them as fare greater sinners, than Mr. Jenkins opinion doth, which denies them so much as a possibility to do either, I refer to Mr. Jenkins himself with the fag end of reason and understanding, which is left him, to consider, and (if he please) determine. In the mean time, had not the man (think ye) a prodigy of provocation upon him, to cry out, What place is here left for grace? What agreement with the Apostle? It seems there is no agreement between Wood and Trees, in Mr. Jenkin his Logic; 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; 
Nil intrà est oleam; nihil extrà est in nuce, duri. i.  
Within the Olive ('tis without all doubt)  
There's nothing hard, nor in the Nut, without.   
And if his interrogatory exclamations had such simple hey and stubble (as you have heard) for their foundation, his subjoined parenthesis hath nothing but mire and dirt. Mr. goodwin's answer (saith he) myself by my improvement of nature made me to differ, would have fallen little shorter than blasphemy. What putid incongruity, and perfect nonsense is there in this parenthesis? Mr. goodwin's 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; Myself by improvement of nature made me to differ. Or else, M. Jenkin demands thus: What agreement with the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4. 7? Mr. Goodwin answers (by ploughing with Mr. Jenkins heifer) thus: Myself by my improvement of nature made me to differ. Qu. How far is it to London? Ans. A poke full of Plums. 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 speaks 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 himself, to have said so. As for those words [from another] who maketh thee to diffe● [from another] I confess he finds them in our last English Translation: but this is never the more the word of God, but the less, 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 only saith, that by the improvement of Nature a man may attain to such a conviction, upon which saving conversion follows, necessarily lead me to such an answer to the Apostles question, as this young Simplicius will needs thrust into my mouth? Mu Mr. Jenkin, because he hath a pair of long legs, 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 do? 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 follows; doth it follow from hence, that therefore this attainment must needs be resolved into himself, or his endeavours, as the sole or primary cause hereof? For (supposing that the Apostle here speaks of such differing which is made by believing) that his question doth not intent to exclude the creature itself froming the cause [in a sense, viz. in a way of inferior, subordinate, and dependent efficiency, 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 believing. So then, if it be the creature itself, and not God, who believeth, then is it the creature itself, and not God, which [thus far, and in this respect] maketh itself to differ. But it seems by Mr. Jenkin his Logico-divinity, that if Mr. Jenkin should say, that he believeth, it would not be fare from blasphemy; Possibly it might not be fare from untruth: but as for any affinity or nearness 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 speaks of any saving difference between man and man) intended only to put the creature upon this consideration and acknowledgement, viz. that God, and God only, was the original, prime, and sovereign 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 confess or acknowledge, that himself could in no sense, or consideration at all, be looked upon as the cause thereof. But  
Thirdly (and last) 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 only which stands in more and fewer, or in greater and lesser gifts: which kind 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 only the principal, 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 natural man to good supernatural? If M. Jenkin understand Scripture no better than thus, (which it seems, by many other misinterpreted places in his pamphlet, he doth not) certainly the Chalk and Coals in Corners, are more wholesome nourishment, than the Partridges and Quails that are cooked and fed upon in the pompous Basilique near Newgate, not so properly, as commonly, termed Christs-church: unless (haply) the Episcopal consecration of the place, be a standing antidote against all infection and unwholesomeness of Doctrine, that shall be delivered there. I have good ground to believe, that the persons which he pities, as feeding upon Chalk and Coals in corners, will by the goodness of their food, and blessing of God upon it, be nourished up to eternal life, when as the wrath of God (I fear) 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 mouths, as sometimes it did upon those, that eaten Quails in the Wilderness, had they not some better provisions from other hands. You have seen the young man's nakedness in point of arguing: he neither levies Reasons, nor Scriptures, with any pertinency to his cause; there is not the least hair of the head of my opinion, concerning the natural man's power to good supernatural, fallen to the ground, by any thing, by all things, that he 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 be strong in questioning: Some can beg stoutly, that can do 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 Ass may ask more questions, than Aristotle can answer: As a man not worth a groat, may ask and beg 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. he propounds four querees, yet the three latter so relating unto, and depending upon the first, that unless such an answer be given to the first, as he expecteth should be given, the three last are nonsuited. 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 confess he hath as good as opposed me with his first question: For whether it be the profoundness of the question, or the shallowness of my apprehension, I know not; but by reason either of the one, or of the other, I must profess, that I understand it not; unless I should put such a sense upon it, which would (I confess) 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 only 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 piece of timber, until it be laid upon the soul? And doth his simile, subjoined by way of explication of his question, import any other sense than this? As two men (saith he) that between them both carry a burden, yield 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 believing, only by concourse unto the work, without some influence upon the will itself, considering that it is the will only, and not grace, that must consent, or believe, I understand not. So that Mr. Jenkins comparison is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But  
2o, 
Sect. 70.  In case I do 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, suasory by way of entreaty, that the will would move; or, Physica, that is properly, really, and efficaciously operative upon it. This queree contains more absurdities in it than the former. For first, it supposeth, that there can be no moral influence, but that which is suasory, or by way of entreaty. When Mr. Jenkin commands his Clerk to set the second part of the 119 Psalms, and threatens him that he will turn him out of his place, if he will not do as he is commanded; hath such an address as this, any Physical influence upon the will of this Clerk? or any other, than what is moral? But will Mr. Jenkin call it suasory by way of entreaty? He indeed often finds appositum in opposito, and so may make commands and entreaties, 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 enjoin [or, command] thee that which is convenient: yet for love's sake I rather BESEECH [or, entreat] thee, etc. v. 8, 9  
2ᵒ. 
Sect. 71.  The said quere, makes an opposition, supposeth an inconsistency, between a moral influence upon the will, and that which is properly, really, and efficaciously operative upon it; as if the influence of such a command and threatening of his, as were mentioned, could not be properly, really, and efficaciously operative upon the will of his Clerk; and that it were simply impossible that his Clerk, having his will no otherwise influenced, should be willing to do the service enjoined him. But to the intent (as I suppose) of the queree, as also of the other two yet behind, I answer briefly (for the present, expecting an opportunity for a larger explication of myself, upon the subject) that if by a Physical influence upon the will, Mr. Jenkin meaneth any other kind of working or acting upon it by God, than by the mediation of the Word, or then that which is proper to be 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 manner 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 Physical 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, otherwise than by argument, motive, or persuasion; unless it be by force, violence, or compulsion; which Mr. Jenkin himself will not hear of: yea, the truth is, I do not well understand, how any other force, violence, or compulsion itself 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 effectual explication, urging, and pressing of such arguments. As the natural 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 essential constitution and fabric of the will, exempt it from a capacity of being drawn or brought into a consent by any other means, method, or way whatsoever, but only that of argument, motive and persuasion. Again, it no whit less 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 immediately reacheth the will, and wherein it is impossible that the word should communicate: as also how it is possible that the word should communicate, or bear a part, in any action that is properly Physical; 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 Sun. If Mr. Jenkin his youthful head be more vigorous, pregnant and quick in these difficulties, than mine, who am stricken in years, 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 Physical influence of the will, he means nothing else, but either an inward excitation of the soul, 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 3ᵒ (and last) if he means by his Physical influence, any such representation of things to the mind or understanding of a man, whereby the will is brought over after an effectual and potent manner, to give up herself in consent unto them; I acknowledge a Physical influence of Grace upon the will. But the truth is, I do not well understand what the man meaneth by his Physical influence (and am fully persuaded that himself understandeth himself 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 do. But they that propound blind questions, must expect answers accordingly. Only let me add this further (in the point in hand) that for any other Physical influence upon the will, than that which I have expressed and acknowledged, (which I confess to be very untowardly and unproperly so called) himself acknowledgeth none, at least if he means as he saith, page 51. For here (more like a reasonable man, than himself) he writeth thus: To whatsoever object it [the will] is carried, it is not without the preceding counsel of the practical judgement. The will being a rational appetite, never moveth but per modum judicij, upon apprehension of some goodness, 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 only that which is suasory and moral.  
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 only to be looked upon as such respectu eventus, in regard of what doth fall out, and de facto doth come to pass, or whether the certain determination of the will by grace, proceedeth from the powerful 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 clear answer to it. All that I clearly understand of it, is a parcel 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, 1ᵒ. that invincibility and infallibility, are but modifications of the act, or working of grace; whereas a determination of the will, is either the act itself, or else (if it be understood passively) the product, or effect of such an act.  
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 soul, which answers 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 believing.  
Thirdly, 
Sect. 73.  is it not a very ridiculous queree, to demand, Whether the certain determination of the will by grace, proceedeth from the powerful nature of grace; considering first, that effects do not proceed from the natures of their causes, but from the actual engagements of their causes in a way of efficiency, to produce them? 2ᵒ. That Grace is not a natural, 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 efficiency, as itself pleaseth. So that how powerful soever the nature of grace be, it no way follows, 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 powerful in the nature of it (for God hath but one Spirit of grace, which is always in respect of his nature uniformly and equally powerful) which wrought upon the stiff necked and hardhearted Jews 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 always (saith Stephen to the latter brood of them) resisted the holy Ghost: as your Fathers did, so do ye.  
Fourthly, 
Sect. 74.  nor is there any overplus 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 powerfulness of the nature of a cause. I do not understand how a cause may be termed invincible and infallible in respect of the event, or effect, which is not very powerful in the nature of it. But  
Fifthly (and last) that which the young man would demand in this Queree, as fare as my soul is able to enter into his secret, is briefly this, whether the act, or work of God, in, and about the conversion of a man, be so strong, powerful, and overhearing, as to carry, or produce the effect of his actual conversion, against all the possibility that is in him to hinder it? If this be the intent of his 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 himself 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 actual rebelliousness, or gainsayingnesse of the will, yea and possibly all inclination towards any rebellion in this kind, (which is abundantly sufficient as to his actual conversion) yet it doth not remove or take away all possibility from the will of rebelling, or of doing wickedly. Nor do 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 privilege & perfection, as a non-possibility of sinning, or doing wickedly. It is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and highest pitch of perfection compatible to a created being, to be like unto God in actual holiness, in actual hatred and detestation of sin, in firm and stable resolutions to continue holy for ever: but for a simple and absolute impossibibility to sin, I conceive it to be one of the incommunicable properties of God, as being simply and absolutely unchangeable. From hence then it undeniably (and ex abundanti) follows, 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 itself, of this conversion; inasmuch as it is impossible for any man to receive actual conversion from God, in any act of sin whatsoever. By the way, if I had as much a mind 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 son of this guilt, than ever he 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 himself under the same impossibility of sinning, with God? Or doth he not assert such an impossibility as this to himself, when he supposeth it impossible for him to sin, when God is about to convert him?  
Besides, if there be a possibility in man to sin after the work of grace and conversion wrought in him; certainly, and much more, is there a possibility in him to sin at any time before such a work. If 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 weak and foolish. Now if there be a possibility for a man to sin 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 impossible for any man to be converted in, or under, an act of sin: conversion itself standing in such an act, which includes (at least) an aversion from all sin (at least in purpose, affection, and desire) which must needs be a act of righteousness. I● Mr. Jenkins sense in the point only 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, unless it be in a dream. And whether himself do 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 actual effecting of it, I appeal 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 BUT THE PRAVITY and rebellion of it, but preserving and RESTORING ITS TRUE LIBERTY. First, if grace in the act of conversion, takes nothing away from the will, but the pravity and rebellion of it, than it leaves it a liberty or power of rebelling or depraving itself. For there is nothing more evident, than that there may remain a liberty or power of rebelling in the will, when the rebellion itself 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 rebel: otherwise it could not have rebelled afterwards. Again 2ᵒ. if the adjutory of grace preserves and RESTORES the true liberty of the will unto it, than it invests it with no other liberty, than that which was natural 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, doubtless 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, original liberty of it, wherein it was created, most certain it is, that it leaves a liberty or power in it to rebel, 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 serve for a morsel 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 Seraphical 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 profess, I shall look upon it, and accept of it, as simply the greatest and richest accommodation for the satisfaction of my mind and spirit, which I have received for these many years. And this briefly for answer to his captious and yet ill-digested, and worse expressed Querees.  
Eleventhly (and last, 
Sect. 75.  as to the non- error of natural man's freewill) whereas he demands, p. 44. (though his demand be somewhat imperious and authoritative, for a stripling) Let me have one page half filled [out of Orthodox Author's] agreeing with th●se your opinions, which are transcribed by the Subscribers, etc. I shall nevertheless gratify him in his demand; or rather (I fear) 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 finds it. But first, I must remind 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 virtue for my purpose, notwithstanding any thing attempted by him, for the cancelling or defacing of them. I have formerly asserted their clear and through concurrence with those opinions of mine, of which he speaks, and have sufficiently showed, that the man was necessitated to a Zion College 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 half of one page (at least.)  
But to g●ve him measure heaped up, 
Sect. 76.  I shall here cast in unto him a further parcel 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 natural man to supernatural good, which they have transcribed, and voted for an error, in there words of their own (pag. 3●) Thousands and ten thousands of poor souls which CHRIST HATH RANSOMED with his own blood, shall hereby be betrayed, seduced, and ENDANGERED TO BE UNDONE to all eternity, First, here is the Doctrine of universal 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 evil, or misery, may very possibly fall into it. Danger doth not only 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, than Christ ransomed not the elect only, of whose perishing there is not the least possibility, but the reprobate also, or those who perish; and consequently, all men.  
2ᵒ. 
Sect. 77.  If Christ's love unto all men was such, as prevailed with him to ransom them by his blood; doubtless he is not wanting unto them in such inferior accommodations, whereby they are, or may be, sufficiently provided, actually to partake of this ransom, and to enjoy the blessedness of it. And what is this, being interpreted, but a conferring upon them a sufficiency of strength and power to repent, and to believe? 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 clear consonancy unto it, held a sufficiency of power or means also of believing to be vouchsafed unto All men. Nor is it (indeed) any ways consisting with the wisdom 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 withal 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 own their own principles and say, they must of necessity own those opinions of mine about the power of natural man to supernatural good, which they have transcribed, yea and proscribed as erroneous, in their Testimony. Did not Mr. Calamy himself, no mean man in the retinue of the Subscribers, within these very few years, (viz. Jan. 12. 1644. preaching upon 2 Chron. 25. 2.) publicly assert the power of natural man to supernatural good upon terms 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 do 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? Let such say as these give in their evidence: An unconverted man may believe that God made the world: He may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son 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 be not bound to reward him for it, yet I doubt not but God, out of the abyss of his mercies, if he make use of common grace; I do not doubt (I say) but God out of his abundant mercy, though he be not bound unto it, yet will give him spiritual: [or special] grace: if he make use of common Nature well, God will find some way or other to do good to that man's soul, Luk. 17. 11. If therefore you have not been faithful 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 find out a way to do that man good Yet again, in the use of the former Doctrine: Beloved, this I do affirms, that a man that is not converted, may by the general assistance of God's spirit, do that which is naturally good, and which is morally good: yea and may do 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 do it in a natural way, will no doubt assist thee with power to do things in a spiritual way. For that man which improves his natural talon, God will one time or other intrust him with a spiritual talon. 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 natural man's free will, or power to good supernatural, I confess I had need to be 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 find him out an authentic Remembrancer.  
I do not find Mr. Henry Scudder amongst the Subscribers: but I question not his repute of Orthodoxism with Mr. Jenkin. Thus then Mr. Scudder: And it was intended by Christ that the plaster should be as large, as the sore, and that there should be no defect in the remedy, i. in the price or sacrifice of himself, offered upon the Cross, by which man should be saved; but that ALL MEN, and each PARTICULAR MAN, might in that respect, become saveable in Christ 
a 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 universal Redemption upon other terms than these. Not long after the forme● word●, Which condition (saith he, speaking of Faith, by which the actual fruit of the all-sufficient ransom of Christ redoundeth unto th●se that are saved) many, to whom the Gospel 〈…〉, MAKE IMPOSSIBLE TO THEMSELVES, through a wilful refusing of the Gospel, and salvation itself by Christ, upon those terms, which God doth offer it. Doubtless that which a man makes impossible to himself, through a wilful refusing of the Gospel, is not so or such, by nature unto him. That which is naturally, or by nature, impossible to a man, he cannot be said to make impossible to himself by any act whatsoever. Whatsoever Mr. Jenkin hath made impossible to himself otherwise, he hath not made it impossible to him to fly, nor yet to build castles in the air, nor to remove mountains. If he hath made any of these things impossible to him, I desire to know (in his next) how, by what act, or acts, he hath done it. Therefore Master Scudder clearly 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 friars, 
Sect. 79.  I find a Prince amongst the Subscribers: therefore his Doctrine (Judice Jenkin) must needs be Orthodox and true. Hear then how affectionately his pen sympathizeth with mine, in the substance of those opinions, which himself (unless he hath been made to drink of Master Downham's cup) with Mr. Jenkin, and the rest of the Sinonian Class, 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. Unbelief is in a man's power 
a Dr. Gouge whole armour of God, p. 233. — If men's coming short of that which they might have done, be the reason and ground of their condemnation, it undeniably follows, that they have power to do 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, Unbelief is in a man's power; doth he not imply, that a man hath power o-over 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 Devil now might, if he would, destroy, or despoil job 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, original sin is not in a man's power, nor is his being born, either blind, or seeing, in his power; nor is the frailty of his life, nor the mortality, or corruptibleness of his flesh or body, nor any thing whatsoever, that is merely and simply natural unto him, in his power. Therefore if unbelief be in a man's power, it is certain that nothing in nature doth necessitate him to it: and consequently, that he may free and quit himself of it, if he please. It were easy 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 rank 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 ourselves. Questionless so grave a Teacher, would not encourage men, or persuade men to encourage themselves to do that, which he judgeth impossible for them to do: would he say, let men be encouraged to fly, to number the stars, to touch the moon, etc. Therefore (doubtless) he 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 certainly he that thrusts out a man's eyes, and doth not restore them again to him, doth exclude a man from seeing. Nor can a man be said to exclude himself, unless it be supposed, that that act, by which this exclusion is made, be in his power, as well to forbear, as to execute or perform. I● were ridiculous to say, that a poor man, who is not worth a groat, excludes himself from eating Partritriges and Quails by his not buying them at a dear rate in the Market.  
I shall only subjoyne 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 stigmatised for error in me, doth not breath & live in them. In the order of Redemption God hath made man's sin pardonable: but man by his impenitency makes it not to be pardoned 
a Page 275. . Elsewhere thus: Did not the very lifting up of the Serpent show, that it was Gods will they should look on it, and looking be cured? So God causing Christ to be lift up by the preaching of the Gospel before thee, sheweth that HE WOULD THOU SHOULDST BELIEVE, and believing have everlasting life 
b Page 230. . God never failed any that continued to wait on him: at length he satisfied their longing 
c Page 232. . Though it be hard to the carnal careless man, yet (as Solomon saith of knowledge, Pro. 14. 6.) Faith is easy to him that will believe: not that it is simply in man's power, but that GOD'S SPIRIT SO OPENETH HIS UNDERSTANDING, &c 
d Page 289. . Again, if we repair to the Author who giveth Faith, and to the spring whence it floweth; if we rightly use the right means of attaining it, and wait at the door of wisdom till she open unto us, UNDOUBTEDLY WE SHALL FIND FAITH, & not miss of it. 
c Page 290. . I appeal to any man, that will please to take the pains 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, than the Parish Pastor of Christ-Church near Newgate, be an honest and modest man, if William Jenkin the Author of the Busy Bishop, be disconscienced and lofty.  
I shall add two passage which I have met with in the writings of Dr. Sibs: whose memory and Name is Sion-Colledg proof, and needs not fear the poisoned arrow of their obloquy or reproach. If the will (saith he) would use that sovereignty, which it should, and could at the first, we should be altogether freed from this necessity [he speaks, of sin, and unbelief] men are not damned, because they cannot do better, but because they will do no better 
a 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 merely natural, but voluntarily contracted: and withal, that naturally they have power to do that, which, had they wills to do, would prevent their Condemnation. Again 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 weakness, but out of the wickedness of our natures. If our sinning be (clearly, and with sufficient ground for the avouchment) not through weakness, 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 Scriptures vel levissimè innuitur, Deum solere, aut velle unquam absque 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 tail, rush and branch, wholly, absolutely, and entirely 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 administered unto men, by the nature of the benefit that is offered, and by the manifest word of God, not BY THE ABUSE OF THEM, OR THE EVENT. If there can no judgement or estimace be 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, than men's non-believing, or perishing, is no argument or proof at all, that they had not sufficient means given unto them, whereby to have prevented both the one and the other. Again, if they be to be measured or judged of (in the consideration mentioned) by the benefit offered in the Gospel, which is forgiveness of sins, salvation, etc. 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 affirm; that there is not the least intimation in the Scripture, that God ever takes away the talon of Grace, or the aid of exciting Grace from any man once given unto him in order to salvation, but for their preceding sin, and burying of it through their own default. Yea and affirm this to have been the opinion of the Orthodox Fathers, who had to do with Pelagius: and accordingly cite Austin for it. In which passage they clearly suppose, 1. that men who never come to believe, or to be saved, have a talon 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 2ᵒ. that the reason why men do not believe, and in fine come to be saved, is not any defect or withholding of Grace sufficient hereunto, on God's part, but their own voluntary abuse, or burying of it, being given unto them. So that if these men be friends to their own principles, words, and say, they cannot be enemies to my opinion about the the power of the natural man to supernatural good. If men will stagger, & not stand their own ground, say, and unsay, affirm in premises, deny in conclusions, I cannot help it. In the mean time, though many things they say may be of worthy concernment for the clearing 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 citations and say for the filling of half a page (unless it be a page in super-folio, which he meaneth) wherein those opinions of mine are clearly avouched, which the Grand Committee of Zion College, out of a desire to enrich themselves with the spoils of my name and reputation, have sentenced for erroneous. I make no question but leisure 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 writ down their own names, and their Friends names, with mine: unless they shall clearly and Clerklike, not shiftingly, or shufflingly, or by showing me the nakedness of the Authors (I mean, their interfeering, and selfe-contradictions) disable the testimonies produced by me. Which I am certain they never will, nor can do, but by turning rules of Grammar, significations of words, regularities of constructions, and principles of reason, upside-down.  
Under this head I shall only take knowledge further of some few simple passages more in the Busy Bishop, 
Sect. 83.  of the same seasoning (with unsavoury salt) with the former, and so pass on to the third & fourth heads; in the furnishing whereof, we shall be much briefer than 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 than Ministers reputed [he means, himself & 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 pertinently demand of him; If they be Ministers of Christ, why do they disprove their callings themselves, by transforming themselves into the Ministers of Satan, by forging Testimonies, by blaspheming clear 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 mean, both Parliament, and Army; so fare they are from the practice of that which becomes, not only all Ministers, but all Disciples, of Christ, Bless them that curse you 
a Mat. 5. 44. ; and again, Bless them, which persecute you, bless, and curse not 
b Rom. 12. 14. ) by throwing firebrands of discord and dissension amongst the people, by declaiming against, and virulently decrying that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or moderation, which the holy Ghost commends unto all Christians 
c Phil. 4. 5. , by continual complain of oppression, and hard measure, from, and in the state, where they live, when as they 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 Kingdom, and with their own safety, exhibit and show unto them, as in settling the Government which they so inordinately desire, in discountenancing & discouraging those that are contrary-minded to them, in investing only them, and their party in the Ministry, with a capacity of all the sat Benefices, yea with all the Church Live (judged meet to continue in such a relation) in England, etc. 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. Nevertheless that Mr. Jenkin may not remain u●-gratified in any so reasonable desire, or demand; I do 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 somewhat (according to my feeble and weak manner) for his satisfaction in that behalf.  
Page 2 Upon an ●●staticall pang of desire (it seems) to have his learning and clerk-ship seen (like Solomon) in all their glory, 
Sect. 84.  & mine, prostrate in the dust at their feet, he resolves to make the representation upon a theatre built by himself on purpose to act the triumphant part of a Critic upon. Thus than he builds, and thus he acteth, in order to that noble design. First, for the LECTIO. Your meaning I suppose was, and had not your rage against the Ministers, made you write nonsense, you would have said thus: The Ministry cunningly vested themselves with the privilege of the Church, and not as you do; The Ministers vested the privilege of the Church, in themselves. A man may be vested in, or with a privilege: but it's very improper to say a Privilege is vested in, or with a man, as improper as to say, a garment is vested in the man that wears it, 'twere better to say the man is vested in the garment. Your pen is drunk with madness, it doth stagger & stammer, These faults of pure weakness I should not regard, etc. Poor young man! the old proverb hath catched you; Corrigis Magnificat, et nescis quid significat. This it is for the Cobbler to adventure beyond his Last. Even a fool (saith Solomon) when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise 
d Prov. 17. 28. : but Mr. jenkin (I see) had rather make an adventure for the reward of a fool's silence (I mean, repute of wisdom) by talking, then to accept of it upon such terms, on which only he is capable of it. For myself, I am willing, and shall not be ashamed, to receive relief against my weakness or ignorance in any kind, from the meanest hand, that can reach it unto me: if M. Vicars his blue regiment can add 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 years gone over my head, since (I must confess) I learned that, which I knew not before, of such teachers, who are known by no greater name then, Grammar Scholars. But Mr. jenkin (I perceive) went lame to the University, and halts upon his English leg to this day. For what ails the Lectio he speaks of? Doubtless much the same kind of ailement, which was in the house complained of by Harpasie (in Seneca) for being dark, when as she herself was blind. And as her blindness was all the darkness of the house; so is Mr. jenkin his ignorance, all the unpropernesse in the Lectio. Questionless if he had tendered the Lectio to his Teaching Elder Mr. Vicars, and desired his advice upon it, before he had taken the Censorian rod into his hand to smite it; Mr. Vicars would have taken pity on him, and dissuaded him from proclaiming the shame of his folly so loud, as to say, that he finds that which is crooked, in that which is strait; and that which is rough, in what is perfectly smooth. For though M. Vicars his learning doth not lie so deep in the old Italian tongue, called Latin, (there being, haply an unhappy antipathy between 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. Speak then, Mr. Vicars, speak out: know neither Father nor Mother, Friend nor foe, in the judgement: is it very improper to say A PRIVILEGE IS VESTED IN A MAN? or is it more proper to say, A MAN IS VESTED IN A PRIVILEGE? Say, did you ever meet 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 channel? and more proper to say, that the channel runs in the river? Is it very improper to say, that the fruit grows upon the tree? or more proper, that the Tree grows upon the fruit? But concerning the regular & proper construction of the word, VEST, VESTED, etc. let Mr. William Prynne umpire between Mr. William jenkin and me. Well known it is, that he is no friend, or flatterer of mine, nor enemy to Master jenkin: and withal, that for understanding in the propriety of the English tongue, he is above, and Mr. jenkin beneath. I have not had leisure 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 Sovereign power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, 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, etc. In his Full reply to certain brief Observations and Antiqueries, towards the close whereof, he was pleased to make some brief Animadversions (as he calls them) upon my Theomachia, he writes thus (page 24.) Why may they not (the common people) likewise delegate a lawful Ecclesiastical legislative Authority in Church affairs, to their elected Parliamentary, and Synodical 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 himself, nor transferrible thus to others, etc. How doth Mr. Jenkin his pulse beat upon this potion? will he say, that rage against the Ministers made Mr. Pryn to write non sense? or that his pen was drunk with madness? Let him either charge him, or discharge me. For (as the saying is) 
— Facinus, quos inquinat, aequat.  
A crime makes equal, where it doth pollute.  Well might he conclude, as he doth (towards the beginning of his Preface) Never was an Over seer so over-seen. I easily believe, that never since the mountains or hills were brought forth, was there such a Novice, that took upon him the office of an Overseer, and performed it with that height of insolency, and depth of ignorance, which Mr. Jenkin hath done. Many Bishops have been busy 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 busy Bishop surpasseth them all. Mr. Jenkin the preaching Elder, understands not plain English; Mr. Vicars, the Teaching Elder, cannot make true Latin: Is not the Church of Christ in Christ-Church in a fair and hopeful way to a learned Presbytery? He tells me (page 55.) that his soul pities my cheated chapmen, and elsewhere he talks of my misled followers. But as Christ spoke to the women, who bewailed and lamented him; Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children 
a Luke 23. 28, : So may I desire Mr. Jenkin to turn the pity of his soul from my chapmen & followers, upon his own; whose condition must needs be most deplorable and sad, having no better Guide in the important affairs of their souls, than such a one, who on the one hand is so defective in knowledge, as not to understand plain English (the tongue wherein he was borne) yet so abounding in pride and presumption on the other, as to make himself 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 he dissembles, when he saith, that his soul pitieth my cheated chapmen and followers; else why did he refuse to rectify 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 soul 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 engagement, he would answer those objections (very material and strong, as they supposed) which they had against his doctrine? Why did he after several delays and put-offs, at last take sanctuary, and shift for himself, under this poor and creeping refuge; viz. that it was the advice of his brethren, that he should not dispute with them, unless it were by writing.  
Another like pageant of illiterate arrogance he plays, 
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 brass silvered over: 'twas a mistake of Permutare, for Mutare: & I should advise you to study that easy work, where you shall find Nil permurabis, emesve, before you adventure again upon the Fathers. Had another taken you in this gross nonsense, he would have sent you to the children: but I spare you.  
What a mirror or glass have we 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 horseback, in these words: 'twas a mistake of Permutare for Mutare? Illiterate soul! 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 emphatical and signal difference as always found between theem: and so have saved his face from the covering of this shame. If he had looked into his Thomas Dictionary, he should have found, that as permuto signifies, to change one thing for another, and to barter, so doth the simple verb muto, signify to change, to barter or exchange one thing for another. So in the judgement of those who understand the propriety of the Latin tongue at another manner of rate than M. Jenkin; there is no more difference between permutare and mutare, in Latin, 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 Latin tongue.) And I would know of him, whether in that easy work, which his humility adviseth me to study, where he finds (to the rendering of himself a very ridiculous Critic, Nil permutabis, emesve, the word permutabis, hath any other touch, notion, or strain of sense or signification in it, than what might have been as well expressed, by the simple, mutabis. It is no ways like, that the Author of the verse preferred 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 complete it. And if we 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 itself first, and so changed into another? But this it is to have to do 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 elegancy, which he ignorantly seeks to blast; 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, gross nonsense. But unless he should be ever and anon in his say, as low in learning, as lofty in conceit, he should not beget in his own likeness.  
For his Humility, doth not this also triumph in these expressions, I advise you to study that easy work, where you shall find, Nil permutabis, emesve, etc. And again: Had another taken you in this gross nonsense, he would have sent you to the children, etc. In what garden of authority did you gather, etc. Are not these the ejaculations and strains of a most profound humility in a young man? Must not he that speaketh such demure, modest, and submissive words as these, needs be as light as the dust in the balance, 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 fear 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 
a Page 89. , (I know not how often) he means in impropriety of expression, and nonsense. If a man were so blind, as not to be able to discern trees from men, in case he came to a Forest, 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 marvel 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 terms 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, be 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 he shall judge it worth his pains) to peruse the other passages in his book, which I have not rembled, and then he needs not fear, 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, 1ᵒ. That the said M. Jenkin, proveth himself defective also in judgement and 〈◊〉. 2ᵒ. That he demonstrates himself 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 he hath fronted his Piece, and affronted the Truth, present him extremely defective in this kind. For first, he flourisheth with his Greek Colours, and entitles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies, A busy body in other men's 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 busy body in other men's matters, only for washing myself clean from those foul aspersions of Erro and Heresy, wherewith he and his defaming generation had bespattered me? Or did I in my Zion College visited, lift up my hand to any thing, but in necessary and due order hereunto? If a pickpurse, or thief upon the highway, should take Mr. Jenkins money from him, and he knew who had it, and withal, how to recover it, should Mr. Jenkin be a busy body in other men's matters, to attempt the recovery? What a vast difference is there between the judgement of old Hierome, 
In suspicion 〈…〉 quenquam esse patientem.  and young Jenkin, in this point? Hierome judgeth it not meet, that any man should be patiented, or sit still, under a suspicion of heresy: Judge Jenkin judgeth him a busy body in other men's matters, that shall stir little or much, in vindication of himself, in such a case. Or suppose the defamatory Testimony of the Ministers, had spared my name and reputation; yet falling foul upon so many precious Truths, as it doth: doth he deserve the reproach of a busybody, who shall rise up in the strength of the zeal of God, to defend them? It seems the things of Jesus Christ, and of the eternal salvation of the souls of men, are none of M. Jenkins matters: nor will he busy himself with them, further than they relate unto himself, and are his proper concernments, either in point of reputation, or of purse. Therefore (doubtless) they young man did not understand the first word of his book: and if he understands not his own words, I have the less reason to marvel, or be offended with him, that he understands not mine.  
His second Title is, 
Sect. 87.  the Busie-Bishop: to which he joins (to show, as it seems, the manifold exuberancy of his wit) by the dis-junctive, Or, this (in the third place) The Visitor visited. And soon after (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: Speaks 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 politic reach, to make himself a Metropolitan, that I must need● be made a Bishop, and in this capacity be visited by him? Doubtless, if I be a Bishop, and Mr. Jenking my visitor, he must needs be an Archbishop (at least) if not a Patriarch, or a Pope. But the poor man (I see) is troubled with that infirmity in the eyes of his understanding, which the Grecians call, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; we English Moon sightedness: and in this respect was not able to discern a consequence, that lay fair and clear, and near enough to a man of ordinary apprehension. So that (by the way) I have no great reason but to believe 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 marvel if a lusk, or purblind man FINDS not that which is plain enough before him, and easy to be seen and found by others.  
Speaking of my misled 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 bless God and love them. Though I much suspect the reality of his heart in this promissory engagement, 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 seems) are in no more capacity to yield such fruits as these, than Thorns are, to bring forth Grapes, or Thistles, Figs.  
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 dark, may be fully assured, that if he be struck, he shall receive the blow, or stroke, in the dark. A fish, if he can but scape danger in the water, needs not fear trouble in any other element.  
Whereas he adds, I desire them to know that I desire to say, I can die, etc. 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 him? Either of these jealousies are extremely simple and empty. For though a man may very reasonably doubt, whether Mr. Jenkin can do 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 tenderness in that kind: yet why saying it, he should be thought not to desire to say it, himself (I think) cannot well imagine the least reason. But whatsoever his intent or meaning was, the words are so unsavoury, that no salt of any construction whatsoever will give any relish or taste of reason unto them. And yet this Neophyte, with all his own non-sensicall say in that end of the wallet, which hangs at his back, presumes from the Tribunal of his understanding, to give judgement in cases of sense and nonsense.  
Having said, 
Pref. p. 3.  I can die, he adds, I cannot be silent. It seems, he 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 follows, 
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 outlive 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 men's hands, either in printing or transcribing, they are mortal, 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 substantial Word, and Truth, of God) is the same yesterday, to day, and for ever 
a Heb. 13. 8. , however he be opposed, or struck at in the world: so are all his words, whether uttered immediately by himself in the days of his flesh, or suggested to his Penmen before, or after, by his Spirit: let m●n misscribe them, mis-print them, mis-understand them, misinterpret 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 out-living the truths of God?  
Or if his meaning be, that he wishes, not to outlive, the free, open, and State-countenanced profession of these Truths, i. that the profession 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 unnatural unto himself, as to hate his own flesh. What carnal, formal, or lukewarm 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 speaks of, shall be publicly 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 Soldier of Jesus Christ. Thou therefore (saith Paul to Timothy) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, endure hardness, as a good Soldier of Jesus Christ 
a 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 
b 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 thyself out of the world, than to stand up in defence of it, or to partake of the afflictions which attend upon it. If a soldier, when the enemy comes on, & the battle is now ready to be joined, should come to his Captain, and say, Sir, I wish rather to die than to fight: I wish I may not outlive my ease and peace; were this gallant, or martiall-like? I perceive Mr. Jenkin hath no mind, nor courage, to follow the Truth, longer than she 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 himself 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 confess ingenuously, that the men he speaks of, never opposed me in God's way, i. with meekness, sobriety, strength of argument, etc. but in their own way, viz. with passion, precipitation, peremptoriness, or at the best, with empty, childish, and lose arguments, which stand off from the opinions which they pretend to prove by them, as if they were afraid to come near them, or to own them? Of which kind 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 believing, they who are condemned, would have their mouths opened against Gods proceed, I must needs make God's sovereignty to be impaired with man's ability, and to be limited to man's sinfully & voluntarily contracted impotency. Might he not (well-near) with as much semblance of reason, & strength argue thus: If I hold that Abraham begat Isaac, I must needs make Abel the murderer 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 wisdom of God, or with the goodness of God, to require faith and repentance of men, unless enabled by him to exhibit and perform them; doth it any ways follow, that God must needs lose his sovereignty, by not requiring them? Doth he lose his sovereignty by not acting contrary to his wisdom, or contrary to his goodness? Is his sovereignty or dominion over the creatures impaired, because he doth not judge 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 withal so weak, contemptible, and shallow in arguing them, as the greater part of the London Subscripturients are.  
Page 27. 
Sect. 91.  to prove the words, which I deny to be an error, viz. 'Tis a needless thing for Satan to blind, if they have not eyes to see, to be very false, he advanceth this apodictical proof: For (saith he) notwithstanding Satan's making us blind, we are blind of ourselves: Dicite I● Paean: is not this a triumphant demonstration? we are blind of ourselves, therefore there is a necessity that Satan should blind us. I fear, 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 he ob●rudes his reverend opinion of the Scriptures. The very truth is, that he, and many more, speak highly of the Scriptures, not because they loveth Truth, or the mind 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 minds and opinions, how unworthy and godless soever, by persuading the people, that they dwell in sacred shrines, and therefore can be none other but the Truths of God. See a clear instance hereof, in the progress 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 nature 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 nature all man is carried captive by Satan (it is only Mr. Jenkin that saith this, the Scripture saith it not: 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 himself, when he hath a lame opinion to gratify) 2 Tim 2. 26. Doth it therefore follow, he is not a slave to since, because to Satan? In this piece of discourse, the intentions of these men in lifting up the Scriptures, and so in using of them, may be clearly seen, unless the veil of their ignorance may be conceived to hid them. He chargeth me (page 34.) according to the known tenderness of his conscience, that still I would have fain the Scriptures counted heretical 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 spoke it. For doth it not clearly suppose, that the Scriptures themselves must be heretical, if they should teach or hold forth any other doctrine than what M. Jenkin teacheth? And if so, than 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 looked upon as Heretical, 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 heretical, 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 blind, as a man that is dead, had need yet to be blinded by Satan, or may further, or to a greater degree of blindness, be blinded by him. As for that Scrip. 1 Cor. 2. 14. by which he seeks to prove it, it appears 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 natural man, is not meant, the man that is simply or merely natural, or unregenerate, or that hath nothing at all of Christ in him, but such a kind 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 natural there, and carnal here, he means only weak Christians, such as for the present had made little progress in the knowledge of Christ, and of the Gospel. This interpretation is further confirmed, 1ᵒ. from hence, viz that one and the same kind of person, whom he calls spiritual, is opposed both to the natural man there (as cap. 2. v. 15.) and likewise to the carnal man, here (cap. 3 1.) 2ᵒ. From hence, that as the Gospel speaks frequently, of two kinds (or degrees rather) of christian's, weak, and strong, expressing them by several appellations; so the one sort of them, viz the strong, is (amongst other denominations) frequently expressed by the term, spiritual. If any man think himself to be a Prophet, or Spiritual [i. excellent, and of a greater growth in knowledge than ordinary] let him acknowledge that the things I writ unto you, are the commandments of the Lord, 1 Cor. 14. 37. So again: Brethren, if any man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, [i. more able than your fellows,] restore such an one, etc. Gal. 6. 1. To pass by other instances of like import; And I (Brethren) could not speak unto you, as unto spiritual [i. as unto strong, or understanding Christians] but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ, 1. Cor. 3. 1. So then the word Spiritual, when spoken of persons, or spiritual man, being never found in the writings of this Apostle opposed, to the mere natural, or carnal man, but very frequently to the weak, and less understanding Christian, it is no ways reasonable to imagine such an opposition here: the scope and carriage of the context, no ways requiring it, but rising up in opposition to it.  
The reason (by the way) why the weak Christian is, 
Sect. 92.  and well may be, termed natural, or carnal, is, because he retains much of the mere natural, or carnal man in him: he is still under the guidance of many false principles and notions of things, which are more genenerally found in mere natural, and carnal men; and consequently his dispositions and practices are in a great measure like unto theirs also. A denomination may truly, and with sufficient propriety of speech, be given, upon a gradual participation only 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 be not as black as a Negro. So a man may be termed an ignorant man, not only when he knows nothing at all, but when he knows little in comparison of what he might, and aught to know, and what others do know. In like manner, men may be termed natural, or carnal, 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 carnal. For having charged them with being carnal, that it might appear to them, that ' he had done 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 carnal, and walk as men? Implying, that since they had so much of mere natural and carnal men in them, or amongst them, as they clearly discovered by such ways a●d do as these; since they so fare 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 mere natural man should do 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 general, of the things of God, nor particularly of things simply necessary to be known or believed, unto salvation, but only 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 bear. Such things of God, as before (viz. verse 6. and 7. of this chapter) he had called, wisdom, and the wisdom of God; and afterward, (viz. c. 3. v. 2.) he calls meat (opposed to milk) i. strong meat; by milk, understanding the obvious and plain truths of the Gospel, such as are easy of apprehension even to those that are carnal, and babes in Christ. Now men merely natural, may be uncapable of these, as a great part of the believing Corinthians themselves were: and yet be some ways 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 moral law, of his eternal power and Godhead manifested in the creation, of such rational 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 thinks Mr. Jenkin himself, though he have a rare gift of denying any thing that makes not for his turn, should not deny it. But  
2ᵒ. 
Sect. 94.  That power, or ability, which the Apostle here denies to his Animal, or natural man (who ever he means by him) of knowing the things of God, or of the Spirit of God, may well, nay (of necessity) must be understood only of an immediate, actual, or present capacity, or power. So that his meaning may be only this: The Animal, or Natural man, whilst he continues merely such [animal, or natural] 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, animal, or natural, 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 child, 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 he remains yet a child: he hath no immediate or actual power to do either of these; yet such a power, or principle he hath in reference unto both, by a regular employment and improvement whereof, he will, or may in time, according to the ordinary course of God's providence, be able to do either. A man that stands upon the floor of a low room, hath no power of stepping into the upper room, immediately; but he hath a power of conveying himself, if he pleaseth, by the opportunity of stairs made for such a purpose. The Apostle himself, in this very context of Scripture (viz. cap. 3. 2.) supposeth that these Corinthians, who being carnal, and babes in Christ, were NOT for the present) ABLE to bear meat, had yet such a principle, or capacity in them, by the growth and strengthening whereof, they might in time come to such an ability. I have fed you (saith he) with milk, and not with meat: For HITHERTO ye were not able to bear it, neither YET NOW are ye able. In that he saith to them, that they were not YET able to bear it, as being Babes, he plainly implies, that by using means 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.  
3ᵒ. 
Sect. 95.  (And last) whether the place be understood, either of weak Christians, or of mere natural men (though the former be less 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 attain the knowledhe or discerning of these things; or else because of that great averseness or indisposition, which is incident to both these sorts of men, to steer a course of means proper or likely, to render them capable of such knowledge, or discerning.  
For first, as the Scripture is wont to express a number, next to none, (I mean, a very few, a number inconsiderable) by the word, none, simply; There is NONE that doth good, etc. Psal. 14. 3. and elsewhere; and so likewise in greater sums or accounts, to omit the fractions, or odd unites, expressing only 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 pass, and (as it were) near to an impossibility, it ofttimes takes no notice of those few degrees of probability, or possibility, under which it lieth, but calls it (simply) a thing impossible, 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 Kingdom of Heaven, in the next verse, to carry up their apprehensions to the due height and pitch of the difficulty, hardness, 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 Kingdom of God. Yet that he doth not here speak of a Logical, i. a simple and absolute impossibility, but of a moral only, is evident from vers. 26. where he restrains 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 himself, as well as with men. And that which in this verse he affirms to be impossible with men, v. 23. he had represented only as very difficult, and what was very seldom likely to come to pass. Verily I say unto you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. i. that very hardly, or with great difficulty, will, or shall a rich man enter into the Kingdom of heaven. Many times the rareness only, 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 do evil; he seems to imply (as to the manner of the expression) a kind 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 what is simply and precisely impossible (for in that sense it was not impossible for them to repent, notwithstanding their long habituated custom in sinning, as appears by the examples of those, who have repent upon such terms as these) but only 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 Austin's 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 heavy weight of an evil custom (lying on him.) And yet he riseth upon a great voice 
a 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 effectual hold upon his judgement and conscience, by the gracious interposition and co-operation of the Spirit of God. To instance only once more (for the present) the multitude of the Saints spoken of, Revel. 79 is said to be so great, that NO man COULD number them: i. it was very difficult and hard, not simply impossible for men to number them. For it is not simply impossible for men to number any number that is finite: and that the number of these Saints was not simply infinite, appears from hence, viz. that elsewhere in Scripture they are called, few, a little flock, 
See also 1 Kings 3. 8.  etc. viz. comparatively, in respect of the fare surpassing number of those which perish; which number, the great surplusage of it notwithstanding above the other, is not simply infinite. 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, etc. do not import a simple, or utter impossibility in the men spoken of, to receive, know or discern the things of God; but a difficulty only 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 only, is in very many places to be taken in a kind of metaphorical and unproper sense, viz. for a moral POWER, that is, for such a principle or disposition in the will, which renders a man actually inclimble and propense to do such, or such a thing, and not for a POWER of efficiency, or execution, which (in strictness and propriety of phrase) is POWER only. And again the present or actual want of such a principle, or disposition, is frequently expressed by the want of POWER to do the thing. When it i● said of the Lord Christ himself, that being in his own country, He COULD there DO NO mighty work 
a Mark 6 5 , etc. It cannot be imagined that the arm of his Divine omnipotency, by which he wrought all his great works and miracles elsewhere, was at all shortened in his own country, more than it was in other places, or that it was Logically impossible for him to work as mighty works here, as elsewhere. Therefore the meaning of the expression is only this, that by reason of the exceeding disrespective and unworthy carriage of his countrymen towards him, he had no mind, will, or disposition, to show 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 bear with them that are evil 
b Rev. ● 2. , etc. his meaning is not, that it was logically, or simply impossible for these persons to bear with those that were evil; but clearly this, viz. to acknowledge that they were zealously and vehemently inclined and bend, to censure and restrain those that were evil amongst them; by reason of which inclination, they constantly dealt as effectually, as severely with those that were evil 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 bear with them, being evil. In the like construction and phrase the Apostle Paul expresseth himself to the Thessalonians thus: Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought good, etc. And a little after: For this cause, when I COULD no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith 
c 1 Thess 3. 1, 5. , etc. His intent was not to inform them of any thing that was simply and absolutely impossible for him either to do or to forbear: but only to express the greatness of his affection towards them, and the vehement longing of his desire after their establishment and comfort in their faith. To open only one instance more, and to content ourselves with a brief pointing at many others; when the Apostle John writeth thus; Whosoever is born of God, sinneth not, for his seed remaineth in him: NEITHER CAN HE sin 
* 1 John 3 ●. , etc. his meaning is not, that such a man wants faculties, or Powers, either of body, or of soul, wherewith to perpetrate, execute, or practice sin, in case he had a desire or mind thereunto: but that that inclination or propenseness 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 abhorrency 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 do this great wickedness, and sin against God 
a Gen 39 9  Ye CANNOT (saith Joshua to the people) serve the Lord your God: for he is an holy God 
b Jer. 24. 19  The people CANNOT come up to mount Sinai (saith Moses speaking unto God) for thou hast charged us, saying, set bounds 
c Exo. 19 23. , etc. The evil (saith Jeremy concerning his Figs) very evil, that CANNOT he eaten, they are so evil 
d Jer. 24. 3.  And I CANNOT (saith Lot to the Angel) escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me 
e Gen. 19 19 , etc. We CANNOT (say Laban and Bethuel to Abraham's servants) speak unto thee, bad or good 
f Gen. 24. 50. , And they said (the Shepherds of Haran unto Jacob) we CANNOT [meaning, water the sheep] until all the flocks be gathered together 
g Gen. 29 8.  We CANNOT (say the sons of Jacob to Shechem and Hamor) do this thing to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised 
h Gen. 34. 14. , etc. It is said of joseph's brethren, that they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him 
i Gen. 37. 4. . We cannot go down (said the same persons to their Father) if our youngest brother go with us, then will we go down 
k Gen. 44. 26. . Of Joseph himself it is said (a little after) that he COULD NOT refrain himself before all them that stood before him 
l Gen. 45. 1. , etc. The Magicians COULD NOT stand before Moses, because of the boyles 
m Exod 9 11. . It B●l●k would give me this house full of silver and gold, (saith Balaam) I CANNOT go beyond the word of the Lord 
n Numb. 22. 18. & 24 13. . He is such a son of BELIAL (say nabal's servants of their master) that a man CANNOT speak to him 
o 1 Sam. 25. . I am doing a great work. (saith Nehemiah) so that I CANNOT come down 
p Neh. 6. 3. . CAN that which is unsavoury (saith Job) be eaten without salt 
q 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 mourn, so long as the Bridegroom is with them 
r Mat. 9 15. ? How CAN ye, being evil, speak good things? 
s Mat. 12. 34. ? Are ye ABLE to drink of the cup that I shall drink oft? etc. 
t Mat. 20. 22.  Either how CANST thou say to thy Brother, Brother, let me pull out the more that is in thine eye 
u Luke 6. 42. ? etc. How CAN ye believe, which receive honour one of another 
w Joh. 5. 44. ? No man CAN come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw him 
x Joh. 6. 44. 45. . Therefore they COULD NOT believe 
y Joh. 12. 39 . Even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world CANNOT receive 
z Joh. 14. 17.  etc. And I, Brethren, COULD NOT speak unto you as unto spiritual 
a 1 Cor. 3. 1. , etc. So then, they that are in the flesh, CANNOT please God 
b Rom. 8. 8. . Who CAN have compossion on the ignorant 
c Heb. 9 2. , etc. How can he love God whom he hath not seen 
d 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 only meant such a moral power as I spoke of; an actual propension or inclination in the will toward the doing them. Which kind of Power men may be without, and want, and yet have a sufficiency 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) from believing, 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 believed. For (doubtless) it was both Reason and Experience, that taught the Heathen Poet this Truth: 
Nemo adeo forus est, 
Horat.  ut non mitescere possit,  
Si modo culturae patientem accommodet aurem. i.  
No man so fierce or furious is,  
But he attain to meekness may;  
If that a patiented ear he please  
To wholesome discipline to lay.   
Nor ought that Idiom, 
Sect. 98.  or phrase of Scripture, wherein the present inclination, or bend of the will in reference to an action or course, is signified by a power, or ability to do or practise accordingly, seem strange, or any ways ha●d; since it is but the familiar Dialect of our own language. When we have a great unwillingness, or averseness of mind to the doing of a thing, we ordinarily express ourselves thus, We CANNOT do it: and it may with good propriety of speech be said, that a covetous man CANNOT do liberally or bountifully: an angry or proud man, being proked, cannot express himself meekly, or humbly, etc. In such expressions as these, we do not imply, or deny, but that the men, whose wills for the present, stand strongly bend a contrary way, have yet a power (properly so called) to do 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 natural man knoweth not the things of the Spirit of God, by which he seeks to confute that assertion of mine, viz that it were needless for Satan to blind the eyes of men, if men were naturally blind, and totally uncapable of the things of God. Poor man! It is evident by his Scribble, 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 mind the propriety or import of Scripture-expressions. He tells me (page 30.) that I have a longwinded stile, and a foggy conceptus, that I cannot write a slight notion, which may be couched in four 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 do very virtuously 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 vainglorious, and sufficiently conceited of his skill, brings several Tables, or pieces of work, to show 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 quickness of hand, he had performed them, and tells him, that within such a space of time, he had dispatched them all. But (replies his friend to him) are these all thou didst in that time? wittily reproving his vanity, and affectation of applause and intimating withal, the slightness and inconsiderableness of his work. Mr. Jenkin, Mr. Jenkin, it is very easy to be quick, but exceeding hard to be substantial and through. You young men can feast vitreum vas lambendo, only with licking the cutside of the glass: but wiser men must pultem attingere, come at the meat that is within; or else they cannot be satisfied. Nor is it any great marvel, that you complain of long-windednesse in my stile: a broken-winded horse thinks a short journey long, and informs his Rider accordingly, in a harsh complaining guttural Dialect every step (almost) that he taketh. And for the fogginess 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 confess Mr. Jenkin his conceptus, or conceit of himself, is more elevated and clear than mine: but his conceptive faculty, of the nature, truth, cause, reasons, grounds, and connexion's of things, is so foggy dark, and gross, that four hundred lines will not serve him to bring forth a very slight and sl●nder notion indeed with any clearness or evidence of truth. But I had rather he should discover his weakness himself, than I: only 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 weakness, or strength: In your next tell me in what places Peter and Paul assert, that a natural man's impotency 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 administered by me? Do I any where hold it fort● (or any thing of affinity with it) that either Peter or Paul should assert, that a natural man's impotency excuseth him from doing his duty? Or is it not the express and clear tenor of my opinion (in this point) that there is no such impotency in a natural man, which doth excuse him from doing his duty: and and that men are therefore inexcusable before God, who do 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 jannes' and jambres were excellent Prophets of the Lord, and that Balaam was a holy and righteous man? whether in 2 Tim 38. where Paul saith thus: Now as jannes' and jambres withstood Moses, etc. 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 son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness, etc. As absurdly ridiculous is that also which follows in Mr. jenkin's Bishop: In the mean time your old friend, Mr. Bucer sends you word by me, that our impotency and want of strength to do any good at all, will prove a vain excuse. Well may Mr. Bucer employ Mr. jenkin to carry such frivolous and impertinent messages as these: I know not where he could have found a man that might better be spared, either to pill straws, or to throw stones against the wind, or to carry such messages, which nothing concern those to whom they are sent. For do not I very well know without information either from Mr. Bucer, or his filly pragmatical agent (Mr. jenkin) that impotency and want of strength to do any good at all, will prove a vain excuse? Or do I not clearly and positively affirm, even in those passages transcribed by the London Scribes, things every ways consonant hereunto? When Christ said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger: and again, Reach hither thine hand, and put it into my side 
a John 20. ; if Thomas should have excused himself from doing either the one, or the other, upon this ground, that he had neither fingers, nor hands, doubtless 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 do good, it must needs prove a vain 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 righteousness of God not only not admitting any untruth to mediate with him in any man's behalf, but also deeply abhorring those, who shall presume to come before him in the name of such a mediation.  
Whereas I complain, 
Sect. 101.  that one while, and in one place, the London Heresy 〈◊〉 deface and mangle those passages of mine, which they pretend to transcribe, by suppressing and leaving out what they please, yea very emphatical, and material words and clauses; in a other place, that to render me as a man prodigiously erroneous, and to make me heretical in folio, they swell and bulk their transcriptions by citing similitudes, parables, and resemblances also; Mr. jenkin (page 30.) profoundly censures this deportment of mine, as a deep misdemeanour in these words: The Subscribers have not (as yet) the Art of pleasing you: even now they cited the words too sparingly: now, too copiously: you are ever complaining, etc. 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 weakness, 
Sect. 102.  and insufficiency in managing the Scriptures. Pag. 31. to prove, that the Scriptures deny, that they who perish, have power to believe, and repent, he citys (among other Scriptures every whit as impertinent) without strength, Rom 5. 6. God worketh in us to will and to do. 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 sin of Adam, and whereinto we should certainly have perished, had not Christ interposed by his death for our deliverance. The tenor of the Apostles words is express: 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 Therefore he ●hat should thus reason; the sun now shineth: therefore it is midnight; should draw the true portraiture of Mr. Jenkin his reasoning from the Scripture in hand. For to prove, that the Scriptures deny strength in those who perish, to believe, and repent, he brings a Scripture, which (as hath been showed) 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 do, clearly supposeth, that men have power both to will and to do; so fare is it from denying it, or supposing the contrary. Yea it is Gods working in us both to will and to do, that enableth us both to the one, and the other. The Apostle himself earnestly presseth and persuadeth the Philippians, to will and to do (in effect) upon this ground, viz. that it is God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is working in them to will, and to do, of his good pleasure. Wherefore (my beloved) as ye have always obeyed not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear 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 do, doth not necessarily suppose, that either to will or to do, are actually, and without any more to do wrought in us: no more, than his purging Jerusalem of old, necessarily supposed, that herefore Jerusalem was actually purged. Because I HAVE PURGED thee (saith he to Jerusalem) and THOU WAST NOT PURGED, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthiness etc. 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 do in many, who yet neither will, nor do. For the understanding whereof, Mr. Jenkin shall do well to take knowledge of the Scripture Dialect and phrase in such expressions; as viz. that when an effect depends upon the joint 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 efficiency, 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 hereunto. As for example, The purging of Jerusalem (lately mentioned) was an effect, which depended, partly upon God, or his interposal by his Word, Spirit, Mercies, Judgement, etc. partly upon Jerusalem herself, in comporting with God in those administrations, wherein he applied himself unto her, for her purging, and so in suffering herself to be purged by him. Now because God had done that, which was necessary or proper for him to do towards this effect of purging her, he had for a long time striven 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 itself, (I mean, the purging of Jerusalem) is attributed unto him, though it was not effected or brought to pass, Jerusalem herself denying, or withholding that, which was necessary on her part, for the actual producing of it, viz. her consenting unto the motions and applications of God unto her, for her purging. Because I here purged thee, (saith God unto her) i. have done all that which was proper or meet for me to do towards the purging of thee; and thou wast not purged, i. deniedst too join or comply with me in thy purgation, therefore thou shalt not be purged etc. Upon the same consideration and ground, our saviour expressly himself 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 the facto she committeth adultery, or no. For he doth not suppose, that every woman put away upon such terms, must of necessity therefore commit adultery: yet he that putteth her away so, is said to cause her to commit adultery. Thus (in Paul's language) he is said to destroy his brother 
a 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 do such things, viz. because he acteth or worketh that, in, and upon men, which is very proper, and full of efficacy and power, to prevail with men, both to will and do such things. For men actually to will and do 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 behalf. Now when God doth his part, I mean, that which is proper and meet for him to do 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 analogy and consideration whereof his inference from Philip. 2. 13. is quite overthrown, he may please at his leisure 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 flood several effects attributed unto their partial causes respectively, not because actually produced by them, but only because these causes contribute their respective virtues 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 believe, shows himself to be a man of the same line of understanding with those, who should either bring water to drown an Eel, or fire to embase Gold.  
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 extremely shallow, empty, and depressed in his intellectuals, and no ways meet for his engagement. So that if Zion College mean to have their work done to any purpose, alius quaerendus est artifex, they must seek some better workman. Mr. Jenkin hath done his good will: but what is this to their relief?   

4 Mr. Jenkin evinceth himself defective even in matters of Civility, Modesty, and common Ingeunity, by such deportments and passages, as those taken notice of in the sequel 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 achieve (nor indeed cordially attempt) any great matters against him, or his kingdom. Those strains in the Busie-Bishop, which represent the Author, as a man, in whom, though a young man, Nature herself taketh no pleasure, but leaveth him in the hand of the degenerous and ignoble impressions of incivility, malepertnesse, and shameless scurrility, are of a sadder consideration to a spirit truly Christian and considering, than all the rest. Humanum est errare: to err, 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, falsify against knowledge, to vilify our Superiors, to trample upon our betters with the foot of insolency and disdain, to boast of the key of knowledge when we are grossly ignorant, to assume the seat of Judicature, and pass confident awards in matters which we understand not, no nor care to inquire into; doubtless such misdemeanours as these, are not the waves or practices but but of men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as chrysostom speaketh) i. who are declined and bowed down towards the nature and disposition of unreasonable creatures. Now whether several of these ill-portending symptoms be not found upon Mr. Jenkin, I appeal to these, and many such like unclean 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 Orleans, a man that discovers more solidity and worth, more soundness 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-baked Testardus. They that are not burnt as black as a coal in the fiery furnace of High-Presbytery, are (it seems) in M. Jenkins account Doughty baked. Page 35. as if all his own ind●tings were of an Angelical refinement and allay, he calls my writings, Heretical Scribble. Modestlessime! Is not he, who understands not a piece of plain English, a competent judge of Scribble? 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 Heresy? Page 23. He flings himself into this hypocritical and basely-calumniating passion: How doth my soul pity your poor deluded followers, who have such a soul starving, and soul poisoning Shepherd set over them: The Lord knows, I hardly write these things with dry eyes. What M. Jenkin saith, in saying that he hardly writes with day eyes, I find no great obstruction in the way of my believing; considering that children oftener cry out of anger and mere vexation, when they cannot have their wills, than out of pity. I believe (and not without ground) that if the inside of M. Jenkins heart were turned outward, there would be seen in it, wrath, envy, and indignation in abundance at the prosperity and flourishing estate of the souls of those persons, whom he (notwithstanding the earnest solicitations of his conscience to forbear) pretends to pity, as if they had as●ul starving and soul poisoning Shepherd over them. But the spirit, which pitied the followers of Christ, and his Apostles, as deceived, 
a 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 entered the lists with some of those my deluded followers he speaks of, he would (I believe) have found no great symptoms upon them of their being fed by a soul starving, or soul-poisoning Shepherd. Yea those very fears which ceized on him, and dissuaded him from the attempts when his great words and public challenges called him to the conflict, give sufficient evidence against him, that he had not the consent of his conscience, when he reviled me with the stigmatical and opprobrious terms of a soul-starving and soul-poisoning Shepherd. But I have been a long time used to the hissings of the old Serpent: and now they do not trouble me.  
Because I advise the Subscribers, 
Sect. 105.  in respect of that un- Christian temereity, and self-assumingnesse of spirit, which they discover, in branding with the odious names of Errors and Heresies, such Tenets, not only 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 believe) ever will be produced, that they would (for the time to come) deal more Christianly and tenderly in such cases, and not stigmatize their brethren as Erroneous, or Heretics, because they are not of their judgements in such points, 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 seems he never heard of that exhortation of Paul, given as well to Ministers as Christians, even to every man, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith 
b 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 causelessly and importunely maunders? notwithstanding, because of the same Christian counsel, he presently after gravely teacheth me, that the Heretical Devil must not be used gently. M. Jenkin had best take heed how he provovokes his own Familiar. But for my part, let the proud Devil, and the Bloody Devil be first handled in their kind, and as they deserve, and I shall freely consent, that the Heretical Devil drink 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 marvel 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 fear or wit, as if I would have them believe nothing at all in Religion for certain, only because I advise them not to be unchristianly poremptory, and self willed, in stigmatising such opinions for Errors and Heresies, which men every way as wise, as learned, as judicious, as religious as themselves (not dispraise to them) judge to be truths: yea, and have asserted them for such, with a stronger hand of Scripture, and rational 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 Sun is the centre of the Universe, or that the earth moves, the heavens standing still, or that there are nine Hierarchies, or distinct ranks of Angels, that the name of the Soldier, who thrust his spear into our Saviour's side, was Longinus, the name of the penitent Thief 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 Heretical, 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 he would consider better of such opinions, and especially forbear to declaim against those that were otherwise minded, as men Erroneous or Heretical, had he the least colour or tolerable pretence to complain of us, as if we advised him to turn Sceptic, or to believe nothing positively and for certain? But in M. Jenkins Logic, there is no difference (it seems) between believing that the Moon is made of green Cheese, and, that twice two make four; but that he that dissuades men from believing the former, doth by consequence, dissuade them also from believing 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 show nothing but extreme ignorance, or impudency (M. Jenkin is offended with me for showing his commodity) to allege an Author for me, the whole strain 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 outstretched 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, do you give sentence, that I show nothing but extreme ignorance and impudence, in citing him [i. passages from him] for me? Will you blaspheam, and say, the Holy Ghost shown nothing but extreme ignorance, or impudency, to record or cite the words of Caiphas the High Priest for him, or as consonant to the Scriptures, because the general strain of the words and say of this Priest were opposite unto him? Or did the Apostle Paul show nothing but extreme ignorance or impudence, 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 less frequent or usual things are, the mention, discovery, or presentment of them, finds proportionably the greater acceptation with men. But Mr. Jenkin renders me either ignorant or impudent, only for citing such say from M. Bucer, which (as he saith) have no fellows in his writings. But for ignorance, impudence, and such aspersive terms as these, M. Jenkin hath them at the first hand, and so affords them cheap.  
He tells me, 
Sect. 107.  p. 43. that I still LABOUR to make my own face clean, by throwing dirt in Bucers. Wretched man! I know of no soil or uncleanness in that face of mine he speaks of: why, or how then should I still LABOUR to make it clean? especially how should I LABOUR 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 citys them for him? Or doth not every man suppose, 1ᵒ. That what he holds in point of judgement, is the truth? and 2ᵒ. 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 intent, to cast dirt in the face of another, only by affirming him to be of the same judgement with him in the Truth? I thought Mr. Jenkin had not LABOURED to cast dirt in the faces of Jerome, Austin, Luther, Calvin, etc. by citing them for his opinion, but rather to have cast honour upon them, as being Orthodox with himself. Upon the like account he presently after chargeth me, that my AIM is here to make Bucer seem a Giant, that I standing by him, may seem but a Dwarf in heresy. Was there ever man spoke at this rate of malicious nonsense? Or was ever man charged with such a crime as this, that his AIM was to make himself seem a Dwarf in heresy? Is any man's AIM to be counted Heretical, in what degree soever? or to bring the reproach of Heresy upon others, only by presenting them as men of the same judgement with themselves? But any thing, sense, or nonsense, will serve M. Jenkins 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 Heresy? The root of the matter is only this: Whereas M. Jenkin by vera justitia (in the passage cited by me from Bucer) will needs understand, the duties of righteousness commanded in the Law, and so make him speak perfect nonsense; I on the contrary, affirm the words to signify, True righteousness. Presently after, in the same heat of blood, he civilly tells me, that I do wickedly to seem willing, that the Reader should believe, that Bucer did ever imagine, any could be justified out of Christ. Reader, wouldst thou know the ground of this charge also? I only translate Bucers' Latin 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 Paul's mind and intent, to object [or suggest] unto the Jews, 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 righteousness of the Law, neither before Christ was revealed unto them, nor since, but] of true righteousness. Nor doth it any ways follow, that in case Bucer should imagine, that the Gentiles were justified before Christ was revealed unto them, [viz. in the ministry of the Gospel, of which kind of Revelation it is evident he speaketh] that therefore he must needs imagine that men may be justified out of Christ. God hath several ways to reveal Christ unto men, besides the external ministry 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 only because it is the ordinary way by which God hath appointed that it should come. Many things are simply and indefinitely affirmed in the Scriptures, which do not import an absolute universality, but only a commonness or frequency of truth. When our Saviour saith, that if any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not 
a joh. 11. 9 ; his meaning is not to affirm, that no man whatsoever, walking in the day, ever stumbled (this being notoriously untrue) but only, that men walking in the day, do 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 always, and without exception, they who walk in the night, stumble; but only, that it frequently cometh to pass, that such do stumble. Do I not then very wickedly, to seem willing that the Reader should believe, 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, unless (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 tear my own flesh? I may very reasonably demand of him, whether he did not consult with a Bedlam, and take his advice, about the proposal 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, Doubtless men are natural men, before they are spiritual, 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 man's own flesh? When I cite one saying of M. Jenkin, without citing another, or without citing all the rest, do I tear his flesh? If so, M. Jenkin tears the flesh of his friends of Zion College, and of several other Author's less deserving such measure, than they. A little after he commenceth another demand, of a like stamp: Friend (saith he to me,) Fear 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? Doubtless, men are natural before they they are spiritual. It seems Mr. jenkin's 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 do not write, as he falsely (pro more suo) repeateth my words; viz. that the Ministers set down the words he speaks of, for THE error, but, for AN error in me. And if Christ were not looked upon by the jews, as a malefactor, why was he crucified by them amongst malefactors? If the Ministers did not intent 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 do 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 follows therein.  
Pa. 30. 
Sect. 109.  He turns himself unto me with this grave address: The Arminians were your Schoolmasters, when you learned this lesson: The Remonstrants and you meet again. Did M. jenkin 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 speaks of? This lesson being interpreted, is nothing else, but that God is not unjust, nor unequal, nor any ways pretending contrary to his intentions, in his deal with men. I trust M. jenkin 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. jenkin so much mother-wit, as to say, that thrice five make fifteen, without having some choice Schoolmaster to teach him?  
He tells me (page 30.) that I have such a longwinded stile, 
Sect. 110.  and such a foggy conceptus, that I cannot write a slight notion, which may be couched in four lines, under thirty four 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 four lines. M. jenkin (I perceive) can beat his dog, both with a long staff, 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 
a joh. 12. 19 ; Another while, to disparage him among the people, pleaded on the contrary, that none of the Rulers, or Pharisees believed on him, but only a few ignorant people, who know not the Law 
b joh. 7 48, 49. : in like manner M. jenkin's 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 books with the Dictates of three or four lines: and yet (to my disparagement also) have such a long wound stile, that I cannot write a slight notion, which might be couched in four lines, under thirty four lines.  
Page 14. 
Sect. 111.  Only upon occasion of my saying, that God made the world of nothing, he interjects it thus; Profanely enough! Is it profaneness in M. jenkin's Divinity, to say, or hold, that God made the world of nothing? Or is it pious only in High Presbyterians to say it, but profane in all others? Or doth the man deny creation, and dogmatise with those, who affirm the world to have been from eternity? Why else should he call it profaneness in me to affirm the contrary? 
〈…〉  But what is it (almost) that I can speak, or do, but the debauched conscience of this man pretends to find, either blasphemy or profaneness in it? If I cite, or any ways make use of the Scriptures, he chargeth me with profanation of Scripture. What remains (saith he page 50.) of this weak Pamphlet, consists of nothing but three or four profanations of Scripture. And a few lines after: 'Tis a miracle that the stones and tiles of houses do not speak about the ears of one so profane and erroneus. But let me tell you (M. jenkin) whether I be profane, and erroneous, or no (both which imputations you are as fare from proving, as free in charging upon me) that it is profaneness and erroneousness 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 mind, and condemn him for profane and erroneous, whom you out of a blind zeal to the fifth rib of your Religion, condemn for such. Is it a miracle with you, that the righteousness of God should not accomplish the wrath of man?  
Because I express myself only thus; 
Sect. 112.  Do 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.) YOUR SELF IS the first man that ever I heard to commend you for clearness, plainness, and distinctness. 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 himself, until Mr. Jenkin and his transcendent ingenuity came to undertake the construction? But howsoever, the great Corrector (or Corruptor rather) of L●ctio's, should do well to pull the Beam of false concord ou● of his own eye, and not join Nominative cases of the second person, with verbs of the third, before he goes about to pull the MOAT (or rather somewhat as much less than a moat, as nothing is than something) of unproper English out of his brother's eye. If any of Mr. Vicar's Boys, who have learned that easy thing, where Mr. Jenkin finds Nil permutabis, emesve, should bring any such English as this to him, YOUR SELF IS, or any such Latin as this, Tuipse est primus, etc. I cannot but think he would administer correction to him; and but deservedly. As much reason as M. Jenkin hath to charge me with commending myself, for the words lately mentioned, so much also (and no whit more) he hath to slander the close of my Zion College visited, with some four or five (it seems he cannot speak clearly, or distinctly) nauseous commendations of the Author and Book. But Nabal (as his own servant described him) was such a son of Belial, that a man could not speak to him 
a 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 less in the balance of his rare ingenuity, than to the nauseous commendations of himself.  
Page 16. 
Sect. 113.  He sadly bewails his own condition, and the condition of his fellows, under the name of Orthodox (thrice mentioned in the complaint for failing; this is a nauseous commendation of himself to purpose) as if it were fare better with the Sect of the Independents, than with theirs. These (saith he) are exceeding days for Sectaries: the Orthodox have but short commons: they are rich in employments, and poor in payments. 'Tis true, you preach a great deal more than you pay of the debt of Evangelicall Truth, which you own unto the people: your payments in this kind are very poor) 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 cross, etc. In this passage of M. Jenkin it is clearly seen, both how strangely Envy multiplieth, and unthankfulness substracteth.  
Fertilior seges est alienis semper in arvis,  
Vicinumque pecus grandius uber habet. i.  
In other men's fields the best corn always grows,  
And still the greatest Dugs have neighbour Cowes. But  
1o. With what forehead, or face, can he say, that the Orthodox have but short commons, if by Orthodox he means the Ministers of the adored Order of Presbytery? May not Newcastle as well complain for want of Coals, or the Sea for lack of water, as the Presbyterian Ministers for shortness of commons? Is not the whole English element of Church-livings offered up by the State upon the service of their conformity? 
a Marcus Crassus negabat quenquam esse d●vit●, qui suis fructibus exercitum aler● non posset. Cic.  Are not all the fat Benefices in the Kingdom appropriated unto them, and their Order? Are not all other men thrust out of doors with disgrace, to make room for them with honour? Must they feast with Hecatombs every day, o● else complain of shortness of commons? Or is Mr. Jenkin of M. Crassus' his mind, who would have no man accounted rich, unless 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, four hundred, five hundred pounds per annum, will not serve to protend them to their due longitude and proportion. And yet I believe that the line of many of the Orthodox he speaks of, hath fallen upon a fruitfuller ground than any of these. The Author of Zion College vindicated [that is, of the Blackamoor 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 sacrilege in him, that should compel him to exchange his Presbyterian demesnes for five hundred pounds per Annum.  
I would willingly know in what cryptical, mystical, or retired sense he affirms the Orthodox aforesaid to be under the cross? For unless some underhand, or unknown sense here relieve him, his assertion must be his shame. What? Presbyterian Ministers under the Cross, and scarce under the Crown? Are they under the cross, who are carried by Authority upon eagle's wings? over whom the Parliament itself rejoiceth to do them good from time to time, heaping up Ordinance upon Ordinance, Ordinance upon Ordinance, to advance both them, their government, and their live together, suffering no man to do them wrong reproving all sorts of men for their sakes, and charging all men concerning them, as God chargeth the world concerning his endeared one's: Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harm 
b Psal. 105 14, 15. . Are these the Symptoms of men under the cross? What? Sun, Moon and Stars making obeisance unto them, and yet they under the cross? High and low, Magistrate and people courting them, and yet under the cross? Alas for their tenderness! When they lie upon beds of Roses, if a leaf happen to double under them, it is as a sword passing through their souls: they are not able to endure the torment of it. Unhappy men, to whom wealth, ease, honour, peace, liberty, are turned into a cross! For alas! who, or what shall deliver them out of their great distress? But certainly there is some pad in the straw; something there is, that Mr. Jenkin calls a cross, which few men know by that name, but only they, who are deeply baptised into the Spirit of High Presbytery. Questionless the cross he speaks of, is such a cross as Saul complained of, when he sought 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 
a 1 Sam. 23. 21. . Was not Saul in a very sad condition, under a grievous cross, and much to be pitied, that he could not have his will upon David, an holy, innocent, and peaceable man, to destroy him? Doubtless the Orthodox Mr. Jenkin speaks of, are under no other cross but this: they cannot do all the evil that is in their hearts to do, to a quiet, peaceable, holy and harmless 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  
3o. 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 glean of the grapes of Presbytery, better th●n the vintage of Independency? Or have Independent Ministers any other commons, or means of subsistence, than what is the abomination of the Presbyterian souls to think of, I mean the benevolence, the free and voluntary allowance of their people? Or might not Presbyterian Ministers have such commons, such exceed as these, if they pleased, with thanks 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 
b 1 Sam. 2. ; so do M. Jenkin and his Orthodox men teach their people by the thorns and briers of the laws of the land, to pay their tithes: so fare are they from contenting themselves with the exceed of the Sectaries, which are nothing else but the revenues of the love, and good will of their people. Mr. Jenkin himself very lately preached a Law Lecture to his people concerning the payment of Tithes, 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 
c Mat. 5. 40. . C. B. likewise hath been a terrible man at this weapon in his days, and by the mediation of the law hath oft reconciled himself unto his covetousness, which (it seems) would give him no rest, until he had by that Rod of Iron, brought his Parishioners under contribution for the enlargement of his commons. But with what Truth, or semblance of Truth, Mr. Jenkin affirmeth these to be exceeding days only for Sectaries, it may be clearly judged by this: viz. that one of his Orthodox men, even C. B. himself (lately touched) hath in yearly Ecclesiastic means and incomes, more than any three (I believe, I might safely say, than any four) Independent Ministers in all the Kingdom. And yet I do not look upon him neither as a man anointed with the oil of that joy and gladness I speak of, above all his fellows: I believe there are more than a few of them, whose anointing is richer than his.  
4o. 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 publicly declared, uncapable of those favours and privileges, which are granted generally to other Ministers, or Preachers in the Land; to be sequestered from their means and livelihoods; to be disgracefully thrown out of places more creditable (at least, in vulgar repute) for the exercise of their Ministry, and thrust into holes and corners (as himself 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 believed by both, as Sectaries, Schismatics, Erroneous, Heretical, Factious, Troublesome, Dangerous to the State, and what not? If these, and such like things as these, be 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?  
5o. (And last) 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 Original, most certainly it is not the word of God. If in stead of saying, I am PAID for hearing my people, he had said, I am well paid in hearing them, his pen had been no great transgressor: but saying I am PAID FOR hearing them, can he be judged any other than an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a man condemned of himself in the saying? Or if he had said, that I am paid for teaching them, or for enabling them [instrumentally under God] to speak those things which sometimes I hear 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 paid for teaching my people so, that I may hear them speak the things of God with comfort; when as himself is paid for teaching his people (I fear) to fare less purpose; yea and compelleth some to pay him, whom (I believe) he teacheth not at all, unless it be to know what it is to dwell 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 sense wherein himself asserteth either the one, or the other (as hath been formerly proved) and that by many Arguments and Demonstrations, himself only dictating his opinion, but demonstrating nothing; yet how importune and restless 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, wherein 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 fear not to destroy the word of truth. I fear that he by his diabolizing and calumniating, fears not to destroy his soul. Page 19 he saith, My work is to preach and write against all Prophetical and Apostolical writings. What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue 
a Psa. 120. 3.  When did I ever preach or write the least word or syllable, against any Prophetical or Apostolical 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 real enmity to the Scriptures? etc. Page 22. he complains, 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 seems) knows not sands from rocks Page 56. he chargeth me with having thrown 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 groundless 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 lowliness of your heart that you prefer yourself 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 himself hath transcribed it, upon occasion whereof he levieth this demand, which savoureth in the least of any prelation of myself before any, even the meanest of the Subscribers, let this crown of honour be set upon Mr. Jenkins head, that once in his days he spoke truth. In the next words he interroga●es me further, thus: Or was it from the Logic 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 form 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 withal laboured with the uttermost of my endeavours in the engagement, to quit myself 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 general carriage of the Discourse, to clamour and traduce me for a man denying the Authority of the Scriptures, only because in one place I do not tautologize, and use those restrictrive or explicative expressions the second time, which I had used a little before for the clear stating of my opinion. Yet had I form such an Argument as he speaks of, it had been more manly by fare, and less childish than that whereby himself would prove, that I cite M. Bucer for me impertinently; inasmuch as M. Bucer never wrote an entire 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 licentiousness rather) of Conscience, to ascribe unto me.  
A while after (in the same 19 page) to vilify me, 
Sect. 116.  and make orts 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 confess, Mr. Jenkin, my pen never dropped 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 fundamental concernment, both for the propagation of this Religion in the world, and likewise for the radication and confirmation of it in the souls and consciences of those, who profess it. The young man could hardly have picked 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 only, no nor yet the principal or most considerable cause, of that necessity, which lieth upon Christian Divines, to labour in the Question whereof Bellarmine speaks, or to assert the said Authority of the Scriptures. The sinful and profane lives and conversations of the generality of Professors of Christianity, whether in the way of Bellarmine's, or of M. Jenkins persuasion, (I mean, whether Papists or Protestants) who deny the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, (as they do God himself, as the Apostle speaketh) in their works 
a Tit. 1. 16. , amount (upon true accuunt) to a fare more considerable engagement upon Christian Divines, to assert the true Original 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 Jews (in respect of the Divine Authority of the new Testament) together with the conversion of the Turks, 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 virtue of his authority) to Mr. Jenkin, seems so inconsiderable, than either, or both, of those considerations which the one of them suggests, and the other digests so readily. Yea, I believe Mr. Jenkins own Faith, and conversation, stand in much need of a through and substantial 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 only (to perfect the demonstration in hand) presented the Reader with a first fruits of those palpable and broad-faced untruths, together with those industrious and consulted falsifications (for Charity herself 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 less than the one half of his Pamphlet. Pag. 16. He affirms (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 threaten of all sorts of people: Speak, Books 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 untruth; 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 Zion College 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 speak of, or intended in the said passage, subscribed to that Testimony, in what Edition soever. Page 19 He obliquely taxeth me, with preferring myself 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 risen up for the most horrid Heretics, Antiscripturians, Anti-trinitarians, etc. in my Hagiomastix. Reader, assure thyself, that I never risen up for any Heretic whatsoever, either Horrid, or smooth, much less 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 terms; That first, their opinions being substantially and clearly proved to be Heretical; 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 courtesy, and to be cast into bell fire, a friendly dealing by men. Why else doth he charge me with rising up for Heretics, who never thought, nor said, that they deserve any more courtesy or friendship (upon the terms mentioned) than to be thus severely and dreadfully punished? Pa. 26, 27. He saith, that a Sectarian Antiscripturist hath found that favour in my Hagiomas●ix, as that in this Calendar 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 believe, 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 1ᵒ. he makes me to say, If God should not make men able to believe; my words are, If God should not make men capable of believing. An intelligent Reader cannot but apprehend a very material difference between the one expression and the other; especially, as I explain my capability of believing. Secondly, whereas be makes me to say, that men MIGHT accuse God (as if I implied the lawfulness of such an accusation) my words are, that they WOULD have their mouths opened against Gods proceed, and be furnished with an excuse. In which words I only imply an aptness in men to take hold of such an opportunity, or advantage, in case it were given them, to speak against Gods proceed in their condemnation, and by way of excuse for themselves: which, how fare 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 believe, or not capable of believing (which this degenerate son of Levi by his maladministration of my words, would fasten on me) but upon his proceed against men to condemnation for not believing, in case of an utter incapacity in them to believe. So that for the young man to make me say, that If God should not make men able to believe, men might accuse God: is not only to make me say what I never said, but what is diametrally contrary to what I do say. Yet this is his constant manner, and measure to me, and to my words, whensoever he either finds blasphemy in them (which is very ordinary with him to do) or when he levieth an Argument or Dispute against any thing asserted by me. He must pervert, not my sense & meaning only, but my words themselves also (in one kind or other) or else he knows not how to gain any commodious ground or standing, to quarrel or cavil against me. Page 29. His right hand practiseth her cunning with this falsification: If God will not suffer his Sovereignty to be impaired with man's ability, and to be limited to man's sinfully and voluntarily contracted impotency; the holy commands of God are by J. G. openly charged to be worthy of having our mouths wide opened against them. Os impudens! when do I charge the holy commands of God (so much as in colour or show) upon any such terms? But the madness of this imputation is made manifest elsewhere. 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 believe any thing so unworthy of so worthy and learned a man, as to reproach me altogether unknown to him. Page 43. He poureth out himself in falsehoods: 1. He saith, that I still labour to make my own face clean, by throwing dirt in Bucers. 2. that my aim is to make Bucer seem a Giant, that I, standing by him, may but seem a dwarf in Heresy. 3. that I desire, that the Reader should believe, that it was Bucers' judgement, 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 cruel by a THOUSAND 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 Sepulchre. Unworthy young man, and most unworthy the name of a Minister of Christ! How, or wherein, or whereby, do 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 Heretic, or a man of rotten judgement, unless it were by the Ministers of Babylon? Or is it to honour his name, and keep it alive? Or is the showing 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 burial 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 sepulchre to bury his name in, I impute not so much to his malice, as to the inconsiderateness of it (though this may well be a symptom 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 unkindness, or cruelty to Bucers' Name, otherwise than in, or by my writings?  
Reader, I am loath to weary thee with any more proofs or demonstrations of the conclusion in hand. Those that have been already taken up, and insisted upon, do abundantly evince, that Mr. Jenkin evinceth himself in his Busie-Bishop, extremely 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 say, which have not been yet mentioned, and which are obvious enough to my view, in the said Pamphlet, and withal argue and detect the wilfulness and unworthiness of them, I should (I verily believe) 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 do) with my Youngling-Elder Mr. Jenkin.  
As for my Antique Elder, 
Sect. 118.  Rabshakeb Vicars, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that bad Egg of ill Bird, (a rod gathered by himself for his own back) with his Pictures, Poetry, and Windmills, I conceive that he hath received already an answer or recompense 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 Boys and children.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.  
Such wages always let such workmen have.  
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, 
a ●am. 1. 26.  and bridleth not his tongue (much more his pen) but deceiveth his own heart, this man's Religion is vain. Farewell Mr. Vicars.  
There is yet a third man, 
Sect. 119.  whom I cannot call, but only conjecturally, by his name: the man hath been already touched 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, Zion College what it is, etc. but pageth, Zion College vindicated, i. what it is not (a natural intimation, I conceive of the lubricity, or versipelliousnesse of 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 seems) to express it by any letters further off from GREATA, than those that are next to it, viz. C. B. Yet I half 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 sum which he was assessed upon that account, taking up a Bible in his hand, wished the Devil 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 speak of, to be that C. B. whom I am to speak with: because C. B. may dissemble; and whereas they pretend to be the proemial or initial letters of a man's Christian name, & Surname, they may prove the Epilogicall or final 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 enticing 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 foul upon him that shall so challenge him without sufficient proof. Therefore be this C. B. who he will, I shall neither nominate him, nor any other man, upon so slight a foundation as two letters afford.  
Notwithstanding I cannot easily disengage my thoughts from running upon the same D. D. 
Sect. 120.  I spoke of: they will, 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 symbolising with their principles, who (as the Apostle saith) glory in their shame, in his accounting it his honour to be a member of Zion College 
a Title page. , strengthens the conjecture. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the stile & dialect of the piece bewrayeth him. 4 To blow with clandestine heifers, together with underhand practices to know what he should not know, are known practices of his. 5. That encyclopaedicall knowledge of the state of Zion College, 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 itself 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 zeal, & when he wrought at the fire, spoke many an hot and affectionate word for Episcopacy. But yet this constellation is made only of such stars, quae tantum inclinant, non necessitant, which only incline, but do 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 he talks of two fell and fiery Satyrs, 
Sect. 121.  the one, called Zion College visited; the other, the Pulpit Incendiary; from the slanderous defamations whereof, he promiseth a Vindication of the Society of Zion College. To vindicate the Society he speaks 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 Chirurgeon to heal a man of such wounds, which he never received. As for one of the Treatises, Zion College visited, certain I am, there is no slanderous defamation in it of that Society: nor do I remember any such miscarriage in the other. If C. B. desired to deserve honourably of his Society, he should have undertaken (and quitted himself accordingly) a Vindication of the members thereof, from those crimes and unworthy deportments, which with evidence, and manifestness of truth the said two writings lay to their charge. But in this case, that of the Poet excuseth him (in part.)  
Non est in Medico semper relevetur ut aeger:  
Interd●m d●cta a plus valet arte malum. i.  
The Doctor cannot always help the ill:  
The sickness sometimes is beyond his skill.  
All the slanderous defamations which C. B. finds in the two Pamphlets he speaks of, are nothing else but either his own clear mistakes, or else the capacious constructions, which he makes of some of their expressions. When they charge Zion College with such and such unchristian misdemeanours, and crimes, C. B. avoucheth with importune confidence, the innocence of the walls and edifices of Zion College, and tells us a long story of the conversion of a large and ancient house in Alphage Parish, into a College, and of the commendable intentions of the Founder of this College, with many such good morrows, which are altogether irrelative to the matters objected by the Authors of his two Satyrs. Goodman, he learnedly pleads the cause of the b●na terra of Zion College: but it is the malagens of this college that is accused. We charge the children: and he tells us, that upon his knowledge he can acquit the mother. His carriage in this kind, 
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 fair Cypress tree. C. B. is excellent at one thing: but it was another thing that lay upon him to do. He hath painted us a goodly Cypress tree: but what is this to a shipwreck?  
So again when we challenge and charge Zion College, as aforesaid, C. B. chargeth us with slanderous defamations, and thinks that he vindicates this College 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 College, or Society, in their Collegiate capacity, or in the formalities of their Corporation. Truly (C. B.) we confess that very possibly our senses may not be so much exercised as yours, in discerning the puntilloes of Law; and probable it is we may fail in some formality of expression: but when we charge Zion College, 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 ways declaring against them, we make account that we speak properly enough, and nothing but the truth, when we charge the Society (simply and indefinitely) with such things. But that is the thinnest Figleaf of all the rest, wherewith C. B. goeth about to cover his own, and his Colleagues nakedness; to pretend, that when they do meet to agitate and consult of their affairs (which many times prove the Kingdom's miseries) they do not meet in Zion College. 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 Rendezvouz be, whether they meet at the quondam Dean of Paul's College, or at the present Dean of Paul's House, or at Mr. Jenkins House, or at the Popes-head Tavern, or wheresoever.  
But why doth he style the two books he speaks of, 
Sect. 1. 22  two fell and fiery Satyrs? A satire (according to our best Lexicography) is a nipping kind of Poetry, rebuking vice sharply, and not regarding persons. The man (as himself confesseth) read the books with much astonishment, and so being besides himself, might very possible mistake Prose for Verse. However, after the manner of men astonished, he speaks halfe-sense. The books he speaks of, though they be no Poetry, or Satyrs, yet do they rebuke vice somewhat sharply, nor do they regard persons. The truth it, that Truth is Satirical, and biting.  
Sed quid opus teneras mordaci radere vero Auriculas? i.  
What need we grate the tender ears of men  
With BITING TRUTH?  
Yea the Galatians themselves (it seems) looked upon Paul, as an enemy, as one that dealt Satirically, and over-sharply with them, only for telling them the Truth. Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth 
a Gal. 4. 16.  And questionless the admonitions and reproofs 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 reproofs administered to Zion College 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 City and Kingdom, lie under a great temptation of writing Satyrs, considering the most unnatural deal of Zion College men in opposition unto both. Good men have at this day cause to profess and say with the Poet of old: 
Difficile est Satyram non scribere.  
To write a satire who can well forbear? Especially  
— cum tot ubique  
Vatibus occurras—   
When we meet with so many Prophets every where, who writ and speak things so provokingly obnoxious to the lash. I believe 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 (doubtless) are not the Pamphlets he speaks of, which have nothing f●ll or fiery in them, (except it be the fell and fiery actings, and speakings of Zion College men here mentioned) nor yet Satirical, unless it be Truth; but rather, the sharp accusations, the severe workings and smitings of a guilty conscience within him. Which conscience (I confess) might very possibly be awakened, and set on work by the two books he speaks of, to do that severe execution upon the man: but the Law, which only teacheth and admonisheth a Judge of his duty in punishing a malefactor, is rather to be justified and commended, than any ways censured for so doing.  
Moreover, 
Sect. 123.  out of the Amalthean horn of his Title Page, we have a promise, of, a little taste, by the way, of another young thing of Mr. J. goodwin's, running about with the shell on the head, before it be all hatched, etc. What? must C. B. needs taste of a young thing before it he all hatched? Behold the unmaturalnesse and unruliness of the man's appetite! The Law forbids again and again, the seething of a Kid in his mother's milk 
a Exod. 23. 19 34. 26, etc. . But Gallio careth for none of these things. I look upon this unruliness of appetite, as a further character (besides those mentioned) of that D. D. I spoke 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 war, should not think the engagement worthy his grandeur, 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 Zion College? But how came C. B. to meet with that young thing he speaks 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 hatched, had not some unnatural thing befallen it. But alas! Doth not our English proverb inform us, that he must needs RUN whom the Devil drives? No marvel 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 believe C. B. himself hath had a finger in the prank, and employed some of his Familiars to act it. Howsoever, if the Society of Zion College be vindicated by C. B. in his late Pamphlet, I believe they are beholding to this young thing of Mr. J. goodwin's, 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 himself for a man of rare activity, as viz. in procuring the sight of some part of a book 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 less regret and sorrow.  
Expectata minus laedunt—  
Looked for sorrows prove less sorrowful.  
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 door of hope to obtain the great happiness 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 Zion College. 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 Zion College? Judas had the honour of being a member of the College of Christ's Apostles (a better foundation I wisse, than that of C. B. his Zion College) yet the spark of this honour was soon quenched in the deluge of wickedness, which burst out of him. But why, or upon what account doth C. B. account it his honour to be a member of Zion College? Himself 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 College: So that by his own account it is no more honour to be a member of Zion College, 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 atom or dust that ever was filled off from the mass 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 honour which he so highly accounts of, I mean; of being a member of Zion College. 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. Therefore there is no door that I know of for him to enter by into Zion College, as a member thereof: but when the door is shut, he can climb, and get in by the window. If he hath any colour or pretext of claim to the honour (as himself reputeth it) of the membership which he challengeth, it is in the lowest and last capacity of all the rest (according to his own Table of Heraldry) I mean, that of a Lecturer (for the time being.) But whether he be a natural, or putative member only of the College 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 fare, if this College could think it an honour to it to have such a member, as he. But though I cannot much commend this College either for principles of ingenuity, or for any great wisdom 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 believe 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 MUCH ASTONISHMENT read two scurrilous Pasquil's, one entitled, Zion College visited, written by an Apostate member thereof: the other, calls itself, the Pulpit Incendiary, compiled (some say; the more shame for them) by the same visiting Bishop, though published by his dear Chancellor, the Exchange-man. In these words 〈◊〉 giveth his reader a rational account, how it might very well come to pass, 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 undisturbed 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 Zion College visited, was written by an Apostate member thereof. For I would fain know of C. B. (if he be yet come to himself, or to a more considering man) upon what account he voteth me an Apostate member of Zion College; or wherein stands this my Apostasy? Was that blind man, to whom Christ restored his sight, John 9 an Apostate from the Jewish worship and religion, because the Pharisees cast him out 
a joh. 9 34.  by a strong hand? Or was David an Apostate from his religion, because his enemies drove him out from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying unto him, Go serve other Gods 
b 1 Sam. 26. 19 ? Or what act have I ever done, by which I have either made or declared myself an Apostate from Zion College? The sin of Apostasy is never committed by suffering. Was not C. B. himself far more properly an Apostate member of this College, when he voluntarily abandoned his people and Incumbency, in Magnus' Parish; and thereby dismembered himself from the College he speaks of? Yea is it not likely that he would have continued in this his Apostasy all his days, had he not been reduced and reconciled by the friendly mediation of many hundreds per annum? But if a Lecturers place in the City, be the cure of his Apostasy in this kind, why is not mine apostasy healed also, who have accepted such a relation as well as he? For though the hundreds I spoke of were his reconciliation, motiuè, yet is his place of a Lecturer, simply considered, and without the adjunct of an Episcopal demesne annexed, which reconciles him formaliter, & terminatiué. So that my Lecture in the City, how poorly soever endowed, is as potent to invest me with the honour of being a member of Zion College, as his is.  
Again, considering that it is so generally known what an Exchange-man himself hath been, exchanging first Magnus for Major, and then Major for Maximus, and withal, how studious and diligent he was (when time was) in furnishing himself with that kind of learning, which teacheth the Art of Chancellory, and how he fau'nd upon Episcopacy, (the common road to a Chancellorship in those days) me thinks it argues the relics (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 emphatical periphrasis of THE Exchange-man.  
Passing by all his frivolous and (indeed) ridiculous exceptions against me, 
Sect. 126.  about my mis-notioning of Zion College (which together with his essays to jeer and flout, make up the greatest part of what he pamphlets against me) I shall only touch two or three particulars of somewhat another nature, in the charge whereof he magnifies himself at an extreme rate of height and grandeur against me. His firstborn charge against me (upon which he runs 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) 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, etc. upon occasion of these words, he chargeth me first, with inward rancour of heart against the College; and then, with a presumptuous fathering of all, little short of blasphemy, upon Christ, and the Almighty himself. And (soon after) at a man fallen into a new trance of astonishment, or as not recovered out of the former, he epiphonemas it thus: O horrid presumption, thus to entitle his rail, and slanders to the Almighty! But first, (good C. B.) where are the rail and slanders you speak of? Certainly the place of them is not 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, show 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 only find a monitory visitation, entitled (as you call it) unto Christ; no rail, or slanders. Nor doth it follow, that because I entitle the body or substance of that visitation unto Christ, I must therefore entitle unto him also all, or any, the infirmities found in the administration. A man may, and aught, entitle God to the act of his believing; and yet not entitle him to any deficiency, or weakness therein.  
2ᵒ. Whereas you are so zealously displeased, that I should entitle Christ to the visitation you speak of, and cry out of little less than blasphemy in it, it no ways troubles me (nor need to trouble any other) considering there is nothing more incident to men, that have too much will on ways that are sinful, than to rise up with deep indignation against those, that shall censure or reprove these ways, 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 do. 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 inordinately, 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 spoke 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 Lord their God had sent him to them, even all these words, than spoke Azariah the son of H●sh●iah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and ALL THE PROUDLY MEN, saying unto Jeremiah, Thou speakest falsely: 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 
a jer. 43. 1, 2, 3.  The self sam● Spirit which uttered itself in these men against Jeremy, worketh at this day after the same manner, and uttereth itself upon very like terms in C. B. W. I. and some other high-spirited men of Zion College, against me, and others, for reproving such sinful ways 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 temporal, or eternal. It were easy to trace the same spirit by several other footsteps in the Scriptures. See Jer. 5. 12, 13. 18. 18. Am. 9 10, etc. But  
3ᵒ. (and last.) It being the manner of the Scriptures, to ascribe those things unto God, which are done by virtue of, and in obedience to, his command; I had ground and foundation large enough to inintitle or ascribe unto him, that my visitation of Zion College (except as before is excepted.) For is not the command of God express, Them that sin, rebuke before all men, that others also may fear? 1 Tim. 5. 20. And again, This witness 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, condemn, and post up a whole Society of Elders, without any show of truth, ●or offering to produce so much as one witness to make good their charge; he doth prudently to shelter himself from the charge of a rightdown 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 less 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 Attorneys or Solicitors (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 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 righteousness 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 only traduce and calumniate them, and this without any show of truth; 1ᵒ. evident it is, that all, or fare the greatest part of all, the particulars charged upon them in Zion College visited are extant in their own dear Testimony, not only acknowledged, but rejoiced and gloried in by themselves: 2ᵒ. concerning the particulars wherewith they are burdened in the Pulpit Incendiary, I have several 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 fair consistency (as the Reader may soon perceive, if it be worth his time to view the passage) he deals so kindly with the truth, as to spare it twice together. For first he saith, that I style the Subscribers learned and pious men, as if generally, and without exception of any, I so styled them all; whereas my expression, wherein I use those words, is clearly partitive, and only imports a supposal of some to be such. 2ᵒ. 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 3ᵒ. do I so directly instance in the four persons he speaks of, for great names of men, as he implieth But 4o. (and last) whereas he seems very desirous to imply (for here his sentence scarce senseth well) that I Instance in the said four men, as learned and pious, he draws 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 transgressor in chief, 
Sect. 128.  only for mentioning a report or information that was brought to me, concerning another name, by which Zion College, or the house now called Zion College, was anciently known, For I affirm nothing positively concerning either the credit or truth of the information; only once alluding to ●he information, I confess I call it Sinon College. Was this so treasonable a practice against the majesty of Zion College, (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 
a The house that hath for these 24 or 25 years' last passed, been known only by the name of Zion College, 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 Zion, but of Sinon College, is not the breadth of a lana caprina out of the way of Truth. For that House, & the present college being materially the same, there wants only a fair explication to make the saying stand right & straight in point of truth ) as to deserve a tree of fifty cubits high? or to have such a Vial of wrath, or such a flood of fiery indignation poured out upon it, as this great Rhadamant hath prepared and decreed in these words: Therefore (viz. because the Records will speak for themselves, i. because the Crow is black, and not white) Therefore (saith he) I know none but himself, who doth boldly take authority, and delights in it, to make errors, that hath THUS IMPUDENTLY changed the name at pleasure, etc. It seems C. B. knows not himself: otherwise he might know another besides me, who fare more IMPUDENTLY than I, changeth names at pleasure. For 1o, 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 elsewhere, as I usually call C. B. his beloved palace, where he thinks his HONOUR dwelleth, by the Name of Zion College? Therefore it is a most frivolous and false charge upon me, to say, that I change the name of his College, because I once, or sometimes, call it by a name, by which it is not so vulgarly known, or called. How much more shamelessly false is it, to say, that I either IMPUDENTLY, or at pleasure change this Name, when as first, I use it but once, and 2o, have the ground and inducement of such an information asserting the legitimacy 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 knows none but me, that hath so IMPUDENTLY changed the name of that pleasure of his eyes, Zion College; yet a few lines before, he had said, that he thinks he knoweth another. As for the information (saith he) 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, Zion College) yea a famous Atheist, whom he susspects for the Author of my information, must needs be known unto him. But  
3ᵒ (And last, to this) is not C. B. himself a far more Impudent changer of names, and this at pleasure, than 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 ways reproachful, or disgraceful 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 stigmatical? Pag. 1. He calls me by the Name of an Apostate member, etc. In the same page he calls the Author of the Pulpit Incendiary, and me together, by the name of, Gracchis, [those audacious Gracchis.] Page 13. he calls me by the name of, Bishop John: page 15. Presbyter John. Page 2. the Mock-visitor of Zion College (to omit many other such changes of names as these, which at his mere 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 himself within the narrow compass of the indignation uttered against me for my loud-crying sin of changing the name of Zion College (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, speak the truth, and shame the— [D. D.] Did the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Bishop of our souls, administer this Piece of your Monitory Visitation? [No, C. B. nor did any man I know of, ever say that he 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 wickedness [in calling a spade, a spade] least that great Bishop of souls deprive you of your Bishopric and call you to such an account at his tribunal, as an Atheistical scoffer, 
●luctus in simpul● excitare. Prov.  as will make your ears 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 man's life, o call Zion College, by by the name of Sinon College (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 less than the rendering of a man an Atheistical scoffer; deserves no less than the deprivation of his Bishopric, and shall be punished with no less or lighter punishment, that the vengeance of eternal fire. Is it the inward thought of this man's heart, that the righteousness and wrath of God are calculated for the fulfilling of his unrighteousness? and that the Tribunal of Christ, is, or shall be erected for the trial and condemning of his opposers? The truth is, all things considered, that it is no easy thing to believe, that C. B. durst have so much as once mentioned the Tribunal of Christ, in case it be supposed that he rea●ally believes the being of it.  
How stigmatical and shameless an untruth looks out of these words, 
Sect. 129.  pag 20. There is not so much as one word of admonition to Zion College in all your Book? let the 18. and 19 pages of the book he speaks of (Zion College visited) speak. In which pages, I do first (upon leave desired, and presumed) seriously admonish the men of Zion College (for I suppose C. B. doth not challenge me for not admonishing the walls) of those true and real 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 2ᵒ. I here also admonish them with all faithfulness and sincerity, how, and by what ways and means they may repair 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 showers of uprightness and sincerity from your hearts and hands together, will make your crowns of honour 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) he compliments with me in this whirlwind. 
Sect. 130.  For you have taken upon you, Sir, the boldness in that bold visit of Zion College, to blaspheme, not the great Diana of High Presbytery (as in high scorn you flout it: I wonder what his precedent is to his relative it) but the High God, whose Ordinance Presbytery will approve herself to be, when your Name is like to rot in the dust, amongst those Giants, that would wage war with heaven. Here we have profound and learned do indeed.  
1ᵒ. He here prophesies of the time, when Presbytery will approve herself 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 agoin their captivity, the captivity of Sodom 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. 
a Ezek 16. ●3.  God's intent in this prophecy was (as Calvin rightly interpreteth it) to ●ut off all hope of deliverance from the Jews 
b M●nimè ergo dubium est, quin Propheta hîc spem omn●m salutis erip●at Iudaeis, dum ratiocinatur ab impossible, etc. Calv. in locum.  In like manner C. B. prophesying, that Presbytery will approve herself to be the Ordinance of God, when my Name is likely to rot in the dust amongst those Giants that waged war with heaven, doth emphatically prophesy and affirm, that Presbytery will never approve herself 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 as much as all the war that I have ever waged, hath been, not with heaven, but with earth, and with earthly ways, and earthly minded m●n.  
2ᵒ. Why, or upon what tolerable account doth he say, that I blaspheme the high God, because Presbytery (as he supposeth) will prove herself 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 sins of the world, from the roaring Lion the Devil, who goeth about seeking whom ●e may devour. For the Scripture Presbytery, 〈◊〉 the sweet and meek 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 impossible 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 Sceptre whereof is nothing else but a senseless and importune claim of a power from Christ, to umpire the sense and meaning of the Scriptures, according to their own notions, and exigencies 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 proselytes, 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, only because they cannot acknowledge knowledge them as Commissioners from God, to arbitrate the affairs of their judgements and consciences, and subscribe to their sense 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, be 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 sinning in punishing, or proceeding against Schismatics & Her●tiques. There is scarce any thing can be spoken, which toucheth High-Presbytery any thing near the quick, but that Mr. Jenkin and C. B. with others of that learning and candour, make either profaneness, 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 God's eye: and then neither the one, nor the other must be touched [for fear 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 chief to all my brethren in points of greatest weight: and Revenge, upon all those that tell me my own freely. I answer, 1ᵒ. That when C. B. tells me either of Ambition, or Revenge, he 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, pravique 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, seldom misreporteth) speaketh him a man, not so much labouring under the two infirmities he speaks of, as rejoicing. As for myself, I confess I have more infirmities upon me, than becometh either me, or any other man to have; but my labouring under them, is an effectual door of hope opened unto me, that they are on the declining hand, and that a perfect freedom and deliverance from them, is as near unto me, as Death, or the Grave. In the mean time, neither was Paul's paroxysine with Barnabas 
a Acts 15. 39 , nor his withstanding of Peter to his face 
b Gal. 2. 11. , nor his disputing against the Grecians 
c Acts 9 29. , nor his disputing with, or against the jews in their Synagogues, or with whomsoever be met daily in the Marketplace 
d Acts 17. 17. , nor his fight with beasts at Ephesus, after the manner of men 
e 1 Cor. 15. 32 , either divisim, or e●njunctim, any argument, or proof, that he laboured under Ambition to be a contradictor in chief to all his brethren, in points of greatest weight (though the points which he disputed against his Brethren, the Jews, were, for the most part, points of the greatest weight) but his frequent, and almost continual engagements in this kind notwithstanding, he was a man that sought to please all men for their good 
f 1 Cor. 10. 32 ; yea and was made all things to all men, out of a desire by all means to save some 
g 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 ways evince him to be any other, than a most meek, humble, quiet, and peaceable man. The great Knower of Hearts, and searcher of the veins, in whose presence I writ, knoweth, that if himself 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 private and obscure, where I might only contest with mine own weakness and errors, he should give me one of the firstborn desires of my soul in the things of this life, into my bosom. As for Revenge, I have always (since I understood any thing in the things of God) judged it not only an un-christian, but a most effeminate, base, and ignoble passion or distemper: yea at this very hour, 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 kindness, and office of love, as the telling of a man his own freely is, is a fare more unmanly, unnatural, and horrid distemper, than Revenge itself (properly so called.) I wish that it were but as easy for others to forbear injuring of me, as it is for me to neglect and pass it by, when they have done it. But whether it be either C. B. himself, 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 himself chief, yet (as it seems) in conjunction with some others, saith they were, as deceivers, yet true 
a 2 Cor. 6. 8. . They were as deceivers to them that looked upon them at a distance, and had not familiar acquaintance with their principles, ways and spirits: but unto such, who with Timothy, fully knew their doctrine, manner of life purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience 
b 2 Tim. 3. 10 , etc. they were true: i. they judged them to be the men which they were indeed and in truth. It is no hard matter to bear 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 bosom friends and acquaintance, do with a joint and free consent absolve us. As for Ambition, unless to shape a course for the dust and dunghill, for poverty, disgrace, contempt, loss of estate, loss 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 dispatched with my Triumvirs, for the present, yea, if themselves please, for the future also.   

NOTE.  
The passage cited from the Synod of Dort, which stands in the margin at the bottom of page 72. should have been placed in the margin of the page following, right over against their respective English. The said passages are to be seen, in Sentent. Theolog. magn. Britan. super 3m m & 4m m Artic. Thesi 3 ² & 4 2    

Postscript to the Reader.  
REader, though there be nothing in the preceding Discourse, that can justly offend any man; yet considering, partly the exigency of the season, which calleth a loud unto all parties, of what judgement soever, to join heart in heart, and hand in hand, in order to their common safety: partly also, the extreme weakness of many who know not how to love, where all their thoughts, as well as their persons, are not first loved, and adored for truth; I could easily have been so far overruled, as to have quietly born (a while longer) that burden of shame which Mr. Jenkin hath most unworthily laid upon me, and accordingly have forborn (at least for a time) the publishing of the said. Treatise, had not an importune stickler in that cause (who calleth himself C. B.) having by sinister practices procured the sight of some of the sheets, unseasonably published some part of it (in a Pamphlet very lately set forth, entitled, Zion College what it is etc.) Wherein he labours with both his hands, to prepossess the world with prejudice against it, whilst it was yet unborn, clamouring in a most effeminate & calumniating manner, as if nothing but unworthiness, and this in the highest degree, were to be found it. In consideration hereof I was necessitated to a present publication of it, hoping that neither a Christian Apology for innocency and truth on the one hand, nor yet a necessary reproof of error and undue practices on the other (out of which two spheres the Treatise moveth not) shall prove any obstruction in the way of love, concord, or peace, in the hearts of Christian & considering men, but rather make way for their advancement, and exaltation. There is no man shall go further with his adversary to make peace, than I The most peaceable man under heaven, may draw his sword in his own defence; yea, and possibly, in managing the resistance, wound his adversary; and both, without the least reflection upon that lovely disposition in him. Farewell.  
Thine in the God, and Prince, of peace, J. Goodwin. Junii 0 1648.   

ERRATA.  
Epist. pag. 2. line 15. for, light, r. sight. Book. p. 3. l. 2. for, is, r. are. p. 9 l. 26. for, dia●●errically, r. diametrally. p. 11. l. 20. for Dieana, r. Diana. p. 24. l. 37. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 26. l. 8. after, forbear, r. (as much as well may be) p. 28. l. 1. for, to nor, r. tenor. p. 29. l. 26. after, them, r. (together with the peculiarity of phrase and stile, wherein they are written.) p. 37. l. 37. for univocallay, r. univocally. p. 41. l. 14. de e, not. Ibid for as, r. if not. p. 44. l. 33. after, of, r. the. p. 45. l. 34. for, piety, r. pity. p. 47. l. 2. for, ● clear, r. is clear. p. 48. l. 27. for part, r. port. Ibid. l. 29. for, passage, r. passages. p. 53. l. 3. for Marterists, r. Martyrists. p 66. l. 5. for, coversion, r. conversion. p. 79, l. 16. after, so, r. that. p. 92. l. 19 after, to, r. do. p. 94. l. 30. for, forus, r. ferus. p. 95. l. 7. for, proked, r. provoked p. 98. l. 21. for whereinto, r. wherein. p. 100 l 24. after spirit, r. of. p. 101. l. 32. deal, but. p. 127. l. 35. deal it. p. 128. l. 16. after is, r. it. p. 133. p. 133. l. 26. after did, r. immediately and by himself. Ibid. l. 34. for, o. r. top. 134. l. 25. for anguish,, r. languish. p. 136. l. 33. forassertresses, r. assertresse.  
Some other oversights there are, as in pointing, capital letters, parencheses, and some few in marginal notes; which the Corrector presumeth will be but a gentle exercise for the Readers patience.  
FINIS.