The Six Book-Sellers Proctor Non-suited. WHEREIN The gross-falsifications, and Untruths, together with the inconsiderate and weak passages, found in the Apologie for the said Book-Sellers, are breifly noted and evicted. And the said Book-Sellers proved so unwor­thy, both in their Second Beacon-fired, and likewise in their Epistle written in the Defence of it, that they are out of the Protection of any Chri­stian, or reasonable Apologie for either.

By J. G. A Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righte­ous, even they both are an abhomination unto the Lord. Pro. 17. 15.
Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things, are worthy of death, not onely do the same, but consent with them who do them. Rom. 1. 32.
They that forsake the Law, praise the wicked: but such as keep the Law, contend with them. Prov. 28. 4.
Nullum vitium est sine Patrocinio. Sen.
Causa patrocinio non bona major erit. Ovid.
Non est in medico semper relevetur ut aeger:
Interdum doctâ plus valet arte malum.
Idem.

London, Printed for H. Cripps, and L. Lloyd, and and are to be sold at their Shops at the Castle in Cornhill, and in Popes-Head-Alley, near Lumbard-Street. 1655

The six Book-sellers Proctor non-suit­ed, and his Apologie proved the Apologists own condemnation.

GOod Reader, I shall do little in this paper, but only give thee a few Items (with an Imprimis) of that large bed-rol of untruths and foul as­persions (as the Apologist expresseth himself) of which he hath composed an Apologie (or rather, an Apologue, instead of an Apologie) for his Book-men.

If there prove to be any vacant paper towards the end, I may give thee a taste of some weak and indigested sayings of his likewise. But concerning aspersions and untruths.

Imprimis he saith, p. 3. that after search, he found the omission of one word, such, had by a strange kind of multiplica­tion, §. 1 produced a thousand, wherein I render them [the Book-sellers] to the world, as guilty of no less then forgery and falsi­fication. Here are two of those evil things, which himself calls soul and unjust aspersions. For first, I take his book-men [...]ardie, (and charge them accordingly) with the omis­sion of several other words, besides such, p. 16. 60. Besides, I charge them in my book (and that most justly) with several other falsifications, besides those committed in and about the Transcription out of my book of Redemption, as is to be seen in my Animadversions upon every Section of their Epi­stle (a very few only excepted) especially upon Sect, 1. 20. and 21. 3. I no where make his bookmen guilty of Forgery, for leaving out of the word Such: I only say in my Letter to them, that some would call it Forgery. p. 1.

Item, he saith, p. 3. that at the Book-sellers mis-transcrib­ing §. 2 the passage out of my Book of Redemption, I cry out of Antichristian dealing, &c. This is Book-seller-like also. I no where cry out of Anti-Christian dealing because of their un-Christian [Page 4] handling me in their transcribing me. I only call their request to the Parliament for the confinement of the Press, an Anti-Christian request; of which I give a true, and sober account. p. 49.

Item, p. 4. he saith, that I have so far profited in the art of §. 3 calumnation, that I am not ashamed to prostitute the sentences of Calvin, Piscator, Pareus, the Synod of Dort, &c. to the maintenance of those Arminian Doctrines, which all the world knows their souls abhord, &c. Doth the man speak truth, when he calls it a calumniation, truly and faithfully, and without any falsification in the least, to transcribe or report the sayings of men? He is not able to prove that I have wronged the Authors he speaks of, nor any one of them, in the least tittle or iota, in any thing I have cited from them. And if their souls abhor'd the Doctrines he speaks of, they are in a twofold respect, blame worthy; 1. Because their souls abhor'd such Doctrines, which are the manifest truths of God. 2. Because they assert and affirm that in words, which upon such a supposition, is most contrary to their sence and judge­ment. Besides it is much more Presbyterian, then Ortho­dox, to call the citation of mens sentences for the maintenance of what they plainly speak and avouch, a prostitution of them.

Item, p. 4. He insinuates a charge against me of oppressing the Book-sellers innocency. It seems to falsifie mens writings §. 4 and opinions, is Presbyterian innocency. But some of the Book-sellers themselves (I understand) are more ingenuous then their Apologist (as clients many time are then their Proctors) and do confess they did not well in defaceing my words, and wish it had been otherwise.

Item, (in the same page) he calls Toleration an accursed §. 5 Idol, and affirms it to be Mr. Goodwins Great Diana. If To­leration be an Idol, how come Presbyterians to fare so well as they do, by it? Idols (the Scripture informeth us) do nei­ther good, nor evil, Esa. 41. 23. 44. 10. Psal. 115. 4. 5. &c. I know no reason (nor do wiser men then I, know any) why the sect of High Presbyterialism, should be tolerated, more then its fellows. Certain I am, it is as ill deserving of the civil State▪ yea or of humane society; yea or of the interest of [Page 5] Christian Religion it self, as most of them▪ But why he should call, Toleration, my Great Diana, it may be his inte­rest, or his disaffection to me, knoweth; but his conscience, (I am confident) knoweth not, especially if he understand­eth what Toleration properly meaneth. I not long since plainly expressed my self to the chief Ruler of the land, that my sence was not to have any Toleration granted by the Ma­gistrate, to any sort, or sect, of erroneous men whatsoever; yea and further, that it was not in the Magistrates power to grant any, [id est, to grant a liberty, or permission unto any man, or sort of men, to erre.]

Item yet again (in the same page) he saith, that if things §. 6 be unpartially weighed, it will evidently appear, that to deny such or such a particular kind of unchangeablness in God, and to deny any unchangeableness in him at all, though different in words, yet is in sence the same. But if things be never so un­partially weighed, doth it, or will it evidently appear, that to deny the Apologist, (be he Mr. Pool, or Mr. Jenkins, or whosoever) to be such or such a kind of animal, as suppose an Horse, Mule, or the like, and to deny him to be any ani­mal at all, as suppose animal rational, an animal endued with reason, is onely somewhat different in words, yet the sence the same.

Item (in the same fourth page) he saith he is well assured, §. 7 upon much conference with Book-sellers since, that it was not willfully or maliciously left out to deprave my meaning, &c. and this he alledgeth as his first argument to make it evident­ly appear, that to deny such an unchangeableness, and to deny any unchangeableness, though somewhat different in words is yet in sence the same. Doth it, evidently appear by the affirming of an untruth inconsiderately, and not maliciously, that to affirm a truth, and an untruth, is in sence the same, and on­ly somewhat different in words? Is not this of that kind of demonstration, which maketh it evident that white is black, because it is something?

Item (towards the foot of the same page) why the deny­ing §. 8 of such an unchangeableness, and any unchangeableness, should be in sence the same, he adds (in the second place) this reasonless reason. The true reason (saith he) why the [Page 6] word such was left out, was because it was a relative term [and was not this an offence, deserving the punishment of being banished from the sentence?] and so if it had been expressed it would have necessitated the Transcription of a far larger pro­portion of Mr. Goodwins words, &c. But first, this reason is not at all relative to the conclusion, the apparent eviction whereof it pretends unto. For what is there in it to prove, that to deny such an unchangeableness, and any unchangeable­ness, are in sence the same? 2. It grosly contradicteth his for­mer reason. For there he affirmed (on the behalf of his Bea­con-Firers) that the word was not wilfully left out: and here he affirmeth that it was left out upon consideration and de­bate. Now what is wilfulness, but the fulness of the will? and when is the will fuller, then when a thing is willed, or resolved to be done, upon consideration, and in order to the effecting or procuring of some beloved end? 3. (and lastly) if the nature of their work of Beacon-firing would not permit the transcribing of such a proportion of my words, as was suffi­cient to explain my sence and meaning in that unchangeable­ness, which I deny unto God: they had provided better both for their consciences, and credits, if they had left out the whole sentence out of their book, instead of leaving out the word Such, (with others) out of the sentence. For is it rea­sonable, or Christian, to represent a mans saying as errone­ous, without declaring unto the Reader, in what sence that word, wherein the error is supposed to lye, is meant or un­derstood by him, in case it be ambiguous?

Item (page 5.) he saith that that assureance of the un­changeableness §. 9 of Gods love, which the Beacon-Firers impli­ci [...]ely assert, and with the denial whereof they charge me, is ve­ry well known (to the Lord Protector, and Parliament, and all intelligent men) to be that very▪ same which I oppose, &c. If the Beacon-Firers do assert such an assureance of the unchange­ableness of the love of God, as I there describe and oppose, I cannot beleeve that either my Lord Protector, or the Parlia­ment, or many if any) other intelligent men, have any know­ledge of such their assertion. For how should it ever come into the mind (much less into the steady and certain know­ledge either of the Lord Protector, Parliament, or other intel­ligent [Page 7] man, that men pretending to the true knowledge and honour of God, as the Beacon-fires do (by the Apologists high testimony of them) should ascribe any thing unto him, so abhorring to his nature, so inconsistent with his holiness, so destructive to his great end and design for the advance­ment of godliness amongst men, as such an unchangeableness of love to men, which I there describe, and deny unto him? As for the unchangeableness asserted by my adversaries, if it be such, which opposeth the unchangeableness, which I in twenty places (some of them pointed to in my Fresh Dis­covery) do assert, it is more then yet I understand. If it be such which I reject, and this with indignation and abhor­rencie of soul (as I, and all intelligent men, have good cause to doe) neither the Beacon-Firers, nor their Proctor, can with truth charge me with rejecting any other; nor conse­quently with rejecting all whatsoever. Therefore the mans Dilemma is impertinently frivolous.

Item (p. 5.) he chargeth me, that my whole dispute is le­vied §. 10 against the unchangeableness of Gods love. A most hor­id, bould, and broadfac'd slander. For the main designe of that dispute of mine he speaks of, is to explain, vindicate and assert the unchangeableness of Gods love: and withal to de­monstrate, that to ascribe unto him such an unchangeableness of love, as the Apologist (it seems) and some others, very inconsiderately do, is (above all contradiction) to render him mutable in his affection, and consequently, that un­changeableness of love, which they ascribe unto him, is felo de se, falls foul upon, and destroys it self. Upon this ac­count the Reader desirous of satisfaction, may please to per­use p. 63. 64. and p. 205. 206. 207. of my book of Re­demption. Therefore how importune and un-clerk-like is he in his Parenthesis following: I am not ignorant (saith he) he confidently tells us, that in his judgement Gods love is un­changeable, as it is no new thing for a spirit of error to be ac­companied with a spirit of contradiction. Most true it is, that a spirit of error is very frequently accompanyed with a spirit of contradiction. And hence it is, that the Apologist, and other Ministers and Preachers of his judgment about the un­changeableness of the love of God, &c. seldom preach, but that [Page 8] their Sermons are yea and nay; the doctrinal part, a Sama­ritan, and the applicatory part, a Jew. But whereas he would insinnuate me a self-contradictor, because I somewhere deny his unchangeableness of love in God, and elsewhere assert such an unchangeableness of love in him, which with the sal­vage of the glory and truth of all his Attributes, is compe­tent to him, he declares himself to be the firstborn son of disingenuity, unless to salve this dishonour, he will be con­tent to plead an Ignoramus. The passages he transcribes out of my book, are palpably irrelative to his cause. They only prove that I deny such an unchangeableness of love in God, as he (it seems) fancyeth in him (which certainly, whilest God spareth me my wits, and the use of my reason and un­derstanding to consult the Scriptures, I always shall deny) but they have no face or colour of proof, that I deny the un­changeableness of Gods love simply, or of any such unchange­ableness herein, which is [...], or by the Scriptures any where ascribed unto him.

Item (p. 5.) He terms it Scepticism in me, that I am not §. 11 positive and assertive in the highest, but express my self mo­destly and with acknowledgement of some stond in my judg­ment, where the matter is difficult, and the grounds of the truth not so evident to me. Yet p. 9. he profoundly taxeth me with want of modesty, even where I have ground of con­fidence in abundance. But want of modesty, and abun­dance of modesty, are alike taxable, when they do not serve high-Presbyterian turns. It seems High-Presbyterians, pre­tend to a line of knowledge far higher then Pauls. For he professed that he knew but in part, and accordingly prophe­cied but in part. But they are afraid of the reproach of Scep­ticism, unless they profess to know all things, and this with­out hesitancy, or the least regret in their judgement, about any thing. Their manner is to lay on load and strength of confidence on their conclusions, even where their premises are weak and contemptible.

Item (p. 6. 7. 8.) he reasons most absurdly from the loose Sect. 12 ground of his distinction of a two fold love in God, a love to righteousness, a love to persons. For speaking of that love, about which only the question sticketh between the Apolo­gist [Page 9] and his opponents, viz. a love of complacency and de­light in the persons of men, God loves no mans person ma­terially or simply considered, but onely as qualified with righteousness: as on the contrary, he hates no mans person, with an hatred opposite to this love, simply considered (this being the workmanship of his own hands) but onely as cor­rupted with sin and unrighteousness. So that when God loves a righteous person, he doth not love him with a twofold love (as the Apologist weakly supposeth) with one, in re­spect of his righteousness, another in respect of his person; but he loves the person, mediante justicia, or because of that right­teousness, which he findes in him: and would not love him (I still mean, with that kind of love mentioned) if righteous­ness were not found in him. The reason is, because this love of his to righteous persons, formally [i. e. as righteous] and concretely considered, is uniform and unchangeable: nei­ther is there any other object of it, but onely a person, or persons, so qualified. From hence likewise it evidently ap­pears, how impertinent the similitude is, upon which the Apologist, for want of better supports, statuminates his cause. A Prince (saith he) that loves a Loyal and faithful subject, but when he proves disloyal, he hates him. Will any man deny that the Princes affections are changed? And yet he continues to love loyalty, and hate disloyalty. Who with half an eye, seeth not, but that if this Prince were like unto God in his love to a loyal and faithful subject [i. e. could love no subject, but him that is faithful and Loyal, nor hate any, but him that is contrary] it were unproper to say that his affecti­ons in this kind, either were in the case put, or could be in any other changed. And that there is a sence, wherein the Love of God to men, may be said in some cases, to be chang­ed, viz. such a sence as that wherein he is said to repent, is I suppose the sence of all that understand themselves in these controversies. But this sence doth not suppose any change, or changeableness, in the Nature or Essence of God, which is really the same with his love, but onely a change and change­ableness in his dispensations in reference to such and such persons, which all divines with one mouth affirm may be va­ryed and changed, and this in reference to the same persons, [Page 10] without the least shadow of variation, or change in his Es­sence. And if 1. the love of the Prince in the Apologists fable, were his nature and essence; And 2. This essence of his sim­ply and absolutely unchangeable, though he should express himself according to the different manner of love and hatred towards his subject specified, under the different deport­ments of Loyalty, and disloyalty, yet could not his affections, at least in any proper sence, be said to be changed (which is the sence wherein I constantly deny any change of affection in God, although he should one while love a person with a love of complacency, and afterwards, (viz. upon his turning aside from righteousness unto sin) not love him, but hate him with an hatred contrary to his former love.

But these things are argued to the satisfaction of all inge­nuous and unprejudiced men, in the pages, and passages of my Book of Redemption, lately directed unto. But the Apo­logist stands declared on the left hand: and there is little hope of bringing him over to the right, unless his company were willing to come along with him. How can ye beleeve (saith Christ) who receive honour one of another? Joh. 5. What the Apologist adds, p. 7. 8, and part of the 9. sibi et muses canit, or however it passeth my intelligence. Onely this I understand, p. 9. he citeth a passage from my Letter to Mr. Ca [...]yl, Book-seller-like, I mean, with the omission of these Em­phatical words in it: and I cannot but presume regularly enough.

And thus the Apologist hath done his good will to cover the nakedness of his six Friends, the Beacon-Firers. But he may cry out; H [...]i mi i quod nullis scelus est medicabile ver­bis! He hath indeed tryed his skill, if it were possible to make (with Cacus of old) Candida de nigris, et de candentibus atra, i. e.

Black things, look white, and white to look like black.

And they may do well to accept of his will for the deed. But the Black-amore is never the whiter for his washing: onely the Launderer hath blacked his fingers with handling him.

Item p. 9. He chargeth me with scurrilous language towards the learned and reverend Mr. Walker, and in particular with my bitter recipe, which (he saith) I prescribe for him, as for one that is not compos sui. He falsifies egregiously, in saying that the Re­cipe (bound in some of the copies of that book, contrary un­to [Page 11] order from me nor is it in any the copies in my hand) was prescribed by me for him, as if, &c. It was as much prescribed for Mr. Pool, Mr. Jenkin, or any other man: as for Mr. Walker: it was [...]ather prescribed from him, or out of his pa­pers, then to him. But when he tells me of using scurrilous language towards him, if he would tell me what he means by scurrilous language (for High Presbyterians, as I somewhere take notice in my Animadversions upon the Booksellers let­ter, are much given to a kind of canting dialect) I should better know how to entertain his charge. If he understands the words in the common and best known signification, I may reasonably suppose he onely read Mr. Walkers piece against me, and not my answer to him; and by the far worse then scurrilous-language against me, which he found there, presumed that somewhat scurrilous, at least, would be drawn from me thereby, in case I should make any reply to him. But Mr. Walker (it seems) inherits the praises of learned and reverend, notwithstanding any super-scurrility of language in his writings: In promptu ratio est: Presbyteralis erat.

Hereof the Reason is not far:
He was a Grand High Presbiter.

Howeuer, if there were any unbeseeming word, one, or more, which in the heat and hast of writing, either in an­swer to him, or Mr. Jenkin, or any other (for I think I am certain that I never began any fray with any man) may pos­sibly have escaped my pen, (although I know nothing at present in any of my writings, that deserves the black brand of scurrilous.) I shall follow the copy, which the Apologist tells me (and oh, that the tidings were true) his Friends the Beacon-Firers have set me in an ingenuous acknowledgement of their errour in using such tartness of language in their letter to me. But it is not so much their tartness of language that I com­plain of; but their numerous falsifications, untruths, and undue suggestions against me; in which kind I am not conscions to my self that I ever wronged any man.

Item p. 9. He further chargeth me with saying something (himself saith not, nor I think well knoweth, what in favour of all cursed and damnable Doctrines: onely he means (he saith) for the toleration, and against the suppression of them. Ano­ther [Page 12] most un-Christian aspersion, and scandalously untrue. I never spake any thing in favour of any cursed or damnable Doctrines (either known, or suspected for such by me) but have continually upon all occasions, both in publique, and private, faithfully, and with the best of my understanding, testified against them. Yea, I am so far from pleading for a toleration, or against a suppression, of them all, that I never pleaded in either kind for so much as one of them. Yea my soul is aggrieved within me, that the Ministers both in City and countrey, whether it be out of consciousness of their in­ability to doe any thing to purpose against them, or out of an unworthy remisness in the case, have been so little active, as they have been, in inlightening the world with the know­ledge of the truth, which is the onely way to heal the dark­ness of the Apologists accursed and damnable Doctrines in the world. I confess I have laboured to disswade men from fighting the battails of God, and of the truth, with unhal­lowed weapons, from plucking up the tares in such a way; which cannot but endanger the plucking up of the Wheat also; from applying such means for the cure, which is like to enrage and strengthen the disease yet more. The Lord Christ himself gives this Testimony to the Church of Ephesus, that they could not [and consequently did not] bear [or tolerate] those that were evil, Rev. 22. But doth the Apologist think that their non-beari [...]g, or non-tolerating of them, consisted in their fining▪ confining or imprisoning, in their burning, or slaying them with the sword? This is, not the Christian, but the Antichristian, non-toleration? The Christian non-toleration of vain talkers and deceivers, was taught by Paul, when he tells Titus that their mouth must be stopped, Tit. 1. 11. And their toleration (in such a sence as ever I pleaded for it) by the Lord Christ himself when he said, Let both grow together until the harvest, Mat. 13. 20. But not weak and sinful men, but the Lord Christ himself also (it seems) blessed for ever, must give place to the High-Presbyterian interest, and be arrested for pleading for a tole­ration of errors, and damnable Doctrines.

Item p. 9. He chargeth me, that in my [...], I set my-wits, and the Scriptures too on the rack to maintain the monster [Page 13] of universal liberty of conscience, &c. The spirit of the clients here again uttereth it self in the Proctor. For 1. he can­not prove (nor is it true) that I either set my witts, or the Scriptures on the rack, for any end or purpose whatsoever. 2. Much less is it true, that I set either on the rack, for the maintaining of any Monster. If by liberty of conscience, he means an exemption of any mans conscience, from subject­ion unto God, or Christ, or any of their lawes, or sayings, I have always been so far from maintaining this liberty, that I have still opposed it with all my might, with my whole heart and soul. If by it he means an exemption of the con­science, from subjection unto men, or their Doctrines, or sayings, 1. He gives it a scurrilous nick-name, in terming it a Monster. 2. The Scriptures need not be set on the rack for maintaining it: they voluntarily, yea zealously, and with expresness of plea, plead for it. But whereas the Apo­logist makes mention of conscience here, if (in his tittle page) where he confesseth himself to be nullius nominis, instead of nominis, he had put in, conscientiae, he had given a better and truer reason of his non-subscribing his name to his Apologie. For I verily beleeve that his inward thought was, not that he was a man of no name (i. e. of no credit or esteem with men) but that he was a man of too much credit, to adventure it in the crazy bottom of such an Apologie.

Item p. 9. He confidently affirms, that Mr. Edwards did answer my [...] satisfyingly and convincingly in the judg­me [...]t of any impartial man, And then insinuates a charge of disparagement against me, that I never replyed hereunto: and concludes my silence to be a confession that I cannot answer it, yea is confident that this is the truth. Surely the man dreamt either all, or the greatest part at least, of this fable. I am so far from beleeving that the man he speaks of, answer­ed the book he speaks of, either satisfyingly or convincingly, that I cannot yet beleeve that ever he made any answer to it at all. It is somewhat strange, that such a book, upon which the world should have such an eye, as he importeth, and which should be written particularly against me, should ne­ver be so much as heard of by me, within the compass of I know not how many years. However, how greedy of [Page 14] aspersing and calumniating doth this man shew himself to be, who thus simply insults over me for not returning an Answer to such a book, which he could not know that ever I had seen, or heard of. Solomon saith, He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame to him, Prov. 18. 13. But this man would have the world beleeve, that my not answering a matter before I heare it, is folly and shame unto me. So that Solomon and he, are of two minds. Ano­ther book of the Author he speaks of, intituled Antapologia, the greatest part of it written in the same argument, which Mr. Pryn, (a man of more learning, I beleeve, and of a more profound judgement, then the Booksellers Proctor) proclaimed unanswerable, I did answer, and this satisfyingly, and convincingly in the judgement of any impartial man. And if God stood by me to encounter and slay that Lyon, I should have been able (I question not) by the same assistance to overcome that uncircumcised Philistine (if the Goliath be in­deed in vivis, which I much question) in whom the Apologist so much rejoyceth. But in imposing upon me his will and pleasure, what books I shall, or ought to answer, and what not, (whether my health, strength, or occasions otherwise, yea or life it self, will permit me to answer any, or no) he acteth the part of High-Presbytery to the life (as his Book­sellers phrase is.) But all books written, either by the The­ologica facultas of High-Presbytery, or in defence of the grossest contra-remonstrantism, must be unanswerable by the verdict of this faculty. The Answer in the Press to my Pa­gans Debt and Dowry, must needs be unanswerable, because it is written indefence of the common error against the truth. But for his two acute and learned Doctors, Doctor Owen, and Doctor Kendal, whose labours (he saith) have had the high approbation of divers learned men, enough of their wrirings have been answered already by men as acute and learned as they (whom I name in my Animadversions upon his clients Epistle) whose labours likewise (I doubt not) but have had (I am sure deserve) the high approbation of sundry learned men. However, in case I shall not answer the writings of either of them, shall the man, or any of his complices, have any more reason, upon such an account to conclude me [...], [Page 15] [i. e. self-condemned] then either of his two acute and learned Doctors, who have onely set Harpocrates Harpocra­tes was wor­shipped by the Egyptians as the God of silence. on work to answer some of the books that are extant against them? And yet they are, in respect of their years much more capa­ble of the labour of study, and (I beleeve) in respect of their occasions, at much more liberty, then I.

Item p. 10. He chargeth me, that I twit Mr. Jenkin in the teeth, with Carolizing, Scotizing, and telling him of his bands, &c. most disingenuously and barbarously, &c. But might not he much more ingenuously have concealed Mr. Jenkins name here, then his own, in the Title page of his book? It seems he is more tender over his own name, and credit, then his friends. It may be Mr. Jenkin himself would never have owned the things, which he now applies unto him, nor would the world have looked upon him, and them, as cor­relatives. However, was I not provoked, yea, pressed up­on, and challenged by the Book-sellers (I had almost said by himself) to make my exceptions against any of their Committee? In which case, what could I have done less, then I did? Cer­tain I am, that I dealt more fairly and favourably by Mr. Jenkin, then the Apologist hath done. I named him not in reference to any the crimes mentioned, but observed that known law of civility, which enjoyns men to spare the per­sons of men, but permits (upon occasion) to censure their vices:

Parcere Personis, dicere de vi [...]iis.

A Law which the Apologist himself hath transgressed, dicend, de utris (que) and arraigns me for his own transgression.

But it seems that so much as to mention High-Presbyteri­an miscarriages, though never so unworthy, though upon occasions never so equitable and importuning, though with never so much tenderness and respect to their persons, is dis­ingenuity, yea no lesse then barbarism.

By the way, whereas he chargeth me with telling Mr. Jenkin of his bands, &c. he breaks the bands of truth, and casts them from him. I no where so much as mention Mr. Jenkins bands, either to himself, or to any other person: neither indeed do I know that Mr. Jenkin ever suffered bands: [Page 16] I onely cite a few words out of Suetonius, one of which sig­nifieth, bound. But in case Mr. Jenkin hath suffered bands, and it be Barbarism to mention them, it seems there was a mar­velous great difference between the Apostle Pauls bonds, and his: For Paul oft mentioneth his bands as matter of honour unto him; yea and commends other Christians unto their fellows upon the account of their bands, Heb. 13. 3. When the mention of a mans bands is matter of disgrace, or dispa­ragement unto him, it argues, not onely the cause of his suf­ferings to be very unworthy and foul, but to be such in the general opinion of men also.

Item p. 12. (towards the parting) he chargeth me with imputing unto God, ignorance of future contingencies, more Soci­niano; Well said the Apostle that evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, 2 Tim. 4. The truth is, that this is the basest and broadest calumny in the whole piece: nor can I imagine what word, phrase, saying or passage in all my writings, should imbolden the conscience of the man of no name, to act this splenetique part in the end. Certain I am that I do as plainly as any other man, and with as much strength of understanding, as God hath given me, upon all oc­casions, assert the knowledg of all future contingencies, yea of all things whatsoever unto God. The Reader (if he please) may satisfie himself by repairing to p. 9. to p. 39. 40. to p. 481. (besides many other places) of my book of Redemption.

What he cavils, p. 10. 11. against my Answer to Sir Francis Nethersole, as if it were unsatisfactory; and his charge of I know not how many greek misdemeanor, [...], in relating the testimony of another concern­ing my treatise of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures (where also without any reason, or colour of reason, he insinuateth against me, as if I thought my self to good to vail the bonnet to Mornay, Grotius, Cameron, in their writings about the same subject) being altogether eccentrical, as well to his business (unless this were absolutely and universally to asperse, as much as to vindicate his clients) as mine own, I pass over; only taking notice by the way, how lamely and by halfs, he [Page 17] presents my Answer to Sir Francis Nethersole, opposing my justification of the design of putting the King to death, to a passage in my Anti-Cavaelarism: 2. How either weakly, or proposterously and perversly he understands that part of my Answer, which he describes. For there is an high and extraordinary interposure and appearance of God in stirring up the spirits, and strengthening the hand of Rulers and Ma­gistrates, to proceed in judgement against Kings degene­rated into Tyrants; in respect whereof the process is em­phatically attributable unto God, whereas the ordinary pro­ceedings at Law by a single Judge against the Apologists Rogues, are matters of course, and common providence. Nor shall I stand now to reason the man into his sences about proper, and improper, Attributions unto God, nor to cause him to see, that what is proper­ly, must needs be formally, and what is formally, can­not be eminently attributed unto him, &c. I consess I thought that such a Meraphysical pretender, as Doctor Kendal, had understood these things better then I per­ceive he doth. His pen strikes another false stroke, in saying that the having of a mans sences sodden into Trapezunti­us his temper, is my OWN phrase. For where I use this phrase, I plainly signifie that I borrow it, and declare from whom. I shall further only take notice of this passage, p. 12. If he An­swer me, as he hath answered Sir Francis Nethersole, or Mr. Jenkins, I shall not trouble either him, or the world with any reply; but that which is his constant refuge in arduous cases, he means, silence. Doth he not here plainly grant that it was no arduous case [or matter of difficult undertaking] for me to answer either Sir Francis Nethersole, or Mr. Jenkins, in­asmuch as I made not silence my Refuge, when I answered them? Yea, and that it is no arduous case to answer his Apo­logie, since I have not made silence my Refuge from the face of it? Yet I confess there is a strain of prudence in the saying. For in case I should answer him, as I have [Page 18] done either Sir Francis Nethersole, or Mr. Jenkin (as perhaps I now have done) it is his wisdome to arm himself with a resolution against troubling himself with a reply, because in such a case, it is like to be a trouble indeed to him, and this to little purpose.

A Postscript▪

BEcause the man of no name chargeth me (pag. 9.) with speaking in favour of all cursed and damnable Doctrines, meaning (as he saith) for the toleration, and against the sup­pression of them, (besides what I have already answered to this charge) that He, and His, may understand, that long before either his daies, or mine, there were men, both wi­ser, and learneder (and I fear more conscientious and pious, then either of us) that speak as much, or more, then ever I did for a toleration (in such a sence as ever I pleaded for any) of such Doctrines, which he (I doubt not) will call (as well he may) accursed and damnable, I shall supply part of the vacant paper with some passages, which he may read, as I have done, in Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli. Lib. 2. cap. 20. §. 50, &c. First he transcribes out of Salvianus Bishop of Marseilles, these words (declaring his tendernesse about the punishing, or rather for the non-punishing, even of Ar­rian Heretiques.)

Haeretici sunt, sed non scientes: deni (que) apud nos sunt haeretici, apud se non sunt: nam in tantum se Catholicos esse judicant, ut nos ipsos titulo haereticae pravitatis infament. Quod ergo illi no­bis, sunt & hoc nos illis. Nos illos injuriam divinae generationi facere certi sumus, quod minorem. Patri filium dicunt. Illi nos injuriosos Patri existimant, quod aequales esse credamus. Ʋeritas apud nos est, sed illi apud se esse pr sumunt. Hono [...] Dei apud nos est: sed illi hoc arbitrantur honorem Divinitatis quod credunt. In officiosi sunt, sed illis hoc est summum Religio­nis officium. Impij sunt, sed hoc putant summam esse pietatem. Errant ergo, sed bono animo errant, non odio, sed affectu 'Dei, honorare se Dominum, at (que) amare creden [...]es. Quamvis non habeant rectam fidem, illi tamen hoc perfectam Dei aestimant charitatem: Et qualiter pro hoc ipso falsae opinion [...] errore in die judicij puniendi sunt, nemo potest scire, nisi judex. Interim idcircò eis, ut reor patientiam Deus commodat, quia videt evs, etsi non recte credere, affectu tamen piae opinionis errare, i. e.

[Page 20] They are Heretiques, but against their knowledge, they are so in our opinion, but not in their own, for they think themselves so far to be Catholique [or, Orthodox] that they defame us with the title of Heresie. Therefore what they are in our opinion, we are in theirs. We are sure they do wrong to the divine generation, in saying, The Son is lesse then the Father. They beleeve that we do wrong unto God the Father, in holding that the Son is equal to him. The truth is with us, but they presume it is with them. The honour of God is with us; but they are of opinion that by their beleef they honour the God-head. They are officious amisse, but what they do, they judge to be the chief duty of Religion. They are impious, but they think it to be true piety. They erre, but they erre with a good mind, not out of hatred, but out of affection unto God, beleeving that by this they honour and love their Lord. Though they have not the right Faith, yet they think this is the perfect love of God: and how they are to be punished at the day of judgement for this errour of a false opinion, none knows but the judge himself. In the mean time, as I think, God lendeth them his patience, because he sees, that though they do not be­leeve aright, yet they erre out of an affection to a pious opi­nion.

By the way; the Christian equanimity of this man, being a Bishop, towards poor creatures, who in the simplicity of their minds shall turn aside into by-waies of errour, though very dangerous, in things appertaining unto God, may make Mr. Anonymus his cheeks to change colour (as his own phrase is) when he breaths out fines, imprisonment, banishment, fire, sword, gibbet, and what not, against poor, weak, and foolish men, onely for not being as quick-sighted to discern the truth from errour, as he presumes himself to be, or for not having (possibly) obtained from God the like grace and means for his comming to the knowledge of the truth, which him­self hath done.

The fore-mentioned Author rehearseth likewise (in the place directed unto) these words out of Austin, Tom. 6. Cnntrà Epistolam Manichaei, cap. 2. (though he nameth not [Page 21] the place) where this worthy Father disclaimeth all severity of proceedings against the Manichees, though a most vile and pernicious sect of Hereticks.

Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt cum quo labore verum in veni­atur, & quà difficile caveantur errores. Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt quàm rarum & arduum est carnalia phantasmata piaementis serenitate superare. Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt cum quantâ difficultate sanetur oculus interioris hominis, ut possit intueri solem summum, non istum, quem vos collitis coelesti corpo­re, oculis carreis & hominum, et pecorum fulgentem at (que) ra­diantem, sed illum de quo scriptum est per Prophetam, Ortus est mihi justitiae Sol, et de quo dictum est in Evangelio, Erat lumen verum quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. Illi in vos saeviant, qui nesciunt quantis sus­pirijs & gemitibus fiat, ut ex quantulacum (que) parte possit intel­ligi Deus. Postremo illi in vos saeviant, qui nullo tali errore decepti sunt, quali vos deceptos vident. Ego autem—saevi­re in vos omninò non possum, quos, sicut me ipsum illo tempore, ità nunc debeo sustinere, & tantâ patientiâ vobiscum agere, quantâ mecum egerunt proximi mei, cum in vestro dogmate rabi­osus & caecus errarem, i. e.

Let those be fierce [or cruel] to you, that know not with what labour truth is to be found, and with how great difficulty errours are avoided. Let those be cruel to you, who know not how rare and of how difficult an attainment it is to overcome carnal phantasms [and conceits] by the serenity [and clearnesse] of a pious mind. Let those [a­gain] deal cruelly with you, who are ignorant with how great difficulty the eye of the inner man is healed, that it may [look uponand] behold the highest Sun, not that which you worship, as subsisting with an heavenly body, & which shines with his beams in the fleshly eyes both of men and beasts, but that Sun, of whom it is written by the Prophet, The son of righteousnesse hath risen unto [or upon] us; and of whom it is said in the Gospel, He was the true light, which inlighten­eth every man that commeth into the world. Let those [yet again] cruelly handle you, who know not with what deep sighings and groanings [of soul] even a little [true] un­derstanding [Page 21] of God, is obtained. Lastly, let those exercise cruelty towards you, who never were themselves deceived with any such errour, as now they perceive you deluded with. But as for me, I can at no hand be [fierce, or] cruel to­wards you, whom I ought now to bear with patiently, as I did with my selfthen [when I was one of you] yea and to intreat you with as much patience, as my neighbours [Or­thodox Christians] shewed to me, when I wandered like a mad and blind man, in your opinion.

The fore-named Author (in the place specified) to these two large transcriptions out of the two renowned Fathers mentioned, subjoyneth (upon the same argument) as fol­loweth.

In Arrianam haeresin acriter invehitur Athanasius (Epist ad soli [...]ari [...]s) quòd prima in contradicentes usa esset judicum po­testate, & quos non potuisset verbis inducere, eos vi, plagis, carceribus (que) ad se pertrahere amniteretur. Atque ita inquit, seiqsam quàm non sit pia, nec Dei cultrix, manifestat; respici­ens, in fallor, ad illud, quod legi ur, Gal. 4. 29. Similia habet Hilarius ad Constantium. In Galliâ jam olim damnati sunt Ec­clesiae judicio Episcopi, qui ut Priscillianistas gladio animad­vertere [...]ur curaverant: & in Oriente damnata Synodus, quae in Bogomili exustionem consenserat. Sapienter dixit Plato, errantis paenam esse, doceri, i. e.

Athana [...]us sharply inveigheth against the Arrian Heresie (in his Epistle to the Solitarians) because they made use of the chief power of the [civil] Judges, against those who contradicted their opinion, and indeavoured by force, stripes & prisonsto draw them over unto them, whom they could not induce [or perswade] by arguments. And so (saith he) it ma­nifesteth it self, not to be [truly] pious, nor reverential of God; herein respecting, if I mistake not, that which is written, Gal. 4. 29. [But as then, he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the spirit, &c.] Hila­ry hath the like writing to Constantius. In France those [Page 23] Bishops were long since condemned by the judgement of the Church, who procured the Priscillian Heretiques to be punished with the sword. And that Synod was likewise dam­ned in the East, which had consented to the burning of Bo­gomilus. It was wisely said by Plato; that he that erreth, is to be punished by being taught.

ERRATA.

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

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.