RELIGION never had greater enemies then those of her own house. Sion Coll. visi­ted. p. 1.

And a little after.

It was never well with RELIGION, since the Ministers, &c.

Answ. Your work is to kill Religion, but your way to do so, Ans. I perceive, is to kisse it. You seem to make towards the lips of Religion, but your aim is at her fifth rib: You advance her head in your Preface, but 'tis to break her neck in your book. In the pretence of your Preface you raise up Religion to the clouds: In the performance of your book you lay it among the clods; for must not Religion needs fall to the ground when her foundation upon which she stands is pluckt away? And takes not [...]e away the foundation of religion, who denies the Scripture to be that foundation? Div. Authority of the Scri­ptur [...] p. 18. And doth not John Goodwin deny the Scripture to be that foundation of Religion? What else is the English of these words, in terminis, his own, viz. Questionlesse no writing whatsoever, whether translations or originals are the foundation of Christian Religion; Away with your hypocriticall exclama­tions [Page 2]against the enemies of Religion, and your Crocodiles tears in that Religion cannot be well for the Ministers; were your wit but hair to keen as your will, we should in a short time nei­ther have Religion nor Minister left among us.

But to your stuff.

The greatest enemies to Religion are in her own house. Sion Col. visit. p. 1. Answ.

True, For of your own selves (saith Paul) shall men arise speaking penverse things, to draw away Disciples after them. Act, 20.30. And if of all that are in Religions own house, heretikes be her greatest enemies, What will become of John Goodwin?

It was never well with Christian Religion, since the Mini­sters of the Gospel (so called by themselves,Sion Col. visit. p 1.and so reputed by others for want of knowing better) cunningly vested that privi­ledge of the Church of being the pillar and ground of truth in themselves.

First, Answ. For the Lectio. Your meaning, I suppose was, and had not rage against the Ministers made you write non-sense, you would have said thus; The Ministers cunningly vested them­selves in or with the priviledge of the Church, and not as you doe, The Ministers vested the priviledge of the Church in them­selves; A man may be vested in, or with a priviledge, but it's very improper to say a priviledge is vested in or with a man, as im­proper as to say a garment is vested in the man that wears it: twere better to say the man is vested in the garment; Its a sign your pen is drunk with madnes, it doth so stagger and stammer; These faults of pure weaknesse, I should not regard, did I observe either humility in you, under the sense of greater in yourself, or ingenuity in you, in passing by smaller in others. But why finde I fault with the vest, the phrase of your book? The dusty cloaths of your words, are good enough for the crooked carcasse of your matter; This is Titu­bare in limite. for I may well call the matter crooked; if to be true be to be straight, for I finde two abominable falsities within the space of two lines.

1. That the Ministers of the Gospel, are only so reputed by men, for want of knowing and considering better.

2. That they have vested themselves with the priviledge of being the ground and pillar of truth.

1. You say these Ministers of the Gospel are only so reputed for want of considering better.

Answ. 1. 'Tis your sorrow to see, that they are so much as repu­ted Ministers, But Sir, 'tis your sin to say, they are no more then Ministers reputed. If they be no Ministers, why disprove you not their calling? Why bring you not an argument in stead of a scoff against them? But you may write thus with much praise from your deluded followers, and little pains to your feeble self.

2. Tell me of one man, either Minister, or private Christian, differing from the subscribers only in the point of Independency, who dares say thus with you? I have heard sundry of the Synodi­call dissenters preach, and professe the contrary.

3. Or are you now got a step or two above Independency? ac­knowledge you any Ministers of the Gospel at all, whether your self, or any other? I observe, that you, who were wont to stile your self, The Minister of a Church (such an one as 'tis) in Colemanstreet; now in this last Pamphlet, as if you had a minde to be lookt upon under another consideration, word your self only Iohn Goodwin, a servant of God and men, (I am sure of men, I doubt whether of God) haply the Delilah of a Congregation hath entised you, to be tampering with the lock of our Ministery; you have yeelded already to cast off the word Minister, by the next you may have cast off the thing too.

4. If you do account your self a Minister, I pray tell me in your next, which way you had your Ordination, whether by that way which the Ministers of London had theirs, who you say are no Ministers at all, or whether you had it by a Culinary [...] in one of your allies. You tell the subscribers afterward, of sacred unction in a jeer, but know that no unction is the lesse sacred, for not coming out of the kitchin.

Secondly, You say, The Ministers have vested themselves with the priviledge of the Church, of being the ground and pillar of truth, and it was [...]ver happy since.

Answ. I know not whether you who subvert the whole Scri­pture, intend not also to pervert this. 1 Tim. 3.15. By the Church her being the ground, and pillar of truth, all the Orthodox agree to be meant, the Church her maintaining and holding forth the truth; now the Church holds up, and holds forth the truth, either in a way common to all Christians, mutuall exhortations, a way of profession, and practice, &c. or in a way peculiar to [...]ome, a mi­nisteriall [Page 4]way, of preaching the Word, administration of the Sacraments, &c. If you say the Ministers have vested them­selves with the priviledge of being the pillar and ground of truth the first way, 'tis ridiculously false, profession of the truth being common to the community, every one in the Church. If you mean (as you must needs) that, Ministers have vested themselves with the priviledge of pillars, in the second respect, viz. of Ministery, 'tis odiously false, for the Lord Jesus him­self, and not themselves, vested them with the priviledge of holding forth truth by way of Office: Christ gave some Pastors, and teachers, Eph. 4.11. God hath set some in his Church. 1 Cor. 12.38. And if in this respect, you intend that religion is so miserable, because all in the Church may not preach the Word, administer Sacraments, and because Ministers do, &c. Speak out, Sir; It follows not, because the Church holds forth the truth, therefore that all may hold it forth as Ministers in it. Learned Calvin Galest is sapi­entia soliue E [...] ­clesiae ministe. vio censerva tur. Quantum ergo onus past [...]o vibas incumb t, quitam inaesti mabilis thes [...]u [...]icus [...]odiae pr [...]e­sunt? Pau [...]u [...] volnit prop [...]sita off [...] magnitu­d [...]e, admoaito; esse pastores qua [...]td illu [...] si­de, diligentiâ, reveren ia al­mini, lrare debe­onr. Etenin quam borribilis sutura est ultio si eorii cu [...]pi intercidat veritas; Eccle­si [...] enin ideo col [...]na est ve­ritatis, quia suo [...]inisterio can tuetur, as pro­pagat. Ergo e­logium boc al ministeriun verbi refertur quo sublato con­cide [...] Dei veri­tas▪ Sustinetur Dei veritas p [...] ­ra Evangel [...] praed cattane. Calv. in 1 Tint. 3.15. upon this place, 1 Tim. 3.15. will inform you better, by whom, and what the Church, in that place of Timothy, maintains and pre­serves the truth; Weigh the quotation, Quantum onus ergo &c. how great a burden (therefore) [...]eth upon the Pastors, who are to keep so inestimable a treasure as the truth! Ecclesia ideo, &c. Therefore is the Church the pillar, and ground of truth, because she defends it with the Ministery of the word. And [...]lo­gium hoc, &c. This commendation is to be referred to the Mi­nistery of the word, which being taken away, the truth fals. The truth is sustained by the pure preaching of the Word. And the subscribers their ministeriall zeal for the truth both in presse and pulpit, is the occasion of your rage against them; I confesse you may have a further aim, viz. to gratifie your deluded followers, whose design is to raze and levell the Church of Christ, and to preach, as well, as John Goodwin (as indeed they may soon do;) but the main ground of your rage against these holy men, is, because they discover your errours. You strike at the lanthorn, because of the candle in it. At the pillar, because of the proclamation, the Gospel that hangs upon it. At the shepherds because they defend their flocks. Were it not for these Ministers, you would do well enough (you think) with the [Page 5]people; mean while remember, Omnis Apostata est osor sui ordinis, Religion never had greater enemies then rene­gadoes

The Ministers of the Gospel claim Nebuchadnezzars prere­gative among men, over the truths of God,Sion Col visited p. 1.Whom he would he slew, whom he would he saved alive.

The Nebuchadnezzars are among your selves. Ans. You have his Palace, A Babel, for such is your way, His property, pride, far surmounting your Palace, and take heed, even you in particular, lest his portion be also yours; The heart of a beast given unto you by God, for abusing the heart of a man, For the truths of God slain by the Ministers, I know none, unlesse you mean old heresies, lately vampt in your alley, for new truths, where, what ever is strange, is true. O the patience of the God of truth, to suffer you to voice prodigi­ous heresies, the truths of God▪ so entitle the true God to so many untruths against God, Those which you call truths, and yet say are slain by the ministers, will continue errours, till you prove the contrary; And whereas you say that the Ministers slay them, did the word spare them the Ministers would do so too, who dare do nothing against the truth, but for the truth, and for their saving some errours alive, I pray prove what those errours are, and the next edition of the testimony will not be wanting in due severity.

I wish nothing to the Ministers but good. Sion Col visi. p 1. Ans.

Devout soul that can curse and blesse in one breath! Two lines off you blasted the Ministers with the title of murderous Nebuchadnezzars, and here you blesse them with desires of all good to them; but whereas you say, you wish nothing in your praier, but good to the Ministers. I fear you do nothing in your preaching, but hurt to the people.

I wish the Ministers had been in print without their own know­ledge, or consent. S [...]on Col. visi. p. 1. Ans.

Your grief is not that the book was printed with their, but with­out your consent: however the Ministers are bound, to interpret charitably, this wish of yours, that they had been in print without their consent, because you your self have sped so well, by being in [Page 6]print without your consent, when your Church set forth that [...] ridioulous paper, in commendation of you, wherein they extold you to the clouds (where, indeed, you alwaies are, when you write) Then you were in print against your consent; the verses put under your effigies, which say, that you have the perfections of ten thousand men gathered in you, this was against your con­sent too I warrant you; I take care how the Authour will get into your favour again.

So I might maintain honourable thoughts of their per­sons,Sion Col. visited p. 1.which I have alway laboured to doe, my witnesse is o [...] high.

Is your witnesse on high? Answ. So is your Judge too, but take heed your punishment be not below: mock not God, nor deceive your self.

Though I am still opposed by them in my way. Sion Col. visi­ted p. 2. Ans.

You cannot say that you have been opposed by them in Gods way; and 'tis a mercy for you to be opposed in your own way; your way is the way of Balaam, and it was an Angel that stopt him in his way.

The Image stampt upon the Testimony, and the men whose names are affixed, Sion Col. visited p 2.are very unlike: the names subscribed are learned and pious, but it bears the Image of weak and unwor­thy ones.

If the subscribers be learned and pious, I fear they are as unlike you, Answ. as you say they are unlike their own Testi­mony.

But if their Testimony be not for piety and learning like them­selves, truly friend this your work is for impiety and ignorance, just like you, a thing upon which, John Goodwin fecit, need never be written; And yet the first side in your late book, against the Authority of the Scriptures, in my apprehension was very unlike you. I mean the verses under your picture, which are a very jeer to you. The verses say, that in you are gathered the perfections of ten thousand men, with their gifts and graces, &c. when as ma­ny know, that you have more heresies and errours, met in you, then are dispersed among some thousands in the world, and if your here­sies (unles you are lately impoverished) could be bequeathed to ten thousand sectaries, they might every one have a childes portion, [Page 7]and have sufficient to live like such men, when you are dead and gone. It was therefore a passage, as pernicious, as proud, which dropt from your pen in your Epistle, to your book called, The di­vine Authority of Scriptures, where you say, that you will endea­vour, when you are gone, that your followers may have your spi­rit among them▪ A single portion of it would be far too much. Rom 12.2. 'Twere better it might be transformed while you live, then be transmigrated when you die.

The Ministens book is a Testimony against the truths of Josus Christ, It testisieth against this pretious truth of Jesus. viz. Sion Col visi. p. 2. No writing whatsoever, whether originals or translations, are the foundation of Christian religion, wheneas this is asserted for a truth by the great Apostle. 1 Cor. 3.11. Other foundation can no man lay but Jesus Christ.

Tis a mercy that since you have so little of integrity, Ans. you have no more of intellect. Think you your self able to woo th [...] Scrip [...]res to afford you weapons against themselves? Can you prove out of the Scripture, that there is no Scripture? You say Christ is the only foundation, therefore not the Scripture. But doth the one hinder the other? May not Christ be the only foun­dation in point of mediation, and the Scripture in point of mani­festation and discovery? May not Christ be the foundation upon which, I build for salvation, and the Scripture the foundation upon which I ground the knowledge of this Saviour? I pray an­swer; Whether do you ground your knowledge, and belief that Christ is the only foundation of salvation, upon this your cited place, 1 Cor. 3.11. Other foundation, &c? If you do not, why do you alledge it to prove that Christ is the only foundation? If you do ground your belief of Christ his being the only foundati­on, upon this place, why do you bring this Scripture to prove, that Christ his being the foundation, hinders the Scripture from being so? Is it possible, that the known distinction of [...]ssendi, and eng [...]oscendi, principium quod, & quo, or a foundation personall, and scripturall, should be bid from the eyes of this seducer in chief? Therefore do I acknowledge the Scriptures to be the foun­dation of religion, because they are appointed by God for the sole manifestation of his will, concerning our salvation by Christ: we building our confidence that Christ is the only Saviour, upon [Page 8]the Scripture which saith so. Is my dependence upon a friend for a favour, any hinderance to me from building my confidence upon his word also? nay do I not therefore build any hopes upon him, because upon his word, his word revealing his will? you do wickedly therefore and weakly to oppose Christ, and his word; Give me one protestant writer that ever argued thus with you, The word is not our foundation, because Christ is so, I am sure the Apostle saith, Eph. 2.20. that we are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles (that is, their doctrine) and yet Christ was the corner stone for all that. If you doubt whether by the foun­dation of the Prophets and Apostles, be meant their doctrine con­cerning Christ: Consult our learned and judicious expositours of that place. Quin funda­mentum b [...] pro doctrina suna­tur min [...]è du­b [...]um est, ne (que) e­uim patriarch as nomin at aut p [...] ­o [...] reges, sed [...]o [...] solos qui offi [...]ū habehant docen­di [...]a (que) locet Poulue fidem Ecclesie in [...]ac doctrin [...] debere esse fundatam, Calv. in loc. Doctrinam A­postolorum & prophetarum fundamento ae­dificij compara [...] P [...]sc in [...]oc. Nos affirmam [...] sundamentu [...] illud quo niti­titur ecclesiae fi­des esse doctri­nam propheticā & Apostolicā de Ceristo Rol­loc in loc. [...], &c. [...]. Chryl [...]n loe. Paulus per A­postolorum fun­damentum, doc­trina [...] Aposto. lorum intelligit Wh [...]t. Q 2. con. 4 de Monarch Pet. p 55 [...]. Vid Chamier, de Canone. lib. 6. cap. 8. Calvins words are Quin fundamentum hic pro dec­trinâ sumatur minime dubiumest: and there's no doubt (saith he) hut the foundation of the Prophets, and Apostles, is here put for doctrine: Paul names not here the Patriarchs, or godly Kings, but those only who had the office of teaching, and the faith of the Church is founded upon their doctrine. Thus far Calvin.

In like manner, Piscator, who saith, that Paul compareth the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets to the foundation of a house. See also what that learned Scot, M. Rolloc saith upon the place: We affirm that the foundation upon which the faith of the Church is updeld, is the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets of Christ, To the same purpose also Chrys [...]stome; and in their Controver­sies, the learned Whitaker and Chamier, who will inform you, if understood.

You complain that this passage of yours is ranked among infa­mous, and pernitious errours, viz.

That it is no foundation of Christian Religion, to believe that the Scriptures are the word of God. Believing (you say) of the Scriptures is an act of man, Now no act of man is the foundation of Christian religion; Only Christ is the foundation, 1 Cor. 3.11.

1. In that place of Hagiom. out of which this infamous errour is taken, you deal craftily, or (which is most like) cloudily, for your aim was to prove him guiltlesse, who denieth the being of the Scriptures, and not that forbeareth the believing of them. For your argument, Christ is the foundation, and therefore not [Page 9]any act of man, as the beleeving of the Scriptures, 'tis very false and feeble: for though no act unto which man is enabled by God (such as beleeving) is a foundation in that sense in which Christ is upon whom we build the hope of our salvation to be obtained by his mediation, Yet, beleeving of the Scriptures as it is an assenting to a main and prime Credendum, viz. that the Scriptures are by divine inspiration, Arg lib 1. de doct. Christ. cap. 37. Ti [...]ubabit sides si scripturarum divinarum va­collabit authe­ritas. is a necessary foundation for other subse­quent graces that are required in the Christian Religion, and with­out which foundation all godlinesse and religion would in a short time fall to the ground; no theologicall grace can be without saith, and faith cannot stand, if the authority of the Scriptures fall.

If beleeving can be no foundation of Christian religion, why doth the holy Ghost give to faith the name of foundation, Heb. 6.1. In these words, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of Faith towards God, none will deny that the beleeving the Scriptures to be the word of God, is both the ground and an effentiall part of a right faith towards God. And therefore if the Apostle calleth faith towards God a foundation, he must needs imply that faith towards the Scriptures is a founda­tion.

You cavill at the Ministers for saying they testifie to the truth and to their solemn league and covenant; Sion Col. visi­ted p. 3.do they mean (say you) that they give the same testimony to their solemn league and co­venant which they do to the truth?

I observe your scornfull estranging expression, Answ. Their Cove­nant: You disclalm it, it seems, you had as good to throw it off in your lines as in your life:

The Covenant is the Sectaries Shiboleth, he cannot speak it plain; you deal with the Covenant as the Spaniel with the water, when you were swimming for your lives, it did bear you up, but now you are got to shore (safe as you think) you shake it off. Why is it that throughout this Section you do so under­value the covenant? Is it for the good it hath done to the king­dome, or the hurt you fear it may do to you? or do you de­sire to make it break because you cannot make it bend, and change as often as your interest doth?

But to your question, do the Ministers give the same testimo­ny to the Covenant that they do unto the truth of Christ.

I suppose you love to testifie much alike to both. As for the Mi­nisters, you cannot inforce an equalizing or a prelation of either to other out of these their words. And to our solemn league and covenant: AND was wont to be a note copulative not comparative. And yet I suppose the Ministers testifie with the same integrity and unfainednesse to the one with which they do to the other.

But note this zealot Paramount for the truths of Christ, he who by denying the Scriptures fears not to destroy the word of truth, thinks his ears defiled when with the covenant the Ministers do but name the word (Truth) Like the hypocriticall Pharisees who feared not to be murderers of Christ, and yet were afraid of defilemen [...] by going into the Hall, Joh. 18.28.

I know not what testimony the Covenant is capable of, Sion Col visited p. 4.unlesse they will call a regular, full, and through observation of it, a testimony to it, the best part of this testimony consisting in going before one another, in a reall, not a verball refor­mation.

You answer your self, Ans. You say a reall reformation is the best testimony to the covenant; True, And therefore (say I) not the only testimony.

Secondly, Doth a reall observation of the covenant hin­der a verball testimony to it, nay doth it not enforce it; I might deservedly question my reality for God and his cause, If I would not expresse that reality in words upon occasion given.

'Tis possible indeed for the verball profession to be without the reall but not possible for the reall to be without the verball; but you say the covenant is not capable of a verball testimo­ny to it; Alas poor Covenant! It seems thou maist be well thought of, but not well spoken off? Thou maist be capable of a verball opposition and deniall, as of being called an old almanack out of date, but not of a verball appro­bation. Thy wound is broader (it seems) then thy plai­ster.

But Thirdly, How is it that you plead so much for the reall observation of the Covenant? I fear, not to further the reall, but to hinder the verbal; I dislike your p [...]ng [Page 11]of zeal for a reall reformation; you plead for it only to get the greater advantage against it; your heat of zeal for the covenant is like that of some herbs, hot in the mouth cold in the stomack.

To inrich their title, they add, Sion Col. visited p. 4.As also against the errours and heresies, &c.

Tell not the Ministers of loving rich titles, Ans. either for them­selves or their books, your boasting of your selves is as ridiculous as nausecus; I pray who are they that assume to themselves or have be [...]owed upon them, these titles in print, The richly [...]nointed, A Preacher to the two greatest Congregations in England; A heart the best headed, and a head the best hearted of all the sons of men: A man that hath the gifts and graces of ten thousand rare men met in one? Men who look upon the word of Christ as impartially as men made of flesh and bloud are like to do in any juncture of time that may fall out. Are not these swelling words? these are enriched titles; Mat. 21.28. Phil. 2.3. doth this sa­vour of the spirit of Christ and his Gospel? he was lowly in heart, and bids each to esteem other better then themselves?

But they add against errours.

They had need, for you are daily adding to errours. But this touching of errours, is the touching the apple of your eye, and the gainfull occupation of your silver shrines; 'Tis observeable that all along in your book, you give not the Reader the least intimation of a dislike of any particular errour (though never so damnable) mentioned in all the Catalogue. Only in your [...] age you tell the world, that errouts are a great grief to [...] heart, and that you oppose them in your Ministery ('tis a good to beleeve it, as to go where 'tis done) you dare not come neer an expression of dislike to errours by twelve score, and now the Ministers expresse their zeal against them; how doth your render nature make you weep for Tammuz?

But there is no further matter if consequence in these words, against the errours, heresies, Sion Col. visi­ted. p. 4.and blasphemies of the times, &c. then in the foregoing words, A testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ, Therefore these passages are broadly Tauto­logicall.

To rectifie you; The Ministers in testifying for the truth, &c. Answ. [Page 12]owned the Confession of faith, and the doctrines of truth he [...]d forth in the Scripture; and in saying against the errours, be­resies, &c. they disclaim and discover the things that are oppo­site unto them; they have not the Sectarian art to be friends to truth, and to be silent when errours that destroy truth are broa­ched; to look toward heaven and earth at the same instant. The two fore-mentioned branches are therefore as far from being Tautologicall, as you from being either Logicall, or Theo­logicall. Sion Col. visited p. 4.

Heresies are imperiously sentenced, as if the chair of Papal Infallibility, were translated from Rome to Sion Colledge.

Name one of those errours in the Catalogue which the Scrip­ture (and that writing we cannot as yet deny to be the founda­tion of religion) condemns not: Ans. if so, 'tis not Ex imperio but Ex officio to discover them, and for your scoff of the Chair of Papal infallibility, know that the Ministers are as far from be­ing for the chair of infallibility, as for the Chair in Swan-Alley.

In the next impression mollifie your title, Sion Col. visi­ted p. 5.say not against er­rours and heresies, but use this Christian and soft explication (as we account and call them errours and heresies).

Tender-hearted Sir, Ans. Spare your counsell, or if you will give it, expect no fee, had ever Ministers or Christians such advise given them before? Peter was called Satan for bidding Christ to pity himself, but what would Christ have called him, had Peter de­sired Christ to have pitied Satan? The hereticall devil must not be used gently, 'Tis a cruell kindenesse to truth to do so; Diabolus non est leniter palpandus (saith Luther) when you had to do with M Edwards (of blessed memory) then 'twas [...], Pereat Pap [...], pereantimp [...] magestrat [...] pe­r [...]aut im [...]io [...]u [...]n dogma [...]u [...]n pa­treni pereat to­tu [...] mu [...]d [...] & salve [...]ur Deo su [...]gloria su [...] verbu [...] su [...] E [...] ­tlesia, su [...] cul. [...]. with you, rebuke them cuttingly, but when we have to do with heresies it must be [...], gently, must it? yes, use mol­lifying expressions (I pray deal gently with heresies for I.G. his sake) but heresies have more need of Corasives then lenitives, of iron then of oyle (was Augustine called Malleus Haereticorum for using mollifying expressions?) had you given us the advice of Luther, we would have thankt you. Let the pope perish, ungodly Magistrates, The Patrons of ungodly opinions, of er­rours, let all the world perish, only let not the glory of God perish, [Page 13]his Church, his Worship. But why speak we of Luthers spirit? your advice is more unsutable to the spirit of the Scripture. Rebuke them sharply (saith the Apostle) that they may be sound in the faith. Earnestly contend for the faith. Damnable heresies. Re­probate concerning the faith, filthy dreamers, Cursed children, Ʋngodly men, bruit beasts, Clouds without water, Tit. 1.13. Jude. 3.4.12. 2 Pet. 2.1. 2 Tim. 3 8. Jude, 8. 2 Pet. 2.14. 2 Pet. 2.12. &c, And yet forsooth, we must be all for softnesse and mollisying. The Lord pardon our sinfull softnesse formerly. The time past may suffice to have connived at you: Shall you be bolder to sin then we to speak? God forbid.

But wherein must the Ministers expresse their softnesse? he tels us, for he gives us direction, as well as exhortation, though he is more wicked in prescribing the manner of doing, then the thing to be done.

Say not a testimony against Errours and Heresies, but say, as we account and call Errours and Heresies.

His plain meaning is, Be doubtful whether those damnable Errours and Heresies be such or no: Be Scepticks, Seekers, Ex­pectants, Dubitants, never beleeve any thing. When men deny the Scriptures to be the foundation of faith, say, This is an here­sie, as we think: when men deny the Divinity of the Son and holy Ghost, say, These are heresies (as we conceive) when hea­ven and hell are denied, say this is an heresie, as we account, and so of the rest, Non est hoc Christiani pe­ctori [...] n [...]n dele­ctari ass rtioni­bus Tolle asser­tiones & Chri­stianismum tu­ [...]sti Sanctu [...] Spiritas non est. scepticus, nec o­piniones in cor­d [...]us nostris, sed assertiones. [...]psâ vitâ & omni experien­t [...]d certiores produc [...]t. Luth. Though the Lord hath not with-held you from giving, yet for his Christs sake, he keep us from taking this advice; We who teach others to beleeve, shall we beleeve nothing our selves? if we may not be so certain as to write against errours, how should we be so certain as to die in opppsition to errours? Should one lay down his life for he knows not what? Did those blessed Martyrs in Queen Maries daies say, That Transubstanti­on was an errour, as they thought? Besides, are there any things in the world so certain as the matters of faith? The Apostle speaks, Col. 2.2. of a fulnesse of assurance of understanding, [...] &c. Famous is that speech of Luther which in the margin I give you in his own words, Non est hoc Christiani pec­toris non delectari assertionibus, &c. It savours not of Christia­nity, when men are not delighted with positive assertions, Take [Page 14]away assertions, and thou hast taken away Christianity. The holy Ghost is no Sceptick, nor doth in produce opinions in our hearts, but certain assertions more sure then life it self, and all experi­ence, &c. Certainly if I may know any thing to be a truth, I may and must upon that ground know the contrary to be an errour; as if I know that this is a truth, That Christ is God, I certainly know that this is an errour, to say, He is not God; and therefore by your putting us to beleeve nothing for an errour, you will con­strain us to beleeve nothing for a truth. And if this be so, to what end serves preaching? Do Ministers preach, and people hear fa­bles or truths? Further, if nothing be to be certainly known, for an errour, with what zeal can any way by you be opposed, when as you are and must be uncertain, whether you strike a friend or a foe, a truth or an errour? And if so, How can you declaim against the way of Presbytery? for ought you know it may be a truth, How or why against the restraint of herecicks, deniall of liberty of conscience? And where are you then, Sir? But are you so undoubted, and certain, and positive, as you seem to your self to be, when you oppose the truth? and must we be purely doubtfull, when we are opposing of errours? Did not you bla­sphemously deny the Scripture to be the foundation of faith, with that astonishing expression going before it, [Question­lesse] no writing whatsoever is the foundation of Christian Religion? Though in this last Pamphlet your own conference (I hope) would not suffer you to put it in. Must you say que­stionlesse for errours, and must we come with an (as we think) against errours?

You extend your title against a toleration of errours also. Sion Col. visited p. 5.Now a toleration is a meer non ens, a thing not in being, and therefore you testify against that of which God made the World.

If a toleration be not no thank to you, Ans. I am confident 'tis your darling endeavour to effect it; You say, that because a toleration is nothing, to speak against it, is to speak against that which Gud made the world of; Prophanely enough! But sure you meant not to compare a toleration to the nothing of which God made the world, but to the Chaos out of which God made the worid: and [...]f God made the world of it, I am sure you have mar'd the world by it. But 'tis so far from being that of which God made the [Page 15]world, that it is rather that for which God may destroy the world.

If I had a captious pen, there would be no difficulty to finde a calumniating insinuation against the Parliament. Sion Col. visi­ted p 5. Ans.

For the calcumniating insinuation against the Parliament, where lies it? turn not Sycophant, but give me leave to shew you your calumniating insinuation against the Parliament: for this testimony of the Ministers hath been in many a wise Parli­ament mans hand; and for you (a mean man in comparison) to dare to finde out a calumniation against them, which they could never finde out against themselves, what is this but for you to prefer your sufficiency to theirs, and to shew that they cannot cousult, without your assistance? But if there be a toleration, if doth not follow the Parliament is to be blamed; perhaps 'tis a toleration not given, but taken. 'Tis not from Parliamentary license, but Sectaries their licen­tiousnesse.

This present generation is fairly acquitted from being the au­thours of these errours,Sion Col. visited p. 6.because these errours are said in the te­stimony to be the spawn of old, accursed heresies; dead and bu­ried long ago, and now by seducers revived. Now revivers are no authours [...] ▪

Answ. I am confident the Sectaries of these times will give you but little thanks for taking from them the honour of being the authours of the mentioned errours; Ans. their greatest contention being, whose invention should be most reputed for, and fruit­full of the said errours. And whereas you say, That revivers of errours are no authours; the Sectaries again are little beholding to you; for the reviver of an errour is worse, and more inexcu­sable then the authour, in as much as the reviver of a buried and a condemned errour, sins against the president of the concurrent judgements of holy men in former ages, whereas the authour wanted the help of former guides; I may truly say, that John Goodwin, sins more inexcusably, then Pelagius (whose soul seems by a strange metempsuchosis, to be transmigrated into M. Good­win; save only that it meeting with Arminius by the way, sifred into him all the flour of wit, and brought nothing, but the bran of heresie to M. Goodwin) because M. Goodwin though he be not [Page 16]guilty of the invention of the errours, yet of the publication and propagation of them against the counsels and writings of all the Orthodox since Pelagius his time. For your acquitting therefore of this generation, you go too far, though you are an advocate to plead for errours, yet you must not be a judge to acquit them, and to acquit a whole generation at one clap, is with the most; the sea of your charity gaineth so much toward heretikes, that its quite dried up toward the Orthodox. You are such a prodigall of charity toward the one, that when you should contribute to the other, you will be found a beggar. But take heed, least if you ac­quit this generation from heresie, the next generation condemn your self for heresie. Judicium melius posteritatis erit.

There are severall Ministers of Christ to my knowledge in the Province of London (no Independents) commensurable for worth with the tallest Subscribers, Sion Col. visited p. 6.though not to some of them in Church livings, by two or three, for whom God provided some bet­ter thing then to suffer them to fall into the snare of so unworthy a subscription.

You said even now, Ans. they were only reputed the Ministers of Christ, for want of mens knowing better, and now you say, They are the Ministers of Christ to your knowledge; you want a better memory for so little honesty. You add, That these Ministers have not subscribed the Testimony: but now you see many of their names subscribed in this last Edition of the Testimony, Will you say, they are Ministers? You finde that they love not to be dis­graced with the praises of your pen for abstaining.

You say that the subscribers exceed the rest in two or three Church livings. These are exceeding daies only for Sectaries, The Orthodox have but short commons▪ they are rich in imploiments and poor in paiments. You are quite contrary, you are paid for being a 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 cro [...], however I desire to be as far from envy at your condition, as imitation of your own opinions; Your gains would be my joy, were not religion the looser.

You scraple together a few saying or passages out of severall mens books, whereof some are fair truths, &c. Sion Col. visi­ted. p. 7. Answ,

For the fairnesse of your truths, ther's not one of them, but hath a face of soot, and of a blackmore, but I beleeve they are accounted fair in their own Countrey, in Errour-alley, but in an orthodox region they are very deformed.

To reproach mens opinions without answering any one reason or ground upon which they build their assertions, Sion Col. visi­ted. p. 7.is the Way for propaga­tion of them.

There is not one mentioned errour in all the Catalogue, Answ. but is its own reproach, and its own refutation: And the frequency of your being braid in the morter of an answer, hath made hitherto but little of your folly to depart from you. A confutation would adde too much reputation to the errours. Besides, when Secta­ries see that their errours deserve disputation, they thereby think, that they deserve estimation; 'tis their custome to turn truths in­to controversies, and controversies into truths. And at all dis­putations you still go away with the victory, but especially, when you are able to say nothing. The present work of the Mini­sters, was discovery: Refutation, if judg'd convenient may fol­low.

You rend a parcel of words out of the body of a large discourse, Sion Col. visi­ted. p. 8. Answ.which may carry some face of an unsound saying.

It seems your fair truths, of which you even now spake, have but a foul face; surely the best part of all your errours, is the face; if Satan intended to limn any part well, it would be that; and for the rending the parcel of words out of the body of the discourse; If you have a desire that the whole body should be seen; the Reader is in the margin referr'd to it, and yet if any parcel of a passage seem'd to make for you, the Subscribers set down that too, but indeed commonly the whole passage was a wrapt complication of errours.

You shew not in what part of their sayings the errour lies. Sion Col. visi­ted. p. 8. Answ. There's [...]. Sion Col. visi­ted. p. 9.

Shew you in what part of any saying almost the errour doth not lie; commonly the disease is epidemicall over the whole pas­sage.

The night is too far spent for them to think, that men will judge er­rour or truth by their magisterial votes.

Why make you not a right use of this departure of the night? Is it not a shame to hold such ungodly opinions in the day of the Gospel-light? They that are drunk with heresie, are drunk even in the day. T' was bad to be so in the night of Popery; 'tis abomina­ble, in the day of Reformation; what a brazen brow hath heresie to out-look the light of the Scripture, nay to put it out. Oh that I could hear more of you say to your errours (as the angel to Jacob) let me goe from you for the day appeareth Well, take heed, if you still goe on to commit night sins in the day time, lest you shorten Englands day of grace, and hasten her night of Woe; If ever a gene­ration threatned such a night, heretiques do: I assure you, Sir, Your new light hath in a manner put out your old heat.

For your saying, That the night is too far spent to judge errours by the votes of Ministers. We blesse God that the night is so far spent, as that we see how to judge your errours by the light of the Scriptures; a light that you would fain eclipse, for fear of discovery; a light, which if you loved, you would abominate these errours of darknesse; love the Scriptures, and hate the mi­nisters, if you dare, if you can.

Men have put away those childish things, Sion Coll. visit. pag [...]. Answ.to beleeve as the Church beleeves.

And in stead thereof Sectaries put it away as a child­ish thing, to beleeve as the word beleeves; you have made a fair change.

There is not so much as any one syllable in the Covenant that enga­geth any man to the Presbyteriall Government. Sion Col. visit. p. 10. Answ.

But are there not many syllables in the Covenant, that engage, 1. To a Government. 2. To a Government according to the word of God.

If to a Government, What will then become of Independency? which any further then it shapes it self to Presbytery is the very negation of Government, and as used by you, stands upon no other leg then a necessary violation of the Covenant, by a Tolera­tion of all errours, heresies, and ungodly opinions in the world.

2. If the Covenant engageth to a Government according to the word of God, and the example, &c. tremble to quetch against Presbytery, the most agreeable Government to the Word, and if it be not so, Answer the many learned and pious Tractates, [Page 19]that have been put out for it, both by Scots and English. Answer the learned labour of the Assembly, M^r Ruther surds, M^r Gillespies books, and the book entituled, Jus divinum Regiminis Ecclesia­stic [...] but you have a compendious way of Confutation, you blow away whole books with the dictates of three or four lines.

Was it in the integrity of your hearts, Sion Col. visit. p. 11.to discharge your duty conscientiously, that you charge him with errours against the Di­vine Authority of the Scripture, who hath bent himself with the u [...]termost of his end [...]avours for the vindication of their Divine Authority, and [...]ho hath laboured in this argument as much, and with as much faithfulnes as any of you all.

Was it from the lowlinesse of your heart, Answ. that you prefer your self before the mo [...] learned and pious of the Subscribers? Or was it from the logick of your head, that you form such a child­ish argument, viz. You may not be taxed with errours about the Authority of the Scriptures, because you have written in vin­dication of them? Did not Faustus Rhegiensis write a Treatise, Baron, Annal. Ton. 6 an. 490. Sect. 31. Vid. [...]id Hispal. de Script. eccl. cap. 14. Sune Scriptura Prophetica & Apostolica, [...]t verbum De [...]re­cipienda? [...]quā quaestionem in­dignam alioqui qu [...] tractetur a­pud theolo [...]os Christ [...]anos, pe­perit nobis hoc tempore Swenk­feldij deliratie, &c De verbe Dei, l. 1 c 1. De gratiâ & libero arbitrio, against the Pelagians, and yet, Dum captiosè videri vellet pugnare contra Pelagianos, compertus suit 'Pelagio favens, & novus dogmatista. It matters not what men say, that themselves doe, but what others that are wise and holy men, see that they doe; May not Bellarmine be charged with errours, about the Authority of the Scriptures, that hath la­beured in the justifying of their Divine Authority against the Schwenckfeldians with incomparable more sinews and strength, than you have ever done in your way? When did your pen ever, as his did, drop such a passage as this, that the very question, Whe­ther the Propheticall and Apostolicall writing is to be received as the Word of God, is unworthy to be handled by any Christian divine, had it not been made necessary by the deliration of Swenck­feldius, and the Anabaptists denying it? Whereas your work is to preach and write against all Propheticall and Apostolicall writings, whether Originals or Translations. Remember with what consident heat you rose up for the most horrid heretikes, Antiseripturists and Antitrinitarians, &c. In your Hagiomastix, and then consider whether your saying that you bear the errours of the times, as a burden upon your soul, is to be beleeved; must this your saying, that errours are your burden, excuse you from [Page 20]erroneousnes, when you say, that this opinion, that God is not one in three persons, is not contrary to any manifest word of God; and this you say (in that place) that your opponents neither have proved, Hag. p. 35. nor can prove; Though you say that errours are your burden, must you not be blamed for saying, That you know holy and heavenly Christians, Hag. p. 36.who deny that God is one in three persons. Must your own titles and pretences upon, or in any book exempt you from a Charge, when as the matter couched under them condemns you? Nay, ought you not to be the more bla­med for your cloaked impiety; and for your reall enmity to the Scriptures under appearances and seeming friendship, Tuta fre­quens (que) via—

Doe I not plainly, Sion Col visi­ted, p. 11.clearly, and distinctly enough declare unto the world in my Treatise concerning the Divine Authority of the Scripture; In what sense I hold the Scriptures, whether Translations or Originals to be the word of God, and consequent­ly the foundation of Christian Religion; and in what not? Let the 13 and 15. pages of my said book be lookt upon. Therefore you complain that the Subscribers barely cite these words from your pen [Questionlesse no writing whatsoever, whether Translati­ons or Originals, are the foundation of Christian Reli­gion] without citing those other words of yours, pag. 13. wherein in a true sense you assert them to be the Word of God.

Your self is the first man that ever I heard to commend you for clearnesse, Answ. plainnesse and distinctnesse, your writings, throughout have more of words then matter, and yet more of mud then either. But

At your command, I shall consult the pages, wherein you would be thought to say, The Scriptures are the Word of God. In the former, as also pag. 17. where you seem to be most full in declaring your sense, You say to this purpose; That you grant the matter and substance of the Scripture, The gracious counsels, to be the Word of God, as, That Christ is God and man, that he died, that he rose again, &c. (You are come to a high pitch of ingenuity, I assure you.) These things you having said, you thinke you may lawfully charge the Ministers with craft and wickednesse, for setting down barely that conclusion of yours, [Page 21] pag. 18. Questionles no writing whatsoever, whether Transla­tions or Originals, are the foundation of Christian Reli­gion.

1. But what will please you? The Subscribers are in some strait how to content you, when they only set down the conclusion and result of your words, you say they deal wickedly, because they expresse no more, and when they cite a whole page, you say, they doe it, that they may represent you to the Reader for a man of monstrous and prodigious errours, one of which cannot be expres­sed or contained in fewer words then would fill a whole page: Yet on the other side, If they pitch only upon the errour, you say, they cite your words barely, and suppresse craftily your sense.

2. Though the Subscribers did set down this your Conclusion without reciting your long-winded passages, which you premise, yet deserve they not this your reviling, Div. author. of Scrip p. 18. as if they had wrong'd you: For the conclusion being the result of the premisses, if your conclusion be crazie and hereticall, your premises must needs be so too, and therefore the setting of them down would not have helped you at all: and if the conclusion be not hereticall, why doe you not defend it against the accusation of the Subscribers, which you neither doe, nor dare to doe, but only send the Sub­scribers to the thirteenth page, leaving the poor eighteenth to mercie.

3. Suppose you had in the thirteenth page written the truth, therefore ought you not to be blamed for writing errours in the eighteenth page? Nay, ought you not the rather to be blamed? Suppose that found truths were laid on the top of your book, might you not be blamed for laying rotten errours at the bot­tome: Satan knows that the one must make the other vendi­ble, and the Subscribers did but labour herein to spoil his mercat.

4. I suppose the subscribers did not set down your sense concer­ning the divine Authority of the Scriptures in the thirteenth page, because it had no relation either clear or doubtfull to the passage in this eighteenth page. For in the thirteenth page you say you assert the Scriptures to be the word of God; and here in the eighteenth page, you come with your Questionlesse no writing whatsoever, whether translations or originalls are the founda­tion of Christian Religion.

But you seem to complain that you who have granted the Scrip­tures, i.e. the gracious counsels, matter, substance of them to be the word of God, should be blamed though you say Question­lesse no writing whatsoever is the foundation of Christian religi­o [...]; but mistake not, for though you have granted what no Pa­pist, nay, what no christian (in a sense) did ever yet deny, yet upon what ground have you granted even this, you give the rea­der nothing to shew for this grant but only your good nature and ingenuity: you tell me pag. 13. that you beleeve the precious counsells, matter and substance of the Scripture to be of divine authority, but though you beleeve so, yet what ground give you me to beleeve so with you? none I am sure p. 10. Div. Autho. where you deny both the English Scriptures and the Hebrew and Greek Originals themselves to be the word of God. Div. Autho. p. 10. Nor give you me any ground to beleeve with you that the counsells of the scriptures are the word of God, in p. 12. when you say, That they who have the greatest insight into the originall languages, yea and who beleeve the Scriptures unto salvation; Div. Autho. p. 12.cannot upon any sufficient ground beleeve, any originall copie under heaven whe­ther Hebrew or greek to be the word of God, with a world of such stuff; Nor give you any ground to beleeve the matter, counsells &c. of the Scripture to be the word of God, p. 18. where you say, Questionlesse no writing whatsoever whether translations or originalls are the foundation of Christian religion, much lesse in that of Hag. p. 38. where in regard of the mortality of words, you make the meaning of the originalls impossible to be certainly understood; nay by all these passages of yours you hinder me from beleving (as much as in you lieth) that the matter, substance, counsells, &c. of the Scriptures are the word of God, for how can any beleeve the matter, substance &c. of the Scripture to be the word of God, when as he must be uncer­tain whether the written word or Scriptures wherein that mat­ter is contained are the word of God or no? I suppose when you say that the matter of the Scriptures, represented in translations and originals is the word of God p. 17. you suppose that it should be beleeved for such; but upon what ground ought I to beleeve it? I hope you will not say because a province of London-Ministers saith it is to be beleeved, nor barely because the spirit tels me is to be [Page 23]believed for the word of God, 2 Pet. 1 19. for the spirit sends me to the writ­ten word, and bids me by that to trie the spirits, and tells me I must beleeve nothing to be from God, or for my own eternall good, but what I finde written; I therefore desire to go to the written word as reveal [...]d by God, for the building my confidence upon the coun­sells and matter of the Scriptures (as pardon through Christ. &c.) But then J. Goodwin tels me this written word is not Gods word, nor are any writings in the world Originals or Translations, to be lookt upon as such; If so, they must be the word of vain man, and so I have no more to shew for the precious truths, that Christ died for sinners and lost man &c. then mans word; I pray con­sider, what are become of your disciples (to use your own phrase) their soul provisions, their hope of eternall blessednesse, when as thus you deny the written word? How doth my soul pitty your poor deluded followers who have such a soul starving or soul­poysoning shepheard set over them, the Lord knows I hardly write these things with dry eyes. Whereas therefore you send the subscribers and readers to your pages alledged, I shall do the like, and desire them to take notice that you make no distinction between the res credenda, and the ratio credendi, the matter to be beleeved, and the ground of beleeving that thing, the objectum materiale & formale fidei; the matters to be beleeved, are those precious truths of God, which you name p. 13. and such like. the ground of beleeving them is the revelation of God in his writ­ten word Nor can any one beleeve those truths with a divine faith as the truths of God, Hoc verbum quod multis vi­cib is multis (que) mod [...]olim De­us proserre vo­lu [...]t, visum est ei lem literis & libris ad Ecclo­sie suae usum consignare, un [...] & codem sem. per manente verbo etsi non uno modo tra­dito, Riv. Cat. Oath. Par. 9. [...]. unlesse he first beleevs that they are revea­led and made known by God: This Revelation of God hath al­waies been the foundation of faith, and (as the Apostle,) Heb. 1.1. saith [...]; God hath afforded this at divers times, after divers manners, to his Church sometimes by a live­ly voice, at other times by writing, the authority of the revela­tion being the same, the manner of revealing divers. * But now since the truths of God were expressed in writing, what is the grouad of your faith, but this it is, written, and if you deny the [...] of the words and say that they are not from divine in­spiration,, you must of necessity also deny the [...] of the matter and hold that the matter which you say is only the word of God, is unworthy of a Christians belief: I pray what course [Page 24]took Christ and his Apostles to prove their doctrinall assertions, Mat 44.6.7.10 Mat. 1.2. Mar. 9.12. Mar. 11.17. Luk. 18.31.22.37. 24 44 46. Joh. 10.34. Act. 13.33. 15.85. Rom. 3.4. 10.81. 9.13. 11.26. 12 19. 14 11. 13.9. [...]. 1 Cor. 1.19. 1 Cor. 1.31. 1 Cor. 2.9. 9.9. 1 Cor 15.54. 2 Cor 9.9. Gal. 3.13. 4.22. Heb 10.7. 1 Pet. 11.6. Mar. 15.28. Act. 8.32.35. Rom. 9.17. 10.11. 11.2 Gal. 4. [...]0. 1 Tim. 5.18. 1 Pet. 2.6. Mat. 21.42. 26 56 Luk. 24.27.45. Act. 17.2 11. 18.28. Rom. 1.2. 16.26. 1 Cor. 15 3. and the matters they taught, but by the Scriptures, and when they would render them [...] fit for belief, they evermore tell how it is written. Consult with the places in the margin, and you will finde that the matter, substance, precious counsells &c. con­tained in the Scriptures are proved to be credenda things to be be­leeved, because they are written, deny then the written word (as you do in terminis) to be the word of God, and what formall object hath faith? poor faith without a written word! Yeeld your self to that evident Scripture, Joh. 20.31. These things are writ­ten that yee might beleeve that Jesus is the Christ the son of God, and that beleeving ye might have lift through his name: God makes these matters, Christ is the son of God; and life is to he had through his name, to be the objects and matter of my belief, but God makes the ratio or ground of my beleeving of these mat­ters to be their revelation by writing: See also Act. 14.24. Paul saith he beleeved all that was written in the Law and the prophets, So, Rom. 15.4. Things were written aforetime that through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures, we might have hope. So if you beleeve not Moses writings, how shall you beleeve my words? Joh. 5.47.

6. Therefore doth not your sending me only to the counsels, matter, substance of Translations and Originals, as the Word of God, and your deniall that the written Word is such clearly shew, That you send me not to that Word of God, which the Scripture every where speaks of, but to some o­ther, the Scripture using to call the written Word of God, the Scripture (and very often, though in a Translation) The com­mand of Christ, Joh. 5.39. is to search the Scriptures, and were not they the written Word, How readest thou? Luk. 10.26. Ʋnderstandest thou what thou readest. Act. 8.30. and what Scriptures were those the Apostle calleth [...] given by inspi­ration of God? meaneth the Apostle neither Originals nor tran­slation? or both rather?

It were easy to shew how in this point of your deniall the Scriptures for the foundation, as faith and Scriptures oppose you, so likewise sundry holy and learned writers that have had oc­casion to touch upon the subject.

Let these following (asserting the Scriptures for the word of God, and so the foundation of faith, and Christian Religion) suffice for the vindication of the written word from the con­tempt you cast upon it.

Quo plenius & impressius tam ipsum, quam dispositiones, & voluntates adiremus, in­strumentum adjecit litera­turae, si quis velit de Deo inquirere, & inquisitum invenire, & in­vento credere, & credito de­servire. Tertul. Apol. cap. 18. That we might go to God, his counsells, and will, more fully, and vigorously, he added the instrument of writing, if any would enquire of God, finde him, beleeve in him, and serve him. Tertullian.

Non per ali­os salutis no­strae dispositi­onem cogno­vimus, quam per eos per quos Evange­lium pervenit ad nos, quod quidem tunc praeconiave­runt postea per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam fi­dei nostrae futu [...]um. Irenaeus. Advers. Heres lib. 3. cap. 1 vide lib. 3. c. 2. We know not Gods disposall (or ordering) of our salvation, but by those, by whom the Gospel came to us, which they formerly preached, afterward by the counsell of God delivered to us in the Scriptures to be the foundation, and pillar of our faith, Irenaeus.

Singuli Sermones, syllabae, apices, puncta, in divinis Scripturis plena sunt sensibus. Hier in cap. 1. ad Eph. The severall speeches, syllables, tittles, points in the divine Scriptures, are full of sense. Hier.

Persuasisti mihi Domine Deus non eos qui crederent libros tuos, quos tantâ omnibus serè gentibus authoritate fundasti, esse culpandos, sed eos qui non crederent, nec audiendos esse si qui forte mihi dicerent unde scis illos libros unius veracissimi Dei spiritu, esse humano generi ministratos, id ipsum enim maximè credendum erat. Aug Conf lib. 6. O my Lord God, thou hast perswaded me, not that they who beleeved thy books, which thou hast founded with so much autho­rity, in almost all nations, were to be blamed, but those who beleeved them not, and that those were not to be heard, who might haply say to me, whence dost thou know that those books were administred to man-kinde by the Spirit of the only most true God? for this thing was chiefly to be beleeved. Augustine.

[...]. Chry. hom. 1. in Mat. If it be blame-worthy to stand in need of the writing of the Scri­pture, and not to imbrace the grace of the spirit; how great a fault is it, after the enjoyment of so great an help, not to gain by it, but to despise the writings, as if they had been laid before us in vain, and thereby to draw upon our selves greater punishment. Chrys.

Homin's qui intra Ec­clesiae pomaeria sunt, de scrip­turae authori­tate non quae­rant, est enim p [...]incipium. Quomodopos­sunt esse disci­puli Christi si doctrinam Christi velint in dubium vo­care? quomodo verae Ecclesiae membra si de fundamento Ecclesiae dubi­tare velint? Quomodo id sibi probari petent quod ad probanda alia semper assumunt? Gerb. loc. Com. Tom 1. de S. ser. p 7 Sect. 10. Men, that are within the pale of the Church, make no question of the authority of the Scripture; for it is a principle. How can they be the Discioles of Christ if they will call the doctrine of Christ into question, how can they be members of the Church, if they will doubt of the foundation of the Church? How can they desire to have that proved, which they make use of to prove all other things by? Gerhard.

In fidei controversi [...]s dijudicandis nec ab Hebraeis nec a Graecis pendere volunt Papistae, multiplicatis quaestiunculis quaesivit Iesuita omnem sacrae scripturae fidem a judicio huma [...]o suspendere & de [...] scripturae qu [...] habemus dubitationem omnium mentibus [...]j [...] ­unt, ut his athe [...]mi radimentis hom [...]es a vert Dei cognitione abstract [...]s facilius Antichrist dominationi subjiciant. Andr Rivet. Q 4. de scrip Tom. 1. In determining of controversies of faith, the Papists (note this M. Goodwin) will not stand, either to the Hebrew or greek originals; and (Baily the Jesuite) by multiplying questions hath sought to make the belief of the holy Scripture to depend upon mans judgement and they cast doubts into all mens mindes, about the authority of the holy Scriptures which we have; that by these rudiments of Atheism, they might subiect those men to the pow­er of Antichrist, whom they have drawn from the knowledge of the true God. Andr. Rivet.

I shall conclude with desiring you in the fear of God to consider whether that complaint which the learned Rivetus makes of Albertus Pighius sute not too evidently with your self; whom as Rivet saith, uttered such blasphemous expressions as these; explicent scripturarij Explicent scripturarij isti unde nobis cer­tum est haec esse Moysi scripta que sub ej [...] no­mine legimus & si viderem [...] qui [...] ce [...]tos r [...]d deret M [...]ysi tam multis seculis mortui, esse scriptama [...]? haec & fimilia querebat a n [...] ­bis proph [...]us iste, quae quor­su [...]. nemo potest ig­norare nifi qu [...] sponte vult de­cip [...] Rivetus ubisupra; and he saith that the Papists are herein worse then the tradi. tores. who for fear delivered their Bibles to the Heathen to be burnt. Sion Col. visit. p. 12.isti &c. let these that stand so much for the written word, tell us, how we can be certain that these are the writings of Moses, which we read to go under his name, and how can they assure us that these things were written with Moses his own hand who died so many years agoe? —He concludes with calling this Albertus Pighius a prophane fellow and saith, that he that seeth not whether these things tend is willing to deceive himself; I verely fear (and without any breach of charity) that these scripturarij especially of the presbyterian judgement shall not finde that favour from Joha Goodwin that a Sectarian Antiscripturist [Page 27]hath found in his Hagiomastix in which calendar he was highly Sainted.

Was it in the integrity of your hearts, and to discharge your duty conscienciously: that you must needs make it an errour or heresie, to say that it were needlesse for Satan to blinde the eyes of naturall men if they had not eyes to see, and to receive the glorious light of the Gospel, when it is declared unto them?

But there you stop; you do not proceed to the next words, which have a most horrid aspect, Men are not blinde for want of eyes, but for want of light, and when light, or truth is disco­vered to them, they have faculties suitable, fit, and apt to re­ceive it; But what kinde of blindenesse call you that, to be in the dark, and to have good eyes: 'tis a blindenesse that can neither in a spirituall or a naturall respect be cal'd a blindenesse, the blindenesse of a naturall man is such, as argueth a perishing of the power of spirituall seeing, or discerning (according to the A­postle he cannot know the things of the Spirit of God. 1 Cor. 2, 14) Conversion is the restoring of sight, not of light only; the opening of the eyes, not the bringing of light to them who have eyes already. Act. 26.18. raising up, and putting life into a dead man, and not the unbinding, or the unfittering of a living. Ephes. 2.

The words, which you deny to be an errour viz. 'Tis a need­lesse thing for Satan to blinde if they have not eyes to see, are very false, for notwithstanding Satans making us blinde, we are blinde of our selves, according to Scripture, which saith that naturall 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 naturall man is carried captive by Satan, 2 Tim. 2.26. doth it therefore follow, he is not a slave to sin because to Satan? Satan may keep men in blindenesse, and slavery, and make men more to please themselves in both, but its certain that we are both slaves to sin, and blinde in sin also.

Where or in what clause or phrase of this ensuing period, Sion Coll. vis­ted. p. 12, 13.lies the errour or heresie—If God should not make men capable of be­leeving, I mean indue men with such principles, abilities or gifts of reason, judgement, memory or understanding, by the diligent [Page 28]improvement whereof they might come to be convinced of a readi­nesse and willingnesse in God to receive them into favour, upon their repentance (upon which Conviction, true repentance and turning to God, ALLWAIES follows) they which are condemned would have their mouths opened against God and furnished with an excuse. The Parenthesis I suppose is innocent. The consequence, If God should not make men capable &c. is built upon this principle, that a plea for want of power for performance, is an excuse in the case of non-performance.

You have in the setting down of your innocent parenthesi, shewn your self very nocent, and deceitfull; for, as if your conscience had taken your former assertion ill at your hands, you left cut that word, ALLWAIES, in your late Pamphlet, which word the subscribers charged you with in their testimony, and would clearly have carried the sense thus, grace and conversion infallibly follow upon mans improvement of his naturall abilities,

First, For your consequence that if God should not make men capeable of beleeving (upon that principle that a plea for want of power for per formance, Tum omnis res­ponsandi ansa praeciditur Is­raelitis, cum statuitur poten­tiam serendi fructus per gra­tiam internam ipsis esse colla tam contra ve­ro tam diu ma net respan an [...]i materia, quam diu non statui tur Israelita [...] a Deo accepisse potentiam fruc­tus serendi [...] ac­cepesse, [...]qu [...], ca [...] per grat [...] internam u [...]po tèquae [...] e [...] con [...]ertur Act. Synod. p. 92. Art 3.4.is an excuse in the case of non-perform­ance) they that are condemned would have their mouths opened against Gods proceedings, and be furnished with an excuse.

Let the reader take notice, that you in this as in that which follows lovingly joyn hands with the Arminians, the Remon­strants, who say thus: Then is the mouth of the Israelites stopped, when it is granted that they had power given them by the internall grace of God to bring forth fruit, but on the other side so long will the mouth be open, as it is not granted that the Israelites had re­ceived of God power to bring forth fruit, I say, had received it by internall grace, by which only it can be conferred; 'Tis plain you joyn with the erroneous; but you ask, where lieth the errour? I answer, I shall tell you where there lieth something as bad, I mean blasphemy. Your mouth (to be sure) is widely opened against God, for the English of this assertiom (If God should not make men able to beleeve they might accuse God) is but this, that God is unjust in commanding man in his fal'n estate to per­form the things which he hath voluntarily disabled himself to perform; by which opinion you must needs make Gods sove­raignty to be impaired with mans ability, and to be limited to [Page 29]mans sinfully, and voluntarily contracted impotency; or if God will not suffer it so to be, the holy commands of God are by J.G. openly charged to be worthy of having our mouths wide open against them; Is not every man, as a man, a debtour to God, and a creature tied to obedience? and doth his making himself insuffi­cient to discharge the debt discharge him from payment? and it would follow, if such impotency excused from duty, and from the obligation of the command, that those men were most excusa­ble, that were most sinfull, and had by long accustoming them­selves to sin, made themselves most unable to leave and forsake sin; nay, if by reason hereof, God did not command obedience from them, it would follow, that such did not sin at all (for where there's no precept there's no transgression) and so according to you, by a mans progresse in sin, he should make himself cease to be sinfull.

Nor did Pelagius himself ever utter any sentence more to the swelling of nature, or prejudice of grace, then your self have uttered in your parenthesis, wherein you say that by the improvement of nature, a man may attain to such a conviction as upon which saving conversion ALLW AIES fol­lows; what place is here left for grace? what agreement with the Apostle. 1 Cor. 4.7 Who maketh thee to differ from another? Ʋt Episcopius. (M^r Goodwins answer; my self by my improovement of nature made me to differ, would have fallen little short of blasphemie.) What agreement with Christ. Joh. 15.24. Now they have both seen and hated (for all that) both me and my father; The principles of nature after the fall improved to the utmost, are so far from carrying a man to God, that they leave a man dead in sin, and his very highest and most refined part, his carnall minde is enmity to God, Rom. 8 7. And again the Scripture testifieth that the world cannot receive the spirit of truth Ioh. 14 17. And Rom 5.6. Christ died for us being, as ungodly, so without strength; So Phil. 1.29. Ʋnto you it is given, &c. to beleeve; and Phil. 2.13. It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do, of his good pleasure.

Your good friend M. Bucer you say is no Arminian, and I say he is far from being like you in this point, Hear him upon that of our Saviour, Ioh. 12.39. Therefore they could not beleeve, &c. [Page 26] [...] [Page 27] [...] [Page 28] [...] [Page 29] [...] [Page 30] What could be said more fully and plainly (saith he) for the predestination of God that ordaineth all things, and against that which some ascribe to free will, Quid patentius, & apertius di­ci possit, pro Dei omni [...] or­dinantis prae­destinatione, & contraid, quod quidam libero arbitrio trib [...] ­unt, nempe bo minem ex sua virtute credere posse.that a man may by his own im­provement beleeve in Christ, &c. You go on.

You cite a whole page together, consisting of three, or four and thir­ty lines under the name, and notion of one and the same errour &c.

The subscribers have not (as yet) the art of pleasing you; even now they cited your words too sparingly, now too copiou­sly; you are ever complaining; you will pardon them; so croo­ked a piece cannot easily be fitted; and it was the first time that ever you imployed them; you conjecture many reasons why they should cite your passage so fully, even to the filling of a whole side in quarto with 34. lines. but you meet not with the right reason among them all; It was briefly this, you have such a long-winded stile, and such a foggy conceptus, that you cannot write a slieght notion which may be couched in four lines, under thirty four lines, as in the forecited instance is plain, and that made the subscribers, rather to condescend to your expressions, then to be indulgent to their own inclinations, Be quicker hereafter.

But you complain of their want of conscience in transcribing a whole page under the name of one errour.

Are you angry because they found but one Error in 34. lines? You have rather cause to praise their candor, then to blame their computation. Had they been as severe in reckoning your Er­rors as you are exact in numbring your lines, you would have spared this charge.

The passage according to your arithmetick being 34. lines, I shall not here transcribe it; but the summe of it is.

That if God should deprive men of all power to beleeve, and yet should perswade them to beleeve, with that affection wherein he expresseth himself in the Scriptures, even to those that perish, this would be harder then injustice it self; God would be like a King, that causeth a mans leggs to be cut off for a fault, and yet urge him to run a race with those that have their limbs.

The Arminians were your Schoolmasters, when you learned this lesson; Ans. The Remonstrants and you meet again.

Their very words are these. If a man have lost his ability, [Page 31]because God hath taken it away in his just judgement by a deserved punishment, truly the man is made excusable,Si potentiam a­misit, quia cam substraxit Deus justo judici [...] per panam pro­merita [...], pro­fectò ex [...]usabi­lis redditur ho­mo, si cum De [...] astum deinde postulat abillo quem fic punivit. i.e. Impotentem ad actum praestandum per substractionem gra­tia reddidit actum illum non exerceat. Act, Syn. 3, 4 pag. 145. Et certè num De [...] hominem in aeternanco [...]demnationem abijecere possit, &c. Is qui cum homine ita agit, tyrannus saevissimo Phalaride immanior, &c. Ibid. Pone oculis militem esse multatum, &c. ibid. pag. 108.though he perform not the command; And they leave it to the consciences of Di­vines to judge, whether God can with justice cast such a man into eternall damnation. Nay he that so deals with him would be a cruel tyrant (say they.) If a Generall command a blinde souldi­er, though one who hath lost his eyes for some grievous offence, to stand centinell, and threaten him if he doe not, &c.

You appear not yet heart-smitten notwithstanding your re­view of this passage in the Testimony; but you say it is a truth of God: and since you doe so; you are put upon proving in the next.

1. That they who perish have power to beleeve, and repent. The Scriptures deny it; when they say that the world cannot receive the spirit, Joh. 14.17. men by nature are dead in trespasses, and sins, Eph. 2. Without strength. Rom. 5.6. God worketh in us to will, and to doe, our sufficiencie is of God.

2. If man hath not power, prove, that this impotencie is meer­ly paenall, as inflicted by God, so involuntarily induced by man (for that is the nature of a punishment properly so called) the Scripture saith man hath found out many inventions, Eccles 7. and that all his imaginations are evil, Gen. 6.5. and vers. 12. that all flesh hath corrupted its way.

3. Prove that God hath not punished mans rebellion with this impotencie. What death is that which is threatned upon the eating of the forbidden fruit, Gen. 2.17. and how extensive is it?

4. That upon these praemisses it would be injustice and dissi­mulation in God, to command men to beleeve. Untill these things are proved, know that the large transcription of 34. lines, is from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot all rot­tennesse.

Sir, Your friend, and (as you pretend) your patron, Martin Bucer, salutes you in these words. They that for the asserting of the justice of God, before the tribunall of their own reason, [Page 32]fly to this,Qui his moti [...]tat Dei justitian asserant apud [...]unal ratio nis sue, illò con­fugiunt, ut di­cant aliquid vir [...]um nobis superesse, qui­bas vocati ado nino & gratil ej [...] aljuti, ad rectam vitam pervenire p [...]ssumus, si non ultro averti nos ab illâ patiamur: praeterquam, quod boc commento, rationi minimè satisfaciunt; eò praeterea adducunt se, ut si tueri istud suum commentum velint, necessariò negent Deum esse. Bucerus. in Rom. 9.that they say we have some strength left, by which being called by God, and assisted by his grace we may come to a righteous life, besides, that they satisfie not reason by this fiction of theirs, they also bring themselves upon this strait, that if they will defend their fiction, they must deny there is a God; Though Bucer be in your books now he is dead, yet you would have been far from being in his, had he been living.

You say that this doctrine is most assuredly asserted by Paul and Peter; Sion Coll. vi [...]it. pag 15. viz. That wicked men would not be obnoxious to the judgements of God if they could plead any tolerable excuse— now of all excuses for not doing a thing commanded, there is none more reasonable then this, to say that he was not able to doe it.

Answ. You and your masters the Remonstrants will not part, Hoc unum ad excusationem hominis abundè sufficiet, qùod facere, necpotest, nec potuit, quod non fecerit, quia obligationis ratio tum maximè omnium cessat, cum praetenditur saciendi id quod mandatur im­potentia. Act. Synod. Art. 3, 4. 142. do what I can; Their words are these. No man is without excuse for not doing that which he hath not power to doe. Nay this thing alone is abundantly sufficient for his excuse, for a commandment doth most of all cease to oblige, when a man alledgeth that he is impo­tent to doe it.

I have proved for you that this is the Arminians doctrine. Now in requitall I pray prove to me that this is Pauls, and Peters doctrine; Take heed of laying the brats of Satan at the doors of Peter, and Paul; In your next tell me in what places Peter, and Paul assert, that a naturall mans impotencie excuseth him from doing his duty, whether in Rom. 9.19, 20. where we are for­bidden to dispute against God. Or in Rom. [...]3 19.—Every mouth must be stopped. In the mean time, your old friend M^r Bucer sends you word by me, That our impotencie, and want of strength to doe any good at all, will prove a vain excuse. [Page 33]And again, when God shall arraign men in their own consciences,Nequicquam subit excusatio nostraram vi­rium quòd ex illis nihil bont existere possit. in Rom. 1.20. p. 86. Ʋbi homines ad serium judici­um sui ipsorum exciverit ibi evanescunt ca­villationes ejusmodi cun­ctae in Rom. 9. pag. 399.all these cavils will fade and vanish, and men shall then condemn none but themselves. The Saints if at any time their reason stum­ble at the judgements of God, suppresse it with that, Who art thou, O man?

Sion Col. visi­ted. p. 16. Ans. They represent it for an Error in me to say, Doubtles men are naturall men before they are spirituall, and yet these are the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15.46.

You complain of the subscribers for rending and tearing your sayings; but never was there a wretched passage so pitifully torn by any, as this your own passage is by your self; Are you a bedlam that you tear your own flesh? out of pity to you I shall endeavour to heal the body of this your passage; and give it you entire in your own words, as the Ministers have set it down in their Testimony.

It is this. Naturall men may doe such things as whereunto God hath by way of promise annexed grace and acceptation; and immediately follows that astonishing expression. (This is as dangerous an Error as Paul uttered, when he said That they were no gods which were made with hands, Act. 19.26.) for doubtlesse men are naturall men before they are spirituall: and supernatu­rall, and spirituall they cannot be made but by beleeving, and unto beleeving God hath promised grace and acceptation; Your conclusion is. If it be possible that naturall men may beleeve, then may they doe such things whereunto God hath by way of pro­mise annexed grace and acceptation.

The Reader now seeth, what it was in this passage that was represented as an Errour, not the words collected out of the Scripture, 1 Cor. 15.46. [Doubtlesse men are naturall before spirituall] but that which went before, [naturall men may doe such things whereunto God hath by way of promise annexed grace, because they may beleeve, &c.] Friend, 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, Doubtles men are naturall before they are spirituall?

For your position that naturall men may doe such things whereunto God; hath by way of promise annexed grace: how should I rejoice could I hope that the reason [Page 34]why you conceald it in Sion Coll. visit. was remorse. I obser­ved a little before that you left out the word alwaies; in setting down that Error (the same with this in other words) cited by the subscribers in their Testimony; A naturall man by his na­turall principles may attain that conviction which conversion alwaies follows; I adde to what there I said; I suppose by your naturall man, who you say doth things to which God hath an­nexed acceptation; you mean the same man that the Apostle speaks of, Rom. 8.8. The man in the flesh: now that man cannot please God, Opera Anglica na contra jun­gu [...]. pag 8.8 Fateor non pa­ram nihi do uit dogma planè imptum & a pertè Pelogia num obtru [...]i nostrae scholae, &c. sed. Hominem posse ante ju­stificatione a dum adhu [...] a Christo do nino est al [...]us & impius, facere bona opera quae fint Deo ita grata, ut bis o­perib [...] Deus moveatur ad co [...] creadum plenam ad se co [...]versi [...]en, Rivet. Disp. pag. 155. though your naturall man doth things acceptable to God; Invert not Gods and natures order, first let the tree be good, and then the fruit. But know if you still remain obdurate, that your good friend M^r Bucer hath no more patience toward you; but in down right terms calls you Pelagian; for saith he, 'tis an impious and a Pelagian opinion, that a man before justification, and while out of Christ, should be able to doe good works so acceptable to God, that by these works God should be moved to bestow conversion upon him. Only I confesse the learned Rivet. p. 155. of his disputations, with a little more moderation calls you among the rest a pargetted Pelagian, If I rightly En­glish his words, incrustantes Pelagianismum. And I pray con­sider how little you want of meritum de congruo.

But you prove your position, That naturall men may doe such good works, &c. most lamentably; because 'tis possible (say you) they may beleeve. But how then (say I) can they doe things acce­p [...]able to God before they beleeve, if you make beleeving the rea­son of their acceptation? And who knows not but that naturall men may beleeve; viz. that they are such subjects as God works upon, so as to make them beleevers? but prove that they are able to beleeve while they are naturall men. Help him logick; let fallacia a bene divisis ad malè conjuncta be well heeded; how should, your poor people know your fulla [...]ies, when you know them not your self?

They make me an Erroneous offender, Sion Col. visit. p. 16.for saying, that to be­leeve, first that God is, secondly that he is a rewarder of all those who diligently seek him, is all the faith which the Apostle makes absolutely necessary to bring a man to God, Heb. 11 6.

Answ. Still you would fain have the Scripture counted hereticall with [Page 35]your self: but the Subscribers know how to distinguish between these two, the holy Scriptures and your hereticall scriblings. Your self, not the Subscribers, make you the Erroneus offender, but not for these words, viz. To beleeve that God is, and that he is a rewarder, &c. is all the faith which is necessary to bring a man to God, but for your saying immediately going before (which you were afraid or ashamed to repeat,) viz. That all the world, even those that have not the letter of the Gospel, have yet sufficient means granted them of beleeving these two, viz. That God is, and that he is a rewarder, &c. You affirming that they who have only the heavens, the Sun, Moon, and Starres to preach the Gospel unto them, they also have reason sufficient to judge the same judgement with them who have the letter of the Gospel; for they have the Gospel (say you) the substance and effect of it, the willingnes of God to be reconciled to the world, preached unto them by the Apostles aforesaid, the Sun, Moon, and Starres.

What stuffe is here!

Have all the world sufficient means of beleeving these two: 1. That God is, Heb. 11.6. 2. That he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him? Had you understood that place of Scripture you would not have said so; for the faith or belief there spoken of, is evi­dently such a faith as whereby a man may come to God with acceptation. The words are set down by the Apostle to prove that without faith no man can please God; For faith he, No man can (acceptably) come to God, unlesse he beleeve that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him; strongly inferring that whosoever doth beleeve that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, doth come to God in a way of pleasing him. Judicious Calvin tells you thus upon the place. Haec est ratio cur citra fidem null a Deo pla­ceat, quia nullus unquam accedit nisi qui credit Deum esse, & statue [...] remune­ratorem esse omnibus qui eum quaerunt. And a little after he saith, the Apostle meaneth not that men should be perswaded that there is some or a God, but he speaks this of the true God. De vero Deo hoc praedicat, and this reward is not to be referred to the dignity of works, but to faith. Haec remuneratio non ad operum dignitatem vel pretium, sed ad fidem refertur. Calv. in loc. And Paraeus upon that place will inform you that those two heads of faith, That God is, and that God is a rewar­der of them that diligently seek him, are not to be understood [Page 36]Philosophically, but Theologically; that the eternall God is Fa­ther Son and holy Ghost, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him Evangelically by faith in Christ, with the benefits of the Gospel, pardon, adoption, sanctification, glory, &c.

And can Heathens by the Sun Moon and Starres doe this? can they by the light of nature beleeve a trinity of Persons in unity of Essence? if they doe, they are better then your godly persons, Hag. pag 36 who you say are holy and walk with God, and yet beleeve not that God is one in three persons. Ad co [...]nitiene [...] De [...]per create­ras ex naturae lumine non ali­ter ducimur, nisi quatenus Deus est earum prin­cipium & cau­sa non au [...]em earum [...]ausa, nisi per divi­nam, suam cir­tutem omnil us [...] [...]o [...]warem [...] per creaturas cognitionem consequinon valemus nisi eam quae patri & [...] & spi [...]i [...]cto s [...]t communis quo [...]: per [...]reaturas ad cognoscendam per­sonarum [...] non poss [...]m a p [...]r [...]gere. G [...]. de Trin. None (saith Gerard) can be led to the knowledge of God by the creatures, but only so farre forth as God is their cause; Now God is their cause by a divine power common to the three persons; therefore by the creatures we can onely attain to knowledge of those things which are common to the three Persons, wherefore cer­tainly by the creatures we can never attain to the knowledge of the distinction of persons. Name one heathen who did most diligently search into nature, that did by the inspection of the creature, know there was a trinity of persons.

And can the heathens by the works of creation have the dis­coveries of a mediator? and have Christ made known to them? and beleeve in him? I am sure you never learned this of the Apo­stle, Dicimus fide [...] in Christum non semper requiri ad justificatio­nem, sed fid [...] s [...]pliciter, ut restatur Apo stolus, Heb. [...] in quo et [...]n additur, [...] [...]i­dem [...] dam req [...] credere qu [...] Deus sit & quod sit rem [...]nera [...]t illoru [...] qui ipsum quaerunt de fide verò in Christum nulla vel [...]inima fit [...]. R [...]fot. lib. de sat. Christ [...] cap. to. p. 17 [...]. who saith that faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10. Or are you of Smalcius his judgement, who faith that faith in Christ is not alwaies required to justification; but faith simply, and he proves it out of this very Scripture that you have here alledg'd, Heb. 11.6. for the faith of heathens; Sir, blame me not if I be jealous of you, as of one that favours socinianisme; Sure I am, you must either hold that heathens must attain faith in Christ by the enjoying of sun moon and starres; or that the faith of the 11. of Heb. 6. which (you say) the heathens doe attain by the sun moon and startes, is not a faith in Christ, and then welfare Smalcius; In your next, I pray manifest your judgement herein.

Or of whom learned you this opinion, that they who have [Page 37] only the sun moon and starres, Impossibile est pervenire ad si­dem, pervenire ad aeternam vi­tam, nisi audie­ris evargelium, id (que) adminis [...]ra­tum per homi­nem, nam de praedicatione Evangelij Pau­lus hic l [...]quitur quam dominus per Apostolos suos ado. ini­stravit. Bucer. in Rom. 10. Act. Synod. Artic. 2. Col. Hag. art. 2. Ad Arg. 5. pag. 179. Sion Col. visi [...] p. 17. Ans. &c. to preach the Gespel unto them, have sufficient means of beleeving? Certainly M^r Bucer never was your Master, who on Rom. 10. saith, It's impossible to attain to saith, to aeternall life, unlesse thou hearest the Gospel, and that admi [...]istred by man, for Paul here speaks of the preaching of the Gospel which God administred by his Apostles; But whose scholler are you now? Friend you are to blame to put me out of my old way, for I would fain have found a schoolmaster among the Arminians for you, but the truth is you have now outgon your Masters; They indeed say that God calls all with a com­mon calling by which men may be made fit to hear the Gospel, in which salvation is offered, &c. but they never dream'd of a Gos­pel by Sun, Moon, and Starres, nay, when pressed at the confe­rence at Hague, to shew the universality of the preaching of the Gospel, though they have many shifts and cavils, yet this of your Preachers never came into their minde.

Let all my sayings be drawn together, and the rigidest extracti­on made, there will be found the same spirit of errour (if yet it were errour) in Mr John Ball, Intituled, A Treatise of the Co­venant of Grace.—pag. 44. of [...] [...]course.

I cannot wonder that you who would fain father your errours upon Scripture, are in this kinde industrious also to abuse holy and learned M^r Ball; lay not your egges of errour in M^r Balls nest, thinking that by the warmth of his reputation to have them hatched.

The words of M^r Ball are these. No man is hindered from beleeving through the difficulty or unreasonablenes of the com­mand, or through his own simple infirmity, as being willing to beleeve, but not able, which inability deserves pity, but he doth not beleeve because he will not.

What is here, that gives you the least countenance in your er­rours? M^r Ball saith and that truly, that unwillingnesse to be­leeve hinders a man from beleeving, but he doth not say that any man of himself can be willing; for pag. 226. having asserted that man is unable to beleeve, and in the same page, that it is of grace to be inabled to beleeve, he presently adds, that mands not further from beleeving then desire to beleeve. M^r B. grants that it's mans fault that he dissents from grace calling him, but [Page 38]where, saith he, it is in mans power to consent to grace calling him: and if he will not say so, he cannot be of your faith, who main­tain that man hath ability to beleeve, and may so improve his na­turall abilities that conversion alwaies will follow, and if man had not power to beleeve. God were unjust to command it. M^r Ball blames mans unwillingnesse to beleeve, and you like an acute logician thence conclude mans sufficiency. 'Twere easie to shew as great a dissonancy between you and M^r Ball in this point, as there is an harmony between you and the Remonstrants: Take it in these four or five passages. 1. You say, Div. Auth. p. 168. That if man should be deprived of all ability to beleeve, and yet God should be still moving and perswading men to beleeve, this would be harder then injustice it self; As for a King to cause a mans leggs to be cut off, and yet command him to run a race. And you say that mans inability to do any thing that God com­mands, is a very fair and reasonable excuse for not doing it, Div. Auth. p. 201. But Mr Ball saith, pag. 245, 246. of the Cou. of Gr. That an impossible thing to us, may be, and is the object of Gods command, and of his desire. Nay (in the same place) the Lord commands and desires the conversion of many obstinate, impenitent persons who have the means of grace, whom for their present contempt, he doth blinde and harden; If impossible be not the object of Gods will in this fence, viz. impossible in respect of ma [...]; he that by custome in evil hath contracted an habit that he cannot but sin, should not offend, and he that is carried with the most violence of minde to evil, should be least evil, pag. 247. he saith, that God may justly withhold the graces of his spirit from those that are invited in the Ministery, and pag. 248. The Lord doth earnestly again and again call upon impenitent and obstinate sinners to repent and beleeve, when as yet in his just judgement he hardens their hearts that they cannot repent.

And whereas you call mans inability a fair excuse for not doing: M^r Ball saith, pag. 249. that though God do not enable men to come to him, yet if men reason thus, Why doth he then in­treat us and perswade us? &c. they may as well plead against the foreknowledge of God, If God foreknew that men would not re­turn, why doth he intreat us? and he concludes that these are ignorant and blinde imaginations.

You say pag. 26. Div. Auth. Naturall men may doe such things as whereunto God hath promised acceptation; and upon improve­ment of naturall abilities grace alwaies follows, p. 200.

M^r Ball saith, p. 237. That they who use well their superna­turall gifts, shall be enriched with an increase, but he saith also, that men unregenerate cannot use their naturall gifts so as to procure acceptation.

You hold that they who have only the Sun, Moon, and Starres, and the goodnesse of God in guiding of the world, have sufficient means of beleeving granted to them, &c. But M^r Ball saith; God exacts of the Gentiles given up to the vanity of their mindes, that they should seek him in the way wherein he will be found, if they would be saved, when they have not means sufficient to bring them to the knowledge of the truth. And pag. 247. Many Infidels have departed this life, before they had means to come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ; and God denies to some both means and grace.

Your erroneous writings are as repugnant to M^r Ball, as if you had laid his book before you not for citation but contra­diction.

For the opinion which this grand subscription voteth an error in me about a naturall mans power to good supernaturall, Sion Col. visit. p. 20.I desire the whole covent of two and fifty, with all that dogmatize with them, to know that it is no new doctrine in the Reformed Churches.

Think you that the Subscribers take you to be the author of this errour? Answ. did not your self even now acquit this generation from the invention of it and the other errours, by the lamentable subterfuge of only a revivall of them? who knows not that the Church hath been anciently disturbed with your doctrine about freewill to good supernaturall? The Centurists observe that very early was the faith of Christ corrupted in this point; The errour of Pelagius was born before John Goodwin; may it was confuted and condemned in many counsells, it rebreathed in the Massilians, was entertained by some Schoolmen, and varnished over by Arminius, before ever you were a well willer to it. Instead of denying the strangenesse of it, you should have proved the truth of is; and instead of pleading that it hath been in the [Page 40]Church, have proved it the doctrine of the Church; But why shun you novelty? This is the way to loose your Athenian Pro­selytes, who love novelty better then truth; And how prove you it is no new doctrine? Sioa Col visi. p 21.

You say that There is not an hairs breadth of power to super­naturall good more attributed by me to naturall men, then is clearly asserted by Paulus Testardus Pastor of the Reformed Church of Blois.

Ans. 1. But of what standing was Testardus? his Treatise printed 1633▪ speaks him but of yesterday, and too young to be the author of an old doctrine.

2. Who was this Testardus, that his authority is so praeva­lent with you? Vinlicie Re­demptionis. Ep. to the Reader. Though you so highly prize him, yet my Reve­rend friend M Stalbam, whose judgement in the matter of Dis­cipline though I am not fully inform'd ost, yet for modesty and learning he much exceeds you; and he so far abhors these opinions of yours, that he asserts concerning this Testardus (upon through examination of him) that his colours are the colours of grace, while he fights for nature, and of a covenant of grace, while he sights for a covenant of works and nature; That he findes the universalists of this time: have lighted their candle (after Armi­nius was stincking in the snuff and socket) from this Testardus; Nay he conceives also, that even Oats that infamous Sectary suckt severall errours from Testardus. The very time of the edition of Testardus was, when we were pestered with a number of such Testardusses, when the good work carried on, was the advancement of Arminian and Popish dictates above the Scripture; and I know not whether it was long after that time, that your self began to dogmatize and sow your tares in your parish of Colemanstreet.

3. You say that Testardus his book was approved by two of the or­der of Presbytery; but if the authority of a province of Ministers be (as you say truly) a weak support for the judgements of men in matters of doctrine, surely the testimony of two Ministers is none of the strongest grounds to build your assertions upon.

4. Did not your heart smite you when you wrote that the doctrine of Testardus is the received doctrine of the Reformed Churches in France, and asserted for Orthodox by a province [Page 41]of Ministers in France. Spanhem de gratiâ univers. p. 31. Anatome Armi­nianismi enoda tio gravissima­rum quest. Why cite you not the confessions of the Gallicane churches? Are you a stranger to the synod of Dort, confirmed by the Synods of France? to the writings of Pet. Moli­naeus the most noted Minister of the French Churches, and designed by them as their delegate to that Synod? —And whence have you it that the province of Ministers in Orleance approved of Testardus his writings? Did you never read that it was prohi­bited in the Synod of Alenzon, Spanhem de gratiâ univers. pag. 1. to publish any such tractates as this of Testardus: and what hindered that there was no more severity used? and with what face can you aver that treatise, ap­proved by a Synod in France? whereas therefore you scoff at the subscribers for saying that the Confession of faith advised by the Assembly of Divines, is agreable to the Confessious of other Churches; You are desired in your next to shew in any of these points whereof we are now speaking, any materiall difference between their confessions and ours: The confession of faith pre­sented by the Assembly to the Parliament, agrees to the Confessi­on of the last named Churches, though not to the semipelagian Theorems of a dough-baked Testardus.

I shall add no more but this, to tell you, that when you went about to make Testardus your Patron, you spake to the whole Colledge or Covent (as you call it) of the 52. and all that dogmatize with them against your opinion, In which passage you bring in (and that truly) the whole number of 52 as testifying against you, whereas pag. the second, you say, that neither D^r Gouge, nor M^r Calamy, nor M Case, nor M^r Cranford, nor sundry others were either the Authours or subscribers of the Te­stimony. A crazy conscience, Sion Col. visie. p. 23. and a brittle memory are very ill companions.

For the proof of your doctrine about naturall mans free will, and power to good supernaturall, you cite a passage out of Bucer on Rom. 2, 14. and you say that the passage is fuller of the spirit of that opinion which the subscribers reckon among heresies, Ans. then any passage in your writing.

I have proved that Bucer shakes you off, as a bold beggar, is ashamed of you, and cals you Pelagian, and theres nothing in this passage of Bucer like your opinion, with what engines did you draw your conclusion from Bucers premises? Bucer saith not A na­turall [Page 42]man hath power to bel [...]eve, That the Sun, Moon and Start are Preachers of the Gospel: or that if naturall men be unable to beleeve, they are excusable, or that God should be a tyrant in commanding men to do that, which they have not ability to per­form. What doth he say that looks this way? If any thing could have been wrested from this place that agreed with you, yet you shew nothing but extream ignorance or impudency to alledge an authour for you, the whole strain of whose writings are so di­rectly opposite unto you.

But in this place which you alledge, had Bucer countenanced your opinion, you would have told the Reader wherein the a­greement between you and Bucer steed, or have grounded an argument upon some of Bucers words for your opinion, but alas! you do none of all this, you say that your doctrines and Bucers agree, but here's not a syllable to prove how or wherein; Reader I pray observe the harmony between Bucer & I. G. Bucer saith here, that God in no age left men destitute of the doctrine of salvation (as you translate it) which he understands of the Law, which is in it self doctrina salutaris Professi [...] doc­truae salutaris, boc est recte vi­ven [...]i, Bucer. enar. sect. 4. Rom. 2., and of which the A­postle speaks in that place, Rom. 2.14. on which Bucer com­ments, but you assert the Gospel to have been known to the Gen­tiles.

Bucer saith here, that God so bedeweth nature with his light, that they only remain strangers unto righteousnesse, who wil­lingly put it from them:

But you, that man hath power willingly to embrace this righ­teousnesse, and not to put it from him; to which Bucer speaks, expressely contrary in the same Chapter, They have (saith he) light enough to enfirce self-condemnation for Walking wickedly, but not sufficient to glorifie God as they know Deus certâ per [...]io [...]e lu [...]em quibusvis [...]or talibus impertit tam ampla qu [...] ­dem ut qui [...]ra ve vivu [...]t se­ipso [...] tande [...]n coademnare co­gantur, at nendum suffi cieme eò, ut Deum sicut cog­noscunt [...]a eti­am queant gio­rificare. In Rom. 2.23. Veru [...]n qurdem tslu: reminem posse, nisi Deo lucem suam in­sundente ession­cius, eoque a­gente ad se & trabente homi num an [...]mus. in Rom. 1.30..

Bucer saith, Did the Gentiles not voluntarily put away the de­sire of righteousnesse, they should sooner be taught by an Angel, then be suffered to be ignorant of Christ,

You say, that they have ability to do what is righteous and to beleeve (which Bucer as you heard even now flatly demeth) And for an Angel to reveal Christ, that would be according to M. Goodwin, superfluous, the Sun, Moon and Stars are Apostles, and all to them the Gospel is to us, in M^r Goodwins opinion.

And (where indeed lieth your miserable mistake of Bucer In this place) you said even now, Soli [...] babentiiut el [...]ttionu do­num scientta vitae commu­n [...]catur, & ab ijs qui cocare­ant per praedi. calum etiam hoc quod divi. nae cognitionls videntur habere auforetur quia reprobi post coxtemptum verbum (quod nequeunt reci­pere) magis excaecantur. Bucer. in Mat. 13. S [...]o [...] Col. visited p. 23. that conversion alwaies follows upon the improvement of naturals, Bucer though he saith that God would send an Angel to instruct those that did not put from them the desire of righteousnesse, yet holds that from the gift of Gods election only, and not the improvement of naturals, this manifestation of Christ, and salvation through him to proceed, and from them who want that gift of election, shall that which they had by the word preached be taken away; because (saith he) the reprobate after the word contemned (which they can­not receive) are more blinded: by the way, tell me in your next, whether Bucer makes not God a cruell tyrant, in saying that the reprobate contemn the word, and cannot receive it, though God command them to do it.

You still labour to make your own face clean by throwing dirt in Bucers. You say that Bucer conceiveth that Paul offered this to the consideration of the Jews, that the Gentiles even before Christ was revealed unto them, were partakers of true righteous­nesse. And this you say is a saying ten degrees beyond the line of any of yours.

Your aim is here to make Bucer seem a Gyant, that you, Ans. stan­ding by him, may but seem a Dwarf in heresie; you should have laid the parallel right, and then for degrees you might have blotted out ten, and have set down an hundred.

The Papists were not so cruell 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 then his name shall want a burying place, to make your own throat an open sepulcher.

You desire that the reader should beleeve it was Bucers judge­ment, that the Gentiles could be justified without Christ, [...] Legis [...] gene­raliter accipit praossi [...] justi­tiae quae lex de­ce [...]. Buc. in loc. because Bucer saith, they were made partakers of true righteousnesse, be­fore Christ was revealed to them (and if this be not the opinion which you desire to affix to Bucer, 'tis so far from being ten de­gree beyond yours, that it is a thousand degrees short of yours) but by righteousnesse Bucer only understands the duties of righ­teousnesse commanded in the Law.

But you do wickedly to seem willing, that the reader should [Page 44]beleeve, Apostolus prae­cipue o [...]nu [...]but wodis laberat ostendere extra Christum nul­los non perditot esse non minus julaeos quam Gentes, Enar. Sect 4. cap. 2. Rom. that Bucer did ever imagine any could be justified out of Christ, you may consult him in the Enar. Sect. 4. cap. 2. on Rom. where he asserts that all are lost out of Christ. If Bucer be a friend to your opinions, I know not who is an enemy; And I am consident the Ministers of the Province of Babylon, that con­demned Bucer, as you say, for an heretick, and a man of rotten judgement, dig'd him out of his grave, and made a sacrifice by fire of his dead, and buried corps, unto the Genius of their bloudy Religion, would have suffered your bones to have rested in their grave, if they had not rather been digd up, to be reserved as holy reliques, to be enshrined according to the Genius of their foolish superstition.

It were easy to fill many pages with passages from other Ortho­dox Authours,Sion Col. visit. p. 23.who have delivered many things fully consonant with what I have written.

You have a good faculty at filling of pages; Answ. A childe can blur paper, And for full pages out of the Orthodox, Let me have one page half fild to begin withall, agreeing with those your opi­nions, which are transcribed by the subscribers, and it shall ex­cuse you the labour of filling many; If your Authouts, which you say you can produce be of M. Ball and M. Bucers minde, you will but abuse them and they will accuse you; for you have brought these two to blesse your self, and curse the subscribers, whereas they have done the contrary altogether.

Nor were it a matter of much more difficulty to bring antiqui­ty it self,Sion. Col. visit. p. 24.and particularly those very authours who were the greatest opposers of Pelagius, as Hierom, Austin, Prosper, with their mouths wide open in approbation of the same things, for which I am arraigned at the Tribunall of Sinon-Colledge.

For your scoff of Sinon Colledge, Aus. If it be Sinon-Colledge, 'tis so since you visited it, nor did it ever favour of a Sinon till your Bishops foot stept into it. I know none, that deserve to be called Sinons, but Traitors to a City, and who they were you may finde out without comming to Sion-Colledge.

You come to the fathers for patronage, being cast of, both by Ball, and Bucer, But they afford you no relief, only every thing would fain live, yet you finde no more help from them then a [Page 45]man neer drowning by a deep and violent torrent, doth from a fearther in the water departing from him.

You say the Fathers approve of, and cousser [...] the same things for which you are arraigned at the Tribunall of Sinon-Col­ledge. Sion Col. visit. p.24.

Ther's not one of the passages quoted out of the fathers, Ans. that give the least shadow of an approbation, to any of those errours transcribed by the subscribers, Nor can I imagine any reason why you should alledge any of these passages unlesse it be, because you finde the word Liberum arbitrium, in some of them which may be used against you as well as for you. You quote the fathers for your patronage, and asserting the same things with you, but what is in the fathers that is, but like those your passages A naturall men hath power to beleeve: If God did command men to beleeve, they not having abilities, God should be [...] tyrant. The want of abilitie is a law full excuse for now-performance; man may so improve his naturals, as that true conversion shall alwaies fellow: That the Sun, Moon, and Stars, are Preachers of the Gospel, &c. Let the Fathers sayings, and yours be compared; but herein you deal with the Fathers, as before with Bucer, when you alledg'd him; you tell me that Antiquity is on your side, and set down barely two, or three broken ends of sentences, groun­ding no argument upon those passages for your opinions as indeed you cannot; you seeming rather ambitious to be accounted able to read a peece of the Fathers writings, then able to understand them.

As you have cited the Fathers most impertinently, (which by and by shall fully appear) so most imperfectly and ma [...]edly as if you did not like an ingenuous guest expect a meal from them but like a beggar their scraps and [...]agments only. Jer [...]m saith M [...] ­chaeorum est hominum damdare naturum, & liberum au [...]erre arbitrium, The Manishees take away free will but why leave you out that whichfollows, & adjutorium Deitollere and take away the help of God? Is it because your masters the Remonstrants do so, or because you would make way for your accusation, following against the Ministers by obscuring the Manichees doctrine.

Why leave you out rusum (que), apertissimae, est insaniae hoc homi­nem dicere esse, quod Deus est, Its madnesse to say that man is [Page 46]what God is, in which words Hierom rejects the opinion of the P [...]lagians, which is also years,—In the next quotation out of H [...]e [...]om why break you off at these words Damnetur ille qui dam. nat, and add not Caeterum non differimus a b [...]utis quod liberi arbi­trij conditi sumus, sed ipsum liberum arbitrium Dei nititur aux­ilio, we differ not only from beasts because [...] we were made with free will, which h [...] speaks in opposition to the Manichees, but in that the help of God in all things sustains it. Exeo quod no [...] add [...]listi vide­ru [...]negare. Heer, advers. Pelag. lib. 1. Which he utters against the Pelagians, you expresse the one and conceal the other, and if Hierom may be heard, in as much as you add it not, you seem to deny it.

Why do you so mangle Austin, why break you off at Q [...] hoc nescit? Aag de Grat. & lib. Arbitr. who knows not this? God would not command that which he knew man could not perform; Who knows not this? and add not with him, sed ideo jubet, &c. but God therefore some­times commands some things which we cannot do, that we might know what to beg of him; Was it to conceal his judgement in what sence the Law is impossible? namely, although possible to Grace, yet impossible to corrupt man? Or was it to make way for the next passage you alledge out of him. We execrate the blasphemy of those who affirm that God enjoyns any thing that is impossible; as if you had a minds to have the reader think that Austin voteth Christ a blasphemer for saying Mat. 19. It is as easy for a camel to go thorow the eye of a needle, &c. or the Apo­stle a blasp [...]emer for saying, Rom. 8.3. That which was impossible to the law.

And whereas you pretend, that Austin and Hierom defend you against what is laid to your charge about free-will, you most grossely mistake, either through weaknesse, or wilfulnesse. For the fathers assert the being, and nature of free-will only, and not its power to supernaturall good, in all the passages, which you al­ledge (and you might to that purpose have produced an hundred more) out of them. I might acquaint the reader, that your thredbare quotations are commonly made use of, by the Jesuites, and Arminia [...]s, even us (que) adnauseam (out of the latter where­of by comparing your writings with theirs, I have cause to think you borrow these passages) But to let that passe, though Austin, and Hierom against the Manichees maintained the nature of free­will, [Page 47]will, yet 'tis as true, that against the Pelagians, they denied the abilities of free-will to good supernaturall, as being captive, and dead; of this latter you wisely take no notice at all, as making directly against you, though there are hundreds, not to say thou­sands of instances to that purpose to be found in them; And thus the learned and orthodex divines of the reformed Churches a­broad understand both Austin and Hierom when alledged by Pa­pists and Arminians as writing for free-will. Thus also Ab­bot and Pri­deaux, Abbot against Bishop. Pridea. Lect. 4. de con­versionis modo. Si non est libe­rum Arbitrium quomodo Deus juditat mudum. Aug. ad val. ep. 46. Vid Riv. To. 2. p. 183. Rivetus and Wal­leus two famously learned writers among the Protestants shall suffice for instancing; Baily the lesuite objected out of Augustine to prove free-will, that very place against the Protestants which you alledge against the Ministers (Baily the Jesuite is more your Patron then either Ball or Bucer) The place is this, If there be no free-will, how shall Godiudge the world? This place Rives understands of the naturall being of free-will; For (saith he) If man were turned into a stone or a black, or a bruit creature, he should be exempted from Gods iudgement, but since when he acts out of deliberation, he chuseth and willeth what pleaseth him­self, he deservedly gives an account to God of his actions: But Rivet proves at large from many places which he citeth out of Augustine, that this place alledged both by you and Baily, makes nothing for free-will to good supernaturall, as from that place in Austin where he saith, man hath lost his free-will to love God, by the greatnesse of the first sin, and from that place free-will was once given by God, which being by our own fault lost, cannot be restored but by God, and he concludes that Sexcenta, many hundreds of places might he alledged to that purpose out of him.

Molinaus being charged by that angry Arminian Corvinus for destroying free-will, Wal. oper. p. 95. Tom. 2. and joyning hands with the Manichees and the Priscillianists (an imputation by M. Goodwin laid upon the subscribers in this Pamphlet) Walleus returns him this an­swer. We say with Jerom (saith he) Thou dost in vain perswade the ignorant that we condemn free-will, nay let him be condemned that condemns it, but immediately he gives the reason why and how both Jerom and himself did allow of free-will, not in regard of its abilities to good supernaturall, but because (saith he) he denieth man to be created according to the image of God, who de­nies him to be adorned with this naturall faculty of free-will.

In your next I pray cite Rivet, Sion Col. visi­ted. p. 45. Aug. contr. du­as [...]p Pelag l. 1. c. 2 Hierom. al Ctesip. ep. c 3. Iesuitae mani­cheismi insimu­ [...]nt qui cuor sanctli illis viris loquuntur quast cum mamcheis sentirent qui liberum arbi­trium ad bonil supernaturals amissun con­teeduat. Riv. Tom. 1. p. 177. Col 1. Quod porro sub­jung is nostros essentiam uberi arbitrij todere cum Ma [...]tchae is solita [...]alu maia est Walleus de Praed. p 65. Springlius de Hodiern baeres. par. 1. lib. 2. Calumni [...] & Blasphemia est gratiam veram liberum nostr [...] arbitrium ad omnemalu [...]n procl [...]ve corri­gentem, arguere Manichaeis [...]i omne libe um arbi [...]rium tol­lent [...]. Sion Col. visited p 25. Answ. and Wall [...] for patrons of free-will also.

Your accusation that we confute Pelagianism: by pure Mani­cheisme, as a worn calumnie. 'Tis as old as Pelagius he did cast it upon Austin, Reclamabis, & dices nos Manichaeorum dog­ma sequi; you will say that we follow the opinion of the Ma­nichees, and upon Hierom, who saith, Hoc non mihi sed Apostolo imputa, Lay this imputation (saith he) upon the Apostle, not upon me. And of the frequency of this accusation of Manicheisme, against the holy man Augustine Read at large in Rivetus his Catholicus Orthodoxus, Tom. 2. de lib. Arbitr. Nay the Jesu­ites cast the same reproach upon the Protestants, and the Armi­nians upon the learned assertours of grace against free-will, which John Goodwin doth here upon the Ministers. The Jesuites faith Rivet charge those with Manicheisme, who speak, as the fa­thers (those holy men) spake. And they suggest that they who contend, that freewill is lost as to good supernaturall, doe agree with the Manichces, And the learned Wallaus tells Corvinus the Ar­minian that its an old reproach; I shall add, that this abominable calumnie against the faithfull servants of Christ, either proceeds from unparalleld impudency, you speaking against your consci­ence, or inexcusable ignorance that you understand not what you say, or whereof you affirm, I mean, know not what Manicheisme is,

But Springlius de hodiernis haeresib, hath sufficiently answered this imputation. Truly asserting that it is blasphemy to accuse the true grace of God working in us, and amending our will which is only prone to evill, of Mauicheisme, taking away all our free-will, If God have not given you over to a spirit of er­rour, you will say so too, or more in your next, in which I desire you to prove this your odiouslly false accusation,

The question between Pelagius and the Fathers, was not whe­ther man had freedome of will in respect of good or evill, but whe­ther men notwithstwnding their freedome of will did not still stand in need of the adjutory of grace, both for the performance of, and perseverance in what was good.

Your mistake here is pitifull, not to say palpable; for the great question between Hierom, Austin, and Pelagius, was not whe­ther [Page 49]the will did stand in need of the adjutory of grace, for the per­formance of good; but what kinde of adjutory it was, Liberum arbi­trium babere not dicimus, quod in omnibus bonis operibus divino semper adiuvaiur oux­ilio▪ cont. Pel, lib. 1 6.31. Liberum sic con­sitemur arbitri­um, ut dicomus no [...] semperindi­gere Dei auxi­lio Ibid cap 33, Nos ownino ni­bil boni facere possumus sine Deo ib, c. 35. It a bominis laudamus natu­ram, ut Dei semper gratiae addamus auxilium. ib c. 37. Anathema, quisentit, vel docet gratiam Dei, non solun per singulas boran & per singula momenta, sed etiam per singulos actus nostios non esse necessariam, & qui banc conantur anserre, poenas sor­tientur aeternas 10. cap. 1. of which the will did stand in need, and wherein grace was an adjutory to the will, was the question controverted; For Pelagius himself granted the necessity of the adjutory of grace, therefore this could not be the question.

We say (saith he) that we have a free will which is alwaies in all good things assisted with the help of God. Aug. cont. Pelag. & Caelest. lib. 1, cap. 31.

We so confesse free will, as that we say we alwaies stand in need of the help of God, ibid. cap. 33.

We can do nothing without the help of God. ibid. cap. 35.

We so praise nature as that we alwaies add the help of the grace of God. cap. 37.

Nay he did not stick to pronounce Anathema to every one, who thinketh, that the grace of God is not only necessary every hour, and every moment, but to every act of ours, and they that go about to deny it, shall be punished for evermore. ibid. cap. 2.

And Augustin notwithstanding these plausible expressions of Pelagius, for the necessity of grace, as to its being an adjutory, Diligenter in­terrogandus est Pelagius quam dicat gratiam, quâ fateatur homines adju­vari ep, 95. ad Innocent Quaerimus qu [...] auxilio dicat liberum adju­vart arbitriū? quâ grariâ con, Pelag, & Cae­lest, l, 1 c. 31. Is not at all satisfied, But saith that Pelagius is * diligently to be asked what grace he meaneth, and with what grace he acknowled­geth (if at least he doth acknowledge the help of grace) that men are helped, against sinning, and to live righteously, Ep. 95. And we demand (saith he) what that aid, and succour is, with which free-will is helped, and with what grace. And because Pelagius would not acknowledge the adiutory of grace, by way of an invincible, and indeclinable working of good in us, Austin truly tels Pelagius, that he attributes no more to Gods working, notwithstanding all his assertions, that grace is an adintory to good, then he will allow to Satan, in exciting men to evill by his sinfull suggestions. And the same father saith, that there is a twofold adiutory to good, the one without which a good work is not [Page 50]done,Cur non dix. is [...]i ho [...]inem [...]ei gratiâ in bon [...]m excitari si [...]ut dixisti di­aboli suggesti­onibus incitari. Cont. a. ep. P [...]l. cap. 19. Aliudest ad. jutorium sine qu [...] aliqu [...]d non [...], & altud est adjut [...]rium quo aliquid fit. Cor. & gra. cap. 1 [...]. Sion Col. visi­ted p [...]5. Ans.the other by and through which a thing is done. The Pelagi­ans in granting the former, never satisfied Austin, because denying (as I fear you do) the latter.

These men have exchanged the fathers adint [...]rium into their own compulsorium, for me I never denied, but alwaies have asser­ted the necessity of grace, by way of adiutory, only the necessitation or compulsion of grace is no article of my Creed.

1. You here falsely and impudently accuse the subscribers (for those I suppose you understand by that venerable title of these men.)

2. With the same integrity and modesty you excuse your self. A word or two to each.

1. 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 elegancy, to exchange one thing into another, had you said they have exchanged the adi [...]t [...]ry for the compulsory, or thus, they have changed 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 of so much worth as brasse silvered over, 'Twas a mistake of permutare for mut [...]re, and I should advise you to study that easy work, where you shall finde Nil per­mumbis Emesve, before you adventure again upon the Fa­thers, had another taken you in this grosse non-sense, he would have sent you to the Children, but I spare you.

2. That you might blast and disgrace, the infallibility of the working of grace, you charge the Ministers with owning the compulsion of the will; but this is refuted by being recited, so notoriously false is it; though your calendar will not speak them Saints, yet your School accounts some of them leearned; Think you that they would all (for now at last you have taken in the whole number of 52.) speak such a contradiction, That men are willing, and yet compelled? name one of the subscribers, nay any one protestant writer, that doth not assert the freedome of the will of man in his threefold estate of creation, corruption, and reparation, comprehending both gr [...] and glory; They will not (I am confident) more deny freedome of will in man, then [Page 51]they will reason in man, Which of the Ministers ever held, that the motions of man in any actions, either naturall, morall, or supernaturall were either from naturall necessiity, or externall co­action? Or that all men good, and bad, hoc ipso that they will, do not will freely? the will would cease to be it self, should it cease to be free.

To whatsoever object it is carried. it is not without the pre­ceding counsell of the practicall judgement; The will being a ra­tionall appetite, never moveth but per modum judicij, upon ap­prehension of some goodnesse to which it moves; Necesse est ut cum volumus libcro veli [...]us arbitrio Arg. de Civ. Dei l. 5. c. 10. Liberum arbi­trium us (que) ade [...] in peccatore [...]on perijt, ut per il­lud peccet, max­ime omnes qui cum delectatio [...] ne pec [...]an [...], [...]d cont. 2 [...]p, Pet, l. 1, [...]. Spec. Schol, Or, tho. c. 19. Par, 6 Nor is it in any motions compulsorily over-swayed, but worketh accor­ding to its own proper motion, and to the condition of its own nature.

The most wicked man living is so far from being without free­will, that by his free-will he sins, especially th [...]se that sin, with delight, as saith Augustine and the more sinfull men are the more freely they sin;

As for the motions of the will in renewed persons to any thing that is supernaturally good, they are so far from being without freedome of will, that if their wills did not work freely they should not work holily, their works could not be good, If their workings were not free and the better any action is the more free it is.

The Theorem then of Paulus Ferrius is approve,d who saith, Liberum arbitrium non corrumpitur quoad agendi radicem, sed quoad [...]erminum; That there is in man the nature, and being of free will is one thing, but that this naturall free-will, unles re­newed is able to will a supernaturall good, is another thing. That the spirit of grace doth not take away the liberty of the will, which cometh by Gods creation is certain: and that it doth and must take away the pravity of the will which ariseth from mans corruption, before ever a man can will, holily, is most certain.

The will in moving to supernaturrll good moveth freely, but to this it must be enabled by the efficacious communion, and adspiration of the spirit of liberty. Enabled (I say) not vio­lently compelled, for compulsion would destroy it, nor barely in­treated, For suasio moralis (poor morall perswasion) cannot reach it.

Nor dare the subscribers maintain such a freedome of will, as that, putting all the operations of grace that may be put, or need to be put into the ballance, a mans naturall free-will, must turn the scales, and determine the case, whether a man shall be con­verted, or no; accept of grace, or refuse grace, for this were to attribute more to mans will then to God in conversion, Man should be a convert, not because God made him so, but because he would be so: God only perswading, and helping, but man obeying and consenting.

Certainly in this respect, as free-will hath no ability to move a man to be converted, so neither when God affords his effectuall grace, hath it any strength to hinder a man from conversion; but is brought on, as solely, so irresistibly by the power of grace; Tis well expressed by your Patron M^r Bucer, God doth by his spi­rit so demonstrate life to the mindes of men, that they cannot but yeeld themselves to God with willingnesse; they are so free­ly drawn, that they cannot be carried to any thing with greater ardency, and yet so powerfully, that they cannot but follow most willingly; In your next I pray let me know wherein all this while we lay a compulsory upon the will. Nay this efficacious determination of the will by grace, is a most happy adiutory to it, taking nothing away, but the pravity and rebellion of it, but preserving, and restoring its true liberty. Gratia non mactat, sed s [...]nctificat, non tollit, sed attollit liberum arbitrium: Grace slaieth it not, but sanctifieth, taketh not away, but elevateth free­will. Grace only slaieth the Ram the pravity of the will, but it saveth the Isaac, the naturall liberty alive. The Holy Spirit, tempering its working to the disposition of the will, that it may act with such liberty, as becomes its own nature, and by grace never be destroyed, but perfected; Now if this sweetly efficacious insluence of grace be the compulsory you charge the subscri­bers the fathers Augustine, Hierom, Prosper, Bernard, &c. were for a compu [...]ory too; It would make a volume to cite all the passages that might be taken one of them to this purpose. Let a few suffice.

Au [...] semel [...] tor potestate quae mibi data est [...]t liber [...]n servetur arbi­trium aut si al­teriu op [...] indi­g [...]o destruetur in me libertas arb [...]trij; Qui bee dicit qua [...] no [...] excedit bla­ [...]phe miam que bereticorun venena non sa­pera [...]er. [...]d etesiph. c 3. He who saith that the help of grace, upon the will, destroy [...] the liberty of the will, exceeds a blasphemer: and is the most poy­sonous of all bereticks, Hierom.

Subventum est infirmitati Voluntatis humanae, ut di­vinâ gratiâ m­declinabiliter, & inseparabili­ter ageretur. Infirmis serva [...] vit, ut ipso do­nante invic [...]is­sime quod bo­numest vellent de cor. & gra. cap 12. Mans infirmitie was so relieved, that it should be acted in­declinably, and inseparably by the grace of god, He reserved for those that were weak, that they should by his gift will what is good most invincibly. Aug.

Haec gratia a nullo duro corde respuitur ideo quippe tribuitur ut cordis duriti [...] primitus ause­ratur. de Praed. cap. 8. The grace of God is rejected by no hard heart for it is given to this end that the hardnesse of the heart may be first taken away. Id.

Voluntas hu­mana gratiâ non tollitur sed ex ma [...]a mutatur in b [...] ­nam. Aug. degr. & l. ar c 2 [...]. The will of man is not by grace taken away, but by grace, of evill, changed into good. Id.

Deus operatur non tantum veras revelationes, s [...]d & bon [...]s volun­tates, de grat. cap. 20. God doth not only discover what is true to us, but makes our wills to be good. Id.

Ex nolen [...]bus [...]fficit volentes. cont. a. ep. Pel l 1. c. 9 Of unwilling he maketh willing. Id.

Certum est voluntatem nost üm requiri ad hoc ut bene operemur, sed illam non h [...]bemus ex nostris viribus, sed Deus operatur in nobis ut v. limus. Aug. de Grat. & lib. cap. 2. Our will is required to our working well, but we have it not from our own power, but God worketh in us to will. Id.

Certum est nos velle cum volum [...]s, sed ille facit u [...] velimus &c. praebendo vires [...]fficacissi­mas voluntati. de G [...]a, & l. c. 16. Its certain that when we are willing we areso, but God it is that makes us willing, &c. by affording most effectuall strength to our wills, &c. Id.

Deo volenti lasvum facere nullum humanum resistit arbitrium de Cor. & Gra c. 14. When God wills a mans salvation, no free will of man is able to resist him, Id.

Non moribus illi (scil. gratiae) fit mora non causis anceps suspenditur [...]llis, Prosp. de in Grat. c. 1 [...]. Gratia—mutans int [...]s mentem, atque reformans▪ Vasque novum ex fracto [...]in [...]ens virtu [...]e creandi Prosp. de ingrat. cap 14. [...]une it [...]que affectum, quo fumunt mortua vitam, quo teneb [...]ae fiunt lumen, qu [...] mund [...] ni­ [...]escunt, Nemo al [...]j dat, nemo sibi, cap, 15. —Nec habet quisquam quo surg [...]e pos [...]i [...]. Ad vitam sacro nisi [...]ursum nasc tur ortu. Omnes hanc [...]acultatem in [...]llo amisimus in quo omnes peccavimus unde al [...] creatione alio que principio renovar [...] egemus in Christo in quo sumus nova creatura▪ Prosp▪ Resp, ad ex [...]. Gal. cap. 6. It would be endlesse to cite all that pertinently might be ta­ken to this purpose, out of him, as also Prosper and Bernard, the former whereof tels us that grace cannot by any causes what­soever be suspended, or be made uncertain. That it changeth the minde. That it fashions us anew by a power of creation.

I should gladly be informed what the Ministers hold tending more toward a compulsory then these fathers here, Immittendo honam cogita­tivnem nos praevenit, im­mutando etiam m [...]m volun­tatem sibi per consensum ju [...] ­git, Betn, Tra [...] de Grat. & lib. Arb. Sion Col. visited p. 25. Aus. and in hun­dreds of other places have written.

Thus you see how I have made Prosper speak; you could not.

2. You labour to clear your self in these words, for me I never denied, but alwaies have asserted the necessity of grace by way of adjutory.

Pelagius (as hath been shewed you) said so too, and with much more seeming fervency then, and (for ought I know) with as much integrity as your self, Think not by pretending the name of grace, to overthrow it in the efficacy, and truth of it, only for avoiding more detestation among men, as Pelagius did; Grati [...] voca [...] bulo frangens invidiaw, os­sensionem (que) de­clinans. Au [...], cont. Pel. & Caelest, l, 1. c. 37 I expect a more clear and distinct expression of your self, then barely to say, I acknowledge that grace is an auxiliary, or adjutory, what kinde of adiutory mean you? I desire to know whe­ther you mean that grace is an adjutory by way of influence into the will, or by way of concourse unto the work only, as two men that between them both carry a burthen, yeeld assistance to each other, neither of them contributing strength unto the other▪ And if you do acknowledge, that grace is an ad­jutory to the will by way of influence into it, whether mean you that this influence is moralis, suasory by way of intreatie that the will would move, Or, Physica, that is properly, really and efficaciously operative upon it. and if you grant the latter, ex­presse whether grace be an adiutory uncertain, and resistible, so that the will hath power either to accept of grace or refuse it, or whether grace be an invincible, infallible, determinating ad­iutory to the will, so that it hath no power to render the motions of grace in effectuall to it self, all the requifite motions of grace being afforded. If you grant, that grace is certain, infallible, and determinative in its operation upon the will. I desire lastly to know whether you mean that this invincibility, and infallibi­lity of the working of grace, be only to be lookt upon as such res­pectu eventus, in regard of what doth fall out, and de facto doth come to passe, or whether the certain determination of the will by grace, proceedeth from the powerfull nature of that grace of God which as Austin saith, no hard heart is able to refuse: untill I clearly understand your minde in these particulars, the [Page 55]pretending of the adjutory of grace in the generall, renders you but suspected in the thoughts of the most, and truly satisfactory to none.

The residue of the soil in your Pamphlet is so light and sandy for the subiect (as for the manner of handling any subject it is such all over) that now my pen will plough apace.

I first meet with a long winded sentence, consisting of above ten lines, which is a complication of falsities, reproaches, and non-sence: If I can discern any thing through a fog of words, Sion Col. visited p. 25, Answ. it hath something like these particulars.

It is the calamity of these times to iudge truth, and errour, com­mensurable with the votes of the Ministers.

The calamity of the times is, in that we do not judge truth and errour commensurable with the vote of the Scripture, Such secta­ries as your self have thrown away that measure, that so you might trade in your ware-house with the greater advantage, and instead thereof you make use of a false measure, your own imagi­nation, My soul pitties your cheated chapmen! But how is it you will not have truth, and errour commensurable with the vote of the Ministers? If M. Goodwins vote be not the standing measure of truth, and errour, for his followers, what is? I am sure (ac­cording to his principles) the written word cannot be it; Sion Col. visi­ted. p. ult. for that is not the word of God; Name a third measure Sir, but if it should happen to be an Enthusiasme, I shall expect but a faint prosecu­tion of your ingagement against quaerisme (as you call it) or see­king which (you say) you are now opposing in your publike Mi­nistery) And I beleeve that you are doing so, as truly as you are opposing Antiscripturisme, and Manicheisme, the former whereof you patronize, and the latter you understand not, as I have proved.

They have engrossed the honour and reputation of being Ortho­dox unto themselves. Sion Col. visited. p. 25. Ans.

You grieve that others should be reputed Orthodox alone, without you, but why do you not grieve that others should be Orthodox alone, with you, Reality is better then Reputation, and 'tis better to be then to be accounted Orthodox: And as for honour, that will flie from you, as long as you flie from honesty, Intreat God to give you the heart of an Orthodox Minister, and [Page 56]you will soon have the honour of such an one; otherwise know that your present dishonour is nothing to your future shame, either to posterity, or eternity. Think upon it in time, 'tis friendly advice,

They (the Ministers, Sion Col. visited p. [...]5. still) square their votes concerning truth' and errour by the traditions of the Elders (he meaneth the Fathers.)

If you be not for traditions, Ans. you are for nothing; since you have thrown off the written word. For ought I know tradition is the best flower in your garden; but charge not the Ministers with being for any traditions, but written; and for these I confesse they are so zealous, that for your opposing them they have deser­vedly placed you in the forlorn of the erroneous. And scoff not too much at the Elders. I knew the time (even when you were writing the preceeding page) that you would fain have been beholding to them; And could you then have perswaded those Elders to have blest you with but one tradition, you would not now have blasted the tradition of the Elders: But now you are like a beggar who when he cannot prevail for an alms, goeth away railing; But I marvell how the younger, I mean Bucer and Ball, escape your reviling. They were as far from pitying you, and as forward in chastising you as the Elders; I shall add, Some of Pelagius's friends may haply take it ill at your hands, that when you were shooting reproaches among the Elders, you did not desire your Patron Pelagius to stand aside; Sir, to be short with you; the Ministers sometimes use but never depend upon the traditions of the Elders, One of the best traditions that ever I learned from any of the Elders was from Tertullian, and 'tis this, Custome without truth is but the antiquity of errour.

Your next passage breaths a malice ranklie savouring of athe­isme, Your book goeth out like a snuff, and now fumeth with nothing but reproaches against the government of Christ, Pro­phanation of Scripture, and elevation of your self.

The Ministers of the Province of London, Sion Col. visited p. 25.cannot but be full of this information that there was more of the truth and power of Religion in England, under the Praelaticall government then in all the reformed Churches besides, The best successe unto which they can with any colour of truth, entitle this government, is but [Page 57]the successe of gardiners sheers, which prosper only by the snip­ping off, and keeping under those thriving branches which else would out-grow their fellows.

You say that travellers have fild the Ministers of London, Ans. with information, but there's one that I fear hath fild you with this (among a great deal of other) false information. I fear 'tis he that is the greatest traveller, and the greatest liar in the world. The Lord rebuke thee Satan.

For your telling us that the praelaticall government was more blest with the power of religion, then any reformed Church: Qui [...] in ca­thedrâ [...]gebit ingebe [...]n [...]. I know not why you mention it, unlesse it be to make Satan sport, as if you were his jester, Or to give aquavitae to Antichrist in his fainting fits.

Was the power of religion more under praelaticall govornment then in any reformed Churches?

Here's a good commendation (in the mean time) for Inde­pendent Churches, for praelaticall government had more religion, you say then ALL the Reformed Churches; And if so, I say then Independent Churches too, unlesse you will evade my argu­ment by saying that Independent Churches were not then formed, or if they were formed, were not reformed, so well as the prae­laticall but so as you may scratch Presbytery, you care not though you wound your self.

2. Why tell you not the reader that the power of religion de­cayed in the daies of no government, as well as it thrived in the da [...]es of praelaticall government, you were afraid the Reader would have drawn this conclusion thence. Its better with Religion when people are suffered to do no more then the Praelates will, then when they are suffered to do as much as themselves will.

The speaking of the whole truth would have laid your way as low, as it raiseth praelacy [...]igh.

3. What [...] informed you of such a decay of the power of religion, in all the reformed Churches, as that England did so much exceed them? I blesse God for what I have seen in Exg­land; and I magnifie his name for what I have read and heard from other reformed Churches.

If we went before them in some things, haply they might have the precedency in other; I suppose it is with Churches as [Page 58]with Christians, God variously dispenseth his graces, he bestows upon some an eminency in one, upon others in another haply they might hold forth a clearer torch to discover Antichrist then we, and peradventure it might burn hotter then ours, And its likely on the other side that for practicals, many of ours at home might excell them, and our walkings might be more even. I have ob­served sometimes that a man who followeth a torch, walks more steadily and not in so much danger of stumbling, as he who car­rieth it, Sir, I should not much contend about your commendati­on of the power of religion, under prelacy; did I but see you so to recollect the former power of Religion as to be humbled for the present weaknesse of it, and to resolve that weaknesse into its proper cause, I mean, a toleration of all ungodlinesse and abomina­ble opinions.

4. You that commend prelacy as being blest with the power of Religion, I pray tell me, whether was this power of religion, upheld and preserved by any goodnesse in the pralaticall govern­ment, or did God only make it an occasion to drive his people closer to himself by their persecutions and unquietnesse in out­ward respects, and haply by sinfull impositions; If the latter be true, that praelacie only were such an accidentall occasion of the power of religion, you might as well for ought I know have com­mended the greatest enemies of the Church, and have commended the fitnesse of Potiphars house for Joseph: but why do you com­pare Praelacie to a governmnt that God hath blessed, even when it hath been (in a manner) under persecution, and savoured only of Ecclesiasticall mildnesse, not medling with the purse or the body, but tending to recover the soul and oppose sin.

If the former be true, that the power of religion was from the goodnesse of praelacy as its cause, you have then quite undone Independency which is never like by Anarchy the quite contrary to Pralacy, to produce the same effect of the power of religion.

For that your horrid expression that the only successe of the Presbyteriall government, is to snipp off forward branches; I told you even now who the traveller was that fild you with this information. A falsehood ordinarily palpable maketh its refuta­tion easy, but when in falsity it is astonishing, the hearer cannot but a while suspend his reply. It fared thus with me in reviewing [Page 59]this passage; Is it possible (thought I) that a man who pre­tends not only to be a Christian, but a Minister, should thus far throw off both? but I lookt upon you as the non-such of your way, and so I recollected my thoughts into the way of an answer, I would know who are the forward branches that the sheers of Presby­tery snipp off? Are they fruitfull branches, or are they not rather suckers, who draw away that nourishment from others which might make them fruitfull and convert it into thriving in heresies, in Atheisme, and unholy opinions. If so, I see no reason but the throwing away the sheers would be the overthrowing of the plant. Sion Col. visit. p. 6. Ans.

An evill eye upon the Parliament is no dissenting character of the Genius of the Ministers of London

Me thinkes these words are hardly sence, but I have taken you tripping so often that I shall not now be rigid. Your meaning is, The London. Ministers have an evill eye upon the Parliament.

The Parliament hath suffered (with grief I speak it) ever since Sectaries would needs be their advocates. It was better with them when you wrote your Theomachia, Accuse not the Ministers of an evill eye, toward the Parliament, If your eyes be good toward them, I am sure they are lately cured, The Reader knows by what eye salve.

What remains of this weak Pamphlet consists of nothing but three or four prophanations of Scripture, Sion. Col visit. p. 26. and some four or five nauseous commendations of the Authour and book.

For the former you say that the reason why your pen moved against its accusers rather then your fellow-hereticks, was because Christ saith the stones would cry if the honour of Christ should not be vindicated: Answ. and you say you were loth that the stones and tiles should take this honour from you.

There's not an errour transcribed out of your books, but tends to the high dishonour of Christ, the deniall of his Scriptures, of his grace, and for your persisting in these, The stones indeed might speak, though not for you, but against you. 'Tis a miracle the stones and tiles of the houses do not speak about the ears of one so prophane and erroneous.

I bear my charge upon my shoulder, with more then patience, Sion Col. visit. p 26. even with joy.

I admire more the patience of God in forbearing to punish you, Ans. then yours in bearing your panishment and let me hear of sor­row for sin, before you tell m [...] again of joy in your sorrows.

The two theeves had not suffered death, Sion Col. visi­ted p [...].but to colour over the crucifying of Christ, and no testimony had been given at this time against the heresies of the other, had not the 52. judged it expedi­ent that my name should be blasted.

I doubt whether the comparison between your self and Christ, Anws. savours not of blasphemous arrogancy; A parallel between your fellow-heretickes who have rob'd God of his glory, and theeves would have held good; had it been between your self and them, it would have been better: but could you make it between your self and the penitent thief, it would be best of all. I wish that what you write in the end of your book a­mong the erra [...], could admit of this charitable construction of your repentance, The words are these, For Excusabilis you desire the Reader to read Inexcusabilis, however I shall add this, the truest sentence in all your book is this which you place among your errours. ⁂