ΑΛΛΟΤΡΙΟΕΠῚΣΚΟΠΟΣ The Busy Bishop. OR The Visitor Visited. By way of Answer to a very feeble Pamphlet lately Published by Mr J. G. called Zion College visited, In which Answer, his Cavils against the Ministers of London for Witnessing against his Errors touching the holy Scriptures, and the power of man to good supernatural, are answered, and the impertinency of his quotations out of the Fathers, Martin Bucer, and Mr Ball are manifested.  
By WILLIAM JENKYN Minister of the Word of God at Christ-Church London.  
Cum ex Scripturis arguntur haeretici in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non rectè habeant, neque sint ex ●utoritate, & qu●● variè sint dictae & quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas, ab his qui nesci. of't traditionem.  Iren lib. 3. adv. haeres. cap, sc. 
Haeretici Scripturarum Lucifugae  Tert. de resur. carn.. cap. quadrag. sept. 
— nec habet quilquam quo surgere possit  
Ad vitam sacro nisi ●ursum nascitur or●u.  Prop. de ingrat. cap. 15. 
— non moribus illi (scil. gratiae)  
Fi●mora, non causis anceps suspenditur ullis.  
LONDON, Printed by A. M for Christopher Meredith at the Crane in Paul's. Church yard, and Tho. Under hill at the Bible in Woodstreet. 1648.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER: More especially to the REVEREND AND LEARNED SUBSCRIBERS Of the late TESTIMONY to the TRUTH of CHRIST within the Province of LONDON.  
Reverend and Beloved,  
SHould the witnesses to truth want enemies, they might justly question the truth of that to which they witness. The Father of lies was not well pleased with your late testimony to the truth; He hath expressed his dislike of it with much rage, though (blessed be God) with more weakness: Never was an Overseer so overseen, as was this Bishop in his late visitation of Zion College, His Pamphlet speaks him busy, but yet more blind than busy: He might with less disgrace have contained himself within his darker diocese: I mean the alley where he preacheth his errors. His weaker eyes like those of the night-bird would have well endured that shady refuge: but adventuring upon the wings of his late Pamphlet, to oppose his feeble sight to the Sun of truth shining forth in the testimony; he discovers such a dazzled and unable eye to guide the course of his wings, that I accounted it a matter of no difficulty for any to chase and catch him in an answer. His ambition made him so eager of putting out an answer to many men, that he took no care at all to put out an answer to one question; His other writings are below the most, but this last piece was below himself. Account it not therefore ambition (Reverend Sirs) that puts the weakest of your numbers upon undertaking him. For the most of you, ●● have performed this task, I should have accounted it an act of (not to say too) great condescension. I find not to my remembrance throughout his papers, one quotation taken out either of Scriptures, Fathers, or modern writers, pertinently applied: nor any thing like an argument to prove the thing he undertakes to show viz. why his opinions should not be charged as erroneous. But this his double defect he supplieth with abundant rage in opposing Christ in his Scriptures, grace, Ministers, government, his rage against the two last reaching up to heaven, out of multitudes of instances that might be given, take but two, out of his Pamphlet.  
1. Concerning the government which the subscribers approve of, he saith, That the best success which with any colour of truth, 
Zion Col. visited p. 26.  we can entitle the Presbyterian government unto, is to snipp and keep under thriving branches: I know he means not branches that thrive in heresies, but clearly intends such branches as thrive in holiness: The Lord smite his conscience, and touch his heart for this expression before it be wounded so as it will be beyond cure.  
Concerning the Reverend Ministers of Christ in the city, 
Zion Col. visited p. 19  he saith, They Foment divisions, Multiply distractions, Obstruct the quiet composure and settling of things in the land (speaks not my Lord just as if he were in his visitation) and recompense no degree of all this unworthiness with any considerable good, would any Atheist in England have said more? The genuine paraphrase is, The Ministers are the troublers and Traitors of the Kingdom, All their labours though never so successful in converting and building up of souls, amount not to the least considerable good. The Kingdom might well be without them, and they do more hurt than good; And all this because they cannot conform to his apish inventions.  
That dear respect which I bear to your calling and graces, to your late testimony for the truth, I might add to that sweet and gracious converse I have enjoyed and do frequently partake of from you (particularly some of you that are members of that Classis where providence hath cast me) Especially (if my heart be not the greatest liar in the world) The love I bear to the Lord Jesus, who hath loved me and given himself for me, and who is the greatest sufferer of us all, by this impure Pamphlet, put me upon expressing myself in this endeavour to serve you, I know not whether this busy Bishop intends to afford us a second visitation, If he doth, I hope he will come without invitation and be entertained without welcome even as a busy-body. As for the reproaches of his merely misled followers, whether I escape them, or sustain them, I shall labour to bless God and love them being assured should I have their stroke it would bein the dark by reason whereof a friend is sometimes struck in stead of afoe; but when they have (I say not a new but) their old light) they will love me both again, and the more for such a blind unkindness. Some of them I know and affectionately love for whom my hearts desire is that they may be saved: I desire them to know that I desire to say I can die, I cannot be silent, when the truths are struck at which I wish not to outlive; My hearty request to them is like that of Moses to the People, that they would departed from the tents of this man, if his Preaching be like his writing; that they would not feed upon chalk and coals in corners when the Lord Jesus hath provided them Pastors after his own heart, and remember that under Praelacy they hated those doctrines as hell which now they advance to Heaven, and that then they spent days of fasting against those opinions which now they spend Sabbaths in hearing.  
For acrimony if any they find, I desire them not to be offended, 1 It's less than he deserved, 2 more than ever I did besto● upon all the men in the world besides himself put together, 3 upon the using of it this charitable construction may be put, that I looked not upon him (though some do) as past recovery, My work in this short Treatise, was to answer h●s accusations against the Ministers, for their transcribing his Errors, in their Testimony. My book would have swollen into a large volume, had I handled the Points according to their own extent, and according to the helps afforded by our Divines. But I hope I have done enough, to show that he had no cause to complain of the Ministers transcriptions, and that all his pretended allegations out of the Fathers, Bucer and M● Ball, help him not at all, but rather speak against him. My multiplied occasions have hindered me from so speedy and large an Answer as may be expected, but as it is, Reverend and beloved friends, you have it and myself to serve you in the things of Christ  
WILLIAM JENKYN. From my Study at Christ Church Load:   

Errata.  
Page 4. marg. read Paul●s voluit. p 8. marg. l 30. read de Christo l. 35. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 8. l 23. r upheld p. 20. l 23. r. wherein (you say) etc. p ●●. l ult. r. tells m● it is to, &c, p 23. l. 34. r. it is from God, written. p. 31. marg. r abijcere possit p. 41. l. 24 r. (and that truly) l. 11. r. you did speak to, etc. p. 45. l. 33. ●●jutorium. p. 48 marg r. contendunt. p 52. marg. r Bacer. in job 6.44. p. 5●. l, 32. r with, the fathers, p. 52, marg r. etesiph.   

ΑΛΛΟΤΡΙΟΕΠῚΣΚΟΠΟΣ OR The Busy Bishop.  
RELIGION never had greater enemies than those of her own house. 
Zion Coll. visited. p. 1.   
And a little after.  
It was never well with RELIGION, since the Ministers, etc.  
Answ. Your work is to kill Religion, but your way to do so, Ans. I perceive, is to kiss 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 plucked away? And takes not ●e away the foundation of religion, who denies the Scripture to be that foundation? 
Diu. 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. Questionless no writing whatsoever, whether translations or originals are the foundation of Christian Religion; Away with your hypocritical exclamations 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. 
Zion 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, heretics 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, 
Zion Col. visit. p 1.  and so reputed by others for want of knowing better) cunningly vested that privilege 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 nonsense, you would have said thus; The Ministers cunningly vested themselves in or with the privilege of the Church, and not as you do, The Ministers vested the privilege of the Church in themselves; A man may be vested in, or with a privilege, but it's very improper to say a privilege is vested in or with a man, as improper as to say a garment is vested in the man that wears it: 'ttwere better to say the man is vested in the garment; It's a sign your pen is drunk with madness, it doth so stagger and stammer; These faults of pure weakness, 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 find I fault with the vest, the phrase of your book? The dusty  of your words, are good enough for the crooked carcase of your matter; 
This is Titubare in limit.  for I may well call the matter crooked; if to be true be to be strait, for I find 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 privilege 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 than 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 Synodical dissenters preach, and profess the contrary.  
3. Or are you now got a step or two above Independency? acknowledge you any Ministers of the Gospel at all, whether yourself, or any other? I observe, that you, who were wont to style yourself, The Minister of a Church (such an one as 'tis) in Colemanstreet; now in this last Pamphlet, as if you had a mind to be looked upon under another consideration, word yourself only john Goodwin, a servant of God and men, (I am sure of men, I doubt whether of God) haply the Delilah of a Congregation hath enticed you, to be tampering with the lock of our Ministry; you have yielded already to cast off the word Minister, by the next you may have cast off the thing too.  
4. If you do account yourself 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 less sacred, for not coming out of the kitchen.  
Secondly, You say, The Ministers have vested themselves with the privilege 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, intent 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, mutual exhortations, a way of profession, and practice, etc. or in a way peculiar to ●ome, a ministerial way, of preaching the Word, administration of the Sacraments, etc. If you say the Ministers have vested themselves with the privilege 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 privilege of pillars, in the second respect, viz. of Ministry, 'tis odiously false, for the Lord Jesus himself, and not themselves, vested them with the privilege 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 intent that religion is so miserable, because all in the Church may not preach the Word, administer Sacraments, and because Ministers do, etc. 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 pastors qua●td illu● side, diligentiâ, reveren jam 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 all 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 etc. how great a burden (therefore) ●●eth upon the Pastors, who are to keep so inestimable a treasure as the truth! Ecclesia ideo, etc. Therefore is the Church the pillar, and ground of truth, because she defends it with the Ministry of the word. And ●logium hoc, etc. This commendation is to be referred to the Ministry of the word, which being taken away, the truth falls. The truth is sustained by the pure preaching of the Word. And the subscribers their ministerial zeal for the truth both in press and pulpit, is the occasion of your rage against them; I confess you may have a further aim, viz. to gratify your deluded followers, whose design is to raze and level 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 errors. You strike at the lantern, 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 people; mean while remember, Omnis Apostata est osor sui ordinis, Religion never had greater enemies than renegadoes  
The Ministers of the Gospel claim Nebuchadnezars preregative among men, over the truths of God, 
Zion Col visited p. 1.  Whom he would he slew, whom he would he saved alive.  
The Nebuchadnezars are among yourselves. 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, unless 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 errors, 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 errors alive, I pray prove what those errors are, and the next edition of the testimony will not be wanting in due severity.  
I wish nothing to the Ministers but good. 
Zion Col visi. p 1. Ans.   
Devout soul that can curse and bless in one breath! Two lines off you blasted the Ministers with the title of murderous Nebuchadnezars, and here you bless them with desires of all good to them; but whereas you say, you wish nothing in your prayer, 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 yourself have sped so well, by being in print without your consent, when your Church set forth that 〈◊〉 ridioulous paper, in commendation of you, wherein they extolled you to the clouds (where, indeed, you always are, when you writ) Than 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 Author will get into your favour again.  
So I might maintain honourable thoughts of their persons, 
Zion Col. visited p. 1.  which I have always laboured to do, my witness is o● high.  
Is your witness on high? Answ. So is your Judge too, but take heed your punishment be not below: mock not God, nor deceive yourself.  
Though I am still opposed by them in my way. 
Zion Col. visited p. 2. Ans.   
You cannot say that you have been opposed by them in God's 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 stopped him in his way.  
The Image stamped upon the Testimony, and the men whose names are affixed, 
Zion 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, etc. when as many know, that you have more heresies and errors, met in you, then are dispersed among some thousands in the world, and if your heresies (unless you are lately impoverished) could be bequeathed to ten thousand sectaries, they might every one have a child's portion, and have sufficient to live like such men, when you are dead and gone. It was therefore a passage, as pernicious, as proud, which dropped 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 precious truth of Jesus. viz. 
Zion 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 yourself able to woe th● Scriptures 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 allege 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 personal, and scriptural, 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 the Scripture which saith so. Is my dependence upon a friend for a favour, any hindrance 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 expositors of that place. 
* Quin fundamentum b●● pro doctrina sunatur min●è dub●um est, neque evim patriarch as nomin at aut p●o● reges, sed ●o● solos qui offi●●ū habehant docendi●●aque locet Poulue fidem Ecclesie in ●ac doctrine 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 prophetican & Apostolican de Ceristo Rolloc in loc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chryl ●n lo. Paulus per Apostolorum fundamentum, doctrinal Aposto. lorum intelligit Wh●t. Q 2. con. 4 the Monarch Pet. p 55●. Vid Chamier, de Canone. lib. 6. cap. 8.  Calvin's words are Quin fundamentum hic pro dectrinâ sumatur minime dubiumest: and there's no doubt (saith he) but the foundation of the Prophets, and Apostles, is here put for doctrine: Paul names not here the Patriarches, 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 pernicious errors, 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 error is taken, you deal craftily, or (which is most like) cloudily, for your aim was to prove him guiltless, 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 any act of man, as the believing of the Scriptures, 'tis very false and feeble: for though no act unto which man is enabled by God (such as believing) 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, believing 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 godliness and religion would in a short time fall to the ground; no theological grace can be without saith, and faith cannot stand, if the authority of the Scriptures fall.  
If believing 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 believing the Scriptures to be the word of God, is both the ground and an essential 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 cavil at the Ministers for saying they testify to the truth and to their solemn league and covenant; 
Zion 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 scornful 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 kingdom, 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 testify much alike to both. As for the Ministers, you cannot enforce 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 testify with the same integrity and unfeignedness 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 hypocritical Pharisees who feared not to be murderers of Christ, and yet were afraid of defilement by going into the Hall, Joh. 18.28.  
I know not what testimony the Covenant is capable of, 
Zion Col visited p. 4.  unless 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 real, not a verbal reformation.  
You answer yourself, Ans. You say a real reformation is the best testimony to the covenant; True, And therefore (say I) not the only testimony.  
Secondly, Doth a real observation of the covenant hinder a verbal testimony to it, nay doth it not enforce it; I might deservedly question my reality for God and his cause, If I would not express that reality in words upon occasion given.  
'Tis possible indeed for the verbal profession to be without the real but not possible for the real to be without the verbal; but you say the covenant is not capable of a verbal testimony to it; Alas poor Covenant! It seems thou mayst be well thought of, but not well spoken off? Thou mayst be capable of a verbal opposition and denial, as of being called an old almanac out of date, but not of a verbal approbation. Thy wound is broader (it seems) than thy plaster.  
But Thirdly, How is it that you plead so much for the real observation of the Covenant? I fear, not to further the real, but to hinder the verbal; I dislike your p●ng of zeal for a real 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 stomach.  
To enrich their title, they add, 
Zion Col. visited p. 4.  As also against the errors and heresies, etc.  
Tell not the Ministers of loving rich titles, Ans. either for themselves or their books, your boasting of yourselves 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 blood 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 than themselves?  
But they add against errors.  
They had need, for you are daily adding to errors. But this touching of errors, is the touching the apple of your eye, and the gainful occupation of your silver shrines; 'Tis observable that all along in your book, you give not the Reader the least intimation of a dislike of any particular error (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 Ministry ('tis a good to believe it, as to go where 'tis done) you dare not come near an expression of dislike to errors by twelve score, and now the Ministers express their zeal against them; how doth your tender nature make you weep for Tammuz?  
But there is no further matter if consequence in these words, against the errors, heresies, 
Zion Col. visited. p. 4.  and blasphemies of the times, etc. then in the foregoing words, A testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ, Therefore these passages are broadly tautological.  
To rectify you; The Ministers in testifying for the truth, etc. Answ. owned the Confession of faith, and the doctrines of truth he●d forth in the Scripture; and in saying against the errors, beresies, etc. 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 errors that destroy truth are broached; to look toward heaven and earth at the same instant. The two  branches are therefore as far from being tautological, as you from being either Logical, or Theologicall. 
Zion Col. visited p. 4.   
Heresies are imperiously sentenced, as if the chair of Papal Infallibility, were translated from Rome to Zion College.  
Name one of those errors 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 mollify your title, 
Zion Col. visited p. 5.  say not against errors and heresies, but use this Christian and soft explication (as we account and call them errors and heresies).  
 Sir, Ans. Spare your counsel, 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 heretical devil must not be used gently, 'Tis a cruel kindness to truth to do so; Diabolus non est leniter palpandus (saith Luther) when you had to do with M Edwards (of blessed memory) than '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●● cull. 〈…〉.  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 corrosives then lenitives, of iron then of oil (was Augustine called Malleus Haereticorum for using mollifying expressions?) had you given us the advice of Luther, we would have thanked you. Let the pope perish, ungodly Magistrates, The Patrons of ungodly opinions, of errors, let all the world perish, only let not the glory of God perish, his Church, his Worship. But why speak we of Luther's spirit? your advice is more unsuitable 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,  men, bruit beasts, Clouds without water, Tit. 1.13. Judas. 3.4.12. 2 Pet. 2.1. 2 Tim. 3 8. Judas, 8. 2 Pet. 2.14. 2 Pet. 2.12. &c, And yet forsooth, we must be all for softness and mollisying. The Lord pardon our sinful softness formerly. The time past may suffice to have connived at you: Shall you be bolder to sin than we to speak? God forbidden.  
But wherein must the Ministers express their softness? he tells us, for he gives us direction, as well as exhortation, though he is more wicked in prescribing the manner of doing, than the thing to be done.  
Say not a testimony against Errors and Heresies, but say, as we account and call Errors and Heresies.  
His plain meaning is, Be doubtful whether those damnable Errors and Heresies be such or no: Be Sceptics, Seekers, Expectants, Dubitants, never believe any thing. When men deny the Scriptures to be the foundation of faith, say, This is an heresy, 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 heresy, 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 produced. Luth.  Though the Lord hath not withheld you from giving, yet for his Christ's sake, he keep us from taking this advice; We who teach others to believe, shall we believe nothing ourselves? if we may not be so certain as to write against errors, how should we be so certain as to die in opppsition to errors? Should one lay down his life for he knows not what? Did those blessed Martyrs in Queen Mary's days say, That Transubstantion was an error, 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 fullness of assurance of understanding, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 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, etc. It savours not of Christianity, when men are not delighted with positive assertions, Take away assertions, and thou hast taken away Christianity. The holy Ghost is no Sceptic, nor doth in produce opinions in our hearts, but certain assertions more sure than life itself, and all experience, etc. Certainly if I may know any thing to be a truth, I may and must upon that ground know the contrary to be an error; as if I know that this is a truth, That Christ is God, I certainly know that this is an error, to say, He is not God; and therefore by your putting us to believe nothing for an error, you will constrain us to believe 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 error, 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 error? 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, denial of liberty of conscience? And where are you then, Sir? But are you so undoubted, and certain, and positive, as you seem to yourself to be, when you oppose the truth? and must we be purely doubtful, when we are opposing of errors? Did not you blasphemously deny the Scripture to be the foundation of faith, with that astonishing expression going before it, [Questionless] 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 questionless for errors, and must we come with an (as we think) against errors?  
You extend your title against a toleration of errors also. 
Zion Col. visited p. 5.  Now a toleration is a mere 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; Profanely 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 marred the world by it. But 'tis so far from being that of which God made the 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 find a calumniating insinuation against the Parliament. 
Zion Col. visited p 5. Ans.   
For the calcumniating insinuation against the Parliament, where lies it? turn not Sycophant, but give me leave to show you your calumniating insinuation against the Parliament: for this testimony of the Ministers hath been in many a wise Parliament man's hand; and for you (a mean man in comparison) to dare to find out a calumniation against them, which they could never find out against themselves, what is this but for you to prefer your sufficiency to theirs, and to show 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 licence, but Sectaries their licentiousness.  
This present generation is fairly acquitted from being the authors of these errors, 
Zion Col. visited p. 6.  because these errors 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 authors of the mentioned errors; Ans. their greatest contention being, whose invention should be most reputed for, and fruitful of the said errors. And whereas you say, That revivers of errors are no authors; the Sectaries again are little beholding to you; for the reviver of an error is worse, and more inexcusable than the author, in as much as the reviver of a buried and a condemned error, sins against the precedent of the concurrent judgements of holy men in former ages, whereas the author wanted the help of former guides; I may truly say, that John Goodwin, sins more inexcusably, than 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 heresy to M. Goodwin) because M. Goodwin though he be not guilty of the invention of the errors, 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 errors, 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 heretics, that it's quite dried up toward the Orthodox. You are such a prodigal of charity toward the one, that when you should contribute to the other, you will be found a beggar. But take heed, lest if you acquit this generation from heresy, the next generation condemn yourself for heresy. Judicium melius posteritatis erit.  
The age to come,  
May pass your doom.  
There are several Ministers of Christ to my knowledge in the Province of London (no Independents) commensurable for worth with the tallest Subscribers, 
Zion Col. visited p. 6.  though not to some of them in Church live, 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 men's 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 find 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 days only for Sectaries, The Orthodox have but short commons▪ they are rich in employments and poor in payments. 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 loser.  
You scraple together a few saying or passages out of several men's books, whereof some are fair truths, etc. 
Zion Col. visited. p. 7. Answ,   
For the fairness of your truths, there's not one of them, but hath a face of soot, and of a blackmore, but I believe they are accounted fair in their own Country, in Errour-alley, but in an orthodox region they are very deformed.  
To reproach men's opinions without answering any one reason or ground upon which they build their assertions, 
Zion Col. visited. p. 7.  is the Way for propagation of them.  
There is not one mentioned error in all the Catalogue, Answ. but is its own reproach, and its own refutation: And the frequency of your being braid in the mortar of an answer, hath made hitherto but little of your folly to departed from you. A confutation would add too much reputation to the errors. Besides, when Sectaries see that their errors deserve disputation, they thereby think, that they deserve estimation; 'tis their custom 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 judged convenient may follow.  
You rend a parcel of words out of the body of a large discourse, 
Zion Col. visited. p. 8. Answ.  which may carry some face of an unsound saying.  
It seems your fair truths, of which you even now spoke, have but a foul face; surely the best part of all your errors, 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 referred to it, and yet if any parcel of a passage seemed to make for you, the Subscribers set down that too, but indeed commonly the whole passage was a wrapped complication of errors.  
You show not in what part of their say the error lies. 
Zion Col. visited. p. 8. Answ. There's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zion Col. visited. p. 9   
Show you in what part of any saying almost the error doth not lie; commonly the disease is epidemical over the whole passage.  
The night is too far spent for them to think, that men will judge error 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 heresy, 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 heresy to out-look the light of the Scripture, nay to put it out. Oh that I could hear more of you say to your errors (as the angel to Jacob) let me go from you for the day appeareth Well, take heed, if you still go on to commit night sins in the day time, lest you shorten England's day of grace, and hasten her night of Woe; If ever a generation threatened such a night, heretics 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 errors by the votes of Ministers. We bless God that the night is so far spent, as that we see how to judge your errors 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 errors of darkness; love the Scriptures, and hate the ministers, if you dare, if you can.  
Men have put away those childish things, 
Zion Coll. visit. pag ●. Answ.  to believe as the Church believes.  
And in stead thereof Sectaries put it away as a childish thing, to believe as the word believes; you have made a fair change.  
There is not so much as any one syllable in the Covenant that engageth any man to the Presbyterial Government. 
Zion 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 than it shapes itself to Presbytery is the very negation of Government, and as used by you, stands upon no other leg than a necessary violation of the Covenant, by a Toleration of all errors, heresies, and ungodly opinions in the world.  
2. If the Covenant engageth to a Government according to the word of God, and the example, etc. 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, that have been put out for it, both by Scots and English. Answer the learned labour of the Assembly, Mr Ruther surds, Mr Gillespies books, and the book entitled, Jus divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastics 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, 
Zion Col. visit. p. 11.  to discharge your duty conscientiously, that you charge him with errors against the Divine Authority of the Scripture, who hath bend himself with the uttermost of his endeavours for the vindication of their Divine Authority, and ●ho hath laboured in this argument as much, and with as much faithfulness as any of you all.  
Was it from the lowliness of your heart, Answ. that you prefer yourself before the mo●● learned and pious of the Subscribers? Or was it from the logic of your head, that you form such a childish argument, viz. You may not be taxed with errors about the Authority of the Scriptures, because you have written in vindication of them? Did not Faustus Rhegiensis write a Treatise, 
Baron, Annal. Ton. 6 an. 490. Sect. 31. Vid. ●●id Hispal. de Script. eccls. 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 verb 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 do, but what others that are wise and holy men, see that they do; May not Bellarmine be charged with errors, 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 Prophetical and Apostolical writing is to be received as the Word of God, is unworthy to be handled by any Christian divine, had it not been made necessary by the deliration of Swenckfeldius, and the Anabaptists denying it? Whereas your work is to preach and write against all Prophetical and Apostolical writings, whether Originals or Translations. Remember with what confident heat you risen up for the most horrid heretics, Antiseripturists and Antitrinitarians, etc. In your Hagiomastix, and then consider whether your saying that you bear the errors of the times, as a burden upon your soul, is to be believed; must this your saying, that errors are your burden, excuse you from 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 errors 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 real enmity to the Scriptures under appearances and seeming friendship, Tuta frequensque via—  
Doe I not plainly, 
Zion 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 looked upon. Therefore you complain that the Subscribers barely cite these words from your pen [Questionless 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.  
Yourself is the first man that ever I heard to commend you for clearness, Answ. plainness and distinctness, your writings, throughout have more of words than 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 risen again, etc. (You are come to a high pitch of ingenuity, I assure you.) These things you having said, you think you may lawfully charge the Ministers with craft and wickedness, for setting down barely that conclusion of yours, pag. 18. Questionless 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 express no more, and when they cite a whole page, you say, they do it, that they may represent you to the Reader for a man of monstrous and prodigious errors, one of which cannot be expressed or contained in fewer words than would fill a whole page: Yet on the other side, If they pitch only upon the error, you say, they cite your words barely, and suppress craftily your sense.  
2. Though the Subscribers did set down this your Conclusion without reciting your longwinded passages, which you premise, yet deserve they not this your reviling, 
Diu. author. of Scrip p. 18.  as if they had wronged you: For the conclusion being the result of the premises, if your conclusion be crazy and heretical, 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 heretical, why do you not defend it against the accusation of the Subscribers, which you neither do, nor dare to do, but only send the Subscribers to the thirteenth page, leaving the poor eighteenth to mercy.  
3. Suppose you had in the thirteenth page written the truth, therefore ought you not to be blamed for writing errors 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 errors at the bottom: 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 doubtful 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 Questionless no writing whatsoever, whether translations or originals 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 Questionless no writing whatsoever is the foundation of Christian religion; 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 show for this grant but only your good nature and ingenuity: you tell me pag. 13. that you believe the precious counsels, matter and substance of the Scripture to be of divine authority, but though you believe so, yet what ground give you me to believe so with you? none I am sure p. 10. Diu. Autho. where you deny both the English Scriptures and the Hebrew and Greek Originals themselves to be the word of God. 
Diu. Autho. p. 10.  Nor give you me any ground to believe with you that the counsels of the scriptures are the word of God, in p. 12. when you say, That they who have the greatest insight into the original languages, yea and who believe the Scriptures unto salvation; 
Diu. Autho. p. 12.  cannot upon any sufficient ground believe, any original copy under heaven whether Hebrew or greek to be the word of God, with a world of such stuff; Nor give you any ground to believe the matter, counsels etc. of the Scripture to be the word of God, p. 18. where you say, Questionless no writing whatsoever whether translations or originals are the foundation of Christian religion, much less in that of Hag. p. 38. where in regard of the mortality of words, you make the meaning of the originals 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, counsels, etc. of the Scriptures are the word of God, for how can any believe the matter, substance etc. 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 believed for such; but upon what ground ought I to believe it? I hope you will not say because a province of London-Ministers saith it is to be believed, nor barely because the spirit tells me is to be 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 try the spirits, and tells me I must believe nothing to be from God, or for my own eternal good, but what I find written; I therefore desire to go to the written word as revealed by God, for the building my confidence upon the counsels and matter of the Scriptures (as pardon through Christ. etc.) But then J. Goodwin tells me this written word is not God's word, nor are any writings in the world Originals or Translations, to be looked upon as such; If so, they must be the word of vain man, and so I have no more to show for the precious truths, that Christ died for sinners and lost man etc. than man's word; I pray consider, what are become of your disciples (to use your own phrase) their soul provisions, their hope of eternal blessedness, when as thus you deny the written word? How doth my soul pity your poor deluded followers who have such a soul starving or soul-poisoning shepherd 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 alleged, 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 believed, and the ground of believing that thing, the objectum materiale & formale fidei; the matters to be believed, are those precious truths of God, which you name p. 13. and such like. the ground of believing them is the revelation of God in his written word Nor can any one believe those truths with a divine faith as the truths of God, 
Hoc verbum quod multis vicib is multisque 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, Riu. Cat. Oath. Par. 9 ●.  unless he first beleeus that they are revealed and made known by God: This Revelation of God hath always 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 grovad 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 took Christ and his Apostles to prove their doctrinal 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 find that the matter, substance, precious counsels &c. contained in the Scriptures are proved to be credenda things to be believed, because they are written, deny then the written word (as you do in terminis) to be the word of God, and what formal object hath faith? poor faith without a written word! Yield yourself to that evident Scripture, Joh. 20.31. These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the son of God, and that believing 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 believing of these matters to be their revelation by writing: See also Act. 14.24. Paul saith he believed 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 believe not Moses writings, how shall you believe 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 denial that the written Word is such clearly show, 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. Understandest 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 show how in this point of your denial 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.  

a 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 counsels, and will, more fully, and vigorously, he added the instrument of writing, if any would inquire of God, find him, believe in him, and serve him. Tertullian.  

b 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 Scriptures nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futu●um. Irenaeus. Advers. Heres lib. 3. cap. 1 vide lib. 3. c. 2.  We know not God's disposal (or ordering) of our salvation, but by those, by whom the Gospel came to us, which they formerly preached, afterward by the counsel of God delivered to us in the Scriptures to be the foundation, and pillar of our faith, Irenaeus.  

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

d 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 persuaded me, not that they who believed thy books, which thou hast founded with so much authority, in almost all nations, were to be blamed, but those who believed them not, and that those were not to be heard, who might haply say to me, whence dost thou know that those books were administered to mankind by the Spirit of the only most true God? for this thing was chief to be believed. Augustine.  

e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chry. hom. 1. in Mat.  If it be blame-worthy to stand in need of the writing of the Scripture, and not to embrace 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 ourselves greater punishment. Chrys.  

f 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.  

g In fidei controversi●s dijudicandis nec ab Hebraeis nec a Graecis pendere volunt Papistae, multiplicatis quaestiunculis quaesivit jesuita 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. the 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 (Bailie the Jesuit) by multiplying questions hath sought to make the belief of the holy Scripture to depend upon man's judgement and they cast doubts into all men's minds, about the authority of the holy Scriptures which we have; that by these rudiments of Atheism, they might subject 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 suit not too evidently with yourself; 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 than the tradi. tores. who for fear delivered their Bibles to the Heathen to be burnt. Zion Col. visit. p. 12.  isti.; etc. 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 ago?— He concludes with calling this Albertus Pighius a profane fellow and saith, that he that seethe not whether these things tend is willing to deceive himself; I verily fear (and without any breach of charity) that these scripturarij especially of the presbyterian judgement shall not find that favour from Joha Goodwin that a Sectarian Antiscripturist 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 conscientiously: that you must needs make it an error or heresy, to say that it were needless for Satan to blind the eyes of natural 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 blind 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 kind of blindness call you that, to be in the dark, and to have good eyes: 'tis a blindness that can neither in a spiritual or a natural respect be called a blindness, the blindness of a natural man is such, as argueth a perishing of the power of spiritual 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 error viz. 'Tis a needless thing for Satan to blind if they have not eyes to see, are very false, for notwithstanding Satan's making us blind, we are blind of ourselves, according to Scripture, which saith that natural 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 natural 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 blindness, and slavery, and make men more to please themselves in both, but its certain that we are both slaves to sin, and blind in sin also.  
Where or in what clause or phrase of this ensuing period, 
Zion Coll. visted. p. 12, 13.  lies the error or heresy— If God should not make men capable of believing, I mean endue men with such principles, abilities or gifts of reason, judgement, memory or understanding, by the diligent improvement whereof they might come to be convinced of a readiness and willingness in God to receive them into favour, upon their repentance (upon which Conviction, true repentance and turning to God, ALWAYS 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 etc. 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 parenthesis, shown yourself very nocent, and deceitful; for, as if your conscience had taken your former assertion ill at your hands, you left cut that word, ALWAYS, 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 man's improvement of his natural abilities,  
First, For your consequence that if God should not make men capable of believing (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 proceed, and be furnished with an excuse.  
Let the reader take notice, that you in this as in that which follows lovingly join 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 internal 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 internal grace, by which only it can be conferred; 'Tis plain you join with the erroneous; but you ask, where lieth the error? 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 believe they might accuse God) is but this, that God is unjust in commanding man in his fallen estate to perform the things which he hath voluntarily disabled himself to perform; by which opinion you must needs make God's sovereignty to be impaired with man's ability, and to be limited to man's 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 debtor 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 sinful, 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 man's progress in sin, he should make himself cease to be sinful.  
Nor did Pelagius himself ever utter any sentence more to the swelling of nature, or prejudice of grace, than yourself 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 EYES follows; what place is here left for grace? what agreement with the Apostle. 1 Cor. 4.7 Who maketh thee to differ from another? 
 Episcopius.  (Mr goodwin's answer; myself by my improovement of nature made me to differ, would have fallen little short of blasphemy.) 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 carnal mind is enmity to God, Rom. 8 7. And again the Scripture testifieth that the world cannot receive the spirit of truth joh. 14 17. And Rom 5.6. Christ died for us being, as ungodly, so without strength; So Phil. 1.29. Unto you it is given, etc. to believe; 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, joh. 12.39. Therefore they could not believe, etc. 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 believe in Christ, etc. 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 error etc.  
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 employed 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 longwinded stile, and such a foggy conceptus, that you cannot write a sleight 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 error.  
Are you angry because they found but one Error in 34. lines? You have rather cause to praise their candour, then to blame their computation. Had they been as severe in reckoning your Errors as you are exact in numbering your lines, you would have spared this charge.  
The passage according to your arithmetic being 34. lines, I shall not here transcribe it; but the sum of it is.  
That if God should deprive men of all power to believe, and yet should persuade them to believe, with that affection wherein he expresseth himself in the Scriptures, even to those that perish, this would be harder than injustice itself; God would be like a King, that causeth a man's legs 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, 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 sic 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, etc. Is qui cum homine ita agit, tyrannus saevissimo Phalaride immanior, etc. Ibid. Pone oculis militem esse multatum, etc. 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 eternal damnation. Nay he that so deals with him would be a cruel tyrant (say they.) If a General command a blind soldier, though one who hath lost his eyes for some grievous offence, to stand centinel, and threaten him if he do not, etc.  
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 do so; you are put upon proving in the next.  
1. That they who perish have power to believe, 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 do, our sufficiency is of God.  
2. If man hath not power, prove, that this impotency is merely 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 man's rebellion with this impotency. What death is that which is threatened 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 believe. Until 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 rottenness.  
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 tribunal of their own reason, 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 satisfy not reason by this fiction of theirs, they also bring themselves upon this straight, 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; 
Zion Coll. visit. 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 than this, to say that he was not able to do 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 do. Nay this thing alone is abundantly sufficient for his excuse, for a commandment doth most of all cease to oblige, when a man allegeth that he is impotent to do it.  
I have proved for you that this is the Arminians doctrine. Now in requital I pray prove to me that this is Paul's, and Peter's 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 natural man's impotency excuseth him from doing his duty, whether in Rom. 9.19, 20. where we are forbidden to dispute against God. Or in Rom. ●3 19— Every mouth must be stopped. In the mean time, your old friend Mr Bucer sends you word by me, That our impotency, and want of strength to do any good at all, will prove a vain excuse. 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. Vbi 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, suppress it with that, Who art thou, O man?  

* Zion Col. visited. p. 16. Ans.  They represent it for an Error in me to say, Doubtless men are natural men before they are spiritual, and yet these are the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15.46.  
You complain of the subscribers for rending and tearing your say; but never was there a wretched passage so pitifully torn by any, as this your own passage is by yourself; 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. Natural men may do 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 doubtless men are natural men before they are spiritual: and supernatural, and spiritual they cannot be made but by believing, and unto believing God hath promised grace and acceptation; Your conclusion is. If it be possible that natural men may believe, then may they do such things whereunto God hath by way of promise annexed grace and acceptation.  
The Reader now seethe, what it was in this passage that was represented as an Error, not the words collected out of the Scripture, 1 Cor. 15.46. [Doubtless men are natural before spiritual] but that which went before, [natural men may do such things whereunto God hath by way of promise annexed grace, because they may believe, etc.] 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, Doubtless men are natural before they are spiritual?  
For your position that natural men may do such things whereunto God; hath by way of promise annexed grace: how should I rejoice could I hope that the reason why you concealed it in Zion Coll. visit. was remorse. I observed a little before that you left out the word always; in setting down that Error (the same with this in other words) cited by the subscribers in their Testimony; A natural man by his natural principles may attain that conviction which conversion always follows; I add to what there I said; I suppose by your natural 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 vit dogma planè imptum & a pertè Pelogia num obtru●i nostrae scholae, etc. sed. Hominem posse ante justificatione a dumb 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 natural man doth things acceptable to God; Invert not Gods and nature's order, first let the tree be good, and then the fruit. But know if you still remain obdurate, that your good friend Mr 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 do good works so acceptable to God, that by these works God should be moved to bestow conversion upon him. Only I confess 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 natural men may do such good works, etc. most lamentably; because 'tis possible (say you) they may believe. But how then (say I) can they do things acceptable to God before they believe, if you make believing the reason of their acceptation? And who knows not but that natural men may believe; viz. that they are such subjects as God works upon, so as to make them believers? but prove that they are able to believe while they are natural men. Help him logic; 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 yourself?  
They make me an Erroneous offender, 
Zion Col. visit. p. 16.  for saying, that to believe, 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 heretical with yourself: but the Subscribers know how to distinguish between these two, the holy Scriptures and your heretical scribble. Yourself, not the Subscribers, make you the Erroneus offender, but not for these words, viz. To believe that God is, and that he is a rewarder, etc. 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 believing these two, viz. That God is, and that he is a rewarder, etc. You affirming that they who have only the heavens, the Sun, Moon, and Stars 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 willingness of God to be reconciled to the world, preached unto them by the Apostles aforesaid, the Sun, Moon, and Stars.  
What stuff is here!  
Have all the world sufficient means of believing 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, unless he believe that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him; strongly inferring that whosoever doth believe 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 persuaded 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 Philosophically, but Theologically; that the eternal 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, etc.  
And can Heathens by the Sun Moon and Stars do this? can they by the light of nature believe a trinity of Persons in unity of Essence? if they do, they are better than your godly persons, 
Hag. pag 36  who you say are holy and walk with God, and yet believe 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 fare 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 only 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 believe 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 always required to justification; but faith simply, and he proves it out of this very Scripture that you have here alleged, Heb. 11.6. for the faith of heathens; Sir, blame me not if I be jealous of you, as of one that favours socinianism; Sure I am, you must either hold that heathens must attain faith in Christ by the enjoying of sun moon and stars; or that the faith of the 11. of Heb. 6. which (you say) the heathens do attain by the sun moon and starts, 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 only the sun moon and stars, 
Impossibile est pervenire ad sidem, pervenire ad aeternam vitam, nisi audieris evargelium, idque 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. Zion Col. visi● p. 17. Ans.  etc. to preach the Gespel unto them, have sufficient means of believing? Certainly Mr Bucer never was your Master, who on Rom. 10. saith, It's impossible to attain to saith, to eternal life, unless thou hearest the Gospel, and that administered by man, for Paul here speaks of the preaching of the Gospel which God administered by his Apostles; But whose scholar 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, etc. but they never dreamed of a Gospel by Sun, Moon, and Stars, nay, when pressed at the conference at Hague, to show the universality of the preaching of the Gospel, though they have many shifts and cavils, yet this of your Preachers never came into their mind.  
Let all my say be drawn together, and the rigidest extraction made, there will be found the same spirit of error (if yet it were error) in Mr John Ball, Entitled, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace.— pag. 44. of 〈◊〉 ●●●course.  
I cannot wonder that you who would fain father your errors upon Scripture, are in this kind industrious also to abuse holy and learned Mr Ball; lay not your eggs of error in Mr Balls nest, thinking that by the warmth of his reputation to have them hatched.  
The words of Mr Ball are these. No man is hindered from believing through the difficulty or unreasonableness of the command, or through his own simple infirmity, as being willing to believe, but not able, which inability deserves pity, but he doth not believe because he will not.  
What is here, that gives you the least countenance in your errors? Mr Ball saith and that truly, that unwillingness to believe hinders a man from believing, but he doth not say that any man of himself can be willing; for pag. 226. having asserted that man is unable to believe, and in the same page, that it is of grace to be enabled to believe, he presently adds, that mands not further from believing then desire to believe. Mr B. grants that its man's fault that he dissents from grace calling him, but where, saith he, it is in man's 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 believe, and may so improve his natural abilities that conversion always will follow, and if man had not power to believe. God were unjust to command it. Mr Ball blames man's unwillingness to believe, and you like an acute logician thence conclude man's sufficiency. 'Twere easy to show as great a dissonancy between you and Mr 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, Diu. Auth. p. 168. That if man should be deprived of all ability to believe, and yet God should be still moving and persuading men to believe, this would be harder than injustice itself; As for a King to cause a man's legs to be cut off, and yet command him to run a race. And you say that man's inability to do any thing that God commands, is a very fair and reasonable excuse for not doing it, Diu. 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 God's 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 blind and harden; If impossible be not the object of Gods will in this fence, viz. impossible in respect of ma●; he that by custom in evil hath contracted an habit that he cannot but sin, should not offend, and he that is carried with the most violence of mind 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 Ministry, and pag. 248. The Lord doth earnestly again and again call upon impenitent and obstinate sinners to repent and believe, when as yet in his just judgement he hardens their hearts that they cannot repent.  
And whereas you call man's inability a fair excuse for not doing: Mr Ball saith, pag. 249. that though God do not enable men to come to him, yet if men reason thus, Why doth he then entreat us and persuade us? etc. they may as well plead against the foreknowledge of God, If God foreknew that men would not return, why doth he entreat us? and he concludes that these are ignorant and blind imaginations.  
You say pag. 26. Diu. Auth. Natural men may do such things as whereunto God hath promised acceptation; and upon improvement of natural abilities grace always follows, p. 200.  
Mr Ball saith, p. 237. That they who use well their supernatural gifts, shall be enriched with an increase, but he saith also, that men unregenerate cannot use their natural gifts so as to procure acceptation.  
You hold that they who have only the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and the goodness of God in guiding of the world, have sufficient means of believing granted to them, etc. But Mr Ball saith; God exacts of the Gentiles given up to the vanity of their minds, 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 Mr 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 natural man's power to good supernatural, 
Zion Col. visit. p. 20.  I desire the whole covent of two and fifty, with all that dogmatise 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 error? Answ. did not yourself even now acquit this generation from the invention of it and the other errors, by the lamentable subterfuge of only a revival of them? who knows not that the Church hath been anciently disturbed with your doctrine about freewill to good supernatural? The Centurists observe that very early was the faith of Christ corrupted in this point; The error of Pelagius was born before John Goodwin; may it was confuted and condemned in many counsels, 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 strangeness of it, you should have proved the truth of is; and instead of pleading that it hath been in the Church, have proved it the doctrine of the Church; But why eat you novelty? This is the way to lose your Athenian Proselytes, who love novelty better than 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 supernatural good more attributed by me to natural 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 prise him, yet my Reverend friend M Stalbam, whose judgement in the matter of Discipline though I am not fully informed , 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 finds the universalists of this time: have lighted their candle (after Arminius was stinking in the snuff and socket) from this Testardus; Nay he conceives also, that even Oats that infamous Sectary sucked several errors 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 yourself began to dogmatise 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 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 Orleans 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 agreeable to the Confessious of other Churches; You are desired in your next to show in any of these points whereof we are now speaking, any material 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 spoke to the whole College or Covent (as you call it) of the 52. and all that dogmatise 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 Dr Gouge, nor Mr Calamy, nor M Case, nor Mr Cranford, nor sundry others were either the Authors or subscribers of the Testimony. A crazy conscience, 
Zion Col. visie. p. 23.  and a brittle memory are very ill companions.  
For the proof of your doctrine about natural man's free will, and power to good supernatural, 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. than any passage in your writing.  
I have proved that Bucer shakes you off, as a bold beggar, is ashamed of you, and calls you Pelagian, and there's nothing in this passage of Bucer like your opinion, with what engines did you draw your conclusion from Bucers' premises? Bucer saith not A natural man hath power to bel●eve, That the Sun, Moon and Start are Preachers of the Gospel: or that if natural men be unable to believe, 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 show nothing but extreme ignorance or impudence to allege an author for you, the whole strain of whose writings are so directly opposite unto you.  
But in this place which you allege, 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 itself 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 righteousness, who willingly put it from them:  
But you, that man hath power willingly to embrace this righteousness, and not to put it from him; to which Bucer speaks, expressly contrary in the same Chapter, They have (saith he) light enough to enfirce self-condemnation for Walking wickedly, but not sufficient to glorify 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. Vervin qurdem tslu: reminem posse, nisi Deo lucem suam insundente essioncius, eoque agente ad se & trabente homi num animus. in Rom. 1.30. .  
Bucer saith, Did the Gentiles not voluntarily put away the desire of righteousness, 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 believe (which Bucer as you heard even now flatly deemeth) 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 Mr goodwin's 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 always 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 righteousness, yet holds that from the gift of God's 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 cruel 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 righteousness. 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 Giant, that you, Ans. standing by him, may but seem a Dwarf in heresy; 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 cruel by a thousand parts in digging up of Bucers' body, when dead, and buried, as you in labouring to bury his name, while it is yet living, and rather than his name shall want a burying place, to make your own throat an open sepulchre.  
You desire that the reader should believe 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 righteousness, 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 righteousness Bucer only understands the duties of righteousness commanded in the Law.  
But you do wickedly to seem willing, that the reader should believe, 
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 confident the Ministers of the Province of Babylon, that condemned Bucer, as you say, for an heretic, and a man of rotten judgement, digged him out of his grave, and made a sacrifice by fire of his dead, and buried corpse, unto the Genius of their bloody Religion, would have suffered your bones to have rested in their grave, if they had not rather been digged up, to be reserved as holy relics, to be enshrined according to the Genius of their foolish superstition.  
It were easy to fill many pages with passages from other Orthodox Authors, 
Zion 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 child can blur paper, And for full pages out of the Orthodox, Let me have one page half filled to begin withal, 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' mind, you will but abuse them and they will accuse you; for you have brought these two to bless yourself, and curse the subscribers, whereas they have done the contrary altogether.  
Nor were it a matter of much more difficulty to bring antiquity itself, 
Zion. Col. visit. p. 24.  and particularly those very authors 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 Tribunal of Sinon-Colledge.  
For your scoff of Sinon College, 
Aus.  If it be Sinon-Colledge, 'tis so since you visited it, nor did it ever favour of a Sinon till your Bishop's foot stepped into it. I know none, that deserve to be called Sinon's, but Traitors to a City, and who they were you may find out without coming 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 find no more help from them then a man near 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 Tribunal of Sinon-Colledge. 
Zion Col. visit. p. 24.   
there's not one of the passages quoted out of the fathers, Ans. that give the least shadow of an approbation, to any of those errors transcribed by the subscribers, Nor can I imagine any reason why you should allege any of these passages unless it be, because you find 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 natural men hath power to believe: If God did command men to believe, they not having abilities, God should be 〈◊〉 tyrant. The want of ability is a law full excuse for now-performance; man may so improve his naturals, as that true conversion shall always fellow: That the Sun, Moon, and Stars, are Preachers of the Gospel, etc. Let the Father's say, and yours be compared; but herein you deal with the Fathers, as before with Bucer, when you alleged 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 piece of the Father's writings, then able to understand them.  
As you have cited the Father's most impertinently, (which by and by shall fully appear) so most imperfectly and maimedly 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 rusumque, apertissimae, est insaniae hoc hominem dicere esse, quod Deus est, Its madness to say that man is 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. not, 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 express 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, etc. 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 sense 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 allege out of him. We execrate the blasphemy of those who affirm that God enjoins 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 thorough the eye of a needle, etc. or the Apostle a blasphemer 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 freewill, you most grossly mistake, either through weakness, or wilfulness. For the fathers assert the being, and nature of freewill only, and not its power to supernatural good, in all the passages, which you allege (and you might to that purpose have produced an hundred more) out of them. I might acquaint the reader, that your threadbare quotations are commonly made use of, by the Jesuits, and Arminia●s, even usque 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 pass, though Austin, and Hierom against the Manichees maintained the nature of freewill, will, yet 'tis as true, that against the Pelagians, they denied the abilities of freewill to good supernatural, 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 alleged by Papists and Arminians as writing for freewill. 
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 Riu. 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 freewill, that very place against the Protestants which you allege against the Ministers (Baily the Jesuit is more your Patron then either Ball or Bucer) The place is this, If there be no freewill, how shall Godiudge the world? This place Rives understands of the natural being of freewill; For (saith he) If man were turned into a stone or a black, or a bruit creature, he should be exempted from God's judgement, but since when he acts out of deliberation, he chooseth 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 alleged both by you and Bailie, makes nothing for freewill to good supernatural, as from that place in Austin where he saith, man hath lost his freewill to love God, by the greatness of the first sin, and from that place freewill 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 alleged to that purpose out of him.  
Molinaus' being charged by that angry Arminian Corvinus for destroying freewill, 
Wal. oper.. p. 95. Tom. 2.  and joining 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 persuade the ignorant that we condemn freewill, nay let him be condemned that condemns it, but immediately he gives the reason why and how both Jerom and himself did allow of freewill, not in regard of its abilities to good supernatural, but because (saith he) he denieth man to be created according to the image of God, who denies him to be adorned with this natural faculty of freewill.  
In your next I pray cite Rivet, 
Zion Col. visited. p. 45. Aug. contr. duas ●p Pelag l. 1. c. 2 Hierom. all Ctesip. ep. c 3. jesuitae manicheismi insimu●nt qui cuor sanctli illis viris loquuntur quast cum mamcheis sentirent qui liberum arbitrium ad bonil supernaturals amissun conteeduat. Riu. 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. Calumny & Blasphemia est gratiam veram liberum nostr●● arbitrium ad omnemalu●n proclive corrigentem, arguere Manichaeis●●i omne libe 'em arbi●rium tollent●●. Zion Col. visited p 25. Answ.  and Wall●●● for patrons of freewill also.  
Your accusation that we confute Pelagianism: by pure Manicheisme, as a worn calumny. '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 Jesuits cast the same reproach upon the Protestants, and the Arminians upon the learned assertors of grace against freewill, which John Goodwin doth here upon the Ministers. The Jesuits faith Rivet charge those with Manicheisme, who speak, as the fathers (those holy men) spoke. And they suggest that they who contend, that freewill is lost as to good supernatural, do agree with the Manichces, And the learned Wallaus tells Corvinus the Arminian that its an old reproach; I shall add, that this abominable calumny against the faithful servants of Christ, either proceeds from unparallelled impudence, 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 evil, of Mavicheisme, taking away all our freewill, If God have not given you over to a spirit of error, 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 freedom of will in respect of good or evil, but whether men notwithstwnding their freedom 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 pitiful, not to say palpable; for the great question between Hierom, Austin, and Pelagius, was not whether the will did stand in need of the adjutory of grace, for the performance of good; but what kind of adjutory it was, 
Liberum arbitrium habere 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 always in all good things assisted with the help of God. Aug. count. Pelag. & Caelest. lib. 1, cap. 31.  
We so confess free will, as that we say we always 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 always 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 arbitrium? quâ grariâ con, Pelag, & celest, 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 freewill is helped, and with what grace. And because Pelagius would not acknowledge the adjutory of grace, by way of an invincible, and indeclinable working of good in us, Austin truly tells Pelagius, that he attributes no more to Gods working, notwithstanding all his assertions, that grace is an adintory to good, than he will allow to Satan, in exciting men to evil by his sinful suggestions. And the same father saith, that there is a twofold adjutory to good, the one without which a good work is not 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 add. jutorium sine qu● aliqu●d non 〈◊〉, & altud est adjut●rium quo aliquid fit. Cor. & gra. cap. 1●. Zion 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 father's adint●rium into their own compulsorium, for me I never denied, but always have asserted the necessity of grace, by way of adjutory, 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 yourself. A word or two to each.  
1. For your accusation brought against the subscribers of exchanging (as you word it) the father's 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 brass silvered over, 'Twas a mistake of permutare for mut●re, and I should advise you to study that easy work, where you shall find Nil permumbis Emesve, before you adventure again upon the Fathers, had another taken you in this gross nonsense, he would have sent you to the Children, but I spare you.  
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 freedom 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 freedom of will in man, than they will reason in man, Which of the Ministers ever held, that the motions of man in any actions, either natural, moral, or supernatural were either from natural necessiity, or external coaction? Or that all men good, and bad, hoc ipso that they will, do not will freely? the will would cease to be itself, should it cease to be free.  
To whatsoever object it is carried. it is not without the preceding counsel of the practical judgement; The will being a rational appetite, never moveth but per modum judicij, upon apprehension of some goodness to which it moves; 
Necesse est ut cum volumus libcro veli●us arbitrio Arg. de Civ. Dei l. 5. c. 10. Liberum arbitrium usque ade● in peccatore●on perijt, ut per illud peccet, maxim omnes qui cum delectatio● ne peccant, ●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 freewill he sins, especially th●se that sin, with delight, as saith Augustine and the more sinful 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 freedom 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 natural freewill, unless renewed is able to will a supernatural good, is another thing. That the spirit of grace doth not take away the liberty of the will, which cometh by God's creation is certain: and that it doth and must take away the pravity of the will which ariseth from man's 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 entreated, For suasio moralis (poor moral persuasion) cannot reach it.  
Nor dare the subscribers maintain such a freedom of will, as that, putting all the operations of grace that may be put, or need to be put into the balance, a man's natural freewill, 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 man's 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 persuading, and helping, but man obeying and consenting.  
Certainly in this respect, as freewill hath no ability to move a man to be converted, so neither when God affords his effectual 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 Mr Bucer, God doth by his spirit so demonstrate life to the minds of men, that they cannot but yield themselves to God with willingness; 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 adjutory 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 natural 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 father's Augustine, Hierom, Prosper, Bernard, etc. were for a compulsory 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.  

a 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, destroys the liberty of the will, exceeds a blasphemer: and is the most poisonous of all bereticks, Hierom.  

b 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.  Man's infirmity 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.  

c 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 hardness of the heart may be first taken away. Id.  

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

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

f Ex nolen●bus ●fficit volentes. count. a. ep. Pel l 1. c. 9  Of unwilling he maketh willing. Id.  

g 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.  

h Certum est nos velle cum volumes, sed ille facit u● velimus etc. praebendo vires ●fficacissimas voluntati. de G●a, & l. c. 16.  It's certain that when we are willing we areso, but God it is that makes us willing, etc. by affording most effectual strength to our wills, etc. Id.  

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

k 
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 endless to cite all that pertinently might be taken to this purpose, out of him, as also Prosper and Bernard, the former whereof tells us that grace cannot by any causes whatsoever be suspended, or be made uncertain. That it changeth the mind. That it fashions us anew by a power of creation.  
I should gladly be informed what the Ministers hold tending more toward a compulsory than these fathers here, 
Immittendo honam cogitatiunem nos praevenit, immutando etiam m●●●m voluntatem sibi per consensum ju●git, Betn, Tra●● de Grat. & lib. Arb. Zion 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 yourself in these words, for me I never denied, but always have asserted the necessity of grace by way of adjutory.  
Pelagius (as hath been showed you) said so too, and with much more seeming fervency then, and (for aught I know) with as much integrity as yourself, 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, ossensionemque declinans. Au●, count. Pel. & Caelest, l, 1. c. 37  I expect a more clear and distinct expression of yourself, then barely to say, I acknowledge that grace is an auxiliary, or adjutory, what kind of adjutory 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 burden, yield 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 entreaty that the will would move, Or, Physica, that is properly, really and efficaciously operative upon it. and if you grant the latter, express whether grace be an adjutory 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 adjutory to the will, so that it hath no power to render the motions of grace in effectual to itself, 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 looked upon as such respectu eventus, in regard of what doth fall out, and de facto doth come to pass, or whether the certain determination of the will by grace, proceedeth from the powerful nature of that grace of God which as Austin saith, no hard heart is able to refuse: until I clearly understand your mind in these particulars, the pretending of the adjutory of grace in the general, 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 subject (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 wound sentence, consisting of above ten lines, which is a complication of falsities, reproaches, and nonsense: If I can discern any thing through a fog of words, 
Zion Col. visited p. 25, Answ.  it hath something like these particulars.  
It is the calamity of these times to judge truth, and error, commensurable with the votes of the Ministers.  
The calamity of the times is, in that we do not judge truth and error commensurable with the vote of the Scripture, Such sectaries as yourself have thrown away that measure, that so you might trade in your warehouse with the greater advantage, and instead thereof you make use of a false measure, your own imagination, My soul pities your cheated chapmen! But how is it you will not have truth, and error commensurable with the vote of the Ministers? If M. goodwin's vote be not the standing measure of truth, and error, for his followers, what is? I am sure (according to his principles) the written word cannot be it; 
Zion 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 Enthusiasm, I shall expect but a faint prosecution of your engagement against quaerisme (as you call it) or seeking which (you say) you are now opposing in your public Ministry) And I believe that you are doing so, as truly as you are opposing Antiscripturisme, and Manicheisme, the former whereof you patronise, and the latter you understand not, as I have proved.  
They have engrossed the honour and reputation of being Orthodox unto themselves. 
Zion 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 than Reputation, and 'tis better to be then to be accounted Orthodox: And as for honour, that will fly from you, as long as you fly from honesty, Entreat God to give you the heart of an Orthodox Minister, and 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, 
Zion Col. visited p. ●5.  still) square their votes concerning truth ' and error 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 aught 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 confess 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 preceding page) that you would fain have been beholding to them; And could you then have persuaded 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 marvel 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' 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, Custom without truth is but the antiquity of error.  
Your next passage breathes a malice rankly savouring of atheism, Your book goeth out like a snuff, and now fumeth with nothing but reproaches against the government of Christ, Profanation of Scripture, and elevation of yourself.  
The Ministers of the Province of London, 
Zion 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 success unto which they can with any colour of truth, entitle this government, is but the success of gardiner's shears, 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 filled the Ministers of London, Ans. with information, but there's one that I fear hath filled 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, than any reformed Church: 
Qui●●●● in cathedrâ ●●gebit ingebe●n●.  I know not why you mention it, unless 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, unless you will evade my argument by saying that Independent Churches were not then form, or if they were form, were not reform, so well as the praelaticall but so as you may scratch Presbytery, you care not though you wound yourself.  
2. Why tell you not the reader that the power of religion decayed in the days 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. It's better with Religion when people are suffered to do no more than 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 bless God for what I have seen in Exgland; and I magnify 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 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 than ours, And its likely on the other side that for practicals, many of ours at home might excel 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 weakness of it, and to resolve that weakness into its proper cause, I mean, a toleration of all ungodliness 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 goodness in the pralaticall government, or did God only make it an occasion to drive his people closer to himself by their persecutions and unquietness in outward respects, and haply by sinful impositions; If the latter be true, that prelacy only were such an accidental occasion of the power of religion, you might as well for aught I know have commended the greatest enemies of the Church, and have commended the fitness of Potiphars house for Joseph: but why do you compare prelacy to a governmnt that God hath blessed, even when it hath been (in a manner) under persecution, and savoured only of Ecclesiastical mildness, not meddling 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 goodness 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 success of the Presbyterial government, is to snipp off forward branches; I told you even now who the traveller was that filled 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 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 looked 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 shears of Presbytery snipp off? Are they fruitful branches, or are they not rather suckers, who draw away that nourishment from others which might make them fruitful and convert it into thriving in heresies, in Atheism, and unholy opinions. If so, I see no reason but the throwing away the shears would be the overthrowing of the plant. 
Zion Col. visit. p. 6. Ans.   
An evil eye upon the Parliament is no dissenting character of the Genius of the Ministers of London  
Me thinks these words are hardly sense, but I have taken you tripping so often that I shall not now be rigid. Your meaning is, The London. Ministers have an evil 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 evil 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 profanations of Scripture, 
Zion. Col visit. p. 26.  and some four or five nauseous commendations of the Author and book.  
For the former you say that the reason why your pen moved against its accusers rather than 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 loath that the stones and tiles should take this honour from you.  
There's not an error transcribed out of your books, but tends to the high dishonour of Christ, the denial 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 profane and erroneous.  
I bear my charge upon my shoulder, with more than patience, 
Zion Col. visit. p 26.  even with joy.  
I admire more the patience of God in forbearing to punish you, Ans. than 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 thiefs had not suffered death, 
Zion 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 yourself and Christ, 
Anws.  savours not of blasphemous arrogancy; A parallel between your fellow-heretickes who have robbed God of his glory, and thiefs would have held good; had it been between yourself and them, it would have been better: but could you make it between yourself and the penitent thief, it would be best of all. I wish that what you writ 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 errors. ⁂   
FINIS.