IF you are indeed a Member of the Parliament of England, and not rather a malicious Je­suite, slily endeavouring the increase of our divisions (which I see cause to suspect,) Give me leave, as a free-born English-man, to declare my thoughts concerning your Boook, intituled, The Clergie in their Colours.

Which you begin with a profession of your dislike of shel­tring your self under any mans wings: and no wonder; for whose Patronage need you desire, who call your self a Patriot of your Country? I have as little propensity thereto as your self; and yet I might justly be thought immodest and un­charitable too, if I should impute all Dedication of Works to distrust of Workmanship, which you there insinuate. The greatness of a mans confidence adds nothing (in facto) to the goodness of his actions: No doubt but you may see Epistles Dedicatory prefixed to many excellent Monuments of Learn­ing and piety: Though the Art need no Patron, yet the Ar­tist may: as for example, You being a Member of Parliament, for so (that I may not speak to no body) I must suppose you to be, your very name is sufficient to commend to the world that which you have written: But should such an obscure person as I am, set forth endeavours no less deserving, yet could I not expect a like acceptation.

In the same Page you tell us that you decline the courting your Reader with a flattering Epistle for his approbation, it be­ing irrational and ridiculous, &c. You do well in declining flattery: but Epistles to the Reader are for many works ne­cessary; and, as ridiculous as you suppose them to your pre­sent purpose, you have no less in effect in this very Apology; for what is it other then a Preparative to your ensuing Dis­course? and an excuse for not Epistolizing, is the very sub­stance of many Epistles. So your second Section, I am per­swaded that many will look wishly upon me for this work, &c. And your third, 'Tis probable that many will think me pragmatical, &c. have not indeed the form, but contain the matter of E­pistles. Which I take not notice of as any great eye-sore in it self, but as from you, who criticize most severely of any man whose writings are at this time in my memory.

In that last mentioned Sect, you speak of a kinde of Learn­ing Idolized in England, by which you mean skill in the holy Languages, as is afterwards intimated, p. 3. l. 13. And how I pray you is that Idolized with us? An Idol properly is either that which men worship for a God, against the first precept of the Decalogue, or which they superstitiously use in the worship of God against the second: And of these the Apostle saith, An Idol is nothing in the world, 1 Cor. 8.4. alluding (as I suppose) to [...] inanitates, 1 Sam. 12.21. there translated [...], as also, Isa. 41.29. in regard they frustrate the expe­ctation of their confiders; there being no such divine power present with the Idol, as against the first Commandment is supposed, no any such acceptation of their exhibition in the service of the true God, as is imagined by the violaters of the second. Now can you call the gift of tongues lying vanities, which the Apostles reckons among the gifts of the Spirit? 1 Cor. 12.10. which whether inspired by the holy Ghost im­mediatly, or acquired by Gods blessing on mens industry, have the same use in order to their end, viz. the making known the minde of God: and how that should be made known so far as (blessed be God) we understand it, without the holy Scri­ptures, [Page 3]or they to us English-men, without the use of tongues, do but tell me, and take my Buckler. Or if you would have on­ly their continuance superfluous (the Scripture being already in our Vulgar Language) you will either discover your igno­rance of their multifarious use in Exposition, or foul ingrati­tude for the benefit you have received from them. Or if you mean Idolatry, improperly spoken (for your word Idolize im­plies action, and so a culpability rather in the subject then the object) you then complain of their abuse only, and so you may as well complain of the best things that are; for what is so good as may not be abused? And you might with as little absurdity have prohibited us the quotation of holy Scriptures in defence of true Religion, because reprobates wrest them to their own destruction.

And now give me leave to expostulate with you a little in the words of the Apostle, Rom. 2.22. Thou that abhorrest Idols, doest not thou commit sacriledge? The calling of the Ministry you plainly despise, and if the persons in especial manner dedicated to God, do not escape you, it is not to be hoped that you will ac­knowledge any, so much as relative holiness in Places and Things: And if that be your judgement, I beseech you tell me, how there can be any sacriledge, or how that sin which Paul there argues to be so bad as Idolatry, can at all be committed? But this by the way.

In the third Page (for you Sections are not distinguisht by figures) you assert, that It hath pleased God in all ages to con­found the wise and mighty, by poor and despicable instruments in the eyes of the world. And you call our Saviour Christ, his Apostles and Martyrs to witness what no good Christian will deny. But what is this to your purpose? Will it hence follow that Learn­ing is useless in the Church of God? Because God sometimes works without means, must he never work with them? It was well foreseen of you therefore, while you made an exception in your instance, saying some of the Prophets, and many Apostles; but why you should put our Saviour Christ into your illiterate catalogue, I know not; unless that when it shall be proved im­pertinent to the main question, in this particular, you may li­mit it to your immediatly-foregoing assertion, to which you have (it may be for that cause) sophistically annexed it. And as [Page 4]for all those you speak of, recorded by M ^r Fox in his Acts and Monuments, although they were children in Learning, yet they stood on mens shoulders, and might therefore see further then a Popish Polyphemus: For I hope you cannot deny God made use of many famous lights of Learning for illumination of the unlearned people of that time, some of which went to heaven in fiery Charets with them. Christ called indeed unlearned men, but he taught them what was necessary to their Apostle­ship while they preached only to the Jews, and that within the limits of their own Country, where the Hebrew tongue was well enough understood, as appears, Acts 21.40. although they used the Syrian Dialect: But after our Saviour his Ascen­tion, when they were to teach all Nations, the gift of Tongues as thereto requisite, was conferred upon them. And as Manna ceased when the children of Israel came into the Land of Cana­an; so extraordinary gifts ceased, when God had by ordinary provided for the propagation of Religion. So that to inhibit the use of learning in our Preachers of the Gospel, were as irra­tional, as to have forbidden the Israelites eating the fruits of Canaan, because they had Manna in the Wilderness.

Presently after, you make an odious parallel with Romish Wolves and Presbyterian Pastors, affirming that as they, so these hold it dangerous for such people to breath, by whom their pomp and gallantry is like to fall. Now Sir, I require you to prove this bloudy accusation, and to make it appear that the Grandees of the Presbyterian faction (as you call them) bare such mor­tall hatred against any people in England, for Religions sake, as the Popish Priests in Q. Maries daies had against all people of reformed Religion, or else I shall hold you guilty of a mali­cious untruth for so speaking. And yet as if this were a small matter to make them homicides, you would make them mur­derers of souls too, by affirming, that As the Popish Clergie de­bard the common people from reading the Scriptures; so these had rather people spent their time in reading of tales, or following their worldly affairs, but when they are hearing them speaking contra­dictions, &c. Now I am sure that I am compassed about with clouds of witnesses, who will testifie with me, that we never found cause of such suspition: but the Ministers of the Gospel do alwaies exhort to reading and meditation of the Word of [Page 5]God: or if any such had been, we have not wanted time and means enough to displace them since the beginning of this Par­liament. Yet still your charge runs generally against the Clergy, as if quatenus Clergy they were the greatest enemies to the Church of God. And yet if you were not over-biassed with prejudice you would confess with me that the same men you inveigh against have been the instruments of what good God hath wrought in your soul, either by their word or writings. Good Sir, do but examine, when did you first come out of na­ture, and by what means? and do not with Themistocles his Hart, crop that bush in a calm that sheltred you in a storm. Or if it be not true by your self, yet sure it is that multitudes of gracious souls will acknowledge men of that calling for their ghostly Fathers. And what greater seal of an Apostleship can be desired then what the Apostle speaks of, 1 Cor. 9.2. in these words, If I am not an Apostle to others, doubtless I am one to you, for the seal of my Apostleship are ye in the Lord. As therefore that Potentate said of his government, Call it what you will, but by it I keep the people in good order: So may I say of the calling of the Ministers amongst us, Call it you what you please, I am sure the word in their mouth, is, by the grace of God accompa­nying it, made the power of God unto salvation. This is it that excited me, otherwise studious of obscurity, to make my self (I know not yet how) publique spectacle, and Aegles-like, to force nature upon the sight of injurious dealing: for I am nei­ther Parson, Vicar nor Curate, and might notwithstanding any private interest have been silent: but the Cause is Gods, on whom I depend, and may therefore say with the Lepers, 2 King. 7.9. I do not well to hold my peace. And indeed should the redeemed of the Lord, that have had the knowledge and love of God wrought in them by our publique Ministry be silent, when such indignities are cast upon it, it were enough to make, as our Saviour saith in the Gospel, the stones to cry, that I may not say, to cry out against them, and to condemn their ingra­titude.

In page 4. you carp at the distinction of Clergie and Laity, but for what reason we may go look: though things in them­selves be distinct by nature, yet they cannot in discourse be di­stinguished without several names; whereof your own practice [Page 6]gives experience in the title of your Book, viz. The Clergie in their Colours; which if you say was done for distinctions sake, that we might know of whom you speak, as p. 45. grant us the same liberty, and we ask no more. It's a question whether you know how the first of your family came by his name, and yet you will think it cannot with justice be taken from you: But the Clergy have besides Antiquity, Etymologie for their name; being so called from [...], a Lot, because they are instead of the Levites, the Lot of Gods and God of their Inheritance, in especial manner; for in a larger sense it is applied to all the faithfull, 1 Pet. 5.3. and so are the Saints called Priests too, al­though not by their particular but general calling of Christia­nity: and so all the Lords people might without offence be cal­led holy; but yet when these same words were usurped by Ko­rah in opposition to the holiness of the Priests Office, God pu­nished that schism of his with a stranger schism of the earth that swallowed him up. Nor is the word therefore less perti­nent, because Clergy-men are not now chosen by a sortilegium, as was Matthias; for Apostles were a distinct degree of Mini­sters, and to be chosen by God himself. But however, we are not so much in usuall words to regard a quo, as ad quid; and in every Art we must keep the same terms it hath been exprest in aforetime, or else we can neither understand, nor be under­stood. My lot is faln to me in a fair ground, saith David. Psal. 16. alluding to the manner of dividing the land of Canaan to the twelve Tribes; and by like Analogie is Cyrus cal'd Gods anointed, and yet we do not suppose the Persians to have had any such ceremony as anointing in their Kings Inauguration. And as for the other member of the distinction (Laity) he that knoweth no more of the primitive Church then the beginning and end of their Liturgy, may there see [...] and [...], which in neither place can be synthetically taken; for the Mi­nister did not keep silence, but the people, nor was he both the dismisser and the dismissed. But howsoever you quarrel with the name, it is the thing that troubles you, the very Office it self. It was once threatned for a judgement, that there should be like people like Priest, Hos. 4.9. But you are not satisfied with likeness, but must have them the very same. From which errour if neither the fearfull punishment of Kora, Dathan and Abiram [Page 7]in the wilderness, of Ʋzza before the Temple built, of Ʋzzia in the Temple, deter you; nor the practice of the Apostle in ordaining Ministers, and making their Office antitype to the Priest's Office in the Law, [...] Cor. 9.13, 14. and 1 Tim. 5.17, 18. neither the practice of the Church of God in all ages, nor the Churches being upheld to this day by that Ministry, convince you, I know not to what purpose I should insist longer on this particular, nor can I conceive to what end you reade the Scri­pture. We expected a Reformation according to the Word of God, and the example of the Primitive Church: but let it ap­pear that either of them will allow of your opinion, and I will with humility and sincerity of heart go to Pauls Cross (if such a place there be in London) and there sing a Palinodie for this my errour.

In the same Page you charge them with contradictions and strange divinity, such as they have taken upon trust from Antient and Modern Writers, &c. Claudius accusat maechos: for how can that be strange Divinity, which your self confess to be found in Antient and Modern Writers? But examine what Authours you will, you shall be found in this opinion a stranger to them all. You need not therefore fear (what you seem to doubt of, p. 9.) that your respondent would bumbast his discourse with al­legations out of divers Authors, seeing all that you expect may be dispatcht in one syllable, which is, ALL. But how any man can without brasen impudence oppose his private conceptions to the unanimously received verdicts of all Churches in all ages, comes not within the verge of my apprehension. Then follows, Of which their Studies are full, and without which they dare not appear the next Sunday in the Pulpit. Some Studies are indeed well replenisht, and if all were so it would be so much the bet­ter: but a charitable Christian would from hence gather that such men spend as well as are spent in the duties of their calling, and how much more is expended in this kinde so much the more doth it argue their conversation to be without covetous­ness. But they dare not, &c. How know you that? What then makes them so ready in divine discourses on all occasions? But you have a clear proof of it. And what's that? If they be from home and are spoken to to preach, you must excuse them, &c. Which argues not dependance of a Library in any candid judgement, [Page 8]but rather desire of sufficient premeditation, that they may not do the work of the Lord negligently. Is it not their set duty to labour in the Word and Doctrine? Dabitur in hora was an ex­traordinary gift for extraordinary times: What, no more but up and preach? I had thought praier before study, considera­tion of the state of the people to hear, a subject selected for that purpose, method most making for edification, with appli­cation of the doctrine excogitated to the Preachers self first, &c. had been requisite; all which in a strange place cannot sudden­ly be well effected. Then follows immediatly, And yet for all this they as confidently obtrude themselves upon the people to tell, &c. as those that have the immediat assistance of the holy Ghost, &c. What did they excuse themselves for not preaching, and yet for all that obtrude their Sermons to the people? How can both be true? unless you mean at some other time, for you do not say so. And who they are that have immediate assistance, in that sense you deliver it, I know not: but sure I am there be some Preachers who compose their Sermons without any other present help of Books then the holy Scriptures; who yet will acknowledge themselves to be but as Mushrums in compa­rison with many Cedars for ability, against whom you belch out that scandalous accusation.

In the fifth Page you seem to travell with discoveries which people were not yet able to bear: of whom you have never­theless a tender respect in regard God is good to his Saints under a variety of dispensation, and they sweetly enjoy him. And why will you not give the people of God leave to enjoy his presence under what dispensation God hath placed them? Why do you call them a poor deluded people, if you acknowledge their enjoyment of God in their present condition? And if it were possible for them to relinquish their station, whither would you carry them, what can you promise them, and what security will you give them for performance if you promise any thing? Strange it is to me that you should acknowledge the the blessed condition of the people, and yet cry down the Mi­nisters under the same dispensation; How short herein do you come of Joseph Salmon himself? He professeth himself above forms, and yet to such as are under that dispensation doth not disallow them: you acknowledge Ordinances, and endeavour [Page 9]their destruction; for what is it less to grant a publique wor­ship without the Ministry, then as that merciless deceiver D. D' Alva did, who promised life to his prisoners, but would allow them nothing wherewith to preserve it? Should all they whom you call Clergie be excluded, how many miles might a man travell to hear a Sermon? Truly Sir, your writing disco­vers you to be a man subject to like passion with other men, and having begun to speak, I should but flatter you in concealing it. You tell us indeed but in the sixth Page, that you take no pleasure to cast dirt in mens faces, and promise much tenderness, love and meekness: but how well you perform it, let the next Page witness; where taking occasion to blame M ^r Cheynell for foul-mouth'd language, as Diogenes trampled on Plato's Pallat with greater pride then ever was used in it; so you do the same by him which you reprehend in him. What else mean these words, Sign in Aries and Cockoe moneth? Was the man so cra­fie that he might not be answered, and yet might he be flouted? Give me rather (if I must have one) a railing Rabshakeh, then a scoffing Michol: Virulencie of speech many times whets the spirits of Gods people, and makes their zeal more fervent: but scoffing hath commonly, as it were, an inchanting power of be­numming the affections, as experience teacheth us. And there­fore not unlikely it is that the Apostle, Heb. 11.36. ranks mock­ing with scourging; and if we compare, Gen. 21.9. with Gal. 4.29. we shall finde mocking called persecution. You spake but a little before of your being carried out by the spirit of the Lord: and now I pray you Sir, consider whether these words be congruous to the spirit of God or no; yea (whatsoever you may think of them) to common sense: for what means The sign in Aries? I had thought Aries had been a Sign, what was the sign in the sign? Truly Sir, if you did it ignorantly, you were more bold then wise: if wilfully, I know no ground for your confidence, unless as the Pope said he would pronounce Cathe­dra, in contemptum Grammaticorum, so you calling your self a Parliament man, think you may speak non-sense by authority. [...]. O Thales, Thales, quoth an old Wife, how thinkest thou to comprehend the things in heaven, and canst not see what is before thy feet? when he going a Star-gazing fell into a pit: [Page 10]So how do you think to perswade us that you are wiser then all the Learned of past and present ages, while we finde you stum­bling in the very A.B.C. of an Almanack? Or if your wisdom be only spiritual and not carnal, why do you thus miscere sacra profanis, and having begun in the spirit, proceed in the flesh? What cause you have to accuse M ^r Cheynel of madness, I know not, for I never heard of the man but by your relation: but never (till now) did I know any man well in his wits, condemn men for Droans by reason of their industry, as you have done, p. 8. for what less then industry doth reading and writing of vo­luminous discourses signifie.

Then with a Sarcasticall reproach you assault the Assembly of Divines, as, you say, they are called. What will not a man of a malignant spirit carp at? A Professor of Mathematicks is cal'd a Mathematician, of Logick a Logician, of Rhetorick a Rhe­torician; and why must not a Professor of Divinity be cal'd a Divine? O base envie! for what else can any man say in such an exception? And what in your Ironical accusation do you finde culpable in them? but that In seven or eight years time, with the help of the Kirk of Scotland, they bring forth only a Ca­techism, and Annotations on the Bible: whom yet Telephus like you heal as it were with the rust of the same weapon; for anon, p. 29. you charge them with being able to do nothing without leave from the Parliament. Now whether the Egyptians dealt worse with the Israelites in giving them no straw and com­manding them to make brick, or you with that Assembly, in binding their hands, and complaining of their idleness, let the world judge. If I had heard of nothing done by them, yet they deserve too reverent opinion of me to be thought idle: and I have heard their Annotations commended by some, who pro­bably, can judge as well as you; and would therefore think it extream impudence in any man to affirm with you, If none be the worse for it, few are the better. And when we look for a rea­son hereof in the next words, there is nothing but Experto crede Roberto: Which when I first saw, I turned back to the Title page to see if your name were Robert, that so I might have an asseveration of at least one mans experience; but it might be Robin Hood for any thing thence to be collected, for him you have up too p. 4. I marvel with what face you charge Preachers [Page 11]with bold obtrusion of their doctrine, and your self so magiste­rially require our assent to your calumnies on no better account then Experto crede Roberto.

As for your following complaint of their wary handling or un­profitable prolixity in explaining Scriptures: I have no more to say to it, but that if some be less able, they be the more wise in being wary. The Scriptures are as a water in which as a Lamb may wade, so an Elephant may swim: Who is sufficient for these things? saith the blessed Apostle, of the Ministeriall Office, 2 Cor. 2.16. But (thanks be to God for them) we have many that handle not the Word of God deceitfully, but shew them­selves Workmen that need not be ashamed: the undervaluing of whose labours, considering what good God hath wrought by them, may give us just cause to fear, that he will in justice de­prive us of them.

In p. 10. you say that for some years past, you have entred into a serious consideration of your later end, &c. And so no doubt have many others, and the further they have proceeded in that meditation, the more heartily they have embraced the Mini­sters of the Gospel. But on search of the Scriptures you finde con­tradictions, absurdities and inconsequencies, &c. You might have done well in shewing us what doctrines held forth by our Mini­sters were repugnant to the Word of God; which you have not done here, nor in the remainder of your discourse; as I might make appear now, but for inverting the order begun. But how comes it to pass that the further you seek the more you are intangled, while the more we search, the more we are con­firmed? But, as a wise man of this Nation said concerning Phi­losophy, A little might make a man an Atheist, a great deal might make him a Divine: so in matters of this nature, men of the shallowest apprehensions are the greatest gain-sayers: For among many such complainers of contradictions I have not yet found one, who in its Logicall propriety, could tell what a con­tradiction was. I cannot say that ever I heard false doctrine in a publique Sermon in my life time, and yet (I am bound to thank God for it) I have of a childe been instructed in the ru­diments of Religion; these hear it in every Sermon; and yet when I come to reasoning with them, they and I are in the points controverted altogether of the same opinion. But as Icte­ricorum [Page 12]oculis omnia flava, so they having a spirit of contradicti­on in them, may imagine all that they reade or hear to be full of contradiction. ‘Omnia perversas possunt corrumpere mentes.’ As Harpaste complained of the darkness of the house when her eye-sight fail'd her: Or as too indulgent parents complain of the Schoolmasters negligence, when their own fostering their children in untowardness is the cause of their non-proficience: so do these men father upon the publique Ordinances the spu­rious brats of their own inventions. Who but these complain of pudling the waters of the Sanctuary by confused preaching, and talk of new lights, and strange revelation? who had they but an impartiall eie to their own condition, would rather com­plain of the darkness of their own understanding.

In p. 12. you tell us how hardly people could be drawn from the good opinion they have of their Teachers, and the Teach­ers themselves Pope-like will not submit for many inconvenien­cies. To what, I pray you, should they submit? for you do not tell us what? Should the Moon stay her course because a Wolf barks at her? Or the builders of Jerusalem desist from their labour, because Sanballat and Tobia mock at their pro­ceeding? Doth Christ teach us to pray the Lord of the harvest to send forth more labourers into his harvest, and must they that are entred withdraw themselves upon your malevolent perswasion? Must the Vineyard of the Lord of Hosts be left like the field of Solomons sluggard? What, be there no souls still to be cal'd home by the preaching of the word, none to be confirmed, none to be comforted? O Sir, whatever you boast of your own experience, had you ever been truly sensible of a naturall condition, felt the dolorous throws of a new birth, and apprehended the soul-ravishing comfort of Gods Spirit speak­ing true peace to your conscience, which by this despised preaching is daily wrought in the hearts of Gods chosen, you would say with them, How beautifull are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things? and with the beleeving Galatians be ready to pull out your eies for them, whose eies you would rather have pulled out. Witness your envying their Profit and Credit, while you af­firm them to have no right to either. Nor is it a Tithe matter [Page 13]you talk of (though that but for covetousness sake need not have been questioned) but p. 13. you allow them not the be­nevolence of the people and so would at once rob them of their respect and maintenance, and the people also of that li­berality that might redound to their account in the day of the Lord. But why have they no right to either? As for their Cre­dit, the Apostle saith, They that labour in the word and doctrine are to be accounted worthy of double honour: It's worthy our ob­servation that Honour is here subjected in the people, as being their duty to give it, Are to be accounted; for Honor est in hone­rante non in honorato, so that if it be the peoples duty to give it, here is honour compleat, 1 Tim. 5.17. It will be long ere you envy their pains if you hold in this minde; who might there­fore answer you, as Marius is by Salust in his Jugurthine war, brought in speaking to the people of Rome; Invident honori meo, ergo invideant labori, innocentiae, periculis etiam meis, quoniam per haec illam cepi. And for their maintenance they have such evidence as no man can shew for any other inheritance; mens laws may alter, and Proprieties be Impropriated, but God's more sure then that of the Medes and Persians altereth not. [...], saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9.14. The Lord hath ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel: And from the sixth verse of that Chapter to the fourteenth he argueth to the same purpose. And the Spirit of God foreseeing what shifts men were like to invent, whereby to debar Mini­sters from their due, and themselves from their duty, adds an especial caveat to that precept, Gal. 6.6. as worthy M ^r Dyke (quem honoris causa nomino) in his eximious Tractate of the hearts deceitfulness hath observed, Cap. 17. p. 234. for having said in the sixth verse, Let him that is taught in the word make him that taught him partaker of all his goods, to prevent such witty excuses as might hinder the sincerity of performance of that duty, he adds in the seventh verse, Be not deceived, God is not mocked.— Besides, it were unreasonable, 1. That they who are imployed for us should not be maintained by us, The labourer is worthy of his hire. It was spoken by our Lord to them who took no more pains for preaching but to travel and speak, and not to study as these do. 2. That so much expence as is requisit to fit men for the Ministry should have no recompence. [Page 14]A man that hath served an Apprenticeship seven years hath a Calling to live on, but he that hath spent three times seven in Study, shall by your allowance have no reward for all his ex­pence of monies, time, or labour: which how it can stand with that royall Law and consent of all civilized people, To do as we would be done by, let any reasonable man judge. Perhaps you will say they are not the men, or they have some other ill quali­fication rendring them incapable of what privilege otherwise were assigned to them. Why? but these are the Dispensers of the Word and Sacraments, these are they that watch over our souls; it is by their Ministry that God convinceth, converteth, confirmeth his people, and to whom else can it be applied? You complain of defects in the execution of their Office; be it gran­ted; yet let them have therewithall the allowance due to all mortall men (from us at least) and they may pass for currant in the balance of a Christian judgement. Very hainous were the sins of Ely's sons, 1 Sam. 2.22, 24. and yet the people are held guilty of sin for abhorring the offering of the Lord. And Christ made great complaint of them who sat in Moses chair in his time, who yet commands the people to hear and obey them, whom yet he convinceth of errours in the doctrine it self, Mat. 23. Is it not strange reasoning, that because a man is not yet near his journies end he should therefore sit down and go no further? and yet what less doth this sound, Because our Mini­sters have not yet attained to so clear knowledge of the minde of God in Scripture, as to hold it forth so distinctly as some of the people do, or at least think they do understand it; let there therefore be no more Study and no more preaching? Why? how then shall we come by more knowledge? you say by searching the Scriptures: one might think then the Eunuch should have had no great need of Philip. 'Tis true indeed (as Luther said) no matter if all our books were burnt, so the holy Scriptures were well learned, and rightly understood: but do you by bare reading, meditation and comparing Scripture with Scripture, without any help of tongues and other Histories, give a satisfactory answer to many questions, to which the Scri­ptures give occasion of enquiry, Et eris mihi magnus Apollo: I will acknowledge you then with Apollos in the Acts to be a man mighty in the Scriptures indeed. Or if this might be supposed [Page 15]by your self, yet we know some men will not, many men cannot, most men do not spend so much time about them: and if your own conscience might speak freely, it would confess, That for the knowledge you have attained to in Divinity, you are, next to God, beholden to the labours of the Clergy.

But p. 13. This would abate the heat of Parsons kitchens, and hinder their families from following fashions, &c. And would it not also abate the heat of charity in giving, and of nature in ma­ny indigent receivers, who from the Parsons most commonly receive most liberall contributions? The Apostle saith, A Bi­shop must be given to hospitality: but you are so far from con­senting to his exercise of hospitality, that you allow not other men to be hospitable to him. And as for fashions, I think no man (but in some causes extraordinary) ought to be singular; the fault is therefore chiefly in the first inventer. But the Cler­gy, the Clergy (for there be but few of them Parsons in com­parison with the rest) they are in all the fault: As the Hea­thens were used to say of the Christians, when any gene­rall calamity befell them, Away with the Christians to the wilde beasts; their motes be beams, their mole-hils moun­tains, their flies be Eagles: and yet all England knows that there is scarce one to ten of your insolent humour, who may not as easily be known from a sober-minded Christian, as a sli­gering Morrice-dancer from an ordinary spectator, by his phan­tastick habit and behaviour.

In the same p. 13. I have heard Papists say, &c. And I have heard Papists upbraiding us with dissention, not for any mans being divided from himself, but some of us from others by con­trariety of opinion: and how well soever you agree with your self, you are not the least fomenter of that division.

What p. 14. you declaim against peoples taking Religion up­on trust, is worthy acknowledgement, and not unfrequently do we hear from this Clergy, which you look so despitefully on, the same doctrine. Many time have I heard them exhort to imitation of the Bereans, and prest that precept of our Sa­viour, Joh. 5.39. Search the Scriptures; that so they might at length tell the Church, as the Samaritans did the woman, Now we beleeve, not because of thy word, &c. that so if a new Religion come in fashion, and the stream of the times turn, they may [Page 16]have bank to hold by, ground of their own to stand on, and not be carried away with every blast of vain doctrine. But if constancy in perillous times, and stability in Religion signifie a sure foundation, whether shall your fickleness or other mens perseverance most commend them to the Church of God? For, you say, you were sometime of the same minde, sick, as you call it, of the same disease; and I wish for your everlasting healths sake you were Sermon-sick in another sense then you are. If your meaning be you were one of them that have no more but an implicit faith, I will yield you sick of a dangerous disease indeed: but if you apply it to the condition of all them you write against, I think you may be answered as the Empe­rour, who having read over the summe of Christian Religion, and saying, [...] was replied unto, [...]. Or rather in the words of S ^t John, You went out from us because you were not of us, if you had b [...]en of us, you would have continued with us.

In p. 15. And therefore men cannot justly be taxed of immode­sty, &c. To tax people of immodesty for bare questioning, will not suit with the fore-mentioned doctrine: It is the duty of Ministers to endeavour their doubting peoples resolution: to many of whom I may apply for their commendation, what of Sempronia is recorded to her infamy, Ʋt saepius peteret viros quam peteret. For I know them publiquely to incourage, and privately to invite men to this duty: and yet I must tell you that it's oftentimes seen that where duty may leade a man to make question, there may be immodesty used in manner of propounding and maintaining. Men that have not learned to deny themselves, may pertinaciously persist in an erroneous opi­nion, to which self-love hath so married that nothing but death can separate them: Men many times defend their opinions as they do their Countries, not because true, but because their own. And I am perswaded that not only many a bastard-Chri­stian, but some even of the truly regenerated, are of such pee­vish and cross-grained disposition, that an Angel from heaven could scarce give them satisfaction.

What clue was woond up in your discourse, p. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. is by your self unravel'd again p. 21. for by producing some texts of Scripture sounding free-grace, and some free-will, you [Page 17]endeavour to evince, what before you have asserted concerning contradictions in Religion, as our Pulpit-men exhibit it. But in p. 21. you confess Can and Cannot in a divers respect may con­sist well enough, as 2 Cor. 3.5. Not that we are sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves, but all our sufficiency is of God. [...]. For God doth not nolentes vi trahere, and draw men to heaven as Cacus drew beasts into his den, backward, but by a [...] makes them willing: and God by his word com­manding what we must do, gives us power to do what he com­mandeth. But if you say, this is not sufficiently distinguisht in teaching, I answer that you do not consider how the same sub­ject should be differently handled by a Rhetorician and a bare Logician: If Preachers should use in their publique Sermons nothing but definitions and divisions, what impress were they like to make on the peoples affections? And yet in regard to peoples infirmity, I could wish that Gospel-truths were by some men, at some times held out more distinctly then they are. But he that is acquainted with the body of Divinity need not alwaies be poring on a Skeleton, but using an ingenuous can­dor in hearing, he can discern the joints and nerves of distincti­ons and Aporisms thereto belonging, under the flesh and out­most ornaments of amplification.

And what is said to this may likewise be applied to p. 22. where you would seem to make contradictory things in them­selves subordinate; viz. Gods election, and mans accepting the means of salvation; for God hath ordained to the end by the means. So also concerning the perseverance of the faithfull and their seeming possibility of falling (for I may not be allowed here to state the questions, it is done largely enough already by others.) In all which allegations you translate the preten­ded crime from the Ministers to the Scriptures; for whatsoever oppositions you gather out of their Sermons are either the same totidem verbis, or at most but a Paraphrase on the holy Scri­ptures.

To your rule p. 23. I give my approbation, and the rather, not because new, but for that it's common: Bonum quo communi­us, eo melius. For as without use of the common elements no man can continue is his being; so neither without this rule [Page 18]did any man ever reade the Scriptures with understanding. It is much therefore that you should deigne to insert it in this your supercilious insultation. I have known many self-conceit­ed Scioli indeed who thought they told news when they did but carry herbs to Ephrata; (as the Jewish Proverb hath it) And although it be very little that I know in comparison to what I ought, yet I have scarce had patience enough sometimes in hearing such punies documentizing me in obvious things; which because new to them, they thought had been so to me, although I had known them from my childehood as familiarly as mine own name. But because we erre not so much by igno­rance as incogitancy, I will suppose that you have given us this instruction for the help of our memory rather then of our un­derstanding; but on this condition, that you will from hence take occasion of considering, what necessary use we have of a constant Ministry; for although men know as much or more then the Preacher can tell them, yet have they still great need of hearing. He that is of God (as well in facto, as in fieri) hear­eth Gods Word; which is the means of growing as well as of begetting, 1 Pet. 2.2. And as the body hath still need of nou­rishment, although it be come to its full [...], which it will have supplied by a slovenly Cook, rather then perish with famine: So the soul even of a strong-grown Christian is not kept by the power of God unto salvation otherwise, then by his Ordinances (where they are exhibited) of Sacraments and Preaching. We know in generall Publicorum cura est mi­nor, and if there be not men enough appointed for that sacred imploiment, it is like to be but badly performed. Many an un­regenerate Master hath a gratious servant, many an irreligious parent a pious childe by Gods blessing on the publique Ordi­nances, who had had small means of enlightning otherwise: And since the rains of Government have lien but loosely on the peoples neck, how many Churches stand like deserted Abbies appointed to demolition? We thought much in time of Bi­shops to have had no other afternoons exercise in some places, but Praier and Catechising: but many Parishes have now, nor one nor other: They who can procure means will not, they who would cannot, and so in conclusion, ‘Et succus pecori, & lac subducitur agnis.’ [Page 19]Besides, it is to be considered that although things absolutely necessary to be beleeved are but few, yet there are many things to be done: the greater part by far of the word of God, con­tains direction for a godly conversation. For although Love be the fulfilling of the Law, yet this Charity hath so many ob­jects, and (by reason of corruption from within, and temp­tation from without) so many impediments, that it requires many rules of direction, and of them, because of our many in­firmities, a frequent inculcation. But what need other reasons? we are sure it's Gods command, and therefore must needs be our duty. 'Twas not the inestimableness of the fruit, but the Infiniteness of the Prohibitant, that gave hainousness to the sin of Adam: nor are the Ordinances of God necessary for the efficacie of the outward Action, but in regard to the authority of Divine institution. It pleaseth God by the foolishness of preach­ing to save them that believe, 1 Cor. 1.21. while to others it is said, Behold ye despisers, wonder and perish.

In p. 20. you tell us, that for solution of questions in Religion you have somewhat more to say then ever you heard or read from these men. Now if you have a better key to open the Scriptures with then other men, how dare you be so injurious to the Church of God as to conceal it? seeing, Qui novit, ne (que) id quod sentit exprineit, perinde est ac si nesciret. And if it be one of the things which people cannot yet bear (for such things you speak of, p. 5, 6.) how unjustly do you blame the Clergy for not lay­ing such an unsupportable burden on them? What you know more then others, is to others unknown, but I am sure know­ledge unsanctified is but like a sword in a mad mans hand, and many a mans learning may be to himself but a candle to light him to hell. Multos nasci, & omni scientia egere satius fuisset, quam sic in propriam perniciem insanire.

In p. 24. you tell us of our nearess to the Papists: in expres­sions I suppose you mean, which are most expanse; for other­wise the world knows we are at sufficient distance. But concern­ing this my opinion is, that we have gone farther from the Pa­pists then we need in some things, although not so far as they have gone from the truth in other.

For resolution to your instance, p. 25. [They say that a man hath power to do good works, but we say he hath not.] I answer, [Page 20]that Although it be God that worketh in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure: and every Christian may truly say of his graces, and all operations from them proceeding, as Jacob of his children, They are they which God hath graciously given to his servant; yet THE REGENERATED MAN IS IN A­BLED BY THE GRACE OF GOD ASSISTING HIM, TO DO GOD MORE AND BETTER SERVICE THEN THAT WHICH HE DOTH. Which Proposition well con­sidered may much extricate a minde infetterd with seeming op­positions of this nature: And the same refutes that gross speech of your [ When we are humbled for our sins we do tell God Al­mighty news, that he would have had us walk more holily then we have done, but we had not power so to walk. And what you there speak of faiths being a work, we must understand of the [...] cre­dere, for otherwise it is not true: But who of our Preachers ever said that faith was a meritorious cause of salvation, and did not rather acknowledge the very [...] to be from Christ? and if so, they affirm no more of faith then they do of obedi­ence, as to this particular.

But p. 26. The Papists say good works are meritorious, but we say No, and yet I have heard it said, if we believe, repent, &c. it is Gods duty to give us heaven. The word Duty seems somewhat too harsh: but sith we cannot understand Gods acting toward us, but according to the slender model of our apprehension, we may with due reverence to his glorious Ma­jesty affirm; That although our works do not by any merit in them, oblige God to reward them: yet we having his promise for our assurance, are as truly ascertained of the accomplish­ment thereof, as if God were Debtor and we Creditors. The summe whereof is, That the true Beleever hath the Justice as well as the Mercy of God for his Asylum, and may pray with the Psalmist, Deliver me in thy righteousnesse. For Christ having satisfied the Justice of God for him, and imputed his own Righ­teousness to him, he may expect from God that fruition of him­self, which Christ hath purchased for him; of which the pre­sent grace of God inabling him to beleeve, and endeavour to obey, gives testimony. For they do not say that Gods reward­ing men is aequalitatis, but liberalitatis, not condignitatis, but benignitatis; and that he rewardeth not propter, but secundùm [Page 21]opera: which very secundùm, as I understand it, signifies but this, To whom God gives greater measures of grace here, on them he will bestow greater degrees of glory hereafter: not in regard of essential happines, which must be equal to all, but in respect of accidental blessedness, making such a difference as is between the members of the body, although every member be equally informed by the same soul, and hath in it self whatsoever can make for its perfection. In p. 28. you confess your whole dis­course to be negative: which choice whether it were made for your ease or not, you may thereby take to your self the greater liberty of accusing, and whatever answer be given, you can scarce be destitute of some means of evasion.

After that you invade the title Ambassadours of Jesus Christ, as owned by the Clergy. I wish you would (if such a thing can be done) but pen some discourse bare of Tropes and Figures, every word signifying according to its natural propriety, and then see what a deformed piece of work it will be: no doubt but a knife from off the Anvil will be near as usefull, and what rules of art or reason can require such severity of expression? But that I may play with you a little at your own game, what do you dislike it for? You say, They understand not their Mes­sage. In a secular signification, you may know better then I, what belongs to that Office: but if Legatus be an Ambassa­dour, and it be the essential form that denominates, then is it the being sent, and not the manner of negotiation that makes an Ambassadour: He that carries the Ambassie must be the Ambassadour, whether transported by word or writing: if not, what means Hypsipyle saying of her new-born children, ‘Legatos quos pene dedi pro matre ferendos?’ And yet how can they be said ignorant of that message, which is so effectually done that multitudes of souls to their everlasting comfort, have received the glad tidings of salvation by them delivered? And if you please to view the term in Greek, the same word which the Apostle useth, 2 Cor. 5.26. translated, We are his Ambassadours, is [...], which must needs be neer of kin to [...], being both derived from the same [...]. Which title the blessed Apostle doth not arrogate to himself, but speaks in the first person plural, as if he should say, We, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or what Minister soever [Page 22]else by whom men beleeved. And the same Apostle Gal. 4.14. commendeth the Galatians for receiving him, not only as the Embassadour of Jesus Christ, but as Christ himself: now between whether (think you) was the great disparity, Christ and Paul, or Paul and Presbyters? Surely if it were commendable in them to receive Paul as Christ, it cannot be blameable in us to re­ceive them as Paul. What, would you have none allowed for preachers of the Word untill they be called, as that Apostle was, immediatly from Heaven? when Christ had called Andrew, he called Peter, when Christ had called Philip, he called Natha­neel; and so when the Apostles and Disciples of our Saviour were sent to preach the Gospel themselves, they also called others to the same, in effect, function. And I know not why we may not ac­knowledge the same succession still, unlesse the whole Church of God can ratifie nothing without your approbation. If the inter­nall call be questioned, he or none that pretends to the calling, must resolve it; for I hope you have no more of the [...] then they that lay on hands in ordination. It is suffi­cient for us that the efficacy of divine ministration depends not of the sanctity of the person ministring; or else Judas had never been an Apostle; for he was one of them whom Christ sent to preach; witnesse his appellation [...]. Nor have discerned any so great indignity cast upon Gods Ordinances by the religious people of my time, as that Idolizing of Ministers, and making Gods Word mans, while they professedly hear it with respect of persons.

In p. 29. You endeavour to make void that title, as to them be­longing, because they depend on the Civill Magistrates autho­rity in their acting. As the Assembly of Divines waited on the Parliament with their Creed and Catechism. And would not the Apostles themselves, if there had been Christian Magistrates in their time, have implored their assistance for the furthering of their proceedings? I, but they ask leave of men to do what their Master hath commanded them. I answer, in our duty to God some things are essentiall, some accidentall: for the first we need no mans leave, the command of God lays on us a necessity of performance: but for other circumstances thereto belonging, we may, yea and ought to be regulated by Magistrates. Besides, the Assembly convened by authority of Parliament, and therefore whatever the members thereof act other wise in reference to their [Page 23]ministeriall office, yet quatenus Synod-men, they depend of the Parliament that call'd and upheld them. But your words seem to import a restraint by the Parliament laid upon them: and if so, it no more derogates from the truth and dignity of their Mi­nisteriall function to be so impedited by any outward obstructi­on, then it did from the blessed Apostle Pauls, whose visitation of the Church of Thessolonica was once or twice hindred by Sa­tan, 1 Thes. 2.18.

In pag. 33. you promise us a pregnant Argument, that such men are not sent by Jesus Christ, that is, their difference in judgement. 'Twas well you did not say impregnable; for I hope your mean­ing being understood, we shall easily disprove your argument. For do you affirm them to differ in the Fundamentals, or in the superstruction of religion? If the first, we deny your assertion. For which of them opposeth Peters enunciation, on which Christ pro­mised to build his Church, Mat. 16.18. we beleeve and are sure that thou art Christ the Son of the living God? who among them confesseth not the holy Trinity, the Divinity and Humanity of our Saviour, his obedience and satisfaction, the Souls immorta­lity, last Judgement and life eternall? but if their difference be in non-necessaries, we have no where promise of infallibility in such particulars; I hope Saint Paul had immediate assistance, and yet his (though but conditionall) toleration to the Church of Corinth, doth not omnimodò quadrare with that decree made by the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem. What shall I speak of that disastrous clashing between the Master-builders at Antio­chia? Act. 15.37, 38. or of Pauls severe reprehension of S. Peter for his double-dealing between the Jew and the Gentile? what divisions are there amongst ours more then about the fringe of Christs garment, and such as were it not for other mens interest more then the Clergies, might probably in good part be well com­posed. What is there more plainly then the abolition of Jewish ceremonies taught in S. Pauls doctrine? and yet it's affirmed that 15. Christian Bishops successively were circumcised in Jeru­salem before its destruction: and if it might be supposed that some of ours were for, and some against Paedobaptism, it will be no greater blemish then rebaptization was to Cyprian. Unity in doctrine and manners is indeed desireable, but perfect harmony is reserved for the life to come, of which there can be here but [Page 24]an imperfect inchoation: God who bringeth good out of evill makes his Ministers infirmities, like Pauls bonds, fall out many times for the furtherance of the Gospel. Their contention in the forementioned Text was very high [...] even like the ut­most sharpnesse of feaver fit: for although they were Apostles yet they were men, — [...], for God by their separation made way to the further spreading of the Gospel. No wonder therefore the Apostle saith there must be heresies even a­mongst you, 1 Cor. 11.19. And yet further to convince you of the insufficiency of your argument, do but consider whether the men whom you approve (if any you do allow) for Ministers of the Word, be not men subject to like infirmities with these you speak against; and if so, what validity hath your argument a­gainst one more then against the other?

In p. 34. You compare Gods praying people to Fools and Knaves in Stage-plays, and that for their wry mouths, squint eyes, and scru'd faces. I beleeve they are not more like a Player for action, then you a Poet for expression, or else you have learned what that Syren Attica gave for a descriprion of Oratory, [...]. But they are not (you say) the men that God and nature made them. Why? God made man to look upwards:

and yet are men squint-eyed for looking up to heaven-ward? no nor for looking downards neither; for who disallows the Pub­licans humble deportment? God hath made man to go upright on his feet, and yet never blames him for kneeling, or falling flat on his face in divine worship. Surely it would better argue a gracious heart, not rashly to censure any good endeavour, al­though it were accompanied with some small indiscretion in the actor. But you say you are assured that if the exactest scrutiny be made, there can be no precept or example found for it. But as confident as you are, you forgat Hanna, 1 Sam. 1.13. which, but for her trembling lips and blubred face, could not in her very prayer have been taken for a drunken woman. Whether you have like fervency of spirit in prayer or no, I cannot hope that you would use like mildenesse of speech, had you lain under a like causelesse reprehension. Our Lord forbids disguising faces in hy­pocrisie, [Page 25] Mat. 6.16. but why was any such thing done in hypo­crisie, if it had not a character of good affection when done in sincerity; for the hypocrites counterfeited a sorrowfull counte­nance, that they might gain to themselves the opinion of devout men by that outward imitation. The face naturally characteri­zeth the minde; and when frons est animi mutabilis index, the the disparity is made de industria. and of set purpose: and that not only in the height of an affection, for we many times guesse rightly by a strangers countenance at what good will he bears to the profession of Religion, Momus might have been sum­moned to Natures Court, for saying mans body wanted win­dows in the breast, for a mans countenance, garments and ge­sture do bewray his disposition, Eccl. 19.27, 28. But I marvail how any man whose face is as though he would go to Jerusalem, can thut deride the discoveries of the Spirit of God, his striving within men. My heart is extreamly hard (the Lord in mercy mollifie it) and yet I could not utter these words as you speak them, and not tremble in rehearsing. Artificial modulation of the voice of which you speak, p. 35. is, no doubt to be rectified by Christian prudence, for every art is but [...] and all things in the Church must be done to edification. But seeing you affirm it to be done in hypocrisie, I can have but heavy thoughts of you while I measure your faith by your charity.

In p. 36. you promise clearly to demonstrate our Clergies ab­surdities and grossenesse by singing Psalms: but upon examina­tion you are so far from a scientificall, that you have not so much as a probable argument; for if any man irrationally abuse the Psalms, is this an absurdity in the Clergy, and that the whole Clergy? as if quatenus Clergy they were all irrational in this par­ticular. I hope it will not make a little for their vindication, that you are so hardly driven to finde somewhat against them, that you must needs forge this false accusation. I know the contrary practised by many Ministers in publike exercises, and by all reli­gious persons that I have known to sing Psalms in their private houses. To take Psalms at a venture, or to go through the whole Book in order, doth indeed seem to me absurd and irrationall: but to select one or two staves, or more, suteable to their pur­pose, and to reade it themselves, is the common practice of many godly Ministers, and I have known Parish-Clarks so to demean [Page 26]themselves in that office, that they deserved commendation of all their Auditors: and that it may with heed-taking in the choice of a Psalm, and sometimes by change of a word, be per­formed; I have most part of my time known by experience. That is not true (which you would perswade us) that not one Psalm of the 150. can indifferently be sung by a whole Congregation; for to say nothing of the Jews great Halelujah sung at their Passe­over, and most probably by our Saviour and his company, from 113. Psalm to the 119. exclusively, it is contrary to the experi­ence of all well considerate Christians. For daily exercise indeed, and to save people a labour in choosing, I have known selected parcels of Psalms framed together, which were so composed by Godly Ministers before I was born, and some copies of that kinde I have still by me. So that to impute this absurdity to the whole Clergy is as unjust as that of the profane multitude: Some Puritans are knaves, and so they are all: Some professors are hy­pocrites, and therefore all are no better: and I wonder a man that talks so much of rationality should bring in this for a demon­stration.

I cannot close with you in p. 38. neither where you say, There­fore the people are undeservedly censured for withdrawing them­selves from such meetings. That because they cannot at some times joyn in some one exercise, they should cast off all: especi­ally c [...]osidering how easily such an irregularity might be correct­ed, and that indeed you would rather have endeavoured, if sub­version more then reformation were not the scope of your in­tention.

In the same Page you make the Clergy the main Incendiaries in stirring up people against the Parliament: and this too must be set upon the common head, as the fault of the whole Clergy; whereas all the Christian world knows, had it not been for what influence the Clergy had upon the people, there had long ere this time been no Parliament to be opposed.

In pag. 40. You upbraid the Clergy with being beholden to a Lexicons and you might as well have said a Horn-book or Pri­mar, for to them they may have been beholden too: what dispa­ragement is it for the highest building to have had its foundation low in the earth? or if you mean the constant use of it, no mans memory is infinite. We know but in part, and prophesie but in part, [Page 27]1 Cor. 13 8, 10, 11. And yet for all this (you say) some of them have such bold foreheads, &c. more skill then the Septuagint. Sir, it being acknowledged by the Church, that the 70. were not [...], I know not why a modest man having more then 70. times 70. of his judgement, may not as well cleave to these as to them, their translation as well as others being subject to disquisi­tion. And what if a Minister, not so much as they Master of the Languages, meet with one of the errors of the Seventy, in which they did [...] as is observed by the learned, is it ever the lesse true in his mouth, because he was not the first that disco­vered it?

In p. 41. Because they know many of the Lay-men are good Scho­lars, and better then many of them, &c. they are in Orders for­sooth, &c. These words of yours are inconsistent with Piety and Polity: First, They are against Piety; for never did any people, how barbarous soever, worship a God, who did not also acknow­ledge a Priest. And yet if the naturall Law had been quite extin­guished, sacred Orders are evidently grounded upon the Word of God, and have been with reverence admitted in all ages of the Church. It was not the least circumstance aggravating the sin of Jeroboam, that in his time, who would might consecrate himself, and become Priest of the high places; and yet they were not so irreligious as to serve without some kinde of consecration. To what hath been already said to this purpose, I shall only adde here this one Text more. Rom. 10.15. Who can preach except he besent? dejure (I suppose) all men understand it, not de facto: and Origens many errors have in the judgement of the Church been imputed to his so long neglect of Orders. But they derive their title from the Bishops, whom (you say) they will not own. That I may speak my minde freely, I think that Presbyters in ta­king off Episcopall propts, did but as it were pull an old house on their head, and it would have made more for the good of the Church, if Episcopacy had stood with its due regulation. But so it comes to passe through the deceitfulnesse of our hearts, that When Gods cause and our own concurre, we are apt Jehu like to drive furiously: and truly I think many of the Presbyters ( [...]hom I deservedly honour) as well as the people following their hu­mour, have not been free of envy or coveteousnesse in prosecu­tion of that design, of which by this time it may have repented [Page 28]them. But whether they acknowledge them for Bishops or no, it is sure they never disallowed them as Ministers, and what then will their receiving their call from them make to your pur­pose? M. Luther renounced his Monastick life, because it was not allowed by the Word of God to vow what was not in the votists power: but he never renounced his Order although re­ceived in the Popish manner: no more did any other of the mar­tyred Bishops and other Ministers (as far as I remember) who deserted the Romish Church as well as he. We mistake the Church of Rome if we imagine it so full of errour as to have had no truth left in it: For certain it is not so much corrupted as were the 10. Tribes during the reign of 19. Kings successively in Israel: and he that well observes the state of the Jewish Church in the daies of our Saviour, will finde it scarce so good as the Romish Church now. But howsoever, if Orders be given and received now with us, according to that direction which the Apostles left, and the primitive Saints practised, what need we trouble our selves with any intermediats? [...], said Ignatius: and therefore, as to themselves, they need not regard your horrid sarcasm, in these following words; By which impsition of hands the holy Ghost is conveyed into them, as it was brought out of Scotland in a Cloak-bag. And why is it not conferred? because all such gifts as some had in the Apostles time are not given; the second temple of Jerusalem might then have been disallowed, for that it wanted besides magnitude and statelinesse of structure, 1. The Ark of God. 2. The Ʋrim and Thummim. 3. The glory of God appearing between the Che­rubims. 4, The fire that descended from Heaven and consumed the sacrifices. 5. The immediate gift of prophecie: for from the daies of Malachi to John the Baptist, they had only what they call [...]. And yet the Prophet Hag. 2.9. saith the glory of the second house shall exceed that of the first. But as the name of God is by you in these words abused, so all good men ought to be troubled: for the same expression is recorded for a most blasphe­mous Proverb in the History of the Councell of Trent translated out of Italian by Sir N. Brent, lib.6. pag, 497. Although I know not whether Hezekiah's command concerning Rabshakeh be not here observable, Answer him not. Now the Lord himself behold and judge who most abuseth his holy Name, you or the Presby­ters: [Page 29]for mine own part I have no more to say to it, but The Lord rebuke thee.

But secondly, This sentence is inconsistent with good Polity; for what confusion must needs be brought into a Common­wealth by means not being allowed the free use of their vocati­on, but that every man who supposeth himself able for another mans calling shall take his place from him? The Ʋtopians to avoid unnecessary professions, were every man to make his own cloathes: but the prudent States-man, who devised it, never dream'd of such an ataxie as you would bring in, who make no complaint of the vainest superfluity, and yet purposely oppose that which is the one thing necessary. But I should wrong the cause in hand by being beholden to any lower proof then the voice of Gods Spirit (seeing you deny your self to be an Anti­scripturist.) What can be plainer then that of the Apostle? 1 Cor. 7.24. What calling any man is in, let him therein abide. Or that of Peter, where he reprehends, as worthy of punish­ment, [...]; that is, Exercisers of jurisdiction in other mens Dioceses, 1 Pet. 4.15. What if other men be as good Scholars, is it nothing but scholarship that makes a Minister? I cannot think but that other Jews might be as handsome But­chers and Cooks, as the Levites, who yet might not be allow­ed to kill and dresse their own sacrifices. 'Tis true, Christ, though he called Levi, call'd no Levite, that he might abolish the former manner of worship: yet he chose some to wait on this Ministry as they did on that, and of them distinct orders, as twelve Apostles, and seventy two Disciples; and after his Ascension, others by mediation of the Apostles; who are also said to be ordained by the holy Ghost, Act. 20.28, either be­cause the Apostles were by the holy Ghost directed to that Or­dination of Ministers where they had planted Churches, or because the gifts of the Spirit inabling for that Office were in their laying on of hands conferred; or it may be for both. But that Christ appointed these orders in his Church, we may see, Ephes. 4.11, &c. And he would not have directed his Epistles by S ^t John in the second and third Chapters of the Revelation to the Angels, that is, the Ministers of the seven Churches, if he had not approved of that Office: And that it is with dili­gence [Page 30]to be proceeded in, the word is plain, He that hath an office let him wait on his office, he that teacheth on teaching, he that exhorteth on exhortation. Do but make the cause your own by supposing, if it could be proved that another man can husband your estate better then your self, must he deprive you of your propriety? If another man be found more worthy to serve the state then your self, must he take from you that place to which you say you were chosen.

In p. 42. you have yet another fling at them, and that is for waving questions when they cannot resolve them: And this also, if it be true, is but a personall infirmity, and no whit impug­neth the Office of the Ministry. Tishbi solvet nodos, had not been a Proverb among the Jews, if they had not in some que­stions of Religion been still unresolved. But if because one Lawyer could not resolve me in one Law-case, I should call the Law an imposture, and the Lawyers Juglers; would you not think me more fit for Bedlam then for any civil society? and yet this were orthodox in your divinity. Concerning the opposition you would make between faith and reason (because you both use, and require your Respondent to use all possible brevity,) I refer you for satisfaction to a little Book lately set forth, and intituled, The reasonablenesse of Christian Religion. And what you say of the man of Macedonia (meaning a better living) and of the abuse of Funeral Sermons, p. 44. is also to be reckoned among personall offences, which no man doth as a Mi­nister, but as a sinner, it being common to all men in some kinde or other to transgress.

In p. 44. you have, While they are under such dispensations they are in a Labyrinth of trouble, one while having rest in their spirits, another while distraction, judging of the love and anger of God to­ward them, according to their actings, as if God were as inconstant as they. You would not be thought an Antiscripturist, p. 51. You would not be thought to take men off from duty, p. 56. and yet you condemn that dispensation men are under, who are inconstant in their feelings. Now whether are you in state of Grace or Glory? this I hope you will not say, and the o­ther will confute your opinion. I know Grace to be Glory in­choate, and Glory to be Grace consummate: But by state of [Page 31]Grace we understand that condition to Godward a man is in after his conversion, so long as corruption is inmate with grace, and like the Canaanites to the Israelites, will dwell with him: for sin doth remain though it do not reign in the Regenerate, and grace is given to sustain the soul against corruption and temptation: the filth continueth, though the guilt be removed, and the guilt, though wholly in foro divino, yet not so in foro conscientiae, if wheresoever there be faith there is also infideli­ty: Faith is therefore call'd a shield, because it defendeth a­gainst despair: Now no man can say his charity is perfect, or his patience undisturbed, and yet must we beleeve any mans faith to be insuperable, in evidence as well as adherence, in re­flect as well as direct action? God give me faith so long as I have doubt, and when I shall have no longer doubt, I shall have no need of faith.

But They judge of Gods love or anger, &c. There is not any knowing Christian that thinks love or anger to be in God, quo­ad affectum, because it would argue mutability, which Scri­pture and reason teach us cannot be in him: But quoad effe­ctum we ought to judge; for the most faithfull servants of God upon their uneven walking, I mean their not sticking so close to the rules of obedience as sometimes they do, and even when they do not, are inabled to do, observe, not only outward ca­lamities, but inward desertions ingruing: And whether God be displeased or no, surely every true childe of God will finde cause to be displeased with himself for his own disobedience: And if any man that hat Gods Word for his guide, live under any higher dispensation, I acknowledge my self to be experi­mentally ignorant of that condition. And what is your con­ceit of this? You write only negatively, and so keep your self in a cloud still: But when you have sublimed your conceptions of God, and extracted from them the purest quintessence, yet still you have of him no adequate, but an analogical concepti­on only. God dwelleth in light inaccessible: we can but per transennas videre, while we dwell in houses of clay; and can­not see him as he is, while we have about us the body of sin: Nor afterward neither can God be apprehended, more then ad modum apprehendentis. As therefore our Saviour said in the [Page 32]Gospel, Why trouble you the woman, for shee hath wrought a good work upon me? so, Why disturb you the Church of God, putting people out of their good way, and obscuring the light by which they walk, sith you cannot hold them out a better? it is a greater light must overcome the lesse; and when the Sun of Righteousnesse shall arise, the Moon and Starres may fail: but neither the Glow-worms of earthly preferment, nor the ig­nis lambens of flattering speeches, nor the ignis fatuus of fanta­stick opinions ought to seduce us: no, nor the blazing comets of pretended revelations attract our confidence.

An approver of which dotages you seem to be, p. 47. where you have these words, I am much satisfied in my spirit, having done that which I was convinced was my duty, by the stirrings within me to this thing for at least a year past. But how came you to be convinced that you ought to revile them whom God commands you to honour? You say, by the stirrings within you: But what if the spirit within you lusteth to envy? we are com­manded to try the spirits whether they be of God or no, 1 Joh. 4.1. Now if your word be consonant to the voice of Gods spirit in the holy Scriptures, God forbid, but that I should lay my hand upon my mouth: but your drift is to undo the Clergy, which consequently must deprive us of the means of salvation, which God by the men of that calling holds forth to us, and that upon no other ground then some of your own carps and crotchets, and contradictions, which you would have fastned to their discourses, but were fain to let them fall (rather then have them no where) upon the sacred Scriptures. Set all the faults you have reckoned upon the tenters to make them odi­ous, and stretch them n longer then they will hold to be theirs, and they will be found but a few personall infirmities, such as we cannot have men without, and such as any but a Malignant Ham would rather cover then blazon abroad. You complain indeed of formality in religion, p. 44. and abuse of Ordinances, p. 46. but how you knit these into the net you make to catch Clarks, in I see not. Irregularity in singing Psalms hath the great­est cause of complaint that I finde in your Book, and that's farre from being a property of the Clergy; for it agrees neither omni, soli nor semper, as is shewn before. The Word of God in S ^t [Page 33] Pauls time was preached by some out of envy, by some out of vain-glory, by some out of covetousnesse, yet herein the Apo­stle rejoyced that it was at all preached, Phil. 1.18. and if you had the same Spirit with Saint Paul, you would not shew your self of a contrary mide. Sir, as you love your soul, take heed of trusting to your inward stirrings: You may be sure the subtle Tempter will not ordinarily suggest to a religious man a temptation to open prophanenesse, because it is not like to finde acceptance: but he will put into such a mans head good thoughts sometimes to keep out better, he will strive to en­crease his hatred of meritorious conceits, thereby to insinu­ate into him neglect of duty, and possesse him with grand detestation of formality in Religion, in hope thereby to beget in him a disesteem of Ordinances. Be not rashly confident of such motions, knowing that the devill in form of an Angel of light, may easily through the treachery of our deceitfull hearts insnare us. I desire to presse this consideration the more earnestly, because the main of your discourse consists in accu­sation, a practice from which the very devil takes his denomi­nation, as if it were the worst quality he hath, or his very profession; for so [...] dicitur [...], as we have the word used, Luk. 16.1. [...], he was accused. I say again, be not deceived: the devill brought a colourable accusation against Job, and there is little more in all that satyrical inve­ctive of your, as you apply it to the Clergy.

In p. 48. You would not have people hearken to them in matters of State. If you had said no more, I should have had nothing to say against you; why did you not take that for your theam: and yet seeing you speak so much of the Clergies interest, I may take notice of yours in this particular: for had not Mini­sters medled in matters of State when time was, you had scarce had any State-matters to meddle with now. But how shall ca­ses of conscience depending on matters of State be resolved? suppose (which no doubt hath been somewhere done) a Mi­nister be enquired of concerning the lawfullnesse of taking the late Engagement; if he do his office, he fals under your cen­sure for medling in a State matter, if he refuse, he is condemn­ed for a Malignant: so that a Clergy-man considing or diffi­ding cannot be innocent: [Page 34] ‘ [...].’ But they stir up people against the Parliament (you say,) which if they do, I hope the Parliament hath better arms then your pen to defend it. But what makes you so hot in the busi­nesse? you, who if you be out deserve not to come in and if you be in, deserve to be outed? doubtlesse the worst spoak in the wheel cracks first. Though you worship no Images, you may be a Worshipper of imaginations, and adore the spurious brats of your own brain, begotten in spirituall fornication: and then the two-edged sword in the mouth of the Clergy must needs terrifie you, being to divide between you and your errors. It may be there would be no cause of complaining of their being against the Parliament, if you were out of it. Hatred against powerfull Preachers of the Word, hath ever been a symptome of an unsound heart: and if your inside were turned outward, I doubt we might there reade somewhat like the words of angry Agamemnon;

or that of Ahab concerning Micaiah, I hate him, because he never prophesieth good to me but evill; Ministers being for no other cause your enemies, but because they tell you the truth. Such were the complaints that the rebellious Jews made against Jeremy; he fell away to the Chaldeans, he weakened the hands of the men of warre, he sought not the prosperity but the hurt of the people: no lesse then High Treason in every Article. So they by the Apostles in the Acts? These are the men that have turned all the world upside down; The very foundations are out of frame, but what hath the righteous done? they stir up peo­ple against the Parliament? What the Clergy, the whole Clergy, and quatenus Clergy? so that their very calling is opposite to the power and priviledge of Parliament? then lay all their faults upon me, if that can be proved, and ‘Ʋnum pro multis dabitur caput.—’ Then to prove what I know not who denies, you produce a place of Scripture, viz. Rom. 13.1, 2. Let every soul be subject, &c. Which because it is positively and directly, whereas the rest of your discourse (as your self confesse) is negative, and your texts [Page 35]of Scripture but obliquely introduced, I will see how these words as a proof will stand with your prohibition of humane learning. Suppose any conspiring servant make this plea for himself: I am under command and must obey that power to which I am sub­ject; for all power is of God. And by like proportion may every underling thus defend his guilt in any rebellion, unlesse you tell him that by power is meant lawfull authority, and not every force. But while [...], or [...], or [...], or [...], or [...], may be translated power as well as [...], how can you be able without Greek to confute the Defendant? So if it be demanded concerning the last word (damnation) why it is here annext to the breach of the fifth Commandement, seeing sins against first Table are in their severall order and de­gree more hainous then they against the second; or if it be askt, why the word is rendred Damnation, it being not [...] but [...], which is rather judicium, what satisfaction by bare meditation of the word, and that in English, can be given?

In p. 49. Where there are any endowed with the spirit of prophe­cy, that declare the truth as it is in Jesus, and that their con­versations as the one hand do not pull down, &c. I love them, &c. But your plaister is too narrow for the wound which your for­mer discourse hath made, of which if you will not be per­swaded, I shall speak in vain: and if you will you need no other instructer then your own experience in this matter. But whether you be perswaded or no, you must not think to per­swade us that none of the Clergy you so despightfully taunt at, are sincere publishers of the will of God, and men whose lives are suteable to the doctrine which they preach. Great was the cruelty which Nahash the Ammonite would have ex­ercised on the Israelites, by putting out the right eyes of all the men of Jabesh, 1 Sam. 11.2. but you endeavour to put out the eyes of our understanding, which would be by so much the more dangerous, by how much our souls are better then our bodies. Am I deceived, or do I not know the Sun when I see it shine? Whence, I trow, is this confidence of yours? if you were Emperour of the world, yet your most impetuous puissance could not violate our reason: had you Nestor's lan­guage, [Page 36] [...], Or had a stream of Eloquence like Euripus, that carried ships under sail against the winde, yet were it not possible for you so farre to force our understanding, as on your bare word, (and that no Clergy­mans neither) to make us take for uniform most irreconcile­able [...].

In p. 50. Or have renounced their admission to the Ministry, as some have done upon very good grounds, I am fully satisfied, &c. I would you were else: but how shall other men be satisfied in this: First, That a Minister may on good ground renounce his admission to the Ministry? Or secondly, how having renoun­ced his calling he is still a Minister? You say, (though falsly) the Clergy is Pope-like in delivering Doctrine; for they exhort peo­ple to examine it by the Scriptures: but what you are like I know not; for the Pope would not offer to obtrude such stuff as this to the Irish themselves, the most credulously facil in Religion of all Catholikes; That the same man is a Minister and not a Minister, upon profession of his own satisfaction, with out any further reason or distinction.

You professe great self-deniall but in p. 47. and tell us, how you brake through all danger your reputation was in, despising what the men of the world say, &c. and yet I cannot see but that you are as tenderly affected with your reputation as any man else; for you apologize for it here and there, inveigh a­gainst your Antagonist, and take such revenge as words will give you: I, and here p. 51. (to which all the rest is as no­thing) you appeal to God for your vindication: which no man that reverenceth the name of God would do in a matter so contemptible as you would make your reputation.

Whether or no you love fame, it appears by your words, that you hate infamy; and thereby are in Cicero's judgement worthy reprehension. Multi contemnunt mundi strepitum, reputant pro nihilo gloriam, sed timent infamiam, offensionem repulsam, volup­tatem severissimè contemnunt, in dolore sunt molliores, gloriam negligunt, franguntur infamia. Although I think a good name to be a blessing of God, and therefore to be much respected, and carefully preserved.

In p. 53. I am non of those that squeeze and grinde the people to enrich themselves. By like then you confesse there be some that do so: and seeing in the subsequent Page, you promise your self in your Sphear to act against all corruptions of Church and State, me think you ought to have told who these op­pressors be. For people receiving this ill report from you, will be ready to think, If such oppressors be Officers under the Par­liament, why (being known) are they suffered? if any among themselves, yet there the major part can overpower the minor, but if such a complaint still continue, what a reverend opinion of the Parliament is this disgracefull report like to beget in the heart of the people? and yet all this is done to advance your even-now (if we will believe you) despised reputation. And now whether are you or the Clergy greater adversary to the Parliament? I have no accusation against you, or any man else in such matters; but this I boldly affirm (and to your everlasting infamy be it spoken) that if you be no Caterpillar procuring a corporall, yet you are no better then a Locust of the Bottomlesse pit, endeavouring to procure a spirituall fa­mine, such as the Prophet Amos speaks of, chap. 8. vers. 11, 12. not of bread, nor thirst of water, but of hearing the Word of the Lord: when they shall go fromsea, &c.

In p. 54. Church-men, as they are by some called, but how wor­thily, judge you. I will do as you bid me, and judge, as much reason for a Minister to be called a Church-man, as for M. Fry to be called a Parliament-man: and that whether you take Church for the people of God, or for the place of publike worship. And why not? you must give me leave to guesse at your meaning, for you do not reveal it, Now because I have heard some (besides self-conceited novices) affirm Steeple­houses to be absurdly called Churches, I may suppose you of the same opinion, and upon that supposition to deny to Prea­chers the name of Church-men. But the truth is the houses are more properly called Churches then the people. Indeed if you ask me what is [...]; I answer, it is in its largest acceptation any Assembly, as Act. 19.41. [...] for, he dismis­sed the Assembly; but in Divinity it is used to signifie, A peo­ple called out from the rest of the world by the preaching of [Page 38]the Gospel. But what similitude of sound is there between Ec­clesia and Church? This word Church therefore differing but by corruption of speech from Kirk, is an abbreviate of [...], the Lords House. Now these places appointed for publick wor­ship are certainly houses in proper speech, whereas the peo­ple of God are called a house metaphorically, in regard of their resemblance to a materiall building: but we having not a word properly to denominate the people by, use this word Church, when applied to them by a Metonymie: as the Latines on the other side apply the word Ecclesia to the house, which properly signifies the people: to avoid (as I suppose) the Roman Templum as Heathenish, and the Greek Synagogue as Jewish. Whence it appears, that the houses only are in proper speech called Churches: to which every man else of the Con­gregation belongeth but according to his generall calling of Christianity, but the Minister also by his particular calling, from which men take their denomination: so we say, Wool-men, Silk-men, Heard-men, and why not (but that your envy can allow them nothing that is good) Church­men?

In p. 54. You express your confidence in God, for being carried to the Land of Rest: and that on this ground, as it seems to me, which is contained in the very next words, I having no misgotten goods to stare in the face of my conscience, nor errors, nor blasphemies to affright me; and presently after you confess your dependance on the love of God through his Son. Which words I no whit dislike in themselves; for I acknowledge works to justifie not only before men, but in the Court of conscience, as they testifie the truth of our faith: from which office the infirmities that accompa­ny them do no more derogate, then the imperfection of our faith from the truth of our beleeving. But seeing you are so curiously criticall against our Preachers for want of all possi­ble perspicuity in every expression, you may consider how unkindely you would take it, on so slight occasion to be ac­cused as guilty of a contradiction. For in these words you do not only allow in your self what you condemn in others, p. 44. concerning inconstancy of assurance according to instability of action in the duties of obedience; but you jumble Faith and [Page 39]Works together, Sanctification (though but privative) and Justification by the merits of Christ: and if so strong a mem­ber as you would seem to be, have such tender ears as to com­plain of contradictions, or confuse expressions, where other men apprehend no such matter, it's possible some other upon this occasion may make bold to taunt you in the words of the Satyrist;

And now may I say of our Shepheards what David of his Metaphoricall sheep, What have they done? Many good works have I done among you, said our Saviour to the Jews, for which of them do you stone me? so many good things have we received from the Clergy, for which of them do you thus (to use C. Agrippa's phrase) lapides loqui? Is it nothing to be excluded the Parliament as an inconsiderable part of the Nati­on? nothing for them to abridge themselves in lawfull recre­ations, for fear of other mens excesse in imitation? nothing to be worried with uncessant clamours of Schismaticks? and which is worst of all, that the precious balms of Gods own peo­ple (by ill applying) should break their heads, and cause them to pray also against their wickednesse? Is it for this they spend and are spent?

Is this the reward of their Labour? Is it for this they strain their wits, macerate their bodies, neglect provision for themselvrs and posterities, and contract remedilesse di­seases? ‘Hoc est cur pallet, cur quis non prandeat hoc est?’ Such discouragements to learning, if but for politique reasons would be unsufferable. Well may Colledges be empty of Stu­dents, when mens mouths are full of reproaches, and their hands of injuries against that, which is the chiefest end of all their studies. Invitatus ad haec aliquis de ponte, negabit. If other men were of your minde, how contemptible would this sacred Function be? Praestaret dentiscalpia radere, quam literarijs mo­numentis insudare. Respect and maintenance you would deprive them of, and what then will they have left that men can take [Page 40]from them? It is well their mental endowments are without the reach of your sacrilegious clutches, or else they had been de­voured too: unlesse you would forbear (as Tiberius refused to take the life of one whom he was minded to torment) that by them they may be the more apprehensive of their misery. Ex­positors on those words of Job 19.20. I have escaped with the skin of my teeth, do observe, that the devil left Job his mouth whole, that with it he might blaspheme God, and bewail his calamity: so have the Clergy their Learning left them (I will not say with Menippus, Literas habent queis sibi & fortunae suae maledicant) but to lament their own and the Churches misery. They are indeed but your words that we hear; and yet they, though levitèr volant, gravitèr vulnerant: but if you had power over the Clergy answerable to your will, you would quickly give them cause to complain in the words of that exiled Poet, ‘Vix habet in nobis jam nova plaga locum.’

The sum of all I have to say concerning your discourse is this: You are a scourge in the hand of God, with which he is plea­sed to chastise his Laodicean Angels: under which yet they may behold his favour, on their repentance. Rev. 3.19. And I beseech God to give you also sight of your errour, and par­don for it, lest when the Lord hath done correcting his people, he cast his rod into the fire of his wrath. Now is their hour of temptation, and now are the powers of darknesse prevalent a­gainst them; now are they conformed to their Master Christ in suffering, being also given into the hands of men who despite­fully use and persecute them, ‘— [...]’ But be of good comfort (precious souls) for your redemption draweth nigh: the rod of the wicked shall not alwaies rest on the back of the righteous, [...] ‘ [...]—’ The righteous shall have dominion in the morning, when the wicked shall be turned into hell.

I have answered your Book no sooner, because how long soe­ver it hath been extant, it came but lately to my hand, and by the date 1650. I could not think it still unanswered: but be­ing [Page 41]otherwise informed, I took this task upon my self, for fear you should think it unanswerable, although men of greater abilities might perhaps disdain it as unworthy their answer. I have herein used more frequent interrogations then sute to the mildenesse of my disposition, but I was in part thereto con­strained by your negative manner of writing. In the main I desire to have been sincere, as in charity I think you to have been in yours; for it's possible for a man to think he serves God in his greatest disservice. For what infirmities of my own I have herein discovered, I desire not concealment but condo­nation: for humanum est errare, in many things we offend all: and ‘Hanc alijs veniam cupimus dabimus (que) vicissim.’

IN your Post-script you deny your self to be against duty. For answer to which I desire you but to consider the words of our Saviour Christ, where being about to give a cognizance of false Prophets, he saith, Ye shall know them by their fruits. What? the fruits of their lives? no doubtlesse, for then we must give the better to divers hereticks, and to many of the present Papists: but if the fruits of their doctrine be intended, as necessarily they must, what rotten stuff would you feed our souls with? no specious Apples of Asphaltus would so deceive our taste, no glistering Cantharides so poyson our bodies, as this doctrine of devils (in form of Angels of Light) beguile our souls. You are not (you say) against duty: no more was Pelagius against free-grace, if you will beleeve him: but as he did Gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendam invidiam, so do you draw the vail of duty over your irreligious Category, to cover the horridnesse of your intention. For you clearly set your self against publique Ordinances, by which we come to the knowledge of our duty, by which we are reproved for omissi­on, and exhorted to performance of our duty: and if sublatâ causâ tollitur effectus, let any reasonable man judge if you be not against duty.

If the publike Ministry be the ordinary means of knowing, loving, fearing, and obeying God (as all faithfull souls will [Page 42]witnesse it to be) then he that would deprive us of the pub­like Ministry, would rob us of the ordinary means of know­ing, loving, fearing, and obeying God: But you endeavour to deprive us of the former, and Quod causa causae est causa causati, as well in privatives as in positives; I abhor to write, and I wish you would tremble to think how deeply you are involved in the conclusion.

And now Sir, If you be not one that doth [...], reason might perswade you to acknowledge your errours: and if that glimmering light of it that I can hold forth, how much more those resplendant raies that proceed from greater Lumi­naries? But if a spirit of delusion hath possessed you, and your Gangrene be come to a [...], dolendum est a medico, quod non delendum medicinâ. I am in part satisfied, as I have in part performed my duty. And having no more to say to you, I must say what remains to God hearing prayers: to whose mercy I commit you, and continue, Though the weakest oppugner, yet the strongest (in desire at least) detester of your errours,