say only that the Jews, both under the Old Testament and under the New, took them to be all one with _madmen_ and _demoniacs_; and prove it out of Scripture by many places, both of the Old and New Testament. Thirdly, that the pretence or arrogating to one’s-self Divine inspiration, is argument enough to show a man is _mad_, is my opinion; but his Lordship understands not _inspiration_ in the same sense that I do. He understands it properly of God’s breathing into a man, or pouring into him the Divine substance, or Divine graces. And in that sense, he that arrogateth inspiration unto himself, neither understands what he saith, nor makes others to understand him: which is properly madness in some degree. But I understand _inspiration_ in the Scripture metaphorically, for God’s guidance of our minds to truth and piety. Fourthly, whereas he says, I make the pretence of _inspiration_ to be pernicious to peace; I answer, that I think his Lordship was of my opinion; for he called those men, which in the late civil war pretended the spirit, and new light, and to be the only faithful men, _fanatics_; for he called them in his book, and did call them in his life-time, _fanatics_. And what is a _fanatic_ but a _madman_? And what can be more pernicious to peace, than the revelations that were by these _fanatics_ pretended? I do not say there were not doctrines of other men, not called _fanatics_, as pernicious to peace as their’s were, and in great part a cause of those troubles. Fifthly, from that I make prophetical revelations subject to the examination of the lawful sovereign, he inferreth, that two prophets prophecying the same thing at the same time, in the dominions of two different princes, the one shall be a true prophet, the other a false. This consequence is not good: for seeing they teach different doctrines, they cannot both of them confirm their doctrine with miracles. But this I prove, in the place (vol. iii. p. 426) he citeth, that whether either of their doctrines shall be taught publicly or not, it is in the power of the sovereign of the place only to determine. Nay, I say now further, if a prophet come to any private man in the name of God, that man shall be judge whether he be a true prophet or not, before he obey him. See 1 John, iv. 1. Sixthly, whereas he says that, upon my grounds, Christ was to be reputed a false prophet every where, because his doctrine was received no where; his Lordship had read my book more negligently, than was fit for one that would confute it. My ground is this; that Christ in right of his Father was king of the Jews, and consequently supreme prophet, and judge of all prophets. What other princes thought of his prophesies, is nothing to the purpose. I never said that princes can make doctrines or prophesies true or false; but I say every sovereign prince has a right to prohibit the public teaching of them, whether false or true. But what an oversight is it in a divine, to say that Christ