Arrow Against the Separationists, Discourse · Introduction

Arrow Against the Separationists · Discourse · Introduction

p. 1THe Occaſion of this writing: whereas N. N. coming lately out of England into the Low countries, deſired to receive the Lords ſupper with us: ſhe was upon iuſt occaſion wiſhed, firſt to procure a teſtimony of her converſation out of England. And while ſhe refuſed ſo to do, it was ſignified unto her, that ſhe could not be admitted for a member of the Church with us. After this alſo falling into ſpeech of mariage with one of the ſeparation, ſhe then began to leave our aſſemblie and went unto the meeting of the Browniſtes, pretending ſcruple of conſcience about our uſe of the Lords prayer, as alſo about the truth of our Church & miniſtery: and requeſted me both by her ſelf & others to deale with M^r. Ainſworth about theſe things. Here upon partly through her requeſt, and partly through other provocations, I wrote unto M^r. Ainſworth, as followeth.

Salutations in the Lord.

M^r. Ainſworth, I vnderſtand by divers witneſſes that I am often and odiouſly provoked to confer with you, & in ſpecial by M. Baker who boaſteth much againſt me, that I wil not be brought to reaſon with you, that I dare not, that that day will never be ſeene, &c. but for your ſelf I thinkyou have reaſon to iudge otherwiſe. This provocation is (as I heare) vehemētly againe renewed this week by the ſame M^r, B. & this upon occaſion of a certaine mayde who pretendeth that ſhe is troubled to ioyne with our Church becauſe of the uſe of the Lords prayer among us; becauſe of my calling vntounto this Church, whereof I am a Miniſter, which calling he telles her is vnlawfull; & becauſe there is no difference betwixt vsus and the Church of England: concerning theſe particulars, not mentioning as yet any other vntounto me ſhe ſaith that ſhe deſires ſatisfaction by a conference betwixt you & me; If therefore you will take vponupon you to prove that ſhe hath iuſt cauſe to refuſe the communion of our Church, either for any of theſe 3 cauſes or afterwardes for any other if theſe will not ſerve, I am ready by the grace of God to defend the cōtrary againſt you. And this I am content to do, not for any deſire that I have to bring her into the communion of our Church, vnles I could heare better teſtimony of her, then as yet I have found; but to remoove offence, and to ſtop the mouthes of ſuch as cauſeleſly do inſult againſt me & againſt the Church of God. To this end, if either you require a more private conference and will take vntounto you, two or three perſons for witneſſe, I am willing either to come vntounto you at your owne houſe or to waite for you at mine, taking alſo as many witneſſes vntounto me. Or if you pleaſe to ſet downe in writing any arguments concerning theſe points above mentioned, I am willing by writing alſo to give you an anſwer. Or if you deſire a more ſolemne and publique diſputation touching theſe things, I will not refuſe the ſame vpō equal conditions, viz. that the arguments & anſwers may be written; that ſome grave & iudicious men may be preſent, who may both be able to iudge of things ſpoken and by their authority may better keep in order the multitude that ſhalbe preſent; that this meeting may be in convenient time and place, &c.

Iuly 12 N. ſt. 1617. IOHN PAGET.

p. 2Reſalutations in the Lord.

M^r. Paget, I know not of any ſuch provocation to conference as you write of, neyther know I the Woman that would joyne unto you. Wherfore if any thing paſs between you and me, your ſelf ſhal unto me be the firſt provoker of it. And if you deſire it, I wil not refuſe: and it ſhalbe at your own choiſe, whether by word or writing, and what point or points you wil confer about. As I love not to begin controverſie, ſo neyther wil I be wanting to doe any good I can, to you or any other: or to defend any point of trueth which God hath given me to ſee and witneſs, when I am duly called therunto. So reſt I

yours in all Chriſtian dutie. The 12. of the 7. MonethMonth, 1617. Henr. Ainſworth.

Peace & truth from the Prince of Peace.

M^r. Ainſ. beſides the provocation of your people, which you hold not to be a ſufficient cauſe of any thing paſſing between you and me, I take it that I am by your ſelf alſo much provoked, & that divers wayes; not onelyonly by your general doctrine of ſeparation, which is in it ſelf a cō mon provocation vntounto all the Churches of Chriſte, and a beginning of controverſy, but in ſpecial by your particular mentioning of my name in your publique congregatiō & ſpeaking againſt my calling, as formerly ſo alſo this laſt week againe as I heare: by ſpeaking againſt the particular congregation whereof I am a Miniſter, & condemning communion therewith by name: by cauſing ſuch members of your Church as have heard a Sermon in ours, to make publique cōfeſſion of their fault, & to repent openly for the ſame: and further even by this your largeoffer of conference either by word or writing, about what poynts I would, and this to do me good, though for the preſent we take it, you have done vsus no good but much evill & wrong in the particulars above mentioned.

Herevpon I am mooved to deſire you, according to your offer to ſet downe in writing your reaſons to prove that the vſe of the Lords prayer among vsus; that the vnlawfulneſs of my calling; that our agreement with England: & that the Temple where we meete for the worſhip of God are any iuſt cauſes of refuſing communion with vsus. Since my laſt writing vntounto you, I heare that you alledged the place of our aſſembling togather as a bar of communion vntounto that man, againſt whom you preſently threaten your cenſure for coming vntounto vsus; And therfore I deſire you to ſet downe your reaſons concerning this 4^th matter alſo, or any other of our wants which might keep you from communicating with vsus. And having receyved your reaſons I wil alſo endevor by mine anſwer to do you good, & if the Lord will to bring you vntounto the comfortable communion with the Churches of Chriſt from all which you are yet a ſtranger: Then might you be in truth, mine in all Chriſtian dueties, as you write, whereas now in many of the **Pſ. 55.13.14. Act. 2.1.46 &. 3.1.Ps 55:13Ps 55:14Acts 2:1Acts 2:46Acts 3:1cheefeſt of them, you are not: Then ſhould I alſo reioyce to be, in a greater meaſure then I am, your loving brother in the Lord

Iuly 18. 1617. Iohn Paget.

The high way of the upright, is to depart from evil: He that keepeth his way, preſerveth his ſoule. Pro. 16.17.

I Have no reaſon, M^r. Paget, to hold that a ſufficient provocation unto me, which never was: none have ever ſolicited me to controvert with you, but now your ſelf. By our general doctrine of ſeparation, you may freely (I confeſſe) take occaſion to deale, if you can diſprove p. 3it: but our doctrine & proofs are in publick: ſo you might have had reaſons from thence, to reply upon as you ſaw good, you needed not have called upon me for moe. My particulier mentioning of your Church and you, was neceſſarie: being pleaded for by him that is now falling from us. If you think you have cauſe to be moved herewith, you cannot but think there was like cauſe offred us by you: whiles you debarr aged M_r. P. from the Lords ſupper, (the greateſt cenſure that you can lay upon him,) becauſe he, being no member of your particular congregation but of the church of England, cometh ſometime to hear Gods word in our church. Yea more, whiles you keep that Religious yong man I. S. from your communion, as is ſayd, becauſe he holdeth it in his judgement that he may hear us: though he told you he had never doen it, neyther purpoſed to doe it: yet for not promiſing abſolutely not to doe it, he is ſayd to be repelled. I ſuppoſe a man ſhal ſcarcely finde ſuch meaſure at the hands of any Biſhop, miniſter or court in England.

Wheras you take it I have doen you no good, but much evil and wrong: I have learned to bear ſuch imputations with comfort, becauſe they are unjuſt. It is the beſt good, if men would ſo accept it, to have their aberrations manifeſted. Your church continueth one with the church of England: for proof, (beſides the publick doctrine among you, which proclaimeth us for ſchiſmatiks, & the dayly profeſsion which your mēbers make), I report me to that charitable libell which C. Lawn, I. Fowler & others, with their penman, have printed amongſt you. There, in the title, they profeſſe to be returned into the boſome of the Church of England their true mother. Now they ſuck the breſts of your church, and in the boſome therof they moſt of them reſt, and ſome of them have ſtood in election to …eare office among you: ſo there wilbe found an unitie between the Daughter and Mother. And if we may blame men for returning to the one, (as our publick writings yet unanſwered doe prove:) then for the other, I aſſure my ſelf they wil not be found innocent. And we in reproving the man who falling back unto you, profeſſed to doe the like in the aſsemblies of England if he were there: have doen no wrong to you or them.

Wheras you deſire me, according to my offer (as you ſay) to ſet down in writing my reaſons, &c. I anſwer, ſuch offer I made you none, that I would ſet downe my reaſons eyther in word or writing. It is you that call me into this feild, and in reaſon you ſhould therfore give the firſt onſett. You had your choiſe to doe it by word or writing, I being ready to defend by eyther. Now you chooſe writing; I accept it: if you had ſet down your reaſons, I would have given you an aſwer unto them. But whē we have publiſhed ſo many reaſons, in that one book of our Apologie (beſides others) yet unanſwered: it is ſtrange that you call for more. You need not want matter to work upon, out of that litle book: and our other imploymēts, litle need to be called away, to write againe reaſons unto particular perſons, when we have ſet forth ſo many in publick. Yet now to ſatisfie your deſire, I ſet you downe this.

That ſeparation which is onelyonly from ſyn, and communion therewith, is of God, & is al good mens dutie:

But our ſeparation is onelyonly from ſyn, and communion with ſyn: wherin we were intangled in your mother church:

Therfore our ſeparation is of God, &c.

The firſt propoſition is proved by the ten Commandements, which forbid all ſyn, Exod 20. and by the Apoſtles doctrine, which forbiddeth all communion with ſyn: Eph. 5.11. 2. Cor. 6.14.15.16. The ſecond is proved thus. The things which we have ſeparated from, are;

1. An humane Leitourgie, tranſlated out of the Popes maſſe-book, a read and dead ſervice which we were conſtreyned to offer unto God, in ſted of his ſpiritual worſhip: wherin alſo we were bound to obſerve many other Romiſh traditions: to keep holy dayes which God never ſanctified: to have the ſigne of the croſſe, goſſips, &c. with Baptiſme: to kneel before bread and wine: to hear vaine, lying and apocryphal Iewiſh fables, read in the church in ſtead of Gods word: with many other particular impieties. Againſt which Leitourgie, we have ſet downe many reaſons in our Apologie pag. 64. Poſit. 9. and proofes of the ſeverall branches therof, by ſcripture.

2. The matter of that church; which was not taken of Saincts onelyonly, (which every Chriſtian Church ought to be, as is proved in our Apolog. p. 44. poſit 3. & confirmed by reaſons from the ſcriptures,) but was firſt gathered and ſtill continueth of a mixed multitude and p. 4their ſeed: wherof the most part was Popiſh, profane and wicked: who with the reſt, were by humane lawes forced to be members of that church: as the publick Acts and moniments ſhew: and is further proved and manifeſted to be ſynfull, in Iuſtific. of Separat. pag. 89. 90. 91. and 459. 460.

3. The form and order of that church, which is not the order ſet of God, (as we ſhew in our Apolog. pag. 60. Poſit. 8. and the reaſons annexed to the first branch therof,) but the order left by the Pope, in pariſhes, dioceſes, provinces, and all conjoyned in a national church, with courts and governours according. Diſproved in Iuſtif. of Separ. p. 195. 196. 197.

4. The miniſterie of that church, both ſuperiour or governing, with their courts and canons: and inferiour or ſervile: which is not the miniſterie appointed by Chriſt in Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12. Eph. 4. but a ſtrange hierarchie and miniſterie derived from Rome. Againſt which we have produced many ſcriptures and reaſons yet unanſwered, in our Apol. Conf. art. 29. 30. 31. 32. and after in pag. 46. poſ. 5. and proofes of the later branches of the ſame. Treat. of the Miniſt. againſt Mr. Hild. p. 98.—105.

From theſe and the like evils in that church, have we ſeparated: not from any trueth or good thing that is in the ſame. With theſe ſynns we were defiled, and could not but be defiled when we walked with that Church. Whereupon the concluſion followeth, that our ſeparation was neceſſarie, is of God, and the dutie of every one that would obey God.

Theſe things, Mr. Paget, have been long ſince by us publiſhed, and by none hitherto diſproved: I allege them now as my proofs unto you to warrant our ſeparation, and do exſpect your anſwer to the particular reaſons in the places cited, if you think good to controvert the cauſe with me, and would have me to reply upon you. It is needleſſe to ſet down any other, or moe, til thoſe be refuted.

Now to your particulars.

1. You require my reaſons, againſt the uſe of the Lords prayer among you.

I anſwer, I have not layd this as a cauſe of refuſing communion with you: ſo you have no reaſon to require this of me. We hold it good and holy, to uſe a right any of the Lords prayers, or any words of ſcripture, or thoſe or any of thoſe petitions taught us in Mat. 6. or Luke 11. in the words of eyther Evangelist, or other words, as the Spirit of God (which helpeth us to pray, Rom. 8.) leadeth us to any of them. If thus you doe, I blame you not. But if after prayer by the Spirit, you read that part of ſcripture for a prayer, or ſay it over by rote, as is the faſhion of many: that I approve not, it being neyther the intendement of Chriſt, nor practiſe of his Apoſtles, that I can finde: & I deſire your proofs from Gods word for ſo uſing it. What our reaſons are againſt that abuſe, are to be ſeen in our Apologie in Poſit. 9. thither I referr you. The chiefeſt thing that I miſlike in you about prayer, is: that wheras in December last, M^r. H. your fellow miniſter taught you and your Church the trueth openly, and condemned praying on books, as is reported: you received not the trueth, but oppoſed it, and doe yet oppoſe it unto ſome among you, that are troubled therabout. It had been your own dutie to have taught the people how to ſerve God aright: but to reſiſt the trueth when God offreth it by your own brethren, is an heavy ſyn. The diſcuſsing herof, will fall out upon your anſwer given to the reaſons which before I referred you unto, in our Apologie, concerning prayer.

2. About the lawfulnes of your miniſterie, that which I ſpake (as occaſion then called me) was by way of inquirie: aſking the man who is now declining unto you, whether you doe adminiſter here, by vertue of that calling which you had of the Biſhops of England or have renounced it. And ſeing he could not tell, I pray your ſelf to ſay, whether you ſtil have or approve of that ministerie which the Biſhop gave you, and the oath or promiſe which you made to him, and do now adminiſter wholly or in part by vertue therof: and upon your anſwer, I wil ſhew you in my next, what I miſlike in your miniſterie, and upon what ground. Secondly, the man ſuppoſing you had a new ordination here by the Elderſhip of an other Church: we aſked him warrant for it from God, which he could not ſhew. If therfore it be ſo with you, I deſire your defenſe therof by the book of God: for I am yet ignorant, what authoritie the Elderſhip of one Church hath to p. 5make or ordeyn miniſters in another: now that Apoſtels and all extraordinarie functions are ceaſed.

3. For your agreement with England, I have before ſhewed from the work printed amōg your ſelves, that the boſome of your church & of the Church of England is one: ſo the reaſons before noted, which warrant our ſeparation from England are a ſufficient ground to keep us from you, til you bring a difference, and ſhew how you ſeparate alſo.

4. For the Temple wherin you worſhip, which is as I take it, the Nunnes chappel, built for the worſhip of their breaden God and other idols: my reaſons againſt your uſe of it, I referr you to ſee in our Apologie p. 75. Poſ 12. and the grounds from ſcriptures there alleaged.

Other things there are, wherin you know we differ from you: as your keeping of holy dayes beſides the Lords dayes, and yet not half the holy dayes of the Church of England. Mariage a civil dutie, is performed by your miniſterie in your Church. Your Elderſhip ſitteth and judgeth matters apart from the congregation: and this your court I ſuppoſe wil finde no better allowance by the church or courts of England then doth our church, which you count ſchiſmatical. Of theſe things you may ſee your ſelves reproved and convicted in our Apologie aforeſayd.

Finally, you ſhape your Church according to the time and place wherin you live. In England your people uſe the communion Book, keep ſuch holy dayes, have ſuch ceremonies, officers, courts, &c. as the law there commandeth: here you are of an other ſeeming forme, and uſe not the things which your mother church requireth. Now I hold, that the conſtitution, worſhip, miniſterie, goverment, holy dayes of the Church ſhould be uniforme, and not variable in every coaſt. But to the things by you propounded, I have given anſwer, and directed you to our reaſons, which you may reply upon if you ſee cauſe. And if ſo you doe: as my leiſure ſerveth me, (who am for the preſent, imployed in other affaires, which I have undertaken with Gods help to performe with my moſt convenient ſpeed,) I wil through Chriſtes aſsiſtance mainteyn them againſt you. God guide you into the way of trueth and peace.

The 25. of the 7. MonethMonth. 1617. Henr. Ainſworth.

p. 6Peace & truth from the Prince of Peace.

FOr anſwer unto your preface, I pray you conſider, that The provocation I ſpake of, was of your people to me, & not to your ſelf: Their provocation of me, togather with the ſignification of my readines thereupon to maintaine the lawfulnes of our communion againſt you, I ſuppoſed to have bene a ſufficient cauſe of ſome thing paſsing betweene you & me though you thought otherwiſe as appeareth in your firſt writing: ſo that you needed not now in this ſecond writing to have excuſed your ſelf by ſuch a provocation & ſoliciting of you, as I never mentioned nor implyed in my writing. But yet if provocations made unto you, and earneſt ſolicitations of you be ſufficient cauſe and calling for you to controvert, then have you cauſe and calling enough, being as I heare, ſo earneſtly & ſo publiquely by the people of your owne Church mooved, and ſolicited to defend your owne opinion and practiſe againſt M_r. Robinſon who hath in print reproved and condemned the ſame.

VVheras you confeſſe that by your general doctrine of ſeparation we may freely take occaſiō to deale, &c. you do therin alſo confeſſe that you are the provoker and beginner of controverſie, which yet in your firſt writing you ſay you love not, and would ſtill ſo faine remove the ſuſpicion thereof from you. And if thus your general doctrine give ſuch free occaſion, how much more doth your ſpeciall condemning of particular churches by name, occaſion and provoke them to deale with you, though you think you had juſt reaſon ſo to do? I have not denyed neither do I deny but that our not admitting of ſuch for membres of our congregation as would have liberty to heare in your Church as wel as ours, might be ſome occaſion alſo to moove & provoke you to deſire to deale with us likewiſe hereabouts; but yet ſo, that ſtill you are to be held the firſt provokers who have firſt cenſured your people for comming to us andp. 7by name openly condemned our Church and miniſtery, long before we refuſed M^r. P. & I. Sh. vponupon this late occaſion.

As for I. Sh. that vnquiet & vnſtable yong man he is not kept from our cōmunion, becauſe he holdeth it in his judgemēt that he may hear you: his private judgement we would have allowed vntounto him, ſo that he would have walked peaceably therein: but for his vnpeaceable walking & breach of promiſe he was refuſed by us: Beſides conference with him for his conviction at divers times, there is alſo warrant and proofe of this our dealing with him, given unto him in writing and ſent unto M^r. Brewer the ſpeciall patrone of this halting practiſe & converſation, at whoſe vrgent and importunate provocation, the writing hereof was firſt granted, & ſince that time he hath alſo a reply unto the anſwer which he wrote: If eyther they or you which cry out ſo lowd againſt our dealing, can refute the ſame, you have occaſion enough and liberty to do it.

In the meame time I do onelyonly aſk this of you, whether you can with good conſcience admit them for members of your Church, who do profeſs they wil hold their liberty to heare thoſe whom they and you acknowledge to be in ſchiſme, & vnjuſtly ſeparate from the Church of Chriſt whereof they were members: for ſo do both aged M^r. P. and I. Sh. judge of you. If you anſwer, no: Then how can you with any equity exclame againſt us for that thing wherein your ſelf agree with us: as though ſuch meaſure was offred by us as is ſcarcely to be found at the hands of any Bp. miniſter or court in England, when as yet the ſame meaſure is to be expected at your owne hand? If you anſwer, yea: that you would admit ſuch: I doubt not but that your owne writings may juſtly be brought againſt you for your reproofe, & conviction herein.

As for the commendation of your owne patience, as having learned to beare with comfort ſuch imputations of wrong as we complaine of; me thinkes you make too much haſt vntounto your owne praiſe: whether our patience in bearing with comfort your imputations of falſe Church, miniſtery and vnlawfull communiō,p. 8&c. or your patiēce in bearing with comfort our complaints of wrong herein, be greater: let him that readeth judge upon the iſſue of your writing, when it appeares how that beſt good of manifeſting our aberrations vntounto us is performed by you.

For proofe that our Church continueth one with the church of England, you report your ſelf to the charitable libel which C. La, I. Fowler and others with their penman have printed, &c. For anſwer hereunto I would have you to vnderſtād, 1. **M^r. Clifton teacher in Mr. Iohnſ. his company.The principal penman or ſcribe of the ſeparation that hath written moſt and purpoſely againſt the booke which you call a libel, hath long ſince acknowledged his fault for the ſame, & that vnderunder his hand in writing, acknowledging the great fruit, that comes by publiſhing the perſonall ſins of them that continue in errour: And thus by his repentance hath made ſome ſatisfaction for his offence, as in due time is further to be manifeſted. 2. As for the other penmen which in their writings here and there have ſnatched at the ſame book: there is for them an anſwer in readines, to ſhew that they thē ſelves are extreemely guilty of that which they vnjuſtly impute unto others: and that the writings for their ſeparation in reſpect of the manifold and horrible ſlanders conteyned therein, may indeed juſtly be noted, as moſt vncharitable Libels. 3. That part of the title obiected by you, viz of returning into the boſome of the church of England their true Mother with the words going before, as alſo thoſe that go immediately before their names, are an addition foyſted into the title by ſome falſifyer with out their conſent or knowledge: and thus your maine hint and ground of proving our Church to be one with England, and conſequently your deviſe to turne away the queſtion from the ſtate of our congregatiō vntounto the Church of England & ſo to derive and direct all your arguments thitherward is but a weak ſhift and ſtands upon a mere forgery and therfore not to be admitted: If any aſke how you ſhould know of this falſification: I anſwer, thus much was ſignifyed heretofore unto you in that Declaration prefixed before the book writtē in defence of M^r. Brightmā againſt the vaine collections of Io. de p. 9Cluſe your Elder. Beſides other falſifications there noted, they ſhew that the title of their Booke is doubly encreaſed by the publiſher: & ſuppoſe it were doubtfull unto you, which part of the title was added, yet what godly wiſe man with out ſinning againſt his cō ſcience could build ſuch a pernicious conſequence tending to the overthrow of a Church upon ſo doubtfull a coniecture? 4. Suppoſe thoſe words had bene their owne, yea ſuppoſe they had in plaine words affirmed that which you would infer from thence, viz. that our Church continueth one with the Church of England, and that there is an vnity betwixt us, yet doth not this hinder, but that our Church is a diſtinct body from the Church of England: we are one with them in the doctrine of faith and ſalvation, and the members of our Church do not renounce the communion thereof but communicate with them as occaſion is given: And thus much is alſo done by other Reformed Churches who diſallow your courſe of ſeparation, & embrace the boſome of the church of England, by entertayning communion there with as fully as we do, when occaſion is givē: though both of us do teſtify againſt the corruptions thereof. They refuſe not to ſuck the breaſts of the Church of England, but profeſs to do the like in the aſſemblies of England, as that man doth whom you reprove for declining to vsus.

VVhereas you deny your offer of ſetting downe your reaſons either in word or writing, &c: I have theſe reaſons out of your firſt writing to make me think otherwiſe. 1. I having ſignifyed my willingnes to confer with you if you would ſet downe your reaſons, &c. the ſumme of your anſwer is. Nothing ſhall paſſe betwixt us except I be the firſt provoker, except I deſire it, that then you would not refuſe: In my ſecond writing I deſired it, and ſo perſwaded my ſelf you would have ſet downe your reaſons. 2^ly., you wrote and promiſed at firſt alſo that you would not be wanting to do any good you could unto me: therfore ſeing the ſetting downe of reaſons is a meanes of doing ſome good, I perſwaded my ſelf you would do it if you could, when I deſired the ſame. 3^ly. You profeſſed at firſt, that you were mine p. 10in all Chriſtian duetie: therfore ſeing it is one Chriſtian duety to ſet downe our reaſons for that which we hold the truth being deſired of them whoſe we are, I did thence alſo perſwade my ſelf of this your kinde offer. You obiect now, it is I that called you into this field and ſhould therfore in reaſon give the firſt onſett. I anſwer 1. It was I indeed that firſt deſired the ſame, but being firſt provoked by your people and your ſelf had juſt occaſion ſo to do, as is ſhewed before: 2^ly. My calling you into the field was not abſolute and indefinite, but conditionall and limited after this manner if you wil take upon you to prove, &c. If you pleaſe to ſet downe in writing any arguments, &c. upon your large offer I am mooved to deſire, &c. Having receaved your reaſons I will endevour by my anſwer, &c. Such a deſire of conference as this is yeelds a quite contrary concluſion to that which you would draw from the ſame.

You complaine yet further, and think it ſtrange, that when you have publiſhed ſo many reaſons in that one book of your Apologie (beſides others) yet unanſwered, we ſhould call for more, &c. Hereunto I anſwer: 1. A great number of the doctrines & reaſons thereof conteyned in that book of your Apology are revoked by M_r. Iohnſon himſelf the cheef Author thereof, as is by your ſelf acknowledged & by **Profane Schiſ. of Bro. p. 79. 80.others recorded: & is it not thē a favour unto you to give you liberty & occaſion to ſet downe your reaſons againe more warily & circumſpectly as you might ſee it expediēt, that you ſhould not need to recant & refute them your ſelf as the Author of this Apology hath done? For this I deſerved rather thanks at your hands, then any blame. 2^ly. many of thoſe reaſons in this Apology are alſo ſet downe very breefely & obſcurely, not ſhewing clearely wherein ſtands the force of your collection frō the Scriptures there alleged, ſo that in this reſpect alſo, I had cauſe ſufficient to deſire you to ſet them downe againe to avoyd miſtaking and trouble afterwards in the examination thereof. 3^ly. The reaſons written in your Apology are directed againſt the Church of England and the miniſtery thereof: the reaſons that I deſired of you are ſuch as you have for your ſeparation p. 11from our particular Church and the miniſtery thereof. And who ſees not then that for this regard eſpecially I had reaſon to aſk you for new reaſons.

TO come now vntounto your Syllogiſme, I deny your 2d. propoſition, viz. that your ſeparation is onelyonly from ſin, &c. For profe of this you do alledge 4 thinges that you ſeparate from, viz. an humane leiturgie, tranſlated out of the Popes Maſſe-booke, &c. a mixed multitude forced to be members, &c. a Popiſh order in Pariſhes, dioceſes, &c. and a ſtrange hierarchie, &c. Hereunto I anſwer; Firſt, ſuppoſe you did juſtly in ſeparating from theſe 4. thinges, yet is not your minor proved, viz that your ſeparation is onelyonly from ſin, and communion with ſin: you do not ſeparate onelyonly from theſe things, but as you ſeparate from theſe Dutch and French reformed Churches, as appeares both by the Example of Iohn de Cluſe your Elder ſeparating from the French Church, and by your doctrine in defence of him: **Anſw. to Th. wh. p. 59. 26.ſo alſo do you ſeparate from our Congregation, & cenſure thoſe of your people that come unto us: this ſeparation is not onelyonly from ſin, & therfore not of God, nor the duety of any good man, though you affirme it. As you are bound by your owne promiſe & expreſſe offer to deale with me about what poynt or poynts I will: So are you againe here bound by the cordes of your owne ſyllogiſme, to prove your minor, that you ſeparate from ſin onelyonly. If therfore you will deale either honeſtly and truely in reſpect of your promiſe, or ſoundly and directly in reſpect of your argument, you muſt ſhew us thoſe ſins which are juſt cauſes of forſaking our Church: For thoſe 4. things above mentioned are not to be found in our Church.

Secondly, it is manifeſted unto you by M_r. Robinſon, Relig. Comm. from pa. 1. to pag. 17.that your ſeparation is not onelyonly frō evill: but alſo from many good things in that you ſeparate from private communion with the godly in England: For this cauſe he doth juſtly rebuke & reprove you as wanting **pag. 6.Chriſtian diſcretion; For confuſion of judgement. For ////pag. 12.unequall dealing to the godly; °°pag. 15.For %%pag. 16.looking at them onelyonly with the left eye: For ill-adviſednes in throwing away all at a venture for ſome p. 12evilles: For deſtroying the vnity of the Spirit: For your debarring men from their Chriſtian liberty: & in ſumme for a diſſembling & hypocriticall courſe denying that indeed, which in word is profeſſed by you: as if one ſhould deeme their frend a very honeſt man, but yet would neither truſt him, nor have otherwiſe to deale with him for a farthing. This ſeparation is not onelyonly from ſin, & therfore not of God, nor the duety of any good men. Thus he ſhewes you how weake your ſecond propoſition is. For this he brings many arguments and refutes your reaſons to the contrary. You profeſs in your firſt writing to me, that you will not be wanting to defend any poynt of truth which God hath given you to ſee and witneſse, &c. But what truth is in your profeſſion? If you hold it for truth, why do you not labour to defend it being ſo juſtly called therevnto? If you ſee your errour why do not you acknowledge it, & give ſatisfaction vntounto M_r. Bernard againſt whom you have vvitneſſed **Counterpoy. p. 197.this poynt of private ſeparation? But it appeares, that as you have confeſſed and affirmed, if private communion with the godly in England ſhould be granted, the publicke would alſo follow, Nota.ſo you do yet ſtill eſteeme it the greateſt pollicy that you can vſe, to devoure and ſwallow vp the rebuke that M^r. Robinſon hath layd vponupon you, & to ſmother the matter, rather then by raking into it to raſe the principles of your ſeparation, and ſo to endanger your whole cauſe. But as your ſelf do inſult agaiſt M^r. Iohnſ. for his tergiverſation in one poynt: ſo and much more juſtly may M^r. Robinſon. triumph over you for your tergiverſation in this matter, & ſay vntounto you in your owne words: **Animadverſ. to Mr. Cl. advert. p. 60.you wink and will not ſee it, you are mute & will not defend it, but wind away to other things, &c.

Thirdly, as for your ſeparation from the publique eſtate and Communion with the Church of England: becauſe you do ſo often boaſt of your bookes and reaſons vnanſwered, even 4. or 5. times repeating it in this one leafe, I can not omit to tell you, and to bring to your remembrance, that your errour about this publique communion alſo hath bene by ſundry men refuted & this in divers treatiſes both written and printed with yet remainep. 13vnanſwered: and as of old heretofore, ſo of later time, you may ſee, by the Second Manuduction for M^r. Robinſon: by the vnreaſonablenes of the ſeparation: vvhere whiles M_r. Iohnſ. (whom it moſt concerneth) doth hold his peace, it lyes next vponupon you who have ſo oft ſent vsus vntounto the treatiſe refuted, and are by name called vponupon to defend the ſame if you could. Alſo by A treatiſe written in defence of Communion with the Church of England, one part whereof was ſo imperfectly publiſhed by M^r. B. and hath bene long in the hands of your Elder M^r. Th. Theſe with ſundry other both written and printed do remaine vnanſwered. And by theſe it is manifeſted that your ſeparation is not onelyonly from ſin, & communion therwith, and therfore not of God.

particular 1 AT length you come vntounto the particulars, where I expected you ſhould have begun at firſt: & firſt, concerning the vſe of the L. Prayer among vsus: you ſay you have not layd this as a cauſe of refuſing communion with vsus: that therfore I have no reaſon to require this of you, &c. I anſwer, that in my firſt writing I did not require your reaſon for this abſolutely, but conditionally, if you thought it a juſt cauſe of refuſing our communion: and this alſo I did vponupon occaſion of the vvoman who profeſſed that ſhe was troubled about communion with vsus even for this cauſe: when as in your anſwer to this firſt writing you took no exception againſt this particular more then the reſt, ſignifying alſo that you were willing to deale with me about what poynt I would, when as I had nominated this before; I was there vponupon mooved to deſire your reaſons about this poynt alſo: But if you now agree with vsus herein, I am the more glad of it.

VVhereas you adde, if after prayer by the Spirit, you reade that part of Scripture for a prayer or ſay it over by rote, as is the faſhiō of many: that you approve not, &c. Firſt, I deſire you to explane what you meane by ſaying it over by rote: if you meane, ſaying of it without vnderſtanding and feeling, this we alſo condemne as vvell as you: But if your meaning be according to p. 14H. Barow his ſlanderous & vngodly aſſertion, where ſpeaking of concluding our prayers with the Lords prayer, he demādeth thus: **Diſcov. pag. 73.What can be more groſse, Popiſh, Idolatrous, ſuperſtitious then this? %%Inquiry pag. 23. 30. 31. 85.Or if your meaning be the ſame with the erroneous anſwer to M^r. VVhite concerning this queſtion where the vſe of the Lords Prayer as a prayer is ſo often impugned by you: Then all the reaſons alledged vntounto that purpoſe in your Apology are inſufficient. Our maner is as you cannot be ignorant ordinarily before or after every Sermon or both to conclude our prayers with the Lord prayer; after we have prayed by the help of the Spirit we perſwade our ſelves that we alſo conclude by the help of the ſame Spirit in this vſe of the Lord prayer: If you cal this, ſaying it by rote and hold it to be ſin and a worſhip not to be communicated with all, I pray you tell me plainely, and then I will (godwilling) in my next writing give anſwer vntounto thoſe **Pag. 69. 70.9 reaſons in your Apology wherevnto you refer me: for there is no ſoundnes or truth in any of them.

Secondly, ſuppoſe we ſhould ſay over the Lord prayer by rote even in that worſt ſenſe, with out vnderſtanding and feeling, ſo as none can without injury imagine of vsus: though this ſhould be our greevous ſin, ſo to vtter it, yet ſhould it not be the ſin of the people that joyne with vsus & therfore no juſt cauſe of refuſing cōmunion with vsus: about this poynt onelyonly is our queſtion, & what you ſay beſide the ſame is here impertinent.

You adde yet further; The cheefeſt thing that I miſlike about prayer in you is: that whereas in December laſt, M_r. H. your fellow miniſter taught you and your Church the truth openly and condemned praying on books: as is reported; you receyved not the truth but oppoſed it, &c. Herevnto I anſwer: 1. The report you heard is vntrue in reſpect of the time of M^r. Hu. his preaching with vsus; it was not in December laſt, but a whole twelve-monethmonth before. 2. VVhereas he ſpoke ſome things ambiguouſly in his Sermon touching ſet formes of prayer, being ſpoken vntounto thereof by me before witneſſes, he explaned himſelf thus, that he did not condemne publique ſet formes of prayer, but thoſe onelyonly that p. 15did content themſelves therewith vſing no other prayer in private vntounto God; he acknowledged that he had vſed the book of common prayer in England; and further that he had offred ſtil to read prayers out of the ſame book ſo that he might enjoy his liberty to preach: when he perceyved how ſome vnderſtood his Sermon as hath bene reported to you he complayned that he vvas miſtaken. 3. For the vſe vvhichwhich you draw from this falſe ground, I may juſtly apply it vntounto your ſelf in your owne vvords: It had bene your owne duety to have taught the people the doctrine of religious communion both publique and private; But to reſiſt the truth when God offreth it by your owne brethren partly by them of your owne congregation vvho have proteſted openly againſt your Separation and forſaken the ſame, partly by M^r. Robinſon, vvho hath written againſt it, this is an heavy ſin.

particular 2 TOuching the ſecond particular, the lawfullnes of my miniſtery: you tell me of the inquiry that you now made about it of the man declining vntounto vsus, and here alſo you come your ſelf to enquire of me, whether I do adminiſter here by vertue of that calling which I had of the Biſhops of Englād, or have renounced it. Herevnto I anſwer. 1. As it is a ſnare for a man to devoure that which is holy: and after the vowes to make inquirie. Prov. 20.25. So is it folly & ſin in you firſt to condemne that which is lawfull, as it hath bene ſtill reported, that you dealt with my calling and miniſtery from time to time, & now after ſo many cenſures and ſentences of condemnation vvhichwhich you have paſſed vponupon your people that heard me, that you now at laſt come to make inquirie. 2. I anſwer you, that I do not at all adminiſter, neither in whole nor part, by vertue of that calling which I had in England, though not of the Biſhops: neither yet have I renounced the ſame. But as through out theſe Reformed Churches, he that is called from one congregation to an other doth adminiſter by vertue of his nevv calling and his former calling ceaſſeth, though vvith out renunciation: So is it vvith me. And this my calling I may vvell avouch to bep. 16much more free and lavvfull, then that your entrance of old or creeping into this office vvhichwhich you novv execute.

Touching my ordination vvherein our Church vſed the help of the Dutch reformed Church of this City, you deſire my defence thereof by the book of God, profeſſing that you are yet ignorant what authority the Elderſhip of one Church hath to make or ordeyne miniſters in another: now that Apoſtles & all extraordinary functions are ceaſſed. I anſwer firſt, ſuppoſe that there had bene ſuch an errour in my ordination, as you pretend, yet doth it not follovv that it is vnlavvfull for any to heare me: I require your proofes for ſuch a ſeparation: for concerning this ſeparation is our maine controverſy, and ſee that you vvinde not avvay from it.

Secondly, if you be yet ignorant concerning this poynt, then I exhort you evē in reſpect of your ignorance to take heed how you alledge either this or any other the like doubtfull matters for a ground of ſeparation from vsus: leaſt you and your people be found to be of their number that ////2. Pet. 2.12.2 Pet 2:12ſpeak evill of the things which they do not vnderſtand.

Thirdly, to help your ignorance vvhichwhich you confeſſe herein, I propound vntounto you theſe reaſons from the book of God.

1 … her ordination is not ſimply neceſſary: or els the help of o… Churches and Elderſhips may be ſought for & lavvfully vſed therein: for othervviſe Chriſt ſhould not faithfully & ſufficiently provide for the neceſſities of his Churches, ſeing many of them do vvant fit and able perſons to performe that work of ordination vvhichwhich conſiſteth **Exo. 29.1 35. Levit. 8.1.2. &c. Nub. 27.18.19.23. Deut. 31.7 Act. 6.6. & 13.2.3.Exod 29:1Lev 8:1Lev 8:2Deut 31:7Acts 6:6Acts 13:2Acts 13:3principally in publique prayers and exhortations to be made both to officers and people touching their mutual duetyes, impoſition of hands being but the outvvard ſigne of the charge impoſed by exhortation, and of the bleſsing impoſed by prayer▪ this for example may be ſeene in many Churches vvhichwhich are in the Dorpes or villages here in theſe Netherlandes, vvhere though they be the true Churches of Ch. yet are there not fit and able perſons thus to conſecrate or ordeyne their miniſters as by ample teſtimony p. 17may be confirmed vntounto you in ſundry particulars. The wiſedome and ////Heb. 3.2 Eſa. 5.3,4.Heb 3:2Isa 5:3Isa 5:4faithfullnes of Ch. in his Fathers houſe vvill not ſtand with ſo ſtraite an order as you plead for.

2. If the Elderſhip of one congregation may help an other for the diſcerning and convincing of errours & hereſies in caſes of controverſy, as is both manifeſt by the **Act. 15.2 &c.Acts 15:2Scriptures; and alſo by your owne practiſe & confeſſion in ////Animad. pag. 107. 109.ſeeking and procuring the Elderſhip of that ſeparate company at Leyden to come & help you in your controverſy with M^r. Iohnſon: then vvhy may not alſo one Church deſire the help of th'Elderſhip in an other for the conſecration of their miniſter, whiles they want fit perſons for the ſolemne & publique performing of that work: ſeing both theſe actions are a like holy and religious workes, the ſervice of God, & ſervices of his Church one as well as the other? Is not this %%1. Tim. 5.21.1 Tim 5:21a partiality to prefer one commandement before an other without any warrant?

3. The Deacons and vvidowes of one Church are to performe ſervice vntounto an other, when neede requires in ////Rom. 16 1. 1. Cor. 16.3 & 2. Cor. 8.19.22.24.Rom 16:11 Cor 16:32 Cor 8:192 Cor 8:222 Cor 8:24miniſtration vntounto their outward wants and neceſsities: vvhy may not the paſtours and teachers of one Church adminiſter the word of exhortation & doctrine in an other alſo, & as wel in the buſines of ordination as of any other? or vvhy may any Church receyve help from the hand of a Deacon, rather then from the mouth of a teacher, that is in an other congregation?

4. If thoſe that have the gift of Prophecy being out of office may interpret the Scriptures by occaſion in divers Churches as your ſelf do **Confeſſ. Art. 34.acknowledge from Act. 13.15. VVhy may not ſuch men vponupon occaſion of ordination in the neceſſity of any Church apply their doctrines & exhortations to that purpoſe, & likewiſe call vponupon the name of God at the ſame time for the ſanctification of the perſon ordeyned vntounto that work vvherevnto he is called, & for a bleſsing of his miniſtery vntounto that people.

5. If the members of one Church may lawfully receyve the Lords ſupper in an other vponupon occaſion, as by your owne practiſe p. 18you do acknowledge: then vvhy may not the paſtours and teachers of one Church adminiſter he ſame alſo in an other vvhen need requireth, ſeing the ////Heb. 13.17. 1. Theſ. 5.12. Act. 20.28Heb 13:171 Thess 5:12Acts 20:28ſtate of people and miniſters doth conſiſt in an equal relation one to an other, and their actions of receyving & adminiſtring are mutual betwixt them? And if the Lords ſupper may thus be adminiſtred ſome time by the help of neighbour-miniſters, why not ordination alſo?

6. To conclude, for as much as particular Churches, though in reſpect of their particular covenants, they be diſtinct bodies, yet in reſpect of ††Tit. 1.4. 2. Pet. 1.1.Titus 1:42 Pet 1:1their common faith are all members of the ſame **Eph. 1.23 & 4.4.Eph 1:23Eph 4:4body, of the ſame ////Eph. 2.19. &. 3.15Eph 2:19Eph 3:15city, and the ſame ////Eph. 2.19. &. 3.15Eph 2:19Eph 3:15family and houſhold of God: this generall bond directeth them to performe al poſsible help to one an other in al the workes of **Iude 20. &c.Jude 1:20aedification, ſo far as they are not reſtrayned by ſome ſpeciall commandement of God. Now this act of ordeyning, conſecrating or ſanctifying a miniſter vntounto his office being a vvork of edification, and no reſtraint being ſhewed out of the Scriptures to hinder a neighbour-miniſter from performing the ſame; it followes that the Churches vvhichwhich want perſons apt to teach, like the ////Cant. 8.8 9.Song 8:8litle ſiſters that have no breaſts, may in this buſines vſe the help of the miniſters in other Churches, who in like maner being entreated therevnto may performe the ſame in the name of the Church that deſireth their help.

particular 3 TOuching our agreement with England and your inference of ſeparation from vsus therevpon, I have before ſhewed you the vanity thereof, but becauſe you repeate it againe: I do againe further anſwer you. 1. vve are a diſtinct and ſeverall body from the Church of England, and are no more vnderunder the authority and governement of the prelates, then any of the Dutch or French Churches in theſe Countries are. The boſome of the Church of England is embraced by theſe Churches, and their boſome againe is open to the members of the Church of England as vvell as ours; And therfore you cannot without great partiality, in this reſpect refuſe our communion rather then theirs. 2. You have condemned the communion p. 19of our Church, before the forged addition in the title of that booke ſo miſprinted (not among vsus but in England,) was publiſhed: And therfore your former injury cannot be iuſtifyed by that which is done afterward. 3. You would have vsus ſhew how far vve ſeparate: I anſwer, vve profeſs ſeparation from knowne evilles, but not from the Churches of Ch. for evilles among them: and for our ſelves, our covenant hath bene from the firſt eſtabliſhment of our Church vntounto this preſent to ſerve the Lord in the Goſpell of his Sonne, ſo far as is revealed vntounto vsus.

particular 4 TOuching the fourth particular, viz. our temple, vvhichwhich you call the Nunnes Chappell built for the worſhip of their breaden God and other Idolles: I anſwer, firſt I cannot finde by enquiry that this is ſo as you take it: Thoſe which keep the evidences & charter of the foundation of this building affirme the contrary. And it is probable, conſidering that the ordinary devotions performed in many Monaſteries and Cloyſters, were not the vvorſhip of the breaden God, but other ſongs and prayers, it being vnlawfull for thoſe vvomen that lived alone to execute the Prieſts office in making a breaden God. Secondly, though it be vncertaine, vvhether this Chappel was built for the vvorſhip of the breaden God, yet doubt I not but that much Idol-vvorſhip hath bene performed therein, & therfore I come to examine your reaſons againſt the vſe of ſuch places, having now the true vvorſhip of God exerciſed in them.

reason 1 Your firſt reaſon againſt the place of our vvorſhip, is, **Apol. pa. 76.becauſe the reteyning thereof in ſuch vſe is a breach of the ſecond commandement. Exod. 20.4.5.6. with Deut. 12.2.3. As for Eſay. 30.22. I ſuppoſe you alledge it for an other particular which is not our queſtion.

Herevnto I anſwer: firſt, that commandement, Deut. 12. is as I take it a temporary ordinance, part of Moſes Politie that is now abrogate and therfore not perpetuall not binding vsus in theſe times: For howſoever the equity thereof continue, teaching vsus to deteſt Idolatry, yet doth it not binde vsus in ſuch manerp. 20and by ſuch meanes to ſignify our deteſtation thereof, as it did them in Moſes time? For example: as God here cōmands to aboliſh Idolatrous places, ſo in the next ch. Deut. 13.12.—15.16.17. God commands to aboliſh not onelyonly their places of worſhip, but alſo all their goods, their cattel and all the ſpoyle of the Idolatrous apoſtates and to burne the ſame with fire. The equity of this commandement leads vsus to a great deteſtation of Idolatry and apoſtaſy: but who will ſay that it is to be declared by the very ſame meanes and maner of judgement in deſtroying ſuch things as are of neceſſary vſe? And yet according to your reaſoning from this place: the goods, cattell & treaſures of ſilver and Gold, even of thouſand thouſands of peoples at this day ſhould be avoyded as execrable things, and neither by changing, buying, ſelling, borowing or any other dealing to be medled with all.

Secondly, as God commands to deſtroy idolatrous places, ſo he commands to aboliſh their names, and not to reteyne them Deut. 12.3. This commandement appeares hereby to be temporary and ceremoniall, becauſe now in the new Teſtament, we ſee that the names of divers Idolles have bene reteyned in the perſons therevpon denominate: as the name of Mercurie, Venus, Phebe, Iupiter, Apollo, Fortuna, that were heathniſh Idolles worſhipped for Gods and Goddeſſes and yet their names not aboliſhed in the Saints mentioned by the Apoſtle, Rom. 16.14. Phil. 2.25. Rom. 16.1. Tit. 3.13. 2 Cor. 16.17.

Thirdly, this commandement for deſtroying Idolatrous places as it is not perpetuall for time, ſo alſo not vniverſal for the place, but expreſſely determined and reſtreyned to the Land of Canaan, to the Idolles of thoſe nations which Iſrael ſhould poſſeſs; from that place they were to be cut off, as is thriſe noted, in 3. verſes togather, Deu. 12.1.2.3. Even as God would have greater ſeverity and deteſtation to be manifeſted towards the Idolatours themſelves in Canaan, then to thoſe of other countries a far off, Deut. 20.10.—15.16.17. Ioſh. 9.6.7, &c.

Fourthly, ſeing meats ſacrificed to Idolles were as much pollutedp. 21as the places of their vvorſhip, & yet notwithſtanding may now lawfully be reteyned for our neceſſary vſe, Pſ. 24.1. with 1. Cor. 10.25.26.27. &c. VVhy not the temples alſo, conttrary to the ceremony of old?

Fiftly, as God commands to aboliſh the high places of Canaan, ſo he doth as well command to aboliſh and conſume his owne holy things, when the Religious vſe of them ceaſed; for example he commands to burne the remainder of the Paſchal Lamb which they could not eat the ſame night, Exod. 12.10. as alſo the fleſh of the Ramme of conſecration with the bread thereof that remayned to the morning, Exod. 29.34. And the like commandement was given for the fleſh of the peace offring, Levit. 7,15.19. The equity of theſe ordinances continueth for ever, teaching vsus how to regard the holy things of God, not according to the common vſe of other things, but with a more high and pretious eſtimation of them: but we may not according to the letter of the ceremony and according to your reaſoning aboliſh them: for then the bread & wine that remaines over after the adminiſtration of the Lords ſupper ſhould ſtill be burnt, or otherwiſe aboliſhed.

Laſtly, there is not the like reaſon to aboliſh the buildings abuſed vntounto Idolatry now, as the high places of old, becauſe God having then appoynted one onelyonly place for ſacrifice, Deut. 12.5.6, &c. Levit. 17.3.4. Thoſe high places being for ſacrifice were to be deſtroyed, though no Idolatry had bene committed in them: but being polluted with the ſervice of Idolles, there was then double cauſe of their deſtruction, which is not now in theſe, while difference of place is taken away Ioh. 4 21

Thus you may ſee though. Deut. 12.2.3. be compared with Exod. 20.4.5.6. Yet is there no ſtrength therein for the purpoſe intended.

reason 2 Your ſecond reaſon is, becauſe ſo long as they are continued, Antichriſt with his abhominations is not wholy baniſhed out of the land: as the Lord hath appoynted and wil effect in his time. Rev. 17.16. p. 22& 18.11.12.13. &c. and 2 Theſ. 2.8. with 2. Kin. 10.26.27.28.

Anſ. This argument is denyed: The three firſt allegations ſhew that Antichriſte ſhalbe conſumed, but they ſhew not that our temples are any of his abominations: the 4^th. allegation is taken from the policy of Moſes that is now abrogate.

reason 3 Your third reaſon againſt the places, is: becauſe the conſecrating of them peculiarly to the worſhip of God, now in the time of the Goſpell, hath no warrant in the word of God.

Anſ. I grant this: but yet deny, that for the errour of their conſecration in former time, they muſt therfore of neceſſity be aboliſhed now.

reason 4 VntoUnto your fourth reaſon. I anſwer; though it was of old a part of Gods honour to be worſhipped in the place that he choſe and a part of his diſhonour to deſtroy the ſame: though it be a part of popiſh devotion to hallow places for Gods worſhip, and to put Religion in them: yet doth it not follow that he now requires the plucking downe of the ſame, ſeing there is a change of the Law Heb. 7.12. The ſcriptures alledged do not prove the conſequence; they are of like nature, and are already anſwered.

reason 5 Your fift reaſon is, becauſe the godly Princes are commended in the ſcriptures for being carefull to aboliſh falſe worſhip and the monuments thereof. 2. Chro. 17.6. 2 Kin. 18.4. and 23.12.13.14.15.

Anſ. Thoſe Princes being vnderunder the policy of Moſes are commended for their obedience and practiſe agreeing therewith, but the Godly Princes of our times not being vnderunder the ſame rudiments, are not bound to imitate them herein, further then the equity beforementioned doth require.

reason 6 Your ſixt reaſon for aboliſhing theſe places, is: Becauſe this being done, the people are more eaſily perſwaded and drawne to the true worſhip of God in Spirit and truth: whereas otherwiſe they are ſtill nouriſhed in ſuperſtition, and have meanes to be entiſed dayly to more corruption. Gen. 35.2.3.4. 2 Kin. 18.4. 2 Chron. 34. Chap. Act. 17.23. and 19.26.27. Levit. 13. and 14. Chap. with Iude, 23.

Anſw. That which belonged vntounto the temporary diſpenſation p. 23vnderunder Moſes being ſet apart, the generall equity of theſe Scriptures leades vsus no further then to aboliſh ſuch monuments of ſuperſtition & corruption as have no neceſſary vſe, which may thus further appeare vntounto vsus.

1. If all monuments of ſuperſtition ſhould be aboliſhed like thoſe Idolles and earerings that were in Iaakobs private houſhold, Gen. 35.2. &c. Then an infinite number of private houſes ſhould have bene and ſtill ought to be raſed and demoliſhed, which yet we never read to have bene either commanded of God or practiſed of the Godly. Among the Iſraelites, their private houſes were polluted with Idolatry, and were nurſeryes of ſuperſtition as well as their publique high places: Ioſh. 24.23. Iudg. 17.4. Zeph. 1.5. with Deut. 27.15. The private houſes of the Moſchovites at this day, as thoſe that have ſeene do teſtify, are full of images, and the maner of thoſe that enter dayly into one an others houſes, is firſt to worſhip and bow downe vntounto thoſe Idolles, before they may ſalute any man in the houſe. The private houſes of Papiſts without number are dayly hallowed and conſecrate after their maner for Idol-ſervice and private maſſes: And all theſe Idol-houſes are memo…alles of Idolatry, ſerving to nouriſh ſupeſtition, and meanes to entiſe therevnto, are they therfore all to be plucked downe?

2. As for the braſen ſerpent, 2 King. 18.4. It was of no neceſſary vſe, and therfore might wel be aboliſhed.

3. The high places, the groves, altars, images deſtroyed by Ioſias, 2 Chro. 34. were alſo of no neceſſary vſe: It doth not appeare that the high places were houſes meet to be cōverted vntounto Synagogues for the people to meet in: but were altars in high mountaines and hilles: And therfore not vnfitly is Bamah, an high place, expounded by Bomos, an Altar.

4. The Altar at Athens Act. 17. and the Silver temples of Diana made by Demetrius and his fellowes Act. 19. were likewiſe things of no neceſſary vſe. But whiles I examine thoſe places that you refer me vntounto, I there finde that an Idolatrous place is converted by the Apoſtle vntounto the ſervice of God:p. 24Act. 19.9.10. The Schoole of Tyrannus being as the reſt of the heathniſh ſchooles, the nurſeries of ſuperſtition, Idolatry, falſe worſhip, and pernicious opinions, concerning God, his worſhip, and the ſoveraigne happines of man, was yet after this vſed by Paul for a place of Gods worſhip, for a ſchoole of Religion to preach the Goſpell of Chriſte in the ſame. In ſuch ſchooles the Philoſophers and Poëts, the **Tit. 1.12Titus 1:12Prophets of the Heathens did teach their Religions, and cald vponupon the names of their falſe Gods: The Epheſians in ſpeciall were infamous for their curïous and magical arts taught among them, who now ////Act. 19.19.Acts 19:19burnt their books being better inſtructed, and ſome of their Idolatrous %%Aſiarchai Beza Annot. on Act 19.31.Acts 19:31Prieſts (ſo deemed by ſome) became frendes vntounto Paul: vvith ſuch fruit and bleſsing of God was the Goſpell preached dayly in this place for two yeares togather.

5. Your allegation of Levitic. 13. and 14. doth alſo lead me to remember the equity of of that Lavv of God, whereby he ordeyned that things polluted being of leſſe price ſhould be broken, but being of more worth were to be purged and ſo reteyned, Levit. 11.32.33. and 6.28. As the mercifull care of God for his people appeared herein even vnderunder the law: ſo much more vnderunder the Goſpel, this type is fulfilled vntounto vsus, and the bountifulnes of God in Chriſte is now enlarged abundantly by granting vsus the neceſſary vſe both of things polluted with Idolatry, as alſo of ſuch things as were otherwiſe ceremonially vncleane.

6. If you will have memorialles of ſuperſtition though of neceſſary vſe to be aboliſhed, as being perſwaſions and entiſements to Idolatry, then how will you excuſe your ſelf that do not onelyonly not aboliſh them, but erect them a new: and thoſe alſo of no neceſſary vſe: and not the monuments of them onelyonly, but the very Idoles themſelves: and ſuch Antichriſtian Idols alſo as have diſhonoured God as much if not more then over any did? You will aſk me what and where they be: I anſwer, in your %%Animadverſ. Pag. 61.book againſt M^r. Iohnſon, where with your Pen as with a pencill you have paynted thatp. 25Popiſh Image of the Croſſe, and ſet it vp for Religious vſe foure times in one page, while you deſcribe out of Bellarmine the maner of Popiſh Ordination, to teach men the evill thereof. If now an ignorant Papiſt in reading and ſeing theſe Idolles in your booke ſhall come to bleſſe an Idoll in his heart: either to adore any one of thoſe Idols that you have formed, or ſome other ſigne of the croſſe which he remembreth vponupon this occaſion; (for oft do ſuch things come to paſſe, and men ſtumble at the Goſpell it ſelf, and through their corruption are hardned by errour by reading ſound reaſons againſt the ſame:) how could you now cleare your ſelf in this caſe from the guiltimes of drawing men to Idolatry? when men ſtumble at the word of God or ſound reaſon brought from the ſame, their ſin is vponupon their owne head onelyonly: But if men ſtumble at thoſe deviſed …ndes of inſtruction which have no warrant from God, then comes their ſin vponupon the head of their inſtructours alſo. And thus is it with your kinde of inſtruction here; it hath no warrant from the Lord: VVhen he in his word cōdemnes the abhominations of Molech, Chemoſh, Aſhtaroth, Baal, &c. he doth not cauſe the Shapes and figures of theſe Idolles to be pourtrayed or painted before the eyes of men, as you have done with this Popiſh Idoll of the Croſſe: And therfore here is no excuſe left for you herein. Though ſome may have done this before you, yet will it help you litle, who neglecting the example of all the Churches of Chriſt in that which is good, do yet follow a few in that errour, which you, would ſeeme moſt to condemne.

reason 7 Your ſeventh reaſon is: Becauſe the Lord hath promiſed a bleſſing to them which do reiect & aboliſh them, and threatned a curſe to the contrary: And ſo alſo hath performed indeed, Eſa. 30.22.23, &c. Exod 20,5.6. 2 Chron. 17 Chap. and 31 20.21. with 2 Chron. 21.13.14, & 24.17-25. & 28. Chap.

Anſw. Suppoſe that every one of theſe Scriptures did ſpeak more peremtorily then they do for the reiecting and raſing the houſes polluted with Idolatry, yet ſeing they are all to be p. 26vnderſtood partly according to the ſtate and condition of the old Teſtament, and partly according to the equity mentioned before with exception of neceſſary vſe, they do not therfore reprove that vſe of temples which we now have.

THus far for anſwer vntounto the reaſons in your Apologie. Herevnto I have thought it meet to annex three or foure reaſons taken from your owne practiſe, that you might be further convinced and judged even of your owne ſelves:

Firſt, whereas the blinde and obſtinate Iewes are at this day a falſe Church without Chriſte and without true God, and their worſhip falſe and blaſphemous: yet have you not refuſed, after your diviſion and rent from M^r. Iohnſon to meete togather for the ſervice of God in the Idol-temple of the Iewes, where they had exerciſed their Idol-ſervice before you. How comes it to be lawfull for you to aſſemble where the Iewes have ſerved their God, and not for vsus where the Papiſts have bene before vsus?

Secondly, whereas you have reiected the miniſtery of M^r. Iohnſons company, as **Animadverſ. p. 38.a new eſtabliſht Hierarchy, and do els where condemne ſuch miniſters as ////Counterpo. pag. 196.Idols: from hence it followeth that the place where they meet togather to fullfill their miniſtery was an Idol-temple; And yet even in that ſame place where thoſe Idol-miniſters met, you are now content to come and aſſemble togather, they being diſpoſſeſt. VVhy may not that place 2. Kin. 18.4. be now vrged againſt you, as well as againſt others by you? VVhy is not that Idol-houſe broken downe as well as the braſen Serpent, &c.

Thirdly, in that you allow your people, the members of your Church to receyve the almes of the Dutch, which is a ſacrifice Phil. 4.18. and this in the ſame place which you condemne as an Idol-temple; If you will alſo allow them, at the ſame time to bleſſe in the name of God thoſe that diſtribute ſo mercifully vntounto thē, according to the **Phil. 4.19.20. 2 Tim. 1.16. 2 Cor. 9,12 13,Phil 4:19Phil 4:202 Tim 1:162 Cor 9:12duety of the godly poore: do ye not hereby allow the worſhip of God in Idol-temples as you call them?

p. 27The anſwers which you give vntounto M^r. White concerning this matter are inſufficient for

1. VVhere you would have vsus to ////Inquiry, pag. 56.put difference betweene the ordinary publique worſhip of the Church in ſuch places, and the occaſionall receyving of almes therein by the poore: This difference cannot without manifeſt vntruth be affirmed or applyed vntounto the matter in hand: for the diſtribution of this almes here ſpoken of is not occaſionall, but an ordinary publique work of mercy performed at certaine ſet times; and as is the diſtribution ſo is the receyving thereof.

2. You put difference between the benevolence of a Church to the miniſters or Saincts of Chriſte (which is the ſacrifice ſpoken of Phil. 4.18.) & the releef of a city given to the poore that dwell among them, be they of any Religion whatſoever, one or other. But neither will this diſtinction help you, for not onelyonly the benevolence given to the miniſters or Saincts of Chriſte, but that alſo which is givē to the poore of any Religion whatſoever, one or other is a ſervice and **Heb. 13.16. Gal. 6.10. 2 Cor. 9.13.Heb 13:16Gal 6:102 Cor 9:13ſacrifice of ſweet odour pleaſant and acceptable to God: and further this almes that we ſpeak of, is not the releef of a City but cheefely the benevolence of a Church collected publiquely every Lords day in the congregation of the Saincts, with whom you communicate in their publique almes though not in publique prayers.

3. You put difference between the ſolemn appoynted worſhip of God by the Church ſo aſsembled togather, and the private dueties of thankfulnes, of ſalutation, or the like. But this diſtinction alſo cannot truely be applyed vntounto this matter in hand, for the dueties of godly thankfullnes and bleſsing in the name of the Lord, which are and ought to be here performed, are not private dueties but publique even as is this almes that is alwayes publiquely adminiſtred in the preſence of a great multitude aſſembled togather.

4. This queſtion is aſked by you; doth he think we hold it not lawfull to walk vp & downe in the Idol temples, as they vſe in Pawles at London, &c. I anſwer, that in in Idol-temples, where Idol-ſervice p. 26duplicate page p. 27duplicate page p. 28is ſtill ordinarily performed, you cannot lawfully walk vp and downe, as men vſe to do in Powles. Mat. 18.7.Matt 18:7For woe is denounced to the man by whom ſcandalles do come. And I demand of you, whether you hold it lawfull for men ſo to have walked vp and downe in the houſe of Baal, and there to have receyved almes as your people do in theſe temples whereof we ſpeak:

Fourthly, your owne ſtaggering and waverings about this matter are worthy to be obſerved:

1. The doubting of H. Barow, who had writtē ſo perēptorily hereof, is recorded in that peece of paper which is paſted vponupon the **Diſcov. pag. 133.margēt of his book over againſt the place where he had maintayned ſuch a vehement deteſtation of them. And that is there in part diminiſhed touching the civil vſe of them.

2. M^r. Iohnſons wavering is recorded in his book againſt M^r. White: His confeſsion there noted by himſelf concerning the lawfull hearing in theſe temples, was that ////Inquiry. pag. 66.it ſhould not trouble himſelf and for others he would therein perſwade them the beſt he could. And yet in the very ſame book both ††pag. 57.before and %%pag. 79.after he doth againe write againſt them: In the very ſame **pag. 66.page before noted, he blames Mr. White for changing and rechanging his faith and profeſsion as if he thought he might dally with Religion at his pleaſure: with what honeſty and modeſty is this done, while the ſame book teſtifyes his owne changing, rechanging & changing againe ofter then he could impute to M_r. VVhite? And ſince that alſo;, he hath of late tolerated ſundry of his people to heare in thoſe places.

3. M^r. Robinſon, though he have written in ſuch high words againſt theſe tēples: that ////Iuſtific. pag. 443.they are by lawfull authority to be demoliſhed and overthrown: & in the meane while as execrable things to be avoyded by them which have none authority to deface or demoliſh them: though he plead againſt them, as being **Pag. 444.Idolles, vncleane things not to be touched: the mark of the beast not to be receyved: & a Babylon to be gone out of, &c. Yet hath he for this long time tolerated M^r. Br. to heare the word of God in ſuch places: and ſo according to his owne writing ſuffred one of his people to go in to p. 29Babylon, to cary the mark of the beaſt, and to be defiled with an Idol and an execrable thing, like an other Achan among them And not onelyonly this, but now of late this laſt monethmonth as is witneſſed vntounto me, he ſeeing (as it appeares) how raſhly and vnſoundly he hath written againſt M^r. Bernard in this poynt, begins openly in the middes of his congregation to plead for the lawfull vſe of theſe temples; and ſo to repaire and build them vp againe, which before he would ſo faine have had to bene plucked downe.

4. For your ſelf and your owne congregation; do you not know, and is it not confeſſed vntounto you, that there is of your owne people that ſometimes heare the Dutch-miniſters even in theſe temples which you do ſo much condemne? doth not VV. S. profeſs that he vvil continue alſo thus to doe? And if this practiſe be a breach of the 2d. commandement, & a tranſgreſsion of ſo many Scriptures as you alledg againſt it in your Apology: and if ſo heavy a curſe be threatned againſt it as you there affirme, with what love of your brother or conſcience of Chriſts ordinance, do you ſuffer that perſon to walke on in ſuch an accurſed courſe as you make it? or how can you without partiality make this a ground of refuſing communion with vsus, and yet tolerate it among your ſelves? Is this that High-way of the vpright man which you poynt at with your finger in the **Prov. 16.17.Prov 16:17ſentence which you prefix before this your writing? Is this to keep your way and ſo to preſerve your ſoule and the ſoules of thoſe that you take charge of? Beſides this, there are of your people that have holpen to repaire our temple and to make it fit for our vſe, by mending and making new ſeates for the people and new pulpit for the miniſter in the ſame: and do they not hereby ſeeme to contradict your profeſsion? I have here againe juſt cauſe to ſpeak vntounto you, as you did vnjuſtly vntounto me vponupon occaſion of M^r. H. his Sermon: The cheefeſt thing that I miſlike in you about this matter, is: that vvhereas Mr. Iohnſon & M_r. Robinſon your fellow ministers have openly witneſſed the truth vntounto you by their practiſe, yet you do not receive the ſame, but oppoſe p. 30it ſtill. It had bene your duety to have layd aſide this errour of your ſelf, but to reſiſt the truth when God offreth it by your owne brethren, is an heavy ſin.

After theſe 4. particulars, you ſay, Other things there are where in we know you differ from vsus: as our keeping of holy dayes beſides the Lords dayes, &c. Mariage a civil duety performed by our miniſtery in our Church: Our Elderſhip ſitting and iudging matters apart from the congregations, &c. Herevnto I anſwer.

Firſt, the queſtion betwixt vsus, is not about all things wherein you differ from vsus, but onelyonly about thoſe differences which you hold to be juſt cauſes of renouncing our communion. Other great or greater differences then theſe, there are alſo betwixt vsus: as that you allow not your people to mary with the members of the reformed Churches as we do, but make ſuch Mariages to be a cauſe of excommunicating your people, as though the godly mēbers of theſe true Churches were like the abhominable Canaanites in your ſight: That you allow mariages made among your ſelves without conſent and authority of the Magiſtrates: and this both in England and here alſo, where the lawes do hold the Children of ſuch as are ſo maryed to be illegitimate: That you alſo allow divorces among your ſelves without the authority of the Magiſtrate: That you turne the Lords day into a ſeſsion or Court-day, omitting and thruſting out in part ſometimes the adminiſtration of the word & Sacraments, by ſpending ſo much time in controverſies & contentions: That you condemne the ſet maintenance of miniſters; with ſundry other differences, which I know not whether you maintaine as cauſes of ſeparation from vsus. Theſe are yet in Compariſon your ſingle errours, vvhereas your ſeparation or ſchiſme is a double iniquity and an errour of errours: If in defence hereof you can prove our Church and miniſtery to be falſe, as hath bene oft avouched by you: you may then lay the axe of your ſeparation vntounto the root of our Religion and hew vsus downe at once: If you can ſhew our worſhip or place of worſhip to be vnlawfull, it would be ſomethingp. 31to the purpoſe: If you alledge other differences, and do not prove them to be cauſes of ſeparation, you wander from the queſtion.

Secondly, we knovv alſo that there are differences among your ſelves, both about ſome of theſe ſame, and other greater matters: and not onelyonly betwixt you and M^r. Robinſon, but in your owne congregation alſo: as that ſome of your people vponupon the holy dayes by you mentioned, ſhut vp their ſhops: others not, as is **Inquiry. p. 59. 60.acknowledged by your ſelves vntounto M^r. White: That ſome of you hold an enforced divorce, and that the aaIbid. p. 32 33.parties innocent either huſband or wife which forgive one an other being guilty of adultery and live ſtill togather are to be excommunicated; others holding the contrary: That ſome of your people are of your minde in denying private communion with the godly in England and yet ſome even of your owne congregation do allow ſuch communion, holding rather with Mr. Robinſon then with you, that refuſe to anſwer him: So that if notwithſtanding theſe and the like differences, you can yet hold communion among your ſelves, and with M^r. Robinſon, it may ſeeme that theſe three laſt differences above noted by you, are not intended as cauſes of ſeparation, and ſo belong not to our queſtion.

Thirdly, our differing in thoſe 3 poynts nominated by you, is duely to be weighed of you: 1, for keeping of holy dayes: vve hold all dayes (except the Lords day) to be alike holy: If our people at the Magiſtrates appoyntment do ſhut vp their ſhops without putting holynes in the day, it is confeſſed that your people do the ſame alſo: That ordinary day of the week which we have for a ſermon is ſometimes changed vntounto one of thoſe holy dayes (as they are called) and we preach on the ſame, to redeeme time for mens labour, and to win opportunity to preach the word vntounto many in ſeaſon or out of ſeaſon; and this alſo, as I heare is done by you, and that by a memorable token at one time eſpecially; the time of your rending from Mr. Iohnſon being on a Chriſtmas day ſo called, vntounto which dayp. 32you had changed the ordinary time of your aſſembling in the week. Thus far you agree with vsus: & this being granted lawfull, the reſt if it be any thing will follow. 2. For Mariages: we do not hold it as a thing of neceſsity, that they ſhould be celebrated by miniſters in the Church; we judge them lawfull mariages that are made by the Magiſtrates without miniſters: but yet vve hold it lawfull, more convenient, and comfortable that they be accompliſhed in the Church by the Miniſters, both for ſhewing the dueties of the perſons maryed and for obteyning a ſpeciall bleſſing by the prayers of the congregation. 3. For our Elderſhip ſitting and judging matters, &c. though our Elderſhip for the examination of parties and witneſſes, and for their conſultations thereabout do ſit a part, as is meet; yet do we not exclude or debar any from hearing and ſeeing the conviction of any ſin that is either publique of it ſelf or perſiſted in, when they deſire the ſame; yea we our ſelves have oft deſired their preſence to behold the convictions, admonitions and rebukes of offenders: and further, before any ſentence be given for the cutting off of any offendour, we do firſt propound the matter vntounto the whole Church, requiring their prayers, adviſe and conſent without which never yet any judgement of excommunication hath bene executed againſt any amongſt vsus: And this alſo is propounded vntounto them by divers degrees, long and oft before any pronouncing of ſentence, that ſo our brethren may have ſufficient time, both to informe themſelves of the matter and to deliberate ripely thereof. And even this ſitting of our Elderſhip a part from the congregation, ſeemes to have bene allowed by your ſelf, for as much as in a matter of controverſy, you and your Elder M^r. Th. have not refuſed to come & appeare before this our Elderſhip, and there to give what light & evidence you could vntounto the matter in queſtion; and thus alſo have others of your people at other times voluntarily come and appeared as witneſſes before vsus: and have ſo far communicated with our governement.

You ſay, you ſuppoſe that this our court ſhall finde no better allowance p. 33by the Church or Courts of England then doth your Church which we counte ſchiſmaticall. A vaine ſuppoſition: for 1. though our elderſhip ſhould finde no favour nor allowance from the prelats or courts of England, yet have we comfort in Gods allowance: we depend on Chriſt and not vponupon prelates. 2. The allowance of the reformed Churches which give vsus the right hand of fellowſhip, being layd in ballance with the diſallowance of prelates is enough to countervaile the ſame: A comfort that you are far from. 3. Even the cheef defendours of the prelacy can not but give allowance vntounto our elderſhip, confeſſing that this governement aaD. Downam, ſermō at lambeth pag. 95.may be admitted, and that it is as ſilver, good; though they prefer their owne as Gold before the ſame.

You adde further, that of theſe things we may ſee our ſelves reproved and convicted in your Apology aforeſayd. But this is alſo a vaine ſpeech: firſt, there is no ſuch conviction to be ſeene in your Apology; but this we rather ſee, that M^r. Iohnſon the Author of your Apology is in his conſcience reproved & convicted of divers of theſe errours that he hath written: we ſee ſome of his people coming vntounto our Sermons, even on thoſe holy dayes you ſpeak of: we ſee others of them willing and deſirous to have their mariages celebrated in our congregation, even whiles they remaine with him ſtill: we ſee his governement changed, but who knowes what it now is? we ſee him broken & confounded in his courſes but without ſuch true repentance, as ſhould bring him plainely to confeſſe, to revoke & to refute his errours wherewith he hath bene a meanes to enſnare ſo many. And the ſight of this confuſion in him might be ſufficient to ſerve for your iuſt reproofe alſo, if you conſider it a right.

Secondly, ſuppoſe you had ſufficiently convicted vsus by your Apology in thoſe differences betwixt vsus, yet is not your refuſall of our communion for the ſame iuſtifyed thereby; that is the queſtion that remaines vnproved. VVhen I receyve any arguments from you to that purpoſe, I will then godwilling give anſwer both to thoſe arguments for ſeparation from vsus, as alſo to ſo many reaſons as I can finde in your Apology touching thoſep. 34three particulars them ſelves.

In fine, you tel vsus, that we ſhape our Church according to the time and place wherein we live, &c. Touching this imputation of variablenes, I anſwer for my ſelf, that when I lived in England, I teſtifyed againſt the evilles which I conceyved to be in the order of that Chureh: and when I was called hither I reioyced to finde thoſe things that I had deſired before and this with out variablenes. And the communion which we ſtill vponupon occaſion hold with the Church of England, can no more deſtroy the truth of our Church, then it doth other reformed Churches which practiſe in like maner. But if you come to ſpeake of variablenes, and ſhaping a mans ſelf to the time and place, you give vsus occaſion to remember your owne levity & ſcandall in this behalfe: But I ſpare you for this time.

To conclude, ſeing that beſides the common and generall motives which may binde vsus to deale faithfully and conſcionably in all our wayes, we have at this preſent alſo the hand of God lying vponupon the City where we live, and his deſtroying angell is come into our ſtreets: ſo that many fall both on the right hand and on the left, through the noyſome peſtilence that walketh in the dark and waſteth at noone day: let vsus therfore ſo write as if the arrowes of th'almighty did ſtick faſt in vsus: Let vsus with all our might ſeek thoſe things that may ſerve for the aedification of the Church of God, with his praiſe and our peace therein: even ſo as if ech of our writings were to be ſealed with our preſent diſſolution. He vvhoſe name is counſellour & the mighty God guide vsus herevnto: Farewell in the Lord.

Auguſt. 21. 1617. Iohn Paget: