The Defense for the Congregational Way, Response 1

The Defense for the Congregational Way · Response 1

p. 1THE DEFENCE OF Sundry Poſitions and Scriptures, for the Congregational-way JUSTIFYED:

Reverend and beloved Brother,

YOu have ſaluted us with a querulous and Apologeticall Epiſtle; a querulous in reference to us, and Apologeticall in reference to your ſelfe; And with an 112 Queries, to all which you require us to give rationall and ſcripturall Anſwers; We will firſt take your Epiſtle into conſideration, and afterwards debate what is meete to be ſaid in reference to your Queries.

And firſt we will conſider the juſtneſſe of thoſe charges that you lay upon us. Secondly, Whether you have acquitted your ſelf from thoſe charges you ſay are laid upon you.

The charges you make againſt us may be referred to ſevenSect. 1▪ heads.

1. That we unjuſtly charge you of provoking us to be your Antagoniſt in print. pag. 3.

2. That there is a difference betwixt our Title page and the text. pag. 8, 9.

p. 23. That our pretending to prove ſome poſitions, practiſes, by other ſcriptures and arguments as to your intent expreſſed in the preface, is a by-matter. pag 10.

4. That we doe not anſwer directly, but obliquely and evadingly. pag 10, 11.

5. That we diſcover too much willingneſſe to quarrell at your expreſſions. pag 11.

6. That contrary to rule and reaſon when we ſhould make good the proofe of the Poſition from the Text alledged, we call to you to prove the contrary. pag. 12

7. That we curtall and clip your anſwers, fold them up in obſcure &c. Omit that which we know to be more pertinent, while we tranſcribe and largely anſwer ſome thing leſſe pertinent. pag. 13.

To beginne with the firſt: How doe you acquit your ſelfe 1from provoking us to be your Antagoniſts in print? Did the Booke breake forth into the world againſt your conſent? Your ſelfe imply the contrary, when you ſay others (rather then your ſelfe) thought fit the examination &c. ſhould be printed. And what charge ſoever you gave concerning the prefixing of your name; yet we could not be ignorant what by R: H: M: A: of Maygd. Col. Cambr. meant. Yet it was not your name (which we love as we doe your perſon) that could provoke us, but the matter in the Booke; which as it tended to the ſubverſion of that Government which is in our apprehenſions ſutable to the golden rule of the word of God, and the ſetting up of another governmēt, which in the things in controverſie we can ſee no other ground for, ſave humane policy and prudence, (ſo called,) meaſured by the line of naturall reaſon: ſo it reflected upon us in ſome particulars, which falling from us in conference or writing you took up, and committed your anſwer unto them to be made publique. And for that cauſe when we ſaw no other of better abilities take up the buſineſſe, we thought we were bound to make our defence as p. 3publique. But as Joſeph in another caſe ſaid to his Brethren,Gen. 45. 5.Gen 45:5 Be not grieved that ye ſold mee, &c: ſo whether you provoked, or whether we without cauſe were provoked, yet if God (as we hope he will) make this a meanes to bolt out ſome truth of his, ſo farre forth we ſhall rejoyce in it.

Your ſecond charge is, that there is a difference betwixt our Title page and the Text (pag 7, 8.) for ſay you. The Title ſpeakes indefinitely, that the Poſitions and Scriptures alledged (not ſome or many of them) by me examined, are ſufficient, pertinent and full of power, and are manifeſted, yea clearely manifeſted ſo to be. But in your text you diſclaime the places applyed to Poſition 23, as it is by me controverted and are confident they are not found in the workes of any Congregationall man, &c.

Anſw 1. The title page was not that we ſent up, but was prefixed to our defence by a Friend, to whoſe care we committed it, to ſee to the printing of it, our ſelves living at ſuch diſtance. And if leſſe had beene given out in the Title, it would not have derogated from the validity of the worke, and would have liked us better. Notwithſtanding we doubt not but to maintaine the concordance betwixt the Text and it, though not perhaps in every Punctilio. Yet it muſt be underſtood, that ſo farre as the Poſitions and ſcriptures are ours, and truly and juſtly alledged by you as ours, ſo farre we maintaine the ſufficiency and pertinency of them. And alſo ſo farre as Congregationall men have intended to make uſe of them, in reference to their true and proper ſcope, in alledging them, they are full of power, for they have produced and mentioned ſeverall of them as probable, and there is ſtrength of probability though not of certainty, even in thoſe texts in which the infallibility of them is not aſſerted.

2. The title that we ſent up prefixed to our Booke, you may behold it in the firſt page of our defence without variation, and we ſuppoſe you will judge it modeſt enough.

3. And whatſoever may be ſaid for the reſt, yet ſure we are, in the inſtance you give there is no difference betwixt p. 4them. For the Title page ingageth to a defence of ſundry Poſitions, and ſcriptures alledged to juſtifie the Congregationall way; But Poſition 23 as it is by you controverted, is a doctrine deviſed by your ſelfe, and the ſcriptures fixed by your ſelfe, to render us odious to all other Churches and all other Saints. As for us, we hate and deteſt the thought of confining the Prieſtly, Propheticall, and Kingly Offices of Chriſt, to Churches meerely Congregationall; Neither were theſe ſcriptures ever alledged by us, or any of our judgement, (to our knowledge) to any ſuch purpoſe: therefore without claſhing with our Title page, we might and ought to explode them.

4. Foraſmuch as your Title page runnes thus, The examination of ſundry ſcriptures alleadged by our Brethren in defence of ſome particulars of their way: Either make it out that ſome Brethren of the Congregationall way, have made uſe of theſe ſcriptures to this purpoſe, or elſe there will be found not onelyonly an imaginary, but a reall claſhing betwixt your title page and your text, and you alſo will be found guilty the ſecond time, of a grievous reproach, not onelyonly againſt the Brethren, but againſt the way it ſelfe.

For the ſecond place, viz. Poſition the 15, wherein ſay 2you, After the allegation of ſome Authorities inſtead of anſwering a Text (upon which the diſtinction of Paſtors and Teachers is grounded) You, (the one a Teacher and the other a Paſtor) conclude, if we doe put a falſe gloſſe upon the ſcripture by miſinterpreting of Eph. 4. 11. yet more modeſt language (let any man finde immodeſty in that examination if he can) had become you Brother, ſeeing ſuch reverend and learned men (whom your ſelfe honour) have gone before us in this expoſition.

Anſw. If we had only urged their authorities, you might have charged us with not making out in this place what we pretend in our title Page: but we urge and improve the reaſons, and ſo make them our owne reaſons, for the confutation of your anſwer. Firſt, after we have ſhewed that whether p. 5you tranſlate the prepoſitive article foreign, ſome, or theſe, you gaine nothing by it; we endeavour to prove that the Doctors are not Schoole-Doctors, but Church Doctors, from Rom. 12. 7, 8. 1 Cor. 12. 8. and then proceed to prove that theſe Church Doctors are diſtinct from Church Paſtors, not onelyonly by the authority of Zanchy, but by the reaſons rendred by Pareus and Bucer, and ſpecified by us, viz. That God gives diſtinct gifts to Paſtors from thoſe that he gives to Teachers: For to the one is given a ſpeciall faculty of exhortation, to the other a clearer underſtanding of doctrine, and conſequently they are diſtinct offices; And yet you would make all men beleeve, that in our Reply, we defend not the Text at all.

Concerning our concluſion, in which immodeſt language is charged upon you, and your defence of your ſelfe (Let any man finde immodeſty in that examination if he can) we ſay, we conceive not our ſelves injurious in it at all. For the immodeſt language, though it be not in the examination of this Poſition, yet we finde it in the firſt words of the preface which is applicable in your proper ſcope, to all the poſitions, and ſo conſequently to this Poſition, viz. True Poſitions and lawfull practiſes muſt not (much leſſe untrue and unlawfull) be fathered upon God by miſinterpretation of his word, &c. In which words you doe inſinuate the Poſitions which you examine, and practiſes built upon them to be untrue and unlawfull, and to be fathered on God by miſinterpretation of Gods word. And therein you doe not aſperſe us onelyonly, but lay an immodeſt charge upon Bucer, Zanchy, Pareus, who concurre with us in our Poſition and interpretation of Eph. 4.

Thirdly, ſay you, Doe you clearly manifeſt that the text Mat. 318. (whatſoever other texts doe) doth prove that the Church muſt be Congregationall?

Anſw. We clearely manifeſt, what in conference we have endeavoured to prove out of theſe words, and the Poſition p. 6as you have laid it downe and doe controvert it, we ſhall beleeve to be your owne Fiction, till you produce your Author. We hold that the exerciſe of Church Power by the Congregationall Church is founded upon this text, as the obſervation of the Chriſtian Sabboth is upon the fourth Commandmēt. We have clearely proved that Chriſt in this place ſends the offended Brother to the Church endowed with power at that time when the offence ſhould be committed, and therfore ſends the Brethren of the Jewiſh Church to the Jewiſh. Church, whilſt that Church remained in power: and ſends the brethren of Chriſtian Churches in the times of the Goſpell to Congregationall Churches as they ſtand in oppoſition to Claſſicall, Provinciall, Nationall and Oecumenicall Churches. And how ſlight ſoever you make of this our Reply, except by ſcripturall reaſons, you force us to quit this ground, you loſe your Presbyterian cauſe.

Fourthly, ſay you, Poſition the 20. Have you clearely manifeſted 4that the Keys were given to Peter to be uſed by him, (For you could not but know that to be the meaning) as a Diſciple, Beleever, not an Officer?

Anſw. We have clearely proved the contrary; And yet you without the leaſt refutation of the proofe made by us, ſticke to the concluſion, that we cannot but know the meaning to be, that the Keys were given to Peter to be uſed by him as a Diſciple, or a Beleever, not as an Officer. A doctrine which we profeſſe againſt (as in our Reply we manifeſt) as neither conſonant to the mind of the holy Ghoſt, (as we conceive) nor the Elders of New England, whom you alledge, as we proved it out of the ſenſe of their owne words. Doe we but ſing to a deafe man in what we ſay to you? We leave it to the ingenuous Reader to judge betwixt us.

Fifthly, ſay you, Have you clearely manifeſted that Col. 4. 17. proves the Churches power to cenſure her Officers: when the ſtrongeſt argument you bring, to prove Archippus his faultineſse, without which it was no cenſure, amounts but to a ſtrong preſumption and p. 7that you know is but a weake proofe.

Anſw. A man would imagine that you (Brother) never built any concluſions as mortally probable upon premiſſes that might beget ſtrong preſumptions, but that all your arguments were demonſtrationes potiſsimae, and concluded with an foreign becauſe you finde fault with our ſtrong preſumptions built upon two good reaſons, and uſhered in by the authority of Zanchy, as one of thoſe many Claſſick Authors that aſſert the ſame thing with us in this particular. Yet your ſelfe upon this place argue thus. Paul (ſayExamination in pag. 15, 1… you) bids Timothy fulfill his miniſtery, 2 Tim. 4, 5. yet this doth not ſuppoſe Timothy to be faulty, &c. And then you adde, And it may be Archippus was not faulty, and then this Admonition was no cenſure. and thence you inferre, therefore its alleadg…d to no purpoſe; It had beene more tollerable if you had ſaid therefore it may be, it is alledged to …o purpoſe. Is it a fault in us to build a ſtrong preſumption upon two reaſons, yet uncontrowled? Is it no fault in you (Sir) to build a peremptory concluſion upon that which amounts to no more then an it may be, which is not ſo much as a remote probability, much leſſe a ſtrong preſumption?

Since our worke and buſineſſe was to defend the ſcriptures alleadged againſt your examinations, we have fulfilled what our Title page undertakes, if we prove that a Church hath a priviledge to admoniſh her Officers by virtue of this text, any thing in your examinations notwithſtanding. Now the two reaſons by us alleadged make it abſolutely cleare, that Archippus was faulty by virtue of Col. 4. 17. and that tho Churches power in cenſuring her Officers, may be, and is founded hereupon. i. e. For ought you alleadge to the contrary in that place, and containe in them grounds of a ſtrong preſumption that the thing is ſo indeede.

Sixtly, Have you (ſay you) clearely manifeſted from Adams Family, that 7 8 or 9, make a Church, &c.

Anſw. Is not our worke to defend the Poſition againſt p. 8your arguments? Is there any thing that hath the leaſt appearance of an argument produced by you in this ſection, which we have not fully anſwered? If there be, produce it.

We thought it ſuperfluous and impertinent to prove that which your ſelfe clearely grant, when you ſay the caſe of Adam and Noah was extraordinary, there were no more in the world, and therefore could be no more in the Church: Doe you not grant a Church at that time conſiſting of 7, 8 or 9, Of this we make uſe, and argue in effect thus; How few ever made a Church ſince the beginning of the world, the ſame may make a Church at this day: But 7, 8 or 9 (ſay you) made a Church in Adams time and Noahs time, Therefore 7 8 or 9, may make a Church at this day. Yet we would not have the Church to conſiſt of no more, but judge a numerous addition of members a great mercy.

As for our conceſſion (that God hath not preciſely determined what number doth make a Church) which you make uſe of to darken the cleareneſſe of our manifeſtation, we ſay, It is a confirmation of our argument which we bring, viz. That looke how few have made a Church, ſo few may make a Church ſtill, becauſe God hath not determined what number a Church muſt conſiſt of. And it is brought to cleare the Poſition that 7 8 or 9, may now make a Church, becauſe ſo many have made a Church in Adams and Noahs dayes. And till you have overthrowne the ſtrength of the Argument which is contained in theſe words (becauſe God hath not determined what number muſt make a Church) you deale not candidly, to ſuggeſt that out owne acknowledgement in thoſe words, is againſt that cleare manifeſtation of that Poſition, which we in the Title page ſpeake of.

Seventhly, Methinks you have not cleared (ſay you) that Revel. 8. 8, 9. is ſufficient and full of power againſt ſetled Endowments.

Anſw. Sir, It falls out with the beſt writers, as it doth with the beſt builders, they have not onelyonly in the making of p. 9their walles certaine peeces of timber, which beare up the weight of the ſtories and roofe which if they were removed the whole building would fall; but alſo certaine carved enterteiſes, which ſerve for ornament, and yet poſſibly may yeeld ſome contributions of ſtrength alſo; yet ſo, that if they ſhould be removed, the building would remaine firme. Theſe amongſt the learned are uſually types, doubtfull parables, and darke propheſies, which they bring in when they have ſolidly proved a point by ſound argument before. Thus it falls out with the Elders of New England, who being demanded whether they did allow or thinke fit to allow and ſettle any certaine ſtinted maintenance upon the Miniſters, anſwer that there is nothing done that way amongſt them, and their practiſe they defend by two reaſons, which muſt needes inferre the unfitneſſe of the contrary courſe at leaſt to them which may be reſolved into theſe two Arguments.

1. Arg^•If the Condition of the Miniſters and the Churches to which they belong may vary, then it is unfit to ſettle a certaine and ſtinted maintenance for the Miniſtery: But &c. Ergo.

2. Arg^t If Chriſt our Lord hath appointed no ſuch thing as ſtinted maintenance, then it is unfit for the Church to ſettle ſtinted maintenance: But &c. Ergo.

Upon theſe two pillars is the fabrike of their practiſe borne up; yet to adde ſome probable luſtre to what was well proved before, they adde the opinion of ſome Divines concerning Revel. 8. 8, 9. and they ſpeake doubtfully of the place, as not thinking it fit confidently to lay this burden upon it; But ſay they, if thoſe writers be not deceived, which ſo expound that ſcripture, as for our parts we know not but they expound it truly, &c. They ſay not confidently that the expoſition is true, but that they know not the contrary; and if it be ſo, then it may be truly gathered, that the bringing in of ſetled endowments and eminent preferments into the Church hath beene the corruptions and to ſome t… deſtruction of p. 10ſuch as lived by them, both Church Officers and members. And we have endeavoured to ſhew the probability of this interpretation, but dare not ſpeake definitively of it. Yet the Poſition in the leter of it undertakes no more than what you (Brother) grant, viz. that Revel. 8. 8, 9. is applyed by ſome good Authors to thoſe times in which Conſtantine brought ſetled endowments into the Church, and yet we are ſtill beaten as though what the Elders intended (viz. to caſt a probable luſtre upon what was ſolidly proved before) we had not clearely delivered this text of ſcripture, and by conſequence muſt be guilty of belying God, and counterfeiting the King of Kings hand, which is the language of the preface, and ſo make us a laughing ſtock to ſome, and the objects of hatred to other vulgar readers; For this cauſe we muſt of neceſſity diſcover your dealing in this buſineſſe.

2. It is ſaid of Amaleck that he met Iſrael in the way, and Deut. 25. …8.Deut 25:8ſmot the hindermoſt of them, even all that were feeble behind them: ſo you (Brother) ſhew a ſingular dexterity in paſſing by the two fore-mentioned reaſons, and fall upon the probable argument drawne from this place, the hindermoſt and moſt feeble of all the reſt.

3. Againe, what they ſpeake hypothetically, and by way of ſuppoſition, you make uſe of thetically, and by way of poſition, and ſo, that it may well leave the ordinary reader under this apprehenſion, that we have no other argument to build our diſlike of ſtinted Church maintenance upon, but this place. For your ſcope is apparently not onelyonly to vindicate the ſcriptures from abuſe, but alſo to confute theſe poſitions of the Congregationall way.

4. Once more, whereas the Elders ſhew that this place is applyed to thoſe times wherein Conſtantine brought ſetled endowments into the Church with ampla praedia large poſſeſſions, you (Brother) leave out ampla praedia, and mention onelyonly ſetled maintenance, whereas the place may be underſtood in the latter ſenſe, as well as in the former. For there p. 11were certaine Revenues belonging to the Churches beforeEuſeb. lib. 10. 1. 5. Conſtanſtine his time, as may appeare out of the imperiall conſtitution, directed to Anilinus, wherein he ſaith, We have already decreed the ſame, that the poſſeſſions belonging to the Churches aforetime, ſhould be reſtored; And againe provide, that if either gardens or houſes, or other poſſeſſions whatſoever have belonged to the tytle of their Churches, all the ſame be ſpeedily reſtored to them againe.

Laſtly, Give us leave to tell you, that we conceive you are not a little injurious to the Elders of New-England, and learned Maſter Forbes and others, whileſt you affirme that Conſtantines donation (as you ſeeme to underſtand it) is the foundation of this expoſition; becauſe you would imply, that they beleeve ſuch a donation of Conſtantine to be a truth, which is ſuch an impudent fiction, that all wiſe men no ſooner heare it, but abhorre it. For thoſe which ſayd. c. fund. de El…c. Sext. Chro. vol. 2. leaſt, affirme that Conſtantine gave the City of Rome to Silveſter the Pope and his ſucceſſours, and others are not aſhamed to avouch that he gave all the Weſterne Empire. And this donation is mentioned by Gratian in the Decretalls, this alſo is cenſured by Nauclerus to be but Palea, becauſe it is manifeſt that Conſtantine gave Italy and other Kingdomes of the Weſt to his ſonnes by his laſt will and teſtament. No… not of this Donation but of other maintenance which Conſtantine beſtowed; not upon the Biſhop of Rome alone, but upon other godly Biſhops and Miniſters throughout his Empire, are the Elders of New-England Maſter Forbes and others to be underſtood.

Eightly ſay you, And Poſition 7 doe you manifeſtly cleare that 2 Cor, 8, 5. doth pertinently and powerfully prove, that every member at his admiſsion doth promiſe to give himſelfe to the Church to be guided by them, when you ſay, the practiſe of the Churches of Macedonia is by way of alluſion made uſe of, and the Argument is a Comparatis. For you know alluſions and compariſons are not argumentative.

p. 12Anſw. Why doe you the ſecond time after admonition given by us in our former booke leave out that, without which neither can the Churches directing, nor the members following direction be lawfull. For the Elders of New-England ſay not that a Church member is to give himſelfe up to the Church to be guided by her according to will, but according to God; But theſe words (according to God) you leave out.

2. If to anſwer all your Reaſons to the contrary be to defend this Poſition by vertue of this text, we have done it; produce (if you can) any thing which hath the leaſt appearance of an Argument in it, which we have not anſwered.

3. We have ſhewed that the caſe of the Macedonian Churches, 2 Cor. 8. 5. is paralell with the caſe of a member giving himſelfe up to be guided by the Church according to God: For as God gave Paul and Timothy to direct the Churches of Macedonia according to God, ſo God hath given particular Churches to direct their ſeverall members according to God, that is to ſay, The Elders by way of office authoritatively, and the brethren as God ſhall give them opportunity to adviſe and admoniſh their fellow members. Therefore by the ſame reaſon that the Churches of Macedonia, gave themſelves up to Paul and Timothy, by the ſame reaſon ought Church members to give up themſelvs to the Church to be directed by her according to God.

But you would make men (at leaſt if any poſſibly may looke upon this exception, as though Logique Reaſon and Religion what ever they be are wholy in ſubſerviency to your preſent deſigne) beleeve (whether you have confuted us or no) that we have conſuted our ſelves, when we ſay it is Argumentum a comparatis; for ſay you, You know that alluſions and compariſons are not argumentative.

For unleſſe we muſt unknow all that we have knowne to gratifie your cauſe withall, we muſt needes profeſſe that when we were but boyes in the Univerſity, we were taught that one head or common place from which Arguments p. 13were to be drawne was a Comparatis from Comparriſons. And we have had no reaſon to extirminate that doctrine from intermedling with the matters of God. Suppoſe a man ſhould ſay to Maſter Hollinworth (a Miniſter) You ſhould ſeaſon others with the ſalt of knowledge, and of the love and ſeare of God, for you are the ſalt of the earth, Math. 5. 13. You ſhould feede your people with wholeſome doctrine and diſcipline, for you are a ſhepheard, would Maſter Hollinworth out with this Logique, and ſay Comparriſons prove nothing and therefore the Arguments are naught? Did Paul commit a ſol…riſ…e in Logique when he proves that Miniſters ſhould receive maintenance becauſe the mouth of the Oxe muſt not be …zelled, that▪ treadeth out the corne? Or is our Saviours argument weake and inſufficient, when he juſtifieth his Diſciples▪ for plucking the eares of corne, by an argument … Comparatis taken from Davids taking and eating the ſhew-bread? So that, till we have ſomething more then your bare aſſertion to convince us, we ſhall beleeve there is a truth in the old rule of Analogie, Quod de uno, ſecundum proporti…nem affirmatur vel negatur, id etiam de altero: That which is aſſerted or denyed of one thing, according to proportion may be aſſerted or denyed of another thing. And if you can overthrow this old maxime, we are confident that the Claſsique cauſe will ſuffer as well as the Congregationall.

Ninthly, ſay you, In stead of cleare manifeſtation of Miniſters mantenance out of the stock of the Church, you ſay, we thinke we ſee moſt warrant for it from the New Teſtament, and as moſt probable once diſputed it, but neither then … are per…ptory in it, &c.

Anſw. What ſhall our modeſty be now …de uſe of againſt us? Though it be ſo▪ yet we ſhall deſire to be mode…tSaluſt. B…l. Jug. ſtill. It was the Commendation of …, that he did plurimum fac…re & …inim…m de ſ…l…qui; We hope God will never leave us ſo … to ou… ſelves as to profeſſe my doctrine, or f…ll upo… a… practiſe confidently and per… torily p. 14as of divine inſpiration or inſtitution, for which we have not a cleare evidence of ſcripture; That tythes and ſtinted Church maintenance are unlawfull, that Miniſters are to be maintained out of the Church ſtocke, the reception and diſtribution whereof appertaineth to the Deacons office, we conceive we have ſolidly proved out of the word of God: But that the Miniſters are to be maintained by ſuch a ſtocke as is raiſed by a weekely contribution, becauſe it is not abſolutely cleare in the Text (at leaſt to us) we thought fit to diſpute it onelyonly as probable. If you could come as neare unto a demonſtration of Claſsique goverment, as this chapter doth to a demonſtration of a ſtocke by weekly contribution of the Church, and we had no more to ſay againſt it, then yet we have heard (for we cannot propheſie what you may hereafter produce, againſt a Stocke raiſed by weekely contributions, we ſhould be tender how we mutter'd a word againſt Claſsique government.

2. Except you can produce ſome one of the Congregationall way, that in writing or diſputation hath aſſerted weekly contributions to be of divine inſtitution, and binding to all Churches, we ſhall eſteeme the Poſition and ſcripture annexed (as to ſuch a purpoſe) your owne invention. As for us as we defended it in diſputation, ſo we have to the ſame purpoſe clearely manifeſted it to be ſufficient, pertinent, and full of power, viz. to make it probable, that the Miniſtery ſhould be maintained by a Stock raiſed by weekly contributions, and ſee no cauſe to doubt, but that we have ſolidly anſwered all your arguments to the contrary.

Laſtly, Colophonis vice, as the cloſe of this charge, you conclude when you ſay, we thinke we conceive its probable, and doe never ſo confidently aſſert any of the ſeverall Poſitions, and do not prove the ſame by the ſeverall texts reſpectively alleadged, nor cleare the ſaid text from all Objections made againſt your Expoſition (one materiall Objection unanſwered being enough to invalidate the ſame) you afford ſo many Arguments to any wiſe p. 15Reader, that you have not clearely manifeſted the Poſitions and Scriptures where ſuch Speeches are found to be ſufficient, &c.

Anſw. All that we have to ſay is this, Firſt, That your triumph concerning our not proving the Poſitions by the Text reſpectively alleadged is before your victory. Secondly, Though one materiall Objection unanſwered (unanſwerable you ſhould ſay, for our weakeneſſe may not (peradventure) be able to defend a truth) doth invalidate our Expoſition: yet where we urge divers Texts to any Poſition, if any one of them be truly urged, and ſo unanſwerable, though you ſhould invalidate all the reſt as to ſuch a purpoſe, you may advantage the truth thereby, but advantage not your cauſe at all. So that one materiall Objection (ſuch as we have not yet met with in your writings) though it might invalidate the Expoſition, yet poſſibly might not prejudice the Poſition at all.

The third Charge which you lay upon us, that our pretending to prove ſome Poſitions and practiſes by other Scriptures and Arguments (as to your intent expreſſed in the preface) is but a By-matter, For Poſitions and practiſes may be true and lawfull, and yet not truly and lawfully grounded on the Text alleadged, &c.

Anſw. When the King had burnt Jeremiahs Rowle, andJerem. 3… 32.Jer 3:32 and he cauſed Baruch to write the Rowle a new, it is ſaid, he added beſides to them many like words. If we had neglected to anſwer your Examination of the ſcriptures alleadged by us, and had fallen upon new ſcriptures, you might well have complained: but we thought good meaſure preſſed downe ſhaken together and running over, would not have offended you. And yet the truth is, we know not how to pleaſe you, the one way or the other. In ſome ſections (though to our underſtanding) we have not left any thing in the ſimilitude of an Argument unanſwered yet) we are complained of, that we have not clearely manifeſted the Poſition, as we have already ſhewed. And how ſhould this be done otherwiſe than by p. 16anſwering your Examination, unleſſe it be by new Arguments: And what are Arguments worth, if not backed with ſcriptures? and yet when beſides our anſwer to your examination, we adde ſome ſhort diſſertation upon the Point, this is counted as a By matter to your intent in the preface.

2. Your intent as it appeares both in your Tytle Page, the Preface and the Booke it ſelfe, was not onelyonly to vindicate the ſcriptures, but to diſcover the ſuppoſed weakneſſe of the doctrine contained in the Poſitions. And why ſhould not we as well aſſert the doctrine, as vindicate the ſcriptures, which (ſome of them cull'd out by you) are the weakeſt and moſt feeble parts of the proofe made by us as we have told you

3. You could wiſh you ſay, We might keepe cloſe to the Scriptures and Poſitions alleadged, till they be one way or other cleared, and then we may more orderly proceede to other ſcriptures and arguments: and yet you that cannot endure any addition of ſcripture or reaſon applyed to the queſtion ſtated more fully to our owne ſenſe, than they are in the Poſitions drawn up by you, require us in the meane time to give ſcripturall and rationall anſwers to no leſſe then an hundred and twelve Queres, whereof ſome of them are Nihil ad Rhombum independants (we are aſſured) in the buſineſſe of controverſie betwixt us.

The fourth Charge that you make againſt us, is, That we doe not anſwer directly, but obliquely and evadingly in ſundry places, as where (ſay you) I alledge that the Apoſtles never taught or practiſed to gather or ſeparate one part of this true Church, and and another part of that, eſpecially perſons whom themſelves converted not, to make a purer Church. You anſwer of another thing which was never denyed, viz. The Apoſtles both taught and practiſed the ſeparating of ſome Jewes from other Jewes and gathered them into a Chriſtian Church, while yet the Jewiſh Church was not diſsolved, but was a Church of God.

Anſw. We are ſo farre from anſwering obliquely or evadingly in this place, that we dare be bold to ſay, that no reply p. 17can more front and diametrically oppoſe ſuch a confuſed anſwer as yours i…, then this of ours doth. We did obſerve that the ſuppoſed strength of your anſwer, was couched in the four ſinewes of it. 1. We thought you deſerted it as a thing diſſonant to the doctrine and practiſe of the Apoſtles, to gather ſome Chriſtians from others to make a purer Church. 2. We conceived that the truth of the Churches from which perſons are gathered, was that which you imagined, made the gathering of them in ſuch ſort to beare no conformity with the Apoſtles doctrine or practiſe; And we conceived there was this implication in it, that it might be lawfull and ſuteable to the doctrine and practiſe of the Apoſtles, to gather beleevers out of a falſe Church, but not out of a true. 3. We conſidered that this might have ſome ſtrength in your thoughts, that there is no ſuch thing mentioned in the doctrine and practiſe of the Apoſtles as the gathering of one Church out of many. 4. That you imagined that there was ſome ſtrength in it to prove our gathering of Churches unlawfull, becauſe the perſons gathered were ſuch as we converted not. Having thus anatomized in our thoughts your Anſwer, we addreſſed our ſelves to diſcover the weakneſſe and fallibleneſſe of all theſe Exceptions, and we began with the ſecond, becauſe it was moſt generall; and ſo deſcended to the reſt which were more particular. And Firſt, we ſhewed, that the truth of a Church is not that that can make it ſinfull or unlawfull to gather or take in the members of it into the union of other Churches; For then it ſhould have beene unlawfull for the Primitive Churches to have gathered in the beleeving Jewes into their Churches whileſt that Church remained true; But this ſay we was the doctrine and practiſe of the Apoſtles. Now what can be more point blanck oppoſite to this part of your anſwer then this? Hence alſo our concluſion hath the ſtrength of this argument in it, If it be not unlawfull to withdraw from one Church that is true, then it is not unlawfull to gather out of p. 18twenty or an hundred, i. e. becauſe they are true.

Object. But (ſay you) this was not a Chriſtian Church.

Anſw. We conſider it not as Jewiſh, but under the notion of truth, as it was a true Church.

Object. Nor are the Reformed Churches and Miniſters to be compared with the then Jewiſh Church and Prieſts thereof.

Anſw. You ſhuffle in the Miniſters of the one, and the Prieſts of the other impertinently: We have onelyonly to doe with the Churches, and we ſay the Chriſtian Churches might be compared with the then Jewiſh Church under the notion we conſider it in, viz. in point of truth; For the Jewiſh Church was a true Church as well as the Chriſtian Churches.

Object. It was but one (ſay you) and you ſhould ſhew gathering out of ſeverall Churches.

Anſw. Doe we not ſhew it thus? If it be lawfull to gather out of one true Church, then it is lawfull (upon the ſame ground) to gather out of many.

Object. But (ſay you) the Apoſtles gathering was onelyonly of thoſe Jewes they converted to Chriſtianity from unconverted Jewes, and you ſhould ſhew the gathering of Chriſtians converted by others, from other Chriſtians.

Anſw. This alſo we have ſhewed at large, clearing alſo the former objection together with it by ſeverall arguments and two places of ſcripture, viz. 1 Cor. 5, 6. 2 Cor. 13, 10. In our ſecond, third, fourth, fift, and ſixt particulars, and theſe in oppoſition to the firſt and third particulars wherein we thought you placed the ſtrength of your anſwer.

Object. But you ſhould ſhew the gathering of Chriſtians converted by others from other Chriſtians converted as well as they, and poſsibly from thoſe perſons by whom they were converted.

Anſw. And this we have fully cleared, pag. 10. from the practiſe of the Apoſtles and Primitive Chriſtians.

None but an Emperick would cenſure a Phyſician that he doth not cure all diſeafes with one Doſſe. Shall our reply be p. 19judged oblique, evading, & inſufficient, becauſe it is not a buſh to ſtop every gap with, though it be moſt punctually oppoſite to that part of your anſwer, againſt which we levelled it.

Object. But (ſay you) that Church was then by Gods Commandement to be diſſolved, and many Churches to be built upon its ruins, and therefore doth no more warrant the building of one Chriſtian Church upon the ruine of other Chriſtian Churches, than the Parliaments Commiſsion (if there were ſuch a one) to the Inhabitants of Derby hundred, to take downe Lathamhouſe to build them houſes of, doth warrant any one of the Inhabitants to take as many good stones as they can come by, out of this, and that, and the other neighbours houſe, concerning which they gave no ſuch Command.

Anſw. You lately found fault with an argument of ours, becauſe it was a Comparatis, alleadging that alluſions and Compariſons are not argumentative, if alluſions and Compariſons were not capable of a better ſymmetrie and proportion then this of yours, we ſhould not onelyonly not yeeld them to be argumentative, but we ſhould diſavow and diſcard them as not illuſtrative. For though it was not our intent (as we ſaid) to anſwer all the branches of your objections, with this one inſtance, but onelyonly that that deceives its ſtrength from the truth of Churches (and therefore your triumph out-running your victory, might well have beene ſpared, when you ſay, your not bringing a more punctuall and more pertinent proofe, argues either an implicite confeſſion of the truth of my anſwer, or inability to oppoſe it) and though we have brought other punctuall and pertinent proofes which are above the reach of your inſtance, yet though all were as you would beare the world in hand, your Allegorie wants that due proportion that ſhould render it illuſtrative, much more argumentative.

For Firſt, it is not the practiſe of Congregationall members, or Churches, to take any, much leſſe as many good members as they can come by out of this, and that, and the p. 20other neighbouring Churches, concerning which, God hath given no Command that thoſe perſons ſhould leave thoſe Churches. For ſo your compariſon ſhould be framed to make it runne paralell with the caſe. Nay the Congregationall members make it their ſcope to take in none but thoſe, that having righteouſly withdrawne themſelves from other Churches, doe voluntarily tender themſelves to communion with them, that ſo they may enjoy thoſe Ordinances purely with the corruption of which they were not onelyonly polluted, but endangered before; And that they may enjoy other Ordinances purchaſed for their ſpeciall edification by the precious bloud of Chriſt, which their ſoules languiſhed in the want of, whileſt they were (ſome of them) as members in the line of Parochiall-Communication. Once more, it is the ſcope and end of Congregationall members, and Churches (if we underſtand them aright) ſure we are, it is our owne deſire and practiſe, to receive in no members, but from ſuch Churches, in which we have no ground of hope in ſight, for a reformation in any tollerable proportion of time, all of us having expreſſed the offence given us by Parochiall diſorders to private brethren, becauſe it would have beene interpreted a diſturbance of the Churches peace, for private perſons to ſpeake publiquely againſt the received practiſe of the Church; And ſome of us who by our calling were better enabled, having not onelyonly in vaine witneſſed againſt the Leaven, with which we ſaw the Churches leavened, but alſo fruitleſly waited a long time for redreſſe of preſent greivances, when there was no hope left, have withdrawne.

3. If God by meanes of this preſent happy Parliament, (wherein next under God is our preſent hope) or by other ſhould worke ſuch a reformation, that we might comfortably joyne with Churches meeting neerer to our habitations then our owne, we ſhould be willing for our parts (and we beleeve the ſame of all our brethren) to lay downe by p. 21mutuall conſent our Covenant, and fall into fellowſhip in ſeverall other Churches, eſpecially where we were ſometimes members reſpectively.

4. It ſuppoſeth the Churches from which our members have withdrawne, have as good right to hold their members as well as any man in Derby hundred hath to with-hold the ſtones of his houſe from thoſe that without a juſt power endeavour to take them away; which how you will make out, ſeeing that you hold no other tie, but the boundaries and limits of the Pariſh or Chappelry, do ſo fervently diſpute againſt expreſſe agreements and Covenants we underſtand not. Yet if the waies and walking of Pariſh Churches were ſuch as tended to the edification of the members, and no juſt cauſe appeare of their removall or withdrawing, we ſhould not conteſt with you about it. But if either viſible wicked members be admitted to the Lords Supper without hope of redreſſe, or the diſpenſation of the Lords Supper, and execution of the power of the Keys, and other Ordinances be wanting, without hope of redreſſe, we conceive they have no more power to with-hold ſuch a member from joyning to another Church for his ſpirituall better accomdation, than a Maſter hath to with-hold his Servant from removing to another Family, that ſo he may not be enfeebled by being ſtraitned in his food, or endangered by the unwholſomeneſſe thereof.

5. Fifthly, But it may be there may be ſome more ground for your fift charge, which is, That we diſcover too much willingneſſe to quarrell at your expreſsions: a little after (ſay you) you diſcover too much willingneſſe to quarrell at my expresfions, wherein you ſay I would ſuggeſt, that you make oppoſition to Magiſtracy: but doth not Maſter Weld a Congregationall man, when Maſter Rathband chargeth Independents to hold, that Chriſtians may and ought to ſet up new Churches and practiſe in them all Gods Ordinances without the conſent of a Chriſtian State, yea againſt their peremptory Commands and eſtabliſhed p. 22lawes, and in the midſt and againſt the minde of ſuch Churches, as they freely acknowledg to be the true Churches of God, ſay of this Article, no pen can expreſſe a greater latitude of oppoſition againſt Magiſtracy and Lawes, and Churches too, then he affirmes to be in us? Doe not I uſe his owne words? Print them in a different Character? Cite them in the Margent? &c.

Anſw. True, you do ſo; notwithſtanding it was not diſcerned by us, and the fault was moſt in your ſelfe; For you print it in a different Character, and cite Maſter Weld in the Margent, but were defective in a letter to guide to the citation: and hence the miſtake: For you cite Anſwer to 9 poſ. pag. 76. as appertaining to the letter (U) ſpeaking of ſomething that was proper to Apoſtolick men, and then immediately joyne T. W. to W. R. pag. 67. by cloſe to it, without any other letter, as if it had belonged to the ſame thing; and ſo we received of it, as you may diſcerne by our defence, when we make any mention of that part of your anſwer, which ſpeakes of the Apoſtles preaching againſt the peremptory Command of Magiſtrates, we print your Citation pointed at by the letter (b) and we annexe T. W. to W. R. pag. 67. to it, as appertaining to the ſame thing. The truth is, we were faulty alſo, becauſe if we could have looked into that place of Maſter Welds booke, we might have rcctified our ſelves in that miſtake. But that Booke was out of our way, when we ſhould have done it, and afterwards we did not minde. And as for the different Character, we minded it leſſe, becauſe for many cauſes the Character is changed, beſides that when other mens words are cited. Had we beene aware that they were Maſter Welds words, we would have have given a more pertinent anſwer, which hereafter if there ſhall be occaſion we ſhall annexe.

And whereas you ſay, this is but one example of many, as we know none at all, ſo if there be any of moment, we perſwade our ſelves we ſhould have met with them under his charge, for you ſpare not to give many inſtances of the p. 23ſame kinde, when you apprehend it makes for your advantage.

6. The ſixth charge undertakes to prove that we have a ſaculty, and make much uſe of it to turne the proofe over to you. When I ſhew you (ſay you) where the proofe of the Poſition, from the text alledged is defective, and require you to ſupply that defect, you then turne it over to me to prove the contrary, as 1 Cor. 16. 1. When I ſay the Churches of Galatia might for ought you alledge to the contrary, be combined one to another, the ſubſtance of your anſwer is, without proofe we connot grant it; And that you may more plaufibly put the buſineſſe off your ſelves, you leave out the words (for ought you alledge to the contrary).

Anſw. A little beſore we were told that to prove ſome poſitions by other ſcriptures and arguments than thoſe annexed to the Poſitions (as to your intent in the preface) was a by matter; And it was wiſhed that we might keepe cloſe to thoſe ſcriptures and poſitions till they were cleared, but in this place though we anſwer your arguments, and conſequently make good the proofes annexed, and when we have done, tell you that without proofe we cannot grant ſuch a Claſſicall Combination in Galatia, as is in Scot…n…, and in Holland, yet we are arraigned as departing from rule and reaſon, becauſe we turne the probative part over unto you. Is not our part defenſive onelyonly of theſe Poſitions and ſcriptures? And if we deliver the ſcriptures of the doctrine contained in the Poſitions, any thing in your examinations contained notwithſtanding, we doe Sportamquam nacti ſumus ornare, Performe what we have undertaken. And though when we doe more, (if ſolidly and truely) your ſelfe and all the lovers of truth are ſo much the more our debtors, yet if we doe thus much onelyonly, you have no cauſe to enſure us.

2. As for you, Foraſmuch as you afford ſuch hard quarter to the Poſitions as to make them by interpretation a helping of God, counterfeiting of the King of Kings hand, and an p. 24addition to his word, (ſince he that makes a charge muſt prove it) we thought you were bound (theſe arguments in your examination failing) either to make out your charge by other arguments, or at leaſt confeſſe, that you have wronged the Authors of ſuch Poſitions and the truth it ſelfe, and therefore we put you upon proofe.

3. As we put nothing off our ſelves that belonged to us, ſo we never left out thoſe words, (for ought you alledge to the contrary) for any ſuch end as you ſuggeſt. But for brevity ſake, and becauſe we thought there was nothing materiall to the buſineſſe in hand, either for your advantage, or our diſadvantage contained in them. For though if you underſtand it in a ſenſe nothing to the purpoſe, viz. The Churches of Galatia might be combined, for ought we alledge to the contrary; meaning God could have combined them, ſo he could have made Rome, Paris, or Madrid, the place of an Oecumenicall Congregation, for worſhip and government; It is true: yet if you meane the Churches of Galatia might be combined, for ought we alledge to the contrary, meaning there is nothing in the proofe made in the Poſition that inferres the non▪ combination of the Churches of Galatia: we ſay, it is your overſight to aſſert it. And we turne not over the proofe to you, but having confuted the ſuppoſed proofe to the contrary, vve ſend you to ſeeke new arguments, or yeeld us the cauſe.

7. The laſt charge, is of a great wrong to your ſelfe, and the truth of God, (as you ſay) viz. That we curtall and clip your anſwers and arguments, not onelyonly the ſupplement, but the ſubſtance and ſtrength of them, folding them up in obſcure, &c. ſometimes omitting them with a Cenſure; You aske us a little after, Do… you not omit that which you know to be pertinent, while you tranſcribe and largely anſwer ſomething leſſe pertinent?

Anſw. What may be done through overſight vve knovv not, but vve have omitted nothing pertinent of purpofe or adviſedly; D…lus late… in generalibus, your …en generall charges p. 25we cannot but take to be great injuries, and the iſſues of a ſpirit of de…raction, ſince you would beare the world in hand, that they are ſo many, that they would too much enlarge this Epiſtle, augmenting it in ſundry pages; If you had ſpared your Queries at this time, and left roome for the diſcovery of theſe ſuppoſed unc…ndide paſſages, you had done your ſelfe no leſſe right, and us much leſſe wrong; And if you had but barely cited the pages and lines where ſuch paſſages are found, would this have ſwell'd up your Epiſtle to many pages more?

But let us conſider the inſtance you give, and leave the Reader to gueſſe at the reſt, for its more then probable, you would ſingle out the groſſeſt you could finde.

And firſt, concerning the omitting of the ſeven particulars, in poſition 24. Which you plainely affirme we left out, leaſt the Reader had we ſubſcribed them ſhould have expected a… anſwer. We rendred another reaſon (which we have the cleare teſtimony of our conſciences for, was the true reaſon why we left them out) and that which you obtend no reaſon at all) yet as though you did communicate with God, in his incommunicable excellency of being foreign the ſearcher of the heart, you affirme, that thereſore we left them out, least the Reader (had we tranſcribed them) ſhould have expected an anſwer. We ſay againe, if we give you for granted thoſe ſeven particulars, (or rather ſeven generall heads, including in them many particulars) improve you them …o the beſt advantage of your Preſbyterian cauſe, in oppoſition to the doctrine included in the 24 poſition. For thoſe particulars how many ſoever they be, are no parts of the diſcipline left by Chriſt to the Church, which (the poſition ſaith) in the eſſentials of it is unchangeable, and therefore the poſition may be defended, though thoſe particulars be granted. And for this cauſe we ſhall deſire to be excuſed with you, and nothing feare, incurring prejudice with the Reader, though we did not tranſcribe your ſeven tedious impertinencies to the cauſe in hand.

p. 262. We ſay further, in that we tranſcribed them not, we rather ſpared you then advantaged our ſelves; for there is ſomething in all of them, that is either doubtfull or juſtly liable to exceptions.

For you (undertaking to ſhew the differences betweene the Apoſtolicke Churches and ours) ſay:

1. The Jewiſh Ceremonies were then ſcarce dead, at least not buried, hence we are not bound to circumciſe.

We anſwer, This Legall right of Circumciſion was never on foot among the Apoſtolick gentile Churches, nor were they bound any more to it then we are now, therefore there i… no difference in that, betwixt us and the primitive Apoſtolicke gentile Churches.

2. The civill cuſtome of thoſe Countries differ much from ours, hence we are not bound to make the covering of a mans head, a token of diſhonour, 1 Cor. 11. 4, 5. 7. 10.

Anſwer. What ever it be that the Apoſtle meaneth by covering of the head, (for that is diſputable) it ſeemeth to us▪ to be perpetuall and binding to all Churches as well as to that of Corinth, becauſe of the Apoſtles reaſons in 1 Cor. 11. 7. 14. He ſaith ver. 7. The man ought not to cover the head, becauſe he is the Image and glory of God, but the woman muſt, becauſe ſhe is the glory of the man. And ver. 14. he ſaith, Nature it ſelfe teacheth, that if a man have long haire, it is a ſhame to him, becauſe haire is not given to him for a covering. (For ſo it is to be underſtood to make the Antitheſis perfect) But if a woman have long haire, it is an honour to her, becauſe her h…ire is given her for a covering. We think the reaſon is fetcht from the excellency of the one ſexe above the other, and that reaſon which is drawne from nature, are perpetuall, And if ever in force, remaine ſtill in force.

3. The Church was then but in gathering from amongſt Heathens and Jewes, bence we want examples (to convince refractory. Anabaptiſts) of the baptizing of Chriſtian Infants, &c.

Anſw. Such an argument as this, you uſe to defend your p. 27ſelves, in pleading for an Nationall Church, Scripture (ſay you) mentioneth not a Nationall▪ Church; for beleevers were not ſo many then, as to beare the name of a Kingdome or Nation. As we conceived it weake againſt us, ſo may the Anabaptiſts judge it unſatisfactory againſt them. For can any one rationally thinke, but that among thoſe many thouſands converted of Jewes and Heathens, and gathered into Chriſtian Churches, there were not many who had Infant Children, ſome of them borne before they were converted, who upon ſuch converſion of their parents were to be accounted Chriſtian Infants, and others borne after ſuch converſion in that period of time, which the hiſtory of the Acts of the Apoſtles fills up, which Infants muſt alſo be ſtiled Chriſtian Infants? And if ſo, then the reaſon of wanting examples of baptizing Chriſtian Infants is not that which you alledge, viz. becauſe the Church was then but in gathering from amongſt the Heathens and Jewes▪ But becauſe it ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt (for what cauſe we dare not determine) to forbeare the expreſse mentioning of Infants baptiſme.

4. The Church was then under heatheniſh perſecuting Magiſtrates, hence they had no houſes built for or appropriated to holy worſhip.

Anſw. In your Examinations pag. 6. you cite, 1. Cor. 11. 22. and ſay, To come together foreign is, (if rightly tranſlated) to come together in one place, and …o Eccleſia is oppoſed to the buildings or houſes in which they did eate and drinke in: Here you ſay, That the primitive Churches had not houſes, &c. Doe you not manifeſtly contradict your ſelfe? for if they were not houſes, in which they did eate and drinke in, but did meete together in for holy worſhip, were they not ſo farre forth ſet a part for holy worſhip?

If by appropriation of houſes to holy worſhip (which you ſay was not then in the primitive times, but ought to be now) you meane ſuch a ſetting a part as muſt neceſſarily exclude all uſing of ſuch houſes to other purpoſes, it is p. 28ſuperſtition ſo to conceive or ſpeake. But if you grant that …ſe may be made of them otherwiſe then in Gods worſhip, How are they then appropriated to Gods worſhip more now then in the times of primitive Churches? For they were then knowne noted places, (at leaſt among ſome Churches) and capacious of great multitudes, in which the Churches did ordinarily meete, as from 1 Cor. 14. 23. appeares.

They meete in the night to pray, preach and celebrate the Supper.

Anſ. And did they not meet in the day alſo? How elſe did1 Cor. 14. 231 Cor 14:23 the unbeleevers meet with them & come among them?

Miniſters had no ſetled maintenance.

Anſw. It is a non ſequitur, that becauſe the Church was under Heatheniſh and perſecuting Magiſtrates, therefore Miniſters had no ſetled maintenance. Is there any rule for ſetled maintenance in the whole Goſpell? which yet (being that there are predictions many, of peaceable and proſperous times to the Church) there might have beene, if God had meant any ſuch thing. Nay, there are intimations, (if not cleare declarations) againſt ſetled maintenance to ariſe from the Churches.

There was then an extraordinary effuſſion of the Holy Ghoſt upon the Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, and ſundry of the Elders and people; hence there was no neede of Univerſities, &c.

Anſw. Yes: there was neede, becauſe you ſpeake but of ſundry, and the Apoſtle deſired that they all might ſpeake with tongues, but rather that they might propheſie, 1 Cor. 14. 5. therefore there might be uſe of ſchooles in reference to them that wanted extraordinary gifts.

Nor of studying for Sermons.

Anſw. Yes: Elſe what meaneth the Apoſtle when he bids Timothy stirre up the gift, &c. and give attendance to reading, &c.

No uſing ſet Prayers and Pſalmes.

Anſw. Were there no ſet Pſalmes in thoſe dayes? were p. 29thoſe Pſalmes, Hymmes, and ſpirituall ſongs, which the Church at Epheſus, and at Coloſſe, and all the Churches did ſing inſpired by the ſpirit? And were no ſcripture Pſalmes ſung in thoſe times? That will be a ſtrengthening to them that doubt of the ſinging of Davids Pſalmes. As for prayers, is there a neceſſity now of a Forme, becauſe extraordinary gifts are ceaſed? May not an ordinary gift be ſufficiently helpfull, to put up prayers by? We would thinke it ſhould now be unſeaſonable to plead for ſet formes of prayer.

6. The Apoſtles had the care of all the Churches, and without difference taught and baptized, and ordered matters in all Churches where they came, now we may not expect ſuch Officers, but muſt be content with ordinary Elders, amongſt whom ſo much of their power as God intended to be perpetuall, …s divided.

Anſw. But if there be an univerſall viſible governing Church which you plead for, the Elders of it muſt have care of all the Churches, and muſt Preach, Baptize, and rule where ever they come. And the repreſentative oecumenicall Church or Counſell conſiſts of ſuch Elders that every of them muſt have care of all the Churches. Where then is the difference according to your principles betwixt the Apoſtles and ſuch Elders in that matter? And whether the Brethren do not ſhare in ſome of their power you know is under controverſie.

7. There were then ſome extraordinary occaſionall precepts, and practiſes which binde not in ordinary, as ſelling all to give to the poore, Mat. 19. 21. having all things common, Act. 2. 44, 45. & 4. 32. 3…, 35.

Anſw. Selling all and giving to the poore, was never a precept nor practiſe in the Chriſtian Apoſtolike Churches; nor doth Mat. 19. 21. prove it, whereas you produce it to declare the difference betwixt the Apoſtolike Churches and ours. The having of all things common, had not any precept for it in the Apoſtles dayes that we know of, and the p. 30practiſe was voluntary and not binding, though ſome did it, they freely did it, and others were not bound to follow, as from Act. 5. 4. appeares. Where then is the difference betwixt the Apoſtolike Churches and ours? For were there now like cauſe, for having all worldly ſubſtance common, and ſhould God incline the hearts of Chriſtians thereto, it might be lawfull now as well as then.

Now (Brother) we have given you an account what wee are able to ſay to your Seven Particulars, which we pretermitted before. And whether we did hurt you to helpe our ſelves by our former ſilence of them, let the intelligent Reader judge.

The ſecond inſtance is, out of your Examination of your Poſition the Sixt, where you ſay, a maine paſſage is omitted without giving any hint or intimation of any thing omitted.

Anſw. The Printer, or he that copied it out for the Preſſe, poſſibly hath omitted an &c. will it be worth the roſting what you have taken in hunting?

2. We might chalenge you if you can, ſo to avoide the whole, or any part of thoſe ſix lines omitted, to the releefe or reſcue either of the cauſe or your Examination, as they relate unto the Poſition.

For thoſe words wherein you alledge, Gen. 9. 9, 10. we looked upon them as free of the Company of thoſe By-matters you beſought us in the Preface not to meddle with; which if we had examined, could neither advantage your cauſe nor indanger ours.

For the reſt of the words omitted, they are but different expreſſions of the ſame thing imported in the words tranſcribed and both fully anſwered.

You ſay (but it is your miſtake) That the Covenant (Gen. 17) is taken for Gods part of the Covenant or Promiſe to Abraham, Gal. 3. 16, 17. Not for mans part to God, whereof we no… ſpeak, & then adde Gods Covenanting with Abraham did not impoſe nor ſuppoſe an expreſſe vocall Covenant on Abrahams p. 31part. Now if this be ſo, then was not Abraham bound to any thing on his part by vertue of this Covenant; but the contrary is manifeſt from verſ. 9. where God ſaid to Abraham, Thou ſhalt keepe my Covenant.

Ob. If it be ſa…, This Covenant was Circumciſion.

Anſw. Circumciſion is called the Covenant Metonymically, as the Seale may be called by the name of the thing ſealed; and therefore is called the token of the Covenant, verſ. 11.

Ob. If it be ſaid, this was not an expreſse vocall Covenant.

Anſw. The Poſition mentioneth an holy Covenant, but ſaith nothing of an expreſſe vocall Covenant; and you by your bringing in theſe words do alter the Queſtion; nor doe we hold an expreſſe vocall Covenant neceſſary to the being of a Church. And we would be rightly underſtood, when we ſay it is neceſſary to the purity and ſtrength of a Church. Our meaning is not, that it is a ſtanding Ordinance of God, that the Church ſhould be united by a vocall expreſsion of their mutuall conſent (which we call the Covenant) ſo as that ſubſcription, ſignalls, or ſilence it ſelfe▪ as a ſigne, may not be a lawfull teſtification of their conſent: but that for as much as with the heart man beleeveth to righteouſneſſe, and with the mouth confeſsion is made unto ſalvation; for as much as God hath given us our tongues to expreſſe our conceptions withall, it is fit and convenient, that it ſhould be expreſſed in words, and ſo words are neceſſary, as one (and uſually the fitteſt) expreſſion of our mindes.

Laſtly, having proved, that the ſtipulation 'twixt God and Abraham was mutuall, you are rather our debtor than we yours; for paſſing by your expreſſions concerning Gen. 9. 9, 10. as expletive to fill up your ſentence upon a juſt period, rather then argumentative, for would i… not be an intolerable inconſequence thus to argue.

If Gods covenanting with a creature doth not alway ſuppoſe ſo much as an implicite covenant on the creatures p. 32part, then Gods covenanting with Abraham, Gen. 17. doth not ſuppoſe an expreſſe vocall Covenant on Abrahams part; (take it at the beſt as you have ſtated it for your advantage, quite beſides the queſtion.)

But the firſt is true, Gen. 9. 9, 10. Ergo …c. For what hinders though it doth alwayes doe it, why it may not doe it, Gen. 17. Beſides the Aſſumption may be called in queſtion in point of truth. If you ſpeake of a Covenant, as properly ſo called: For whereas you urge that the birdes and beaſts could not ſo much as give an implicite aſſent, we ſay it is true: but ſay withall that it was not a Covenant in propriety of ſpeech with them, but improperly, even as the Covenant mentioned, Job 5. 23. Hoſ. 2. 18. And we ſay with Maſter Rivet, In foeder is objecto quaeri poteſt, an animalia ſunt Rivet in Gen 9.Gen 9foederis capacia, quae neque ſtipulari poſſunt, neque promittere, ex ſuperioribus id repetendum quemadmodum indirecte, &c. In the object of the Covenant it may be enquired how living creatures can be capable of the Covenant, which can neither ſtipulate nor promiſe. Therefore we muſt repeate what we have ſaid before, that as the living creatures became ſharers of the puniſhment of ſinne, indirectly and for mans ſake, ſo the benefit of the Covenant concerning the not ſending of another flood doth indirectly and for mans ſake, belong unto them. So for children not borne, it was no actuall Covenant, but onelyonly vertuall and potentiall, to the reduction of which into an actually mutuall Covenant, (which is a Covenant properly ſo called) was required the ſtipulation of the Children, when they ſhould be actually called, to take hold of Gods Covenant.

But this Covenant as it related to Noah, did ſuppoſe a Covenant on Noahs part. For he was bound to faith, and walking with God on his part, as well as God to preſerve him and the world from a flood. For as Maſter Rivet ſaith upon another occaſion, Fiunt autem foedera mutua ſtipulatione partuum, &c. Covenants are made with a mutuall and ſolemne p. 33ſtipulation, of engaging themſelves to the performance of ſuch and ſuch benefits and duties. Here we reade of the promiſes of a mercy on Gods part, but there is no mention of the duties that Noah for his part was to performe, but yet this muſt be underſtood that Noah would walke juſtly and uprightly as he had done in former times. So Paraeus upon this place calls it, mutuum foedus, a mutuall covenant. So that if it be underſtood of a Covenant properly ſo called, and homogeneall with that in Gen. 17. (and if it be not, the argument will be of no force) it may be ſaid that Gods covenanting with man, doth ſuppoſe a reſtipulation or covenant on mans part.

The third inſtance is out of poſition 7. where alſo you would have the Reader to underſtand; that the chiefe part of your anſwer, viz. It is not ſaid they gave themſelves to the Church or Churches, but to us, viz. Paul a… Timothy, is left without the leaſt limit or intimation.

Anſw. Are not theſe words to be found in our defence? pag. 44. The argument is fetcht a Comparatis, the members of the Churches of Macedonia did as much in a like caſe: they gave themſelves to the Lord, and to the Apoſtle and Timothy, according to Gods will, to be guided by the Lord, and directed by them, a whole Church or Churches to one or two perſons gave themſelves; And an argument is fetcht thence thus, then may one perſon that is to joyne to a Church, as fitly give himſelfe to the Lord to be guided by him, and to the whole Church and Officers thereof to be directed by them according to the will of God. Doe not we grant, that it is not ſaid, that they gave themſelves to the Church or Churches, but to us, viz. Paul and Timothy? Nor doth the Poſition imply any other thing. For it ſaith, As the members of the Church of Macedonia did in a paralell or like caſe. It ſpeakes onelyonly of ſomething done proportionably to that which they preſſe: where then is the injury done to you? Is it in this, that without mentioning your allegation, as your allegation, we have yet anſwered p. 34the whole ſtrength of it? Forgive us this wrong, and retract your charge, which though it have truth in it, in the letter of your words in which it runs, yet it wants truth in your ſcope in which you make it; For you complaine of wrong to you and the truth of God, but cauſeleſly and moſt injuriouſly, as from what is preſented is manifeſt.

The fourth inſtance is out of Poſition 22, where you ſay, Your whole anſwer to Revel. 4. 4. is by an Index expurgatorius blotted out.

Anſw. We have ſought up our papers, and we perceive that in the copying out of the Reply for the preſſe, the anſwer to this text was omitted, Caſu an Conſilio, we cannot ſay. The anſwer was to this effect, it hath been uſually the practiſe of men of the moſt approved parts, and unqueſtioned integrity, after they have ſolidly proved a place by plaine texts of ſcipture, then to adde as probable thoſe which in their judgement lookt that way, though more obſcure, as typicall and propheticall places; The ſame is that practiſe of the Elders of New England, in urging this place. So that if you could make it out, that the Elders have miſt the genuine ſenſe of the place, yet you have but knockt off one of the Emblemata of the garniſhings of the roome, whereas the Poſition it ſelfe remaines unſhaken by you.

2. We doe profeſſe our ſelves unwilling to defend the poſition by vertue of the text (at leaſt in that expreſſion, viz. of authority and governing power) yet it may be thoſe reverend learned and religious Authors are able to maintaine it, though we by reaſon of our weakeneſſe dare not undertake it.

3. As for the expoſition that you put upon it, though it be conſonant to the interpretation of ſome learned writers, and though it ſeemed probable to one of us, yet upon further inexpectation, though we abſolutely reject it, we have not yet theſe exceptions againſt it.

p. 351. We reade not of any eyes that the 24 Elders had▪ but the four beaſts were full of eyes, Rev. 4. 8. Is this the meaning of it, that the Churches in the foure Quarters of the world had eyes, that is, wiſdome, knowledge, underſtanding to manage, order, guide, and diſpoſe of the affaires of the Churches: But the Officers wanted eyes, and ſo were excluded from directive power? For this will follow upon your expoſition, at leaſt, if your argument againſt the interpretation which the Elders of New England give of Crownes, prove ſolid. You ſay by their expoſition, The Elders which are ſignified by the foure beaſts, are excluded from governing power, for they ſit not on Thrones, nor have Crownes on their heads. And we will ſay againſt you, the Elders which you would have to be the Elders of the Churches are excluded from directive power, for they have not eyes before and behinde, as the four beaſts have.

2. We reade that the four beaſts doe lead the four and twenty Elders in the worſhip and Service of God in the Church, Revel. 4. 9, 10. When thoſe Beaſts gave honour and glory, &c. the four and twenty Elders fell downe and worſhipped, &c. So alſo c. 5. 8. 11. 14. Now whether the Churches doe lead their Officers in all their worſhips they performe to God, (which will follow from your expoſition) or the Officers doe lead the Churches, judge you.

3. We ſee no abſurdity in Maſters Cottons and New-Englands brethrens expoſition, who make the four beaſts to be the Officers of the Churches, and the four and twenty Elders to be the members. As for your allegation of Revel. 7. 9. 11. 13, 14. where you ſay, That the Elders are diſtinguiſhed from beleevers; We anſwer to it, We diſcerne not that the Elders are any more diſtinguiſhed then the four beaſts are, which yet you interpret to be the Beleevers of the four parts of the world, let the place be viewed.

4. Though Maſter Cotton drive, that by Crownes, are Enſignes of authority any more then white rayment was an p. 36Enſigne of Prieſthood, yet he aſſerts, that in ſome particulars that belongs to Church members, which is the Priviledge of Kings that weare Crownes: As 1. That they tranſact nothing by themſelves, but by their Officers. 2. Their conſent Cott. Caſe.is requifite to the judgements that paſſe in the Church. And therefore it may ſeeme leſſe ſtrange, if they appeare with Crownes.

Having thus anſwered that part of your Epiſtle, wherein you lay divers charges upon us, we ſhall now more briefly anſwer the former part of your Epiſtle, wherein you endeavour to purge your ſelfe from thoſe charges laid upon you. And you ſay,

The deepe and heavy charge (as you call it) in the firſt part of my preface againſt miſinterpretation of ſcriptures, as a belying of God, counterfeiting the King of Kings hand, (though I now ſee how I have ſped) I re…t not of.

Anſw. Neither appeares it that you doe repent, that youPſal. 35. 11.Ps 35:11 have poſition 23 laid to our charge things that we knew not, yea things, that when we heard of them, were of deteſtable conſideration in our thoughts. If you ſhall ſolidly confute our reply, we ſhall juſtifie you in this impenitency, but if otherwiſe, we ſhall deſire to mourne in ſecret for you, and pray, that God would give it an impreſſion upon your ſpirit.

You have the more cauſe to repent, if that be true which you alledge in the portall of your Epiſtle, viz. that the Examination &c. was for the moſt part an anſwer to ſome allegations, as they were privately made to you for ſatisfaction. For doe doubting brethren wanting light addreſſe themſelves to you for ſatisfaction concerning the meaning of ſuch and ſuch ſcriptures, and doe you publiſh their doubts, as their poſitions, and what was propoſed to you privately to obtaine ſatisfaction, doe you divulge it to the world: as a belying of God, a counterfeiting of the King of Kings hand, an addition to his Word? Surely this will make men tender how they ſeeke ſatisfaction from you for the future.

p. 37Nor ſee I cauſe (ſay you) why you ſhould repine at it, or complaine of it: if you have clearely manifeſted (as in your title page you ſay you have) the poſitions and ſcriptures alledged for your Church way, and by me examined, to be ſufficient, pertinent, and full of power.

Doth not the meaning of this amount to thus much? (For undoubtedly theſe cenſures relate to the poſitions, and conſequently to the authors of them) that if an interpretation may be clearly manifeſted to be ſufficient, pertinent, and full of power, then the perſons that give it, may not complaine, though they be all bedawbed with imputations of belying God, counterfeiting the King of Kings hand, adding to the Word? Muſt innocency of neceſſity be ſtupid and inſenſible of injuries?

Dat veniam corvis, vexat cenſura columbas.

And yet I find my ſelfe deeply charged by you to deprave places, blotte and blurre ſweet, humble, ſpirited, holy, pertinent Expreſſions, to wrong the Elders of New-England, wreſt allegations.

Anſw. Let the Reader judge betwixt us, if it be not truth. But you goe on and ſay,

Yea though I ſaid, I will not tell you who ſaid all the Church is holy, &c: yet you thinke it not unworthy my ſerious conſideration, whether it might not be ſaid to mee, as ſometimes Chriſt ſaid to one of the twelve, when he asked, Master is it I? and he anſwered, thou haſt ſaid: (a bitter perſonall invective) &c.

We intended not theſe words as any invective at all, much leſſe as a perſonall invective as you affirme; It was never an Embrio in our thoughts to compare you with Judas (as you inſinuate) 'tis cleare as the Sun, that you compare the Congregationall members in the purſuit of their way, to Corah, Dathan, and Abiram. Our meaning is plainely this, by this forme of ſpeaking, borrowed from our Saviours words in another caſe, to ſignifie that it might rather be ſaid againſt you, what you bring againſt us, viz. That Preſbyteriall governours doe take too much upon them, becauſe they p. 38take upon them, an authoritative power over thoſe Congregations over whom Chriſt hath not ſet them. Your reaſons to prove that our way is the gainſaying of Corah are weake: For 1. this ſchiſmaticall company would utterly have taken away the power of Moſes and the Prieſthood of Aaron, and ſo when they had Officers, would have deſtroyed their Officers: we onelyonly in the extraordinary caſe of an utter want of an Elderſhip to ordaine, hold it fit to ordaine by perſons deputed, or by Elders elected; If in the conſtitution of a Church, there doe joyne as members, ſeverall perſons that have beene approved Miniſters, whilſt their relations to their ſeverall Churches were in being, then ſome of theſe are deputed to ordaine the firſt Elder; If there be but one Preacher joyned as a member, and ſeverall perſons of eminent holineſſe and gifts fitted for ruling Elders, then there is an Elderſhip choſen, and the reſt of the Elderſhip ordained one of their Company for their firſt Elder. In the Church of Duckenfield in Cheſhire, four Preachers joyned in the foundation of the Church. At Sourby in Yorkſhire but one; But in both places the Ordination was performed either by Preachers as deputed, or by elect Elders.

2. If the placing of Church power in the body of the Congregation, were the gaineſaying of Corah, then becauſe election of Officers (Act. 6.) is a branch of Church-power, and was placed in, and acted by the body of the Church at Jeruſalem, that Church was guilty of the gaine-ſaying of Corah, which is your ſecond Argument.

3. 'Tis not true, that our cauſe enjoynes or allowes complaining (i. e. of the regular exerciſe of the power) of the Elders that rule over them in the Lord, for taking too much upon them, but we honour and obey the Elderſhips of our ſeverall Churches; and alſo the Elders and Members deputed of ſeverall Churches met in a Synod occaſionally to rectifie diſorders, &c. which the particular Churches p. 39are not able to accompliſh. But as for ſtated Claſsicall-Elderſhips, and your ſeverall graduall Judicatures, ſwallowing up the Votes of the Elders of the particular Congregation in the Major part of the Votes of the Synod, Ordaining, Depriving, Admoniſhing, Excommunicating, Reſtoring; we ſay, theſe are not powers ordained of God. And conſequently we are not guilty of the gaineſaying of Corah, though wee ſhould ſay of theſe, They take too much upon them.

You proceed, The uſuall occaſion of your Cenſures of depraving places, &c. is a wide (I hope) not a willing miſtake in you, and not any iniquity in my hands or heart, you expect the Poſitions and Scriptures alledged, to agree fully and exactly with the places cited in the Margent, which I neither profeſſed nor intended, &c.

Anſw. We expect not an exact agreement in words and expreſſions, but yet we could not but looke for an agreement according to the expreſſions of your Marginalls in ſenſe and importment. Where you ſay Poſition. See almoſt the ſame Argument verbatim. We expect with good cauſe an exact agreement in ſenſe and almoſt in words. When you ſay, See the like, we expect there an exact agreement in ſenſe, and a likeneſſe in manner of expreſſion, and ſo in the reſt. For if there be not the ſame thing aſſerted in both, the Margent is ridiculous. In divers Poſitions your Marginalls have no ſuch modifications in them, muſt we not expect an exact agreement in ſenſe and words in thoſe places?

Your Marginalls themſelves are profeſsion enough of ſuch an agreement, eſpeciall to any man that readeth your Preface, where you ſay, The way of Independencie produceth ſundry texts in Preaching, Writing, Conference, which for the moſt part alſo, ſhe produceth in Print upon the ſame or the like occaſion.

Doth not this import an agreement in ſenſe and importment, betwixt the Printed Bookes alledged and the Poſitions gathered from Preaching, Writing, Conference?

p. 40When you ſay, You alledge Printed Bookes probably to intimate whence the Propoſition was taken: Do you not imply that the ſubſtance of the Propoſition is to be found in the place from whence it is taken, and if it be not found there, are you not juſtly to be blamed?

Whereas you ſay The Printed Bookes alledged in the Margent are the By-ſtanders ſpoken of in the Preface, either we doe much miſtake you, or you doe, (which were ſtrange) not a little miſtake your ſelfe. What then is the meaning of theſe words in the Preface? I publiſh not all their Depoſitions, nor all that is materiall, but ſo much (as I conceive) at preſent ſufficient. If any of the Brethren (amongſt whom Mr. Cotton is deſervedly the chiefe) ſeeme in my apprehenſion to come neerer the truth then others, I willingly take notice of it, &c.

Is not Mr. Cotton one among the reſt of thoſe Authors in Print, whoſe Depoſitions you publiſh, how then is Mr. Cotten and the reſt made By-ſtanders which muſt not be medled with? And (by the way) if you had any action at all to enter againſt the cauſe, vvhy did you ſo uningenuouſly as not to publiſh all that is materiall? Is it your meaning that you would have liberty to alledge our Printed Bookes at your pleaſure, and we might not take notice whether you did them right or wrong? This ſeemeth to be too groſſe. For our parts we tooke By-ſtanders and By-matters to be meant of ſome expreſſions rather of an ornative and expletive then of an argumentative nature.

The next thing you indeavour to purge yourſelfe from, is from affecting Prelacy, which you ſay, we doe ſecretly intimate, and that to this end, to caſt an odium upon you and the cauſe you plead.

Anſw. We know you are more wiſe then to expreſſe affection to declining Prelacie. If you ſhould, this could not with rationall men, bring an Odium upon your Cauſe: and when you ſay, peradventure the word (ſimply) was put in for a retrect, in cauſe you ſhould be hotly purſued for pleading the Cauſe p. 41of Prelacie under the notion of Presbytery; we intended to ſhew the weakneſſe of your reaſoning, not to caſt an Odium upon you, for the thing it ſelfe avoid the force of it if you can. If (you ſay) Diotrephes was not blamed for having preheminence. Doe you not plead the Prelaticall Cauſe? And if you ſay, he was not ſimply blamed, Doe you not cleare the Allegation of the Elders? If there be any other place mention it, and we hope to give you ſatisfaction.

But you ſay, That you in the worſt times were not more Prelaticall then the greateſt and godlieſt Independents in the Kingdome, if not at leaſt one of us have beene.

Anſw. For our ſelves, when we firſt entred into the Miniſtery, we were both of us conformable in judgement, and ſometimes (though very rarely) in practiſe. But we have bewailed, and publiquely teſtified our repentance, both before and ſince the times of this preſent Parliament. The one of us renounced it, and was therefore ſuſpended by the Biſhop of Cheſter fourteene yeares agoe, and was afterwards about thirteene yeares ſince expulſed from his habitation, and after that about eleven yeares ſince was forced to leave the Kingdome, and to ſeeke for ſhelter in Holland, and there joyned with others in a Congregationall way, and after that when the unſutableneſſe of that aire occaſioned much ſickneſſe, he was conſtrained to returne, and finding no reſt was the ſecond time neceſſitated to tranſplant himſelfe into New-England, where if the High Commiſſion at Yorke could have let him alone, he might probably have ended his dayes; But for none appearance at their Courts, when yet he was out of the Land, and knew nothing of their ſummons, he was fined in ſeverall ſummes of money, which together amounted to fifteene hundred and fifty pound. And his eſtate in Wirrall in Cheſhire was extended upon for payment, and the Tenant to whom the Land was leaſed beſore his departure to New-England, forced to pay great ſummes of money for the redemption of his cattell, which were driven p. 42off the ground: where he was ſupported in thoſe troublous times by the beneficence of two religious Gentlemen, viz. Maſter William Stevinton of Dothit, and his ſonne in law Creſwal Taylor of Longdon aforeſaid his noble friends. And the tidings of theſe cruell proceedings, and the greivous complaints of the Tenant, comming over to him in ſeverall letters, he was adviſed to try if by his returning backe, he could uſe meanes to free his eſtate, but beſore he arrived this renowned reforming Parliament was aſſembled, and what he hath ſuffered ſince for his oppoſition to Prelacy is known not to a few.

As for the other of us, ſome yeares before the Biſhops fell, and whilſt their power ſeemed to be bound as with a Band of iron and braſſe, being enforced by the then Chancellour of Hereford, to turne his afternoone Sermon into a Cateciſme Lecture. Upon that occaſion ſtudying more elabourately and induſtriouſly the ſecond Commandement, through the rich grace and mercy of God not onelyonly ſaw the evill of Epiſcopacy, and ceremonies impoſed, but alſo repented of the uſe of them, and publiquely in the Pariſh of Almele in Herefordſhire preached againſt them, and for all the ſubſtantials of that way of Congregationall government, which ever ſince, and at this day, he hath and doth judge to beare moſt conformity with the word of truth. Afterward being troubled in the Biſhops Court for Nonconformity, and having no hope of liberty, did by conſent leave Almele, and lived about three yeares in a ſmall peculiar exempt from Epiſcopall Juriſdiction, viz. Longdon upon Terene in Shropſhire. And yet we ſuppoſe there may be other Independents (ſo called) more anti-prelaticall then our ſelves. Concerning you, though you have forced us by your cauſeleſſe compariſon, (which alſo was a manifeſt charge) to appeare in our owne juſtification, yet (that being done) we are not willing to vent our ſelves in the words of detraction againſt you, but we leave you to your owne p. 34conſcience to be judged; and to the judgement of ſome thouſands of perſons, who have many yeares been acquainted with your whole courſe of preaching and living, whether the compariſon was equall.

You ſay, You plead for the government of the Reformed Churches maintained by Maſter Burne of Mancheſter, Maſter Goſnall of Boulton, Maſter Fleetwood of Wigan, &c.

Anſw. What theſe Reverend men did hold or maintaine, we have no particular knowledge, ſaving that we thinke good to let you underſtand, that Reverend Maſter Burne was in his latter dayes, in a great part againſt that Claſſicall way which you contend for. And we have notes of his owne hand writing, which we can if need require (and hereafter it may be ſhall) produce, to the open view of men. In which he cloſeth very much with the Brethren of N. England in their anſwer to the nine Poſitions, and diſlikes Mr. Bals Reply.

Thus Brother, we have endeavoured to take off the ſtrength of your complaints, which you make againſt us in your Epiſtle. Our hearts doe witneſſe for us that we intended not to uſe guile or cunning craftineſſe in our defence of the Poſitions and Scriptures againſt your examinations, nor yet to aſperſe you with reproaches, but with integrity of ſpirit, what we have beleeved with the heart, we attempted the maintenance of without any deſigne of wronging you, much leſſe the truth of God. We hope your ingenuity will be ſuch that you will retract ſo hard a cenſure, and repent of ſuch a cauſleſſe out-cry, with which you cloſe your Epiſtle. If not, let the godly intelligent Reader judge betwixt us, whether we or the Complainant hath moſt offended; as for us it ſhall be our deſire that peace & truth may abound more and more with you, and with

Your loving Brethren▪ Sam. Eaton. Tim. Taylor.