IT would be to little purpose to spend time, in descanting on the borrow­ed Title, and many passages in Ma­ster Stucleys Book, that discovers more frothy wit, then Christian wisdome or gravitie.

It would be also tedious and troublesome to enumerate the odious railing names and Epithites of Cham, Ismael, Shimei, Rabsheka, apostate; broadfac'd lie, brasenfac'd lie, putid lie, egregious lie, with such like excrementitious stuffe, that hath drop't from his venemous pen; and wherewith his Book is full fraught, as if composed at Bedlam or Billings-gate, un­beseeming any sober Christian, much more a Pastor of a congregation.

I passe by the taking notice of his many quibbles, scoffs, and jeeres, his pride and arro­gance, his passion and impudence so obvious in every leaf, that he that runs may read; And with reference to these things, content my self only to say (as Catalus to his insulting Nonius) what a deal of dung doth this cart carry, such unsavoury unsanctified language suits not a sanctified spirit, fitter for the cookingstoole then the presse.

But to come to particulars; In the first place, I shall onely glance on some passages of his E­pistle.

That there is poison and gall in ink (as he affirmes) I shall not question, sith his Book puts it out of question, the Reader will find it growing upon his dung-heap.

In the next place M^r. Stucley presents him­self unto the Reader, as in a great straight or dilemma; whether he should be silent, or an­swer my Narrative (which he stiles a false re­port) and layes down reasons; pro and con.

But why is this preamble?

I tell thee Reader, Hypocrisie was never more in sashion then in our times: The vilest, & most abominable practice & designe in the world must have this preface and varnish of Religion and conscience to cover 'its ugly face and form. 'Tis sad to see how men cover wickednesse with holynesse even the garment of God; But how think you, shall M^r. Stucley gain reputation to his ensuing report of 48. lies, without painting the rotten post, and making a fair prologue to so foul a piece.

And therefore it is, that first he insinuates himself to be a man of peace, he tells you that he takes litle pleasure in a Salamander life, Though in the mean while, we all know, that it was his first work, after his coming to Exe­ter to vent his Antinomian Tenents, and that in pulpit in contradiction to M^r. Bartlets Or­thodox Divinity and sound practicall truth; And who knows not who hath been the fire­brand, [Page 57]that hath kindled the coales and blown the flames of contention in Exeter ever since M^r. Stucley set foot there; And yet this is the peaceable man you must take his own word for it, for he sayes he is a Minister, but first he should have done well to have taken (Ordina­tion) along with him, and yet I should have much doubted of his hundreds of Ministers; that he boasts, he could have to certifiy for him, I think the number would have fallen very short, onely some few of his votaries that he hath helped unto, or kept in good benefices and places, and some others for fear of ejecting probably might have done him that Office, we well know, who rules the rost in these parts.

I shall for brevitie sake passe over his rea­sons for his silence, as not bearing waight with his more preponderating considerations, to excite him to answer.

Answer he must, first to prevent the Gospels suffering, secondly for his Churches satisfaction.

The Gospel will suffer, and his labours be obstructed, if he be silent under Calumnies and misrepresentations (as he insinuates my Narrative to be) And therefore (he sayes) he is bound in conscience, But what to doe? what bound in conscience to ly for God? he needs it not, what, bound in conscience to de­ny and evade Truth by shiftings and shuflings? [Page 58]To maintaine unwarrantable practices by im­pudence and insolent carriage, denying to give any account or satisfaction to any for your actings? what to slander censure and trample on poore honest Souls justly dissenting from you, thereby to raise and keep up your own and your Churches tottering Independent in­terest, on the ruins of their persons and repu­tations? Surely the Gospel needs no such sup­port.

M^r. Stucleys Pamphlet (in the eye of judi­cious Christians) gains little glory to God, little advantage to the Gospel, little credit to his Mi­nistry, or edification to his Church, and Christ will give him little thanks one day, for such imprudent and preposterous zeal, being not according to knowledge, and will say, who hath required these things at your hands.

Pray S^r. Tell me, where was your conscience and zeal to preserve the Gospel from suffering, when you raised that false report on M^r. Forde, reporting to one of Taunton that he said, That lying was the property of a woman: and when you abused M^r. Down & M^r. Bartlet by reports to my Brother at the same time? where was your tender respect of the Gospel, when you too frequently aspersed M^r. Forde, and would be picking of holes in his Sermons, and telling your members, that he was much dissabled by his sicknesse, whereby many refused to hear [Page 59]him for near two years together? Who taught your members to call his Sermons preach­ments, Raylings &c. Is not this your very shiboleth to distinguish a right Independent? And why have you and M^r. Mall, now also withdrawn from his Lecture: is it not to con­firme your disciples?

Reader, Note, this is the man that is so care­full that his own name be not reproached, least the Gospel suffer, and yet whispers and broaches untruths against three godly Mini­sters to take away their good names, without any respect to the Gospels suffering; how stands this together?

In the next place, whereas M^r. Stucley tells you, how he adores Gods goodnesse to him, in hiding his infirmities from me, whom he stiles a Cham, that would soone have publish­ed it to my Brethren.

I answer, that 'tis not I, but his own harsh irregular actings that have proclaimed not on­ly his infirmities but enormities also to the world; For my part I am convinced, 'tis sin­full to publish others infirmities, much more to curse them for it. But I adore the divine providence, in that M^r. Stucley himself should occasion a discovery of his own fowle enormi­ties. God hath a time to discover the Hipo­crisie of liars: A time when they shall proceed no farther, but their folly shall be manifest unto [Page 60]all: God will bring to light the hidden deeds of darknesse in due time, 'tis neither pride nor policy can hinder. Had I published M^r. Stucleys privity to the uncommissionated opening of other mens letters, and taking Copies of Ma­ster Snows, and M^r. VVestlakes Postletters, to lay up by him; suggesting to his Church mem­bers that these men endeavoured the ruine of the Church, and that God had broken their designes: and appointing thanksgiving dayes for the same (a mere trick to alienate their af­fections from them) I say, had I published these pranks; I suppose they would not come under the notion of M^r Stucleys infirmities but some­what of a higher nature. Is it not a petty piece of Burglary think you, to unlock and break o­pen the closed Cabinet of another mans breast and bosome, to rob him of his secrets, his heart Iewels? is not this somewhat above an infir­mity? If not I should have concealed it, but I dare not be accessary to such things, & there­fore I say, My Masters beware of your letters.

Next M^r. Stucley proceeds to rejoyce, That Shimei his railing tongue, and Rabshekahs letters should conduce to his and his Churches repu­tation.

Stay Reader, peruse my Narrative: where I pray doth M^r. Stucley find Shimei his railing tongue or Rabshekahs letters? doth he not dream? Is it not in his Pamphlet, he love to [Page 61]triumph before the victory: first let him take my answer intended for his conviction, and then if it conduce to their reputation, much good doe it them, I hope God will work good out of it, when his eyes shall be opened to see his errour, and to make him sensible of his high flown conceits of his; and his Churches infallibilities, & to make him really to adore the divine justice towards him, who seeks to advance his & his Churches glory and great­nesse, by the defamation of honest conscien­tious Christians, who endeavour to walke ho­nestly both in the sight of God and men.

In the last place he ends his Epistle with an Apologie for his tartness in his ensuing Book; and pleades the Law of nature for doing right to himself, forgetting) it seems) the Law of grace, that forbids wronging his Neighbour, God is not to be found (as one sayes) in the rag­ing fire of opposition, but in the sweet breath­ings and soft voice of Truth and love.

I leave his Epistle, & proceed to take a short survey of what follows in his Pamphlet.

In his first page, he cavils at the Title of my Book in that 'its called, Truths manifest, and seeks to cloud it, with a thicke fog or mist of 48. lies which I doubt not ere I have done, will call him father, and be justly laid at his own door: of these in their proper place.

In his second page, he hath a firivolous quib­ble [Page 62]or exception against the Authour, in that, 'tis said Toby Allein a (late) member &c. which he sayes denotes; either my excommunication, or dismission, or Apostacie from them, &c.

I answer I was in the first place denied Com­munion with his Church, some of them told me, they were offended at M^r. Downs baptiz­ing my child, and at my forbearing them pri­vate meetings, and I must not be admitted in such sins; In the next place I gave them notice that for their unjust excommunicating my wife, and refusing to give any reason or satis­faction about it, and for other reasons (which the reader will see ere I have ended) I did with­draw from them, and could walk no longer with them; and so I stiled my self (a late mem­ber) as I hope was proper enough, though not actually excommunicated, nor dismissed by them; and yet for all this I hope, I am no other­wise an Apostate, then Luther was, who said he was an Apostate, but it was from errour to truth.

But Mr. Stucleys Church is now become of­fended and must be satisfied, ere they will say farewell to Toby.

Well satisfaction must be had, and I hope I shall satisfie those that are capable of satisfa­cton; The Church requires satisfaction because I say; They have unjustly cursed my wife; And I require satisfaction because they did un­justly curse her.

M^r. Stucley pray S^r. be ingenious; have I not offered by word and writing; that I was ready to receive your charge (if you had any against me) and to submit to the determination of godly judicious, and indifferent Ministers or private Christians? And have you not refused this; Calling them forreiners; and will referre it to none but your own Church, M^r. Eve­leigh, Owen, &c. parties as deeply guilty as your selfe, in this male administration, these must be the indifferent Judges. To determine whether you and themselves have done right, or wrong in your proceedings, none else must intermeddle in your Church affaires, and why? 'Tis your principle, a principle without Scrip­ture precept or president, a punctilio, or de­vice to wave and evade the hearing of the Judi­cious, least the nakednesse of your cause ap­peare, and your shame be discovered. S^r. I hope you did Reverence learned M^r. Bur­roughs, if so, pray take the paines to look into his Heart-divisions pag. 43: where he sayes.

Those in the Congregationall way acknowledge, that they are bound in conscience to give account of their wayes to the Churches about them, or to any other, who shall require it, this (saith he) not in an Arbitrary way, but as a duty they own to God and man.

Observe, he makes no distinction, but sayes to the Churches about them; or any other, [Page 64]that shall require it. And this he speaks not only as his own opinion, but as the judgement of those of the congregationall way in gene­rall. Pray tell me, how you will reconcile your practice with this judgement? I would willingly know why? or upon what different principle it was, that you refused to give M^r. Nicolls, M^r. Bartlet, M^r. Downe any account or satisfaction touching the reason & grounds of those your proceedings, when those three Ministers desired it, after you had sent them your monition (in the nature of a mandatum) that they were to take notice that you and your Church had Excommunicated M^rs. Parr and my wife: did you advise with any of the Churches in Exeter or elsewhere before your precipitate proceedings? Pray let's know in your next how it was resented by your brethren of the congregational way, at your late conven­tion, at the Act in Oxford (if truly stated by you which I must suspect) did they commend your practice (as it is reported) and intend to draw it into president, or did they blame you for it? Have you known any power either Episco­pall, or Archiepiscopall, (but only Papall) that claime such an absolute Independent jurisdi­ction, as to deny all Appeales; and refuse to give any account of their wayes, and admini­strations) when desired) before Independency was set up? Pray what meant you by your no­tice [Page 65]to the Ministers in Exon, was it not, that they should deny these poore souls commu­nion upon paine of your and your Churches high displeasure, must your (Ipse dixit) satisfie, without ground or reason? If this be your principle, we doubt not but within a few pages to shew who are the Schismaticks, whether M^r. Stucley and his Church, or Toby Allein; But of that by and by, I passe on to his observa­tions on my Testimoniall.

Reader, here see (this peaceable man) how his heart rises and swells against the chamber of Exon. (as he call's the Subscribers to my certi­ficate) he will not be guilty of such a piece of incivility, as to suffer them to passe without abusing them, he must have a fling at them, now they come in his way.

In the first place he gibes at their Admini­stration of justice, we must (sayes he) carry our selves warily, least we be bound to the good behaviour warily, not honestly, he begins with a jeer.

Pag. 3. Next, in his third and some ensuing pages; He call's them my Compurgatours, prolocutours, Seconds, guard, &c. and tacit'ly represents them, as men dissaffected to the Su­preame Magistrate, with his jearing (Specta­tum admissi, &c.) and that his Highness affe­ctions to him, is an eie-sore to the chamber, &c.

Reader this is the peaceable man still, If thou [Page 66]wilt believe him, he takes no pleasure in a Sa­lamander life, and yet Toby Allein and his wife are not subjects high enough to wreak and fret his malice upon.

No, the chamber: they must know that he is offended at them also, and they and all the world must know, what a favourite of the Protectors, M^r. Stucley is, he put's it in print. But alas (poor man) how vain is it to be an­gry with those that care so little for it: doubtless the chamber takes notice of it, so farre, as to be sorry for his simpleness, and that such a spirit of envy and contention should lie Couchant, and discover it self from under M^r. Stucleys pastorall Robe, They can bear a few gibes and jeeres from M^r. Stucley, and look on it as his weakness, and that it would be weakness in them to ingage in a Contest with him about such things so inconsiderable. The Eagle scorns to catch flies; I shall onely say, that had I said & insinuated so much of the cham­ber of Exeter, as Master Stucley hath done, It might have been called, an Impudent lye.

But we leave him in his sweat of discontent against the chamber, and shall speak a word of his query, why I had not gotten a Certificate from the Ministers or from his Church, I ha­ving (as he sayes) reported his Church to be the honestest people that ever I came amongst.

To this briefly, That as for the Ministers—Certificate [Page 67]I might have had it, had I needed it; And as for his Churches Certificate, I left it for him to take the benefit of that, being the best he can get; And as for his Church, If I reported them to be the honestest people, &c.

I do now find I was in a great mistake, and must retract and ask them forgivenesse; I shall promise to say so no more till I have better evidence for their honesty: I am not the first that have been deceived by these Independents; and therefore I hope I may expect a pardon of Course. Next M^r. Stucley raises queries, upon the contents of my Testimoniall, (simple ones God knows:) how easy is it to pay him home in his own Coyne; May it not be ask't of him, 1. whether he as not an unrighteous Steward in his causelesse cursing my wife? Secondly whether he be not better affected to his Inde­pendent party and interest, then to the Com­mon wealth? thirdly whether he hath not rai­sed more divisions in the Churches of Christ in Exeter by gathering a Church out of other Churches, then ever was known in Exeter be­fore? But to let that passe, I shall only adde,

That the Certifiers (however M^r. Stucley represents them) are known to be men of that worth, loyalty and integrity, that they disdaine for any respects whatsoever to certifie any thing but what they know to be really truth: And had they not been so, doubtless he would [Page 68]have long since informed against them; or else had neglected his duty.

Pag. 4. Whereas in his fourth page he insi­nuates that I am to have a triall at Law against him, &c.

Reader, be pleased to take notice, that after M^r. Stucley had libellously slandred my wife in pulpit and print, before I printed my Narrative I demanded (by severall letters) satisfaction for this publick defamation, as a breach of the Laws both of God and man: Telling him, that if he would shew the matter of fact truly stated, and a possitive Scripture, or Law of man, for such a procedure on such a fact or 'its parallel, he should convince me.

I likewise sent him a charge; consisting of four particulars, (to wit) first his application of Prov. 5.8.9. and Tit. 2.5. to my wife, insi­nuating her to be a harlot and unchast: Se­condly his reporting her to be a woman know­ing no subjection at home or abroad, Thirdly, his saying, that she went from them to avoid Curch censure: Fourthly his reporting that she never gave any reason for her leaving them: I charged him that in these particulars he had scandalized my wife, and therein bro­ken both the Law of God and man. I desired a debate of these particulars by himself and Ma­ster Mall (his assistant,) and two others whom he thought fit with my self and three other [Page 69]godly Christians that I should bring, promi­sing that if he could prove either of them, nay, if I did not disprove all of them, I would lay down and beg him mercy.

His answer was, that this charging him with particulars, he did not like, and that it was not the way of gaining him; But that I was to tell him his fault between me and him alone; And failing in that first assay; Then I was to take with me, one or two of that particular fellow­ship (meaning his Church) and that untill then he saw no reason at all to call in forraign helps.

Note Reader, this learned Rabbi, he tells me that I must first tell him of his trespasse private­ly, which himself hath published on the house­top, in pulpit and presse.

I thought he had known better how to di­stinguish, as to the Application of Admoni­tions, and that there is a vast difference be­tween the case of private personall wrongs; And publick Church male administrations.

Next (sayes he) I must take two or three of his Church; They were partakers in the fact of cursing my wife; And they are to admonish him for that, which they joyned with him to doe.

Note, he wholly declines my proposall, and hath found out this shift, he tells me the Church are offended, that I take offence at their pro­ceedings; And summons me to his consistarie [Page 70]before M^r. Eveleigh, Owen, and the rest, judges in their own cause: for them to debate, and determine whether he & they had done right or no: you may imagine what a piece of ju­stice I might expect from them. Right Lid­ford Law. Hereupon I gave notice to the Church by letter, that forasmuch as they had abused the Ordinance of Christ, in Excom­municating my wife on such pretended crimes as were apparent falsities; I had therefore with­drawn from them, and could neither in reason nor conscience joyn with such a Congrega­tion as live wholly under an Arbitrary form of Church Goverment, and admitted of no ap­peales in the case of unjust excommunication.

And so, after M^r. Stucleys deniall of a friend­ly debate often proposed by me, I was enfor­ced to commence my suit at Law, to right my self in way of a legall proceeding. And this is the action of the case, he there speaks of.

It would be almost infinite to follow him in every of his impertinencies and frothy fan­cies, I purposely wave many as inconsiderable, and shall speake only to the most material, that I tire not the Reader.

M^r. Stucley hath done with my Testimo­niall, and now taking leave of the chamber, with his pace tantorum virorum, a jeering fare­well, he passes to my Epistle.

He begins with a whipper: Scandall & con­tumacy [Page 71](sayes he) was proved against my wife, and therefore her censure was not unrigh­teous: good Logick, were it true; yea, but he will prove it by his Sermon notes (alias) his printed libel: I referre you, saies he, to the notes of my Sermon in print. A very strong evi­dence, a cogent argument. He and his Church must curse my wife for deserting them and joyning to her former pastor, but scandall, and contumacy must be the glosse and pretence for their proceedings. M^r. Stucley preaches, & prints her guilty; And that's his proof. They say so; And therefore 'tis so; they are satisfied, and therefore others must me.

The Pharisees say that Christ had a Devil, and therefore it must be so; probatum est.

Suppose a vile wretch (being met with a par­cel of his Desciples, as bad as himself) do preach and print blasphemy (as many doe in these dayes) is it true? or is it ever the lesse blas­phemy, because he preaches and prints it, and his Desciples own and maintain it? This is sorry stuff.

Next we are now come to the point, the whole stresse of the businesse in difference be­tween M^r. Stucley and my self lies in this, name­ly, whether my wife were guilty of Crimes de­serving excomminication, or not deserving? whether guilty of contumacy, or not guilty? in a word, whether his curse be causeless or not?

I am not ignorant that I am to encounter, one, that Goliah-like seems to bee armed Cap-a pe; He is a Scholer, which I pretend not to, therefore the disadvantage lies on my side; But I trust my cause is good, and my de­signe is satisfaction, and therefore shall not fear to take leave humbly to propose a few queries to serious consideration.

First, whether a particular Church may impose, presse or practice any thing that is not warranted by Scripture precept, Apostolicall iustitution, or primitive Church practice?

Secondly, whether, If such things be im­posed pressed or drawen into practice, by a particular Church, the Church members may not refuse it as arbitrary and after their decla­ring dissatisfaction in point of conscience may not withdrawe from such Church, till they receive satisfaction; and for non-satisfaction, wholly desert it.

Thirdly whether a particular Church de­nying, or tying up it's members by Cove­nant, compact or otherwise from commu­nion with other Churches of Christ in the or­dinances, and it's refusing to admit the mem­bers of other Churches of Christ (professed believers and orderly livers) to communicate with them, in the ordinances, be warrantable by Scripture rule, Apostolicall institution, or primative practice, or on the contrary, be se­peration [Page 73]& schisme in such particular Church.

Fourthly, whether there be any Scripture Rule, or Parsident, for a particular Church, to erect private meetings, and there to pray, preach, and carry on designes and particular interests, relating to state affaires to promote self-edification in stead of sole-edification?— and if not.

Fiftly, whether a Churchmember, seeing the danger, and taking offence at such practi­ces, having declared against it, may not in con­science abstaine and withdraw from such, and joyn in the ordinances with other congre­gations of Gods people, without incurring the guilt of Shcisme.

In the next place I shall point M^r. Stucley, to some passages of the late reverend and lear­ned M^r. Burroughs in his heart-divisions pag. 173. & 174.

If (sayes he) the cause of leaving communion be just, then those who gave this cause are the schismatiks, not those who withdraw upon it, thus the Governors of the Church may be the schisma­ticks and a private member withdrawing may be free.

And again, if Governours impose that which is not necessary (though in it self not sinful) and will not beare with the weaknesses of such, as think it to be evill, if upon that, they be forced to withdrawe in this the Go­vernours [Page 74]are the Schismaticks.

And againe in pag. 50. The power of the Church (sayes he) extends not to the punish­ment of every thing, that either may by the Governours of it be conceived to be evill, or that is indeed evill, but onely such things, as some way or other appeare to be against con­viction and are obstinately persisted on, &c.

And in pag. 52. those that will goe farther, they will punish for every evill, and if they use meanes to convince them, and they be not convinced, they will judge them obstinate, & proceed against them accordingly, those challenge & exercise not the power of Christ, but Antichrist.

And againe pag. 67. this is generally held by our Brethren (saith he) If a man be rightly cast out of communion with one Church, he is thereby cast out of all. If this be so (sayes he) then surely many things must be suffered, be­fore we proceed to cast out a member, it must not be for every error of miscarriage, thus al­so B^p. Davenant in his rules for peace, these may not be cut off from communion with par­ticular Churches, who remaine joyned to the Catholick Church.

And againe pag. 90. Prelatical spirits in­deed account it their honour to force men to be of their mind; 'tis their glory, that they can say to the consciences of men, bow downe [Page 75]before us: a gracious spirit abhorrs the thought of such a Tyrany.

These things thus-premised and considered, I apply it to the case in hand, in these few en­suing queres.

First I enquire, what other meaning or construction but imposing and pressing things unnecessary, can be made or put on those pas­sages and practices in your Covenant (for so your Elder M^r. Eveleigh named it to me and my wife) (viZ.) that we should hear you, when you preacht, and noe others, without your leave, and that we must expect a greater bles­sing on your Ministry, then any others, and that we must frequent your private meetings, or be accountable to you and your officers for our default? Have you any Scripture-rule or primitive Church practice for these, and for such pressing of them (as your Elder did) on me and my wife to subscribe unto them? and as for your denying liberty to commu­nicate at the Lords table with other Churches of Christ, where is your Scripture-rule or rea­son for it? Is not this an imposing and pressing of things unnecessary.

In the second place I enquire, whether I and my wife did not refuse to subscribe this Covenant upon grounds of dissatisfaction, in point of conscience: pray ask your Elder, did I not tell him I must first see direct proof, or [Page 76]sound consequence from Scripture, to con­vince me that this was an injunction of Christ and not arbitrarie, ere I could submit to it.

And pray ask him farther, did not my wife tell him that she found no such rule of Christ, not obligation upon Christians, and could not in conscience submit or yield to be so tied up, but desired to stand fast in the liberty where­with Christ had made her free, or that effect, this, I say we did refuse to be ingaged unto in point of conscience.

Thirdly, I enquire farther, did not my wife tell M^r. Eveleigh and M^r. whitehorne, two of your members, that came to admonish her for not comming to your private meetings, that she was offended at your carrying on sel­fish designes and interests, under pretence of serving God, at such times, appearing both in your prayers and practices, and that she could not, with a good conscience joyn with such, but would leave you, especially after she had heard Capt. Rolls his strange praying, and the Churches perrilous petitioning the Protector, which you sent me to subscribe, whereof the danger was represented to her as my Narrative doth expresse, had she not just cause to take of­fence at this? were not such things enough to stumble a woman, to make her fear & in point of conscience and prudence also, to avoid this apprehended danger, both to soul and body? Pray let it be considered.

But now I mention this petition, I must take heed for Mr. Stucley is offended as you may see in page 7.

Where he makes the Reader believe he hath gotten me into his Net, into a dilemma inextricable; That unavoidable I must be ei­ther a Traitour, or a lier, here he puts a bold face on a bad matter; But pray not too fast, let's along with you.

Reader take notice that in my Narrative I was telling the grounds and occasion of my wifes withdrawing from them, That she heard a friend say, that there were dangerous pas­sages, in their Church Petition, which they brought me to signe; And in particular a clause, to pray the Protector to dissolve the Parliament, and I told you also that this (a­mongst other things) did, (as it well might) trouble her, and cause her, to cautionate me to be wary what I did, and at length for this and other reasons before recited, to withdraw from them.

For my part I never read the petition, nor knew 'its contents whether there were any treasonable undertaking in it or nor, let the contrivers and subscribers look to that, I did mention it in my Narrative only to shew the occasion and ground of my wifes dissatisfa­ction, and one reason of her deserting them, I had not the least design to alienate the chief [Page 78]Governors affections from him & his Church (as he suggests) I fear not the guilt of mispri­sion of Treason; But yet seeing M^r. Stucley puts me so hard to it, I shall see whether we can extricate our selves out of M^r. Stucleys dilemma, and that I may not be guilty of mis­prision of Treason, and others may see who is the Traitour or the liar, I shall here insert what I have heard (and doubtless M^r. Stucley will not deny) was the heads or substance of their Church-petition as followeth.

Should this change be (viz.) the Kingly office be accepted, how much will the liberty of the Saints be hazarded; And will you put on the yoak of intolerable slavery on their necks with your own hands, and rivet it fast by a Parliamen­tary Power from falling of.

Can your Highnesse be ignorant, that there is too much of an imposing spirit in matters of conscience, still remaining in the middest of us, who would gladly deny liberty to those who have earned it with their bloud; and must we again forsake our inheritances & estates, &c.

We cannot but remember your Highnesse; That the itch that was upon the spirits of men (nothing could satisfie them, unless they could put their fingers on their Brothers conscience to pinch it) is not yet healed, what assurance will the Parliament give, that your Army, who are at present a fence between us, and fie­ry spirits) shall be continued?

And is it not sufficiently known that many of those persons that cry up Monarchy, as hereditary, are crying down of a Military Ba­sis, as inconsistent with magna charta and the liberty of the Nation?

If the Militia be kept in your Highnesse hands, it was that which was thought unrea­sonable for the King to pretend to: If left in the Parliament, so chosen by the Nation as now qualified; may it not easily be presaged how suddenly they shall be disbanded? or what ground or hope hath your Highnesse, that the spirits of the Common people are now more wary in picking and chusing Represen­tatives then of old?

Did you not lately see what need you had of your counsell to set guards on the Parlia­ment, to keep out Malignant and violent spirits, though we fear, notwithstanding all their vigilancy, there are but too many crept within those doores.

How unreasonable is it, that they who came together by virtue of this Government should now be permitted to pull it down?

If it were thought unreasonable that any should sit without a recognition: Is it not most intolerable (pardon our boldness) that the sub­verters of the Government, should be let alone their months being long since expired? Doth it lie in your Highness breast to secure the Go­vernment [Page 80]against such Invadors? Will not this as dangerously dissappoint, and discompose the Nation as any thing that could have been invented, by the greatest enemies to your peace and welfare?

Lastly are not the same weeds, nettles and briars thriving under this Parliament as under tholast; And are there not the same reasons, for their dissolution, as for the former?

Reader; there needs no Paraphrase; These heads were given by one of their own mem­bers (no Apostate) and therefore I think Ma­ster Stucley will not say, 'tis a lie or a false copy, only I cannot passe it by, without a query or two.

First I ask why M^r. Stucley himself, had not printed their petition in his Book, he sayes he was not ashamed to tell the world of it, and yet conceales it; If it were so honest why had you not printed it?

Secondly I would ask him, whether it were recomended to him and his Church by his holynesse from Rome; or was it composed within the walls of M^r. Raddons Posthouse in Exeter at their private meetings?

Thirdly, I would know whether those that [Page 81]subscribed it were Englishmen, Italians, or Spaniards.

Fourthly whether Religion doth challenge any other place then to be a settler, no sticker in the State?

Fifthly whether some eminent Statesmen did not discourage M^r. Mall (your Agitator) from presenting it, and whether it were not turn'd back to be laid aside, or amended?

Sixthly, whether such Church work might not justly offend weak members, and put them upon thoughts of satisfaction before they joyn farther with such a Church?

Doubtlesse M^r. Stueley will take some pains to give some solution and satisfaction to these queries in his next, which I shall content my self to waite for with patience; And that I may no farther digresse, I return to examine his allegations of my wifes supposed crimes and contumacy, deserving excommunication; and here I find he would make the world believe, that 'twas not for deserting them and going to her former Pastor: this he thinks will not hold, though this in truth was at the bottome. But now (for-sooth) it must be running away from her husband.

Reader for satisfaction in this, read my Narrative, which shews the true cause, man­ner and end of my wifes going to Honiton, which he falsly call's running away.

The truth is, her spirit was troubled at those sorry actings in the Church, which I have be­fore set forth; she saw mad Church work a­making, she feared entanglements and could not in conscience continue longer with them as I pressed her to do; therefore she desires sa­tisfaction, and on that occasion and no other, she went to Honiton in order to go to Taunton to M^r. Newton, and my Brother Allein, Mini­sters of Taunton for solution of her doubts. I appeale to the impartiall Readers.

What think ye? might not this intended ty­ing up by covenant to a particular Congrega­tion, & debarring her of the liberty of Church priviledges in Communion with other Chri­stians; and their ingaging in State affairs in so unheard of a manner, make a good woman to use means for satisfaction, and quiet of her conscience, when she had told them and me, she could not in conscience continue with them? and she was told, she could not leave them: might not this, I say, cause her to be importunate for satisfaction without danger of excommunication?

Object. But they object; she went away, and I knew not of it.

Ans. I answer; she had told me before that she would go somewhat for satisfaction; and I had before agreed to her going to Taunton for it. But suppose I did not for present know [Page 83]whether she was gone; what then? must she therefore be run away? None but an Indepen­dent will judge so.

Object. But 'tis farther objected, why then did ye grieve at her going away and said, she would leave you?

Ans. To this I answer, 'tis false, I never said she would leave me, whatever you vouchers Capt. Rolls, and Owen do tell you. They are your own Disciples; and have been her accusers and judges.

Secondly I say, I had reason to be troubled: first at the ill use and advantage I apprehend­ed such as you (who watcht for her haltings) would make of it. And again secondly, because I had no sooner complyed & condescended to the healing of her troubled spirit, but had too much hearkned to some of your cruel coun­sells and instigations against her.

Let me put M^r. Stucley a querie or two?

First let me ask him did I ever complain to him or his Church or any other, that my wife was run away, and require a Church proceedings about it? or did he or his Church ever ask me whether she did run away or not, or whether there were a reconciliation, did any of them examine the case before they pro­ceeded to curse her?

Secondly, did not he and his Church (be­ing madded at her leaving them) in point of [Page 84]policy or rather revenge conspire to spread and foment this false report, and then call it a publick Scandall, past her husbands pardon, and such as he and his Church must take co­gnizance of ex officio, and curse her, for unless she would cry peccavi, though innocent. This will be the case another day, whatever they pretend to hide it now. She had left them: they could not brook it, therefore they seek occasion and finding none, They feign and frame somewhat that they may have some shew for the work: it must be done in Terro­rem. Strict Discipline against the wife, may chance deterr the husband from going away; for they now fear his departure too. To loose a Church member may be ominous.

Thirdly, I ask M^r. Stucley this question, If he and his Church had so good a cause, and could prove their pretended crimes against my wife, why was this conscientious Pastor so rigid, as to refuse a hearing and debate of their accusations before M^r. Ford, M^r. Down, and o­thers nominated by my wife, whereby he and his Church might have been cieared and justi­fied in their proceedings, had their pretended delinquent been convicted?

Where was this mans wisdome or charity (I would fain know?) who rather then he would abate a hairs breadth of his greatnesse and honour (that proves his shame) he will [Page 85]give my wife to the Devil, send her packing to hell; where is this mans Scripture-rule, or Church president for such a wilfull procedure?

Hear learned Zanchie, treating about Church power in the point of excommunication.

What is more grievous (sayes he) to the whole body of the Church, then to cut off a member from the Body? If a Church (saith he) be small and consists not of many learned men, (as M^r. Stu­cleys I am sure doth not) excommunication ought not to be done, unlesse the neighbour Churches be first consulted withall. A chirurgion (if he fear God and be wise) doth not cut off a hand or an arme, before he hath first heard the judge­ment of the skilfull neighbour physitians.

And the late reverend M^r. Vines in his Trea­tise of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, pag. 212. sayes.

The proper and Adequate, and immediate ob­ject of debarriment from the Communion of the Church is a Sandalous person, that holds either a course, or hath committed the act of a scandalous sin, which he explaines to be, some Atrocious or grievous sin of the first magnitude, If any that is called a Brother be a fornicatour, Idolater, covetous, &c. 1 Cor. 5. and 1 Cor. 6.9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdome of God, nor fornicatours, Idolaters, adulterers, abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theeves, nor coveteous, nor drunkards, [Page 86]nor revilers, nor extortioners, and such were some of you, &c.

And pag. 213. He tels us it must be an open and manifest sin, else it is not Scandalous: And known it must be either by evidence of fact, confession or conviction.

Now let M^r. Stucley shew wherein my wife was guilty of any such Atrocious or grie­vious sin, and if not, why fall's he upon this highest work of excommunication?

Little flies (sayes M^r. Vines) must not be knockt down with so great a hammer.

Object. True (sayes my Adversary.) But there was contumacy that your wife was guil­ty of.

Ans. I answer first, if no crime, no contu­macie.

But secondly suppose a fault, I deny any con­tumacy: what contumacy? when she had made so many overtures to be tried by indifferent judges, godly indifferent Ministers or people: what contumacy? when the poor women wrote to M^r. Stucley their desires, to be com­municated to his Church, to have their cause heard by understanding and impartiall men whosoever they be, and gave assurance, that they would submit to the Law and will of Christ, which letter, this faithfull Pastor poc­ketted and concealed from his Church, you see what a good will he had to the work; he [Page 87]would curse them right or wrong, where is the contumacy in her? was it not Tyranny in him? doth he not deserve a Bishoprick.

By this time (I suppose) the Reader sees, how pertinent and applicable M^r. Malls quotations are to the case of my wifes unjust excommu­nication; And whether she were guilty of crimes or contumacy deserving such a cruel censure, unjustly inflicted by M^r. Stucley and his Church, I leave it to the judicious to con­sider.

Before I passe, I take notice that in his 5. pag. he tells you, that I am willing to wave the question about the impertinency of M^r. Malls quotations, and to referre it to the learned, and sayes that I should have studied the question, and not contented my self with an implicit faith in the learned, &c.

To this I answer, I think the question is now put out of question, and by what hath been cited out of those learned men before named, it plainly appeares that his quotations are fri­volous and impertinent to the case in hand, let the Reader judge.

And as for an implicit faith in the learned, I say an implicit faith in Church affairs, is no way satisfactory unto me; And therefore I de­sire Mr. Stucley to satisfy me; whether he did not tye up his Church-members to an impli­cit faith in him, when he did upon that black [Page 88]day of his curse, make his members subscribe a Church-covenant or oath, That they would submit to his guidance and teaching as their Pastor, (absolutely) without any restriction or limitation? why had it not been added, he guiding and teaching according to the rule of Gods word? what is this but to pin their faith on his sleeve? what is it but an implicit faith on M^r. Stucley. St. Paul durst not be so bold; he bids the Churches be followers of him; and the other Apostles, as they are followers of Christ; are we not bid, to the Law and to the Testimony? bid search the Scriptures, bid try the spirits? Must we take up all you say upon Trust? are there no deceivers gone forth into the world, and into the Church too? Wolves in sheeps clothing such as (like the Devil) transform themselves into Angels of light, creep into houses & captivate silly women, &c. Pray Sir tell me why was this omitted in your Church-covenant or oath, which M^r. Mall hath inserted in his Book? should not oathes and covenants be plain and expresse? or will you supply it with an & caetera. Have you not herein outwitted the Pope, and made him a younger Brother? Surely there is somewhat lies in this pad, pray explain your self next.

Reader I am sensible that I have been too tedious hitherto, and should I trace this fox in his wiles and cunning fetches in every page, I [Page 89]should tire both you and my self to unkennell him; I professe I am heartily sorry to see his impudence; he would make the world believe the Crow is white, and that 'tis night at noon by his Logick all are lies, but what he himself sayes; he sees he is ingaged head and eares; and must make lies his refuge to maintain his and his Churches unjust act, like the boy that bid his mother call whore first.

For a man to Cloyster himself up, and like the Owle to decline the light of a hearing, and to be ashamed to give account to Mini­sters and others that are dissatisfied, doth not this in the eie of every judicious Reader speake him guilty and unworthy?

What hath been already said, answers many of his foul Aspersions I shall now contract my self and cursorily run over the rest.

And first for his affirmation that I and my wife consented to M^rs. Parrs suspension, in pag. 8. I professe we never knew of any suspen­sion of her, much lesse joyned in any; her an­swer was (as to me) faire and satisfactory, (Viz) that she remembred not the things for they accused her, and if she were convinced of it, she, would be sorry for it. I never voted it satisfactory and neither knew nor joyned in a­ny such suspension, therfore that's an un­truth on M^r. Stucleys part.

And next as for M^r. Stucleys insisting on [Page 90]my wifes neglect of admonition. &c.

I answer that she did declare unto some or one of the officers, her dislike & dissatisfaction at their carriage in severall particulars assoon as she had a convenient opportunity, which proved fatall to her in the end.

Take notice reader, it was not a Brother or a Sister singly, or a few members, but 'twas the whole Church', they were all as it were hung together in a string. Their tying up the members by compact; their intermedling in State affaires, their carrying on self designs, their practicall forbidding communion with other Churches; their traducing those that are not of their way, was a disease epidemicall, that run through the whole body, and was discove'rd by degrees to be the very product of their pri­vate meetings, as if it had been a part of their Religion. And would it not have been look't upon as a peice of pride & presumption for my wife to reprehend a whole Church; & should she not (thinke you) have been accounted against (as M^rs. Parr) for a contentious wo­man, that raised discord and disturbance in the Church.

I shall (for brevity's sake) leap over many of his pages, the summe of what he there al­ledges; being answered occasionally in my former sheets.

I also passe by his silly probabillities in the 14. [Page 91]page; which he brings to induce a belief in the reader, that my wife ran away, and intended not for Taunton, 'tis fully answered.

His Queries; whether dame must ride upon the Mugle of the Mare? and whether Honiton be in the way to Taunton, and the like are so sordid and ridiculous, as ti's unworthy an an­swer, better be fitting the Tongue of a stage­player then the pen of a Minister, every child sees 'its weaknesse; and therefore I content my self with the saying of the wise man, answer not a fool according to his folly, least thou al­so be like unto him.

'Its meerly forged to say, that Iohn Mongwell reported that Dame ran to Ireland with ano­ther womans husband.

'Tis false also that I could not for a while be admitted into my wifes chamber at Honiton: & also false that my wife confest that she had left me because of a different way: and that Honi­ton and Exeter rang of this Scandall; all of this stuff proceeded from M^r. Stucleys forge.

'Tis likewise most untrue that he affirmes in the 16. page, that my wife refused conference with those of the church that were sent unto her: she would have conferred with them, if others might have been present: she well knew they came to intrapp her, as they did M^rs. Parr, dealing with her singly.

I onely adde, that the action of my wife in [Page 92]going to Honyton was not Scandalous. It was honest and upon conscientious grounds and ends, as in my Narrative is set forth.

In his 17. pag. he falls upon me for negle­cting Church-fellowship i. e. Neglecting their Conventicles at Mr. Raddons posthouse, to hear my wife vilifyed and abused, and others reproached and slandred; and see self designes promoted. Reader thou hast heard what broth is boyled at those meetings.

Note; these subtle foxes must have their private meetings, to distill their principles, and gradually to discover their practices a­mong their choice disciples of their own gang, that make no bones to swallow any thing that their infallable Master doth impose or command: witness their Subscripsion to his imposed Covenant, binding them to follow his guidance and teaching absolutely without any restriction or limitation: witnesse, their stickling Church-state petition and the like, of which thou hast already heard.

For my part I am farr from decrying or de­claiming against the meetings of Gods people, either in publique or or in private, as there is or may because or occasion.

But what need this private meeting, so con­stituted by strict injunction and to be frequen­ted upon paine of Castigation I professe I can see neither warrant for it, nor good of it: what [Page 93]is done: there you have partly heard is it not to strengthen the members in their separation from other Churches of Christ, and to infuse farther dividing principles, to widen the Breach, that they may work their own ends? why not publique meetings that all Gods peo­ple may see and heare what they doe, what they pray, and what they preach and practice as other Churches doe.

I am of opinion that we ought to admonish, instruct, comfort & edify any of Gods people of what societie soever, at all times as there is occasion & opportunity. But not of your vow­cher M^r. Owens opinion, that we are to love those of your Societie, as a man loves his wife a­bove other women, I know no such rule.

I must confesse, I am very much for publick meetings, since I so much observed their pri­vate transactions; I much better like our pub­lique administration of justice in open legall Courts in the face of the country, since I have taken notice of some chamber proceedings before private Comittes. M^r. Raddons Post­house was the Conclave, where M^r. Stucley and his Church did curse M^rs. Parr and my wife.

As for M^r. Stucleys cavills, and exceptions against me for my pretended neglecting Church fellowship; I referr the Reader to my letter in my Narrative, which was to have been [Page 94]communicated to his Church; had he been faithful, which will give a satisfactory answer.

I must say somewhat to Tom Savery's let­ter, which for the excellency of it M^r. Stucley hath put in print, pag. 19.

The very reading of it with observation and reference to the matter then in Question, makes good what I have said concerning it in my Narrative.

Note in the beginning of his letter, he sayes, His soul is grieved for my disorderly walking, I meane (saith he) your absenting your self from our private meetings &c. Then followes; if the wife of your boosome divert you, &c. That is (see the scope of his letter) divert you from our private meetings, what then? he tells me out of Luke 14.26.27, 33: if any one come to me and hate not his father and mother and wife &c. he cannot be my disciple. See his good Appli­cation: If my wife divert me from their private meetings (you have heard what they are) If I do not hate my wife I cannot be Christs disciple. An excellent conclusion, a very sound inference. I hope, notwithstanding his do­ctrine) that I may come to Christ without co­ming to such private meetings as theirs are: and I hope my wife may divert me from er­ror, from danger, from their private meetings, and yet not divert me from Christ, or from his ordinances, so as to give me occasion to [Page 95]hate her. Doth Tom Savery think that to be at M^r. Raddons chamber in praying and prea­ching up self interests, and promoting dividing principles, is a waiting on God in his gallories? if it be so to him, 'tis not so to me; pray give liberty of conscience to others, as well as take it your selves. M^r. Stucley hath well vindica­ted Tom Savery.

I take no farther notice of his descant on my letter to him and his Church, or of Tom Saveries letter to me; a common eye sees how frivolous his exceptions are.

But now he comes with his Kill-cow in his 22. page.

Behold yet greater abominations (sayes he) Well, what's the matter? He saith, that I fear at the workings of the spirit in those mourn­ings and lamentings which God was pleased to bestow upon his people upon that sad day; And that I blasphemously called it a hideous howling cry, and accounted so just a censure to be like the Popes bull, a beast, when it roars the loudest.

For answer, I blesse God, I am not ignorant, how horrid a sin it is to jeer at the workings of Gods spirit in the mournings, sighs or groanes of his children; and 'tis not M^r. Stucley, nor the Divel himself (the grand accuser of the bre­thren) can justly accuse me for any such thing. I can (I blesse God) appeal to the searcher of [Page 96]hearts, in the uprightnesse of my heart, that I am free from any such sin, or the least thought thereof; And I do not in the least recant what I said, I did say, and do say still, that they made a hideous howling cry or noise; in so much that one of them fell down in a sown, or coun­terfeited; and others told me, that they were fearfull to tarry longer among them, and truly I was and am serious, and doe not jeer: I think they might well make a hideous howling cry, when they were about such hideous work; They were not about Gods work, I dare say, it was the Devils. They were perverting and misapplying Gods Ordinance.

What to curse, and cast out Gods servants to the Devil, unjustly denying them an indif­ferent hearing: and when they had no warrant from Gods revealed word, to pretend an im­mediate word, an Enthusiasme or Revelation for it? what else meant your fictitious Parley between God and the Devil in your printed libell, telling your Church that the Devil de­manded those women to be given him by God, and that God bid your Church give them to the Devil, and bid the Devil take them, and torment them, representing them as the im­mediate subjects of the Devils fury and ven­geance by your unjust curse, pray what meant your, take her Devil, was not this enough to make your members (if conscientious, any of [Page 97]them) to make a hideous cry? yea to howl too, for fear that the Devil would have visibly ap­peared to encourage you in such a work, as (it is credibly reported) he hath since given you a visit in your house. 'Tis well you have gotten an inspiration, I am sure you had no written word of God, applicable to this case; and therefore what if I compared it to the Popes Bull, I think it very near of kin: yours as just and Right as his, and no otherwise.

And as for the copy of your prayer, It was taken by a man, who (whatever M^r. Stucley sayes to disparage him) hath been & is esteem­ed by honest men to be honest and religious, such as will not falsify any thing therein; But the truth is, 'tis such a mishapen piece that Ma­ster Stucley is ashamed to father it; and there­fore in his pag. 24. he brings in his compurga­tours: and who are they? his Church Officers and other complices in this unjust act; they are birds of a feather, they must witnesse that it was not his prayer, and say they, somewhat was inserted, and somewhat was omitted; but they set not down a word what this Somewhat was: a very fair testimonial, ask my fellows, &c.

As for the story of my wifes abusing her Sister, I have made a true report thereof in my observations on M^r. Stucleys printed Sermon, to which I referre the Reader, assuring him that 'tis not all M^r. Stucleys shufling untruths [Page 98]and evasions can acquit him from unfaithful­nesse and unworthinesse in that business.

And the like I say of his reflections in his letters: what I have averr'd touching it, is true; and 'tis sufficiently verified by himself in his scurrilous Pamphlet against me and my wife, in which you see that practise exemplified to the life.

And as for his charging me with neglect of fraternall correption in 18. Particulars in his 28. pag.

I shall only give this short answer, that it is a false charge; Liars need good memories.

Reader cast back thy eye, and peruse my letter in my Narrative and see how many of these things I complained of, that concerned him and particular members of his Church; what was this but admonition, and what effect had it? 'twas clapt up and not communicated, least it should dissatisfy the Church: a fine shift to stifle my complaints and hide them from the Church, and after charge me with neglect of fraternall correption.

M^r. Stucley may also remember that I told him that I heard that the Church had sent up a dangerous petition, and that it was ill resen­ted: And that he was so far from disowning or disliking it, that he wished that he were in London, to present it with his own hands. And since he knows that I have sent him seve­rall [Page 99]letters shewing him the particulars where­in the unrighteousnesse of his censure lay, and yet he most impudently denies all?

I could go through all the eighteen particu­lars, and shew how I have discovered to the parties concerned, my dissatisfaction, and re­prehended them for their practise as occasion did serve. But in regard most of these are an­swered in my precedent sheets, as I have occa­sionally met with them, and others of them will fall in to be spoken to in my answer to his 48. pretended lies, I do (for brevity sake) wave them here, and shall proceed to his Catalogue of lies, to give brief answers to such as are not already spoken to; as followeth.

And as for his first pretended lie. That his Sermon contained many foul untruths and base reflections, who sees it not? And that he printed it, what was it, but to spread false re­ports? I utterly deny that any person was im­ployed by me to write his Sermon or prayer, but after I heard what good stuff it was, I was willing to have it written out fair, that my self and others might read it, and where is the lie in all this?

To his second supposed lie, I doe still averre that my report in my Narrative of all trans­actions relating to my wifes excommunication is true. And for his pretended care or coun­sel to prevent this censure I know none, but [Page 100]only his desires for my joyning in that cruel act were sufficiently evidenced; but the Lord in mercy prevented it.

To the third, I say still, and that truely (and think the Reader is convinced) that there were never any crimes proved against M^rs. Parr or my wife deserving such a censure. If he can make any appeare, why doth he yet lie in his hole, and refuse to come forth before the judi­cious to evince it, and answer what he hath done: he thinks his pen must plead for him, and he may print lies, Cum Privilegio.

I utterly deny that I ever joyned in M^rs. Parrs suspension; I was satisfied in her answer; and if she were suspended, it was unjustly done.

To the fourth, I have answered before in my Book, and (I think) have sufficiently evinced it to be an unrighteous censure: I shall say little more to that before I see M^r. Stucley prove it to be righteous, which he can never do: he shuns the light, for my part I little thought that he and his Church should ever have been so far left to themselves, as to proceed so unrigh­teously.

I did not desire their forbearance of my wife upon any such account, as he pretends; 'tis true, that I wished them to forbear their vexings of her (almost daily) as they did, for fear least she, being big with child, might have miscaried by reason of their continued vexations.

To the fifth, I say, we were fixed as mem­bers to M^r. Downs Church, as really as any o­ther members of that Church, & did receive the Sacrament there, and that without any such conditions as he supposes: yet I concei­ved, and was resolved by an able Minister, that I might (notwithstanding) sit down with Gods people in any other congregation, as provi­dence should order, or as occasion was of­fered.

To the sixth, I say we were not admitted of M^r. Stucleys Church, untill almost a year after we had spoken our experiences; and for the difficulty of out admission, if it had been either for ignorance or scandall, M^r. Stucley was of­ten enough with us, and might in all that time have told us so much; But never a word of any such thing till he had a mind to curse my wife for deserting him.

To the seventh, I say Mr. Eveleigh one of the Church-officers, and others called the pa­per which was brought into the Church to be debated (a Covenant) & told me that the great­est part thereof was assented unto, & therefore if it be lies, you see who was the Authour, and that I did dislike it I have already demonstrated.

To the eighth; I say, my wife did joyn to Mr. Downs Church, as in my Narrative is ex­pressed, and that which Mr. Stucley call's Ad­monition preceeding it, was only Mr. VVhit­hornes [Page 102]asking her the reasons of her absence from their Thursdayes private meetings, when she had been absent not above three or four times, for which I think the reader is satisfied she had some reason to abstaine.

To the 9. the traducing of Mr. Forde & slight­ing of honest godly people different from your principle, hath been too frequent among you, and the lie and slander returns on your selves.

To the tenth, I say I have sufficiently set forth, the occasion, manner, and end of my wifes going to Honiton, which is the Truth, and will stand firme another day, when all Mr. Stucleys foisted probabilites, will be found to be nothing but the scum of his malicious Calumniating spirit.

To the 11^th. and 12^th I say I deny not that I had hopes to prevail with my wife to return to M^r. Stucleys Church, as my Narrative shews, but when I had considered her grounds of dis­satisfaction, and their harsh proceedings in or­der to excommunication, I abstained from their private meetings, especially after that one of the honestest of the confederacy had coun­sell'd me to pluck up my spirits; and hold the rains of Government strict in my hands, and to forbid my wifes brothers, Sisters and friends to come near my house, and to turn away such servants as would not be plyable to this work, and to take in others, and to bear a stiff hand [Page 103]on my wife, and that then she would go from me, and I should not look after her; and that then she would be weary and repent, and I should receive her on mine own terms. I did presently guesse from whom this counsell came, for asking the party when he was with M^r. Stucley, he answered he had been with him about two hours before, and would needs ingage me to go to Master Stucley; which I thought to have done, but my heart failed me, and I durst not goe, fearing least he should en­gage me to some such wicked course as was proposed. You see where to repair for good counsell how to order your wives.

The thirteenth, hath neither head nor tail, I shall answer it when M^r. Stucley explaines him­self, if it be then worth an answer.

To the 14. I averre that he opened the letter which M^rs. Parr and my wife sent, and most falsly and unfaithfully told the Church, that it had more of designe then humility in it. If it had any designe, it was to prevent his and his Churches harsh and heady running into a mischievous act: and if it be (as he sayes) that none of the Church saw it, I say, the worse, the more unfaithfull, and inexcusable was M^r. Stucley for that: it was sent, and directed to be communicated to the Church, and he would not shew it them, nor ask counsel of any in so waighty a businesse, but lead his [Page 104]Churchhead long into sin. The letter concern­ed them all, but he conceales it: and did he not therein shew himself more a lord and Master, then a Steward and dispencer of Gods Ordi­nance? If this be his faithfulnesse, let me never be under such a faithfull Shepheard.

To the 15. To this I have answered already, I only adde, that Ratcliff that noted Mr. Stu­cleys prayer, and others also that heard it, do a verre it to be his prayer, such a one as it was.

To the 16. I answer I have examined more narrowly this particular and find, that M^r. Malls doctrine was, that there is great reason, Scri­pture reason, when in severing the precious from the vile, the Church should renew their covenant: and he applied it to the businesse of excommunication then acted, and pressed the renewing of their covenant. Pray where is the great difference from what I have set down in my Narrative that denominates it to be a lye? And as for his posture, whether he sate down or stood up, 'its not much materiall. If I mi­stake in that, I am sure I am right in all the rest.

To the 17. I suppose M^rs. Parr is answering for her selfe: and as for my wife I say again, she found faults and saw cause enough to leave them, and did desert them before she was ad­monished for neglecting their private meetings

To the 18. I answer, that if you did not look on other Churches as Babylonish, &c. Pray tell [Page 105]me how do your words and opinions agree? pray what meaneth your cry? come out of Ba­bylon, what meaneth the saying of one of your officers, to one that was going to the Sacra­ment at M^r. Iohn Bartlets Church (viz.) what will you never come out of Babylon? and what meant that Independent Book, One blow more to Babylon?

To the Nineteenth I answer, here M^r. Stu­cley shifts, and pretends he understood not my meaning; and that he meant not the Churches in Exon, when all this while his conscience tells him, that I was meaning and speaking to him of the Churches of Christ in Exon, could he think I was speaking of com­municating in Spaine or France in their masse. I remember well, he spake these words to me, without intermssion; Can you (sayd he) partake where there are Drunkards? can you partake where there are liars? can you partake of the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Divells? and as for the argument you recite out of my letter; of your acknowledging the Churches in 'Exon to be true Churches. Rea­der it is well knowen, with how much adoe he shewed them as much; Note, this was spoken by him above two months before he owned the Churches here to be Churches of Christ: the associated Ministers in the County of Devon, know enough of M^r. Stucleys mind. [Page 106]About owning other Churches I need say no­thing.

To the twentiteh, I say, let the judicious Reader judge, What other construction can be made of M^r. Stucleys citing of Pro. 5.8.9, and Tit. 2.5. and his applying Doctor Taylors Exposition thereupon to my wife, then to in­sinuate and beget in the Reader a suspition of my Wifes chastity? and by spreading his false and scurrilous Pamphlets into Dorset, Corn­wall and other places in the west to induce the people to believe those honest women to be as vile and notorious as is imaginable.

To the 21.^th there needs no answer, but the experience of the people of this place; let them judge if I lye in this.

To the 22^th I answer 'tis well known that my wife was of Mr. Downes congregation, and received the Sacrament there before she joy­ned with M^r. Stucleys Church: and for M^rs. Parr she attended on the other Ministers. And therefore I think owned them: sure there were no others in Exon that she owned, till M^r. Stucley came.

To the 23^th imputed lye, M^r. Stucley, Pray be not angry, I must tell you againe, that your saying that my wife is a lawlesse woman, that knowes no subjection, is a most notorious be­lying her indeed, and to persist in it as you doe, in saying that she hath taken the power of [Page 107]rule out of my hands (in the particulars you there instance) is a bold untruth. I am sorry and ashamed to see you so impudent in aver­ring such apparent falsehoods. Pray tell me, did I ever complaine to you of my wifes dis­obedience? what tatling gossop was it from whom you had this tale? did she not tell you, 'twas not I, but my wife that put the girts into the pot? why had you not printed that also, to prove my wifes taking the government out of my hands? well, this looks but like a sneaking trick, to pry and peep into other folkes cup­boards and kitchens to discover their hous­hold-affaires; but I am sure all is but a false gossopps tale at best.

As for the 24.25.26. pretended lyes, I referr the reader to my answer to the 18^th.

To the 27^th. I have answered already, and begg'd them mercy for my mistake, if I did so farr forget my self as to say that they were the honestest people that ever I came amongst: I have recanted that errour.

For his deniall of slurring M^r. Rutherford in calling him the Champion of Presbytery, I shall referr it to the judgement of the Reader, that considers how M^r. Stucley esteems of the Presbyterians, and what a stickler he is against that way.

To the 29^th. I have sufficiently spoken, and shewed his base abuse of, and blind procee­dings [Page 108]against my wife, and challenged him to a publique debate of it, which he refuseth; I am sure he can never prove what he sayes in his pamphlet, unlesse he can get some Knights of the Post to be his witnesses.

To the 30^th. I tell M^r. Stucley that I was ne­ver burthened with old Dame, but once when he told me a lye upon her, and then I was so zealous as to call her Naughty woman, but my mouth was never so foul as to call her whore, as he suggests. Had I done so, I would have begg'd her mercy, for I believe, she is as truly honest as M^r. Stucley himself. But had she been such as M^r. Stucley reports, yet why might not my wife go with her, with lesse ignominy then M^r. Stucley may keep such a one for a Nurse in his house constantly for a year and more. As for M^r. Mongwell, he hath given it under his hand that M^r. Stucley hath slandred both him, and her in his false reports.

To the 32. 'tis not worth an answer, yet I say, I might well avouch the tendernesse and kind­nesse of my wife, which I had ever found, though his and his Churches dealings occasio­ned a sudden heat or discontent for once.

To the 33 and 34. I say M^rs. Parr was que­stioned by the Elder of their Church for going to hear M^r. Forde, to the neglect of their owne officers, & was told that she should be called to account for it, I have spoken to this already, [Page 109]and therefore shall onely ask this question, if she had been so guilty of lyes and devisions as they charge her to be, why were those things let alone, some of them for two years and more, and then they must prove so mortall? why did they let her lye so long in her sin? but I doubt not she will sufficiently clear her­selfe, therefore I forbear.

To this 35. I say M^r. Stucley repeats false. Reader, look into my Narrative, I do not there say that he never reproved my wife in four years; but that he never reproved her in that tyme for her neglect of admonition of others.

To the 36. 37. 38. 39. & 40. pretended lyes, all which do concern the story of the dif­ference between my wife and her Sister in Law, I answer that what I have set downe in my Narrative relating to that businesse is the very truth; and yet observe how confidently this bold man speaks passages in that businesse, as if he had been present and privy to every thing spoken or done about it, when in the meane time, he prints all this meerly upon relation and hearsay, and hath no better authority for it then if he had taken it out of Esops fables.

To the 41.42. I answer that my wife and her sister were reconciled friends; and feasted, talked, journied, and went to the Lords Ta­ble together many times, and how durst this [Page 110]pastor suffer them, if he knew them to be enemies all this while.

To the 43. Imputation; I confesse I was in a mistake, but noe wilfull one. I said it was near three years when as it was not above a year and half: this was a mistake onely in point of time which I have now rectified, but I am sure 'twas long enough, the differences were dead and buried by an amicable compo­sure, but M^r. Stucley must rake up any thing to make a stinking stir withall.

To the 44. I shall onely bid my adversary repeat right: my words are; they had no­thing to censure her for, before she left them; And this is the Truth. I have and doe challenge him to bring forth any crime that deserved Church censure, be­fore she deserted them: as for her forbear­ing their private meetings, which Master Stucley calls Church meetings, I think the Reader is convinced, She had sufficient cause.

To the 45. I say, that I lament his impu­dence: 'tis knowen to the whole Citty that 'tis their principle, and practice to deny their members to communicate in the Ordinan­ces with other Churches. I can prove that some were refused by him, onely because they would not be confined to his Church, and he hath denied it me as I have already [Page 111]shown, can ye partake of the Table of the Lord, &c.

To this 46. I shall onely wish Mr. Stucley to be as good as his word, I make noe question but you have heard how your member Mr. Robert Spragne was convicted for two lies against the chamber of Exeter: I fear they had another originall, and his was but the second edition, however they were publick offences, and therefore pray instruct him to go to the chamber and acknowledge his er­rour in spreading two lies against them, that they may forgive him, or else according to your doctrine, he will be in a sad case, for you told me lately, that we ought not to forgive, unlesse the offending party ask us for­givenesse.

To the 47. for answer I referre the Reader to my answer to his 18th pretended lye, I onely demand whether you would grant that there was any other Church of Christ in Exeter, till about the beginning of April last, did you not be­fore that time stile your selves (the) Church of Christ in Exeter? pray what means your calling those of your own Church and noe others, Brother and Sister by way of con­tradistinction? what means that Tenent of some (if not all) of you, that you must love those of your own fellowship above any other of Gods people, as a man loves his wife above other women? and why should not Mr. Savery grant Mr. Forde the Minister, to be one of the visible Church of Christ, when he was so hardly prest to it?

To the last I shall onely say, That as for Mr. Malls Ser­mon, I referre it to the Reader to judge by his reasons that are extant in his Book; And if any other construction (then mine) can be made thereof I shall be well content: for the Truth is, I believe the poore man was meerly drawn in.

And now to conclude, Reader doe but reflect, and con­sider the whole story and state of the businesse laid before thee, and then judge impartially of Mr. Stucley and his Churches proceedings, and at whose doore all the lies and foul practices must be laid. I professe 'tis farre from me to take any content to imbroile in differences; or to make dis­coveries of others nakednesse, could I avoid it, as all that know me can bear me record: but in this case, I may truly say, he hath compelled me, 'tis noe time for truth and in­nocency to seek out corners, and to hold 'its peace, when [Page 112]falshood and upstart Novellisme is so clamorous and im­petuous.

Mr. Stucley, (you see) hath declined a hearing, and de­nied satisfaction to the unsatisfied, and playes the part of the Athenian Commander, who having ill stewarded the Trea­sury of the Common wealth, studied not so much how to give an account, as not to give any account at all, which hath necessitated me to this work.

Pardon me (right courteous Reader) If I have been a little exasperated by Mr. Stucleys intemperate dealing, and if I have uttered ought, more fit for him to hear, then me to speak, It being almost impossible for any man that is conversant in his writings, but to contract somewhat of his eloquence: consider the case in hand, and it is such as will even put words into the mouth of Cr [...]sus Son, who (as 'tis storied) was dumb from his Nativity. Publick In­jury calles on me to speake more loud and largely in mine own cause, but modesty bids me forbear. My designe is not to derogate from him, but (if possible) to convince him and to satisfie others, truely honest and conscientious. I deny not his personall abilities, yet (without presum­ption) dare appeale and say, he hath neither shown that soundnesse of judgement, that is to be reverenced in some, nor that meeknesse of spirit that is required in all: my prayer therefore is, that God will give him these and all o­thers graces that may make him more instrumentall for his glory and the good of his Church.