ALthough I may venture upon the testimony of the consciences of those who know me, to vindicate me from M. Edwards his foule aspersions;Nec audiendi sunt quando reprehensa in aliquo negligen­tia sua, per quā fit ut in malam suspicionem ve­mant, unde suā vitam longe ab­esse sciunt, di­cunt sibi coram Deo sufficere conscientiam, existimationem hominum non imprudenter so­lum, verumetiā crudeliter con­temnentes. Quisquis à cri­minibus vitam suam custodit, sibi bene facit; quisquis etiam famam, & in alios misericors est, nobis neces­saria est vita nostra, aliis fa­ma. Aug. de bo­no viduitatis, c. 22. yet hearing there are some whose spirits are as dryed tinder to his sire, (if men were willing to be undeceived, and not to runne away with foolish conceits.) I thought it might not be amisse to spend an houre or two upon this vaine man. Augustine sayes, Those are not to be hearkned to, who having suspition raised of them which they know themselves to be free of, shall say, their conscience in the presence of God is enough for them, and for the esteeme of men doe not onely imprudently contemne, but in it are cruell: That is, as he after expresses himselfe against others which are hindred in the good they might get by them, because the suspition raised is not removed: For, sayes he, A good life is necessary for our selves, but a good fame for others. You doe well to your selfe in being carefull of your life, but you are mer­cifull to others in being carefull of your name. Wherefore though mine owne conscience is enough to satisfie my selfe against what ever M. Edwards hath written or said, yet in mercy to others, and that I may not be wanting to my duty in removing any stumbling block that might hinder the work of my Ministery, which I was moved unto by a Letter sent to me from a good and worthy friend, I shall now doe that which I had thought I should ne­ver have brought my heart unto, viz. to spend time in the vin­dication of my selfe. Might the hurt goe no farther then my selfe, if I did not doe it, the meanest imployment in the world should rather take up my time then this, but something must be done. [Page 2] John was of a most loving, sweet, and gentle temper, yet having to deale with a man of an evill spirit, he speaks contemptuously of him, I will remember (saies he) his deeds, [...], prating against us with malicious words. Such a naughty spirit appeares in this man; so be it he can get filth to cast upon men, he cares not out of what kennel he rakes it; as it is hard to med­dle with him, to answer him according to his folly without ex­pressions against him, grievous to a spirit that hath any sweetnesse of love, or meeknesse in it; had I to deale with him alone, I should onely answer him in the words of the Angel, Jude 9. The Lord rebuke thee. Yet the man is very impatient that he hath no An­swer, he concludes, and would have others to doe so too, that all he sayes is truth, because there comes forth no Answer to it. It is a miserable thing that we must be at the mercy of every one, who hath a mind to accuse and rayle, so as to be bound to take off our selves from whatsoever imployments God hath set us about, to at­tend the answering of whatsoever he sayes or writes; I hope I shall give God a better account of my time then so. Whatsoever M. Edwards hath written or said concerning me, I blesse God I can with comfort spread it before him, and intreat him to judge betweene us.

He thinkes he hath done God and his Bretheren good service, but I am very confident, and I am not alone in this my confidence, that Bishop Wren was not more mischievous to the Prelacy, then he hath beene to the Presbytery; I doubt whether there ever was any in the Christian world who was looked upon as a man pro­fessing godlinesse in that height that he hath beene, that ever ma­nifested so much boldnesse and malice against such as himselfe ac­knowledges to be godly, as he hath done; Were there nothing but the Presbyteriall opinion that made the difference betweene him and me, I should not abate my esteeme of his godlinesse in the least, for I beleeve there are as godly Presbyterians as Indepen­dents. But that fiery rage, that implacable irrationall violence of his, makes me stand and wonder at him, not so much for recor­ding stories that he hears, but that hearing such vile reproachfull things against such as he ownes to be godly, and the persons thus reproched living neare him in the City, who it may be might sa­tisfy him in the falsnesse of the reports, so as to keepe him from [Page 3]publishing them, yea when some of them hearing what he was about, have sent to him to tell him that if he would Confer with them they would satisfy him about particulars they would clear­ly convince him, that such men were traduced, and himselfe a­bused in such reports, yet that he should refuse to confer with them, saying he had testimony enough, and so fall a laying on, take off who will or can, herein following that wicked Jesuiticall Maxime, Fortiter calumniare, aliquid haerebit, Calumniate lustily, boldly, no matter whether it be true or false, somthing will stick. I beleeve this example can hardly be paralleld in any age. How is it possible that he should ever right those he has wronged, if he saies he will recant if he can be convinced wherein any is wrong­ed? That will not doe it, for how is he sure that his recantation shall come to the knowledge of all, to whom his calumniation hath come? is this enough for mens names so traduced by him, for him afterwards to say. I was told so, I was misinformed? I beseech God to touch his heart, and the hearts of such as have any way encouraged him in such a foule worke.

There is an odious disease in nature, casting up the excrementi­tious filthinesse at the mouth, which is no lesse noysome then dan­gerous, therefore the Physitians call it Miserere mei Deus. Thus exulcerate minds affected with the like malady in morality, be­ing surcharged with superfluity of choler and malice, and not able to containe, break forth into distemper of words, and poure it out in unsavoury language; such we must leave to a Miserere mei. But is M. Edwards sick of this disease? Doth not he professe his zeale for God, his dependance upon God for assistance very often?

Ans. Yes he doth, but I feare he takes Gods name much in vain in so doing; set aside the difference of his judgement, I cannot beleeve that God will ever owne that way he takes; and whe­ther he hath that filthy disease mentioned, if you can endure to look upon the loathsome stuffe that comes from him, you may easily judge; if I should relate much of it, it would be nauseous. I will give you one instance. In the first page of his Preface to the first part of his Gangrana, he speaks of Printed pamphlets, where he sayes he was reproached, but he was not willing to be provoked, or to trouble himselfe at the barking of every dog; [Page 4]and for this he quotes in his margin M. Woodward, and M. Burton. What is M. Burton become a dog now, and M. Woodward, who is a knowne ancient godly man, a Schoolmaster, yet for ought I know no Independent, is he a dog in M. Edwards his mouth and pen? If M. Edwards and his party rise in their spirits according to this proportion, how can we live neere them? what already got so above M. Woodward and M. Burton, even whilst they are but in the shell, and see power but hopefully to come into their hands, that they can looke upon them as dogs beneath them? I speak of M. Edwards and his party, because he sayes so many have given him thanks for his Book.

In his last booke I finde him exceedingly fretting and vexing at a testimony Master John Goodwin had under my hand against the truth of a story in his Grangraena, which he sayes is full of Jesuiticall equivocation. Yea further, no equivocation can free it from a lye. Bona verba. After master Edwards hath done fretting and chafing, after his fit is over, notwithstanding all he hath said, that testimony is, and must stand true, and will be found in the plainnesse of it to be a witnesse against him: what! beyond equivocation? no lesse then a flat lye. This is the first time that ever any man gave me the lye. But I pray Master Edwards how doe you know it is a lye? How? Master Allen (he mistakes the mans name, the man he means is Master Alle) an honest understanding man he saies told him so, and after justifyed it in Master Bellamies shop in the presence of many; This is the onely witnesse Master Edwards hath against me: as for Master Randal whom he mentions, he speaks onely of Nicols his being with M. Greenhil at another time, not of that meeting I te­stifie against, nor any thing about my knowledge of him, nor any thing that Master Greenhill denyes. Howsoever then it is but ones I, and ones No: and yet how many have drunk in this report as dirty and foule as it is? surely there is a spirit in men that makes them very thirsty after Calumnies and reproa­ches. But what if this onely witnesse M. Edwards hath to prove me a Lyar, shall give it under his hand that that testimony of mine is true, what if that which M. Edwards in the strength of that witnesse shall say is a lye, I shall be able in the strength of the same witnesse, say is true; where will the lye stick then? After [Page 5]M. Iohn Goodwins Book came out, I met with this M. Alle, and in the presence of many, caused him to turne to that page where my testimony is, and to read it; I then asked him, Whether that testimony of mine were true or not? He answered, for any thing he knew it was true. Some in the company desired him to set his hand to what he said; He presently tooke pen and inke, saying, he would write according to what he apprehended, and so farre as he knew, and wrote these words, subscribing his name:

I have by me the paper where this is written with his owne hand, and this M. Alle, M. Edwards his onely witnesse, in the presence of many, under his hand, witnesses that he thinks my te­stimony true, in reference to the whole I had written to M. Iohn Goodwin. By what witnesse then can M. Edwards prove a lye? Something hath caused M. Alle since to mince the matter, and to make a relation of some things that neither I nor M. Greenhill ownes, but at that time when he gave my justification under his hand, he was urged againe and againe in the presence of many to declare whether he could say any thing against the truth of any particular in my testimony, and he professed he could not. Surely if he could not, how could M. Edwards who had all he had from him? Besides this, M. Alle sayes in what he hath printed, that there are some things in M. Edwards his Book, (speaking in rela­tion to what M. Edwards reports from him) that never came from him; and yet M. Edwards stands boldly to justifie that all from first to last is true. But I pray consider further what are M. Edwards his arguments to prove my testimony a lye.

First this. I say the story of Nicols and such a meeting mentio­ned pag. 79. is all false. No, sayes he, some part is true. The first part wherin is laid down Nicols his maintaining to M. Greenhils face those opinions; How then came M. Burroughes his affirming that story M. Edwards hath of one Nicols to be false, be in any sense justified to be true?

Ans. See the sagacity of the man: Take heed what you say [Page 6]against M. Edwards, he is cunning, he will find you out. But M. Edwards, looke back againe to what I affirme in that testimony under my hand, you shall find, I onely say this, that all the story a­bout Nicols in such a page, namely pag. 79. is false, now to prove me a lyar you tell the world that a part of the story in another pag. namely pag. 78. is true, is this a good argument to prove a man a lyar, who saies the story in one pag. of a booke is false? But he lyes, because the story of another page of the booke is true? What brave stuffe is here to prove a lye? I professe to all the world, as in the presence of God, I doe not now invent this to help to salve the businesse, but what ever failing might be in the expression, the reason of my mentioning the page, was to li­mit my testimony to what was in that page concerning Nicols; what was in that meeting there mentioned in reference to him, I took not upon me to deny what might be between M. Greenhill and Nicols at some other time; and all that M. Greenhill denyes in my testimony is that part of the story of Nicols, in reference to that meeting there mentioned. He need not rub his memory to call to mind any other time that Nicols had been with him; for where did he ever deny any such thing? There is nothing men­tioned about it in any thing I wrote to M. John Goodwin.

Here you have M. Edwards his first argument to prove a lye; let us see whether he will be more happy in his second: will he not there hit the nayle on the head? It is this. How can M. Bur­roughes say he never heard of such a man in the world as Nicols, when as it cannot be thought but that M. Greenhill named him to him at Col. Zacharies house?

Ans. The Argument runnes thus, Master Burroughes saies he never heard of Nicols, but he lies, because it cannot be thought but that Master Greenhil named him to him. If I should argue from all mens thoughts, expressed about Master Edwards and beleeve them, I could prove Master Edwards foule enough.

His 3. Argument, if I never heard of Nicols, how came Ma­ster Alle to know, that the opinions related, were Nicols his opinions, seeing Master Alle was not at the first meeting? Ans. Because Master Alle had heard of Nicols, therefore I lye in saying I never heard of him, what ridiculous stuffe is this?

4. How can Master Burroughes give it under his hand that he [Page 7]to this day never know of any of Nicols his opinions, when the opinions of Nicols were told him by Master Greenhil? Ans. But can Master Edwards or any man living thinke that I denyed that I had never heard of such an opinion that makes God to be the Author of sin? which it seems was Nicols his opinion; surely both I and all men that know what the study of Divinity meanes have heard 100. times of this opinion. M. Greenhil speakes of Blasphe­mous opinions and names this, does it follow therfore that he told me of Nicols his opinions? I appeal to 100. Divines in London, have ye ever heard of Nicols in Moore-fields and his damnable opinions, would they not stay till we read Master Edwards his booke we never heard of Nicols and his opinions, and yet not one of these but have heard that some hold God to be the Author of sinne, but they would tell you any man but a cavilling wrangler would say the meaning of the words must needs be, that they ne­ver heard of this opinion as Nicols his opinion.

What brave worke is here to prove a lye! If these be good proofs of a lye, I onely say this, if Master Edwards can make lyes as fast as he can prove them, he hath wonne the honour of the name Cretensis, and deserves to carry it written in a paper in his hat all his dayes.

For equivocation his Quere is pag. 92. Whether any Jesuite could or would have drawne up halfe a score lines fuller of equive­cation?

Ans. yet in the page before he saies I put all I say upon those words, a meeting and such a meeting concluded of, which words meeting and such are mentioned Sixe times a peece brought in at every turne; all the weight of his testimony still referring to the words meeting and such, such a meeting, such a man.

Ans. Truly I did mention those words, such a meeting, such a man, often, on purpose that the Reader might know that all I in­tended was in reference to that meeting, and to Nicols as concer­ned in it; But he sayes my equivocation lies in this, that I would put the whole story upon that meeting.

Ans. If M. Edwards were not resolved to shut his eyes, hee might see that I onely meddle with that of the story that is menti­oned in such a page, namely page 79. I say all that is false, but if there be any thing true of the story in another page, I meddle not [Page 8]with it: If I had said all the story had beene false, without limit­ing it to that page, M. Edwards had had roome enough to have ruffled in, and yet he ruffles as if I had said so, and would make the world beleeve I did say so.

He sayes pag. 88. that the whole story and all the particulare of it are true, and there is nothing false in it from first to last.

Ans. What impudence is here, when his onely witnesse to that story sayes what I have said in denying that which is page 79. is true; and M. Edwards still will averre, that all the parti­culars of the story from first to last hath nothing false in it. In that story he tells you of a meeting concluded of upon the occa­sion of Nicols his opinions, where I and M. Greenhill were; when as still it is affirmed againe, and his onely witnesse hee hath, acknowledges there was no such meeting, neither I nor Master Greenhill never knew of such a meeting. And he confesses that he did mistake. If he should find such mistakes in me, in his mouth they would be lyes. There is some­thing related, which surely is either true or false: but true it is not, for he confesses there was a mistake, and yet he boldly sayes that all the particulars of his relation are true, there is nothing false from first to last. What a man is this M. Edwards? he can relate a businesse, he can mistake in his relation, report that to be that never was, and yet all he sayes is true. Cast him where you will, he falls upon his legs.

But he sayes, there is onely a mistake in the transition.

Ans. He plainly relates two things. 1. Nicols his comming to M. Greenhil, venting such opinions. 2. That upon that occasion there was a meeting concluded of, where M. Greenhil and I he sayes were; is this of a meeting, but a transition? Truly if Master Edwards hath such a liberty to make such kind of transitions that shall make such things to be that never were, he may by the help of his transitions tell and write lyes apace. Hereafter you must call M. Edwards his falsities, his transitions. Transition is a new figure M. Edwards hath invented; when you think he writes lies, it is because of your dull capacity, not understanding his figura­tive speaking; it is per Transitionem. By this he can heap up story upon story, and turne falshoods into truths as he pleaseth. This his Rhethorique raiseth his Cretian art beyond what formerly it hath been.

The Contest between me and M. Edwards in this thing is plainly this.

I meet occasionally with M. Greenhil; among many things in discourse he expresses his great griefe at the horrid blasphemies there are abroad; upon which I expresse likewise my sense of such things; and this is all M. Alle tells him: therefore I blame not the man so much as I blame M. Edwards for moulding reports as he pleaseth, so as if he hath but a piece of a businesse, he can make it up a whole businesse as he thinks fit.

After this passed between M. Greenhil and I, I find in a Booke M. Edwards relating a story of one Nicols in Moore-fields, hold­ing damnable opinions, a man I never had heard of in my life, and that upon occasion of him, a meeting was concluded of, where he sayes I was; which meeting I never had heard of, and it was strange to me to find my selfe set downe in print, to be at such a meeting, speaking such things, when I never heard of the man, nor of any meeting about him, nor of any of his opinions.

But did I never say those words upon no other occasion menti­oned in M. Edwards his Book?

Ans. If you should aske me whether I have not said words to that purpose twenty and twenty times, I could not deny it; but what is that to this businesse? I put the case thus, Suppose a Mini­ster comming from the West to London, had come to M. Bella­mies shop to buy a Book, and there he should heare some bemoa­ning the damnable opinions that are vented in London, as I be­leeve hath been often there, and this Minister there expressing his dislike, should afterwards find in a Book that there is one Nicols in Moore-fields, a man whom he never had heard of, holding dam­nable opinions, and a meeting concluded of about what this Ni­cols had vented, at which he was saying thus and thus, something to which effect perhaps he had sometime spoken in M. Bellamies shop occasionally, would this story be a true one? would it be a lye, or an equivocation, to say this story is false? Or

Take it thus. Suppose M. Edwards should say in his Pulpit at Christs Church, that he was the Angel that was to poure the vial upon the sunne, and afterward there should be this story written, that there was a meeting, where mistresse Katherine Chidley and M. Edwards were, and at that time M. Edwards should [Page 10]say, I am the Angel of God prophecyed of, who am to poure forth the vyal upon the sunne; would M. Edwards think this story were a true one? Surely a truer story then that he hath in that page of his booke 79. in this regard that he had heard of such an one as Katherine Chidley, I had never heard of such an one as Nicols. If M. Edwards be resolved to take this liberty, to raise, to com­pound, to make stories thus, what may he not say? He may easily fill bookes every moneth with stories enough, which he can put into what shape he pleaseth, especially considering how he in­vites all men to bring him what stories they can, with promise to conceale their names, crying in every street, Dust, Dust. No marvell his Cart is so full.

After all this that is said, were it much more to this or any thing else, it is easie for him to cry out in M. Bellamies shop, and afterwards in his Booke, It is a lye, it is a lye, nothing but jugling, nothing but Iesuiticall equivocation. Oh what strange men are these! But you know the man, and the manner of his communication.

Page 94. of the second part of his Gangraena, he enquires what the reasons might be that M. Burroughes and M. Greenhil should conspire together to give such a testimony in writing. But whence doth it appeare that M. Greenhill gave this testimony in writing? his hand is not to it. How doth it appeare that hee conspired it should be given in writing? may not I relate what he said, and yet he not conspire to give it in writing? That wri­ting I take wholly upon my selfe. He gives three reasons why he thinks we did it: The first two are from his being conscienti­ous of evill in himselfe and Booke: His third is, that they might free themselves from suspition of being against a toleration of o­ther sects and opinions.

Ans. Why man, is there more in what is related here, then I have preached and published in print? why should I then be afraid to have such expressions knowne? And page 98. M. Ed­wards sayes that this meeting was a little before M. Burroughes fell upon the preaching of the power of the magistrate in mat­ters of Religion, and point of Toleration; and was it so? Surely then M. Burroughes was not so afraid of suspition to be for the repressing such horrible things as M. Edwards would seeme to make him; he that preached and printed what Burroughes did, [Page 11]would not be afraid to owne his being against such horrid opini­ons as much as master Edwards his relation from master Alle comes to.

He falls foulely upon me in page 92. of the first part of his Gangraena, as a double minded man; of all the Apologists he sayes I sometimes seeme to come neere, and then I fly off againe.

Ans. I doe professe my endeavours have been what I could to come neere my brethren whom I honour, and I account it an af­fliction to me that the distance is so great, I have laboured to make it as little as may be, I have shewne my selfe willing to goe to the uttermost line, yea punctum I have seene truth in; and this I have observed in some, they have been angry when they have seen their brethren come neere them, because then they could not get so full a blow at them as when they were at a farther distance.

No, you will say, we are not angry that you come so neere, but that you goe back againe from what you seemed to come neere in.

Ans. If any man living can shew in any one thing wherein I have gone back from what I appeared to be neare, either in any thing I have done in the Assembly, in preaching, or confe­rence, I will fall downe at his feet, and beare my shame: I one­ly except M. Edwards from being my Judge: The accusations or condemnations of a shamelesse man shall never make me asha­med. Upon the most diligent search I could make into my con­science, I doe not know that in any particle wherein I have come neare my bretheren of the Presbyteriall judgment in the Assem­bly or otherwise, that ever I started back in the least; yea let any bring forth what ever I have said in the Assembly, either formerly or lately, what ever I have delivered in preaching, printing, or conferring, wherein they thinke I came nearest my Brethren, I hereby professe that I am still the same, and that I will upon any occasion publish my selfe to be the same. Indeed of all the Apologists, Providence put me upon that work of handling the point of Heart-Divisions, and I blesse God I did it in the uprightnesse of my heart. In that argument I was put upon shew­ing how neare men called Independents came to those of the Presbyterian judgement, wherein I declared my selfe freely. Now [Page 12]let not M. Edwards be angry with me for going along with him two miles, because I cannot goe three; and because he thinks if I yeeld thus farre, I cannot but contradict the whole cause, ex­cept I will contradict my former assertions: Let him not be displeased with me, though I be not of his mind; his blustring spirit may make my speeches or lines seeme to lye crosse, but let a meek, quiet spirited man look on them, and they will lye right enough, as they have done to many Presbyteriall Brethren. Although nothing under heaven would more rejoyce me then to help to find out any expedient whereby I might agree with my Brethren who are for the Classicall and Provinciall Presbyte­ries, yet I must needs professe that all that I have hitherto heard in the Assembly or elsewhere, after (I hope) sincere labouring with my heart and with God, that I might know his truth, hath not shaken nor caused any Scruple in those Principles my con­science hath beene engaged in, against the extending that ruling power of Pastors and Teachers our Brethren challenge beyond their charge of feeding by the Word and Sacraments.

And though I be in Mr. Edwards his thoughts the worst of all the Apologists when I am against him, which I dare not gainesay, yet when I doe any thing that pleases him, then he calls me a chiefe man among the dissenting Brethren, as pag. 212. of his se­cond part of his Gangraena, where he cites my speech lately prin­ted, made in Guildhall for the Scots. By which speech, Mr. Ed­wards and all men may see, that difference in judgement hinders not me from giving that honour to men that God would have given them, neither takes it off my heart from them. But am I of the same minde still?

Ans. Whatsoever change there may be, yet the difference of our judgements in point of Presbytery makes not the change, for I then apprehended them at as great a distance from me in that, as now I doe. But still I doe, and cannot but as long as I live ho­nour them, and blesse God for them, as the great instruments of the first turne of the streame of oppression and Tyrannie; what­ever becomes of me, I have learned to honour those whom God honours: Let me have the same principles that then I went upon, which in me are not changed; I could make such another speech for them.

What should I follow this vaine man in any farther particulars? both in his last, and in his former books, he vents a very angry spirit against me, though never provoked by me, which I have of­ten wondered at; why man! what is the matter? what have I done? what comes it to more then the old non-conformists not communicating with the Churches here, because they could not joyne in kneeling? their scruple lay in one thing, mine in another. But though many of our Brethren thought, and I beleeve still doe thinke they were in an error, yet their spirits were calme and quiet towards them. What is it that raises the wind against me and others, (suppose we be in an error) except it be the hope that these men have of having power in their owne hands, which formerly they had not? I have hitherto abstained from that which is most provoking. What have I then done that thus angers the man? He is displeased that I preach so much, that I have so many Lectures. I will not tell of the Livings, preferments, Sequestrations, Lectures, that those of the Presbyteriall judgement have. What would he have mee lay downe a Lecture, and gather a Church? This would anger him more. Though I sought none of those I have, yet I was not unwilling to yeeld to Gods call in the desires of the people, ope­ning such a doore of service, though the continuance of the great­nesse of the work was like to be beyond my strength, because (to speak plainly) I saw such a spirit working, that I feared the door for my preaching would ere long be shut, this made me to cast my selfe upon God for strength to doe as much work as possibly I could in the time when opportunity was continued; and I could tell sad stories that would make others think as I did. He is troubled at the Meanes I have, though it be much lesse then he mentions, and as at great an uncertainty as may be; if men be taxed for any thing more then they like, they know where to re­lieve themselves in withdrawing from such contributions; if any weaknesse of body hinders the continuance in the greatnesse of the labour, the meanes presently ceases; yet I have no reason to complaine. But this I say, if ever I grow rich by commings in for preaching, let me lye under censures as absurd as M. Edwards himselfe can devise.

But it may be he is angry with me because though my practice [Page 14]offends him not so much as others, yet I countenance and plead for those whom he cryes out against as Schismatiques.

Ans. I professe, as in the presence of God, that upon the most serious examination of my heart, I find in it, that were my judge­ment Presbyteriall, yet I should preach and plead as much for the forbearance of Brethren differing from me, not onely in their judgement, but in their practice, as I have ever done; therefore if I should turne a Presbyterian, I feare I should trouble M. Ed­wards and some others more then now I doe; perhaps my pleading and preaching for forbearance of dissenting Brethren would be of more force then now it is.

He and others make a great out-cry against Schisme, they think and say that men leaving a true Church, cannot be freed from the charge of Schisme.

To that I would onely say thus much, Suppose the Non-confor­mists, or those of the Scottish Nation, who lived in the City in former times, who could not acknowledge the Bishops authori­ty, nor communicate in the Sacraments in the parishes where they lived without sinne to them, still acknowledging them to be true Churches, yet if the Parliament had made an Act where­by they should have had two or three places in the City appoint­ed for them, wherein all that could not conforme to the Disci­pline then established, should have had liberty to have had the Sacraments and other Church-Ordinances together in those pla­ces by themselves, freed from the burden of Ceremonies, and sub­jection to Episcopall Authority, would they not have blessed God for this liberty, had they been Schismatiques, in the enjoyment of this liberty? Certainly the allowance of the State will not alter the case; if it be Schisme to doe thus without allowance of the State, and venturing upon suffering, it is Schisme when the State does allow it, when they are freed from suffering, Schisme is a Church sinne. What ever offence against Order of State men may be charged with, who gather thus without allowance of the State, yet they are not therefore Schismatiques, because they doe that without the allowance of the State, which if the State did allow of, would not be Schisme: where the Lutherans & Calvinists have liberty to live in one Country together, and yet not communicating one with another; are all the Lutherans, or [Page 15]all the Calvinists, Schismaticks? Suppose the Greek Churches had liberty to live among us, would they be all Schismaticks to us, or should we be so to them? Many of the French and Dutch Churches who live in our parishes, though they understand our language well enough, yet would not communicate in the pa­rishes where they live, because of the Ceremonies and sub­jection to Bishops, were they all Schismaticks too? Doe not men ordinarily in London and elsewhere for the out­ward advantage of trade or otherwise, leave one Church and goe to another? and may not a man for any advantage of enjoyment of Ordinances that he cannot have in the Church he formerly li­ved in, not in that purity, but that it will be sinne in him to conti­nue in it, remove to another Church? and what if his dwelling be not removed to the other side of the street, does that make it Schisme? Many of the converted Jewes were a great while in Church-Communion before they saw their liberty to converse with the Gentiles, though converted also: it was their fault that they would not joyne with the Gentiles being Christians, the partition wall being broken downe, yet they were never ac­counted Schismatiques for this fault of theirs; whereas now if a man lives in a parish, and does not joyn in Church fellowship in that parish, he is branded for a Schismatique. What hurt the a­buse of words, and among others this of Schisme hath done in the Church, we all know. When men who give good testimony of their godlinesse and peaceablenesse, after all meanes used in faithfulnesse to know the mind of Christ, they cannot without sin to them (though it be through weaknesse) enjoy all the ordinan­ces of Christ, and partake in all the duties of Worship as members of that Congregation where their dwelling is, they therefore in all humility and meeknesse desire they may not live without the ordinances of Christ all their dayes, but for the enjoyment of them may joyne in another Congregation, yet so as not condemning those Churches they joyne not with, as false, but still preserve all Christian communion with the Saints, as members of the same body of Christ, of the Church Catholique, and joyn also with them in all duties of worship that belong to particular Churches, so far as they are able. If this be called Schisme, it is more then yet I have learned, or then (I beleeve) M. Edwards can teach me.

Page 98. he throwes me his glove, challenging me into the field to try his valour with me in this point.

Ans. When I have a mind to play at Brawle and Wrangle, I will take up his glove. He hath given an experiment of his wrangling faculty in the maintenance of the charge he gives me of being guilty of the 150. Error, mentioned in the first part of his Gangraena, namely, Whatsoever errors or miscarria­ges in Religion the Church should beare withall in men conti­nuing them still in communion with them, these the Magistrate should beare with, continuing them in the Kingdome or Common­wealth, in the enjoyment of the liberty of subjects, this with M. Edwards is a huge error: Whereas he passes almost all his other errors without any animadversion, he must needs have one here, he cannot passe so foule an error as this without confuting it pre­sently, see what his Confutation is: Those (sayes he) who out of conscience are not satisfyed in taking up Armes against Armies raised by a Prince, the Church will not deale with for this, but the Magistrate may. To this M. John Goodwin answered, that I before had said that in matters of civil justice between man and man, there the plea of conscience would not free a man from punish-went if he offends; but for matters of Religion, there what ever charge the Magistrate hath over men, it is not more then the charge the Church hath in its kind; therefore where the Church should beare with men, the Magistrate should. Now the man comes in with his refutation and instances in a businesse of taking up Armes, as if this did not come under the Head spoken of be­fore, namely, the matters of civil justice, not a matter of Religi­on, as distinct from civil justice: and his Reply is onely this, as if an erroneous conscience did not make things the Magistrate ac­counts matters of State, matters of Religion, and the Magistrate also reckon many things to be matters of State, which many consciences account high matters in Religion.

Ans. What a bable is this? who would spend his time in re­plying to it? If M. Edwards his valour in dispute may be jud­ged by this, we need never feare encountring with him. I say that in matters of Religion as distinct from matters of civil justice, there the Magistrates power extends not beyond the Churches: and he comes and tells us that an erroneous conscience may ac­count [Page 17]matters of State, matters of Religion, what then? if he ac­counts them to be matters of Religion, does this alter the nature of the thing? what ever he accounts, yet if he does offend against civill justice, he is to be punished; and whatsoever the Magi­strate accounts, yet if the thing in its owne nature be not against civill justice, but onely against some rule of Religion, surely he is not to punish in his way, further then the Church may in her way; who speaks of what one man accounts, or what another man accounts, the things must be judged according to what they are in their owne nature: if M. Edwards his threatning Peece doe no better feats then his Animadversion and Reply to M. John Goodwin hath done, that which he judges an Error remaines still a Truth, he must blot it out of his Catalogue of Errors, his conscience must tell him there is one Error lesse then his recko­ning: but I would be loth to be writing or waiting till Master Edwards his conscience be convinced, or if it be, till he con­fesses it to be.

There is onely one passage more that I shall need to take notice of in his last Book, and something he hath of it in his former, namely, my conformity in the Bishops times. This conformity he speaks of was ten yeeres since, and though I did conforme to some of the old Ceremonies, in which I acknowledge my sinne; I doe not cast those things off as inconvenient or discountenanced by the State onely, but as sinfull against Christ; yet I think there can hardly be found any Man in that Diocesse where I was, who was so eyed as I was, that did conforme lesse then I did, if he conformed at all. As for the new conformity, God kept me from it; and my sinne in the old, makes me to be of the more forbearing spirit towards those who now differ from me. I see now what I did not; and I blesse God I saw it before the times changed: and others, even some who scorne at new light, must acknowledge they see now what a while since they saw not; why then should they or I fly upon our Brethren, be­cause they see not what we think we see? Oh how unbeseeming is it for such who conformed to old and new Ceremonies, now to be harsh and bitter in the least degree against their Brethren, who differ from them, when they doe differ so much from what they were themselves but a while since I some of them know I [Page 18]loved them as Brethren, when they conformed to that I could not, but was suspended for denying it. Let me have the same love from them as Brethren, though I cannot now conforme to all they now doe. True! where sinnes are repented of, they are to be buryed, but so as sinners be willing to lye downe in their shame, and walke beseeming their repentance for such sinnes.

Thus have I spent time about this boisterous, froward spirited man, which I grudge as much as ever I grudged any time since I knew what the worth of time was: But yet seeing my pen is go­ing, it shall passe upon what this man hath in that angry Antia­pologia in reference to my selfe. He hath two things against me: 1. My going out of the Kingdome: 2 My Preaching and Writing for the Congregationall way. For the first he sayes, pag. 19. That M. Burroughes for some speeches spoken against the Scottish Warre, in some company not to be trusted, he for feare fled in all haste to Rotterdam. This he mentions in divers places of his Book. He sayes, this made him stumble at the truth of some things before mentioned in the Apologie.

Ans. He willingly layes this stumbling block before himselfe. Had he been willing to have conferred with me about this as I desired, before he printed, I should have so fully satisfied him about my going out of the Kingdome, that he could never have stumbled at this, not have caused others to stumble as he hath done.

First, he sayes, some speeches were spoke, for feare whereof I, &c.

How does he know there were speeches spoke, for fear where­of I fled? It may be there was onely an accusation of speeches, for feare whereof, &c. In his bold Assertion there is held forth to the world at least some indiscretion in me, that I should speak words of a high nature in company not to be trusted. But in that businesse I am so fully cleare, as I wiped off before my Lord of Warwick whatsoever might have seemed indiscretion, not by mine owne Assertion onely, but by the testimony of two Gentlemen, all the company besides the Accuser, who were present at the whole discourse of that matter. The truth is, there were no such speeches that I spake, for feare whereof I [Page 19]hasted away, there was onely some accusation of speeches, and Si sat sit accusasse, quis innocens erit? What man can free him­selfe from Accusation?

Secondly, He saies in all hast I fled to Rotterdam.

Ans. It was foure or five months after this accusation before I went to Rotterdam.

Thirdly, Had not the Prelatical faction been incensed against me for standing out against their superstitions, I should have ven­tured to have stood to what I spake, for all I said was but by way Quaere, affirming nothing, for I knew how dangerous the times were then, but putting quarrels tending to justifie the Scots when they first rose in Armes, hearing them rayled on in the company where I was, all my danger was in standing for them, and that with that warinesse that such times required. But I knew what the power of the Prelaticall party at that time was, who were extreamly incensed against me; a mans innocen­cy then, could not be his safety: I being most foulely traduced in the report of my words, though the two other Gentlemen clea­red me never so much, as my Lord of Warwick knowes, (for the Conference was in his Garden) yet one witnesse affirmative in such a case would have been taken against an hundred negatives. A meere Accusation then was enough to cause me to provide for my security.

Fourthly, but suppose before any such Accusation and danger, when I was in peace and safety, that then I had my call to the Clutch of Rotterdam, yea and had entertained this call, and acknowledged God much in it, (as indeed I had cause) and that this came but as an after Providence of God to make my way more cleare to me, and to take off fully all my friends, from whom it would have been hard without some such providence to have got off, without much trouble. Will it not appeare that M. Edwards ventures boldly to relate whatsoever he heares, and to put what constructions upon it he pleases, for he brings in this story to prove me false, in the saying with the rest of the Apologists, that we saw the evil of those superstitions that were adjoyned to the Worship of God.

The true story of this businesse is this, which seeing Providence calls it forth, I hope God may have glory by it.

I being by Bishop Wren, deprived of my living in Norfolke, In which I believe I endured as great a brunt, as almost any of those which stayed in England; though M. Edwards is pleased to say Page 19. of his Antiapologie, that we fled, that we might be safe upon the Shore, while our Bretheren were at sea in the Storm. I believe neither he, nor scarce any of our Presbyteriall Brethren, endured a harder Storm at Sea, then I did before I went out of England; Yet I blesse God, he stirred up noble friends to countenance and encourage me in my sufferings: For which I will not cease to pray that the blessing of God may be upon them and their Families. I for some Months living with my L [...]: of Warwick, with whom I found much undeserved love and respect, when I was in the midst of as great encouragements for staying in Eng­land, as a man deprived, and under the Bishops rage, could expect, I set my self in as serious a manner as ever I remember I did in all my life, to examine my heart about my staying in England, whe­ther some carnall respects, that countenance I had from diverse noble friends, the offers of Livings, did not begin to prevaile too farre with me; my spirit was much troubled with these thoughts, Why do I still linger in England, where I cannot with peace en­joy what my soule longes after? Did I not formerly thinke, that if ever God tooke me clearly from my People, I would hasten to be where I might be free from such mixtures in Gods worship, without wringing my conscience any more? Why do I therefore now stay? Am I not under a temptation? God knowes these were the sad and serious workings of my spirit, and the workings of my heart were as strong, as ever I felt them in my life; Now whilst I was thus musing, thus troubled in my spirit, and lifting my heart up to God to helpe me, and set me at liberty, leaning upon my Chamber window, I espyed a man in a Citizens habit, coming in the Court Yard towards my Chamber, and in his com­ming near, I knew him to be formerly a Citizen of Norwich, but at that time, one of the Church of Rotterdam; this man comes to me, and tels me that he came lately from Rotterdam, that he was sent by the Chrurch there, to give me a call, to joyn with M. Bridge in the worke of the Lord, in that Church; when I heard him say thus, I stood a while amazed at the providence of God, that at such a time a Messenger should be sent to me about such an errand; my [Page 20]heart God knowes exceedingly rejoyced in this call of his, I pre­sently told him I saw. God much in it, and dared not in the least to gainsay it, yea, that my heart did much close with it, yet desired to see God a little further in it, this only I required, that he should go or send to the Church and return my answer: with desire, that be­cause most of them knew me, they should give me their call under their own bands, and then there would be nothing wanting that I knew, but I was theirs, and thus we parted. In this my heart was much eased, now seeing a cleare hand of God taking me off from temptations, that I was affraid might otherwise have stucke upon me, but this I kept to my selfe.

Now as God would have it, three or foure dayes after this, a friend meets me, and tels me, that such a man reported of me, that in a conference about the Scots, justifying them in what they did, I should speake such things as might bring me into trouble; After I heard this, I could not but take notice of Gods hand, that sure­ly now God intended to open the dore very wide, for that call I had to Rotterdam; yet because, whether I went out or stayed in the Land, I desired to cleare my selfe as much as could be; I went to this accuser with one of the Gentlemen, who was at our whole discourse, we both laboured to convince him that he had mistook what was said in that Conference, that certainly there was no such thing as he had reported, though at first there appeared a ve­ry evill spirit in him, as if he intended evill against me, yet I went freely up and downe for a fortnight or three weeks after in the Countrey, and got another Gentleman, who also heard all that Conference, to speak with him; at the last he began to recant of what he had said, and promised to me and one of the Gentlemen who had heard all our former discourse, that he would take me off what he could, that he would satisfie all that he had told any thing against me unto, and now tell them that he was mistaken in me, and that things were not so bad as he apprehended, and with­all said he made no doubt but to set me right againe. After this I hoped all would blow over, my Lord of Warwick falling sick at London, sent for me, I came up to him, continuing with him a fortnight or three weeks longer, going freely up and downe the City, my Lord knew all the businesse, and made no question but all was over. Now I being as I hoped set free from my Accuser, [Page 22]the Messenger from Rotterdam comes to me againe, with an answer to what I had desired, shewing me how the Church there had met, and had sent a call to me in writing under the Elders hands, with many other hands in the name of the Church: upon which we agreed upon the day when, and the place where we should meet in Norfolke, to make a full conclusion, and accor­dingly to take order for our voyage. Now within three or foure dayes after this second call, this businesse that we thought had been dead, breaks forth againe afresh: I had intelligence from a Minister in Essex, that the truth was, he that accused me be­fore, had dealt treacherously with me, and the businesse grew to a height, it was come to the then Lord Treasurer: Upon this still I saw my call the clearer and fuller, and at my fore-appoint­ed time went into Norfolke, where I met with the Messenger, and concluded the going into Holland. Though my call by this was clearer, yet the thought of going out of the Kingdome thus, was grievous to me, for I knew I must never see England againe, times continuing as then they were, and no man living could have imagined that alteration that after fell out.

Now I appeale to M. Edwards, had he knowne all this (which if it had pleased him he might have done, for I sent to him to tell him I would satisfie him about this business) would he have made such a relation as he hath done, to such a purpose as he hath done? for of all the things he hath against me, the manner of my going out of the Kingdome in the way that he relates it, is the greatest aspersion that is upon me, when indeed it was one of the most mercifull providences of God to me that ever befell me in all my life, wherein I saw as cleerly an eye of God watching over me in particular for good, as ever in any thing. I know not what a bold daring spirit, whose aims are to asperse men, would have done in this case, had this I now relate been knowne, as it was to many; but ingenuity certainly, where it had been in the least degree of it, would have abhorred to have done as M. Edwards hath done. The Lord set his conscience upon him, rebuke him, and be mercifull to him in this thing.

His second thing he hath against me in his Antiapologia, is his Charge for my Preaching for the Congregationall way, as page 216. he sayes I preached at Mildreds Breadstreet, against Natio­nall [Page 23]Churches under the New Testament, and for the way of their particular Churches.

Ans. But what I said for that way, he mentions not, and I remember not, therefore I can say nothing to it; but concerning a Nationall Church, I doe remember I said something, it was in the time of the Prelates, my speech was directed against them, it was the day the first Protestation was taken, because a great argument they use for their power over Nations, is from the power of the High Priest over the whole Nation of the Jewes. I said that we were freed from the Paedagogie of the Jewes, and now there were no Nationall Churches by institution as the Jewes were, mentioning these 3. things. 1. There are no natio­nall Officers as they had. 2. No Nationall Worship as they had. 3. It was not sufficient now, to make a member of the Church, be­cause one is by birth of this or any other Nation, as then it was, because one was borne of the Nation of the Jewes. And is this a Doctrine that will not goe downe with a Presbyterian? Surely it must be a Prelaticall Presbyterian who cannot digest this; I am confident all the Presbyterian Churches in the World will acknowledge what I said here to be true. That we may call the Church in England a Nationall Church because of the many Saints in it who are of the body of Christ, I deny not, nor ever did, but that it is by the institution of Christ formed into one po­liticall Church as the Nation of the Jewes was, this is no Inde­pendency to deny; where are any particular men standing Church Officers to the whole Nation by Divine institution? what Na­tionall worship hath Christ instituted? doth our Birth in the Nation make us members of the Church? These things are so palpably plaine to any that will understand, that it is tedious to spend time about them.

He sayes further in the same page, that I preaching before the Lord Major and Aldermen, preached for a Toleration of all Sects and Opinions, so they were not against Fundamentals in Do­ctrine, and Fundamentals in Civil Government.

Ans. Then I did not preach for an universall, an unlimited toleration of all Religions, of all things, as both my selfe and others are very sinfully reported to doe. What was the way of getting hands to a late Petition in London but this, when some [Page 24]went from house to house, Who are you for? Are you for Presby­tery, or Independencie? Many answering, They knew not what In­dependencie was; The Hand-gatherers replyed, Independents are such as would have no Government, as would have all Religions, all Blasphemiss and Heresies tolerated, as would live under no Laws: Oh, say they, No, we are not for them, we will set our hands against them, and thus hands might easily multiply. Yea this is the weapon by which Ministers in their Pulpits, where no body can answer them, fight against Independency with. But is this faire? Doe not your consciences condemne you in this thing? For my part, as I never was, so I now am not for a toleration of all things, nay I should be loth to live in England if ever it should be here. I doe and shall pray and endeavour against it. But what I said before the Lord Major and the Aldermen, had I been a Pres­byterian I should have said it, and were I a Presbyterian I should say it againe. The Presbyteriall way had once need of such a doctrine, and may have need of it againe. I remember not the words that then I spoke, but this I remember, what I said was from the 14. to the Rom. and I am sure I have since said and pub­lished in that Treatise of Heart-Divisions three times as much a­bout that Argument, and that Scripture, and yet I beleeve many hundreds of Presbyterians think what I have published there to be true doctrine, onely M. Edwards has so much of the Prelacy and violence in him, that he cannot digest it.

As for my Lectures that are printed upon Hesea, that he men­tions page 220. I am not willing to spend time in answering, he mentions no particular words, but refers you to the Lectures and pages. They are to be seene, I refer my selfe to all moderate Presbyterians, let them judge whether there be any thing there that may not stand with Presbyterian Principles. Never any have appeared against those Lectures but M. Edwards, and lately M. John Vicars; I reverence, and teach others to reverence old age; but it must know there are many infirmities attending it, it is fitter for devotion, then that it should interest it selfe in mat­ters of contention. If M. Vicars had told me some experiences of the work of God upon his soule, or of the good providences of God towards his people and himselfe in the course of his life, I should have diligently observed them, and I hope might have [Page 25]got good by them; But oh how unbecomming old age is that spi­rit of contention that appeares in his Bookes! if he thinks those places he has cited will serve his turne, surely his skill in Presby­terie is not great, my pen was running in a hard expression, but I will not provoke the old man: yet I must be plaine with him, How uncomely is it for an old Professor of Piety and Religion, to be found jeering and scorning at Piety and Religion? who would have thought that ever M. Vicars should have lived to that day? Thus he does in the Frontispice of his Booke, The names of the five pious Apologists, and the names of the seven Religious Remonstrants. Whereas the chiefe scope of his Book is to cast dirt upon these Apologists and Remonstrants. Certainly the spirit of the man is much altered from what he heretofore see­med to be. Can it become the gravity and wisdome of old age to charge (and that publiquely) his Brethren of unworthy double dealing, of unfaithfulnesse, upon no other ground then the relation of one man, and that relation but upon one witnesse? and yet this very witnesse gives it under his hand, that what these men that he charges thus, hath said is true, and why must he charge Master Greenhill too? Surely he did not thinke what he did, for all that M. Greenhill said, was, he wondred to see such a thing in Master Edwards his Booke, as a Relation of a meeting concluded of a­bout Nicols, where I and he (M. Edwards sayes) were; what doublenesse or unfaithfulnesse in this? for not onely M. Edwards his witnesse sayes he never told him so, and such a thing never was, but M. Edwards now confesses it. Is there then weight e­nough for such a charge of M. Vicars, not onely upon me, but up­on M. Greenhil? The Lord, I hope, will cause M. Vicars to see cause to be humbled for this.

In the close of all me thinkes I see M. Edwards in M. Bellamies shop fretting and vaporing, I will answer him, I that I will, I will reply, I that I will: like one Pise, Jerome speaks of, who though he knew not what to say, yet he knew not how to hold his peace. M. Edwards may be bold enough in Answering, for I am perswaded he beleeves I will hardly ever be brought to trouble my self about him; He is so foule, who can meddle with him without dirtying his fingers? I am resolved rather to lye under many prejudices and censures, and commit my name and cause to God, then to [Page 26]trouble my selfe further with him. Though I will not fully conclude never to doe any thing further about him in publique, yet this I engage my selfe unto, that if any thing in what he has said, or shall say, shall stick in the hearts of any conscientious, who desire satisfaction, if they will but make it knowne to any that have or ever had any acquaintance with me, I will (if it be desired) give them satisfaction in it; but I confesse I am loth to promise this to strangers, I have been so traduced by strangers who have come to me for satisfaction in some cases of conscience. For instance, in that about a late Petition of some of the Citizens, which M. Edwards mentions page 110. of the first part of his Gangraena, where he sayes, some came to me the day after I preached, to be satisfied about it, who (he sayes) put me hard to it. I confesse I spent neere foure houres with one com­pany who came to me about it; yet Master Edwards sayes, I said little. It may be some of them reported so. How easie is it for any to come to be resolved in a case of conscience, and when they are gone, to say, He said little? Yet to those four who then came to me, there was so much said, that two of them went away satisfied, and the other two fell off contradicting one another: The one saying, If there were that in the Petition that I objected, he would have no hand in it; the other of them said to his friend, Certainly there is that in it. And after that, onely one company more came, that I remember, where one, an emi­nent Presbyterian, a great friend to M. Edwards, went away so satisfied, as he after professed he never received more satis­faction in any thing he had scrupled, and that with these reasons I gave him he had satisfied two Ministers, who before were of another mind; and yet it seems some were pleased to tell Master Edwards I said little: it was easie for them to say so when they were gone, and themselves must be the Judges of what I said, and of what I affirmed. I refused none that came to me, but if I were at home, spake with, and debated the matter at large: I was abroad onely when one company came, of which I after had any notice, which was at the time of the Assembly, where I was; yet my wife earnestly desired them to come in the after­noone, and told them I should very willingly confer with them: and two of that company did come, with whom I conferred at [Page 27]large, neere foure houres, although M. Edwards is pleased to say I spake little, but my wife much: whereas my speech was not onely so long, but had that influence upon two of them, as is be­fore mentioned; and I remember not that my wife was with them, or made any stay, but after so much time spent, as shee thought it was time to break off, she brought them a cup of beere, and staid while they were drinking, or very little more. But can any man think but it must be very tedious for a man who hath any thing to doe, to spend time in answering such bables as these? and yet because even these bables take with vaine spirits, who willingly catch at every thing, something must be said, if it be but to please children.

Thus have I wearyed my selfe, and it may be the Reader, in these personall things: of all books, I never cared to read books of this nature. The Lord deliver me from such an implacable, fu­rious spirit as this M. Edwards hath, that I may have no more to doe with him. If he pretends at any time to deale in a rati­onall way, he mingles such personall things, as must needs make it tedious for any man of ingenuity, who hath any thing of weight to take up his head or heart, to meddle with him. Let any man write a rationall discourse, acknowledged by themselves to have much strength in it, against that way so much opposed, and then let them complaine if they have no Answer. Some few things have been published this way, and most of them have had Ans­wers, and when God gives further liberty from other occasions, further Answer shall appeare in publique. But is it possible for so few of us, having so many things lye upon us, to attend the Answer to every Pamphlet that comes out against us?

That extreme eagernesse and violence in Master Edwards, M. Vicars, and others, to asperse our names, makes us to think that God hath made more use of our names then we were aware of, and shall be an argument to quicken us to more watchfulnesse to walk inoffensively and convincingly before all men. For we see by their anger, even almost to madnesse bent that way, that they had little hope to prevaile with all their arguments against the cause wee professe, till they could get downe our esteeme (such as it was) in the hearts of the people. The old way of the Heathens against the Christians in the Primitive [Page 28]times, and of the Prelates against the Presbyterians when time was. But our names are not in the power of their tongues and pens, they are in the hands of God, who will preserve them so farre as he hath use of them, and further we shall have no use of them our selves.

There is also one M. Bellamy, while he would seeme to be Londons Remonstrating Champion, he has nibbled at me. To whom I say,

• 1. That I am perswaded I stand cleere in his conscience, what­soever I am in his book.
• 2. If what he objects against me be an Error, yet surely it hath nothing to doe with the point of Independencie of Church-Go­vernment, there is no connection between the one and the other, yet he brings it in to shew the Principles of such Independents.
• 3. If it were Independencie, yet it runnes not parallel with those mens opinions he had mentioned before, who (he sayes) hold, That If the Parliament have been any way unfaithfull and unserviceable to the Publique, or but groundedly suspected so to be, (which all the world knowes, that knowes these mens minds, they will quickly be ready to doe) if in any thing they please not their Palats, that then those that chose and sent them, may have liberty to choose more faithfull, able, and better men in their places. Now (sayes he) consider these mens Tenets. He charges them to tend to utter confusion of all order, power, Government in Church and Common-wealth, and I will give you an instance (sayes he) of one, (naming my selfe, in my Answer to D. Ferne.)

But will his instance reach to that he brings it for, to shew me to be one of those men he mentioned before for?

• 1. In that he sayes of me, doe not I say, if the Parliament should grow tyrannicall, particular men cannot help themselves?
• 2. The whole State should suffer much before it should help it selfe by any wayes of resisting.
• 3. If you can, suppose a Parliament so far to degenerate.
• 4. That they should conspire to destroy the Kingdomes.
• 5. That they should aime at themselves so farre, as to possesse the Lands and riches of the Kingdome to themselves.
• 6. What the Kingdome should doe I determine not, but leave to the light of nature to judge. Now is this parallel to the former [Page 29]opinion he mentioned, am I one of those men? doth this tend unavoidably to utter confusion of all order, power, government in Church and Common-weath?
• 7. Let M. Bellamie first give a better Answer to that Objection, before he finds fault with mine.

Oh how tedious is it to spend time to follow these vain men, and that we must needs answer to these peevish objections!

What I have done in a way of just Apologie for my selfe, you may expect from my Brethren, from some very shortly, from others as their occasions shall permit, no wayes questioning but they are able to set themselves right in the consciences of consci­entious men.

But you will say, we had rather see what you would have, what your Cause is, then this vindication of your Persons.

Ans. We freely grant, the truth is to be regarded a thousand times more then our Persons, and did not we beleeve that such a Vindication might be usefull to make way into your hearts for the receiving the truth, we would never have taken this course, but should rather have been willing to have lyen in the dust, and have trusted God with our names. There is indeed a great complaint in the World that they know not what we would have.1 Yet ingenuous Brethren in the Assembly have professed that they understood what we would have as well as our selves, so cleare have we been in discovering our mindes upon all occasi­ons.

2 We have lately in a Committee appoynted by the Lords and Commons for Accommodation, declared what we would have in relation to what already is established, professing that in all things that we had not mentioned in our desires for forbearance, we agreed with the rule they had established.

3 If you would know what we would have, it is soon told you. 1. We would have the ruling Power of Ministers not to extend fur­ther then their pastorall Charge over their People for the feeding of them by the Word & Sacraments. 2. We would have the Saints separated from the world, not in a negative way only, but in some positive arguments of some work of God upon their hearts that accompanies Salvation, so far as man may be able to judge; and that they freely joyn in Spirituall Communion, yet so as the rule of [Page 30]edification be observ'd amongst others, that there be a cohabitation in those that joyn, and that all that are fit to be members that doe cohabit doe joyn as much as may be. 3. We would have no co­active violence used against such men who carry themselves re­ligiously and peaceably in their differences from others, in such things onely as godly and peaceable men may and doe differ in. Were these 3. things granted, we might live together as Brethe­ren in peace, and love. Are those the men that are the hinderers of reformation, and the disturbers of the peace, who would be satis­fied with these 3. things, and if they cannot have them peacea­bly by the permission of the Magistrate, are resolved to sit down quietly to suffer, or to go to what places in the world liberty may be enjoyed in these, and yet must these be judged the disturbers of the peace? But while men think there is no way for peace but by forcing all to be of the same minde, while they thinke the Civill Sword is an ordinance appoynted by GOD to determine all Controversies in Divinity, and that men must needs be chained together by fines and imprisonments, or else there can be no peace; that except all men be of the same minde themselves are of, all will come to confusion: whilst these Princi­ples prevaile with men, either there must be a base subjection of mens consciences to slavery, a suppression of much truth whilst they seek to suppresse error, or else exceeding disturbance in the Christian world. Happy those men, their memories shall be bles­sed. Not who bluster, and are violent and furious in forcing o­thers to what they conceive right, for these are certainly the disturbers of our peace; but those who shall find out some expedi­ent whereby Conscience may not be enslaved, truth not suppres­sed, and yet error not countenanced, the spirits of men each to­wards other sweetned, Peace procured, Brotherly love recove­red, strengthned, confirmed, for the raising up of such for the bles­sing of God upon such and their endeavours, I shall not cease to pray, who am desirous of nothing more then Truth and Peace: but the Lord rebuke turbulent and violent spirits.

But seeing you mention a Committee of Lords and Commons for Accommodation, why did not you joyn in a way of Accom­modation with your Brethren? Nothing would satisfie you but a Toleration.

Answ. Before there was any Rule established, we laboured what we could for Accommodation, to get the Rule so qualified, that we might come under the same Rule with our Brethren, professing that we desired nothing more; but that we could not effect. It was then pleaded, Let the Rule be first set, and then we shall see how neere we can come to it, or where the diffe­rence will lye, and then some way may be considered to Accom­modate in. But when the Rule was set, we knew no way, but to shew wherein we could not come up to the Rule, and to desire forbearance in such and such particulars, which the Order of the Lords and Commons gave us power to doe, which we accor­dingly presented to the Honourable Committee, professing our selves to agree with our Brethren in all Fundamentals in Do­ctrine, and in the substance of Worship according to the Directo­ry, and with the Reformed Churches as they doe, and for the Rule of Discipline that we likewise agreed in all other things, except those we mentioned, wherein we desired forbea­rance.

But you say, you would not have the Ruling power of Mini­sters goe beyond their Pastoral Charge for Word and Sacramente; what help then can there be, if the Elders of a Church, or a whole Church shall erre?

Ans. The Church is a spirituall Society, gathered for spirituall ends; it hath within it selfe no help against spirituall evils, but spirituall, and these can onely prevaile with men so far as they are spiritual and conscientious. If the declaring the mind of Christ by other Churches, if the protesting against the erring Elders or Churches, and withdrawing Communion from them, will not strike upon Conscience, what shall? Can the adding of an Act of formall Jurisdiction, whose Divine Institution few see, and is doubted of by those with whom it should pre­vaile, can that doe it? The former meanes wil remedy evils, if men be conscientious; the latter will not doe it, if they be not conscientious.

If you say, The Magistrate must come in and helpe.

Answ. 1. Howsoever then in Church help there is little dif­ference.

2. If you interesse the Magistrates power, he must then either by himselfe or by some Commissioners take cognisance of the jus and the fact, wherein his power is to be exercised, he must not act upon an implicite beliefe, that the acts of the Church are right.

3. Will you call in his power in all matters of difference, wherein your selves cannot agree? or will you onely desire his power to help, when either the hainousnesse of the matter, or the turbulencie of the carriage, manifests stubbornnesse? If in the former case, then you make the Magistrate the Judge of all Con­troversies in Religion, which I beleeve you are not willing to doe. If in the latter onely, we are agreed. Why then is there such a stir, such an out-cry against that which is called the Independent way, as if there must needs be a confusion of all things, if liberty in it be granted? The Lord judge between us and our Brethren in this thing: To him we refer our Names and our Cause.