A new-years-gift, OR A BRIEF EXHORTATION To Mr. Thomas Edwards; That he may break off his old sins, in the old year, and begin the New year, with new fruits of Love, first to GOD, and then to his BRETHREN.  PSAL. 7.14, 15, 16. 
Behold, he traveleth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood.  
He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.  
His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate.  PSAL. 50.19, 20, 21. 
Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit.  
Thou sittest and speakest against thy Brother; Thou slanderest thine own mother's son.  
These things hast thou done, and I kept silence: thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.  
By KATHRINE CHIDLEY.  
Printed in the year, 1645▪   

The Introduction or Epistle, To the Godly Reader.  
THe cause which formerly moved me to Answer Mr. Edward's his first book, was; First, the frothiness of his reasons: for when I saw them light, I thought a man of understanding would not meddle with them, because they were so rotten they could not hold together: And I conceived that if he were not answered at all, he would then have abounded in vain glory.  
Secondly, the hearing of the disturbance it made in the City, (the better party being grieved that he so discovered himself, and the worser party domineering, that Mr. Edward's was become their Champion,) moved me to take into consideration the difficulty, and finding his book to be (as indeed it was) a rangling-insinuating,- contradictory,- revengeful story, it appeared unto me to be a task most befitting a woman; The consideration whereof moved me to answer it publicly as it was published.  
And forasmuch as it plainly appeareth, that this his second book (or antipology) is of the same nature with his other, and hath no more substance than it, I do affirm, It was answered before it was written: for it consisteth (for the most part,) of tales, and reports, it is an unsavoury history, full of revengeful-slaunderous-accusations, but abounding with reproachful jeers and evil calumniations; But I have now noted some things therein which concern myself— and all who fear God, and walk in his way, [I mean the way of Separation] that way which Paul walked in, which way was then called heresy, and so is still, by Mr. Edward's, and such as he.  
Both I, and my faithful yoke-fellow have jointly tasted of the pressures of the hierarchy above these twenty years, and the Bishops-Priests have driven us out of our place of abode 16. years ago: and we (amongst the rest of the people of God,) are now prosecuted afresh by Mr. Edwards, and such as he, for he hath unjustly charged them to be the movers of sedition, and distubers of the kingdoms. By all which it appeareth that it concerneth the Separation principally to take notice of Shimies cursings, and Rabshakes railings, and not only to consider that it may be God hath bidden them so do, but also to declare that what they do is unjust, which was one cause that moved me to endeavour (according to my skill) to unmask the faces of those ungrounded arguments, against independency, and toleration, in his former book, which I answered three years ago: And though he hath not ability to defend, or relieve, any one of those his arguments against Separation, yet he chargeth others with neglect in not answering his first borne: against that way, in which book he declared that though it was the first brought forth, yet not the first conceived: for that he had large tractates to put forth against the whole way of Separation; I have waited these three years, for the bringing of them forth, 
☞  but now it seems to me, It was a false conception.  
Moreover I suppose that (Mr. Edward's) his painful labouring thus, ariseth out of fear, lest (as Christ is exalted, and as the hill of Zion appeareth more eminently (Than the Priests will be in danger to lose some maintenance (as he hath in part expressed in his former book 
* ●n his 5. Reason against to●eration.  where he speaketh of their demanding dues.) And true it is, that people rightly informed will not have their necks captivated, under Jewish yokes of tithes paying, to maintain a popish-ordained-clergy; for God requireth his people to maintain no Ministry but their own, even such as labour with them in the word and doctrine, and not those who labour against them: And I know right well that the Ministers of the Separation, have never been chargeable to the Church of England, neither have any of their poor Orphans been left to any of her Parishes, though their parents have suffered death (in prison) by the cruelty of the Prelates, [as I could name divers within these 10. years:] yet God turned his hands upon the little ones and provided for them, according to his promise, 
* Zech. 13.7.  so that as the righteous parents were never forsaken, neither did their seed beg their bread.  
And Remember (good Reader) that though Balack would have had the people of God cursed, and Baalam would fain have had the wages, yet at length he was constrained to confess, that surely there was no enchantment against Jacob, neither divination against Israel, but according to this time (saith he) it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, what hath God wrought? Behold the people shall rise up as a great lion, & lift up himself as a young lion, he shall not lie down, until he eat of the Prey and drink the blood of the slain, Numb. 23. verse 23, 24.  
K. C.   

A BRIEF EXHORTATION to m Tho: Edwards, that he may break off his old sins, in the old year, and begin the new year, with new fruits of Love, first to God, and then to his Brethren.  
Mr. Edward's,  
THe causes of my writing unto you at this time are three. 1. Your threatenings. 2. Your challenge. 3. The outcries of the people against you, for that which you delivered in Pulpits 
* Pulpit, turned into Cockpits  where they expected to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ Preached by you; in stead whereof, they hear proud boastings that you will after your skirmishing with the Separation take their Fort▪ But peradventure you may, by your fishing for others, be caught yourself. Now our fort, and fortress is Jesus Christ, and though you take him, you shall never take him from us, for he is all fullness to all, and sufficiency for all, that draw near unto him; But whether you intend so to take him as to rest upon him, or to take him as the High Priests Officers once took him, to crucify him; let your hearers judge.  
Sir, you are a brave warrior, and can fight well in a Pulpit, where you are sure none shall come near you, so much as to give you an answer: for proof whereof, witness your own confession in your Antipologia, that the Separatists will not come in your Churches: Therefore you may easily make the people believe great matters by your juggling, where there is none to resist you, nor hold out the light in opposition to your false figures; But if they were there, they might not be admitted there to oppose you, nor to use any means to undeceive the people; But it is an old saying (though somewhat gross) that every cock croweth on his own miksen, and that makes you so bold, where you are sure you shall have no opposition.  
But (Mr. Edwards) now I will counsel you, to muster up all your army you brag of, and come forth, set up your colours, and pitch a field with the Separation, bring forth all your strong reasons, not only the last conceived, your latter thoughts, and studies, but also your large tractates [against the whole way of Separation,] which were the first conceived of old, which you promised in your former book 
* In your Introduction.  for you have brought no argument in your Antipologia against Separation from a false Church and false Ministry, but you have challenged all, high, and low, Anabaptists, Separatists, and Semiseparates, &c. to bring a ground from Scripture for the lawfulness of separating from a true Church, which thing we never strived for, for we know it is utterly unlawful. But this was your policy (especially when you preached upon the house top,) to make the people believe that those who separate from the Church of England separate from a true Church: But this is yours to prove, I therefore challenge you now, to prove [by the Scripture] that the Church of England is a true Church, and the Ministry thereof a true Ministry, and that they have a true outward calling, which yet you have not done, neither have you brought any argument neither in your former book, nor in this Antipologia, that proves your Church and Ministry true; And I think you dare not deny but that these be substantials, and not some of your mere circumstances, which you would have decided without the word of God, 
* Pag. 73.  for if the Church be but a circumstance, and the calling of the ministry a mere circumstance, than you need not stand so much for it, and upon ordination from the Pope, for if ever you be true Ministers of Jesus Christ it must be without that, and therefore it appeareth to be you, who have ordination by persons that are not ordained, and not the Ministers of the Separation: for God hath ordained his Church to ordain their own Ministers, but hath not ordained the Church of England, nor the Ministry thereof at all, wherefore it appeareth that you can have no true ordination, unless you become Separate; And all your arguments in your former book tended to the keeping down of the kingdom and power of Jesus Christ. And all the tales which you tell in your Antipologia, tend to the defaming of your Brethren as they came from you. But (as your tales are in themselves) many of them turn to the praise of those whom you would defame.  
As for instance, [you tell us of their humility, and that they say that they dare not take upon them to determine all the ways of God,]  
For aught I know they do well, 
1 Sam. 13.14.  for the Prophet David, who was not only a King, but a Prophet of God, and a man after God's own heart, thought not himself sufficient for that work of universal determining, which you may plainly see in the 119. psalm, where he so often desireth of the Lord to teach him his- ways,- statutes,- precepts,- commandments,- testimonies,- laws,- and to direct him in his word, yet David refresh not there, but strikes Covenant with God, promising that he will run the ways of God's commandments when he hath learned them, 
* Psal. 119.32.  and also that he would teach others when the Lord had taught him, even as you say these men have done, for you report that they are active for their way: Now if God have made known his way to them more fully than he hath done heretofore, they ought to be more active for it, and as God enlargeth their hearts, so to enlarge his praise.  
You tell us of a sort of Anabaptists that would preach on the top of houses, because they would imitate the Apostles. But have you not now taken their turn? for these men (as you say) even the Apologists, with divers others have of late preached not only to the Parliament, but also to the people in divers places, which you name as Margret's Westminster, Michael Cornwall, Mag●es at the bridge foot, and Stepney, with other places. These men (I say) preaching true doctrine there in the ears of the people, you have published it (as it were) upon the house top, for you have put them in print, that so we that are Separatists, who dare not come to your Church; and all the men in England may know it. And you have threatened to print them at large 
* Pag. 219. .  
You say, their doctrines make for their way,— and they are active for their way. 
Answ. — indeed (Mr. Edwards) though God's ways be not as men's ways, yet when men make God's ways their ways, they ought to be active for the same, for they are the ways of peace, the ways of truth, and the ways of life, and though they are narrow ways, because there is no rule leading unto them, but the Word of God, yet he that is guided by God's spirit shall be led into all truth 
Joh. 16.13 ; Therefore it is good for you and all persons to labour to be clothed with humility, for God hath promised to teach the humble his ways.  
You say there are four passages (in the apologetical Narration) which are good and useful amongst so many bad, Therefore we will consider of these which are good, & useful, amongst those which you say are bad.  
The first being their acknowledgement of the Parliament.  

Answ.  Herein I conceive they give Caesar his due.  
The second of the Assembly of Divines. They did not give them the Title of a Synod, 
Answ.  nor attribute authority to them to determine for the Church of Christ, laws, rites, or ceremonies, &c. For I think they did not understand them to have (or to be capable of) any such power from God: for if these had known they had assumed it, they would not (as I think) have been of them.  
The third is their taking notice of the miscarriages of the Separatists.  

Answ.  In this they did very well, and made a good use thereof, as I may judge from your own speeches, concerning their way, and I pray you tell me (Mr. Edward's) for what end were the miscarriages of God's people (written by the direction of God's spirit) but to warn others of the Saints from falling into the like; for wherefore did God at any time punish his people (for their sins) but to recall them back, that so he might be reconciled unto them again; but never to deter them from his holy ways, wherein they walked before, or when they practised those miscarriages.  
If Adam should have offered no more sacrifice, because Cain fell out with his Brother (for offering a better Sacrifice than he,) he should have been condemned of his own conscience▪ for the way was never the worse for Cain's miscarriage. And the way that Jacob walked in, was the way of God though the sons of Jacob sinned; They were godly and holy men in the main, though they missied it in selling their brother; 
Gen. 37.7, 8, 9, 10.  And did not God visit them in mercy, to bring them to a sight of their sins, when he caused their sheaves to bow down to Joseph's sheaf in Egypt, 
Gen. 42. and 43. and 44. &c.  and caused Joseph to afflict them, to put them in mind of their sin; yea, did it not work that good effect upon them, for which the Lord sent it, by causing them to accuse themselves saying, we are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul when he besought us, and we would not hear, therefore this evil is come upon us; Nay, did not God further illustrate Joseph's glory before them, not only by making all their sheaves to bow down to his sheaf, but in letting it be seen that the Sun, and the moon, and the eleven stars fell down before him, when they all went down into Egypt; we will not deny but that the sons of Jacob did fatally miscarry, yet the way of God wherein they walked was not therefore to be abhorred, and yet their miscarriages are set before us all as landmarks, that we should take heed of running upon such shelves; And I hope these Apologists have not forsaken the ways of truth for the miscarriages of some that have walked in the way before them, for you say, they have been active for their way since; And I hope that they know that the way was Christ's, though Judas betrayed his Master, & Annanias, and Saphira discembled, and Simon Magus was proud, and one of the Church of Corinth, committed fornication, and Demas forsook the way, and embraced the world, and Diotrephus (Antichrist like) sought for pre-eminence, and many Balaamites crept into their society, who preached for wages, and if any should have said that the way of the Gospel was not the way of Christ, because these persons (and such as these) did miscarry, it would have discovered great ignorance in them; for though they were spots in their feasts of charity, yet the Church of God had always power to cast them out, and that without the help of a Synod▪ which hath been proved at large in my answer to your book against Independency and toleration So that though the Saints of God who are chosen vessels unto him should fail, as Peter did in denying his Master, through the slavish fear that he was in of that company of Priests, which Crucified Christ in that time, and the believing Corinths wrought upon to eat things sacrificed to idols, (according to the doctrine of Balaam,) as some of the Church of Pergamus and Thyatira were, yet notwithstanding these personal infirmities, the way of God wherein they walked ought not to be abhorred, but we are to make the same use of these fatal miscarriages now, as the people of God were to make then of the miscarriages of Noah, Abraham, Lot, David, Soloman, Hezekiah, and divers others, and not to run upon the same shelves: And though these Apologists abhorred the miscarriages of those that went before them, in the way of separation; yet by your report, they still follow the way, and so they ought, for we are commanded to walk in the way of good men, and to keep the paths of the righteous.  

Objection.  But some may say, can those be called righteous men that so miscarry?  

Answer.  We affirm still that the way is a righteous way, and if any man (that desireth from his heart to walk uprightly in it) fail through infirmity, he hath an advocate with the father Jesus Christ the rihgteous, and needeth not to go to a Pope, or a Synod for a pardon of his sin.  

Objection.  Some peradventure will say, you will have the Saints to be subject to no Law!  

Answer.  If the Saints break a just Law, they must submit to the censure of that Law, if they break their Covenant, and violate it in sinning openly against any of the rules of Jesus Christ which he hath given to his Church, they are subject to be sensured by the Church, for the law was made for the disobedient. But those that walk holily, against such there is no law. Magistrates were given for the punishment of evil doers, and not only so, but for the praise of those that do well, and these are the two parts of the magistrates duty, which if they neglect, they must answer it to God▪ who sitteth in the Assembly of the Gods, and weigheth all their proceedings.  
And now what have you got by the Apologists declaration? (that they have observed the failings of the people of God▪) You have merely bewrayed your own ignorance, for if you had knowledge, you might have made a better use of their speech.  
You say, their fourth thing that is good is their description of the people of the Church of England.  

Answer.  I conceive they speak of some of whom they had hope, because they conceived them to be pliable to receive what is brought them for truth, and also capable to discern error, in some measure; so it appeareth that if they preach error, the people are capable to discern it.  
But to leave this as a thing that doth not much concern us that are Separates, I will borrow leave to paraphrase a little upon your application, which you make of the miscarriages of the Separation. You say you would have had the Apologists to have made use of these men's fearful sins, to have deterred them from their way, and you nominate Brown, Boulton, Barrow, Smith, and Jonson. But here you commit two evils.  
First, you insinuate a slander against the dead. Secondly, you would have men forsake the the way of God for other men's failings.  
For the first, you speak of their fearful sins; but you mention nothing, The greatest sin that ever I heard any of them accused withal was, their going back to communicate with the Churches of England and Rome, which was a great sin indeed, for Idolatry is as the sin of witchcraft, and to speak the truth, this is that great principle which hath caused so much division among the Separation.  
You refer us to the stories of Brown, Boulton, Barrow, Smith, and Jonson.  
I pray you (Mr. Edward's) what Stories are those? and what are their fearful sins therein mentioned? It may be you mean some lying popish stories (made by some trencher Poets) for Prelates, like the stories made by Mercurius Alicus at Oxford, and some of those stories are (by those who are best informed) ta●●n to be like this book of yours. And like a book written by Mr. Peter Studley [my old Parish Priest,] which he wrote divers years ago, against the Professors in the Church of England, concerning Enoch Abevan, who because he was mad, and in his madness killed his Mother, and his Brother, this Mr. Studley (called by the honest party, (Study-ly) inveighed against that way of profession, 
☜  and nonconforming, as you do against the way of Separation.  
And touching the Apologists silence in not declaring the principles which were the causes of the divisions.  
I Answer. It may be they did not perfectly see them.  
But I pray you tell me, how you dare charge all these men you have mentioned with fearful sins? If the sins were so fearful, which Brown and Jonson were guilty of, the one in stepping back to the Church of England, for fear of persecution. The other to the Church of Rome (for fear of nullifying his baptism, because he had it in a false Church, thinking that there could be no true Ordinance (in any respect) in a false Church,) and so was constrained (through want of faith and light to justify the Church of Rome and her daughters, (as Mr. Samuel Rutherford hath done,) tell me Mr. Edwards, what case are you in then? if their cases were so fearful in justifying your Churches. For surely upon your own principles, these were virtues to justify your false Churches to be true.  
Smiths, you may know was of another nature, for he went from the Churches of the Separation, because he judged them unbaptised persons, and that was his ignorance.  

☞  But what have you against Mr. Barrow? Was there ever any thing justly laid to this Separates charge? He was indeed hanged at Tyburn, for maintaining That the Church of England was a false Church▪ and so was Mr. Greenwood who was his companion and fellow Prisoner, though there was no matter of fact laid to either of their Charge worthy of death or bonds: These two men were put to death by the Prelates, in Queen Elizabeth's time, without her knowledge or privity, and that Early in a morning, the figure of their sufferings being seen in the Sky, by Mariners that were in other parts, and it was supposed, by the beholders of the figure (then to be done in England) because of the women's wearing of hats▪ 
☞  for the two poor widows that attended upon them in the Prison, waited upon them to the gallows bearing their winding sheets; the figure of all which was seen as was said before: But this was done without the Queen's knowledge, the grief whereof (by relation of those who were near her) she carried to her death. Honest Penry suffered death about the same time, he was hanged at Saint Thomas a wattrings, Early in the morning; And who dare say aught against these men, but that they lived Saints, where Satan's throne was, and died as holy Martyrs of Jesus Christ as Antipas. And it may be, these are the fearful judgements you mean befell them; for no other judgements befell them in this life, and they shall be freed from judgement in the life to come; But such false miracles you Priests work, (as hath been told you at large in my answer to your book against toleration) to make all the world wonder and run after the Beast, 
Revel. 13▪  saying, who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? But why did you not say that those were fearful judgements of God which came upon the Martyrs, who were burnt in Smithfeild in Queen Mary's time? they suffered for the same cause as far as they saw then: and the sentence against them (as it came from the seat of the Magistrate) came from heaven, as well as the sentence against Barrow, and Greenwood, and Penry, and all the rest of the people of God. If you will deny this, you will deny Queen Mary to be a lawful Magistrate, for the secular powers passed the sentence of condemnation then, as in Queen Elizabeth's time; for when the priests once had cried, that such and such of the Saints were guilty, than the Magistrates passed the sentence, that so the priests hands might be cleansed from their blood; as witness Mr. Fox's book.  
But to leave these holy Saints at rest with God. I will speak something of those that are living, both the people of the Separation and the people of the Church of England, As touching the people of the Separation, they are all visibly holy. If any root of bitterness is seen to spring up amongst them it is cast out.  
But you would intimate that the casting out of a sinner is a strong division, or else what do you mean, by the strong divisions you speak of, for there is no other division of the Separation, but the separating the precious from the vile. That was a strong division which was made in the Church of Corinth, 
1 Cor. 5.  when they cast out the incestuous person, but it was a true, holy, and just division, because God required it, and they were not to keep the feast of the Lord, till they had made that division: For if they had, it would not have been for the better, but for the worse. For they ought not to have kept the feast with old Leven: Such holy divisions you seldom (or never) make in the Church of England, neither indeed can you, being all in confusion, therefore you were not capable to pick motes out of other men's eyes, for as much as the beams were so big in your own, And whereas those that commit sin in the Churches of Christ are cast out and remain no longer there, and are not admitted again without repentance: The members of the Church of England committing sin, yea, being common, and ordinary, and known sinners▪ yet they are forced to be still of your Church, or else they shall be punished: yea, though they commit sin worthy of death, and be condemned by the sentence of the magistrate, yet remain they uncast out of your Church, as appeareth by giving the Sacrament to thieves, and Murderers when they are going to the gallows, be they never so impenitent.  

Objection.  It may be objected, This is a false charge, for we do not now admit all to the Sacrament, we are about reforming.  

Answer.  The Church of England was never so deformed [for the most part of the kingdom] as it is now, yet there is not the worst Parish of the Church of England, but it hath the Sacrament still, by which actions the Priests become open violaters of God's commandments, and that against their own knowledge, in casting God's holy things to dogs; yea, the best in England, that taketh upon him a Parish charge, is guilty of this sin actually, in sealing the seed of wicked men with baptism, yea, and all men in the Church of England are guilty thereof, that consent thereunto, though it be but with silence.  
But how can it be said that any of the people of the Church of England are wicked, 
Objection.  seeing they are all members of the Church; for the dogs and enchanters, &c. are without? Revel. 22.15.  

Answer.  By this it appeareth what manner of Church the Church of England is, even such a one as Mr. Henry Barrow hath described it to be long ago; for if you please to read but his discovery of a false Church, which he wrote in prison, you shall see there he hath proved the Church of England to be as the Church of Rome is, even Babylon, a filthy cage of all unclean and hateful birds. But rather than you will take Mr. Barrowes advice, and the counsel of the Holy Ghost to come from among them, you will sooner help to hang all such Barrowes, and then say it is the judgement of God upon them: for none hath been more forward than yourself to persecute the Lord's people, as appeareth by your Writ of Ne admittas, 
☞  which you sent to the Parliament, to keep the Petitions of the poor Saints out thence. But it will not be for the Parliaments safety, to take such wicked counsel as yours, I hope the Parliament seeth (by this time) that God is making inquisition for blood, yea, for the blrud of the Saints. And therefore it is better that all sin which hath been committed, should be repented of, than that more should be added to the stock.  
By all this you may see that the 4. things (in the Apollogie,) which you say are good, are good for us, but not for you: And if you had not been benumed in your spirit, you would never have taken up (against us) such weapons, which (if you had been sensible) you might have known would have come positively against yourself; But these tales which you tell in your Antipologia, are like unto some of your tales which you tell the people in the Pulpit: for there you say you will face the Separation, and they will fly away, but you are shrewdly mistaken: For I, (who am one of the meanest) dare give you the meeting, and I hope to speed as well as I did, when I met that ragged Regiment which you set out against Independency and Toleration, which you called your Scout; (in your 8th. Reason against Independency) and joined and subjoined forces against toleration.  
Moreover you say, (in your Antipologia) that the Anabaptiss cast away their baptism, (received in a false Church) because they will not put a new piece to an old garment. And upon the same ground, you say the Separation would have the material Churches pulled down.  
If this be one of the Anabaptiss grounds (as it may be it is) than you may see their mistake: 
Answer.  For they ought to discern between baptism in a false Church, which is an Ordinance of God; which that Church hath stolen & carried away in their apostasy, they ought (I say) to put a difference betwixt that, and an Idol of their own making, as for example. The circumcision, which Jeroboam carried with him, was God's; but the Calves were his own, Daggan, and his Temple was the Philistems, but the ark was God's. And therefore if the Separates desire the pulling down of the Idols Temples, they do well, but if these high places stand, they will be no piece sowed to their garments, for they touch them not. But they have not been more forward (in this good work of the pulling down of the Idols Temples,) than yourself in writing to the Parliament for a whole and total Reformation, because they should not be blemished, you would have them to pull down the high places and all Idols and Idolatry, 
☜  as whosoever readeth your Epistle to your book against Independency may see at large, where your reasonable arguments are set down to the Parliament for that end and purpose. But the Anabaptiss have no such ground to put away their baptism which they received in a false Church, as hath been proved before. The Calves and high places of Jeroboam were to be done away, and it was their duty to demolish them, because they were a curse to the Land, and Idols of his own making as hath been said before: But the Circumcision which was God's, which they carried away with them, they brought again to God's Temple, (as we have done our baptism,) and were accepted. By all which it appeareth that you are able to lay no error to the chage of the Separation.  
Moreover in this your antipology, you advance, and extol your book against independency and toleration: You say, that the Apologists meant that, as well as others, which were written with strength against there way: And secondly, you affirm it to be argumental, and that therefore it behooved either all or some of them to have answered it.  
I Answer, They know best what they have to do, yet for my own part, I did conceive it ought to have been answered, and therefore I answered it myself, and that for these reasons.  

☞  First, because you should not be wise in your own conceit. Secondly, because I read that our Saviour Christ answered Satan, when Satan brought false arguments against him, and it is also written, that we should be ready to give a reason of our hope, to every one that shall ask us: and I considering the many questions that you asked, and the weakness of your reasons and arguments, and the untruths of some of them, and how contradictory they were to one another, thought it very easy to undermine and overthrow them, therefore I answered them, holding it meet for those who were more able, not to trouble themselves therewith, but to be employed in matters of far greater and higher concernment. But seeing you are yet so bold as to stand in it, to affirm that your book was argumental and aught to have been answered by them all, or some of them.  
I desire again to repeat the heads of some of the chiefest of your arguments, that so rational men may consider, whether they be truly logical.  
The substance of your first Argument is this: It's evident that the Church of God could not stand without some other help, 
☞  than Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, & Teachers, and all other Officers: But you have not declared any evidence, neither Scripture nor true reason: what! must we then believe you upon your bare word? I will not, for that were to make you a God, or at least one infalliably inspired.  
Your second argument is, that the Government of Independent or separated Churches, is not of divine institution, because it forceth them to have Ministers without Ordination, which thing is an untruth like your former, as hath been proved at large in the Answer thereunto: and there are divers untruths in this reason (or section) which have been answered, as will plainly appear to those that will take the pains to read your book and mine.  
Your third, is; that it is not to be thought that Christ would leave such a government, that affords no way of appeal, &c. This is answered at large: that the Churches of the Separat●●●● have true ways of appeal. But the Church of England hath not.  
These be your mighty Arguments of strength, which deserved an answer, though you proved none of them: If the answer which I sent you already have not sufficiently proved your arguments to be groundless, declare (I pray you) what substantial point is not answered, (if there be any substantials in them) and it shall be answered by Scripture, and good reason, or else you shall have the conquest.  
But you have (in this your Antipologia) named some learned Authors; who have written against Separation, amongst which Mr. Rutherford is one.  
And I have seen Mr. Rutherford's book, and also weighed it, But I could not discern, that he hath set down any thing against Separation that hath any force, neither hath he proved any thing sufficiently, but hath propounded many queries. which have been both framed and answered long ago, and he hath in his discourse expressed and repeated many answers, which have been made (to those queeires,) by the Separation, and running them over, he telleth us what this man saith, and what that man saith, and what another man saith, but he in declaring his own conceptions, (following his blind zeal, and popish Authors) runneth himself headlong to justify the Church and Ministry of Rome: against the Separates arguments, there specified, bringing no sufficient proof either of his own or other men's against them: 
Mr. Rutherford hath divers times in his book named (or rather nicknamed) me in stead of answering me, he hath made a show to repeat some of my arguments, and yet there was no argument in my book (so childish) (though he calleth them so) which he hath answered, no, nor so much as set my arguments down indeed as they are, as whosoever taketh the pains to read his book, & mine may see.  Therefore I would have understanding men to consider whether this of his be learned or pious writing yea or no? The general scope of his book tendeth to prove that the power of the Church resteth in the hands of her Officers. But he should consider that Christ hath given the power to his Church which is his body and spouse, of which: (and of whom) he himself is the head and Husband, neither can any Officer in the Church move [Ecclesiastically] without the power of the Church, no more than a man's arm, or Leg, or prime member can move, except it derive power from the body of which it is a natural member: Yea, the power of the keys is as absolutely the Churches, which is Christ's wife, as the power of the keys of the Family are the Mistrises, to whom the Husband giveth full power; and I think no reason●●le man will affirm (if her Husband give her sole power in his absence) that she is subordinate to any of her servants. Now the Scripture is clear, that Christ (who is ascended up on high) hath delivered the power to his Church, therefore it is against the light and law of nature, to conceive the Church to be thus subordinate to the servants; but rather (we may speak with reverence to Christ) that her servants are subordinate unto her; and it is a dishonour unto Christ for them to usurp ecclesiastical authority over her; But in case they should so do, she hath received commission from Christ her Husband, to deal with them, according to the offence committed by them, and if need require to cast them out, and then not to suffer them to enter in again but by the door of Repentance.  
But as Mr. Rutherford, by pleading for the ecclesiastical power to be in the Officers, hath given great advantage to the Pope, so hath he to the Anabaptiss, by pleading the universality of his Church, bringing in the seed of wicked men to be baptised because their fore father was a believing Parent, 
Isa. 2, 6.  but upon this ground all the Infants in the world are baptizable, because a believer was the father of them all. But the Scripture teacheth us otherwise, for the House of Jacob was forsaken by the Lord, because they enlarged themselves from the East, and were soothsayers like the philistine, and pleased themselves, with the children of strangers.  
YOu have joined to your Antipologia, certain reasons against toleration, which are the same in substance with those which you brought in your former; And seeing they have been largely answered there, in the answer to your ten reasons, and in my reply, to your answer to their six reasons: It is folly for you to study to relieve those reasons to serve your turn; For until you are able to stand out, and prove by the word of God, that the Church of England (which you call your Church) is the Church of Jesus Christ, as it now stands in confusion; And the ministry thereof (either in the Synod or out of the Synod) is the ministry which Christ gave to his Church, when he ascended up on high: Till this is proved (which can never be) all the arguments which you have brought, or can bring against the Separates (under the names of Sectaries) are still against yourself. For whether there be Sectaries, or schismatics, whether Athists, or Papists? whether wanton witted Christians, (as you term them) disobedient to Magistrates, unfaithful to King and State, Obstinate Rebels, nay, what ever wickedness can be named, the persons practising the same are found to be Members of the Church of England. Therefore I would advise you, hereafter to let Baal plead for himself: And go not about to make the Magistrates believe, that it is their duty to suppress the Church of Christ, to heal the Rents of your confused Church state, for though all the Prophets in the land would heal Babel, yet she shall never be healed, for in a general apostasy there can be no true Reformation, but by a total visible Separation of the precious from the vile. 
☜  And therefore you come short when you would intimate, there is nothing between you and us in point of the ministry, but that our Ministers must seize from their outward temporal labours, employments, or trades, for our Ministers have no false calling upon them, as yours have which is a great gulf betwixt your Ministers and ours, and betwixt you and us, And concerning our Churches you say the controversy were at an end, 
☜  if our ministers would grant to our Churches, that Assemblies and Synods, might judge and pass sentence upon our members as often as they see just ground, But truly (Mr. Edward's) this were to adulterate from the true pattern left unto us, and as this argueth in you great slothfulness and pride, so (if your council were followed) it would make others like you; but as our Ministers do not desire to live Idly, as you would have them do, neither do our Churches desire the thing which you would have our Ministers grant them: you may know that you do not go according to the rules of Scripture, when you persuade the Ministers of the Gospel to seize labouring with their hands: For when Paul called the Elders of Ephesus, to give them their charge. He set before them his own example, 
Acts 20.  I pray you read the 20. Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles: And see whether Paul required any to leave working with their hands: no sure, he commanded the direct contrary: where he expressed that he Coveted no man's Silver or Gold, or apparel. But saith, that they knew that his own hands ministered to his necessities, and them that were with him. And further saith, he hath showed them in all things how that so labouring they ought to support the weak, remembering the words of our Lord Jesus, how he said, It is a more blessed thing to give then to receive. And concerning our Churches submitting to Synods, to judge their cases; That were to make themselves fool: 
* That were to go from the greater, to the lesser, and (you yourself do ask) what a rule is this: Pag. 136.  For if there be a wise man amongst us, we ought not to go to law with one another before those that are without, for temporal things, much less about spiritual things: For the Apostle hath declared that the Saints shall judge the world, yea, the Angels; If this be true, (as no understanding man can deny) than it would be a more greivious sin, and woeful adultery, for the Spouse of Jesus Christ to seek, or sue, to a power, that is neither Jure Divino, nor Jure Humano:  
And now I will speak something to these your 8. reasons against toleration, though they are of the same nature with the other in the first book, and so have been answered already, yet to satisfy the Reader more fully, I will here give answer unto them particularly. But I would have you (& all men) know, that I do not (neither do any that are truly religious) plead for such a Toleration, as you would father upon us, even a Toleration to sin; We plead not for a Toleration of all sorts of persons (who are members of the Church of England,) for that were to plead for a Toleration for thieves and Murderers, and Adulterers, and Sabbath-breakers, and all sorts of wicked livers, that all men might do as they list; But the thing we plead for, is a peaceable enjoyment of our liberty to worship God, publicly, according to his revealed word, most especially upon that time instituted for his public worship, even the first day of the week, being the Lord's day: And that all the 6. days, we may follow our callings without fear of the execution of such unjust laws which former Parliaments have made; against such, who would not come to their Common Prayer book, or submit to all the orders of the Parishes of England; for such a Toleration as this we plead.  
IN your first reason, you affirm that a Toleration of Independent Churches and government with their opinions and practice, is against the Magistrates duty laid down in the Scripture.  
But I have proved it to be the Magistrates duty, to Tolerate the true worship of God, and those practices which are according to the word.  
But you would insinuate still your old slander, that we plead for a toleration of heresy and schism: which we know is against the Magistrates duty; and this maketh against your evil way; For if a Parliament may not (as you say) displease God to please men, nor wink at evil, to content some persons, And if Parliaments in making laws for religion, must depend on the will of God, revealed in his word, and not upon the consciences of some People. Then it is dangerous for a Parliament to constrain men to submit to the decrees of a Synod (or Presbytery) when neither the Presbytery, nor their decrees have ground in the word of God.  
YOur second reason is, that The Toleration desired is against the solemn League and Covenant taken by the Parliament and kingdoms, and therefore the Toleration desired comes to late, the doors being shut.  
Ans. Here you lay a fearful aspersion upon the Parliament: for requiring such an Oath and Covenant, 
Gospel Covenants do not teach men to persecute.  as if they intended to shut the kingdom of Christ and his true worship out of the three kingdoms, for you say further, If the toleration were lawful in itself, yet because of the Oath and Covenant, it is unlawful, though it might have been granted before, it cannot be granted now, lest the kingdom should be guilty before God of Covenant breaking.  
Ans. Surely you will make the Parliament all like Herod, 
Mark. 6, 26.  they must take poor John Baptists head off, because of their oath!  
But is this oath so foul as you would make it? and yet is it like the Decree of the Medes and Persians, that it may not be altered. WellsGod can deliver 
* Dan. 6.  poor Daniel in the lion's den, and (it may be) you shall come in our stead, when once the Parliament discerneth your wicked intentions. 
☞   
But (Mr. Edwards) bethink yourself, will not you blush, and be ashamed to give in the oath in these terms, as you have ever expressed it (in this your second Reason, pag. 283.) that we are to endeavour the reformation of Religion, in the kingdoms of England and Ireland in Doctrine, Worship, government and Discipline, according to the example of the best reformed Churches, [forgetting the word of God] which ought to have been set before you (as it was indeed by the Parliament) But you deal by the Covenant, 
☞  as you deal by the Scriptures, hack them, and mangle, and labour to make them fit for your own turn; and yet you jeered the Apologists (when they spoke of the way and practise of their Churches) because they did not name the Law or O●d Testament in express words (though they in the same place testify that they reverence and adore the fullness of Scriptures and their sufficiency to make us perfect, &c.) but here you have shamefully forgotten yourself, and overslipped both Law & Gospel. And so tie yourselves to men's patterns without the word of God.  
And surely I cannot believe that the Parliament hath Covenanted so, as you infer in the same page of your book, How (say you) can they grant a toleration so different as their way is that will not depend upon a Synod? And in the next page of the same Reason you say, that there is in the Covenant a clause in the second branch, that we shall without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of schism, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound Doctrine, and the power of godliness, lest we partake in other men's sins. Now surely (Mr. Edwards) I wonder that wise men can smile upon you, except it be in consideration of your folly, for you are made all of contradictions, unless you would have us take it for granted, that it is according to sound doctrine, and the power of godliness, that a number of Priests should be called together of contrary religions, some for the Bishops and some for the presbytery, and some for Christ, and that the two first casting aside the last, should agree to make decrees, & a Parliament should be bound to establish them. Would this be now to extirpate schism? nay: it would be to establish a grand schism: For godliness is cast out by the two first, and the Parliament must establish, what ever shall be thought of those two first to be sound, whether it be for the Bishops the ancient fathers, 
☜  or for the Presbyters their younger sons: and so you would have the Parliament to be indeed guilty of their sins.  
YOur third Rreason is, that A toleration is against the nature of a Reformation: and here you discover yourself in this Reason; that the Reformation you intend to make is to force all men in the Kingdom to submit to some particular form, 
☜  for you say you cannot make a reformation but it must offend many consciences. But if it be so, it will be the consciences of them that have knowledge in the word of God: For the ignorant multitude will be offended at nothing, but of what ever Religion their King will be of, they will be of the same, therefore you are a contentious man indeed! that will offend the consciences of the godly, to make your Church great, that so your revenues may be large!  
YOur fourth Reason is, A toleration of men in their errors is against the judgements of the greatest lights.  
Ans. It is granted, Therefore you might have spared your labour, in citing your ancient fathers: For in all that you do herein, I oppose you not.  
YOur fifth Reason, is that the Magistrates tolerating of errors, and new opinions, is a kind of invitation to them, &c.  
Ans. This thing I grant.  
And therefore the Magistrates ought not to tolerate errors, or any opinion that is not grounded upon the word of God; And therefore I conceive it to be the Magistrates duty, to make trial of the Synod, whether their gathering together be according to the word of God? or according to the customs of this kingdom? 
☜  And whether they be not of the same nature with the Synod which used to sit in the Convocation house? And whether any decree which they shall now pitch upon [not having the Scripture for their warrant] may be consented unto? And though it have the Scripture for their warrant, whether there be ever the more weight in it for their decreeing of it: and it greatly concerneth the Parliament to consider whether the Assembly have any thing to do with the things of God, [while they stand Priests by their OLD-POPISH-CALLING,] And that upon your ground (namely) that the Magistrates ought not to tolerate errors, or new opinions.  
And all ways, and practices, are new, and strange, which have not warrant in the word of God.  
IN your sixt Reason, you plead against a toleration of different forms of Church government, for fear of division among Ministers and families (you say) it will not stand with Christian policy, but it will stand with Matchevillian.  
Mr. Edwards, If Christian policy might take place in the kingdom of England, and all your Matchivillian policy banished out, there would be no striving then about different forms of Religion; but Christ's true Religion and Gospel would then have a free passage without interposing, for the free tollerating of it will produce no mischiefs, nor evils at all; And it is not we, that plead for different forms of Church government, but your own party. 
☞  We plead but for one entire government established upon sound principles, unalterable. And not a government which may look with several faces, in several times, upon several occasions, according to men's fancies.  
And therefore it had been better for you to have held your tongue, than made so many repetitions of things which have been sufficiently answered long ago.  
YOur seventh Reason is, that Independency, or the Church way, as being a schism in forsaking the Reformed Churches, and constituting new, the way of constituting Churches by the people, the way of making their Ministers, the refusing of believers and their children to the Sacraments unless they be Church members, with many more, are all flat against the primitive pattern, &c.  
In these words you have so jumbled things together as it were in a broken language. 
Answer.  If you mean that the way of Separation from your false Churches, & their way of making ministers, & constituting Churches, is contrary to the primitive pattern, you speak untruly; for they make the primitive pattern their rule: And then (for their refusing of believers and their children from the Sacraments, unless they be members of their Church,) in this you accuse them unjustly also: for they do admit believers, and their Infants to the ordinance of baptism, though they be not members of a particular congregation: for they are not capable to be members before baptism, (in respect of order) and to partake of the Supper, till they be in [particular] Church fellowship. And this I will engage myself to maintain against you, if it please you to dispute the case; And therefore you had no need to have branded this practice, with such a black badge, to call it the fountain of evil, and root of bitterness and manifold errors and other mischiefs. For this is but your bitter language against the truth.  
And if you intend to make your rejoinders, and large tractates (which you brag of,) of such stuff as you have made this Antipologia; It were better for you to put on a buff coat, & to go fight in the Army against your enemies, then to sit at home to slander and accuse your friends, even those who ne●er did, nor thought harm to you or any other.  
YOur eighth Reason is a commendation of the presbyterial way, and that by the testimony of many fathers, and the testimony of the Scottish Commishioners.  
But you say there will be objected a passage against it, in a book lately printed of M. simpson's. 
☜   
Answ. I leave Mr. Simpson and you to try it ou●.  
But if you had so defined your Presbyterian government, and set down your bounds and limits, what, and what not, according as you call upon the Apologists, to define their Church way, than you should have had my judgement of it, here, to the full. But to judge and determine so of a thing, which is not yet begotten, or brought forth in this kingdom, is not so easy a matter, neither do we know what form or shape it will have when it is brought forth. [It may (for aught I know) be a MONSTER like the Image of the seven beaded beast,] and if it be found defective, 
Rev. 13.24.  than all, who have taken the national Covenant, are (by your own confession) to endeavour the exterpation of it. Yea, And further (you say) as the Parliament will not be respecters of persons, or partial, they must grant no toleration, but what is agreeable to sound doctrine.  
In this you speak very true, although indeed you cross many of your former speeches. And therefore the way to decide the controversy, is to seize writing of such large tractates, wherein you do but (as it were) pick straws (and make abundance of repetitions, to trifle away the time,) (In my judgement) (I say) It were better (for yourself, and Mr. Samuel Rutherford, and Mr. A.S. (or any of you, 
☞  or whomsoever the Parliament shall appoint,) to produce Scripture and good reason for your way, (if you can) and let as many of the Ministers of the Congregations of the Separation, have freedom to produce Scripture, and sound reason, for their way, [in a free conference.] And let the houses of Parliament who are able to judge of the great, and weighty businesses of the kingdom (let them I say) have the hearing, and trial of the conference, and as things are cleared, so let them allow, or disallow. And this is according to your counsel (in pag. 304. of your Antipologia where you say. To conclude, If the way of independency be of God, 
☞  and the Apollogists can make that good, let it be established by Parliament, and let all come to that; but if not (say you) why then should it be tolerated. In this I think you say right, stand to this, and let it come to the trial; and do not insinuate against the Church way, as you have done (in this page, and divers other places of your book) where you say, the devil would affect th●●lleration of it. For that toleration which the devil would affect, is that toleration, which you would slanderously father upun us, and not the toleration we seek for.  
And therefore I would have you to correct your language, and search and try your ways, (as you exhort the Apollogists to do;) Consider with what spirit, and intention you writ this book, Let your conscience reflect upon what is plainly laid down before you, in the Answer to your former book, and in this. And do not seek shifts, and superfuges. Consider and receive admonition, though it be from a woman. I am sure many godly persons and Churches beyond the seas, are grieved at your writing, as well as in this Country.  
Consider how that though you were, cried up by the worser sort, whose Champion you were become, and that your confidence was so, of carrying any thing, and saying any thing, yet your wit (so strong for you,) hath deceived you. 
☜  Let my council (therefore) be acceptable unto you, Repent, Repent, of making this antipology, give glory to God, and recant it, testify your Repentance by coming out of your false estate, and recall this Antipologia. I have showed unto you the greatness of your sin, and folly in particular, in making this Antipologia, as well as your former book: They were both unseasonable, disordered, sinful and ungrounded vapours; scandalising the Churches of Christ: There are many untruths in them both, & that not only where you make naked relations of Tales, but where you make profession before God, and the World, to bring sufficient reasons; when indeed you bring nothing but shadows and fig-leaves. And this sin of yours is aggravated, by your labouring to bring the houses to consent unto you, to keep under the people of God, and to root them out of the kingdom, or at least not to suffer them to perform public worship, in the way which God requireth. Now if a simple, and single untruth need repentance, what repentance ought there to be for such a compounded aggravated evil as your is? And as I have represented it to your own conscience, that you may repent and be humbled: So I turn you over to the Parliament, to deal with you for the same.  
Now if you had been a Member of a true Church, I could have admonished you in another way, 
☜  But you [being in disorder] could not be dealt with by such an Order.  For what have I to do to judge them also that are without. 1 Cor. 5.12. 
FINIS.