THE ACCOUNT AUDITED, Or the Date of the Resurrection OF THE WITNESSES, Pretended to be demonstrated by M. Cary a Minister.  
Examined by a Friend to the Truth and Ministry.  LUKE 21.36. 
Watch ye, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.  
LONDON, Printed for T.R. & E. M. in the year 1649.   

The Account Audited, OR The date of the RESURRECTION of the WITNESSES pretended to be demonstrated by M. Cary a Minister.  
WHen I first saw the Title Page of M. Cary's Book posted up, professing a clear demonstration, that the Resurrection of the Witnesses, spoken of in Revel. 11. was accomplished; I was glad to see a Treatise of that nature come forth: partly as supposing that the Lord might have brought to public view, some more satisfactory Exposition of that difficult Scripture, than had yet seen the light; but chief as conceiving some hopes, that peradventure the sad season might be already past for the slaying of the Witnesses; the near approach whereof is much feared by many of the Saints. And as naturally men are apt to believe things to be as they desire to have them; so did I find more willingness in my mind, to dispose me to close with the Author's judgement, than I found reason in that Book to persuade me to it; for when that Treatise came to my hands, I read it over with much greediness and expectation, till I came to that place, where the commencement with the expiring of the time for the Witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, is stated, which if rightly placed, would have been the Key to unlock the Controversies of the Text; but being misplaced served only to check my expectation; for, if specious allusions (of which the Au hor is not destitute) could have cleared the text without the right clue of Chronology, the task had been long since performed by divers others; who not only with as good colour for the phrase of the context, but also with much mor● exactness for the Historical application, have published their conjectures upon it.  
This Author professes to go a way different from all others: for in the Epistle to the Reader I find these words, That which I chief aim at in this discourse, is that which is not yet printed by any other, and whether any other have yet observed it, I know not. And yet so confident is this Female-Minister M. Cary in her sole invention; as if there might not be so much as room left to doubt whether she had performed her undertaking; for thus I find in the Postscript, that the Witnesses are indeed slain, and risen, and do stand upon their feet, is altogether unquestionable, because (as appears by the foregoing discourse) this prophecy of the slaying of the Witnesses and of their rising, etc. is in every particular jota and tittle of it most exactly accomplished; the like confidence she discovers in the Epistle Dedicatory, and in the Preamble, and in divers other passages of the Book. And truly it is pity that a woman of her parts should build with so much confidence upon so rotten a foundation; the discovery whereof is the drift of these following lines.  
As there are many things in that Book which are good, and of which a Christian improvement may be made; so are there divers passages, both in her exposition, and also in her application, which are liable to just exception; yet that part concerning the time of the Resurrection of the Witnesses, is that which I purposely chose to debate, 1. Because the Author's main confidence lies there. 2. Because most of the other mistakes in that Treatise will stand or fall with the date of the Resurrection, as being either strained to comply with it, or drawn by inference from it. 3. Because the ordinary Reader may be most apt to pass over those passages of the Book without search, 1. through credulity, not suspecting what the Author obtrudes for granted; or, 2. for want of skill in ciphring, not being able to cast up the Accounts of years and days mentioned by the Author; or, 3. through want of History, not being furnished with such Books as handle the matters of fact, which the Author relates; which things, as I have diligently searched into for my own satisfaction, concerning the time stated in M. Cary's Book: so I judged it my duty, having seen the Author's mistakes in that point, to publish briefly somewhat to keep others from being carried away in those mistakes.  
That the way of my proceeding may be the more clear, I shall desire the Christian Reader to take notice of thus much, the time of the Resurrection of the Witnesses which is the matter in difference between us, is that of which we read, Revel. 11. ver. 11. in these words, And after three days and an half, the Spirit of life from God intred into them, and they stood upon their feet. M. Cary in her exposition upon this verse in the 100 page of her Book writes thus, The fifth day of April 1645. did the Witnesses, the Saints stand upon their feet, having a Spirit of life from God put upon them. This is the Author's assertion, whose ground I shall recite and examine. Only by the way; if any should ask, what is meant by the two Witnesses? Wilson in his Dictionary for the Revelation, resolus it in these words [two Witnesses] a competent number of faithful Preachers, which testify against the errors of Antichrist, and for the Doctrine of Christ; thus he; and this, so fare as I can learn, is the most received interpretation; for my own part, though I will not now engage to determine what sort of persons the Witnesses are, yet I shall acquaint the Reader with this, that by Patrick Forbes, in his Commentary upon the Revelations, page 88 is hinted to us, as also it is by others (though M. Cary takes no notice of it; and indeed it makes not for her purpose) viz. that Elias and Moses (those two which appeared with Christ at his transfiguration, Matth. 17.) are held forth as the types of the two Witnesses, and thus much is intimated to us in the description of the Witnesses in Revel. 11. v. 5, 6. which I shall thus make out to you, by comparing Scripture with Scripture. 1. Elias is hinted in verse 5. in these words, If any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies; and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed: This description hath reference to Elias (who also is called Elijah, thus much is clear from 2 Kings 1.10. And Elijah answered and said to the Captain of fifty, if I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty; and there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty, Luke 9.54. and when his Disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?  
Elias also is hinted in ver. 6. in these words, these have power to shut heaven, that is rain not in the days of their prophecy; that this description hath reference to Elijah, will be easily gathered from these texts, 1 Kings 17.1. Elijah the Tishbits, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, as the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my words. James 5.17. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and it reigned not in the earth for the space of three years and six months.  
2. Moses is hinted in the following part of the 6. verse in these words, and have power over waters to turn them to blood; that this is spoken with reference to Moses is clear from Exodus 7.17. Behold, I will smite with the rod that is in my hand, upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood, Exod. 17.5. the Lord said to Moses, go on before the people, and take with thee of the Elders of Israel; and thy rod wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thy hand.  
Moses also is hinted in the next expression of the 6. verse, in these words, and to smite the earth with all plagues; that this is spoken with reference to Moses, is clear from Deut. 34.10, 11. There arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and the wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land. The variety of Plagues wherewith Moses smote the earth, is more at large declared in the History in Exod. to which I refer the Reader.  
And now I shall give you the account, which M. Cary lays down to make good her opinion, that on the fifth of April 1645. was the day of the Resurrection of the Witnesses: which, that I may deal fairly both with the Author and the Reader, take thus at large in her own words.  
Page 81. and 82. that term of time which the Beast was to continue, and the Saints to be trodden under foot, and to prophesy in seack-cloth, is a thousand two hundred and threescore years as appears pag. 62. Now this 1260 years, being added to the year wherein the beast received his devilish power, and seat, and great authority, in the reign of Phocas the Emperor; which was, as say Historians, in the year 404. I say, adding to this 1260. it makes up 1664. and this year 1664. should be the year wherein the Witnesses should finish their giving testimony, clothed in sackcloth: if this 1260. years should be computed according to the rule of Astronomers, allowing 365. days to a year, and to every fourth year adding a day more: but we find that the holy Ghost in this prophecy, not observing that rule, doth allow but 360. days to a year, and according to that rule 1260. days to three years and an half, and therefore in computing the time of the Witnesses, prophesying in sackcloth, we are to observe the rule which the holy Ghost here lays down, to allow 360. days to a year, and so the time of the Witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, is to expire eighteen years and almost an half, sooner than as by the other account, and so the beginning of the year 1645. was the time, etc.  
And page 98. and 99 on the 23. day of October 1641. did the beast begin the war in Ireland, and he continued overcoming the Witnesses, the Saints of Jesus Christ in Ireland and in England, until the fifth day of April. 1645. and from the 23. of October 1641. unto the fifth of April 1645. there is just a thousand two hundred and sixty days; which according to the Scripture account, (though not according to the heathen account) is three years and a half complete: and when this three years and a half were expired; which was I say, on the fifth of April 1645. then was the Resurrection of the Witnesses, for they having lain dead for three years and a half before; then the Spirit of life from God entered into them: and the year 1645. as it is the year wherein the Witnesses were raised from the dead, so it is the year wherein the term of time in which they were to prophesy in sackcloth, and to be trodden under foot was to expire, and the year also wherein the prevailing power of the Beast over the Saints was to expire, as is made evident in the opening of the 2 verse page 60. etc. Now that on the fifth day of April 1645. the Saints, Witnesses, and Servants of Jesus Christ were raised up, and that then a Spirit of life from God entered into them, appears thus: on the fifth day of April 1645 the Parliaments Army, who had stood for the defence of the Saints against the Beast, and had been before that time exceedingly overcome, and were brought into a very low condition at that time, being new modelled, and having a great many precious Saints in it, both eminent Commanders, and inferior Officers and common Soldiers; and being then put under the conduct of Sir Thomas Fairfax; they than began to march against the enemy, and then had a Spirit of life from God that entered into them, etc.  
Upon this account the Author is confident, that her new tenet is sufficiently demonstrated: to which I enter my dissent; and now come to show you upon what grounds I am unsatisfied with what I have transcribed out of that Book, and shall desire the ingenuous Reader to weigh the following exceptions which I shall lay down, according to the order wherein the things I except against are laid down.  

1. Exception.  
The Author tells us page 81 and 82. That Historians say, the year 40●. was the year wherein the Beast received his devilish power and seat in the reign of Phocas the Emperor. This being the first root of the Account, deserves throughly to be examined, as being of greatest influence into the present controversy. I shall therefore debate it fully, wherein we might have made a more short cut; if the Author had told us who are those Historians, and where they say so. I have upon this occasion perused variety of Historians: but all that I have met with do make the History of Phocas at least 200. y. later.  
In the fourth Book of ancient History, which out of several Authors treats of the Roman Emperors for above 700. years after Christ, I find but one Emperor Phocas mentioned, and no other of that or the like name; & concerning him I there read thus: That Mauricius the Emperor being by dream forewarned of a conspiracy against him by Phocas a Commander of some forces in the borders of Sarmatia, this Mauricius sent for his son in Law Philip, and acquainted him therewith: Philip wondering at it, told the Emperor that he knew the man, namely Phocas, to be one that durst not attempt such a design; as being too fearful, though wicked enough to do it; to which Mauricius replied, that he had the more reason to take heed of him, because those which are fearful, when once they assay wicked enterprises, know not how to give over, but act with the more cruelty: & so it proved in the event; for this Phocas murdered the Emperor Mauricius and his three sons, and then being chosen Emperor by that wicked Army whose leader he was, did at the instance of Pope Boniface the third, appoint the seat of Rome to be the head of all Churches.  
Szegedin in his Lookingglass of the Popes, writes thus. Boniface the third, was by Phocas the Emperor (who was an adulterer, parricide, and Tyrant) confirmed chief and supreme over all Bishops.  
Doctor Favour in his book of antiquity, p. 436. writes thus. This Mystery of iniquity, in the days of Phocas the Emperor that had murdered his Master Mauricius, and usurped his crown, began to work more strongly. For Boniface (Bishop of Rome) obtained of Phocas, that the Church of Rome should be the head of all Churches.  
This is the substance of what Historians speak concerning the preeminence of the Roman Bishops obtained in the reign of Phocas, and in this we agree, but the difference lies concerning the time, which M. Cary affirms to be in the year 404. and I find to be in the year 604. or rather a little after; for though Phocas might have begun his reign in 604. yet the donation of the supremacy to Boniface, might well be after that year, which I the rather assent to, because our industrious Country man Barns the Martyr tells us in his Treatise of the lives of the Popes, that Sabinian predecessor to Boniface, lived under Phocas the Emperor, and for this he citys Platina and Volaterranus; and Pareus also in his Marrow of Ecclesiastical History, makes Phocas' grant of the supremacy to Boniface the third, to be after the first year of his Empire.  
I shall now for the satisfaction of the Reader, set down what I have met with in other Authors, word for word, with directions to the places where they may turn to them, which take as follows.  
In the state of the Church, translated out of French into English, page 183. In the year 604. Phocas after he had wickedly slain his Master, was chosen by the unlucky Army whereof he had charge; a very slave of covetousness, who handled secret matters with Courtiers after the manner of the Persians, and sold the offices of Magistrates and judgements, dearly loved such as tormented the people by rapine and extortion: this is he who first ordained that Rome should be the chief of all Churches.  
In the Treatise of the lives of the Popes written in Spanish by Cyprian Valera, and translated into English, pag. 34. In the 605. year died Sabinianus [whose successor] Boniface the third being Patriach of Rome, was made Pope by means of Phocas the Emperor, who was an adulterer, murderer, and tyrant; a murderer I call him, for that to make himself Emperor (as he did) he murdered Mauricius his Lord and Christian Emperor.  
In Morneys Mystery of Iniquity, pag. 117. Boniface the third in the year 605. to effect that which his predecessors had projected, took his advantage, seeing the Emperor Phocas on the one side displeased with Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople, because he would not approve of his murders; and on the other, jealous the hatred of his deal might happily cause Italy to revolt from under him: and thereupon he asked, and by the proffers which he made of his good service obtained of him, that the Church of Rome should thence forward be the head of all other Churches, and the Bishop of Rome should be called the Sovereign and Universal Bishop.  
In heylin's Microcosmus the fifth Edition, pag 179. Phocas having killed the Emperor Mauricius, his wife and children An. 604. to assure himself of Italy ready to revolt from so barbarous a tyrant, made Boniface the third Universal Bishop, and head of the Church; before this time the Bishops of Constantinople and Ravenna, did often dispute with the Bishops of Rome for superiority; the seat of Religion commonly following the seat of the Empire, and the Bishop of Constantinople prevailed so far, that with the permission of Mauricius the Emperor, he took upon him the title of Universal Patriarch.  
As for the year 404. which M. Cary builds upon for the History of Phocas the Emperor, and his donation of the supremacy to the Church of Rome, I shall say this farther; that it may appear to any that have opportunity to search into Histories; that there was no such Emperor as Phocas, in or near that time, but the Emperors at that time were (according to Historians) Arcadius and Honorias. To clear this yet more fully, I shall give you a Catalogue of the Emperors as I find it in heylin's Microcosmus, Edition the first, pag. 88 Italy continued a m mber of the Empire till the year 399. in which Theodosius the great divided the Empire; to Arcadius his elder son he gave the Eastern, to Honorius the younger the Western part of this Monarchy.  

The Western Emperors in the year  
399 Honorius.  
458 Severianus  
4●5 Valentinianus.  
462 Anthemius  
454 Maximianus.  
467 Orestes  
473 Augustulus the last that ever kept his daily residence in Italy, a thing ominous, that Augustus should establish and Augustulus ruinated that spacious Monarchy.   

And pag. 219. the Constantinopolitan Emperors in the year  
399 Arcadius  
412 Theodosius the 2d  
454 Martianus  
461 Leo  
478 Zeno  
494 Anastasius  
521 Justinus  
528 Justinianus  
566 Justinus the 2d  
577 Tiberius  
584 Mauritius  
604 Phocas who made the Bishops of Rome Popes, and heads of the Church.   
As I have thus by a List of the Roman Emperors proved, that Phocas his donation to Boniface the third could not be near the y. 404. So I might in the next place show the like by the List of the Roman Bishops; for Boniface the first of that name Bishop of R me is placed by Historians after the year 404. and there were above twenty Bishops of Rome successively between Boniface the first and Boniface the third, as may appear by this Catalogue.  

Boniface the first  
1 Caelestinus  
2 Sixtus 3.  
3 Leo  
4 Hilarius  
5 Simplicius  
6 Foelix 3.  
7 G●lasius  
8 Anastasius 2  
9 Symmichus  
10 Hormisda  
11 John 1  
12 Foelix 4  
13 Boniface the second  
14 John 2  
15 Agapetus  
16 Sylverius  
17 Vigilius  
18 Pelagius 1  
19 John 3  
20 Benedict  
21 Pelagius 2  
22 Gregory the great  
23 Sabinianus   
Boniface the third, in whose time Phocas gave the cheifdome to the Roman Seat.  
Having thus abundantly discovered the gross Error, which is the foundation of M. Cary's reckoning; who pretends to calculate the Resurrection of the Witnesses to a very day; I shall leave it to the head of prudence with the heart of charity to consider, whence so gross a mistake of 200 years could arise. I have cast about in my thoughts to see how a mistake of this nature could, in an Author of such abilities, be interpreted more favourably than a wilful misreckoning; and two ways I do apprehend that possibly the mistake might be entertained unawares. 1. Peradventure the Author might have read in some History book, the year 404 misprinted for 604. for misprinting of one figure might happily fall out in some Copy penned of that subject; though I have not yet met with that misprint in any one of those Treatises, or in any of those Editions, which I have sought out and diligently compared on set Purpose. 2. Peradventure the Author might not have read the History of Phocas; but only received it upon hear-say, and so she might either have mistake the Relator, or swallowed down the relators mistake; and this later conjecture I look upon as the most probable in that it suits b●st with her own words; for she doth not say, as historians writ; but as say Historians. Thus have I given my Reader the best light I can, to furnish his charity with a favourable construction of the foresaid mistake, which may in part excuse the Author's credulity, but will not be able to justify her confidence, nor her cause; for, the correcting of this mistake, if the rest of her account hold good, will make the Resurrection of the Witnesses to fall out 200. years later than she counts for; namely in the year 1845. and this shall suffice for my first and principal Exception.   

2. Exception.  
The Author pag. 82. deducing from the astronomical years, five days in a year, and one day every fourth year, for the space of 1260. years, doth abate for it 18 years and almost in half: which if it be mean of astronomical years (which are the years that she doth subtract) doth not amount to so much: for, five times 1260. days and 315. days put together, make but 6615, which is not 18. astronomical years and a quarter, no nor half a quarter; for, it is but ●0. days over the 18. years.   

3. Exception.  
The Author pag. 82. from the year which in ordinary account is 1664 deducing 18. years and almost an half (for the difference betwixt the astronomical account, and the account which she follows) tells us, that then the account will fall in the beginning of the year 1645. the falsehood whereof I shall thus discover: to the beginning of the year 1645. add almost half a year, and it will be about the midst of the year 1645. to which add the 18 years, and it will be in the 1663. not in 1664. the deduction therefore of 18. y. and almost an half, though we should begin the deduction from the very first day of the year 1664. will make the account to fall out after the midst of the year 1645. which is about half a year later than M. Cary counts.   

4. Exception.  
The Author pag. 98. makes the time of the Witnesses lying dead for three years and a half, to begin on the day when the War began in Ireland; which how it will stand with what the Author says elsewhere, I know not, unless we should make the Saints in England to lie dead from the first day of the War in Ireland; which how rational it is let indifferent men judge; & yet thus it must be upon her grounds: for, by the Witnesses she understands (at least principally) the Saints in England; for thus she explains herself, pag. 87. as the War in England and Ireland was made by the Beast, so it was made by him against the Witnesses, the Saints, and precious ones of Jesus Christ; for that which is done against the most considerable number of Saints, is done against the whole; as being the way to prevail over all. Now in England there are a more considerable number of the faithful servants and Witnesses of jesus Christ, then in any Kingdom in the world, as one truly said, England is the richest ship in the world; for God hath more of those precious jewels in it, than he hath i● any other Kingdom in the world.   

5. Exception.  
The Author pag. 98. makes the fifth of April 1645. to be the day of the Resurrection of the Witnesses, wherein she contradicts her own account, pag. 82. but, because this exception hath affinity with the third, I shall say no more to it but this; that if she had made her day for the Resurrection of the Witness a year later, she would have agreed with her own account, which now she doth not: for, her abated 18. years and almost a half, added to April the fifth 1646. would have made the day to have fallen out in the year 1664. as the 1260. added to her 404. makes up the same account.   

6. Exception.  
The Author pag. 98. makes the time of the Resurrection of the Witnesses, and the expiring of the time for prophesying in sack cloth, to be all one, and so the time that the Witnesses lie dead, must be three years and an half before the finishing of their testimony: which, how contrary it is to the Scripture, will easily appear, Revel 11.3.7. I will give power unto my two Witnesses, and they shall prophesy 1260 days clothed in sackcloth, and when they shall have finished their testimony, the Beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall over come them, and kill them. I shall here only insert a passage out of Brightman on the Revelations, printed in the year 1644. his words in pag. 372. of that impression, are these, Thy time of three days and a half beginneth not before the 1260. days be ended; for so it is said afore, and when they have finished. Besides, the Prophets lay killed and unburied for these three days and a half, but the time of the 1260. days is the time of their prophesying in sackcloth; so that they can by no means be referred to the same time.   

7. Exception.  
The Author pag. 99 makes the Resurrection of the Witnesses to be an army business, which I see no reason for, but rather reasons against it; which I shall briefly propose in behalf of my Exception.  
My first reason is taken from the context in Revel. 11. when the Witnesses are in slaying, the slaying of them indeed is described as an army business, ver. 7. in these words, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them: but when the holy Ghost speaks of the Resurrection of the Witnesses, it is in another strain, ver. 11. and after 3. days and an half, the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon them that saw them. Here is no warlike word used; & though it is said that a great fear fell upon others at the Resurrection of the Witnesses; yet it is not said it fell upon the Beast that slew them, or upon their enemies; but it is said indefinitely, it fill upon them that saw them: for such an astonishing work of God as that in Ezek. 37. (whence the phrases are taken) might cause a fear, though of a different kind, to fall upon all the spectators both friends and enemies: and though it may be granted, that a singular fear might fall upon their enemies, in respect of their great guilt in slaying of them, and the unexpected check to their insulting over them when they were slain; yet this fear might well be without an army, by some special presence of God shining forth in the Witnesses. As after that Herod had beheaded John the Baptist, and Christ's fame was spread, though Christ had no army with him, Herod was perplexed: and why did he fear? was it not because it was said by some, that John the Baptist was risen from the dead? by some, that Elias; by some, that one of the old Prophets? as you may read Luke c. 9 v. 7, 8, 9  
My second reason is taken from the description of the Witnesses, in Revel. 11. v. 4. under the phrase of Candlesticks, and Olive-trees; the exposition of both which might be taken from Zach. 4. where we shall find expressions rather excluding then implying the aid of an Army; that Zach. 4. doth explain the later expression, is acknowledged by M. Cary pag. 69. and pag. 70. in these words, These two Witnesses are the two Olive-trees; in that they are said to be (the) two Olive-trees, it implies it hath reference to some passages of Scripture, wherein there is a former mention of them. Now the place where they are mentioned is Ezek 4. so that Zechariah doth prophesy of these two Winesses, under the expression of two Olive-trees. Now in that place, Zach. 4.4. we find that the Prophet doth ask the Angel, what these be; and then the Angel makes this answer, this is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts; Who art thou O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain, and he shall bring forth the head stone thereof with shoutings, crying, grace, grace unto it. In this text thus cited by M. Cary, observe, how expressly the aid of armies is excluded by a double bar, ver. 6. in these words, not by might, nor by power; where, by the way, it is observable, that the marginal note in our Bibles, instead of might, reads arm.   

8. Exception.  
The Author pag. 99 for the reason why the fifth day of April 1645. should be the day of the Witnesses Resurrection, lays down this; that the Parliaments army being new modelled, began then to march against the enemy, to which I have four things to say.  
1. That the Author leaves us in a great mist, to find out so glorious a day as the Resurrection of the Witnesses; for she tells us only in general of the new modelled armies beginning to march against the enemies; but whether the new model were then completed, or but begun, she tells us not; nor yet whether the main body of the army began then to march, or some small parts of it; nor, whether that part of the army which then began to march (if indeed any did then march) were at that time new modelled or not, nor whence they marched that day, nor whether they marched that day, nor upon what service, nor under what special Leader; nor any the like circumstances, by which the truth of what she affirms might be tried.  
2. Suppose it could appear by credible testimony, that some part of the army did march on April the fifth 1645. and that that party did march against an enemy, and that that party was new modelled before its march, and that they were the first forces that did march being new modelled: though all this should be supposed to be true; yet this would be but a poor matter to make a day of Resurrection: and I appeal to any indifferent persons, whose judgements are for a martial Resurrection; whether many, and many passages might not be observed, both in this army since the new modelling of it, and in the Parliaments army before the new modelling, and in other armies in former ages, which might with better colour lay claim to the dignity of ushering in the Witnesses Resurrection.  
3. I have with much inquisitive endeavoured to find out what particular passage might cause the 5 of April to be singled out as the day of the Witnesses Resurrection, rather than any other day in April, or any other day in the whole year: and I can find none besides M. Cary that makes any mention of any passage in the army as on that day. I have, by me, three several Lists of passages of the army in that year, and none of them doth mention the fifth of April, or so much as intimate any action, march, or motion, on that day. I have perused many other printed Lists, and I find not that day at all taken notice of in any of them; but other days in that month I find mentioned with remarkable passages on them. And here I shall leave it to the Reader to judge, how likely it is that the Resurrection of the Witnesses, which should fill the spectators with fear, could pass undiscerned by those, who have made it their work to observe the footsteps of Providence in the army, if indeed it were an army providence, and at that time, when the observations of so many were at work about the new model.  
4. Master Sprig, a man unlikely to deprive the army of any deserved honour, and likely to know more of the passages of the army then M. Cary: in his large book called England's Recovery; being the History of the motions, actions and successes of the army under the immediate conduct of his Excellency (then) Sir Thomas Fairfax, in that Treatise makes no mention (that I could find) of that fifth of April, nor intimates any thing suitable to what M. Cary relates in order thereto; but rather the contrary, so far as I can judge from these ensuing passages, which I shall give you in his own words, Sir Thomas Fairfax having with much modesty accepted this command, immediately applies himself to the discharge of it; it was the first of April ere his Commission was granted, and the third of April he went from London to Windsor, to see and personally to assist in the framing of a new army. His Excellency continued at Windsor from the third to the last of April in that work, the difficulty whereof might well account for this time, if it had been a longer space; considering that besides the fitting of the trains for the field, and the attendance of the 〈◊〉 from London, which with the old that continued, were to make up the ●●…signed number, an entire new form was to be introduced into the whole army the forces that remained of the whole army being not only to be recruited, bu●… to be reduced into new companies and regiments, as if they had been new ra●sed, pag. 9 and afterwards pag. 15. the first of May his Excellency began hi● march with the whole army, in this first march of the new model, etc.  
Now Reader weigh impartially what thou hast read, and so I leav● it to thine own judgement to determine, whether the pretended demonstration of M. Cary be more than a partial fancy, and whether her single opinion be not maintained with more than single mistakes, if thou art one who will't own the truth in these times; Farewell, and pray for the faith and patience of the Saints.   
FINIS.   

Imprimatur,  
April 11. 1649. JO. DOWNAME.