A VINDICATION OF Mr BURROUGHES, Against Mr EDWARDS his foul Aspersions, in his spreading Gangraena, and his angry Antiapologia.  
Concluding with A BRIEF DECLARATION What the INDEPENDENTS would have.  
By JER: BURROUGHES.  JER. 20.10. 
Report, say they, and we will report.  PROV. 18.8. 
The words of a tale-bearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.  Tertul. advers. Hermogenem. 
Hermogenes natura turbulentus, qui loquacitatem facundiam existimet, & impudentiam constantiam deputet, & maledicere singulis officium bonae conscientiae judicet.  
LONDON, Printed for H. Overton, and are to be sold at his shop at the entering into Popes-head Alley out of . MDCXLVI.   

A Vindication of Mr Burroughes, Against M. Edward's his foul Aspersions.  
ALthough I may venture upon the testimony of the consciences of those who know me, to vindicate me from M. Edward's his foul aspersions; 
Nec audiendi sunt quando reprehensa in aliquo negligentia sua, per quam fit ut in malam suspicionem vemant, unde suam vitam longe abesse sciunt, dicunt sibi coram Deo sufficere conscientiam, existimationem hominum non imprudenter solum, verumetiam 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 dried tinder to his sire, (if men were willing to be undeceived, and not to run away with foolish conceits.) I thought it might not be amiss to spend an hour or two upon this vain man. Augustine says, Those are not to be harkened to, who having suspicion 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 esteem of men do not only imprudently contemn, but in it are cruel: That is, as he after expresses himself against others which are hindered in the good they might get by them, because the suspicion raised is not removed: For, says he, A good life is necessary for ourselves, but a good fame for others. You do well to yourself in being careful of your life, but you are merciful to others in being careful of your name. Wherefore though mine own conscience is enough to satisfy myself against what ever M. Edward's 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 Ministry, which I was moved unto by a Letter sent to me from a good and worthy friend, I shall now do that which I had thought I should never have brought my heart unto, viz. to spend time in the vindication of myself. Might the hurt go no farther than myself, if I did not do it, the meanest employment in the world should rather take up my time then this, but something must be done. John was of a most loving, sweet, and gentle temper, yet having to deal with a man of an evil spirit, he speaks contemptuously of him, I will remember (says he) his deeds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prating against us with malicious words. Such a naughty spirit appears 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 sweetness of love, or meekness in it; had I to deal with him alone, I should only answer him in the words of the Angel, Judas 9 The Lord rebuke thee. Yet the man is very impatient that he hath no Answer, he concludes, and would have others to do so too, that all he says 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 rail, so as to be bound to take off ourselves from whatsoever employments God hath set us about, to attend the answering of whatsoever he says or writes; I hope I shall give God a better account of my time then so. Whatsoever M. Edward's hath written or said concerning me, I bless God I can with comfort spread it before him, and entreat him to judge between us.  
He thinks he hath done God and his Brothers 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, than he hath been to the Presbytery; I doubt whether there ever was any in the Christian world who was looked upon as a man professing godliness in that height that he hath been, that ever manifested so much boldness and malice against such as himself acknowledges to be godly, as he hath done; Were there nothing but the Presbyterial opinion that made the difference between him and me, I should not abate my esteem of his godliness in the least, for I believe there are as godly Presbyterians as Independents. But that fiery rage, that implacable irrational violence of his, makes me stand and wonder at him, not so much for recording stories that he hears, but that hearing such vile reproachful things against such as he owns to be godly, and the persons thus reproached living near him in the City, who it may be might satisfy him in the falseness of the reports, so as to keep him from 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 himself 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 Jesuitical Maxim, Fortiter calumniare, aliquid haerebit, Calumniate lustily, boldly, no matter whether it be true or false, something will stick. I believe this example can hardly be paralleled in any age. How is it possible that he should ever right those he has wronged, if he says he will recant if he can be convinced wherein any is wronged? That will not do 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 men's 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 foul work.  
There is an odious disease in nature, casting up the excrementitious filthiness at the mouth, which is no less noisome than dangerous, therefore the Physicians 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 contain, break forth into distemper of words, and pour it out in unsavoury language; such we must leave to a Miserere mei. But is M. Edward's sick of this disease? Doth not he profess his zeal for God, his dependence upon God for assistance very often?  
Ans. Yes he doth, but I fear he takes God's name much in vain in so doing; set aside the difference of his judgement, I cannot believe that God will ever own that way he takes; and whether he hath that filthy disease mentioned, if you can endure to look upon the loathsome stuff 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 says he was reproached, but he was not willing to be provoked, or to trouble himself at the barking of every dog; 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 known ancient godly man, a Schoolmaster, yet for aught I know no Independent, is he a dog in M. Edward's his mouth and pen? If M. Edward's and his party rise in their spirits according to this proportion, how can we live near 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 look upon them as dogs beneath them? I speak of M. Edward's and his party, because he says so many have given him thanks for his Book.  
In his last book I find 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 says is full of Jesuitical equivocation. Yea further, no equivocation can free it from a lie. Bona verba. After master Edward's 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 plainness of it to be a witness against him: what! beyond equivocation? no less than a flat lie. This is the first time that ever any man gave me the lie. But I pray Master Edward's how do you know it is a lie? How? Master Allen (he mistakes the man's name, the man he means is Master Awl) an honest understanding man he says told him so, and after justified it in Master Bellamy's shop in the presence of many; This is the only witness Master Edward's hath against me: as for Master Randal whom he mentions, he speaks only of Nicols his being with M. Greenhil at another time, not of that meeting I testify against, nor any thing about my knowledge of him, nor any thing that Master Greenhill denies. Howsoever than it is but ones I, and ones No: and yet how many have drunk in this report as dirty and foul as it is? surely there is a spirit in men that makes them very thirsty after Calumnies and reproaches. But what if this only witness M. Edward's hath to prove me a Liar, shall give it under his hand that that testimony of mine is true, what if that which M. Edwards in the strength of that witness shall say is a lie, I shall be able in the strength of the same witness, say is true; where will the lie stick then? After M. john goodwin's Book came out, I met with this M. Awl, and in the presence of many, caused him to turn to that page where my testimony is, and to read it; I than 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 took pen and ink, saying, he would write according to what he apprehended, and so fare as he knew, and wrote these words, subscribing his name:  
That the Testimony of M. Burroughes which M. John Goodwin, pag. 42. saith he hath under his hand about Nicols, is true.  
Thomas Alle.  
I have by me the paper where this is written with his own hand, and this M. Awl, M. Edward's his only witness, 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. john Goodwin. By what witness then can M. Edward's prove a lie? Something hath caused M. Awl since to mince the matter, and to make a relation of some things that neither I nor M. Greenhill owns, but at that time when he gave my justification under his hand, he was urged again and again 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. Awl says in what he hath printed, that there are some things in M. Edward's his Book, (speaking in relation to what M. Edwards reports from him) that never came from him; and yet M. Edwards stands boldly to justify that all from first to last is true. But I pray consider further what are M. Edward's his arguments to prove my testimony a lie.  
First this. I say the story of Nicols and such a meeting mentioned pag. 79. is all false. No, says he, some part is true. The first part wherein is laid down Nicols his maintaining to M. Greenhils' face those opinions; How then came M. Burroughes his affirming that story M. Edward's 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 against M. Edward's, he is cunning, he will find you out. But M. Edward's, look back again to what I affirm in that testimony under my hand, you shall find, I only say this, that all the story about Nicols in such a page, namely pag. 79. is false, now to prove me a liar 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 liar, who says the story in one pag. of a book is false? But he lies, because the story of another page of the book is true? What brave stuff is here to prove a lie? I profess to all the world, as in the presence of God, I do not now invent this to help to salve the business, 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 denies 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. Edward's his first argument to prove a lie; let us see whether he will be more happy in his second: will he not there hit the nail 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 runs thus, Master Burroughes says 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 men's thoughts, expressed about Master Edward's and believe them, I could prove Master Edward's foul enough.  
His 3. Argument, if I never heard of Nicols, how came Master Awl to know, that the opinions related, were Nicols his opinions, seeing Master Awl was not at the first meeting? Ans. Because Master Awl had heard of Nicols, therefore I lie in saying I never heard of him, what ridiculous stuff is this?  
4. How can Master Burroughes give it under his hand that he 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 Edward's or any man living think that I denied 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 means have heard 100 times of this opinion. M. Greenhil speaks of Blasphemous opinions and names this, does it follow therefore that he told me of Nicols his opinions? I appeal to 100 Divines in London, have ye ever heard of Nicols in moorfield's and his damnable opinions, would they not stay till we read Master Edward's his book 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 sin, 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 work is here to prove a lie! If these be good proofs of a lie, I only say this, if Master Edward's can make lies as fast as he can prove them, he hath won the honour of the name Cretensis, and deserves to carry it written in a paper in his hat all his days.  
For equivocation his Quere is pag. 92. Whether any Jesuit could or would have drawn up half a score lines fuller of equivecation?  
Ans. yet in the page before he says I put all I say upon those words, a meeting and such a meeting concluded of, which words meeting and such are mentioned Six times a piece brought in at every turn; 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 says my equivocation lies in this, that I would put the whole story upon that meeting.  
Ans. If M. Edward's were not resolved to shut his eyes, he might see that I only 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 with it: If I had said all the story had been false, without limiting it to that page, M. Edward's had had room enough to have ruffled in, and yet he ruffles as if I had said so, and would make the world believe I did say so.  
He says pag. 88 that the whole story and all the particular of it are true, and there is nothing false in it from first to last.  
Ans. What impudence is here, when his only witness to that story says what I have said in denying that which is page 79. is true; and M. Edward's still will aver, 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 again, and his only witness he 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 lies. 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 says that all the particulars of his relation are true, there is nothing false from first to last. What a man is this M. Edward's? he can relate a business, he can mistake in his relation, report that to be that never was, and yet all he says is true. Cast him where you will, he falls upon his legs.  
But he says, there is only a mistake in the transition.  
Ans. He plainly relates two things. 1. Nicols his coming to M. Greenhil, venting such opinions. 2. That upon that occasion there was a meeting concluded of, where M. Greenhil and I he says were; is this of a meeting, but a transition? Truly if Master Edward's 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 lies apace. Hereafter you must call M. Edward's his falsities, his transitions. Transition is a new figure M. Edward's 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 turn falsehoods into truths as he pleaseth. This his Rhetoric raiseth his Cretian art beyond what formerly it hath been.  
The Contest between me and M. Edward's in this thing is plainly this.  
I meet occasionally with M. Greenhil; among many things in discourse he expresses his great grief at the horrid blasphemies there are abroad; upon which I express likewise my sense of such things; and this is all M. Awl tells him: therefore I blame not the man so much as I blame M. Edward's for moulding reports as he pleaseth, so as if he hath but a piece of a business, he can make it up a whole business as he thinks fit.  
After this passed between M. Greenhil and I, I find in a Book M. Edward's relating a story of one Nicols in moorfield's, 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 says I was; which meeting I never had heard of, and it was strange to me to find myself set down 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. Edward's his Book?  
Ans. If you should ask 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 business? I put the case thus, Suppose a Minister coming from the West to London, had come to M. Bellamy's shop to buy a Book, and there he should hear some bemoaning the damnable opinions that are vented in London, as I believe hath been often there, and this Minister there expressing his dislike, should afterwards find in a Book that there is one Nicols in moorfield's, 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. Bellamy's shop occasionally, would this story be a true one? would it be a lie, or an equivocation, to say this story is false? Or  
Take it thus. Suppose M. Edwards should say in his Pulpit at Christ's Church, that he was the Angel that was to pour the vial upon the sun, and afterward there should be this story written, that there was a meeting, where mistress Katherine Chidley and M. Edward's were, and at that time M. Edwards should say, I am the Angel of God prophesied of, who am to pour forth the vyal upon the sun; would M. Edward's think this story were a true one? Surely a truer story than that he hath in that page of his book 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. Edward's be resolved to take this liberty, to raise, to compound, to make stories thus, what may he not say? He may easily fill books every month 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 conceal their names, crying in every street, Dust, Dust. No marvel his Cart is so full.  
After all this that is said, were it much more to this or any thing else, it is easy for him to cry out in M. Bellamy's shop, and afterwards in his Book, It is a lie, it is a lie, nothing but juggling, nothing but jesuitical 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 inquires 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 appear that M. Greenhill gave this testimony in writing? his hand is not to it. How doth it appear that he 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 myself. He gives three reasons why he thinks we did it: The first two are from his being conscientious of evil in himself and Book: His third is, that they might free themselves from suspicion of being against a toleration of other sects and opinions.  
Ans. Why man, is there more in what is related here, than I have preached and published in print? why should I then be afraid to have such expressions known? And page 98. M. Edward's says 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 suspicion to be for the repressing such horrible things as M. Edwards would seem to make him; he that preached and printed what Burroughes did, would not be afraid to own his being against such horrid opinions as much as master Edward's his relation from master Awl comes to.  
He falls foully upon me in page 92. of the first part of his Gangraena, as a double minded man; of all the Apologists he says I sometimes seem to come near, and then I fly off again.  
Ans. I do profess my endeavours have been what I could to come near 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 shown myself willing to go to the uttermost line, yea punctum I have seen truth in; and this I have observed in some, they have been angry when they have seen their brethren come near them, because than 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 near, but that you go back again from what you seemed to come near in.  
Ans. If any man living can show in any one thing wherein I have gone back from what I appeared to be near, either in any thing I have done in the Assembly, in preaching, or conference, I will fall down at his feet, and bear my shame: I only except M. Edward's from being my Judge: The accusations or condemnations of a shameless man shall never make me ashamed. Upon the most diligent search I could make into my conscience, I do not know that in any particle wherein I have come near my brothers of the Presbyterial judgement 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 think I came nearest my Brethren, I hereby profess that I am still the same, and that I will upon any occasion publish myself to be the same. Indeed of all the Apologists, Providence put me upon that work of handling the point of Heart-Divisions, and I bless God I did it in the uprightness of my heart. In that argument I was put upon showing how near men called Independents came to those of the Presbyterian judgement, wherein I declared myself freely. Now let not M. Edward's be angry with me for going along with him two miles, because I cannot go three; and because he thinks if I yield thus fare, 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 blustering spirit may make my speeches or lines seem to lie cross, but let a meek, quiet spirited man look on them, and they will lie right enough, as they have done to many Presbyterial Brethren. Although nothing under heaven would more rejoice me then to help to find out any expedient whereby I might agree with my Brethren who are for the Classical and Provincial Presbyteries, yet I must needs profess 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 been 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. Edward's his thoughts the worst of all the Apologists when I am against him, which I dare not gainsay, yet when I do any thing that pleases him, than he calls me a chief man among the dissenting Brethren, as pag. 212. of his second part of his Gangraena, where he citys my speech lately printed, made in Guildhall for the Scots. By which speech, Mr. Edward's 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 mind 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 do. But still I do, and cannot but as long as I live honour them, and bless God for them, as the great instruments of the first turn of the stream of oppression and Tyranny; 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 vain 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 than the old non-conformists not communicating with the Churches here, because they could not join in kneeling? their scruple lay in one thing, mine in another. But though many of our Brethren thought, and I believe still do think they were in an error, yet their spirits were calm 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 own hands, which formerly they had not? I have hitherto abstained from that which is most provoking. What have I then done that thus anger's the man? He is displeased that I preach so much, that I have so many Lectures. I will not tell of the Live, preferments, Sequestrations, Lectures, that those of the Presbyterial judgement have. What would he have me lay down 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 yield to Gods call in the desires of the people, opening such a door of service, though the continuance of the greatness 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 myself upon God for strength to do 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 Means I have, though it be much less than he mentions, and as at great an uncertainty as may be; if men be taxed for any thing more than they like, they know where to relieve themselves in withdrawing from such contributions; if any weakness of body hinders the continuance in the greatness of the labour, the means presently ceases; yet I have no reason to complain. But this I say, if ever I grow rich by come in for preaching, let me lie under censures as absurd as M. Edwards himself can devise.  
But it may be he is angry with me because though my practice offends him not so much as others, yet I countenance and plead for those whom he cries out against as Schismatics.  
Ans. I profess, as in the presence of God, that upon the most serious examination of my heart, I find in it, that were my judgement Presbyterial, yet I should preach and plead as much for the forbearance of Brethren differing from me, not only in their judgement, but in their practice, as I have ever done; therefore if I should turn a Presbyterian, I fear I should trouble M. Edward's and some others more than now I do; perhaps my pleading and preaching for forbearance of dissenting Brethren would be of more force than now it is.  
He and others make a great outcry against Schism, they think and say that men leaving a true Church, cannot be freed from the charge of Schism.  
To that I would only 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 Bishop's authority, nor communicate in the Sacraments in the parishes where they lived without sin 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 conform 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 Episcopal Authority, would they not have blessed God for this liberty, had they been Schismatics, in the enjoyment of this liberty? Certainly the allowance of the State will not alter the case; if it be Schism to do thus without allowance of the State, and venturing upon suffering, it is Schism when the State does allow it, when they are freed from suffering, Schism is a Church sin. 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 Schismatics, because they do that without the allowance of the State, which if the State did allow of, would not be Schism: where the Lutherans & Calvinists have liberty to live in one Country together, and yet not communicating one with another; are all the Lutherans, or all the Calvinists, Schismatics? Suppose the Greek Churches had liberty to live among us, would they be all Schismatics 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 Schismatics too? Do not men ordinarily in London and elsewhere for the outward advantage of trade or otherwise, leave one Church and go 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 sin 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 Schism? Many of the converted Jews 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 join with the Gentiles being Christians, the partition wall being broken down, yet they were never accounted Schismatics for this fault of theirs; whereas now if a man lives in a parish, and does not join in Church fellowship in that parish, he is branded for a Schismatique. What hurt the abuse of words, and among others this of Schism hath done in the Church, we all know. When men who give good testimony of their godliness and peaceableness, after all means used in faithfulness to know the mind of Christ, they cannot without sin to them (though it be through weakness) 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 meekness desire they may not live without the ordinances of Christ all their days, but for the enjoyment of them may join in another Congregation, yet so as not condemning those Churches they join not with, as false, but still preserve all Christian communion with the Saints, as members of the same body of Christ, of the Church Catholic, and join also with them in all duties of worship that belong to particular Churches, so far as they are able. If this be called Schism, it is more than yet I have learned, or then (I believe) M. Edwards can teach me.  
Page 98. he throws 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 Brawl 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 bear withal in men continuing them still in communion with them, these the Magistrate should bear with, continuing them in the Kingdom or Commonwealth, in the enjoyment of the liberty of subjects, this with M. Edward's is a huge error: Whereas he passes almost all his other errors without any animadversion, he must needs have one here, he cannot pass so foul an error as this without confuting it presently, see what his Confutation is: Those (says he) who out of conscience are not satisfied in taking up Arms against Armies raised by a Prince, the Church will not deal 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 than the charge the Church hath in its kind; therefore where the Church should bear with men, the Magistrate should. Now the man comes in with his refutation and instances in a business of taking up Arms, 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 only 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 babble is this? who would spend his time in replying to it? If M. Edward's his valour in dispute may be judged by this, we need never fear encountering 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 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 civil justice, he is to be punished; and whatsoever the Magistrate accounts, yet if the thing in its own nature be not against civil justice, but only against some rule of Religion, surely he is not to punish in his way, further than 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 own nature: if M. Edward's his threatening Piece do no better feats than his Animadversion and Reply to M. John Goodwin hath done, that which he judges an Error remains still a Truth, he must blot it out of his Catalogue of Errors, his conscience must tell him there is one Error less than his reckoning: but I would be loath to be writing or waiting till Master Edward's his conscience be convinced, or if it be, till he confesses it to be.  
There is only 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 Bishop's times. This conformity he speaks of was ten years since, and though I did conform to some of the old Ceremonies, in which I acknowledge my sin; I do not cast those things off as inconvenient or discountenanced by the State only, but as sinful against Christ; yet I think there can hardly be found any Man in that Diocese where I was, who was so eyed as I was, that did conform less than I did, if he conformed at all. As for the new conformity, God kept me from it; and my sin 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 bless God I saw it before the times changed: and others, even some who scorn 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 do differ so much from what they were themselves but a while since I some of them know I 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 conform to all they now do. True! where sins are repent of, they are to be buried, but so as sinners be willing to lie down in their shame, and walk beseeming their repentance for such sins.  
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 pass upon what this man hath in that angry Antiapologia in reference to myself. He hath two things against me: 1. My going out of the Kingdom: 2 My Preaching and Writing for the congregational way. For the first he says, pag. 19 That M. Burroughes for some speeches spoken against the Scottish War, in some company not to be trusted, he for fear fled in all haste to Rotterdam. This he mentions in divers places of his Book. He says, this made him stumble at the truth of some things before mentioned in the Apology.  
Ans. He willingly lays this stumbling block before himself. 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 Kingdom, that he could never have stumbled at this, not have caused others to stumble as he hath done.  
First, he says, some speeches were spoke, for fear whereof I, etc.  
How does he know there were speeches spoke, for fear whereof I fled? It may be there was only an accusation of speeches, for fear whereof, etc. 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 business I am so fully clear, as I wiped off before my Lord of Warwick whatsoever might have seemed indiscretion, not by mine own Assertion only, 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 spoke, for fear whereof I hasted away, there was only some accusation of speeches, and Simo sat sit accusasse, quis innocens erit? What man can free himself from Accusation?  
Secondly, He says in all hast I fled to Rotterdam.  
Ans. It was four 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 spoke, 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 justify the Scots when they first risen in Arms, hearing them railed on in the company where I was, all my danger was in standing for them, and that with that wariness that such times required. But I knew what the power of the Prelatical party at that time was, who were extremely incensed against me; a man's innocency then, could not be his safety: I being most foully traduced in the report of my words, though the two other Gentlemen cleared me never so much, as my Lord of Warwick knows, (for the Conference was in his Garden) yet one witness affirmative in such a case would have been taken against an hundred negatives. A mere Accusation than 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 clear 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 appear that M. Edward's ventures boldly to relate whatsoever he hears, 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 adjoined to the Worship of God.  
The true story of this business 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 Norfolk, In which I believe I endured as great a brunt, as almost any of those which stayed in England; though M. Edward's is pleased to say Page 19 of his Antiapologie, that we fled, that we might be safe upon the Shore, while our Brothers were at sea in the Storm. I believe neither he, nor scarce any of our Presbyterial Brethren, endured a harder Storm at Sea, than I did before I went out of England; Yet I bless 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 Bishop's rage, could expect, I set myself 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 carnal respects, that countenance I had from divers noble friends, the offers of Live, did not begin to prevail too fare 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 soul lunges after? Did I not formerly think, that if ever God took me clearly from my People, I would hasten to be where I might be free from such mixtures in God's worship, without wring my conscience any more? Why do I therefore now stay? Am I not under a temptation? God knows 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 help me, and set me at liberty, leaning upon my Chamber window, I espied a man in a Citizen's habit, coming in the Court Yard towards my Chamber, and in his coming 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 tells me that he came lately from Rotterdam, that he was sent by the Chrurch there, to give me a call, to join with M. Bridge in the work 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 heart God knows exceedingly rejoiced 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 clear hand of God taking me off from temptations, that I was afraid might otherwise have stuck upon me, but this I kept to myself.  
Now as God would have it, three or four days after this, a friend meets me, and tells me, that such a man reported of me, that in a conference about the Scots, justifying them in what they did, I should speak such things as might bring me into trouble; After I heard this, I could not but take notice of God's hand, that surely now God intended to open the door very wide, for that call I had to Rotterdam; yet because, whether I went out or stayed in the Land, I desired to clear myself 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 mistake what was said in that Conference, that certainly there was no such thing as he had reported, though at first there appeared a very evil spirit in him, as if he intended evil against me, yet I went freely up and down for a fortnight or three weeks after in the Country, 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 satisfy 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 withal said he made no doubt but to set me right again. 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 down the City, my Lord knew all the business, and made no question but all was over. Now I being as I hoped set free from my Accuser, the Messenger from Rotterdam comes to me again, with an answer to what I had desired, showing 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 Norfolk, to make a full conclusion, and accordingly to take order for our voyage. Now within three or four days after this second call, this business that we thought had been dead, breaks forth again 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 business 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 Norfolk, 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 Kingdom thus, was grievous to me, for I knew I must never see England again, times continuing as then they were, and no man living could have imagined that alteration that after fell out.  
Now I appeal to M. Edward's, had he known all this (which if it had pleased him he might have done, for I sent to him to tell him I would satisfy 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 Kingdom in the way that he relates it, is the greatest aspersion that is upon me, when indeed it was one of the most merciful providences of God to me that ever befell me in all my life, wherein I saw as clearly 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 known, 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. Edward's hath done. The Lord set his conscience upon him, rebuke him, and be merciful to him in this thing.  
His second thing he hath against me in his Antiapologia, is his Charge for my Preaching for the congregational way, as page 216. he says I preached at Mildred's Breadstreet, against Nationall 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 do 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 Jews. I said that we were freed from the pedagogy of the Jews, and now there were no Nationall Churches by institution as the Jews were, mentioning these 3. things. 1. There are no national 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 than it was, because one was borne of the Nation of the Jews. And is this a Doctrine that will not go down with a Presbyterian? Surely it must be a Prelatical 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 form into one political Church as the Nation of the Jews 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 plain to any that will understand, that it is tedious to spend time about them.  
He says 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 universal, an unlimited toleration of all Religions, of all things, as both myself and others are very sinfully reported to do. What was the way of getting hands to a late Petition in London but this, when some went from house to house, Who are you for? Are you for Presbytery, or Independency? Many answering, They knew not what Independency was; The Hand-gatherers replied, 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 fair? Do not your consciences condemn 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 loath to live in England if ever it should be here. I do 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 again. The Presbyterial way had once need of such a doctrine, and may have need of it again. 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 believe many hundreds of Presbyterians think what I have published there to be true doctrine, only M. Edward's 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 seen, I refer myself 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. Edward's, 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 fit for devotion, then that it should interest itself in matters of contention. If M. Vicars had told me some experiences of the work of God upon his soul, or of the good providences of God towards his people and himself in the course of his life, I should have diligently observed them, and I hope might have got good by them; But oh how unbecoming old age is that spirit of contention that appears in his Books! if he thinks those places he has cited will serve his turn, surely his skill in Presbytery is not great, my pen was running in a hard expression, but I will not provoke the old man: yet I must be plain 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 Frontispiece of his Book, The names of the five pious Apologists, and the names of the seven Religious Remonstrants. Whereas the chief 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 wisdom of old age to charge (and that publicly) his Brethren of unworthy double dealing, of unfaithfulness, upon no other ground then the relation of one man, and that relation but upon one witness? and yet this very witness 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 think what he did, for all that M. Greenhill said, was, he wondered to see such a thing in Master Edward's his Book, as a Relation of a meeting concluded of about Nicols, where I and he (M. Edward's says) were; what doubleness or unfaithfulness in this? for not only M. Edward's his witness says he never told him so, and such a thing never was, but M. Edward's now confesses it. Is there then weight enough for such a charge of M. Vicars, not only 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 thinks I see M. Edward's in M. Bellamy's 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. Edward's may be bold enough in Answering, for I am persuaded he believes I will hardly ever be brought to trouble myself about him; He is so foul, who can meddle with him without dirtying his fingers? I am resolved rather to lie under many prejudices and censures, and commit my name and cause to God, then to trouble myself further with him. Though I will not fully conclude never to do any thing further about him in public, yet this I engage myself 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 known to any that have or ever had any acquaintance with me, I will (if it be desired) give them satisfaction in it; but I confess I am loath 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. Edward's mentions page 110. of the first part of his Gangraena, where he says, some came to me the day after I preached, to be satisfied about it, who (he says) put me hard to it. I confess I spent near four hours with one company who came to me about it; yet Master Edward's says, I said little. It may be some of them reported so. How easy 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, only one company more came, that I remember, where one, an eminent Presbyterian, a great friend to M. Edward's, 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 Edward's I said little: it was easy 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, spoke with, and debated the matter at large: I was abroad only 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 afternoon, and told them I should very willingly confer with them: and two of that company did come, with whom I conferred at large, near four hours, although M. Edward's is pleased to say I spoke little, but my wife much: whereas my speech was not only 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 she thought it was time to break off, she brought them a cup of beer, and stayed 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 do, to spend time in answering such babbles as these? and yet because even these babbles take with vain spirits, who willingly catch at every thing, something must be said, if it be but to please children.  
Thus have I wearied myself, and it may be the Reader, in these personal 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. Edward's hath, that I may have no more to do with him. If he pretends at any time to deal in a rational way, he mingles such personal 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 rational discourse, acknowledged by themselves to have much strength in it, against that way so much opposed, and then let them complain 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 appear in public. But is it possible for so few of us, having so many things lie upon us, to attend the Answer to every Pamphlet that comes out against us?  
That extreme eagerness and violence in Master Edward's, M. Vicars, and others, to asperse our names, makes us to think that God hath made more use of our names than we were ware of, and shall be an argument to quicken us to more watchfulness to walk inoffensively and convincingly before all men. For we see by their anger, even almost to madness bent that way, that they had little hope to prevail with all their arguments against the cause we profess, till they could get down our esteem (such as it was) in the hearts of the people. The old way of the Heathens against the Christians in the Primitive 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 fare as he hath use of them, and further we shall have no use of them ourselves.  
There is also one M. Bellamy, while he would seem to be London's Remonstrating Champion, he has nibbled at me. To whom I say, 

1. That I am persuaded I stand clear 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 do with the point of Independency of Church-Government, there is no connection between the one and the other, yet he brings it in to show the Principles of such Independents.  
3. If it were Independency, yet it runs not parallel with those men's opinions he had mentioned before, who (he says) hold, That If the Parliament have been any way unfaithful and unserviceable to the Public, or but groundedly suspected so to be, (which all the world knows, that knows these men's minds, they will quickly be ready to do) if in any thing they please not their Palates, that then those that chose and sent them, may have liberty to choose more faithful, able, and better men in their places. Now (says he) consider these men's Tenets. He charges them to tend to utter confusion of all order, power, Government in Church and Commonwealth, and I will give you an instance (says he) of one, (naming myself, in my Answer to D. Ferne.)    
But will his instance reach to that he brings it for, to show me to be one of those men he mentioned before for?  

1. In that he says of me, do not I say, if the Parliament should grow tyrannical, particular men cannot help themselves?  
2. The whole State should suffer much before it should help itself by any ways of resisting.  
3. If you can, suppose a Parliament so far to degenerate.  
4. That they should conspire to destroy the Kingdoms.  
5. That they should aim at themselves so fare, as to possess the Lands and riches of the Kingdom to themselves.  
6. What the Kingdom should do I determine not, but leave to the light of nature to judge. Now is this parallel to the former opinion he mentioned, am I one of those men? doth this tend avoidable to utter confusion of all order, power, government in Church and Common-weath?  
7. Let M. Bellamy 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 Apology for myself, you may expect from my Brethren, from some very shortly, from others as their occasions shall permit, no ways 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, than this vindication of your Persons.  
Ans. We freely grant, the truth is to be regarded a thousand times more than our Persons, and did not we believe that such a Vindication might be useful 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 lain 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. Yet ingenuous Brethren in the Assembly have professed that they understood what we would have as well as ourselves, so clear have we been in discovering our minds upon all occasions.  
We have lately in a Committee apppointed 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.  
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 than their pastoral 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 join in Spiritual Communion, yet so as the rule of edification be observed amongst others, that there be a cohabitation in those that join, and that all that are fit to be members that do cohabit do join 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 only as godly and peaceable men may and do differ in. Were these 3. things granted, we might live together as Brothers 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 mind, while they think the Civil Sword is an ordinance apppointed 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 mind themselves are of, all will come to confusion: whilst these Principles prevail with men, either there must be a base subjection of men's consciences to slavery, a suppression of much truth whilst they seek to suppress 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 sweetened, Peace procured, Brotherly love recovered, strengthened, 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 than 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 join in a way of Accommodation with your Brethren? Nothing would satisfy 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 near we can come to it, or where the difference will lie, and then some way may be considered to Accommodate in. But when the Rule was set, we knew no way, but to show 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 do, which we accordingly presented to the Honourable Committee, professing ourselves 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 do, 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 go beyond their Pastoral Charge for Word and Sacrament; what help then can there be, if the Elders of a Church, or a whole Church shall err?  
Ans. The Church is a spiritual Society, gathered for spiritual ends; it hath within itself no help against spiritual evils, but spiritual, and these can only prevail 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 formal Jurisdiction, whose Divine Institution few see, and is doubted of by those with whom it should prevail, can that do it? The former means will remedy evils, if men be conscientious; the latter will not do it, if they be not conscientious.  
If you say, The Magistrate must come in and help.  
Answ. 1. Howsoever then in Church help there is little difference.  
2. If you interest the Magistrate's power, he must then either by himself 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 implicit belief, that the acts of the Church are right.  
3. Will you call in his power in all matters of difference, wherein yourselves cannot agree? or will you only desire his power to help, when either the heinousness of the matter, or the turbulency of the carriage, manifests stubbornness? If in the former case, than you make the Magistrate the Judge of all Controversies in Religion, which I believe you are not willing to do. If in the latter only, we are agreed. Why then is there such a stir, such an outcry 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.  
FINIS.