THE COUNTER BVFFE OR, certain OBSERVATIONS upon Mr. EDWARDs his Animadversions, touching a Pamphlet entitled little nonesuch, Whereby is discerned how passion or spleen may transport some that would be thought great Clerks which according to the Proverb, doth not always prove the wisest Men.  
To avoid all partiality, we will first lay down Mr. Edwards his own words, touching the three Heads he hath could out of the aforesaid Pamphlet, and then our Observation upon each showing( in conclusion) how much he mistakes the Right Independent.  
If thy mind be busied elsewhere, lay this book aside till better leisure, it will require privacy and thy best Attention.  
Non est bonum Ludere cum Sanctis.  
LONDON, Printed as formerly, for H. P. 1647.   


THE FIRST HEAD OF Mr. Edwards, LITTLE NON-SUCH. page. 2.  
THat God hath a bodily shape and proportion, Men was made according to the likeness of God in personal shape, And God the Creator beareth the same shape in person which Man hath: This opinion was held by some heretics in the fourth Century first known by the name of Audiani, and afterwards called Anthrop●morph●… ae. August. in his book de Heresibus ad qu●d vuit deum cap 50. Writes of them. Audianos quos apellant alii vocant Anthropomorp●itas quoniam Deum, fibi fingunt cogitatione c●rnali in Similitudinem Imaginis corruptilibis hoins.   

Animadversion.  
Theodoret in his fourth book de He●erib. fabuli, Writes there was one Audeus who said God was like to man and gave to G●d the parts of a man, who fell into this error by his misunderstanding of those places of Scripture, which speak of God according to mans understanding: Danaeus in his Tractate de Heresibus fully confutes this opinion, and shows the story of it; and that this Heresy should be now pleaded for in Print, it shows how the devil in these times revives old errors dead and butted for many hundred yeares.   

The first Observation.  
First, we give you to understand that the Contents of little nonesuch are certain Questions moved to be resolved in( under correction) as appears in the preamble, and not positively maintained as mattrr of faith, as doth also appear page. 16. Therefore Mr. Edwards hath falsified the first Head, speaking his own words but not the Authors, nor yet their intentions: then all he saith to the matter is, that there were certain heretics in the fourth Century called Audiani& Anthropomorphitoe which maintained the opinion aforesaid. And how Augustin said they were so called, because they feigned unto themselves that God had a shape like unto corruptible man: and how then did they say that was a corruptible shape? 
☞  he saith also that Danaeus in his Tractate confuted them, but he neither shows how, nor by what proof of Scripture as is desired; so that the ignorant are nothing the more satisfied by Mr. Edwards his Doctrine: then he seems to wonder how this Heresy, as he calls it, should be pleaded for in Print; we would here know of any reasonable man if the bare asking of a question be pleading for an Heresy; if this be faire play what call you legerdemain? Th re are yet more places in Scripture then are laid down in little nonesuch, which may move a man to ask such a question as that of Gen. 35 v. 9. Where God appeared unto Jacob, and then ascended from him in the place where he had talked with him, verse 13. this may imply some shape, else how did God appear to him and ascend from him; then in the seventh of Daniel v. 9. Doth not the ancient of dayes sitting in a rob with hair of h s head as white as wool imply a shape also; yet notwithstanding these or any other Reasons out of Scripture and cited in Little nonesuch, what ever the forenamed heretics thought wee assure Mr. Edwards that wee do not make it our creed, or think it any point of salvation to believe so, well knowing( as is set forth in Little Non such) that God is omnipotent, and that his power cannot be circumscribed in any personal shape or place; for wee can city St. Augustin as well as Mr. Edwards and give him credit too, when he saith cursed is he that refer●s the Deity of God to the liniaments of mans body, for that were a narrow Deity, and we suppose no heretic can be so gross as to conclude in that manner; yet that each of the three persons have assumed shapes is confessed by learned men, but for what purpose or of what continuance they were or shall be, or what is the meaning of the words let us make man after our own Image, seeing the first man Adam was an Image of day made in the six Dayes, but was not a living soul till God had restend the seventh Day, and then breathed life into him; These thing we would have learned from Mr. Edwards by some reasons back with Scripture proof, but he hath onely corrupted the meaning of the question, and  told a tale of heretics, so that ourselves nor we suppose any other( by his Animadversion, is any thing at all the wiser.   

The next Head is little nonesuch, page. 4.  
Mr. Edwards, The story of Adams eating the forbidden fruit and of the Serpent is an Allegory, by the Serpent in that place is meant no other then concupiscence, and by the fruit of the three, some other eating then the eating of a material Apple, is derstood.   

Animadversion.  
This also is an error revived, held by David George, who lived a hundred yeares ago; in David Georges life written in Latin by his Son in Law Nicholus Blesdikins page. 161. 162. 'tis related that by the Serpent enticing our first parents, he meant concupiscence, and pleads for an allegorical interpretation of the Serpent, because the historical narration of the Serpent as it is laid down by Moses( saith David George) draws divers absurdities with it: the marginal Note here saith also that Danaeus among other errors of the Originists shows this to bee one, and how St. Augustin writ many books against Alegorists and corrupters of Scripture.   

The second Observation.  
Now if you mark how Mr. Edwards hath laid down this second Head( instead of giving inst uction) you will perceive how willing he is to pick a quarrel, for this is but a questi●n in little Non such( as the former) and demanded with all modesty, peruse it who please, but setting aside his spleen, let us examine his Animadversion, and see what satisfaction it gives, which saith no more you see, but that it is an error revived, held by one David George as appears in his life written by his son in Law Nicolaus Blesdikins, and then how Danaeus shows it to be an error of the Originists, how if Origen had said as much of him? and then he saith in the margin how Augustin writ against Allegorists corrupters of Scripture: what think you of this solution? 
☜  is this a satisfactory answer to the question in little Non such? where is his Texts in Scripture to reconcile those that are cited there, if the meaning be otherwise: what would he make us believe there are no allegories in Scripture? we are not so simplo to credit him in that point; wee know there are both Allegories, Tropes, and Figures, what admirable expressions is there in the Book of Job? what Metaphors and Retoricall Figures? and as one saith the Retorick of Cicero, Demosthenes, Hortensius, &c. is but a shadow in comparison; and in another place the same Author saith the Revelation is full of mysterious metaphoricall and Hiereogliphicall characters; And if Mr. Edwards would have us understand our Saviours words this is my body to be h s Body, then we say Mr. Edwards is popish: Turtullian say●th, it is but a F●gure of his Body: And did not our Saviour in the Gosp ll deliver his Doctrine in Parables, and dark speeches, insomuch as the Apostles themselves said, Master what is the meaning, observe here the Discipl●s of Christ did not think it Heresy, 
☞  to ask a question as Mr. Edwards doth: it is the manner of such as are able and willing to resolve doubts to compare one place of scripture with another, and then to give us a right interpretation, if Mr. Edwards had done so here wee would have thanked him: concerning this portion of Scripture( if sufficeth us to know there was a breach of a Commandement in our first Parents, which hath inthral'd us in original sin, but whether the words be allegorical or literal( though we would willingly have known something of which M. Edwards( it seems is ignorantly silent) yet we say of this as the former, we make it no point of faith as touching our salvation: But for the third, and next in order, we verily believe it is as gross a piece of popery as is, or ever was since that wily Father was rightly styled an usurper.   

The third Head is little nonesuch, page. 5, 6, 7. &c.  
Mr. Edwards, in Marriage there are no degrees of blood or affinity forbidden, but a man may mary the next of kin to him, a Brother may mary his Sister, his Uncle his niece, a Son his Fathers Wife, and so in any degrees without exception; so that if this liking to mary happen betwixt the nearest of Kindred, then it is also the most natural, the most lawful, and according to the Primitive purity and practise.   

Animadversion.  
The main scope of this Book called little nonesuch, or certain new Questions is to pled for incestuous Marriages, where the Author sets himself to evade all the Scriptures in the old and new Testament, saying it is not Marriage simply with Sisters Brothers wives, &c. that is forb dden so long as a man keeps wholly to such a one, having taken her for a Wife, but the committing fornication with them not being Married: Now I shall show the falseness of this by two Scriptures, the first in Levit. 18. where both in the general v. 6. and in particular the several degrees are expressly forbidden v. 7 8, 9, 10, &c. of the Fathers Wife of the Sister, of the fathers sister, &c. And whereas the Author of that wicked Pamphlet pleads that uncovering of nakedness is meant of fornication only and not of Marriage. I answer the holy Ghost in that Chapter expounds the uncovering of nakedness to be 
A flat untruth.  Marrying, v. 18. and makes the taking to w●fe and uncovering of nakedness to be the same as is evidently by these words, neither shalt thou take a Wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness besides the other in her life time, that is either thou shalt not take one Wife to another marrying another Wife having one or else mary the sister of thy Wife, whether shee be sister by father or by mother. again the holy Ghost in this Chapter forbids that which is is unlawful with some kind of persons, and not with all 
How prove you that?  and at some time, and not at others; Therefore limits to such a sort of persons, such degrees of blood: but now fornication is unlawful with all and at all times: A man may not uncover the nakedness, that is, to commit 
Contradicts himself.  fornication with those that are remotest in blood or Affinity, and that it must be understood so, is evident from the 19 verse, thou shalt not approach to a woman to uncover her nakedness, so long as she is put apart for her uncleanness, that is every man was to abstain from his own Wife during the time of her monthly flowers, which necessary shows is meant of a mans Wife, for from all other Women a Man must abstain always, and it is never lawful to approach to them, but even from a mans own Wife over whose body he hath power at other times, he is then to abstain: Lastly, the Holy Ghost comes to speak of fornication, vers. 20. Thou shall not lye carnally with thy Neighbours Wife, there he forbibs fornication, but in the former part of the Chapter he forbade incest and incestuous Marriages: 
If all be true that you say.  The other Scripture is in the new Testament mark the 6.17, 18. verses, where John tells Herod it is not lawful for him to have his brother Phillips Wife, and this cannot be evaded by saying, John reproved Herod for taking her by force or living in fornication, but not barely for Marriage with her: for the Text saith expressly he had married her, and she was willing to it as appears by the story, because she had a quarrel against John Baptist, and would have killed him for preaching to Herod against it, and afterwards watched her opportunity of revenge against John v. 19.24. preferring his head before half the kingdom; I have been the larger in this Animadversion, because of divers s●ctuaries and incestuous Marriages: I have the names of three Independents( given me out of one County) who have married Incestuously.   

The third Observation.  
This head because M Edwards will keep his road, he makes positive also, whereas it is but a question as the two former; Tene per asinum, which at bowls is as much to say as hold Bias: Then he saith the author sets himself to evade Scriptures, no indeed M. Edwards; but except there be mo e convincing reasons then you have shown, the Authors intent was, and is to prove by Scripture, that the prohibition mentioned is a popish injunction, not rightly grounded out of Scripture: They say also it is a senseless Prohibition, for as touching matters forbid in the Decalogue which is the ground of all laws, they are obnoxious in themselves( if there were no such injunction) both to the parties offending and unto them to whom the offence is given: but in the most affectionate marriages, there is the most and greatest good to both parties, which the pope nor perhaps M. Edwards, would admit with out a fee: The first head Mr. Edwards taxes as an Heresy though it is but a question asked: The second Question he calls an error, but for this third we are so much beholding unto him as he calls it neither Heresy nor error; yet in one place he is pleased to say it is a wicked Pamphlet, this is hard too, for if one should ask M. Edwards the way to York or to bristol; would he say thou art a vile and a wicked fellow, thou shalt fall in the ditch before I will direct thee, is this charity to a stranger that is astray, what think you? now M Edwards if men shall fall from an error into flat Heresy, yet St. Jerome tells us in paeni lib. 4. in Jeremia, it is to bee cut of with the sword of the spirit, that is with the Testimonies of Holy Scripture, let us strike through with the arrows of the spirit and not by reviling and execration: but it seems it is M. Edwards his manner to bee bitter, and to administer gull instead of Honey, for wee have seen a little Pamphlet that( for his invectivenes) calls him Thomas de Gangrena, which made us take him for a Monsieur, till a little after it says he is one of Rabsh●kaghs Champions; well then if he bee a Champion he may perhaps when a place is void, bee one of the nine Worthies; but doubtless he will never be one of the seven Wise Masters, till he leave his reviling and give us instruction in the spirit of meekness.  
And now though he pass by the two former Questions without citing any Scripture, yet because he tells us he will show the falseness of this question by two Scriptures, let him bee what Champion he will, wee will here enter the lists with him, and hope to foil him at his own Weapon, two Scriptures you hear him say, but if he could have shown the falseness( as wee have done the truth in the first part) by 22 Scriptures you should then have heard his great Guncracke; well you see what flourish they have made at the first onset, yet now you shall see these two, as well as the rest, foigne against him and turn the point in his own bosom.  
The first Scripture he cites is the 6, 7, 8, 9, and tenth Verses of the 18 Chapter of Leviticus, which who so please to read shall find they speak plainly of uncovering of nakedness, and some Translations renders it uncovering of shane; new wee never heard it was a shane to mary or a shane to perform the Act of Marriage, but rather a duty commanded; Therefore( by his leave, wee yet conceive the interpretation of these Verses in Little nonesuch to bee right, which understands them of the highest degree of fornication being committed with Kindred; And doth in the whole progress of that discourse detest it as much as M. Edwards can do or any other, Then he saith( if wee believe him) he will prove uncovering of nakedness and Marrying to be all one by the 18 Verse, and cites these words neither shalt thou take a Wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her life time: Doubt less this is foul play and much detested in Little nonesuch, where it speaks against plurality of Wives at one time: for if a Man having married a Wife and while shee is living, take her sister to uncover her nakedness, it is fornication in the highest degree, and wee say no other, but if the first Wife bee dead, then the same words seem to imply, that he may safely mary the other, else what need these words in her life time for from thence wee argue contrario, that when shee is dead, her Husband cannot vex her by taking her sister to Wife, as it would have done when shee was living, and it is no more but convertible with the Brothers case in deuteronomy if the first sister die without issue: Though the patriarch Jacob married two natural sisters being both living, which some say prefigures the Law and the gospel unto us, viz. by Leah( who was blear eyed, the Law is denoted unto us; and by Rachel( who was comely as the Spouse in the Canticles and without blemish) is meant the gospel; yet seeing our Saviour says, let every one have his own Wife in the singular number, so far wee agree with M. Edwards, if he please, that no man ought to have two Wives living at one time, but how he proves by this 18. vers. that the precedent part of this Chapter is meant of Marriage, we do not yet understand, but do verily believe by this 18. v. to prove directly the contrary: And now we call not for such as will prejudicate or are self conceited for want of wit and judgement, but to those that are apprehensive, 
☜  and able to poised the weight of this argument: This 18. v. alleged for his proof, begins with these words, neither shalt thou &c. some translations have it also and some moreover, it skills not much which of the three we admit of: for where the words neither, also, or moreover begins a sentence, it likewise imports a new matter; then observe the precedent part of this Chapter, till you come to this 18. vers. now in question; the 6. v. saith none of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to uncover their nakedness, or their shane as some translations have it: the rest of the verses following till you come to the 18. v. speaks one continued phrase, viz. thou shalt not uncover, thou shalt not uncover such and such, &c. but at the 18. v. comes in the words neither shalt thou take a wife to her Sister to vex her in her life time, &c. the 19. v. begins with also, the 20. v with moreover, being all distinct matter from the former part of the Chapter. Therefore under favour, the 18. vers. serves Master Edwards no more then the 19, 20. or the rest of the verses following, which are all of different and contrary matter; for we hope he will not say that lying carnally with another mans wife or with mankind, &c. hath any relation to marriage: Then we will here give you our sense of this Chapter as we conceive it now, and must do till some other hath opened the meaning better then Mr. Edwards hath done, viz. by the first part of the Chapter unto the 18. v.( and by the words uncovering shane or nakedness) we are most especially, forbid to make concubines, or commit fornication with any of our kindred, for though it might be unlawful to do it with any, yet you see the custom was amongst the Patriarks, and long time after in Davids and Solomons time to have many wives and Concubines, and though we ought not to injure any, yet least of all ought we to abuse our kindred, and for proof of this we once more instance the 16. v. which saith thou shalt uncover not the nakedness of thy brothers wife; but in Deutromy 'tis said, thou shalt mary thy brothers wife; 
☞  therefore we cannot say that uncovering nakedness and marrying is all one, as Mr. Edwards doth, but verily think they differ as much in sense, as lawful and unlawful; for if these two places have one meaning, they make the holy Spirit contradict itself, which to say were no less then blasphemy; therefore we must needs reject Mr. Edwards his construction in this point, and thus far as touching fornication with kindred: next we come to the 18. v. itself, cited by Mr. Edwards to a wrong purpose; for therein we say begins a new matter; the former part of the Chapter forbids fornication with kindred; in this verse we are forbid to have plurality of wives living at one time; by the 19. v. we are to avoid the uncleanness of menses prefluium, to speak more mannerly then Mr: Edwards doth, by the 20 vers. we are forbid Adultery with our neighbours wife: the 21. forbids the abomination of passing the seed through the fire to Moleck. the 22. forbids Sodomy: the 23. forbids the carnal knowledge of any beast, &c. these several and distinct offences onely, we take to be the genuine sense of this Chapter, and that the forbidding of marriage cannot rightly be grounded from this place; but that the Papacy since it fell from integrity made use of it for Lucre as is amply declared in the first part; and this we are induced to think, not onely by the practise and custom, before the law to mary and raise up seed with their next of kindred, which we need not here repeat, because it is so largely set forth in little weigh: for except Mr. Edwards can confute all those places there cited before, 
☞  and after the Law, and show us by other places of Scripture they have another meaning, he hath said nothing in his Animadversion worthy of regard, it rather seems a Ridiculous Aversion from the truth: and further that this 18. Chapter of Levit. hath no meaning of marriage will appear to them that are not wilfully partial, in the 20. Chapter following, which appoints the punishment to such as transgress these commands, 
☞  and begins with the latter part, He that gives his seed to Moleck shall be stoned; the man that commits Adultery with another mans wife the Adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death, then he that lies with his fathers wife, and he that lies with his daughter in Law, and if a man lie with mankind, and if a man take a woman and her daughter, and if a man or a woman lye with a beast, and if a man take his sister and uncover her nakedness, these are to be punished with death, we give you but the Abstract, onely he concludes this point, that if a man uncovers the nakedness of his brothers wife they shall die childless; which with the rest, do h fully fortify our opinions touching the distinction we have made already, betwixt uncovering shane, or nakedness, and marriage, 
☞  for here's not a word of marrying you see, but of Adultery, uncovering nakedness, lying carnally, &c. then shall we think that Abraham who took his Sister to wife, or he that is commanded in Deuteronomy to mary his brothers wife, deserved this punishment, surely no man of reason will say so; shall that holy estate be ranged in punishment with Adultery, Buggery, and Sodomy? God forbid: Then here in this 20. Chapter you see plainly if you please, what is meant by uncovering of nakedness in the 18. 
☞  Chapter formerly cited; that is the man that lies carnally with his Fathers wife, it doth not say one that married his Fathers wife after his decease, but he that lies with his Fathers wife, 
1 Of Cor. c. 5.  which is to be understood in his life time( or after not being married, and that is the fornication Saint Paul speaks of a fornication that was not committed among the Gentiles: And the man is meant also that lies with his Sister as Amnon did with Tamer, and would not ask her of her Father for a wife; this is the uncovering of nakedness that ought to be punished among the aforesaid abominations, and not the marriage of single people though they be of nearest kindred; for if that had been the Law Tamer would not have desired her Brother Amnon to ask her for a wife, and so have been guilty of her own death; but she knew marriage was safe and lawful, 
☞  and the fornication onely( in such degrees, so worthy of punishment, and of her so much detested. Are you satisfied yet Mr. Edwards? if not we will give you one gradation more, that we suppose will satisfy the intelligent Reader: in the 18. Chapter alleged we have the prohibition, in the 20. the punishment, and if you peruse the 27. you shall also find the Curse, we will recite it in order, beginning at the 15. vers. Cursed be the man that maketh any graved or melted Image; Cursed be he that setteth light by his Father or Mother; cursed be he that removeth his neighbours landmarke; cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of his way; cursed be he that perverteth the judgement of the stranger, or fatherless; cursed be he that lieth with his Fathers wife because he uncovereth his Fathers skirt; cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast, cursed be he that lieth with his Sister; cursed be he that lieth with his Mother in law; cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly; cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person, &c. will you include the holy state of Marriage amongst these curses who will believe you? though we like not tautoligies, we cannot too often,( against this Popish yoke) remember the case of Abraham, of judah, of the brother in Deuteronomy, of Boaz, of Tamar, of the seven Brothers in the gospel, withall the rest cited in the first and second part of this Treatise, which like unto so many links in a Golden chain do strengthen and confirm each other; then note the lying with the Fathers wife, and uncovering his skirt mentioned amongst these curses in the 20. v. note also the 21. that speaks of lying with any manner of beast, the 22. of lying with the Sister, so that these emergent trespasses in kindred hedging in( as it were of both sides) the abomination of lying with any manner of beast, 
☞  and therefore must of necessity be meant of the highest degree of fornication committed with the Wife in the Fathers life time, and with the Sister without marriage: and such is the uncovering nakedness or shane in the 18. of Levit. for where marriage is spoken of indeed( as it is in so many other parts of the old and new Testament needless to rehearse, it is called in plain and direct terms Marriage, admitting of no other attribute, be it with kindred or stranger. If the Adder will be deaf, the Charmer loseth his labour; some are infatuated with a blind zeal without knowledge; some by an old custom( though evil in itself) not considering whether or no it was first introduced by an overruling power for covetous and monopolising ends; but to such as are of a clear impartial mind endued with sense and reason, the least of these plain and manifest Scripture proofs will be sufficient.  
In this place wee would take a little leave to let you know how M. Edwards in his Animadversions of this Head doth ingenuously give uncovering of nakedness the same interpretation that wee do, saying a man may not uncover the nakedness, 
☞  that is, commit fornication with those that are remotest in blood; and wee say much less with those that are the nearest: And now he hath given it the proper sense, which is fornication, wee hope he will no more call it Marriage: but what he means by his story of Womens flowers, we do not well know except it be to make children wonder as he himself doth to see a question or quere asked in Print: yet after all, if M. Edwards can snew us by the original in Hebrew and Greek that approaching to kindred to uncover their nakedness( which you see himself says is fornication) or uncovering of shane and Marriage to have one and the same signification, and so to be understood in this Chapter against all other Texts before and after the Law he saith something; but we do more then suppose that in the original this uncovering of nakedness will appear to be committing of shane by fornication having no relation at all to marriage, more then the papish skill to ensnare for fees: therefore his first place of Scripture he boasts of, hath made against him and leaves him like a Collier grim'd with his own coals.  
Next let us examine his other Scripture in the new Testament, where John reproved Herod for taking his Brother Phillips Wife; this he saith cannot bee evaded by saying he took her by force and lived in fornication, for the Text saith he had married her; no truly M. Edwards, we will not go about to evade it that way but wee will shortly tell you how wee will evade it and justly too; and though wee say of John as he himself said of our Saviour, wee are not worthy to undo his show latchet, nor presume of the least glimpse of his spirit; yet we are not altogether so unlearned, or ignorant in human knowledge, but we can condemn this fact of Herods as exceeding all example; for wee never read that the very Heathen thought it lawful to take away another mans Wife from him in his life time; and though wee read that David committed adultery with B●rsheba, and was a King as Herod was, yet he did not take her away to himself till Uriah was dead: now M Edwards may please to know that when Herod married Herodias, his Bother Phillip( her lawful husband) was then living; for they were contemporaries, so saith Iosephus their great and learned Antiquary, and some others curious in the search of such things say that Phillip out lived his Brother Herod( who wee know, died of a loathsome disease) they say also that Herods lawful Wife mariam was living at the same time, and after her repudiation built that stately fabric called Miriams Tower, which shows as yet some ruins to this day in the place where old jerusalem stood, for all Travellers agree, that the new Town which now is, takes in very little of that which was destroyed by Titus and Vespatian: but what need other Authors seeing the Scripture itself makes it plain, for in the 3. of St. Luke the 1. v( and in Iohns ministry) we read that as Herod was Tetrarck of galilee his Brother Phillip was also Tetrarch of Iturea and the Region of Trachonitis, and in the 19 and 20 verse of the very same Chapter wee read that Herod being reproved for Herodias his brother Philips Wife and other evils, yet added one more, which was the putting of John in prison; so you see at that instant they were both Tetrarches of several Provinces, Therefore as touching this his second proof how absurd it is, let the Reader judge; If the popes champions can fence no better wee shall easily give two hits for one: but to our business you see M. Edwards both by our first and latter discourse that we detest Fornication and Adultery more then you or any other can do that speaks or writes against the marriage of single people, and wee are so far from excusing this act of Herods, that we think it worthy of the punishment mentioned in the 20 of levit awarded against Adulterers, buggers, Sodomites, and such as defile themselves with beasts, or lye carnally with their nearest Kindred to uncover thier shane and nakedness, which we, 
☜  and so doth M. Edwards you see by chance interpret fornication: but to think the holy ordinance of marriage itself deserves such punishment in the next Kindred that are single were great impiety, for that is a duty commanded often enough proved in the first part: neither are wee taught that simplo fornication in them that were ●ot of Kin was to be punished with death, but the parties were to make amends by Marriage as appears in Deut. Chap. 22. Ve. 29. Where if a man lye with a damsel that is not betrothed, he shall give unto the damsels Father fifty shekels of Silver, and after take her to Wife; and in the 19 Chap. of Levit. v. 20. Whosoever lieth carnally with a bondmayd, shee shall be scourged they shall not be put to death, &c. then the case of the Midianites, Numb. 31. and the Levite; Judges the 19 mentioned in little nonesuch, so that if there were no toleration for simplo fornication yet we see there was a connivency upon such and such penalties, but in Kindred within such a degree, it was punishable( and worthily too) with Adultery and other abominations formerly rehearsed; but what is all this to marriage with Kindred or strangers, which differs as much from all sorts of fornication as the East is from the West, surely that holy order can never come in question amongst these other enormities without gross and covetous popery rightly taxed in little nonesuch, and sufficiently opened both there and in this discourse; for shall we think that marriage with Kindred deserves greater punishment then the fornication aforesaid, if there were not so many Texts in Scripture that calls it holy, and so many other that commands the next Kinsman to do that duty; yet it were against common reason, and the punishing of offences is plain morality within the compass of our reason, it is no mystery to Rack our belief; 
☞  So then fornication is a great offence, but we say it is the worst and highest in Kindred& deserves the greater punishment, because it is more unnatural to abuse Kinsfolk then strangers; And now to conclude this point of Herod, the Text doth not say he married one that had been h●s brothers Wife, but one that was his brothers Wife, that is, at that time; Therefore John Baptist worthily reproved him which makes nothing at all to M. Edwards his purpose, for if his brother Phillip had been dead, and his own Wife Miriamne, he might subtilely have married her according to their Jewish custom, and according to the Text in Deuterenomy as touching marriage with the brothers Wife: And that this is clear as the day appears in the 22 of Matthew, 12 of Mark, 20 of Luke, where the question is put to our Saviour touching the seven brothers that married successively one woman; if it had not been the custom and lawful, ●ur Saviour would have reproved it, as he did the 10th of mark in case of divorce: wee know also our King Henry the Eight did( very little beyond memory) mary his deceased brothers wife, if it were not lawful why did our Clergy consent unto it? you say he had the popes dispensation, 
☞  oh had he so? he would also have had that to have put her away, and no doubt but he might have obtained it too( for money) had not the wily father been afraid of the Emperor Charles the Fift, who was her brother: but yet it would not serve the turn, his conscience moved him so, we rather think it was his concupiscence; However there was packed some of his own Clergy and some in France that gave their verdict for him: Though othersome of the most pious and most learned 
Sir Tho. Moore.  choose to lose their heads rather then consent: And how then, there was no such Kindred betwixt him and his next Wives to move his conscience, yet when his appetite served he could find a ready way to chop off their heads, for to sue a divorce was too tedious: but we know that learned Knight Sr. Walter raleigh says in his Pres●e he was the only exact pattern of a merciless and tiranicall Prince, therefore he can be no president for us to put away, or refuse our Wives that are of Kin to us. Neither have M. Edwards his two Scriptures, he boasts of, confuted our opinion, but( with the rest we have here cited) much confirmed and strengthened it: And though we detest and abhor Fornication and Adultery in all kind of persons( but chiefly in Kindred) as much as M. Edwards or any one living; yet now wee( more then ever) avouch the holy estate of Marriage to be both commanded and the custom with the nearest Kindred as well after the 18 of Leviticus as before, even unto the time of the gospel: as appears in the case of the seven Brothers formerly mentioned: It skills not much whether Herodias lately in our Discourse, was sister to Herod and Phillip as some suppose by the name: It was in custom amongst the Romans to use those appellations as Li●ias the Brother, and Livia the Sister, Tullius and Tullia, Octavius and Octavia, &c. and what is in fashion at Court, you know, will shortly come into the Country, for Herod was a Roman Tetrarch, therefore this conjecture is probable; and if it were so, Herod was not reproved for Kindred sake, but for taking another mans Wife, and in that case John Baptist would have done no less if Phillip had not been his brother; but setting these and many other apart that might be alleged to prove the custom, for a closing instance, wee say that Joseph and Mary the Mother of Jesus our blessed Saviour, were of a Tribe and Kindred as appears by their Geneologies in the gospel of St. matthew and St. Luke; neither hath this prohibition, as we shall show hereafter, any longer pedigree then from such as( for gain and lucre) hath tolerated stews and Ribaldry: for seeing S. Paul says Marriage is honourable in all without exception, as is set forth at large in the first part, wee say that repudiating Wives( except in case of Adultery) and forbidding of Marriage is flatly the Doctrine of Devills: observe the Apostle here in this 
1 Tim. 4.3.  Chapter, saith this forbidding should be in the latter times; Therefore M. Edwards forgets himself much to ci e Leviticus, which was in the first times, therefore not then to be forbidden; and wee are forgetful also to trouble you twice with one matter, for by what you have formerly read you may gather how he consters that Chapter after the pipes grammar: and now because M. Edwards in this last Animadversion, speaks three times of incestuous Marriages, without giving us a definition what incest is, and says he hath( out of one County) the names of three Independents that have married incestuously: by this you see, he is a champion indeed, and hath his intelligences to aggravate his quarrel: yet seeing he will not take the pains let us endeavour to give a definition to this bugbear, that these Independents( as he calls them because they have married with their Kindred may have the better satisfaction: first wee would ask M. Edwards how and from whence he derives his so often Iterated word Incest: If he will not tell us, then wee ask counsel of the Grammarians, whom wee take to be impartial expositors; if it be from the verb Incesto, that they render to pollute and defile also to defile by reason of a dead body: if it be from incestus the adjective that they render polluted, defiled, unchaste, and whorish: if it be from Incestus the substantive, that they likewise render lechery committed with one that is nigh a kin to him that committeth it; also all manner of pollution: now M. Edwards is not here the matter decided, which wee have debated in the first and second part, here is the word Incest derived and designed which is to pollute or defile, to be unchaste or whorish, to commit lechery with one that is nigh a kin; I hope you will not say there is either pollution, or whoredom, or lechery in holy Wedlock; Then is not this the same that we say Incestuous Fornication, or incestuous lechery if you will, but for incestuous Marriage that smells of the pump( of the pope and his champion wee should have said) wee have  told you and proved it often to be a popish gloss for their profit, so we find it and so we leave it; And for these three Independents you speak of that have married their near Kinswomen, if there be three score of them, we suppose they will not love their Wives the less for your aspersion, but much dearer, because it is presumed they have married without any covetous ends according to the first and best institution: but M Edwards perhaps( like blind Homer) can writ well of none that crosses his humour. Lastly, for perclose we here intend to disabuse you because you have abused yourself, to take us for Independents that makes this defence; we do assure you we are none such, if you mean that they are Independents which put down Bishops we disclaim the title, for wee approve their function though tis many yeares since we disliked their jurisdiction and their Lordships, yet if a man have a lame Leg wee had rather cure him then cut off his head: And if you call those Ind pendents that would have no King or Government in Church and Common Wealth, 
☞  we disclaim that too, for wee would have both, knowing that God is the God of order and not of confusion, wee further agnize ourselves to be some of Queen Elizabeths protestants detesting superstitious popery, and also much abominating these colophantick Sects and Seismes that have embroil our three Kingdoms; but if we be averse to such as terrify the conscience that( by their own covetous and beggarly Rudiments) would restrain us from that Christian liberty the gospel allows us, 
☞  so far, we in depend, And desire the reversion of Romish dregs( with all new Sects and Scism's) may be purged away: As touching this forbidding of Marriage, we have sufficiently already, and may move amply hereafter prove it to be a popish relic; then seeing you will have no Bishops, we desire such laws and cannons as were made in the time of Superstition, and continued by them, may be burnt and imbezeld, because they have most impiously served not onely to punish, but also to take away the lives of devout Christians, 
☜  and also to divide bodies whose hearts were rightly united, and such as God hath commanded that no man should put asunder. And in regard you say you have struck off the head of Antichrist, let us desire you to cut of the tail too, and we will be all friends. Now M. Edwards because you say you are large in your Aversion, we therefore say we have been the larger in our observation.  
The rest of the third Book of Gangrena wee have not perused, nor did we greatly think it worth our labour; onely we accidentally saw a little Pamphlet formerly name, that says you writ perniciously even to the taking away( if it were in your power) the lives of such as onely desire as they profess, the freedom of a good conscience, with the ancient laws and liberties of their Native county.  
If this be so it is not well; we ought to reform one another in the Spirit of meekness, and not with revilings and threatenings: but not to meddle beyond our own matter, we conclude your Animadvesions to be me●re temporisers from whence we can gather neither Wit, Learning, or Instruction, and so we give you the Bonus noctius, leaving you and your other Antagonists to decide your other differences.  
And now a little discourse to such as have married their near kins-Women, we know there is a popish injunction that forbids marriage in such and such degrees, and great penalties devised by the Civill Law, which have no other ground but from the popish Cannons: Then how muffled in error have we been in these latter times, to maintain such opinions and yet with all( till now of late) believe the pope had power( for his profit) to dispense with what degree he pleased: but above all observe the ridiculous reasons that some allege to uphold that devilish Doctrine, for so it is called in the Text: And indeed one Author saith truly, within some short time after the Apostles, It behoved there should be great stupidity and blindness, else how should antichristianism be introduced to the full, as since it hath been; but to return and aquaint you with one of the aforesaid Reasons some allege Aristotle, a heathen Philosopher, that in his 9 History Animar. Chap. 47. tells you a tale of a camel that killed his keeper for suffering him to couple with his dam, and another of a horse that likewise served his Dam, and after ran to the Sea and lept from a Rock into it: behold here what shall we think of Authors that city such matters to men that have reason? as if beasts that have no reason were to be our presidents for our life and conversation; for what man that hath so much wit as camel, Horse or ass can believe that the foresaid accidents happened through the causes specified, as if there was never camel before or since, that killed a man, or horse that drowned himself, who is it amongst us that hath kept a breed of cattle, sheep, or studd of horses and Mares? but the males in their seasons, have intermixed with the females promiscuously; and have wee not often received loss in our said goods many several ways, and our servants hurt and sometimes killed by horse and beasts? What then? shall we attribute those accidents to the mixture of our beasts in their several kinds? or shall we esteem them unclean and not feed upon them? if we do we shall loose our reason, and surely become more brutish then they; but what impression can not any fable make where the reasonable part is set aside, and ignorance become the Mother of devotion? It is the Popes purgatory pickpurse that hath broached a hundred of these impostures; for the reasonable part of this Argument against marriage in kindred, hath no better emphasis or grace then if a man should say, I have as good provision( of all kinds) at home, as I can find in the market, but yet it doth not like me, Therefore I will seek further to please my appetite; how then? will you approve of his judgement that will leave his own cates, which he knoweth to be good and wholesome, to buy abroad that which may be corrupt and deceitful, as often times it proves? Even so have wee better cause and opportunity to know the virtues and qualities of our nearest Kindred then of strangers; Therefore seeing wee find in Scripture, it was the practise of the Patriarkes and our forefathers to choose their Wives out of their own stock, and was with all( before and after the Law, a duty commanded;( we do not say but since the gospel there is a Christian liberty) yet if such liking happen now amongst the nearest of kin without any lustful desire, but onely for propagation and real intent of marriage, we see no cause why any( that have not lost their sense) should give credit to heathen fables or seek to pope for a dispensation.  
Another reason there is alleged and that by one that would be thought a great Doctor: A man of great Reading no doubt he was and able to city many Authors; but we have a saying the greatest Clerks are not always the wisest men; And wee know there are divers who have writ great volumes, and yet had not the true genuine sense of matters, nor a right interpretation; but let us see what weight the reason hath which he brings against this nearness of kindred: That it is not lawful saith he, 
☞  to mary ones Sister doth appear by Abrahams denying Sarah to bee his Wife amongst the egyptians, but said shee was his sister: observe well this passage was not this to save his life? read his Story and you will find them his own words; for shee might have been his sister and not his Wife, and then it had been no offence to him if another had taken her in marriage; but being his sister, and his Wife also the case was far otherways, for then he feared they might have killed him to have had her free to themselves, because it was not lawful amongst the most barbarous heathen to take another mans Wife: And now mark with all the same answer of Abraham to Abimelech in his return, viz. She was his sister, and yet afterwards when Abimeleck knew shee was his Wife, and blamed him for conce aling it, Abraham replied he thought the fear of God was not in that place, and that they would have killed him for her( the Text saith shee was a faire Woman) yet he had not wholly d ssembled, for she was his sister the Daughter of his Father and so became his Wife. Therefore it is lawful( by his example) to mary the Sister; 
☜  so the reason that this Doctor brings makes just point blank against himself: And here we would ask him how the World was peopled after the Creation, and after the deluge; was it not by the issue of Adam and Noe( that is) by natural brothers and sisters? Oh, but you will say, then there was a necessi y, and we say there is no necessity to do that which is unlawful, and if it were lawful then; the reasons and circumstances of these times makes it lawful now; for where so many Families of best integrity are rooted out of their country by wicked Sects and Scisms, together with a most inhuman and an unnatural civill War, and thereby forced to seek habitation amongst the heathen in unplanted Countries, why should not they propagate in their tribes as our fore-fathres did: of this opinion are some Doctors most absolute, well known to us for piety and learning: 
☜  but what will not some other Doctors do? when popery is in request they have reasons for that: when the Presbytery Carries it, then that is highly extolled; when the Jndependency hath sway, that must be descended too: was it not well prayed of him that desired to keep his soul from a Church-man, his body from a physician, and his Estate from the Lawyer: but do not these things give occasion of scandal to our Christian Religion even amongst the beathen? God grant that our errors may be errors of ignorance rather then of presumption or against conscience; and that we do not with some strain a Gnat and swallow a camel; such as would deny this primitive ordinance as touching Marriage( wherein there can be no prejudice if parties be single, and their intentions real) and yet admit of gross superstition in popery with other heretical Sects and schisms also, which hath opened so wide a gap to all impiety.  
Wee must not forget another reason that some allege against this nearness of kindred, that is, they have known many mischances happen to such; so have we known many blessings powred upon such; and doth all other matches thrive that are not of Kin? This reason is as like the fire as ere it may look; either it comes from an old Wife, a young novice, or the popes broker; for what is this to say, but if you mary your Kindred( without the popes licence) you can never thrive; this is a great scarecrow to the covetous, and hath so infatuated the debauched and simplo sort, that they had rather commit fornication with twenty strange Women then live in holy Wedlock with one of their Kindred. But leaving this as neither worthy of regard or further answer, one thing more we would intimate unto such as M. Edwards calls Jndependents for marrying with their Kindred, and in their tribes, namely the time about which this devilish Doctrine( of forbidding marriage) came into these Western Islands; and also who they were that set it abroach; but because we will forge nothing of our own brains we will city you a warrantable Record. We red that in the year 1172 Christianus the popes Legate, Donatus, Lawreance, and Catholicus Archbishops with their Suffragan Bishops, Abbots, Priors, deans, and Archdeacons with many Prelates, &c. These saith the Irish Chronicle kept a Synod at Cashell, debated many matters, made sundry Statutes and wholesome laws; viz. that people should refrain to mary with their nearest kinsfolks; that children should be catechized without the Church door, Baptized in the Font, &c. That every one should pay their tithes of Cattle, corn and all other increase, faithfully to the Church: that Church lands should be free from all other exactions of Lords, Noblemen, &c. no cuddies cosheries, coin& livery to be within the Church territories: when any Earick or cutting lay upon the people for murder, or head money, no person of the Clergy( though they were a kin to the murderer) should contribute anything but all to lye upon the laity; That any person dying should give the third part of his substance for the oversight and performance of his Will; Now you must imagine that charge will fall to Sr. John our Parish Priest, brother monk, or friar, &c. This is sufficient to let you know of what nature these laws were of, and to whom they were wholesome: The Clergy you see were very kind to themselves; but perhaps the laity( that must bear all the burden) had little reason to think them either wholesome or toothsome; seldom shall you see them make any laws against their profi●; neither was their prohibition in matter of Marriage the least accession thereunto. Their dispensations mentioned in the first part have been well payed for; yet to forbid the Banes with one hand and to join them together with the other for money, what think you, is it not Hocus pocus? who is it but knows it a lawful Ordinance, or else that it cannot be made so for money; well then, the time these laws were made is here to be observed 1172. And by whom? but by such Law mongers as Tolerate Jews and stews for annual Rents: Then was it not near the time that the Bishops of Rome usurped the title of Universality, though some of themselves rebuked John Bishop of Constantinople for affecting the same. I suppose it was, and from which time forward their Transubstantiation, their selling of pardons, their giving of Kingdoms, their bulls and Excomunications with many devices besides have embroil all christendom. It is further to be observed that Jreland did flourish in learning and piety: And it is needless here to recite the holy lives of Patricius, his contemporaries and successors, seeing their History is so frequent, except wee could have found this prohibition in their time, which nowhere we red of: Then are we confident it hath no elder birth then the times aforesaid, when all corruption, bribery, and simony crept into the Arch prelacy. And now if it be granted that the foresaid marriages in the next of kindred be lawful( for so we take it till we be convinced by Scripture, and that expounded without temporizing, partiality, or private interest) then it may be demanded what inconvenience there is in it, except some will say you do not wisely to stand upon the first ordinance to the prejudice of your estate; that is, to take your Kins-woman with nothing when you might have a stranger with money: wee do not read that Abraham had either, Lands, or Goods with his Wife and sister Sara; or Jsack with Rebecca, but sent presents to obtain her; or yet Jacob with his Wives, but served two prentiships for them: of M rriages made for encroaching and covetous ends( and laws made against it even by the very Heathen) there is enough said in the first part: for wee find that marriage was ordained to propagate and multiply mankind, and not to beget money; So then the kindred being agreed according to the first institution, and entire affection, the inconvenience is none amongst them: whereas in other covetous matches there is frequent quarreling: as in the Clandestine and stolen Marriages, what suits and troubles ariseth; And also in others fashioned by compact in case of not performing jointure one the one side and detaining portion on the other, which begets perpetual brawling, and not seldom do they mistake the way to one anothers bed; whereas to th●se other conjoynings proceeding from that conscionable duty enjoined to the next kinsman( and where natural affection invites) all such jars and contumelies are avoided. Then wee cannot too often reiterate the covetousness of the pope, and his Clergy( with other secular Magistrates who have drank too deep of that Babylonish cup) in making laws to prohibit so just an ordinance, and yet( for money) dispense with their own edicts. Therefore wee concur in opininion with him that saith 
Ulpian.  an unlawful custom ought not to bee binding, neither can course of time mend that which was nought from the beginning; for what it not grounded upon good right is not made good by continuance: 
☜  observe that Augustine also in his book de vera Religione, Cap. 31. mihi lex esse non videtur quae justa non est, it seems to me saith he to bee no Law at all which is not just: And how contrary these human injunctions are to Divine Ordinance, is elegantly proved in the first part( entitled Little nonesuch) if what you read here bee short of your expectation.  
As touching the most famous of the Heathen( which History Records unto us for arms and learning) who Married in the very nearest degrees; as Cyrus, Antiochus, ptolemy and so many more, which to recite were to go on ad infinitum; neither need wee them for president, having( in Scripture) so many of the fathers and Patriarks: onely this wee mention to show the practise and custom both wi h Jew and gentle( for ought wee know) till the World was old five thousand Yeares and upwards, for until the year 1172 formerly mentioned, wee have not red of any such prohibition; If any do inform us better, wee shall not bee deaf to understand it, and then you perceive from whence it came; to help your memory, wee once more tell you from the Pope and his Clergy who( for money, will dispense nevertheless and tolerate Jews and stews to boot; what Martyrs massacrees and blood-shed their laws, Cannons, and inquisition with their other plots and practices, have made since that time in christendom, wee suppose is yet fresh in your memory: Therefore wee wonder not as Mr. Edwards doth at his shadow, when he speaks of pleading for an Heresy in Print, whereas( you see) it is no other then a bare question, but wee wonder the Pope should find Champions to pled in Print( for his fees and extortion) against the holy institution of Marriage; for wee can discern no other fource or fountain from whence that devilish Doctrine proceeds: now if any can show us wherein wee are mistaken, they shall perceive wee are not impetuously obstinate, provided always they take the Scripture for their guide; for as one saith Diamonds can onely cut Diamonds; and no such Comments on the Scripture as the Scripture itself: Then if several Texts of the old and new Testament, cited here and in the little Non such, touching Marriage, the practise and example of the Fathers before and after the Law, he refuted with so many other Texts equivalent and interpnted without partiality, wee are satisfied; else the popish Cannons and Heathen fables, do not affright us, but gives us cause to detest their impiety.  
Lastly, for perclose to such as inveigle their kindred and make them concubines, or commit Fornication with them, wee wish the punishment allotted in the 20. of Leviticus, to them and the like capital offenders: But such as do really( and with their good liking) make them their Wives according to the holy Ordinance, wee pray for, and wish them the blessings of Abraham and Sarah, isaac and Rebecca, with the rest of the Fathers and patriarchs which Married in this manner: for where there is neither covetousness, Ambition, or sensuality but onely motives in conscience to perform the Kinsmans part( to use the words of Boas 
Ruth. ca. vers. 13.  to Ruth) out of a duty commanded; no doubt but God will accept the good intention and give it a blessing accordingly.    

Postcript.  
IF any suppose there are digressions in this discourse that savour, somewhat of the satire: To the affable and judicous Reader we give this satisfaction: That true it is, M. Edwards his Rigid phrase did stir up no spleen, but a little just indignation; for by his taxing the questions in little nonesuch with the words error, Heresies, wicked Pamphlets Incestuous, Independents, &c. We imagine he was a little besmeared with choler or something else, which made him clear mistake the matter; for we do not think, under favour, that the asking a Question( with modesty) deserves such epithets:( (i)) Agrippa believest thou the Prophets? I know thou dost saith 
Acts 29. vers. 27.  St. Paul; he and the rest of the Apostles did( as it were) angle for souls by Doctrine and example, not with reviling and threatening; And if any show us the errors in little nonesuch, or in this second part( occasioned by M. Edwards his invective) and will do it( as our Saviour commands) in love and the spirit of meekness, founding his tenants upon Scripture( as is desired) and with an unbiased intention, we will then esteem him highly, give him great thanks, and hear him gladly.  
FINIS.