THE DEFENCE Of sundry POSITIONS & SCRIPTURES FOR THE Congregational-way JUSTIFIED: OR An Answer to an Epistle written by Mr. Richard Hollingworth, unto S. E. and T. T. wherein he (in many particulars) chargeth them with injurious dealing against God, and against himself, in that Book of theirs, called A Defence of sundry Positions, etc.  
CONTAINING A Vindication from such Charges and aspersions so laid upon them.  
As also a brief Answer to his large (if not unreasonable) demands, to have scriptural, or rational Answ. given to his 112. Queries.  
By SAM: ETON Teacher ●IM: TAYLOR Pastor of the Church at Duckenfield in Cheshire.  Published according to Order. 
LONDON, Printed by Matthew Simmons, for Henry Overton, and are to be sold at his shop in Popes-head-Alley. 1646.   

To the Seeker of Truth in Sincerity, DIRECTIONS.  
CHRISTIAN BROTHER, that lookest hereon, and art willing and desirous through Christ to search after and to receive the love of the Truth, that thou mayest be saved, and mayest further know and worship our God, and Father in Christ acceptably, in spirit and in truth, to glorify his Name before men, wherein thou hast profaned and polluted it, as we have done, by conforming (with the times) to the precepts and traditions of men: Ponder with us for thy direction these particulars. 1. That the Mystery of truth is not manifest to the World, the generality, but to the Saints, who are dead to the World, John 14. 22. & 17. 6. Col. 1. 26. & 2: 20. & 3: 3: 2. Hence this is found amongst them that are most full of love, Gal. 5▪ 6. John 13. 35. He that dwells (or abides) in that love; abides in God▪ and God in him, 1 John 4. 16. 3. Hence it's amongst them that to others so do, as they would be done unto, Mat. 7. 12. And that whatsoever they would not should be done to themselves, do not it to others. (Act. 15: 20. 29. Old Transl. Margin. v. 20. Regim. v. 29. Complut. Regius in Naturali & Graec. vetust. & optimis, aitinsig. Selden D● Anno , c. 21. & De Jure Gent. li 7. c. 12.) 4. It's amongst the pitiful. That ye seek to the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and keep themselves unspotted from the world, John 1 27. 5. This Wisdom is not from below, but from above, and is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, well-perswaded, (or rightly obedient) full of mercy Jam. 3. 17. 6. It's amongst such, as living godly in Christ Jesus; suffer persecution for his Names fake, 2 Tim. 3. 12. John 15. 19 & 16: 33. Mat. 5. 10, 11.  
Now if thou hardly kn●west such; Say to him whom thy soul loveth, O tell me where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flocks lie down, Cant. 1. 7. and he will give true wisdom to thee, to dis●●rne of persons, and things that d●ffer.  
Yet expect not a Rose without a prick or spot. In many things we slip all. If any slip not in word, he is perfect, Jam. 3. 2. Expect therefore to find this, amongst them, that in their general aim and course, walk nearest according to that Rule, Gal. 6. 16. And be a doer of the will of God, as far as thou knowest, John 7. 17. and mainly be taken up with the knowledge, Grace, and love of Jesus Christ, that thy heart may be established therewith, Heb. 13. 8, 9  
For our parts, shame may cover our faces, that we have walked after as men: but henceforth our aim it so to walk as becometh the Gospel.  
'Cause it is of grief to our souls, that there should be Oppositions between our Brethren and us, when the Canaanite (i. depressing Merchants) and the breach-making Perizite, are in the Land, Gen. 13. 7, 8.  
The truth is, after long seeking our God, and oft discussing with our Brethren, we peaceably set upon Reformation, Practising what we were convinced was most agreeable to the Word of God: Our Brother began against us: Printing against this our practice: Yet we forbore long, till we saw, that by our silence, not only we, but Truth suffered; then were we forced to print Our just Defence of sundry Positions. And had he there stayed, we had, now, abode silent, who by printing this, may each of us seem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unwise, imprudent, (as Paul said oft of himself, being forced so to write in his own, and the Truth's Defence, 2. Cor. 12. 11. & 11. And truly, had it been our persons only that suffered, (though therein we share deeply) by this Late Printed Epistle, with certain Queries (being for an Answer to our Defence;) we had in this kind held our peace; (although our Brother could not easily repair our Damage.) But seeing Truth now suffers a second time, by our so long forbearing, we are again enforced to this seeming folly or imprudence. And by our viewing and pondering our Brother's angry bitter expressions, if we in any passage seem to any, to have learned some of his ways; (which we confess we are subject unto, Pro. 22. 25.) Let our weakness remain with us, and not be charged on the Cause, or Truth that we maintain. We are learning not to render evil for evil, or railing for railing, 1 Pet. 3. 9 and hope we shall more fully be taught of God therein.  
Christian Reader, If thou hast read our Brother's Epistle, we entreat thee to have one ear for this our Answer thereto: remembering what the wiseman said; He that is first in his own cause, seemeth just: but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him, Prov. 18. 17. Consider what is said, and the Lord give thee and us, understanding in all things. 2 Tim. ●. 7. Amen.   

THE DEFENCE OF Sundry Positions and Scriptures, for the Congregational-way JUSTIFIED:  
Reverend and beloved Brother,  
YOu have saluted us with a querulous and Apologetical Epistle; a querulous in reference to us, and Apologetical in reference to yourself; And with an 112 Queries, to all which you require us to give rational and scriptural Answers; We will first take your Epistle into consideration, and afterwards debate what is meet to be said in reference to your Queries.  
And first we will consider the justness of those charges that you lay upon us. Secondly, Whether you have acquitted yourself from those charges you say are laid upon you.  
The charges you make against us may be referred to seven 
Sect. 1▪  heads.  
1. That we unjustly charge you of provoking us to be your Antagonist in print. pag. 3.  
2. That there is a difference betwixt our Title page and the text. pag. 8, 9  
3. That our pretending to prove some positions, practices, by other scriptures and arguments as to your intent expressed in the preface, is a bymatter. pag 10.  
4. That we do not answer directly, but obliquely and evadingly. pag 10, 11.  
5. That we discover too much willingness to quarrel at your expressions. pag 11.  
6. That contrary to rule and reason when we should make good the proof of the Position from the Text alleged, we call to you to prove the contrary. pag. 12  
7. That we curtail and clip your answers, fold them up in obscure etc. Omit that which we know to be more pertinent, while we transcribe and largely answer some thing less pertinent. pag. 13.  
To begin with the first: How do you acquit yourself from provoking us to be your Antagonists in print? Did the Book break forth into the world against your consent? Yourself imply the contrary, when you say others (rather than yourself) thought fit the examination etc. should be printed. And what charge soever you gave concerning the prefixing of your name; yet we could not be ignorant what by R: H: M: A: of Maygd. Col. Cambr. meant. Yet it was not your name (which we love as we do your person) that could provoke us, but the matter in the Book; which as it tended to the subversion of that Government which is in our apprehensions suitable to the golden rule of the word of God, and the setting up of another government, which in the things in controversy we can see no other ground for, save humane policy and prudence, (so called,) measured by the line of natural reason: so it reflected upon us in some particulars, which falling from us in conference or writing you took up, and committed your answer unto them to be made public. And for that cause when we saw no other of better abilities take up the business, we thought we were bound to make our defence as public. But as Joseph in another case said to his Brethren, 
Gen. 45. 5.  Be not grieved that ye sold me, &c: so whether you provoked, or whether we without cause were provoked, yet if God (as we hope he will) make this a means to bolt out some truth of his, so fare forth we shall rejoice in it.  
Your second charge is, that there is a difference betwixt our Title page and the Text (pag 7, 8.) for say you. The Title speaks indefinitely, that the Positions and Scriptures alleged (not some or many of them) by me examined, are sufficient, pertinent and full of power, and are manifested, yea clearly manifested so to be. But in your text you disclaim the places applied to Position 23, as it is by me controverted and are confident they are not found in the works of any congregational man, etc.  
Answ 1. The title page was not that we sent up, but was prefixed to our defence by a Friend, to whose care we committed it, to see to the printing of it, ourselves living at such distance. And if less had been given out in the Title, it would not have derogated from the validity of the work, and would have liked us better. Notwithstanding we doubt not but to maintain the concordance betwixt the Text and it, though not perhaps in every Punctilio. Yet it must be understood, that so fare as the Positions and scriptures are ours, and truly and justly alleged by you as ours, so fare we maintain the sufficiency and pertinency of them. And also so fare as congregational men have intended to make use of them, in reference to their true and proper scope, in alleging them, they are full of power, for they have produced and mentioned several of them as probable, and there is strength of probability though not of certainty, even in those texts in which the infallibility of them is not asserted.  
2. The title that we sent up prefixed to our Book, you may behold it in the first page of our defence without variation, and we suppose you will judge it modest enough.  
3. And whatsoever may be said for the rest, yet sure we are, in the instance you give there is no difference betwixt them. For the Title page engageth to a defence of sundry Positions, and scriptures alleged to justify the congregational way; But Position 23 as it is by you controverted, is a doctrine devised by yourself, and the scriptures fixed by yourself, to render us odious to all other Churches and all other Saints. As for us, we hate and detest the thought of confining the Priestly, Prophetical, and Kingly Offices of Christ, to Churches merely congregational; Neither were these scriptures ever alleged by us, or any of our judgement, (to our knowledge) to any such purpose: therefore without clashing with our Title page, we might and ought to explode them.  
4. Forasmuch as your Title page runs thus, The examination of sundry scriptures alleged by our Brethren in defence of some particulars of their way: Either make it out that some Brethren of the congregational way, have made use of these scriptures to this purpose, or else there will be found not only an imaginary, but a real clashing betwixt your title page and your text, and you also will be found guilty the second time, of a grievous reproach, not only against the Brethren, but against the way itself.  
For the second place, viz. Position the 15, wherein say you, After the allegation of some Authorities instead of answering a Text (upon which the distinction of Pastors and Teachers is grounded) You, (the one a Teacher and the other a Pastor) conclude, if we do put a false gloss upon the scripture by misinterpreting of Eph. 4. 11. yet more modest language (let any man find immodesty in that examination if he can) had become you Brother, seeing such reverend and learned men (whom yourself honour) have gone before us in this exposition.  
Answ. If we had only urged their authorities, you might have charged us with not making out in this place what we pretend in our title Page: but we urge and improve the reasons, and so make them our own reasons, for the confutation of your answer. First, after we have showed that whether you translate the prepositive article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some, or these, you gain nothing by it; we endeavour to prove that the Doctors are not Schoole-Doctors, but Church Doctors, from Rom. 12. 7, 8. 1 Cor. 12. 8. and then proceed to prove that these Church Doctors are distinct from Church Pastors, not only by the authority of Zanchy, but by the reasons rendered by Pareus and Bucer, and specified by us, viz. That God gives distinct gifts to Pastors from those that he gives to Teachers: For to the one is given a special faculty of exhortation, to the other a clearer understanding of doctrine, and consequently they are distinct offices; And yet you would make all men believe, that in our Reply, we defend not the Text at all.  
Concerning our conclusion, in which immodest language is charged upon you, and your defence of yourself (Let any man find immodesty in that examination if he can) we say, we conceive not ourselves injurious in it at all. For the immodest language, though it be not in the examination of this Position, yet we find it in the first words of the preface which is applicable in your proper scope, to all the positions, and so consequently to this Position, viz. True Positions and lawful practices must not (much less untrue and unlawful) be fathered upon God by misinterpretation of his word, etc. In which words you do insinuate the Positions which you examine, and practices built upon them to be untrue and unlawful, and to be fathered on God by misinterpretation of God's word. And therein you do not asperse us only, but lay an immodest charge upon Bucer, Zanchy, Pareus, who concur with us in our Position and interpretation of Eph. 4.  
Thirdly, say you, Do you clearly manifest that the text Mat. 18. (whatsoever other texts do) doth prove that the Church must be congregational?  
Answ. We clearly manifest, what in conference we have endeavoured to prove out of these words, and the Position as you have laid it down and do controvert it, we shall believe to be your own Fiction, till you produce your Author. We hold that the exercise of Church Power by the congregational Church is founded upon this text, as the observation of the Christian Sabbath is upon the fourth Commandment. We have clearly proved that Christ in this place sends the offended Brother to the Church endowed with power at that time when the offence should be committed, and therefore sends the Brethren of the Jewish Church to the Jewish. Church, whilst that Church remained in power: and sends the brethren of Christian Churches in the times of the Gospel to congregational Churches as they stand in opposition to Classical, Provincial, Nationall and Ecumenical Churches. And how slight soever you make of this our Reply, except by scriptural reasons, you force us to quit this ground, you lose your Presbyterian cause.  
Fourthly, say you, Position the 20. Have you clearly manifested that the Keys were given to Peter to be used by him, (For you could not but know that to be the meaning) as a Disciple, Believer, not an Officer?  
Answ. We have clearly proved the contrary; And yet you without the least refutation of the proof made by us, stick to the conclusion, that we cannot but know the meaning to be, that the Keys were given to Peter to be used by him as a Disciple, or a Believer, not as an Officer. A doctrine which we profess against (as in our Reply we manifest) as neither consonant to the mind of the holy Ghost, (as we conceive) nor the Elders of New England, whom you allege, as we proved it out of the sense of their own words. Do we but sing to a deaf man in what we say to you? We leave it to the ingenuous Reader to judge betwixt us.  
Fifthly, say you, Have you clearly manifested that Col. 4. 17. proves the Church's power to censure her Officers: when the strongest argument you bring, to prove Archippus his faultiness, without which it was no censure, amounts but to a strong presumption and that you know is but a weak proof.  
Answ. A man would imagine that you (Brother) never built any conclusions as mortally probable upon premises that might beget strong presumptions, but that all your arguments were demonstrationes potissimae, and concluded with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because you find fault with our strong presumptions built upon two good reasons, and ushered in by the authority of Zanchy, as one of those many Classic Authors that assert the same thing with us in this particular. Yet yourself upon this place argue thus. Paul (say 
Examination in pag. 15, 1●  you) bids Timothy fulfil his ministry, 2 Tim. 4, 5. yet this doth not suppose Timothy to be faulty, etc. And then you add, And it may be Archippus was not faulty, and then this Admonition was no censure. and thence you infer, therefore its alleadg●d to no purpose; It had been more tolerable if you had said therefore it may be, it is alleged to ●o purpose. Is it a fault in us to build a strong presumption upon two reasons, yet uncontrowled? Is it no fault in you (Sir) to build a peremptory conclusion upon that which amounts to no more than an it may be, which is not so much as a remote probability, much less a strong presumption?  
Since our work and business was to defend the scriptures alleged against your examinations, we have fulfilled what our Title page undertakes, if we prove that a Church hath a privilege to admonish her Officers by virtue of this text, any thing in your examinations notwithstanding. Now the two reasons by us alleged make it absolutely clear, that Archippus was faulty by virtue of Col. 4. 17. and that though Church's power in censuring her Officers, may be, and is founded hereupon. i e. For aught you allege to the contrary in that place, and contain in them grounds of a strong presumption that the thing is so indeed.  
Sixtly, Have you (say you) clearly manifested from Adam's Family, that 7 8 or 9, make a Church, etc.  
Answ. Is not our work to defend the Position against your arguments? Is there any thing that hath the least appearance of an argument produced by you in this section, which we have not fully answered? If there be, produce it.  
We thought it superfluous and impertinent to prove that which yourself clearly grant, when you say the case of Adam and Noah was extraordinary, there were no more in the world, and therefore could be no more in the Church: Do you not grant a Church at that time consisting of 7, 8 or 9, Of this we make use, and argue in effect thus; How few ever made a Church since the beginning of the world, the same may make a Church at this day: But 7, 8 or 9 (say you) made a Church in Adam's time and Noah's time, Therefore 7 8 or 9, may make a Church at this day. Yet we would not have the Church to consist of no more, but judge a numerous addition of members a great mercy.  
As for our concession (that God hath not precisely determined what number doth make a Church) which you make use of to darken the clearness of our manifestation, we say, It is a confirmation of our argument which we bring, viz. That look how few have made a Church, so few may make a Church still, because God hath not determined what number a Church must consist of. And it is brought to clear the Position that 7 8 or 9, may now make a Church, because so many have made a Church in adam's and Noah's days. And till you have overthrown the strength of the Argument which is contained in these words (because God hath not determined what number must make a Church) you deal not candidly, to suggest that out own acknowledgement in those words, is against that clear manifestation of that Position, which we in the Title page speak of.  
Seventhly, Methinks you have not cleared (say you) that Revel. 8. 8, 9 is sufficient and full of power against settled Endowments.  
Answ. Sir, It falls out with the best writers, as it doth with the best bvilders, they have not only in the making of their walls certain pieces of timber, which bear up the weight of the stories and roof which if they were removed the whole building would fall; but also certain carved enterteises, which serve for ornament, and yet possibly may yield some contributions of strength also; yet so, that if they should be removed, the building would remain firm. These amongst the learned are usually types, doubtful parables, and dark prophecies, which they bring in when they have solidly proved a point by sound argument before. Thus it falls out with the Elders of New England, who being demanded whether they did allow or think fit to allow and settle any certain stinted maintenance upon the Ministers, answer that there is nothing done that way amongst them, and their practice they defend by two reasons, which must needs infer the unfitness of the contrary course at least to them which may be resolved into these two Arguments.  
1. Arg●If the Condition of the Ministers and the Churches to which they belong may vary, than it is unfit to settle a certain and stinted maintenance for the Ministry: But etc. Ergo.  
2. Argt If Christ our Lord hath appointed no such thing as stinted maintenance, than it is unfit for the Church to settle stinted maintenance: But etc. Ergo.  
Upon these two pillars is the fabric of their practice borne up; yet to add some probable lustre to what was well proved before, they add the opinion of some Divines concerning Revel. 8. 8, 9 and they speak doubtfully of the place, as not thinking it fit confidently to lay this burden upon it; But say they, if those writers be not deceived, which so expound that scripture, as for our parts we know not but they expound it truly, etc. They say not confidently that the exposition is true, but that they know not the contrary; and if it be so, than it may be truly gathered, that the bringing in of settled endowments and eminent preferments into the Church hath been the corruptions and to some t●● destruction of such as lived by them, both Church Officers and members. And we have endeavoured to show the probability of this interpretation, but dare not speak definitively of it. Yet the Position in the letter of it undertakes no more than what you (Brother) grant, viz. that Revel. 8. 8, 9 is applied by some good Authors to those times in which Constantine brought settled endowments into the Church, and yet we are still beaten as though what the Elders intended (viz. to cast a probable lustre upon what was solidly proved before) we had not clearly delivered this text of scripture, and by consequence must be guilty of belying God, and counterfeiting the King of King's hand, which is the language of the preface, and so make us a laughing stock to some, and the objects of hatred to other vulgar readers; For this cause we must of necessity discover your dealing in this business.  
2. It is said of Amaleck that he met Israel in the way, and 
Deut. 25. ●8.  smote the hindermost of them, even all that were feeble behind them: so you (Brother) show a singular dexterity in passing by the two  reasons, and fall upon the probable argument drawn from this place, the hindermost and most feeble of all the rest.  
3. Again, what they speak hypothetically, and by way of supposition, you make use of thetically, and by way of position, and so, that it may well leave the ordinary reader under this apprehension, that we have no other argument to build our dislike of stinted Church maintenance upon, but this place. For your scope is apparently not only to vindicate the scriptures from abuse, but also to confute these positions of the congregational way.  
4. Once more, whereas the Elders show that this place is applied to those times wherein Constantine brought settled endowments into the Church with ampla praedia large possessions, you (Brother) leave out ampla praedia, and mention only settled maintenance, whereas the place may be understood in the latter sense, as well as in the former. For there were certain Revenues belonging to the Churches before 
Euseb. lib. 10. 1. 5.  Constanstine his time, as may appear out of the imperial constitution, directed to Anilinus, wherein he saith, We have already decreed the same, that the possessions belonging to the Churches aforetime, should be restored; And again provide, that if either gardens or houses, or other possessions whatsoever have belonged to the title of their Churches, all the same be speedily restored to them again.  
Lastly, Give us leave to tell you, that we conceive you are not a little injurious to the Elders of New-England, and learned Master Forbes and others, whilst you affirm that Constantine's donation (as you seem to understand it) is the foundation of this exposition; because you would imply, that they believe such a donation of Constantine to be a truth, which is such an impudent fiction, that all wise men no sooner hear it, but abhor it. For those which say 
d. c. fund. de El●c. Sext. Chro. vol. 2.  least, affirm that Constantine gave the City of Rome to Silvester the Pope and his successors, and others are not ashamed to avouch that he gave all the Western Empire. And this donation is mentioned by Gratian in the decretals, this also is censured by Nauclerus to be but Palea, because it is manifest that Constantine gave Italy and other Kingdoms of the West to his sons by his last will and testament. No● not of this Donation but of other maintenance which Constantine bestowed; not upon the Bishop of Rome alone, but upon other godly Bishops and Ministers throughout his Empire, are the Elders of New-England Master Forbes and others to be understood.  
Eightly say you, And Position 7 do you manifestly clear that 2 Cor, 8, 5. doth pertinently and powerfully prove, that every member at his admission doth promise to give himself to the Church to be guided by them, when you say, the practice of the Churches of Macedonia is by way of allusion made use of, and the Argument is a Comparatis. For you know allusions and comparisons are not argumentative.  
Answ. Why do you the second time after admonition given by us in our former book leave out that, without which neither can the Churches directing, nor the members following direction be lawful. For the Elders of New-England say not that a Church member is to give himself up to the Church to be guided by her according to will, but according to God; But these words (according to God) you leave out.  
2. If to answer all your Reasons to the contrary be to defend this Position by virtue of this text, we have done it; produce (if you can) any thing which hath the least appearance of an Argument in it, which we have not answered.  
3. We have showed that the case of the Macedonian Churches, 2 Cor. 8. 5. is parallel with the case of a member giving himself up to be guided by the Church according to God: For as God gave Paul and Timothy to direct the Churches of Macedonia according to God, so God hath given particular Churches to direct their several members according to God, that is to say, The Elders by way of office authoritatively, and the brethren as God shall give them opportunity to advise and admonish their fellow members. Therefore by the same reason that the Churches of Macedonia, gave themselves up to Paul and Timothy, by the same reason ought Church members to give up themselves to the Church to be directed by her according to God.  
But you would make men (at least if any possibly may look upon this exception, as though Logic Reason and Religion what ever they be are wholly in subserviency to your present design) believe (whether you have confuted us or no) that we have confuted ourselves, when we say it is Argumentum a comparatis; for say you, You know that allusions and comparisons are not argumentative.  
For unless we must unknown all that we have known to gratify your cause withal, we must needs profess that when we were but boys in the University, we were taught that one head or common place from which Arguments were to be drawn was a Comparatis from Comparrisons. And we have had no reason to extirminate that doctrine from intermeddling with the matters of God. Suppose a man should say to Master Hollinworth (a Minister) You should season others with the salt of knowledge, and of the love and sear of God, for you are the salt of the earth, Math. 5. 13. You should feed your people with wholesome doctrine and discipline, for you are a shepherd, would Master Hollinworth out with this Logic, and say Comparrisons prove nothing and therefore the Arguments are naught? Did Paul commit a sol●ris●e in Logic when he proves that Ministers should receive maintenance because the mouth of the Ox must not be ●●zelled, that▪ treadeth out the corn? Or is our Saviour's argument weak and insufficient, when he justifieth his Disciples▪ for plucking the ears of corn, by an argument ● Comparatis taken from David's taking and eating the shewbread? So that, till we have something more than your bare assertion to convince us, we shall believe there is a truth in the old rule of Analogy, Quod de uno, secundum proporti●nem affirmatur vel negatur, id etiam de altero: That which is asserted or denied of one thing, according to proportion may be asserted or denied of another thing. And if you can overthrow this old maxim, we are confident that the Classic cause will suffer as well as the congregational.  
Ninthly, say you, In stead of clear manifestation of Minister's mantenance out of the stock of the Church, you say, we think we see most warrant for it from the New Testament, and as most probable once disputed it, but neither then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are peremptory in it, etc.  
Answ. What shall our modesty be now ●●de use of against us? Though it be so▪ yet we shall desire to be mode●t 
Sallust. B●l. Jug.  still. It was the Commendation of 〈◊〉, that he did plurimum fac●re & ●inim●m de s●l●qui; We hope God will never leave us so 〈◊〉 to ou● selves as to profess my doctrine, or f●ll upo● a●● practise confidently and peremptorily as of divine inspiration or institution, for which we have not a clear evidence of scripture; That tithes and stinted Church maintenance are unlawful, that Ministers are to be maintained out of the Church stock, the reception and distribution whereof appertaineth to the Deacons office, we conceive we have solidly proved out of the word of God: But that the Ministers are to be maintained by such a stock as is raised by a weekly contribution, because it is not absolutely clear in the Text (at least to us) we thought fit to dispute it only as probable. If you could come as near unto a demonstration of Classic government, as this chapter doth to a demonstration of a stock by weekly contribution of the Church, and we had no more to say against it, than yet we have heard (for we cannot prophesy what you may hereafter produce, against a Stock raised by weekly contributions, we should be tender how we muttered a word against Classic government.  
2. Except you can produce some one of the congregational way, that in writing or disputation hath asserted weekly contributions to be of divine institution, and binding to all Churches, we shall esteem the Position and scripture annexed (as to such a purpose) your own invention. As for us as we defended it in disputation, so we have to the same purpose clearly manifested it to be sufficient, pertinent, and full of power, viz. to make it probable, that the Ministry should be maintained by a Stock raised by weekly contributions, and see no cause to doubt, but that we have solidly answered all your arguments to the contrary.  
Lastly, Colophonis vice, as the close of this charge, you conclude when you say, we think we conceive its probable, and do never so confidently assert any of the several Positions, and do not prove the same by the several texts respectively alleged, nor clear the said text from all Objections made against your Exposition (one material Objection unanswered being enough to invalidate the same) you afford so many Arguments to any wise Reader, that you have not clearly manifested the Positions and Scriptures where such Speeches are found to be sufficient, etc.  
Answ. All that we have to say is this, First, That your triumph concerning our not proving the Positions by the Text respectively alleged is before your victory. Secondly, Though one material Objection unanswered (unanswerable you should say, for our weakness may not (peradventure) be able to defend a truth) doth invalidate our Exposition: yet where we urge divers Texts to any Position, if any one of them be truly urged, and so unanswerable, though you should invalidate all the rest as to such a purpose, you may advantage the truth thereby, but advantage not your cause at all. So that one material Objection (such as we have not yet met with in your writings) though it might invalidate the Exposition, yet possibly might not prejudice the Position at all.  
The third Charge which you lay upon us, that our pretending to prove some Positions and practices by other Scriptures and Arguments (as to your intent expressed in the preface) is but a Bymatter, For Positions and practices may be true and lawful, and yet not truly and lawfully grounded on the Text alleged, etc.  
Answ. When the King had burnt Jeremiahs' Roll, and 
Jerem. 3● 32.  and he caused Baruch to write the Roll a new, it is said, he added besides to them many like words. If we had neglected to answer your Examination of the scriptures alleged by us, and had fallen upon new scriptures, you might well have complained: but we thought good measure pressed down shaken together and running over, would not have offended you. And yet the truth is, we know not how to please you, the one way or the other. In some sections (though to our understanding) we have not left any thing in the similitude of an Argument unanswered yet) we are complained of, that we have not clearly manifested the Position, as we have already showed. And how should this be done otherwise than by answering your Examination, unless it be by new Arguments: And what are Arguments worth, if not backed with scriptures? and yet when besides our answer to your examination, we add some short dissertation upon the Point, this is counted as a By matter to your intent in the preface.  
2. Your intent as it appears both in your Title Page, the Preface and the Book itself, was not only to vindicate the scriptures, but to discover the supposed weakness of the doctrine contained in the Positions. And why should not we as well assert the doctrine, as vindicate the scriptures, which (some of them culled out by you) are the weakest and most feeble parts of the proof made by us as we have told you  
3. You could wish you say, We might keep close to the Scriptures and Positions alleged, till they be one way or other cleared, and then we may more orderly proceed to other scriptures and arguments: and yet you that cannot endure any addition of scripture or reason applied to the question stated more fully to our own sense, than they are in the Positions drawn up by you, require us in the mean time to give scriptural and rational answers to no less than an hundred and twelve Queres, whereof some of them are Nihil ad Rhombum independants (we are assured) in the business of controversy betwixt us.  
The fourth Charge that you make against us, is, That we do not answer directly, but obliquely and evadingly in sundry places, as where (say you) I allege that the Apostles never taught or practised to gather or separate one part of this true Church, and and another part of that, especially persons whom themselves converted not, to make a purer Church. You answer of another thing which was never denied, viz. The Apostles both taught and practised the separating of some Jews from other Jews and gathered them into a Christian Church, while yet the Jewish Church was not dissolved, but was a Church of God.  
Answ. We are so fare from answering obliquely or evadingly in this place, that we dare be bold to say, that no reply can more front and diametrically oppose such a confused answer as yours i●, than this of ours doth. We did observe that the supposed strength of your answer, was couched in the four sinews of it. 1. We thought you deserted it as a thing dissonant to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles, to gather some Christians from others to make a purer Church. 2. We conceived that the truth of the Churches from which persons are gathered, was that which you imagined, made the gathering of them in such sort to bear no conformity with the Apostles doctrine or practice; And we conceived there was this implication in it, that it might be lawful and suitable to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles, to gather believers out of a false Church, but not out of a true. 3. We considered that this might have some strength in your thoughts, that there is no such thing mentioned in the doctrine and practice of the Apostles as the gathering of one Church out of many. 4. That you imagined that there was some strength in it to prove our gathering of Churches unlawful, because the persons gathered were such as we converted not. Having thus anatomised in our thoughts your Answer, we addressed ourselves to discover the weakness and falliblenesse of all these Exceptions, and we began with the second, because it was most general; and so descended to the rest which were more particular. And First, we shown, that the truth of a Church is not that that can make it sinful or unlawful to gather or take in the members of it into the union of other Churches; For than it should have been unlawful for the Primitive Churches to have gathered in the believing Jews into their Churches whilst that Church remained true; But this say we was the doctrine and practice of the Apostles. Now what can be more point blank opposite to this part of your answer then this? Hence also our conclusion hath the strength of this argument in it, If it be not unlawful to withdraw from one Church that is true, than it is not unlawful to gather out of twenty or an hundred, i e. because they are true.  
Object. But (say you) this was not a Christian Church.  
Answ. We consider it not as Jewish, but under the notion of truth, as it was a true Church.  
Object. Nor are the Reformed Churches and Ministers to be compared with the than Jewish Church and Priests thereof.  
Answ. You shuffle in the Ministers of the one, and the Priests of the other impertinently: We have only to do with the Churches, and we say the Christian Churches might be compared with the than Jewish Church under the notion we consider it in, viz. in point of truth; For the Jewish Church was a true Church as well as the Christian Churches.  
Object. It was but one (say you) and you should show gathering out of several Churches.  
Answ. Do we not show it thus? If it be lawful to gather out of one true Church, than it is lawful (upon the same ground) to gather out of many.  
Object. But (say you) the Apostles gathering was only of those Jews they converted to Christianity from unconverted Jews, and you should show the gathering of Christians converted by others, from other Christians.  
Answ. This also we have showed at large, clearing also the former objection together with it by several arguments and two places of scripture, viz. 1 Cor. 5, 6. 2 Cor. 13, 10. In our second, third, fourth, fift, and sixth particulars, and these in opposition to the first and third particulars wherein we thought you placed the strength of your answer.  
Object. But you should show the gathering of Christians converted by others from other Christians converted as well as they, and possibly from those persons by whom they were converted.  
Answ. And this we have fully cleared, pag. 10. from the practice of the Apostles and Primitive Christians.  
None but an Empiric would censure a Physician that he doth not cure all diseases with one Dosse. Shall our reply be judged obliqne, evading, & insufficient, because it is not a bush to stop every gap with, though it be most punctually opposite to that part of your answer, against which we leveled it.  
Object. But (say you) that Church was then by God's Commandment to be dissolved, and many Churches to be built upon its ruins, and therefore doth no more warrant the building of one Christian Church upon the ruin of other Christian Churches, than the Parliaments Commission (if there were such a one) to the Inhabitants of Derby hundred, to take down Lathamhouse to build them houses of, doth warrant any one of the Inhabitants to take as many good stones as they can come by, out of this, and that, and the other neighbour's house, concerning which they gave no such Command.  
Answ. You lately found fault with an argument of ours, because it was a Comparatis, alleging that allusions and Comparisons are not argumentative, if allusions and Comparisons were not capable of a better symmetry and proportion then this of yours, we should not only not yield them to be argumentative, but we should disavow and discard them as not illustrative. For though it was not our intent (as we said) to answer all the branches of your objections, with this one instance, but only that that deceives its strength from the truth of Churches (and therefore your triumph out-running your victory, might well have been spared, when you say, your not bringing a more punctual and more pertinent proof, argues either an implicit confession of the truth of my answer, or inability to oppose it) and though we have brought other punctual and pertinent proofs which are above the reach of your instance, yet though all were as you would bear the world in hand, your Allegory wants that due proportion that should render it illustrative, much more argumentative.  
For First, it is not the practice of congregational members, or Churches, to take any, much less as many good members as they can come by out of this, and that, and the other neighbouring Churches, concerning which, God hath given no Command that those persons should leave those Churches. For so your comparison should be framed to make it run parallel with the case. Nay the congregational members make it their scope to take in none but those, that having righteously withdrawn themselves from other Churches, do voluntarily tender themselves to communion with them, that so they may enjoy those Ordinances purely with the corruption of which they were not only polluted, but endangered before; And that they may enjoy other Ordinances purchased for their special edification by the precious blood of Christ, which their souls languished in the want of, whilst they were (some of them) as members in the line of Parochiall-Communication. Once more, it is the scope and end of congregational members, and Churches (if we understand them aright) sure we are, it is our own desire and practise, to receive in no members, but from such Churches, in which we have no ground of hope in sight, for a reformation in any tolerable proportion of time, all of us having expressed the offence given us by Parochial disorders to private brethren, because it would have been interpreted a disturbance of the Church's peace, for private persons to speak publicly against the received practice of the Church; And some of us who by our calling were better enabled, having not only in vain witnessed against the Leaven, with which we saw the Churches leavened, but also fruitlessly waited a long time for redress of present greivances, when there was no hope left, have withdrawn.  
3. If God by means of this present happy Parliament, (wherein next under God is our present hope) or by other should work such a reformation, that we might comfortably join with Churches meeting nearer to our habitations then our own, we should be willing for our parts (and we believe the same of all our brethren) to lay down by mutual consent our Covenant, and fall into fellowship in several other Churches, especially where we were sometimes members respectively.  
4. It supposeth the Churches from which our members have withdrawn, have as good right to hold their members as well as any man in Derby hundred hath to withhold the stones of his house from those that without a just power endeavour to take them away; which how you will make out, seeing that you hold no other tie, but the boundaries and limits of the Parish or Chappelry, do so fervently dispute against express agreements and Covenants we understand not. Yet if the ways and walking of Parish Churches were such as tended to the edification of the members, and no just cause appear of their removal or withdrawing, we should not contest with you about it. But if either visible wicked members be admitted to the Lords Supper without hope of redress, or the dispensation of the Lords Supper, and execution of the power of the Keys, and other Ordinances be wanting, without hope of redress, we conceive they have no more power to withhold such a member from joining to another Church for his spiritual better accomdation, than a Master hath to withhold his Servant from removing to another Family, that so he may not be enfeebled by being straitened in his food, or endangered by the unwholsomenesse thereof.  
5. Fifthly, But it may be there may be some more ground for your fift charge, which is, That we discover too much willingness to quarrel at your expressions: a little after (say you) you discover too much willingness to quarrel at my expresfions, wherein you say I would suggest, that you make opposition to Magistracy: but doth not Master Weld a congregational man, when Master Rathband chargeth Independents to hold, that Christians may and aught to set up new Churches and practice in them all God's Ordinances without the consent of a Christian State, yea against their peremptory Commands and established laws, and in the midst and against the mind of such Churches, as they freely acknowledge to be the true Churches of God, say of this Article, no pen can express a greater latitude of opposition against Magistracy and Laws, and Churches too, than he affirms to be in us? Do not I use his own words? Print them in a different Character? Cite them in the Margin? etc.  
Answ. True, you do so; notwithstanding it was not discerned by us, and the fault was most in yourself; For you print it in a different Character, and cite Master Weld in the Margin, but were defective in a letter to guide to the citation: and hence the mistake: For you cite Answer to 9 pos. pag. 76. as appertaining to the letter (U) speaking of something that was proper to Apostolic men, and then immediately join T. W. to W. R. pag. 67. by close to it, without any other letter, as if it had belonged to the same thing; and so we received of it, as you may discern by our defence, when we make any mention of that part of your answer, which speaks of the Apostles preaching against the peremptory Command of Magistrates, we print your Citation pointed at by the letter (b) and we annex T. W. to W. R. pag. 67. to it, as appertaining to the same thing. The truth is, we were faulty also, because if we could have looked into that place of Master Wields book, we might have rcctified ourselves in that mistake. But that Book was out of our way, when we should have done it, and afterwards we did not mind. And as for the different Character, we minded it less, because for many causes the Character is changed, besides that when other men's words are cited. Had we been ware that they were Master Wields words, we would have have given a more pertinent answer, which hereafter if there shall be occasion we shall annex.  
And whereas you say, this is but one example of many, as we know none at all, so if there be any of moment, we persuade ourselves we should have met with them under his charge, for you spare not to give many instances of the same kind, when you apprehend it makes for your advantage.  
6. The sixth charge undertakes to prove that we have a saculty, and make much use of it to turn the proof over to you. When I show you (say you) where the proof of the Position, from the text alleged is defective, and require you to supply that defect, you then turn it over to me to prove the contrary, as 1 Cor. 16. 1. When I say the Churches of Galatia might for aught you allege to the contrary, be combined one to another, the substance of your answer is, without proof we cannot grant it; And that you may more plaufibly put the business off yourselves, you leave out the words (for aught you allege to the contrary).  
Answ. A little before we were told that to prove some positions by other scriptures and arguments than those annexed to the Positions (as to your intent in the preface) was a by matter; And it was wished that we might keep close to those scriptures and positions till they were cleared, but in this place though we answer your arguments, and consequently make good the proofs annexed, and when we have done, tell you that without proof we cannot grant such a Classical Combination in Galatia, as is in Scot●●n●, and in Holland, yet we are arraigned as departing from rule and reason, because we turn the probative part over unto you. Is not our part defensive only of these Positions and scriptures? And if we deliver the scriptures of the doctrine contained in the Positions, any thing in your examinations contained notwithstanding, we do Sportamquam nacti sumus ornare, Perform what we have undertaken. And though when we do more, (if solidly and truly) yourself and all the lovers of truth are so much the more our debtors, yet if we do thus much only, you have no cause to ensure us.  
2. As for you, Forasmuch as you afford such hard quarter to the Positions as to make them by interpretation a helping of God, counterfeiting of the King of King's hand, and an addition to his word, (since he that makes a charge must prove it) we thought you were bound (these arguments in your examination failing) either to make out your charge by other arguments, or at least confess, that you have wronged the Authors of such Positions and the truth itself, and therefore we put you upon proof.  
3. As we put nothing off ourselves that belonged to us, so we never left out those words, (for aught you allege to the contrary) for any such end as you suggest. But for brevity sake, and because we thought there was nothing material to the business in hand, either for your advantage, or our disadvantage contained in them. For though if you understand it in a sense nothing to the purpose, viz. The Churches of Galatia might be combined, for aught we allege to the contrary; meaning God could have combined them, so he could have made Rome, Paris, or Madrid, the place of an Ecumenical Congregation, for worship and government; It is true: yet if you mean the Churches of Galatia might be combined, for aught we allege to the contrary, meaning there is nothing in the proof made in the Position that infers the non▪ combination of the Churches of Galatia: we say, it is your oversight to assert it. And we turn not over the proof to you, but having confuted the supposed proof to the contrary, we send you to seek new arguments, or yield us the cause.  
7. The last charge, is of a great wrong to yourself, and the truth of God, (as you say) viz. That we curtail and clip your answers and arguments, not only the supplement, but the substance and strength of them, folding them up in obscure, etc. sometimes omitting them with a Censure; You ask us a little after, Do● you not omit that which you know to be pertinent, while you transcribe and largely answer something less pertinent?  
Answ. What may be done through oversight we know not, but we have omitted nothing pertinent of purpofe or advisedly; D●lus late● in generalibus, your ●en general charges we cannot but take to be great injuries, and the issues of a spirit of detraction, since you would bear the world in hand, that they are so many, that they would too much enlarge this Epistle, augmenting it in sundry pages; If you had spared your Queries at this time, and left room for the discovery of these supposed unc●ndide passages, you had done your self no less right, and us much less wrong; And if you had but barely cited the pages and lines where such passages are found, would this have swelled up your Epistle to many pages more?  
But let us consider the instance you give, and leave the Reader to guess at the rest, for it's more than probable, you would single out the grossest you could find.  
And first, concerning the omitting of the seven particulars, in position 24. Which you plainly affirm we left out, lest the Reader had we subscribed them should have expected a● answer. We rendered another reason (which we have the clear testimony of our consciences for, was the true reason why we left them out) and that which you obtend no reason at all) yet as though you did communicate with God, in his incommunicable excellency of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the searcher of the heart, you affirm, that theresore we left them out, lest the Reader (had we transcribed them) should have expected an answer. We say again, if we give you for granted those seven particulars, (or rather seven general heads, including in them many particulars) improve you them ●o the best advantage of your Presbyterian cause, in opposition to the doctrine included in the 24 position. For those particulars how many soever they be, are no parts of the discipline left by Christ to the Church, which (the position saith) in the essentials of it is unchangeable, and therefore the position may be defended, though those particulars be granted. And for this cause we shall desire to be excused with you, and nothing fear, incurring prejudice with the Reader, though we did not transcribe your seven tedious impertinencies to the cause in hand.  
2. We say further, in that we transcribed them not, we rather spared you then advantaged ourselves; for there is something in all of them, that is either doubtful or justly liable to exceptions.  
For you (undertaking to show the differences between the Apostolic Churches and ours) say:  
1. The Jewish Ceremonies were then scarce dead, at least not buried, hence we are not bound to circumcise.  
We answer, This Legal right of Circumcision was never on foot among the Apostolic gentile Churches, nor were they bound any more to it then we are now, therefore there i● no difference in that, betwixt us and the primitive Apostolic gentile Churches.  
2. The civil custom of those Countries differ much from ours, hence we are not bound to make the covering of a man's head, a token of dishonour, 1 Cor. 11. 4, 5. 7. 10.  
Answer. What ever it be that the Apostle meaneth by covering of the head, (for that is disputable) it seemeth to us▪ to be perpetual and binding to all Churches as well as to that of Corinth, because of the Apostles reasons in 1 Cor. 11. 7. 14. He saith ver. 7. The man ought not to cover the head, because he is the Image and glory of God, but the woman must, because she is the glory of the man. And ver. 14. he saith, Nature itself teacheth, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him, because hair is not given to him for a covering. (For so it is to be understood to make the Antithesis perfect) But if a woman have long hair, it is an honour to her, because her hair is given her for a covering. We think the reason is fetched from the excellency of the one sex above the other, and that reason which is drawn from nature, are perpetual, And if ever in force, remain still in force.  
3. The Church was then but in gathering from amongst Heathens and Jews, bence we want examples (to convince refractory. Anabaptists) of the baptising of Christian Infants, etc.  
Answ. Such an argument as this, you use to defend your selves, in pleading for an Nationall Church, Scripture (say you) mentioneth not a Nationall▪ Church; for believers were not so many then, as to bear the name of a Kingdom or Nation. As we conceived it weak against us, so may the Anabaptists judge it unsatisfactory against them. For can any one rationally think, but that among those many thousands converted of Jews and Heathens, and gathered into Christian Churches, there were not many who had Infant Children, some of them borne before they were converted, who upon such conversion of their parents were to be accounted Christian Infants, and others borne after such conversion in that period of time, which the history of the Acts of the Apostles fills up, which Infants must also be styled Christian Infants? And if so, than the reason of wanting examples of baptising Christian Infants is not that which you allege, viz. because the Church was then but in gathering from amongst the Heathens and Jews▪ But because it seemed good to the Holy Ghost (for what cause we dare not determine) to forbear the express mentioning of Infant's baptism.  
4. The Church was then under heathenish persecuting Magistrates, hence they had no houses built for or appropriated to holy worship.  
Answ. In your Examinations pag. 6. you cite, 1. Cor. 11. 22. and say, To come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, (if rightly translated) to come together in one place, and ●o Ecclesia is opposed to the buildings or houses in which they did eat and drink in: Here you say, That the primitive Churches had not houses, etc. Do you not manifestly contradict yourself? for if they were not houses, in which they did eat and drink in, but did meet together in for holy worship, were they not so fare forth set a part for holy worship?  
If by appropriation of houses to holy worship (which you say was not then in the primitive times, but aught to be now) you mean such a setting a part as must necessarily exclude all using of such houses to other purposes, it is superstition so to conceive or speak. But if you grant that ●se may be made of them otherwise then in God's worship, How are they then appropriated to God's worship more now then in the times of primitive Churches? For they were then known noted places, (at least among some Churches) and capacious of great multitudes, in which the Churches did ordinarily meet, as from 1 Cor. 14. 23. appears.  
They meet in the night to pray, preach and celebrate the Supper.  
Ans. And did they not meet in the day also? How else did 
1 Cor. 14. 23  the unbelievers meet with them & come among them?  
Ministers had no settled maintenance.  
Answ. It is a non sequitur, that because the Church was under Heathenish and persecuting Magistrates, therefore Ministers had no settled maintenance. Is there any rule for settled maintenance in the whole Gospel? which yet (being that there are predictions many, of peaceable and prosperous times to the Church) there might have been, if God had meant any such thing. Nay, there are intimations, (if not clear declarations) against settled maintenance to arise from the Churches.  
There was then an extraordinary effussion of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, Evangelists, and sundry of the Elders and people; hence there was no need of Universities, etc.  
Answ. Yes: there was need, because you speak but of sundry, and the Apostle desired that they all might speak with tongues, but rather that they might prophesy, 1 Cor. 14. 5. therefore there might be use of schools in reference to them that wanted extraordinary gifts.  
Nor of studying for Sermons.  
Answ. Yes: Else what meaneth the Apostle when he bids Timothy stir up the gift, etc. and give attendance to reading, etc.  
No using set Prayers and Psalms.  
Answ. Were there no set Psalms in those days? were those Psalms, Hymns, and spiritual songs, which the Church at Ephesus, and at Colosse, and all the Churches did sing inspired by the spirit? And were no scripture Psalms sung in those times? That will be a strengthening to them that doubt of the singing of David's Psalms. As for prayers, is there a necessity now of a Form, because extraordinary gifts are ceased? May not an ordinary gift be sufficiently helpful, to put up prayers by? We would think it should now be unseasonable to plead for set forms of prayer.  
6. The Apostles had the care of all the Churches, and without difference taught and baptised, and ordered matters in all Churches where they came, now we may not expect such Officers, but must be content with ordinary Elders, amongst whom so much of their power as God intended to be perpetual, ●s divided.  
Answ. But if there be an universal visible governing Church which you plead for, the Elders of it must have care of all the Churches, and must Preach, Baptise, and rule where ever they come. And the representative ecumenical Church or Counsel consists of such Elders that every of them must have care of all the Churches. Where then is the difference according to your principles betwixt the Apostles and such Elders in that matter? And whether the Brethren do not share in some of their power you know is under controversy.  
7. There were then some extraordinary occasional precepts, and practices which bind not in ordinary, as selling all to give to the poor, Mat. 19 21. having all things common, Act. 2. 44, 45. & 4. 32. 3●, 35.  
Answ. Selling all and giving to the poor, was never a precept nor practice in the Christian Apostolic Churches; nor doth Mat. 19 21. prove it, whereas you produce it to declare the difference betwixt the Apostolic Churches and ours. The having of all things common, had not any precept for it in the Apostles days that we know of, and the practice was voluntary and not binding, though some did it, they freely did it, and others were not bound to follow, as from Act. 5. 4. appears. Where then is the difference betwixt the Apostolic Churches and ours? For were there now like cause, for having all worldly substance common, and should God incline the hearts of Christians thereto, it might be lawful now as well as then.  
Now (Brother) we have given you an account what we are able to say to your Seven Particulars, which we pretermitted before. And whether we did hurt you to help ourselves by our former silence of them, let the intelligent Reader judge.  
The second instance is, out of your Examination of your Position the sixth, where you say, a main passage is omitted without giving any hint or intimation of any thing omitted.  
Answ. The Printer, or he that copied it out for the Press, possibly hath omitted an etc. will it be worth the roasting what you have taken in hunting?  
2. We might challenge you if you can, so to avoid the whole, or any part of those six lines omitted, to the relief or rescue either of the cause or your Examination, as they relate unto the Position.  
For those words wherein you allege, Gen. 9 9, 10. we looked upon them as free of the Company of those By-matters you besought us in the Preface not to meddle with; which if we had examined, could neither advantage your cause nor endanger ours.  
For the rest of the words omitted, they are but different expressions of the same thing imported in the words transcribed and both fully answered.  
You say (but it is your mistake) That the Covenant (Gen. 17) is taken for God's part of the Covenant or Promise to Abraham, Gal. 3. 16, 17. Not for man's part to God, whereof we no● speak, & then add Gods Covenanting with Abraham did not impose nor suppose an express vocal Covenant on Abraham's part. Now if this be so, then was not Abraham bound to any thing on his part by virtue of this Covenant; but the contrary is manifest from vers. 9 where God said to Abraham, Thou shalt keep my Covenant.  
Ob. If it be sa●●, This Covenant was Circumcision.  
Answ. Circumcision is called the Covenant Metonymically, as the Seal may be called by the name of the thing sealed; and therefore is called the token of the Covenant, vers. 11.  
Ob. If it be said, this was not an express vocal Covenant.  
Answ. The Position mentioneth an holy Covenant, but saith nothing of an express vocal Covenant; and you by your bringing in these words do alter the Question; nor do we hold an express vocal Covenant necessary to the being of a Church. And we would be rightly understood, when we say it is necessary to the purity and strength of a Church. Our meaning is not, that it is a standing Ordinance of God, that the Church should be united by a vocal expression of their mutual consent (which we call the Covenant) so as that subscription, signals, or silence itself▪ as a sign, may not be a lawful testification of their consent: but that for as much as with the heart man believeth to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation; for as much as God hath given us our tongues to express our conceptions withal, it is fit and convenient, that it should be expressed in words, and so words are necessary, as one (and usually the fittest) expression of our minds.  
Lastly, having proved, that the stipulation 'twixt God and Abraham was mutual, you are rather our debtor than we yours; for passing by your expressions concerning Gen. 9 9, 10. as expletive to fill up your sentence upon a just period, rather than argumentative, for would i● not be an intolerable inconsequence thus to argue.  
If Gods covenanting with a creature doth not always suppose so much as an implicit covenant on the creatures part, than Gods covenanting with Abraham, Gen. 17. doth not suppose an express vocal Covenant on Abraham's part; (take it at the best as you have stated it for your advantage, quite besides the question.)  
But the first is true, Gen. 9 9, 10. Ergo ●c. For what hinders though it doth always do it, why it may not do it, Gen. 17. Besides the Assumption may be called in question in point of truth. If you speak of a Covenant, as properly so called: For whereas you urge that the birds and beasts could not so much as give an implicit assent, we say it is true: but say withal that it was not a Covenant in propriety of speech with them, but improperly, even as the Covenant mentioned, Job 5. 23. Hos. 2. 18. And we say with Master Rivet, In foeder is objecto quaeri potest, an animalia sunt 
Rivet in Gen 9  foederis capacia, quae neque stipulari possunt, neque promittere, ex superioribus id repetendum quemadmodum indirecte, etc. In the object of the Covenant it may be enquired how living creatures can be capable of the Covenant, which can neither stipulate nor promise. Therefore we must repeat what we have said before, that as the living creatures became sharers of the punishment of sin, indirectly and for man's sake, so the benefit of the Covenant concerning the not sending of another flood doth indirectly and for man's sake, belong unto them. So for children not borne, it was no actual Covenant, but only virtual and potential, to the reduction of which into an actually mutual Covenant, (which is a Covenant properly so called) was required the stipulation of the Children, when they should be actually called, to take hold of God's Covenant.  
But this Covenant as it related to Noah, did suppose a Covenant on Noah's part. For he was bound to faith, and walking with God on his part, as well as God to preserve him and the world from a flood. For as Master Rivet saith upon another occasion, Fiunt autem foedera mutua stipulatione partuum, etc. Covenants are made with a mutual and solemn stipulation, of engaging themselves to the performance of such and such benefits and duties. Here we read of the promises of a mercy on God's part, but there is no mention of the duties that Noah for his part was to perform, but yet this must be understood that Noah would walk justly and uprightly as he had done in former times. So Paraeus upon this place calls it, mutuum foedus, a mutual covenant. So that if it be understood of a Covenant properly so called, and homogeneal with that in Gen. 17. (and if it be not, the argument will be of no force) it may be said that Gods covenanting with man, doth suppose a restipulation or covenant on man's part.  
The third instance is out of position 7. where also you would have the Reader to understand; that the chief part of your answer, viz. It is not said they gave themselves to the Church or Churches, but to us, viz. Paul a●● Timothy, is left without the least limit or intimation.  
Answ. Are not these words to be found in our defence? pag. 44. The argument is fetched a Comparatis, the members of the Churches of Macedonia did as much in a like case: they gave themselves to the Lord, and to the Apostle and Timothy, according to Gods will, to be guided by the Lord, and directed by them, a whole Church or Churches to one or two persons gave themselves; And an argument is fetched thence thus, then may one person that is to join to a Church, as fitly give himself to the Lord to be guided by him, and to the whole Church and Officers thereof to be directed by them according to the will of God. Do not we grant, that it is not said, that they gave themselves to the Church or Churches, but to us, viz. Paul and Timothy? Nor doth the Position imply any other thing. For it saith, As the members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel or like case. It speaks only of something done proportionably to that which they press: where then is the injury done to you? Is it in this, that without mentioning your allegation, as your allegation, we have yet answered the whole strength of it? Forgive us this wrong, and retract your charge, which though it have truth in it, in the letter of your words in which it runs, yet it wants truth in your scope in which you make it; For you complain of wrong to you and the truth of God, but causelessly and most injuriously, as from what is presented is manifest.  
The fourth instance is out of Position 22, where you say, Your whole answer to Revel. 4. 4. is by an Index expurgatorius blotted out.  
Answ. We have sought up our papers, and we perceive that in the copying out of the Reply for the press, the answer to this text was omitted, Casu an Consilio, we cannot say. The answer was to this effect, it hath been usually the practice of men of the most approved parts, and unquestioned integrity, after they have solidly proved a place by plain texts of scripture, then to add as probable those which in their judgement looked that way, though more obscure, as typical and prophetical places; The same is that practice of the Elders of New England, in urging this place. So that if you could make it out, that the Elders have missed the genuine sense of the place, yet you have but knocked off one of the Emblemata of the garnishings of the room, whereas the Position itself remains unshaken by you.  
2. We do profess ourselves unwilling to defend the position by virtue of the text (at least in that expression, viz. of authority and governing power) yet it may be those reverend learned and religious Authors are able to maintain it, though we by reason of our weakness dare not undertake it.  
3. As for the exposition that you put upon it, though it be consonant to the interpretation of some learned writers, and though it seemed probable to one of us, yet upon further inexpectation, though we absolutely reject it, we have not yet these exceptions against it.  
1. We read not of any eyes that the 24 Elders had▪ but the four beasts were full of eyes, Rev. 4. 8. Is this the meaning of it, that the Churches in the four Quarters of the world had eyes, that is, wisdom, knowledge, understanding to manage, order, guide, and dispose of the affairs of the Churches: But the Officers wanted eyes, and so were excluded from directive power? For this will follow upon your exposition, at least, if your argument against the interpretation which the Elders of New England give of Crowns, prove solid. You say by their exposition, The Elders which are signified by the four beasts, are excluded from governing power, for they sit not on Thrones, nor have Crowns on their heads. And we will say against you, the Elders which you would have to be the Elders of the Churches are excluded from directive power, for they have not eyes before and behind, as the four beasts have.  
2. We read that the four beasts do lead the four and twenty Elders in the worship and Service of God in the Church, Revel. 4. 9, 10. When those Beasts gave honour and glory, etc. the four and twenty Elders fell down and worshipped, etc. So also c. 5. 8. 11. 14. Now whether the Churches do lead their Officers in all their worships they perform to God, (which will follow from your exposition) or the Officers do lead the Churches, judge you.  
3. We see no absurdity in Master's Cottons and New-englands' brethren's exposition, who make the four beasts to be the Officers of the Churches, and the four and twenty Elders to be the members. As for your allegation of Revel. 7. 9 11. 13, 14. where you say, That the Elders are distinguished from believers; We answer to it, We discern not that the Elders are any more distinguished than the four beasts are, which yet you interpret to be the Believers of the four parts of the world, let the place be viewed.  
4. Though Master Cotton drive, that by Crowns, are Ensigns of authority any more than white raiment was an Ensign of Priesthood, yet he asserts, that in some particulars that belongs to Church members, which is the Privilege of Kings that wear Crowns: As 1. That they transact nothing by themselves, but by their Officers. 2. Their consent 
Cott. Case.  is requifite to the judgements that pass in the Church. And therefore it may seem less strange, if they appear with Crowns.  
Having thus answered that part of your Epistle, wherein you lay divers charges upon us, we shall now more briefly answer the former part of your Epistle, wherein you endeavour to purge yourself from those charges laid upon you. And you say,  
The deep and heavy charge (as you call it) in the first part of my preface against misinterpretation of scriptures, as a belying of God, counterfeiting the King of King's hand, (though I now see how I have sped) I re 〈…〉 t not of.  
Answ. Neither appears it that you do repent, that you 
Psal. 35. 11.  have position 23 laid to our charge things that we knew not, yea things, that when we heard of them, were of detestable consideration in our thoughts. If you shall solidly confute our reply, we shall justify you in this impenitency, but if otherwise, we shall desire to mourn in secret for you, and pray, that God would give it an impression upon your spirit.  
You have the more cause to repent, if that be true which you allege in the portal of your Epistle, viz. that the Examination etc. was for the most part an answer to some allegations, as they were privately made to you for satisfaction. For do doubting brethren wanting light address themselves to you for satisfaction concerning the meaning of such and such scriptures, and do you publish their doubts, as their positions, and what was proposed to you privately to obtain satisfaction, do you divulge it to the world: as a belying of God, a counterfeiting of the King of King's hand, an addition to his Word? Surely this will make men tender how they seek satisfaction from you for the future.  
Nor see I cause (say you) why you should repine at it, or complain of it: if you have clearly manifested (as in your title page you say you have) the positions and scriptures alleged for your Church way, and by me examined, to be sufficient, pertinent, and full of power.  
Doth not the meaning of this amount to thus much? (For undoubtedly these censures relate to the positions, and consequently to the authors of them) that if an interpretation may be clearly manifested to be sufficient, pertinent, and full of power, than the persons that give it, may not complain, though they be all bedaubed with imputations of belying God, counterfeiting the King of King's hand, adding to the Word? Must innocency of necessity be stupid and insensible of injuries?  Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas. 
And yet I find myself deeply charged by you to deprave places, blot and blur sweet, humble, spirited, holy, pertinent Expressions, to wrong the Elders of New-England, wrist allegations.  
Answ. Let the Reader judge betwixt us, if it be not truth. But you go on and say,  
Yea though I said, I will not tell you who said all the Church is holy, &c: yet you think it not unworthy my serious consideration, whether it might not be said to me, as sometimes Christ said to one of the twelve, when he asked, Master is it I? and he answered, thou hast said: (a bitter personal invective) etc.  
We intended not these words as any invective at all, much less as a personal invective as you affirm; It was never an Embryo in our thoughts to compare you with Judas (as you insinuate) 'tis clear as the Sun, that you compare the congregational members in the pursuit of their way, to Corah, Dathan, and Abiram. Our meaning is plainly this, by this form of speaking, borrowed from our Saviour's words in another case, to signify that it might rather be said against you, what you bring against us, viz. That Presbyterial governor's do take too much upon them, because they take upon them, an authoritative power over those Congregations over whom Christ hath not set them. Your reasons to prove that our way is the gainsaying of Corah are weak: For 1. this schismatical company would utterly have taken away the power of Moses and the Priesthood of Aaron, and so when they had Officers, would have destroyed their Officers: we only in the extraordinary case of an utter want of an Eldership to ordain, hold it fit to ordain by persons deputed, or by Elders elected; If in the constitution of a Church, there do join as members, several persons that have been approved Ministers, whilst their relations to their several Churches were in being, than some of these are deputed to ordain the first Elder; If there be but one Preacher joined as a member, and several persons of eminent holiness and gifts fitted for ruling Elders, than there is an Eldership chosen, and the rest of the Eldership ordained one of their Company for their first Elder. In the Church of Duckenfield in Cheshire, four Preachers joined in the foundation of the Church. At Sourby in Yorkshire but one; But in both places the Ordination was performed either by Preachers as deputed, or by elect Elders.  
2. If the placing of Church power in the body of the Congregation, were the gainsaying of Corah, then because election of Officers (Act. 6.) is a branch of Church-power, and was placed in, and acted by the body of the Church at Jerusalem, that Church was guilty of the gainsaying of Corah, which is your second Argument.  
3. 'Tis not true, that our cause enjoins or allows complaining (i. e. of the regular exercise of the power) of the Elders that rule over them in the Lord, for taking too much upon them, but we honour and obey the Elderships of our several Churches; and also the Elders and Members deputed of several Churches met in a Synod occasionally to rectify disorders, etc. which the particular Churches are not able to accomplish. But as for stated Classicall-Elderships, and your several gradual Judicatures, swallowing up the Votes of the Elders of the particular Congregation in the Major part of the Votes of the Synod, Ordaining, Depriving, Admonishing, Excommunicating, Restoring; we say, these are not powers ordained of God. And consequently we are not guilty of the gainsaying of Corah, though we should say of these, They take too much upon them.  
You proceed, The usual occasion of your Censures of depraving places, etc. is a wide (I hope) not a willing mistake in you, and not any iniquity in my hands or heart, you expect the Positions and Scriptures alleged, to agree fully and exactly with the places cited in the Margin, which I neither professed nor intended, etc.  
Answ. We expect not an exact agreement in words and expressions, but yet we could not but look for an agreement according to the expressions of your marginals in sense and importment. Where you say Position. See almost the same Argument verbatim. We expect with good cause an exact agreement in sense and almost in words. When you say, See the like, we expect there an exact agreement in sense, and a likeness in manner of expression, and so in the rest. For if there be not the same thing asserted in both, the Margin is ridiculous. In divers Positions your marginals have no such modifications in them, must we not expect an exact agreement in sense and words in those places?  
Your marginals themselves are profession enough of such an agreement, especial to any man that readeth your Preface, where you say, The way of Independency produceth sundry texts in Preaching, Writing, Conference, which for the most part also, she produceth in Print upon the same or the like occasion.  
Doth not this import an agreement in sense and importment, betwixt the Printed Books alleged and the Positions gathered from Preaching, Writing, Conference?  
When you say, You allege Printed Books probably to intimate whence the Proposition was taken: Do you not imply that the substance of the Proposition is to be found in the place from whence it is taken, and if it be not found there, are you not justly to be blamed?  
Whereas you say The Printed Books alleged in the Margin are the Bystanders spoken of in the Preface, either we do much mistake you, or you do, (which were strange) not a little mistake yourself. What then is the meaning of these words in the Preface? I publish not all their Depositions, nor all that is material, but so much (as I conceive) at present sufficient. If any of the Brethren (amongst whom Mr. Cotton is deservedly the chief) seem in my apprehension to come nearer the truth than others, I willingly take notice of it, etc.  
Is not Mr. Cotton one among the rest of those Authors in Print, whose Depositions you publish, how then is Mr. Cotten and the rest made Bystanders which must not be meddled with? And (by the way) if you had any action at all to enter against the cause, why did you so uningenuously as not to publish all that is material? Is it your meaning that you would have liberty to allege our Printed Books at your pleasure, and we might not take notice whether you did them right or wrong? This seemeth to be too gross. For our parts we took Bystanders and By-matters to be meant of some expressions rather of an ornative and expletive then of an argumentative nature.  
The next thing you endeavour to purge yourself from, is from affecting Prelacy, which you say, we do secretly intimate, and that to this end, to cast an odium upon you and the cause you plead.  
Answ. We know you are more wise then to express affection to declining Prelacy. If you should, this could not with rational men, bring an Odium upon your Cause: and when you say, peradventure the word (simply) was put in for a retrect, in cause you should be hotly pursued for pleading the Cause of Prelacy under the notion of Presbytery; we intended to show the weakness of your reasoning, not to cast an Odium upon you, for the thing itself avoid the force of it if you can. If (you say) Diotrephes was not blamed for having pre-eminence. Do you not plead the Prelatical Cause? And if you say, he was not simply blamed, Do you not clear the Allegation of the Elders? If there be any other place mention it, and we hope to give you satisfaction.  
But you say, That you in the worst times were not more Prelatical than the greatest and godliest Independents in the Kingdom, if not at least one of us have been.  
Answ. For ourselves, when we first entered into the Ministry, we were both of us conformable in judgement, and sometimes (though very rarely) in practice. But we have bewailed, and publicly testified our repentance, both before and since the times of this present Parliament. The one of us renounced it, and was therefore suspended by the Bishop of Chester fourteen years ago, and was afterwards about thirteen years since expulsed from his habitation, and after that about eleven years since was forced to leave the Kingdom, and to seek for shelter in Holland, and there joined with others in a congregational way, and after that when the unsuitableness of that air occasioned much sickness, he was constrained to return, and finding no rest was the second time necessitated to transplant himself into New-England, where if the High Commission at York could have let him alone, he might probably have ended his days; But for none appearance at their Courts, when yet he was out of the Land, and knew nothing of their summons, he was fined in several sums of money, which together amounted to fifteen hundred and fifty pound. And his estate in Wirrall in Cheshire was extended upon for payment, and the Tenant to whom the Land was leased before his departure to New-England, forced to pay great sums of money for the redemption of his cattles, which were driven off the ground: where he was supported in those troublous times by the beneficence of two religious Gentlemen, viz. Master William Stevinton of Dothit, and his son in law Creswal Taylor of Longdon aforesaid his noble friends. And the tidings of these cruel proceed, and the grievous complaints of the Tenant, coming over to him in several letters, he was advised to try if by his returning bacl, he could use means to free his estate, but before he arrived this renowned reforming Parliament was assembled, and what he hath suffered since for his opposition to Prelacy is known not to a few.  
As for the other of us, some years before the Bishops fell, and whilst their power seemed to be bound as with a Band of iron and brass, being enforced by the then Chancellor of Hereford, to turn his afternoon Sermon into a Catecisme Lecture. Upon that occasion studying more elabourately and industriously the second Commandment, through the rich grace and mercy of God not only saw the evil of Episcopacy, and ceremonies imposed, but also repent of the use of them, and publicly in the Parish of Almele in Herefordshire preached against them, and for all the substantials of that way of congregational government, which ever since, and at this day, he hath and doth judge to bear most conformity with the word of truth. Afterward being troubled in the Bishop's Court for Nonconformity, and having no hope of liberty, did by consent leave Almele, and lived about three years in a small peculiar exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction, viz. Longdon upon Terene in Shropshire. And yet we suppose there may be other Independents (so called) more anti-prelaticall than ourselves. Concerning you, though you have forced us by your causeless comparison, (which also was a manifest charge) to appear in our own justification, yet (that being done) we are not willing to vent ourselves in the words of detraction against you, but we leave you to your own conscience to be judged; and to the judgement of some thousands of persons, who have many years been acquainted with your whole course of preaching and living, whether the comparison was equal.  
You say, You plead for the government of the Reformed Churches maintained by Master Burne of Manchester, Master Gosnall of Boulton, Master Fleetwood of Wigan, etc.  
Answ. What these Reverend men did hold or maintain, we have no particular knowledge, saving that we think good to let you understand, that Reverend Master Burn was in his latter days, in a great part against that Classical way which you contend for. And we have notes of his own hand writing, which we can if need require (and hereafter it may be shall) produce, to the open view of men. In which he closeth very much with the Brethren of N. England in their answer to the nine Positions, and dislikes Mr. Balls Reply.  
Thus Brother, we have endeavoured to take off the strength of your complaints, which you make against us in your Epistle. Our hearts do witness for us that we intended not to use guile or cunning craftiness in our defence of the Positions and Scriptures against your examinations, nor yet to asperse you with reproaches, but with integrity of spirit, what we have believed with the heart, we attempted the maintenance of without any design of wronging you, much less the truth of God. We hope your ingenuity will be such that you will retract so hard a censure, and repent of such a causeless outcry, with which you close your Epistle. If not, let the godly intelligent Reader judge betwixt us, whether we or the Complainant hath most offended; as for us it shall be our desire that peace & truth may abound more and more with you, and with  
Your loving Brethren▪ Sam. Eton. Tim. Taylor.   

COncerning your questions, whereto you require rational and scriptural answers, you have been so insatiable in the multiplication of them, as that you have made your demand irrational to rational men. If seven or eight questions may well exercise an Assembly of men some weeks, perhaps months, to give scriptural and rational answers to them, how long may one or two be exercised in answering one hundred and twelve questions?  
Yet we shall say somewhat to them, and give our sense of them, the better to be excused with the Reader, though we give not at present a direct scriptural answer to any of them.  
1. Your questions are reduceable to these heads. Some of them are either in whole or in part answered already, in our defence, as Q. 11. 24. 30, 31. 35, 36. 38. 41, 42, 43. 48, 49. 52. 56. 73. 77, 78. 84, 85. 102, 103.  
2. Some of them are bottomed upon mistakes, of things asserted to be held by us, which yet we hold not, as 19, 20, 21, 22. 39 44. 50, 51. 56, 57, 58. 61. 80.  
3. Some of them do arise and proceed ex non concessis, from things taken for granted, which yet we cannot grant, as 23. 29. 32. 84.  
4. Some of them are de non negatis, of things which we grant and yield as well as you, wherein you and we do agree, or else they are de negatis, of things which both you and we do alike deny, as 55. 86, 87. 91. 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 102, 103.  
5. Some of them are in the nature of them deep censures, & full of calumny & slander, both of our way & persons, as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 10. 15. 37. 41. 45. 49.. 57▪ 78. 83. 88 104. 100LS.  
6. Some of them savour of a bitter distempered spirit, and tend to incense the Magistrate against us, as 57 96. 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112.  
7. Some of them seem to be dubious questions proceeding from a troubled spirit, that either we have Auditors to hear us preach or any maintenance from any beside them of our own way, as 77. 79. 84.  
8. Some of them are entrapping questions, and in them there is aliquid latens some thing that appears not and you watch for advantage, as 76. 81. 82.  
9 One of them (in a superfluous Parenthesis) gibes at the language of many godly known Christians, who yet are able to justify their expressions, viz. 46.  
10. One of them is a question concluding with a vainglorious challenge. viz. 100  
11. Some of them are such as that many of the Brethren of the Presbyterian judgement do agree with us in them, and we may refer you to them to answer them, as 46. 71.  
12. One of them is rather a point controverted among yourselves then betwixt you and us, viz. 90.  
13. Some of them are impertinent and come not up to the controversy betwixt us, as 16. 17. 18. 44. 54. and same others.  
14. Some of them are unnecessary questions, because the answering of some one, would cut off and make void the necessity of propounding▪ and answering of the rest of that nature, as the answering of the 7. would prevent the propounding of the 8. 10. 13, 14. the answreing of the 11. would make the 9 and 12. useless. So the answering of 63. makes vain the propounding of 58. 59 60. 61. 62. 64. 65. 66. 68 and so of others.  
15. The most of them are argumentative, and do dispute against the thing, and sometimes conclude peremptory, rather than propound and inquire after the thing of which yet in form of words there is a question made.  
By all which it arpeares how many of this great multitude of Questions might have been spared, and how little reason we have to answer them.  
Had you not done more commendably if you had propounded some one Question of a kind; as namely, one about constitution of Churches; one about gathering out of many Churches, one about the qualification of Members; one about an universal visible governing Church; one about diversity of Congregations in those City Churches mentioned in Scripture; one about the entity and power of an incompleate Church that hath no Officers; one about the Covenant, and of what Covenant Baptism is the seal; one about the power of the Keys; one about Ordination; one about Communion of Officers; one about maintenance of Officers, one about a private man's exercising his gifts; one about withdrawing from communion of ones own Church, Ministry and Ordinances; one about the externals of discipline, whether they be contained determinately in the New Testament; one about the lawfulness of tolerating another way then what is by Law established; and yet it would have been unseasonable to have propounded some of these till the answers we have given to them already in our Defence, have been rendered invalid; and all these would not have amounted to above 15. Questions, what then would have become of your many scores. But your design was under the form of sundry Questions, to assault us with sundry Arguments, for very many of your Questions, yea the most of them are arguments which if we confute and overthrow (though your greatest strength be put forth in them, yet) you come off with honour, you asserted nothing positively but propounded only Questions; & if we confute them not nor answer them clearly, we receive (as you imagine) a blot thereby; such cunning there is in the way of your proceeding. But we rather choose to put you upon it to state the Question with us, and then to form your Argument, and we shall willingly engage ourselves then in answering of you; this is to set ourselves upon equal ground with you; and you cannot, and we hope the Reader will not expect fairer proceed from us. Notwithstanding if you like not this, wait but a while, till this present controversy be issued betwixt us, and if others in the interim do not, we shall probably be at leisure to undertake the particular answer of them in the form they are presented to us.   
FINIS.