AN ANSWER TO W. R. HIS NARRATION of the Opinions and Practices of the Churches lately erected in New-england.  
Vindicating those Godly and Orthodoxal Churches, from more than an hundred imputations fathered on them and their Church way, by the said W. R. in his Book.  
Wherein is plainly proved, 

1. That the grounds of his Narration are sandy and insufficient.  
2. That the manner of his handling it, unloving and irregular.  
3. That the matter of it, full of gross mistakes & divers contradictions.  
4. That the quotations extremely wrested, and out of measure abused.  
5. That his Marginal notes impertinent and injurious.    
By THOMAS WELDE, Pastor of the Church of Roxborough in NEW-ENGLAND.  Judas 10. They speak evil of things they know not. Prov. 18.17. He that is first in his own case seemeth just, but his neighbour cometh after and searcheth him. 
This is Licenced and Entered according to Order.  
LONDON, Printed by Tho: Pain for H. Overton, and are to be sold at his shop entering into Popes-Head Alley out of Lumbardstreete. 1644.   

THE EPISTLE TO THE REDAER.  
THere was a law in Israel, 
Deut. 22.18, 19  that if any man did bring an ill name upon a Virgin of Israel, the matter was to come before the Elders, and he was to be chastised, and amerced an hundred shekels of silver.  
There is one, W. R. (if thou knowest the man) that hath brought many ill reports, not upon one Virgin, but all the Virgin-Churches of New-England: When thou seest him do so much as bring him forth to Answer this law, Tell him, we purpose to try an Action with him, and have satisfaction from him. And if he saith, he hath not raised these reports himself, but had them from others: Then tell him again from us, that cannot satisfy, for we have learned from divine and humane laws, that if any be taken reporting of slanders (as we shall abundantly show he hath do● his Narrative) he may be charged as the raiser of ● 〈◊〉 he can clear himself by bringing such Authors into light as will own them. 
Dut. 17.6. 2 Cor. 13.1. 1 Tim. 5.19.  But if he will not, or cannot; we must lay them at his own door. It's for all the several reports in his book brought against us and our ways, we expect the rule of Moses and the Apo-stle Paul, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses and not under every matter should be established to produce Barrow, Browne, Robinson, etc. for Authors; (for they were dead before New-England Churches were borne,) or H. W. T. P. and I know not what private letters lying by him in his study (for we know not their voice,) nor let him say, it was told me, (as he often doth) for we protest against such testimony, nor I was informedso, etc. for sama est mendax and prejudice hardly speaks well of any. Tell him we will go to aged Paul (he was a good Divine) to be our Umpire to determine what witness we must have in a case of accusation, and to his verdict we will stand, which is set down plainly 1 Tim. 5.19.  
Three things more let me say to the reader, and I have done.  
1. Wonder not, this Answer stayed so long, for it had certainly taken his narrative by the heel, but that some special providence (whose distracted lines) intercepted; the truth is, I thought it should need no other Answer then itself; until I perceived some ill effects of it.  
2▪ But why do I undertake this work? Answer, 1. I am one of the nearest kinsmen to those Churches of any other man in these parts, and therefore I take myself bound to the name of my Brethren (in a righteous way) and (not let it die) through my neglect. 2. Few or none are here, have had more experience of New-England Church courses than myself, through many year's continuance with them, and to whom I am returning when God makes way: and am therefore able to speak on certainty, and with conscience where W. R. departs from the truth in his relations. 3. I have been pressed by word of mouth, and sundry letters to do it; therefore if I should hold my peace when I am called to speak, and see so many innocent Churches suffer, I should not lift up my face to God, nor my Brethren there. God knows my spirit, how exceeding loath I was to controvert with a Brother, (though but a defendant) and to uncover his nakedness, but when God calls I am bound with Moses, (when he saw the Hebrew did wrong to his Brother) to say, why smitest thou thy fellow? 
Exod. 2.13.   
3. Touching the answer itself, some things I would say, 1 I think it not meet to answer all I could, nor to every particular, especially in his Marginal extravagances, that would be too tedious; For our principal passages being answered unto, the rest will fall of themselves. 2. Nor to answer any thing in his book, so oft as he repeats it, for divers things are fetched over by him, some three, some four several times; what his reasons are, himself can best give account. 3. Neither is it possible for me to answer the say of his private letters lying by him, (such a ground of Church stories as I never heard of,) because I know neither who they are, nor what their own words are, or if I did, were it material. 4. Thou seest I have a three fold work to answer: 1. his Articles, 2 his quotations, 3 his Margin. All which I have endeavoured faithfully as in God's presence to do: what oversight or infirmity hath passed my pen therein, I crave thy pardon, for we are weak men and (God knows) too apt to forget ourselves in greater things than these. 5. What I here write, is only from myself, (if any weakness appear) impute it not I pray thee to the case in hand, or our Church's judgements there, but to my own frailty rather. 6. Nor is it my scope to discuss the points of Discipline, (that work is in abler hands) but I look upon his book, as an historical narration, and accordingly I frame my answer. 7. Though he brings not the words of any of his Authors cited (which had been fairer, and might have kept him in closer bonds) yet I have done it for him, especially in the last six or eight Chapters, that you may judge whether he hath dealt fairly with them or no. 8. When I recite W. R. his words in his narration, you will see I have dealt candidly with him, either mentioning his very words, or so many of them as contain their full strength, whereto my answer tends. 9 When at any time, in my answer, I say, such an Article, or such a clause is untrue, or is false; I am not willing to impute the falsity thereof to the Author's knowledge, (I would judge otherwise of him then so,) but to the thing itself asserted; which may be done through his misinformation, or mistake: I will say no more; but commit thy spirit to the wise guidance of the Father of lights, who in Christ Jesus lead thee by the hand into all truth and peace.  
Thine T. W.   

The Reader may take a short view of some Particulars in W. R. his Narration; As they are made to appear in his Book by the Page, and Line, as followeth.  
Unfound passages. Untrue Relations. Falsified quotations. Page. Line. Page. Line. Page. Line. 4 25 1 15 17 6 5 20 2 21 18 20 6 7. 24. 37 5 20 19 14. 24 7 5. 15 6 23 20 24 8 28 20 3. 32. vlt. 24 35 9 whole page 25 2 last 25 18. 23 18 26 39 10 25 23. 31. 40 24 39 37 whole pag.  26 5 29 17. 28 38 whole pag.  32 3 last 36 28 51 whole pag.  57 16 40 15 56 9 58 1. 2. 27 52 1. 9 26 57 5. 10. vlt. 59 22 53 2. 11. 22 59 6. 33 60 23, etc. 54 3. 10 60 11 61 38 58 33 62 11. 25. ad fin. 62 11. 25. ad fin. 61 21. 26 66 4 last 63 1. 9 64 1, 9 25 67 6. 12. 22 64 14 65 13 ad finem. 68 4. 7. 12 67 25. 18   

There are some things in W. R. his Narration that carry a face of contradiction: I propound them to his review: in his own words, sense, and pages. Thus they stand.  
That 

Sacraments are to be Administered to the Members of the same Church only. Narration p. 35. Art. 5. & vide p. 38. Art. 4.  
The Churches do, and may, mutualiy, partake each with other in the Sacraments. p. 37. Art. 31. p. 10. Art. 7    
That 

They conceive some to be true Christians, whether they be in Church estate or no. p. 33. Art. 1.  
Whosoever becomes not a settled member of a Church, they account him wicked, profane, and a graceless person. p. 29. Art. 1. p. 12. Art. 12.    

He saith, concerning the judgements & practices of the Churches generally in New-England  That 

They may, and do constitute new Churches without the consent of the Christian State. p. 20. last line, p 49. Art. 2. & latter end of the Marg.  
Before they do enter into Church estate, notice is first given thereof to the Magistrate or the Christian State. p. 21. Art. 4. And (by a law of the State) none can enter without such knowledge given to the Magistrate. p. 21. Art. 2.    
That 

They may, and do set up new Churches in the midst of, and against the mind of the Churches. p. 49. Art. 2. and latter end of Margin.  
Notice is given thereof to the neighbouring Churches, that such as please may be present. p. 21. Art. 4.    
That 

The Church-Covenant is that, whereby all the Members of the Society are united to Christ. p. 12. Art. 1.  
Many are within the Church-covenant, that are not within the Covenant of Grace, and so not united to Christ. p. 14. Art. 3.    
That 

The Churches of New-England are of one and the same way in Discipline without any material difference. p. 1. Art. 1.  
They are not of the same way, but sometimes of 2. contrary ways, sometimes of 3. several ways at once, and that in very material points. p. 10. Art. 8. p. 16. Art. 8. p. 13. Art. 3. and 4. p. 27. Art. 11.    
Objection. 1 But we in New-England go different ways, so the contradictions come from ourselves, not from him. Answ. No, for We are all of the same way, and differ not in any material point, as himself plainly saith. chap. 1. Art. 1. 2 His Narration speaks what the Churches in New-England do generally, as Title. p. 1. Now it is impossible that they can generally go two ways at once.  
Objection. 2 But our writers say so, and he speaks according to them. Answ. Then let him make this appear (and that will be hard to do) for his quoted Authors speak the self same thing.   

An Answer to W. R. his Narration of the Opinions and Practices of the Churches lately erected in New-England.  

An Answer to the PREFACE.  
IT would grieve a tender heart to hear this man call God and his Conscience to witness how highly he honours and loves those that are in Church ways, and by and by to assault with horrible untruths, and bitter invectives the Churches of New-England, (whom God hath been pleased to honour in the hearts of thousands of his precious Saints) which one would think hardly credible, that any that goeth under the notion of honesty, much less of godliness, should venture to do.  
He blames the Brethren of the Independent way, (as he styles them) that were and are in London, for breaking a solemn agreement; to produce a narrative of their Doctrine and practice, and yet did not, yea would not performs it.  
1. Some of us profess solemnly we never so much as heard of any promise, therefore were fare enough from breaking it; Answ. why then doth W. R. lay it upon the Independent Brethren in London without exception?  
2. What was done by any of them herein, was freely from themselves (as I am informed by them) that by some manifestation of their Judgements and practices, they might clear themselves from misapprehensions and mistakes; so that if they did it not, themselves were like to suffer most.  
3. This they made performance of in their late Apology, so fare as might satisfy in a rational way, but if he expected more, where lies the fault?  
4. If they did not this, so soon as he would have had them, let him know, the extreme distractions of these times, and the public service of some of these brethren (who were employed by the State, for a good space together) might justly hinder greater things than this. Now, see what little cause the Narratour had to cast such a blot on the names of his Honoured Brethren (as he calls them.)  
He saith, Many w●re drawn aside, their Churches and Ministry slighted, neglected, deserted,— yea contumeliously and scornfully reproached as Antichristian, Babylonish, false and Null, etc.  
Answ. 1. Such contemptuous speeches, & reproachful carriages cast upon our Brethren of the Churches here, neither are, or ever were allowed by us: yea our own examples, practisings, writings do, and (we hope) ever shall bear witness against such lose and lavish spirits and practices: And can any man then justly impute them unto us? 
Psal. 11.3.  May we not say with the Psalmist, If the foundations be cast down, what hath the innocent done?  
2. They are not alone in these reproaches, ourselves also are fellow-sufferers with them herein, from divers Sectaries now in London, whose usual tones & dialects these words (he mentions) are, & not the voice of Independents.  
That some of our way (contrary to our promise and Pactions) have impetuously, both in Pulpit and Press laboured to promote the popular government, & to make all men disrelish and abominate the Presbyterian way.  
Answ. 1 A sad complaint if true; But to show how fare from this spirit and practise we have been, consider first how loath we were to appear in the case, who, though we had books of this subject ready for the press, yet by joint consent suppressed them, (haply to the great detriment of our cause) for that we were unwilling to blow a fire.  
2. When we did appear in Pulpit or Press, whether it was without instigation or no, and how sparing we have been, ever since, (until some late forced replies) and how inoffensive in our carriages and preach, we leave to all godly to judge.  
3. Instance (but) in the Holland brethren's Apology; was it Impetuously done, was it A MOCK NARRATIVE, A MERE GULL? (as this man most abusively styles it) was it not rather full of peaceableness, modesty and candour, and seasonably needful? as that Reverend man affirmed in Print.  
4. Doth not W. R. know that about this time of promises and Pactions, or a while after our Brethren, of the Presbyterian way did write a Letter into Scotland with many of their hands to it, telling the Ministers there they did approve of their Government, and would join in the furtherance of it. Now for him to bind our hands, and seal up our mouths, and then underhand at the same time to fore-determine the matter, and be engaged in that way before any solemn dispute, and yet to accuse us for breaking Pactions, seems neither rational nor fair. Other things I shall speak to the Preface afterwards in answer to the book: Only this, he will make the Reader believe, (to forestall him) that there are some seeming contradictions in our Tenets & apparent repugnances to the letter of Scripture, or light of common sense. But what real contradictions are in his Narrative, and manifest repugnances in his Animadversions, to Scripture rules, light of reason, and common sense too, (by the help of God) I shall make to appear, but with a sad heart (I must tell him) that such things should be written by a Brother whom we have so much esteemed and reverenced: but seeing now it is done (rather then so many precious Saints and Churches should suffer wrongfully) I am forced to uncover. If others be rightly informed and himself convinced, I have my ends.   

To the Narration in general.  
AS he saith, he had laid by the thoughts of it a good while, through many discouragements. So (I conceive) if he had cast them by for ever, & made the place of conception their grave, he had dealt better for the truth and himself. But he is very angry for want of Narratives. One he must have, and one he will have, be it right or wrong, and if neither New-England nor Holland Brethren be worth a Narrative, let him come, he will frame one himself. And this shall be no MOCK NARRATIVE, NO MERE GULL, as the Holland Brethren produced, but a more solid thing: Now what it is will appear if we weigh three things.  
That the grounds on which he builds it, are sandy and insufficient.  
The manner of his proceeding, unloving and irregular.  
The matter of it, 1. Full of gross mistakes, contrarieties to the truth, and contradictions to itself. 2. His quotations abused extremely, and wrested. 3. His Marginal notes, very scandalous and offensive. And according to this method, we will proceed, and undertake to make all these particulars good in our answer.   

First for his grounds.  
You would think that the grounds on which all his work is founded, and all New-England Churches taxed, had need be sound, even, adequate, or else he will not prove himself a wise builder. But they are these three. 1. Our own printed Books. 2. Private letters. 3. Other good intelligences, (as himself saith in his Title.)  
For the printed books which he quotes, they are the writings of some godly and learned men there: But that these be rightly conceived, know 1. These books (five in number) are not written from all the Elders, two of them but from one only; Another from some few, none of them from all. 2. Not written to the Churches here, as a Platform of our practice, but sent as an answer to some one or more Brethren in England that desired satisfaction to some quaetees of their own (whereof W. R. himself was one▪) 3. Nor intended by them for the press, much less to be made a standard to prove our Church's opinions and ways by, but published by some well-minded here, without their knowledge, yea against the minds of some of them. Yet if he had kept close to these in his narration, he had saved his credit, and my pains, but (you shall see) he hath so abused and wrested them (I dare say in well-near an hundred places) that his assertions are, not their say and words, but his own, and they will leave him to quit himself as well as he can; For as Scripture itself (the rule of all things) abused is no Scripture, so the writings of men perverted are no more theirs. This we shall make plentifully appear.  
Sundry private letters lying by him, (as he saith) sent from New-England; (but names only two letters of their names) are another ground of his story. And whatsoever any one of these writs▪ (though never so privately, and unknown to any other man in any of all the Churches,) must needs be the opinion of all the Churches in New-England. But to show the invalidity, yea, and impossibility of this to be a good ground, Consider,  
1. These are incompetent proofs, and liable to great and just exceptions. For 1. Some, there, are contrary to us in their opinions, Antinomians, Familists, Antichurchians, etc. and even some of his cited letters (as near as we can gather) are from some of these. 2. Others that writ letters from thence, are weak in judgement, not understanding what the Churches hold, or not able to express aright what they themselves understand; are all these fit to be the Church's interpreters? Doth not W. R. himself in his preface say, Scribimus omnes indocti doctique. 3. Others may be novices & not well versed in our way, nor ripe to give the Church's verdict. 4. Some others, haply, are but in part of our judgement, and not come off fully to the Church's practices there. 5. Others are prejudiced against the place and persons; and prejudice (himself knows) can hardly speak well. And (we know) divers such have wrote letters, which ('tis like) are fallen into his hands: Therefore these cannot be built upon for competent witnesses.  
And whereas he saith in his Postcript. pag. 50. Object. That these letters come from Members of Churches, and many from Ministers of the Word. It is answered, That Members of Churches, and Ministers too, Ans. may be liable to some or other (and some of them possibly to many) of the said exceptions. Neither is it in our power (nor in any Church in the world) to cure all their Members (or Ministers either) of their distempers; for if it were, you would not suffer your own Churches (in many of their Members and Ministers) to be so infected with sundry gross errors as they are.  
2. A testimony, against whole Churches had need be sure, that men may trust unto it. But how can we be assured, 1. Whether such letters as he citys were ever written from New-England or no, (for I have good ground to question, 
☜  because he thrusts in T. G. to I. G. amongst his New-England letters, and yet these men never came there, though himself faith in postscript, pag. 51. ult. l. That his letters come from Members of our Churches in New-England.) And as he adds some, so he may add more for aught I know. 2. If such letters were sent, how can we be assured, that such expressions (as he reports) are in those letters? 2. Or such a scope, (as he puts upon them) to be collected from those expressions? All these must be cleared before we can ground any thing upon them. But W. R. tells us so. Ans. So he tells us other stories in this book, that are as far from truth, as Old-England is from New: which we have no faith to credit. 2. If he hath so extremely mistaken the printed letters, which he knows we can come at to peruse, how can we, or any else, be assured that he hath not more abused his private letters, which no eye but his own may see?  
3. Suppose none of the mentioned exceptions can be had, but that the writers of the letters be as honest, sound, able men as can be imagined, and suppose we could be assured of the particulars recited; yet all this will not serve, because they are but single men, and write as private persons, their own thoughts, not as be trusted by any commission from the Churches, to write their common Judgements. Therefore no ground to esteem their letters of such authentical force, unless he can prove they were allowed by the Churches, or were men Apostolical, that could not err in writing. 4 If this be a good ground to prove Churches judgements by private letters: mark what absurdities will ensue. 1. That we must believe that the Churches of New-England deny a power of votes, ordinarily, to the people, because Mr. Parker a Pastor there wrote so. And so of necessity we must believe a falsehood. 2. That if W. R. and two or three more, should write into New-England of their allowance of the lawfulness of an imposed Common Prayer book; then we may write and print it, (for so doth W. R.) that the Churches and Ministers in Old-England, do generally allow such impositions. 3. Then any few envious or malicious persons in a Church, may bring a scandal (unavoidable) upon any Church in the world, if what they say and hold should be accounted the Church's judgement, where they live. 4. Then the Churches of England are all Antinomian, and Familisticall, because (on our knowledge) such letters have been written from some in these Churches as professedly maintain such opinions: how absurd these conclusions would be, let any indifferent man judge.  
5. Yea, (to sink this unreasonable dealing of his) [ITS IMPOSSIBLE] that this should be a sound discovery of the Church's judgement and practise there, 
☞  because many of these letters cited speak contrary one to another, (as himself well knows) and his Narration fully expresseth) yet all the Churches in New-England, (saith W. R. himself in his 1. pag.) are of one and the same way in Church Government, and what may be said of any one may be believed of all: Therefore it's impossible that his letters (which speak contraries) can be a sufficient ground of testimony for our Church way, which is but only one. And for him to produce them, as a proof of what they cannot possible make good, appears not only A SEEMING CONTRADICTION, but against light of COMMON SENSE, which he falsely imputes to us, but we truly to him.  
6. Lastly, we appeal for a conclusion of this Argument, from W. R. in a distemper to the same man in his right mind, to tell us, now ingenuously, if this be a good Argument, by one man's writing to prove the Church's judgement. No saith W. R. (pag. 3. line 4. of this very book) it is not, for such a book (saith he) called our way of the Churches, proves not, that they hold a platform of Discipline in New-England, and why. Because it was compiled by one particular man, and not consented to by the rest. What can be more full?  
But he leans not upon the testimony of any one letter, Object. but produceth divers letters for the proof of every particular.  
If he did so, it were insufficient as is proved, Answ. but he often produceth one single private letter alone, without any other evidence at all, as I can make appear in above fifty several places throughout the book.  
But he will tell us that he produceth not these private letters and manuscripts by themselves alone to prove our judgements, Object. and practices in New England; but as joined with the printed book●s or papers, to make the story complete.  
But it is not so neither, Ans. 
☞  for in abundance of places he produceth none of the printed books at all for proof, but only ●hese private letters, as his only ground. As Cap. 1. Art. 2. Cap. ●● Art. 2. medio. and Art. 4. And Art. 5. And Art. 11. Cap. 4. Art. 9 And pag. 17. pag. 18. pag. 19 Cap. 5. Art. 2. And Art. 3. And Art. 4. And Art. 5. And Art. 6. And Art. 7. And Art. 8. And Art. 9 And Art. 10. And Art. 11. Cap. 6. Art. 10. Cap. 7. Art. 4. Art. 5. Art. 6. Art. 7. Cap. 9 9 And above twenty more, mentioned in the Margin and the postscript. Therefore it's evident he grounds a very great part of his Narration upon these private writings, which are altogether insufficient, as we have proved upon demonstrated reasons.  
But he was not there himself an eyewitness to behold things; Object. he produced the best grounds he had for his Narrative.  
What calling had he more than others, Ans. to make any Narratives of things done 3000. Miles off, which he knew no better? he should rather have let it alone then abuse the truth, the Church●s, and all dabble himself upon such slight grounds as these are.  
But see his third ground, he hath OTHER GOOD INTELLIGENCES, that is, by word of mouth.  
1. Who can witness he hath such Intelligence? Answer.  
2. That this is GOOD Intelligence?  
3. Where are those good Intelligencers? let them come face to face and be tried: but if they be peeping behind the door, we own them not for good Intelligencers.  
Thus we have seen the unsoundness of this foundation whereon he builds his story, and the Axlettee on which all the burden lies, being thus broken, the NARRATIVE must needs fall without any further opposition.  
But as his grounds are weak, so the manner of his proceedings is 1. Unloving. 2. Irregular.  
1. UNLOVING. Witness 1. All those calumnies, he strives with all his might, (though to no purpose) to cast upon his, so much HONOURED BRETHREN, from the beginning of his Preface to the end of his Postscript. 2. His crosse-grained animadversions, where are so many quibs, gibs, scoffs, and farfetched collections, to make New-England men and their ways odious to the world, together with his dark and doubtful expressions, (often dropped out) which may easily be taken by the Reader in the worst sense: As though ●e reserved his evasions if he should be put to it 3. His style full of bitterness, that a man may know who the writeris: though he put down but two letters of his name. 4. That he will (against all ●●mmon sense) needs make us as much differing from the Churches ● England, as the most rigid Brownists, yea in some respects more; and this he strongly contends for, though we (professedly) in our writings, preach, practices manifest the contrary, and testify as oft as occasion serves, the great dislike, & of their rigid Separation. 5. As he hath cast us out of his own heart, so he labours to bring all men out of conceit with us, the Churches here, the Parliament, the Assembly, the whole Kingdom, 3. Kingdoms, yea, all other Churches and Nations: As if we and all our Church-courses were a compound of absurdity and folly: But in this, as in the rest, we commit our case to God that judgeth righteously, who can clear us as the light, Psal. 37.  

☞  As his dealing is unloving, so irregular for its directly against the Apostles rule, 1. Tim. 5.19. AGAINST AN ELDER RECEIVE NOT AN ACCUSATION, BUT BEFORE TWO OR THREE WITNESSES. Where it's plain, that Timothy himself must not receive so much as (one) accusation against any one Elder of a Church, but before two or three witnesses that are able to make it good, (so tender is God of the names of his Ministers.) But W. R. so far forgets himself, and this blessed rule, that he receives.  

1. Not one, but MANY accusations (as his book shows.)  
2. Not against some one Elder, but in a manner, ALL THE ELDERS, YEA AND MEMBERS TOO, AND ALL THE CHURCHES IN N. E.  
3. And all this not upon report of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES, but some one single testimony.  
4. Yea, not so much as one single witness produced BEFORE us, as the text requires, but only he himself saith, he hath such and such a letter by him, tells him so: So that (upon the point) there is not one legal witness, but all the testimony is involved upon himself only, (a most incompetent man) and unfit to be an Informer, an accuser and a witness too, much less in the room of two or three witnesses.  
5. And (which is yet more) the doth not only receive these accusations, but [reports them to others,] yea divulge and print them to the whole world.  
6. And all this too, with as great infamy, damage and wrong before the Churches and Kingdom, as may be imagined and at such a time also, as never was in our age, when as the Parliament and assembly both sit at once, consulting about Church-Discipline.  
7. And he stays not in the bare reporting these accusations, but [So] reports them, as one [labouring to draw all others into the like error, of believing them.]  
8. And (which is worse than all the rest) he brings such reports against us, as, 

1. It's nothing to him, whether they be true or false.  
2. Yea, which he certainly knows are false.     
The former of these I prove from his own words in his Postscript, 
☜  pag. 50. I undertake not (saith he) to report things (in New-England,) as really there they are, WHETHER THEIR REPORTS BE TRUE OR FALSE IS NOTHING TO ME. The latter appears, in that, in sundry places of his book, he relates things that are (ex diametro) contrary each to other, (both which he well knows cannot possibly be true) and yet lets both stand still on record against us, and then infers bitter invectives, in his animadversions, from such contrary reports. You will stand amazed at this dealing, (I suppose) which (I conceive) I am bound to discover, that the world may see how we are abused by him, and clear us in their apprehensions.  
Thus for his grounds and manner of dealing. I come now to the manner of his Narration.   

Answer to the Title. A Narration of some Church-courses generally held in opinion, and practised by the Churches lately erected in New-England.  
Answer. LEt the Reader mind well the latitude of W. R. his undertaking in his book. It is to make a Narration (not of some particular men's practices here and there in New-England, (but of the opinions and practices of whole Churches there, and) not of some one or two Churches (for that is too narrow, still for his scope,) but of THE CHURCHES in New-England (indefinitely.) And that you may know for certain he means to tell you what [all] the Churches there do hold and practise, and (not sometimes, but) in their constant course (he saith plainly,) they are the Church courses GENERALLY held by the Churches in New-England, which he will declare; So that though he speaks but of some Church courses, yet those he doth mention must be such, as are generally held and practised by the Churches there. The performance of which in its latitude (let him know) we expect, and if he comes short of this, unless he revoke his title, he will do us wrong.   

Answer to CHAP. I.  
THe sum of Art. 1. and its Margin is That the Churches of New-England, being the same in Discipline with Plymouth, and Plymouth having their Principles from Mr. Robinson it is to be inquired whether we be not all of the way of the Separatists.  
Answer. 1. As in our judgements we much differ from them, so in several particulars of moment, we practise what the Separatists (properly so called) will not do, as hearing, preaching, praying in the Assemblies in England, and also in private communion with them, etc.  
2. Though we should practise some of the same things they do in Discipline, doth that make the way evil, simply because they do it? First, he must prove that the Separatists practise nothing right at all, or else that we must not, because they do it.  
3. Himself hath fully answered for us, Preface pag. 3. who saith to this effect. Though in Discipline men generally act like others,) he means the Separatist.) yet if in their opinion of these practices, and in the ground● of them, they not only differ, but stiffly ●ppso● them, the just repute of such persons is to be preserved. We need look no further to clear us from censure, then to W. R. himself. For it's well know ne we differ from them in our opinions and grounds of our practice, and how we hate opposed rigid Separatists in that very point, let our own writings witness; Discourse of Covenant. 36. 37. 38. 52.  
Here note (once for all) he saith, that the churches in New-England are of one and the same way in Discipline without any material difference: And this he would have remembered all along his book. I hope he will not start from this afterwards, I pray him to mind it.  
He saith Art 2. We have no Platforms agreed upon amongst us.  
1. We hold it not unlawful to have a Platform of Church Government, i. e. a confession of the Discipline of Christ, Ans. collected out of Scripture, and set down in writing.  
2. Yet we see no Grounds to impose such a Platform upon Churches, but leave them to their liberty therein, because (we know not that) Christ ever enjoined it, and therefore we desire W. R. not to stumble at our Churches, much less, take upon him, so masterly, to control us because we have it not.  
To the marginals of Art. 2.  
He wonders how we so soon fell into such an exact form of Discipline Objection 1 without a Platform.  
We answer him, (yea he tells us himself, Answ.) we had it from that pattern of wholesome words written in the Scriptures, Gods good spirit opening our eyes to see it: And some others also, (laying aside prejudice, and humbly setting themselves to wait on God for light) may come to see an exacter form of Discipline then (it may be) hither to they have done.  
But, why do no other Churches in the world (saith he) besides your Objection 2 selves see this way, but all oppose it?  
Blessed be God, it is not so, many thousands do see and follow it, Answ. so far are they from opposing it. And even England is coming nearer it by many steps of late then before; He that hath brought them from Episcopacy, Imposed Forms, and Popish Ceremonies etc. can carry them on further.  
2. Most of such, as do not walk in, but oppose our way, are they that either have not heard our grounds, or else have not impartially weighed them, and hence have received a prejudice against our practice.  
3. To reveal light being a free act of the father of light, he may choose what truths he will manifest, and when, and to whom, and in what measure he will dispense them, as Christ saith Mat. 25.11. Father I thank thee thou hast revealed these things,— so it is Father, because thy good will is so.  
Objection 3 But we tie ourselves to a precedent, why not rather to a platform?  
Answ. 1. Let him consider well, if this be not a reproach injuriously cast upon us, whose endeavour is, and hath been (as in the sight of God) not to follow men's, or Church's precedent further than we see them following Christ: for though at first a precedent may be looked at, as a directory into the right way, yet the practice may be grounded on the truth itself discerned, and not upon the precedent, according to john 4.42. They were first led to Christ by the woman, yet after believed on him for his own sake, and the truth they discerned to be in him. 
Ob.   
All our Churches (saith he) in New-England, & their members, do clearly see the shining light of Discipline, by a clear evidence of the way revealed to them, and yet do● ti● themselves to a precedent?  
Ans. Is not here a contradiction? for, if we all have full clear shining light, 
☞  than we need no spectacles of a precedent; or if we tie ourselves to a precedent, it's because we conceive we have not full and clear light of our own.  
Objection 4 But we have had divisions amongst us.  
Ans. 1. Those divisions were not caused by our Church Discipline, but by certain vile opinions brought to us from England, (which I fear) is your own case this day, and yet no blame (you will say.)  
2. Through rich mercy, they are long since subdued by the light and power of his truth: O that you could say the same of all the lose opinions here, (if the will of God were so) for which we sigh daily to heaven on your behalf, and dare not reproach you with it.  
3. When these divisions did FALL, it was whiles our discipline STOOD, which shows that our Discipline bred them not, but destroyed them rather.  
Objection 5 To the Margin on Article 3. If an imposed platform by imperious power be unlawful (in others) why do we so rigorrously press others to our precedent?  
Answ. To impose a thing (and that by an imperious power) which may possibly be erroneous in itself, or without evidence to others consciences, on whom it is pressed cannot be lawful: but for us to make the perfect word our pattern, then carefully inform others therein, and after information lead them by it, is certainly much differing from the other, and fare from a slavish invitation by ourselves, or rig●●● pressing of a precedent upon others, both which here he imputes very unjustly to us. As God hath kept us hitherto from such imperious rigour, so I hope, by his grace he will ever do.  
But we forbear giving of our privileges to such as conform not to our Objection 6 way.  
1. If it were our way and not Christ's, Ans. it were our great sin and (in part) the same with the Prelates of late; but to forbear giving privileges to such as submit not to the rules of participation, is no rigour, but such a thing as Christ himself would do if in our places.  
2. It is no more than all other societies in the world do, who first require conformity before they permit to any the enjoyment of their liberties.  
3. Do we any more herein, than the Reverend Assembly themselves at this day, who would not willingly admit unto Church-imployments and privileges, any of a contrary judgement in point of Discipline? And yet, (I hope) you will not say, that either these or those exercise rigour.  
But we will not own such as sister Churches that differ from us (though Objection 7 but in some things) in Church Discipline.  
Do not the Churches of England differ from us not only in some things, but in many (as W. R. Ans. 
☜  himself saith) and yet we own them as sister Churches, witness his own quoted Authors, Discourse of Covenant, p. 36. at large. Mr. Cottons printed letter. All which affirm in effect, and some in words, that we bless the wombs that bore us, and the paps that gave us suck: We entreat W. R. (in the spirit of meekness) to clear himself from a slander in such a general accusation of his brethren.  
Yet we more rigidly impose our pattern then any Churches ever did. Objection 8  
How great an aspersion this is, I leave others to judge, Answ. and the Lord himself to convince him of: Why hath, there ever been so much as any attempt amongst us, to suspend, excommunicate, 
☜  deprive, banish, imprison any for dissenting from us in matters of discipline, as of late in England, for nonconformity? Or to raise a bloody war for Bishops & a Service book, as against our Brethren in Scotland? or to slander, falsify Authors, render many godly Churches odious to the world, as W. R. himself hath done in this book (merely) for difference from him in point of Church Government? We have indeed, Civilly & Ecclesiastically, censured divers there amongst us, but it was for obstinacy in weighty points in Religion, sedition in the state, scandalous practices, as also manifest contempt of the Churches of Christ there, but not any for inconformity in Church Discipline.   

Answer to CHAP. II.  
HE saith Art. 1. 2. That we currently hold there is no visible Church, but a particular, and that we deny an universal visible Church [IN ANY SENSE.]  
Answ. Though the quoted Authors say. There is no Church (properly so called) wherein Ordinances may be administered, but a particularly only. Yet we acknowledge also IN SOME SENSE a Domestical Church, Phil. 2. To the Church in thy house; and an UNIVERSAL Church consisting of all visible believers, according to 1 Tim. 3.15. And this HIMSELF grants we hold, Marg. 2. Art. 2. Why then doth he say we deny an universal visible CHURCHIN ANY SENSE?  
He stumbles at the smallness of the number of members in our Churches, at their first erection. 7. 8. 9 (saith he) and on this string he harps four or five times at least in this book.  
1. What number expressly shall make a Church is not set down in Scripture. In adam's and Noah's time when there was not above 7. 8. or 9 persons, will he deny the being of a Church? And what will he make of Christ his family, where were not above 12. besides himself? And of the first foundationals of the famous Church of Ephesus who were about 12. Art. 19 1. 7. and Biz● on that place saith, Paul then planted a Church amongst the Ephesians.  
2. When our number is thus small, it's only in the very first infancy of it, it abides not so, but members are speedily, and daily added, until they be (as he blames us for not being) a complete organical body Hence ●hese objections also in his Marg answered, OF WANT OF EMPLOYMENT AND MAINTENANCE for the Officers, in regard of their small number.  
He saith Article the third, We deny all representative Churches in a power of judicature.  
Answ. It is because we know no rule to set the Officers in the room of their whole Church, and the Presbytery in the place of all their Churches, to bind the one or the other to stand to their decrees, unless we had Apostles on earth again, for Church Officers, yet even they were very tender in this point.  
To the Margin to Art 1.  
●t he may prove the number of 7. 8. or 9 too small, to admini● censure, and so no Church, he makes a fair addition of his own to a rule of Christ: for whereas Christ directs, Mat. 18.15, 16. an offended brother to take one or two only to him to admonish the offender in private, and then tell the Church, now he will have this course, (beyond the rule) twice gone over, that he may make the foresaid number too small for a Church-censure. So that he will rather cross Christ himself than not thwart us, and here he makes a long discourse to show his own weakness the more in this new devised censure of his.  
He saith, The Apostles Churches consisted of many thousands.  
1. Not in their first beginnings, Answ. for in the greatest Church the number was small enough at first in comparison, Acts 1.15, and this is the time of our Churches we now speak of.  
2. Their growth was sudden, and by an extraordinary way, (certain thousands being added in two days,) and so necessity enforced their abode together at present.  
3. They continued not long so great a body, but were soon dispersed by saul's persecution of them, Act. 8.1.  
4. While they did hold together, they might possibly meet to edification, as well as in some of our Churches here in London, as Cripplegate, Olives, Sepulchers and others, where the Ministers voice may reach to edification, 4. 5. 6. 7000. souls, every Lord's day. Vid. Mr. mather's book, pag. Therefore for him to say it is not possible, etc. is too large.  
He tells us our Churches cannot be gathered in country Villages, especially of such choice Members, etc. where so few Saints are, etc.  
1. That is the fault of people, not of the rule, nor of the way; Answer If the Saints be thin sown, who can help it? They ought to have flowed in more abundantly to Christ by the Gospel in all this time.  
2. They may partake of all Ordinances, as they did, except the Sacraments, and (such as are fit) of those also, in best times, and ways as may be ordered for most conveniency.  
3. He must not limit God's power, who by the word rightly dispensed and his blessing thereon, 
Gen. 13.14.  can raise a people for himself beyond all (our thoughts, 
Ephes. 3.10.  as he hath done elsewhere.  
He takes much pains to no purpose in Marg. Art. 2. to prove in confutation of us) that in some sense, 
M 9.3  there is an universal visible Church.  
Answ. Why, we never denied it [in some sense,] but blamed him, (even now) for saying, we denied it.  

☞  I wonder at the man, who saith, 1. That we hold what we do. ●● 2. Then pretendeth to prove it, but falsifies his Authors. 3. Then makes confutation of his own say, as if they were ours. 4. Then flings reproaches on us for such say, which are not ours, but his. 5. (To make us amends) in the end of his Margin, he father's all upon our mutableness, saying. [sometimes] we acknowledge an universal visible Church, but usually deny it; and yet even in this also, he slanders, not bringing (nor being able to bring, I verily believe) one word of proof, that ever we denied it: Let him make those things good, or humbly confess his error.  
5. To Marg. of Art. 3. he saith, Though we deny (in Art. 3.) the Officers of one Church power to represent their Church in her judicature, etc. yet sometimes we are forced to use messengers to represent the whole body, as at the constitution of a new Church, and private examination of Members to be admitted, Answer. etc.  
Thus he would bear the world in hand, (if you will believe him) that our practice doth cross our Principles, but there is no such thing, for here he proves not, neither can, that we deny a Church that liberty, (which all societies in the world have, i. e.) to depute & delegate her Officers, in some particular cases (as in her name and stead) to represent the whole body: for this is no more than the Church of Antioch did, Act. 15.2. and then ourselves frequently do, in some instance he mentions and divers others.  
But what is this to the giving those Officers generally a power of judicature in and over that Church: and a compound Presbytery, in and over all their Churches, whom (he saith) they represent? because we deny the latter, do we therefore the former?  
3 It is meet he should take notice of a double aspersion (without any show of ground or proof) cast upon us. 1. That we deny any representation of Churches. 2. That we cross our principles, in practising what we deny; both these imputations, (I hope) he will honestly acquit us of.  
Marg. Art. 4. In the definition (saith he) of a Church the Officers are left out.  
He knows well that a definition must accord to the lowest degree of the thing defined, therefore we use to put in only essentials and not all integrals into the definition: for suppose the Officers of a Church be taken away by death 〈◊〉 it, yet (I hope) he will not say, that in the vacancy, the Church ceaseth to be, Officers are not simply for the being, but the well being of a Church.  
See how he adulterates his quotation, in two or three Articles of this Chapter.  
1. (He saith) his Author assumes, 
Answ. to q. p. 10.  we hold there is no visible Church but a particular. But his Author saith, no visible Church (properly so called) but a particular, so W. R. leaves out the middle words, just as in Mat. 4.6. whereby the sense is exceedingly altered, sigh a Church improperly so called, is yet a church.  
2. He saith, [we currently hold this;] but his Author speaks modestly in these words, we know not any, etc. Ans. to 32. q. pag. 9 Ans. to 9 Pos. 66.  
3. He saith, we hold there is no universal visible Church [in any sense;] but his Author saith only, we know no such visible Catholic Church, wherein the seals are to be dispensed] Ans. to 9 Pos. 66. A man with half an eye may discern this is not square dealing.   

Answer to CHAP. III.  
THis Chapter is spent in laying down what qualifications the Churches of New-England require in persons of age that are admitted Members.  
He tells us (to name but the heads in brief.) [That they must be real Saints, sincere Believers, men of meek and humble spirit● and sincere ends, and that the Church in admitting of them, doth make exact trial, 1. by letters of recommendation, 2. or testimony of Members, 3. experience of their conversation, 4. by examination of their knowledge and the work of grace, first in private, then in public, 5. that they be such (which he saith is much desired) as can cleave together in opinion and affection, 6. that they cohabite as near as may be, for the better mutual watchfulness, 7. that they be such as know what belong to Church Covenant, approve it and seek ●●]  
I pray W. R. (speak now as a Christian and as a man of God,) ● there any thing in all this you have said, that you can blame in our practice, 1. for desiring to have all our members (if it might be) of such a spiritual stamp and character as this, and 2. for endeavouring by trial (what lies in us) to find out such as say that they are Jews and are not, but do lie, 3. and having discovered such, for keeping them from polluting the holy seals and other Ordinances of God to his dishonour, and their own ruin, 4. or if we (as far as our light and line reaches, for we have no spirit of infallibility, Find them sound in the faith, for receiving, encouraging, comforting them, what hurt is in all this? I tell you, W. R. if yourself and some others did take more exact pains in the trial of your people, and fitting them for the enjoyment of Church-Priviledges, it would never repent you.  
Now, although these particulars recited, do justify us and our proceed; yet mark his dealing, first in his Articles, then in the Margin of his chapter.  
He tells the world Art. 2. That we require in persons to be admitted, not only to be common, bu● [choice Christians.]  

●ns.  It by chaya, he me●n●s eminent Christians, it's very false, for we accept Christians of the lowest form, and never reject any for want of parts or eminency of grace, i● we can discern in them an heart smitten with sense of sin and need of Christ joined with a blameless conversation, though very weak in knowledge and faith, etc. we dare not refuse but embosomed them in the Lord.  
And h●mselfe (when he will speak the naked truth) confesseth as much Art 8 & tells us what great indulgence we use in the admitting members.  
Let the Reader take notice, that upon perusal of his Authors quoted, he sh●ll not find any one sentence or word tending to justify his saying her●in.  
He would make men believe in Article the second, that we hold if any be admitted that is not a real Saint, he is false matter of the visible Church.  

answer.  This he boldly affirms, but not one word of proof, nor truth. We hold no such thing; for a visible Saint may be true matter of a visible Church, when admitted a member, upon his profession of godliness and taking the Covenant as Achan, judas, Ananias, & Saphira, were all true matter of the visible (though not of the invisible) Church, else they had never been admitted, into the Churches. And that our Churches in New-Eng. hold so, vid. 1. 2. Ans. to 32 9 50. Discourse of the Covenant pag 5.  
Hence now, what will become of all his long Margin to Article 12. where he keeps a great stir in confuting us by four tedious arguments of an error we never held, but it's one of his own framing. So all his labour therein is lost; and some dishonour gained, he said in his preface he would bring proof for every material thing not proved before; yet he breaks his word, because he had a mind to have it true, that it might reflect upon us.  
He reports, That every one that is admitted is brought before the whole Church (though never so many) to make their Declarations in public, & wonders in his margin that we should be so harsh in our dealing, as not to betrust the Elders and some private men with their examinations. Art. 6.  
He is again besides the truth, Answer. for in the Churches where we have lived many years, we have seen such a tender respect had to the weaker sex (who are usually more fearful & bashful) that we commit their trial to the Elders & some few others in private, who upon their testimony are admitted into the Church, without any more ado. And so show more indulgence to them then W. R. doth to us. As for that question in his margin, Why may not the Officers be trusted with their examinations, etc. Ans. So they are, frequently, according to your wish.  
In the same Article he saith, That in the public their Declarations must be to the conviction and satisfaction of all before they can be admitted.  
It's not so, for though some few be unsatisfied, Answer. they use to submit to the rest, and sit down in their votes, unless their reasons be such as may convince the Church.  
For his Quotations cited to prove both these last mentioned, good Reader do us the favour but to search. Answer to 32 quest. pag. 23. 24. and Answ. to 9 quest. 62. 70. and you shall find them to justify him so fare, as not to afford him any one word, or so much as a show and countenance.  
All I say to W. R. is this; How can this stand with simplicity and truth?  
He would make men believe Art. 8. that SOMETIMES we go contrary to our former rigour, by using great indulgence in our admitting members: as if we were not consistent to ourselves and principles through inconstancy; and (upon this) taxes us in the Margin for so doing.  
Do but mark his dealing in this his proof of our unconstancy for the self same author, & page he quoted to prove the rigour of our admissions, Answer. he citys to prove our indulgence. Answ. to 32. quest. p. 8. he brings this for the one and the other as if the same pen had written contradictions in the same page, yet no show of any such thing will appear if you peruse the place; I leave the Reader to judge.  
That such members in one Church in N. E. as are received to the Sacrament in another Church, must fi●st bring letters of recommendation from their own Churches, Art. 7.  
Though we hold it a convenient thing (especially for such as live fare off, and altogether unknown to any of the Church, Answer. where he desires participation of the supper) to bring a testimonial with him, yet it is a constant and usual thing (especially if any of the Church knows them) to accept Members of other Churches upon their desire, without any letters testimonial, and the Author quoted does him the favour rather to seem to speak contrary to him then for him, for (saith the Answer to 32. p. 29. 30.) We do require letters testimonial from the congregations in Old-England, for such as come from thence, before we admit them to the Sacraments, whereas such as come from one Church to another in New-England we receive because these Churches in N. E. are better known to us the● the other. See him this testimony favours him.  
The last and worst report of all the rest is in Art. 12. where he rep●● That if any amongst us do not seek and desire Church fellowship in our way, 〈◊〉 account them DESPISERS OF IT, YEA WICKED AND GRACELESS PERSONS. 
☞   

●nsw.  To which I answer with detestation, (GOD FORBIDDEN.) We speaks (as knowing God hears all our words) We hope we are fare from such a spirit: for we know well, that many gracious and precious Saints there amongst us may, and sometimes do, for a good time abstain from seeking and desiring Church fellowship for other grounds then DESPITE WICKEDNESS, AND GRACELESSNESS.  
Sometimes because they are not settled in a place: sometimes because they desire more experience of the Ministers & people where they should join: some for want of clear light and full conviction of the churchways we walk in: and some others out of many fears about their own spiritual estate before God, judging themselves (through temptation) out of a state of grace; and dare no● venture upon the Seals, etc. whom we yet esteems precious Souls and have laboured by all arguments, we were able, to encourage to come into Church fellowship.  

☞  See what cause therefore he hath in his marginals to this Article to upbraid us, for harshness uncharitableness, and forgetting the royal law of love in this point, etc. whereas he forgets the law of love and trust also, in such reports as these are. 
☞  And for these quotations cited of Answ. to 32. q. p. 21. and Answ. to 9 pos. p 69. (we boldly say and do here challenge him with it) that there is not one word therein to bear him out; and therefore I do here lay this report upon himself, as the raiser of it, let him defend it, or humbly take the blame.  
Besides these blurs he puts upon us in the text, he attempts no less in his large marginal comments on this chap. by many objections raised against us, (besides those we have taken away already.)  

●bject.  As that we keep our Church doors so close shut, and why may not fair overtures and shows of Grace in such as offer themselves, be sufficient for admission? and what need such narrow searching and sounding of men's hearts to the bottom? and that Christ never made such rules, and the Apostles and their Churches never practised the like, and that real and internal holiness is not required to make a member, but only federal and external, etc.  
Answ. Do but see how Church members were wont to be qualified. Matt. 3.6. Act. 8 37, 38. Acts 19.18.9 Rom. 17. and 15.34. Eph. 1.1. 1 Cor. 9.13. 2 Cor. 8.5 Where is plainly expressed, what frame such were of. They confessed their sins; They professed their Faith; They believed in the Lord jesus, with all their heart. They confessed & shown their work. They openly burnt as many c●●iuring books as ●●●e mo●th no less than fifty thousand pieces of silver. They were man beloved of God, Called to be Saints; Full of goodness, filled with knowledge. The faith of some of them spoken of through the world; Faithful in Christ Jesus; Professed their subjection to Christ; gave up themselves first to the Lord, and there to the Church by the will of God. Now let W. R. speak, is here only federal and external holiness, were here only fair Overtures and some shows of grace? but if we go further their his principles carry him: Then we keep our Church doors too close; Then he cries out; it's against charity, against christian wisdom, against Justice and all; and then why will not Overtures and shows serve our turnest I tell you these Overtures &c shows (W. R.) have done mischief enough already, (a man would think) to Christ his Kingdom, and to these poor English Churches, it's even hightime (sure) to press on further now then Overtures, first you were for stinted Liturgies, and now plead for Overtures; whither next?  
But to Margin on Article 4. What need● we be so nice in our admissions, Objection 2 whereas men in Scripture have been admitted into Church Communion upon one testimony only, as Paul Acts 9.27. upon Barnabas testimony alone, and Phoebe, Rom. 16.1. upon Paul● bare testimony.  
1. For Paul admission; If you would consider, Answ. 1. The incomparable eminency of Grace, and singular excellency of spirit that was apparent in Paul: 2 The high esteem and credit that Barnabas (who gave testimony of him) had in the Church's hearts, (as Acts 11.24. Acts 4.36. Acts 13.2. and 13 7. and 15.25.) And thirdly, The fullness of his testimony which he gave in for Paul, Acts 9.27. you will easily answer yourself, that there were more grounds for his admission then ever were required of any member into a New-England Church.  
Secondly, For the admission of Phoebe by Paul's testimony only, Rom. 16.1 It's answered, Paul's bare estimony was more than twenty men's words in the Church's hearts: 2 But here is a great mistake, for Phoebe was not by Paul's testimony admitted into Church fellowship (for she was already a member of the Church of Ce●chrea, yea and a servant of it too, viz. either a widow of that Church, or sent from that Church to Rome upon some special business) but she was only recommended by Paul to the Church of Rome, during the time of her abode amongst them, not for any admission into the Church at Rome, but for assistance in some business, Rom. 16.2.)  
What need is there of Verbal declarations of the work of Grace? for if they be Object. 3 subtle Hypocrites they will deceive you with golden words, as Marg. Art. 5.  
1. It may, and doth satisfy our own consciences, Answ. if we do use all means we can, to find out, by the rules of the word) whether grace be in them or no, it they yet deceive us, it's their sin, not ours.  
2. God (who often takes the wise in their own craft, 1 Cor. 1.19.) lays open such hypocrites, while they seek to deceive others, (as frequent experience hath shown us in the very act of their trial.)  
3. Those that are sound do manifest the sweet smell of their graces by such declarations. Therefore it is not bootless.  
Object. It seems a thing impossible to such good souls as know not the time & manner of their conversion, or have forgotten it, to give account thereof satisfyingly to a multitude, seeing also their manner of inquiry is strict, and the matter inquired into, the spiritual soul points.  
Answ. 1. We wonder, (we confess) to see a Christian, a Minister of God thus to speak. If it seems so impossible for some Christians to give an account of the work of Grace in them, 
Pet. 3.15.  what meant Peter to direct all believers to be always ready to give an answer to every man of the hope that is in them? If they must give this answer to all (even to persecutors themselves,) (as the Text intends) of the grounds of their hope, is it impossible that these good souls should render account to their godly brethren, who in a loving way demand it, and for their own good too?  
2. What if they know not the time, order & manner of their conversion, yet, if they can give any evidence of Christ, now in them by the workings of his Spirit for present, though they know not how Christ came at first into them, its sufficient.  
Object. If an account of their grace must be given, were it not better to have a set and standing rule written and recorded without variation in all the Churches? ibid.  

answer.  Would he have us make a New-England Primer, a set form? this were a way indeed to bring all to a formal course, and to teach every one (though no grace or experience at all of Christ in his heart) to learn (by rote) this form, and then all were well.  
W. R. was (as we heard even now) first, for common prayers, and then for Overtures and shows, and now you have him for standing forms; You shall see him go further anon, are not your fingers singed enough yet with such formalities? It's time to cease.  
Object. Through your strict examinations multitudes of our English in N. E. that were reputed godly, are kept out of Church-Order, and themselves and little ones little better than heathens, Marg. on Art. 6.  

●●sw.  Many, for want of examination of themselves and trial by others, that went, in common view, for sound ones, possibly (and that not without good cause) upon due trial may be found too light, when weighed in God's balance, and its better for such to be discovered here, then hereafter, to their eternal ruin:  
2. Many do keep out of Church-Order upon sundry other grounds above said, and out of choice, and not through straight examination.  
3 But that the non-admitted are esteemed by us, or do live like Heathens, is an untrue and unsavoury imputation: Where we see any breathe of Christ in any, we esteem them as Christians, we love them dear, and carry ourselves accordingly to them and theirs, though not yet in Church fellowship with us, (God himself is our record against such calumnies,) where we see no grace as yet wrought, we labour in all meekness to bring them to Christ, and in mean time take Christian care of them and their little ones, as those that may be heirs of the same grace with ourselves: do men all this to heathens?  
But why are men of differing opinions, and men of harsh and rugged dispositions, Object. 7 though otherwise Godly, kept out from your Churches? Marg to Art. 9  
1. If men's opinions be such as destroy faith, or the power of holiness, Answer. as many in New-England lately were, (though now laid prostrate by the light and power of the word) or such as do directly cross and eradicave the fundamentals of our Church Government, and the persons that hold these till opinions are factious and turbulent: It's no wonder though we be slow in admitting such as we know will destroy either the power of godliness, or our Church's peace; but if they d●ffer only in some inferior points (as you speak) and be of sober spirits, it's known, we admit such and live in peace together with them.  
2. We never knew men of sour and cynical dispositions naturally, merely for that, if otherwise they appear godly, and labour against such distempers, to be kept out of Church-fellowship amongst us.  
But if any man deny the Church Covenant, or doubt of it, your Church doors Object. 8 are shut for ever against him, p. 11. end.  
We pray you goods W. R. speak not against common sense; Answ. How can we possibly admit him into our Church Covenant, that denies the Church-Covenant? can we make him do that he denies to do? Since God's people must be a willing people, Psal. 110.3. Or if he doubts of the lawfulness of it, is it lawful for him to enter into it doubtingly, or for us to offer it, seeing whatsoever is not of faith is sin? Rom. 14. last.  
But to say, our Church doors are [for ever] shut against him, is a speech as untrue as harsh, for as we wait on God to afford, and on him to receive light, so we are as glad when he is informed therein, & are ready to open our Church doors wide to receive him.  
Some other things more slight I pass by in his marginals on this Chap. for brevity, the substance of all which may be referred to some or other of these heads.   

Answer to CHAP. FOUR  
HE saith, (Art. 1. 2. 6. 7.) That we account a public vocal and express Covenant— to be the only absolute necessary constituting form of a true Church, without which no true Church nor true members, but all 〈…〉 concubine's.  

●sw.  He utterly mistakes the subject of the question, for those Authors he quotes, declare not what it is that makes a TRUE Church, but a ●V●● congregational Church, as it is refined according to the platform of the Gospel: And to such a Church, (say they) is required an explicit Covenant. And that they do intent only such a Church, is plain.  
1. Because there are in the description of that Church they mean, such particulars (as himself lays it down, Art. 6.) as can belong only to a pure Church, as, 1 That they walk in all the holy ordinances of God; 2 Accord to the will of God; 3 In one Congregation. All which (we know) every Church (though true) doth not, (ergo.)  
2. If we hold that to every true Church this explicit Covenant is necessary, for the constituting of it, than we should deny the Churches of En (for in them is not such an explicit solemn public Church Covenant) to be true Churches: but that is fare from us, as Discourse of Covenant. p. 36. 37. 38. ergo.  
3. The express words of Answer to 32. quest. 38. 39 (from which he quotes this 1 Article) (if consulted with) will tell you that a pure Church is the Church intended. Therefore it's clear, when we make such a Covenant (as W. R. expresseth) necessary, it is, to a Church, as it's completed in all her integrals according to the perfection required in the Gospel, and not to the essence of every Church.  
This one thing being cleared, what will now become of all his Marginal collections, exclamations, insultations on the 1. 3. 8. Art. He cries out of our unheard of rigidness, as if we would touch the freehold of the Churches of England, and all the Churches in the world. But all his invectives are as arrows shot into the air; for we hold no such thing as he exclaims at.  
We hold (saith he) That without this solemn express Covenant, no true Church or Church members, but all are harlots and concubines, Art. 1. (the quotes Discourse of Covenant, page 14. 18, 19 20, 21, 24. to prove it.  
Answ. From what we last said this falls to the ground as false. I say further, (Blessed be our God) we never were acquainted with such Dialect in out Churches there, we hope such sore censures are and shall be fare from us. And for the quotations he makes for these words, (I marvel his paper blushed not when he wrote it, because himself did not, for) let any man read over the pages as we have done, and see if one can be found so much as savouring of such a thing.  
He reports (Article 1.) that we hold that members are united to Christ by the Church Covenant. 
☞   
1. A Paradox we never knew before, or ever heard of in New-England; for we profess freely we know no mean or instrument of union to Christ, but faith in the Covenant of grace.  
2. This is a device of his own brain, for which we boldly again challenge him as being a thing not possibly to be proved in any of our quoted writings in print, let him (if he be able) prove himself honest by making it good, or confess his fault (as becomes a Christian;) we profess our hearts are justly grieved at this dealing, and the Spirit of Christ in heaven also is (we fear) made sad hereby.  
3. In this also he contradicts his own relation Art. 3. where he plainly saith, that many that be within the Church Covenant are not in the Covenant of Grace (and so not in Christ;) and yet here he saith, that by the Church Covenant a man is united to Christ. So the Church Covenant doth unite us to Christ, and it doth not unite to Christ; how can both these be true? This is too frequent with him, to lay things that are contradictory to our charge; and not a word of proof from the Authors, as any ground of it. This I lay on him as a further charge.  
He reports Art. 2. That we hold, that joining ourselves in all holy fellowship, cannot knit a man as a member of a Church. And quotes Dis. of Cou. pag. 21. for his proof.  
1. The Author hath not one word to bear him out.  
2. We wonder what the man means to affirms this; Answ. for [joining one's self in holy fellowship] (he knows) is our usual and frequent description of the Church Covenant, when we speak most punctually to it, 
☞  and do commonly for that end, cite Jer. 50.5. Act. 9.26.  
3. That very Author, and page, he citys to prove, we hold, that joining ourselves in holy fellowship cannot knit a man as a member in Covenant; speaks directly the contrary, in these words. When joining, (saith the Author) is used for a man's taking on him voluntarily a new relation, (as in this case he doth) there it always implies a Covenant.  
In Art. 3. and 4. he would make as though we ourselves speak contrary to ourselves, in the one place (he saith) we hold our Church Covenant to be distinct from the Covenant of Grace: in the other place, That it is not distinct, but as a part from the whole. But we must digest grosser things than this in his narrations: consult with his Author, and you shall see nothing to countenance him; yea he quotes the same Authors for both.  
In Art. 7. He tells us, We hold our Church Covenant must be v●call: but proves it not by any one testimony, we can read, and its contrary (we are sure) to our constant practice that admits members into the Church by a Covenant agreed to by their silence only: and as it is contrary to our practice, so to our writing in the discourse of the Covenant, which expressly saith, that silent consent is sufficient, and there proves it by Gen. 17.7. and Deut. 29.10.  
Whereas he had reported before of our rigorous exacting of our Covenant, and how it must be vocal, and express, or it would not serve our turn, nay, no Churches at all without this explicit Covenant, etc. Now in Art. 8. he pulls down all he hath built, and tells us that we hold that a bare consent and agreement to be members will serve; And that men's implicit intentions to do such a thing may suffice.  

●sw. 1.  He grossly falsifies his Author brought to prove this mincing of the Covenant, Discourse of Covenant. p. 21. 22. where is not one word that way, and (which much aggravates) he still quotes the very same Author, and p. for our mincing of the Covenant, that he did (in Art 1.) for our rigorous exacting of it.  
2. He slandereth us, to make the world believe we run contrary ways, sometimes by over rigorous exacting the Covenant: sometimes again, that (after all our rigour) we bring it so low, almost to nothing: whereas in all our writings (I profess it solemnly) there is no show at all of any such differing practice.  
3. Hence also, the ground being rotten, his Marginal construction falls on his own head.  

☞  4. He doth not only abuse his Author and us, but himself also, who said in Cap. 1. Art. 2. That New-England Churches walk in the same way without any material difference; and yet this is the third time he hath taxed us for grossly differing from ourselves: How can these things be? See how many gross faultering in one poor article, what are in all his book?  
He sets down two of the forms of the Church Covenants which any savoury and gracious spirit viewing over, and surveighing the godly simplicity of them, cannot (one would! think) but approve and relish: yet see this man's spirit (so prejudiced against us and all things we do,) that he cannot choose, but (without reason) find fault with divers innocent passages therein; As 1 That we promise willingly and meekly to submit to Christian Discipline without murmuring.  
2. That we willingly will do nothing to the offence of the Church, but be willing to take advice for ourselves and ours, as occasion shall be presented.  
3. That we will not be forward in the congregation to show our own parts and gifts in speaking or scrupling nor discover the failings of our brethren.  

☞  Now what spirit (but W. R.) would startle, scoff, and quarrel (as he doth in his marginals.) pag. 17. 18. 19 at such plainehearted and found expressions as these, being all clearly grounded on Scripture?  
He is angry with us also, that we mention not (in our Covenants) more particular sins and duties than we do, and yet is offended that we mention any at all; how shall we please him?  

☞  He tells us again, that the former of these Covenants is us fit for wedding as the constitution of a visible Church.  
And then flies from New-England to some particular Persons here, who being Ministers of Churches there (saith he) yet accept of settled employments, even charge of souls here, and how can they watch over their Church?  
I know but two Ministers of the Churches there, Answ. that are in England at this time, and how far both those are from settled employment, much more from taking livings (as these words [charge of souls] imply) God, their own consciences, and the people (to whom they at present preach) can testify (little to the comfort and credit of any that thus slander them, I advise him to reflect upon his words, and see if there be not something in them to be repent of, and recalled.  
But how can such (so far distant) watch over their Church; and é contrà. Object.  
That hand of Providence, that, upon weighty causes, and with their Answ. people's consent, first led them hither, and upon like necessary grounds (beyond expectation) still detains them here, takes them off at present from performing that duty of watchfulness over their people, 
☜  as in like manner it doth to other Persons, that are absent from their Families and Churches by long sea-voyages, wars, etc.  
And yet note, that W. R. is the more blamable in these carping at the Covenants mentioned, because he is convinced in his conscience (as his own words are, Pag. 17.)  
1. That all things in those two forms of the Covenant (in a fair construction) [are very good.]  
2. That if any other interpretation be made of any thing therein, it is no better than [an harsh constuction.] It is not without a special finger of God, that himself should first commend, the matter of the Covenants; to be very good; and blame any other construction that should be made of it, as harsh. And yet should immediately, in his very next words, fall upon such harsh constructions in sundry particulars, as he hath done.  
He reports in Art. 11. as strange and gross an untruth (to call it by the fairest term) and that without any ground at all: i. e. That we hold [that this our Church Covenant (as it is distinguished from the covenant of Grace) is that Covenant which is sealed by the Sacraments, and for the sealing and ratifying of which the Sacraments were principally ordained of God.]  
I stand amazed at this report, wherein these 4. things lie plain, Ans. which he must prove, we hold.  
1. That our Church-Covenant is that covenant which is sealed by both Sacraments.  
2. That this Church Covenant, (thus distinguished from the covenant of Grace) is sealed by the Sacraments.  
3. That the sealing of this Church Covenant was the end of Gods ordaining the Sacraments.  
4. The principal end. W. R. Now prove all these, else you will prove yourself unfaithful.  
All his proof we can see is Ans. to 9 Pos. p. 63. 66. I'll relate the very words, that he may have nothing to allege. [Baptism (saith the Author) serves to seal to our Justification, as circumcision did; yet not that alone, but also the whole covenant (i. e. of Grace) with all the privileges, as Adoption, Act. 2.38. and sanctification, Gal. 3.26.27. Tit. 3.5. fellowship with Christ, Tit. 3.5. The salvation of our Souls, Mat. 20.23. and the resurrection of our Bodies, 1 Pet. 3.21. and not only the covenant of Grace, which is common to all believers, but Church covenant also, which is peculiar to confederates, according to 1 Cor. 2.15.29.]  
Now here is not said, that the Church Covenant is [the thing] sealed, much less the principal end of this ordaining the Sacraments, lest of all that the Church Covenant (as distinguished from the covenant of Grace) is the principal end of the Sacraments; but all that is said, is this, that though Justification and the whole Covenant of Grace be the principal things sealed in their circumcision, and our Baptism, yet all the privileges of the covenant of Grace, and the Church covenant also are not without their share and benefit in the Sacrament. How far this expression comes short of his assertion, let others judge.  
Now see his marginal note upon this Art. [Here is (saith this commenter) a piece or two of such Divinity, as I never read, but Vno absurdo dato mille sequuntur I could resort, Here is such an absurd foisting in of untruths as I never hardly read in Heathen or Christ●an writers: and having taken liberty in a few things at first now they come in by troops. As he hath had very ill success hitherto all the chapter through, let us see if he will speed any better at the last close.  
He saith Art. 12. Infants that were admitted Members by the covenant of their Parents, are not yet permitted to receive the Lords Supper, when they are come to years, until, 1. They have run through all the foresaid course of public, & private examination, 2. Profession of their faith, 3. Declaration of the manner of their confession. 4. Personal, vocal, and express entering into the same covenant as others of years have done before them, and as if they never had been made Members before.  
And for this practice he citys only Ans. to 32. q. p. 20. 21.  
How he deals herein, see that place. If there be not more in his promises, then are in his proof. All that the Author saith is this, That there ought to be a renewing of their covenant, or a new profession of their interest in the covenant, and walking according to it; and professeth modestly too, these are but their present thoughts not settled determinatively, for want of occasion to bring it into practice, yet he brings him in, as speaking conclusively; and with a lumber of additions, deviations, alterations of his own putting in, for where is now his running through all the foresaid courses of private and public examination (he mentions) where is his declaraition of the manner of their conversion? Where is his personal, vocal and express entering intr the same covenant, as if they had never been received Members before? Whose words are all these? Nay, the Author expressly tells us, that children are entered into Church covenant already, and do but renew their covenant, and he saith they must enter in afresh, as if they had never yet been received at all.  
This we must tell him, is not fair dealing, and what will now become of his marginal note upon the Article so mistaken?  
Many other collections (besides what we have answered to already) he makes in his marginal notes on this chapter, by way of objection against us, which deserve a little answering: as,  
In his margin to Article 2. A strange yet bold assertion (saith he▪) spoken— without good show of reason: but what is this bold assertion? That Job and Melchisedec were no Members of the visible Church.  
I entreat the Reader to see if his Authors quoted for these words, Answ. will bear him out in these [bold] accusations of us or no: All that Ans. to 34 37. saith is this. We make no question of the salvation of Job and his friends, yet it is a great question whether they were of any visible Church or no, (and gives his reason) seeing the visible Church in those times seemed to be appropriated to the posterity of Abraham, etc. of whose line it cannot easily be proved that all these men did come. And all the other cited Author (Cns. to 9 Pos. 66.) saith, is this. We no where read (there is this reason) that Milchisedec, Job and his four friends were circumcised, neither do we believe they were: Now see whether 1. we say and conclude, that these holy men were in no Church, 2. if we boldly assert it, 3. without good show of reason, 4. if there needs a marginal confutation.  
He saith, that Baptism, though it doth not really admit infants into the visible Church, yet formally it doth, etc.  
He speaks besides the point, for the question is, not 1. Answer. What doth formally and in the ceremony, but really, admit Members: 2. not Infants but men of years: 3. not into the visible Church, but a particular congregation; so he might have spared this labour, which makes nothing for him, or against us.  
To his long Margin to the 3. Article, wherein he grants a covenant in a  sense, but denies and inveys against the strictness of our Church covenant, I should have answered, but because he builds all upon a gross mistake (which was answered already in Article 1.) i. e. that we make this vocal and express covenant necessarily for that constituting of a true Church, and say that all societies are whores and Concubines without it (a speech aborted of us) I pass it by, and tell him that what he builds upon such rotten foundations, will ruere mole suâ.  
He makes four false suppositions, and then draws sundry conclusions of his own from them, and so fights with his own shadow, pag. 15. 16.  
As first that we hold the Church Covenant is the Covenant of grace.  
2. That in our Church Covenant we hold it necessary and a thing essential to the Covenant, to make repetition of the whole covenant of grace.  
3. That our covenanting to perform duties to our own Church hinders our communion with, and care of all other Churches: Which things being nothing so, but mere mistakes, all his collections from them vanish in the air.  
4. That some men do enter into this Covenant, and yet are unsatisfied, that it is a way of God, and so cannot safely engage themselves by this covenant. Which also (being a mere fancy of his own) I pass by.  
The next is as strange as weak, p. 17 i. e. That if we have a set fo●●● of a Church-covenant imposed upon all that enter into the Church, 
☞  and this read in a book, why may we not as well have a set form of Prayer and liturgy to be read in Churches?  

●sw.  The Narratour shows still a good mind to set forms, it is the third time he hath been harping on this string.  
First, for Overtures and shows in members, then for set and standing rules (or forms) in admissions, now for set forms of prayer, and that in Churches, are to be read also in a book. He was hard driven for arguments, else he would never have produced this as a ground for set forms of prayer in Churches. For (he might know) there is a large breadth of difference betwixt a Covenant and a prayer. For 1 the one is presented to God himself only. The other to man also.  
2. The several Articles and all branches of the one had need be certainly known and agreed on beforehand, that they may punctually and deliberately know what the particulars are they engage themselves to God in; no such ground for our Petitions in prayer.  
3. The one had need to be written for remembrance, lest we should forget, (in tract of time) what the several branches were we bound ourselves unto, according to Jer. 50.5. [A perpetual Covenant not to be forgotten.] I know no such ground for our Petitions in Prayer, nay it is impossible to do it.  
4. Set forms of prayer are a stinting of the Spirit, who hath promised to enlarge our spirits, by helping our infirmities in prayer, as well in matter as manner, in What, as well as How to Pray. Rom. 8.26. We know no such promise for extemporary assistance in the matter and form of a Covenant.  
5. Reading prayer in a book hinders the affection (which is one principal thing in prayer,) but our main work, whiles the Covenant (which we take) is rehearsing, is attention, judgement, consideration, all which are not hindered, but much furthered and helped by distinct reading of it.  
6. By reading of a set form of prayer in the Church, the Ministers gifts (which Christ hath given him for that end. Eph. 4.8.11.) are obscured, and in great degree buried, and the presenting to God the several and continual necessities of the congregation extremely hindered and restrained: Neither of which are done by a set form of a Covenant agreed unto, and read at the taking of it.  
7. We have express warrant in Scripture for a form of words and writing of a Covenant, (which is the very thing we are blamed for) see (Neh. 9.38. And because of all this we make a sure Covenant, and write it & seal to it. And Nehem. 10.29. to the end of the chap. there are set down the express Articles, form and words of the Covenant that was written and subscribed and sealed by them. Let him show us the like warrant in the word for a Liturgy or set form of book prayer for a congregation. I much wonder that a grave learned man, (especial in such reforming times as these should so fare forget himself as to make such parallels, and talk still of Liturgies.  
He saith 1. in this Marginal, that the Church imposeth that set form of Covenant (invented by one or more) upon all the Members of that Church.  
He reports in the 9 Article (to which this Marginal belongs,) That the Covenant is ever in one and the same form of words, as well as matter, in the same Church.  
Both which are great mistakes. 1 To the former, Answ. though the forming of the Covenant be the work of some one or two at first, for how can it otherwise be? yet it is never imposed on any, but all that are to enter into Covenant have full liberty to consider and consult about the matter, or form of it, or give reasons for addition or alteration of any thing in it. So that the form of it, as well as the matter, is by his own act or consent at least; and after all, if he hath not light and ground, he is (in no case) forced to it. If this be so, he should not have called it an imposing of the covenant upon the members.  
2. The other is mistaken likewise. For any Church hath and taketh liberty as they shall see just cause (if there be a defect or error in the matter or form of their Covenant made at first) to alter it, and renew it before the Lord, and bind not themselves to continue in any oversight, because they once fell into it: and some Churches have so done.  
But w● may here see what a task W. R. hath undertaken to make Narratives of Church-courses in such places, where himself never came, but rests upon uncertain and various relations; This is one reason why he so often stumbles in the dark, and rusheth upon so many foul mistakes in every Chapter. I hope it will instruct him for future times. Semel insanivimus omnes.   

Answer to CHAP. V.  
HE is at a set (in Art. 1. and 2. and their marginals) and falls a wondering at the contradiction in them. For in Art. 1. he saith, That men may in New England constitute a Church without consent from the Magistrate or neighbour Churches: yet in Art. 2. that there is a general Court-law, that no Church shall be set up in New-England without the consent of the Magistrate and neighbour Churches. Hereat he stands amazed, and sets his Reader to do so too.  

●ns.  I will do him the favour to help him out of this strait, and salve his credit, by telling him; There is no contradiction at all in his Articles; do but distinguish of times and you untie the knot.  
For there was a time in New-England (for some few year's space) before such a law was made, and then Churches did use to gather, without any notice given to Magistrates or other Churches.  
But after the opinions grew on, and experience discovered the danger, there was a law made that none must constitute any Church but first give notice thereof to Magistrates and Churches, and since that this course is duly observed. So both your Art. (W. R.) (you see) are true, and your report honest and right.  
Yet, withal let me give [you] a few Animadversions, by way of brotherly counsel, and I pray take them well.  
1. See, what it is to wrong so many godly Saints, and faithful Churches upon private various informations, and your own mistakes, and so break that 9 Commandment of our ever blessed God.  
2. Whiles you live, undertake no more Narratives of Church-courses in places you are no better acquainted withal; lest (at unawarrs) unhappily you speak evil of things you know not.  
3. When a matter lies before you, that admits a double construction; be sure you ever take it in the better, and not in the worse sense. In those two reports, you see one good sense (which indeed is the truth) and that I have given you: Another bad, and that yourself have taken, for when you stood amazed in your marginals at the contrariety of the reports; in the conclusion who must be beaten but either your Informer or else New-England Churches, for practising such foul, yea more foul contradictions (as you are pleased to speak) and yet note, you see neither he nor they, but yourself only is in all the blame.  
For the proof of both these 1. & 2. Articles, whom doth he produce, for the 1. Article, but the Ans. to 32. q. p. 43. where there is not one word nor jot to prove that the Churches in New-England are erected without the Magistrates cogniscence.  
Then for the proof of both the Articles (where this contradiction lies) he produceth R. M. to W. R. and makes him the father of that monstrous birth of a foul contradiction now this R. M. is a godly & Reverend Teacher of a Church there, who would not write such a seeming contradiction without clearing of it some way or other. Ever have we found him sober and wary in all his expressions. 2. This R. M. is his old loving friend also (who I know doth dearly respect him,) now I beseech you W. R. in the bowels of Christ, to consider if this be an act of love towards your dear friend, without his consent, to discover his letters to the world which were written to yourself in private, (for those that know you both cannot but know who this R. M. to W. R. is) 2. to make him the Author of contradictions; 3. so to fall upon him in your Margin, (whom you know so loving a friend, and so godly a man) as one that reports to you such things for truth as they neither hold nor practise in N. E.  
Which is little better than to give him the lie, I leave my thoughts with you, desiring you to take notice of it.  
In Art. 3. 4. to the end of the chapter, he reports (and that truly excepting some few mistakes) the manner of the first constitution of a Church in New-England.  
As, That such Persons as are to enter into Church fellowship do beforehand often meet privately, to be inwardly acquainted with each other spirits by conference, prayer, & mutual examination of each other, till they have approved themselves to each others conscience as in the sight of God, and before they join, they give notice to the Magistrate and neighbour-Churches, that such as please may be present at the place, and time of their meeting, to give them advice, direction, etc. the day appointed is kept with fasting, prayer, and preaching, etc. towards the end of the day each of those persons now to be Churched, makes public profession of his faith and the work of grace in his soul, etc. when the Messengers of the Magistrates and Churches have heard and considered, if they be unsatisfied (or any slander by) they make their objections, etc. and if still unsatisfied, they forbidden them to enter into Church fellowship, and so remain without the pale of the Church as they did before; but if they be satisfied, the said Persons enter into covenant, than the said Messengers give them the right hand of fellowship, and returning back make report to their Churches that sent them.  
Now what can W. R. Answer. or any man object against the substance of things done in this relation? (some mistakes only excepted in the laying of it down.) One would think the godliness of the Person joining the plainness, and sincerity of their dealing from the beginning to the end, their care and endeavour to do all as becomes Saints; and to begin this holy & weighty business as in the sight & presence of God, with fasting & prayer; (at least) should stop men's mouths from speaking ill of them and their ways. Yet W. R. fails in his dealing with them in divers points, which I desire to advertise him of in the spirit of meekness.  
In that offensive phrase, saying, those Persons come now to be Churches, he well knows the meaning of that word; It doth not become gravity and holiness to give such deriding words, nor ludere cum sanctis, God hears all our words, and sees the scope of our hearts therein. But if he meant innocently in it, I should be sorry, that I once named it.  
He speaks twice, both in Art. 6. and 8. of the Messengers of the Magistrates s●nt to the gathering of the Churches.  

●nsw.  But there is no such thing done, the Magistrates come themselves in person if they can, or if not, they send no Deputies or Messengers, the Churches indeed send Messengers (commonly their Elders) to lend them a word of counsel if they need, being more experienced in those ways, than (commonly) new beginners are, to join their prayers with theirs & to give them the right hand of fellowship: But the Magistrates send no Deputies.  
He reports in Art. 8. That if the Messengers or any standers by be unsatisfied, they make their objections as they think fit, until they be satisfied.  
Then (in his marginals upon it) It's an hard thing (saith he) to satisfy all comers, in what they please; If any objection be against his life, it must be presently, and openly declared before the country. This is little wisdom, less charity.  

●ns.  Here are many unwise and uncharitable passages laid unjustly to our charge, and all those without any proof at all but only H. W. I. W. & who knows where to consult with them?  
As 1. That any slander by, yea all comers may question or object, 2. and that even what they please, 3. if any failings be in their lives they are presently and openly declared before all the country. Which things are nothing so: For 1. None may speak a word, but soberly and orderly; And 2. not without leave desired and granted; 3. nor how much he will, nor what he please; but things very weighty and necessary, And 4. not of any failings to their disparagement. For if they be unsatisfied with any of them in point of discipline, or matters of fact, they are first to deal with them in private, seeing they know before both the Persons, that are then to join, and the time and occasion of that day's meeting. And (I am confident) never a Godly sober man will write other wise: It's little wisdom or charity (I am sure) for him to affirm things so contrary to the truth.  
That if the M ssengers be unsatisfied with any of those that are about to enter into Church fellowship, they are forbidden to enter into Church estate.  

answer.  This is as wide as the rest. For the Messengers never arrogated to themselves such power to this day, nay they professedly express against it, constantly in such meetings) as to forbid their entrance into Church estate. The most they do (at any time in this case) is, to desire leave to be faithful in interposing their counsel, and that only, when they see very great cause: And withal leave them to their Christian liberty.  
Now having answered to the Articles, we will speak something to those of the marginals, on this 5. chapter, which are not touched already.  
He tells us, Mar. to Art. 2. that there are too many here who run the same Church-courses with us, that hold that the Magistrate hath nothing to do with the first table.  
But 1. he knows, (or may know at least) that this opinion is utterly against our Judgement, practice, and established jaws in New-England, Answ. therefore it no way concerns us.  
2. Nor doth it any whit reflect upon our cause, (which he is too ready upon this or any occasion to disgrace) for none are more dependant upon Magistracy, than those (they call Independants,) from whose principles they never sucked that dangerous opinion, therefore he did not well to give such by-blows to innocent persons and ways.  
3. If this should be a blot to our cause, that some of our Churchway hold ill opinions; let him make it appear, that none of his way are grossly tainted with Popish and Arminian leavin, or else blot out, this Margin.  
(He saith) Margin to Art 2. (It seems to him) we have little less than a compound Presbytery set up amongst us, and Church-Canons in act, though not in rule, and gives his instances for this.  
1. As it is (saith he) an agreement amongst the Churches and Ministers, that no Church shall be set up there without the knowledge of other Churches: [There is a compound Presbytery]  
2. That no man shall preach or vent any new or uncouth tenants, until first he hath communicated them with his fellow Ministers. [A very good Canon.]  
3. That such as are to enter into Church estate, do use to meet together before hand to acquaint themselves in private with each other spiritual estate, [a Canon]  
1. Do Canons bind people to obedience, Answer. so fare only as they please to agree unto them, and no further? these Canons are an agreement.  
2, Do Presbyteries consist of whole Churches, for he saith, (as it is an agreement of Churches as well as Ministers its little less than a compound Presbytery) If Ministers and people both do rule, who shall be ruled over by this Presbytery?  
3. He answers the thing and contradicts himself (both at once,) for he saith Art. 2. this giving notice to Magistrates and Churches, of a Church to be erected, is by a law of the general court, and cannot be as he saith in Margin; and agreement of Churches, therefore no Ecclesiastical Canon. Suppose many Godly Ministers in London should agree amongst themselves, that every one should preach down the superstition of (that they call) Christmas; and promise each other, that (till they should give in their reasons to the contrary) they would not preach for or against discipline: would W. R. call this agreement a Presbytery, or a Canon?  
Let him see then how extremely wide he is in the other.  
If Churches (saith he) send Deputies or Messengers to represent themselves, and to act in their room, why not in a Synod as well? Marg. to Art. 6.  

●nsw.  If Churches send their messengers, or chosen men, to confer and consult only in a Synod in their names, without any Authority of concluding and determining of matters, or (much less) binding their Churches to what they determine of, (which is our case in New-England (as we have said) I know nothing against such a practice: But if Synods do more, and go further, his allegation is to no purpose,  
If so much time (saith he) be spent in joining seven or eight persons together into one Church, how much time would be requisite to join 3000 together? but the Apostles went a shorter way. Marg. to Art. 10.  

●sw.  Consider first, 1 The Gifts, Graces and ability of discerning, that were in the Apostles above any Minister now living, who as they were able to preach with less time of study, so to dispatch and turn over weighty business with more speed and dexterity, than we are.  
2 The extraordinary, wonderful and visible stroke of God upon the spirits and hearts of men that heard Peter at that time; the meeting; the language; their understanding of it; God's assistance of Peter, and blessing on the word, all extraordinary: Such a day, such a Sermon, such effects as never were before, nor like to be, to the end of the world; so the power of God was remarkable in their conversion, so also in their expression and demonstration of it; So that there needed little trial when God spoke himself from Heaven.   

Answer to CHAP. VI  
HE reports (to recite such things only as most need Answer, and let the rest pass) Art. 1. 2. That we hold, that Christ hath invested with all power any that are in Church-fellowship, that though they be all illiterate, yet they may make & examine all their Officers, & unmake & depose them when they see cause so to do, and preach expound and apply the word with all Authority, yea and do it without any reference at all to their Officers (as Officers) when they have them.  

●nsw.  If I did delight in retorting, I could say of these words, as he of Holland Ministers Apology, They are a mere Gull, for almost so many words so many mistakes. The Narratour should have done well first to have proved all the Churches and Ministers in New-England men out of their wits, and void of common sense, and then he might more easily have made the world believe they hold and practise such a congeries of absurdities and impossibilities; For else many of them there being well known to be learned, godly, and sober men, no wise men will believe him that they can hold, that 

1. Illiterate men can examine Pastor's fitness.  
2. Depose them at pleasure.  
3. Preach, expound, and apply the word with all authority.  
4. And that without any reference to their Officers at all.  
5. And (which is m●st strange) that Christ himself hath invested these illiterate ones with all power to do all these things.    
For 1. It is a received practice amongst us, that when any combine into a Church, there is one at least of them endued with able parts of humane and divine learning, that either hath been a Minister in our native country, or is fit to be one amongst them, who usually and frequently preacheth to them after they are united. So that all of them are not men illiterate, 
☜  and W. R. himself knows this to be true, for the Answer to the 32. quest. 42. (which is very page he here quotes) directly saith this in so many words:  
2. That those illiterate men do examine their Ministers abilities, and that we hold they ought; is another great mistake, for so we should put men upon a work beyond their reach, which were idle; whereas the truth is, that (if the sufficiency of such men as they intent to call into office be not well known to them) they use to call in the help and assistance of Elders in other Churches to survey their abilities, and to inform them therein, that thereby (as well as by their own experience of them and discerning of their gifts) they may be able to give in their suffrage for election when the time comes.  
3. For their unmaking and deposing them again when they see cause; We hold and profess it a thing most injurious to Jesus Christ himself in heaven & to his Ministers on earth, and such a thing, as (not only Christ will summon Churches at the great day to answer unto, but) our Churches there will also expect satisfaction from them for it, if they should thus depose Ministers (as he saith) when they see cause, unless Christ himself shall see good cause to allow their fact to be done according to the rules of his own word. We are so fare from holding this, that we protest against such practices.  
And to show how wary we are in this point, no Church dares trust her own judgement: but our manner is, as his quoted Author speaks. Answer to 34. q. of p. 41. Our practice is in removal of Ministers to have counsel and assistance from sister Churches.  
4. Whereas he saith also, That we hold that men illiterate should preach with all authority (which is a work and a task for the ablest Ministers to perform) is as fare from us, as any of the other. For though we deny not, but in some case, some able judicious experienced Christians, may humbly & soberly, when necessity requires, as in the want of Ministers & being invited thereunto, dispense now and then a word of exhortation to their brethren. This is fare enough from Preaching in an ordinary way, with all Authority; which are words of his own, put in without any ground.  
5. But for him to add that we hold they may thus preach when they have Officers, and that without any reference at all to them, is extremely contrary to our practice, and furthest from the truth. For this would directly cross Christ his institution of calling Officers in his Church, and make mere cyphers of them, whose Office it is not only to preach, but to rule and govern the Assembly, to open the door of speech to any in the congregation, and to shut it up by silence, so that none may so much as speak without his allowance.  

☞  And this expression of his is contrary to his own Narration in Art. 8. where he saith, That some of the Acts we ascribe to our Ministers in Office, are to declare unto their people the mind of God, and to moderate in Church-meetings: yet here he speaks clean contrary to himself and the truth also.  

☞  6. For him to add, That we hold that Christ hath invested these illiterate men with all power to do all these things, so fare beyond their power, and all ordinary possibility, contrary to all rule, and to his own institution; is to put upon us one of the grossest absurdities that ever was heard of; even to make Christ cross himself, and to be a patron of confusion in his own house, by investing them with all power to oppose his own rules of Order.  
Now let us see what grounds our Nartatour hath to lay all these charges against us. You will think, sure his proofs are strong, or he would never have ventured, to blemish so many thousands of God's faithful I servants in such sore accusations as these. True he quotes many, and (that I might see his bottom,) I have surveied all the printed Authors in every page quoted; 
☞  and (I solemnly profess it) that none of these particulars rehearsed as he hath laid them down, much less in them all, will any of them bear him out: and I desire the Reader to try, whether I blame him justly or no, by perusing the books.  
But that you may see how soberly and cautiously his quoted Authors speak of Churches using their liberty, I will write their own words. Ans. to 32. q. 44. We conceive every Church hath right from Christ to transact all their Church business, (but mark the cautions) If so be they be able and carry matters justly, and according to the rules of the word. How different are those words from his? yet this is the very place he citys.  
You say, W. R. you undertake only to tell a story of New-England Church way, but now you make a story of your own, and frame it, and mould it after your own fashion. You can so add and alter as to make it speak as you please, that we and our ways may seem odious to the Churches. 
☞  Is this a truthing of it in love (as you spoke in the last words of your Postscript?) and dare you pray for a blessing on your book (as in the last words of your preface you do, saying) Now the blessing of heaven go with this poor Pamphlet, when it is so stuffed and bombasted with such fearful untruths and slanders?  
Art. 3. All which (Church matters) we claim power (saith he) to our selves to do, without any Authority, concurrence, or assistance of any other Churches or Officers.  
Authority is either immediately from the person, Answer. & that some call coercive and forcing; or from the rule, and that some call doctrinal, (no less binding then the other.) The former in transacting Church matters, we use not, for want of Scripture grounds, that Christ hath given any other Churches or their Officers power over us. The latter upon all occasions we improve by calling in the assistance of other Churches, and hold ourselves bound to follow their counsel as fare as it is grounded on the word.  
Art. 6. He saith we hold the Church (if she conceives that the Officers do not use their power well) may resume it unto herself.  
If he means (while they abide in their Office) they may do this, Answ. we must profess against his relation; for if the Officers do abuse their power, the Church exhorts him as a father, to fulfil his Ministry received from the Lord, as Col. 4.17. and if great need require, they may admonish him, and if no other means will possibly cure, they may at last for incorrigble going on in manifest abuse of his place, excommunicate him: but in no wi●e, while he abides in Office to resume their power, and enter upon his work. And observe him again quoting his Author to bear him out in his speeches, who is not for him, but against him. Ans. to 32. q. 58. where he saith, that no member without breach of order, and presuming above his place, may do our Ministerial acts of Church Government, but the Presbyters may only do them, Which Ans. of ours doth also take off those marginals, pag. 26. and saves us further labour, and part of the 7. Art. also that speaks to the same effect.  
He saith Art. 7. We hold the Officers are all but the Church's Servants in propriety of speech, and the Church the Mistress.  
That all Officers are the Church's Servants was no strange thing to a Minister fare better than any of us, 2 Cor. 4 5. Answer. Ourselves your servants for Christ's his sake. But (because he must needs keep his hands inure) he will in this, (as almost in all his Articles) be still adding something of his own, to blur the business. Therefore he saith, we hold O ficers but the Church●s servants, which word [but] implies a vilifying of Ministers and their place: whereas we have learned to esteem them very highly for their works sake, 1. Thes. 5.13. and also that they are only servants, nothing, but, servants; whereas we know they are Governors also. 2. ●● adds another expression of his own, in propriety of speech, and makes a great stir in his Marg. on that Article, that a Minister should be a servant in propriety of speech, (whereas it is his own addition, and not our speech.)  
Answ. The Officer may be said to be a ruler and a servant too, in divers respects, as Heb. 13.17. with 2 Cor. 4 5. And Christ himself is both, and so is the greatest Prince in the world, a servant to the Common weal. But his spirit is loath to acknowledge this, and labours to evade it, by such arguments as the Bishops made use of for their sole power in the Church; but we know, to be servants of the Church, is no other than to be for the Church, and not the Church for them equally; And so he that is a ruler in the Church may be well said to be a servant. In this case the max●m of law holds good in Divinity, that a King is singulis maior, universis minor, so the Church Officers are singulis maiores, Ecclesiâ minores.  
To Art. 9 That every member (except women and those under age) hath equal power even with the Ministers themselves in propounding, objecting, answering, and judicial decreeing, and giving sentence in all matters of the Church whatsoever, whether pertaining to Doctrine or practice.  

●sw.  The relator of a story, (especially, when he pretends and promiseth to write nothing material but from his cited Authors) should be faithful, 
☞  and not make bold grossly to vary from the matter, manner, words, scope and all, much less to cite Authors that speak against him; but if you read his Author, Ans. to 32 q. p. 44. (the place cited even now) you will find, That the Church (indeed) hath a right within herself, to transact her own matters, but how? according to the rights of the word: did the word ever give people liberty equal with the Minister? doth it not professedly condemn such doing in the Church? and yet this is the only printed Author of our own, that we can come at, brought to justify this absurd Article.  
Besides, all men know (that are seen in our ways) it is against our principles, to have people propound and give sentence in the Church's decrees, these being acts of rule proper to the Officers, as Ans. to 32. q. 57 58. plainly speaks; and yet he fa●th, we hold the people have power, yea equal power, and that with the Ministers themselves, even in all matters of the Church whatsoever.  
Now what will become of his Marg. on this Art. full of exclamation and clamout? This body (saith he) is all an eye, all tongue, all Governors, all teachers, contrary to the Apostles rule, etc. wherein he fights with a shadow, and we leave him so to do.  
5. He tells us in Art. 10. and the Marg. that we hold all things ought to have a full debate in the presence of the whole society, until all be satisfied.  
Mark his words how large, 1 All things. 2 A full debate. 3 It ought to be so before the whole society? till all be satisfied: And not one word (we can come at) to prove any of these universals, whereas (the truth is) we neither hold so, nor practise so; but bring as few matters as possible, into the Assembly, rather labouring to take all things up in private, and then make as short work in public, (when they must needs come there) as may be.  
Now what will become of that long Marginal wherein (so ungroundly) he makes invectives against us and our popular government: (as he is pleased injuriously to term it) for making store of work in our congregations, in hearing, debating, examining all matters till all be satisfied, which will take up (saith he) not an hour or two in a week, nor in every day of the week, nor scarce all the whole week time will suffice to finish business in that kind that may fall out; and tyre Ministers and People, and break the Sabbath, by keeping Courts thereon, etc. And so goes on at random to speak evil of things he knows not, whereas many of our Churches are oft for many days together, and weeks, and months also, free from such heaps of matters as he dreams of, and oftentimes from any at all.  
But this is his dealing, first he makes an Article of his own, for words, matter, manner, with divers universals in it, expressly contrary to the truth, and without one word of authority for it, and then draws his own collections from it, with course language and bitter invectives.  
In Art. 11. he deals exceeding ill (at least) in 6. particulars in this one Article. 1. He represents us to the world as a people unset●ed, and strangely divided amongst ourselves in the way of voting. Some (saith he) affirm, that the major part carries matters; others, that unless all do agree, nothing proceeds, some, that things are not carried by voices at all, but by truth and according to God.  
1. Let the Reader note well, Answer. that our Narrator undertakes to relate the Opinions and practices [generally] held by the Churches in New-England, as in the title pag. 1. And that the Churches in New-England walk in one way: And yet here he brings 3 relations, crossing each other of our practices in a very material point of Discipline. How can the Churches practise one way and yet go 3. contrary ways at once? and how can he truly relate such things as are [generally] held by all the Churches, and yet tells us, how they hold and practise 3. several things at the same time? For (I confess) if he had undertaken to declare the practices of some particular men only, and not of Churches; or of some Churches, not of the Churches of New-England in general: Or if all those Churches were not of one, and the same way, (but he professeth they are, and that without any material difference) than his task were easier to show how they walk in 3. several ways at once. But now I leave him to untie the knot, and save his credit.  
2. Here he pretends to bring Authors to prove that the Churches in New-England, 
☞  (who walk in one and the same way) do walk in 3. several ways: Do his Authors speak true? how then do we walk in one and the same way without any material difference, (as he said when he would make his advantage by it) do they speak false? why then doth he bring such for the ground of his Narrative, that so abuse him and us? or else doth he mistake their words, or falsify them? (that is worst of all) In either of which, we must needs innocently suffer.  
Here you see his speech verified in his Postscript, pag. 50. That whether the reports he brings be true or false, it's nothing to him.  
3. Now we will scan his Authors quoted, to see whether the blame lies on them or himself, the first pretended proof is Ans. to 32. q. pag. 60. 61. 62.  
That the whole body must agree, else nothing can be done. Whereas this Author saith no such thing, but the contrary rather, that is; That if the whole body accord not at first, but the minor part disagreeth, there are other means partly within themselves, and partly by calling in help● from other Churches to bring matters to an issue. This plainly showeth that some things may be done, when all agree not.  
The 2. proof is for this. That some things are not carried by vo●●es at all, but by truth and right according to God. And citys Ans. to 32. q 58 60. who saith to this effect, that the word is the only rule whereby all Church votes are carried; and that matters are not to be carried [only] that is fare enough from [not a all▪] by multitud●s of voices. For though the word of truth, (we all grant) be the only rule of Church proceed, yet the means of all transactions in our Church must be the lively voices of the Saints, etc. Thus his proofs failing, who must be the father of this untruth, cast upon New-England, you may well judge.  

☞  4. Note yet further, whereas he quotes Ans. to 32. q. 61. to prove, that unless all agree nothing can be done: Yet from the same Author, and selfsame page (in the end of this same 11. Art.) he concludes that though some disagree, y●t matters may b● ended, and the rest proceed. That as he often speaks contrary to himself, so he can make his Author do the same if he list, and can (as ships use to do at sea) sail contrary ways with the same wind.  
5. And yet (which is worse than the other) he would seem to hid and cloak this dea●ing of his, and lay the fault upon our variableness, and say [sometimes they grant, etc.] as if we were (like the wind) sometimes one way, and sometimes another, yet all is from the same Author in the same page, at the same time. And often you will find this word [sometime] to be brought in throughout the book in the same sense (as here,) to make the world believe that our judgements and practices are variable, and to defend himself from a blow in case he be questioned.  
6. If a lesser number (saith he) descent from the greater, neither can give satisfaction to them, or will receive it from them, and è contra; but still persist in dissenting, than the major part (after due forbearance and calling in the counsel of neighbouring Churches) admonish— and censure them.  
This (he saith in the Margin) is harsh dealing and uncharitable and foolish, yea destructive, and spares no words that might lay load upon us. Yea, but it may be his grounds for proof are sound, and so he may be the more bold to blame us: but he citys only Answer to 32. q. 58. 61. whose words are, If it appears that such ●s dissent from the maior part be [factiously or partially carried]— and after the rest have laboured to convince them by the rule, yet still they continu● [obstinate] they are admonished— etc.  
Now speak W. R. is this fair dealing, first to pretend proofs, 
☜  & leave out the most material words, and secondly blame us for harshness when there is no cause; here you see is 1 faction, 2 partiality, 3 both those appearing, 4 obstinacy, 5 continuing in obstinacy after means used according to rule; all these before the censure of admonition passed; but you in your relation leave out all these words of your Authors and put in such of your own as will not so much enforce a censure as these, and then tax us (at your pleasure) and make bitter invectives against us in your Margin? If I should have retorted and said, This dealing of yours is harsh, uncharitable, foolish, destructive, etc. it would have troubled you: (yet you are but a single person, those whom you reproach are whole Churches, many Churches of Saints) but we have learned what the Apostle saith, 1 Pet. 2.23. and to forbear. This Article being thus laid prostrate, there is nothing at all in his Marginal extraction worth answer.  
He blames us Art. 12. That we deny unto the Church all power to make any particular rules or laws in things indifferent (conducing to the better Government of herself and more orderly and edifying performance of God's worship) according to the general rules of Scripture, etc.  
1. He hath falsified his printed Authors alleged for this Art. Ans. Answ. to 32. q. 66. Col. Cap. 7. where is not a syllable of things indifferent, for whereas they indeed deny Churches power to make laws about Church Government, etc. their words & meaning are expressed, it is only in such matters where the Scripture hath made laws already and therefore they say, The Churches have no power to make laws, but to observe those laws which Christ hath given and commanded, and do allege, Mat. 28.20. Deut. 33.3. john 20.27. None (I hope) can think this a thing indifferent for us to add laws to Christ his own laws, and this is all they say.  
2. If you mean [by making of laws] inferring of plain and necessary conclusions from their proper grounds in Scripture, we grant a power in a Church so to do: yet so, as they shall not be binding, unless the evidence of the consequence be made appear, as Rom. 14.5.22.23. But i● [by making of laws] you mean a drawing of conclusions from remote Principles, such as the Bishops were wont to do. [All things must be decently done and in order,] therefore a Surplice, a Cross in Baptism a bowing at the Altar, etc. we deny it, as an inlet of all humane inventions.  
Many of the marginals of this 6 Chap. are already answered, some few remain, as  
Who would not long to be churched seeing they are endued with such a vast power? this is a sweet morsel, no marvel people's teeth so water after it, etc. p. 23.  
I can tell you who longs not for Churching, it is W. R. himself, who with heart, 
●sw.  hand, and pen thus opposeth it; but why do not his teeth also water after it? It is I suppose because the people have a voice in Church matters, and Ministers cannot carry all. 2 Why do you think W. R. that people's teeth should so much water after this way? seeing they are under many watchful eyes, a strict Covenant, disgraces in the world, sharp censures (and overharsh too if all you say be true) therefore, why should they so much desire these ways think you (they being so cross to corruption that would have elbowroom) unless they did see and feel our beauty and warmth of Christ in them? This is the true and real cause.  
The word (saith h) and the Sacraments should be both settled on the Ministry. [Go preach and baptise, etc.] Why do we separate them? pag. 23.  
To Preach by Office (which is the preaching that Christ there gives in commission to his Disciples being called to be Apostles) is proper only to Ministers, 
●swer.  who are to wait upon teaching, Rom. 12.7. and this preaching and the administration of the Sacraments are ever joined together in the same person. But there is a preaching in a large sense. i. e sometimes to apply a word of instruction, exhortation, consolation, if necessity shall require, according to their talon, being invited thereunto, and this may be common to other godly and able Christians, though not called into Office, as Art 8. 1. 4. where the whole Church (except the Apostles) were scattered by persecution, and they that were so scattered: (without distinction of Ministers or people) went to and fro preaching, therefore others (besides Ministers) in some case may preach the word; if you take [preach] in a larger sense.  
3. For the two instances he brings p. 24. of People's unability of judging, electing, voting, etc. from Holland and Boston, etc.  
1. The best people on earth may have their hour of temptation; and personal failings do not hinder the goodness or truth of the rule. 
●nsw.   
2. What Church in the world hath not possibly, first or last, given or else may give strange instances of humane frailty: but still you count their way good.  
3. Even those Churches you mention were able at other times, both before and since, to act, as becomes prudent and godly men, though possibly at that time they might show themselves to be but men.  
4. These persons recovered out of their error, and lay not in it: you should have mentioned this as well as that.  
If the Officers through scruple of conscience, perhaps) refuse to act according to their (i. e. the peoples) mind, they will (& they hold they may) call fourth any other member to do, and enable him with power to do all that their Officers should have done, except Sacraments.  
A most unjust and slanderous report, and without any word of proof; Answ. so now we must father it upon him, and do here require him to prove it, for almost every word is an aggravation: but I study brevity, and mentioned this before Art. 9  
They complain in print, that their Ministers are slighted amongst them, yea trampled upon by some. And mentions for this Cot. on 2 vial. p. 24. of whose words judge, and you shall not find one word to warrant him.  
All his invectives against us on the 11. Article Marg. for extorting a consent from such as descent from us, is exceeding slanderous, and not a word true, nor any tittle of proof, for none are ever admonished for dissenting, but for faction and obstinacy, as his Authors speak, as was said before.  
Let me hear tell the Reader, there are sundry unsound and uncouth passages in this chap. (as indeed through the whole book) which for brevity. I am forced to pass by, and (indeed) not worth my time. I entreat thee to take all his say with a grain of salt: knowing from what spirit they proceed.   

Answer to CHAP. VII.  
IN this 1. Art. there are three things that will be found too light.  
1. He affirms, we say, all men are bound to be settled members of a particular Church.  
Yet in his Margin, he affirms, Answ. we allow some to be admitted transient members for a time only. Now to be [settled] and yet (transient) are terms contradictory, and how the Churches of New-England (for they are still the subject of this discourse) can bind all their members to be [settled▪] and yet allow some to be transient. I know not; He must grant, either a contradiction in his own words, or prove one in our practice.  
2. He affirms we say, That whosoever is not a member of such a Church as is before described. (i. e. A New-England Church) is for the time without the visible Church of Christ, and quotes Ans. to 32 q. pag. 11.  
That Author is abused, for he saith not, Answer. that non-members of such a Church, as you described, i. e. of a N. E. Church, are without the visible Church, 
●ns. to 32. q. 38.  but that if men be not members of [some particular Church or other] they— may [in some respect] be said to be without the power and privileges of the visible Church: (as the Answ. to 9 pos. p. 62. to which this Author points makes it evident.) Now W. R. I hope knows we hold there are other particular congregations both in England and else where, (besides our own) that are true Churches of Christ; of any of which, if they be members, it is sufficient to make them within the visible Church of Christ. Yet see, how against our expressed judgements plain words, and the mind of his Authors, he would make us odious, by laying such a gross tenant to our charge.  
3. That whosoever do not become settled members of our Churches, are accounted despisers, etc. yea wicked and profane.  

answer.  He again rowles the same unhappy stone he did once before, cap. 3. art. 12. but you will say; sure; his proofs are strong which make him bold to assert this, (now) the second time: Therefore I entreat the Reader but to review his proofs which I will relate verbatim. Ans. to 9 Pos. 62. is one of them he brings (which saith thus,) We maintain communion with all [godly persons,] though they be not in Church fellowship with us: and Idem. p. 69. To be without Church fellowship is the case of some believers, and Ans. to 32. q. 11. is (another of his quoted Authors, whose words are these,) Some Christians that are not without Christ, yet are not within any particular Church.  

☞  These are the Authors and pages he brings to prove the clean contrary, i. e. that we account all non-members, wicked, and profane men, and yet they directly say, Some such are godly persons, believers Christ, etc.  
Yea, he hath an expression (as he lays it down) exceeding gross, which is this; That whosoever doth not become a settled member (if possibly he can) sinneth; And (mark what followeth) [whether he can or no]— he is accounted— profane and wicked. He would make us up for the most absurd men that ever lived; that whether m●n can (possibly) (for so his word is) enjoy Church fellowship or no, he is counted a profane man: But the blemish will, and must needs fall upon himself.  
To Marg. of 1. Art. he propounds 5 questions concerning transient members.  
1. Q. If it be very inconvenient and discommodious to join at present, may they not delay a while?  
He answereth, we say [no,] but the place to which he points (Ans. to 32. 
〈◊〉  quest. p. 38.) saith not so, but thus. A man is always bound to join himself to some Church or other, if possibly he can. Now doth not W. R. know there is [a p●ssibility of convenience] which the Answer must needs mean? for it's a constant and allowed course in New-England for more to forbear joining to any Church for a time, after they come thither, merely to avoid discommodious inconveniencies, which over hasty joining sometimes puts men upon.  
2. Quest. Why do we not give the same liberty to all to be transient Members, as we do to some?  
Ans. Because all are not so free to abide with this or that Church, where they join at present, (as others are (by reason of some strong desires and pre-ingagements of joining with some other congregation, which at present they cannot remove unto, or else the other (as yet,) not entered into Church-fellowship, and so unfit to receive them at present.  
3. Quest. How doth this agree with the tenor of the Covenant, that limits no tim●?  
Ans. There may be, (and is) such a clause put into the Covenant of a transient member, viz. [during their abode with that congregation.]  
Quest. 4. How doth this agree with the sense of the Covenant, that binds them to ask counsel of the Church in case of removeall?  
Ans. I know not what informations he hath received, I should know our practice as well as W. R. (after my 10. year's experience, having been present, at very many Church-gatherings) but I never heard (or heard of) such a clause put into any Covenant, and yet three times in his book he mentioned this: Let him learn hereafter: 1. to be slow in believing informations, 2 slower to print them to the world, 3. ready to retract them, if nor done already.  
He saith, Art. 5 That if the examiners conceive a man not fit to enter into Church fellowship▪ th●● he is there stayed, without any further proceed.  
He should h●ve added [only for the present] else he leaves the Reader to conceive that such a person is stayed from Church fellowship for ever, which himselve knows to be untrue, as appears by his own words, in the 7. Art. w ●re he saith, that such a Person is stayed only for a time, whiles all things are cleared.  
To his Margin Art. 7. That if the party be a Woman, or weak, who is to be admitted, than their examination are taken more privately. Answer.  
Is not this contradictory to what he said, Chap. 3, Art. 6. 
☜  That the declaration of their knowledge and grace must be made in public, before all the Church though never so many. Now to press all to make their declaration before the whole Assembly, & yet to accept of some weaker ones doing of it, more privately (which indeed is the truth) are a contradiction.  
Here he makes two objections. Objection 1  
How shall the Church know the fitness of such, (i. e. as are examined in private? Answ.  
By the testimony of such godly men whom they betrust with their trial; who (though they have not absolute power to determine yet) making such report to the Church as they accept, the Church proceed to admit them.  

●bject.  Why is this favour shown to some, not to others, is not this to be partial? contrary to 1 Tim. 5.21.  
Answ. Partiality is to respect the Person, not the cause, here the cause is respected not the Person, or the Person for the cause: Some being more weak, and fearful, we rather tender, (as Jacob would not overdrive the feabler sort of Ewes and lambs) lest they should miscarry.  
Art. 9 He reports, That infants of parents that are no members are accounted to be without the visible Church, and in the same estate with the Children of Turks and Heathens, etc. and writes in the Margin, cold comfort to Christstian Parents, and cold charity to their Infants.  

●nsw.  1. It were cold comfort indeed, if that he said were true, but (blessed be God) it is not so. For though such infants be not as yet Members of this or that particular Church there, yet (he knows) we account them (and their Parents) Members of the visible Churches of England, witness our writings in print, discourse of Covenant pag. 36. etc. Therefore he much forgets himself, to say, we account them to be without the visible Church.  
2. To say, we esteem them as Children of Turks and Heathens, is a most uncharitable and groundless censure, unworthy of his pen or our practice, to which we answered before. The Lord forgive him such hard speeches.  
For his quotations (Ans. to 33. q. 20. 21. and Ans. to 9 Pos. 61. 62) if they will afford him the least word or show for either of these particulars, I'll take the blame for ever, let any please to peruse them.  
But he forgets the law in Israel of amercing and striping the man that brings an ill report upon a Virgin of Israel, I must mind him of it.   

Answer to CHAP. VIII.  
This chapter is spent (especially the Margin) in invectives against the strictness of our Church Covenant, that restrains men, that they cannot have elbow room, and be at lose end, when they please. I will gather the strength of all he speaks in this chapter into some objections, and very briefly answer them.  
Object. A member (saith he) cannot remove from a Church without our consents, sought and obtained. Art. 1.  

●ns.  It crosseth the nature of all Covenants in the world, for to dissolve the Covenant without the consent of the other: And shall this engagement, so solemn, so sacred, so deliberate, be loosed at pleasure, (by a man's removal when & whither he pleaseth, & it may be also not without apparent sin without acquainting the Church withal, & getting approbation from them?  
The Church may be partial in their own cause, may not some of other Church's Object. 2 be consulted withal, rather than this: pag. 32. Marg.  
Shall a man infringe this Covenant, Answ. deprive the Church of her proper right, and lay her under blame of partiality upon a mere supposal, that the Church may be partial? Let this Church be [first] consulted withal, rather than any other, (and good reason too,) for the Covenant is made with her: and if it appear she is (indeed) partial, then let the counsel of other Churches and Ministers be called in, which was never yet denied any Member, and I hope never will be.  
But what need a man consult with the whole Church? what if his reasons be secret, Object. 3 etc.  
The Covenant being made with the whole, Answ. (reason speaks) the whole aught to untie the knot. But if there be some case extraordinary, where the grounds of removal may not safely be divulged to all, as I confess it's possible so to happen, let the party but intimate so much to the Church, and desire that some two or three faithful men be entrusted, and what hinders?  
If the Church covenant binds so fast, than (as the Disciples said of marriage) Object. 4 it is not good to touch this covenant. pag. 32.  
1. A gracious sp;irit counts it no bondage but freedom, Answ. to be constantly under the sweet yoke of Christ in Gospel's duties: and such and no other are the particulars of our Covenant; ah, 
Ex. 21.5.6  let none be weary of this but all be as the servant in the Law, that might have gone out free, yet (loving his Master well) choose rather to abide with him for ever.  
2. Yet it any man be desirous, and steadfastly bend to departed, the Church never holds him against his will, though she sees little or no weight in his reasons, and I hope it is not the case of marriage, so easily to be dissolved.  
But if the Church be not satisfied with his reasons, he goes away tacitly accused, Object. 5 slandered, yea virtually cast out and cursed.  
Sure I am, this is accusing, slanderous, and cursed language: Ans. 
Deut 22. ● 19  not fit for a sober & grave man, by that law in Israel, W. R. would go near to be amercied and striped for this defamation. What would he have them do when they cannot be satisfied with the grounds of his departure? must they needs act against light and conscience, and say they are satisfied, when they are not, especially when they see a brother (haply) running into evil, or danger, by such a removal? All they can do, is (through indulgence) to suspend their vote and leave him to his own liberty. And yet they will neither accuse or slander him, much less curse him or cast him out: These are words fit for nothing but retraction, and repentance.  
If men be once ●●tred into covenant, he is so riveted into it that he can hardly Object. 6 ever get out of it, but must continue in it, though perhaps against his conscience. Ibid.  
Answ. To my best remembrance, I never heard of, or knew any godly Church-member that repent of this Churchway, & desired (upon that ground) to make a retreat.  
2. If any should be convinced in his conscience (as you say) that there is sin in it, and should (after all means of information used) solemnly profess and make it appear ingenuously, that he dareth not in conscience proceed on in those ways; I know no Church that will detain him?  
Object. 7 How shall this man, thus dismissed without the Church's approbation and Letters of recommendation be received into any other Church?  

answer.  How many lines doth he spend (to no purpose) about untying this knot? and when he cannot unloose it, 
☞  (for that he knows not our practices there) he falls out extremely with us, and our way as harsh and rigid.  
I have read of Harpia (a lame woman in Seneca) who still complained of the roughness of the way that made her limp, but faw not her own lameness to be the cause. I will not stand to make application, but unloose his knot, by telling him; Though a Church cannot see cause enough to commend such a person as we speak of, to another Church, for his Departure from them, as being not clear in it themselves, yet (he being a godly man, and of a good conversation in the general) they may and do use to commend him for his godliness, etc. and in prudence, conceal any supposed error, or infirmity in his departure from them: And upon such a testimony he is received, and so need not be left as an Heathen.   

Answer to CHAP. IX.  
THe first thing meets us is a contradiction, for here he saith, in plain terms, 
☞  That we in New-England conceive men may be true Christians, whether they be in Church estate or no. But chap. 7. Art. 1. he affirmed absolutely, that whosoever is not a settled member of a particular Church is accounted by us profane and wicked.  
Answer. How is it possible, that both these parts should be true? can New-England Churches count the same men, at the same time, to be true Christians, and yet profane and wicked? See what a story this must needs be, that is thus full of contradictions to itself, and in no small and trivial things, but in the greatest points of our Church Discipline.  
He saith again Art. 4. 5. That we say, that the Sacraments and some other Church Ordinances are to be administered, and do belong only to the members of the same Church, and not to the members of any other Churches.  
He speaks flatly contrary to this, cap. 10. Art. 1. in these words, Answ. We grant that several Churches have a communion amongst themselves— in some Church-ordinances, as Sacraments: how can both be true? They hold, and they hold not; They do, & they do not: speaking still of the Churches of New England generally without the least restraint or distinction; yea as if he had studied to make his contradiction full, he expressly and in both parts of it mentioneth the Sacraments; that we deny communion, in special, in [Sacraments] and we grant a communion, in special, in the [Sacraments:] and again, this communion (saith he) is neither betwixt Ministers nor members, and this communion is both betwixt Ministers and members. And both of them within a leaf one of the other, in his book.  
W. R. himself must of necessity grant one of these three things; either, 1 a manifest contradiction by himself in a main point in his story. Or 2. that his Authors or intelligences have written or spoken contrary concerning our way. And so a man would think he hath little ground (in conscience) to build his Narration upon their testimony. Or thirdly, that hath abused them at his pleasure, and warped their words to what sense he list, all which are very ill in a Narrator.  
Furthermore, I here confidently avouch, and shall make it good; that those printed writers by him cited, are all consistent to themselves in this point of administration of Sacraments to members of other Churches, and not one of them crossing another or himself. Therefore I must again (but with grief of heart to lay such load on a brother) lay this dealing upon him, in the sight of all that have been misled by his Narration.  
Nay, I will say more; If I can not prove plainly that these Authors cited do not only not justify him, but writ pointblank against him, I will bear the blame. vid. Ans. 9 Pos. 62. We do not (say they) appropriate the seals only to members of our own Church, excluding all other Churches of Christ. and Cot. Cat. p. 7. The supper (saith he) is dispensed to the faithful of the same body, or recommended to them by a like body, and Ans. to 9 Pos. 78. in these words. The members of other Churches do mutually communicate at each others Churches, even as often as God's providence leads them, and they desire it.  
Lastly, if all this be not enough to open his abusing us & the truth; I will go further to show you, that he still citys the very same Author to prove both parts of this contradiction; (and this is no new thing, but frequent with him.) For in cap. 9 Art. 1. he citys Ans. to 9 Pos. 62. to prove we hold communion with other Churches and their members: and also cap. 10. 1. he citys the same Author and page for one Churches communion with another in the Sacrament. But herein Art. 5. when he would prove the contrary. i e. that we hold no communion with other Church members in the Sacrament: he brings the self same Author and page for that end, i. e. Ans. to 9 Pos. pag. 62, etc.  
And thus he doth not with that mentioned one Author only, but serves the rest in like manner, as Ans. to 32. q. Apol. R.M. to E.B. must all come in to avouch both parts of his contradiction; the one in chap. 10. 1. for communion; the other in Art. 4. 5. of this 9 chap. against Communion. And this he doth not this once only, but in other places in this book (as we have showed; and shall again) and yet these Authors give him no occasion thereto, but speak all the self same thing plainly, and constantly without any variation.  
He saith, Art. 7. We hold that a man that is sui juris, may not lawfully stand a member of such a Church in which he cannot enjoy all God's ordinances, or where any corruption is suffered, but if he be joined to it, he must separate from it.  
Answer. The Narratour knows in his own conscience, that this is not spoken (by his cited Author) of our Churches in New-England, but of the Parish Churches in Old-England; nor of all the Churches in Old-England, but of such only, where a man either cannot enjoy some ordinances of God; or else live there without sinful conformity: (for this was written by his Author in the time of the Bishop's reign.)  
2. He altars the Author's words and meaning, and that grossly, for he saith, we hold a man must not continue in such a Church where any corruption is [suffered unreformed.] But his Author saith, in such parish assemblies where a man shall and must (himself) conform to those corruptions, there his standing is unlawful. Ans. to 32. q. 32. So he leaves out the very nerves and strength of the place which is the ground of our both with drawing. i e. a necessity of sinning.  
You find him again strongly pleading for imposed forms of Prayer & Leiturgies. Art. 8. with its Marg. This is the fourth time he hath harped on this string; 1. he was for Overtures, 2. for a kind of N. E. Primer in admissions of members, 3. for book prayers, 4. now, (and that more fully than before) for [imposed] prayers and set Leiturgies: whither he will go next, I know not. If God had not pitifully left him to himself in this Narration, (I am confident) he would not have come thus fare as to have used such arguments as these, that if we in New-England allow set forms of Psalms, and of blessings of the people, and forms of Church-covenants; and of Catechising, etc. Why not as well set forms of prayers imposed? But to this having answered before, I leave him to the Father of truth to show him his error.   

Answer to CHAP. X.  
ARt. 1. he saith (and that truly,) We grant that several Churches have a communion amongst themselves, whereby they do and may partake with each other in the Sacraments.  
Of the contradiction between this and and chap. 9 Art. 4 5. Answ. it is spoken to already.  
Only here note 1 the fullness of affirmation (in this Art.) for our communion with other Churches in the Sacrament; we have (saith he) a communion amongst ourselves. 2 in the Sacraments, (in special,) 3 with several Churches, 4 we do and may partake, 5 each with other, 6 mutually, 7 and this both betwixt Ministers and people, & 8 we not only practise this, but grant it may be so; And yet when he comes to speak of the other part of the contradiction (i. e. that we have no communion in the Sacraments) (as if he studied to cross himself) he is as full in his denial of it. vid. cap. 9 Art 4 5. 2. Note how thick his say and unsaying fall in. Cap. 9 Art. 1. 
☜  He affirms, we hold Communion with other Churches and Church members, and then presently in 4, 5. Art. of the very same chap. he expressly denies, that we hold any such communion: Then again in the very next chap. (the 10.) Art. 1. he saith, as full as can be, that we hold communion mutually with other Churches; and by in chap. 12. 8. as fully and expressly denies again that we hold any such thing. The man being an able and judicious man in other things, it is more remarkable, he should be thus extremely left to confound himself, while he sought to confound our poor innocent Churches. Let any carefully observe in all these things mentioned, whether I have not dealt candidly with him, or no.  
Art. 2. He reports, 1 That one Church may give power to another over any of her members for excommunication. 2 That the Minister of one Church may convey power to the Ministers of another for the administration of the Sacraments. Answer.  
Neither of both which do we hold or practise. The only Author cited (that we can come at is Cot. Cat. p. 7. whose words are these. The Supper is dispensed by the Minister to the faithful of the same Church, or to such as are commended to them by a like body: See if here be one tittle to bear him out.  
Yet from these assertions (which he saith) we hold, he flings rebukes upon us in his comments upon his own Text. p. 37. whereas indeed we might reprove his, 1 misreporting, 2 abusing his Author, 3 reproving us without cause.  
Without letters of recommendation from one Church and Minister to another, it is unlawful (saith he Art. 3.) in any case, to administer any Church ordinance to any Church member but their own upon any pretence whatsoever.  
1. Here is neither truth nor proof to be seen. Answ.  
2. Letters of recommendation for public participation, are not sent from one Minister to another, but from a Church to a Church.  
3. We hold it not unlawful (but do often practise) to receive other members to communion with us without letters; especially if they be known to any of our Church, else such letters are ; but he saith, We do it not in any case, upon any pretence whatsoever, which is utterly false and without proof.  
He tells us, That we are so straitlaced, that if a company of godly people should sit near us (where our power reacheth) differing from us only in some points of Church-Government, they should not only not be owned as a sister Church, but should be in danger of severe punishment by our Magistrate.  
Ans. 1 If you weigh well this accusation of us in all the particulars, it is very harsh and sore, and here is no proof but H. W. who this should be, (I profess) I cannot tell, unless some malignant or backfriend amongst us there, or whether such a thing were ever written in these words and sense, I know not; and if it be certainly so written, and from a godly man, yet it is but one single witness and I am forbidden (and so are all others) 1 Tim. 5.19. to receive an accusation against one Elder, (much more against all the Elders and Churches in New-England without two or three witnesses: therefore we dare not believe it.  
2. To this very point in hand, the Ans. to 32. 9 p. 82, 83. speaks fully and fairly, which W. R. well knowing, (for it was written to himself amongst others▪) deals not candidly to conceal that Answer of a printed book from known Authors of credit in New-England, because it is fair and loving (for what other ground could he have?) and bring in the Answer of H.W. (a man we know not) which is harsh and distasteful; how can the concealing of that, and relating of this seem ingenuous, or friendly to us, or the truth?   

Answer to CHAP. XI.  
HE makes report of a groundless course (as he calls it) in the Church at Cambridge in New-England, where (saith he) the people use to meet together privately, each one to hold forth the work of grace in his or her soul, from the first conversion to that day, so that their Pastor might know their growth in grace. And, (saith also) that (as some report) the end of this meeting was to cast out by excommunication, non-proficients.  
Ans. With what face can any godly man call such meetings of the Saints, for such an holy end (as to try their growth in grace) a groundless meeting; and so cast dirt upon it? for he makes proof of no other end besides that.  
2. Did these godly people ever cast any out of the Church there, merely for nonproficiency?  
3. He hath still forgotten that rule in 1 Tim. 3.19. that requires two or three witnesses to be brought forth, etc. who yet proceeds upon (I know not what) relations to believe and report, yea and print to the view of the world, what (in his opinion) may detract from a Reverend Elder, and a godly Church also.  
No marvel, he calls his Book [a poor pamphlet,] truly it is so indeed, if all things we have discovered in it be well weighed; and it will appear yet poorer (before we have done) to any candid reader. It is our humble suit to heaven, that God will discover to himself the weakness and error of his deal herein, for the humbling of his spirit.   

Answer to CHAP. XII.  
A Short Answer might serve to this long Chapter, for most of it (as also of the two next) is but a repetition of things spoken once or twice, (some of them) thrice before, and answered to already. He said in the beginning of his preface he wanted not work●, but (it seems) now towards the end of his book, he is more at leisure, (and so he thinks his reader is also,) else why he should so double & triple the very same things (totidem verbis) I know not, unless happily to make a deeper impression of his own mistakes in his reader.  
In Art. 1. he tells us, that after a Church is gathered, it is often some years before she addresseth herself to the calling of Officers.  
Whereas it is our usual and constant course (as hath been said) not to gather any Church; until they have one amongst themselves, Ans. fit for a Minister, whom with all speed they call into Office, and account themselves a lame and imperfect body till that be effected.  
In his Marg. on that Art. he saith he is told to his comfort, that many that were counted good Ministers in Old-England, are there laid aside, because they aim at men of special parts.  
1. We desire proof for this aspersion unjustly cast on us, Answ. or else we shall still father it upon himself, as  
2. That good Ministers are laid aside there, 2. many good Ministers, 3 on this ground, because they aim at men of special abilities And whereas he saith, he was told so, that is not sufficient: Let him produce his Authors, or it must lie on him.  
I wonder he counts it strange (in Art. 3.) that we should desire to have a man to be a Member before he be an Officer.  
Is it not a thing most natural for a body to employ its own Members? Answ. 2. Is not the mutual interest in each other the stronger tye? ● Do not all bodies and societies in the world, the very same? Was eve● any man of another corporation, elected Sheriff, Major, or into any special office in London, unless he were first seasoned with this same salt (as he saith) of Membership of the same body?  
To the 4 Art. of ordaining Ministers by private men.  
Let him not wonder at this, for Numb. 8.10. he may see, Answer. that though the Levites were Church Officers, and the Children of Israel were not; yet the Children of Israel did lay their hands upon the Levites; And though all the Children of Israel could not do this, yet some principal ones did it instead of the rest. So it may be lawful in some case to do the like. 2. If people have a power of election of Officers, (which is the greater) then why may they not ordain them (which is the less) unto the office which before they elected them to? But I refer the Reader to see more of this, in Mr. mather's late answer to Mr. Herle, pag. 45.  
To the 5. Art. where he saith, We hold the imposition of hands of the Presbytery, but a mere formality.  

answer.  Doth he judge all the Churches and Ministers of Christ, there, so devoid of Religion, reason or the light of common sense, as to account a venerable Ordinance of God [a mere formality?]  
But that you may see whether he deals well with us or no, vid. Ans. to 34. q. p. 67. where its expressly said, That though the essence of a Ministers call consists in Election, yet we look at ordination by imposition of hands, necesary by divine institution] can he with any show of reason explicate a thing [necessary by divine institution] by [a mere formality,] is this right commenting upon the text? And note also that this very place cited is one proof he brings for this Article, but whether for him or directly against him, I pray judge.  
For the other printed proof (discourse of Covenant, p. 23.) I confidently affirm there is not any one word, or the least show for such an expression, let the Reader prove whether I wrong him or no, but only that people have power to choose their own Officers.  
Let him not delude the world by thwacking quotations on his Articles, when it's an usual thing that some of them speak nothing for him, others directly against him.  
In Margin of 5. Art. he saith, That all that are elected by th● people to preach (which is one chief duty of the Pastor) and do receive by compact the deuce by law to the Pastor, ●●uld be their Pastor.  
Ans. Though preaching by a Pastor called into office, be one of the principal works of his office, yet all preaching is not a Pastoral work, as Act. 8.4. The scattered Church, without respect to an office, are said to [preach] the word every where. Now if a man be called by a congregation, to exercise his gift in this work of preaching only, and not to be a Pastor to them: should he not exceed the bounds of his call, if he should be (as W. R. would have him) a Pastor to that people? And by this reason also he condemns all Lecturers (and I suppose himself in so doing) (for they are called to preach, yet no man looks on them) or they on themselves, as Pastors of that place, where they so exercise. As for the deuce he receives for his preaching, whether more or less, by a compact or otherwise, whether of the same kind with the Pastor or not) is not material, for it's his call, not his wages, makes him a Pastor or no Pastor.  
In the Marg. of the 6. Art. he saith, that one Pastor or Teacher alone, or one private man lays on his hands.  
It hath neither proof nor truth, Answ. but is against our judgements and practice, and so I leave him to look over such ungrounded, and lose speeches cast upon our way.  
Art. 7. That in our practice we usually confound the Pastors & Teacher's office, the Pastor and Teacher equally teaching, and applying the word without any difference.  
This hath no more truth than the other, Answer. for it is both our professed judgements and constant practice, that as the teacher is chosen, whose proper gift is aptness to teach, so after he is chosen, he bends himself that way, and waits upon teaching, so the Pastor upon exhotting, as Rom. 12.7, 8. Though in such congregations where there is but one, he labours to improve his talon both ways, for the present necessity till that defect be supplied, (as good reason he hath so to do.) And for his proof, (see how punctual he is) he turns us to Mr. Cot. Sermons on the Revel. and other Texts. Would he have us look over all Master Cot. Sermons, which may be at least 500 or 1000 pages, to find his proofs, and when we have done, we shall be just where we were, for Mr. Cot. (we know) is expressly contrary to him, and for that we turn him not to all his Sermons as he doth us, but to one certain place in his Cat. p. 2. whose words are these; The Pastor's special work is to attend upon exhortation; The Teacher on Doctrine: and his own, and others practices there run accordingly.  
In the Marg. to this Article he saith, That some of us do question the Communion of Churches as a thing overthrowing some of our principles, 2 that others, (to uphold it) have invented a power in one Minister to translate his own power to another Minister to administer the seals and censures to any of their members.  
Both these are ungrounded, unproved, expressions, Answ. and but repealed by him, now answered before by us; therefore I pass them by.  
As for that Inference he seems to draw that every Ministerial act without power, and irregularly done it seems void, and so millions of persons unbaptised to this day.  
This might have been spared for that maxim in law well approved of by Divines in this case (quod fieri non debuit factum val●t) holds good here. Answ. I know no grounds that Zipporah had to have circumcised her son (for it was proper to the man, as Gen. 17.9.23.) yet being done, it was not void or null, & though a Priest (popishly affected) should baptise a child with many invented superstitious, the child is not looked on as unbaptised  
To Art. 9 he saith, we hold, All other acts besides administration of the Sacraments are common to members, as well as to Ministers. Ans.  
1. It is not true, (we hold no such thing.)  
2. The proof he brings no whit reacheth it.  
3. It is directly against his own Authors, he builds upon Answer to 32. q. p. 57 The calling (saith he) of Assemblies, and dismissing them, preaching the word and prayer, administering the seals, permitting to speak in the Assembly, enjoining silence, voting of matters, pronouncing of censures, etc. These are acts which the Presbyters may do and no other members.  
4. It is contrary to himself, chap. 6. Art. 8. where he sets down the several acts which he himself saith we ascent unto our Officers.  
Art. 10. He saith, That if a Minister who lays down his ministry upon just grounds he is now become as a mere private man.  
Answ. Whereas he is looked on and reverenced as a worthy instrument of Christ, a man of gifts & parts, one that hath honoured God in his house, and may do it again, and in mean time is employed in dispensing his gifts, etc. is this to be as a [mere private man;] but he is not able to speak without disparaging.  
To Art. 12. That the end of our Ministry is only the building up of men already converted, (as supposing our members are all real saints already,) nor are we bound by our Office to attend to conversion of souls, and if any be converted by us, it is accidental.  
Answer. He strangely forgets himself, for 1 we say not that all our members are certainly real Saints, but only visibly, so there may be some hypocrites amongst them probably, that may need conversion, and therefore by our Office we are to attend that work as fare as the needs of the stock shall appear. 2 The children of our members (the charge of whom our Ministers undertake, even by virtue of their Offices) are not yet, haply, converted, and he is bound to fulfil his Office towards them.  
As for the Author cited to prove this Art. (Ans. to 32. q. 80. 81.) he offords him not one title towards it; therefore I look upon this Art. as a devised thing of his own, as a great part of his book is.)  
From this Art. thus mistaken, he draws many invective conclusions against us, in a long Marg. but to no purpose at all, for the ground sinking, the building falls; and thus he shoots at his own shadow.  

☞  So still he keeps his old custom, 1 frames a false Art. of his own, (as if it were ou●s;) 2 Than pretends a proof, which is none; 3 Then falls out with us for holding such absurdities; 4 last draws his inferences from his own premises: this is his dealing all along his book.  
And then, (to make all up) he fall a taxing some brethren of that way here, for two things, 1 for neglecting to build up their own Churches at home; whereas he should first have proved, that they have not a call to be absent for a time for their Churches good, and with their consent.  
2. For labouring to convert others here, not so much to grace (saith he) as to our Church-Covenant. But let our own Sermons preached (not in corners, but) in the face of thousands testify for us before God and men what the scope of our preaching hath been and is.  
He tell us Art. 14. First, That the Ministers in New-England are maintained by the People's volutary contribution. 2. That this is cast in according to their weekly gains, 3 and distributed to them according as the Deacons think fit.  
Here are three particulars affirmed, and hardly any one of them true: Ans. for 1 this weekly contribution is properly intended, for the poor according to 1 Cor. 16 1. Yet so as (if there be much given in.) Some Churches do (though others do not) appoint the over plus [towards] the Ministers maintenance, 2 This is not given in by the peoplee, according to their weekly gains, (for that is an addition of his own) but as God hath blest them with an estate in the general, for suppose a member that is rich, though he hath not gained but lost the week last passed, yet he contributes on the Lord's day following; 3 nor is this dispensed to the Ministers (in those Churches where any part of it is so given) though by the hands of the Deacons yet not (for proportion) as they please, for this were to set the Deacons, above the Pastor and Teacher) but by the Church, who usually twice in the year or oftener, do meet to consult and determine of the sum to be allowed for that year to their Ministers, and to raise it, either from the Church's treasury (so much of it as there is to be had,) or by a contribution to be then made on purpose.  
8. And for one proof of all those he brings Ans. to 32. q. 77. wherein is nothing to prove any one of the particulars mentioned, but somethings rather against him. For there it is said, 1 that our Minister's maintenance must be honourable for his person, charge, and for hospitality; 2. not as alms and courtesy, but as debt and duty, and to be paid according to rules of justice, etc. 3 but for a way of settled and stinted maintenance there is nothing done that may (mark this) [except from year to year.] do but compare these words with his narration.  
Now upon these premises unfoundly laid, he builds many clamorous constructions in his Marg. which of themselves must needs fall with the ruins of their foundation, without any trouble of mine.  
Then he falls upon some of us in particular (whosoever they are) for strict requireing of so much set stipend for their lectures, or else they will not preach.  
1. I must here profess solemnly (as in the fight of God) for my part, Answ. I know not any one of us, that doth so; but (sure I am) I know some of the Contrary practice, who neither stand compounding at all, much less strictly (as he saith) require so much, and so much, least of all, refuse to preach, when such sums of the people's own voluntary proffering lie unperformed; But yet notwithstanding, go on as painfully and constantly in their preaching to them, as before.  
2. Let me ask him one question, (for it is the third time he hath been harping on this string,) that if he (on good grounds) knows any to do otherwise, were it not a better way, more loving and suitable to the rule of Christians admonition, (in personal failings,) to deal privately and particularly with such brethren, (for there are but very few of them here, and it were easily done.) Then (in stead of telling themselves) to print it to the world to their discredit? But if he indeed knows none (as I verily believe he doth not, but goes upon surmises, and so casts imputations upon them ungroundedly, the sin is the greater, and God (I hope) will find a time (in mercy) to deal with his conscience about it.  
He holds still his old course, 1. a false Article 2. pretended proof, 3. inferences at pleasure, 4 invectives against us, his arrows are shot against a brazen wall, let him take heed, least by a divine hand they rebound back.  
For the three instances in the Magent, I look upon them as so many slanders, for which by rule he is to give us an account, for whereas by Paul's rule, 1 Tim. 5.19. he is to produce two or three witnesses for one accusation, yet he makes three several accusations and that of three Churches, without any one witness, therefore till the true father appears, we must still lay the brat at his door.   

Answer to CHAP. XIII.  
TO 1, Art Of private men prophesying, etc. It is answered before, for this is his fifth time of repeating it (even to loathing,) It is high time to have done with it now.  
But the oftener he hath said his lesson, the worse he hath learned it, for there is scarce one right word in this Art. either consonant to the truth, or his Authors quoted for it; as I shall make it appear by comparing his article with the Author's words: 
☞ ●t. Cat. p. 6. ●lles them ●ophets.  his 1 Author is Ans. to 32. q. p. 77. 78. first W. R. saith; this prophesying is done by [mere] private men. His Author tells us, men haply endued with a gift of Prophecy. 2 He saith, they preach for confutation, as if they must be polemical men able to wade through controversies But not one word of that in the Author. 3 He saith, they expound and apply the word with all authority, but no word sounding that way in the Author these words [with all authority] being properly applied by Paul to the officers, not to the Prophets Tit. 2.15. 4 He saith, this Prophesying is ordinary: the Author saith, they are not called to Prophesying ordinarily (if by ordinary he means frequently and usually,) but sparingly and seldom, frequently when the Officers ar● sick or absent, etc.  
His other Author cited is Mr. Cot. Cat. p. 6. and as in the other quotations he added divers particulars of his own which the Author never mentioned: So in this (as corruptly) he leaves out many material things which would have given light to the point in hand. To instance, such (saith Mr Cot.) as prophecy must, 1 be allowed for Prophets, 2 not prophesy till the Elders have done, 3 not unless the time permit, 4 and then also they must be first called thereunto by the Elders. But W. R. hath not one word of all these: that so much serve to clear our practice.  
Grant a Narratour, but this liberty, to add, altar, and abstract as he please, and when he please, and then what kind of Narration (do you think) will he make? had I time to anatomize all his Articles, as I have done this, and compare his proofs, I should make him appear more fully, but I give only a touch for brevity.  
2. He would here cast a blur by saying, there is a book printed called a Sermon preached at Plymouth by a cumber of wool. But I entreat the Reader to put him to his proofs, for he produceth no other grounds, but [I am certified,] so he might scandalise all the Churches in the world.  
3. He comes in with [some of them] tells us that Prophesying is seldom used, that so he might cast a blot on us, as if we were at variance amongst ourselves (which course he often takes) and that [some of us] are for frequent, others for seldom Prophesying, and yet (do but mark the man,) it is not Authors, and Authors he quotes to prove this (as one would think he should,) but only one, and the same Author which he quoted before; and (which is more) this Author not one hairs breadth varying in his speech.  
He saith in this Marg. 1 that some of our people have their farms so fare from the Assembly that they cannot possibly come every Sabbath day (hardly any) to the word; 2 that the people of late grow more violent in claiming their pretended liberty of prophesying; 3 deserting and contemning their own Ministers and Churches because they are not suffered to enjoy it.  
I should know New-England as well as I. P. or M. B. or any of his informers, Answer. but I solemnly here profess, and with a safe conscience avouch it, that I know no truth in any of all these particulars asserted, but rather the contrary, unless haply in those of the Island or such as adhere to them, who (he knows well) ●re not of us, whose ways and spirits are as grievous to our Churches, as to himself; why should he impute their practices to us, more than the opinions of the Antinomians and Familists here in London to the godly Ministers and people of the city? I will lay this (as all other calumnious aspersions, ungroundedly cast upon our Churches) upon his back, as the raiser of them, until he produceth two or three witnesses before us that will avouch them according to Paul's rule. 1 Tim 5.19.  
To Art. 2. After their Preaching (saith he) they take upon them to bless the people, 
III.  as the Ministers do.  
I desire his grounds and proofs (for here he brings none, Answer. nor in any other place that I can find,) but the contrary he well knows, i. e. that Answer to 32. q. 38. (whom he hath often quoted) expressly saith, that blessing the people in the name of the Lord is an act proper to our Officers, which no member may presume to do.  
To Art. 3. We have (saith he) a course before our dismission (i. e. of the Assembly) to give leave to any— publicly to propound their doubts, make their objections, and to argue pro and con, and in his Marg. makes a grievous and bitter outcry against us for so doing, and adds also, that it is an abrupt course at first dash openly to implead the Minister of error before all the people— and that it is scandalous and reproachful,— it argues not so much civility, piety, charity, nor prudence, etc.  

Answer. ●de 9  1. If a better than himself durst not reproach one worse than ourselves, though he had ground enough to have done it; (I hope) then W. R. dare not without any ground at al●, bring these sore accusations against so many Churches.  
But what his proofs are, you shall see Mr. Cot. Cat. p. 6. (whose words are these) It may be lawful for any (except women) to ask questions at the month of the Prophets. 1 Mr. Cot. speaks only of ask questions [of the Prophets] (i. e. such members as prophecy) he adds [of the Ministers also.] 2. Mr. Cot. seems to speak of the matter then delivered only, for he mentions not other. He adds [matters formerly delivered also,] 3 Mr. Cot. excepts women; He saith, [leave is given to any] without exception. 4 Mr. Cot. speaks soberly, [it may be lawful: he speaks peremptorily, [we have a course, etc.] 5 Mr. Cot. allows only to [ask questions,] but he adds (a bead-roll of his own to make us odious) they may (saith he) object argue pro and con about any matter, etc. yea, they do abruptly, at the first dash openly implead the Minister of error delivered before all the people,— So as it is a scandal to the people & a reproach to the Minister, etc. all this is his own addition.  
Then for the other cited Author (Answer to 32 q. 78) he deals more grossly with him then the former, who is in a manner pointblank against him, yet he boldly gives him up for an Author: his words are these, we never knew any Minister that did call upon the people thus to do, (i. e. to propound questions) and such calling upon them is fare from us, some think the people have a liberty to ask a question— upon very urgent and weighty cause, none judge the ordinary practice of it necessary, but (if not meekly and wisely carried inconvenient, if not utterly unlawful, and therefore such ask of questions is seldom, used in any, in most Churches near. True it is in the times of the opinions some were bold in this kind, but these men are long since gone— the Synod and Sermons have reproved this disorder, so that a man may now live from one end of the year to another in these congregations, and not hear any man opening his mouth in such kind of questions. These the Author's words.  

☞  Now good reader, do us the favour to give righteous judgement, whether these words cited by him make for him, or against him, where is, 1 giving leave, 2 a course of giving leave? 3 to any? 4 to object and urge pro and con? and 6 (which is horribly gross) to implead the Minister of error at the first dash, and that openly before all the people, etc. Whereas his own cited Authors tells him the contrary: 1 That it is done not often, but seldom. 2 Not many questions, but a question. 3 Not upon sleight, but weighty and very urgent grounds: 4 Not rashly and boldly, but wisely and meekly. 5 And this not peremptorily concluded of by all, but [some only think they have a liberty.] 6 And not that it is now so much done, but was for a time, by the bold opinionist, who are now chased away long ago. See what a vast gulf betwixt the Author and W. R.  
Now for him to read over distinctly all these expressions in this book (for that answer was written to himself from godly men in New-England) yet to produce it, as a proof for his Art. and the Marg. (which in common sense is contrary to it,) I stand amazed at it, and wonder with what face he could print it, or having done it, how he can let his book be kept from the fire thus long?  
Yet further note, our Narratour undertakes to relate only such Church-courses as are [generally] by the Church in New-England practised (as pag. 1. title.) How then can he (with honesty) bring in this [ask of questions] amongst such kind of general Church courses of ours, whereas his Author plainly saith, this ask of questions is not [Generally] practised, nor by [all] the Churches, but [seldom in any] Church, and in most Churches [never at all] and that one may live (as he saith) from one end of the year to another, in our congregations and not here [any man] open his mouth in such kind of questions? What will not W. R. boldly attempt against his brethren of the independent way, and their Churches, that citys these very words I have related, to prove such Church courses in New-England, as are generally practised amongst us?   

Answer to CHAP. XIIII.  
TO Marg. on the Title, Some (saith he) grow  of the word [independent] some utterly renounce it, yet most own it. Answer.  
If the word be rightly taken, (as in Answer to 32. q. 46. it's expounded,) for one Church that is not under the power of another, or in subjection to a Presbytery, but as having received power from Christ to govern herself according to his laws. Then all accord to it. But if the word [Independent] be abusively taken, (as it is often with the vulgar) for such a Society as are neither subject to Magistracy, nor regard the counsel of other Churches, but are a conceited and selfe-sufficient people, that stand only on their own legs. Then we have cause to be  of a word, that may render us odious without cause.  
To Marg. of 1 Art. That we have store of imperative Churches who may command, yea compel both members and Ministers to act.  
Ans. Another slander, without ground or proof, or truth, which I leave here upon record. God, our consciences, and our Brethren bearing us witness, how tender our Churches are, but to persuade men to act without light, much more to command or compel; both which very words, (though the thing required were lawful) are odious in the Churches of Christ; most fitly becoming the Synagogues of Antichrist. Hath he a licence to speak any thing?  
To Art. 2. We hold our Church power absolute and imperial.  
Answ. All we use to speak of our Church-power, is that it is ministerial, which is fare from [absolute and imperial] (words fit for Emperors of this world than the Churches of the Saints.) I charge it on his conscience (as in the sight of God) either to make this appear, or else vindicate us (as becomes an honest Christian to do.  
And for his two printed Authors cited (for we cannot come at his private letters) if there be any one word, or show of ground from them to maintain his speech: Let me bear the shame of it, for I here avouch the contrary, under my hand.  
To Art. 3. and Marg. That we deny all representation of Churches absent, and all authoritative deputation of Messengers to act for them.  

●nsw.  1. The Reader may well see it is his own saying not ours, for he brings no proof but from Barrow and Johnson, who cannot well give in their testimony for our Church ways in New-England, because they never came there, yea were in their graves (both or one) long before ever we had a being in New-England.  
2. There is no truth in it, for we hold a Church may delegate some men, and send them forth in their names and stead, with authority to act for them in this or that particular business of trust as Act. 15.2. And yet he hath boldly now twice or thrice affirmed the same thing of us, and brings no proof at all for it; and it is answered before cap. 2. Art. 3.  
Marg. Yet some tells us, (saith he) that Mr. P. and Mr. W. were sent hither by the Churches to negotiate for them, etc.  
Answ. 1. Some tell us? Sir, you are a man of judgement and gravity, able to instruct others; You know you may not blemish your brethren, and sl●nder Churches upon such poor and weak grounds, as [it is reported, I am informed, some tell us.] And yet how oft in your book, have you used this course of dealing towards your bretbrens and their Churches? (Some tell us) indeed, is warrant enough for people that have no other business, to make three farthing books of and thereby fill the world with tales: but oh, fare be it from any Reverend brother to blot his paper so unwarrantably.  
2. Though your ground of this report be weak, yet (it seems) your credence is strong, for you make inferences from these premises against us. And as your ground is bad, so your end in relating of it is as bad, i. e. to cast a blot upon our Churches, as if their practices did cross their principles.  
3. What will you say now W. R. if your informations prove false, as indeed they do; for neither did their own Churches, nor all the Churches send Mr. P. and Mr. W. but the whole state of New-England (or General Court) with one consent upon some special employments which cannot yet be all finished.  
Now I have told you the truth, let me give you a few Animadversions. 1 Bestow to believe aught against your brethren hereafter. 2 Slower to report it to others. 3 But never print it, without manifest grounds and a good call. 4 If you have done otherwise, be swift to recall it.  
To Marg. of Art. 4. wherein he disputes against us about our non-communion, or withdrawing ourselves from other Churches in case of obstinacy; by two arguments.  
1. Because non-communion is in substance the very same with Synodical excommunications, Object. 1 and by it (he saith) a man is cast out of the Church, and given up to Satan as well as by excommunication.  
If it be so, W. R. 1 Why have you said so oft (in opposition to our way) that our Churches have no power over one another; Ans. when as our Churches have a power to withdraw by non-communion; and that withdrawing (say you) is as much as your Synodical excommunication? 2 Why do you so slight our Church's counsels & admonitions to other churches, as not being [authoritative.] Whereas, if they be not obeyed (it seems) they can pass as sore a censure as all your Synodical Authority? For you can do no more (by it) then excommunicate, and so fare (you say) we can proceed.  
3. Why then do you call us, abusively, [Independants?] for (by your saying) it stands us in hand [to depend] as much upon other Churches, for counsel and admonition, as you on a Presbytery or Synod, or they will give us up to Satan, as well as a Synod.  
4. Why then do not you accord with us in this point of Non-communion; (seeing in it yourselves and we can comfortably close) rather than strive with your brethren for Synodical excommunication, to which their judgements cannot yield▪ seeing that is the same in effect with this? This being attended to will end a great part of the difference? Obj.  
But whiles we oppose Synodical excommunication, we establish it (saith he) by standing for non-communion it being the same in effect with the other. ibid.  
Though W. R. thinks they are both one, I cannot. For that is positive, Ans. this only negative: That a sentence passed, This not so: That a cutting off from Churchdom (at least for present) & a giving up to Satan, etc. This only a cessation of conferring Church privileges, etc. By the one the Churches withdraw, and call in that only (which once they gave (which is the right hand of fellowship) by the other the Synod or Classis take away that which they never gave, or had power to bestow (which is the excommunicates membership in their own Church) So that when we stand for the one (as having no rule to carry us further,) we do not establish the other: This is his first argument against us about non-communion.  
The second, that it is more cruel, and more dangerous than Synodall excommunication.  
Ans. Me thinks this seems strange, seeing it is a lighter, and lesser punishment than the other: by Non-communion, A man is only let go into the world where Satan's walks are, by Synods excom. he is given up and cast to Satan to terrify and vex him.  
But his arguments for the cruelty and danger of Non-communion are these four Reasons.  
1. Because by this, whole Churches (saith he) may come to be cast out Ans. So they may as well by a Synod excommunication, for if a Synod hath power to cast out one member of other Churches, then) by the same reason) 2. 6. 10. and so a whole Church as well, and Churches too, for where will you stop? 2. By this, (saith he) the Church deserted is left to itself in their error. Ans. Look what means public or private a Synod may use for any man or Churches regaining, the very same means (to the highest extent) may the other Churches use likewise. 3 This causeth endless rents. Ans. Show in any point wherein, or why more than the other. 4 This (saith he) hinders not the infection of others, but that by cutting off the rotten members the rest are kept sound. Answ. Do not this cross what he said before? that by non-communion a man is cast out and delivered up to Satan? yet here he denies it. 
Ob.   
Popular Government is one cause of Schisms in New-England, and quotes Mr. Parker's letter. Answ. Blessed be God, that under that Government of ours (which you call or rather miscall Popular) the very neck of Schisms, and vile opinions, (brought to us from hence) was broken; When here amongst you where there is not such a Government, they walk bolt upright amongst you and crow aloud. You shall do better to lay aside this objection till a Presbyterian Government have healed these sore breaches in these Churches here.   

Answer to CHAP. XV.  
ARticle 1. saith, We hold the Magistrate cannot lawfully compel men to enter into a Covenant with God.  
Answ. It appears by his Margin, he means a Nationall Covenant; But you must take his own words, as for proof he brings none, (and I believe he cannot) but Barr. and Rob. which never came there, and the Apology which (as he saith) lies by him: As long as I lived there I never heard or knew the Churches held so. But he must have leave to say any thing.  
Marg. saith, that many of us hold the Magistrate hath nothing to do in matters of Religion.  
Let him know, and all others that all the Churches with us do abhor that vile opinion; Some, I believe, Answ. of Road-Island & some others banished from us, do hold so, but those are gone out from us, and are not of us (as it is said) 1 John 2.19. If he had considered this distinction of the blessed Apostle, he durst not have said many of us hold so. This must go amongst other aspersions to be revoked of, and recalled.  
Art. 2. That we hold, that Christians may and aught to set up new Church●s, and practise in them all God's ordinances; and that 1 without the consent of a Christian State: 2 yea, against their commands: 3 their peremptory cammands: 
☜  4 and against the established laws of that State: 5 yea and in the midst of and against the minds of such Churches as we freely acknowledge the true Churches of God.  
He reserved a strange Article for the last; If I had not read it, Ans. I could scarce have believed it possible he should have written it: no pen can express a greater latitude of opposition agaist Magistracy, and laws, and Churches too, then here he affirms to be in us: if you review the six parcels mentioned you will see it.  
To all which I say, 1 there is neither truth in it, nor any proof of all, for any of these six, except the first. But God and men, our consciences, & writings, our professions, and constant practices will rebuke, & testify against this misreport. For now you would (in reason) expect some proofs, would you not? for this accusation; 
☜  You shall hear his cited Author himself speak. Answ. to 32. q p. 35, 36. (which saith thus.) Observing the things commanded of God, in a peaceable way, yielding due reverence to all in Authority, I & praying for them. This observing Gods Ordinances cannot be unlawful for lack of the command of man. The scope of all his Author speaks is this, That Christians may observe God's Ordinances though they have no command from the Magistrate so to do; now where is doing of this against his commands? His peremptory command, yea against his laws? and established laws? and not the laws of an Heathen, but a Christian State? and not against a State only, but against the minds of all the Churches of God amongst us? These are all his own additions, that so he might load his brethren with contempt. How dared he bring in all these words as his Authors, and yet he knows they all are his own!  
2. As it is against truth and without ground, ●o it is contrary to himself and his own words Chap. 5. Art. 2. and Art. 4. where he expresseth that notice must be, and is given to the Magistrates and Churches before their joining in Church fellowship. Yet here in this Art he saith, we hold 〈◊〉 and aught to do it without their consents, and against their minds; how can th●se agree?  
And whereas he quotes R. M. to prove that before Church's joyn● they give notice thereof to the Magistrate and other Churches; yet here he bring the same R. M to prove, we may and do join without their consent.  
Let this also be noted, that he speaks not only of our judgement, what we hold, we may and aught to do in this case; but of our practice also, what we [do,] as appears in last words of the Margin: we look he should make that good also, i. e. that in our practice we do thus oppose State and Churches in our joining in Church fellowship.  
5. He again crosseth himself, for in this Art, he saith, we hold that Christians may & aught to set up new Churches against the minds of other Churches, and yet he in his Marg. saith, that we deny them (i. e. himself and some others) any liberty to do thus.  
Ans. He must prove either that we hold him and the rest no Christians, or that we cross our own rules and principles, or else freely acknowledge a mistake in his word.  
Thus having done with his Book; I should now come to the Postscript, which I was fully purposed to have answered also: But now seeing my book (fare beyond expectation) swelling, I should be loath to tyre out the Reader; besides I have touched upon many things therein already, and the rest (most of them being built upon his book) must of themselves fall with it, and yet if it be requisite and worth the while, I shall be ready to do it, when I see cause.    

A Postscript to W. R.  
NOw, I entreat you, in the bowels of Christ and the spirit of meekness, to review your own work, weigh my Answer without prejudice; and consider well how many precious Saints, and godly Churches (dear to Christ, persecuted heretofore by Prelates, loving to yourself) without their least stimulation of you in this kind, you have in your Narration extremely wronged, whether through overmuch credulity, incogitancy, or otherwise, I dispute not. Sure I am it is done; and so done, that it is almost incredible, (as one would think) but you should, now, at least see your error; which if God shall open your eyes in whole or in part, to do (as I humbly beseech him you may) it will be your honour, 
exod. 21. ●3, 34.  and no small argument of yourself denial, to recall. There was a law in Israel, that he that digged a pit, was not to leave it open but cover it, else what ever damage happened he was to make it good. You are able to make application. Solomon, Austin, etc. never gained so much, as by their retractations. There are some sins, God will not sense up the pardon of, till satisfaction be made by the party: Defamation is one of them. It will be no grief of heart, but much comfort, to remember (when you are about to leave this world,) that although, through praecipitancy, you did blemish your Brethren, yet) after consideration you did again as readily, wipe away the blot, by a brotherly vindication as for as truth required; which if ●●●ter conviction) you shall for bear to do upon what pretence soever, how will you be able to lie down in your grave in peace?  
FINIS.