Presbytery and Monarchie of Church and State have suited one another many Ages since the Nation was Protestant The Authors Antagonist had expressed his Wonder how Presbytery could suit Monarchie in the State I confess I was not so critical as to impute to him that he meant Presbytery in the State and Monarchy in the State For I cannot discover Non-sense where it is not even in an Adversary as this sensible Man can And I plainly answered that these two Governments viz. Presbytery in the Church and Monarchy in the State did suit one another Whether the Non-sense is in my Expression or in my Adversaries apprehension let the Reader judge Also whether a Handle is here given for a Cavil or Malice or Ignorance hath supplyed it § 10. Another thing wherein he hath a mind to find Non-sense is Animadvers on Stillingfleets Irenicum p. 5. where the learned Dr. having asserted that where there are different Opinions and probable Arguments on both sides if it be not a matter necessary to Salvation it giveth ground to think that that matter in Controversy was never intended for a necessary mean for Peace and Vnity in the Church On this occasion G. R. was bold to say that if things not necessary to Salvation must needs be thus clearly revealed much more this clearness is needful in things necessary to Salvation The Non-sense of this I cannot yet perceive and I think this Author not by his piercing Judgement but by this tinctured Fancy was the first that discovered it And I cannot shun still to think that the Fundamental Truths should be and are revealed with more evidence than the inferior Truths and that the Lord would not have us to venture our Salvation on that obscurity of Revelation that we may not venture the Peace of the Church on if that were at Stake But the best is that the peace of the Church dependeth not so much on Oneness of Opinion about some inferior Truths as in honest endeavours after that and in mutual forbearance where it cannot be attained I am litle concerned in his not believing a Typographical Error in a passage about the Decrees of God which a Friend of his if not himself had observed and I had solemnly disowned and do still disowne as what I never thought spoke nor wrote It seems he measureth the veracity of others by his own But he will prove what he affirmeth That Book was Re-printed in England without Alteration or Correction Ergo it was the Authors not the Printers Error A wise Consequence indeed if it went abroad with that Error as I deny not it did it is no wonder it was Re-printed with it but that it was ever Re-printed is more than I know or ever heard before if he will not believe me in this I hope some others will He next setteth the black Mark of Non-sense on the Arguments I bring against a stinted Liturgy of mans Composure Rational Def. p. 226. I can see nothing but tollerable Sense and some strength of Reason in these Arguments when I review them after many years And our Author thought not fit to discover it to us and therefore they must even stand as they were Only this great Judge of Non-sense sheweth us that the Lords Prayer is a set Form and disowned by Presbyterians and therefore that must be here included Answer that Prayer if a set Form that is if it be enjoined to be rehearsed in publick Worship is not a set Form of mans devising and therefore falleth not under the Arguments that he opposeth Neither do Presbyterians disown that Prayer but use it as a Directory for Prayer and if any will repeat the words in solemn Worship they do not censure them He hinteth tho' so confusedly that I cannot make Sense of his Refutation of Non-sense that we are Quakers because against Liturgies We find no Liturgies in the Apostolick Church and yet they were no Quakers if all praying without Book were Enthusiasm as he ignorantly insinuateth many Episcopal men must be such for they do not always use the Book His retorting the Argument on extemporary Prayer is strangely wide and hath been often answered But this Author's business is not to clear Truth but to run down a certain person whom he hath in chase Extemporary Prayer imposeth neither Matter nor Frame or Composure on the Hearers and Joyner further than Nature it self maketh necessary where people pray together but set Forms do § 11. Yet more Non-sense his Antagonist speaketh of the Popish Church of Scotland and of the Protestant Church also often of the Episcopal and Presbyterian Church there whereas the Church is but one Which this Author is at much pains to expose but by mishape exposeth himself in so doing I list not to contend about words whether you call a divided Church as Scotland was while partly popish and partly Protestant and novv is vvhole partly Presbyterian and partly Episcopal two Churches or one Church rent in two peices I think is not material I see no Non-sense in either way of speaking Both Parties or Churches if permitted must have their Government and Governours neither is it fit that they should rule that Church or part of the Church to which they are opposite and which they would destroy It is wholly beside this purpose that he bringeth in of my blaming Dr. Stillingfleet for making the Vnity of the Church of England consist in two Convocations which our Author doth so grosly mistake for the Upper and Lower Houses of one Convocation whereas that Author doth make two Convocations in two distinct Provinces p. 300 for that is one Church united in it's parts not divided into Parties as the Church we speak of And it 's less intelligible how that should have two Heads than in this case Why two Parties may not be called two governing Bodies in a divided Church I cannot yet understand for all his Story of the Platonick Monster That no Head is mentioned why should he wonder unless he think a visible Head of the Church in a single person is necessary in such Metaphorick Speeches there is no matter of moment whether ye call the governing Part of a Church a Body or a Head but enough of this quibling on this Head § 12. Our Author's next Essay is to set forth his Antagonist's ill Nature in which Discourse every one may see how manifestly and fully he setteth forth that Temper of Mind in himself which he blameth in another most of the Passages he insisteth on were written against some Pamphlets which contain the most false and injurious Imputations and that not against a Person only but against all the Presbyterians without Discrimination yea against the whole Nation in it's Representative the Parliament and many of these Assertions are proved to be false and if a certain Author by a Book which gave less occasion was by every Line provoked to the Indecency of Passion what wonder if just Indignation was warmly expressed against such Abusive
from the one to the other seing our Author joyneth Confirmation in order to Communion of which this is a sort with Ordination as two Powers reserved to the Bishop alone Ep. 67. § 4. he saith of Cornelius Bishop of Rome that he was ordained Suffragi◠Cleri Plebis Concil Carthag 3. Canon 22. Nullus ordinetur clericus non probatus vel Episcoporum not Episcopi examine vel populi testimonio Concil Carthag 4. Can. 3. Presbyter cum ordinatur Episcopo eum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam omnes presbyteri qui adsunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput ejus teneant This is exactly our practice if ye allow the Moderator to be the Cyprianick Episcopus Our Author himself seemeth to insinuat that the Presbyters with Cyprian used to concur in Ordination while he premiseth to his proofs for sole Ordination that passage out of Ep. 14. as he quoteth it a primordio Episcopatus mei statueram nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere I say if this be not meant of Ordination it is here very impertinently brought in Nor can his Comment on Cyprian's words help him viz. That this was his voluntary Condescendence that he was not bound to To prove which he putteth Statueram in majusculis as if it were not usual with good men when they enter on an Office to resolve to keep within the bounds of their power to manage it lawfully as well as to cede in what is their Right But that Cyprian's words cannot bear that sense I prove by the Reason he giveth sic mutuus honor exposcit the mutuus honor must be that due regard that he had to their Authority in the Church and they ought to have to his it had been a dishonouring of them and setting them lower than Christ had set them in his Church for him to mannage her Affairs without them And Ep. 18. he maketh this Matter yet clearer Quae res cum omnium nostrum consilium sententiam spectet praejudicare ego soli mihi rem communem vindicare non audeo Where it is manifest that it was conscience of Duty and not good Nature onely that induced him to this Conduct Also that he attributeth to Presbyters not consilium onely but sententiam not onely a consultative Power but also definitive or decisive The Apostle who had indeed a sole Jurisdiction spake in another Dialect 1 Cor. 5. I have judged already Cyprian durst not do so because he knew he had not that sole Power § 42. Let us now hear his Proofs for the Bishop's sole Power of Ordination The first is What is said of the Ordination of Aurelius which I have already shewed to be against him Wherefore I shall onely take notice of his Observes on this Passage by which he would force it to speak for him 1. That his Power was the same in all Ordinations I shall not much contend about this only if they put the Power of Ordaining Officers of their own devising into the hands of whom they would it doth not thence follow that they might or did so dispose of Ordaining Power with respect to these whom God had appointed and about whose Ordination he had given Rules in the Word 2. He used only to ask their Counsel about the manners and Merits of the person to be Ordained not their concurrence in the Act of Ordination This is a Mistake he asked not their Counsel only but their joynt Suffrage as is above shewed That their Concurrence in the Act of Ordination is not here mentioned is not to his purpose seing it is consequential to their Office and Church Power That it is fairly imported in the instance of Aurelius that they used not to concur is a groundless Imagination For this is a single Instance in an extraordinary case and he spendeth a whole Epistle in making Apologie for it Yea he more than insinuateth the contrary when he telleth what he used to do and giveth a singular Reason for what he now did I wonder that common Sense doth not teach him that such an Act doth not import a Custom 3. That it was intirely of his own easiness and condescendency that he consulted them in the matter This I have above refuted and it is inconsistent with what himself elsewhere saith that the Bishop was the Monarch and the Presbyters his Senate I hope he will not say that it is ex beneplacito that Kings consult their Parliaments Unless he be for the Turkish Government both in Church and State § 43. Another Testimony which he calleth Remarkable p. 40. is Cyprian Ep. 41. had given a Deputation to Caldonius and some others to examine the Ages Qualifications and Merits of some in Carthage that he whose Province it was to promote Men to Ecclesiastical Offices might be well informed about them and promote none but such as were meek and humble and worthy His Remark is he speaks of himself in the singular Number as having the power of promoting and he founds that Power and appropriats it to himself upon his having the care of the Church and the Government of Her committed to him For A. I observe a few things on this discourse 1. This Delegation of Caldonius and the rest was not to Carthage as our Author dreameth which appeareth by the end of the Epistle in which he bids Caldonius c. read this Ep. to the Brethren and transmit it to Carthage to the Clergy which had been incongruous if their Errand and Work had been at Carthage Next this is in consistent with what Cyprian and our Author saith was his Practice viz. to consult the presbyters about who were fit to be ordained It is strange that he should send Strangers to Carthage for such Enquiry and to inform him with the neglect of the Presbytery 2. It is also clear from the Epistle § 1. That this Negotiation was about some Sufferers who belonged to the Church of Carthage may be banished or imprisoned or confined some where where they were in necessity for he saith he sent them ut expungeretis necessitates fratrum nostrorum sumptibus c. That they might pay their Debts as Pamelius expoundeth it and that they might furnish them for following their Trades if they so inclined And the enquiry about their fitness for Church-Work seemeth to be intended on the by for he bringeth it in with simul etiam 3. That he speaketh of himself in the singular Number doth no way infer that he alone was to promote any who were qualified among these Sufferers Neither his having the care of Church Government committed to him For ego cui cura incumbit promoverem saith nothing at all of sole care nor of sole Power Not only a Moderator but any Member of a Presbytery to whom the Ordination of Ministers belongeth might say as much might desire to know worthy persons and give the Reason that it is not
His Instance of my Ignorance in Citing some Greek Authors out of the Latine Translations of them is so ridiculous as it needeth no Answer § 7. He next cometh to some Instances that he seemeth to lay more Weight on The first amounteth to no more but this that I Cited Chrysost out of Bellarm. and I had not Chrysostome then by me as our Author saith he had not Bellarmine when he wrote this Preface and answered Bellarmine and Chrysostom's Words as he brought them if he doubt as he seemeth to do whether I did faithfully Transcribe Bellarmin's Words let him consult the Place And now when I have seen and considered Chrysostom's own Words I am sure that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the same way ascribed to the Bishop alone as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to him with the Presbyters for he deriveth these from Christ's Institution which he doth not pretend concerning that nor indeed could he seing he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must then mean that in his time the Bishop had an Election and may be also Ordination to a superior Degree of Dignity which was without a superior Power or that to him was committed the Performance of the Ceremonie in Clerical Ordinations viz. Laying on of Hands tho' I am sure and have shewed this was not the constant Practice What our Author blameth in my sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is fully Vindicated Gillesp Eng. Pop. Cer. P. 3. C. 8. Diggress 1. P. 164. His next Instance is out of Ration Def. c. p. 199. where I prove the Peoples Power in Electing their Pastors from Act. 14. 23. and that from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not barely from the force of the word as he by Oversight or Ignorance mistaketh but by the force of the word and it's Circumstances in that Place If Scapula be not a good Voucher for the Signification of a Greek Word both in Profane and Ecclesiastical Writings his Lexicon is little worth if he be our Author has litle Judgment in declining his Authority seing not one of the Instances he giveth of the word is for Ordination but generally for giving Suffrage If we Consult Scripture it is used Act. 10. 41. and 2 Corinth 8. 19. in both which Places it is used for Election And its importing also Ordination which I alledged he is pleased to mock at but thinketh not fit to take notice of the Grounds brought for that Interpretation from the best Criticks which I impute to his Unacquaintedness with that sort of Learning if we may be so bold as to Question the Skill of one who so looketh down on other poor Mortals as Ignoramus's § 8. The next Proof of Ignorance is I was bold to reprove one of my Adversaries for commending Ministers from their understanding Christian Philosophy Hence our Auther spendeth about 10 Pages to prove that that Phrase was used by the Fathers all which is easily granted and was never questioned by any that I know Only I still think and if that be to be ignorant I cannot shun that blame that however the Fathers did pertinently use it and even at this time it may to very good purpose be used in some cases yet that in a time when Socinianism aboundeth and when revealed Religion is so much decryed by not a few and all Religion is by some resolved into Nature and Humane Reason the improvement of which is Philosophy I say in that case it is not so very proper a Commendation of a Minister that is taken from Christian Philosophy as that which is taken from that knowledge of Divine Things which is built on Revelation as superadded to what we have by Nature and is attained by Ratiocination from scientifick Principles § 9. He next thinketh fit to charge his Antagonist with Nonsense the Instances are first Animadvers on Stillingf Jrenic p. 30. I had said that all Ceremonies of God's Worship are Worship themselves He should have minded that it is there said that the learned Stillingfleet saith the same Irenic p. 65. which I still aver and if he will not ascribe Non-sense to that unquestionably learned Author why may not such an one as I take shelter under his shadow But if this Author had understood the Distinction that I and many more learned than I have elsewhere cleared between Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies and that this last Sort is peculiar to Religious Actions and hath place in no other kinds of Actions he might have understood that such Actions are Religious and Acts of Worship and that they are true Worship if instituted by Christ and false if divised by men This cannot be judged Nonsense by any who hath with Judgement lookt into the Controversie about Ceremonies but it must be Nonsense to judge so of it The Fetch as he calleth it of Ceremonies that are in the place of Competentes or Catechumeni called in the same place Candidate Ceremonies is no more Nonsense than other Metaphors are if the Author be so ignorant as to understand that Phrase literaly it is his own Nonsense and none of mine The next peice of Nonsense is that the Affirmative of the second Commandment is that we should worship God in the way that he has prescribed in his word Rational Def. p. 125. If this be Nonsense I have for my Compurgators the whole Assembly of Divines at Westminster who in the Shorter Catechism gave this Answer to the Question What is required in the second Commandment The second Commandment requireth the Receiving Observing keeping pure and entire all such Religious Worship and Ordinances as God hath appointed in his Word It is like this Author will not stick to charge that venerable Assembly with Error but if he dare charge them with Nonsense it is no great matter if poor I take a share with them I am so dull as to understand as litle what Nonsense is in owning the Lutherian Churches as Sister Churches and so having Communion with them and yet refusing to joyn with them on their Instituted Ceremonies If any thing here look like Nonsense it is from a Typographical Error which I confese that Book aboundeth with the Correcting of the Press being commited by that Author to a negligent person while himself was at the distance of some hundrdes of Miles it is in the Manuscript uninstituted Worship and is meant of parts of Worship not appointed by Christ but devised by men We can have Communion with them in owning the same Truths seing they own the same Fundamental Truths with us and in these parts of Worship that Christ hath appointed but we cannot joyn with them in worshiping God by their Devices and if they intermix these with instituted Worship we must forbear Communion with them in both rather than pollute our selves with uncommanded Worship If this be Nonsense I must bear that Imputation Another Instance of Nonsense is Second Vindication p. 14. That the two Governments
expresly referred that Objection to be Answered by some seen in State-Affairs it being Political rather than Theological 2ly That I pleaded an Inter-regnum in the time of the Rabbling and would not allow it in the Dr's Case is no inconsistency for in the first case the Exercise of Government was impossible in the other there was actual Exercise of it 3ly When it was said the Representative of the Nation had owned William as their King it was not meant as he hath a mind to understand it as complexly such but as Exercising the Supreme Regal Power and designed to be compleatly King I could give Scripture-Instances of such manner of speaking of Kings if it were fit to enlarge as much on this Head as he doth 4ly If it was not a Contempt of the Authority of the Nation to disobey the Command of it's highest Power for the time even tho' one should attempt to give Reasons unless these Reasons were also sufficient of which none of us are Judge let any give Sentence 5ly He subtilizeth the Distinction too much between being King and exercising the Regal Power but to help out his fine Notion he behoved to alter the Phrase putting Right to Exercise for Exercising it self I hope these two may be distinguished and that there may be not only a Physical but a Moral impediment for a time of a Moral Right His Notion of Exercising the Regal Power before taking the Oath and that there is no Obligation to take the Oath before the Coronation I cannot yield to but leave to Statesmen and Lawers to Debate it with him I say the same of his Discourse of Hereditary and Elective Kings § 18. That I called K. J. our lawful Soveraign he saith was a striking at the Root of the present Settlement Answer if I had so called him with respect to the time of the present Government what he saith were true But to say that he was so before this Government had it's being and before the Nation in its Representative had found and declared the contrary is far from that blame Next he unfairly representeth what I had said that Episcopacy cannot be restored I hope it never shall and I am sure it never can without crossing the Institution of Christ But whether the restoring of it be consistent with the Civil Rights and Priviledges of the Nation as things are now stated I leave it to States-men and Lawers to discuss His Commendation of the Cameronians and blaming me for speaking to their Disadvantage is not out of kindness to them but in odium tertii that he might make the sober Presbyterians for I cannot be bantered out of that Distinction more hateful as being worse than they I should think it lost time to examine his quibbles about the Presbyterian Ministers not preaching so much as he and his Complices thought was meet against the Rabling these things were sufficiently declared against by some and that where such Disorders were most rampant and regnant but Preaching could not Stem that Tide many of these men would hear non of us nor will they to this day tho' through mercy not a few of them are reclaimed and some who listned to other Doctrine would not hear that He hath a wise inference I had said these courses were preached against both before they were acted for preventing them and after for reproving them Ergo saith he it was a consulted and deliberat Politick and the Ministers were privy to it and yet did not warn the poor men that they might have escaped being rabled I shall not give this its due Name as he frequently giveth ill and undue Names to my Words Ministers knew an inclination to Disorders in some that they went beyond their Stations by an ill guided Zeal and this they warned against yea and some Presbyterian Ministers did protest against all these exasperated men when they beheld it But that they knew Designs for these Disorders in particular is false and doth not follow from what was said He saith he can name more than one or two of the first Rank of sober Presbyterian Ministers such a Blunder and Repugnancy in me would have been called Ignorance Non-sense Impudence and what not who advised to these Courses I solemnly declare I know not any of them and if I did I should blame them § 19. He cometh next to Contradictions some of which are fancied others are real but of his own making by mis-citing words One is I have said where there are Bishops the Presbyters have no Power in another Book we do not say that Bishops take all Power from Presbyters Any who will be at the pains to consult the places that he citeth will find that the first speaketh of Governing Power the other speaketh of Power in General which comprehendeth preaching Power but it is there expresly said that they take away all Governing Power Where is then the Contradiction Next it is said he knoweth not where it seems nor do I that King James's Indulgence was against Law And yet 2d Vendic p. 43. the Parliament had given the King such Power The first Assertion I find not another Assertion that to him will infer it is the Law was for publick Meetings Ergo privat Meetings were against Law It is a pitiful Consequence Where Liberty is allowed as now in England the Law is for both ways Wherefore the second Assertion maketh no Contradiction But if both had been said there are just Laws and unjust which may without a Contradiction in the Assertion be said to contradict one another This Distinction removeth also the next pretended Contradiction between a Forefeiture being unjust that the Authority of the Nation laid on and Ministers having no legal Right to their Stipends when the Authority of the Nation have determined otherwise Parliaments may both do right and do wrong Another Contradiction he fancieth Animadv on Stillingf Jrenic It is asserted that all Ministers having got equal Power from Christ they cannot so devolve their Power on one of themselves as to deprive themselves of it their Power being not a License only but a Trust This he thinketh is contradicted indirectly by delegating Members to the General Assembly To this I answer Delegation to the General Assembly is a Temporary transient thing for the exercise of one or a few Acts and necessity doth warrant it seing the Ministers of a whole Nation cannot meet without leaving almost the whole Nation destitute of Preaching and other Ordinances for a considerable time This is not to be compared with devolving of the Power of the Ministers of a whole Province on one Bishop who is perpetually ad vitam aut culpam to exercise the whole power of the Church in all the Acts of it so as all the rest are deprived of it and cannot exercise it nor give account to God for the Management of it The one is very consistent with that Parity that Christ made in communicating Church Power to his Servants the other is not
He saith also that I contradict the former Position directly in true Representation 2d Vindic. by allowing the taking ruling Power from the prelatical Clergy Beside the Necessity and unsettled State of the Church in these Places brought for justifying this Conduct which he rather mocketh at than solidly answereth I there at length insisted to shew that there is no inconsistancy between this and our principle concerning Parity I need say no more till he answer what is already said § 20. Another Contradiction he will needs make between my disowning some Grounds of Separation in England and owning the same in Scotland The one in my Rational Defence against Dr. Stillingfleet the other in my second Vindic. of the Church of Scotland this he prosecuteth with a great deal of Clamor what strength is in his Discourse let us now try I hope I shall be found semper idem for all this noise Three Grounds of Separation he mentioneth wherein this Contradiction lyeth first Episcopacy Answer I said the setting up Episcopacy in England was not a sufficient Ground for People to forbear hearing of the Word in their Parish Churches I say the same with respect to Scotland I said Episcopacy was a good Ground for Ministers to withdraw from Church Judicatories where they must at least interpretatively own that Authority I say the same of England If he can find any thing in my words that doth import any more than this I shall owne a Contradiction and the shame that it may infer The second is Episcopal Ministers were Vsurpers or Intruders The third is they had not the Peoples Call I am sure I never made these to be two distinct things but this Author 's subtile Wit hath divided them Here I cannot own either Contradiction or Contrariety I approved the Conduct of many People in England who by a tacit and after Consent owned these men as their Pastors and heard them tho' they did not joyn with their unwarranted Ceremonies I never condemned the same Practice in Scotland but approved it by my Practice and Doctrine Only I pleaded that what ever might be said of their not giving Consent which was also the Case of many in England they could not be Charged with Separation while these men were obtruded on them against the Laws of the Gospel especially when they might hear their own lawfully called Ministers tho' in a Corner I find no Contradiction here neither in what he saith about the Covenant which I still think never made any new Duties or sins for the matter but was a superadded Tie to former Moral Obligations I said indeed that the Covenant National and the Solemn League made setting up of Episcopacy more sinful than before but I never said that either it made Episcopacy sinful where it was not so before nor that it made owning of it such tho' I am sure it aggravated the sin of both § 21. His next Effort is to expose my Rejecting the Testimony of some who were brought to Attest the Rabbling but in his way I know not what Freak took him he Digresseth to consider the Preface to Animadv on Stillingf Irenic which he will needs have to be written by the Author himself on which he discanteth after his own manner that is not very Learnedly nor Convincingly I assure him and if he will not be assured he having no great Esteem of my Veracity I can assure the Reader that the Author neither wrote that Preface nor what is in the Title Page nor knew that the Book was Printed till after it was done but was at 300 Miles distance from where it was done The Metaphorical Death spoken of in it taken from the English Phrase of being Dead in Law as the Nonconformist Ministers then were was but a sorry Subject for a Learned Divine to practise upon but he had a mind to write much and had little to say tho' he often pretendeth to have great Plenty of Matter It is true I did and do Question the Truths of many Circumstances whereby the Rabblings were aggravated and tho' he is pleased to say that the whole Nation knoweth them I affirm the Generality of the People where these things were said to be Acted know the contrary let the Reader who hath not occasion to enquire into the Matters of Fact believe as he seeth Cause or suspend his Belief I did never defend nor deny the Hardships that some of the Episcopal Clergy met with from the Rabble only I said and I insist in it that they were Represented most Disingenuously in several Parts and Circumstances of them his Vouchers I reject I mean some of them ours he rejecteth which is ordinary in such Contendings wherefore unless the thing could come to a Legal Tryal every one must believe as he seeth Cause That I rejected by the Bulk all the Matters of Fact is false and injurious I did acknowledge several of them and condemned them as unaccountable Disorders It is a foolish Inference no man can be a fit Witness before a Court because we are not to believe all the Stories that men tell of themselves or their Friends That I had my Informations in these things mostly from Rabblers themselves is falsly asserted as may be seen by any who Impartially consider the second Vindication His exposing that second Vindication because I had the Accounts of Matters of Fact from other hands and was not Eye nor Ear-Witness to them is odd for what Historian is there who may not be on the same Account blamed The Book he speaketh of Account of the late Establishment of the Presbyterian Government by the Parliament I have not seen nor heard of it before I thanked the Parliament in the Preface to my Sermon before them for their Act Establishing Presbyterian Government can any wise man thence Infer that I commended whatever was beside Incorporated into that Act Therefore all his long Discourse on that head is impertinent Another terrible Contradiction is I say Field Meetings were sometimes necessary and yet they were Condemned by the Wisest and Soberest Presbyterians If I had said they were in all Cases so Condemned he might have Insulted but may not I always that is at all times be of Opinion that a thing should not be done as I see it often done and without Necessity and yet think that there may be a Case of Necessity where it may be done this is to Cavil not to Reason § 22. The Envenomed Words in some Pages that follow wherewith he Concludeth his Preface and these of the same Sort wherewith it Interspersed I disregard he doth himself more Hurt by them than me I resolve not to be Hector'd nor Banter'd out of my Principles nor Scarred by Malice or Reproach from casting in my Mite for the Defence of Truth tho' he and such as he Conspire to Overwhelm me partly with their Books and partly with their Calumnious Imputations It is not usual for Satan so to Rage against a bad Cause These few Pages I have written raptim the Press waiting for them if he or any other will Examine them fairly with that Candor that becometh a Christian and a Disputant I shall be willing to be Corrected if any thing have escaped my Pen if he or they write in the same Strain of this Preface I will Despise them as also will all Sober and Intelligent Readers FINIS