only a diversity of Opinion but dividing into Parties be it so still this was occasioned by their different apprehensions to which the Word plainly refers some said This is the Christ others said Shall Christ come out of Galilee so there was a division among the People about him the connexion leaves no room to doubt but that this division relates principally to their apprehensions He says they were divided into Parties so all men are in their differences of apprehension some think so others thus but I hope he will not call that a separation of Communion for then it will be hard to know where to find one Communion We know the Clergy of the Church of England are of several parties amongst themselves in this sence of the word about another great Person in the World but he adds They censured and reviled one another they did so and this was the effect of that division in their thoughts of Christ like to many at this day that shew very little either of Charity or Common Civility towards those whose apprehensions are different from their own As to the other Text John 9.16 the very reading of the words will satisfie any Man what is meant by that division Some of the Pharisees said This man is not of God because he keepeth not the Sabbath day others said How can a Man that is a Sinner do such Miracles And there was a Division among them That great quarrels did ensue Mr. H. never denied the same may be said concerning the other texts Mr. H. says This diversity of opinion judgment or apprehension cannot be lookt upon as in it self Criminal The Surveyor most disingenuously perverts these words as if Mr. H. meant It was no matter what opinion Men bad of Christ or his Apostles no matter whether they took him for the Messiah or a Mad-man Whereas in the very next words he says where the matter is weighty and reacheth the fundamentals there an Error is Criminal This was plain enough to convince our Author or any Man in the World that Mr. H. was far from intending to Libel Christ or to make an Apology for the Jews and Sadduces in their reviling of him If this Gentleman had not told us I could never have guessed how it could enter into his head to fix such an odious sence upon Mr. H's words but it seems that which led him to it was Mr. H. said This diversity of apprehension and why did he prefix the relative this if not referring to the Antecedent Texts I 'll tell him and it is a shame he should need to be told Mr. H. but a few lines before distinguished of division in apprehension and division in affection and shewed that sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for division in apprehension and then adds this diversity of opinion judgment c. that is this first species or kind of division according to the distinction newly laid down There you have the antecedent to which the relative this refers This division in apprehension is not always criminal but the other division viz. in affection is always so That this is the true Thred and Sence of his Discourse I appeal to any Man of Common Sence and Honesty It is not therefore Mr. H. that knows not what he says but 't is the Surveyor that cares not what he says so he may but render Mr. H. contemptible to the unthinking Debauchees the noble Patrons of his present adventures The Enquiror justly declaims against that mischievous practice of making our own opinions like Procrustes's Bed the Standard by which to measure all others To which the Gentleman replies But if Authority think fit to call Mr. H. to the Standard he is undoubtedly a Subject and I know not why he should not go as well as I. This is really a very fair confession that though he will not yield to a private person in differences about Religion yet he can be of any length of any opinion which Authority shall set up for a Standard and call him to A Man of a malleable ductile complaisant Conscience that can stretch or contract himself to the Standard that Authority sets up in matters of Religion for he is a Subject and must go to it herein the Dissenters differ from him and cannot lay aside their present apprehensions in matters of Religion either upon the call of private persons or of Authority it self until the louder voice of Reason oblige them to it And yet through the Mercy of God Authority has taken down the Standard now not delighting either to cramp or rack the Consciences of Men in matters of Religion It seems the Enquiror and Vindicator have frighten'd this Gentleman into his Devotions and set him a Praying I suppose without the Book for vexatio dat intellectum that he may never stand in need of their Charity and I believe they have as much Reason to pray that they may never stand in need of this Mans Justice for when the Vindicator was making his Apology to any that might think he had treated T.W. somewhat more roughly than such a Man could well bear this Gentleman tells us several times the Vindicator boasted of his rude and malicious usage of the Citizen let this Man learn to be Just before he pretend to be Charitable As for the Vindicators usage of T.W. let it be referred to all the Sober Church-men in Chester where the Man is known as well as the manner of his Writing I am sure some of his own Communion openly said he was treated in that answer with but too much respect But why should this Author be so terrified with the Thoughts of ever standing in need of the Dissenters Charity Is he afraid of the Lex talionis There can be no danger of that unless Authority should ever be on their side and set up its Standard for them and if i◠should do so this Gentleman has declared he is a Subject and must go to it for how ill so ever he may like the Principles of Nonconformity while they are but the Sentiments of private Persons yet if Authority should set them up for a Standard they are become quite another thing he can go to it as well as we and be on the right side still If this be not fairly collected out of his own words I know no tolerable meaning they are capable of In the 19th Page he delivers himself of a Notion which I believe is really his own i. e. That it is as possible for all men to agree about the lesser matters of Religion as about its great and fundamental Articles An assertion contrary to all reason and the experience of Mankind All Protestants acknowledge that the Essentials of our Religion are clearly revealed in Scripture and in these they generally agree but no one ever pretended the same of all circumstantials which are usually proved or disproved by inferences from Scripture and sometimes remote ones too wherein it is common for Disputants to
it plainly speaks of that Extraordinary Mission of the Apostles to the Gentile World by them as Men infallibly inspired for that End were the great Doctrines of the Gospel delivered and the perpetual Rule of Faith laid down this they must by no means have presumed to do had they not been sent of God and yet without such a Gospel the World had never believed on Christ and this Apostolical Doctrine is still the great Instrument by which God converts Souls sometimes by reading of it themselves sometimes by hearing it from others whether duely ordained or no sometimes by bringing it to their Remembrance when they are neither reading nor hearing it though the usual way is by the Preaching of a faithful Ordained Ministry but to say that it is never done by other means cannot be proved by Scripture and is evidently contradicted by Experience I cannot but have a great value for the Judgment of Monsieur Claude in this particular and shall therefore transcribe his words in that learned Treatise before mentioned Histor Def. Part 4. p. 54. viz. It is the Church that produces the Ordinary Ministry and not the Ordinary Ministry that produces the Church The Church was the fruit of the Extraordinary Ministry of the Apostles and Evangelists That Ministry of theirs produc'd it at first and not only produc'd it but it has always made use of that means or that source for its Subsistence and we may truly say That it yet produces it and that it will produce it unto the End of the World For it is the Faith that makes and always will make the Church and it is the Ministry of the Apostles that makes and always will make the Faith It is their Voice that calls Christians together at this day it is their word that essembles them and their teaching that unites them It is certain that the Ministry of the Apostles was singular that is to say only tyed to their Persons without Succession without Communication or Propagation but it ought not to be thought that it was also transitory as that of other Men for it is perpetual in the Church Death has not shut their Mouths as it has others they speak they instruct they incessantly spread abroad Faith and Holiness among the Souls of Christians and there is not another Fountain from whence those Virtues can descend but from them If any demand of us what is the perpetual Voice that we ascribe unto them We answer That it is the Doctrine of the New Testament where they have set down all the Efficacy of their Ministry and the whole virtue of that Word which gave a Being to the Church there is their true Chair and Apostolick See there is the Center of Christian Unity there it is that they incessantly call Men and joyn them into a Society But as to the ordinary Ministry we cannot say the same thing of them it is not their Voice as distinct from that of the Apostles that begets the Faith that assembles Christians into a Society or that produces the Church They are no more but meer Dispensers of the words of the Apostles or external Instruments to make us the better understand their Voice to speak properly it is not the Voice of the ordinary Pastors that produces Faith where it was not before it is the word of the Apostles themselves They are no more but those External Guides that God has established in the Church to lead Men to the Scripture and even such Guides as cannot hinder us from going thither of our selves if we will Therefore there is a great difference betwixt these two sorts of Ministers the one preceded the Church the other follows it the one has an independent and sovereign Authority with Infallibility on its side the other is exposed to Vices Disorders Errors and humane Weaknesses inferior to and depending on the Church And indeed to affirm that no Man can be truly converted but by a Regular Ministry would involve the Minds of Men in endless Perplexities A Man must know all those things that belong to the due mission of the Preacher and must be assured that all those met in the person by whose Ministry he was helped to believe before he can know that he has true Faith this would keep persons in a dark and uncomfortable state all their days especially if a Line of uninterrupted Succession be necessary to a true Mission for then a Man must be able to prove that the Bishop that ordained his Converter was ordained by another Bishop and that by another and so up to the Apostles which because no man in the World can be morally assured of it is impossible for any Man to know that he has true Faith This is an insuperable difficulty on the one hand And on the other those Persons that know they have true Faith by the powerful effects of it upon their Hearts and Lives must conclude from hence that their Preachers were duely ordained and called otherwise they could nor have been instrumental in their Conversion and yet this would not be true for doubtless there are many honest Souls that fear God and work Righteousness amongst those Sects that have no Regular Ministry amongst them So that this Assertion would rob many Souls of the comfort of a true Faith because of the uncertainty of their Ministers Mission and it would confirm others in an irregular and unauthorized Ministry because of the cerainty of their Faith I hope by this time I may venture to conclude That the essential Unity of the Church consists in Gospel-Faith and Love hereby Men are made Saints and unired to Christ and Members of the Catholick Church Did I think the Chester Gentleman would not yet take it I would be so civil to him as to and some more Testimonies That of Clemens Alexandranus is apposite enough The ancient Catholick Church is but one only Church Strom. l. 7. and assembles in the Unity of one only Faith by the Will of one only God and Ministration of one only Lord all those who were before Predestanted to be just having known them before the Foundation of the World In Cant. Hom. 1. In Maten 16. De Ar◠Patr. l. 1. c. 3 In Psal 35. De coronà indilitis So likewise Origen The Church is the Society of the Saints and else where The Church which God builds consists in those who are upright and full of those Thoughts Words and Actions which lead to Blessedness St. Amtrose tells us The Assembly of the Righteous is God's Tabernacle and that the Saints are the Members of Jesus Christ Terrullian says Where there are Three there is a Church though they be Laicks for every one lives by his own Faith S. In Job c. 26. Jerome speaks to the same purpose saying The Church which is the Assembly of all Saints is the Pillar and Ground of Truth because she has in Jesus Christ an Eternal firmness In Cant. Hom. 1. and elsewhere The Church
of the Land 3. That the Civil Powers have left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are guilty of no Disobedience to them The first Position concerning the Identity of Power in Bishops and Presbyters has been often and warmly debated and we can scarce touch it so gently but it will be resented as an high affront it is accounted a Plea to their Jurisdiction which in all Courts has an ungrateful sound and must expect to be over-ruled if powerful Interest and loud Menaces can do it and yet it seems so clear in it self both from Scripture Fathers and Protestant Divines our own Reformers not excepted that were it not for the sake of the Silver Shrines we cannot suppose it would have been a Controversie at this day in any of the Reformed Churches For Scripture Proof the Point being Negative the Evidence that is but Negative must be allowed sufficient The Word of God no where asserts that Bishops are a Superior Order to Presbyters therefore they are not so by that Law Those that say they are must produce that Rule which makes them so If no such Rule appears the matter is fully concluded against them This being a Question concerning a very great Power extending to a great number of Persons and producing great Effects a matter of great distinction and dependencies ought to have clear and positive Warrant and Commission from the Word of God Meer Names and Titles Suppositions and fine Probabilities will not all make a Foundation strong enough to bear the weight of a Structure so high and towering as our English Prelacy It is far short of Demonstration to say the Bishops are the Apostles Successors and therefore a higher Order than Presbyters For if they mean that they have the same Power that the Apostles had and in the same degree it will distort their own Scheme of Government and will not only give them power over Presbyters but over Bishops too for such power the Apostles had and it will give every Bishop an Universal Power over all the Churches in the World If it be said they are only the Apostles Successors in some part of their power the answer is obvious so are Presbyters too and we must enquire in what parts and degrees of power do they succeed them And why do not Presbyters succeed them in the same powers And where shall we find any chapter or verse in our Bibles that thus divide the power and give some men the power of Doctrine and others that of Displine and Orders where is the discrimination We find it very plain in Dr. Cosins's Table â—ot so in those of the Apostles Nor is it any more to our satisfaction to say that Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus and Crete for the Question is not whether there were Bishops in Scripture times but whether those Bishops had any power that the Presbyters had not and if they had whether it belongs to them as Bishops or on some other account St. Peter was a Presbyter and had Authority over Bishops must we therefore argue that Presbyters had power over Bishops Timothy had Authority to command Bishops too and joined with Paul in Writing a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Philippi will it therefore follow that one Bishop has Authority over another And what did Timothy and Titus that Presbyters might not do if they had the same qualifications They ordained Elders and how does it appear that they did not do it as being Elders themselves and that they had not the assistance of others And may not Presbyters do so too Perhaps it will be said no for they have not the Episcopal Power but that is the very thing in question and must be proved and not taken for granted if God has laid no injunction upon them to the contrary men cannot do it 'T is an odd way of reasoning Titus was left to ordain Elders in Crete therefore he was a Bishop for none but Bishops can Ordain how do you prove that Why because Titus was a Bishop and he alone did Ordain if this be not a Circular Precarious and Trifling way of arguing nothing in the World deserves that name But indeed the many removes which Timothy and Titus made is argument enough that they were not the fixed Pastors of particular Churches no question wherever they came they were employed in the same work which they did at Ephesus and why Titus by being sent into Dalmatia did not become the Bishop of the Churches there as well as by being lest in Creet the Bishop of the Cretians I see no reason he was sent to the one he was left in the other and doubtless in both his work was to set in order the things that were wanting and this was his business every where and would as well entitle him the Bishop of any other place as of Creet The argument from the Angels of the Churches is as dark and inconclusive as the former those messages sent to the Churches were delivered by Vision and in the style and phrase of Vision a singular term is often to be understood collectively as by the false Prophet A. B. Usher understands the Roman Clergy and there are many words in those Epistles that favour this Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and there is not one word in all that Book intimating that those Angels were single persons much less such as had any power above Presbyters And those that grant them to be single persons will tell us the most that can be inferr'd is a President or Moderator of a Presbytery which is allowed by those that are wholly dissatisfied with Diocesan Prelacy The Gentleman pas ses very lightly over all these difficulties and in a strain of carelessness and confidence natural to him tells us It is evident that the Government of the Church by Episcopacy was of Apostolical Institution for that Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet as is plain by St. Pauls Epistles to them both that the seven Churches of Asia which received the Christian Faith had each a Bishop is evident by the Title St. John gives them in his Letters to them This is the Gentlemans proof of the Divine right of our English Prelacy this is that mighty evidence and demonstration he so often refers to in his Pamphlet saying I have proved I have shewed c. But if it was so plain from St. Pauls Epistles that Timothy and Titus were Bishops why did he not tell us what words those are which make it so very plain Indeed the Postscripts to those Epistles expresly call them Bishops of Ephesus and Creet but does he need to be told that the Postscripts are no part of Canonical Scripture nor joined with the Epistles for several hundred years after Christ Theodoret being the first that mentions them only as part of his own Commentary and yet he has not the word Bishop in them Nor any body else till
the Body We cannot be joined to Christ our Head except we be glued with Concord and Charity one to another for he that is not of this Unity is not of the Church of Christ which is a Congregation or Unity together not a Division St. Paul saith that as long as Emulation or Envying Contention and Factions or Sects be amongst us we be carnal and walk according to the Fleshly Man And St. James saith if ye have bitter emulation or envying or contention in your hearts glory not of it for where contention is there is unstedfastness and all evil deeds c. Nothing is more evident than that the thing declaimed against in this Homily is Schism what else signifie the words cut and mangled divided rent and torn And as plain it is that this rending and tearing and cutting and mangling the Body of Christ is done by contention by the violation of concord and charity without which we cannot be joined to the Head nor one to another it is true it mentions Factions and Sects He speaks of contentious Sects but there may be Factions amongst those of the same external Communion and there are many Sects too in the Church of Rome where the external Communion is the same and so there were formerly amongst the Jews and at this day in the Church of England some are Arminians others Calvinists in points of Doctrine But both the Title of the Homily and the express words and general scope of it make the Rents and Schism in the Coat of Christ to consist principally in the want of Concord and Charity in Emulation envying and heart contentions Which I hope will justifie Mr H. from the censure of having advanced a wild and novel doctrine Now let us examine the Consequences which this Gentleman has drawn out of this Definition First of all From hence it will follow that he that was never truly admitted into the Christian Church may be guilty of Schism if he be called a Christian But before we can tell whether there be any absurdity in this we must desire him to explain himself and tell us what he means by a true admission into the Christian Church If by admission he means Baptism and by true admission Baptism after the form and mode prescribed by his Church I doubt not there are many may be justly called Christians that were never so admitted and if he will take upon him to assert that none can be guilty of Schism but who have been admitted according to their Canons he will fairly acquit a great number of Dissenters from that crime who though they have been Baptized yet not altogether according to their Rubrick As for Mr. H's Words they are plain enough Schism in the Scriptural Sence is only the fault of professed Christians and all professed Christians are visible Members of the Catholick Church 2. That Hereticks in fundamentals are no Schismaticks for Mr. H. sapposes that where there is a Schism both parties must agree in the Fundamentals of Religion Yes he does suppose so and very justly for those that deny fundamental Truths are without the Christian Faith without the Unity of the Church and where there is no such Union there can be no Schism which always supposes a previous Union As Treason always supposes that a Man be a Subject of the King and Member of the Common wealth If a Man never received the Fundamentals of Christianity he never was a Member of Christ's Body and therefore never a capable subject of that Christian Love and Brotherly kindness the violation whereof is the thing in Scripture called Schism if he has formerly professed the Faith and afterwards renounced it he has by so doing dissolved that principal Fundamental Union with the Christian Church upon which Brotherly Love is built and therefore after such Apostacy cannot be formally guilty of the breach of Christian Charity because he is indeed no Christian and so no capable Subject of such Charity and can no more properly be called a Schismatick than a Stone or Tree can be called blind or any other thing in which there is no capacity of Sight And if the Gentleman do not like this Notion he may if he pleases write a Book to convince the Grand Signior and the Great Mogul and Cham of Tartary See the Review p. 8. that they are all Schismaticks as were their Fathers Jannes and Jambres the Egyptian Sorcerers before them But he adds This is as much as to say the greater the fault the lesser the crime By no means for what if Hereticks be not Shismaticks are they therefore innocent Creatures What if Traytors Murderers Adulterers be not Schismaticks are they therefore Saints Heresie in Fundamentals is a greater crime than bare Schism and the less is merged in the greater And it seems very strange that the same Gentleman who but a line or two before thinks it absurd to call those Schismaticks who were never truely admitted into the Church should think it also absurd not to call those Schismaticks that either never embraced the Christian Faith or have since renounced it 3. The third inference is According to this Definition Alienation of Affection is Schism but Division or Alienation of Communion is not Here he ought to have told us what he means by Division or Alienation of Communion Communion with the same God and the same Mediator and in the same Essentials of Faith and Worship is necessary to the Being of Christianity and an Alienation here is something worse than Schism if he mean personal Communion in the Worship of God in the same place and after the same Mode 't is impossible this should be undivided if by Alienation of Communion be means withdrawing from that particular Church of which we have been members and joyning with another 't is no more but what is allowed to all upon the removal of their Habitations and may be lawful on many other accounts but if it be done without some good reason it is sinful if it be done out of Uncharitableness towards the Church we leave it is Schism now if he would be as plain with us as we desire to be with him there might be hopes of bringing the matter to some issue But the last Inference is most remarkable both for Phrase and Sence and I would desire the Author to review it No one can charge another with Schism except he be able to look into his Heart it is impossible to know according to this Description that People are Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in Charity except we should enquire into the Secrets of their Hearts and on the contrary People may be the greatest Schismaticks under the outward Profession of Charity and yet no Body can accuse them with it But pray why is this last Sentence said to be on the contrary to the former it 's impossible to know that People are Schismaticks if they profess themselves to be in Charity and on the contrary People may
from London to the Presbytery of Edenburgh Calder p. 474. after it was Revised by the King 's own Hand The words are Beloved Brethren after my hearty Commendations these Presents are to shew you that I received Two of your Letters One directed to His Majesty the other to my Self for my Perusal the same I read closed and three days before the Conference delivered into His Majesties Hand and received it back again after some short Speeches upon those words in your Letter the Gross Corruptions of this Church which were then expounded and I was assured all Corruptions dissonant from the Word of God or contrary thereunto should be amended The Twelfth of January was the day of Meeting at which time the Bishops were call'd upon and gravely desired to advise upon all the Corruptions of this Church in Doctrine Ceremonies and Discipline and as they would answer it to God in Conscience and to His Majesty upon their Obedience that they should return the Third day after which was Saturday Accordingly they returned to His Majesty and when the Matter was propounded to them as before they answered All was Well And when His Majesty with great fervency brought instances to the contrary they upon their Knees with great earnestness craved that nothing should be altered lest the Popish Recusants punished for Disobedience and the Puritans punished by Deprivation ab officio beneficio for Nonconformity should say they had just Cause to insult upon them as Men who had endeavoured to bind them to that which by their own Mouths now was confess'd to be Erroneous After five Hours Dispute had by His Majesty against them and his resolution for Reformation intimated to them they were dismissed for that day c. but it appears by the result their importunity overcame him at last Dr. Fuller observes That whereas before this Conference it was disputable whether the North where he long lived or the South whither he lately came would prevail most on the King's Judgment in Church Government now this Question was clearly decided I hope now the Vindicator may be allowed to have some Grains of Shame and Modesty common to Humane Nature though he ventured to say That the English Prelates flattered King James into an ill Opinion of the Puritans and the thing is not so plain or known a Contradiction as the Citizen pretends and for him to tell the World at this time a day of the famous Piety and Virtue of that Prince is ridiculous enough Alas the History of his Reign is too well known his Contending with Parliaments his Encouraging of Papists his Secret Articles upon the Treaties with Spain and France his greedy Desire of Arbitrary Power his Prostituting the Honours and Wasting the Treasures of the Nation after a most inglorious manner produced those ill Effects under which these Kingdoms have laboured and languished ever since till by the late happy Revolution our Antient Rights and privileges were raised out of the Grave recognised and settled upon their true Basis once more The Unhappy Government of K. Charles the First is now sufficiently Unveiled especially by Rushworth's Impartial Collections The Vindicator briefly hinted at those Irregular and Arbitrary Practices that forced the Parliament to take up Arms for the Defence of their Liberties and for rescuing the King out of the hands of those Councellors that had so fatally misled him T. W. calls this Notorious Calumny and says he could answer all the Instances particularly but he refers to the Rolls and Acts of Parliament The Vindicator is willing to joyn issue with him here and appeals to the several Petitions Remonstrances and Speeches made in Parliament as they stand upon Record in the Journals of both Houses and they are now made so publick that no Man but one who has no Reputation to lose would have offered to deny that which all the Nation that can read Books know to be true And I will also tell him that there is not one passage mentioned by the Vindicator concerning the Male Administration of that King but what he may find in the Supplement to Baker 's Chronicle a History never suspected for Disloyalty but evidently partial the other way The Vindicator renew'd the Challenge to Name four Persons in that Parliament Dr. Burnet tells us the Duke of Hamilton was dissatisfied with the Courses some of the Bishops had followed before the Troubles began and could not but impute their first rise to the Provocations that had been given by them Memoirs p. 408. that were not in full Communion with the Church of England when the War began It is true many of them that were for Episcopacy were highly offended at the Behaviour of some of the Bishops as appears by the Speeches of the Lords Falkland and Digby both great Royalists and for my part I desire no other Evidence of the intolerable Usurpations of the Laudensian Party than what those Noble Lords have given us which being now in so many Hands by the Publishing the third part of Rushworths Collections I will not transcribe The Nonconformists indeed generally joyned with the Parliament in that Cause which was doubtless as just and necessary when first undertaken as ever was carried upon the Point of a Sword But that it was without the least design upon the Kings Person their Solemn League and Covenant plainly proves and the many Declarations and Remonstrances which they afterwards made when they saw new designs laid and pursued In the Year 1648. When the Republican Faction was at the highest the Ministers called Presbyterian in and about London fearing that which afterwards happened boldly Published a Vindication of themselves and Exhortation to the People part of which I shall here Transcribe to let the World see how shamefully they have been abused about the Death of that King their Words are these To this Vindication we are compell'd at this time Vindicat. of the Minist Printed for T. Underhil Ann. 1648. Subscribed by C. Burgess D. D. W. Gouge D. D. E. Stanton D. D. T. Temple D. D. G. Walker E. Calamy B. D. J. Whitaker D. Câ—wdrey W. Spurstow L. Seaman D. D. Sim. Ashe T. Case N. Proffect T. Thorowgood E. Corbet H. Roborough A. Jackson J. Nalton T. Cawton C. Offspring Sa. Clark Io. Wall F. Roberts M. Haviland J. Sheffield W. Harrison W. Jenkin J. Viner E. Blackwel J. Cross J. Fuller W. Taylor P. Witham Fra. Peek Ch. 〈◊〉 J. Wallis T. Watson T. Bedford W. Wickins T. Manton D. D. Tho. Gouge W. Blackmore R. Mercer R. Robinson J. Glascock T. Whately J. Lloyde J. Wells B. Needler N. Staniforth S. Watkins J. Tice J. Stileman Jos Ball. J. Devereux P. Russel J. Kirby A. Barham because there are many who very confidently yet most unjustly charge us to have been formerly instrumental toward the taking away the Life of the King and because also there are others who in their Scurrilous Pasquils and Libels as well as with their Virulent Tongues represent us