An apologetical reply to a book called an answer to the unjust complaint of…An apologeticall reply to a booke called an ansvver to the unjust complaint of…

His third answer is, that, upon his motion, I made an offer of showing how far I differed from the Brownists, which I performed not, which he saith, if I had done, mine opinion must have fallen together with it.] But it is neither so, nor so. For, neither did I offer it, upon his motion, but upon mine own motion, to vindicate my assertion from his calumnies, nor is there such affinity betwixt their opinions and mine, in this matter, that, like twins, they must live and dye together. For, what I affirm will stand, upon other grounds and principles, then those whereby their separation is upheld. To wipe off this aspersion I will show that it is an injury, as to me, so to the truth also, in this particular, when it is affirmed that the error of the Brownists could not be refuted by me but that mine own opinion must fall together, and that, like twins, they must live and dye together. For, I suppose, the error of the Brownists, which he meaneth, is, that separation from the Church assemblies of England, in such sort as to have no spiritual Communion with them, is necessary. If so; I demand, ⟨p. 281⟩how doeth this assertion of the lawfulness of admitting only their infants to baptism, who are members of a true Church, necessarily argue such separation from true Churches (for defects and corruptions which are found in them) to be a bounden duty? If yea; let him demonstrate. 1. How it strengtheneth them in their refusing private Religious Communion with good Christians, because they stand members of some parish-Church in England, which is one error held by some of them, as he knoweth. 2, How it confirmeth them in refusing to hear the word preached by any ministers of any of those Churches, which is another error maintained by many of them also? 3. How it establisheth any man in refusing any public Religious communion with any true Church? If nay; let him acknowledge his slander. But, that the vanity and untruth of this suggestion may be more evident, I will declare the truth, in this matter, by manifesting, both mine own judgment about the trueness of Churches, and the practise of the Separatists themselves.

His third answer is, that, upon his motion, I made an offer of shewing how farr I differed from the Brownists, which I performed not, which he sayth, if I had done, myne opinion must have fallen together with it.] But it is neither so, nor so. For, neither did I offer it, upon his motion, but upon myne owne motion, to vindicate my assertion from his calumnies, nor is there such affinity betwixt their opinions and myne, in this matter, that, like twinnes, they must live and dye together. For, what I affirme will stand, upon other grounds and principles, then those whereby their separation is upheld. To wipe off this aspersion I will shew that it is an injury, as to me, so to the truth also, in this particular, when it is affirmed that the errour of the Brownists could not be refuted by me but that myne owne opinion must fall together, and that, like twinnes, they must live and dye together. For, I suppose, the errour of the Brownists, which he meaneth, is, that seperation from the Church assemblies of England, in such sort as to have no spirituall Communion with them, is necessary. If so; I demand,