A letter to the author of the pamphlet called An answer [sic] to the…A letter to the author of the pamphlet called An answeer [sic] to the…

The next Proof of our Usurpation and Tyranny that you bring is, that we say in our Protestation, As to your selves interposing in the Affair, it seems to be a Breach of that Rule I Pet. 4. 15. and properly Allotrio Episcopein, which according to the Translation in our Bibles, is to be Busy-bodies in other Men's Matters. To which we say, That we don't think it any Evidence of Tyranny and Usurpation in us, to say that of you that is so manifestly and certainly true of you, as we have already shown this to be: Was it not the Part of Busy-bodies for you to lay your selves out to be the Persons that must be the Judges in this Case, before ever there was any Meeting of the Church to apply to any Body, and when others were possessed of it, by being submitted voluntarily to 'em, by all Parties concerned? Was it not the Part of Busy bodies, even by your own Principles and frequent Assertions, for you to thrust your selves into an Affair, in a Part of the Country an hundred Miles off from you, without ever being applied to at all by Springfield Church, under a Notion of your being fit Persons, and our being unfit? Was it not the Part of a Busy-body in one of you, to come fourscore Miles to be a Judge in this Affair, that was not only never chosen by the Church, but actually shut out by their Votes? And is it any Usurpation and Tyranny to tell such Busy-bodies that they are so?

But the last Proof of our Usurpation▪ which you most insist upon and glory in is, that we called in the Help of ⟨p. 68⟩some Justices to interpose in this Matter: To which we answer, First, If it were so indeed, that we called in the Help of the Justices and got 'em to interpose, as you say this would show nothing of Usurpation, if it be as we think we have proved, that even by congregational Principles, you had no Business there; for if so, their restraining you was not in Opposition to congregational Principles, but in Defence of them, and also in Defence of the public Peace, that (it will inevitably follow) you were the Disturbers of; and therefore the Rev. Mr. Williams of Hatfield speaking long after with Approbation of it, in that Passage of a Letter of his to Mr. Cooper, which you cite Page 81, proves no Spirit of Usurpation in him. Secondly, If some particular Ministers of the County had called in the Help of the Justices, and it were an Act of Usurpation in them so to do, how does that answer our Challenge, which was to show wherein the Association had manifested Usurpation in any of their Acts? for we in the same Place distinguish between what was done in Association and what was done out of Association, by particular Persons? Thirdly, If all those Facts that you mention of us were true, how do they prove that we called in the Help of the Justices? You say you know that we came to Springfield: 'Tis true we did come: And have you not abundantly insisted on it in your Book, how much you desired us to come to have a Conference with you: We came according to your Desire, and came to the House where you were sitting, and much sought for an Opportunity of conferring with you; but could have no other Answer from you but that you was busy; and yet this is now brought as an Evidence of our Tyranny! And supposing it were as you add, that we came to Town when the Justices did, and that we were in Conversation with them from Day to Day, and that it be manifest by Mr Williams's Letter, that he knew of the Design of the Justices, and that these Things were indeed said, that you say were said by one and another of us, Page 81, what do all these Things prove if true, but that when we knew of the Design of the Justices, we manifested an Approbation of it? which is all