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…

In answer to our second Reason, to show that this Affair was not in a regular Manner put into your Hands, viz. That it was in a disorderly Manner taken out of the Hands of the Association of the Ministers of the County, after it had been referred to them by the first Church in Springfield themselves, and by Mr. Breck, you say that we took the Matter into our Hands before we were desired; and then follows a Detail of Particulars to prove it, and insist on it with an Air of Triumph, as if this were sufficient for our utter and shameful Confusion; and therefore have it over in various Parts of your Book, as Page 3, 4, and p. 28, 29, 30, 31, and also p. 77: Concerning which, we would, First, enquire, What this is to the Argument in Hand? Supposing it was so, that we first took the Matter into our own Hands before Mr. Breck and the Church of Springfield referred it, does it thence follow that they never did refer it to us? Or if it evidently appears by our Actions, that we thought we had the Affair in our Hands before we had, because before Mr. Breck and Springfield Church had put it into our Hands, does it thence follow that we had it not in our Hands, after they had indeed put it into our Hands? Does it follow, that we were mistaken still, in thinking we had it in our Hands because we were mistaken before? And, Secondly, As to those Particulars that you mention, to prove that we took this Matter into our own Hands, and our saying, in the Narrative, that we were obliged, both by our Situation and Office, to act in the Affair; which you relate as a Thing whereby Tyranny and Usurpation are proved upon us, out of our own Mouths, and which is one Thing on which you build your great ⟨p. 26⟩Triumph, Page 82; we would entreat you, tho' you have treated us with so much Reproach and Insult, with respect to this Matter, yet now at length to look over those Particulars that you have mentioned, of our acting in this Affair, before it was referred to us, and ask yourself, in real Soberness, whether any of these Things were more than we ought to have done as Ministers of Christ, and christian Friends and Neighbours, to the Brethren of Springfield Church.

In answer to our second Reason, to shew that this Affair was not in a regular Manner put into your Hands, viz. That it was in a disorderly Manner taken out of the Hands of the Association of the Ministers of the County, after it had been referred to them by the first Church in Springfield themselves, and by Mr. Breck, you say that we took the Matter into our Hands before we were desir'd; and then follows a Detail of Particulars to prove it, and insist on it with an Air of Triumph, as if this were sufficient for our utter and shameful Confusion; and therefore have it over in various Parts of your Book, as Page 3, 4, and p. 28, 29, 30, 31, and also p. 77: Concerning which, we would, First, enquire, What this is to the Argument in Hand? Supposing it was so, that we first took the Matter into our own Hands before Mr. Breck and the Church of Springfield refer'd it, does it thence follow that they never did refer it to us? Or if it evidently appears by our Actions, that we thought we had the Affair in our Hands before we had, because before Mr. Breck and Springfield Church had put it into our Hands, does it thence follow that we had it not in our Hands, after they had indeed put it into our Hands? Does it follow, that we were mistaken still, in thinking we had it in our Hands because we were mistaken before? And, Secondly, As to those Particulars that you mention, to prove that we took this Matter into our own Hands, and our saying, in the Narrative, that we were obliged, both by our Situation and Office, to act in the Affair; which you relate as a Thing whereby Tyranny and Usurpation are proved upon us, out of our own Mouths, and which is one Thing on which you build your great